My hope for the new series

[alpha_leonis]

Posting this in Gen Trek since I make reference to other series.

If this new series can reimagine Star Trek the way that Battlestar Galactica was reimagined, I think it would be a *great* idea. NuBSG took a lot of risks, even switching around the genders and races of some of their main characters -- they got criticized for it at first, but the show ended really well with a lot of excellent reviews.

IMO the problem with Star Trek ever since TNG, possibly the TOS movie time frame as well, is that they never took major risks. Yar was the only character who died and stayed dead, for example (and even then they found ways to bring Denise Crosby back.)

Imagine TNG, for example, if Picard/Locutus had remained assimilated. TOS movies if Spock had stayed dead. DS9 if even the Dax symbiant died and there was never an Ezri. IMO the new Trek series should be open to that kind of risk.

 

[RAMA]

Posting this in Gen Trek since I make reference to other series.

If this new series can reimagine Star Trek the way that Battlestar Galactica was reimagined, I think it would be a *great* idea. NuBSG took a lot of risks, even switching around the genders and races of some of their main characters -- they got criticized for it at first, but the show ended really well with a lot of excellent reviews.

IMO the problem with Star Trek ever since TNG, possibly the TOS movie time frame as well, is that they never took major risks. Yar was the only character who died and stayed dead, for example (and even then they found ways to bring Denise Crosby back.)

Imagine TNG, for example, if Picard/Locutus had remained assimilated. TOS movies if Spock had stayed dead. DS9 if even the Dax symbiant died and there was never an Ezri. IMO the new Trek series should be open to that kind of risk.

One thing they shouldn't do is make ST like NuBSG. The show with the worst TV captain and dumbest bridge crew in history. So dark it made you want to watch it with a gun in your mouth.

RAMA

 

[The Wormhole]

If this new series can reimagine Star Trek the way that Battlestar Galactica was reimagined, I think it would be a *great* idea. NuBSG took a lot of risks, even switching around the genders and races of some of their main characters -- they got criticized for it at first, but the show ended really well with a lot of excellent reviews.

Why does Star Trek need to be re-imagined? The basic core idea of Star Trek being about a starship exploring the great unknown meeting alien friends and enemies, getting into adventures and fights with said friends and enemies is sound enough that it can be done even today in a modern and relevant manner. Yes, some Trek series fell into a formulaic rut, but that's easy to avoid without reimagining anything.

And BSG was never really criticized for its gender swaps. A vocal minority of loudmouthed fanboy idiots took issue with the idea of a female Starbuck, but once rational people with opinions that mattered actually watched the show and realized Katee Sackhoff was a fine actress that stopped.

IMO the problem with Star Trek ever since TNG, possibly the TOS movie time frame as well, is that they never took major risks. Yar was the only character who died and stayed dead, for example (and even then they found ways to bring Denise Crosby back.)

Imagine TNG, for example, if Picard/Locutus had remained assimilated. TOS movies if Spock had stayed dead. DS9 if even the Dax symbiant died and there was never an Ezri. IMO the new Trek series should be open to that kind of risk.

I am sick of this major misconception that just because a show kills its main cast it's automatically good and creates a sense that anything can happen. First of all, even shows like Walking Dead or Game of Thrones which do have high mortality among its main characters always maintain a strictly adhered to pattern of when these characters are removed from the show, so for 80% of the season the cast is safe. Hell, BSG is a show everyone always cites for its bloodbaths, but truth be told, out of the actors listed in the opening credits, the only one killed off ended up returning three episodes later anyway.

And in the end it doesn't matter if the cast can be killed and stay dead or if the cast stays the exact same over the course of the series. In the end, it's how its written that counts. I would rather have a well-written show that keeps its main cast than a poorly written show that rotates through the cast on a regular basis.

 

[T'Arwen]

IMO the problem with Star Trek ever since TNG, possibly the TOS movie time frame as well, is that they never took major risks. Yar was the only character who died and stayed dead, for example (and even then they found ways to bring Denise Crosby back.)

Imagine TNG, for example, if Picard/Locutus had remained assimilated. TOS movies if Spock had stayed dead. DS9 if even the Dax symbiant died and there was never an Ezri. IMO the new Trek series should be open to that kind of risk.

