Slashdot Mirror


Babylon 5 Creator Pitches Trek

pdawerks writes "According to Sci-Fi Wire, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski told fans on a B5 Usenet group that he and Dark Skies creator Bryce Zabel have put together an idea for a new Star Trek series, which he said would revive the ailing franchise. 'I got together [with Zabel] and wrote a treatment earlier this year that specified how to save [Star Trek] and develop a series that would restore the series in a big way,' Straczynski wrote. 'I actually think it could be a hell of a show. Whether that ever goes anywhere with Paramount, who knows?'"

25 of 868 comments (clear)

  1. What Star Trek needs by MoxCamel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is a rest. For about 10 years. I don't say that unkindly...I like Star Trek, but familiarity breeds contempt. Only time can make it fresh at this point. Well that and interesting characters, decent writing, and fewer solutions that involve reversing the polarity of something and shooting it out the deflector. But I digress.

    1. Re:What Star Trek needs by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you discuss is called "Deep Space 9." Flawed characters, tons of mistakes, terrorist organizations, even a villain who kept reinventing himself.

      Shit, they even did a whole PATRIOT Act thing (years before it was topical), with squads of Star Fleet commandos combing the earth in search of shape changing aliens who could be anybody. Sisko broke down into a quivering mass at one point -- his father, stubborn as he was, refused to have his blood tested and the captain was forced to admit he was in way over his head.

      That was from season 4. It didn't get REALLY good until the beginning of Season 6, when half the station was working for the enemy and trying to subvert it without detection while the other half was leading the war against them. You haven't seen an episode of star trek until you've seen a thousand Romulan, Kilgon and Star Fleet warships, many of them Constitution class, reduced to smoldering rubble by a combined Cardassian and Jemhadar fleet. That's the kind of gripping, "holy shit Star Fleet isn't perfect" TV that can watch again and again.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    2. Re:What Star Trek needs by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO, ST:TNG had one of the best enemies I've seen in a sci-fi series; the Borg- simply because they were more plausibly 'alien' (in a genuine sense) than any other baddies I've seen in a mainstream sci-fi TV series- as opposed to 'different facets of humanity' aliens in other series (yeah, even B5, which I mostly loved at the time).

      So, what did they do with this potentially brilliant enemy?

      They *humanized* them.

      Hugh Borg was bad. But that cretinous film with the Borg Queen in it was worse.

      Man, they really fucked that one up.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:What Star Trek needs by dtolman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What you discuss is called "Deep Space 9." Flawed characters, tons of mistakes, terrorist organizations, even a villain who kept reinventing himself.

      Exactly! Star Trek doesn't need another reinvention. It needs the friggin writing team from DS9 to come back!

    4. Re: what star trek needs by GorillaTest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >still bought too much oil for their 7mpg gas >guzzlers You phrase it in the past tense. I don't see any change on this one.

  2. Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a scriptwriter! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What is so tiring about Star Trek? Well, when I've watched it it's extremely dull in that the stories don't challenge me to think. The original series challenged a lot of commonly held social values, sometimes having a hard time getting past network Standards & Practices censors. If they make the episodes topical to today's world issues they should certainly stir more interest as people either think to themselves 'Yeah, that's right, that is unfair!' or 'No, that's better the way it is, we shouldn't change!' There are hot issues out there and if they take them on and use the set and actors as the method and galaxy as the vehicle, they should have no problem getting people fired up about the series. Viewers become more passionate about a show when there's something they have at stake being bandied about.

    "Captain, it's a planet where they allow men to marry men and women to marry women!"
    "Well, that's something Earth had to recognise as a fundamental human right..."
    "But, Captain, they're doing it in polygamus unions!"
    "WHAT!?!? Helm to starboard! Weapons officer, load all topedo tubes! Raze their capitol!!"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a scriptwriter! by pilkul · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is basically what the Axis did in WWII. It's also cropped up in fictional works like 1984, Aeon Flux, Equilibrium, etc.

      Um, no. Hilter took power in Germany by leveraging nationalist and racist fervor, and working popular anger about unfair WW1 reparations treaties. The Japanese empire was a result of popular imperialist ideals dating from the 19th century, and a desire to prove themselves as a major world power. In the Soviet Union (which 1984 was meant to represent), the totalitarian state was a direct outgrowth of the popular communist revolution. In none of these cases was fear of terrorism at all a factor. (I haven't heard those science fiction books you mention, though.)

