Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[fireproof78]

That counts TOS too. Status quo by the end of the episode. There is nothing unique about the spinoffs in this regard, nor even really in Abrams' movies.

Admiral Pike would disagree with you.

He's not, nor was ever, meant to really be a main character though. I'm talking Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Picard, Data, Worf, Riker. It doesn't matter, these guys mostly all make it out. There is no functional difference there.

I don't know. Even if characters make it out, that doesn't mean there isn't a personal change. TNG actually did an ok job with this over its run, and it became noticeable in Season 7 when they where running out of ideas, and things felt silly for those characters to do.

Survival does not mean not changing. I mean, M*A*S*H uses this to great effect. Watching Hawkeye (in particular) from episode to episode and see a distinct character change, even though it is never was specifically called out. And, no, I'm just saying the changes from Season 1 to Season 11 as I would expect that. I'm talking about different changes even from season to season. There are different nuances in that character, and he isn't the only one.

I would largely disagree that Kirk is the same at the beginning and end of each Abrams film but that is a movie. I think that character goes through some huge character development.

There is much more to character development than "who can we kill off" school of storytelling, which is why I cannot stand Game of Thrones.

 

[Mudd]

As an example, "The Fugitive", a rough contemporary of TOS was widely regarded as one of, if not the, best drama of the time. They had three different actors play the main characters brother-in-law over the course of the series run. No way that would fly today.

Yeah, and Samantha Stevens was a polyandrist. Oh, wait, that might fly today.

If you were married to Darren Stevens it wouldn't be long before your nose would be twitching at other guys.

 

[Jedi_Master]

From the Washington Post


Why CBS would be smart to set the new ‘Star Trek’ series in the 2150s

So it sounds like we're getting another ship and another crew flying through space at warp speed. But that's about all we know right now, leaving many of the tough choices about the new series to producer Alex Kurtzman, who worked on the recently rebooted "Star Trek" films. Here are a few of the biggest decisions he'll have to make, and along with one, big recommendation: Set the new series during the Earth-Romulan War of the 2150s.

Is this "Star Trek" dark or light?

The original "Star Trek," under Kirk, painted the world as a utopia. "The Next Generation" expanded on this by introducing new technologies, such as the replicator, which explained how humanity overcame hunger and want. But "Deep Space 9" depicted a much grimmer vision of the galaxy, one characterized by war, espionage and subterfuge. Many fans argue that this was when "Star Trek" really shone — and that the next show ought to be an equally gritty and dark spiritual successor.

With 2013's "Star Trek Into Darkness," the rebooted universe appeared to take a turn in this direction, offering up themes of conspiracy, betrayal and a thinly veiled critique of U.S. foreign policy. So it's possible that Kurtzman might further expand on that, exploring the corruption within Starfleet and its struggle to define itself in its earliest years.

What the new "Star Trek" should really do

From all this, we look ahead to a few things. First, each episode should be part of a serialized, season-long story, rather than a forgettable standalone episode that tackles a monster of the week.

Second, in keeping with the more serious drama viewers have become accustomed to in other shows, the new "Star Trek" shouldn't shy away from darker subjects.

Third, perhaps it should consider a setting like the 2150s-era Earth-Romulan War, a period in "Star Trek" history that's relatively unexplored in the original timeline and completely uncharted when it comes to the rebooted universe (the events that cause the new universe to be created don't take place until the 23rd century). While a return to the 24th-century world of "The Next Generation" would be welcome, extending the original universe even further, Kurtzman's real-world connection to the Abrams reboots makes it hard for him to ignore the alternate timeline.

In the Romulan war, Kurtzman has the opportunity to produce new stories in his own style while avoiding divisions in fan loyalty between either universe. The war lends a dramatic backdrop to events that occur to the new ship and crew, gives them a reason to act, and places them early enough in Earth's spacefaring history that the show's creators could explore humanity's initial interactions with other Federation species and the emergence of the Federation itself, along with all the messy politics, economics and diplomacy that implies.

Earth at war, but in the teething years of the Federation, could offer both darkness and light, combining the grim realities of an interstellar conflict with the hope for an enlightened, organized future when security is guaranteed by a galactic alliance of peace-loving people.

