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.

 LordofHats wrote:
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.

If DS9 had dropped the crappy messiah Sisko subplot and all the Section 31 rubbish towards the end it would have been almost perfect(I say almost perfect because they did start to miss the mark a bit as the Dominion War arc went on, to my mind they went a bit beyond "not handwaving away the reality" and started to play up the militarism angle a bit too much). The way I see it now, DS9 was the most consistently watchable Trek series, with the right blend of TOS-style "socially progressive adventure funtime" show and TNG-style "morality play/philosophy class/science porn with a vague plot to justify showing it on TV" show(althought it could probably have done with a touch more of the former in the early seasons and a touch more of the latter in the later ones). Voyager was a trainwreck, all of its good episodes were ideas either ripped wholesale or partially from TNG and made watchable only by the actor(Voyager's showrunners owe Jeri Ryan and Robert Picardo a lot, IMO, since despite their cynical reasons for hiring her and their initial failure to realise the potential of the Doctor's character, those two actors basically carried the show once they got decent screen time, and their arcs are still the only eps I bother to rewatch occasionally). As for Enterprise, a potentially interesting concept completely squandered, its confusingly dull run punctuated by disturbing fanservice("decon-gel"; really?) and a very occasional watchable episode.

But even where Trek was flawed, or dull, it had something most other sci-fi TV shows lack, especially now; optimism. Yes, there would be a struggle to get there, and yes, there would be challenges to face, but the future, it told us, was a brighter place, and people are capable of being better if we work at it. With the endless parade of killer cyborgs from the future, killer cyborgs from the past, totes-not-9/11-honest-guv-future-terror-attacks, sinister alien infiltrations, and oppressive corporate dystopias that litter sci-fi programming, I think we need an occasional Star Trek or Stargate or Doctor Who.

Hell, who's going to be inspired to create the AI that murders the world if we don't have something like Star Trek to get kids interested in science?

EDIT: Oh, and if this is set in the JJverse, that's an auto-pass from me. I have zero interest in watching some horrifying "reinterpretation" of TNG-era Trek(because you know that's what would happen). Prime Universe or eff-off.

Totally agree about Seven of Nine and the Doctor. The Doctor really made that series enjoyable for me and his episodes remain many of the best, if not the best period.

 LordofHats wrote:
Totally agree about Seven of Nine and the Doctor. The Doctor really made that series enjoyable for me and his episodes remain many of the best, if not the best period.

The episode where the doctor had to deal with the consequences of saving one crew member vs another was beautiful. The emotions and lack of a clear resolution at the end bumped the doctor up several several slots on my list of favourite characters. That episode is a good example of what it means to be realistic, but not too dark. It presents tough choices to the characters which they have to reconcile with an optimistic world view. An entire series of episodes like that one would be a bit much, but an episode everynow and then would be good.

I heard a while back that there was talk of a Star Trek series featuring the adventures of Worf after DS9. Could this be the results?

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Nor do I and that's not what I suggested. The earlier Treks were too 'Saturday morning cartoon' though.

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

"Hey guys! We can spotlight the creation of the Federation, the beginning of the Klingon War, and even have the Dorn!"

"feth that noise. Time traveling pig fethers from inter-dimensional space."

"But...Klingon war..."

"Pig...fethers..."

"..."

Enterprise was an abomination. That's what you get for letting Berman do his thang. Bloke didn't have an original idea in his head, just kept steering the show down the same tired path.

hotsauceman1 wrote:As long as jj Abrams stay as far away as possible.

Why? He did a successful, and popular, reboot.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Can we have janeway as a supporting character?

God no.

kronk wrote:Janeway sucked. Hard. The only thing good about voyager was 37D of nine. That's it.

A different TOS/TNG please! (obviously, new crew. Kirk and Pikard have had their time)

37D of nine sucked had as well. That wasn't intended as innuendo. Much.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:That's pretty much the antithesis of what the show was about: a hopeful future where peace and discourse win out over fear and violence. DS9 explored the underside of the issue, but without the Utopian ideals of the earlier series, it wouldn't have had any impact.

