ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

EDITORIAL -- The Future of Star Trek: part 2, the movies

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek Movies and related subjects
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bulldogtrekker
Space Sector Admiral


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 1024
Location: Columbia,SC

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:22 pm    Post subject: EDITORIAL -- The Future of Star Trek: part 2, the movies Reply with quote

EDITORIAL — The Future of Star Trek: It's the Story, Stupid

(Here are the comment about the movies)

by the TrekMovie Staff

The following essay comes to us from Lukas Kendall at Film Score Monthly (www.filmscoremonthly.com), whose Star Trek credentials including producing or co-producing most of the recent collector's edition soundtrack CDs like the 15-disc La-La Land Records TOS box set. He also assisted with the recent publication of Return to Tomorrow, the oral history of Star Trek: The Motion Picture . . .



Movies

Star Trek just had two mega-budget blockbusters that were aggressively made and marketed for the modern, global movie audience. They are spectacular productions that cost a lot of money, made a lot of money, were popular and well reviewed — but did not set box-office records. A third film is likely to continue the trend.

Tellingly, some Trek fans revile the new films. That is because, in order to appeal to a modern global audience, they fundamentally alter the franchise's DNA. This has nothing to do with the creation of an alternate timeline, which is ingenious. It is about taking a pacifist, cerebral, talky television show and turning it into an action-adventure movie. Something is lost along the way.

Star Trek is fundamentally not action-adventure. Drama is conflict, and blockbuster movies are about branding, the conflict as specific forms of physical fighting: Comic book movies are superpower slugfests. Star Wars is lightsaber duels, blasters and spaceship dogfights. James Cameron's films are commando-style militaristic warfare. The Matrix is — bullet-time — kung fu.

Star Trek has always had its share of fighting, from 1960s fisticuffs to submarine-style warfare, but the best Star Trek fighting, is talking. Kirk talks a computer into exploding. Picard talks a bad guy into laying down his arms.

Star Trek has never translated well to movies. Its style and ideas play best on television, without the need to: (1) encapsulate its entire world (2) into the fundamental transformation of a single character, (3) that happens over two hours, (4) with all of civilization in jeopardy, including (5) stuff for the supporting cast to do and (6) all the de rigueur — He's dead, Jim — moments, while (7) humoring die hard fans by not changing too much and (Cool pandering to morons.

The best Star Trek film is still The Wrath of Khan, which doesn't put Earth in jeopardy or climax in a fistfight, kills a major character (as a requirement of being made), and was shot cheaply on recycled sets. At a time when Star Trek was only 79 episodes of the original series, a cartoon, and a widely seen but unloved movie, Nicholas Meyer and his colleagues had the freedom to do what they wanted, so long as it was cheap: tell a good, literary and character-based story. Today, that movie would not survive the first development meeting.

The Best Star Trek



Maybe you think I hate Star Trek. Au contraire! I love it. I would love to see new Star Trek produced and be popular.

But it has to be good Star Trek, and that requires a leap of faith on the part of the producers.

For Star Trek to be high quality, it has to risk appealing to fewer people — less action, more talk. Fewer special effects, not more. Intimate, not epic.

Making a lot of it is not a good idea because it'll start to repeat itself and suck (cf. Enterprise).

Fans are not necessarily the best people to dictate what Star Trek ought to be. They want exactly what they've already seen, while also being completely surprised. Can't be done. (This is the problem with all sequels and franchises.)

Fans are also obsessed with — continuity porn — brief moments of recognition with no storytelling value. They are empty calories.

Nick Meyer likens Star Trek to the Catholic mass, which has been set to music by composers throughout the centuries. The composers can change the music, but the text is always the same. Star Trek has a glorious text that can be set into music a few more times at least. But the text is not well understood certainly not by studio executives, and rarely even by fans.

There are doubtless readers of this essay who will bristle at my implications that Star Trek is for children — that by extension I am calling them children. Star Trek is not for idiot children. On the contrary, it is for very bright children — ones with big hearts and quick minds who long for purpose, a sense of belonging and a universe that is just and wise.

