Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Enterprise is UNORIGINAL
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timelord: [QB] Ultimately, there is no such thing as [i]canon[/i]. Canon is whatever the writers and producers say it is. All the various manuals, encylopedias, and chronologies can be rendered obsolete whenever a writer and/or producer refuses to be hindered by them. Many Star Trek fans enjoy the detailed "history" that has been created because it's fun to read and it creates the illusion of reality. But there has been so much "history" published about the Star Trek universe that no writer could possibly consult all the references and avoid contradictions. I'm sure there is a Star Trek writer's bible out there, but it is probably a rather short list of do's and don'ts. While canon can be debated, continuity is pretty straightforward. To maintain continuity, a writer must not directly contradict what has happened before (or will happen later). I agree with [b]Bear[/b] on his point about the Klingon. We all know that budget restrictions were the primary reasons for the appearance of the Klingons in TOS, but wouldn't it have been clever (and CREATIVE) for the writers to have a TOS Klingon and then explain in later episodes the [i]reason[/i] for the difference? Of course, the opportunity to do this was destroyed in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribbilations." They really dropped the ball by portraying Kang, Koloth, and Kor as "modern" Klingons. This would have been the [i]perfect[/i] opportunity to explain the Klingon thing, but they chose instead to throw it all away on Worfs glib reply, "it's a long story." Ironically, I really enjoyed this episode as a light-hearted celebration of the Star Trek anniversary, but this example of laziness on the part of the writers and producers was a major disappointment. Of course, if they hadn't used the gimmick of bringing back the famous TOS Klingons in the first place, the episode would have worked just as well and not had any continuity problems at all. I think that overall, the writers have done very well maintaining continuity through all the series. However, the Klingon thing is such a major loose end, I really can't understand why they have refused to address it head on. I always thought there could be two species of Klingons, one generally smaller without all the bumps, and the other larger and more agressive. Perhaps the smaller brainy Klingons were in power early on and were overthrown, or maybe they coexisted for awhile until they were discommoded or exiled as the result of a racial/ethnic purge. Now [b]that[/b] would have created an interesting dynamic to explore. The Klingons would have a dark episode in their history to deal with and the exiled Klingons would be refugees attempting to find a new homeworld and trying to regain their honor and standing in the galaxy. Regarding originality, while I understand there will be familiar technology and terminology, I think the new series should have taken a few more risks and not relied quite so heavily on what has already been seen. Some people like the NX-01. I agree, it's a cool design. But I can't understand why the producers didn't look at the original drawing and say, "Wow, that looks a lot like the Akira. Cool design, but let's do something [i]different[/i]." Was it really necessary to have transporters in this series? The transporters mainly served as a device in TOS to provide a quick, cheap way to get crew down to a planet without using shuttles (and having to create the various models and film them). Why not show what it was like [i]before[/i] transporters could be safely used by living beings? And if you're gonna use them, why show the transporter working faster and better than those of the 24th century?! Come on! Why, if this is Earth's first starship, are there any aliens in the crew at all? Here is another chance they missed to do something really different. It would have been really interesting to see an all-human crew explore strange new worlds for the first time by themselves. They would have a wealth of fears and prejudices to overcome. Good drama there. Everyone in the 24th century is so perfect, so self-actualized. No one identifies with these characters! You can't identify with Picard who reads Shakespeare, is and excellent swordsman, and whose family are vintners. But you can identify with Worf when he refuses to give blood to save a dying Romulan. There was a comment made earlier yesterday that I have to disagree with: [QUOTE]Our 'original' poster has made the fatal error of assuming that TOS was 'original' in the first place. It wasn't. What it was was SUCCESSFUL, much as Shakespeare's adaptations of Play that were NOT his, originally, were successful, despite not being that new. Don't you remember the oft-stated original concept for TOS? "'WAGON TRAIN' to the Stars!" Is THAT original, basing a show concept on another show? [/QUOTE] I suppose we can argue the meaning of the word "original", but I think Star Trek was at the time the most original and daring show on television. Roddenberry defied the network censors who called for the removal of the "demonic" Spock character and in doing so ensured the success of Star Trek. It was Leonard Nimoy's Spock who helped us explore what is means to be human. Time after time, social-commentary episodes got by the censors. They never looked too closely because it was science-fiction, and nobody did serious sci-fi stuff. You will remember, it was Star Trek that produced the first interracial kiss on TV. I call this original. Roddenberry never intended Star Trek to be a "Wagon Train to the Stars." This was only how he [i]sold[/i] the show to the network. They rejected his first pilot because it was "too cerebral" and not what he promised. I don't hate the new series. I just think they missed the chance to really renew the wonder and excitement Trek used to have. To me, the shameless "borrowing" of the Enterprise name, the ship design, the transporter, and everything else seems more like a gimmick to get people to watch and to stamp out another spin-off than an effort to produce something really worthwhile. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3