Star Trek: next series better

[captainpicard]

Hi there. These are my suggestions for a new star trek series:

First of all the new star trek should loose the seasons. There should be 50 episodes created and if successful(it will be) just create more.
The episodes would follow a certain path, meaning that you know what the crew broad goal is and you have something to except at the end.
Reduce the captains big bubble, in almost all star trek the captains are larger than life, they know everything, don't make mistakes except if possessed by an evil alien and can't be compromised, not to mention beaten by anyone (Q's, borgs, species 8000, terminator t-800, the chicken, etc...)

All newer star trek series from TNG to enterprise so far had almost the same crew compliment. Make it a little more diverse, maybe add a low level technician or a nurse and follow he/she as he/she tries to go through the ranks, interacts with all crew and even have the possibility of dying, yet not compromising the series.

The story should be placed at Voyager 8th year of being lost, with the voyager ending removed as canon and borg still existing. The federation has created a new prototype ship that can travel at warp 12 with improved weapons and shielding that was transmitted by voyager.
The series should start on a high note, with the ship being attacked and still being in the experimental phase systems are not responding accordingly, heavy losses and dramatic scenes. Gradually over the course of the first 5 episodes return back to how the crew got together, the first time the ship sailed the space and so on...

Now for the borg: they assimilated thousands of species and en-chased them with technology, yet they are slow, clumsy, have no firing weapons, can be beaten by two men jumping onto a borg and in some cases don't even see whole bunch of people right in-front of them.
No, the borg would be fast, agile, equipped with lasers on their hands and a lot more vicious. Their shielding can't adopt to laser fire, but you would need a lot of shots to disable a borg.

Remove and introduce new characters: Disposal of characters should be done, but in a meaningful way and not just statistics. The nurse I was talking about before, she needs to be in the story and you grow found of her, after 15 missions she tragically dies, it has to be an emotional event and one that would also allow for additional character/s to surface.

I hate how in all star trek there was barely a loss of life and how the ship conveniently won so easily. Such loss scenes need to happen, but as I said in a meaningful way and be filled with more controversy. Maybe the deputy engineer didn't fix the engines properly and after trying to escape with warp 12.5 pushing the limits of the engine it blows up and the nurse dies.
Than follow this up with episodes that question the deputy engineer moral and state of mind, how to cope knowing his mistake cost his crew mate and friend her life.

The episodes would be continual, meaning that episode 2 is continuation from episode 1 and not just a different adventure. episode 4 could end just right in a huge firefight and episode 5 is going to continue right where is left off.
All episodes would be like this and it would give more continuation and sense of presence to the series.

Characters: Captain(male), Sub-captain(female), Tactical officer(male), Pilot(female), com officer(male), Nurse(female), data specialist(male), engine technician(female), storage operative(male), ship AI(female).

 

[iamralph]

while I would love to see a space drama properly done in the Star Trek universe, seasons are a necessary part of non-soap opera TV (for reasons I could go into but mainly that a high budget show needs to draw a certain amount of ratings to be successful, and because it is important to the TV viewers that they care about [well in all honesty the ones that make them the money from viewership of new episodes] that they be able to watch the show when it airs, they tend to air shows in segmented seasons starting in the fall and ending before summer with several holiday breaks so they do not "lose" viewers)

I do agree with a lot of what you said, the larger-than-life no-mistake-cannot-be-undone main-characters-invincible-unless-leaving-show stuff needs to go, in all of TV tbh. I would also like to see, though I know it would never happen, a heavier dose of the Marxist-esque society the Star Trek Universe is. Also, maybe they could incorporate a meaningful planet that has a lot of focus (perhaps another plot thread that eventually merges with the main plot involving an important planet undergoing some issues maybe from a citizen view, maybe from a government view) so that the show isn't entirely space adventures nor stuck in a station above a focal planet and wormhole like DS9 (which is my favorite series in terms of plot)

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

If there is to be another Trek series at any point in the future, it will need to be as accessible as possible. This will unfortunately mean it might not be half as deep as a lot of us that would post on a Trek forum on the internet would like, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be bad. It would probably follow the 'fun' style of the new film because that's proven popular, so the odds of financial gain would be higher. All the new Trek fans brought in by nuTrek (lolol) would be more likely to follow it.

Seriously, CBS isn't going to do a show retconning Voyager's ending or even a continuation of DS9... or even TNG for that matter. They're going to go the route that's a guaranteed profit, or close to it. Starting a new Trek show would be a very big investment so they're going to aim for as many fans as possible. It might seem to people on forums that 'obviously a lot of people want x thing', but in actuality the number of people on Trek forums worldwide wouldn't be a tenth as many people watching as would be necessary to sustain the show. Those other nine people per hardcore Trek fan are going to want something easy to get into, not something following a show that ended in 2001 and has absolutely nothing to do with the new image of the franchise.

