Trek Returning to TV in 2017!
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
Nope. Conscious — an awareness of a situation. Not conscience, which is an inner feeling.
Nope. Conscious — an awareness of a situation. Not conscience, which is an inner feeling.
Depends on usage. Having a social conscience is an accepted term, as is being socially conscious.
"Social conscious" is possibly a conflation of two different terms.
You don't need to understand it. Or know it. The same way with Tolkien's universe, you don't have to know anything at all about the background, you can just tell that it's there. Also, I'd be weary of underestimating your audience. They don't need to be spoonfed.
It's simple to write a story that doesn't require knowledge of the past but can still use it to enrich a narrative.
Star Trek offers a rare optimistic view of humanity - and its return to TV can do a lot for progressive values
Most depictions of the future nowadays suggest dystopia is the only way to go. Star Trek offers us something different
I have been a Star Trek fan for my entire life. Growing up in the eighties, my earliest memories are of being curled up in my Dad’s lap as we watched endless repeats of my heroes - Kirk, Spock and McCoy – galloping round the cosmos, fighting rubbery monsters and learning the power of friendship. The franchise has since exploded to form part of our pop culture. You needn’t have taken in the twelve movies or five television series to know that phasers are best set to stun, warp speed is the expedient way to travel, and Mr Spock is hard to get angry.
The two recent JJ Abrams movies have kept Star Trek popular but the absence of Trek on television has been tough for fans. Trek isn’t built to slog it out with dinosaurs and superheroes for the multiplex buck. Its true power resides in the dexterity that episodic story-telling involves. It allows for weekly allegorical morality plays – revealing a favourable diagnosis of the human condition. All hidden behind wobbly sets and grown-ups in pyjamas.
So the news that Star Trek is set to return to the small screen is the most exciting thing to happen for us fans since Star Trek: The Next Generation debuted in 1987. Undoubtedly, the landscape of entertainment and culture itself will benefit. Most depictions of the future involve the Mad Max/Planet of the Apes brand of dystopia which (probably correctly) predicts that we will ultimately succumb to our warlike and selfish nature: worshipping the bomb or the coin until our ultimate demise.
Trek posits that we might actually harness our ingenuity and compassion and bind ourselves together as a species to create a better future. That our insatiable curiosity will inspire a co-operative race to the stars. This is inspiring stuff. Literally. I promise you that if we walk the halls of the brilliant dreamers of NASA, and throw a rock, we’ll hit a Trekkie or two.
Consider also the efforts that Star Trek has put into furthering the causes of social justice. Only two years after US law forbade racial segregation, Star Trek had a black female officer on the bridge - with a name derived from the Swahili word for ‘freedom’. Nichelle Nichols, who plays Uhura, thrills the convention circuit with the tale of being talked out of leaving the show by Dr Martin Luther King. The story goes that he told her Star Trek was one of the only shows he allowed his children to watch, because it showed a black woman not as the help, or as comic relief – but as an officer and an equal.
Star Trek is about to turn fifty, and in those five decades it has taken on almost every difficult human subject by dressing it up as escapist science fiction so we didn't know we were learning. I recently watched an episode which tackled the ethics and effectiveness of torture. It was made in the nineties but could very well have been made now. What allegorical play will be spun from the Edward Snowdon, North Korean demi-gods, or of the current refugee crisis? Amazingly, in spite of its decade spent off the screen, Trek already has episodes which deal with these very themes within its canon.
For me, Star Trek is one of our most important, progressive (and amazingly for its age - atheistic) pop culture touchstones. And in truth, its return to the small screen simply makes the world a better place.
Exactly what I think - the world doesn't need more cynical dystopias right now - it needs to be reminded about progress. I find dark and gritty overrated.
I'd also add that using the Prime Universe as we know it would spare writers from creating lore themselves which usually leads to verbose and dull writing and exposition. In fact, I'd say that it's more likely that story would be focused and lean because there isn't a need to consider the background as it's already there.
Still waiting for a game to surpass Judgement Rites - still one of the best video games ever made, period.
Can a New TV Series Revive the Fortunes of Star Trek's Video Games?
There's a clear interest in games where you jet around the galaxy in a starship; but outside of Cryptic's Star Trek Online, there's been almost nothing unless you count Trexels - a middling Tiny Tower knockoff set on the original Enterprise. Given the obvious appetite for sci-fi action games and the continued public interest in the franchise, it's fair to ask what gives. Where are all the Star Trek games? If you don't mind me answering my own question (I'm a journalist!), I have a few pet theories on that front.
1. There hasn't been enough Trek media over the past few years: The TV shows are long dead outside of Netflix, with Enterprise having gone off the air in 2005. Since then we've got a grand total of two movies of varying quality and a whole lot of rumors. Netflix has kept the shows from fading from the public consciousness, but it's tough to sell a publisher on funding a game based on 20 year old show like Star Trek: The Next Generation.
2. CBS and Paramount exercise strong control over the license: When I went to see the Star Trek game in 2011, I was surrounded by an army of PR reps who were there to represent the interest of the franchise. Every detail of a licensed adaptation is scrupulously vetted by stakeholders at CBS and Paramount. Given the tight control exercised over Star Trek and the attendant licensing fees, it's not surprising that larger publishers like EA have shied away from the series, especially given recent failures.
3. No one seems to know what to do with Star Trek: Star Wars is a natural topic for a video game. Everyone likes Star Wars because it has lightsabers, blasters, space battles, and explosions. Star Trek is trickier because it's more cerebral, often focusing on high concept sci-fi and political issues at the expense of space battles. It's thus no surprise that most of the best Star Trek games have been adventure games that focus on conversations and puzzle-solving - a more thoughtful and thus more niche genre (though Telltale has managed to do quite well with it). On a sidenote, I've always found it strange that no one like Obsidian or Bethesda ever thought to make a Star Trek RPG, particularly given that Bethesda held the North American publishing rights to the franchise at one point. The closest we've gotten is Star Trek Online, which is a fun game hamstrung by MMORPG conventions and microtransactions. What a shame.
Mostly, Star Trek games have suffered from a lack of quality development. It's no surprise that Star Trek's best games come from the likes of Interplay - a publisher responsible for some of the best games ever made. Unfortunately, Interplay's involvement has been the exception rather than the rule, and Star Trek games have more often been farmed out to obscure studios like Mad Doc Software and Reflexive Entertainment. By comparison, Star Wars has benefited from the talents of DICE, BioWare, and LucasArts at its peak.
But one should also be wary of confusing trivia with essentials.
You don't see the new SUPERGIRL TV show trying to be faithful to 75 years of convoluted DC Comics mythologies. She's still from Krypton, she's still Superman's cousin, she still has basically the same powers and costume and weaknesses, but the writers aren't obliged to regard Argo City or Comet the Super-Horse as canon, and are free to give her her mother an evil twin sister whom (I believe) has never appeared in the comics before.
It's still recognizably SUPERGIRL, but you don't necessarily need to have the Legion of Super-Heroes built into the background just because.
Well I don't think there's a need to be pedantic. Indeed being flexible with some of the 'canon' in a way that might bare some improvements, like with the Klingons between TOS and TNG, seems a reasonable idea to me. The changes between TOS and TNG is fine, more than that would be very disappointing to me.
Nope. Conscious — an awareness of a situation. Not conscience, which is an inner feeling.
Depends on usage. Having a social conscience is an accepted term, as is being socially conscious.
"Social conscious" is possibly a conflation of two different terms.
I stand corrected. As a writer, I should've known better. Let's just chalk it up to a brain fart with this idea and the proper one. Combined of course with the 60 hour week I've had and the five hours of sleep a night I've been getting.
Last edited:
Nope. Conscious — an awareness of a situation. Not conscience, which is an inner feeling.
Depends on usage. Having a social conscience is an accepted term, as is being socially conscious.
"Social conscious" is possibly a conflation of two different terms.
I stand corrected. As a writer, I should've known better. Let's just chalk it up to brain fart with this idea and the proper one. Combined of course with the 60 hour week I've had and the five hours of sleep a night I've been getting.
My work here is done.
Khan: "I know something of those years. Remember! It was a time of great dreams. Great....aspirations!"
Spock: "Under dozens of inferior weed strains."
Khan: "ONE bud would have ruled eventually! As Cheech under Chong. Think of their accomplishments!!"
Khan: "I know something of those years. Remember! It was a time of great dreams. Great....aspirations!"
Spock: "Under dozens of inferior weed strains."
Khan: "ONE bud would have ruled eventually! As Cheech under Chong. Think of their accomplishments!!"
He's an entertainment business journalist, right? The comment struck me as more general than someone making a specific distinction between the films and the Prime Universe. More along the lines of, it's the same universe in that there's a Starfleet, a Federation, probably at least some races that we know from the past, etc. I think the gist of the statement is that in his opinion, alterations owing to the alternate timelines don't equal a change in the basic character of the Star Trek continuum.
