Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[BillJ]

People have complained because of attempting to make it more mature.

More mature? They may as well just turn off the lights as far as I'm concerned.

I think too much of "The Orville" is a comedy, but that's another story.

That is the way it originally was pitched to audiences.

 

[Hellbird]

I'd settle for making it marginally more mature than it has been in the last 10-15 years.

"Numb tongue", "Yum Yum" and "Mecha-boom boom"...bury that shit deep in a sealed container.

 

[The Salt Umpire]

As far as my wanting Ron Moore to head the franchise, he was never at the top. He was an underling. A higher-up underling, but still an underling. He wouldn't be returning to Star Trek in the same capacity as he used to be in, if he were to head the franchise. He'd be running it this time. And he wasn't on the same page as Rick Berman and Branon Braga. That's why he left Voyager after three episodes and why Battlestar Galactica, in a lot of ways, was a direct response to Voyager.

Also, Ron Moore has grown a lot since his Star Trek days. 2020s Ron Moore isn't '90s Ron Moore. He could bring everything he's learned since he left Trek back with him. And anyone who's seen For All Mankind knows he can deliver the goods and wouldn't deliver an inferior product. And he'd actually be able to make Star Trek feel more mature, more adult, and we'd know that a lot of thought would be put into the characterizations and the world-building.

If someone truly "just wants a good story", if that's all that really matters, Ron Moore can deliver it.

Someone who's new could also make good new Star Trek. Then again, they might also make bad new Star Trek. I just don't think having worked on Star Trek before is an automatic disqualifier.

In addition, new writers could work under Ron Moore who could rise up through the ranks.

If someone can make Star Trek good, then it doesn't matter if they worked on it before or not. If someone new can do it good, and I'd like it, I'd be for that too.

Although I suspect I have a very different idea of what would constitute good Star Trek than a lot of other people here. Sometimes I wonder if we're not only not on the same page, but not even on the same book from the same bookshelf. But I wouldn't have it any other way. It's what keeps things interesting. It would pretty boring if we all had the same opinion.

I'll answer my own question from earlier about who might be good to run Star Trek who's never worked on it before: Vince Gilligan. That would be interesting to see.

Those are good words. Future Trek could do well with them. Can he work in a 10 episode a year format?

Ron Moore, Vince Gilligan, it doesn't matter. The hate brigade will come after it regardless. Nothing will please them because they make their money feeding hatred to sheep.

I used to get those suggested to me all the time by YT and after enough 'don't reccomends' YT stopped doing it.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I'd settle for making it marginally more mature than it has been in the last 10-15 years.

"Numb tongue", "Yum Yum" and "Mecha-boom boom"...bury that shit deep in a sealed container.

Just as long as they don't go back to the artificial, wooden pseudo-speak from the BermaTrek era.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Just as long as they don't go back to the artificial, wooden pseudo-speak from the BermaTrek era.

I preferred when their speech patterns wasn't tied to a specific era.

It had a time-less feel.

YMMV, since speech styles are very much a subjective thing.

 

[fireproof78]

Credits to navy beans for sure.

 

[Shawnster]

I prefer when actors enunciate clearly.

Good grief Karim Diané, speak up! Learn to work with the mouth piece or take it out of your mouth. And stop sounding like you're constipated. Prune juice is a warrior's drink.

 

[ChristopherPike]

If you're going to consign Star Trek to the bin, I'd quite like another run around the 22nd Century first...
Blame it for being as the last nail in the coffin again, but do it all the same. It's the only era Paramount+ hasn't properly revisited yet. There might actually be a slim chance they don't ruin an Enterprise follow-up show!

 

[Starflight]

Not familiar with Moore's post-nuBSG stuff, but based on his work on 90s Star Trek and nuBSG, he's basically the exact opposite of what I want in Star Trek. His recurring interest seemed to be writing military/political drama that'd often work in any other show or franchise, frequently with a very flat dialogue register shared across characters.

I don't feel he'd represent much of a break from the Kurtzman era - I'd even suggest his work shares a lot of commonalities with recent Trek. I might be judging him unfairly by his work 20 - 30 years ago, so fair play to him if he writes differently now, but he's already had his shot at Star Trek.

Honestly I think the best future for the franchise would lie with freelancers, or at least a wide mix of writers as TOS had, but I'm sure there's a million reasons that's unviable nowadays.

 

[Campe]

Again, I love Ron Moore. I think his work on DS9, BSG and For All Mankind has been great. I would rather see him unshackled by an existing franchise and doing his own thing.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Again, I love Ron Moore. I think his work on DS9, BSG and For All Mankind has been great. I would rather see him unshackled by an existing franchise and doing his own thing.

Wasn't 'For All Mankind' a original work?

 

[Lord Garth]

Those are good words. Future Trek could do well with them. Can he work in a 10 episode a year format?

