A grittier new Star Trek series?
- Thread starter Naitron
- Start date
Yes, if someone wants a gritty, dark and dystopian series....than just make a new, different series and not slap "Star Trek" on it. I mean if I went outside, scooped up a pail of goose droppings, and slapped "STAR TREK" on the side, would you want it, simply because of the label?
And yes, I agree with you, I too want a a new, hopeful, adventure/exploration Trek show. But seeing as how we have nothing but NuBSG, Jar Jar Trek, and Star Wars, I sadly doubt we'll ever see Bob Wise/Stanley Kubrick caliber style stuff. Now we're only gonna be stuck with Jar Jar Abrams and Michael Bay type stuff.
So, that's one of the reasons I'm planning on making my own Trek comics, and once I get the hang of it, posting them up, if I want to see it done right, looks like I'm going to have to do it myself.
People have definately lost faith in the old technology. Now everything, everything is in the computer and I think that is a good thing - the radio, the t.v., the mall, the post office, the social sites etc., etc. We might as well live under ground like Bill Gates or the Talosians do or each in a little alternate reality exploring cyberspace. T.v people can't like that some of these fan webisodes are better than anything they're making for millions of dollars and you tube is always interesting. It kinda makes me wonder if even personalities are becoming obsolete like entertainment is. We don't have to be funny, just watch your favorite sitcom.
Voyager was gritty? Since when? They had a holodeck show within the first five episodes, despite being stranded on the other side of the galaxy, that's how non-gritty it was. That ship not only got home after seven years as squeaky clean as it was when it left, but it had super duper upgrades, too. Voyager is the exact opposite of what you do when you want to make a gritty show.
As for the topic, I agree with a previous poster who wants serious, not gritty. I want a serious show with characters that solve their problems in realistic ways, not one in which their problems are solved in the last five minutes by the writers putting [TECH] into the script and leaving it up to someone else to come up with the magic words that the characters will utter to magic away their problems. And let's be honest, technobabble is magic. You spout a line of nonsensical jargon, and WHOOSH! All your problems are fixed. They may as well say ABBRA KADABRA at the end of every episode, because it's the same thing.
A serious show is also one in which the society which these people live in isn't so saccharine that it sickens the cast of My Little Pony with how friendly everyone is. Gene's TNG injunction of everyone having to get along all the time is ridiculous, as is Federation society as a whole. The whole "we work to better ourselves" philosophy is ridiculous because, let's face facts, there's thousands of low down dirty jobs that the Federation still needs people to do and you know what? Self improvement and the power of groove is not enough motivation to get people to do those jobs. They're going to want to get paid. An optimistic future doesn't mean we have to see a show populated by billions of Space Amish who never fight and always play nice.
And let's not even get started on the Prime Directive, which has morphed into a horrible, horrible philosophy which justifies standing idly by while entire species go extinct from plagues which the Federation can cure to natural disasters. This pretty much sums up my view on the Prime Directive.
http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/prime-directive-analysis-5638650
Star Trek doesn't need to become Battlestar Galactica nor should it, but at the same time, there're some elements of it which're just downright stupid and should be changed.
As for the topic, I agree with a previous poster who wants serious, not gritty. I want a serious show with characters that solve their problems in realistic ways, not one in which their problems are solved in the last five minutes by the writers putting [TECH] into the script and leaving it up to someone else to come up with the magic words that the characters will utter to magic away their problems. And let's be honest, technobabble is magic. You spout a line of nonsensical jargon, and WHOOSH! All your problems are fixed. They may as well say ABBRA KADABRA at the end of every episode, because it's the same thing.
A serious show is also one in which the society which these people live in isn't so saccharine that it sickens the cast of My Little Pony with how friendly everyone is. Gene's TNG injunction of everyone having to get along all the time is ridiculous, as is Federation society as a whole. The whole "we work to better ourselves" philosophy is ridiculous because, let's face facts, there's thousands of low down dirty jobs that the Federation still needs people to do and you know what? Self improvement and the power of groove is not enough motivation to get people to do those jobs. They're going to want to get paid. An optimistic future doesn't mean we have to see a show populated by billions of Space Amish who never fight and always play nice.
And let's not even get started on the Prime Directive, which has morphed into a horrible, horrible philosophy which justifies standing idly by while entire species go extinct from plagues which the Federation can cure to natural disasters. This pretty much sums up my view on the Prime Directive.
http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/prime-directive-analysis-5638650
Star Trek doesn't need to become Battlestar Galactica nor should it, but at the same time, there're some elements of it which're just downright stupid and should be changed.
