• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Star Trek XI .. after all?

My complaints about the Star Trek way of story-telling isn't really the fact that the federation keeps existing - that's kind of a given in the Star Trek universe - a world too "perfect" to depict the manner in which societies change and governments come and go. The end of the Federation wouldn't have to mean the end of the Star Trek universe and all that .. though of course, Dominion oppression wouldn't have been a perfect environment for story-telling.

My complaing is the way how things that happen have no permanent effect. After a problem is resolved .. it's like it never happened. Deep Space Nine wasn't exactly innocent here either - it really bugged me after the episode "Hard Time", that I actually liked.

O'Brien, in his mind, spends 20 years in an isolated prison cell. As a result, he is, of course, pretty messed up, and ends up being suicidal. The episode deals with how he somehow manages to get a grip on life again, will get himself councelling, and doesn't commit suicide.

And after the episode .. you'd never have known any of this would have happened. The next week, everything was back to normal.

In the Star Trek universe, actions don't have consequences. You face a new problem every week, solve the problem, and face a new problem the next week. It's the horribly static feel it gives to the Trek universe that bugs me here. Less that the stories are "always the same", but more that they never have consequences.
 
My complaing is the way how things that happen have no permanent effect.
Click to expand...

But that is hardly unique to Trek. That's the nature of series (as opposed to serial) storytelling. A series is, by definition, a collection of related, but independent stories. They can be, and are meant to be, enjoyed independently, and generally in any order. This is as true of Sherlock Holmes or Superman or Mannix as it is of Trek. That's because a novel or a stand-alone short story is usually about the most important event in the main character's life. We're done with Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. D'Arcy at the end of Pride and Prejudice, their story is told. But at the end of "The Red Headed League" Holmes is much the same as he was at the start, ready for his next adventure. Until the mid-1960s the "cosmic reset button" was still the rule in comic books and most dramatic TV shows and even movie series, regardless of genre. Except for the death of Bond's wife there was little or no continuity in those films. Each was its own adventure, and at the end Bond would be headed back to London, sans the current Bond girl, and ready for another adventure

There's nothing inherently wrong with this approach, especially in television where producers rightly fear making their shows too connected so that casual viewers can't pick them up by watching a single episode. (JMS constantly struggled with this, which is why he tried to start each season with more stand-alone episodes, while still keeping some arc elements in play in the "B" and "C" stories.)

Regards,

Joe
 
Yeah, the reset button has a long, long history. The shows that break the mold, however, are becoming more and more accepted and more and more acclaimed. B5 was a prime example, of course, being built as a 5-year deal. But there are plenty now, especially now that lots of people (myself included) seem to be watching TV on DVD. 24 and Lost, to pick two wildly successful examples. JMS would probably find making a continuity-heavy show like B5 much, much easier in today's climate; after Lost, no exec can say, "The American Public doesn't have that kind of an attention span!"

In short, I'm thinking that the "reset button" is on its way out for dramas. For comedies it will likely last a while longer; if your "situation comedy" or sit com only works because of a certain setup and a certain cast, it makes things wildly more difficult if your situation keeps changing.

But while reality TV seems to be here to stay, tragically, and thus draws down the genre on one side, there are a lot of really excellent shows out there that are truly raising the bar. An exciting time for television.


Recoil wrote:
So in summary. No real new rumors about the new Trek movie, and Shaal needs to let go of the hate and rent Firefly.
Click to expand...

I can get behind that.
 
In short, I'm thinking that the "reset button" is on its way out for dramas.
Click to expand...

Well... yes and no. Even sitcoms have some degree of continuity. Kids get older. Characters develop relationships, break up, get married, etc. Those things carry over from episode to episode. But the stories themselves tend to be self-contained.

