Boom goes the dynamite!
Time To Come Out...
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
It just seems to me that if you have a fanbase that seems so bound and determined to be disappointed by whatever you do, eventually you just need to stop bending over backward to please them.
In my mind, the best thing the producers of Discovery can possibly do is set out to tell the best possible stories they can as capably as they can, and the show will find its fans.
I agree with you for the most part.
People don't dislike the Kelvin films because of their "modern style of storytelling" though, whatever that means. It's because, at least in the case of the second movie and partially the first, the writing sucks. They're entertaining and MUCH nicer to look at than any of the older films, but Into Darkness really does play out like a child wrote the script, like they tried to put as many big action sequences and emotional highs in as possible, and then wrote a lackluster story tying all of those pieces together, even if they contradicted each other or made little sense as a whole.
I like '09, it's always a fun watch. Great action, some nice callbacks to the original series, a passable villain that's really just there as framework to hang an Enterprise origin story on, and a wonderful return to form for a franchise that desperately needed it. It's Into Darkness that doesn't really try anything new, and while I liked Beyond after first seeing it (Pegg can write a much better script than Orci & Kurtzman), it loses a bit of that J. J. Abrams charm.
The original cast films didn't even measure up compared to TOS, as adult SF drama. Abrams took that further. We're losing all idea of what "adult" means.
TOS bored me pretty fast. If the films and particularly TNG and DS9 had not happened I would not be a Trek fan. I still find the era boring today, except as a historical footnote. It's part of the reason I could not be bothered with enterprise.
Also...I made mistake drifting away during Voyager. It's much better than most give it credit for.
Also...I made mistake drifting away during Voyager. It's much better than most give it credit for.
I was going to join in on this tread, but then I saw this. My thoughts exactly. I also hate that the ship on ENT was called Enterprise. Needless disregard of canon. It not being a Federation ship was a poor excuse. Call it literally anything else. Discovery would have worked well!!
Every Berman era-series was too long, with too many filler episodes.
I will always enjoy 09, ST ID and Beyond far more than any of the TNG era films. They speak more to me on a story, character, and human level, than most other Trek films. They are deep, character driven pieces that I can rewatch again and again.
Sorry, TNG films, but I'll pass.
Sorry, TNG films, but I'll pass.
Fixed that for ya
TNG had plenty of times when characters made mistakes. And "taken down a notch" - how about "Q Who"; Picard had to practically beg Q to help them out because they were not ready.
I got sick of 7 of 9 after season 5 of Voyager. He motivations and nebulous quest for humanity just wasn't well planned. I also didn't like the fact that Voyager essentially became the 7 of 9 show featuring her wacky pals the Doctor and Captain Janeway, occasional cameos by everyone else for the last two seasons.
That said, I like Voyager more than Deep Space Nine and I like Enterprise more than Voyager.
Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG are my favorite of that show.
Finally, my favorite Trek movie is the Special Longer Version of The Motion Picture, warts and all.
That said, I like Voyager more than Deep Space Nine and I like Enterprise more than Voyager.
Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG are my favorite of that show.
Finally, my favorite Trek movie is the Special Longer Version of The Motion Picture, warts and all.
My Trek likes and dislikes fluctuate over the years.
- I don't like battle scenes and military conflicts that span more than one episode. Star Trek does not do "war" very well, I can't imagine what wars might look like in the 23-24th centuries, but it won't be this. Most action scenes bore me actually.
- In general, most conflicts that span over more than one episode are just lazy writing in my opinion. I like Trek that is "one episode explores an interesting Sci Fi idea and puts it to rest" type of deal.
- Half of Star Trek isn't that great, but nothing in similar quantities comes close.
- I don't like battle scenes and military conflicts that span more than one episode. Star Trek does not do "war" very well, I can't imagine what wars might look like in the 23-24th centuries, but it won't be this. Most action scenes bore me actually.
- In general, most conflicts that span over more than one episode are just lazy writing in my opinion. I like Trek that is "one episode explores an interesting Sci Fi idea and puts it to rest" type of deal.
- Half of Star Trek isn't that great, but nothing in similar quantities comes close.
Jettison your ready made audience, in the hope that you can build a new viewer base from scratch?
No, I don't mean that at all.
Looking at this thread as an example, the only two takeaways are:
1. Everyone here enjoys Star Trek.
2. No two people enjoy Star Trek the exact same way.
There is no iteration of Star Trek that exists that every fan enjoys. People like different aspects of the various series; some dismiss entire series outright that others will champion.
My point is, if your Star Trek work can't please all the fans, then don't worry about it. It was never going to, anyway. The series will find those people that will enjoy it, whether they're already fans of Star Trek or not.
I find that ST ID has got far more to say than most star trek movies but more often than not that is over powered by the bizarre scenes that are meant to be a homage to ST WOK and the fact that kirk was brought back to life by khans blood.
I really like the original motion picture. Sure, the 2nd film was a clear move toward a more popular formula, but the concept behind the 1st movie is sound. They didn't just want to bring back to life the series. They wanted to move it into a new direction, a more serious Star Trek. It felt very advanced to me.
They were trying something different, for which they deserve credit however one feels about TMP as a piece of entertainment.
The problem for me is the whole concept of the Maquis. They only start at all from TNG: Journey's End in s7/late 2370 (stardate 47751) and then announce themsleves in DS9: The Maquis a little later (47802)
Then in VOY: Caretaker takes place like six months later (2371, 48315) So Chakotay and his gang have only even been "the Maquis" for six months. Six months! That's the equivalent of last Christmas Day to today now (which doesn't seem long ago at all.)
So even well by the start of Voyager Season 2, they've already all been Voyager crew members longer than they were ever even in the Maquis! And before that most were just normal Federation citizens. But you keep hearing "ooh we're Maquis, we're Maquis" like it's a huge part of their culture and identity, when frankly it was a brief six month period in their lives.
Yeah ok a lot can happen in six months, but just saying. The way Chakotay or B'Elanna sometimes went on about being a Maquis it was as if they'd been born and raised that way as had their parents and grandparents or something.
But, the "magic blood" is no more magical than the transporters, and that tech has been used to heal old age, among other ailments, a number of times. Also, "blood doping" and "blood therapies" are real things that are used to treat real world ailments. It's more grounded than its given credit for, even if it wasn't presented the best (i.e. the tribble).
So, ID's message is overpowered by a concept that is less far-fetched than the transporter. Sorry, I don't get it
Similar threads
