General Star Trek thread

pixelburp

Not explicitly Discovery related, but supposedly Alex Kurtzman will pen a 5 year, $25 million deal with CBS to spearhead a Trek expanded universe on TV. The rumour mill is also rumbling over a Next Gen sequel of some form, involving Patrick Stewart... which while intriguing, one now the other projects sounds like a teen oriented, Starlet Academy show :rolleyes:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/alex-kurtzman-inks-25m-deal-extension-cbs-tv-studios-will-expand-star-trek-tv-franchise-1104232

Goodshape

Obviously the thought of P.Stew back in his space suit is just fantastic... But when the other ideas are rumoured to be a Starfleet teen series from the makers of Dynasty, and Khan: The TV Show.... Well :-/

https://io9.gizmodo.com/report-a-next-generation-sequel-could-be-included-in-a-1826956945

pixelburp

It's also worth emphasising that they're just rumours, and rumours that are supposedly in very early stages of development. So if true, it's equally possible they won't ever see the light of day - especially if the feedback is so negative.

A Khan prequel is just ... weird. I mean, I can sorta see the reasoning behind a Starfleet Academy show, it's not a totally awful idea if it avoided being too CWesque, but who would a Khan back story be for? What clamouring masses are eager to see the eugenics wars of the 1990s?

Evade

If the reason Khan is being thrown around is a more amoral Trek series Section 31 would be a much better fit. A Lower Decks series would probaly be better than an Academy series too.

AMKC

Evade wrote: »

If the reason Khan is being thrown around is a more amoral Trek series Section 31 would be a much better fit. A Lower Decks series would probaly be better than an Academy series too.

Why not have both an Academy series and a Lower decks series? Have the best of both worlds.
A hope some of these rumours are true and that they make intelligent, interesting shows with great storys. Not a dumbed down show like a lot of TV shows and movies these days.

Evade

AMKC wrote: »

Why not have both an Academy series and a Lower decks series?

I don't really see there being enough story potential to set a whole series in Starfleet Academy. Maybe if the main characters were Red Squad but even then it doesn't seem like there's much to do without some big incident happening there every few weeks. Starting a Lower decks series with the characters as fourth year cadets could work though.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

I don't really see there being enough story potential to set a whole series in Starfleet Academy. Maybe if the main characters were Red Squad but even then it doesn't seem like there's much to do without some big incident happening there every few weeks. Starting a Lower decks series with the characters as fourth year cadets could work though.

I'd say the Academy idea is more about a cheap, soap opera style show set in and around a limited number of locations. Keeping everything on Academy grounds around San Francisco would be cheaper than the fortune currently spent on Discovery, and some love triangles with Andorrian twists would be easy to knock out.

Seems like between CBS and Paramount there's a LOT of Trek TV & film floating around the early stages of development. Wonder what, if any, of this will get made.

Technocentral

Would love to see Stewart back, can't stand that Discovery series.

Evade

Evade wrote: »

I don't really see there being enough story potential to set a whole series in Starfleet Academy. Maybe if the main characters were Red Squad but even then it doesn't seem like there's much to do without some big incident happening there every few weeks. Starting a Lower decks series with the characters as fourth year cadets could work though.

As a teenager I was a big fan of the Star Trek Academy series of novels. Each were single character centric as different characters from TNG went to the academy at different times. I'd not be in favour of an X-men first class type thing where they all went to school together as it'd pee all over canon, but it could maybe work.

The setting doesn't change but each episode is character centric with a trip or event each time allowing for action or drama.

Rawr

Deleted User wrote: »

As a teenager I was a big fan of the Star Trek Academy series of novels. Each were single character centric as different characters from TNG went to the academy at different times. I'd not be in favour of an X-men first class type thing where they all went to school together as it'd pee all over canon, but it could maybe work.

The setting doesn't change but each episode is character centric with a trip or event each time allowing for action or drama.

I remember the 90's Starfleet Academy game which also incorperated a sort of "mini-series" with character arcs and drama etc... It was kind of fun, but I think that was mostly because these kids were also crewing your ship.

