Yep.
EW:No main characters are safe
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Yep.
I'd much rather have good scifi than crew-as-family. People say they like all the character stories and b-plots on TNG, but I couldn't care less. And I like the vibe of TOS best in early season one with more ancillary crew and less cheeriness.
I was drawn to scifi for the what-ifs and premises and extrapolations, and to TOS because it was thoughtful and fun for a nerdy kid in the 70s. I'd like that, please. We'll see. If not, fine. Still got my clamshell dvd's.
I was drawn to scifi for the what-ifs and premises and extrapolations, and to TOS because it was thoughtful and fun for a nerdy kid in the 70s. I'd like that, please. We'll see. If not, fine. Still got my clamshell dvd's.
C
C57D
Guest
Maybe I am an old traditionalist, but how far can you change a property before it ceases to be itself, and only the name remains?
The Sherlock Holmes films from a few years back as an example. Took a 90% investigation / 10% ( if that) action character and turned those percentages around!
If we want a completely reimagined, GOT/Sci Fi then why bother putting a ST label on it ( other than a cheap marketing ploy). Have courage in your convictions and just make a series about a crew of expendable scifi-ites roaming the galaxy and having adventures (until they get sadistically killed to boost ratings). Call it Starship Game or Space Walking or some such.
I am keeping an open mind, and hoping against hope the STD will not turn out be an appropriate acroynm for this series!
The Sherlock Holmes films from a few years back as an example. Took a 90% investigation / 10% ( if that) action character and turned those percentages around!
If we want a completely reimagined, GOT/Sci Fi then why bother putting a ST label on it ( other than a cheap marketing ploy). Have courage in your convictions and just make a series about a crew of expendable scifi-ites roaming the galaxy and having adventures (until they get sadistically killed to boost ratings). Call it Starship Game or Space Walking or some such.
I am keeping an open mind, and hoping against hope the STD will not turn out be an appropriate acroynm for this series!
Comparing TOS to the movies, or TOS to TNG, or TNG to late DS9, or VOY to ST09, quite a bit. It's time for another update in style, storytelling, and approach. But it will still be more like Star Trek than anything else, and a change to fully serialised storytelling and a more realistic approach to jeopardy and consequences won't change those aspects much.
^ I tend to agree. There is no one kind of Star Trek. If you look at the franchise you'll notice that it consists of constant change. Be it altered viewing sensibilities, a new lineup of writers, higher or lower budget or any number of other factors – the fact remains that Star Trek always seems to try to go with the times and present a different version of itself each time. Looking back I think it's one of the aspects that kept the franchise alive for so long. And I'm glad Discovery seems to be made in the same tradition.
Even within a series, things change - I've been watching TNG and listening to the Mission Log podcasts, and it's quite noticeable how much the writing, characters, themes, and the worldbuilding change through just that one show. It starts off as a self righteous and stiff show of self contained morality plays which mimic the format of TOS episodes with an added 'Genes vision' wash, moves on to a period of more extended storylines (like the Klingon arc) and touchy feely family based episodes, often ditching the morals and lessons along the way, and then changed again in its final third into a more action adventure sci-fi show with lots of self referential sequels and follow on episodes, and kooky more fantastical plots, more relaxed performances, and an ongoing main cast romance.
^ Yes, definitely. And you could make a case for all of the Star Trek shows exhibiting this kind of noticeable change. Sometimes even from season to season.
Take for example The Original Series, where the first season seems to be much more grounded in the idea of showing everyday life on a starship, with a broader range of secondary characters and a bigger focus on the anthology aspect of the show, whereas the second season becomes somewhat less serious, more self-referential and world-building and shifts the focus to the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate. The third season after that brings with it another noticeable change in tone, style and seriousness.
You can do the same for Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise. Each version, each season even, the series creators readjust the direction of the shows. Sometimes on purpose, because they want to or because they are forced to by outside factors, and sometimes completely unwittingly. Discovery – whatever and however it will finally end up being – will just be another step of change in a long history of change. I'm looking forward to it.
Take for example The Original Series, where the first season seems to be much more grounded in the idea of showing everyday life on a starship, with a broader range of secondary characters and a bigger focus on the anthology aspect of the show, whereas the second season becomes somewhat less serious, more self-referential and world-building and shifts the focus to the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate. The third season after that brings with it another noticeable change in tone, style and seriousness.
