# Download the JMS/Zabel Star Trek treatment



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 19, 2006)

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/06/spaced_out_star.html

Bryce Zabel posted to his blog the treatment he and Straczynski put together to re-boot Star Trek.  You folks might find it interesting.


----------



## Starman (Jun 19, 2006)

Interesting. I'm not sure I agree with everything, such as the change to the Prime Directive. I think they could give Kirk a secret mission while keeping the PD the same. However, it would certainly be interesting to see.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 19, 2006)

Wow.

I would _so_ watch that series. Too bad it'll never happen.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 20, 2006)

To a certain extent, I don't get the whole "rebooting" stuff. Rather than simply recast the show, change things up a little (like change Scotty into a woman), and make it darker and soap-opera-ish (basically following the BG 2.0 formula) why not simply create a new but similar show?

I know, branding and such.  But seems to me that remakes just piss off a lot of the original show fans, and the same "artistic" goals could have been done by creating a whole new show.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 20, 2006)

> Who are we? Why are we here? Are we special? Are we tools? Cannon fodder? Or are we being prepped for something...amazing?




I would watch that.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 20, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Bryce Zabel posted to his blog the treatment he and Straczynski put together to re-boot Star Trek.  You folks might find it interesting.



Sorry. Not interested in rebooting _TOS._ It's pretty well-established in both TV series and films, and it is not the problem with the franchise.

To be brutally honest, if their stories cannot work without NCC-1701's Kirk & Co., then they're hopeless.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 20, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sorry. Not interested in rebooting _TOS._ It's pretty well-established in both TV series and films, and it is not the problem with the franchise.
> 
> To be brutally honest, if their stories cannot work without NCC-1701's Kirk & Co., then they're hopeless.




I think a part of the idea is simply taking a "familiar" situation and put a new spin to it. When TOS aired, nobody asked why they were send to "Explore strange, new civilisations" - it was a given. I like the idea that there was a specific goal to it, that they weren't just followin the regular Starfleet operations. (I dislike the idea of a different Prime Directive, though). 

On the other hand, I must admit I still would prefer a new show advancing the timeline. It could still re-use the idea. My current favorite idea is that the Federation (and perhaps other Alpha-Quadrant factions) launch a mission into a new Galaxy. (This could also allow using a the reboot idea of a unique agenda for the new spaceship).


----------



## drothgery (Jun 20, 2006)

I like the idea of rebooting Trek, mostly to knock off some silly premises (no money on Earth and the like), introduce a bit more internal consistency (both ships and subspace radio seem to travel at the speed of plot, and there was a strong tendenancy for tech discovered in one episode to be ignored for the rest of the series) and rework future history (because there aren't going to be any sanctuary districts in 18 years, there was no WWIII or Eugenics Wars in the 1990s, etc.; I think a good rule of thumb for distant-future SF is to leave the next 50-75 years blank). But doing it with the TOS crew, and killing off the Prime Directive in favor of mystery-chasing, I'm not sure about that.


----------



## paradox42 (Jun 20, 2006)

I'm with the undead mouse. I had heard those two did this treatment for a Star Trek reboot, and thought they'd do a great job if given the chance, but honestly- I had no idea it would be *that* cool. It would bring back the mystery and exploration that was in the original series while still fulfilling its core purpose of exploring the human condition. The idea kicks so much butt it needs to be forbidden under the Geneva Convention.

I wonder why the Paramount execs didn't go for it? Did fear of risk finally doom the idea (and, IMO, the franchise)? I would say "oh well, their loss," except that in the end it's a loss for all of us.

Maybe somebody will get to do this someday, and do it right.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 20, 2006)

> Because there’s a reason Star Trek: Classic worked. Not only did it convey a spirit of
> adventure, of optimism, of genuine heroism, the characters it utilized could not possibly be
> more iconic. They are classic, archetypal characters.
> The warrior, the priest, the doctor...
> ...




And once again, no love for the wizard...   (I suppose that would be Scotty)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 20, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I like the idea of rebooting Trek, mostly to knock off some silly premises (no money on Earth and the like), introduce a bit more internal consistency (both ships and subspace radio seem to travel at the speed of plot, and there was a strong tendenancy for tech discovered in one episode to be ignored for the rest of the series) and rework future history (because there aren't going to be any sanctuary districts in 18 years, there was no WWIII or Eugenics Wars in the 1990s, etc.; I think a good rule of thumb for distant-future SF is to leave the next 50-75 years blank)



I think the general inconsistencies with our reality is acceptable - if Startrek is supposed to stay a franchise, this problem will always return. Bot the internal inconsistencies and silly premises might indeed be improved on (though I somehow like the "no money on Earth"-issue. Unfortunately, it is as hard to explain as the Heisenberg Compensator or the Warp Engines...)



			
				Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> And once again, no love for the wizard...   (I suppose that would be Scotty)



Nor the rogue.


----------



## satori01 (Jun 20, 2006)

I think a 'reboot' might be appropriate where a particular show dominates a thematic idea.  Beyond premise and name, BSG 2 has very little in common with the original show.  Yet if you did a completely original show about the last survivor of a civilization fleeing a hostile force, you would hear many cries about "ripping" off the original BSG.

I would have watched the proposed treatment.  The hidden mission idea is brillant.  The hidden message in our DNA idea is straight from ST:TNG.  However, I am not sure we need to "reimagine" Kirk and the rest of the bunch.  People respond to TV characters in a very intimate manner, they see them in their homes on a weekly basis.  I have no problem with the fact that Dartagnan has been played by many different actors over the years, my intial meeting with the character was through literature, the depth and subtext of the character was presented through words.

