Looks like CBS is putting together their own type of Hulu service and the very first original show for this is a new Star Trek TV show. Thoughts?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...s-works-828638
Printable View
Looks like CBS is putting together their own type of Hulu service and the very first original show for this is a new Star Trek TV show. Thoughts?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...s-works-828638
It will be terrible.
I fear this series would either happen in the Abramsverse and/or be full of grittiness and unlikeable characters plotting against each other, because that's the way series are supposed to be now.
I can understand why people would like it if it was, but in my case, this would be an instant repellant.
It could also be a bland copy/paste of ENT/VOY, two series I actually liked, but I agree Trek needs to do something new. However in that case I'd probably be at least able to watch it.
I think the big money-maker model is, for TV series anyway, a group of conflicted people have long talks about how they feel about things. And somewhere in there, someone has a fight about something. I think a Star Trek show in that vein would be...hilarious?
The sad thing is that ST:ENT was their golden opportunity to do something new. We should have seen not merely the events leading up to the formation of Coalition of Planets/Federation of Planets but the formation of Starfleet itself, with (relatively) primitive ships and a quadrant of space known to Humanity only secondhand. And, damn it, the Earth-Romulan war. Instead we got ST:TNG all over again, with phasers and renamed shields and a temporal war and a bunch of stuff that just didn't have any place in the mid 2150's. And we got Starfleet, where Starfleet shouldn't have been.
We should have got the astronauts that dared the galaxy to find Humanity's place in it. Those brave astronaut/explorers that Starfleet and the Federation of Planets, once they actually existed, looked back on as their heroes. We should have got a Captain Kirk. And don't get me wrong, I'm one of those that thinks ST:ENT was a decent enough Star Trek show, it just wasn't what it should have been. Which is to say, a pre-Star Trek story.
I probably sound a little bit bitter and more than a little cynical. But that's why I expect to be underwhelmed by this new ST series. There's a reason I'm on my third Star Trek RPG campaign and already have a rough sketch of a fourth, just in case. We like our stories better. ;)
That's a point worth considering right there. The assumption that it would be one of those periods. That's probably because it's all been covered and there's no new ground without breaking new ground.
If you want to be insanely bold...revamp the whole thing from the very start. My fourth Star Trek RPG, if I have a fourth campaign, will do exactly that. In that campaign setting, the Romulan Star Empire "wins" the temporal war by doing what any Romulan Star Empire of the distant future would do. They send an Omega particle bomb back in time to 1957. Boom...no more subspace warp or communication in that whole sector. Maybe even the surrounding sectors, if you sent a big enough bomb or more than one bomb. And you can forget all about any "Federation".
Let's say the warp engines the Romulans of that time (the 1950's) use doesn't rely on subspace. Now you have the Romulans as the only ones with FTL, whole colonies cut off from their home planets, starships stuck between the stars stuck at sublight speeds, etc. And you have (with the events of ST:ENT Carbon Creek) Vulcans stuck on Earth, with a whole starship's worth more (the ones sent to rescue them) arriving a few years later.
Humanity is forced to deal with aliens stranded in the Sol system (Vulcans, no less), forced to create a new FTL engine (say, the stutterwarp, stolen from 2300AD rpg) and forced to come up with a new FTL communications system (quantum entanglement comm). And they accomplish all of this through Vulcan's superior intellect and Human's superior ingenuity, working together.
Their mission? To boldly deliver QEC transceivers to the Vulcans, Andorian, Tellaries and all the other locals who'll one day form the Federation of Planets, with the Romulans the only other FTL capable species. To try to bring back the galactic community that existed before the Omega event. Plenty of colonies and sublight vessels to encounter, decades after the Omega bomb(s) detonated. The same Star Trek species to encounter, having been suddenly confined to their individual star systems for decades. And Romulans as the go-to bad guys.
A Star Trek universe that formed in the decades (or centuries) following the Omega event could take any shape you like. You needn't be afraid of modern future technology or modern social issues. This setting could easily still be Star Trek with all of that. And you wouldn't have to butcher the Star Trek universe any more than Abrams did.
my Khan Ascendant also delivers a another variation on the Trek universe, which postulates as to what would happen if the Augments don't loose WWIII and lead Earth into the future (how I see it as actually going in real life)
http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread...Khan-Ascendant
You are right Huckleberry, there is plenty of room outside the established timeline to set a series, particularly after the 25th century.
My guess is that the new series will be set in the same universe as the Abrams movies, but it will most likely feature a new ship and a new cast. Sort of like Agents of SHIELD's relationship to the overall Marvel cinematic universe. And that's fine with me. If they find some good writers and a good cast, there's no reason they can't tell some compelling stories under those circumstances. I also applaud the idea of making the show available through a streaming service. It's a show about the future after all. CBS can count on my $6 a month, at least as long as the series runs...
