In the midst of all the reboots, lazy adaptations, blatant copycat projects, and quickly discarded binge-watching shows, I have found myself turning into a curmudgeon who whines about the lack of creativity in television and film. “Why can’t they come up with something original?” I ask. “Why do we need a third Peter Parker? What’s so hard about making a Fantastic Four movie? Do we really need a prequel to The Walking Dead?”
And then—as if someone is intentionally trying to make me look stupid—CBS announces plans for a new Star Trek program, the seventh of its kind (yes, I count the animated series because it’s awesome). And suddenly I’m young again! And I’m saying, “Where have you been? What took you so long?”
The reaction to this announcement among critics and fans has been fascinating, as a certain Vulcan would put it. Given that we know so little about the project—we’re not even sure which century or timeline in which it will be set—much of the speculation has revolved around how a show so rooted in optimism and campiness will fare in the gritty age of Game of Thrones. Some have predicted that the traditionally episodic nature of Star Trek would struggle to find an audience among viewers expecting story arcs that last for a season or longer. Moreover, the big budget, slam-bang action of the recent JJ Abrams movies may have permanently altered the tone and idealism of Gene Roddenberry’s original vision. And then there is the unprecedented distribution format that CBS plans to use, which will make the show a pawn in the competition between online streaming services and the major networks.
All that aside, I detect some old-fashioned jadedness as well, on which I blame the many raging disappointments over the years, from The Phantom Menace to Spider-Man 3. While I can’t fault anyone for being a pessimist, I have to ask: have we grown so accustomed to failure that not even the return of the Enterprise can get us excited?
For what it’s worth, here are a few reasons why I think Star Trek, for all its flaws, is returning at just the right time.
Episodes versus Seasons
I’ll be blunt here: I am highly skeptical whenever I hear someone preaching about how we’re in some “Golden Age of Television.” (It’s almost always a person who doesn’t read books.) The long-story arc model found on many modern shows seems driven not so much by organic storytelling, but by a technology that encourages us to watch entire seasons of a show over the course of a weekend, presumably while still wearing the same pajamas and eating from a tub of ice cream. I concede that Game of Thrones and other shows are based on preexisting material that lends itself to this model. I also admit that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine arguably pioneered this method of storytelling for science fiction in the late 1990s. But I can’t help but think that some of these shows are simply jerking people along to the next commercial break. A friend of mine recently defended his favorite series by insisting that I “give it a chance” because it “really gets good in season four.” Season four! What are we doing to ourselves?
Star Trek’s self-contained episodes may seem quaint in this context, but perhaps we’ve arrived at a point in time when they would be refreshing (assuming, of course, that the new show uses this format). Here’s a novel concept: when you sit down to a typical Star Trek viewing, you actually know what you’re getting. And those recurring storylines become special, rather than an obligation you must endure for hours upon hours before you can truly enjoy what’s going on. Plus, the classic episodes—many of which were written through an open submission process—are simply legendary in science fiction, from “The City on the Edge of Forever” to “The Inner Light”. Their influence goes so far beyond the mere storyline of the show. Here’s something to consider: can you name a great episode from the “peak TV” shows of this decade? Or has it all been mashed into one big blob that you barely remember?
An Expansion of the Trek Universe
Again, I’ll be blunt: I want to go back to the mid-90s, when we had, within a year, three Star Trek shows and a movie. (Full disclosure: I also want a pony for Christmas.) The no-brainer concept—one that I still can’t believe hasn’t happened yet—has been to use Starfleet Academy as the setting for a show. I’m also partial to the idea pitched by Bryan Singer a few years ago, which depicted the Federation on the brink of collapse in the 27th century, 300 years after the era of Jean-Luc Picard.
But forget timelines and centuries and all that. Since this new show will sit alongside the more action-oriented movies, I see it as an opportunity to experiment with both tone as well as setting. A series can do that, while a mega-budget blockbuster cannot. And if the CBS version finds an audience, then why stop at one show? We could have a gritty, Christopher Nolan Star Trek; a show more oriented toward a younger crowd; and a series that continues the Next Generation timeline. And why not another animated series? There are already thousands of Star Trek books—are we really worried about saturating the market?
Star Trek versus the World!
We all acknowledge the brilliant if sometimes heavy-handed allegory of the original series, which commented on the turbulent 1960s. Perhaps the shows of the 1990s lost their way in this regard. After all, in the post-Cold War world, the Klingons became allies, and the neoliberal worldview seemed to represent the inevitable future for humanity.
Well, that didn’t last, and now we find ourselves in an age that begs for the subversive yet hopeful tone of the original show. Economic instability, the culture wars, the decline of the American empire, the regression and polarization of our political system, the degradation of the environment, the return of religious fanaticism, the social consequences of new technologies—all of these demand to have their own episodes, complete with people in strange monochromatic outfits reciting technobabble without cracking a smile.
Also important are the radical changes we are witnessing within the science fiction community. Like Star Trek, the genre is pushing for more inclusion, more points of view. And, as with the original show, some people find this threatening. Well, good. Star Trek should be part of this conversation. If done right, it could be the perfect middle finger to those who suggest that storytelling is merely for entertainment, and that politics and social commentary should not interfere.
It’s Okay If It’s Not Great
Suppose I’m wrong about all of this, and the new show is worse than the Star Wars Holiday Special. Guess what? Star Trek will survive.
I wonder if the reason why we’ve waited so long for a new show is that the creators were afraid that it might not be great. I can’t think of anything more anti-Trek than being afraid of the unknown. This is, after all, the first show to be resurrected by its fans after its demise. A show that inspired astronauts, civil rights activists, world leaders, and artists. Legend has it that Roddenberry came up with the concept following his harrowing experiences as a pilot in World War II, and his vision was meant to depict what the world would be like if we set aside our differences and stopped fearing the dark and worked together. One bad series is not going to end all of that. One bad series is not going to destroy the good memories we have of the other shows.
I hope these positive thoughts can help to get you through the next eighteen months or so. If it makes you feel any better, the announcement for Star Trek: The Next Generation took place in the fall of 1986, a full year before the actual premiere of the show. Can you believe it? People had to speculate without the benefit of the Internet! Poor bastards.
Anyway, I hope you remain optimistic about the future. Isn’t that what Star Trek was all about?
Robert Repino grew up in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. After serving in the Peace Corps in Grenada, he earned an MFA in Creative Writing at Emerson College. He is the author of the novel Mort(e) (Soho Press, 2015) and the novella Leap High Yahoo (Amazon Kindle Singles, 2015). He works as an editor for Oxford University Press and has taught for the Gotham Writers Workshop.
I myself, as a lifelong Trekkie, am looking forward to a new show… or more than one. I have some specific ideas about what I’d like to see (long, involved arcs a la DS9, or an anthology that spends a few episodes on one crew, then a single one on the Academy, then two more with a different ship, and goes back to the original for two more, etc; set in a continuation of the storyline in the prime universe, etc)… but I’ll be happy with any kind of Star Trek show, and if it’s bad, Star Trek will survive.
It’s honestly too early for me to get excited about it. Because I’ve been too disappointed for so long (I’m one of those who is not a fan of the new series of movies, not because I think the original is a sacred cow, but because the new movies are largely a load of stupid crap, covered with a pretty, flashy veneer and carried by a few good actors… I’m actually disappointed the reboot wasn’t MORE daring about rewriting canon), and also because… there’ve been hundreds and hundreds of hours of Trek TV and Movies. It’s going to be hard to move the pieces around, the ones that make it distinctively Trek and not something else, and make them still fresh.. not impossible, just hard, and the hard path takes more daring than I’d give the current people in charge credit for.
So yeah, I’d rather people work on something a little different than try to breathe new life into Trek.
But I’ll wait and see, and maybe the description will be interesting enough that I’ll start to get excited. Or maybe I’ll just be mostly over it, like I am with Star Wars. Yeah, I still haven’t worked up any enthusiasm for those new movies, either… oh, I’ll probably watch them, eventually, just like I’ll probably watch the new Trek series, but I’m not eager for either of them like I used to be, like I still am for other things. Right now, I’m more eager for more Killjoys than more Trek. I salivate at the potential of doing a Culture series to tap that same optimistic spirit that Trek did and it almost physically hurts that it’ll almost certainly never come-to-be. I’d pay dozens of dollars, in advance, to help support new things I’m excited by, I’m not sure I’m willing to pay a cent for more Trek/Wars are this point (so I’m likely to be waiting quite a long while to see them, though at least the first ep of the new Trek is planned to air on broadcast TV). I’m sure plenty of others will continue to support those franchises, so my money won’t be missed, but it’s just how I currently feel.
