Slashdot Mirror
Salon Writes on The Troubles with "Trek"
Splatta was the first to write with us with article currently running on Salon about the possible end of the Star Trek "idea". The story is well researched with commentary from Paramount, Leonard Nimoy and others about what's happened to the Star Trek story over the last several years and "the indignites of age". Is it the end of Trek? What do you think? Is the franchise dying?
Ehhh... that movie was a re-run that came before First Contact ... there is no way that chick could come back into existance, ever think about that ?
yeah
But at about the time that DS9 came along, I just got sick of it. Nothing was happening. Nothing was changing. And of course, B5 came along and stole my heart. I had known that it would be great, when I first read of it in ~92 and JMS had said that they'd be showing the weirdness of the alien restroom.
Basically, nothing is or has happened with Trek for some time. I think that the best thing that they could do would be to give it a rest for ten or twenty years and see what fresh ideas can come along later, or find some way to tear down all of the cruft and start over again.
The idea in post #96 is a very good one. Although a lot would depend on writing, cast, etc. I'd be willing to give it a try, which is more than I can say for Voyager or the awful movies that have followed VI. (the reason II, III and IV were good was that they told a continuing story you dumbass writers!).
The other good idea I've heard is to do a series based before TOS. This could be cool b/c the writers wouldn't really be able to, if they knew what was good for them, write particle du jour episodes. No holodecks. No civilians on the ship. No borg. No Q. No transporters at all. The old Klingons - maybe. That could be really good if they'd be willing to take chances. Killing characters if the story demands it is good, as Roy Fokker taught us. Taking dramatic turns with the show is good, if the story demands it, as B5 taught us. And take a lesson from TOS, and make some shows that have some relevancy to the current day, but without making them wimpy (eg the TNG drug ep).
They won't do it though, which is why I doubt I'll ever see a good, new Trek show again. And everyone can suffer from this. Honestly, JMS was ripping off (consciously or not) Star Blazers/Yamato all over the place with the spin off and it wasn't at all appealing to me.
Anyone have ideas for what could make Trek great again? Certainly it wouldn't involve any of the crap that's come out lately.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Not to be overly critical, but I think you missed a few points, foremost that it was meant to be humorous, secondly that the series established Riker as an extremely good pilot. Now, he could have sat down and pushed buttons like a good helmsman should, but he trusted his own judgement and tactile feedback. In fact, the original trek probably made use of key controls so that people wouldn't think it was just a big aircraft instead of a spacecraft. If there had always been a stick, no one would have batted an eye, but it wouldn't have been funny, which was the point.
Like you, Tarnar, I am a longstanding fan of both old and new Star Trek. But I think the author raised some salient points and you are therefore wrong to dismiss him out of hand as a 'bitter fan'.
I agree he was a bit tough on Berman; I thought there were some really outstanding TNG episodes and I did come to care about the characters. I was very sad to see the series end. However, his assertions about Berman's attitude to TOS are certainly food for thought. It's very disapointing that Paramount would have brought him into the franchise in the first place if he had such a poor understanding of it (this is of course assuming that these assertions are true).
Secondly, Paramount certainly did franchise the thing to death, which kind of "wore out" the magic to some extent. Worst of all was putting out two series at the same time. Why on earth would Paramount do that when it would inevitably make people cease to hunger for it?
The studio never ever cared a bean about the possible significance of Trek beyond its profit potential, and they even mismanaged that in the end, sacrificing long-term appeal for the sake of increasing Trek revenue in the immediate short term.
As an aside: perhaps as a consequence of this glut of Star Trek some networks started screwing with their schedules and it became more or less impossible to know exactly when the next episode was going to be broadcast. It just wasn't unique or special enough to take pride of place any more, with so much of it about, especially when you include reruns: even in the UK at one point there would be maybe half a dozen different episodes of various ST series broadcast in a single week. That's just plain overdoing it. But ultimately it's Paramount's fault for milking its cash cow too hard and too often.
But there's nothin new about this. Parallels have already been drawn with the cheapening of the Star Wars franchise (Ewoks movies ferchrissake!!!).
Video and film are the new narrative tradition, and are as important to our culture as oral storytelling and literature have been. Unfortunately you just can't trust Philistine money-fixated studio execs with such an important legacy. They are the reason why there is so much crap, and why the few good things that emerge despite them either meet an untimely end (the Dr Who TV series) or are perverted to satisfy mass market expectations (the Americanised Dr Who TV movie) or get milked to death like Star Trek.
I just wanted to say one other thing: the only good idea for a new Trek series I ever heard was the Captain Sulu/USS Excelsior one. Pity they never suggested doing the same for Captain Scott. Look back at those TOS episodes; he was one outstanding bridge officer.
But even so, the best thing to ensure the world doesn't get terminally sick of the whole thing would be to veto any new series for now and maybe even restrict syndication for a while too.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
B5 was pretty good if you don't mind the sometimes trite dialog. I've been watching Farscape lately and have actually been digging it. The writers don't as obviously moralize at you, and they hardly ever seem to have to pull some plot device out of their ass at the last minute to resolve all the problems, something that the TNG writers were particularly fond of doing. Oh, yeah, and the aliens are much more believable. None of this "Bumps on the forehead makes someone an alien and everyone can interbreed." Rodenberry started that and he may have been a good writer but he obviously never took a High School biology class.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Nonsense. How exactly would a human detect such racial and/or cultural differences among a completely alien society? Compared to the yaening gulf between us and them, such differences would likely be very subtle, perhaps invisible.
