TV: Star Trek returning to TV

[johnjm22]

Maybe it's because of how the franchise was nearly destroyed by the last two TV series, both of which were somewhat risky and the risks didn't pan out (really their own damn fault). First, we're going to explore without the icon of the Enterprise and then, the risk of doing a prequel when certain technology is already better than what they had on starships in previous series. Failures in those series might make a lot of execs risk averse, even if it was the writing and not the premises that failed them.

If they can make a quality show while still somewhat playing it safer early on, maybe they can take more risks down the road.

I considered both of those shows to be very safe. The story telling, perspective, and structure of the episodes was for the most part what we had seen a millions times already and that was part of the problem.

 

[Tawnos]

I considered both of those shows to be very safe. The story telling, perspective, and structure of the episodes was for the most part what we had seen a millions times already and that was part of the problem.

Part of it, sure. But the real problem was that, even in that structure and with that storytelling and perspective, the writing itself was bad. But as I said, it wasn't the execution itself, whether writing or structure, that was risky. It was the premises. DS9 was too, but the writing pulled it off.

 

[Blender]

Enterprise is just another example of the same thing they have been doing since with prequels. Sure they have changed the look of the show up and the new movies focused way more on action/adventure than Star Trek ever has, but it was still an attempt to look backwards and be safe within existing canon instead of creating something new. With the exception of the setting, Voyager was essentially a TNG rehash that they did because TNG was off the air.

This franchise hasn't taken a true risk driven purely by creativity since DS9.

 

[johnjm22]

In Enterprise the technology should have been more primitive. When the show first started there was no transporters and language translation between species was difficult. However, the writers never took these limitations seriously. Soon they wrote in transporters and communication was no problem which resulted in the showing falling back into the same old formula as previous series.

Taking a risk would have been not relying on the same old Star Trek technologies like transporters and universal translation. This would have forced them to try different things or tell stories in a different way.

 

[johnjm22]

A couple new Klingon ships in the latest promo:

 

[Cloned]

Based on everything I'm seeing, I'd have a hard time believing this is in the Prime Timeline.

 

[johnjm22]

Based on everything I'm seeing, I'd have a hard time believing this is in the Prime Timeline.

Prime or not, it's for sure a "re-imagining" of Star Trek. No doubt about it. They just won't come out and officially say it.

 

[Tawnos]

Prime or not, it's for sure a "re-imagining" of Star Trek. No doubt about it. They just won't come out and officially say it.

Which is okay if it is.

 

[Osprey]

Which is okay if it is.

It's not okay with me. There's nothing so wrong with Star Trek that it needs re-imagining. It needs updating; it needs inspiration and creativity; it needs to get back to its roots, not further from them. The Next Generation took what was great about the original series and movies and updated Trek, infusing the franchise with new inspiration and creativity. It did not "re-imagine" Trek. That needs to happen again, but it can't so long as people who apparently don't really understand Trek keep trying to reinvent it in their vision rather than Gene Roddenberry's.

 

[Blender]

It's not okay with me. There's nothing so wrong with Star Trek that it needs re-imagining. It needs updating; it needs inspiration and creativity; it needs to get back to its roots, not further from them. The Next Generation took what was great about the original series and movies and updated Trek, infusing the franchise with new inspiration and creativity. It did not "re-imagine" Trek. That needs to happen again, but it can't so long as people who apparently don't really understand Trek keep trying to reinvent it in their vision rather than Gene Roddenberry's.

Well said. While I have absolutely no problem with variances to Gene Roddenberry's vision, because he was far from perfect, like has been done before with the various series, but they still stuck to the core principles of the series.

The franchise needs to stop fishing for nostalgia and start being creative and innovative again.

 

[johnjm22]

The main problem is that it's a prequel. You can't make a modern TV show and have it look like the original series. It wouldn't work. It would look silly.

If you want to have everything look modern and "cool", just set the show post Voyager/Nemisis. It would make more sense that way.

 

[Osprey]

Well said. While I have absolutely no problem with variances to Gene Roddenberry's vision, because he was far from perfect, like has been done before with the various series, but they still stuck to the core principles of the series.

That's what I meant by his vision--the core principles and optimism--not necessarily the details.

The main problem is that it's a prequel. You can't make a modern TV show and have it look like the original series. It wouldn't work. It would look silly.

If you want to have everything look modern and "cool", just set the show post Voyager/Nemisis. It would make more sense that way.

