Well, there have been a number of high quality shows made recently on AMC, HBO, and Netflix.
How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
Well, there have been a number of high quality shows made recently on AMC, HBO, and Netflix.
My point is that networks loathe to spend money (most people are, too) so when they see they can get results from a cheaply made "reality" show as opposed to having to gamble a lot of money on something genuinely creative I imagine it must take quite a job o persuasion for the network to be convinced, "Hey, trust me, this is goona fly/"
The good stuf currently on television, just as in the past, were likely not seen automatically as slam dunks when first pitched.
I agree. A series based on this might just be the thing to get me to watch TV beyond DVD's again.
This seems like a good opportunity to mention that Michael Taylor, who wrote many of the best DS9 eps ("In the Pale Moonlight," "The Visitor," etc.) is a co-executive producer on AMC's upcoming Revolutionary War spy drama, Turn. So, yeah, there's still plenty of interesting stuff on TV.
(Full disclosure: a friend of mine was also recently cast as a Colonial extra on the show.)
Least essential element of Trek.
People keep saying this but most well written, well made shows go unwatched.
.
It doesn't matter how well written and well made a series is, if it fails to engage it's target audience.
If you think about it, if it is going unwatched, then no it wasn't "well written, well made."
")
Not necessarily. It could have been badly promoted, scheduled poorly, put in the wrong time slot, airing on the wrong network, ahead of its time, or any number of other factors.
Good shows, movies, and books fail sometimes while programs of lesser or equal quality thrive. Not because the audience is stupid or anything, but simply because it's a horse race. Sometimes good stuff finds an audience; sometimes it doesn't.
There's no simple, one-to-one correspondence between quality and popularity. It's an art, not a science, and a lot depends on the roll of the dice . . . ..
If we get more of the same crap that was STID, I don't want a new movie, let alone a new TV show.
As to a TV show in general, it would be nice, but I could take it or leave it. I have every episode made on DVD, so there is enough Star Trek for me to rewatch, to get my trek fix on.
There was a time I once had longed for a miniseries reuniting the Enterprise crew for the Romulan Wars, but now that we are nearly 10 years since the final episode, and that the Drexler/Netflix hubbub has panned out to be nothing, I don't hold out much hope and have gotten used to the idea it will never be made.
As to a TV show in general, it would be nice, but I could take it or leave it. I have every episode made on DVD, so there is enough Star Trek for me to rewatch, to get my trek fix on.
There was a time I once had longed for a miniseries reuniting the Enterprise crew for the Romulan Wars, but now that we are nearly 10 years since the final episode, and that the Drexler/Netflix hubbub has panned out to be nothing, I don't hold out much hope and have gotten used to the idea it will never be made.
No STAR TREK on television is thirst. 'Tis a flower dying in the desert.
I want one, but I don't want it to be as distracting as JJ Trek. I think his Trek has dumbed-down the universe. What I want is a series that takes on the 21st century issues without turning Star Trek into a dystopia. I want vibrant characters (but still earnest), I want explorers, and I want competent individuals.
I would prefer to leave the past in the past. I want something new. I don't want to know that Picard is going to be assimilated by the Borg and I am simply watching to see how they do it differently. Leave all the other re-boots alone.
I want big discoveries. I want to use 21st century knowledge of science in the new series. It's been unshackled from the universe that came before it, so we don't have to worry about whether people have seen any other series. This does not mean that I don't want Gene's vision of good people in the future to be destroyed. Otherwise, Star Trek loses what makes it unique--imagination of what we would find in space, good people exploring the universe together, and offering commentary indirectly on our own society--is lost and I would just be more depressed about the universe than I am right now.
It's been 15 years since I had a series (DS9) that captured the imagination and I enjoyed from Star Trek. I would love to do it again, but not as CSI in space or some other gimmick. I want a rich and layered tapestry where I can get lost, thinking that it's a possible future.
I would prefer to leave the past in the past. I want something new. I don't want to know that Picard is going to be assimilated by the Borg and I am simply watching to see how they do it differently. Leave all the other re-boots alone.
I want big discoveries. I want to use 21st century knowledge of science in the new series. It's been unshackled from the universe that came before it, so we don't have to worry about whether people have seen any other series. This does not mean that I don't want Gene's vision of good people in the future to be destroyed. Otherwise, Star Trek loses what makes it unique--imagination of what we would find in space, good people exploring the universe together, and offering commentary indirectly on our own society--is lost and I would just be more depressed about the universe than I am right now.
It's been 15 years since I had a series (DS9) that captured the imagination and I enjoyed from Star Trek. I would love to do it again, but not as CSI in space or some other gimmick. I want a rich and layered tapestry where I can get lost, thinking that it's a possible future.
I think the Trek that "dumbed down the universe" was TNG. All Romulans suddenly need brow ridges not to confuse the audience? Yuk.
If you want to get back to somewhat familiar Trek and yet excape the shackles of the past you have a few options. One is to set it far enough in the future where you don't feel obligated to make overt references to the past. Another is simply make it a firm rule that you're not going to talk about what happened in the other productions. Just stay away from what was done before as much as possible. This is probably the safest bet while still allowing you creative freedom.