Kirk, Spock, Mccoy...their subtext was presented through the choice the actors made, it is intimately tied up to vocal inflection, body posture, looks.... you can not recreate that...you can not put someone into a Kirk suit, do not even bother.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 20, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sorry. Not interested in rebooting _TOS._ It's pretty well-established in both TV series and films, and it is not the problem with the franchise.
> 
> To be brutally honest, if their stories cannot work without NCC-1701's Kirk & Co., then they're hopeless.




I dont think it's a matter of only being able to tell your stories through those characters. 

I think it's a matter of those characters just plain being cool. 

How many actors have played Sherlock Holmes? Richard III?

Sacriligious to put Kirk in that category perhaps, but he's certainly close. It was inevitable that other actors would play him and/or that he would be reimagined.

So since it's inevitable, why not now?

Id also argue that Trek has already been rebooted once.TNG is VERY different from TOS. The crew on TOS were boozing (how many times does McCoy come by Kirk's with hard liquor?) whoring (not just Kirk) and at each other's throats CONSTANTLY (and I don't just mean the McCoy-Spock dynamic either- take a look at how often Kirk and McCoy go at it sometime).

TNG started all this BS about the future being "utopian" and federation citizens being "elevated". TOS was highly dysfunctional. 

So the rebooting of the actors is inevitable and the rebooting of the universe already happened.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 20, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Yet if you did a completely original show about the last survivor of a civilization fleeing a hostile force, you would hear many cries about "ripping" off the original BSG.




Yeah, that is such a rip-off.  It was so totally like Moses leaving Egypt, or Xenophon leading the 10,000 out of Persia.  

There is NO story that isn't based on snippets of other stories.

Having said that...the character of Star Trek would have changed under this treatment.  JMS, for one, never had a utopian vision of the future.  Some people watched TOS and TNG because they LIKED Roddenberry's vision of humans overcoming their own petty differences and forming a Federation in the stars.  The B5 vision of the future is more believable, and more depressing...humanity barely survives its own hubris and internal fighting.

Personally, if I were going to be shoved in a cryogenic chamber for a couple of hundred years, I would MUCH rather wake up in the Star Trek universe of Roddenberry.


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 20, 2006)

An interesting precis. Sounds like an interesting setting for an RPG campaign, at the very least.

One comment in there is one that lots of folks - especially TV execs - tend to forget about. The original series had great science fiction _writers_ creating stories that were turned into scripts (sometimes by them, sometimes by others). All the sequel series were written by Hollywood script writers who, in some-but-not-all cases, were sci-fi fans. They wrote serviceable scripts, and some of their stories were top-flight SF, but too many of their scripts could have been dropped into any other prime-time non-SF series with a minimum of change.

I love the Kirk-Spock-McCoy characters as much as anyone else, but I loved the starships and exploration aspects of the original just as much. A lots of times, later ST let that go in favor of the soap-opera story of the week, with sci-fi trappings.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 20, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think a part of the idea is simply taking a "familiar" situation and put a new spin to it. When TOS aired, nobody asked why they were send to "Explore strange, new civilisations" - it was a given.



Yeah, and I like to keep it that way for the NCC-1701 crew. I would tell JMS to just pick another "Connies" ship and crew.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 20, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I dont think it's a matter of only being able to tell your stories through those characters.
> 
> I think it's a matter of those characters just plain being cool.



I know. And I like to keep it that way.




			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> How many actors have played Sherlock Holmes? Richard III?



Count Dracula? James Bond? Zorro? The Lone Ranger? Starsky and Hutch? Anakin Skywalker?




			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sacriligious to put Kirk in that category perhaps, but he's certainly close. It was inevitable that other actors would play him and/or that he would be reimagined.
> 
> So since it's inevitable, why not now?



Because I'm alive.   

As long as I still draw breath, I will delay any rebooting of _Trek_ universe. Didn't want to  happen to Kirk like Lucas did to Darth Vader.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 20, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> As long as I still draw breath, I will delay any rebooting of _Trek_ universe. Didn't want to  happen to Kirk like Lucas did to Darth Vader.




Except, as I pointed out, it's already been done. TNG is not in the same universe as TOS. 

Watch the Corbomite Maneuver some time, and while you watch it, try to imagine how little of the character interaction in that episode would apply to TNG. 

Let's see: 

McCoy doesn't tell Kirk the ship is at Red Alert because he "doesn't jump everytime a light flashes".

Kirk doesn't like having a female Yeoman because he "doesn't trust himself". 

Kirk and McCoy are drinking liquor during a red alert. 

McCoy argues with Kirk about promoting an officer too quickly.

That officer then suffers a full-scale nervous breakdown ON THE BRIDGE.

At which point McCoy threatens Kirk in full hearing of the entire bridge, prompting Kirk to yell at him.  

Seriously, most of these things would be serious breaches of protocol on our modern warships.

Cut to DS9 where they wanted non-Federation types like Kira, because if the entire crew was starfleet there would be no arguing.

So one show has people MORE disfunctional than us, and the other is utopian.

Seriously, the universe got rebooted already, I guess you were too busy getting high from those borg nanites to notice you'd been assimilated. 

And if the entire universe can be rebooted and thrive, I think a few iconic characters can make that leap too. 

