Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek Beyond---------Spoilers


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#61 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 February 2017 - 04:06 AM

I feel compelled to comment on the "Style" of ENT.... I don't believe you can say its story telling was in the mold of TNG... TNG did really follow TOS, in so much that it was very standalone episodes. Which is to say, if you missed a weekly episode you could pick right up and enjoy it for what it was. 

 

DS9 moved to full serial drama... and you really needed to watch in order, otherwise you'd have a sense you missed something. 

 

ENT started out as something in-between... they had long running story arcs in the background... the Xindi Arc... the Time War... , while trying to make shows somewhat episodic... and quite honestly... I think that hurt it... As stated by VF Season 4 started to hit a stride and they did so by basically closing out those background arcs that were distracting, and then basically running small multi episode story arcs, which if you caught the beginning of one you could easily insert yourself... plus the story telling went into more trek lore. thats not to say there weren't episodes that pretty much stood alone Ala TOS/TNG... but it was crafted from the get go to have sub-stories running underneath a main story, while TOS/TNG never where. 



#62 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 15 February 2017 - 04:30 AM

These Discovery posts are all over the place, of which I'm as guilty as anyone else, so I'll say discussion should move to the actual thread. Quick thought though...

The main art production people who worked on TNG - Enterprise, weren't just fans of Star Trek, they near-enough lived it. I'm talking about the Okudas and Drexler mainly, but there was so many people who had a REAL passion for what the show was and stood for, that whilst it was obviously very different from the Original Series, it still had a lot of similarities while feeling like a true evolution in many others. Key to this in my opinion, was that TNG aesthetics were an expansion of that which we saw in the early films. Each season and indeed series going forward was then a very slight evolution of what came before it, at least up until Enterprise (which by the way, looked the way it did due to Rick Berman's input - some of the early concepts for the show by Drexler and the others show some amazing homages in terms of linking it to TOS, both interior and exterior).

 

Jump forward to JJ Star Trek, and whilst I'm sure there were a few fans working on it, from what I've seen of the art department folks, there was no one with that same level of passion and commitment to keeping the important things in the aesthetic. John Eaves has worked on all three films, but it's clear that the 'rules' which he is working around have changed drastically, and that's something which honestly bothers me nowadays: Change for the sake of change. The new Thunderbirds series is the worst example of this. Take Thunderbird 1 - that is a genuinely good evolution of the original 1960's version, and being the first one we got to see, filled me with excitement. Then take a look at Thunderbird 2, and man, I'd go as far as saying that they've turned it into a monstrosity. All the curves have been removed save for its bow.

Anyway, now we get to Discovery, and with the exception of John Eaves once again, I see no signs of anyone who watched it with a real passion whilst growing up. The worst part is that these people are still out there - Michael and Denise Okuda are more passionate than ever about Trek, Drexler is more than happy to discuss anything Trek-related with people on his facebook page, and Andy Probert has even crawled out of the woodwork thanks to Trekyards and Eaglemoss (although sometimes it's best not to seek out those you admire online...and that's all I'll say lol). Basically, my opinion is that when it comes to Trek, those people should get to choose who takes over their reins; I know that's not how it works, but to me that's what made the changeover from TOS to the films to TNG work so well. They're literally living, breathing Star Trek encyclopaedias, and their talents are not being made use of. :/



#63 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 15 February 2017 - 09:13 AM

You broke your promise , I don't think I can ever trust you again. :'(

 

Kind of but not really.  I'm done arguing with you about this topic, but I'm not done pointing out your logical fallacies and troll-like behavior, such as, for example, straw men and ad hominem attacks on your forum mates:

 

So when someone says that these movies aren't "real" Star Trek, it's insulting, ignorant and goes against everything that Star Trek has stood for over the past half a century.

How ignorant and self important a Trek fan are you?

 

Take a deep breath.  Ask yourself if this is how "real" Star Trek fans talk to each other.



