Where does the Star Trek go from here?

[Temis the Vorta]

I had a better appreciation for the classic trilogy after seeing the prequels, but I enjoy them as tragedy and backstory.

The PT movies are inept, but after watching S1 of Clone Wars, I gotta give them credit for solving a lot of the problems of the PT and repairing quite a lot of the damage, to the point where I try to just wipe the PT from my mind and replace it with Clone Wars. Considering we're talking three movies vs five seasons of a TV show, that seems very do-able.

The depiction of Anakin is the biggest, most startling improvement - he's not remotely the same character as in the PT, but instead the character is not just tolerable but likable, heroic and sympathetic - just as he should have been depicted all along. I guess the problem with Lucas is that he always needed a collaborator like Dave Filoni who could take his basic ideas (and I do agree that in broad strokes, his ideas are good) and implement them in a non-sucky way. Lucas is clearly still involved, but something is radically different and much better this time around.

 

[YARN]

Where does Trek go from here?

You need a successful Trek series on the air.

One Trek film every 3-5 years is not really going to cut it. Today, you get one sequel and then they want to reboot.

The "prime" Trek 'verse is already pretty cluttered.

I'd go for a TOS-era show in the "prime universe" set on another ship - (updating the look a bit). I think that some of the fanboy productions have had the right idea here.

I'd go for an Abrams-universe show set on another ship.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I keep hearing such conflicted opinions on The Clone Wars. Ultimately, I think it might not be for me; I can only handle very limited exposure to shows blatantly intended for children to watch. Naysayers keep telling me the series is rife with the kiddie gags you'd expect, and that doesn't bode well for me.

That said, Frankenvorta isn't the first person I've seen mention that it fixes the PT and it's a good show...

 

[Galileo7]

Where does Trek go from here?

You need a successful Trek series on the air.

One Trek film every 3-5 years is not really going to cut it. ...

Agree.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I keep hearing such conflicted opinions on The Clone Wars. Ultimately, I think it might not be for me; I can only handle very limited exposure to shows blatantly intended for children to watch. Naysayers keep telling me the series is rife with the kiddie gags you'd expect, and that doesn't bode well for me.

That said, Frankenvorta isn't the first person I've seen mention that it fixes the PT and it's a good show...

I've only seen S1 and they seem to be well on their way towards repairing the damage and not inflicting any of their own. Check it out on your own - the final 6 or so episodes of S1 are definitely better than I would expect from a show that's "just for kids." But the jury is still out whether they can keep it up.

I haven't noticed a whole lot of kiddie gags. There isn't an abundance of potty humor if that's what you're worried about. The humor and action is sanitized so that children can watch it, and the emotional fabric of the characters is scaled back to a kid-friendly level, but you could say the same about the OT.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

but you could say the same about the OT.

More than anything, that last bit has convinced me to check it out. That's a very good point. I'll look into it!

 

[Whill]

I keep hearing such conflicted opinions on The Clone Wars. Ultimately, I think it might not be for me; I can only handle very limited exposure to shows blatantly intended for children to watch. Naysayers keep telling me the series is rife with the kiddie gags you'd expect

Like it or not, it is a kiddie show.

The depiction of Anakin... he's not remotely the same character as in the PT

I agree 100% that Anakin in the cartoon series is not remotely the character in the PT. But Anakin in the cartoon series is not remotely the character in the CT either...

...instead the character is not just tolerable but likable, heroic and sympathetic - just as he should have been depicted all along

I thought the little kid Anakin in Ep I was heroic and sympathetic. But I think the adult Anakin of Eps II & III are more revalent to the comparison with the show since those two films are now the "bookends" of the Clone Wars cartoons.

Successful or not, the depiction of Anakin in the Eps II & III was intended to show how the good little kid in Ep 1 could become the evil Jedicidal villain he was in the CT. Anakin IS Vader! How likable, heroic and sympathetic do you expect a young Vader to be?

Yes, you can point out that in the climax of the last film in the CT Anakin was good, but the message of that was just that it is never too late to do the right thing, even after a lifetime dominated by evil. And you can also point out Anakin started out good. Yes, the message is that morality is about choices.

In the CT, Anakin/Vader is depicted exclusively as an evil villain (except for one final act to save his son), and he was described as someone who chose the Dark Side and killed many Jedi a long time before Ep IV. Why "should" Anakin be depicted as "likable, heroic and sympathetic" in the PT or the CW? That doesn't connect the dots to the CT.

after watching S1 of Clone Wars, I gotta give them credit for solving a lot of the problems of the PT and repairing quite a lot of the damage

Since there are "a lot", could anyone please post a list of the specific problems of the PT and the corresponding specific solutions that the CW provides? By the same token, could you also include a list of the specific damages caused by the PT and the corresponding specific repairs that the CW provides? Perhaps I haven't watched enough of the CW to see what others have seen.

