StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Maybe the die-hard Trekkies are analogous to meth addicts; they're always wanting more, trying to get that ecstatic high they once got, and even though no matter how much they get it never quite does the trick for them they still crave it badly.

What makes it so good for them? I mean seriously, I consider myself a Trekkie in the sense that I was a big fan of the original series, but it doesn't personally bother me that the series has gone to hell. I comment on its decline, but it's in more of a "point and laugh" kind of way than a regretful kind of way. It must not have as much significance for me as it does for the die-hards, most of whom (I suspect) are actually bigger fans of the new series than the original series anyway.

But think of how many of those people are only really familiar with Trek and don't know much else. I suspect that the conventions of ST are so familiar to them that even when it's crap, it's comforting on some perverse level.

Darth Wong wrote:Sorry, but the answers that have been given in this thread don't cut it. They apply just as easily to other fiction franchises, yet as I pointed out earlier, you don't see fans of those franchises clamouring and pleading for an endless stream of new material.

I'm not sure how much it applies, but the Gundam series in Japan and Asia in general is a bloody institution. You're talking about an anime that originally came out in 1979 which has continued literally to this day on pretty much a regular basis on TV, as movies/OVAs, novels, games, the whole works.

Gundam is scary. For the main storyline alone you're talking about 4 full seasons of 52 eps each, 4 to 5 OVAs of 6 episodes each, 2 full length movies, and 6 "movie remakes" theatre release of 2 of the full seasons. Then on top of that you've got 7~8 full season's worth of alternate timeline TV series, another few OVAs, and I think another few movies as well. This is only counting stuff that's animated, I haven't started to go on about the mangas, the novels, and the video games.

Counting only the TV series, a new Gundam series ran on TV on
1979, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006

So why should Star Trek go the way of the dodo when there are successful examples of how a franchise can just go on and on and on like an Energizer Bunny? I mean, the content for Star Trek simply pales in comparison to Gundam. I blame bad writers, but I don't think it's an impossible task for a franchise to just keep going.

Dendrobius wrote:Gundam is scary. For the main storyline alone you're talking about 4 full seasons of 52 eps each, 4 to 5 OVAs of 6 episodes each, 2 full length movies, and 6 "movie remakes" theatre release of 2 of the full seasons. Then on top of that you've got 7~8 full season's worth of alternate timeline TV series, another few OVAs, and I think another few movies as well. This is only counting stuff that's animated, I haven't started to go on about the mangas, the novels, and the video games.

Counting only the TV series, a new Gundam series ran on TV on
1979, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006

So why should Star Trek go the way of the dodo when there are successful examples of how a franchise can just go on and on and on like an Energizer Bunny? I mean, the content for Star Trek simply pales in comparison to Gundam. I blame bad writers, but I don't think it's an impossible task for a franchise to just keep going.

That's just evolution rendering its judgement. In Star Trek's case, it's because the Franchise was mismanaged by idiot greedheads who cared only for milking a cash cow that any dramatic potential was leeched out of it long ago. Or as the Rev. Ivan Stang might put it, Star Trek turned Pink.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Maybe the die-hard Trekkies are analogous to meth addicts; they're always wanting more, trying to get that ecstatic high they once got, and even though no matter how much they get it never quite does the trick for them they still crave it badly.

What makes it so good for them? I mean seriously, I consider myself a Trekkie in the sense that I was a big fan of the original series, but it doesn't personally bother me that the series has gone to hell. I comment on its decline, but it's in more of a "point and laugh" kind of way than a regretful kind of way. It must not have as much significance for me as it does for the die-hards, most of whom (I suspect) are actually bigger fans of the new series than the original series anyway.

But think of how many of those people are only really familiar with Trek and don't know much else. I suspect that the conventions of ST are so familiar to them that even when it's crap, it's comforting on some perverse level.

This sounds eerily like some of the discussions we have about religion.

Patrick Degan wrote:

Dendrobius wrote:Gundam is scary. For the main storyline alone you're talking about 4 full seasons of 52 eps each, 4 to 5 OVAs of 6 episodes each, 2 full length movies, and 6 "movie remakes" theatre release of 2 of the full seasons. Then on top of that you've got 7~8 full season's worth of alternate timeline TV series, another few OVAs, and I think another few movies as well. This is only counting stuff that's animated, I haven't started to go on about the mangas, the novels, and the video games.