You can do the same for Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise. Each version, each season even, the series creators readjust the direction of the shows. Sometimes on purpose, because they want to or because they are forced to by outside factors, and sometimes completely unwittingly. Discovery – whatever and however it will finally end up being – will just be another step of change in a long history of change. I'm looking forward to it.
It's interesting that TOS had arguably the strongest first season, and it was the one that had nothing preceding it (discounting The Cage.) The spin-offs all floundered a bit in their first seasons partly I think because they weren't necessarily trying to tell unique sci-fi stories, but because they were trying to tell safe Star Trek stores.
I'm still not sure how you can tell a non-star trek story that takes place inside a Star Trek series. I mean you have to jettison everything from starfleet to any familiar aliens to even the idea of exploring space. You would be left with humans on a spaceship for some, yet to be determined reason.
I mean you can always try an find new way to do a story in a different way than the other shows but you always going to have some similarities that you can never fully escape from. Even the Kelvin Universe still felt and looked like old school Trek at times.
Jason
I mean you can always try an find new way to do a story in a different way than the other shows but you always going to have some similarities that you can never fully escape from. Even the Kelvin Universe still felt and looked like old school Trek at times.
Jason
What makes is a "non Star Trek story?" is more my question. Star Trek was originally an action/adventure series with social commentary, hence the science fiction setting. It grew out from there, but at its roots it's a human adventure with optimism at its core.
I think that depicts what "TOS" was about but once you start doing multiple shows I think it means the defintion is going to change and has to change or else you would just keep doing the same show over. Yet because the new show's are still Trek then that means you also still need something that connects them all.
For many that was the Roddenberry vision but frankly I am more than willing to let that go. If you loose that though I think you got to find other connections to sort of replace it. With me that would be canon if you were doing a Prime universe show and if you were doing a brand new show from scratch then that would be a more broader use of canon were you simply pair it down to things like federaton/starfleet, transporters and a handful of some of the more popular aliens.
I mean you can even alter some of these old familiar things just keep the terms in place and their main functions and that is good enough. It doesn't matter if the transporter looks like something out of Jules Verne. If it magically beams you from ship to planet then that is all you really need from that device.
Jason
I think if you move away from the optimism that GR presented in TOS, then it misses more of the spirit of Star Trek, than the continuity.
Certainly GR felt that the switch to character driven shows without a science fiction element, like Family, was 'not Star Trek', but hey, it became Star Trek. What DS9 did became Star Trek too - there's room for all kinds of stuff in there. We all have our personal preferences but that's not of course the same thing. I personally prefer Trek that's more talky and stretches the actors and has a tendency to be sledgehammer with the messages, but that's just me. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the pure action adventure stuff, or any of the other things Trek can be.
But even that optimism was leavened with heavy doses of horror and tragedy. People tend to forget just how dark TOS could get and how many episodes ended on somber or tragic notes. Pike has to leave poor, disfigured Vina behind, Kirk has to kill his best friend who has been corrupted by power, McCoy's former love has been replaced by a Salt Vampire, who is the last of its species, Charlie X can no longer live among humans because it's too late for him to learn how to use his powers responsibly, a young newlywed is killed in battle the day of his wedding and his widow is left sobbing as Kirk grimly walks away, the crazed daughter of an infamous war criminal ends up killing her own father after losing her mind, Kirk has to let the woman he loves die into order to save the timeline, etc.
And that's just the first season!
Oh, I agree. I'm not saying optimism as a "Polyanna" style head in the clouds way. I mean, its optimistic that humanity would survive to the future, surmount old challenges while facing new ones.But even that optimism was leavened with heavy doses of horror and tragedy. People tend to forget just how dark TOS could get and how many episodes ended on somber or tragic notes. Pike has to leave poor, disfigured Vina behind, Kirk has to kill his best friend who has been corrupted by power, McCoy's former love has been replaced by a Salt Vampire, who is the last of its species, Charlie X can no longer live among humans because it's too late for him to learn how to use his powers responsibly, a young newlywed is killed in battle the day of his wedding and his widow is left sobbing as Kirk grimly walks away, the crazed daughter of an infamous war criminal ends up killing her own father after losing her mind, Kirk has to let the woman he loves die into order to save the timeline, etc.
And that's just the first season!
