Author Topic: STAR TREK XI (Read 43091 times)

Russell Nash · **on:** January 12, 2007, 04:40:34 PM

The director for Star Trek XI has just announced that the script is finished and it should be out summer 2008.

My question: Isn't this franchise dead yet?

The best thing I have said about any of the last 4 or 5 films was, "That was about as good as a decent episode." But with others it was, "that was 2 hours of my life I'll never get back."

These lame, watered-down, flacid SF action films are what holds back good SF from getting a wider audience. This stuff is why a good show like Firefly gets rejected by the majority of the public even before the first airing.

Shade53 · **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2007, 05:00:35 PM

The problem is that Star Trek is commercial - and as such, becomes rather like a zombie - really hard to kill and about as obnoxious. I love Star Trek - but I've not seen the last few movies as it just became much too much - the last one I saw was the STNG movie with the Borg. Not terrible but no where near as good as 2 or 5 (my opinion only) and personally, I liked the episodes w/the borg better (especially Hugh). The franchise will be officially dead when no one buys tickets but - since this is *Star Trek* I think you've got a long wait.

As for watered-down sf films - they work because they're commercial where firefly wasn't so much - the good stuff always gets passed over for the stuff that makes $$$. That's all the studios care about. It's the watchers you've got to blame. If less people went to see the watered-down ones and more clambored for better, solid sf, you might get somewhere.

~S

Russell Nash · **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2007, 07:26:26 PM

Devil's circle then.

Watered down SF comes out because it's all people will watch, but because all that comes out is watered down junk, no one will take a risk on a film that doesn't have a mega budget for special effects.

madjo · **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2007, 09:42:14 PM

What Star Trek needs is a reboot. A hard reboot. Just reset the whole darn thing, just like they did for Battlestar Galactica.
They shouldn't try to shoehorn new stuff into the current 'version'.

Especially not, if they go back in time again. ST:Enterprise did have it's shining moments, especially in the last season, and the premise was a nice idea, but they really did cram it in place, where it actually didn't have a place. That attack by the Xindi on Earth would have been great if it was played in the future, not in the past, I never heard Kirk talk about it, nor Picard or Janeway.
Besides that Star Trek suffers from even-odd movie problems, the even movies are okay, the odd movies are bad.

So I have little hope for ST IX.

Jonathan C. Gillespie · **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2007, 09:31:34 PM

There are four words that describe the problems with Star Trek: Rick Berman, Michael Piller.

slic · **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2007, 09:33:16 PM

Couple of points:

1. Firefly was killed by Fox not fans - I've shown the episodes to many people and all of them thought they were great - and many of them went to the movie.

2. Star Trek movies have always been about lowest common denominator big audience. Look at #1 - amazing idea (and it was an odd number), but panned - then #2 (awesome, heart-string puller) much more "KHHAAAANN!" and less thinking.

They should just write the movie about a straight-forward idea out among the stars - let the characters speak for themselves. I have poor hopes for 11, Kirk and Spock and McCoy at school?

Russell Nash · **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2007, 10:01:01 PM

Quote from: slic on January 15, 2007, 09:33:16 PM

Firefly was killed by Fox not fans

If the show had big ratings and made big money, Fox wouldn't have canned it.

WheelMan · **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2007, 11:24:43 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 15, 2007, 10:01:01 PM

If the show had big ratings and made big money, Fox wouldn't have canned it.

If the show had been on a better network, in a better time slot, perhaps it would have made money and survived. Remember, Fox was still the little kid on the block that made a lot of noise but no one really cared about at the time. Firefly could have lasted seven years in syndication, I believe. Certainly couldn't have done any worse anyway.

The problem with a franchise like Star Trek is that when you paint yourself into such a rigid formula, it eventually becomes a cliche' of itself. They should have expanded the Star Trek Universe so that we aren't only mired in the throes of Starfleet. There's a wide and rich universe out there, and yet we always see it filtered through a Trek through the Stars where we relive the same adventures over and over again, just in different variations. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine should have had a movie because at least they brought in some fresh ideals. Voyager tried, but I think it just wasn't as well written or produced as the others before it. Would've been the perfect opportunity to see what happens when we get away from the confines of Starfleet regulations, but they didn't take it. Enterprise might have been better if it felt more new, rather than an attempt to rehash the glory days of the past.

Russell Nash · **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2007, 10:50:09 AM

Quote from: WheelMan on January 15, 2007, 11:24:43 PM

Fox was still the little kid on the block that made a lot of noise but no one really cared about at the time.

