PDA

View Full Version : How would you freshen up the next Star Trek series ?



Daz
12-06-2005, 09:05 AM
Here's my take


THE ERA - My personal preferance would be the era between the 23rd century seen in the original films and the early 24 th we heard about in TNG they have always struck me as the most interesting and dramatic era's. You got the feeling that the galaxy was still a mysterious and dangerous place back then not the anodyne sterile place it became in TNG , not that I'm slagging TNG off it was a great show you just felt though that this crew had seen it all before and had catagorised and filed it under been there done that. The late 23 rd/early 24 th century on the other hand was an era that saw old alliance's crumble(the Romulans & Klingons) and the emergence of new ones in the form of a tenuous alliance between the federation and their most implacable foes the Klingons. An alliance that would be tested by Romulan treachery and come through strengthened by the Noble sacrifice of Captain Garret and the crew of the Enterprise -1701 -c early in the 24 th century. A era rich in potential for furture exploration surely. That said I think their unlikely to go in the prequel direction again after ENT which is a shame as there is more potential in exploring Star treks gritty and rich past then it's annodyne future( which save destroying the federation in the next series will only get more utopia like and boring the further they push into the future).


THE CREW - First things first whatever ship they set it on there has to be more aliens in the crew and on the bridge( an Andorian maybe they are founder members after all) as it seems most of the time to be a humans only club. If anything the further into the future they take the next show the more aliens we should see in starfleet uniforms, if as is my humble wish they dare go the prequel route again I think they should set it on the Enterprise C who's ultimate fate though tragic would make a grand standing finish to any series.

THE FORMAT - Twenty six episodes a series is one hell of a punishing schedule why not go the hbo route and do 12 great episodes with an increased budget for each instead, or failing that take a six month Hiatus after the first ten episodes to fasion the next 10 ala RDM's BSG. We'd be more then willing to wait if the qualities good.


THE MUSIC - Too long have we trekkies had to put up with elevator music on our shows which enhanced the onscreen action not one jot. Its high time a proper composer was brought in fulltime and not just to score the opening credits. If the powers that be saw fit to change the format as I've elaborated on above a prospective composer might have enough time with the material (ie the episode Script or dailies from the ep shoot) to craft a moving and gripping score not just for sweeps episodes but for every episode, how great would that be.

decadentdave
12-06-2005, 11:12 AM
I'd like to see the adventures of Captain Christopher Pike, Number 1 and Young Spock aboard the Starship Enterprise, complete with retro costumes.

Of course, casting is going to be tough. You just can't cast some WB pretty boy in the role of Pike. He has to be handsome yet manly like Jeffrey Hunter and as for Spock, well, he'd have to be a dead ringer for young Nimoy.

I also always wanted to see the "Lost Years" the original 70's series that evolved into Star Trek: The Motion Picture. They apparently wrote half a season (13 episodes) which were published in a spectacular book. If they kept the original production designs and costumes and did an awesome CGI Enterprise-A that would kick butt! Again, casting would be tough. You could never re-cast the Shat. No man on earth could compare to the Shat. Still, it would be interesting to see the voyages that never were.

Droid
12-06-2005, 01:27 PM
I personally don't think a Star Trek show is marketable right now no matter what is done, but I would enjoy an anthology show. Different Star Trek stories. One episode about an all Vulcan ship. One episode about Star Fleet academy. It could jump around different eras to show different interesting events in Trek history. I know the cost each week of the production starting from scratch would be prohibitive so that it would never happen, but I think it would be interesting.

I think that to really appeal to Trek fans they need to break the mold of a Federation ship, a mostly human crew, running around each week doing stories that have been done before.

But if there were no main characters (probably human) people wouldn't latch on to the show. There's a chance they would have to appeal to kids by making it hip in a way that would drive Trek fans up the wall.

El Chuxter
12-06-2005, 01:50 PM
I'd make it a musical.

