Not even 'mostly'. First Contact wasn't any good either.
Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
- Status
The best ? That accolade goes to TMP, or TWOK depending on what day you ask me.
The best Star Trek movie wasn't any good? What fresh heresy is this?
Or even occasionally The Voyage Home if you get me in the right mood...
Ehhhhh.... there are some flaws (why go back in time?) but they're not enough to effect my enjoyment. Lily calls Picard out on his 24th Century bullshit, Patrick Stewart's acting was top-notch, we got to see some of his most raw acting ever in that same scene (up there with "Chain of Command, Part II"), and I love Worf's line "If you were any other man I would kill you where you stand." Cap it all off with drunk Troi and a great Jerry Goldsmith score.
The Dixon Hill scene was a hoot too and I love the space-walk.
And say what you want to about the Borg Queen, but she was sensual and I liked her as a villain. She's a voice for the Borg, and even though it's an individual instead of the Hive Mind, so was Locutus.
Then there's the scene where Picard and everyone strategize. It reminds of me Aliens, and in a good way.
I think it's the For Your Eyes Only of TNG Movies. FYEO was the only Roger Moore Bond movie I thought was good. Live and Let Die and A View to a Kill are guilty pleasures, but I know they're horrible.
Last edited:
I'm actually dying. Send help.
I'm calling 867-5309.
Creepiness is only one tone.
Not really how it works.
ENT’s cancellation didn’t ‘free up niches’ for ‘better’ sci-fi or Star Trek. It’s failure was one of the things that destroyed any confidence in television space operas.
Whereas the success of Star Wars, the ‘fantasy in sci-fi clothes’, did lead to the making of more Trek that you seem to like.
Trek’s not restricted by limited opportunities. Evidence suggests even the slightest connection to success tends to endlessly increase said ‘niche,’ not narrow it.
It’s limited by audience interest. And the studio at the moment, has a million reasons to think that audience simply doesn’t want that ‘better’ Trek material. Outside of the general nostalgic appeal of TOS’s memetic elements.
As for ‘none is better than ‘bad’,’ that’s a problem because it punishes others for your insbility to let go and move on. Apply the same argument to any other brand (for eg. A line of MAC lipsticks revolving out your favourite colour) and it sounds ridiculous.
Believe it or not, I’ve heard most of what you’re saying before. Typically abbreviated to ‘TRUKK NOT MUNKKY!’ Bear in mind, that time wasn’t kind to that line of argument.
Last edited:
We need to start a Trek Chat thread in this forum.
Yes, I do my best and most spontaneous thinking in the wee hours of the morning.
Yes, I do my best and most spontaneous thinking in the wee hours of the morning.
I wonder whether the Picard idea will involve flashbacks?
Hello mid-23rd century spandex jumpsuits and skants!
Hello mid-23rd century spandex jumpsuits and skants!
In terms of a Star Trek type story I’d agree with TMP. I’m not a massive fan of TWOK but it was certainly a hit for entertainment value and it has starships that go pew pew pew so that’s cool. And TVH was a big hit with more general audiences I believe and ultimately led to TNG etc so it’s “the best” in terms of making Trek popular again. FC is still my favourite though.The best ? That accolade goes to TMP, or TWOK depending on what day you ask me.
Or even occasionally The Voyage Home if you get me in the right mood...
CBS must be happy with Discovery to do this and that makes me happy.
If they do three continuing shows with 13 episodes per season each we could have new Star Trek almost year round. Add one or two limited series per year and I'm in heaven.
This could really help the franchise in the long run, a soapy starfleet academy series could be put on the CW and reach a completely different audience for example.
Epanding the franchise and taking it into different directions is a good thing generally and for me personally, if I don't like one show I'll probably like another.
If they do three continuing shows with 13 episodes per season each we could have new Star Trek almost year round. Add one or two limited series per year and I'm in heaven.
This could really help the franchise in the long run, a soapy starfleet academy series could be put on the CW and reach a completely different audience for example.
Epanding the franchise and taking it into different directions is a good thing generally and for me personally, if I don't like one show I'll probably like another.
