Rooted in realism: Ideas for a more likely series six

[ColeMercury]

And Kirk and Spock are what's hot and will most likely remain hot for the next two films, not nuPicard or nuWesley. And it's a hell of a lot easier to recast Kirk and Spock than it is to establish brand new characters and try to get the viewing audience to care about them.

No it's not, it's incredibly hard! They have to find actors who can walk the very fine line between properly acting the part of that same beloved character and not being too different, but also not being too similar to avoid looking like a parody or pale imitation. And they have to look right, and the audience has to like them. By the way, wouldn't recasting Kirk & Spock again mess with their "so hot right now" status?

Creating brand new characters and getting the audience to care about them is nothing new -- TV shows and movies do it all the time! I agree that shifting to a totally new cast of characters and totally new setting wouldn't be a smart move -- but there's no reason it has to have the exact same characters and setting as the movies to carry over some of the movies' appeal. (That's why I'm wanting an Excelsior series after the movies -- the idea hadn't even occurred to me before I read this thread, but now I've decided to become its champion. )

 

[Tarek71]

And Kirk and Spock are what's hot and will most likely remain hot for the next two films, not nuPicard or nuWesley. And it's a hell of a lot easier to recast Kirk and Spock than it is to establish brand new characters and try to get the viewing audience to care about them.

No it's not, it's incredibly hard! They have to find actors who can walk the very fine line between properly acting the part of that same beloved character and not being too different, but also not being too similar to avoid looking like a parody or pale imitation. And they have to look right, and the audience has to like them. By the way, wouldn't recasting Kirk & Spock again mess with their "so hot right now" status?

Creating brand new characters and getting the audience to care about them is nothing new -- TV shows and movies do it all the time! I agree that shifting to a totally new cast of characters and totally new setting wouldn't be a smart move -- but there's no reason it has to have the exact same characters and setting as the movies to carry over some of the movies' appeal. (That's why I'm wanting an Excelsior series after the movies -- the idea hadn't even occurred to me before I read this thread, but now I've decided to become its champion. )

How many King Arthurs are there? Sherlock Holmes'? James Bonds? Clark Kents? Yes its hard, but good casting aided by the fairly large numbers of actors that exist means that its not all that hard. This "following on the movies success" is a little overdone. Its because people accept new Bonds and new Clark Kents that we dont have to worry about the "confusion" that Temis is so worried about, or use exactly the same sets or set the show in exactly the same timeframe as the movie, etc.

Im not a against a JJverse show set on a different nuConstitution class with cameos from the beloved Yelchin, etc. But it doesnt have to be. Not at all. Remakes are VERY common in hollywood and no one is all that confused. New actors can be widely accepted, sets can be redressed, etc. Lets not make more problems than actually exist here.

 

[Dukhat]

Set reuses could happen even if its set 100 years apart. Redressing a set can turn a 23rd century main bridge into a 24th century battlebridge or a 22nd century bridge.

But why would they need to set the new show 100 years later? TNG did that specifically to get further away from TOS; I would think that any new show would want to do the opposite and ride the coattails of the nu23rd century, since they can now tell whatever stories they want without that pesky 40+ years of continuity getting in the way. And if they really wanted a different cast, they could just set the show, say, fifteen years later, after Kirk, Spock et. al are all promoted and moved on to make way for the next crew of the nuEnterprise.

I certainly dont want to see that damned brewery (or whatever the hell it was) as "engineering" ever again.

And they most likely wouldn't use it for a series, as it was used specifically as a cost-saving measure for the film, knowing it would only be used in one or two scenes. But quite frankly, with all the money Star Trek '09 made, I'm sure they'll actually have a real engineering set for the next film anyway.

But no one should think that any future show must be set in the early 2260s of the JJverse and on a nuConstitution class because of sets, etc

Why not?

They have to find actors who can walk the very fine line between properly acting the part of that same beloved character and not being too different, but also not being too similar to avoid looking like a parody or pale imitation. And they have to look right, and the audience has to like them. By the way, wouldn't recasting Kirk & Spock again mess with their "so hot right now" status?

You're missing my point. This is a new universe. They can cast whoever they want as Kirk and Spock, because these people will be different than what we've had before in TOS. I'm talking about the name recognition. Everyone on the planet has heard of Spock, and knows who he is. Not as many people have heard of Counselor Troi.

 

[Tarek71]

Set reuses could happen even if its set 100 years apart. Redressing a set can turn a 23rd century main bridge into a 24th century battlebridge or a 22nd century bridge.

But why would they need to set the new show 100 years later?

They wouldnt. I was just pointing out that re-using and redressing the same sets doesnt mean that they have to set in the same decade or even the same timeline as the JJ movie. They dont have to set in a different one either. But redressing a set allows them to say not only that its a different location, but a different time or timeline as well. So the set sharing idea doesnt necessitate either one. It leaves it open.