And you claim cultural variety amongst Federation humans, yet they all speak American English - even O'Brien who is Irish (not Scottish as you claimed).
I don't think there is any evidence that the aliens were being stereotyped any more than was necessary for the plot. After all, for storytelling reasons each species had to have some identifiable characteristic that made them different from humans and the same as each other. Later, once the species characteristics had been established, individual differences would be explored: Spock's human emotional side, Quark's occasional generosity, Odo's loneliness, Worf's sensitivity.
Actually in the time-honoured manner of Hollywood, all these differences got over-exploited to the extent where each of these characters was in danger of becoming the exact opposite of what they were supposed to be. Spock and Data both became the most likely characters to have an emotional outburst; Worf the most likely to have a 'relationship' with someone (or to break up or get rejected and go off all hurt); Quark the most likely to sacrifice profit for some higher purpose. Personally I deplore this aspect of the show. Such relentless anthropomorphism simply undermined the strength of the alien characters making them less unique in the context of their colleagues, rather than adding dimension to them.
As regards Roddenberry's putative racism: in the shows which were truly Roddenberry's (the original series) it was plainly stated in several episodes that though 23rd-century humans all lived and worked together, they each took pride in their own individual cultural and racial inheritance. Uhura in her African lineage, Sulu in his Japanese ancestry, Chekhov in his Russian origins (how could you have forgotten that - it was even a running joke!) In many ways the bridge crew of the original Enterprise was a shining example of the multicultural society to which all civilised nations today aspire.
I think this pretty much disproves any notion that Roddenberry was racist.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
When ST:TOS started it was possibly the most radical things on air. It had a half-breed alien first officer, a Russian helmsman and a black, female communications officer. At the time these were almost revolutionary. In the USA Martin Luther King was telling the KKK about his dream, and in the UK Enoch Powell was prophesying "rivers of blood". But Star Trek showed the world what King's dream looked like, and that image profoundly altered our society.
Today we have Commander Benjamin Sisko. He has a son and a dead wife. Oh, and by the way, he's black and his best friend is a young alien woman who used to be an old man, and is in a relationship with a Klingon. So whats new?
In many ways we owe this acceptance to Trek. But at the same time that acceptance is the death knell for Trek. We have learned what Trek had to teach us. Like all successful young revolutionaries, Trek has grown up and become part of the new Establishment.
What Science Fiction needs is not more Trek, or even just better Trek, but something new. Something that challenges our assumptions, and especially our contradictions, in the way that Trek challenged those of the 60s and 70s. I don't know what that thing is going to look like, but I don't think it will look much like Trek.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
The quick, off-the hip response to this suggestion is that what you propose is merely a cut down Outer Limits which uses Star Trek backgrounds. Outer Limits works (occasionally) due to the strength of the writing. It cannot survive on characters becase there are no consistant characters from week to week.
The second response is one based on the tail of the first -- that the setting is irrelevant to the success or failure of a TV show (or movie). If you read the Salon article, you see that the author of the piece gets it: writing is what drives a TV show, and character is what keeps the audience coming back week after week.
Character is driven by the actors, yes, but it is also driven by the writers. The writers have to get inside the heads of the characters, become them, know them better than they know themselves. This is why the first episode/half-season of a series always, always sucks. The first part of a series is to sell you on the premise. After that, after we've stopped gawking at all the pretty lights and toys and started accepting them as reasonable, we start to get more concerned with the characters and the story.
Would B5 have been the same had Sheridan not been written so strongly? Or the stories?
Having guest writers means there is no continuity, the writers are not around long enough to know the characters. There isn't a master plan, and things don't go anywhere. And if B5 did anything, they raised the bar in that long term series now should go somewhere. Just lurking about in space trading witty dialogue with the alien du jour just doesn't cut it any more. Audiences get bored, they need to want to know what happens next -- next scene, next segment, next week.
Asside: was I the only one that noticed that ST:DSN started to have an arc (the Dominion) that drove the story almost immediately after it became aparrent that B5 had one?
Without interesting or developing characters, there is simply no point unless the stories are strong enough to stand on their own. And Outer Limits has shown a few stinkers in their time.
I'd like to apologize for the tone of this post, I didn't mean for it to come out this harshly. I just don't think this is such a great idea.
--
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
Not always - there were a few episodes of Star Trek that were really good - but those of course were written by people like Harlan Ellison and Ted Sturgeon.
Outer Limits though was the clear quill. I love throwing 'Demon With a Glass Hand' on my LD player.
I hope Harlan is working on something......
If you want to know why the creaking Star Trek universe has to be retired, the Star Trek Mega-Rant makes it very clear indeed.
--
Xenu loves you!
The studio for the original series was Desilu, which was purchased by Paramount later.
The interesting thing about that is that Paramount wasn't even interested in Star Trek or really any of Desilu's shows at the time. They just wanted their lot. So really, Paramounts "cash cow" is really quite unintentional on Paramount's part.
My journal has hot
That's the most intelligent, well thought-out idea I've ever heard anybody say about Star Trek in a long time. Now if only you worked for Paramount... :)
:) ... half hour short, one hour show, perhaps with commentary (ala the Sci-Fi Channel's Star Trek 2nd Edition) and then maybe even another half-hour short....
