Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series

[Christopher]

Why would P+ allow the same people who can't hold on to their current audience do another show?

After Jaws and Close Encounters, Steven Spielberg had a massive flop with 1941. But he followed up that failure with Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The first four shows Dick Wolf created were all short-lived failures, but the fifth one was Law & Order.

Nobody bats a thousand. It's a competitive industry, and failure is always more likely than success, so if everyone who had one failure was blacklisted, there'd quickly be nobody left in the industry. There are a lot of reasons why a show or movie might fail that have nothing to do with the ability of the creators. Failure is a learning experience, and experience is always valuable.

 

[Danja]

After Jaws and Close Encounters, Steven Spielberg had a massive flop with 1941. But he followed up that failure with Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The first four shows Dick Wolf created were all short-lived failures, but the fifth one was Law & Order.

Nobody bats a thousand. It's a competitive industry, and failure is always more likely than success, so if everyone who had one failure was blacklisted, there'd quickly be nobody left in the industry. There are a lot of reasons why a show or movie might fail that have nothing to do with the ability of the creators. Failure is a learning experience, and experience is always valuable.

It's also true that memories are short-lived.

TOS has already been rebooted twice. Why do it a third time? (Especially when Paramount Pictures is going to want to hold on to TOS crew for themselves, seeing as how it's a known draw.)

 

[Firebird]

It's also true that memories are short-lived.

TOS has already been rebooted twice. Why do it a third time? (Especially when Paramount Pictures is going to want to hold on to TOS crew for themselves, seeing as how it's a known draw.)

Why are projects remade? MONEY.

The Maltese Falcon was adapted into film three times between 1931 to 1941.

Ben-Hur has had six different versions put to film from 1907 to 2016.

Howard Hawks remade Rio Bravo twice within a decade of its release.

We had three different versions of Spider-Man between 2007-2017.

 

[Christopher]

TOS has already been rebooted twice. Why do it a third time?

It's been rebooted once.

(Especially when Paramount Pictures is going to want to hold on to TOS crew for themselves, seeing as how it's a known draw.)

Paramount Pictures is no longer a separate company from CBS Studios as it was when the Kelvin films were made. It's all under one roof again. And even when they weren't, Paramount only held the film rights to Trek, while the TV rights remained with CBS. Nothing would've prevented CBS from using the TOS characters on TV; the only things Paramount and Bad Robot controlled exclusively were the original elements introduced in the Kelvin movies (and I believe those are back with CBS after the re-merger, which is why Discovery was able to reference the Kelvin timeline in season 3).

 

[Danja]

Paramount Pictures is no longer a separate company from CBS Studios as it was when the Kelvin films were made. It's all under one roof again. And even when they weren't, Paramount only held the film rights to Trek, while the TV rights remained with CBS. Nothing would've prevented CBS from using the TOS characters on TV; the only things Paramount and Bad Robot controlled exclusively were the original elements introduced in the Kelvin movies (and I believe those are back with CBS after the re-merger, which is why Discovery was able to reference the Kelvin timeline in season 3).

Rights, mergers ... Ugh, it's giving me a headache.

We had three different versions of Spider-Man between 2007-2017.

Played by three different actors.

 

[Firebird]

Played by three different actors.

That's why I said three different versions.

 

[Boo-khat!]

Yeah, in lieu of coming up with anything actually original*, I can see them rebooting TOS yet a third time. I just wish they wouldn't.

* I get that at this point, with almost 60 years of Star Trek on screen, it's very hard to actually come up with an original idea. And even when that happens, it's even harder to stick to its premise (cough cough stranded on the other side of the galaxy, formation of the Federation, cough cough.)

 

[Outcast91]

You have nothing to worry about, because the show's not happening. But expect to hear about 20 more 'pitches' from various people over the next year, which will also go nowhere.

Here's my pitch, Star Trek: Luna Shipyards.
It's a comedy starrring an elderly Mile's O'brien training young engineers, and despising them.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, in lieu of coming up with anything actually original*, I can see them rebooting TOS yet a third time. I just wish they wouldn't.

It's not really "they," though; it seems to me that it's mainly Akiva Goldsman who's behind the push for nostalgia. And just because he's pushing for a "TOS Year One" series doesn't mean it'll happen, any more than Terry Matalas pushing for Star Trek Legacy made it happen.

