What’s so great about Star Trek anyway?

[mrbadger]

My point was, new viewers won't care, because most won't want to go back and watch all the old series to get all the cannon. There's so much material, and much of it is pretty dated now.

New versions of first encounters with races in the cannon can help new viewers get their own foothold. We had ours.

Besides, have you actually looked at the Star Trek timeline? it's a mess.

I gave up on Enterprise early on, because the writing was so bad. Not the acting. It was a shame the actors had such awful material to work with.

I watched the few episodes where Archer did the time travel thing to help the Vulcans start off the Katra business, whatever that was after I'd given up following the series properly. For me that was mini story was the height of the series, the rest I barely recall. I don't even know what season those were in. I think my sister said a Vulcan history bit was coming up so I decided to watch it just for that.

[Morkonan]

Then again, the new Star Trek has successfully managed to push the envelope of "canon"

As already mentioned in this thread, the new Star Trek is explicitly set in a different timeline than the original one, with the two diverging in 2233, so they can get away with changing things so long as they're internally consistent in turn.

...and, with some remarkable enthusiasm from fans, has informed everyone that it will be "it's own thing." I think that, alone, has excited fans, since their imaginations are fired with possibilities of new adventures in a Star Trek MkII universe.

[BugMeister]

- there's a good deal of depth in the scripts for the Voyager series..
- also some excellent direction..

[Redvers Ganderpoke]

David Gerrold's non fiction Star Trek books give a good account of some of the making of the original series and gives some interesting insights.

It was really "cowboys" in space and I still like it (I do agree with mrbadger about Spock's Brain - but it a good watch if you like a good laugh - especially McCoy doing brain surgery.)

Netflix has the animated series on and although the animation is really, really poor it has quite decent stories (in comparison to Voyager) that were written by some of the original series scriptwriters (David Gerrold, DC Fontana etc).

I was very excited when the Motion Picture was announced and watching it in the local cinema the opening Klingon sequence was fantastic, unfortunately, things went down hill from there and in the end was a bit boring.

The Wrath of Kahn was much better - more like Trek of old.

The Search for Spock was like a filler episode and the Way Home was basically a remake of the Motion Picture.

The Final Frontier was a big disappointment.

Undiscovered Country was more like old Trek.


All the new Trek's suffer from "We've used this idea before and it worked so we'll use if it again (even if it doesn't work this time)" syndrome - reusing plots and ideas from TOS.

STNG took ages to get going and had a few very good episodes, a few good episodes , a lot of mediorce ones and some truly dreadful ones (that make Spock's Brain look like Shakespeare). First Contact was the best cinematic effort - Generations and the other one, that I can't remember the name of, weren't worthy of a cinema release . Nemesis just was unsatifactory.

Both TNG and DS9 started to use the series arc narratives and this benefitted the stories but turned them both from series to serials even though most episodes were self contained. The TOS had very little serial content ( apart from the odd returning character (Harry Mudd being the most obvious.))

No we come to the last three efforts:-

Voyager - more bad than good.
Enterprise - mostly couldn't connect with the characters - don't know why - but didn't really care about them.
Discovery - so far it like the feeling I had with Enterprise but worse. So far it's been predictable and it just feels like the writers are trying too hard to shoehorn Star Trek trivia in to it - it just feels too forced.

[mrbadger]

I'm rather excited to have learned that Jonothan Frakes is on the Directors team of The Orville.

If I had any reservations about watching it before, they're gone now. It seems they have a lot of former Star Trek people on their team.

I didn't like First Contact much (his movie), but not everything. Half the movie was great, the half on Earth. That bit I really liked.
The part on the Enterprise was a disaster, Picard was totally different to his usual character, something that didn't happen to any of the original series characters, no matter how bad the movies were.
Once it dawned on me that I was only enjoying the movie if I skipped the bits on the ship I just gave up watching it altogether.

Frakes directed episode 5, so that's the one I'll be paying particular attention to, although someone with his experience would have input in most episodes I suppose.