JimJamBonds
12-06-2005, 02:02 PM
I think it would be best to let things just sit and collect a bit of dust. In some form it was on tv from what 89 - last year? Take a bit of a break to gather yourself, then we you do come back make sure you have a solid idea and solid casting like there was in TNG. I'm not really sure what they could do though, they've done the 'Enterprise in the future thing' the 'stationary thing' the 'thrown a jillion miles away from where they are supposed to be thing' and the 'early Enterprise thing.'

Maybe they could do something at the academy which follows Zack, Kelly, AC, Jessie, Lisa and Screech as they make their way though school. :laugh:

decadentdave
12-06-2005, 02:36 PM
Starfleet Academy is too Smallville-ish. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of bratty kids trying to play adults. Trek needs to get back to its sci-fi roots: Exploration of the Unknown. It's a really BIG universe out there with infinite possibilities. Trek could go on forever... if it is done with some dignity. I think the reason why the Trek series went stale was for two reasons: Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. Fire them and get some fresh creative talent in there for God's sake!

12inch Lando
12-06-2005, 05:34 PM
The adventures of Wesley Crusher...:laugh:

Good thread. I'll have to give it some thought for a proper response. Gee... it's been a long time. You haven't felt my presence since...


Hey El Chuxter, long time no read. You're a Senator now I see... I've got a couple of traffic tickets that, you know, if you have the time.

*psst* who are these other people?

Blue2th
12-06-2005, 06:48 PM
I really don't think they should have cancelled Enterprise in the first place. It was getting better every season. Especially the near last episodes of the alternate evil Empire Enterprise. It was killer. I personally think it was cancelled for other reasons. The characters were totally cool. The show was better than any Sci-Fi series running at the time or even now. Though Battlestar Gallactica is totally cool (can't wait till January) Us Sci-Fi buffs are starving for good interesting shows. They should have put it on another night, changed the song, showed more of that female Vulcan skin, but they never should have cancelled it!!!!!!!:mad:

JediTricks
12-06-2005, 09:06 PM
I think another Trek series would be best taking place just after Star Trek 6, there's no famous crew, the feel is more military-based exploration like the original series and movies (TNG kinda moved away from the Horatio Hornblower thing), there's the FIRST alliance between the Federation and the Klingons (you know, the alliance that eventually cooled into just a truce) and the Klingons are still desparate, would make for Klingon pirates (c'mon, that'd be SUPER cool!), the Romulans would be all but disappeared (TNG confirmed they pulled back behind their borders and disappeared around this time), no Ferengi yet, no Q or Borg, the Enterprise-B has nearly no stories about it and it's not like we HAVE to use the Enterprise, it could just be a supporting player, maybe there could be several casts of ships, a Starfleet theme with repeating settings and ships (stations, the academy, freighters...)



That said I think their unlikely to go in the prequel direction again after ENT which is a shame as there is more potential in exploring Star treks gritty and rich past then it's annodyne future( which save destroying the federation in the next series will only get more utopia like and boring the further they push into the future).Actually, Berman is planning a post-Enterprise but way pre-TOS prequel movie because he's a hack.



First things first whatever ship they set it on there has to be more aliens in the crew and on the bridge( an Andorian maybe they are founder members after all) as it seems most of the time to be a humans only club.Don't overdo it though, that's one of the things I didn't like about the SW prequels, Lucas went overboard with the damn crazy aliens everywhere, there was only 1 human on the Jedi Council for corn's sake. ST:TMP dealt with this best, a few more aliens but nothing too jarring, not like DS9 and Voyager where they flashed forward a few times to show Ferengi and Cardassians and all sorts of aliens we knew on Starfleet ships.


Twenty six episodes a series is one hell of a punishing schedule why not go the hbo route and do 12 great episodes with an increased budget for each instead, or failing that take a six month Hiatus after the first ten episodes to fasion the next 10 ala RDM's BSG. We'd be more then willing to wait if the qualities good.No way, if it airs on network or syndication it's gotta be 22 to 26 eps, regular TV doesn't allow for anything else. That's only half a year of eps as it is, they just need to use their money better this time. Plus, doing only like 7 eps and then taking a long break and then another 6 eps like a few cable series do lets the audience cool too much, they lose interest too easily.


