RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,926
Posts: 5,389,588
Members: 24,720
Currently online: 539
Newest member: MrSpock

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18


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.

View Poll Results: new star trek show
Star fleet academy 9 23.68%
Klingon's 1 2.63%
Mirror universe 2 5.26%
25th century 26 68.42%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 6 2014, 07:33 AM   #16
mythme
Commodore
 
mythme's Avatar
 
Location: Jim Thorpe, PA, USA
Re: new star trek show

A Klingon series as-is would be dull, but I liked Michael Dorn's proposition of a human colony on a Klingon planet. I think that has potential.
__________________
"Be a pawn. Be a toy. Be a good soldier who never questions orders." Kirk to Kang - "Day of the Dove"
mythme is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 10:09 PM   #17
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: new star trek show

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Of those options I'd rather watch the Food Network.
I'd rather watch reruns of COPS and World's Dumbest.

If there's another Trek series, I'd prefer it to feature Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise. I want it to be "Star Trek". If not, just create a brand new outer space series that can grow its own rules and universe.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 10:41 PM   #18
Captain Kathryn
Commodore
 
Captain Kathryn's Avatar
 
Location: In Star Trek / Doctor Who fantasy land aka New Jersey
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Captain Kathryn
Re: new star trek show

25th century all the way. Was just thinking about that last night!
__________________
Assimilate more Janeway...among other stuff! Captain Kathryn's Tumblr
Captain Kathryn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2014, 08:20 PM   #19
Galileo7
Fleet Captain
 
Galileo7's Avatar
 
Location: U.S.A.
Re: new star trek show

Star Trek in the 25th century. Enterprise 1701-?
Galileo7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2014, 05:21 AM   #20
Robbiesan
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: new star trek show

The problem with Star Trek's many series is that they have been so expensive in terms of costumes, makeup, effects, etc. That's too bad, because I think there's enough hard core fans that much of this could be de-emphasized and instead make them story driven. There were quite a few episodes in which real acting was going on and not mere entertainment. I'm going back and watching them from a chronological view to see how that will change my perspective on the shows and films.

Hopefully the two reboots renewed interest in a potential series. It does make sense that some older previous actors might show up on a new series, and so I can see why people voted for a 25th Century show. Certainly there's lots of experienced actors turned directors as well.

Seeing more about academy life was what I voted for. I felt that would be the least expensive in terms of sets and with far less effects. It also would likely be popular with the younger crowd. The die hard fans will watch regardless.

There really isn't much on television right now that is compeling since the end of Breaking Bad. Shows from other countries like Äkta människor demonstrate the universal appeal of science fiction. That show can be rather tawdry at times but clearly are metaphorical as well about other sexual issues.

We badly need some series in which the story lines are deeper and not just fluff. It might be that network television is simply dying due to the effect of TiVos and skipping commercials. As such, it might be far better for HBO or similar giants to take up the torch in order to produce something with very high standards. I'd love to see a Star Trek with the Sopranoes level of production values and writers. Ten episodes in a season that had excellent stories might be better than an alien of the week sort of shows.
Robbiesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2014, 09:28 AM   #21
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: new star trek show

How about a Eugenics Wars mini-series set in an alternate 1990's, starring Ben Cumberbatch? The setting would be a LOT cheaper than even an earthbound Academy series. It wouldn't really be Trek, but it would be part of the backstory/universe.
__________________
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 9 2014, 09:53 AM   #22
Bry_Sinclair
Commodore
 
Bry_Sinclair's Avatar
 
Location: Along the border of Talarian space
Re: new star trek show

Xzpezer wrote: View Post
That is why i would like to see a star trek show based in the mirror universe it would be a dark take on star trek and we would see what humanity has become in this universe.
So long as its not just because women are in even skimpier/tighter outfits that the regular universe. It would be interesting to see though is a ship commanded by a female Captain would have male officers going around in just cod-pieces

Double standards, I know but Trek set the precedent, I just want to balance the scales.
__________________
Avatar: Captain Susanna Leijten, U.S.S. Silverfin NCC-4470, Border Service Third Cutter Squadron
Manip by: FltCpt. Bossco (STPMA)
Bry_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2014, 05:34 PM   #23
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: new star trek show

Robbiesan wrote: View Post
There were quite a few episodes in which real acting was going on and not mere entertainment.
Does not compute...
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2014, 06:59 PM   #24
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: new star trek show

USS Triumphant wrote: View Post
The real next option wasn't in your poll, though.

Reality is widely frowned upon in the Future of Trek forum.
__________________
"What went wrong!? All my sockpuppets loved this movie!" - Kevin Smith
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2014, 11:42 PM   #25
Robbiesan
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: new star trek show

BillJ wrote: View Post
Robbiesan wrote: View Post
There were quite a few episodes in which real acting was going on and not mere entertainment.
Does not compute...
I think it does compute.

When Star Trek began way back in 1966, and I was around back then, whatever the motivation of Gene Roddenberry, it was a dynamic process of his creation plus all of the many crew members as well as the writers, many directors, effects, makeup, producers, and actors going through a collaborative effort.

