• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Fanwank

Sharr Khan said:
Trust me - people only go to movies and leave enjoying them because they care about the PEOPLE, Trek and ToS were more about the people then some fans care to admit, not to mention the movies that sprung from it.

Star Trek started to falter when it became about out things or the technology involved.

If this story isn't about the characters, as it should be then it rightfully should fail! Trek has long forgotten about the human element in the "human adventure".

Matrix/STTMP/2001/Forbidden Planet/Planet of the Apes/

"The Matrix" is self-indulgent pretension masquerading as something deep. We won't even get into how Trek had to be saved from "TMP" and Trek never ever was "2001" nor should it attempt to be. Planet of the Apes has many levels to it as well as all its off shoots - FP is very much space opera 50's style it just happens to also be smart.

Sharr

Respectfully -I could not disagree more.
For example I'm not saying Indiana Jones - shouldn't include Mr Jones and that his character isn't absolutely necessary, what I'm saying is that the Story is NOT ABOUT Indiana Jones, its about finding the ark before the Nazi, Indy was a character created to help tell these stories in a fun and interesting way for the audience. Is Indy himself essential YES - but are the stories about him NOPE - NYET

BIG DIFFERENCE

Something most modern TV trek has not always gotten right

And I hope they get it
 
^ that may have been the primary intent, but people fell IN LOVE with the CHARACTER of Indiana Jones (and Trek's), and thus subsequent shows/movies focused more on that aspect. It's a natural progression. If there was NO character arcs, these shows would have gotten very boring very fast.

Trek XI has a tough job; it has to be BOTH a Big Adventure™ *and* have rich character moments/arcs.
 
Arlo said:
^ that may have been the primary intent, but people fell IN LOVE with the CHARACTER of Indiana Jones (and Trek's), and thus subsequent shows/movies focused more on that aspect. It's a natural progression. If there was NO character arcs, these shows would have gotten very boring very fast.

Trek XI has a tough job; it has to be BOTH a Big Adventure™ *and* have rich character moments/arcs.

I'm pretty 99.9 of the people are looking ahead to "The Cystal Skull" cause they want to see Dr. Jones back in the saddle - the Skulls/Ark/Holy Grail are just means to an end. More then likely Spielberg feels the same.

No its about the PEOPLE - Star Trek hasn't been about humans in a long while now.

Sharr
 
Sharr Khan said:
Arlo said:
^ that may have been the primary intent, but people fell IN LOVE with the CHARACTER of Indiana Jones (and Trek's), and thus subsequent shows/movies focused more on that aspect. It's a natural progression. If there was NO character arcs, these shows would have gotten very boring very fast.

Trek XI has a tough job; it has to be BOTH a Big Adventure™ *and* have rich character moments/arcs.

I'm pretty 99.9 of the people are looking ahead to "The Cystal Skull" cause they want to see Dr. Jones back in the saddle - the Skulls/Ark/Holy Grail are just means to an end. More then likely Spielberg feels the same.

No its about the PEOPLE - Star Trek hasn't been about humans in a long while now.

Sharr

You are missing the point

If the Movie was Indiana Jones - A Day at the Office, No one would watch PERIOD and if the Crystal Skull STORY is borning no one will give a crap that Indiana Jones was in it

Yes I agree that Indy is an interest character that is great at DELIVERING a story but NO Indy movie is ABOUT Indiana Jones, they are separate STORIES, the temple of doom being a weak one and hence the relative apathy towards it DESPITE Indiana Jones being in it

And if the new STAR TREK doesn;t have an exciting interesting standalone story they can have Shatner and Nimoy in everyscene noone will care if the story is a snoozer
 
^ Well duh, of course. I don't think anyone here is saying they want to see Kirk sitting around his barracks playing cards for 2 hours.
 
jimbtnp2 said:Kirk's parents are minor - to ay story we've seen in TOS or ST1-6. what do they have to do with exploring strange new worlds. can they make a story with them?sure but exploring strange new parents? zzzz
Well, I'm gonna have to 100% disagree with you here.

We have literally HUNDREDS of "same ol' same ol'" shows about "exploring strange new worlds."

Some are terrific. Some are horrific.

Take a mo' and think about which are which, willya?