I'd like to be considered an open-minded Star Wars fan. Since I have encountered these opinions but not gotten the details, I'd really love to know about the specific solutions and repairs to the problems and damages. I'd love to find a way to enjoy the CW more.

If you would like to not derail this thread further with more discussion of Star Wars, please feel free to PM me the lists! Thank you!

 

[Brolan]

Saw a few eps of The Clone Wars but the show is clearly meant for children. It's too painful for me to watch.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I agree 100% that Anakin in the cartoon series is not remotely the character in the PT. But Anakin in the cartoon series is not remotely the character in the CT either...

What's the CT?

I thought the little kid Anakin in Ep I was heroic and sympathetic.

He was likable but I don't think of a child as being capable of heroism. A child that age isn't mature enough to really understand issues of life and death, and that it's not all just a fun game. I could never get over feeling horrified that the grownups would allow the poor kid to put his life on the line like that, who was far too young to make a decision like going into combat, and it made it impossible for me to take anything in that movie seriously. That movie was just wish fulfillment for the ten year olds in the audience.

I also have some iffy feelings about Clone Wars' depicting Ashoka - who looks like she's about 12 to 14 years old - as a warrior. I can't help thinking of the real life children that age who are being kidnapped and forced to fight in various war zones around the world. The Jedi are really really creepy sometimes.

Successful or not, the depiction of Anakin in the Eps II & III was intended to show how the good little kid in Ep 1 could become the evil Jedicidal villain he was in the CT. Anakin IS Vader! How likable, heroic and sympathetic do you expect a young Vader to be?

I expect him to be likable, heroic and sympathetic enough that he deserves to have a story told about him, that I'd be willing to watch. I don't want to waste my time watching the sad tale of a pathetic, whiny, brainless punk. The first thing any character in any story needs to do is convince me to spend my time on his story. Clone Wars Anakin has done that; PT Anakin didn't even come close.

After that, this particular character has an even tougher job: he has to convince me that his fall to the dark side is believable. Starting out with a character who's worth telling a story about to begin with, that character arc would be tricky for any writer to pull off. A five-year-long series should be able to do it; even a three-movie series could do it, if they really move quickly and don't waste time on anything extraneous. I think they'd need to start with the character as an adult, to make the best use of the short amount of available screen time. Falling to the dark side is basically a story of morality, and ten year old Anakin is too young to make moral choices, so there's little value in starting the story with him.

Anakin's fall to the dark side should also be a progression - we see how he started out as a great guy and understand what happened to him. The way the PT did things, you had a nice little kid who was thrust weirdly into adult roles (warfare and even, ickily enough, hints of romance with Padme) but came through it pretty well. Fast forward a few years, and now the nice kid is a surly, unlikable punk who falls to the dark side through sheer stupidity, or perhaps because he was so damaged by his childhood that he really never had any other choice.

The first way, the story is idiotic; the second way, it would make an okay story for a different movie, but lacks the mythic power that Star Wars should have. For the story to have mythic power, Anakin has to consciously and deliberately make the decision to embrace evil, without being stupid, or manipuated, or because he loves Padme too much, or any such excuses. A mythic hero - or villain - must be in charge of his own story. Anakin was just dragged around by his story like a broken puppet on a string. I sure hope Clone Wars does better.

Since there are "a lot", could anyone please post a list of the specific problems of the PT and the corresponding specific solutions that the CW provides?

A few of them are:

-Anakin is not a disgusting punk but rather is quite watchable and fun.

-Now that Anakin is not a disgusting punk, Obi-Wan and Padme no longer look stupid for being his lover and friend respectively. So all three of the major characters are now improved, and that counts for a lot.

-Clone Wars feels more like Star Wars than the PT does, largely because of more attention to humor and colorful, zany characters (who are fun and not annoying in that horrible Jar-Jar way).

-Obi-Wan seems to be more on-target in Clone Wars. There was something off-putting about the PT Obi-Wan, not sure what. Maybe Ewen McGregor not looking anything like Alec Guiness was a problem? He also seemed to be a nagging wet blanket and lacked the impish charm that Guiness brought to the role.

-The stories are better composed than the PT and zip right along in an exciting way. In Clone Wars, you have gripping war stories interspersed with a few tales of conspiracy and deceit, compared with plodding, bloated saga built around taxes and trade routes, where half the scenes are about spaceships arriving and taking off.

If you would like to not derail this thread further with more discussion of Star Wars, please feel free to PM me the lists!

