Speculation: What would JMS Star Trek be like?

I know that the treatment that JMS and the other guy wrote for Star Trek was their own personal project and not requested by Paramount, but I'm still surprised that JMS would consider the Star Trek universe. Ten year ago, maybe, but I would think Trek would be too much like damaged goods at this point.

So, what would a Star Trek show run by JMS be like? Would he EP, show-run, write, or wear many hats? What would the balance be between his own fresh ideas and the huge backstory already existing in the Star Trek universe? Would it take place in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th century, or even beyond that?

Here are a few random guesses I have about a JMS-run Star Trek:

- There would probably be a set number of seasons, especially if there were a story arc. JMS seems to prefer stories with a well-defined beginning, middle, and end. With B5 and his intentions for Crusade, he seems to prefer a 5 year arc. However, after struggles with both of those shows and the fact that Star Trek seasons are usually a few episodes longer, I'd say four seasons of 25 eps each would allow a good arc and provide the magic # of 100 eps for 2nd-run syndication.

- If there were an arc, it would be planned out well ahead of time, not made up as he went along.

- JMS would have to be given a lot of control over the show. I have a hard time imagining Paramount execs loosening up on him enough, especially with the over-commercialization of the Star Trek franchise. They would have to let him be free to tell the story and not worry about changing someone's uniform for one episode so they can sell an additional version of an action figure.

- There would be less technobabble and psychobabble and fewer breakdowns of technology. Even if transporters, holodecks, dream sequences, body possessions, genetic transformations, etc. still had to be part of the Trek universe, I think they would less often be the "topic" of entire episodes and just be used as tools for storytelling.

- Fewer "spatial anomolies of the week." (same reasons as above)

- Time travel would be used sparingly, if at all.

- Characters would be more prone to changing, leaving, dying, arriving, coming-and-going, and just plain developing.

- The opening title sequence would likely be different every season, just like on B5.

- The show would almost certainly not be based on a space station. With the history of controversy over B5 & DS9, JMS doing a space station show in the Star Trek universe would be too ironic and/or too redundant and/or too...creepy.

- Perhaps the show would be based on a planet or several planets, using ships as ways of getting from one location to another but not necessarily being the main setting for the show. I think Stargate SG-1 is the closest anyone's come to a planet-based sci-fi show.

There would definitely be a more in depth examination of the characters. I would gamble that every major character you'd see in the first season would be completely different at the end.

I'd also bet that JMS would delve into the shady side of the federation/starfleet. Y'know, like its a little too perfect ... that its nothing but a pretty mask that hides a hideous face underneath. DS9 got into this a little bit with Section 31, but JMS would really sink his teeth into it.

what would a Star Trek show run by JMS be like?

Click to expand...

Good

I wouldn't count on it being a tight 5 year long-type arc. JMS has also done Murder She Wrote, and other non-arc type stuff, and Paramount doesn't seem interested in something people need to pay that close attention to. Possibly Season long arcs, or several episode long arc, but, not neccessarily Series long Arc. Also, I think Paramount would insist on their typical 7 year, 26 episodes per year. I think JMS would give on these two points, in order to win other concessions.

Definitely it would be very character oriented, more tension and strife, not a perfect world.

Probably dealing with the shady side of things, back door politics, etc. Perhaps a border skirmish show, like centering around the Maquis or something.

And like GKE said, it would be good and I might add consistent.

Y'know, like its a little too perfect ... that its nothing put a pretty mask that hides a hideous face underneath. DS9 got into this a little bit with Section 31, but JMS would really sink his teeth into it.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "perfect". Earth and the Federation might be too perfect, but Starfleet as a military (or semi-military) organization seems messed up in way. The admirals all seem to be uptight and make a lot of bad decisions while the captains seem to know what the real deal is.

Maybe JMS would address that problem and explain what is wrong with the admirals. Are they the way they are by necessity, or is a Clark-like character behind the scenes intentionally putting stupid people in charge?

Earth and the Federation might be too perfect, but Starfleet as a military (or semi-military) organization seems messed up in way.

Click to expand...

True, you can't confuse Starfleet with the Federation but I still think there is something eerie about how perfect the Federation seems ... hardly no war, barely no disease, no hunger, no struggles, no money, no real need to work ... I'm sorry, but there's something sinister about that to me. There's got to be a seedy underbelly to that perfect life. I don't care how advanced a society gets, there's always untasteful things that have to be done in order for society to function ... someone has to be the garbage man, someone has to work in the sewers...etc. Someone has to be paying for that perfect Federation society.

I bet the characters would be more complex.

Re: Speculation: What would JMS Star Trek be like

The admirals all seem to be uptight and make a lot of bad decisions while the captains seem to know what the real deal is.

