What? For half of the first season? Roddenberry bailed on his full-time producing duties pretty quickly, and became less and less involved as time went on.
Spin off or new space opera?
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
What? For half of the first season? Roddenberry bailed on his full-time producing duties pretty quickly, and became less and less involved as time went on.
In respect to the special effects, yes, Lucasfilm has been brilliant. But you've got to admit the plots of Episodes 1, 2 and 3 paled in comparisons to 4, 5 and 6. Good science fiction is about the story.
And as far as Star Trek is concerned, you can write it by committee, but it will be exceedingly difficult unless you have someone in charge who is trusted by the staff and has a clear idea of where the damn thing is going.
Berman did not. Roddenberry did. He had an idea and a message which was: "guess what? inspite of all the horrible things going on in the world, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT." Gene gave us hope. Berman didn't. Berman presented the world to us as it is. And I still believe it is because of those two conflicting philosophies that there has become a schism in Star Trek fandom.
If there is anyone out there who has the kind of Roddenberry optimism out there, he/she can save this franchise. Until then, the series died right along with the man.
Calling it committee and then attributing Star Trek to literally two people is an interesting slight of hand. One of the original show's strengths were producers like Gene L. Coon and many skilled writers, including sci-fi writers, writing for the program. And the so-called Berman era varied wildly in quality pretty much dependent on which other writers happened to be working with Rick. Either way, TV's a group business, but it can work and so much the better for that.
Right now I just want a good space opera TV series.
Beyond the idea it needs to be 'good' (obviously a highly subjective concept) I'm really not picky. It could be Star Trek, it could be something other than Star Trek.
I'm actually pretty satisfied with the Star Trek's franchise's present course - really liked the new movie, figure I'll enjoy the sequel. If we're talking a Star Trek series, best not one that stepped on the toes of that production.
Just... good. I never really gave V or Stargate: Universe much of a shake because what little I saw of them was underwhelming and they weren't exactly getting rave reviews - Caprica I really liked but often I feel I'm one of three people who felt that way.
I just want to sit down as I used to sit down on weekend evenings a long, long time ago, and watch a TV series about people in outer space that entertains me and holds my attention. Is that truly so much to ask?
Also: I shamelessly love my 'silly' alien prosthetics. Is it really Star Trek without pointy eared Vulcans, for one thing?
Right now I just want a good space opera TV series.
Beyond the idea it needs to be 'good' (obviously a highly subjective concept) I'm really not picky. It could be Star Trek, it could be something other than Star Trek.
I'm actually pretty satisfied with the Star Trek's franchise's present course - really liked the new movie, figure I'll enjoy the sequel. If we're talking a Star Trek series, best not one that stepped on the toes of that production.
Just... good. I never really gave V or Stargate: Universe much of a shake because what little I saw of them was underwhelming and they weren't exactly getting rave reviews - Caprica I really liked but often I feel I'm one of three people who felt that way.
I just want to sit down as I used to sit down on weekend evenings a long, long time ago, and watch a TV series about people in outer space that entertains me and holds my attention. Is that truly so much to ask?
Also: I shamelessly love my 'silly' alien prosthetics. Is it really Star Trek without pointy eared Vulcans, for one thing?
And now The Clone Wars is being created in collaboration with Dave Filoni (or maybe Lucas is the collaborator?
) and is breathing new life into a badly mangled franchise, just has Star Trek has been given new life by an all-new creative team with fresh ideas combined with a healthy respect for tradition. And previous to that, a whole slew of writers collaborated to create the best of the Trek series, DS9.Don't diss stories "created by committee." The results are often quite good.
Unless you set it in an ugly part of space... just thinking out loud here.
As for how I would like to see new Trek. I'm not sure I necessarily want to. If they happen to make a new entertaining Trek series, sure why not. But it doesn't have to be Trek. As far as I'm concerned it wouldn't even need to be space opera, but it would be nice. I'm probably one of a handful people who actually enjoyed watching SGU.
For now, I'm happy with Trek as it is. The first Abrams movie was entertaining enough and made me feel that now, after having introduced the characters, we are ready for the real thing. Bring on the sequel!
Stories created by comittee are fine, I'm talking series and concept here, also haw you want stories to be told is equally important, i.e. the pacing setting details, objective vrs subjective POV and a million other things that contribute to it's fundamental believability as it shouldn't be too outlandish. As to why people are interested in space opera. It's a big ass sky.
And yet, more alien than any creature has ever been effectively portrayed in all of Star Trek.