Some aspect of commerical success is necessary in order to keep from being canceled and being popular with a niche audience. That's what I mean by entertainment.

Another paradigm is more geared to independent productions in which something is artistic, takes risks, and often displays a high amount of gravitas.

While there are fun episodes that we all enjoy over the many 700 plus episodes, there are other shows that are quite memorable because the directors, crew, and writers allowed the actors to be quiet and speak sincerely and do much more than tell a story. During those episodes, it becomes a postmodern mythology as interesting and nuanced as anything from literature.

If you're a hard core fan, then you no doubt notice that there are times when an actor performs better than other times since they're human. But in my mind, often the performance is a result of the quality of writing and the direction and the constaints of budgets, because the actors are essentially the same people.

It's true they grew into their roles, and were more willing to take risks, and television can be an ideal medium because where else does an actor have so many opportunities to have a history with their character, see the character over many diverse situations, and allow a full range of emotions?

Chain of Command STTNG S06E10 and S06E11 are very serious episdodes. They're not at all like some of the rather ridiculous episodes on the holodeck. The writers, actors, and crew of course didn't desire to hit the same one notes each time in order to make it a commerical success, but allowed the actors to have the variety from one extreme to another. Other episodes were very balanced over the series with combinations of these factors along a continuum.

Again, it was often a process of the writers, actors, and directors to make decisions about who the character is and what is the story. That takes time, and so it's fairly normal for a Star Trek show not to "hit their stride" until late in the first season. This process partially explains the differences in say, Deanna Troi in the beginning versus very late in the series. The characters are not only aging, but the backgrounds, the concentration on her comeliness, the intelligence of the character, all have changed. Much of that due to the alterations in the way her character was written and directoral and producer decisions.

Star Trek Enterprise took a lot of risks, because the writers allowed the pre-Federation (really the Terrans) to stumble...a lot, and to show their feet of clay. In my mind this is what makes that last series so endearing. Usually the opposite is true in perfomance, as ancestors are shown in one dimensional purely heroic self-sacrificing ways. That leads to a very false sense of history something that most often happens in say depictions of WW2 soldiers.

Perhaps one of the highest accolades one can give a dramatic performance is to say, "Wow, that was so brutally honest in the character's depictions besides creating a reality in which I felt I was not only observing but felt resonnance with." That to me is art.

That's quite different than the first always struggling original Star Trek in which the crew were never sure of renewal, had to cut corners all the time, and yet they made a lot of television firsts, had layers of meaning and metaphor, and had some exemplary performances as well.

Some of those 3rd season episodes from the original series, like Spectre of the Gun were cringe-inducing. Surely you're not going to say that the quality of those shows consisted of anything more than mindless entertainment? I have no doubt that the crew of the original series was quite unhappy that last season.
...

Star Trek up until the last season of Enterprise had become one of the most influential franchises in postmodern history. I think though that the loss of a generation acquainted with the Apollo missions, and a very jaded public who stopped tuning in when space missions were broadcast, and who eventually allowed the dismantling of NASA resulted in Star Trek being of secondary importance as mythology.

That's extremely unfortunate because what could be more important that vision and hope? Times have changed, at least in the American public, and we are not the same people we were even in 2000. Today anti-heroes are popular probably due to the severe changes to the economy and because we've lost our way in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. In my mind, that's why Star Trek is still relevant as a mythology to inspire about fallible characters who ascribe to be noble, compassionate, and articulate.

Let us hope that the next Star Trek is equal to that task, and not just a shadow trying to fill up an hour a week of vicarious living through entertainment.

Last edited by Robbiesan; January 10 2014 at 02:35 AM. Reason: spelling
Robbiesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2014, 12:46 AM   #26
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: new star trek show

Robbiesan wrote: View Post

Let us hope that the next Star Trek is equal to that task, and not just a shadow trying to fill up an hour a week of vicarious living through entertainment.
But that's what I like about it. Why I'm a fan of TOS far more than any other part of the franchise. I like it being big, brash and fun. The thing that sets TOS apart from the rest was that an episode could be serious yet be big, brash and fun. Big, brash and fun is why I love the Abrams films and could care less for the TNG films.

I watch TV to be entertained. If I want to know about people being tortured, I can just turn on the news. If the next TV series isn't big, brash and fun, I'll likely be someone who drops out right away.

Give me "vicarious living through entertainment" that's what I want from my entertainment.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2014, 02:17 AM   #27
Robbiesan
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: new star trek show

BillJ wrote: View Post
Robbiesan wrote: View Post

Let us hope that the next Star Trek is equal to that task, and not just a shadow trying to fill up an hour a week of vicarious living through entertainment.
But that's what I like about it. Why I'm a fan of TOS far more than any other part of the franchise. I like it being big, brash and fun. The thing that sets TOS apart from the rest was that an episode could be serious yet be big, brash and fun. Big, brash and fun is why I love the Abrams films and could care less for the TNG films.

I watch TV to be entertained. If I want to know about people being tortured, I can just turn on the news. If the next TV series isn't big, brash and fun, I'll likely be someone who drops out right away.