Another route is reboot with a fresh look that offers a nod to what came before but simply doesn't share that previous continuity. This would be the more contentious route, but if your spiritual nods are largely good then you should be able to get away with it.
Another route is reboot with a fresh look that offers a nod to what came before but simply doesn't share that previous continuity. This would be the more contentious route, but if your spiritual nods are largely good then you should be able to get away with it.
If the crowd hated technobabble that much, CSI and House wouldn't have been so successful. There's a difference between just having technobabble and using it is your sole driver of the story.
But if you're not going to use any of the established mythology of the Trek universe why even do a Trek series? Come up with a new Trek-like IP where you can start fresh with your own ideas.
A new series certainly shouldn't focus on the same areas the other Trek series focused on, but if it's not going to take place in the Federation where there are Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans then the name 'Star Trek' would just be for marketing.
Last edited:
Besides technobabble if I had to name one thing that is a creative shackle on Trek is continuity porn. I know there are a lot of fans who love having everyone know each other and everything tied together and hearing call outs and references to previous works, but that stuff is creatively smothering.
Don't do it. Leave that to the realm of fanfic.
Don't do it. Leave that to the realm of fanfic.
But the concept is not the same as the continuity. You can certainly do Star Trek--complete with Vulcans and Klingons and Tribbles--without having to accept every previous episode as "canon" or treating the prior continuity as irrevocable fact. ("Well, according to 'Balance of Terror,' humans first made contact with the Romulans exactly like this . . . .") Same characters, same concepts, transporter beams, warp drives, mind-melds and so on. . . but starting from scratch, continuity-wise.
If you want to delete Pike or Archer from the continuity and make Spock the first captain of the Enterprise, go for it. If you want to reinvent the Klingons or Borg without worrying about what they said in Episode #52 of TNG or Voyager, more power to you.
You can ditch the old continuity and still have it be Star Trek, the same way you reboot Batman or Sherlock Holmes or Planet of the Apes or Battlestar Galactica. As I've written before, Star Trek is not an encyclopedia or trivia contest. The concept is what matters, not the accumulated continuity.
That reminds me. What's Svengoolie showing on the Saturday night monster movie tonight . . . ?
I only want a new series if it's good. Very good. Well done in all regards.
I'm also really reluctant about a new show if it's Abrams-verse based. I'm not an out-and-out hater of the Abrams stuff; I see it as a needed thing. It's brought a huge swath of new fans into Star Trek. Yes, there are some who only watch those films and think that is the whole of things, but for every one of those sad lot I've seen 5 or 6 who then delve into the heart of the franchise and watch the shows and films and truly become fans.
That said, I think the Abrams-verse thus far has been very shallow and failed to live up to Star Trek. I honestly think Enterprise did a better job. But it does have some strengths. It has fairly good actors, great effects, it tries. I just think it fails. So a show based in the Abrams-verse would really scare me...
That said, if they where going to do a new show in the prime verse? And get a good group to do it? And not ignore the whole rest of the franchise? I'd be keen on that.
All in though, I'd rather never have another show than they make a bad show. You know? We've been down that route a bit, lol...
Exception: A Captain Sulu/John Cho show might be neat. Especially if Karl Urban's McCoy transferred with him.
I'm also really reluctant about a new show if it's Abrams-verse based. I'm not an out-and-out hater of the Abrams stuff; I see it as a needed thing. It's brought a huge swath of new fans into Star Trek. Yes, there are some who only watch those films and think that is the whole of things, but for every one of those sad lot I've seen 5 or 6 who then delve into the heart of the franchise and watch the shows and films and truly become fans.
That said, I think the Abrams-verse thus far has been very shallow and failed to live up to Star Trek. I honestly think Enterprise did a better job. But it does have some strengths. It has fairly good actors, great effects, it tries. I just think it fails. So a show based in the Abrams-verse would really scare me...
That said, if they where going to do a new show in the prime verse? And get a good group to do it? And not ignore the whole rest of the franchise? I'd be keen on that.
All in though, I'd rather never have another show than they make a bad show. You know? We've been down that route a bit, lol...
Exception: A Captain Sulu/John Cho show might be neat. Especially if Karl Urban's McCoy transferred with him.
I agree that a reboot that just starts fresh can be creatively viable but then it wouldn't be Star Trek. It would be Star Trek. Just like Nolan Batman is Batman, not Batman. I completely different series with the same name. Nothing wrong with that as it worked out well for Batman and BG. Just, they'd be about as related to each other as different Final Fantasy titles. It could turn out a great show, but the only reason to title it 'Star Trek' and name these aliens 'Klingon' and 'Borg' would be for the free ratings.
It's perfectly possible to have a show in the same universe without having to worry about continuity. Just put your stories in places the existing material wasn't concerned with.
But as I said near the start of the thread, I'd be fine with entrusting the original universe to the fans and starting a fresh IP with new ideas. I just wouldn't want it titled Star Trek. If you have a great idea for a race that is similar to Klingons but changes the Klingons, make your own new race called something other than Klingons.
That reminds me. What's Svengoolie showing on the Saturday night monster movie tonight . . . ?
Series level continuity has become the appeal for me.
I don't like the idea of Trek being regularly rebooted like Batman. I want the continuity.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
