Yes, Trek has lost it's touch with Humanity. The point is TNG was filled with anomalies and technobabble and still managed to tell a good story. Why should Trek become a crappy, "gritty" space marines show? Since when is that Star Trek? Do these people even know what Star Trek is anymore, does anyone?
--------
Friend just sent me this link. Yet another article exhibiting Steve's Ron Moore fanboyism.
--------
"Unless we learn to live together as brothers [and sisters] we will die together as fools." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
In look, theme and casting it seems a lot like 1950's military SF to me.Starship Troopers et. al. Yes, the old Heinlein stuff is classic and revolutionary for the time. Just an opinion.
Looks like a few people are not getting the point. It is not the "gritty" that is setting Galactica off from the sad state that Trek sank to. Focusing on "grit" is pretty much as bad as what the producers/lawyers at Paramount did to Trek. They abandoned real strengths in search of a "look". In an effort to become as inoffensive as possible, Trek was castrated. While, from our perspective, ToS is remarkably nice and tame, in it's day, it was hardcore, standards-rocking television. It actually mentioned the Viet Nam war--in a fiction series! It showed a white man kissing a black woman! It presented an "enemy" as people who, while they might be dangerous, might also be worth getting to know. It also probed questions of the limits of power and the limits of responsible liberty in a way that TV fiction had hitherto never done, at least not any US-produced ongoing series.
What, on the other hand, did the successor series give us? Progressively blander and blander fare, sticking very hard, almost obsessively so, to safe subjects, to things that it was easy to pick a side and root on. "Serpents for Eden"--Kirk realized the horrible moral ambiguity of arming the Federation's proxy in that episode, but he did it, even though he knew it might end up being the wrong thing to do in the long run, because it seemed necessary.
The new series, especially the last one, were safer by comparison to what else was already available on TV in the same years the new series were being first-run. As they went along, each successive Trek series pandered. They pandered to those within Paramount who demanded inoffensiveness in search of big ratings, and they pandered to fans who wanted, more than anything, Trek image with nothing to upset their rose-colored vision of Trek.
It was not lack of "grit" that put Trek to sleep, I'll agree with that, but those who point to Galatica as having what Trek needed to keep are not pointing at "grit". They're pointing at what Trek used to have--relevance and willingness to possibly offend fans in order to tell a good story.
-
Funny how some "Trekkies" can take the grit thing instead of the quality thing and run with it. I got what they meant, they were saying Trek lost it's relevance and stopped taking chances, something Gallactica does.
Sure, there will still be the fans of Trek who cant stop defending it even though it became a stinking turd, I am sure some are shooting down Galactica without ever having seen it simply because it is NOT Trek, but you need to watch Galactica to appreciate it.
-
What killed Enterprise was the choice of Scott Bakula as Captain. Mr. Sensitive types don't have the presence to play a commander of anything, especially not the Enterprise. (I'm trying to avoid saying no one wants a wussy for a captain.) I just couldn't watch it. I cringed every time I saw his face on promos.
Trek is itself. To make it BSG II is to have BSG III.
-
What killed Enterprise was the choice of Scott Bakula as Captain. Mr. Sensitive types don't have the presence to play a commander of anything, especially not the Enterprise. (I'm trying to avoid saying no one wants a wussy for a captain.) I just couldn't watch it. I cringed every time I saw his face on promos.
Trek is itself. To make it BSG II is to have BSG III.
-
What killed Enterprise was the choice of Scott Bakula as Captain. Mr. Sensitive types don't have the presence to play a commander of anything, especially not the Enterprise. (I'm trying to avoid saying no one wants a wussy for a captain.) I just couldn't watch it. I cringed every time I saw his face on promos.
Trek is itself. To make it BSG II is to have BSG III.
Ent failed simply because it was poor drama - Galactica itself isnt all that great compared to some shows of the past. To blame it on superficial crap like how 'gritty' it was is just as utterly off the mark as wehn B&B blamed the faliure of Nemesis on 'people are sick of Romulans' - how childish. Its quite scary that the entertainment industry is stooping so low these days.
--------
1
Ent failed simply because it was poor drama - Galactica itself isnt all that great compared to some shows of the past. To blame it on superficial crap like how 'gritty' it was is just as utterly off the mark as wehn B&B blamed the faliure of Nemesis on 'people are sick of Romulans' - how childish. Its quite scary that the entertainment industry is stooping so low these days.
--------
1
Star Trek was not enough like Battlestar Galactica. Star Trek was not well written, thought provoking, surprising, stuck to its continuity, and well acted.
