# New Star Trek TV Series In Development



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 26, 2011)

It's not greenlit yet....but apparently CBS is very receptive and it's Post Voyager in the original timeline....

New Star Trek TV Series Being Planned, Takes Place After Voyager | Giant Freakin Robot

Best news of the decade!


----------



## Kzach (Aug 26, 2011)

> The vision that we have created is true to the “pre-2009 screen canon” (TV and movies). We were also careful with the Star Trek: Enterprise canon as well. Through the years, I have had the chance to get to know many of the original series cast, crew, and even some of the studio execs. I have developed an extremely deep passion for the original vision of Gene Roddenberry. And while Star Trek has moved on with other series that were not exactly in line with Gene’s original vision, the roots are there to tap into.




As a fan of the new movie and as someone who despises Voyager and Enterprise for all the stupid crap they added to the ST universe, this does not inspire me even one tiny little bit.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 26, 2011)

Kzach said:


> As a fan of the new movie and as someone who despises Voyager and Enterprise for all the stupid crap they added to the ST universe, this does not inspire me even one tiny little bit.




Voyager adds Quantum Slipstream for faster and longer travel (meaning better exploration stories)...there isn't really much else.

The majority of stuff that happened in Enterprise is so far in the past it can be ignored, and for the record everything that happened in Enterprise happened in the 2009 movie too because its BEFORE Kirk's era and before Nero's incursion into the timeline altering it. Scotty even mentions Archer's dog in the movie.


----------



## Cor Azer (Aug 26, 2011)

Interesting, but fairly light on details, so it's hard to evaluate.

Abrams' movie does allow for both continuities to exist of course - TV Trek in the original universe (perhaps even having an arc dealing with the supernova that takes out Romulus), and the movie franchise in the new/alternate universe. Plenty of ways to give  shout outs to one another too.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 26, 2011)

BrooklynKnight said:


> Voyager adds Quantum Slipstream for faster and longer travel (meaning better exploration stories)...there isn't really much else.




Bah, that's just technobabble for, "It'll only take us a couple of hours, where in my dad's time it took them _days_ to get there!"


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 26, 2011)

I loved the 2009 movie, and had no problems with the new cast and the reimagined look of the Enterprise.

But the time travel and continuity changes were, IMO, unnecessary and stupid.

If/when our new Trek show hits out internet-enabled TV screens (or our TV-enabled internet computers), I hope there is ONE time travel episode, and ONE only . . . where the Time Police (or whatever they're called) from the future come back and "fix" the "incident" from the movie.  Heh.

After that, no more time travel stories.  They just get irritating (to me).


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 26, 2011)

Looks like Fall of 2013 at the earliest. After Enterprise, that there would be another series was inevitable. The only real problem with having the show in TNG/DS9/Voyager continuity is fans will want cameos from those shows casts. Hopefully they're putting a decade or more after Voyager so the age of the characters matches the aging of the actors.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 26, 2011)

If they manage to keep Rick Berman out of it, and preferably Branon Braga too, I'd watch. If it's another Rick Berman-produced Trek then I won't even bother to watch the pilot.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 26, 2011)

Dire Bare said:


> But the time travel and continuity changes were, IMO, unnecessary and stupid.




Actually, they make a lot of sense, in the context of another potential series.

Trek has become akin to modern mythology, or Shakespeare.  It was only a matter of time before the iconic characters were taken on by other actors.  

The fans are willing to accept a movie with a clear continuity break.  That's easy to wrap a mind around.  However, I don't think the fans are ready for a TV series that has a similar continuity break.  

And, IMHO, Enterprise was the greatest wasted opportunity the property has ever seen.  No, it didn't fail because of franchise fatigue.  It failed because B&B didn't realize what they should do with it.  Manny Coto knew, and from the point they handed over the reigns to him to deal with movies, the difference is palpable.  it was merely to little, too late.  I think if Coto had the reigns from the beginning, the show would have been a solid success.


----------



## Starman (Aug 26, 2011)

I'd be sort of surprised if the powers that be let this move forward in the old timeline. My guess is that they would look at the popularity of the recent movie, the lack of popularity with the last two TV shows, and think that it would be a better bet for a new TV series to stick with the new timeline.


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 26, 2011)

Starman said:


> I'd be sort of surprised if the powers that be let this move forward in the old timeline. My guess is that they would look at the popularity of the recent movie, the lack of popularity with the last two TV shows, and think that it would be a better bet for a new TV series to stick with the new timeline.




It could be a rights issue. Maybe the rights to the movie timeline are held by the movie people and they don't want anyone messing around with it and potentially causing issues for future movies.

So the old timeline is "safe" for a television show to mess around with.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 26, 2011)

Farengi seem likely to be the new Big Bads in this one. So I won't be watching. Can't stand them.


----------



## Croesus (Aug 26, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Actually, they make a lot of sense, in the context of another potential series.
> 
> Trek has become akin to modern mythology, or Shakespeare.  It was only a matter of time before the iconic characters were taken on by other actors.
> 
> The fans are willing to accept a movie with a clear continuity break.  That's easy to wrap a mind around.  However, I don't think the fans are ready for a TV series that has a similar continuity break.




You may be right about the movie needing a break, though given how good a cast they pulled together, I would have had no problem with the lack of a retcon. And I absolutely despised the story they did come up with. That said, the movie made a lot of money and has a lot of fans, so they must have done something right. 



Umbran said:


> And, IMHO, Enterprise was the greatest wasted opportunity the property has ever seen.




Agree 100%. The episodes that expanded on the already existing backstories tended to be outstanding. The episodes that changed or ignored these tended to be terrible. A gross oversimplification, but more stories with the Andorians and fewer (none) with time travel would have improved the series significantly.


----------



## Starman (Aug 26, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> It could be a rights issue. Maybe the rights to the movie timeline are held by the movie people and they don't want anyone messing around with it and potentially causing issues for future movies.
> 
> So the old timeline is "safe" for a television show to mess around with.




Interesting. It does appear that CBS owns the rights for Trek TV and Paramount owns Trek movie rights. What a mess.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 26, 2011)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Farengi seem likely to be the new Big Bads in this one. So I won't be watching. Can't stand them.




Last we saw, the Ferengi under Rom's leadership looked set to change their ways and become homogenised with Federation culture, so they might not come out as villains.

I'd view a series that continued DS9's exploration of Alpha Quadrant politics with cautious optimism - that always felt like a more solidly-built universe than Voyager's wanderings.


----------



## Wycen (Aug 27, 2011)

You know I saw Kate Mulgrew on the Cartoon Network on their live action police spoof and my reaction was, "why do I not like this...wait, I recognize her...crap! Captain Janeway.  What's on the Travel Channel..."

But having said that I'd watch a show that followed the ST tv canon.  The movie, while interesting, was not targetted at me.  The trick is whether it is good and that it doesn't get cancelled by morons before we get a chance to see it shine.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 27, 2011)

If the glare in the new bridge is so intense that it renders the crew sterile like it did in the Abrahms film (in my imagination), then I'm out (not even Westley appearing with his adopted tribe of space American Indians, nor a crew of Marque Space Pirates, nor someone hotter than 7 of 9 and the Enterprise Vulcan chick could bring be to watch at that point).


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 27, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Actually, they make a lot of sense, in the context of another potential series.
> 
> Trek has become akin to modern mythology, or Shakespeare.  It was only a matter of time before the iconic characters were taken on by other actors.
> 
> ...




I would have been happier with a light retcon or even serious reimagining without all the silly time travel stuff.  Let the ships, uniforms, tech, characters, stories, Trek details, etc be different, just don't waste time with a silly story to "explain" the differences.  Most of the differences were cosmetic anyway, and happened "before" the time divergence. 

Can you guess I'm not a fan of Trek time travel stories?  The only ones I ever liked was TOS "City on the Edge of Forever", and the fan service ones from later shows that gave us nifty possible-future Enterprises and run-ins with Captain Sulu.

If I was elected Trek King, time travel stories would be banned . . . unless a writer worked extra hard to convince me he/she had a good one . . .

But you're right, Trek fans are known for their love of continuity, and this was probably necessary to allow Abrams to tell new stories without worrying about continuity minutiae and irritating legions of Trekkies across the nation.


----------



## Starman (Aug 27, 2011)

Dire Bare said:


> But you're right, Trek fans are known for their love of continuity, and this was probably necessary to allow Abrams to tell new stories without worrying about continuity minutiae and irritating legions of Trekkies across the nation.




I think a vocal minority would have been upset without the time travel shenanigans, but even with them some people were upset. I don't think it was done to please fans so much as they thought they had a clever idea for doing it and it was an excuse to get Leonard Nimoy (always a welcome addition) in the film. Most Trek fans, though, I think would have been happy with just a good movie. I, too, generally dislike time travel stories and thought it was one of the weakest points in the new film. Overall, though, I really enjoyed it because I think they nailed the characters.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2011)

I can't say I'm optimistic. What about the series is really new?

DS9 set the standard for quality in Trek, but as Ron Moore put it, the universe was taken as far as it could be taken. Now BSG has pushed the bar for scifi even higher. Can they make a Star Trek that's as relevant, innovative and today as the original was in the '60s? Can they please a splintered fanbase (an interesting question to ask on a D&D board)? Can they do so in a way the network execs will like?



Dire Bare said:


> Can you guess I'm not a fan of Trek time travel stories?



Isn't that kind of like not being a fan of Batman's Joker stories?

Seriously, time travel is just so ubiquitous is Star Trek, it's hard to dissociate the two ideas.