And they most likely wouldn't use it for a series, as it was used specifically as a cost-saving measure for the film, knowing it would only be used in one or two scenes.

RIght. Which means a new show will likely have to build at least some new sets. If a new engineering section is built, that could be reused as well. But if some sets still have to be built for the show, that wont preclude the show being made.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And Kirk and Spock are what's hot and will most likely remain hot for the next two films

Kirk and Spock got audiences into the theater, but Star Trek is now hot again as a brand. That could be leveraged into a successful TV series.

The biggest problems are not the proposed show content but that CBS, CW and Showtime are all bad fits for Star Trek; and space opera is definitely on the outs as a genre for a TV series. Just look at the glut of sf/f pilots once again this year, and again, most have a law enforcement angle.

And it's a hell of a lot easier to recast Kirk and Spock than it is to establish brand new characters and try to get the viewing audience to care about them.

Both are difficult. But the fact that Paramount accomplished the former doesn't say anything about the odds of CBS even attempting the latter.

 

[slappy]

TNG-remake series set in the altered timeline. Call it "Star Trek Next".

Picard: Kelsey Grammer
Riker: Joshua Jackson
Troi: Diane Kruger
Crusher: Marcia Cross
Worf: Ron Perlman
LaForge: Brandon T. Jackson

 

[Dukhat]

TNG-remake series set in the altered timeline. Call it "Star Trek Next".

Picard: Kelsey Grammer
Riker: Joshua Jackson
Troi: Diane Kruger
Crusher: Marcia Cross
Worf: Ron Perlman
LaForge: Brandon T. Jackson

The problem with this scenario is that by 100 years after nuTrek, these people may not even exist.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

They'll exist if the financiers believe there's an audience for it. It's as simple as that; when money comes knocking, things will happen regardless of sensibility.

 

[trekkerguy]

TNG-remake series set in the altered timeline. Call it "Star Trek Next".

Picard: Kelsey Grammer
Riker: Joshua Jackson
Troi: Diane Kruger
Crusher: Marcia Cross
Worf: Ron Perlman
LaForge: Brandon T. Jackson

Was this... serious?

 

[DFScott]

I think CBS and/or Paramount have/has managed to make it infinitely more difficult to produce a Star Trek TV series of some sort today than it would have been just three years ago.

Here's the first problem. Viewers' channel preferences are evolving...rapidly. Episodic drama for a younger demographic is moving to the Internet, leaving most of broadcast and basic cable TV to subsist on candid videos of people arguing about how each other sucks and should be the one voted off. If you want to do series television today, it needs to be in a form and format that blows people away, and on a channel that's willing to gamble. (Case in point, "Mad Men," AMC.) And it needs to be marketable in boxed sets. Even when such boxed sets are successful, broadcast networks are unwilling to make new investments to build such series. Witness how few real successors there are to "Smallville."

But if that wasn't problematic enough, Paramount has made things a bit worse by not stopping J. J. Abrams before he took his idea overboard. By casting _old_ Trek in a _new_ and incompatible universe:

• He made it impossible for anyone to conceive a fun and exciting new Trek show that isn't somehow irreconcilable with at least one pre-existing story line. If the new creator sets the show in the Abrams universe, it essentially makes it feasible for Picard's, Sisko's, and Janeway's crew to have never come together, or for none of these people to ever have been born. And supposing that they do meet, the only way for the writers to pull it off is to craft some convoluted, esoteric explanation for these events, the details of which would be completely uninteresting to the initiate of the show. (For example, Picard and Beverly _did_ marry, and Wesley is Picard's son who takes Geordi's place, etc.) If he sets it in an older-Trek universe, then the show competes by definition with anything new Abrams should produce for the big screen, and again, initiates would be confused as to why these stories don't agree with one another. And those of us who were disappointed by Enterprise would be furious with this one.

• Abrams made it too tempting for any new show's creator to mold the show as an exception to an existing rule. For example, "It's the Enterprise _except_ in the 29th Century," or, "It's a space station show _except_ that the station was never run by Terrans in the first place," or, "It's the Star Trek you all know and love, except it's run by an all-Ferrengi crew." In other words, it must be _familiar_ Star Trek, but different enough in just a few words to justify its existence as an entirely new series.

• At the same time, for the writers who do have good ideas for making a new Trek series different and bold enough to be viewable in this new context, Abrams introduces a kind of bulldozer that pushes them towards the edge of a cliff. Their creation now has to be _enough like the new movie series_ to justify its existence as part of the same family, so that they may cross-pollinate and cross-promote. If it's too different, too bold, then production execs will simply ask the question, "Then why call it Star Trek?" If someone says, "Let's not do a ship show, not a space station show, not some intergalactic war, but the story of the revival of a long-dead species on a planet that survived a telepathic war so it could join the Federation," they'll say, "What makes it Star Trek?" And off the cliff it will go.

