New Trek?

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:15 am UTC

Well, here's the story I'm going off of.

Let's put aside the likelihood or unlikelihood of this ever seeing daylight. What would you like to see in a new Trek series, if it happened?

My Trek-experience background is that I was slowly watching TNG until this Christmas, when I decided to get through all of TNG/TOS/The movies before the new one released in May. Currently midway through season 1 of TOS, done with TNG.

Anyway, the current plan for a new Trek series seems to be that they'd set it in the TOS-era. Personally, I don't like this idea. When you set a story in the "past" relative to latest continuity, you lock yourselves into certain facts. Earth is never going to be destroyed, the Federation is never going to fall apart, and if the Borg show up, you have to jump through hoops not to contradict TNG, (looking at you, Enterprise) which would get tiring--especially if used for more than one episode.

On the other hand, set it up as post-TNG/DS9/VOY and you have a whole universe to play with. You can bring in cameos from those series, build on their plotlines, and continue to advance the universe without worrying about what you're doing to future Enterprises.

Thoughts?
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:09 am UTC

Do another generation jump is what I say. Maybe have a Wil Wheaton cameo as a 80 year old man
Spoiler:
TIME TRAVELING IDAFUCKINKNOWWHATTHEHELLWASTHAT?
I wouldn't bring Data/B4 in to it as.. yeah, Brent's .. what, 15 years older now? Ageless Androids shouldn't age, basically, hence the end of Nemesis.

But maybe somewhat of a Soonian 'Droid species running around or something. That'd be nifty.

Anyway.. Generation Jump, Klingons in the Federation, Romulans adopting a similar role that the Klingons had in TNG, and the Dominion adopting the role of the Romulans in TNG. Throw in something about Wormhole Creation Vessels, maybe - where basically you send a ship out, five years later it drops a device or something and BAM - site to site transportation.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Mother Superior » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:12 am UTC

Caution: Long, nerdy rant about how my brilliant version of Star Trek would be follows, read at your own risk.
Spoiler:
My idea for a new Trek series is set post-Voyager, after the Klingon Empire, having grown strong after the Dominion wars finally engage in all-out war with the Federation, who emerges victorious. After having fought a long, bitter war with their oldest adversary, the Federation is becoming more and more morally grey in their treatment of the former Klingon Empire, and we can see the beginnings of humanity returning to a more savage state. The show would follow a fresh-out-of-starfleet but disillusioned commander, captaining an Excelsior-class vessel, which by now is a pretty damn outdated vessel. It patrols the old Klingon Empire, mostly having to deal with renegade factions and exploring a new, less ideal version of the Federation that shifts focus away from cosy, state-of-the-art exploration vessels and produces more and more warships, and even flirts with the possibility of fracturing. Now, I know this sounds like the BSG-treatment of the show, and you're right, and that isn't Trek. But the point is, that the first season or so would be like this, and then the second season would begin a build-up of a return to form; a slow but steady re-discovery of Federation ideals, re-focus on exploration and would culminate in our commander being promoted to Captain and given command of the Enterprise-F (Or G maybe), the flagship of the new, reborn federation, and Season Two would end a note of hope, of future explorations, new species and discoveries and of old Trek values!

...and that would be when the Borg showed up. (Which would be their first of only two appearances, at most!)


Okay, yeah- that's how nerdy I am, I've thought of this a lot. But basically, Voyager watered everything down, I don't care what anyone says, Enterprise did not kill the franchise, it was Voyager. So you do need to get a little bit more grim and dirty, if only for a little while, you need to have a few seasons of no holodeck, no magical replicators or technobabble to save everything and no shiningly new ship with a fresh polish every week for the audience to buy it, I think. Once you've done that, once you've been to that place and shown that these people aren't entirely bullet-proof, and shown the Federation at its weakest point in history, you can return to a TNG-esque show, with maybe a dash of DS9 thrown in. Oh, and in my new version of Trek, there would be gay people. Probably quite a lot of them. TOS, for all the mockery it deserves by today's standards, was pretty damn ground-breaking, and since then Trek has done fairly little in that respect. Seriously, it's the 24th century, where's all the gay people? There should have been at least a few of them scattered around the bridge of a few starships!

