ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

FINALLY, I'm putting it on the line

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 04 2012, 10:13 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>I especially like Point 8.

>On Points 1 and 4, the reimaging in nuBSG involved changing the genders of some of the main characters. I think that was an important part of updating BSG. How would you feel about changing the genders/races of the iconic Star Trek characters?

>On Point 7, I'd like any Enterprise crew to one day see a more advanced civilisation than 20th century Earth. I'd like to see cool planets with 'rocket boots', anti-grave stuff, future architecture. Ever planet anyone visited seem like going back in time 200 years instead of going forward in time. I also like the impression in TOS that they were going out in space where no 'man' had gone before. It would take them weeks to get answers from Starfleet and there would be no back-up ships.

>On Point 12 I don't really care about the motivation of Klingons and Romulans except that I don't want them just to be inherently evil. 

>I agree with point 13 that I'd like the Enterprise to be more of a character. How would you do that? I think short of giving it a sentience like they did the Liberator  or the Lexx or the ship in Farscape you're going to have the Enterprise work some miracles saving the day when no-one else could.

>Point 14 is great in some circumstances. However you know though I can imagine how bad Spock's childhood was from just some of his comments in 'Journey to Babel', I didn't need it spelt out in flashback. However  I can see it was an effective technique in nuBSG.

>


-I'd definitely be interested in re-casting the roles with a different approach to gender. How awesome would a female Scotty be, for example?


-I agree entirely with meeitng more advanced civilizations. I would love to see episodes where the ship encounters life so advanced and unknown that it really triggers the "wow" factor (think 2001 or Contact).


-Agreed on the bad guys


-I think when we say "make the ship a character" it's a lot about not having her be a static element. In other words, the ship should change and develop over time just like the characters do. Whether this is a result of damage and/or upgrades etc...that would be one way of doing it. Also, (I know Star Trek fans hate being related to Star Wars), but I think about the Millenium Falcon in "Empire Strikes Back" where the condition of the ship was essential to the plot of the movie. I think the other element is showing more of the interior of the ship. Holodecks were cool, but unfortunately, it limited showing areas of the Voyager or Enterprise-D that we would otherwise have enjoyed seeing (rec areas, training facilities, etc).


-I think the flashbacks would be more limited than what you saw in LOST, but more common that what you saw in nuBSG. They'd have to be woven in and integral to the story. Imagine, for example, "Obsession" with flashbacks of Lt. Kirk on that mission aboard the Farragut. Or, imagine "Court Martial" showing Krik and Ben Finney's developing relationship. Not saying "redo those episodes"...just pointing out the types of stories where you could leverage that technique.


 



I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this May. 04 2012, 12:51 pm

No point in posting a detailed reply. The only objection I have is to #12: Klingons and Romulans. Instead of changing them at all, why not get rid of them? There are more interesting aliens a good writer could come up with.


Other than that, I can only say this: Could someone please give you several million dollars to make this idea a reality?

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this May. 04 2012, 3:36 pm

I could see Spock as a female. Something like a similar character to T'pol. Star Trek has always needed more prominent females roles very close to the main protagonist.


Of course that might risk satisfying some of the Kirk/Spock intimate relationship tensions that some people have.


Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this May. 04 2012, 3:41 pm

Actually, on a somewhat related note, does anyone remember that Carol Burnett skit they did where all of the bridge officers were female/transformed? Kirk and Spock can be seen as "females" there!



 


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 04 2012, 5:38 pm

Quote: Pooneil @ May. 04 2012, 12:51 pm

>

>No point in posting a detailed reply. The only objection I have is to #12: Klingons and Romulans. Instead of changing them at all, why not get rid of them? There are more interesting aliens a good writer could come up with.

>Other than that, I can only say this: Could someone please give you several million dollars to make this idea a reality?

>


 


If only, my friend...if only!



I AM KEE-ROCK!!

megan512

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1324

Report this May. 04 2012, 6:57 pm

I completely agree with making the aliens less humanoid. That's one thing that consistently annoys me about Star Trek. Every alien is just a humanoid with a forehead/facial ridge. Come on. We're talking about aliens. Certainly the writers could come up with something a bit more creative. I'm willing to bet a three year old could come up with a more interesting alien (okay, maybe not a three year old, but you get the point).


