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

What would you want from a new Star Trek series?

Report this
Created by: averagewelshtrekkie

averagewelshtrekkie

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7

Report this Apr. 29 2013, 3:24 pm

I personally don't want a series based before Kirk's time, I think the timeline should keep moving, but I don't see how we could not mention the destruction of Romulus otherwise

Holo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 253

Report this Apr. 29 2013, 6:51 pm

I would never want to see the fall of the Federation.


Deep Space Nine is my favorite series, and while it is considerably darker than the other series, it still retains the optimism that has been at the very core of Star Trek since the beginning. Star Trek has always been about a brighter, happier future. That's what makes it different from other science fiction.

Utopia Planetia

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 88

Report this Apr. 30 2013, 12:59 am

Quote: Holo @ Apr. 29 2013, 6:51 pm

>

>I would never want to see the fall of the Federation.

>Deep Space Nine is my favorite series, and while it is considerably darker than the other series, it still retains the optimism that has been at the very core of Star Trek since the beginning. Star Trek has always been about a brighter, happier future. That's what makes it different from other science fiction.

>


Yeap. Enough with the distopian trek. I want a series in the 25th century or later about a utopian federation exploring an unknown universe and discovering things we couldn't possibly imagine.

CountJohn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 177

Report this Apr. 30 2013, 5:06 pm

A Star Trek series has to be about the Federation, which eliminates most of the answer choices for me. I'd say either regular "boldly going" or darker "boldly going". I don't really want to mark the traditional one because I wouldn't want recycled TNG plots in a new series. I'm not sure I want it to be "significantly" darker either. The destruction of Romulus should be a plotline, but not the whole series. But yeah, I agree that a 25th century series is definitely the way to go when ST finally gets back on TV.

mo2tx59

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Apr. 30 2013, 8:31 pm

I would like to see the Delta Quadrant explored more fully, with some of the characters from "Star Trek:Voyager" returning. 

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Apr. 30 2013, 9:00 pm

Quote: CountJohn @ Apr. 30 2013, 5:06 pm

>

>A Star Trek series has to be about the Federation, which eliminates most of the answer choices for me. I'd say either regular "boldly going" or darker "boldly going". I don't really want to mark the traditional one because I wouldn't want recycled TNG plots in a new series. I'm not sure I want it to be "significantly" darker either. The destruction of Romulus should be a plotline, but not the whole series. But yeah, I agree that a 25th century series is definitely the way to go when ST finally gets back on TV.

>


This is what I want as well. I want to return to the spirit of exploration in Star Trek (though with some of the darker elements of DS9).


Something like the Star Trek Online storyline would be fun as well.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

heronymous

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 155

Report this May. 01 2013, 1:00 am

A Good Ol' Fashioned Star Trek Series building on all The Series that have gone before ! I actually like nearly all the Choices mentioned !!


   


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 01 2013, 10:01 am

The chances of a new Star Trek series are not very good, but if they WERE to do something, here's what I think needs to be done:


 


1. It should have a basic structure similar to that of the Original Series with the Starship Enterprise and crew in space. Too many fans wax poetic about how TNG and TOS was about exploring space, but only about 20% of those episodes were actually about "boldly going." Most of them were about humanitarian missions, millitary / intelligence missions, police actions, diplomatic missions, or routine stops where something "intersting" happens. Very rarely is the Enterprise just out there romantically going to some brand new and completely unexplored place. I think trying to build a show purely based on space exploration is nearly impossible (especially on television), so the writers need to embrace the multi-purpose mission of the ship and not get too caught up in exploring new planets or spacial anomolies.  


2. It should be a complete, no-strings-attached reboot. Use the same basic "characters" as TOS (Kirk, Spock, etc) for recognition and marketing value...but re-imagine them in much the same way Battlestar Galactica did. No JJ Abrams verse, no original universe (preqell or continuation). Start fresh with the same basic elements (transporters, phasers, The Federation, Klingons, etc), but update for modern TV. Give audiences a chance to enter with no prior Trek knowledge or history so the show has a chance to be successful without being bogged down under the sagging weight of nearly 50 years of canon. I know this will upset most fans, but it's not the 1990s any more. Nobody cares about the Delta Quadrent, the destruction of Romulus, the post-Nemesis 25th century political climate or the ultimate fate of the Prophets. While fans may squeee over that stuff...nobody in the gerneral viewing audience will give a rat's @ss. There's plenty of Trek paperback novels if you're into that kind of thing. For a new show to endure, it will need to avoid this kind of stuff. 


3. It should contain the high-level elements of optimism that made TOS successful: Celebrating diversity...showing different cultures being successful working together...showing that humanity survived despite its flaws to reach the stars, etc. It should NOT flounder around pathetically in the "revisionist" Trek philosophy that humans have evolved into a higher state of sensibility and enlightenment. The TRUE allure and magic of Star Trek was showing that humanity could prevail in spite of its weaknesses, not though the elimination of those weaknesses. Trek got weaker when it got lost in its own percieved cultural "importance" and philosophy and became about a utopia. That's all well and good, but doesn't make for good entertainment at all. People strugging against their flaws to become better / do the right thing is much more interesting than people who have no flaws traveling the galaxy judging and lecturing others. 