I am sick of this major misconception that just because a show kills its main cast it's automatically good and creates a sense that anything can happen. First of all, even shows like Walking Dead or Game of Thrones which do have high mortality among its main characters always maintain a strictly adhered to pattern of when these characters are removed from the show, so for 80% of the season the cast is safe. Hell, BSG is a show everyone always cites for its bloodbaths, but truth be told, out of the actors listed in the opening credits, the only one killed off ended up returning three episodes later anyway.

And in the end it doesn't matter if the cast can be killed and stay dead or if the cast stays the exact same over the course of the series. In the end, it's how its written that counts. I would rather have a well-written show that keeps its main cast than a poorly written show that rotates through the cast on a regular basis.

Someone over in the TNG forums said this is a reason they liked Trip's death and by extension, TATV. They liked that he stayed dead (though I believe it's a holodeck fantasy). The most jarring thing was when he said it creates a sense of realism when you see someone who dies senselessly since it happens all the time. But for me, it was unrealistic that so few characters cared. The worst part was they had to make Trip and Shran out of character to do it.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Why does Star Trek need to be re-imagined?

Because it got canceled?

I don't know if it has to be some drastic change, but absolutely one of the flaws of all of the Star Trek shows was that there was never any real danger, and never any real stakes. The only time a main character ever died was if the actor wanted to leave, which is pretty lame. That's not to say it should kill off tons of characters, but that the writers shouldn't be afraid to kill off a character if it serves a narrative purpose or creates good drama.

With most Star Trek shows, for the most part you knew that the ship would be intact and the crew OK at the end. If they weren't it wouldn't be much longer before they got a new ship that functioned almost the same or the person was resurrected.

Any new Trek shouldn't be afraid to make changes from its old and outdated format and tropes. It can't be exactly the same as it was. Now is the time for Star Trek to fix a lot of those problems. It's not the time to be playing it safe.

 

[Mudd]

Just reboot Kirk and Spock again, and make the whole thing look like Cameron's Avatar.

Oh, and lose the cell phones and tricorder gadgets. Try to work out where technology might plausibly actually be going, including medical technology.

Stop confusing species that have evolved on planets separated by billions of miles with folks who live in the next neighborhood whose parents came from a different part of the world than yours.

And - oh, forget it. The list is endless.

 

[E-DUB]

Don't make ST like NuBSG, because if you do it isn't ST anymore. ST is positive escapism. "Gee, it sure would be nice if the world were like this." NuBSG is negative escapism. "Boy, their lives really suck, I'm glad I'm not where they are."

Having said that, my hope is that it's marginally better than what I'd find if I turned my tv on to a random channel at a random time.

 

[alpha_leonis]

I don't know if it has to be some drastic change, but absolutely one of the flaws of all of the Star Trek shows was that there was never any real danger, and never any real stakes. The only time a main character ever died was if the actor wanted to leave, which is pretty lame. That's not to say it should kill off tons of characters, but that the writers shouldn't be afraid to kill off a character if it serves a narrative purpose or creates good drama.

With most Star Trek shows, for the most part you knew that the ship would be intact and the crew OK at the end. If they weren't it wouldn't be much longer before they got a new ship that functioned almost the same or the person was resurrected.

Any new Trek shouldn't be afraid to make changes from its old and outdated format and tropes. It can't be exactly the same as it was. Now is the time for Star Trek to fix a lot of those problems. It's not the time to be playing it safe.

Exactly this.

After Picard was rescued from the Borg and de-assimilated, they showed his recovery for just one or two more episodes, and then they dropped it entirely. It wasn't until First Contact a half a decade later that they revealed he'd been having psychological aftereffects all along. Wish we could have seen that before.

When Yar died on TNG (this was long before everybody's uncle was on the internet and her death would have been spoiled months in advance), it literally shocked me. I fully expected, through the memorial scene all the way up to the final credits, that somehow they'd find a way to make a "just kidding, she's all right" scene.

When it didn't happen ... well, it was a sad scene, but great storytelling. I can't think of another time in Star Trek when anything like *that* happened. All the rest of the time they played it safe. Even Spock's death in TWOK was not permanent -- they telegraphed at the end with the coffin on the surface and the Leonard Nimoy voiceover that they would resolve it eventually. We just had to wait two years for that to happen.

