Not Paramount, CBS. Paramount only has rights to theatrical movies so they'd be totally out of the picture once the JJ Abrams movies are done with. (Abrams might be involved in a TV series, at least on the level of giving it his blessing.) CBS is already talking with Netflix about bringing back Jericho via Netflix, which makes much more sense than trying to make a genre show work on CBS. There's no place on TV that seems right for Star Trek. Space opera in general is having a hard time surviving. Netflix seems like the best option, especially if they can develop a good working relationship with CBS. Star Trek on Netflix could be a real wild card. Netflix sees itself as a competitor to HBO and Showtime, so it might be strikingly different from anything we've seen on broadcast. Why bother censoring sex, violence and bad language if the FCC is no longer relevant? However, I doubt Netflix would want to get too crazy - their core audience would be existing fans, not just of the TV shows but also the movies.
I hope I'll never have to see a reboot of TNG, DS9 or Voyager. Just the thought of seeing other actors than Mulgrew, Lien, Stewart, Frakes and the others trying to portray Janeway, Kes, Picard, Riker and the other great characters makes me sick. It's bade enough as it is with TOS being screwed up the way it was in the last movie. The only thing I want to see is a new Trek series with new characters.
Beautiful thing is that you don't have to watch it. There are these revolutionary devices on a TV that can allow you to filter the material you see: the channel change button and the power switch.
Agreed. All we'll be doing is what we're doing with the 2009 reboot. Comparing it to the original and finding it wanting on so many levels. To say nothing of how unimaginiative that is to recycle old characters and scenarios. The Abramverse as-is, pretty much is the best hope of producing a setting for a new TV series though. So let's have a new ship and crew boldly go, since that universe isn't even bound by continuity that Trek is so bad about ignoring anyways.
Abrams' movie was found not at all wanting by enough people that it was in the top ten for 2009 and a resounding success, as measured by the only thing that ever counts in Hollywood: money. They could get away with recasting any of the series. Like Abrams' movie, a new series wouldn't need to cater to existing fans to be a success. If it's on Showtime, and they come up with a premise that pleases Showtime viewers, then it could be about Picard, Janeway, Sisko or Archer - or any combo - and be a perfectly solid success. But there's no real advantage to recasting any of the series, because they lack the name recognition that was the main appeal to Abrams in reviving the TOS characters. Also, I doubt that sheer name recognition is as important a factor on TV as in big-budget movies. What would be a far more important problem: figuring out what you could do with Star Trek that would appeal to Showtime viewers (or wherever it's going to be shown.) For a difficult task like that, it's better to start with a clean slate because the revamp will have to be more radical than anything Abrams has done.
Which is exactly what I'm doing these days. If I want to watch Star Trek, then I have the real TOS, the real TNG, the real DS9 and the real Voyager to watch on DVD:s and tapes. I also have a lot of good old books so I don't have to deal with todays messed-up Trek. But I still would like to see a new series with new characters. If rebooting of the old series, most notably TOS is the only future for Trek, then official Star Trek is dead and nothing but a mummy in a coffin. The series which did go where no one has gone before is now going backwards where everyone has been before. But fortunately there are fans out there who keep Star Trek alive with fanfiction and other projects
How about for international sales, too much sex and coilence etc.. could make selling it to the international markets more problomatic.
I'm not sure about that. The US is far more hung up on sex being Taboo on TV than most of Europe. It's the violence that America is more tolerant with than many other countries (Or was "Coilence" a typo that was meant to be violence?).
I don't know. Reboots and recasting can often bring new life to old stories and characters. Look at the way Hammer Films revitalized the old Gothic horror characters in the sixties and seventies. Or, more recently, the way Batman Begins and Casino Royale pumped fresh blood into Bruce Wayne and Bond. Most classic characters get reinterpreted every generation or so. Why should Picard or Janeway be off-limits?
They shouldn't be off limits. But I doubt many producers are rushing to pitch Deep Space Nine, Voyager or Enterprise reboots.
I have to disagree. In most cases, the reboots are weak copies of the original. There are exceptions but they are few. In fact, I've recently watched some episodes of the original BSG and found them being better than doom-and-gloom NuBSG. As for Batman, the results are mixed. I really enjoyed the first movie with Jack Nicholson as The Joker but the second appearance of The Joker in that other movie was a disaster with the character looking more like a punk rocker with bad makeup than the more realistic Nicholson Joker. As for Bond, that series is the real exception with a dozen or so actors during the years. Obviously the whole Bond thing is a phenomenon of its own. As for Trek, when I think of Kirk, I always think of Shatner in the role. When I watched the new movie, it was like "oh there is my old school buddy Thomas pretending to be Kirk". The actor does look like an old school buddy of mine. Not to mention that I really dislike that they screwed up established Trek history and had to destroy important planets of the Trek Universe. The continuity seems to suffer the most when it comes to those reboots, like The Joker being killed off in one movie, then resurrects in the shape of a punk rocker with bad makeup in another. A bit confusing, isn't it. And I simply can't imagine any future actors replacing the original TNG, DS9 and Voyager actors. So I rather watch the old DVD:s and re-read "The Black Shore" for the umpteenth time. More fun than to see Trek being screwed up beyond recognition.
