Could one of the TNG-era shows be made today?

[Cepstrum]

Have tastes and times changed so much in the late 1990s and 2000s that recreating any of the TNG-era shows (even with updated SFX) be unviable? Would they be too stodgy and dull for 2010?


This question of mine began as a rather unrelated tangent in the VOY forum. We were noting how the creators had desired to wait for several years before starting VOY, but Paramount/UPN forced them to hastily create it to start in 1995 (a year after TNG, two seasons into DS9, and inbetween Generations and First Contact. It probably suffered as a result, most obviously in the SFX department. That is, had it been made later, CGI would've been better and cheaper.)

That got me thinking that perhaps one *positive* part of VOY starting in 1995 was that it was in many respects of the same era of TNG. Not only have CGI SFX changed a lot since then, but audience's tastes and studios' trend to put out "edgy" shows.

Here is a copy of what I wrote, and I'd really appreciate feedback, both from my demographic of 18--30 year-old-males but other demographic cohorts as well:



There is but one positive I see, though, on VOY starting in 1995 and the network UPN: had it been 10 years later on ScyFy etc., I'm afraid it might have gotten too edgy. I like Trek bright and relatively wholesome, not gritty and pushing the envelope. I already thought Enterprise went too far in that direction, especially regarding the gratuitous and rather inane sex themes and sexually charged atmosphere and younger actors.

Yes, I know Trek has always inserted sex here and there since TOS, but it can be more tasteful and mature.

I *think* an anology of what I'm trying to say might be found in comparing Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis to what I've heard about Universe. This new show (which I've not seen), apparently took the rather comedic and campy tone of the first two and turned it into a dark, gritty, violent, sex show. (Of course, comparing Stargate to Trek is a little flawed; the former is already a little darker — at least more violent — because it's centered around the USAF and some scary villians. But it *is* like Trek in that it seems the good guys always want to establish peace with the villians when possible — even trying to cure the Wraiths. And there were plenty of "fun" episodes. The difference was that our Stargate heroes either carried or had protection on away missions with guys carrying PP5 mini machine guns. And automatic pistols.)


But one of the things I thought separated TNG-era Trek from contemporary shows and later sci-fi shows was the relative maturity of the actors. Sure, all the actors were handsome or more beautiful than average, but they were also much older and less blatantly sexy than the trend of using very young-looking, ripped or hugely muscular, adolescent-types with drug-induced ultra-low bodyfat.

The cast of TNG and DS9 were really quite old/mature-looking, and even the original cast of VOY looked more realistically mature — wasn't Roxanne Dawson in her mid or upper thirties? But you could see the tide shifting already by 1997-8 when the producers felt they needed to bring in Jeri Ryan as a blatant attempt to appeal the young male demographic. Fortunately, Ryan turned out to acquit herself well as an actress by doing some difficult things: joining a show mid-run because the other women weren't attractive enough, playing a highly unusual character rather believably, forced to keep her figure perfect throughout the show's run so she could fit into those tight outfits (one of the early ones was so tight it cut off her circulation and made or nearly or actually pass out, I believe), and finally, pretty much carrying the show by having every other episode focused on her, which would not only be tiring but I imagine awkward/embarrassing as it doubtless caused resentment for the rest of the ensemble who felt pushed aside (Beltran, Kim? eg).

So I could tolerate Seven in spite of her appearance, which I disliked very much both because of its signal as well as its (IMO) complete lack of an in-universe explanation: I thought it made *no* sense for her, of all people, to wear an uncomfortable, non-utilitarian, non-conformist, and obviously distracting outfit. She's free to dress as she likes I suppose as a non crew member, but *why* would she ever choose to wear that, unless it were out of spite (to both the other females as well as the males, who she was uninterested in)?


I'm afraid if VOY were made, say, in 2005 on ScyFy we'd get more of that. As support, I'd point to the SW prequels, Enterprise, and most of all, STXI. Regardless of whether you're a fan of the reboot, it's clear *all* the main cast were far younger, sexier, and less mature-looking (or life-like) than any cast before. You could challk up their youthfulness because they're all cadets, but that might be *why* they were cadets during the events of the movie. (This is NOT a debate about the merits of the STXI story or Enterprise setting, just the type of cast.)

I don't think we'll ever be returning to a viable show — even Trek — having a cast of handsome, mature, more life-like people. Had TNG been made today, I highly doubt we'd get an aged, bald, serious captain, Crusher, Geordi, Riker, etc. They'd make Worf look like a competetive bodybuilder, Data could probably remain, and *maybe* Troi, though I doubt it.

