After Abrams

[Mirror Sulu]

Hypothetical situation; JJ Abrams' ST trilogy has ended. The plan is to go ahead with the new timeline, but only a few cast members agree to return. You're in charge, what do you do?

I know the natural urge would be to jump straight to TNG, but this timeline is still young and it needs to be fleshed out more. TNG is almost a century away from present ALT-timeline events, so you have years and years worth of stories to tell. Also, as events have been irreparably changed in this timeline, who's to say TNG or the other series even happen?

Personally, I would like to see drastic changes to make this timeline as different as possible to its prime counterpart. I'd likely kill off most of the main crew (the actors that didn't want to return), introduce several new main characters and go from there. Have new enemies, explore new areas in the galaxy and so on. Likely in the form of a TV series.

[King Daniel]

I'd reboot again. Although post-trilogy standalone films starring Kirk and McCoy, Spock and Uhura or Pike and Gaila would be cool. Kind of a reverse version of what the Marvel Universe movies did.

[The Wormhole]

Preferablly, a traditionalist will take control of the franchise and give us pure Trek again. Realistically, I see another reboot, possibly of TNG.

[BillJ]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Preferablly, a traditionalist will take control of the franchise and give us pure Trek again. Realistically, I see another reboot, possibly of TNG.

And go back to pulling in a big $43 million domestically...

We'll get a new reboot with possible new characters being mixed in with the TOS gang.

[The Wormhole]

I still feel very certain that TNG will some day see a reboot. It was a very popular TV show, nostalgia will eventually revive interest in it and someone will say "Maybe it's time to do a TNG movie right." Then it's just a matter of splosions and lens flares and boobies and you have the latest summer blockbuster with TNG labeled to it.

[BillJ]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

I still feel very certain that TNG will some day see a reboot.

I do too. But there's no way in hell you'll see a "traditionalist" in charge of the franchise ever again.

[The Wormhole]

BillJ wrote:

---

I do too. But there's no way in hell you'll see a "traditionalist" in charge of the franchise ever again.

Oh, I know. That's just something I'd prefer. I know it won't happen, pure Star Trek doesn't make the unwashed masses empty their wallets at the theatres the way Abrams Trek does. It's just my personal preferance.

[The Mirrorball Man]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Preferablly, a traditionalist will take control of the franchise and give us pure Trek again.

There's no such thing as pure Trek. And traditionalists don't even agree with each other.

[The Wormhole]

Pure Trek is that which existed before Abrams.

[Greg Cox]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Pure Trek is that which existed before Abrams.

Depends who you talk to. I've seen people insist that DS9 wasn't "pure" Trek because Roddenberry wasn't involved in its creation, because it wasn't set on a starship, because it was too "dark," etc.

Purity is overrated.

[King Daniel]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Pure Trek is that which existed before Abrams.

I really need to type up a stock reply to this. Long story short: That's the kind of thing fans say after every change in or new incarnation of Trek. I have 17 of the the Best of Trek books for proof, complete with whiny evidence within dating back to 1979.

[JoeZhang]

Mirror Sulu wrote:

---

Hypothetical situation; JJ Abrams' ST trilogy has ended. The plan is to go ahead with the new timeline, but only a few cast members agree to return. You're in charge, what do you do?

You recast them and just carry on making films.

[The Mirrorball Man]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

You recast them and just carry on making films.

Alternatively, if Kirk or Spock are considered strong enough brands to carry their own films, you hire these actors and build a new franchise around them.

[Greg Cox]

Heck, everything after "The Cage" is theoretically impure since, according to legend, Roddenberry had to compromise his vision and make the show less "cerebral" to satisfy the NBC execs . . . .

And, as a personal favor, can we please stop sneering at the "masses"? I've seen that kind of language pop up in at least two threads today. Call me a populist, but when did we decide that STAR TREK is some sort of elitist thing that's too good for the hoi polloi?

I confess: Whenever I hear people lamenting about the vulgar tastes of the masses, I always imagine Margaret Dumont in some old Marx Bros. movie, looking down her nose at the lower classes . . .

[The Mirrorball Man]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Call me a populist, but when did we decide that STAR TREK is some sort of elitist thing that's too good for the hoi polloi?

Probably when "the masses" stole our lunch money when we were eleven years old, I'd say.