Trek 2017: Starfleet Academy?

[Terok Nor]

Trek, as we all know, is about seeking out new life and new civillisations. It is not about seeking out new life and waging a war to rule the galaxy or surviving in a post apocalyptic world overrun by zombies.

I don't think anyone is suggesting literally changing the subject matter of Trek to match those shows, just doing something in the same style, eg instead and adventure of the week and move on, have a season-long storyline and cast the net wide to focus on a large group of characters, some of which don't even meet others as opposed to the same seven guys week after week, some of which don't even really get anything to do.

There is no one like Harry Kim or Travis Mayweather in the main cast of Walking Dead. No reason why they should be in a Trek series either.

Actually, what would really help this show is if the characters for the main cast are actually people the writers have arcs and character development for, as opposed to what Voyager and especially Enterprise were guilty of which was basically filling a starship's staff, and that's who we'll be following.

I agree we need fleshed out characters but I'm unsure about abandoning the episode of the week format if the series is set on a starship. Long story arcs worked extremely well for Deep Space Nine as it was set on a space station. The characters couldn't just move on to the next planet. They had to stay there on DS9 and deal with the stuff that came at them.

I'm not sure I'd like a Trek series in which some of the main cast don't interact with each other. I enjoy the Trek format of a united crew dealing with the same problem. But it could be an idea to set the new series on a starship and a starbase or even a planet too. 2 or 3 locales could open up some story possibilities. It was never Trek's formula I had a problem with. It was the recycled and lazy episodes that didn't offer anything new.

I fully agree the new series should not have any passengers along for the ride like most of the Enterprise cast and half of the Voyager cast. Every character should add something vital to the cast.

 

[The Wormhole]

I agree we need fleshed out characters but I'm unsure about abandoning the episode of the week format if the series is set on a starship. Long story arcs worked extremely well for Deep Space Nine as it was set on a space station. The characters couldn't just move on to the next planet. They had to stay there on DS9 and deal with the stuff that came at them.

Given this show is part of a streaming service, it's almost certainly going to be long term story arcs as opposed to episodic adventures. Streaming is the medium considered best suited to story arc shows, and many streaming exclusive shows are tailored with the fact the viewers are going to marathon watch them in mind.

I'm not sure I'd like a Trek series in which some of the main cast don't interact with each other. I enjoy the Trek format of a united crew dealing with the same problem.

It makes more sense for a ship with a crew of hundreds to have pockets of people who never interact or even meet with each other. More realistic. Where I work, there are about 160 employees (roughly the same as Voyager's crew) with plenty of people I have zero interaction with. This becomes the increasingly more likely scenario on ships like the Constitution class with is crew of 400 or the Galaxy class with 1000.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Keep the budget lower because there will be fewer space scenes

That isn't actually how it works. Take for example BSG's spin-off Caprica, which was a planet-based character drama with very little visual effects but was in fact more expensive to produce than BSG.

Having characters who are low ranked exist in the series and seeing things from their point of view is fine, but if the decision makers aren't main characters that would be a problem.

Actually, a drama about lower ranked officers and crewmen and seeing the ship's adventures through their perspective could be an interesting and fresh slant on things. I'd welcome such a show and wouldn't care if the ship's senior staff weren't main characters. Besides, Trek's over-reliance on the senior officers doing everything is unrealistic bordering on silly. In real world situations the ones in charge sit back and watch their staff do their work for them, not do the work themselves.

But, would this really be an exciting TV show?:

Ensign Hugo: We're heading into battle. I don't know if I can do it!
Ensign Caitlin: This is our job Hugo! Nobody else can do it with us! If we don't repair the nadion relays, photon torpedoes will fire at 3% less efficiency!
Ensign Hugo: You're right. Let's maintain those nadion relays! If we work hard, maybe some day we'll be maintaining the warp core!

I like the idea of the real work being done by the lower ranked guys, but I would want the high ranked guys AND the low ranked guys to be important. It's important for an adventure series that the actions of the main characters are directly and predominantly responsible for the outcome and aren't just following orders of nameless offscreen commanders.

Though I would like it if the away team characters were separated from the bridge crew. So the commander stays on the bridge and a mission commander and his team took charge on the planet's surface. Having the chief security officer, chief medical officer and chief engineer as your away team is a little silly.