Tastes have changed. Studios want to make money. And I'm even in the supposedly coveted 18--30 male demographic. But *I* still prefer having casts that, while certainly better-looking than average, were *not* unrealistic adolescent/young, bodybuilders/absurdly scuplted/shaped (male *and* female) models who appeal chiefly to base instincts/fantasies. It makes any film or show automatically look "dumber", IMO.

I guess if people really did look like that it'd be one thing, but since I've seen how post-production, HGH, and makeup/Photoshop so *heavily* alter actors until they no longer look human, I've been turned off/skeptical of the way many actors etc look these days. It's just not real, and it makes me feel as though people my age care principally about physical attractiveness (and cool explosions), not compelling or thought provoking stories. And certainly not Trek's optimistic vision of a new humanity that not only has eschewed greed, but works to better the rest of humanity irrespective of superficial physical appearance.


Sorry for the rant. I wonder if anyone else, especially those in my age cohort, feel this way. Perhaps it would warrant a new thread. Obviously I'm in the minority, but I wonder if other young Trek fans feel as I do. Maybe it's just the public *in general* and *not* Trekkies. Still, that'd matter little to Paramount, whose interest is in maximizing revenue. STXI probably came close to that by carefully trying to appeal both to Trekkies as well as the general public, which Abrams's clearly did achieve. And his casting of Kirk was reasonable. Sure, he was young and handsome but not over-the-top. Besides, no one wants to see ugly actors playing lead roles. Most of the crew actually did a fairly decent job of not appearing as unrealistic, just too young, IMO.

So I solicit your feedback. Do you like the more staid TNG-era shows, or would you prefer them if they were made like many shows are today, with young, hot actors, "edgy" material, etc.? Or do you like the more mature, older style? Note: I'm not talking about SFX. I'm sure we'd all want the best possible.

 

[YARN]

No.

 

[Cepstrum]

No.

"No, they wouldn't be viable today" or "no, I disagree with your opinion about today's style of actors"?

 

[YARN]

No.

"No, they wouldn't be viable today" or "no, I disagree with your opinion about today's style of actors"?

Yes.

 

[YARN]

Just kidding, I think you are in the right ballpark talking about contemporary tastes for sexy and gritty and dark and realistic (so long as it is dark) etc.

That and TNG was a little too morally superior and confident (it was when we were feeling pretty high on ourselves at the end of the Cold War) to the point of being preachy. Ours is the post 9-11 age of dystopic jiggle-cam.

 

[Cepstrum]

Just kidding, I think you are in the right ballpark talking about contemporary tastes for sexy and gritty and dark and realistic (so long as it is dark) etc.

That and TNG was a little too morally superior and confident (it was when we were feeling pretty high on ourselves at the end of the Cold War) to the point of being preachy. Ours is the post 9-11 age of dystopic jiggle-cam.

Thanks for clarifying, YARN: you were about to make me crazy, hehe.

Still, I'm not sure of your position: are glad for the change in style or appreciate the "stodgy" TNG-DS9-VOY (sans Seven) style of actors.


But you make a great point I'd neglected: not only is my generation ("Y") and the following one into sex and dazzling explosions/violence, they're also used to flashing images; the attention span of Generation Y and the post-2000 population is rapidly declining (on average). TNG type moralizing and its slower paced cousins (DS9 and VOY) would probably also be incredibly boring to today's audience.

Again, however, that's in general. What do Trek fans, especially younger ones, think? Obviously there *are* younger fans of the TNG-era shows who, like me, are catching them on repeats, DVDs, etc. So maybe Trek fans are the type who *prefer* TNG-era style shows compared to, say, I don't know, maybe "2 Fast 2 Furious"? (I don't watch many movies or get more than a few TV channels, so I only know via reading, commercials, and trailers.)

 

[barnaclelapse]

Just kidding, I think you are in the right ballpark talking about contemporary tastes for sexy and gritty and dark and realistic (so long as it is dark) etc.

That and TNG was a little too morally superior and confident (it was when we were feeling pretty high on ourselves at the end of the Cold War) to the point of being preachy. Ours is the post 9-11 age of dystopic jiggle-cam.

I think the cores of some of the later stories could work quite well.

 

[YARN]

Thanks for clarifying, YARN: you were about to make me crazy, hehe.

Still, I'm not sure of your position: are glad for the change in style or appreciate the "stodgy" TNG-DS9-VOY (sans Seven) style of actors.