I like derailing threads. And apparently nobody has anything to add about Star Trek and where it should go next.

 

[Whill]

PT = Prequel Trilogy
CW = The Clone Wars
CT = Classic Trilogy

I apologize for making an assumption that my abreviation would be understood. Is it not generally acceptable to refer to Episodes IV-VI as the Classic Trilogy? Should it be the Original Trilogy? So is "OT" the more acceptable abreviation? I honestly don't know (At least for a Trek board - the abreviations are understood on a Star Wars board). Please forgive my ignorance of general internet conventions.

Although it got cut from Ep IV story when the original single Star Wars movie became a trilogy, the Anakin/Vader character was always meant to be protrayed as a pathetic victim. He might seem like a motivated bad-ass on the outside, but inside he is a wreck. A broken down, beaten man who is evil because had given up on life.

Vader: "You don't know the power of the Dark Side. I must obey my master."

Padme: "You're a slave?
Anakin: "I'm a person and my name is Anakin!"

Yes, Anakin suffered some traumatic experiences in his life, but irony (a dramatic device) is used to convey that, despite all the bad things that happened to him, he is ultimately the victim of his own choices. This is emphasized by the fact that Anakin begins life as a brave, compassionate little boy who only wishes to help others, but Anakin is also a slave. He wins his freedom only to later in life become a slave to evil by his own doing. (Palpatine is merely evil incarnate).

Yes, Anakin was tempted and manipulated, but he still consciously and deliberately chose the dark path for a supposedly higher purpose. He was haunted by his prophecy of Padme's death that he was trying to prevent, and then ironically it became a self-fullfilling prophecy because of the tendency for murderous anger he acquired by embracing evil. He wanted to save Padme but instead killed her, thus ironically eliminating the original purpose for the new powers he gained in the first place. When you make a deal with the devil you always lose. And he got his ass kicked by Obi-Wan leaving him more machine than man.

After he found out about Padme's death, Vader had lost Padme and his child (so he believed). He had already betrayed and decimated the Jedi Order for them, which lead to the complete loss of the Republic he was supposedly defending as a hero of the Clone Wars. He lost his friendship and support from Yoda and Obi-Wan. He lost his identity as Anakin Skywalker. He lost his humanity. He lost everything from his former life. All he had left was the Emperor, which symbolizes that all he had left was the Evil. The Empire. He no longer had any purpose for living, yet was still alive as an abonimation against nature, enslaved to the The Dark Side. Vader started his life as a slave with the freedom to chose good and eventually became enslaved to evil for the last half of his life. The power of the Dark Side is a master that must be obeyed.

So it seemed to me that Anakin fully embraced evil in RotS, but by the end, he was instead embraced by the evil. That is the nature of evil. You might think you can use it for your purposes, but in the end it only uses you. The ends don't justify the means because the means become the end. Once you start down the dark path, it will dominate your destiny. The Dark Side comsumes you. In the CT, Darth Vader is not really an interesting villain because he "embraces" evil. By that point, he is a pawn, a pathetic tool of evil.

It is when Vader finally chose good, life, humanity that he breaks the shackles of evil and becomes a free man again. It is easy to be a slave to evil, but it was love that saved him (love for son which reminded him of his love of Padme). It was too late to save the Republic or the Jedi he killed or Padme. But it wasn't to late to save his son and destroy the Sith.

Acting, directing and execution are one thing, but thematically, the PT completely ties into the CT. The PT's sad tale makes the character of Vader, the pathetic broken-down slave of evil make much more sense. The character of Anakin is totally different in the Clone Wars, which may help you enjoy it more on its own. I'm sorry you can't get enjoyment out of the PT, but I'm glad you can out of the CW. But by your own criteria, CW can't do everything you state it does by the end. CW will not ever supply the solutions to your problems with the films because, it leads to the sad tale in RotS, the final prequel. The CW doesn't help explain the character of Vader in the CT. I just read an interview with George Lucas who states that the show will move things to be more and more like RotS.

And I thought that Anakin was a whiny punk in the PT to show where Luke came from!

 

[CaptJamesScott]

I think Star Trek needs to modernize. I know Star Trek refers to a specific universe with specific morals, ideals, and customs, but I really think making the show sexier and edgier will help.

 

[BillJ]

...but I really think making the show sexier and edgier will help.

I don't. You really need a solid storyteller that has a vision for what Star Trek needs to be in the 21st century. Programs that use sexy and edgy as their foundation are forgotten very quickly.

 

[Motoki]

...but I really think making the show sexier and edgier will help.

