TNG is, in fact, the only post-TOS Trek series that means anything at all to the general audience. If anything can be "safely ignored" in extending Trek into the future it's DS9 and Voyager. That DS9 has a small core of devoted fans is, as Mr. Thorne suggests, ultimately meaningless.
details on Singer's Trek pitch
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
That's sadly true--the days of films with interesting characters and an interesting coherent plot are over for the most part. Studios don't care about those things--all they want are big action sequences and VFX--then they cobble together a "story" to be a springboard for these things. Movies and tv shows are just increasingly superficial. I can accept that reality but I don't have to like it or go along with it.
TWoK was a good movie. TUC was a good film. Trek XI was a mess that falls apart under even the weakest scrutiny. The writers assumed the fast pacing and battles would make one just forget all the plotholes and weak characterization.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUZ42T9diU[/yt]
That's as likely an explanation for the near ubiquity of arrested adolescence as I've heard yet.
He had some very good points, even if it's for a lame Jonas Brothers joke.
But I can't stand the audience at the beginning. WTF??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_p_N-SWG5U
But I can't stand the audience at the beginning. WTF??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_p_N-SWG5U
Last edited:
Dream on. The "general audience" forgot it long ago. That's why Abrams went back to the only part of Trek that actually does still mean anything to the general audience: Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. TNG has no more legs than any of the other spinoff series do. The only way we'd see TNG back is if the roles were recast but those characters just don't have the iconic heft to make it worth anyone's while.
It's far less likely that action movies will stop being for 12 year old boys than it is that Showtime might one day become interested in putting Star Trek back on TV, where there might be some opportunity for greater plot and character depth. There's no economic motive for the former, but some economic motive for the latter. Anyone who is disgruntled with the movies should stop expecting movies to ever give them what they want and start hoping for Star Trek back on TV, where it belongs.
Or that we'd compare it to the average quality of summer action movies and think, "hey that didn't suck too much!"
Actually, I was pondering this last evening. TNG is in national syndication on WGN right now, which should count for something.
Yknow what, he's right.
And the phenomenon he describes is more powerful in movies, which are pitched at a younger market, than TV, which is still pitched at the 18-49 age group, which still skews younger and stupider than the population at large, but not nearly so much. And that is why Star Trek will never be smart again until it is back on TV.A lot of shows loop forever in reruns because they're cheap. I've been enjoying skiffy's ongoing showing of classic Twilight Zone episodes, in infinite loop, but I'd never dream of hoping that means Twilight Zone is due for a big revival.
Not just WGN, but also on many local stations throughout the country too. After TOS-Remastered ran its course in syndication, CBS replaced it with TNG reruns. But even with all that, the SyFy Channel still runs frequent TNG marathons and the show is part of the daily prime-time lineup on BBC America.
Truthfully, though, every Trek series is still available for syndication for those local stations or nationwide networks who want them.
Sad, but true. This can be combatted on TV, but not much can be done for the big screen, certainly not within the confines of a "summer blockbuster."
The only thing I'd change right off the bat is making the new captain a descendant of James Kirk. It's just a little too trite.
Yknow what, he's right.
A lot of shows loop forever in reruns because they're cheap. I've been enjoying skiffy's ongoing showing of classic Twilight Zone episodes, in infinite loop, but I'd never dream of hoping that means Twilight Zone is due for a big revival.
God knows it's been tried, multiple times.
But without Rod Serling, there's not much point.
People know Picard as well as they know Kirk, the costumes and props are a part of pop culture and the show has even gotten its audience interested in science and tech. It really did become the next generation or Trek. Even my mother who knows absolutely nothing about sci fi knows about that guy with the funny glasses. TNG certainly made an impact and has it's place. A TOS reboot was inevitable anyway. That wasn't a surprise, it was just a matter of when it would happen.
Reminds me of this...
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0[/yt]
@ Friday: THE HORROR!
