RobertScorpio
Pariah
I love your screen name Guy!
BERMAN WAS RIGHT
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
Exactly. TOS is a great show because the stories resonate with us because the characters are forced to make human choices and live a human adventure. The failures of the modern Treks are precisely related to being to focused on tech rather than the human stories.
If I were to make a Trek, I would intentionally make it impossible for anyone to figure out what date it was happening in. Every once in a while, yes, I'd let someone mention a concrete year, and that would be true for the rest of the episode... and then the next week I'd contradict it.
I love the canon, know it better than most, but I've got to admit that Star Trek lost some of its magic when we started understanding dates, places, technologies, and even maps beyond the simple "that's the way it is; deal with it." The wildly overestimated "800 years" reference alone will always keep TOS close to my heart.
I love the canon, know it better than most, but I've got to admit that Star Trek lost some of its magic when we started understanding dates, places, technologies, and even maps beyond the simple "that's the way it is; deal with it." The wildly overestimated "800 years" reference alone will always keep TOS close to my heart.
Berman certainly did everything he could to make it that way, didn't he?
Thing is, it doesn't have to be that way. Voyager was "unrealistic" because the writing and acting were stale. There's no reason another 24th century show, or even a 34th century show would have to have inaccessible characters and be bogged down in rampant technobabble. It'll just take better writing and acting than we've been getting.
Except that the Okuda Chronology doesn't explain the date discrepancies, it ignores them.
Good Will Riker
Admiral
Actually, TNG Seasons 1 and 2 delved more into the "action/adventure" and "morality tales," while TNG Season 3-7 were more like "ensemble dramas."
I actually suggested this once as well.
I was told that it would never happen with todays writers and producers.
The modern producers and writers like to eliminate variables and know exactly where they stand in the fictional universe.
This inevitably will work its way into their writing and end up onscreen.
I was told that it would never happen with todays writers and producers.
The modern producers and writers like to eliminate variables and know exactly where they stand in the fictional universe.
This inevitably will work its way into their writing and end up onscreen.
There is something to be said for too much technology. I think it makes the solutions seem to cheap and easy after a while. For drama to work, something has to be at stake, and I think that's hard to do when you have to break 1/2 to 3/4 of the ship before the crew is in any real danger.
For example, by the end of Voyager, it had been established that the doctor could easily leave the bride, pilot any ship, had the ability to command the ship himself, and could rescue remote starships. Which sorta begs the question why you need anybody else. Just ditch the crew and let the Doc fly the ship himself.
Or with the abilities Voyager actually had. The deflector dish could do just about anything needed, you could land on a planet, etc. etc.
In both cases, to make it seem like the crew is really in danger or something big is at stake, you have to come up with all kinds of reasons why you can't use what the audience *knows* has worked in the past.
On the other hand if you limit what the ship can do, you really don't have the same "cheap solution" problem. You have to come up with a way around the limitations on the ship using what's actually there. It won't be a cheap solution like "hey lets reverse the polarity" when the audience knew that was a possible solution from the start. Or suddenly realizing that you had ueberweapon with you, and using it at the last minute, making the audience scream "you coulda done that 20 minutes ago!"
I think the biggest issue is cheapass solutions, not necessarily the tech itself. But it's a lot easier to bullshit when you have 31st century technology than 22nd.
For example, by the end of Voyager, it had been established that the doctor could easily leave the bride, pilot any ship, had the ability to command the ship himself, and could rescue remote starships. Which sorta begs the question why you need anybody else. Just ditch the crew and let the Doc fly the ship himself.
Or with the abilities Voyager actually had. The deflector dish could do just about anything needed, you could land on a planet, etc. etc.
In both cases, to make it seem like the crew is really in danger or something big is at stake, you have to come up with all kinds of reasons why you can't use what the audience *knows* has worked in the past.
On the other hand if you limit what the ship can do, you really don't have the same "cheap solution" problem. You have to come up with a way around the limitations on the ship using what's actually there. It won't be a cheap solution like "hey lets reverse the polarity" when the audience knew that was a possible solution from the start. Or suddenly realizing that you had ueberweapon with you, and using it at the last minute, making the audience scream "you coulda done that 20 minutes ago!"
I think the biggest issue is cheapass solutions, not necessarily the tech itself. But it's a lot easier to bullshit when you have 31st century technology than 22nd.