I'd rather they went with the new canon. Despite the greatness of the existing Star Trek milieu, the reason it was abandoned was because the universe had been exhausted of good drama. Radical reinvention is really the only way forward.


----------



## Starman (Aug 27, 2011)

If things stay in the old timeline, I think what I would like to see in a new TV series is something that really shakes things up, some sort of galaxy wide apocalyptic event. This even would destroy large parts of the Federation and Starfleet. The series could follow the travels of a starship as it worked to explore the extent of the damage, reestablish contact with systems that have been cutoff, and just dealing with a new order. Many starbases were lost/destroyed so repairs and re-supplies are still available, but are harder to come by. 

I just think that if they stick too close to the status quo, it will feel like more of the same. I want to see them really give things a jolt and see what kind of stories come out. I want a universe that feels _dangerous_. I'm not saying I want a grim 'n' gritty Trek, but a dark place where the bright light of the Federation and Starfleet is struggling to stay lit.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 27, 2011)

Dire Bare said:


> But you're right, Trek fans are known for their love of continuity, and this was probably necessary to allow Abrams to tell new stories without worrying about continuity minutiae and irritating legions of Trekkies across the nation.




And yet, you're still irritated.


----------



## Gronin (Aug 27, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> Now BSG has pushed the bar for scifi even higher. Can they make a Star Trek that's as relevant, innovative and today as the original was in the '60s?




While I couldn't agree more with this statement this is also at the root of what worries me most about a new series.

In the case of BSG the new and reimagined characters and story was phenomenal (until the last few episodes --- but that is probably for a different thread).  It had been a long time since the original and to be frank, as much as I enjoyed the original, it needed to be reworked for today's market.

However, in the case of Star Gate Universe it didn't work (at least not for me).  Star Gate was still fresh in the minds of it's audience and the brand carried with it certain expectations which were not met by SGU.  Star Gate (SG1 and Atlantis) were shows which had a certain sense of optimism, the revolved around closely knit teams which cared for each other, and they had a sense of humour.  Now that may or may not have been your cup of tea, but regardless to many fans SGU was not Star Gate.

I see it as likely that any new Star Trek show that tries to capture the BSG feel and get "gritty and real" are likely to lose a lot of it's audience.

Whatever timeline they chose to follow it is my hope that Star Trek will remain Star Trek, although if anyone were to ask me I have two suggestions.

1/Mackenzie Calhoun from the Peter David stories

or 

2/we could always return to the roots of Star Trek and Bring Back Kirk: The Official Site


----------



## Sammael (Aug 27, 2011)

DS9 was by far my favorite of the original 4 ST series. I didn't watch Enterprise beyond the initial few episodes, and I found most of Voyager to be horrible (particularly because of the character of Janeway). 

I _think_ the reason I liked DS9 more than the other shows is because it had a much tighter and more involved storyline. It didn't hurt that it also had one of the awesomest casts in the history of Trek.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 27, 2011)

Sammael said:


> DS9 was by far my favorite of the original 4 ST series. I didn't watch Enterprise beyond the initial few episodes, and I found most of Voyager to be horrible (particularly because of the character of Janeway).
> 
> I _think_ the reason I liked DS9 more than the other shows is because it had a much tighter and more involved storyline. It didn't hurt that it also had one of the awesomest casts in the history of Trek.




I'm an old guy, so it should be no surprise that I favor the original Star Trek series.  

I would be absolutely delighted if this new series got the greenlight from CBS.  I love the Star Trek movie that came in (2009), but I also love the continuity of the old timeline (well, with a few exceptions from Enterprise, they really screwed the pooch on some of their ideas there), that includes Voyager even.


----------



## Orius (Aug 27, 2011)

I like that the idea is to put it at the end of the main timeline.  The events in VOY can largely be ignored since they happened over on the other side of the galaxy.  But the end of the main timeline means building on the stuff that happened in DS9 -- and that is good news.  Of all the series, DS9 did the most to really build up the universe of the franchise, so it's got the best foundation they can build on.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 27, 2011)

Starman said:


> If things stay in the old timeline, I think what I would like to see in a new TV series is something that really shakes things up, some sort of galaxy wide apocalyptic event. This even would destroy large parts of the Federation and Starfleet. The series could follow the travels of a starship as it worked to explore the extent of the damage, reestablish contact with systems that have been cutoff, and just dealing with a new order. Many starbases were lost/destroyed so repairs and re-supplies are still available, but are harder to come by.
> 
> I just think that if they stick too close to the status quo, it will feel like more of the same. I want to see them really give things a jolt and see what kind of stories come out. I want a universe that feels _dangerous_. I'm not saying I want a grim 'n' gritty Trek, but a dark place where the bright light of the Federation and Starfleet is struggling to stay lit.




The Novels that follow the TV Timeline (Destiny and Typhon Pact Series) include a final showdown with...



Spoiler



The Borg. It is a major apocalyptic event. Thousands of Cubes invade Federation Space and destroy a massive fleet assembled that includes Federation, Cardassian, Klingon, Romulan, Gorn, Breen and even Ferengi Ships in seconds. Many worlds are completely and utterly destroyed and made lifeless, starbases vaporized. It spurs the creation of the Typhon Pact, a sort of Anti-Federation which includes the Romulan Star Empire (but not the Imperial Romulan State), The Breen, The Tholians and some other minor races. The Borg however are finally and truly gone, though the Federation doesn't believe it. The fallout is intense, Andoria leaves the Federation...


. Setting the TV Show after these events makes sense. The crews of the Enterprise and DS9 are all split up. Riker and Geordi are captaining their own ships. Worf is back on the Enterprise with Picard and Beverly, Data is still "dead". Janeway (to most of your delights) is also dead and Voyager with most of its previous crew has returned to the Delta Quadrant with a fleet of 9 other ships via Slipstream to continue exploration, look for the Borg and establish diplomatic relations between whomever is out there.

It's a perfect setting for a new crew to tell it's own stories with regular checkins and contact from the previous older crews. The Federation has no choice but to use younger and slightly untested crews as they struggle to explore and rebuild and deal with the new diplomatic landscape. It's just the perfect setting for a TV Show and changes some of the previous crutches (no more borg yay!)


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 27, 2011)

Personally I'd like it if a new series addressed some of the fallout of the Dominion War.  Addressing things like what happened to Cardassia, is Bajor in the Federation or not, and is there still the Federation/Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian alliance that appeared at the end of DS9.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 27, 2011)

Seeing as how a new series hasn't even been greenlit yet, I wouldn't put too much stock in this story.  I'm sure new Trek has been being developed since before Enterprise was off the air.  Lots of stuff gets developed all the time.  A lot of it doesn't get greenlit though, and until a new series _does_ get greenlit this is really a non-story.

All that said, the biggest problem I've had with Voyager and Enterprise (and to some extents all Trek) is that the core idea was good, but the execution left much to be desired.  So if a new series gets a go, and the idea is awesome, there's still no saying that it will be any good.


----------



## Starman (Aug 27, 2011)

BrooklynKnight said:


> The Novels that follow the TV Timeline (Destiny and Typhon Pact Series) include a final showdown with...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That does sound interesting and I think it would make a good basis for a TV series. I think I would like to push it slightly farther into the future, though, so that we don't have cameos from TNG, DS9, or Voyager. I want to see a clean break from the past and a fresh start.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 27, 2011)

BrooklynKnight said:


> The Novels that follow the TV Timeline (Destiny and Typhon Pact Series) include a final showdown with...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whilst that does sound like it has potential, I doubt the new series will use any continuity beyond the TV series and movies. Although the novel lines have, in recent times, tended to do well in terms of cross-consistency, the franchise as a whole has never really tried to maintain a consistent "expanded universe" in the way that, say, Star Wars has - and even Star Wars doesn't bother to pay much attention to EU continuity when it comes to movie or TV plotlines.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 27, 2011)

Starman said:


> That does sound interesting and I think it would make a good basis for a TV series. I think I would like to push it slightly farther into the future, though, so that we don't have cameos from TNG, DS9, or Voyager. I want to see a clean break from the past and a fresh start.




I disagree. You want a balance between clean and new and old. The same way TNG had cameo's from McCoy, Scotty and Spock and occasional glimpses into previous era's with older uniforms (Yesterdays Enterprise) or Sisko's trip to visit Kirk (Trials and Tribbleations).

Cameo's from Riker and Troy on Titan, Geordi on Challenger, and even Picard and Worf on Ent-E or Chakotay and Paris on Voyager would go a long way to establishing the series if done right. The way Ent Linked to TNG with that final episode was a farce. The way TNG and DS9 had some crossover or TNG and Voy were great episodes.

They should certainly move the timeline forward 10 even 15 years after the events of VOY and the Destiny novels, but that stuff should never be forgotten.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 27, 2011)

MarkB said:


> Whilst that does sound like it has potential, I doubt the new series will use any continuity beyond the TV series and movies. Although the novel lines have, in recent times, tended to do well in terms of cross-consistency, the franchise as a whole has never really tried to maintain a consistent "expanded universe" in the way that, say, Star Wars has - and even Star Wars doesn't bother to pay much attention to EU continuity when it comes to movie or TV plotlines.




That's very true. Most likely they'll only use the canon that has appeared on the TV Shows and Original Timeline Movies...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 27, 2011)

Mmmmm, what I get from this: demogragphics!!!  CBS wants that 18 to 28 group of buyers and as such; cast will be young 20 somethings.  


