|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jun 1, 2009 5:46:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Jun 2, 2009 8:44:06 GMT -8
How, exactly, did the "big seven" of OG Trek become the Big Seven? Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov. These are the seven who define the crew of the Enterprise; these are the ones who are considered the progenitors. Rand was not in a position of importance when things were tense. Chapel was always second fiddle to McCoy, and was unique in that she got a name--who was Spock's second, or Scotty's assistant Engineer? Sulu and Checkov might have just followed orders and pushed buttons, but some of those buttons made the ship move and stuff blow up (which the fans liked,) and they were always in the foreground of those important bridge shots. Uhura always told Kirk what the other guys were saying, making her the gatekeeper to the plot being moved along. They're the bridge crew. First seat, first shift. They're the people who Do Stuff when Bad Stuff happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jun 2, 2009 9:01:31 GMT -8
Very cool clip.  |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jun 23, 2009 7:12:51 GMT -8
OK, finally got caught up on things since I've been away, and a had a couple of final items to add here.
First, re:Klingons in the inevitable NuTrek Sequel, let me be the first to say
FUCK THE KLINGONS.
I'm sorry, but even at my most trekkiest, my "wearing a Starfleet uniform for every halloween and at every other possible opportunity while writing Trek fic for my local Trek fanclub and memorizing the technical manuals and even making my own kiddie trek fan-films in my basement" nerditry, I never, ever EVER got the Klingons. They are, to use Jesse's terminology, WWE Jobbers of the worst variety. In fact, up until the mid-to-late DS9 era, I can only point to two, TWO victories for the Klingons in ST:
1) Imminent victory over the Federation in the Alternate Universe of "Yesterday's Enterprise", and even that is an alterverse, and
2) Killing David Marcus, for which fandom should be grateful. Even at that, the fact that in the whole exchange, the Klingons manage to only kill one naive, unarmed civilian scientist, while Kirk manages to take out more than a half a ship's compliment's worth of Klingon warriors with the sci-fi equivalent of the mob-movie cliche of "car bomb that detonates when they turn on the ignition" speaks volumes about the Klingons' basic lack of competence at their so-called speciality (then again, in this same movie, the new Federation Flagship was defeated by the sci-fi version of "sugar in the gas tank" doesn't speak well of either side).
Yes, the Klingons are SUPPOSED to be bad-ass, but they end up coming off like drunken Viking/Samurai hybrids that never seem to get it together. They're a punchline joke, and unless the NuTrek crew decide to do some radical reinvention and give us the Klingons in a way we've yet to see them, with a new angle, they'll just come off like the semi-retard moron mooks in prosthetics and costumes that they've been.
And while I'm here, there's a couple of other things I can hope to high-heaven that the NuTrek group is smart enough to avoid for the first Sequel:
-No Godlike Energy Aliens (Q, Trelane, Apollo, Redjack, etc etc) - I'm not saying you NEVER have to do this, but don't do it until you have no other choice. The reasoning is simple - it's even harder to take a threat like the Klingons or Romulans or Cardassians or the Thallonians seriously after you and your crew have bested a being of near-omnipotent power.
-Multiple Earths - no planets identical to earth except for the fact that Rome took over, or the Cold War went hot, or any of that jazz. Simple enough, no?
-Fuck the Status Quo - This has sort of been aluded to with some of Kirk's posts, but there is no reason to keep the "big seven" intact, or in the static position that they occupied for original Trek franchise. After all, in what military, hell, in what CIVILIAN organization does the senior staff remain constant for 30 years? Shaking things up would probably do a world of good, particular for Uhura, and it'd be a great way to rotate off some characters and maybe, maybe even create some new usable spin-offs.
-NO FUCKING DAVID MARCUS, EVER - I think all reasonable people can agree that David is the Poochy of the Trek Franchise, and his very existence, upon fresh viewing, opens up a few uncomfortable questions, particularly about Kirk.
And as a final comment and piece of advice - After the disagreement I had with Jard and a few others here, and after my vacation, I sat down and watched some (not all) of the first six Trek films. I do not advise doing this after reading this thread if you wish to maintain affection for these films, as after having done so, I can't help but feel that ST I-VI amount to a 12+ hours long character assassination of the Star Trek concept in general, and the character of James T. Kirk in particular. I can elaborate, but only if prompted to do so, as I have no desire to re-engage the near-flame-war that erupted between myself and Jard, and sincerely apologize for letting it get as far out of hand as it did on my end.
