^ It's alway nice to have someone-some group to gang up on and hate.
Well, ya know, sometimes people are like Slinkies....give 'em a push down the stairs, and it brings a smile to your face.
The End of Star Trek on TV
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
Well, ya know, sometimes people are like Slinkies....give 'em a push down the stairs, and it brings a smile to your face.
Again I do not agree that "swearing and getting drunk on purpose" makes a character automatically interesting, nor that a well mannered character is automatically boring (or are you calling Margaery and the Queen of Thorns boring?)
These characteristics add to Tyrion's appeal because they make sense for his character and thus make him appear more real, but that doesn't mean that every character needs to whore and booze in order to be engaging.
I agree that a character, to work, be interesting and relateable, needs to have flaws but those flaws can take many shapes not just those specific for Tyrion or the carnal vices.
And I agree that the Trek characters had too few flaws. But that doesn't mean that I think that every Trek character should walz around the galaxy swearing and whoring (not that there can't be one or two that do)
It's not that I think every character should go around cursing and seeking whores on uncharted worlds,
but maybe act and sound a little like real people. I'll come back later to expand on it some more.
I agree there should be a middle ground between what producers decide to do and what some fans say they want.
The PTB did make the last two TNG movies in their own way, and it was rejected by the fans.
The criticism ironically, was that they were too much like boring TV episodes.
I've read fans saying "if only they did a Trek movie about the Dominion War when it was popular" after Insurrection was released. They felt it was a missed opportunity.
At the same time, there are some suggestions by fans that should not be listened to.
No. Old 21 Jump Street is 21 Jump Street. New 21 Jump Street is 21 Jump Street. Just, they are not the same 21 Jump Street. They are two separate franchises with the same name.
There's nothing wrong with that at all, but what would make *me* happy is to see more of my Star Trek, not a new Star Trek that is a different franchise with the same name.
Regarding the optimistic philosophy of Trek, it occurs to me that this is why the shows are always about Starfleet - because Starfleet members are more often in a position of having to think about how an ideal civilisation (i.e. the Federation) should behave. Starfleet members have to swear serious oaths before obtaining their positions, and those positions frequently involve questions of huge political, social and moral consequence. People crewing cargo ships would not tend to deal with or think about those things, focusing rather on personal issues.
I will also admit, I am not being objective, I'm being totally subjective.
It's like, there are several different Batman franchises. Comic book Batman, Adam West Batman, 90s movie Batman, Christopher Nolan Batman, Arkham Batman. These are all separate franchises which have heavily influenced each other. The one I care most about seeing expanded is the Arkham Batman because I like Arkham City better than any of the movies.
I grew up watching Berman era Trek. The idea that this version of Star Trek is a closed book that will never be further expanded is a sad prospect. Maybe in the future somebody will write a different Star Trek franchise which is even better, but if it's going to be pew pew pew I won't be watching it.
It's like, there are several different Batman franchises. Comic book Batman, Adam West Batman, 90s movie Batman, Christopher Nolan Batman, Arkham Batman. These are all separate franchises which have heavily influenced each other. The one I care most about seeing expanded is the Arkham Batman because I like Arkham City better than any of the movies.
I grew up watching Berman era Trek. The idea that this version of Star Trek is a closed book that will never be further expanded is a sad prospect. Maybe in the future somebody will write a different Star Trek franchise which is even better, but if it's going to be pew pew pew I won't be watching it.
Testify man! That ain't Trek, that's a robbed corpse.
But that's an arbitrary distinction.
Of course they are not the same 21 Jump Street, in the same way that The Cage and These Are The Voyages... or The Cage and Encounter at Farpoint or The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before are not the same Star Trek. There is a variation between every piece of every franchise. Sometimes that is pronounced (Turnabout Intruder to Encounter at Farpoint) and sometimes it is less so (say, Yesterday's Enterprise to The Offspring). There will always be differences, even within episodes of the same show.
But to try and say that there is something innate and intangible that defines a franchise and that any instalment without that quality is thus not a piece of the franchise is an idea that seems designed to be exclusionary and close-minded. I might not like it, you might not like it, but there is something very entitled about using the fact that it doesn't appeal to what we like about the franchise means that it is somehow categorically NOT the thing we claimed to love.
It's an approach which I find inherently confrontational, because of the implied suggestion that those people who do like it and who do identify it as an object important to them are somehow wrong. To pick an example - that the people who enjoy the JJ Abrams films are not "true Trekkers." That they don't "get" it, that their fandom is somehow particularly "different" from my fandom. Of course it's different, but in the way that every single person's fandom is different, even those who began with the same show, with the same episode.
But I think we kinda agree on this. I think as long as we all accept that it's inherently subjective, people are entitled to their own expectations with the franchise. I just really dislike it when people - no matter what side - project their own vision of a work of art as absolute. The next piece of Star Trek produced will handily come labelled and branded for us. We can assess it and evaluate it, but we cannot invalidate the fact of its existence.
(I feel like I should add, for the record, that I don't want just "pew, pew" lasers. However, I really just want good writing. Whether that involves utopian ideals, space hookers, wars, colonies, freighters, aliens, robots, or space salamander sex, all I want is a collection of good scripts that are smartly written and well realised, accepting all of those values are subjective.)
Sorry, rambling. It's just something that gets my goat. Thank you for a fun and provoking discussion.
Trek went "pew pew pew" long before the Abrams movies, or Insurrection.
Kirk solved his first problem with a bit of "pew pew pew." And a pretty awesome Shatner tumble and roll.
Indeed.
Well told.Without meaning to disparage any one person, but I always found it amusing how people seem to think that "pew pew pew" somehow devalues science fiction/space fantasy. How is "phhwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!" any better?
Indeed.
Without meaning to disparage any one person, but I always found it amusing how people seem to think that "pew pew pew" somehow devalues science fiction/space fantasy. How is "phhwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!" any better?
That's the thing though is star trek science fiction or space fantasy?
Indeed.
Without meaning to disparage any one person, but I always found it amusing how people seem to think that "pew pew pew" somehow devalues science fiction/space fantasy. How is "phhwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!" any better?
That's the thing though is star trek science fiction or space fantasy?
I tend to feel that Trek is a nice mixture of both. On the one hand, the writers do try to put an emphasis on some scientific credibility (forgetting for a moment about technobabble). What they can explain in an alotted time, they try to explain. On the other hand, a lot of what happens in Trek from a scientific viewpoint doesn't need explaining because it would just bog the story and potentially bore the viewer. That's where the space fantasy comes in. The tech works, just believe it, and enjoy the story. After all, it is all about the story and enjoyment of same.
It was stated best in the ST:TNG Technical Manual....using more than just a minute portion of this manual to tell a Star Trek tale is doing a disservice to the needs of the story. (Or something like that.)
Lemme put this another way:
A brief, and simple explanation of how warp drive works, based in some scientific grounding: Star Trek is science fiction.
A lengthy string of technobabble to explain why the warp engine fracked up: Star Trek is space fantasy.
Make any sense?
I've always found that an arbitrary distinction when talking about a franchise populated mostly with bumpy-headed alien monocultures, inconsistent rules of time-travel and alien-human hybrids.
I'm not sure that "pew pew pew" is a defining factor between one or the other.
Muad'Dib... Muad'Dib... Muad'Dib...
Similar threads