I also agree with the need for more strong females. That's something that Trek has kind of skimped on. Yeah, there was Janeway, but I really think there could be more. Trek is set in the future, after all. It makes sense to have as many female leaders as there are male ones. It's more realistic.


"Captain, life is not a dream." - Spock "Can you please continue the petty bickering? I find it quite intriguing." - Data

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this May. 04 2012, 8:24 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>Actually, on a somewhat related note, does anyone remember that Carol Burnett skit they did where all of the bridge officers were female/transformed? Kirk and Spock can be seen as "females" there!

>

>

Kirk is still Kirk. LOL. Just joking.

 


You haven't seen him/her from the front!


cochrane2063

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this May. 05 2012, 10:15 am

1. Not sure I'd like this, but it's better than the contrived plot (black) hole that created the Abramsverse.


2. You have to have them if you want to call it Star Trek (I mean with the starting from ground zero and all). The Enterprise shouldn't look too different, though.


3. I like that, but how would you go about doing it? Could you give a few examples?


4. A good idea, but they shouldn't be too different, character-wise.


5. Your best idea yet.


6. I'm fine with killing Spock and Sulu, and Kyle and Rand, if that counts, but I'm not sure I'd be able to let too many of the others go. Maybe just one or two.


7. ABSOLUTELY. Please take away the sound from anything without an atmosphere, too.


8. I always loved that sort of thing, so maybe a little more of the Federation's affairs.


9. I am completely with you on that one, although, if every alien is completely alien, that would become more mundane.


10. Good. What sort of norms are you thinking about pushing?


11. Thank you so much. Whenever I hear Captain Picard say those two words, I have to keep myself from gagging.


12. I like the Romulans as they are. The Klingons, on the other hand... I can just picture in my mind a sort of quadrupedal Klingon animal thing. Please make the Klingons have head-ridges, though. Just as a sort of nostalgia element.


13. I don't really have an opinion either way with this one. The episodes where the main computer gained sentience were always so dumb, that I'd rather watch an evolved sensibilities marathon.


14. I'm not really into flashbacks myself, but if they're used to further the story, then I'm in.


I would agree to this wholeheartedly as an executive.


"We keep doing each other favors." "Isn't that how alliances are born?" Jonathan Archer and Thy'lek Shran

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this May. 05 2012, 4:48 pm

V'ger, your suggestions are excellent and I agree with nearly all of them, but I was wondering if your series would potentially be more marketable if, rather than completely rebooting, it was set post-Nemesis but with a single ship exploring a completely different galaxy they have managed to gain access to through wormhole/act of plot? That way, it would allow for the majority of your other points to be accomplished (it's a new galaxy, so you won't have to be adhering to any of the old politics, conventions and aliens; the exploring virgin territory theme would be present and the ship would no longer have a nearby support infrastructure, erasing the TNG "living-room in space" feel, etc.) but would also be more marketable to and likely to be supported by the old-school fanbase than a straight reboot would, even though you would effectively be doing away with many of the old conventions.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 05 2012, 4:50 pm

Quote: cochrane2063 @ May. 05 2012, 10:15 am

>

>1. Not sure I'd like this, but it's better than the contrived plot (black) hole that created the Abramsverse.

>2. You have to have them if you want to call it Star Trek (I mean with the starting from ground zero and all). The Enterprise shouldn't look too different, though.

>3. I like that, but how would you go about doing it? Could you give a few examples?

>4. A good idea, but they shouldn't be too different, character-wise.

>5. Your best idea yet.

>6. I'm fine with killing Spock and Sulu, and Kyle and Rand, if that counts, but I'm not sure I'd be able to let too many of the others go. Maybe just one or two.

>7. ABSOLUTELY. Please take away the sound from anything without an atmosphere, too.

>8. I always loved that sort of thing, so maybe a little more of the Federation's affairs.

>9. I am completely with you on that one, although, if every alien is completely alien, that would become more mundane.