The GOOD ONES weren't actually about "strange new worlds." They were stories about PEOPLE. The stories that were being told might have been made possible by virtue of their being in "strange new worlds" (that's the reason that Sci-fi, if DONE WELL, can produce great epics beyond that which we can see in "real life"), but the stories, ultimately, were PERSONAL STORIES.

They were about PEOPLE. And about people in ways that we can relate to the story and feel an emotional connection to what's happening.

Name any of the BEST Star Trek stories.

Was what made it "best" the fact that they had a cool dune buggy chase on an alien planet? Or was it that our leading character had to let the woman he loved die in order to save millions of lives?

If you get what you want, I WON'T get what I want. I don't want bleepy lights and AWESOME SFX and phasers shooting back and forth. I want a story that draws me into caring about the characters.
All this inward looking trekian stories are what killed TNG, go bold and big i say
No, what "killed TNG" is that it became stale and staid and overused. There's a reason that marriages almost always end up in trouble at about seven years in... they even have a name for it, the "seven year itch."

By the time TNG wrapped up, we'd simply seen TOO MUCH of those people... there was nothing really interesting left to learn about them, and the attempts to tell new and interesting stories about those characters, in most cases, gave us "wonderful" stories like "A Fist Full of Datas" or other such sub-par offerings.

TNG COULD have kept going for years. But the way they could have done that would have been to cycle characters in, and out. Had they let Picard go at "The Best of Both Worlds," make Riker the captain, and brought Shelby in permanently, we'd have had a totally new dynamic. Had they left Crusher off the ship permanently... had they brought in new "permanent characters" in that same situation, cycled in and out over time (like REAL LIFE tends to do), we'd have gotten to see new situations, and they wouldn't have had to resort to the pathetic "reaching" that they inevitably fell into during the final two seasons.

DS9 got this largely right. Introducing new characters, and having the existing ones evolve and change, was part of what made it entertaining to me. Had the situation remained staid and stale and unchanged from the first episode to the final episode, I'd never have been brought back into the show at all!
 
Arlo said:
^ Not since Trek V, in my book.

Indeed - its why I like it, the one time when a movie was served by simply being an extended episode... it likely should have been that.

Sharr
 
If the Movie was Indiana Jones - A Day at the Office, No one would watch PERIOD and if the Crystal Skull STORY is borning no one will give a crap that Indiana Jones was in it

Not saying that... but they cared enough to tune in for different phases in his life. You probably couldn't have sold "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" without having people care about Indie first and foremost, cause they wanted learn more about what makes him tick.

Adventure stories without compelling characters to ride with aren't worth watching but well I'm watching I want to learn more why I should care about this person and if they make it to the end or not.

And if the new STAR TREK doesn;t have an exciting interesting standalone story they can have Shatner and Nimoy in everyscene noone will care if the story is a snoozer

Well I have no reason to think there isn't an "exciting story" here if anything some are complaining its all gonna be about the excitement and nothing more. BTW that's exactly why TMP falls so flat - its not at all about being fun.

Sharr
 
Arlo said:
^ that may have been the primary intent, but people fell IN LOVE with the CHARACTER of Indiana Jones (and Trek's), and thus subsequent shows/movies focused more on that aspect. It's a natural progression. If there was NO character arcs, these shows would have gotten very boring very fast.

Trek XI has a tough job; it has to be BOTH a Big Adventure™ *and* have rich character moments/arcs.

i agree very much about this.
if indy played by ford hadnt been so interesting then the movie would have been a lot less then what it was.

as for the not yet finished trek film frankly we dont have a clue yet if some of this is passing reference or a major part of the film.

really they maybe avoiding fan wank since it wont have gary mitchell who appeared to be a major presence in kirks live before enterprise.

so they are going with the more recognizable to the general public( due to the movies ) sarek and amanda.
 
Its not a fanwank imho, why cant we have all these supporting characters in a prequel/origin story that explores the characters of Kirk and Spock and shows us how they came to be best friends.

A fanwank would be using Borg nanoprobes to bring Shatner back.
 
pookha said:really they maybe avoiding fan wank since it wont have gary mitchell who appeared to be a major presence in kirks live before enterprise.

so they are going with the more recognizable to the general public( due to the movies ) sarek and amanda.
That's an assumption. Do you actually know that none of the actors we've seen so far, walking around in raincoats, is actually the one playing Gary Mitchell?

