Captain of the next Trek series

[Captain Clark Terrell]

They could... but then the question becomes why? Why try to get the audience to care about new characters when there are already characters people care about in the public consciousness?

My point is that I think creativity and originality are important. Recycling characters that already exist doesn't always have desired effect- on the contrary, it can cause audiences to devalue the characters they once cared about if they're portrayed poorly.

And why continue Berman-Trek, which was simply one variant vision of Star Trek, largely created by other people? Is the point to tell an interesting story in the Star Trek setting, or is simply about maintaining the illusion -- or delusion -- of a larger continuity among all the different Star Trek series and movies -- that Star Trek is somehow real? If the point is the latter, then it quickly becomes, IMO, a geeky-ass waste of time.

It seems to me that anyone who puts Star Trek back on the small-screen would be creating a unique variant of the show. But I don't necessarily think a new series has to fall in line with Rick Berman's idea of what Trek should be. My reason for wanting to see a series that follows up on the events of TNG and DS9 has to do with me wanting to see how events I've already witnessed have impacted the fictional galaxy the people of the twenty fourth century live in.

Do I believe these events and people are real? Of course not. But I like the idea of seeing a process through to conclusion, as there are many loose threads that could be explored in the context of a new series. And as I've said before, I'd also be okay with a series set between 2265-70 if it focused on characters we've met before but don't know as much about. What else was happening in the Federation while Kirk was commanding the five-year mission?

--Sran

 

[Hober Mallow]

They could... but then the question becomes why? Why try to get the audience to care about new characters when there are already characters people care about in the public consciousness?

My point is that I think creativity and originality are important.

Well, if what you want is originality, then why would you want Star Trek? Why wouldn't you want an original production.

Recycling characters that already exist doesn't always have desired effect- on the contrary, it can cause audiences to devalue the characters they once cared about if they're portrayed poorly.

Wouldn't that be equally true of any poorly-portrayed characters, whether original or existing?

My reason for wanting to see a series that follows up on the events of TNG and DS9 has to do with me wanting to see how events I've already witnessed have impacted the fictional galaxy the people of the twenty fourth century live in.

Fair enough, and like I said, I think most people around here probably agree with you. But I don't think the general audience gives a shit about it. Berman-Trek had its day, but that day is over. Just as the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies had their day, and they eventually had to end and make way for new versions of Conan Doyle's character.

Do I believe these events and people are real? Of course not. But I like the idea of seeing a process through to conclusion, as there are many loose threads that could be explored in the context of a new series. And as I've said before, I'd also be okay with a series set between 2265-70 if it focused on characters we've met before but don't know as much about. What else was happening in the Federation while Kirk was commanding the five-year mission?

Personally, I'd like the producer of the next Trek reboot to go back to the source material and realize a lot of what modern Trek fans take for granted had nothing to do with the original series. There's no evidence from TOS that Trek took place in the 23rd Century, so the 2265 setting date can be safely tossed out the airlock. Ron Moore's Klingons didn't yet exist; we could get a totally different kind of Klingon from the ones that developed in the later movies and in TNG. There's plenty of room for an interpretation of Trek vastly different from what we got in the Berman-produced years. The source material should be respected -- the Enterprise and her crew on a mission of exploration -- but all of the details that came in later movies and spinoff series may be dropped.

 

[BillJ]

My point is that I think creativity and originality are important.

Well, if what you want is originality, then why would you want Star Trek? Why wouldn't you want an original production.

This is exactly how I feel. If people truly want something new then they don't want "Star Trek". Any Trek series with "new" characters is going to be playing by the same rules in the same universe as the last fifty-years of Trek productions.

It will end up being a "check-box" series.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

This is exactly how I feel. If people truly want something new then they don't want "Star Trek". Any Trek series with "new" characters is going to be playing by the same rules in the same universe as the last fifty-years of Trek productions.

I've yet to hear anyone explain what's wrong with that. As to why I'd like to see a series that follows TNG-DS9-VOY, it's because I like the idea of following up on story threads and ideas that were briefly introduced or explored during the earlier series. In order to provide an element of freshness, the series could be set in the 2390s or early 2400s in order to allow for enough time passage that nothing aired contradicts existing canon or the novels currently available.

It will end up being a "check-box" series.

Not if it's put together properly and features interesting characters and plotlines. Most fans will accept a series driven by entertaining writing. Might there be problems attracting non-fans who think Star Trek is only Kirk and Spock? Perhaps, but the same thing was said about TNG when it was released.