Something like that would even work as a set of specials, with 2 one-hour stories. Another idea would be to pair your idea with classic episodes from TOS, TNG, DS9 (but not voyager because it sucks too bad
My journal has hot
It's the writing, stupid (not you, Mr. Nebular, I'm addressing Mr. Berman).
The reason that the franchise is in trouble is that they're taking too much water out of the well. The big problem with Voyager and Ds9 was that there just weren't enough stories in the current creative team to cover all the territory. Half of the last DS9 season was simply creative treading of water. Insurrection wasn't bad, it just didn't have a story that justified a full feature film treatment. If you just took the best stories between the two series during the course they ran together, you would have had a hell of a series.
I expect the current season of Voyager to be a great improvement on the last, but I'm reasonably certain its time for some new writing blood.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
TNG was uneven, and those who refuse to admit that should be made to watch the "planet of somewhat clad bodybuilders" episode from the first season until they cry "uncle". TNG had some great episodes. The first half of "The Best of Both Worlds" was some of the most exciting TV SF I've seen. The second half was a sorry excuse for the beginning of a season (make them go to sleep? This is a fearsome enemy?) But that's OK. Unevenness at least proved they were trying, aspiring to SOMETHING. Voyager is not... uneven. It's quite bland all the way through. Sigh. Sometimes I turn on the TV and find Voyager and hope too much. I watch what might be a good episode, and my roommate says "it's all going to be a dream, you know. They can't actually be allowed to change things in this series." He's always right, of course.
TOS was campy and sometimes truely bad (e.g. "Spock's Brain"), but there were times that that show succeded at something that TV SF had never done before (in the US anyhow): it made people THINK. There was a hue and cry over the inter-racial kiss. They even tried to explore (a little poorly, I admit) the phenomenon of hippies, which was a very touchy subject at the time (unless you were just slapping them down outright). They touched on the subjects of hatred, slavery and compassion. And, in the end it was just a much better show than TNG could ever have been because the studio was convinced it would fail. With TNG they would never have been allowed to show an actual gay couple kissing (in fact even a man-turned-woman kissing the Dr. goodbye was changed to a kiss on the wrist), but given the political climate of the times, that would be the exact political equivalent of the Kirk/Uhura kiss. I am not saying that this political topic had to be explored, but the fact that it could not be was quite telling.
Why couldn't TNG forge into unknown territory politically? Because the studio thought the show could be a success. It did not have TOS' luxury of assumed failure.
Same with Babylon 5 / Crusade. Straczynski was left alone to do Babylon 5, and challenged the viewers to re-invent TV SF in their minds. When he went to do Crusade, he found that the industry had never changed. He was just under their radar screen the first time around.
It's not really Rick Bremman or Gene Roddenbury or JMS or Majel Barrette-Roddenbury (pardon misspellings) who have caused any of this. They try to varying extents to make their shows great. But, Hollywood is a scary town and perceived profit is like chum in the water for sharks. The Ferrengi start to look like the good guys....
Well, to paraphrase Monty Python It's Not Dead Yet.
The only unqualified success in the franchise has been TNG. The logical thing, then, is to determine what made TNG a success and do more of it.
I think a lot of the reason TNG worked was Patrick Stewart. Partly his persona was big enough to fill the screen without overflowing into hamminess (or at least not on a regular basis), but I think he as an actor moved the writers in a particular direction. I think that the writers thought they were given, not some run-of-the-mill TV actor but by golly a classically trained RSC caliber thespian. As a result, they gave him a lot of overblown material that made him, well, sort of a geeky swashbuckler. In other words, the material was expansive, but the actor was restrained. This kind of reminds me of the way Gilbert and Sullivan must be played. No matter how wacky the line, the character must not be in on the joke.
I think the result is that the character of Picard is a balance of reflection and action. In a way, I see TNG's metastory as a meditation on how the stories we are the story we tell ourselves; how words and ideas inform our actions. That's why, at the end of the otherwise mediocre "Generations", Picard's little homily about the nature of time made the movie for me. Because it speaks to the part of our souls that need stories, to help us make sense of our experience.
I think the ensemble approach is a bad thing for Star Trek. There must be a single character who anchors the series, and while he or she doesn't have to be the focus of all the action, he should play a critical part in making sense of the actions of others. I think most of the best Picard moments in TNG are when he does this, when his words or ideas sway others.
The Starfleet Academy show could be a bad thing or a wonderful thing. I think it would be wonderful if it focused not on an ensemble of young people, but the people who mentor them.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There are a lot of reasons why Trek is in the state that it's in, but the main ones are Rick Berman and Paramount itself. In some ways, the death of Trek started in its own popularity.
Trek is a massive cash cow for Paramount, a major franchise for them. Because of this, they're far less likely to do anything that would cut off that revenue flow. Basically, they can't take risks whith the story, because that might cause people to stop buying Trek stuff, and take a few precious pennies away from Paramount.
Rick Berman is equally afraid of losing that income, because it would mean him losing his job. Now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps this is because higher-ups have tied his hands. He's not the kind of person who can revitalize the franchise.
By far, the best thing to do is to end Voyager gracefully and end the Trek franchise for a while. Bring it back with new blood in a few years, and bring it back to the spirit of the original, episodes and characters that actually take chances and make the audience think. Then, maybe, Trek can get back to where it should be.
What makes these writers good is that, when asked to blend scientific and technological speculation, they don't go into a tizzy about whether it's possible. They think back to writers like Aeschylus and Shakespeare, who wrote stories that were independent of the technology base. Those stories, and many of the stories in the original series, turned on constant elements of human nature.
