Donald Trump?
Pitfalls the new series should avoid
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
BRING ON THE WALL!
Sorry, just an old BBC One Saturday Night Game Show. LOL
''That's when good fences become good friends'' LOL Sorry, used to watch ''Neighbours'' when I was a kid as my Sisters and my Mum used to watch it and well...Anyway LOL.
Pitfalls to avoid? Recruiting "Long in the tooth" writing talent from the Rick Berman era. As more news comes about the new series; the showrunners are already revealing signs in bringing the old dogs to what should be a new magic show.
Use time travel stories sparingly (less than once a season). Don't let two or three characters dominate the cast. Use a healthy mix of old and new aliens. Avoid continuity errors (which ones depend on which version of the franchise the series is set in), but don't overdo it so that the viewers have to have seen 80 plus shows just to understand this one.
(1.) Leave the social commentary and our personal politics in the 21st Century where they belong.
(2.) An extension of number 1; no more incessant references (TNG-style) to the barbarisms of the 21st Century to highlight just how enlightened and progressive our heroes are.
(3.) Avoid the self-contained episodic format which allows the reset button to get hit after every episode. Create a more linear story thread that runs throughout the season(s).
(4.) Have our heroes make tough choices with real consequences. Take TNG Season 1's episode "Justice" for example. The crew breaks the Prime Directive, but we never see the ramifications on the crew, Starfleet, or the Edo.
(5.) No more "forehead of the week" aliens. Let's get some diversity in lifeforms, like the Horta from TOS, for example.
(6.) Choose good actors first and foremost. No token casting, please.
(7) Because it bears repeating, leave the social commentary and our personal politics in the 21st Century where they belong. Focus on seeking out new life, and new civilizations.
(2.) An extension of number 1; no more incessant references (TNG-style) to the barbarisms of the 21st Century to highlight just how enlightened and progressive our heroes are.
(3.) Avoid the self-contained episodic format which allows the reset button to get hit after every episode. Create a more linear story thread that runs throughout the season(s).
(4.) Have our heroes make tough choices with real consequences. Take TNG Season 1's episode "Justice" for example. The crew breaks the Prime Directive, but we never see the ramifications on the crew, Starfleet, or the Edo.
(5.) No more "forehead of the week" aliens. Let's get some diversity in lifeforms, like the Horta from TOS, for example.
(6.) Choose good actors first and foremost. No token casting, please.
(7) Because it bears repeating, leave the social commentary and our personal politics in the 21st Century where they belong. Focus on seeking out new life, and new civilizations.
1. Not sure what this means. Star Trek is well-known for its social commentary.
2. Disagreed. The only way to improve is to admit our failings - and barbarism. We have plenty of it.
3. Yes, more linear but not *too* linear, and occasional episodes are a relief. Enterprise Season 3 was too much.
4. "Justice" was a stupid, stupid episode. The only ramification should be the eradication of it from history.
5. Agreed!!!
6. I don't think they'll try to hire bad actors? Yes, no tokens. That idea works both ways, too.
7. Disagreed. See #1 and #2.
2. Disagreed. The only way to improve is to admit our failings - and barbarism. We have plenty of it.
3. Yes, more linear but not *too* linear, and occasional episodes are a relief. Enterprise Season 3 was too much.
4. "Justice" was a stupid, stupid episode. The only ramification should be the eradication of it from history.
5. Agreed!!!
6. I don't think they'll try to hire bad actors? Yes, no tokens. That idea works both ways, too.
7. Disagreed. See #1 and #2.
Star Trek is well-known for its smart social commentary on the 1960's. But that's not all the show was, or all that it was intended to be. Gene saw Star Trek as a Wagon Train to the Stars; a western space opera. Kirk was his Horatio Hornblower. Star Trek was about adventure and possibility. Gene's beliefs of course made their way into the show, but it was never just merely a vehicle for Gene's politics.
That said, the classic liberalism espoused by Mr. Roddenberry in that era was ground-breaking and necessary. The new Left has no clue about what Gene's vision or ideals were. I'd rather they just stayed away from politics altogether.
Disagree, there's much today to comment upon. And Star Trek is a perfect forum to do it in.
Agree, the 24th century (or whenever) was built on what came before, the people of the future should be smart enough to realize whose shoulders they're standing on. Let's see a outpouring of gratitude instead.
Personally I like stand alone stories, but there can be arcs running in the background.
The heroes need to lose on occasion.
I've never been insistant on elaborate make-up or cgi. Just have actors with simple practical make-up and let it be the script and the actor's performance that says that they're aliens. The Betazed just had dark contact lenses.
Whites only ?
For some of the episodes of course, but not every last one.
You could have stopped your sentance right there.
In response:
Um, no. That what Star Trek does best.
Maybe, maybe no.
Do a mix of story arcs and stand alones.
That sounds good.
No and yes. Forehead aliens are part of Star Trek's custom look (the J.J. Abrams movies sorely missed them). But, yeah, let's have some wacky new ones (and bring back classic ones, too).
