I love how people bitch about plotholes in First Contact, yet the fact that in ST09, nobody seems to mind that in the span of a couple of days Kirk goes from a cadet who hasn't even graduated, to the rank of Captain which takes most officers about 20 years to make, and he is put in charge of a gazillion dollar starship that happens to be the flagship of the fleet. Everyone's defense of ST09 is that is was "a fun movie" and that's why it can get away with it.
I'd argue that First Contact was a fun movie, and as ST09 showed, sci-fi action puts asses in seats.
And your comments about the actors not knowing how to handle weapons in the show is spot on. A little realism in that regard would be nice.
The actors handle the weapons perfectly. They use futuristic space-techniques to handle a new generation of weapons that do not respect the laws of physics. I mean:
If you were handling a gun that shot sideways from where you're aiming, you'd look goofy too.
The other awesome thing about Morn is that he basically saved the Alpha Quadrant by smuggling out info to Sisko that the Dominion was about to take down the minefield.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
And your comments about the actors not knowing how to handle weapons in the show is spot on. A little realism in that regard would be nice.
The actors handle the weapons perfectly. They use futuristic space-techniques to handle a new generation of weapons that do not respect the laws of physics. I mean:
If you were handling a gun that shot sideways from where you're aiming, you'd look goofy too.
Maybe it's an "auto targeting computer"?
Yeah, I got nothing. :P
He's aiming at her boobs, and I don't think TV audiences were ready for that kind of graphic content.
In the whole franchise, there are only a few things that bug the hell out of me:
1: TOS. Sorry guys, I was born in the 80's, it's just too dated for me.
2: Bajor in DS9. They basically painted them as the Judaists of the Universe to try and be politically relevant at the time, and it came off way, way too forced. Bajoran's were fine in and of themselves, but the Emmisaries episodes with Sisko especially went too far.
3: Jake. Man. Really didn't care for how they wrote Jake. Probably would have enjoyed him and whats-his-nuts Nog's son more if he had been written differently.
4: Treatment of the Borg in Voyager. Don't really think I need to explain this one.
5: The numerous God-Modes Voyager pulls during the series.
6. Enterprise, the Series.
I thought the recent movie was a little boring personally. It seemed more of an intro to mainstream audiences, people new to ST. For someone like me, who has been watching it since the early 90s and appreciates it for what it is, heavily action oriented star trek comes across as dull. More like an obvious attempt at re branding.
The TOS films were somehow able to pull off action and thoughtfulness through well done characterization. Those films did fairly well I believe.
It was a blatant attempt at rebranding and ditching decades of built up bullshit. Let's face it: before the 2009 reboot, Star Trek was creaking under the weight of so much built up crap, it would have been impossible to put a fresh face on the series in the original timeline. It had become a victim of its own history. A clean sweep was in order.
Some of TOS movies were great, but there's nothing saying the new movies have to follow their formula.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I thought the recent movie was a little boring personally. It seemed more of an intro to mainstream audiences, people new to ST. For someone like me, who has been watching it since the early 90s and appreciates it for what it is, heavily action oriented star trek comes across as dull. More like an obvious attempt at re branding.
The TOS films were somehow able to pull off action and thoughtfulness through well done characterization. Those films did fairly well I believe.
It was a blatant attempt at rebranding and ditching decades of built up bullshit. Let's face it: before the 2009 reboot, Star Trek was creaking under the weight of so much built up crap, it would have been impossible to put a fresh face on the series in the original timeline. It had become a victim of its own history. A clean sweep was in order.
Some of TOS movies were great, but there's nothing saying the new movies have to follow their formula.
I have to agree. I think 2009 was the Nolanisation of the Franchise: Let it rest for a few years, then give it a fresh start with some new interpretations and directions. Blowing up Vulcan was pretty much the biggest sign of this. That's why I think any hypothetical new series will be either following the movies, or doing its own thing. And if it does it well, great.
I thought the recent movie was a little boring personally. It seemed more of an intro to mainstream audiences, people new to ST. For someone like me, who has been watching it since the early 90s and appreciates it for what it is, heavily action oriented star trek comes across as dull. More like an obvious attempt at re branding.
The TOS films were somehow able to pull off action and thoughtfulness through well done characterization. Those films did fairly well I believe.
It was a blatant attempt at rebranding and ditching decades of built up bullshit. Let's face it: before the 2009 reboot, Star Trek was creaking under the weight of so much built up crap, it would have been impossible to put a fresh face on the series in the original timeline. It had become a victim of its own history. A clean sweep was in order.
Some of TOS movies were great, but there's nothing saying the new movies have to follow their formula.
I would have preferred a partial clean. Wipe out Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies and ST5. Everything else can stay.
In the whole franchise, there are only a few things that bug the hell out of me:
1: TOS. Sorry guys, I was born in the 80's, it's just too dated for me.
I get that. I'd try to watch the more serious episodes in that case, like the Doomsday Machine, City on the Edge of Forever, The Balance of Terror. They hold up pretty damn well.
2: Bajor in DS9. They basically painted them as the Judaists of the Universe to try and be politically relevant at the time, and it came off way, way too forced. Bajoran's were fine in and of themselves, but the Emmisaries episodes with Sisko especially went too far.
I get that, just remember Avery Brooks is trained in theatre acting, so his natural reaction is to go over the top.
