Jonathan Frakes on any new Trek series

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Movie Talk' started by Frosteon, Apr 30, 2015.

  1. Frosteon

    Frosteon Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    736
  2. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    Insert my usual "Trek is dead" comment! :lol

    It had a long and great run, maybe in another 10 years.............
     
    YenChih Lin likes this.
  3. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Fixed that for ya. ;)
     
  4. Inquisitor Peregrinus

    Inquisitor Peregrinus Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,065
    Bull pats. DS9 started weak, but got good when Berman and Piller left and Behr and Moore took over and started telling a good ongoing story. Voyager had a good inspiration in Jeri Taylor's precis, but Berman managed to hobble it right from the get-go. Taylor ended up leaving the series -- and retiring from TV altogether -- in no small part due to her being straitjacketed. Then Braga came in and his solution to the flagging ratings was to introduce 36 of DD. Jeri Ryan is a good actress, and was badly underused in the part. And T&A is no replacement for actual stories of substance. Then on top of that we got the schizophrenic mess that was Enterprise. Lots of good actors and potential wasted on lame stories that finally started getting good right before it was cancelled.

    And we all know Nemesis' lackluster box office was due to it sucking massively, not "oversaturation of the market".

    --Jonah
     
  5. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    I guess it's just loose semantics on the part of the article's author, but CBS had nothing to do with Star Trek in the 1990s and early 2000s.
     
  6. DuneMuadDib

    DuneMuadDib Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,730
    They diluted the brand by putting out shlock like Voyager, 70% of Enterprise, and the last two TNG films. Of course arguing to a studio exec that producing quality product can result in better revenues seems more and more like an uphill battle.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2015
  7. jarroth

    jarroth Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    986
    Voyager was just a shame it didnt have the right writers. potential of it wasnt even half used.

    same for SG U btw.

    two series, two ships in space so darn far away from all the other series, and still they have to face to same lame stuff as any other series. they should have asked some of the TOS writers and howto invent new technology and finding stuff humans never heard about.
     
  8. Inquisitor Peregrinus

    Inquisitor Peregrinus Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,065
    Voyager, especially, had such promise. but we ended up with one-dimensional characters and over a year of Gilligan's Island in space. "We found a way home!" "Aw, it didn't work..." Repeat. The actors tried to make their characters more interesting, but were constantly frustrated. And poor Harry never got promoted past frikkin' Ensign.

    --Jonah
     
    Riceball likes this.
  9. YenChih Lin

    YenChih Lin Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    And don't forget Neelix, he was supposed to be the funny guy, but he ranks second next to Wesley. I never liked that guy… he was sooo annoying. I hated him.
     
  10. Riceball

    Riceball Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,416

    I agree, Voyager was huge wasted potential. They really could have explored a lot of different ideas and broken away, somewhat, from the classic Trek mold since it was set in another part of the galaxy. Instead of giving us something new and different we got more of the same but done as well. They really should have shown us more of them having difficulty in keeping the Voyager running in tip top shape, battles should have been something to avoid as much as possible because of the damage that would be hard if not impossible to repair and the potential loss of personnel that they can't replace. Instead we get the occasional mentioning of rationing replicator usage (ooh, how dreadful), and Neelix negotiating for parts that are miraculously compatible with Federation tech., and no apparent serious damage or loss of life despite all of the battles they engaged in.
     
  11. Cephus

    Cephus Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,681
    Quest shows always end badly because they have to keep finding reasons that they can't complete the quest and thus end the show. It gets more and more silly and more and more contrived as time goes on. At some point in time, they have to just say screw it, we're going home but the writers never allow that to happen. That's the show's whole schtick. It's why the castaways could never get off Gilligan's Island and why, even after they did, they kept going back for the reunion movies. They have nothing else to do.
     
    Riceball and Solo4114 like this.
  12. jarroth

    jarroth Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    986
    voyager shouldnt have ended with earth in sight ready to dock imo. with all the borg and other new technology and discoveries anything would have been possible. transwarp capable delta flyer and a borg with all borg knowledge, who already travel transwarp. shame that got thrown away in 45 minute episode.
     
  13. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Exactly. A show like Voyager or Galactica or any quest-based show needs to be planned out the whole way, preferably with shortcuts in case you get canceled early. Basically, you need to know that you have X number of seasons and then everyone makes it home. If folks want to continue the story after that, that's a different issue, but you end the main story at a fixed point. Otherwise it becomes exactly like Gilligan's Island (which works fine in a comedy, but not in a dramatic series).
     
