Because we don't remember or count the bombs that happened on their watch and because it has been twenty to thirty-plus years since they've done anything Trek related.
I'm simply not interested in more of the same.
Because we don't remember or count the bombs that happened on their watch and because it has been twenty to thirty-plus years since they've done anything Trek related.
I'm simply not interested in more of the same.
It's a bit of an assumption that people are looking at everything through rose tinted glasses.
I mean, I am not one of the people advocating that bringing the old writers back will fix everything, or that they should even do it. Brannon Braga came back to do Enterprise and we saw what happened there. Russell T Davies on Doctor Who is a recent example of how the chosen one failed to save us. The first thing the DS9 writers room came up with when they reunited for the documentary was blowing up Captain Nog! You either quit as the hero or keep writing long enough to become the villain.
But on paper 'bring the people who wrote the best stories back to write another story' doesn't imply people are drunk on nostalgia. They really did write the best stories! Look at Mike Sussman's episodes on Enterprise, count the bombs there. They are by definition the absolute most qualified people for the job, or at least they were before they used a lot of their ideas and inevitably became different people over the next few decades, as we all have. Who knows what Trek stories they'd write at this point.
They've written the best stories so far, because they were given a chance. In the ten episode a season streaming world, I'd prefer the slots be filled by people who have a new vision not folks just regurgitating their past glories.
They've been giving new writers a chance pretty consistently for the entire run of the franchise, so there's nothing wrong with that idea.
I just don't see a problem in bringing back writers who've written for the series in the past as well. I mean it's not like they were frozen in carbonite back in 1998, you can't just bring back the past exactly as it was even if you wanted to.
I most emphatically don't. It eventually degraded into formulatic slop that was dull, uninspiring and unmemorable.
I have to laugh when people try to blame Kurtzman for the reduced episode orders as if that’s a decision that comes from him. 10-13 episodes is the standard now across the board, and there’s no changing that. Not with how expensive everything surrounding the industry has become.
Trek isn’t a procedural they can just film on the backlot and in a few indoor sets.
Could be an alternative timeline, as was the Kelvin timeline.
Or you could re-imagine Trek, similar to the way Battlestar Galactica was re-imagined as NuBSG. This might be somewhat more involved, because you have to decide what to keep, what to delete, what to morph.
While somehow keeping the essence of Trek.
Which way do you want to go?
Last edited:
This proves the bind the franchise is in because I can't stand the work of a few of these people.
It's just spread too thin at this point - some people just want TOS or TNG again, some people want some as-yet-indescribable new direction, some people want it serialised, some people want it fully episodic, some people want more Behr/Moore "war is hell, except is also just Vietnam with lasers, so respect the troops" stuff, some people want more Braga "what if there was, like, a time warp, and that's pretty much it" stuff, etc. Some people want character drama, some people want pure high-concept sci-fi adventure, other people want some kind of prestige political thing, and everything in between.
I do think a successful reboot is possible but it'd probably alienate most of us on here in various ways. At this point I increasingly wonder if all the effort, talent, and money wouldn't be better used launching a new sci-fi franchise that's clearly inspired by Star Trek but totally unbeholden to it.
The other thing is I really really wish they'd let freelancers submit scripts again, because the sheer range of ideas you get means that no matter how shit the staff writers' room is, something good'll get through.
This isn't very specific at all. What would the new characters be, and how would they better show the "human condition"?
I'd much rather this than Star Trek getting a dramatic reboot. I know everything has to be attached to an IP these days, but they really could just make a new series with no baggage and no expectations, and have the freedom to do whatever they wanted with it.
A sci-fi muppet musical, a series about space therapists helping time-displaced officers deal with their trauma, a sitcom on a space resort, Scott Bakula as the President of Space... if it's successful they build a new brand, if it fails then it doesn't devalue the brand they have.
The open submission policy is never going to happen again. It was born out of sheer desperation, since the script slush pile had been decimated in the wake of the 88 WGA strike. Even with the release form that they had folks complete, it was still a legal nightmare over the years - that’s the big reason shows won’t take the risk.
No, thank you.
You want new and fresh, so you’re going for the old gang, too many of whom worked on Enterprise and/or The Orville for me to take seriously the idea that they can bring anything fresh and vital to Star Trek. This is just another “give me something new and different that’s just like the old stuff I like best” approach.