It will be some type of hour of character drama
Bad guys will be mis-understood vampires/robots/etc 
Girls will be hot and tough but rather stupid in their relationships
Guys will be confused but figure things out at the end of the hour
Star Trek will just be the setting
Most of us will be saying WTF, unless we at 18 to 28

Will not be surprised if this is not call Star Trek: Academy


----------



## Kzach (Aug 27, 2011)

Hand of Evil said:


> Mmmmm, what I get from this: demogragphics!!!  CBS wants that 18 to 28 group of buyers and as such; cast will be young 20 somethings.
> 
> 
> It will be some type of hour of character drama
> ...




If any of the characters sparkle, I'm out.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 27, 2011)

Hand of Evil said:


> Mmmmm, what I get from this: demogragphics!!!  CBS wants that 18 to 28 group of buyers and as such; cast will be young 20 somethings.
> 
> 
> It will be some type of hour of character drama
> ...




It's like you are a fly on the wall of a Hollywood production meeting.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 27, 2011)

Kzach said:


> If any of the characters sparkle, I'm out.




Even when they beam up?


----------



## Starman (Aug 27, 2011)

BrooklynKnight said:


> I disagree. You want a balance between clean and new and old. The same way TNG had cameo's from McCoy, Scotty and Spock and occasional glimpses into previous era's with older uniforms (Yesterdays Enterprise) or Sisko's trip to visit Kirk (Trials and Tribbleations).
> 
> Cameo's from Riker and Troy on Titan, Geordi on Challenger, and even Picard and Worf on Ent-E or Chakotay and Paris on Voyager would go a long way to establishing the series if done right. The way Ent Linked to TNG with that final episode was a farce. The way TNG and DS9 had some crossover or TNG and Voy were great episodes.
> 
> They should certainly move the timeline forward 10 even 15 years after the events of VOY and the Destiny novels, but that stuff should never be forgotten.




I see what you're saying, but I think that it seems about right for a new era to start. I want to see callbacks to the other series coming in references to the characters or maybe finding the remnants of older tech. I think the TNG/DS9/Voy time has passed and it's time for something new. Yes, I think stories involving some of these older characters can be done well, but too often it seems like beating a dead horse. Let them rest and allow new characters to have the spotlight.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 28, 2011)

Kzach said:


> If any of the characters sparkle, I'm out.




That only happens to the Vampire members of the crew, and only in sunlight...


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 28, 2011)

One thing I'd like to see is star wars get away from the massive capitol starships/mobile colonies in favor of something smaller in scale.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2011)

Two words:  Ensign Horta!


----------



## Starman (Aug 28, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Two words:  Ensign Horta!




Don't forget Ensign Gorn!


----------



## Kzach (Aug 28, 2011)

I want to see Weyoun as a Captain of a Starfleet vessel. He was awesome. Surely there's another clone out there somewhere?


----------



## Orius (Aug 28, 2011)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Personally I'd like it if a new series addressed some of the fallout of the Dominion War.  Addressing things like what happened to Cardassia, is Bajor in the Federation or not, and is there still the Federation/Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian alliance that appeared at the end of DS9.




That would be good.

I think though the Cardassians would no longer be the major players that they were.  Their forces took a beating during the Dominion War, and then at the very end, Cardassia Prime itself got some massive orbital bombardments from the Dominion fleet.  They'll be spending time rebuilding, though there's good political potential to be had there.   The Klingons probably need to rebuild as well, but tension with them doesn't seem likely with Martok running things and Worf as the ambassador to the Federation.  That leaves the always interesting relationship between the Federation and the Romulans.



MarkB said:


> Whilst that does sound like it has potential, I doubt the new series will use any continuity beyond the TV series and movies. Although the novel lines have, in recent times, tended to do well in terms of cross-consistency, the franchise as a whole has never really tried to maintain a consistent "expanded universe" in the way that, say, Star Wars has - and even Star Wars doesn't bother to pay much attention to EU continuity when it comes to movie or TV plotlines.




This is true.  Trek often ignores the novels.  There have been times when they've used ideas that seemed to come from the various books, but most of the time, they're ignored.  I stopped reading them because the books would sometimes make up something that was good, but then a TV episode would throw it out completely and replace it with something lame.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 28, 2011)

*ST: The Next, Next Generation!*

It's been SEVENTEEN YEARS since TNG ended. By the time this comes on (if it does), it will be nineteen years between the series.  The same time gap between TNG and TOS, as it so happens.

We don't need some damn ST:Academy or ST:Voyager or STS9. We need another Enterprise, another Captain -- another main continuity line in the Federation. Stop trying to reinvent the damned wheel. The original concept was always the best.

It's time for the Enterprise F. No god damned Suliban. We need Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans (some doubtless survived) and the Borg. Add a new enemy in as needed but don't go ALL IN on some new villainous race until it is apparent that viewers like them. Play it a little cautiously in that regard. You'd think the Kazon would have taught them this lesson -- but Enterprise and the lame Suliban doubled down on that bravado -- unwisely. 

And keep Vulcan destroyed. Roll with it and use that to explain why to accept (or ignore) any particular aspect of Trek canon they find to be inconvenient on a go-forward basis. The Vulcans would have retrenched and done their damndest to breed like rabbits in the intervening centuries. They are nothing if not practical.  

Along with the Borg, the Klingons remain the greatest villains in the history of Star Trek.  Making them all nice-nice was ultimately a mistake.

I don't mind bad guy Ferengi, but it is not possible to make them the central villains of the series -- anymore than it was possible in TNG. They SUCKED in the initial Farpoint. The Ferengi only got interesting later in the series and on DS9 when they were, well, comic relief.  

The Borg are VERY scary; Klingons are scary; Romulans are scary.  Cardassians could be very vile (_there are FOUR lights_!); The Dominion could ROCK when it needed to... but Ferengi?

Fun characters from time to time, but not villainous enough. You just can't take them seriously.

While I agree that B&B need to go away and STAY away -- I'd be happy with Ronald D Moore at the helm. Not unrelentingly DARK R.D. Moore - but a little grunge amidst all that Humanism and boundless optimism would be just fine with me. RD Moore's take on the Klingons and their civil war was the best thing about the show, save for _Best of Both Worlds_. 

Do away with LCARS tech design motif, too. TN, NG would need a new look. Set it in the 25th Century. Double down on TNG and go with it.

Risky but possible: The Borg Queen showed Data how to graft human skin on to his structure. I thought they were going to go with this after First Contact to explain Spiner's obvious aging, but for some odd reason -- they chose not to go down that path. They could to this to Data and have an older Brent Spiner playing an older Data who ... ages.. in the series... but who is alive in the 25th Century. It's not as if his career is jumping; they can afford him easily. So they could have a version of Data on the show, as a regular or recurring cast member if they needed him.

Security Officer? I want to see a bad-ass Angosian Subidar in that role! (a la Roga Danar from _The Hunted_).


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 28, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> The Vulcans would have retrenched and done their damndest to breed like rabbits in the intervening centuries. They are nothing if not practical.





They develop a drug that increases their libido, putting them in heat every seven _months_, a condition called the Pon Nearr?


----------



## Kzach (Aug 28, 2011)

Vulcan orgies. That's just disturbing. You people are sick!


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 28, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> One thing I'd like to see is star wars get away from the massive capitol starships/mobile colonies in favor of something smaller in scale.




I dunno, it could be fun if they went in the other direction.  A generation ship sent out to another galaxy perhaps, with a large cities worth of Starfleet personnel, their families, and even more civilians.  And starfighters!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2011)

Hand of Evil said:


> Mmmmm, what I get from this: demogragphics!!!  CBS wants that 18 to 28 group of buyers and as such; cast will be young 20 somethings.
> 
> 
> It will be some type of hour of character drama
> ...



I worry that network execs think this is what young people want. I hope no one here thinks this is actually what young people want.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 28, 2011)

You know, I just cannot muster any enthusiasm for another Star Trek show. I'd rather see another 2 Abrams Star Trek movies first.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 28, 2011)

I would love to see Enterprise F launch with a new youg crew at the helm. Meet them in media res, then do flash backs to the launch.  Have Admarals Picard and Janeway at the launch.

If I were taking trek in a new direction, it would be fleets. In fact I would call it Star Trek: the 7th fleet.

  The 7th fleet is a trouble shooting fleet. It is meant to deploy to hot zones and help problem areas. One week it could be rescuse a colony, the next escort supplies, the next form a wall at a neutral zone.
  The flag ship of the 7th fleet is the Enterprise F, a new XXX class ship. It also has 2 Defiant Class, a Soviergn class, 3 Intrepid class, and a new type of ship for trek, a carrier. 
   The new carrier class ship is bigger then galaxy class enterprise, and looks like it but with a sphere instead of a saucer. It can doc the two defiant class ships on it, and holds run abouts and delta flyers. 

  the 8 ships each have a small command crew (mostly reaccuring or guest characters) but Enterprise has a new way of doing command crew. Instead of brisge crew as the landing party, there are x number of new characters who ar ethe landing party...I would say 1st officer and 4 named characters. 

  The big diffrence I would make is you can promote people by adding ships...and give the captian of the E-F the rank of "Fleet captain"

Just imagin a season 2 or 3 finaly having a ship blow up that everyone knows the name of some crew members, and real hard core trekeys can name a dozen people on... extra points if a main character SO is there... and that makes the fight personal.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 28, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Enterprise has a new way of doing command crew. Instead of brisge crew as the landing party, there are x number of new characters who ar ethe landing party...I would say 1st officer and 4 named characters.



