I'll take it if only to watch the "Starfleet isn't military" crowd squirm as their argument collapses. It would be glorious.
Star Trek spin-off movies?
- Thread starter CaptainSpirk
- Start date
A single story from the Romulan War. Focus on one small group, tell one small story, like a Saving Private Ryan or The Guns of Navarone set in the 22nd century Trekverse. It could be about a MACO unit or the crew of an old NX class ship undertaking a desperate mission. No throwbacks or cameos, so we avoid that baggage, but plenty of action.
Ok, it sounds an awful lot like a Trek version of Rogue One, but that is the point.
Ok, it sounds an awful lot like a Trek version of Rogue One, but that is the point.
Actually it sounds just like the original idea for the 11th film.
Who would voice the characters for DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Leonard Nimoy and Majel Barrett. Since all of them have passed away.
Billy West for D, Maurice LaMarche for Leonard Nimoy, Frank Welker for Jimmy Doohan and Tress MacNeille for Majel.
If Star Trek wanted to do something Rogue Oneish, I think the perfect story would be the fate of the Enterprise C. But leave all the YE stuff out of it. And change the story around so that it's the ship/crew's very first mission.
Beckinsale as Garrett, but just leave her be British since Garrett is a Norman name.
A good set up would be she had been promoted to captain several years later, but was never given command of a ship. In fact, she was never part of the command/tac line. She was always more of administrator and diplomat. (Like even more so than JLP.) She was only given command out of political pressure, because it was thought it would be good show for Starfleets new flagship. Most of the crew was chosen out of this decision--Castillo is the only one with any tactical experience. And yet, on their maiden voyage, they find themselves in the middle of a real-life Kobayashi Maru.
Beckinsale as Garrett, but just leave her be British since Garrett is a Norman name.
A good set up would be she had been promoted to captain several years later, but was never given command of a ship. In fact, she was never part of the command/tac line. She was always more of administrator and diplomat. (Like even more so than JLP.) She was only given command out of political pressure, because it was thought it would be good show for Starfleets new flagship. Most of the crew was chosen out of this decision--Castillo is the only one with any tactical experience. And yet, on their maiden voyage, they find themselves in the middle of a real-life Kobayashi Maru.
A great suggestion. They could even do a mini-series sort of thing. A twelve episode series or a shortened season. Does anyone do 26 episodes per season any more?
Seems like 26 episode seasons are a thing of the past now. The closest I have encountered since the end of ENTERPRISE is SUPERNATURAL... seasons 1-6 are 22 episodes (except season 3, which was cut to 16 due to the WGA strike that year), season 7-12 are 23 episodes, and I believe their season 13 will also consist of 23 episodes... if the new WGA strike happens, it may get shortened, too.
I think the logic behind 26 episode seasons no longer applies in the age of DVR and Netflix and such... 26 episodes of a series, played once over and repeat exactly once to get the 52 weeks of the year for that timeslot of the series. Now, channels, especially with short season shows, will go through marathons of a series' past season a day or two before the new season airs... like DOCTOR WHO or THE WALKING DEAD.
New technology for watching shows, different expectations from the audience (attention to detail, continuity, arcs, etc.), the endless wave arc driven series (I think SUPERNATURAL actually hits the exact right balance for this... plenty of episodic ones in a season but peppered with enough arc driven episodes as to not leave people confused if they haven't watched.), and the seemingly following of the British format for seasons (13 episodes or less each).
Regarding the shorter seasons, I think this is actually a good idea overall. First, you are less likely to get 'filler' episodes. Second, if a network can get it right for each, they can have FOUR hits running in a single year in the same timeslot vs. one series of 26 episodes repeated once. Not only does that equal more profit from merchandise and ads, but also gives more jobs to set designers, costumers, makeup artists, etc... not to mention more versatile roles for actors, who can potentially be in two or three series at once as part of a main cast.
I think the logic behind 26 episode seasons no longer applies in the age of DVR and Netflix and such... 26 episodes of a series, played once over and repeat exactly once to get the 52 weeks of the year for that timeslot of the series. Now, channels, especially with short season shows, will go through marathons of a series' past season a day or two before the new season airs... like DOCTOR WHO or THE WALKING DEAD.
New technology for watching shows, different expectations from the audience (attention to detail, continuity, arcs, etc.), the endless wave arc driven series (I think SUPERNATURAL actually hits the exact right balance for this... plenty of episodic ones in a season but peppered with enough arc driven episodes as to not leave people confused if they haven't watched.), and the seemingly following of the British format for seasons (13 episodes or less each).
