|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 10, 2014 21:17:38 GMT -5
Hat tip to r/startrek subredit over on Reddit . . . |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 10, 2014 21:24:42 GMT -5
Hat tip to r/startrek subredit over on Reddit . . . Even as just a rumor, I say NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. No. I don't want any new Trek to be some Netflix exclusive thing. I'm so tired of this Netflix crap. Star Trek is one property that should always be available for free on broadcast networks or in syndication. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 11, 2014 0:13:38 GMT -5
Even as just a rumor, I say NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. No. I don't want any new Trek to be some Netflix exclusive thing. I'm so tired of this Netflix crap. Star Trek is one property that should always be available for free on broadcast networks or in syndication. -TK I'm sick of this Netflix crap too, so to that extent I'm in agreement with you. However, I also see one major reason for not agreeing with you entirely, if not outright disagreeing with you therefore regarding the prospect. Suppose by being produced and aired on Netflix, it also turns out to be a darker, edgier 'Star Trek' wherein they could do so many things that would otherwise be prohibited on regular broadcast television? Aren't you also a bit tired of this G, PG and PG-13 rated stuff? When they transitioned from the small screen to the big screen with TMP it received a G rating for God sake. And that was 35 years ago! Fans like me who have been around since the early 70s (Christ, did I really just say that?) are now far removed from being the kids we once were. Those days are long friggin' gone and have been for quite some time. And honestly, I really don't see why we can't have a more 'mature' 'Star Trek' that can push the envelope beyond where it's already been for a good long time. Don't get me wrong ...I'll always TOS and especially its standout episodes, and even TNG, with episodes like "Yesterday's Enterprise" and DS9'S "In The Pale Moonlight" even, but I'm also a grown man, older than I'd like to be even, and part of me also wants to see them produce stuff that's beyond where we've been and what we've seen. I want a 'Star Trek' that actually makes me feel reluctant to put on and watch in front of my nephew. It's about time we had that too. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Jun 11, 2014 6:43:27 GMT -5
To be fair, exclusive content is the only way a company can make money today. I will try this if it comes to pass. I don't really care about a darker or mature Trek. I'm neutral on that aspect of the whole thing. I hope it's in the Prime Universe, not Abrams mess, but we shall see.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 11, 2014 6:47:56 GMT -5
Even as just a rumor, I say NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. No. I don't want any new Trek to be some Netflix exclusive thing. I'm so tired of this Netflix crap. Star Trek is one property that should always be available for free on broadcast networks or in syndication. -TK And honestly, I really don't see why we can't have a more 'mature' 'Star Trek' that can push the envelope beyond where it's already been for a good long time. And I would argue they don't need Netflix in order to do that. That was part of why Roddenberry went syndicated with TNG in the first place. "Hannibal" is a network show, and that pushes the envelope every week. Yes, interference from the suits at Paramount and the networks has watered Trek down, but this "screw you, I'll just stream my show on Netflix where they care about my vision!" attitude that's springing up is going to implode within a few years when Netflix is no longer starved for original content. And this "creative freedom" may end up being its own undoing. HBO used to be the haven for that, but it now just means lots of gratuitious nudity. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 11, 2014 7:42:25 GMT -5
And I would argue they don't need Netflix in order to do that. That was part of why Roddenberry went syndicated with TNG in the first place. "Hannibal" is a network show, and that pushes the envelope every week. Yes, interference from the suits at Paramount and the networks has watered Trek down, but this "screw you, I'll just stream my show on Netflix where they care about my vision!" attitude that's springing up is going to implode within a few years when Netflix is no longer starved for original content. And this "creative freedom" may end up being its own undoing. HBO used to be the haven for that, but it now just means lots of gratuitious nudity. -TK Do you even watch "Game Of Thrones", TK? It's HBO's biggest hit, having just surpassed "The Sopranos" as their most watched series ever, and I can assure you it's not because of T&A. In fact, some episodes, such as this past Sunday's, don't feature any nudity at all. As for the "Hannibal" comparison on NBC ...yes, it's stylish, and it pushes the envelope, but generally no more than broadcast network television will allow, so it's really not that great of a comparison along such lines IMO. And your referencing Roddenberry deciding to market TNG to syndication rather than a network also serves to make my point. It freed him of the network constraints creatively, which he always despised, but how much farther did it really allow him to go? Oh, sure--you can say that it was twenty-five years ago, but there's no syndicated market for television shows anymore because of the manner by which cable stations have altered the industry's practices. But even if there were, and it were a plausible marketing alternative currently, how much farther would it really allow them to go even after all this time? I would assert not very much farther at all. Netflix first-run programming may well be a fad. Then again it may not be. I therefore consider it to be at least worth considering in the current programming climate. Hell, even a basic cable channel might be a good way to go, such as AMC, which surprisingly produces some good quality shows, or STARZ given some of what they're producing currently, but the latter especially would also marginalize the show's audience potential. But at least they would be trying something different for a change. It would be daring, as opposed to 'the same old, same old', and I wouldn't fault them for that. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 11, 2014 8:20:17 GMT -5
I do watch Game of Thrones, and was going to mention it, but deleted that. It's a good show, but it feels like someone at HBO sometimes is saying "sex it up a bit". They've gotten away from some of the most egregious randomness (season 2 was the worst for it), and I'm surely not saying the show is just T&A. But I think that HBO likes to keep that as part of its identity.