That's what they were supposed to do with TNG, but it was way too expensive. Urg, a fleet every week? No way. Not only would it be too expensive, you'd need _major_ enemies every week to keep it from becoming a yawn-fest. (Not that it might not be a great show as a movie-of-the-month deal, but not as a regular weekly series.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2011)

Ed_Laprade said:


> That's what they were supposed to do with TNG, but it was way too expensive. Urg, a fleet every week? No way. Not only would it be too expensive, you'd need _major_ enemies every week to keep it from becoming a yawn-fest. (Not that it might not be a great show as a movie-of-the-month deal, but not as a regular weekly series.)




first with new CGI you can do it easy...heck the last few seasons of DS9 and B5 showed that.

second, trek really has 3 basic type of stories...2 of witch force is not the answer. that means only 1/3 of the shows need to be anything modified...and those just are BIGGER...with fleets.

Save the planet from natural desater...no change
solve the riddle or mystery... no change
Ambasadoral work...little change

all of those are type 1 trek stories, ones where brains are a must


holodeck... no change
love story... no change

those + a few others are type 2 trek stories, they are ones that can be done on a planet or in a diffrent show intriely

war with alien of the week
invasion of borg
stand off with the romulans

the only changes are they have to be threats to a small fleet not a ship...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 29, 2011)

I know there are 2 things that were against Roddenberry's vision that appeared in the later series, that I hope they do use since it would be boring if they didn't.

Which are, continuing storylines and inter-crew character conflict.

I much prefer if they go with a more serialized approach to writing, yes there still should be room for standalone episodic stuff in the series, but that should be in the early to mid season, later in the season everything should favour things that tie into a major plotline.  I never got the argument that since something is serialized it's inaccessible to audiences.  Especially in this age, where it's easier to catch up with a series.  The newer series went with this approach, even if they were forced to go mostly episodic.  DS9 could have been strongly serialized, but meddling prevented it from being that way.

With character conflict, it's common sense to writing with just about any type of story that their should be character conflict.  Now I'm not talking about over the top character inter-character conflicts that would make it seem like an immature soap opera, but some where it's just natural to have such things.  As (inter-crew) character does conflicts leads to character growth.  This was also another point brought up by DS9 as they had to get around the guideline that there should never be any conflicts between the Starfleet cast members, by focusing a lot on the non-Starfleet cast members.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 29, 2011)

One other thing I'd like to see is a reduction in technology. This was one of the major factors which spoiled Voyager for me (aside from the billion other things). I mean, ffs, they single-handedly defeated the Borg in the Borg's home sector. They took technology to stupidly ridiculous levels so that even I could no longer suspend my incredulity. They may as well have a crew of Q's, because nothing in the universe is a challenge anymore.

Have the Federation suffer a major setback, like maybe the ones in the novels suggested earlier in the thread, where they also lose a substantial amount of their technological advantage. Have the Federation on the back foot for once. Starfleet in disarray, Federation space contested, relations with all the factions on a tightrope.

In fact... screw space exploration. Repairing all the political fallout could be an awesome series if done right. Although it'd be under the guise of a diplomatic series, it could be action and intrigue packed as factions within factions vie for power in the vacuum left by the struggling Federation. Each planet and species weighing up its options and having to be convinced to maintain its ties to the Federation and commit resources to Starfleet.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 29, 2011)

As a show concept, I'd like to see something new to the TV franchise. Maybe something like Starfleet Special Operations - a small, close-knit team of intelligence operatives, working from a ship that looks like a nondescript tramp freighter, but is actually a top-of-the-line Starfleet ship on the inside (maybe with holographic technology to further disguise its appearance).

They're basically Starfleet's Impossible Missions Force, using disguise and deception to infiltrate delicate situations and resolve problems before they can escalate into major incidents.

Use the format to explore the societies and politics of other Alpha-quadrant cultures, throw in some tough choices and some moral ambiguity on the part of their superiors, and it could develop into a decent drama.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 29, 2011)

For concept: Captain Logs, this way you could show a point of view from any race or battle, and any time.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 29, 2011)

I very, very, very much don't want to see characters from the other series. I have fond memories, but so many bad memories that I wouldn't enjoy any cameos.

What I _would_ like to see is a series set in the Trek universe that's not about Starfleet people at all. Maybe not Firefly in the Trek universe per se, but "regular" people who have conflicting goals but mostly work together for a common cause: making money, survival, whatever.

And ex-Starfleet officer would be interesting, someone who knows Starfleet ways and can take advantage of that knowledge; I'm sure y'all can think of other interesting characters. A few secret agendas and motivations can keep things interesting. 

Set this group against whatever Trek canon background you like, including any of those suggested earlier in the thread, and you'd have a show I'd actively want to watch.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 29, 2011)

You know what I'd like to see?

This (maybe done as a flack-back miniseries to start the ball rolling):



BrooklynKnight said:


> The Novels that follow the TV Timeline (Destiny and Typhon Pact Series) include a final showdown with...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Combined with this:



Kzach said:


> One other thing I'd like to see is a reduction in technology. This was one of the major factors which spoiled Voyager for me (aside from the billion other things). I mean, ffs, they single-handedly defeated the Borg in the Borg's home sector. They took technology to stupidly ridiculous levels so that even I could no longer suspend my incredulity. They may as well have a crew of Q's, because nothing in the universe is a challenge anymore.
> 
> Have the Federation suffer a major setback, like maybe the ones in the novels suggested earlier in the thread, where they also lose a substantial amount of their technological advantage. Have the Federation on the back foot for once. Starfleet in disarray, Federation space contested, relations with all the factions on a tightrope.




...to put not just the Federation, but the entire region of space into the same sort of situation that existed in Europe during the Dark Ages when the Roman Empire finally and completely fell apart.  The remnant of the Federation must send young, untested, armed explorers and diplomats out in slapdash, rattletrap ships to rediscover lost colonies, fallen allies, old (and new) enemies and lost technologies.  they wouldn't even have to be Starfleet personnel exploring...  They could be independent explorers or, as what often happened during the Age of Exploration, a crew backed by a company that expects profits from discovered resources, salvage and trade routes.



Fast Learner said:


> IWhat I _would_ like to see is a series set in the Trek universe that's not about Starfleet people at all. Maybe not Firefly in the Trek universe per se, but "regular" people who have conflicting goals but mostly work together for a common cause: making money, survival, whatever.
> 
> And ex-Starfleet officer would be interesting, someone who knows Starfleet ways and can take advantage of that knowledge; I'm sure y'all can think of other interesting characters. A few secret agendas and motivations can keep things interesting.
> 
> Set this group against whatever Trek canon background you like, including any of those suggested earlier in the thread, and you'd have a show I'd actively want to watch.




Holy Cow...  I'd love to see a Star Trek series that wasn't humano-centric.  A Klingon based series could be awfully fun.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 29, 2011)

I'd like if they tried to show a little more of the Romulans with a crew member who is one.  Not like Worf who was a Klingon in a starfleet uniform, but more like Kira Nerys who was a Bajoran in a Bajoran uniform.  Since I feel it would be interesting if there was a full-fledged member of the Romulan Imperial Navy as part of a crew of mostly starfleet officers, maybe as something such as an officer exchange program.  Such a character would be a window into that culture so that we can see that they're more than just "anti-vulcans" and as a bit of an outsider point of view and source of character conflict.


----------



## Orius (Aug 31, 2011)

Honestly, I don't want to see them "blow up the setting".  The whole "positive vision of the future" is kind of central to Trek, trashing it could very well wreck it.  It would likely cause a split in the fanbase somewhere too, and Trek fandom does not need that right now.  That includes blowing up Vulcan in the last movie. 

Voayger's problem wasn't the tech level, it was the bad writing.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 31, 2011)

Okay, my honest opinion is no, just...no.

After ST: Enterprise, which had great acting and a pile of horse crap for scripts, which ignored thousand of pages of previously established Trek canon... if it's a source of info mining for the new show, bag it.

Also, I'm quite surprised no one has tapped the un-mined potential of the cartoon series, yes it was ignored as non-canon but, it had the actors, writers and producers of the original series, and took place in roughly the same time as the original series. It's no less blasphemous than ST:ENT or some of the later DS9 or VOY episodes.

If it has to happen the laundry list of things that should and shouldn't be included (for me) include:

Yes:
An emphasis on exploration
A multi-cultural crew
Andorians
Telerites (for a founding race of the Federation they sure get panned in on-air time)
Klingons as "semi" bad guys, more a non-agreeable non-Federation race
Gorn - they used a "war" off screen to explain why they weren't there, let them win and start conquest again.
Romulans - they are the Communist Chinese government of space, we have massive armies and navies, but are quickly running into problems with everyone else. Maybe we should "play" nice while going about business (ie raiding) as usual
Orions - bring back green slave women!!!  (and their lesser known gold servant slaves)
Caitians - because ST needs furries (not really but it is a demographic)
Marines/Army - The often overlooked branches of the Federation.  Not everything is going to react peacefully, show us what happens when diplomacy goes south (see next to last entry as a corollary)
Consistent Diplomats/Officers/Officials - One thing that always bothered me, even in the originals, everything was run by the admiral of the week.  If you have a part for a higher-up, find a long term guest star (Mark Lenard was a great example of this policy).  If you mention the Federation President, tag a name to it, if its different than the last time, there had better have been an election mentioned.  It's the little stuff that makes the difference. (see last below)

What they should NOT include:
The Borg - At least not on a continuing we've run out of ideas so they come back and cause problems race.  The are supposed to be scary, they come off as one dimensional and boring.
Ferengi - Yes they should be there, just not as a major player, really, annoying merchants are hardly anyone's cup of tea.
Naussicans - they had the Gorn, why create another race with harder make-up?
Quantum anything - time travel should be left to the professionals, like Dr Who.
Betazoids - I'm sensing, confusion, grief and that the Klingon wants to do me in 10 Forward....  AWKWARD.
Trill - Great idea, poor execution, maybe if they played around a little and tightened them up...maybe
Massive space battles - Wolf 359 was AWESOME, the 14 times it was re-created after that (I'm looking at you DS9) was boring.  Small ship engagements should be fast, brutal and deadly.  Too much looks like an interstellar rave gone bad.
Admirals - if the real navies of the world had that many top line admins, there wouldn't be any money left over for ships...  If they really want to make it sing, build some consistency.  Every starbase, had an admiral, uh-uh, that's a captain's job, or a commander's.  They received orders from so many different admirals on TNG that my first response was, who the hell do they belong to?  I'm sure they are assigned to a division, who is the division head and why weren't the orders sent through them? (sorry a bit of real world military experience kicking in.)  If you are assigned to Galaxy Exploration Division and you are getting orders from Military Operations Division, someone has crossed the line and FUBARed... 

