Plot for a new Star Trek Series

[Konata Izumi]

Projected profitability will drive every decision that is made regarding Star Trek or any other entertainment project. They don't make these shows out of the goodness of their hearts, they have employees to pay and shareholders to satisfy.

Who they do not give a **** about.

People are what ultimately drive every decision and all of them have their own motives for any decision they make. Not all of them coincide with projected or actual profitability for the company they happen to be employed in (for now).

Why did John Carter's marketing campaign self-destruct? There must have been some serious neglect and ass-licking from some, overconfidence from others to let something like that happen.

The above story might be true or it might not. It is nevertheless an illustrative example. People tend to think their ideas are better than they actually are. Others just feel secure enough in their jobs that they can focus more on their own aspirations whatever they are.

Usually there are only a handful of employees who do care about profitability, and they care about it because of imaginary personal status, not because of some inherent instinct to serve the company like they're communists.

 

[BillJ]

Usually there are only a handful of employees who do care about profitability, and they care about it because of imaginary personal status, not because of some inherent instinct to serve the company like they're communists.

I'm sure that many, many people who work on weekly TV series care about profitability. Their paychecks depend on it.

Do you think Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek for free? Do you think Rick Berman (who was hired to keep Roddenberry on-time and on-budget) or Ron Moore or Patrick Stewart worked for free? Do you think Abrams or Orci or Kurtzman or Pine or Quinto or Industrial Light & Magic work for free? They may love what they do, but they still expect to be compensated for it.

That doesn't preclude bad decisions being made. Every corporation is ripe with decisions that ended up costing them money and usually end up costing people their jobs. It doesn't mean that the decisions weren't arrived at with the bottom line in mind.

 

[Konata Izumi]

I'm sure that many, many people who work on weekly TV series care about profitability. Their paychecks depend on it.

Perhaps they do care but the part that effects stuff is the decisions that many rarely build around profitability as they have other things in mind more immediately relevant to the job they are doing and perhaps do not feel like they even know what people like other that what they make seems to be popular. There are makers who constantly think about marketing but then there are ones to whom it may just pass the mind occasionally but not really drive things.

Maybe some bunch decides a show about Klingons is going to be really fun and some guy figures they're iconic and convinces another one that it has a good chance of selling

Stuff ends up happening mainly for other reasons than perceived profitability, even if that often is a very influential, often final part of the decision making process.

 

[BillJ]

...and convinces another one that it has a good chance of selling

See how that works out? If it has no chance of selling, then no one is going to invest a hundred-million dollars to make it.

Kirk and Spock are Star Trek's icons. They are the ones that everyone knows. It is a no-brainer for a corporate suit that if you're going to put Trek on TV, that you center it around the characters that the general populace knows.

In my opinion, Star Trek won't be coming back to the small screen for the foreseeable future. Even with Kirk and Spock, there's too much risk and not enough reward in bankrolling a sci-fi, action-adventure series.

 

[Belz...]

But how awesome was it to general audiences?

Well, of course you are correct. But I wasn't under the impression that I was talking to a member of the general audience.

 

[BillJ]

But how awesome was it to general audiences?

Well, of course you are correct. But I wasn't under the impression that I was talking to a member of the general audience.

Well, it wasn't very awesome to me either. But when discussing the future of Trek, on TV or the big screen, general audiences are going to come into play.

 

[Hober Mallow]

What stories can you tell with Captain Huge Douchebag and the U.S.S. Fanboy (NCC-2,000,000 with 15 type-MLCVII pulse phaser cannons) that you can't tell with Captain Kirk and the U.S.S. Enterprise?

What stories can you tell with Captain Kirk and the U.S.S. Enterprise that you can't tell with Captain Douchebag and the U.S.S. Fanboy?

Well, speaking only for myself, the triumvirate of Spock (the logic), McCoy (the passion), and Kirk (the wisdom) provides the perfect vehicle for exploring the human condition.

Star Trek is a universe, whether you get it or not.

No, Star Trek is a TV show and a movie series.

It's bigger than just Kirk and company. Exploring universes we like by meeting other people and other situations is what makes a universe worthwhile beyond its original premise, in my opinion. DS9 is the finest example of what you can do with a universe when you break from the original boundaries. And it was awesome.

It seems to me there are two types of fans these days. Fans who simply want escapist fantasy, and those who want, what Isaac Asimov called, "escape into reality." I'm not interested in working out continuity of a fake universe, or keeping track of timelines or anything like that. I'm interested in good stories that examine our own human potential.