3: Jake. Man. Really didn't care for how they wrote Jake. Probably would have enjoyed him and whats-his-nuts Nog's son more if he had been written differently.
Really?
4: Treatment of the Borg in Voyager. Don't really think I need to explain this one.
Yep.
5: The numerous God-Modes Voyager pulls during the series.
Yep.
6. Enterprise, the Series.
Yep.
Seriously, the only thing I don't get is Jake. He's one of the most consistently well-written characters of the entire franchise and far less intrusive and obnoxious than Wesley or Naomi. It's also nice to see a main character who doesn't want to join Starfleet. Nog has a pretty excellent character arc as well.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
I think there defiitely needs to be some revitalization, but I don't think a clean sweep is necessary. Set it another 100 years or so ahead in the continuity, get a bunch of new crazy gimmickry/gadgetry/tech and it's pretty much the same thing, just not leaving people who don't care about rehashing TOS stuff and appreciate some sense of continuity.
TNG had the weight of TOS behind it as well. A lot of fans were very skeptical. It also had to become an introduction for a new generation. It succeeded at capturing both audiences. If they could recapture this, it wouldn't be any worse than the 09 film really.
The weight is only as heavy as they let it be. It's not like they have to make continual references to every series or event. Going back doesn't free the series from redundancy. To me it kind of enhanced it.
I thought the recent movie was a little boring personally. It seemed more of an intro to mainstream audiences, people new to ST. For someone like me, who has been watching it since the early 90s and appreciates it for what it is, heavily action oriented star trek comes across as dull. More like an obvious attempt at re branding.
The TOS films were somehow able to pull off action and thoughtfulness through well done characterization. Those films did fairly well I believe.
It was a blatant attempt at rebranding and ditching decades of built up bullshit. Let's face it: before the 2009 reboot, Star Trek was creaking under the weight of so much built up crap, it would have been impossible to put a fresh face on the series in the original timeline. It had become a victim of its own history. A clean sweep was in order.
Some of TOS movies were great, but there's nothing saying the new movies have to follow their formula.
I have to agree. I think 2009 was the Nolanisation of the Franchise: Let it rest for a few years, then give it a fresh start with some new interpretations and directions. Blowing up Vulcan was pretty much the biggest sign of this. That's why I think any hypothetical new series will be either following the movies, or doing its own thing. And if it does it well, great.
What this means though, is that future writers are going to have to take notes from TNG, BSG, and Stargate, if they want to make an effective series. All of those franchises were significantly enough removed from the universe itself, and focused on interpersonal relationships and small scale adventures, that those stories could be told without making too large an impact on the universe itself, save for opportune times (season enders, etc).
DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise though, man, they were rewriting canon every goddamn week. At first it was good, but the last two really screwed the pooch.
I thought the recent movie was a little boring personally. It seemed more of an intro to mainstream audiences, people new to ST. For someone like me, who has been watching it since the early 90s and appreciates it for what it is, heavily action oriented star trek comes across as dull. More like an obvious attempt at re branding.
The TOS films were somehow able to pull off action and thoughtfulness through well done characterization. Those films did fairly well I believe.
It was a blatant attempt at rebranding and ditching decades of built up bullshit. Let's face it: before the 2009 reboot, Star Trek was creaking under the weight of so much built up crap, it would have been impossible to put a fresh face on the series in the original timeline. It had become a victim of its own history. A clean sweep was in order.
Some of TOS movies were great, but there's nothing saying the new movies have to follow their formula.
I would have preferred a partial clean. Wipe out Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies and ST5. Everything else can stay.
I just had the most random speculation about the future of this timeline:
What if the Genesis Device is used to create a "New Vulcan"?
In the whole franchise, there are only a few things that bug the hell out of me:
1: TOS. Sorry guys, I was born in the 80's, it's just too dated for me.
I get that. I'd try to watch the more serious episodes in that case, like the Doomsday Machine, City on the Edge of Forever, The Balance of Terror. They hold up pretty damn well.
2: Bajor in DS9. They basically painted them as the Judaists of the Universe to try and be politically relevant at the time, and it came off way, way too forced. Bajoran's were fine in and of themselves, but the Emmisaries episodes with Sisko especially went too far.
I get that, just remember Avery Brooks is trained in theatre acting, so his natural reaction is to go over the top.
3: Jake. Man. Really didn't care for how they wrote Jake. Probably would have enjoyed him and whats-his-nuts Nog's son more if he had been written differently.
Really?
4: Treatment of the Borg in Voyager. Don't really think I need to explain this one.
Yep.
5: The numerous God-Modes Voyager pulls during the series.
Yep.
6. Enterprise, the Series.
Yep.
Seriously, the only thing I don't get is Jake. He's one of the most consistently well-written characters of the entire franchise and far less intrusive and obnoxious than Wesley or Naomi. It's also nice to see a main character who doesn't want to join Starfleet. Nog has a pretty excellent character arc as well.
Oh man. I must have blocked Wesley and Naomi out, they were too traumatizing. You're completely right. Compared to them, Jake is actually believable and well written.
The only decent episode [strike]Jake[/strike] Wesley (edit) ever had was that episode where his Cadet team screwed the formation and killed somebody. (Guest starred by the guy that played Paris in Voyager, funnily enough, though as a differently named character)
I would have preferred a partial clean. Wipe out Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies and ST5. Everything else can stay.
