http://www.slashfilm.com/david-foste...r-trek-series/
Printable View
Siiiiiigh.
Yeah, right...we'll see, but even the descriptions already seem to forget what's gone before. I don't have high hopes here.
No berman or Braga ....so it's a plus for this one
Yeah, when I read the part about Klingons being anxious since Praxis, that made me kinda laugh; It would be like having modern Germans upset about the Treaty of Versailles. And did they turn the Ferengi into space Saudi Arabia?Quote:
Originally Posted by PGoodman13
The pros:
* Set in the Trek future; no more prequels, please.
* The cast sounds interesting
* Complete avoidance of J. J. Abrams abortion
The cons:
* He names Whedon, Straczynski and Moore as three of four inspirations.
So we're likely to see Star Trek with lesbian fetish and female characters crying in the rain over their lost loves.
So we're likely to see Star Trek have the new captain finally defeat the Borg by giving them a stern talking-to and telling them to get lost.
So we're likely to see Star Trek populated with congenital idiots incapable of making a sensible decision.
*siiiiigh* indeed...
* "New uniforms, new ships* - God, just once I'd like to see a Star Trek series not introduce new uniforms!
* Klingons getting restless over Praxis, eh? This guy who is supposedly creating a new Trek series is aware that there's likely not a Klingon alive who was alive during the Praxis incident, right?
* Ferengi. Why did it have to be Ferengi? I was hoping he'd change Abrams' idea and have the Hobus supernova wipe out Ferenginhar instead of Romulus...
* The last thing we need is some kind of "gritty reimagining* of Star Trek. Trek, to me, has always been about hope, and the idea that we'll get better as a species, and do things better. DS9 is as close to "gritty" as I want Trek...I sure as hell don't want some Battlestar Galactica-esque "humans are completely screwed" story.
Unlike Aldaron, I loved the new movie and would enjoy a prequel story set in, say, the 2210s and 2220s. But, I'm not opposed to good writing and acting set in the late-24th or early-25th Century. Really, as long as there's good writing and acting, I don't care if its set in 2180, 2220, 2320 or 2400.
Also, the U.S. Navy has undergone a number of uniform changes over the years; on average, there was significant change about every quarter-century. (In fact, the Navy enlisted service uniforms and all ranks' working uniforms underwent a change only a few years ago. So, uniform changes between series isn't wholly out of the question.
(In fact, TMP's short-lived uniforms mirrored the 70's salt-and-pepper enlisted dress uniforms that were universally unpopular. The Navy quickly returned to the jumpers and white hats in the 80s. So, there's some (unintentional) parallels.)
That said, even the TNG uniform changes weren't that severe. As seen in Generations, the black jumpsuits didn't actually replace the TNG uniform, but, instead, is shown as an alternate. It isn't until 2373 that the 20+ year old TNG uniform was phased out. So, that's not really a unreasonable number.
(It's more unrealistic that Starfleet wore the same uniform with very little variance for 80 years. There probably should've been at least two intervening uniforms in the early 24th Century.)
So, if the uniform changes for a 2390 or later series, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I think that I wouldn't mind a return to the Klingons as the "Soviets/Russian Federation" allegory. You're right in that using the Praxis incident is a bit of a stretch, though, as a species with a 150-year lifespan, Klingons who were new warriors in 2293, would only be in their 120s in 2390, likely leading their families and finding seats on the high council. It's conceivable, though unlikely.
That said, the Klingons getting antsy after being "too reliant" on the Federation for a century could inspire a nationalist revival in which the Empire distances itself from the Federation and starts looking to its own interests, even if it conflicts with the interests of their allies.
Ferengi as the Saudis? Sure. Why not? Honestly, I have no love for the Ferengi (they're a poor replacement for the Orions), but it would be an interesting story arc to see how this new resource changes Ferengi society. (And, as long as there's good stories around this, I'm cool with it.)
I'm with Aldaron on the on the nature of Star Trek. If these guys are serious about getting back to Roddenberry's original concept for Trek, they should run far, far away from "gritty realism." Trek is about hope for the future, about discovering that the things that unite us are far greater than the things that divide us.
It would be interesting to see the Romulans as something like the Philistines in southern Canaan, though their "relocation" would be due to the loss of Romulus, rather than military defeat. The loss of Romulus leads them to consolidate their survivors onto a number of border worlds, or, worse, opens them up for conquering by the Klingons (which could definitely be the catalyst for cooling relations between the Federation and the Empire).
A tv series would be good. I agree with Sea Tyger Trek's not supposed to be dark and forboding its meant to be about hope. I also liked the Abrams movie its an alternate timeline which does not affect the core timeline with the exception of the destruction of Romulus. I just hope that this does not turn into a NuGalactica style series. Thats assuming it gets of the ground. I checked out the website S.E.T.I is set 400 years in our future no mention of Trek anywhere unless he's hoping to convince the studio execs that it would work as a Trek series.
I can't agree more with all the posters above who don't want a darker and grittier Trek. It seems now every show is expected to have brooding characters, harsh setting, hopeless future, and so on. I think I'd better have no more Trek series than it to be to the other series what Stargate Universe was to SG-1.
The plus side however is that this pitch ignores the Abrams Trek, of which I'm not particularly a fan...
Hear hear! Roddenberry worked for a vision of a utopian future. While I'm skeptical of the viability of Federation society, I think it makes a powerful and moving fantasy. That's one of the things that bothers me most about the Abramsverse: the Federation shouldn't have robocop law enforcers, Starfleet cadets should not gang up 3 on 1 to beat up a civilian in a bar, etc. DS9 was as close to TV's idea of "gritty realism" as ST should get, and even the grayest of those episodes was about paying the price to maintain utopia. So let's have a vision of a bright and shining future, and the heroes who fight for it!
It'd be nice if it could be reversed, and maybe get a female lead. Especially a lesbian. However, chances are strong that she'd have some tortured reason for being a lesbian and blah blah... But I don't think this is really the place to get into that. Heh. But yeah, after reading all that, I can say I am holding no hopes for this at all. Actually, though I do think it'd be nice to get a crew with a few younger, non-Mary Sue characters, I have a feeling this is not the way to do it. No one wants to watch Gossip Trek.Quote:
An AfterElton.com story published earlier this year suggested that Foster’s project would involve two openly gay characters — a male lead character and a secondary female character — but Foster did not go into details about the characters in the more recent interview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
Well put, Alderon & ST. That is my foremost reservation about any new Star Trek, be it movies or series. The prequel avoidance has me on board as well, but the "gritty reimagining" is what I dispise most and what would turn me away from a new series even before it would start off, sad as that may be.
I am much more into the Romulans than the Klingons. Neither their treatment in the new movie nor in the book series Titan and the TNG relaunch were to my liking, therefore I'd appriciate a heavier focus on the Romulans but would start off a bit sceptical, but hopeful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
Anyway: A good, new Star Trek series would be more than welcome in my house (and TV set).
I'm worried that it happens so fast in modern sci-fi. It took nearly 30 years for Battlestar Galactica to get an angsty makeover, but they had Stargate: Universe in place before Atlantis' blood was cold.Quote:
the "gritty reimagining" is what I dispise most and what would turn me away from a new series even before it would start off, sad as that may be.
Going from SG-1 and SG:A to SG:U is exactly what I want to avoid with any new Trek show...
The author of the article seemed to be unaware that not only did Moore work on Trek, but that Battlestar is his Voyager reboot.
It sounds abysmal, though, not least because there's absolutely no reason to shackle any new series to the brand name aside from nostalgia and nerd dollars. (Maybe I'll change my tune if I'm ever in the juice enough to write my Star Trek 2070 spinoff).
SG's blood probably didn't retain heat very well, being watery and lacking in substance : PQuote:
Originally Posted by Aldaron
The sad thing is that any Trek series would have to be 'gritty and realistic' because most people can't handle the orginal utopian vision of Trek; I know a lot of people who like scifi, but hate Trek because it's too "fake". They doubt we would ever move past our current squables and the status quo to reach the FED's level of super-diversity.