test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Shatner explains why it's so important to get Trek back on TV
hawkwing43
Member Posts: 1,701 Arc User
This is from syfy, who got it from nerdbastards.com
"You know, I think you?re right. Because, JJ Abrams has found the key to getting a large audience into the movie theater, and that?s the ride. So you get a lot of the CGI effects, which is the epic movie making aspect of today, whereas in Cecile B. Demille?s time, you had to use real people. Now you don?t need to use real people and you can have infinity for God?s sake.
"That?s in order to get you into the theater, because the majesty of the movie is shown by the large screen. But when you get into the small screen, you need stories? entertaining, interesting, vital stories that have a philosophy and also have an excitement about them, so that the viewer stays with it, but receives the philosophy as a byproduct. Those were the best of Star Trek, those kinds of stories. And that kind of thing, there is always room for that. That kind of imaginative approach that stirs young people into wanting to be connected with science."
You can read more here:
http://www.blastr.com/2013-8-15/shatner-explains-why-its-so-important-get-trek-back-tv
and here:
http://nerdbastards.com/2013/08/14/interview-one-on-one-with-william-shatner/
"You know, I think you?re right. Because, JJ Abrams has found the key to getting a large audience into the movie theater, and that?s the ride. So you get a lot of the CGI effects, which is the epic movie making aspect of today, whereas in Cecile B. Demille?s time, you had to use real people. Now you don?t need to use real people and you can have infinity for God?s sake.
"That?s in order to get you into the theater, because the majesty of the movie is shown by the large screen. But when you get into the small screen, you need stories? entertaining, interesting, vital stories that have a philosophy and also have an excitement about them, so that the viewer stays with it, but receives the philosophy as a byproduct. Those were the best of Star Trek, those kinds of stories. And that kind of thing, there is always room for that. That kind of imaginative approach that stirs young people into wanting to be connected with science."
You can read more here:
http://www.blastr.com/2013-8-15/shatner-explains-why-its-so-important-get-trek-back-tv
and here:
http://nerdbastards.com/2013/08/14/interview-one-on-one-with-william-shatner/
Post edited by hawkwing43 on
0
Comments
Sure some episodes here and there maybe aren't to my taste, but on the whole evry one has brought its own thing to the franchise
I don't quite understand why some people can;t just say i don't like this and i won;t watch it
Instead so many people take to the internet to proclaim it as the worst thing ever, which of course shows them to lack any true empathy for those with geniune issues as they proclaim some form of enterainment to be the worst thing ever when people have more important things to worry about
Except Star Trek V. TRIBBLE that one.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
To me, Trek is Trek.
Exploring human reactions to novel situations; using a story as a way to deliver an open-ended philosophical debate without presenting a good vs. evil or judging right vs. wrong--this format dwindled, even on the small screen. I don't think the audiences that the television producers want to capture would be comfortable with that kind of moral ambiguity.
Thoughtful skeptics are probably less likely to make impulse purchases of advertised products.
Star Trek changed somewhere along the line from themes of humanity adapting and maturing to becoming about the destiny of the righteous, progressing from lighthearted science fiction to dramatic fantasy.
Putting Star Trek back on TV won't magically do what Shatner thinks it will. Not unless the producers put in charge actually share his vision about what Star Trek should be.
:P
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
J/K, but I do like it.
My character Tsin'xing
I would think that even the fragmented ST fanbase would welcome a new show. It's been 10 years since a series has been running. And with a running series, you'd get a chance to do more with the storyline and characters more than you could with a movie.
You had to admit, by the time ENT was showing, the ST shows were milked or stretched to their very limits.
It was probably time for a break. ST went away with TOS for a long time, then game back strong in the 80s with TNG (okay, 1st season was a bit strange, but the series then stood well on its own).
ST has had its break. I question alot of things with JJ-Trek, but JJ Abrams did prove ST has relevance ($$$) still.
ST has been gone long enough from the big and small screens. It came back on the big screens. Now the chance is there for the small screen re-entry.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Enterprise was better than its rating but they over-saturated the market with the brand. Much like Disney is about to do with Star Wars.
Personally I think another 5-10yrs will need to pass before another Trek series can be sustainable.
They haven't said NO yet.
Most of the action is behind the scenes still.
Conversations with CBS and Netflix are ongoing.
:cool:
I like all the Trek I can get...
From TOS when I was a kid to Trek-2013.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
if Netflix is going to invest $50-$100 million into a new Trek series they might as well go with an original idea and get a couple of season out of it to recoup their investment.
I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment.
I want a new series placed around the same time STO's taking place!
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
My character Tsin'xing
JJ should be shot
It's not just the philosophy and the science and the stories. It's the characters too. Characters that live and breathe in a futuristic world, but still share some of the same limitations and experiences that we do. Characters that are not so far removed from ourselves. Characters that we can relate to, and they can relate to us.
Stories mixing action, great plot, some kind of philosophic theme, and character emphasis are the greatest episodes of Star Trek.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
You summed up my thoughts perfectly. :P
Though I do somewhat dislike Enterprise.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
> <
> <
>
I dunno about that last one. I didn't much care for some of the Phase 2 material, but it wasn't bad. Amazing SFX for a fan series. "Star Trek Continues" was even more impressive: It had great casting, the vignettes were nicely done, the sets were spot-on, and the first episode "Pilgrim of Eternity" not only cleverly tied in to an old TOS episode, but it was a decent story too.
