RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well the one idea I thought of was not for a series, but a short. Picture a modified Bird of Prey (because they're awesome looking, and have a small crew) with a mixed refugee crew, that works as an escort ship (and maybe less than ethical things as well).
Captain - Human male, maybe former Maquis, maybe Starfleet officer who resigned his comission. Or maybe annoyed civilian who got his life roylally screwed up by events in the movies/series.
First Officer - Klingon Female. Likely a renegade who seeks adventure. I'd make her female because we've only seen, what, three Klingon females?
Engineer - Romulan expatriot, possibly a (former?) member of Spock's reunification movement.
Medical Officer - Cardassian. Of course Cardassian. Imagine a cheerfully sadistic medical officer. "Oh that burn looks horrible! Hold still, this might sting."
Basically they either pirate hunt or (more likely) serve as cargo transports/escorting convoys.
Rest of crew TBD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the negative side, the presiding features of Trek, particularly TOS are "Those crazy Foreigners (Aliens) Mini-skirts, In TNG, some of that got replaced by Picard's "Holier than thou" stance.
TREK also reflects the era it's made in: fear of foreigners/embracing of mini-skirts for the 1960s and Picard's moralising in the 1980s. In fact, I think it was Ronald D. Moore who said that nothing dates ST:TNG as much as there being a counsellor on the bridge of the ship. DS9 reflected Balkanisation, to a certain degree, whilst ENTERPRISE was more about misplaced nostalgia (or at least the idea behind it was) rather than looking forwards.
What the Abramsverse reflects is more concerning: a total abandonment of cohesive plot logic (which TREK at least kept in vaguely distant contact with in prior incarnations), misplaced nostalgia but also an arrogant belief that things in the past can be remade better today, a desperate desire for short-cut storytelling (riffing off TREK II's ending without the 15 years of character development and audience familiarity beforehand that really made it work), ill-conceived fanservice and, of course, lens-flare.
If you're going to trek for plot logic, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Go lens flare!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is very diffuclt to make 'timeless' works, period. (lens flare aside).
We're all products of our times. (and beliefs)
I do agree that Abramsverse (and Reboots in general) can easily fall into the 'Let's make it hip and cooler' and forget why the original was successful in the first place. It also hurts when reboots mock the original.
At least Enterprise tried to address technology marches on (like with the communicator size) in issues. I don't agree that looking back is always bad.
Enterprise could have benefitted from a looking backwards, rather than get bogged down in the 'time war'.
To name three off the top of my head.
Heck, if they wanted to 'time war', don't introduce new races, have Federation standard races take the role of the Xindi, and the foiling of future guy catalyzes the formation of the Federation.
Favorite for Werthead for describing the Abramsverse as it truly is, and favorite for Matthew Morris for correctly pointing out that looking backwards can very often be a good thing. (In fact, "looking forwards" is what got us the Xindi and the 'temporal cold war'...)
|
|
Well the one idea I thought of was not for a series, but a short. Picture a modified Bird of Prey (because they're awesome looking, and have a small crew) with a mixed refugee crew, that works as an escort ship (and maybe less than ethical things as well).
** spoiler omitted **
So Star Trek the firefly edition? I kind of like the crew outside the Federation aspect. I'd probably go really left field with it and make a Starfleet intelligence film noir series about undercover agents trying to bust rackets like the Orion Syndicate. The situation after the Dominion war has to have some similarities to the end of WWII with factions rebuilding. Organized crime is probably thriving at this point with so much focus being directed into post war efforts.
Another pitch I'd try is an exploration series into the Gamma quadrant now that the war with the dominion is over. You can explore new ideas while occasionally reconnecting with the Alpha quadrant.
You may be asking yourself, "but pan what about the Abramverse???" To be honest I would be perfectly happy if the television series ignored the Abramverse and we just save JJ's timeline for the films.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Somewhat similar. I do like the idea of having the Romulan character essentially do for Romulans what Worf did for Klingons (allow the writers to 'flesh out' the Klingons).
Your suggestions also point out my frustration with reboots. There's so much potential in the Trek universe that can be tapped. But no, we have to have Star Trek: Into Retreds instead.
|
Michael Dorn doesn't think Worf was fleshed out enough? Sounds more like Michael Dorn is begging for a job to me. There were quite a few heavily Klingon and Worf based TNG episodes, and several on DS9 as well. If his character was under-represented, I'd hate to think how badly he thinks they mangled practically every other character.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Kthulhu,
I don't know if you're replying to me, if so I wasn't clear (which isn't uncommon).