Chuck


----------



## Moonstone Spider (Jun 21, 2006)

I don't think I'd want a dark distopian Star Trek.

Not to be insulting but anybody can write a horrible future where everything's broken and sucks.  It's been classic to talk about past glories of the "Golden Age" for about ten thousand years.  It's much, much harder to write about a bright hopeful future where things, if not perfect, are still looking up all the time.  

That's what Star Trek did and that's what i feel makes it special, it's a future where politicians care about the people, starship captains wonder about the morality of their actions and try to do the right thing even when it's inconvinient, and violence is usually a last resort.  Even in the dark and gloomy DS9 (Which I'll admit, hypocritically, is my favorite of them all) was a pretty utopian future compared to a lot of sci-fi.


----------



## satori01 (Jun 21, 2006)

Thus Vigilance should we say because the we no longer have the Martini Lunch, Smoking in offices,  and term sexually agressive behavor as coercive and harrasing, do we know, in the real world, live in a different universe than say in the 60's?

The world changes, but continuity keeps it from being alien. TOS ->ST:NG is nothing more than it going from the 60's to the 90's, even in space.  So take that you green blooded bastard!

For the record, ST:NG had a larger cast than TOS, and everyone got laid in that show, (sometimes twice), even the android.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jun 21, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> For the record, ST:NG had a larger cast than TOS, and everyone got laid in that show, (sometimes twice), even the android.



I don't recall Geordi ever getting lucky...


----------



## Kesh (Jun 21, 2006)

Aside from the alteration to the Prime Directive, I really loved that treatment. It sounds like something I'd like to watch.

It's still possible to continue in the current universe, but I think we'd have to do something rather different from the shows we've seen so far.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 21, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I don't recall Geordi ever getting lucky...




He had a romance with the girl whose dog was a shape-changing murderer.

He was also married in the possible future from "All Good Things..."

We saw him get dumped once on the holodeck, but that can't be the only dating he did, and presumably some of them ended in a second date (and 24th century girls all seem to get naked on the first date).

No offense to Wil Wheaton, but it does seem odd that Wesley got more action than Geordi...

...and it occurs to me that I know way too much about fictional universes.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 21, 2006)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Aside from the alteration to the Prime Directive, I really loved that treatment. It sounds like something I'd like to watch.
> 
> It's still possible to continue in the current universe, but I think we'd have to do something rather different from the shows we've seen so far.




I think you could do a fairly good show based on the 30th century time patrol, or some such.  We've seen multiple allusions that such a thing exists, and it would provide a REASON for the ubiquitous time travel we see in Star Trek.  There is certainly enough to patrol...

TOS had Kirk falling in love with Judith Keeler in the early 20th century, plus the Enterprise went back to the 60s at least twice (once they met Gary Seven, and once they "kidknapped" an Air Force Pilot).  ST IV obviously was all about the time travel.  There was also another ep where they traveled through time on an alien world whose residents had all fled some calamity.

TNG had the cool return of Tasha Yar, a jaunt to 19th century San Fran where Data lost his head, and time twisting in the final episode.

DS9 had a whole planet in the Delta Quandrant populated by descendents of DS9 crew sent back in time.  They also went back to the "Mission District" in the 21st century, and visited Kirk in "Trials and Tribblations."

Voyager fought the Krenim timeship, altered history in at least a couple of episodes on a planetary scale, created an alternate timeline where Harry Kim never left Earth, and used time travel to resolve the whole series.  Oh, and there was the Romulan through the wormhole episode in season 1.

A huge swath of Enterprise was taken up by a "temporal cold war."  'Nuff said on that.

I'm all set for "Time Trek."  

Edit:  Forgot the time-travelling crooks in the ep where Picard gets some nookie with Vash.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 22, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Thus Vigilance should we say because the we no longer have the Martini Lunch, Smoking in offices,  and term sexually agressive behavor as coercive and harrasing, do we know, in the real world, live in a different universe than say in the 60's?




And you managed to entirely miss my point. 

It isn't that WE have changed.

The people on TOS were WAY more disfunctional than a starship crew made up of *us* would be. 

But in the time between series, Roddenberry read a lot of his own press, heard trekkies and reporters describe him as a "utopian visionary" and believed it. Thus TNG had "utopian humanity". 

It's something many people think of an integral to trek, the utopian nature of humanity and the Federation and I'm telling you it's a part of the reboot that is TNG. 

Human nature didn't change in our world between TOS and TNG but it sure as heck did in the ST universe, where you go from yelling on the bridge of the Enterprise and every other Admiral being completely insane and megalomanical to a utopian vision of the future. 

Ron Moore (TNG, DS9 and BSG writer) even had stories about joining the writing staff and being told "this crew doesn't fight because that's the way Gene sees the future" and going "but the old show was never like that".


----------



## drothgery (Jun 22, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Human nature didn't change in our world between TOS and TNG but it sure as heck did in the ST universe, where you go from yelling on the bridge of the Enterprise and every other Admiral being completely insane and megalomanical to a utopian vision of the future.




The only calm, competent and rational TNG/DS9/VOY Admiral that was more than a bit player was Sisko's boss in the last part of the war arc. And that was in DS9 -- where they were trying to build some grit and conflict back into Star Trek.


----------



## satori01 (Jun 22, 2006)

I see it a less human nature, and more a conscious choice to make the Captain a different beast.  I think you also had the decision to make a more consistent show.  TOS was all over the place in its limited run, it was also much more a show about Kirk, Spock, and to a lesser extant McCoy.  Thus you had the three senior officers away and in harms way all the time.

