How about a Eugenics Wars mini-series set in an alternate 1990's, starring Ben Cumberbatch? The setting would be a LOT cheaper than even an earthbound Academy series. It wouldn't really be Trek, but it would be part of the backstory/universe.
new star trek show
- Thread starter Xzpezer
- Start date
So long as its not just because women are in even skimpier/tighter outfits that the regular universe. It would be interesting to see though is a ship commanded by a female Captain would have male officers going around in just cod-pieces
Double standards, I know but Trek set the precedent, I just want to balance the scales.
I think it does compute.
When Star Trek began way back in 1966, and I was around back then, whatever the motivation of Gene Roddenberry, it was a dynamic process of his creation plus all of the many crew members as well as the writers, many directors, effects, makeup, producers, and actors going through a collaborative effort.
Some aspect of commerical success is necessary in order to keep from being canceled and being popular with a niche audience. That's what I mean by entertainment.
Another paradigm is more geared to independent productions in which something is artistic, takes risks, and often displays a high amount of gravitas.
While there are fun episodes that we all enjoy over the many 700 plus episodes, there are other shows that are quite memorable because the directors, crew, and writers allowed the actors to be quiet and speak sincerely and do much more than tell a story. During those episodes, it becomes a postmodern mythology as interesting and nuanced as anything from literature.
If you're a hard core fan, then you no doubt notice that there are times when an actor performs better than other times since they're human. But in my mind, often the performance is a result of the quality of writing and the direction and the constaints of budgets, because the actors are essentially the same people.
It's true they grew into their roles, and were more willing to take risks, and television can be an ideal medium because where else does an actor have so many opportunities to have a history with their character, see the character over many diverse situations, and allow a full range of emotions?
Chain of Command STTNG S06E10 and S06E11 are very serious episdodes. They're not at all like some of the rather ridiculous episodes on the holodeck. The writers, actors, and crew of course didn't desire to hit the same one notes each time in order to make it a commerical success, but allowed the actors to have the variety from one extreme to another. Other episodes were very balanced over the series with combinations of these factors along a continuum.
Again, it was often a process of the writers, actors, and directors to make decisions about who the character is and what is the story. That takes time, and so it's fairly normal for a Star Trek show not to "hit their stride" until late in the first season. This process partially explains the differences in say, Deanna Troi in the beginning versus very late in the series. The characters are not only aging, but the backgrounds, the concentration on her comeliness, the intelligence of the character, all have changed. Much of that due to the alterations in the way her character was written and directoral and producer decisions.
Star Trek Enterprise took a lot of risks, because the writers allowed the pre-Federation (really the Terrans) to stumble...a lot, and to show their feet of clay. In my mind this is what makes that last series so endearing. Usually the opposite is true in perfomance, as ancestors are shown in one dimensional purely heroic self-sacrificing ways. That leads to a very false sense of history something that most often happens in say depictions of WW2 soldiers.
Perhaps one of the highest accolades one can give a dramatic performance is to say, "Wow, that was so brutally honest in the character's depictions besides creating a reality in which I felt I was not only observing but felt resonnance with." That to me is art.
That's quite different than the first always struggling original Star Trek in which the crew were never sure of renewal, had to cut corners all the time, and yet they made a lot of television firsts, had layers of meaning and metaphor, and had some exemplary performances as well.
Some of those 3rd season episodes from the original series, like Spectre of the Gun were cringe-inducing. Surely you're not going to say that the quality of those shows consisted of anything more than mindless entertainment? I have no doubt that the crew of the original series was quite unhappy that last season.
...
Star Trek up until the last season of Enterprise had become one of the most influential franchises in postmodern history. I think though that the loss of a generation acquainted with the Apollo missions, and a very jaded public who stopped tuning in when space missions were broadcast, and who eventually allowed the dismantling of NASA resulted in Star Trek being of secondary importance as mythology.
That's extremely unfortunate because what could be more important that vision and hope? Times have changed, at least in the American public, and we are not the same people we were even in 2000. Today anti-heroes are popular probably due to the severe changes to the economy and because we've lost our way in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. In my mind, that's why Star Trek is still relevant as a mythology to inspire about fallible characters who ascribe to be noble, compassionate, and articulate.
Let us hope that the next Star Trek is equal to that task, and not just a shadow trying to fill up an hour a week of vicarious living through entertainment.
