Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale
I've never understood why people hold Star Trek to such a high standard in the first place. In my opinion the "heart" of Star Trek is TNG, because I think we can all agree that the best actor to ever appear in Star Trek is Patrick Stewart and its not even close. We could argue for eternity on who the second best is, but they would be light-years behind Stewart. Only a talent like that can take sometimes outright terrible dialogue and make it sound glorious. The fact he always took the role seriously elevated the game of everyone around him. Aside from Dr. Crusher (Gates McFadden is an awful actor) every single other character shined the brightest when working a scene with Stewart.
Unless you can find another actor of his quality Star Trek will seldom rise above "good" which I'm actually fine with, because I don't think it was ever meant to be so serious. It's just TNG was a show that punched so far above it's weight that anything new will be a let down compared to it. Avery Brooks was awesome, I had no issue with Kate Mulgrew as Janeway, and I actually liked Enterprise very much. The NX01 is my favorite Enterprise. The thing is that I didn't go into the other Treks outside of TNG expecting them to measure up. Its just not going to happen.
|
I don't think we hold Star Trek to a high standard. I think we just wish they'd make Star Trek again.
Star Trek, at its core, is a low budget space adventure the whole family can enjoy. It specialises in morality plays. The best Trek involves putting characters in impossible situations and testing them. There are many examples, but just some famous ones:
Picard has to argue before the Federation that Data is a new life form and has the right to self determination.
Kirk, Spock and McCoy have to decide to let Edith Keeler die or let Hitler win the war.
Sisko enlists the services of Garek to get the Romulans into the Dominion War and ends up betraying everything he believes in.
Janeway makes a deal with the Borg to destroy the squid aliens.
Star Trek is not about special effects. It's not about space battles. The best episodes of Star Trek could be performed as a stage play. Can you imagine any of the Abrams Treks as a play?
All of the original series films were cerebral stories first, and the action was secondary. Even the Final Frontier, a film that's a complete disaster from beginning to end, is kicking around some weighty ideas about god and the meaning of life. You know, Star Trek stuff. Prior to the 2009 film, the highest grossing Trek film of all time was Star Trek IV - the one with the whales.
Every show builds up to people having a fight with each other. Star Trek is often about getting people to recognize they can't punch their way out of a situation - thus they have to cooperate. Communist, maybe. But it's good tv.
When I hear this Discovery show is going to be TV MA, it is yet another reminder the suits don't understand this property. Star Trek doesn't need boobs, it doesn't need cursing, it doesn't need a spike through the chest. It needs to be Star Trek. Go on an adventure, learn about yourselves, send the audience a message, come back again next week.
It's a high standard, but it's not one you can fix by throwing money at visuals or talent - the show has to know what it's meant to be, or it doesn't work.