ST:NG addressed this in the pilot where Riker basically told Picard, the Captain's place was on the ship, not on some alien planet on an away mission.  

I hear what you are saying, but a reboot constitutes a wipping away of what happened before.  I never got a sense of that from ST:NG, I never felt that the old series never happened, it just felt like old history, a much different time.

Except for Klingons, Klingons got a reboot, from sly and crafty, to samurai like honor bound idiots.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 22, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> I hear what you are saying, but a reboot constitutes a wipping away of what happened before.  I never got a sense of that from ST:NG, I never felt that the old series never happened, it just felt like old history, a much different time.




Agreed and it is very unlikely (from that standpoint) that what JJ Abrams is going to do will be a reboot in that, even he does unknown stories of Kirk and crew he will probably not be in your face about saying "the series never happened" or do something drastic to make it clear TOS never happened (like making Scotty a woman).

But my point was, if people can handle the level of difference between TOS and TNG, then they should be able to handle stories about TOS crew played by different actors. 

In other words, if Abrams makes a movie set in the time between the first pilot and the second pilot, showing Kirk taking command of the Entperprise for the first time, are people to let it ride and watch the movie for what it is or turn their noses up and be purists?

For my part, Im an easy mark. If it's better than Voyager and Ent Seasons 1-3, I will be there. And as for new stories about Kirk and crew, I say rock on. 

Chuck


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 22, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Except for Klingons, Klingons got a reboot, from sly and crafty, to samurai like honor bound idiots.



Actually, I like the new Klingon image. They're still sly and crafty, yet have an alien concept of honor (and by that I mean, outside the Western definition).


----------



## Kesh (Jun 22, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> I think you could do a fairly good show based on the 30th century time patrol, or some such.  We've seen multiple allusions that such a thing exists, and it would provide a REASON for the ubiquitous time travel we see in Star Trek.  There is certainly enough to patrol...





Personally, I would hate that series, unless it were done _extremely_ well. I just don't like Trek's time travel episodes.*

My own vision would be a _Star Trek: Elite Force_ series, based just after the events of _ST: Nemesis_. The Romulan Empire is collapsing into civil war with the death of its leadership, the Federation's still in rough shape after the Dominion War & several Borg incursions, Cardassia is rebuilding, the Klingon empire unstable... it's a galaxy ripe for border wars and intrigue. Thus, the Federation Elite Forces are deployed along borders to try and act as peacekeepers, while also being employed in more covert operations for some unseen goal. It'd be a small team of people we follow, as they deal with the conflict between the Federation's utopian ideal, and the harsh reality of a galaxy in conflict.

* The one exception, to my chagrin, is the Voyager _Year of Hell_ episode. I thought that one worked out very well, and made internal sense. Most ST time travel shows don't.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 22, 2006)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Personally, I would hate that series, unless it were done _extremely_ well. I just don't like Trek's time travel episodes.*
> 
> * The one exception, to my chagrin, is the Voyager _Year of Hell_ episode. I thought that one worked out very well, and made internal sense. Most ST time travel shows don't.




As for being done extremely well...please note the way JMS integrated the Babylon 4 plot line across multiple seasons of B5.  If anybody could have kept the complexities of time travel sensible, it would have been him.  Having said that, I agree that it could easily be done poorly in other hands.

I still think _Yesterday's Enterprise_ is one of the coolest time travel eps.  It has these things going for it:

1)  It retconned one of the lamest character deaths in sci-fi TV history.
2)  It didn't somehow involve the 20th century.
3)  It actually touched on a plausible "change event" in the history of the Star Trek universe.
4)  It didn't grant everybody a happy ending where nothing really happened (at least not the Enterprise C crew).
5)  It gave us a dark, broody, and warlike Enterprise-D where everybody carried sidearms and there were no children.
6)  We got to see Klingons as dangerous adversaries instead of soap opera fodder.
7)  Riker takes it in the neck.
8)  We get to see a female captain actually captaining for the first time in Star Trek, years before Janeway.

All those reasons make me give it 4 stars.    Feel free to disagree.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 22, 2006)

Kesh said:
			
		

> My own vision would be a _Star Trek: Elite Force_ series, based just after the events of _ST: Nemesis_. The Romulan Empire is collapsing into civil war with the death of its leadership, the Federation's still in rough shape after the Dominion War & several Borg incursions, Cardassia is rebuilding, the Klingon empire unstable... it's a galaxy ripe for border wars and intrigue. Thus, the Federation Elite Forces are deployed along borders to try and act as peacekeepers, while also being employed in more covert operations for some unseen goal. It'd be a small team of people we follow, as they deal with the conflict between the Federation's utopian ideal, and the harsh reality of a galaxy in conflict.




This, like pretty much anything, also could easily suck.  It could devolve into "SWAT in space," for example, with a predictable action sequence each week.  Or worse, it could become _Starship Troopers_, where supermodels fight and die in space, where nobody can hear you overact.


----------



## Kesh (Jun 23, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> As for being done extremely well...please note the way JMS integrated the Babylon 4 plot line across multiple seasons of B5.  If anybody could have kept the complexities of time travel sensible, it would have been him.  Having said that, I agree that it could easily be done poorly in other hands.
> 
> I still think _Yesterday's Enterprise_ is one of the coolest time travel eps.  It has these things going for it:
> 
> ...



