RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,223
Posts: 5,405,447
Members: 24,764
Currently online: 428
Newest member: beakel001

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 October 8 2013, 05:33 PM   #31
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
But that also included a ship named Enterprise. That was part of the concept and brand too, and it still is.
I would suppose that the fact they got away with changing the characters indicates pretty strongly that they could just as easily have changed the name of the ship.

The Enterprise name was still on it because the show was essentially a later morph of the Star Trek: Phase II concept, but if they'd gone ahead and named her the good ship Discovery or Endeavour or something at that time I don't think the general viewing public would have cared. I think it's the heroics and the concept the general audience cares about, not the name of the ship. That's why name recognition didn't rescue Enterprise; it didn't have compelling protagonists or stories, that it had the "familiar" name made no difference.

I don't suppose we'll wind up agreeing and it may not really be that important in the bigger scheme of David's idea. Still, interesting question to chew over.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 05:36 PM   #32
David.Blue
Lieutenant Commander
 
David.Blue's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Bottom line--there seems to be advantages to using the name Enterprise and no real disadvantages. But there might be disadvantages (from a marketing standpoint) to not using it.

So use it. I'd have zero problem with some Vulcans aboard the Enterprise-G, btw. Even in the Abrams timeline, surely almost two centuries is enough to build up their numbers. It would be logical (heh) for them to actively seek to increase their numbers. Perhaps a volunteer program to increase the frequency of ponn far, or simply encouraging larger families. One might well suppose the Vulcans would create clones to be raised by unmarried individuals. Maybe develop fertility drugs to increase the number of children.
__________________
David.Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 05:57 PM   #33
NightJim
Commander
 
NightJim's Avatar
 
Location: Scunthorpe, UK
View NightJim's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

GoRe Star wrote: View Post
NightJim wrote: View Post
See, to me, fandom is easily more accepting of other ships, because of Voyager and Deep Space 9, and to a lesser extent the Excelsior, Titan, Excalibur and numerous others that the expanded media have followed.

However, go outside of fandom and there's two shows that people talk about. TOS and TNG. I think you could get away from Enterprise but only if you had a Kirk as THE main character. You need one of the two, ideally I'd say both which is one thing I really like about David.Blue's idea. Especially as Kirk's a she and not the captain.
The problem is the vast majority of the general people(this being the people who don't regularly follow Trek) have no idea what Excelsior, Titan and Excalibur are and only a few of the older ones may vaguely recall DS9 or Voyager as one of those other Star Trek shows.

To get the non-fans even remotely interested in watching you have to give them something they can relate with.
I can't quite tell if you're agreeing with me or misunderstood my point. But, EXACTLY! this is precisely what I'm trying to say
NightJim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 06:14 PM   #34
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

I say the regular audience couldn't care less what name the ship or the main character has. The entertainment value of the package is important, not the details.

It's sad that the writers of nuTrek think differently. But logic they argue that they NEEDED to use Kirk, Spock and McCoy would make it impossible for any original stuff to be successful.

NOBODY in the audience knew the characters, ship classes and species of Avatar, for example, and those have extremely detailed backstories that the production team made up in the design process. And yet a large chunk went to see the film.


Seriously, for someone who doesn't know something, there is no difference if it is completely new or a sequel to something. There will ALWAYS be references to past stuff the audience didn't see. And it doesn't matter if that past stuff happened in a TV show, or just in the mind of the writer.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 06:28 PM   #35
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
But that also included a ship named Enterprise. That was part of the concept and brand too, and it still is.
I would suppose that the fact they got away with changing the characters indicates pretty strongly that they could just as easily have changed the name of the ship.

The Enterprise name was still on it because the show was essentially a later morph of the Star Trek: Phase II concept, but if they'd gone ahead and named her the good ship Discovery or Endeavour or something at that time I don't think the general viewing public would have cared.
I think that's very debatable. Star Trek really took off as a globally-recognized property almost as soon as TOS ended its original NBC run and entered second-run syndication. By 1977, when Star Trek: Phase II was in early development, the Enterprise name had become a household one connected with Trek.
I think it's the heroics and the concept the general audience cares about, not the name of the ship.
You also have to have things audiences can relate to or have a fondness for, so that has to be included as an important part of the package too.
That's why name recognition didn't rescue Enterprise; it didn't have compelling protagonists or stories, that it had the "familiar" name made no difference.
Nothing could have really saved ENT (there were problems that went beyond the show), but having a ship named Enterprise didn't hurt it and likely did make it recognizable when it came time to sell the show in second-run syndication.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 06:57 PM   #36
David.Blue
Lieutenant Commander
 
David.Blue's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Why does it matter? Maybe using the Enterprise name will help. Can't see any way it could hurt. So use it!
__________________
David.Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 07:09 PM   #37
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

David.Blue wrote: View Post
Why does it matter?
I think ultimately it's an issue of marketing and what has the most immediate.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 07:50 PM   #38
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

David.Blue wrote: View Post
Why does it matter?
Because. Someone might be wrong. On the Internet. :P

Honestly, it's not that important, it's just an interesting question to kick around. And I know it's distracting from the main subject of the post, which I do have more to say about... so, sorry about that.