I can't see how you could do that in any sort of logical manner. In the new timeline, Enterprise is the only part of the original ST world that actually happened. Given its various storylines, it's also probably the show with the least impact on the timeline going forward. Pretty much everything that happened in Enterprise can be safely ignored in the new timeline.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Jake was awesome. I liked that he's one of the only civilian main characters. He had some great episodes. I just watched 'The Visitor' last night with a friend. One of my favorite DS9 episodes.
I would have preferred a partial clean. Wipe out Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies and ST5. Everything else can stay.
I can't see how you could do that in any sort of logical manner. In the new timeline, Enterprise is the only part of the original ST world that actually happened. Given its various storylines, it's also probably the show with the least impact on the timeline going forward. Pretty much everything that happened in Enterprise can be safely ignored in the new timeline.
I don't see why it needs to be done in a logical manner. I would just tell people "ok, so that crap didn't happen". Or do it the alternate-universe way. "Ok, so this series is set in parallel universe B, where that crap didn't happen".
If all else fails, just use the intro sequence I proposed earlier in the thread :P
In the whole franchise, there are only a few things that bug the hell out of me:
1: TOS. Sorry guys, I was born in the 80's, it's just too dated for me.
I get that. I'd try to watch the more serious episodes in that case, like the Doomsday Machine, City on the Edge of Forever, The Balance of Terror. They hold up pretty damn well.
2: Bajor in DS9. They basically painted them as the Judaists of the Universe to try and be politically relevant at the time, and it came off way, way too forced. Bajoran's were fine in and of themselves, but the Emmisaries episodes with Sisko especially went too far.
I get that, just remember Avery Brooks is trained in theatre acting, so his natural reaction is to go over the top.
3: Jake. Man. Really didn't care for how they wrote Jake. Probably would have enjoyed him and whats-his-nuts Nog's son more if he had been written differently.
Really?
4: Treatment of the Borg in Voyager. Don't really think I need to explain this one.
Yep.
5: The numerous God-Modes Voyager pulls during the series.
Yep.
6. Enterprise, the Series.
Yep.
Seriously, the only thing I don't get is Jake. He's one of the most consistently well-written characters of the entire franchise and far less intrusive and obnoxious than Wesley or Naomi. It's also nice to see a main character who doesn't want to join Starfleet. Nog has a pretty excellent character arc as well.
Oh man. I must have blocked Wesley and Naomi out, they were too traumatizing. You're completely right. Compared to them, Jake is actually believable and well written.
The only decent episode Jake ever had was that episode where his Cadet team screwed the formation and killed somebody. (Guest starred by the guy that played Paris in Voyager, funnily enough, though as a differently named character)
I believe you mean Wesley. And yes, Paris was based on that guy, but they invented a new character because they thought the cadet was too much of a dick.
Naomi never bugged me as much as Wesley did. I think for the most part she was written as a child. I liked it in an episode where Seven was missing and she suggested to Janeway that they just lock on to Seven's Borg implants. If Wesley had suggested this it would have been a brilliant idea. However Janeway just explains that it's more complicated than that. It was almost like a subtle dig at the idea of "Kid saves the day".
I think there defiitely needs to be some revitalization, but I don't think a clean sweep is necessary. Set it another 100 years or so ahead in the continuity, get a bunch of new crazy gimmickry/gadgetry/tech and it's pretty much the same thing, just not leaving people who don't care about rehashing TOS stuff and appreciate some sense of continuity.
TNG had the weight of TOS behind it as well. A lot of fans were very skeptical. It also had to become an introduction for a new generation. It succeeded at capturing both audiences. If they could recapture this, it wouldn't be any worse than the 09 film really.
The weight is only as heavy as they let it be. It's not like they have to make continual references to every series or event. Going back doesn't free the series from redundancy. To me it kind of enhanced it.
The risk of this hypothetical new series to end up with having to explain everything that went before it is way to great.
Oh man. I must have blocked Wesley and Naomi out, they were too traumatizing. You're completely right. Compared to them, Jake is actually believable and well written.
The only decent episode Jake ever had was that episode where his Cadet team screwed the formation and killed somebody. (Guest starred by the guy that played Paris in Voyager, funnily enough, though as a differently named character)
I believe you mean Wesley. And yes, Paris was based on that guy, but they invented a new character because they thought the cadet was too much of a dick.
Naomi never bugged me as much as Wesley did. I think for the most part she was written as a child. I liked it in an episode where Seven was missing and she suggested to Janeway that they just lock on to Seven's Borg implants. If Wesley had suggested this it would have been a brilliant idea. However Janeway just explains that it's more complicated than that. It was almost like a subtle dig at the idea of "Kid saves the day".
Ya. Post edited it to Wesley. Was still on my Jake mantra.
I believe you mean Wesley. And yes, Paris was based on that guy, but they invented a new character because they thought the cadet was too much of a dick.
I thought they invented a new character because they'd have had to pay royalties to the writer who invented the first one and they're cheap bastards.
In the whole franchise, there are only a few things that bug the hell out of me:
1: TOS. Sorry guys, I was born in the 80's, it's just too dated for me.