Counting only the TV series, a new Gundam series ran on TV on
1979, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006

So why should Star Trek go the way of the dodo when there are successful examples of how a franchise can just go on and on and on like an Energizer Bunny? I mean, the content for Star Trek simply pales in comparison to Gundam. I blame bad writers, but I don't think it's an impossible task for a franchise to just keep going.

That's just evolution rendering its judgement. In Star Trek's case, it's because the Franchise was mismanaged by idiot greedheads who cared only for milking a cash cow that any dramatic potential was leeched out of it long ago. Or as the Rev. Ivan Stang might put it, Star Trek turned Pink.

Gundam had its problems, most notorious being G Gundam, but that didn't stop it from making better stuff later, ST can do so as well, but people need to put real dramatic effort into it.

montypython wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:

Dendrobius wrote:Gundam is scary. For the main storyline alone you're talking about 4 full seasons of 52 eps each, 4 to 5 OVAs of 6 episodes each, 2 full length movies, and 6 "movie remakes" theatre release of 2 of the full seasons. Then on top of that you've got 7~8 full season's worth of alternate timeline TV series, another few OVAs, and I think another few movies as well. This is only counting stuff that's animated, I haven't started to go on about the mangas, the novels, and the video games.

Counting only the TV series, a new Gundam series ran on TV on
1979, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006

So why should Star Trek go the way of the dodo when there are successful examples of how a franchise can just go on and on and on like an Energizer Bunny? I mean, the content for Star Trek simply pales in comparison to Gundam. I blame bad writers, but I don't think it's an impossible task for a franchise to just keep going.

That's just evolution rendering its judgement. In Star Trek's case, it's because the Franchise was mismanaged by idiot greedheads who cared only for milking a cash cow that any dramatic potential was leeched out of it long ago. Or as the Rev. Ivan Stang might put it, Star Trek turned Pink.

Gundam had its problems, most notorious being G Gundam, but that didn't stop it from making better stuff later, ST can do so as well, but people need to put real dramatic effort into it.

"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Nope. The comparison doesn't work. The Gundam franchise is protected by its own mechanism of seperate continuities, so that if one series sucked, it doesn't drag down the whole of the franchise with it. Star Trek, on the other hand, has had three sucky series and part of the immediate sequel series came off mediocre in its last season as well, and a string of films each bombing worse than its predecessor —and all of them purporting to be part of the same continuity line as the original and therefore bringing down the franchise as a whole with each successive failure. It's now gotten to where Star Trek is, outside of TOS, either a pathetic joke or completely forgotten.

"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Nope. The comparison doesn't work. The Gundam franchise is protected by its own mechanism of seperate continuities, so that if one series sucked, it doesn't drag down the whole of the franchise with it. Star Trek, on the other hand, has had three sucky series and part of the immediate sequel series came off mediocre in its last season as well, and a string of films each bombing worse than its predecessor —and all of them purporting to be part of the same continuity line as the original and therefore bringing down the franchise as a whole with each successive failure. It's now gotten to where Star Trek is, outside of TOS, either a pathetic joke or completely forgotten.

True only to an extent. Gundam's main UC timeline has been the enduring cash cow for Bandai/Sunrise from 1979 to now. Even when the "current" TV series is an alt continuity, OVAs, side stories, manga, novels etc keep coming out on the side purely to satisfy the hardcore Gundam fans who are by and large only interested in the UC timeline

Also, if you think Gundam's main UC storyline has always been an unparalleled success, think again. ZZ Gundam in 1986 was seriously hated by viewers with a passion, what did Bandai/Sunrise do? They managed to rescue it by listening to the masses and changing things mid season. Even though to this day ZZ is known amoungst fans as the crappiest series, it did not kill off Gundam.

Star Trek has seriously gone off the tracks, but it is not beyond the realms of impossibility to rescue. If Bandai/Sunrise can pull Gundam's chestnuts out of the fire with ZZ back in '86, Paramount can do the same with Star Trek now. Come on, Enterprise with Manny Coto in charge was pretty watchable by most accounts, it's not a total and complete loss. If this next Star Trek movie coming up can recapture the magic of TOS and early/mid TNG, a revival is not completely improbable.

Dendrobius wrote:

"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Nope. The comparison doesn't work. The Gundam franchise is protected by its own mechanism of seperate continuities, so that if one series sucked, it doesn't drag down the whole of the franchise with it. Star Trek, on the other hand, has had three sucky series and part of the immediate sequel series came off mediocre in its last season as well, and a string of films each bombing worse than its predecessor —and all of them purporting to be part of the same continuity line as the original and therefore bringing down the franchise as a whole with each successive failure. It's now gotten to where Star Trek is, outside of TOS, either a pathetic joke or completely forgotten.

True only to an extent. Gundam's main UC timeline has been the enduring cash cow for Bandai/Sunrise from 1979 to now. Even when the "current" TV series is an alt continuity, OVAs, side stories, manga, novels etc keep coming out on the side purely to satisfy the hardcore Gundam fans who are by and large only interested in the UC timeline

Also, if you think Gundam's main UC storyline has always been an unparalleled success, think again. ZZ Gundam in 1986 was seriously hated by viewers with a passion, what did Bandai/Sunrise do? They managed to rescue it by listening to the masses and changing things mid season. Even though to this day ZZ is known amoungst fans as the crappiest series, it did not kill off Gundam.

Star Trek has seriously gone off the tracks, but it is not beyond the realms of impossibility to rescue. If Bandai/Sunrise can pull Gundam's chestnuts out of the fire with ZZ back in '86, Paramount can do the same with Star Trek now. Come on, Enterprise with Manny Coto in charge was pretty watchable by most accounts, it's not a total and complete loss. If this next Star Trek movie coming up can recapture the magic of TOS and early/mid TNG, a revival is not completely improbable.

It's astounding that you bring up that Gundam's main had only one failure, and some fans only want one particular.

Given that each iteration of Next Generation Trek LOST fans, until the abyssmal failure of Enterprise and add the fact that both Insurrection and Nemesis were considered box office failures? You're ignoring the fact Star Trek has been dying since the end of TNG, with DS9 not showing the rot...Voyager requiring a method to gain ratings they had NEVER used, and Enterprise dying practically on arrival.

Gundam has a had a few burps in it's long life. Star Trek has been barreling down to cancellation for a long time and it was only FANS who kept it alive during Enterprise's pitiful ratings.

montypython wrote: Gundam had its problems, most notorious being G Gundam, but that didn't stop it from making better stuff later, ST can do so as well, but people need to put real dramatic effort into it.

I wouldn't consider G Gundam a problem. It was different, but it was well made and had excellent character development. It gets a lot of flak, but that often comes from those who want all Gundam to be what they're used to. It's certainly far better than the AU that succeeded it - Wing.

The real problem has been SEED Destiny.

Shit, I wouldn't even call Gunam ZZ much of a misfire, either. Once you get past the introductory episodes, which are indeed terrible, it shoots up to about the same quality as Zeta.

SEED/SEED Destiny is definitely when Gundam reached its flawed point, and to a modern Star Trek level where it's purely a brand being thrown to a marketable audience. But since Gundam does have so many continuities within its IP, SEED is something that can be sort of skimmed over and things continue as they did.

Specifically regarding Star Trek and its fans clamoring for more, I agree with Uranium that it's comparable to an addiction, though I think it's also a little more specific than that. To the type of fans that demand that they should receive more and more Star Trek, no matter what quality it is, I think it's because it functions purely as a peg to occupy a desperate hole in their lives.

On one level we all sort of have holes like that and fill them with hobbies and IP fandoms: Star Trek, Gundam, Eva, Stargate, DC/Marvel comics, Warhammer, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Ghostbusters, He-Man, etc... But I think there are some fans who have ever-expanding holes in their lives, so in a way they need increasingly-larger pegs to fill them. And for some reason that peg is often Star Trek, perhaps due to it's often-inherent nature of projecting an escapist, utopian, perfect society: it's shelter from reality and stigma. Or something like that.

I can't really think of one explaination that would fit for the desire for Trek to continue over other series. I could say it was the attachment that die-hards developed that let them bond (or leach onto) the characters and setting. They knew in Trek no one main character they liked would die. The boat would never get rocked too hard, and at the end of the day, even if the entire crew were turned into friggen rocks and back, brainwashed into assasins, or wiped out a civilization, they would all be back safe and sound for the next episode. Maybe it was that lack of change that Trek fostered in itself that took hold of the die-hards? Now they have been so conditioned (for lack of a better term) to have the static Trek in their lives they need it, or theyll have to face change, which they use Trek to escape from?

I know this is just a broad generalization, and that it doesn't bring up why theres no insane demand to bring back more "Threes Company" or "Mr. Belvedere" or other cookie cutter shows., but its all my slow brain can think of.