That is all,
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Oct 9, 2009 8:23:03 GMT -8
Huh. Guess there's a Trekish mood in the air. I just pulled out a couple of DC Star Trek TPBs last week (The Mirror Universe Saga and The Best of Star Trek), and suddenly, the Trek/Wars debate lands here. Synchronicity, I suppose.
Anyway, a few random thoughts:
-Man, but the way out-of-canon ST comics (those set between Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, and those between Spock and Voyage home) just seemed aware that they were out of canon, so they just went balls-out-there with concepts (Kirk commanding the Excelsior? OK. Spock getting his own ship? Interesting).
-That said? The attempts to inject new and different supporting cast? Yeah, that failed kinda miserably. Maybe it didn't if you read the comics at the time, but guys like Konom and Bearclaw did not draw me in at all. Well, except Nahart, because, hey, Horta starfleet crewmember is just kind of an awesome concept. It says something I think about the "original seven dynamic" or maybe fandom's lack of desire to mess with it, that these attempts fail.
-Man, but Peter David? Wrote some good Star Trek comics. Whatever happened to him?
-Kirk was given more competence, intelligence, grace, humor and heroism in any given "arc" in these TPBs than he was in Treks V-Generations COMBINED. Ditto any given member of the original cast.
And now, my main point, and this comes from the forward to "Best of Star Trek" by Nicholas Meyer. A key quote.
It's a statement he tries to play down the rest of the foreward, but it's a damning one in my mind. What makes it even more interesting is that Meyer's own contribution to the franchise were even more explicitly militaristic (the colonial-style uniforms, the hard-edged naval protocols including a whistling when the ship commander entered on the bridge, etc). Hell, one could even go so far as to label "The Undiscovered Country" as a Tom Clancy novel set in space.
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Oct 9, 2009 16:21:42 GMT -8
If they do Klingons, I'd rather that they adopt the STNG status quo: Klingons are the Federation's allies but with tons of people on both sides who want to break up the alliance and return to both sides warring with the other.
I would like to see them adapt the whole Kitamire (crappy spelling) Massacre plot point for Nu-Trek. Someone murdered everyone on a Klingon outpost colony and the Klingons blame the Federation for the crime. Kirk and company have to clear the Federation of mass murder and maybe toss in the Cardasians as the ones who carried out the massacre as far as doing it to make the Klingons and Federations schism and start a major war that would let the Cardasians eliminate their two major rivals?
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Oct 9, 2009 17:22:22 GMT -8
Eh, sorry, still holds no interest for me as it makes the Klingons just as rock-dumb as always.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Oct 14, 2009 11:08:12 GMT -8
I'll go you one better.
FUCK STAR TREK.
I've been as big a fan of Star Trek as anyone. All of the points Mike raises are completely valid.
But consider that, in terms of quality, DS9 was by far the best of the Trek's, and it this by taking the Rodenberry formula and throwing out the window.
The Federation was shown to be not quite the Utopia everyone thought, and it had cracks in the Foundation. It had a secret police. They introduced the first pure warship in the franchise. Sisko played down and dirty when he had to. (And no, I'm not going to bring up the Bab 5 comparisons, because while they are many, they were both very different shows, and both excelled at what they were trying to do. I like them both. I refuse to compare one against the other.)
Voyager could have really done well if they would have explored this a little more with less of the Shiny Happy Federation morals being preached to the entire Delta Quadrant.
I am all for taking Star Trek and throwing it down the drain for another 15 years or so. Star Wars also. I am all for setting up a sci-fi universe that doesn't pontificate, doesn't technobabble, and has engaging and believeable characters that don't have hidden godlike super-powers.
In other words, I want Firefly back. Or Farscape.
Or something similar.
I want big huge grand fleet battles, and good science fiction without massive godlike beings interfering. I want fun, believable characters who don't have hidden super-assassin powers.
And I want good stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Oct 14, 2009 11:13:49 GMT -8
I want big huge grand fleet battles, and good science fiction without massive godlike beings interfering. I want fun, believable characters who don't have hidden super-assassin powers. And I want good stories. Amen to that. The whole post, but this in particular. |
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Oct 14, 2009 11:19:56 GMT -8
Then why the hell do you want Firefly back? Firefly ended up derailing into that last cliche as far as everything revolving around River Tam, special girl of destiny with super-assassin powers....
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Oct 14, 2009 13:49:28 GMT -8
Because I like the character of River. I just want them to have her lose the Super-Assassin stuff, which isn't really important to the character, except occasionally when she says things like "And by the way? I can kill you with my brain."
