jonnyskywatcher said:One of the things that could be different about a Starfleet Academy series is how the stories on the show are constructed. One of my biggest problems with Star Trek is that it tend to follow a tired out formula of crew runs into something that causes the plot to begin. The characters on Star Trek are constantly reacting, they never actually take the initiative, and any conflicts that arise are immediately shuffled under the carpet by the time of the next episode.
For a Starfleet series to work, you would have to interesting, engaging characters who interact with each other. Most of the plot would be moved ahead by how the characters interact. Who likes who, who hates who. You can also involve a lot about these characters' (I would have completely new characters) families and life outside of Starfleet.
Agreed. That was what (once they started with it) I came to like about DS9. The design of the show was... unappealing (IMHO)... and the SFX sequences, while sometimes "cool" were unconvincing to me. Still, the ongoing story arc, the fact that things changed, people DIED, and that you knew that at the end of the show, things weren't going to go back to being "just like they were before"... that, I found REALLY appealing. It's the same thing that made me fall in love with Babylon 5. Now, this can be overdone, too... but without change and growth, characters and situations lose my interest quite rapidly these days.
A Trek story that involves change and growth and REAL RISK is what I think everyone wants. Not necessarily with a pre-plotted story arc, just with a production staff that's willing and able to take risks if the storytelling leads them there. The "everything is reset by the end of the episode" thing... it's not good enough for me anymore. My own life has changed so much over the years that I find myself looking at the "things must remain constant" storytelling convention as utterly unbelievable, so I just can't enjoy a storyline where that's the case.
I'd always hoped that they'd have left Spock dead. Not because I didn't like Spock (far from it) but because it would have forced change and growth. Bringing back Spock was a huge mistake, IMHO. Just imagine how things would have turned out if, instead of doing that, they'd left Kirk on the Enterprise with a few "old hands" (McCoy, Scotty, and Uhura), with occasional guest shots by Sulu and Chekov, off on their own ships. Uhura's role would have been much greater (possibly even 3rd in line for the center seat?). They'd have a new Executive officer and a new science officer, both of whom would have been "in the shadow of Spock." The new helmsman would be Saavik, but she, also, would be in that "shadow." The XO would be someone totally different from either Decker (at least as we saw him in TMP) or Riker (at least as how he started out TNG), as I see it. The science officer would not be a Vulcan at all (why not have it be Mr. Therin, from "Yesteryear?"). The new character opportunities would be boundless... and the storytelling options would be boundless as well.
And, had they done that, we might have eventually had Shatner get sick of it and leave, and the XO character (if he'd proven popular enough) might become the new captain. EVOLUTION rather than REVOLUTION... ya know?
Believable, natural change and growth... that's what Trek needs to keep MY interest. Not rehashing of the "same old thing" over and over. And also, especially, not attempts to pretend that the old characters are "reborn" in new kid-bodies.
If I can't suspend my disbelief, I'd rather not see it at all.
