Trek XI = New Doctor WHO?

[Kirk1980]

Now...hopefully this doesn't start a riot or anything but I think that Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams et al are doing to Trek what Russel T Davies did to Doctor WHO.

That is: keep the basic concept, strip it down and replace much of the old show with new attention grabbing, mass audience grabbing level writing.

I don't have a problem with an old show being reinvented but like with WHO, I wonder at what expense to the older show? Both old Trek and old WHO were never perfect, had problems and so on but they were still damn good shows.

Yet the vanguard of the newer version always seem to paint the older incarnations as stupid and lacking in flash and style, ignoring the fact flash and style usually weren't what people remembered from either show.

It's been the overall whole of a good characters, good actors, good plots, some great ideas which made each series the successes they were.

I just don't want to end up feeling the same way about new Trek as I do about new WHO.

Give me an update, sure but don't completely do away with everything in favor of making it appealing to the masses.

 

[blaXXer]

Watch the film when it comes out and you will know if your childhood has been raped or not.

 

[Kirk1980]

Never said that's how I'd feel. I just want the movie to be as good as the show is all.

 

[What's his face]

I think we're all anxious to see this movie for many of the reasons you've stated. Hell, even I, a gushing fanboy who shits all over people who've already decided they hate this movie, have concerns. This is pretty much the last chance for Star Trek, as far as I know. If they fuck it up, it could be the end of this franchise. I sure don't want that, so of course I'm a little nervous about this movie.

But from what I've seen so far, things are looking good. I think the bridge looks a little silly, what with all the barcode scanners and the lights and glass and white everywhere, but the rest is absolutely fine with me.

 

[Butters]

Now...hopefully this doesn't start a riot or anything but I think that Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams et al are doing to Trek what Russel T Davies did to Doctor WHO.

That is: keep the basic concept, strip it down and replace much of the old show with new attention grabbing, mass audience grabbing level writing.

I don't have a problem with an old show being reinvented but like with WHO, I wonder at what expense to the older show? Both old Trek and old WHO were never perfect, had problems and so on but they were still damn good shows.

Yet the vanguard of the newer version always seem to paint the older incarnations as stupid and lacking in flash and style, ignoring the fact flash and style usually weren't what people remembered from either show.

It's been the overall whole of a good characters, good actors, good plots, some great ideas which made each series the successes they were.

I just don't want to end up feeling the same way about new Trek as I do about new WHO.

Give me an update, sure but don't completely do away with everything in favor of making it appealing to the masses.

I'm not entirely sure I understand how you feel about new who, or how NuWho could have been updated succesfully without ditching the baggage. OldWho had a lot of rubbish mixed in with the slower paced and intelligent Drama and Scifi concepts it dispayed, not least the horrendous costumes some of them wore.

Trek has reached the stage, like Dr Who did, where there was the opportunity to tell new stories to a new audience with the new technolgies, styles, trends of today, but that long history and back story is more of a burden than a benefit.

Its been discussed to death but NuWho wasn't a reboot or a reimagining, it was a refurbishment. It kept the same structure and rules, but cleared space for new stories. Thats what Trek needs too.

If a lot of people hated NuWho, like some hardcore fans do, it would have failed, luckily the producers got it right. And thats what I expect from this film, the best of Trek, but without the Warp 10 lizards and other such nonsense.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think that Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams et al are doing to Trek what Russel T Davies did to Doctor WHO.

We can only hope.

 

[Kirk1980]

I wonder if those who praise what RTD's done have...well...seen his writing skills at the fore.

I think he's a pretty bad sci-fi writer.

Sure, he gained a lot of publicity for the show but he did it while ALSO dropping everything but the very very very basics.... like the character's name and the look of the TARDIS.

It's just not solid sci-fi writing.

And Butters....I'm not suggesting you keep everything that SUCKED, why would I suggest that....honestly. I suggest keeping everything which worked. You know...good stories, good characters?

 

[AlanC9]

Now...hopefully this doesn't start a riot or anything but I think that Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams et al are doing to Trek what Russel T Davies did to Doctor WHO.

That is: keep the basic concept, strip it down and replace much of the old show with new attention grabbing, mass audience grabbing level writing.

Wait a minute. This is crazy from the get-go. Doctor Who was never a show with a single style. The Davies version isn't like the Nathan-Turner version, sure, but the Nathan-Turner version wasn't much like the preceding version either. Hell, just in the Tom Baker era we had at least three distinct styles of show. Just compare City of Death and, say, The Talons of Weng-Chiang.

And if you think Doctor Who is about solid sci-fi writing, you haven't watched enough of it.

I'm not saying that the Davies era is perfect -- especially recently, there's been too much crack-brained mysticism for me. But going off in a different direction is an old Who tradition. I just hope they remember this and go in a new direction after Tennant leaves if not before..

 

[JoeZhang]

I wonder if those who praise what RTD's done have...well...seen his writing skills at the fore.

I doubt that ANYONE here on a science fiction board dedicated to Star Trek and with it's own Doctor Who forum have seen a single episode of the new Doctor Who series - it just doesn't sound the sort of thing that people here would be interested in.