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Oct 14, 2009 20:53:43 GMT -8
I'll go you one better. FUCK STAR TREK. I've been as big a fan of Star Trek as anyone. All of the points Mike raises are completely valid. But consider that, in terms of quality, DS9 was by far the best of the Trek's, and it this by taking the Rodenberry formula and throwing out the window. Clearly you and I have different concepts of what were the better episodes of DS9 (For the record - yes "in the pale moonlight" is good, but for my money? "Beyond the Farthest Star" which is far and away the most Roddenberry-esque episode of DS9? better) The Federation was shown to be not quite the Utopia everyone thought, and it had cracks in the Foundation. It had a secret police. They introduced the first pure warship in the franchise. Sisko played down and dirty when he had to. (And no, I'm not going to bring up the Bab 5 comparisons, because while they are many, they were both very different shows, and both excelled at what they were trying to do. I like them both. I refuse to compare one against the other.) And all of these things were brought in after the fact because they went ahead with a series without a firm understanding of how to make it work as either formula, and no long term plans of how to make the series work, so the writers added in the flaws to the utopia, and the warship, and ultimately the big war. Where you see interesting additions I see grasping at straws because the creators either had no faith in their original vision or didn't have any vision at all. Voyager could have really done well if they would have explored this a little more with less of the Shiny Happy Federation morals being preached to the entire Delta Quadrant. The list of things Voyager could have done better could fill up a thread in and of itself and I will speak no further on the matter. I am all for taking Star Trek and throwing it down the drain for another 15 years or so. Star Wars also. Question: When in the history of any franchise has the "let it rest for a few decades and then rebuild it" method ever worked? Because that "Knight Rider" relaunch didn't exactly set the TV on fire, ditto "Dukes of Hazard", "Flash Gordon" or any other remake made after a 15 year absence, with the sole exception of BSG, which is I think an exception. No one felt the need to do that with James Bond, you'll note. I'm sorry, but I not only question that logic, I flatly deny it. I am all for setting up a sci-fi universe that doesn't pontificate, doesn't technobabble, and has engaging and believeable characters that don't have hidden godlike super-powers. In other words, I want Firefly back. Or Farscape. Or something similar. I must be the only sci-fi fan on the internet that was bored to tears watching Firefly; between Whedon's overly cloy dialogue, "mysteries and secrets" I couldn't care to discover, and character dynamics that while suitable for a high school clicque are utterly ludicrous when applied to anything like a mercenary group, I just found myself rooting for the Alliance to wipe them out. The only saving grace of "Serenity" is that they don't waste time on any of that crap and actually gets down to telling a goddamn story, something Firefly as a series never seemed to deliver. Oh, and I'm a huge huge Farscape fan, but would "hidden godlike powers" include: -Telepathy? -Supersoldier Badassery? -Ressurrection (Self or others?) -The ability to navigate space, time, and alternate realities? Because there are characters from Farscape that demonstrate those at various intervals. Just saying. And both of those series have levels of technobabble, while not as extreme as those of Voyager, are still present. As for pontification, weren't you the one who stated that good science fiction was about making an audience think? If so, thoughts on "District 9"? I want big huge grand fleet battles, and good science fiction without massive godlike beings interfering. I want fun, believable characters who don't have hidden super-assassin powers. And I want good stories. And I could care less about starship battles because they break pretty cleanly into two references: -Naval ship battles ala Horatio Hornblower (Star Trek, 5% of Star Wars and most other franchises, 50% of BSG and B5) -WWI/Top Gun Aerial dogfighting battles (95% of Star Wars, the other 50% of BSG and B5, the Last Starfighter and any other franchise with fightercraft) For the first...honestly, I don't think there's really a good way to get a good one on screen - the closest might have been the opening of "Revenge of the Sith" or the end of the New Caprica arc of BSG, or the Shadow War of B5. And the fighter stuff at this point is cliche. And we're going to have to define what "good science fiction". If you count Farscape, well, that breaks your Godlike aliens edict (Hello, Einstein!). Now in terms of good, approachable moral parable sci-fi? I'll take the first 3-4 seasons of TNG over just about any of the stuff you've just mentioned. A bit preachy, but at least it gets to the point. Fun? I think DS9 was fun, but a candy bar. B5 was occassionally brilliant but hasn't aged well because of over-the top acting (*cough cough Bruce Boxlietner's Shatnerisms cough*) and Claremont-level melodramatic speechiness. Farscape? Good fun, innovative space opera and probably one of my all-time favorite TV shows, but not on the side of social commentary and rarely a "put mirror to the human condition" sort of thing. Firefly? Boring beyond belief. But hey, that's just me. Michael |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Oct 15, 2009 10:36:56 GMT -8
You mean "Far Beyond The Stars?" Yes. Excellent episode. And one of the examples of what made DS9 better than the other treks. It's ability to show how much further man had to go. Or the ability to go. But that was kind of a running undercurrent throughout DS9. They had a lot of episodes that went back to that core theme.
