• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

What would a JMS Star Trek show be like?

I can't remember if this has been asked before (I might even have asked it before), but with the end of Enterprise and the poll at scifi.com, it seemed worthy to bring up again...

What would a JMS-run Star Trek show be like?

How much do you think JMS might make changes? He prided B5 for having realistic, plausible future technology, but Star Trek is a bit on the "imaginary" tech side. Would he be okay with keeping transporters, holodecks, warp engines, etc.? Star Trek is too far along to dump artificial gravity, but would we ever see at least one race still use rotating sections?

Would it most likely be another ship-based show? Would there be a story arc? Would there be a pre-determined number of seasons with a non-negotiable cut-off point (like the 5-year mark in Babylon 5), or would he be okay with the possibility of continually renewing actor contracts?

Would there be a main enemy race like TOS's Klingons, TNG's Romulans & Borg, DS9's Cardassians & Dominion, Voyager's Kazons, and whatever it was Enterprise had? Or, would it be more like Babylon 5, where every race is part good, part bad, and every character is therefore also half & half?

What would a JMS Starfleet/Federation goverment look like? Would Admirals still be infamous for making bad decisions, or would they be more like seasoned war veterans? Would Starfleet uniforms still look like jumpsuits and leotards, or would he institute his "people still need pockets in the future" rule?

I was just so surprised to hear that he took part in a Star Trek treatment, I can't help but wonder how much he would leave intact and how much he would shake things up. Apparently, JMS doesn't hate Trek, but considering the DS9 controversies and some other comments that have been made about the way the Trek franchise is run, surely he thinks the status quo isn't good enough.

So, what new ideas could he have for Trek? Any theories?
 
Crap, I just realized where I posted this.

Moderators, feel free to move this to the Non-B5 category. I had the post about the scifi.com poll in my head and didn't think about moving before posting this topic.

Sorry about that.
 
What would a JMS-run Star Trek show be like?
I don't think there's any question that he would have done what anyone with an I.Q. over 100 would have done -- taken the series back to what it was intended to be, a show about adventure and wonder. The coolest thing about the orginal Trek wasn't really the storylines, which were largely hit or miss; it definitely wasn't the acting, as evidenced by William Shatner; or even the characters (Checkov was basically created simply to have someone with an accent) -- the best thing about Trek, which was also the best thing about the Twilight Zone, was that you didn't know what the hell was going to happen when you tuned into an episode.

It could be the Greek God Apollo hanging out on a far off world; an energy being in space that becomes Abraham Lincoln; busty green skinned slave girls from Orion ... who knows what you would see from week to week. Somewhere between ST:TNG and Enterprise, the powers that be forgot about that and became a slave to continuty. They care more about not letting the Romulans be seen by the main characters (because that would violate continuty) than they do about actually writing a good episode about Romulans. And why the frell are they writing about Romulans and Andorians and Tellerites anyway? There's a whole freakin' galaxy out there and they're bogged down in crap stories about Vulcan politics.

But, to be honest, I'd rather see a Joss Whedon Star Trek than a JMS Star Trek. Nobody in tv can do character development better than the Joss man.
 
You feel Enterprise was acting as a slave to continuity?

I thought most of us felt the exact opposite. :eek:
 
You feel Enterprise was acting as a slave to continuity?

I thought most of us felt the exact opposite.
I think they were walking a tightrope between the two. My point is that they should have gone after the new viewers with new and exciting stories and basically told all the people yelling for continuity to go screw themselves. It's hard to write good stories when you've got 30-plus years of continuity to deal with eveytime you put a pen to paper.
 
It's hard to write good stories when you've got 30-plus years of continuity to deal with eveytime you put a pen to paper.

If they either didn't want to or were unprepared to deal with such continuity issues, then they should never have decided to do a prequel series.
 
If they either didn't want to or were unprepared to deal with such continuity issues, then they should never have decided to do a prequel series.
Agreed, but you still would have to deal with the vast and monsterous continuity demon even if the show wasn't a prequel. Continuity didn't rear its ugly head with the onset of Enterprise, it was a problem all along. Let's face it, the people who really give a damn about continuity are probably going to watch the show regardless and even if they don't, they aren't the ones who are going to make or break the show anyway. The ONLY people that they should cater to are the ones like my brother who don't know what the hell continuity is, but might watch if something interests him and frankly, show about why Enterprise vulcans act differently than Star Trek Vulcans, or why Enterprise aliens are bumpy-headed while Star Trek aliens are smooth-headed just ain't gonna cut it.
 