Good write upo and yes, I’m hoping for a good one too.
It’s interesting to note that the shows like Deep Space Nine (Babylon 5, X-files for instance) all had long arcs but they STILL had many standalone episodes – perhaps this balance of long arcs and no arcs could make another interesting Star Trek series. I am doubtful a long single thread of story telling (ala Game of Thrones) would work for Star Trek – there is FAR to much to explore!
I must confess I didn’t originally enjoy DS9 because of its long arcs and downbeat attitude but just in the last month I have become hooked on the show – clearly my tastes have changed.
I am also a big fan of Star Gate – which itself had mostly single episodes only . But the most recent Star Gate show was completely different, it seemed to target a completely different audience and I believe is why it ultimately got cancelled… a warning for the next Star Trek.
My biggest problem with both Star Trek and Next Generation was how often the command staff was in excessive danger, doing things that ship commanders wouldn’t do on a dare. However, there are also stories which did make sense for a command staff.
Once upon a time (failed memory time), there was a high tech detective show which had several detectives working different cases with a common back office staff. I think Star Trek would have worked well in a similar format. A few episodes would focus on the bridge staff as the integral part of the story, but other episodes would focus on the away team (which were specialists in whatever they did) doing stuff with bridge support. If done properly, there would be two or three different sets of “stars”, with rotating episodes. Occasionally there would be Law and Order episodes where several teams interacted, or where the problem was handed off from one team to the next.
On the other hand, I also like the “Poul Anderson” stories set in a declining society.
No no no! Episodic content is utter shit. I’ve seen all the seasons, of all the star trek shows multiple times. Those and others I’ve been able to basically see first, the 2 middle episodes and the last of every season. They contain 90% of the content. There’s little character development done in between as well, so you lose out on little to nothing. It’s bad, it’s horrible.
I felt that Star Trek Enterprise took things in the right direction, I actually enjoyed that show. Except for the 4th season which was utter shit due to its episodic content.
NO. Come on, it’s played out, been there done that.Voyager was terrible, Enterprise was worse and even DS9 was never great. If it was something new, not set on the Enterprise, and different maybe.
Remember DS9 and Voyager were different because they were on new networks (UPN/WB) and that freedom doesn’t exist anymore and I’m sure the network would interfere with anything that didn’t look like “Star Trek”
Starfleet Academy scares me, I can see the network turning it into [insert teen high school show here] in space..
cough B5 cough
I fear a new series will really suck. It will feature actors who are way too young and sexy, and will be like a soap opera and a bad action film combined. That was the direction it was going in before it faded away, thankfully. And that is the direction most things are going in these days. I hope it just stays dead.
There is absolutely no reason to think the new Star Trek series will resemble the episodic nature of the older shows. The streaming delivery format pretty much demands that they tell a continuing story because no one will happen to channel surf into a show.
This show — good or bad — may have some of the optimism of familiar Star Treks, but it will definitely be a show with storytelling that fits comfortably in this decade.
Your theory about seasons vs. episodes doesn’t hold water either. It’s been almost 50 years since a Trek series had a great first season. TNG, DS9 and ENT took three seasons to get going and VOY never held a candle to the best TOS eps.
@9 – Theo16: I used to remember the same about DS9’s first and second season, but on rewatch they’re both very strong, with just a few stinkers.
@@@@@ 4. fcoulter
I love your idea and it could mean we saw so much more of the crew than just the bridge officers.
The best episodic shows do have character development over series, each story a character is involved in affects them, it isn’t mpossible to do both episodic stories and character development. In the better crime shows characters do things like getting promoted, posts that would have a change in officer get a change in officer, in other words you don’t get the Rikers etc staying as Number One forever.
