RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,163
Posts: 5,402,682
Members: 24,751
Currently online: 494
Newest member: kaklina

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 6 2013, 06:17 PM   #16
eighthgear
Cadet
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

[/QUOTE]Personally I would like to get away from the idea that our heroes are routinely running around one quarter of the galaxy. From what Picard said in FC the Federation is around two (maybe two and a half) percent of one quadrant.[/QUOTE]

I think a lot of people forget this when making those nice Star Trek maps. The Federation isn't a state like we know them on Earth, with well defined borders. It is likely a porous entity. For example, both Earth, Vulcan, and Andor are members of the Federation, and their systems are likely part of Federation territory. But there may be countless systems in-between full of planets with, say, pre-industrial societies. You can't exactly annex them, can you? I guess the Romulans or Klingons would. Even if we do assume that the Federation and the Romulan and Klingon Empires are non-porous, it is highly likely that they simply can't enforce controls over the space that they claim. Space is huge, and even within the Federation the vast majority of it is unexplored. For every Galaxy-class starship patrolling the outer rim of the UFP, there are probably dozens of Oberth-class vessels studying phenomenon well within Federation borders. In summary, the UFP and the various other powers may cover large portions of the quadrant, but they don't actually have much of a presence, except for in certain star systems - the majority of their "lands" are unexplored and unknown.
eighthgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 03:50 AM   #17
Xhiandra
Lieutenant Commander
 
Xhiandra's Avatar
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Darkwing wrote:
Nice ground rules, not enough about the actual plot.
Part of it is intentional: I wanted to create a framework, but leave the canvas blank (initially); so as to highlight the importance of said framework, at least to my eyes.

The idea is very much to enhance storytelling, make the setting more believable, more "real" and limit clichés as much as possible; but what stories are told within that framework is still very open.
I mentionned writers being confined by some of the "ground rules" as you call them, but in many other ways, they'd be more free: got an interesting story that only involves admirals? Fine, that can make a good ep.
An ep that doesn't involve the Federation at all? Sure, why not?
... the possibilities aren't endless (cliché avoided ), but quite open.

Part of it just is how my brain works: I've never had much imagination, so I tend to abstracise everything; my mind is better suited for analysis than creative endeavours as a result.

But you make a fair point, I included no real premise.
I'll try to at a later venture (too tired right now).

Darkwing wrote: View Post
Another point I'd like to see: Have an upper and lower ensemble. We need to see the leaders dealing with situations, but they should NOT be the ones going in. This has been a weakness of all Trek series. So in this new series, if the captain orders a landing party, instead of cutting to Scotty beaming down Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Ens Ricky, we now cut to Ens Ricky, Chief Bobby, Petty Officer Timmy, and Crewman Baker beaming over. This also eliminates redshirt syndrome. Ensign Ricky has a better chance to live.
Upon first reading, I agreed it was a good idea.

Upon reflection, I'm not so sure anymore: essential to the nature of Trek (in my view) is the notion that when they beam to a planet, they're not expecting a firefight.
They do plan for the worse somewhat (phasers, presence of Tac officer(s) in away missions); but for the most part, they expect a rather peaceful contact, in which case it makes sense to involve higher-ranked officers.

In either case, the redshirt syndrome is irrelevant: point 4 eliminates it entirely.

Darkwing wrote:
We can also change out lower ensemble members easier than upper ensemble. If Patrick Stewart had left, TNG would have been over. But if half the junior crew cast are on other shows, we simply hire other actors, change the names, and film, so Ensign Ricky is replaced with LTjg Matty in this week's script, and the actor playing Ricky will be available some other episode.
The idea is to have several main characters in the lower ranks, but easily supplemented by other actors in similar roles when needed.
Remember that point 4 establishes they all change pretty regularly anyway.
Indeed, not being shackled by the actors' schedules or desires to depart from the show is an advantage.

@BillJ: I'm not continuity-obsessed either; I write of settling the continuity arguments so that they can... well, end.
They end up being huge distractions from the actual content: haven't you witnessed some episodes or movies be entirely dismissed as drivel by some fans because of an inconsequential contradiction to previous continuity? I have, with baffling frequency.
Also, while I'm not obsessed about it, having an internally consistent show can only enhance it.
Xhiandra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 03:15 AM   #18
Mirror Sulu
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: N. Ireland
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Something I haven't heard anyone propose, is a new series set in yet another continuity.

