To bastardise a ST:TVH quote:
“There can be no Trek! While Moonves lives!”
The franchise is on a much needed hiatus right now. When tptb change to some that truly care about sci-fi on TV, Trek will be back. I wonder if a series of unrelated two hour TV movies at random intervals might not be a viable future alternative…
[QUOTE=Dan Norder]
There are rumors of a new movie in planning stages focusing on the early lives of Kirk and Spock meeting at Starfleet Academy as teens/young adults. With Shatner and Nimoy attached as older versions of the characters or something.
[/QUOTE]
There are also rumors of Matt Damon playing Kirk, although that obviously wouldn’t work with a teenaged version of the character. With or without Damon, I think the idea is a hideous nightmare. Star Trek should have been put to bed years ago - if not forever, at least until they came up with solid new ideas.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
There are also rumors of Matt Damon playing Kirk, although that obviously wouldn’t work with a teenaged version of the character. With or without Damon, I think the idea is a hideous nightmare.
[/QUOTE]
Heh. I can see it now: Star Trek: Kirk and Spock: The Early Days
Spock: Jim, I can’t swim.
Kirk: What’re you talking about? The fall’ll probably kill ya!
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Unless I misread him, I think he was trying to favorably compare the writing in TOS to firefly… that’s what I was faux flipping out over.
[/QUOTE]
That’s…an odd way to phrase a reply.
In any case, that was kinda my point—TOS was pretty good, comparable to Firefly (they’re different enough for a straight comparison to be a bit tricky, I think). But, even in it’s lowest points, it doesn’t come close to the atrocities that it’s decendants put onscreen.
[QUOTE=Ranchoth]
. But, even in it’s lowest points, it doesn’t come close to the atrocities that it’s decendants put onscreen.
[/QUOTE]
True. When TOS was bad, it was GLORIOUSLY bad. When it sucked, which at times it did, it was an INNOVATIVE sucking. The layer versions of the franchise simply had some shit thrown on TV when they went bad.
[QUOTE=Ranchoth]
That’s…an odd way to phrase a reply.
[/quote]
Yes, sir, it is.
I guess I have little context. Maybe trek compares favorably to average TV shows at the time in a similar way to firefly comparing to its comtemporaries, but I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which it’s even in the same ballpark as firefly quality-wise. I mean, good writing wasn’t just invented in the last decade, so you can compare them to an extent, although admittedly the standards have changed over time. But firefly is genius - I can’t imagine, even at the time, that TOS was ever anything but a pretty cool novelty.
What I like about star trek is the playing out of scenarios based on various current scientific theory. What if there were parallel universes, what if you could somehow warp space time with some kind of drive engine. How would people deal with these abilities, and how would relationships develop…etc.
I think a good idea would be to basically explore the latest theories in science, find something that can have a human interest story tied to it, and persue that, rather than just slapping some gross makeup and ridiculous plastic junk spraypainted silver on some dumb actors talking about stupid things.
mabey persue some string theory tangents?
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Yes, sir, it is.
I guess I have little context. Maybe trek compares favorably to average TV shows at the time in a similar way to firefly comparing to its contemporaries, but I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which it’s even in the same ballpark as firefly quality-wise. I mean, good writing wasn’t just invented in the last decade, so you can compare them to an extent, although admittedly the standards have changed over time. But firefly is genius - I can’t imagine, even at the time, that TOS was ever anything but a pretty cool novelty.
[/QUOTE]
I think the nearness and novelty of Firefly has swept you away. Firefly is/was good solid entertainment with witty scripts and (usually) good acting by the main characters, but it’s hardly “genius” on a consistent basis, and it did have some clunky elements. It’s apples & oranges to some extent, but IMO story vs story ST TOS was more variable, and the script quality ranged more widely, but at it’s best with a top notch story ST TOS was an order of magnitude above Firefly’s best.
[QUOTE=astro]
at it’s best with a top notch story ST TOS was an order of magnitude above Firefly’s best.
[/QUOTE]
Different markets, though. In our modern post-Seinfeldian ironocracy, the cynicism of Firefly plays better than it would in the sixties.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Sulu’s right there on the line, conflicted between wanting to make a historic name for himself (and get out of the shadow of his believed-dead mentor James Kirk) but is afraid that if the shit really hits the deflector, the Excelsior might end up being remembered as a vector of mass destruction just like the (dun dun DUNNN) Enola Gay
[/QUOTE]
When the doors open on his ship, do they go swish ?
d&r
I think they should leave the original series alone. It’s akin to colorizing. Yes, there were flaws and flubs and ( even for the day ) mediocre EFX. My god, it was a weekly series with aspirations ! Take " City On The Edge of Forever". Do we need to layer in wide shots of Depression-era big citie? ( Chicago? NYC? Can’t remember ). No. We do not. That episode unravels like a nice stage play. The feel of the sets and lack of huge wide shots is a part of that. Why screw with all of the details that helped make the overall tone of the series what it is?
Take the thirty million they’re gonne spend, or ten, or whatever it is, and plow it into completely fresh sci fi. Or, a completely fresh angle on the Star Trek universe. Plenty to work with there.
Cartooniverse, who attended two Star Trek Cons as a child. 