It can be a sad fact, but it's a true fact. It should be said though that I don't think your idea is bad. It sounds cool. It's just not something they would do, if indeed they ever bothered with a full-fledged show again. At the moment they're probably (nothing is certain, but probably) quite happy with the films.

Besides, pouring $150 million or so into each movie... that's a lot of money, even with all the profit. They're probably more willing to rake $200 million in profit off of each one and not take the chance with a less guaranteed product for a while. Keep the two hundred mil.

 

[Ralphis]

Your idea is cool. And NO ONE wants a new show more then I do. Believe me... I'm seriously having withdraws because I don't have a new Trek story every week. I'm always having ideas for new Trek shows. I just can't shut if off!

BUT...

I just don't see it happening. It ain't going to happen. There's the reasons stated by Jeff O'Connor, and there's also the point that CBS doesn't really even have a place to put a new Star Trek show. It wouldn't work on CBS, not along side the 72 CSI shows, NCIS, and Criminal Minds. I guess one could make a case for it being on The CW since it airs shows like Smallville and Supernatural. But it's also the same channel that has Gossip Girl.

The only way, IMHO, that a Star Trek show on The CW could work, would be if it was an animated series and aired in the CW4Kids block.

I read somewhere that CBS only wants to produce shows for them (and The CW), and not for any other networks. (I can't provide the source, don't know where it was.) So putting it on the Syfy Channel or any channel is out.

Besides, TV sucks anyway. Best to stick with the big-budget A-class movies. Star Trek (2009) had it's problems, but it was one heck of a ride! =)

 

[Temis the Vorta]

There should be 50 episodes created and if successful(it will be) just create more.

If you can convince a network to bankroll 50 episodes at a time, great!

How do you plan to do that?

How do you plan to interest CBS in doing Star Trek? Hint, before you answer: do some reading to find out what CBS is and isn't interested in. Look at their current and upcoming lineups. Read what the execs say about their corporate strategy. If you can figure out why CBS would have the slightest interest in Star Trek, I'd love to hear it. Because the only answer I've been able to come up with: there's no reason they would want to deviate from their current, highly successful strategy to waste time on Star Trek.

I read somewhere that CBS only wants to produce shows for them (and The CW), and not for any other networks. (I can't provide the source, don't know where it was.)

I think I've read that too. All the networks are sticking to in-house productions for financial reasons.

seasons are a necessary part of non-soap opera TV (for reasons I could go into but mainly that a high budget show needs to draw a certain amount of ratings to be successful

The simpler answer is that no network is going to buy a lot of product (50 episodes) when they could buy a few (13 episodes) and then see whether the product sells. Seasons persist because audiences and advertisers are used to the structure, but seasons have been getting more wobbly all the time as cable competes with networks with a year-long format, so it isn't seasons so much that's the issue.

It might seem to people on forums that 'obviously a lot of people want x thing', but in actuality the number of people on Trek forums worldwide wouldn't be a tenth as many people watching as would be necessary to sustain the show. Those other nine people per hardcore Trek fan are going to want something easy to get into, not something following a show that ended in 2001 and has absolutely nothing to do with the new image of the franchise.

Bingo. And those people are more likely to be on CW or Showtime than on CBS, with its audience that wants cop shows and not sci fi. A Star Trek show on CW would skew young and fluffy; a Star Trek on Showtime would skew more mature, sexy and violent. Those are the only realistic options now.

But is CW going to want Star Trek? It skews too male. (CW might be trying to expand into the male demo, so that would be a point in its favor).

Is Showtime going to want Star Trek? Showtime's goal is to compete toe to toe with HBO in the "we're not TV" premium market - giving people stuff they can't get anywhere else on TV. Star Trek is associated with network TV - what would subscribers think about seeing that brand on Showtime? Why should they pay a subscription for stuff they used to see for free on UPN? What are they paying good money for? You don't see HBO resurrecting Starsky & Hutch or Happy Days, do you? Showtime can't afford to look cheesy by comparison with HBO.

I'd prefer Showtime over CW for a new Star Trek series, but frankly CW looks more likely to want to do a new Star Trek series.