Personally, I'd love to see the Shatnerverse on my screen.
Mirror Sulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:43 PM   #19
Tracer Bullet
Lieutenant
 
Location: IND Crosstown
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Mirror Sulu wrote: View Post
Something I haven't heard anyone propose, is a new series set in yet another continuity.
Sadly, I think a Mirror Universe series has a greater chance of getting on air than any of these ideas.
Tracer Bullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:55 PM   #20
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Mirror Sulu wrote: View Post
Something I haven't heard anyone propose, is a new series set in yet another continuity.
It's usually proposed in other threads, albeit in passing.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2013, 12:16 AM   #21
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Mirror Sulu wrote: View Post
Something I haven't heard anyone propose, is a new series set in yet another continuity.

Personally, I'd love to see the Shatnerverse on my screen.
Shatner's 2007 novel Star Trek Academy: Collision Course was based on a TV series concept he pitched in 2003. I guess that story would have been the first season, or something.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2013, 04:50 PM   #22
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

If they do a new continuity, it should be another new reimagining.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2013, 12:43 PM   #23
Dix
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
If they do a new continuity, it should be another new reimagining.
You mean, another recycling?

No thanks. Trek doesn't need more dabblers who will make cosmetic changes and rehash the old material like that fella in your avatar.
Dix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2013, 10:36 PM   #24
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

It's really just a question of when an all-new continuity will come around. Given the current trend in Hollywood for reboots to come faster and faster (every third film or every ten years, it seems), another new take on TOS may actually come sooner than later.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2013, 02:30 PM   #25
Dix
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

A TOS reboot (real reboot, no alternate universe nonsense) was proposed by Straczynski and Zabel some 9 years ago. But Paramount decided not to go that route and chose the current movie thing instead. Actually, I think that reboot proposed by Straczinsky & Zabel might have worked, although I'm not a fan of reboots. A Trek series should be original, innovative and future-oriented, not some recycling of old material.
Dix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2013, 05:18 PM   #26
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Dix wrote: View Post
A TOS reboot (real reboot, no alternate universe nonsense) was proposed by Straczynski and Zabel some 9 years ago. But Paramount decided not to go that route and chose the current movie thing instead. Actually, I think that reboot proposed by Straczinsky & Zabel might have worked, although I'm not a fan of reboots. A Trek series should be original, innovative and future-oriented, not some recycling of old material.
I read it, not really a fan of the idea. All its doing is padding a TNG episode out to 5 seasons.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2013, 06:08 PM   #27
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

An awful episode, at that.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2013, 06:22 PM   #28
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Dix wrote: View Post
A TOS reboot (real reboot, no alternate universe nonsense) was proposed by Straczynski and Zabel some 9 years ago. But Paramount decided not to go that route and chose the current movie thing instead.
Which apparently worked. It had the benefit of being both a continuation and relaunch of the original continuity, with the end result being a new TOS with a clean slate ahead of it anyway.

I think with Star Trek XII, arguments about the previous film being better as a real reboot really becomes a moot point, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 11:55 AM   #29
Infern0
Captain
 
Infern0's Avatar
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

To me it's simple.

Do a modern day version of Next Generation

Core timeline, early 2380's, Enterprise F, exploration, diplomacy etc.

TNG was the most popular show, update it for the modern day, cast a quality popular actor as the captain, give it an attractive cast, make it a bit "cooler" and more action oriented, but keep the good storytelling intact.

We don't need a TOS reboot, Pine and co are not going to do a TV show, we don't need a THIRD captain Kirk, and we don't need to retread old ground, this needs to be in a new era, not one where we know what happened and we suddenly have Three canonical timelines (FOUR if you count trek-lit)

It's not hard is it.
Infern0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 01:39 PM   #30
anh165
Commander
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Infern0 wrote: View Post

TNG was the most popular show, update it for the modern day, cast a quality popular actor as the captain, give it an attractive cast, make it a bit "cooler" and more action oriented, but keep the good storytelling intact.
Basically TOS rebooted.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.