I think Star Trek, and most of TV and almost all movies these days, is cursed with unimaginative, unskilled writers. Very rarely, some good writing slips thru the cracks, and invariably the show is cancelled. There seems to be some bigger profit margin in bad writing. Or maybe the execs consider it too risky to expose the public to quality. I find the whole phenomenon a little mysterious; an apparent failure of the free market.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
The whole thing just needs to rest for a while (as was pointed out by one of the preceeding posts).
I more or less grew up during the middle of The Original Series. I think I've still missed a few episodes but they were really tackling current events issues (not that I knew it then). Roddenberry really put himself out on a very long, and very thin branch to produce this series, and it paid off too. Although it's a little dated it's still good stuff.
Next Generation was basically a knock-off, but after 15+ years it was a welcome one. There was a good infusion of neat(tm) ideas that worked pretty well.
The differing perspective of DS9 was good, but no one wants to watch 3+ years (or so it seemed) of War. Terry Farrell must have thought so.
Voyager was initially a neat idea, but except for being way-far-away, there's little really, really new.
Earth Final Conflict (on a slightly different, but paternally related subject) is a decent series, although I haven't watched it as much as I would like. It's a (reasonably) new and neat idea.
Paramount - Take a rest for a while and dream up something really different and unique, then be deliberate in choosing where it goes.
Just a few $0.0275 (inflation)
Star Trek was a wonderful phenomenon to watch. The original series could really stand on its own, even given the extreme level of schmaltz. The fan-base was an unheard of phenomenon for a TV show.
:-|
But it's been a long, slow downhill slide. The movies were always uneven, but the recent offerings even make The Great Bird's self-indugent outing in ST:TMP look like art. Voyager episode quality can be measured in terms of how much of the plot can be said to have actually happened at the end of the episode, and no one on the set of any recent ST production (TV or movie) actually takes it seriously beyond their own task. It's just a business, now (this last from various sources at media cons and through the Net).
Look at what's been going on meanwhile: Babylon 5, Earth: Final Conflict, Farscape, X-Files. Even Reboot has plots that Voyager could learn a few things from. I'm not saying that other shows are perfect. Babylon 5's "Grey 17 Is Missing" provoked creator J. Michael Straczynski to lament not being able to apologize to each and every fan individually. But these shows try to explore what can be done with TV science fiction. Star Trek is interested in finding a way to increase the franchise market-share, and not much else.
I'm not actually trying to bash Star Trek, here. What I'm trying to say is that the good people involved in that show would be far better served trying to create something new and innovative. Those who desperately cling to the franchise because it's the only way to assure a market should be quietly taken out and shot. It's just more humane that way. After all, they shoot producers, don't they?
Perhaps in 20 years, the fan base will rise again to provoke a new generation of studio execs to re-create the mythos again. Until then, even the hint that ST's days may be numbered is welcome news in these quarters...
I used to watch the various Treks pretty avidly as a young child. I was in high school when Deep Space Nine came out, and I couldn't help but realize that there are some bizarre racist overtones in Roddenberry's shows.
Basically, Earth is portrayed as a cornucopia of cultures and ideas. Humans are almost as diverse in Trek as they are in Real Life. Of course, the language barrier supposedly has been cured, and somehow all of the warring nations ceased to be different enough from one another that they felt the need to fight any more.
But I can't help but notice that there is ONE klingon culture, and it's basically a mockery of feudal Japanese society. And the Ferrengi are all alike, with one culture (disturbingly resembling the portrayal of Jews in Nazi propaganda films (don't you dare call Godwin on me for this one--would that I could have left Nazis out of this)).
People often come to me and cry "but they have black *and* white klingons!", to which I say "That's genetics, not culture!"
So, while Miles O'Brien, the Scottish monkey-wrench, marries Keiko, the Nipponese botanist, all the klingons show up as a homogeneous chorus.
I say good riddance. IT's time we got rid of the "diversity is ok for us, but they're all alike!" mentality.
--
I noticed
--
I noticed
It's getting about time to leave everywhere
Start Trek the Next Generation was the last (and best IMO) Star Trek. Everything since then has been a pathetic degradation until the latest versions with have devolved into lame soap operas. It is really quite pathetic at this point.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Now, Voyager on the other hand, is suffering from being in prime time and thus forcing ratings. If you think 7 of 9 is there to build personality, think again :-). It's not that Voyager's episodes aren't necessarily bad (There's a few that really stand out as stinkburgers however), but in 9 out of 10 times, it's been done in the trek universe before. This is one of the reasons the Doctor is getting a lot of favored reviews.. he's the only character (or type of character) that really hasn't been developed in any other trek series, and many of the plots revolving around him are new. Many of the Seven of Nine plots are too Borg-intensive, as opposed to moving her away from Borg. But every other character on Voyager is bland, and I've yet seen any really good exploration of one particular character that hasn't been done before.
I agree that what Paramount should do is hold off on another series.. put at least a year between Voyager and whatever this new one is called (and since there's no B5 to compete against, there's no rush here). Plan the new Trek movie to premiere the same year as this series comes out; if possible revolve the movie around the new series (Although I've heard the new movie will be strongly Klingon in nature.. yeeesh).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
First, have any people commenting so far (before my post in terms of chronology) even READ this article? It seems to be a Witchhunt.
