Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[asalaw]

SUPERMAN (1978) is an excellent example of how to do it right. Richard Donner knew that the character is a part of Americana, and should never be a campy parody or a dark deconstruction. The early scripts and plans by the Salkinds and the Newmans verged into parody. And, guess what? After Donner was fired, SUPERMAN II and SUPERMAN III fell right into that style of wacky humor they were pushing for before Donner came in and insisted that the material be treated seriously and with reverence.

So, Donner just directly adapted Superman into live-action, right out of the comics, complete with all of his earnestness and morals and virtues. The clever part of the film is that the world around him was the contemporary, cynical world of the 1970s. The villains were the ones mostly responsible for the cynicism and campy humor seen throughout the film, whereas Superman remained the pure and honest crusader for justice that Siegel and Shuster created.

Chris Reeve's acting skill and charm can't be underestimated, either. He was able to take lines like, "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way" and make you believe that he believed it. Reeve's Superman emanates pure decency, honesty, and goodness, without a trace of irony or cynicism.



STAR TREK is also a part of Americana, and we can see how differently it's been treated.

Don’t leave out Mario Puzo. It was his script, his story. He was fresh off his Godfather Oscar when Warner Brothers approached him.

 

[Gregatron]

Don’t leave out Mario Puzo. It was his script, his story. He was fresh off his Godfather Oscar when Warner Brothers approached him.

Right. And it was Tom Mankiewicz's uncredited rewrite that elevated the script above the camp of the Newman drafts.

 

[asalaw]

Right. And it was Tom Mankiewicz's uncredited rewrite that elevated the script above the camp of the Newman drafts.

Good grief, I forgot all about that.

 

[Ron]

I am so grateful to have been able to grow up with Reeve's Superman and Keaton's Batman. It breaks my heart that kids today don't have either of those superheroes anymore in a form even close to their original inceptions.

I haven't read any new comic made in the past 10 years and very few in the 10 years prior to that. I do occasionally watch youtubers review newer comics just out of curiosity. One review happened to be of a recent Spider-Man comic. Basically the gist of it was that Mary Jane and Peter got divorced and she hooked up with some idiot and had kids with him but one of the kids might be Peter's or something, I don't know. But, the comic basically centered around relationship drama and I'm thinking to myself, "What the hell happened to comic books?!" What kid out there is reading this crap? I know comic books for a while now have been made for adult sized children but geeez this is terrible. I guess that's what happens when your industry gets hijacked by beta males and feminazis.

 

[Cephus]

I am so grateful to have been able to grow up with Reeve's Superman and Keaton's Batman. It breaks my heart that kids today don't have either of those superheroes anymore in a form even close to their original inceptions.

I haven't read any new comic made in the past 10 years and very few in the 10 years prior to that. I do occasionally watch youtubers review newer comics just out of curiosity. One review happened to be of a recent Spider-Man comic. Basically the gist of it was that Mary Jane and Peter got divorced and she hooked up with some idiot and had kids with him but one of the kids might be Peter's or something, I don't know. But, the comic basically centered around relationship drama and I'm thinking to myself, "What the hell happened to comic books?!" What kid out there is reading this crap? I know comic books for a while now have been made for adult sized children but geeez this is terrible. I guess that's what happens when your industry gets hijacked by beta males and feminazis.

None, that's why the comic industry is in such dire straits. Even the most successful comics these days are selling well-below cancellation numbers from a couple of decades ago.

 

[Gregatron]

I am so grateful to have been able to grow up with Reeve's Superman and Keaton's Batman. It breaks my heart that kids today don't have either of those superheroes anymore in a form even close to their original inceptions.

