Less-Than-Perfect?

[Bry_Sinclair]

I was just having a muse on what if a new series wasn't focused on the crew of the Enterprise, or the newest ship ouf of dry-dock, or a key starbase on the front? What if it was an older ship, with a less-than-perfect crew, people who had flaws and issues, with a lot of screen time given over to them facing their demons and seeing if they would fight or flee (rather than pulling their phaser on every alien they come across).

Just a thought that came to me. Anyone got any opinions, comments, etc?

 

[Jetfire]

I'd kinda like to see something that takes place in the Star Trek universe...but is about civilians...maybe merchants or civilian explorers...things like Star Fleet and the Federation would be in the background.

 

[T'Girl]

DS9 had a fair amount of civilians, as did Voyager (how else would you describe Seven?).

It sounds BS like you're suggesting a live action version of Futurama.

Which I enjoy.

 

[Dukhat]

I was just having a muse on what if a new series wasn't focused on the crew of the Enterprise, or the newest ship ouf of dry-dock, or a key starbase on the front? What if it was an older ship, with a less-than-perfect crew, people who had flaws and issues, with a lot of screen time given over to them facing their demons and seeing if they would fight or flee (rather than pulling their phaser on every alien they come across).

Just a thought that came to me. Anyone got any opinions, comments, etc?

Sounds like you just described nuBSG, except without the aliens.

Although I will admit that every Trek show sans TOS came with a brand-new ship, and it would have been nice if the hero ship was older and already had some history behind it.

 

[T'Girl]

Strangely delayed double post.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I'd kinda like to see something that takes place in the Star Trek universe...but is about civilians...maybe merchants or civilian explorers...things like Star Fleet and the Federation would be in the background.

I think a Star Trek Civvie series would be great, especially if they went the explorer route, they could break out on old Oberth-Class and have a really good mix of characters.

It sounds BS like you're suggesting a live action version of Futurama.

Which I enjoy.

That would be a helluva good! I'd definately watch it.

Sounds like you just described nuBSG, except without the aliens.

Although I will admit that every Trek show sans TOS came with a brand-new ship, and it would have been nice if the hero ship was older and already had some history behind it.

Oh gods of course there would be aliens! Too many human characters are just dull to watch. Throw in a Vulcan whose lost their emotional control due to an accident, a Bolian with a narcotics problem, maybe a Cardassian/Bajoran hybrid shunned from both societies (why did they kill off Ziyal?). Personal issues and problems don't just affect humans.

As for the hero ship coming with a little maturity to it, I'd love to see her be either a Miranda-, Excelsior- or Ambassador-Class (the first two because they are just iconic classes and the last one because it was so under-used).

 

[MemoryOmicron]

Oh gods of course there would be aliens! Too many human characters are just dull to watch. Throw in a Vulcan whose lost their emotional control due to an accident, a Bolian with a narcotics problem, maybe a Cardassian/Bajoran hybrid shunned from both societies (why did they kill off Ziyal?). Personal issues and problems don't just affect humans.

As for the hero ship coming with a little maturity to it, I'd love to see her be either a Miranda-, Excelsior- or Ambassador-Class (the first two because they are just iconic classes and the last one because it was so under-used).

It sounds to me like you are proposing making a new Star Trek series that is "darker and edgier", Bry. Would this new television series shift toward cynicism while the other Star Trek series up to this point have been mostly optimistic? To spice things up, would this new series also have more sex, profanity, violence in addition to the drug use already mentioned?

Would the starship in this new series be prone to mechanical breakdowns? Is the starship dirty, unreliable, or dangerous?

Although I do love new Battlestar Galactica, would going down the Ronald D Moore/David Eick route retooling Star Trek result in the loss of the core essence that makes a television series Star Trek?

It doesn't seem that this new program would be acceptable viewing for children and would move the Star Trek franchise to mature viewers territory. Making a mature Star Trek television may allow it to break new ground and offer new dramatic possibilities, but is this desirable in the long run? How would you prevent the series from being too dismal, bleak, or cynical?

One of the joys of Star Trek for me is that, for the most part, it is acceptable viewing for the entire family.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

It sounds to me like you are proposing making a new Star Trek series that is "darker and edgier", Bry. Would this new television series shift toward cynicism while the other Star Trek series up to this point have been mostly optimistic?