;-) ). He goes on to be nostalgic, quoting Shatner again and again on the decline of the series. Talking about the old scripts being the best ones, the old actors being the best actors. He even says WHY this may be so, as nostalgia can cloud your vision. The 'good ol days' are always better. Then he ignores he ever said that.
Here we have a Trek fan, who is bitter about the divergence in the franchise (so many different series), who is looking to point a finger. He calls TNG and Voyager tripe on the first page (and is half right
Then he starts pointing fingers. Squarely at Rick Berman. Now, this is bar-none disgusting. He blames him for all the bad series. He blames him for killing off Kirk in a 'dishonorable' way (I thought how he died was good, he saved 200 odd million people and got to come back to life like Spock). Rick Berman may have had his faults, but he put DS9 & TNG on the air. Plus movies. Finding one person to point a finger at is SO easy, and here we see it done.
Then there's all the talk of marketing and franchising. Now he sounds like a bitter Star Wars fan, whining about George Lucas getting commercial and sick about the series.
Maybe Star Trek is dying. I hope not, DS9 was an amazing series. TNG was a great one too. 'Generations' was not as bad as the author wanted it to be. It was a way to look back at both TNG and TOS (or at least Kirk's hairpiece). It's sad to see a fan get bitter and start pointing fingers when his favorite toy series falls apart.
merely a cut down Outer Limits which uses Star Trek backgrounds.
Interesting. When someone refers to an anthology series as being "like" something, they usually go for The Twilight Zone.
Yes, I'm proposing an anthology series based loosely on the Trek universe.
setting is irrelevant to the success or failure of a TV show (or movie).
Setting is not irrelevant for many reasons. The first, and least important, is that setting draws people into the show. If the writing overshadows this, then you are essentially right as far as the viewer is concerned. However, setting is also critical in a TV show because it determines how likely you will be to succede in making the show. The Twilight Zone worked because they just used whatever sets were lying around. They dressed them up a little and shot. Nowadays, a series really needs to have its own space, and that means that you have to have some kind of stable sets. I was suggesting a way to go half-way and have semi-stable sets. This is how you get a "differnet" setting each week, and avoid being tied to "The Ship" or "The Station", etc. This makes the series bible simpler and less restrictive, which is a hook for authors, which leads into...
Your other comments can be summed up as "it's the writing, stupid!"
I cannot agree more. This is why I was pointing out a way to get the Paramount writers out of the loop and open it up wide to any authors who want to do mass-market SF. Does it have to be a Starfleet/Federation story? Not really. The likelyhood that someone's going to be able to make the episode will probably be increased if you use the core characters, but there's no reason that a story that only has 1 or 2 characters needs to use the regulars.... This could be a chance for Paramount/Viacom to really pump some life back into the series. Of course, based on past performance, I doubt it would happen.
The other way I could see it going is to have a fairly loose bible, and a dictator-like staff-editor/writer who does the Straczynski thing (e.g. weaving a "background" plot which stretches over several seasons by slightly modifying the contributed scripts). This would have less likelyhood of working for Paramount, because they have no one like JMS to do this with an iron hand, and yet crank out top-notch backplot. If they could get someone, then it could work. Breman (is that the right spelling) would just screw this up. If you got someone who was really brilliant, though, you could even have the episodes out of chronological order, and slowly put the pieces together in such a way that only someone who sees the entire series even knows it's happening.
I think, though, that the only reason this worked so well in the first and second seasons of B5 was that viewers who didn't "get" the uber-plot were still grabbed by the individual stories. If you want to do that for Trek, you need to rip it out of the current "writing team" hands. Writing by commitee does not work, and ST is now a great example of the pitfalls.
In my opinion, TNG was the best TV series I've ever seen. No, I'm not a trekkie. I don't own a single piece of Star Trek merchandise, and I haven't seen an episode of Voyager since last season. But I understand it. Note that when I say "Star Trek" here, I am mainly refering to The Next Generation (and also Voyager and DS9), as I am not very familiar with the original series.
Star Trek is not about science or technology. Those are just a medium for the real stuff that goes on. Star Trek is about the characters and moral issues. To enjoy the show, you have to watch it consistantly. You have to know the characters. Half (if not more) of the content of the show is just about the characters and how they are growing. Most people wouldn't understand why it is hillarious when Data says "oh shit!" It is, of course, because doing so contrasts so much with his normal character. (he says "oh shit!" shortly after first installing his new emotion chip) When you really get in to it, you find that Star Trek has better character development than almost every other series on TV today.
The other important issue in Star Trek is the moral issues presented. One of the most interesting episodes of Voyager that I have seen involved a debate over whether or not it is right to use medical or other scientific data aquired through immoral means. Although I did not agree with the decision made by the Captain, I found myself talking about that episode for hours afterwards.
If shows like this don't interest you, that doesn't make me think any less of you. Everyone has their own tastes. But lots of people come at Star Trek from the wrong direction, and then they think it sucks. Star Wars fans, in particular, can't seem to comprehend the idea of sci-fi without constant fight scenes and explosions. So, I guess what I want to say is, no, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it sucks.
-------------
It's sad to see what's happened to Trek over the years. TOS was pretty good. I personally think Trek was at its peak during TNG, but I know I'm in a minority as far as that's concerned so I'll just shut up about it.
DS9 was a good series in its own right. But it never felt quite right; it was tied in with the Trek universe quite well, but it didn't feel like Trek.
Voyager... I'd like to like Voyager. A few of the episodes are actually very good. But it just doesn't work like TNG or TOS or even DS9 did. It's like Trek crossed with Lost in Space (not the movie; the original TV version).