What EXACTLY would be the hybrid between...

"Get the hell off my bridge!!!!"

and

"Get the hell out of our galaxy!!!!"

???? ;)

Romulans in encounter suits.......

Humans growing pointy ears.....

???
 
How much do you think JMS might make changes? He prided B5 for having realistic, plausible future technology, but Star Trek is a bit on the "imaginary" tech side. Would he be okay with keeping transporters, holodecks, warp engines, etc.? Star Trek is too far along to dump artificial gravity, but would we ever see at least one race still use rotating sections?

First, have you seen Crusade? No real difference with Trek as far as artificial gravity, and the White Star has the same non-rotating gravity. Personally I don't see why, when we're talking about a universe with warp or jump gate technology that a means of non-centrifical force based technology is out of question.

As for warp-drive verses wormholes, there are some theorists who subscribe to both theories as having potential in the far off future. Both would require tremendous amounts of energy, but are mathematically possible. Actually warp drive seems more plausible now than it did when the original Trek was first released.

How is a holodeck imaginary tech? Basically holograms have already been created and if Trek is hundreds of years into the future. Nothing too extreme there.

I do agree that teleportation seems fanciful on a number of levels, but B5 does have it's share of fantasy elements. But I do agree that Baylon 5 seems to place a much greater nod on more immediate extentions of todays technology, but neither is exactly "2001: A Space Oddessey."

Would it most likely be another ship-based show? Would there be a story arc? Would there be a pre-determined number of seasons with a non-negotiable cut-off point (like the 5-year mark in Babylon 5), or would he be okay with the possibility of continually renewing actor contracts?

The original series of Star Trek was advertised as "a five year mission" and the spin-offs ran seven years. Enterprise was canceled before it reached seven years, but that was the original plan. Again, Crusade borrowed a LOT of the more obvious elements of Star Trek, but B5 more than had it's share of Trek-type aspects.

Just look at the original Trek series and B5. The Vulcans and Minbari have a LOT of similarities. Both have idealistic doctors. Sheridan and Kirk, besides the similar upbringings and career paths, aren't above breaking an order or two. And Troi of TNG was a telepath. The Chief-of-Security plays a vital role in each Trek series and B5.

Also, Trek has killed off characters involved in it's story arcs, so it's not like it would be unprecedented.

Rememeber that the main characters in B5 each made it to the end of the series, except those who left for non-story reasons. Ivanova and Talia wanted to leave the show. Sinclair left by mutual agreement between the actor and JMS. The actors from the pilot were mostly dropped by studio decision. Otherwise the actors advertised in the opening credits made it through the run of the show, through the full of their five-year contracts.

What JMS did effectively to create the illusion that no one was safe is to bring other complementary characters into the mix for a time and then kill them off. Star Trek has killed off quite a few characters after involving them in several arc-based episode, but I think the effect is neutralized by the fact that Trek has so many one-off episodes where a character will die.

So I think JMS could be just as effective with Trek.

Would there be a main enemy race like TOS's Klingons, TNG's Romulans & Borg, DS9's Cardassians & Dominion, Voyager's Kazons, and whatever it was Enterprise had? Or, would it be more like Babylon 5, where every race is part good, part bad, and every character is therefore also half & half?

Aren't the Shadows and there minions the main enemy race in B5? I never did see the "lighter" side of the Shadows. Also, Trek has been oft-criticised for softening it's enemy races by having episodes that show examples that not every individual within these "enemy" races is bad. Think of Garak in DS9. Or the borg from TNG that the Enterprise crew encounter in "I, Borg." Each of the races you described for Trek has at least one example to show that they are the entire race is not exactly as they appear. In my opinion, I think the Dominion is particularly interesting in this regard.

I think if you're more criticial in your approach to B5 you'd see that B5 isn't much different in this regard. The Minbari religious caste are each pretty much extentions of Delenn. The warrior caste are each rather arrogant. So on and so forth.