Sorry, seems the OP actually said something too, erm let's see. Oh, prequels- well, it didn't exactly work well with Enterprise did it? ENT wasn't so bad as some people say, especially by season 3 and onwards, but it did suffer quite a lot from that whole "Oh, another alien species that we never hear about in the next 200 years but you just encountered, neat. Boy space really is a small place when you come right down to it?" It does prevent you from inventing any major new villains without looking stupid (Looking at you, Xindi) and just using Klingons and Romulans tirelessly would be, well... tiresome. No, post-VOY is the only viable alternative, or possibly the gap between Star Trek VI and TNG, as that's a pretty interesting time that we haven't seen very much of.
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:13 am UTC

Yeah, Spiner says that he thinks he's too old to play it anyway. And I liked Data, but I'm not sure we need another android crew member--it'd either be a Data-imitation or have to consciously go out of its way to avoid comparison. A planet/race of androids might be a nice touch though.

Also, do you want to be the guy who says to the writers and fans "Well, see, we've decided to do a Wesley episode..."?

Also, I started reading that MS, and thought "no, no, no I want my idealism, the cynicism is fine, but please not in...Oh. He does know what he's talking about. Very well." It sounds cool.

One thing I've heard--and I haven't seen any Voyager--is that the Borg are absolute pushovers by the time the VOY writers got done with them. This needs to be fixed.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
thatguy
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:25 am UTC
Location: MPLS
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby thatguy » Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:05 am UTC

I'd watch a new Star Trek show or a new Bryan Fuller show by themselves.
But Star Trek done by Bryan Fuller? Words cannot describe how effing sweet that show could be!

Chai Kovsky wrote:Thatguy, you are my Big Damn Hero!
Thank you! You win the day!

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: New Trek?

Postby ArgonV » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:06 am UTC

I'd be interested, but only is Star Trek grew up a bit. They made some headway with the last ~1.5 seasons of DS9. The way the Romulans became involved in the war, or that one episode with the cloaked mines, going of at random moments and section 31. I'd like to see (a bit) less utopia and some more real world.

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Mother Superior » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:29 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Also, I started reading that MS, and thought "no, no, no I want my idealism, the cynicism is fine, but please not in...Oh. He does know what he's talking about. Very well." It sounds cool.


Sometimes it amazes even myself.

One thing I've heard--and I haven't seen any Voyager--is that the Borg are absolute pushovers by the time the VOY writers got done with them. This needs to be fixed.

This is true. Basically because Voyager keeps winning. TNG: The entire Starfleet got wiped out by one cube. VOY: A single starship traverses their territory, surviving several encounters and taking down at least one or two cubes along the way. Also because of the Borg Queen, the constant solving everything using Borg tech and technobabble. Basically, only have one appearance of the borg, two at most, otherwise they lose their teeth.

@ArgonV: Well, DS9 was made by Ronald D. Moore, who went on to create Battlestar Galactica, and I'm not sure what you mean by the last 1.5 season, the whole series is a lot darker than most Trek, for starters it basically deals with the escalation, the beginning of and finally a full-out war, and it takes place on the front line. It also showed that there was a darker side of the Federation, and did the impossible- dealt with the Ferengis in a way that wasn't (always) cringeworthy! It also has the most believable characters, but that's a different thing altogether...
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

aireoth
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby aireoth » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:34 am UTC

It would be nice to see Star Trek come back to tv, but they need to find the balance they had in TNG, which hasn't really exists in the other incarnations.

The movie worries me, saw the trailer at Watchmen and they made it look like a ADHD spazfest, with explosions every other second...

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: New Trek?

Postby ArgonV » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:22 pm UTC

Ah, that connection explains a lot :D Well, I thought that part of the series was especially dark, with what used to be somewhat a cold war now a full-blown war, the Federation condoning backhanded tactics, using biological weapons, stuff like that.

bigstrat2003
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:18 am UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby bigstrat2003 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:05 pm UTC

Mother Superior wrote:But basically, Voyager watered everything down, I don't care what anyone says, Enterprise did not kill the franchise, it was Voyager.


Eh. I thought Voyager was pretty damn good. Not always good, but often very good. Enterprise was pure shit. I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment on which series killed the franchise.

Mother Superior wrote:Seriously, it's the 24th century, where's all the gay people? There should have been at least a few of them scattered around the bridge of a few starships!