I don't know. Maybe I see Trek differently because for me, it's a window into a hypothetical future viewed the through the eyes of several groups of people over several decades of time. I don't see it as a story about a single ship and crew, nor have I ever.

--Sran

 

[I am not Spock]

I'd be happy with a television reboot of the original series. I'd also be fine with a show with a new crew. For me, Star Trek is bigger than just TOS. It encompasses all the other shows, too.

I grew up mainly with Berman era Trek. But I recognise TOS as the best series, with DS9 following closely behind.

I can't deny that for the general public, though, not the hardcore fans; Trek IS the original (and TNG as well, to a slightly lesser extent).

 

[jgvinha]

If I was responsible for the rebirth of Star Trek on TV (fortunately for the franchise i'm not) I would do one short 10 episode season or mini-series with a story arc and see how it would go from there.

I believe a serialized story rather than a procedural format would have a better effect on viewers and new audiences, as for the theme I really liked the vanguard novels but I could live with ST2009's Captain Robeau or something set during the Romulan wars that followed Enterprise's ending.

Of course, as you probably guessed by now, I will basically watch anything with Star Trek on the title, so my opinion is what it is, I imagine

 

[AirCommodore]

so why is it that we've never seen an officer who can simply outwit his opponents or negotiate an agreement with nothing but guile and personality alone? No weapons, no equipment, no plan and still come out on top?

That's a description of Kirk.

Exactly. Kirk is the guy who can talk evil, power mad computers into self destructing.

 

[FreedPhotons]

I'd love a Vulcan captain, or at least a Janeway/Picard type of captain. One of the problems I had with ENT, DS9 and TOS is the overly emotional anthropocentrist captain. I'd really like a non-human captain (maybe a hologram? an android?)

I wouldn't mind if he was gay, too, though I'm obviously not holding my breath... (And no it wouldn't mean it would be "all about his sexuality", no more than previous series were all about Sisko's or Archer's heterosexuality...).

 

[AirCommodore]

I'd prefer a female captain. Late 30's to early 40's. Probably human. She could be LGBT. A trans woman would be an interesting take. I would prefer that it was not in any existing timeline. Not Nutrek but not JJTrek either.

 

[BigJake]

I don't see it as a story about a single ship and crew, nor have I ever.

Yeah, me neither. That's precisely its virtue.

I don't see what's wrong with some originality or creativity either. Trek without either isn't Trek, or at least doesn't have the qualities that made the franchise iconic in the first place.

 

[Lord Manitou]

I believe most of the trek captains are gay. Unless your actually considering going all the way with this sucker.
No, seriously, I don't think the gay factor should be increased.

 

[-Brett-]

The central character of a new series will pretty much have to be human. That character doesn't necessarily have to be the captain, but given that most action takes the form of ship-to-ship, making the main character and the captain separate would be a tricky approach.

As for the main character/captain's demographics, I say open casting, and pick the best actor/actress on a purely meritocratic basis.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I believe most of the trek captains are gay. Unless your actually considering going all the way with this sucker.
No, seriously, I don't think the gay factor should be increased.

Aye sir, ahead Gay Factor 5.

 

[T'Girl]

I believe most of the trek captains are gay. Unless your actually considering going all the way with this sucker.

Hey, if they're a gay sucker then ... never mind.

 

[CRM-114]

For me, the Berman-era series have aged poorly. I'm not everyone nor do I profess to be. But we already have six-hundred hours of "other Trek" and less than a hundred of Kirk and Spock. I'm one that thinks the core of Trek needs to be explored again. YMMV.

TOS was my first love in Star Trek, so I can understand where you're coming from in terms of wanting to get back to the ideas and values of that era. I would like to see more of how the rest of the Federation functioned during the twenty third century, as TOS offered only brief glimpses of other ships and crews- both during the TV series and the films.

I wouldn't mind seeing a series set during the five-year mission but would be interested in seeing another crew chronicled in parallel to the adventures the Enterprise was having. Further exploration of the careers of people like Willard Decker, Clark Terrell, Thelin th'Valrass, Morgan Bateson (pre-TNG), and others would interest me. I don't advocate having them all on the same ship (it's not practical), but a series that features a few of them could work.

--Sran

Totally agree with this statement. Trek fans seem to think that the franchise has to push further into the future as if that makes a new series intrinsically better.

When it comes to creativity, what's the crime in making a lateral move?

 

[MacLeod]

There is no reason as to why it couldn't try the anthology route, have a set of new characters each week or every few weeks. It might not work, but it might be different

 

[Sindatur]

There is no reason as to why it couldn't try the anthology route, have a set of new characters each week or every few weeks. It might not work, but it might be different

Sure there's a reason it would be hard to go the Anthology Route.