#64 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 15 February 2017 - 10:20 AM

These Discovery posts are all over the place, of which I'm as guilty as anyone else, so I'll say discussion should move to the actual thread. Quick thought though...

The main art production people who worked on TNG - Enterprise, weren't just fans of Star Trek, they near-enough lived it. I'm talking about the Okudas and Drexler mainly, but there was so many people who had a REAL passion for what the show was and stood for, that whilst it was obviously very different from the Original Series, it still had a lot of similarities while feeling like a true evolution in many others. Key to this in my opinion, was that TNG aesthetics were an expansion of that which we saw in the early films. Each season and indeed series going forward was then a very slight evolution of what came before it, at least up until Enterprise (which by the way, looked the way it did due to Rick Berman's input - some of the early concepts for the show by Drexler and the others show some amazing homages in terms of linking it to TOS, both interior and exterior).
 
Jump forward to JJ Star Trek, and whilst I'm sure there were a few fans working on it, from what I've seen of the art department folks, there was no one with that same level of passion and commitment to keeping the important things in the aesthetic. John Eaves has worked on all three films, but it's clear that the 'rules' which he is working around have changed drastically, and that's something which honestly bothers me nowadays: Change for the sake of change. The new Thunderbirds series is the worst example of this. Take Thunderbird 1 - that is a genuinely good evolution of the original 1960's version, and being the first one we got to see, filled me with excitement. Then take a look at Thunderbird 2, and man, I'd go as far as saying that they've turned it into a monstrosity. All the curves have been removed save for its bow.

Anyway, now we get to Discovery, and with the exception of John Eaves once again, I see no signs of anyone who watched it with a real passion whilst growing up. The worst part is that these people are still out there - Michael and Denise Okuda are more passionate than ever about Trek, Drexler is more than happy to discuss anything Trek-related with people on his facebook page, and Andy Probert has even crawled out of the woodwork thanks to Trekyards and Eaglemoss (although sometimes it's best not to seek out those you admire online...and that's all I'll say lol). Basically, my opinion is that when it comes to Trek, those people should get to choose who takes over their reins; I know that's not how it works, but to me that's what made the changeover from TOS to the films to TNG work so well. They're literally living, breathing Star Trek encyclopaedias, and their talents are not being made use of. :/


But isn't it a good thing that Star Trek is being created by a new team of people who still know and understand the show but can offer something new from those who have been living Star Trek throughout the 90's?

Some may say that the people who began working on TNG perhaps should of left well before Enterprise and allowed a new team to come in and do their own take on Star Trek.

I don't understand why Star Trek should live inside this very restrictive set of rules.

From an aesthetic point of view, whilst I don't like everything Abrams has done, at least they did something new.

As many fan will tell you, Star Trek isn't Star Wars, it's look isn't informed by a single story, its look has been and will continue to be updated to match the times we live in in order for it to be reflective of what we believe the future to be at the point in which the series or movie was created.

#65 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 15 February 2017 - 10:31 AM

I feel compelled to comment on the "Style" of ENT.... I don't believe you can say its story telling was in the mold of TNG... TNG did really follow TOS, in so much that it was very standalone episodes. Which is to say, if you missed a weekly episode you could pick right up and enjoy it for what it was. 
 
DS9 moved to full serial drama... and you really needed to watch in order, otherwise you'd have a sense you missed something. 
 
ENT started out as something in-between... they had long running story arcs in the background... the Xindi Arc... the Time War... , while trying to make shows somewhat episodic... and quite honestly... I think that hurt it... As stated by VF Season 4 started to hit a stride and they did so by basically closing out those background arcs that were distracting, and then basically running small multi episode story arcs, which if you caught the beginning of one you could easily insert yourself... plus the story telling went into more trek lore. thats not to say there weren't episodes that pretty much stood alone Ala TOS/TNG... but it was crafted from the get go to have sub-stories running underneath a main story, while TOS/TNG never where. 