Well, thanks for kind words regardingThe Black Shore! Obviously, I have great fondness for the original versions as well, but I don't think that precludes enjoying all-new takes on old characters and stories. We don't have to choose one or another. The more the merrier. And, while you may disagree, I have to point out that the new BSG and the new Joker were big hits with millions of people. Personally, I would count them both as examples of reboots that succeeded beyond all expectations. And I don't think Bond is all that unique. As I've joked before, I'm old enough to have lived through five Supermans, five Batmans, four Hulks, four Nikitas, three Spider-Men, three Dr. Quatermasses, umpteen Doctor Whos, and god only know how many Sherlock Holmes, Draculas, Three Musketeers, and Jack the Rippers. Heck, even Jack Nicholson was the second Joker, after Cesar Romero. And that's not counting the myriad animated versions. Why not another Janeway or Seven of Nine? Recasting isn't the exception. It's the circle of life!
^^It's only about a half dozen actors to potray Bond (in the "Offical" Bond films) Sean Connery George Lazenbury Roger Moore Timothy Dalton Pierce Brosnon Daniel Craig Perhaps it is more a case in certain franchises we have come to expect the lead actor to change every so often. As mentioned above Bond, Batman, Superman, DW etc.. have changed lead actor every so often so we have come to expect it. Whilst others like ST took over 40 years to recast the role. Is it because a certain actor has played the role for decades that we are less willing to accept change than for a role that is recast say every 10 or so years? Now of course spending 40 years in a role means that at least two generations associate a particualr actor with that role, but spending 10 years in a role perhaps only a generation. But even that might not be true, to many Christopher Reeve is Superman despite him not appearing in that role in over 2 decades true there has been only 1 film released since Christopher Reeve hung up the cape. Is it a case that if the work is held in high regard it makes it harder for the next actor to stamp his presence on the role? What about the Batman films, do we now accept Bale as Batman, over say Clooney and did we do so because of the quality of the appearances. Had Batman Begins followed a more highly regarded Batman flick would it have been easier or harder? No doubt a number of facotrs are at work.
That's an interesting argument. I'll grant that it's not often that a Shatner or a Nimoy is the only actor to play a part for forty years or so. As opposed to, say, Kirstie Alley who was replaced as Saavik after only a single movie . . . But does that apply to the TNG cast, who played the parts for seven years and four movies? A good long run, to be sure, but not quite in the same ballpark as Nimoy playing Spock into his eighties. And, even there, Zachary Quinto seems to be on his way to being accepted by modern audiences as the "new" Spock, just as earlier generations of moviegoers accepted new Bonds and Tarzans and Zorros and such. I still think that, no matter how "iconic" a performance is, there's always room for a new actor and new interpretation, as demonstrated by pretty much the whole of Hollywood history. Look at Johnny Weismuller and Basil Rathbone, for example. They were pretty much Tarzan and Holmes for generations, but that hasn't stopped later actors from distinguishing themselves in the parts. Ditto Bela Lugosi as Dracula.
Well, they might have been a hit with some people but not with me! Because I do think they will find it hard to find good actors who can portray those characters. Not to mention that they probably will mess it up with some gloom and doom scenario, like Stargate Universe where all the "action" was people on the ship arguing and bickering.
Because they stopped making good actors? I'm sure there are unknown actors just starting out now, or still in school, that could blow us away playing Janeway or Seven if they got the chance. Why should tomorrow's actors be worse than yesterday's? New actors will no doubt portray the characters slightly differently, but that's what makes reboots and recasting interesting. You get to compare different actors' takes on the same role, which can be fun and thought-provoking--like watching multiple versions of the same play. I've seen umpteen versions of "Macbeth" and "A Midsummers' Nigh't's Dream," and had a good time comparing them. A new version of "Voyager" could be a fascinating exercise. For all we know, the next great Janeway is starring in a high school production of "Oklahoma" as we speak . . . .
While TOS is my least favourite series I cannot imagine that there is any merit in producing a second version of any other Trek show. All but ENT ran for seven seasons which is more than enough so it might be better to introduce new characters in the next show. Perhaps something like DS9 which is not set on a starship but a freighter, another space station or a colony. Tough 23rd century life at the borders and so on.
Actors age and move on. Recasting is what makes characters immortal. Heck, Janeway was recast herself a few weeks into the filming of "Caretaker"! And Kate Mugrew took the role and made it her own. There's no reason someone else can't come along and add to the legacy of Voyager's captain one day.
DS9 and VOY are fine shows but they are of a closed nature. I fail to see the merit in going to the Delta Quadrant and happily returning home again or telling the story about the Cardassian space station in the orbit of Bajor again. TOS and TNG on the other hand are open. There are no parameters, it is just a spaceship flying through the galaxy.