|
Post by Dusk Fox on Aug 15, 2005 15:30:26 GMT
Yeah, Wesley Crusher was a serious Mary Sue (or Marty Stu, I guess), and Gene Rodenberry was crazy. The stuff he wanted Wesley to do eventually was nothing short of ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Aug 15, 2005 15:42:26 GMT
Please elaborate on that comment, DF.
|
|
|
Post by Dusk Fox on Aug 15, 2005 16:11:35 GMT
Well, before Gene Rodenberry lost creative control for NextGen because he was a crazy old fart, he had this huge vision for the future of the Star Trek universe that essentially no one else thought was a good idea. While details are sketchy at best, apparently Rodenberry wanted to take the show in a direction more in synch with the original Trek, with plotlines and events best described as “trippy” and “preachy.” In the case of Wesley Crusher, the observations of the Traveler (I think that was his name; the freaky alien who tells Wesley he’s “special like Mozart”) were going to be much more central to the show, and Wesley was going to become this super-star-genius-[good]-Einstein-Columbus figure who was essentially going to be magical, powerful, and bring peace and harmony to the galaxy. This is back in the day when Gene thought the Ferengi would make great major villains for the show (on the level of Romulans and Klingons for the original Trek).
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Aug 15, 2005 16:23:03 GMT
All I have to say in response to that is "yikes!"
|
|
|
Post by Dusk Fox on Aug 15, 2005 16:26:57 GMT
Yeah, this is why creative control was wrenched from him after Season 1.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Aug 15, 2005 17:59:31 GMT
Yes, that's exactly what I heard too, DF. The scary thing was, someone (I don't know how seriously) told me the idea to bring Wesley back and make a series along those lines was being mooted to take over from Voyager (a show with about 6 plotlines they repeated ad nauseum across seven 24-episode seasons) when it ended. Instead, they made the dreadful Enterprise. I think TNG seasons 3-7 are the only Star Trek I can be bothered watching, apart from the movies. And we all know the Rule about Star Trek Movies, right? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 16, 2005 9:16:17 GMT
I don't, what is the rule? I did not know that is what happened with the Crusher kid in Trek, all I know what that I could not stand him. My personal favourite was always DS9... the most realistic one of them all in my opinion, went into the nitty-gritty of the way life was, not utopian and all peachy keen where morality trumped the realistic fact that there was these really bad people who wanted to kill you which meant that good people have to sometimes do bad things. Just a thought, Al
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Aug 16, 2005 9:41:26 GMT
I don't, what is the rule? All the odd-numbered films suck.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Aug 16, 2005 10:25:46 GMT
Yup, that's the rule! ;D
|
|
|
Post by North Star on Aug 18, 2005 9:16:01 GMT
That's not quite fair! See the rule is that the odd-numbered films are perhaps unduly reverential of the show's history and the even-numbered films don't need to be about Star Trek to be great fun! (Now, was Insurrection odd and Nemesis even?)
NS.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Aug 18, 2005 12:23:01 GMT
Erm, The Wrath of Khan, is #2 in the series, and that's based purely on a character from TOS. It's also much better than either the preceding film, where nothing happens and takes a long time to not happen, and the subsequent film which is melodramatic and a bit of a mess. But neither film 1 nor film 3 make particular references to TOS, I think? It's been so long since I sat through them.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 18, 2005 15:31:27 GMT
I think that "unduly reverential" is an understatement... the way the movies play out you would think that every person gets to be a general/admiral in starfleet!
Al
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Aug 24, 2005 21:03:08 GMT
I liked Galaxy Quest, myself.
|
|
|
Post by Dusk Fox on Aug 25, 2005 2:02:21 GMT
I liked Galaxy Quest, myself. Seconded. Brilliant parody. "By Grabthar's Hammer, you shall be avenged!"
|
|