Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse

[eyeresist]

But, on the other hand, her death definitely had a resonance to it because we see the impact upon the rest of the characters. That, to me, made her death almost worth it, in that we see Sisko impacted, Bashier, Worf, and the rest have to go through a grieving process. That is the more poignant part, and, in my opinion, is when character's death can really shine through is when they are actually viewed through the lens of another.

Also, there was the issue of how to deal with Ezri Dax when she came along. An emotional issue only really possible in a sci-fi context.

 

[SpaceLama]

I would argue that this is something of a myth. Killing off a character especially a main one, while it can be powerful, should as a general rule be kept rare. Otherwise it loses its impact. Starting in the late 80's and 90's comic books became huge offenders of the same trend we are seeing in television today. Randomly killing anyone and everyone for short term shock value. It got eyes at first, but quickly lost its appeal. The "anyone can die" gimmick works great for Game of Thrones and Walking Dead. But attempts to spread it cheapen the whole concept of cinematic death. Something the fans do quickly pick up on. Every character you kill off in a throwaway story is or was somebodies favorite character. So it needs to be done carefully with great planning and forethought. Otherwise you get series killing shark jumping "elevator shaft" moments.

Yup - also in most shows, the reason for the kill-off isn't story; like Wash's death in Serenity WAS story, and WAS impactful. But most of the time, its an attempt to be edgy, or an attempt to refresh things, or get rid of a badly received character, or an attempt to justify a contract ending. These all feel shallow.

 

[Lynx]

Yeah, they sort of do. Star trek had long presented its characters in hugely dangerous situations week after week, without so much as a psychological scratch. There are deaths, but they're off screen and given in dialogue or they're Ensign Whoever introduced 3 minutes earlier. You are 98% certain anyone in the main titles will be there next week. Hardly anyone significant is killed in 700+ episodes of Trek and when they are it almost never served the drama but was just a contractual release.

Not only is it unrealistic but it undermines the drama and the jeopardy and conflict that generates the drama. When the reset button can't be guaranteed, shows get more interesting.

Ultimately whether one agrees with that perspective or not, it is in vogue. In this age of Games of Thrones, The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad, you can't just reset everything before the credits roll and expect to retain an audience.

Honestly, I can live without the blood-splattering series you mention above.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Me too.

I just love whenever some make an argument and post the word UNREALISTIC or REALISTIC uses examples of shows THAT ARE NOT realistic, but in their brains they find rationality to it, as if we're talking about documentaries.

 

[fireproof78]

Same here. Random character death to show situation is serious is getting rather tired, in my opinion. I understand the purpose, but there are other ways to convey danger than that trope,

I understand a desire for realism, but ultimately, it is still a story, and is still entertainment. The idea that all the characters are fair game sounds good, in theory, until you realize that an audience wants some predictability. I mean, I watched JAG and am watching NCIS, and those guys go through dangerous situations all the time. Does that change the drama that they don't die? No, not for me.

Star Trek could learn from those shows.

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

Me too.

I just love whenever some make an argument and post the word UNREALISTIC or REALISTIC uses examples of shows THAT ARE NOT realistic, but in their brains they find rationality to it, as if we're talking about documentaries.

Just because a show is fiction doesn't mean one can't have a sense of realism. Star Trek has many elements which are unrealistic, yet it doesn't mean realistic situations and characters can't be inserted in the confines of a work of fiction. That is what verisimilitude is.

Same here. Random character death to show situation is serious is getting rather tired, in my opinion. I understand the purpose, but there are other ways to convey danger than that trope,

I understand a desire for realism, but ultimately, it is still a story, and is still entertainment. The idea that all the characters are fair game sounds good, in theory, until you realize that an audience wants some predictability. I mean, I watched JAG and am watching NCIS, and those guys go through dangerous situations all the time. Does that change the drama that they don't die? No, not for me.

Star Trek could learn from those shows.