Regarding the shorter seasons, I think this is actually a good idea overall. First, you are less likely to get 'filler' episodes. Second, if a network can get it right for each, they can have FOUR hits running in a single year in the same timeslot vs. one series of 26 episodes repeated once. Not only does that equal more profit from merchandise and ads, but also gives more jobs to set designers, costumers, makeup artists, etc... not to mention more versatile roles for actors, who can potentially be in two or three series at once as part of a main cast.
The Good Wife at least did 22/23 episodes and somehow they still managed to have great writing; plot and dialogues. So I do find it a bit disappointing that so many current shows only come with 10 episodes per season.
Nah, as much as I like the TOS movies, I believe Trek works best on the small screen. The TOS movies worked because we already knew these characters and we could care about them and how they evolved. The TNG movies could have been that but they botched, mainly because of miss-handling by TPTB and, well, the characters were not as engaging (IMO).
I wouldn't mind smaller mini-series and the likes, with different settings, crews etc. but have them sufficiently long so that we get to know the characters, settings and time periods.
I wouldn't mind smaller mini-series and the likes, with different settings, crews etc. but have them sufficiently long so that we get to know the characters, settings and time periods.
Current non science fiction broadcast shows are in the 20s episode range.
This season's CBS examples
Big Bang Theory 24 episodes
Blue Bloods 22 episodes
Criminal Minds 22 episodes
Criminal Minds Beyond Borders 13 episodes but season started mid season
Designated Survivor 21 episodes
Madam Secretary 23 episodes
NCIS 24 episodes
NCIS LA 24 episodes
NCIS New Orleans 24 episodes
Just a few examples.
This season's CBS examples
Big Bang Theory 24 episodes
Blue Bloods 22 episodes
Criminal Minds 22 episodes
Criminal Minds Beyond Borders 13 episodes but season started mid season
Designated Survivor 21 episodes
Madam Secretary 23 episodes
NCIS 24 episodes
NCIS LA 24 episodes
NCIS New Orleans 24 episodes
Just a few examples.
The problem with longer seasons is it's pretty inevitable that there's going to be bloat and scrips that should have landed in the recycle bin get used to fill time.
I like a good frame of reference is the old USA Network model: 15-18. It's long enough that the seasons don't feel claustrophobic but not so long they feel watered down.
I like a good frame of reference is the old USA Network model: 15-18. It's long enough that the seasons don't feel claustrophobic but not so long they feel watered down.
26 episodes a season has long been a thing of the past. By the mid-90s, the Star Trek shows were the only shows on TV that still went to 26, most were only going to 22-24.
I prefer a smaller season of 10 or 13 episodes if it helps the writers focus on a story arc and eliminates the fluff and filler. Quality over quantity.
I don't mind some "filler". With only 10 episodes per season I assume Discovery will be very intense and will have no filler at all.
But I also watch Trek for some casual escapist fun. Not every episode has to be mega-dramatic. It's okay if an episode just lets us spend some time with our favorite characters, having fun.
That's why the occasional holodeck episode in TNG never bothered me. With only 10 episodes you don't really have time to experiment, try something funny and unusual and maybe even fail once in a while.
I'd much rather have more episodes. Not necessarily 26 but some "filler" is actually good if it's entertaining filler.
But I also watch Trek for some casual escapist fun. Not every episode has to be mega-dramatic. It's okay if an episode just lets us spend some time with our favorite characters, having fun.
That's why the occasional holodeck episode in TNG never bothered me. With only 10 episodes you don't really have time to experiment, try something funny and unusual and maybe even fail once in a while.
I'd much rather have more episodes. Not necessarily 26 but some "filler" is actually good if it's entertaining filler.
For me it depends on the show. Serialized shows absolutely need a shorter season, but for more episodic shows I think theres's something to be said for having a regular thing to look forward to the whole year. That's what you miss out on with all these amazing shows that are being made with 10-13 episode runs that only run for a small portion of the year. But 20-22 is more than enough to do that.
Then there's the last couple of seasons of Doctor Who - each twelve episodes of very little EXCEPT fluff and filler. Even the arcs.
Much rather see a "young Lt. Kirk" production, than any academy story. A mid-twenties dynamic officer (not a cadet) engaging in adventures.
Probably has absolutely zero to do with that.
Oh yeah, my bad. It's because it was The Best Star Trek Script Ever™ and CBS and Paramount were afraid.
I would love it if they did this but there's just not the kind of demand for Star Trek movies that would make it worth it for the studio. I wish Star Trek was the kind of moneymaker Star Wars is, then we'd get constant market saturation, series, spinoff movies.
It is not the Demand .. it is the Management.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Poll
