Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[ancient]

^I verified it.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

And as I've pointed out before, TOS, especially in the beginning, was often a lot darker than people remember: Vina was left behind on Talos IV, Kirk had to kill his best friend, McCoy had to kill the last living Salt Vampire (who just happened to look like his old flame), Charlie X was condemned to a joyless purgatory cut off from humanity, a fugitive war criminal is racked by guilt and his daughter is driven insane, and, of course, Joan Collins gets hit by bus in what is largely regarded as one of the best episodes ever.

TOS, at least in the beginning, managed to strike a nice balance between optimism and tragedy. Happy endings were by no means guaranteed.

The new show could do worse than keep that mind.

To my mind, it's not a philosophical issue; it's an aesthetic one. What makes for the most compelling drama?

Yeah, but this isn't what most people think of when they think "dark and gritty" - I'm all for what you just described, but I don't see it as darkness - doing what is practical, even when distasteful, as McCoy killing the salt vampire so tragically, is not wrong. "What is necessary is never unwise" to quote the Vulcans. That's part of being an enlightenment show; confronting reality and dealing with it in an authentic way.

But... What some section of Trekkies often want is Battlestar Trektacular. Characters not just overcoming foul choices; but being as petty and angst-ridden as we are today, with our neurotic culture. I don't think TNG was a lesser show for refusing to do this. I don't think it was dull - I think it was inspiring. I agree with Roddenbury's sentiment about showing a culture that no longer thought this way, due to greater education and health. That barring setbacks, civilization progresses. Dark enemies, don't necessitate nonconstructive conflicted angsty responses. You haven't been arguing for this, but others in our community have wanted to 'modernise' Trek into the kind of angst-ridden drama we get plastered with everywhere today.

Tolkien also tried to point this out - in a work that is, if you read between the lines, deeply pessimistic about our ability to overcome ultimate entropy, with Elves literally ditching the world forever, and a villain as unprincipled as the SS, he argued for values in the face of even the most horrible enemies; even confronted with horror, there are constructive and nonconstructive ways to deal with it.

What do people think of Star Trekian humanism - that it can't handle the "real world" or something? As a viewpoint, that kind of thinking has exited since at least World War 2, when many people who shared these ideals fought an enemy that literally tried to murder a race of people in an automated factory line. Gene Roddenbury fought himself, and lived through the war.. He flew 89 combat missions on a B-17 bomber - its funny that we here, in the most peaceful time in Earth's history, most of us never having experienced war, think we know better about what darkness was. Tolkien was a veteran too. I don't belittle drama or how it has progressed, or underestimate how culture has become more open and honest, but suggest instead that what one thinks of as good drama is sometimes down to how one chooses to see the world - not some catch-all 'real thing' - and that TNG isn't less valid than say DS9.

 

[Greg Cox]

Life is hope.

Yeah, that's a cliche.

Nonetheless, a hopeful story can be set in an environment which seems terrible, and a discouraging or dark story can be set in as easily in Trek's happy shiny future as anywhere else (see Greg's examples).

I still think that the cry "don't make Trek's future dark" often translates as "don't challenge or make me uncomfortable."

In retrospect I think that the dilemmas and solutions in most of ST:TNG's stories were so pat as to be trivial.

In TNG's defense, they had some very good, dramatic episodes: "The Wounded," "Measure of a Man," "Family," the one where Picard was tortured by David Warner (whose title escapes me at the moment), pretty much Ensign Ro's entire character arc, a lot of the Klingon political intrigue, etc.

Strong, powerful stuff.

There are great episodes of the show. Given about 170, though, I think most were trivial. The percentage worth remembering is certainly far, far lower than the original series IMO.

I don't know. I'm a shameless TOS partisan, since that's the STAR TREK I grew up on and that's burned into my brain forever, but, even discounting the five-star episodes, TNG managed plenty of good, middle-of-road episodes that probably stack up favorably to the likes of "Return of the Archons" or "Miri" or whatever.

 

[cooleddie74]

I for one thoroughly enjoy some of the so-called "fluffier" episodes like "The Royale," which as a fellow poster recently commented has a very eerie Twilight Zone feel to the script and does carry a rather creepy and surreal atmosphere in many scenes set inside the faux hotel on the surface of Theta VIII. It feels mysterious and somewhat detached from reality, and the editing for the episode resulted in one that might not end up on many "Best Of" lists but leaves an impression.

