New Testingstan

To mull over Stofsk's point about how soft people are treating Khan III: Khan with a Vengeance, is that the entertainment seems to have changed in the years past. Nemesis came after two out of the three previous TNG movies were disappointing and played out like a terrible limp wristed action flick whose highlights consisted of a really cheap looking car chase and space battles that lagged behind the prequels so badly it caused a certain message board to lose its shit

Coupled with how Nemesis added to rather long death of Trek on the big screen, I think critics and fans in general have a bigger ax to grind with it because of how its mishandling affected the franchise as a whole.

To me the new movies are getting a pass as "watchable" or "enjoyable" in part because big movies have almost entirely shifted out of heady drama into pure spectacle. People's expectations have shifted so much that even in the critical world nobody wants to rattle their sabres in defiance of the Hollywood money making machine because there's no point. See also Orci's other baby Transformers 2: What the Fuck Was That It's like, this is where movies are expected to be now.

On the flip side, high quality TV dramas took over that niche of well written mass entertainment. I feel like Trek's problem right now is there is no new show on the air to keep the brand fresh in the smartly written TV show side of things. I have to wonder if part of that is because it's easier to put out a new tent pole movie and just remaster and re-air the absolute mountain of Star Trek episodes than to make a new show.

I'd love to see a new trek show
preferably just the next next generation
and don't make it all tupping dark and cynical, I get enough of that from the news thank you very much

nope sorry we live in a post 9/11 world

gotta be dark

into darkness

the only good thing about that film is that its initials spell 'STD'
(well close enough anyway)
which made me lol when it was announced
hehehe secks

STiD

I bet you look up stuff on your phone when people are arguing over stuff in the pub too

i kinda feel like the new movies have poisoned the well for a new tv show

cuz now ppl will be like "where's chris pine?" and idk if the new actors are famous or anything, tbh I've never heard of any of them before except simon pegg, but I assume since they do big movies they're prolly out of budget for tv


well unless like Michael dorn gets a show. I've heard he's been wanting to do one. i'd watch captain worf.

captain worf would be pretty sweet
klingons live for crazy long ages too, so they could have the next next generation thing with him as the captain
make it so

adr wrote:i kinda feel like the new movies have poisoned the well for a new tv show

cuz now ppl will be like "where's chris pine?" and idk if the new actors are famous or anything, tbh I've never heard of any of them before except simon pegg, but I assume since they do big movies they're prolly out of budget for tv

Well, even without budget concerns, there are actors who don't like or want to do television work because it's a very grueling production schedule. Even in the modern era of *sniff* refined television sensibilities where we might see 13 (or seven, or whatever) episodes a year, it's still much more demanding than movie work.

I think "poisoned the well" will depend a lot on what Paramount does after Chris Pine eventually leaves. If they decide to immediately re-reboot and do another movie within three or four years, CBS might find it unpalatable to pitch their TV-budget show against SUMMER HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER.

Stofsk wrote: I forget, when did he actually leave the franchise? I know he was involved in creating DS9 and Voyager but at some point he departed.

I think it was mid-Voyager.


Also, it'll be interesting to see what STID's less-than-anticipated performance does to the next movie - in other words, will we see them double-down and try to go even more action-packed and juvenile?

I agree that The Motion Picture seemed to be more inventive and creatively mould breaking than the well produced, but on hindsight more creatively safe Into Darkness, even if the former movie was less successful at entertaining people on a superficial level and vanishing up its own backside.

uraniun235 wrote:Well, even without budget concerns, there are actors who don't like or want to do television work because it's a very grueling production schedule. Even in the modern era of *sniff* refined television sensibilities where we might see 13 (or seven, or whatever) episodes a year, it's still much more demanding than movie work.

Yeah this is true. I wonder though, whether TV work (or the right kind of TV work) is actually more rewarding. Especially nowadays with 'refined' sensibilities and big cable shows that have almost motion picture level production values.

