New Trek Series begin pitched

[The Tatterdemalion King]

"Socialism? That could never work!"

[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.

Yep, I've heard that one many times. My response is "So what?".

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.

[Thakowsaizmu]

in DS9 there is a great line about it being "easy to be a saint in paradise"

I just (re)watched that episode today, heh.

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.

[Fugazi Grrl]

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.

[Aldaron]

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.

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.

NuBSG just disgusted me through-and-through. I like my SF optimistic; there's enough darkness in reality...

[Tricky]

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.

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....

[Sea Tyger]

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.

Melrose Space? If the characters weren't a bunch of whiny, brooding brats, I would've enjoyed that series.

[BouncyCaitian]

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

[The Tatterdemalion King]

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.

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.

[Treefrog]

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.

[JALU3]

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.

[somaticon]

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.

[Sea Tyger]

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.

[BouncyCaitian]

See Honor Harrington for how a Female commander should be written

[Thakowsaizmu]

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.

Yeah, I oft felt she was a bit of a phychopath