I think I did see lieing, cheating, stealing, loving, and crying in TOS
The only way forward for Star Trek
- Thread starter Delta Vega
- Start date
- Status
Reboot. No tie ins to Enterprise.......please!!!!!
MattWallace
Lieutenant
Trek is not the same as NuBSG and I didn't claim that it was. For one thing, Kirk & Company aren't the last surviors of humanity being tracked down by a relentless enemy.
They're explorers and, as we saw on TOS, it's a dangerous job and people die. Treating that fact in a more grown up, mature manner than simple shrugging it off by the next commercial break just keeps Trek from being able to make serious statements about society. Not just the way they treat death of course, but the general way that people act and react to what happens to them.
If I were making the next Trek the biggest change I`d make is having Amanda be Spock`s adopted mother since the whole idea of humans and aliens interbreeding is silly. Other than that one change in the back story the rest of the changes would come from how the characters are treated by the stories and how they react.
They`d still be on a Federation Starship. It would be the same crew we know from TOS but with NOTHING to connect it to the original run or the latest movie. Let it make it`s own way.
While there is a certain truth to the "end of the episode laugh" thing, quite often death had a serious impact on our heroes. Kirk's "lets get the hell out of here" at the end of COTEOF comes to mind.
Star Trek was, as pointed out many times before, basically morality plays based on 1960s moralities and predictions for the future.
Well, it is 2011 now, lets have Star Trek reflecting more of a 2010's vision of the future please, not try and remake it so that we have the same old 1960s outlook with fancier special effects.
Oh, wait, we do have that, and its the 2009+ movie series, good-o!
JJ Abrams threaded that timeline needle with a sledge hammer. And since Enterprise has been tied into that abomination, I see no reason for it to exist in the original time line at all. Ideally a new tv series should tie into both continuities. That's the trick - both and neither. Do they do direct to DVD series? Else reimagine Enterprise and put it on a cable channel. I would love for it to be on NBC in primetime but they won't sell the golden goose. Right now they're whiping golden eggs out of it and making egg salad.
Last edited:
Do you ever review your posts before hitting "submit reply"?
"Threaded that timeline needle with a sledge hammer"?
"Right now they're wiping golden eggs out of it"
What I mean it it's not easy, but it's not impossible. It's a conundrum is all. What we need is Batman to decipher and solve the riddle. And then we need someone to deliver that script into the right hands a la the opening scene of X-men 2 is all which is too say the odds are slim to none because everyone says they can do it and loves power and money. Hence them handing it to JJ. The mule that are the movies are irrelovant.
Last edited:
I'd like a new Mission Impossible show where sometimes they don't accept the mission and half the time they fail, but character names are all the same. Huh?
Trek generally was optimism, idic, wonder. Why take a different ethos and shoehorn it into Star Trek names and characters? Why not just enjoy other, grittier sci fi shows and franchises, and let Trek be Trek?
Not that it's coming back. And that's fine. We'll always have the 79. Or DS9, which pushed the grit as far as Trek could (not very).
Tink what you think. I'm not out to berate.
Trek generally was optimism, idic, wonder. Why take a different ethos and shoehorn it into Star Trek names and characters? Why not just enjoy other, grittier sci fi shows and franchises, and let Trek be Trek?
Not that it's coming back. And that's fine. We'll always have the 79. Or DS9, which pushed the grit as far as Trek could (not very).
Tink what you think. I'm not out to berate.
Still not making sense.
I agree with your point but would like to add that you can go dark and gritty in Trek as long as there is progress. Take TUC and FC, Kirk and Picard seriously err but realize and correct their mistakes before it is too late. Or take "The Drumhead", by showing how fragile this paradise is you make it less static and quasi-dynamic, people gotta work hard all the time in order to maintain the lovely status quo, if they stopped some nastier folks might gain power and undo a lot of progress.
MattWallace
Lieutenant
Seeing our characters fail from time to time would let us see them in a whole new light. Or, in the words of James T Kirk "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?"
They don't have to fail as often as they succeed. They can, however, have a less than complete success. Get the scientist and his weapon plans away from the Klingons but fail to save his family. Then we can see how they would deal with that. And not just with a bit of sad music, a comforting hand on a shoulder and a slow walk away. Let's see some actual emotion.
Or what happens if they can't get the scientist away and if he's left with the Klingons they will be able to create a weapon that the Federation doesn't have a defense against and won't for quite a while. What happens when Kirk decides to shoot him to keep him out of the hands of the Klingons?
It's not the 60's any more. We don't need a moral that could have come out of a fortune cookie. Don't sell Star Trek short. It can tell bigger, more important stories.
Btw - IDIC was intoduced about half way through the third season, hardly part of the foundation of the series. And it was created to sell mechandise to the fans in the form of IDIC necklaces.
Well Archer kills quite a few aliens for similar reasons in season three of Enterprise which Kirk would have never done. He beilieved in compassion and what you put forth is what you get and wasn't a murderer under any circumstances. goes to character, your honor. He was always looking for that third option and solution. Of course Spock always had the answer, thank God, er, Spock. Nothing is more important than character, not even survival.
MattWallace
Lieutenant
There isn't always a third way. Having the character always pull a solution out of his ass in the final act is just lazy. Let your characters make the hard decisions and even get some of them wrong from time to time. It's easy to be the hero if you're always right.
Nah, there should always be a third choice found, but, yea, it shouldn't always succeed, and when it doesn't, it should make a difference.
That is sig worthy.
TV, I'm not sure a new TV series will come up anytime soon. If a third film shows a strong commercial interest is being maintained by the JJ Adams work there might be an attempt at a series. Right now, I'm content that a new fun set of Trek films are in the making.
Yes, of course. I was refering to the basic idea, there right at the birth (Balok, Horta), that what seems bad can be cool or worthwhile. Not the pendant, though it's from one of my favorite eps.
And Xortex - love the posts, seriously. Not the norm; thanks for the fun.
He never does.
It behooves me to point out that A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR's ending is an example of what a more realistic, more downbeat TREK could present. As sad as the ending of CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER was, Kirk did save the galaxy from extinction. I would say the ending to WAR was even more downbeat. Kirk failed to save the planet from the endless cycle of violence. Gradually, bit by bit, the planet is lost. This grim ending was even reflected in the mournful music during the last 10 seconds.
- Status