Yeah, I realize a lot of this stuff is nit-picky, but attention to detail is a military catch phrase for a reason.  No military organization can function efficiently or effectively without it.  A military based arm of even an imaginary government should have a smidgen of it, or else its just a group of space monkeys throwing really destructive poo.


----------



## Sutekh (Aug 31, 2011)

I say, try a series using a different race.  Id definetly watch a Kilingon based show, where every castmember say perhaps a token human was present. Set it during the Romulan/Klingon alliance time or not. Star Trek does not mean that you need to have Kirk and Co or Picard and co. Its simply a setting with a myriad of interesting concepts.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2011)

Orius said:


> Honestly, I don't want to see them "blow up the setting".  The whole "positive vision of the future" is kind of central to Trek, trashing it could very well wreck it.  It would likely cause a split in the fanbase somewhere too, and Trek fandom does not need that right now.  That includes blowing up Vulcan in the last movie.
> 
> Voayger's problem wasn't the tech level, it was the bad writing.



Yes, blowing up the setting seems pointless.

I see more appeal in going back to "real" exploration and give the Enterprise the role it had in TOS - basically Starfleet's only (big) ship in an area of space. The Federation is still and will always be a safe haven, but there is a lot of conflict outside it, and the Enterprise protects us from it, and helps the outlying regions to get closer to peace.

There is a lot of potential to spice this up with "modern" storytelling, without killing off the Startrek ideals. There can be alien conspiracies targeting the Federation, there can be aliens fighting each other and the Enterprise being caught in the middle, requiring politicing a lot, and even creating conflict within the crew (can we allow to support any of them? If so, which aliens?)

They can even have the Borg in it. Imagine a lone Federation ship warning a remote sector of space of the Borg threat. The next Federation fleet months away. (This is a storyline I would have liked to see in Voyager, to be honest).


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> Caitians - because ST needs furries (not really but it is a demographic)




Heck, go for the real McCoy, and use Kzinti.  "Speaker to Vulcans" would be hi-frikkin-larious.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 31, 2011)

I would like to see a lot put into the relations between the various established powers of the Alpha Quadrant.  In some ways the relations between the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians and Ferengi can be seen as sort of an analogy of the UN.  But I wouldn't say that any one of them completely correspond to any one of the UN veto nations.  While many things about the Romulans for example that could be like China, there should be an effort to diverge from that and show there's parts of them that are just like the USA or France or something else.  Much like how the Federation shouldn't be completely the USA of this "UN", but some aspects should be also like the UK or Russia or something different in some aspects.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 31, 2011)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, blowing up the setting seems pointless.
> 
> I see more appeal in going back to "real" exploration and give the Enterprise the role it had in TOS - basically Starfleet's only (big) ship in an area of space. The Federation is still and will always be a safe haven, but there is a lot of conflict outside it, and the Enterprise protects us from it, and helps the outlying regions to get closer to peace.




The problem is that's all been largely done in the earlier series, and the continually advancing technology has gotten to the point ships are simply too big, too fast, too powerful.  There's little challenge left without pushing the setting and the plots to extraordinary extremes.

That's where most of the problems in your list originate from...

Borg came along, because Klingons and Romulans no longer posed a credible threat to the latest incarnation of the Enterprise. They had to be dangerous enough to make you worry for the survival of the ship and its crew.

Quantum Everything was invented, because you can't have decades or centuries worth of a super-scientific "positive vision of future" go by with no technological advancement.  And where do you go, when you're already at the top?

Herds of Admirals showed up, because likewise, you can't have a starship crew of hundreds serve for years, with promotions.  And it wasn't just the Admirals...  by the time the later TNG (and TOS) movies came about, I think Starfleet had an Admiral, two or three Captains, and a half dozen Commanders serving on a single ship.

Voyager was sent 70,000 light years away to the Delta Quadrant, because there wasn't anything left worth exploring within the 8,000 light year expanse of the Federation.

Star Trek is suffering from Power Creep something awful.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 31, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> The problem is that's all been largely done in the earlier series, and the continually advancing technology has gotten to the point ships are simply too big, too fast, too powerful.



Or too much like TARDISes! 

Isn't it implied the Federation has a fleet of spaceship/time machines by some (future) point in the Voyager/Enterprise timeline? (27th century? 29th century?)


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Isn't it implied the Federation has a fleet of spaceship/time machines by some (future) point in the Voyager/Enterprise timeline? (27th century? 29th century?)




Voyager establishes the existence of the Temporal Prime Directive and the Temporal Integrity Commission in the 29th century.

Enterprise establishes that there's "Temporal Accords" prohibiting using time travel to alter history, established before the 31st century.

Of course, if you change history, those pieces of future canon can go away


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 31, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> Voyager was sent 70,000 light years away to the Delta Quadrant, because there wasn't anything left worth exploring within the 8,000 light year expanse of the Federation.
> 
> Star Trek is suffering from Power Creep something awful.




This is incorrect. 

Voyager was set 70,000 light years away so that the things that they would be doing on that show would not cross over and create continuity issues with DS9 and, in particular, with the canon timeline that was expected to be in use in the restarted Star Trek movie franchise at the time.  The "political" story of the Federation and its allies and enemies was something that was to be the subject of the existing movie series, and to a lesser extent, with DS9.  The same reason was the excuse as to why DS9 was doing its thing through the wormhole. Again, the political situation in the "main" Federation space was reserved for TNG and the movie series. As such, Voyager was to return to pure exploration mode in the Delta quadrant in a manner which would not interfere with the continuity in existing programs.

OF course, we know how that ultimately worked out. We ended up with new political stories and issues that were particular to the Delta quadrant, which ultimately nack-contaminated Fed Space after DS9 ended and the movie series fizzled. 

Star Trek always takes on a life of its own in every guise it has been protrayed. ST:Voyager was no different.

Federation space always gets bigger and there is always more to explore. There was no suggestion that there was "nothing left to explore" on the borders of Fed space at *any time* in any series. That was never, ever, the issue with Voyager. Indeed, as Federation Space grows, the borders of Federation Space get bigger, not smaller, by definition. There is, literally, always more to explore.

In this specific instance concerning the new show being discussed, there is no issue of any conflict with an ongoing telvision show. DS9 is not on the air and neither is Voyager. The Star Trek movie franchise appears to be befuddled with unexpected delays. They should be shooting (or hell, have FINISHED shooting a sequel already if they were serious about making money with the movie franchise. Clearly, they aren't THAT serious about it.

There is no impediment against starting up a new series which returns to the premise of TOS and TNG, and just advances the clock.

IF there is anything they may decide to back off on, it is the idea of a Galazy class ship with hundreds of families on board. That was present largely as an excuse to justify Wesley Crusher's presence on the ship in an attempt to reach the tween and teen demographics with TNG.

Probably we can do without that element being reintroduced to the Enterprise F. Any number of reasons can be offered as an excuse. Or not, as the case may be. I don't think anything turns on it. In the end, the ship is the bridge, some hallways shot form different angles, a few staterooms, engineering, a meeting room, sick bay, transporter room and the Captian'r eady room. Really, those are the sets no matter how "large" the pretend ship is. From the outside, it's just a model with some more windows. In the script, its just a reference to how many peopl are on board.

It's alll fluff and no crunch.

In terms of tech, TNG already established the problem of the destruction of space time that high speed Warp was doing to the Galaxy. If you need the reason for a speed limit -- the canon readily provides such a voluntary speed limie (except in overriding emergrncy circumstances) already.

Frankly, there is no prohibition on them just restarting TOS as the TV  series, either. Saldana aside, there is no actor in the movie series who  has branched out into other films with a huge splash. 

They could do a new Trek series on the small screen and make a good buck  at it if they wanted to. Chris Pine, Zach Quinto and even Karl Urban  are affordable in those roles for TV, (even if Zoe Saldana probably  isn't.) _Not doing so is a preference, it's not a RULE. 
_


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 31, 2011)

Need Andorians - one of the four founding members.
Need Tellarites - another founding member.   

Klingons have been neutered, made great bad guys but not good guys.  I say Cardasians but only if they can be real bad guys.