After re-watching some DS9 on Netflix and the TNG movies I started missing Star Trek. I loved the new reboot movie but I want a TV series. I kind of imagine a show like Battlestar Galactica. Well the tone of BSG at least. With some X-Files mysticism and story. Pretty much I want a more adventurous story as in with a true plot. Maybe show soldiers on the front lines of a new war. Like Space Above and Beyond had it's "warzone" feel to it. Sorry I know I'm just throwing all these aspects of different shows intot he mix. I love every Trek series I have seen. DS9 > TNG> Voyager
Yes, 2-4 years between installments is a long time. Of course I remember a much longer stretch, all the way to 1987 before we got a new series once before. This hasnt been nearly so long a wait.
Anyway, I dont think there is any question about whether it should be "grittier". It will be. Its not the 1980s. The zeitgeist has moved. So many shows now, and not just on premium cable, show a tough, hard edge with graphic violence. Ive sat with teen viewers in recent years and watch them yawn at what once passed for risque, scary, gory or violent content. Flawed heroes in "gritty" circumstances is what we will get. I dont think that means that the Chief Medical Officer has to be a pill popper like Nurse Jackie, or that families have to be like "Shameless", but its ok if they arent pefect. After all, were Riker and his Dad perfect? Or Spock and Sarek?
A New war? Could be. I still would like to have seen the birth of the Federation era, done right. That could have involved the Romulan War. But its possible the door has closed on that. Failing that, Im open to a whole lot, from Pre-TOS, TOS, TNG era up to several hundred years after the TNG. The 28 to 30th centuries are a possibility. A big jump. Why not?
There will be a new series. I dont know when or what the setting is. Yes it will be harder, and more graphic no matter what. Especially if its on Showtime. Beyond that, who knows. I think it will depend on who does it. Even if its JJ, you shouldnt assume that a show will even be set in the recent movies continuity, let alone century. He might take it as an opportunity to do something quite unique.
Last edited:
I don't think gritty is necessary, but maybe something with a more naval feel, and with story arcs. A show where the consequences are shown and felt, rather than everything reverting to normal after each episode. (i.e. the Defiant being destroyed and then the Sao Paulo is named Defiant) etc.
I think the next step should be a Defiant-class series.
The lack of janitors and ditch-diggers is justified by the replicator - a magic machine that gives you anything you want at no cost - and the assumption that there are no energy constraints in the Federation (otherwise, how can they have warp drive and transporters?) So capitalism as we know it can be tossed out the window, at least in the 24th C.
That's a separate issue from whether Starfleet can or should always play nice. Having replicators to dispense raktajino at the snap of his fingers didn't stop Sisko from needing to make a questionable decision when the Romulans threatened to sign a peace treaty with the Dominion. Star Trek is not really about what people do for a living or how they buy stuff, it's about what they need to do to keep their happy, cushy lives (or more specifically, maintain the happy, cushy lives of the rest of the Federation.)
How exactly does a replicator mop a floor or dig a ditch? I'd be interested in that explanation because I'm guessing you'd still need people for those jobs.
And yet they do have the need for money. Otherwise why would Jake have to beg Nog for his life savings to buy his father a baseball card?
The existence of replicators makes certain items worthless, but that doesn't mean that it makes everything worthless, because there's a lot which replicators can't make. Dilithium crystals, for one. You need to mine those. And mining is a hazardous job, so how're you going to motivate people to take on a hazardous and physically exhausting job which'll likely be far away from their families if they're not getting paid for it? I know I wouldn't do the job, as it certainly wouldn't leave a lot of room for "self improvement" (Come to think of it, maybe that's why the Federation needs to employ legions of holographic slaves? Because nobody's willing to do that job free of charge?).
Replicators don't eliminate the value of labor. If a job requires someone to perform it, then the labor of the person performing it has value. Nor do replicators eliminate the value of real estate. How do you determine who gets to live where if it's not by material wealth? Who gets to live on the beachfront house and who gets stuck in the small apartment with one window facing a brick wall? If everything's free, then why doesn't the population of the entire Federation spend all their time booking passage on cruise ships and hitting all the vacation spots all the time? Seats aboard ships hold value. Room and board at places like Ryza hold value. Soom rooms in Ryza are more valuable than other rooms.