The concept should be simple: 23rd C crew, going boldly. If you think a committee will create some complicated gobbledygook that would drag down any TV series, I'm sure the suits will put an end to that when they refuse to greenlight any show that can't be expressed in 12 words or less. (Notice how my concept is FIVE words, which makes it more than twice as good as a 12-word concept.
)A show needs a show runner or ideally a creator. What Star Trek needs is to be redefined and recreated from conception onwards - how it develops and changes and stays the same and hopefully gets better should be the responsibility of one person. Ideally that person should be a writer/thinker/philosopher with a clear cut vision. Now who is that person. J.J. got his hands full as director. And more importantly who gets to pick that guy. It needs a reinvisioner, a father figure to marry it like it's an admitted prostitute with six kids, but love is blind. For sex, you get Brannon Braga and his..
Unfortunately guys in power are usually thoughtless shallow predators.
Unfortunately guys in power are usually thoughtless shallow predators.
That's the last thing it needs. It's not twaddle like the old BSG or Stargate. There is a core to it that's worth preserving. Star Trek needs a creative team that understands the core, preserves it, and then puts their creativity into new elements that won't infringe on that core while creating something that feels fresh, exciting and new. To see what that looks like in action, watch Star Trek XI.
If you want an all-new original space opera series, fine. There's no reason to call it Star Trek.
Putting creativity into new elements that won't infringe on that core? Wow, can you get more ambiguos? You sort of 'lost' me with infringing on that core. By core, do you mean corpse? Once again why is it so impossible to do a 2001 t.v. series?
Also J.J. is the right director, but that's that's irrelovant at this point.
Also J.J. is the right director, but that's that's irrelovant at this point.
I'll take all three. Not in the same show, but all of those are ok. Although you could combine them: An animated series for adults that is a reimagined spin off. Or...a new space show thats animated and for adults as well. Of course, if its a new thing altogether, we arent talking about "Future of Trek" anymore obviously.
As a result I'll vote for reimagined spin off that is an animated series for adults. It could also be live action, but Im thinking now that maybe the animated version could work.
I can agree that its always is difficult to have a "change while staying the same" proposition. But thats always the way. How to make something that is worth calling "Star Trek" while making it different and fresher than what youve already seen. If its too different, why call it "Star Trek" at all? So the use of the name implies that something (other than the name itself) is the same, and yet is not just exactly the same as before.
So yes it sounds ambiguous or muddle headed, but its not. Its what you do with any show or any spin off or reimagining of a show or movie. Keep enough that its still worth locating in that universe, but changing other things to keep it fresh and new to viewers.
Last edited:
To be honest I have enough Trek. I'm keen to see the follow-up to the 2009 film, but that's not a series with legs, you'll get a few films out of it and that's it. Given that Trek wasn't just a few big screen adventures though it has the veneer of Trek, it's not really Trek.
A fixed-number of direct to DVD/download animated shows seems like it would be a good idea. You would have your set number of stories without worrying about things like ratings and time slots and if marketed properly could make a good return off the existing fanbase.
If you look at the experience of a big name like Joss Wheadon, it seems like planning any kind of multi-year sci-fi show isn't a good idea unless you have the clout to get a committment to fund the full run. I'd say the days of a sci-fi series going on for a seven year run are over.
A fixed-number of direct to DVD/download animated shows seems like it would be a good idea. You would have your set number of stories without worrying about things like ratings and time slots and if marketed properly could make a good return off the existing fanbase.
If you look at the experience of a big name like Joss Wheadon, it seems like planning any kind of multi-year sci-fi show isn't a good idea unless you have the clout to get a committment to fund the full run. I'd say the days of a sci-fi series going on for a seven year run are over.
Well the premise changed from ship board to space station to being lost to a prequil. Granted those are all thematic premises but a change to ambiguity would be clarity, would it not? but in this economy, sci-fi is seen as an unecessary extravagance when everything else is a reality show. Ransom.
The core is basically "liberal American values rule outer space." TOS did that idea with episodic structure, DS9 did it with serialized structure and more complex plotlines. So that's the creative difference, but same core. You could have a show that's even more different from TOS than DS9 was - say, something that would work on Showtime - but keep the core. The core isn't something that should get in anyone's way.
I have no idea whether a 2001 TV series would work, but it wouldn't be Star Trek. It would be 2001. Why not call it that?
Would that be: "2001: A Star Odyssey"?
Similar threads