----------



## hopeless (Aug 31, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> Okay, my honest opinion is no, just...no.
> 
> Admirals - if the real navies of the world had that many top line admins, there wouldn't be any money left over for ships... If they really want to make it sing, build some consistency. Every starbase, had an admiral, uh-uh, that's a captain's job, or a commander's. They received orders from so many different admirals on TNG that my first response was, who the hell do they belong to? I'm sure they are assigned to a division, who is the division head and why weren't the orders sent through them? (sorry a bit of real world military experience kicking in.) If you are assigned to Galaxy Exploration Division and you are getting orders from Military Operations Division, someone has crossed the line and FUBARed...
> 
> Yeah, I realize a lot of this stuff is nit-picky, but attention to detail is a military catch phrase for a reason. No military organization can function efficiently or effectively without it. A military based arm of even an imaginary government should have a smidgen of it, or else its just a group of space monkeys throwing really destructive poo.




Any chance you could post your idea of how these divisions should e headed up?

By that I mean how many admirals should there be?

Lets see galaxy exploration command

Military operations command

Starbase command  and by that I mean Captains in charge of the more important bases with Commander's in charge of the outlying ones that aren't as important with say those protecting member states given more importance than say an otherwise remote and irrelevant border of space that nobody has found any reason to explore since there's more going over that way for instance...

Sorry just curious how the chain of command would be handled or maybe viewed if they actually followed their procedures as you view it?


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2011)

hopeless said:


> Any chance you could post your idea of how these divisions should e headed up?
> 
> By that I mean how many admirals should there be?
> 
> ...




It may not be that simple.  We aren't talking a Navy for a rather limited ocean around limited continents.  The Federation (and its galaxy) are big places, so there probably should be far more command staff than you'd see in a current-day Navy.  Nor is it apt to be organized exactly like a modern-day Navy, simply because Starfleet serves functions that modern Navies generally don't.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 31, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> Voyager was set 70,000 light years away so that the things that they would be doing on that show would not cross over and create continuity issues with DS9 and, in particular, with the canon timeline that was expected to be in use in the restarted Star Trek movie franchise at the time.  The "political" story of the Federation and its allies and enemies was something that was to be the subject of the existing movie series, and to a lesser extent, with DS9.  The same reason was the excuse as to why DS9 was doing its thing through the wormhole. Again, the political situation in the "main" Federation space was reserved for TNG and the movie series. As such, Voyager was to return to pure exploration mode in the Delta quadrant in a manner which would not interfere with the continuity in existing programs.




Which is really just a fancy way of saying, "There wasn't any good exploration stories left in the Federation, so let's stick to the political thriller stuff, and send the explorers off to the other side of galaxy, where there's aliens we haven't met yet."

You'll notice, they scaled back most everything for Voyager in an attempt to get back to the exploration roots of Star Trek...  A smaller ship, a smaller crew, no support, no supplies, no replacements for lost crew.  They were aiming (at least in the beginning) for the action-adventure survival aspect of deep space exploration (a la Battlestar Galactica).  

With the level that they let Federation tech grow to, that wouldn't have worked if they'd set it anywhere within spitting distance of the Federation frontier.  It'd be too easy for the ship to turn around and head home at any time for a refit and shore leave.  It would have killed the whole premise of the show...  A severe shortage of resources loses its dramatic tension when you can just pop down to the corner convenience store for a six pack of beer and a frozen pizza.


----------



## thewok (Aug 31, 2011)

I may have to get my BoPET blanket out after saying this, but here goes.

The game itself was pretty blah, but the timeline for Star Trek Online was pretty cool, and it might make a decently interesting show.  It's 2409, roughly 30 years after the end of Voyager.  The Federation and the Klingon Empire are at war again.  Romulus is destroyed, and Empress Sela is trying to help her people survive no matter the cost to anyone else.

It's far enough in the future that you're probably not going to see too many people from other shows.  There are plenty of chances for allies and enemies to show up.

One idea that might be cool with this timeline is to have the ship in question be the Titan, with Riker weeks away from retirement.  Have him deal with one last crisis, but let his replacement be the star, as it were.  Then he hands over the reins to a new crew.  Maybe Wesley gets to show up every now and then, as this is his assignment.  Maybe Wesley gets transferred off Titan with Riker or something.  In any case, Wil Wheaton should be involved with the pilot, and Wesley should have decent writing this time.

Anyway, I think that any future successful Star Trek series will have to have a good balance of conflict and exploration to keep all audiences relatively happy.  I don't think TNG would be as successful today as it was in the 80s.


----------



## hopeless (Aug 31, 2011)

*Star Trek the new horizons...*

I personally thought Voyager was a mistake my dad loathed the captain, me I thought they went the wrong way.

I actually had this idea of it being set on the distant side of federation space except they tended to use the place as a dumping ground for those personne star fleet and the federation wanted rid of and couldn't find a legitimate reason for either dismissing them from the fleet or imprisoning them lawfully.

A rough and ready crowd who come across as perfectly normal for a fringe society with no place to go and little prospects as the area was considered of little interest.

However it does border a nebula and occasionally an exploration ship heads there to test new sensors in hopes of solving the reason why their technology doesn't work so well inside the nebula such that they haven't tried seriously exploring it due to them belieiving it to be barely forming its own star systems within.

This time the exploration ship is accompanied by an outdated escort manned by crew from the starbase and to waylay ill feelings between the respective crews (they had a bar fight whilst docked) a few of the crews on each ship are exchanged so both can see the benefits of cooperating.

However they encounter a disabled alien spaceship and send an away team aboard to investigate.
Another ship is detected exiting the nebula and this time the galaxy class ship moves to intercept and tried to hail them.
The ship is promptly blown apart and as it does the disabled ship suddenly comes to life and raises shields preventing anyone aboard from beaming off the ship...

I see this as a two parter with the second part revealing the two alien ships are enemies and a surviving crew member is trying to evade the away team aboard her ship as she tried to repair the ship so she can use it to escape their pursuer meanwhile the escort is doing its best to evade their attacker but things prove more difficult when the survivng crew member is confronted and she appears to be klingon in origin.

The universal translator doesn't work, the away team's phasers and equipment don't work aboard the alien spaceship they're trapped aboard BUT Escort's primitive grappler does meaning its trying to stay ahead of the attacker with the alien ship still attached and using that ship's shields to block the attacks from their pursuer!

I see this ending with them using their towed ship as an improvised bomb so their escort can blow up their attacker however this requires the away team to actually manage to succeed in persuading the surviving crewmember and escaping aboard an escape pod which is also blown up by the explosion but the transporter aboard the escort manages to beam them aboard in time.

I see this in the view point of that survivor where we see how things work in the Federation from her viewpoint and how the new cast copes with life on a frontier that has become decidely dangerous with the nearest help at least a decade away since their means of communications is reliant on passing ships and not instantaneous communication with the rest of the Federation as it was never seen as necessary...

Not so perfect society, more like the world at present and more importantly the long thread can deal with who their new friend is, who their attacker was and why after so long is the nebula suddenly full of inhabitants that by all rights shouldn't be there?!

First season I'd see them trying to deal with the ramifications that they have to hold out until help comes along, have their new friend try to cope with gradually learning a new language since the universal translator doesn't work and have that become a subplot where you eventually discover WHY it doesn't but have them try to send a message home via any passing ship except in many cases it will take them even longer to get that message there and in some cases they either part of another subterfuge by enemies of the federation who are becoming aware there something important going on here or are silenced by the enemy they know almost nothing about!

I figure the secret about the nebula's new inhabitants being linked to the Borg running rampant in their part of the galaxy being a good enough link without having them get involved as well as reveal the refugees aren't entirely as benevolent as their new friend who turns out to be the only survivor of her race because they sacrificed themselves letting the refugees escape the Borg and she only survived because of a misjump that meant her ship wasn't destroyed like the rest of her peoples were.

Sorry hope that made sense!


----------



## aurance (Aug 31, 2011)

The new movie was a logical crap hole. I mean, it was "cool," but not cool enough to buffer the enormous ridiculousness of the plot. Getting all angry in the past and blowing up someone's planet who's only marginally involved in the future destruction of your world, instead of, you know, warning your world? Promotion from a cadet to a captain? The insanely armed "mining vessel"? Getting fired from an escape pod to conveniently land on a planet with the one person in the galaxy who could help you? _Red matter?_

Not that many of the old Trek continuity episodes were any better in this respect, but I'm constantly surprised by how much people liked the new movie.


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 1, 2011)

aurance said:


> The new movie was a logical crap hole. I mean, it was "cool," but not cool enough to buffer the enormous ridiculousness of the plot. Getting all angry in the past and blowing up someone's planet who's only marginally involved in the future destruction of your world, instead of, you know, warning your world? Promotion from a cadet to a captain? The insanely armed "mining vessel"? Getting fired from an escape pod to conveniently land on a planet with the one person in the galaxy who could help you? _Red matter?_
> 
> Not that many of the old Trek continuity episodes were any better in this respect, but I'm constantly surprised by how much people liked the new movie.




Star Trek Countdown explains some of those items but you still have one or two remain.

If I recall, Nero was actually fleeing from the Romulan Empire.  He was a different faction, and his only real concern was that of his family...which still was in the path of the Super Nova and still on Romulus. 

As an outlaw he fell in with some rogue faction, can't recall who they were off the top of my head, who refitted his ship with Borg Technology and Borg improvements.  

They had just come through the wormhole at the beginning of the Movie and were crippled by the ship to ship collision enough that they were captured by Klingons.  After many years (decades even) they escaped with their repaired ship, and then had the power to basically crush the Klingons (which was the traffic they picked up on via Uhura).

He then had a little time to pick up Spock, as he figured out the correct time when the ship would appear, he did so, and dropped off Spock and proceeded to destroy Vulcan.