No. God no! What a dull show it ended up being when Voyager and Enterprise went all lovey dovey. TOS make it up as you go along fistfights and coyboy diplomacy is what you need. You don't need dark. Just don't go fething hippy either

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Enterprise should have been Das Boot in space. Cramped grubby ship with action shots of the crew manually loading photon torpedoes and charging down corridors shouting at people to leap out the way into their bunks. Instead we got the same clean spacious and boring stuff.

Aye, wasted opportunity. But, that's Berman for you. Hopefully, they'll never let him near the reins of anything ever again.

 zedmeister wrote:
Why? He did a successful, and popular, reboot.

A mediocre generic action movie, you mean. If the reboot is the best we have to hope for then I really hope they just cancel this show before it even begins.

 Peregrine wrote:

A mediocre generic action movie, you mean. If the reboot is the best we have to hope for then I really hope they just cancel this show before it even begins.

You may have not liked it, but it was the highest grossing Star Trek film ever with Into Darkness not doing too shabbily either. I don't think the reboot time line will be finished and I expect the new series to carry on with the reboot in some fashion.

 zedmeister wrote:
You may have not liked it, but it was the highest grossing Star Trek film ever with Into Darkness not doing too shabbily either. I don't think the reboot time line will be finished and I expect the new series to carry on with the reboot in some fashion.

Successfully milking the cash cow doesn't make it a good movie.

 Peregrine wrote:

Successfully milking the cash cow doesn't make it a good movie.

Expect it to be milked hard. But, if they retain good writers, a decent cast and thought towards universe continuity (something that Enterprise and Voyager failed abysmally at - how many shuttles did they loose in the end?) then it'll be worth watching. The reboot gives them a lovely blank slate to start without worrying about what's been made before. Should also allow for some interesting universe crossovers as well.

Why the hell do people dislike Into Darkness? I seriously don't understand.

 zedmeister wrote:
The reboot gives them a lovely blank slate to start without worrying about what's been made before.

The problem is that the reboot ignored that blank slate in favor of milking the cash cow of fanboy nostalgia. Instead of a new crew and a new story we got an inferior copy of the same iconic characters that seems to exist for the sole purpose of getting people to say "OMG SPOCK IS BACK" and feel superior because they get all of the references to the original series. If I want to see Kirk vs. Khan again I'll just watch the original movie, not a modern reboot that misses the whole point of the original story.

And the other side of the "blank slate" issue is that if you're going to have a blank slate then why do you need to put the Star Trek brand on it? Why take on all of that baggage instead of making an original concept where you're free to do what's best for the story? It's just a cheap way to sell tickets to the people who will buy anything with the Star Trek brand attached.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:
Why the hell do people dislike Into Darkness? I seriously don't understand.

Because there's no reason at all to bring Khan in besides fanboy nostalgia. Trying to re-tell Wrath of Khan makes absolutely no sense in the reboot universe or at this point in Kirk's story.

A few years ago, this would have been good news, but now it's just meh.

Having enjoyed Babylon 5, Farscape, and the new Battlestar Galataca, I just can't go back to Star Trek.

Sci-fi had moved on. Audiences have moved on. People want grit and story arcs.

They don't want cringe inducing episodes involving Wesley Crusher, Barclay, the charisma vacuum that was La Forge, or the mediocrity that was Voyager.

Looking back at the early series of TNG...

If this new series goes down the same path of formulaic rubbish, then then franchise could end up dead and buried.

They need to be bold.

I was afraid of new IP so this fits right into my wheelhouse.

New ideas are frightening and scary, and the idea we may not have gotten every ounce of cash out of this one doubly so. Can't just leave money on the table after all.

I'm not a Star Trek fan (DS9 was pretty cool, and I like Picard, and the Trek movies), but I'm really wondering when and where this would be set. Old timeline? New timeline? A third timeline?

 Peregrine wrote:
And the milking of the cash cow continues...

Oh please!

There hasn't been a Star Trek show on TV in 10 years. This is hardly 'milking a cash cow'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There hasn't been a Star Trek show on TV in 10 years. This is hardly 'milking a cash cow'.