I think the TNG style formula was the same throughout TNG, VOY and ENT when in Enterprise they could of broke the mould. The formula being a 7 piece ensemble, on a ship, exploring an alien civilisation every week. Enterprise could of broken that formula and been a serialised show in which the first half of season 1 Its primarily about the building of the Enterprise etc... this is all been well documented by those who worked on the show.

What happend was I think Brannon Braga and Rick Berman were forced into doing yet another show, they wanted it to be different but had a tied and tested formula that worked so they stuck with it to the detriment I think of the series.

Star Trek didn't change that much from series to series beyond cosmetic differences. There were episodes of Enterprise that could of easily been episodes of TNG which isn't good.

So I think, and this ties nearly back into Beyond and the Abrams movies... Trek fans were spoilt by having 25 seasons of Star Trek that were made by the same people, over the course of something like 18 years... that's unprecedented so of course anyone coming in to offer a different take on something that is so cemented as the look and the definitive version of Star Trek is going to have a tough time and that's what's happened with Abrams Star Trek.

Part of the reason these new movies remain popular with fans is because they are a breath of fresh air after 18 years of Star Trek only ever told in a certain way.

It's a tough pill to swallow of course for those fans who are adamant that this or that is the only way you can do Star Trek.

#66 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 February 2017 - 10:37 AM

I thought the network didn't want the whole season one being building the Enterprise, which is why Berman and Braga didn't do it. I thought they WANTED to, but didn't because of the network. 



#67 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 15 February 2017 - 12:53 PM

I thought the network didn't want the whole season one being building the Enterprise, which is why Berman and Braga didn't do it. I thought they WANTED to, but didn't because of the network. 


Exactly that. That would of been amazing to see the Enterprise being built and Archer assembling his crew. I think ultimately they drifted back into doing episodes that were no different than those on TNG or Voyager. Where Enterprise got different it was far too late, the franchise was dead as far as the studio. I think Manny Coto would of been the refreshing change Trek needed but one has to wonder if it would of been enough to entice new people into watching or whether or not ratings would of remained flatlining. Looking back, DS9 stands apart as something different from TNG in tone and as they moved into seasons 4,5,6 & 7 the whole series became this serialised epic. It's a shame the studio went back and wanted a starship based series in Voyager which was in many ways a revamped TNG. Voyager again should of been something different, this crew became far too polished a Starfleet crew far too quickly when clearly there would of been real tension between the Marquis and Starfleet. Plus the very fact they were 75 light years from home but every week the ship was pristine and everything and everyone was just part of this happy crew. These people were lost, facing the possibility they'd never get home but everything was fine on the good ship Voyager...

There were these moments in Voyager and Enterprise that showed the potential of those shows but for whatever reason, they never went beyond what they knew would work. They played it very safe I think - not a bad thing but you can begin to see why people started loosing interest in Star Trek resulting in the need for a full on reimagining. Had they (Berman, the studio) been a bit more risky and a bit more willing to change the status quo then things might have been different.

The studio holds a lot of the blame for Star Trek stagnating though, they were cashing in and milking Star Trek for everything it had, they stormed the bank and robbed it of everything and left the carcass to rot until Abrams. They didn't allow Berman the time to develop these series properly and there it is. I think it was 2 weeks between Voyager wrapping and Enterprise starting, you'd never get that today.

It's really interesting watching the special features to a Enterprise because a lot of the problems Star Trek had are explained in those features. I mean... when one of the biggest executives at UPN in a pitch meeting suggested they put a hot new pop band in the restaurant on Enterprise (meaning the mess hall) to bring in ratings, you know you're just waiting for the axe to fall.

I think the way Star Trek was going, I'm pretty thankful we have the Star Trek we got because it would of died a slow and agonising death the way things were going.

At least now the franchise is relevant again, in the public eye again and alive!

#68 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 15 February 2017 - 08:10 PM

I am hopeful that Discovery can recapture the greatness of Star Trek, something lost in the new movies. I am not holding my breath though.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users