By the time Firefly came around Fox had been the number three network for years, either beating out NBC or CBS. They pretty much became a real network when they stole the NFC from CBS.

Quote

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine should have had a movie because at least they brought in some fresh ideals.

DS9 is a perfect example of my original point. They tried in the beginning to make it more than watered-down junk. We had a civil war on a planet with a disfunctional political system and a strong, but strange, religious faction.

The problem was that people, who might have been interrested in these details, don't normally watch Star Trek and the Typical Trekkie wants a shoot 'em up. They kept trying to straddle the line and go back and forth and it just fizzled.

DS9 would have stood a better chance if it hadn't had the name Star Trek on it.

SFEley · **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2007, 04:22:33 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 16, 2007, 10:50:09 AM

DS9 would have stood a better chance if it hadn't had the name Star Trek on it.

They did that. It was called Babylon 5.

And yes, B5 was a smarter and better show on the whole, but that didn't stop it from teetering on the brink of cancellation throughout its entire run. And it suffered for that. (E.g., the atrocious fifth season.)

SFEley · **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2007, 04:40:40 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 16, 2007, 10:50:09 AM

By the time Firefly came around Fox had been the number three network for years, either beating out NBC or CBS. They pretty much became a real network when they stole the NFC from CBS.

Sure. Fox had real pull and resources. They also have a long history of horribly mistreating science fiction.

Firefly was doing okay for itself. It wasn't doing great, but consider what Fox did to it:

Developed a two-hour pilot, then decided not to show it (the pilot ended up airing last);
Launched instead with an episode that the producers were given three days to write, that had to introduce the entire cast in media res;
Aired about half the episodes out of their intended order;
Gave it a terrible time slot (remember, this was before TiVos were ubiquitous, and before the Sci-Fi Channel made something interesting out of Friday nights);
Interrupted the run for several weeks for baseball championships;
Almost totally failed to market it.

It managed to keep an audience despite all that. Not a huge audience, but then, look at how well it's done in DVD sales since then. It was the best SF show on TV in many years -- definitely since B5 -- and it breaks my heart to think of where the show could have gone if it had been given a chance.

slic · **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2007, 06:59:27 PM

To add to Mr. Eley's point - Firefly was pulling the wrong demographic for FOX - they wanted 18-30 yr old Men, but the FireFly audience was skewed older.

Quote

They also have a long history of horribly mistreating science fiction

And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?

Russell Nash · **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2007, 07:16:47 PM

Steve,

I bow to the man with more background information.

It kind of sounds like Firefly got focus grouped out of existance. They had already bought it, then showed it to the typical group of shoot 'em up fans. After that they figured it was a loser and didn't give a *hoot* about it.

Now I have a seperate observation and a question about B5, since that was brought up.

I always had trouble finding it. The stupid station with the rights for Philly moved it all over the place including two in the morning at one point. I know people from other large markets who said they never even heard about it before it was on TNT (was that the Turner station that had it later on?) With that kind of placement no wonder it had a hard time.

But my question is about the commercials. Am I the only one who thought the commercials were for a different show? Did they hurt or help? It seemed to me many people who would like the show wouldn't watch it because of the ads and someone who liked the ads would be bored by the show.

SFEley · **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2007, 07:59:32 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on January 16, 2007, 07:16:47 PM

Now I have a seperate observation and a question about B5, since that was brought up.

I always had trouble finding it. The stupid station with the rights for Philly moved it all over the place including two in the morning at one point. I know people from other large markets who said they never even heard about it before it was on TNT (was that the Turner station that had it later on?) With that kind of placement no wonder it had a hard time.

You're right. B5 was jerked around just as much, and it's a minor miracle that it survived its first season, let alone five years. (I have heard that one of the reasons the first season of B5 seems so much like conventional Star Trek, as opposed to the next few seasons, is because the network was monitoring it much more closely in the beginning and JMS had to "play it safe" until they gave him a free hand to develop his real story arc.)

Quote

But my question is about the commercials. Am I the only one who thought the commercials were for a different show? Did they hurt or help? It seemed to me many people who would like the show wouldn't watch it because of the ads and someone who liked the ads would be bored by the show.

Oh, I have no idea. The only commercials I remember from watching B5 were the ones for the galactic news network and the PsiCorps. >8->

Russell Nash · **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2007, 08:45:10 PM

Quote from: SFEley on January 16, 2007, 07:59:32 PM

Oh, I have no idea. The only commercials I remember from watching B5 were the ones for the galactic news network and the PsiCorps. >8->

If you can get your hands on the DVD seasons, they put the commercials on there. You can just watch straight through the disc one show after the other with one command.(I wish more discs had that, especially the horribly set up Fox discs) You can choose whether or not to have the commercials in between the shows.