I haven't read any new comic made in the past 10 years and very few in the 10 years prior to that. I do occasionally watch youtubers review newer comics just out of curiosity. One review happened to be of a recent Spider-Man comic. Basically the gist of it was that Mary Jane and Peter got divorced and she hooked up with some idiot and had kids with him but one of the kids might be Peter's or something, I don't know. But, the comic basically centered around relationship drama and I'm thinking to myself, "What the hell happened to comic books?!" What kid out there is reading this crap? I know comic books for a while now have been made for adult sized children but geeez this is terrible. I guess that's what happens when your industry gets hijacked by beta males and feminazis.

This is something that RJ from The Fourth Age has commented on: Storytelling has gradually shifted from plot-driven to character-driven, and that's not necessarily a good thing, more often than not.

 

[Cephus]

This is something that RJ from The Fourth Age has commented on: Storytelling has gradually shifted from plot-driven to character-driven, and that's not necessarily a good thing, more often than not.

You can do good character-driven stories but mostly, it isn't about telling a story, it's about pushing a narrative. They want the audience to think the way they're told. Hollywood doesn't trust the audience to be able to come to conclusions on their own. It's too dangerous that way. They need to indoctrinate people.

 

[Gregatron]

You can do good character-driven stories but mostly, it isn't about telling a story, it's about pushing a narrative. They want the audience to think the way they're told. Hollywood doesn't trust the audience to be able to come to conclusions on their own. It's too dangerous that way. They need to indoctrinate people.

Mind you, RJ refers to “character-driven” in the sense that it’s all about the characters and their feelings. The “CW show where people talk in hallways” schtick. Call them “self-absorbed character stories” or whatever.

 

[Gregatron]

None, that's why the comic industry is in such dire straits. Even the most successful comics these days are selling well-below cancellation numbers from a couple of decades ago.

There are many reasons for the downfall of the comic industry, and they’ve been on the horizon for decades. First and foremost would be the direct sales market, which sucked the products out of traditional, mass-market venues (drugstores, supermarkets, etc.) and turned them into a niche product sold in specialty shops. The corporate mergers and buyouts of the 80s, 90s and 00s was another step, since these small publishers became victims of their own success, and run by corporations who didn’t really understand the medium.

The speculator boom of the 90s was also a key factor, with the publishers greedily playing into it with one stunt and gimmick after another, and then the bottom fell out. Content is another factor, with stories no longer being all-ages friendly, and so complex that they appeal only the most hardcore fans (or people with scorecards). Reboots and relaunchings and retcons, oh, my!

The Disney buyout of Marvel and the past decade-plus of woke ideology (which began early on during the Disney era by race- and gender-swapping most of the core characters) and attacking the fans has really only just accelerated what was already happening. As I’ve noted, the movies are quickly making the same mistakes as the comics, in less time, and with more money. Race- and gender-swapping characters, storylines that are too complex/require watching all of the movies and shows to follow, oversaturation, etc.

 

[asalaw]

Mind you, RJ refers to “character-driven” in the sense that it’s all about the characters and their feelings. The “CW show where people talk in hallways” schtick. Call them “self-absorbed character stories” or whatever.

Sounds fascinating. I’ve never been a comics guy, but I just subscribed to RJ’s YT channel. I’ll start on some of his videos soon.

Character driven fiction can be great stuff—you can watch anything by Julian Fellowes, for instance, and it’s all character-focused, and it’s phenomenal. Downton Abbey (the series and both films) and The Gilded Age are gripping character stories. Downton Abbey: A New Age in particular is a beautifully written film about endings and new beginnings, in life and in art.

The CW crap about people talking in hallways—the now-defunct Batwoman comes to mind—is a different breed altogether, and decidedly inferior.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, stories about spiritual matters (like Bladerunner) are profoundly character-focused. But they’re also fully integrated works of fiction, intertwining character, plot, and theme into a cohesive, seamless whole (Bladerunner again). That, I think, is the best way to do fiction: not plot-driven or character-driven or theme-driven, but all three woven together like a strand of DNA, none able to stand on its own without the others. Not to beat a dead horse, but The Godfather (both the novel and the film) does this masterfully.

