RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,888
Posts: 5,476,214
Members: 25,049
Currently online: 727
Newest member: RikersBeard

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19


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: Do you want to see a reboot of TOS for the next show?
Yes, I'd like to see Kirk & Spock (or other next gen crew) again on TV. 17 19.54%
Maybe... it depends on _____. 5 5.75%
No, I'd like to see a new crew. 65 74.71%
Voters: 87. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 28 2014, 06:40 PM   #91
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

Captain Mike wrote: View Post
This "let's reboot for reboots sake" tires me.
Why? After forty years I'm ready to hit the reset button and start over going back to the series origins and doing a 21st century take. The world has changed a lot and Star Trek is stuck in the past.
__________________
"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 28 2014, 10:22 PM   #92
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Captain Mike wrote: View Post
This "let's reboot for reboots sake" tires me.
Why? After forty years I'm ready to hit the reset button and start over going back to the series origins and doing a 21st century take. The world has changed a lot and Star Trek is stuck in the past.
Agreed 100% will BillJ on this one.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2014, 11:23 PM   #93
OpenMaw
Commander
 
OpenMaw's Avatar
 
Location: Everett, Washington
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Why? After forty years I'm ready to hit the reset button and start over going back to the series origins and doing a 21st century take. The world has changed a lot and Star Trek is stuck in the past.
Agreed. It's the one place I wish the JJ films had actually gone even further. The connection to the past was a gift, and it's a gift I wish they hadn't given. Just go balls out and restart from scratch.

Hell, i've always wanted to go back to Gene's original pitch for the show and reinterpret it with fresh eyes. Go in a wholly new direction.
__________________
"Paradise protests too much." SFDebris
OpenMaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2014, 01:01 AM   #94
Jonny
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Liverpool Merseyside uk
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

I'd personally prefer a new crew if we're talking about a new non-animated series. Animated series I wouldn't mind seeing the original crew though.
Jonny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 11:08 AM   #95
tombo74
Ensign
 
Location: Munich, Germany
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

I don't care. ANY new Trek on TV would be great!
tombo74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 03:08 PM   #96
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

Indeed! So long as we get weekly cracking good yarns in space.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 11:00 PM   #97
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Captain Mike wrote: View Post
This "let's reboot for reboots sake" tires me.
Why? After forty years I'm ready to hit the reset button and start over going back to the series origins and doing a 21st century take. The world has changed a lot and Star Trek is stuck in the past.
I'm not sure if it's reasonable to update Star Trek for the times without seriously altering it into something it's not. For starters, the original crew isn't going to fly because of the lack of women (and that will be a desirable audience to draw). One of the characters would probably be changed gender-wise, and you can bet that it would change the character. All of the characters would likely be changed into something different.

Another point is that the future of Star Trek has been sorely outdated. The vision of the way things would happen in the 60s or the 80s just wouldn't fly today.

Lastly, the tone would probably need to take a change. Not to say that Trek hasn't had some gloomy stuff before, but it would probably reflect the TV of today with your stereotypical anti-hero. That's not really anyone from TOS. And these people would have to die and perhaps stay dead. No immunity for everyone not wearing a red shirt, and what they do has to matter and have consequences. No reset buttons at the end of every episode because that's just not good TV today.

So it would have to be a pretty drastic reboot at that point, in which you have to wonder, "Does it even matter?" The people who are capitalizing on the brand aren't going to make completely alien looking Spock, or gay Kirk, or female McCoy, or transgender Uhura. They're going to play it safe and put them in relatively similar situations, otherwise there isn't much of a point to reboot. They want to capitalize on the brand and success, and changing it too radically would probably turn people away. Those in charge will likely play it safe there.

But with a new crew, a lot of that goes away. You can have whatever combination of people, you can have something new and fresh without pissing (as many) people off, and you could incorporate a lot of what we see in TV today. It would probably be a lot easier to write, and would open a lot more opportunities up, but the difficulty is in getting people to give a shit about Captain Nobody. Somehow TNG did it, so it's not impossible.

I think some of this might play into why there is issue with Trek continuing on TV.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 11:09 PM   #98
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Captain Mike wrote: View Post
This "let's reboot for reboots sake" tires me.
Why? After forty years I'm ready to hit the reset button and start over going back to the series origins and doing a 21st century take. The world has changed a lot and Star Trek is stuck in the past.
I'm not sure if it's reasonable to update Star Trek for the times without seriously altering it into something it's not. For starters, the original crew isn't going to fly because of the lack of women (and that will be a desirable audience to draw). One of the characters would probably be changed gender-wise, and you can bet that it would change the character. All of the characters would likely be changed into something different.

