Reasons not to make a Pike show

[Boris Skrbic]

Utilizing legacy characters just adds another layer to it.

It’s mostly a layer of controversial updates, fan service and audience hooks, though. Why not replace it with layered new characters?

Sorry, but except for TOS no Star Trek show has ever stood on it's own.

All your examples are merely rare, fun guest appearances in shows that do not normally reference one another. TNG almost never revisited TOS locations, DS9 couldn’t care less what Picard was doing or where Voyager might‘ve been at a particular point in time. Berman didn’t allow it, or we would’ve had things like the Enterprise-E featuring in the Dominion War or Barclay constantly looking for Voyager from the Gamma Quadrant.

 

[Noname Given]

More like upset when that is all it is. Eating its own flesh as its only means of survival.

Let's be clear, it can work when using its own universe. Star Trek: Vanguard is probably some of the finest storytelling to ever grace Trek. It criss-crosses with TOS as warp speed. But it was also highly entertaining and had its own vision beyond just name dropping whatever they thought popular.

Discovery has mostly been a poorly written train wreck that has added little of substance to the universe. And if that mindset is all they're going to bring to a Pike series, I'd rather they just not do it.

YMMV.

Oh please - ST: D did fine in that regard. We're all here in this thread discussing a "Pike" spinoff that a number of fans really want. I got news for you...Anson Mount PERFORMED the part and while yes, he did do some very good collaboration with the writers - overall the ST: D writers are responsible for the version of the character fans saw and LIKED. It could have been different if the writing staff wasn't up to the task; but based on viewer reaction overall they were.
^^^
And it wasn't just a name drop here that these writers did for the characters of Pike, Spock, ad Number One...so yeah, pl.ease move on as ST: D is criss-crossing with TOS quite nicely overall.

 

[BillJ]

I think an interesting question for a potential Pike series is, what are you going to do with Spock that hasn't already been done in this timeline, repeatedly?

 

[Amasov]

It’s mostly a layer of controversial updates, fan service and audience hooks, though. Why not replace it with layered new characters?

With all due respect, that's just your opinion. The question you pose can easily go both ways as I mentioned earlier they were underdeveloped characters.

 

[Noname Given]

I think an interesting question for a potential Pike series is, what are you going to do with Spock that hasn't already been done in this timeline, repeatedly?

Why do they need to 'do anything' more than have him be a character and member of the crew?

Again if you're going to make that argument why continue Star Trek, or Star Trek like series at all. We have HUNDREDS of hours of "Starships in the unknown reaches of space...what more can they really do?"

The answer: "Tell STORIES using the characters, and elements of the shared universe that they've set up and have been drawing from for the last 50+ years."

 

[eschaton]

The basics of Star Trek aren’t (moderately) famous legacy characters. Roddenberry had no problem replacing Pike and most of his crew or Kirk and his crew afterwards. As eschaton correctly pointed out, they began as mere connecting tissue in a kind of a “soft anthology” format, where different writers could come in and write original SF. While it may be possible to avoid temptation and use the ”Pike Framework” for this purpose, I’d rather do away with distractions, including the whole unnecessary topic of updating the 2250s or not. In a way it’s like doing a new Twilight Zone and saying you gotta have Talky Tina and “It’s a cookbook!” Absolutely not — you just gotta have different defining stories.

Yeah - TOS really is an anthology show, not even an episodic one. I mean, even later episodic Trek - like TNG and VOY - had plenty of "sequel" episodes where guest characters returned and plot threads from prior years were revisited. TOS played around early in Season 1 with the idea of having a broader recurring cast on the ship (Kevin Riley, Angela Martine, and John Farrell) but basically abandoned this afterward (Chapel excluded). Besides Mudd reappearing once, and I think a reference to the Treaty of Organia in The Trouble with Tribbles, I can't think of any self-referential elements of plot in TOS. Everything was completely self-contained.

Interestingly, the fanwank started quite early with TAS, considering with only 22 episodes we got to revisit The Guardian of Forever, saw more of Sarek/Amanda, got to see more tribbles/Cyrano Jones/Koloth, returned to the Shore Leave planet, met Mudd yet again, met Kor again, met Korax again, etc.

 

[fireproof78]

I think an interesting question for a potential Pike series is, what are you going to do with Spock that hasn't already been done in this timeline, repeatedly?