Where B5 is an improvement is that with Trek after you do have some of the more profound story-arc moments where it seems as if the characters will be forever shaped, too often the characters resort back to the way they were a few episodes later. This is very rare for B5. Voyager is the worst at this, but even DS9's Kira seems to fluctuate from seeing Cardassians as individuals to being a bigot and back again, without ever being forced to address things totally until right at the end of the series. JMS could definitely do something positve in this area.

What would a JMS Starfleet/Federation goverment look like? Would Admirals still be infamous for making bad decisions, or would they be more like seasoned war veterans? Would Starfleet uniforms still look like jumpsuits and leotards, or would he institute his "people still need pockets in the future" rule?

Personally I could care less about the pockets issue. To each their own I guess. I don't see Star Trek as charactering it's higher-ups as inept any more than Babylon 5, so nothing to add here.

I was just so surprised to hear that he took part in a Star Trek treatment, I can't help but wonder how much he would leave intact and how much he would shake things up. Apparently, JMS doesn't hate Trek, but considering the DS9 controversies and some other comments that have been made about the way the Trek franchise is run, surely he thinks the status quo isn't good enough.

Actually JMS has characterized the original Star Trek as "good as it gets." Star Trek and The Twilight Zone were his favorite television shows as a child. Again, I don't know how anyone who has watched the original Trek and TNG and Babylon 5 could not see obvious signs of influence. Remember that the original Star Trek was the first non-anthology science fiction program on American television and among the first examples of the genre in any medium to take an "adult" approach. Stanley Kubrick was even a fan and cast Gary Lockwood in his own space epic, "2001."

Besides the obvious superficial similarites with B5, TOS and TNG were the first science fiction series to give us the culture of aliens. Before aliens were just monsters or creatures that just acted "weird" in generic terms. But Trek dealt with alien religious practices, philosophical thought and rituals as well as individual quirks. B5 certainly owes a nod to this.

As for the B5 and DS9 controversy. Comments like this I find to be a disappointing aspect of JMS's personality. I work in the television/movie industry and there is NO WAY that Rick Berman or Michael Piller would have heard JMS's pitch of the series and whoever did hear the pitch would NEVER have approached Berman and Piller with the details. This simply would NOT happen. Why? Because they do not want to get sued. That's why when Trek was accepting script submitions from the public, no one connected with the production of the show was ever allowed to view the scripts until the studio would option the submition.

Regardless, when someone makes a pitch for a televison or film project they DO NOT break things down episode by episode. JMS would have spoke more about the look and feel of the show and the types of characters in very generic terms than get into much of the plot details. If you've ever seen the Robert Altman movie "The Player" it is an excellent example of the process.

Plus, JMS loves to brag about how nobody connected with B5 new what was going to happen next and couldn't wait for the next script. But somehow we're supposed to believe that the Trek producers had this information. Hun?

Remember that DS9 premiered BEFORE B5. So the Dominion were introduced before JMS introduced the Shadows. The Defiant preceded the White Star. If you look without prejudice you'll see that it went back and forth. So claiming that DS9 is nothing more than a rip-off is foolish.

Finally, what about JMS "borrowing" a number of elements from Tolkien? Or Asimov's Foundation books? Or Alfred Bester (science fiction writer from the 50's)? How about Dune? B5 was not created in a vacuum.

If JMS had a case he would have sued. If Rick Berman, who I wish were removed from the Trek job by the way, was the guy behind it why would JMS have approached HIM with a Trek series idea? It makes no sense.

Notice the trend? TNT was out to get JMS. Star Trek was out to get JMS. Showtime was out to get JMS. Rangers failed because of Sci Fi Channels scheduling. People in the business pay attention to this kind of stuff and it may cost him in the future. If he put forth a B5 type of series/sequel I could see that JMS's ego and reputation for being difficult to work with at times factoring into things.
 
Agreed, but you still would have to deal with the vast and monsterous continuity demon even if the show wasn't a prequel. Continuity didn't rear its ugly head with the onset of Enterprise, it was a problem all along. Let's face it, the people who really give a damn about continuity are probably going to watch the show regardless and even if they don't, they aren't the ones who are going to make or break the show anyway. The ONLY people that they should cater to are the ones like my brother who don't know what the hell continuity is, but might watch if something interests him and frankly, show about why Enterprise vulcans act differently than Star Trek Vulcans, or why Enterprise aliens are bumpy-headed while Star Trek aliens are smooth-headed just ain't gonna cut it.

