StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have a crazy idea for the panel...

Obviously, Star Trek is in need for a major overhaul. The overhaul would be in the style of the everlasting great epic "Black Hawk Down". Not really any main characters, just the audience knows who's in the movie, who they really are, and how they contribute to the overall situation.

The probable outcome would be:

1.) If redshirts are needed for sacrifices, they shall go out in blazing glory.

2.) The bridge crew doesn't sole every fucking problem.

3.) Gives the writers and producers more room for some much needed improvement.

4.) If Star Trek is reloaded, it would be more prudent to do it in a more cinematic frame of mind. Instead of producting a weekly episode, make a feature length movie (technically anything more than 61 minutes of running time) or mini-serii with feature-length episodes or chapters.

What Star Trek needs (if anything) is a VACATION. And shouldn't this be in PST?

I've asked this before and I'll ask again. Why SHOULD there be more Trek? Isn't the ~500 hours we already have enough? Why do the fans keep demanding more?

Why do the fans keep demanding more?

Believe it or not, the last year of Trek produced was good enough to want more

That aside, I don't see the point of restarting Trek when the only new idea is "LOL Black Hawk Down ripoff". Two minor fixes does not a successful concept make.

Bounty wrote:Believe it or not, the last year of Trek produced was good enough to want more

Why? Why does one good year in the mist of a huge steaming pile of crap warrant more? Care to answer the rest of my question--isn't 500 hours ENOUGH?

The same reason we need more nukes, even though we can blow up the world a hundred times over. People are stupid.

Why? Why does one good year in the mist of a huge steaming pile of crap warrant more? Care to answer the rest of my question--isn't 500 hours ENOUGH?

That last year did warrant more. Well, it did to the people who stuck with the series or who, like me, gave up and were won over by the new direction it took.

You're right that 500 is enough. It's about 25 times more than most good series get - it's just that a lot of fans, and me, would have liked to see just where Trek could have gone now that it was helmed by people who had talent and cared for the franchise.

I mean, read the reviews of ENT's fourth season; try to find a review that doesn't at least wonder what the rest of the series could have looked like, or that didn't lament how the plug was pulled just as the series finally delivered what had been promised.

But I ramble - in short, it's a fan thing.

Darth Servo wrote:

Bounty wrote:Believe it or not, the last year of Trek produced was good enough to want more

Why? Why does one good year in the mist of a huge steaming pile of crap warrant more? Care to answer the rest of my question--isn't 500 hours ENOUGH?

Especially when there's been continuously new episodes of Star Trek in some form or another for the last twenty frakking years.

Off to PST

Darth Servo wrote:

Bounty wrote:Believe it or not, the last year of Trek produced was good enough to want more

Why? Why does one good year in the mist of a huge steaming pile of crap warrant more? Care to answer the rest of my question--isn't 500 hours ENOUGH?

Right now I think I want to see more if only just to spite you.

But seriously, although I personally don't foresee anything worthwhile coming out of the Star Trek franchise within the next decade (and as such don't really care what they do or don't do with it) I think what I and a lot of other people see is not "500 hours of Trek" but rather "~50 hours of really good stuff" with a bunch of mediocrity (or shit) interspersed between.

I think a lot of people who want to see more Trek produced are like the folks who sit at slot machines hoping the next pull will be a jackpot. Is that seriously so incomprehensible to you?

Darkwyng wrote:4.) If Star Trek is reloaded, it would be more prudent to do it in a more cinematic frame of mind. Instead of producting a weekly episode, make a feature length movie (technically anything more than 61 minutes of running time) or mini-serii with feature-length episodes or chapters.

I really don't see how that would be profitable. Most people think Trek is utter garbage these days, so the only way you'd be able to get enough people watching to turn a profit is to turn it into something that's really only Trek in name... at which point, you'd probably be better off (both from a writing and audience perspective) ditching the Trek name altogether.

Darkwyng wrote:I have a crazy idea for the panel...

Obviously, Star Trek is in need for a major overhaul. The overhaul would be in the style of the everlasting great epic "Black Hawk Down". Not really any main characters, just the audience knows who's in the movie, who they really are, and how they contribute to the overall situation.

The probable outcome would be:

1.) If redshirts are needed for sacrifices, they shall go out in blazing glory.

2.) The bridge crew doesn't sole every fucking problem.

3.) Gives the writers and producers more room for some much needed improvement.

4.) If Star Trek is reloaded, it would be more prudent to do it in a more cinematic frame of mind. Instead of producting a weekly episode, make a feature length movie (technically anything more than 61 minutes of running time) or mini-serii with feature-length episodes or chapters.

So you want to do what Ron Moore did for Battlestar Galactica? The only problem with that is Star Trek is pretty much a flogged horse, even the die hards abandoned the franchise with Nemesis. It worked for Battlestar Galactica because there was almost 30 years between the end of the show and the revival and it was all but a memory. Sure a new producer could take Trek in a fresh new direction with a new look but they really should wait a decade or two first until fond memories start to build up again. Right now when people think of Trek they see ENT, VOY and Nemesis. The three worst examples of the franchise.

I wouldn't say he's quite to the "reimagining" realm yet. There's no indication of any big change beyond "the bridge crew won't be at the center of everything", and there's plenty of opportunity for space opera adventure in the setting provided.

Plus, I'd rather not see a Galactica-esque "reimagining"; we do not need to have Enterprise lamely going where so many teenagers have gone before, into the horrible frontier of Myspace.

Uraniun235 wrote:I wouldn't say he's quite to the "reimagining" realm yet. There's no indication of any big change beyond "the bridge crew won't be at the center of everything", and there's plenty of opportunity for space opera adventure in the setting provided.