    Riceball likes this.
  14. CessnaDriver

    CessnaDriver Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,375
    I just can't understand how just getting back to the roots of TOS and going from there is so difficult
    and painfully ignored.
    Here goes my broken record again......
    Sadly half the fans out there seem to want war war war from Trek.
    Go watch Star Wars for wars.
    Star Trek should be about a.... trek to the stars say? Crazy talk I know.
    Visting planets, exploring, contacting new aliens, encountering the totally unknown, sure hostile and otherwise.
    And thus exploring ourselves and thinking in new ways. Sci Fi!
    Why is this so freeking hard to get?
    No you won't get the JJ Trek audiences to tune in really.
    But you WILL get a dedicated audience if you write those stories well! and it will grow.
    So many channels now, it can be successful.
     
  15. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    The reality is that the Suits in charge view all of us old TOS fans as Capt. Dunsills. :unsure
     
  16. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Yeah, the "mixed crews" thing had great potential...and all that happened was, basically, the Maquis became Starfleet.

    Maybe the surviving ship should've been the Maquis vessel, and the Starfleet folks having to adapt to THEM.
     
  17. Cephus

    Cephus Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,681
    While Babylon 5 wasn't a quest show, quest shows need to be built just like it. A 5-year plan and it ends at the end no matter what the ratings are. That kind of thing just doesn't happen today though. Shows run so long as they can squeeze any money out of it, no matter how awful it is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That's fine with me, they make very little, if any money off of me because of it. I think Star Trek ended after TOS. So long as modern shows suck, and I think all of them have, I just don't give them any of my money.
     
    Riceball and Solo4114 like this.
  18. Sluis Van Shipyards

    Sluis Van Shipyards Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Does CBS own ST now or something? That main big networks aren't exactly where you go for scifi . They just want clones of police, hospital, and law drama shows. If you're show is not one of them it will get canceled.

    This is a great quote that was posted on the Blastr site:

     
    Last edited: May 1, 2015
  19. Timmythekid

    Timmythekid Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,355
    Jeeze, you know, gave up on Voyager pretty quickly but that...might have kept me around. Just the setting alone is better. It's a much more interesting setting than another boring, sterile Federation ship, and would have provided some dramatic possibilities all on its own of a far-from-spec rebel ship. It then really forces drama between the crews as the stick-up-the-butt Federation officers have to play by the Maquis rules - forcing law-and-order types to find their way in a lawless word is much more interesting than getting rebels to just accept how much happier everyone would be if they all behave and follow the rules.
     
  20. jlee562

    jlee562 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,685
    "Diluting the brand" is lame jargon. "Branding" wasn't even a thing when Nemesis came out.

    Things that "dilute" the brand are lame tie in video games and only paying lip service to some of the main themes of the original series.

    TV probably isn't the best anyway, Hulu (since, CBS), or Netflix would be much better options.
     
  21. brandomack

    brandomack Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and quote a line from "Swordfish"

    "You know what the problem with Hollywood is? They make ******, unbelievable, unremarkable...******."

    Nemesis was written by a ******, and directed by a ******. douchebags that thought Geordi was an alien. the execs killed the money train by also being douchebags. Stop the pattern of douchebaggery in Hollywood!
     
    robn1 likes this.
  22. Inquisitor Peregrinus

    Inquisitor Peregrinus Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,065
    Except John Logan is a good writer. There had to have been serious studio interference for us to end up with that (not counting Stewart and Spiner making their own "contributions"). Know what film he wrote next? The Last Samurai.

    There are reasons I lay most of the blame at the feet of Berman and Braga.

    --Jonah
     
    brandomack likes this.
  23. Sluis Van Shipyards

    Sluis Van Shipyards Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    And The Last Samurai was good even with Tom Cruise in it!
     
    Treadwell likes this.
  24. Riceball

    Riceball Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,416
    On the subject of new Trek series, there's a Kickstarter going on now to greenlight a Capt. Pike series which features a number of well known sci-fi and Trek alumns. However, the plan is to pitch the series to CBS as either a web or cable series, given CBS's lack of enthusiasm for a new Trek series since Enterprise I'd be very surprised if this series gets the greenlight, even if the Kickstarter is a resounding success.

    http://nukethefridge.com/2015/05/04/star-trek-captain-pike-cast-plot-revealed-and-its-epic/
     
