StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I always thought Sheridan and his creator shared more with the intials J.S.

But yeah there were quite a few biblical references, then again he's also doing it with book Rising Stars.

I think that the problem with modern TREK lies with the writing. They just aren't getting the writers that they used to get. The same thing eventually killed TOS, and after TNG a group of writers came up with ever-more ridiculous plots and increasingly one-dimensional characters. Finally, with Enterprise, we have NO characters. No one has a personality. Hoshi seemed mildly insecure at times, but utterly confident in others. I can't even think of a word to describe Captain Archer's personality, and the same is true of Doctor Phlox. While it is tempting to blame Dumb and Dumberer (B&B) with everything, I think that to do so is to over-simplify. The problems with Star Trek run deeper than two people, and I am beginning to think that Paramount Pictures is the real culprit behind the decline.

The difference between TOS and its increasingly palsied successors lies in its writing on one very basic but important element. Even the worst, goofiest TOS episodes had, if nothing else, one solid core idea underpinning the entire script and a philosophical point of view. The episodes were about something. Even in garbage like "Spock's Brain", "Wink Of An Eye", "The Lights Of Zetar", or even "The Mark Of Gideon" (a.k.a. "Planet Of The Catholics") you can find a clear and concise idea driving the entire plotline. In "Spock's Brain", it's the issue of control and dependence. In "The Lights Of Zetar", it's the fight for personal identity and integrity. In "Wink Of An Eye", it's the threat of extinction, and in "The Mark Of Gideon" it's the danger of overpopulation (a big concern in the 60s and a valid one in some horribly impoverished regions of Earth today). Every TOS episode had a point of view, an issue. And even the worst episodes were written by people who at the very least understood dramatic pacing and conflict in television drama, so that an hour's worth of time had movement toward a defined objective —with the pace picking up speed as the hour approached its climax.

With comparatively few exceptions, the TNG-era episodes have no real conflict, no ideas, no philosophy, no issue on which they take a definitive stand. They are paced horribly, often merged with B and C plots which have little to no relation to one another in the same television hour or single runaround plots which are patched with filler material to stretch out what is actually a ten minute story into forty five minutes of airtime.

This same dichotomy extends to comparisons of the movies. Take Star Trek V: The Final Frontier for example. Worst of the TOS movies, right? Lots of people would say so. But look at what that movie gives us as its underlying ideas, each of which mesh together into a single tapestry which drives the plot of the film:

• [•]The search for Ultimate Truth (a.k.a. "God")
  
  [•]The meaning of Faith
  
  [•]The nature of Fear
  
  [•]The definition of Self.

By contrast, you would be hard pressed to yield up anything in the way of solid philosophical ideas in the TNG films. At best, they rest upon a confused melánge of unrelated themes which are tossed carelessly together into the same production and which seem to appear in each movie entirely at random. There is no focus, no unifying principle, behind any of the plots of the most recent four entries in the movie franchise.

Take Generations for example. Just what was that movie supposed to be about? Mortality? Addiction? Fate? Making a Difference? Appreciating the Moment which will Never Come Again? Any one of these might have made a fair basis for a movie plot but the film simply jumps discontinuously between themes and never crystalises around a single core concept.

This defect is omnipresent in TNG-era ST; because you've essentially got shows which are written by committee from top to bottom and try to include so many plot ideas/elements/gimmicks that in the end you've got scripts and even whole series which are about nothing. Even if you had far better characters, they would still be plugged into situations which are wholly artificial and arbitrary. Without ideas, SF is nothing but laser beams and explosions or technobabble runarounds. Or far worse, a character soap opera because there is essentially nothing else on which to base a script. Without conflict, you can't have any real character dynamic and the end result is a bunch of people sitting around in various rooms spewing empty theory. But they've got nothing meaningful to say or do.

That is the plague of the TNG era. Nothing is contended over and nothing is decided. And that is why it comes off as so terribly bland and empty.

Darth Wong wrote:
Most Christians do not recognize that the Vorlons symbolized God, while the Shadows symbolized Satan. That's why there was no uproar. They don't seem to recognize the parallels:

• Vorlons: controlling, aloof, prone to genocidal rampages
  Minbari: Vorlons' fanatical servants, also prone to genocidal rampages
• God: controlling, aloof, prone to genocidal rampages
  Israelites: God's fanatical servants, also prone to genocidal rampages

And on the other side:

• Shadows: tried to tempt Sheridan to join them, liked to foment disorder and conflict, believed species should sort it out amongst themselves rather than being controlled by totalitarian overlords
• Satan: tried to tempt Jesus to join him, liked to foment disorder and conflict, tried to free man from totalitarian rule by giving him freedom of thought and knowledge.

