The Official SciFi Thread

[Centauri]

This board is overrun by nerds. And yet there isn't one good, continuous SciFi thread on the entire board.

So I figure it's about time somebody made one.

My idea for this thread is intertwined SciFi discussion. And I figure it'll work since no discussion of any SciFi franchise seems to be able to make it past a few posts without becoming about another.

To get us started;

Why did Star Trek die?

I, personally, lay the blame solely at the feet of Rick Berman.

Gene Roddenberry essentially handed him the reigns to the franchise. And after doing so, it seems as though Berman set about on some clandestine mission to keep the entire franchise within a very restrictive set of 'moral boundaries' set by Roddenberry. A few problems with that though;

1) Roddenberry was as much of a studio whore as George Lucas is. But Roddenberry's death allows him to escape the same type of criticisms. Any 'moral intention' that Roddenberry had for Star Trek's portrayal of the universe was revisionist. I admire it, but it's revisionist nevertheless.

2) By the time Berman had full control over the franchise, it had already become clear that fans were craving something more real from Star Trek's portrayal of existence. Something darker. Something more human.

And rather than go with this to further the franchise, Berman attempted to put brakes on anything he didn't think Roddenberry would like. Deep Space Nine would have never gone the direction it went or became as good of a show as it did had Ira Behr listened to Berman.

3) Enterprise - This was Bermans first opportunity to put what he wanted on screen. Not what the fans wanted. But what he wanted. And it was an absolute failure.

Not only was the franchise already dying when Enterprise debuted, but the entire idea of a prequel wasn't going to appeal to ANYBODY. And it certainly wouldn't have any sort of pull on newcomers to the franchise, since a prequel is arguably even more confusing than a linear story for a franchise n00b.

Anyways, Berman killed it. And I figured Trek would hibernate for a while, and make a comeback sometime in the next few years one way or another. But I was almost positive that Enterprise's prequel failure would ensure a return to TNG-era story telling.

Wrong.

Sure, the reigns have changed hands. But I'm afraid that the next Trek flick will be plagued by the same problems that brought Enterprise down.

Thoughts?

(Babylon 5 rocks too, BTW)

[cheez avenger]

I think you gotta change the name of your thread to the "Star Trek" thread.

[Centauri]

Don't worry.

As I said, I'm sure Stargate, Star Wars, Babylon 5 and all the others will get their mention soon enough.

I just wanted to kick the thread off with something other than 'DISCUSS!'

[Super-VHS]

Originally Posted by Centauri

(Babylon 5 rocks too, BTW)

Oh really?

Sorry, couldn't help myself....

[Centauri]

Hahahaha.

I really need to pick up Spaced from Amazon.

[Beta-guy]

I think Star Trek was the greatest sci-fi out there, for me Star Trek wasn't close to death until Enterprise hit the airwaves, I saw the first episode, and stopped there, they have the new klingons when a century later there would be the old klingons, and a century later we'd be back to the new klingons, it was an obvious mistake I've heard that they explained that away with genetic alterations... really poor job in my opinion I'll watch the new star trek movie hoping it'll be good. however I suspect that it'll be a poorly done job.

I don't want a darker version of star trek, I love the Utopian vision star trek presents, it's a message of a hopeful future, personally I think Startrek will regain it's life it they focus on event that happened during or after TNG/DS9/VOY continue to build the story, not relive a past no one cares about.

[Maxx_75]

I for one am very interested in what Zachary Quinto, ie. Sylar will bring to Spock. He is very talented in my view.

[Centauri]

I love Babylon 5 (obviously), but there were a few areas in which it worked horribly. And I'm not sure of the cause exactly.

I think it was somewhat obvious that it was the first time Straczynski was completely in charge of a show, and that Whorener wasn't doing a lot of oversight; There were many ill-timed attempts at humor and at dramatic dialogue. And sometimes, well... the show did such a good job of building up to something that when it actually arrived, it left you wondering if it was worth the build up.

