My view on a new Trek series.

[RAMA]

I actually do remember someone saying something almost exactly like that at a Trek convention about TNG even before the series was cast. He didn't think an all-new Star Trek TV series could ever work.

There's just a world of difference in where Trek was at in 1987 and where it's at in 2013.

It's not that it 'can't' work, it just has a tougher road to success than TNG. IMO.

Other side of the coin: TV doesnt get high ratings anymore period. A show can be a success with 5 million viewers now. Even lower viewership numbers might support streaming content, the end result is the same...new ST show.

TNG was the most popular show...

I think that's debatable. It had more viewers in first run but struggled in strip syndication and at the theater in comparison to TOS.

And TOS is more broadly known among the general population.

STNG was a huge success in syndication and an even bigger one on various cable channels, selling for the 100s of millions of dollars each time (the original stripping rights were in the $100 million+ range), its no surprise the overall life in syndication was shorter though, TOS had little competition channel and genre-wise, which cannot be said for post STNG syndication and cable airings.

STNG also gets strong ratings for the cable channels it has aired on(I've posted links on this before) and originally sold for $300 million in it's first network outing. I was surprised to see it still airing on BBC America recently. On Netflix it is described as a "popular" series, located in that category. Both added to Paramount/CBS' coffers.

RAMA

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No thanks. Trek doesn't need more dabblers who will make cosmetic changes and rehash the old material...

It "needs" producers like Abrams a great deal more than it "needs" fans who complain when it becomes successful by some means they disapprove of.

 

[Infern0]

Abrams did fine with the movie, but I don't think a new trek show "needs" him or "needs" to be like his movies, TNG was different to the TOS movies it was alongside.

Star Trek 11 is an action movie basically, any new series does not "need" to be like that, game of thrones is the most popular genre show right now and has a very healthy amount of story and character development, two things star trek 11 was short on and two things any new trek should aim to have

 

[Nerys Myk]

No thanks. Trek doesn't need more dabblers who will make cosmetic changes and rehash the old material...

You've just described everyone who's produced Star Trek from Roddenberry on TNG to Abrams. Yes, that does include the sainted DS9.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Any new series may have Trek's background as a hindrance. I would gloss over Trek's continuity if it's in the old timeline and set the show in the 25th century. Familiarity but new, that is key...

It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.

The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.

Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.

 

[NightJim]

I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity. DS9 used it to it's favour, but eventually you start to get diminishing returns because old fans might start to drift if they don't gel with the new direction, while for new fans it's too dense to get into. To make a new show work it really would need another time jump just to set itself free., and only have what came before being tangentially referenced. Cool nods to existing fans, but nothing that gets in the way of watching.

Something like the Brian Singer pitch that never got made is a perfect example.

 

[AviTrek]

It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.

The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.

Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.

The problem are the fans that love canon-porn and think that is the only way to tell a story. See the early criticisms of ENT and the love affair with season 4 as perfect examples. People seem to forget TNG was supposed to be a loose reboot of TOS. After the cameo in farpoint there were minimal references to TOS, and Rodenberry freely ignored and changed whatever he didn't like about TOS.

 

[BillJ]

I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity.

But where does that leave the technology on the show at?

 

[C.E. Evans]

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.

Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.

The problem are the fans that love canon-porn and think that is the only way to tell a story.

It's a universal fact that no Trek series or film will please everyone.

I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity.

But where does that leave the technology on the show at?

It depends solely on what the new creators, producers, and writers want to do with it. I could see such a group taking a Star Trek XI approach to it in that they don't spend a whole lot of time explaining it with technobabble (the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" method). Warp drive, phasers, transporters, and some sort of torpedo system is all a Trek series really needs. They could just say it's all more powerful or advanced than the stuff a century ago and leave it at that.

 

[Loci2378]

If it was up to me (it obviously never will be), new Trek would:

1. Take place in the old continuity.
2 reasons:
- there's a lot more background to draw from.
- personal preference.

2. Keep being relaxed about "proper military procedure".
As far as I'm concerned, people that agonise over a poor "at ease" stance or whatever are completely missing the point of Trek.

3. Resolve canonicity on a case-per-case basis: maybe ToS is authoritative on X; but TNG/DS9/VOY on Y and ENT on Z, depending on many factors; but we have to be willing to accept some things won't make sense in the past series.
Example: most "maps" of the galaxy place most of the Federation, most of the Klingon Empire and all the Romulan Empire in the Beta quadrant despite most series (especially DS9&VOY) calling them "powers of alpha quadrant" or talking of "the fate of the alpha quadrant" or "going back to the alpha quadrant"... the new series would use completely different maps.

Once canonicity has been decided, stick to it for the whole run.

4. Now for the interesting stuff: focus on the Federation/alpha quadrant as a whole, not a specific Ship.
Instead of having a regular cast of immortal (plot armour) idealised heroes, the series would span a lot of characters, some dying quickly, some behaving in a less-than-perfect fashion, some manage to beat the odds once but become background characters afterwards, some perform vital but understated roles,... you can have many potential stories in such a setting, be they one-shots about a "back office" character or geopolitics or true exploration of a new sector or resolving a tense situation through diplomacy (or failing to!)...

Such an approach can work and can be successful, as GoT showed (though this would go further).
Pro: Many clichés avoided, stronger storytelling.
Con: Viewers don't get as attached to characters as they otherwise would.

