While simultaneously serving up established characters and memberberries in a Nostalgia Overload.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
While simultaneously serving up established characters and memberberries in a Nostalgia Overload.
Say what you want about Roddenberry's early TNG, but (with the notable exception of The Naked Now) the phobia that he had against going back to TOS was rather laudable. (And possibly financially motivated.) And he engineered a setting where that made sense.
Yes, and include every Tom, Dick and Shelby to boot.While simultaneously serving up established characters and memberberries in a Nostalgia Overload.
Oh, you eveel! canon how I hate thee. Except this and this and this and this. But, other than that, canon is horrible.
I don't understand the mindset that because production teams make artistic choices they must hate something.
And that we, total strangers, know what their motivation is.
Obviously, they signed up to work on Star Trek because they hate it.
It's the only reason I go to work is because I hate it. Being hateful is the best way to do your job.And that we, total strangers, know what their motivation is.
Obviously, they signed up to work on Star Trek because they hate it.
I don’t hate doing what I do. I just hate the people I’m doing it for, as well as the crumbling 50+ year-old government facility in which I have to do it. 1 out of 3 is… adequate. They pay me well anyway.
As a last resort after they failed so bad with DSC and PIC S1-S2.While simultaneously serving up established characters and memberberries in a Nostalgia Overload.
That's not hatred.
Yeah it is.
Well, that was a stout rebuttal.
I guess I don't take their desire to do something different as ill will or malice. Clearly mileage varies.
Different is fine, like TNG was from TOS and ENT was from TNG-DS9-VOY.Well, that was a stout rebuttal.
I guess I don't take their desire to do something different as ill will or malice. Clearly mileage varies.
DSC changing it's setting from the 23rd century to the 32nd was, well, a bold direction.
But what'd they do with a completely different setting? The fucking Burn. Same thing we saw in Andromeda 20 years ago.
I like this comparison. Retro aesthetics doesn't always mean less advanced, as technical factors may be at play. I think it's safe to presume that running costs are a thing in Trek. The shuttle was quite costly to maintain over the years of service with its labour-intensive maintenance, while Starship is supposed to be a fraction of the cost with a more simplified design. Launch costs should be a fraction of what it took to put the shuttle in orbit, in theory.
I don't think that we'll be seeing the Space Shuttle to Starship scenario play out with the SNW 'prise and the TOS 'prise, but I could be wrong. I would imagine very little changing by the time they hit WNMHGB, except a line about a larger crew or something.
Just Braga.
...except for McCoy in the pilot, who is written to make that embarrassing comparison (for Roddenberry's intent) between Data and a certain someone.
...except for Q, who was Trelane by another name, also in the pilot.
All because Roddenberry just had to have TOS hooks for audiences to give TNG a chance.
1) I rather think Rodenberry was hoping that we would NOT notice any similarities between Q and anyone else.
And 2) I can imagine McCoy being used as a hook to get a TOS fan to watch TNG. (He wasn't. He wasn't in any of the promotional material.) But do you think anyone was saying "Hey! Come watch TNG! It's got a character JUST like Trelane in it!"?
Right? I mean, I really wish they had called it "Picard's Eight" and made no reference to anything from TOS at all, up to and including Enterprise, Starships, the Federation, or Warp Drive.
I know Q was an invention because the studio forced him to expand the pilot from an hour to a two-hour story.
Bones may have also been a requirement of the studio as well. I need to go back and check the drafts I have in my collection to see when he popped up.
Either way, the tie-in to TOS were not something Gene willingly wanted to do because every time there would be a reference, he'd have to share the royalty payments with his ex-wife. I bet that's why Bones is never referred to by name, to skirt around it.
You must work in IT like I do.
Haha...mental health professional.
Though I once had to deal with not having a relationship with a workstation.
Look, I grew up in the Berman era of Trek and I feel confident in saying that, for some reason, fandom thinks everyone running the show hates Trek. Or at least gets it wrong. Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Terry Matalas, Alex Kurtzman, Harve Bennett, Fred Freiberger, heck even Roddenberry himself have all gotten the vitriol. I think it's just par for the course, unfortunately.
(Gene L. Coon, Michael Piller, and Ira Steven Behr are the three exceptions I can think of that I've never really heard people trash. But I'm sure they have their detractors too.)
(Gene L. Coon, Michael Piller, and Ira Steven Behr are the three exceptions I can think of that I've never really heard people trash. But I'm sure they have their detractors too.)
Oh, Piller pissed off most of the writing staff during season 3 of TNG, according to the documentaries, including Ira, who always got along with him the best. He had a very direct manner of communication that rubbed folks the wrong way. This culminated in a memo he sent on the basics of writing for TV that specifically got Melinda Snodgrass, Hans Beimler, and Richard Manning to leave at the end of the year.
Similar threads
- Locked