I would suppose he didn't expect to be taken out so quickly after his actions or he may have gone to Romulus and warned them...or considering his vendettas against Romulus as well, he may have simply done something that would save him and his wife in the future, and then proceeded to destroy Romulus as well.

Kirk basically defeated the ship that defeated Admirals and captains already...plus a fleet...it does make sense that someone who can actually do something like that would at least deserve a command.  What, you want the Commander who thought up the plan of sending the fleet rigt into a trap to be destroyed promoted to Captain instead?

Plus, Kirk had already been promoted to Acting Captain by default in the film.

The coincidence of Kirk being on the same planet as Spock...okay...that was merely hollywood, nothing in ST:Countdown on that, at least from what I recall.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Kirk basically defeated the ship that defeated Admirals and captains already...plus a fleet...it does make sense that someone who can actually do something like that would at least deserve a command.  What, you want the Commander who thought up the plan of sending the fleet rigt into a trap to be destroyed promoted to Captain instead?




Honestly, his instant promotion to Captain was the most jarring thing for me in the movie.  I can forgive a lot of technical and time-travel-logic errors in the name of the genre.

But this, no.  A promotion and instant placement on any ship he wants?  Sure.  But not automatic command.  Command is, in large part, about long term judgement, leadership, and people-management, not just how one handles a single crisis.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 1, 2011)

aurance said:


> ... but I'm constantly surprised by how much people liked the new movie.



The 2009 movie nailed the characters. I (still) love it.

Star Trek isn't about tight plotting for me. It's about the characters, wait... and garishly-presented ideas. I'll be disappointed in Abrams-Trek if he never has his Kirk instruct a fur-clad barbarian in the correct pronunciation of the Preamble or kill a computer that thinks it's God (or worse, that wants his job). 

Actually, I'm probably in for some disappointment. But I'm willing to give Abrams a few movies before I start grousing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 1, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Honestly, his instant promotion to Captain was the most jarring thing for me in the movie.  I can forgive a lot of technical and time-travel-logic errors in the name of the genre.
> 
> But this, no.  A promotion and instant placement on any ship he wants?  Sure.  But not automatic command.  Command is, in large part, about long term judgement, leadership, and people-management, not just how one handles a single crisis.




I agree, he gets a write off becuse of cource kirk is captain... but I think it could have been doen better


[sblock] if the hacking thing had been cleared up and he was graduated as a lt, then decker requests him, and puts him on the fast track to command...keep giving him field promotions (along with the rest of the key crew) then at the end giving him a ship as a commander or some such would make mroe since... then the next movie could open with him (years later) promoted to captain.[/sblock]


----------



## Kzach (Sep 1, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> The coincidence of Kirk being on the same planet as Spock...okay...that was merely hollywood, nothing in ST:Countdown on that, at least from what I recall.




Actually it's somewhat explained in the movie itself. Fate. And if that somehow blows your suspension of disbelief wad then I have only two words for you: Star Trek.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 1, 2011)

Yeah, for being not just on the same planet, but actually within walking distance of both Spock and Scotty, 'fate' is probably about the only answer possible.

One thing I keep wondering about that timeline is whether the older Spock will practise a "prime directive" in regards to events that are still likely to happen in the altered timeline. Like, will he tell Starfleet "Oh, this planet-eating ship is going to come heading through these star systems in a few years. Have a spare starship handy to throw down its gullet and overload it", or "Oh yeah, in about twenty years get ready for a brief flurry of space probes. You'll need to look up some old NASA radio codes for the first one, and for the second, start learning to speak whalesong."

Actually, maybe he wouldn't. No point getting sent off to the Federation funny farm when he's trying to rebuild his race.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 1, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Star Trek Countdown explains some of those items but you still have one or two remain.



If it ain't in the movie (or book, as the case may be), it don't exist.


----------



## aurance (Sep 1, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Actually it's somewhat explained in the movie itself. Fate. And if that somehow blows your suspension of disbelief wad then I have only two words for you: Star Trek.




Be that as it may, there's a point in any story where fate is just an excuse for shoddy writing. This happened in the episodic Star Trek quite a bit as well, and I found those episodes as goofy as the movie. But there were plenty of episodes that were thought provoking and didn't have to involve ridiculous fate carte blanche.


----------



## Kzach (Sep 2, 2011)

Ed_Laprade said:


> If it ain't in the movie (or book, as the case may be), it don't exist.



It actually was in the movie (the Klingon capture) but it was edited out before release. It's on the DVD extras.



aurance said:


> Be that as it may, there's a point in any story where fate is just an excuse for shoddy writing. This happened in the episodic Star Trek quite a bit as well, and I found those episodes as goofy as the movie. But there were plenty of episodes that were thought provoking and didn't have to involve ridiculous fate carte blanche.



Normally I would agree with you but like everything in movie-making, there are exceptions and I believe this is one of them.

If it had been entirely random and there to fix a plot-hole or shoehorn a particular element into the story, I'd say you were right. But it was written in as a pretty major and thematic element to the ongoing story of an emerging and separate timeline. It was bringing a metaphysical element into the milieu by saying that some things are just 'meant to be'.

Heavy-handed? Sure, but not entirely without merit and I think it suited the story.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 2, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Heck, go for the real McCoy, and use Kzinti.  "Speaker to Vulcans" would be hi-frikkin-larious.



Your ideas intrigue me and I want to subscribe to your newsletter...

Actually, one of the reasons that the Trek cartoon is considered non-canon is because they actually had an episode with the Kzhinti...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> Actually, one of the reasons that the Trek cartoon is considered non-canon is because they actually had an episode with the Kzhinti...




Manny Coto had a plan to have the Kzinti show up in Enterprise's 5th season, which would have gone a long way to canonize the cartoon.


----------



## hopeless (Sep 2, 2011)

*Okay how about?*



Umbran said:


> Manny Coto had a plan to have the Kzinti show up in Enterprise's 5th season, which would have gone a long way to canonize the cartoon.




Have they given any thought about having another animated series?


----------



## MarkB (Sep 2, 2011)

hopeless said:


> Have they given any thought about having another animated series?




I'm guessing that getting broadcast rights to something the size, age and complexity of the Star Trek franchise as it currently exists is a pretty hefty initial outlay. I don't think an animated series would generate enough of a return to be viable.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2011)

hopeless said:


> Have they given any thought about having another animated series?




Would that I knew what "they" have or haven't considered.  I have no clue.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 2, 2011)

I'm game for a new Trek. Initially, I wasn't too interested in continuing forward from Voyager -- I'd love to see Star Trek 2009: The Next Generation-- but I've been re-sampling a little Voyager on Netflix recently, and I've warmed to the idea of a every-is-quantum-now, we're-going-to-have-timeships-whee! future.

Year of Hell is actually a damn fine pair of episodes (how could I forgot it was Kurtwood Smith as the alien general nuking continuity for love?).

Anything can be done well, even post-Voyager Trek (if you can remake BSG...).

I'd like to see a ship. I wouldn't mind Kzinti, or Ferengi, for that matter, if they got actors as good as the ones on DS9. I could do without Trek marines... violence in Star Trek should be done by unitard-wearing hypocrites claiming to be peace-loving scientific diplomats, not by soldiers. Ditto not wanting anything that focuses on Starfleet operations --unless a war breaks out (and it probably won't, since wars are costly, and the last two didn't pan out too well for the respective networks, ratings-wise).

I'd like Trek for contemporary audiences; more arcs, more long-term character development, with a smattering of traditional Trek techno-morality plays. 

And miniskirts. It is not implausible for them to have returned (again) by the 24th or 25th century. Some of men can wear them, too (that would maintain old Trek's high standard of egalitarianism!)


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 2, 2011)

Mallus said:


> ...And miniskirts. It is not implausible for them to have returned (again) by the 24th or 25th century. Some of men can wear them, too (that would maintain old Trek's high standard of egalitarianism!)




_It's called a Kilt!_ - Scotty


----------



## qstor (Sep 3, 2011)

It didn't say who David Foster was? My first reaction is..does he have the clout to pull this off? And as much as I dislike Rick Berman some of his "crew" like Manny Coto did a great job on Enterprise. And would be good to have along in some fashion.

Mike


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 3, 2011)

MarkB said:


> I'm guessing that getting broadcast rights to something the size, age and complexity of the Star Trek franchise as it currently exists is a pretty hefty initial outlay. I don't think an animated series would generate enough of a return to be viable.




Lucasfilm seems to have done well with _The Clone Wars_, though.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 3, 2011)

Fast Learner said:


> Lucasfilm seems to have done well with _The Clone Wars_, though.



I was going to say the same thing... Actually, the monetary outlay versus gain is probably a lot better with a cartoon series.  Voice actors don't make near what a live actor does in terms of tape to dollar figures, mostly because voice actors can do two full episode takes in the time it takes for one set take on a series, and you tape the voices one at a time and splice them together, much less likely for a run a bloopers begetting bloopers due to the giggles.

Animation, however will be the sticking point.  A really well animated series would take a team of artists some time to conceptualize and realize a series of cohesive episodes.  Of course the Asian cartoon mills could turn them out in "seconds" but you have that decidedly BESM style that turns my stomach.  The original carton used the old "American?" style of realistic animation.

What we don't need is the part animated, part real live acting, all crap style they tried to use in the craptacular Dragonlance cartoon - utter poopscicle.


----------



## Welverin (Sep 3, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> Animation, however will be the sticking point.  A really well animated series would take a team of artists some time to conceptualize and realize a series of cohesive episodes.  Of course the Asian cartoon mills could turn them out in "seconds" but you have that decidedly BESM style that turns my stomach.  The original carton used the old "American?" style of realistic animation.




