The heart of the matter: The president of CBS hates star trek, he hates anything that shows hope for humanity, he is a pessimist, a sad excuse for a human being and only wants to fleece people, he needs a quick cure to his condition- a fatal heart attack to of humanities way.
there was talk at cbs a few years ago about doing a new animated trek set in like the 26 century a rogue nation had set off omega particle warheads throughout the alpha and beta quadrants basically shutting off ftl travel and communications between worlds for a hundred years now as the new century was dawning the damage was dissipating a new enterprise is launched to travel to former fed worlds and allied worlds to reestablish relations and to restart communications by deploying ftl communication buoys. who knows what the captain will find on these worlds has the vulcans turned into a society like the romuleans has the klingons becomeeee spirital . that would have been interesting to see
0
Options
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,057Community Moderator
I think, at this stage at least, any new Star Trek series is going end up starting out with its foot in a bucket of cement. Not because there is no more mileage left in the franchise, quite the contrary. Trek can (and has) always offered a good backdrop for whatever genre or narrative style is desired. In its total run it has tackled action, adventure, drama, comedy, horror, comedy, social commentary and everything in between. The results may vary but if the writing is strong and story engaging then the episode or series can at least stand on its own merits.
Recently though (and by recently I'm going to say starting about Voyager season 3) it seems like Trek's handlers have treated it rather...well, for lack of a better term, cheaply. And by that I mean the prevailing sentiment seems to have been "Just slap "Star Trek" on it and that will be enough to pull in the viewers." Enterprise seemed to be the most egregious of this. Based on the (overall) low quality of writing, characterizations, and general directionlessness of the plots, had Enterprise not had the Star Trek name on it (or UPN's backing) it probably would have not made it past two seasons, let alone last through four. The Abrams films fair a little better. They are at least entertaining (even if Into Darkness has plot holes you could fly a D'Deridex through) but live in the shadow of TOS films. Even STO has often been described as a space combat simulator with a Trek wrapper.
Any new Trek series proposed is going to be looked on with a skeptical eye by viewers. Not because of how "Trek" it will be, but rather if it will be TRIBBLE like the last one was. Sadly I doubt any studio exec sees that.
I think the core of the issue is that people are going to view any new product through colored lenses. The older fans want to see Kirk being the Space Cowboy again. Some of the newer fans want to see Picard's more level headed approach or Sisko punching Q, or Janeway handling a mixed crew and stabbing macroviruses. You do something different, and people rip it a new one saying "That's not what happened" or "They did it wrong".
Enterprise did have some faults because it was a prequel, which is harder to do because you're constrained by what came before it and have to set up everything we know already. Seasons 1,2, and 4 were, I believe, core Trek as it wasn't all drama. It was one ship exploring the unknown. Season 3... we had the threat of a Xindi attack on Earth in the whole season, but it did show Human Stubbornness. If Enterprise had been picked up for another season, we might have seen the onset of a canon event, The Earth-Romulan War.
Enterprise wasn't perfect. But I feel it wasn't meant to be. It showed a young Starfleet just really starting to get its feet wet. TOS on, Starfleet was a fully established force in the galaxy already. There was really no need to build up becuase... it was already there.
Everyone seems to have this midset as to what they feel Star Trek is, and when something doesn't live up to that percieved image, its easier to just rip it down because its different from what came before then give it a chance to stand on its own merits.
i Think The Core Of The Issue Is That People Are Going To View Any New Product Through Colored Lenses. The Older Fans Want To See Kirk Being The Space Cowboy Again. Some Of The Newer Fans Want To See Picard's More Level Headed Approach Or Sisko Punching Q, Or Janeway Handling A Mixed Crew And Stabbing Macroviruses. You Do Something Different, And People Rip It A New One Saying "that's Not What Happened" Or "they Did It Wrong".
enterprise did Have Some Faults Because It Was A Prequel, Which Is Harder To Do Because You're Constrained By What Came Before It And Have To Set Up Everything We Know Already. Seasons 1,2, And 4 Were, I Believe, Core Trek As It Wasn't All Drama. It Was One Ship Exploring The Unknown. Season 3... We Had The Threat Of A Xindi Attack On Earth In The Whole Season, But It Did Show Human Stubbornness. If enterprise had Been Picked Up For Another Season, We Might Have Seen The Onset Of A Canon Event, The Earth-romulan War.
enterprise wasn't Perfect. But I Feel It Wasn't meant to Be. It Showed A Young Starfleet Just Really Starting To Get Its Feet Wet. Tos On, Starfleet Was A Fully Established Force In The Galaxy Already. There Was Really No Need To Build Up Becuase... It Was Already There.
Everyone Seems To Have This Midset As To What they feel Star Trek Is, And When Something Doesn't Live Up To That Percieved Image, Its Easier To Just Rip It Down Because Its Different From What Came Before Then Give It A Chance To Stand on Its Own Merits.
Yes, he is dead. Again, watch the interviews with the writers. They'll tell you Rick Berman was the same way toward "what Gene wanted".
And with a different showrunner, we could get something else. Battlestar Galactica was in many ways a reaction to the Trek writing environment. (For that matter, DS9 changed a lot when he focused his attention on Voyager.)
One has to wonder how much change is necessary to make a new Trek show successful without altering its core premise; too much change could be as detrimental as no change at all.
you can change something without changing it's core idea. The idea behind Batman is a wealthy man becoming a vigilante to fight crime...and yet we can vary it to have Batman of the comics, Batman 66, Batman 89, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Brave and Bold Batman.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
BSG didn't have the utopian society of the Federation.
what the poster is talking about is Ron Moore took this chance to show us what his version of Star Trek could be. If you read the series bible I posted you can see it's very anti-trek
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Comments
Well, alrighty then...
Just goes to prove if you hang around long enough popularity will smile on you again
My character Tsin'xing
I think the core of the issue is that people are going to view any new product through colored lenses. The older fans want to see Kirk being the Space Cowboy again. Some of the newer fans want to see Picard's more level headed approach or Sisko punching Q, or Janeway handling a mixed crew and stabbing macroviruses. You do something different, and people rip it a new one saying "That's not what happened" or "They did it wrong".
Enterprise did have some faults because it was a prequel, which is harder to do because you're constrained by what came before it and have to set up everything we know already. Seasons 1,2, and 4 were, I believe, core Trek as it wasn't all drama. It was one ship exploring the unknown. Season 3... we had the threat of a Xindi attack on Earth in the whole season, but it did show Human Stubbornness. If Enterprise had been picked up for another season, we might have seen the onset of a canon event, The Earth-Romulan War.
Enterprise wasn't perfect. But I feel it wasn't meant to be. It showed a young Starfleet just really starting to get its feet wet. TOS on, Starfleet was a fully established force in the galaxy already. There was really no need to build up becuase... it was already there.
Everyone seems to have this midset as to what they feel Star Trek is, and when something doesn't live up to that percieved image, its easier to just rip it down because its different from what came before then give it a chance to stand on its own merits.
A-motherf***ing-men!
And with a different showrunner, we could get something else. Battlestar Galactica was in many ways a reaction to the Trek writing environment. (For that matter, DS9 changed a lot when he focused his attention on Voyager.)
you can change something without changing it's core idea. The idea behind Batman is a wealthy man becoming a vigilante to fight crime...and yet we can vary it to have Batman of the comics, Batman 66, Batman 89, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Brave and Bold Batman.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
what the poster is talking about is Ron Moore took this chance to show us what his version of Star Trek could be. If you read the series bible I posted you can see it's very anti-trek
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.