It's like they're really proud of them, but they are just bad.

Brian Reilly · **Reply #15 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:41:20 PM

Quote from: Shade53 on January 12, 2007, 05:00:35 PM

the last one I saw was the STNG movie with the Borg. Not terrible but no where near as good as 2 or 5 (my opinion only) and personally, I liked the episodes w/the borg better (especially Hugh). The franchise will be officially dead when no one buys tickets but - since this is *Star Trek* I think you've got a long wait.

5? Isn't that the worst. Trek. film. ever? The one with "God" in it, the one directed by William Shatner?

WheelMan · **Reply #16 on:** January 17, 2007, 06:43:24 PM

Quote

And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?

Those shows were on the WB. What did Fox do?

Russell Nash · **Reply #17 on:** January 17, 2007, 07:13:23 PM

Quote from: WheelMan on January 17, 2007, 06:43:24 PM

Quote
And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?

Those shows were on the WB. What did Fox do?

I was thinking about commenting on that. Buffy was on WB and then UPN. Angel was on WB. Fox were the backers and the distributors, but had nothing to say about the content. Whedon only had to wrestle with WB.

SFEley · **Reply #18 on:** January 17, 2007, 07:21:43 PM

Quote from: WheelMan on January 17, 2007, 06:43:24 PM

Quote
And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?

Those shows were on the WB. What did Fox do?

Fox owned the properties, dating back to the original movie. Fox didn't want to develop a show, though, so licensed it out to the WB. When Buffy surprised everyone by being successful, Fox started jerking them around about wanting more cash -- which is why Buffy ended up on UPN eventually (they had a higher bid), while Angel stayed on WB, and there was weirdness all around.

At least I think that's what Slic meant. I think it was just salt in the wound when Joss came up with a third show, and Fox said, "Aha! We're keeping this one!" -- and then killed it with stupidity and lack of support.

Shade53 · **Reply #19 on:** January 17, 2007, 10:40:00 PM

Quote from: Brian Reilly on January 17, 2007, 02:41:20 PM

Quote from: Shade53 on January 12, 2007, 05:00:35 PM
the last one I saw was the STNG movie with the Borg. Not terrible but no where near as good as 2 or 5 (my opinion only) and personally, I liked the episodes w/the borg better (especially Hugh). The franchise will be officially dead when no one buys tickets but - since this is *Star Trek* I think you've got a long wait.

5? Isn't that the worst. Trek. film. ever? The one with "God" in it, the one directed by William Shatner?

Can't help it. Won't defend it. But I liked it. so sue me.

~S

DKT · **Reply #20 on:** January 18, 2007, 11:19:41 PM

Quote from: madjo on January 12, 2007, 09:42:14 PM

What Star Trek needs is a reboot. A hard reboot. Just reset the whole darn thing, just like they did for Battlestar Galactica.
They shouldn't try to shoehorn new stuff into the current 'version'.
<Snip>

I don't think I've seen it addressed yet, so I'll just jump in here. Isn't Star Trek getting some kind of major reboot with this movie? I know JJ Abrams (Lost, Mission Impossible 3) is going to direct it (I think he also wrote it with Lost co-writer Damon Lindenhof) and I believe I've read on movie sites it's supposed to be a reboot of sorts. That's exactly what the franchise needs and I've got confidence Abrams can pull it off. So I'm willing to give it a chance even though I haven't seen a Trek movie since First Contact (much less watched any of the shows since DS9).

Bdoomed · **Reply #21 on:** January 19, 2007, 01:20:15 AM

hmm ive told my mom about this discussion, she likes all of the movies, cant find anything bad with em. Tho she does like more movies over others. And this is comin from a person who watches Star Trek every day on Spike TV even though she knows each episode, and most of the lines for them too.

scottjanssens · **Reply #22 on:** January 19, 2007, 11:45:39 PM

Star Trek V makes more sense if you read the book about its making by Shatner's daughter. It doesn't make it a better film, but it explains what was intended. Personally, I feel it was also ruined by the surprising success of ST IV. They tried to force humor into a story idea that wasn't particularly suited for it.

My least favorite was probably Insurrection which would have even been a lousy TV episode. Of the old crew I've special disdain for VI (Undiscovered Country) because the whodidit in the lousy whodunnit was, shall we say, illogical.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #23 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:22:18 PM

Well, if ever there was a topic for which the phrase "Your mileage may vary..." was invented...