 

[iamralph]

Is Showtime going to want Star Trek? Showtime's goal is to compete toe to toe with HBO in the "we're not TV" premium market - giving people stuff they can't get anywhere else on TV. Star Trek is associated with network TV - what would subscribers think about seeing that brand on Showtime? Why should they pay a subscription for stuff they used to see for free on UPN?

well, actually, this is an arguement FOR showing on showtime, as Trek fans are significantly more monetarily invested in the show than probably nearly any other TV show out there

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I'd vastly prefer it to be on Showtime, come to think of it. Oh so vastly.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Is Showtime going to want Star Trek? Showtime's goal is to compete toe to toe with HBO in the "we're not TV" premium market - giving people stuff they can't get anywhere else on TV. Star Trek is associated with network TV - what would subscribers think about seeing that brand on Showtime? Why should they pay a subscription for stuff they used to see for free on UPN?

well, actually, this is an arguement FOR showing on showtime, as Trek fans are significantly more monetarily invested in the show than probably nearly any other TV show out there

But are Trek fans a big enough percentage of Showtime's audience that it would be worth it for Showtime to devalue their brand to all their non-Trek-fan viewers who expect to only see things on Showtime that they don't associate with free TV?

It's possible that Showtime might roll the dice and make an exception for Star Trek, which after all, really isn't equivalent to Starsky & Hutch or Happy Days. But it would be a gamble and the result would be much different than the Trek we are used to on TV or movies. It might be more interesting, but it would require some adjustment.

And then I got to thinking about the bizarre way Trek is divided between two mutually antagonistic owners: Paramount for movies and CBS for TV. Let's say CBS does a bad Star Trek TV show. Paramount can't stop them but if it's bad enough, they might have a legal case against CBS for denigrating their valuable brand and potentially impacting box office.

Then I thought, what if CBS does its best to do a great Star Trek TV show? Paramount is still hostile. Might they still go after CBS simply because they can? You can always make a case that something is damaging to your interests, even if you don't have a chance of winning, particularly if it's not a black or white question. How is some judge supposed to decide whether any given Star Trek TV show is good or bad for Star Trek movies? If Trek XII flops, is the TV show partially to blame?

Maybe CBS knows that the risk exists, and simply chooses to do nothing. One thing I know about corporate lawyers, if they can even remotely envision a legal problem arising by X course of action, they will adamantly tell you not even to dream about X course of action. If CBS lawyers are telling the execs that, and the execs forge ahead, their heads will roll if anything does happen. Star Trek on TV is a legal mess waiting to happen, so let's do another CSI show instead.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

What a fascinating, depressing read.

So true though.

 

[captainpicard]

If you can convince a network to bankroll 50 episodes at a time, great!

How do you plan to do that?

How do you plan to interest CBS in doing Star Trek? Hint, before you answer: do some reading to find out what CBS is and isn't interested in. Look at their current and upcoming lineups. Read what the execs say about their corporate strategy. If you can figure out why CBS would have the slightest interest in Star Trek, I'd love to hear it. Because the only answer I've been able to come up with: there's no reason they would want to deviate from their current, highly successful strategy to waste time on Star Trek.

I personally can't, but a lot of Asian and Europe shows can. Its probably not the same in the US, but people can adapt (or be assimilated).

The biggest problem for the show has been its stagnancy. Its all the same, too similar, too familiar, same format, same characters, similar character types, etc...
Its based on the 24th century, with millions of planets, races, cultures and technology, if that isn't broad enough to come up with interesting ideas, than I don't know what is.

But the show must accept new ideas, new formats from current generation shows.
No one outside hardcore trek fans would want to see the same stuff, even trek fans wouldn't. That's why a change is needed.

I could think a lot of interesting episodes featuring the prototype ship "AI". It could become self aware, become an enemy of its crew, malfunctions and put the ship at danger, can get a virus and project as a photonic being and start murdering crew members, etc...

With good writers, enough budget and several fresh ideas it can work greatly.

"Go boldly where no show has gone before"

 

[indolover]

The premise to be is by the by.

But IMO the formulae of a good Trek show are thus:

- Good acting
- Good storytelling
- Character development
- An intriguing enemy

TNG and DS9 had all of these points, which IMO make them the best Trek shows ever. Voyager was someway there, but if a future Trek series had all of these, we could be onto a winner.