Personally? I would prefer a heroic future, but heroes with clay feet. Not quite so high on humanity as to recite to Q Shakespeare's lines from Hamlet

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason,
how infinite in faculties, in form and moving,
how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension, how like a god!

without a wink of irony.

Not so down on humanity as to go to BSG's gritty depths of Adama puking all over himself in an alley outside of a strip club.

I think that Trek works as morality tales, but I'd prefer shades of gray without making the heroes wear gray hats speckled with dubious black spots. Greek tragedy was great at this stuff. People who for the most part who are exemplary humans who get trapped in odd circumstances and who despite their virtues betray harmartia.

As for acting, you can't really top Stewart's take on Picard. If we're talking that sort of stodgy, then I am all for it.

But you make a great point I'd neglected: not only is my generation ("Y") and the following one into sex and dazzling explosions/violence, they're also used to flashing images; the attention span of Generation Y and the post-2000 population is rapidly declining (on average). TNG type moralizing and its slower paced cousins (DS9 and VOY) would probably also be incredibly boring to today's audience.

Again, however, that's in general. What do Trek fans, especially younger ones, think? Obviously there *are* younger fans of the TNG-era shows who, like me, are catching them on repeats, DVDs, etc. So maybe Trek fans are the type who *prefer* TNG-era style shows compared to, say, I don't know, maybe "2 Fast 2 Furious"? (I don't watch many movies or get more than a few TV channels, so I only know via reading, commercials, and trailers.)

I don't know. One thing that JJ Abrams has right is that Trek needs to be willing to have fun. Humor makes a good counterpoint for the serious stuff.

This may be naive, but I think that outstanding story telling always has a shot. Good stories with the right window dressing and you could pull it off. You would need a stable of great writers perhaps more than you would need young sexy actors and dazzling explosions.

 

[Ensign Johnson]

Sci-fi in general doesn't seem to do very well any more. I liked Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles it got cancelled after 2 seasons. I liked Dollhouse and the same thing happened. Poor Firefly didn't even make it to a 2nd season. I blame reality TV, its really cheap to make and is often pretty popular. Why bother buying shows that cost a lot to make when hardly anyone watches? I don't really understand why so few people seem to watch the shows I like though. Perhaps there is too much choice now, when there are more channels to choose from ratings are bound to go down. Maybe a new Star Trek would have a better chance on a cable channel like HBO or Showtime. But I think it would have to try and do something a bit different.

 

[Praxius]

I think DS9 would still work today.... I introduced my wife to DS9 just this past year and she was hooked.... it's still her's and my favorite series. It seems to be the only one that's "Timeless" if you will.... in that they didn't rely on 80's fashion styles, the effects/graphics are still not horrible considering much of what we see today, they didn't decide to go back in time to the 90's to lock them into that era of when they were filmed

And in regards to special effects in DS9 to most sci-fi or other shows today, their graphics still look pretty decent, where many other shows I see today are so damn low budget, their special effects are obviously fake and poorly done (usually noticed through lighting or texturing) In fact most special effect today seem to be about par with Voyager's CGI (Species 8472 anyone?)

I think if a Star Trek series was made today, it'd survive quite well and would last 7 seasons at that.

Why do I believe this?

Because with the past experience with ST Enterprise, nobody working on the show, let alone the fans/viewers would want to see a second series get canceled and thus, the amount of work/effort into making the show great, and the amount of effort fans would go to keep it afloat would ensure it's survival. Nobody wants a second black eye to the franchise.

It'd just require a lot of thinking on the creator's behalf to make the show tie in with everything else, be entertaining, yet to some degree, original.

It's been a while now since anybody's been spoiled with back to back Star Trek seriesez, the new movie just ignited interest in the franchise again, once the second movie comes out (hopefully) it should be the right time to introduce a new series for fans.

Sure some of the actors in TNG, DS9 and Voyager were not the youngest, hottest folk out there, but they were young enough, hot enough and seemed more realistic, in that not every viewer of a show is the youngest, hottest folk out there either, and having character you can relate to (not just personality wise, but physically, etc.) is a good way to suck in more viewers.

Besides, Seven of Nine, Dianna Troi, Jadzia/Ezri Dax, T'pol, Kes we're not old and were pretty hot for their times. And as some may disagree, Kirk, Spock, Riker, Data, Sisko, Bashir, Paris, Tucker we're not too shabby for women's selection either.

And those who were not super young and fit, they made up in intelligence, charm and character.

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, every Trek series is a product and reflection of the era it's made in (regardless of the timeframe of its actual setting). For decades, TOS has been labeled a 1960's series, and now we're starting to see TNG become labeled as a 1980's series. The same thing will befall DS9 and VOY as 1990's shows, and TV historians/critics might describe ENT as a post-9/11 series.