At least they cancelled that one atrocity they were thinking of doing; I can't remember the title but it sounded like it would turn out as Star Trek meets Saved by the Bell. A series based on Starfleet Academy could be a Good Thing, but I don't think the present team could pull it off.
The Trek franchise isn't going to die out anytime soon. If you don't believe me, rent Trekkies and watch some people who are probably obsessed to an unhealthy degree. The question is whether it will continue for a long time or suffer a prolonged, agonizing death. Sadly, at the moment it seems like the latter. But I hope it turns around, either with Voyager or whatever next series (that idea with Sulu and the Excelsior was very cool; what happened to it?)
One possible hypothesis is the aforementioned "death of trek" theory, but here's an alternate one:
First Contact made more money because it was a *much* *better* *movie*
Stay with me folks, we're just getting started
lamented Voyager and it's less-than-stellar tv ratings? More evidence
that the franchise is faultering? Possibly. Let's review, which of the
following non-starter ideas/characters/incidents have occurred on Voyager?
is on par with Wesley Crusher in terms of appeal, feature
her prominently in a number of episodes.
like the kazons (or was that the chili-con-kazons) and feature
them for a season and a half.
with the 'great spirits' in order to sort out some bad
delta quadrant mojo
The answer? All of the above. I mean really folks, what do the folks at paramount expect? You put out garbage like that and then are surprised when people don't bother with it? And as far as the franchise dying goes - you could have made that statement just after the release of *every* *one* of the odd numbered movies and for every odd numbered movie (so far) there was an even numbered movie that mysteriously revitalized the dying franchise.
It isn't hard Paramount, produce something worthwhile and we'll line your
pockets - produce crap and you'll end up eating it.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
Star Trek is essentially dead. Voyager is stringing along just well
enough to keep some minimal fan base from storming the studio with
pitchforks and torches, but.....
What if Paramount created a very loosely themed series with nothing
but guest writers and a team of staff-editors? You could have a group
of 5-10 "regulars". Kind of an anthology show, maybe even with
1/2-hour shorts grouped 2 per episode. Don't give it a ship. We've
already established that the ships look pretty similar inside, so
there's no reason to tie the show down. Just build a bunch of sets
that can be quickly dressed to be different ships.
You could then tackle everything from the oft mentioned Star Fleet
Academy (still an idea I would need proved to me) to exploration to
simple character pieces to huge Starfleet-moving plots. Hell, at that
point you might even get a few good SF writers to write an episode or
two. Not so much share-cropper novels as mildly-constrained free-form
SF.
The best way to go would probably be to avoid setting any
ground-rules. Just write up the core cast for the series bible and set
the writers loose. If they write something that you would never have
allowed, but it just works, go with it.
This is really about all I can imagine that would save Star
Trek. You'll notice that I've given no actual story ideas here. If
someone's on the inside, please feel free to show this around, as
there's nothing here that any real claim could be laid to.
Is Star Trek dead? I will have to answer "It depends."
I have long been a Trekker. I grew up with The Next Generation (the best of the Trek series IMHO). I also know what makes Star Trek better than Prime Time.
It's the story stupid! If there is a good plot and theme, that could make up for the worst of actors, the most hideous directing, and the cheeziest special effects.
Star Trek did this. Gene Roddenberry was a God because of this. The Next Generetion did this. I can't count how many times both series have surprised me, gasp at the depth, and made me think. This is what Star Trek did well and this is what made it a success. It was (and still is) one of few shows that want you to think.
Then came Deep Space Nine. DS9 had a great concept. It could have been great in the same way Star Trek 6 was great. In many ways the show was great. But somewhere along the lines, the story became unoriginal and cheap. But then they began a war, somewhat like Babylon 5, and it meant something. I was satisfied with the last few seasons of DS9 but I will submit that it lowered Star Trek to a point that it was like everything else.
And Voyager. This is a sad show that tried, futily, to retake some of the energy from TNG. Voyager has had some great shows but what it lacks is excellent theme. Theme is key to all that is Trek. If a show doesn't mean anything, I don't want to watch it and I am sure there are others who agree with me. Voyager kept rehashing the same themes, whether original to Voyager ot stolen from TNG. These themes became stale. Then 7 of 9 came aboard and the ratings went up! Now instead of trying to revive Star Trek, all the producers needed to was keep the audience staring at Seven's breasts--just like everything else. So in this sense, Star Trek is dead. It should be hung and tortured for the monster it has become. But, there might still be hope.
I will use a familiar cliche to Babylon Five watchers: This new series might be our last, best hope for Trek. I have read of some rumors about the new series parelleling the United States and Europe. The uninitialted may find nothing of interest here. But the more alert Trekkers will recognize this as another attempt at the thing Star Trek has done so well: making Star Trek relevent to a current day audience. Indeed, this is a common challenge for all science-fiction. But think! The recent controversy over the United States attacking Kosovo. Whichever side of the fence you take regarding this incident, there is plenty to say here about morality and human beings in general. How exciting it could be. Hopefully, as the article suggests, Rick Bermin will rethink Star Trek in this way. Come on Rick. Tell us something for us to ponder. Make us think. Blur the distinction between good and evil. And have our heros save the federation from its largest threat: itself.
This new series holds all the cards. This could be the resurrection of Star Trek! It could also bury Star Trek forever.
Live long and prosper, Star Trek.