      The importance of terrorism in world politics is actually a rather new thing dating from the 90s. In the past, terrorists had neither WMD nor suicide bombing techniques, so they were much less dangerous. The Star Trek writers probably were more inspired by current events than history.

      Side note: what is it with people conflating fascism, stalinism and (the comparatively *extremely* tame) current US rights restrictions as if they were all the same? These are all completely different, both qualitatively and quantitatively! It makes me grind my teeth together whenever somebody uses 1984 as an analogy for a contemporary phenomenon. 1984 is about communism, and communism is dead. It's just not very relevant anymore.

    2. Re:Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a scriptwriter! by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The importance of terrorism in world politics is actually a rather new thing dating from the 90s
      BZZZT - wrong.

      Q: Which act by an Albanian Arnarchist group started WWI?

      Q: What were the origins of the Mafia?

      Q: What happened at the Munich Olympics?

      Q: What happened in Iran which led to the downfall of Carter, and how many billion did Reagan pay for a ransom?

      Just being not being aware of examples before the 1990's doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      1984 is about communism, and communism is dead
      1984 is about a totalitarian state, and there are still a few of those on earth. Aspects of it also give us an idea of what can happen if things are taken to extremes in other parts of the world which have mostly benevolent regimes.
  3. I've got an idea to save Trek... by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...have Rick Berman shot, drawn, quartered, and then really hurt. That man has done nothing but ride the noble stallion, passed on by Roddenberry, that was once Star Trek to death, and after the horse died, Berman has been beating the fucker with a stick for a few years.

    --

    --
    I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
  4. Oh Happy Day! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What irritated me the most about Berman ruining the Star Trek universe was that it had so much great potential. And he just pissed it away. This could be something very, very cool. I really think that these guys, for lacking of a better description, get it.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  5. B5 by CmdrMooCow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If he has enough ideas to make another trek show, he might as well spend the time to create another series in the B5 universe - it will be better received.

  6. If anyone can save Star Trek... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...from Berman, Straczynski can.

  7. Crew chemistry to win fan-base by geordi177 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Star Trek TNG was the best series by far. What made it great was the chemistry of the crew. Enterprise has lost ratings, in my opinion, due to the crew simply not having good chemistry...it's just not as believable a show because the interactions of the crew seem contrived at times. The captain, especially, puts too much effort into his acting. Patrick Stewart captured the fans because of his ability to convince the audience he wasn't faking it (like any good actor incidentally) Any new series would really have to focus on crew chemistry to gain a fan base

  8. JMS doing trek by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    JMS once talked about his doing a trek series. It was back in the hieght of B5 and someone asked him what he would do if Paramount handed him a Trek series. He said something along the lines of (can't find it on Google Groups right now): I'd start by getting away from the federation. Kill off a few people so the fans know that this is not going to be the same-old and then start to tell some interesting stories.

    It was funny because he said that before Voyager and Andromeda (which was originally a Trek series about the fall of the Federation as Rodenbury had pitched it) came out, and the good points of BOTH of those series were exactly that: getting away from the Federation and establishing their own stories. Woefully Voyager just entrenched itself in its own static mythos and Andromeda as plagued by execs that couldn't stand how dark it was.

    Personally I don't see JMS being able to play ball with Paramount. I think he'd last 3-6 months tops before he blew up at them and walked. He's just not enough of a political animial (his detractors would say he's too much of one) to be able to put up with it.

  9. Can we finally have a Star Trek topic icon now? by motown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on Malda, this is "News for Nerds"! Trek is large enough to deserve a separate category icon (even dispite of "Star Trek: Enterprise").

    I suggest either a picture of the Original TOS Enterprise (NCC-1701 without any suffix) flying towards the user or a Starfleet Emblem.

    You know it makes sense!

    --
    "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
  10. Finally! Someone with skill by PierceLabs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlike others who think that Star Trek needs to go on 'vacation' I don't agree. There is little value to bringing Trek back 10 years from now if its going to be the same as it is today. Berman and Braga are a plague on the Trek franchise that needs to be removed. It is clear that they are too burned out on this franchise do anything useful. For goodness sakes, they have reduced the process of the founding of the Federation into a romp through time. Yeah, creating this massive Federation 'empire' is just too damn boring. I mean all the species, conflicts and technologies that would have to be created would just be too bland to watch.