4. While maintaining its "optimism" (see above) it should still be a realistic character-driven drama. There needs to be grit and conflict. There needs to be struggle. There needs to be tough decisions and lasting consequences. Characters need to change and evolve as the series goes on. Ideals and ethics should be challenged. In short: it should be "darker" without being traditionally "dark." There's a difference between "dark" and "grim." Walking Dead and nuBattlestar are "grim." Star Trek should not be. It can be gritty, edgy, realistic and exciting without being grim. 


5. It should be less "Federation-centric." Like the original show, the Federation and Starfleet existed mainly from a distance, allowing for the Enterprise crew to have some kind of authority and operational framework to function within. I know a lot of fans like the complex intergalactic intrigue and politics...but that should not be the focus of a new series. Frankly it's nerdy and it's not in keeping with Trek's original vision. Keep that stuff at a distance. Bring it in occasionally to give the show some scale and scope (as TOS did) to the universe, but don't make it the focus. The show should center on the Enterprise as a community on the edge of a vast frontier (like TOS and VOY)...not as a patrol ship out doing the bidding of the government. This allows for more intimacy and more tension as the ship is really "on its own" (I compare this thought to "Balance of Terror" for example, where the tension and character drama came from the fact that there was no communication with SFC). 


6. Like the latest movies, there needs to be a certain amount of "to hell with the fans" sprinkled into the production. I say this only because if whoever were to take on Trek as a TV project were to try to please the fans, they would fail miserably. First, the general viewing audiences would be turned off by a bunch of fanwank and reliance on continuity. Second, the "fanbase" is splintered and un-aligned in terms of "what they want" so you'd never end up pleasing them all anyway. MAKE A GOOD TELEVISION SHOW. That's the goal. If you do that, the "right" fans will follow, and you'll collect plenty of other viewers along the way.


 


Anyway, that's my take on it. 

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this May. 01 2013, 2:08 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 01 2013, 10:01 am

>

>The chances of a new Star Trek series are not very good

>


That's the only part of your post I disagree with. I think that if Abrams' movies are successful, they will create the demand needed to get Star Trek back on the small-screen.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

CountJohn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 177

Report this May. 01 2013, 5:29 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 01 2013, 10:01 am

>

>The chances of a new Star Trek series are not very good, but if they WERE to do something, here's what I think needs to be done:

> 2. It should be a complete, no-strings-attached reboot. Use the same basic "characters" as TOS (Kirk, Spock, etc) for recognition and marketing value...but re-imagine them in much the same way Battlestar Galactica did. No JJ Abrams verse, no original universe (preqell or continuation). Start fresh with the same basic elements (transporters, phasers, The Federation, Klingons, etc), but update for modern TV. Give audiences a chance to enter with no prior Trek knowledge or history so the show has a chance to be successful without being bogged down under the sagging weight of nearly 50 years of canon. I know this will upset most fans, but it's not the 1990s any more. Nobody cares about the Delta Quadrent, the destruction of Romulus, the post-Nemesis 25th century political climate or the ultimate fate of the Prophets. While fans may squeee over that stuff...nobody in the gerneral viewing audience will give a rat's @ss. There's plenty of Trek paperback novels if you're into that kind of thing. For a new show to endure, it will need to avoid this kind of stuff. 

>


I don't know why it has to be yet another recasting of TOS to be a "fresh start". They'd have a total blank slate doing the series in the 25th century of the rebooted universe, which we don't really know very much about. The writers would have total freedom in terms story, technology, and aesthetics.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 01 2013, 6:35 pm

Quote: CountJohn @ May. 01 2013, 5:29 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 01 2013, 10:01 am

>

>

>The chances of a new Star Trek series are not very good, but if they WERE to do something, here's what I think needs to be done:

> 2. It should be a complete, no-strings-attached reboot. Use the same basic "characters" as TOS (Kirk, Spock, etc) for recognition and marketing value...but re-imagine them in much the same way Battlestar Galactica did. No JJ Abrams verse, no original universe (preqell or continuation). Start fresh with the same basic elements (transporters, phasers, The Federation, Klingons, etc), but update for modern TV. Give audiences a chance to enter with no prior Trek knowledge or history so the show has a chance to be successful without being bogged down under the sagging weight of nearly 50 years of canon. I know this will upset most fans, but it's not the 1990s any more. Nobody cares about the Delta Quadrent, the destruction of Romulus, the post-Nemesis 25th century political climate or the ultimate fate of the Prophets. While fans may squeee over that stuff...nobody in the gerneral viewing audience will give a rat's @ss. There's plenty of Trek paperback novels if you're into that kind of thing. For a new show to endure, it will need to avoid this kind of stuff. 

