I do think there is potential in a series set after the events of Trek 2009, in terms of what happened in the future. You lose the Romulan homeworld, sending them into all manner of chaos. You can have any design for the ship you want, you can have any kind of characters you want, you could do just about anything just by using that lynch pin that the galaxy as it was known to Trek fans for a long time has been totally shaken up by events. Just like the 2005 Doctor Who Revival, the springboard for Trek 2009 should in theory work both ways on the timeline. You can do anything in the wake of those events. I don't think "Doing what Star Trek : Online" did is a must, but... I see a lot of potential for new mysteries, new dramatic potential, new kinds of tech, new ship designs. Just so much stuff to really get excited about in the right hands.
Sure! At the very least I'd take a gander. How often I watched it, that is a very distinct question! Honestly, if they're just bringing STO onto the screen, my interest probably fades. But I'd certainly give it a chance!
I would give any Star Trek series a chance, but I don't believe a 25th century series is really a good idea. Just because jumping far into the future and showing a more advanced version of the same thing, with different people and a different ship but basically the same stories, worked for TNG does not mean it will work again. Ultimately I'd much rather see some new types of stories and settings in the same general timeline as what we already have. (Whether that would be in the prime timeline or the abrams timeline, doesn't matter that much to me)
I think we have to get rid of the idea that it's still the Rick Berman era and that any Trek series set after VOY will be what he would have done.
Which is really the way it should be done, and ironically, was the way it was done for TNG, DS9, and VOY. Not counting TOS, ENT was the only show that was truly limited by continuity, and that was because of its very premise as a prequel to everything. The other shows had more freedom to expand the Star Trek Universe.
Of all the questions about a new Star Trek series, all the possibilities, surely the specific one of whether it takes place in the 25th century or not must be a minor one? Compared to premise, theme, characters, writing, etc.?
It's not minor at all because it's going to be key to the show's setting and will determine it's overall look and style. It will also be crucial in what kind of stories, characters, and concepts the show will have.
Not particularly. It has some impact, sure, within the context of the Trek universe, but kinds of stories? Exactly what "kinds of stories" can only be told before the 25th century as opposed to during it? Are there types of characters that can only exist in a 25th century Starfleet? I suppose there are species we wouldn't see, but honestly how important is that detail? How vital can it be that (for example) a Jem Ha'dar be Chief of Security? Concepts? What concepts in particular? Which ones are so unique to the 25th century that no story told before then can deal with such? War? Uh...no. The dichotomy between reason and emotion? Prejudice versus tolerance? I can see how details would change, but nothing terribly vital. A starship explores some uncharted area of the galaxy. Starfleet takes over a space station in orbit around a planet as it enters the process of joining the Federation. An accident hurls a starship to a distant part of the galaxy. Several junior officers begin their careers as friends aboard a brand new starship. Near a dangerous region of space, a Starfleet medical ship struggles to keep up with the sick and wounded. Almost any of these basic premises could fit easily into the 23rd, the 24th, the 25th or the 39th centuries. To be sure, the era of any such show will impact its stories and characters. But in and of itself I don't find the question of era all that compelling.
I don't see Kirk and company discovering how to make artificial wormholes to other galaxies as easy as a 25th century series could.
Story-wise, that's a complete non-issue. What are you going to find in other galaxies you can't find in this one?
You can do exploration in your own backyard, and tell harrowing stories of friendship, sacrifice, betrayal, and triumph. Setting has zilch to do with stories.
^I didn't say it did. You asked what they can find in another galaxy they couldn't find in this one. I think all of the Milkyway major powers have been listed. A new galaxy could show someone or something that could effect a large part of it's galaxy without any continuity issues.
No argument. This one I'll argue about. The galaxy is gi-normous! Assume for a moment that the Federation, Romulans, Klingons, Ferengi, Cardassians, Shelliak, Orions First Federation and Breen contained five thousand star systems each. That is nine thousand. Double it. Round up. Twenty thousand star systems. This in a galaxy with something like four hundred billion stars in it. Assume all the Alpha Quadrant powers make up one percent of known and explored space. Just one percent. That means the Federation has pretty mapped out two million star systems--less than one half of one percent of the galaxy. I see zero problems about further exploration.
I know how big the real galaxy is but, they designated how far who goes where. Space filled up quick after all those series. I guess you can take it as the "faster than warp species" out of the galaxy.
I've seen many a Star Trek map and they are wildly inconsistent. This one frankly makes no sense. The Klingon Empire almost the entire width of a galactic quadrant? And how pray tell did the Klingons attack the Breen years ago? the So'na territory bigger than that the Cardassians and Ferengi combined? Zero problem simply dismissing this map (especially since there's nowhere for the Romulan Neutral Zone--it shares no border with the Federation!)