TNG did wonders for Klingons, just as you describe. IIRC, part of the incentive for Tim Russ was he was told that Tuvok would do for Vulcans what Worf did for Klingons. I'd love to see Romulans get similar treatments. (And see a strong female Klingon that isn't crazy)
|
TNG did wonders for Klingons, just as you describe. IIRC, part of the incentive for Tim Russ was he was told that Tuvok would do for Vulcans what Worf did for Klingons. I'd love to see Romulans get similar treatments. (And see a strong female Klingon that isn't crazy)
More like K'ehlayr, please!
It was a bit disappointing in the Next Generation that the most we saw of a single Romulan was Tasha Yar's half-Romulan daughter (although it was nice to see the actress back).
It would be neat to see an alien ship that had a mixed-race crew. The Federation ships have always been 90% human with the occasional token alien, but Klingon, Romulan, etc. ships have always been occupied by a single race. In the Star Fleet Battles game, Klingons had allied with (or occupied...) other worlds, and their ships could have five different races on board, more or less equal, depending on how their races became part of the Empire. (The same was true of several other races, with Gorn having three distinct subspecies, but not of Romulans, who were pretty darn Romulan supremacist.)
I mentioned upthread that a USA network version of Star Trek would probably have a few Federation members stuck on an alien ship, for whatever reason, with a Romulan ship being an interesting choice. Instead of T'pol or Maquis or whomever being the 'fish out of water' on a Federation ship, it would be the Federation people forced to adapt to another culture, contrasting their values with those of their host.
Romulans might lack much in the way of versatility, particularly if depicted as mono-cultural and racially segregated / exclusionary as the SFB game, but it wouldn't be doing any great violence to the 'canon' to suggest that the Romulans have allied with / absorbed several other cultures on the other side of Romulan space, and kept that secret from the Federation for some time (not allowing them on the bridge when communicating with Starfleet people, for instance, just as they apparently kept *their own* appearance a secret for years, such that it came as a great shock in that classic Trek episode where it was discovered that they looked like Spock). That might help create some diversity in the ranks of the Romulan crew (since not all of them would be racially Romulan).
For that matter, Star Fleet Battles had some crazy awesome races and factions. The Interstellar Concordium included some cat people and lizard people, but also a delphinoid race and a race of quadruplets that are telepathically linked into a kind of hive mind, like a single person with four individual bodies. (That sort of thing could be insane on-screen, and allow one actor (or set of twin actors) to be in multiple scenes at once, as they 'split up.' Hard to argue that the Captain shouldn't 'risk it' by going on the away team when the Captain has a bunch of spare bodies, and will be remaining on the bridge, at the same time as he's on the away mission...)
But, really, races in Star Trek proper that I'd like to see more of?
Deltans.
Tholians.
Maybe a Cardassian or, shock, a (freed of the white addiction) Jem Hadar, in Starfleet?
If you're going to trek for plot logic, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Oh, I agree the original series (and TNG, DS9 etc for that matter) had gaping holes as well on occasion. What they didn't have was gaping plot holes and nonsensical storytelling continuously. Both of the Abramsverse movies have multiple plot holes and logic failures back-to-back. Looking before that, it's hard to see such major flaws in say TREK II, III, IV or VI (V and VII probably come the closest). What was once an occasional problem is now a continuous one under Abrams's stewardship of the franchise.
I think it is very diffuclt to make 'timeless' works, period. (lens flare aside).
We're all products of our times. (and beliefs)
I agree. That's why I said, 'misplaced' nostalgia. Looking back, knowing where you've come from and using that to move forwards is healthy. Going back and wallowing there, as the Abrams movies are trying to do, or taking the problems of your last series (VOYAGER) and recreating them in the past (as was happening, before Manny Coto stepped in, on ENTERPRISE) don't fall into that bracket.
I think TREK, fundamentally, is about moving forwards. Jumping back in time to do constant cycles of remakes and reboots, losing all the continuity each time, is not compatible with that.
rather than get bogged down in the 'time war'.