***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!
Really all it would take is some decent scripts. But this is exactly the problem, it just can't happen. Any time a sci-fi series goes mainstream because of popularity, or is designed for a "pop" audience, it is bound to be mediocre, IMHO. It's designed to make a lot of money, and therefore it has to reach the widest audience, which means it has to be a generic plot. I'm doing some extreme generalizing here, but hopefully you see what I mean. Movies like the matrix could have been so much more if they weren't limited by hollywood rules, and even the matrix was a bit out there by hollywood standards, I think.
/. readers have to say about this. I can't even think of a movie, maybe x-files on tv back when it was a newer show...
The franchise is NOT going to go away anytime soon. If it has even a 1% chance of making money, it will be around (witness most movie sequels). I did enjoy TNG the most, then DS9. Somehow Voyager just doesn't impress me. The plots from show to show get repetitive, with a lot of holes in the plot (big fight with the borg, the ship gets all f'ed up, then suddenly its all back together next week like nothing happened). The characters seem one-dimensional, and I'm simply not impressed by them. Bad acting maybe? I don't know. Maybe I just really like the ST:TNG cast for some reason.
It's not like there is much else on TV right now thats any better than voyager anyway, however. Mediocre across the board (I'm really cynical if you didn't notice). What was the last series on TV or movie that you saw that was at all original? I'd be interested in what other
It seems to me that the only originality in sci-fi these days is in books...most of the better sci-fi doesn't translate well to the screen, though. Of course that is true of any book in any genre, however. Maybe thats just because of Hollywood.
I disagree with the author's opinion that TNG sucked. It didn't. I liked TOS a bit better, but I thought TNG was nothing to be ashamed of. DS9 was a bit more cerberal than most would like, but I liked it as a change of pace. IMHO, I thought the show took a turn for the worse (debatable though?) when they added the Defiant to the station. I never really understood the whole Dominion thing. Voyager was cool the first year. It was a change of pace from DS9 and was action-centric (as DS9 was focused on the mind, Voyager is squarely focused on the body).
/.).
I think that Voyager diverged greatly in the second season. It lost its way. Then, they added 7 of 9. While most of the viewers today, only watch it because of Jeri Ryan, I think it is a cheap publicity stunt. She adds nothing of value to the series. The Borg - been there, done that. (I am Locutus of Borg - WOW, was that a great cliffhanger!). I remember waiting for months on how the next TNG season would begin. It was fun. People on BBSes would be chatting back and forth arguing about how the next season would start. We were hardly disappointed by the TNG cliffhangers. Alas, DS9 and Voyager lacked that aura.
The recent movies (after IV - the best bar none - okay, II was great as well) have all danced around the themes of ST. They do not have the magic that a single episode of TOS or TNG had. It was all about special effects not about plotline (as has been beaten to death by others here on
Berman and everyone else at Paramount needs to go ahead and devote a new movie (or series) that refocuses the franchise on plot and story with REAL characters with a twist of action every now and then to keep the audience awake(!). It is something that is sorely missing from the franchise right now. When they rediscover Roddenberry's formula (they will - someone will...), ST will be just as good as it ever was. If they have to take a hiatus in production of ST related shows or movies, so be it. It'll be the stronger for it in the long run.
I can't wait until II and IV are on DVD (especially II). Too bad it will be a few years (bad Paramount, bad Paramount). Wonder if DVD will survive until then...
Later,
Justin
Mu. P.S. The address you see is real. =)
They should focus on the borg more... its the federation's most deadly enemy. Movies/Shows, telling us how the borg came to be, etc... or has that alredy been done? Mix that in with a hostile Klingon's and it would be something great to see.
Anyone who would insist that the best of the lot was "Next Generation" (once called "a talk show in space" by Spin) or "Voyager" (the Gilligan's Island" of "Trek") has been sipping too much Romulan ale. ... well, a new generation of viewers (baaad double entendre, baaaad) ... It's a well known fact that both Shatner and Nemoy have at one time or another denounced the fandom of Trek ("I'm Not Spock", "Get A Life") and this journalist chooses them for his major sources? Why not talk to some of the newer casts? Oh yeah, because you're biased and want to interject your nostalgia into your story. That's what we in the business call bad journalism. Oh yeah, am I the only one who wanted to cheer when Kirk died (both times) in Generations? =)
Wwwwwhat? Okay, we all know that Voyager sucks, but everybody of my generation was born and raised on ST:TNG. I remember having debates with my middle school home room teacher about TNG character development. I've had friends who are still glued to the screen watching "All Good Things" for the nth time. Nonononono, how the heck could you possibly blame TNG for killing Trek? TNG SAVED Trek. It opened up the Trek universe to
It wasn't your opinion I was commenting on. You're perfectly free to dislike Star Trek, I don't mind at all. What I was commenting on was your statement that anyone who likes "science fiction" has to hate Star Trek. I don't see any reason why you can't like both. After all, I do....
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Kid, this was the old days. The original series wasn't taped. It was filmed.
And to watch Star Trek way back then, we had to walk all the way into town, where the only TV in the county was, in the window of the hardware store. It was five miles, in the snow all the way up to our shoulders, uphill both ways!!! And if The Brady Bunch happened to be on instead of Star Trek, well dadgummit we just held our noses, stood there and watched the danged thing!! And we were THANKFUL for it!!!
And the brethren went away edified.
This was originally posted on the Ain't it Cool News website back in August (1999), and you can find the original full story here.