 

[Kirk1980]

I know about the different WHO styles but for the most part, I thought each were done well as their style.

The Bondian Pertwee, Hammer Tom Baker, Douglas Adams Tom, Historical Hartnell, etc...they were all pretty good.

And sure, when you've produced hundreds upon hundreds of episodes, there's bound to be more than a few klunkers but there's also a lot of brilliance there, too and just plain good writing.

RTD to me smacks of the worst excesses and failures of the JNT era. Not much substance, all big booms and guest stars.

And Joe, honestly, do you have to have a go at everyone who even mildly dislikes what they've seen so far?

 

[Butters]

I wonder if those who praise what RTD's done have...well...seen his writing skills at the fore.

I think he's a pretty bad sci-fi writer.

Sure, he gained a lot of publicity for the show but he did it while ALSO dropping everything but the very very very basics.... like the character's name and the look of the TARDIS.

It's just not solid sci-fi writing.

And Butters....I'm not suggesting you keep everything that SUCKED, why would I suggest that....honestly. I suggest keeping everything which worked. You know...good stories, good characters?

I agree, NuWho needed to keep the good stories and good characters of the old series, and to the larger extent it did. I would be among the last to suggest RTD was a good sci-fi writer, frankly, he's not, but for me NuWho kept all that was good about the original. Granted, some of the stories have been poor, but the kids love it, and it is for the kids.

The original series never took itself seriously and reversing the polarity of the neutron flow was never good science. The update kept the basics of a mysterious alien with a companion, roaming the universe in a blue box, helping out the little guy. The Time War was a mechanism to kept the old continuity and destroy it at the same time, at the discretion of the future episode writers. The new Trek time-line that this film creates does the same, its a get of jail free card for any future canon violations.

Basically, old Who had its day, time marches forward, audience expectations change. There are things I would have done differently for Dr Who?, and I am convinced that there will be things in new Trek that I will hate but I do believe severing some of the ties with the old canon is absolutely the right thing to do.

 

[JoeZhang]

And Joe, honestly, do you have to have a go at everyone who even mildly dislikes what they've seen so far?

You can dislike what you want - the point you seem to be making is that you've seen RTD's writing therefore you are judging it from a position of authority, those of us who think he done a good job must have not seen what he'd done.

There are two problems with that:

1) it's an implied insult to those of us who disagree with your analysis

2) you are on a science fiction board with a doctor who forum, so the chances of people commenting a) I like what he'd done but also commenting b) I haven't seen what he's done are pretty damn low.

So you can say what you like but when you try and put a dig in there, don't be surprised when people give you a dig back.

 

[Gepard]

If Trek XI is anywhere near as good as NuWho I'll be ecstatic.

 

[Ovation]

If Trek XI is anywhere near as good as NuWho I'll be ecstatic.

Seconded.

 

[Phily B]

The new Doctor Who is a kids show. I'd probably have loved it when I was a kid. I can't even see Star Trek being a show purely for children, at least I hope not.

 

[JoeZhang]

The new Doctor Who is a kids show. I'd probably have loved it when I was a kid. I can't even see Star Trek being a show purely for children, at least I hope not.

No it's a family show, it's not a kid's show which is something different. The BBC doesn't show Kid's shows at prime time*.



* Although you might be fooled if you've ever seen Merlin...

 

[Ovation]

The new Doctor Who is a kids show. I'd probably have loved it when I was a kid. I can't even see Star Trek being a show purely for children, at least I hope not.

When I say I hope the new movie is as good as the new Doctor Who, I mean I hope it is as well executed, not that it aims to the same audience. I could also have said I hope it's as good as Mad Men or House, but somehow Who seemed a more relevant comparison in that it is a revamping and it is sci-fi. And I disagree that the new Who is merely a "kids' show". I'm 41 and I watch it regularly (it's on my PVR) and my kids are still too young (though my daughter is nearly old enough--don't know if she'll like it though). And I watched some "old Who" (Tom Baker to Colin Baker) and the new Who is in no way inferior overall. Both Eccelstone and Tennant have been great. The Sarah Jane show that was spun off from Who is far more a "kids' show"--haven't watched it because I don't have the channel that shows it nor the DVDs, but I've read up on it and I did catch one episode at a friend's house.

Anyway, the original point was about quality of execution, not whether they share the same target audience (or if they should).

 

[Gepard]

And I disagree that the new Who is merely a "kids' show". I'm 41 and I watch it regularly (it's on my PVR) and my kids are still too young (though my daughter is nearly old enough--don't know if she'll like it though).

Also, I'd like to see how "The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit," "Blink," "Midnight," "Doomsday" and "Silence in the Library," among others, are 'kid's shows.' Especially "Midnight," which is essentially a stage play with a dozen characters trapped in a confined space until they're driven to paranoia.

 

[tranya]

I'm praying that Chris Pike gets turned into Dobby and kept in a big bird cage for the whole movie.

 

[Samurai8472]

Trek XI = New Doctor WHO?

I'd like to think so