Maybe JMS would address that problem and explain what is wrong with the admirals. Are they the way they are by necessity, or is a Clark-like character behind the scenes intentionally putting stupid people in charge?

Click to expand...

My most recent regular ST watching experience is TNG (which I liked a lot) - never could get into DS9, Voyager or Enterprise for some reason ...

*cough*B5*cough*

... but I always felt that the inadequacy of the Admirals was simply a plot device allowing them to continually build up Picard (and occasionally Riker) as the superstar/saviour of the Federation.

But it certainly would give someone like JMS something to work with.

Hell ... if JMS was running a Trek show, I might even be tempted back into the fold.

Re: Speculation: What would JMS Star Trek be like

Wicked.
Lots of consipiracies in Star Fleet, given the B5 / Dark Skies anti-authoritarian heritage. There was a great sub-plot like this in TNG's first season, but it ended with a really poor monster, IIRC.

The ultimate story/character trade-off of Star Trek is the sacrifice of realism for utopian message: the whole point of Trek was to demonstrate a future where mankind achieved peace and cooperation, which, in Roddenberry's view, entails the complete elimination of poverty, the ambition to accumulate of wealth, and disease.

If hypothetically someone like JMS wanted to involve conspiracies and sinister plot things, yet still retain the Trek spirit, he would have to make it an alien plot determined to undermine the foundation of Trek, making it a battle of ideas, which he likes to do, anyway.

By the way, I would suggest anyone who wants to see JMS play in a non-B5 universe where he isn't the only writer and has a more laid-back approach to TV (he'll never pull another B5, where he was doing everything), check out a few (good) eps of Jeremiah if you can. Wasn't as tight as B5 but the space that provided was refreshing.

I don't think Trek should have major story arcs- rather, it can recapture the spirit of the original. It's had a wild and rocky ride, and if I were in charge, I would scale it all back and make it about exploration again, using freelance writers and trying to round up as vast and diverse a pool of contributors as possible, be it star vets like Harlan Ellison and JMS or some hungry young bucks looking to make names for themselves.

There's still an unexplored quadrant in the Trek galaxy- Beta (correct me if I'm wrong, fellow geeks- alpha is where the Federation is, gamma is where DS9 went and has the Founders, delta is where Voyager was). Forget that prequel crap, have a nice mixed crew with a Cardassian and a Bajoran- and have REAL tension. Have a real romance with main characters, kinda like in Farscape (though that one got a little ridiculous towards the end). Mine the anals of REAL sci-fi: Azimov, Bradbury, et al. So what if it's "stealing"- consider it an homage, but done a la Trek. Use some of the science that we've learned about in the past 20 years- involve real scientists to project how some of our modern findings can theoritically be implemented in the future (like that thing where quantum particles "communicate" over vast distances). Make it politically relevant- and don't be afraid to take a stand! Maybe put something in some region of space that could alter the balance of power, and have like a Cold War with the Romulans (who are always good to watch), and show the ramifications of that power struggle (Maquis, etc).

There is so much they could do...

There's still an unexplored quadrant in the Trek galaxy- Beta (correct me if I'm wrong, fellow geeks- alpha is where the Federation is, gamma is where DS9 went and has the Founders, delta is where Voyager was).

Click to expand...

I think the Beta quadrant is relatively well-known. At the beginning of The Undiscovered Country Sulu and the Excelsior were in Beta quadrant cataloguing gasious anomalies.

I would place my bets on real characters that you really care about. Not those "Mr. Johnson and Mr. Crycek" whom you wish something awful. Continuity would be other thing. I mean, real one. Like in B5. Not something like in... Enterprise nowadays. Interesting and complex characters would be definetely something that ST really needs. Ask for yourself, besides of Piccard, Spock and Kirk, do you care about anyone else? Do you care about Enterprise's captain? I must definetely do not. Too generic, too static. By all means.

Mine the anals of REAL sci-fi: Azimov, Bradbury, et al. So what if it's "stealing"- consider it an homage, but done a la Trek.

Click to expand...

Hey, GKE... I assume you mean annals, not anals... unless you're thinking of a Star Trek series that really has gone where no-one has gone before...

OOPS! Hehe... I do have a number of witty retorts in mind, but they're way beyond NC-17...

Ask for yourself, besides of Piccard, Spock and Kirk, do you care about anyone else?

Click to expand...

Data!
Odo, Kira, Riker...

and had Voyager been good after season 1, Chakotay and Janeway.

Well. My fault. I forgot Data completely. Robot (or whatever it was) without feelings is quite cool idea. His sarcastic quotations and phrases were quite cool. Hmm... Those others you mention, I can't form picture of them. Who knows...