I'd prefer basic cable over Netflix, definitely.
Hannibal is the most I've seen the envelope pushed on network TV. In terms of gore alone, beating out X-Files or Bones or any of the procedurals. It gets away with it because it's stylish and in a late time slot. But they've done some stuff there I've never seen get by on a network that wasn't Fox. Sometimes for a one-off episode a network might go there, but Hannibal does that sort of thing every week.
I think it also comes down to just what do you mean by "more mature"? And how do you do it without betraying what Star Trek is? If we're talking something like evil Kirk's near-rape of Yeoman Rand, then yeah I can see that. We could have more of that sort of thing (not that TV needs to be "more rapey" or anything). But I don't think it has to be cable and certainly doesn't have to be Netflix to be able to do that.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 11, 2014 8:24:01 GMT -5
I don't think Star Trek should be dark or overly edgy. I really don't want to see rated R stuff, gay sex, and gore on Star Trek.
Netflix is 0 for 1 in taking dead shows and bringing them back. Their season of Arrested Development was so bad I couldn't finish it.
And I LOVED the first three seasons.
And likely, it won't be about Kirk and crew, which likely means it will be another copy of a copy of a copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 11, 2014 9:19:40 GMT -5
Netflix is 0 for 1 in taking dead shows and bringing them back. Their season of Arrested Development was so bad I couldn't finish it. And I LOVED the first three seasons. And I still haven't seen it because it's the only Netflix series that STILL isn't on DVD yet. Supposedly it's coming soon, but we don't know when. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 11, 2014 20:18:18 GMT -5
I do watch Game of Thrones, and was going to mention it, but deleted that. It's a good show, but it feels like someone at HBO sometimes is saying "sex it up a bit". They've gotten away from some of the most egregious randomness (season 2 was the worst for it), and I'm surely not saying the show is just T&A. But I think that HBO likes to keep that as part of its identity.
But it is a Premium cable station, and the executive who was pushing it is right that they're allowed to do things most stations can't, and if there was ever a show where it would be expected, "Game of Thrones", with its quasi-medieval setting, would be it. It would also be understandable, and therefore expected, in a show like "Rome". STARZ also did it with "Spartacus", and it wasn't somehow out of place. Sure, it can be done gratuitously, and in that case I do think it pays to have someone there who knows when to rein it in, and I do think they've pulled back on it somewhat in GoT since back then. But the nudity has really nothing to do with the show's success.I'd prefer basic cable over Netflix, definitely. Hannibal is the most I've seen the envelope pushed on network TV. In terms of gore alone, beating out X-Files or Bones or any of the procedurals. It gets away with it because it's stylish and in a late time slot. But they've done some stuff there I've never seen get by on a network that wasn't Fox. Sometimes for a one-off episode a network might go there, but Hannibal does that sort of thing every week.
Frankly, I think the extent to which they're deliberately pushing boundaries is because the networks want to compete with cable, with "Hannibal" being an example of a show where they feel they can get away with it.I think it also comes down to just what do you mean by "more mature"? And how do you do it without betraying what Star Trek is?
Would you say they've succeeded in capturing the essence of "Star Trek" in the Abrams films, or have they instead bastardized it?
Well, if they didn't get it right, with all the immense talent brought to bear, and the hundreds of millions spent on each film to reboot it, then what the hell is there to really lose at this point anyway?
I think that at this point, with "Star Trek" being almost a half-century old, perhaps they really should be trying to think outside the box a little. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 11, 2014 20:30:27 GMT -5
I don't think Star Trek should be dark or overly edgy. I really don't want to see rated R stuff, gay sex, and gore on Star Trek. Netflix is 0 for 1 in taking dead shows and bringing them back. Their season of Arrested Development was so bad I couldn't finish it. And I LOVED the first three seasons. And likely, it won't be about Kirk and crew, which likely means it will be another copy of a copy of a copy.
Anyway, I've made no secret that I have no experience with Netflix whatsoever. However, at the same time, I wouldn't necessarily rule them out either on the basis of one show, which I never even watched by the way, even when it was airing on FOX. Who knows what kind of creative team they put together when they revived it. A lot of the people that had been tied to the show when it was airing on FOX may simply have moved on to other shows and projects, and so they had to assemble a different writing team. I'm just guessing, and truth be told, I couldn't care less either way since I know virtually nothing about "Arrested Development" one way or the other.