Sisko's collection of African art is another thing that wouldn't become devalued because of the existence of replicators, because you can't replicate history. So how'd he get that art? Did he just walk up to a museum and they let him have that stuff? Who decides who gets all these free pieces of priceless art and history if nothing has any value?
Sisko's dad runs a restaurant. Once again, labor has value, so does he really run himself ragged to serve people when there's no tangile reward for him? He probably likely has more potential customers then he can seat, so how does he decide who gets to sit, and where? His restaurant also serves real fish, not replicated fish. Which means that he gets his fish from fishermen. Are we really to believe that those fishermen work for free? That they just happily give away all their fish? And if they do give away all their fish, how do they determine who gets what amount of fish? Because I doubt that Papa Sisko is the only restaurant owner who'd like to serve real fish. The number of restaurants who'd like to serve real fish, and the amount of fish they'd like to get, likely outstrips how many fish these fishermen are able to catch at any given moment. So if they can't meet all that demand, then how do they decide who gets what and in what amount?
Replicators, contrary to the popular belief of most Trekkies, would not eliminate the need for money. It'd make some things worthless, but other things will still very much retain their value, or become even more valuable, so a society will always have need for money (Which the Federation had during the TOS period). And those're the kinds of questions which need to be answered if Star Trek is ever going to come back. The creators of a new show should strive to create a realistic functional world, not one which is outstripped in realism by Carebear Land.
These people don't exist in a vacuum. Starfleet doesn't exist in a vacuum. It should exist within a realistic, living, breathing, fully realized world. Did you not find it ridiculous that a Starfleet Officer presided over the Bashir's in what should've been a civil matter? Why is a military tribunal judging civilians for a criminal case? Why do the people of the Federation always have to book passage to wherever they want to go? Why can't they buy their own ship and go their themselves? Why can't they accumulate wealth? And if you think that idea is antithetical to the idea of Star Trek, check out the the animated series, where the Enterprise crew met up with Carter Winston, a wealthy philanthropist and trader.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Carter_Winston
And you know what? When I saw that episode, I didn't scream "IT'S NOT STAR TREK!". In fact, that bit felt a lot more real and sensible than a lot of what we've seen in the live action tv series.
Speaking of things which could use a bit more thought...
The whole "Each alien race has one culture and one religion" thing. That's just silly. Not all humans are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and yet every Klingon is a warrior who follows the teachings of Kahless? Every Ferengi is a rapacious capitalist who adheres to the Rules of Acquisition? How about some more variety amongst the alien races? I can understand the work that would be involved in creating more variety for one-shot races, but old standby's like the Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Ferengi, Cardassians, etc, can and should have more work done on them.
For instance, take the Space Viking silliness the Klingons have going. Not every single Klingon is a warrior. Not even the majority are warriors. The majority are civilians. And yet we're supposed to believe that every single one of them is a believer of Kahless and adheres to that warrior code? Geeze, we even had a Klingon Warrior-Lawyer, that's how silly the whole thing's gotten. So how about introducing more cultures and religions amongst the Klingons? Maybe make the whole Kahless thing a belief system which is only popular amongst a small minority, most of whom enlist in the military, with the officers only paying lip service to those beliefs, while they and the civilian populace have other sets of beliefs? It'd certainly be nice if we had more Klingons like the ones we saw in Undiscovered Country, like the soft-spoken and peace seeking Chancellor Gorkon, or the cultured warrior General Chang, as opposed to the drunken idiots who keep headbutting each other in some DS9 episodes. Let's not forget that the Space Vikings from Heart of Glory were originally considered throwbacks, and NOT representative of Klingon culture as a whole.
Speaking of which, how about more religion? I've never cared for the idea that religion would just suddenly vanish. Not only is it completely unbelievable, but it's pretty repugnant. Think about it: We have this bright, shining future... which can only be brought about after we eliminate certain segments of the population. Doesn't anyone see how loathsome that concept is?
Let me put it another way: One vision of the future is of a peaceful society in which a Jew and a Muslim can live and work side by side and respect each others viewpoints. A second vision of the future posits a peaceful society which is only peaceful because it got rid of all the Jews and Muslims.
Now you tell me, which of those two visions of the future is the more positive one? And before you tell me that it's counter to the ideals of Trek, in TOS, the Enterprise did have a chapel. The no religion thing is something that came with TNG. It didn't exist before.
