Well, I knew this would be a salty thread. It sure is!
CessnaDriver, thing is... As with the Star Wars Prequels, there's a lot that was in the TOS+ lore that intrigued. The Romulan Wars, the Eugenics Wars, the Third World War, the "disastrous" first contact with the Klingons, the Axanar Peace Mission, the Vulcanian Expedition, the Mind-Control Riots... There's a lot of backstory to potentially explore -- if done well. Re-casting central characters I feel is a bad idea. I feel we didn't need to revisit Kirk, Spock, et al, in the 2009 film. But Pike and Number One were only ever in the first pilot (not counting the recast crippled Pike in "The Menagerie"). That's enough wiggle room that, if you respected how they crafted their characters, casting new actors in the roles who bring the same "feel" would work -- as long as continuity was respected and the canon adhered-to. For instance, I'd find someone who had the right voice and build and digitally face-swap so they looked like a young Leonard Nimoy. Because that's Spock. We grow with him over decades, experience life, death, and life with him, follow his career and family. He's established. Far more than the rest of the characters in that one outing.
I'm almost with you on that. I'd like to start a littler earlier in Pike's time on the Enterprise. Maybe build up over the first season to the disaster on Rigel VII and have the season end on the cliffhanger of Pike having been captured by the Talosians.Now, what I think would have been a cool idea, if they were going to do a Pike series...first, get a completely new creative team with the right mindset...and then make the first episode a complete reimagining of “The Cage”, and then kick of the series from there. It would be neat to present the series as an “alternative” history of “what if ‘The Cage’ had been sold as a series“, and go from there.
It doesn't matter if there's disagreement if one camp is demonstrably... I won't say 'wrong', but in error where the facts are concerned. Gene pitched Star Trek as "'Wagon Train' to the stars". I didn't know Wagon Train, but, from the name, figured it was a Western of some kind -- in an era replete with Westerns. Since then, I've looked it up, and have even watched a lot of it. As the name implies, it's about America's nineteenth-century Westward expansion -- from an admittedly dated cultural viewpoint, of course. That was mashed up with Gene's description of Kirk as "Horatio Hornblower in space". So we had Starfleet as an exploratory and civilizing force (a la the Royal Navy of the early nineteenth century), trammeling the untrammeled tracks to prepare the way for the waves of pioneers who are following. In the process, they bump up against alien factors that make us take a look at ourselves. First-year college philosophy and ethics classes mashed up with morality plays. The '60s were a simpler time -- media-wise. For the '80s-'00s update, the underlying premise remained the same, but the media the setting and characters were in (TV, movies, books, comics) presented a more nuanced and less heavy-handed take. That's why it's referred to as the Star Trek canon. It's a largely consistent body of work that follows the same overall take on the setting and who Humanity is within it. Most of the inconsistencies are technical minutiæ that don't really affect the stories (with the exception of time travel, which I won't get into here).Here’s the harsh reality, folks. These franchises have been around for decades. Due to both the generation gap and the sheer volume of existing material, people can no longer agree on what the core elements of these properties are.
Nrrr... If there's one thing I've taken away from decades invested in those particular IPs, it's that too often the person/people running them didn't get one or the other or both. I can cite specific examples, if needed.It’s been proven before that these franchises can be successfully reinvented for new generations. The prequels did not kill STAR WARS. STAR TREK ran continuously and with massive success on both TV and in theaters from 1987-2005. But that was because both George Lucas and the legacy team that began work with TNG were in charge. People who understood both the material and the fanbase.
Mm. Nope. Stop right there. That is utter horse manure. It treads toward your second point, but the reason we got the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a combination of George's fault/blind-spot, the people at LFL's hero-worship of the man, and Disney wanting to play it safe. From interviews and the few reference books we have available, there were a lot of daring and interesting things the people making those films wanted to do (at least, before TFA), but got pulled back and back and back until it was what we got. And as for, well, just about everything from, to some degree, Voyager on -- the TNG films, Enterprise, the 2009 re-imagining, Discovery, Picard, now this... It's 110% definitely because of corporate meddling, people in charge who don't get or don't like, or both, what came before. JJ found Star Trek boring and wanted to make it more like Star Wars. Les Moonves hated Star Trek (largely because he didn't understand it) and lost no opportunity to screw with it. I'll cite Trek09 is a prime example. A "Kirk and Spock at the Academy" movie has been being pitched since the late '80s, and wiser heads always prevailed. People who actually know the canon know Kirk didn't meet Spock until he was made Captain of the Enterprise.Now, however, there are two inherent problems. 1) These properties are played out. With so much material already existing, it’s very difficult to come up with something truly fresh and new. So, we get the abysmal Disney Trilogy (a dumb, soulless, woke remake of the original trilogy) and both the Abramsized and Kurtzmanized bastardizations of TOS.