Too long have we trekkies had to put up with elevator music on our shows which enhanced the onscreen action not one jot. Its high time a proper composer was brought in fulltime and not just to score the opening credits. If the powers that be saw fit to change the format as I've elaborated on above a prospective composer might have enough time with the material (ie the episode Script or dailies from the ep shoot) to craft a moving and gripping score not just for sweeps episodes but for every episode, how great would that be.IMO, the style of music from TNG on was trying too hard to be like the movies, that works for the movies but I think to be really different they have to go back to the smaller music of TOS, no orchestral sweetening, just a few raw pieces to pick up the emotion and the rest of the time the show itself will do the work.



I would enjoy an anthology show. Different Star Trek stories. One episode about an all Vulcan ship. One episode about Star Fleet academy. It could jump around different eras to show different interesting events in Trek history.I wouldn't like to jump eras, that'd be too confusing for audiences and create niches where fans of certain eras would only watch their episodes which might come only twice a season, that's no way to build ratings. Also, jumping to other species I don't think would be a good idea, we need an instant audience-familiarity with the crews in an anthology like what you are suggesting (I suggested a non-era-jumping idea in my earlier paragraph too).


I know the cost each week of the production starting from scratch would be prohibitive so that it would never happen, but I think it would be interesting.Lucas could do it the way he did Eps 2 and 3, everything greenscreen, but I don't think it'd make a compelling series as the actors wouldn't get to stretch their imaginations with actual sets and props which I think is vital to the process.


But if there were no main characters (probably human) people wouldn't latch on to the show. My idea above deals with that. :D



I think it would be best to let things just sit and collect a bit of dust. In some form it was on tv from what 89 - last year?'87 till last year, but keep in mind that before TNG there was the short-lived cartoon, massive reruns, and then movies to fill the interest whereas we seem to be entering a movie-free period and Spike reruns are not fun because they overdo it and it's Spike.


I'm not really sure what they could do though, they've done the 'Enterprise in the future thing' the 'stationary thing' the 'thrown a jillion miles away from where they are supposed to be thing' and the 'early Enterprise thing.'Go back to their real roots, not prequelitis like Enterprise but continue the tradition of TOS, that's how the Phase II show was going to be before it became the first movie, and Phase II was morphed into TNG 10 years later (TNG was more sciencey but basically Phase II with a new cast), thanks to Nick Meyers we have a more military horatio hornblower-style Trek to work with if we go back to the movies' era.


Maybe they could do something at the academy which follows Zack, Kelly, AC, Jessie, Lisa and Screech as they make their way though school. :laugh:Friggin' Rick Berman really wanted to do something like that! It very nearly happened.



The adventures of Wesley Crusher...:laugh:You jest, but Wesley did end up travelling through multiple dimensions that man was not expected to see for a millennia AND he returned in time to be at the head table at Troi & Riker's wedding. :p BTW, welcome back!

Phantom-like Menace
12-07-2005, 02:14 AM
It's interesting that a number of people have mentioned an anthology idea. After Voyager and before Enterprise, I had said I wanted to see an anthology. I figured it would be cool if the story took place more or less right at the end of Voyager and followed three or four ships on a handshaking mission into Dominion Space. The basic message would be that after fighting a terrible war with these guys, there were hoping to bury the hatchet.

Episodes would randomly go back and forth between the ships, and while some episodes wouldn't even mention any of the other ships, other episodes could bring in another of the group. Finales and sweeps periods could bring them all together to pull missions off in dramatic fashion in which each ship contributes.

I figured the bridge sets could be modular so they could easily convert the set to be the other ships' bridges, and I figured there could be only two or so series regulars on each ship with a handful of semi-regulars.

JediTricks
12-07-2005, 03:20 PM
All Trek bridge sets have been modular, so hopefully they didn't destroy them and can use them again.

Another thing I like about the post-ST6 universe is that the controls were partially smooth panels and partially switches and sliders and stuff, that made it more visually interesting while keeping it modular.