But there have been movies, merchandise, conventions, and internet related ephemera.

I wish they'd picked up Renegades instead.

I hope the folks who are coming out of the movie franchise have learned from their mistakes, although my expectations are low.

The paywall is also frustrating.

 Peregrine wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
The reboot gives them a lovely blank slate to start without worrying about what's been made before.

The problem is that the reboot ignored that blank slate in favor of milking the cash cow of fanboy nostalgia. Instead of a new crew and a new story we got an inferior copy of the same iconic characters that seems to exist for the sole purpose of getting people to say "OMG SPOCK IS BACK" and feel superior because they get all of the references to the original series. If I want to see Kirk vs. Khan again I'll just watch the original movie, not a modern reboot that misses the whole point of the original story.

And the other side of the "blank slate" issue is that if you're going to have a blank slate then why do you need to put the Star Trek brand on it? Why take on all of that baggage instead of making an original concept where you're free to do what's best for the story? It's just a cheap way to sell tickets to the people who will buy anything with the Star Trek brand attached.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:
Why the hell do people dislike Into Darkness? I seriously don't understand.

Because there's no reason at all to bring Khan in besides fanboy nostalgia. Trying to re-tell Wrath of Khan makes absolutely no sense in the reboot universe or at this point in Kirk's story.

Exactly. The first reboot did something new and every character had their moment to shine. Into Darkness compares poorly to Wraith of Khan. Wraith of Khan worked because:
1. It really is a well crafted movie
2. Its a continuation of the classic episode "Space Seed"

The history that Khan and Kirk have create a tension and balance that was great in Wraith of Khan. Kirk was confronted by his hubris and his need to win without sacrifice. It was a great, solid movie.

Into Darkness...sigh. It wallowed in Star Trek Trivia but missed all the points. Heck, so much was pointless. And it added so many issues....(Resurrection Blood. Super Transporters. Invasion of the Klingon home planet.)

Don't even get started about the casting of Khan....

 AdeptSister wrote:
Into Darkness...sigh. It wallowed in Star Trek Trivia but missed all the points. Heck, so much was pointless. And it added so many issues....(Resurrection Blood. Super Transporters. Invasion of the Klingon home planet.)

Not to mention the ramming of a warp core straight into Starfleet HQ. I'm surprised there was any survivors at all.

As long as there's room for Neelix, I'm happy

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As long as there's room for Neelix, I'm happy

There's always room for Neelix if you dice him up finely enough.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As long as there's room for Neelix, I'm happy

There's always room for Neelix if you dice him up finely enough.

Could never understand the hate for Neelix. Guy's a fashion icon

 zedmeister wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A mediocre generic action movie, you mean. If the reboot is the best we have to hope for then I really hope they just cancel this show before it even begins.

You may have not liked it, but it was the highest grossing Star Trek film ever with Into Darkness not doing too shabbily either. I don't think the reboot time line will be finished and I expect the new series to carry on with the reboot in some fashion.

Transformers make bank, but it isnt good.
Star Trek isnt action, its about the people on a ship facing obstacles and new experiances. My Favorite episode of TNG has to be the one where they all forget who they are, but suddenly there is a new crew member.

STOS was heavy action. Wagon train in...space!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As long as there's room for Neelix, I'm happy

There's always room for Neelix if you dice him up finely enough.

Could never understand the hate for Neelix. Guy's a fashion icon

It's the way he was written. Just like how Mulgrew played Janeway as bipolar, Phillips had to play Neelix as annoying and oblivious just to match the writing. Considering how many situations he made worse, and how many crew members died because of his bullcrap, it's amazing they let him stay aboard all those years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
STOS was heavy action. Wagon train in...space!

Is that a William Shatner girdle joke?


I enjoyed TNG a lot, but it was clear that their budget really limited the amount of action onscreen. BOBW, The Wounded, Conundrum (@Hotsauceman), and many other episodes had to hold back or tell instead of show. With modern CGI, a TNG style series could have a lot more action, the way DS9 did in the later seasons.

Besides, I was not arguing against action, but rather against pointless 'darker and edgier' action.

