posted
Nevertheless, in my opinion, they should let Trek die. I think the whole thing needs to be put in suspended animation, play the episodes in sindication for another half generation, let the actors go to conventions and let that start the buzz again and in a decade come up with another concept that is new and fresh, not forced out.
:{)
-------------------- All problems in the world can be solved with a small amount of well placed C4 explosive.
Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
The next series should be TOS:SE. They should compleatly restore the old film and then re do the effects shots with accurite models, keeping the basic look and feel, but without stock footage causing the ship to look different in different shots and making the effects more consistant.
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
"Remember how much you liked 'Miri'? Well, now you can watch it again, fully enhanced, with real clouds over not-quite-Earth, correct engine nacelles in every shot, and sexier legs on Yeoman Rand!"
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Curzon Dax: Nevertheless, in my opinion, they should let Trek die. I think the whole thing needs to be put in suspended animation, play the episodes in sindication for another half generation, let the actors go to conventions and let that start the buzz again and in a decade come up with another concept that is new and fresh, not forced out.
:{)
That's what I said before Enterprise started - but I'm glad they didn't.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I still don't understand that with all the talk of letting the TV series/movie franchise "lay fallow" to give some time for the franchise to recover from some of the things that have been done to it lately, why Paramount refuses to make any serious forays into any alternative medium: a TV mini-series, animation, etc.
Everyone seems to agree that the movies are tired and thats why profits and quality are down, but no one seems to recognize that as long as the films and TV might be halted, giving the "Black sheep" of the Trek family (novels, comics and games) the run of the game. Most of the producers seem to range from ambivalence to outright hostility towards the non-canon licensees.. hasn't anyone ever thought about using animation as a springboard for new concepts and viewership?
Trek producers spend a lot of time purposely discrediting the licensed works, saying that the structure of the TV stories doesnt have the expansiveness to utilize ideas and continuity made outside of Paramount, but if they brought the novel editors or some other licensees on board, they could use it as a vehicle to getting some media out there at much lower over-head than a live-action production, and would impress a lot of hard core fans of licensed Trek who are continuously slighted by Paramount Trek's ignorance and seeming hatred of what other companies do with it. Not to mention that animation is a decent way to get younger viewers.. today's 8-18 year olds are tomorrows 18-34 year olds, so they could have their prime demographic filled up within a decade.. (and its not like expecting an 18-34 year old to watch "Enterprise" is entirely complimentary to their intelligence anyway, so its not like it will take extensive "dumbing down" of concepts and stories currently being fielded)
but no one ever asks me...
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
I don't mean to be dismissive. I love me some cartoon shows. But I guess linking that notion to the various derivative works currently in existence trips me up. Like, without going too far down a (fruitless) road of aesthetic theorizing, I'll say that a key feature of tie-in works is that they are wholly constrained by an exterior set of storytelling priorities. Well, OK, so what? What story isn't told within limits that are exterior to the story itself? (The physical framing of the picture, for instance, in TV and film. The rules of a genre. Etc.) But in this case I think those limits are more specific in ways that tend to have adverse creative effects. Or, rather, can sort of. . . well, the more specific your story the smaller your pool of potentially enthusiastic audience members gets.
None of which really has much to do with your point, I don't think, which would seem to be "Why not cull good ideas from the looser frameworks available to extra-televisual sources?" I guess I'm sort of inexplicably skeptical about whether those frameworks are in fact looser, in the sense of what kinds of stories can be tossed around.
On the other hand, I think this describes almost exactly the relationship between Time Warner and its wholly owned subsidiary DC Comics, and the one Marvel would like to have with Hollywood in general, that is, as a content farm where ideas can be incubated before being transferred to a medium that actually, you know, matters. (Take that, comics!) [Marvel, of course, lacks a corporate sugardaddy, though I recall Sony making noises in the past.] [[And one problem with this business model is that, at least lately, while Marvel has had by far the most success at this sort of thing, it has failed to generate any new media icons since the 1970s. I mean, I think the new X-Men - which is to say Storm and Nightcrawler and Wolverine, or in other words the Clairemont Giant-Sized and beyond X-Men - are the most recent Marvel characters that anyone has ever heard of or would care to make an action movie about. Although it appears that Elektra first showed up in Daredevil in 1981, so maybe we should modify that to "that anyone would care to see in an action movie." Contrast this with DC who, not having to worry so much about profitability, have been able to expand into some markets otherwise unplumbed [[[Vertigo]]] yielding a few successs. [[[Sandman, for instance, or, more relevant to my point, though I guess there is a Death movie in the works, Hellblazer, though I doubt Constantine will be a success by most measures, but even a terrible movie will bring in way more cash than the comic probably ever has.]]]]]
Well, that got out of hand quickly.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Curzon Dax: I do not think it means what you think it means.
:{)
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Inconceivable!
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: To sum up: a cartoon show?
I don't mean to be dismissive. I love me some cartoon shows. But I guess...
Well look at it like this: Star Wars has garnered what i perceive to be some success with their "Clone Wars" tie-in -- it was high-end animation, designed carefully to fit in with the milieu of a complicated movie franchise heavy on design elements. Lucas' minions had tried animation before, with "Droids" and "Ewoks," which was unsuccessful except as kiddy-fodder (the same applies to "Star Trek: The Animated Series" -- it was considered to be "dumbed down" for the kids market, and shunned [of course, i was a kid in the 80s so i was fine with both Wars and Trek animation]). But now, with "Clone Wars," I think they succeeded in making a solid addition to their franchise without sacrificing much of their product's attractiveness to make it appropo for all ages viewing -- and it has the added bonus of a few more kids who will now be clamoring to see what has been revealed to be a less G-rated project - Episode III -- and the added bonus of new toys that otherwise wouldnt have cranked out of the old merchandise machine, all for the cost of a few 10 minute shorts, well marketed.
There wasnt a lot of the usual "is this stuff canon" questions because the studio and the franchise were involved, and tried to incorporate small plot elements from the movie, while Star Trek tend to farm out their franchise for cheap knock-offs in novels, games and books -- essentially saying "Yes, its nice, but it doesnt have much to do with the next series/movie, because of continuity, you know" -- where if the studio simply exercised some forethought in the products these licensees were promoting, they could use it to promote themselves too rather than whining about the franchise really having no new direction -- essentially putting a film debacle or series pitch on the back burner while the franchise churned a little to gear up for the next big live-action idea.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic