Found this story and thought it interesting on Star Trek, a lot we have already discussed. 
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968238.asp?0ql=c8p
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968238.asp?0ql=c8p
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
MSNBC Story: Starfleet, we have a problem
- Thread starter Hand of Evil
- Start date
John Crichton
First Post
Great link, HoE!
I know we've covered a bunch of the author's points on these boards but it is nice to see someone else mirror our concerns. I think the best points were the following:
I know we've covered a bunch of the author's points on these boards but it is nice to see someone else mirror our concerns. I think the best points were the following:
I know that it could cause some creative problems as well, but man would I love to see any of those people associated with Trek, even for a short while.Give up control. Hand over a movie to an established director who can bring new fans to the franchise. Geeks and non-geeks alike would sell their own mothers to see what David Fincher, Joss Whedon, Christopher Nolan or Stephen Spielberg would do with the keys to the Enterprise. And how about asking Stephen King or William Gibson to pen a TV script, as both did with “The X-Files”?
Great point. Clever humor is good in any form of entertainment and should be no different in Trek. Enterprise has had its moments (most of them involving either Trip or the Doc) but it could use a little more.Laugh it up: The best-received movie of the franchise has been “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” where Kirk and crew cracked wise and in return gained legions of new fans. (Who can forget Chekov looking for his “nuclear wessels”?) Sure, there’s a place for dark, brooding characters and plots in a Trek TV series, but today’s audiences, weaned on genre-crossing fare like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel,” expect a blend of compelling storylines and heartfelt drama lightened by clever, character-driven humor.
John Crichton said:
The humor point is important, Enterprise has yet to make fun of itself and just one lite fun show could loosing up the cast and give some life to it. If you can't laugh at yourself, something is wrong.
Hmm...
Turn the action up to 11: Aside from a "hip" Spinal Tap reference, I don't see this as particularly winning way to go. The more screen time is spent on action, the less can be spent on all the other things they want done
Give viewers new characters to care about: I'd think simply giving better writing and depth to the characters the show already has would do the job. We don't need new, we need well crafted.
New Villains: Ah, yes, as if CGI critters were cheap and could be thrown around willy-nilly
Beam Somebody Up, Scotty: Ah, yes. When in doubt, use a single episode focusing on an old character to try to solve the show's problems. When anyone else does this, it's called "jumping the shark". Somehow a handful of episodes spread across three different series translates into "Plenty of crossover action" in this guy's book. Again, I roll my eyes.
Give up control: Okay, giving control of a movie to someone known to be really, really good ain't a bad idea.
Get a catchphrase: Because being able to express yourself with a cliche is what TV is all about! More eye-rolling.
Don't be stingy with the new technology: Hello! This series cannot have any major technological pieces not seen before, for continuity reasons. I'm starting to get dizzy, so I won't roll my eyes any more.
Turn the Universe on it's pointy ear: Yeah, a general admonition to "get the general public's attention". That's constructive criticism...
So, one solid idea out of a list of eight. I remain unimpressed.
Turn the action up to 11: Aside from a "hip" Spinal Tap reference, I don't see this as particularly winning way to go. The more screen time is spent on action, the less can be spent on all the other things they want done
Give viewers new characters to care about: I'd think simply giving better writing and depth to the characters the show already has would do the job. We don't need new, we need well crafted.
New Villains: Ah, yes, as if CGI critters were cheap and could be thrown around willy-nilly
Beam Somebody Up, Scotty: Ah, yes. When in doubt, use a single episode focusing on an old character to try to solve the show's problems. When anyone else does this, it's called "jumping the shark". Somehow a handful of episodes spread across three different series translates into "Plenty of crossover action" in this guy's book. Again, I roll my eyes.
Give up control: Okay, giving control of a movie to someone known to be really, really good ain't a bad idea.
Get a catchphrase: Because being able to express yourself with a cliche is what TV is all about! More eye-rolling.
