www.ditl.org

While there is time and money issues they could just creat 2 or 3 good species and use them for more than 2 episodes rather than give us 50 crappy species like we usually get.

Unfortunately, the logic of Star Trek is that at least one or two aliens will be necessary every week...at the very least, a few non-human Starfleet officers. Then there's the alien species of the week, the civilian aliens milling in a crowd....in practice, it's almost impossible to save and proportion your money like you suggest. Star Trek, in its simplest form, is basically the Alien of the Week, and in this climate, big, complicated alien species designs are very, very difficult to pull off...

But what non humanoid life forms do we have. Tholians and 8472. They would not need a lot of time and effort to make a few non standard life forms and reuse them quite often.

But what non humanoid life forms do we have. Tholians and 8472. They would not need a lot of time and effort to make a few non standard life forms and reuse them quite often.

Granted. But on a tight budget, people usually aren't thinking in the grand picture of 'if we spent x amount now to build two non-human lifeforms, then we could re-use them later'. They're usually just worrying about the needed designs from the episode that airs in a month.
So, lack of long-term thinking? I think its usually just called 'doing the job right'...

So, lack of long-term thinking? I think its usually just called 'doing the job right'...

I'd always heard that referred to as 'doing the job wrongly.

WRT all these comparisons between Trek and Who, look at the old series of Doctor Who and compare it to Trek. While it was notorious for plastic aliens and almost every important character either being or appearing human, they still managed to include huge numbers of new aliens. If they can do it why not the far bigger budget and better technology to recent Trek series. They also managed to write the plots well enough that those poor - quality aliens and sets didn't matter. After all, in its basic concept, what's scary about an oversized pepperpot with a sink plunger and an egg whisk attatched to it? In comparison, look at the technology available to recent Trek series and look at the scripts. The first great, the latter, somewhat less so.

I think you're making it a bit more simple that it actually is. If there was a formula to what makes a film great, or one key element, then there wouldn't be any bad films.

I don't think anyone is suggestiing that. What we're criticising is the ridiculous lack of creativity among the Trek series.

Rochey wrote:I don't think anyone is suggestiing that. What we're criticising is the ridiculous lack of creativity among the Trek series.

Oh yes, there is no creativity, but it gets quite hard after a while. Doctor Who caters to more laid back fans. Star Trek gets guys like us picking at every little thing they do. I'm not defending them (far from it), but just saying that any film in general, it's hard to do. If your boss tells you to write a script or you don't get paid half a million dollars, you're going to write a script. Crappy or not.

True.

In comparison, look at the technology available to recent Trek series and look at the scripts. The first great, the latter, somewhat less so.

I'm curious; what do you mean specifically when you refer to 'recent Trek series'...Enterprise? Voyager? Deep Space Nine? Because while I would definitely agree that Voyager and Enterprise have had major problems in the script department, I think that TNG's and DS9's scripts were some of their better points...but whatever...to each his own.

They still lacked creativity in alien species and the wider story arcs.