Do you not realize a lot of animated shows are actually animated in Asia?

Where a show's made doesn't determine the style.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 4, 2011)

Welverin said:


> Do you not realize a lot of animated shows are actually animated in Asia?
> 
> Where a show's made doesn't determine the style.




Absolutely. Decidedly non-BESM shows animated in Asia include _The Simpsons_, _DuckTales_, and _SpongeBob SquarePants_, along with portions of the last several Disney films. The animation style is dictated by the creators, with the tedious work being done in, generally, South Korea.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 17, 2011)

You're right, of course, I just had one of those...arrgh moments.  I'm not perfect and I'm emotional... sounds like I'm human.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 17, 2011)

You are all wrong.

They should set the new series in the post-DS9 era _alternative_ universe (you know, the one with all the goatees & psychopaths).

That way, they can get an overturning the Empire vibe and recycle/repackage the best of Star Wars/Firefly/Blake's 7.  And make it aaaaaall better.


----------



## dravot (Sep 17, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You are all wrong.
> 
> They should set the new series in the post-DS9 era _alternative_ universe (you know, the one with all the goatees & psychopaths).
> 
> That way, they can get an overturning the Empire vibe and recycle/repackage the best of Star Wars/Firefly/Blake's 7.  And make it aaaaaall better.




I would so watch that show.


----------



## Orius (Sep 18, 2011)

It's doubtful they'd set an entire series in the Mirror Universe given that that's kind of anti-Trek, but there's no problem with any new series occasionally dipping into it for fun.  The original episode was great, and both DS9 and ENT pulled out some pretty good episodes set in it.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 19, 2011)

Danny, I think you hit upon something in passing, Blake's 7.  Wasn't that a ST spin-off (sort of?).  That never really got off the ground, maybe they should do a re-launch on that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 19, 2011)

> Wasn't that a ST spin-off (sort of?). That never really got off the ground, maybe they should do a re-launch on that.




Nah- Blake's 7 was a classic bit of late-70's British Sci-fi, in many ways presageing Firefly in its main storyline of a group of societal misfits fighting an oppressive government.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 20, 2011)

I remember now it was Gary Seven of the Assignment Earth episode.
The series never emerged as the CBS execs killed it before the pilot aired - I would love to get my hands on that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> I remember now it was Gary Seven of the Assignment Earth episode.
> The series never emerged as the CBS execs killed it before the pilot aired - I would love to get my hands on that.




I remember reading about that!

I always though that episode felt like a setup for a spinoff, and then to see it confirmed in print...well it changed the way I looked at TV forever.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 20, 2011)

Fast Learner said:


> Lucasfilm seems to have done well with _The Clone Wars_, though.




That's because Lucas owns Star Wars and he owns the animation studio: Lucasfilm Animation. So the licensing cost is $0. 

Never compare what Lucas can do with Star Wars to anything anyone else can do with some other property because Star Wars is unique in that it is owned by its creator. That is unheard of in Hollywood.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2011)

> That's because Lucas owns Star Wars and he owns the animation studio: Lucasfilm Animation. So the licensing cost is $0.




You might think that, but that is not how Hollywood works.  I guarantee you that Lucasfilms is charged a standard licensing fee.

Hollywood companies tend to be vertically integrated.  As in, the studio owns (in part or entire) the production company, the post-production company, the SFX company, the processing company, the ad company, the distribution company and possibly even the theater.

And at every step, fees get charged.  That is because the people who own the above get paid based on what their companies do.  So if you are an owner of a studio- and everything else in the company- you're getting a check at each step.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 21, 2011)

And don't forget, because Lucasfilms is an American company each and every employee must belong to a guild or union or else the Hollywood folks get very, very upset.

IATSI, SAG, VAG, BoEGaR, AES, etc all make sure entertainment employees have the right credentials so they can get their share of the dues.  Why do you think a lot of the image work on most cartons is done in Asia?  In other words, it ain't cheap.


----------



## Cor Azer (Sep 21, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You might think that, but that is not how Hollywood works.  I guarantee you that Lucasfilms is charged a standard licensing fee.
> 
> Hollywood companies tend to be vertically integrated.  As in, the studio owns (in part or entire) the production company, the post-production company, the SFX company, the processing company, the ad company, the distribution company and possibly even the theater.
> 
> And at every step, fees get charged.  That is because the people who own the above get paid based on what their companies do.  So if you are an owner of a studio- and everything else in the company- you're getting a check at each step.




If taken to silly/criminal extremes, it's also how money is shuffled around such that record-breaking blockbusters make no *ahem* profit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2011)

Which is called "Hollywood Accounting" for a reason.

Word of advice: if you ever have the good fortune to have your intellectual property get attention from Hollywood, either get a big lump sum payment OR base your royalties on the _GROSS_ profits...because there will be not be any _net_ profit.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 22, 2011)

This is why if you are getting into the entertainment business you need to get a REALLY good entertainment lawyer.  Even if they aren't, everyone is out to screw you over, keep that in mind and you just _might_ not get screwed.


----------



## Cor Azer (Sep 22, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> This is why if you are getting into the entertainment business you need to get a REALLY good entertainment lawyer.  Even if they aren't, everyone is out to screw you over, keep that in mind and you just _might_ not get screwed.




Off topic to Trek, but my favorite response to Hollywood Accounting was from the author of Forrest Gump - when the studios came looking for the rights to the sequel, he more-or-less said that he couldn't in good conscience sell it because the first movie was apparently such a bomb/flop.


----------



## Janx (Sep 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You might think that, but that is not how Hollywood works.  I guarantee you that Lucasfilms is charged a standard licensing fee.
> 
> Hollywood companies tend to be vertically integrated.  As in, the studio owns (in part or entire) the production company, the post-production company, the SFX company, the processing company, the ad company, the distribution company and possibly even the theater.
> 
> And at every step, fees get charged.  That is because the people who own the above get paid based on what their companies do.  So if you are an owner of a studio- and everything else in the company- you're getting a check at each step.




thats really no different than internal chargebacks large companies do on interdepartmental resource usage.  IT shops have been known to charge per computer in a department.

In this case though, with actual independent (but commonly owned) companies, each company needs to get paid for the work so they can pay their own employees, as well as prioritize the (work highest paying first).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2011)

> thats really no different than internal chargebacks large companies do on interdepartmental resource usage. IT shops have been known to charge per computer in a department.




Technically, you're right.

However, in Hollywood Accounting, every possible charge is added in, even if it wasn't necessary.  For instance, if The Studio's post-production company is _literally _across the hall from it's editing studio, there WILL be a charge for shipping...and the security measures required to ship it...and a charge for the guy who had to take it to be shipped...and the new shipping containers...

All would be legit charges...if they had actually happened.

It doesn't sound like much, but everything counts in large amounts: that's how _Coming to America_, which grossed nearly $500M worldwide and was made for only $20M _didn't show a profit_.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 23, 2011)

The beginning of "The Three Amigos" shows stars of the silent era living on the studio lot and wearing prop clothes but getting almost no pay.  When they demanded a raise, the studio owner claimed they were tying to rob him had them stripped and fired.  Of course he was sitting behind a gold inlaid desk on a velvet upholstered chair puffing on what was likely a Cuban cigar.

Studios suffer horrible economic loss every day, some studio execs even have to drive their own Rolls Royces to work or *shudder* drive a Mercedes-Benz.


----------



## Janx (Sep 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Technically, you're right.
> 
> However, in Hollywood Accounting, every possible charge is added in, even if it wasn't necessary.  For instance, if The Studio's post-production company is _literally _across the hall from it's editing studio, there WILL be a charge for shipping...and the security measures required to ship it...and a charge for the guy who had to take it to be shipped...and the new shipping containers...
> 
> ...




that's terrible, and sounds like a violation of GAAP.

But I supposes Hollywierd is one of those industries the FTC/SEC doesn't really get their paws into regulating


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 23, 2011)

Janx said:


> that's terrible, and sounds like a violation of GAAP.
> 
> But I supposes Hollywierd is one of those industries the FTC/SEC doesn't really get their paws into regulating



Yeah, the FTC/SEC don't get involved mostly because it doesn't affect investors or outside parties, most of the "shanking" is done in-house and therefore, though, unethical, and bordering on the illegal, isn't.  Besides, you saw what the right army of lawyers can do in certain highly publicized trials, money talks and Hollywierd has it barrels full, even though they are all publicly broke.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2011)

> Yeah, the FTC/SEC don't get involved mostly because it doesn't affect investors or outside parties,




The few cases when outsiders get involved, they've had mixed results.  Art Buchwald won when he sued over _Coming To America_.  Israel lost when they sued over _Raid on Entebbe._

I think the gov't just doesn't want to go swimming in the shark-infested waters of of one aspect of one industry while they haven't been able to clean up the corruption in the economy as a whole.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The few cases when outsiders get involved, they've had mixed results.  Art Buchwald won when he sued over _Coming To America_.  Israel lost when they sued over _Raid on Entebbe._
> 
> I think the gov't just doesn't want to go swimming in the shark-infested waters of of one aspect of one industry while they haven't been able to clean up the corruption in the economy as a whole.



Good point...  Look what happened to the RIAA.  Won the battle, lost the war.

Anyway, I still think they should do an animated version of the new show.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 25, 2011)

I'd be down with that as long as they cast Patrick Warburton for _something._


----------



## hopeless (Sep 25, 2011)

*Hmm...*



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'd be down with that as long as they cast Patrick Warburton for _something._




Since this is Star Trek shouldn't he be cast as _anything_?


----------