OK, here's the problem. There's no visible difference between gay people and straight people (unless you define "gay people" to be the dudes who feel the need to act like idiots to show off their gayness), so there's nothing to show. If you make a point of having some gay dude, you're basically going "OH LOOK AT OUR GAY CHARACTER WE'RE SO COOL!", which completely defeats the purpose of having him. If your goal is to show your acceptance of gay people, making a spectacle out of your gay character is stupid... but there's no other way to "have gay people on the bridge".

Side rant: this is why I have a problem with people making a big deal about including racial diversity in your mix of people. If we want to show how above racism we are, the thing to do is fucking ignore the color of their skin, not include them because of the color of their skin. Including someone because they're black is as racist as excluding them because they're black. Be color-blind, FFS. It's not hard.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:57 pm UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote:OK, here's the problem. There's no visible difference between gay people and straight people (unless you define "gay people" to be the dudes who feel the need to act like idiots to show off their gayness), so there's nothing to show. If you make a point of having some gay dude, you're basically going "OH LOOK AT OUR GAY CHARACTER WE'RE SO COOL!", which completely defeats the purpose of having him. If your goal is to show your acceptance of gay people, making a spectacle out of your gay character is stupid... but there's no other way to "have gay people on the bridge".

Side rant: this is why I have a problem with people making a big deal about including racial diversity in your mix of people. If we want to show how above racism we are, the thing to do is fucking ignore the color of their skin, not include them because of the color of their skin. Including someone because they're black is as racist as excluding them because they're black. Be color-blind, FFS. It's not hard.
At the risk of turning this into another racialism/sexism thread... yes, it actually kinda is.

While Trek has handled the race issue pretty well in the past via the no remarks at all, sexuality is a bit different. We saw Picard mackin' on Crusher. Riker and Troi had their on/off/on relationship. Worf got down with whatserface and ended up with Alexander. Sisko was obviously married as his wife was referenced many times. Odo, presenting as male, had this thing with Kira, a woman. Tom Paris and B'elanna or however her named was spelled.. another case of male/female, even though you easily could have altered Paris and Kim to be a bit more than heterolifepartners..

Point being, unless you're paying attention, you don't see the blatant heterosexuality because you're seeing it as the default, as the normal, as whatever. The simple act of showing two guys having a meal together and making romantic small talk only to be interrupted by the Monster of the Week attacking the ship would be interpreted as "OH LOOK AT OUR GAY CHARACTER WE'RE SO COOL!"... even though the exact same scene between a male and a female wouldn't cause anyone, anywhere, ever, to say "OH LOOK AT OUR HETERO CHARACTERS WE'RE SO COOL!"... really, how many times were Troi and Riker making eyes at each other in 10 Forward when they hit an intergalactic speedbump?

It's taken for granted that you can show heterosexuality and it not be offensive or remarkable. Even if it's just a character who casually mentions her girlfriend - a girlfriend only mentioned from time to time as a reason the character cannot join the main cast on the Holodeck (and later is the character working from the outside to get it to stop malfunctioning.... again) and the only evidence we, the viewer, even have that the character is a lesbian are these occasional casual mentioning of a girlfriend - it would still be a "OH LOOK AT OUR GAY CHARACTER WE'RE SO COOL!" moment, because it's seen as a jarring experience for some viewers for a variety of reasons - one of them being that it's just not done.

So.. bottom line of what I'm saying... given the nature of the show, it's fanbase, it's history, blah blah blah.. it'd be hard for it to not seem like an appeal to be progressive and cool, at least at the beginning. I mean, by the second season you wouldn't care anymore. But no matter what, the moment the character(s) is/are revealed to be a homosexual, you're going to get a "OH LOOK AT OUR GAY CHARACTER WE'RE SO COOL!" moment.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Mother Superior » Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:21 pm UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote:OK, here's the problem. There's no visible difference between gay people and straight people (unless you define "gay people" to be the dudes who feel the need to act like idiots to show off their gayness), so there's nothing to show. If you make a point of having some gay dude, you're basically going "OH LOOK AT OUR GAY CHARACTER WE'RE SO COOL!", which completely defeats the purpose of having him. If your goal is to show your acceptance of gay people, making a spectacle out of your gay character is stupid... but there's no other way to "have gay people on the bridge".