I think there's plenty of opportunity but I doubt the fan base is there to support further Trek. I suspect we'll be able to guage what's out there with the new movie.

Plus, I'd rather not see a Galactica-esque "reimagining"; we do not need to have Enterprise lamely going where so many teenagers have gone before, into the horrible frontier of Myspace.

I would hope that any re-imaging would avoid the Days of Our Cylon trap.

Some of us are still not happy with nBSG in the first place, and if this place is any indication there was a LOT of scepticism towards it in the beginning DESPITE there being a 30 year gap (granted SDN isn't likely to be representative of the general public).

Star Trek isn't the kind of franchise you can "reload". Its fans are too fanatical. BSG never had that kind of fanbase.

The biggest mistake Star Trek ever made was using shortcuts to explore too much of the galaxy. For a series which was originally based on exploring the unknown, it is self-evident that it's a bad idea to make too much of the galaxy known rather than unknown.

Star Trek can always go the route of Gundam, with multiple continuities and AUs as needed.

Darth Wong wrote:Star Trek isn't the kind of franchise you can "reload". Its fans are too fanatical. BSG never had that kind of fanbase.

Which is sad really. I mean, there are so many other good shows out there, some with Star Trek alums. 7th Heaven has Stephen Collins (TMP) and Catherine Hicks (ST:IV).

Boston Legal with William "The Shaft" Shatner

Anything other the Star Trek, and I think the fanaticism will wean away, slowly.

Darkwyng wrote:Which is sad really. I mean, there are so many other good shows out there, some with Star Trek alums. 7th Heaven has Stephen Collins (TMP) and Catherine Hicks (ST:IV).

One-episode characters don't really draw much attention. Not many Trekkies masturbate to B-5 just because Andreas Katsulas was a Romulan commander or because Bill Mumy appeared in Siege of AR-558.

Boston Legal with William "The Shaft" Shatner

Trekkies didn't exactly embrace "TJ Hooker" or "In Search Of" either.

Let it die. Just let it die.

montypython wrote:Star Trek can always go the route of Gundam, with multiple continuities and AUs as needed.

We can have one series where Spock has been dead for years but lives on in the main computer core!

Uraniun235 wrote:

montypython wrote:Star Trek can always go the route of Gundam, with multiple continuities and AUs as needed.

We can have one series where Spock has been dead for years but lives on in the main computer core!

Replace Spock with Lefler's Mom, and you have a plot point of New Frontier, but I suspect that you knew that.



And I'm stealing that smily.

Uraniun235 wrote:

montypython wrote:Star Trek can always go the route of Gundam, with multiple continuities and AUs as needed.

We can have one series where Spock has been dead for years but lives on in the main computer core!

Well, his father was a computer.

MariusRoi wrote: Replace Spock with Lefler's Mom, and you have a plot point of New Frontier, but I suspect that you knew that.

Not Only that but she also has hologramatic bodies. Complete with Red Dwarf references.

Uraniun235 wrote:

montypython wrote:Star Trek can always go the route of Gundam, with multiple continuities and AUs as needed.

We can have one series where Spock has been dead for years but lives on in the main computer core!

And Data can grow a V antenna and use a lightsaber.

Obviously, Star Trek is in need for a major overhaul. The overhaul would be in the style of the everlasting great epic "Black Hawk Down". Not really any main characters, just the audience knows who's in the movie, who they really are, and how they contribute to the overall situation.

What about Blackhawk Down do you want to emulate? Also, why exactly does whatever you're suggesting help Star Trek?

1.) If redshirts are needed for sacrifices, they shall go out in blazing glory.

Explain why every one-shot background guy with a phaser and a red shirt should get some Oscar-clip death scene when the bad guy zaps him. How does that make Star Trek better instead of more maudlin?

2.) The bridge crew doesn't sole every fucking problem.

In other words, someone else in the crew gets to have a pat answer for the problem of the week. How is this necessarily an improvement and not putting a funny hat on the same weakness?

3.) Gives the writers and producers more room for some much needed improvement.

The writers and producers could have made much-needed improvements any time they liked. Why do they need any special encouragement to get off their asses and do their jobs?

4.) If Star Trek is reloaded, it would be more prudent to do it in a more cinematic frame of mind. Instead of producting a weekly episode, make a feature length movie (technically anything more than 61 minutes of running time) or mini-serii with feature-length episodes or chapters.

Explain why making it more cinematic automatically makes it better, instead of making it a more grandiose-looking version of the crap we've been getting lately. Why can't they do anything worthwhile in the context of an hour TV show?

Believe it or not, the last year of Trek produced was good enough to want more

Believe it or not, if they could make the fourth season of a show good, they could have made the three seasons before it worth watching. What's their excuse?

isn't 500 hours ENOUGH?

Yeah. Put Star Trek to rest for at least 20 years, in all forms. Let a generation or two of other science-fiction shows and books have the spotlight for a while, and let people take a break from Star Trek.

Why this constant impulse to keep producing more Trek? You don't see LOTR fans sitting around scheming of ways that new LOTR books and movies could be made. You don't see Shakespeare fans asking if sequels are coming out, or asking if the series has been given a sufficiently long "rest". For that matter, most Star Wars fans are blase at best about the idea of more Star Wars material. The story is complete, as far as most SW fans are concerned. Hell, a lot of fans wish they'd stopped at ROTJ.

I can understand why the money-grubbers at Paramount would keep flogging this dead horse, but seriously, why are the fans so keen on it? What particular psychological feature of Star Trek fandom leads its members to believe that they must always have a constant stream of new material? Roddenberry is dead. New Star Trek bears very little resemblance to his original idea, and his original ideas were getting pretty screwy by the end anyway. Let it die.