test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Forbes on how to restart Star Trek

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited March 2012 in Ten Forward
I'm just going to place this right... here. How to Reboot Star Trek for Modern TV

This would be (in my opinion) one of the best things to happen to TV in a long time. I mean, honestly, we don't have a good scifi show running right now at all. There's Doctor Who but that's more fiction than science and while I love that show I miss the plausible future of Star Trek.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    And I think with Star Trek, it’s easy enough to solve: have each season revolve around a long-arc mission and all of the things that happen along the way

    I already disagree and this is the first line.

    Star Trek was, in my opinion, at its finest when the episodes were only loosely connected. The original series was like this. TNG was like this. Voyager was like this for the most part. DS9 was like this until the last couple seasons when the war picked up. The short-story nature of it allowed people to watch an episode in the middle of a season and not be lost. This actually lets you get more viewers. :rolleyes:

    Enterprise was not like this. It first started out with a long mission that spanned a season, just like these guys suggest. Look what happened to it. People who didn't like the long story or missed an episode just wouldn't watch any of it. Its final season, which most agree was the best, had gone back to the short-story format.

    Star Trek is not a soap opera. Please, please don't treat it as such. Just my thoughts.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    hort_wort wrote: »
    I already disagree and this is the first line.

    Star Trek was, in my opinion, at its finest when the episodes were only loosely connected. The original series was like this. TNG was like this. Voyager was like this for the most part. DS9 was like this until the last couple seasons when the war picked up. The short-story nature of it allowed people to watch an episode in the middle of a season and not be lost. This actually lets you get more viewers. :rolleyes:

    Enterprise was not like this. It first started out with a long mission that spanned a season, just like these guys suggest. Look what happened to it. People who didn't like the long story or missed an episode just wouldn't watch any of it. Its final season, which most agree was the best, had gone back to the short-story format.

    Star Trek is not a soap opera. Please, please don't treat it as such. Just my thoughts.

    ^Yup. Loved the TNG format :)

    I am not holding my breath for a new series, and if they do it will be to radically different and conflict with my memories of Star Trek.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    hort_wort wrote: »
    I already disagree and this is the first line.

    I was under the impression that was part of a quote that the writer also sort of disagrees with. That paragraph is from another writer: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/10/25/352928/would-star-trek-work-on-television-today/?mobile=nc

    There're no ending quotation marks, so it's slightly confusing where the quote ends and the article begins.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    What's wrong with a season long arc? Enterprise season 3 was great. Even the 2-3 episode arcs of season 4 were great. And no one can dispute DS9's greatness.

    I guess I'm open minded about it.

    But to say that it helps bring in more viewers if they just stick to single episodes? Umm 24 anyone? That show rated through the roof all over the world from what I understand. 8 seasons a telemovie and now a feature in the works?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    naaah the TOS/TNG format is so outdated you will not find ANY show on TV these days that has 45 minute then RESET to status quo episodes.

    the best TREK that was ever produced was ENT Season 4!
    3 Episode Story Arcs.
    - no *omg the plot is dragging on forever*-feeling like... ENT Season 3... or BSG / LOST / DS9
    - and no 45 -done to death-copy&paste-Stories that only will feel like rip offs from old episodes anyway.


    That said, the quoted "line one" of the article already asks for ENT Season 3 Style -> which was pure torture to watch while on TV.
    Season 3 is a good Season when you watch it on DVD back to back, but with a week to wait (or even a Season break in the middle), and then see nothing happening that concerns the main plot of the season for > 10 episodes... it just plain sucked.
    DS9 did the very same thing actually, but that was YEARS ago!!!
    TV did not have 24, LOST, Prison Break and BSG back then... DS9 did a NEW thing back then and it was awesome and bold!
    -> TV HAS CHANGED,
    recycling the DS9 concept only gets you another ENTERPRISE Season 3!
    And we all know how that worked out.