    The problem is with the writing, not the franchise. Its just not interesting anymore - and this latest travesty (Enterprise) is just adding insult to injury. Blue alien nazis? Someone get these clowns outta here :)

  11. JMS's tolerance... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally I don't see JMS being able to play ball with Paramount. I think he'd last 3-6 months tops before he blew up at them and walked.

    Babylon 5 was extraordinary for two reasons:

    (1) An astronomically talented writer
    (2) Said writer having complete creative control over the show

    That is why Babylon 5 was able to be what it was: an utterly fantastic story stretched over five seasons. JMS himself has said that he had the general structure and philosophy of the story laid down from day one.

    I don't see item #2 having a hell's chance of survival at Paramount, do you?

  12. Perhaps just a total re-engineering... by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you might be right, but if anybody could salvage Star Trek, it's Straczynski. Babylon 5 is truly one of the best though out sci-fi programs to have aired on television. His focus on a defined and limited story arc really gave the show a sense of purpose from week to week that I think is totally lacking in most of the Star Trek spinoffs.

    The biggest problem, I believe, with Star Trek is that they've tended to let the show ride on random events rather than running plots. The times when they have gone to more of a story arc they have made the shows far more worthwhile.

    Enterprise has done this to some extent over the last season, tracking down the Xindi and it really helped give the show some energy. Deep Space nine had the same sort of thing happen when they had the shape shifter backed armada coming to wipe out their part of the galaxy. ST:TNG has the Borg and a few other running threads.

    But overall, with Star Trek, these runing plots have always felt kinda tacked on. Something to drive a season finale, etc. I think starting a new series with a defined story arc over a fixed period like they did with Babylon 5 would really do well.

    For example, perhaps do a series that's entirely focussed on the events that take place during the creation of a peace accord with the Klingons. Pick some key moment in federation history and depict it's course over a period of time. Project star trek out into the future and have some run in with a new species perhaps? What about a major civil war with the federation? There's a lot that can be done with this that could really make for an interesting show.

    But anyhow, if they want to go that direction and really freshen the show, I think they can. If they try to crank out yet another bland spinoff, it's going to fail. So if they don't want to try something truly new with it, they need to mothball it for like 20 years. Then they can go back and do the same tired old concept again.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Perhaps just a total re-engineering... by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem with that is much of the cool sci-fi concepts have been explored by its progenitors. Though... here's a though. Think "The Outer Limits" but set in the Star Trek universe. So like get a bunch of people to do weekly stories that all take place in the Star Trek universe, but are completely different each week.

      Somehow I don't think you'd have trouble digging up writers and actors that would be willing to do one cool episode of star trek.

      --
      This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  13. Just the fans by cubicledrone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As wonderful as it might be to have a new Star Trek series, there is one axiom about this process: It is absolutely impossible for a creative person to efficiently obtain approval for a new project from a large company.

    Proof:

    Disney turned down Lord of the Rings

    Sony turned down Everquest

    Electronic Arts tried to cancel the Sims three times

    MGM turned down Gone with the Wind

    Now, if they don't mind spending $10,000 a day from the moment they make the first phone call, great. Otherwise, find a way to do it without conference rooms, or it's going to be nothing but anguish.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  14. Best idea for a new Star Trek. by kid+zeus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Have it be about a shipful of smugglers and people on the run from the authorities, focus on the characterizations and the stories rather than the dumb-ass tech that's supposed to be so whiz-bang, and set it in a system with an old West feel to it.

    Just don't let Fox have the rights to air it.

  15. The underlying problem... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    is that Gene Roddenberry's idea is revered too highly. His idea was that man is an evolving species that eventually reaches a state of perfection, where all war and poverty on Earth have been eliminated, where humans never even argue with other humans.

    I remember cringing at some of the earlier TNG episodes that ended with Riker making some inane remark and Picard saying "Agreed!" * YAWN *

    I find it very hard to believe that this state of utopia will ever be reached, because every improvement in society brings its own drawbacks. For example, the richest country in the world today has still not managed to find happiness, look at the sheer size of the shrink and self-help industry. The nation with the highest car-ownership in the world has brought with it an epidemic of obesity and enormous environmental problems. Bottom line, for every problem you solve in society, another is created. This is something that's missing from the humans in the Trek universe.

    Lastly, from a drama point of view, people happily getting along makes for unbelievably boring TV. Remember the Itchy & Scratchy episodes where they became best friends? All the kids in Springfield started switching off their TVs and went out to play. We demand TV that keeps us indoors!!!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  16. Garfield by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There was a recent article I read about the creator of Garfield (think the link is on pvponline) and how he carefully manages the property so as not to over saturate the market. Garfied he says is carefully designed not to become so popular that it becomes "cool" to hate. You know like how everyone hates Shatners way of speaking (he rarely does it for real in the st episodes).

