I don't know if this was mentioned before. But leaving trek TV in the hands of CBS is just a terrible idea if you want Trek to move forward. If you want trek to survive this century, somebody has to buy the rights to Star Trek. Because the future of trek is already here, in the form of Star Trek Continues and, Prelude to Axanar. Why did I say that? Two reasons: One, it's on the internet. That is the future, I don't know about you guys but I'm 23 years old. I do not want to pay for cable, all the good TV is on HBO anyways, or Netflix. Both can be accessed by my PC, laptop, game console, or my mobile device. So why bother paying for cable? I know I'm not the only one in my generation who thinks this. Reason two, The best trek to come out in the recent years has been fan made, and paid for by the fans. In short, the Future of Trek is once again in the hands of the fans. (Oh god, we're doomed!)
I disagree. I think Prelude to Axanar was great as a 15-minute CG showcase with talking heads, but when they come to do their full 90-minute movie I'm not confident of the results. Their plans to cross over with Phase II fill me with dread. Continues and PII are sometimes fun, but it's painfully obvious that it's amateur fanboys playing dress-up. Some of it is enjoyable, some is downright embarrassing.
Exactly the same kind of targswallop we heard so much of before the release of Prelude. They could add Denzel fracking Washington to the cast and we'd be hearing this stuff.
If the story and direction stinks, or he's surrounded by non-actors with speaking roles, Denzel and all the gorgeous CG in the world won't be able to save it. Hey, I'd love to be wrong, and Axanar be at last a Trek fan film on par with the real thing.
Yeah. I say more power to them -- everyone involved is obviously passionate about Trek -- but I can't take any of them seriously.
IMHO, DS9 was an overreaction. I found the cast to be too smarmy and selfish and cynical. Too much brooding and scowling and not enough heart. And we've got so much of that kind of stuff these days that I kind of yearn for the more clear-cut role-model good-guys of yore.
Given what some of them have achieved in a non-profit context on shoestring budgets -- Continues most especially (honestly, hands up everyone who imagined prior to this decade that fan films would ever get that elaborate and proficient, and no cheating) -- it's getting a lot harder to care which fans purport to "take any of them seriously."
Just to clarify my badly-worded sentence above, my first "them" refers to the passionate people involved in these productions and my second "them" refers to the productions themselves, not the people involved in making them.
No, I get that. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that given what fan-films are accomplishing these days -- and given that they are fan films and labours of love* and not $150 million K commercial productions -- the question of who "takes [the productions] seriously" is perhaps not a super-interesting thing that needs to be constantly brought up. For that matter I could live without K-Diddy's habit of constantly using the phrase "fans playing dress-up" as if that thought had never occurred to any of us. Different strokes, maybe, I guess I just find that kind of commentary kind of obnoxious and supercilious and pretty much totally unnecessary. YMMV. * Like, are people really confused about whether they're commercial ventures -- and therefore somehow fair game for this stuff -- because some of them raise money on Kickstarter? I rather hope not.
I don't think that the series is going to have any lasting appeal if they only do one-off movies. Even though I always liked the cerebral episodes the best, it was the ongoing threat of conflict that made me buy the toys and models as a kid. The IDW comics also show that there is a lot of ground that can still be covered with pre-existing canon, whether it is in the TOS era or the TNG/DS9 era. Kids are always going to like the space battles, they're always going to like the Borg, and they're always going to like the original adversaries. A new show in either continuity can get a lot of use out of them. I think there has to be the looming threat of war if not an outright war.
Here here! Adding in character drama does not mean we have to go down the road of everyone being a broody depressed self-centered jerk all the time. In fact I think only having one or two of those types in a cast gives them a certain flair and color. I can't agree with that sentiment, here's why: Star Trek's BIGGEST strength of all was in it's ability to tell a diverse set of stories. TOS did just about everything. It had stories of preventing war, it had character study, it had courtroom drama, comedy, horror, even a few downright goofy stories to shake things up. It did the entire gamut. One of the most trite and limiting things a TREK show could do is limit itself to being about war. The BIGGEST thing a new Trek needs to do is have a sense of direction for the characters. I would say avoid outright arcing the shows plot, but make the character subject to constant changes, big and small. Actions have meaning. Characters have to grapple with things and make decisions. Most importantly... No reset button, and no/minimal Deus Ex Machina. Let the characters do stuff, and be proactive, damnit! Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying turn it into a TV version of TMP. We can have some space battles and do the odd phaser fight on planet-of-the-week... But let's not make that what it's all about all the time. The benefit of a weekly series is you can do a lot of stuff with your 13/24 episode run. There's room to do all of that stuff!