Don't be stingy with the new technology: Hello! This series cannot have any major technological pieces not seen before, for continuity reasons. I'm starting to get dizzy, so I won't roll my eyes any more.
Turn the Universe on it's pointy ear: Yeah, a general admonition to "get the general public's attention". That's constructive criticism...
So, one solid idea out of a list of eight. I remain unimpressed.
Tom Cashel
First Post
If the show's only goal is to become more popular, the article presents many good points. If the goal is to actually improve the show, then...not so many good points.
T'pol is hot. That is all.
T'pol is hot. That is all.
frankthedm
First Post
Star Drek: The Next Marketing Ploy
When I first heard about this show, I was worried that it was set before all of the other shows, and I still think this is going to cause huge problems. In that way, I think the entire premise of the show is flawed.
That said, sex, violence, gadgets, CGI villains and new characters are definitely not what this show needs. Two points that I do agree with: I'd love to see David Fincher, Joss Whedon, or Christopher Nolan take a shot at Star Trek, largely because I think they WOULDN'T follow this guy's terrible advice. Also, he's right that the writing for shows like this has gotten a lot more sophisticated in the last ten years, thanks to people like Whedon and Chris Carter and Straczynski (I'm sure I spelled that wrong).
That said, sex, violence, gadgets, CGI villains and new characters are definitely not what this show needs. Two points that I do agree with: I'd love to see David Fincher, Joss Whedon, or Christopher Nolan take a shot at Star Trek, largely because I think they WOULDN'T follow this guy's terrible advice. Also, he's right that the writing for shows like this has gotten a lot more sophisticated in the last ten years, thanks to people like Whedon and Chris Carter and Straczynski (I'm sure I spelled that wrong).
MaxKaladin
First Post
Hand of Evil said:
The humor point is important, Enterprise has yet to make fun of itself and just one lite fun show could loosing up the cast and give some life to it. If you can't laugh at yourself, something is wrong.
I wouldn't say they don't have light shows. I thought the episode in the first season where Tripp got pregnant was pretty light hearted (and hilarious). Granted, due to not getting UPN where I live, I have missed most of season two and all of this season, but it seems to me they had a few funny episodes out there.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Umbran said:Hmm...
Turn the action up to 11: Aside from a "hip" Spinal Tap reference, I don't see this as particularly winning way to go. The more screen time is spent on action, the less can be spent on all the other things they want done
Give viewers new characters to care about: I'd think simply giving better writing and depth to the characters the show already has would do the job. We don't need new, we need well crafted.
New Villains: Ah, yes, as if CGI critters were cheap and could be thrown around willy-nilly
Beam Somebody Up, Scotty: Ah, yes. When in doubt, use a single episode focusing on an old character to try to solve the show's problems. When anyone else does this, it's called "jumping the shark". Somehow a handful of episodes spread across three different series translates into "Plenty of crossover action" in this guy's book. Again, I roll my eyes.
Give up control: Okay, giving control of a movie to someone known to be really, really good ain't a bad idea.
Get a catchphrase: Because being able to express yourself with a cliche is what TV is all about! More eye-rolling.
Don't be stingy with the new technology: Hello! This series cannot have any major technological pieces not seen before, for continuity reasons. I'm starting to get dizzy, so I won't roll my eyes any more.
Turn the Universe on it's pointy ear: Yeah, a general admonition to "get the general public's attention". That's constructive criticism...
So, one solid idea out of a list of eight. I remain unimpressed.
Agreed. The article seems to be an exercise in demogoguery designed to fan the flames of discontent. It offers little in the way of concrete solutions, instead offering a pithy presentation of network exec-type advice that normally spells the end of any struggling series. In the end it seems to boil down to throwing more money at it. I'm just glad he didn't take any shots at the acting talent, which I believe has thus far been the strong suit of Enterprise. I suppose sprinkling in some cameo star power couldn't hurt as long as it blended and the writing didn't try to overly spotlight it.
Similar Threads