Blue2th
12-07-2005, 06:52 PM
We have yet to see a movie or series cover the Massacre at Camp Kitamer (place seen in the Undiscovered Country) Isn't that where the Romulans try to destroy the aliance with the Klingons? Where Worf's Grandfather Mogg is accused of betraying the Klingons. When did this take place I wonder during the time of Enterprise B or C? I know that they were in a full fledged war by the time the Enterprise C was around. It might make an interesting movie.

Daz
12-07-2005, 07:27 PM
The massacre at Khitomer happened some years after the destruction of the Enterprise C at Nerandra 3 apparently. On a side note when was the alliance between the Klingons and Rommies meant to be?

JediTricks
12-07-2005, 07:29 PM
We've never seen the Khitomer Massacre, that is where the accord took place and later where the Romulans attacked and killed everybody except Worf, disgracing Worf's father by making it look like it was his fault the defenses were down (we find out later it wasn't), it's a Klingon planet. I always figured it'd be a lot like the battle we heard about in the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" (the Ent-C one that sends Tasha Yar back in time) but that was a different colony, Narendra III.

You're mistaken about there being a full-fledged war around the Ent-C though, the Klingons and Federation were under straining truce as they had stopped talking, but it was the Ent-C's attempt to defend the Klingons from the Romulans (who had been hidden behind their borders for 70 years at the time) which created the stronger alliance between the Klingons and Federation, and the ep showed that if the Ent-C hadn't been seen helping that the truce would have eventually collapsed into a war (which never happened in the "real universe"). Confused? Sorry, I tried to make that come off simple but instead I gave myself a headache. :p

CooLJoE
12-08-2005, 07:03 AM
Where should they start? There are 2 simple choices:

Right where Enterprise show ended

-or-

Right after the events that happened at the very beginning of Star Trek Generations movie. Meaning, right after that beginning sequence where Kirk (then Admiral Kirk) was watching the launch of the next Enterprise class starship, which I believe puts it at Enterprise B?

JediTricks
12-08-2005, 05:59 PM
Yes, Kirk was killed on the maiden voyage of the Ent-B, which didn't have any of its crew or equipment.

Droid
12-09-2005, 08:14 AM
I thought I hated Kirk's death - then I saw Data's.

decadentdave
12-09-2005, 12:35 PM
I agree that Kirk's death was a travesty. He falls off a friggin bridge?!?!! How UNHEROIC is that! He should have gone down with his beloved ship.

As for Data's death, I thought it was perfect. I loved Nemesis and thought it was the perfect end for Data's character, although they left it open for his personality to emerge from B4. Data finally comitted the ultimate act of self-sacrifice and by doing so became human which is what he always aspired to become. What more could you possibly hope for?

Droid
12-09-2005, 01:13 PM
As for Data's death, I thought it was perfect. I loved Nemesis and thought it was the perfect end for Data's character, although they left it open for his personality to emerge from B4. Data finally comitted the ultimate act of self-sacrifice and by doing so became human which is what he always aspired to become. What more could you possibly hope for?

1. Data's character did not need an end.

2. Data was more special than any other member of the crew. He was any
entirely new life form. Within the story, his death is a tragedy of galactic
proportions.

3. Data committed many acts of self sacrifice throughout the show. With
the permanent installing emotion chip - another mistake in the
character's evolution after the show (as evidenced by him not even
having it is Insurrection) - Data was as human as he could hope to
become. Death did not make him more human. Since when is dying for
someone else necessary to become human? And Data's story was his
journey in trying to become more human. It was the quest that was
interesting, not whether he would someday accomplish his goals.
I'd like to think, just like Data, I am striving to become more human and
that the journey is what is important, not what I will be on the day I die.

4. What more could I possibly hope for? I could hope that Data would not
die through some cheap stunt in a lackluster film that would neither
honor the character nor give the viewer time to mourn him. If Brent
Spiner had said he would never again do Star Trek and they had a bunch
more movies lined up I could see killing him. But when it was in all
likelihood the last story to feature that crew killing him was as
unnecessary as if the Entrprise A had blown up while
flying into the sunset at the end of Undiscovered Country.