Yeah, that's not what I meant. I am not talking about a gay character who's main attribute is being gay, I mean, make someone like Harry Kim gay, of course that's a particularly bad example since he's an empty, one dimensional character to begin with (Yes, we will revisit why Voyager sucked and that will be part of it), but it wouldn't change anything about his character, he'd still be the same character, only he'd get the hots for a male liberated borg drone in tight spandex instead. But quantify for me, the number of people on Star Trek who have had romantic relationships, after TOS. Then quantify for me the number of those relationships that were of the male/female variety. For a show that did exactly what you mentioned in the 60s, that is have black, asian and female officers on the show, without ever making a deal about it, Star Trek has completely ignored gay people. In my own example I imagined an episode where trouble brewing with one of the Klingon renegade factions prevents the commander from attending his brother's wedding to one of his old (male) friends from the academy (it was going to be this whole thing about him not being able to go and feeling guilty about it and mis-placing that guilt on someone else on the ship... shut up, I have a lot of free time on my hands, okay?!). It needn't be a huge thing, in fact I'd make it an absolute point that the characters on the show would not react in any way to it, telling someone you're gay in the 24th century should be like telling them you dye your hair, a complete non-issue.

Also, everything ST said.
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

User avatar
Alder
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:20 am UTC
Location: Scotland

Re: New Trek?

Postby Alder » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:14 pm UTC

I so miss my Star Trek. It's all my dad's fault...indoctrinating me from a young age...
So I'd be delighted for there to be another incarnation. However:

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Anyway, the current plan for a new Trek series seems to be that they'd set it in the TOS-era. Personally, I don't like this idea. When you set a story in the "past" relative to latest continuity, you lock yourselves into certain facts. Earth is never going to be destroyed, the Federation is never going to fall apart, and if the Borg show up, you have to jump through hoops not to contradict TNG, (looking at you, Enterprise) which would get tiring--especially if used for more than one episode.

...I do not fancy another 'prequel' type show. For all the reasons that folk have mentioned about Enterprise. (Though I liked Enterprise at first). There's only so much you can do with "Oooo, we don't have phasers - look, now we do! Ooo, we don't have force-fields - look, now we do!" A lot of loving Trek is loving the technology. [Did the ship ever get proper shields in Enterprise? I stopped watching after the first two seasons.]

And maaaaaaan, it got preachy, or so I felt. ["And now we're going to have an episode to explain why we need the Prime Directive, and the Prime Directive is a Good Thing!"]
Plasma Man wrote:I might have to get rid of some of my breadbins.

Kulantan wrote:I feel a great disturbance in the Fora, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and then kinda trailed off to a grumble.

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Mother Superior » Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:47 am UTC

Alder26 wrote: [Did the ship ever get proper shields in Enterprise? I stopped watching after the first two seasons.]

No it did not. Also, season three is when the show got great, during their entire season-long arc about the Xindi.
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

User avatar
Alder
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:20 am UTC
Location: Scotland

Re: New Trek?

Postby Alder » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:57 pm UTC

Mother Superior wrote:No it did not. Also, season three is when the show got great, during their entire season-long arc about the Xindi.

It did? Oops... Guess I'd better try and get the DVDs then. :D
Plasma Man wrote:I might have to get rid of some of my breadbins.

Kulantan wrote:I feel a great disturbance in the Fora, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and then kinda trailed off to a grumble.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: New Trek?

Postby Chen » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:39 pm UTC

The only scene I really enjoyed in my limited experience with Enterprise was some future/time travel episode where they where in some space fight and the enemies actually targetted and destroyed the ever so exposed bridge of Enterprise. Why the hell would you design a starship with its bridge being a bump on the exposed topside of the ship?

Anyways, if any new Trek series comes out it really needs to just be another "Next gen" type thing and get back to the whole exploring the galaxy and having random encounters with aliens etc. TOS was good in this regard and so was TNG. Voyager, despite the terrible inconsistencies it had, did have some decent episodes that were just related to exploring. Like that two parter with the guy who was erasing things from history to try and save his wife who died in the past. That episode was quite entertaining and really had very little to do with "getting home". I don't think a new Trek series needs a gimmick like "we're trapped away from home" or "we're on a space station near a wormhole". Just get back to exploring space and having good stories.

Grumpy Code Monkey
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Blue Texas

Re: New Trek?

