Seems to me there's no one magic bullet or simple set of instructions to make a new Trek series feasible. There're lots of factors involved, and frankly many give way too much emphasis on surface details or fairly sweeping judgments about the entertainment industry. Fact is, to make a profit a new series has to balance cost and income. Cost is determined essentially by content, income by audience. Cost in Trek cannot help but end up fairly high, because of both special effects and everything needs to be constructed more or less from scratch. After all, when CSI needs a private home set, they simply go out and find one! Now, effects at least in theory can be much cheaper than they once were. The big trick might be to not demand too many effects. Likewise it might behoove producers of a future series to borrow an idea from Babylon 5 and begin with the notion of redressing sets. Likewise, TOS as well as other shows leaned heavily on careful choice of locations. There are plenty of futuristic buildings or outdoors spots that can be used much cheaper than building an alien throne room. In other words, the initial seasons of such a new show should aim small in terms of physical scale. Perhaps focus on a fair number of episodes set aboard ship? Try to do things with a minimum of special effects. Design as few new aliens as one can get away with. For example, consider a TNG ep that involved in effect telepathic rape. They had a whole new species for that one. But what if the perpetrator had been a Vulcan? Saves a bit of design time and cost, with the added benefit of increasing our emotional investment. We have an idea about what Vulcans are like. A Vulcan rapist is inherently dramatic. Which brings up audience, really. How many crime dramas or comedies or other types of shows are introduced each year--on cable, netflix, network t.v. etc.? But which ones tend to become popular, especially for more than a season or two? The ones that engage the audience, for whatever reason. Even with cost-cutting measures in place, a new Trek will need a really good audience to sustain itself. Preferably the sort of intense loyalty that Game of Thrones, House, Doctor Who, The Big Bang Theory, Two Broke Girls and others have managed to engender. The biggest mistake any potential producers could make is try and copy what they think makes those shows so compelling. Imagine for example a show about Captain Stark of the USS Winter, whose family is with him on a deep space mission when he is beheaded on the orders of the insane young monarch of the Seven Stars Empire, who intends to marry one of Captain Stark's daughter (one of his sons meanwhile begins learning to use his full psychic gifts from an ancient Spock, kept alive via Borg tech), while the proper heiress to the throne weds a Klingon Warlord, etc. Oh please. No. As a parody, that has lots of potential. Maybe even half an hour's worth. But for a series...? Instead come up with some characters that are genuinely themselves. You can even use some of the templates of Trek in the past, as long as you just use them as a springboard not a box. "The Outsider" character, for example, began with Spock but generally worked well in Data, in Odo, in The Doctor and even in T'Pol. Frankly I do think too many armchair critics seem to think all those characters to be identical because they fit the same dramatic function--but in fact they remained fundamentally different people. Rather like one person I knew who refused to see WOK because Saavik was so "obviously a replacement Spock" even though in that film at least she was nothing of the kind. But to be sure, simply casing a "type" in and of itself is pretty useless. Audiences don't respond strongly to just a type. They want a real, compelling person--at least that is what seems to develop the most intense loyalty these days. Consider Criminal Minds--a police procedural that in many ways follows the same formula as the old F.B.I. series (in color!). But apart from more adult subject matter, the former is also much more of an ensemble drama, in which the regulars go through individual stories. Marriage, break ups, parenthood, family drama, alcoholism, personal fears, etc. In fact I'd argue that as far as structure goes, Criminal Minds has something to offer potential producers of a Trek series. A group of characters in a hierarchical situation, with an internal dynamic, pursuing some specific tasks that impact them emotionally and echo their own personal issues. Every character pretty much gets some kind of arc, with a series of plot arcs through each season. More, I'd point to Buffy the Vampire Slayer as something similar, except that Joss Whedon took it further. He allowed a lot more ambiguity, moral and otherwise, in exploring situations and character. He also rarely pulled his punch the way CM tends to. More, he violated expectations in some exciting ways. The whole idea of a blonde cheerleader whom monsters were rightfully terrified of--great idea! Likewise look at how the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica treated the idea of a first officer. In other words, I think a new Trek series should aim small in terms of scale, at least at first, in order to keep costs down. Focus on creating compelling characters and interesting stories. It will remain something of a crap shoot, simply because you cannot always predict what audiences will be in the mood for. But this does seem the way to (perhaps) increase the odds of success. [And please--I'm not advocating Star Trek: Profiler or Star Trek: The Vampire Wars or Star Trek: Galactica... )
Good to see you again: Honestly, in terms of forthcoming Trek series, the more I watch Axanar unfold, the more I feel like I'm seeing the production of an unofficial (but tacitly endorsed) pilot / audition for a new Trek series for CBS. Actually quite cost-effective for them because it's a conveniently crowd-funded way to test out the market. So as the future of televised Trek goes I'm increasingly curious as to the "next step" after Axanar that their team has alluded to on a couple of occasions. Clearly they're aiming very high and are aiming to build their credibility to deliver (though who knows if what they have planned "next" is even Trek, necessarily). Prelude has certainly shown off what can be done on a shoestring budget these days with the right people involved, at least effects-wise... and an interesting inversion in the marketplace seems to have taken place with most of the ambitious dramatic content migrating to television.
