Why I believe new series will not happen

[Use of Time]

Star Trek is and has always been primarily based on relationships and character interaction. In the grand scheme of things the setting is just that...a setting. People will never get tired of the way a diverse set of crewmembers interact with one another or the challenges they face; even if it is a challenge you have seen another crew handle. It's not the story but how it is told that makes it fresh.

I think Voyager and Enterprise show this simply isn't true. Audiences aren't exactly eager to stick around and watch the same thing over and over but told in a slightly different way.

But wouldn't you agree that those two shows had the two weakest crew dynamics in Star Trek? I thought the Enterprise cast was particularly drab aside from T'Pol and Trip. Voyager was just kind of meh and I think they suffered from Star Trek saturation more than repetitive story telling. The criticism for both of those shows was the writing. I stand by the thought that good writing plus a character you can emotionally connect with can overcome a story that has been told before.

 

[BillJ]

But wouldn't you agree that those two shows had the two weakest crew dynamics in Star Trek? I thought the Enterprise cast was particularly drab aside from T'Pol and Trip. Voyager was just kind of meh and I think they suffered from Star Trek saturation more than repetitive story telling. The criticism for both of those shows was the writing. I stand by the thought that good writing plus a character you can emotionally connect with can overcome a story that has been told before.

Actually, TNG probably had the weakest crew dynamics from a standpoint of character drama.

My biggest criticism of both shows were even when they tried to be different from what came before, they still came off feeling very much the same. We know Starfleet, we know the command structure, we know the technology, we know the Prime Directive. We know how these dynamics add up in storytelling.

Unless someone is willing to tear Trek completely to the ground, it'll always have the feel of "been there, done that".

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah, thx for replies!

Just to make it clear, it is not the particular plots I mean, but the whole setting. It is fun to make up a Universe, it is different fun when the Universe is all set, the rules are all set, technologies depicted, timeline exists.

Of course, I am playing devil's advocate here, but nevertheless from the POV of TV executives the logic may stand.

Also, has anyone noticed a considerable shift in interests? Sci-fi and space exploration are not that cool anymore.

I don't think TV executive logic cares all that much about the rules, technologies and timeline. They want something that will get ratings and sell commercial time. Some critical acclaim is okay too.

Right now Star Trek has a recent successful film under its belt with a new film coming up. If that film does well them there might be some interest in TV. On the other hand it might make TV less possible if the owners decide that that film is more profitable and TV would "poison the well".

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I would say that there are plenty of stories out there for a future series to explore, without needing to enter the alternate universe. It all comes down to the characters who are at the heart of the series, who they are, what they want, how they get along, etc.

Avoid characters used before, clichés and token characters, then hire in a new team of writers to work on it and I'm sure they'd come up with another series.

 

[Use of Time]

But wouldn't you agree that those two shows had the two weakest crew dynamics in Star Trek? I thought the Enterprise cast was particularly drab aside from T'Pol and Trip. Voyager was just kind of meh and I think they suffered from Star Trek saturation more than repetitive story telling. The criticism for both of those shows was the writing. I stand by the thought that good writing plus a character you can emotionally connect with can overcome a story that has been told before.

Actually, TNG probably had the weakest crew dynamics from a standpoint of character drama.

My biggest criticism of both shows were even when they tried to be different from what came before, they still came off feeling very much the same. We know Starfleet, we know the command structure, we know the technology, we know the Prime Directive. We know how these dynamics add up in storytelling.

Unless someone is willing to tear Trek completely to the ground, it'll always have the feel of "been there, done that".

I'll just have to agree to disagree on the TNG crew. If you are tapped out on Star Trek in general than I agree you probably aren't going to be willing to invest yourself in another show but as for the main point of this thread being that there aren't any more Star Trek stories to tell then I will wholeheartedly disagree. Fresh new writers with new perspectives can revive Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

I'll just have to agree to disagree on the TNG crew. If you are tapped out on Star Trek in general than I agree you probably aren't going to be willing to invest yourself in another show but as for the main point of this thread being that there aren't any more Star Trek stories to tell then I will wholeheartedly disagree. Fresh new writers with new perspectives can revive Star Trek.

There's a reason every series after TNG had outside sources working with Starfleet, to drive character drama because the writers felt Gene's edict of no interpersonal conflict was detrimental to dramatic storytelling.

I'm not burnt out on Trek, I'm devouring season one of TNG on blu-ray and am eagerly awaiting season two. I'm just not sure where you can really go that we haven't already been within the current framework.

 

[Use of Time]

I'll just have to agree to disagree on the TNG crew. If you are tapped out on Star Trek in general than I agree you probably aren't going to be willing to invest yourself in another show but as for the main point of this thread being that there aren't any more Star Trek stories to tell then I will wholeheartedly disagree. Fresh new writers with new perspectives can revive Star Trek.

There's a reason every series after TNG had outside sources working with Starfleet, to drive character drama because the writers felt Gene's edict of no interpersonal conflict was detrimental to dramatic storytelling.

I'm not burnt out on Trek, I'm devouring season one of TNG on blu-ray and am eagerly awaiting season two. I'm just not sure where you can really go that we haven't already been within the current framework.

