Can JJ Abrams learn anything from Russell T Davies?

[seigezunt]

Just wanted to throw this out for discussion. What might Trek do that the Doctor Who franchise has done so right. Granted, they are very different franchises, with different histories, but from reading posts here and Outpost Gallifrey, I keep noting some similar ideas.

Re-imagining the old show, while giving a nod to the original, but also ignoring some of the more ravenous fans. A fandom that can both support the franchise, and hurt it with its "love." A segment of fandom that seems to hate the idea of the show becoming commercial again, or ever.

Can the new Trek team take any lessons or consolation from what's happening across the water?

 

[Kegek]

seigezunt said:
A segment of fandom that seems to hate the idea of the show becoming commercial again, or ever.

I don't get that. Star Trek has always been a commerical product. Gene Roddenberry is as far removed from Theophile Gautier as Michael Bay. I think that, barring the extreme fans, most people here want a product that is commerical - but also one that they will enjoy.

Anyway, as to the main point broached by the OP I have no idea, no interest in Doctor Who and thus no grounds to reply.

 

[Plum]

The new Doctor Who shows have been really great, I would be happy if the new Trek was that savvy about revamping an old show for a new century.

 

[Blamo]

New Who success is more or less down to a "back to basics" policy, in that Doctor Who is a family show. Personally speaking, I'm not a huge fan of RTD's idea of the show, but then again I wasn't that much of a fan of the TNG vision of Trek.

Same goes for Star Trek TOS, it's a family show that with later incarnations became more for the sci-fi geeks.

 

[Baldus885]

Doctor Who has, for me anyway, a great B-movie sci-fi feel about it, particularly the promotional pictures they put on the homepage. Trek needs to recapture that adventurous, possibly even slightly cheesy, vibe. Tennant captures it well when he's photographed, perhaps he should play Kirk.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Skye said:

Same goes for Star Trek TOS, it's a family show that with later incarnations became more for the sci-fi geeks.

The original series while in production was considered to be a serious adult science-fiction, space drama, not a "family show." It was sold that way to the suits and advertised that way by NBC ( see: NBC commercial for Trek premire ). In fact, the original series could be liken to the NYPD Blue of the time pushing the limits of how much skin could be shown on network television.

Granted, TOS did evolve into a "family show" when it hit syndication and was aired on many local stations during the afternoons and early evenings.

 

[Plum]

^^^
I agree. When you see other dramas from that period it's clear early Star Trek (seasons 1 and 2 basically) was adult. It was on fairly late, if I recall the history (I'm not THAT old).

Ever see 12 O'Clock High? Combat? All these shows shared production values with Star Trek. But yea, when Fred arrived in season 3 it was the big "Lost In Space" season. Kids!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No cheese for Star Trek. That is the LAST thing we need.

Legit humor is okay, but the wink-wink stuff would make me violently ill. No cheap sets or costumes, no kiddie-show approach. Star Trek is better than that. It's a class act and should always be presented as such.

However, it should certainly recapture the adventurous vibe of the original Star Trek - just follow the existing tradition. Simple enough.

Tennant captures it well when he's photographed, perhaps he should play Kirk.

Right. Because Kirk should look like a homely little girl.

 

[Dac]

Eurgh, just, no.

Dr Who - WHEN DONE RIGHT, is brilliant sci fi, but, that aforementioned "when done right" is rarely applied in the new series...for example, the back half of Season 3 (from when the Doc looses his memory to the finale) was largely brilliant, Blink was Fantastic, but they throw bits of pop culture in for no reason (Voodoo Child anyone?) and blatant self promotion (The introduction of Catharine Tate in the S2 finale which ruined the tone of the whole episode) which just isnt needed.

Hell, the one thing I think Trek needs from Doctor Who is the rampant Merchandising again, long do I miss walking in Toys R Us and seeing a whole Isle devoted to Trek goods...

 

[Mordock]

seigezunt said:
Can the new Trek team take any lessons or consolation from what's happening across the water?

I'd say yes, even if only in terms of general attitude.

"If you chase a cult you just become a smaller cult. If a cult fan hates this series it means they will only watch it 20 times instead of 30 times."
-Russell T Davies, 2005

 

[Barbados Slim]

I think he can learn to modernize Trek while paying respect to what's before.

Davies succeeds at giving Who the proper amount of heart and characterization. That's been missing from Trek since DS9. I have no doubt that Abrams will inject new Trek into that because emotional stuff is the heart of Lost, Alias and M:I-III.

Also, Davies is innovative in casting. Rose's boyfriend, Catherine Tate's groom and Sally Sparrow's cop-crush were played by black men without it being relevent to the story. And Martha (who I thought was a far more interesting companion than Rose) had fallen in love with the Doctor. And Captain Jack hits on everyone. "Captain Jack Harkness" is easily my favorite episode of Torchwood and I love that it could make this straight guy get all touched up over a love affair between two guys named Jack.

In all, Davies shows are fun adventures that make me think about my worldviews and challenge me in a way that Trek used to but hasn't in about 15 years.

Original Trek was applauded for having token minorities, I say Abram's Trek should take that spirit a step further.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Russell T Davies took an old cult TV show and made into a new show that people want to watch. If any producer manages to do that with Star Trek, I think it's great. If sacred cows get in the way, let's get rid of them. Simple enough.

 

[ChristopherPike]

To do so would mean the following:

Not important to the plot references to popular culture during moments of dramatic crisis. "We're Under Attack by the Romulans! Do mind pressing pause on my Lion King sing-along-a-soundtrack, Uhura?" You should your count blessings and hope J.J. Abrams isn't watching daytime TV while polishing the script, or else you'll find Kirk and Spock in the Big Brother house or on The Weakest Link during the climax...

Not very subtle, stereotypical references to gay character types such as loving Musical Theatre and other camp portrayals which are best left to Are You Being Being Served or Little Britain. Strange from the writer who pioneered a realistic view of the topic in the '90s.

I used to consider myself a massive Dr Who fan before 2005. Much of the New Series, I can't bear to watch again such is my unhappiness with Russell T. Davies' style of writing...

Doctor Who might have sold out to light entertainment because serious Sci Fi could never succeed on primetime, and much of my beef doesn't apply to your average kid who doesn't know or care about the Classic Series. It could be during that 16 year wait (made better by the videos, books & audios), I finally grew out of the show or just had an unrealistic expectation of how it would be when it returned. Something like this would be a tragedy, if it happened to my love for Star Trek too.

 

[Barbados Slim]

Doctor Who is both light entertainment and serious sci-fi. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[bentbastard]

lancemach said:
And Captain Jack hits on everyone. "Captain Jack Harkness" is easily my favorite episode of Torchwood and I love that it could make this straight guy get all touched up over a love affair between two guys named Jack.

In all, Davies shows are fun adventures that make me think about my worldviews and challenge me in a way that Trek used to but hasn't in about 15 years.

Your comments, for me, really hammer home what Sci-Fi is about. Challenging our own worldviews. Why should we see only what we want to see.

I want Trek, Dr Who et al to disturb me. I want to walk away and go: "what da f**k?".

Its not just that Dr Who/Torchwood's Jack is queerer than the average bear, but that he incorporates some modern issues, such as sexuality/gender is not as solid and static as we (western society) may think. The fact that The Simpsons has had a 'male on male' kiss and Star Trek has not, tells us that Star Trek is way behind in dealing with CONTEMPORARY issues.

I dont want to provoke yet another deabte about gay's on Trek (its been covered), but, as a queer person, I'd like to thank Lancmach, as a straight man, for his comments. Cpt Jack's love affair was not a 'gay' thing, it was about love *insert whispy music and fad to commercial*.

 

[Holytomato]

"I used to consider myself a massive Dr Who fan before 2005. Much of the New Series, I can't bear to watch again such is my unhappiness with Russell T. Davies' style of writing..."

Translation: "Oh, my god!!!! Now there are f&gs in Doctor Who!!!!"

What is this a "Heath Ledger is the Joker" thread on FreeRepublic?

 

[Baldus885]

Frosty the Vorta said:
No cheese for Star Trek. That is the LAST thing we need.

Legit humor is okay, but the wink-wink stuff would make me violently ill. No cheap sets or costumes, no kiddie-show approach. Star Trek is better than that. It's a class act and should always be presented as such.

Those aren't the only definitions of "cheesy."

However, it should certainly recapture the adventurous vibe of the original Star Trek - just follow the existing tradition. Simple enough.

That's what I meant.

Tennant captures it well when he's photographed, perhaps he should play Kirk.

Right. Because Kirk should look like a homely little girl.

Tennant insult aside, I was joking...

 

[CaptainWacky]

"Make it good" is the lesson he should learn, from everyone who's ever made something good.

 

[zenophite]

hopefully, Abrahms adopts absolutely nothing that is in any way shape or form reminiscent of Russel T. Davies pap.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ChristopherPike said:
Doctor Who might have sold out to light entertainment because serious Sci Fi could never succeed on primetime

There's just about no "serious Sci Fi" in the original Doctor Who, except perhaps occasionally by accident. It ranges from music-hall kitch to occasionally arch and literate satire, but no one associated with it seemed to have any use for science and for the most part it was comedy - intentionally or otherwise.

CaptainWacky said:
"Make it good" is the lesson he should learn, from everyone who's ever made something good.

Yep.

If this movie is half as much an improvement over recent "Star Trek" as Davies' "Doctor Who" is over the old version it'll be fantastic.