Nevermind that the whole idea of no religion runs contrary to IDIC, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Where's the diversity if everyone has to conform to the same Secular Humanist beliefs? Where's the diversity if every single species adheres to a single philosophy, and no more? You know what would be interesting? A future in which humanity is awash in the thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies which it holds today, plus more. One in which the alien races it meets are equally as rich in thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies. And one in which all those ideas are shared between species creating an infinitely diverse spectrum in infinite combinations.
Imagine a Human adherent to the Prophets.
Imagine a Romulan who believes in the Oralian Way.
Imagine a Ferengi who follows the teachings of Surak.
Imagine a Klingon Catholic Priest.
Imagine a Nausicaan Buddhist.
Imagine a Bajoran who's an atheist.
Now that would be Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
The whole "Each alien race has one culture and one religion" thing. That's just silly. Not all humans are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and yet every Klingon is a warrior who follows the teachings of Kahless? Every Ferengi is a rapacious capitalist who adheres to the Rules of Acquisition? How about some more variety amongst the alien races? I can understand the work that would be involved in creating more variety for one-shot races, but old standby's like the Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Ferengi, Cardassians, etc, can and should have more work done on them.
For instance, take the Space Viking silliness the Klingons have going. Not every single Klingon is a warrior. Not even the majority are warriors. The majority are civilians. And yet we're supposed to believe that every single one of them is a believer of Kahless and adheres to that warrior code? Geeze, we even had a Klingon Warrior-Lawyer, that's how silly the whole thing's gotten. So how about introducing more cultures and religions amongst the Klingons? Maybe make the whole Kahless thing a belief system which is only popular amongst a small minority, most of whom enlist in the military, with the officers only paying lip service to those beliefs, while they and the civilian populace have other sets of beliefs? It'd certainly be nice if we had more Klingons like the ones we saw in Undiscovered Country, like the soft-spoken and peace seeking Chancellor Gorkon, or the cultured warrior General Chang, as opposed to the drunken idiots who keep headbutting each other in some DS9 episodes. Let's not forget that the Space Vikings from Heart of Glory were originally considered throwbacks, and NOT representative of Klingon culture as a whole.
Speaking of which, how about more religion? I've never cared for the idea that religion would just suddenly vanish. Not only is it completely unbelievable, but it's pretty repugnant. Think about it: We have this bright, shining future... which can only be brought about after we eliminate certain segments of the population. Doesn't anyone see how loathsome that concept is?
Let me put it another way: One vision of the future is of a peaceful society in which a Jew and a Muslim can live and work side by side and respect each others viewpoints. A second vision of the future posits a peaceful society which is only peaceful because it got rid of all the Jews and Muslims.
Now you tell me, which of those two visions of the future is the more positive one? And before you tell me that it's counter to the ideals of Trek, in TOS, the Enterprise did have a chapel. The no religion thing is something that came with TNG. It didn't exist before.
Nevermind that the whole idea of no religion runs contrary to IDIC, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Where's the diversity if everyone has to conform to the same Secular Humanist beliefs? Where's the diversity if every single species adheres to a single philosophy, and no more? You know what would be interesting? A future in which humanity is awash in the thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies which it holds today, plus more. One in which the alien races it meets are equally as rich in thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies. And one in which all those ideas are shared between species creating an infinitely diverse spectrum in infinite combinations.
Imagine a Human adherent to the Prophets.
Imagine a Romulan who believes in the Oralian Way.
Imagine a Ferengi who follows the teachings of Surak.
Imagine a Klingon Catholic Priest.
Imagine a Nausicaan Buddhist.
Imagine a Bajoran who's an atheist.
Now that would be Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
In a society with warp drive and teleporters, I would assume that robots are mopping the floors and digging the ditches. That sort of robotic technology is far more likely to happen in our lifetimes than the more fantastical stuff.
Maybe the reason we don't see the robots is because they're based on nanotechnology. There could be hordes of nano-robots scuttling around all the time, taking care of all the grunge work. That would explain why we rarely see any people or machines handling these tasks.
There have been references every now and then to remnants of monetary exchange happening, but overwhelmingly we get a picture of people for whom making money is no longer important.
Sisko's dad for instance pretty much stated that he runs the restaurant for fun. I would assume there are plenty of people who are pursuing jobs solely for fun, even jobs that require a fair amount of effort.
Sisko's art collection might have been something he traded for. Maybe he whipped up a nice jambalaya with beets for the owner. I wouldn't rule out some form of informal gift economy operating on a personal level.