OOPS! Hehe... I do have a number of witty retorts in mind, but they're way beyond NC-17...

Ask for yourself, besides of Piccard, Spock and Kirk, do you care about anyone else?

Click to expand...

Data!
Odo, Kira, Riker...

and had Voyager been good after season 1, Chakotay and Janeway.

Click to expand...

Give me Picard, Kira and Chakotay and I'll make your wildest fantasies come true. :devil:

Sorry,

Getting back on track, lots of people answered what they thought a series in Star Trek by JMS would be like...technically and structurally (how many episodes, arc, etc), but few actually dove into where I thought the spirit of this thread would go, what TYPE of series and what EVENTS would it be around and what STORY would be told.

Here is my guess. And granted, none of us really have any type of basis for a real guess since no one knows but those 2 and Paramount, so its not really even a guess, but here goes.

I think Trek had all the tools for a very deep and exciting series --- arc or non-arc --- related already existing in its universe. It was explored first in TOS, then in DS9, and followed up on in a series of books by William Shatner: The Mirror Universe.

It has several advantages. First off, current Trek viewers are familiar with it. New viewers will get the jist quickly enough. It was explored SEVERAL times in DS9, but was never actually resolved. Shatner's books took it further showing just how deep it could get. I think the possibilities of this type of series are endless. You have a universe that people can come and go from in our own, "evil twins" or at the least "different twins" (they might be good, but their personalities are very different from characters you know) that could impersonate anyone in our universe. I am sure JMS could use this universe as a way for our Starfleet to help them fight for peace without using time travel to go back to the point where that univese split off from our own.

Its at least one possibility for a large scale story that could be explored.

I think Trek had all the tools for a very deep and exciting series --- arc or non-arc --- related already existing in its universe. It was explored first in TOS, then in DS9, and followed up on in a series of books by William Shatner: The Mirror Universe.

Click to expand...

Agreed... a series (or mini-series) based on the Mirror Universe would be a lot of fun.

If JMS were to write Star Trek, that's where I'd want his stories to take place. I really doubt that if JMS were given "free" reign with stories in the Trek universe that we all know, his ideas and storylines would not match up to Roddenberry's vision. JMS's writing tends to be darker & less optimistic than Roddenberry's. His style would really work wonders in Trek's mirror universe. Dark and almost desperate at times, yet always with a glimmer of hope for the future.

Here's my take on a number of fandom questions regarding JMS and any Trek possibilites:

1) Why would JMS even consider doing Trek since it would "obviously" be beneath him?

Well, JMS is a television writer and producer who makes his living by writing and, you guessed it, producing. But taking a studio executive's perspective first, JMS is a bit of a wildcard.

While we are each quite fond of Babylon 5, it wan't eactly a ratings giant. Crusade was canceled before the first season was finished. Legend Of The Rangers was never picked-up after it's pilot. Jeremiah was merely a modest success and has been canceled. He recent television projects haven't exactly been gold.

Plus, JMS seems to, for whatever reason, clash quite often with those he works with. He fought with TNT. He fought on Jeremiah. He wasn't exactly loved by all on the B5 set. Thus, JMS could seem a risk from a studio perspective.

As for JMS and Trek, he obviously feels a connection on some level to at least the original Star Trek since he once said the program was "as good as it gets." If one avoids the JMS created everything crap of some fanboys, and looks at things more objectively, and within historical context, it is obvious that Star Trek has been a MAJOR influence on Babylon 5, whether directly or indirectly.

TOS was the FIRST science fiction show in US television history to feature reoccuring characters (a non-anthology series).

Relating this back to JMS, TOS set the story format that future Trek, as well as B5 (and Farscape) would follow - Teaser, opening narration, then five acts.

For it's time, the show-to-show format was bold on TOS. You had medical-centered episodes, legal episodes, space battles episodes, and plenty of genre-shifting stories, as well.

Several of the types of character roles between Star Trek: The Original Series and B5 is also striking. Both have idealistic "I'll do anything to save a patient" type doctors. Both have a headstrong, tactically superior, leader who cannot be intiminated and will not sway from his convictions, even if it means going up against rank (Kirk and Sheridan). Ivanova sure acted a lot like Spock (irritable and humorless) during the first part of B5's initial season. (Claudia Christian eventually suggested giving the character more of a sense of humor.) The Minbari ritualistic culture certainly has some similarities to the Vulcans, as does their shared stoicism. (Perhaps the Romulans could be looked at as similar to the Minbari warrior caste.) Plus you have the three person central focus of Kirk, Spock, and Bones with Sinclair/Sheridan, Ivanova, and Garibaldi. Finally, TOS was intended to be a FIVE YEAR mission.

