Discussion in 'Archive: SF&F: Films and Television' started by ObiWanCon, Jul 27, 2006.
You mean Battlestar Galactica?
If Voyager had been BSG, there would have been no need for BSG. But like RDM said, you just can't BS the fans week after week. And there was nothing more preposterous than a group of people who set out to explore the galaxy going to far, and then single mindedly focusing on getting back to home, even when there are multiple opportunities to find perfectly good places to live.
Obviously now you couldn't make a Star Trek BSG now, but if Star Trek had gone the logical route of making characters that actually responded to events like humans, it might still be on television. Which would have been good for ST, bad for BSG. Instead they held to this 1960's notion of a socialist utopian future when people aren't actually people, but more advanced and intelligent creatures than have washed aside the most fundamental aspects of human nature because of superior technology.
All I can say is that the reason the new Star Trek was a success is because they didn't turn them into a bunch of pansies. In the new universe, Wesley Crusher is going to get the crap beat out of him like any other teacher's pet nerd.
So say we all.
After seeing Nemesis again, I'm surprised at its various similarities to Abrams' Star Trek. Basically the new film looks more and more like a stew created from ingredients such as The Wrath of Khan, Nemesis, and the obscure American sci-fi remake of The Hidden Fortress.
So in other words...they have tap danced on Gene's Grave while taking a paper shredder to his dreams of utopian, super humanity mythos?
I can live with that.
I disagree - the crew seemed to like Chekov.
In my opinion, the new Trek is a success because it's so hopeful, and so light on malice. Kirk is about stopping Nero not because Nero killed his father and destroyed Vulcan and needs to be killed for vengeances sake, but rather to prevent him from destroying more.
Kirk isn't going to weep for Nero, because he's a nasty man who consciously caused an extraordinary deal of suffering. But at the same time, he offer to help Nero, because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Revenge is a selfish act. It's not about those lost, it's about finding a way for those left behind to feel in control of events. Mercy, on the other hand, is the ultimate act of living up to the hopes of those left behind.
YES, New Trek oversimplifies things. It can do better. But the overall message is still there. And now that it's captured a new audience, it has a chance to deliver its optimistic message on a scale that hasn't been possible for over a generation.
Not only that but it expands on the challenge Pike gives Kirk on Earth when he dares him to do better than his father did in the short amount of time he was captain of the Kelvin.
[link=http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/09/16/jj-abrams-and-roberto-orci-will-address-relevant-issues-in-the-star-trek-sequel/]J.J. Abrams And Roberto Orci Will Address Relevant Issues In The 'Star Trek' Sequel[/link]
"We got a lot of fan response from the first one and a considerable amount of critical response and one of the things we heard was, 'Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues,'" Orci weighed in. "We're trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what's going on today as possible. So that's one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today."
Wow, I hope they're careful that one. One of the greatest strengths of the first movie was its idealistic approach. It was a FUN space adventure, an escapist fantasy. I for one don't want to see the contemporary world and all its problems transposed onto the Trek Universe. The great part about Trek has always been that it's an optimistic vision of a future where humanity has moved PAST most of its petty modern problems.
I REALLY don't want this franchise turning into BSG...
To be fair though, ST has always tackled current sociopolitical issues during its history. It wouldn't surprise me to see them deal with internal or external terrorism in the next one.
Remember in this reboot the issue of Spock's heritage (biracial) was front and center throughout the movie. It was used against him during the fight scene with the other kids. It was used against him when Kirk took over the Enterprise (at Spock Prime's suggestion no less). We saw Uhura kiss Spock (interracial kiss) before he and Kirk beamed away. It was insinuated that Kirk was making out with the green alien chick at Starfleet Academy. Nero almost destroyed an entire civilization because of his hatred of ONE person. Ethnic genocide is front and center throughout the movie. In fact, it's the sole reason for the events of the movie. So, in one sense their timeline has moved passed it, but on the other hand they haven't moved entirely away from it.
I don't really see that quote as really saying anything other than they're going to stay true to the original vision by Roddenberry. I do agree though that it has to remain fun, campy, and a good sci-fi movie. If it's not, nobody will care about the social issues in the movie.
I don't have a problem with it taking on contemporary issues.
Contemporary for the 23rd century, that is.
( Of course, this is science fiction, which often pretends to be about another time but is always really about the time in which it was made. )
I think nature is such that issues would be cyclical. The issues may change on the surface but I think the underlying causes remain the same.
and isn't it funny how, at the time, B5 was seen as a metaphore for the Clinton presidency, but now it's seen as a metaphore for the BushJr regime?
Some things are just universal.
On the other hand, B5 was relatively subtle.
Enterprise's scripts for seasons 3&4 weren't subtle in the least. What's more, they sucked & were boring.
Therein lies the key and it's why I mentioned it in a previous post. If the show isn't fun, campy, and well done, the social issues it tackles make no difference at all. The reason being because nobody is bothering to watch a sucky show/movie.
On a very related note (G.W. Bush-related, I mean)...every fan of B5 [link=http://jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-16688]needs read this JMS posting.[/link]
And even Wil Wheaton would likely agree with you -- his recent ***hole bully-boy role on The Guild pretty much reinforces this.
Heck, I'd feel better if there was ANYTHING like real-world fashion on Star Trek: the Next Generation, just so all of the Federation non-Starfleet types wouldn't creep me out so much with their near-identical Communist Wear. "We have no need for money," indeed. And you all dress the same, you bastards. Where did Wesley Crusher get that ugly sweater?
Off the rack, just like everyone else.
What would you consider real world fashion though?
They spend most of their time on duty. We actually saw very little of them in a casual atmosphere. I guess they could work it into other alien cultures.
It wasn't so much the crew- we saw some decent (if very plain) variety in civvy clothing for the TNG crew, It was more the other races and stations, etc they encountered. Anyone in the Federation but not Starfleet had the same type of uniforms/outfits, and most worlds/outposts dressed the same too.
I wonder if that was done intentionally to show a sort of unity.
Or not wanting to buy a new set of costumes for just one scene.
I wouldn't put it past the production company to do something like that.
That's all it was mostly- budget limitations for wardrobe. Though sometimes also to make them look spacey.
Well, that explains why they were extra skimpy on the alien female costumes.
The point you folks are missing is that, while these gals were vastly better-looking than the norm, they all had something in common that your girlfriend doesn't have -- William Ware Theiss, The Man Who Undressed Ladies on NBC in Prime-Time.
Think of the backless, sideless outfits in TOS and early TNG -- "Bouchet" (her real name is something Germanic, I forget) and her Full-Backal Nudity Outfit, or Sherry Jackson and her male-destroying criss-cross front; or the drifty, flow-y things he made up out of a couple of yards of cheap gauze because the costume budget was about two-bucks and-change per guest actor.
It's a crying shame that the "accident" footage all went into Gene's private collection, since the accident-proneness of the outfits was one of the primary attention triggers, and much hilarity often occurred on the sets.
(This approach has been maintained to this day; there were more three-frame "accidents" in Moonraker than in any other movie in history, a series of subliminal triggers that resulted in a very dry-eyed audience; and even in RotJ, there's the infamous bit where Oola pops out of her top shortly before Jabba gives her the shaft.)
I still celebrate the anniversary of October 20, 1966, the date that Sherry Jackson's outfit first aired on network TV. Forty-three years since it first appeared, and it hasn't lost any of its impact.
I can respect a good skimpy outfit.
Another "Urban Legend" has it that Kim Catrall did some n00dz on the Enterprise bridge during the ST VI shooting, but that the pics were confiscated and destroyed.