New Series-Fewer Regulars

[Knight Templar]

I think that a new Star Trek series would benefit by having fewer regular characters. The original series had three series had only three. But, ST:TNG had eight (later seven) and IIRC both DS9 and Voyager had eight regulars consistently.

I would limit it to five. Why?

1) I think having so many regulars bogs down storytelling. Writers either have to fine something to do for all the characters in a script, or the show spends a third of each season with episodes focused on servicing the individual characters. This should be streamlined.

2) Leaving the regulars lower would allow more room in the stories for guest stars and regular recurring characters, allowing the writers to experiment with different character types and different crew chemistries.

 

[SchwEnt]

That's interesting.

TOS had the three stars in the opening credits.
By the time of the movies in the 80s, it became accepted that the cast of TOS included the seven actors.

TNG came around, and again it ended up with about seven cast members. Every subsequent series has repeated that figure, around seven or eight cast members.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but why does it seem that particular formula had to repeat four times over? No one wanted to change it up for any of the other series?

Okay VOY ended up like TOS with the Big Three.
And DS9 had so many great characters that many of the secondary roles equaled or surpassed the main characters.

It could or would be interesting to change it up.
Having a ST with maybe two main actors and the rest all supporting cast. Or an anthology with no regular set number of actors. Something different from the usual "group of seven" cast.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

There's no reason why a large cast needs to bog down the storytelling. Cable series do it all the time. You can switch focus between various characters in each episode for instance. Or, you could have a series that's a character study of a strong central character, with a large number of secondary cast members.

Don't assume that any of the old format - seven cast members, action focused on a ship or station, etc - is going to be carried forward. Previous series had to be shaped to the expectations of mass-market broadcast TV, but Star Trek won't even fit into that style again, since it's now retrenching outside the range of niche genres like space opera, with mass genres like cop shows and sitcoms as the last defense (just look at CBS' lineup to see what I mean).

The only place it can survive now is on cable, or under the auspices of some sort of subscription service like Netflix. The expectations there would be entirely different.

If you're making a series for Netflix, each episode doesn't need to be 42 minutes leaving space for ads. Each episode could be two hours, like a movie. Or just make the whole season and release it at once, with the audience deciding how long they want to watch at a time.

A single series could have, say, three independent storylines that only sometimes intersect. There could be three major characters in each storyline, and the episodes rotate between focusing on the story. Maybe people who only like one of the storylines can just watch that story. If they become intrigued by another, they watch it afterwards. Other people watch the episodes in the A-B-C rotating format.

That's the kind of flexibility we should be able to expect in the future. I'm sure there are all sorts of formats that would be more fruitful storytelling opportunities as opposed to the broadcast straightjacket that Star Trek has been forced into in the past.

And that's not even getting into tone - without the FCC to worry about, the content could be much more mature.

 

[Admiral2]

I think that a new Star Trek series would benefit by having fewer regular characters. The original series had three series had only three. But, ST:TNG had eight (later seven) and IIRC both DS9 and Voyager had eight regulars consistently.

I would limit it to five. Why?

1) I think having so many regulars bogs down storytelling. Writers either have to fine something to do for all the characters in a script, or the show spends a third of each season with episodes focused on servicing the individual characters. This should be streamlined.

2) Leaving the regulars lower would allow more room in the stories for guest stars and regular recurring characters, allowing the writers to experiment with different character types and different crew chemistries.

You're absolutely right. Nothing more for me to say.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

So long as the core main cast are well executed, and the supporting characters are well thought up and given substance (ie not another Travis Mayweather), I don't have a problem with it.

It was another thing DS9 was excellent at, having a diverse array of guest stars to bring in when needed, some of whom always stole the show from the main cast.

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, the one position that really doesn't ever need to be a regular is that of the helmsman. TNG tried it with LaForge, Wesley, and Ro but then eventually just had day players fill the position and it really didn't hurt the series.

While I liked Anthony Montgomery as Mayweather in ENT, his character really didn't have a lot to do since being a helmsman was all his character wound up being (the majority of his lines were simply "Yes, sir" or "Aye, sir"). Paris fared much better in VOY because they gave him many other things to do than just being a helmsman. To a very lesser extent, this also ultimately became true with Chekov and Sulu mainly during the TOS movies.

But in a real sense, what makes a character either important or unnecessary is how the writers feel about the character and how integral they think it is to the overall series. If a character is designed to simply fill a position and be little more than window dressing, then it's not much of a main character, IMO.

 

[MacLeod]

I think that a new Star Trek series would benefit by having fewer regular characters. The original series had three series had only three. But, ST:TNG had eight (later seven) and IIRC both DS9 and Voyager had eight regulars consistently.

I would limit it to five. Why?

1) I think having so many regulars bogs down storytelling. Writers either have to fine something to do for all the characters in a script, or the show spends a third of each season with episodes focused on servicing the individual characters. This should be streamlined.

2) Leaving the regulars lower would allow more room in the stories for guest stars and regular recurring characters, allowing the writers to experiment with different character types and different crew chemistries.