Sets cost money, if you're changing the setting every week or so, that's an awful lot of money spent on building sets.

Also, Anthologies are hard to sell, because a network wants "bankable" characters for the audience to get attached to and tune in for

Sure, not impossible, but, considering it's already niche being Space Opera, this adds two more pretty big hurdles and the Analyses the Network does on expected return, versus investment, makes it a very hard sell indeed, as you would need to expect phenomenal ratings.

 

[The Doctor]

.

I don't know. Maybe I see Trek differently because for me, it's a window into a hypothetical future viewed the through the eyes of several groups of people over several decades of time. I don't see it as a story about a single ship and crew, nor have I ever.

--Sran

If it even remotely hung together as some sort of cohesive narrative, I'd agree.

But it doesn't. Trek is an incoherent mishmash of conflicting events and is lacking in even the most basic consistency. So continuing the 'prime' universe, no matter well intentioned, is building on a house of extremely boring cards.

What Trek got right so many years ago were the characters. The show got thousands of letters because people identified with the alienation embodied by Spock. They admired the decisive captain and the curmudgeonly doctor. Trek is Kirk, Spock and (sometimes) McCoy. That's why the new films have worked so well, because they adhere to that idea.

This doesn't mean that a Trek show about some other crew couldn't work. I'm just far less interested in it than a series about he five year mission aboard the Enterprise. I suspect that, from a commercial point of view, there isn't a big enough audience for a Trek spinoff television show. I'm not even convinced there's enough audience to sustain a show about Kirk and Spock but it seems a far better bet than the alternative.

Above all else, Trek needs to be about the people, not the setting. Nobody cares about the Federation or the geo-politics of the galaxy but they do want to see what scrapes Kirk got himself into this time.

 

[BigJake]

The Stig is right about Trek needing to get the characters right. But I've said this before and I'll say it again: the notion that "Trek is Kirk, Spock and (sometimes) McCoy" does not wash. Their presence or lack of it does not make it more or less a safer bet, period.

Leaving aside the fact that by far the most successful Trek show in the franchise's history was TNG, which did not feature Kirk, Spock and Bones... even bracketing that out, ironically enough, NuTrek itself is a data point here: it really contains "Kirk" and "Spock" in name only, with the core elements of the characters completely changed and "Kirk" rendered as closer to a frat boy than a great leader of men, and it rounds out the triumvirate with Uhura (McCoy is a minor character by comparison). Audiences came out to see it anyway, because most audiences -- even most Trekkies -- don't particularly give a shit about defining Trek as all about Kirk, Spock and Bones. They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.

 

[The Doctor]

The Stig is right about Trek needing to get the characters right. But I've said this before and I'll say it again: the notion that "Trek is Kirk, Spock and (sometimes) McCoy" does not wash. Their presence or lack of it does not make it more or less a safer bet, period.

You're wrong about that. Having Kirk and Spock in the new films gave it the hook it needed to gain audience attention.

Leaving aside the fact that by far the most successful Trek show in the franchise's history was TNG,

Successful and largely forgotten in the public eye. Picard and Data have not endured, twenty years on, the way that Kirk and Spock have over the past fifty.

which did not feature Kirk, Spock and Bones... even bracketing that out, ironically enough, NuTrek itself is a data point here: it really contains "Kirk" and "Spock" in name only, with the core elements of the characters completely changed and "Kirk" rendered as closer to a frat boy than a great leader of men,

That's not at all true and betrays an extremely shallow viewing of the two films. Both characters are different due to circumstances but retain much of what made them so compelling. Spock's internal conflict is amplified by the extreme circumstances of the first film. Kirk still displays that potent mixture of bravado and cunning that made him such a great captain, while still learning what it is to truly lead men. We're seeing them young, not fully formed, and there is a clear through line from the new films to the Kirk and Spock we saw fifty years ago.

and it rounds out the triumvirate with Uhura (McCoy is a minor character by comparison). Audiences came out to see it anyway, because most audiences -- even most Trekkies -- don't particularly give a shit about defining Trek as all about Kirk, Spock and Bones. They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.

If that was even remotely true, Serenity would have been a monster hit.

In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first. Audiences have responded to these new incarnations of Kirk and Spock, and quite strongly at that. Would I personally like McCoy to play a bigger role? Sure. That said, he was a pivotal part of STiD, far moreso than he was in many of the TOS films. I'm quite happy with the expanded role for Uhura and look forward to even more in the next installment.