Bridge Commander Central
Recreational Forums => Trek Discussion => Films & Shows => Topic started by: JimmyB76 on May 29, 2013, 12:50:06 PM
-
some things were mentioned in the Trek XII thread, as to Trek's future, but i figured it would be cool to have a thread discussing and speculating about the future of things...
please keep this thread about the future of things to come instead of about Trek XII specifically... i know it may be difficult to do so, but please try to leave topics about the movie specifically in that thread... we'll give this a shot, this thread can always be merged into the Trek XII if need be...
i came across an article just now which gave me the idea to start this thread...
What's the future of Star Trek after "Into Darkness?" (http://io9.com/whats-the-future-of-star-trek-after-into-darkness-510291083)
Star Trek Into Darkness is a hit movie ? it's just not enough of a hit for Paramount. What does this mean for the future of Trek?
In its second weekend, Star Trek Into Darkness dropped a vertiginous 46.9 percent, a bigger fall-off than the first J.J. Abrams Trek movie in 2009. Most box office experts now expect the second rebooted Trek film to fall short of the $255 million that Trek09 made domestically. And yes, STID is performing better overseas, thanks to a huge campaign, but not enough ? and studios still care about domestic gross a lot, for reasons that are too complicated to go into here (http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable).
Like the first Star Trek, this was a fantastically expensive film, with a budget estimated around $200 million plus mammoth promotional expenses. Star Trek Into Darkness will definitely wind up making a profit, especially when you factor in DVD and VOD and so on, but it's not the megahit Paramount wanted.
Let's just restate the above before we go any further: we're talking about a successful movie, that will probably make a profit.
The thing is, 2009's Star Trek was moderately successful, given how expensive it was, and Paramount was probably hoping that Into Darkness would be the Dark Knight to Trek09's Batman Begins, as Forbes' Scott Mendelson explains here. In other words, the first movie did pretty well, but they were hoping it would set the stage for the second film to be a huge monster hit, not just another okay performer.
And worse news? Star Trek Into Darkness did worse among young movie-goers than the first movie, as The Wrap explains (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/star-trek-darkness-needs-younger-box-office-fast-194907698.html):
Only 25 percent of those who went to see "Into Darkness" were under 25 years of age. That's considerably less than the 35 percent that the previous film attracted, and it's far more older-skewing than the first-weekend audiences for Disney's "Iron Man 3," which was 45 percent under 25, 27 percent families and 21 percent teens.
That makes it a less valuable property to the studios, which really want to capture a young audience. And it also means the series has less of a future, as the people who really want a new Trek eventually die off.
Oh, and the Star Trek game failed pretty spectacularly around the same time, which probably also meant the younger crowd wasn't feeling the Trek.
The good news? This movie has scored well with audiences, and has generally gotten good reviews ? although obviously people can disagree about that. There's no denying that Darkness has a lot of good will out there, and it's maintaining an enviable 87 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. (Not that it matters, but I stand by saying "it's not terrible, it has some fun parts, but it's really dumb.") So it could have longer legs in the coming weeks ? but that second weekend was a bad sign.
The other good news? Star Trek's 50th anniversary is in 2016, and you have to assume that Paramount (and CBS) see this as an opportunity to get extra publicity behind whatever they choose to do in that year.
What is Star Trek's brand?
Lots of people have different theories about why Into Darkness was only a regular hit instead of a massive hit. Like, maybe four years between movies was too long. Or the whole "is it Khan or not" dance confused and turned off regular moviegoers. Or maybe, it just looked too dark and depressing, based on the marketing and stuff.
But none of those explanations really ring true to me. The thing about keeping people guessing about Khan really only mattered to die-hard Trek fans ? the sort of people who didn't go to Into Darkness probably barely know who Khan is, based on seeing Wrath of Khan on late-night cable TV. And a four-year gap was not too long for the Batman films.
The explanation is probably more like: There's still a Star Trek ceiling, and it's gotten a little lower since the first Abrams movie. And this movie didn't market itself in a way that explained to people why they should see a Star Trek film instead of Iron Man 3, if they want to see shit blow up. Both movies had almost identical trailers, with shit blowing up and a villain voiceover that explains we're not safe and heroes fail. So if you're only going to see one of those two movies, why Trek?
That, in turn, gets into the question of, What's Star Trek's brand? I know what Batman's brand is: It's "I am the night" and big black cape and punching evil and growling and batarangs and the Batsignal. I know what Iron Man's brand is, because it's Robert Downey Jr. in a metal suit.
