Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
DS9 had the best variety of characters, even if some of them took a bit of getting used to. TNG seemed to loosen up in the fourth and fifth seasons, allowing the characters to grow some personality traits. Voyager had the Doctor and 7. Enterprise had a beagle.

I couldn't bring myself to actually watch Enterprise. The horror of Voyager was still too real. I might try giving it a shot one of these days. I agree with your evaluation of DS9 though. Some of the characters were a little cringeworthy, but of all the ST shows, it seemed like the one with the most believable cast of characters, and I think it was because of that diversity of motives and personalities. It also did a good job of keeping away from the 'all of this alien is good' and 'all of this alien is bad' trope that the previous ones had. Well, except for the shapeshifters, I guess, but again, not ALL of them.

I mean, sure, the Klingons were all Klingons, and the Ferangi were all obnoxious, but they didn't always follow those archetypes. You didn't ALWAYS know who was the bad guy simply because of the spoon on their forehead.

The mysticism stuff was a little annoying though. I didn't care much for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?

I thought Winter Soldier was pretty Dark.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?

I'm down with fun. TNG characters were not fun.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?

No, Marvel are winning because they had a 5-year head start that will have extended to 7 years by the time DC really kicks off with BvS... But once DC get up to speed and are bringing out 2 movies a year, it'll be pretty much level pegging year on year, I imagine.

But I agree that there's enough dark and gritty (read: often stuffed with unnecessary gore, violence and nudity) stuff around, what the TV world needs is more light, innocent and fun stuff. Which is why I love Flash so much and am very hopeful for the upcoming Shannara series.

A Star Trek series that just does Star Trek stuff would be great, no need to reinvent the wheel in an attempt to be edgy and relevant.

Only hated wesley and troi really

A thought occurs. If this is on pay cable, will they be going the whole Game of Boobs route, and loading up on the blood and nudity? An R rated Kirk could be...fun. Same with Riker or Troi. Dear God, the Barclay episodes...

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?

I'm down with fun. TNG characters were not fun.

There was no more fun character than Crazy Hair Riker. Some people think his personality growth happened on his chin, but it was really in his brush the entire time.

I do wonder when it will be set. And in what universe.


But no matter which one they pick, people will cry.

I am...conflicted about this. I really miss TV trek, but trek doesn't do dark and gritty well. While DS9 is my favorite, it also works because it was a different view of the optimistic and positive Federation.

The executive producer is worrying, as Star trek into darkness was horrible and hurt IMO the good will of the reboot by totally missing the point.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
A thought occurs. If this is on pay cable, will they be going the whole Game of Boobs route, and loading up on the blood and nudity? An R rated Kirk could be...fun. Same with Riker or Troi. Dear God, the Barclay episodes...

Doubtful. It's still CBS.

Don't knock game of thrones for boobs! The TV show had fewer nude scenes than the books!

Also, I miss Ros'. Dayam...

 AdeptSister wrote:
I am...conflicted about this. I really miss TV trek, but trek doesn't do dark and gritty well. While DS9 is my favorite, it also works because it was a different view of the optimistic and positive Federation.

The executive producer is worrying, as Star trek into darkness was horrible and hurt IMO the good will of the reboot by totally missing the point.

Agreed.

And the milking of the cash cow continues, by the same people who made the mediocre "reboot" movies. Maybe it will end up being a decent show but I'm not going to get my hopes up until I see some evidence that it's worth watching.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?

I'm down with fun. TNG characters were not fun.

Plenty of today's Trek fans don't want fun. They want sterile, stilted and safe.

But truth be told, focusing on "fun" isn't a guaranteed path to success, as evidenced by the majority of the Marvel movies and shows. Marvel could stand to focus more on making their films and shows actually GOOD on an individual basis. It's not the mortar, it's the bricks.

Here's one I'd like:

Star Trek: Tales of Romulus and Remus

Just no more damn Klingons.

I honestly don't know how they can pull this off.

Also, can we get some new Sci-fi on TV? It seems to be working good for other channels?

 kronk wrote:
Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.

I complain about the movies as much as anyone but I'll cede one point. Abrams put the adventure back into Star Trek. TNG was boring as feth. To this day I still can't watch reruns because they... are... so... zzzzzzzz.....

DS9 was a bit better but it had some really terrible episodes and the social commentary was often really heavy handed. Voyager was better on the social commentary but was still stuck with bad writing and... yea.

Still, the fact that Kurtzman was part of Into Darkness gives me pause.

My God, this IP has suffered so much abuse. Please don't let this new series be "beating a dead horse".

 Breotan wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.

I complain about the movies as much as anyone but I'll cede one point. Abrams put the adventure back into Star Trek. TNG was boring as feth. To this day I still can't watch reruns because they... are... so... zzzzzzzz.....

Although I bet if you were to run a poll, TNG would come out on top..

Actually, looking it up
http://www.startrek.com/article/poll-fans-most-watched-star-trek-series-is

What the feth is wrong with people putting Voyager above DS9

Also, Enterprise above the animated series?! I didn't even know there was an animated series, but don't need to watch it to know that it was better than Enterprise.

 Pacific wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.