Postby Grumpy Code Monkey » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:49 pm UTC

If I were running the franchise, here would be my rules:

1. NO MORE TIME TRAVEL. It's been done. To death. We don't need to ever do it again. Any writer who turns in a story outline involving the main characters traveling to 20th / 21st century Earth will immediately be stripped naked, smeared with honey, and thrown to the bears at the nearest zoo.

2. NO MORE TELEPATHY.

3. NO MORE TREKNOBABBLE. Any writer that turns in a story outline that relies on "recalibrating the phase inverter coils to induce a polarized feedback in the injector mechanism" will have his own coils inverted. Keep the tech dialog minimal and simple.

3A. NO MORE PLOTS CENTERED AROUND TECH FAILURE. Again, it's been done.

4. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T MEAN "AS THE STARSHIP TURNS". Shipboard romances are right out.

Other than that, I'm open to just about anything. While I'm not thrilled about another series set in the TOS era, there were 11 other Constitution class ships in the fleet1, so there's room for new stories and new continuity from that era. It's just that there's no need to go retro.

1. Except for the Defiant, which was lost in Tholian space. And the Constellation, which was used to destroy the Doomsday machine. Oh, and the ships destroyed by M5 (Intrepid? Hood?). And the ship that was infected orbiting whatever planet that was in The Omega Glory. Okay, so maybe there isn't that much room.

bigstrat2003
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:18 am UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby bigstrat2003 » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:53 pm UTC

Grumpy Code Monkey wrote:3. NO MORE TREKNOBABBLE. Any writer that turns in a story outline that relies on "recalibrating the phase inverter coils to induce a polarized feedback in the injector mechanism" will have his own coils inverted. Keep the tech dialog minimal and simple.


I'm sorry, but this is simply not an option. If they follow your rule, we will never again have a line as epic and great as "We need to decouple the Heisenberg compensators", and I won't have that. A world without Heisenberg compensators is a world not worth living in!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby mosc » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:31 pm UTC

You guys are just talking about some sci-fi series set in the Star Trek Universe. That will never work. It's boring, played out, and nobody cares but nerds (like me) who'll be more content to watch old stuff on DVD anyway.

Look, there is PLENTY of room for a new Star Trek series. You just have to accept what made it relevant in the first place. It's a reflection of an idealized future so you can single out real-world sociopolitical ideals for discussion. At it's core, Trek is a journey to the ultimate potential of humanity. Forget the time travel, technobabble, and alien backstory crap for a minute. There's a UNIVERSE of socially relevant and hard to talk about dynamics in our world today.

What you need is a Trek series set with the mighty federation trying to deal with people who don't want to be part of it. The central issue of our generation is freedom vs security. To me that screams a series based on federation internal affairs.

Look, it's plenty easy to write in some 'save the universe' shenanigans when needed. You can also get sucked into wormholes and get plenty of exploration goodness. What I think was really missing in the recent series (and I include voyager in that along with a lot of DS9) is the self-reflective human content.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:33 pm UTC

Which I think raises a question: Is the "boldly going" premise tired out for now? That is, except for DS9 and VOY, the trek series have been a ship whose mission is "...and...go find people and stuff...and do diplomacy if we ask, and do military stuff if we ask, and...". Essentially, the mission is "go find plot." Nothing wrong with that--I love Aliens/Spatial Anomalies of the Week as much as the next guy, but do you think it can still be done, or have the, what, twenty seasons of that premise made it a little overdone at this point?

Also, I rather like the technobabble as long as it's somewhat consistent. As long as the focus of the episode isn't people parroting technobabble with no other purpose, it's alright. For example, I can remember those episodes where Geordi was dealing with that Braun or Brown or whatever girl, the engineer. Both episodes were, in a sense, about him being a Big Damn Engineer* and had the requisite technobabble. But really, the underlying dynamic between him and the hologram (and later the real girl) carried the episode, and the rest was just backdrop. So it worked.


*(I think. I don't remember the specific reasons, but I think he was trying to do something with the engines.)
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby mosc » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:46 pm UTC

Eh, the title sequence is a crock of shit. It doesn't boldly go where we've never gone before. It boldly goes into the conflicts that drive us today. Is "let that be your last battlefield" an exciting journey to a far away planet or, is it using sci fi and the "perfectness" of the federation to highlight racism in the real world? We don't even see the planet in that episode if I recall. It's about boldly going into a world so clean and so friendly that the most fundamental of human flaws can take center stage. Sure, there are plenty of episodes that journey off to far away lands but the good ones are always ones that take us on an inward journey.