I refer back to my above answer. It wasn't Utopia. Not yet. But they thought it was.
Besides Star Trek itself?
First of all Dukes and Knight Rider both sucked. It's not as if there was a lot there to reimagine. Same concept. Heroes drive cool cars, solve crimes, occasionally girl gets tied up. Viper falls into that category also. For that matter, the majority of shows being displayed late seventies, early eighties were all pretty much crap. And nowadays, we make fun of the shows that still hold that formula. (Beverly Hills 90210, OC, Whatever teen drama show is going on at the moment. It's all Dallas and Falcon Crest in a different setting.) Hollywood is nothing if not repetative.
But bring along a show such as Firefly, Profit, something along those lines, and it usually dies a quick death. I'm flabbergasted Heroes made it through it's first season. Or, more recently, it finds it's way onto a Cable Network. Would Leverage have been successful 20 years ago? Probably not. Saving Grace? Sons of Anarchy? The Shield? Dexter? Six Feet Under? The Sopranos? Not all of these are my cup of tea, but they're universally acclaimed by mainstream and Geeks alike.
If BSG hadn't have thrown out everything that was marginally stupid from the original series, the new one wouldn't have made it four seasons. So what did they keep? Ships designs. Names (Used as callsigns vice their actual names,) the occasional reference to a pantheon of twelve Gods. And the core theme of "There are those that believe that Life here, began out there..." Which didn't even become apparent until the last episode. And that's it.
If Star Trek dies, than so be it. If it can't make it another two decades, fine. But honestly, the remake thing is getting ridiculous lately, anyway. Footloose. Teen Wolf. David Cronenberg is remaking his own version of The Fly.
So why not encourage these people to go out and create something new instead?
Yes. You are.
Bear in mind, I'm not saying Firefly or Farscape themselves should be brought back. But they were new, you know? No one did anything like that before, in both cases, and both were brilliantly done. (Farscape began to tire in the forth season though, you could tell.)
And yes, both Farscape and Firefly had their share of god-like powers, and yes, I'd like to see something that comes along that doesn't rely on that.
Come on Mike. You and I both know the difference between Pontification and questioning things. Do we really need to go there?
Haven't seen District 9 yet. Waiting on DVD. But it looks like Alien Nation only better.
I like space battles. And I thought a few of the DS9 Alpha Alliance vs. Dominion ones were doozies.
Farscape was good science fiction without the Godlike Alien thing. Which, honestly, doesn't come into play as much as you seem to think it does. Living starships, interaction with alien cultures, Rygel alone was worth the first three years. Plus, the character interaction was simply brilliant. And no other series has put it's characters through the ringer like Farscape.
TNG suffered a fatal flaw in characterization. Which is not to say it didn't have some utterly briilaint episodes. Inner Light is my all time favorite Trek episode ever. But the series suffered from what I've come to call the Beverly T. LaForge disease.
TOS was Kirk, Spock, McCoy... and the Rest of the guys. Understandable for a 60's show but something never really corrected in the movies.
TNG was Picard, Data, Troi, Worf... and the rest of the guys. Hell Ro Laren got more exposure than LaForge, Riker and Crusher.
Interestingly enough: Favorite Epsiode of the last three seasons? Lower Decks.
Voyager was : Seven, Janeway, Doctor, Paris... and the rest of the guys. Although not as bad as TNG, but really, the series focused on those characters, and got really bad about it the last two seasons.
DS9 was an ensemble cast, with each character being fleshed out strongly, and even more, the supporting cast was well filled out as well. Honestly, the least exposed character on the show was Jadzia.
Firefly's story was only beginning. Hard to say what it could have evolved into. But I liked what I saw.
And B5 I loved, because I liked the idea of a complete story told over multiple seasons. And I see very few people who have done it as well. And yeah, you really didn't need the fifth season? But it was kind of fun.
But what about shows like Jericho or Jerimiah? Both showed some promise. Both ended before their time.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Oct 15, 2009 12:24:57 GMT -8
Original Series ended in 1969. Animated Series went from '73 to 74. Motion picture came out in 1979, so I'd argue Star Trek never really left for an extended period of time.