But DSN had a large secondary cast who had development as good if not better than some of gthe regulars. So it's not so much a smaller cast they need to work on. It's more devloping good characters.

Though if you want a smaller cast I would say the positions you need

Captain
First Officer
Chief Engineer
Chief Scientist

You can have a different helmsan every week, as for the CMO that could be regulated to recurring.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

So long as the characters are well conceived, written, cast and acted, they could be the Chief Sanitation Officer, so long as they were interesting and compelling.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One who the series is about, and as many or as few as needed to be important co-stars. They can come and go. Like BTVS - everybody loved different characters on that show, but what Buffy was going to do and what was going to happen to her drove the series.

 

[Sjaddix]

I see no problem with 8. DS9 has 8 and still developed plenty of supporting characters more then TNG developed some main characters.

 

[Ezri D]

Deep Space 9 had so many important characters that nobody talked about how many were important and was not important. Still, since it is the 21 century, the next Star Trek should be in the year 2410 plus. Do not think we want to be like TOS with 3 primary characters. The fans want more, as people like to be different and want more spice in their life then just a few characters.

 

[Sjaddix]

BSG - certainly had lots of characters. I mean their teaser poster had to have at least a dozen on them.

 

[C.E. Evans]

BSG was written like a soap opera--but with spaceships. The characters and their interpersonal relationships & struggles were often the source of stories more so than some adventure-based plot.

 

[Sjaddix]

True but that is because the adventure plot was repetive. It was fire a few shots and the Cylons then run while searching for a planet.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Ironically, the original BSG did more with the adventure plot by having them encounter other worlds and civilizations along the way (Humans and Cylons weren't the only ones in that universe).

 

[Knight Templar]

Ironically, the original BSG did more with the adventure plot by having them encounter other worlds and civilizations along the way (Humans and Cylons weren't the only ones in that universe).

I agree. And I think original BSG was really starting to get the hang of it by the end of the season(series) when the plugged got pulled.

Though to be fair, original Battlestar: Galactica was not pulled of the air because of ratings. It was mainly a problem with costs and a dispute between Universal and ABC about how much ABC was willing to pay for the series.

Someone once said that ABC had gotten spoiled, getting rich off the Gary Marshall comedies and when "Mork & Mindy" (a Happy Days spinoff) came out, several ABC execs were exclaiming "That is how you do science fiction!!"

 

[Xhiandra]

There's no reason why a large cast needs to bog down the storytelling. Cable series do it all the time. You can switch focus between various characters in each episode for instance. Or, you could have a series that's a character study of a strong central character, with a large number of secondary cast members.

Agreed. As a matter of fact, it could be interesting to see a Trek show with a very large cast as it was done in The Wire or Game of Thrones and following a continuous story rather than episodic events.

 

[bbailey861]

I also think this would work and from a TV producer's perspective, it would be better for the bottom line as well, come contract time.

 

[peteym5]

Going with 5 to 6 regular characters plus 5 to 10 recurring be more ideal. Give the older characters plausible background story right from the start. TNG and DS9 was more popular with the fans. Having recurring arch enemies may help. JJ Abrams did wipe the Star Trek slate clean for the original series era.

Any network or cable channel these days may go for the re imagined Battlestar Galactica style with an ongoing storyarc. However the question is can it work for Star Trek that was successful with independent episodes in the past. I was do it with mini-story arcs, characters arcs, and mix in some independent episodes. Going too long with a story arc could make the series start to drag. I thought the Xindi arc on Enterprise went a few episodes too long. They have to keep the action going and having something new happen.

It looks like CBS, and maybe possibly Paramount is waiting until the JJ Abrams films run their course before deciding on a series.

Trying to bring back a whole cast from a prior show like TNG, DS9, Voyager is a tall order and unrealistic. Those actors aged, some retired from acting, or doing something else their making more money with. Some have disappeared. If a new show was TNG era, be best to make it around real time pass the end of Voyager to be able to barrow characters from one of those shows. That way won't need to be made up older. Enough time has passed to where a new TNG era show can be done with a clean slate also, new ship, technology, aliens, etc. But still being to connect to a prior show if the story calls for it. Probably need a prior TNG/DS9 character early to interest the fans for ratings.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

However the question is can it work for Star Trek that was successful with independent episodes in the past.

Why not? Worked for DS9.

Trying to bring back a whole cast from a prior show like TNG, DS9, Voyager is a tall order and unrealistic.

Also unnecessary and counterproductive. A new series needs to have actors who are younger than anyone from an existing series, which means most of the characters will have to be new.

Maybe they could bring in one or two existing actors. Worf isn't a bad idea. I'd say Data, but there's the aging problem - maybe Alan Tudyk could take over the role? Data is the only non-TOS character possibly worth recasting.

It looks like CBS, and maybe possibly Paramount is waiting until the JJ Abrams films run their course before deciding on a series.

Paramount has nothing to do with it.