Then the framework needs to be broken. I don't think Star Trek necessarily has to exist as a typical 7-10 person main Starfleet crew (insert random aliens as needed). I'll agree that that particular dynamic may have been played out somewhat. I proposed doing a show on Earth that focused on the politics of the Federation and how they interacted with the Alpha/Beta Quadrant politically. The possibilities are endless. Gene is long gone and the restrictions he put on TOS and early TNG writing should not be used to pidgeon hole Star Trek into a neat little box of starfleet crew on a ship.

That being said it doesn't mean that a new writer can't make that old dynamic work.

 

[Knight Templar]

One thing I think has been a problem in Star Trek was the outstanding success of ST:TNG and the problems of series after it.

DS9 was never as popular as ST:TNG in terms of viewers.

And while Voyager returned the show to being starship based, it too was widely criticized and not as popular compared to TNG viewerwise. Some think because it was not Enterprise based.

Enterprise made sure it was starship based and Enterprise based but it didn't achieve ST:TNG levels of success either.

So I think that the overall idea is that a series can't be successful unless it is "aboard the Starship Enterprise in the late 24th century, that's all that works".

 

[BillJ]

So I think that the overall idea is that a series can't be successful unless it is "aboard the Starship Enterprise in the late 24th century, that's all that works".

I hope TV executives don't think that one-dimensionally.

 

[Use of Time]

So I think that the overall idea is that a series can't be successful unless it is "aboard the Starship Enterprise in the late 24th century, that's all that works".

I hope TV executives don't think that one-dimensionally.

I will definitely agree with you there BillJ. I don't really think that was their line of thinking either. I can only hope that time proves to be a great healer to syndicated Star Trek and that maybe with people putting all of their time and resources into one show instead of juggling multiple shows and movies, Star Trek can once again flourish on weekly television.

 

[BillJ]

I proposed doing a show on Earth that focused on the politics of the Federation and how they interacted with the Alpha/Beta Quadrant politically.

Not sure a show like that would survive under the Trek moniker. Star Trek really has the general description of the show built into the title.

You'd need to make the universe big again, ditch transporters, increase the presence of A.I.'s, involve a corporate presence. Make things like planetary landings seem dangerous, move characters on when they've outlived their usefulness, decrease the number of humanoids, up the number of truly alien aliens. Completely redesign the Enterprise and the sets, reevaluate or ditch the Prime Directive.

That's just off the top of my head...

 

[Louigi Verona]

My biggest criticism of both shows were even when they tried to be different from what came before, they still came off feeling very much the same. We know Starfleet, we know the command structure, we know the technology, we know the Prime Directive. We know how these dynamics add up in storytelling.

Yeah, that was my original idea of the thread.

I would agree with a poster above that a lot can be helped if we go away from looking at the main crew only.

Indeed, imagine a big epic series with lots of characters of a huge Enterprise, not only main crew. This might be interesting.

 

[Knight Templar]

So I think that the overall idea is that a series can't be successful unless it is "aboard the Starship Enterprise in the late 24th century, that's all that works".

I hope TV executives don't think that one-dimensionally.

We're talking about TV executives where the currently most successful network is based entirely on crime/legal dramas.

CBS will have to completely tank and be in 3rd place before they're willing to consider a new Star Trek series IMO.

Maybe not even then. They might simply invest in reality shows (which are dirt cheap).

 

[E-DUB]

When a writer pitches a story that's a retread of an earlier story, they should pitch the writer.

Time for a game: Which two Trek episodes were the most alike? ("Naked Time" and "Naked Now" excluded because they were supposed to be alike as a way of introducing the TNG crew and all their "hidden" foibles.)

 

[Nightdiamond]

It's true..too much has been done already. At least that's how it seems for now.

Too many mysteries have been solved, or villains weakened.

During the Dominion war there so many super weapons and defenses introduced, that it's going to be hard to establish a real threat afterwards.

Look at what the last TNG movie did to the Romulans. Look what Voyager did to the Borg, and the Q.

Holdeck characters replaced androids as the new fascinating AI, and then even they were getting overexposed by the end.

Perhaps Trek moved too much, too fast?

 

[C.E. Evans]

TREKKIE #1: Trek needs to take risks, to be more original and be more creative.

TREKKIE #2: Trek needs to get back to basics and go back to what worked in the past.

 

[BillJ]

TREKKIE #1: Trek needs to take risks, to be more original and be more creative.

TREKKIE #2: Trek needs to get back to basics and go back to what worked in the past.

It'll actually be a combination of both if Trek is to be successful again on TV. The question is: can someone come up with the right recipe?

 

[Romulus Prime]

However, I believe that it is highly unlikely there will ever be new ST series. Reason being that the Universe is so written out, that as a writer for the series I would feel very restricted.

If you can't make interesting stories with existing ideas, then maybe the route to go is to write something original and non-Trek.

 

[C.E. Evans]

TREKKIE #1: Trek needs to take risks, to be more original and be more creative.

TREKKIE #2: Trek needs to get back to basics and go back to what worked in the past.

It'll actually be a combination of both if Trek is to be successful again on TV.

It actually is a moot point because both sides won't be happy no matter what Trek does.

The question is: can someone come up with the right recipe?

The "right receipe" could be something that pleases neither but appeals to a bigger audience who couldn't care less about the stuff Trekkies obsess over.

 

[Louigi Verona]

But another question is - do we want another series? I mean, really?