 

[asalaw]

As I’ve noted, the movies are quickly making the same mistakes as the comics, in less time, and with more money. Race- and gender-swapping characters, storylines that are too complex/require watching all of the movies and shows to follow, oversaturation, etc.

In defense of swapping, it can be done well, and has been at least once: Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica reboot. I was a fan of the original as a young teen. But let’s face it, that show just wasn’t very good. It was mainly Universal hoping to suck down some of that sweet, sweet 20th Century Fox Star Wars cash. I can’t think of any episode that I would describe as particularly good, let alone Star Trek TOS-level good.

But the reboot was another thing entirely. RM swapped Starbuck to make things interesting, I think, not out of any desire to be “woke” (which wasn’t even a thing at the time). She turned out to be an amazing character. The relationships on the show added to the drama without making it into a soap opera. How much more interesting was Starbuck’s having passed Zack through pilot training—thus being responsible for his death—than the original show’s just blasting him out of the sky in the first 20 minutes?

Baltar became a fully realized, relatable antagonist as opposed to the one-dimensional mustache-twirler played by John Colicos (enjoyable though he was). Adama became a tragic figure, defined, as so many leaders are, by his burdens. And so on.

In short, it was the polar opposite of what we see today with Kurtzman and his ilk: the reimagining of a mediocre series as a compelling dramatic adventure.

Having said that, the fact that Moore did it well doesn’t mean anyone else has (they haven’t), or even that they can. That takes skill, talent, and creative judgment, all of which the Kurtzman Klub lack in spades.

 

[Gregatron]

Sounds fascinating. I’ve never been a comics guy, but I just subscribed to RJ’s YT channel. I’ll start on some of his videos soon.

Character driven fiction can be great stuff—you can watch anything by Julian Fellowes, for instance, and it’s all character-focused, and it’s phenomenal. Downton Abbey (the series and both films) and The Gilded Age are gripping character stories. Downton Abbey: A New Age in particular is a beautifully written film about endings and new beginnings, in life and in art.

The CW crap about people talking in hallways—the now-defunct Batwoman comes to mind—is a different breed altogether, and decidedly inferior.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, stories about spiritual matters (like Bladerunner) are profoundly character-focused. But they’re also fully integrated works of fiction, intertwining character, plot, and theme into a cohesive, seamless whole (Bladerunner again). That, I think, is the best way to do fiction: not plot-driven or character-driven or theme-driven, but all three woven together like a strand of DNA, none able to stand on its own without the others. Not to beat a dead horse, but The Godfather (both the novel and the film) does this masterfully.

You don’t to be a comics fan to enjoy The Fourth Age. RJ is a political science major and is well-versed in classic literature and mythology. Again and again, he has explored the basic concept of “hero”, and goes into great detail about how wrong modern comics (and, to a lesser extent, franchises like STAR TREK and STAR WARS) are getting things.

 

[asalaw]

You don’t to be a comics fan to enjoy The Fourth Age. RJ is a political science major and is well-versed in classic literature and mythology. Again and again, he has explored the basic concept of “hero”, and goes into great detail about how wrong modern comics (and, to as lesser extent, franchises like STAR TREK and STAR WARS) are getting things.

Well dayum—poli-sci was my undergrad degree too, minor in American History. So that’s what you can do with that degree besides law school!

Can’t wait to dig in!

 

[Gregatron]

In defense of swapping, it can be done well, and has been at least once: Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica reboot. I was a fan of the original as a young teen. But let’s face it, that show just wasn’t very good. It was mainly Universal hoping to suck down some of that sweet, sweet 20th Century Fox Star Wars cash. I can’t think of any episode that I would describe as particularly good, let alone Star Trek TOS-level good.

But the reboot was another thing entirely. RM swapped Starbuck to make things interesting, I think, not out of any desire to be “woke” (which wasn’t even a thing at the time). She turned out to be an amazing character. The relationships on the show added to the drama without making it into a soap opera. How much more interesting was Starbuck’s having passed Zack through pilot training—thus being responsible for his death—than the original show’s just blasting him out of the sky in the first 20 minutes?