    ***


    The Idea of the Section 31 Series... i think is pretty awesome.
    24 in Space sounds like pure WIN to me.
    I just don't know if the TV watching casual crowd would understand why "Section 31" is such a big deal.

    Sounds more like the perfect show for us NERDS.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    season long arcs are great if you watch them all and invest your time. the problem is when you try to bring new people in and people get confused.

    DS9 was fine because the story arcs where often quite loose. if you want to maximise your audience long arcs are not great for people that jump half way through and have no idea whats going on.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I agree with Captain Revo. It's better for each ep to be self-contained, although having a few contuinity nods thoughout also doesn't hurt for those who are faithfully following the series. Everything doesn't have to be reset to the status quo all the friggin time, but it should be loose enough that any person can miss a few epodises and not get lost at all.

    So this way if they miss a few important things during the story arch, it'd be easy for them to catch up on what was happening.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I would rather see a new series pick up where Romulus was destroyed. I'm all about continuation. And besides I think that would be a great starting point to tell great stories about two species that is so cool, Romulans and Remans of course. To be honest, I guess this series would be the fill in the gap for STO technically, I dont really care about that. STO is a ST world of its own now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    chrislove wrote: »
    I would rather see a new series pick up where Romulus was destroyed. I'm all about continuation. And besides I think that would be a great starting point to tell great stories about two species that is so cool, Romulans and Remans of course. To be honest, I guess this series would be the fill in the gap for STO technically, I dont really care about that. STO is a ST world of its own now.

    Yeah, that would be cool actually. I would love to see how Starfleet would deal with losing Spock (who was highly valuable to star-fleet and having to deal with the "embarrassment" of not being able to save Romulus and stuff like that.

    maybe have a starship that happens to have both Vulcan and some new romulan crew-members, so that their viewpoints are told? Remans might end up being the bad guys though, considering that (spoiler alert, highlight to read) they were the ones who destroyed Romulus by causing that planet destroying wave. I can definely see the Romluans wanting war and vegenance upon the Remans for what happened once they find out.

    I've always found it odd that on STO they do nothing about this.... I would had thought they would find out. I find it odd that Starfleet would just keep that information to themselves. I can see them not wanting to start a war... (highlight the next part to read but again, spoilers) but the remans are actively trying to wipe out the Romulans, so I would say that's a little more important than wanting peace.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    The article is interesting, it proposes 3 different but brief series:

    1) An exploration type show, like TOS, TNG and VOY. Not much needs to be said here.

    2) A "political" show, where we see more of the inner workings of the Federation. It could even be a rather cheap show, as you don't need much SFX for it. Discussing political, economic, social and cultural issues and how a government spanning 150 planets manages those.

    3) "Alias" version of Startrek. A young cadet being positioned into Section 31 to reveal its secrets and dismantle it - seeing Section 31 manipulations and evil but also the good they do and dealing with this.

    These all sound very interesting and I would watch them. 8-12 episode seasons sound great to me as well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Felderburg wrote: »
    I was under the impression that was part of a quote that the writer also sort of disagrees with. That paragraph is from another writer: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/10/25/352928/would-star-trek-work-on-television-today/?mobile=nc

    There're no ending quotation marks, so it's slightly confusing where the quote ends and the article begins.

    Aha! I see what you mean. I was sleepy when I skimmed it. -ducks head in shame-
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I think Enteprise's Season 4 format was pretty good as well, the three episode arcs allowed for a good story to be told without having to take up an entire series. The two parters were some of the strongest episodes of DS9, TNG and Voy, and having a series composed of such things was brilliant as far as I was concerned, I loved it.

    I also feel that not having a continuing narrative in a show like this is an outdated concept. B5 worked well with it, BSG worked well with it, Lost worked well with it. And the smaller arcs with a loose continuity like Enterprise series 4 stopped it disapearing up it's own appature.