Not too long ago, Star Trek's brand was "shields are down to 47 percent" and "transduce the tachyon inverters" and holodecks and bumpy foreheads. And nobody cared about Star Trek, beyond the loyal fans who went to see Star Trek: Nemesis. J.J. Abrams made a pretty decent stab at starting to rebuild the Trek brand with his first movie, based on the Kirk/Spock bromance and some fun space action.
But with Into Darkness, Paramount made an effort to broaden the film's appeal and reach more foreign audiences, by getting "away from the Trekkiness of it all." The trailers, as I just mentioned, emphasize that there's a terrorist blowing stuff up on Earth, and they look sort of like Transformers: Dark of the Moon, in terms of cities getting trashed. The fact that a lot of the film takes place on Earth is emphasized, although you do glimpse sequences on Nibiru and Kronos. But for the most part, it looks like any other action movie about a terrorist blowing up cities. On Earth.
Maybe part of the problem is that Paramount did too good a job of downplaying the Trekkiness, instead of making a case as to why people should see Star Trek's "evil terrorist" movie, instead of some other "evil terrorist" movie. This was a brand that was still being rebuilt, and making it look generic maybe wasn't the way to go.
So what's next?
It seems likely that something will happen with Star Trek in 2016, but it might not be another $200 million movie unless Paramount really thinks there's a big payout coming from this slot machine.
The other possibilities are: 1) a lower budget movie, designed to win over people who liked Fast & Furious 6. 2) a new TV show, which could help people reconnect with Star Trek by showing how much storytelling potential it still has.
I'd way rather see a new Star Trek TV show, given that Trek has usually been at its best on television. And with the chance to explore big questions and tell entertaining done-in-one stories, Trek could really spread its wings on the smaller screen if it had the right set of writers. A new TV show could do for Trek what Russell T. Davies and Steven Moffat have done for Doctor Who.
But we don't always get what we want. And maybe a new movie is more likely, given how much has been invested in launching a movie series. And there are pretty easy things that Paramount can do differently next time, if it wants to pimp a Trek movie to a younger, broader domestic audience.
Like, spring for a movie star who has drawing power on his or her own. None of the Enterprise crewmembers in the Abrams Trek is a star who can open a movie, and Benedict Cumberbatch is the star of a beloved TV show who's never starred in a film before. So for a third Trek movie, they might need to get an actor whom audiences would go see if he or she starred in some random heist movie.
But also, with the 50th anniversary of Trek, it's probably a good time to be reintroducing the notion that Star Trek's brand is "exploration." The latest movie even set that up with the stuff about going on a "five-year mission" at last. This is a series that, at its core, is about exploring new places and discovering new stuff. I really believe that can be made exciting to mainstream audiences, even with the Space Age being arguably over.
So let's hope Trek's 50th year brings a celebration of what's best in Star Trek's legacy, along with something new that builds on those five decades of boldly going.
-
I guess the issue is not that Trek measured "bad" in the box office, because when you translate "worth" into "gross money", you're always on the losing side.
I mean, even if the movie costed 100 million and you got 60 million at the box office, you still have to factor in the DVD sales, the related merchandise sales, the reproduction rights taxes and so on.
the issue should be, is the new Trek something that we (as spectators) would want?
I did like the new saga, and that's because I've seen so many other movies from so many different directors that I understand what JJ tried to do.
he's putting ST at a level enjoyable and comprehensible for most people.
because, lets face it... 2 hours of moral lectures and Shakespeare quotes? come on.. seriously? with all the tech you have available and you settle for lectures?
it's like watching LOTR with a big paragraph of text scrolling down over the screen..... why would I need that? I have the books if I want to read!
I think if they really want to do something significant with Trek, they should keep doing movies and just that.... no new series, no new spin-offs, no nothing.... and take whatever time they need to get the movie right and true to the franchise.
otherwise, we end up on the fact I posted above: "worth" as "gross money", and that's not the way to go.
-
very good article.
my opinion is not the "profitable way to go" lol
I would love a new show (ambassador era? so pre-tng but post tmp) based on the notion of exploration, which for me has always been the main premise behind trek, now the bit that ruins this is that i'd want "Treknobable". but keep the holo-deck stuff limited.
of course thinking bout it the ambasador era idea is a bust as it limits what can be done ship wise... that was why tng was great it had great treknology stories and the betterment of humanity thing and the ability to come up with tech ideas with all the past trek to pull from and anything futuristic they need.