The most prominent example is the Shadow War. The build up was huge. But the war itself was disappointing. And I understand that some of that was unavoidable given that Straczynski was pretty much forced into condensing Season 4 and Season 5's story lines. But the Earth Civil War turned out to be much more fulfilling on many levels, but without anywhere near the same level of build-up beforehand.

I don't know. I absolutely love Babylon 5. But I worship Deep Space Nine.

I agree with a lot of your points on the Trek franchise during the 90's (though not all). But I think Deep Space Nine stood above the mediocrity in the rest of the franchise and really shined. The fact that it remains as popular as it has is really a testament to how well its characters, writing and special effects are holding up. I swear, I know of more people who have become fans of DS9 since it ended than I do who were fans all along. That says something.

[Beta-guy]

Originally Posted by DaveS1138

Hmmm...... Hoping I'm not going to need too big a flame suite for this one.

It may not be the geek thing to say but I never thought Star Trek was that good. Sure TOS season 2 is great and about half of season 1. But has anybody actually watched TNG recently? Its just painfully bad. They took the idea of "boldly going where no man has gone before" and instead turned the enteprise into a taxi service version of waiting for an angel.....
DS9 I never got into due to finiding the just utterly better in every conceivable way B5 first.
Voyager I couldnt take seriously for two reasons.......Suddenly they cant fly home from the other side of the galaxy when the old Enterprise could get to the center of the galaxy in one episode or one movie. and..... 7 of 9 ..... seriously. when you put a character like that into a show just to get the male geek audience to watch then you really have become a parody of yourself.

The movies havent been any good since The Undiscovered Country.

Dont get me wrong when Star Trek was good it was very, very good. (wrath of Kahn, Undiscovered country, Doomsday machine, measure of a man, yesterdays enterprise) But when it was bad it was awefull. (spocks brain, the entire of Voyager and TNG)

So why did Star Trek die..........because it just wasnt that good to begin with and as its audience grew up they started to see its flaws more and more.

the episode of TNG where they flew to the outer rim of the galaxy it was due to a alien from Tau Alpha C called the traveler, really retarded too trying to mix thought and math/science into 1, I hated that char. anyways since they didn't have any such alien on Voyager they couldn't do that travel.

[Super-VHS]

Originally Posted by DaveS1138

Hmmm...... Hoping I'm not going to need too big a flame suite for this one.

It may not be the geek thing to say but I never thought Star Trek was that good. Sure TOS season 2 is great and about half of season 1. But has anybody actually watched TNG recently? Its just painfully bad. They took the idea of "boldly going where no man has gone before" and instead turned the enteprise into a taxi service version of waiting for an angel.....
DS9 I never got into due to finiding the just utterly better in every conceivable way B5 first.
Voyager I couldnt take seriously for two reasons.......Suddenly they cant fly home from the other side of the galaxy when the old Enterprise could get to the center of the galaxy in one episode or one movie. and..... 7 of 9 ..... seriously. when you put a character like that into a show just to get the male geek audience to watch then you really have become a parody of yourself.

The movies havent been any good since The Undiscovered Country.

Dont get me wrong when Star Trek was good it was very, very good. (wrath of Kahn, Undiscovered country, Doomsday machine, measure of a man, yesterdays enterprise) But when it was bad it was awefull. (spocks brain, the entire of Voyager and TNG)

So why did Star Trek die..........because it just wasnt that good to begin with and as its audience grew up they started to see its flaws more and more.

Yeah, so what if Star Trek isn't really that great? Most 'great' shows aren't.... or rather most shows that considered great have some bad parts in them. It's what happens to shows that run long (or spawn many different series).... hell a large portion of X-files is shit but that doesn't mean that it's not enjoyable (great episodes like 'Jose Chung's', 'Modern Day Prometheus', 'Home' and lots of others make up for the episodes that are relatively crap).

The same can be said about the Star Trek franchise..... sure, maybe there were only about three story lines in TNG but they're still fun. I didn't watch much of Voyager or DS9 but the stuff I have seen wasn't terrible (and the stuff that actually is awful wasn't the whole show so who cares).