I get that. I'd try to watch the more serious episodes in that case, like the Doomsday Machine, City on the Edge of Forever, The Balance of Terror. They hold up pretty damn well.
2: Bajor in DS9. They basically painted them as the Judaists of the Universe to try and be politically relevant at the time, and it came off way, way too forced. Bajoran's were fine in and of themselves, but the Emmisaries episodes with Sisko especially went too far.
I get that, just remember Avery Brooks is trained in theatre acting, so his natural reaction is to go over the top.
3: Jake. Man. Really didn't care for how they wrote Jake. Probably would have enjoyed him and whats-his-nuts Nog's son more if he had been written differently.
Really?
4: Treatment of the Borg in Voyager. Don't really think I need to explain this one.
Yep.
5: The numerous God-Modes Voyager pulls during the series.
Yep.
6. Enterprise, the Series.
Yep.
Seriously, the only thing I don't get is Jake. He's one of the most consistently well-written characters of the entire franchise and far less intrusive and obnoxious than Wesley or Naomi. It's also nice to see a main character who doesn't want to join Starfleet. Nog has a pretty excellent character arc as well.
Oh man. I must have blocked Wesley and Naomi out, they were too traumatizing. You're completely right. Compared to them, Jake is actually believable and well written.
The only decent episode Jake ever had was that episode where his Cadet team screwed the formation and killed somebody. (Guest starred by the guy that played Paris in Voyager, funnily enough, though as a differently named character)
I believe you mean Wesley. And yes, Paris was based on that guy, but they invented a new character because they thought the cadet was too much of a dick.
Naomi never bugged me as much as Wesley did. I think for the most part she was written as a child. I liked it in an episode where Seven was missing and she suggested to Janeway that they just lock on to Seven's Borg implants. If Wesley had suggested this it would have been a brilliant idea. However Janeway just explains that it's more complicated than that. It was almost like a subtle dig at the idea of "Kid saves the day".
They actually wanted to use the Nick Lacarno character for Voyager, but the issue was partly what you said above, that they felt the character was too far gone, but also because they would have had to pay royalties to that episodes writer every time Paris appeared.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
The risk of this hypothetical new series to end up with having to explain everything that went before it is way to great.
A clean slate was better.
I'm not sure that's true at all. A new series set in the same universe/continuity needs to explain nothing. Again TNG faced the same situation and they didn't mention TOS at all really.
There's nothing saying a new series would have to rely heavily on old continuity to a large degree to tell its tale.
It's really a win/win situation to set it in same universe but far enough ahead that there's no extremely direct link. Old fans get the pleasure of seeing the continuing story of the universe they appreciate. New fans can still jump in. I repeat, TNG did this exact thing and established itself as its own entity within a shared universe.
New people weren't like 'wtf is going on ahh' or something. They were introduced to the federation, starfleet and the ideology of the ST world.
I guess I'm the only person who enjoyed the Holodeck hijinks across the various series.
From Barclay becoming god to Holmes/Moriarty and the Wild Wild West, to Vic Fontaine and that little town in Ireland, and the WW2 resistance episodes, I loved all of them. They were among my favorite little diversions.
In all seriousness though, the alarming rate at which Holodeck malfunctions occur should result in the sacking, beating, and grinding-into-a-fine-pink-powdering of the Holodeck executives at Starfleet.
Jake was awesome. I liked that he's one of the only civilian main characters. He had some great episodes. I just watched 'The Visitor' last night with a friend. One of my favorite DS9 episodes.
Jake had one of the most human moments in the series in the episode where he and Bashir were stranded on a planet under Klingon attack. Jake and Bashir leave the safety of the cave to try and recover medical supplies, but end up in a bombardment. Jake panics and flees, completely abandoning Bashir. It just seems so real, what a normal person would do under those circumstances.
That episode was also pretty funny because it was basically DS9 meets MASH with those morbid doctors.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
I guess I'm the only person who enjoyed the Holodeck hijinks across the various series.
From Barclay becoming god to Holmes/Moriarty and the Wild Wild West, to Vic Fontaine and that little town in Ireland, and the WW2 resistance episodes, I loved all of them. They were among my favorite little diversions.
In all seriousness though, the alarming rate at which Holodeck malfunctions occur should result in the sacking, beating, and grinding-into-a-fine-pink-powdering of the Holodeck executives at Starfleet.
I think your second paragraph was part of the problem: Most of the holodeck stories involve a holodeck malfunction, meaning it's become as big a Trek cliche as the Transporter Accident. I think that's why I liked Vic Fontaine's final episode: It wasn't a malfunction, it was a deliberate part of the program they had to deal with, that was neither dangerous to living beings or messed with any systems outside the holosuite.
The risk of this hypothetical new series to end up with having to explain everything that went before it is way to great.
A clean slate was better.
I'm not sure that's true at all. A new series set in the same universe/continuity needs to explain nothing. Again TNG faced the same situation and they didn't mention TOS at all really.
There's nothing saying a new series would have to rely heavily on old continuity to a large degree to tell its tale.
It's really a win/win situation to set it in same universe but far enough ahead that there's no extremely direct link. Old fans get the pleasure of seeing the continuing story of the universe they appreciate. New fans can still jump in. I repeat, TNG did this exact thing and established itself as its own entity within a shared universe.