He was Janeways lackeys to kill the Crew that disagreed with her.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
He was Janeways lackeys to kill the Crew that disagreed with her.

I like this interpretation a lot.

It's almost as convincing as Counselor Troi actually acting as the political officer who makes sure the senior crew members think the proper thoughts and toe the Party line.

Voyager Makes alot more sense IF you think like this.
1: Janeway was a Bi-polar captain who Star-Fleet needed to get rid of.
2: Paris was only allowed because starfleet let him go to get rid of him
3: Harry Kim is the worst.
In the end, Voyager was meant to be stuck in the Delta Quadrant, full of criminals and horrible Officers & crew. So Starfleet decided to run a massive sociological experiment on how deepspace travel affects people

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There hasn't been a Star Trek show on TV in 10 years. This is hardly 'milking a cash cow'.

Sure it is. Aside from the fact that you're just nitpicking the difference between a TV show and a movie it's milking the cash cow because there's no reason for it to exist. Just look at your own defense of it: there hasn't been a Star Trek show in 10 years. Why does there need to be a Star Trek show at all times? Why not just accept that the story has been told and let the franchise end?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Exactly. The first reboot did something new and every character had their moment to shine. Into Darkness compares poorly to Wraith of Khan. Wraith of Khan worked because:
1. It really is a well crafted movie
2. Its a continuation of the classic episode "Space Seed"

3. It's a continuation of Kirk's story. Wrath of Khan is fundamentally a story of Kirk's past catching up to him. His certainty in being the hero has left him an enemy that he didn't even bother to remember. His habit of sleeping with everyone has left him a son who hates him. His overconfidence gets his ship crippled in a trap he should have avoided. The rest of the movie (and the ones that followed) is about Kirk growing up and trying to fix his mistakes. And you just can't do that with a young Kirk.

 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.

Grim, but not grimdark Starfleet protects the somewhat clueless utopian Federation citizens. DS9 nailed the feel of a "real" Star Trek Universe in ways that the other shows could only hope to touch on in a few really good episodes.

 Frazzled wrote:
STOS was heavy action. Wagon train in...space!

TOS is often viewed through the beer-goggles of modernity - people give TNG lots of gak for being "hippy" etc, but TOS was a show being broadcast in 1960's America that had a female black comms officer, a Russian weapons officer, an asian helmsman, and a mixed-race first officer(sure it was "Vulcan/Human", but the allegory was hardly subtle when it was used as a plot hook), who flew around the galaxy fighting horrible monsters that turned out to be parents defending their children from humanity's rapacious mining operations, or being stranded with alien societies that highlighted the absurdity of racism. It was hippy as gak, man.

Sure, Kirk shagged a few green alien girls and punched a few space-bums in space-bars, but this idea that TOS was a rock'em sock'em Cowboys In Spaaaace adventure show while TNG-era was nothing but navel-gazin' commie philosophizin' is a fiction. Trek has always(prior to the reboot films) been socially progressive and challenging for its day, so wanting the show go back to a time when the reason there was still lots of women in skimpy outfits and occasional outbursts of violence with troubling implications was the context of society at that time, is like wanting modern cop shows to go back to guys with huge mustaches, baggy trousers, and midlife-crisis muscle cars riding around beating up poor people and black people, because that's what they were like in the good ol' days. Except even more odd, because cop shows have generally never been deliberately written to be progressive social commentary.

 Peter Wiggin 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.

Grim, but not grimdark Starfleet protects the somewhat clueless utopian Federation citizens. DS9 nailed the feel of a "real" Star Trek Universe in ways that the other shows could only hope to touch on in a few really good episodes.

Well yes, except for how it repeatedly explicitly rejected that idea. The whole Maquis arc, the Homefront two-parter, the Section 31 episodes, hell the entire reason In the Pale Moonlight is generally considered one of the best Trek eps of all the series' is the way it brilliantly conveys the way Sisko has to tie himself in knots and tear himself up inside emotionally to justify doing something he knows is so clearly wrong. The message is confused a little by the episodes where overt militarism is played pretty much straight, but I'd argue that's a flawed writing for those episodes.