Yep.
What is Star Trek and its future?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Except there is backstory in TOS and TNG, and etc...
It's done in a beautiful way so that every episode provides it for the viewer - just in case they didn't know (tuning in for the first time). It's the introductory preamble of every episode.
...to explore strange new worlds...yada yada
There were other shows that didn't do that and I think it made them harder to "get in to". Even Gilligans island had that in the form of the theme song.
Having an "Origin Episode" doesn't really solve the back story problem for those who didn't catch it. But repeating it at the beginning of every episode does.
Do you have an example of the more complex characters viewers demand? I'm just curious because I don't get the same feeling you do. Or maybe more of an explanation of what you mean?
Because it's not there.
Good introductions to a series:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbBX6aEzEz8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLs0V8T5AA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvURidpkCY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUcKJflBG8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5nB2OJnCko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfR7qxtgCgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcwPo37Q23w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lih-z4G4jY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjL8WXjlGI&index=2&list=RD9IyJ3uoDMsg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdeSWRToVpw
There are lots of examples available. But the essential point is that a good intro gives the viewer an immediate basic grasp of what's going on. After that the writing and overall execution takes over to inform the viewer piece by piece.
Last edited:
That's not an origin or even backstory. It's not even an accurate description of either Enterprises' mission.
Back story is not the same as showing the origin of our crew, where they are from and how they came together. Back story is the basic premise of your world, and then the characters and stories would flesh it out from there.
There is a concept in screenplay writing that you should go in to a scene as late as possible and leave as early as possible, because it creates the illusion of the fictional world is proceeding on regardless of whether or not the audience is viewing it. Star Trek did this often with tools like "Captain's Log" or opening on Kirk and Spock in the middle of a chess game. What happened before is not known, just that they were doing something.
Origin stories can ruin that if done poorly. But, they are not the same as a back story, which does not have to happen entirely on screen.
No, it's not an origin. But is it a bit of backstory. Just enough to get the gist of it. Not a complete backstory - but enough. And it literally is the mission the crew are on - the mission may not be accurate to what they end up doing - but it is the reason they are where they are - and that gives the viewer backstory. It's not unique to ST, but I think it adds more than folks think. Think about Gilligan's Island and that theme song. By the time the episode starts, even if you have never seen one, you know who, where, why, and how they got were they are - and you can assume when. It's not an origin story, but it is backstory - as a silly song.
It a suggested technique for story writing as well - although it's also something that some writers say to avoid. If it is done poorly it can lead to confusion. On the other hand, it can be used to avoid the need of long and tedious descriptions. But, it can kill the "Ace" (that all important opening line).
To me, "origin" is "how it all began". Backstory is "why they are where they are". I am not sure origin is required in a show - and the fact that is a visual medium allows you to skip a lot too. In a book, I would have to describe Spock, including his rank, his alien nature, his personality, etc.... On screen, you can skip that - much of it is implied and the audience can figure it out.
@ Warped.
I think you replied to the wrong post. Anyways, I didn't say it was unique or the best - I just said it was there. And yes, it isn't as complete as it could be, but it is enough. Think about it not being there? It really does give you an idea of why they are where they are. A lot better than this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIe5utv4n4
I think you replied to the wrong post. Anyways, I didn't say it was unique or the best - I just said it was there. And yes, it isn't as complete as it could be, but it is enough. Think about it not being there? It really does give you an idea of why they are where they are. A lot better than this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIe5utv4n4
I regard the first episodes of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT adequate origin stories. They all establish a proper BEGINNING of an era.
By more complex characters, I'm referring to the way characters are allowed to evolve throughout the series; having the ability to apply the skills or knowledge in one episode based on the character's experience from previous episodes, or previously established history.
TNG used this to a certain extent, and it was used more with DS9, VOY, and ENT. For the most part, the TOS characters were extremely static. Typical to story-telling style of the time, viewers were supposed to accept that those characters had always been middle-aged officers on a starship, and would always remain that way after the show is gone.
Don't get me wrong, I love TOS and all the characters for what they are. But as my personal tastes have developed, I find that I prefer TV shows that I can treat like super-long movies: I want a defined beginning and end; I want intelligent, creative writing; I want complex, intersecting plots; and I want characters that can adapt, react, and realistically change based on world they're exposed to week-in and week-out.
If I understand your point correctly, you want dynamic characters, one's who, by the end of the story, have gone through some sort of change. Not a good or bad thing, just a change of some kind.
TOS is certainly a product of its time, but it also presents us with characters that are to be admired and looked up to, rather than being dynamic in the sense that they evolve due to their circumstances. I don't think I'm phrasing that very well, but that is my attempt at explaining the difference.
I think that TOS characters (at least Kirk and Spock) are dynamic in the sense that how Shatner and Nimoy played them became more nuanced, and had different responses to some things than perhaps early on. All part of the development process of a TV show.
Regardless, I think characters just depend on the circumstances and the audience reaction to it. Would you consider Hawkeye, from the TV series M*A*S*H a dynamic character?