5. Build an actual (abstract) galaxy.
What do I mean? Simple: decide early on what star system is where (in relation to X reference point); where FED/KDF/ROM/other Ships are in the galaxy, what's their mission and capacities, who's their commanding officer and so on.
Not all of that info has to appear onscreen; but it would help in having a consistent world.
No Deus Ex Machinae of X Ship saving the heroes on (at?) the nick of time, you know in advance if a Ship is within range or not; no sudden appearance of a full hostile fleet unless it was pre-planned, same for random nebulae... basically, this approach constricts the writers somewhat, but once again, it prevents a lot of clichés.
Especially if geopolitics/war is important to the setting.

There could still be spontaneous elements, so long as they made sense within the overal setting.


Will it happen? No. Still nice to theorise.
So, what'd you think 'bout my "ambitious but rubbish" concept?

I always prefer the "old" continuity, but unfortunately it isn't realistic.

I think it will be in the new JJ-Universe, produced by him and features the Original crew, but only after the three feature films are finished (and are in financial terms sucessful).

Better a JJ-Universe Series than no new Series.

 

[Loci2378]

I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity. DS9 used it to it's favour, but eventually you start to get diminishing returns because old fans might start to drift if they don't gel with the new direction, while for new fans it's too dense to get into. To make a new show work it really would need another time jump just to set itself free., and only have what came before being tangentially referenced. Cool nods to existing fans, but nothing that gets in the way of watching.

Something like the Brian Singer pitch that never got made is a perfect example.

That could be a nice way to Start, when they use the "old" universe. The step forward could be in the 29th century, featuring nice time episodes (as we see on Voyager).

 

[RAMA]

I agree with C.E. A jump in time is what really worked for TNG, it allowed it to not be beholden to that continuity.

But where does that leave the technology on the show at?

If they are aware, clever, and creative enough they will include elements of this:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6288160&postcount=94

For good measure why it should be so:

http://io9.com/5906586/why-star-treks-vision-of-the-future-is-out-of-date?tag=star-trek

Good plots,casting, etc are a given, I'm talking about realistic world building.

RAMA

 

[F. King Daniel]

It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.

The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.

Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.

Continuity is much more than what happened before - it's the details of the settings and universe too. And that's already as overburdened in Trek as it gets. Does Vulcan have a moon? How many genders do Andorians have? Why can't they use solution-of-the-week X again in episode Y? What happened to wide beam settings on phasers? A fresh start should rid us of all that.

...although it didn't for Smallville, which was explicitly separate from the Superman comics and movies, yet got reamed online whenever it diverged from them, so maybe continuity nuts are going to freak over every little thing either way

 

[C.E. Evans]

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.

Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.

Continuity is much more than what happened before - it's the details of the settings and universe too. And that's already as overburdened in Trek as it gets. Does Vulcan have a moon? How many genders do Andorians have? Why can't they use solution-of-the-week X again in episode Y? What happened to wide beam settings on phasers?

That's tripping over the details, a sign of bad writing. In that sense, it won't matter if a continuity has 700 or 7 episodes if a writer can't use it effectively (i.e., either sparingly or as a basis for a new story).

A fresh start should rid us of all that.

Not really. Because with just the second episode, you have continuity again. Continuity can really just be boiled down to merely a history of previous events, and unless the series is a prequel to something, it really should only be touched upon only once in a blue moon to give that fictional universe and its characters some sense of depth and dimension.

 

[Loci2378]

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.

Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.

Continuity is much more than what happened before - it's the details of the settings and universe too. And that's already as overburdened in Trek as it gets. Does Vulcan have a moon? How many genders do Andorians have? Why can't they use solution-of-the-week X again in episode Y? What happened to wide beam settings on phasers? A fresh start should rid us of all that.

...although it didn't for Smallville, which was explicitly separate from the Superman comics and movies, yet got reamed online whenever it diverged from them, so maybe continuity nuts are going to freak over every little thing either way

Continuity wasn't the big thing all over the Star Trek Series, because with this very rich universe of Episodes, Movies and Books you cannot have full control of all. There was and will be mistakes...actually in the JJ-Universe of Star Trek. Some errors can be explained with science, some errors will not be explained at all and only be tolerated.

Just live with it, just we all did over the past nearly 5 decades. IF there were a new Star Trek Series, the producers will don't change Star Trek at all. All we hope is, there will be great stories, great actors and great quality.

 

[NightJim]

I always prefer the "old" continuity, but unfortunately it isn't realistic.

I think it will be in the new JJ-Universe, produced by him and features the Original crew, but only after the three feature films are finished (and are in financial terms sucessful).

Better a JJ-Universe Series than no new Series.

No way would we ever get that cast on a regular series. But you are right, if they were to do a show, it's much more likely to be JJ-verse then Prime.

Probably a new ship, with maybe the occasional guest star. I nearly wrote a new crew on the Enterprise, but I think the execs would nix that on the hope of maybe getting another movie out of them. Or maybe JJ-TNG.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I always prefer the "old" continuity, but unfortunately it isn't realistic.

I think it will be in the new JJ-Universe, produced by him and features the Original crew, but only after the three feature films are finished (and are in financial terms sucessful).

Better a JJ-Universe Series than no new Series.

No way would we ever get that cast on a regular series. But you are right, if they were to do a show, it's much more likely to be JJ-verse then Prime.

I think a series set in the Abramsverse universe becomes more likely if Star Trek XIII is the last movie set in that continuity. I don't think we'll ever see both a movie and a TV series simultaneously in the same timeframe again like we did from '94 to '98. I don't think neither CBS or Paramount want to go that route.

 

[Dix]

I would completely ignore Abramsverse when making a new Trek series. It's sort of a mirror universe anyway. But I agree with the previous comment. I don't think a new series will come while the movies are being made. The probability for a new live action Trek series in the next 5-7 years is very small, I think.