I'm not sure many people are looking for a major character death every episode, but at the same time death is not a trope. It's a part of life that shouldn't be shied away from just because it would break our desire for predictability. JAG and NCIS are the perfect example of safe and predictable. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but Trek did that for 726 episodes. Let's try something a little less safe and predictable.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not sure many people are looking for a major character death every episode, but at the same time death is not a trope. It's a part of life that shouldn't be shied away from just because it would break our desire for predictability. JAG and NCIS are the perfect example of safe and predictable. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but Trek did that for 726 episodes. Let's try something a little less safe and predictable.

You're missing my point. I said "Death to prove the situation is serious" is a trope. No, death is not a trope, it is a part of life. However, I also don't need to see death in my TV shows to know that it is a part of life. If the character death serves the story, in some way, meaningful or meaningless death is fine. But, the larger impact on the characters and the story should be explored or the death is little more than "someone needs to die because..."

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

You're missing my point. I said "Death to prove the situation is serious" is a trope. No, death is not a trope, it is a part of life. However, I also don't need to see death in my TV shows to know that it is a part of life. If the character death serves the story, in some way, meaningful or meaningless death is fine. But, the larger impact on the characters and the story should be explored or the death is little more than "someone needs to die because..."

I agree that death shouldn't be done "just because," but nothing should be done in a story just because. I watch plenty of shows were people are in high stakes situations that continually live despite the odds, but it does strain credibility when almost no one dies, ever. Again I don't think people are arguing that death should be occurring just because, but some here are arguing that they wouldn't want to see a lot of deaths, if any, on the new show. I have no problem if characters die on the new show so long as they are done in service to interesting storylines.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree that death shouldn't be done "just because," but nothing should be done in a story just because. I watch plenty of shows were people are in high stakes situations that continually live despite the odds, but it does strain credibility when almost no one dies, ever. Again I don't think people are arguing that death should be occurring just because, but some here are arguing that they wouldn't want to see a lot of deaths, if any, on the new show. I have no problem if characters die on the new show so long as they are done in service to interesting storylines.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that specifically, so much as other arguments I have heard in favor of "realism." I have seen it argued that realism means no character is safe, and that leads to GoT and Walking Dead style of character death. That is something that I generally find very frustrating in a story and makes it difficult for me to enjoy.

I'm with you in that characters dying should serve the story-that really is the end of my argument. I think character deaths will largely depend on the writers and their take on the story.

 

[EnderAKH]

Death's among the main cast aren't done for "realism" per se, but to maintain dramatic tension. If our heroes are in life or death situations every week but always get out of it every time, today's audiences will generally tune out of that series, because there is no unpredictability. "They always get out, so why am I watching? I know how it is going to end." You want to write the death in a way that makes sense and serves the story, but in modern television, yes, death is going to have to happen.

 

[fireproof78]

That does not make it any less annoying to me. But, I also know that my attitude towards entertainment media is a bit different in that I don't mind knowing how something ends. If the characters and their journey are captivating and interesting then I need someone to die to make it more interesting.

But, I know that's just me, and I know that contemporary TV is a far different marketplace.

 

[mos6507]

Death's among the main cast aren't done for "realism" per se, but to maintain dramatic tension.

You do realize there are entire genre in which there is never any mortal danger to the leads. Courtroom drama ala Perry Mason for one, or romance stories (serious or comedy), or Rocky style stories of personal growth and sportsmanship. The stakes of a given episode do NOT have to involve losing life and limb to have dramatic tension. All you have to do is root for the protagonist to achieve his or her goals.

 

[EnderAKH]

You do realize there are entire genre in which there is never any mortal danger to the leads. Courtroom drama ala Perry Mason for one, or romance stories (serious or comedy), or Rocky style stories of personal growth and sportsmanship. The stakes of a given episode do NOT have to involve losing life and limb to have dramatic tension. All you have to do is root for the protagonist to achieve his or her goals.

