Pitfalls the new series should avoid

[T'Girl]

^ I feel the opposite, understanding your intended audience and what they expect and want is important. To be successful the new series will need to attract more than Trek fans, but at the same time alienating hundreds of thousands of potential viewers with a "screw the fans" attitude makes no sense. Disappointing them with the first (free) episode will generate internet buzz, the reverse is true as well. A favorable reaction to episode one will result in advocacy from the fans on social media and other venues. Advocacy that the show won't get on the same scale from general viewers.

 

[eyeresist]

Things to avoid:
8. Large story arcs that concern the nature of intergalactic politics and relations between various governments. Please, enough of that bullshit already. I don't mind a little bit of world-building...but we don't need 4 seasons narrating the complex and unstable relationships between the Breen, Tholians and Gorns in a Post-Nemesis climate where Romulus is weakened. Dull, predictable, male-soap opera crap.

I think this is something a lot of fans would like to see. If it's dull, that's because of bad writing. I don't see how it's particularly male.

 

[Vger23]

The "outer space politics" thing has been done to death. If it's dull, it's because it's repetitive, unoriginal and uninteresting.

I'm sure lots of fans would like to see lots of different things, quite frankly, none of which make for particularly compelling or entertaining television.

The show, at its core, is about exploring and pioneering space. I'd simply like to see them focus on that, and not the mundane, cookie-cutter space politics show that could equally be executed in many other genres. To me, that's lazy and uninteresting because it's not distinctive and doesn't lend itself to taking advantage of the unique Star Trek format.

I'm open minded about a lot of stuff...and I mean A LOT of stuff...but this is one direction I won't follow in if that's where they take the show.

 

[mos6507]

This might be worthy of its own thread...but looking down the line...one can speculate whether CBS would start spinning off other Trek shows like a retread of the Berman era?

It's easy to say "no" because they'll say it will lead to franchise fatigue again, but could they really resist? If you want to grow a franchise, it has to, ya know, grow. Only having one show limits how much you can do.

So if they DID follow this strategy, then you COULD pursue different approaches.

 

[eyeresist]

This might be worthy of its own thread...but looking down the line...one can speculate whether CBS would start spinning off other Trek shows like a retread of the Berman era?

It's easy to say "no" because they'll say it will lead to franchise fatigue again, but could they really resist? If you want to grow a franchise, it has to, ya know, grow. Only having one show limits how much you can do.

So if they DID follow this strategy, then you COULD pursue different approaches.

I think they could spin off and do it successfully, but they'd have to avoid the mistakes made last time. Specifically, making shows for Trekkers rather than going with ideas and presentation that might excite the general audience. I think part of the problem was producers thought they could spin off Trek in the same way cop shows are made. But the core audience and the reasons they watch a cop show are different from a science fiction show. Cop shows are essentially comfort viewing in their predictable formula, but a sci-fi show has to do something exceptional to justify its existence.

 

[RAMA]

When DS9's ratings were dropping Paramount conducted some demographic polls and found out audiences hated too much politics in trek. I personally liked it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The problem with character arcs, though, and it has happened time and again, is that it's like burning your way through a candle. After you move through the character arc all the way, the character no longer has any reason to exist. Whatever you wanted to "say" through the character has been said, and the show gets stale. So keeping characters in developmental stasis may seem artificial, but it also extends the franchise.

In Trek, we saw this play out with the TOS movies. They had to give Kirk TWO storylines where he was wrestling with aging, TMP and a do-over with TWOK. After the crew settle in with the Enterprise-A they really have no "arc" left to them, which was a big reason why Trek V was a stinker. When it came time to write Trek V, much of the character-based storytelling of the crew (in arc mode) had already been used up. That's when you get "Row, row, row your boat" and Scotty bumping his head. It falls into farce.

So when you embrace arcs, you also have to embrace endings, which franchise owners don't like because it kills their cash-machine. And often-times these endings are unsatisfying (death of Kirk in Generations was, and the ending of Nemesis was also very anti-climactic).

This is true across the board. Look at what's happening to Big Bang Theory. Sitcoms never used to have arcs. Now they do, for the novelty aspect and because everyone else is doing it. And it's great when you're in the middle but as you get towards the end the entire thing starts to feel played out as all of the character movement you setup at series start has already taken place. That's fine in the context of a 90 minute movie--to have a final act or scene to tie everything up. But to have the arc stretched over 9-10 seasons means the last season or two of episodes will have all the characters (simultaneously) at their happily-ever-after state of maturity and inner-peace. This causes problems trying to continue to manufacture conflict as the current episode demands it.

Those problems aren't caused by embracing endings, they're caused by not embracing endings fast enough. The real lesson here is that when a character has run its course, that character should be allowed to move on. Anyone can be replaced (although, not literally - trying to bring in a new character exactly like the old one is the worst thing to do). I know most networks have never liked this idea much, because what if, what if, what if, but if you have good writers and good casting, it works absolute wonders. Make a show that doesn't force itself into constant stasis, including when it comes to which characters appear on the show. Be willing to change things up sometimes, like Game of Thrones, Lost or the Walking Dead. You don't have to kill people left and right (although you have the added benefit of actually being able to when it helps the story), but let people go sometimes. It's a big universe, they don't all have to be stuck on the same ship together for the rest of their lives.

