Reinvent Trek or Go into the Next Century?
I recently came across an article on SyFy Portal in which "Trouble with Tribbles" TOS episode scribe and TNG contributor David Gerrold said he believes that the classic series (TOS) has to be rebooted in order to get
back that old Star Trek feeling.
There have been some great reinventions like "Battlestar Galactica" (BSG), "Batman Begins," and "Casino Royale."
I believe, though, that Trek is one franchise with the elasticity and depth that allows people to explore Trek's essence with new characters and storylines as opposed to rebooting the same cast of characters every ten years.
IMHO, BSG doesn't quite fall in that same category because the original was around for only two years, leaving a lot of new territory for Ron Moore and company to explore. Also the premise of BSG is based on the last remnants of humanity fighting off extinction and finding Earth. Either they fail and the show ends or they succeed and the show ends.
Also, for those who're familiar with the subject, I'd liken Trek a little bit to the US Constitution in that the Constitution has been adapted from how the Founding Fathers first conceived it to be made relevant to following generations of Americans.
I favor new characters and storylines for new generations of Trek fans rather than new incarnations of overly familiar characters and their situations. Every chapter of a saga has a beginning, middle, and end. I feel it's best to move on into new territory rather than tweak series canon.
If someone good like Ron Moore, Bryan Singer, or Michael Stracyznski were to do a reinvention, I could see it being "interesting." Who can argue with what Ron Moore and his crew have done with BSG? As those who may recall my earlier posts on the subject, I highly doubt that Abrams will do justice to a young Kirk story in the upcoming (if it's ever made) Trek XI.
Poor Furnace. Comparisons are...?
-
So, I said 300 gallons would be delivered yesterday? HA!
The fuel guy showed up with what he called a 'bazooka.' Since our whistle
doesn't work, since the...
10 years ago
4 comments:
I've been wondering how they would reinvent Star Trek since BSG
first came into being.
Which way to go with either a reinvention, or another generation,
I'm not sure. It would depend on how they do the series. I think it
could be good either wya if done right. Or they could skip a couple of
generations and go to the timeships they had on Voyager.
Louis
> Which way to go with either a >reinvention, or another >generation, I'm not sure. It >would depend on how they do the >series. I think it could be good >either way if done right.
That's the trick: if it's done right.
Still and all, I'd say that I'm leaning towards new characters in a new century.
>Or they could skip a couple of
> generations and go to the >timeships they had on Voyager.
I think they'd have trouble with their environment shifting all around like it did every week with Voyager.
You had me until straczynski. Don't let him near Trek. Ever. other than that I totally agree with taking trek into new territory. It's what I've been
preachin all along!
-justin
Strazynski is an acquired taste for me.
I respect how he had B5 planned out from beginning to end unlike say Abrams and his cronies on Alias and Lost who had a great premise, exhausted their initial storylines, made up stuff as they went, and screwed things up with bad creative decisions.
Straczynski's not my first choice, though.
If Ron Moore isn't too sick of Paramount and the politics, I'd like to see him back in Trekdom again.
I'd also be curious to see what Bryan Singer would do. Too bad
Paramount passed on him to land Abrams instead.
Actually, I don't believe Paramount has people with the vision to handle Trek properly anymore.
What I wouldn't be surprised to see would be Paramount wreck Trek,
let it lie quiet for several years, then sell it for a song to some other producer/studio who'd reinvent it for a future generation.
Post a Comment