I can quit anytime. Just... I just need one more hit:

C.E. Evans wrote:
By 1977, when Star Trek: Phase II was in early development, the Enterprise name had become a household one connected with Trek.
So had Kirk, Bones, Spock and Scotty. TNG ultimately took off just fine without any of them -- occasional sprinkling of TOS cameos and guest appearances notwithstanding -- and was likely the better for it. I would basically put the name of the ship in the same category; it's essentially just another character, another familiar name from the old show, no more necessary than any other.

Okay. Leaving it there, I promise. I'm interested in the League concept and the overall arc of this idea and my next post (later on) will be about that.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 07:55 PM   #39
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote:
By 1977, when Star Trek: Phase II was in early development, the Enterprise name had become a household one connected with Trek.
So had Kirk, Bones, Spock and Scotty. TNG ultimately took off just fine without any of them -- occasional sprinkling TOS cameos and guest appearances notwithstanding -- and was likely the better for it. I would basically put the name of the ship in the same category; it's another "familiar" name from the old show, no more necessary than any other.
Oh, I disagree with that. If anything, it was crucial for TNG to have a ship called Enterprise to kick off that new era as it was its strongest link audiences had to TOS.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 08:01 PM   #40
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

I would think the crew would be the strongest link anyone would have to TOS? If you can lose them, why exactly would the ship name be so crucial?

(I can quit anytime! Sorry about editing in the midst of your response there. Really stopping now.)
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 08:17 PM   #41
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Any new series will likely be set on an Enterprise.
__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 11:01 PM   #42
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
I would think the crew would be the strongest link anyone would have to TOS?

If you can lose them, why exactly would the ship name be so crucial?
Because we did lose them. They weren't the crew featured in TNG, nor was the show in the same era. But having a ship named Enterprise was a way of continuing things forward a century, yet still maintaining an immediate and easily accessible link to TOS.

BillJ wrote: View Post
Any new series will likely be set on an Enterprise.
I'd bet money on it. I think the only way it wouldn't is if the new series was intended to be a same-era spinoff of the current movies already featuring the Enterprise.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 01:34 AM   #43
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
NOBODY in the audience knew the characters, ship classes and species of Avatar, for example, and those have extremely detailed backstories that the production team made up in the design process. And yet a large chunk went to see the film.
I missed this earlier, but this is an excellent way of putting the point and I completely agree.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 01:41 AM   #44
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

Okay. So coming back more directly to the subject: a couple of thoughts.

1. On the "League" concept: investigating and discovering the "truth" about the League and its Patrons could, it occurs to me, function well as an overall meta-narrative / story-arc for such a series (the crew's "golden fleece" as it were -- I think possibly you already have something like this in mind). That way it could build steadily through a series of reveals and twists and turns about what this entity really is and whether it's a Dominion-style threat or not.

2. One potential problem occurs to me about the "lower decks" concept. Senior officers are a handy vantage point on the events of a series because they believably have a hand in most of what the good ship Franchise is doing. It would be harder to have a group of grunts who could offer that same perspective. That does open up storytelling possibilities too, but it might frustrate people to only ever see their small slice of the bigger picture and the temptation to have them employed in an improbable number of roles would be strong (Space: Above and Beyond syndrome).
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 02:42 AM   #45
David.Blue
Lieutenant Commander
 
David.Blue's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: To Boldly Go

BigJake wrote: View Post
Okay. So coming back more directly to the subject: a couple of thoughts.

1. On the "League" concept: investigating and discovering the "truth" about the League and its Patrons could, it occurs to me, function well as an overall meta-narrative / story-arc for such a series (the crew's "golden fleece" as it were -- I think possibly you already have something like this in mind). That way it could build steadily through a series of reveals and twists and turns about what this entity really is and whether it's a Dominion-style threat or not.
Thanks much!

2. One potential problem occurs to me about the "lower decks" concept. Senior officers are a handy vantage point on the events of a series because they believably have a hand in most of what the good ship Franchise is doing. It would be harder to have a group of grunts who could offer that same perspective. That does open up storytelling possibilities too, but it might frustrate people to only ever see their small slice of the bigger picture and the temptation to have them employed in an improbable number of roles would be strong (Space: Above and Beyond syndrome).
A valid point, and I have an answer to it!

First, these junior officers are "on the line" as it were, getting briefed about events as they face new situations and of course sharing their own speculations among themselves.

Second, they would interact with more senior officers. For example, somebody might form a mentor/protogee relationship a la Sisko and Dax, Kirk and Garrovick, Chekhov and Kirk, Picard and Ro, etc. Others could have a more adversarial setup, rather like that between Snape and Harry Potter.

Third, they won't stay at the bottom forever. These are very talented, able young people chosen for this assignment because of that. Over a few seasons, they'll be promoted and advanced to increasingly responsible positions.
__________________
David.Blue 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 08:09 AM.

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