Another point is that the future of Star Trek has been sorely outdated. The vision of the way things would happen in the 60s or the 80s just wouldn't fly today.

Lastly, the tone would probably need to take a change. Not to say that Trek hasn't had some gloomy stuff before, but it would probably reflect the TV of today with your stereotypical anti-hero. That's not really anyone from TOS. And these people would have to die and perhaps stay dead. No immunity for everyone not wearing a red shirt, and what they do has to matter and have consequences. No reset buttons at the end of every episode because that's just not good TV today.

So it would have to be a pretty drastic reboot at that point, in which you have to wonder, "Does it even matter?" The people who are capitalizing on the brand aren't going to make completely alien looking Spock, or gay Kirk, or female McCoy, or transgender Uhura. They're going to play it safe and put them in relatively similar situations, otherwise there isn't much of a point to reboot. They want to capitalize on the brand and success, and changing it too radically would probably turn people away. Those in charge will likely play it safe there.

But with a new crew, a lot of that goes away. You can have whatever combination of people, you can have something new and fresh without pissing (as many) people off, and you could incorporate a lot of what we see in TV today. It would probably be a lot easier to write, and would open a lot more opportunities up, but the difficulty is in getting people to give a shit about Captain Nobody. Somehow TNG did it, so it's not impossible.

I think some of this might play into why there is issue with Trek continuing on TV.
You will get no argument from me that a rebooted franchise will have to walk a very fine line in order to work in TV today yet not lose what makes Star Trek unique. But I'll have a hard time getting into another series that starts with a Captain Nobody. When there were only seventy-nine episodes, it was easy to get excited about anything new set in the Star Trek universe. But it isn't so easy now that there are six-hundred plus episodes featuring characters that aren't Kirk and Spock.

Honestly, Kirk and Spock are the unique quantity in Star Trek. They have less screen time of any set of characters except for Enterprise yet they still are "Star Trek" in the eyes of the general public.
__________________
"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 March 3 2014, 11:44 PM   #99
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

But are they still Kirk and Spock if they are radically changed? If Kirk becomes a Mal Reynolds, and Spock is a woman, does that still fit into the general public's eyes? And are you sure that the general public that TPTB even care about (younger people) care as much about Kirk & Spock as they do Picard or someone else? A lot of people in key demos were likely raised on TNG or later shows, and have a good chance of being familiar with the original, but is that what they hold highest? Do Kirk and Spock encompass Star Trek to them? Of course any answers here are likely to be opinions or too difficult to accurately say.

I also don't think the amount of screen time really amounts to anything consequential, but that too is an opinion.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 12:36 AM   #100
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
For starters, the original crew isn't going to fly because of the lack of women (and that will be a desirable audience to draw).
Technically you could probably just provide more active roles / personalities for the women already present in the original crew, as Abrams did (to some extent) with Uhura. The original series was hardly lacking in women, it just put them in mostly minor or passive roles.

All of the characters would likely be changed into something different.
There is in point of fact a lot today's television could learn from the original series in terms of rendering characters who do what Starfleet is supposed to be doing in a believable fashion. The funny thing is that believably-rendered semi-military professionals would be something "different" (in the sense that everything old is new again), and refreshingly so, from a lot of what's currently on television.

Another point is that the future of Star Trek has been sorely outdated.
Updating the futurism -- and leaving behind tropes that started out as budget conveniences in early Trek before calcifying into traditions -- would be a major necessity.

Lastly, the tone would probably need to take a change.
I don't think this is necessarily so. I mean, I think it would be a necessity for any such concept to draw on the best of contemporary storytelling and drama and try to leave the genre better than it found it -- but that doesn't necessarily mean going in for "stereotypical anti-heroes" (which I suspect television audiences are ready for a break from, much as I love Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones and House of Cards) or entirely abandoning episodic story-telling (which is still done well, if on a more sophisticated level today than in the Sixties) and drives a number of popular shows.

Probably the biggest differences from the Great Bird's day are that

a) there is a bigger range dramatically of what you can do with characters today and keep them sympathetic for the audience (the Trek format used to be nervous about treating topics, like military politics and scheming, that are actually quite interesting for audiences today), and that

b) the more or less unalloyed celebration of the American Navy in Space that formed the core of the old Trek is a harder sell now (as is anything reminiscent of the American military in an era not only post-Vietnam, but also post-Iraq War). This I think is one of the key reasons the NuTrek characters are so un-military; it's not that Abrams is a twerp hipster who doesn't understand discipline or professionalism, it's more probably that he was calculating (and with some justification if so) that the straight-ahead military heroism of TOS Kirk and company would arguably seem cornball to audiences today.