New people weren't like 'wtf is going on ahh' or something. They were introduced to the federation, starfleet and the ideology of the ST world.
TNG only had TOS to explain, which at that point was nearly 20 years old.
Now a new series would have to watch continuity of 5 series & 10 movies ... and the second they either screw that continuity up or go "fuck it, lets blow everything up and start new 100 years later", legions of fanboys would get their panties in a twist.
The best thing the writers could do would be to politely invite the neckbeard horde to gently self-reflect on a mountain.
The fanboys are going to watch whatever show happens to carry the flag Star Trek, regardless of their issues with the canon. What you need are the regular viewers - people who turned into TNG or DS9 because it was a legitimately great show on its own. If you treat the backstory as the reason for the show rather then a launching-point for individual stories, then you are no longer making good television.
The risk of this hypothetical new series to end up with having to explain everything that went before it is way to great.
A clean slate was better.
I'm not sure that's true at all. A new series set in the same universe/continuity needs to explain nothing. Again TNG faced the same situation and they didn't mention TOS at all really.
There's nothing saying a new series would have to rely heavily on old continuity to a large degree to tell its tale.
It's really a win/win situation to set it in same universe but far enough ahead that there's no extremely direct link. Old fans get the pleasure of seeing the continuing story of the universe they appreciate. New fans can still jump in. I repeat, TNG did this exact thing and established itself as its own entity within a shared universe.
New people weren't like 'wtf is going on ahh' or something. They were introduced to the federation, starfleet and the ideology of the ST world.
TNG only had TOS to explain, which at that point was nearly 20 years old.
Now a new series would have to watch continuity of 5 series & 10 movies ... and the second they either screw that continuity up or go "fuck it, lets blow everything up and start new 100 years later", legions of fanboys would get their panties in a twist.
There's no need to watch all previous series and movies though. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Like I said, they can introduce a new series to new people and keep the old continuity. I don't see a valid argument aganst this. If anything, remaking TOS is clean slating it even less than a same continuity/new series. It would be TOS all over again. I can't see what would be that different. What could be gained by seeing characters that have been done for decades already? All you need are star trek archetypes and exploring in space. I'd rather see new characters do this than the same old characters played by likely less interesting or capable actors(they certainly won't be getting the few decent actors from the 09 film).
A series set in the same universe could have a fresh cast and crew, new ship, new everything. The only thing that would remain is the setting of the previously used universe and the motifs and design base for characters and other things. Continuity is a fun aspect of something like Star Trek. The weight argument just holds no water really, as any new series has functioned independently while providing that link with the others. There's no 'you have to watch the previous series to understand what's going on' here. I think the sense of history continuity provides is an interesting aspect of star trek, and part of what makes its universe inhabitable and immersive.
I mean, look at how much TOS was referenced in TNG. I think McCoy appeared as an old man in a cameo, and there was the Scotty episode(which was awesome).
The best thing the writers could do would be to politely invite the neckbeard horde to gently self-reflect on a mountain.
The fanboys are going to watch whatever show happens to carry the flag Star Trek, regardless of their issues with the canon. What you need are the regular viewers - people who turned into TNG or DS9 because it was a legitimately great show on its own. If you treat the backstory as the reason for the show rather then a launching-point for individual stories, then you are no longer making good television.
Star Trek fanboys have lost sight of the point of a series like Star Trek. It's supposed to tell interesting stories. Nobody should give a fuck about some minor canonical point from 20 years ago.
Which is why a clean sweep was so important. A movie series that tried to incorporate all of the built up junk of 5 series and 11 prior movies spanning nearly 50 years is going to turn off huge chunks of the potential audience.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The best thing the writers could do would be to politely invite the neckbeard horde to gently self-reflect on a mountain.
The fanboys are going to watch whatever show happens to carry the flag Star Trek, regardless of their issues with the canon. What you need are the regular viewers - people who turned into TNG or DS9 because it was a legitimately great show on its own. If you treat the backstory as the reason for the show rather then a launching-point for individual stories, then you are no longer making good television.
Star Trek fanboys have lost sight of the point of a series like Star Trek. It's supposed to tell interesting stories. Nobody should give a fuck about some minor canonical point from 20 years ago.
Which is why a clean sweep was so important. A movie series that tried to incorporate all of the built up junk of 5 series and 11 prior movies spanning nearly 50 years is going to turn off huge chunks of the potential audience.
Every show tells interesting stories. That's the point of any show, ever, and is not what sets a series like star trek apart from any other series ever made.
Nobody seems willing or able to justify the logic of this 'clean sweep' stuff(at least for a televised series). Instead it's passive aggressive fanboy accusations. Really?
Nobody seems willing or able to justify the logic of this 'clean sweep' stuff(at least for a televised series). Instead it's passive aggressive fanboy accusations. Really?
A clean sweep is necessary when a franchise becomes too bogged down in canon. This is the exact reason we see "genesis" movies being so popular over the years. No one wants to have to watch every Superman movie just to understand the latest. Rather, they'd go see how Batman became a Dark Knight badass, how Kirk came to be, where Tony Stark came from.
It's also the reason you don't see SW:ToR being set in the New Republic days. They just don't want to fuck with that era of canon. Too much shit can go wrong. Easier to have a clean slate from 1000 years ago. They tried this with Voyager. They didn't want to tell a Delta Quadrant story. It was just the perfect premise to get away from the layers of bile going on in the Alpha Quadrant. Sadly however, the writers were too busy with their heads in a bagofdicks to pay attention to their pens.