  25. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    If there was any instances of studio mishandling Star Trek Nemesis, it was in hiring Stuart Baird. Stuart is a Hollywood editor who has gained a reputation as being a 'film doctor', someone who comes in to re-edit movies that the studios are not satisfied with. The only reason he got the directing gig at all for Nemesis was that Paramount promised him a gig of some kind after he re-edited Mission Impossible 2 and Tomb Raider. While Stuart is certainly a capable film maker (I really like Executive Decision for example), it's clear that he had only one objective in mind when making the film. Making Patrick Stewart look good. After all, of all the actors in this movie, Stewart had been associated with a lot of box office hits like X-Men, so he probably thought that giving Patrick all the action and focus and cutting everyone else to minimal roles, he would have a big grosser on his hands! Well, if Stuart had actually 'watched' any of the X-Men films, Patrick doesn't do much at all in the X-Men films except dump exposition onto characters, get knocked out, captured, mind-controlled and flat out obliterated. While I believe Patrick was the perfect choice to play Xavior, it's not the role I think translates into "dual gun wielding action hero running through the hallways and shooting up bad guys". It didn't work.

    Also, I personally find John Logan's work to be overrated. He killed Bond for me with Skyfall and the reports saying that his story was pretty much dropped from Spectre (though he still keeps credit) has me feeling reassured.
     
  26. Mola Rob

    Mola Rob Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,685
    I agree that's a lame excuse, Star Trek was not diluted it was tweaked into something it shouldn't be, action packed battle filled crap where the most important thing has become who is going to play the villain in the next movie.

    Oh great yet another crowd funded gathering of former Trek actors (and all but one playing a Captain, Commodore, or Admiral?).
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  27. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Seriously, Trek, aside from the inevitably-to-be-rebooted film franchise, is dead.

    A Kickstarter program won't do squat any more than buying a full page in Variety and pleading with CBS to bring it back will. The suits have decided that the brand works right now in its current iteration as a film franchise, and are happy with that.

    To my way of thinking, the only thing that's gonna change this is the following scenario:

    1. Disney premiere's Star Wars: The Force Awakens to massive critical and fan acclaim.

    2. Disney successfully launches the Star Wars standalone film series (non-trilogy stuff).

    3. The reemergence of Star Wars in the action space fantasy genre and Disney's pumping out of Star Wars films every one to two years (a la Marvel) effectively corners the market for this type of film.

    4. Paramount, seeing the writing on the wall, realizes that they are effectively trying to compete with a juggernaut using an also-ran. In other words "Starwars" Trek (aka JJ Trek, aka NuTrek, etc.) is really just Star Wars style movies with a Trek veneer. They filled the gap while Star Wars was dormant and appeared dead, but once Star Wars is back and in full-on Disney-owned-franchise mode, it will really offer nothing distinctive in its current flavor aside from Apple Store interiors and primary color uniforms, and characters named "Kirk," "Bones," and "Spock." Also, eventually, the actors themselves will tire of the roles and move on. Zachary Quinto especially is someone I do not expect to stick around in his role for much longer. I think he's gonna get bored and won't do another film after this one. Unlike the original crew and even the TNG crew, Trek is a thing the current crew has done, not a cornerstone of their careers. The actors in the new films are actors first and Trek actors a very distant second, arguably eighth or ninth.

    5. Paramount will realize that outside of a nice little film trilogy, JJTrek isn't really viable as a franchise anymore and needs a retooling. They decide to relaunch the brand as a television franchise, where they can focus less on fast-paced whiz-bang CGI battles, and more on telling human stories as filtered through the lens of science fiction. At its best, that's what Trek has always done: it's been about exploration of the human experience by telling stories about exploration of the galaxy at large. The species and situations encountered by the Enterprise's crew were always more reflections of aspects of humanity -- either of the time or in general. Star Wars, much as I dearly love it, has always been more about grand space adventure in the heroic myth mold. Trek, on the other hand, was always more about the adventure of human discovery -- of oneself and one's surroundings.