Unless you're talking about making Star Trek into a drama instead of a space adventure. But then you'd be wasting the brand.

 

[The Wormhole]

But, would this really be an exciting TV show?:

There are ways to make it exciting, and really it's the same as any other Trek show only the people who should be getting into fight or crawling around Jeffries Tubes or realigning the nacelles or whatever actually are doing that as opposed to the guys who should be doing the paperwork related to that.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

You can separate the people going out and doing the hard work from the decision makers, but you still need the one person who's making the tough decision at the crucial moment to be front and center on camera.

 

[The Wormhole]

You can separate the people going out and doing the hard work from the decision makers, but you still need the one person who's making the tough decision at the crucial moment to be front and center on camera.

I'm not convinced that's a necessity, there are ways to do a show without the decision maker on screen.

 

[Jedman67]

Having characters who are low ranked exist in the series and seeing things from their point of view is fine, but if the decision makers aren't main characters that would be a problem.

Actually, a drama about lower ranked officers and crewmen and seeing the ship's adventures through their perspective could be an interesting and fresh slant on things. I'd welcome such a show and wouldn't care if the ship's senior staff weren't main characters. Besides, Trek's over-reliance on the senior officers doing everything is unrealistic bordering on silly. In real world situations the ones in charge sit back and watch their staff do their work for them, not do the work themselves.

You can separate the people going out and doing the hard work from the decision makers, but you still need the one person who's making the tough decision at the crucial moment to be front and center on camera.

I'm not convinced that's a necessity, there are ways to do a show without the decision maker on screen.

This worked really well for Stargate SG-1. O'Neil was the team leader, and the highest ranked field officer in the SGC. Mission policy was generally set by the General or the politicians overseeing the system. It's true that the SG-1 team was very valuable - but if they were all killed on a mission, the SGC program would easily survive.

A starship setting would be a little different, but I would imagine that you could successfully run a show with an ensemble cast: 4-6 main actors to portray a handful of senior, experienced officers, and another 4 "frequently recurring" actors to play critical parts - the Captain and the rest of the top staff should be recurring, and the first officer and his away team crew should be the mains. I think "lower decks" just wouldn't fit the show type for a main crew.

There is also the premise of the show: TNG was 75% Bridge (captain, enemy fire, etc) 15% ship and 10% away team. Would the new show follow a similar format, or would it try and flesh out other parts of the genre?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I'm not convinced that's a necessity, there are ways to do a show without the decision maker on screen.

This worked really well for Stargate SG-1. O'Neil was the team leader, and the highest ranked field officer in the SGC. Mission policy was generally set by the General or the politicians overseeing the system. It's true that the SG-1 team was very valuable - but if they were all killed on a mission, the SGC program would easily survive.
[/QUOTE]

Except the way the show was set up was more like the SG teams being closer to starship crews their leaders the captain and general being the admiral.

Which was more noticeable when they started actually getting ships, and the guy running SG-1 occasionally played at starship captaining.

 

[Jedman67]

Not really, until the last two seasons when half the episodes were aboard starships. O'Neil was like the captain of his team, but it was only a small team (Colonel is the same grade as a naval Captain). It felt more like an action-heavy independent away team.

Edit: is this avatar better?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Doing something fresh within the Trek world is always welcome (Hello Deep Space 9) but changing Trek into something that doesn't fit its premise seems like suicide.

For the most part, when people say make it like Game of Thrones or Walking Dead, they're not very far off from saying make DS9. There are still some key differences or weaknesses of DS9 that those shows don't have, but for the most part, it was the Star Trek show that was most like modern TV.

Being like those shows means having intelligent writing, large amounts of arc storytelling or plots that are extended, actual consequences for characters and not just having everything reset at the start of the next episode, great character development and interaction, gripping drama, quality acting and directing, etc. Most importantly, you want shows that grow in viewers, not dwindle. Those shows are mentioned because of their great success.

And that's not hate on old Trek. I love old Trek. But there's a certain point where you have to acknowledge that storytelling has changed enough that there are so many stories from those shows, and character attitudes that you just can't do anymore while still engaging today's audiences. And that's not just true of Trek, but of all movies and TV. People don't want a show written for the 60s or the 90s now. They don't want 25 episodes where only a small percent of them are really good. It needs to be contemporary.