My point is that BSG aside, there isn't a good example of your "10-15 year wait and a ressurrection happens". Whereas, with the "continually tweaking and working with the existing premise in other spin offs" you have
-James Bond
-Transformers
-Dr. Who (although that had a medium size break and could go either way)
-Batman (in TV/movies, not counting the comics here)
Heroes (and I say this as someone who watches the show) has lasted through the first season solely on NBC's endless promotion of the star power of Hayden Panettiere and to a much less extent, Masi Oka. The show has been on life support since season two because even Tim Kring never imagined the level of success. It was just a show that was there at the right time, it would seem.
If Star Trek dies, than so be it. If it can't make it another two decades, fine. But honestly, the remake thing is getting ridiculous lately, anyway. Footloose. Teen Wolf. David Cronenberg is remaking his own version of The Fly.
So why not encourage these people to go out and create something new instead?
Oh, and I do encourage the new...provided it's good. Problem is that
1) "New" doesn't automatically equal "good"
2) Even if it's new and good, that doesn't stop it from dying either through stupidity or apathy.
Let's take your platonic example with Firefly - ok, so it's good and new (or at least I'll pretend it is for the sake of arguement) - but who spreads the word on that? This is the flipside to overly-interactive creators; it cheapens the word-of-mouth campaign because it makes the people who spread word of mouth appear to be unpaid mouthpieces. Viral Marketing? How has that worked out for the most part?
It really boils down to putting your money where your mouth is. I know for myself that I'm supporting way more indy stuff (comics and otherwise) than I do out of belief in the product. Point of fact is that I'm hoping to spend some time next month on my blog to promote new, better stuff in comics. But I know it's just one voice in the wilderness kind of thing - maybe I'll get lucky, maybe I won't.
Yippee! I'm so glad to be unique in a way from the rest of fandom.
(Again, seriously: I just don't get what makes Firefly so 'cool' - I tried watching, I did, but at the end of each episode I had to ask myself why no one just made an anonymous tip just so someone could go "Blake's 7" on them).
Actually, you know what? I think we do, yeah. Because I can't get a bead on where you're going here. And that as a guy who's read a lot of sci-fi in his life (True Story - Asimov was bedtime reading in my home when I was a lad), I have a hard time finding even GREAT science fiction that isn't at least somewhat if not strongly preachy.
The Naked Sun? Stranger in a Strange Land? ST: the Original series? Very good, but at the same time, a bit strong at hammering the point home. One of the reasons I prefer the earlier to later seasons of TNG is that, yes there is a commentary point, even if it is made ham-handedly at times.
I view space batlles in TV/Movies as much akin to those big DC comics crossover fights: It basically involves 2-3 recognizable characters (or ships) and a whole group of unknowns and generics all going "POUR IT ON!" until the enemy relents or the good guys are beaten back. So yeah, I mean, it's nice eye-candy (and if drawn by George Perez, you get to play "Where's Waldo?"), but so not the point of science fiction for me.
Farscape was good. On that much we can agree.
Oh, the films corrected that. If by "corrected" we mean "turned McCoy into a cipher and completely butchered James T. Kirk like a slaughterhouse animal".
I figure the only reason Ro got exposure was because she was this cliche-sounding board to make all the other characters look better. She's angry and bitter and cynical and she's always proven WRONG by the plot and is usually PWNED by whatever main character she was interacting with: Picard, Geordi, Guinan, etc. So yeah, exposure was good - but not for her. See, I think that while LaForge never got the spotlight the way others did, he had some character development that is really underplayed and undervalued. Crusher? Eh, not so much. Riker? Hell, up until "Best of Both Worlds" he got the most characterization of any character not named Data.
Fleshed out strongly? Eh, they're good characters, but they only ever worked as niches to me - pieces of a puzzle that had to fit a certain way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Oct 15, 2009 15:29:24 GMT -8
Voyager would have been a lot more enjoyable to me if we'd have seen a serious struggle to maintain those high falutin' prinicpals that Starfleet is so proud of and the occasional "...hmm get my people home or keep the prime directive" conflicts from Janeway.
One thing about Enterprise, especially during the third season, is that was actually dealt with. And it was one of the few aspects of Enteprise that I liked.
It did get dealt with with rather serious consequences towards the latter half of the 6th season, the whole Equinox thing, but by then I didn't really care any more, so...
Of course "New" doesn't equal "Good." But get the right people on it, and it could. But you're right about the Apathy thing.
One of the reasosn I think Firefly appealed to so many was that these were people as far away from the Trek standard as you can get. Thieves. Pirates. Anti-Government. Rebels. And the ship was not new and shiny. And it was still cool. But Fox did their best to make sure Firefly got killed before it could really take off. Which I'm sure they've been kicking themselves for ever since.
Or maybe not.
|
|