Bring back people like Mike and Denise Okuda as advisers!
I mean, if Star Trek is going to run maybe 3 or 4 shows at once, and the team in charge of this needs blood to help organise and keep this successful, there are two possibilities for ready-made talent - surely it would be a good idea to use talent from outside the Bad Robot cadre, rather than handing every series out to former Alias and Lost alumni?
1). Bring in everyone who has pitched a Star Trek series (MacFarlane, Straczynski, etc)
2). Bring in old blood, such as Mike and Denise Okuda, Rick Sternbach, Greg Jein, etc
Agreed 100%.
This is the main risk I can see with trying to pump out shows.
They need to avoid making 4 fanwanky shows that damage the brand, or 4 shows that feel they just exist to fulfil a contract - Netflix Marvel shows are a perfect example, and they are actually a better attempt than most - Iron Fist and The Defenders arguably damaged the Marvel Cinematic Universe, for example by irredeemably turning one of the most interesting villain organisations in Marvel Comics - The Hand, an ancient ninja clan - into an utterly bland identity-bereft boardroom of suits.
The only way I could see it succeeding is if they made it very military, like a bunch of cadets joining the Royal Navy, learning really technical and military-oriented lessons. If it has even a hint of teen soap opera it will be a disaster, as we are expected to believe this is how Star Trek's crews are trained, it will literally undermine all of Starfleet's believability as an organisation. Just don't touch this (they will, sigh).
I mean, if Star Trek is going to run maybe 3 or 4 shows at once, and the team in charge of this needs blood to help organise and keep this successful, there are two possibilities for ready-made talent - surely it would be a good idea to use talent from outside the Bad Robot cadre, rather than handing every series out to former Alias and Lost alumni?
1). Bring in everyone who has pitched a Star Trek series (MacFarlane, Straczynski, etc)
2). Bring in old blood, such as Mike and Denise Okuda, Rick Sternbach, Greg Jein, etc
Agreed 100%.
This is the main risk I can see with trying to pump out shows.
They need to avoid making 4 fanwanky shows that damage the brand, or 4 shows that feel they just exist to fulfil a contract - Netflix Marvel shows are a perfect example, and they are actually a better attempt than most - Iron Fist and The Defenders arguably damaged the Marvel Cinematic Universe, for example by irredeemably turning one of the most interesting villain organisations in Marvel Comics - The Hand, an ancient ninja clan - into an utterly bland identity-bereft boardroom of suits.
The only way I could see it succeeding is if they made it very military, like a bunch of cadets joining the Royal Navy, learning really technical and military-oriented lessons. If it has even a hint of teen soap opera it will be a disaster, as we are expected to believe this is how Star Trek's crews are trained, it will literally undermine all of Starfleet's believability as an organisation. Just don't touch this (they will, sigh).
Last edited:
Roger Moore is by the far the best 007 ever! He's the only one who 'got' the character.
If you mean literary Bond, Moore was by far the most removed.
If you mean the Broccoli version of Bond, then they did whatever best suited the current actor.
They really are.
You have a point there, in historical context. No question that the success of Star Wars in '77 led to countless copycat attempts to piggyback on the "surprise" audience appeal of SF tropes, one of which attempts led to ST:TMP.
I think the 21st century is a bit different, though. There's no longer any question out there that SF (and fantasy) sell tickets and attract viewers. Successes and failures today, and the trends or questions they prompt, are less about the genre overall and more about specific franchises within it. The recent underwhelming performance of Solo isn't making anyone think that moviegoers are tired of space opera, only that Star Wars may be a bit overexposed at the moment. Similarly, in the aftermath of ENT's cancellation, only one Trek project was going to get greenlit as the "next" Trek project... and out of many possibilities, it wound up being the J.J. Abrams version.
How do you figure? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. How do you define terms like "better" here — or, more to the point, how do you know what studio decision-makers are thinking about audience expectations, and how they define the terms, and what do you suppose some of the "reasons" for that to be?
Afraid I totally don't get your reference here...
- Status
Similar threads
