Poll Should the fans be running the show?
- Thread starter Timofnine
- Start date
No, but accomplished writers who understand the fans should.
What about the technicians and engineers? The VFX department, set designers and sound production teams etc? I guess that it would be ok if these folk were not fans as long as they did a good job aesthetically and honoured all that had gone before in their work… but if they have not seen all that has gone before and become emotionally invested in it, they would be making generic sci-fi, *not* Star Trek.
Writers in general are not ‘running’ the show, btw, and never have done so; they are accountable to whoever is the show runner at that particular present time, who is in turn accountable to the studio, production company and sponsors. The show runner may choose to write something every now and again though, a bit like Terry Matalas did… because they are kind of like the boss and have that as a perk of the job, though I guess that Alex Kurtzman has the final say on things at the moment.
How about having accomplished writers, who may be or may not be fans of the show, working on Star Trek who understand the fans that they are *accountable* to? The show runner does not even need to write anything, they just need to sign off what has been written by ‘accomplished writers’ as being acceptable. A pool of fans can give established writers input and then the writers can make their literary magic happen… but they then feed back the scripts that they have come up with back to their fanbase ‘think tank’ overlords. If the fans say that they need to rewrite something, then they should do as the show runners say until they eventually get it right.
Last edited:
Ok, what's the right standard?
Well, it would certainly relieve me of the temptation of ever watching Trek again.
A general consensus?
Curious, given the general consensus of this poll is fans should not be running it.
And what is the general consensus on what makes Star Trek?
"If I like it it's Star Trek. If I don't it's hedonistic filth."
Yeah, good luck finding a group of fans who all agree on what falls into either category.
Is that the four armed guy in Star Wars?
His brother, actually.
There's no general consensus. If I do it, I'm making a movie where I do whatever I want and it's going to have a Rob Zombie soundtrack. People will be begging for how "bright" Picard Season 3 looked.
Then I'll get torn apart on this board and I'll say, "All the right people hated it."
.
.
.
But seriously, though, I'd just keep going with the 32nd Century. Which is definitely not what "consensus" is, if it even exists, but they need to get away from the 23rd-25th Centuries. And if they won't do a reboot reboot, then the only answer is to jump so far ahead that none of the other stuff matters because it took place so much earlier. Which is what Discovery did.
Then I'll get torn apart on this board and I'll say, "All the right people hated it."
.
.
.
But seriously, though, I'd just keep going with the 32nd Century. Which is definitely not what "consensus" is, if it even exists, but they need to get away from the 23rd-25th Centuries. And if they won't do a reboot reboot, then the only answer is to jump so far ahead that none of the other stuff matters because it took place so much earlier. Which is what Discovery did.
They are probably all Star Wars fans really.
See, I knew it!
Whatever keeps the peace within the diverse fandom yet still makes sense to the general public/non fans. A representative board responsible to the show runner (like Kurtzman, currently) would achieve this, then the show runner can have the final say, or sway a decision which is not quite unanimously agreed upon. The show runner would have been selected for this purpose on unanimous trust that they would go with their heart on what they believe to be the right storyline choice or character development.
As for using past canon, characters and plot points, there is nothing wrong with doing this because what is old to fans is *new* to non fans. It is always good to be creative and come up with new original ideas, but they need to fit in with general lore of the Star Trek Universe.
Basically you want TOS and TNG over and over and over again. Oh wait, we're supposed to hate TNG again after Picard. So basically you just want TOS over and over and over again.
I've seen TOS. It's a great show. Star Trek doesn't need to be just an updated version of that and only that.
Most of the Star Trek that people on here like wouldn't even exist if "fan consensus" had governed how these shows were made or came into existence. TNG wouldn't have happened. DS9 definitely wouldn't have happened. Spock dying in TWOK? Wouldn't have happened either.
So, "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant." And a lot of people in fandom are the exact opposite of tolerant. Which is why they shouldn't run the franchise.
Last edited:
No, it would be about honouring and respecting all of those things whilst making something *new* and taking the franchise forward in a fresh direction.
I believe that a 25th century continuation of Star Trek should begin with a soft reboot of the universe, such as a temporal event preventing the destruction of the Romulan sun, probably connected to the temporal Cold War. This would also bring the JJ Abrams movies full circle as well as concluding an unresolved ‘loose end’ storyline from the Berman era. I mean, it cannot be any more complicated than Spideman: In to the Spiderverse is - and that is a children’s film!
We could also *finally* learn who Future Guy is!
My preferences in order are:No, it would be about honouring and respecting all of those things whilst making something *new* and taking the franchise forward in a fresh direction.
I believe that a 25th century continuation of Star Trek should begin with a soft reboot of the universe, such as a temporal event preventing the destruction of the Romulan sun, probably connected to the temporal Cold War. This would also bring the JJ Abrams movies full circle as well as concluding an unresolved ‘loose end’ storyline from the Berman era. I mean, it cannot be any more complicated than Spideman: In to the Spiderverse is - and that is a children’s film!
We could also *finally* learn who Future Guy is!
32nd Century --> Largely untapped. DSC S3 and S4 have barely scratched the surface.
25th Century --> We don't know what happens next. Immediately next, for those nitpickers out there.
23rd Century --> As much as I like it, it's blunted by knowing where it's going. At least for me.
And what would that look like? ST 09 tried and was very popular and accessible yet derided as "not Trek." Does anyone honestly think Spock would die in TWOK if fans were in charge if the producers received death threats after the leaking of that plot point?
Hell, just define for me "good Star Trek " with a consensus.
In regards to a new continuation, I possibly cannot give a definition of “good Trek with a consensus”, though I can give an example of how this was achieved for another franchise.
When Doctor Who was soft rebooted by Russell T Davis and eventually handed on to Steven Moffat, there was general consensus amongst fans and non fans alike that this was a *good* show. The soft reboots within Doctor Who also revolve around the destruction of a planet - Gallifrey. Coincidentally, they also used a time war as the main plot point in nu-Who. But Enterprise started this thread first, so there is nothing wrong with Star Trek finishing what it started and using this as a plot point from which a soft reboot can be achieved for Star Trek in a similar way.
The Reboot Films are the only "new" Star Trek the general public has seen. If you want to win them back over, undoing them isn't a good idea. It sends the message of, "That Star Trek you like? We just undid it!" You have to think about it from their point of view.