 Hm. Yeah, that was a good one. I stand corrected. 



			
				DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> This, like pretty much anything, also could easily suck.  It could devolve into "SWAT in space," for example, with a predictable action sequence each week.  Or worse, it could become _Starship Troopers_, where supermodels fight and die in space, where nobody can hear you overact.



Quite. I never said it'd be a guaranteed win.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 23, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> 8)  We get to see a female captain actually captaining for the first time in Star Trek, years before Janeway.



Wasn't Geordi's mother a starship captain in _TNG_?

Personally, I like the lady captain of _Columbia, Enterprise (NX-01) sister ship._


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 23, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wasn't Geordi's mother a starship captain in _TNG_?
> 
> Personally, I like the lady captain of _Columbia, Enterprise (NX-01) sister ship._



_

The first female captain we saw on television was in Conspiracy in the first season.  However, you never actually saw her or Geordi's mother in the captain's chair.  Yesterday's Enterprise was in the 3rd season, and you actually got to see the captain giving orders in a combat situation.

I'm talking real-life chronological order, not universe history order.  _


----------



## Richards (Jun 24, 2006)

Well then, technically, wasn't the first female starship captain none other than James T. Kirk, when he got "body-swapped" with a woman, Dr. Janice Lester, who wanted to be a starship captain but wasn't allowed to under Starfleet regulations?  (The episode was "Turnabout Intruder," the very last episode of the original series.)

Johnathan


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 24, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> Well then, technically, wasn't the first female starship captain none other than James T. Kirk, when he got "body-swapped" with a woman, Dr. Janice Lester, who wanted to be a starship captain but wasn't allowed to under Starfleet regulations?  (The episode was "Turnabout Intruder," the very last episode of the original series.)
> 
> Johnathan




Ugh, that ep is blotted from my mind as one of the most nonsensical examples of sexism on TV.  Star Fleet doesn't allow female captains?  Wow, what a progressive attitude in our future utopia...which is contradicted repeatedly in both canon and non-canon sources.  It is barely more tolerable than _Spock's Brain_.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 24, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> The first female captain we saw on television was in _Conspiracy_ in the first season.  However, you never actually saw her or Geordi's mother in the captain's chair.  _Yesterday's Enterprise_ was in the 3rd season, and you actually got to see the captain giving orders in a combat situation.



Oh, yeah. I forgot about that bug episode.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 24, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Ugh, that ep is blotted from my mind as one of the most nonsensical examples of sexism on TV.  Star Fleet doesn't allow female captains?  Wow, what a progressive attitude in our future utopia...which is contradicted repeatedly in both canon and non-canon sources.  It is barely more tolerable than _Spock's Brain_.



Wasn't Gene's fault. It was the 60's, and NBC told them to get rid of the character, Number One (the female XO) when they saw the unaired pilot episode, "The Cage." The footage from that episode was later used in the two-part aired episode, "The Menagerie."


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 26, 2006)

So I read that, and I'm a little amazed that everyone is so enthusiastic about it.  Honestly, it felt too much to me like I was reading a brief synopsis or an early treatment of Babylon 5.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 26, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Wasn't Gene's fault. It was the 60's, and NBC told them to get rid of the character, Number One (the female XO) when they saw the unaired pilot episode, "The Cage." The footage from that episode was later used in the two-part aired episode, "The Menagerie."




Yep, they told him to get the girl off the bridge and get rid of the alien. Gene felt he could win ONE of those battles, but not both.

You'd rather he dropped Spock?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 26, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> So I read that, and I'm a little amazed that everyone is so enthusiastic about it.  Honestly, it felt too much to me like I was reading a brief synopsis or an early treatment of Babylon 5.




I second that motion.

Brad


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 26, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> So I read that, and I'm a little amazed that everyone is so enthusiastic about it.  Honestly, it felt too much to me like I was reading a brief synopsis or an early treatment of Babylon 5.




Not surprising, given the authors.    However, consider the following.

- A darker, more dramatic reboot has worked rather well for Battlestar Galactica.  It could have been done before BG with Star Trek.

- A more B5-like Star Trek would have been superior to 2nd season Enterprise, IMHO.

- It is easy to be enthusiastic about anything that promises to resurrect a much-loved universe.  That is why I will probably buy a copy of _Legend of the Rangers_.  

- The worst thing that Paramount did to Star Trek was to put people in charge who dismissed the fans and believed continuity didn't matter.  The authors of the above treatment have proven themselves in both respects.

- Some fans so hate some of what happened in Voyager and Enterprise that they would willingly buy into a compete reboot of the timeline.  Heck, I would buy into it just to kill the Enterprise series finale.

- It ain't happening, so we can feel free to spout strong opinions without consequence, as nobody will ever be proved right or wrong.  

Cheers!  (No, I am American, but I like the term.)


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 26, 2006)

Let me clarify my position a little bit.

I'm a huge B5 fan, and DS9 is my favorite of the Treks.  I really like the BSG remake... best sci-fi that television has seen in a long while.  So it's not particularly the grittiness of the idea that bothers me... although I do think that semi-utopian view of the future is a nice contrast to the usual downer that most sci-fi tends to adapt.  It's the whole hopeful vs. depressing aspect, where the vast majority of sci-fi tends towards depressing, and Trek didn't... not even with DS9.

