RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,182
Posts: 5,435,808
Members: 24,947
Currently online: 607
Newest member: CaptainJaymez

TrekToday headlines

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 February 18 2013, 02:09 PM   #46
NightJim
Commander
 
NightJim's Avatar
 
Location: Scunthorpe, UK
View NightJim's Twitter Profile
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity. DS9 used it to it's favour, but eventually you start to get diminishing returns because old fans might start to drift if they don't gel with the new direction, while for new fans it's too dense to get into. To make a new show work it really would need another time jump just to set itself free., and only have what came before being tangentially referenced. Cool nods to existing fans, but nothing that gets in the way of watching.

Something like the Brian Singer pitch that never got made is a perfect example.
NightJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 03:46 PM   #47
AviTrek
Fleet Captain
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.

The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.
No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.
Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.
The problem are the fans that love canon-porn and think that is the only way to tell a story. See the early criticisms of ENT and the love affair with season 4 as perfect examples. People seem to forget TNG was supposed to be a loose reboot of TOS. After the cameo in farpoint there were minimal references to TOS, and Rodenberry freely ignored and changed whatever he didn't like about TOS.
AviTrek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 03:47 PM   #48
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

NightJim wrote: View Post
I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity.
But where does that leave the technology on the show at?
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 06:14 PM   #49
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

AviTrek wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.
Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.
The problem are the fans that love canon-porn and think that is the only way to tell a story.
It's a universal fact that no Trek series or film will please everyone.

BillJ wrote: View Post
NightJim wrote: View Post
I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity.
But where does that leave the technology on the show at?
It depends solely on what the new creators, producers, and writers want to do with it. I could see such a group taking a Star Trek XI approach to it in that they don't spend a whole lot of time explaining it with technobabble (the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" method). Warp drive, phasers, transporters, and some sort of torpedo system is all a Trek series really needs. They could just say it's all more powerful or advanced than the stuff a century ago and leave it at that.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 06:44 PM   #50
Loci2378
Ensign
 
Location: Germany
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Xhiandra wrote: View Post
If it was up to me (it obviously never will be), new Trek would:

1. Take place in the old continuity.
2 reasons:
- there's a lot more background to draw from.
- personal preference.

2. Keep being relaxed about "proper military procedure".
As far as I'm concerned, people that agonise over a poor "at ease" stance or whatever are completely missing the point of Trek.

3. Resolve canonicity on a case-per-case basis: maybe ToS is authoritative on X; but TNG/DS9/VOY on Y and ENT on Z, depending on many factors; but we have to be willing to accept some things won't make sense in the past series.
Example: most "maps" of the galaxy place most of the Federation, most of the Klingon Empire and all the Romulan Empire in the Beta quadrant despite most series (especially DS9&VOY) calling them "powers of alpha quadrant" or talking of "the fate of the alpha quadrant" or "going back to the alpha quadrant"... the new series would use completely different maps.

Once canonicity has been decided, stick to it for the whole run.

4. Now for the interesting stuff: focus on the Federation/alpha quadrant as a whole, not a specific Ship.
Instead of having a regular cast of immortal (plot armour) idealised heroes, the series would span a lot of characters, some dying quickly, some behaving in a less-than-perfect fashion, some manage to beat the odds once but become background characters afterwards, some perform vital but understated roles,... you can have many potential stories in such a setting, be they one-shots about a "back office" character or geopolitics or true exploration of a new sector or resolving a tense situation through diplomacy (or failing to!)...

Such an approach can work and can be successful, as GoT showed (though this would go further).
Pro: Many clichés avoided, stronger storytelling.
Con: Viewers don't get as attached to characters as they otherwise would.

5. Build an actual (abstract) galaxy.
What do I mean? Simple: decide early on what star system is where (in relation to X reference point); where FED/KDF/ROM/other Ships are in the galaxy, what's their mission and capacities, who's their commanding officer and so on.
Not all of that info has to appear onscreen; but it would help in having a consistent world.
No Deus Ex Machinae of X Ship saving the heroes on (at?) the nick of time, you know in advance if a Ship is within range or not; no sudden appearance of a full hostile fleet unless it was pre-planned, same for random nebulae... basically, this approach constricts the writers somewhat, but once again, it prevents a lot of clichés.
Especially if geopolitics/war is important to the setting.

There could still be spontaneous elements, so long as they made sense within the overal setting.


Will it happen? No. Still nice to theorise.
So, what'd you think 'bout my "ambitious but rubbish" concept?
I always prefer the "old" continuity, but unfortunately it isn't realistic.

I think it will be in the new JJ-Universe, produced by him and features the Original crew, but only after the three feature films are finished (and are in financial terms sucessful).

Better a JJ-Universe Series than no new Series.
__________________
I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey — reminds us to cherish every moment because they'll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
Loci2378 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 06:48 PM   #51
Loci2378
Ensign
 
Location: Germany
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

NightJim wrote: View Post
I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity. DS9 used it to it's favour, but eventually you start to get diminishing returns because old fans might start to drift if they don't gel with the new direction, while for new fans it's too dense to get into. To make a new show work it really would need another time jump just to set itself free., and only have what came before being tangentially referenced. Cool nods to existing fans, but nothing that gets in the way of watching.

