You'd get laughed off of HBO.
What is Star Trek and its future?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
You'd get laughed off of HBO.
You used the phrase "ahead of it's time". What do you think that means?I never once said anything about originality.I'm still trying to figure where DS9 was ahead of it's time. It didn't bring anything new to serial drama. It didn't spearhead the short season.
It was blatantly copying off many different things.
However it's the fact that it intergrated many different elements in a time when it wasn't the norm.
Large story arks, a focus on multi dimension characters, large casts of character actors, large bugdets(which actually do matter), and it was clearly a show that would of benefitted a shortened season.
None of the things you mentioned were unique to DS9. Nor was their use in combination something the maker of DS9 came up with.
I thought we needed to dump half the episodes to make it work, but now we're doing an episode to episode remake?
I thought we needed to dump half the episodes to make it work, but now we're doing an episode to episode remake?
No. We're cutting all of the bad episodes.
Even the arc based ones?I thought we needed to dump half the episodes to make it work, but now we're doing an episode to episode remake?
No. We're cutting all of the bad episodes.
Even the arc based ones?I thought we needed to dump half the episodes to make it work, but now we're doing an episode to episode remake?
No. We're cutting all of the bad episodes.
Yup.
Won't that leave gaps in the narrative?
Autistoid said we could film it as is. With shorter seasons, ya gotta cut something.
Star Trek has worked as episodic television both live-action and animated. That said I'm dubious that that would be the route to go again. My reasoning is simple: concept fatigue. You simply run out of creativity eventually and you start repeating yourself. You can get away with that to a point, but eventually it gets stale.
Still there is something to be said for the episodic format. Like anthologies you can simply tell more and different kinds of stories.
I think there is less variety in arc based storytelling because you have to focus mostly on the ongoing story lines as opposed to seeking to tell different kinds of stories.
But nowhere is it written you can't integrate the two forms.
I would also argue that the 22 episode per season format can also contribute to series fatigue. Today it's not only more economical (I think) to go the 13 episode per season route, but (I think) it allows you to get more bang for your buck. You can put more creative effort into a 13 episode season than a 22 episode one.
But with all that said it only addresses format. It tells us nothing in terms of what elements need to exist for something to work as Star Trek and what elements don't belong in a Star Trek project.
Still there is something to be said for the episodic format. Like anthologies you can simply tell more and different kinds of stories.
I think there is less variety in arc based storytelling because you have to focus mostly on the ongoing story lines as opposed to seeking to tell different kinds of stories.
But nowhere is it written you can't integrate the two forms.
I would also argue that the 22 episode per season format can also contribute to series fatigue. Today it's not only more economical (I think) to go the 13 episode per season route, but (I think) it allows you to get more bang for your buck. You can put more creative effort into a 13 episode season than a 22 episode one.
But with all that said it only addresses format. It tells us nothing in terms of what elements need to exist for something to work as Star Trek and what elements don't belong in a Star Trek project.
Last edited:
I was thinking of those two when I wrote my post upthread. Those are good DS9 episodes, for sure. They are very much in the spirit of both TOS and TNG.
I have answered the concept of "What is Star Trek" often in this forum.
For me it is quite simple:
-Optimism about the future of humanity, which both in the 60s and now would exist in stark contrast to real life experiences.
-Action/adventure with social commentary driven by interesting characters. Really, it should feel almost like a Western in terms of being on the frontier, with a lot of unknown out there to be explored.
TOS benefited from having three mains who were relatable in some way, be it Kirk with his leadership style, Spock with thinking things out or McCoy with his passion. The characters drove that series, largely because we could relate to them.
A new series, regardless of new continuity or old, would need to incorporate a sense of optimism, a sense of adventure and clever story telling to be successful. I don't think it needs a major reworking in terms of tone to be successful but a more serialized story telling, with longer character arcs to provide continued interest.
For me it is quite simple:
-Optimism about the future of humanity, which both in the 60s and now would exist in stark contrast to real life experiences.
-Action/adventure with social commentary driven by interesting characters. Really, it should feel almost like a Western in terms of being on the frontier, with a lot of unknown out there to be explored.
TOS benefited from having three mains who were relatable in some way, be it Kirk with his leadership style, Spock with thinking things out or McCoy with his passion. The characters drove that series, largely because we could relate to them.
A new series, regardless of new continuity or old, would need to incorporate a sense of optimism, a sense of adventure and clever story telling to be successful. I don't think it needs a major reworking in terms of tone to be successful but a more serialized story telling, with longer character arcs to provide continued interest.
Not bad. Neatly summarized.
Thank you.
I think it's a given that a new Star Trek needs a measure of updating, but I don't think it means abandoning certain elements that are intrinsic to what worked before, as fireproof78 neatly summarized above.
One of the things apparently forgotten--particularly about TOS but was brought back in DS9--was that Star Trek didn't actually try to portray people of the future. The show projected contemporary humanity into the future albeit tweaked with a generally more humanist outlook. That made it easier to have characters the audience could relate to.
In extent of that one thing I don't believe would fit into a new Trek would be the route taken by many other shows on specialty channels. I've enjoyed Boardwalk Empire and Game Of Thrones, but I don't think overly explicit sex and graphic violence are needed in a new Trek. The reams of foul language (as seen in Deadwood) are also something not needed. TOS could be dark at times (even by today's standards) and so one can deal with dark and edgy ideas, but it isn't necessary to paint the entire show that way. Indeed I think to go that route would counter the overall optimistic sensibility that fireproof78 referenced as needing to be present and conveyed.
I stated elsewhere that there is one contemporary series that I think does strike a tone I think could work well for a new Trek: Mad Men. It dealt with any number of ideas while also managing to veer from deadly serious to humourous in tone depending on the story. It could be sexy without being overly explicit as well as violent without being graphic and gratuitous. There were moments of listening to Don Draper making a pitch or a point that weren't that dissimilar from hearing Captain Kirk making one of his impassioned little speeches.
One of the things apparently forgotten--particularly about TOS but was brought back in DS9--was that Star Trek didn't actually try to portray people of the future. The show projected contemporary humanity into the future albeit tweaked with a generally more humanist outlook. That made it easier to have characters the audience could relate to.
In extent of that one thing I don't believe would fit into a new Trek would be the route taken by many other shows on specialty channels. I've enjoyed Boardwalk Empire and Game Of Thrones, but I don't think overly explicit sex and graphic violence are needed in a new Trek. The reams of foul language (as seen in Deadwood) are also something not needed. TOS could be dark at times (even by today's standards) and so one can deal with dark and edgy ideas, but it isn't necessary to paint the entire show that way. Indeed I think to go that route would counter the overall optimistic sensibility that fireproof78 referenced as needing to be present and conveyed.
I stated elsewhere that there is one contemporary series that I think does strike a tone I think could work well for a new Trek: Mad Men. It dealt with any number of ideas while also managing to veer from deadly serious to humourous in tone depending on the story. It could be sexy without being overly explicit as well as violent without being graphic and gratuitous. There were moments of listening to Don Draper making a pitch or a point that weren't that dissimilar from hearing Captain Kirk making one of his impassioned little speeches.
Last edited:
Old style movie serials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Cody
And just like Star Trek-Aurora (about a civilian space freighter pilot and her Vulcan friend) and this concept of Star Trek a young artist on deviantArt came up with.
Last edited:
Same here.
Similar threads
- Locked
