[ SECRET POST #3829 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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?

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[philstar22]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

Specifically, I think it takes place 10 years before the start of TOS.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

"averse".

[virtual_lips]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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

[ninety6tears]

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.