I don't envy the Star Trek gaggle their job of trying to please such a vast and diverse audience. They usually managed to balance the baldly atrocious with the occasionally sublime, in my opinion. I can't think of a "jumped the shark" episode that they haven't eventually made up for. For all of the embarrassingly bad moments ("Spock's Brain", Next Gen's second season doctor, Star Trek V, Voyager's episode in which Paris and Janeway "devolve" into giant salamanders, Enterprise's frequent gratuitous "decon chamber" scenes), there have also been moments that restored my Sense of Wonder. Picard's interrogation at the hands of his Cardassian captor, Data's (and later, the Voyager EMH's) exploration of the meaning of humanity, Sisko's alternate reality as a black sci-fi writer in the 1950's, and the courageous reflection of post-9/11 American politics on Enterprise all conspired to keep me from writing the franchise off as "mere marketing crap".

Of course, I'm still irked that their brand-name success has ruined the market for treasures like "Firefly". I'm hoping that the "Escape Pod" model will eventually take hold in the media market as digital production becomes cheaper. When a guy like Joss Whedon can produce something without the interference from FOX lawyers and marketing experts, and release it directly to the fanbase, we won't have to have these "wish the Man didn't ruin our fun" discussions!

Do I feel bad about putting the gorram suits out of business? Nope!

slic · **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2007, 03:10:30 AM

Quickly touching on excellent Star Trek episodes - "Tapesty" - the one where Picard dies because of the artificial heart he got from a youth indiscretion he regrets greatly, and Q (or is it?) shows Jean-Luc how different his life would have been...

ClintMemo · **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2007, 08:27:21 PM

I live in Louisville, KY. Not exactly a hot-bed of Science Fiction.
DS9 and B5 were both horrendously scheduled by the stations that were showing them here. They generally ran on Saturday or Sunday afternoons, right after some sporting event, usually football or basketball. Consequently, they were usually either started in the middle or preempted entirely because the games always ran over their time slot. The networks used them simply as filler - like Fox did with Futurama. Trying to keep up with them was impossible. I didn't get to see much of B5 until TNT bought it. (And just for the record, I liked the 5th season) I was also glad I got to see Crusade. One season was better than nothing. A similar thing happened when Enterprise started. It was showing on Wednesday nights, right in the middle of our local college basketball teams favorite game time slot. I got to see the first four or five episodes of the first season and then the last three or fours episodes of the last season. I liked what I saw. Maybe I'll get to see it all now that Sci-Fi is playing it.

The problem I have now is that I don't have any time to watch TV - maybe 2 or 3 hours a week on a good week, despite having Tivo. I have just skipped entire series that I know I would have liked because I know I'll never get to see them all - especially if they are serialized. So I have seen none of Firefly, little of Battlestar Galactica, none of any of the Star Gate series, none of Andromeda, virtually none of Lost, very little of Smallville, very little of Buffy, Angel or Charmed. It's sad because, unlike 10 or 15 years ago, there is a TON of science fiction and fantasy on television and I'm missing almost all of it. :'(
(Just for the record, I stopped watching Voyager after the "Warp 10" episode. I checked it out a few times to see if it still sucked and I always found that it did. If ever there was a wasted opportunity for a Star Trek series - Voyager was it. I remember watching the finale and thinking "God, I'm glad that's over with. I'm glad I didn't watch the whole series" Unlike when I watched the finale of DS9 where I thought "Damn! I wish I'd seen that whole series!")

Not to sound like a fanboy suckup, but escape pod has been a great salvation for me. I have a 20-30 minute commute each way to work and while I can't watch TV while I'm driving, I can listen. I discovered escape pod about 2 months ago and I've been a total addict ever since. After listening to a bunch of stories that I downloaded, I bought the complete archive and started listening to that from the beginning. (And in the spirit of the Creative Commons License, I copied it and gave the originals to a friend as a gift.

)

slic · **Reply #26 on:** January 23, 2007, 05:39:10 PM

I highly recommend that you buy the FireFly dvd set. There are only 13 episodes, so you won't get lost, but you will feel gyped because there should have been 7 seasons of this seres.

We've been getting fed up with Cable, so we plan on going back to our old plan of buying a DVD season once a month.

ANd BG is really worth getting - so well acted, so well written, awesome special effects...

SFEley · **Reply #27 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:13:38 PM

There's also Netflix -- you can rent TV seasons from them as well as movies.

