<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sense of Wonder: Sci-Fi Soap Opera Hell</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2009/02/sense-of-wonder-sci-fi-soap-opera-series-hell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2009/02/sense-of-wonder-sci-fi-soap-opera-series-hell/</link>
	<description>The Review of Horror, Fantasy &#38; Science Fiction Films</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 01:52:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dennis Fischer</title>
		<link>http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2009/02/sense-of-wonder-sci-fi-soap-opera-series-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-12212</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/?p=5326#comment-12212</guid>
		<description>I both agree and disagree with what you are saying, Steve.  Certainly, the nature of television storytelling has changed, and since HILL STREET BLUES, more series have more complicated arcs, episodic stories that carry throughout a season.  On the plus side, this can allow some terrific epic storytelling, such as BABYLON 5 or the recent BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series.  On the other hand, it can definitely be off-putting to a newbie, as you suggest, who doesn&#039;t know the characters (they are no longer so easily decoded) or why a given piece of drama is significant.

In the original STAR TREK, it was easy to suss who the heroes are, what it was that they wanted, etc.  Not every story was a winner by a long shot, but the characters became familiar and even in a not-so-great episode, it could be fun to spend time with them.

On the other hand, as a long-time STAR TREK fan who grew up with the original series, the new J.J. Abrams version clearly announces to me that this &quot;isn&#039;t your father&#039;s STAR TREK.&quot;  It has been significantly retooled, and from what I gather, with a lack of respect for prior continuity.  It appears that it wants to hit the re-set button and begin the whole franchise all over again, but it is very hard to capture lightning in a bottle twice.

THE NEXT GENERATION was STAR TREK, but it was definitely a STAR TREK that spoke more to the &#039;80s than to the &#039;60s.  Elements of the show were altered to bring it up to date, and to my mind, that show didn&#039;t really find its footing until Michael Piller came onboard in the third season.

I like intelligent and interesting science fiction no matter what the label, so I wish the new Abrams version much luck, but after long association, when I hear &quot;Captain Kirk&quot; and &quot;Spock,&quot; naturally there are some expectations that come along with those characters.  However, a new version does nothing to spoil anything about the old.  Many people are thrilled with the updated STAR TREK Hi-Def released on HD-DVD (and no doubt will make it eventually to Bluray).  There, a lot of respect was given to stay true to the original designs but augment them, but it still seems odd to me when I see a CGI Enterprise versus the original model.  As much as I can understand a studio wishing to make a profit with &quot;new, improved&quot; versions (and some films have greatly benefited from being altered and adjusted, no question), there are times when it feels like some visigoths are trampling through my memories (&quot;Han shot first!&quot;).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I both agree and disagree with what you are saying, Steve.  Certainly, the nature of television storytelling has changed, and since HILL STREET BLUES, more series have more complicated arcs, episodic stories that carry throughout a season.  On the plus side, this can allow some terrific epic storytelling, such as BABYLON 5 or the recent BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series.  On the other hand, it can definitely be off-putting to a newbie, as you suggest, who doesn&#8217;t know the characters (they are no longer so easily decoded) or why a given piece of drama is significant.</p>
<p>In the original STAR TREK, it was easy to suss who the heroes are, what it was that they wanted, etc.  Not every story was a winner by a long shot, but the characters became familiar and even in a not-so-great episode, it could be fun to spend time with them.</p>
<p>On the other hand, as a long-time STAR TREK fan who grew up with the original series, the new J.J. Abrams version clearly announces to me that this &#8220;isn&#8217;t your father&#8217;s STAR TREK.&#8221;  It has been significantly retooled, and from what I gather, with a lack of respect for prior continuity.  It appears that it wants to hit the re-set button and begin the whole franchise all over again, but it is very hard to capture lightning in a bottle twice.</p>
<p>THE NEXT GENERATION was STAR TREK, but it was definitely a STAR TREK that spoke more to the &#8217;80s than to the &#8217;60s.  Elements of the show were altered to bring it up to date, and to my mind, that show didn&#8217;t really find its footing until Michael Piller came onboard in the third season.</p>
<p>I like intelligent and interesting science fiction no matter what the label, so I wish the new Abrams version much luck, but after long association, when I hear &#8220;Captain Kirk&#8221; and &#8220;Spock,&#8221; naturally there are some expectations that come along with those characters.  However, a new version does nothing to spoil anything about the old.  Many people are thrilled with the updated STAR TREK Hi-Def released on HD-DVD (and no doubt will make it eventually to Bluray).  There, a lot of respect was given to stay true to the original designs but augment them, but it still seems odd to me when I see a CGI Enterprise versus the original model.  As much as I can understand a studio wishing to make a profit with &#8220;new, improved&#8221; versions (and some films have greatly benefited from being altered and adjusted, no question), there are times when it feels like some visigoths are trampling through my memories (&#8221;Han shot first!&#8221;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