 

[Kor]

Someone over in the TNG forums said this is a reason they liked Trip's death and by extension, TATV. They liked that he stayed dead (though I believe it's a holodeck fantasy). The most jarring thing was when he said it creates a sense of realism when you see someone who dies senselessly since it happens all the time.

I think that was me. But I wouldn't say I liked the episode TATV. Not even close.

I just feel that fiction should make us face such serious issues head-on instead of making everything go back to the way it was before, with some big, naive, escapist reset button.

I also think the TOS movies should have ended with TWOK. That would have been a beautiful send-off.

Kor

 

[Ryan8bit]

After Picard was rescued from the Borg and de-assimilated, they showed his recovery for just one or two more episodes, and then they dropped it entirely. It wasn't until First Contact a half a decade later that they revealed he'd been having psychological aftereffects all along. Wish we could have seen that before.

For TV back then, that we had "Family" and "I, Borg" was pretty huge. At least, in contrast to "Hard Time" on DS9. That has to be one of the worst offenders of episodic Trek TV. You can't just traumatize characters and have them reset at the start of next week's episode.

This show will definitely have to focus more on consequences and actual character growth. Because it's on streaming, there really is no excuse to do completely standalone episodes anymore.

 

[Amaraen]

My biggest hope is that at the start of the opening credits, we hear:

"Our Mission: To explore strange new worlds ... "

I really hope that there is no "story" that we are introduced to in the first episode and have to follow. It's nice for there to be story development, like one episode a season. But I hope for the most part they are on a mission of exploration and discovery, and looking at new ways to perceive life and the universe.

Episodes should have an A story and a B story. The A story should focus around the mission, like exploring a new world. The B story is related to individual characters and their development. This is when Star Trek was the best.

I really don't want it to be like a show such as Battle Star Galactica. That show was so boring. Enterprise was pretty stuffy as well, which is why I think it might not have succeeded. It's best when the show doesn't take itself so seriously. This is about aliens in the future, this is obviously silly so just roll with it and have fun.

Please have very limited combat as well. Action can be interesting sometimes as a change of pace, but Star Trek is supposed to be about a peaceful future. This is a story about a group of explorers and scientists, not warriors. This is why everything went downhill after The Next Generation.

And limited technobabble.

 

[Mudd]

It's going to have story serialization, if only to the extent of arcs in which we watch various characters pursue agendas at odds with one another. I guess I could do without a lot of ongoing mystery stuff and certainly without any kind of conspiratorial secret driving the overall proceedings ala the lame proposed Zabel/jms reboot.

The surest way for this show to fail is if it looks and feels like some 1980s version of 1960s TV instead of a 21st century TV drama of the sort that dominate the premium cable and streaming landscape now.

 

[Kor]

I really hope that there is no "story" that we are introduced to in the first episode and have to follow.

That's simply the way contemporary television is. In years past, a continuing story was the mark of cheap soap operas, for the most part. In general, serious on-going television shows, and even sit-coms, were expected to have stand-alone episodes (or once in a while, a special two-parter if the story merited it).

But now fictional shows of all genres, high and low, are expected to have a serial format, whether it's "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," "Mad Men," "Marvel's Agents of Shield," "Grandfathered," or "Scream Queens."

Recently a (presumably youthful) new viewer of TNG basically asked what was wrong with the show, on account of all the episodes being self-contained.

It's too late to turn back.

Kor

 

[T'Girl]

but Star Trek is supposed to be about a peaceful future

The future depicted in Star Trek may be many things, but "peaceful" isn't one of them.

 

[T'Arwen]

Someone over in the TNG forums said this is a reason they liked Trip's death and by extension, TATV. They liked that he stayed dead (though I believe it's a holodeck fantasy). The most jarring thing was when he said it creates a sense of realism when you see someone who dies senselessly since it happens all the time.

I think that was me. But I wouldn't say I liked the episode TATV. Not even close.

I just feel that fiction should make us face such serious issues head-on instead of making everything go back to the way it was before, with some big, naive, escapist reset button.

I also think the TOS movies should have ended with TWOK. That would have been a beautiful send-off.

Kor

It's true you did but that's not the post I'm thinking of. It's this.