    ST has become fashionable to hate. It used to be just a geek thing but now even geeks are trying to be hip by saying they don't like it.

    If you look at the recent ST series I think the fault is that they tried to be too popular. Instead of aiming at their main audience they tried to broaden it and managed to loose both their old audience and not aquire a new one.

    ST:TNG was too softly and soapy (it even had the evil twin sister kinda stuff), Deep Space 9 became a true soap, going away from the 1 hour episodes into an neverending story with returning cast members. Dynasty in space. Voyager never stopped whining. Enterprise is so bad I didn't even watch past ep3. And I am very forgiving to ST.

    Any new series needs to go back to the roots. 1 hour episodes of a small crew exploring the universe. No whining, no soul searching. Just doing things. Focus on the old fans, they kept the franchise going for decades, we are ready to be milked more. Just don't insult us anymore.

    Oh and shoot the person that came up with the holochamber idea. These guys are out exploring space and the best they can do for excitement is do fantasy games indoors? Losers.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  17. Sorry - rest of the comment by pherris · · Score: 5, Insightful
    IMO the submit button is too close to the preview one. =)

    I think DS9 started off slow but improved and had some great episodes like "The Vistor" #75 (many fathers appreciated it). They introduced the "runabout" (cool ride, kinda like the winnebago of the 24th century) and the "Defiant" (one very bad ass, greatly overweaponed ship). The wormhole allowed for someone interesting plot additions. They showed us how a lot of different species lived, many more than any other ST series.

    Not to be forgotten, the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" gave interesting insite to greed.

    34 - War is good for business.

    35 - Peace is good for business.

    239 - Never be afraid to mislabel a product.

    261 - A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience.

    Morals were well tested. A "former terrorist", Major Kira, became a respected leader while still having a few terrorist traits; interesting when one thinks of the use of the word "terrorist" today. Some "Black and White" morals were shown to have acceptable shades of grey. To many DS9 was as good as TNG. I think the exploration into the psychology of people make it a good show. Different for TNG, but still good science fiction. And yes, the long lesbian kiss.

    Imagine what Straczynski and Zabel could done with it though. There's a lot of life left in the ST franchise.

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  18. Why B5 is cool by martinflack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Babylon 5 is an absolutely amazing piece of science fiction but only when you realize that the 5 seasons are really one 80-hour long movie.

    When I saw it aired on TV, I thought it was contrived because I didn't understand all the constant references to prophecies, councils, past wars, Valen, etc. I thought that they were doing what Star Trek writers do - reference cool sounding things just to enhance the illusion of the future, but those things are not existant in the actual plot. B5 is completely different; almost all their references are to cool stories in other episodes (both forward and backward) including some mind-blowing plot twists (some that make you giggle when you watch earlier season episodes because you know some *huge* secrets revealed later). It's important to realize that the B5 plot was fully written before filming, something that Star Trek never benefited from.

    My roommate got the DVDs for all the seasons and we started watching them one by one. I'm a few episodes from finishing the last season. B5 is a trememdous story, not just out of science fiction, but of any type of story I've ever watched or read. It's one of those real works of art you only see once every few years. Of course I take issue with some scientific points, like their premise of the "first ones" (first race in the galaxy) living for indefinite lifetimes and such, but they are just quibbles.

    It's also worth noting that besides the brilliant story weaving, B5 also fantastically avoided the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys". I'm impressed to no end how they side-stepped that oh-so-common trapping and actually made several alien races really come to life with politics, emotions, and goals of their own. Very cool.

    The third great thing about B5 is that the problems are solved with character solutions. The tech is there to enhance the experience, but unlike Star Trek where they can reconfigure the primary deflector to do the dishes and take out the dog, in B5 they actually work out the problems using more traditional methods, and the interesting tech is for there for the viewer's enjoyment as backdrop, not primary focus.

    If you're a Star Trek fan but have never watched B5, do yourself a favor and start with Season 1. Watch them in order, and P.S. there is an extra prequel movie, but don't watch it until after you get into Season 5 because it gives a few things from the middle away.

    It makes me curious as to how they'd give Star Trek the B5 treatment, but I'd have to guess that the first step would be to write out a cohesive plot that can cover the first few years of the show before they start filming.