 

[Jedman67]

When people say "make star trek like game of thrones" do they mean that kirk should rape every woman who doesn't want to sleep with him, plenty of gratuitous nudity and unnecessary and very graphic violence?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

You can separate the people going out and doing the hard work from the decision makers, but you still need the one person who's making the tough decision at the crucial moment to be front and center on camera.

I'm not convinced that's a necessity, there are ways to do a show without the decision maker on screen.

Not in an adventure series.

In SG1 everybody who disagrees with O'Neall and team nearly causes the world to be destroyed. Decisions being made from higher up are used in that show as a plot device to give the group domestic obstacles and create the need for Hammond to dramatically call the president or for the team to boldly defy orders. All real important decisions are made by main characters. At least, all the correct decisions.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

You can separate the people going out and doing the hard work from the decision makers, but you still need the one person who's making the tough decision at the crucial moment to be front and center on camera.

I'm not convinced that's a necessity, there are ways to do a show without the decision maker on screen.

Here's what a "lower decks" show would look like:

http://chiefobrienatwork.com/

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

When people say "make star trek like game of thrones" do they mean that kirk should rape every woman who doesn't want to sleep with him, plenty of gratuitous nudity and unnecessary and very graphic violence?

No.

 

[T'Girl]

When people say "make star trek like game of thrones" do they mean that ...

Large cast, character development, complex plots, stuff like that.

Except the way the show was set up was more like the SG teams being closer to starship crews their leaders the captain and general being the admiral.

More the SGC was the ship, Hammond was the ship's commander, and SG1 (and the other teams) was the away team.

Another example would be a show like NCIS, the director was the occasionally seen captain, and the individual investigation teams were the away teams, plus there were people (a doctor and a forensic expert) back on "the ship" who assisted the away team. And there were people on high above the captain too.

 

[The Wormhole]

Except the way the show was set up was more like the SG teams being closer to starship crews their leaders the captain and general being the admiral.

A Stargate approach I've always thought Star Trek shows should take is have each ship have dedicated personnel whose job is to go on away missions. Say something the size of a Galaxy class ship have 10 such Away Teams comprised of 4-5 people each who are the ones sent to check out alien planets or board starships, occasionally getting assistance from specialists on the ship's crew as needed.

You can separate the people going out and doing the hard work from the decision makers, but you still need the one person who's making the tough decision at the crucial moment to be front and center on camera.

I'm not convinced that's a necessity, there are ways to do a show without the decision maker on screen.

Here's what a "lower decks" show would look like:

http://chiefobrienatwork.com/

I would totally watch the hell out of that show.

 

[Long Syntax]

Here's what a "lower decks" show would look like:

http://chiefobrienatwork.com/

^^ Yes... exactly... thank you. I love Colm Meaney, but - no. Just no.

 

[Jedman67]

Here's what a "lower decks" show would look like:

http://chiefobrienatwork.com/

I love this comic. Makes me feel good about my job

 

[Jedman67]

Hmm, "Starfleet: J.A.G." sounds like a great concept. A former shuttlecraft pilot, a young Lt. Cmdr William Riker goes to law school and investigates, defends and prosecutes according to the Federation Uniform Code of Military Justice.
At his side is fellow lawyer and investigator, Dr. Diana Troi who specializes in the mental health and psychiatric angle under Starfleet's Judge Advocate General.

 

[The Wormhole]

Hmm, "Starfleet: J.A.G." sounds like a great concept. A former shuttlecraft pilot, a young Lt. Cmdr William Riker goes to law school and investigates, defends and prosecutes according to the Federation Uniform Code of Military Justice.
At his side is fellow lawyer and investigator, Dr. Diana Troi who specializes in the mental health and psychiatric angle under Starfleet's Judge Advocate General.

Or a show about Starfleet's criminal investigation service, SCIS. In fact, let's just jump to SCIS New Orleans where Captain Archer is somehow transported to the 24th century and now runs the New Orleans division of the SCIS. When he's off-duty, he hangs out at Sisko's Restaurant.