After Abrams

[CaptPapa]

I see the current movie incaration of Star Trek running it's course very soon, especially with JJ and Company moving on to the Star Wars Uni - there's a whole lot more money to be made there.
As for Star Trek, I see it getting much smaller again. I think the fan generated projects will continue and become closer to mainstream, and I think (and hope) to see CGI films, either features, direct to homevideo, or TV.
Wouldn't it be interesting to do rotating schedule of (probably) made for TV CGI films featuring each of the crews - maybe one a month, or one per quarter? Then everyone could enjoy as much or as little of Star Trek as they wished. Ah well, probably not financially viable anyway.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Either a reboot of Kirk, Spock and the others or recasting parts as necessary to continue with the current version.

There's no real reason to assume that they'll ever bring back TNG or the TNG era as such in the movies. They can stay in the 23rd century forever - just as they managed to generate many hundreds of hours of television set in the 24th century.

[The Wormhole]

It continues to surprise and amuse me just how much of a reation I can get out of using the word "Pure." This is more fun than the zero thing!

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Realistically and in common sense terms there's no reason that Paramount's execs should ever want to turn Star Trek over to a "traditionalist" again. Having once successfully escaped that trap, why climb back into the net?

[The Mirrorball Man]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

It continues to surprise and amuse me just how much of a reation I can get out of using the word "Pure." This is more fun than the zero thing!

Damn, you played us like a fiddle!

[The Wormhole]

But in all honesty, Trek fandom is contrarian by nature and therefore anything that is not the current Trek is therefore Pure Trek. Abrams Trek cannot be considered Pure until after it is done and another incarnation of Trek is being made. Just like Enterprise did not become Pure until Trek XI's release.

This is the fundamental truth of purity in Star Trek.

[Nerys Myk]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

It continues to surprise and amuse me just how much of a reation I can get out of using the word "Pure." This is more fun than the zero thing!

Fish in a barrel really. It shouldn't surprise you.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

Fish in a barrel really. It shouldn't surprise you.

He's not surprised, he's gloating.

[JirinPanthosa]

DS9 isn't pure Trek but it's awesome.

They're going to come back to TNG eventually. Don't know if it'll be soon or later but TNG is the biggest basis of current Trek popularity, they'd be crazy not to reimagine Picard or Data.

[Nerys Myk]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

DS9 isn't pure Trek but it's awesome.

They're going to come back to TNG eventually. Don't know if it'll be soon or later but TNG is the biggest basis of current Trek popularity, they'd be crazy not to reimagine Picard or Data.

Nah, that would be the recent movie.

[The Mirrorball Man]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

DS9 isn't pure Trek but it's awesome.

They're going to come back to TNG eventually. Don't know if it'll be soon or later but TNG is the biggest basis of current Trek popularity, they'd be crazy not to reimagine Picard or Data.

No reason why they can't introduce Data into the new Trek continuity.

[Temis the Vorta]

Data is the one TNG character that is iconic in the way Kirk and Spock are, and could be brought back, but his iconic-ness is really from an earlier source. He's Pinocchio. So why bother with having him be Data, per se? Come up with a different Pinocchio. Or come up with an android who has something else driving him/her.

And if you want more iconic characters, go back to earlier sources of mythology and fairy tales, and start transferring them into a Star Trek context.

For example, Picard is a variant on the elder/mentor character type, he could be Gandalf or Obi-Wan. Why not just go direct to the source and have a character who truly is a mentor (Admiral, ship's counselor, holographic sidekick, etc) to a younger character?

Worf is the fish-out-of-water, and also an exile from his people. You could assemble two different characters from that, or merge them but come up with someone very different from Worf.

Maybe assemble the characters different ways. The young character on a quest is the Pinocchio. The mentor character is exiled from his/her society. And on and on.

There are any number of archetypes to draw on. Limiting it to TNG is such a waste - those characters are not the strongest that we should hope for, given the range of possibilities.

[Kelso]

If they reboot again they need to go nuts with the casting. I want Donald Glover and Aubrey Plaza for Kirk and Spock!

[Robert Comsol]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

It continues to surprise and amuse me just how much of a reation I can get out of using the word "Pure." This is more fun than the zero thing!

With all the paradigm shifts within the franchise it is a difficult concept.

I don't know if I read you correctly, but what I missed a lot ever since Trek movies went down the wrath / revenge / conflict / war path is the original concept that Star Trek is about to go where no one has gone before (and not to go where George Lucas or JMS went, it's derivative), explore space, meet different cultures and how to handle human and interspecies relationships and conflicts.

That's what I always assumed to be Roddenberry's Star Trek Vision, that's what used to be Star Trek's trademark and - I have to put it bluntly - the animated series had more of these Star Trek characteristics than the same amount of "Star Trek" movie screen time I had to endure in previous years.

Unless, as you put it, a "traditionalist" puts Star Trek back onto its original tracks to create a noticable distinction from "Star Wars" or "Star...Ship Troopers" I don't see a promising future for the franchise.

Bob

[Nerys Myk]

If its makes money and gets people interested it's future is very promising.