Then explain why their ratings improved in the season they began to care about continuity? They didn't improve enough, apparantly, but they did improve, I believe.

Even if the ratings improvement doesn't prove anything, I can tell you that it is not safe to assume the old die-hard fans "would tune in anyway". I most certainly did not. I have missed most of the past 2.5 seasons at least. And I know of others who gave up totally on the series after the first season.

No, believe it or not, some of the die-hard fans died. We died hard, but we died. ;)
 
Aren't the Shadows and there minions the main enemy race in B5? I never did see the "lighter" side of the Shadows.

I think you have missed the point here. As portrayed, the shadows didn't have a "lighter side", but I don't recall anyone suggesting that they did - certainly not JMS.

While S3 was on the air, he was interviewed for one of the UK's SFTV Magazines (TVZone IIRC), and accused of making the whole Vorlon/Shadows conflict into a typical Good vs Evil scenario when he said he wasn't going to.

His response was simply that by the end of season 3 we would know what the motivation of both the Vorlons and Shadows was and he was willing to bet that a sizeable proportion of the audience would come down on the side of the shadows' philosophy (if not their way of expressing it).

Not a question of whether there is good and bad / light and dark in a character or race, more a question of why they do what they do. In this respect (as portrayed in B5) the Vorlons and the Shadows are simply acting to try and ensure that their philosophy takes precedence over the other.

Is that good? Evil? Or left to the viewer to interpret for themselves?

I was certainly one of those for whom the Shadows' underlying philosophy made more sense than the Vorlons did.
 
Just look at the original Trek series and B5. The Vulcans and Minbari have a LOT of similarities. Both have idealistic doctors. Sheridan and Kirk, besides the similar upbringings and career paths, aren't above breaking an order or two. And Troi of TNG was a telepath. The Chief-of-Security plays a vital role in each Trek series and B5.

These "similarities" are so superficial, you might as well have claimed that they're the same show because they're both in space.

Vulcans and Minbari have nothing in common. Minbari have and eagerly display emotions. They are violent. They have a history of division. Vulcans are none of these things. The only thing they have in common is that they have a "savior" character in their mythology, but so does every major race in sci-fi (Kales, G'Quan, etc).

The doctors aren't "idealistic," they are ethical. And so is every hero on these shows, because by definitions our heroes must be ethical.

Yeah, Sheridan and Kirk are willing to bend the rule. So is every single good leader in fiction and reality.

Troi was not a telepath, she was an empath. Telepathy is treated completely different in the two franchises. With the exception of one "mind rape" episode of TNG, telepathy in Trek is something wonderful and even humorous. In B5 it's a cause for worry, fear, hatred, and war.

The Chief-of-Security plays a vital role in each Trek series and B5

Uh... yeah. So does the captain or commander. So?
Here are some other similarities you missed: both shows have humans. Both have some aliens. Both have conflict, drama, humor. Both are shown on television. Both are about 45 minutes long. Both are out on DVD.

Aren't the Shadows and there minions the main enemy race in B5? I never did see the "lighter" side of the Shadows.

We learn that the reason for their actions is an attempt to benefit the galaxy. They're killing people just for the sake of killing, and they're not after power or territory (like, say, the Dominion). And since their enemy, the Vorlons, sink to acts as despicable as their own, by the end they aren't the "main enemy" anymore, because the Vorlons are just as bad. So it's not "black and white."

Remember that DS9 premiered BEFORE B5. So the Dominion were introduced before JMS introduced the Shadows. The Defiant preceded the White Star. If you look without prejudice you'll see that it went back and forth. So claiming that DS9 is nothing more than a rip-off is foolish.

But JMS was pitching B5 way before there was a DS9, and even, IIRC< got the show green-lighted first. I'm not saying that they ripped JMS off, I don't really care, but this argument does not hold water.

TNT was out to get JMS.

Nonsense, no one ever said this. The point is that the corporate division of TNT did not understand how to handle a sci-fi show (Crusade). Haven't you ever dealt with incompetent management?

