Is there anything other than specifics that make Trek any different than any other potentially new space opera would be? The faster than light travel seems to be one of the conventions inherent to it like the steering wheel on a car so could Trek be Star Wars if you squint your eyes a certain way? or vice versa. What makes a universe unique. Does Trek not have light sabers and the force and Jedis be significant enough distinguishing factors that make them legally different properties?
Generic space opera
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
- Status
To stretch the point to extremes, it's utopian versus dystopian. Yes, Trek sometimes depicted problems with villians, battles, sicknesses, wars, and so on. However, the universe it attempts to portray is largely a positive one...i.e. a huge number of good people working against a small amount of evil. It seems rather the opposite in Star Wars...a small number of good people against a seemingly insurmountable evil.
Is there something indemic to Trek that makes it undeniably Trek and not like anything else - a theme, a concept? 2001 : A Space Odessy had the monolith, Star Wars had the light Sabers and the jedi's force. Alien had, well the alien.
Would anything else be different if they didn't contain non Trek elements that weren't reproducable without a legal fight. GR used Asimov's positronics but he asked. If J.J. suddenly wanted to use the monolith..? Fire fly's approach was different I guess in the set up and premise and execution, style, but is almost interchangable. in fact some of these space opera stories can be told in multiple universes and I think the scripts get tossed around alot back stage to other hungry franchises who get fed like Val. The character concept in Trek is very strong. The Vulcan. The phaser, and all the rest are just trappings of the generic space opera once again and can't be labeled as exclusively Trek. The ship design is also another distinguishably iconic character, the klingons and the aliens, but the rest is pretty vague, a wagon train to the stars. Is that distinguishable enough to be copyrightable? Does Trek have legal rights over any other version of a space show that explores the universe? It sounds like it knows no bounds over anything that may be similar?
Would anything else be different if they didn't contain non Trek elements that weren't reproducable without a legal fight. GR used Asimov's positronics but he asked. If J.J. suddenly wanted to use the monolith..? Fire fly's approach was different I guess in the set up and premise and execution, style, but is almost interchangable. in fact some of these space opera stories can be told in multiple universes and I think the scripts get tossed around alot back stage to other hungry franchises who get fed like Val. The character concept in Trek is very strong. The Vulcan. The phaser, and all the rest are just trappings of the generic space opera once again and can't be labeled as exclusively Trek. The ship design is also another distinguishably iconic character, the klingons and the aliens, but the rest is pretty vague, a wagon train to the stars. Is that distinguishable enough to be copyrightable? Does Trek have legal rights over any other version of a space show that explores the universe? It sounds like it knows no bounds over anything that may be similar?
There are no new plots. The same story elements get used over and over again and are not copyrightable. It's the details that make a work of fiction unique. So, you could set a story in a universe where there is a Federation of Planets, but if that federation had phasers, transporters and warp drive, Paramount would come calling. Even then, if enough of the other details were uniquely different from Star Trek, you would have a good case against copyright violation.
Not sure it's what you're after, but I'd argue the philosophy of Trek is pretty unique. There are very few other sci-fi shows with such a positive outlook - yes, cliche, Roddenberry-spun dogma but it's kind of true. BSG, Babylon 5 etc - all represent a pretty grim (perhaps more realistic?) vision of humanity and its future. Trek is different.
No, it doesn't corner the market on space exploration. And, even though someone upthread correctly pointed out that there is a limit on the number of story fundamentals that can be employed, there is almost no limit on the number of present-day topics on which good science fiction can comment. Star Trek almost always did so in a positive way (which I pointed out earlier as did someone else) and that's what made it unique.
That approach is not copyrightable but I think any new "space opera" type series that attempted to do the same would be written off as derivative.
Who else does space exploration? Not Star Wars, their entire galaxy is completely explored, there are no surpises in Firefly, admittedly they're in a single star system, but no one is looking around much. Farscape all they do is run. BSG there was a small amount of discovery along the way, but again runnig, not exploration was the main thing.
Maybe Star Trek did have the market cornered there, certainly as a primary goal.
.
Maybe Star Trek did have the market cornered there, certainly as a primary goal.
.
If CBS was smart, and of course, they are, they would beat Trek to the punch of putting an optomistic space opera on tv. The sci-fi channel is replacing the Star Gate void with a space opera. I can't imagine they'll be much of a difference other than the timing of it which could be crucial to picking up an audience taking it away from the other. Of course the disadvantage of going first is that Trek will learn the lessons of it's potential failures if there is and try to do better like it did when Space Rangers tried to compete with it way back when. My dream is to see Trek come to NBC with a real cerebral approach, but with modern sensabilities of pacing and style and a fresh direction. It's time for CBS to sell Trek.
Last edited:
Cop shows are cheaper and there's a larger (and apparently far less critical) audience for them compared with space opera.
To answer the OP, "it's utopian versus dystopian" is basically the right answer. Every other space opera I can think of is dystopian (Farscape, nuBSG, Firefly), cynical (Futurama) or just brainless (Stargate). I can't quite decide if B5 is cynical; it might be cynical-utopian. But you definitely would never get it mixed up with Star Trek and if JMS ever attempted a Star Trek series, it wouldn't work.
As for Star Wars, the jury is out on that one since The Clone Wars is busy rewriting the book, especially on the metaphysics. It might be utopian in a more metaphysical/elitist way than Star Trek (the cosmos can be perfected, but only by some kind of Chosen One) or it might just be babble.
Come to think of it, B5 might be utopian-elitist. How else could Sheriden end a war just by yelling at the combatants?
Being smart, CBS will of course do nothing of the sort. They're not in the business of deliberately losing money. The only realistic places for space opera are either SyFy in the miraculous event that they get their shit together, or elsewhere on cable.
RHW's thing is not going to be utopian. 10 to 1 it is. It has to be. It's not going to be bright and skiffy but it will be realistic and cool. I'm hoping it won't be too dark but it'll be optimistic for sure. I don't believe that is a distinguishing factor anyway. Certainly not legally. It's an adjective that describes a thing, not the thing itself.
I think it will be utopian-ish but not pollyanna-ish. I'm envisioning Firefly told from the Alliance's POV, with the Alliance not being all that bad but not Starfleet-squeaky.
And I was never under the impression that we were debating legalities.
And I was never under the impression that we were debating legalities.
Alien had a somewhat optomistic premise and approach despite being a horror movie. So did Starship Troopers ironically. I'm assuming that thematic material is what makes a space show unique. Space Rangers and 2001 : a Space Odessy were optimistic too so I don't see how any one show can lay claim to any kind of ownership to that word. That seems ridiculous. Just because Trek was the first to deal with aliens intelligently doesn't mean they own intelligent aliens other than the ones depicted in Trek. Trek is a western. Firefly is a dystopian mercinary show, just the opposite. Space exploration is a pretty vague and detached objective for the premise of a show and it being optomistic hardly makes it unique. So what makes RHW's show or any space show not Star Trek?
- Status
