WC too glossy like Star Trek?

Originally posted by Shane
When one of the multitude of Kirk's women died, he usually got overwrought, but that was Shatner's acting style :)
Click to expand...
Having just seen Star Trek 2 yesterday I know what you mean (referring to Spock's funeral) :D
The beginning of Star Trek 3 also deals with how people deal with death pretty well, in spite of Spock being resurrected and Kirk caring about his sons death for about 2 minutes, never to be mentioned again until ST6...
In fact, he cared more about the loss of the Enterprise! And so did I, the original Enterprise refit was beautiful!
 
Ghost, on that list of folks who were affected by Dax's death one name you didn't mention (probably because you didn't want to type the names of the whole cast :) ) was Quark. I was particularly moved by the scenes with Quark and Bashir after her death. They'd always given Quark a bit of a soft spot, but it really was evident after that point.
 
Originally posted by Unforgiven
[B}The beginning of Star Trek 3 also deals with how people deal with death pretty well, in spite of Spock being resurrected and Kirk caring about his sons death for about 2 minutes, never to be mentioned again until ST6... [/B]
Click to expand...

In Kirk's, Shantner's and the writer's defense, there was really a good time in 4 or 5 to bring it up. It made sense it sixth, and was crucial to the plot. My Dad died 11 years ago, not a day goes by that I don't think of him, but I don't usually bring it up in conversations with folks. Kirk probably is the same way, but he reserves those thoughts for his personal log and doesn't start every conversation with "Those damn Klingons killed my kid, but boy the weather here on Reisa is sure nice." :)

Switching universes, Luke never mentions his Aunt and Uncle in the movies after Star Wars, iirc, nor does Leia, in the movies, talk about the fact that her family and planet were destroyed.
 
Originally posted by Shane
Ghost, on that list of folks who were affected by Dax's death one name you didn't mention (probably because you didn't want to type the names of the whole cast :) ) was Quark. I was particularly moved by the scenes with Quark and Bashir after her death. They'd always given Quark a bit of a soft spot, but it really was evident after that point.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, and also we have O´Brien, Kira, and Odo.
And also i can remember one episode in which,Worf,O´Brien,Quark and Marthok must *earn* the passage of Jadzia to Stovo´khor. a very emotive episode.
 
People who write essays about Star Trek need to be shot in the neck. And then seven other parts of the body.
 
Originally posted by Shane
Switching universes, Luke never mentions his Aunt and Uncle in the movies after Star Wars, iirc, nor does Leia, in the movies, talk about the fact that her family and planet were destroyed.
Click to expand...

Thats because it doesn't fit in with the true classical hero. Go read Joesph Campbell's insanely dry book "The Hero of a 1000 Faces".
 
Although I certainly appreacite Luke's adherence to Campbell's archetype, I don't really see how *this* situation applies. Isn't one of the aspects of the hero myth the idea that the hero must directly atone for what he has (perhaps inadvertantly) caused? Herakles performed his labors because he'd killed his wife -- shouldn't Luke and Leia continue to bear the weights of the deaths they were responsible for?
 
I think they still do, but more so in the novels than the books. That's usually the advantage of books over movies, it is often harder to explain some things in a film that is limited to 2-3 hours at best.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, Kirk in Star Trek IV and V didn't pine over the loss of his son during the times we were watching his life. His character is the type that would keep things like this to himself. Even in VI it came up only in a personal log, the only reason we heard it was because it was key to the plot of that movie. The same goes for Luke and Leia. There are a lot of aspects of their "lives" and any other charcter's life that we don't see in a film. I'm not sure I got what LeHah was trying to say about hero archetypes. I don't think it is so much the type of charcter in the story as it is the type of media used to tell the story.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
People who write essays about Star Trek need to be shot in the neck. And then seven other parts of the body.
Click to expand...
Yeah ... and what about the people who spend time creating a list of drinks for a fictional universe, or people who have redundant copies of the same product in various forms. :)

As for Star Trek, lots of main characters have died ... only to come back later. Here is a sampling:
Picard -- Killed and later resurrected by Q.
Worf -- Killed and resurrected by some powerful non-corporeal being.
Kirk -- never mind about this.
O'Brien -- died but swithched with his self from another timeline. (It is these kinds of stories that cheapen death in Star Trek.)
A wide assortment of people in Voyager -- Neelix, for instance. There are probably a lot more that I do not remember right now.
 