I complain about the movies as much as anyone but I'll cede one point. Abrams put the adventure back into Star Trek. TNG was boring as feth. To this day I still can't watch reruns because they... are... so... zzzzzzzz.....

Although I bet if you were to run a poll, TNG would come out on top..

Actually, looking it up
http://www.startrek.com/article/poll-fans-most-watched-star-trek-series-is

What the feth is wrong with people putting Voyager above DS9

Also, Enterprise above the animated series?! I didn't even know there was an animated series, but don't need to watch it to know that it was better than Enterprise.

Forget beating DS9. It beat TOS.

I didn't mind Voyager as much as most people seem to mind. In fact, I liked it better than TNG and much (but not all) of DS9, especially the early DS9 stuff. I hated the way Enterprise (series) had the "oh, we invented that" complex regarding everything Trek but I really liked the actors on Enterprise the most.

The first Abrams Trek movie had adventure which was lost more or less when ToS went off the air. The new stuff tried to be too philosophical for it's own good. The second Abrams' Trek was just a horrid abomination that made even the worst Star Trek films look like masterpieces by comparison.

Why can't people in power treat an IP with respect? Shows are so much better that way. Daredevil. The X-Men, Captain America & sequal, etc. Even Nolan's Batman trilogy was good because he (mostly) respected the IP.

What happens when you don't respect an IP? Agents of Shield, season one. Batman & Robin. Heroes. True Blood.

Man, the entertainment industry has made me cynical.

I liked Enterprise and the new movies! There I said it.

My money's on the up-till-now unheard of adventures of Scotty, Engineer and master "swordsman" played by Pegg, set in the new universe.

His one season mission to get in zaney adventures with that Alf monster he had in the films, inadvertently pulling exotic crumpet, making jokes and generally blowing junk up.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Why does Star Trek need to be dark?

To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.

You want it to appear more real by being more like our current, cynical lives? The characters were starry eyed because they were striving to be. They dealt with the torture and loss they experienced, but never gave up looking forward. That was the idea.

if you want brutal, nasty universes, there are cheaper franchises to resurrect.

k

Agreed. Sometimes it's good to have some escape with something that doesn't make you want to slit your wrists after seeing it. If I want grim, gritty, and dark, I can open a newspaper or watch episodes of Torchwood. Guaranteed bummer by the end of each show.

If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Transgender Captain.

Obviously the Captain will be Borg, as in the far future the Federation finally talked the collective into defeat by constantly telling them how wrong they were

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Why does Star Trek need to be dark?

To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.

Or, you know, not.

Star Trek is Star Trek, if you don't want starry-eyed utopianism then don't watch it. Like someone else said, this kind of mindset is what led to them turning one of the best lighthearted sci-fi adventure settings into 90210 IIIINNNN SPAAAAAACE!. If you want gritty, go enjoy Dark Matter, or gritty-but-still-not-too-serious there's Killjoys now. If you want po-faced navel-gazing Nolanverse-style growlymen space adventures, there's all those seasons of BSG-reboot just waiting for you. There's not one but two time-travelling conspiracy shows out at the moment(well, Continuum has just finished, but it's still new and we're getting more 12 Monkeys in the new year).

There has never been as much "serious" sci-fi on TV as there is right now, indeed virtually all sci-fi TV output at the moment is geared towards your tastes. I want my goddamn starry-eyed utopianism show back.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Why does Star Trek need to be dark?

To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.

Dark =/= realistic. I'd be fine with a Star Trek that made a genuine attempt to consider the messy reality where idealism conflicts with Doing What Must Be Done. In fact, that's something that existing Star Trek shows have done in the past, with conflicts between obeying the ideal of the prime directive and the crew's own morality. But I don't want to see a Star Trek that is dark just for the sake of being dark, because some accountant decided that dark shows produce better profit numbers these days.

Amen to that!

Consider yourself exalted. Killjoys and Dark Matter were good, but I still love Star Trek.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Why does Star Trek need to be dark?

To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.

Dark =/= realistic. I'd be fine with a Star Trek that made a genuine attempt to consider the messy reality where idealism conflicts with Doing What Must Be Done. In fact, that's something that existing Star Trek shows have done in the past, with conflicts between obeying the ideal of the prime directive and the crew's own morality. But I don't want to see a Star Trek that is dark just for the sake of being dark, because some accountant decided that dark shows produce better profit numbers these days.

Ditto.

And I'd also add that it needs to either be in a the current alternate timeline or a completely different sector of the galaxy that hasn't been touched by Star Trek (universe is huge).

Star Trek needs to be about the hard choices good guys have to make to follow their morals. It'd be nice to see a universe on tv again where real good guys can win, rather than get killed off.

You mean the JJ Abrahms TimeLine?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You mean the JJ Abrahms TimeLine?

With the guys who made the Abrams' movies involved, I'm pretty sure they're going to be using the "new" timeline.

With Pere and Whembly on this one. Part of what made DS9 so great was that it didn't hand wave away the realities of politics. At the same time, it didn't try to destroy the Utopian vision of the Federation, but rather subjected it to some reality and make that part of the drama of the series.

It was great, and I often find the people who deride that to have missed the entire point; Utopia, and sticking to your ideals, is not easy. Sometimes it might even be self-destructive, but that doesn't make your ideals wrong.