Why are you so hung up on the tech? Other than TNG and Voyager the other Star Treks didn't place much emphasis on it. It was more about the characters in certain situations rather than the new tech piece of the week.
Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek franchise?
- Thread starter kirkstheman
- Start date
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
Amen! A lot of what TOS did with "future tech" four decades ago was driven by budget constraints and needs of the plot, and it's still good today because of the chemistry of the cast, the stories told and the tone of the show.
If anything kills the new movie, I think it will be Gizmos and FX choking the life out of it.
In a way, it would be great if they stuck with 60's rocker switches and jellybean lights, because then they would be forced to look elswhere for pizzaz.
If they get a great cast with a great story, and keep the PC Preaching to a minimum, then I'll be happy. If they do it with eye popping FX and great technowhizzles, so much the better.
Amen! A lot of what TOS did with "future tech" four decades ago was driven by budget constraints and needs of the plot, and it's still good today because of the chemistry of the cast, the stories told and the tone of the show.
If anything kills the new movie, I think it will be Gizmos and FX choking the life out of it.
In a way, it would be great if they stuck with 60's rocker switches and jellybean lights, because then they would be forced to look elswhere for pizzaz.
If they get a great cast with a great story, and keep the PC Preaching to a minimum, then I'll be happy. If they do it with eye popping FX and great technowhizzles, so much the better.
L
LifeTrek
Guest
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
I appreciate your opinions, but seriously, do you hear yourselves?
You inform me that I liked Trek (since I was like 3 years old) for the wrong reason? Next you'll tell me that I shouldn't like butter pecan for the butter but for the pecans - the butter is just a backdrop for the pecans. It is only the past 2 decades that they got lazy and put all that buttery goodness in there - Your sorry I missed that all these years!!
Who are you to decide that, assuming you are even correct.
After all, you claim that I missed the point, but then you state that the last 2 and 4/7th series (that is 18 seasons or shows) they managed to be lazy and highlight the tech, because they couldn't write a good story.
So really they only dealt with good stories in TOS and the first part of TNG. Funny TOS wasn't a contemporary success and TNG was considered poorly written in it's first years (see wikipedia, yea not really a trusted source I know but it is subjective after all).
By the way, you better get on the line and tell the History Channel and all those others that have done shows on Trek Tech that they were missing the point of the series!
Guess what, other then the tech manuals I have only read one Trek novel. Hated it. I like the buttery CGI of the planets, starships, phasers and all the bells and whistles that go with a SciFi space show, the story make the tech work but it is the pecans to me.
If all that means that I have, "missed the point all these years," then I am sorry there must have been other points that I got and you missed. That is why there are diverse opinions, why they make chocolate, vanilla, rocky road, but they are all still ice cream at heart.
DKK
I appreciate your opinions, but seriously, do you hear yourselves?
You inform me that I liked Trek (since I was like 3 years old) for the wrong reason? Next you'll tell me that I shouldn't like butter pecan for the butter but for the pecans - the butter is just a backdrop for the pecans. It is only the past 2 decades that they got lazy and put all that buttery goodness in there - Your sorry I missed that all these years!!
Who are you to decide that, assuming you are even correct.
After all, you claim that I missed the point, but then you state that the last 2 and 4/7th series (that is 18 seasons or shows) they managed to be lazy and highlight the tech, because they couldn't write a good story.
So really they only dealt with good stories in TOS and the first part of TNG. Funny TOS wasn't a contemporary success and TNG was considered poorly written in it's first years (see wikipedia, yea not really a trusted source I know but it is subjective after all).
By the way, you better get on the line and tell the History Channel and all those others that have done shows on Trek Tech that they were missing the point of the series!
Guess what, other then the tech manuals I have only read one Trek novel. Hated it. I like the buttery CGI of the planets, starships, phasers and all the bells and whistles that go with a SciFi space show, the story make the tech work but it is the pecans to me.
If all that means that I have, "missed the point all these years," then I am sorry there must have been other points that I got and you missed. That is why there are diverse opinions, why they make chocolate, vanilla, rocky road, but they are all still ice cream at heart.
DKK
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
You're right that there's no reason that you shouldn't be allowed to like it for whatever reason floats your boat, but I think what they were saying is that Star Trek never set out to be a show about technology, but about people.
You're right that there's no reason that you shouldn't be allowed to like it for whatever reason floats your boat, but I think what they were saying is that Star Trek never set out to be a show about technology, but about people.
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
Overreact much, LifeTrek?
RookieBatman did a good job explaining what I originally said, so I'll leave it at that.
Overreact much, LifeTrek?
RookieBatman did a good job explaining what I originally said, so I'll leave it at that.
Similar threads
- Locked