Movie Goer 1 has two choices:
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
- Star Trek
Going to movie 1 and feasibly enjoying it typically requires watching a bare minimum of 2 of the prior 6 movies in the series.
Going to movie 2 requires no prior work.
This is why Movie 2 succeeds well. That isn't to say Movie 1 will not, but at a certain point, you hit a critical franchise mass, where there is too much investment involved to have a reasonable return rate of enjoyment.
Dungeon's and Dragons as a franchise realized this prior to the creation of 4th Edition. If they wanted to broaden their audience, they couldn't be so blithely esoteric about the Forgotten Realms and the literally metric fuckton of rules associated.
Between the Gem'hedar (sp), Romulans, Borg, Temporal Cold War, etc, etc, etc, there is simply too much "big shit" going on in the Star Trek universe anymore. You can't reasonably write stories without retconning out the ass, which is a huge investment of resources to stick moderately with canon, or you pull the time travel card to save your ass once again, which viewers have really and truly begun to loathe.
A clean sweep allows the opportunity to create new stories and situations with little viewer investment. They can just jump in and enjoy the series. It also pleases fanboys because there isn't this gigantic elephant in the room.
A clean sweep allows the opportunity to create new stories and situations with little viewer investment. They can just jump in and enjoy the series. It also pleases fanboys because there isn't this gigantic elephant in the room.
Read my earlier posts. I've debunked the idea that continuity can't be maintained while also having easy entrance to new viewers. This isn't an either/or situation here. I'm not sure why some believe that there's only one degree of continuity. Constant referral to previous entries does not have to be used. There's no downside to having a little bit of reference or other elements of continuity in something almost completely new. Again, like TNG did. It adds something for people who like that thing, and doesn't do anything to alienate new viewers.
Also, again, I'm talking about a series on television not a film series. I don't care about ST movies. Most of them aren't very well made, some are nigh unwatchable. I'd totally agree that for a film series, the continuity would not work.
A clean sweep allows the opportunity to create new stories and situations with little viewer investment. They can just jump in and enjoy the series. It also pleases fanboys because there isn't this gigantic elephant in the room.
Read my earlier posts. I've debunked the idea that continuity can't be maintained while also having easy entrance to new viewers. This isn't an either/or situation here. I'm not sure why some believe that there's only one degree of continuity. Constant referral to previous entries does not have to be used. There's no downside to having a little bit of reference or other elements of continuity in something almost completely new. Again, like TNG did. It adds something for people who like that thing, and doesn't do anything to alienate new viewers.
Also, again, I'm talking about a series on television not a film series. I don't care about ST movies. Most of them aren't very well made, some are nigh unwatchable. I'd totally agree that for a film series, the continuity would not work.
Yeah late-season TNG was the PERFECT example of how to write stories that drew upon previous events while being highly approachable. The entire Worf storyline was absolutely perfect in that regard - each episode started with a quick talk between Worf and Picard that brought people up to speed in a hurry, then they delved into the latest atrocity/mystery that had just been uncovered.
You bought into the characters not because there was a hundred episodes prior stuff that you'd watched, but because they were well written, well acted characters that felt like real people.
TNG had almost no continuity, that's why it worked. Hell, Star Trek in general had shit continuity (lolwarp10lol)
These days, especially in Sci-Fi, people expect continuity.
And the easiest way to get good continuity is to sweep the old shit clean and start anew. It frees you from having to adhere to old events that are silly or stupid or not in line with what you want to do.
This lets you try new ideas as well, which is something Star Trek desperately needs. What's the point in a new series that just rehashes old episodes yet again?
So was Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine/Audioslave/The Nightwatchman fame. Actually, he was in both an episode of Voyager and Star Trek: Insurrection.
A clean sweep allows the opportunity to create new stories and situations with little viewer investment. They can just jump in and enjoy the series. It also pleases fanboys because there isn't this gigantic elephant in the room.
Read my earlier posts. I've debunked the idea that continuity can't be maintained while also having easy entrance to new viewers. This isn't an either/or situation here. I'm not sure why some believe that there's only one degree of continuity. Constant referral to previous entries does not have to be used. There's no downside to having a little bit of reference or other elements of continuity in something almost completely new. Again, like TNG did. It adds something for people who like that thing, and doesn't do anything to alienate new viewers.
Also, again, I'm talking about a series on television not a film series. I don't care about ST movies. Most of them aren't very well made, some are nigh unwatchable. I'd totally agree that for a film series, the continuity would not work.
The thing is, Canon in entertainment usually works like a bad whore.
If you accept that she's slept with one disreputable person, you accept every disreputable person she's ever slept with.
If you pick the canon you like and don't like out of one universe, the fanboys will eat you alive. That's why you have to have one or the other, because if you go half-in, half-out, you get bumblefucked at every conference by the red-shirt guy wearing forehead ridges.
TNG could do this because there really wasn't much controversial canon in TOS.
Enterprise though. Man. Enterprise. Walks off shaking his head
Posts
"Nobody seems to mind"?
Man, I think tons of people minded.
Maybe it's an "auto targeting computer"?