It is for the child in all of us, stripped of our adult baggage, forever hopeful, curious, eager to please and to experience love — not necessarily a romantic love, but the love of all of mankind. All I want, you may say to yourself, is to be a good person, and be loved for it.

Importantly, the best Star Trek stories involve death, from The City on the Edge of Forever and The Wrath of Khan to The Bonding and Yesterday's Enterprise. They feature characters facing death, a little bit as a child would (the first loss of a grandparent), but accepting it with elegance and grace, an inspiration for all of us who must come to terms with our mortality.

When we accept death, we also accept life. We accept ourselves.

Or at least, I think this is what Spock was trying to tell me, on my birthday.

Live Long and Prosper



Star Trek has survived for fifty years, and will hopefully survive for fifty more. It's a wonderful, timeless creation, with an important message about the human condition.

That message, says Linus on the school stage, is not to buy more DVDs, toys, or movie tickets. When it comes to merchandising and exploitation, Star Trek may be the granddaddy of them all, but it will always to take a back seat to something flashier and more popular. As well it should.

Star Trek should not be run like a money machine, but curated like an important museum piece, which is paradoxically how it will become the most popular, and make the most money. This doesn't mean it should never change. The music always needs to be updated, shorn of things that are dated and bad. But the text is immutable.

The next Star Trek creators need not be Star Trek fans, many of the best have known nothing of it (Nick Meyer), but also so have some of the worst (Stuart Baird)so long as they understand and appreciate the text.

The text is the heart of Star Trek. It is story, not spectacle. It is gentle, not aggressive. It is optimistic, not dark. It is hopeful, compassionate and, above all (the captain says with a tear running down his cheek) human. In the right hands, it can (and should) last forever.
________________________________________________

Lukas Kendall has produced collector's edition soundtrack CDs to multiple Star Trek films and television series, along with hundreds of other albums for his label, Film Score Monthly, and others. His first film as a cowriter and producer, the indie thriller Lucky Bastard, is not for kids and not at all like Star Trek. He says some of his critical ideas about Trek and child psychology were inspired by a little-known 1990s book of essays called Enterprise Zones (http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Zones-Critical-Positions-Studies/dp/0813328985).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17017
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

______________________________________________

The remarkable article above was transcribed and posted by the late Tim Edwards — Bulldogtrekker — back on Jan 13, 2015. During the last eight years it has received 4,802 views! Very Happy

And zero replies . . . Sad

It is an extremely well written piece, and I read it again today. So, two of the 4,802 views are mine.

But I regret that I didn't thank him in a reply when he first posted it. However, until his death from pancreatic cancer in 2018, we spoke on the phone several times a week, so I'm sure I told him how much I enjoyed his post.

Gentlemen, please read the great editorial above. You will enjoy it, I promise.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2023 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superb article that nails it regarding the unique elements that made Star Trek what it is.

It's why I distain those J.J. Abrams Trek movies. He took Trek & turned it into Star Wars. Bigger stunts and action, a tsunami of visual effects, rapid non-stop action, simplistic ideas. Yep, that's Star Wars. Look, I enjoy Star Wars. It really is more fantasy than science fiction, and that's fine when you have a taste for dessert. However, if you want meat & potatoes, something substantive that has something to say about the human condition, then that's Trek in the nutshell.

I did enjoy seeing Trek finally make it to the big screen in 1979 knowing that unlike their TV show they'd have tons of $$$ to spend on the production. A lavish budget for sets, FX, costumes, alien makeup, models.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture did indeed have all that, in addition to a long shooting schedule copared to the grinding TV schedule they once had had.

It remains the finest looking Trek film, stunning to behold. People have eased up on their harsh criticisms as the years have gone by. Still, its script just doesn't hit it out of the ballpark for me. Second base, maybe.

Whenever I think about what Trek episodes from the original series could have jumped successfully to the big silver screen (and the script elongated from one hour to two hours), there are only a handful that pass the test.

The Doomsday Machine, The Ultimate Computer, Journey to Babel, Balance of Terror, would have made fine feature films.