Interestingly, Berman and Braga recently said that the Temporal Cold War was forced on them by Paramount, who wanted a connection to the future of the TREK franchise. They didn't want to do a pure prequel.
Michael Dorn doesn't think Worf was fleshed out enough? Sounds more like Michael Dorn is begging for a job to me.
Pretty much the latter, I think, although AFAIK all of the ex-TREK castmembers do pretty well out of repeat residuals, DVD and Blu-Ray sales, convention appearances etc. Dorn's doing well enough that he prviately owns several aircraft, for example.
I also think that Worf did have the most satisfying through-arc of any post-TOS TREK character. He wasn't just in the most episodes of TREK of any character (seven seasons of TNG, four of DS9 and four films), but he actually changed and evolved over that time which was more unusual, at least to that extent. Using Worf as a springboad for a new STAR TREK series is actually fairly logical, as after the big stars he's probably the TREK character people will be most familiar with.
That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, though. A brand-new start which moves away from (without invalidating) the intricacies of the previous continuity may be a more appealing idea.
If you're going to trek for plot logic, you're barking up the wrong tree.Oh, I agree the original series (and TNG, DS9 etc for that matter) had gaping holes as well on occasion. What they didn't have was gaping plot holes and nonsensical storytelling continuously. Both of the Abramsverse movies have multiple plot holes and logic failures back-to-back. Looking before that, it's hard to see such major flaws in say TREK II, III, IV or VI (V and VII probably come the closest). What was once an occasional problem is now a continuous one under Abrams's stewardship of the franchise.
I don't think that is fair. A Movie is a much more limited time to establish a universe then a series.
Michael Dorn doesn't think Worf was fleshed out enough? Sounds more like Michael Dorn is begging for a job to me.Pretty much the latter, I think, although AFAIK all of the ex-TREK castmembers do pretty well out of repeat residuals, DVD and Blu-Ray sales, convention appearances etc. Dorn's doing well enough that he prviately owns several aircraft, for example.
But, if he doesn't need the money, why is he asking for a job?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, if he doesn't need the money, why is he asking for a job?
Boredom?
I'd like a show about Garak, and his past.
My favorite DS9 character.
But I'll prolly get that right after my Shepherd Book show.
|
|
Somewhat similar. I do like the idea of having the Romulan character essentially do for Romulans what Worf did for Klingons (allow the writers to 'flesh out' the Klingons).
Your suggestions also point out my frustration with reboots. There's so much potential in the Trek universe that can be tapped. But no, we have to have Star Trek: Into Retreds instead.
I agree I think there is a ton to do with the Romulans. In fact I love DS9 and think it was a huge missed opportunity not to develop the Romulan Liaison on the Defiant. In fact, at some point the character was just gone.
I'd like a show about Garak, and his past.
My favorite DS9 character.
Mine too but I liked his mysterious past and showing it for me would take away some of the soul of Garak. Also, I don't think it would do well ratings wise. Too focused on a minor character in the trek verse.
All right... now I'm going to have to go back and watch DS 9 again. Time for a Trek fix :)
I don't think that is fair. A Movie is a much more limited time to establish a universe then a series.
True, but we do have form from Abrams' other projects and the writers' other works (LOST, PROMETHEUS, the TRANSFORMERS movies etc). These are not writers for whom cohesive storytelling and plot logic is a priority.
But, if he doesn't need the money, why is he asking for a job?
Fame? He probably doesn't get recognised as much as he used to. He also clearly really likes the character and the franchise, maybe he just wants it back on TV?
If you're going to trek for plot logic, you're barking up the wrong tree.Oh, I agree the original series (and TNG, DS9 etc for that matter) had gaping holes as well on occasion. What they didn't have was gaping plot holes and nonsensical storytelling continuously. Both of the Abramsverse movies have multiple plot holes and logic failures back-to-back. Looking before that, it's hard to see such major flaws in say TREK II, III, IV or VI (V and VII probably come the closest). What was once an occasional problem is now a continuous one under Abrams's stewardship of the franchise.
Yeah.... the original series kind of set the standard for nonsensical story telling. I mean,sure the 2 hour movies had a few plot holes... but nothing on the level of 'Goatees = Evil twin' or 'Lincoln floating in space'...
NOTE ON LENS FLARE: I actually LIKE it. I saw an interview that stated it was done entirely on purpose. the idea being that there was always something going on just off camera. He did it to make the sets seem bigger and more alive...
