Download the JMS/Zabel Star Trek treatment

[Vigilance]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Ancient races? Check.

Something we saw alot of in TOS.

Ancient races who tinkered with us? Check.

Yep, called the Progenitors in Trek.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.