You Must Choose: Two Extremes

[Shatnertage]

Here's a question for you:

We learn that CBS is improbably green-lighting a new Trek TV series, which they plan to give a massive budget and an unprecedented guarantee of a 7-year broadcast run.

They are picking between two different production teams.

Team A knows that Star Trek is about people "boldly going where no one has gone before," and understand that it's set on a ship named the Enterprise, but haven't watched much of the show. They are accomplished television writers with some sci fi experience.

Team B is composed of people who are not accomplished television writers, but know all of Trek, including the novels and fan productions, intimately. They have promised to faithfully "respect" established continuity, and may include many elements from older shows in their new show.

Which would you pick, and why?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Good writers/producers are a must. Star Trek isn't complex: it's in the future, set in space, centered around Starfleet, and has an underlying political viewpoint (liberal democracy) and thematic feel (optimism). You don't need to know all the colors that tribbles come in, or whether Vulcan blood is nickle or copper based (hey even I get that one confused). You do need to be able to tell a good story.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Haven't nearly all of Trek's production teams been "Team A?" I think there may be one or two people who might be continuity consultants or technical advisors to help the writing staff, but that's about it. The rest are people who were hired based more on their production skills rather than their knowledge of Star Trek and relied on those one or two continuity experts to keep facts straight.

IMO, ENT was the show that relied on Trek's continuity the most, while others used it relatively sparingly and concentrated mostly on telling new stories...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, most have been Team "B."

 

[Admiral2]

Team A is most likely to do something new and sensible with the material.


Team B gives us crap like Nemesis and Abrams Trek.

 

[C.E. Evans]

No, most have been Team "B."

So, you're saying most of Trek's writing teams have consisted of hardcore Trekkies rather than experienced television writers?

 

[Kelso]

They should hire someone talented to make a quality scifi series and slap Star Trek on the front of it.

I really don't care if it has anything to do with the old shows.

 

[Shatnertage]

I'm surprised at how one-sided the poll is, even with the small sample size. I would have thought the canonistas would have chimed in by now.

I wasn't trying to do a strawman thing with the poll, either--I can see the merits and flaws of both approaches.

 

[AviTrek]

No, most have been Team "B."

Sorry, but they've mostly been A, or became B only after years working on Trek. Almost everyone on TNG was A by definition. On DS9/VOY the only experienced Trek vets were people who worked on TNG and had TV experience too.

The only people I can really think of that qualify as B are Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens on ENT. Even someone like Manny Coto had a lot of TV Sci Fi experience before he was hired to ENT.

 

[Skywalker]

Team A, please. It's easier to become familiar with Trek than it is to become a skilled writer/director/producer.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No, most have been Team "B."

Sorry, but they've mostly been A, or became B only after years working on Trek. Al

If they'd been on Team B, Star Trek would be a flaming disaster of total self-indulgence like the Star Wars prequels. Even at its most dire (VOY, most of ENT), Star Trek displayed at least a minimal level of storytelling competence as a craft - boring and uninspired, but at least structurally sound storytelling. Fanboys running amok would make a far bigger mess - perhaps an interesting mess, but a mess regardless.

 

[Gepard]

So...talent vs. fanboys? How is this even a choice?

 

[ramonasno]

^ agree!

I'm now thinking about how a show would look like if I had to write a show..It would be awfull!! I am so not a scriptwriter. If it would be a musical on the other hand, then I could make it rock

 

[iguana_tonante]

So...talent vs. fanboys? How is this even a choice?

One choice is no choice.

 

[illeanacross]

Not really a choice here.

Good writers can always learn more about the Star Trek universe.

Fanboys can't always learn to be good writers.

Plus, Fanboys will most likely kill the franchise more than less-knowledgeable writers would.

 

[Mr. B]

Experience != Talent. Team "A" has been done. That show Enterprise, y'all may have seen it.

 

[Brainsucker]

I agree that this is not even a choice. The first option is about people who write story for money / to please others. While the second option is about people who create something just to please themselves.

 

[bensmalls]

Team B. Team A made the last movie, which I liked, but didn't feel like real Trek to me.

 

[Sigh]

Team A is most likely to do something new and sensible with the material.


Team B gives us crap like Nemesis and Abrams Trek.

"new and sensible"? Are you serious? Since when did you turn on a tv series, sit back in your recliner and go 'whew this is good, it's SENSIBLE!' My point being, the stuff we usually pay attention to is non-sensible, in fact it's our confusion on the matter that makes us pay attention.

For example... when Enterprise came out I sat there going 'ok, this doesn't seem plausible; how can they possibly call this Trek; etc. etc' and it was then they had the opportunity to capture my interest and have me invested in the show. They Failed, but they had the opportunity.

Honestly, I think if we saw the same old stuff being rehashed we'd have the initial reaction of "hey new Trek, awesome!" but then not watch it.

It still has to be interesting, exciting and somewhat ground breaking television to keep us invested in the series as a whole.

 

[zar]

Everyone has to start somewhere so I would probably like to give Team B a chance. But... both extremes are terrible. I would rather cancel it and wait another 5 years or so until we can get a good mix of A and B to work on something.