Does "Realistic" Trek Mean No 'Throbbing Brains' Allowed?

[shapeshifter]

Does "realistic" Trek mean no 'throbbing brains' allowed?

Does it mean no Squire of Gothos with ability's to manipulate matter or no sentient clouds capable of sucking the red blood cells out of you?

No disembodied brains betting on outcomes of games of life or death or no giant hands in space blocking your path?

No aliens so ugly to gaze upon them will drive you insane or no shapeshifters to keep you guessing whose who?

Get the picture? Will Nu, "Realistic Trek" not incorporate one half the kind of scifi stories the series was originally founded on?

I hope not.

 

[urbandk]

who mourns for space hippies?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Does "realistic" Trek mean no 'throbbing brains' allowed?

Does it mean no Squire of Gothos with ability's to manipulate matter or no sentient clouds capable of sucking the red blood cells out of you?

No disembodied brains betting on outcomes of games of life or death or no giant hands in space blocking your path?

No aliens so ugly to gaze upon them will drive you insane or no shapeshifters to keep you guessing whose who?

Get the picture? Will Nu, "Realistic Trek" not incorporate one half the kind of scifi stories the series was originally founded on?

All of those kinds of things are probably right out, yeah - at least in such simplistic, straight-ahead form.

 

[Eddie Roth]

Well, the trailers indicate an appearance by what looks like a gigantic monster on an ice planet chasing Kirk! Isn't that a somewhat adequate replacement for the gamesters of Triskelion?

 

[Neopeius]

The NuTrek franchise will be every bit as realistic as the Batman Returns franchise.

 

[Jeyl]

The NuTrek franchise will be every bit as realistic as the Batman Returns franchise.

In essence, not very realistic.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The NuTrek franchise will be every bit as realistic as the Batman Returns franchise.

In essence, not very realistic.

No, but incredibly successful and well-accepted by critics and audiences alike. Who wouldn't trade the mediocrity of glow-in-the-dark plastic brains and mincing energy beings for that?

Although I suppose that trading in the clearly "operatic" Caesar Romero vision of the Joker for Ledger's contemporary psychotic take could appear to a certain determined mindset to be pandering to mediocrity as well.

 

[Mysterion]

who mourns for space hippies?

First they came for the space hippies, and I did nothing.

Then they came for the rubber-suited lizard, and I did nothing...

 

[shapeshifter]

I suppose cutting such stories from the pool is the right thing to do for the sake of realism but it also cuts the story potential in half.

With no stories about crazy aliens and their strange ability's, what's left? Only real world stories like crime and corruption and those can get tiresome real quick. At least to me.

 

[Jeyl]

The NuTrek franchise will be every bit as realistic as the Batman Returns franchise.

In essence, not very realistic.

No, but incredibly successful and well-accepted by critics and audiences alike.

Oh, I'm agreeing with you. I just don't think 'realistic' is the appropriate term I would use to describe the direction that Star Trek is taking. When I saw Batman Begins, I categorized it as 'not being silly' like how Batman & Robin was. Like how Balance of Terror isn't silly trek to And the Children Shall Lead.

So is it the serious stories that equal good products? Maybe, but not all of them. Trouble with Tribbles was for all accounts isn't serious, but I love that episode a lot more than some of the more serious episodes. Star Trek, Batman and a lot of other stuff that aims to be 'real' I find to be just a cop-out. I don't want real, I want good!

 

[EyalM]

Does "realistic" Trek mean no 'throbbing brains' allowed?

Does it mean no Squire of Gothos with ability's to manipulate matter or no sentient clouds capable of sucking the red blood cells out of you?

No disembodied brains betting on outcomes of games of life or death or no giant hands in space blocking your path?

No aliens so ugly to gaze upon them will drive you insane or no shapeshifters to keep you guessing whose who?

Get the picture? Will Nu, "Realistic Trek" not incorporate one half the kind of scifi stories the series was originally founded on?

I hope not.

I don't expect to see these kind of things in new trek, but not because of realisem. They are just dated, 60's style sci-fi clichés. TNG (post season 3), DS9 and VOY weren't aiming to be especially realistic, but you still hardly saw any of those things there. Each show is just a product of its time.

 

[shapeshifter]

Okay EyalM.

Are you, (or anyone) open to new, modern aliens with strange ability's and what might they be like?

Well, the trailers indicate an appearance by what looks like a gigantic monster on an ice planet chasing Kirk! Isn't that a somewhat adequate replacement for the gamesters of Triskelion?

An alien life form. That is some, though small, concession. Such a thing could never be a story-worthy threat to Earth, though.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I suppose cutting such stories from the pool is the right thing to do for the sake of realism but it also cuts the story potential in half.

Not at all, it just eliminates a pretty limited and repetitious class of cliches.

 

[LutherSloan]

This also means no more GREEK GODS IN SPACE

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

That displeases Apophis, you know.

 

[BillJ]

Unfortunately it seems the more realistic they try to make it, the less fun it becomes.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Which is why Berman-era Trek sucked the fun out of everything and I just watched Farscape instead.

 

[Neopeius]

The NuTrek franchise will be every bit as realistic as the Batman Returns franchise.

In essence, not very realistic.

No, but incredibly successful and well-accepted by critics and audiences alike. Who wouldn't trade the mediocrity of glow-in-the-dark plastic brains and mincing energy beings for that?

Although I suppose that trading in the clearly "operatic" Caesar Romero vision of the Joker for Ledger's contemporary psychotic take could appear to a certain determined mindset to be pandering to mediocrity as well.

I'll take Hamil's Joker to either of them.

 

[Classic Fan]

I remember when Ang Lees HULK was released.

All the reviews on the forums for HULK were saying how unrealistic some explosions and set pieces were, then some genius of logic replied in a thread on forum: "You are watching a scientist GROW to MORE than twice his size and turn GREEN, and get BIGGER the angrier he gets. He can LEAP ENTIRE cities and crush cars and buildings. and your saying a helicopter or whatever doesnt blow up like that?"

Cant remember exactly but thats the jist od what i rememeber.Its a similar story here, its not grounded in reality as such, but they have made it more believable in a way where its not boring and dull, much like Nolans Batmans were to Schumachers.

 

[Squiggy]

Does "realistic" Trek mean no 'throbbing brains' allowed?

Does it mean no Squire of Gothos with ability's to manipulate matter or no sentient clouds capable of sucking the red blood cells out of you?

No disembodied brains betting on outcomes of games of life or death or no giant hands in space blocking your path?

No aliens so ugly to gaze upon them will drive you insane or no shapeshifters to keep you guessing whose who?

Get the picture? Will Nu, "Realistic Trek" not incorporate one half the kind of scifi stories the series was originally founded on?

All of those kinds of things are probably right out, yeah - at least in such simplistic, straight-ahead form.

I assumed they were out anyway. People don't want to see big brained hermaphrodites now...for that is lame.