>

I don't know why it has to be yet another recasting of TOS to be a "fresh start". They'd have a total blank slate doing the series in the 25th century of the rebooted universe, which we don't really know very much about. The writers would have total freedom in terms story, technology, and aesthetics.


 


All true, but not attractive to general audiences. People equate Star Trek to Kirk and Spock, even more now with the success of the new film franchise. I've been a fan for 35 years...and even I admit I'd be FAR more likely to tune in to the adventures of Kirk and Spock than I would to tune into some random 25th century reboot. 


So the point isn't "fresh start" and blank slate entirely. It is also about marketability and building a foundational audience. Bottom line: Even though some fans "want" the 25th Century thing...it's not like they're NOT going to give a Kirk/Spock reboot a try. But on the other side, general audiences are more likely to give the Kirk/Spock reboot a shot than they would be to give Star Trek: The Next Next Generation a try. Whether we agree with it or not isn't really relevant. It's simple logic that leads me to this conclusion...the Kirk/Spock reboot has a much better chance of being successful as a weekly TV series.  


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 01 2013, 6:37 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ May. 01 2013, 2:08 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 01 2013, 10:01 am

>

>

>The chances of a new Star Trek series are not very good

>

That's the only part of your post I disagree with. I think that if Abrams' movies are successful, they will create the demand needed to get Star Trek back on the small-screen.


 


I hope you're right!! It doesn't seem like bigger-budget sci-fi is an attractive option for network executives right now.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 01 2013, 8:04 pm

I have some ideas on what specifics I would like to see. It might be interesting, not to centre a series on the destruction of Romulus, but to explore the implications peripherally in a new series. I think that what DS9 did with the Bajoran sector was really interesting (to give more detail to a conflict between Bajor and Cardassia which was really only mentioned in passing in TNG). The best time period to explore I think would be a few decades after the end of Voyager.


But as far as what I want...? A new series may happen in the next ten years, or it may not. I'm not all that fussed either way. All I would really ask for are quality stories with characters I can care about. Aside from that, all else is incidental.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this May. 01 2013, 8:52 pm

Personally, I'd like the same tone and ethos as most everything that's come before in Trek--that is to say, dramatically complicated, with some diverse ethical perspectives; but not dark and angsty, full of brooding characters committing heinous actions for the greater good or because they're pushed to the wall.  Maybe it's the global political climate we're in right now, or maybe it's just the aesthetic taste of today's television viewers, but over the last decade or so, it seems like every TV show (including Enterprise, unfortunately) periodically throws its characters into no-win situation in which they must choose the lesser of two evils.  But Star Trek's greatest hero doesn't believe in the no-win situation, and his best friend says, "There are always alternatives" (or, "There are always possibilities," if you prefer the movie version of this quotation over the series version).


In terms of content, I would prefer to see a brand new crew on a brand new ship, exploring brand new planets (I don't care if the characters are more or less familiar with some of the planets.  I just want the panets to be new to the audience--to me).  If the show is about characters we've never seen before in a corner of space we haven't explored yet, it shouldn't really matter in which century it takes place.  The original series was never clear about when it took place because it didn't matter to the stories.  I'm not saying a new series should be so vague about when it's set.  I'm just saying that whenever it's set, it shouldn't matter to the stories being told.


I don't want a show that combines all the ostensible favorite characters from past series or resolves complications from past stories.  Personally, I don't want the situations of my favorite characters from past series exhausted and revised and dissected.  Turn those characters and their lives over to the imaginations of their fans, rather than exploiting them for a few extra bucks.  More importantly, I think new stories and series are better when they try to be new.  It's better drama to open up new situations than resolve old ones.  And writers create better characters when they aren't hamstrung by the bogey man of continuity.


A reboot with Kirk and Spock would be preferable (to me) over a canonical continuation of past stories and characters.  At least the reboot option would give the writers more of the freedom I was trying to describe above, which I believe makes for better drama.  But I think a reboot would still be limiting in comparison with new characters.  On the other hand, my willingness to watch a reboot, even though I would prefer a different option, reinforce's Vger23's point that the reboot would be palatable to the fans while presenting a good marketing opportunity for new viewers.


Falor was a prosperous merchant who went on a journey to gain greater awareness: Through storms he crossed the Voroth Sea/ To reach the clouded shores of Raal/ Where old T’Para offered truth./ He traveled through the windswept hills/ And crossed the barren Fire Plains/ To find the silent monks of Kir./ Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home/ Told stories of the lessons learned/ And gained true wisdom by the giving. – Falor’s Journey, “Innocence”

entropyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 127

Report this May. 05 2013, 6:11 pm

I'm not sure it would be feasable from a tv budgetary standpoint, but I'd like to see an anthology type Trek, ala The Twilight Zone. Different characters every week from different time periods, dealing with various problems/adventures in varying locations. For example, one week we could see a traditional TOS era tale and the next week perhaps something in TNG vein and so on...This way we could see a broad view of the whole Star Trek Universe. Of course this would almost certainly eliminate the serial element which is fine by me.

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