Star Trek also was not enough like Battlestar Galactica in terms of its stories having some sort of relevence to the audience. In making the audience care about the characters they are watching.
I'm not suggesting a dark, gritty, frakking war Star Trek show or something like that. I do not think Star Trek needs to change what makes it what it is: the human adventure, exploring the galaxy while discovering things about ourselves, and strong characters (Kirk, Spock, Picard, Data, etc). I just mean Battlestar Galactica is far better in terms of story quality, an overall sense of where the characters are and where they're going by the writers, and it just seems to be a series made by people who care about it. Star Trek, the current ones (Enterprise & Voyager) just seemed to be made by people who cared about their paycheque... *ahem* Mr. Rick Berman *ahem*.
Star Trek, whether it be Enterprise or Voyager, was not enough like Battlestar Galactica. Battlestar Galactica is GOOD, Star Trek was not. Battlestar Galactica is still on TV, Star Trek is not. Simple enough.
Get someone who understands good TV in charge, and Star Trek will be more like Battlestar Galactica. I do not mean in terms of content. Star Trek is Star Trek, and it shouldn't try to be something else. I mean in the execution of its ideas. How the stories are presented, the characters are written and portrayed, the events, the underlying message, and so on. Battlestar Galactica, in short, has substance. If Star Trek gets someone in charge who understands what a good TV show is, Star Trek will have substance, and will be a good show in its own right.
It really had nothing to do with the San Deigo Comic Con story. Unless you enjoy quoting from other "experts" ie. people with a (digital) soapboax about how great BSG is.
--------
An elephant never forgets . . .TO KILL!
-
Quote from Bucky:
It really had nothing to do with the San Deigo Comic Con story. Unless you enjoy quoting from other "experts" ie. people with a (digital) soapboax about how great BSG is.
Bianco's observation -- "Driven by violence and rage" -- further suggests how Moore's BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is unlike STAR TREK.
Is BSG great? It flopped at NBC, last Saturday (see "Where Sci-Fi Need Not Apply").
Wacko Baltar and his invisible bunny made BSG S1 unwatchable for me.
--------------
FANTASTIC FOUR Super-Stretch Mr. Fantastic
Don't misunderstand and think that people who see strengths in BSG and see lessons to be learned there, are suggesting that Star Trek abandon it's own canon or it's own purpose. Just as with TWOK, TNG, and to a lesser extent DS9, there comes a time when the WAY in which Star Trek is told must be updated to remain relevant. THAT is what we can learn from BSG. NOT a complete bastardization of Trek's purpose, but simply a new, more relevant way of telling it. Over the last few years Star Trek has turned into Hamburger Helper. So no one can be blamed for losing their appetite. But that doesn't mean the world has to give up on beef itself. We all know that there is so much at Star Trek's core that will remain relevant as long as there are curious human beings who strive to make the world better. But retelling that in new ways that connect and REconnect with people is the challenge. The experts described in this article seem to think the new BSG contains lessons in how to do that. I agree with them.
You know!!! I am am very fed up!! with the these so called ST experts, Berman & Braga and Paramount putting words in my mouth by saying fans and people in general were tired of ST and that its need a rest lately I AM A FAN AND I AM NOT TIRED OF TREK!! Is that plain english coming from this fan! ST did not have this basically 40 year run because it needed to be like this new BSG I strongly disagree again beyond the TOS look at all the success it made especially with TNG and the original crew movies and that took place many many years later from the 60's into the 70's, 80's and 90's so I don't want to hear that it needs a rest.
Enterprise would not been cancelled if from the begining they handled it the right way and put effert into like Manny Coto did this last 4th Season. They waited til then they said "look it not working gee I wonder why, duhh!!!! by then it was to late"" The blame is themselves and only themselves.
Bernie
Star Trek Fan
PS. I would have like to see Manny Coto been given the opportunity for a Fifth, Sixth even a Seventh season I thought he was turning the series around and did a great job with all the episodes he was in charge of they were great! Thanks Manny
Modern Trek isn't enough like classic Trek, therefore it should be more like BSG? uhhhh....yeah....
doesn't it follow more directly that ENT should have been more like, y'know, Star Trek?
--------
"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" - Justice Scalia
WTF is all that about Trek not being enough like 'Galactica' ? I like BG but Trek doesen't need to be anything like it. It just needs to be Trek and IMHO 'Enterprise' strayed too far from the original concept.
We need Trek to be more about peaceful exploration and adventure more than ever these days. The only lesson future Trek might learn from BG is good writing and characters. We certainly don't need dumbass comments like that from so called 'experts' about what Trek 'needs' to be, some idiot from Paramount may actually be listening.
I agree with c.p. and the article. STAR TREK has lost it's ability to connect to people on a real basis. I enjoy BSG greatly. It's doing a good job of providing interesting characters and conflict, while adding to its own myth. I'm anxious to see how Apollo's Arrow and all of that plays out.
Still, I don't want to say BSG is the best thing ever. It's still too early in its life but it seems quite promising.
Let's not forget that TREK was the original commentator of our culture and history. Current BSG has just taken off from what TREK was.
Face it. These guys are saying the obvious, but it amazes me how evasive Star Trek fans can be when it comes to owning up to the truth. Later Treks were milk-toast imitations of former greatness. I have NO fan obligation to BSG. I could have cared less if it was successful or not. I could have cared less whether it killed that franchise or resuscitated it. But I have EYES and I can see that it's really good. I don't care whether it's considered part of the same genre as Star Trek or not. That doesn't mean I automatically have to see faults where they don't exist. It doesn't mean I have to forgive faults in Star Trek that need pointing out. In fact, ignoring the strengths of this show ultimately makes Star Trek's chances of future success less likely. If as fans we allow our loyalty no boundaries, we run the risk of reinforcing the apparent notion that Star Trek should no longer have involving characters, high drama, emotional relevance, and suspenseful action scenes. And we will have been the ones responsible for the demise of a great phenomenon. Ya gotta be above jealousy for it's own sake. There's nothing wrong with liking BSG and even seeing how lessons can be applied to Star Trek. After all, BSG SHOULD have been Star Trek. Ron Moore should have been heeded when asked his opinions about Trek, and he should have been encouraged to bring Star Trek into the 21st century. But we got who and what we did. And instead, Moore turned his talents to a corny, forgettable sci-fi series from the 80's—and made a diamond out of it.
Hating Battlestar Galactica doesn't make the last 6 or 7 years of Star Trek any better than it was, and it won't bring ENTERPRISE back either. There's lessons to be learned here. Let's learn them and hope the powers at Star Trek do too.
That last time I heard it was the WWF.
-
You're right. The Rock was on a Voyager episode, and the Big Show was on an Enterprise episode this season. It tells you who Berman and Braga thought their target audience was, don't it? Another example of how incompetent Berman and Braga were at understanding Star Trek and its fans.
"Driven by violance and rage" !
...that is exactly why Star Trek SHOULDN'T be like Galactica. Anyone with a clear mind can understand this.
-
No one is suggesting Trek should be "driven by violence and rage." Many are suggesting that Trek be more topical, more relevant to current times. Ask the tough moral questions. Whatever you think of BSG, the new series is attempting to this, in its own way. Trek should find its own, probably more optimistic way, to be just as ambitious.
I'd say ENT was very much like BSG, considering the NBC special was the lowest rated program last week.
--------
The supervisor is Verizon!
Ro.
--------
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.
We don't need Trek to become a melodramatic mess, devoid of character and filled with badly drawn "Allegory". Trek is in a bad enough state as it is.
Quote:
"BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is basically a naval show set in space. It's World War II,"
And, that's about it.
Quote:
"STAR TREK used to be about our world. Now, it's not 'real'."
Quote:
later STAR TREK shows became increasingly about spatial anomalies and other oddities.
I see, so TNG's success was specious at best. How enlightening.
--------
-
Quote:
later STAR TREK shows became increasingly about spatial anomalies and other oddities.
Quote:
I see, so TNG's success was specious at best. How enlightening.
I highly doubt they were referring to the second installment of a five series franchise as "later STAR TREK."
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
-
Quote:
unlike the ORIGINAL SERIES, which reflected the social turmoil of 1960s America, later STAR TREK shows became increasingly about spatial anomalies and other oddities.
Oh that's right, there were no 'spatial anomalies' and no technobabble in TNG. How silly of me.
--------
-
And there were/was none in TOS? There was much more social commentary in TNG than in VOY, and much more techno-babble/anomalie crap in VOY than in TNG. As stated below, the key word is "increasingly."
BTW: I really love your screenname... that's the man who's name you'd love to touch, but you musn't touch!
That name sounds good in your ear, but when you say it, you musn't fear. 'Cause that name could be said by anyone!
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
-
I think you're ignoring an important word in the quoted passage: increasingly. The point he made was that over time, Trek seemed to abandon its humanity in favor of anomalies. This was particularly true with VOY. "Because it looks cool" seemed to be their motto.
Star Trek always had anomalies and aliens-of-the-week. But in the end, the show wasn't about the interspatial phenomenon or the aliens. Instead, the anomaly illuminated something in our characters or in ourselves.
Star Trek, at its best, is an exploration of humanity. Think of the best episodes of Trek... any Trek... and you'll find that humanity is always at its heart.
Quote:"A panel of STAR TREK experts and enthusiasts said Thursday at San Diego Comic-Con that the reason the now-canceled ENTERPRISE series cast the future of the franchise in doubt was that it wasn't enough like the gritty new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA," writes Jeff Dillon for SignOn San Diego.
How does one get a title of "expert" in Star Trek? I am sick of hearing that Trek is not "gritty" as this revamp BSG. Do I have to turn on Trek and be depressed as all hell? TOS was about adventure and that mankind has over come the major problems they had faced. It was about exploring. It was about hope. TOS dealt with social issues but it wasn't gritty and some of those episodes became Trek classics. TOS has been a cult favorite for almost 40 years now. This desire for depressing, gritty "grunge" Sci Fi by fans is very disturbing. STIV was a good movie and it wasn't gritty. STII and STVI were great movies and they were not "gritty" they were good dramas.
Quote:"Robert Meyer Burnett, maker of FREE ENTERPRISE, a film about "dysfunctional TREK fans," said that unlike the ORIGINAL SERIES, which reflected the social turmoil of 1960s America, later STAR TREK shows became increasingly about spatial anomalies and other oddities.
Not ever episode of TOS dealt with a social problem. So lighten up! No one wants to watch a show week after week dedicated to ever social problem. They should be underlining themes. After you do 10 episodes of the top 10 social problems then where do you go from there? Rehash it out again? So maybe this expert should comment on the decline in the writing by B&B in Trek.
Quote:"Panelists said it seemed unlikely Paramount would revive TREK within the next few years, though the network might be pressured by the growth of independent fan films distributed over the Internet.
Fanboy films will not influence their decision one bit. Paramount controls Trek and right now they don't give a shit about it so they have shelved it.
Quote:"Daren Dochterman, producer of the special edition of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, says "We need to let STAR TREK die for now. We know it will come back, just like Spock
This comment is supposedly from a "Trek expert"? Give me a break! We didn't need to let Trek die. What we needed was NEW management. I agree with Coto when he says "Do we need 3 Law and Orders a week"? Do we need 3 CSI's a week? Just look at talk show after talk show that comes out. They keep making these programs. People were not tired of Trek. Paramount (B&B) were tired of doing Trek. Instead of moving on they took Trek and ran it into the ground because they figure they would just milk out the big pay check. Oh yeah through in some ego into this as well. It is very clear that the heads at Paramount are not fans of Trek. The way UPN handled the show and the way the studio treated it were very clear! You don't let your #2 cashcow for so many years get sick. Paramount should sell Trek to another studio. Then they will have more time to produce more crap like "Girlfriends". What I find really funny is that none of these so called "experts" seem to miss the "change of management" in their talks? I am surprised these so called experts didn't go and start blaming the fans for Treks demise. You got Brannon Braga at the convention so go put the screws to him and his lousy writing. Especially the series finale of ENT. Pure garbage!
-
Seems to me the key is 'good drama' rather than grittiness, IMHO Ent seemed to lack enough good drama to ensure its survival, the stories and concepts generally werent bad, but the way they were presented and shaped by the storytellers themselves seemed to lose something in translation. Cant put my finger on it, but the reason why BSG seemed fresh and interesting to me was that like the good character driven stories of ST2,4, and 6 (again only my opinion) BSG seems to focus on the internal - but against a potentially great SF backdrop in outerspace against major external threats. Maybe BSG is more allegorical for todays times, as heightened media attention shows us more and more of our internal destructiveness, I often wonder how humanity can survive in spite of itself.
heh - no need for aliens, we are our own worst enemy! :)
Perhaps its also worth noting that because of the relative lack of violence in ST4, its the only Trek movie that I would let me preschool kids watch (maybe STTMP, but thats a bit slow for them).
--------
Before you cross the street,
Take my hand,
Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans....
I'm glad Enterprise was nothing like the new BSG. That show is just too damn melodramatic for my tastes.
Quote:
We need to let STAR TREK die for now.
I prefer the term "rest." "Die" just sounds, I dunno, so final.
BSG's gritty-ness is not what makes it great... there are and have been a lot of crappy "gritty" shows out there, especially sci-fi ones. What makes BSG great is the fact that it's a well written, well produced, and well acted show. When you have these elements, it doesn't matter what genre you're in, people will flock to it.
Richard Hatch (Tom Zarek) kinda takes the words right out of my mouth... and he used to be Apollo!
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
(1)
| 