I agree. That's the main problem with all of these prequels. They just seem so anachronistic and like part of some alternate timeline to have them look more modern than the original series. They need to just keep going forward (past Voyager/Nemesis, as you said) in order to seem plausible. A bit of a problem there, though, is that the 24th century is already pretty far into the future. To go later could mean the 25th century and, eventually, it starts to seem less like our future and less relatable because it's too far into the future. I sort of wish that Gene Roddenberry hadn't gone so far into the future with TOS and TNG, since he didn't leave much room to grow beyond that, and that could be partially to blame for the folks in charge turning to filling in the existing timeline rather than expanding it even deeper into the future.

 

[johnjm22]

A bit of a problem there, though, is that the 24th century is already pretty far into the future. To go later could mean the 25th century and, eventually, it starts to seem less like our future and less relatable because it's too far into the future. I sort of wish that Gene Roddenberry hadn't gone so far into the future with TOS and TNG, since he didn't leave much room to grow beyond that, and that could be partially to blame for the folks in charge turning to filling in the existing timeline rather than expanding it even deeper into the future.

Another problem with going farther into the future is that the technology is getting too advanced. The tech in TNG/VOY/DS9 was essentially magic. Replicators, perfect holograms ect. How much farther can they take it?

Also, Voyager and DS9 got into the gamma and delta quadrants already.

This is why I don't have a problem with creating a new timeline. I like the idea conceptually. You can create stories with disrupting the original canon. The problem with the new timeline is the movies they've created within it.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Another problem with going farther into the future is that the technology is getting too advanced. The tech in TNG/VOY/DS9 was essentially magic. Replicators, perfect holograms ect. How much farther can they take it?

Also, Voyager and DS9 got into the gamma and delta quadrants already.

This is why I don't have a problem with creating a new timeline. I like the idea conceptually. You can create stories with disrupting the original canon. The problem with the new timeline is the movies they've created within it.

The technology the federation had in these shows were balanced out by their limitations, or by equivalent or superior technologies held by the federations enemies.

In DS9 you always felt like the federation had to fight for their lives everytime they encountered a Klingon or dominion force. The federation never felt overpowered.

Voyager is a different bag all together. The space magic the caretaker had, the technological capabilities of a race that has a shorter life span than most dogs, magical torpedoes that replicate out of thin air, the kazon going from menacing one episode to pitiful the next, or worst of all, the slap in the face that was the neutering of the Borg. Voyager has a laundry list of problems that never allowed the viewer to become worried about the characters. Everything was always all over the place.

 

[Tawnos]

It's not okay with me. There's nothing so wrong with Star Trek that it needs re-imagining. It needs updating; it needs inspiration and creativity; it needs to get back to its roots, not further from them. The Next Generation took what was great about the original series and movies and updated Trek, infusing the franchise with new inspiration and creativity. It did not "re-imagine" Trek. That needs to happen again, but it can't so long as people who apparently don't really understand Trek keep trying to reinvent it in their vision rather than Gene Roddenberry's.

Im not a purist. I think Star Trek is most impactful not when it reflects Roddenberry's vision, but rather when it reflects the best of existing societal values.

I prefer the optimistic tone Star Trek has had in general. But I will say this. The reason it worked for TOS is because it reflected a tone and feeling that existed in pop culture at the time and which also existed during its rediscovery period in the mid and late 70s. Im talking about the hippie movement and also the Greatest Generarion, who was hoping and believing they had achieved the end of massive armed conflict. TNG took advantage of its original younger fanbase being older and having settled in.

I prefer it because i have a stronger feeling of optimism than the vast majority of the people in my generation (I am nearly as old as you can get to be called a millenial),
but I dont think TOS or TNG reflect either my generations best values nor the best values of Generation X. If Discovery is going to be successful, both commercially and artistically THAT is what it will have to do. That requires reimagination.

 

[Blender]

Im not a purist. I think Star Trek is most impactful not when it reflects Roddenberry's vision, but rather when it reflects the best of existing societal values.

I prefer the optimistic tone Star Trek has had in general. But I will say this. The reason it worked for TOS is because it reflected a tone and feeling that existed in pop culture at the time and which also existed during its rediscovery period in the mid and late 70s. Im talking about the hippie movement and also the Greatest Generarion, who was hoping and believing they had achieved the end of massive armed conflict. TNG took advantage of its original younger fanbase being older and having settled in.

I prefer it because i have a stronger feeling of optimism than the vast majority of the people in my generation (I am nearly as old as you can get to be called a millenial),
but I dont think TOS or TNG reflect either my generations best values nor the best values of Generation X. If Discovery is going to be successful, both commercially and artistically THAT is what it will have to do. That requires reimagination.