DS9 kinda proves one part of the theory, though: the tech on an old, imperfectly retrofitted Cardassian station was considerably less comfy than on the E-D. The characters on DS9, many of whom were "backward" aliens who had not yet benefitted from human civilizin', not to mention a deeply scarred captain far more prone to violence than Picard el Perfecto (I'll shut doen my Paranoid Black Man circuit long enough not to dwell on the possible connection between Sisko's volatility nad his skin color), made the show feel more like it was set in a less-advanced time period.
Likewise, DS9 was the only modern Trek show that didn't seem to be embarassed by its TOS ancestor (not counting the Cotto seasons of ENT, of course).
So Berman was right in theory but woefully wrong in practice.
I agree.
If this theory were true, why is it that TNG is the highest rated show? TNG was just as far in the future as any of them? Why is it DS9 (arguably) had the best writing and characters? Why is it Voyager became one of the more popular shows internationally? And why was Enterprise one of the least popular?
Basically the only problem is lack of imagination, and playing it safe. Either from the writers and producers, or on the part of the network.
You could set a sci-fi show any where and any when and what you need to have a fantastic show is good writing and decent actors.
Basically the only problem is lack of imagination, and playing it safe. Either from the writers and producers, or on the part of the network.
You could set a sci-fi show any where and any when and what you need to have a fantastic show is good writing and decent actors.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Mirror to us; no more
TNG ratings went down every year after season 4. DS9-VOY-ENT never approached TNG's best ratings. DS9, if we take Berman at his word, was nearly axed after season three. That is why WORF was brought to the show.
I believe the further the show is from our time, the less connected new viewers will be to the humans who are on the show. And since the scifi on Trek is really 'light', all you have on TREk is the ability of the viewers to connect with the characters. With out that? The show falls..
Or the show falls because it is just not well done.
TOS may not have had the TV ratings as TNG era treks. But it is the one TREk that is still the most popular of them all. And I believe it is because the science and characters are closer to us than the love boat aspects of TNG VOY.
Enterprise had great opening numbers. But the moment that crew became just another BERMAN crew, with technobabble and clock-like abilities, it lost the one thing it had going for it..realism/connection with us.
TNG ratings went down every year after season 4. DS9-VOY-ENT never approached TNG's best ratings. DS9, if we take Berman at his word, was nearly axed after season three. That is why WORF was brought to the show.
I believe the further the show is from our time, the less connected new viewers will be to the humans who are on the show. And since the scifi on Trek is really 'light', all you have on TREk is the ability of the viewers to connect with the characters. With out that? The show falls..
Or the show falls because it is just not well done.
TOS may not have had the TV ratings as TNG era treks. But it is the one TREk that is still the most popular of them all. And I believe it is because the science and characters are closer to us than the love boat aspects of TNG VOY.
Enterprise had great opening numbers. But the moment that crew became just another BERMAN crew, with technobabble and clock-like abilities, it lost the one thing it had going for it..realism/connection with us.
Re: Mirror to us; no more
No.
No.
Re: Mirror to us; no more
Star Trek isn't the only show to lose viewers over time. Even set in the present the most popular shows lose viewers over time.
Personally, I think you're over analysing it. In TOS the technology, besides certain key pieces, is already outdated. Most of TNG is tech, again with a few key exceptions, is already becoming available.
I think the fact tptb were saying things along the lines of "Everything you can do with the Star Trek universe has already been done." shows they lacked the imagination to keep up the good writing needed to keep people interested.
Star Trek isn't the only show to lose viewers over time. Even set in the present the most popular shows lose viewers over time.
Personally, I think you're over analysing it. In TOS the technology, besides certain key pieces, is already outdated. Most of TNG is tech, again with a few key exceptions, is already becoming available.
I think the fact tptb were saying things along the lines of "Everything you can do with the Star Trek universe has already been done." shows they lacked the imagination to keep up the good writing needed to keep people interested.
Re: Mirror to us; no more
It's exactly like saying "everything you can do in the 'Flash Gordon' universe has already been done." Yeah, sorta.
It's exactly like saying "everything you can do in the 'Flash Gordon' universe has already been done." Yeah, sorta.
Re: Mirror to us; no more
Well, yeah. It's a universe, even if you're sick of Flash's story, there is more stories in that universe, if you have the imagination to write them. And the same goes for Star Trek.
Well, yeah. It's a universe, even if you're sick of Flash's story, there is more stories in that universe, if you have the imagination to write them. And the same goes for Star Trek.