Static characters can be just as interesting to me as well, as their reaction to circumstances may be different than how I would react.
I think more complex characters can be good, but that does not mean that we need their origin or back story presented in a full length, feature film.
tl: dr-Characters are good, both static and dynamic.
Yes. It doesn't have to be all of the characters, but people change in real life (sometimes fast, sometimes slow). I like to see that reflected in the TV and movies I watch.
I agree. I enjoy TOS, I really do. I just think the old episodic format and unchanging characters reflects a different time when the was little demand for depth in plot or character.
Sorry, M*A*S*H was a little before my time, and reruns weren't shown a lot, not when I was watching TV anyway. To quote Saavik, "I have no knowledge."
Agreed. I don't need their life stories either. I just want a beginning of some sort - some little thing that explains why this segment of their world and this part of their lives is going to be significant compared to what came before.
Well, M*A*S*H is on Netflix if you have access and want to expand your knowledge. It presents probably one of the more interesting dynamics of individual characters changing, yet not being overt about it. It doesn't call out the change, and is still episodic in its formatting.
I think characters can be static or dynamic depending on the demands of the story. I want characters who behave realistically based upon their motivation rather than on how they would necessarily behave in the real world.
Significance? That is a tougher question to answer, because what is significant to the characters may mean nothing to me. That is kind of the logical fallacy of the origin story-"Well, we have to start somewhere, so it might as well be at the beginning."
Well, the beginning is not always the most interesting for the audience and may not be the most important moment in the characters', or the world's life.
That is why I think origin stories are unnecessary, and that back story can be filled in through dialogue, or other story devices.
Characterization is a tough thing to do, especially when you are working with an ensemble cast that is even more difficult.
Thanks for the tip. I do have Netflix and I'll give it a shot (keep you posted).
Ok, yeah. I can get on board with that. I guess in that context, I would just like to see that the characters' motivations (at least somewhat) reflect previously established experiences. That's kinda what I mean by dynamic.
I used the word "significant" just to emphasize that IMO it doesn't necessarily have to be the biggest, life-altering event of a character's life. In fact, as the first episode, I certainly hope it won't be the most important moment in the characters' life - maybe save that for the finale!
I agree. It's not necessary, and you're right about other opportunities to fill in back story. This is just my opinion and personal preference.
Like I've said before, every ST spin-off has had an acceptable origin episode IMO. However, I would have loved to see a TOS episode that included Kirk taking command, Enterprise leaving space dock to start their 5-year mission, or something that just identifies this episode as the beginning of the story (it could've been as simple as including it in a log entry. It doesn't have to be much for me).
When I think of the 2nd TOS pilot--the one that actually sold Star Trek as a series for production--it could be interpreted as the "baptism of fire"--the first big event under Kirk's command.
The notion of seeing Kirk taking command and seeing the ship depart on its mission could have been merely routine and nothing truly worthy of being seen other to satisfy those interested in trivia.
After that nothing major might happen until "The Corbomite Maneuver" wherein they encounter the First Federation. Prior to that we have a routine medical check-up for a pair of archeologists that only becomes noteworthy because one of them is actually dead and her impostor is an alien creature. The other event is taking a conman into custody who manages to temporaily derail the Enterprise from getting replacement dilithium crystals in a timely manner.
The stories of "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Mudd's Women" and "The Man Trap" are basically the Enterprise doing routine things that are part of its expected duties and something unexpected happens during those events. For me the first really major event isn't until "The Corbomite Maneuver" where we see something that is the epitome of Star Trek as a concept: encountering the unknown and unexpected even as they're supposedly actively seeking that out.
But much of the series is built on the idea of the unexpected arising out of what are supposed to be routine exercises. And yet any one of the four aforementioned episodes clearly illustrate the humanity at the core of these stories--believable people dealing with unknown and unexpected dangers even while being trained for it. Yet how can you really train for something if you really don't know what to expect?
You learn by experience.
If I were truly concerned about an origin story for these kinds of characters it doesn't need to be "when they all got together and the ship launched." It could be as simple as seeing these characters a bit green and naive when they finally hit something even mildy outside their frame of familiarity.
TNG's "Q, Who?" was (for me) the most enjoyable Borg episode. It was also one of my favourite TNG episodes overall. Picard adequately expresses how encountering the Borg is a kick at Starfleet's complacency--the mindset that "they'd seen it all and were ready for anything." That's pretty much the sense of naivete I was trying to describe above.
The problem I have with the vast majority of conventional origin stories is that they come accross as so paint-by-number as the pieces are put together. I'd much rather that first story be a "baptism of fire" that puts me right into the action and the meat of the story ASAP.
And maybe it's also why I don't have to have every little thing spelled out for me onscreen. In example I off the excellent animated film The Iron Giant. In TIG we never learn where the robot comes from. It is a beginning for him (in a sense) because he has no reccollection of what he did or where he was before he arrives on Earth. For young Hobart Hughes his adventure begins upon finding the giant robot in the woods.
During the film we learn the robot is actually a massive weapon that might or might not have been used in a war. We never learn why or how he ended up on Earth. It's also possible that he was dispatched to land somewhere else (as a destructive weapon) and something happened so that he landed on Earth by mistake.
