Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Victory Is Life, Mar 22, 2014.
I might not use those words, but I agree with the sentiment.
Why bother making it Trek at all if it doesn't use any of what makes Trek different?
There, you see, is the question. What makes Star Trek distinctive? It sure as hell has to be more than continuity porn.
For a start I'd say what stories it tells and how it tells them.
The adaptation of a wide variety of stories into an SF frame was what made Trek different. You're talking about the series that was initially sold as "Wagon Train to the Stars." Like it or dislike it, you cannot plausibly call "Inner Light" un-Trek for actually doing it.
One other thing that contributes a lot to the feel of TOS was the number of episodes that were written by published SF writers. It would be nice to see a series do that again.
This, a thousand times this. Thank you.
Its not about continuity porn, but didnt you get the same goosebumps I did when Sisko shook Picards hand tenuously while reliving Jennifer's death at Wolf 359? That was multi-series continuity and it was so easy to induce suspension of disbelief...
The first encounter between Sisko and Picard in DS9 was a pretty great moment. I actually wouldn't call it continuity porn, they presented it in a way that could be understood even if you didn't know the characters already.
I was stating that it wasnt continuity porn as in the continuity in a universe such as this is essential. it the tie that binds. without it it would be a universe devoid of meaning and consequence.
Certainly the better continuity is handled, the stronger the product for me. I'm just saying this was an example of handling it right. The continuity was there and compelling for people that knew it, but executed in a way that wasn't a barrier for people who didn't.
No, I didn't, because by that time I had lost interest in contemporary Trek. Simple fact is that while I have enjoyed individual episodes of TNG and some DS9 I really have zero interest in revisiting that form of Trek. After TNG's third season contemporary Trek started settling into a pablum form of writing that I found largely uninspiring and spoon fed. I never want to see that kind of writing in Trek ever again.
On the positive side, though, it would be an improvement over JJtrek.
I thought it was a horrible moment because Sisko was juvenile and borderline insubordinate. It turned me off from watching the character and series for years.
Then again, once I finally got around to watching DS9, I found that Sisko's character ultimately surpassed Picard's in depth and complexity.
Or, to put it another way, every incarnation of Trek has its value and purpose and can be enjoyed as such. There's no "true" Trek out there beyond anyone's preconceptions. Abrams has done a great job of reviving the franchise. Sure, I'd like some more depth to my Trek, but nothing's stopping me from rewatching The Inner Light or Far Beyond The Stars to get my fix, either.
And if MacFarlane were to get a new Trek series on TV? I'd be right there with everyone else watching it, and cheering for it to be a great success.
Absolutely. BluRays of the Abrams films will one day make excellent coasters, for example.
(I kid, I kid... )
^ See! Now you're getting into the spirit!
I wouldn't even allow them into my home.
No, and you know it wasnt. The whole plot point of space seed was kirk & co finding the Botany Bay in their myriad explorations, and being able to deal with primitive dictatorial morality with intelligence, morality and empathy. In the Abramsverse, Khan is discovered by a militant Admiral looking for his meal ticket and in true 21st century fashion (an allegory to our current state of mind) seeks to manipulate the manipulator into doing his bidding for unscrupulous ends. And Kirk has to clean up.
I dunno, it's a little dicey for me. I like it when a stalwart and resolute Kirk and crew exercise their brains to overcome impossible odds. That's Star Trek to me, it epitomizes the human ability to overcome adversity. And it is perpetuated countless times in TNG as well, like when Picard is abducted by that race who kept him imprisoned with no food and he flips the script on them when with but a glance, he was able to imprison them on the enterprise bridge.
If we're referring to STiD, then ... Kirk being stalwart and resolute (defying orders and standing up for what is right, sacrificing himself for ship and crew)? Check. Exercising their brains to overcome impossible odds (Spock subversively switching the photons with actual explosives to sabotage Khan's plans)? Check.
An opinion is not always quantifiable, but I challenge you to watch the scene you referenced and then immediately watch Kirk's gamble in the corbomite maneuver. kirk was supposed to be so indefatigable it wasnt funny. He was supposed to be large and in charge. This new interpretation of a man with the charisma of a god is ill suited to Chris Pine. Thats my single biggest complaint about the new Jim Kirk. A failure of epic proportions. If you disagree, you don't know Jim Kirk, plain and simple.
I disagree. And I know Jim Kirk. He's a family friend, you see. And, in person, he's large, in charge, and has the the charisma of a Greco-Roman God. So your assertion is invalid (and offensive).
So you are essentially saying that Pine's Kirk is as respectable and reliable as Shatner's Kirk? Which Kirk would you entrust the safety of humanity to? Be honest. Which Kirk would you rather have a Romulan Ale with? Dont be an idiot, we all know everyone's answer...
I'd rather have a Romulan ale with Pine's Kirk (dude knows how to throw down in a bar, after all). And while Shatner's Kirk is older and more experienced than Pine's (when we first see both on screen), I'd say the fact that Pine's Kirk was faced with a no-win scenario much sooner in life than Shatner's, means Pine's Kirk will, ultimately, be more mature and wise than Shatner's. Therefore, I'd trust Pine's Kirk more than Shatner's.
Separate names with a comma.