That ridiculously oversimplifies what DS9 was. There were flaws, yes. There was brooding. But there was also sheer joy. Love. Romance. Anger. Peace. Faith. Humor. True friendship. Family. Honor. Loyalty. Humanity. Deception. Humility. Boldness. Depth. Longing. Victory. Defeat. Shades of gray. And a wealth of characters to love or hate as you choose. And, I'm sorry, but DS9 definitely had heart. And I enjoyed TOS for all of that. But guess which other Trek series had all of that? DS9. Plus war. And arcs. And episodic breaks. I think DS9 was Trek at its best, but of course that's totally subjective. In the end, while I do enjoy serials and would love to see a fully serialized Trek, the style isn't as much of a priority as quality writing, casting and directing. The casting is a longterm thing. The writing and directing vary episode to episode. So it really comes down to how much you connect with the characters and stories overall. I connected with all of the Treks to one degree or another. DS9 most of all. To each his own. But saying DS9 is just a bunch of depressing, brooding, smarmy, scowling, self-centered jerks with no heart, especially compared to other Trek series? Sorry, that's just not accurate.
If there is anything I'm in favor of, it's variety! I love science fiction that really makes you think...I'm just not so optimistic about its future in Trek movies. It's kind of an obscure reference, but the video game Super Metroid was really the perfect mix of ambiance and creative design. Yeah it's a video game, but I can't think of too many examples where a world seemed to come so alive. Plus there was a good deal of 'man vs wild' going on there, taken to an extreme by the space suit. Anyway I'm just musing about some cool looking stuff. I like DS9 and Voyager for different reasons, but TOS and TNG were the best. They had the underlying story of a potential/low level war, but it didn't dominate everything. I do think that they could use that to focus a movie and make it entertaining for everyone. A movie has to be focused or you end up with Dune. I love Dune, but how could that ever have succeeded as a film (despite being perfectly cast)? I can only imagine what would happen if someone tried to make a Ringworld movie.
Looked at lists of James Bond movies. From Dr. No (released 1962) to Skyfall (released in 2012) there were about twenty-four Bond movies over a fifty year period. A span comparable to Dr. Who, I believe. There were multiple recastings over the decades, and different directors. Anyway, my point is that it is possible to have a movie franchise that lasts half a century. So if Trek doesn't return to television, at least there is an alternative.
TV tropes referenced what seems to be a nuBSG game. "...Battlestar Galactica set in an AU where a jump accident pre-New Caprica sends both Colonials and Cylons into uncharted space filled with the leftovers of mysterious precursors." The concept shows a boldness/risk taking that I hope will be applied to any new Trek series.
I agree. These points should be considered in relation to any new series. Well, there is one exception-there has been a place in Trek for the big/total war theme, but that has now been done. This theme should be given a rest for a long, long time.
IDK, sounds like a pretty typical scifi concept to me. Mysterious precursors are about as common as sliced bread in space opera.
I think this is the reason I liked the early seasons of DS9 best. Just like Voyager's Borg-"overkill", DS9 got obsessed with depressing war stories in S6/S7. I'm not saying the war-stories were bad. Far from it. There were just too many of them and it got mononotous. I don't think the characters themselves were dark and brooding. At least not in the beginning. In my opinion, Star Trek is is at its best when it doesn't try to be something it's not, namely a long war saga, or an action movie. - Star Trek = "Very Best of SF" short-story anthology. - Star Wars = (slighty overhyped) Young-Adult Fantasy novel. Should a future Trek try something different? Maybe Enterprise S4 showed us the best compromise between the old episodic format and modern serialized series.