Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by ISS_Einstein, Jan 26, 2019.
Woulda been priceless, tho.
Yeah. Just looking at the progress from CLU in Tron Legacy to Grand Moff Tarkin and you can see we're getting closer.
That's so true. Because it wouldn't be enough not just about writing, directing, and acting a Star Trek set in that era. It would have to be written, directed, and acted as if it had been made in the 1960s. That means there would have to be cringy moments that didn't age well, but were intentionally written that way.
Yes it would.
Exactly. I understand passion and ambition, but it is not something that is really taught anymore in terms of writing and dialog. Even if you had a 60s era writer and director they would have learned quite a bit since then. As much as we enjoy TOS in all its glory it still is very much a product of its time, to the point that GR himself changed things the moment he could.
Unfortunately, such faithfulness to the product is difficult, if not impossible, to build such a project beyond a fan film, I fear.
Yeah that’s the problem people just want to change stuff. So it would be hard to find someone to go along this way for the entire time. I do believe in: ain’t broken, then don’t fix it.
There are some things that are appropriate to change. One would not want the same kind of cavalier attitude towards rape, for instance, to be in an episode today. Others are a matter of development over time. All art evolves to reflect the times it is a part of, which means that many of the themes from the 60s, and those attitudes, have simply changed. The idea of keeping things the same is rather odd to me in a franchise that espouses change and humanity growing.
Yeah those are the things you do fix. I’m not against change, just unnecessary change. but if your making something around TOS you should try to make it look similar. Not exact (because that is very hard) but similar.
If the conceit of Trek was the look then I would agree. I love the TOS look but even GR distanced himself from it when he had the chance.
Right but GR didn’t always do the right things when it came to trek. Although changing the look was probably a good idea. Especially the skirts. Because if we were to make a series around the time of TOS people would rather it remind them of the original. Not be exact but close. I like tos but it improved when the finally remastered it.
Who said anything about "right things?" I merely am observing the tendency of artists and producers to change over time. The ability to recraft TOS is something quite difficult because of changes to the art form over time.
Secondly, it depends on the person. I personally love the original series aesthetic, but Star Trek should not be catered to my fannish whims: that's what fan films are for. But, to produce art now means recognizing how things have changed, to respect society as it is and how the art form has changed.
I heard it once described thus-if you get a band together, their first album will not sound like their fourth or fifth. Why? Because they learned and grew since that first album, and mistakes made on the first will not be repeated. The things that we as fans regard as important to Trek may be regarded as mistakes or errors by the creators.
Now, as a fan, I can completely appreciate this desire to capture the ethos and aesthetic of TOS. I just think that desire needs to be balanced against art and society.
I guess I can agree with that. Just feels like changing it will mean that TOS is wrong in today’s society when it’s really not that different from today’s shows.
Also art doesn’t always have to mean anything it can be just what it is: lines put together that somebody finds beautiful.
Also on a side note fan flims always seem to disappoint mostly because of the lack of budget and not so great acting. So I guess Tos fan films that are authentic aren’t nearly as good as a professional series that is TOS authentic or close to it. And plus those stupid copyright laws are annoying
The fundamental conceit of TOS is not wrong but as with all art it has grown with society. And society has expanded what is a part of those "lines being drawn together" and how that is expressed. But, part of the fundamental concept of Star Trek is that it is to be entertaining and to look forward into our humanity's future. It is based upon current understanding of technology with the characters far more important in taking center stage than the actual tech.
Now, this is where fans and production teams will be at odds. Production teams will enjoy writing stories inside a world but they will also want to be creative within those confines as well. Many times that involves changing visual elements One need only look at TWOK to recognize what happens when a new production team takes over. And, given general audience reception, I would say that the presentation of the characters, despite the differences in uniforms and sets, and ship design (the Reliant is far and away a departure from the more elegant lines of the Enterprise, and this is by design).
No, art doesn't mean making whatever you want, but there is room within confines of such art, in this case Star Trek, to expand upon the world. And, that's what I mean by updates and new additions.
I guess I can agree with that but to me Star Trek isn’t art it’s is just something I watch when life gets boring. That doesn’t mean I don’t I love it (I do, a lot) but at the end of the day to me it’s entertainment.
Because remember to most entertainment isn’t a art. It is a business and a time killer of sorts. So I treat it as such.
I’m a huge fan for anything before 2000. I just like the retro look of it. So I think that Star Trek original look is fine in today’s society but then again I’m no expert in this field. Well at least not yet that is. Although I can see why people want to improve. I completely realize it could have been even more glorious if they had today tech. In fact I could come up with some improvements and I’m not even a “professional”.
I'm anticipating this two happen at least twice over the course of his new show.
It’s still art. Business and entertainment are part and parcel of the vast majority of art. Not every artist has the same aspirations for their work, but it doesn’t make their work “not art” in and of itself.
I didn’t say it wasn’t art. I just said to most it isn’t art. People just don’t consider entertainment to be an art much. Mostly because a lot of shows out there are definitely not “art”.
It kinda helps to differentiate between art and entertainment. Star Trek just happens to be in both categories. How most TV shows don’t.
I don’t mean to be a know it all but I’m not the best with words
Not to be disagreeable, but I feel this is a highly limited definition of art. Art is, by it's nature, a creative human expression, and has been employed as entertainment for many years, first to royalty and more and more to commoners until it leads up to where we are.
That's the beauty of art-it can be updated, reimagined, and inspires other creative individuals. That's the point all across history is to share human ideas and creativity. Shakespeare is constantly being reimagined, from the stage to "Romeo Must Die."
Right I can agree with that. Although I’m kinda simple person so entertainment usually doesn’t ,to me, qualify as art most of the time. I can see how others would think different though. So that how I treat Star Trek. I watch it because most of the time it pleases me. Although It can be like art and change me a little bit, though It’s not easy to change my mind, but at the end of the day It is It’s basics, entertainment. Frankly I would like to see more seasons of TOS aesthetics because fan movies like I have mentioned usually disappoint. Although at the end of the day I don’t mind new aesthetics. Because I’m not a purist who only likes TOS though the original movies. Which is why I am starting to like disco and any other good and well produced show that will become a part of the franchise.
This isn't very useful. Primarily because it ignores the subjective nature of art appreciation. What changes one person may not change another. A person may unintentionally create a piece of art which profoundly affects someone in a manner completely unintended and vice versa. Art is, at the end of the day, IMO, in the eye of the beholder.
Well the point is most people don’t consider entertainment as art and such don’t treat it as such.
Separate names with a comma.