I don't. You really need a solid storyteller that has a vision for what Star Trek needs to be in the 21st century. Programs that use sexy and edgy as their foundation are forgotten very quickly.

^This.

If you just blindly go making a show sexy and edgy without relatable, likable characters, quality stories and good pacing then you end up with shows like Caprica and Stargate Universe and people tune out.

I think they should go back to using some science fiction literature writers and not just television writers, for one thing.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

...but I really think making the show sexier and edgier will help.

I don't. You really need a solid storyteller that has a vision for what Star Trek needs to be in the 21st century. Programs that use sexy and edgy as their foundation are forgotten very quickly.

Sexy and edgy aren't elements that will help Star Trek. Other shows, maybe.

 

[Keptin J D Reed]

...but I really think making the show sexier and edgier will help.

I don't. You really need a solid storyteller that has a vision for what Star Trek needs to be in the 21st century. Programs that use sexy and edgy as their foundation are forgotten very quickly.

^This.

If you just blindly go making a show sexy and edgy without relatable, likable characters, quality stories and good pacing then you end up with shows like Caprica and Stargate Universe and people tune out.

I think they should go back to using some science fiction literature writers and not just television writers, for one thing.

Regarding your comment about getting scifi literature writers on board, SGU have actually got John Scalzi on board as a creative consultant. I would highly recommend his Old Man's War series if you haven't read them. Cheers. James

 

[Keptin J D Reed]

The only way star trek will come back to being a television series will be as an offshoot of the new films unfortunately.

I quit drinking nearly 4 years ago and one of the things that helped me succeed was emmersing myself in startrek fiction. Up until that point I'd only ever read the shatnerverse novels. I've read so many novels since in such a relatively short period of time that the star trek "universe" is quite fresh and clearly defined in my mind. Consequently, watching the new star trek film was quite a struggle. I wanted to scream when they blew up vulcan and seeing spock kissing uhura was just wrong, wrong wrong!!!!! I respect it (and enjoyed it) for what it is as a stand alone film but it's not the real star trek that I grew up watching and that I've been reading for the last 4 years.

However it had to be what Abrams created for it to have had any chance of succeeding and atleast the star trek name will continue on the big screen and I suspect on our televisions at some point in the future in series form. I think we will find a ship, character or world in the sequels that will be followed up on in a series, although it would not surprise me if they go exactly the same way as star wars and follow up a couple of films with an animated or CGI series like the clone wars.

The dreamer in me would love to see one more TNG film involving the enterprise, titan, DS9, aventine and voyager somehow. Probably based on the destiny books would be the way to go. But it's never going to happen. Unless I win £100million on the euromillions of course

Anyway, apologies for rambling. My first couple of posts on this site (or any site infact). Cheers. James

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The only way star trek will come back to being a television series will be as an offshoot of the new films unfortunately.

I agree with that except for the unfortunately part. Welcome to the funny farm.

 

[Gorgon]

Years ago, I conceived of a very ambitious theme for a Star Trek series.

The series revolved around a large carrier style starship, which was tasked with the defense of far flung Federation worlds.

The U.S.S. Deliverance would be the home of a Starfleet Tactical Air Group (STAG), a group similar to the Navy Seals. I'm not talking about large assaults and huge battle ships on the Federation side. Instead, it would be fighters and small landing ops to help the locals to protect themselves.

Other missions would be based around medical support, colony relocation and evac etc;

Is this the future of Star Trek....no. But it COULD be!

 

[BillJ]

Is this the future of Star Trek....no. But it COULD be!

No it couldn't. The beauty of the original concept... was that it wasn't a concept. It was a platform designed to allow any type of story a writer could dream up. From comedy to courtroom drama to political drama to medical drama to social allegory.

Star Trek is an "open-ended" story telling platform. Once you try to tie it down to a specific story telling goal (I'm looking at you Deep Space Nine and Voyager)... it seems the general audiences tend to go in other directions.

 

[Saquist]

We've already lost the 23rd Century connections for a new series
The 24th century is currently doing the same. Withing another five years we won't really want to see these old and crusty actors in a reguar series part.

It's too bad they didn't do an Excelsior series...that would have been fantastic

It seems we're have to jump another 100 years or so and establish a whole new relationship. I always wanted a really complicated and awesome series like what Stargate did with SGU...I like the Idea ut not how they did it in SGU.

Star Trek Destiny wouldn't be a solitary...or lost...It's be a expidition of 3 ships to explore the Local Galactic cluster. I want to see 3 Captains on one show...I want the show done almost 24 style...gritty when it has to be...but lighthearted and tumultuous.

I'd end the show after the standard 7 years with a cliff hanger ending because no one should no the fate of the USS Destiny.