But that’s not because they’re the best shows, it’s because how episodic TV is done nowadays versus how it was done in TNG’s day.
It will be good, or it will be bad.
But if it is bad, who cares? It is not as if anyone will have to watch it.
I’m all for episodic Trek. Not that there’s anything wrong with a multi episode arc, but I’ve always preferred short stories over novels. I just don’t have the patience to sit through three or four seasons of a continuing storyline before it “gets good.”
“’ll be blunt here: I am highly skeptical whenever I hear someone preaching about how we’re in some ‘Golden Age of Television.’ (It’s almost always a person who doesn’t read books.)”
Let me stop you right there.
I know I prefer episodic tv. I don’t have either time nor attention span to follow huge serialized stories. I want to be able to sit down and watch it when I have a spare hour to fill and not to have to worry about backstory upon backstory. Besides, I’ve always found that serialized drama rarely has enough material to fill an hour. You get five minutes at the start to resolve last week’s cliffhanger setup then it is padding and filler until you get to the final five minutes to set up this week’s. BSG was a particular offender in that regard, with about enough material spread across a season to fill almost two regular episodes and the rest moody staring and people not having conversations in case they actually said something that would prevent a cliffhanger being setup. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for continuity and consistent characterization, looking at you in particular there Voyager, across the episodes but serialization leaves me cold.
When it comes to the content of the New Trek series. I kinda want the writers and producers to go rent a copy of Operation Petticoat, or The Wackiest Ship In the Army, or Down Periscope or something along those lines, and go with that instead of the inevitable angsty grimdark. Just because it is a quasi-military organization doesn’t mean there cannot also be a bit of fun too. Lets see the misfits and odd guys out working together and being heroes, it would solve the problem of nobody ever being promoted too. I’m not talking going full on Red Dwarf, F-Troop, or Phil Silvers or anything like that, certainly not full on dumbass; just quirky. A ship full of Reg Barclays if you will. I’d tune in 9 weeks out of 10 for an episode of that. I’ll certainly be 0 out of however many if they went serialized and angsty grimdark like the last two seasons of Enterprise tried to do.
Well they cant really base a show on the movie reboots can they? I mean between the Instant teleporters that can teleport people from Earth to the Klingon home planet, and the super serum synthesized from Kahns blood that can literally bring back the dead, there really is no need for conventional space travel now, you simply build a small shuttle craft that can teleport between star systems, and inject the crew with the super serum and you can explore willy nilly without any redshirts dying, and keeping inline with the prime directive.
If they simply hand-wave that these 2 new technologies away because ‘they are too powerful’, technologies that are the foundations of the new timeline, then future star trek is doomed to extinction. It would be like banning the invention of the car because it is in every way better then the horse.
@17
And there’s my problem with the Abrams reboot ( which isn’t even a clean reboot but a time loop ).
In TOS, Khan was stronger, smarter, faster, more charismatic than peak human evolution
In the reboot, he has superpowers.
I’d like the new series to draw on and respect the rich setting that the previous five series have developed, regardless of which quadrant of the galaxy they explore or which era they inhabit.
I am all for new Trek, but NOT NuTrek. Consign that abortion to movies – or better yet, let it die. Give me Trek that isn’t about explosions and shiny lights. Give me characters I can care about doing things that are important beyond the moment. I don’t care if its set between Enterprise and TOS or TOS and TNG or whatever. There’s hundreds of stories to be told and they have an opportunity to be great. I just hope we get writers, producers, and directors with a clue.
As long as more care is put into the stories than most recent efforts. That will matter more than the setting and tone.
I think that plenty of shows do, and Star Trek certainly can, combine single-episode stories with long-arc development. It isn’t a case of either-or. A good show can kill both birds with one stone.
What matters the most for me with regard to Star Trek is that it be truly intrepid. Don’t be afraid to tackle tough questions, dedicate great sensitivity to topics, and blow up the old model if it is holding the show back. Go someplace new.
And I very much agree that in this day and time, adventurous optimism is needed. That’s part of what I loved about Sense8. There is plenty of current television deconstructing our present state; it would be nice to have more that looks forward and see’s possibilities.
“I also admit that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine arguably pioneered this method of storytelling for science fiction in the late 1990s.”