Without any information, it could go in any direction. But a TV-show producer don't have the same funds to cover up bad writing with shiny special effects, and both have more time to develop the story and a need to fill up the time.
So... until I have more information I will remain carefully optimistic. But, that is mainly because I find it to be more fun to be optimistic than pessimistic. :rolleyes: :D
I admit that I can't help but hope. Star Trek as a TV series really, really needs a win. I would love for this to be it, even if that means I'm surprised out of pessimism. So, yeah, here's hoping.
CBS All Access is currently operational (with a 1 week trial now available) with past Star Trek series episodes already available. Early this year the CW network president indicated that he was interest in having Star Trek on his network.
It will not be in the same universe as the current Paramount film series. As Wired.com in "Weirdly, the New Star Trek Series Isn’t Tied to the Movies": "It also could be an indication that Trek movies and TV will forever be separate following CBS’ split from Viacom in 2006 (Viacom owns Paramount, which holds the film rights)."
It is such that Paramount has the DreamWorks "Galaxy Quest" movie that spoofed Star Trek in development as a TV show. So we could have two "Trek" TV shows being made.
Why am I more excited for a Galaxy Quest series than a new Trek?
So, that being said, what could we see in a new Trek series, and what would we want?
I'd imagine that left to their own devices, the producers of this show would look around what other cable dramas are doing and emulate that (god, I hope we don't have a Vulcan science instructor discovering he has Bendii Syndrome and starts creating "warp krystals" with the help of a Ferengi). We'd get a show like Star Trek: Renegades; a crew of misfits with their own agendas that fight amongst themselves while solving an over arching plot. Not original, not really all that Trek, but it might be fun to see the underbelly of the Star Trek universe.
If I had to make the show, I'd get back to what made the show great: stories of exploration that examined our culture through the lens of sci-fi. For an era, I'd chose the "Lost Era": the period of time between the TOS and TNG. And no shoehorning in stuff like the Borg and things that haven't happened yet just to get fan/viewer interest up. There's plenty of stuff in there already to make compelling stories: First contact with the Betazoids and their telepathy might create story themes like privacy and survailence. The Cardassians and the looming war could create any number of themes of our own war torn reality.
Lol, sounds good, I loved Galaxy Quest.
The problem I see if a new series is done in any time that has already been done (so from Enterprise to Voyager/DS-9) you will invariably get 're-writing' of established canon. I always wish for a future Trek series, set well past the 24th century, so that the potential for re-writing is minimized and writers can advance the technology (for me Technology is always a big draw). Though it would probably be very unpopular here I do wish they did drag Trek in line with current trending and future predictions as well, but that may be too much to hope for.
It will almost certainly drown in its own Political Correctness.
Galaxy Quest got me thinking; there is the Franz's Starfleet Universe/Prime Directive. That would be interesting if Paramount or some other TV production company pick up that IP for a TV series. Is that even possible?
So TOS, but without any of the familiar characters? Why would they do that?
yeah they have done the earlier Trek to death, with TOS and several Trek movies, Enterprise and the bastardized Abram's movies. Plus Trek tends to want to focus on the Enterprise for the most part, so basing a series on another ship isn't viable (Voyager being the only exception, so it's already been done)
My concern is that the SFB universe doesn't really have anything distinctive to it—it's sort of like the GoBots.
Well they do have one distinction - they decided to portray the Klingons as just these guys, y'know?. Just normal folks next door, nothing really alien. Honestly, that's Steve Cole's philosophy. And it's so militaristic, being based on a wargame version of Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual that I tend to think of it as a mirror universe Star Trek game. A TV treatment might appeal to some, but it's not Star Trek - Paramount has licensed it, but they're not allowed to use the name Star Trek.
Paramount seems to want to do a Star Trek show any ways vis via its interest in doing Galaxy Quest. Seems like it would save them some development time and be more familiarity. They could have Vulcans and call them Vulcan, etc. If it is Paramount then they would have some ability to use them. Also less time spend on background development.
Paramount is using the more familiar characters in the movie franchise anyways, so they would be using different characters.
High concept names for the staring starship like Voyager would/could easily be used: Venture, Constitution, Constellation, Galaxy, Nebula, etc.
How about the Interstellar Concordium that is another federation of planet who enforce peace via war?
But they have use of Starfleet (but so has Star Wars briefly used that name too) and Prime Directive name. Did Enterprise series need to have Star Trek in the name to be Star Trek? No, but they did add it later. As Enterprise, Starfleet and Prime Directive all are connotative Star Trek.
