posted
Can Star Trek be saved? To paraphrase a Vulcan scientist, "It's been dead before."
I just think that perhaps Berman and Braga might need to move on beyond Star Trek and let others come in to take it into new directions. Not because they are evil and such, but rather because they've been at it for a long while. I'm sure that Berman is now feeling that Trek is a creative albatross. He may need a new challange to get his creativity brewing again.
That said, I'm interested in seeing the so-called new direction that the producers/writers will take in the upcoming season of Enterprise, as stated in TV Guide. I think that they should let this season play out with a cliffhanger that makes us want to come back next season.
Here's what they should be thinking about for next season, IMHO:
1. Figure out the direction/theme for season 3. If you're gonna start doing continuing storylines over the course of several episodes, pick a climax and write towards that climax.
2. Along those lines, figure out the direction/climax to the TCW, if that is going to be a continued feature of the series. Then, logically build over the course of the series towards it. It does not have to be plotted out to every minute like Babylon 5. Just some kind of notion of where it is going will enhance the writing, much like knowing the ending to the Smallville saga has given the writers some intereting twists and turns.
3. Show us strange new worlds. Enlist the help of JPL or the Rand Corporation to advise on how to make different worlds with different atmospheres. Enterprise has a budget of nearly 2 million, why not use it and those wonderful effects people to full use. Crusade on it's meesly budget showed us more interesting, varied worlds.
4. Stay true to the century and its people. Berman stated that Enterprise's era would allow us a chance to see characters that were much like ourselves trying to overcome their differences, conflicts and demons. We have, however, seen very little in the terms of that. The characters in Enterprise act like school children of the 24th century with little demons or conflicts. By conflicts, I don't mean just arguing among each other but being in conflict with contridictory beliefs and ideals, with those conflicts coming into contact with other character conflicts. As Faulkner wrote, "the human heart in conflict with itself."
Make these people real, especially Archer. They are too morally upstanding. Too 24th century. Hell, Sisko was a much more interesting, conflicted character. Archer is not. I get no sense of the burden of command and the burden of being one of the first pioneers into deep space. The only person who seems like a person is Tucker, but just barely.
5. The Onion Theory. Drama should be like an onion; peel back one layer and see another one just beneath it. Enterprise sets us up for things and, much like modern Trek, doesn't pay off. Pay off! Give us enough, slowly build layer upon layer and peel those layers off one at a time to keep us coming back week after week.
6. Establish the show's identity and stick with it. Enterprise has no identity of its own. It's a prequel, it's before Kirk, it's before the Federation. Stick with that or establish another one and stick with. Don't borrow anymore from modern Trek, a la Ferangi, the Borg, etc. Create new challanges within the context of the series and don't get to hung up on establishing every little Trek-thing just because it's a prequel. Remember, it's not so much the end as it is the journey. Knowing the eventual outcome, i.e. the Federation, can only inform your stories not hinder it.
7. New Civilizations and Lifeforms. The effects on Enterprise are some of the best on SF television. Use it to its full potential and show us some daring, CGI lifeforms that would blow B5 out of the water. Raise the bar, as B5 did.
As for the B5 v. Trek arguement, as JMS has said in the DVD commentary, why compare(despite the fact that I did, myself, use it as counterpoint for an arguement in my TNG post). Enjoy them for what they are and enjoy what makes them different. One last thing, it has been said by JMS that he was approached by Paramount at one point after B5 to come in and pitch a Trek show /or idea.
While I would also love to see a Star Trek series set in the timeframe between the TOS movies and TNG, I don't think a Sulu series is the prime choice. I think George Takei is a marvelous person and actor, but I don't think he can carry a series as a lead. As an Asian-American, I would love to see an Asian lead to an SF series. Takei, however, is not that man.
That's all.
[ March 01, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Middy Seafort ]
Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Holding up A Canticle for Leibowitz (or Dune for that matter) as a prime example of nuts-and-bolts Campbellian sf seems like a huge, huge mistake of catagorization to me. Huge.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I guess I now know why I didn't like Foundation, Dune, or Blade Runner. I'll have to remember now not to read this A Canticle for Liebowitz. I'd also planned to read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", figuring maybe it was just the movie that ruined it. But maybe not.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Middy Seafort: ala the Ferangi
I'm sorry, but when people do this I see red. Never ever ever say "� la the" again or I will have to hurt you.
The proper way to say it would be � la Ferengi.
Indeed. Noted, I merely was not thinking. Of course, "la" already means "the" and is redundant. I did not carefully edit.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:To paraphrase a Vulcan scientist, "It's been died before."
I think those Vulcans need to take some grammar lessons
Once again, that was due to my lack of carefully re-reading what I had written and editing properly. Then again, it could've been the damn universial translator. Hoshi promised me she'd have it fixed!
Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Sol System: Hmmm, you've lost me. I vaguely recall a high school teacher talking about coming of age stories and that there was some often used forumla to generate them...I might have heard the word Campbell there. I also have a vague recollection of the name in connection with Star Wars. Elaborate, you!