I think if TNG, DS9 or VOY had been made today, they'd definitely be made with today's tastes in mind. Right now, I think we're in some sort of transitionary period into what will be known as the 2010s--and Lord knows how this decade will turn out. But if made only a few years earlier, TNG, DS9 and VOY might either have been all very serialized shows with long-running, tightly-connected story arcs...or they would have been all procedural-like shows with only a small group of regular characters, with a bigger focus on the non-regular characters they meet, IMO...

 

[Cepstrum]

YARN, Ensign Johnson, Praxius, and CE Evans, you all made useful, interesting points. I really wish I could multiquote to respond specifically, but I haven't figured out how on the old iPod Touch. It's hard enough just writing!

I agree that DS9 seems rather timeless. The SFX are fine, and very little of the production work betrays that it was made in the early to late 1990s.

And I also agree that if they were to make any new series, they'd be *very* careful this time, after Enterprise's untimely demise.


I tend to disagree, though, about the actors' looks: they are hardly comparable to those seen commonly today. They were better-looking than average, and maybe Troi was somewhat fashionable for the mid to late 1980s, but aside from Seven, none of them looked artificially youthful, sculpted, or surgically altered. And especially the men. Perhaps some females thought a few were "cute", but not a single one had even the slightest look of athleticism or bodybuilding seen today. Compare that to even Enterprise. Bakula was in far better shape, especially for a man his age, and Travis looked like someone off the cover of a fitness magazine. But the main men, Riker, Geordi, Harry, Chakotay, Brooks, O'Brien, and Worf would be considered at least chubby or even fat. The few that weren't, such as Tom, the Doctor, and Julian were certainly not even slightly muscular.

I think that makes it look far more real.



So my real question is, could they get by with making the *very same shows* today, given that the space SFX etc are consistent with today's level?

I think you'd also have to pretend that there weren't the plethora of other sci-fi shows, some of them very short-lived, that exist today.

I'm NOT asking what they'd be like if they were made today, or what a new series would look like. And I'm imagining a world in which Enterprise, STXI, BSG, Stargate, Firefly, Caprica, B5, etc did not yet exist (because in my hypothetical scenario, TNG-era Trek hasn't yet kick-started the sci-fi revolution).


So given *those* parameters, same actors, same stories, (perhaps upgraded SFX), and NO sci-fi alternatives for competition (except maybe pre-existing franchises such as Dr Who and Star Wars), would TNG-era Trek survive or be completely "lost" (as a sci-fi show, that doesn't exist either) on today's audience.

Would it help if the rather dreadful season one of TNG were more like seasons three and four, production-wise? They don't have to keep *everything*, such as the spandex and 1980s' styles.

So what do you think? Would the hunger for Trek make it viable nonetheless?

 

[sojourner]

Sex in TNG was anything but mature.

 

[Praxius]

In regards to today's "popular" shows that are on that use young and good looking model actors in their shows..... speaking personally, I wouldn't know of their popularity or the actors these shows use, because I'm not interested in many of today's shows in the first place.

Besides the various Star Trek series, Family Guy and the Simpsons, I haven't followed along in great detail with any other shows for quite some time because none of them interest me enough to try and watch every episode to know the whole story...... because their stories are crap or just plain boring as donkey turds in the sun.

The only two shows besides Star Trek we've been watching is Fringe and my wife is into True Blood..... while True Blood has a pile of sex, nudity and mostly young attractive actors, it also has a pretty screwed up story supporting it..... but I believe just about every one of Fringe's characters are all 30+ years old.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Fringe is a good example of a more realistic age range for the roles of the characters, supported by a strong enough science fiction connotation. The thing is, though, Fringe is an easier sell than Trek when it comes to the masses because it's rooted in the real world and its cast is routinely poking fun at some of the more ridiculous goings-on; neither scenario is quite likely to work with Trek.

Star Trek is a powerful brand name, but in today's television market, getting people to tune in for a show about the more distant future and prosthetic aliens is going to be a serious challenge. Injecting it with a young, hip, sometimes downright stupid cast and as many explosions as you can flip the bill on... this is how it would survive on network television, and even then, it would be questionable.

It might survive on a network like Showtime, as Temis has mentioned before. It might also survive on The CW, but you can bet your bottom dollar it's going to feature a ridiculous cast and melodrama up the wazoo at that point.