5. And don't try to convince me retared Data Version -0.1 version is
some replacement. I know Data put his memories into B4 so they could
have a cop out if they want later and bring him back kind of like Spock,
but that android is no Data and will never be Data.

Picard's clone and Data's idiot brother were horrible, horrible plot devices. Any one on these boards could have come up with a more interesting plot for the movie.

The Star Trek people know that Star Trek II was as good as it gets for Star Trek and have tried to replicate the emotional power of Spock's death in hollow attempt after hollow attempt. Picard's family, Kirk, Data, and Trip were all offered up on the sacrificial altar of trying to create depth and weight and it failed miserably due to the poor writing that existed in Generations, Nemesis, and the last episode of Enterprise. The Best of Both Worlds was likely the best thing Star Trek ever did on the small screen. And it would not have been as good if Picard died. Death is a lazy writer's tool to make something powerful. Star Trek needs to learn that you can't just write some piece of garbage, slap a death into the story, and except it to become gold. Oh wait, they don't need to learn anything because there is no Star Trek anymore.

Data was perhaps the most special character ever created in Star Trek (Spock is the only other character in the same arena). His death was unnecesary and poorly done and I am not quite sure I will ever get over it.

And yes I know it is fiction and just movies. But you log a couple hundred hours getting to know a character and you start to care.

decadentdave
12-09-2005, 01:53 PM
1. Data's character did not need an end. I think they have pretty much exhausted the growth of his character. It was a fitting end.


2. Data was more special than any other member of the crew. He was any
entirely new life form. Within the story, his death is a tragedy of galactic
proportions. So was Spock. Just because they were "special" doesn't mean they can't sacrifice themselves for the greater good as Spock said "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few... or the one." He's an android but not indestructible. Sh** Happens.


3. Data committed many acts of self sacrifice throughout the show. With
the permanent installing emotion chip - another mistake in the
character's evolution after the show (as evidenced by him not even
having it is Insurrection) - Data was as human as he could hope to
become. Death did not make him more human. Since when is dying for
someone else necessary to become human? And Data's story was his
journey in trying to become more human. It was the quest that was
interesting, not whether he would someday accomplish his goals.
I'd like to think, just like Data, I am striving to become more human and
that the journey is what is important, not what I will be on the day I die.
An Emotion Chip is an emulation of human feelings. Data's decision to sacrifice himself can be viewed as both a decision made from logic (as was Spock's logical decision to sacrifice himself) and also the selfless act of human sacrifice. Spock would have been insulted of the accusation that he made a human sacrifice but that is his Vulcan stubborness. Data, on the other hand, would have been honored to have been remembered as making a human sacrifice.

4. What more could I possibly hope for? I could hope that Data would not
die through some cheap stunt in a lackluster film that would neither
honor the character nor give the viewer time to mourn him. If Brent
Spiner had said he would never again do Star Trek and they had a bunch
more movies lined up I could see killing him. But when it was in all
likelihood the last story to feature that crew killing him was as
unnecessary as if the Entrprise A had blown up while
flying into the sunset at the end of Undiscovered Country.
I thought it honored the character appropriately and was a spectacular film. The best film since Wrath of Khan, IMO. And yes, I wish Kirk had kamikazed the Enterprise-A after ordering all hands to abandon ship. I have always imagined Kirk's death to be the Captain's Last Act.


5. And don't try to convince me retared Data Version -0.1 version is
some replacement. I know Data put his memories into B4 so they could
have a cop out if they want later and bring him back kind of like Spock,
but that android is no Data and will never be Data.

Picard's clone and Data's idiot brother were horrible, horrible plot devices. Any one on these boards could have come up with a more interesting plot for the movie.