Choose good actors, but create a variety of characters with different backgrounds, ethnicities, and species.
No, do both.
Um, no. That what Star Trek does best.
Maybe, maybe no.
Do a mix of story arcs and stand alones.
That sounds good.
No and yes. Forehead aliens are part of Star Trek's custom look (the J.J. Abrams movies sorely missed them). But, yeah, let's have some wacky new ones (and bring back classic ones, too).
Choose good actors, but create a variety of characters with different backgrounds, ethnicities, and species.
No, do both.
The City on the Edge of Forever was a drama based on a tough choice; the timeline may have had a reset button, but there was a severe cost in pushing it.
I think it would be good for drama, if occasionally the protagonists fail despite their best efforts. A tragedy would give the series a sense of realism-in real life, people don't always live happily ever after.
I would particularly like to see failure in an episode...in which it is stated that "failure is not an option".
I think it would be good for drama, if occasionally the protagonists fail despite their best efforts. A tragedy would give the series a sense of realism-in real life, people don't always live happily ever after.
I would particularly like to see failure in an episode...in which it is stated that "failure is not an option".
Last edited:
It sounds like the dumb "dark and gritty" reality shit "artists" have been pushing on us for too long. I loathe deconstructionist movies. You know, where Superman is an alcoholic with a permanent five o'clock shadow and full of resentment because his biological parents (and planet) died when he was young and the Kents were killed by some past-altering event so he never got the love he needed to be a positive influence on Earth so instead we get a story about the dangers of raising our heroes up to impossible standards... I don't go to the movies to see that crap. I'd rather experience reality and realism in real life, and see fantasy on the screen.
The City on the Edge of Forever was one of Trek's best episodes. Having to make a painful choice can work well in Trek.
Recently saw Eye in the Sky. Very intense. Very painful decisions had to be made.
And there was no technobabble cop out. (I hate that). In fact, using technology helped to put the protagonists into situations requiring hard choices.
Recently saw Eye in the Sky. Very intense. Very painful decisions had to be made.
And there was no technobabble cop out. (I hate that). In fact, using technology helped to put the protagonists into situations requiring hard choices.
Last edited:
I think there's a fine line between "dark and gritty" and having drama where not everything works out every single time. It's all in the tone and characterization.
My eyes are barely open, so I accidentally misread the thread title.
This is what I saw: "Pigtails the new series should avoid"
This is what I saw: "Pigtails the new series should avoid"
Everyone in here clinging to the glory days and saying "social commentary is what ST does BEST" made me vomit in my mouth a little.
Stop.
Star Trek, which was a unique and camouflaged vehicle for that because of its scifi setting, was good for effective and occasional social commentary back in the late 60s. It hasn't "done social commentary well" for many decades since then. Nowadays, every other show you watch is hitting you over the head with social commentary. Most of it done better than Star Trek.
Times have changed dramatically in the last 50 years. The quaint allegories of TOS which were brilliant for their time are laughable by today's standards, and that type of storytelling (social commentary/allegory) has actually become cliche and common.
If Star Trek wants to be different and entertaining this time around, I'd advise they don't overplay the "we are going to push our ideology and values on the viewer" card, and go for character-driven action/adventure with some good /clever scifi elements and complex storylines with high stakes and lots of fun. Leave out the Picard speeches about evolved humanity and the obligatory terrorism or human rights allegories. It's waaaaaaay played at this point.
I honestly think Star Trek's greatest opportunity is to re-define "smart programming" like it did 50 years ago by doing something different and fresh...not by being just another thinly-veiled allegory talking about today's problems.
That was fairly unique in 1966. It is not now. Let's find a new way to be smart and entertaining.
Stop.
Star Trek, which was a unique and camouflaged vehicle for that because of its scifi setting, was good for effective and occasional social commentary back in the late 60s. It hasn't "done social commentary well" for many decades since then. Nowadays, every other show you watch is hitting you over the head with social commentary. Most of it done better than Star Trek.
Times have changed dramatically in the last 50 years. The quaint allegories of TOS which were brilliant for their time are laughable by today's standards, and that type of storytelling (social commentary/allegory) has actually become cliche and common.
If Star Trek wants to be different and entertaining this time around, I'd advise they don't overplay the "we are going to push our ideology and values on the viewer" card, and go for character-driven action/adventure with some good /clever scifi elements and complex storylines with high stakes and lots of fun. Leave out the Picard speeches about evolved humanity and the obligatory terrorism or human rights allegories. It's waaaaaaay played at this point.
I honestly think Star Trek's greatest opportunity is to re-define "smart programming" like it did 50 years ago by doing something different and fresh...not by being just another thinly-veiled allegory talking about today's problems.
That was fairly unique in 1966. It is not now. Let's find a new way to be smart and entertaining.
I suspect he likes the space-babes.
Um, that's called...starting a new franchise.
There's no way to brand something Trek without it being, in some part, derivative, so you might as well embrace it rather than deluding yourself that you can be totally original within a preexisting universe with generations of fans who expect certain tropes and story beats.