Seriously, do you KNOW that? You're assuming... but you don't know. ;)
 
Sharr Khan said:
If the Movie was Indiana Jones - A Day at the Office, No one would watch PERIOD and if the Crystal Skull STORY is borning no one will give a crap that Indiana Jones was in it

Not saying that... but they cared enough to tune in for different phases in his life. You probably couldn't have sold "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" without having people care about Indie first and foremost, cause they wanted learn more about what makes him tick.

Adventure stories without compelling characters to ride with aren't worth watching but well I'm watching I want to learn more why I should care about this person and if they make it to the end or not.

And if the new STAR TREK doesn;t have an exciting interesting standalone story they can have Shatner and Nimoy in everyscene noone will care if the story is a snoozer

Well I have no reason to think there isn't an "exciting story" here if anything some are complaining its all gonna be about the excitement and nothing more. BTW that's exactly why TMP falls so flat - its not at all about being fun.

Sharr

No, they didn't want to see what made him tick they wanted to see more exciting Indiana Jones adventures

i don;t think you're getting it
 
Cary L. Brown said:
pookha said:really they maybe avoiding fan wank since it wont have gary mitchell who appeared to be a major presence in kirks live before enterprise.

so they are going with the more recognizable to the general public( due to the movies ) sarek and amanda.
That's an assumption. Do you actually know that none of the actors we've seen so far, walking around in raincoats, is actually the one playing Gary Mitchell?

Seriously, do you KNOW that? You're assuming... but you don't know. ;)

I think he is isn;t he
 
I have an etymological question.

At what point did "fanwank" start being used to mean "things put in to please fans"? Cause for years on the net I always heard that called "fanservice". "Fanwank" was a completely different phenomenon, describing the attempt by fans to explain away errors in canon without breaking the fourth wall.
 
SiorX said:
"Fanwank" was a completely different phenomenon, describing the attempt by fans to explain away errors in canon without breaking the fourth wall.

Oh, I thought that was called "Star Trek: Enterprise"


:D
 
jimbtnp2 said:
Sharr Khan said:
If the Movie was Indiana Jones - A Day at the Office, No one would watch PERIOD and if the Crystal Skull STORY is borning no one will give a crap that Indiana Jones was in it

Not saying that... but they cared enough to tune in for different phases in his life. You probably couldn't have sold "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" without having people care about Indie first and foremost, cause they wanted learn more about what makes him tick.

Adventure stories without compelling characters to ride with aren't worth watching but well I'm watching I want to learn more why I should care about this person and if they make it to the end or not.

And if the new STAR TREK doesn;t have an exciting interesting standalone story they can have Shatner and Nimoy in everyscene noone will care if the story is a snoozer

Well I have no reason to think there isn't an "exciting story" here if anything some are complaining its all gonna be about the excitement and nothing more. BTW that's exactly why TMP falls so flat - its not at all about being fun.

Sharr

No, they didn't want to see what made him tick they wanted to see more exciting Indiana Jones adventures

i don;t think you're getting it

You missed my point: If some network exec didn't see Indie as a compelling character they would never have greenlit a show based around a child (without Ford's star power to back it up) and then a twenty-something almost unknown. The character had to matter first so they would think his adventures would be worth spending money on.

I don't think you're getting it actually.

Sharr
 
Arlo said:
Red Ranger said:
Methinks I smell a bit of jealousy, kind of like the hatred some SF geeks had for Wesley Crusher 'cause they wished they were acting ensigns on Enterprise, for crying out loud!
I seem to recall at the time the hate for Wesley was purely on the grounds that he was a snot-nosed little know-it-all.

And the denial continues!

Just kidding. I was being facetious when I mentioned that, but I do think it may have been somewhat accurate for a few of the fans. I'm not a big fan of Wesley, mind you, but I think the character would have worked better had they made him a female, as they originally intended, named Leslie Crusher.

Red Ranger
 
SiorX said:
I have an etymological question.

At what point did "fanwank" start being used to mean "things put in to please fans"? Cause for years on the net I always heard that called "fanservice". "Fanwank" was a completely different phenomenon, describing the attempt by fans to explain away errors in canon without breaking the fourth wall.

The word "fanwank" is bullshit, anyway. Any time a show or film tries to explain something that has not yet been explained, we've got angry people screaming about 'fanwank'. That word is an insult, and it's unjustified. Why should plot holes not be explained, or missing scenes in history not ever be depicted?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top