Tawny Newsome and Justin Simien developing new live-action Trek series

[Dukhat]

TWOK was the fanwankiest of TOS movies - a direct sequel to a TOS episode. It was a smash hit.

See, I think the complete opposite. They purposely brought in a director who knew nothing about TOS, and a writer who tried to figure out a villain that fans of TOS would know but that non-fans wouldn't need huge amounts of backstory in order to understand why he hates Kirk. Nobody needed to watch 'Space Seed' in order to know what was going on; Khan's backstory was dealt with in a few sentences of exposition. The rest of the movie was just a Moby Dick allegory.

FC was the most well-received of the TNG movies, and it was an incredibly fanwanky movie, with both subplots (the Borg and Zephran Cochrane) relying upon prior Trek lore.

The Borg were in the public consciousness at the time. So it was logical to make a movie about them. And while I agree that the Zefram Cochrane subplot was fanwanky, that's not what people were paying for movie tickets to see. They were paying to see Picard fight cybernetic zombies in yet another Moby Dick allegory.

 

[Daedalus]

See, I think the complete opposite. They purposely brought in a director who knew nothing about TOS, and a writer who tried to figure out a villain that fans of TOS would know but that non-fans wouldn't need huge amounts of backstory in order to understand why he hates Kirk. Nobody needed to watch 'Space Seed' in order to know what was going on; Khan's backstory was dealt with in a few sentences of exposition. The rest of the movie was just a Moby Dick allegory.

I hadn't seen Space Seed at all. I don't think I saw it until 5 years later, or more.
I was surprised that Khan was such a pleasant person in the episode, aside from his momentary outbursts and other delightful things.

The Borg were in the public consciousness at the time. So it was logical to make a movie about them. And while I agree that the Zefram Cochrane subplot was fanwanky, that's not what people were paying for movie tickets to see. They were paying to see Picard fight cybernetic zombies in yet another Moby Dick allegory.

I get what you're saying here, it's like the Daleks and Doctor Who. Just about everyone knows what a Dalek is.

 

[trekfan_1]

I don't mind Star Trek trying new things. But there must be rhyme and reason . It can't be " wouldn't be great if we did a ( insert genre here) version of Star Trek.

I see Star Trek like Law and Order and CSI. Nothing wrong with doing the same core formula in different settings with different dynamics and characters. You don't see an animated CSI, a sitcom CSI or kiddie version of CSI for example. Is every new CSI being made being labeled as "CSI fanwank?"

Having said that I'm ok with branching out with different concepts. But how about doing some testi screenings or maybe getting *some* input form the prospective audience. Or making sure there's alot of ambition behind the endeavor. Otherwise it just feels like they are doing a check box of "different " ways to do Star Trek on a white board.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't mind Star Trek trying new things. But there must be rhyme and reason . It can't be " wouldn't be great if we did a ( insert genre here) version of Star Trek.

I see Star Trek like Law and Order and CSI. Nothing wrong with doing the same core formula in different settings with different dynamics and characters. You don't see an animated CSI, a sitcom CSI or kiddie version of CSI for example. Is every new CSI being made being labeled as "CSI fanwank?"

Having said that I'm ok with branching out with different concepts. But how about doing some testi screenings or maybe getting *some* input form the prospective audience. And making sure there's alot of ambition behind the endeavor. Otherwise it just feels like a check box of "different " ways to do Star Trek on a white board.

Right now it feels like Trek is a check box list any way:

Starship Enterprise? Check.
Episodic format with no character growth? Check.
Ensemble based cast with no defined main character? Check.

Or fill in the blank whatever to make it "feel" like Star Trek. So, I would rather something a little bit different, yes for the sake of it, because Trek has always offered me different story types to explore. Undersea combat? Check. Mob story? Check. Comedy? Check. Horror? Check. Courtroom drama? Check.

Etc.

Mileage will vary.

 

[trekfan_1]

Right now it feels like Trek is a check box list any way:

Starship Enterprise? Check.
Episodic format with no character growth? Check.
Ensemble based cast with no defined main character? Check.

Or fill in the blank whatever to make it "feel" like Star Trek. So, I would rather something a little bit different, yes for the sake of it, because Trek has always offered me different story types to explore. Undersea combat? Check. Mob story? Check. Comedy? Check. Horror? Check. Courtroom drama? Check.

Etc.

Mileage will vary.

Agree to disagree .I don't mind variations of a formula that I already love. Feel the same about British mystery shows. If your doing something that wildy differs from that formula, you have to work extra hard to impress me.

And don't think this a just Srar Trek phenomenon. Pick any franchise with a core formula and try to change it and their core longtime fanbase would have hesitation or questions about it

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Doctor Who's been running with the same premise and formula since 1963.

 

[fireproof78]

Agree to disagree .I don't mind variations of a formula that I already love. Feel the same about British mystery shows. If your doing something that wildy differs from that formula, you have to work extra hard to impress me.

And don't think this a just Srar Trek phenomenon. Pick any franchise with a core formula and try to change it and their core longtime fanbase would have hesitation or questions about it

I will always have questions.


What I won't say is "No, don't do that." They are welcome to try.

I think that's the biggest thing for me about Trek, and the various Treks I do not care for. It's that people have their preferences, but that Trek doesn't always have to appeal to me. Hell, I don't care about TNG but was all in on Nemesis and Picard. That's the variety I want.

I don't want a formula. But, then, I'm the weird guy who doesn't think of Trek as comfort food.