This talk of an Academy / Lower Decks type of show keeps giving me flashbacks of Starship Troopers for some reason. Much in the same way that film had older teens going through basic training, and then onto lower ranks of the army, I can kind of imagine something similar potentially working in Star Trek (if handled properly).

For example a series set after the TNG-era where we meet some characters as cadets and then follow them as a Galactic War prematurly presses them into Starfleet, to refill the depleating ranks of a losing Federation side. Loads of potential for character building, drama and building on top of the ST universe (rather than constantly retconning it)

Alas...they'd probably never do that...

Evade

Lower decks has a built character tension element that Star Trek hasn't really done before. The chiefs, most of the petty officers, and even some of the crewman will know an awful lot more about the day to day operations on on a starship despite the new ensigns outranking them.

Goodshape

Rawr wrote: »

then follow them as a Galactic War prematurly presses them into Starfleet, to refill the depleating ranks of a losing Federation side.

Whatever happened to the post-scarcity socialist utopian Star Trek of my youth . Galactic war and a losing Federation side just seems like boring, lazy, generic sci-fi writing to me.


So, yeah, that's probably what they'll do.

Rawr

Goodshape wrote: »

Whatever happened to the post-scarcity socialist utopian Star Trek of my youth . Galactic war and a losing Federation side just seems like boring, lazy, generic sci-fi writing to me.


So, yeah, that's probably what they'll do.

The space battles were kind of what attracted the younger me to Star Trek in the first place (and Wrath of Khan sealed the deal ), so I guess I'm somewhat corrupted in that respect.

The reason I'd like to see more conflict in Star Trek is because I get quickly bored of this utopia stuff, with spotless planets protected by an invincible fleet of god-mode reset-button-enabled starships. Eventually I just stop suspending my disbelief.

Effictive villains like the Classic Borg, or the Dominion and their ability to press our protagonists into the stress of survival has a knack of removing all that gloss and making them more interesting to me. As Quark once said, take away the hoo-mans' holodecks and root-beer (is this the only softdrink in the 25th Century?), and they become as nasty as Klingons which for me is a lot more fun to watch

By all means show the utopia, but I feel that they should also show its cost and its dark side (Section 31 etc...). It doesn't need to be a war nessisarly to trigger this, but I would like to see a future universe with many layers and not just Roddenberry's sanitised vision of it.

Evade

Goodshape wrote: »

Whatever happened to the post-scarcity socialist utopian Star Trek of my youth . Galactic war and a losing Federation side just seems like boring, lazy, generic sci-fi writing to me.


So, yeah, that's probably what they'll do.

The post scarcity stuff is pretty boring, there's no drama. A good way to explore it though could be what was alluded to in TNG and flat out stated in DS9, it's a lie. There are place in the Federation that are like that but there are plenty of places that are struggling if not flat out failed societies. Granted most of the ones shown might not be Federation colonies but they are a lot of humans there hinting that they were intended to be.

pixelburp

Goodshape wrote: »

Whatever happened to the post-scarcity socialist utopian Star Trek of my youth . Galactic war and a losing Federation side just seems like boring, lazy, generic sci-fi writing to me.


So, yeah, that's probably what they'll do.

Evade wrote: »

The post scarcity stuff is pretty boring, there's no drama. A good way to explore it though could be what was alluded to in TNG and flat out stated in DS9, it's a lie. There are place in the Federation that are like that but there are plenty of places that are struggling if not flat out failed societies. Granted most of the ones shown might not be Federation colonies but they are a lot of humans there hinting that they were intended to be.

Hey, if you want post-scarcity Federation / Utopian stuff, there's a TV adaptation of The Culture (Iain M. Banks) on the way; that book series took the basic tenets of the Federation's 'no money socialism' and ran with it, taking it to somewhat hedonistic extremes: in a world with longer lifespans, no money, disease, social structures or prejudice, humanity (living under benevolent AIs) basically exists like Caligula 24/7.