What's more, establishing Romulans as the villain would make the show more accessible to series newcomers, many of whom will remember that it was a 24-century Romulan that served as the principal bad guy in the 2009 Star Trek film.

 

[Ryan8bit]

If you're going to mention the Next Gen characters, then you're completely wrong. He was meant to be a main character. THE main character, in fact. See "The Cage." Plus he was a pretty significant player in making Kirk who he was in the reboots.

It doesn't matter what he was originally meant to be, and "The Cage" is irrelevant. In TOS, Pike was a guest star, regardless of some unaired pilot. He was upgraded to supporting actor in the movies, but he never had the status of a character with plot armor. In fact, people kept waiting to see how he was going to become crippled. It was pretty apparent.

It's the same thing with Kirk in Generations. He wasn't boldly killed off because there was actual risk, but because they wanted to pass the torch and put an end to the character. He no longer had plot armor because those movies were about Picard and Co.

There's no more inherent risk in TOS than there is in any spinoff. It might feel that way, but that just comes down to subjective feelings. Star Trek has never really taken these kinds of chances, or if it did they immediately took things back. Hopefully for this new series, it grows up a little.

As an aside, I loved Greenwood and his portrayal. He was easily my favorite character in both of the movies, and I agree that his death was emotional. But I don't think that it represented some far and beyond level of risk different than any other Trek. That would've been if Kirk died and actually stayed dead.

 

[JoeZhang]

Third, perhaps it should consider a setting like the 2150s-era Earth-Romulan War, a period in "Star Trek" history that's relatively unexplored in the original timeline and completely uncharted when it comes to the rebooted universe (the events that cause the new universe to be created don't take place until the 23rd century).

Run that past me again Chief... because if History changed later in the timeline...


Maybe it could be TOS in that we encounter new things a lot? For the first time?

If we have more fucking klingons banging on about honor...

 

[Shaka Zulu]

As an example, "The Fugitive", a rough contemporary of TOS was widely regarded as one of, if not the, best drama of the time. They had three different actors play the main characters brother-in-law over the course of the series run. No way that would fly today.

Yeah, and Samantha Stevens was a polyandrist. Oh, wait, that might fly today.

If you were married to Darren Stevens it wouldn't be long before your nose would be twitching at other guys.

Pretty much, as he's a fool that doesn't realize what he's got in a wife, and the fun things that he could be doing with her powers. Honestly, Endora had more fun.

 

[Squiggy]

Third, perhaps it should consider a setting like the 2150s-era Earth-Romulan War, a period in "Star Trek" history that's relatively unexplored in the original timeline and completely uncharted when it comes to the rebooted universe (the events that cause the new universe to be created don't take place until the 23rd century).

Run that past me again Chief... because if History changed later in the timeline...


Maybe it could be TOS in that we encounter new things a lot? For the first time?

If we have more fucking klingons banging on about honor...

Yeah...they are ignoring Enterprise (which took place in the 2150s) and not really understanding the linear progression of time.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Third, perhaps it should consider a setting like the 2150s-era Earth-Romulan War, a period in "Star Trek" history that's relatively unexplored in the original timeline and completely uncharted when it comes to the rebooted universe (the events that cause the new universe to be created don't take place until the 23rd century).

Run that past me again Chief... because if History changed later in the timeline...


Maybe it could be TOS in that we encounter new things a lot? For the first time?

If we have more fucking klingons banging on about honor...

I think the author of the article is advocating something like Seasons 8 and 9 of Enterprise.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I don't know. Even if characters make it out, that doesn't mean there isn't a personal change. TNG actually did an ok job with this over its run, and it became noticeable in Season 7 when they where running out of ideas, and things felt silly for those characters to do.

Survival does not mean not changing. I mean, M*A*S*H uses this to great effect. Watching Hawkeye (in particular) from episode to episode and see a distinct character change, even though it is never was specifically called out. And, no, I'm just saying the changes from Season 1 to Season 11 as I would expect that. I'm talking about different changes even from season to season. There are different nuances in that character, and he isn't the only one.

