If the new show is set in the Prime universe...

[drt]

Something within 20 years of the original series - either direction - would be fine. Essentially contemporary with TOS, but a little wiggle room.

I'd go after, might be interesting to have Cho* play Sulu as the first officer of the Enterprise (I think for a new series, you kind of need to start with an Enterprise), perhaps with Worf as a security officer to mix it up. (As I posted before, I think having a Klingon on the bridge when they are still enemies of the Federation might be interesting to explore).

* = doesn't need to be set in the nuTrekverse to still use Cho

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Yeah, see, Cho would be spiffy. Urban, too. 2285 or something. I don't know. I just think it'd be neat and it'd grab the attention of a good number of folks in my age group and younger whose only familiarity is the Abramsverse.

Certainly it isn't remotely necessary in order to make a product which will compel viewership. I just think about how three of nuTrek's core cast got their starts on TV, and how at least two of them would probably have no qualms going back to it (unless Urban hated working on Almost Human?) and it gets me thinking.

 

[JWPlatt]

Going before avoids the continuity pressure.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Going before innately bores me more. It's a problem of mine -- I'm always thinking ahead.

 

[Mudd]

There's no "ahead" in Star Trek. Each era repeats the previous with minor variations.

Why should I care what happens after the Dominion War? If it's so-called "Prime Trek" I know it will all be stuff I've already seen, with the names changed. Gul Duhkat might as well be Kor from "Errand Of Mercy."

What I want the setting to be for the next one is...something that will surprise me, so I can't begin to tell you what it might be.

That said, if I had to make something up, because I'm not very original myself I'd set it more or less in the Abramsverse a few years after what we see at the beginning of the 2009 Star Trek movie. I don't have any interest in seeing it tied in to that movie or the continuity in the films in any specific way; it just seems to me to be essentially TOS era but without having to give any consideration to where Kirk and Enterprise are.

And I'd set it aboard yet another Enterprise.

 

[Trekkin]

Upon thinking about it, most if the Nucast have done television fairly recently. I mean, even without research and based just from what I've actually seen:

Cho was in Sleepy Hollow
Saldana was in that Rosemary's Baby miniseries
Quinto was in The Slap
Urban was in Almost Human
Pine was in Wet Hot American Summer

Not saying that they'd do a Star Trek series, mind. Just that my admittedly knee-jerk reaction of 'they'd never do it, they're too big' wasn't quiet the given that I initially assumed.

 

[BillJ]

Reality TV is the most profitable risk free investment a television executive can make. Not everything is about numbers as much as you all seem to think. Have some imagination people wow.

Everything is about numbers.

CBS picked Trek because it is a proven commodity, both in the past and currently, to launch a new way for them to deliver programming.

 

[drt]

Upon thinking about it, most if the Nucast have done television fairly recently. I mean, even without research and based just from what I've actually seen:

Cho was in Sleepy Hollow
Saldana was in that Rosemary's Baby miniseries
Quinto was in The Slap
Urban was in Almost Human
Pine was in Wet Hot American Summer

Not saying that they'd do a Star Trek series, mind. Just that my admittedly knee-jerk reaction of 'they'd never do it, they're too big' wasn't quiet the given that I initially assumed.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be the stigma for "movie" actors to work on TV these days (except A-listers, perhaps). Probably because TV gives the best opportunity to "act" these days.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

There's no "ahead" in Star Trek. Each era repeats the previous with minor variations.

Naw, I mostly agree with you. Generally I really don't care either. For whatever reason the idea of a pre-nuTOS Abramsverse show in particular doesn't resonate with me at first blush, though. Yeah, I realize it's just as nerd-giggity specific in chronology as anything else that anyone else is throwing around as an option, but this in particular charts falsely in my brain.

Maybe because I watch ST09 on the regular and there's that line from Pike in the bar about how Starfleet has lost the bravado that defined it a couple of decades prior to 2258. Maybe that makes me think 2234-2258 sounds like kind of a dull time, I dunno. If Kurtzman wanted to retcon that line and make it exciting as hell then that'd be a different story, I guess.

More likely, though, I just dig the idea of seeing ST09 as the beginning of something that I wish to see carry on with neat little nods to the nuTOS crew that'd resonate with relatively young audiences. I always loved the idea of these new films launching something big. I suppose one way or the other they have.

 

[Squiggy]

The Ferengi didn't work. Get rid of them. The Orian sydicate can easily take over and they're just blue makeup.

A third universe is probably the way they are going to go.

Because having one universe in the movies and another universe concurrently airing makes a ton of sense?

 

[Paradise City]

Orions need green make-up. Not blue.

 

[Trekkin]

Maybe he mixed them up with Andorians?

 

[BillJ]

Maybe he mixed them up with Andorians?

I think they were blue in an episode of TAS.

 

[Trekkin]

Like the Andorians in TAS, those Orions got a bucket of bleach dropped on them at some stage.

 

[Terok Nor]

...

Let's look at the numbers One More Time, shall we?

Enterprise may or may not have been great television, YMMV. The actual facts, however, don't support the claim that quality is why Star Trek ended.

Boredom with a decade of repetition is why Star Trek ended. People started dropping it the week after DS9 premiered and it just kept dropping. DS9 didn't "satisfy the masses." Neither did Voyager.

Sure, let's go back to that.