If anything, TOS especially was a pretty blatant criticism of society at the time disguised as science fiction. Yes it had that large streak of optimism running through it that captured the imagination and made people hope that the world could be that way in the future, but most of the episodes had some pretty deep social commentary that reflected back onto society at the time. Both TNG and DS9 did a pretty good job mixing in social commentary as well. Voyager tried at times but wasn't always successful, and I don't think Enterprise worked that well.

Discovery can't just be optimistic, although I agree that it needs to be to capture the feel of Star Trek, it needs to have that social commentary that the best of this franchise always has had. If they are solving every problem that arises by punching or shooting at it, and the characters and plot are shallow action movies, like in the new movies, it's not going to be Star Trek.

 

[Tawnos]

If anything, TOS especially was a pretty blatant criticism of society at the time disguised as science fiction. Yes it had that large streak of optimism running through it that captured the imagination and made people hope that the world could be that way in the future, but most of the episodes had some pretty deep social commentary that reflected back onto society at the time. Both TNG and DS9 did a pretty good job mixing in social commentary as well. Voyager tried at times but wasn't always successful, and I don't think Enterprise worked that well.

Discovery can't just be optimistic, although I agree that it needs to be to capture the feel of Star Trek, it needs to have that social commentary that the best of this franchise always has had. If they are solving every problem that arises by punching or shooting at it, and the characters and plot are shallow action movies, like in the new movies, it's not going to be Star Trek.

Well right. At root, the hippie movement itself was a criticism of society that was rooted in optimism. As in, "this is screwed up but it doesn't have to be."

 

[Lshap]

It's not okay with me. There's nothing so wrong with Star Trek that it needs re-imagining. It needs updating; it needs inspiration and creativity; it needs to get back to its roots, not further from them. The Next Generation took what was great about the original series and movies and updated Trek, infusing the franchise with new inspiration and creativity. It did not "re-imagine" Trek. That needs to happen again, but it can't so long as people who apparently don't really understand Trek keep trying to reinvent it in their vision rather than Gene Roddenberry's.

Another problem with going farther into the future is that the technology is getting too advanced. The tech in TNG/VOY/DS9 was essentially magic. Replicators, perfect holograms ect. How much farther can they take it?

Also, Voyager and DS9 got into the gamma and delta quadrants already.

I'm also in the Original-Spirit-of-Trek camp, and have been waiting to see the focus shift back to more cerebral content -- exploration, culture, inter-species relationships -- instead of another damn rampage by somebody who's angry at something. Take the series forward and stop cashing in on cheap nostalgia. For those who want action, there's a built-in foundation of thrills with aliens, spaceships, and advanced technology. Is it too much to ask to create some meat underneath all that barbecue sauce?

Maybe hire the writing team from Game of Thrones, who are just about ready for a new gig. Great character development spiced with effects, not the other way around.

But the point about technology advancing too far ahead is interesting. You raise a great point about the far-future being impossible to imagine and write effectively. If Trek picks up even further in the future, maybe the solution is to not over-reach. People and their motives don't change with time. Neither do emotions. There will always be turf wars. The colonizers and the colonized. Disease. Overpopulation. Racism. Rich and poor (although the distinction shifts in the future). Stay true to basic human themes and how our motives are similar to other species or totally different. Conflicts can focus on brain-versus-brain. Use effects sparingly (a nice plot device -- maybe future environmentalists are limiting technology to spare the fabric of space from phaser & warp damage).

 

[Tawnos]

Lshap, aside from the fact that we know the interactions with Klingons are going to take a central role here, we haven't seen any evidence that what you're saying won't be the case nor do we know that it will. Frankly, I still have very little idea what Discovery is about.

 

[Lshap]

Lshap, aside from the fact that we know the interactions with Klingons are going to take a central role here, we haven't seen any evidence that what you're saying won't be the case nor do we know that it will. Frankly, I still have very little idea what Discovery is about.

I don't have a clue either. I'm just expecting the show to default to the same lower standards we usually get. I'd love to be wrong and see a spike in storytelling and a focus on bigger themes.