I think - well, I hope - that if Star Trek came back to the small screen again it would be in that kind of format. Shorter seasons with the best production values you can put in to an individual episode. Enterprise had good production values, probably the best of any Star Trek show IMO, but it still had that 'more than 20 episodes a season' thing. I think RDM in the TNG blu-ray special feature that had him, Brannon Braga, Naren Shankar and Rene Echevarria (and Seth MacFarlane... spot the odd man out?) get together and talk shop for an hour, pointed out how TNG (and DS9 and Voyager) had 26 episodes a season, and how that just seems huge nowadays. He wasn't sure how you could do that amount of work now, especially when people are becoming more accustomed to arc storylines.

EDIT Another thought occurs, and that is how do you get new writers involved in shows that have that kind of tight plotting requirement? Guys like Moore et al above were really lucky in how they got involved in TNG. Moore almost literally got his foot in the door and dropped off an unsolicited script (something which was frowned upon even when he did it), and it was only because Piller was desperate IIRC that his script got noticed. Braga got an internship.

I think "poisoned the well" will depend a lot on what Paramount does after Chris Pine eventually leaves. If they decide to immediately re-reboot and do another movie within three or four years, CBS might find it unpalatable to pitch their TV-budget show against SUMMER HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER.

I think that's one of the reasons why CBS has held off making a new TV show at all, and are just content to remaster TNG and possibly DS9 and VOY later. But eventually, they'll want to put it on the air again, if only to actually use the rights they have for the property.

I also think CBS would likely prefer to set any new show in the prime universe, rather than the reboot one, because working with the latter would potentially mean diluting their rights to their side of the property. On the other hand, I am unsure of just how the rights work in this case. CBS seems to own everything that exists prior to the 2009 film, while Paramount seems to own that, plus Into Darkness, plus anything motion picture related. The old films seem to be 'shared' between them. I'd love to actually go through the copyrights documentation to see not only who owns what but just what the other side can do with what they own. It might mean that CBS literally can't make a new TV show, or do so by themselves. But I honestly don't know much about this area.

EDIT A good example of what I'm talking about comes from both reboot films. They're their own thing right, but they still make use of the Prime universe - the 2009 film's backstory takes place in the prime universe and has prime Spock cross over. Into Darkness mentions Section 31. It strikes me that they couldn't make these kind of references if the rights were strict. Which leads me to believe that if CBS wanted to make a new TV show, Bad Robot would want to be involved in some fashion, perhaps as low as simply being consulted so that they don't work at cross-purposes, but more likely they would want to be active participants. And CBS may not want to do that, or have a TV show under that basis.

TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT VULCAN SEXUALITY

So Pon Farr, as established so far:

*Happens every seven years
*Males and females
*Can be handled by either getting busy, a fight to the death, or a massive dose of drug

From what we've seen over and over again, typically only one party is undergoing pon farr during sexual congress. This is not to say that the other party is necessarily an unwilling participant. One thing I'd like to establish before going any further is if there's any references(canon or b-canon) to Vulcan population statistics to suggest that this is the only time Vulcans actually conceive. Personally, I'd find that notion untenable, and what I'm really wondering is are there gay vulcans.

Discuss.

Planning on writing a fanfic ?

Well I hadn't but now suddenly

Oxymoron wrote:Planning on writing a fanfic ?

Kirk "assisting" Spock during Pon Farr has probably been done before. Many, many times.

New Frontier actually does have a gay Vulcan mentioned iirc. Dr Selar's brother. Though I think their father is not especially pleased with it. Seeing as sex without reproduction is illogical.

Can a population be sustained with a single live birth per pairing every seven years?

IIRC you need 2.2 children per couple to sustain a population at stable levels, which seems like it would be doable, even without taking into account the increased Vulcan lifespan.

http://mystartrekscrapbook.blogspot.com ... -book.html

Get out your crayons

So I resumed watching my TNG S4 dvds after ages. With the Nth Dregree and Qpid.

Isn't TNG supposed to be good?

i kinda liked the nth degree..

And Qpid rules

"Sorry."

Clearly you three need to settle your differences on the field of honor.

Crazedwraith wrote:So I resumed watching my TNG S4 dvds after ages. With the Nth Dregree and Qpid.

Isn't TNG supposed to be good?

If you don't like those episodes there's something wrong with you.