Definitely seems like that should be the main goal for the viewer. Finding things that entertain instead of constantly complaining about those that don't.
Don't look at me that way...
When it became known that Khan would be the antagonist of Star Trek II, how was the fan reaction?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
Definitely seems like that should be the main goal for the viewer. Finding things that entertain instead of constantly complaining about those that don't.
Don't look at me that way...
This. It's entertainment.
It is not a moral document. It is not a religious document. It is not a philosophical treatise. Entertain me, please and thank you.
Murray Leinster’s “First Contact” (1945) would be a very Trek-like example, too.
To be fair, Trek has usually tried to be a moral document, TOS & TNG most particularly.
Actually, Sam Peeples had kleptomnesia and pitched it to Roddenberry as a Trek story after the first pilot. I'm serious.
Huh! Well, it certainly would have fit, if they could have found a way to not trade the Enterprise away.
The radio play of that story has a different ending.
Occasionally tried. And when they have been most conscious of doing so is when the shows have been at their worst.
Occasionally? Especially TOS and TNG? Seems to me it was only occasionally that they didn’t. (Though it’s true that in some of the later shows, the pretentiousness often rings less true when it happens.)
Even if it tries, that is not it's primary purpose and shouldn't be expected to do so.
Well, that was much ado about nothing.
It wasn't even Titus Andronicus.
This. It was a TV series created to make money for the studio, the network and GR who was trying to build a rep as a Jonathan Swift/Rod Serling type force. He fell short.
Whenever the message is the point, the episode suffered. There are a good number of episodes that work without an obvious moral and some with none at all. Fans tend to make more out of Star Trek than what was there. It was aimed higher than the Irwin Allen shows and The Invaders, but the primary purpose was to tell entertaining stories. Usually about Kirk's dilemmas, sometimes Spock's and infrequently McCoy's. A lot of episodes were just TV sci fi adventure yarns. That's the whole reason I fell in love with it as a kid.
The funny thing about fiction is often the "message" is accidental. And sometimes the consumer assumes one. Perception is everything.
As for TNG, yes, they hit the buttons harder than TOS and man did the show feel like it. For me, it is the least rewatchable in the later seasons because they're giving me a sermon about pollution or something.
now i am having the strange image of Captain Planet in a Starfleet uniform.
Perhaps Ray-Cycle can be his chief engineer...
More like As I Don't Like It.
This.
It's like the lead producer of John Carter who was convinced everyone knew the book as he did and that it had much broader impact than the reality so bet heavily on it and the film failed.
Fans assume their experience is the only one but at this point the amount of people I can talk to about Star Trek in real life is on one hand, and rarely on anything deep.
And then the "don't put Mars in the title" rule bit them in the ass.
"Word, just words" -- Big Rebecca to Papagallo, Mad Max II
Similar threads