I’ll take the Kurtzman era over Enterprise and The Orville any day of the week.
There was a recent interview with Bryan Fuller where he said that he laughed at the costume budget that he was originally allotted for Discovery and commented to the execs that he couldn't buy the uniforms at Target.
Precisely my point. I didn't make it clear, but I'm not saying the writers I mentioned must be the only writers on a new series. I would be just as satisfied with their guidance in how to write Star Trek, which none of the Kurtzman era writers had at all, including from Terry Matalas.
True, and this premise would allow for completely new ideas in terms of characters and situations. The core elements are the 23rd century, the U.S.S. Enterprise, and the mission. Of these three, the first could be tweaked, but I think two hundred years out from now still works for speculative science fiction.
Not at all. I have never, nor will ever, thinly veil my hatred for streaming era Trek. This is not a thread about that era, it's a thread about something new.
The problem with the ideas you mention is that they were done almost to spite TWoK rather than create something new. I don't think a reboot would need Khan at all, or Kirk, or anyone we know. The names and even versions of the characters could pop up, but they'd never be central to the new story going forward.
I think you're reading it a specific way. My point is that those writers have more experience writing the kind of Star Trek I'm talking about than anyone who came after, Matalas included.
Excellent point! I chose these writers specifically because of the highlights from their past work. This doesn't mean new writers can't also come aboard, but they would have to learn Star Trek storytelling from the veterans. That's all I'm suggesting.
Thank you for getting what I'm suggesting. I chose Sussman in particular because of his work on Enterprise and the United pitch. If Skydance is open to new pitches, we know they've at least agreed to hear his.
I wouldn't want them to write the way they did almost thirty years ago, but I do want their understanding of Trek and experience to guide a new series.
I didn't use BSG 2003 as an example because it has some negative associations. It is, however, conceptually closest to what I'm suggesting, except that existing characters wouldn't have to be recast or reimagined. Outside of the 23rd century (or thereabouts), the Enterprise, and the mission, the sky's the limit.
You bring up a point I forgot to mention in my initial post: my idea is a suggestion only if there *must* be more Trek. I'm content with TOS, TAS, the TOS films, DS9, some comics and novels, and some fan work. However, if there has to be more Trek (and we all know that's what corporations want), this is what I feel is the best way forward.
As for a new science fiction franchise, Hollywood seems dead-set against taking risks on anything that isn't an existing IP unless it's horror. Consider Firefly even The Orville. The support is just not there on the executive/corporate level.
I left that open because I don't know that quite yet. All I'm saying is that these characters don't have to be the TOS characters or any other Trek characters as long as they're as compelling, well-drawn, and well-cast as those characters were.
These ideas could also work, though I think the new owners will want a full reboot with only the fewest of connections to the past. If that's the case, my reboot suggestion contains what I feel are the three most important elements to maintain the essence of Trek.
That's not at all what I'm suggesting, but if you're fine with a pale imitation of Trek, that's you.
It's a backwards facing and exclusionary outlook but I do apologise for misinterpreting your intention.
It's more trying to get a specific look for Trek back. What they look is is of course debatable, but more than that it's difficult to grab. These writers, culture and attitudes change and the have learned things than when they first wrote. It's like expecting a band to recapture the sound of their first album.
Ah. See, I was under the impression, given some of the writers you named, that you wanted a pale imitation of Trek. I didn't start with the Berman era, I started with the original series, and I don't see the Berman era as the Platonic Ideal for all of Star Trek. It's just one path of many.
Additionally, Berman era Trek is still proportionally dominant in hours—no need to exacerbate the imbalance.
Well, while I'm guilty as anyone else of occasionally lumping together all of 1987 to 2005 as a single era, maybe just calling it all Berman Trek isn't the way to go. There's TNG. There's DS9. And I think Voyager and Enterprise could be classed together as UPN Trek. They obviously all have a lot in common, but DS9 is distinct from the others in many ways, and the UPN shows faced pressures that TNG and DS9 never encountered. So there are, arguably, three Berman eras, and they overlap chronologically. That'd make for more complicated conversations, though.
Similar threads
- Locked