People like Star Wars right? Well that's a franchise that falls into the same pattern as well.... George Lucas may have made a good movie with his original.... Empire is amazing.... but RotJ is very unbalanced. The stuff with the Emperor is great but the Ewoks ruin the movie... they really do. Same with most of the "Prequels" - there may be some good things in them but on the whole they aren't that good. Again, while the franchise may have it's problems people like it still (and for some reason RotJ gets a complete free pass when it's probably tied for the second worst film.)

Oh, and there was a good movie after Undiscovered Country.... it's called First Contact and it kicked ass.

For the record, I'm not 'flaming' you. You're entitled to your opinion (and I do agree with most of what you said).... I'm just saying that what you describe about Star Trek isn't something unique only to the ST series. It's true about most franchises or shows that are long running.

[Maxx_75]

It bugs me when people rip on 7 of 9. She was an extreamly good actress and a great charater. Just because she had big jugs people think that she couldnt act. I made a big post about her in an older thread when someone ripped on her. If I find it I will update this post.

No Ripping on 7 of 9 !



edit here are my 7 of 9 defence posts.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1062451-post111.html
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1062907-post124.html

[Super-VHS]

Originally Posted by DaveS1138

But in Star Trek 5.....

Just stop... V was written and directed by Shatner - it sucks.

[Centauri]

Originally Posted by DaveS1138

I worship B5 and maybe that stopped me from giving DS9 a chance.

I think the problem you might have is the same one that plagues most DS9 and B5 fans; The shows are seen as similar, and are thus seen as competing.

When DS9 launched, there was some question as to whether or not the outline for the series had been lifted from Babylon 5 by Paramount, since they had full knowledge of the B5 story after Straczynski pitched it to them.

And it may or may not be true. I wouldn't put it past Paramount. And that little bit pretty much set the shows and the fans of the shows on a competitive trajectory.

But I don't think it needs to be that way. Regardless of what the intentions/inspirations behind DS9's launch were, both B5 and DS9 had grown into their own so much by their third seasons that any real comparisons between the two were very difficult.

Me, I see Babylon 5 as the renegade show that had the balls to go up against Star Trek in a time when it hadn't been done before. And I see DS9 as the show that tried to change the franchise by taking a few cues from Babylon 5.

The end result is that they're both absolutely excellent at what they accomplished respectively, and they're both relatively black-sheep shows.

As for Star Trek V... I'll defend the Shat: His original script for V was much more grande, and well thought out than the movie that eventually appeared on screen.

There were a lot of problems during production, the biggest of which were constant script revision 'suggestions' from Paramount and a drop in the movie's budget halfway through production that dramatically changed the ending.

Shatner isn't incompetent. And more than any other Trek actor, he loves and has embraced the franchise in every way possible. He has penned some excellent Star Trek work, and it buggs me that the one piece of work that was only halfway in his hands is the one he is judged by.

[Centauri]

Originally Posted by DaveS1138

Good points. I had heard similar stories about Paramount stealing the story ideas but that could just be Warner building up fanboy rage to help promote the show. Maybe one day I can go back and give it a shot but I need more time to pass before I can do that. Maybe if the new movie is any good.

As to Star Trek 5 do you have any info on what the film would have been like. I can only go off what I saw on screen and that was.........bad

Worse film ever made, no that honor still goes to Alien 3 ....... But its not that far behind. No matter who was at fault.

Eh... I'm pretty sure that the worst Trek is The Search for Spock. The Voyage Home is runner up (yes, I just said that).

I'm having a bitch of a time finding a documented account of the production issues online. They're discussed at length on the second disc of the DVD set though.

Also of note; After Paramount permitted retooled Director's cuts of a few of the earlier Trek flicks to be done for DVD release (TMP in particular), Shatner petitioned Paramount to allow him to give V the same treatment, working in a lot of material that was cut and reworking the ending. Paramount killed the idea.

[Centauri]

The only thing good about III is that it introduced the Excelsior.