I kinda begin to hate those fans who only like something when it makes money (money they don't ever get to see).
details on Singer's Trek pitch
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
I kinda begin to hate those fans who only like something when it makes money (money they don't ever get to see).
Actually, Leonardo DiCaprio has been planning to star in a big screen version of The Twilight Zone since 2009. In addition, the feature films Real Steel and The Box have both capitalized on the fact that the short stories they're based on were previously adapted into episodes of The Twilight Zone (the first the original series, the latter the 80s revival).
Besides that, what do we get to learn about the characters? I've always wanted to know more about what would draw bright people away from an Earth that seems to be a paradise and into space, filled with danger and disease (where have I heard that before?). I think that a retelling of Trek that focused a bit more on characters like that would be interesting to watch. For me, anyway.
Space space wanna go to space yes please space.
I've been reading over the stuff about Star Trek Federation over on Trekmovie. And while there is some cool stuff there, I'm not particularly disappointed this show won't see the light of day. There's some stuff there which has already been done in the novels (second officer promoted after the deaths of the captain and XO, a life form from a gas giant as the chief engineer) and some from that proposed animated series a few years back (an officer safely enhanced with Borg technology). And I noticed the article makes mention that this ship would be bigger than Voyager. So? Voyager wasn't exacly that big a ship.
Hmm
All i can say is that this would have been a heavily character-driven show.
There's a reason there's a "Political Officer" in the crew in our version and it's not for the HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER reasons. Our captain was to be much more like Calhoun (New Frontier) than Kirk.
What you read is about 3-5% of the total pitch. Seriously. You simply don't have enough data to make any assessment.
And Diz isn't "a lifeform from a gas giant." He's a small piece of an intelligent planet. Show where that's been done in Star Trek or, frankly in scifi at large. Never in Trek and, if done in the wider scifi universe, so rarely I've never seen it.
Odo. Kind of at least.
And the Borg. But definitely different enough to be interesting.
It bewilders me that people still attempt to make the argument that financial success equals quality.
Nope. The great link is not the same. Diz is not a shapeshifter. The suit "he" wears that makes him look humanoid is solid state. Outside of it he is smoke or liquid and that's it.
Penumbra, his homeworld, is a gas giant composed of three intelligences, each corresponding to a different color.
If you scooped out a random bunch of "cloud" from one of the colors, you get Diz or you get something else. It's totally random. "He" is not an individual in the true sense and, if he ever merged with the whole again, he would never be back.
He can't change his appearance. He can't stretch or bend farther than his suit will let him and he can't go from gas to liquid at will. You have never seen anything like Diz and you probably won't.
The closest thing would be the character from HELLBOY 2 and he came AFTER I made up Diz.
I was not referring to Odo because of the shapeshifting, but because of the Great Link, which is about what you just described.
No, it is not.
The Founders are individuals who link, literally. At any time they may disengage and be individuals again. They procreate.
Diz is a random slice off an intelligent whole. He is a coincidence. He isn't even "he." If they chose to make his containment suit female, "he" would be female.
He cannot ever return to his homeworld because, if he did, he would dissolve. He is a random event. It's nothing like the Founders, as I've just described. That's why he is a "distillation."
He has none of Odo's abilities. Zero.
Financial Success equals the only success that the backers recognize and thats about it. Quality is subjective.
I don't understand why people think that re-working already done ideas can revamp the TV series.
That may work for film. Take TOS - modernize it, make it "cooooooler" and people will go see the "new" and at the same time "familiar" Star Trek. No need for an introduction; the familiar idea is already there ready for consumption by the general audience.
A new TV series has to be set in the future. It has to be new with capital NEW. The concept does not need to be spectacular, the writing has to be spectacular.
Take the Federation 200 years after Picard. It has undergone a "big bad war" (Alpha Quadrant World War I), with the "big bad aliens." An uneasy peace exists.
As the result of the "big bad war" the Federation acts more like the imperfect USA, but strives like the USA to achieve its perfect ideals. Something political and "controversial" for the modern age and audience.
Put the new "big bad Enterprise" in Quadrant COOL, attached to the Umpteenth fleet of the Federation. This Quadrant COOL is a strategic area that both the Federation and the "big bad aliens" covet. Set the Enterprise free on missions to build allianses with the locals, to explore new worlds and new civilizations, and to fight the "big bad aliens."
The rest needs to be good writing and good directing. Original aliens, ideas, planets and concepts. No need to alter the Vulcans, Romulans, or Klingons (which seems to be a favorite thing to do these days). Leave them alone. Its not original thinking. No need to make the familiar "new" again. People love the familiar because it is FAMILIAR. Why mess with it? Bring back the Klingons in an episode or two as a good feelings nod to the original but leave them alone otherwise!
Create new aliens, new ideas, new planets, new technologies, new universe to explore. That's the hard part which requires hard thinking and writing, and also a lot of talent. Which is why so little has been done in this direction (well...successfully!)
That may work for film. Take TOS - modernize it, make it "cooooooler" and people will go see the "new" and at the same time "familiar" Star Trek. No need for an introduction; the familiar idea is already there ready for consumption by the general audience.
A new TV series has to be set in the future. It has to be new with capital NEW. The concept does not need to be spectacular, the writing has to be spectacular.
Take the Federation 200 years after Picard. It has undergone a "big bad war" (Alpha Quadrant World War I), with the "big bad aliens." An uneasy peace exists.
As the result of the "big bad war" the Federation acts more like the imperfect USA, but strives like the USA to achieve its perfect ideals. Something political and "controversial" for the modern age and audience.
Put the new "big bad Enterprise" in Quadrant COOL, attached to the Umpteenth fleet of the Federation. This Quadrant COOL is a strategic area that both the Federation and the "big bad aliens" covet. Set the Enterprise free on missions to build allianses with the locals, to explore new worlds and new civilizations, and to fight the "big bad aliens."
The rest needs to be good writing and good directing. Original aliens, ideas, planets and concepts. No need to alter the Vulcans, Romulans, or Klingons (which seems to be a favorite thing to do these days). Leave them alone. Its not original thinking. No need to make the familiar "new" again. People love the familiar because it is FAMILIAR. Why mess with it? Bring back the Klingons in an episode or two as a good feelings nod to the original but leave them alone otherwise!
Create new aliens, new ideas, new planets, new technologies, new universe to explore. That's the hard part which requires hard thinking and writing, and also a lot of talent. Which is why so little has been done in this direction (well...successfully!)
Last edited:
Every culture evolves over time--so it would be foolish to set the show centuries in the future from TNG and have all the players be the same as they were in the 24th century. There are awakenings, events and new developments that shape a world.
I'm intrigued...
Actually, the name "The 76th Distillation of Blue" reminded me of a thing from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (if you haven't read it, read it). There's a throwaway reference to a creature called a Hooloovoo, which is a "superintelligent shade of the colour blue".
Yeah, I know, still not the same thing as Diz. But still, I thought it was kind of funny.
While financial success is the only thing that the guys in ties care about, quality is not entirely subjective. Only taste is subjective. There are still such things as high standards and low standards.
True, but on the internet, most of the time, people give lip service to the concept of quality in order to to justify their subjective tastes, usually in the most hyperbolic fashion imaginable.
Who "defined" those standards? A couple of folks with similar taste.
^^ So the difference between Plan 9 From Outer Space and 2001: A Space Odyssey is subjective?
That's certainly true sometimes, which confuses things. But, in fact, financial success, quality and entertainment value are all different things. And, while there may be a gray area, quality is definitely objective.
Similar threads
