What is Star Trek and its future?

[Warped9]

A lot of ideas are shared on this forum regarding new projects for Star Trek whether it be film or television.

What I find odd among the divergent ideas are those ones pitched that seem to have little to do with Star Trek other than slapping on the name. To me such ideas would serve better as wholly original non Trek projects.

For me Star Trek is "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages..."

I know that disappoints some, but thats what it is and thats what the broader audience recognizes. It's not predominantly politics and war (seen in DS9) and gritty and nihilistic like nuBSG and Sopranos.


Why did TOS click and go on to enjoy an expanding popularity? Why does it still draw younger viewers? Why did TNG click? Conversely why did DS9, VOY and ENT not really click and drew diminishing numbers of viewers?


So what does Star Trek have to have to remain recognizable? And what things are distinctly not Star Trek?


Thoughts anyone?

 

[Mudd]

It's a series of movies and TV shows.

TOS doesn't draw substantial numbers of younger viewers, except to the extent that nuTrek resembles TOS. That's just a fact.

 

[Warped9]

It's a series of movies and TV shows.

That doesn't address the question.

TOS doesn't draw substantial numbers of younger viewers, except to the extent that nuTrek resembles TOS. That's just a fact.

But it still draws.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I would guess the success of TOS and TNG was partially the right thing in the right place at the right time. They set certain expectations as to what Star Trek is.

 

[Warped9]

I would guess the success of TOS and TNG was partially the right thing in the right place at the right time. They set certain expectations as to what Star Trek is.

I would say the same. Which leads to what elements were there that appealed to people and which of those elements need to be retained for possible future success?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In a hypothetical new series, tech that was futuristic in 1966 or even 1986 but which has been surpassed in real life can't be adhered to. So, any new series won't be meshing seamlessly and canonically with any of the Prime Universe series. ENT would be the only possible exception, but in that case there would be no reason to.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I would guess the success of TOS and TNG was partially the right thing in the right place at the right time. They set certain expectations as to what Star Trek is.

I would say the same. Which leads to what elements were there that appealed to people and which of those elements need to be retained for possible future success?

Hard to say because its not the 70s or 80s. The stars won't align the same way again.

That said, to me Star Trek is optimistic and forward thinking. It's set within the "Establishment" and that establishment works. So rag tag groups of rebels fighting evil empires, soul less corporation and faceless minions of orthodoxy in a dystopian future isn't Trek ( to me).

 

[Warped9]

What were the commonalities between TOS and TNG?

- A group of explorers embarked upon a voyage of discovery aboard a futuristic vessel.
- The vessel was named Enterprise.
- Something of a close knit relationship between the main characters.
- The stories could be straight-up adventure yet they could also sometimes address societal issues and questions.
- The stories were set centuries in the future.
- An underlining sense of optimism throughout the series as the characters sought the best appropriate solution available to whatever quandries they encountered. The assumption that certain problems that face our contemporary world have been solved or are not nearly so prevalent in the future. In extent the characters were not perfect and questioned their own assumptions at times.


If I were to apply some of those elements to other SF franchises it might be something like this:

Deep Space Nine
- A group of military personnel and civilians aboard a space station.
- Something of a close knit relationship between the main characters.
- The stories could be straight-up adventure yet they could also sometimes address societal issues and questions.
- The stories were set centuries in the future.
- An underlining sense of optimism throughout the series as the characters sought the best appropriate solution available to whatever quandries they encountered. The assumption that certain problems that face our contemporary world have been solved or are not nearly so prevalent in the future. In extent the characters were not perfect and questioned their own assumptions at times.

Babylon 5
- A group of military personnel and civilians aboard a space station.
- Something of a close knit relationship between the main characters.
- The stories could be straight-up adventure yet they could also sometimes address societal issues and questions.
- The stories were set centuries in the future.
- An underlining sense of optimism throughout the series as the characters sought the best appropriate solution available to whatever quandries they encountered. In extent the characters were not perfect and questioned their own assumptions at times.

Stargate SG-1
- A group of military personnel embarked upon missions of discovery and military defense.
- Something of a close knit relationship between the main characters.
- The stories could be straight-up adventure yet they could also sometimes address societal issues and questions.
- An underlining sense of optimism throughout the series as the characters sought the best appropriate solution available to whatever quandries they encountered. In extent the characters were not perfect and questioned their own assumptions at times.

