prequels | Report this post to moderator
By: Drewhauff (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 20:17:35 on Apr 05, 2005

I think we might be able to indirectly thank George Lucas for this prequel fad. Seems as though ever since he did the Star Wars prequels which were successful financially, Paramount did the same - maybe. Now we have the prequels Enteprise. Lucas may also be indirectly responsible for other impacts on Star Trek. Back in the 1970s, Paramount was planning a new TOS TV series with most of the original crew (Captain Kirk and etc.) called Phase Two. They were even going to use this to launch UPN - in the 1970s! Then came the blockbuster hit Star Wars. Paramount execs thought, "Oh no, we are going to do our own sci-fi movie, and make a lot of money." So they scrapped the TV series, wasting 100s of thousands of dollars, and redressed the TV sets for the movie. If it wasn't for Star Wars, I don't think that Star Trek the Motion Picture would had been made.

--------

Glistening green, almost like secret dreams a bored ship captain might have.

Unique, unusual, and sometimes bizarre - [l]drewsstew.com[el]

Reply

Quote

one of a hundred remakes... | Report this post to moderator
By: dx31701 (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 10:36:53 on Apr 03, 2005

70's and 80's TV shows are being re-made left and right and the BSG folks have some sort of special reason for doing their remake that's different from the reasons for all the other remakes? Sure....

Along with wire-fu SFX, and the clash of massive CG armies, remakes and "prequels" are just the big faddish thing right now, and BSG jumped right on the remake bandwagon.

To say that Star Trek only gets the science fiction portion of the equation right is to misunderstand why it was ever successful.

Reply

Quote

I don't care.... | Report this post to moderator
By: DS9 Fan (Odo's file, contact) @ 22:48:23 on Apr 02, 2005

...for any of this BSG vs. Star Trek bull. I haven't seen it, and I haven't seen heard anything about it to indicate that it has become as ingrained in pop-culture as Star Trek has.

I love Ron D. Moore and all(especially for DS9), but the truth is, it's got a long way to go before we can start comparing ST to that show. 40 years of Star Trek and a huge franchise isn't so easily replaced. When BSG lasts for 4 decades, survives 4 spinoffs(and the franchise will survive the cancellation of Enterprise, BTW), lands 10 movies, and has loads upon loads of software, video games, books, and collectible merchandise we'll see. It would have a lot of ground to cover.

BTW, I'm hardly shocked to hear Picard being called a pompous ass. I've thought that on more than one occasion.

I just hope that Paramount execs don't actually try to do a "reinterpretation" of Star Trek if they do another series. Continuing the saga rather than reimagining is what has worked for Star Trek. As a matter of fact, as far as I see it, that's where Enterprise stumbled. It didn't continue the saga, it went backward.

Reply

Quote

Banish the name calling | Report this post to moderator
By: Postdoc (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:08:18 on Apr 02, 2005

BSGs not bad, but it's only marginally a science fiction show, with little charm. As for Kirk and Picard being pompous, at least Kirk had a sense of humour. Little on the extremely super serious BSG qualifies. Also, have 15 contiguous plots, mood tinting on the film and a political plot (far less complex than Babylon 5) doesn't necessarily make for great drama. But it is excellently done, I'll give them that. I still like Commander Cain though. Also, what they've done to Star Trek is much in line with what they've done to this, removal of all the humour, color, and grand scale. Yes, sometimes the old BSG was shockingly dumb, but it was entertaining. Wasn't the original BSG cancelled because of high costs?

Reply

Quote

I swear to............... | Report this post to moderator
By: 1701viper (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:01:22 on Apr 02, 2005

I'm personally just sick and tired of all this damn crap period. I dont care. Star Trek is Star Trek and Battlestar.... is Battlestar..... I like them both. You dont have to mention one show when talking about the other. Its just the TV exexcutives and now the fans taking sides that shouldnt even exist. ]

Reply

Quote

Teasing the trekkers... | Report this post to moderator
By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 02:52:52 on Apr 02, 2005

Calling BSG a success and ENT a failure is really stretching the truth but the worst part is when some "trekkers" go on and praise BSG and didn't have much positive to say about ENT. Then get outta here, once and for all! Its like betraying your loved one, and sleeping with another woman. I'm committed to Trek and I live in a monogame relationship with Trek. I won't be involved with a non-Trek show. No chance! Those of you who disagree with me, so be it, but you should know what it means to be a true trek fan.

Reply

Quote

Crap | Report this post to moderator
By: Mr. Xindi (Odo's file, contact) @ 01:04:35 on Apr 02, 2005

Is anyone one else getting sick of this crap? "STAR TREK lives in the sci-fi world; BATTLESTAR GALACTICA takes a step outside of it. It's very much grounded on tough issues we deal with today."

The first part is the worst crap I've read in a good long while, and the second part is the most completely untrue thing that could be said, I'm trying to get into the programme, but this bragging is realy sour. BTW Cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise still gets more viewers than the ratings supergiant Battlestar Gallactica.

--------

Dr. Lucas: Go suck my principle Quantum Number, asshole.

Soong: That language is unbecoming of a man of science.



'Cold Station 12'

Reply

Quote

Wait a minute | Report this post to moderator
By: Dukat (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 22:14:47 on Apr 01, 2005

Look I love Trek; I also love BSG. (the new BSG, the old BSG was a little too cartoony)

This idea that Star Trek lives in Sci-Fi and BSG is outside or half out of Sci-Fi is ridiculous. What about Sci-Fi says that it is not Sci-Fi when you deal with the human element or the current elements?

At least half of Trek is about human relationships and telling alegorical stories about today in another way. Secondly, Trek is bad sci-fi in the sense that it is poor science. Transporters, nearly limitless power, cloaking devices, even the way warp drive is portrayed is not consistent with what will be the reality. If we do travel faster than light, it will be something more similar to the FTL drives on BSG, and outside that piece, BSG seems pretty consistent with known science.

I respect what they are trying to do with BSG, and the comparisons to Trek should stop. I suppose it will continue because the journalists are not all that bright and cannot come up with more legitimate questions.

One thing I am concerned about is that some genious at Paramount will think they need to go and reinvent Trek. Get this Paramount nimrods, there is an established universe, future Trek must fall somewhere within that universe, past, current or future in relation to the existing timelines are ok, but a retelling/reinterpretation/reimagination is not. This is different than what New Voyages is doing, that is a continuation of the TOS line with new actors in the role.

That all being said, everyone should now bow to RDM because he showed us tonight exactly how a cliffhanger is written. For me I am dying for more, but so exhausted from tonights show, I don't think I could stand the continuation at this point.

--------

Get a Free iPod or $250 iTunes credit or a free Mac Mini!

Reply

Quote