Yeah, I got nothing. :P
He's aiming at her boobs, and I don't think TV audiences were ready for that kind of graphic content.
This is 2011 though, bring that shit on.
1: TOS. Sorry guys, I was born in the 80's, it's just too dated for me.
2: Bajor in DS9. They basically painted them as the Judaists of the Universe to try and be politically relevant at the time, and it came off way, way too forced. Bajoran's were fine in and of themselves, but the Emmisaries episodes with Sisko especially went too far.
3: Jake. Man. Really didn't care for how they wrote Jake. Probably would have enjoyed him and whats-his-nuts Nog's son more if he had been written differently.
4: Treatment of the Borg in Voyager. Don't really think I need to explain this one.
5: The numerous God-Modes Voyager pulls during the series.
6. Enterprise, the Series.
Some of TOS movies were great, but there's nothing saying the new movies have to follow their formula.
Rigorous Scholarship
I have to agree. I think 2009 was the Nolanisation of the Franchise: Let it rest for a few years, then give it a fresh start with some new interpretations and directions. Blowing up Vulcan was pretty much the biggest sign of this. That's why I think any hypothetical new series will be either following the movies, or doing its own thing. And if it does it well, great.
I would have preferred a partial clean. Wipe out Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies and ST5. Everything else can stay.
Seriously, the only thing I don't get is Jake. He's one of the most consistently well-written characters of the entire franchise and far less intrusive and obnoxious than Wesley or Naomi. It's also nice to see a main character who doesn't want to join Starfleet. Nog has a pretty excellent character arc as well.
TNG had the weight of TOS behind it as well. A lot of fans were very skeptical. It also had to become an introduction for a new generation. It succeeded at capturing both audiences. If they could recapture this, it wouldn't be any worse than the 09 film really.
The weight is only as heavy as they let it be. It's not like they have to make continual references to every series or event. Going back doesn't free the series from redundancy. To me it kind of enhanced it.
What this means though, is that future writers are going to have to take notes from TNG, BSG, and Stargate, if they want to make an effective series. All of those franchises were significantly enough removed from the universe itself, and focused on interpersonal relationships and small scale adventures, that those stories could be told without making too large an impact on the universe itself, save for opportune times (season enders, etc).
DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise though, man, they were rewriting canon every goddamn week. At first it was good, but the last two really screwed the pooch.
I just had the most random speculation about the future of this timeline:
Oh man. I must have blocked Wesley and Naomi out, they were too traumatizing. You're completely right. Compared to them, Jake is actually believable and well written.
The only decent episode [strike]Jake[/strike] Wesley (edit) ever had was that episode where his Cadet team screwed the formation and killed somebody. (Guest starred by the guy that played Paris in Voyager, funnily enough, though as a differently named character)
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't see why it needs to be done in a logical manner. I would just tell people "ok, so that crap didn't happen". Or do it the alternate-universe way. "Ok, so this series is set in parallel universe B, where that crap didn't happen".
If all else fails, just use the intro sequence I proposed earlier in the thread :P
Damn that man did a good justice to McCoy, and added so much to the role as well.
I believe you mean Wesley. And yes, Paris was based on that guy, but they invented a new character because they thought the cadet was too much of a dick.
Naomi never bugged me as much as Wesley did. I think for the most part she was written as a child. I liked it in an episode where Seven was missing and she suggested to Janeway that they just lock on to Seven's Borg implants. If Wesley had suggested this it would have been a brilliant idea. However Janeway just explains that it's more complicated than that. It was almost like a subtle dig at the idea of "Kid saves the day".
The risk of this hypothetical new series to end up with having to explain everything that went before it is way to great.
A clean slate was better.
Also, other episodes that might have sucked but I thought were rad:
Ya. Post edited it to Wesley. Was still on my Jake mantra.
I thought they invented a new character because they'd have had to pay royalties to the writer who invented the first one and they're cheap bastards.
They actually wanted to use the Nick Lacarno character for Voyager, but the issue was partly what you said above, that they felt the character was too far gone, but also because they would have had to pay royalties to that episodes writer every time Paris appeared.
There's nothing saying a new series would have to rely heavily on old continuity to a large degree to tell its tale.
It's really a win/win situation to set it in same universe but far enough ahead that there's no extremely direct link. Old fans get the pleasure of seeing the continuing story of the universe they appreciate. New fans can still jump in. I repeat, TNG did this exact thing and established itself as its own entity within a shared universe.
New people weren't like 'wtf is going on ahh' or something. They were introduced to the federation, starfleet and the ideology of the ST world.
From Barclay becoming god to Holmes/Moriarty and the Wild Wild West, to Vic Fontaine and that little town in Ireland, and the WW2 resistance episodes, I loved all of them. They were among my favorite little diversions.
In all seriousness though, the alarming rate at which Holodeck malfunctions occur should result in the sacking, beating, and grinding-into-a-fine-pink-powdering of the Holodeck executives at Starfleet.
Jake had one of the most human moments in the series in the episode where he and Bashir were stranded on a planet under Klingon attack. Jake and Bashir leave the safety of the cave to try and recover medical supplies, but end up in a bombardment. Jake panics and flees, completely abandoning Bashir. It just seems so real, what a normal person would do under those circumstances.
That episode was also pretty funny because it was basically DS9 meets MASH with those morbid doctors.
