Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Bry_Sinclair, Mar 25, 2014.
What was that word Kramer used once: hipster doofus?
That's exactly right.
Falling Skies? Or did that merit option #2 in your estimation?
I've never (yet) watched Falling Skies; had the impression it was doing just fine in the ratings, though.
Just shows my focus (actually lack thereof) when multitasking. I meant to say Dark Skies!!!
Ah, got you.
Given that I never heard of it and it doesn't seem to have gone down well with those who did see it... probably a bit of column A, a bit of column B?
It only lasted one season (NBC), although it seems that there was a good bit of clamor over time for a DVD release that didn't actually happen until 2011, nearly 15 years post-production. This was Jeri Ryan's television experience prior to Voyager, by the way.
Wow, I really never heard of it! My first search sent me to an obscure 2013 movie.
About the TV series: pity, it looks like they had a good concept at the very least. I'll have to see if I can track down a few episodes sometime and check them out.
One thing I'd love to see come back in a series: real music. I mean good recognizable music and not that soulless audio wallpaper that has been everywhere for decades now.
Just get Bear McCreary. Problem solved. Let's go get lunch.
Adrian Younge and Venice Dawn doing adapted covers of the music of the Sun Ra Arkestra.
* drops mic and walks away *
Is this a movement that strictly has had to do with cost savings for producers? With what little television I have watched, it seems that even if something interesting is offered, it has the length of a smidget of a cue and is not allowed to decently flow.
I don't know, maybe the simple answer is shorter title sequence, more commercial revenue available.
I'd like more percussion and singers. It worked great for Alien Nation: The Series.
Hm, I'd definitely like more of something...
... can't quite put my finger on it...
Ah. There it is.
If something were to happen, I would want single nacelles to work just fine. There would be none of this stuff about needing two nacelles to balance out the warp field.
This is interesting. It's some guys thoughts on rebooting TOS. A lot of what he says rings true.
Here's another very interesting write-up about original Star Trek: http://www.theviewscreen.com/season-1-wrap-up/
I find this part particularly poignant:
I'd like to go back to Bry Sinclair's original question: If the order on the table is, "Reboot TOS," how would I prefer it be done?
I can tell you what I had hoped for (as opposed to "expected") before the 2009 movie was released. The preview posters, with the blue and gold shirts and the A-Star fabric badges, led me to hope that we would be seeing the familiar characters who are at the core of the Star Trek story. At its roots, Trek is not about the Federation or Starfleet or the neutral zone or beaming up and down. It is about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, the people who work with them, and the other central character called the U.S.S. Enterprise.
There are elements of the backstory which were originally designed with the key purpose of making these central characters more interesting. Only in later offshoots of Trek did writers create backstories that were histories unto themselves, for which the central characters would serve primarily as narrators. In the original TOS, the Romulans were created to twist the character of Spock so that we see how he untwists himself; the Klingons as power-mad bureaucrats to counterpoint Kirk's position as a seemingly power-mad, but actually higher-minded and ethical individual who's resourceful and self-sacrificing. And when the writers got around to it, they devised backstory elements to focus our attention on McCoy and Scotty.
Those particular backstory elements created during the 1960s are essential to the characters, and thus essential to the real story we call "Star Trek." Spock's bipartite soul leaves him with a handicap that he hides, not always successfully. It can make him a better man but it can leave him wounded when he wants to love someone but can't. Kirk's devotion to his ship as a soul unto itself, and his crew as the heart of his ship, comes from an innate understanding of family and duty, and the original stories underscored that fact.
If you take these particular backstory elements away, you are left with completely different people -- actors wearing similar looking costumes, but not really playing the same roles. And that's the opposite of what I would want from a "reboot" in that sense. The critical story components about the history of the ship, the universe, the Federation, that were created to define these people, must remain essentially intact.
That said, every other element of the backstory (such as how hangar bay doors that shape can possibly open or close) can change with my permission. The ship should be instantly identifiable by a five-year-old as the Enterprise, but it can be different on the inside, perhaps a bit on the outside. It should be only as different from the 1960s rendition of the ship as Zachary Quinto is from looking like the Spock we remember. Sure, he's different, but there's a margin within which we can accept the differences and move on.
What I hoped for from the 2009 movie was a setup where the principal backstory elements relevant to the characters remained intact, and then the writers could go to town with the rest of it. Knowing Leonard Nimoy was part of the cast, I imagined a sequence where a very old Spock was attempting to remember parts of his history, and was picturing the ship and crew from a hundred years in his past, but felt his memory contradicted the truth somehow. Then as we saw the differences in the new cast and new ship, and compared them in our minds to what we know, we could build a mystery around them -- perhaps the timeline has changed, but why, and why does Old Spock know this?
