If the new show is set in the Prime universe...

[JWPlatt]

I don't want old characters showing up just to die...

I really don't want a Star Wars movie that explains that after Jedi everyone had a falling out...

Thank you both. I despise this sort of lazy, low-rent writing. "Need ratings? Need drama? Kill someone! Make them hate each other! On tonight's show a major character will die because we don't have the imagination to do it without snuffing your beloved characters."

But I liked Dennis's point that the masses are not going to tune in to see a retread of TNG or any others. It needs to be different. I think that means excluding the possibility of involving previous Trek characters in the plot of any episode. Passing references to history are okay to provide context. But even that depends on the events of the new series happening during or after what we have seen so far.

 

[BillJ]

Thank you both. I despise this sort of lazy, low-rent writing. "Need ratings? Need drama? Kill someone! Make them hate each other! On tonight's show a major character will die because we don't have the imagination to do it without snuffing your beloved characters."

So you mean shows/movies should be devoid of reality? People die unexpectedly every single day and the Iraqi's didn't get together and sing "Kumbaya" after Saddam fell, they fell into infighting.

 

[BillJ]

It'd be more fun to have it set in the nuTrek universe and occasionally have the actors from the old shows pop in for cameos - I mean, what did Jean Luc Picard wind up doing, in the nuTrek continuum?

And then, random nuTrek recasting: have Denise Crosby show up as Deanna Troi. Better still, have Pamela Lee Anderson show up as Deanna Troi.

We'll call it Star Trek: Watching the World Burn.

It would likely be the most entertaining Star Trek series ever.

 

[Mudd]

Fuck your beloved characters.

Game Of Thrones is so "lazy" that people would kill to know what happens next.

Appropriate, that.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Yeah, not another discussion about killing characters.

To address the original question: I'm assuming you mean prime universe and after Voyager. I mean, the time frame could be set whenever, and that precludes certain characters unless it's a radical reboot or they include time travel / holodeck shenanigans.

So far, there hasn't been a spinoff that didn't pull some character from somewhere else in Trek lore. Whatever version of the universe, expect to see at least a few characters from other Trek throughout. It doesn't matter what we want, that's just how it's likely to be.

 

[JWPlatt]

Thank you both. I despise this sort of lazy, low-rent writing. "Need ratings? Need drama? Kill someone! Make them hate each other! On tonight's show a major character will die because we don't have the imagination to do it without snuffing your beloved characters."

So you mean shows/movies should be devoid of reality? People die unexpectedly every single day and the Iraqi's didn't get together and sing "Kumbaya" after Saddam fell, they fell into infighting.

I'm going to go ahead and invoke Godwin's corollary of extreme generalizations on the word "devoid."

Fuck your beloved characters.

Game Of Thrones is so "lazy" that people would kill to know what happens next.

Appropriate, that.

On Game of Thrones, it's part of the story and not a lazy stunt. I'm enjoying the books and series. Martin is creative and perhaps courageous in his carnage, as was Rowling in letting her story organically "happen" through her and letting some of her characters die even though she loved them.

There's a difference between an organic story that includes death and the forced story that is written around a ratings stunt or lazy writing for a troubled production or weekly TV series that begins with "Let's kill (character)!"

 

[JirinPanthosa]

If the show is in the prime universe I'd hope they focus on the new characters mostly, then maybe after the show finds its own feet, have some cameos as a treat.

Constantly killing main characters when it makes sense as a consequence of their actions works for a show like Game of Thrones and is not at all lazy.

When it's lazy is when it really is just contract driven, done for shock value or a function of character popularity rather than happening as a natural consequence of the story, like some of the Lost deaths.

They probably wouldn't want constant character death in Trek. It's just not its style.

 

[Mudd]

There's a difference between an organic story that includes death and the forced story that is written around a ratings stunt or lazy writing for a troubled production or weekly TV series that begins with "Let's kill (character)!"

Is there really? Tell me more...

 

[Relayer1]

No thank you. If it's set in Prime, I know I would not be interested in hearing what happened to the characters from shows past. I like the idea better of them continuing to have their own adventures forever and ever.

Unless you're Data.
Or Trip.
Or Kirk.

All still having adventures in the novels...

And then, random nuTrek recasting: have Denise Crosby show up as Deanna Troi. Better still, have Pamela Lee Anderson show up as Deanna Troi.

Brian Blessed as Barclay ?

 

[TheSeeker]

I have to admit that in my wildest fanboy dreams we'd see a series set in the post-Nemesis era with a combination of characters from all three of the TNG-era series plus some new characters. Obviously that won't happen and I'm fine with that. I'm just excited that we're actually getting new Star Trek on TV and I'm looking forward to seeing something fresh and different.

 

[BillJ]

I'm going to go ahead and invoke Godwin's corollary of extreme generalizations on the word "devoid."