-
A new television series for Star Trek (set in Prime Universe, Alternate Universe, Mirror Universe or something else), is definitely preferrable, before making additional movies. While there are some ST09/STID actors who may transition from movies into a possible tv show (Quinto previously did Heroes, Urban is starring in a new FOX show), i'd much rather see a brand new crew, rather than constantly rehashing the "USS Enterprise" theme.
One possibility that i'd like to see, is making a television series actually show us a FLEET of ships, rather than constantly giving us the "The Enterprise is the only ship in range, only ship in quadrant etc". Might be kinda fun to see episodes from different crew viewpoints, rather than just following 1 crew / station.
-
agreed darkthunder.
In the past i thought how about a "mini" series which would as you say focus on numerous crew and ships maybe all interlinked so you could then have:
a station episode/s then during that you have a ship dock and then other episodes focus on that ship, then it could be from there to a ship out on the fringes of space.
a concept i had for something in bc was having the story based on the concept of exploration with a small bit of stuff at DeepSpace3 which is near the blackcluster on the border of federation space. Now it would not be a ds9 thing it would be a federation outpost being upgraded to become a centre of Exploration and then have a fleet(small) that we see in the episodes. those ships would be exploration, follow-up survey ships, science ships, escort ships for cargo ships, cargo ships and even COE ships.
that way you can have a diverse set of story lines on different ships and such but they would be within range of each other for the most part, the exploration ship would be eventually the furthest out.
-
In the past i thought how about a "mini" series which would as you say focus on numerous crew and ships
something I've seen rather frequently lately is that most series are turning to the way of "team of people" instead of "bunch of characters around"
like, for instance, CSI.... CSI began as an Earth-based variant of Star Trek... you know, strong lead, supporting cast, controversial themes, some mistery and action around...
now, they're putting the characters in a more DS9-like ambience, where everyone relates to each other for some reason, like some of them having great bonds to each other (Morgan/Hodges, Morgan/Gregg, Finlay/Russel, Nick/Gregg, Nick/Sara, etc), or old colleagues working together, or family working together, ....
the same approach, I've seen in movies as well... Trek being a prominent example, but also Fast & Furious, which began as a kind of western-like plot (you know, cop, bad guy, girl, betrayal, friendship, and so on) now it's like a more adventurous franchise...
so, if anyone want to take on a new Trek series, they should consider that... not only the main plot at hand, but also secondary and tertiary plots, and how the relationship amongst the characters works to that end.
also, the most recent example of "bunch of characters around" that I can think of is Heroes and Game of Thrones, but eventually Heroes ended up with all the main cast working together in one place, and Game of Thrones is waaaaay out of what I would call "a considerable league" for comparison... it's like the complete opposite way: over there, there's no "collective plot" whatsoever... the main plot of the series is precisely "everyone walks their own way"
-
Ultimately, I believe the future of Trek lies with the fandom, not with the "professionals". People may laugh at the low budget fan films, but they are made by the fans, for the fans. It's a labor of love, not meant for the sole purpose of making money. Granted, there may be some you look at and go "WTF", but we all did it with the TV shows and movies, too. The fact remains, these are produced by actual fans, not by big budget studios seeking to capitalize on the brand.
All over, you have people who build their own visions of Trek - whether it be a custom-designed starship, a new alien race, a captain and crew, so on. They may choose to incorporate whatever canon they wish, or even make their own.
That is the future.
-
i know ive said this before many times - but i think it would be really cool to have a series set in "The Lost Era" (Ent-B / Ent-C era)... there is much that could be done in that timeframe while still keeping true to Trek canon...
-
Due to the culture in American television production at the moment I doubt we will get a new series anytime soon.
However I have been thinking about the 3rd film. If they want to do an action film with a message behind it I suggest they watch The Doomsday Machine or The Ultimate Computer. Both seem relevant to a world using drone weapons and the increase in technology running our lives
-
i know ive said this before many times - but i think it would be really cool to have a series set in "The Lost Era" (Ent-B / Ent-C era)... there is much that could be done in that timeframe while still keeping true to Trek canon...
Jimmy I've always wanted to see the Lost Era too. I mean if you think about it, the War or should I say Cold War with the Klingons, Romulan treachery, expansion of all major powers, maybe the first time we see Cardassians at their peak before the Fed/Cardy war (the first war not Dominion), theres so much going on that era, it be nice.
Adam
-
Due to the culture in American television production at the moment I doubt we will get a new series anytime soon.