 

[stardream]

The only way for the writers of the new series avoid pitfall is to avoid reading this thread, and trust to themselves.

The fans set too many limitation, too many rule. Not only that, there are another side of the fans who disagree with their suggestion. So Either way, following the fans suggestion will only spark "protest".

So it's better that the writers ignore these "suggestion" or "rule" and believe to themselves. Either way, nobody can satisfy everyone.

^ I feel the opposite, understanding your intended audience and what they expect and want is important. To be successful the new series will need to attract more than Trek fans, but at the same time alienating hundreds of thousands of potential viewers with a "screw the fans" attitude makes no sense. Disappointing them with the first (free) episode will generate internet buzz, the reverse is true as well. A favorable reaction to episode one will result in advocacy from the fans on social media and other venues. Advocacy that the show won't get on the same scale from general viewers.

It's a fine line between pandering and not pissing off the fans. I hope the new writers find that happy medium.

 

[Vger23]

I think they could spin off and do it successfully, but they'd have to avoid the mistakes made last time. Specifically, making shows for Trekkers rather than going with ideas and presentation that might excite the general audience. I think part of the problem was producers thought they could spin off Trek in the same way cop shows are made. But the core audience and the reasons they watch a cop show are different from a science fiction show. Cop shows are essentially comfort viewing in their predictable formula, but a sci-fi show has to do something exceptional to justify its existence.

That's certainly fair. You know, I think if they did it in such a way that the primary plot thrust was exploration of the galaxy on the frontier, and the "background / b-story arc" was that things were going on behind the scenes that were going to impact humanity's place in the galaxy, that could work for me.

I think the reason I always cringe at the "Star Trek Galactic Politics" stuff is that I much more enjoy the thought that space is still a mystery and that the nature of the intelligences we will encounter out there is still an unknown. When we start treating the Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians like the Soviet Union, China and North Korea...it implies that there is no mystery, and it makes the galaxy seem common and smaller and it "normalizes" the show.

 

[stardream]

I wonder if they can improve on the jeffries tubes? Make it so people don't have to crawl around but can walk upright to access stuff?

 

[Ometiklan]

I wonder if they can improve on the jeffries tubes? Make it so people don't have to crawl around but can walk upright to access stuff?

No, no, no! Small Jeffries tubes you have to crawl through is a founding principal of the Star Trek universe! Sure, the one time they were larger, in TNG's "The Hunted", it worked fine...but, no I just cannot countenance large Jeffries Tubes!

 

[RandyS]

I wonder if they can improve on the jeffries tubes? Make it so people don't have to crawl around but can walk upright to access stuff?

They'd have to start building taller starships.

 

[stardream]

They'd have to start building taller starships.

I know it would be a challenge.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Those problems aren't caused by embracing endings, they're caused by not embracing endings fast enough. The real lesson here is that when a character has run its course, that character should be allowed to move on. Anyone can be replaced (although, not literally - trying to bring in a new character exactly like the old one is the worst thing to do). I know most networks have never liked this idea much, because what if, what if, what if, but if you have good writers and good casting, it works absolute wonders. Make a show that doesn't force itself into constant stasis, including when it comes to which characters appear on the show. Be willing to change things up sometimes, like Game of Thrones, Lost or the Walking Dead. You don't have to kill people left and right (although you have the added benefit of actually being able to when it helps the story), but let people go sometimes. It's a big universe, they don't all have to be stuck on the same ship together for the rest of their lives.

It all depends on the Executive Producer and what their vision is. The staff writers job is to get his vision across from story to story and if it doesn't comply he'll rewrite it or edited to the way he/she wants it to be.

 

[T'Girl]

Small Jeffries tubes you have to crawl through is a founding principal of the Star Trek universe

Be interesting if the jefferies tubes were in zero gee, must be a few ways of convincingly accomplishing this.


†

 

[Admiral2]

Be interesting if the jefferies tubes were in zero gee, must be a few ways of convincingly accomplishing this.


†

How about NO Jefferies tubes? How about not placing important systems inside a maze of crawl spaces for no good reason? Its supposed to be centuries in the future, but that kind of design sensibility is about on par with the interior of a zeppelin.

 

[trekfan_1]

The biggest ones to avoid are 2 things that afflicted Voyager:

"Forehead of the week syndrome" and solving story plots *always* within the last 2 minutes of every episode.

 

[eyeresist]

No "tech the tech" problems or solutions.
No mediocre actors.
No "seen it" plotlines.
No anti-hero as lead character (though acceptable in supporting role).
No magic. If something looks like magic, it should be clear that it's not really magic.
If there is an urgent arc-plot, don't have episodes spinning their wheels with problems-of-the-week.

 

[Mudd]

Wasting time with old continuity.

 

[Tim Walker]

Embrace versatility, so you can tell a large number of diverse stories.

I would try a semi-anthology format. Focus on guest stars aboard a small ship. The ship has a small crew, with only 3-4 recurring characters. The ship and recurring characters would create a sense of continuity.

The ship itself is an old rust bucket, mitigating the reset button for the ship-it doesn't look pristine during the next episode.

The guest stars could be either civilians, or crew on short term assignments. These guest stars are the focus of drama, and there is no reset button for them-their lives may be changed irrevocably.

Mini-arcs for these guest stars, if it is a longer story. Two-parters worked well for Trek. Perhaps you could have arcs over 3-4 episodes, something like early Dr. Who.