Now that Viacom co-president Moonves has stated that maybe Trek should take a break for a couple of years, let's see what some of the fans think!
Answers above, explainations below.
Fire away!
Printable View
Now that Viacom co-president Moonves has stated that maybe Trek should take a break for a couple of years, let's see what some of the fans think!
Answers above, explainations below.
Fire away!
I kinda like what they're doing with the universe in Enterprise this season
...something different was what the franchise needed. The 'head of the week' stuff from Voyager gets old fast. Couple that with the solution to every problem is rewiring some bit of technology or using some new particle and you get a staid set of tropes. Also, the atmosphere of TNG, Voyager was just too utopian for me. I've finally had a chance to watch the DS9 series and found it refreshing -- much more character-driven and ther are more 'questions' asked with no easy answers.
A major problem for the franchise has been that it's not the only kid on the block, now...Babylon 5 raised the bar for SFX, but also highlighted story arcs, complex characters and issues in which the 'right thing' wasn't always clear. Stargate SG-1 joins sci-fi travel with modern military, and once again...character-driven stories. Battlestar Galactica (the new one) has that same important quality that has made these other shows popular: the characters are engaging and interesting, and they drive the action.
Competition requires Trek to get smart and to adapt to new tastes. I think a break might help the franchise...or maybe it's time to find a new universe to play in.
If you'd ask me a year ago on this day, I'd quickly say, "Yes, we need a break" without skipping a heartbeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Casey
BUT, last summer they made a smart move, albeit halfway. Put somebody else like Manny Coto instead of Brannon Braga to run the show.
We're halfway there. They should complete the other half by terminating Berman's and Braga's job from the franchise.
No. I think the show is just fine the way it is. Manny Coto's been doing a very good job.
They need to creative staff and a new show. That takes time. Rushing will not fix the issue. B&B failed miserably like it or not it is true. They need a new head of the Star Trek project someone with talent. Behr, Pillar or Wolfe anyone?
Rumors that JMS may have already wrote a proposal to Viacom/Paramount for a new Star Trek series that Viacom/Paramount are debating on is just that a rumor. If it is true it would take years to set up the show right.
It needs to be done well not thrown together because the last series just ended. So I voted for the break.
What's wrong with Manny Coto?
Manny Coto still needs to pass the B&B team this was established in other threads here. Also the ratings come on look at the niesons. Hell the merchandise is not selling either. They need to wipe it clean. Get talent back. They will blame everyone. I think Manny is set up as B&B's fall guy. After all they used us fans for how many years?Quote:
Originally Posted by REG
I say let Enterprise continue on for one more season after that . . . then get a new crew up there.
Give it about five years, and during that time see what has worked and what hasn't. Talk to the fans and see what specific shows and episodes they like the best and why. I am sure they can do a mass mailer questioner, or do it on the net, or open up minibooths at certain stores that have a wide coverage area (like maybe gamestops).
Then, add to the management team two elements. A cannon checker . . . basically someone who checks older episodes and makes sure they don't step on their own, and previous creative shows, and with a vote of the voting base deciding what should be considered apocrypha (if anything at all). Second . . . a council of fans . . . each representing a certain region. I say 2 for Europe, 2 of North America, 2 of Latin America, 2 for Asia, 2 for the Oceana region . . . and what not. Pay them all modest salaries (40,000 plus expenses) and make them one termers for 4 years. This way we as a fan base can actually have imput.
Then once that is all set up, get their collective minds together and do some work. Hopefully it'll pan out.
Trash the whole thing, let it go for ten years, and then let it be revived as an entirely new series, with no reference to "canon" questions.... This isn't the Papacy. Time for a clean slate. To do otherwise would result in squelching creativity. Writing interesting stories is hard enough without constantly being harassed by "canon police". I mean, how can you crucify some poor writer in the Year of Our Lord 2005 because he paid insufficient attention to a throwaway line written before he was born?
I know, but I don't think he's figurehead simply because he was chosen by B&B. Don't put him in the same bad light as B&B.Quote:
Originally Posted by T'lara
You still believe in that primitive system?Quote:
Originally Posted by T'lara
I think Babylon 5 is better that the last three Trek series and definitely gives the first two a run for thier money. Best thing ever to happen was Paramount turning JMS away and then stealing his idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by black campbellq
The jury is still out on the new Galactica series. I like the actors but this doesn't feel like Galactica. I'll give it some time to see if it can carry itself and mentally change the names.
Like with Voyager, I tune into Enterprise every so often to see if it has gotten any better and it reminds me of the Squire of Gothos. It looks pretty and you want to like it but the sawdust taste reminds you that it is just an illusion. :(
I said no, but you know what might be really cool, would be to start over and do a whole new Star Trek universe, forgeting everything that ever happened before.
Have all the same races and stuff, but maybe there is no UFP or Klingon Empire.
Maybe it's all completely different.
I also think it might be cool if they stopped making it seem like Humans are the only members of the Federation.
I'd like to see a series where the ship has it's token human, not token alien.
A Betazoid Captain (a full betazoid), an Andorian first officer, a Tellerait Engineer, a Centauran counselor or Doctor, a Vulcan Operations or Science officer, A bolian, hell anything else but Humans always being the bloody heroes, the Federation is made up of over 10,000 worlds and the only ones in Starfleet are humans.
THAT'S GETTING OLD.