We never learn the answer to these questions, but it doesn't matter because they're utterly unimportant to the main story. And they also lend the robot an air of mystery and sense of wonder that would be completely undermined if everything were explained from the beginning.
Back in Trek we know Kirk had a previous command before the Enterprise. We can assume his performance at that time must have resulted in something truly noteworthy for him to be given command of the Enterprise when Pike was promoted.
Do we really have to know the specifics? I can almost guarantee that whatever story someone came up with it would feel anticlimactic. Perhaps it could be explained or referenced down the line somewhere in a conversation during the 5-year mission.
One also doesn't need arc based storytelling to have characters evolve. It's been done in episodic television already. M*A*S*H was but one example given. Series can be largely episodic with plot threads running throughout that crop up from time to time. The X-Files was a perfect example of this--they had a lot of monster-of-the-week stories for the bulk of the series with the alien conspiracy storyline running throughout in the background that came to the forefront every so often.
The notion of seeing Kirk taking command and seeing the ship depart on its mission could have been merely routine and nothing truly worthy of being seen other to satisfy those interested in trivia.
After that nothing major might happen until "The Corbomite Maneuver" wherein they encounter the First Federation. Prior to that we have a routine medical check-up for a pair of archeologists that only becomes noteworthy because one of them is actually dead and her impostor is an alien creature. The other event is taking a conman into custody who manages to temporaily derail the Enterprise from getting replacement dilithium crystals in a timely manner.
The stories of "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Mudd's Women" and "The Man Trap" are basically the Enterprise doing routine things that are part of its expected duties and something unexpected happens during those events. For me the first really major event isn't until "The Corbomite Maneuver" where we see something that is the epitome of Star Trek as a concept: encountering the unknown and unexpected even as they're supposedly actively seeking that out.
But much of the series is built on the idea of the unexpected arising out of what are supposed to be routine exercises. And yet any one of the four aforementioned episodes clearly illustrate the humanity at the core of these stories--believable people dealing with unknown and unexpected dangers even while being trained for it. Yet how can you really train for something if you really don't know what to expect?
You learn by experience.
If I were truly concerned about an origin story for these kinds of characters it doesn't need to be "when they all got together and the ship launched." It could be as simple as seeing these characters a bit green and naive when they finally hit something even mildy outside their frame of familiarity.
TNG's "Q, Who?" was (for me) the most enjoyable Borg episode. It was also one of my favourite TNG episodes overall. Picard adequately expresses how encountering the Borg is a kick at Starfleet's complacency--the mindset that "they'd seen it all and were ready for anything." That's pretty much the sense of naivete I was trying to describe above.
The problem I have with the vast majority of conventional origin stories is that they come accross as so paint-by-number as the pieces are put together. I'd much rather that first story be a "baptism of fire" that puts me right into the action and the meat of the story ASAP.
And maybe it's also why I don't have to have every little thing spelled out for me onscreen. In example I off the excellent animated film The Iron Giant. In TIG we never learn where the robot comes from. It is a beginning for him (in a sense) because he has no reccollection of what he did or where he was before he arrives on Earth. For young Hobart Hughes his adventure begins upon finding the giant robot in the woods.
During the film we learn the robot is actually a massive weapon that might or might not have been used in a war. We never learn why or how he ended up on Earth. It's also possible that he was dispatched to land somewhere else (as a destructive weapon) and something happened so that he landed on Earth by mistake.
We never learn the answer to these questions, but it doesn't matter because they're utterly unimportant to the main story. And they also lend the robot an air of mystery and sense of wonder that would be completely undermined if everything were explained from the beginning.
Back in Trek we know Kirk had a previous command before the Enterprise. We can assume his performance at that time must have resulted in something truly noteworthy for him to be given command of the Enterprise when Pike was promoted.
Do we really have to know the specifics? I can almost guarantee that whatever story someone came up with it would feel anticlimactic. Perhaps it could be explained or referenced down the line somewhere in a conversation during the 5-year mission.
One also doesn't need arc based storytelling to have characters evolve. It's been done in episodic television already. M*A*S*H was but one example given. Series can be largely episodic with plot threads running throughout that crop up from time to time. The X-Files was a perfect example of this--they had a lot of monster-of-the-week stories for the bulk of the series with the alien conspiracy storyline running throughout in the background that came to the forefront every so often.
I've noticed you are sometimes fond of one word responses so I'll give you one here.
No.
This is why I prefer the term "speculative fiction" rather than the term "science fiction" and "fantasy" as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.
You can dig in to details and sub-genres but at the end, it is all speculative on the part of the author, asking the audience to come along.
Speculative fiction could be said to include horror; slipstream, etc. Those stories not rooted in the real world, in the present or known past.
Horror involving elements of the supernatural is pretty much by definition a sub-genre of fantasy, and possibly other genres too. If we're just talking, say torture or crazy serial killers, though, I wouldn't place it under fantasy, myself.
Similar threads
- Locked
