BrokenFiction
Member
Star Trek is at its best when "Roddenberry's Vision" is completely ignored.
Agreed.
Star Trek is at its best when "Roddenberry's Vision" is completely ignored.
Star Trek is at its best when "Roddenberry's Vision" is completely ignored.
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage?
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?
Not at all. It's probably the most consistently strong of all the Star Trek series thus far. And definitely the most interesting.
And I say this as a huge TNG fan.
DS9 is probably the best of what Trek can do. Fuller spent more time with Voyager (81 episodes). He only did two of DS9 episodes "The Darkness and the Light" and "Empok Nor".
Ah ok. I just tend to hear that it's best to skip a season or two and jump in when it starts getting good.
To be fair, it starts getting good in Season 3 and then gets really good when Worf shows up, but S1 and S2 are still good TV.
Er, did you read his full comments? He basically all but confirmed it'll be set in the Prime Universe with his "eventually" remark in returning characters.I'm relieved to hear that the setting rumor is false. I'm sure Fuller could have made a good show in that time period, but it sounded like a weirdly continuity-driven, backwards-looking premise that would have significantly limited the show's appeal beyond fans of the prior TV incarnations.
This also leaves open the possibility that the series is set in the Abramsverse, which I would love to see just for the meltdowns.
Er, did you read his full comments? He basically all but confirmed it'll be set in the Prime Universe with his "eventually" remark in returning characters.
Star Trek is at its best when "Roddenberry's Vision" is completely ignored.
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?
Eh, nuTrek and Voyager wasn't very good stuff.
Gene was fine till he was hitting the last years
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage?
Gene had nothing to do with any of the movies outside of the first one, nothing to do with later-era TNG, nothing to do with DS9. Didn't have much to do with the Original Series after a certain point, really. Most of what made that show great can be traced straight back to the efforts of Gene Coon and DC Fontana, really. Gene got successful and immediately started tending towards fucking everything up.
Gene got forced out (and rightfully so) long before his last years. Letting him back in was partially why Next Gen almost died before they ever made it to Season 3.
Absence of Gene != "Gritty Trek" either.
Gene was one of those guys who was good at coming up with a concept, but needed to hand it off to others for it to thrive.
Absolutely. And if he'd invented Star Trek even 10 years later, he would not have become as deified by his own fanbase as he was. He absolutely used the birth of the fan convention circuit to his advantage, and that 10 year run of unimpeded, self-assisted hagiographing is why people still seem surprised when they find out about how damaging to the forward motion of Star Trek Gene consistently ended up being.
Absolutely. And if he'd invented Star Trek even 10 years later, he would not have become as deified by his own fanbase as he was. He absolutely used the birth of the fan convention circuit to his advantage, and that 10 year run of unimpeded, self-assisted hagiographing is why people still seem surprised when they find out about how damaging to the forward motion of Star Trek Gene consistently ended up being.
I believe we're no longer supposed to use "The Abramsverse" or "rebootverse" but "The Kelvin Timeline" now, I guess.
Anywhere I can read up more on how he affected Star Trek? I've always heard this from fans but I've only seen TNG and I'm almost done with DS9 so I'm not too familiar with his original vision.
You really think that's what the questioner was talking about?...the Abramsverse doesn't have "characters that have been established in the canon?"
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?
Ah ok. I just tend to hear that it's best to skip a season or two and jump in when it starts getting good.
You really think that's what the questioner was talking about?
The problem is that his "original vision" wasn't really arrived at until the '70s, after having years of smoke blown up his ass by his own fanbase. The "original vision" of Star Trek was a hopeful, allegorical western in outer space, with all the fucking, fighting, and friendship that goes along with that.
And then he came out the other end of the '70s and suddenly his "original vision" was this shimmering, beige, conflict-free utopia, and all attempts at adhering to that vision led to subpar, uninteresting, and boring entertainment.
There isn't really any single one-stop shop to get all this info, though. You basically have to bounce around a wide variety of biographies, essays, documentaries, commentaries, so on and so forth.
But 31 was in ENT!My view is that the idea of a truly united human race with a great society is good and should be what Trek keeps, but stuff like no money and no conflict between humans at all was absurd. I'm fine with Section 31 coming into existence during the Dominion War and with it cropping up in the Kelvin timeline, but I didn't like at all the implication that it was around during TOS, for instance.
Not at all. It's probably the most consistently strong of all the Star Trek series thus far. And definitely the most interesting.
And I say this as a huge TNG fan.
Was it known that Vincenzo Natali is their producing director? That's cool as shit.
The problem is that his "original vision" wasn't really arrived at until the '70s, after having years of smoke blown up his ass by his own fanbase. The "original vision" of Star Trek was a hopeful, allegorical western in outer space, with all the fucking, fighting, and friendship that goes along with that.
And then he came out the other end of the '70s and suddenly his "original vision" was this shimmering, beige, conflict-free utopia, and all attempts at adhering to that vision led to subpar, uninteresting, and boring entertainment.
There isn't really any single one-stop shop to get all this info, though. You basically have to bounce around a wide variety of biographies, essays, documentaries, commentaries, so on and so forth.
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?
Ah ok I gotta look around then, one complaint that I do have about Star Trek (at least in TNG/DS9) is that all races fall under this giant umbrella of how they act. All Klingons are this and Bajorans are that etc when a whole planet full of humanoids should be as diverse as the races themselves. It's weird when they visit a planet and one city speaks for the entire planet.
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage?
Oh, while Roddenberry's vision was part of what prevented species like Klingons from being presented with more nuance (he objected to how they acted in The Undiscovered Country, for instance), that's more due to the nature of sci-fi shows. The audience has to know what to expect from a character given their species.
Ah ok I gotta look around then, one complaint that I do have about Star Trek (at least in TNG/DS9) is that all races fall under this giant umbrella of how they act. All Klingons are this and Bajorans are that etc when a whole planet full of humanoids should be as diverse as the races themselves. It's weird when they visit a planet and one city speaks for the entire planet.
TNG has an interesting aspect of that with Worf.
Worf was a Klingon orphan who was raised in a human family, so growing up away from Klingons he acts like humans think Klingons act.
When actual Klingons come around, they're nowhere near as uptight and reserved as Worf is.
I've absolutely loved DS9, definitely one of the best ST series. I skipped most of it when it was on air as a kid but have been making my way through the whole series over the last several months and don't want it to end.To be fair, it starts getting good in Season 3 and then gets really good when Worf shows up, but S1 and S2 are still good TV.
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?
David Semel is set to direct and executive produce the opening episode of the upcoming Star Trek reboot series.
Created by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman, the new Star Trek hails from CBS TV Studios where Semel is under an overall deal. Semel has a strong track record at CBS, helming three consecutive pilots that have gone to series which will be on the network’s fall schedule — returning Madam Secretary and Code Black and new medical drama Pure Genius. Other pilots he has directed that have gone to series include CBS’ Person of Interest and Intelligence as well as Heroes, Legends, No Ordinary Family and American Dreams. Semel also recently helmed the opening episodes of two high-profile straight-to-series Amazon drama series, breakout The Man In The High Castle, which has been renewed for a second season, and David E. Kelley’s upcoming Goliath starring Billy Bob Thornton.
Yes, there's a lot of crap to wade through. To be fair, it's also some of the best Trek out there when it's good. The highs are super high. It's got a weak beginning, weak ending, but some great stuff in the middle mixed with some crap filler too. DS9 has always been overrated to me, but it still has some of the best Trek to be seen within it. People seem to just excuse the low points for some reason though. All the crap with the Bajorans and high religious tones was always uninteresting for me.
Lord no. DS9 is one of the best.