What we got instead was an alteration of the things that define our central characters. Kirk's lousy family upbringing in the wake of his father's death; Spock's unexplained lack of an emotional handicap other than a personal choice to be more stoic than most; Spock's substitution of the logic of using a time machine to correct the destruction of his home planet with a primitive desire to blow up his nemesis; and McCoy's having been de-aged to the same general Academy grade as both Kirk and Chekov, leave these people drastically different than the ones we remember. And these facts are flung in our faces every time New Kirk acts like an a-hole in front of ladies, or Spock smooches Uhura in an elevator.
It's people in Star Trek uniforms, as opposed to Star Trek. What I would want from a real reboot is a repositioning of the characters we remember with the essentially defining elements of those characters intact, in a setting that resembles having been created in the 21st century rather than the mid-20th.
I don't think television or the cinema is capable of providing this any more, but perhaps something else is.
DF "The Following Program is Brought to You in Living Color, Just Not on NBC" Scott
Never got the single-nacelle or odd-number-of-nacelles thing. The dual nacelles provide a visual illustration of the matter-antimatter power that's supposed to be driving the ships; why mess with it?
A lot, but not all. He talks about how you can't change the gender of one of the characters like BSG did with Starbuck, but then about how you should add a female "security chief" of specific ethnicity; frankly I think gender-flipping Starbuck was one of the very best things BSG did, and far preferable to trying to add another character to a cast which if anything could use trimming.
What he says about the puerility of co-ed soaps masquerading as genuine drama is spot-on, and he's right about the relative (and now largely-forgotten) maturity of TOS. But he's doing BSG a huge injustice: most of BSG's plots were precisely about the triumph of idealism and hope in the most adverse possible circumstances.
The way you sell idealism in our day and age is by pitting it against a pyschologically real backdrop, the dark places of the soul where Sixties television was often nervous about going. BSG's choices to portray dysfunction were, in the wake of a mass genocide and flight from destruction, the authentic choices for its setting and story. Anyone who can see TOS' maturity and the integrity at its core should also be able to see that portraying actual human dysfunction and showing people fight to rise above it is not the same thing as having "no hope."
Writers in the '60s wanted to talk about deep issues and ideas, but the networks and advertisers (who wrote the cheques) were very hesitant about getting too controversial on television, or at least how they perceived such. They were terrified of alienating viewers. If anyone had a low opinion regarding the television audience I suspect it was more the advertising sponsors and the network suits than those who actually made the shows.
I remember the discussions when All In The Family came out. It might seem tame now, but many people were shocked over the subjects they dared to discuss on the show. I think part of the secret of doing it was the inclusion of humour. M*A*S*H was similar. They used the framework of a sitcom to make their points while some years earlier The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits and Star Trek used science fiction.
You know this past week I've been reading a blog of a couple of souls who re watched TOS, TAS, the films and TNG. All this while I'm waiting for my copy of Volume 2 of These Are The Voyages to arrive. Anyway as I've started to read rewatch reviews of TNG I started thinking about possible implications for this Star Trek reboot idea.
Consider if this idea did sell as a series. Imagine a 13 episode season wherein each season as one year of the 5-year mission and the thirteen episodes are high points of that year. That's equivalent to a major event happening about every four weeks on average. This alone gives things a bit more sense of realism rather than accepting something exciting happening about every two weeks. Now you can only hope and work hard to make your show last at least five years.
Another thought could be to plan your 5-year mission to play out over three seasons, which makes things seem even more realistic and allows even more time for these pesky mundane routines between high points to deal with not-so-interesting operations. Anyway, assuming you get renewed to can plot another 5-year mission to run over the next two or three seasons.
Now, let's assume we've managed to keep things going for 5-6 years. Consider if we tweak the show particularly character wise. You promote and/or reassign characters and bring in a new crew for a third 5-year mission. Enter Picard and company, also slightly reinterpreted as was done with the TOS characters. You're able to segue seamlessly into your "next generation" without losing the general feel of your show, and you're saving money by bringing in a new cast rather than having to pay more for the original. You give the show a creative boost as well as establish new and different character dynamics. You're also saving money because you already have standing sets and such which you might only tweak a bit. Another consideration could be to update the writing staff to help evolve the show.
Having Picard commanding this Enterprise after Kirk could be more like Picard commanding the Stargazer rather than the E-D because there would be no families aboard. Another option would be for Uhura (as First Officer) promoted to Captain after Kirk leaves and Picard comes in as the new First Officer along with some other new crew changes. In this new scenario some of TNG characters mightn't make the transition. Unless the Klingons have been at least allied with the a Federation then you couldn't really reintroduce Work as part of the a Enterprise crew. You could have Worf as someone they encounter. Riker, Laforge, Crusher and Yar could be reintroduced as new crew. Wesley and Troi are two characters I would never care to see again.
So the ship's command history over the course of the series (assuming you could keep it running long enough) would be: Pike, Kirk, Uhura, Picard.
Well, it's just a thought. We are allowed to daydream.
Separate names with a comma.