posted
So how exactly do you fix the problem of hundreds of hours of story cruft squashing an interesting core concept, given your guideline there?
There's nothing wrong with starting something over. Not intrinsically. And not to belabor the Battlestar comparisons, but it is the best show ever times three, so, you know. Not that I'm saying that this is necessarily Star Trek's "problem."
The only way to defend your claim is if you think that consistancy is the sole storytelling virtue, and that is some sad wrong thinking. (In my opinion, anyway, of course. Poorly thought out building metaphor: Consistancy is the hidden I beam, not the lobby. Or, uh, you can be consistant and bad, or boring, or whatever.)
((And there are plenty of good writers who happen to be writing comic books at the moment, whether or not JMS happens to be one of them.))
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I also feel the number of episodes that star trek series had per season also played into its undoing. 26 episodes per year is a little much, especially when series like TOS or TNG had no overall story arc or like DS9 and Voyager had an overall story, but just did not always stick to it. Enterprise was just a mess when came to this, since it followed the poorly planned Temporal Cold War and the Xindi story wasn't that great either. Perhaps by limiting the number of episodes and sticking to the overall story, writers could write better shows more often instead of writing a few good episodes in a season full of rehashed plots and poorly executed concepts.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Uhhh...26 episodes is a standard US season. This isn't Britain with their wacky 8-episode seasons.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem with Trek is that the people who have been running it have persisted in repeating the same formula with some token variation, and this has caused it to cease being interesting. We need to have something that is distinct from the tired "lone crew on a starship meeting assorted alien species" format. It's boring.
TOS originated and showed the merits of the concept, and TNG brought it to its full fruitition. No problem so far, except that TNG ran one or two seasons too many and some laziness began to creep into the storytelling.
DS9 was great because it was a completely different kind of show, with a fresh concept and a more unpredictable set of dynamics between the main characters.
Then we get this bullshit VGR show that's like a watered-down version of TNG with the ultimately-meaningless window dressing of the Delta Quadrant, Maquis, a female captain, etc. Seven wasted years that just sucked everything out of it all.
So what do they do next? ENT: another show with the same premise and different window dressing. They try to pass it off as an origins story, but they eschew that concept in favor of the inane and not-really-thought-out Temporal Cold War, more Aliens of the WeekTM, and insipid post-9/11 rhetoric. By the time they get back to what the show should have been about from the beginning, it's too late. It's already been run six feet into the ground.
Meanwhile, the movies have become increasingly Hollywood-ized to the point of losing most of their connection to the source material and turning into formulaic action flicks with cool explosions and comic relief.
So, you ask, if this is all so terrible, why not just wipe the slate clean and start anew? Because, my pretties, it won't help. Regardless of what they come up with to "replace" it, to the average Joe it will still be just another Star Trek show, and it will only serve to further fragment the extant fanbase as they fall into endless flame wars about which continuity is better and so on.
Besides, can't you see that rebooting will only give writers an excuse to repeat the same kind of stories yet again? There is a better way, and that is to utilize the rich universe and continuity generated by what has come so far as fertilizer for better story-telling. Follow DS9's example (but NOT its premise) by finding some aspect, some corner of the Trek universe that is conducive to new and interesting situations and character dynamics and exploring it in depth. And, for Pete's sake, GET NEW PEOPLE TO PRODUCE IT! Waiting a few years wouldn't hurt, either.
They don't have to go back and start all over again. All they have to do is come up with something that's new and different on a deeper level than just what the bridge crew's demographics are or whether the side arms are called "phasers" or "phase pistols." The fallacy is in thinking that, in order to do this, you've got to forget about everything that's already been done. You don't. Instead of thinking of all that history as baggage, think of it as background. Make use of it--it's the best thing this languishing franchise has going for it.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
That explains it quite well. But I think at this point a reboot would be as easy to accomplish, and succed, as any new show based on established continuity.
posted
Easier, probably. Still, I think it would alienate some fans of the current continuity, and I count myself among them. I just wouldn't find it as interesting, since a big part of what I like about Trek is its status as a complex, integrated, and largely cohesive fictional universe.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Interesting, I hadn't realized that JMS' proposal and the reboot pitch were the same thing.
The whole thing has gotten me itching about my own personal fantasy of a reboot.
What I would love to see (and do), along the lines of the Ultimate Marvel line, would be a massive miniseries reboot. Have several episodes devoted to each of the major elements of Star Trek:
-The pre-Federation/Founding era -The Original Series (what could be considered the Federation's great expanionist period) -The Next Generation (what has been discussed as the Federation's Pax) -Deep Space Nine and the Dominion War -And Voyager and the Post-War period (revised into something a little more relevant, with the kind of over encompassing story-arc that would be more in line with the rest of the series and should've been in Voyager all along)
All prefaced with some air time devoted to showing World War III and showing, at least in part, the beginnings of how we get from the imperfect world we live in today to the future history and "perfect society" of the Federation.
In my opinion, it'd be a fantastic opportunity to smooth out the great tapestry that is Trek, to make the historical turns with Klingons, Romulans, the Borg, and Dominion the proper breadth - without cinching them off episode by episode or movie by movie and eliminating the necessity to retcon the really minor details that are really frustrating to reconcile (like UESPA and Klingons as full-fledged Federation members).