Something like the Brian Singer pitch that never got made is a perfect example.
That could be a nice way to Start, when they use the "old" universe. The step forward could be in the 29th century, featuring nice time episodes (as we see on Voyager).
__________________
I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey — reminds us to cherish every moment because they'll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
Loci2378 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 09:20 PM   #52
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

BillJ wrote: View Post
NightJim wrote: View Post
I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity.
But where does that leave the technology on the show at?
If they are aware, clever, and creative enough they will include elements of this:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...0&postcount=94

For good measure why it should be so:

http://io9.com/5906586/why-star-trek...?tag=star-trek

Good plots,casting, etc are a given, I'm talking about realistic world building.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 10:41 PM   #53
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.

The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.
No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.
Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.
Continuity is much more than what happened before - it's the details of the settings and universe too. And that's already as overburdened in Trek as it gets. Does Vulcan have a moon? How many genders do Andorians have? Why can't they use solution-of-the-week X again in episode Y? What happened to wide beam settings on phasers? A fresh start should rid us of all that.

...although it didn't for Smallville, which was explicitly separate from the Superman comics and movies, yet got reamed online whenever it diverged from them, so maybe continuity nuts are going to freak over every little thing either way
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 11:25 PM   #54
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

King Daniel wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.
Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.
Continuity is much more than what happened before - it's the details of the settings and universe too. And that's already as overburdened in Trek as it gets. Does Vulcan have a moon? How many genders do Andorians have? Why can't they use solution-of-the-week X again in episode Y? What happened to wide beam settings on phasers?
That's tripping over the details, a sign of bad writing. In that sense, it won't matter if a continuity has 700 or 7 episodes if a writer can't use it effectively (i.e., either sparingly or as a basis for a new story).
A fresh start should rid us of all that.
Not really. Because with just the second episode, you have continuity again. Continuity can really just be boiled down to merely a history of previous events, and unless the series is a prequel to something, it really should only be touched upon only once in a blue moon to give that fictional universe and its characters some sense of depth and dimension.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 11:25 PM   #55
Loci2378
Ensign
 
Location: Germany
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

King Daniel wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.
Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.
Continuity is much more than what happened before - it's the details of the settings and universe too. And that's already as overburdened in Trek as it gets. Does Vulcan have a moon? How many genders do Andorians have? Why can't they use solution-of-the-week X again in episode Y? What happened to wide beam settings on phasers? A fresh start should rid us of all that.

...although it didn't for Smallville, which was explicitly separate from the Superman comics and movies, yet got reamed online whenever it diverged from them, so maybe continuity nuts are going to freak over every little thing either way
Continuity wasn't the big thing all over the Star Trek Series, because with this very rich universe of Episodes, Movies and Books you cannot have full control of all. There was and will be mistakes...actually in the JJ-Universe of Star Trek. Some errors can be explained with science, some errors will not be explained at all and only be tolerated.

Just live with it, just we all did over the past nearly 5 decades. IF there were a new Star Trek Series, the producers will don't change Star Trek at all. All we hope is, there will be great stories, great actors and great quality.
__________________
I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey — reminds us to cherish every moment because they'll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
Loci2378 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 05:31 PM   #56
NightJim
Commander
 
NightJim's Avatar
 
Location: Scunthorpe, UK
View NightJim's Twitter Profile
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

Loci2378 wrote: View Post
I always prefer the "old" continuity, but unfortunately it isn't realistic.

I think it will be in the new JJ-Universe, produced by him and features the Original crew, but only after the three feature films are finished (and are in financial terms sucessful).

Better a JJ-Universe Series than no new Series.
No way would we ever get that cast on a regular series. But you are right, if they were to do a show, it's much more likely to be JJ-verse then Prime.

Probably a new ship, with maybe the occasional guest star. I nearly wrote a new crew on the Enterprise, but I think the execs would nix that on the hope of maybe getting another movie out of them. Or maybe JJ-TNG.
NightJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2013, 07:09 PM   #57
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

NightJim wrote: View Post
Loci2378 wrote: View Post
I always prefer the "old" continuity, but unfortunately it isn't realistic.

I think it will be in the new JJ-Universe, produced by him and features the Original crew, but only after the three feature films are finished (and are in financial terms sucessful).

Better a JJ-Universe Series than no new Series.
No way would we ever get that cast on a regular series. But you are right, if they were to do a show, it's much more likely to be JJ-verse then Prime.
I think a series set in the Abramsverse universe becomes more likely if Star Trek XIII is the last movie set in that continuity. I don't think we'll ever see both a movie and a TV series simultaneously in the same timeframe again like we did from '94 to '98. I don't think neither CBS or Paramount want to go that route.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."

Last edited by C.E. Evans; February 19 2013 at 10:10 PM. Reason: cat-induced-typo
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 05:56 PM   #58
Dix
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: My view on a new Trek series.

I would completely ignore Abramsverse when making a new Trek series. It's sort of a mirror universe anyway. But I agree with the previous comment. I don't think a new series will come while the movies are being made. The probability for a new live action Trek series in the next 5-7 years is very small, I think.
Dix 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 07:03 PM.

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