>10. Good. What sort of norms are you thinking about pushing?

>11. Thank you so much. Whenever I hear Captain Picard say those two words, I have to keep myself from gagging.

>12. I like the Romulans as they are. The Klingons, on the other hand... I can just picture in my mind a sort of quadrupedal Klingon animal thing. Please make the Klingons have head-ridges, though. Just as a sort of nostalgia element.

>13. I don't really have an opinion either way with this one. The episodes where the main computer gained sentience were always so dumb, that I'd rather watch an evolved sensibilities marathon.

>14. I'm not really into flashbacks myself, but if they're used to further the story, then I'm in.

>I would agree to this wholeheartedly as an executive.

>


 


Thanks for the feedback! 


 


I think with regard to point 8 though, I'd stand very firm. No heavy dive into the macro universe. Sure, it would play a role, but I'd deliberately want to avoid that stuff with this version of Trek. 


 


Thanks again!


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 05 2012, 5:00 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ May. 05 2012, 4:48 pm

>

>V'ger, your suggestions are excellent and I agree with nearly all of them, but I was wondering if your series would potentially be more marketable if, rather than completely rebooting, it was set post-Nemesis but with a single ship exploring a completely different galaxy they have managed to gain access to through wormhole/act of plot? That way, it would allow for the majority of your other points to be accomplished (it's a new galaxy, so you won't have to be adhering to any of the old politics, conventions and aliens; the exploring virgin territory theme would be present and the ship would no longer have a nearby support infrastructure, erasing the TNG "living-room in space" feel, etc.) but would also be more marketable to and likely to be supported by the old-school fanbase than a straight reboot would, even though you would effectively be doing away with many of the old conventions.

>


 


I had thought of that, but I think the hardcore fan base has dwindled so much and is so difficult to please at this point that I would not propose trying to market specific to them. I'd also rather not risk losing potential newcomers who might be turned off if they think they need to know the whole history of Trek to enjoy the show.


I don't like the post-Nemesis timeframe because I'd want to sever all connections to what had come before. Also, space travel and technology in the 24th century era had, in my opinion, made space travel very "ho hum" and I'd want to completely abandon that feeling in favor of returning to a sense of danger and wonder. 


 


Thank you very much for you kind thoughts and comments, though. I hope I explained the thinking behind the point you asked about enough so you get why I made that decision!


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this May. 05 2012, 8:21 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 05 2012, 5:00 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ May. 05 2012, 4:48 pm

>

>

>V'ger, your suggestions are excellent and I agree with nearly all of them, but I was wondering if your series would potentially be more marketable if, rather than completely rebooting, it was set post-Nemesis but with a single ship exploring a completely different galaxy they have managed to gain access to through wormhole/act of plot? That way, it would allow for the majority of your other points to be accomplished (it's a new galaxy, so you won't have to be adhering to any of the old politics, conventions and aliens; the exploring virgin territory theme would be present and the ship would no longer have a nearby support infrastructure, erasing the TNG "living-room in space" feel, etc.) but would also be more marketable to and likely to be supported by the old-school fanbase than a straight reboot would, even though you would effectively be doing away with many of the old conventions.

>

 

I had thought of that, but I think the hardcore fan base has dwindled so much and is so difficult to please at this point that I would not propose trying to market specific to them.


You realize that a majority of the polls on this site favor the TNG/DS9/VOY era over the TOS era though.


You'd still need that fanbase to maintain full interest.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 06 2012, 5:47 am

Quote: Blockman @ May. 05 2012, 8:21 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 05 2012, 5:00 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ May. 05 2012, 4:48 pm

>

>

>

>V'ger, your suggestions are excellent and I agree with nearly all of them, but I was wondering if your series would potentially be more marketable if, rather than completely rebooting, it was set post-Nemesis but with a single ship exploring a completely different galaxy they have managed to gain access to through wormhole/act of plot? That way, it would allow for the majority of your other points to be accomplished (it's a new galaxy, so you won't have to be adhering to any of the old politics, conventions and aliens; the exploring virgin territory theme would be present and the ship would no longer have a nearby support infrastructure, erasing the TNG "living-room in space" feel, etc.) but would also be more marketable to and likely to be supported by the old-school fanbase than a straight reboot would, even though you would effectively be doing away with many of the old conventions.