While it is my favourite title in the Star Trek franchise, it hardly pioneered seasonal narrative arcs. As I’d hope a book reader such as yourself is aware, ST:DS9 was arguably inspired by J. Michael Straczynski’s Babylon 5, right down to the title of the show.
Leaving aside any accusations of cribbing by Paramount, B5 was conceived as a coherent five-season narrative and, even with the exigencies of production in season 4 and subsequent LOTR appendices-style season 5, JMS accomplished what he set out to do. DS9, while brilliant fun, was a work of improvisation by comparison.
@6: Only if you mean “was not consistently great for every episode and every season”. In which case, it was still greater than TNG, since an bigger percentage of TNG was garbage (the entire first season and almost all of the second, for starters), with far fewer developed characters and storylines. You could also say, using the same standards, that TOS was “never really great”, either, there are just a few episodes that match this standard.
So, in that case, by these harsh standards, no Trek series was “really great”. And generally, there are very few really great series that were always and consistently great. So, why have series on TV at all, when 99% of them are not “really great”?
“I’ll be blunt here: I am highly skeptical whenever I hear someone preaching about how we’re in some “Golden Age of Television.” (It’s almost always a person who doesn’t read books.)”
What does one’s judgment of TV series today on the whole have to do with whether one reads books or not?!
That makes about as much sense as if you said: “I’m skeptical when someone says that [period A] was a golden age of literature, it’s almost always someone who isn’t interested in sculpture” or “I’m skeptical when someone says [period B] was a golden age of painting, it’s almost always someone who doesn’t know a lot about music”.
@13 – ad: Silly rabbit, we trekkies will have to watch it! :)
@17 – Terry: They can’t because the rights for Star Trek in film and TV are separate. Plus the previous Star Trek TV shows ignored revolutionay technology in a routine basis.
I’m so very tired of this argument, mainly because it’s used so often to defend the NuTrek movies. (“They’re exciting! When was Trek ever exciting before?”)
I agree, Voyager and Enterprise were not very good, although Enterprise was getting better. I don’t think the franchise was tired, I think the people running it had run dry. There’s a big difference.
Saying Trek is played out is like saying Science Fiction is played out. I think this site is proof that science fiction writers still have plenty to say.
Where Trek’s been failing is in storytelling (it needs SF writers) and trying to meet some hypothetical demographic (“Maybe if we had younger actors?” “What Trek needs is women in tighter clothes!” “How about using decontamination gel while in their undies?” Pardon me, but yuck.)
I’ve recently discovered Stargate SG-1 which was all Star Trek should have been these last few years. A charismatic crew, smart stories, grounded and not pandering. A sense of humor. Continuity and episodic. I’ll watch that series over again before I ever venture back into an Abrams-verse (which really did shoot itself in the foot for the sake of plot expediency with the magic blood and suitcase sized unlimited transporters.)
But seriously, if SG-1 can do it, Star Trek can too. I don’t think Stargate Universe negates my argument. They messed with the formula and it didn’t work for the series’ core fans. Plus 1 for experimentation, Minus 3 for going after the Battlestar Galactica demographic without the smarts, pandering and not giving the fans the show they enjoyed.
Yes, I’d love for Star Trek to be back on TV, in the hands of people who love SF, the way they people who now run Doctor Who love Doctor Who. Having anyone who’s worked with Abrams (i.e. Kurtzman and Lindelof) involved with it makes me think this won’t be the Star Trek for me.
I expect that it may be mostly episodic but with some elements that carry across episodes. I would be looking forward to the new series if it was actually on TV. Instead they want Star Trek fans to fund their CBS All Access service. From what I understand CBS All Access isn’t even commercial-free. I will wait for the DVD season sets from this venture to be affordable, and only then will I watch.
Now, if you told me the showrunner was JMS, then I would definitely watch it, but doubt Paramount has enough money to get him over past wrongs!
As others have pointed out, DS9 was a cheap rushed into production imitation of B5, meant to get out there before JMS could get his project funded. If you let Joe play in the Star Trek universe, he would find us something fun to watch!
” Here’s something to consider: can you name a great episode from the “peak TV” shows of this decade? Or has it all been mashed into one big blob that you barely remember?”