• So if surviving the cliff's edge, the writers simply create a Trek that's only modestly different from what has come before -- an android captain (or an iPhone captain), a Klingon/Ferrengi science officer, a tri-sexual navigator, and a ship with _three_ (count 'em!) nacelles -- then it'll die in the first season.

If you think about it, maybe Abrams _is_ genius.

But that's assuming it's all done through television. I think the fanfilm producers have already proven that TV is the wave of the past. I think VOD is the way to go for the future. This way: 1) A show can evolve at its own pace; 2) The writers are in full control and answer directly to the viewer; 3) It can be created and produced using new digital and animation tools that could take such a project to completely new dimensions.

The last thing I want is another fill-in-the-blank Trek show, like a Mad-Lib. These are the voyages of the Starship ________. I'm Captain _______. Today, we entered into standard orbit around planet _____ when science officer _______ telepathically sensed the presence of the enemy ______, which made me ________.

Instead, I'd prefer compelling characters who are brought together by a whirlwind of events that seem fantastic on the surface, but have some underlying similarity to today. In that case, it can be the 29th century or the 19th and I'd be happy.

DF "Captain, Sensors Detect a _____ in Your Chair" Scott

 

[antiquityscion]

I think whatever they do decide on, they should take a lesson from TNG. Put it far in the future of the 24th century, just as TNG did with TOS. That way, it does not conflict with anything that came before, but you still have the back story of Trek. It should be in the "Prime Universe," perhaps the late 25th century. It should be familiar, and recognizable as Trek, but far enough away to establish its own mythos, and time travel should be shunned. It also should borrow from Babylon 5 and have the entire story of the show mapped out for 5 seasons, and have each season with its own arc.

Also, rather than self contained episodes, it should learn from DS9, Enterprise, and especially Battlestar Galactica, and incorporate a long running story arc. Hell, I would be for bringing back Ronald D Moore and Michael Rymer for this!

My personal dream plot would be that by the 25th century, the federation has nearly collapsed after continuous invasions and wars with the Borg, Dominion, and Klingons (as in the events of STO), and is fracturing, if not in the midst of all out civil war. The entire Alpha quadrant is in turmoil, and has entered a dark age of sorts. The plot would revolve around human protagonists attempting to rebuild the federation and end the internal conflict, while maintaining an uneasy truce with the Klingons, Borg, or maybe even a new alien race from beyond our own galaxy.

Fine and dandy as that all sounds, I just don't see them realistically doing any of it. Not for an initial attempt at returning to television.

I'd love to see a season-by-season arc-based show, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it would be the wisest thing to start with.

sounds like they already tried something like that, actually....
http://zeroroom.squarespace.com/story/

...and then it got the (re)boot, pun intended

Sorry, bad joke. Couldn't be helped LOL

I think the closest we will see of the post-Nemesis\pre-Reboot Star Trek 2009 "Star Trek Prime" storyline continuing is the game Star Trek Online. Anything new will be sequels to Star Trek 2009.

 

[Dukhat]

They'll exist if the financiers believe there's an audience for it. It's as simple as that; when money comes knocking, things will happen regardless of sensibility.

Yeah, you've got a point there. The people from the DS9 mirror universe are the same too, even though by all logic they shouldn't exist at all if the timeline was that different for the last several centuries.

 

[xortex]

Unless it has it's own mutually exclusive continuity. A seperate sandbox, as it were, to play in. Something that doesn't touch or be touched by the movie. I like your idea of a long dead telepathic race (a future us?) at war with the Vulcans? Sounds like the Talosians.

 

[DFScott]

Unless it has its own mutually exclusive continuity. A separate sandbox, as it were, to play in. Something that doesn't touch or be touched by the movie. I like your idea of a long dead telepathic race (a future us?) at war with the Vulcans? Sounds like the Talosians.

But that's the problem. If a new idea does have its own mutually exclusive continuity, if it doesn't have to tie into any Star Trek that has come before to any appreciable degree, some network executive would ask, "Then why call it Star Trek?" Why couldn't it just be just a good sci-fi show? Then they go ahead and shoot the first season, and what happens? The critics pan it because it tries to be too much like Star Trek.

The "Abrams-verse" has resulted in a predicament for anyone trying to further the franchise, fracturing a once strong backstory (Vulcan flourishes | Vulcan is demolished; Klingons would kill to acquire the ultimate doomsday weapon | Klingons wouldn't know the ultimate doomsday weapon if a ship from the future the size of the sun landed in their aluminum-clad laps) into something future writers have to tip-toe through like a minefield to locate a foundation for a prospective new story.