ClintMemo · **Reply #28 on:** January 25, 2007, 08:10:19 PM

My wife and I have talked about getting netflix. We decided we would sign up when our unwatched-and-still-in-the-shrinkwrap pile of DVD's got down to just one or two. When we said that, it had about ten DVD's in it. That was probably three years ago. I think the pile is down to about twelve now, but some of the contents of the pile have gotten fresher.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:49:55 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on January 25, 2007, 08:10:19 PM

My wife and I have talked about getting netflix. We decided we would sign up when our unwatched-and-still-in-the-shrinkwrap pile of DVD's got down to just one or two. When we said that, it had about ten DVD's in it. That was probably three years ago. I think the pile is down to about twelve now, but some of the contents of the pile have gotten fresher.

We started "Netflixing" when we were stationed in the UK (anyone who does not understand the concept of the "TV license" and my general opposition to it is welcome to email me seperately). For the same price as one DVD per month, you could easily cycle through half a dozen rentals, without having to leave your house! I suspect that once you start, you will find yourself only buying the big winners from your Netflix queue.

Downside: when you have purchased a crappy movie, you have the luxury of using it as skeet, or turning it into a headlight on your kid's "MarioKart" Halloween costume! Rentals have to be treated nicely.

And I would definitely second the Firefly recommendations; I'm about halfway through it, and I have never been so consistently satisfied by a television series in my life. I started preparing myself for the disappointment of running out of them after I sent back the first disc, though.

wakela · **Reply #30 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:27:19 AM

Wow. Talk about off topic. Most of these posts aren't even about Star Trek, much less Star Trek XI.
Maybe there should be "Sci-Fi TV and Movies" or one of each or something.

-Firefly: Capt. Eley, you seem to know a lot about its history. Do you have a link to an article that I could read about why it was cancelled? I've searched, but all I get are fanboy conspiracy theories.

-Trek: It's all candy. How many hours do you need to watch before you get to an interesting SF idea? How many hours of Escape Pod? How many hours of reading a book? I watch Trek just because I like spaceships and aliens and robots. I don't have any expectations beyond that.

-BSG: Ironically, its success is due to the lack of traditional SF conventions: the ship isn't much different than a submarine, computers play no part (this despite how The Singularity concept is so popular in print SF), no aliens, few special effects. People fighting robots is an old idea. Robots that look like people is an old idea. On paper BSG looks terrible. But I don't not watch it for exciting new SF ideas. I watch it because I like the characters, and I have NO IDEA what the writers are going to hit them and me with. Does this make it bad SF, but a great show? Is it helping the SF community by attracting viewers, or hurting it because it's not exploring many new issues? Or is it enough that it explores few ideas to great depth?

slic · **Reply #31 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:19:44 AM

About BSG - the best sci-fi (on tv especially) is the stuff that looks at today's issues but removes us by a couple of degrees so it is a bit more objective.
And no new ideas?? The skin-jobs are a combination of the idea of being immortal and living on a planet full of clones! Boomer, sorry, Athena (or is it Sharon) and Helo being together explores like fifty ideas(slight exaggeration due to excitement) - they are the "new" type of interracial marriages (in an unracist world), they had their baby kidnapped by the government, etc etc
Then there's Baltar's delusion (or is it telepathy), then the idea that robots are monothelistic, and, and - need to stop now...but you get the point.

Few special effects?? - remember, there really aren't spaceships out there.

SFEley · **Reply #32 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:07:29 AM

Quote from: wakela on January 31, 2007, 12:27:19 AM

Wow. Talk about off topic. Most of these posts aren't even about Star Trek, much less Star Trek XI.
Maybe there should be "Sci-Fi TV and Movies" or one of each or something.

Feel free to start more topics. >8->

Quote

-Firefly: Capt. Eley, you seem to know a lot about its history. Do you have a link to an article that I could read about why it was cancelled? I've searched, but all I get are fanboy conspiracy theories.

I'm a fanboy too, and what I've expressed are my own opinions and conclusions from what I've gleaned from popular sources. (You could call those conspiracy theories if you like.)

If you want to get as close as you can to a primary source, your best bet is probably to Google on some Joss Whedon interviews. The Wikipedia entries about Joss and the show also have information that I consider pretty reasonable; you can read it and form your own opinions.

Quote

-BSG: Ironically, its success is due to the lack of traditional SF conventions: the ship isn't much different than a submarine, computers play no part (this despite how The Singularity concept is so popular in print SF), no aliens, few special effects. People fighting robots is an old idea. Robots that look like people is an old idea. On paper BSG looks terrible. But I don't not watch it for exciting new SF ideas.

From your statements here and on Trek, I gather that a speculative fiction idea has to be new to you for you to consider a presentation of it interesting. Is that correct?

wakela · **Reply #33 on:** January 31, 2007, 08:04:10 AM

BTW, I watch BSG on DVD, and am only up to the end of season 2. So if spoilers come up, please give me a warning.