I also don't think that such a series would have been bad.  Far from it, I probably would have enjoyed it a lot.  I'm not a huge fan of JMS's run on ASM though, and really didn't like anything he did post-B5 except for _Crusade_.  I think he tends to do better when he's not starting with something established.  I'm not as familiar with Zabel's credentials, but he definitely seems to have the talent needed.

Finally, after reading that treatment, my first thought was that these guys knew what they were talking about.  It's relatively obvious to me that they know what makes Trek click, and that they seem to respect that and even encourage that.

That's about where I fell off the boat.

As the whole thing started to sink in, the more it sounded exactly like a rehash of Babylon 5, with a bit of Crusade tossed in.  Five-year arc?  Check.  Ancient races?  Check.  Ancient races who tinkered with us?  Check.  All leading to the question of who are we, why are we here, where do we come from?  Check.  I just couldn't shake the feeling that while their hearts may have been in the right place, what was on the page was very simply Babylon 5 set against the backdrop of Star Trek.

I agree wholeheartedly with Straczinski and Zabel - a reboot is without a doubt the best thing that could be done.  The central theme of friendship is paramount (no pun intended) to any sort of rebirth of Trek.  Additionally, I do believe that there does need to be some sort of over-arching plan of a story.  However, what I don't believe is that by throwing out what made Star Trek unique - a hopeful view of the future instead of a realistic or a grim view (not the same thing) - you'll have a better show.  The point where I most contested the outline was the dismissal of the Prime Directive.  It's the very essence of the hopeful future that Trek paints.  Losing that and you might as well be making another show... another Babylon 5.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jun 26, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> So it's not particularly the grittiness of the idea that bothers me... although I do think that semi-utopian view of the future is a nice contrast to the usual downer that most sci-fi tends to adapt.  It's the whole hopeful vs. depressing aspect, where the vast majority of sci-fi tends towards depressing, and Trek didn't... not even with DS9.




I fully agree that a rose-colored view of the future is part of the appeal of Star Trek.  Not everything needs to be _Blade Runner_ or _Logan's Run_.  I like the idea that doctors and engineers perform miracles on a daily basis, and humans are sensible enough to ignore skin color and gender as differences when there is a whole galaxy of aliens with different facial makeup.



> I just couldn't shake the feeling that while their hearts may have been in the right place, what was on the page was very simply Babylon 5 set against the backdrop of Star Trek.




This is a fair critique, but those two are too smart to fall into that trap.  Having said that, there are bound to be similarities, and a lot of folks saw too many between DS9 and B5.  Star Trek has also always been more than willing to copy other concepts.  There is no completely original story.




> The central theme of friendship is paramount (no pun intended) to any sort of rebirth of Trek.




Or an alternative view is that any character-driven story will be more interesting.  That is a fundamental rule of story-telling:  people like to watch or read stories about other people.



> Additionally, I do believe that there does need to be some sort of over-arching plan of a story.




This is something that takes skill, but it is also something that fewer folks were willing to attempt before the era of Tivo and DVD sales.  Forcing folks to watch a show every week just so they can understand the plot is a relatively modern phenomena for mass-market television.  Shows like Alias, Lost, 24, Desperate Housewives, Battlestar Galactica, and Babylon 5 are relative novelties in the landscape of TV shows.



> However, what I don't believe is that by throwing out what made Star Trek unique - a hopeful view of the future instead of a realistic or a grim view (not the same thing) - you'll have a better show.  The point where I most contested the outline was the dismissal of the Prime Directive.  It's the very essence of the hopeful future that Trek paints.  Losing that and you might as well be making another show... another Babylon 5.




The Prime Directive was a nice thought, but it had a flip side.  The Federation does not share humanitarian technologies.  They do not intervene directly when younger civilizations are being wiped out.  It is very much as if the U.S. decided they weren't going to sell food and drugs to starving Third World nations under the "principle" of non-interference.

It also presumes three things.  1)  The Federation cannot interact with less technologically advanced societies without overwhelming or exploiting them.  2)  Alien beings, likely beings with markedly different psychologies, will react the same as humans have when confronted by a dominating culture.  3)  All alien cultures have inherent value.

The first is an odd belief.  Cultures tend to persevere unless conquered or colonized.  Presumably, the advanced Federation would do neither.  They also would be quick to point out that Federation culture isn't "superior" just because the Federation is more technologically advanced.

The second is endemic to the series.  Aliens really are treated, mostly, as humans in funny masks.  It would be interesting to see an alien race that was culturally incapable of seeing or acknowledging the presence of a starship crew.  If they are truly "alien," then interacting with them probably can't happen by strictly human rules.

The third is hardly practical, though it seems to be popular in some circles.  The Enterprise certainly encountered plenty of cultures they saw fit to alter, bending or breaking their Prime Directive in a variety of blunt or creative ways.  Anybody remember the planet of the drug pushers?  The planet of calm, polite people who went into destructive orgies when triggered by the ruling computer?  The planet of people who calmly committed suicide when their computer wargame commanded?  The planet ruled by women who treated men as second-class citizens?  The planet of hermaphrodites who thought those with gender were abnormally diseased?  The planet of euthenizers who teleported their dying to an asteroid in another part of the galaxy?  The planets of the Romans, Nazis, and gangsters?  Would the Federation work to stop the Vidians, or the Borg, if those species just left them alone?

In short, the Prime Directive never made a lot of sense as a practical tool.  I would prefer to see a set of more comprehensive rules about first contact and species interaction that actually made sense.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 26, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> As the whole thing started to sink in, the more it sounded exactly like a rehash of Babylon 5, with a bit of Crusade tossed in.  Five-year arc?  Check. .



