New Trek Series ideas

[Silverstreak]

Ahhh, I had no idea there was another BSG idea from Brian out there.

Cool to know.

[Nene_Richards]

I agree, Nemesis is horrible. But the Tal'Shiar was wiped out, as was the Obsidean Order. Perhaps they may rebuild after, but hey were destroyed.




Funny, from what I hear, Battlestar Galactia is a huge success.

I think you are letting a clouded judgement on Enterprise (which is utter crap) and Voyager (more crap) interfere with the judgement they could spend millions and get the audience.

The audience is there as long as the story is good. Hense, the audience.

I am not being cyncial, I wish I were, but that is how TV works unfortubately. Advertivers and Audience plus the money generated runs everything. I am not arguing on the story aspect, as you read my bottom part you see that is what I am saying.

New Blood, New Writers: Bermen and Braga failed they did not bring in the audience by not bringing in good writers. Braga's failed Theshold series (time travel surprised anyone?) is an indicator he is not the right man for the job. To get good writing means great creative mind, which lacks at Viacom right now with Trek.

They exist and they are out there. SG-1, Atlantis, BSG, Farscape, B5, Lost, Alias, Invasion, Surface that what you say is true and I never arguing that part as I said before, but $$$ and investments into that right now Viacom does not see it that way. They are the issue, but you need to look at your TV guide how saturated are we with Sitcoms and Hour Long Dramas?

You actually think I am an Enterprise fan? I hate the show with a seething passion same with Voyager, but I am not going to bash those shows.

[JALU3]

It's odd that we mention BSG as a SciFi show . . . and we look to it as a possible model as how to jump start the Star Trek franchise. However, if you look at it's write up in Rolling Stones (a hard left leaning entertainment magazine) its SciFi elements are only mentioned in passing . . . and it is related to how it uses the genra to be able to discuss present day political and cultural issues. It is their belief that it is those connections that have drawn in the Non-Sci Fi audiance . . . and thus made the show the success that it is now. Furthemore, it has been noted elsewhere that the shows production cost are not very high . . . thus creating a larger profit margin.

Now there have been many people that say that Star Trek succeeded, and endured because of how, using the Sci Fi genra, they were able to take a look at current issues . . . without the scrutinization given to non-Sci Fi shows. If you look at shows later in the Star Trek universe . . . there are less and less episodes that do that . . . but are more involved in the nuances of the universe in which it inhabits.

BSG has taken episodes that do relate to current issues and have used the extended story arces (as used in DS9 ) . . . to create a good series.

Maybe that is something that we can take from BSG.

[Nene_Richards]

That is what TOS and many TNG and DS9 episodes did. Trek was always a reflection of who we were and where we are going, Trek is a social commentary to where we are now. Sci Fi was always the background but that has changed.

This is why Voyager & Enterprise failed, they just brought in nothing but pointless action, poinltess storylines, pointless over the top special effects, pointless sexual issues, I stopped watching Enterprise because I felt it insulted my intellegence. That cleansing room was just to show the actors in their underwear after the 2nd Pon Far episode that was it for me.

That is not sci fi, Moore, who created the new BSG is the former TNG Head Writer... and now we are compairing on a Trek Chat that BSG to what Trek needs to go? Is Moore making a point to Viacom with the success of his show? Did not a certian producer and head of Trek say Moore was not the creative mind of TNG?... I think we are seeing the truth now.

[Tricky]

I agree about what makes this new BSG a hit; it's the same 'lightning in a bottle' that TOS, NG and DS9 captured: using a Sci-fi background to explore modern day issues.
Want to talk about racisim in the 60's? Paint Frank Gorsen half white and black.

Want to talk about homo-phobia in the 80's? Have Riker attracted to an androginous alien.

Want to point out how America must cut deals with countries that we don't like to protect it's interests? Have Sisko trick the Romulans into fighting the Dominon.

Want to show both sides of the terrorism issue? Have one of your main characters turn out to be a Cylon, yet keep them just as human as before.

I've said it before; a new trek show would have to do this too. Going back to the original formula of exploration and moral tales wrapped in Science Fiction.

But don't forget the "Firefly" lesson.

[JALU3]

Not being a Fan of "Firefly", what is this leason we are to learn?

[Silverstreak]

Not being a Fan of "Firefly", what is this leason we are to learn?

Blasphemy....

Not liking Firefly....

I have no idea, the only lesson I could see is, don't write a really col show or they'll take it off the air.

[JALU3]

well that's no lesson at all.

Being that I have never seen the show, nor cared to when it was on (there were better things out there, if I could recall) . . . I can't comment on it. Thus why I am not a fan.

Furthermore your statement is rather onsided.

Thus the question remains. Why was that show cancelled, and what can we learn from its cancellation that could help relaunch Star Trek? Was it a disconnect from the modern era? Was it the series environment that didn't attract a larger population? Was it the acting? What?

[marty4286]

The show was quite popular, but I think Fox just gave it a bad timeslot and barely did any marketing. It was naturalistic sci-fi, which gave it mass appeal (naturalistic = no technobabble) -- I noticed that when people actually took the time to watch it (and the subsequent movie, Serenity), they liked it, wether if they were hardcore sci-fi fans or didn't like sci-fi in general.

[Nene_Richards]

:confussed: Firefly popular... not when it was on. Not when I watched every episode back to back, not when I saw Serenity (which was better than Nemesis).