However I have been thinking about the 3rd film. If they want to do an action film with a message behind it I suggest they watch The Doomsday Machine or The Ultimate Computer. Both seem relevant to a world using drone weapons and the increase in technology running our lives
The Ultimate Computer revamped, I kinda like that idea... Todays society is pretty much ruled by technology, with computers taking an increasing presence in every facet of day-to-day activities. Imagine a world, where we put those computers exclusively to work, and replace all of humanity? Like Kirk in the original episode, I wouldn't want to live in that world. I think it could make a pretty good movie. Just don't stray into "Terminator" territory, making the computers rise up and want to exterminate humanity :P
-
If they do go that route, could anyone else see Will Smith as Doctor Daystrom?
-
One of the original ideas for Enterprise was to set the first season on earth with our heroes preparing for the journey they were about to embark on. I could see something similar to this working very well. It could be set almost anywhere (my personal preference would be just at the start of the Federation, have Enterprise veterans guest star here and there. Would also enable winks to Star Trek new and old.). You'd have a small earth-based cast, family or members of a Starfleet mission control, and then a cast out on an exploration vessel off Boldly Going. This way the show could be domestic when it wanted, or high sc-fi when it wanted. If the budget is getting tight, do a bottle episode on earth. There is a good way please both audiences. Someone with enough pull just needs to get it started.
-
I got it... (based on Shaun's idea):
Star Trek: Birth of the Federation
Following the recent formation of the United Federation of Planets in the year 2161, our intrepid heroes embark on a historic mission of exploration, aboard the newly commissioned USS Daedalus. First ship of her class, and the first new ship since the Federation was formed. This intrepid crew of explorers, would consist of members from all 4 founding worlds: Terrans, Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, who have all agreed to put aside past differences, and work together as one.
There would be guest appearances from members of the former Earth Starfleet vessel Enterprise, primarily in the form of Admiral Jonathan Archer, who may/may not serve in a similar role to the late Admiral Maxwell Forrest.
-
Kinda disappointing to hear about the box office numbers, but let's be serious here. How many people decided to see Iron Man 3 instead? I don't know what Paramount was thinking in releasing Trek so close to Iron Man. Also, how many people skipped seeing the movie to save a few bucks? The economy's in the shitter, remember?
But to the topic at hand. I love the universe that JJ is creating. I love these movies. But Trek deserves a series. Personally, I'd like a live action series taking place in either timeline that isn't set on the Enterprise(there's no way these movie actors are going to commit to a TV series over other projects) AND a CGI-animated series detailing the Enterprise's adventures in the JJ Universe. This way they don't have to get the actors and it'd be cheaper in the long run.
-
while I generally agree with Joshmaul, I have the feeling that what may have to be done is the same thing they had to do with the Doctor Who franchise...let it die for a while.
clearly, a lot of companies are currently focusing almost exclusively on the need to make a profit, which is the reason for a lot of mediocre preformances and "cash cow" milking
trek may have to rely soley on its fans for a while.
-
good point kcs... if i recall thats how TNG started right? no tv series since 1969 then tng in 1987, granted there was syndication of TOS and obviously the movies but like you say maybe it needs to rest for a while then perhaps we will get another "TNG" set on the Enterprise G lol
but unfortunately due to some elevated cynicism i am garnering as i get older i doubt very much if we will get any of the great trek we know there could be... but we will see.
-
while I generally agree with Joshmaul, I have the feeling that what may have to be done is the same thing they had to do with the Doctor Who franchise...let it die for a while.
clearly, a lot of companies are currently focusing almost exclusively on the need to make a profit, which is the reason for a lot of mediocre preformances and "cash cow" milking
trek may have to rely soley on its fans for a while.
I would say Trek was pretty dead in between Nemesis and the 2009 film.
And I STILL maintain that Nemesis was a decent movie and would have been a much better one if Berman hadn't insisted on making the movie under 2 hours long. Though giving the director's chair to an editor who didn't care to even learn about Trek(at least JJ admits that while working on the 09 film, he fell in love with Trek) was a piss-poor choice. Sure Frakes struck out with Insurrection, but he deserved another chance.
And Enterprise's final episode was beyond weak...and there was no reason to kill Trip. :( Why are my favorite characters almost always the engineers? Scotty, O'Brien, B'elanna, and Tucker. Geordi was good, but he wasn't as good as Scotty.
-
If Agents of Shield takes off and The CW starts to rise up even more with its assortment of genre TV that it's been building up I think Star Trek would be a logical choice for CBS to combat the rest of the market with.
We just have to convince people to watch Star Trek through legitimate channels instead of watching something like Duck Dynasty or American Idol.
-
We just have to convince people to watch Star Trek through legitimate channels instead of watching something like Duck Dynasty or American Idol.