More details from SlashFilm, as well as opening logo:
http://www.slashfilm.com/bryan-singers-star-trek-tv-pitch-details-revealed/
http://www.slashfilm.com/bryan-singers-star-trek-tv-pitch-details-revealed/
@ Star Trek: Federation: 
Exactly so - although I'd quibble that Picard, Data and Worf aren't quite as well-known as Kirk and Spock.
That said, everyone's entitled to be as devoted to their particular fandom as they like - what they aren't entitled to, to borrow an expression, are their own facts. Star Trek, in most of the public's mind, ends with TNG. Producers looking to mine Trek's past who'd base their proposals on anything other than TOS or TNG are just asking for failure.
I've run into people who get the "bald captain" shows mixed up, even though one of them is black and the other is white! (Of course I've also run into people who incredibly enough mix up elements of Star Trek and Star Wars. The mind boggles!)
It's easy to overestimate just how much anyone out there in the real world knows or cares about Star Trek. I think the main reason Kirk and Spock are so well known is that they've been kept alive by parodies - SNL, Futurama, etc. Picard and the gang aren't parodied nearly as often, and are therefore fading from the popular imagination much faster. Nobody bothers to make fun of boring old Picard, but fat Kirk tugging on his tunic to cover his belly while delivering lines in a comically stilted way is evergreen. For good or ill, that will be with us forever.
Here's a bit more news on the actual topic of discussion: Did we dodge a bullet or miss a golden opportunity that we never got to know Alexander Kirk?
And is it mere coincidence that he shares a first name with Worf's son? Maybe he's a descendant of both family trees! In 600 years, anything can happen.
Moral of the story: maybe I should stop wanting Star Trek back on TV "at all costs?"
Alexander Kirk, my Vorta ass...
As for The Scourge, suurrreee, bring them on. But I'd need to see a bit more detail before believing they aren't more of the same: Borg wannabees, warmed-over Klingons or Vidiian style flops.
(Of course I've also run into people who incredibly enough mix up elements of Star Trek and Star Wars. The mind boggles!)It's easy to overestimate just how much anyone out there in the real world knows or cares about Star Trek. I think the main reason Kirk and Spock are so well known is that they've been kept alive by parodies - SNL, Futurama, etc. Picard and the gang aren't parodied nearly as often, and are therefore fading from the popular imagination much faster. Nobody bothers to make fun of boring old Picard, but fat Kirk tugging on his tunic to cover his belly while delivering lines in a comically stilted way is evergreen. For good or ill, that will be with us forever.
Here's a bit more news on the actual topic of discussion: Did we dodge a bullet or miss a golden opportunity that we never got to know Alexander Kirk?
Since Kirk's only son died (damn Klingons!!!) where did this guy come from? MU Kirk probably had a passel of brats. It's easy to envision one of their descendants having a reality-hopping transporter accident. Of course, it's just as likely that Alex was descended from an alternate reality in which Kirk married Edith Keeler and lived happily ever after, for a few years, before the Nazis took over anyway.
And is it mere coincidence that he shares a first name with Worf's son? Maybe he's a descendant of both family trees!
In 600 years, anything can happen.WTF? Humans in Star Trek have never had any problem combining cultural smugness with space exploration. In fact, I'd say that's the single basic element that unites all the series. Singer is way off base there. -1
Oooh, that sounds good. +1
Neither bad nor good, just boring. 0
Intriguing, but probably too complicated. -1
Singer is making this way too complicated! And now he wants to turn the cool Cardies into boring Bajorans? -10!!!
Nobody really wants more Ferengi. -5
Starfleet = NATO??? DIE SINGER DIEEEE! Minus ten billion.
Moral of the story: maybe I should stop wanting Star Trek back on TV "at all costs?"
Alexander Kirk, my Vorta ass...As for The Scourge, suurrreee, bring them on. But I'd need to see a bit more detail before believing they aren't more of the same: Borg wannabees, warmed-over Klingons or Vidiian style flops.
