Bryce Zabel has posted a PDF of his and JMS’s failed Star Trek treatment to his blog. Basically, it’s a Battlestar Galactica style re-imagining of Star Trek—not necessarily in terms of tone, but rather in terms of removing the accumulation of restraints that bind a story teller’s hands. The treatment articulates the need for a reboot quite well:
The QuestionHave you ever made a copy of a copy of a copy, to the point where, after enough iterations, the blurry words look like they were written on a 1947 Olympia typewriter with a bad ribbon?
Over the decades, Star Trek has become so insular, so strictly defined, and placed so many layers upon itself that some of the essence of what made us love it in the first place has been lost. The all-too-reasonable desire to protect the franchise may now be the cause of its stagnation.
Imagine buying a new Porsche and leaving it in the garage all the time, because if you take it out on the road, it might get scratched. But that is exactly what’s happened to Star Trek. The Porsche’s still clean and polished, but we’re driving around in a nice, reasonable family car.
It’s time to throw caution to the wind and go out for a drive…a real drive…
“A copy of a copy”… I wholeheartedly agree. The existing Star Trek canvas is so messy with caked on with redundant plots and limited characters that it would be profoundly refreshing to wipe it clean and start from scratch. It would help get rid of a lot of continuity related detritus, and, if it is even remotely close to being as good as the Sci-Fi Channel’s BSG remake, it would be the first bit of Trek that I would actually look forward to seeing since ST:TNG went off the air.
Unfortunately, Paramount, in it’s wisdom, chickened out and opted for a prequel rather than a bold revamping. I suppose this only goes to further demonstrate how absolutely brilliant the new Battlestar Galactica series is. It takes guts to say a franchise needs to be fundamentally reconstituted. I suppose it speaks volumes that TPTB for Star Trek really do seem to worry more about upsetting the applecart than finding ways to engage their fanbase.
I still think that even the current Trek continuity could be revived into something interesting, but it would still require a massive upheaval in regards to the conventions of plot, style and character that Trek has accumulated over the decades. Yet, if Paramount is opposed to offering Trek a fresh start without having to worry about affecting existing continuity, it certainly wouldn’t want to introduce anything that makes waves in the (apparently static) universe that Trek already exists in.
Too bad.
Star Trek really does seem creatively deceased, doesn’t it?
It's true, Star Trek is done, and I firmly agree that Next Generation was the pinnacle. (especially because the enterprise-d could beat the tar out of boba fetts slave 1... *ahem*) I'm actually looking forward to this movie though, the concept of the original series' crew played by young actors showing early adventures was Gene Roddy's original idea for a second Star Trek series. That idea was fortunately scrapped, but as a one-off movie I think it could work. At the very least, I want to see some up and comer commit career suicide by impersonating William Shatner's acting style, or by not doing it.
As for re-vamping Star Trek, it was called Sea Quest, and my love couldn't save it. Actually, the problem with re-working Star Trek, for me, is that everything that gets re-worked is given more edge and the more stylized esthetics that come from a larger budget. When the original already has dark tones, like BSG or He-Man, or even Tron, it has potential. However, Star Trek is more about optimism, morality and teamwork (which might explain why Trekkies are more gregarious than Star Wars fans, who don't even have a name for themselves). To re-work it and make it darker counteracts the original theme, to make it lighter would be to make it less cool, to make it the same is to is to give everyone the same thing over and over ad nauseum. So, sad to say, Star Trek is over. Unless they wanted to make a movie or series from entirely within the Klingon or Romulan empire, with the federation as the antagonists. That could be both new and dark.
Either way, I'd rather see more new and original science fiction, like Firefly.
Posted by: Steve on June 21, 2006 10:53 PM
Regarding Shatner's acting style: wouldn't it be cool if they revealed Kirk's quirky delivery to be the result of severe head trauma suffered during the climax of the prequel?
I don't necessarily think that a revamp has to have a harder edge. Consider that the original Trek and TNG were written based on idealistic interpretations of the future that originated 30 to 40 years ago. How much has literary Sci-Fi's conceptualization of an optimistic and moral future changed in that time span? I would venture to say a lot--and this is what I find to be key underpinning of this failed series treatment--as a result, Trek should draw upon this new pool idealistic sci-fi to show a deeper, more developed conception of an optimistic future universe.
A revamp doesn't have to be more gritty, just mature enough that it brings Trek out of the 70's and infuses it with some of the fresher ideas in the field.
On a tangent: for better or worse, I think that using a revamp to inject some conceptually mature substance into the source material is exactly what Lucas tried to do with the prequel trilogy. Palpatine's rise to power was handled with a far subtler and subversive hand than I would have expected from the creator of the original trilogy (of course someone will probably just bring up Jar-Jar and there goes my whole argument...).
Posted by: Kavin on June 22, 2006 12:07 AM
It's true, moral values have changed and readressing them like TNG did would be all it takes. In fact, that may be why TNG was the best of the new series, because it was progressive in its moral themes. Unfortunately, Gene Roddy died around season 4, and I think it was him who was really pushing the boundaries. For example, he wanted to start including gay crewmembers in season 5, but since he passed away the theme, which is as large and conrtoversial in our times as racism was in the 60s, has been meerly skirted around. Thus, I refer you to the Hidden Frontier:
http://www.hiddenfrontier.org/
I have yet to watch any of this myself, but it's a fan made series which explores topics the official vehicles don't want to. It's true what you first said, the studios are chickening out when it comes to pushing the boundaries. So, maybe fan seasons are the way to go, projects made by people who love the material and aren't afraid of demographics or ratings. It's especially true in cinema, the critically acclaimed, long-recognized films that make it into the history books are often times labours of love, people who have a vision and won't compromise it no matter how the masses may be feared to react.
And as for the prequel Star Wars trilogy being more mature, I agree. The intrigue is what truly makes Sidious sinister (although I did love him calling out his move, "unlimited power!" , when he nailed Windu). This should be added to your unsalvageable nerd list: "If you were so wrapt up in anticipating Jar Jar dying a horrible death in episode 3 that you missed the point of the movie..."
Posted by: Steve on June 23, 2006 10:37 PM
Comments