I would think grittier would be a better description, with well thought out and 'real' characters for actors to get their teeth into and the audience to enjoy--continuity would need to be followed, so that they are believable. It may be darker, but it is only in the dark that we can see the light (translation, it may be more "down to earth", but the core elements of Trek would remain, looking at them from a different perspective but striving to reach them).

To spice things up, would this new series also have more sex, profanity, violence in addition to the drug use already mentioned?

Looking at sex like adults would be an element (maybe a character who is just after physical release without emotional attachment), with acknowledgment that there are different orientations out there (which should be done, no matter what shape the new series takes). Profanity, only when really necessary, it's never been a big thing in previous series so that would remain (maybe the occassional Klingon insult). Violence, again in keeping with what has been previously seen, their not about to start hacking off each others limbs with a butter knife. As for the drug use, that was just an example (in "Valiant", Captain Watters was popping cordafin stimulants, whose to say he is alone?).

Would the starship in this new series be prone to mechanical breakdowns? Is the starship dirty, unreliable, or dangerous?

The ship would meet Starfleet operational requirements, health and safety would need to be met. Though as an older ship she wouldn't have cutting edge technology and won't automatically be equal/superior to what hostile forces they encounter.

Although I do love new Battlestar Galactica, would going down the Ronald D Moore/David Eick route retooling Star Trek result in the loss of the core essence that makes a television series Star Trek?

It depends on what you consider the core elements are? Something like my idea would be a good way of looking at the "human condition", hopefully in a way that made it more real and relevent to the audience. I'm not wanting something that goes against everything Trek is, but maybe a little more realistic (or as realistic as a sci-fi TV series in the 24th century can be).

Again, these are just my thoughts for something I would like to see.

 

[captainkirk]

I personally think that having a perfect crew is optimistic because if everything is perfect then the only direction things can go is down. If it starts where things aren't all that great, then they can get better. I can't relate to the TNG characters like I can with the DS9 ones because they're much more realistic.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I never bought into the idea of a perfect crew because I've yet to see a perfect person in Trek. You can argue that they might be better people in the sense that they're less petty and dog-eat-dog than we are, though. But I think because Trek generally deals with Starfleet officers, we tend to see people more concerned about whatever mission they're dealing with than anything else (while generally making a point to put any personal issues they have aside). A non-Starfleet crew would likely be very different and perhaps more "realistic" to some.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That's pretty much what DS9 was - a crew that wasn't Starfleet's best-and-brightest, stuck out in the ass-end of the universe, who suddenly were thrust into the center of the action by the discovery of a very strategic wormhole right next door to their broke-ass, second-hand Cardassian space station.

So sure, this idea could work great as another series, on a starship this time, as long as you remember 1) even a crew that isn't Starfleet's best-and-brightest is still going to be pretty competent, and not a pack of clowns, and 2) what they're doing needs to be important, so they need some analogue to the wormhole discovery in DS9's premiere that thrusts them into prominence.

A good way to do a grittier, grungier Star Trek is to set it in the 22nd C. That's what I thought they were going for with ENT - to set up a new playground where even Kirk's antics might seem positively prim by comparison.

Instead, we just got the 24th C all over again, with the added insult of an incompetent captain. And when thinking of ways to mess up the characters, Archer is a great example of how not to do it. Giving them flaws is great, but turning them into incompetent clowns just engenders contempt and you lose the audience altogether.

Regardless of the issues they're grappling with - mental illness, drug use, whatever you want to throw at them - the characters must always be as smart and capable as they possibly can be. We've got to see them striving to be better. And looking at nBSG, it's best to avoid depicting them as whiny and self-pitying. The moral of the story is, above all, don't allow the audience to hold your characters in contempt.

 

[A Little Otter]

It sounds like Firefly, which was excellent, if too short lived. I would like to see a more complex crew, since one of the problems I had with both Voyager and Enterprise is that too many of the characters were too bland. Give them some interesting flaws so that we can have fun seeing them overcome these character issues. It doesn't have to be "edgy" but rather deal with humanity in a way that Trek does well.

