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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
You're probably onto something there. I suspect that some of us still have an "Us" versus "Them" mentality dating back to grade school . . . but there's no reason STAR TREK has to be hobbled by our playground traumas.
No reason at all, you're right. If it's not fun, there's no point to it as far as I'm concerned, and the concept of "pure Trek" doesn't sound fun at all.
I really can't see TNG or any of the other shows being retooled for the JJverse (or there being a market for such folly). I doubt Pine and Quinto will carry on past movie 3 (except possibly in cameo's) so it's either knock it on the head and wave goodbye to all that income, or introduce some new characters and/or switch to T.V. Captain Decker and Commander Ilia anyone ?
That "the general audience (the masses) won't get it" thing comes straight from Abrams & Co. and nobody else. Blame them.
For movies, Paramount would continue with the existing timeline and characters (to the extent possible) as long as they were making money, which they can for the forseeable future. Big budget fantasy movies do very well globally, especially with a big brand name attached, and that trend shows no signs of abating. TV is an entirely different business. It's undergoing a big shift in basic assumptions, and CBS is paying attention. Having given up on sci fi for the last few years, they are experimenting with doing a co-production with Amazon this summer of Stephen King's Under the Dome - an expensive series with a big brand name attached that probablly could not hope to reach survival level ratings on CBS alone, but could cobble together enough profit with two revenue streams - ad-based traditional broadcast and subscription-based streaming. Something like that could allow Star Trek to work financially as a series again. Initially the job will be to resurrect the franchise in this new format, so it wouldn't be wise to get too nichey with the premise. Just give us a starship and crew, going boldly, 23rd C, more serialized than TOS, but with much the same tone. We may not be able to tell which reality it takes place in, unless they can get one of the movie actors to make a cameo, which would be good for a PR boost.