    We'll see Star Trek on TV again one day, it's just too much of a cash-cow to dissapear forever, and will always have fans. And the ammount of TV shows and films that've been remade in recent years is a strong case for it being redone as opposed to continued too.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    while the idea is sound, however a season long arc would mean getting all the storyline to match up, the problem is this person wants to do it stand alone episodes. before B5: Crusade hit the wall (ive never forgiven TNT for this excuse they made), i was gripped to it like Enterprises 'in a mirror darkly' because there was enough action and believable emotional outlook to what their saying that its very engaging from episode to episode. the season long arc like that of BSGr and Enterprise's 3rd season, it would require some pretty potent stuff to keep the interest levels up to get through the whole drama stage because star trek is not a drama. look at how SGU failed to win over the sci-fi supporters, just about 1.5million viewers each week in the states for 2 seasons and it got canned, that was a season long arc and more drama based then conflict with aliens.

    i think trek should be kept the way it was during the times of VOY, TNG and DS9, simple stand alone episodes mixed with arcing episodes beginning/end and middle, nothing more then that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    season long arcs are great if you watch them all and invest your time. the problem is when you try to bring new people in and people get confused.

    DS9 was fine because the story arcs where often quite loose. if you want to maximise your audience long arcs are not great for people that jump half way through and have no idea whats going on.

    Yes and no. Under the current way TV "works" that may be true, but that is in progress of shifting.
    TV on demmand it something getting more and more present, I believe its just a matter of a few years until the classic "if you want to watch show X you have to be on your screen exactly at time Y"-way of television is simply gone.
    And then people will not be tied to screening times and with that will simply, if they want to look, the followup to the last episode they saw, even if its a month later.

    But for SOME shows THIS will work the other way arround too. I saw a lot of not-so-great shows in the past because they just were srcreened when I happened to zap through television. Baywatch as an example was screended here regulary after Star Trek the next generation, and when I had nothing better to do I watched it. I would never have switched the TV on for that.
    So probably shows will soon just be watched by those who care for it and wont have an advantadge through beeing put into the right timeslot.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Star Trek Deep Space 9 seemed really dark and character driven and complex back in the 90s.

    After Breaking Bad, The Wire, Madmen and the like, Star Trek Deep Space 9 just seems all warm and fuzzy and formula driven.

    I'm not sure this article is even relevant within the context of current TV development, let alone future reboots of a Star Trek series. But it's about trek so it's a fun read.

    :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I'd rather see Star Trek not turn into this. I can easily wait a nice amount of time for a proper Trek.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I suppose I see both sides of this issue as having valid points. While novel-length TV is becoming the in thing these days with shows like "Lost" and such, these are fads that come and go. Voyager had a good overall story arc, but didn't rely on ponderous storytelling to get it's point across ala Ent season3. The biggest issue I ever had with Enterprise was that it promised something new and exciting, but gave us voyager and DS0. People want a plausible storyline in any storytelling medium. Just don't set a series deep in the future and then dress them in off-the-rack target suits.
    If you want to revive Star Trek at its best, look at what made it work in the first place. There were good, thought provoking stories involving the human condition and controversial subjects. Don't proselytize or preach, just give us different viewpoints and wrap it up in a starship to the frontier. Give us believable character interaction developed through good storytelling and developing relationships.



    And chicks in miniskirts. Lots of them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I think that a new Trek series should stick to the "To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before" bit. My thought is to skip ahead to 2430-70, with the premise that advances in Quantum Slipstream Drive technology has finally made it possible to reach the Milky Way's nearest satellite galaxies in a year or so (e.g. the Magellanic Clouds, 130-150,000 light years away, which would also provide a name for the show: Star Trek Magellan). This would result in our heroes' starship being dispatched on Starfleet's first true intergalactic mission of exploration. Making the first voyage to a new galaxy would continue the "where no one has gone before" part, and being a full year away from home would bring some similarities to Voyager inasmuch as help from Starfleet would be unavailable except for periodic subspace radio contact--they'd be on their own out there.
Sign In or Register to comment.