this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
24 points (96.2% liked)

Daystrom Institute

3447 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to Daystrom Institute!

Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.

Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.

Rules

1. Explain your reasoning

All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.

2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.

This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.

3. Be diplomatic.

Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.

4. Assume good faith.

Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”

5. Tag spoilers.

Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.

6. Stay on-topic.

Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.

Episode Guides

The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Like most of us, I am greatly enjoying Strange New Worlds. One of the small benefits of the series, in my mind, is that it has finally broken one of the strangest of fan habits -- the insistence on literalism for TOS visuals, especially on things like ship designs and controls. Is there anyone still holding out for a "refit" of the beautiful SNW Enterprise so that it "really" looks like a set from the late 1960s? The updated look is a big part of what makes the TOS world seem relevant and alive for contemporary viewers, instead of just a nostalgia trip (as it was in the tribute episodes that showed TOS sets within a TNG/DS9 context).

Given that they have made the biggest remaining move of recasting Kirk, the idea of continuing past SNW into Kirk's Five-Year Mission seems unavoidable. Given that Paramount seems to be contracting their streaming footprint, it is admittedly unlikely that anything like this would ever get made. But something like the Kelvin Timeline tie-in comics where they redo TOS stories and intersperse them with new ones could actually be a good format -- reintroducing new viewers to classic stories while retrospectively granting more cohesion to TOS.

Obviously there would be drawbacks to redoing the old episodes. Fans would howl at any changes to the scripts, and of course there would be questions about whether any of this was worth anyone's time or talents. And maybe it wouldn't be! But redoing the most stone-cold classics of TOS in a more modern style could literally be the only way some new fans would engage with those stories. Young people are very intolerant of entertainment that seems old or outdated. Looking back at my childhood, I never liked TOS in large part simply because it looked too old and the acting style felt weird. If we really think that these stories are classics that deserve to endure for the long haul, a remake could be a way to inject new life into them.

What do you think? [UPDATE: You all have convinced me this is a bad idea. I will keep that in mind if I ever become head of Paramount.]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] williams_482@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

What would be the incentive to outright remake episodes instead of creating new ones with the same set of characters? Old fans will mostly hate the remakes, with some begrudging (but far from universal) acceptance if they execute it extremely well. New fans who aren't familiar with TOS won't know the difference, and worse, will see even less reason to use these remakes as a jumping off point into the older series: why go watch something that Paramount obviously thought was so terrible they had to redo it? And people who aren't Star Trek fans but exist in the periphery where they could get hooked in will see this as an example of creative bankruptcy from a giant studio riding yet another huge IP into the ground for lack of any new ideas.

I don't think anyone would want this.

Contrast that with releasing a TOS "season 4" which uses these same characters and sets, and like all Star Trek leans on similar tropes, but isn't outright recreating anything. Those existing TOS fans who have been won over by SNW will be at least curious about seeing what more this cast and writing team can do with that time period, and are much more likely to give it a shot. Newer fans who haven't seen TOS will react largely the same as they would with outright remakes, plus the possibility of them being drawn towards TOS itself as well. And to potential fans on the periphery, this is at least less of a flagrant "we're all out of ideas" option than outright remakes would be.

Personally I'm extremely intrigued by this recast Kirk, and would like to see more of him (not at the expense of Pike and company). But I definitely don't want to stick Paul Wesley in exactly the same spots with more or less the same words and actions as William Shatner, just to revel in a sharper picture of a nicer set.

[–] Tired8281@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

why go watch something that Paramount obviously thought was so terrible they had to redo it?

Sorry, that point-of-view just doesn't jibe with the immense amount of re-makes and sequels we've got out there now. If it was common to think a re-make means the whole thing sucks and shouldn't be watched, re-makes wouldn't be as successful as they are.

[–] williams_482@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wasn't referring to the remake being "so terrible they had to redo it", but the original.

Paramount has a financial incentive to get people interested in their products, including TOS. Any new Star Trek show is valuable both as a draw for people interested in it, and as an opportunity to get people interested in watching the older, already existent shows. An outright remake of one of those older shows tells a potential convert brought in by your remake that the original version is something they probably shouldn't bother with.

[–] Tired8281@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I know you meant the original. I just feel that, if that was the way people felt about originals after re-makes are made, we wouldn't have so many re-makes. I think people feel more like, if they bothered to do a re-make, the original must be pretty good.

load more comments (3 replies)