I think you are misunderstanding the premise, Trek focuses on the Enterprise because the Federations flag ship is named Enterprise. The flag ship leads the way for the Federation and the show primarily was set around the adventures of that ship. Like I said Voyager and DS-9 deviated from this so it's been done. IMHO any series should go back to the tried and true formula of setting a series around the adventures of the Enterprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by spshu
Given what happened with Enterprise, the formula seems less tried and true than creaky and worn out.
I'm really interested to see what they do with the new show. It's an entirely new production team and the TV landscape has changed since Enterprise. It's going to be a different show and I'm okay with that.
It's possible that the TV series will be an extension of the movie's reboot of TOS but as apparently, rights-wise, the TV shows and the movies are separate entities, my money is on it being a continuation of the prime time line, carrying on at some point after Voyager but with Vulcan and Romulus gone because to have them still around would be confusing for the bulk of the audience who are most likely only really familiar with the new movies. They'll just gloss over the inconsistencies.
Personally, I'd love CBS/Paramount to go full Disney with Trek and market the crap out of it. Movies, cartoons, TV shows spinoffs, toys and merch galore. Sadly, these days Trek seems to be the one franchise that it's not cool to be in to :(
Wayne
I am not "misunderstanding the premise". I think you are making it up or at least unduly restricting the concept. The Enterprise was NOT the Federation flagship in the original series. During the series, the (USS Constellation was captained by a Commodore (Matt Decker), thus making it a more prestigious posting than the Enterprise. In fact, a true flagship. By the time of the movie era, the Enterprise probably became the flagship as its emblem was adopted fleet wide. So it was more of why it became the Federation flagship.
In Enterprise, the NX-1 was the only ship of line until the Columbia and it was an united Earth ship.
Besides, there would be a flagship for every fleet. And every thing did not have a Starship Enterprise involved.
TOS had 3 season with TNG 7 and Enterprise had 4 that is 14 season. While DS9 and Voyager each had 7 season. Thus the Enterprise based series had 14 and so did the non-Enterprise series.
I am not 'making it up'
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Flagship
The Enterprise D was the Flagship of the Federation, and I am assuming the Enterprise E (the Enterprise E, as of 2376 is the most advance starship of the Federation and would rightly fill the position of 'flagship of the Federation") would carry on that tradition. I concede that there are flagships of each individual battle group, for example The USS Defiant was the 'flagship' in many battles during the Dominion war, but overall there is precedent for 'one flagship for the entire fleet', and Enterprise historically fills this position.
as per Memory Alpha "The USS Enterprise-D served as the "flagship of the Federation" and of Starfleet, from 2364 to 2371. (TNG: "The Icarus Factor", "Sarek", "The High Ground", "Remember Me", "Ensign Ro", "Man of the People", "Chain of Command, Part I", "Starship Mine", "Force of Nature", "Parallels"; Star Trek Generations; DS9: "Bar Association")"
I am quite aware that the Enterprise D was the Federation flagship but your assumption was that it was the Flagship in all series that it was the show's ship. Which I just pointed out is not the case in the original series, which therefor absolutely undermined your made up position from the first original series of Trek. So, it is "made" up as TNG is NOT the only series of Star Trek and you admit that the Defiant was a flagship. If Star Trek is so limiting then how is there any options to RPG Star Trek other than on the Enterprise of its era? So, this whole website is sham.
The Ent-D being a 'flagship' doesn't really make any sense in the naval meaning of the term, since only in 'Redemption pt. 2' does it really lead a group of ships. They seem to be using it (ironically) in the marketing sense of 'shiniest product.'
OK I was a little presumptuous with the flagship part, and was only expanding on the Enterprise-D example, though answer this, did Trek focus PRIMARILY on following the adventures of one ship? Was this ship not called Enterprise? If you ask anyone, 'what was Trek about' would they not say that it was about a starship and it's crew exploring space and the human condition in the future, and that starships name was Enterprise? The point I was trying (obviously poorly) to make was that the Enterprise is iconic for Trek and integral to the Trek brand.
I in no way meant to implied that the idea of Trek is limiting, and apologize if that was your take on my post. As far as this site being a sham, if you are unhappy with the site why post here? I, for one love this site and only hate the fact that I didn't find it earlier.
You can read Roddenberry's rationale here, where he compares it to Gunsmoke's Dodge City or Kildare's Blair General Hospital. (Dodge City later being the inspiration for DS9.)
It was Yorktown in the first draft.Quote:
Was this ship not called Enterprise?
Silly writers declared it the flagship ala a Flagship Store of a grocery chain. They seemed to have no clue a flagship means an Admiral aboard, who on surface ships flew a flag, or in Commodores case a broad pennant.
quite correct TTK (as in the Yorktown) but for the actual show the name was Enterprise, and that being my overall point.