Re: Mirror to us; no more
Exactly. Good writing tends to keep viewers, not frustration over not knowing what self sealing stem bolts are. Any show on TV has a drop off of audience over time and some shows like DS9 has had a bump once the showrunners found something that worked to give the show new life. Worf's addition brought viewers back, but the compelling storyline of the Dominion War kept them there. Granted it might not have been one of the most watched shows on TV, but you'd be hard pressed to put the latter seasons of DS9 against other popular shows of the day and find one with emotional content...
Plus if you go with the closer era thing, Enterprise should've gone on forever. I stopped watching it four shows into the first season and never looked back because of the writing. Even attempting to watch it in reruns have proven to be more of an excercise in channel surfing than watching the shows because it seemed the writers didn't really care about delivering a decent show. That's a broad generalization, of course, there were some shows I caught from the last season that weren't half bad, but they were tied to TOS which was the interest. Even Will Riker and Deanna Troi weren't enough for me to care about the show's finale and I've sat through Trek from TOS on...
...yes even Voyager and we know that show probably overstayed its welcome...
It's a matter of delivering a strong story and a cast we care about moreso than the whole technology thing. The show just happens to be set in the future, the people who occupy that future are why I watch them, not how they operate the holodeck...
I've tried to sit through other shows like Stargate and Flash Gordon and they just don't engage me. Both are set relatively close to us in time and tech, but they're not terribly interesting. Galactica holds my interest and that show is all about the characterizations more than anything and they're fighting cybernetic creatures that are the ultimate in technology beyond what we have. I want to see how the people deal with the situation and how their relationships evolve as they face their conflicts.
I figure that if we did watch shows based on how closely we identify with them based on today, we'd still be stuck with Joey...
Yikes!
Later!
Ali
Exactly. Good writing tends to keep viewers, not frustration over not knowing what self sealing stem bolts are. Any show on TV has a drop off of audience over time and some shows like DS9 has had a bump once the showrunners found something that worked to give the show new life. Worf's addition brought viewers back, but the compelling storyline of the Dominion War kept them there. Granted it might not have been one of the most watched shows on TV, but you'd be hard pressed to put the latter seasons of DS9 against other popular shows of the day and find one with emotional content...
Plus if you go with the closer era thing, Enterprise should've gone on forever. I stopped watching it four shows into the first season and never looked back because of the writing. Even attempting to watch it in reruns have proven to be more of an excercise in channel surfing than watching the shows because it seemed the writers didn't really care about delivering a decent show. That's a broad generalization, of course, there were some shows I caught from the last season that weren't half bad, but they were tied to TOS which was the interest. Even Will Riker and Deanna Troi weren't enough for me to care about the show's finale and I've sat through Trek from TOS on...
...yes even Voyager and we know that show probably overstayed its welcome...
It's a matter of delivering a strong story and a cast we care about moreso than the whole technology thing. The show just happens to be set in the future, the people who occupy that future are why I watch them, not how they operate the holodeck...
I've tried to sit through other shows like Stargate and Flash Gordon and they just don't engage me. Both are set relatively close to us in time and tech, but they're not terribly interesting. Galactica holds my interest and that show is all about the characterizations more than anything and they're fighting cybernetic creatures that are the ultimate in technology beyond what we have. I want to see how the people deal with the situation and how their relationships evolve as they face their conflicts.
I figure that if we did watch shows based on how closely we identify with them based on today, we'd still be stuck with Joey...
Yikes!
Later!
Ali
Re: Mirror to us; no more
No, actually "Flash Gordon" is about Flash Gordon and Ming and Dale and Zarkov and those guys. Mongo ain't Oz.
Doesn't mean that they stop being entertaining as long as folks come up with new spins on them.
No, actually "Flash Gordon" is about Flash Gordon and Ming and Dale and Zarkov and those guys. Mongo ain't Oz.
Doesn't mean that they stop being entertaining as long as folks come up with new spins on them.
Re: Mirror to us; no more
Yes, Flash Gordon may well be about Flash, that doesn't mean there isn't other stories that could be told in that universe if you were so inclined. If you like the settings, the background characters, etc. and want to tell a story about them, why not?
But you're right, creativity and inspiration can make any story fresh.
Yes, Flash Gordon may well be about Flash, that doesn't mean there isn't other stories that could be told in that universe if you were so inclined. If you like the settings, the background characters, etc. and want to tell a story about them, why not?
But you're right, creativity and inspiration can make any story fresh.
Similar threads