Slic, I agree that the show is intriguing. And for the record I think it is the best show on TV, SF or not. My point was just that robots marrying humans, robots looking like humans, etc, is not a new idea the same way that the Borg are a new idea. Or the Crystaline Entity or the symbiotic thing that Dax is. BSG takes some old theames and explores them to greater depths. Also, the writers deliberately avoid SF conventions like ray guns and aliens. And a lot of BSG is political drama that is harldy SF at all. So despite being less SFy, many of us would rather watch it that Star Trek.

Quote

From your statements here and on Trek, I gather that a speculative fiction idea has to be new to you for you to consider a presentation of it interesting. Is that correct?

Good question. I pondered this today while I should have been working. I think speculative fiction needs to provide something to speculate on. BSG certainly does this even though Bladerunner delt with many of the same ideas. The Matrix did this even though the idea of living in a computer world isn't new. Midnight at the Automart I think does not. Nor does Star Wars, really. The thing about Star Trek is that it is supposed to. They promise to go to strange new worlds and all that. But Deanna Troi's mother having a thing for Picard isn't particularly speculative, neither is taking someone with a prosthetic appliance glued to their forehead on a diplomatic mission.

A friend of mine said, "What is up with everyone parents going to visit them on Next Generation?"
Me: "Yeah, and the strained relationships are so tired. It would be nice to show someone with a good relationship with their father."
Him:"It would nice to have an adventure with some aliens!"

BTW, I re-read my last post. The line "How many hours [of Star Trek] do you need to watch before you get to an interesting SF idea? How many hours of Escape Pod?" was supposed to be a dig at Star Trek, but could have been construed as also being a dig at EP. My intention was to hold up the two in comparison. I think EP deals with interesting ideas way more often than ST.

slic · **Reply #34 on:** January 31, 2007, 05:50:21 PM

Quote

is not a new idea the same way that the Borg are a new idea.

It depends how deeply you scratch the surface - the borg are arguably just cyborbs crossed with a bit of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It's the same with BSG - humans and robots being married is old, fine, but look at the added twist of the "telepathic clones" (Helo knowing that his wife once slept with the Chief, sort of).

If you generalize enough, you'll pretty much find that there are no new ideas, just new combinations and ways of presenting them.

scottjanssens · **Reply #35 on:** January 31, 2007, 08:26:09 PM

Quote from: slic on January 31, 2007, 05:50:21 PM

If you generalize enough, you'll pretty much find that there are no new ideas, just new combinations and ways of presenting them.

A writing instructor I had told the class, "If a magician knows a dozen ways to force a card but only one way to present it, he has only one trick. If a magician knows one way to force a card, but a dozen presentations, he has a dozen tricks."

slic · **Reply #36 on:** January 31, 2007, 10:37:42 PM

Why was your writing instructor teaching you magic tricks?

scottjanssens · **Reply #37 on:** January 31, 2007, 11:25:34 PM

Quote from: slic on January 31, 2007, 10:37:42 PM

Why was your writing instructor teaching you magic tricks?

He also showed how a novel is like a game of chess. And also like a dollhouse.

slic · **Reply #38 on:** January 31, 2007, 11:46:01 PM

Are you sure he was a writing instructor, or just some guy that like games and tricks?

wakela · **Reply #39 on:** February 01, 2007, 02:07:00 AM

Quote

but look at the added twist of the "telepathic clones" (Helo knowing that his wife once slept with the Chief, sort of).

I would argue that this is interesting not because the cylons are telepathic, but because through understandable circumstances Helo fell in love with the Chief's girlfriend. But it wasn't the same girl because they were copies, but it was because they share memories. For this to work the girl needs to be a clone or a robot or something, so the idea science fiction at its essence. But when I watch, I want to see what happens when the two humans are put in the same room. The drama is human (which I guess it always is). Having said that, I have no problem watching as much Boomer as possible, though.

If I looked in TV guide and had a choice between a show where people in spaceships fight with robots and the robots look just like people vs. a spaceship is transported to the far side of the galaxy and has to find its way home and meet various aliens along the way, I would definitly go with the latter. But in the world we live in I would be disappointed. I just find this interesting and ironic.

Quote

If you generalize enough, you'll pretty much find that there are no new ideas, just new combinations and ways of presenting them.

True. You and I are probably just generalizing to different levels. But I think of Cyberpunk as being new when it came out. The Singularity concept is new. David Brin's Uplift is new...