KirK? If you are refering to shatners novels, most people don't consider the star trek novels canon.. (hem hem... I don't want to get into that) But I get your point.

In my opinion though, each star trek show is it's own kind of entity. TOS and Next Gen were never meant to be dark just as Enterprise seems to have taken a step back into the fold. These shows were about discovery and adventure. DS9 on the otherhand seemed darker because it's whole focuss was different. How can you focuss on adventure in a station !

However I will point out the death of Tasha Yar in Next Generation. As well, I thought the death of worfs mate (alexanders mother) was fairly emotional. Anyway besides that, Star Trek isn't WC and Other than maybe DS9 it's focus isn't war despite starfleet being a military entity. Wing Commander is all about war. Which do you expect will more likely deal with death more often??

But I wouldn't say that the deaths that there are in Star trek arent as emotional.
 
Yeah ... and what about the people who spend time creating a list of drinks for a fictional universe, or people who have redundant copies of the same product in various forms.
Click to expand...

To be fair, nothing I've ever done has involved thought. :)

I did mis-speak, though -- anyone who has ever written an essay to *attack* Star Trek (or anything else they're not a fan of) needs to be shot in the face (and then seven other places).
 
Originally posted by Ghost
I´m expecting that some fucking moron comes here and will said:

*Sheridan died and later was revived, so B5 is a piece of bullshit because he can´t be revived*. :mad:
Click to expand...

In literary terms, that is a fallicious statement because it is a non sequitur fallacy. The there is no justification for that argument based on the grounds given. Tell THAT to the average B5-hater. :D
 
Originally posted by Meson
Death doesn't mean dark, but it is a good indicator. When the heros die, something horible must of happen to cause them to die, and that tends to lead to a feeling of darkness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know! Kinda' like in Robotech when Roy died!
 
Well, I think another reason that Star Trek doesn't kill people off nearly as much is for one, it is not based on war, or take place during war-time (most of the time). And secondly, excepting the movies of course, people need to survive to keep the TELEVISION SHOW going. If within two weeks of Next Gen's premiere Picard would of bit the bullet then what kind of show would that make?
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF

I did mis-speak, though -- anyone who has ever written an essay to *attack* Star Trek (or anything else they're not a fan of) needs to be shot in the face (and then seven other places).
Click to expand...

When I was in high school, it was always the people who had never watched star trek who would say they hated the show and would bug me for liking it. Then they would turn around and say how much they liked seaquest and would then say they thought it was the next Star Trek. Humph!!
I didn't mind seaquest but I couldn't get into it the same way. There was just something about it. But I didn't go around telling people they were idiots for watching it (hey I did enjoy it sometimes.)
 
To be fair, seaQuest does ROCK! Woo! Bad water! Yee!

Anyway, all the examples given of characters being 'revived' were within single closed stories, though -- circumstances under which the claim that death is taken too lightly doesn't seem to apply. They're all situations where the author of the script sat down and said "Okay, this is something interesting that could happen this week..." rather than "Oh, we killed Picard ten episodes back, but now I want to write about him again!". None of the examples you give were trying to tell stories *about* death... and that's almost always clear to the viewer when the episode starts.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
They're all situations where the author of the script sat down and said "Okay, this is something interesting that could happen this week..." rather than "Oh, we killed Picard ten episodes back, but now I want to write about him again!". None of the examples you give were trying to tell stories *about* death... and that's almost always clear to the viewer when the episode starts.
Click to expand...

With the exception of shatners novel series that starts with "ashes of eden" :D

Actually I've enjoyed the series of books, but it did seem like shatner didn't like his character being killed off so he wrote books in which Kirk gets resurected shortly after the events in Generations.
 
It is quite correct that in none of those episodes the death was not the main focus. But the crew has been in so many adventures and faced so many various circumstances (including death) that when they try to focus on an issue like death, seriously, it does not come off strongly, however. It is just my personal opinion, though. I also think Star Trek's general unbelivability (at times) is partially caused by the nature of television programs. When you have hundreds of episodes covering all kinds of situations, the beliveability and realism eventually get decrease. This is a problem with most shows like that, and it is not limited to Star Trek. That is not to say that shows are inferior or cheap, it is just a part of having adventures every weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top