Printable View
Hate to say it, First, but that's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by First of Two
You can't make a TV show for small numbers viewers, esp. if the cost per ep. is in the millions.
You have to make the new Treks for a mass audience... which is many millions more than the current fan base.
Trekdom needs new blood, both behind and IN FRONT OF the screen.
JMNSHO... YMMV
IOW, screw the longtime Trek fans, Hugh Casey?
Isn't that what Berman & Braga have been doing since Voyager (and a few Trek films)?
Traitor. I recommend discommendation.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_15.gif
Ok, first of all; anything that is TOS era, but not EXACTLY like the Show, will be called 'reimagined' and immediatly cause infighting.
Secondly, anyting from a Time period not currently covered by cannon (Ent. C, Captain April's Enterprise, Picard's time on the Stargazer) will almost certainly cause some discrepencies in 'continuity', which will cause infighting.
Thirdly, going into the future of Trek, will cause people to say we are trying to rip off BSG, or Andromeda (why I have no idea), and we will be creating new continuity, which will be nitpicked to death, which will cause infighting.
Basicly, there is no way, no way, to create a Trek show that doesn't
Rip off the original
put a 'gritty, darker slant' on orginally light material
'reimagine' the whole idea behind star trek.
I hate to say it, and maybe it's my 12+ hour shift with no dinner talking, but maybe
just maybe
the time for trek on network tv has ended.
No, I don't think you have to screw the longtime fans just to gain new ones... but you can't cater ONLY to the fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by REG
Instead, you have to tell great stories, with great characters, written by great writers and performed by great actors. All captured by a great production staff. And a group of rabid fanboy's idea of what you should be doing be damned.
Mind you, I happen to BE a "rabid fanboy", and have been since the very early '70's. But you have to do what's right by the story and the setting, and right now, I think that the setting for the story is being crushed under it's own weight. There is now close to 40 years of inconsistent continuity (how's THAT for an oxymoron?) that the writers have to keep track of, and that sort of history can really hamstring them, forcing them to write in knots to tell a story that makes sense!
And mind you, "reimagining" does not neccessarily mean "revising". We don't HAVE to make Spock a woman, the Feds a bunch of facists, and the Klingons pink fuzzy bunnies! You can keep the CORE the same, and just update the look, and rework the setting enough that it hangs together better, but is still familiar. The trick is to figure out what works, what doesn't, and ONLY PLAY WITH WHAT DOESN'T! Granted, that would take some very talented people, but Trek has a history of attracting talented people.
Oh, and just because that's what B&B were trying to do, doesn't mean that they were doing it RIGHT. ;)
(Actually, I kinda LIKE the "Klingon as pink fuzzy bunny" idea... :D )
Dude, don't think on an empty stomach. You sound like Berman. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Tricky
And you wonder why I oppose a reboot, mainly your reboot. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Casey
At this moment and time, and possibly for the next 15 years, I don't see anyone playing Kirk. Hopefully by then, my sight have grown worse that TV & Video would be useless to me. You can then mangle Trek your way, Hugh Casey.
I vote for a Reboot.
There is a time to take stock
Enterprise was the last kick at the can for the old Trek... I will always enjoy the old series (some more than others) but I don't think I can stand another series in the same universe. Too much covered ground and way too many mistakes made over the years... Trek history is a muddle. I like continuity and honestly there isn't much left in Trek.
I think its a good time to get a group of people that know Trek (and who can also write Sci-Fi) and reimagine Star Trek. Boil the series down to is essential elements, the things that worked so well for TOS, TNG, DS9, etc. Then from that build a new setting.
Great storywriting from a great host of writers. That and an executive producer that is willing to cut loose like Ira Steven Behr.Quote:
Originally Posted by prophetsteve
The one thing I can praise Rick Berman most recent action is hiring Manny Coto and put him in the show-running position. You cannot deny he didn't turn the show around on the fourth and final season, with the help of Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens.
Now, I'm afraid everyone is going to forget what those three have done, or diminish their work into a footnote. :(
I love Star Trek but i think that launching a new Sci-Fi series atm is just not a good time :)
With BSG, SGA and the new Star Wars series coming, i'm not sure its such a good idea.
A "reboot" or reimagined TOS has a possible future. However, my fear is that it is done badly, and thus damaging Star Trek even more. We must be very careful with this venture if it is chosen. Fan imput must be finally taken into consideration, without it the franchise will be lost forever to the small and big screen.
However, as I have said before, whatever comes out for a future trek should come out as a mini-series first. This will allow for a vetting process for not only Paramount, but for us fans. Think of it like an appetizer for a possible main course.
However, as I have stated before, a Trek that goes to the future of current column is what I would like to see. I thuroughly enjoyed DS9 and the DS9 relaunch books, and thus am interested in where the future will go after the end of the DW. What of the Gamma Quadrant? What of the reconstruction of the CU? What of the vast unexplored regions of space beyond? It is all possible!
How about a series set on a ship of the same era as Kirk etc, in the TOS era?
Maybe they can go around mending all the continuity problems caused by 'spatial anomolies' (or cr*ppy writing) or something?
:)
Cheers
Tas
Some don't give Rick enough credit for the high point of Star Trek. IIRC, DS9 would not have seen the light of day if it weren't for Rick Berman despite Gene Roddenberry's disapproval. Its funny i would say that cause I never heard of Berman or Braga or whomever is writing the show till a couple of years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by REG
Anyways, I think Star Trek will come back but it'll probably need to have a big name star attached to it to draw viewers and I mean casual, mainstream viewers, who probably don't give an iota about canon or technobabble. The prequel era had an opportunity to bring in new viewers and shake things up in Star Trek lore, but it seems more of a knee-jerk reaction. Scott Bakula, as much as he was a good actor (Golden Golobe winner and Emmy nominee) and all, was a bit old and to see him act like a naive youngster in the first season was a bit awkward. So perhaps another crew in the 2150s (which has a lot of potential for interesting stories) with a younger lead actor and cast. I don't think going further in the future of Star Trek would help. I mean you have sentient holograms who can leave the holodeck and operate like a normal humaniod. You might as well as have a crew full of holodgraphic characters with "God-like" technology. That kinda takes the fun of storytelling in Star Trek when you have a couple of Okudagram buttons to press to solve a problem. I also think a re-imagining of TOS is a good idea but like i have said before a younger big name star would have to be cast in the role of Kirk to draw curious causal viewers.
Perhaps, but by the time DS9 is being proposed -- though many conspiracists would argue that Berman stole the idea from JMS when he initially visited Paramount before Warner Brothers gave him the greenlight to produce Babylon 5 -- Gene is pretty much a figurehead since he left after TNG Season 1, and Rick Berman is pretty much the franchise head with Paramount's blessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_Cadet
Funny you should mentioned DS9. Had Berman influence the show's development, it wouldn't be the much-praised Trek series it is now. Berman would never agree to make the Dominion War arc to go over 1 season. He would prefer to make the war play in the background, like he did with the Cardassian War during the TNG run. For that, I partly credit executive producer Ira Steven Behr for deceiving Berman. The other part is when Berman got busy with Voyager to have any influence over DS9 development.
In conclusion, Rick Berman have outlived his usefulness. He's got to go.
Perhaps, but by the time DS9 is being proposed -- though many conspiracists would argue that Berman stole the idea from JMS when he initially visited Paramount before Warner Brothers gave him the greenlight to produce Babylon 5
A conspiracy theory which falls apart as soon as you look closely at it. JMS' original pitch was apparently made during the early stages of TNG production, when Gene was still running the Trek office, before Berman took over. Further, it was made to the studio heads, not to the Trek offices, so there's little chance at all that the Trek people ever even heard of it.
Of course, that doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists - if they listened to facts, they wouldn't be who they are.
Personally, I hope for a series set 10-15 years after Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The Enterprise-B, Excelsior, Cardassian War, and other events only briefly explained previously would be fair game. And familiar faces from the original movies (the ones who are still alive, anyway) could make their way to the show for guest arcs. Maybe a miniseries could help launch this.
Of course, if anyone proposed a continuation to DS9 or Voyager, in miniseries, movie, or series format, I'd so be on board that boat too.