 

[Daisy Jane]

well the thing is -
What do we know about the Beta? like is that heavily discovered? like I know that's where the Klingons/Romulans live but i mean... if every quadrant can potentially = being 75 years away from home, there is a crappa tonne of stuff to discover about the Beta Quadrant imo

because of the Dominion war, I'm going to assume the Gamma Quadrant is off limits, that was probably in the armistice.

the thing I'd say is - they don't need more tech tech. they just need to streamline one:
Warp drive.
either make warp ten an achievable thing. (minus turning into a slug)

OR have a fully functional slipstream drive that isn't like in a blink of an eye fast - but instead of taking say years to cross the quadrant - it can take say 3 months or so. allowing for best of both worlds: deep space discovery/maping - and "poof, we're back on earth/jupiter/DS...... for maintenance."

have this thing the epitome of tech tech that they were gonna deploy to find Voyager.
have it decked out because of the events of the Dominion wars (maybe akin to Defiant)

discover what s in your own back yard so to speak (that's what TNG did w/Enterprise, discovering all of these new people and things in the Alpha). have this ship do it for the Beta.

what i'd have done is - set a series five years after the war. basically. everything "space wise" has halted. the President of the Federation is like why bother? we went out to seek new life and new life almost obliterated us. Starfleet begs to let it's new Techtech Class w/new .... Drive to go out and just show that the federation is not afraid of living and having faith.

they go past Romulus and keep on going and discover lots of "we have ships and stuff but we're more 'primal' etc. and even this new crew is hesitant to do anything because the war is still v. recent.

you can have starfleet/section 31 espionage (maybe there is a pegagus situation but in regards to the engine - what, i dunno).

or as someone pointed out too - have a captain turned pirate etc (channel firefly or something). maybe her father was an admiral and they were on the front lines in the dominion war, lost lots of friends, a lover whatever and works for the syndicates etc. have her battle star fleet /federation ideals/ptsd/and greed etc

have a star fleet academy (featuring red-squad, normal people etc)

have a show featuring section 31 or something.

so many options. imo it doesn't always have to be about SPACE, THE FINAL FRONTIER work with what ya got.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

I like the idea of an anthology series, with seasons/episodes giving the Vulcans, Romulons, Klingons, Bajorans, et cetra some love. The federation has been given more than ample screen time, let the other races have the spot light for a bit.

Also, in-regards to the gamma quadrant, you can almost be assured that the Dominion was allowed to limp back to the gamma quadrant, albeit with the guarantee that no ships would be coming through. The dominion was still a very powerful force at the end of the war.

 

[johnjm22]

Frankly, I still have very little idea what Discovery is about.

It's about a conflict between the Federation and Klingons while T'Kuvma is trying to unite the 24 Klingon houses.

Season 1 deals with the conflict, season 2 deals with the aftermath. (This is if season 2 actually happens).

 

[Osprey]

have a star fleet academy (featuring red-squad, normal people etc)

I think that it'd be fascinating to have a series that follows cadets through their young careers. Season 1 would be at the Academy, Season 2 could see them get their first assignments (and, somehow, many of them end up together on the same ship), Season 3 could see them get promoted to officer positions and so on. Eventually, say in Season 5, the natural leader of the bunch could find himself promoted to Captain because of a disaster or untimely death (like Kirk was).

You could say that each season is multiple real years to make it more believable. By the end, you might end up with a Captain and crew that viewers really like and relate to because they followed them up from the beginnings of their careers, sort of like how fans grow attached to Harry Potter characters. Unlike Harry Potter, though, you could pull a bit of Game of Thrones and kill off some of the cadets unexpectedly as you go along via away team mishaps and such. Maybe I'm sick and twisted, but I love the idea of the "redshirt" casualties being characters that we've gotten to know over a few seasons, rather than characters that we've never seen before.

If done right and well, it could be really interesting. Unfortunately, I imagine that the folks currently in charge of Star Trek would mess it up. They'd probably insist on retconning the 2009 movie and following Kirk, Spock and McCoy from the Academy, which would defeat the purpose, since we know how everything ends... or they'd turn it into Grey's Anatomy or something. It may just be one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but that would likely just be bungled if it were ever attempted.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

Still want a mirror universe Trek. I mean we're so used to the Federation being hero's that it would be refreshing to see a ship crewed by a bunch of xenophobic, racists eagerly stabbing each other in the back to crawl their way to the Captain's chair all while

Space the exploitable frontier
These are the voyages of the War Ship Discovery
Its Imperial Mission
To conquer strange new worlds
To seek out and enslave civilizations
To expand the Empire and to serve the Emperor

Meanwhile in the background you can see the rise of the Slave Race rebellion as the Klingons, Romulans and others try to break their shackles and cause the down fall of the United Empire of Planets.