It does seem a valid question though in regards to the 'exploration model'. Can Star Trek really handle more unknown in a galaxy we've already waded through? Send somebody to the Gamma Quadrant or something? I thought the dominion ran it all. Clearly DS9 in particular painted a much... smaller version of the galaxy. I suppose you could always go inter-galactic (ST: Andromeda). I don't think it's so much that the exploration model doesn't hold water, it's just that Trek is not driven by it. I mean, it's not like DS9 or Voyager were boldly exploring. DS9 was exploring all the different types of war (gorilla war, cold war, all out war, etc) and voyager was a mad dash home mostly consisting of struggles at gas stations. I suppose as long as you don't paint "Enterprise" on the side of the hull, you don't have to stick your nose in the air and avoid the known galaxy.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:01 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Eh, the title sequence is a crock of shit. It doesn't boldly go where we've never gone before. It boldly goes into the conflicts that drive us today.

Well, it provides the device for explaining why there's a new alien culture every week: It's the Enterprise's job to go handle first contacts.

It does seem a valid question though in regards to the 'exploration model'. Can Star Trek really handle more unknown in a galaxy we've already waded through?

Probably. The galaxy is a very big place, in real life. Saying "oh, and this section of space is as yet unexplored" doesn't cause too many problems. As far as I know, Trek has no canonical map.

I suppose you could always go inter-galactic (ST: Andromeda).

The only thing is, they'd have to show the galactic barrier and re-establish it in viewer's minds, then explain why it's there, then explain why it isn't there anymore. Considering there's an EU novel in which it's there to stop something so bad the Q can't kill it, you'd either have to declare that out of continuity or haul in some really powerful forces or....I dunno, it's just a mess.

You'd also have to introduce intergalactic teleportation or dig very deep into technobabble to explain why the Federation can suddenly travel that ridiculously huge distance. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across. Andomeda is 2.54 million light years away.

DS9 was exploring all the different types of war (gorilla war, cold war, all out war, etc)

We are the Gorilla. Lower your shields and surrender your bananas. (Sorry)
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Alder
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:20 am UTC
Location: Scotland

Re: New Trek?

Postby Alder » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:24 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
DS9 was exploring all the different types of war (gorilla war, cold war, all out war, etc)

We are the Gorilla. Lower your shields and surrender your bananas. (Sorry)

That made me chuckle way more than it should've. :D
Plasma Man wrote:I might have to get rid of some of my breadbins.

Kulantan wrote:I feel a great disturbance in the Fora, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and then kinda trailed off to a grumble.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: New Trek?

Postby frezik » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:59 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
It does seem a valid question though in regards to the 'exploration model'. Can Star Trek really handle more unknown in a galaxy we've already waded through?

Probably. The galaxy is a very big place, in real life. Saying "oh, and this section of space is as yet unexplored" doesn't cause too many problems. As far as I know, Trek has no canonical map.


It's not a matter of physical space to explore. It's a matter of usable plotlines to explore.

For the record, by the time of TNG, about 11% of the Milky Way was charted by the Federation.

I suppose you could always go inter-galactic (ST: Andromeda).

The only thing is, they'd have to show the galactic barrier and re-establish it in viewer's minds, then explain why it's there, then explain why it isn't there anymore. Considering there's an EU novel in which it's there to stop something so bad the Q can't kill it, you'd either have to declare that out of continuity or haul in some really powerful forces or....I dunno, it's just a mess.


Novels are considered as almost worthless as far as Star Trek canon is concerned. In comparison, Star Wars novels are much higher, just below the movies.

You'd also have to introduce intergalactic teleportation or dig very deep into technobabble to explain why the Federation can suddenly travel that ridiculously huge distance. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across. Andomeda is 2.54 million light years away.


Don't think it'd be too hard. Just say that the Federation was able to redevelop transwarp from the Borg tech that Voyager brought back.

Better yet, Voyager had stumbled on a way to go infinite speed (Warp 10) way back in the first season. It turned people into salamanders, but would be useful for unmanned probes (why didn't the Voyager crew think of that?), and would be very useful in a weapon (put a bomb inside anything you want, shielded or not).