Fortunately it would be perfectly possible to re-conceive Starfleet as an avatar of truly international achievement instead of as America Writ Large across space. All you'd have to do is learn from modern film and television that updates the image of sympathetic military leadership and its struggles for modern audiences (Crimson Tide, Hunt for Red October, K-19: The Widowmaker [despite its unfortunate title] are all good examples), and give up on the habit (some) Trek captains had of running around lecturing everybody about the superiority of the Amer- uhh, the Federation's lifestyle.

And these people would have to die and perhaps stay dead.
This, absolutely.

But with a new crew, a lot of that goes away. You can have whatever combination of people, you can have something new and fresh without pissing (as many) people off, and you could incorporate a lot of what we see in TV today. It would probably be a lot easier to write, and would open a lot more opportunities up, but the difficulty is in getting people to give a shit about Captain Nobody.
As long as the concept is fresh, and executed with a bit of verve and vision, getting audiences to care about a new cast of characters shouldn't that difficult. It's having the fresh concept, the verve and the vision that's the big hurdle. I definitely don't think Kirk and Spock are particularly necessary to any rebooted endeavour.

Indeed I might go a step further: the whole Spockogenic concept of having a character around to be The Logical One, which was reproduced in every Trek show without fail, has aged poorly (which I think is one of the key reasons NuSpock barely evinces that trait today). Nor does a modern audience necessarily need the Captain to be an avatar of White Male Privilege, which is what Kirk mostly seems to have become in the public imagination (although there was more to the original character than that).
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 08:07 PM   #101
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

BigJake wrote: View Post
Technically you could probably just provide more active roles / personalities for the women already present in the original crew, as Abrams did (to some extent) with Uhura. The original series was hardly lacking in women, it just put them in mostly minor or passive roles.
But that comes at the price of whining about what happened to Chekov or Sulu when Chapel or Rand take the screen time. People come to expect certain roles to be in place, which is why the movie has Chekov coming in, however improbable. General audiences don't care about Number One or Boyce either, they just want the core people, which is why that issue is difficult.

Updating the futurism -- and leaving behind tropes that started out as budget conveniences in early Trek before calcifying into traditions -- would be a major necessity.
I think that updating it to any real degree sort of nullifies the way things turn out. The creation of uber smart AI (which will likely precede interstellar travel) brings up questions of the technological singularity.

And let me say that this isn't necessary, but it would be nice. People aren't going to be wowed by ideas of androids, padds, or replicators.

that doesn't necessarily mean going in for "stereotypical anti-heroes" (which I suspect television audiences are ready for a break from, much as I love Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones and House of Cards) or entirely abandoning episodic story-telling (which is still done well, if on a more sophisticated level today than in the Sixties) and drives a number of popular shows.
Even the most episodic shows have growing relationships and life changes that happen, which Star Trek practically had none of. The later shows had more, and even DS9's quasi arc story format I think audiences would prefer to standalone stuff.

And I don't think antiheroes are going anywhere. The sort of comic book good vs. evil stuff just doesn't fly on TV anymore. Everyone is flawed, and that parallels real life, which helps people identify. The Abrams films have done well in dropping the flaws in to Kirk and Spock, but there may be a desire for it to go further (although not Admiral Marcus far).


As far as the comments about militarism, I think that the shows want to have a more lax approach to appeal to the common viewer. Typically the person who is strict and rigid is a trope that shows us they're not like our heroes. Anyone who is by the book or all about procedures will seem stuffy and people will want to not like them.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 01:31 AM   #102
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
But that comes at the price of whining about what happened to Chekov or Sulu when Chapel or Rand take the screen time.
Meh, I often hear this being claimed on behalf of "general audiences" but I see little evidence of it. People who aren't hardcore Trek fans don't typically care whether Chekov is there or not or if the doctor's name is Boyce. I'm pretty sure that's more of a fandom thing, much like the perpetual claim that Trek is Kirk and Spock.

I think that updating it to any real degree sort of nullifies the way things turn out. The creation of uber smart AI (which will likely precede interstellar travel) brings up questions of the technological singularity.
I think "the singularity" (or as I like to call it, the Rapture for geeks ) is actually fairly passe at this point. AI is ultimately just a tool -- Trek could certainly include stories featuring quixotic attempts to create AI that can argue with you or set its own agendas, but the chances of people putting computers on "the Enterprise" that can do this are minimal. A tool that can answer you back is fundamentally just a broken tool.

People aren't going to be wowed by ideas of androids, padds, or replicators.
"Technology wow" is generally not a very likely premise, although there are certainly still cool things that could be done. But then Trek stories were not generally supposed to be about "technology wow," the tech was always supposed to be a means to telling human stories.

