My view on a new Trek series.

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Xhiandra, Dec 31, 2012.

  1. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Other side of the coin: TV doesnt get high ratings anymore period. A show can be a success with 5 million viewers now. Even lower viewership numbers might support streaming content, the end result is the same...new ST show.

    STNG was a huge success in syndication and an even bigger one on various cable channels, selling for the 100s of millions of dollars each time (the original stripping rights were in the $100 million+ range), its no surprise the overall life in syndication was shorter though, TOS had little competition channel and genre-wise, which cannot be said for post STNG syndication and cable airings.

    STNG also gets strong ratings for the cable channels it has aired on(I've posted links on this before) and originally sold for $300 million in it's first network outing. I was surprised to see it still airing on BBC America recently. On Netflix it is described as a "popular" series, located in that category. Both added to Paramount/CBS' coffers.

    RAMA
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  2. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    It "needs" producers like Abrams a great deal more than it "needs" fans who complain when it becomes successful by some means they disapprove of. :cool:
     
  3. Infern0

    Infern0 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Abrams did fine with the movie, but I don't think a new trek show "needs" him or "needs" to be like his movies, TNG was different to the TOS movies it was alongside.

    Star Trek 11 is an action movie basically, any new series does not "need" to be like that, game of thrones is the most popular genre show right now and has a very healthy amount of story and character development, two things star trek 11 was short on and two things any new trek should aim to have
     
  4. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    You've just described everyone who's produced Star Trek from Roddenberry on TNG to Abrams. Yes, that does include the sainted DS9.
     
  5. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    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.
     
  6. NightJim

    NightJim Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Location:
    Dundee
    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.
     
  7. AviTrek

    AviTrek Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    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.
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    But where does that leave the technology on the show at?
     
  9. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    It's a universal fact that no Trek series or film will please everyone.

    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.
     
  10. Loci2378

    Loci2378 Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    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. ;)
     
  11. Loci2378

    Loci2378 Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    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). ;)
     
  12. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    If they are aware, clever, and creative enough they will include elements of this:

    http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6288160&postcount=94

    For good measure why it should be so:

    http://io9.com/5906586/why-star-treks-vision-of-the-future-is-out-of-date?tag=star-trek

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

    RAMA
     
  13. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    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 :shrug:
     
  14. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    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).
    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.
     
  15. Loci2378

    Loci2378 Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    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.
     
  16. NightJim

    NightJim Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Location:
    Dundee
    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.
     
  17. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
  18. Dix

    Dix Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    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.