The Star Trek people know that Star Trek II was as good as it gets for Star Trek and have tried to replicate the emotional power of Spock's death in hollow attempt after hollow attempt. Picard's family, Kirk, Data, and Trip were all offered up on the sacrificial altar of trying to create depth and weight and it failed miserably due to the poor writing that existed in Generations, Nemesis, and the last episode of Enterprise. The Best of Both Worlds was likely the best thing Star Trek ever did on the small screen. And it would not have been as good if Picard died. Death is a lazy writer's tool to make something powerful. Star Trek needs to learn that you can't just write some piece of garbage, slap a death into the story, and except it to become gold. Oh wait, they don't need to learn anything because there is no Star Trek anymore.

Data was perhaps the most special character ever created in Star Trek (Spock is the only other character in the same arena). His death was unnecesary and poorly done and I am not quite sure I will ever get over it.

And yes I know it is fiction and just movies. But you log a couple hundred hours getting to know a character and you start to care. B4 is ignorant but Data DID download his positronic brain into B4's memory. Geordi or someone could restore Data's complete personality, however it brings up an ethical argument that by doing so would destroy that of the B4 individual, something Picard would not approve of, and that he, as an individual, has a right to live. It might be possible to reconstruct another android body based on Doctor Soong's designs stored within B4's positronic memory banks and download Data's memory into it to resurrect him.

I found Nemesis thoroughly entertaining. If the last several films weren't steaming piles of junk, perhaps it would have made more money at the box office and wouldn't have been the final TNG film. I still believe that the door has been left open and that we might still see our old fiends on another adventure. Certainly, Data can still return. If they can resurrect Spock from the Genesis planet, they can easily bring back Data.

El Chuxter
12-09-2005, 02:02 PM
Data's dead? What a crock of poop.

decadentdave
12-09-2005, 02:29 PM
Data's dead? What a crock of poop.

Get over it.

JediTricks
12-09-2005, 04:05 PM
I agree that Kirk's death was a travesty. He falls off a friggin bridge?!?!! How UNHEROIC is that! He should have gone down with his beloved ship.Even more a travesty... they RESHOT his death scenes to make them BETTER! How pathetic must the original version have been then?


As for Data's death, I thought it was perfect. I loved Nemesis and thought it was the perfect end for Data's character, although they left it open for his personality to emerge from B4. Data finally comitted the ultimate act of self-sacrifice and by doing so became human which is what he always aspired to become. What more could you possibly hope for?I'm with Droid on this, Data's death was hateful. I also think it was pointless, self-sacrifice should only REALLY be when there's no other option, not when it's just convenient to the plot. And B4 all the way was a cheap there.


I forgot about Trip's death, that was another one that felt really hollow because it seemed so unnecessary, they had thought their way out of tougher situations but this time the script said otherwise. And Trip was my favorite character on Ent too, the one who best embodied the spirit of Trek.



I think they have pretty much exhausted the growth of his character. It was a fitting end.What? First off, character growth doesn't have to be CONSTANT to be a necessary character. Second, Data hadn't hadn't been in love or been promoted to command of a starship or any of the other things that he could have been, there was plenty of room to grow, especially because he was still a fairly "young" character in terms of emotional contexts.



An Emotion Chip is an emulation of human feelings. Data's decision to sacrifice himself can be viewed as both a decision made from logic (as was Spock's logical decision to sacrifice himself) and also the selfless act of human sacrifice. Spock would have been insulted of the accusation that he made a human sacrifice but that is his Vulcan stubborness. Data, on the other hand, would have been honored to have been remembered as making a human sacrifice.Spock sacrificed himself for the good of the many when there was absolutely no other way. Why did Data? It wasn't the good of the many and all he had to do was hold onto Picard and they both would have been beamed out. Nemesis is the only Trek movie I've only seen once so maybe I missed the point of the "why" but it sure felt hollow and needless and convoluted to me.