It's Trek when it wants to be eerie and mysterious and yet still have a sense of fun about itself. I like it and I think episodes like that are some of TNG's quiet and underappreciated gems. They don't have a very profound or philosophical message, but they're memorable.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Yeah, episodes like that are under-appreciated. I often get a big kick out of the less well known ones - including a lot of stuff in the supposedly bad season one, which actually had a nice sense of wonder and exoticism sometimes missing in later seasons.

I was one of the fans who hoped Enterprise would depict some of the nuclear ruins left over from the Third World War and go more in-depth about the societal carnage of that conflict as well as how there were still lingering problems from that era of history affecting the people of the mid-22nd century. Alas, save for a few random pieces of dialogue referring to the war and the chaos it caused we got little in the way of depictions or descriptions of what was the worst and most blood-soaked period in human history.

Yeah, we get it. It's Trek, and Berman Trek shown at 8:00 on a broadcast network wasn't going to get that dark, but it would have added depth, texture and more drama to the world of the 22nd century. It would have made the series, well, more of a prequel.

I'm glad they didn't actually - it's one of Star Trek's "better left unknown" threads I think. Left undepicted, we can project aspects of the current zeitgeist onto it - "oil crisis?" - "the middle east?" - "Russia?" - "China?" In the script for First Contact they were originally gonna come out and say China I think - I am glad they left it ambiguous.

 

[sojourner]

That, I think is the one big strength of season one TNG. It seemed they spent more episodes "out there" exploring. Where as later seasons got caught up in milk runs and politics a little too often. You barely got the sense they spent any time on the frontier.

 

[Ghrakh]

So TNG is being thrown under the bus? Again?

 

[Mudd]

What do people think of Star Trekian humanism - that it can't handle the "real world" or something?

I don't think "Roddenberry's vision" has even noticed the "real world" since about 1968. Well, except that Roddenberry noticed something called "the sexual revolution," about which he seemed to get most of his information from back issues of Playboy magazine. He apparently regarded it as a very great opportunity for married middle-aged men to act on their fantasies about young women.

Which, combined with Greg's remarks about the quality of TNG episodes and my misgivings about them bring us to stories like "Justice."

Here's how the original story supposedly played out:

John D. F. Black's original pitch featured a story about capital punishment. His idea was based on a film treatment detailing the colony planet of Llarof where capital punishment is handed down as a sentence for any offense except against those who are immune from the law. In the treatment, a security officer is killed by a local law enforcement officer, who is then killed himself by his partner for unjustly killing the Enterprise crewman. The planet would have had a rebel faction who wanted to overthrow the laws, which Picard refused to back initially whilst citing the Prime Directive. A second draft featured a rebel leader executed for treason. Black explained the premise of a society that developed laws to prevent terrorism and anarchy: "Let's say that what we do is kill everybody who is a terrorist or suspected of being a terrorist. Now the people who have killed everybody, what do they do?

Now that is almost prescient in some ways - ie, dramatizing a culture so distorted by fears of terrorism that its people surrender all sense of proportion or humane behavior in order to "protect" themselves.

Put through the Modern Trek Homogenizer it became something decidely trivial. Most of all it was turned into an opportunity by the producers to a) indulge an embarrassingly dated fantasy treatment of casual sex and b) see how far they could push the envelope of acceptable semi-nudity in an off-network hour (answer: not far enough to be noticeable. Baywatch would shortly do better).

 

[fireproof78]

That, I think is the one big strength of season one TNG. It seemed they spent more episodes "out there" exploring. Where as later seasons got caught up in milk runs and politics a little too often. You barely got the sense they spent any time on the frontier.

I would actually like to see more exoplanet colonies, either Human or other Federation species, that the new ship and crew are exploring and supporting. I think that would be interesting to see.

I came to TNG late, and didn't really appreciate it, but the more I watched, the more the Klingon political scene seemed to take over. It was fine at first, but it grew old after a while. Seeing more diverse situations and not the same old fighting between Klingons and [blank] species would be nice.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Here's how the original story supposedly played out:

... detailing the colony planet of Llarof ....

Now that is almost prescient in some ways - ie, dramatizing a culture so distorted by fears of terrorism that its people surrender all sense of proportion or humane behavior in order to "protect" themselves.

Pretty deep, but he could have been a bit more subtle and not have the planet's name be "For all" spelled backwards...

 

[Greg Cox]

When comparing series, we should probably resist the temptation to compare the best of Brand A to the worst of Brand B:

"TOS is better than TNG because 'Balance of Terror' is better than 'Code of Honor.'"

OR:

"TNG is better than TOS because "Yesterday's Enterprise" is better than 'Spock's Brain.'"