I don't agree that post-scarcity drama is necessarily boring, it just needs a different approach, but the lazy and easy solution is to drop a literal or figurative grenade into the Federation. Again, the easy solution for Banks was to set his stories on the fringe of The Culture, where its reach is lesser; or, following the Section 31 analogues and their adventures on primitive planets, how The Culture shapes civilisations towards utopia on the sly. That's kinda what DS9 was about, but cynical writing decided to undermine the Federation rather than try to uphold its principals in the face of adversity.

Rawr

Rawr wrote: »

I remember the 90's Starfleet Academy game which also incorperated a sort of "mini-series" with character arcs and drama etc... It was kind of fun, but I think that was mostly because these kids were also crewing your ship.

This talk of an Academy / Lower Decks type of show keeps giving me flashbacks of Starship Troopers for some reason. Much in the same way that film had older teens going through basic training, and then onto lower ranks of the army, I can kind of imagine something similar potentially working in Star Trek (if handled properly).

For example a series set after the TNG-era where we meet some characters as cadets and then follow them as a Galactic War prematurly presses them into Starfleet, to refill the depleating ranks of a losing Federation side. Loads of potential for character building, drama and building on top of the ST universe (rather than constantly retconning it)

Alas...they'd probably never do that...

So exactly what happened in Dominion War

Rawr

Deleted User wrote: »

So exactly what happened in Dominion War

Yes, but with a sort of Lower Decks perspective. I really did like the Dominion War arc in DS9 too.

Technocentral

If only someone could make a ST series as essential as BSG reboot was. Voyager was last ST much watch IMO.

Voyager was reset button mashing, Borg neutering, coffee hunting ****e

_Kaiser_

Technocentral wrote: »

If only someone could make a ST series as essential as BSG reboot was. Voyager was last ST much watch IMO.

I liked the BSG reboot - especially when they brought Cain and the Pegasus into it - but it definitely lost its way in S4 with the whole Final Five/God/Starbuck thing IMO.

Deleted User wrote: »

Voyager was reset button mashing, Borg neutering, coffee hunting ****e

Ah come on.. Voyager wasn't THAT bad. I quite liked the 2-part Dark Frontier for example... besides, the neutering had already begun in TNG with Hugh and the 2-parter with Lore.
There was also Message in a Bottle with the Prometheus, the episode where their liquid duplicates realise they're not the real crew, the Krenim 2-parter etc.

It's definitely better than Discovery anyway which was just a jumbled mess.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I liked the BSG reboot - especially when they brought Cain and the Pegasus into it - but it definitely lost its way in S4 with the whole Final Five/God/Starbuck thing IMO.




Ah come on.. Voyager wasn't THAT bad. I quite liked the 2-part Dark Frontier for example... besides, the neutering had already begun in TNG with Hugh and the 2-parter with Lore.
There was also Message in a Bottle with the Prometheus, the episode where their liquid duplicates realise they're not the real crew, the Krenim 2-parter etc.

It's definitely better than Discovery anyway which was just a jumbled mess.

Voyager took a great premise, which required serialised story telling and went all TNG on it.

It had standout episodes indeed but ruined by the base level of the show.

Also, single Intrepid constantly beating the Borg, creating the Super Ship Delta Flyer from scratch on their free time.
The SS Flyer beating the Borg repeatedly

pixelburp

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I liked the BSG reboot - especially when they brought Cain and the Pegasus into it - but it definitely lost its way in S4 with the whole Final Five/God/Starbuck thing IMO.

Hot Take: I loved the BSG ending and would fight to the death anyone who says otherwise *cue Trek fight music*

They definitely made it up as they went along but I found the finale to be tonally and thematically consistent with all of the show up to that point. Baltar as cult leader was a big dropping of the ball, but the actual Starbuck mystery I genuinely loved.

And yes, Voyager was that bad.

No wait, I'll rephrase: when Voyager was bad - it was REALLY bad. But the problem was that the resting quality levels were generally somewhere between 'Okay' and 'ergh, it's a Neelix episode'.