It's not supposed to. It's a re-imagined series. Take out those 70's campiness and make it darker and grittier. Even the cylon mechanoids are not even polished to a shine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike
I wonder if the enterprise-d had lost the d, Stewart's character was actually called Kirk, McFadden's character was called Spock and Burton's character was named Scotty, if it would have been called re-imagined. Take out those 60's campiness and make it lighter and politically correct. They did make the Klingons less sinister.Quote:
Originally Posted by REG
Not really. We wouldn't have a Klingon onboard as a starfleet officer. Besides, a re-imagined TOS would have been a lot more grittier, since it is billed as the "Wild Wagon to the Stars," sort of like pioneers heading toward the uncharted western frontier, following the Lewis & Clark trails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike
You know, that wouldn't be too bad of an idea if you ask me....Quote:
Originally Posted by REG
:: prepares to be flamed::
I'm with you on that, Doug. Imagine! Klingons being evil again! And the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701, with JT Kirk at the conn, no A, no B, no C, no D, no toupee....Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Burke
Personally, I thought they were going to restore/re-edit TOS, most especially those ship footages for something more CG and believable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Burke
I actually imagine it is a matter of time before a remake/reimagination of TOS is made.
Looking at it from a corporate perspective. You have a well-known product. However, each iteration released after TNG has been less successful (financially speaking). In addition, the franchise is has gotten very complex, to the point where bringing in new viewers has become problematic. And it also makes writing a chore as well - how do you avoid contradicting an episode which aired nearly forty years ago? What new concept do you offer in a new series?
So what do you do? You go back to your roots. You probably put the franchise to sleep for a few years and then relaunch it with a new Captain Kirk, a new Mr. Spock.
You see this happen all the time. DC's Crisis on Infinite Earth, Marvels Ultimates line. The James Bond franchise has effectively done this - the threats that Bond fought originally no longer exist yet the character is always roughly the same age and same person.
I'm not saying whether I think this is a good idea or not, but I bet this is what eventually happens.
Yeah, but if they play it right, they won't do it until Star Trek is on a big break. After all, we didn't really see any new Star Wars motion pictures until George Lucas decided to make his Special Edition, to reignite nostalgia and reintroduce it to the new generation, not to mention give the audience an awareness that a new trilogy of films is on the horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Stack
And if you plan to do a reinterpretation of TOS . . . then you need a break, maybe a decade plus.
But what of Post DS9 . . . I believe that DS9 was the height of 'modern' trek. It was grittier, more realistic, and more believeable. If we move away from tecnobabble and uberships . . . and have it driven by story, character, and discovery in a Post-DW world . . . you can have a pretty good series in that.
And what is wrong with making sure what is previously said, means something, Star Wars does that, and thus the novels have been much better and more consistant then the Star Trek novels. I am not saying that it should be the sole thing that drives the new stories, but it should be a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by jkp1187
But, yet no one comments about the idea regarding fan input. We all say here on the boards that the shows would be much better if they actually tried to listen to us, so why don't we pitch it to them. It's worth a shot. Furthermore, if they do it means that they keep their base stable. And all franchises need a base.
Alas, it is but a "middle child" that is ignored by everyone, but for the simple facts that it is not a starship that explores and been unceremoniously dubbed "Soap Trek." :(Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
:-( This is very unfortunate, IMHO, I think that some of the best story archs were written for this series, and was far superior to Voyager. Not that Voyager didn't have its moments, I liked it . . . and struggled to watch it during the beginning, and closer to the end . . . but I don't think that its story archs matched up to those done in DS9.Quote:
Originally Posted by REG
But one thing about it was that it was a FAR more gritter and realistic view of the future . . . but that has never been a Trek strong suit. It was suppost to be idealistic, and pretty. A socialist democracy haven where equality is a rule of thumb, and diversity is not something that needed to be 'tolerated', but happily excepted . . . where there was no want for basic needs.
Absolutely. But too many chefs spoil the stew, too. I think that the writers need to be given the creative freedom to write stories as they see fit. The problem is that the more worried we are about 'what went before', the bigger the 'show bible' becomes. Now, if we're at the point where we're counting rivets on a console, that's energy/money expended by someone that could have been diverted toward character development and story.Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
Star Trek can, and should, be about the human experience -- using a show set in the future and in space to reflect political, social, and economic problems faced by society today. I have the sinking feeling, though, that if some fans had their way, they would put a priority on "historical accuracy" over good stories.
If that's what the fans want, that's, ultimately, what they'll get. And since Paramount is a business, they will give that kind of show to the viewers as long as they're making a profit on it. But what will be created will be a show that, in my opinion, will be mediocre, predictable, and generally not worth watching.
I just don't think that people writing stories for us at the dawn of the 21st century should be held to throw-away lines written in the mid-1980s, or the late 1960s.
As an aside, I'm probably the only ones, but I found the Vulcan portrayal prior to this season to be...well, somewhat refreshing. This was different. Maybe it could've been done better, but I have to admit, I'm kind of not looking forward to Vulcans becoming...the same, drab, boring creatures that they became in earlier incarnations of Trek. I mean, just the idea of a Vulcan stellar fleet sounds kind of cool. Can you imagine what they would do with it? What kind of weapons they would have?
Funny that. That was the idea/hope I had for Enterprise. Use the Temporal Cold war as an excuse to reboot the entire franchise. Eliminate everything, perhaps using Trek X or XI as a platform for crossovers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Stack
Have a group of mini-series things to explain what's changed/happened. Show, don't tell, some of the new high points in history.
Then create a new NCC-1701/Kirk series, with some changes. Get back to the character driven stuff of the past, jettison the unnecessary baggage, and create a whole new future for the franchise.
But, then I liked Crisis on Infinite Earths, and the aftermath of the same, making me a minority.
Alex
You and me both, Alex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Blake
Hmm. Yet there are some who believe that Star Trek is too squeaky clean. DS9 was supposed to change that (as well as VOY that want to emulate) in order to draw in more audience, but that didn't go well with its own fans who are comfortable with the squeaky clean premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3