I'm not sure which of them you mean, but Ron Moore and Vince Gilligan can both usually do 10 episodes per year-ish. Extenuating circumstances like Covid and the Strikes not withstanding.

Wasn't 'For All Mankind' a original work?

And yes.

 

[Campe]

Wasn't 'For All Mankind' a original work?

I never said it wasn’t. I said I enjoyed his work on it.

 

[Warp Core Breach]

Again, I love Ron Moore. I think his work on DS9, BSG and For All Mankind has been great. I would rather see him unshackled by an existing franchise and doing his own thing.

Yeah, that's just it. I don't think he'd want to take Trek on again, anyway, he's doing just fine on his own.

 

[Mechanoid1]

I can't see the franchise moving forward in any meaningful way. All I see is regression and regurgitation of formula, format and content that caters to studio demands, and if I wanted that I would watch Voyager or Enterprise.

Maybe instead of calling it Star Trek and changing everything it was (pre Disco) Just come up with a new Sci Fi show and name.
That way there is no cannon rules to follow. Complete freedom to explore and expand. No Star Trek legacy to hold the writers back.
Just a thought.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe instead of calling it Star Trek and changing everything it was (pre Disco) Just come up with a new Sci Fi show and name.
That way there is no cannon rules to follow. Complete freedom to explore and expand. No Star Trek legacy to hold the writers back.
Just a thought.

I called it Stargate.

 

[Dar70]

Does it make sense to aim for Star Trek to be "more mature?" Not only has it historically been an all-ages franchise, but big budget adult-oriented sci-fi has struggled financially.

Appealing for all ages is fine as long as it doesn't get completely stupid. Trek was fine until recently. Now it's gotten more juvenile then ever before. Cartoon Crossovers, too many comedy focused episodes and gimmicks like puppets and Musicals. Lighter fare is fine but all out goofy is not what I would expect from Trek. At least not on the scale that we have gotten with SNW and SFA.

I will bring up For All Mankind again. It's one of the best written scifi shows I have seen in literally years. It's smart, great characters and doesn't dumb things down for the viewer. Sure there are a few light movements but they are realistic and well done. The current Trek writers could learn a lot from the writers on FAM. Fam makes current Trek seem childish in comparison.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Cartoon Crossovers, too many comedy focused episodes and gimmicks like puppets and Musicals.

Snobbery is not the way forward.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Cartoon Crossovers, too many comedy focused episodes and gimmicks like puppets and Musicals.

Hey! The cartoon crossover was the best part of SNW season 2! Well, except for the very Star Trek episode with the time travel. And the very serious episode about Dr M'Benga.

But yeah, Star Trek is currently aiming younger than it ever has in order to get new viewers, while throwing the occasional bone to the existing audience to keep them turning up. But a lot of the existing Trek audience started watching the more mature shows as kids and loved them. They don't need to twist Trek into something unrecognisable just to pull in people who aren't interested, when I'm sure there are still young sci-fi fans in the world.

Also I haven't seen that puppet episode yet, but it can fuck off. Is there a puppet episode of For All Mankind? Maybe I should be checking that out.

 

[Farscape One]

As far as my wanting Ron Moore to head the franchise, he was never at the top. He was an underling. A higher-up underling, but still an underling. He wouldn't be returning to Star Trek in the same capacity as he used to be in, if he were to head the franchise. He'd be running it this time. And he wasn't on the same page as Rick Berman and Branon Braga. That's why he left Voyager after three episodes and why Battlestar Galactica, in a lot of ways, was a direct response to Voyager.

Also, Ron Moore has grown a lot since his Star Trek days. 2020s Ron Moore isn't '90s Ron Moore. He could bring everything he's learned since he left Trek back with him. And anyone who's seen For All Mankind knows he can deliver the goods and wouldn't deliver an inferior product. And he'd actually be able to make Star Trek feel more mature, more adult, and we'd know that a lot of thought would be put into the characterizations and the world-building.

If someone truly "just wants a good story", if that's all that really matters, Ron Moore can deliver it.

Someone who's new could also make good new Star Trek. Then again, they might also make bad new Star Trek. I just don't think having worked on Star Trek before is an automatic disqualifier.

In addition, new writers could work under Ron Moore who could rise up through the ranks.

If someone can make Star Trek good, then it doesn't matter if they worked on it before or not. If someone new can do it good, and I'd like it, I'd be for that too.

Although I suspect I have a very different idea of what would constitute good Star Trek than a lot of other people here. Sometimes I wonder if we're not only not on the same page, but not even on the same book from the same bookshelf. But I wouldn't have it any other way. It's what keeps things interesting. It would pretty boring if we all had the same opinion.

I'll answer my own question from earlier about who might be good to run Star Trek who's never worked on it before: Vince Gilligan. That would be interesting to see.

Vince Gilligan is another excellent choice.

He knows sciemce fiction well (THE X-FILES, PLUR1BUS) and is fantastic with worldbuilding and character work (BREAKING BAD).