Voyager
- A group of explorers aboard a futuristic vessel trying to get home.
- Something of a close knit relationship between the main characters.
- The stories could be straight-up adventure yet they could also sometimes address societal issues and questions.
- The stories were set centuries in the future.
- An underlining sense of optimism throughout the series as the characters sought the best appropriate solution available to whatever quandries they encountered. The assumption that certain problems that face our contemporary world have been solved or are not nearly so prevalent in the future. In extent the characters were not perfect and questioned their own assumptions at times.

Enterprise
- A group of explorers embarked upon a voyage of discovery aboard a futuristic vessel.
- The vessel was named Enterprise.
- Something of a close knit relationship between the main characters.
- The stories could be straight-up adventure yet they could also sometimes address societal issues and questions.
- The stories were set centuries in the future.
- An underlining sense of optimism throughout the series as the characters sought the best appropriate solution available to whatever quandries they encountered. In extent the characters were not perfect and questioned their own assumptions at times.

 

[BillJ]

- An underlining sense of optimism throughout the series as the characters sought the best appropriate solution available to whatever quandries they encountered. The assumption that certain problems that face our contemporary world have been solved or are not nearly so prevalent in the future. In extent the characters were not perfect and questioned their own assumptions at times.

I'm not sure this is a selling point the way it was on TOS and TNG. Not in the current entertainment climate.

 

[T'Girl]

More so with TOS (as opposed to TNG) I got a vibe that they were really out in the darkness and unknown.

 

[Nerys Myk]

More so with TOS (as opposed to TNG) I got a vibe that they were really out in the darkness and unknown.

TOS had the advantage of never going back to Earth, except for time travel. Though it did bounce between being in Federation space and on the frontier. TNG seemed to a stone's throw from Earth most of the time.

 

[Warped9]

More so with TOS (as opposed to TNG) I got a vibe that they were really out in the darkness and unknown.

TOS had the advantage of never going back to Earth, except for time travel. Though it did bounce between being in Federation space and on the frontier. TNG seemed to a stone's throw from Earth most of the time.

Not going back to Earth (except in time travel) during TOS was a concious decision to save money and to avoid facing certain questions. As long as they focused on the crew of the Enterprise they could assume certain things in terms of the future of human society.

But going back to Earth of the future during the 1960s could have raised questions as to how to depict Earth's future society. The Enterprise crew could serve as a microcosm of that society, but going back to Earth could have meant showing that integrated society in full bloom. They could have been worried how a 1960's audience might react to that.

It could also prove to be prohibitively expensive for the show so best to avoid the issue all together. That creative decision actually helped convey the idea of being really out there and far from familiar turf.

But in retrospect I wonder if it could really have hurt them given what we saw of Earth in TMP and later in TNG wasn't that drastic.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Minor correction - We saw 23rd century Earth in Pike's picnic illusion.

 

[Tim Walker]

More so with TOS (as opposed to TNG) I got a vibe that they were really out in the darkness and unknown.

TOS had the advantage of never going back to Earth, except for time travel. Though it did bounce between being in Federation space and on the frontier. TNG seemed to a stone's throw from Earth most of the time.

Came across a concept once regarding the Galaxy class-that the vessel was so large that it could serve as a mobile star base.

 

[wulfio]

TOS and TNG were the only game in town. DS9, VOY, ENT had other sci-fi to contend with, and in the case of VOY and ENT, they recycled the same formula but didn't execute as well... The competition off the top of my head: Farscape, BSG, SG-1, and to a lesser extent Babylon 5. The former 3, were in my opinion a combination of being fresh, and of higher quality than VOY/ENT. Babylon 5 was fresh, but it was like a daytime soap with aliens. However melodrama does sell.

If you want to succeed in todays market you need to show pretty people being melodramatic. And make sure to utilize all of the contemporary action/drama tropes. There's a formula for "good" tv, and if you don't deliver what people are subconciously expecting, they won't watch. For sci-fi, it needs to be "gritty and raw". That's the recipe for a successful Trek in my opinion.

I agree, I don't understand some suggestions people make for new Trek. Trek has core traits. If you want to remove those traits to the point it is unrecognizable as Trek, you might as well develop an original IP. I'll still watch it, but there's no point in slapping Star Trek on to it just for the sake of calling it Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

More so with TOS (as opposed to TNG) I got a vibe that they were really out in the darkness and unknown.