There are a lot of absurdities and shortcuts in Star Trek. Why did Starfleet expect the staff of the DS9 space station to double as the crew of the Defiant? Who took over at DS9 when they were gone? Why was it okay for everyone to play baseball in the holosuite while a war was on? Why did the Cardassians do their ore processing on a space station, when it meant they had to haul a bunch of heavy rocks into space? Wouldn't it be easier to refine it on the planet below? And that's just scratching the surface of just one series.
Anything related to the politics of the Federation, the religion of humans, or the military nature of Starfleet, is notoriously confused. Nobody ever talks about voting in elections. Jake is a reporter, yet nobody is shown reading a news story on their padd or talking about current events. Starfleet has some military characteristics and some very non-military qualities as well.
These things are sketchily handled because a) the writers aren't interested in them or b) it's part of the unique character of Star Trek. Starfleet is sorta military, sorta not. Humans are sorta religious but religion has withered away. The Federation is a utopia, so do elections and news reports really matter?
And who says nobody in the Federation is allowed to own a spaceship or accumulate whatever they think of as wealth, whether it's latinum or shiny pebbles?
Nobody has ever said that religious people are oppressed on Earth, just that religion has withered away, because people no longer saw any use in it, I guess. And even that's been walked back a bit. There have been references to religious belief among humans, and the non-human planets of the Federation seem to all have their own, planet-wide, religions.
That's true enough, but it's on par with the notion that planets only have one type of climate (all of Vulcan is a desert, all of Andoria is an ice cube, etc), or only one government, or only one language. At least the Vulcans seem to have more than one race.
This thread is becoming "Silly Things That are Regardless, a Fine, Upstanding Star Trek Tradition." Turns out there are a ton of em, and a moneyless society is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think it can all be summed up like this: Star Trek isn't interested in the Federation. It is interested in Starfleet, a quasi-military organization that patrols and defends the frontiers of the Federation and does a bit of exploring in its free time.
So the politics, religion and economy of the Federation is of no interest to the writers. The Federation is just a big, black, featureless box that serves as an object that justifies Starfleet's existence, by giving it an excuse to shoot at the Bad Aliens.
The Aliens get streamlined and simplified when they are first introduced, so as not to throw an unweildy amount of information at us. The Vulcans are logical and unified. Later on, we find out they actually are violently emotional and have internal divisions. Klingons are just bad. Later on, we find out that some are dishonorable (the Duras clan), some are charming (Martok) and some are just batshit crazy (Gowron).
That sounds like a good start at developing nicely complex societies, but it needs more work and more expansion and complexity. The Romulans in particular need some serious help.
Last edited:
The original show should be looked at for "grit." It was gritty and should be the model. Horror is another word that fits, Star Trek has always been a horror show, and enhancing the horror and fear, or the fear of space and the unknown, fearful aliens, malfunctioning transporters and vaporizing folks and taking it very seriously---describes what grit implies. By neutering all these fear points they made the show stale. Sometimes aliens are monsters, Evil is real and not always a product of society's failure.
Yes, "gritty" can't mean replacing the creed of the show: that in the future people generally get along in peace, don't have to work, can pursue dreams and money is no longer an issue, these things should all stay.
The grittiness has to be found in the graveness of the situations and the consequences. The consequences don't have to change the creed. But, yeah, if "grit" means the good guys arguing and going all reality TV on us---that ain't Star Trek. That's not inspiring or admirable. If you watch TOS and compare with new Trek it's clear to me that political correctness neutered Trek into a stale show.
Kirk and Spock were right on injustice, ready to fight----while Picard and Odo pondered and studied protocol manuals. Compare TOS ep., City in the Sky? to DS9's episode where Miles gets taken by Cardassians (the ep. where he was going on vacation with his wife) Kirk and Spock immediately stop the torture while Miles is left to have his teeth extracted and retinas water boarded: Odo and Sisko, staring into space, coldy stand with Miles' upset wife while the audience wishes Captain Kirk was around. TNG and Voyager had many great episodes and needed depth to a low budget, three season universe, but the TOS structure was weathered away until we ended up with a withered, husk of a 1960s version:
-short skirts (TNG attempted men in skirts)
-manly men (Picard is a mench--but Earl Gray tea?)