 

[T'Girl]

... that it would be worth it for Showtime to devalue their brand to all their non-Trek-fan viewers

If it was going to be on Showtime, Star Trek could easily be "tuned" for that channel

NCIS

For Star Trek to emulate some elements of NCIS could only prosper the show. Between someone like Special Agent Gibbs and someone like Captain Jonathon Archer, who would you rather watch as a starship Captain from episode one?

necessary part of non-soap opera TV

If the future Star Trek has multiple story arcs, some of those arcs can be basically soap opera like. Nothing wrong with getting into the private lifes of the crew.

beaten by anyone

Our heroes should get beaten once in a while, at least every third episode, keep the viewer guessing.

a heavier dose of the Marxist-esque society

My god, could it get any heavier than it's already been shown?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I personally can't, but a lot of Asian and Europe shows can. Its probably not the same in the US, but people can adapt (or be assimilated).

You mean the TV business model is different in Asia and Europe? I'll take your word for it, since I know nothing about that. But CBS is an American company that needs to use an American business model to make Star Trek successful on American TV. Those are the ground rules, so how to we get from point A to point B?

But if the business model you're talking about simply spends a lot less per episode than American TV does, which permits 50 episodes to be made for the price of 10 (and greenlighting 50 is the same financial risk), that's a non-starter. To survive on American TV, Star Trek needs to compete with shows that have strong production values, actors and writers. If Asian or European TV business models had the chance of working on American TV, I strongly suspect CBS and everyone else would have adopted them by now and the reason they haven't is because they wouldn't produce shows that can compete.

The biggest problem for the show has been its stagnancy.

The biggest problem now is that the space opera market is too small a percentage of the overall viewership to survive on solely ad-supported TV.

But the show must accept new ideas, new formats from current generation shows.

What current generation shows? Space opera is dead, and while there are plenty of non-space-opera sci fi shows around, few if any are worth copying. Maybe Star Trek could take a cue from further afield in sci fi, such as Caprica or Lost, but what is that cue?

Lost is infamously non-copyable - many series have tried and flopped miserably. Caprica barely scrapes by on 2M viewers, so although it's praiseworthy as a rare example of sci fi on TV that tries to address serious sci fi topics (as opposed to using sci fi as window dressing for a cop show or generalized adventures), it attracts a small niche audience and Star Trek really needs to shoot for something bigger than that.

And then there's BSG, which owes its successful elements to Star Trek. Ron Moore took his experience on DS9 and pushed things further into dark territory than Star Trek allows. But since the elements of BSG that aren't Star Trek shouldn't be Star Trek, there's nothing to be learned from that show, except that everyone needs to stay far away from that shaky cam thing!

... that it would be worth it for Showtime to devalue their brand to all their non-Trek-fan viewers

If it was going to be on Showtime, Star Trek could easily be "tuned" for that channel

The problem is not so much content as perception. Think of it in terms of branding. Would the Showtime subscriber object in principle to Star Trek, since they're used to seeing that brand on free TV and don't expect to be paying a subscription for it? Would they now think Showtime is less premium than HBO, which after all, makes good on its claim that it's "not TV, it's HBO" by having shows you'd never find on broadcast or even most basic cable?

What I mean is, envision two shows, Star Trek and Original Space Opera Show. They could have the same content, calibrated to the tastes of the Showtime viewer, but Original Space Opera Show would be more consistent with Showtime's brand image of providing shows that subscribers don't expect to get elsewhere. However, Star Trek might attract more new subscribers. So for Showtime, the balancing act is whether Star Trek is worth it for new subscribers, taking in considering the risk of alienating current subscribers by muddying the Showtime brand? If Showtime wants to add a space opera show to their mix, maybe Original Space Opera Show is the smarter option.

The way the Showtime honchos think is the same as all corporations think: their most valuable asset is their brand. Products are things that support or in some cases undermine the brand. Showtime is most concerned with Showtime, the brand, and then concerned with making shows that support Showtime, the brand, and not accidentally making shows that undermine Showtime, the brand.

Otherwise, why wouldn't Showtime just throw on any old junk? That horrible show about the Jersey Shore gets good ratings. Why not do a knock-off of that? The reason that Showtime won't is because one show is not worth undermining their brand for. I know it's not as embarassing as the Jersey Shore show, but airing Star Trek to get subscribers while losing the branding war to HBO would be winning a battle but losing the war.

 

[josh.heinrichs]

I think being that the CW is run by the same person who was running UPN, which the first four series premiered and ran on and doesn't oppose the product, I think the CW is more then likely to get ANY new Star Trek series.

 

[Shatnertage]

The premise to be is by the by.

But IMO the formulae of a good Trek show are thus:

- Good acting
- Good storytelling
- Character development
- An intriguing enemy

TNG and DS9 had all of these points, which IMO make them the best Trek shows ever. Voyager was someway there, but if a future Trek series had all of these, we could be onto a winner.

I think that's it in a nutshell (the 1st 3, anyway). Who are we going to be watching, and why should we care?