Au contraire, mon capitan!
do watch them... just ignore the advertising..
watching a show causes the network to go out and search for sponsors (advertisers, mostly)... through advertising, they get the funding they need, because people buy the products of the advertisers, who in turn supply the network with money.
if you watch the shows, but don't buy the products they advertise, the advertisers won't get any revenues, there would be no point in supporting a given show, and the network will cancel it.
if you want to support a show, buy the merchandise related to that particular show, like all the goods you have around related to star trek: shirts, DVDs, mugs, caps, mouse pads, pins, you name it...
-
Hmm. I've been thinking about this lately and I had (yet another) idea that will likely never see the light of day.
It's 2199. In the decades after the war, the federation spent much of its time rebuilding. Ships that were better, faster and stronger than ever before. As of late, the veterans of the war have been giving way to the younger generation. Armed with their more optimistic outlook, they have pushed for more exploration and expansion into the unknown.
While on a survey mission in a solar system that seems almost perfect for colonization, a starfleet ship goes down for some unknown reason. Most of the crew managed to get out on escape pods but , something seems to be picking them off one by one as those pods make their way down to the planet. By the time they reach the surface, only a few of those pods are still intact. Of all the pods that survived, navigation control was lost leading to the pods being scattered around the planet seemingly at random, isolating the few survivors into small groups on a hospitable, but unexplored and untamed world with no way of calling for help.
I forsee such a series as being rather like lost, but with a trek twist. But it also has a focus on the ship sent to investigate why the data from the ship has suddenly stopped. The focus would shift between the shipwrecked people on the planet and the ship that is making it's way to the planet as well as their respective problems, contrasting the high tech solutions of one group and the low tech ones of the other.
Then again, it probably won't go anywhere. But if any of you guys happens to make it into the tv industry and start pitching shows/scripts, I'd be willing to let you use my concept if credit is given :P
-
I would reboot Star Trek completely
They need to get away from the 7 man crew lead by a captain premise.
The fans have worked that to death and so have the series.
-They need a leading man "24 Style" and a cast of " every so oftens".
-The story shouldn't be about star travel (we've done that)
-I would use Section 31
- Travel to only Worlds of the Federation and it's enemies
Sets:
One Starship bridge (modular)
(Holodeck)
Star Fleet Command Operations (San Francisco)
(Orbital City Command Center (mostly CGI) Mission Way Station
All other sets would be Heavily CGI
Go for a different look.
Upgrade the tech too ultra futuristic.
I would make the attempt to make the first 3D series too
And...it doesn't need to be named Star Trek at all.
-
Lemme see...
A Star "Trek" series, without any travel? Hmm, last I checked, Trek is another word for a Long Journey. Section 31 are also the farthest part away from being part of the "optimistic view of the future". Section 31 are a shady organisation, bent on doing whatever is necessary to protect the Federation and it's interests. So kinda like the NSA if you want a comparison. And finally...
"Space, the final frontier. These are not the voyages of any starship. Our mission is not to seek out new life and new civilizations. But rather, to go boldly where so many men have already gone before."
Sorry, but that monologue doesn't quite inspire me with the adventurous spirit that the original monologue had :P
-
I think that the series needs a bit of variety, but it doesn't need a total reboot. Having a different perspective is what's called for imo. Most of trek thus far, has been from the perspective of a group of officers with a metric sh*t ton of ultra high tech gear at their disposal.
btw, what did you guys think of my wall of text from earlier?
-
Lemme see...
A Star "Trek" series, without any travel? Hmm, last I checked, Trek is another word for a Long Journey. Section 31 are also the farthest part away from being part of the "optimistic view of the future". Section 31 are a shady organisation, bent on doing whatever is necessary to protect the Federation and it's interests. So kinda like the NSA if you want a comparison. And finally...
"Space, the final frontier. These are not the voyages of any starship. Our mission is not to seek out new life and new civilizations. But rather, to go boldly where so many men have already gone before."
Sorry, but that monologue doesn't quite inspire me with the adventurous spirit that the original monologue had :P
More like:
Section 31
" You believe your world is safe? It is an illusion, a comforting lie told to protect you. We deal with threats to the Federation. Threats that jeopardize its very survival. If you knew how many lives we've saved... you'd agree... the ends justify the means."