 

[RandyS]

I was just having a muse on what if a new series wasn't focused on the crew of the Enterprise, or the newest ship ouf of dry-dock, or a key starbase on the front? What if it was an older ship, with a less-than-perfect crew, people who had flaws and issues, with a lot of screen time given over to them facing their demons and seeing if they would fight or flee (rather than pulling their phaser on every alien they come across).

Just a thought that came to me. Anyone got any opinions, comments, etc?

In other words, you want to see the new Battlestar Galactica?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

In other words, you want to see the new Battlestar Galactica?

I've seen and really enjoyed Nu-BSG, just as I did FarScape and Firefly, as they were all Sci-Fi series that had very diverse and interesting character, who had flaws and issues and conflicts, all of which made them far more believable and interesting.

A Little Otter was right, too many characters on VOY and ENT were bland and uninteresting, and neither series took any risks. They just became stagnant and killed the franchise.

The next series should be about the characters, not the "alien of the week" or the resident catsuit-clad "hottie".

 

[MemoryOmicron]

Looking at sex like adults would be an element (maybe a character who is just after physical release without emotional attachment), with acknowledgment that there are different orientations out there (which should be done, no matter what shape the new series takes).

I agree with you, Bry, it is long overdue to have a gay or lesbian human character in Star Trek. If there are families aboard the starship, I would like to see a same-sex human couple raising a family in a new Star Trek series.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The next series should be about the characters, not the "alien of the week" or the resident catsuit-clad "hottie".

I don't think we need to worry. I honestly don't think that approach would survive nowadays anyway. In fact, I don't think any space opera would survive on broadcast, period, and cable doesn't do shows like that for the most part.

SyFy is the most likely to adopt an episodic and formulaic approach, and TNT to some extent, but a space opera on AMC, FX, HBO or Showtime (I can dream) could be amazing.

 

[RandyS]

In other words, you want to see the new Battlestar Galactica?

I've seen and really enjoyed Nu-BSG, just as I did FarScape and Firefly, as they were all Sci-Fi series that had very diverse and interesting character, who had flaws and issues and conflicts, all of which made them far more believable and interesting.

A Little Otter was right, too many characters on VOY and ENT were bland and uninteresting, and neither series took any risks. They just became stagnant and killed the franchise.

The next series should be about the characters, not the "alien of the week" or the resident catsuit-clad "hottie".

Well, I agree with you about the catsuits, but there was nothing wrong with the "Alien of the week" idea. I also agree that there should be more character stories in Star Trek, but if another show is made (and after some of the shit that has passed for TV the last few years, I certainly think we need one, but don't expect one), I hope to hell they don't go the new Galactica route with the never-ending angsty bullshit.

A Star Trek series in the vein of Farscape or Babylon 5 would be good though. Those shows had characters with their "issues", but they also knew how to have fun. THAT's what we need more than anything else. Sci-fi needs the "fun" brought back. Grimness and daddy issues have their place, but they can be (and have been) overdone.

 

[xortex]

I heard sci-fi channel is not doing spacey shows because 1) they're too expensive and 2) the same stories can be told on Earth or other familiar less expensive locations. Am I right. Hey, maybe they'll try the first sci-fi reality show and set some guy's foot on fire. Though there might be other better ideas to that premise. The RHW thing just sounds so generic.

 

[MemoryOmicron]

I guess the television studio and/or the networks want to recoup their money right away during a program's first run. Though syndication sales and home video sales on DVD/Blu-Ray should count for something when determining whether a television program is too expensive to produce. I doubt that the reality television programs produced for SyFy are going to be in syndication for over four decades.

 

[AviTrek]

I heard sci-fi channel is not doing spacey shows because 1) they're too expensive and 2) the same stories can be told on Earth or other familiar less expensive locations. Am I right. Hey, maybe they'll try the first sci-fi reality show and set some guy's foot on fire. Though there might be other better ideas to that premise. The RHW thing just sounds so generic.

You heard? Really? Where did you hear that? Because the President of Sy Fy has explicitly said they're looking for "the next great space opera". They currently have Blood and Chrome in production as a movie/back door pilot. They just announced the RHW space opera. I'm sorry a two sentence description doesn't get the xortex seal of approval. But you can't claim Sy Fy doesn't want to create a space opera just because you don't like descriptions of shows you haven't even seen.