What's next for the Lit Verse
- Thread starter adamisme
- Start date
Whaaaaaaaaa? It’s not Blazing Saddles, but it’s not Men in Tights either.
No accounting for tastes. I like Robin Hood: Men in Tights somewhat better than Spaceballs. Although neither one is on a par with Blazing Saddles or Young Frankenstein. Like many of Brooks's later films, they're too much about parodying specific scenes and elements from other specific movies, rather than just telling funny stories in genre contexts. Certainly YF makes countless nods to the Universal Frankenstein films, but what makes it work is that it's not just a spoof of them, but a sequel to them, so it's continuing the reality they built rather than just referencing it.
Fun fact: The "Men in Tights" song is the same music as the "Jews in Space" song from History of the World Part I.
Getting back to the original topic...
I have no idea how realistic this is, but I do kind of hope that we'll see new versions of classic TrekLit characters the same way the new Star Wars Expanded Universe Canon novels re-introduced a new version of classic Legends characters like Thrawn.
I for one would love to see a new version of President Bacco show up as Federation President in future PIC novels, for instance.
I have no idea how realistic this is, but I do kind of hope that we'll see new versions of classic TrekLit characters the same way the new Star Wars Expanded Universe Canon novels re-introduced a new version of classic Legends characters like Thrawn.
I for one would love to see a new version of President Bacco show up as Federation President in future PIC novels, for instance.
You're just noticing that now? And did you happen to notice that "Springtime for Hitler" from The Producers gets quoted just before Lilli von Shtupp's number in Blazing Saddles?
BTW, Men in Tights is not the first Mel Brooks attempt at a Robin Hood spoof.
At any rate, the only Mel Brooks movie I don't care for is The Twelve Chairs.
Now, there's no question that Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein set the bar extremely high, and are impossibly tough acts to follow, but they don't stop me from enjoying High Anxiety, Silent Movie, History of the World Part I, Spaceballs, Men in Tights, and yes, even Dracula: Dead and Loving It ("YES, we have Nosferatu! We have Nosferatu today!"), which is pretty much the butt-monkey of the Mel Brooks canon. I can hardly remember the original The Producers, but I've seen the musical (a touring production, as I recall). And I also enjoyed To Be or Not to Be.
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind a fresh break and seeing some new stuff, to be honest. The political stories in the treklit continuity were refreshing for Star Trek at the time, but tbh they were also just episodes of The West Wing transposed into Trek.
There's some really interesting and unique science fiction being written out there, and I'd love to see some original stuff make its way into Trek, even with a twist. We got great stuff from the past 20 years and plenty to continue with, but I'd also take the opportunity for a deep breath and refresh.
Indeed. Or the past five years of real life transposed into ST.
Some of my favorite recent TrekLit (and indeed, all of my five most recent "Outstanding" votes) is set completely independent of the "First Splinter" bubble.
Some of my favorite recent TrekLit (and indeed, all of my five most recent "Outstanding" votes) is set completely independent of the "First Splinter" bubble.
Last edited:
I think there's room for both! And there's also room for standalone stories that feature little cameos from classic TrekLit characters without them taking over.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't kind of love the idea of taking some of those Star Trek: The West Wing-type characters and having a book or two that applies them to the political situation established in PIC though.
Like what you like, no shame on that, but I'd suggest that sometimes the novels fill in things that we might find lacking with the series. I know the Enterprise novels did that with me, and I hear the Voyager novels did that with some readers who weren't the biggest Voyager fans. I thought the Picard prequel novel was very helpful in giving the show's lead-in some needed depth.
We have a serious situation here. Relayer1 needs a serious humor injection.
You left out High Anxiety. That's another great Brooks movie.
I find it mediocre. Young Frankenstein is a great Frankenstein parody because it's also a legitimately great Frankenstein movie. The best parodies are as good as the things they make fun of. But as an Alfred Hitchcock pastiche, High Anxiety is weak and superficial. It mimics some of the tropes and iconic scenes and camera angles and music of Hitch's oeuvre, but its plot is simple, linear, straightforward, and obvious, without any of the intricate twists and surprises of a Hitchcock film. So it feels like it misses the point, copying the surface but not touching on the substance.
Really (and I've probably said this a few times before), the only Mel Brooks film I don't care for is The Twelve Chairs. The one time I saw it, it just felt like a bad Benny Hill sketch, stretched out to feature length.
The only actual Alfred Hitchcock film I've ever seen was Family Plot. And yet, I love High Anxiety, even though I'm well aware that many of the allusions go completely over my head. The only Dracula film I've ever seen was Murnau's silent Nosferatu (and I'm pretty sure I came up with "Yes, we have Nosferatu" independently, in the context of a Halloween screening with live organ accompaniment, before I'd ever seen Dracula: Dead and Loving It), and yet I typically spent Halloween watching a double-feature of Dracula: Dead and Loving It and Young Frankenstein . Sure, very little measures up to BS and YF, but that's because BS and YF set the bar so high, even for Mel Brooks.
The only actual Alfred Hitchcock film I've ever seen was Family Plot. And yet, I love High Anxiety, even though I'm well aware that many of the allusions go completely over my head. The only Dracula film I've ever seen was Murnau's silent Nosferatu (and I'm pretty sure I came up with "Yes, we have Nosferatu" independently, in the context of a Halloween screening with live organ accompaniment, before I'd ever seen Dracula: Dead and Loving It), and yet I typically spent Halloween watching a double-feature of Dracula: Dead and Loving It and Young Frankenstein . Sure, very little measures up to BS and YF, but that's because BS and YF set the bar so high, even for Mel Brooks.
Dracula: Dead and Loving It is decent, but not great. I feel it relies too much on spoofing the Coppola Bram Stoker's Dracula specifically, but it references other Dracula films and the novel as well. As with Robin Hood: Men in Tights, one of its greatest virtues is Amy Yasbeck, who was luminous in both films.
Let's try and drag this back to the topic of the Litverse, please. We have a whole Television and Media forum if any of you would like to continue discussing the films of Mel Brooks. Thanks. 
You may be the first individual other than myself who has expressed even a remotely favorable opinion of Dracula: Dead and Loving It, which seems to be (perhaps because YF is so much better) the butt-monkey of the Mel Brooks canon.
But yes, let's get back to the Litverse. As I was saying, most of my favorite ST novels published since the DS9 Relaunch hit the bookstores have been either set concurrently with canon, or if post-ST:FC, are entirely indifferent to the question First Splinter vs. Prime.
And I could be very happy about the Section 31 novels getting wiped from the memory of history.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