Edit: A better itteration
And I think that when a particular eventful or amoral action is taken and reports back to "Control" (Section 31 Command) the agent always says "The Ends Justify the Means"
-
If memory serves me, wasn't "Assignment: Earth" supposed to be a spinoff series centered around the adventures of Gary Seven? If so...I'd like to see something like that. And what springs to mind, of course, is "The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh", the two books centered around the period before Khan and Company escaped on the Botany Bay. Not as a movie or as a full fledged series, but perhaps as a miniseries.
-
That's what I forsee as being the future of trek. Miniseries.
-
A Romulan War miniseries perhaps?...
:(
Alas that is probably the last thing to be conceived of. Regardless of what people think of season 4, the name (or even the idea of being near there again) just brings too much negative connotation with it...
Here is a thought though. Over the last almost 15 years the TNG cast has been popping up everywhere in regards to voiceovers. With the resurgence of TNG's popularity thanks to TNG-R, it wouldn't be inconceivable to have the cast come back in animated form. There would be a huge variety of formats a project like that could assume.
(What I mean to say about popularity is that TNG is on the forefront of Star Trek news and advertisement when the new films aren't being mentioned.)
-
Well, there is apparently a movement to get Enterprise a season 5 on Netflix.
-
Yeah, but compared to say, Veronica Mars, the fan support isn't nearly on the level it would need to be. As much as I wish it was.
-
" You believe your world is safe? It is an illusion, a comforting lie told to protect you. We deal with threats to the Federation. Threats that jeopardize its very survival. If you knew how many lives we've saved... you'd agree... the ends justify the means."
read that line to Bruce Grenwood's voice from the Star Trek XI trailer ("Your father was captain of a starship....")...
MAN that's a badass line!
-
read that line to Bruce Grenwood's voice from the Star Trek XI trailer ("Your father was captain of a starship....")...
MAN that's a badass line!
Nah, the line is fine and all, but Bruce Greenwood's a bad ass.
....Pike... :cry:
-
I finaly got what Saquist is after.
he wants not only darker and edgier, but jet black with razor blades!
one of our newest recruits, here, is doing a beautiful trek with a saladin/hermes class in a crossover set in 2217. i invited this guy in to come drool at our ships. THAT is what I think would make great trek. fill in the gaps between Daedalus and Kelvin and the post TUC/era X/Enterprise-B era
-
you know what I was just thinking?
why not make a series of the lost era, but set in THIS new timeline?..... I guess it would be a major source for interesting plots, and still with plenty of room for character development (which I think is one of Trek's signature features) and attractive FX.
and for one thing, I'd love to see people using ACTUAL TOUCHSCREENS instead of back-lit plastic panels with no dynamism whatsoever.
...but then again,... I came up with that while taking a poop, so... don't take me too serious :funny
-
I finaly got what Saquist is after.
he wants not only darker and edgier, but jet black with razor blades!
one of our newest recruits, here, is doing a beautiful trek with a saladin/hermes class in a crossover set in 2217. i invited this guy in to come drool at our ships. THAT is what I think would make great trek. fill in the gaps between Daedalus and Kelvin and the post TUC/era X/Enterprise-B era
Indeed...
No more sunshine Trek.
-----
Posted by: Nighthawk
Insert Quote
you know what I was just thinking?
why not make a series of the lost era, but set in THIS new timeline?..... I guess it would be a major source for interesting plots, and still with plenty of room for character development (which I think is one of Trek's signature features) and attractive FX.
and for one thing, I'd love to see people using ACTUAL TOUCHSCREENS instead of back-lit plastic panels with no dynamism whatsoever.
...but then again,... I came up with that while taking a poop, so... don't take me too serious
I agree with alot of these points, even if it means not following the Enterprise to avoid the main characters...I still love Carol Marcus...the casting of the new films is excellent...(Except for Robocop)
I also like the upgraded GUI system...the black panel static back lit was kewl in the eighties. That's something I do like about Abrams Trek.
-
this is probably the wrong question.
But why not "sunshine trek" as you put it?
the world as we have it now is pretty horrible why do we need more horribleness.
am i an idiot for wanting something that is uplifting instead of depressing?
-
this is probably the wrong question.
But why not "sunshine trek" as you put it?
the world as we have it now is pretty horrible why do we need more horribleness.
am i an idiot for wanting something that is uplifting instead of depressing?
No, you're not.
-
this is probably the wrong question.
But why not "sunshine trek" as you put it?
the world as we have it now is pretty horrible why do we need more horribleness.
am i an idiot for wanting something that is uplifting instead of depressing?
No you're not. I actually prefer sunshine Trek.
I think Stargate Universe proved that people aren't continuously attracted to sad depressing dark stories with little change.
