[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I disagree. Orci and Kurtzman went easier on the fanwank in ST09 than in Countdown and NEM, another movie written by a fan, is not fanwankish at all. I don't see how one could generalize about scriptwriters who are fans based on that.

Countdown shows, among many other things, that ST09 is a semi-reboot, far more timid than TWOK or TNG.
As much as I like to see the classical characters again, the future of Trek lies in another "next generation". Otherwise all this inbreeding will make Trek slowly decay.

I was talking about Countdown

[horatio]

Which was the project of O&K, written by some of their minions. Yet their movie was less fanwankish than their comic (and still more fanwankish than any other movie).
As comics have a narrower target audience it is not surprising that they are more fan-orientated.

You could easily claim that NEM fails because the fan who wrote it did not stick close enough to what has come before. Picard driving a buggy, vampires from the dark side of the moon overwhelming the mighty Romulan Empire, sounds quite antithetical to TNG. That's why I don't believe that scriptwriters who are fans write necessarily more fanwankishly (now that's a funky adverb).

[kevin]

Generally speaking, I leave comic books to comic book fans but since some bright spark during the Berman era already crossed TNG and X-Men in the format I think that tells one all they need to know about how inbred and iffy they can get.

But I didn't mind the fanwank in the last film. But I firmly accept everyone's definition of and tolerance level of it differs. It's like technobabble. I couldn't entirely say it was the most fanwankish film but I'm not likely to ever sit through them all and tot up all the moments that may count. Though possibly just because for the most part O & K were able to blend it into the story in a way that didn't make it feel like fanwank but just made it seem enjoyable. Or that they knew it needed approached differently in film than in a comic format where fanwank has already tipped over the common sense level (read X-men crossover above).

Apart from the Archer reference. I'd have vetoed that in a heartbeat.

[horatio]

I don't understand how people can talk about ST09 being the bright new future which put the Berman era to rest while the very movie is full of beagles, Cardassian sunrises and so on.
In my opinion Trek needs a clearer cut like in '82 or '87. Meyer wasn't afraid to break with Roddenberryian peacenikkery and pyjamas and Roddenberry wasn't afraid to reimagine his vision and piss off many TOS fans in the process. Trek will only become outstanding again once guys (or gals) with balls who are not afraid to piss off anybody are at the whelm.

PS: Forgot about DS9, Ira Steven Behr also belongs into the list.

[kevin]

For a start I don't really view 82 as the huge schism that you seem to, so there's that - I'm just not that taken by the supposed balls Meyer had. If you watch TOS there's plenty of military talk amongst the 'we travel in peace' lines so why anyone thinks meyer reinvented the wheel I still don't know. He just made the emphasis less subtle. Plus I think Harve Bennett kick started the ball in that direction or at least was as responsible.

Pissing off some fans isn't even that hard to do - especially Trek ones, I think we all know that, so it's over-rated.

Besides stuff like Beagles and Cardassian beverages are just insignificant mentions overall. Are we meant to pretend Cardassians never existed until 'The Wounded' or something?

And actually in TV format I've always said that I would prefer another series to take another leap away from the 24th C and into a late 25th etc type setting. On the other hand actually you're the one who normally keeps advocating a 23rd Century show.............on a little freighter somewhere on the rough edges of space.............something along those lines.

[horatio]

Obviously a far saner suggestion than TOS fans hoping to see Kirk et al. on the small screen again in a third incarnation.
Many people, including somebody like me who does not particularly like TOS, recognize that the sterility of the 24th century is a liability and the roughness of the 23rd an asset.
This plus a setting on another place besides a starship is something you can work with and I don't see that this is giving in to fan demands. Writing a comic book because a fan asks you to on the other hand is and it is not something I can picture Meyer, Roddenberry or Behr doing. Furthermore these three guys f**ed either with the studio* or their predecessor. Doesn't hurt if the guy at the helm of Trek has some Kirkian traits.

* - That's not at least why I paradoxically wish that less money is poured into Trek. It wasn't the first movie with the gargantum budget that did the trick, it was the second with the tiny one.

[kevin]

I tend to agree that budget isn't a factor strictly - but there are more than a few reasons why TWOK was run on a tighter ship than the first film.

I would be more impressed with Meyer's fights with Roddenberry if it didn't come across merely as two ego's duking it out rather than people trying to collaborate to make something work. But neither man is clean-cut and both made films that have their various positives and negatives. And I figure if Roddenberry was money oriented enough to write lyrics to theme music just to get a cut.........why not make a comic book if it sells? Star Trek mined much tackier merchandising opportunities under Berman and the studio and got in first with the fanwank genre crossovers.

I'm not aware of Behr ever fighting with anyone, but I could be wrong. If he did I'd love to know what over actually. I'm sure I remember him saying that DS9 was just sort of left to do it's own thing because the powers that be were more interested in the TNG films and VOY at the time. But where that recollection comes from I dunno. The fog of my memory most likely. Or a long ago interview.

Anyway, those aspects are essentially water long passed under the bridge.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

The examples being held against the movie are mostly easter eggs. They are meant to just roll by, they aren't plot points. They are just scenery.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The examples being held against the movie are mostly easter eggs. They are meant to just roll by, they aren't plot points. They are just scenery.

Agreed. I even think 'scenery' in this case is a more accurate description than easter eggs.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The examples being held against the movie are mostly easter eggs. They are meant to just roll by, they aren't plot points. They are just scenery.

Yeah. If you want to create the idea of a bigger universe out there you have to mention stuff in passing that suggests there's more than these 7 folks and that's it. Plus usually when you do an alternate timeline part of the fun of that is referencing that.