Baltar became a fully realized, relatable antagonist as opposed to the one-dimensional mustache-twirler played by John Colicos (enjoyable though he was). Adama became a tragic figure, defined, as so many leaders are, by his burdens. And so on.

In short, it was the polar opposite of what we see today with Kurtzman and his ilk: the reimagining of a mediocre series as a compelling dramatic adventure.

Having said that, the fact that Moore did it well doesn’t mean anyone else has (they haven’t), or even that they can. That takes skill, talent, and creative judgment, all of which the Kurtzman Klub lack in spades.

Yes, modern BSG was a massive success, although I’ve only seen the original, and I get why it’s a cult favorite. Lots of potential which wasn’t realized, and some very neat ideas.

Itchy Bacca, who has disappeared from the culture war, was not a fan of the BSG reboot, and actually dubbed it the “Patient Zero” of where we’re at now, in terms of franchise reboots. He cited many of the developments from his “Phases of a Geeker Gate “ guide as having first occurred in BSG fandom when the reboot began.

THE PHASES OF A GEEKER GATE

1. SJW CRITICISM – The IP is criticized by SJWs for being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and a smattering of other things.

2. IP IS ABOUT TO UNDERGO REBOOT – or reimagining, or remake, or whatever term is fashionable at the time.

3. THE BARNACLING – SJWs barnacle themselves to the IP both within its production and without in the fan base, and start lecturing long time fans.

4. FAN CRITICISM – Long time fans of the IP voice legitimate criticism of the new direction.

5. SJW RESPONSE TO FAN CRITICISM – A large fan backlash is created when SJWs both within and without the production falsely accuse critics of being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic etc.

6. DISMISSING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces declaring the backlash doesn’t exist.

7. IGNORING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces instructing others to ignore the “tiny vocal minority.”

8. SUPPRESSING THE BACKLASH – Blogs and websites delete or otherwise “redact” critical comments and posts in discussion forums under the aegis of “hate speech.”

9. BACKLASH INTENSIFIES – As an inevitable side effect of suppression, backlashers seek out other venues to express their criticism, and some publish their own, growing the backlash exponentially.

10. HATE HOAXES & FALSE FLAGS – The rank and file SJW activists get heavily involved in shouting down critics, and creating false flags and hate hoaxes in an effort to discredit critics.

11. IP FAILURES – The IP starts to falter as fans drift away and sales plummet.

12. THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS – A female member of the production (it could also be a gay man) is granted victim status over a fishy event in order to deflect from the failures of the IP, and shame critics into silence.

13. DESPERATE PLEAS FOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT – “White Knights” in the media call for creative authorities to smack down the backlash and restore control of the narrative in response to The Damsel In Distress event. Media publishes multiple articles with the same talking points and buzzwords such as “toxic” in an effort to mischaracterize the fan base. Major news outlets report on the story, and quote these “think” pieces as authoritative.

14. ANSWERING THE CALL – Celebrities and creative cast & crew answer the media’s call, and make public statements admonishing critical fans, typically over false accusations.

15. THE FINAL PUSH – Media entities, and rank and file SJWs tell long time fans to go find something else if they don’t like it anymore, in a last ditch effort to push critics out of the “community” once and for all.

16. IP BLEEDING – The IP continues to hemorrhage money, as long time fans continue to abandon the IP in droves.

17. FANBASE OBLITERATION – The fanbase is utterly destroyed, leaving behind only the small handful of SJWs who don’t make any purchases.

18. THE END – The new incarnation of the IP comes to an end. Since the majority of the fan base has abandoned it, there’s no more controversy or discussion about it. It’s over. The best case scenario is that the original IP is largely forgotten with the exception of a few die-hards who still carry the torch. The worst case scenario is that the new incarnation of the IP overwrites the original IP, and the original IP is forgotten altogether and overshadowed by the new incarnation in all future media mentions.