    My ideal version of a resurrected Star Trek would be a serial science fiction drama with season-long arcs that form the basis for a single 5-7 season long overarching story, where each of 22 episodes per season is focused on developing an ongoing story while also touching on week-to-week self-contained stories. The series would be written in a way similar to Babylon 5, where it would be plotted out in excruciating detail such that, if any actor leaves the show for any reason, the character can drop out (and possibly come back later) without it affecting the overall story, and where the show can end satisfactorily at the end of any season, and at the 13-episode mark of the first season in case a "back 9" is never ordered. Do that with your flagship story, and then start telling other interesting stories. For the flagship series, I'd go with finally telling the story of the birth of the Federation as we saw it in the TOS era, where humans are a significant force in the Federation rather than the whole thing being led by the Vulcans. I'd basically ignore all previous Trek entries in terms of establishing canon, and use it more as guidance for themes, background info, etc. Basically do what "Enterprise" was (in my opinion) supposed to do without hemming everything in by trying to fit it within old-school Trek canon, but do as much as possible to link it to those same general concepts. In other words, we're not creating TOS sets and such or trying to evolve into it (since that'd involve explaining why 1960s future-vision technology is somehow more advanced than touchscreens), but we're trying to create the spirit of the TOS era and what led to it.







    While we're at it, I'd also like a pony.
     
    Riceball likes this.
  28. Cephus

    Cephus Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,681
    It doesn't matter what CBS says if Paramount doesn't give them the right to make the series in the first place.
     
  29. Riceball

    Riceball Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,416
    I'm not sure that it works that way, but then again, I'm not exactly certain who ultimately owns the rights. My understanding of it is that for TV Trek it's CBS, for movies it's Paramount.
     
  30. CessnaDriver

    CessnaDriver Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,375
    If they really want to try something new, I kind of thought maybe allow a series to travel within itself. I don't think this has been done before.
    In other words, the viewer is on the five year mission ship at first say, but gets off on some planet colony for a few episodes, then perhaps
    picked up and fly off with an alien crew, then to a space station, back to the five year ship again. So the viewer is visiting
    all these different situations out there but always coming back to your "base" ship. Maybe you follow a character in this, maybe you don't.
    Kind of like if you stayed with the dude that got to be with Balok on TOS for a while, and see that home world and culture, then move on.
    So stories can overlap, and you could see characters meet for the first time, but you know them both from past eps.

    I dunno. Has anything been like that before?
     
  31. NormanF

    NormanF Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,516
    Enterprise started out interesting but then someone decided on the time travel, "temporal war", and the Xindi. If they had stuck with building up to why the Federation had the prime directive and other things that were taken for granted in Star Trek it probably would have done better. If they wanted to show a war they should have used the war with the Romulans, except I think the series was set to early. Maybe an occasional skirmish instead of the "You're in our territory, get out." episode.
     
    YenChih Lin likes this.
  32. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    Aspects of humanity In general... And fans wonder why Star Trek is in such a limbo state. The only thing it has going for it is the very thing that can describe every story ever told.
     
  33. Riceball

    Riceball Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,416
    What would work well along those lines would be a Starfleet Academy anthology series, not a SA series showing a cadet Kirk, Spock, & McCoy like the CBS & Paramount have long obsessed over but one featuring a core cast of cadets that would explore different times in Starfleet/Federation history. Every season or even quarter or half season could reflect a different time period which they would explore via holodeck. This way you could have your 5 year mission stories, your starbase stories, your planet based stories, and even time travel stories. Your cast wouldn't need to be too large and if any one actor starts to be too troublesome or expensive you could simply fail or graduate them from the Academy and replace them with a new cadet character.
     
    Solo4114 likes this.
  34. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    I agree about jargon lameness, but "branding", as a term and as a thing, has been around for a very long time.
     
  35. Inquisitor Peregrinus

    Inquisitor Peregrinus Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,065
    That's actually the idea I had way back in the late '90s. I had a notion of TV movies or miniseries (this was pre-Netflix Originals) that would tell a story arc. Then the next one would pick up with a ship or planet or situation or person involved in the previous movie/miniseries/arc and follow their story, and so on. One could start at any point in the timeline and go to any point in the timeline, or jump around to tell backstories... My working title was "Continuing Missions", and I'd drafted out the first two arcs. The first was about a Starfleet Intelligence deep-cover operative who had been stuck on Cardassia when the Dominion War broke out who had finally gotten exfiltrated, but a leak had compromised the mission. Drama ensues. This led into the second arc where a distress call from Odo sees a Starfleet Expeditionary Force head into the Gamma Quadrant to come to the Founders' aid after their loss in the Dominion War causes some of their neighbors and subject races to exploit their newly-perceived vulnerability. That second one, BTW, included Ambassador Spock as Federation Special Envoy to the Founders, accompanied by his wife, Saavik. From there I was toying with going back to the 2320s to show Demora Sulu handing off the Enterprise-B to Saavik for some exploration into the "Lost Era" of the first half of the 24th century.