B4 is ignorant but Data DID download his positronic brain into B4's memory. Geordi or someone could restore Data's complete personality, however it brings up an ethical argument that by doing so would destroy that of the B4 individual, something Picard would not approve of, and that he, as an individual, has a right to live. It might be possible to reconstruct another android body based on Doctor Soong's designs stored within B4's positronic memory banks and download Data's memory into it to resurrect him.B4 doesn't have an advanced-enough positronic brain to become Data, and nobody else has successfully created a stable positronic brain that was anywhere near as advanced as Data's so it's likely that without major convolution there will be no more Data bodies.

Droid
12-09-2005, 05:01 PM
B4 doesn't have an advanced-enough positronic brain to become Data, and nobody else has successfully created a stable positronic brain that was anywhere near as advanced as Data's so it's likely that without major convolution there will be no more Data bodies.

Actually, didn't Data deactivate Lore in Descent Part II and then they never said what happened to the body? I guess they could put Data's brain in Lore's body. No matter how they try to bring Data back his death was stupid and their attempt to bring him back would only demonstrate that they made a huge mistake killing him.

decadentdave
12-09-2005, 06:52 PM
Actually, didn't Data deactivate Lore in Descent Part II and then they never said what happened to the body? I guess they could put Data's brain in Lore's body. No matter how they try to bring Data back his death was stupid and their attempt to bring him back would only demonstrate that they made a huge mistake killing him.

I would rather have seen Lore return in Nemesis than B4. That would have made more sense. As for Data, he made a logical decision to save the Captain because the Captains life was more important than his own irregardless of the fact that he was an android and could llive longer than any human. That fact alone makes him an expendable member of its crew. Data had to stay behind to destroy the Theleron weapon before it destroyed the Enterprise. He saved Picard and the ship and her crew at the cost of his own life.

We know that Data comes back because he was with them in the future in "All Good Things" which was Trek's swan song as far as I'm concerned. I can't believe you Trekkies get so upset over Data dying. His character ran his course, just as the show itself did. Like I said B4, "All Good Things..."

JediTricks
12-09-2005, 10:02 PM
Actually, didn't Data deactivate Lore in Descent Part II and then they never said what happened to the body? I guess they could put Data's brain in Lore's body. No matter how they try to bring Data back his death was stupid and their attempt to bring him back would only demonstrate that they made a huge mistake killing him.Even if Data hadn't phasered Lore's brain, Data is an L-type positronic net while Lore is an R-type, they're not fully compatible (which is why Lore went even more crazy when Dr Soong gave him the emotion chip by mistake).



We know that Data comes back because he was with them in the future in "All Good Things" which was Trek's swan song as far as I'm concerned.That was an avoided future, making it an alternate and unexisted timeline where Worf and Troi get married and the Enterprise-D isn't destroyed over Veridian III.

Phantom-like Menace
12-09-2005, 10:44 PM
Well, I loved First Contact, but Insurrection was just crap filled with the most forced humor I've ever experienced in a movie or television show. Nemesis was only marginally better. I've always considered Data my favorite character in a series I knew and loved well enough that I could name the episode inside of ten seconds of watching any part of it. Nemesis fell so flat with so little drama that when they killed Data, I looked at my friend and with a profound lack of emotion said, "And the explosion was so great they couldn't even find one single datum."

It is, though, annoying to take stock of Insurrection and Nemesis and declare they are out of ideas. Every episode of the series wasn't gold either. They just had more opportunities for success. A twenty-two episode season could eat a few bad episodes; a movie franchise can't carry as much fat.

From what I understand (the last episode of Enterprise I made myself watch was toward the end of the first season), Trip was always supposed to die in the final episode of whatever was the last season only to be brought back in the premier of the new season. The cancellation of Enterprise made his death more permanent.

JediTricks
12-10-2005, 02:29 PM
Well, I loved First Contact, but Insurrection was just crap filled with the most forced humor I've ever experienced in a movie or television show. Nemesis was only marginally better.Totally agree!


It is, though, annoying to take stock of Insurrection and Nemesis and declare they are out of ideas. Every episode of the series wasn't gold either. They just had more opportunities for success. A twenty-two episode season could eat a few bad episodes; a movie franchise can't carry as much fat.This is very true. I think the problem then is that either the writers or more likely the producers can no longer discern what makes a good Trek tale anymore.