After the heady heights of TNG and DS9, it was the first show that just lost the spark - before Enterprise took that spark and just rammed it into the ground.

Rawr

pixelburp wrote: »

But the problem was that the resting quality levels were generally somewhere between 'Okay' and 'ergh, it's a Neelix episode'.

Rather poetically, I think you managed to summerize my whole Voyager experience in that one sentence (minus the TV-damaging rage I felt with the Fairhaven episodes.)

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Hot Take: I loved the BSG ending and would fight to the death anyone who says otherwise *cue Trek fight music*

They definitely made it up as they went along but I found the finale to be tonally and thematically consistent with all of the show up to that point. Baltar as cult leader was a big dropping of the ball, but the actual Starbuck mystery I genuinely loved.

And yes, Voyager was that bad.

No wait, I'll rephrase: when Voyager was bad - it was REALLY bad. But the problem was that the resting quality levels were generally somewhere between 'Okay' and 'ergh, it's a Neelix episode'.

After the heady heights of TNG and DS9, it was the first show that just lost the spark - before Enterprise took that spark and just rammed it into the ground.

Ent was tonally off and woefully miscast but season 3 showed a marked up swing. It's a season style which occurs now with Netflix weekend drops.

Season 4 was objectively good and I would really have loved the Romulan war which was obviously where they were going

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Hot Take: I loved the BSG ending and would fight to the death anyone who says otherwise *cue Trek fight music*

They definitely made it up as they went along but I found the finale to be tonally and thematically consistent with all of the show up to that point. Baltar as cult leader was a big dropping of the ball, but the actual Starbuck mystery I genuinely loved.

And yes, Voyager was that bad.

No wait, I'll rephrase: when Voyager was bad - it was REALLY bad. But the problem was that the resting quality levels were generally somewhere between 'Okay' and 'ergh, it's a Neelix episode'.

After the heady heights of TNG and DS9, it was the first show that just lost the spark - before Enterprise took that spark and just rammed it into the ground.

But everyone loved Flotter

Goodshape

Evade wrote: »

The post scarcity stuff is pretty boring, there's no drama.

I kinda strongly disagree. It might not lend itself as easily as a war to the series (or more) long story arcs, but seeing how a future socialist utopia of mankind might deal with issues – including non-threatening issues like "what is this cool new thing we've found this week?" – is infinitely more interesting to me than yet another devastating war or catastrophic event and the hardships and contrived "drama" born from that.

Not that I can't enjoy that sort of drama – I did love BSG – but Star Trek has the potential to be something else. Wrath of Khan and the Borg might be what most people know of it, but it's not (imo) what has sustained such interest and a strong core fanbase for 50 years.

I got bored of DS9 when the dominion war took over. Not saying it was a bad show, just... if I wanted a hard-knocks war drama i'd throw on Band of Brothers or countless other options.

A good way to explore it though could be what was alluded to in TNG and flat out stated in DS9, it's a lie.

A lie would be disappointing. Difficulty on the fringes... that, I might more interested in.

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote: »

A lie would be disappointing. Difficulty on the fringes... that, I might more interested in.

So... Firefly?

Goodshape

I know we can't have TNG forever ( :sadface: ) but when I think of the great episodes of that, it's Measure of a Man, The Inner Light, Darmok, The Offspring, Lower Decks, All Good Things... explorations of humanity and science and all that nice stuff. And of course Best of Both Worlds and Chain of Command – which I think are exceptional because TNG had no over-bearing conflict. You can see and feel the despair of the characters because very obviously it is not the norm.

By DS9's later seasons everyone was so haggard and depressed from these season long battles, it lost that spark.

Goodshape

Deleted User wrote: »

So... Firefly?

Too many tongue-in-cheek wise-cracking nods to the camera. Did not care for Firefly.

pixelburp

Blergh, yeah gotta agree with Mr. Goodshape. Didn't care for Firefly either and between the overwrought Western motifs, Joss Whedon's usual 3 or 4 stock characters, and the excessive self-awareness I didn't really take to it. I suspect its myth comes down to the premature cancellation.