Looking over the retrospective as I'm working through it I think I'll end up separating it into sections focusing on each aspect of the franchise as it evolved rather than having this one long article. On a website it would certainly be more digestible that way.
Here's the most recent update of my retrospective at 22 pages, edited and revised and including some pics: http://freepdfhosting.com/b46390b5d6.pdf
I must say, Warped9, while you must know I don't totally agree with your opinions, I think you have a fairly well-balanced presentation based on your perspective there. I look foward to seeing it evolve.
You have made many improvements in this version over the previous one, Warped9. I am curious, however, about one thing. In discussing the films, especially in the entries for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, you mention, for example, "many evident logic flaws," but never fully explore this idea. I assume these are your criticisms, although they are certainly shared by many other fans. Why not elaborate on these points? As you indicate, the point of this site will not be to re-tread on old ground (you rightfully avoid recounting Roddenberry's efforts to launch the series and instead point to The Making of Star Trek and Inside Star Trek), but to offer your perspective and analysis of Star Trek. I think you have room (and justification) to more further develop your opinions. And, if I've misjudged your purposes, please feel free to take no heed of my comments. In any event, although we disagree on many points, I have been following this project with enthusiasm and hope you continue.
I'm nearing the end of this thing and I've just finished the section dealing TOS-R and Trek XI. I want to inject a few details here and there to flesh certain things out. I also want to add a couple of more pics. I'm get uncertain over how much detail to get into regarding things like logic flaws in films and series and individual episodes because I don't want to get too far off track. On the website (when I get it running) I'll likely be delving more deeply into individual films and shows, but this is a general overview. It's also a chance for me to get my broad thoughts down and organized that I can flesh out later when I deal with specific things in other parts of the website. I've tried to temper my own criticisms in this overview and tried to step back to some degree. I will say that my own perspectives will be more apparent when I deal with more specific elements. After all the website in general will be TOS-TMP centric. Within the next few days I'll offer up the finalized version of the overview for download. I've been assimilating all the remarks in all those threads I started in each forum and distilling them into something more succinct in order to be fair and more encompassing.
I would agree with the idea of including only broad criticisms of the direction of the franchise or criticisms that apply across series and films in the writeup, and saving specific criticisms for your reviews on the website. You might consider addressing general areas that you have criticism in, say, a paragraph each in a type of conclusion at the end. I look forward to reading the revision.
When I look at early TNG I see echoes of the abandoned Phase II series. Maybe that's part of why I kind of like early TNG.
Me too, especially strongly in the mentor/student relationship between Picard and Riker that mimics Kirk/Decker (especially in "Encounter at Farpoint" - Picard is a bit condescending) the Decker/Ilia romance echoed in Riker/Troi, and Xon/Data tryng to be more like humans and experience emotion. Even some of the notions about the relaxed feel of the ship's environment and the way things worked felt similar to how they were described in the "Phase II" bible. IMO, the strongest thing that early TNG had going for it, ignoring the awkward pacing and bland writing, was that it had a message, a purpose, which I think it inherited from "Phase II."
There are a handful of episodes from 1st and 2nd season that feel like they've almost got it. They had some edge to them. They felt something like TOS but with a new group of characters. If TNG had built on that I think it could have been grand. That feeling was echoed in some of the early Pocket Books TNG novels as well. I liked Ghost Ship, A Rock And A Hard Place and Vendetta and some others. When you read David Gerrold's Voyage Of The Star Wolf you get a feeling for what TNG could have been particularly character wise. I like the idea of Picard being a little hardnosed, especially whgen being proved right.
I hear what you're saying, and I definitely agree. Because it had its roots right there in Phase II, TNG, to me, is the show that had the greatest potential for directly replicating what TOS did right, and improving upon it, fixing those things that TOS got wrong. Ultimately, of course, it took its own path. Don't get me wrong, I grew up on TNG, and I still am very fond of it, but it could have been a lot different, and, dare I say, even better. I see TNG as the sequel to TOS, and DS9, VGR, and ENT as spinoffs. The distinction? To me, DS9, VGR, and ENT were each purposefully different shows, yet each, being of the Star Trek family, had a potential of recapturing that introspective yet forward-thinking mystique and flavor, but of course each of those were successful and unsuccessful in varying debateable extents, and in various different ways.
Why don't you just concentrate on TOS? You don't have any interest in the other series. You should concentrate on what you know. RAMA
Done: http://freepdfhosting.com/a1237735e0.pdf Tweaking and fleshed out a touch here and there. Also added a couple of extra pics.
Star Wolf is possibly one the best TV shows never made. Have read those three books (and Star Hunt) many times and never cease to enjoy them. Also have read the first four scripts and writers guide for the proposed TV series, and it could've been a classic.
Warped9, I've read this revised version twice now. I find many of your observations and conclusions compelling, and indeed quite fair, given that you are stating this all from your own personal perspective. I think you've done a good job presenting your viewpoint without being pushy on it. I look forward to seeing this all fleshed out on the site. I think I would like to see a conclusion section to the PDF, where you basically assess and summarize where and what the franchise generally did "wrong" and perhaps name particular areas where you feel the incorrect choices were made. I think this would nicely bookend the observations from the previous sections. Though I wasn't reading for editing, a brief note: on p 29, Hercules is mis-spelled "Hurcules." That was all I saw.
^^ Thanks. Good points and I've been thinking of a better summation and so I'll reflect on it. I'm also thinking that while this will eventually be posted on the site I may still give folks the option of downloading the PDF. As I reread it myself I see places where I can reword sentences to tighten them up and not seem so wordy. Small note: the last pic is of the TOS E in flyby as a sort of punctuation after the last line, "...forty years after it arrived." On the website I thought it would be kinda cool if that last image were actually a repeating clip (without sound) of that sequence in motion taken from an episode. I can be such a geek. In some respects science fiction seems little more advanced than it was in the '60s in struggling for a measure of respect, at least adult level and multilayered SF of a generally serious nature. Certainly space adventure doesn't seem as prominant as it once did. I don't really think it's lack of audience interest as much as perceived expense and lack of producer interest. And it's curious that as our society has become more tech oriented there's also been an increase in the interest of fantasy like genre materiel and perhaps related real world things like the paranormal, religion and even the occult. I could be wrong but it does seem that way. There also still seems to be the prevalent mindset that science fiction is either bright fun and not-so-smart or dark, often dystopic and grim to be taken seriously. Even the darker stuff isn't always that serious. Terminator: Salvation doesn't carry the cautionary message the Terminator series once did. Rather it's mostly about "blow up stuff real good."
I've been thinking on this and I agree. I'll make an effort to summarize it overall. Some of the things being remarked on in the various threads I've started throughout these forums could well end up in sections where I'm more specific. Although it will be TOS-TMP centric I will remark on the other series. ENT itself has enough to warrant commenting on quite a few things particularly in regard to what the show could have been as opposed to how it came out.
That sounds good. I look forward to it. The more you express your opinion, the better for what you're trying to accomplish, I'd say. As long as you maintain a fair balance of perspectives in your historical assessment, I think you're entitled to reach your own conclusions, right?
One of the things I'm looking forward to is that this sight will offer me a chance to showcase some of my Never seen TOS scenes images to depict things and events suggested but never actually onscreen. I may have to remake a lot of them since many were mad on my first computer which was a 500ghz iMac with a 14" display. Now I have a larger display with better resolution and I can see some of the flaws more easily.