Tycho
01-06-2006, 04:10 AM
Trip was my favorite character on Enterprise, and the show became one of my favorites for Trek (though DS9 was the best it ever got!)

Anyway, killing Trip was a waste.

I'd like a story done after Enterprise and before TOS. That is the most interesting era to me: the Klingon Wars and the Romulan War, etc.

Meanwhile, rumor has it that Tom Hanks is being sought for Star Trek (presumably as a captain?) for the next movie (silver-screen only). Hanks is not going to do TV shows but after Apollo-13, etc. he is known to sci-fi fans as a command-leader figure. They may be going to bring in big names to the franchise to reinvigorate it.

Tom Hanks
Halle Berry
Ian McKellan
Sigourney Weaver
Gene Hackman
Tommy Lee Jones
Danny Glover
Denzyl Washington

Some of these names could work. Again they'd do movies but not likely television.

JimJamBonds
01-06-2006, 12:14 PM
Meanwhile, rumor has it that Tom Hanks is being sought for Star Trek (presumably as a captain?) for the next movie (silver-screen only). Hanks is not going to do TV shows but after Apollo-13, etc. he is known to sci-fi fans as a command-leader figure. They may be going to bring in big names to the franchise to reinvigorate it.

Tom Hanks
Halle Berry
Ian McKellan
Sigourney Weaver
Gene Hackman
Tommy Lee Jones
Danny Glover
Denzyl Washington

Some of these names could work. Again they'd do movies but not likely television.

Ehh I'd say no to most of those folks, actually I'd say no to all of them and maybe to Ian. Those names are 'too big' and they would be put before the movie, I think the movie is bigger then the actors, its much the same as Star Wars. With that said I'd say that Tom Hanks would probably be pretty good. :)

Edit: Ian could be alright if he was 'done up' a bit. Although with that voice it would be hard to seperate him from Palpy.

JediTricks
01-06-2006, 01:31 PM
I completely agree with JimJam that those are all "no" names, star power only lessens the impact of the franchise, look at Halle Berry as Storm - she thinks she's the STAR of the series, and she's the WORST main actor of their lot, Oscar or no.

I think Hanks is totally wrong for captaining a Star Trek ship, he's too everyman, not Shakespearean enough, not Horatio Hornblower enough, we already had a kinda puppydog captain in Jonathan Archer and it didn't connect.

Tycho
01-10-2006, 03:44 PM
2 thoughts that are actually what I've been propogating for many years now:


1) a ship full of intergalactic mercenaries or criminals, mostly human (for audience identification) who use 23rd / 24th century technology to commit crimes. They are foiled by their own stumbling onto morals over the course of their story arcs, sort of like a crew of "Han Solo's" acting like the Strike Team on "The Shield." They supply weapons to the wrong race or whatever, then develop regrets and rectify the situation later. Gene Roddenberry's vision will still be left in tact as this crew cannot fully become morally corrupt if they try - and every episode they try.

2) Lower Decks - Ensigns, enlisted, even a ship's chef's assistant, nurses etc. stationed on board the USS Titan with Riker (eh-hmm, William T. Troi) as captain. The Capt. will make guest appearances, but this will be about a younger generation up and coming, but not quite Starfleet superheroes yet. The show will depict their experiences with command's decisions.

THE MOVIES:

should take place after Archer, and before Kirk. Maybe with Robert April as captain and Sam Kirk at Tactical or helm, or wherever he served. The Klingon and Romulan Wars should be covered. If rumors that Tom Hanks is being sought, I'd recommend him for Captain April.

DS9: the conclusion - a one movie experience that resolves the Sisko-Dukat thing more clearly. With a non-linear time thing with the prophets, Terry Ferrel could even appear as Jadzia Dax for more closure for Worf. Perhaps Kira should kill Dukat once and for all.

JediTricks
01-10-2006, 09:29 PM
The movies should be a Federation civil war, mixing TNG, DS9, and Voy characters against other Starfleet vessels.