-simple concepts, liberal ideas yes, for 1966--but simple to understand (New Trek: Let's mediate with killers)
-screaming, helpless women crying and needing saving (men like this)
-bad guys are truly evil (New Trek: Klingons are our friends----)
-superpowered bad guys are worse (New Trek: Q is funny)
-action and FX: salt shakers, puppets (with today's tech availability, New Trek did LESS, another form of modern, FX snobbery, refusing to be creative with the tools at hand)
-somersaults
-bad guys getting beat by Kirk
-close ups--emotions! passion! HORROR!
-sweaty faces
-red shirt guys getting vaporized
This was the GRIT! and all along maintaining the creed. Ever since 1979, they've tried to PC-up the franchise----
Yes, "gritty" can't mean replacing the creed of the show: that in the future people generally get along in peace, don't have to work, can pursue dreams and money is no longer an issue, these things should all stay.
The grittiness has to be found in the graveness of the situations and the consequences. The consequences don't have to change the creed. But, yeah, if "grit" means the good guys arguing and going all reality TV on us---that ain't Star Trek. That's not inspiring or admirable. If you watch TOS and compare with new Trek it's clear to me that political correctness neutered Trek into a stale show.
Kirk and Spock were right on injustice, ready to fight----while Picard and Odo pondered and studied protocol manuals. Compare TOS ep., City in the Sky? to DS9's episode where Miles gets taken by Cardassians (the ep. where he was going on vacation with his wife) Kirk and Spock immediately stop the torture while Miles is left to have his teeth extracted and retinas water boarded: Odo and Sisko, staring into space, coldy stand with Miles' upset wife while the audience wishes Captain Kirk was around. TNG and Voyager had many great episodes and needed depth to a low budget, three season universe, but the TOS structure was weathered away until we ended up with a withered, husk of a 1960s version:
-short skirts (TNG attempted men in skirts)
-manly men (Picard is a mench--but Earl Gray tea?)
-simple concepts, liberal ideas yes, for 1966--but simple to understand (New Trek: Let's mediate with killers)
-screaming, helpless women crying and needing saving (men like this)
-bad guys are truly evil (New Trek: Klingons are our friends----)
-superpowered bad guys are worse (New Trek: Q is funny)
-action and FX: salt shakers, puppets (with today's tech availability, New Trek did LESS, another form of modern, FX snobbery, refusing to be creative with the tools at hand)
-somersaults
-bad guys getting beat by Kirk
-close ups--emotions! passion! HORROR!
-sweaty faces
-red shirt guys getting vaporized
This was the GRIT! and all along maintaining the creed. Ever since 1979, they've tried to PC-up the franchise----
Last edited:
More precisely, a firm grip on reality while simultaneously being bizarre and surreal and mind reeling. That comes from seperating what is Human from what is alien which is what spock was doing all the time within himself even and connecting more with Earth and the Federation in a more believable way that's comprable to more traditional space opera fare that is theoretically possible at least. The Vulcans in Ent were too dominant and ever present. They weren't treated by the writers as alien or different enough. Plus they were too antagonistic which was antithetical to what we all thought Vulcans were supposed to be - cool, peace loving pascifists. Instead they seemed like passive aggressive war mongers and I think that was the wrong approach as the friction only made the stories drag more. It didn't make sense. They jumped the gun on drama. It should have been smooth - even the disagreements. They are the Romulans cousins after all so there had to be that similarity at least as well as that contrast to make it interesting otherwise it's like having a nagging wife on your shoulr and bitching about it. It leaves no room for the story. Vulcans are stoics. It created unnessary tension.
I think the OP may be referring to the James Camaron approach like the Abyss or Aliens shlock approach which goes against the grain of GR's verneer of optimism. Nobody wants to see corruption in front of the camaras or behind it.
I think the OP may be referring to the James Camaron approach like the Abyss or Aliens shlock approach which goes against the grain of GR's verneer of optimism. Nobody wants to see corruption in front of the camaras or behind it.
Well put. But TOS' level of grittiness would be well under the modern standards for gritty that cable audiences are accustomed to, and cable is the only place where Star Trek could survive today. It wouldn't have to match Dexter and Breaking Bad, but it would have to be more tough-minded (a phrase I like better than the overused "gritty") that any of the series to date.
That's a good word, Vorta, also multi-layered and textured complex, intense, and deep, taught drama are also good words that bland and simple Trek never seemed to get. The concept of many things happening at once with opposing ulterior agendas should be more prevelant.
Similar threads