Someone's comment above about how TV has changed since ENT got me thinking: perhaps now we can have a Trek series that reflects the things we've done in our games. Or at least seen in our imaginations and some of the novels.
Despite the rise of reality TV, our taste in what we watch has gotten a little more sophisticated. Non-linear storytelling, complex characters and a focus on bigger story arc have given rise to seasons of shows that would have been unthinkable ten years ago. Take this most recent season of walking dead. We're half way through the 6th season and, thanks to it's non-linear story telling it's only been like 2 days. And a majority of the fans love it.
So, what I'm saying is that it's possible a new Trek show could do things we've only seen done in high-concept science fiction novels. And really good rpg campaigns.
I'm all for modernising Trek. I just hope they won't think this means adding unlikeable characters, perpetually conflictual relationships and backstabs, and gratuitous sex (or at the very least, fanservice that would make Seven's catsuit or ENT shower scenes feel like a kid's show).
But I'm fearing it will.
as they say sex sells...LoL But seriously have a look at the current crop of series of almost any genre (Game of thrones, The Walking Dead, Vikings, Killjoys and others), and you will see gratuitous violence with heaps of gore and blood, nudity and profanity, it is what the people want, why wouldn't Trek follow? I just hope it doesn't follow Abrams lead and completely f*** it up.
some of the Ent scenes were pretty racy though all the series had sex integrated somewhat into the threads of the stories, particularly the decon scenes with t'Pol, Phlox, or the 'Vulcan Neural pressure' scenes, with t'Pol and Trip. Many of those scenes had Jolene Blalock flouncing around only in a sheer robe or naked (rear view). I can most certainly see a M or MA rated Trek series doing well.
Google 'sexy star trek' and this is what you find
http://whatculture.com/tv/star-trek-...the-collar.php
would not mind seeing a ship named after this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Johnston_%28DD-557%29
or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sa...s_%28DE-413%29
The Enterprise has a long and honorable name, but it's been oversold, along with Defiant, and Voyager.
1) how about something showing the not-quiet-the-cream-of-the-crop dealing with the things that we tend to see in Trek, and how they deal with it.
2) The central cast does lose on occasion, and we get to see the fall out of that.
3) A large cast of characters. to fill out the ensemble (ala B5)
4) The Prime Directive is a set of guidelines to be followed, but it is not the 'be all and end all' of the Federation. Also, more instances of the crew discovering that perhaps another power has already interfered with the local population, and have to deal with the results. None of this clear overly plastic PD drama we've had to put up with.
5) Interpersonal conflict can be understated, and mutual antagonism can be seen (see Best of Both Worlds or Chain of Command), But if someone does really get out of line without goo reason.....bust them hard. Yer Officers and crewmen, dammit. Act like it
6) I kinda see Starfleet following the Peacekeeper/Explorer Model, with Explorer taking up most of the time, but Peacekeeper always in the background. and drills to maintain discipline and COF attitudes. You can have some arguments over this, but cooler heads should prevail when the chips come down.
7) Theme: "The Right thing To Do Is Not Necessarily The Moral Thing To Do".
Pardon my soapbox here, but TNG and to a lesser extent Voyager and DS9 ground my gears hard on this one so I've specced this theme out specifically. Starfleet does have some high Standards and Ideals which are respectable and nothing to be ashamed of, Making sure you do not potentially damage a society not quite ready for contact. Okay. Fine. Nothing wrong here.
Now here comes the curve ball: The Civilization in question has resources that The Federation needs Badly for some reason (say, Borg Invasion and this will help create something that will stop them). But it's in such a position that taking it surreptitiously isn't going to work and you have a few hundred billion people in your sector who are Drone Bait unless you break the PD. Now to add to the fun of this decision, have the characters be aware that if the Federation won't do it..other local powers will. And they won't be gentle about it. So for this that religiously follow the PD, moral quandary time. To hammer the point home, have some of the crew have relation that are in the path.
Sudden, contact a race that may or may not be ready for contact that could possibly be hostile in the future doesn't seem so bad. Not so easy to fly that flag High, is it? Stories which bring up the Prime Directive can be well written, but the moralizing going with it needs both sides of the argument. And consequences for both ends of the decision that impact the characters. If you are going to play with this concept, then make it have meaning. Like getting busted out of the service possible prison if you screw up. It can make for great stories.
more later
How about some non-US Navy ships? Something British, or French, or even Canadian? Or even (gasp) something non-Human? US Navy ships have been done to DEATH. Let's have a little originality.
How about The Le Clerc or The Courvoisier? and isn't Intrepid British?