But in courtroom dramas, the lawyers are rarely in jeopardy from space menaces week after week. There are no expectations for the leads to possibly die from week to week. The stakes are different for them. The modern expectation for stakes there, compared to TV in years past, is that they lose cases as opposed to the Matlock/Perry Mason model where our hero lawyer ALWAYS wins. But yes, if we are dealing with life or death issues, the heroes should not be able to skirt the consequences of that for years and hundreds of hours of television. That's part of why people tune out. What's the point of watching if they NEVER LOSE?

 

[fireproof78]

But in courtroom dramas, the lawyers are rarely in jeopardy from space menaces week after week. There are no expectations for the leads to possibly die from week to week. The stakes are different for them. The modern expectation for stakes there, compared to TV in years past, is that they lose cases as opposed to the Matlock/Perry Mason model where our hero lawyer ALWAYS wins. But yes, if we are dealing with life or death issues, the heroes should not be able to skirt the consequences of that for years and hundreds of hours of television. That's part of why people tune out. What's the point of watching if they NEVER LOSE?

Because I want to see them succeed?

 

[EnderAKH]

Because I want to see them succeed?

Of course we WANT them to succeed, but where is the dramatic tension if they ALWAYS succeed? Every time? Why should I care if Janeway is infected with this weeks space virus if I know, for a FACT, that she will be cured and everything will be fine? Where is the tension when Sisko is crashed on a desert planet on the other side of the wormhole with no communicator, no water, and no one around if it is a certainty that at the end the Defiant will find him and whisk him off to DS9? What does it matter if Archer is facing down 100 Xindi warships if there is no question at all that he and his crew will safely get away with barely a scratch? Every episode? For year after year, series after series? The days of "Geez Louise, how are the fellas gonna get out of their scrape THIS week?" are long gone.

Now, I'm not saying crew should be killed willy nilly at Walking Dead/Game of Thrones levels of carnage, but maybe once every season or even every two seasons, having someone die or a radical status quo change for them is good tv. Look at Wesley's whole arc on Angel, Wash in Serenity (a movie but still well done), Etta in season 5 of Fringe, Teri Bauer in 24, Terry Crowley in the very first episode of the Shield (with honorable mention to Lem), Rita in Dexter.

Despite what 50 years of Star Trek have tried to tell us, space is not safe! It is the most dangerous environment to work in where one wrong move gets you and possibly your crew violently dead. Throw in antagonistic and powerful aliens, technology run amuck, alien plagues, mysterious gaseous anomalies, and tribbles? It stretches my credibility to the breaking point to think we are not going to lose a few someones along the way.

 

[fireproof78]

Of course we WANT them to succeed, but where is the dramatic tension if they ALWAYS succeed? Every time? Why should I care if Janeway is infected with this weeks space virus if I know, for a FACT, that she will be cured and everything will be fine? Where is the tension when Sisko is crashed on a desert planet on the other side of the wormhole with no communicator, no water, and no one around if it is a certainty that at the end the Defiant will find him and whisk him off to DS9? What does it matter if Archer is facing down 100 Xindi warships if there is no question at all that he and his crew will safely get away with barely a scratch? Every episode? For year after year, series after series? The days of "Geez Louise, how are the fellas gonna get out of their scrape THIS week?" are long gone.

Now, I'm not saying crew should be killed willy nilly at Walking Dead/Game of Thrones levels of carnage, but maybe once every season or even every two seasons, having someone die or a radical status quo change for them is good tv. Look at Wesley's whole arc on Angel, Wash in Serenity (a movie but still well done), Etta in season 5 of Fringe, Teri Bauer in 24, Terry Crowley in the very first episode of the Shield (with honorable mention to Lem), Rita in Dexter.

Despite what 50 years of Star Trek have tried to tell us, space is not safe! It is the most dangerous environment to work in where one wrong move gets you and possibly your crew violently dead. Throw in antagonistic and powerful aliens, technology run amuck, alien plagues, mysterious gaseous anomalies, and tribbles? It stretches my credibility to the breaking point to think we are not going to lose a few someones along the way.