However we've been on 5 series with Captain and his faithful crew. We need a change in format. The public isn't as enamored with that as we are.
-
there already IS a "darker and Edgier" thing close to trek. Babaylon Five. Which is why I couldn't stand the thing (thought walt was deliciously deviled ham in there)
the problem I see with swapping away from the current format is that half of the people wouldn't "get" it, and the other half would call it boring. there was all sorts of griping when they did DS9 'cause it wasn't on a ship. the day to day stuff like routine patrols in known space would make insta-flops, S31 would come off as recycling James Bond.
other ideas include
a planet based piece, which would be compared to DS9 AND called "boring"
a colonial started with civillians, which wouldn't pique interest;
diplomatic BS (everybody's kind of sick of politics right now)
Shipyards and misadventures of engineers (which people wouldn't get the reason for)
a good potential might be watching cadette class adventures, but I suspect guys like me would start comparing it to "saved By The Bell", "buffy", 90210, etc. imagie the cries of "recycled in HIGH SCHOOL"! :funny
-
Shipyards and misadventures of engineers (which people wouldn't get the reason for)
which would be awesome though :)
there already IS a "darker and Edgier" thing close to trek. Babaylon Five. Which is why I couldn't stand the thing...
I loved B5... i didnt see it as too dark and depressing because the main characters were trying to raise to the ideals and morals that the people in power (in the show) should have been striving for.
-
there already IS a "darker and Edgier" thing close to trek. Babaylon Five. Which is why I couldn't stand the thing (thought walt was deliciously deviled ham in there)
the problem I see with swapping away from the current format is that half of the people wouldn't "get" it, and the other half would call it boring. there was all sorts of griping when they did DS9 'cause it wasn't on a ship. the day to day stuff like routine patrols in known space would make insta-flops, S31 would come off as recycling James Bond.
other ideas include
a planet based piece, which would be compared to DS9 AND called "boring"
a colonial started with civillians, which wouldn't pique interest;
diplomatic BS (everybody's kind of sick of politics right now)
Shipyards and misadventures of engineers (which people wouldn't get the reason for)
a good potential might be watching cadette class adventures, but I suspect guys like me would start comparing it to "saved By The Bell", "buffy", 90210, etc. imagie the cries of "recycled in HIGH SCHOOL"! :funny
Babylon 5 was better (by my estimation) The CGI was poor but the stories were extremely well written and conceived. I also don't see it as "dark" and there was nothing "edgy" about it.
Deep Space Nine was thought of as boring because it WAS boring. (Untill Season 3)
---
Section 31 would come off as James Bond ONLY if you did it like James Bond.
Examples:
SGU Like BSG
DS9 like B5
SG-1 Like TNG
However:
Deep Impact NOT LIKE Armageddon
24 NOT LIKE James Bond
James Bond NOT LIKE Mission Impossible
Sherlock NOT LIKE Elementary
Farscape NOT LIKE Space:1999
Dark Knight NOT Like Batman Returns (I had to throw that in)
-
well i saw it as "harland ellison's revenge". i saw nothing but manipulation, conjobs and general evilness from ALL the species even terrans were depicted as if they were the current congress! that was NOT something you wanted to see in the 90's after the cold war ended.
why call it harland Ellison's revenge? 1. he was involved in it and 2. it struck me as Anti-trek. he pitched a giant fit when his script for "city on the Edge of Forever" got tweaked. the original had a drug dealer involved. i thought it was quite topical for the time, but it definetly wouldna flown. he made the original version of the script available. it's a good read, but would only work NOW...it wouldn't work in the 60's
I'm sorry, but when the Psi corps showed up and it turned out everybody was manipulating everybody else, just like things had ALWAYS been, disguised under a thin veneer of "internationalisim" and cooperation, well...
-
I don't know who harllan ellison is.
But Much like today self interest colors everything. But they over came that to defeat ...not a true evil but other interest.
It took a long time to see this point of view...but B5 was right...
When it comes to organizations, they are always self interested...Religion, Government, Science...all of it.
It is the individuals that make the difference.
-The Founding Fathers of the United States,
-The Students of Tienanmen Square
-First Century Christians
-Issac Newton
-Copernicus
Babylon 5's Delenn, Sheridan, G'kar, Ivannova, Garibaldi
They all had the courage to not only fight their and other organizations but to also save them.
That's a great story in my opinion.
-
It's a shame they never filmed *that* G'kar/Londo ep.
-
I don't know who harllan ellison is.
He "wrote" City on the Edge of Forever. The episode went through several re-writes to get to where it was, and was rather controversial. You can read up on it here if you like. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_on_the_Edge_of_Forever#Production)
-
I've never understood why it was...controversial.
