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.
"Socialism? That could never work!"
Yep, I've heard that one many times. My response is "So what?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky
It's fantasy. It's no more meant to be realistic than Lord of the Rings.
More importantly, there is an element to the show that a lot of people miss: it presuposes a fundamental change in the way we view things. Replicators and (almost) limitless energy have freed us from one of the most crippling problems: poverty. And when poverty went, a lot of other ills went with it. Unshackled, we were able to rise above our baser instincts.
Even more importantly, it was a matter of choice. We chose to improve things. The basic humanity is still there - in DS9 there is a great line about it being "easy to be a saint in paradise", or somesuch. And in the Dominion War, with our backs to the wall, we fought just as dirty as anyone else.
While I certianly don't think we're ever going to have a Trek-type utopian future (more's the pity) it's still fun imagining that kind of world, I think.
Finally, any "dark & gritty" Trek show will get, from me, the same short-shrift that SG:U received. Half a season of trying, and then saying: "I don't like any of these characters....and I couldn't care less what happens to them."
That's when I stopped watching it and went back to SG-1 & SG:A, consoling myself with 15 good seasons of Stargate! :) A "gritty, reimagined" Trek will see me back watching the movies, TNG, DS9 and ENT to console myself that Trek is not dead. :)
I just (re)watched that episode today, heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldaron
Now don't get me wrong, I like a little grit. And I did like nBSG, but I found that I liked more of the Cylons than the colonists. I suppose the point is, too many 'gritty' shows confuse grit with unlikeable characters. Star Trek doesn't need that.
I agree, completely, about "dark & gritty" being confused with characters that are less likeable than DS9's Dominion.
I also loved both SG1 & SGA, but never got into SGU because to me it seemed like a bad marriage between NuBSG & Voyager set at DeGrassi High.
Like Thakowsaizmu, I soon found myself sympathizing with the Cylons on NuBSG - after the episodes with Michelle Forbes as Caine, I had a very, very hard time seeing the colonials as the "Good Guys".
They made it very clear some of the people on Caine's ship had spent some time abusing a female Cylon captive, and even during the darkest moments of the Dominion War no self-respecting Starfleet officer would do what was done to Boomer on that episode either.
A dark, gritty, Trek would fail, I think, as miserably as the new Bionic Woman TV series failed. I definitely would not watch.
One show that did dark, edgy, and gritty very well was Space: Above and Beyond, from 1995. I love that show. And I think the reason the show worked is because no matter how on edge the characters became during their war with the faceless Chigs, they stayed a likeable team of characters the viewer could really care about.
Perfectly put. I realise that the "real" good guys on Galactica put a stop to it - but (IIRC) it was only when Boomer was threatened with the same treatment.Quote:
They made it very clear some of the people on Caine's ship had spent some time abusing a female Cylon captive, and even during the darkest moments of the Dominion War no self-respecting Starfleet officer would do what was done to Boomer on that episode either.
NuBSG just disgusted me through-and-through. I like my SF optimistic; there's enough darkness in reality...
I say that a lot; like when i defend my beloved zombie movies from fans of "Saw" and other 'torture porn' type movies. Watch the evening news long enough and you'll see stuff worse than any movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldaron
Besides, if I really wanted a movie set in the future of our reality, I'd just watch Blade Runner again.
Wait, that isn't a bad idea....
Melrose Space? If the characters weren't a bunch of whiny, brooding brats, I would've enjoyed that series.Quote:
One show that did dark, edgy, and gritty very well was Space: Above and Beyond, from 1995. I love that show. And I think the reason the show worked is because no matter how on edge the characters became during their war with the faceless Chigs, they stayed a likeable team of characters the viewer could really care about.
If you look at TOS very carefully, it wasn't anywhere near as Utopian as people think:
Tantalus Colony for the Mentally Ill in the middle of nowhere.
Purchased Wives for miners.
Slavers pretty much having enough infleunce that they haven't been shut down for 100's of years.
You did have the characters trying to do the right thing and generally succeding. That's what made it interesting to watch.
But utopian? well maybe TNG, but not TOS
and 'Gritty' sci-fi is an excuse for sax and violence for no really good reason. And boring as Sin. I'll take B-5, which balanced Idealism with a healthy does of pragamtism
I thought the implication was that humanity had hit rock bottom, and that the Post-Atomic Horror had swept away the old, corrupt social order which dominated human thought before they committed cultural suicide. But, hey, I don't think anyone other than DS9 really poked at that part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldaron
Its been a long time since my last post, but I'll try to be succinct:
With the bitter taste of Enterprise (and Voyager) in my mouth, I am highly doubtful that I will even pay attention to a possible new series. B&B ruined Star Trek for me as a loyal fan.
