Other series

True, but optimistic as say, the Arab Spring is, it would be doing them a disservice to portray their struggles and sacrifices in a sanitised or 'non-gritty' way.

I think you are right though, hard edged and realistic need not be pessimistic or cynical. Galactica regularly got picked out in the UK TV listing magazines as great drama like The Soprano's, that even people who were not fans of the genre should watch. Trek didn't get that sort of respect but I'd like to think that it could.

 

Gritty isn't superior, it's just more fashionable. It's just one style out of many, and I detest the notion that any show that doesn't embrace that particular narrow style is somehow the worse for it. Diversity is good.

 

Yes, but the style of TOS would not have worked on TNG - in fact it did not work in season one. DS9 was different again, and one of the big failings of Voyager was that it was too similar to TNG. Enterprise ?

Any new show must move on from what came before or it will not only seem dated, but also out of touch. TV has moved on - compare CSI to Starsky and Hutch. Both good shows imho, but you couldn't imagine S & H being a big success now.

Any new Trek show must change from its predecessors whilst retaining the essence of what made it Trek to start with. JJ realised this in his movie and I think pulled it off (other opinions are available).

OK - Trek XI was not exactly Platoon, but it was of its time. That is what TV Trek will need to achieve if it is to suceed.

 

Sure, but I'd hardly call ST '09 "gritty." If anything, it was just the opposite, extremely bright and clean in its vision of the future. Heck, that's the whole reason Abrams filled the screen with lens flares -- as a rather literal representation of Star Trek's "bright future."

 

I never cared for Quantum Leap, but then I don't like religious fiction. Quantum Leap, what I saw of it, anyway, was Touched by an Angel with misused scientific terminology.

I wouldn't argue with that. One of the great pop culture disappointments of the last decade is that there was only one M&C movie.

 

Well, it certainly abused the science like crazy (seriously, "neurons and mesons?"), but it wasn't overtly religious. They tended to refer to the unknown force leaping Sam around as "God or fate or whatever," but they were guessing. The series finale implied that Sam himself was somehow responsible for his leaping. And I think something (maybe the Ashley McConnell novels?) implied that the computer Ziggy might've been behind it, trying to tweak the present into a better state through successive approximations.

Then again, there has always been something of a religious undercurrent to Donald Bellisario shows, like that episode of Tales of the Gold Monkey where the characters were saved from a plane crash because one of them prayed for salvation and the plane miraculously levelled off. So I guess the implication was there, even if they kept it vague. But I'd call it a fantasy show with an occasional, implied spiritual undercurrent, rather than a "religious" show.

 

My memory of the press coverage around the finale is that it was intended to be understood as revealing that God was behind it all. I may be misremembering, but I do remember a fair bit of God talk in relation to the finale.

 

I think God's involvement was discussed as a possibility by the characters in the finale, but ultimately it generated more questions than answers. As for press coverage, you can't always trust it, especially when it comes to the interpretation of something ambiguous or complicated.

 

I completely agree with this statement and will add this:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=299

 

I think Star Trek needs to be fundamentally optimistic, but that it has to present its optimism in a more nuanced way. We shouldn't see a return to the two-dimensional "everything's bright and shiny and our characters don't have real personalities because they've evolved beyond our pettiness" aspect of early TNG; as with the J.J. Abrams film, Star Trek should be full of flawed people who nonetheless strive to build a better world, and whose adventures, flaws and all, inspire us. We do need some darkness, because we live in dark times and Trek risks losing its relevance if this is not reflected. But it shouldn't be defined by its darkness the way, say, RDM's Battlestar Galactica was.

In terms of tone, I'm thinking: Not TNG, and not BSG; more like DS9.

 

Gee, when did Russell T. Davies do Battlestar Galactica? Methinks you meant RDM.

Wow, a Davies Galactica. That would be pretty wild. Then again, if it were in the same vein as Torchwood, then it might be pretty much the same as Moore's BSG, except most of the sex would be between men and a lot more regulars would get killed off.

 

Honestly, I think we are pretty close to getting this in the novels right now. Especially Vanguard, I think that probably comes the closest to what you're talking about here. I think we've also gotten a little more of this in the post-Destiny books.

 

Whoops!

Now I'm picturing John Barrowman playing that piano version of "All Along the Watchtower...."

 

True - gritty does not necessarily mean unremittingly dark. The post Destiny Treklit universe isn't exactly all fun, but there is still the Trek 'working towards something better' ethos.

DS9 was a good template, but to bring it up to date and make it relevant to a modern audience, Trek would need to be more hard edged.

 

That would be funny if I didn't think that there may be a jerk in a suit somewhere planning something similar...

 

So, I'm a little late to the scene here, but this seems to not relate at all to Lit, so going to move this over to General Trek Discussion.

 

Don't be silly. Everyone knows Galaxy Quest is the best Star Trek film.