I'm 23, so I fit rather squarely into that coveted demographic. Like you, Cepstrum, I would be glad to watch a TNG-era show today, although I would make alterations to avoid getting overly preachy and I would do some other things with it, too. But I'd much rather see a more mature cast and whatnot than what's on television now.

Does that mean much in the grand scheme of things? Unfortunately, in many ways it doesn't. You and I -- and others in this thread, and indeed across this forum -- are a fraction of the audience to say the least. Why are space operas nearly dead, and surely dead on network television? Well, they don't sell, that's why. That's how things are now, and we can only hope for a resurgence or something. But the sad truth is, each year 'genre' shows are started and then shot down quite quickly, whereas even the worst-selling reality shows usually get at least a couple of years to them. They're cheap as all get-out by comparison.

Lastly, the whole bit about people involved in the production of a sixth series working hard to make sure another 'black eye' doesn't come over Trek is something I really have to shrug at. People involved in the production of a show are going to try to make it good so that it lasts, so that they get paid for as long as possible. And a lot of the people that would be involved in a proposed sixth series might have nothing to do with the previous shows, anyway, depending on how long a time passes between Enterprise and said proposed show. It's already been five years and we've heard nothing.

 

[DevilEyes]

Well, there are two different questions you're asking here.

Would I want a Trek show that's edgier? YES! Edgier, riskier, more challenging, more morally ambiguous, with more complex characters... Positive messages do not equal a Polyanish view of the world. DS9 was already doing quite well in that regard, which is why I also think it would work well today. VOY should have been like that. ENT tried to be that, but didn't go far enough - it played safe too many times, and sometimes it seemed like TPTB had a very childish idea of what constitutes "edgy" (no, catsuits and rubbing oil on each other are not that). Even TNG was better when it moved away from its early preachy, Polyanish tone, and inserted more grit and realism in its stories. That's also why I've been enjoying Trek literature for the most part - it can take more risks and be more exciting and grittier than the TV shows, and a lot of it has been exactly that in the recent years.

Violence? Yes, it's a fact of life, and it should be dealt in a mature way - it shouldn't be avoided and it shouldn't be there for its own sake.

Sex? Definitely. It's even more of a fact of life. You don't have to make it explicit, though (which I imagine you can't really do unless you're on cable, anyway), just treat it seriously... TBH, Trek has always had a lot of (non-explicit) sex, but it was often very badly done - either it was dull and generic, or it looked like some producers' idea what a teenage boy might find titillating, or it was a source of comedy (which was the case with most 'wacky alien sex' - Klingons, Ferengi...).

Then there's a completely unrelated issue of younger vs older/more mature casts, or (relatively) "normal-looking" casts vs super-fit, model-like (and probably airbrushed) casts. As far as age goes, I prefer a mixed cast of actors of different ages, whose ages are realistic for their characters and their positions. As far as the looks go... I most definitely prefer actors who look like real people (which doesn't mean that they aren't attractive - though I'd prefer if some cast members were not conventionally attractive, for the cast to have more variety and realistically represent the human race).

And BTW... younger and prettier does not equal sexier.

Heck, it often doesn't even equal "more physically attractive"... Personally, I don't find men who are too ripped and muscular, and generally people who are too model-like, as if they're sculptured, to be all that attractive; looking like a mannequin, a cartoon or a video game character is really not something that turns me on, quite the opposite. Don't get me wrong - I like to see muscles, I like to see a well-shaped masculine body, but that doesn't extend to those that look like the result of steroids or spending 20 hours a day in a gym (and possibly airbrushing as well). And the lack of any physical imperfection - no lines, wrinkles, acne, nothing, perfect hair, etc. (which is, of course, again the result of makeup as well as post-production) makes people look artificial, creepy and dull. Again, not sexy.

But - which are those shows you speak of? There are certainly shows like that, but from what I've seen, the shows with those kind of casts are mostly WB teenage shows. I can think of many current and relatively recent shows that don't fit that description. In fact, none of the shows I watch or have watched in the recent years - dramas, SF, police procedurals - have had those kind of casts. Lost (check the ages of the male cast), Battlestar Galactica, Caprica, Mad Men, Damages, Jericho, Deadwood, Rome, Dexter, Lie To Me, The Closer, even Heroes - none of them fit the description. They may have some young, or 'pretty' or 'ripped' cast members, but they also have older, or skinny, or chubby, and so on. Lost has several crucial cast members in their 50s, and you can't say that Michael Emerson, who plays one of the most popular characters, was chosen for his good looks. Battlestar Galactica was "edgy" and dark and had a lot of sex... but you can't say that they had an "adolescent-looking" cast, with Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, Michael Hogan, Dean Stockwell... And while it had its share of "ripped" guys like Bamber, Penikett or Trucco, you also had Callis (very attractive, but skinny and certainly not very muscular), Douglas (also attractive IMO, but chubby, and increasingly so as the show progressed), 60-year old, rough-skinned Olmos, a formidable presence despite not having a great physique, and Hogan, also older and, well, not exactly conventionally attractive even in his younger days... The women were, admittedly, almost all attractive, but their ages ranged from 20s to 30s to 40s to 50s (McDonnell, one of the leads), Sackhoff is not the Hollywood "skinny" type, and the show usually made its female characters far less glamorous than the actresses normally are in real life (again, Sackhoff is the best example, but it goes for most of them, apart from Helfer, which made sense for her role, but even she got de-glamorized in her appearances as some of her characters [Gina, Natalie], and was even 'uglified' in her early Gina appearances in season 2, to serve the needs of the plot).

