What We Want VS What We'll Get?
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
But why would a "clear differentiation" be necessary?
Why not? Increasing Fonzie's presence had what impact on the show?
Just because it led to "jumping the shark" is more a law of unintended consequences, and shouldn't negate the characters impact prior to that fact.
It's just the best reason I've heard because it addresses the business of Star Trek where CBS owns all, but Paramount has film rights which, so far, exclusively contain the Abramsverse. I can understand how suits like to avoid market confusion. I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it's believable. You'd have to ask CBS and Paramount to get your definitive answer about whether they actually believe a clear differentiation is necessary.
It became less of the ensemble people loved and more of The Fonzie Show. Dirty Harry in Sudden Impact likes sugar in his coffee, but when he gets too much, he knows something's wrong.
I'd just like to stress again that T'Girl is right in her post about being responsive to viewers. One bad example doesn't make it wrong. But I did want to point out the bad example, perhaps to say that responsiveness in excess, like anything in excess, isn't necessarily a good thing.
Last edited:
That reminds me of these lyrics from Shatner's Has Been.
Has been implies failure...not so
Has been is history
Has been was
Has been might again
The analogy isn't perfect, I know, but the point being that only good shows that hit their stride and were once firing on all cylinders could later be accused of "jumping the shark".
And TOS "jumped the shark" in the 3rd season did it not? Stuff like Spock's Brain "Brain brain, what is brain!?"
And yet it didn't keep the show from winning all sorts of accolades and being enshrined into history as one of the best of all time.
I know we all want the new show to bat 1,000 but some of the dos and don'ts I'm seeing here seem to reflect a fearful attitude, that the show-runners have to walk this impossibly narrow tightrope otherwise they are going to destroy the franchise yet again.
Based on what's being said about the show, there is a strong commitment to make it work. I predict that if it flounders early that they will double-down and retool sort of like what ABC recently did with The Muppets. It's not going to be like Enterprise where commitment to Trek was dangling by a thread at the end.
I think if it gets yanked it would have to be a complete face-plant and based on the dream-team they are assembling I have a hard time believing it will choke that badly.
The third season contained
The Enterprise Incident,
The Paradise Syndrome,
Is There In Truth No Beauty,
The Day Of The Dove,
For The World Is Hollow,
The Tholian Web,
The Empath,
Elaan of Troyius.
Requiem For Methuselah,
The Cloud Minders.
TOS never "jumped the shark."
+
Universe: I don't really care. I like the prime universe a little better, but it's also lots more crowded. By the same token, being in the new universe without directly tying into the movies would be pointless and stupid (and the show will almost certainly not tie into the movies). A full reboot might be the best option, but even then, it's not something I'm necessarily rooting for.
What I think we'll get? Probably a reboot.
Setting: Elsewhere. Maybe not on a ship. Maybe on multiple locations at once. But no matter what else it is or isn't, not the Enterprise. There's enough Star Trek set on the enterprise for a lifetime. And there's enough Star Trek starring Kirk/Picard and co for a lifetime. I want a new location and a new crew.
What I think we'll get? Probably the Enterprise, in some form.
Episodes: I'd prefer to have it all at once. Tons more convenient. But we'll almost certainly get one a week. As someone else already mentioned, this is supposed to launch their streaming service, so they need to keep people hooked for more than 1 month.
How many episodes: I'd go for 16. Long seasons are dying, and for a good reason. At the same time, short streaming shows that bunch up to around 8-12 episodes have to spend all their time pushing the main arc. 16 is a good amount of breathing room to make a tight, well written season while also allowing the kind of occassional diversion storyline that Star Trek needs.
What we'll get? Probably 13, I guess? I still feel like this whole thing is a little experimental. I'm not sure they're prepared to go all out on it right out of the gate. The number could go up in season 2, if it's successful.
Cast: Just good actors. When has Star Trek ever done anything else? (Well, I suppose there was Scott Bakula, but he wasn't exactly a hot property at the time). Big names are completely unnecessary.
What we'll get? Maybe a big name or two, but then again, maybe not.
Captain: Something different. I don't care what it specifically is. Orion, Latino, Horta, whatever. Just not another old white guy. Although an interesting alien species of some sort would be cool.
What we'll get? Probably a hot young white guy.
What I think we'll get? Probably a reboot.
Setting: Elsewhere. Maybe not on a ship. Maybe on multiple locations at once. But no matter what else it is or isn't, not the Enterprise. There's enough Star Trek set on the enterprise for a lifetime. And there's enough Star Trek starring Kirk/Picard and co for a lifetime. I want a new location and a new crew.
What I think we'll get? Probably the Enterprise, in some form.
Episodes: I'd prefer to have it all at once. Tons more convenient. But we'll almost certainly get one a week. As someone else already mentioned, this is supposed to launch their streaming service, so they need to keep people hooked for more than 1 month.
How many episodes: I'd go for 16. Long seasons are dying, and for a good reason. At the same time, short streaming shows that bunch up to around 8-12 episodes have to spend all their time pushing the main arc. 16 is a good amount of breathing room to make a tight, well written season while also allowing the kind of occassional diversion storyline that Star Trek needs.
What we'll get? Probably 13, I guess? I still feel like this whole thing is a little experimental. I'm not sure they're prepared to go all out on it right out of the gate. The number could go up in season 2, if it's successful.
Cast: Just good actors. When has Star Trek ever done anything else? (Well, I suppose there was Scott Bakula, but he wasn't exactly a hot property at the time). Big names are completely unnecessary.
What we'll get? Maybe a big name or two, but then again, maybe not.
Captain: Something different. I don't care what it specifically is. Orion, Latino, Horta, whatever. Just not another old white guy. Although an interesting alien species of some sort would be cool.
What we'll get? Probably a hot young white guy.
- Universe:
- Want: Prime
- Get: Based on who's involved (Bryan Fuller, Nick Meyer, potentially Tony Todd), Prime
- Setting:
- Want: Mid-to-late 25th century, to allow STO to remain canonically-ambigous, since it such a huge thing, compared to other EU elements
- Get: I don't know, but Meyer said something about using TUC as its jumping-off point. Whether he meant setting-wise or thematically, I don't know.
- Release Method:
- Want: All at once
- Get: One at a time, since CBS will want to skirt free trial binging, despite CBS AA's free trial only being for a week
- How Many Episodes:
- Want: 13-16
- Get: 6-13
- Cast Familiarity:
- Want: Any big names would be Fuller's typical cast members; the rest would be unknowns or relative unknowns. I definitely would like to see Lee Pace, Anna Friel, and Chi McBride in some capacity, because I love Pushing Daisies.
- Get: I expect some of Fuller's regulars to be involved.
- Captain:
- Want: Uzo Aduba
- Get: Fuller had expressed interest in Angela Bassett (with Rosario Dawson as First Officer) in the past, but Bassett is busy with her show and has stated that she does not foresee involvement in the new series (Dawson, of course, has the Marvel shows on Netflix, but it's largely a recurring role. On a related note Aduba, of course, has OitNB, but that might not even interfere.). Based on Fuller's interest in casting Bassett and Dawson, I foresee a WoC being the new captain.
UNIVERSE:
Want- Don't give a shit. Tell a good story. It could be prime, JJ, or other. Honest-to-God couldn't care less.
Get- Probably a re-boot universe or something in Prime would be my guess.
SETTING:
Want: Familiar looking capitol-sized Federation Starship exploring the frontier in the Milky Way Galaxy
Get: I'd guess I'll get what I want here...but who knows?
EPISODES:
Want: Old fashioned. Episodic format with an over-arching and continuing story. I'm not completely lost if I miss last week's episode...but if I DID see it, I'll be rewarded with an ongoing and developing story line.
Get: Old fashioned. Probably way more story arc focus than I want...but that's fine.
HOW MUCH:
Want: 10-13. To do it right, on a big scale and big budget...and to have tight, involved stories, I think less is more.
Get: Probably more...but who knows?
CAST:
Want: Don't give a shit. Put the right people in the right roles to play the characters.
Get: Probably a name or two.
CAPTAIN:
Want: Don't give a shit. Cast a great, dynamic actor to fill the role as conceived and written. Drives me batshit crazy to read when people think that Star Trek has some kind of "responsibility" to have a gay, female, over-40, Vietnam era veteran, pregnant, one-legged alien, Asian captain out of respect for diversity or some other foolishness. Write a great character and cast the right fit for the role. Enough pandering political correctness. Star Trek has had great captains of several different persuasions. I think, (hope)? that as a society we're beyond needing to "make a statement" with a casting decision. And, we don't need an alien. The CORE VALUE of the show is about humanity. The lead of the show should be a human.
It's so narrow and, frankly, ignorant to start accusing the studio or creators of having a lack of courage if they happen to cast a white male. I mean...wow...really? I think Star Trek has been pretty good throughout history in representing diverse people and attitudes (including those of extra-terrestrials), even at the "lead" position. Sorry, end of rant.
Get: I guess I don't know.
Last edited:
Thank you! I get so tired of the "3st sezen iz teh sux! Hahaha!! The hipee Star Track show and Dr. Spock's Brain episode iz tear-able!!!!! ARRRRRHHHGHGHGHHH!!!!" mindless parroting of popular opinion regarding Season 3. If you really break it down, it has a comparable number of great, good, and bad episodes as the other seasons do...which by the way...turns out to be a much better ratio than most other shows ever produced.
I couldn't agree more. I was going to post something similar but had no desire to be blasted for being a "bigot" or whatever. Hopefully that won't happen to you.
I hope not. I'm pretty far from a bigot. I just think that people get way too sensitive about this kind of stuff and feel that a show isn't being "modern and progressive" if the lead character doesn't represent an "under-represented" interest. I actually feel it's wrong to go out of your way to do so as well. It then becomes more about making a statement and managing optics than it does about telling a great story and employing great actors to bring great characters to life.
The cast / crew should be diverse, because Star Trek has always been about representing the mixture and strength of humanity...but we don't need a concerted effort to pigeon-hole the captain. Just make them awesome.
I love Kirk, Sisko, Rabau and Picard among many others. Nothing to do with their skin tone, gender or ethnic background.
I am not hugely fond of Janeway, Archer, Harriman, Esteban, and many others. Again, nothing to do with their sexual orientation, planetary origin, physical capabilities or political leanings.
I just don't think every casting decision for a lead in Star Trek needs to be some kind of "statement." Just cast the damn show with the best people possible and let's roll. It's not "lack of courage" if they cast Tom Hardy as the Captain...it's because he's a good actor! Similarly, it's not "progressive, enlightened and courageous" if they cast Angela Bassett or Tony Todd. It's just awesome casting because they are strong actors.
^Hey, you don't have to justify yourself to me, I'm in complete agreement with you. Take me for example. I'd like to see a disabled character on the new show, one better written than the stereotypical "Melora", but I won't die or go out of my way to raise Holy Hell when it doesn't happen.
No worries...wasn't justifying to you or anything. I was just using your post as a springboard to clarify for anyone else who may misinterpret or even be offended by what I was saying.
I must say though, I do agree with the people who are saying to NOT listen to the fans on this. "The Fans" are disjointed and un-uniform in what they like and don't like, and so listening to "the fans" is just a massive, confusing exercise in futility.
Some percentage of "the fans" will hate it. Some percentage will love it. Some percentage will watch and like it. Some percentage will be indifferent and catch it occasionally or wait for it to come into a more accessible format. This will be true no matter what they do. The only thing that changes is which percentages react what way.
So...don't waste time worrying about "The Fans" if you are part of the creative team. Just make the best Star Trek show you can. The right people will tune in if you do that.
Some percentage of "the fans" will hate it. Some percentage will love it. Some percentage will watch and like it. Some percentage will be indifferent and catch it occasionally or wait for it to come into a more accessible format. This will be true no matter what they do. The only thing that changes is which percentages react what way.
So...don't waste time worrying about "The Fans" if you are part of the creative team. Just make the best Star Trek show you can. The right people will tune in if you do that.
The two positions contradict each other. The cast of the new show will be a artificial construction of TPTB, any diversity won't simply "just happen."
Casting decisions are concerted efforts, prior to the first auditions the people doing the casting will know the gender, age, appearance that they will be casting for. Before a major character is cast, TPTB will have created the shows "bible," at that stage a major character that is to be (say) gay, this is where they will "become" gay. The same with disabled or alien.
+
I disagree, certainly by listening to the fans (sorry, "The Fans") general themes and overall preferences can be observed, reoccurring ideas can be seen, and patterns discerned.
+
Similar threads
