I guess CBS isn't interested in doing another Trek series, then. The suits must have figured that the only profit to be made was in selling off that stuff.
Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
- Status
From Historys Shadow. Note the link to the corresponding Trek bbs thread.
Last edited:
I guess CBS isn't interested in doing another Trek series, then. The suits must have figured that the only profit to be made was in selling off that stuff.
I know the interest is still there, but I don't think anyone has ever demonstrated to CBS where the profitability is for them to put more money forward.
I guess CBS isn't interested in doing another Trek series, then. The suits must have figured that the only profit to be made was in selling off that stuff.
I know the interest is still there, but I don't think anyone has ever demonstrated to CBS where the profitability is for them to put more money forward.
CBS just needs to make Star Trek: Miami, Star Trek: NY, Star Trek: Los Angeles, Star Trek: Criminal Minds, and "How I Met Your Mother, Daughter of the Fifth House, Holder of the Sacred Chalice of Rixx, Heir to the Holy Rings of Betazed."
Yes, I think you could devise a stand alone series, derived from a Trek background.
In regards to changing timelines, I once came across a DS9 reference to timeline "orphans".
Here is a question-how mutable are timelines? Conceivably, one simple incident could be corrected, preserving or restoring the timeline.
But what if the situation isn't that simple? In Jurassic Park, Malcom discussed Chaos theory, with the short version being the Butterfly effect (most vividly illustrated in A Sound of Thunder).
Perhaps with more extensive interaction with the past, time travelers will tend to disturb the timeline even as they try to correct/preserve it.
And when these time travelers decide to return to their own time, what will they find? An altered timeline? Perhaps they will try to investigate multiple timelines, looking for their original timeline.
Actually, this was illustrated in an episode of the Simpsons, with a time traveler named Homer Simpson.
Last edited:
^ Too many timelines might confuse and put off the average/newbie viewer.
Everything from TAS onward is a spinoff!
The point is to make the show cheap enough to be attractive to networks. With a little spare cash, you could maybe do a couple of space episodes, e.g. saving the moon mission, or preventing a contaminated asteroid reaching Earth (as in The Andromeda Strain). Or making the sure the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs stays on target!
Everything from TAS onward is a spinoff!
The point is to make the show cheap enough to be attractive to networks. With a little spare cash, you could maybe do a couple of space episodes, e.g. saving the moon mission, or preventing a contaminated asteroid reaching Earth (as in The Andromeda Strain). Or making the sure the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs stays on target!
Oh, a misunderstanding eyeresist. I was not thinking in terms of a Star Fleet team investigating different timelines as part of the episodes. I'm thinking of the team working in the present or the known past.
I was speaking theoretically.
Actually, I wasn't even thinking of terms of episodes set in space. I was thinking of stories set here on Earth.
I was speaking theoretically.
Actually, I wasn't even thinking of terms of episodes set in space. I was thinking of stories set here on Earth.
I hate to say it, but I highly doubt we will ever see prime Trek again outside of the books/fan films. I'm trying to be optimistic, but I think it's a thing of the past. In my opinion, they might as well start making the books canon since it's the only glimpse of Prime Trek that we have. Although, it would be a pain in the butt to update articles on http://www.memory-alpha.org. 
Well put. I feel the same way about nuTrek. The could kill off any character they wanted, and I wouldn't care. The only character I really did care about was Prime Spock, because that's the real Spock. Everyone else is just some alternate reality counterpart of the people I knew.
And that is why I put my money on a complete reboot. Then you can create a new Crew, with new threats, in a new environment without having the burden of an in-universe-history that one has to follow. If done right, we could see an updated version of Star Trek based on the state of science right now. If not done right, it will get rebooted so often, that it makes Sonys Spiderman or Warners Batman blush....
And why - apart from the obvious money making reasons - would you call such a show "Star Trek"? A show that has no connection to the known Star Trek Universe whatsoever should be its own show and start its own franchise. I mean, calling some random SciFi show "Star Trek"? What would be the point?
I'm all for a show or movie with a new crew, but it HAS to be set in the established Trek Universe, be it the PrimeVerse or the NuVerse. At least they came up with a good explanation for the NuVerse, but they won't get away with it twice.
And a complete reboot? It's the 50 years of Trek history that make Star Trek what it is. Throwing all that history out of the window would be creative suicide. If the current owners of the Star Trek franchise are too stupid to build on such a rich background, then the franchise should be left in more capable hands!
It really isn't. It's the characters, primarily Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, that make Star Trek what it is. The minutiae is just fluff.
And just why would I care about a franchise that's getting completely rebooted every few years? What would be the point? What are the characters of Kirk and Spock worth if they are being reinvented every few years? If everything they have said and done will be forgotten by the time the next reboot is lurking around the corner? This kind of inflation is ruining it for me!
Return to the primeVerse after the destruction of Romulus or continue in the nuVerse with a new crew, but no more reboots please!
Because they aren't being reinvented. Kirk and Spock are still the same basic characters that they were from TOS. Kirk is the high-risk, high-reward commander with a problem keeping long term relationships with the ladies. Spock is still the man who never feels at home, attempts to be cool on the outside but is boiling emotion under the surface.
The universe around them may change, but as long as they get the core of the characters right, they have a winning formula.
A high-risk, high-reward commander with a problem keeping long term relationships with the ladies and a man who never feels at home, attempts to be cool on the outside but is boiling emotion under the surface. That could be ANYONE! In any timeframe and in any setting ... you could put those characters into the Wild West or ancient Rome, but what would that have to to with Star Trek?
It's the surrounding universe that makes them what they are. It's those characters interacting with that universe what makes Star Trek what it is!
So you could tell the same story over and over again, which would be lame ... or you could completely reinvent everything with every reboot, which would be completely implausible and totally inflationary. Why would I care about those characters? Everything would be reset with the next reboot ... yawn!
If you want something completely new, then create something new ... but don't call it Star Trek! Unless it's supposed to be a spin off or a continuation. If the future of Star Trek means and endless series of reboots, then I'd rather have no Star Trek at all!
Having been here for all of those 50 years, I have to disagree. Its about the characters. The ideas. The stories. Not the continuity and minutia. None of that "history" was present when Star Trek began or when it became part of pop culture. Most people who will watch the new film will not be aware of or care about that "history" when sitting in the theater ( or at home for that matter).
No one is forcing you to buy a ticket. Meanwhile, I'll be in the theater with a Coke and a bucket of buttered popcorn.
Oh well, that explains it all ...
It explains that I know how to go and have a good time. Which is the point of going to a movie to begin with.
No offense, but hose popcorn munching people in the theater usually don't care a lot about the movie they are watching, and they don't pay a lot of attention unless there are lots of car chases and big explosions.
There are plenty of movies out there to please that kind of audience, but the heart and soul of Star Trek lies elsewhere!
- Status
Similar threads