But that isn't the argument. Nobody is arguing that the Original Series didn't exist or didn't count for anything. The proposition is that Next Generation launched Star Trek into being a franchise, into being something more than a long-running syndicated TV show with a cartoon spinoff and some movie makes.
Let me put it in other genre terms. The Marvel Comic Book Universe goes back to 1961 and the establishment of Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, that gang. But obviously Marvel Comics goes back way before that, and even characters important in the Marvel Comic Book Universe go back a generation before that. Next Generation affected Trek in a way very much like the early-60s comics affected the Marvel Comics line.
QUOTE=fireproof78;11342121]
I don't agree, at all. I think the theme of fatherhood and its importance is right at the forefront of the film. I think that George Kirk's decision to sacrifice his life so that his son might live gives us an example of leadership that we would expect Kirk to become and doesn't.
I think that Sarek's scene with young Spock after the bullies is a similar scene, where we see the impact of fatherly instruction in the face of young impulses. Spock becomes a decorated officer, while Kirk impulsively does whatever he wants (wrecking cars, getting in fights, etc.). Even when Spock gives in to impulse, it is the father figure who steps in and stops it, which Kirk lacks. Kirk's arc really doesn't resolve until STID.
In addition, I think there is a parallelism in Spock and Nero (emotion versus logic) and Kirk and Marcus. Nero is a slave to his passions, bent on vengeance to the point of insanity, which is a reflection of the deep emotional tumult that Vulcans must managed through logic. Marcus presents the possibility of becoming a war-monger, seeing no other possibility but fighting.
In both cases, Kirk and Spock face the real possibility of becoming that dark mirror. The positive influence of the father figure (Pike and Sarek) actually provides the example to become better. In so doing, Kirk begins to fulfill his potential and reach for the Rodenberry ideal.
I think that it is intentional, I think it reflects a commentary on contemporary society, and I still use it as an example of the importance of father figures when discussing psychology.
I don't think it is expository in the sense that it was an info-dump for the sake of getting it out of the way. Father figures are a theme that is woven throughout the two films.
[/QUOTE]
Not a refutation of your response as such, but I don't think that it addresses the thrust of my proposition. Specifically, that the target audience of the films are people that may fuzzily know the names Kirk and Spock, but likely only because of their association with a well known (and aged) cultural phenomenon. For the filmmakers, it was crucial to make these venerable personages known entities with all due dispatch, so that the inherent elements of the blockbuster genre can be plausibly introduced and put into play.
I'm not suggesting that the means chosen to do this is a cynical one. In fact it is quite accomplished and effective. To show the influences wrought on the two while growing up is an astute decision, as presenting the antecedents that forged their personalities is I think a more telling introduction to what makes them tick than if their adult iterations were immediately presented. Also, it has the added attraction (I will refrain from calling it a sop) for that cohort of viewers that were adherents of Trek for decades, to view a distinctive image of the characters' formative years that might serve to inject new interpretations of their already complex backstories.
I can't say however, that the latter intention was more significant that the device was meant to serve for the target audience. I wouldn't characterize these sequences as the info-dump you suggest that I'm implying they are. They are in fact, critical, not perfunctory, in making the quick transition of these personas' to their present day selves understandable and convincing.
However expertly this construction is rendered, primarily it seems to be a decision calculated to inform the identity of the main characters as a means to logically sketch out the shape of the conflicts that will allow the film to shift into high gear as the genre production that it is, not as a serious attempt to substantively focus on father-son dynamics. Ultimately, I have to maintain that its use is a tactical, if creative one but not that's intended to develop into a seriously ruminative one.
I don't agree, at all. I think the theme of fatherhood and its importance is right at the forefront of the film. I think that George Kirk's decision to sacrifice his life so that his son might live gives us an example of leadership that we would expect Kirk to become and doesn't.
I think that Sarek's scene with young Spock after the bullies is a similar scene, where we see the impact of fatherly instruction in the face of young impulses. Spock becomes a decorated officer, while Kirk impulsively does whatever he wants (wrecking cars, getting in fights, etc.). Even when Spock gives in to impulse, it is the father figure who steps in and stops it, which Kirk lacks. Kirk's arc really doesn't resolve until STID.
In addition, I think there is a parallelism in Spock and Nero (emotion versus logic) and Kirk and Marcus. Nero is a slave to his passions, bent on vengeance to the point of insanity, which is a reflection of the deep emotional tumult that Vulcans must managed through logic. Marcus presents the possibility of becoming a war-monger, seeing no other possibility but fighting.
