http://www.metafilter.com/99091…
It's easier to follow the links in this article than to track to the original articles it cites. Basically, Michael Pillar, "Star Trek: TNG's" show runner, detailed what went wrong with "Star Trek: Insurrection."
While I might complain that I just now realized the final plot of the movie was swiped by "Avatar," is it better than the original idea of swiping from "Heart of Darkness?" or rather "Apocalypse Now?"
Commenters in the article point out the main problem with Roddenberry's Star Trek universe: The Federation has infinite resources and its people can get pretty much anything they want. Starship crews are all perfected human beings without the possibility for character-based conflict. The only source for conflict is people on new planets who haven't been converted to The Way; or the Borg, the Ferengi (as originally conceived) and other races who invade the Federation because they Want Our Stuff. After Roddenberry died, the staff were allowed to create some conflict among characters. Deep Space 9 threw together more than one source of conflict with the local war's detente and its intrigues, then the Founders on the other side of the wormhole, while the beloved Ferengi Quark made his nut by meeting even Federation members' appetite for avarice. And don't forget "Gold-pressed Latinum," introduced as the new hard (well, liquid) currency because it was the only substance which couldn't be duplicated by transporters.
Then again, this is the production crew that did two movies with a Villain who wanted to Blow Up the Earth simply because they had a bad day. At least Marvin the martian wanted a better view of Venus!
No comments:
Post a Comment