I would largely disagree that Kirk is the same at the beginning and end of each Abrams film but that is a movie. I think that character goes through some huge character development.

There is much more to character development than "who can we kill off" school of storytelling, which is why I cannot stand Game of Thrones.

It doesn't need to be random killing, and with Game of Thrones every death has a great purpose to let the drama unfold. The problem with Trek is that certain characters have plot armor, and that's just as bad as indiscriminate killing like you might see on The Walking Dead.

Star Trek, in any form, could stand to have some risk by there actually being consequences, but there seldom are. Both in deaths and character development (this isn't counting any of the movies, I-XII). At some point it was just decided that this was the way it would be, and that won't fly these days.

Also, I never said that Kirk is the same character throughout the Abrams movies, only that the status quo largely doesn't change, and that there really isn't any more risk for him than for any other character in all of Trek that's been shown to have plot armor. Arguably, in all of the movies, Kirk has shown a lot of character growth.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

.


Then I'm not watching.

On the Star Trek OS press release it says they are returning to the storytelling of old. Social themes, etc. Well, I can't say how much faith I have in that with a clown like Kurtzman on board. This guy doesn't know Star Trek or understand the fans at all. He only understands a section of them, and the division in fandom caused

What's so clownish about Kurtzman, and what's so bad about the stories in both of the movie that he wrote the scripts for? Please elaborate a bit more.

 

[thumbtack]

Put it at the beginning of the 24th century. Have them already using slipstream drives, sentient androids in Starfleet, overran the Klingon Empire, monstrously large starships and so on.

Yet all the while, having them say it takes place in the Prime universe.

I don't think they would mind, really. They just want to be told it's Prime. It doesn't really have to be Prime. They're more than happy to do the mental gymnastics to explain why the canon doesn't actually match and nothing looks like it could possibly have grown from the Berman era.


It's about pretending the whole thing is real so I can wear my uniform to jury duty.

 

[Jedi_Master]

It's about pretending the whole thing is real so I can wear my uniform to jury duty.

So true.

 

[Squiggy]

That's one way to get out of jury duty, I suppose.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know. Even if characters make it out, that doesn't mean there isn't a personal change. TNG actually did an ok job with this over its run, and it became noticeable in Season 7 when they where running out of ideas, and things felt silly for those characters to do.

Survival does not mean not changing. I mean, M*A*S*H uses this to great effect. Watching Hawkeye (in particular) from episode to episode and see a distinct character change, even though it is never was specifically called out. And, no, I'm just saying the changes from Season 1 to Season 11 as I would expect that. I'm talking about different changes even from season to season. There are different nuances in that character, and he isn't the only one.

I would largely disagree that Kirk is the same at the beginning and end of each Abrams film but that is a movie. I think that character goes through some huge character development.

There is much more to character development than "who can we kill off" school of storytelling, which is why I cannot stand Game of Thrones.

It doesn't need to be random killing, and with Game of Thrones every death has a great purpose to let the drama unfold. The problem with Trek is that certain characters have plot armor, and that's just as bad as indiscriminate killing like you might see on The Walking Dead.

Star Trek, in any form, could stand to have some risk by there actually being consequences, but there seldom are. Both in deaths and character development (this isn't counting any of the movies, I-XII). At some point it was just decided that this was the way it would be, and that won't fly these days.

Also, I never said that Kirk is the same character throughout the Abrams movies, only that the status quo largely doesn't change, and that there really isn't any more risk for him than for any other character in all of Trek that's been shown to have plot armor. Arguably, in all of the movies, Kirk has shown a lot of character growth.

I guess I extend the idea of status quo to how the characters are changing as people. Which, for me, means watching them grow rather than hoping one of them dies a meaningful death-unless they are a Klingon

I agree that Star Trek could use some risk, and I think DS9 did that quite well, and killed a main character and explored the deeply personal consequences there-in.

Nor am I pretending that TOS didn't have its status quo, but it also was a much different era of TV that banked more on likable characters being seen week after week rather than long, meaningful, growth and change.