Firefly is ok, not good, not bad, but it deserved its fall just wished Enterprise was cancelled sooner, I felt Serenity was a mistake (made for TV movie it was on the big screen). Fox gave it a shitty timeslot is the reason? Friday nights (wow next time I see Sci Fi Fridays on Sci Network I'll as k myself wow Sci Fi wants to kill: SG-1, Atlantis, BSG and Dr. Who, wow Sci Fi on Fridays don't work!)? Sorry no dice, it was not a good show that is what killed it.

I know there are alot of Firefly fans, but I thought it was not a great show. Josh Weldon is not the end all be all writer, his best work was on the Rosanne TV series (sad as that is). Josh does great dialogue, hence why he was a sitcom writer, but plot he lacks. Buffy, Angel and Firefly were not great shows, have a cult following, but that is it.

Give Josh a good plot co-writer you have a hit series, Josh alone is not enough.

Sorry my opinion, I am sure someone will come up with a reason to argue this say something like different a few years ago etc, but when was Stargate SG-1 on Fridays nights? Back then.

[Silverstreak]

:confussed: Firefly popular... not when it was on. Not when I watched every episode back to back, not when I saw Serenity (which was better than Nemesis).

Firefly is ok, not good, not bad, but it deserved its fall just wished Enterprise was cancelled sooner, I felt Serenity was a mistake (made for TV movie it was on the big screen). Fox gave it a shitty timeslot is the reason? Friday nights (wow next time I see Sci Fi Fridays on Sci Network I'll as k myself wow Sci Fi wants to kill: SG-1, Atlantis, BSG and Dr. Who, wow Sci Fi on Fridays don't work!)? Sorry no dice, it was not a good show that is what killed it.

I know there are alot of Firefly fans, but I thought it was not a great show. Josh Weldon is not the end all be all writer, his best work was on the Rosanne TV series (sad as that is). Josh does great dialogue, hence why he was a sitcom writer, but plot he lacks. Buffy, Angel and Firefly were not great shows, have a cult following, but that is it.

Give Josh a good plot co-writer you have a hit series, Josh alone is not enough.

Sorry my opinion, I am sure someone will come up with a reason to argue this say something like different a few years ago etc, but when was Stargate SG-1 on Fridays nights? Back then.

I'll give you Buffy and Angel in that comment, because they were horrible, but Firefly is one of the best sci-fi series produced in the last ten years.

[Tricky]

Nene makes some of the Firefly lesson for me:

Joss was a 'hitmaker' with two hit shows under his belt. These shows had a legion of fans who would probably have watched paint dry if Whedon had produced it. So, they made this unique show. And it was pretty good. It had critical praise, and great intital "buzz". Yet it failed.

It was preempted. It was put on Friday night. On Foc. Fox hasn't had a show work on Friday night since X-files, and it didnt get good untill it moved to Sunday. And, with our corperate TV culture, if a show isn't performing at certain standards by a certain point, it is killed.

but a pretty good showing at the Box office showed that it might have done ok if given a chance.

And, as an aside, Sci-Fi Friday's does seem to work: they've been doing it for how long? and those shows are the Channel's Flagship shows. (OK, their only shows, really. Them and those Grade Z movies like Pirannagator 2: Virtual Crap are all they got.)

[Nene_Richards]

Well let's see:

They did a remake of Dune and made the sequel Children of Dune.
The Farscape Miniseries
The Triangle Miniseries
That Earth Fantasy Miniseries
Tripping the Rift TV Series
Ghost Hunters

Oh and that Dragon Miniseries from Germany that looks really good.

They helped make that Hercules movie with parent company NBC.

Oh Oh I know they have not been doing anything!!!

They recently acquired the Doctor Who TV series from Great Britain, we are finally seeing the first season...

They get Surface, which their replay is the only time I can catch it...

Hmmmm... sorry not working. Sci Fi is growing adding more shows slowly.

You can love Firefly all you want there are fans out there, I just don't think it was all that great and worth the hype.

[BouncyCaitian]

Star Trek could stand a return to 'naturalistic' sci-fi after the amount of bilge that's been pumped into it after the last few series. Less-techno babble would be a considerable plus.

some have suggested a Reconstruction Era trek after the Dominion War, with the main characters helping pick up the pieces. It would be an interesting time of social tension and change where in the writers could have fun with social dynamics between Federation member races, minors alien races, and the resulting upheavals from most of the major empires taking it on the nose.

But then the 24th century has been kinda played out with TNG, DS9, VOY. Perhaps new ground needs to be broken. And no bloody time travel.

Perhaps the adventures of a crew along the border having to operate without starfleet looking over it's shoulder as the com-nets probably took a heavy hit during the way. and having to deal with the shake up in Starfleet as a lot of 'old guard' are put out to pasture as the newer, and more militant generation in stafleet come to the fore. A return to the 'Admiral Halsey' style of the fleet would be interesting to

[JALU3]

In my opinion Technobabble is fine, as long as it doesn't become the center of the story. The story needs to carry its own wieght. The Technobabble is just something to throw in to explain how something happens that wouldn't normally be possible.

As far as the Post-DW era, and the Halsey style Star Fleet, I think that would be an interesting way to see go. Furthermore it can also feed of the difference between the post-DW Starfleeters (and GF), and pre-DW Starfleeters. That would be an interesting dynamic, that could relate to the two sides of politics right now. Start moving having star trek become socially relevent again.