It wasn't the overall storyline that kept me watching Lost each week. It was the characters and the stories they told. That's really what the template for any new Trek should be. People will watch watch shows that have some pretty out-there elements, provided the writing and acting is compelling.

And we all need to make our peace with the fact that, just like the original, any new show will be geared to appeal to as many people as possible.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Any new Trek show should takes it's cues from Star Trek 2009. It should be as different from the other shows as possible without sacrificing what makes Trek Trek. It should appeal to the largest audience as possible. I think JJ Abrams' movie did that quite well.

 

[Vurok]

The premise to be is by the by.

But IMO the formulae of a good Trek show are thus:

- Good acting
- Good storytelling
- Character development
- An intriguing enemy

I agree with your four aspects you list, but the premise is vital. The best Trek have had a good, solid premise - exploring space, the events surround a static space-station, lost in space. Their differences made them interesting, new and exciting. The premise has to be unique and interesting - that is what the whole story is based upon.

Perhaps the most important question is where would the enemy come from? Borg, Romulans, Cardassian, Dominion, Klingon... all been done. There needs to be danger involved, but it is hard to add a new threat, given that we know pretty much every race in the vicinity of the Federation

A time travel, Captain Braxton type narrative / temporal could not sustain itself really. I am not sure they could hold a large audience travelling back in time every week, but if there was some focus on the 29th century, maybe it could work.

What would be interesting would be some kind of split in the Federation, or other kind of political intrique. Possibly a new Maquis threat or something but again, hard to maintain over 25 episodes+ However, on second thoughts, the villains would probably turn out to be the GOP and Starfleet would have to fight to make the universe safe for communists and fluffy bunnies everywhere.

Star Trek: Section 31 would be pretty cool, showing a crew uncovering enemies of the Federation and operating against them - all the while hiding from regular Starfleet ships would be interesting.

The premise has to be very good to get 5,6,7+ seasons out of it. I can't think of one, but hopefully someone else will.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The best Trek have had a good, solid premise - exploring space, the events surround a static space-station, lost in space.

Those aren't premises at all. They're vaguely defined situations that could be the basis for a good show or a terrible one. A premise is like this: "A starship goes boldly, to defend and patrol the Federation and seek out new worlds as potential Federation members." Or "Starfleet takes over a dilapidated Cardassian space station so that they can shepherd the adjacent world of Bajor - suddenly important because of the discovery of a nearby wormhole - into the Federation." Or "A Starfleet vessel is thrown to the far side of the galaxy, with a mixed crew of Starfleet officers and their Maquis foes. Now they must work together to get home, if ever they are to return home."

The first was used well in a couple of series. The second was used in DS9 and dropped because it was boring, in favor of space war, which is a very simple premise but executed well. The third sounds great but fell flat due to lousy execution. Which just goes to show that even when you have a bonafide premise, it guarantees nothing.

The premise has to be unique and interesting

Nah. DS9's premise ended up as, "Starfleet must fight to defend the Federation without abandoning Federation ideals." Nothing remotely unique about that - it's been used extensively with slight variations (replacing "Starfleet" and "Federation" with other proper nouns). Something as broad as a premise doesn't have to be original. Originality is much more important in the details. Nobody wants characters who are just some overly familiar type or plot twists they've seen a hundred times before.

What would be interesting would be some kind of split in the Federation, or other kind of political intrique.

The Federation is deliberately written as the black hole of Star Trek - it doesn't have any substance because Star Trek is "about" the Federation only in the sense of the Federation being this vague idealized thing that Starfleet exists to protect from outside threats. After all this time, we know next to nothing about the Federation. Does it have a mass media and elections? Is Starfleet the only cop on the beat or do worlds have their own militaries?

Star Trek is about the margins of the Federation - the Klingons are encroaching, a new world is discovered that might join the Federation, a Doomsday Machine is on its way to gobble up Fed worlds. Star Trek is inherently a Western and needs to stay on the exciting, mysterious frontier, not get bogged down in depressing, dull politics back in Washington DC (blergh).

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Once again, Temis kind of impresses me with her general knack for stating things I might have ended up typing, myself. Indeed, DS9 transformed from a fairly unique premise to a typical one, and as a result, got better. There are a lot of factors.

A premise can be strong and the show might still fall apart under the weight of its lack of well-executed episodes and overall uninteresting characters. I've seen it happen. Or a premise can be fairly routine but sound plenty enticing because it's a good routine, and even then if the direction the show takes is particularly bland, it could still turn into a real dirty dish.

I took a rim shot at Andromeda with that last sentence.