I tried watching Voyager with my wife earlier this year, we got a few episodes into season 2 then just gave up, it wasn't interesting enough to me to enjoy watching it through for a second time, and she wasn't enjoying it enough.

Might try Farscape next instead.

[Morkonan]

...Might try Farscape next instead.

Ooooooh... Farscape is science-fiction on acid. Prepare yourself by just letting go. Let go of conventional sci-fi thinking, don't try to anticipate some sort of standard sci-fi plot resolution is coming, just let yourself go with the flow. It's a rich, "organic", series. It doesn't take itself too seriously and it's willing to demonstrate that at any moment. There isn't any "Fourth Wall." Instead, the show bypasses that and reaches unapologetically straight for your brain and.. to your heart. Once inside, it juggles lolipops and hand-grenades with equal enthusiasm. At the end of that day's show, all Farscape cares about is whether or not you were entertained.

It's a beautiful show, really. It's honest with itself. It's also eclectic, strange, and willing to go where other science-fiction shows won't dare. It's the science-fiction equivalent of Hemingway, Lovecraft and Salinger arguing about what size knife Mickey Mouse is going to use to abort the alien-monster fetus growing inside a pomegranate while sitting in a cafe in Delhi, waiting for their scene calls for a Donner film that's in production and being casually photographed for a Rolling Stone magazine cover that's headlining a feature article on The Beatle's "Yellow Submarine"...

It's not for everyone. But, if you let it be, it'll be a good time.

[Usenko]

...Might try Farscape next instead.

Ooooooh... Farscape is science-fiction on acid. Prepare yourself by just letting go. Let go of conventional sci-fi thinking, don't try to anticipate some sort of standard sci-fi plot resolution is coming, just let yourself go with the flow. It's a rich, "organic", series. It doesn't take itself too seriously and it's willing to demonstrate that at any moment. There isn't any "Fourth Wall." Instead, the show bypasses that and reaches unapologetically straight for your brain and.. to your heart. Once inside, it juggles lolipops and hand-grenades with equal enthusiasm. At the end of that day's show, all Farscape cares about is whether or not you were entertained.

It's a beautiful show, really. It's honest with itself. It's also eclectic, strange, and willing to go where other science-fiction shows won't dare. It's the science-fiction equivalent of Hemingway, Lovecraft and Salinger arguing about what size knife Mickey Mouse is going to use to abort the alien-monster fetus growing inside a pomegranate while sitting in a cafe in Delhi, waiting for their scene calls for a Donner film that's in production and being casually photographed for a Rolling Stone magazine cover that's headlining a feature article on The Beatle's "Yellow Submarine"...

It's not for everyone. But, if you let it be, it'll be a good time.

I think the best statement to make about Farscape is that when it was being made in Sydney the costume designers basically emptied the fetish shops in Darlinghurst[1].

[1] For Australians, the very name "Darlinghurst" brings to mind a variety of . . alternative . . lifestyles.

[Morkonan]

I think the best statement to make about Farscape is that when it was being made in Sydney the costume designers basically emptied the fetish shops in Darlinghurst[1].

[1] For Australians, the very name "Darlinghurst" brings to mind a variety of . . alternative . . lifestyles.

Now that is making a statement...

"We'll be filming a new science-fiction series, here."

"Oh, that's wonderful, sir! Our town is ready to help! Would you like to see some really unique locations? We've got some great cafes that I'm sure your crew will enjoy! Can I call the local electician's union for you? Perhaps arrange for some caterers? Our copy shops and printers are ready to help you with your script revisions and reprints, just give the word! How about rentals? Can I help arrange car rentals, perhaps some nice accommodations for your crew?"

"No, no, none of that. I do, however, need fifteen pairs of leather chaps, ten meters of chromed chain, with cuffs, ten pairs of thigh-boots, five latex full body suits, ten ballgags and one of those horsetail buttplugs. Oh, and a bottle of cheap gin and a stun-gun."

"Uh, why a stun gun?"

"The actors haven't read their contracts, yet."