That's closer to the mark, but, I feel, overstated. None of us are enough on the inside to see more than fragments. I applaud increased awareness and push for diversity and inclusiveness. I do not like it when they strut about it, and I have a feeling that's more the marketing people trying to play buzzword bingo to present the property as more with-the-times, rather than them just, y'know, doing it. I have whole essays on how and why we ended up with the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy and Anthology films we did, why Voyager started out of the gate with one arm tied behind its back, why Enterprise was crippled by conflicting story/setting premises, where JJ-Trek dropped the ball, how Discovery and Picard could have kept ~80% of the content the same and been a million times better and more respectful of their antecedents... It's much, much more than political-correctness run amok!!eleventy!; 2) These properties are now in the hands of hacks and ideologues who don’t understand or care about what they’ve been given, and are only using these franchises to make money and/or push their extreme sociopolitical agendas.
All the early-draft scripts of what would become TFA kept having Luke pretty much take over the story when he showed up, and overshadowing the new characters, so his reveal kept getting pushed later and later to try to avoid that. Problem is, duh. Last time we saw Luke, he was at his apotheosis. Over 9000. Peak form. We never had the screen time to see him come down from that and return to/help establish the New Normal. And that's because they felt locked into the "trilogy model" Lucas blind-spotted his way into. I ultimately have no issue with the actual content of those films -- just the manner of presentation.Luke Skywalker is now a loser and a failure who is denigrated and Force-Skypes himself for death so as to make MaRey Sue look better while she steals all of his gear and accomplishments.
Okay, that one I'll give you. But...Spock is turned into a dyslexic basket-case who needs Mary Sue Burnham to teach him how to BE Spock.
This view of the character needs to just frikkin' die, already. Kirk fell in love with three women over the course of TOS, and they had an unfortunate habit of dying on him. He had a few other lesser romantic entanglements, but there was no stigma to that because part of the vision Gene was operating from was that we'd evolved past our sexual hang-ups and prudishness by the 23rd century. Two consenting adults could do whatever they wanted with their relevant bits and then go their way again and it was no one else's business. Then there were the times the crew/ship was captured, and Kirk used the matriarch's interest in him to try and maneuver their freedom. And somehow, from all this, popular culture got "Kirk is a womanizer". I think it may have to do with the fact that the women Kirk was involved with were equally interested, and women weren't supposed to be interested.Can’t wait until they recast James Kirk and take him to task for being a “toxic” straight white man with a healthy libido.
Whup. Make that two other things. Marvel's doing just fine. Twenty-odd films in, they've had two solid clinkers, and three others I've had some issue with, but the rest are pretty good to wonderful, and I trust the overall vision of where they plan to go from here unless and until proven otherwise.And the damage is done. STAR WARS lies in ruins. DOCTOR WHO lies in ruins. Marvel and DC Comics lie on the edge of oblivion.
Mmm... Simple view of a more complex landscape. I'll start with the merch end. Socio-economic ranty essay omitted to avoid banhammer, but in general consumer buying power is less. Many independent shops have gone away, to be replaced (if at all) by Amazon and big-boxes like Walmart and Target. For the experience of wandering in to a physical store and impulse-buying an action figure off the rack, we are reliant on underpaid department managers knowing about and caring about the properties to request merch, on up the chain. My local Walmart, for instance, does not have any of the 40th anniversary Star Wars stuff, no Black Series Boba Fett helmets, nada. Just a two-foot-wide section of shelf with some leftover TLJ and Rogue One figures no one wants. The department manager over-orders the initial figure wave and then waits for them to sell through before ordering more. They don't seem to know about different figures being in successive waves.In case you hadn’t noticed, no one cares about STAR TREK. Kids don’t know or care. None of my younger friends or coworkers know about or watch the CBS streaming shows. BEYOND was a flop. The merchandise has dried right up, because licensors know that this franchise is a beached whale. The older fans are aging out, and no young fans are successfully being brought in to replace them and keep the brand healthy.
Ah. Yes. Quite. He listed Marvel and DC in the same breath as Star Trek and Doctor Who, so my brain was lumping it all in the moving-picture medium. The comics didn't even occur to me -- which makes me sad to think about how long it's been since I've read nearly anything from either company. I get the Star Wars comics from Marvel, and quite like most of them, as well as Ms. Marvel... *sigh* But that's it, and that's been it for some time, now.I think he was referring to Marvel comics, which is what he actually typed. And yes, he is correct there. The comics are in a pretty bad state these days.
[*I use this in the sense Gene did originally -- Man with a capital 'M' being humanity as a whole. Insert my linguistic rant here about societal brokenness of centuries past hanging baggage on all the terminology we use for gender.
This baffles me. I'm neither oblivious to or trying to stifle cultural change. I was pointing out understanding fifty-five-year-old context shifts perceived meaning of a thing in the present cultural setting. That the words themselves are problematic, and will remain so. I've lived through a lot of that period being very socially aware -- because of my parents and extended family, because of where I grew up, and because of Star Trek. I can't say a whole lot more without risking the banhammer. I've already tapdanced around sensitive topics more closely than I'm comfortable in this answer.[T]he fact that you felt the need to insert that not so micro-rant about the use of Man as the classic way to encompass humanity, shows that you not only don't understand why humans change, but you also hold back that change. Your attitude may be your opinion, but your opinion does not make you correct.
The rights that women have now, have been given to them by men. How pathetic and sad is that? And they're still playing second fiddle to men in almost every aspect of power. Seriously, how do you not see that?
WORDS matter. The definitions of words MATTER to so many people regardless of if you see it or not. I really don't understand how anyone can be so into Star Trek, as you state over and over with massive undertones of entitlement to your opinions, yet within your essays you post, you seem to still miss the spirit of what Star Trek is.
Something, something, forest, trees... You're kinda talking about the same thing I was, but from a different direction. I was saying that "where no Man", when it was written back in the '60s, wasn't sexist in context, and that the "where no one" of TNG was because there were more than Humans participating in Starfleet by the late 23rd century. Enterprise and, more, Discovery retconning things to have lots of non-Humans onboard is more inclusive, yes, but also contrary to established canon and lore. And a wasted source of dramatic potential. It had gotten bad enough by the mid-23rd century that Starfleet mounted an expedition to Vulcan to try to get them to participate, and the result was the all-Vulcan USS Intrepid -- no mixed ships for them. Not yet, anyway. Secondary sources had the Andorians starting to involve themselves around then, too. Lots of non-Humans participating in Federation stuff, not so much Starfleet stuff.
I was mindful of the fact that in the years between there had been a sexual revolution, a women's movement, and the rise of political correctness. The word Man itself hasn't changed definitions, but the popular-culture context sure as hell has shifted. The questioning of gender roles and gender identity has thrown the meaning into sharp relief. The hunt for new pronouns that cover "neither" or "both". The conscious or subliminal awareness that "woman" and "female", being derived from "man" and "male", respectively, by their existence cast XX-chromosome-havers in the role of "other". I know all of that.
Just as I know that part of Gene's optimistic view of the future included sex and gender not mattering except when it came to mate-selection -- or lack of, for the Aces out there. Why he made Number One a woman in 1964, when such a thing was unheard-of. Why, when the pilot began production, the women were wearing pants, at a time that was frowned-upon (my mom, in college then, wasn't allowed to wear trousers until the temperature was -20°F).
It's a reflection of the times that the women still had different tops, that Bill Theiss -- a gay man -- designed such skimpy and revealing outfits for the female characters, that of the stories pitched by Gene and Herb that was the one NBC went for -- the one that dealt with a captive-breeding program and sexual fantasies. Gene was a horndog, yes, but he'd also included, among his twenty-odd pilot proposals, stories that would become "Where No Man Has Gone Before", "The Omega Glory", and "Mudd's Women". So I'd lay odds that it was about a fifty-fifty chance any story Gene wrote would involve sexualization. 'Cause that's how he rolled and there was no one to gainsay him except studio leads. That's how we got Ilia and the hyper-sexual Deltans in TMP. That's how we got Data being "fully functional" and the Edo in TNG. I feel the best Trek is when writers have been able to separate Gene's vision from his libido.
This baffles me. I'm neither oblivious to or trying to stifle cultural change. I was pointing out understanding fifty-five-year-old context shifts perceived meaning of a thing in the present cultural setting. That the words themselves are problematic, and will remain so. I've lived through a lot of that period being very socially aware -- because of my parents and extended family, because of where I grew up, and because of Star Trek. I can't say a whole lot more without risking the banhammer. I've already tapdanced around sensitive topics more closely than I'm comfortable in this answer.
I applied the "where no Man has gone" phrasing to Voyager's temporal setting in that proposed macro-series because of that ship's complement. Difficult to keep up with crew deaths and new acquisitions, but in 2377 140 of the 146 crew members were Human. I do not know whether that counts half-Humans like B'Elanna. That was the first Starfleet ship that far out. The other two that had made it to the Delta Quadrant (a Human appellation in mapping the galaxy, I might add) hadn't made it as far out, and were also never heard from again back home. There were, however, lots of other sentient species living there when they showed up. To quote Lord Vetinari, via Terry Pratchett, "If someone was sitting by the river having his dinner when the explorer turned up, then said explorer couldn't possibly have found it first", which sort of recasts much of Starfleet's role through history as that of benign trespassers. A lot of the places we "discovered" already had someone living there. But that Human-centric blind-spot is part of the setting and its evolution. I don't feel it should be retroactively undone, in universe or in the real world, and part of that is being mindful of the words and when and how they were used.
Why so much, you like this or that show so you suck?
Are we going to have mayor riots about a mid engine corvette?
I do not care much about who likes what or why. I just like or dislike shows as they are. I do not think back as in: in that episode of tos this happend and that had no mention of ever happening in tng. I watch them as seperate all together. It is fiction, not factual.