Last edited:
But that's what I like about it. Why I'm a fan of TOS far more than any other part of the franchise. I like it being big, brash and fun. The thing that sets TOS apart from the rest was that an episode could be serious yet be big, brash and fun. Big, brash and fun is why I love the Abrams films and could care less for the TNG films.
I watch TV to be entertained. If I want to know about people being tortured, I can just turn on the news. If the next TV series isn't big, brash and fun, I'll likely be someone who drops out right away.
Give me "vicarious living through entertainment" that's what I want from my entertainment.
TOS was certainly brash and fun. There's nothing wrong with that. Art is very subjective and hence why what the critics may like is a big departure from popular demand.
And to be honest, that's what's paid the bills all up through the last series, because popular demand plus hardcore Star Trek fans kept the market share high enough to keep the project commercially viable.
Most people seek only to be entertained. The problem though with that is a lot more selection in the post-Scify era where there are niche science fiction stations available.
In the days of the dinosaurs, there was precious little that was even close to science fiction. It was more speculative fiction like the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits or even the later Night Gallery. That's no longer the case, where there's a sense of futurism in lots of shows, and many have science fiction elements (with sadly precious little realism at times).
There's always shows like Revolution or Real Humans, but these just don't have the mythos and history of Star Trek, so I don't know of what lasting value they'll have. Will people be watching them over forty years later? I doubt it.
But the biggest issue is not this really. It's how to get commerical support to make the show after all. People don't pay for television except for cable and satelite providers.
What's rapidly changed post-Enterprise is streaming video. Because that's commericial free, then there's little reason for a company to provide commericals to pay for television. They'll just be skipped or fast forwarded if people use Tivo.
That's a major issue for niche marketing. Who is actually sitting down to watch a show as it is broadcast? Some people do it for things like a season finale when they just can't wait long enough to replay it back. Others are too busy to sit down and watch a show in that antiquated manner.
As such, I think it's best that Star Trek adapt and use vehicles like cable's traditional movie channels like HBO and Showtime, in order to have a decent budget and much better and more accountable writers.
In films there's product placement, but that's obviously not going to work well within the environment of Star Trek. Coke in the 24th Century? Probably not...
Strangely there's been some success with shows created and sponsored by companies like Netflicks, which surprises me that there are adequate consumers to pay for it. I would think that the vast amount of folks download these by less than legal means, wait for episodes to be loaded to video sites like Youtube for brief periods (and taken down again), and so only a portion of consumer support is paying for the series.
I recall that Breaking Bad producers mentioned this fact as actually critical for the initial success because they realized far more people were watching than any data told to them by Nielsen ratings (if that's actually still around and not named something else).
Young people don't watch television. Many have a computer and an Iphone and watch shows that way when they desire. That knocks out network television and makes it largely irrelevant to anyone who's younger than 55.
In technology history, there were major discussions about the distance of the space from a viewer to a television screen versus a computer especially a laptop. That's evolved to where the television really is superfluous. At one time they were trying to combine the two devices out of desperation because television manufacturers saw the handwriting on the wall. What saved that industry was wide screen giant tvs, something that changed to flat screens, for there was a brief period in which it was everyone's goal to own a monster television to watch films and sports events besides the other three tvs in each home.
From history we know that people during the Great Depression watched films for vicarious entertainment because they couldn't afford to purchase anything. But that was when watching a film meant a few coins. That's hardly the same today where it can be hugely expensive. People are having a hard time finding the money to put food on the table, so many of these folks will eventually cut their cable bills. The money won't be there for it.
This means television is a very old paradigm and must change and the shows that are featured on it must change to fit that new format.
That's not unique to television, for movie theatres are struggling too. I can remember sitting down in the late 1990s to watch the Godfather in an aging and elaborately decorated cinema, something that probably doesn't occur anymore. It was more akin to a theatre for plays than a movie house. I doubt people will even attend films in the future unless they're giant 3D specialty films that require specialized equipment to view.
Last edited:
Having been to a half dozen repertory theaters in various parts of the United States in the past five years (Upstate New York; Vermont; Washington, DC.; Los Angeles; Olympia, Washington; Missoula, Montana) I can assure you that this still happens, and not just in major metropolitan areas (although if you live in one, like Los Angeles or New York, your options for seeing classic films in a theatre are great).