I think your second paragraph was part of the problem: Most of the holodeck stories involve a holodeck malfunction, meaning it's become as big a Trek cliche as the Transporter Accident. I think that's why I liked Vic Fontaine's final episode: It wasn't a malfunction, it was a deliberate part of the program they had to deal with, that was neither dangerous to living beings or messed with any systems outside the holosuite.
TNG only had TOS to explain, which at that point was nearly 20 years old.
Now a new series would have to watch continuity of 5 series & 10 movies ... and the second they either screw that continuity up or go "fuck it, lets blow everything up and start new 100 years later", legions of fanboys would get their panties in a twist.
The fanboys are going to watch whatever show happens to carry the flag Star Trek, regardless of their issues with the canon. What you need are the regular viewers - people who turned into TNG or DS9 because it was a legitimately great show on its own. If you treat the backstory as the reason for the show rather then a launching-point for individual stories, then you are no longer making good television.
A series set in the same universe could have a fresh cast and crew, new ship, new everything. The only thing that would remain is the setting of the previously used universe and the motifs and design base for characters and other things. Continuity is a fun aspect of something like Star Trek. The weight argument just holds no water really, as any new series has functioned independently while providing that link with the others. There's no 'you have to watch the previous series to understand what's going on' here. I think the sense of history continuity provides is an interesting aspect of star trek, and part of what makes its universe inhabitable and immersive.
I mean, look at how much TOS was referenced in TNG. I think McCoy appeared as an old man in a cameo, and there was the Scotty episode(which was awesome).
Which is why a clean sweep was so important. A movie series that tried to incorporate all of the built up junk of 5 series and 11 prior movies spanning nearly 50 years is going to turn off huge chunks of the potential audience.
Rigorous Scholarship
Every show tells interesting stories. That's the point of any show, ever, and is not what sets a series like star trek apart from any other series ever made.
A clean sweep is necessary when a franchise becomes too bogged down in canon. This is the exact reason we see "genesis" movies being so popular over the years. No one wants to have to watch every Superman movie just to understand the latest. Rather, they'd go see how Batman became a Dark Knight badass, how Kirk came to be, where Tony Stark came from.
It's also the reason you don't see SW:ToR being set in the New Republic days. They just don't want to fuck with that era of canon. Too much shit can go wrong. Easier to have a clean slate from 1000 years ago. They tried this with Voyager. They didn't want to tell a Delta Quadrant story. It was just the perfect premise to get away from the layers of bile going on in the Alpha Quadrant. Sadly however, the writers were too busy with their heads in a bagofdicks to pay attention to their pens.
Movie Goer 1 has two choices:
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
- Star Trek
Going to movie 1 and feasibly enjoying it typically requires watching a bare minimum of 2 of the prior 6 movies in the series.
Going to movie 2 requires no prior work.
This is why Movie 2 succeeds well. That isn't to say Movie 1 will not, but at a certain point, you hit a critical franchise mass, where there is too much investment involved to have a reasonable return rate of enjoyment.
Dungeon's and Dragons as a franchise realized this prior to the creation of 4th Edition. If they wanted to broaden their audience, they couldn't be so blithely esoteric about the Forgotten Realms and the literally metric fuckton of rules associated.
Between the Gem'hedar (sp), Romulans, Borg, Temporal Cold War, etc, etc, etc, there is simply too much "big shit" going on in the Star Trek universe anymore. You can't reasonably write stories without retconning out the ass, which is a huge investment of resources to stick moderately with canon, or you pull the time travel card to save your ass once again, which viewers have really and truly begun to loathe.
A clean sweep allows the opportunity to create new stories and situations with little viewer investment. They can just jump in and enjoy the series. It also pleases fanboys because there isn't this gigantic elephant in the room.
Also, again, I'm talking about a series on television not a film series. I don't care about ST movies. Most of them aren't very well made, some are nigh unwatchable. I'd totally agree that for a film series, the continuity would not work.
Yeah late-season TNG was the PERFECT example of how to write stories that drew upon previous events while being highly approachable. The entire Worf storyline was absolutely perfect in that regard - each episode started with a quick talk between Worf and Picard that brought people up to speed in a hurry, then they delved into the latest atrocity/mystery that had just been uncovered.
You bought into the characters not because there was a hundred episodes prior stuff that you'd watched, but because they were well written, well acted characters that felt like real people.
These days, especially in Sci-Fi, people expect continuity.
And the easiest way to get good continuity is to sweep the old shit clean and start anew. It frees you from having to adhere to old events that are silly or stupid or not in line with what you want to do.
This lets you try new ideas as well, which is something Star Trek desperately needs. What's the point in a new series that just rehashes old episodes yet again?
Oh my god Sarah Silverman was in Star Trek. MIND BLOWN.
The thing is, Canon in entertainment usually works like a bad whore.
If you accept that she's slept with one disreputable person, you accept every disreputable person she's ever slept with.
If you pick the canon you like and don't like out of one universe, the fanboys will eat you alive. That's why you have to have one or the other, because if you go half-in, half-out, you get bumblefucked at every conference by the red-shirt guy wearing forehead ridges.
TNG could do this because there really wasn't much controversial canon in TOS.
Enterprise though. Man. Enterprise. Walks off shaking his head