At its best, Trek focuses on its characters, the issues they are dealing with and the moments that make them change and grow. Yes, the special effects are flashy and explosions pretty to look at, but when they are used too often they just become tired and really don't offer much in the way of substance. A more character driven series is what the PTB should be aiming for, no matter what the set up is. Using character templates helps offer and air of familiarity, but if they are done properly then none of them will feel like previous ones (Spock, Data and Odo all fulfil the role but are all quite different in just how they see the universe and approach things).
Good luck. You deviate slightly from what people think a species/person is and you get a shit storm. There's a good portion of Trek fans who don't have the stomach for change of any kind.
When I first read that I have to admit thinking 'surely a Vulcan wouldn't do that', but I thought about it for a moment and started to see what David.Blue was angling towards, and it started to make me think about what if the Ullians had been Vulcans instead? It would add an interesting new angle to a species we think we know.
I'm not saying it is a good idea or a bad idea, however something shakes out is usually the result of execution of said idea. I was speaking to the fact that many Trek fans scream bloody murder at the slightest change to what they think they know.
I wouldn't automatically have a problem with a Star Trek series with reduced special effects, more time for the actual story.
I would. Most Trek plots are already so paper thin that they require a 'B' plot to fill 42 to 45 minutes. If they are going to do Trek, I expect it to be cutting edge where sets and effects are concerned. Just like every other Trek series.
Reminds me of when WOK came out, and a friend of mind liked it but thought people "talked too much" and "there weren't enough explosions." Well, he didn't want a movie. He wanted a video game. Honestly, the current entertainment industry has created The Strain, Game of Thrones, Penny Dreadful, Mad Men and others like Fringe and Once Upon A Time--the potential for good scripts for Star Trek is there.
It's pure revisionism to say that Trek's main feature wasn't its stories, AFAICS. TOS Trek wasn't especially "cutting edge" in terms of sets and effects for its day, it was just the best that could be managed on a television budget. (The real "cutting edge" was Kubrick in 2001.) TNG and subsequent shows did win Emmies for their effects but were primarily noted for storytelling, and particularly for trying out kinds of stories that Trek hadn't done before. In the age of advanced CGI available for relatively little cost, there's no reason a new Trek series couldn't be just as strong as it needs to be on the effects front; the real attraction is the stories.
No. But I expect Star Trek to be on the cutting edge of effects technology and have great sets. Like it always has. They can't throw those out the window because the other shows you have mentioned have also raised the bar in those areas. Making it on the cheap is the worst thing CBS can do. Television is a visual medium after all.
You can claim revisionism all you want. But, TOS was one of the most expensive shows on the air during its original run. TOS also got a couple of Emmy nominations for their effects work. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek's_awards_and_honors
No doubt true. (Sort of. Land of the Giants is supposed to have been the price / effects records-setter.) Nevertheless the effects and sets were not "cutting edge" for the era. Just for television.
I'm not saying "do bad special effects." I'm saying "special effects are secondary to story and character." And if that is not true, then you're not talking about a good t.v. series.
My apologies. Since we were talking about a TV series, I figured everyone would know I was talking about TV.
On Star Trek, effects and sets aren't secondary to the story and characters. They go hand-in-hand in creating a believable world.
When WOK came out, the Atari 2600 was popular. Not really any good space battle games, at least not that I remember. Pac Man was huge, though. Trek's "just for television" effects were state of the art at the time. No flying hubcaps, no rockets hanging from visible thread. When the show premiered I was just six years old, but it was like nothing I'd ever seen. Kubrick's 2001 came along later, and did raise the bar -- on a "just for movies" budget. But I see your point.
I love it when people don't seem to do any research into television history before making earth-shattering claims. Babylon 5 did not invent this. It has been a staple of television production in every genre, even I Love Lucy did it. TOS did it, TNG did it, as just about every other program in production during the second half of the 20th century. This was done in ENT: Fusion, in its first season, when a non-traditional Vulcan forced a mind-meld on T'Pol. Repercussions from it carried through several episodes.