Killing Trip was one of the best things ENT did, IMO, not on account of hating Trip (though I wasn't fond of him) but on account of the way it was done -- as the kind of random, unjust death that often ends the stories of famous people in messy old life. But then I think characters dying (and staying dead) without fanfare and Enormous Drama was something that should have happened more in Trek just generally.

That was THE lowlight for most people though this guy said he's as outlier as it gets (he liked TATV). Like I said, the disbelief I had over no one caring about Trip's death except Archer and T'Pol, plus him being out of character outweighs any "realism" his death had. Even Connor Trinneer said Trip's death was forced for shock value. On other forums, some said MASH was the way senseless deaths are supposed to be done (I never watched). Hell, people liked Titanic for Jack's death, which ticked both boxes of random and unjust. What they did to Trip was death for death's sake, which I never felt when I watched Titanic. I will take naive escapist reset button over forced darkness any day.

 

[Kor]

Lt. Col. Henry Blake's (off-screen) death at the end of the third season of M*A*S*H was definitely the kind of stuff that real drama is made of. But plenty of viewers at the time were in an uproar, complaining that it was "cheap".

Kor

 

[Amaraen]

I really hope that there is no "story" that we are introduced to in the first episode and have to follow.

That's simply the way contemporary television is. In years past, a continuing story was the mark of cheap soap operas, for the most part. In general, serious on-going television shows, and even sit-coms, were expected to have stand-alone episodes (or once in a while, a special two-parter if the story merited it).

But now fictional shows of all genres, high and low, are expected to have a serial format, whether it's "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," "Mad Men," "Marvel's Agents of Shield," "Grandfathered," or "Scream Queens."

Recently a (presumably youthful) new viewer of TNG basically asked what was wrong with the show, on account of all the episodes being self-contained.

It's too late to turn back.

Kor

I find that very unfortunate. I do not feel that the "serialized" television show works well for Star Trek. It's hard to be a show about exploration and discovery in a serial.

 

[The Overlord]

I really hope that there is no "story" that we are introduced to in the first episode and have to follow.

That's simply the way contemporary television is. In years past, a continuing story was the mark of cheap soap operas, for the most part. In general, serious on-going television shows, and even sit-coms, were expected to have stand-alone episodes (or once in a while, a special two-parter if the story merited it).

But now fictional shows of all genres, high and low, are expected to have a serial format, whether it's "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," "Mad Men," "Marvel's Agents of Shield," "Grandfathered," or "Scream Queens."

Recently a (presumably youthful) new viewer of TNG basically asked what was wrong with the show, on account of all the episodes being self-contained.

It's too late to turn back.

Kor

I find that very unfortunate. I do not feel that the "serialized" television show works well for Star Trek. It's hard to be a show about exploration and discovery in a serial.

I disagree, the problem with the old Star Trek exploration is it became formulaic: Starship finds planet of the week, solves problem on planet of the week, planet of the week never gets mentioned again. The exploration often didn't seem meaningful after a while, because all the exploration in one episode is not mentioned ever again, build on the exploration, have new planets, star ships and anomalies really matter and get mentioned in more then one episode.

My idea, have a rival power compete with the Federation, starships from this other power are trying to get newly discovered civilizations to join them over the Federation and is trying to get claim new planets to take their resources, all so they can be in a good position to attack the Federation at a future date. Now the federation has to face its foes on a diplomatic level and it actually means something, diplomacy is war through different means sometimes.

Just because the Federation is generally peaceful, doesn't mean their enemies should be. The Villains of this new series should be menacing, not be some wimps.

 

[ItIsGreen]

My idea, have a rival power compete with the Federation, starships from this other power are trying to get newly discovered civilizations to join them over the Federation and is trying to get claim new planets to take their resources, all so they can be in a good position to attack the Federation at a future date.

You're basically describing the Klingons' role in TOS.

I thought the Klingons were great back then - sneaky, conniving, aggressive yet cowardly, on the UFP's doorstep and doing their best to needle and provoke them. I'd love to see them, or another race, fulfilling a similar role in the new show.

 

[Tim Walker]

Lt. Col. Henry Blake's (off-screen) death at the end of the third season of M*A*S*H was definitely the kind of stuff that real drama is made of. But plenty of viewers at the time were in an uproar, complaining that it was "cheap".

Kor

My opinion was that Blake's death was good drama, even if it was off screen