In both cases, Kirk and Spock face the real possibility of becoming that dark mirror. The positive influence of the father figure (Pike and Sarek) actually provides the example to become better. In so doing, Kirk begins to fulfill his potential and reach for the Rodenberry ideal.
I think that it is intentional, I think it reflects a commentary on contemporary society, and I still use it as an example of the importance of father figures when discussing psychology.
I don't think it is expository in the sense that it was an info-dump for the sake of getting it out of the way. Father figures are a theme that is woven throughout the two films.
[/QUOTE]
Not a refutation of your response as such, but I don't think that it addresses the thrust of my proposition. Specifically, that the target audience of the films are people that may fuzzily know the names Kirk and Spock, but likely only because of their association with a well known (and aged) cultural phenomenon. For the filmmakers, it was crucial to make these venerable personages known entities with all due dispatch, so that the inherent elements of the blockbuster genre can be plausibly introduced and put into play.
I'm not suggesting that the means chosen to do this is a cynical one. In fact it is quite accomplished and effective. To show the influences wrought on the two while growing up is an astute decision, as presenting the antecedents that forged their personalities is I think a more telling introduction to what makes them tick than if their adult iterations were immediately presented. Also, it has the added attraction (I will refrain from calling it a sop) for that cohort of viewers that were adherents of Trek for decades, to view a distinctive image of the characters' formative years that might serve to inject new interpretations of their already complex backstories.
I can't say however, that the latter intention was more significant that the device was meant to serve for the target audience. I wouldn't characterize these sequences as the info-dump you suggest that I'm implying they are. They are in fact, critical, not perfunctory, in making the quick transition of these personas' to their present day selves understandable and convincing.
However expertly this construction is rendered, primarily it seems to be a decision calculated to inform the identity of the main characters as a means to logically sketch out the shape of the conflicts that will allow the film to shift into high gear as the genre production that it is, not as a serious attempt to substantively focus on father-son dynamics. Ultimately, I have to maintain that its use is a tactical, if creative one but not that's intended to develop into a seriously ruminative one.
Conceivably parts of canon could be mentioned in passing, depending on the particular episode. For example, if genetic engineering was part of the plot, there could be mention of the Eugenics Wars.
And so on.
Exactly so.
And this assertion is flatly wrong because the Trek franchise existed concretely and indisputably before TNG existed. The repeated assertions and wishful thinking otherwise don't change that.
Star Wars was recognized as a franchise based on only three films--six hours of materiel--along with tons of tie-in merchandise long before the second trilogy was made. So how can Star Trek not be considered a franchise with two series and four films--98 hours of materiel--along with tons of tie-in merchandise before TNG comes along?
A new Star Trek series! What wonderful news! I'm so excited, I hope the first conceptual ideas, premises and bits of casting are revealed soon. I don't know what to think about Alex Kurtzman as the man behind the show, as I'm not too keen about some of his writing on Star Trek Into Darkness, but I remain open-minded.
The only thing, really, I want from the new show, is entertaining, well-written stories and likable characters. I'm sure the rest will fall into place.
I must admit, though, I'm really curious about the more superficial details as well: What will the ship look like (assuming there is a ship)? What will the title be? What will the music sound like? Will anyone from the other Trek shows be involved in this?
All in all, I'm just glad they are doing a new show. It's so weird how Enterprise will suddenly cease to be "that new show" in my mind. Here's hoping this will be the best Star Trek series ever!
The only thing, really, I want from the new show, is entertaining, well-written stories and likable characters. I'm sure the rest will fall into place.
I must admit, though, I'm really curious about the more superficial details as well: What will the ship look like (assuming there is a ship)? What will the title be? What will the music sound like? Will anyone from the other Trek shows be involved in this?
All in all, I'm just glad they are doing a new show. It's so weird how Enterprise will suddenly cease to be "that new show" in my mind. Here's hoping this will be the best Star Trek series ever!
Boy, am I not interested in any of these things! And I'm saying that as a huge Deep Space Nine fan and the biggest Star Trek fans I know. What's the obsession of some fans with things like propulsion systems and going further into the "future" of a made-up future? Honestly, I don't get it.
You are absolutely right about the TZ feeling in that episode. The Next Generation's “Frame of Mind” is also very TZ-like with its questions about what is real and what isn't. Would be interesting to think about what other Trek episodes could work as Twilight Zones.
Similar threads