And I don't think antiheroes are going anywhere. The sort of comic book good vs. evil stuff just doesn't fly on TV anymore.
There's a parsec's worth of room between flawed, relatable heroes and either "comic book good vs. evil stuff" or antiheroes.

As far as the comments about militarism, I think that the shows want to have a more lax approach to appeal to the common viewer. Typically the person who is strict and rigid is a trope that shows us they're not like our heroes.
I think that's something different. That in fact was why Trek was calibrated the way it was originally; Enterprise was meant to be believably militaresque and efficient without looking regimented and oppressive.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigJake; March 5 2014 at 01:55 AM.
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 05:17 PM   #103
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

BigJake wrote: View Post
Meh, I often hear this being claimed on behalf of "general audiences" but I see little evidence of it. People who aren't hardcore Trek fans don't typically care whether Chekov is there or not or if the doctor's name is Boyce. I'm pretty sure that's more of a fandom thing, much like the perpetual claim that Trek is Kirk and Spock.
Isn't there a bit of irony here when we're talking about how Star Trek is basically Kirk and Spock?

I think "the singularity" (or as I like to call it, the Rapture for geeks ) is actually fairly passe at this point. AI is ultimately just a tool -- Trek could certainly include stories featuring quixotic attempts to create AI that can argue with you or set its own agendas, but the chances of people putting computers on "the Enterprise" that can do this are minimal. A tool that can answer you back is fundamentally just a broken tool.
I don't think the singularity is entirely realistic, especially Ray Kurzweil's vision of it, but I think that there are elements of it that are going to come true. Maybe not in the time span or with the exponential growth into infinity type stuff, but I think it's possible we will come up with AI that rivals human intelligence, and possibly even one-ups it. I believe we will fully understand the brain before we visit other stars, and I think that understanding will go a long ways toward describing intelligence, consciousness, and a whole host of other things that we don't fully understand.

There wouldn't be an Elba II because the brain and body would be more understood. But that might limit story potential. Star Trek doesn't cling to realism, especially if it is at the cost of the story, and I don't know that we could even hope that it would. It's more like present day types of people in a fantasy world than it is like anything futuristic.

"Technology wow" is generally not a very likely premise, although there are certainly still cool things that could be done. But then Trek stories were not generally supposed to be about "technology wow," the tech was always supposed to be a means to telling human stories.
I understand that, but I was never really talking about the human stories, just the dressing surrounding it and the need for updates. Star Trek certainly has had technology wow type stuff.

There's a parsec's worth of room between flawed, relatable heroes and either "comic book good vs. evil stuff" or antiheroes.
When I say flawed I mean flawed. I don't mean something like Picard not liking children. The closest Trek hero character I can think of that had some serious flaws was T'Pol, and that was only a drug addiction with a pepper of racism. We would be expecting to see some of that plus a little bit more. Do people want to see that kind of stuff in Kirk and Spock? Harlan Ellison was on the track with his original scripts for CotEoF of making Starfleet officers flawed, but it went against what Star Trek was. It was supposed to be this optimistic thing where character's problems were solved in an hour and they otherwise lived pretty perfect lives. But I just don't know if that will fly anymore.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 10:24 PM   #104
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Isn't there a bit of irony here when we're talking about how Star Trek is basically Kirk and Spock?
Heh, what do you mean "we," kemo sabe? I am certainly not talking about how Star Trek is basically Kirk and Spock, since I don't think that's true.

When I say flawed I mean flawed. I don't mean something like Picard not liking children.
No, I get you. I'm saying there's still a lot of room between heroic characters with flaws and the anti-hero. (This was something I liked about NuBSG. It had real character conflict and real human drama but it still had heroic characters.) I completely agree with you that there should be a willingness to explore broader dramatic territory there than the original series did.

It's probably confusing that I'm using "reboot" differently from the OP. I'm all in favour of rebooting the whole concept from the ground up with a new crew. I don't think a lot of the changes that would need to be made could be sold with Kirk and Spock.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 11:03 PM   #105
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: TV: A reboot or a new crew?

I just meant that if you're already thinking to include Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise, it stands to reason that you include the other iconic things as well. Klingons, Scotty being drunk, "I'm a doctor, not a ____", etc.

I'm not sure how I feel about a ground up reboot with a new crew. At that point, it seems to me like someone should just make something new altogether. I know, I know, it's a lot easier to piggyback on a brand than it is to chance it with something new *cough*Robocop*cough*.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
new crew, reboot, trek on tv

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 10:22 PM.

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