19. MIGRATION – The remaining SJWs jump ship to devour a new IP that is popular, and undergoing a transitional phase.

20. REBIRTH – The process begins anew.


STAR WARS is currently somewhere around # 16, and STAR TREK # 17, I think.


Anyway, I have no dog in the race, since I haven’t seen the BSG reboot.

 

[asalaw]

Yes, modern BSG was a massive success, although I’ve only seen the original, and I get why it’s a cult favorite. Lots of potential which wasn’t realized, and some very neat ideas.

Itchy Bacca, who has disappeared from the culture war, was not a fan of the BSG reboot, and actually dubbed it the “Patient Zero” of where we’re at now, in terms of franchise reboots. He cited many of the developments from his “Phases of a Geeker Gate “ guide as having first occurred in BSG fandom when the reboot began.

THE PHASES OF A GEEKER GATE

1. SJW CRITICISM – The IP is criticized by SJWs for being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and a smattering of other things.

2. IP IS ABOUT TO UNDERGO REBOOT – or reimagining, or remake, or whatever term is fashionable at the time.

3. THE BARNACLING – SJWs barnacle themselves to the IP both within its production and without in the fan base, and start lecturing long time fans.

4. FAN CRITICISM – Long time fans of the IP voice legitimate criticism of the new direction.

5. SJW RESPONSE TO FAN CRITICISM – A large fan backlash is created when SJWs both within and without the production falsely accuse critics of being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic etc.

6. DISMISSING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces declaring the backlash doesn’t exist.

7. IGNORING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces instructing others to ignore the “tiny vocal minority.”

8. SUPPRESSING THE BACKLASH – Blogs and websites delete or otherwise “redact” critical comments and posts in discussion forums under the aegis of “hate speech.”

9. BACKLASH INTENSIFIES – As an inevitable side effect of suppression, backlashers seek out other venues to express their criticism, and some publish their own, growing the backlash exponentially.

10. HATE HOAXES & FALSE FLAGS – The rank and file SJW activists get heavily involved in shouting down critics, and creating false flags and hate hoaxes in an effort to discredit critics.

11. IP FAILURES – The IP starts to falter as fans drift away and sales plummet.

12. THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS – A female member of the production (it could also be a gay man) is granted victim status over a fishy event in order to deflect from the failures of the IP, and shame critics into silence.

13. DESPERATE PLEAS FOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT – “White Knights” in the media call for creative authorities to smack down the backlash and restore control of the narrative in response to The Damsel In Distress event. Media publishes multiple articles with the same talking points and buzzwords such as “toxic” in an effort to mischaracterize the fan base. Major news outlets report on the story, and quote these “think” pieces as authoritative.

14. ANSWERING THE CALL – Celebrities and creative cast & crew answer the media’s call, and make public statements admonishing critical fans, typically over false accusations.

15. THE FINAL PUSH – Media entities, and rank and file SJWs tell long time fans to go find something else if they don’t like it anymore, in a last ditch effort to push critics out of the “community” once and for all.

16. IP BLEEDING – The IP continues to hemorrhage money, as long time fans continue to abandon the IP in droves.

17. FANBASE OBLITERATION – The fanbase is utterly destroyed, leaving behind only the small handful of SJWs who don’t make any purchases.

18. THE END – The new incarnation of the IP comes to an end. Since the majority of the fan base has abandoned it, there’s no more controversy or discussion about it. It’s over. The best case scenario is that the original IP is largely forgotten with the exception of a few die-hards who still carry the torch. The worst case scenario is that the new incarnation of the IP overwrites the original IP, and the original IP is forgotten altogether and overshadowed by the new incarnation in all future media mentions.

19. MIGRATION – The remaining SJWs jump ship to devour a new IP that is popular, and undergoing a transitional phase.

20. REBIRTH – The process begins anew.


STAR WARS is currently somewhere around # 16, and STAR TREK # 17, I think.