Allow me to extend that question's premise-what can be done with a Trek series now that hasn't been done before in storytelling?

 

[Noname Given]

Yeah - TOS really is an anthology show, not even an episodic one. I mean, even later episodic Trek - like TNG and VOY - had plenty of "sequel" episodes where guest characters returned and plot threads from prior years were revisited. TOS played around early in Season 1 with the idea of having a broader recurring cast on the ship (Kevin Riley, Angela Martine, and John Farrell) but basically abandoned this afterward (Chapel excluded). Besides Mudd reappearing once, and I think a reference to the Treaty of Organia in The Trouble with Tribbles, I can't think of any self-referential elements of plot in TOS. Everything was completely self-contained.

Interestingly, the fanwank started quite early with TAS, considering with only 22 episodes we got to revisit The Guardian of Forever, saw more of Sarek/Amanda, got to see more tribbles/Cyrano Jones/Koloth, returned to the Shore Leave planet, met Mudd yet again, met Kor again, met Korax again, etc.

Well they wanted to have John Colicos reprise "Kor" for BOTH "The Trouble With Tribbles" and "Day of the Dove" -- but he was on other gigs and could make it work either time. (IMO - I think he would have improved "Trouble With Tribbles" but as for "Day of the Dove" I love Micheal Ansara's performance as "Kang".)

In the first 12 or so TOS episodes in S1, there's a number of nods to previous things that poccured in snippets of dialog when viewed in production and not broadcast order.

They also referenced S1 - "A Taste of Armageddon" in S2 - "By Any Other Name", and S2 - "Omega Glory".

In S2 - "The Deadly Years" Kirk used a mention of Corbomite to trick the Romulans surrounding the 1701 to back off a bit an provide an avenue to escape.

Kirk/Janice Lester mentions some previous episode events to convince Spock Kirk is the personality 'inside' her in S3 - "Turnabout Intruder".

 

[BillJ]

Allow me to extend that question's premise-what can be done with a Trek series now that hasn't been done before in storytelling?

I think the difference is that he would be a central character to any series, a character (unlike Pike and Number One) that has been used extensively throughout TOS and the movies.

It'll be tough to put him in the backseat, it will also be tough giving him anything to do that hasn't been done before.

Just random musings on where they go, if they decide to do Pike.

 

[fireproof78]

I think the difference is that he would be a central character to any series, a character (unlike Pike and Number One) that has been used extensively throughout TOS and the movies.

It'll be tough to put him in the backseat, it will also be tough giving him anything to do that hasn't been done before.

Just random musings on where they go, if they decide to do Pike.

I don't see the difference. Thus far, Star Trek has demonstrated an extreme reticence of trying anything bold and new, and when it does TPTB get slapped down for the trouble.

As for Spock, given the response to Mount's Pike putting Spock in the background is not as problematic as it sounds. I think you have a narrative opportunity to illustrate why Spock's loyalty to Pike is so strong in "The Menagerie" that he would risk his career for it. Again, character stuff that I find interesting.

Whether it is entertaining to anyone else is anyone's guess.

 

[BillJ]

I think you have a narrative opportunity to illustrate why Spock's loyalty to Pike is so strong in "The Menagerie" that he would risk his career for it.

Didn't they just do that with Discovery season two? With Pike going out of his way to keep Section 31 from getting Spock.

 

[eschaton]

Allow me to extend that question's premise-what can be done with a Trek series now that hasn't been done before in storytelling?

Off the top of my head, there are three things:

1. All stories are fundamentally an interaction between the characters and the setting/premise. So even if you take roughly the same setting/premise of an earlier Trek show and put a new character into it, it's a new story.

2. Because TOS was "of its time" and the later treks (even Discovery) hewed very close to it, there are major aspects of science fiction which have been totally ignored over the course of all of the series. The most notable one is issues around transhumanism/posthumanism, something which is a frequent concept if you look at modern-day science fiction (mind uploads, backups, physical immortality, etc). It might be hard to integrate these into the Trek universe as it stands, but if Trek is supposed to use science-fiction as a mirror to examine the issues of the day, then it is something which Trek needs to do.