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

DevilEyes, reading your post, particularly from 'younger and prettier does not equal sexier', was a breath of fresh air and I agree with every word you wrote.

I just wish more people did.

 

[Cepstrum]

Fringe is a good example of a more realistic age range for the roles of the characters, supported by a strong enough science fiction connotation. The thing is, though, Fringe is an easier sell than Trek when it comes to the masses because it's rooted in the real world and its cast is routinely poking fun at some of the more ridiculous goings-on; neither scenario is quite likely to work with Trek.

Star Trek is a powerful brand name, but in today's television market, getting people to tune in for a show about the more distant future and prosthetic aliens is going to be a serious challenge. Injecting it with a young, hip, sometimes downright stupid cast and as many explosions as you can flip the bill on... this is how it would survive on network television, and even then, it would be questionable.

It might survive on a network like Showtime, as Temis has mentioned before. It might also survive on The CW, but you can bet your bottom dollar it's going to feature a ridiculous cast and melodrama up the wazoo at that point.

I'm 23, so I fit rather squarely into that coveted demographic. Like you, Cepstrum, I would be glad to watch a TNG-era show today, although I would make alterations to avoid getting overly preachy and I would do some other things with it, too. But I'd much rather see a more mature cast and whatnot than what's on television now.

Does that mean much in the grand scheme of things? Unfortunately, in many ways it doesn't. You and I -- and others in this thread, and indeed across this forum -- are a fraction of the audience to say the least. Why are space operas nearly dead, and surely dead on network television? Well, they don't sell, that's why. That's how things are now, and we can only hope for a resurgence or something. But the sad truth is, each year 'genre' shows are started and then shot down quite quickly, whereas even the worst-selling reality shows usually get at least a couple of years to them. They're cheap as all get-out by comparison.

Lastly, the whole bit about people involved in the production of a sixth series working hard to make sure another 'black eye' doesn't come over Trek is something I really have to shrug at. People involved in the production of a show are going to try to make it good so that it lasts, so that they get paid for as long as possible. And a lot of the people that would be involved in a proposed sixth series might have nothing to do with the previous shows, anyway, depending on how long a time passes between Enterprise and said proposed show. It's already been five years and we've heard nothing.

Thanks for your helpful and interesting, reply, Jeff O'Connor.

I know nothing about Fringe, but I'm sure you're right about space operas being dead. If they aren't even making "hip" ones that can last more than a season or two, it's highly unlikely you're going to get an audience of sufficient size to watch a show like TNG or even DS9 and VOY.

One very significant variable that's changed but I neglected: broadcast and the few cable channels aren't the only show in town, anymore. There's not only far too many TV stations, there are also far too many other ways people get media entertainment. Investing the money in a TNG-type show today would most likely make Paramount's — or any company's — budget/accounting department to pass out. The ROI just isn't there. It'd require the investment of a private group of very rich fans who aren't afraid to lose money.

Kind of like some sports team owners. I'm thinking Paul Allen who owns the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers (and has also squandered his money on projects such as the EMP and Sci-Fi museums) or a Mark Cuban type: another billionaire who loses money on his Dallas Mavericks and also wants to buy the Chicago Cubs. Not sound financial decisions by either guy, but they have billions, so they can afford to lose several hundred million dollars.

But *no* publicly-owned company could make such an investment without its shareholders stopping it. They're interested in the bottom-line, so they'd be find with another low-cost, high-margin reality show. Or just about *anything* more profitable than an a niche science fiction show.

That's the *only* reason Abrams got to do STXI. I have no comment on the movie (I'm not interested in Trek films), but he evidently did a near perfect job making a lot of money while still giving Trek fans the goods. And if you're going to do that on TV, you'd have to appeal to a mass audience as brilliantly as Abrams did, which means no way would they make *any* TNG-era show today.

One more thing: I'm not kidding myself here. Roddenberry and Berman, while both committed to Trek, were also *both* committed to making a viable, money-making product. Roddenberry certainly had an agenda (I'm not talking about his politics but his goal to see Trek on TV under his guidance), but this time he wasn't going to do it by losing money. He couldn't afford to, for unlike George Lucas, he didn't own Trek.

Btw, Lucas is a perfect example of the kind of guy you'd need if you were to make a TNG-era show (or probably *any* Trek TV show — even a vigorously updated one), for he owns everything, is sufficiently wealthy, and by making such expensive prequels that clearly weren't going to do as well, but he didn't care, for they were his "vision" for SW, he made them anyway. Had he been beholden to a company, I'm sure the prequels would've been *far* different — or else lower budget, direct-to-DVD movies.

 

[Cepstrum]

Well, there are two different questions you're asking here.

Would I want a Trek show that's edgier? YES! Edgier, riskier, more challenging, more morally ambiguous, with more complex characters... Positive messages do not equal a Polyanish view of the world. DS9 was already doing quite well in that regard, which is why I also think it would work well today. VOY should have been like that. ENT tried to be that, but didn't go far enough - it played safe too many times, and sometimes it seemed like TPTB had a very childish idea of what constitutes "edgy" (no, catsuits and rubbing oil on each other are not that). Even TNG was better when it moved away from its early preachy, Polyanish tone, and inserted more grit and realism in its stories. That's also why I've been enjoying Trek literature for the most part - it can take more risks and be more exciting and grittier than the TV shows, and a lot of it has been exactly that in the recent years.

Violence? Yes, it's a fact of life, and it should be dealt in a mature way - it shouldn't be avoided and it shouldn't be there for its own sake.

Sex? Definitely. It's even more of a fact of life. You don't have to make it explicit, though (which I imagine you can't really do unless you're on cable, anyway), just treat it seriously... TBH, Trek has always had a lot of (non-explicit) sex, but it was often very badly done - either it was dull and generic, or it looked like some producers' idea what a teenage boy might find titillating, or it was a source of comedy (which was the case with most 'wacky alien sex' - Klingons, Ferengi...).

Then there's a completely unrelated issue of younger vs older/more mature casts, or (relatively) "normal-looking" casts vs super-fit, model-like (and probably airbrushed) casts. As far as age goes, I prefer a mixed cast of actors of different ages, whose ages are realistic for their characters and their positions. As far as the looks go... I most definitely prefer actors who look like real people (which doesn't mean that they aren't attractive - though I'd prefer if some cast members were not conventionally attractive, for the cast to have more variety and realistically represent the human race).

And BTW... younger and prettier does not equal sexier.

Heck, it often doesn't even equal "more physically attractive"... Personally, I don't find men who are too ripped and muscular, and generally people who are too model-like, as if they're sculptured, to be all that attractive; looking like a mannequin, a cartoon or a video game character is really not something that turns me on, quite the opposite. Don't get me wrong - I like to see muscles, I like to see a well-shaped masculine body, but that doesn't extend to those that look like the result of steroids or spending 20 hours a day in a gym (and possibly airbrushing as well). And the lack of any physical imperfection - no lines, wrinkles, acne, nothing, perfect hair, etc. (which is, of course, again the result of makeup as well as post-production) makes people look artificial, creepy and dull. Again, not sexy.

But - which are those shows you speak of? There are certainly shows like that, but from what I've seen, the shows with those kind of casts are mostly WB teenage shows. I can think of many current and relatively recent shows that don't fit that description. In fact, none of the shows I watch or have watched in the recent years - dramas, SF, police procedurals - have had those kind of casts. Lost (check the ages of the male cast), Battlestar Galactica, Caprica, Mad Men, Damages, Jericho, Deadwood, Rome, Dexter, Lie To Me, The Closer, even Heroes - none of them fit the description. They may have some young, or 'pretty' or 'ripped' cast members, but they also have older, or skinny, or chubby, and so on. Lost has several crucial cast members in their 50s, and you can't say that Michael Emerson, who plays one of the most popular characters, was chosen for his good looks. Battlestar Galactica was "edgy" and dark and had a lot of sex... but you can't say that they had an "adolescent-looking" cast, with Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, Michael Hogan, Dean Stockwell... And while it had its share of "ripped" guys like Bamber, Penikett or Trucco, you also had Callis (very attractive, but skinny and certainly not very muscular), Douglas (also attractive IMO, but chubby, and increasingly so as the show progressed), 60-year old, rough-skinned Olmos, a formidable presence despite not having a great physique, and Hogan, also older and, well, not exactly conventionally attractive even in his younger days... The women were, admittedly, almost all attractive, but their ages ranged from 20s to 30s to 40s to 50s (McDonnell, one of the leads), Sackhoff is not the Hollywood "skinny" type, and the show usually made its female characters far less glamorous than the actresses normally are in real life (again, Sackhoff is the best example, but it goes for most of them, apart from Helfer, which made sense for her role, but even she got de-glamorized in her appearances as some of her characters [Gina, Natalie], and was even 'uglified' in her early Gina appearances in season 2, to serve the needs of the plot).