Here's the most you're going to get:

They may say "it's in the Prime Universe." Then maybe they'll do a flyby of Vulcan. And then they'll ignore all that and do whatever the fuck seems to them like a good idea in 2016.

(Highlighted by me)

Or they will fail.

Well... that would be EXACTLY what we (those prime-universe lovers) want to happen!

I've got the impression your misconception is that we want 90s storytelling techniques and production values back. Which is ludicrous. We want a completely modernised and new series, set in the old continuity.

Because we don't want to get back to the past/timeframe of TOS again. We want to boldly go... INTO THE FUTURE.

I have absolutely zero desire to see how another crew in the new timeline makes ANOTHER first contact with the Ferengi... I want to see new stories, where a Ferengi character can appear, and nobody has to care to explain the backstory again, because frankly, most of the audiences and the characters should know by this point what a Ferengi is. And for those who do not, he should immediately be recognised as an alien merchant. Which should suffice for all intents and purpuses of the story.

That's the reason I want to go back to the prime timeline: I want to see new stories, new characters and new adventures, set in a universe with a rich backstory that enhances the experience, but shouldn't be required to know. I DON'T want to see a show that has to explain us every time the Borg or Cardassians pop up what their alternate backstory in this alternate universe is.

That, and because I love the characters and stories in the old universe so much, and like to see them getting respected while handing the torch over to a new generation, instead of being erased from (fictional) history.

You've put into words my exact thoughts

 

[Squiggy]

...because frankly, most of the audiences and the characters should know by this point what a Ferengi is.

You're severely overestimating the importance of the Ferengi as a cultural icon.

IF most of the audience knows who they are, then the ratings are going to be a disaster. You have to appeal to people who don't know who they are to make your money back.

 

[Terok Nor]

This show is going to be aimed at sci-fi fans. If you're not a sci-fi fan the chances are you're not going to watch it. I doubt there are many sci-fi fans who don't know the basics of Star Trek and the main species who appear in it whether they like Star Trek or not. Science fiction has pretty much always been a niche genre. Yes it's mega successful but that doesn't mean someone is going to break the habit of a lifetime and switch off Keeping Up With Kardashians so they can keep up with the Cardassians.

Know your audience. This should not be aimed at casuals. It should be accessible to them but not catered to them. Sci-fi fans, not just Star Trek fans, will make or break this show.

 

[fireproof78]

This show is going to be aimed at sci-fi fans. If you're not a sci-fi fan the chances are you're not going to watch it. I doubt there are many sci-fi fans who don't know the basics of Star Trek and the main species who appear in it whether they like Star Trek or not. Science fiction has pretty much always been a niche genre. Yes it's mega successful but that doesn't mean someone is going to break the habit of a lifetime and switch off Keeping Up With Kardashians so they can keep up with the Cardassians.

Know your audience. This should not be aimed at casuals. It should be accessible to them but not catered to them. Sci-fi fans, not just Star Trek fans, will make or break this show.

If the show has characters that the audience can connect with, the rest is just minutia.

As much as I enjoy Prime Trek, I think that presenting some new universe can offer an option that may appeal to casual and scifi aficionados alike. The barrier of "you need to know this before watching" gets removed by virtue of being brand new to everyone.

 

[Ryan8bit]

While I argue it would make sense to do such a reboot, I'm confused as to why you would believe that technologically it would be so unfamiliar? I mean, we don't have warp drive. We don't have transporters. Phasers, tricorders and communicators don't seem to exist. Yeah, we have our own version of PADDs now and touchscreens but why do those things make a difference when the show could easily show virtual displays? I mean, I don't think that's far off base. Sure, medical technology has advanced but what they could show in Star Trek would be leaps and bounds above. So what do you mean by that statement? I don't get it.

I know this is going back several pages, but I just wanted to answer this.

Everything was based on how the future looked in the 60s-80s. In the 60s, space exploration seemed like it was going to explode, but then progress slowed considerably. Those are the kinds of things that show as a product of the times.

And kind of along the lines of what Relayer said, there are some technologies that are way more realistic than the FTL travel/transporter stuff. Probably the strangest one is Data. Forgetting that there were androids in TOS, in the 80s, this seemed like a new thing to be explored, and it kinda was. But in reality, we're not going to develop FTL stuff before we create androids or AI. It's not going to be 300 years after developing FTL.

In fact, there should probably be a strong current of transhumanism going on. I realize that there's this Star Trek idea that augments and their abilities were a bad thing, but that's sort of an outdated idea. It's an idea rooted in fear of technology and being very absolutist about it with their zero tolerance policy. Any other dangerous technology mostly gets a pass because it doesn't question the makeup of what people are (or people's religious principles). DS9 kind of explored this with Bashir at least a little bit, but again, I think a lot of these issues will come to a head long before we travel to the stars.

So basically, the general idea is that medical advances in Star Trek are somewhat slow, AI are really slow, and amazing physics breakthroughs are way too fast. To bring any reality to that kind of destroys the way Star Trek is set. Especially because Star Trek employs a great deal of fantasy and magic.

Our future is not one where the galaxy is densely populated with species that are more or less at the same level of technological development as us, that also happen to mostly be bipedal humanoids, most of which we can apparently procreate with. That premise is pure fantasy.

 

[Squiggy]

Our future is not one where the galaxy is densely populated with species that are more or less at the same level of technological development as us, that also happen to mostly be bipedal humanoids, most of which we can apparently procreate with. That premise is pure fantasy.

*puts away the vaseline*