Um, does the title, “Red Wedding” ring a bell?
As for me, I’ll remain hopeful and optimistic whatever period or format the new creators elect. And if, as so frequently happens, my optimism is crushed under the boot heels of mediocrity, then I’ll just rise up and remain hopeful and optimistic for the next one.
A Starfleet Academy series would please me no end. And I will give the new show a shot, whatever they come up with. But I hope they embrace the optimistic worldview and expansive outlook of the original series.
@29: DS9 was not an “imitation” of B5. I’m so tired of that silly argument meant to put DS9 down in favor of B5. They were both set on space stations. That’s it. When you have a series set in space, you can either set it on a space ship, or you can set it on a space station. And when you set it on a space station, you are going to have recurring characters and storyarcs. By that logic, all series set on a spaceship must be ripoffs of each other.
As for “cheap”, I don’t know what their budget was, but it certainly didn’t look any “cheaper” than The Next Generation, or, for that matter, Babylon 5. Nor do I know that it was “rushed into production”. If you have any evidence that it was, please provide it.The storylines certainly couldn’t have been that rushed, since Bajorans (and Ensign Ro) and Cardassians had already been introduced in TNG in 1991. And if it really was rushed into production, more power to them for finding such a great cast.
@30: “Red Wedding” is not the title of the episode. But anyway, I don’t think that “Rains of Castamere” is such a great episode overall, it gets mentioned because of the Red Wedding, which was adapted from the book pretty well, if not perfectly (it would have been nice if we had had some inkling that thousands of people died at the Red Wedding and that most of the Northern families lost family members and men, as well as that Robb Stark had people willing to fight for him, rather than being all on his own with his wife and his mother), but the rest of the episode was just OK. I think “Blackwater” from season 2 was the best episode of Game of Thrones. Season 1 “Baelor” was also great.
I guess that answers whether I can name episodes of current/recent TV shows. I can also name episodes of older TV shows. But, I’m a geek, I spend time on forums dedicated to TV shows, I vote on best episodes, etc. A casual viewer would not know names of episodes of Game of Thrones, or The Americans, or The Sopranos, or Star Trek: The Next Generation, or The X-Files, or the original Star Trek series, or The Twilight Zone, or any show. If someone who likes Star Trek or The Twilight Zone can tell you names of its episodes, chances are they are also going to be able to tell you episodes of Game of Thrones or The Americans or Hannibal or whatever else they have watched, if they are watching these shows, while the casual viewer will simply describe any episode as “the one where… [this and this happens]”. The dychonomy attempted here is completely false.
Personally I don’t see where the Author thinks people aren’t excited about this. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, that I know who has heard, or been told or I have told, about the fact that there’s a new Star Trek TV series in the works is super excited. And most of the folks I’ve talked to aren’t even superfans of the series. They’re just people who generally like Star Trek. So it’s not just die-hard trek fans that are excited or interested in the new show. Honestly it’s not been very well reported on at this point. I’m a big Trek fan and I sort of stumbled on the information rather than hearing about it from multiple sources.
So, yeah… most people I’ve met and/or know are stoked that a new Star Trek is coming to the small screen. Most of us, however, are a bit irked that it’s only going to the streaming service and not going to air on TV proper. Honestly I think that’s a mistake.
“@30: “Red Wedding” is not the title of the episode.”
True. But my point was (regardless of its quality overall and I agree with you about “Baelor” and “Blackwater”), that it is an episode that is remembered and can be named (regardless of whether the rememberer knows the actual episode title). I remembered “Inner Light” from TNG long before I took the trouble to find out the actual title of the episode.
@33 – apparently we don’t read the same blogs, because I see a lot of negativity about the new series. There are a few fans who will watch (if they can) because it’s Trek and to them any Trek is better than no Trek, fans who will watch because they enjoyed NuTrek, fans dubious about Alex Kurtzman (count me in this group), the usual Trek is Dead group, and a lot of people upset about it being behind a paywall to help launch CBS All Access.