But as for what you said about gay sex in Trek --I confess, that's not something I was thinking of late last night when I wrote about how going to Netflix might not be the worst thing in the world necessarily. But yeah, if they would intend to go there as well, gag me with a friggin' spoon and count me the hell out. And I'm getting sick and tired of this gay stuff in all these shows frankly. I haven't even watched the latest episode of "Penny Dreadful" because the way episode four ended with Josh Hartnett was so damn dreadful that I really couldn't take it. I mean, I knew the Dorian Gray character was a switch-hitter, which was bad enough. But he was at least introduced that way, and it was also obvious by his picture-perfect pretty boy looks. But really --I'm getting utterly fed up with that crap and am not sure how much more of it I can stand. It's everywhere we look now practically, and it's bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 11, 2014 20:37:18 GMT -5
Boiling it down to the simplest possible sense, think an R rating. Imagine what could have been done with "First Contact" for instance, if they didn't feel compelled to keep it within the limits of a PG-13 rating. I'm not saying there needed to be gore for gore's sake necessarily, but I also feel it could have been done artistically for the sake of the production. Here we have the ultimate villains invading our world and trying to take over our minds and bodies and make us theirs --by any means necessary, and to annihilate our world and civilizations in the process. Well, if you're going to go there, you might as well do it in a way that emphasizes to the viewer the stakes and the cost if we were to lose. Was it a bad film? No. In fact, it was the best of the TNG movies, but so what? After seeing the Borg trying to pull off the same feat previously in the TV series, they could have taken it up several notches for a big screen theatrical feature. Yeah, there are young people in the audience, but by the time TNG hit the big screen, many of the people in that audience weren't as young as they were when they started watching the show on TV. In fact, dare I say, many of them were adults who could vote in elections, and maybe even order a drink in a bar, or join the military if they felt like it. [/font] But here I'd ask why is an R-rating necessary? I don't think it would have enhanced First Contact really in any way, a film that was already darker than we had gotten from most Trek on TV or film. The PG-13 was new for a Trek movie. They were making almost a zombie movie, basically, and had some surgical scenes and Picard riffling through Ensign Lynch's borgified guts and the Borg Queen's flesh melting from her, leaving a twitching robo-skeleton. How much more R-rated did we need that to be that would have served the story anymore? It's easy to look back now and say "PG-13 is tame", but in 1996 it was a new thing for Trek. There are episodes I feel are dancing around issues to get by censors, but I never felt like that with First Contact. And how do you do it without betraying what Star Trek is?
Would you say they've succeeded in capturing the essence of "Star Trek" in the Abrams films, or have they instead bastardized it?
Well, if they didn't get it right, with all the immense talent brought to bear, and the hundreds of millions spent on each film to reboot it, then what the hell is there to really lose at this point anyway?
I think that at this point, with "Star Trek" being almost a half-century old, perhaps they really should be trying to think outside the box a little.[/quote] I love me some Breaking Bad, but it is the hard question of what Star Trek is, and could it sustain that sort of tone. Voyager COULD have been that type of show, but the network and writers wussed out. I think that's part of why the idea of the season-long Year of Hell appeals to me, because there would be time to really go to those places. Maybe they should do a series or movie set in the mirror universe. That would allow them to have their cake and eat it too. Then you aren't betraying Star Trek by being dark and insane. A Klingon-set series, with it's old-school warfare, could also go that direction. In fact, I seem to recall the Star Trek: Klingon video game getting an M rating, but my memory may be faulty on that. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 12, 2014 19:06:14 GMT -5
But here I'd ask why is an R-rating necessary? I don't think it would have enhanced First Contact really in any way, a film that was already darker than we had gotten from most Trek on TV or film. The PG-13 was new for a Trek movie. They were making almost a zombie movie, basically, and had some surgical scenes and Picard riffling through Ensign Lynch's borgified guts and the Borg Queen's flesh melting from her, leaving a twitching robo-skeleton. How much more R-rated did we need that to be that would have served the story anymore? It's easy to look back now and say "PG-13 is tame", but in 1996 it was a new thing for Trek.
Exactly --it was a new thing for Trek. You said that, not me, and it kind of also serves to make my point, since it's what I'm advocating now.
As to what they could have done to make FC better, earning it an R rating instead, I don't think I need to go there beyond what I've already laid out. The R rating permits more freedom, and does contain themes and scenes that you wouldn't get in a PG-13 picture. That in itself says it all. Despite the scenes you just cited from the movie, it still received only a PG-13 rating. |
|