SFEley · **Reply #40 on:** February 01, 2007, 02:12:55 AM

Quote from: slic on January 31, 2007, 11:46:01 PM

Are you sure he was a writing instructor, or just some guy that like games and tricks?

Scott's talking about Jim MacDonald, one of the instructors every year at Viable Paradise.

I attended VP II. And yes. Jim really, truly, teaches writing. And his speaking on magic tricks, chess, modelmaking, and recipes for key lime pie all have a lot to say about writing.

slic · **Reply #41 on:** February 01, 2007, 02:29:28 AM

Quote

David Brin's Uplift is new...

Ok, that's a good one - I've only read the first book, but the idea of Humans intentionally force evolving apes and dolphins and then exploring space with them is not an idea I've heard of before.

scottjanssens · **Reply #42 on:** February 01, 2007, 02:43:19 AM

Quote from: SFEley on February 01, 2007, 02:12:55 AM

and recipes for key lime pie

I knew I was missing one.

JaredAxelrod · **Reply #43 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:26:40 PM

Quote from: wakela on February 01, 2007, 02:07:00 AM

The Singularity concept is new.

Well, Vernor Vinge started writing about it in 1983, extrapolating from I. J. Good's essay on "intelligence explosion," which he wrote in 1965. And you can track a great deal of that thinking all the way back a hundred years ago, to the Industrial Revolution, when machines first started replacing men in the work place.

So, Man vs Superhuman Intelligence Of His Own Creation may not have been on Aristotle's original 5 conflicts, but it's not exactly new.

jeffreyrizzles · **Reply #44 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:50:03 PM

I have no idea what it would take to make a Star Trek movie exciting again, but I'm willing to bet that whatever version is coming out next WON't have it.

wakela · **Reply #45 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:00:32 PM

Quote

I have no idea what it would take to make a Star Trek movie exciting again, but I'm willing to bet that whatever version is coming out next WON't have it.

Won't matter. We'll see it, anyway.

Russell Nash · **Reply #46 on:** February 20, 2007, 09:40:34 AM

Quote from: wakela on February 19, 2007, 11:00:32 PM

Quote
I have no idea what it would take to make a Star Trek movie exciting again, but I'm willing to bet that whatever version is coming out next WON't have it.
Won't matter. We'll see it, anyway.

Not me. I was dragged kicking and screaming to the last one. Someone will have to point a gun at me to get me to go to the new one.

JaredAxelrod · **Reply #47 on:** February 20, 2007, 05:04:17 PM

Quote from: jeffreyrizzles on February 19, 2007, 06:50:03 PM

I have no idea what it would take to make a Star Trek movie exciting again

Steven Colbert as Dr. McCoy.

Mfitz · **Reply #48 on:** February 20, 2007, 09:21:26 PM

Quote from: slic on February 01, 2007, 02:29:28 AM

Quote
David Brin's Uplift is new...
Ok, that's a good one - I've only read the first book, but the idea of Humans intentionally force evolving apes and dolphins and then exploring space with them is not an idea I've heard of before.

The dolphins was a new spin, but I'd say the idea of making animals as smart as humans had been arround since Flowers for Algenon (I know I spelled that wrong) which I think was written in 1959. And I think other people have written stories with evolved animals.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #49 on:** March 09, 2007, 01:09:56 AM

Quote from: JaredAxelrod on February 20, 2007, 05:04:17 PM

Quote from: jeffreyrizzles on February 19, 2007, 06:50:03 PM
I have no idea what it would take to make a Star Trek movie exciting again

Steven Colbert as Dr. McCoy.

That is the single funniest image I have had in my head since the time my daughter tied her underwear to her bed and tried to bungee jump off the top bunk.

SFEley · **Reply #50 on:** March 09, 2007, 02:25:34 AM

Quote from: Mfitz on February 20, 2007, 09:21:26 PM

The dolphins was a new spin, but I'd say the idea of making animals as smart as humans had been arround since Flowers for Algenon (I know I spelled that wrong) which I think was written in 1959.

I thought it was Aesop. >8->

(Oh. No, wait -- he made animals as dumb as humans. Never mind.)

Startrekwiki · **Reply #51 on:** March 09, 2007, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: SFEley on March 09, 2007, 02:25:34 AM

Quote from: Mfitz on February 20, 2007, 09:21:26 PM
The dolphins was a new spin, but I'd say the idea of making animals as smart as humans had been arround since Flowers for Algenon (I know I spelled that wrong) which I think was written in 1959.

I thought it was Aesop. >8->

(Oh. No, wait -- he made animals as dumb as humans. Never mind.)