The films experience has changed a great deal even from the time I was a kid in the 80s. Going to the movies was an event. We had home video, but we sometimes had to wait years after a film's theatrical run for it to be released on VHS. Now the DVD and bluray special features are being edited even before a film has been released to theaters. You see a preview for a movie you'd like to see, blink, and then the DVD's already out. Sometimes a film is released to a streaming service like Netflix before the theatrical release.
Audience reaction isn't the same, either. My favorite movies memories are the ones where the crowd really gets into the excitement, laughing, cheering, feeding off one another's energy. These days, when I see an action FX flick like "Transformers" or even Trek films, the audience more often than not just stares passively at the screen.
At some point, we de-mythologized what was a modern mythological experience.
Audience reaction isn't the same, either. My favorite movies memories are the ones where the crowd really gets into the excitement, laughing, cheering, feeding off one another's energy. These days, when I see an action FX flick like "Transformers" or even Trek films, the audience more often than not just stares passively at the screen.
At some point, we de-mythologized what was a modern mythological experience.
You know, we're getting older, too. I can remember when waiting a month could seem like *forever*. Now, it frequently seems like I miss about every other one.
And I feel like I'm doing pretty well, because often when I leave a movie I still feel like I've seen something pretty cool, had a window into another world for a while. At least, until I come here or aintitcool.com or get on Facebook and have all of my friends tell me all of the reasons that the movie I just watched really sucked and was poorly written.
This still happens occasionally, but rarely, and I really think it only ever happened rarely. The last time I experienced it was Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 - when the plot twist came, the audience went berzerk, and it was awesome! Before that, it was when the cheer went up for "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, Far Away..." at the beginning of Episode I. (Poor bastards - we had no idea what was coming.
). Before that, it was Stephen King's Sleepwalkers. And that was primarily because the movie was so gawdawful that everyone started MSTing it, and no one minded a bit! 
So long as its not just because women are in even skimpier/tighter outfits that the regular universe. It would be interesting to see though is a ship commanded by a female Captain would have male officers going around in just cod-pieces
Double standards, I know but Trek set the precedent, I just want to balance the scales.
Mirror Universe Kira was pretty a dominant female, ordering MU Sisko around.
I agree wholeheartedly. There were times in the early seventies through the eighties in which we applauded the conclusion of the movie, something that probably would be seen as ridiculous today as no performers are on stage. We communally celebrated the event of the film and were glad to experience being surrounded with diverse people who wanted to be together to have that experience.
In many ways, while there are enormous growing opportunities to network and share and celebrate our individual circumstancecs through social media, when polled people describe growing alienation and isolation. What an odd occurance!
The deconstruction of the hero and the saga (from things like Viking myth) have resulted in more and more flawed heroes and finally anti-heroes. There's not enough balance and I think this is partially why Star Trek is becoming less relevant.
If there was a clear chance of commericial success in a new Star Trek television series would any production company hesitate to create one? I doubt it. There are social, economic, artistic, and ideological changes that are making it more difficult to be on television.
I've actually been in theaters where this has happened, a number of times, within the last few years. Maybe the people where you live are just sticks in the mud. (Actually, what's more likely is that the state where I live is behind the times, like it is in most things.)
I think you're fortunate, though I doubt the people in my area are jaded or less demonstrative.
Part of what an experience a "peak experience" is the reaction of others who are also having the experience at the same moment. Think of a roller coaster. Half the fun is hearing the nervousness, the exhileration, the glee from others while realizing that it's impossible to be detached while going around a sharp bend or taking a precipitous drop.
Not every film is going to be given to applause based upon the film itself, though I would think most Star Trek fans are so hardcore that they'd be given to cheering at a good film during and after a film.
I've been delighted in recent years to see a fan production of the show like this one. I can't imagine the costs incurred from doing one:
http://www.youtube.com/user/StarTrekContinues/videos
Let's hope that we don't have only cinema for Star Trek, but something serialized on a more frequent basis.
25th Century.
Klingons would get a bit tiresome pretty quick, IMO. Mirror universe is a little too "niche" for a broad ausience. And the Academy thing would just end up being either a soap opera or an unrealistic thing where instead of being at the academy actually learning, the cadets would be sent off week after week on some sort of contrived "training exercise turns into real-world situation" type adventures.
Klingons would get a bit tiresome pretty quick, IMO. Mirror universe is a little too "niche" for a broad ausience. And the Academy thing would just end up being either a soap opera or an unrealistic thing where instead of being at the academy actually learning, the cadets would be sent off week after week on some sort of contrived "training exercise turns into real-world situation" type adventures.