Annara Snow @32:
No, DS9 was not an imitation of Babylon 5, nor was it “cheap” – on the contrary, it had much more funding, which is quite evident in quality of guest actors and production values. However, B5 was conceived from the start as a multi-year TV “novel” with a certain overall arc and character arcs, while DS9 had been conventionally episodic for the the first few seasons and only started to dip it’s toes into continuous arcs later, after B5 demonstrated that there was an interest in that kind of storytelling.
I used to be a huge fan of DS9, BTW, and liked B5 when I saw each of them first a few years after their respective initial airings in the US. But I have recently re-watched B5 on DVDs and fell in love with it, despite uneven acting, jankiness, etc.
My overall problems with Trek after watching everything up to and including Voyager are 3-fold:
1) the old mainstays like transporters, replicators, holodeck, universal translator, etc. strangle so many possible story ideas and invite a lot of lazy re-hashes. I hoped that genuinely interesting premises of Voyager and then Enterprise would move them away from all that easy stuff that makes it difficult to make adventure dangerous and exciting in non-contrived ways, but no. I didn’t even bother to watch the latter when they introduced an “experimental” transporter in the first(?) episode. Zzz… Is there anything that _hasn’t_ been done with a transporter yet? What I later heard about temporal wars repulsed me even more – at that point I wanted a more primitive, “realistic” Trek, different from previous incarnations.
2) high production values are a double-edged sword. As a result in the newer ST series SFX is high quality, but also very expensive and rarely used, so little actually happens _in_ space in any of the Treks, battles are painfully uninspired, etc.
B5 SFX may have been janky, but it sketched a believable, appropriately vast space station, a lot of interesting space scenarios, massive battles that actually made some kind of tactical sense, non-oxygen environments, etc. I want more of that in my space adventure.
3) restriction on types of personalities and arcs the main cast can have in a ST series. DS9 actually did quite well (for a Trek series) there, but they “cheated” by co-opting the “natives” and being able to have recurring characters from surrounding non-federation worlds. Even so, they are quite tame and far less varied/complex when compared to B5 or nuBSG or Farscape… I can’t help but think that a new ship-based Trek could only be relatively bland in that respect.
So, yea, I used to be a big fan of Trek, but I am not sure that I believe that it could/would be done in a new and fresh way, while upholding the spirit of Roddenberry’s vision. Both Voyager and Enterprise failed (IMHO,YMMV), despite having promising premises, because the showmakers were afraid to boldly go in the new directions that their settings offered, to plausibly deal with problems new to the franchise. The Abrams movies aren’t it either, IMHO.
Still, I’d like to believe…
Oh, and all this talk made me realize that I’d really love a Babylon 5 episode-by-episode re-watch here on tor.com… It is still great, overall.
Did anyone see the fan film “Star Trek: Renegades” that should be the new series.
“After all, in the post-Cold War world, the Klingons became allies”.
No. The Klingons were allies starting in 1986, when the Cold War was at least 3 years from ending. (In some readings, it just went into a quiet period.)
You know, I’d be much more enthusiastic about a new Star Trek show if it wasn’t for A) the idiotic distribution plan CBS has (making it only available via a $6 service with ads) and B) the odds being super high that it’ll probably continue some of the worst aspects of Trek, like oversimplifying issues so that patronizing solutions work and generally bashing factions that don’t conform the Rodddenberry ideal (even though the Star Trek universe is objectively a nightmare once you leave the safety of the solar system). Even if they go the Stargate SG-1 route of mostly episodic with light arcs, I’ll probably drop the show if they create scenarios that have very obvious, very practical solutions and wind up not using them due to warped morality that winds up getting more people killed/causing more problems down the line. I’ve seen so much of that in the past few years and I just can’t take more of it.
I really wish I could have more confidence in modern writers, but I don’t think we live in a reality where critical thinking is cherished anymore.
Thanks for your context and summoning up what was done with the original series. I can only hope that the new series will utilize the current social, political, etc. world and create some stories that one can sink their teeth into. Thanks for your hopeful spin; I was a definite nay-sayer upon hearing of the plans for another series–I will side with you and look forward with hope.
I’ve never seen the animated ST but I’ve seen all the others and for the most part liked/loved most of the shows. There was the occasional “bad” episode but that is to be expected.
