The problem with Star Trek

[drachefly]

One of the comic book timelines was a divergence from the events of ST:IV, if only because the Mirror universe decided to attempt to invade at that moment, and the Whale Probe never showed.

Oh, the whale probe showed up all right. Just not right then.

Just like ST III happened in between issues 9 and 10 (or so), with the severe damage on the side of the lower hull coming not from Khan, but from a romulan plasma torpedo. There were a few other conversational hooks to indicate that Khan was still reverbrating in their psyches, to explain certain dialog elements in ST III.

Similarly,
Issues 11-50 (or so) managed to lead in a big circle. In the beginning of the circle is Kirk and crew on Vulcan, helping Spock recover, and coming back to Earth on a BoP to face charges.

Mirror universe storyline intercedes. Things diverge.

At the end of the circle, Spock has been knocked out by the virus, having a second Fal-Tor-Pan, and them being in that very same Bird of Prey, on Vulcan, heading back to Earth to face charges for the same offenses (the Klingons had insisted that the charges be pressed after all).

That's why suddenly there's a break and the scene shifts from Excelsior back to Enterprise around issue 55. ST IV happened in between two issues.

Note: this is not the same series of comics as I mentioned a few minutes ago. That was set after ST V, and was in a rebooted comic series.
Odd that I'd randomly have cause to mention both in such proximity.

[Big Orange]

Well, I found the first two seasons of TNG dated, but I still enjoyed the 3-7 seasons, although it was clear by S7 they were burning out.

Season Two of TNG seemed to be a big step over the first almost disasterous Season One with "Measure of a Man" and the one where Riker was onboard that Bird of Prey - the middle seasons were naturally the best. DS9 was consistantly great throughout it's run, TOS had two great seasons and a third slightly weaker one, VOY remained highly inconsistant throughout it's run, while ENT was split between a patchy first half and a much better second half.

I heard that Season Seven of TNG is where the originally very high TV audience for modern Star Trek began to decline.

VOY got slammed for bland characters and that it was so generic and didn't bother being anything but a TNG clone, whereas at least DS9 did its' own damn thing, and did it well.

I heard that DS9 remained relatively untouched by Paramount and Rick Berman's meddling so that's a good explanation why the writers were much more dynamic and daring.

As for UPN, yes they did interfere, considering it was them who ordered the writers to have the Maquis and Feds get along fine with little to no tension, and not to tell arc stories so as to not confuse the viewers. At least according to Michael Piller and that overview of "Year of Hell" in the Trek Magazine.

Being a near direct TNG clone with formulaic characters and plots is the primary reason why VOY was a relative failure as a long running sci-fi series.

[Uraniun235]

DS9 was consistantly great throughout it's run,

Ah, no. No it wasn't. First, the first couple of seasons and the rest of the seasons are like two different shows, which sort of kiboshes the consistency right there.

Then there were the abominable "lol those zany Ferengi!" episodes.

Then there were the abominably bad fleet battles to be had, where you're supposed to be wowed by "OMG LOOK AT ALL THE CGI SHIPS" and then when the fighting starts most of them are just static background images doing jack and shit. Plus Sisko for some reason is commanding multiple starships when he barely has any starship command experience to begin with...? Is this Starfleet affirmative action at work?

Did DS9 buck certain established Trek conventions? Certainly. Does this automatically make it the greatest stuff ever? No. No it does not.

[ShadowSonic]

Being a near direct TNG clone with formulaic characters and plots is the primary reason why VOY was a relative failure as a long running sci-fi series.

Yeah, but I'm saying that it was UPN interference (and Jeri Taylor's conservatism) that made VOY a TNG clone, as well as driving Michael Piller away. He thought that Trek needed to leave the TNG style behind and tell more arcs and serial stories, and be a bit more darker and dynamic.

Basically, he wanted it to try and keep up with other contemporary sci-fi shows.

[Stormbringer]

They're missing the forest for the trees, and I think a lot of it has to do with snobbery.