    I'm with @Solo4114 in that I think Netflix or Disney (and them then putting it in Netflix) acquiring the rights would be the only viable way to tell the longform stories that work best for Trek, largely free from studio interference.

    I keep thinking of Data's commentary of "teevee" "not last[ing] much beyond the year two thousand forty". If we take that to mean the phenomenon of being in front of the set on a specific day at a specific time to passively receive broadcast content interspersed with advertising interruptions, then I think we're well on track for that. *heh* Already, people are exercising more active involvement in selection, pacing, and timing of acquiring visual media.

    Before anything new happens with Trek, though, they need their own Story Group to hammer out problems in the timeline and establish storytelling rules. I'm tired of "only ship in the quadrant", "transporter accident", "holodeck malfunction", "triply-redundant failsafe system is on a runaway to catastrophic failure and the safeties are out", and other much-overused Trek Tropes. They also need to sort out technological progression so as to avoid timeline-busting problems like Enterprise and nuTrek. And time travel needs to 1) be kept to an absolute minimum and 2) follow one model or the other, since they're mutually-incompatible. The preponderance of episodes favor the "multiverse" model. The Guardian of Forever gets special dispensation, as does Q. I'm fine with small-scale local effects like in TOS' "The Naked Time". But I'm tired of the "time-travel paradox" stories. They don't work. A paradox isn't a brain teaser to think your way around. Reality is simply not so arranged as to allow it to happen. Back to the Future is a fun movie, but it couldn't happen. *sigh*

    But yeah. Lotta stuff would need to happen before we could hope for anything properly Trek-like to show up again.

    --Jonah
     
  36. jlee562

    jlee562 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,685
    I'll concede that I might be way off base; but my perception is that the way businesses think about and use the term "branding" is different now than how it would have been in say, 2002. E.g., how Kim Kardashian is a "brand."

    But I digress...

    Trek does better in a serial format. But TV is a bad place to be a serial format and be in the ratings war. Going through Netflix or Hulu is an easier way to get to the people who want it.

    I don't understand how any of these high paid executives don't themselves see that there is a audience for the show.

    And you know, the more I think about it, the stupider the original comment gets. How could a TV show "dilute" the brand when Trek started on TV?
     
  37. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    I would give you a throughbred for saving me the time to basically write what you just posted! :lol


     
    Solo4114 likes this.
  38. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    If, in the execs' minds, the "brand" is a "film brand," then yeah, adding a TV dimension to it dilutes it. Basically, if you approach a given franchise/brand as a kind of big-event/blockbuster movie franchise, then doing weekly stories about Data's cat or whatever will dilute that. If your "brand" is a big-deal must-be-seen-in-theaters one, then having a weekly show or two or three makes that "big event" of a new movie coming out much less special because you can get your "new Trek" (as opposed to reruns) fix any old time on TV.

    On the flipside, the show will be the victim of invidious comparison to the films because it'll necessarily be lower budget. People could look at it and say "Why bother? I don't need to see cheap, wobbly sets and crappy CGI when I can get 3D top-of-the-line CGI battles in the next film." So, having both ends up hurting both (arguably).

    That's my best guess as to what the execs are thinking. They want Trek to be a big movie event franchise, like, say, Jurassic Park. If you had "Jurassic Park: the Series" running WHILE you were trying to promote, say, Jurassic Park 5, the film would arguably be less "special" because, whatever, if you miss it, you can just go watch the show next week. The only distinction would be the FX budget. And that would cut against the show, because the dinos would look way better in the films than on the show. So, in a way, you'd end up splitting your fan base or relegating the fan base to a much smaller core of fans who'll go for ANYTHING Jurassic Park, while the casual fans either skip the film or the series, or both.


    Now, personally, I think the mistake is treating Trek as a film brand. It's never REALLY been a film brand. Not as effectively as it was a TV brand, in my opinion. the films are really hit-or-miss, and seem to alternate between bigbigbig spectacle and "This probably should've just been a single episode or at most a 2-parter." It's rare that the films feel like they connect on a human level while also maintaining a sufficient level of spectacle to justify the fact that it's a film instead of just another TV episode. In my mind, only WOK really manages that, and perhaps The Undiscovered Country. The rest are far more uneven. And at their absolute worst, they're empty, crappy spectacle, like Nemesis, or plodding and dull "too-long TV episodes" like TMP.

    On TV, the occasional off episode is easily brushed aside because you've got another one coming next week.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2015
    Riceball likes this.

Share This Page