As for the new series I’ll just wait and see – hopefully it will be released in a format like DVD as I won’t pay a monthly fee to watch any streaming show. It is just not a reliable option where I live, much like cell phone reception (no signal on my road).
I’m personally looking forward to both Star Trek: Renegades (Walt Koenig is in it by the way as Chekov) and Axanar. It is nice having options for Star Trek and not having to rely on the powers-that-be to decide they will allow ST fans to have a new series whenever they feel like it.
Fingers crossed as I wait.
Because television still chases the younger age range and the belief exists with those who have both the authority and financial purchase to cause something to exist as a series or not that the desired age range wants to marathon genre TV, it is likely that this is not going to be stand alone (or largely stand-alone) episodic television. Secondly, and as I have stated elsewhere, in addition to the pause that the content delivery system to be used here is one I neither favor nor would participate in, I also have great qualms with the person who will largely either be in charge or pick the people who will be in charge of day to day show running of this series.
All that said, it’s way to premature to prejudge anything with any seriousness other than the decision to stream. I do agree with other posters that I’d likely watch this as DVDs and as even Netflix releases their original content on DVD, I would suspect that will be the case here.
There’s also the independent movie Captain Pike coming up Captain Pike Movie
It has several actors returning from various incarnations of Trek (including Walter Koenig) and other Sci Fi favorites.
It looks a bit “fight-y” for my tastes (the reason I don’t play the Star Trek games – they all seem to be about tricking out your ship, armor and weapons to win fights. A galaxy to explore and all you get is Final Fantasy. Without much fantasy.)
But I’d still support this as it’s heart seems in the right place.
Speaking of Game of Thrones, I am a fan of Westeros as an adult because I loved Middle Earth and Narnia as a child. Think of how well the Avengers did in a world where The Dark Knight was still the dominant superhero blockbuster. Optimism and fun definitely have their place in our entertainment, if only to introduce another generation of fans to the genre they will someday turn gritty and dark to prove they are adults.
And then those same kids, after proving their adults, will look to go back to the “fun roots” of the genre they like, because they’re fed up with grimdark stuff. It’s a cycle. :)
@44/rfresa: I’m not sure what to make of your comment. Are you really suggesting that dark and gritty stories are automatically more adult than optimistic ones?
No, I believe he’s saying that readers/viewers who grow up with certain kind of more innocent stories many times grow up to write/produce darker fictions of the same genre, to “prove” they’re adults. And I added that many of those who “prove” their adultness, then go back to brighter stories to recapture the sense of wonder from their childhood.
In essence, believing that grimdark is more adult and better than optimistic stuff is kinda dumb.
In that case, I agree!
I don’t agree about dark and gritty stories being more “adult” – except in the sense that certain forms of entertainment have an age rating imposed on them.
To me, scenes of over-the-top, ridiculous violence are the equivalent of a child acting out for attention – and adolescent power fantasies – the opposite of adult, intelligent ideas and discourse.
I will agree dark and gritty may be a phase people go through. I’m beyond tired of it. And I don’t want it in Trek, which is about ideas and humanity as a whole maturing.
@30
“Blink”
I liked Enterprise and DS9, it wasn’t largly “oh <insert guest star here> is going to be the cause of all conflict in this episode”. DS9 had lots of political stuff and remants of war, and Enterprise had the freedom to actually go out and explore.
I am really excited and looking forward to a new Start Trek television series! I agree with those who say that we should be extremely supportive by expressing what we want from the show instead of complaining. Keep in mind that CBS All Access might have a good line-up of shows by the time the new series launches for which we might get more bang for our buck. I, for one, would be willing to pay $5/month for 24 amazing episodes per season like we used to get back in the day (one can only dream right?? LOL). I feel it would be well worth it to choose what I want to watch instead of paying cable an ungodly amount of money for garbage channel overload.
So CBS, here’s my wish…. Please stay in the original time line. Bring us intellectual, scientific substance (along with the action-packed battles your writers are craving to put out). Keep it clean enough so that a family can watch it together. This should keep us die-hard, loyal Star Trek Fans and newbies happy and coming back for more. Also, just a thought….. How about a writing or story line contest to bring in some fresh ideas???