You could build a whole series on an expedition to go back, stake a claim, and watch as the Federation delves into tyranny from their newfound power. The Prophets send Sisko back to lead an uprising against Earth, uniting with the Dominion and other races along the way. Eventually, the Federation starts putting a metric ton of antimatter in the middle of any planet supporting the rebellion, and Sisko beats them off with the power of awsome.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby mosc » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:06 pm UTC

Wormhole ffs. Wormhole. You guys are nuts.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:04 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Wormhole ffs. Wormhole. You guys are nuts.

Haha. True.

But, again, is it really necessary? If 89% of the Milky Way is uncharted, and the bits we know about have established powers and species, what's the point of saying..."Aaaaaand then we go to a new galaxy!"? I mean, there's no functional difference between "new planet/species in Milky Way" and "new planet/species in Andromeda". If you really feel that we need a more "unknown" feel, why not make it the other way around? Andromeda invasion fleet stakes a little claim to the MWG and we see how all our nice, pre-established continuity reacts, as different threats/etc come through. I think there was a TOS episode that touched on this, actually, but I haven't gotten there.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: New Trek?

Postby frezik » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:30 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Andromeda invasion fleet stakes a little claim to the MWG and we see how all our nice, pre-established continuity reacts, as different threats/etc come through. I think there was a TOS episode that touched on this, actually, but I haven't gotten there.


By Any Other Name
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:35 pm UTC

Alright, reading that, it doesn't seem like it would be too far-fetched. They're here because of rising radiation levels--seems like a sensible motive for an entire galaxy to GTFO.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby Endless Mike » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:32 pm UTC

Grumpy Code Monkey wrote:4. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T MEAN "AS THE STARSHIP TURNS". Shipboard romances are right out.

This is kind of a bad idea. It's not hard to believe that a bunch of people stuck in a relatively small, finite space are going to have romantic relationships. It would be far less realistic for it NOT to happen. It's simply a matter of how it's handled and written.

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sockmonkey » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:11 am UTC

Well it's official, they are making a new trek movie based on TOS with n all new Kirk, Spock, and everyone.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:16 am UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:Well it's official, they are making a new trek movie based on TOS with n all new Kirk, Spock, and everyone.

We know that. It's coming out in May. This thread is about a new Trek TV series.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: New Trek?

Postby Jorpho » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:32 am UTC

Mother Superior wrote:No it did not. Also, season three is when the show got great, during their entire season-long arc about the Xindi.
No, the fourth season is where it got great. The third season had Resident Evil Vulcans and the Western Planet. But then, compared to the first two seasons' brazenly recycled Voyager scripts (oy, the brazenness!), it was definitely a huge step up.

Chen wrote:Like that two parter with the guy who was erasing things from history to try and save his wife who died in the past. That episode was quite entertaining and really had very little to do with "getting home". I don't think a new Trek series needs a gimmick like "we're trapped away from home" or "we're on a space station near a wormhole". Just get back to exploring space and having good stories.
"The Year of Hell". One of the few things Voyager did darn right.

I rather like the "Wheel of Trek" idea postulated here.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:46 am UTC

Intriguing. The only thing I worry about is that it would be too focused on "corners of the Trek universe", resulting in continuity problems for people who weren't long-time Trek fans. I mean, if I'm random guy #452, maybe I've seen a little Trek, but not much, and I decide to check out this new series, and find an episode about "the rebuilding of Cardassia", I may be a bit confused. What's a Cardassia? Why does it need rebuilt? Why is this planet important enough to warrant a quarter of a season?

I guess this needn't be the case. It's just as possible producers would use the opportunity to craft some very good Trek stories that made use of the longer time to give us deeper stories.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby Endless Mike » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Intriguing. The only thing I worry about is that it would be too focused on "corners of the Trek universe", resulting in continuity problems for people who weren't long-time Trek fans. I mean, if I'm random guy #452, maybe I've seen a little Trek, but not much, and I decide to check out this new series, and find an episode about "the rebuilding of Cardassia", I may be a bit confused. What's a Cardassia? Why does it need rebuilt? Why is this planet important enough to warrant a quarter of a season?