Take DS9. The pilot was, IMO, fantastic. It examined what it means to live in the field of time by having Ben Sisko meet aliens who transcend the field of time. Living in time means what God told Adam and Even it means in Genesis after the fall -- pain, loss, and death. Sisko is fallen man, who has exiled himself from paradise. There are two ways to live n this world with that knowledge -- by either rejecting life and going off away from society (as Sisko wants to do by running off and leaving Starfleet) or by affirming life, and joyfully participating in all its sorrows.

It doesn't mean you don't feel sorrow. The Buddha's first noble truth is that "all life is sorrowful." It just means you affirm life by joyfully participating. Life is not something to be corrected. It is just the way it should be.

You see, that's Star Trek's potential. Not "what a cool ship!" or "okay, here's another episode for me to keep track of events in my timeline!" Not that there's anything wrong with escapist fantasy. It's just that that's not what I'm personally interested in. And yes, it could be done without Kirk and Spock (as DS9 did in the pilot episode), but the Kirk, Spock, McCoy triumvirate is still a great externalization of the inner conflict within the individual and, as I said, a great vehicle for exploration of the human condition and human potential. It doesn't even have to be as deep as the DS9 pilot, just give me a fun adventure story that taps into the human potential. Update all the tech so that it's a relevant future for us today (not a 1960s view of the future).

Even B&B wanted to recreate that formula by virtually copying it for ENT.

Star Trek has been too debased with endless spinoffs that I don't think there's an audience outside a few hardcore fans for yet another ship, yet another crew.

 

[Belz...]

Star Trek is a universe, whether you get it or not.

No, Star Trek is a TV show and a movie series.

Are you playing games with me ? Or are you unaware of the meaning of "universe", here ?

It seems to me there are two types of fans these days. Fans who simply want escapist fantasy, and those who want, what Isaac Asimov called, "escape into reality."

I'm not sure what the hell Asimov meant, there.

I'm not interested in working out continuity of a fake universe, or keeping track of timelines or anything like that. I'm interested in good stories that examine our own human potential.

Watch documentaries and interact with your fellow men and women, then. Fiction isn't going to tell you much about reality.

 

[Konata Izumi]

I'm not interested in working out continuity of a fake universe, or keeping track of timelines or anything like that. I'm interested in good stories that examine our own human potential.

Watch documentaries and interact with your fellow men and women, then. Fiction isn't going to tell you much about reality.

There's heavy psychological stories you don't usually see every day in real life, repeating something helps notice and understand stuff. Perhaps even more than documentaries?

Star Trek was of course only lightly and irregularly educational, but it's fun just the way it was, not too heavy.

 

[Belz...]

Right. You can be as deep as you want, though, but the point of fiction is to entertain, however you derive your entertainment.

 

[Hober Mallow]

It seems to me there are two types of fans these days. Fans who simply want escapist fantasy, and those who want, what Isaac Asimov called, "escape into reality."

I'm not sure what the hell Asimov meant, there.

It was his response to critics who called science fiction "escapist." He was contrasting it with fantasy. Fantasy is an escape into a world that never existed. Science fiction is a way of delving deeper into reality by using a fantastic setting, delving deeper into our lives than we could ever go otherwise.

Watch documentaries and interact with your fellow men and women, then. Fiction isn't going to tell you much about reality.

Quite the contrary. Fiction is and always has been a greater revealer of truth than the literal. Myths are what built every civilization that's ever existed, including ours.

"Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures." Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"Fiction is the truth inside the lie." Stephen King.

It doesn't have to be deep. It doesn't have to teach anything. It doesn't have to have a moral (God, please, no morals!). It just needs to be about us, and the possibilities and potentials of real human beings, not simply a geek's wet dream. And, of course, as you yourself said, it needs to be entertaining.

 

[Belz...]

Fiction is and always has been a greater revealer of truth than the literal.

Nonsense. Fiction may relate to reality, but it remains fiction, which is NOT reality.

 

[Konata Izumi]

People build stories around things they find important in hopes the idea spreads, and teach all kinds of things to kids without intending it, and make ads. As with any rhetoric though it may end up bullshitting you. And that's why many are concerned about what kind of social roles random popular fiction presents. Fiction's just more colored so it affects stronger, there's always some real story behind it, which tend to be largely twisted anyways - even if all parts are true, the meaning can be twisted into anything by omitting others, so throwing a few made up bits leads to the same thing.