As for Abrams' film, I was very leery of it, until the two magic words were spoken by Nimoy's Spock: Alternate Reality.
Although grit, and somber reality of the effects of ones choices are all the rave; the reason why the concept of the Federation and Starfleet win out within the universe is, IMHO, that even in the toughest situation, the Federation and Starfleet are the beacon of hope that there is better than the grim harsh reality that surrounds it. Even if it's only in its ideals, even if it fails to fully live up to those ideals, it's a far better alternative than what surrounds it. In one way it can be said that in the TOS era that Starfleet was much akin to the ideals of those of the West, and more specifically America, as compared to the other powers seen in Star Trek. They were not perfect, and had their failings, but their ideals, even if not fully achieved, were beacons of hope that the characters strove towards and acted upon.
Therefore, let the world be as gritty and "realistic" as you want it to be, however the Federation and its Officers and enlisted members of Starfleet, are the beacons of hope and high ideals that the galaxies denizens look upon to raise the galaxies up from what it is.
Janeway, as a character, didn't work IMHO because she was a FEMALE captain. Not that her sex was the issue, that they wrote the character centrally that she was female, and then a captain. Sisko IMHO worked because he was a Captain, who HAPPENED TO BE African American. His character being African American had no consequence on how his character was portrayed, save maybe some of those Benny Russell episodes. Therefore, depending on how they write these homosexual characters, how they portray their sexual preference will determine whether the character succeeds or does not succeed. If they have to say or show that they happen to have a sexual preference every 5 minutes, then they are not succeeding as a character, if their sexual preference is one part of the character but not central to the character than the character has a change to succeed as an individual.
Another example, Sulu and Chekov happened to be Eastern European and Asian, but the individual characters were not focused around them being their ethnicity. Their ethnicity had very little consequence as the characters as Starfleet Officers.
As for the era of the series, if launched, I would be happy to see this continue, but wonder if they would be able to incorporate some of the DS9 relaunch and Titan series of book work into the story-line. One thing that Star Trek as a franchise has done is have a disunity over what is on film or television and what is printed. If one can explain it away that the books or film or tv occured in one of the quantum universes as seen in Parallels, that is that. However, if it is not delineated as such, perhaps it should be.
One of the first things that a new Trek show would do is establish its continuity. The novels would get very short thrift and indeed for the most part the novels are considered non-canon.
Whether Janeway was female-first vs. captain-first had nothing to do with her failing as a character. She was poorly and inconsistently written in a show where bad writing plagued it at most every turn. The woman came across as schizophrenic, at best, and psychopathic, at worst.
The Janeway character could have worked well as a woman first, captain second, as long as she was consistently and effectively written. That didn't happen, and the character failed, period. Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Archer would have all failed if they were written as poorly as Janeway over her seven years on screen.
See Honor Harrington for how a Female commander should be written
Yeah, I oft felt she was a bit of a phychopathQuote:
Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
One thing that they will need is someone to put a halt to any change to canon - that's one thing that Enterprise ruined about ST (Klingons in the first episode, and a starship that looked too much like the Akira-class).Quote:
Originally Posted by somaticon
As for 'grit' for any new ST series - don't need one. I loved RBSG (Reimagined BSG) and OBSG just the way they are. I can't really give an opinion on Caprica, considering that I'm leery of any type of prequel.
Prior to "Broken Bow," it was never established in canon when Earth/the Federation made first contact with the Klingons. It's only fanon speculation that it was in the 2200s.Quote:
One thing that they will need is someone to put a halt to any change to canon - that's one thing that Enterprise ruined about ST (Klingons in the first episode, and a starship that looked too much like the Akira-class).
Who cares if one ship shares design elements with another across a couple generations? I thought the Enterprise D looked like a bloated whale compared to the TOS Enterprise, but I didn't base my judgement of the series on that, nor did I feel it "ruined" Star Trek.
We must guard ourselves against overreactions to what we think about superfluous things like ship designs and focus on things like good storytelling and that je ne sais quoi of Star Trek that ignites the fires of exploration and hope for a better future within us.