If it's 25th Century Star Trek, you can bet that you'd see the opposition of some paradigms, the alteration of those models, and some outright iconoclasts of them as well. That's typical in history.
Which means opposition to the Prime Directive, real questioning about the effects of it, as well as surveillance of species.
Television shows try to tie in to the ethos of societal niches, and as a result things like the opposition to surveillance, monitoring of social media, loss of privacy, Big Brotherism, etc would likely appear on the show.
It's entirely plausible for some characters to see the prime directive as a mishappen antiquated model for encountering species, while some may see it as outright evil. Others would cling to it as the foundation upon which Starfleet and the Federation needs to exist.
Think back in history to political and social choices like segregation, seperate but equal, ethnocentrism, considering some sexual identity as inferior or perverse, state religions, etc. We devalue older models over time, discard old ideas, and some folks either vehemently oppose them, or others look upon them neutrally, or others vigorously attempt to maintain the status quo "if it ain't broke...don't fix it...".
An erudite, impassioned, and persuasive revolutionary in some part of the Federation might rally others to his/her cause. It's likely that the Romulans would send aid to foment disorder while they also make peace gestures.
The Federation has never been as militarily powerful as other species. They're so spread thin and lots of Federation races might reconsider their inclusion based upon this movement. In the interim while other species have benefited from shared information, some species may decide the Federation is no longer relevant, or that they might be hampering the success of their species by being a member.
Some revolutionaries (they probably call themselves reformers) might point out the many instances where Starfleet officiers bent the rules, or interpreted the rules, such that the Prime Directive was bypassed. They may see those instances resulting in a more superior outcome.
The deaths of many people within species as a result of noninterference is sure to resonate with the medical profession, as well as humanitarian aid workers, and likely educators.
Disclosure about the Omega molecule, and ignoring or bypassing the Prime Directive may come to light. Someone always talks, and as a starship captain ages, then they are more likely to not be concerned about disclosure. In fact they may oppose that secrecy. This would add fuel to the fire from an entirely different side, and members of Starfleet may begin to also think the Prime Directive needs to be addressed and perhaps reformed.
Which means opposition to the Prime Directive, real questioning about the effects of it, as well as surveillance of species.
Television shows try to tie in to the ethos of societal niches, and as a result things like the opposition to surveillance, monitoring of social media, loss of privacy, Big Brotherism, etc would likely appear on the show.
It's entirely plausible for some characters to see the prime directive as a mishappen antiquated model for encountering species, while some may see it as outright evil. Others would cling to it as the foundation upon which Starfleet and the Federation needs to exist.
Think back in history to political and social choices like segregation, seperate but equal, ethnocentrism, considering some sexual identity as inferior or perverse, state religions, etc. We devalue older models over time, discard old ideas, and some folks either vehemently oppose them, or others look upon them neutrally, or others vigorously attempt to maintain the status quo "if it ain't broke...don't fix it...".
An erudite, impassioned, and persuasive revolutionary in some part of the Federation might rally others to his/her cause. It's likely that the Romulans would send aid to foment disorder while they also make peace gestures.
The Federation has never been as militarily powerful as other species. They're so spread thin and lots of Federation races might reconsider their inclusion based upon this movement. In the interim while other species have benefited from shared information, some species may decide the Federation is no longer relevant, or that they might be hampering the success of their species by being a member.
Some revolutionaries (they probably call themselves reformers) might point out the many instances where Starfleet officiers bent the rules, or interpreted the rules, such that the Prime Directive was bypassed. They may see those instances resulting in a more superior outcome.
The deaths of many people within species as a result of noninterference is sure to resonate with the medical profession, as well as humanitarian aid workers, and likely educators.
Disclosure about the Omega molecule, and ignoring or bypassing the Prime Directive may come to light. Someone always talks, and as a starship captain ages, then they are more likely to not be concerned about disclosure. In fact they may oppose that secrecy. This would add fuel to the fire from an entirely different side, and members of Starfleet may begin to also think the Prime Directive needs to be addressed and perhaps reformed.
Last edited:
No one can fit the old tv show the person in the HQ of CBS don't want to see it to ever come back on to tv no more, the only way it could come back is to keep JJ off of the set. he don't know muck about the OLD TOS, he would do it his way only.
Similar threads