This is also true for some dramas, and I think there is room for them as well. Even the various Law & Order shows don't have a reset button - events in one episode will have consequences in later ones, and the shows maintain their "histories" and continuity. But, again, each episode is self-contained and the structure of the show favors the procedural apsect and (wisely in my estimation) stays away from the characters' home lives. That's one reason the show has been so successful for so long, and also why it is so succesful in syndication - whereas "arc" shows like B5 have a much tougher time in 5-times-a-week reruns and burn out quickly.

All the CSI shows tend to have season-long stories in the background, that get touched on briefly every couople of episodes, and work in things about the character's personal lives at the margins, without making them the focus. (Catherine's ex- husband for the first couple of seasons, her relatioship with Sam Braun, her recent problems with her daughter. Then there's Brass and his daughter, Warrick's impulsive marriage and the surprise revelation of Grissom's relationship with Sara at the end of last season - something they had been teasing since episode one, but which Girssom always seemed to hold back from. We stil have no hint of when this started, only that the last episode was not their first night together.)

I don't think "arc" shows are ever going to completely displace more episodic shows, but I also don't think episodic shows will ever simply ignore developments in episodes and what the likely consequences would be in later shows. (So a modern Magnum or Kirk probably woudln't fall in love with a different girl every week, and then conveniently have her die or go away. :))

Regards,

Joe
 
As far as I can see the reason that the Federation always has to win the big wars is because a defeat of that kind would mean the kind of show-shattering changes that they have always appeared reluctant to do. It would have meant changing the whole basis and premise of the series in the way JMS did when he moved B5 out of Earth's jurisdiction by declaring independence in the middle of the story.

I didn't watch enough of DS9 to comment on whether they made those sort of changes on that show, but the biggest opportunity that I saw they let slip through their fingers ... the joining of the Maquis and Federation crews right at the start of Voyager. They had an opportunity to build a crew and a show that felt quite unlike any previous ST show but blew it. The setup of the show (one ship all by itself in unfamiliar territory) also gave them the perfect opportunity to put them into great adversity, losing battles, suffering, etc. without it impacting on the underlying premise of The Federation ... but they blew that one too.

Maybe they just didn't want Voyager to feel different from previous ST shows, and maybe they believe that ST fans prefer to see the maintenance of the underlying status quo at the expense of major character development and changes along the way.
 
Good points on Voyager. The crew setup thingy was totallly walked over in one season.

Remember the Voyager two parter Year of Hell?

Thats how the whole damn show sould have been, dark edgy with the ship on the run permenantly. Except they pressed the reboot button on the whole thing.

Actually, BSG is a pretty good template for that kind of thing, but that is really a very different show from Trek...
 
The reason we have 24 and Lost, huge "arc" serials that you have to watch in order- is simply because there are more channels and shows and entertainment options out there, with more diverse tastes and a constant subdividing of various audiences, so there's just more room for everything.
 
When he passed on, we were left with Chris Berman running the franchise, and run it he did...into the ground.
Click to expand...

Dear God, no wonder Star Trek went down the crapper. What did you think was going to happen with this a$$hole running things! ? :D

180px-Chrisberman.jpg
 
Dear God, no wonder Star Trek went down the crapper.
Click to expand...

And not just part way down the crapper.

"It.. could... go... all... the... WAY!"

:D

(And for the record, it was Rick Berman who screwed up the Trek franchise beyond all recognition. Chris was busy screwing up ESPN. ;))

Joe
 
Joe

Yes Voyager is the show which had the attention of those in charge. That's why it sucked. The idea being that DS9 got better without the "help" of those in charge.
 
You know what. Speaking about Voyager, and "Rick" Berman and so forth...I'm really having a hard time really respecting any Post-Roddenberry Star Trek. I just got done watching all the Trek movies (Was on a TOS kick there, continued into the movies and went through all the Next-Gen ones too) and I gotta tell you, the Next Gen movies really fucking sucked, especially when compared to the TOS ones. I really think when Roddenberry passed away and left things to Berman, that Trek really did die, or transformed into some alternate-reality kinda stuff. Its like night and day.