Anyway, I have no dog in the race, since I haven’t seen the BSG reboot.

I don’t think any of that applies to BSG. And as a fan of the original myself, I can definitely state the reboot was vastly better than the original. I mean, imagine if all of Trek TOS was like Alternative Factor and Spock’s Brain, and no City on the Edge of Forever, and then TNG came along. It was more like that.

Not sure where you could argue there was any SJW influence in BSG. Starbuck was no “girl power” gender swap. Where male Starbuck was a lovable rogue who slept around, female Starbuck slept around because she was in deep pain. She was the same hotshot pilot, the same gambler, the same drinker, but she had real depth. And she paid a heavy price in the end.

SW and Trek, yeah—16 and 17, I agree. The M-SHE-U also seems to be at 16. Heck, DISNEY is at 16!

 

[Gregatron]

I don’t think any of that applies to BSG. And as a fan of the original myself, I can definitely state the reboot was vastly better than the original. I mean, imagine if all of Trek TOS was like Alternative Factor and Spock’s Brain, and no City on the Edge of Forever, and then TNG came along. It was more like that.

Not sure where you could argue there was any SJW influence in BSG. Starbuck was no “girl power” gender swap. Where male Starbuck was a lovable rogue who slept around, female Starbuck slept around because she was in deep pain. She was the same hotshot pilot, the same gambler, the same drinker, but she had real depth. And she paid a heavy price in the end.

SW and Trek, yeah—16 and 17, I agree. The M-SHE-U also seems to be at 16. Heck, DISNEY is at 16!

Again, I’ve no dog in the race. Itchy’s dissenting voice is one of the few I’ve heard regarding the reboot. I do remember reading in the late 90s about Richard Hatch’s attempts to put together a legitimate continuation of the original show, which sounded really interesting, even though I’d not even watched the show at that time.


And, just to try and steer back on-topic, I do think it’s somewhat unique that STAR TREK went for 40-plus years without a reboot, when it could have gone down that road so easily. TNG was less of a true reboot than a sequel which updated certain elements, and the later spin-offs followed from that. STAR TREK canon was a reasonably-coherent thing which spanned multiple shows and movies over decades, and It wasn’t until 2009 that we got the inevitable reboot. So many older shows and movies were getting their obligatory reboots in the 90s, after all, from LOST IN SPACE to THE AVENGERS to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE.

But STAR TREK had become such a cultural icon that rebooting that show and those characters seemed unthinkable, at least until the franchise ran out of steam when ENTERPRISE was cancelled. This is when the “business” part of show business took charge, rather than the “show”.

Of course, now, enough time has passed that both the kids and the people and charge don’t give a **** about the old stuff or its considerable impact on culture. Once, remaking TOS would have been unthinkable. Now, we’ve had not one, but TWO distinctive, cash-grab reboots within the past decade-plus. Not quite at the level of having three distinct versions of Spider-Man within a ten-year span, but we’re getting there.

Remember when the reboot cycle for franchises and characters was 20-30 years, as with the leap from the 60s TV Batman to the first Burton movie? Or THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN to the 1978 film? Now, that cycle just gets shorter and shorter, out of pure greed. I think Batman may soon take the top prize, what with Affleck, Pattinson, and Keaton’s iterations all being on the big screen (almost) within the same year.



…have we become buddies, asalaw? I suppose it makes sense, given that I also have a bit of a legal background. Like minds, eh?

It’s been so refreshing (and therapeutic) having intelligent, adult discussions about this stuff with you, along with the others here. After I dropped out of most online forums, two or so years back, I haven’t had much of an outlet for my thoughts (and my rage) over this Franchise Apocalypse we’re living though. My civilian friends just aren’t in the know, and I have to keep things simple whenever I talk about it with them.