Last edited:
There's a lot I could say here but I won't because it's not going to change minds that are made up. I'll just say this:
1) The blame (or credit) for these things you're debating, starts and ends WELL below Mr. Singer's pay grade. He gave us a mandate and destination. The mandate was "shake things up, make it interesting, make it Star Trek." We did that.
2) The Scourge would have been the most terrifying enemy you've ever seen in the Trek-verse, bar none. Why would we include a BORGish crewman if we didn't have something much scarier in store? There were huge themes underlying this proposal. Nothing was placed there by accident.
3) Naming our captain Kirk was Rob's idea. Naming the computer MAJEL was mine. Rob is a TOS die hard. I am more of a Trek-Franchise lover. Some folks think those are nice nods to the past, others differ. Good. Beyond the name, the two Kirks had nothing in common.
4) we were absolutely not borrowing from, imitating or recycling anything from BSG, any novel you've ever read or from previous pitches for new Trek series. I never read any of the latter, for one thing. Ditto fanfic and fan films. Honestly. Such low expectations and such cynical minds for Trekkies. Boo.
Star Trek is not about nostalgia. Nostalgia is death. our job as TV writers, writers of ANY sort, is not to give you what you want but to give you what you need story-wise. We would have done just that and I stand by every line of the pitch.
Did you guys miss out when it wasn't taken up as a series? You're damned right you did.
1) The blame (or credit) for these things you're debating, starts and ends WELL below Mr. Singer's pay grade. He gave us a mandate and destination. The mandate was "shake things up, make it interesting, make it Star Trek." We did that.
2) The Scourge would have been the most terrifying enemy you've ever seen in the Trek-verse, bar none. Why would we include a BORGish crewman if we didn't have something much scarier in store? There were huge themes underlying this proposal. Nothing was placed there by accident.
3) Naming our captain Kirk was Rob's idea. Naming the computer MAJEL was mine. Rob is a TOS die hard. I am more of a Trek-Franchise lover. Some folks think those are nice nods to the past, others differ. Good. Beyond the name, the two Kirks had nothing in common.
4) we were absolutely not borrowing from, imitating or recycling anything from BSG, any novel you've ever read or from previous pitches for new Trek series. I never read any of the latter, for one thing. Ditto fanfic and fan films. Honestly. Such low expectations and such cynical minds for Trekkies. Boo.
Star Trek is not about nostalgia. Nostalgia is death. our job as TV writers, writers of ANY sort, is not to give you what you want but to give you what you need story-wise. We would have done just that and I stand by every line of the pitch.
Did you guys miss out when it wasn't taken up as a series? You're damned right you did.
^^ I don't like the Kirk idea, but kudos for M.A.J.E.L. I love that. The trick with doing something like Star Trek is is to expand the boundaries without violating the core concept. It's a tough tightrope to walk and it takes both talent and integrity.
It's a good thing they weren't thinking that way when they came up with TNG.
Sorry, it's not Star Trek. One of the red flags is when writers start to focus on the Federation being corrupt, degenerate, blah blah. You see, Star Trek isn't about the Federation - never has been, never will be. It's about the people who patrol beyond the borders of the Federation. The Federation itself is a big boring utopian paradise. The whole point to Star Trek is the people who defend that paradise.
Describe them, then.
Eh, maybe. I flip flop on the issue of whether it's better to see anything with Star Trek slapped on it, even when it's substandard. I may have scoffed at VOY and the first three years of ENT, but if they were on TV now, would I watch them? Yes.
And bitch my head off here every week, too.Overall, that description smacks of people who are overthinking something that doesn't need to be so difficult: put characters on a spaceship and get them going boldly. And including character named Kirk is too fanficc-ish.
But you had the right idea about the Rommies and Vulcans. Focus on what defines them, and combine them into something new and possibly creepier than ever before. Rommies with the discipline of Vulcan logic is creepy.
And you weren't as wildly off base as JMS, either.
Similar threads