Trek should have been more like Star Fleet Battles or A Thin Veneer, exploration not just for scientific knowledge and curiousity, but also as a precautionary measure against unknown dangers, because what isn't known can kill too.

Destructionator XIII wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:Unfortunately, trying to have that city in space aboard what is essentially a warship which gets sent out on dangerous missions on occasion and is carrying a lot of useless passengers around at all times is utterly implausible no matter how you slice it.

Why must the Enterprise be a warship?

In universe answer: because Starfleet is a giant monopoly that controls all interstellar travel.

Real world answer: because the Trekkies want to wank over how powerful their ships are and see their favorite crew every episode. It would also be too expensive to have a whole separate cast for military actions.

Darth Servo wrote:Real world answer: *snip* It would also be too expensive to have a whole separate cast for military actions.

No, it wouldn't. B5 got by just fine with a mixed cast. Star Trek has - with the exception of TOS and the early TNG seasons - always had fat budgets.

Take Voyager. There was no reason on earth why the Maquis crew were forced to become a Starfleet crew and wear the uniform. Did they do it because it would have been expensive to have them wear 'civvie' clothing? Nevermind the fact they already had Chakotay in the pilot wearing civvie clothing? So saying it would have been expensive to depict a non-starfleet crew doesn't make sense.

Take DS9. Not everyone was a Starfleet soldier fighting the Dominion.

When it comes to Star Trek and expense, 95% of what was produced was one wasted opportunity after another. Most sci-fi shows would absolutely love to have the kind of budget Star Trek shows routinely get to play with (and piss down the drain). Writers like JMS have said that Trek is so established, that you could literally write any story you could think of and get it made, while on another show you'd have to fight the executives every step of the way. (I suspect Rick Berman would have opened his eyes somewhat)

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of an explorer/military vessel. It makes sense from the standpoint of a "wild, uncivilized frontier" where anything can happen, although Trek pretty much threw that idea in the shitter with ENT, which depicted a flourishing and highly advanced interstellar community which had been in place long before humanity reached the stars.

Darth Wong wrote:There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of an explorer/military vessel. It makes sense from the standpoint of a "wild, uncivilized frontier" where anything can happen, although Trek pretty much threw that idea in the shitter with ENT, which depicted a flourishing and highly advanced interstellar community which had been in place long before humanity reached the stars.

As an in-joke, James Blish tossed a reference to a sociopolitical unit known as the "Vegan Tyranny" in his novelisation of the TOS episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" —cited by Scotty as one reason why the Enterprise had nowhere to go in the 1960s time period. The Vegan Tyranny was a reference to enemies that humanity contend with in his Cities In Flight novellas.

Had the Boobyprise writers possessed any sense, they could have incorporated the concept that there had at one time been a galactic-wide government which was overthrown or collapsed, bringing on the Dark Ages —hence the "wild uncivilised frontier" dotted with a few planets which had maybe a basic interstellar spacetravel capability, but all existing in a huge power-vacuum left behind by the collapse of the Old Order.

Darth Wong wrote:This sounds eerily like some of the discussions we have about religion.

I can just picture Jesus Christ returning and addressing his followers: "You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!"

Drooling Iguana wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:This sounds eerily like some of the discussions we have about religion.

I can just picture Jesus Christ returning and addressing his followers: "You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!"

It would be funnier if he said "You know I was drunk off my ass when I said most of that stuff, right?"

Patrick Degan wrote:Had the Boobyprise writers possessed any sense, they could have incorporated the concept that there had at one time been a galactic-wide government which was overthrown or collapsed, bringing on the Dark Ages —hence the "wild uncivilised frontier" dotted with a few planets which had maybe a basic interstellar spacetravel capability, but all existing in a huge power-vacuum left behind by the collapse of the Old Order.

I suspect they just didn't expect anyone to compare the general setting of ENT with TOS, even though they were supposedly going back to the roots of the show.

Their attitude toward continuity seemed to be "I'm going to write a story that ties into a particular plot point of the original show" rather than "I'm going to write a story which is consistent with the history of the original show".

Darth Wong wrote:

Drooling Iguana wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:This sounds eerily like some of the discussions we have about religion.

I can just picture Jesus Christ returning and addressing his followers: "You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!"

It would be funnier if he said "You know I was drunk off my ass when I said most of that stuff, right?"

Yeah, but that wouldn't be a reference to William Shatner's "Get a Life" sketch.