Ask the people I was replying to.
You said Trek needs to be better. So I’m asking you for examples of why recent Trek isn’t better.
I said "Then Star Trek should do better," as in 'if your statements are correct, then Star Trek should do better.'
I have other things I need to be doing that come up with a list of problems that I'm not even trying to bring up, because I was replying to THEIR STATEMENTS. They're the ones criticising past and present Star Trek. I'm just saying that if they're right, IF they're right, THEN Star Trek should be better.
I realise that listing problems with the series would be very on topic and give people things to discuss, but I clearly wasn't trying to bring up my own issues this time and I don't have anything specifically in mind. My brain isn't on that track right now, I don't have examples ready to fire off.
The point I was personally making is that if an earlier series has flaws, it doesn't mean that the flaws of a later series automatically get forgiven. Here's a statement I don't think needs backing up: Star Trek is supposed to be good. It was the best science fiction series in the world in 1966, and again in 1987... well maybe a couple of years later for that one, but you get my point. It does not get a pass for any bad writing it may or may not have just because Threshold and A Night in Sickbay were terrible.
And herein lies what I was trying to point out. 'Good' is arbitrary. There are people here who think Lower Decks was 'good.' I thought it was crap. Yet I'm just as much a Star Trek fan as those people. So how can producers of future Trek series possibly cater to all fans, when no two fans think alike about what's 'good' or not?
How much of Lower Decks did you watch?
The entire thing.
I don't think Lower Decks was crap, but I just cannot get into animated series, no matter how good they are. They just don't appeal to me. I can't imagine I'm alone in that respect.
As for catering to fans, I think it's a fine line to walk, but writers and producers have to be aware of what does and does not appeal to fans while at the same time not trying to base all their decisions on what the fans have to say. I think the Berman era writers/producers were pretty good at walking that line and I think they gave exactly the right amount of deference to the fans without going overboard. I think the Kurzman era folks have not done as well in that respect and have been a bit tone deaf to some fan reactions that they perhaps should have paid attention to.
Age old question, which fans do you listen to?
None of them. Producers should make a show that they want to make, with the understanding that it should appeal to a mass audience and be financially profitable without going overboard with the budget.
I'm pretty sure back in 1993, no Star Trek fan was asking for a show set on a space station near a wormhole with a mixture of Starfleet and Bajorans.
And we've seen what happens when you hire a superfan as a producer. They want to bring to life a fanfic they wrote a decade prior.
i can give you examples inside/outside of Trek, really terrible oversights (from some really bad movies)...
Continuity:
Nicole Kidman's "Stepford Wives", there is a scene where a woman spits out a paper receipt as if she is an android, at the climax of the movie it is revealed that the woman are actually humans who are simply mind controlled.
Star Wars The Last Jedi...if you can destroy Imperial ships by jumping to warp speed and flying through them, why not simply aim a rebel freighter at the Death Star and jump to hyperspace, why the big battle at the end of episode 4?
coincidence
Reacher was mentioned before...Jack meeting the exact person he needs to meet in such a random fashion that it defies belief (odds are higher of winning the Powerball)
bad writing:
Identity Thief: a simple phone call would have resolved the issue and poof! no movie
Reacher: The bad guy sends a group of bikers to take down a group of military special forces troops...um..ok...
at those same elite forces get in a "OK Corral" type firefight with these bikers....wouldn't they use their stealth and military training techniques to neutralize the threat?
Trek has this as well
Data imitates Picard's voice to lock out the ships computer...wouldn't there be safeguards to this as the ship would detect that Picard was not on the bridge via his com badge location? That is HOW they locate people, after all, they seemed to have dropped this for the episode (or "The plot needed it to happen").
again no script (or writing) is ever going to be perfect, and there will be inconsistencies, but the problems exist when those inconsistencies make the audience collectively say "Oh, Come on!"..
And why not just use droid kamikaze ships for everything?
Try again. That's ONE example of whers you believe the script has contradicted itself in Trek. And it doesn't, it just doesn't explain something.
It's not like, at any point, the dialogue states that the computer checks that somebody is at a location it thinks theyve given an order from, and THEN contradicted it.
it's a basic level safeguard that one would expect the most advanced starship to have, You can't start your own car without your key fob, same basic principle on a higher order.
we've seen in Trek that voices can be imitated to perfection, the Engineers would have accounted for this, it's not that complex a concept.
and it's not a contradiction, it's an oversight that could (should) have been handled differently.
With something as long-lasting, and with multiple producers and writers, as Star Trek has had, there's gonna be inconsistencies. But unless it's something egregious, like a dead character suddenly and without any explanation being alive again, most of those inconsistencies are just minor nuisances.
I agree 100% and even stated as such, no script is perfect...
I think what turns some people off is simply rewriting rules to suit a narrative. It's far more difficult to write under certain constraints than it is to free form things. And writing under constraints takes a lot of talent, insight, and ingenuity...
throwing out those constraints might be liberating, but you run the risk of alienating people...
I'm sure if the NASA engineers of the 50s and 60s had their way, they'd say "The hell with physics!, let's make the spacecraft WE want to make!!!" (OK ridiculous example, I admit!!!)
Last edited:
That's what the Rian Johnsons of this world do. They break all the rules because "they're gettin' in the way of telling a good story!" But then the story you get isn't even good and you're left sitting there in the rubble, the wreckage of the rules.