The interesting bit is this:
"Interestingly enough, there was a surprising lack on consistency between the reports, save for info on one of the titles - Gene Roddenberry's PHOENIX RISING. All of the reports about this show said pretty much the same thing. Thus, the Phoenix Rising information should be considered rather reliable, although please be aware some changes will likely come down during the show's developmental process."
....
"Gene Roddenberry's PHOENIX RISING. Phoenix Rising is being developed by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine alumni Robert Hewitt Wolfe.
FLASH BACK: Remember Roddenberry's two series pilots from the '70s (Genesis II and Planet Earth)? Both featured a man called Dylan Hunt being frozen in (more or less) modern day, then revived on an Earth that has fallen to great savagery and barbarism. The point of the proposed series would have been for Hunt and his sidekicks to work towards reuniting and re-unifying mankind. Remember this concept for a moment, and the name Dylan Hunt.
PRESENT DAY: Robert Hewitt Wolfe conceives of his "perfect" Star Trek series: a series set thousands of years in Star Trek's future. The galaxy is in turmoil, all of the governments to which Trek fans are accustomed have crumbled and imploded. The galaxy is a really screwed up place: Vulcans have renounced their logic and are now savage enemies of anyone who crosses them. Homeless Klingons roam space in violent packs of attack ships. The Federation is long gone - but it is an ideal not forgotten to those living in this untamed reality.
A Federation Starship...an "Enterprise" from a bit further down the ship's lineage...is discovered drifting in space, its Captain (and maybe a few crew) are frozen in stasis. Ship and crew are revived, and are horrified by the galaxy to which they awaken. Using their Enterprise as an icon for the cohesion and strength that used to be (but is now lost), Enterprise and her rag-tag crew set out to restore the Federation to what it once was, and restore peace and balance to the galaxy.
It is unclear if Wolfe ever formally approached Paramount with this Trek series concept. None the less, the basic idea for his series is finding its way into a new (non-Trek) "Roddenberry" series called Phoenix Rising.
Take the Genesis II / Planet Earth scenarios mentioned above...throw them together with Wolfe's "ideal" Star Trek series...and you get Gene Roddenberry's PHOENIX RISING. PR is the tale of a spaceship and captain found drifting in deep space. They are revived into a galaxy that is all messed-up. They set about trying to restore peace and order to the way of things - by trying to re-unite the galaxy and resurrect the glorious old days of solidarity and (relative) peace. It's a tough job in a tough place, but somebody's gotta do it.
Given this formula, one significant question sticks out: this "galaxy in decay" notion would have worked magnificently on Star Trek - as viewers would already have a general frame of reference for what Trek history looks like & feels like. Thus, we can understand what has actually been lost, and are able to visualize what our heroes are trying to resurrect.
But Phoenix Rising does not have the benefit of dealing with such solid and established notions of what has come before, because its back history (on which the entire series is predicated) has never been seen or experienced by the audience. As such, one concern regarding Phoenix Rising is that our heroes will be struggling towards a "new order" / "golden age" which has no resonance or point of association to the viewer. Thus, the "goal" of the series might seem tenuous or abstract, unless the show (somehow) conceives of a brilliant & effective way to convey the coveted age of hope which our characters are striving to bring back - so we can associate with what their endgame really is.
As far as I can tell, Hercules' Kevin Sorbo has expressed great interest in playing the revived captain in Phoenix Rising, although no final decisions have been made on this. I am told that Sorbo will either go for PR, or Gene Roddenberry's ANDROMEDA (see below).
Phoenix Rising is currently being developed with an eye towards a Fall 2000 premiere."
.....
I would LOVE to see it a star trek series developed as mentioned above, but it looks like Paramount will find a way to mess with it again and screw it up...
and I haven't seen anything as far as recent news on Phoenix Rising, since I am not really that heavy of a TV watcher, etc...
but one can always hope, I suppose...
While reading in the Salon article about how the orignal series lasted only 3 seasons, as compared to the subsequent, modern shows which have logged vastly more episodes than the first, it occurred to me that the original series competed in a vastly tighter television market than did/does the newer shows. When the original show aired, there were only 3 major networks and there was no cable. Most folks were doing well to get good reception on three stations. Also, it was not uncommon for the T.V. stations you did get to "sign-off" at some point late at night (i.e. they were not necessarily 24-hour).
The point is, there just weren't that many available time slots for shows like there are today. If a show today can't get a time slot on one of the major networks, it is frequently an option to look to an alternative outlet -- cable channels -- to still get the show on the air.
So, in that sense, it seems to me it is a worthy achievment that the original series was able to occupy one of those limited time slots for 3 years. I wonder how long any of the other Trek shows would have lasted under the same circumstances. Or how long would the original have gone if cable had been available then?
And it was fun.
That's what has been missing in TNG, DS9, and VOY. I can't watch Voyager, especially after they brought in T of A.
So, my vote is for the anthology series, with maybe a small number of characters who show up more regularly than others.. This way, we could get a marines episode, an academy episode, a 'love story' episode, a Q episode, a 'where are they now' episode, etc..
The studio excuse is that this would be horribly expensive. Well, TOS got by with some *very* clever people, and strong, passionate writing. Not bean counters, attempting to build a strategy that would turn a long-term profit, by studying 'market demographics', etc.
And no more 'use the real-life person generated in the holodeck to remodulate the dilithum crystals with a pulsed-phased tachyon bean emitter module'.