For me, it all depends on how the story is presented and the characters respond. If the characters are well developed, dynamic, and entertaining, then I am satisfied with that.

I get that space is dangerous, and agree with all the other factors that you listed of all the hazards. For me, if someone dies, or doesn't die, that is not what makes or breaks a series for me.

Now, in a contemporary TV market as it is, I think that death will certainly be a part of it. I am speaking for me, personally, and how I don't need it to be entertained or to suspend my disbelief. YMMV, and no doubt does.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Of course we WANT them to succeed, but where is the dramatic tension if they ALWAYS succeed? Every time

So THIS is why the James Bond series bombs with every outing. Now I understand. There's no dramatic tension because we all know he'll live and succeed every time, so the world keeps refusing to watch that series.

The days of "Geez Louise, how are the fellas gonna get out of their scrape THIS week?" are long gone.

Except they're not. As mentioned above, highly rated shows such as Criminal Minds and NCIS put their characters in danger week in and week out, and people still tune in to be entertained.

Most stories aren't about not knowing the end (hello, Titanic or heck, just recently, did you hear how well "The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story" did?). It's about watching the drama, characterization and plot unfold.

 

[EnderAKH]

So THIS is why the James Bond series bombs with every outing. Now I understand. There's no dramatic tension because we all know he'll live and succeed every time, so the world keeps refusing to watch that series.

False eqivalent. There have been approximately 50 hours of Bond, 700+ hours of Trek. But even granting your premise, there was a major character death as recently as 2 movies ago in Skyfall. Then there is the death of Felix Leiter, Vesper Lynd, Bond's wife, etc. They obviously can't kill the lead, but Bond has not been above using a character death to heighten dramatic tension.

Except they're not. As mentioned above, highly rated shows such as Criminal Minds and NCIS put their characters in danger week in and week out, and people still tune in to be entertained.

Most stories aren't about not knowing the end (hello, Titanic or heck, just recently, did you hear how well "The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story" did?). It's about watching the drama, characterization and plot unfold.

NCIS (who killed a lead in Season 2, btw) viewership's median age is 61 and Criminal Minds is 56, people who are accustomed to a different type of storytelling. These are not the viewers I think CBS All Access is gunning for. Titanic? We DIDN'T know how it turned out for Jack and Rose, one of whom dies while the other lives.

If this type of storytelling isn't your bag, no harm no foul. It is the type of storytelling that I would bet the brass at All Access are going for. Younger viewers who are watching Justified, Breaking Bad, Man Men, The Walking Dead, GoT, at least in my opinion

 

[shapeshifter]

But do we know 'young viewers' are the target demographic? The Original Press Release seems, imo, to imply they will be pandering to fans.

Some quotes from the OPR, with emphasis added by me. (did anyone even read that thing?! )

“There is no better time to give Star Trek fans a new series than on the heels of the original show’s 50th anniversary celebration,” said David Stapf,

and we’re excited to launch its next television chapter in the creative mind and skilled hands of Alex Kurtzman, someone who knows this world and its audience intimately.”

“This new series will premiere to the national CBS audience, then boldly go where no first-run Star Trek series has gone before – directly to its millions of fans throughCBS All Access,” said Marc DeBevoise

We now have an incredible opportunity to accelerate this growth with the iconic Star Trek, and its devoted and passionate fan base, as our first original series.”

“We can’t wait to introduce Star Trek's next voyage on television to its vast global fan base.”

http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017

And from the followup comment by Moonves himself

The series will “make all Star Trek fans very proud…

 

[EnderAKH]

But do we know 'young viewers' are the target demographic? The Original Press Release seems, imo, to imply they will be pandering to fans.

Some quotes from the OPR, with emphasis added by me. (did anyone even read that thing?! )











http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017

And from the followup comment by Moonves himself

I read it, I just didn't limit it only to people who were fans prior to 2009.