Surely a lot of them wouldn't be extinct if they had been as smart as us. Then again, we would probably be extinct as a species if they were smarter.

Russell Nash · **Reply #52 on:** March 09, 2007, 08:51:22 PM

Quote from: Startrekwiki on March 09, 2007, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: SFEley on March 09, 2007, 02:25:34 AM
Quote from: Mfitz on February 20, 2007, 09:21:26 PM
The dolphins was a new spin, but I'd say the idea of making animals as smart as humans had been arround since Flowers for Algenon (I know I spelled that wrong) which I think was written in 1959.

I thought it was Aesop. >8->

(Oh. No, wait -- he made animals as dumb as humans. Never mind.)

Surely a lot of them wouldn't be extinct if they had been as smart as us. Then again, we would probably be extinct as a species if they were smarter.

The feature that truly put us out ahead was the opposable thumb. There could have been many genius species (maybe two), that couldn't pick up the stick to make their first tool.

zagboodle · **Reply #53 on:** March 10, 2007, 04:11:50 PM

Quote from: wakela on February 19, 2007, 11:00:32 PM

Won't matter. We'll see it, anyway.

That may be part of the problem (though probably not the biggest part). It may be a gross oversimplification, but maybe Paramount knows they've got a built in audience that will watch the movies no matter how shitty the last one was and the new one looks. Plus, they're going for the most mainstream (and lucrative) audience possible, which generally means a lowest-common-denominator approach.

No, what needs to happen is this: the instant Battlestar Galactica has run its course, Ron Moore & company need to work their magic on the Trek universe. Sweep away everything that has gone before and reboot the whole thing. And get Katee Sackhoff to play the captain of whichever version of the Enterprise they go with.

Tango Alpha Delta · **Reply #54 on:** March 10, 2007, 04:25:24 PM

Quote from: zagboodle on March 10, 2007, 04:11:50 PM

Quote from: wakela on February 19, 2007, 11:00:32 PM
Won't matter. We'll see it, anyway.

That may be part of the problem (though probably not the biggest part). It may be a gross oversimplification, but maybe Paramount knows they've got a built in audience that will watch the movies no matter how shitty the last one was and the new one looks. Plus, they're going for the most mainstream (and lucrative) audience possible, which generally means a lowest-common-denominator approach.

No, what needs to happen is this: the instant Battlestar Galactica has run its course, Ron Moore & company need to work their magic on the Trek universe. Sweep away everything that has gone before and reboot the whole thing. And get Katee Sackhoff to play the captain of whichever version of the Enterprise they go with.

You make a vexing point; as a fan, I keep going back because even though they made Star Trek V, they also made First Contact. (Your opinion is welcome to vary, but I loathed the former and loved the latter.) They also made ST:TNG season 2, yet recovered to make DS9 seasons 5&6.

And, keeping in mind that all things are relative, Star Wars Ep III was a drastic improvement over Ep I (though I would have re-edited the order of the scenes in the third act so that the characters actually had motivation for their actions). We go because they created a universe we fell in love with at some point, and they occasionally still give us something worth seeing in that universe.

It's kind of like the phenomenon of the familiar in restaurant franchising; we claim to hate McDonald's food (in our house, at least), but when we're out on the highway, and desperate for a place to eat, we'll choose the familiar arches over "Joe's Armpit BBQ" most of the time. Joe's may be better, but if we don't know that, we won't necessarily take the risk; studios and publishers know this, which is why there are so many franchises out there.

Gawd, economic realities are depressing.

I reiterate: this is why I'm rooting for the Escape Pod format to take off.

Russell Nash · **Reply #55 on:** March 10, 2007, 08:32:11 PM

Quote from: zagboodle on March 10, 2007, 04:11:50 PM

Quote from: wakela on February 19, 2007, 11:00:32 PM
Won't matter. We'll see it, anyway.

That may be part of the problem (though probably not the biggest part). It may be a gross oversimplification, but maybe Paramount knows they've got a built in audience that will watch the movies no matter how shitty the last one was and the new one looks. Plus, they're going for the most mainstream (and lucrative) audience possible, which generally means a lowest-common-denominator approach.

No, what needs to happen is this: the instant Battlestar Galactica has run its course, Ron Moore & company need to work their magic on the Trek universe. Sweep away everything that has gone before and reboot the whole thing. And get Katee Sackhoff to play the captain of whichever version of the Enterprise they go with.

Or maybe a BSG movie. I don't know what the story arc for the series is supposed to be, but I'm sure there's something in the universe that would make a good movie.