So, I agree that Trek has relied upon the status quo, with VOY being the most egregious example of that formula. However, I don't see simply returning to the status quo at the end of show as automatically meaning no character growth. I personally find character growth more interesting than changing the status quo. I would prefer that to random, if meaningful, deaths for the sake of changing it.

 

[Tim Walker]

ommentary to them.

(

Kirk's character in 09 is about potential. As Kor pointed out, Kirk is not reaching for anything. He is content sitting on his rear end, apparently causing trouble because is a "repeat offender" and doing nothing with his life, contributing nothing to society. The whole point of GR's vision (especially in TNG and oft repeated in DS9) was that humanity was all about bettering itself. Well, Kirk is not doing that-until Pike challenges him.

.

Somewhat similar to Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi. Obi Wan becomes the mentor who urges Luke to become a Jedi.

 

[dub]

Must EVERYTHING turn into a "this Trek" vs. "that Trek" debate which then cycles into groups of fans attacking each other, hating on each other, claiming anyone who doesn't think like you is automatically grouped into a cartoon stereotype fan, and joking on each other in very hateful/rude/elitist/childish ways?

And what's with the complaining? Already? We know very little, and clearly it's in the extremely early (if not pre) development phase, and people are complaining!

I don't get it!

Can't we all just be excited that we're getting a new series! This is awesome news, guys! Have an open mind!

 

[Yanks]

Too bad it's rating were worse than 'Enterprise's'

Cable will do that.

Yeah, within its venue BSG was quite a bit more successful than Enterprise. That's why the latter is remembered as a failure and the former is not.

And, BTW, "I don't like the way it ended" does not equal "this was a bad show."

Enterprise is not remembered as a failure. It gets more popular all the time.

The 1st 2 years of BSG were amazing, the last two were not. The "plan" was non-existent.

Everyone talks about BSG as if it was the latest coming of...well .... Star Trek, but the rating don't back up all the blab. They couldn't even maintain their audience on SCI-FI.

 

[Granola Gwen]

Woo finally, I remember talking about on here several times about a new series. Honestly all I care about is if the characters are likable and outsiders will be able to pick up the series without knowledgeable aid from the others.

 

[Amaris]

Yeah, I think we all suspected that Pike was a dead man walking from his first introduction in that Iowa bar.

Of course, the writers were able to use that to good effect when Nero captured him, so WIN!

When he survived Nero's interrogation, I had hope, I thought "he got to live! We're going to see great things from Pike in the next movie!"

Those bastards used me!

 

[Jedman67]

(Character Development)

Kirk's character in 09 is about potential. As Kor pointed out, Kirk is not reaching for anything. He is content sitting on his rear end, apparently causing trouble because is a "repeat offender" and doing nothing with his life, contributing nothing to society. The whole point of GR's vision (especially in TNG and oft repeated in DS9) was that humanity was all about bettering itself. Well, Kirk is not doing that-until Pike challenges him.

Here's my breakdown of Kirk in the movie:
1. Dropout. Meets Pike.
2. Macho Cadet. Cheats on exams, because he wants to.
3. Stows away on Enterprise. Pike appoints him FO
4. Saves the day, becomes Captain.
5. Credits.

I don't see Kirk bettering himself. He's the same jerk at 5 as he is at 1, just slightly more mature and responsible. He hasn't earned command of the enterprise, it was given to him because the plot demanded so. To me, it felt forced.
Had he been a bit older, and less sarcastic, and ALREADY an officer, I'd probably be more willing to suspend my disbelief. Since it's off topic, i'm happy to say no more on the subject. And anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a potato head

Enterprise is not remembered as a failure. It get more popular all the time.

The 1st 2 years of BSG were amazing, the last two were not. The "plan" was non-existent.

Everyone talks about BSG as if it was the latest coming of...well .... Star Trek, but the rating don't back up all the blab. They couldn't even maintain their audience on SCI-FI.

Enterprise was cancelled just as it was getting good. Ratings had dropped, and they weren't generating enough interest to keep it going. Frankly, a new series should not take 3 seasons to "get good" - there were a lot of poor episodes in the earlier seasons, and it simply wasn't enough to keep going.