If they made a 25th century TV series, would you watch it?

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by bbjeg, Aug 15, 2013.

?

If they made a 25th century TV series, would you watch it?

  1. Yes

    86.7%
  2. No

    13.3%
  1. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    Don't forget the Magellanic Clouds.
     
  2. NightJim

    NightJim Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Location:
    Dundee
    Absolutely a 25th Century show, mostly because it allows the writers to re-establish the area. Not get tied down by the continuity and politics of the old shows. That's the real reason TNG jumped 80 years, to remove the shackles of what TOS and the films had put them in.

    For it to be Star Trek and stand on it's own, just like TNG did, it would have to be a new frontier. A ship out there Boldy Going Where No One Has Gone Before, which is absolutely what a new show must be about. Feasibly it could be the same galaxy, with the Gamma Quadrant pretty unmapped, but it gets a little murky. I think the best chance for that is either the Federation can now travel to a new Galaxy, or you go with something along the lines of the premise of the aborted pitches of Bryan Singer's Federation or animated series Final Frontier.
     
  3. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    It isn't just about having a super fast propulsion system, as pointed out our galaxy contains several hundreds of billions of stars.

    There are 1,875,000 stars in a 1,000 light year sphere centered upon Earth.

    On the average six and a half percent of them will be of the same spectral type as our sun.

    Picard stated that the Federation was 6,000 light years in length. There reasonable has to be lifetimes worth of stars within the Federation that no one has been to, that could be explored.

    :)
     
  4. bbjeg

    bbjeg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Location:
    By Data's Beard.
    Originally, I was just trying to find a reason for galactic travel but I'm sure they have system bypass rules too, avoiding some high risk solar systems due to the danger they cause to ships, or a primary focus on systems that has traces of warp signatures, bypassing stars without them so a civilization like ours wont catch a ship with a satallite?
     
  5. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    I think one could put together a case from onscreen material that there is quite a bit of Federation space that has been charted ("there's a star system over here"), but not actually explored (surveyed in person), particularly along the outlying regions.
     
  6. Sindatur

    Sindatur Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    And of course we have no idea what lays on the other side(s) of The Federation's outermost enemies (IE: Where the Federation doesn't surround their territory) no idea what lies beyond that 6000 Light Years length, of Federation space, other than what was given to them by friendlies
     
  7. scifib5st

    scifib5st Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    There are lots of stories to tell in the 25th century, new people to meet and friends and foes alike. Lions, tigers, and bears, oh,my!!!

    :rofl:
     
  8. ixfd64

    ixfd64 Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Realistically speaking, the Federation could use von Neumann probes to explore the less-interesting worlds. :P
     
  9. David.Blue

    David.Blue Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Considering both Nomad and V'ger, what could possibly go wrong with that? :cardie:
     
  10. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    Or hell how do we know that's not how the Borg started out.
     
  11. Captain Jed R.

    Captain Jed R. Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Location:
    Lala Land.
    I'd watch. As with everything, if it was good I'd keep watching.

    I reject the idea that any series without the Original Series' core characters would automatically fail. Because A) I disagree with the concept that anyone gives enough of a shit outside of fandom to notice, and B) because it did succeed before, and it's been a decade since the last non-Kirk Trek happened and will likely be at least another before it returns. By then, I doubt anyone will care enough to decide not to watch the show return just because it doesn't have Kirk.
     
  12. stardogsix

    stardogsix Cadet Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    let's just have a jolly old romp through the galaxy on a weekly basis the tv is a very sad place without one. we need trek like a crak head needs a pipe:wtf:
     
  13. bbjeg

    bbjeg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Location:
    By Data's Beard.
    ^I have to agree that tv has never been the same after Trek went off the air.
     
  14. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Last week I watched Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and then Thor: The Dark World the next day. The difference in scope, scale, everything was unbelievable - S.H.I.E.L.D. felt like a Marvel Universe fan film in comparison. Old Trek movies and episodes were made in a very similar format to the TV shows (hence the "extended episode" feel) but that wouldn't be true today. Unless they made it land-based Academy series or a Eugenics Wars prequel or something along those lines, a new TV series would likely compare very badly to the current movies.
     
  15. Lynx

    Lynx Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2001
    Location:
    Lynx Empire
    I would watch it as long as it doesn't turn into a doom and gloom series or something like Stargate Universe or screw up established Trek history. It also depends on the characters. Are they as good as the TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager characters, then it will be OK.
     
  16. Yanks

    Yanks Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Location:
    NX01 Bridge
    Agree Lynx.

    I don't want my trek to be like BSG.
     
  17. RandyS

    RandyS Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Randyland
    Agreed. Let Star Trek stay off the air until this current trend stops completely.

    I just hope I live long enough to see it.
     
  18. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    I voted "no" because "25th century" is just a meaningless time period, not a premise for a show. As I have said many times, a show is about the format, the characters, and the kinds of stories you're going to tell.
     
  19. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    "A meaningless time period" was enough for TNG which originally just had "24th-Century" as its premise.

    But the use of "25th-Century" here is just referring to a show that isn't set during the time of previous Trek shows and can have a different status quo, tone, and look from any of them. From there, new situations, stories, and characters can be developed that are unique to its time.
     
  20. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    And just where is the pitch document which said "The new Star Trek is set in the 24th century" full stop? No, the premise of that show was it's a new generation of characters on a new ship many years after Kirk and Co., not "the 24th century".