Nothing extreme about it. Because those things happen every single day in the human experience.

 

[Nightdiamond]

It'd be more fun to have it set in the nuTrek universe and occasionally have the actors from the old shows pop in for cameos - I mean, what did Jean Luc Picard wind up doing, in the nuTrek continuum?

And then, random nuTrek recasting: have Denise Crosby show up as Deanna Troi. Better still, have Pamela Lee Anderson show up as Deanna Troi.

I would actually watch this. It sounds like fun. Do some slightly over the top stuff--it would be different.



Re: Game Of thrones killings; Game's way of doing it was effective, because you often never saw it coming, and it often shocked people.

Trek tended to do the heroic sacrifice thing at the end of the movie/show, which got overdone.

They did it with Trip, Dax, Kirk, Data. They even did it with Kirk in Nu Trek and the audience response was typically "mehh"--it loses its impact after while.

The only ones that seemed to work were Damar, Kor and Tasha Yar.

I'm beginning to wonder if now there's some danger that killing popular characters is starting to get old, because either a lot of shows are now doing it, or it's happening too much.

 

[dub]

No. The horse was beaten for 15 years, shot, buried, dug up, beaten, buried again, and now people are saying that the horse hasn't been beaten enough.

[insert snarky "nope" meme]

What some people are saying is that they enjoyed that era, they actually liked the stories and the characters, in some cases so much so that they wouldn't mind seeing more.

I personally don't care what they do as long as it's compelling television.

IF they do set it in the prime universe, and if it's set in a time period the relative years ahead of the Berman era, then I could see some benefit in bringing back some of the cast/characters occasionally if they work for the stories because it would be exciting for some of the fans (I'm referring here to those of us who don't see that era as a carcass). As long as it doesn't feel forced it works for me. AND as long as they do it in such a way that doesn't make seeing previous Trek a necessity. But sure, I'd absolutely enjoy catching up with some of the characters. Either way, I'm excited to see what they do with the new series!

 

[Rahul]

To answer your question: YES!

But in later seasons. After the new show has been introduced and stands firmly on it's own. If they achieved that, created new and interesting characters, THEN I certainly would enjoy a cameo by someone from the old guard. (though the episode in which they hypothetical appear still has to stand on it's own. It shouldn't be centered around the guest star. He should be the ice'ing on the cake!)

 

[Relayer1]

I personally don't care what they do as long as it's compelling television.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[martok2112]

Indeed, I don't care what television compels me to do as long as it's... oh... wait...

er...

nevah miiiiiind.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There's a difference between an organic story that includes death and the forced story that is written around a ratings stunt or lazy writing for a troubled production or weekly TV series that begins with "Let's kill (character)!"

Is there really? Tell me more...

You really don't think death that derives from the logical result of the story is any different from death that derives from cheap ratings stunts and/or contract duration?

If you consider the death of main characters to be just some arbitrary decision made by the writers, why are you so in favor of it? If a character's death is just arbitrary and not the natural result of the decisions they and other characters made, all they're doing is jettisoning talent for no reason. On Game of Thrones characters didn't die randomly for no reason, they died because they made mistakes or because other characters had something to gain from it.

 

[Kor]

Every few episodes, the ship should be lost with all hands in some dramatic, heart-wrenching space disaster or battle, with a completely new ship and crew taking over their mission in the next episode.

This would also allow format changes, so that a few episodes could be set aboard a ship, a few could be set on a starbase, a few could be set at the Academy, etc., etc.



Kor

 

[BillJ]

You really don't think death that derives from the logical result of the story is any different from death that derives from cheap ratings stunts and/or contract duration?

If you consider the death of main characters to be just some arbitrary decision made by the writers, why are you so in favor of it? If a character's death is just arbitrary and not the natural result of the decisions they and other characters made, all they're doing is jettisoning talent for no reason. On Game of Thrones characters didn't die randomly for no reason, they died because they made mistakes or because other characters had something to gain from it.

Every creative decision is influenced by what is going on outside of the story. It is just the way it has always been on TV and always will be.

 

[Mudd]

There's a difference between an organic story that includes death and the forced story that is written around a ratings stunt or lazy writing for a troubled production or weekly TV series that begins with "Let's kill (character)!"

Is there really? Tell me more...

You really don't think death that derives from the logical result of the story is any different from death that derives from cheap ratings stunts and/or contract duration?

.

No.

I think you'rr playing Captain Obvious while flattering yourself that you're making a point that anyone here doesn't already get.

You know what's pathetic? The Trek format, cliches and old continuity, if treated the way fans insist they should be, would force whoever the writers are to work with one hand tied behind their backs - as their forebears did for years. So then fans launch into under-thought kvetching about stuff like characters dying, trying to tie the other hand.