 

[pengbuzz]

Again, I’ve no dog in the race. Itchy’s dissenting voice is one of the few I’ve heard regarding the reboot. I do remember reading in the late 90s about Richard Hatch’s attempts to put together a legitimate continuation of the original show, which sounded really interesting, even though I’d not even watched the show at that time.

I recall seeing the concept vid for that on Youtube; I wish we could have seen what he would have done with it.

And, just to try and steer back on-topic, I do think it’s somewhat unique that STAR TREK went for 40-plus years without a reboot, when it could have gone down that road so easily. TNG was less of a true reboot than a sequel which updated certain elements, and the later spin-offs followed from that. STAR TREK canon was a reasonably-coherent thing which spanned multiple shows and movies over decades, and It wasn’t until 2009 that we got the inevitable reboot. So many older shows and movies were getting their obligatory reboots in the 90s, after all, from LOST IN SPACE to THE AVENGERS to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE.

But STAR TREK had become such a cultural icon that rebooting that show and those characters seemed unthinkable, at least until the franchise ran out of steam when ENTERPRISE was cancelled. This is when the “business” part of show business took charge, rather than the “show”.

Yeah; I saw some of those movies, and I didn't really care for them. I also noticed that they would try to draw original actors into them for cameos (The guy who played Don West in the original LiS, for example); it almost seemed like they were trying to gain some sort of legitimacy for their reboots by doing so. JJTrek did this with Spock (Nimoy), and the Star Wars sequel trilogy did this major-league, just to kill them off.

The "woke" crowd seem to want what the past accomplished, but not the people or the work it took to do so. Like their version is and should be the only version (according to them).

Of course, now, enough time has passed that both the kids and the people and charge don’t give a **** about the old stuff or its considerable impact on culture. Once, remaking TOS would have been unthinkable. Now, we’ve had not one, but TWO distinctive, cash-grab reboots within the past decade-plus. Not quite at the level of having three distinct versions of Spider-Man within a ten-year span, but we’re getting there.

Right: it's gotten tot he point now where each wave of "woke" wants their own version for that moment. Even 10 minutes ago is too far back into the past for them, and younger "woke" wants to devour older "woke".

(can't be woke enough for them, I suspect)

Seriously though: they cannot seem to stand history or anything that says there's a world and a time where they and their ideas did not exist, and were not accepted. That seems to fry the SJW's minds for them and inflame them.

Remember when the reboot cycle for franchises and characters was 20-30 years, as with the leap from the 60s TV Batman to the first Burton movie? Or THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN to the 1978 film? Now, that cycle just gets shorter and shorter, out of pure greed. I think Batman may soon take the top prize, what with Affleck, Pattinson, and Keaton’s iterations all being on the big screen (almost) within the same year.

Yeah; it used to take quite some time for a reinvention to seem appropriate. I remember The Legend of the Lone Ranger and the controversy that happened when producer Jack Wrather demanded Clayton Moore no longer wear the mask or sign autographs as the Lone Ranger. While that movie had a whole bunch more problems than just that instance, it served to alienate fans of the original, and helped put a silver bullet (pun intended) into the film's reception:

The Legendary Flop of ‘The Legend of the Lone Ranger’

How an Amarillo oilman stole the mask right off the Lone Ranger’s face, and made one of film’s most infamous failures in the process.

www.texasmonthly.com

…have we become buddies, asalaw? I suppose it makes sense, given that I also have a bit of a legal background. Like minds, eh?

It’s been so refreshing (and therapeutic) having intelligent, adult discussions about this stuff with you, along with the others here. After I dropped out of most online forums, two or so years back, I haven’t had much of an outlet for my thoughts (and my rage) over this Franchise Apocalypse we’re living though. My civilian friends just aren’t in the know, and I have to keep things simple whenever I talk about it with them.

I've been enjoying reading both you and Aslaw's discussion here, and participating when I can! I've picked up quite a bit from it and enjoyed seeing an actual online discussion with meat to it!