Alas, this is something one sees too often on the internet:

"Marvel is better than DC because . . .."

"Science Fiction is better than Horror because . . .. "

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

"Marvel is better than DC because . . .."

They did a KISS comic book.

 

[cooleddie74]

All five existing series (six counting TAS) have their masterpieces and their nougated deer turds. There's not an exception, no matter how lofty or how "meh" a particular series is viewed by the fanbase at-large.

Voyager is my least-favorite of the live-action series, but there were episodes of that show that outclassed and outentertained quite a few of the classic TOS and TNG episodes, while one of my favorite chapters of the franchise - DS9 - filmed and aired more than a few thuddingly dull stories or complete bombs.

Trek is too varied and vast to accommodate those who want to stack random episodes from different series and produced in different decades side-by-side and make comparisons that make more than cosmetic sense.

 

[Greg Cox]

"Marvel is better than DC because . . .."

They did a KISS comic book.

"Printed in real KISS blood!"

And, yes, I bought it. It was written by Steve Gerber and guest-starred Doctor Doom for Pete's sake. Of course I bought it.

But DC had Superman fight Muhammad Ali, so . . . .

 

[Nightdiamond]

What do people think of Star Trekian humanism - that it can't handle the "real world" or something?

That's the impression some people might get from watching the background for 24th century humans. A lot of it seemed very tamed in order to show how far humans advanced.

Very little beer, soda, tequila, but lots of tea. Very little contemporary sounding music, but lots of classical music.

TNG would only go as far as do analogy episodes about things like the freedom of same sex relationships, but not show it.

Sisko didn't want to participate with a recreation of a 60's casino, and it irked some people, because it was never considered something like that could happen in Trek.

Beverly dumped a Trill she was deeply in love with after the new host turned out to be a female, although her explanation seemed a little shaky.

That particular era kind of insulated and sugar coated certain things about humans living in the 24th century.

One thing Trek 09 got right was what a 23rd century club/bar might look like.

It had the flashing lights, loud club music. People drinking hard core alcohol.

It looked real, alive and interesting.

A TNG bar would have had just jazz music, be calm and quiet, etc.

So, you can get the impression that Trek sort of avoided elements of the real world in favor of super ideal world.

 

[BillJ]

I don't know. I'm a shameless TOS partisan, since that's the STAR TREK I grew up on and that's burned into my brain forever, but, even discounting the five-star episodes, TNG managed plenty of good, middle-of-road episodes that probably stack up favorably to the likes of "Return of the Archons" or "Miri" or whatever.

I think the characters were mostly so bland that middle of the road episodes of TNG ended up being mostly forgettable. There was a certain chemistry between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly that made even the most terrible TOS episodes watchable numerous times.

I've probably seen, "And the Children Shall Lead" a dozen times. Easy.

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, pretty much that.

 

[T'Girl]

Now that is almost prescient in some ways - ie, dramatizing a culture so distorted by fears of terrorism that its people surrender all sense of proportion or humane behavior in order to "protect" themselves.

As opposed to a society that correctly evaluated terrorism as real problem that had to be reasonable protected against with reasonable measures (as we did).

 

[cooleddie74]

I think the characters were mostly so bland that middle of the road episodes of TNG ended up being mostly forgettable. There was a certain chemistry between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly that made even the most terrible TOS episodes watchable numerous times.

I've probably seen, "And the Children Shall Lead" a dozen times. Easy.

Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley are arguably the most inspired and effective lead casting in the entire history of the franchise, and I'm somebody who adores and respects actors such as Stewart, Brooks, Bakula and Frakes. TOS may have had the smallest budgets, the most limited resources and the campiest execution but it often felt magical, even when the episode left a lot to be desired. The characters drew you in and you felt like you were watching family members, not just shipmates.

 

[HIjol]

I agree with Greg's Post above, for the same reasons, and I acknowledge that bias and subjective view. I thought TNG had some good, developed relationships, and though I had my nose up for a year before I would even watch TNG, I am glad I finally did. I also thought DS9 also had characters that really connected with each other. Do not know what happened with Voyager. Could the relationships between writers and creators mirror the "relationships" of the captain and crew? It would be interesting to know what the dynamics between the writing staffs and creators of each of the incarnations were. Though, if I had to bet, I would bet TOS and DS9 were a tighter "crew" than the other incarnations.

His Coolness mentioned "nougated deer turds" a couple of Posts up. Anybody know if they are available in a Pumpkin Spice flavor?