 

[trekfan_1]

Doctor Who's been running with the same premise and formula since 1963.

Exactly. Try doing a sitcom version of DR Who, I gureentee Dr who fans would be dubious about it.

 

[fireproof78]

Doctor Who's been running with the same premise and formula since 1963.

And I don't like it.


And I don't want Trek to be Doctor Who. Star Trek has presented a variety platform for enjoyment. Some I like, and some I don't. I might be skeptical but I won't treat it as "ruining the franchise" either.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Exactly. Try doing a sitcom version of DR Who, I gureentee Dr who fans would be dubious about it.

Wait. Doctor Who isn't a sitcom?

 

[trekfan_1]

I will always have questions.


What I won't say is "No, don't do that." They are welcome to try.

I think that's the biggest thing for me about Trek, and the various Treks I do not care for. It's that people have their preferences, but that Trek doesn't always have to appeal to me. Hell, I don't care about TNG but was all in on Nemesis and Picard. That's the variety I want.

I don't want a formula. But, then, I'm the weird guy who doesn't think of Trek as comfort food.

May be a loose analogy but I would eqtate it to relationships. I chose the friends or partners to be with based on what resonates . I shouldn'tbe shamed or called out for having "a type" . I don't just chose people because they are different Familiarity and having certain expectations is part of the human condition. And is possible to want variation within something familiar. Like be a fan of seafood and wanting more variations of that cuisine.

 

[fireproof78]

May be a loose analogy but I would eqtate it to relationships. I chose the friends or partners to be with based on what resonates . I shouldn'tbe shamed or xalled out for having "a type" . I don't just chose people because they are different Familiarity and having certain expectations is part of the human condition. And is possible yo want variation within something familiar. Like be a fan of seafood and wanting more variations of what cuisine.

Is there shame associated here?

If so that was not my intent. You're welcome to have your type. I just don't reject something out of hand for not being my type.

 

[trekfan_1]

Dr Who's ( and James Bond) longevity is proof you don't *need"*" to change to "attract new audiences " Nothing wrong with doing more variations or modern takes of a winning formula .

 

[fireproof78]

Dr Who's ( and James Bond) longevity is proof you don't *need"*" to change to "attract new audiences " Nothing wrong with doing more variations or modern takes of a winning formula .

There is no need for Star Trek at all.

I don't see this point at all. I don't need Trek at all. I do welcome variety because I would often get variety in different stories watching TOS as a youngster.

I don't care about Bond or Doctor Who so I'm afraid my familiarity is passing, at best.

 

[trekfan_1]

Is there shame associated here?

If so that was not my intent. You're welcome to have your type. I just don't reject something out of hand for not being my type.

Too strong of language on my part my bad. It's just my response to the oft compliant about Star Trek fans wanting more of the same formula or "fanwank".

 

[trekfan_1]

There is no need for Star Trek at all.

I don't see this point at all. I don't need Trek at all. I do welcome variety because I would often get variety in different stories watching TOS as a youngster.

I don't care about Bond or Doctor Who so I'm afraid my familiarity is passing, at best.

My point is Star Trek doesn't need to change its formula to prosper ( like some claim). It can endure and attract new fans with its current formula. Like DR Who has.

 

[fireproof78]

Too strong of language on my part my bad. It's just my response to the oft compliant about Star Trek fans wanting more of the same formula or "fanwank".

Except, Trek has variety built in to it.

Deep Space Nine is not the same formula, and is often reported as the best of Trek. TWOK was not the same formula (limited exploration, far more combat) and is reported as the best. First Contact is not the same formula, and is far more of a horror and action/adventure framework.

TOS offered a great variety of stories.

I think that Trek offers a great framework to do things within.

 

[fireproof78]

My point is Star Trek doesn't need to change its formula to survive ( like some claim). It can endure and attract new fans with its current formula. Like DR Who has.

Of course it doesn't. I never claimed that it did. Only stated my preference.

I don't think it needs to change. I welcome variety though. That's my choice, that's my point. I don't hate it because it's different.

And I don't except Trek to survive. I expect it to slowly decrease and eventually not be produced. And life will, inexplicably, move on. That's ok. That is the nature of things.

 

[trekfan_1]

Of course it doesn't. I never claimed that it did. Only stated my preference.

I don't think it needs to change. I welcome variety though. That's my choice, that's my point. I don't hate it because it's different.

And I don't except Trek to survive. I expect it to slowly decrease and eventually not be produced. And life will, inexplicably, move on. That's ok. That is the nature of things.

Post 693 may be a spinoff of our interaction but it was meant as a general statement within the thread. That comment was not specifically directed at you.

 

[trekfan_1]

Except, Trek has variety built in to it.

Deep Space Nine is not the same formula, and is often reported as the best of Trek. TWOK was not the same formula (limited exploration, far more combat) and is reported as the best. First Contact is not the same formula, and is far more of a horror and action/adventure framework.

TOS offered a great variety of stories.

I think that Trek offers a great framework to do things within.

IMO, of the Treks you mentioned , DS9 is the only one I would personally categorize as a different formula. And that would be one of the examples of "working extra hard to impress me". And it did. It was well made. It transcended Star Trek for me. It is possible to do something using a different formula to impress me.. It's just I haven't been fully satisfied with the current showrunners to even do familiar Trek super well let alone branch out to execute something outside its formula.

If the creative juices are not there, at least using the tried and true formula gets you half way there.