But I suspect that most Christians just see the Vorlons as good guys who turned out to be bad guys, never noticing the parallels. Hence no uproar.

I think you hit it right on, although I think there's a little more evil/asshole element to the Shadows than what you imply. They fit in the Satan mold as you describe but they have no problem using others as they see fit to prove that their philosophy is better than the one of the Vorlons (once again like Satan vs. God).

Both sides were supposedly there to help teach the younger races but it really came down to proving that their way was the correct one. So as usual the gods were in it for themselves.

Master of Ossus wrote:It was totally obvious that the Vorlons and Shadows represented God and the Devil. Almost all good literature involves the two, and the parallels ran deeper than that. In fact, they almost beat you over the head with them. I suspect that most people who recognized them were too intelligent to give a damn about the blasphemous turn of events, or they believed that we had been deceived by the Vorlons (angels), and that while God existed the Vorlons did not represent God.

On the subject of Sheridan as a Christ figure, of course he was a Christ figure. Any time a character has a J. as his first initial, he should immediately be checked to see if he fits. While Sheridan did not also share Christ's last initial, it is evident that he should have been associated with God.

Check the very last episode - Sleeping in Light, when Sheridan is dressing for the last time to go out, look in the mirror, upper right, you will see a very clearly depicted cross in the mirror. There is NO DOUBT that Sheridan is a Christ figure, and that has more to do with the fact that Christ shared some things with the traditional heroes journey - going into the underworld and coming out again changed. Amongst others so when you depict a hero undergoing the traditional hero journey, its easy to draw Christ like parallels.

Master of Ossus wrote:It was totally obvious that the Vorlons and Shadows represented God and the Devil. Almost all good literature involves the two, and the parallels ran deeper than that. In fact, they almost beat you over the head with them. I suspect that most people who recognized them were too intelligent to give a damn about the blasphemous turn of events, or they believed that we had been deceived by the Vorlons (angels), and that while God existed the Vorlons did not represent God.

On the subject of Sheridan as a Christ figure, of course he was a Christ figure. Any time a character has a J. as his first initial, he should immediately be checked to see if he fits. While Sheridan did not also share Christ's last initial, it is evident that he should have been associated with God.

So Jabba The Hutt is?

AdmiralKanos wrote: STN: Clone of TWOK, but without the heart. No real change in status quo.

Yup, it's a complete copy (except TWOK was enjoyable). Look at the ending!


TWOK: Spock knocks out Bones and dies saving Enterprise. Bones left with his memories.
STX: Data sends Picard back to E-E and dies saving Enterprise. B-4 left with his memories.


Oh sure, Data died (probably will be back) and Riker left, but Patrick Stewart said this was his last ST. "Generation's Final Journey." Probably the end of TNG.

Patrick Degan wrote:The difference between TOS and its increasingly palsied successors lies in its writing on one very basic but important element. Even the worst, goofiest TOS episodes had, if nothing else, one solid core idea underpinning the entire script and a philosophical point of view. The episodes were about something.

So what you're saying is that, while TOS was always about something, Enterprise would be like "Seinfeld in Space"?

EDIT: On the other hand, Seinfeld wasn't so high on the toilet humour.

Slartibartfast wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:The difference between TOS and its increasingly palsied successors lies in its writing on one very basic but important element. Even the worst, goofiest TOS episodes had, if nothing else, one solid core idea underpinning the entire script and a philosophical point of view. The episodes were about something.

So what you're saying is that, while TOS was always about something, Enterprise would be like "Seinfeld in Space"?

EDIT: On the other hand, Seinfeld wasn't so high on the toilet humour.

*blink* I had almost that exact conversation on the way out of the theatre.
But, if you wanted a TNG movie to be about something, what would you make that be, and still keep it TNG? Is that even possible? Hmm. Got to think how I would have redone these films. Insurrection would probably be the easiest, as you have a potential - if stupid - concept already in place: eternal youth. The problem is, we have some other options before us we have to deal with - like the Son'a, who represent the rebellion of youth, and could be made the focus point of the movie.
Someone go ressurect the old writers and kill off Bitchtits and Brainfucked while they're at it.