And I don't recall JMS blaming the Sci-Fi channel for their scheduling, just bad luck that the greatest football game of our generation was on at the same time.

If you simplify things enough, you can make any argument you want, but it's disengenuous.
 
I don't recall JMS ever saying anyone was "out to get him".

He has never even said that TNT were out to get him - just that they decided they didn't want the show having already signed the contracts, and were prepared to go to some lengths to get out of it.

WRT Legend of the Rangers, IIRC it was the fans that accused SFC of incompetence, or being determined to kill its chances of becoming a series, by scheduling against a big NFL Play-Off game. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think JMS ever said anything other than reinforce the fact that it rated pretty well where it wasn't against the game.

As far as Jeremiah is concerned, JMS went to great pains to point out that Showtime had been terrific - one of the best he had worked with - but that MGM had wanted changes to the show that he wasn't prepared to do, so he quit.

He has himself acknowledged that he must be difficult to work with but somehow he continues to be offered work. That in itself says something about his reputation.
 
As for the B5 and DS9 controversy. Comments like this I find to be a disappointing aspect of JMS's personality. I work in the television/movie industry and there is NO WAY that Rick Berman or Michael Piller would have heard JMS's pitch of the series and whoever did hear the pitch would NEVER have approached Berman and Piller with the details. This simply would NOT happen. Why? Because they do not want to get sued. That's why when Trek was accepting script submitions from the public, no one connected with the production of the show was ever allowed to view the scripts until the studio would option the submition.

Regardless, when someone makes a pitch for a televison or film project they DO NOT break things down episode by episode. JMS would have spoke more about the look and feel of the show and the types of characters in very generic terms than get into much of the plot details. If you've ever seen the Robert Altman movie "The Player" it is an excellent example of the process.

Except that JMS has never said that Berman or Pillar were anything but honorable. Nor has he ever said anything about episode similarities at all. What he noted were vast similarities in setting, characters, backgrounds and names, all of which had been available to development people at Paramount who might have 'steered' DS9 some. See this post JMS Post for what he actually said about P&B. Just in the interest of accuracy.

As for your perception of JMS portraying people/studios being 'out to get' him, again I completely disagree. He's actually never been anything but completely professional in public while he was associated with TNT or MGM. Afterward he was open about the trouble with TNT, less so about MGM. Yes, he's known for not compromising quality. I'm good with that and so are a lot of other fans.
 
STAR TREK he can't even get Babylon 5 lauched as a film .But then again it would have the money making words STAR TREK in the title.Sorry people I am a grouch because of the bad news.
 
STAR TREK he can't even get Babylon 5 lauched as a film

You make it sound like Babylon 5 not getting launched as a film is a failure in the talent and skill of the creator. I don't think the fault lies with JMS. If anything, it's his reputation as a writer and executive producer that opened up the opportunity of a film in the first place.

The fault lies with the studios (of the production company, whatever you want to call them--the "Suits," basically). The "Suits" are kind of like the admirals on Star Trek. They make bad decisions because they're behind a desk and they believe what's on paper rather than what's true out in the field, while it's the starship captains that know how to get the job done.

The fans (okay, a big majority of the fans, not every single one, of course) want a B5 film with original actors. But the suits/admirals think they know what's best and make bad decisions that threatens the integrity of the movie/quadrant. That leaves senior producers/captains like JMS to basically lead an insurrection against the suits/admirals--if that's what it really takes--to save the day, even if sacrifices are made along the way.

In this case though, I'm not even sure JMS as producer/captain had enough power to turn things around. It took the crew/fans leading a mutiny to get things done. Original roles without the original actors would hurt the movie, but the sacrifice made in the mutiny is the possibility that a movie may not get made at all.

Either way, the fault goes back to the suits, not JMS. In the same day he tried to rally the troops for a JMS-run Star Trek, he got a phone call to produce another unrelated series. That's not the sign of a producer who can't get things done or isn't trusted to run things--under most circumstances. Unfortunately, the forces were against him in the TMoS case.
 
STAR TREK he can't even get Babylon 5 lauched as a film .But then again it would have the money making words STAR TREK in the title.Sorry people I am a grouch because of the bad news.

Yeah, i'll probably kick a few bins on the way home... Pesky bins., cancel my movie would ya!!
 

Latest posts

Members online

Back
Top