Of course, my being in any kind of control of the Trek franchise at any point in the near or distant future is astronomical, but a boy can dream...
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Easier, probably. Still, I think it would alienate some fans of the current continuity, and I count myself among them. I just wouldn't find it as interesting, since a big part of what I like about Trek is its status as a complex, integrated, and largely cohesive fictional universe.
However, in this I suspect you are a tiny fraction of their target demographic. A reboot would give them a shot at a new audience (who won't feel like they've been left out of the loop) as well as viewers who may have wandered (not to mention to tap writers unwilling or unprepared to dig through the vast vagaries of canon for consistency's sake.) Mark's right though, on the JMS monologues delivered in Shatner-style. That might get... Well they'd lose whatever new audience they were hoping to wrangle.
I hear you on the lazy and lame thing, and I definitely think there's ample room for more Star Trek without having to recycle characters. It's just, well Nemesis flopped and the numbers for Enterprise really didn't warrant the expense. They're hurting and I'm sure Paramount is looking to make a safe bet. TOS is smack in the middle of nearly everyones comfort zone. (This gossip of M. Damon as Kirk for JJ Abrams next Trek film seems like they might be thusly inclined...)
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Mighty Monkey of Mim: I can see what you're saying there.. but couldn't you view a reboot as another opportunity to get involved in a new complex, itegrated, and cohesive fictional universe based on the same characters - only this time - you have to start from scratch?
Or is that what you don't like about it - is that you'd have to start from scratch - to relearn a new 'history'?
Like i said, I can see where you would have an issue with the reboot.. but i don't think it would alienate poeple who love continuity - i would suggest it should attract "continuity-buffs" to a new continuity. Perhaps this time, they'll write the episode more in an Arc-type structure -- paying more attention to historical details as they went along..
I suppose we can look at it both ways... the big Question is .. will the Brass go for it? For now, i don't think they're willing to spend the money...
posted
I thought that a Star Trek series based in another part of the galaxy with no contact with the Federation and having to rely on unconventional methods to survive was a good premise in theory.
I thought a Star Trek series based in the past and concerning the foundation of the Federation and the coming Earth-Romulan war was a good premise in theory.
I think a reboot of Star Trek is a good premise in theory, since it seemed to work well with both Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica.
See where I'm going with this? The "premise" was never the problem. It was the execution of said premise by the powers that be at Paramount that was less than stellar.
No matter what they come up with, no matter what spin they take about it in an interview in a sci-fi magazine, no matter who they get to star in it, if the same people at Paramount are in charge, it just won't work.
Doctor Who had been effectively off the air for over fifteen years (not counting the TV movie). There is a totally different BBC in charge than there was in 1987. The format of the new show is totally different. With the exception of ONE guy, the production cast is totally different. There is a large hint that something really, really bad has happened in the intervening time off-camera, and we as the fans will slowly find out just what that is as the new show progresses.
Doctor Who was a hit.
That's the ingredients for a real reboot. Until Paramount stops viewing Star Trek as a "franchise" of which to make money off of, and starts fresh with the idea that they want to actually entertain people and make the loyal fanbase happy, then another successful form of Star Trek in the near future just won't happen. And I have no reason to believe that this early in the game that JJ Abram's take on ST will be any improvement, as long as the current Paramount regime is in charge of his doings.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I totally agree Dukkie, except that I don't see there being a larger "Paramount regime" figuring into it. I hold Rick Berman and Brannon Braga as being almost single-handedly responsible for Trek's decline. I say this because DS9 and ENT S4 were great, being under the control of different executive producers but many of the same other production personnel. Success comes from having leaders who actually care about the material and treat it seriously, which Behr, Piller, Wolfe, and Coto did. B&B didn't. All they saw Trek as was a meal ticket, and the rest is history.
Whether this means JJ Abrams' take will be good or not, I can't say. I remain cautiously optomistic, though, based on his statements of being a TOS fan and wanting to become thoroughly familiar with the franchise beforehand. He sounds like the kind of guy who'll give it the kind of treatment it deserves.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Anyway, if one has to make a reboot of Star Trek now, I'd be curious to know how each of us would like to envisino it. Here's my idea, based on my pro-TOS leanings:
Everything from TOS through Star Trek IV-The Voyage Home is considered canon, right up to the point where Kirk & Co. fly away in the brand-spanking new Enterprise-A.
After that, nothing else happened. No Star Treks V & VI, no TNG, no DS9, no Voyager, no TNG movies, and certainly no ENT (even though it's supposed to take place before TOS, but that's irrelevant).
Star Trek IV was shown in 1986. My proposal is that the new show would take place exactly twenty years later. That would also correspond to (surprise!) 2006 in real time, so that Shatner, Nimoy et. al would look exactly like they'd look in 20 years time. The first ep would concern the decommissioning of the Ent-A, to coincide with the launching of a new ship, the Diplomat-class Enterprise-B. Shatner, Nimoy et. al (with the exceptions of Kelley and Doohan, obviously) would basically have cameo roles in order to shift the focus to the new crew & ship, which would span the entire first season. By season two & beyond, it would be all the new crew.
Do I think this will happen? Not a chance, especially since both Shatner & Nimoy's asking salary combined would break Paramount's bank. But it's nice to dream.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