Star Trek: TNG's contribution to US science fiction television is that it was the first television series to really get into the "culture" of aliens (a concept that JMS certainly "borrows" for B5). Before TNG, aliens such as Klingons, Romulans, Daleks, Cybermen, Cylons, the numerous aliens in the original Star Wars films were little more than broad character types. Maybe they would have a stange "I'm an alien" qwirk such as an unusual way of delivering a line, but we really didn't get any sort of significant insight into their culture and traditions, other than how these directly related to the onscreen action. But with TNG, all of a sudden, we REALLY get to meet the Klingons (Thank you Ron D. Moore).

We start to, for the first time, identify with them, despite their "strangeness." Feeling sorry for the alien in "ET" is no more sophisticated than feeling sorry for a mouse in a python's pen. Yoda and Spock, though they do have "alien" qwirks, only offer hints at a larger and more detailed culture.

It's with TNG that we get insights into Klingon history, art, philosopy, system of government, and the REASON behind the rituals. Many people around the world have so embraced the Klingons that several of them dress as Klingons at science fiction conventions.

Also, TNG moved sci-fi into an even more character-centered realm. An episode like "Family," which has zero sci-fi content, zero action, and zero sex was a bold move at the time. It's just Picard trying to patch up the relationship with his brother. It's low-key drama told quite well. Sure you didn't get full bore story arc, but you did have reoccuring storylines, with the Worf-Klingon thing probably being the most famous. This, too, was significant for it's time. And it's the first mainstream sci-fi program that I am aware of that actually acknowleges that the characters have sex. Aspects not ignored by Babylon 5.

In summary, neither JMS nor Star Trek need apologize if they should team-up.

2) If handed the reigns of Trek, would JMS be allowed to create a full series-length story outline by Paramount?

Sure he would, why not? It's not like Paramount would tell JMS that it is only alright to make up the story arc as the show is in the middle of production and not beforehand. That wouldn't make sense. The producers that I've spoken with about this subject on the programs that I've worked on prefer to wait and "feel" things out before committing too much to an actor or a story thread. They like the freedom to change their mind or adapt to a better idea down the line. Regardless, all producers/creators turn in an outline of the series intended direction, no matter how tentative, to the studio in the pre-production stage. JMS would just do the same thing, maybe with much more detail than most, and he would be more likely to stick to it.

Though let's be honest guys, JMS did make rather significant changes to his original Babylon 5 model. Think about the changes due to casting decisions and those that occured during the rushed season 4, which therefore affected season 5.

3) Would Paramount allow JMS to develop a strictly arc based episode format, or at least keep the one-off episodes to a minimum?

This is the biggest question. Syndication programmers do prefer the option of showing episodes out of sequence, but it is now rather common on US television to have storylines continue from episode to episode. (I think that DVD has made this option more reasonable. Now viewers can buy the season box set and more easily follow continuing stories.)

I would have to think that, if Paramount were to bring JMS into the fold, that they would hire him with the idea that he would develop a contiuing story, to at least some extent. B5 was continuing story. Jeremiah was continuing story. Why else hire the guy?

Sure there would probably be one-off episodes as well, both as a compromise to syndicators and for introducing the series to new viewers. But I don't personally mind these if handled intelligently. The cliched, or lazy, one-off episodes that both Star Trek and Babyon 5 have had are a bore, but borh franchise also have excellent self-contained stories as well.

Anyway, I'd love to see JMS take the reigns of Trek. Both could benefit tremendously.

For JMS, success could lead Trek viewers to Babylon 5, increasing it's popularity. It would raise JMS's profile and afford him more opportunities to develop his own projects.

For Trek, success could re-establish the franchise, giving it a BOLD new direction ("To boldly go...").

For fans, it would be nirvana. The production values, much better acting and expansive universe of Trek with the story arc and attention to plot of Babylon 5. With more resources, the tremendous production experience of Trek's crew and a relatively stable production evironment in terms of studio committment to the franchise, JMS would have the opportunity to truely make a novel for television, without the many compromises made with Babylon 5. (Again, for examples of compromise consider season 4/season 5, Sinclair/Sheridan, Ivanova/Lockley, and Talia was to play a larger role until the actress chose to leave the show.)

JJ...that has to be one of the most back-handed compliments I have ever seen.

You start the post by basically making JMS out to be some problem/red-headed stepchild of the industry that no one should ever want to work with.

Then you appear to proceed to praise all things Trek whilst insinuating that JMS was so influenced by Trek that he used Trek's very thoughts and ideals in B5..."borrowing" as you said (by putting is in quotes, BTW, you insinuate sarcasm and thus insinuate theft which neither I, nor most B5 fans would appreciate -- especially given the theft from B5 and JMS by Paramount and Berman with regards to DS9).

Then finally, you state that JMS taking over Trek would be the best thing in the world. A conclusion that your earlier arguments would not seem to be supporting.

I'm confused.

First of all...JMS is not a problem child of the industry. Actually, he's very kind in the light of industry crap that happens to him and around him. His issues with TNT and MGM were handled very professionally by him (I cannot say the same of TNT and MGM).

B5 was actually a success. Given it's lack of notoriety when it came out, given that it was up against Trek to some extent (splitting fans..some loved both, some chose one over the other), it's time slot in some cities moving all over creation, B5 did very well in the ratings. What happened to Crusade and Rangers was really out of JMS's hands for the most part...both of them were downfalls caused by suits. JMS just got pissed about Crusade and seemed reluctantly accepting about Rangers. As for Jeremiah...again suit issues.

JMS is known in the industry as a man of integrity. As for his body of work (especially B5), he was listed as one of the top 40 most influential writers in Hollywood today by People magazine...and I believe he was in the top half of that list. That is an honor...and clear recognition of his talent. That is why Paramount and others would and do want him working for them.

Yes, Trek was an early influence on JMS...he's as much as said so. But to say that B5 used the three main character format that TOS used makes me ask..."You did watch Babylon 5...right?" It was an ensemble show...very much so. More in line the TNG than TOS...though B5 did it better than any Trek series has...ever.

While I do recognize the accomplishments of Trek...I do not dare diminish the accomplishments of B5, which forever changed the face of American TV (especially SF).

Oh, and to say that the episodic (you said show-to-show format...it's called episodic) format of TOS was bold at the time...nope...it was the norm actually.

A lot of the character traits that you stated were influenced by TOS are actually heroic archetypal behavior throughout literature.

To compare B5 to Trek is like comparing apples and oranges as JMS might say. While all SF has some level of similarity...from SW to B5 to Twilight Zone...Trek and B5 actually took almost diametrically opposing views of the future. The only times I find myself comparing them is when I note just how obvious is it that DS9 was stolen from the B5 bible...and to note just how bad Trek is and has become...especially when compared to B5. In fact, I think B5 spoiled me.

If JMS were to do a Trek series, it would not be so stringent an arc as B5 had. JMS has said that he doubts he will ever do another series with such a strong arc. It would most likely be a 50% to 60% arc...much like Crusade was going to be.

JMS would not do a Trek series unless he had contractual assurances that he had control. This is most likely a good part of the reason why he turned down taking over Enterprise as he would still be working for B&B.

I don't understand why you feel Trek would be beneath JMS (though again you used quotation marks insinuating sarcasm). He has stated that he loves Trek and has a great deal of love and respect for that universe. What he hates is what's been done to it by B&B (something I completely sympathize with him over).

As for JMS needing Trek to give him success...you must not keep up with JMS very much. He's one of the busiest writers in Hollywood right now...he has a worldwide fan base that I think would probably "follow him into fire"...and he's very highly respected in the industry. By all definations of the word, JMS is extremely successful (and happy from what I can tell).

Why would he need Trek? No...he doesn't. Trek needs him, but he does not need Trek.

Guess maybe that's why Paramount went to him...he didn't go to them. After they came to him...he figured he would put together an idea to "save Trek." But given his tone about the treatment...I don't think it would bother him if nothing ever came of it. It was merely his suggestion...after he has already turned them down. More like..."Well, no...I won't take over Enterprise...but here's some ideas I've had...if you want to use them just let me know."

Doesn't sound to me like someone who needs Trek.

As for B5 gaining fans because of JMS doing Trek...I hate to tell you...many fans of B5 are fans of Trek. A lot of the dis-enfranchised Trek fans are now B5 fans (and I can't help but to believe that that's because B5 showed them what Trek could be and so they lost hope for Trek as it slowly dwindled). Those Trek fans who hate B5 will doubtfully ever change their minds (though a few might once TMoS hits the theatres and people see what a great SF film can be (unlike the last several Trek films).

TMoS will bring in the new fans...we as fans will bring in new fans...some Trek fans might come to see B5 in a new light after TMoS. But JMS working for Trek won't accomplish new fans...TMoS and B5 itself will do that.

I'm simply not sure I comprehended any of your arguments or points. Most, if not all were pretty flawed in their reasoning and often downright wrong in conclusion.

You might wanna read up a bit next time. Most of what you said is the opposite (or at best half-truth) of the facts.

CE