For a "Series Six" to be bold enough to succeed, it would need to be fearless, to try completely uncharted territory, and brandish the armament necessary to blow away the Abrams-verse if it had to. But then the producers would kill it for just exactly that reason; they need the Abrams-verse to sell movie tickets and 3D Blu-rays. It's a conundrum of their own making.

DF "Dear Paramount: Enclosed Please Find One Ounce of Red Matter. Use It In Good Health" Scott

 

[Tarek71]

All things considered, the show being in its own continuity is the best idea. The movies are too infrequent to have meaningful tie ins. The show, the characters, the ship, the writing, etc will have to stand on their own anyway. Appearances by Yelchin, beloved though he may be, will not sink or save any show.

I would base it loosely on the timeline of the prime universe, but with changes as they seem appropriate. (Female captains of course, Romulans had warp, and were seen face to face, etc) Of course the sets and costumes will be updated.

But let the show and the movies exist as the various incarnations of Superman, Batman and King Arthur do: Different takes on the same essentials. No one will be confused. They never are by remakes. Just tell them "Its a remake" and poof, all confusion completely disappears.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I would base it loosely on the timeline of the prime universe, but with changes as they seem appropriate. (Female captains of course, Romulans had warp, and were seen face to face, etc) Of course the sets and costumes will be updated.

Actually you wouldn't need to make changes for female captains and warp equiped Romulans. Lester was a nutcaseand plus I believe she never out right says a woman can't be captain and for all we know the Balance of Terror BOP had a carrier ship that just dropped it off just outside the outposts' sensor range.

 

[Tarek71]

I would base it loosely on the timeline of the prime universe, but with changes as they seem appropriate. (Female captains of course, Romulans had warp, and were seen face to face, etc) Of course the sets and costumes will be updated.

Actually you wouldn't need to make changes for female captains and warp equiped Romulans. Lester was a nutcaseand plus I believe she never out right says a woman can't be captain and for all we know the Balance of Terror BOP had a carrier ship that just dropped it off just outside the outposts' sensor range.

Yes, but one gets the impression that at the very least a female captain was very rare, even if not absolutely non existant. The point here though, is that even if the episode had said that there are absolutely no female captains, we should just ignore it. If we want to say humans knew what Romulans looked like, then we can just say they did, and thats it. Its remake time.

Many variations on Superman, Arthur, Lancelot, Sherlock Holmes, etc allow for us to tinker, change, swap things out, add them in, etc. Thats been going on in story telling for centuries. Its ok. THe remake idea allows the maximum range of creative choices. The show can look and feel entirely unlike the movie or previous shows, and yet draw upon the immense wealth of established literature and events, just as Arthurian Saga does.

So I say, TOS era with TOS characters recast and off they go on their five year mission, with the full range of open choices as to particulars, and certainly as to style.

I dont want to hear about difficulty in casting. Clark Kent is recast again and again. Its not a problem. People have been recasting King Lear for 400 years. Its done all the time, and no one has any difficulty.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

leaving most of broadcast and basic cable TV to subsist on candid videos of people arguing about how each other sucks and should be the one voted off.

Cable is far more diverse than that, and would be a good place for a new Star Trek series. But CBS only has Showtime as a cable outlet, and that's less of a good fit for Star Trek than AMC or TNT would be. Showtime is looking for their next Dexter. I don't see how Star Trek could possibly fill that role.

But that's assuming it's all done through television. I think the fanfilm producers have already proven that TV is the wave of the past. I think VOD is the way to go for the future.

Alternative means of distribution are too unproven as business models for conservative old CBS to care about. If they're not going to be making lots of money, why bother? It would make far more sense for them to put the same effort into finding a replacement for Dexter that Showtime is desperately going to need because that show has got maybe a couple good seasons left in it (creatively).

Networks should be putting more effort into building alternative business models, but CBS isn't the network I'd think of first as being the pioneer. And to build alternative models, you don't need a known brand anyway. You need something that captures the imagination of a cult following and you can grow out from there. You need to start small and low-cost; using a pricey brand name is not the right strategy. The brand name isn't worth the expense because the cult following isn't going to care about such things. You need something more like Firefly - something new, no brand name, the show sells itself and takes off by word of mouth.

If a new idea does have its own mutually exclusive continuity, if it doesn't have to tie into any Star Trek that has come before to any appreciable degree, some network executive would ask, "Then why call it Star Trek?"

Network executives don't ask things like that. Their intellectual curiosity begins and ends with "will this make shitloads of money and help my career?"

 

[KJbushway]

I just don't think that a actor played star trek series is going to show up again unless the cost can come down. A animated realistic looking series is more optional. But one problem is that its hard to tell if we fans are going to come in crowds or just a few.
but I think an animated series featuring the star trek online game timeline would be nice. Maybe a series featuring more than one ship during the episodes.