The tragedy is often wrapped in victory and vice versa. It's a mix of storytelling, with the primary theme being humans can change. That's the optimism-not that we will evolve but that we can change can become better.
As an addition, one aspect that interests me in this discussion is how often Star Trek is held up as "humanity's future," i.e. this is where we are moving. It makes me chuckle when arguments about "Prime vs. Not" when you realize that humanity's future is ever changing, and if Star Trek is part this planet's history, then the minutia of canon becomes less important, because Star Trek is an outgrowth of our current time and our current view on the future.
And, given the cynicism of the contemporary age, I think that optimism, even if darkened by tragedy, is necessary.
It was optimistic, compared to most science-fiction movies and TV, in that it was set in a future that you would actually want to live in--and in which the human race was continuing to make progress. It wasn't a post-apocalyptic wasteland or a sterile mechanized dystopia. Earth had not been invaded by aliens, or taken over by gorillas or cyborgs or computers. You had a multiracial, multi-ethnic crew boldly exploring space in unison--which, back in the 1960s, was a radically positive vision. The setting and premise were optimistic.
But that didn't mean that the individual stories were all upbeat tales of hope and optimism, that the Final Frontier was not a rough and dangerous place, far from the safety and security of future Earth, or that human nature, warts and all, had changed all that much since the days of Gunsmoke.
As long as DISCOVERY sticks to the fundamental premise that the human race actually has a future, and that that future is basically a hopeful one, it will be as optimistic as TOS ever was. No matter what crises and conflicts befall them.
Last edited:
Most skiffy stuff that I remember from that era of TV, at least, was some variation of space or techy futurism - no dystopian wastelands on TV, outside of random episodes of The Outer Limits. At the movies you had the Apes flicks, which you reference, but you also had 2001.
It was the 60s, after all - we were on our way to the Moon.
The similarity between Trek and Gunsmoke - and a great many other TV shows of that era - is the simple way in which characters and their world were portrayed: they were fundamentally moral and decent people, courageously living adventurous lives on a frontier of sorts. If you watch a lot of early 60s TV you see less contrast between, oh, Bonanza and Star Trek and great deal that is the same. Only certain ways of portraying "good" people and the balance of justice in the Universe were acceptable at the time. Trek stands out as upbeat in the entertainment landscape now because it's a coelacanth,
It was the 60s, after all - we were on our way to the Moon.
The similarity between Trek and Gunsmoke - and a great many other TV shows of that era - is the simple way in which characters and their world were portrayed: they were fundamentally moral and decent people, courageously living adventurous lives on a frontier of sorts. If you watch a lot of early 60s TV you see less contrast between, oh, Bonanza and Star Trek and great deal that is the same. Only certain ways of portraying "good" people and the balance of justice in the Universe were acceptable at the time. Trek stands out as upbeat in the entertainment landscape now because it's a coelacanth,
Last edited:
I guess I was thinking of THE INVADERS, which was a paranoid alien-invasion thriller, while LOST IN SPACE, TIME TUNNEL, and LAND OF THE GIANTS all had the characters trapped or lost in threatening environments, and, of course TWILIGHT ZONE did any number of episodes involving hostile aliens and/or doomsday scenarios. "Don't break your glasses!" "It's a cookbook!" Etc.
Yeah, but my memory of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits is not that they had a particularly pessimistic or dim view of humanity, just wildly imaginative views of a Universe perceived as dangerous.. In fact The Outer Limits tended to deliver human grace and courage on the part of at least one of the protagonists at the climax just about every week. They weren't bleak or nihilistic shows for the most part, even though Serling loved the sucker-punch.
I'll give you The Invaders. The Irwin Allen shows, though, were flat-out pat and dependable family (that is, kid) oriented adventure. Everyone cared about everyone (even that idiot Doctor Smith, when the chips were down), everyone stood up and did what was required of heroes when the weekly challenge hit its climax, and then everyone shared a laugh at the end. And the "Gosh-wow, they're exploring space and time!" quotient was pretty high.
I'll give you The Invaders. The Irwin Allen shows, though, were flat-out pat and dependable family (that is, kid) oriented adventure. Everyone cared about everyone (even that idiot Doctor Smith, when the chips were down), everyone stood up and did what was required of heroes when the weekly challenge hit its climax, and then everyone shared a laugh at the end. And the "Gosh-wow, they're exploring space and time!" quotient was pretty high.
Last edited:
Similar threads