It's five year mission, to explore strange life, ect ect.  Straight from TOS.




			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Ancient races?  Check.



Something we saw alot of in TOS.



			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Ancient races who tinkered with us?  Check.



Yep, called the Progenitors in Trek.  



			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> All leading to the question of who are we, why are we here, where do we come from?  Check.  I just couldn't shake the feeling that while their hearts may have been in the right place, what was on the page was very simply Babylon 5 set against the backdrop of Star Trek.



I can see your point, but really it'll come down to how it's presented.  Many themes are pretty universal to sci-fi.  It would inevitably have more of a continuing storyline rather than stand alone episodes, that's just common in sci-fi now, it's not really a B5 thing.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 27, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> This is a fair critique, but those two are too smart to fall into that trap.  Having said that, there are bound to be similarities, and a lot of folks saw too many between DS9 and B5.  Star Trek has also always been more than willing to copy other concepts.  There is no completely original story.




JMS pitched B5 to Paramount first, so the similarities thing... borders on plagerism in my opinion.  Regardless, DS9 and B5 were both excellent, IMO.  Except the Ferengi.



> The Prime Directive was a nice thought, but it had a flip side.  The Federation does not share humanitarian technologies.  They do not intervene directly when younger civilizations are being wiped out.  It is very much as if the U.S. decided they weren't going to sell food and drugs to starving Third World nations under the "principle" of non-interference.
> 
> It also presumes three things.  1)  The Federation cannot interact with less technologically advanced societies without overwhelming or exploiting them.  2)  Alien beings, likely beings with markedly different psychologies, will react the same as humans have when confronted by a dominating culture.  3)  All alien cultures have inherent value.




Exactly why the PD did not need to be removed.  There's enough ambiguity and conflict with the PD as is that changing it really isn't necessary, IMO.  Frex, what if Kirk's missions conflicted with the PD?  That's more interesting to me than simply the PD being Kirk does whatever he needs to to get things done.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 27, 2006)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> It's five year mission, to explore strange life, ect ect.  Straight from TOS.  Something we saw alot of in TOS.
> 
> Yep, called the Progenitors in Trek.
> 
> I can see your point, but really it'll come down to how it's presented.  Many themes are pretty universal to sci-fi.  It would inevitably have more of a continuing storyline rather than stand alone episodes, that's just common in sci-fi now, it's not really a B5 thing.




Except for the first point (five years), really none of the rest was the _focus_ of Trek, just incedental stories.  Whereas they were the entire point of B5, and of the treatment.  Big difference.  A throw-away episode does not a theme and focus make.

As for the continuing story... nothing wrong with it.  But just because you have a continuing story doesn't mean it has to be the B5 story.  And I'll point out most other sci-fi out there - Farscape, BSG, SG1, SGA, even Andromeda.  All had different stories, and significantly different from B5, but still continuing stories.  That wasn't my problem.  My problem was the story, as suggested by JMS and Zabel, seemed too much like a rehash of B5.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 27, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yep, they told him to get the girl off the bridge and get rid of the alien. Gene felt he could win ONE of those battles, but not both.
> 
> You'd rather he dropped Spock?



Meh. Sometimes you have to pick your battle, like slipping in that interracial kissing scene between Kirk and Uhura.

Can't believe that it was a short while ago that it was a big deal. (And by "short while", I mean just less than 40 years ago.)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 27, 2006)

I know I am getting old because I am really sick with the whole ideas of reboots and remakes.

I wish someone would just do something new and originial. 

Instead of a reboot of trek do something new. I am a huge Trek fan and I do not want to see it made darker like BSG.

 I know it has been done with Superman a lot of people have done different versions and I have liked all of them. A few nights ago at dinner we were playing the game of who is your favorite Superman, Lois, Clark ect.

But it is not so much the recasting as  I don't want to see the entire timeline and canon and Trek Universe history changed anymore. It was bad enough that Berman/Brage did it.


----------



## Kesh (Jun 27, 2006)

New shows are being tried all the time. They just keep dying/getting cancelled because they don't get the ratings people want.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 29, 2006)

Kesh said:
			
		

> New shows are being tried all the time. They just keep dying/getting cancelled because they don't get the ratings people want.



Sighs. Yeah, we genre fans are at the mercy of the mainstream dominance (aka the 'in-crowd").


----------



## Jhamin (Jul 9, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> As the whole thing started to sink in, the more it sounded exactly like a rehash of Babylon 5, with a bit of Crusade tossed in.  Five-year arc?  Check.  Ancient races?  Check.  Ancient races who tinkered with us?  Check.  All leading to the question of who are we, why are we here, where do we come from?  Check.  I just couldn't shake the feeling that while their hearts may have been in the right place, what was on the page was very simply Babylon 5 set against the backdrop of Star Trek.





As for the Crusade angle, That show clearly had an Arc and was clearly building to something when it was axed.  When the show was killed the fans begged him to spill what would have been coming. He declined, saying that he was saving his plot in case he ever got another chance at sci-fi........

So yes, there probably are some parallels between the Babylon universe and what was laid out here. And I would be all about that. From what I saw in those dozen episodes Babylon: Crusade made better Trek than Voyager or Enterprise did: Characters from a better future who have tough choices to make with big consequences if they choose wrong.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 9, 2006)

I would sign on to watch that show in a heartbeat.