TOS had the advantage of never going back to Earth, except for time travel. Though it did bounce between being in Federation space and on the frontier. TNG seemed to a stone's throw from Earth most of the time.

Not going back to Earth (except in time travel) during TOS was a concious decision to save money and to avoid facing certain questions. As long as they focused on the crew of the Enterprise they could assume certain things in terms of the future of human society.

But going back to Earth of the future during the 1960s could have raised questions as to how to depict Earth's future society. The Enterprise crew could serve as a microcosm of that society, but going back to Earth could have meant showing that integrated society in full bloom. They could have been worried how a 1960's audience might react to that.

It could also prove to be prohibitively expensive for the show so best to avoid the issue all together. That creative decision actually helped convey the idea of being really out there and far from familiar turf.

But in retrospect I wonder if it could really have hurt them given what we saw of Earth in TMP and later in TNG wasn't that drastic.

To my mind the focus should be on the crew and what they encounter, not on what's going on "back home". As you said, the crew was a reflection of what society was like in "the future". This plus various lines in the series shows an integrated society was in full bloom, Nor do I think they feared audience reaction. Integration was a from the top down order, coming from the network and advertisers. Others shows were using integrated casts in present day settings.

I don't see how showing future Earth would be any different than showing a cityscape on an alien world.

 

[Warped9]

TOS and TNG were the only game in town.

That could apply more to TNG. When TOS was being aired originally there was Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Land Of The Giants, The Invaders, The Outer Limits and a few others. You could even include The Man From U.N.C.L.E. in that given its gadgets and adventure aspects.

And later in syndication during the '70s there was the U.F.O., Six Million Dollar Man, Space: 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers and others. And SEARCH was something of a twist on The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

It wasn't like there wasn't other SF being done on television back then. There seemed to be something of a dry spell in the early '80s and TNG was something of an impetus for television to try SF again on television. Quantum Leap was about the only other major SF show going on around that time I think.

 

[wulfio]

TOS and TNG were the only game in town.

That could apply more to TNG. When TOS was being aired originally there was Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Land Of The Giants, The Invaders, The Outer Limits and a few others. You could even include The Man From U.N.C.L.E. in that given its gadgets and adventure aspects.

And later in syndication during the '70s there was the U.F.O., Six Million Dollar Man, Space: 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers and others. And SEARCH was something of a twist on The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

It wasn't like there wasn't other SF being done on television back then. There seemed to be something of a dry spell in the early '80s and TNG was something of an impetus for television to try SF again on television. Quantum Leap was about the only other major SF show going on around that time I think.

TOS went in to syndication in 69 and built up steam. Those shows that came out in the 70s were mostly domestic, and did not have the worldwide audience that TOS did. It was an international giant by the time BSG came out, and in domestic markets that BSG and its contemporaries weren't in. I can tell you that growing up where I did, with my 3 channels by antenna, that Star Trek was the only sci-fi I recall being able to watch.

It also just dawned on me that TOS was out on the cusp of our cultures social evolution.

And TNG was out at the tail end of the cold war.

That egalitarian vision of the future may have resonated a bit more with the audience in those 2 specific decades.

 

[Warped9]

Despite what the hard numbers might say during its original run TOS was tapping into something with the audience it was reaching. That really grew when it went into sundication and on more stations than just NBC affiliates. Those stations syndicating the show also scheduled it where they thought it would have the most pull as opposed to being relegated to later in the schedule as NBC had done.

I'm not sure where I saw it, but I understand TOS generally did better in Canada than the U.S. during its original run--probably because the Canadian networks weren't obligated to follow NBC's lead in terms of scheduling.

I know CTV aired TOS in Canada two days (Tuesday Sept. 6) before NBC aired it in the U.S. (Thursday Sept. 8). What I don't know (and would like to find out) is at what time and whether they kept it there.

A Tuesday was more favorable than a Thursday and a 7:30 or 8:30 timeslot much better than 10:00 on a Friday such as was done with TOS' third season.

 

[Autistoid]

I know that disappoints some, but thats what it is and thats what the broader audience recognizes. It's not predominantly politics and war (seen in DS9) and gritty and nihilistic like nuBSG and Sopranos.

Lol DS9 not star trek lolz.

All I can say is, a new star trek, is not gonna be defined by the old star trek otherwise it's not worth making.