fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3829 ]

[ SECRET POST #3829 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3829 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #548.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not hype for it because I just don't connect to the "old Trek is too cerebral, fuck it" style of nu!Trek, and it really seems to be trying to fit in with that. At least going by trailers. I'd be happy for it to prove me wrong.

I think it's much less about being cerebral, and much more about the way that TV is made

I think on a fundamental level, most classic Trek was made at a time when the basic model for TV was theater - TV episodes basically worked like teleplays. And that carried with it a bunch of assumptions about style and pace. And so, basically, you did have a bunch of scenes where a bunch of actors would basically stand around and declaim lines and stuff. Whereas in the past 20 years, TV has basically totally shifted to where most TV is basically modeled on cinema, and most TV episodes are basically short movies, and that has a much different style with a much different pace and cinematography and just a whole different thing. Even if they were going to make an incredibly cerebral Star Trek series it would look nothing like the classic Trek. No one makes TV series like TNG anymore. No one. They just don't exist.

AYRT

I know, and it makes me show my age that I'm so adverse to it. That's on me for sure. But my concern about it being nu!Trek style "non-cerebral" is because of JJ Abrams actually saying that old Trek was too cerebral and boring, and it came off as an extreme anti-intellectual bias, which... upset me, admittedly. Star Trek is the reason I majored in Astrophysics; it is intellectual for me, and I'm certainly not saying that there's anything wrong with focusing more intently on being entertaining, but to strip the intellectualism out of Star Trek just... seems to miss the point. I don't know. Maybe I'm just a crabby old lady, after all.

I agree that Abrams was dumb for saying that, but I feel like that statement mostly applies to the Abrams-y Star Trek projects, which is mostly ST09 and STID.

Like, is he even involved with STD?

AYRT

Not to my knowledge, no. My fear is mostly that STD will try to fit into that mold. I really am happy to be proven wrong! I don't know if that came off as sarcastic or not in my original comment. I want this to be good, I want a Trek I can get behind again. I just have concerns, going by the trailers. But then, trailers are notoriously misleading.

This. No he is not. And STD is set in the original universe, not the nu!Trek universe.

Aah, I think I might have been misunderstood. I don't think it's going to be actually part of the nu!Trek universe or anything, I just worry that it's going to try to mimic its style.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-28 23:53 (UTC) - Expand

That shit is so virally misquoted. He was talking about how he felt watching the series when he couldn't connect with it as a kid. He went on to say after Jon Stewart's interruption that he has since watched all of TOS and would say it's one of his favorite shows.

"averse".

That Abrams shit is definitively NOT Trek and it should have been burned while the film was still in the camera.

It's at least as much Trek as Generations or Nemesis are.

Making bad Star Trek action movies is actually an extremely Star Trek thing to do.

And his version of Star Trek sucked shit so what does he know.

I've assumed there are still BAD examples of that kind of TV, but then, I don't remember the last time I watched a new episode of a procedural TV series so I guess I wouldn't know.

Rewatching TNG last year made me rethink whether I really prefer the cinematic style over more self-contained narratives, because arguably if CSI was written as well as some of the best Star Trek I could get into it. I would say both formats have their own challenges but I think we're reaching a tipping point where the notion of making a TV season more like an extended movie is really critically misleading. I love a show to take its time when it's deserved, but I think we're mistaking cinematic for substantial and forgetting that writing a series is its own dying art, I guess.

Yeah, I agree. I think that's one of the things that makes me fundamentally eh about nu!Trek.
Also, I saw in interviews that they were like "the first show to break one of Roddenberry's cardinal rules for the Star Trek universe!"
Why the fuck is this something to be proud of? If you can't tell a story based on the universe rules laid down by the creator, why tell a Star Trek story at all? Just make a show about a spaceship, yeesh.

I would push back a little on how closely Star Trek needs to be tied to Gene's vision, partly because DS9 was very good, and partly because the first season of TNG that Gene was involved in was so bad (although obviously it was near the end of the man's life).

Hm. It may be the tone of the interviews, for one, but also the fact that it's supposedly pre-TOS. I'd be more okay with something a little more out-there, perhaps, post-DS9, because like you say, it changed things and it was good.
I really wish they'd stop rehashing pre-TOS, tbh.

I really wish they'd stop rehashing pre-TOS, tbh.

100% agree.

It feels like people get the idea in their heads that they need to bring back the ~feeling~ of Star Trek as a cultural phenomenon in the late 1960s, when in fact that is a minuscule fraction of actually existing Star Trek.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-28 23:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-29 00:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ketita - 2017-06-29 00:42 (UTC) - Expand

I really wish they'd stop rehashing pre-TOS, tbh.

I totally agree. I lost about half my excitement when I found out it was another pre-TOS show, Why?

(no subject)

ketita - 2017-06-29 00:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-29 01:03 (UTC) - Expand

Check out Treklit. There's been amazing stuff going on since the end of DS9; I'm entirely serious when I say the best of the post-DS9 books is leaps and bounds ahead of the best of any Trek to have ever been on screen to me.

Start with the Avatar duology and go from there, I'd say. Or if you want to jump into more recent stuff, go for the Destiny trilogy.

(no subject)

ketita - 2017-06-29 00:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

idran - 2017-06-29 15:35 (UTC) - Expand

For me, it being pre-TOS is what makes me wanna just nope out entirely. And it's due to the fact that the TECH just looks so...new and such.

I mean, we're supposed to believe that tech suddenly becomes so...simple and slightly more outdated like what we saw in TOS? It breaks my suspension of disbelief.

(no subject)

ketita - 2017-06-29 02:46 (UTC) - Expand

I don't think they've been true to Gene's original vision since the day he walked away, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. (And on the subject of how Star Trek has changed with the changes, I say that as someone who slightly resents DS9's popularity on the basis of people talking like there was anything wrong with the older Treks not having darker, more epic arching plots.)

DS9 (aka The BEST Trek Series) still followed the fundamentals set by Gene's vision.

First of all, don't get me wrong, I love DS9 to death. And I agree that on a fundamental level, it still shares the basic progressive optimistic humanistic worldview of Star Trek. But it also does depart in a lot of ways from Gene's vision. Partly in having a darker tone and a more pessimistic portrayal of the Federation and the moral enlightenment of Star Trek-era humanity, and then also in things like the emphasis that it places on religion and stuff like that. I don't think there's anything wrong with those changes, but I really don't think Gene would have liked them. And that's fine.

The rule they're getting rid of is Roddenberry's Box; a rule that said that, despite differences among the crew, they will always work them out. I think this show is going to focus more on discourse between crew members. Otherwise, why would one of the writers even bring that up?

...and that's never been done before in Star Trek?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only