No. True creativity thrives only when unfettered. A ball and chain won't help you win a race.
The "mythology" should NEVER be "the point". It is there to support the story, not to force people to create stories that support it. All "mythology" is malleable, whether found in fictional "universes" or emerging out of real-world societies. If someone wants to play by the "canon" rules--so be it. That's a choice. And it can generate a great story. But it should not be an obligation. Doing something that "violates the mythology" may be displeasing to you, but that's hardly justification for calling it "lazy". One's personal displeasure with a work of art (in the broad sense of creative endeavours) is not a licence to insult the artist's effort in and of itself. What you consider "lazy", for having strayed from "the canon", another (myself, in this case) considers interesting and refreshing.That's a flawed metaphor. Creativity isn't a race you can win, and restrictions have never stopped great art; rather, it's sprung from them. Hence that Orson Welles quote about how 'the absence of limitations is the enemy of all art'.
World-building (perhaps "universe-building" is a better word) is the point of Star Trek. It wouldn't be half as compelling without it, and above all, it wouldn't be Star Trek. You may accept that or you may not. Either way, every work of fiction exists in its own world, and how well it sells that world to its audience is directly related to how compelling it is. I think the idea that Star Trek canon is a ball and chain shackled to the ankle of a new show is as absurd as criticising George RR Martin for writing too much history of Westeros. The mythology is the point. It's what makes the fiction interesting and convincing. Rebooting and retconning old concepts on the other hand, simply because you find it hard to keep track of which wars took place in whatever quadrant or which important discoveries were made in the past, isn't creative. It's lazy. And a sure sign of both poor storytelling and poor imagination. It's the kind of thinking that gave rise to the concept of deus ex machina. Why bother following anything to its conclusion when you can just magically make the solution appear out of thin air, even if it goes against what you wrote on the page before?
I'm afraid not. TOS is Horatio Hornblower on a US Navy ship in space, and didn't really have any of the details sorted out at all. Kirk and the Enterprise represent "United Earth" and Spock started with emotions and was a member of Vulcanian race conquered by humans, the was set in the 28th century, and the Enterprise and its crew belong to an organization called UESPA. By the end of he first season Starfleet and the Federation were established by name, while the second season establishes what the Federation is and that Earth and Vulcan are equals.World-building (perhaps "universe-building" is a better word) is the point of Star Trek. It wouldn't be half as compelling without it, and above all, it wouldn't be Star Trek.
If it's a hetero white male, it's not "something", it's just normal, but if it's an LGBTQ character or something else out of the norm, it's just trying to "pass some PC test"? What does that tell us about you?
Step outside in the real world and you'll see it's plenty diverse. It's not a """""thing""""", it's real life.
1. Set in the 97th Century. MUST MOVE FORWARD!!!!1!!
2. A Gender-fluid Calamarain Captain played by an Al-Queida actor
3. Ship's primary weapon is a Canon Cannon
4. Intergalactic politics!!!
5. Cameos and crossovers with Kes, Geordi, Nog and Pavel Chekov
6. Roddenberry's VISION!!!!1!1!1!!!!111
7. Conference rooms
8. Ship's first officer MUST be a member if the Di-kironium Vampire Cloud species who practices in the Hindu faith!!!! (Or I won't watch)
9. Pilot episode with significant call-backs to Sub Rosa
10. Admiral Nelix
11. Significant tie-ins to Star Trek Online
12. Acknowledgement that they created a universe-destroying bomb and they used that bomb on the horrible JJverse becuz Gene's Vision and Becuz PHILOSOPHY!!!!1!1!1!!!
13. A direct sequel to "Move Along Home"
14. Ships top speed should be warp 47.999993
15. Non-military Starfleet with no money and lots of utopia.
If CBS called you and said that you would be a producer on the new "Star Trek" series, and wanted your ideas about the direction of the show, what two or three things would you want included in the show?
Make it fun and engaging. I don't have a wish list beyond I don't want to be bored and I don't want anti-heroes. That trope is pretty well played out in popular media.
They could get with the program and acknowledge homosexuality in a non abnormal way, like maybe make the main character a homosexual. That would be a switch.
I want The Walking Dead in space. No, literally. Andrew Lincoln as the captain, Norman Reedus as the XO, Michael Cudlitz as the alien tactical officer, Lauren Cohan as the ship's counselor, Danai Gurira as the engineer, the one who plays Rosita as the doctor, Chandler Riggs as a Cadet, that guy who plays Eugene as a Vulcan officer.Basically Mad Men in space.
Fun fact, I left work an hour early to watch an episode of The Last Ship. And got away with it.Nothing exists like that on TV for me any more.).
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.