TSN: I'm sorry for you. But yeah, if you didn't like Foundation, its probably agiven you won't like Canticle. Electric Sheep is a good book though, although the vaguely related sequels (via the movie) are to be avoided.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Timelord
Ex-Member
posted
Nim, I would say the reason why many people (old-school fans) thought favorably about a Sulu series initially was because it would allow Takei to finally fully realise the very under-developed character of Sulu. Most fans of TOS and the movies would love the chance to know the characters of Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov in the way thet got to know the characters of TNG, DS9, and Voyager. A lot of us regard the constant focus on Kirk/Spock/McCoy to be the biggest missed opportunity in TOS. Of course, back then, the networks didn't have a lot of faith in the attention span of the average viewer. They didn't think we could handle too many sub-plots.
quote:All this clamor for a Sulu series confuses me. Was I the only one who saw "Flashback"?
It was the STVI Sulu we wanted to see more of, not the Sulu in "Flashback." Yes, it was the same character, but Sulu was only window-dressing in that episode, another gimmick to get the ratings. Consequently, his character wasn't given much consideration. The STVI Sulu was commanding, daring, and a key character, something we hadn't seen before, and we wanted to see more.
quote:While I would also love to see a Star Trek series set in the timeframe between the TOS movies and TNG, I don't think a Sulu series is the prime choice. I think George Takei is a marvelous person and actor, but I don't think he can carry a series as a lead.
Middy, your comments on the new direction of Enterprise are very insightful. I couldn't agree more. I disagree, however, with your opinion that Takei couldn't successfully lead a series. What specifically in your opinion disqualifies him?
Really, I know that a Sulu-based series will never happen and truthfully, Middy is right in pointing out that it probably isn't the best thing for Star Trek right now. A new series should make it on its own and should not need "validation" by cameos, name-dropping, or carbon-copy characters. We've had too much of that for any more to be palatable.
Modern Trek seems to be aimed at Generation Xers and because of this, the original fans are tuning out. Lets give it a rest and then have a new series that brings old and new fans back into the fold.
IP: Logged
posted
Uh, John Campbell, longtime editor of Analog and the father of the sort of techno-gimmick before characters science fiction story you're talking about. (To a certain degree.) You know, the guy who literally charted the course for science fiction as a genre for nearly half a century.
quote: But yeah, if you didn't like Foundation, its probably agiven you won't like Canticle.
I'm having a hard time imagining two books more different than these. I suppose one could make the argument that they share a similar structure (episodic) and a vague resemblance in plot (reclusive order seeks to preserve knowledge after a collapse of civilization), but they are very, very dissimilar.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, I'd been reading this thread and thinking that Campbell was Joseph Campbell (author of The Hero with a Thousand Faces) and hence the style in question was the heroic quest/self discovery one. His theory was that all heroic stories, from ancient myths to today, across all cultures, follow a similar pattern and that this pattern speaks to something deep in the human psyche.
Star Wars and Babylon 5 are both stories in the tradition that Joseph Campbell identified. Lucas and JMS have both stated that they have been influenced by Campbell's writing.
Star Trek is not in this mould - well actually DS9 is, but generally the other's are not. TOS and TNG have moments when they come close (Spock's arc in II - IV; Inner Light; Data's arc prior to the movies s crewing it up), VOY never did and ENT has the potential to go either way.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Identity Crisis: Lucas and JMS have both stated that they have been influenced by Campbell's writing.
Have they ever.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In Lucas's case it's blatantly obvious that he was trying to write a Campbell style hero-myth. It's also obvious that he didn't quite understand it...
JMS has stated that in his opinion it's pointless to try and write a story that deliberatly conforms to the Campbell style hero-myth (a dig at Lucas perhaps?). But if once you've written the story you look at it and can spot the pattern then you know you've written a classic myth. And indeed most of the elements are there in B5 as they are in most hero myths.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If by mould you mean "ordinary (farm?)boy discovers powers, is found to be chosen one, ascends and topples the bad guy or wins the day", which is the same for "The Matrix" and all superhero-movies.
I'd like to add that I think "The Matrix" did a good job at that.
If that's not what you mean, what exactly is the mould you say Campbell has dictated? What are the key ingredients?
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That's more or less the pattern. The hero can be a prince just as much as a farmboy he just has to come from the ordinary world before he starts the quest - and he must return to that world at the end, even if discovers that the world has changed as a result of his quest.
There are a few more details beside. e.g. the wise and learned old man who helps the hero out at the start of his quest but who can not travel the whole way (Obi Wan, Gandalf, Kosh) and the key part of the quest is the journey into the Underworld (Death Star, Moria, Z'ha'dum) and the return with a 'boon' (um, yeah, whatever).
It's the basis for any heroic myth, and the Matrix does fit the pattern quite well.
The difference between this mould and other sorts of story telling can be illustrated by looking at police/detective stories. A lone detective on a "quest" to track down a killer (obviously Dixon Hill type stories; Silence of the Lambs - the 'Underworld' here is of course Lector's mind and the boon is the information needed to catch the killer) fits the Campbell template for a heroic quest. On the other hand 'procedural' type police stories (e.g Law & Order; Homicide; Boomtown) are something different.
DS9 was a classic quest, Voyager was not. Despite the fact that the initial settings would suggest the opposite. If Janeway's character had undergone any sort of development, and if she had had to make any sort of sacrifice to get the crew home then VOY would have fitted the template perfectly.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So...this Babylon 5 show then? This one that Star Trek should be copying? This show that should be the benchmark...this isn't the same show that was constantly in danger of being cancelled, is it?
-------------------- 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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But yeah, if you didn't like Foundation, its probably agiven you won't like Canticle. Electric Sheep is a good book though, although the vaguely related sequels (via the movie) are to be avoided.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
