Grobbit wrote:
From a narrative point of view, it works wonderfully. A setting advancement allows big events to occur without leaving an audience wondering how many times the galaxy can be in peril through the course of a single generation. Also allows the writers to break from the limitations set by an established and narrow set of limitations on what they can do within the setting. Personally I'd like to see more advances into the Delta and Gamma quadrants, as it's likely that the Cardassian, Klingon, Federation and Romulans would likely come to an understanding after 150 years, or failing that one would likely seize dominance (bright future vs. gritty future I suppose).
The article may be dated 2006, but the last Star Trek movie drew a huge audience outside of the regular trekkie crowd, so I wouldn't be suprised to see a non-animated main series hit the tube. The movie was a success because of a bigger emphasis on action and a fast moving, large scale story arc. I would expect to see more of this trend in a new series. Hopefully without the glaring plot holes and scientific impossibilities.
First of all I would contest that from a writing stand point that the giant leap forward makes sense. If anything, it only shows that you wish to seperate yourself from the previous work ... which from a writer / directors / actors career point is both good and bad, in that is allows you to shine as yourself but also lessens the burden of being bogged down should you hate the comparisions to previous work. Which is what so often happens when they try to "reinvision" a series in order to recapture and expand their audience. Its a roll of the dice, not much more. But anyway, aside from that it also allows you to avoid insulting others who have worked in the franchise by not treading on their hard work in order to bolster yourself up, such as occured with Star Wars' novel series in the break befire the first round of authors and the second and third round, by the time the vong war was rolling around the earlier authors were ready to pull their hair out and deny all prior involvment with the series because their characters, that they labored so hard and so long upon were now being devoured in an unrealistic and overly dramatized war.
the other thing I'd like to contest is the success of the latest Star Trek movie. While I don't deny that it did very well in the box office, I, and many of my other star trek friends found it to fall very, very, very short of our standards. In fact i remember one of my friends wanted to round up a group of us to go to the theater with the intention of getting drunk while the film was on and throwing things at the screen ... but i didn't feel like getting arrested.
There is a reason why the star trek series was so successful within the trinity series, as i refer to them, that being TNG, DS9, and Voyager and the further they move from those themes, qualities and virtues, the less and less the franchise will shine. But thats just my humble opinion.
But given the choice, I would rather see a brand new series with brand new characters than a continuation of the original series characters in their new "revised" form following the parallel universe storyline. If they want to make more movies that advance those characters fine, but i'd rather not see them on TV once a week reminding me of how storyline was replaced with computer generated special effects.
FAQ
Search
Register
Login