Honestly after hearing that... I could actually feel it. one of the complaints about the shows was it was 'too much action' and I don't subscribe to that. I enjoyed the exciting feel of it, and I suspect that the lens flare may have contributed to that.
And honestly, it's really a very MILD effect. I barely even noticed it the first time I watched it, until people made a big deal about it. Compare that to the 'shakey cam' that is in EVERY STINKIN MOVIE now... and I'll take a little lens flare any day ;)
I swear... most movies just have a guy running down the street swinging a camera... Elysium??? I think Matt Damon was dragging it behind him on a rope....
Yeah... Step one 1, Get a job.
Step 2, Get a job you LIKE.
IMDB shows some steady voicework over the years, along with some recurring parts on castle and others... but yeah, if he likes to be Worf, and can drum up some interest in it... more power to him :)
I don't think that is fair. A Movie is a much more limited time to establish a universe then a series.True, but we do have form from Abrams' other projects and the writers' other works (LOST, PROMETHEUS, the TRANSFORMERS movies etc). These are not writers for whom cohesive storytelling and plot logic is a priority.
This I agree with.
... and remember, J.J. Abrams is now taking the helm of the other great Sci-Fi franchise ...
So absolutely no interest in a Series called Star trek: Kelvin with Tahir reprising his role as Star fleet Captain Richard Robau - perhaps with Kirk's Dad as his number two. With a Voyager type mission where they are out on the fringes of expanding federation space ending in the encounter with Nero and the Kelvin's destruction?On my Kelvin scale it hits Absolute Zero.
You just couldn't let that joke go. :)
If you're going to trek for plot logic, you're barking up the wrong tree.Oh, I agree the original series (and TNG, DS9 etc for that matter) had gaping holes as well on occasion. What they didn't have was gaping plot holes and nonsensical storytelling continuously. Both of the Abramsverse movies have multiple plot holes and logic failures back-to-back. Looking before that, it's hard to see such major flaws in say TREK II, III, IV or VI (V and VII probably come the closest). What was once an occasional problem is now a continuous one under Abrams's stewardship of the franchise.
I think it is very diffuclt to make 'timeless' works, period. (lens flare aside).
We're all products of our times. (and beliefs)
I agree. That's why I said, 'misplaced' nostalgia. Looking back, knowing where you've come from and using that to move forwards is healthy. Going back and wallowing there, as the Abrams movies are trying to do, or taking the problems of your last series (VOYAGER) and recreating them in the past (as was happening, before Manny Coto stepped in, on ENTERPRISE) don't fall into that bracket.
I think TREK, fundamentally, is about moving forwards. Jumping back in time to do constant cycles of remakes and reboots, losing all the continuity each time, is not compatible with that.
rather than get bogged down in the 'time war'.Interestingly, Berman and Braga recently said that the Temporal Cold War was forced on them by Paramount, who wanted a connection to the future of the TREK franchise. They didn't want to do a pure prequel.
Michael Dorn doesn't think Worf was fleshed out enough? Sounds more like Michael Dorn is begging for a job to me.Pretty much the latter, I think, although AFAIK all of the ex-TREK castmembers do pretty well out of repeat residuals, DVD and Blu-Ray sales, convention appearances etc. Dorn's doing well enough that he prviately owns several aircraft, for example.
I also think that Worf did have the most...
I think you are just determined to dislike him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are just determined to dislike him.
Who, Michael Dorn? I think he's great. Worf is one of my favourite STAR TREK characters, not least because of his excellent way with stoic one-liners.
If you mean J.J. Abrams, I think he is a very good ideas man who is at his best when he kicks off a franchise and then backs away and lets other people take over, as with LOST (which, despite a disappointing ending, did have some quality middle seasons) and, much moreso, FRINGE. As a director he's weak when working from his own scripts, or scripts from his regular team of yes-men, but does seem to be more effective in collaboration with others. I think he'll be a very good fit for STAR WARS. I just don't think either he or his writing team are doing a very good job on STAR TREK. They're trying to turn it into something it isn't (i.e. STAR WARS).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are just determined to dislike him.
Hmmm... I'm trying to think here... Is it Freehold DM and a certain director that makes the above statement ironic (and not just a little bit inappropriate)? Hmmm...