First Contact was the only Next Gen movie that really was OK. Take out the seductive "Borg Queen" and you have a pretty good Trek movie (although Next Gen really over-used the whole time-travel stuff).

Generations SUCKED. It was terrible. The plot was proposterious. The whole "Nexus" thing was so wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to explain them. Time had no meaning there, yet time passed when they were in it, and somehow, no matter where in the Galaxy it is, you can apparently leave the Nexus whenever you want and magically appear anywhere in the Universe you want. It was the biggest Deus Ex Machina EVER. And there was much more wrong with the movie than that. The villian didn't even need to have his super duper evil plan, he could have done it a lot easier. Just a bad, bad, bad movie.

Insurrection was brutal as well. Boring. Insignificant. It also re-used about 3 TOS plot lines as well. So add unoriginal to the list.

Nemesis, meh. Evil villan with no motivation for being evil. And the whole "Killing Off Data" thing was poorly done. I also felt like I was watching Star Trek II when it happened. Dying to save his crew in the end like Spock did --- except Spocks death was far far more meaningful and better done.

Yea, pretty much all the Next Gen movies sucked I guess. The TV Series that Berman and his crew did were also terrible. Voyager had a lot of potential but fell short. Same story with Enterprise. It didnt get good until Manny Coto came onboard for Season 4, and really started tying things into TOS plotlines as any good prequal should have done. Too bad he came in too late to save the sinking ship. Just goes to show you what could have happened without Berman running the Trek organization at the time.

So I really hope Abrams goes in a different direction. When Roddenberry left us, the best that was Trek seems to have left as well. As far as I am concerned, Abrams can do just about whatever he wants with his story, and if he ignores events that happened in the Next Gen movies, I won't have too much trouble accepting that. I have a feeling he will pay very close attention to TOS stuff though, from the looks of his movie poster. If he stay true to the Roddenberry creations, he ought to do OK.
 
You have put into words exactly how I feel about Trek. I have watched it all of my life and have felt let down with the post-Roddenberry creations. I have had a hard time connecting with any of the newer characters, save a couple of the NextGen group.

I didn't even see Nemesis, which feels like a type of blasphemy to me, as I was such a devoted fan of the original movies...even the bad ones in retrospect.

I hope Abrams does something good with the film. I would like to be lured back into Trekdom again.
 
I'll even take it a step further- I used to laugh at all those people who swore by only the original trek and wouldn't accept anything without Kirk and Spock. But I've pretty much become one of them.
 
Well, I won't take anything without Kosh, Starbuck, or Mal Reynolds. I remain defiantly beyond the pale.

(But I'll confess that I've never actually seen any TOS. It just looks so... 60's.)
 
Well, I won't take anything without Kosh, Starbuck, or Mal Reynolds. I remain defiantly beyond the pale.

(But I'll confess that I've never actually seen any TOS. It just looks so... 60's.)
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with that?

It was made in the 60's.

I can enjoy a good Charlie Chaplin film, or any one of a score of other films that were made long before I was born. There's some good stuff out there. :)

So, the 60's look is enough to turn you away from some pretty neat characters and stories? What year do you start watching at, then? :p
 
1972.

...no, seriously, I could rise above the scenery, but the plots...? I know for a fact that some are quite good, but after B5 and BSG and Buffy, some things would either irk me or make me laugh. Mostly, I guess I've been spoiled.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.
 
Well, I won't take anything without Kosh, Starbuck, or Mal Reynolds. I remain defiantly beyond the pale.

(But I'll confess that I've never actually seen any TOS. It just looks so... 60's.)
Click to expand...

So now you know what show you need to watch next....

As for looking so 60's, it looks like these new versions might be just for you. For me, the 'so 60's' is all part of the appeal!
 
If they start to "un-60's" the look of TOS, they'll have to add some length to those skirts the gals wear. ;)

Are you sure the 60's thing is so bad? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 332 (members: 1, guests: 331)

Share this page

Back
Top