So, if you had to chose, would it be a) a reimagined spin off (with altered premise) or b)a new space opera altogether or c)an animated series for adults as well?
While I like Trek a whole lot, I'm not sure what can be done with it at this point that'll be new and spiffy for any length of time. So, given the choice, I'd rather see something else non-Trek.
If 2001's Space Odessy : the Search for David Bowman became a series would anybody like it and would it step on Trek's toes? Just an example of something that might be too similar to the Trek premise if there is one of the wagon train going boldly. Just something I thought up now.
I'd love to see a new space opera, but I don't see the point of losing the Trek-connection if you're just going to tie it down to another science fiction series with deep connections to the 1960s.
I'd choose the premise most likely to survive on TV: 23rd C Starfleet crew, going boldly. To the extent there are details that might link it or not to the Abrams movies - the ship aesthetics, the lack of Vulcan - I'd follow the Abrams movies so as not to confuse casual fans who won't be aware there are technically still two realities in play (at least). What would that have to do with Star Trek? Not that a show like that would survive ten seconds. Only a small % of the audience would know who David Bowman was, and why they might be expected to care about him.
A new animated version of TOS set in its own continuity with even more amped up character and mechanical designs for kids but occasional hidden easter eggs here and there for older Trekkies...
Animated gets my vote, too, because unlike live action, it actually has a hope in hell of getting on TV!
What are modern audiences willing to accept as far as Space opera goes? Aliens to me are passe. It should be decided that they are all branches of Humanity somehow with variation, or contamination, but prosthetics are not something I'm willing to accept anymore, especially the disfigurement and bumpy heads. Space opera seems like an impossible sell anymore because it is not believable and people have lost their trust values in anything especially an economy that's being exploited by such stupidities as Avatar when there are people starving on the streets.
A better question is: what is the modern audience for space opera? BSG had no aliens and it didn't help them get higher ratings than if they'd had aliens. Arguments like aliens vs no aliens, realistic depiction of planets vs habitable planets around every corner are too fine a distinction to matter. There's a limited audience for any show that is set in space, and such shows are expensive to make (unless you want an ugly result, which would be unacceptable to the audience for space opera). The real trick is figuring out where it can work, and how it can work. An animated series on Cartoon Network can work, for instance.
Also Star Trek is done by committe so nobody could ever get total artistic control to make it great. Too many cooks in bed together as it were. The pacing, objective POV, minimilistic approach could all be much better and more believable. ENT - the ship design was dark, cluttered, ugly, closterphobic, and bore no resemblance to the Constitution class NCC 1701.
That describes everything on TV, which is ultimately run by the suits. Except for Lucasfilm, since it's a private company. Not that the results there have been uniformly brilliant.
It doesn't describe TOS nor Babylon V nor probably anything Abrams would bring to the small screen. Does it?
The Na'vi were just funny cat people. Nothing truly alien about them, yet pretty much everyone seemed to buy into them. Plus, if its an animated series, the art department can go nuts with aliens.
TOS was a group effort, with people like Gene Coon and DC Fontana contributing a great deal to the finished product. B5 is a highly unusual case and the only Abrams show I've liked is Lost, which in the end was largely the creation of Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse.
TOS was all GR when he was there as was TZ all Serling. Am I wrong? Well let's say 80% which is enough.
GR was mostly catalyst as far as TOS is concerned. He may have had his fingers in every layer of the pie, but he didn't contribute as much 80 percent of the final product. I'd say it's more like 40 or 45. Without folks like Gene Coon, TOS wouldn't have been half the show it ended up being. Also, the best Star Wars film (Empire Strikes Back) was the least controlled by Lucas.
Well for one thing that's not a cosmetic prosthetic, is it. Is that SW? Every rule has an exception but it should have a damn good reason. IMO, else it frustrates the audience into looking for an unnecessary explaination. Else why can't it be a Human, but if the story has to have a non Human, it should be CGI like that guy/girl.
GR cast the mold, set up the universe's playing field dynamics and rules like Serling did from day one. By the time Coon got there it was already hard dried and set. It was a vase that he bossomed in sure but Gene was always the lens that allowed Star Trek to capture that light and focus and magnify it dramatically. His was the magic glue that held it all together.