>

 

I had thought of that, but I think the hardcore fan base has dwindled so much and is so difficult to please at this point that I would not propose trying to market specific to them.

You realize that a majority of the polls on this site favor the TNG/DS9/VOY era over the TOS era though.

You'd still need that fanbase to maintain full interest.


"Prefering" something and "demanding" something are two totally different things.


Just because the majority of people on this site would prefer a post-Nemesis timeline doesn't make that decision mutually exclusive. I bet if I went to a general website and posted a similar poll:


What would you rather see...a re-imagined Star Trek that allowed new viewers to quickly come on board or a continuation of Star Trek where the last series and movie left off?


 


It would probably be just the opposite. 


Bottom line, I would not waste time trying to please the fan base. They are too splintered, diminished, and hard to please to be the group you bank your market strategy on. The target audience woul be made up of a percentage of fans who are more forgiving and then a more general audience to become th "next generation" of trek fans. Besides, even if fans "prefer" one thing, it's not like they're not ALL going to tune in at least initially to see what it's like. So, you'd need to hope you can hook some of thm with a higquality product. 


But, I'm not going to waste time trying to please the general fan base...because that's not possible given their current condition. 


 


 


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this May. 06 2012, 8:02 am

J. Michael Straczynski had a similar idea to reboot Star Trek. It was remarkably similar to Vger23's, but perhaps with less interest in the day-to-day operation of the ship. (Which, btw, I think is one of the best ideas Vger introduced).


As a long-time fan, I'd rather see a new show maintain the spirit of Star Trek without hauling along the baggage. Restarting and jettisoning all the history and politics is essential, and it's basically why no "post-Nemesis" series will ever get anywhere.


So, Vger23, what is it that makes your idea necessarily a Star Trek idea? It would be easy, as many would-be fan writers do, to stir up Klingons, warp drive, and holodecks, and call it Trek without it actually bearing any resemblance to the themes or ideas of the previous shows. The opposite could also happen: without Borg, or replicators, or M-class planets, you could produce an optimistic exploration of the human condition, with occassional spaceships.


What do you consider is the essential element of Star Trek?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 06 2012, 5:14 pm

Quote: Pooneil @ May. 06 2012, 8:02 am

>

>J. Michael Straczynski had a similar idea to reboot Star Trek. It was remarkably similar to Vger23's, but perhaps with less interest in the day-to-day operation of the ship. (Which, btw, I think is one of the best ideas Vger introduced).

>As a long-time fan, I'd rather see a new show maintain the spirit of Star Trek without hauling along the baggage. Restarting and jettisoning all the history and politics is essential, and it's basically why no "post-Nemesis" series will ever get anywhere.

>So, Vger23, what is it that makes your idea necessarily a Star Trek idea? It would be easy, as many would-be fan writers do, to stir up Klingons, warp drive, and holodecks, and call it Trek without it actually bearing any resemblance to the themes or ideas of the previous shows. The opposite could also happen: without Borg, or replicators, or M-class planets, you could produce an optimistic exploration of the human condition, with occassional spaceships.

>What do you consider is the essential element of Star Trek?

>


 


 What a great question!


 


I guess for me, it's primarily that family of diverse characters discovering new things about themselves and about humanity as they engage in fun dramatic adventure exploring the galaxy. 


Its essential that the stories are character and human-driven, not overwhelmed by scifi technology, intergalactic politics, space wars or other scifi cliches. There needs to be a sense of wonder and drama balanced with fun, and the character relationships need to be at the heart of it. The core of any good Star Trek is seeing a group of people with different backgrounds and beliefs come together, put aside their problems and differences, and achieve great things. 


And as I said, I'd throw out those fan-favorite scifi cliches (politics, war, canon, technology focus) to bring the franchise back to something more fundamental and universally likable. I think that's the only way forward. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar, darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum