Anybody wrote:
> In article <47a5e5f1$0$8416$db0fefd9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Jaxtraw"
> <jax@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Snake wrote:
>>> "Jaxtraw" <jax@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:47a4ed93$0$8422$db0fefd9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> There isn't any "history" to "pee over", Anybody. It's fiction.
>>>> It's made up. It doesn't actualy exist. It's just a story. Really.
>>>
>>> True...but if Star Trek had no "history" then TNG, DS9, Voy, ENT
>>> **AND** all the movies - EVERY SINGLE ONE - would not exist.
>>>
>>> It IS the "history" that makes these constructs have the possibility
>>> of existing.
>>
>> It's not history though, it's storytelling. A story may tell an
>> imaginary history, even to the complex level of The Lord Of The
>> Rings, but it's still just a story. Its only measure of virtue is in
>> its storytelling virtue. If it fails in that, it has failed, period.
>> Reboots are entirely reasonable in storytelling as they allow new
>> stories to be told, when a "history" has become so complex and
>> complete that there is nothing interesting left to be done with it.
>> We know too much about the Star Trek universe now for it to retain
>> interest for most people. Wiping the slate clean is a reasonable way
>> to solve that problem, except for Anybody apparently.
>
> Except it isn't "reasonable" in any way. By "wiping the slate clean"
> you've killed off "Star Trek" as we know it and created a brand new
> franchise ("JJ Abrams Star Trek"), in which case they should simply do
> the sensible and decent thing by giving it a new name too, otherwise
> it's "Star Trek" in name only ... and no true fan wants such garbage.
So, when jazz musicians extemporise around a theme, that's wrong too, is
it?
You keep saying they "should" do this and that. On what authority does
this
obligation come? You talk about "true fans". That sounds like a very
exclusive club. For whom do you speak? Is there an Anybody Test that
everybody must take before becoming a "true fan". What of people who just
enjoy Star Trek without some profound sense of commitment to this club?
Are
their views unimportant?
You don't seem to accept any viability to the concept of reinterpretation.
But this is something humans like to do. Sometimes they want to create
something completely original, other times they have a powerful desire to
take something which already exists, and do their own interpretation of
it.
This is what fanfic is. This is what fanfilms are. This is what some
parodies are; look at Star Wreck In The Pirkinning (I just this day got
around to watching that). It takes familiar things- Trek and Babylon 5,
and
does something new with them. Is that inherently evil? If we look at
rebooting, it is effectively the process of taking the raw elements of a
fictional universe, and starting again with new stories. You can keep some
of the elements, and discard others. You can make it more appropriate to a
new audience because audiences change over time. The kids of today are
terrifyingly different to the kids of 40 years ago. Just at random, I
cringe
whenever I watch "The Apple" as the cast coyly skirt around that
toe-curling
discussion about making babies, because that was the TV standards of the
time. It looks beyond ridiculous to modern eyes. TOS was made by, and for,
the people of the late 60s. The TNG (effective) reboot was made by, and
for,
the people of the late 80s. It's now the late 2000s. Another generation
onwards. It needs to be made by, and for, the people of today.
Take my own little universe in my comic strip Lucy Lastique. I've already
spent some years creating this universe, building canon, building a
history.
I'm quite proud of that in my own way, and the readers seem to like it.
I've
lots more story to tell, and I hope they're interested in finding out
where
the story is going as the "history" is constructed. But there will come a
time when it runs out of puff. There'll be no more worthwhile story to
tell,
Lucy's destiny and life will all be revealed, and that's it, game over. I
hope I'll be honest about when it's "universe complete" and call it a day.
And anyway, i'll get old and eventually die.
So let's imagine it were to become better known than it currently is, just
hypothetically. Well maybe, somebody in 2060 will read it and say, "hey,
this was pretty good, I'd like to do something with this". Well, it'll be
a
very different world then, and the audience for such a thing would be very
different people. So our hypothetical future creator may want to take the
basic ideas of the story- the characters, some of the situations, but then
weave a new tale around that. It might be rather good. It might be better
than what I did; they could at least discard the canon elements I'm stuck
with due to not knowing where it was going when I started :) I think I'd
prefer them to do a reinterpretation than to try to "add bits on" to what
I
did, since they're different people who inherently won't have the same
"vision" as me.
So, you would say "then they should just create something entirely new".
That's not a wrong argument, but it's restrictive. If they're required to
make something entirely new, they're barred from using the characters and
situations from Lucy altogether- they can't use the names, or the same
setup, or any of the same plots. If they do, they might get sued, and old
fans would scream about how it's a rip-off, plagiarism, unoriginal.
As a creator of a very minor sci-fi universe, I much prefer the idea that
it
would live on in new ways for new audiences, than die with me. I really
don't see anything wrong with new creators taking older works and
reinterpreting them. It's jazz.
Ian
--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in
|