Of course, I'm their target audience: a fan of both the group of science fiction writers they mention who worked on the original series and of at least some of the writers they throw out as inspiration for rebooted _Star Trek_ scripts. A fan of varying, even wildly different interpretations of classic characters in comics, television, and films. A fan of _Star Trek_ who agrees that the vagaries of network series production and decades' worth of different approaches that are supposed to fit in one continuity has just dragged the universe down overall.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> How many actors have played Sherlock Holmes? Richard III?





			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Count Dracula? James Bond? Zorro? The Lone Ranger? Starsky and Hutch? Anakin Skywalker?



I'm confused, REG. Why are you vehemently agreeing with Vigilance, here?

I mean, excepting your two latter examples, which also happen to be the only examples where the well has only been revisited *once* and therefore don't have the statistical weight that the others do, all of the names you mention are of classic characters who have been done *well* multiple times.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 9, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Ugh, that ep is blotted from my mind as one of the most nonsensical examples of sexism on TV.  Star Fleet doesn't allow female captains?  Wow, what a progressive attitude in our future utopia...which is contradicted repeatedly in both canon and non-canon sources.  It is barely more tolerable than _Spock's Brain_.



So I just have to say... Hubby was reading bits of this thread to me, and when he got to the post preceeding this comment, I started ranting about the level of sexist drivel that episode constituted. When I was done he moved on and promptly accused me of being DreadPirateMurphy.   

I would like to officially accuse DPM of stealing my brain.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jul 9, 2006)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> So I just have to say... Hubby was reading bits of this thread to me, and when he got to the post preceeding this comment, I started ranting about the level of sexist drivel that episode constituted. When I was done he moved on and promptly accused me of being DreadPirateMurphy.
> 
> I would like to officially accuse DPM of stealing my brain.




I profess innocense in that regard.  I did, however, grow up in Massachusetts, which is where Kahuna Burger resides.  It may just be a case of great minds thinking alike.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2006)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Ugh, that ep is blotted from my mind as one of the most nonsensical examples of sexism on TV.  Star Fleet doesn't allow female captains?  Wow, what a progressive attitude in our future utopia...which is contradicted repeatedly in both canon and non-canon sources.  It is barely more tolerable than _Spock's Brain_.




You have to remember, whenever discussing the original series, that the Federation was NOT a utopia then. That was part of the TNG reboot. 

TOS had people *say* they lived in a perfect society a time or two, meanwhile you have crew members at each other's throats, driving themselves way too hard, boozing and whoring, Star Fleet seemingly populated with a good deal of psychotic admirals and ineffectual paper pushing bureaucrats and the good guys (Kirk and co.) who had to *break the rules* to do good. 

TNG actually decided to *make* the Federation utopian.


----------



## ByteRynn (Jul 10, 2006)

Being the BAD Sci-fi fan that I am, and having never seen an episode of Bab5, this treatment actually sounded down-right perfect to me.  It would fix everything that I find empty about Star Trek when I watch old episodes now (TOS's outdated sensibilities and Tech, TNG's over-utopia and again, old tech, DS9's lack of "travel", and the existance of Enterprise and Voyager).

Still, I don't mind waiting to see what Abrams will do with it.

Also, if this had been thrown into production back in 2004, which hot new actors of 2004-2005's TV shows do you think would have ended up on Trek instead of their individual new shows?  Any?


----------



## drothgery (Jul 10, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> crew members at each other's throats, driving themselves way too hard, boozing and whoring, Star Fleet seemingly populated with a good deal of psychotic admirals and ineffectual paper pushing bureaucrats and the good guys (Kirk and co.) who had to *break the rules* to do good.




I continue to insist that psychotic admirals were just as common in TNG, and in DS9 one even tried to stage a coup and take over the Federation. Starfleet has a serious problem with its flag officers, if the TV shows are any indication.


----------



## Kesh (Jul 10, 2006)

Yet again proving that utopias don't work.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 11, 2006)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Yet again proving that utopias don't work.



Of course, it won't work when Starfleet flag officers [and others] don't believe in it.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (Jul 14, 2006)

I finally got around to reading the treatment, after meaning to when this thread first popped up. I realize it was written a couple of years ago, and the landscape's changed a bit, and I also realize that it's a pitch, so it's supposed to sound excited. But I just have a hard time finding the treatment all that revolutionary, and certainly, for me, not worthy of the breathless tone it's cast in. There's a line between confidence and smugness, and this one crossed it for me.

I'd also agree with those who see striking B5/Crusade parallels in here. Wouldn't have necessarily made the show bad, mind you, but the B5/C "DNA," to borrow the treatment's words, is there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2006)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Yet again proving that utopias don't work.



Well, by its very definition, shouldn't a Utopia work? 
If this is true (and I am not certain it is, but I tend to believe so), then the Federation isn't actually a Utopia - it might be close to it, but it isn't actually.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 15, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, by its very definition, shouldn't a Utopia work?
> If this is true (and I am not certain it is, but I tend to believe so), then the Federation isn't actually a Utopia - it might be close to it, but it isn't actually.




The problem isn't really with a utopia per se.  For a utopian society to work, it needs two things.  The first is the cooperation of everyone in that society towards the utopian ideal.  The second, and vastly more important reason as to why utopias don't work, is that they require no outside interference.  As soon as there's someone outside pushing, that's someone not cooperating with the utopian ideal, thus breaking it.  That's the reason there hasn't ever been one in human history - too many people on the outside pushing in.


----------