However, so many of the best and most poignant Trek episodes really would not do all that well as an expensive movie production. The City On the Edge of Forever remains not only a fan & critics favorite, it is judged to be the finest Trek episode of the entire three year run of the series.

Yet, I just could not see this being as compelling material for an audience as a film. For one problem, half the story takes place in 1930's New York City. As much as I love Harlan Ellison's story, I would not have wanted a Trek film to be focused in the past when I wanted to see what the future looks like.

Other fantastic Trek episodes such as A Taste of Armageddon, The Return of the Archons, Amok Time, The Galileo Seven, Charlie X, all work best as dramatic confrontations between characters rather than galaxy spanning adventures chock filled with special effects & pyrotechnics, and elaborate stunt work.

In 1966, Gene Roddenberry & his crew were forced to make Trek about people even though the setting was the far future and phenomenal technology. They had a TV budget, a tight TV shooting schedule, and the visual effects tech of 1966. Therefore, they were unable to produce epic-looking, sweeping stories. They had to make it about the people, because their resources were seriously limited.

Producers of science fiction TV shows & films today can have in their possession a humongous budget and state-of-the-art FX that would make FX artists in 1966 drool with envy.

The problem with that scenario is that we've all seen films that are a visual feast to the eye, and starvation for the mind. They give us films or series with all sizzle and no steak. They too often let the visuals take the lead while the story comes in last.

So, translating Trek to the silver screen was never going to be an easy challenge. It also isn't impossible under the right conditions.

I've watched the first season of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds on Youtube. It blows me away. Not only have they managed to capture the spirit of Star Trek, the production values are "feature film" quality. So, like I said, it can be achieved to have both a profound Trek with substance that can work in tandem with top notch sets, makeup, & FX.

They managed to achieve what makes Trek so wonderful and support it with excellent production values. Not easy . . . but definitely doable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17017
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2023 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

______________________________________________

Good Lord, Pow! I wish Tim Edwards were alive today to read your brilliant post. It's every bit as well-written as the article which Tim Edwards posted! Cool

And frankly I'm glad to still be alive myself to finally read a reply to Tim's that's worth waiting eight years for! Shocked

Mike, I'm actually humbled by the depth of your analysis of this issue — as well as the way you listed the pros and cons. I don't think I could have written such a brilliant editorial on this subject.

Bravo, sir!

You are definitely a valuable asset to All Sci-Fi — and I know that all our members agree. Mr. Green

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Wed Jun 14, 2023 12:48 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tmlindsey
Mission Specialist


Joined: 18 Jul 2022
Posts: 409
Location: NW Florida

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very thoughtful take, Pow.

Alas, Trek, like everything else, is simply viewed as "product" with a sole purpose of generating money. I understand that TV and films have pretty much always been that (even Roddenberry used the show for a cash grab with those IDIC necklaces), but it has gotten so much worse.

The newer Star Trek movies (and most of the new shows) are just generic SF action films with little sense, plot holes aplenty and just the veneer of Trek trappings that the average Schmo on the street has probably heard of. It's the same with the new Star Wars and Doctor Who output.

No one who cares about the philosophy behind Trek has been in charge of Trek until, perhaps, recently with Season 3 Picard and Strange New Worlds. But even they have demographic and minority groups check-boxes to tick in an effort to be all things to all viewers so they can feed the corporate profit monster.

I've always thought that budget limitations were really better for SF shows and movies because it forced the creative teams to be CREATIVE. Writers had to come up with clever or engaging concepts and characters to attract and keep viewers. Set and prop people had little money and had to think on their feet and use existing things in new ways.

Now with everyone overusing CGI and FX people being able to 3D printing whatever is designed, there's virtually no limit to what can be done. But the writing has suffered. Add to the mix the disdain the studios have for the contributions of the writers (currently fully on display) and we get the digital diarrhea we see on our screens today.

I walked away from Star Wars fandom in 1983 when I watched the glorified toy commercial that was Return of the Jedi. I never cared much for Star Trek: the Next Generation and that show got dumber as it went on and worse in the TNG films. I liked the classic cast films and when they were done, so was I. Doctor Who was the hardest to walk away from since I was a fan of it for the longest, but the overly PC agenda tool it has become since 2005 has been too much, so I walked away from that too.

As the studios and new "creative teams" say things like "not your father's..." or "we're not making this for the old fans", I immediately check out. Not made for me? Then enjoy not getting any more of my money for viewing and merchandise. Making a new version of something is fine but when you deliberately try to alienate the original core audience, you lose (see Ghostbusters: Answer the Call). Shows and films can and should evolve to some degree and that's fine, but what they've been doing is devolving into simplistic garbage for the simple-minded one-and-done Millennial generation.

Good luck with this new sh!t being around and talked about in 40, 50 or 60 years, because I doubt it will be.

Now get off my lawn!
Laughing
_________________
"Have you never wondered what it would be like to walk between the ticks and tocks of Time?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17017
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tmlindsey wrote:
I've always thought that budget limitations were really better for SF shows and movies because it forced the creative teams to be CREATIVE. Writers had to come up with clever or engaging concepts and characters to attract and keep viewers. Set and prop people had little money and had to think on their feet and use existing things in new ways.

You're dead on target with that comment, Tim.

It's almost like there has to be a balance with sci-fi television shows. They aren't allowed to have (a) great writing, (b) great special effects, and (c) great sets.

If one element is exceptional, another element must be less impressive. There must be balance in the Force!
Shocked
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tmlindsey
Mission Specialist


Joined: 18 Jul 2022
Posts: 409
Location: NW Florida

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's the executive mindset. In 1977 studio execs saw Star Wars was a hit and it had groundbreaking SFX, so they concluded people went to see the SFX. The result was a load of crap movies with similar looks and SFX.

CGI hit big with Jurassic Park and the execs said "Hey! people love CGI!" So we end up with everything having CGI even when it didn't need it. The Wolfman remake is a good example; the makers wanted to do the makeup FX as practical but the suits said "No, no, no, people want CGI", so they were forced to use CGI where it wasn't needed. As though ANY executive in ANY industry has the tiniest particle of a fraction of a clue what their consumers actually want. Rolling Eyes

Studios never seem to learn from all of the flops that had tons of money (supposedly) spent on them and metric tons of CGI, but had crap stories, that maybe the story is more important than they thought.

A dumber but larger audience is all they need now, and there's plenty of that. Hate-watching is something I will never understand and it's made more than one show/film a hit when it didn't deserve to be, so the audience is equally to blame for the garbage we get now.

Trek is caught in that cycle, but maybe with the newer people running things, it can break free and get back to basics.

Until the studios fire all the writers and artists in favor of AI, that is.

_________________
"Have you never wondered what it would be like to walk between the ticks and tocks of Time?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mach7
Quantum Engineer


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 333

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2023 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not much more to say.

These posts kind of puts it all on the table.

TOS was ALL about story and characters. Never about guns and fights. It had guns and fights, but they supported the story, the ethos of Trek. Many times showing the pointlessness of the conflict.

A future "talk softly and carry a big stick" philosophy, but deeper.

The other part missing in most of the movies and newer TV shows is that Star trek is a morality play. Sure it has flashy sets and effects, but the basics of Star Trek are using science fiction as a skin to show us how to be human. A kind of mirror for us to look into and see how we can be better.

As said, season one of "Strange New Worlds" and season 3 of "Picard" succeed in giving us very good Star Trek. Not perfect, but very very good.

Let the Action Park crowd have all the superhero movies to placate them. Non-stop action and special effects with no story.

For the moment I'm happy with Trek on the small screen.

I have TOS, seasons 3-5 of TNG, a few fan film episodes, and SNW season 1. Hopefully season 2 will stay true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17017
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2023 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

______________________________________________

Gentlemen, your essays on this subject are flawless. You have our gratitude! (Feel free to keep it. There's' plenty more where that came from. Very Happy)

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Star Trek Movies and related subjects All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group