[ external image ]

Oh, and a note: It's a Jim Henson production... I think that's significant, to be honest. Henson (the company) despite being known for "puppets" does some darn fine work telling unique stories. (Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Fraggle Rock series, etc...)

[Rnett]

Could never really get into watching Enterprise. Hard to take it seriously with Scott Bakula as the captain.

[pjknibbs]

Could never really get into watching Enterprise. Hard to take it seriously with Scott Bakula as the captain.

Oh? What was particularly un-serious about Scott Bakula? I thought he did a decent job given the material provided.

[Morkonan]

Could never really get into watching Enterprise. Hard to take it seriously with Scott Bakula as the captain.

Oh? What was particularly un-serious about Scott Bakula? I thought he did a decent job given the material provided.

Agreed.

He's a good actor. He did a fine job. In fact, in regards to previous portrayals of Star Trek Captains, he brought something different to the role and successfully created the personae of a fledgling Captain doing things his species had never done before and facing situations where there wasn't a regulation that dictated what he should do. He wasn't the standard "cocksure" headstrong Starfleet Captain. In some ways, due to his character's heavy reliance on his own moral compass when making choices in novel situations, he brought back some of what fans wanted of a modern "Captain Kirk" character.

And, yes, some of the material was just "not good." But, Bakula did a good job and I like his character and his portrayal of it.

[Usenko]

Controversial idea - feel free to discuss it, I haven't put much thought into it!

Enterprise isn't any better or worse than the other Star Trek series. It just had the bad luck to be introduced at the time the concept of Social Media was really taking off.

Therefore it couldn't get away with the occasional run of terrible episodes as easily as previous shows - where the negative press really didn't matter anywhere near as much. But by the time Enterprise was introduced, even ONE bad episode could really hurt you; bad press could get around the world before you even had time to say "Actually, that didn't look so good on a small screen."

Today's TV shows are designed in this environment, which means that they are generally more consistent quality (often at the expense of taking risks).

True? Not true? True but . . ?

[mrbadger]

possibly true. Not the reason I got fed up with it, since I wasn't caring about reviews at the time. I just wasn't enjoying it much.

But yes, bad reviews can sink something really fast, often before someone even watches something themselves a review will stop them even bothering.
I'm not immune from this myself, but I try to not let it stop me.

It almost certainly did help kill Enterprise, but the old actors from previous shows actively campaigning against it also didn't help.

[Redvers Ganderpoke]

Both Enterprise and Discovery will suffer from fans picking every little error to bits. All prequels have to run this risk - I not a rabid Trekkie but even I get annoyed when things happen "first" in the prequel that were impossible or "first" in the later (but earlier ) series.

It would have been a lot safer option to have a new series after STNG/DS9/Voyager era - I think TV executives underestimate the fanaticism of fans.

[Oldman]

....
It would have been a lot safer option to have a new series after STNG/DS9/Voyager era - I think TV executives underestimate the fanaticism of fans.

I agree, I watched about 4 episodes, okay an all that but as a continuation of the series na!
I just lost the feeling I was watching 'Star Trek' generally...however, not too bad as a scifi 'story'.

Oldman

[Morkonan]

...True? Not true? True but . . ?

Maybe.

"Social Media" was certainly a rapidly rising force and not everyone was prepared to deal with it. Today, they'd "get ahead of the story" using social media instead of lagging behind it.

So, if there's a guy yelling in the middle of the street, people might listen and start yelling too. And, if you're not yelling, his may be the prevailing voice.

I dunno... Enterprise didn't suck. It did rely, later, on some pretty hamfisted efforts to gain an audience and that was a bit disappointing. I understand why they did it, I just wish it could have stood without such hijinks.

TNG gained a pretty big modern Star Trek fanbase. It was successful at introducing a "next generation" of fans to the franchise. Maybe Enterprise deviated too far from a standard TNG sort of Universe? And, maybe it just wasn't the right series for the right time?

Some shows don't suck, but they just can't find their market. Then, years later, the cult following that has devoted itself to the series manages to resurrect it. The, maybe, producers... Oh, wait... That story has already been told.