3. Arguably advances in CGI allow for new types of storytelling which would have been impossible in earlier Trek series.

 

[Noname Given]

Off the top of my head, there are three things:

1. All stories are fundamentally an interaction between the characters and the setting/premise. So even if you take roughly the same setting/premise of an earlier Trek show and put a new character into it, it's a new story.

2. Because TOS was "of its time" and the later treks (even Discovery) hewed very close to it, there are major aspects of science fiction which have been totally ignored over the course of all of the series. The most notable one is issues around transhumanism/posthumanism, something which is a frequent concept if you look at modern-day science fiction (mind uploads, backups, physical immortality, etc). It might be hard to integrate these into the Trek universe as it stands, but if Trek is supposed to use science-fiction as a mirror to examine the issues of the day, then it is something which Trek needs to do.

3. Arguably advances in CGI allow for new types of storytelling which would have been impossible in earlier Trek series.

Um, I'd say Airiam (in ST: D) was most definitely 'Transhuman'. Yes, she became that because of an accident, but it still is teh case she was so modified and continued to serve in Starfleet until her death.

 

[fireproof78]

Off the top of my head, there are three things:

1. All stories are fundamentally an interaction between the characters and the setting/premise. So even if you take roughly the same setting/premise of an earlier Trek show and put a new character into it, it's a new story.

2. Because TOS was "of its time" and the later treks (even Discovery) hewed very close to it, there are major aspects of science fiction which have been totally ignored over the course of all of the series. The most notable one is issues around transhumanism/posthumanism, something which is a frequent concept if you look at modern-day science fiction (mind uploads, backups, physical immortality, etc). It might be hard to integrate these into the Trek universe as it stands, but if Trek is supposed to use science-fiction as a mirror to examine the issues of the day, then it is something which Trek needs to do.

3. Arguably advances in CGI allow for new types of storytelling which would have been impossible in earlier Trek series.

And this goes back to my strong opinion that fandom would not accept such changes within the modern day scientific sphere. I believe strongly that Star Trek has not gone far enough in portraying technological advances because it holds on to the TOS box mentality. And TOS has some transhumanism ideas, like mind uploads.

At this point in time, Trek does need to do it. But, I don't think anyone is willing to allow it to do it.

Didn't they just do that with Discovery season two? With Pike going out of his way to keep Section 31 from getting Spock.

Perhaps. I could see more being done with that interaction, as well as Spock becoming more logical, perhaps under Una's tutelage.

 

[Amasov]

And this goes back to my strong opinion that fandom would not accept such changes within the modern day scientific sphere. I believe strongly that Star Trek has not gone far enough in portraying technological advances because it holds on to the TOS box mentality. And TOS has some transhumanism ideas, like mind uploads.

Fandom threw a fit over Data's hairline being wrong in the latest Picard trailer. When do they ever accept anything?

 

[BillJ]

Fandom threw a fit over Data's hairline being wrong in the latest Picard trailer. When do they ever accept anything?

To be fair, it looked pretty fucking bad. Not just wrong, but cheap and like someone didn't really care if it looked good or not.

 

[fireproof78]

Fandom threw a fit over Data's hairline being wrong in the latest Picard trailer. When do they ever accept anything?

They don't-that's my point. It doesn't strike me as worth it to keep producing Trek.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

They don't-that's my point. It doesn't strike me as worth it to keep producing Trek.

? Does it cost untold millions to frame-grab Nemesis and match that? Or consult with Michael Westmore on the details? I mean what’s this, “Star Trek — we settle for the good-enough”? Even if that was just for the trailer, why waste those seconds on making a poor impression?

 

[eschaton]

Nerd-rage in Trek fandom is inevitable. That said, it's best to trigger the nerd rage over things which are actually worthwhile/interesting to do.

 

[Amasov]

To be fair, it looked pretty fucking bad. Not just wrong, but cheap and like someone didn't really care if it looked good or not.

Spiner has already said that it wasn't final CG work. Sorry I can't link you, because I can't find where that was stated. But those aren't things I, personally, don't sweat over because I don't think it's worth the energy and, really, who cares?

The Defiant's bridge railing in In a Mirror Darkly wasn't correct and the conference table seen in the D's observation lounge in These Are The Voyages also wasn't exactly as it appeared on TNG.

The point is, Trek has let small details like this slip before, but, yet for some reason it's unforgivable and considered lazy if the Kurtzman era of Trek does it as opposed to the Berman era.