Star Trek 3, as it is still being called, could be huge hit when it boldly goes to theaters in 2016. It could be junk, but still make a killing. Or it could stink and flop. No one wants that, not even Star Wars fans. Regardless of the outcome, there's one thing you can bank on: The Star Trek franchise will live on once this movie trilogy is over, and the obvious place for it to go is television.
It may happen at warp speed or at one-quarter impulse, but there's just too much gold-pressed latinum to be made for the franchise not to return to the small screen. Few #brands resonate like Trek's and, more importantly, if you ask most fans they'll tell you their love of the show was born from the idiot box. (This is what we used to call the great medium of television, kids, before we streamed everything to portables devices.) Many of the movies are truly great (II, IV, VI, First Contact, the 2009 reboot) and most fans can find something to love in the misfires (c'mon the campfire "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" is delightful!). But the movies were always extra. The final frontier is meant to be on television, and by the Prophets, we're gonna get back there some day.
Like Gene Roddenberry before me, I will now take a moment to create a utopian vision of the future. One in which Star Trek's return to television doesn't suck. Since I'm a nice guy, I offer the following suggestions to the producers free of charge.
1) Don't force a connection to the past...
It's Star Trek. Your brand recognition is there. Let Batman and Spider-Man bore us with replaying their origins over and over. You don't need Kirk and Spock. Besides, Chris Pine isn't going to get involved, and neither is Zachary Quinto, so no need to twist yourself in knots trying. And making your Chekov or Sulu or "Cupcake" your link is just silly.
YOU DON'T NEED KIRK AND SPOCK
The Galaxy is gigantic, do why limit yourself? Either start with a brand new crew or introduce an awesome new character in the third film (not a rebooted character, like a new Cyrano Jones) and let that be your connective tissue.
2) ...With one exception
Karl Urban kicks all kinds of ass as Dr. McCoy. He loves the role, the fans love him, and, let's be frank, there's nothing else going on in his career. He was pushing for a Dredd sequel, for heaven's sake. I feel fairly confident that he'd eat a dilithium crystal if it meant doing a Trek television show.
Not that a new Star Trek universe needs to keep in step with the original timeline, but the original timeline does present an opportunity: There is a gap between the end of the original series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, during which McCoy was doing his own thing. Remember in the first movie when he showed up in the transporter room with a crazy-ass beard? There's a lot to play with in there. Indeed, legendary comics creator John Byrne penned a swell miniseries Leonard McCoy: Frontier Doctor about this very period.
3) Put it on a ship
It shouldn't be the Enterprise, but it should be on a ship. Deep Space Nine was fantastic, but that was lightning in a bottle – plus there was a lot of other Star Trek going on at the time. Star Trek should be set on a ship and that ship should be exploring. Go ahead, make a specific planet or space station or even Earth a recurring location. But our heroes need to be out there in the galaxy, experiencing weird phenomena, getting into trouble, and saving the day.
4) Hire real science fiction writers
What made the original Trek a hit? A perfect cocktail of factors, to be sure. (Some of it was just making the uniforms bright. NBC was owned by RCA at the time and wanted to sell a lot of these newfangled color televisions.) But part of the alchemy was the freshness of the ideas—a sincere strike of bonafide sci-fi on television.
OUR HEROES NEED TO BE OUT THERE IN THE GALAXY, GETTING INTO TROUBLE, AND SAVING THE DAY
Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Bloch, Norman Spinrad and Harlan Ellison (though he contests how much of his work ended up on screen) all contributed teleplays. My hope is that the new Trek show recognizes that the most important thing about this show has always always been the ideas. Finding creative folk who can dream up unpredictable and exciting adventures is more important that getting another bozo who knows how to take a good lunch in Los Angeles.
5) More aliens, please
The joke about hardcore Trekkies is that they all know how to speak Klingon. This isn't actually true, but it's awesome that people think that. The richness of this universe is what gives it its edge. The new movies have thrown a few cool looking new creatures at us, but very little new in the way of culture. We know that Scotty's little buddy Keenser is cute, but unless you read the comics you don't know squat about him.
The new show needs to do two things. First, bring back the species that we love – the Ferengi, the Cardassians, the Orions, the Andorians, the Denobulans, and, for Kahless' sake, the Klingons for more than just a five-minute scene.
Second, it needs to dream up new badass species. That kinda-sorta android looking dude on the bridge in Star Trek Into Darkness? That long-faced weirdo in the bar from the 2009 film? More of that, please, with some history behind it.
THE RICHNESS OF THIS UNIVERSE IS WHAT GIVES IT ITS EDGE
6) Out of the space closet
There are few places more welcoming to the LGBT community than a Star Trek convention. But good luck finding any representation in the franchise itself. Don't gimme that Dax episode where she meets her old flame, or omnivorous Mirror Universe Kira, or Dr. Phlox's extended taxonomy of spouses. You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a regular character who shows up to work each day in the 23rd or 24th century and identifies as gay. It's been a sore spot since the late 1980s when Gene Roddenberry said TNG would have a gay character, then reneged. It has to happen now. For a show that has broken so many boundaries, this warped vision of the future is an embarrassment.
7) Star Trek is fun
The gloomier Deep Space Nine had the wiggle room to be the anomaly in the Trek universe. Even during the darkest days of the Dominion War there still was a warmth and wit that comes from knowing and loving characters so well. So many of the most acclaimed shows in this new golden age of TV are bleak, bleak, bleak, but a returning to television for Trek can't be dark and grim. The 2009 movie's tone was right, by and large. Let's not get sidetracked by other television trends.
SOME OF THE BEST TREK WAS PUT TOGETHER WITH GUM AND A BAND-AID
8) It's not HBO or GTFO
Some friends have told me that they want Trek back on TV only if it's given the red carpet, cultural spotlight treatment of Game of Thrones. I'm not so sure that's necessary. (Besides, if Trek were to be on cable it would likely be Showtime, not HBO, because of ownership and rights issues.) Some of the bestTrek was put together with gum and a Band-Aid. What was getting hit by a photon torpedo other than everyone making "ahhhh!" faces and somebody jiggling the camera? The futuristic cities in The Original Series' "Taste of Armageddon" or the mining facilities in "Devil In The Dark"? Matte paintings.
Money doesn't always bring creativity. In fact, sometimes, with less at stake, there are more chances for a high-risk reward. And remember, "risk is our business."
Should Star Trek be released in one big binge-worthy batch, a la House of Cards? My gut says no. Make it a regular television show, with weekly installments. None of this nine episodes per season nonsense. This ain't England!
Should Trek follow the trend of today's revered TV dramas with a story arc that spans a whole season?Todd VanDerWerff at Vox seems to think so, calling for Trek to take the shape of True Detective. But I'm not too sure about that. I certainly would never say "no" to an episodic Star Trek—I just hope it is someone who sees the long view and isn't just jumping on the latest trend. The Trek we fell in love with let us beam in week to week and take a ride to a distant star, and there was something wonderful about that.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий