And your body: that of a Seth MacFarlane-obsessed bonobo.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Rama, is that you?
I sorta agree with points 3 & 6. Everything else can go bite meGood article. I think its totally on point. Too many characters in the cast is diluting our time with the original main cast. We dont get much time with number one and getting less time with pike than we should.
How Star Trek Can Save Strange New Worlds, In 6 Simple Steps
There are fans who hate everything new Trek has done, but that’s not nuanced enough. We all hate Star Trek: … Continue reading "How Star Trek Can Save Strange New Worlds, In 6 Simple Steps"www.giantfreakinrobot.com
For those who don't want to give GFR clicks (I get it), the list is as follows:
1. Narrow the ensemble - I enjoy the cast, and it really isn't that large. Certainly not DS9 sized.
2. Tell stories about ideas, not characters - For one, I like the character-centric episodes.
3. Stop involving Spock in romance - I have no problem with the Spock romance angle. Spock had his moments of lady-killing in TOS, so don't see the issue there.
4. Stop being silly, think of the audience - While I don't think ALL the silly ideas have worked, I do appreciate them taking big swings.
5. Visit some planets, brighten up and build - This season alone, they've spent time on a Gorn ship, Starbase One, a zombie planet and a mysterious archaeological planet. Silly complaint.
6. Come up with your own ideas - I didn't think we needed Trelane, I did note the BOBW comparison to "Hegemony, Part II" and sure the holodeck episode has been done to death, but that was not the point of the episode. The point however is, SNW, like TOS before it, is an anthology show. They're going to take ideas from different places and put them on the screen. Again, a silly complaint and one that doesn't understand the point of the series.
1. Narrow the ensemble - I enjoy the cast, and it really isn't that large. Certainly not DS9 sized.
2. Tell stories about ideas, not characters - For one, I like the character-centric episodes.
3. Stop involving Spock in romance - I have no problem with the Spock romance angle. Spock had his moments of lady-killing in TOS, so don't see the issue there.
4. Stop being silly, think of the audience - While I don't think ALL the silly ideas have worked, I do appreciate them taking big swings.
5. Visit some planets, brighten up and build - This season alone, they've spent time on a Gorn ship, Starbase One, a zombie planet and a mysterious archaeological planet. Silly complaint.
6. Come up with your own ideas - I didn't think we needed Trelane, I did note the BOBW comparison to "Hegemony, Part II" and sure the holodeck episode has been done to death, but that was not the point of the episode. The point however is, SNW, like TOS before it, is an anthology show. They're going to take ideas from different places and put them on the screen. Again, a silly complaint and one that doesn't understand the point of the series.
Yeah. I agree with point 3 and sympathize with point 6, but the rest of it is nonsense. Especially point four.
I am enjoying (sort of) the dance angle with Spock and La'an, but I swear to god, if they have to do an interpretive dance to communicate with a "new civilization" I'm going to lose it.
Nah, Gene '66 said tell your story about people. (See sig) Star Trek is about the characters first and foremost. The grand statement or idea and the oh boy tech is nothing with out interesting characters.
I wanna be honest, I don't actually think TOS is about people 90% of the time. I think it was a conceptual sci-fi show, with the individual characters meaning little.
This is the way I think about it: Imagine if, instead of Kirk, there was another captain on the show (Pike or whoever), or one of the other Connies. Would the story be different? Would the alternate captain make different choices, which in turn resulted in a different story? Generally speaking, I think the answer is no - that the story would have been "ported" over to allow for the existing main cast to make sense into it, and it was moving towards a predetermined conclusion, that neither the character nor the past experiences of the characters mean little in. And when the past experience did mean something, it was just invented for the character on the spot, and could have just as easily been used for something else.
Now, was this a universal? Absolutely not. The actors brought their own spin into the roles, which in turn helped to flesh out dialogue as the show went on. Spock, in particular, got to have several episodes built around his Vulcan heritage. But I don't think there was that much Jim Kirk on the page. He was just the Captain - the main character - the guy who gave the big speech, and got the love interest of the week. Anyone else would've gotten them too who happened to be in the lead.
I think the characters in Star Trek are important, but SNW writers tend to assume that writing about characters means writing about romance or tragic backstories or trauma or whatnot, when all you really need is someone who is fairly likeable and/or acts in a consistent way that can work with any story (eg Spock, Seven, Data, Worf).
A lot of good Star Trek is "how do these well-defined, predictable characters react to this strange event", making the focus mostly external and on the idea/planet of the week, while SNW has a tendency to only engage with sci-fi if it can result in a Discovery-esque emotional revelation or "processing" of a past trauma, which I think is what people are complaining about when they say it's too character-based.
A lot of good Star Trek is "how do these well-defined, predictable characters react to this strange event", making the focus mostly external and on the idea/planet of the week, while SNW has a tendency to only engage with sci-fi if it can result in a Discovery-esque emotional revelation or "processing" of a past trauma, which I think is what people are complaining about when they say it's too character-based.
I agree with this, Kirk is definitely very vague on paper, and his personality changes a lot between episodes. I think he works in part because of Shatner, but also because he's often just treated by scripts as a representative of the Federation - Arena, Errand of Mercy, Devil in the Dark, and others don't really rely on James Kirk being personally impulsive, but rather the Federation being bullish and overconfident and him being emblematic of that.
Let's see:
Worf - Entire immediate family killed during Romulan attack - Raised by Humans.
Dr. Crusher - Husband died under Picard's Command; was only survivor of a Colony epidemic that killed everyone around her.
Data - Only survivor of a Colony wiped out by an Alien lifeform.
Riker - Has no memory of his mother as she dies when he was very very young. Father's response was to put himself into his work and ignore Riker, and shack up with a younger Dr. Pulaski. while leaving Riker with relatives.
Picard (ultimately) - Mother was mentally ill and ultimately killed herself; and Father blamed Picard to a degree.
^^^
Yep, no personal trauma here...oh, wait...
I would disagree. TOS is usually about people, just not always the main characters.
Isn't that the plot of "A Quality of Mercy"?
Yar -- Rape gangs.
Troi-- Lost father at young age.
The only crew member who had a seemingly trauma-free childhood would be Geordi, and he was born blind.
He caught up as an adult. His mom is missing , probably dead.
And later found out she had lost a sister as well.
^^^
And the revelation almost killed her mother.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