Give me "vicarious living through entertainment" that's what I want from my entertainment.
TOS was certainly brash and fun. There's nothing wrong with that. Art is very subjective and hence why what the critics may like is a big departure from popular demand.

And to be honest, that's what's paid the bills all up through the last series, because popular demand plus hardcore Star Trek fans kept the market share high enough to keep the project commercially viable.

Most people seek only to be entertained. The problem though with that is a lot more selection in the post-Scify era where there are niche science fiction stations available.

In the days of the dinosaurs, there was precious little that was even close to science fiction. It was more speculative fiction like the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits or even the later Night Gallery. That's no longer the case, where there's a sense of futurism in lots of shows, and many have science fiction elements (with sadly precious little realism at times).

There's always shows like Revolution or Real Humans, but these just don't have the mythos and history of Star Trek, so I don't know of what lasting value they'll have. Will people be watching them over forty years later? I doubt it.

But the biggest issue is not this really. It's how to get commerical support to make the show after all. People don't pay for television except for cable and satelite providers.

What's rapidly changed post-Enterprise is streaming video. Because that's commericial free, then there's little reason for a company to provide commericals to pay for television. They'll just be skipped or fast forwarded if people use Tivo.

That's a major issue for niche marketing. Who is actually sitting down to watch a show as it is broadcast? Some people do it for things like a season finale when they just can't wait long enough to replay it back. Others are too busy to sit down and watch a show in that antiquated manner.

As such, I think it's best that Star Trek adapt and use vehicles like cable's traditional movie channels like HBO and Showtime, in order to have a decent budget and much better and more accountable writers.

In films there's product placement, but that's obviously not going to work well within the environment of Star Trek. Coke in the 24th Century? Probably not...

Strangely there's been some success with shows created and sponsored by companies like Netflicks, which surprises me that there are adequate consumers to pay for it. I would think that the vast amount of folks download these by less than legal means, wait for episodes to be loaded to video sites like Youtube for brief periods (and taken down again), and so only a portion of consumer support is paying for the series.

I recall that Breaking Bad producers mentioned this fact as actually critical for the initial success because they realized far more people were watching than any data told to them by Nielsen ratings (if that's actually still around and not named something else).

Young people don't watch television. Many have a computer and an Iphone and watch shows that way when they desire. That knocks out network television and makes it largely irrelevant to anyone who's younger than 55.

In technology history, there were major discussions about the distance of the space from a viewer to a television screen versus a computer especially a laptop. That's evolved to where the television really is superfluous. At one time they were trying to combine the two devices out of desperation because television manufacturers saw the handwriting on the wall. What saved that industry was wide screen giant tvs, something that changed to flat screens, for there was a brief period in which it was everyone's goal to own a monster television to watch films and sports events besides the other three tvs in each home.

From history we know that people during the Great Depression watched films for vicarious entertainment because they couldn't afford to purchase anything. But that was when watching a film meant a few coins. That's hardly the same today where it can be hugely expensive. People are having a hard time finding the money to put food on the table, so many of these folks will eventually cut their cable bills. The money won't be there for it.

This means television is a very old paradigm and must change and the shows that are featured on it must change to fit that new format.

That's not unique to television, for movie theatres are struggling too. I can remember sitting down in the late 1990s to watch the Godfather in an aging and elaborately decorated cinema, something that probably doesn't occur anymore. It was more akin to a theatre for plays than a movie house. I doubt people will even attend films in the future unless they're giant 3D specialty films that require specialized equipment to view.

Last edited by Robbiesan; January 10 2014 at 02:42 AM. Reason: terrible grammar
Robbiesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2014, 05:14 AM   #28
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: new star trek show

Robbiesan wrote: View Post
That's not unique to television, for movie theatres are struggling too. I can remember sitting down in the late 1990s to watch the Godfather in an aging and elaborately decorated cinema, something that probably doesn't occur anymore. It was more akin to a theatre for plays than a movie house.
Having been to a half dozen repertory theaters in various parts of the United States in the past five years (Upstate New York; Vermont; Washington, DC.; Los Angeles; Olympia, Washington; Missoula, Montana) I can assure you that this still happens, and not just in major metropolitan areas (although if you live in one, like Los Angeles or New York, your options for seeing classic films in a theatre are great).
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10 2014, 07:17 AM   #29
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: new star trek show

Or the San Francisco area, where we have several big rep house moviehouses, some even still have a Mighty Wurlitzer play before the show!
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2014, 01:03 AM   #30
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: new star trek show

The films experience has changed a great deal even from the time I was a kid in the 80s. Going to the movies was an event. We had home video, but we sometimes had to wait years after a film's theatrical run for it to be released on VHS. Now the DVD and bluray special features are being edited even before a film has been released to theaters. You see a preview for a movie you'd like to see, blink, and then the DVD's already out. Sometimes a film is released to a streaming service like Netflix before the theatrical release.

Audience reaction isn't the same, either. My favorite movies memories are the ones where the crowd really gets into the excitement, laughing, cheering, feeding off one another's energy. These days, when I see an action FX flick like "Transformers" or even Trek films, the audience more often than not just stares passively at the screen.

At some point, we de-mythologized what was a modern mythological experience.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow 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 02:32 AM.

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