Worrying about this is exactly what stifles creativity. A good writer can get the point across quickly and succinctly without having to talk about multiple seasons of war, and still tell a good story. For the people who want to know more, there's Wikipedia.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:31 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I mean, if I'm random guy #452, maybe I've seen a little Trek, but not much, and I decide to check out this new series, and find an episode about "the rebuilding of Cardassia", I may be a bit confused. What's a Cardassia? Why does it need rebuilt? Why is this planet important enough to warrant a quarter of a season?
For this exercise, the role of Random Guy #452 will be played by SecondTalon.

What's a Cardassia? A person in some different funny makeup with neck pieces, as opposed to antennae or forehead pieces or that little nose ribbed thing. Or the planet they're on, maybe, since they just mentioned the Cardassian Capital Building. Or something, I don't know, they look like lizards, man. Whatever. Freaky Alien #218 as far as I'm concerned.

Why does it need rebuilt? Er.. war, natural disaster? Space Monster of the Week? If it's important it'll be mentioned again. Must have missed it in the pilot, it'll be on a rerun, though.

Why is this planet important enough to warrant a quarter of a season? I kinda wish they'd go back to the Planet-of-the-week format, but then again this long term thing is cool too, like BSG or something.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: New Trek?

Postby frezik » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

I like the idea, but you'll have to sell Paramount on it. Being able to swap in and out plots would remove a lot of risk adversion that's in Hollywood these days, but the project would be a risk in itself from the beginning.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: New Trek?

Postby mosc » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

The other alternative is to just offer DC Fontana $1M per episode with full executive producer authority and watch. I can't imagine that being bad.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: New Trek?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:40 am UTC

After thinking about it a little more, it is an interesting idea (note that in my above post, I did note that it could work, just that I was apprehensive). I think the best approach would be to have, say, four storylines/ships/locations, and do one each month, with perhaps one of the slots switching completely every season or half-season. I think it's important that some settings stay in the cycle for a long time, as I think lots of people (read: I do, so I may as well generalize) enjoy getting attached to a particular cast of characters and seeing them really fleshed out.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: New Trek?

Postby Yakk » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

Multiple plotlines run into the 'talented actor problem'.

Having actors that are talented (and popular) is a large part of a TV show's appeal. If you put the same actor on multiple times, you can generate reliable chemistry and you get to 'own' the generated practice and experience and fold some of those dividends into the show.

Shows with 'actor a week' formats have much higher casting bills, less reliable chemistry, don't let watchers get emotionally attached to the characters, don't give the actors as much experience with their roles to 'smooth out the rough bits', etc.

On top of that, suppose you are a kick ass actor. Do you want to work on the gig that gives you N/4 units of work per year, or the one that gives you N units of work per year?

Having 3 or 4 different crews (or a constantly different set of crew members) means that you are half way to the 'actor a week' show.

...

Between Voyager and DS9 and Enterprise, entire swaths of Trek TV show possibilities have been poisoned or crowded out.

...

Too much Continuity is, quite honestly, poisonous to something like Trek. No really. The Continuity problem is that it restrains larger and larger chunks of the stories you can tell, while not enriching the stories you can tell sufficiently to make up for it.

And you can use Time Travel as an explanation without making your story about Time Travel. Heck, you can retell TOS plot without assuming the continuity will continue into TNG as a general rule (plot reboots are not that rare). In this sense, you can treat the Trek universe and the stories we have heard as a collection of Legends -- and if you can tell a story that is a better telling of the Legend than the last time, then it (rather than the original story) is the Legend.

The downside to this approach is that it squicks out people who want to build complex interconnected models of the Legend world (which is a natural thing for someone to obsess over). You can fix this to a certain extent by having clear demarcation edges -- a 'reboot' that is clearly breaking with old continuity. Even then you will get Legend-otaku complaining that it doesn't match their own models of the universe. And the Otaku are a decent sized demographic for something like Trek.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: New Trek?

Postby Jorpho » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:00 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:On top of that, suppose you are a kick ass actor. Do you want to work on the gig that gives you N/4 units of work per year, or the one that gives you N units of work per year?
Well, ever since TNG a lot of the series have had many episodes that focus on particular characters to the near-exclusion of all others. (Remember that one TNG episode that had Dr. Crusher mucking about with those special multi-phasic shields, when it would have been far more appropriate to have Geordi instead?)


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests