New Trek - What should it be?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-23-2005, 03:32 AM
C5

You know, after reading all the opinions here, an old question of mine popped in my mind :
What is Star Trek about ?

Is Star Trek just an universe with warp, transporters, aliens with bumps on their forehads, ships flying in space and opening hailing frequencies or firing photon torpedoes ? Is it a series where each species and situation has to reflect a problem we meet in our century ? Is it the portrayal of an ideal of what humanity could/should become someday ? Is it a series about a starship and its crew, meeting a new problem every week ?

I guess everybody has a different answer to that question, but I find it essential IMHO. Because, if we want to reimagine Trek, we have to consider on what the emphasis must be put : discovering the universe, clarifying the continuity, telling good stories, furthering the ideal... ?

Telling stories "in the Trek universe" is easy (ok, telling good stories is another animal, but it's still possible). My main question is, would that make it automatically Star Trek ?
TOS universe had few coherence by itself. What made Star Trek original IMHO was not only the sci-fi part or the FX, but also the message it carried. And when we now come to think about what a new Trek should be, I wonder if we should not think about the message it should carry now, instead of the level of coherence it should have with the established Trek lore.
05-23-2005, 06:42 PM
Space_Cadet

One of my best friend, who is pretty much critical of Star Trek and hates it, says the only way for Star Trek to garner interest again is to reboot it and make it like Star Wars. :D
05-23-2005, 06:42 PM
Sea Tyger

What I see as "Trek" is the message that we (humanity) can move beyond the chaos, bigotry, anger and strife of our time -- that, regardless of race, nationality and religion, we have the ability to move forward together as one world.

Within the smaller scope of the series' crew, we see the diversity of life, and, despite their sometimes vast differences, that they work together professionally (and have the ability to genuinely get along with each other most of the time). The crew should come to be, as Phlox pointed out, an extended family.

Trek is as much about the relationships between the crew, their aspirations, successes, failures and ultimate growth as individuals as it is about starting a dialogue about the relevant moral and social issues facing the world today.

However, Trek is also about the latter...while it doesn't necessarily have to preach solutions (or lord it over us how much more morally advanced they have become), Trek needs to present the problems that we face and entreat people to discuss them.

The last thing a new Trek needs to be is fun. You have to have your "Shore Leave" and "Trouble with Tribbles," "Fistful of Datas," "Our Man Bashir," and "Through a Mirror Darkly." Trek can't take itself too seriously, or else it loses its focus.

So, that's what I see as the essence of Trek: Crew Relationships and Growth, Socially Relevant Stories and the Fun Factor.
05-23-2005, 08:08 PM
REG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Tyger

So, that's what I see as the essense of Trek: Crew Relationships and Growth, Socially Relevant Stories and the Fun Factor.

That's how I would sum up Deep Space Nine, the only Trek series that its executive producer Ira Steven Behr kept Rick Berman off their arses.

:cool:
05-23-2005, 08:43 PM
Hugh Casey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Tyger

What I see as "Trek" is the message that we (humanity) can move beyond the chaos, bigotry, anger and strife of our time -- that, regardless of race, nationality and religion, we have the ability to move forward together as one world.

Yknow, I think that it's true that this is what Trek is all about.

Sadly, I also no longer believe this.

Perhaps THAT is what happened to Trek. That too many of us no longer believe it.

:(
05-23-2005, 09:29 PM
REG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Casey

Yknow, I think that it's true that this is what Trek is all about.

Sadly, I also no longer believe this.

Perhaps THAT is what happened to Trek. That too many of us no longer believe it.

:(

Then what do you believe?
05-24-2005, 03:43 AM
Tobian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Casey

Perhaps THAT is what happened to Trek. That too many of us no longer believe it.

:(

Maybe we just need better Trek, so that we can believe in it again :D

The tail should not wag the dog: if they put a good enough spin on it, with well written believable stories, with all of the things that good Trek has, then maybe we could believe in those things in people. The more real it is written, the easier it is to believe! :)
05-24-2005, 01:40 PM
REG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobian

Maybe we just need better Trek, so that we can believe in it again :D

Better Trek, yes. Just not a reboot.
05-24-2005, 02:22 PM
Mac417

Quote:

Originally Posted by REG

Better Trek, yes. Just not a reboot.

Honestly, to me, it really doesn't matter what timeframe you set the show in, whether it's tied to existing Trek canon or a BSG-style "reimagining," good stories are what drive a good series regardless of genre or setting. Which, as an aside, is why I find any comments by the Trek producers that the 24th century timeframe was the reason they were stunted on trying to tell good stories a severe cop-out.

Write good, compelling stories that plants the butts in the seats during your timeslot and you'll have a quality show, whether it's set in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th century or beyond.

Yes, Trek needs a shot in the arm creatively. But deciding what time period to set it in or whether or not to do a recasting of Classic Trek should be secondary to writing good, compelling, entertaining stories.
05-25-2005, 05:53 PM
JALU3

Quote:

Originally Posted by C5

You know, after reading all the opinions here, an old question of mine popped in my mind :
What is Star Trek about ?

Is Star Trek just an universe with warp, transporters, aliens with bumps on their forehads, ships flying in space and opening hailing frequencies or firing photon torpedoes ? Is it a series where each species and situation has to reflect a problem we meet in our century ? Is it the portrayal of an ideal of what humanity could/should become someday ? Is it a series about a starship and its crew, meeting a new problem every week ?

I guess everybody has a different answer to that question, but I find it essential IMHO. Because, if we want to reimagine Trek, we have to consider on what the emphasis must be put : discovering the universe, clarifying the continuity, telling good stories, furthering the ideal... ?

Telling stories "in the Trek universe" is easy (ok, telling good stories is another animal, but it's still possible). My main question is, would that make it automatically Star Trek ?
TOS universe had few coherence by itself. What made Star Trek original IMHO was not only the sci-fi part or the FX, but also the message it carried. And when we now come to think about what a new Trek should be, I wonder if we should not think about the message it should carry now, instead of the level of coherence it should have with the established Trek lore.

OK, I my not answer all these questions, but now working night shift I got thinking about this.

There are three types of episodes in generality that make up a series.
1)Exploration
2)Character Building
3)Running Antagonist

All the episode types are pretty explanitory in their title.

However, that doesn't talk about what ST is about.
05-25-2005, 06:06 PM
REG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac417

Yes, Trek needs a shot in the arm creatively. But deciding what time period to set it in or whether or not to do a recasting of Classic Trek should be secondary to writing good, compelling, entertaining stories.

You can give all the shots you want but unless you remove a malignant tumor that is Rick Berman, I doubt the franchise is going to get any better. Granted, the fourth season of Enterprise is great for the most part but that's because both Rick Berman and Brannon Braga took a backseat to Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevens.

But of course, their classic B&B storytelling style had to show up in the form of the series finale episode.

Talk all you want. Just don't distract me from wanting to remove Berman. :cool:
05-25-2005, 07:02 PM
Modem

But REG...

What about Braga??? He's as much (if not MORE) the blame as Berrman is for Trek's downfall. Coto's not totally off-the-hook either (he did START last year as Braga's 'understudy', and he didn't really improve anything...need I point at the rating...again).

I think that Trek needs better 'thinkers' and writers (the Judith-Stevens are good, though I like Peter David better), but is slightly off topic.

You also forgot a catagory JALU13: 4) a combination of two or all three subjects.

Oh, and for my money: Trek is about exploration; both external and internal. It also looks at the tough issues of the day (war, prisoners of conscious , poverty, and so on), and plays it against a fictional backdrop (the future), to show ideas of 'how to deal with'...though sometimes even Trek doesn't give 'hard and fast' answers:
both 'Best of Both Worlds' and 'Chain of Command' were about simular themes (prisoners of no crime, of being stripped of one's humanity, being forced to comply with orders...), and neither gives solutions other than 'don't get caught' (well, with the Borg that's not really bad advice). Hell, one of the best Voyager episodes (IMHO) was 'Critical Care', which covered a alien worlds failing health care plan/system...boy, talk about paralleling the 'fiction' with the 'reality'.

I've heard people say "I turn Trek off when it becomes 'political'...", but really...is Trek not a little bit 'soapbox' as well as the 'rest'...just some thoughts.
05-26-2005, 02:47 AM
REG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modem

What about Braga??? He's as much (if not MORE) the blame as Berrman is for Trek's downfall. Coto's not totally off-the-hook either (he did START last year as Braga's 'understudy', and he didn't really improve anything...need I point at the rating...again).

You want to bring Braga down, too? Fine. But he's only No. 2. I'd rather take out the source. As for Coto's season 3, as you said, he was an understudy, not this season's showrunner, you can't blame a Private for the Captain's and Lieutenant's incompetence.
05-26-2005, 06:56 AM
Mac417

Quote:

Originally Posted by REG

You can give all the shots you want but unless you remove a malignant tumor that is Rick Berman, I doubt the franchise is going to get any better. Granted, the fourth season of Enterprise is great for the most part but that's because both Rick Berman and Brannon Braga took a backseat to Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevens.

But of course, their classic B&B storytelling style had to show up in the form of the series finale episode.

Talk all you want. Just don't distract me from wanting to remove Berman. :cool:

Far be it from me to disagree as to the removal of the Trek franchise's answer to Rob Liefeld. :)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page