Star Trek and Idealism vs cynicism

[MarkB]

There are plenty of movies where I am there purely for the action and have little concern for characters. For some franchises and some types of action movies, I am fine with glib exposition between action. Caring for the characters isn't a rule I would say every movie has to follow. So I am not saying every movie should do this or that less action is better (though caring for the characters is generally useful, in some films and series it simply isn't a priority, even if you care for them in a rough sketch kind of way). But with Star Trek the point is not the action. The action is more like an accidental quality in Star Trek. If it’s a John wick movie, I will judge it by very different standards. And John Wick is great. But making star trek into John wick, doesn’t make Star Trek better in my view (and by the same token, making John Wick more like Star Trek, doesn't make John Wick better)

That's taking it a little too far the other way. The action may not be the main point in Star Trek, but it is a significant component, not just an accidental addition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's taking it a little too far the other way. The action may not be the main point in Star Trek, but it is a significant component, not just an accidental addition.

I don't think the action is essential to star trek at all

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I doubt that anyone, who isn't a fan, would have the patience for something like the TOS episode "Balance of Terror", these days. It was a masterpiece and, essentially, a World War II submarine cat and mouse battle

They used the same WW2 submarine scenario in a 3 episode arc in The Clone Wars (this time putting the protagonists in the “submarine” cloaked ship).

I think people underrate TCW, and kids.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think that the world might be ready for "Space 1999: The Next Generation." I need me a fix of Eagles.

Interesting you should mention Space 1999, since that ties into the broader discussion. The first season was highly cerebral, and more metaphysical than Star Trek even. But they got told "mor action" for the second season, so we got pew pew and sexy shapeshifting aliens.

But Eagles were an excellent design.

 

[Ryujin]

Interesting you should mention Space 1999, since that ties into the broader discussion. The first season was highly cerebral, and more metaphysical than Star Trek even. But they got told "mor action" for the second season, so we got pew pew and sexy shapeshifting aliens.

But Eagles were an excellent design.

Yes, while I really like Catherine Schell as an actress, season two did her no justice. It really fell down the rabbit hole. She was used to much better effect in a single episode of season one, as a hot brainwashing robot.

And I could also stand to see a few more Hawks. Fifty years down the line they should have built something like them, or better, using copied alien tech.

An Earlier Andersons' property, "UFO", did cerebral and funky really well.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

An Earlier Andersons' property, "UFO", did cerebral and funky really well.

Some of my earliest memories were of UFO. I had all the toys!

And I could also stand to see a few more Hawks. Fifty years down the line they should have built something like them, or better, using copied alien tech.

I might be more inclined to give it a Battlestar Galactica style reboot, rather than a 50 years later sequel. Keep the Eagles, obviously, but make it more scientific, and lean into disaster movie tropes (it's hinted at in the original series that the loss of the Moon could cause apocalyptic earthquakes back on Earth).

 

[Ryujin]

Some of my earliest memories were of UFO. I had all the toys!

I might be more inclined to give it a Battlestar Galactica style reboot, rather than a 50 years later sequel. Keep the Eagles, obviously, but make it more scientific, and lean into disaster movie tropes (it's hinted at in the original series that the loss of the Moon could cause apocalyptic earthquakes back on Earth).

I think that Tubi might still have the whole "UFO" series available.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't think the action is essential to star trek at all

I agree it is not essential. After all like 75% of all Star Trek has little or no action.
The City on the Edge of Forever has like zero action and is at the top of most lists, just like Measure of a Man. Or the Visitor. Blink of an Eye. Or Dear Doctor.

The Siege of AR-558 has a lot of action, but it's not the whole point of the story.

 

[Ryujin]

I agree it is not essential. After all like 75% of all Star Trek has little or no action.
The City on the Edge of Forever has like zero action and is at the top of most lists, just like Measure of a Man. Or the Visitor. Blink of an Eye. Or Dear Doctor.

The Siege of AR-558 has a lot of action, but it's not the whole point of the story.

When you have writers like Harlan Ellison writing your stuff ("City on the Edge of Forever") you're bound to have great stories, with or without action. The list of TOS writers includes a massive number of people who wrote some of the most popular TV of the time. Even Shari Lewis (who is best known for having a lamb puppet on her arm, but had some pretty heavy writing credits herself) wrote for the show. They laid the groundwork for what was to come.

 

[bloodtide]

There is a big limit on how far you can stretch an IP. But it can be vague......and worse the non fans will never, ever understand. And sadly it's nearly always non-fans in charge of things.

But you can't just take "random outer space plot" and slap "Star Trek" onto it. And the Big Fundamentals of Star Trek are the Positive Future and good people working together and understanding and the naturalistic world view.

The Star Trek universe is a big one.....but all the possible show to make would not be "Star Trek".

You could do: Star Trek: Federation CSI. And......this would not work. Having a crime a week in the Federation just does not fit into the utopia vision.

Star Trek Mission Impossible....er, and again no. This is right on the failed section 31 spot.

The Boys of Star Trek......oh, no.....