DevilEyes: thank you for your lengthy response. You educated me on some important facts. Indeed, I have *not* seen any of the shows you referenced. I must only be seeing glimpses of the most mass-marketed shows and then only note the ones with the trends I mentioned. I'm probably guilty of a confirmation bias.

But actually, there were three questions I guess I'd asked. You did an excellent job answering two of them, so I'll first mention the other one to try to get your take: would a TNG-era show be viable today if essentially made as-is (but perhaps with updated SFX and without outdated production quality and dated hairstyles)? I'm *very* sorry if you *did* answer and I somehow overlooked it. I'm using an iPod Touch, so rereading while typing is tough. I apologize in advance, though.


But I must disagree with you about liking edgier, more "realistic"/less "pollyanna-ish", sanitized Trek. Actually, if I had *my* way, there would be no sex or sexual references in Trek at *all*. I really disliked the ones in the TNG-era shows. I'll agree with you that while not gratuitous or over-the-top, they were pretty shabby in those shows.

A caveat, though: I am asexual. So while I'll agree with you that sex (unfortunately) *is* a part of life and necessary for procreation, it is as appealing to me as other parts of life such as that of digestion, or the body's way of protecting our head orifices with a network of mucus membranes. They're all physical realities and very important, but just as I'd rather not see or hear talk of kidney function on Trek, I'd not like to see much sex.

I *know* that to most normal people such as you, sex is *more* than just a mere annoying bodily function — there are romantic connotations involved. So I suppose I'd have to put up with some, and I don't mind seeing romance, but perhaps now you can see better my POV and why I'm turned-off by the unarguable advance of sexuality on TV and various media. And yes, it's doubly worse when not only sexual references appear but they appear in the bizarre and immature form as seen on Enterprise. That was just too much for me to take — they'd even removed the realistic aspects of it and replaced it with such embarrassing, rather prurient stuff.

Though I grant you the fact that sex and sexual themes, to most people, mean something far more than say, the workings of the liver, that is yet another I tend to dislike about it: for some reason, it seems to alter people's rational thinking process and causes them to behave differently — especially men. As a man, I dislike being lumped in with a cohort whose members seem to lose their judgment upon seeing a pretty/sexy female (I'm only talking about heterosexuality here, for that's more common and is what we've seen chiefly on Trek.) I just find it odd and almost demeaning to think I'm supposed to "lose it" over seeing Seven or T'Pol in their tight-fitting suits.

And now the trend is including the reverse as well. Women, though not you, are expected to require a guy with a chiseled figure etc. As a bodybuilder, I *do* spend several months of the year at about 3% bodyfat and a muscular build, but it's *really* hard, and I've *never* noticed girls flocking to me at or even paying me any heed — which is fine with me. So I suspect you're right and that most women actually *don't* like such men. But they sure show up a lot on TV and film. Maybe not all men on all shows, but certainly several orders of magnitude more than when the TNG-era shows were made. *Not one* of those men looked anything liked that — they even had some hairy chests!


But I'll take your word for it about the shows you mentioned, for I haven't seen them.

And I thank you for expressing your opinions, even though they differ from mine. Your views probably represent the great majority anyway. I admit mine are unusual.


At least some cable channels (which I don't get) have or are showing reruns of these terrific shows. Even if they have to air them at 2am, at least they know *some* are watching, taping, or DVRing them.

 

[Cepstrum]

DevilEyes, reading your post, particularly from 'younger and prettier does not equal sexier', was a breath of fresh air and I agree with every word you wrote.

I just wish more people did.

I'm afraid I don't quite get your meaning.

Certainly it does not follow that a younger person is necessarily more attractive. But I think on average, you'll find more young people who are attractive. I'd think it'd be easier finding a 22-year-old pretty woman than a 52-year-old one — on average.