On the note of "dropping out": I've had to do that myself, with even more forums falling by the wayside for me recently. It's just become way too toxic out there; a veritable mine field of the easily offended, the belligerent, and caustic boiling over with malice.

 

[Cephus]

I don’t think any of that applies to BSG. And as a fan of the original myself, I can definitely state the reboot was vastly better than the original. I mean, imagine if all of Trek TOS was like Alternative Factor and Spock’s Brain, and no City on the Edge of Forever, and then TNG came along. It was more like that.

I honestly don't agree. Sure, Nu-BSG had some things going for it but it was also the beginning of "dark, dank and disgusting" that has largely taken over Hollywood. Original BSG was campy as all hell but at least the characters were fun and you would have wanted to be around them, unlike nu-BSG, where I started off rooting for the humans, then I switched to the Cylons after it became clear that the humans were horrible, then I just wanted the entire cast to fly into a star and die a horrible, searing death. That almost happened in the end too. If you don't have characters that you can relate to, what's the point?

 

[AJK001]

I don't even know what anyone is talking about and really don't give a damn.

 

[pengbuzz]

I always find it amusing that they’re all about “tolerance” and “diversity” until it comes to tolerating diversity of thought. Then it’s Katie bar the door.

Right: it's "the law of the grand exception". THEY want the exception for themselves!

Thanks! This thread has been pretty good for the most part, though my ignore list does have a new inductee.

It can get pretty toxic. But the ignore list cures many ills. Make a case without being insulting, and I’ll listen. I may disagree, but I’ll listen, and we can have a conversation. But too many people think a bumper sticker is an argument, snark and sarcasm are effective tools of persuasion, and “**** you” is the same as stating your case. Such people are quickly welcomed to the sunny climes of my ignore list, where they can bask in the warm glow of their own egos all they want.

Exactly: this topic saw about 3 folks join my list for those selfsame reasons.

Back then, dark was a fresh take—unlike now, where it’s become the default position and a go-to substitute for creativity. The conflicts on that show were compelling and often turned on characters trying to cling to their own humanity in the face of war and imminent extinction.

Overall, I found it a fascinating show that revolved around the question of what it means to be human, and, once you find out the answer, whether humanity is therefore worth saving. That’s a dark question that only arises from the darkest recesses of the human heart. After all, if we were all paragons of virtue and there were no war, would we ever wonder if humanity was worth the candle?

Using those times to show a test of the human soul is indeed a proper form of storytelling. In war, nothing ever comes out "cut and dried" or "clean". We saw that in several episodes of DS9 (particularly the one where Sisko went along with the assasination of a Romulan senator(?), not sure IIRC).

Bladerunner asks very similar questions and is also a very dark story—and, once you remove Alan Ladd’s awful reshot ending, the entire film takes place in the literal dark. Even at Tyrell Corp., Rachel lowers the shades to keep out the sunlight. And we never see the sun again until Batty breathes his last. I don’t think Scott made that choice just so he could have smoky sets with pretty shafts of light.

Just because “dark” versions of stories have become a crutch for mediocre storytellers doesn’t mean it’s never useful or automatically a bad choice. A storyteller’s choices have to be taken on their own merits and judged by whether they serve the story, and whether that story is worth serving.

Agreed; to "do dark" for the sake of being edgy is a cliche unto itself. But if the subject matter calls for it, then by all means. The tools used in storytelling should never become a justification unto themselves for using them.

Otherwise, to the one holding a dark hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

This is yet another reason ST:ID failed miserably: the whole "darkness" was contrived and pointless. In WoK, it was Khan's desire for revenge and the sheer malice and harm he wreaked that brought a sense of darkness and foreboding. Enterprise was crippled, and they were dealing with an evil warlord who now had a personal axe to grind against Kirk.

ST:ID: Kirk was simply in the way of Khan, and just happened to have his crew in photon torpedo tubes. Khan was a device (and JJ Abrams was a tool).