Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
$$ First Inklings of Trek XI... (potential spoilers)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Siegfried: [QB] [QUOTE][qb]Using the above reasoning, TNG, DS-9, VOY and ENT should have never been made or should have failed. After all, they all at one time were brand new with characters nobody had ever heard of. Yet, did you think their premier episodes sucked?[/qb][/QUOTE]For all the claims you make alleging that you understand my point, you simply don't seem to. There's a huge different between a one-shot movie or TV movie that brings in characters that we'll never see again after two hours and a television series that's going to bring in new characters and develop them over the course of three, four, and seven years (depending on which television series we're talking about). With what you propose, we'll never see a level of character development that goes beyond what gets accomplished in the premiere episodes of each series. [QUOTE][qb]Why should anyone make any movie or TV mini-series for that matter? After all, they are full of characters nobody had ever heard of or developed any kind of relationship with.[/qb][/QUOTE]Most miniseries or movies are either plot-driven or action-orientated. They don't necessarily need to have characters that have a long history for us to understand; must just simply pop in stock characters. However, [i]Star Trek[/i] is a different beast from most of what's out there. [i]Star Trek[/i] includes a lot of character-driven stories, and that's what make [i]Star Trek[/i] so enjoyable. It's not the plot or the action of the Dominion War that was so good about [i]Deep Space Nine[/i], it was watching how the characters changed in response to it. [QUOTE][qb]Is there so little room in the minds/hearts/imaginations of Trek fans that they can't stomache the idea of a movie or TV mini-series without established characters?[/qb][/QUOTE]Cut the characters out of the equations, you're going to be left with shoot-em-ups and let's-do-something-for-the-sake-of-doing-somethings. For me, I don't care about the technology or the action that's in [i]Star Trek[/i]. I love watching the characters, and I love watching them grow and seeing how they react to the challenges that the plots put to them. That's why the fans care so much for the characters. You're not going to get that with characters you're only with for two hours. That's why I'm less than enthused with these particular ideas. [QUOTE][qb]If it's about a war, and it's around the year 160 B.K., doesn't that pretty well mean it's about World War III or something pretty close thereto?[/qb][/QUOTE]The [i]Encylopedia[/i] claims that Kirk was born in 2233. Going by the 160 year figure, we wind up with 2073 for about when the movie will take place. That's about twenty years after the events in [i]First Contact[/i], which were in turn after World War III. So, that doesn't really fit either. [/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