I never thought about it like that, but it makes a lot of sense. When you see Star Trek Special after Star Trek Special, they drill into you how many scientists and engineers were "inspired by Star Trek" to become what they are today, and somehow that gets turned into "Star Trek uses real science and engineering principals" by the fans. The specials talk about how revolutionary they were with civil rights, and so to the fans it should be about something more than just cowboys in space. They talk about Gene's grand vision of the future, and suddenly we get these flawless, cookie cutter characters. But it seems to me as if Gene is as responsible for this kind of trend as anyone else is. TNG laid the groundwork for what we have today.

I think it wasn't just the fans but the writers and 'creative' people themselves that started buying into the hype. Roddenberry by the time of TNG was a puffed up douchebag, his vision was retarded and it showed. For a while after his leaving (and dying) they got away from that some and you had some of the best work of modern Trek. It never escaped it entirely, which is unfortunate indeed, but they did manage a good attempt.

But at a certain point, Roddenberry's stupi-topia reasserted itself along with the notion that Trek was some cultural touchstone. After that it crawled so far up it's own ass they couldn't get out. They got too obsessed with their utopia to do real drama, too socio-political to do adventure, and too gutless to be daring with anything. They wanted to preserve the Star Trek legacy that they forgot what it was and instead preserve the ego-trip of a blow hard idiot.

PS: I find it ironic for those that claim Trek is so highbrow is the fact that what comprises Star Trek in most people's mind are the action-adventure peices like Wrath of Khan or similar stuff. The part people ridicule most are those things which the obsessive Trekkies latch onto as it's "legacy."

[montypython]

I've always thought that ST should be more Star Fleet Battles-like to improve its verisimilitude.

[Batman]

I've always thought that ST should be more Star Fleet Battles-like to improve its verisimilitude.

Except it would no longer be Star Trek, it would be Star Fleet Battles.
It's the same problem I complain about FC: it isn't Star Trek, it's action SciFi that happens to take place in the Trek universe.

[montypython]

I've always thought that ST should be more Star Fleet Battles-like to improve its verisimilitude.

Except it would no longer be Star Trek, it would be Star Fleet Battles.
It's the same problem I complain about FC: it isn't Star Trek, it's action SciFi that happens to take place in the Trek universe.

Not necessarily the entire setting, but the astropolitical environment and better 'realism' (less ROBs and humanoid aliens) could improve the exploratory themes in Trek.

[Patrick Degan]

I've always thought that ST should be more Star Fleet Battles-like to improve its verisimilitude.

No, what it needed was to get its head out of its ass and start basing stories around actual adventure and stop taking itself so fucking seriously as the cultural influence it never was. That would have improved its verisimilitude. Far too late now.

[LITNDARC]

They're missing the forest for the trees, and I think a lot of it has to do with snobbery.

I never thought about it like that, but it makes a lot of sense. When you see Star Trek Special after Star Trek Special, they drill into you how many scientists and engineers were "inspired by Star Trek" to become what they are today, and somehow that gets turned into "Star Trek uses real science and engineering principals" by the fans. The specials talk about how revolutionary they were with civil rights, and so to the fans it should be about something more than just cowboys in space. They talk about Gene's grand vision of the future, and suddenly we get these flawless, cookie cutter characters. But it seems to me as if Gene is as responsible for this kind of trend as anyone else is. TNG laid the groundwork for what we have today.

I think it wasn't just the fans but the writers and 'creative' people themselves that started buying into the hype. Roddenberry by the time of TNG was a puffed up douchebag, his vision was retarded and it showed. For a while after his leaving (and dying) they got away from that some and you had some of the best work of modern Trek. It never escaped it entirely, which is unfortunate indeed, but they did manage a good attempt.

But at a certain point, Roddenberry's stupi-topia reasserted itself along with the notion that Trek was some cultural touchstone. After that it crawled so far up it's own ass they couldn't get out. They got too obsessed with their utopia to do real drama, too socio-political to do adventure, and too gutless to be daring with anything. They wanted to preserve the Star Trek legacy that they forgot what it was and instead preserve the ego-trip of a blow hard idiot.

PS: I find it ironic for those that claim Trek is so highbrow is the fact that what comprises Star Trek in most people's mind are the action-adventure peices like Wrath of Khan or similar stuff. The part people ridicule most are those things which the obsessive Trekkies latch onto as it's "legacy."

When most people talk about being inspired by "Star Trek " .
What they are talking about is "tos".
It was the show that opened the doors.
The rest of the franchise is irrelevant.
To me everything that came afterward was broken record.

[montypython]

Combining Star Fleet Battles and Star Trek to create a Red Storm Rising in space with exploratory elements is something I'd be waiting to see.

[Darth Wong]

Combining Star Fleet Battles and Star Trek to create a Red Storm Rising in space with exploratory elements is something I'd be waiting to see.

Oh yeah, as if Star Trek would be improved by adding elements from computer games and Tom Clancy.

[montypython]

Combining Star Fleet Battles and Star Trek to create a Red Storm Rising in space with exploratory elements is something I'd be waiting to see.

Oh yeah, as if Star Trek would be improved by adding elements from computer games and Tom Clancy.

I'd have to say that many games are better than Trek as is right now, and Clancy was good when Larry Bond was working with him.

[Sarevok]

If you want an analogue of the cold war played out in space why does it have to be in Star Trek ? Why not wish for an original series. Most of the ideas I read about in threads about reviving Star Trek are like this. They would all work equaly well or even better as their own shows without the continuty baggage of being assosiated with star trek. There is nothing special about Star Trek that allows it to tell better stories.

[montypython]

If you want an analogue of the cold war played out in space why does it have to be in Star Trek ? Why not wish for an original series. Most of the ideas I read about in threads about reviving Star Trek are like this. They would all work equaly well or even better as their own shows without the continuty baggage of being assosiated with star trek. There is nothing special about Star Trek that allows it to tell better stories.

Mostly due to the astropolitical players and the tech involved has quite a bit of possibilities that have never been really touched, let alone exploited to full.

[General Zod]

If you want an analogue of the cold war played out in space why does it have to be in Star Trek ? Why not wish for an original series. Most of the ideas I read about in threads about reviving Star Trek are like this. They would all work equaly well or even better as their own shows without the continuty baggage of being assosiated with star trek. There is nothing special about Star Trek that allows it to tell better stories.

Mostly due to the astropolitical players and the tech involved has quite a bit of possibilities that have never been really touched, let alone exploited to full.

Since the technology angle obviously isn't enough to save a sci-fi show from being a catastrophe, and much of Trek's technology isn't that special, I somehow doubt that's enough of a reason to use Trek instead of making a unique universe for that kind of idea. There might be something with the various races, but at this point they're such one-dimensional caricatures it's not terribly likely.

[Catman]

Why not a new series?

Just because it has Trek in the name, doesn't mean it will be a good kind of Trek that people remember.

[DocHorror]

As much as I hate to use the word gritty, I think that Modern Star Trek, like Voyager & the like could have benefited from having better, more thought out & realistic characters. Like, as a quick example, making the tensions between the Maquis & SF more to the front.

How about bigoted characters, characters with opinions we don't, or can't agree with. Some conflict, not just the usual, 'We all get along in the federation lol.'

Why not make Janeway more pragmatic? Have her rip off a few civilisations & run for the hills with stolen tech?

Of all of modern Trek, Voyager seems to be the one which fits most closely with nBSG. okay nBSG has its flaws, it can take itself to seriously & can be preachy, but the characters work. Their people you can believe in. Thats what I feel modern Trek lacks the most, belivable characters.

[Catman]

That and the fact that at least one of the Enterprise characters doesn't even have a personality, let alone a bad one.

[Catman]

I liked all the characters of anything from TOS to even VGR, and it's hard
to pick a favorite for me.

Bitch about Voyager all you want, I still feel like some of the characters were
pretty good, at least for a few seasons.

[Uraniun235]

What would really be needed is character interaction like TOS had, and I would argue also ridiculous adventures in SPAAACE like TOS was as well, not any 'grittiness' and sure as hell not more military nonsense.

Sadly, escapist fantasy seems to be out of style for the time being, with even the most escapist of franchises being retooled for increased "grit" and "realism".

[Darth Wong]

The problem with trying to be "gritty" just for the sake of being gritty is that you'll inevitably force the issue. You'll try to make characters dislike each other and get into conflicts with each other just for the sake of seeing the conflict happen, rather than allowing it to flow organically out of the story.