-
As George Carlin so brilliantly remarked, "A cynic is a disappointed idealist," and there is a lot of cynicism bandied around here...rightly so. Saquist is right about everything.
-
I've never understood why it was...controversial.
Intentional drug use aboard the Enterprise. Roddenberry didn't like that idea.
-
I've never understood why it was...controversial.
a member of a military organization who happens to be a drug dealer
that's one reason.
although, I think TNG or DS9 did address that same plot some time...
-
Drug use in City on the Edge of Forever....
I didn't remember that.
-
That's cause Roddenberry didn't like Ellison's original script and we ended up with what we have now.
-
Like i said, it was perfectly topical, but a TV no-no. basically, this dealer on the side was the on who jumped into the guardian of forever and screwed history.
-
Somehow I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
-
The original script had a drug dealer on the Enterprise fleeing into the past, not McCoy.
-
Maybe better placed here :)
-
http://www.startrek.com/article/stid-tops-international-box-office-gross-of-star-trek-2009
-
But ....what was the point in having a drug user on the Enterprise?
-
But ....what was the point in having a drug user on the Enterprise?
[snark]Showing that even in a utopia there is still rot, perhaps?
[/snark]
:D
-
We have another winner in the box office I see. The question remains how well Star Trek XIII will hold together. We may or may not have Abrams and there's the temptation to write a continuity easter-egg fest for the 50th anniversary.
-
50th anniversary
:SWvST:
-
interesting article...
10 Classic Star Trek Plot Devices That Could Inspire The Next Movie (http://io9.com/10-classic-star-trek-plot-devices-that-could-inspire-th-513748056)
-
I'm torn between evil tribbles, evil sexy women, or evil Enterprise crew. :evil:
-
Honestly wouldn't mind a rebooted version of "The Ultimate Computer" or "The Doomsday Machine". Technology run amok? Sounds right up Trek's alley (allegory to current technological advancements possibly?!?)
-
Redjac. That would be awesome. Just set the whole movie aboard the ship. Imagine how much they'd save on location shoots! xD
Set it right slap bang in the middle of their 5 year tour, right slap bang in the middle of nowhere. Make space feel as huge as it really is by isolating the ship!
or space madness. Just imagine the robo crewman dude dancing down the corridors to a rendition of "safety dance"?
-
Redjac. That would be awesome. Just set the whole movie aboard the ship. Imagine how much they'd save on location shoots! xD
Set it right slap bang in the middle of their 5 year tour, right slap bang in the middle of nowhere. Make space feel as huge as it really is by isolating the ship!
or space madness. Just imagine the robo crewman dude dancing down the corridors to a rendition of "safety dance"?
EDIT: Fixed. Can't use https links. // DT
-
Im thinking a very different Ultimate Computer for alt universe movie three.
The Enterprise is testing the M5 just like in the original episode(replace the other four Constitutions with a mix of the Kelvin-bash fleet). The M5(still created by Daystrom) being a result of a sudden and succesful full scale invasion of Romulan space by the Klingons a year prior. The Klingons killed half of the Romulans(including all important civilian, government and military members) and enslaved the rest. The Remans btw would be all but wiped out completely. Right before the point the M5 goes haywire in the original episode a Klingon task force shows up and a skirmish begins. The M5 works this time and four of the five Starfleet ships survive the attack. Then Kirk and company quickly learn that this was not isolated to say the least. Over 2,500 Klingon warships have made their way into Federation space. Many of which popping up deep inside of Fed space due to cloaks aquired from the Romulans and giving the Narada a mention. The final fight would be a full on WW2 style furball involving over a hundred ships from both sides. The Enterprise would be kind of seperated from the main fight and would be going up against two Klingon ships on its own. At the same time dozens of Klingons would be beaming aboard the E and hand-to-hand and close quarters combat would commence on many levels of the ship. The Klingons eventually lose but both empires are left in disarray in their own ways. This leaves the perfect opportunity for the Romulans to rise and overthrow the Klingons.
The next part is what happens afterwards setting up either a fourth movie or the next series.
The Romulans, forced to make friendly with other spieces to somehow find a way back to glory happen upon both the Tholians and the Breen. They form an alliance and things go on from there.
-
Honestly wouldn't mind a rebooted version of "The Ultimate Computer" or "The Doomsday Machine". Technology run amok? Sounds right up Trek's alley (allegory to current technological advancements possibly?!?)
I said that on the first page of the thread :funny