The trick is how to do a new series set in the post-TNG era that isn't terribly derivative of one of the other series. The premise has to be a good one, and apart from the fractured IP rights I think this is the next reason keeping Star Trek off the TV screen. If CBS were not simply content to rake in the licensing money and got serious about it, they could do it.
Still, after watching "The Captains" I now have a greater appreciation for the grueling demands of a weekly TV series and why CBS might not want to take the risk of a failed series. I've heard talk about going the animated route and I can see why there's an attraction to doing that instead of live action with CGI.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
We've seen some pretty impressive races animated with CGI in the shows already. The Founders, some of the Xindi races, Tholians, Gorn. They all looked pretty impressive. But I wonder how expensive it would be to do that level of CGI for an entire TV show....
My character Tsin'xing
You summed up my thoughts.
TOS: A bit before my time. I'm a child of the '70's so it had been off the air for a bit, but I saw re-runs and fully appreciate it for what it was given the time period it was aired.
TNG: Thought it was a bit odd until it got it's legs about midway through season 2. The later seasons of TNG were some of the best in Trekdom as far as I am concerned form a story stand point.
DS9: Absolutely loved it. It showed the "Darker side" of Trek. It also had a major plot line that would never have been allowed had Gene been still around, war. It also touched heavily on religion and peoples faith in both the "light" and "dark" sides of that. It did it in a way that made it "palatable" to the general public.
VOY: Liked the premise, liked the later seasons a bit more. I think some aspects of it were made too "campy" for their own good. Overall a decent follow on. Though at times it got a bit too much of a "Lost In Space" feeling to it.
ENT: I liked it. Liked the cast mostly, but, I think they could have done better. Instead of getting diverted into the whole "temporal cold war" thing, they could have, should have, delved more into the guts of the forming of the Federation/Starfleet etc,... would have been better to see some of the early beginings of the earth/Romulan war etc,... invention of new tech, etc,... Overall I liked it, but I think it could have been better.
Movies:
TMP: My least favorite of all of 'em. Just a bit too slow for me. Still, a damn good movie.
STII: One of the best movies. Had a "real" feel to it. Not everything worked perfectly, and they didn't invent some whiz bang techno-babble to save the day.
STIII: Meh. First "Klingon" movie. But the whole thing with Spocks "katra" and putting it back in his body which had aged to the exact point he died by the time of the ceremony, was a bit off. Nice to see the crew in different surroundings for once though. Klingon Bird Of Prey instead of their normal, clean and anti-septic Enterprise.
STIV: I call it the "fun" Trek. It was and always will be the "roller coaster fun ride" of the Trek movie universe.
STV: Not my favorite but not bad either. Though I do not believe for one second that Starfleet would EVER send ANY ship out on a hostage rescue mission, with less than a skeleton crew like that. If all else, and they had to have Jim Kirk, they'd have at least given him temporary command of some other ship.
STVI: Good, solid movie, right up until Kirks speech at the end. That, was a bit campy and "moral of the story" for me.
STVII: Well, it's a transition movie. Old cast to new cast,... not much else to be said there.
STVIII: Nice trip through part of ST's early beginnings. Nice "standing your ground" against the borg.
STIX: Good movie.
STX: Good movie, a bit overplayed though. Why do bad guys always feel the need to "toy" with their adversaries,...
STXI aka JJTrek: My only real complaints about this movie, too much lens flare and totally out of scale hanger bay. Otherwise decent enough for a reboot.
As you can see, I like most Trek, even the ones I "don't", I do, just not certain parts or aspects.
As for the TV shows, well, you run any show long enough and you're going to have some good, some outstanding and some not so good episodes.
"There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
The problem is that the different Star Trek shows aren't tonally cohesive. Sure, it all takes place in the same continuity (more or less), but that's really where the similarities between shows end.
The fanbase is fragmented because Star Trek is fragmented. Most of the shows are very different shows. TOS is only similar to TNG in that they take place in the same universe. Where TOS was primarily an action show with some philosophical themes. TNG is a morality show with the occasional action sequence. And DS9 became a show about political intrigue instead of exploration.
Basically, you have Wagon Train (TOS), E.R. (TNG), 24 (DS9), and Gilligan's Island (Voyager), all skinned as Star Trek.
The shows vary so dramatically, it makes perfect sense that the fanbase would be fragmented.
So in order to launch a new series, they'll have to decide which path to take because Enterprise proved that trying to do a potpourri of all of the others just agitates fans of each.
It can be done, of course, but I fear the only way they'll get any network on board is if they show the execs a TV show that mimics the tone of the Abrams movies.
While I'd be fine with that, I'm sure it would upset plenty of my fellow Trekkies.
I don't hate Voyager or Enterprise, but I don't like most of what they offered to me as a Star Trek fan. Janeway was batshet crazy and had an annoying voice, and Enterprise had a lackluster crew + tons of reconn-age. All of that made for shows and series which I did NOT find entertaining. Same with Star Trek V and pretty much all the TNG movies.
I will not spend money to own any of those Star Trek products, nor am I compelled to watch them.