 

[Boo-khat!]

It's not really "they," though; it seems to me that it's mainly Akiva Goldsman who's behind the push for nostalgia. And just because he's pushing for a "TOS Year One" series doesn't mean it'll happen, any more than Terry Matalas pushing for Star Trek Legacy made it happen.

I was talking more about the movies, as that’s what Skydance seems to want to focus on with Star Trek.

 

[Danja]

I was talking more about the movies, as that’s what Skydance seems to want to focus on with Star Trek.

It's not going to be like it was pre-Covid.

People like streaming too much (Eat and drink what you want without having to take out a second mortgage to pay for it. No having to deal with rude people gabbing on their phones during the.movie.)

 

[Boo-khat!]

It's not going to be like it was pre-Covid.

People like streaming too much (Eat and drink what you want without having to take out a second mortgage to pay for it. No having to deal with rude people gabbing on their phones during the.movie.)

So Skydance doesn't want to make any money, then?

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

So Skydance doesn't want to make any money, then?

They have all the money. They do this to better themselves.

 

[Boo-khat!]

They have all the money. They do this to better themselves.

You do sarcasm better than that other fellow.

 

[UssGlenn]

I was talking more about the movies, as that’s what Skydance seems to want to focus on with Star Trek.

People keep saying that but there haven't been any actual statements that they are going to focus on trek movies to the detriment of tv. We've just been told "holistic approach" which is the opposite of that.

 

[Christopher]

People keep saying that but there haven't been any actual statements that they are going to focus on trek movies to the detriment of tv. We've just been told "holistic approach" which is the opposite of that.

Yeah, that sounds right. The impression I have is that they're planning a combined TV/movie strategy similar to what James Gunn is doing with DC, an integrated continuity rather than competing ones. (Though presumably a continuation of the existing Trek continuity -- I don't mean to extend the DC analogy that far.)

 

[No Grave Dug]

I'd like to be ethical, and just divorce it from TOS, as an alternate timeline...

Nope.

Star Trek Strange New Worlds isn't in any alternate timeline; it's the same timeline started on September 8th 1966 by the original STAR TREK series.

 

[Christopher]

Star Trek Strange New Worlds isn't in any alternate timeline; it's the same timeline started on September 8th 1966 by the original STAR TREK series.

Yes -- a timeline that's had many, many inconsistencies and continuity errors since James R. Kirk became James T., but that pretends to be a consistent whole no matter how much it changes and updates itself for new generations, because it's all just make-believe, after all.

Well, technically, "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" established that the 20th/21st-century history has been changed since what we saw in "Space Seed," but SNW still presumes that TOS's events will play out essentially the same, since it keeps making a point of maintaining consistency, like concocting an excuse for Pike to be fleet captain when he meets Kirk, and handwaving that the Metrons will "reset" Federation knowledge of the Gorn to patch over how "Arena" can still take place as shown. So it's similar to the kinds of timeline changes we've had all through the Prime history, like "Yesteryear" slightly changing Spock's childhood so I-Chaya died, or "Accession" changing Bajor's past so Akorem Laan didn't disappear, or "Trials and Tribble-ations" changing things so that Bashir and O'Brien got chewed out by Kirk for the bar fight instead of those other guys. It's a mutable timeline, but still presumed to be a narratively consistent continuity (and even Kelvin is a subset of that single continuity, in the same way that the Mirror Universe is).

 

[Boo-khat!]

Yeah, that sounds right. The impression I have is that they're planning a combined TV/movie strategy similar to what James Gunn is doing with DC, an integrated continuity rather than competing ones. (Though presumably a continuation of the existing Trek continuity -- I don't mean to extend the DC analogy that far.)

So they’ll either make a TV/movie combination based around SFA (as that will be the only show left by the time an actual film is produced), they will base it around some new show taking place in the same continuity, or they will just start from scratch and create a new rebooted universe and go from there. Maybe the show will be on Paramount+, or not. I’m hoping there will be more info by the time of the Star Trek cruise in February.

 

[Quinton]

Yeah, that sounds right. The impression I have is that they're planning a combined TV/movie strategy similar to what James Gunn is doing with DC, an integrated continuity rather than competing ones. (Though presumably a continuation of the existing Trek continuity -- I don't mean to extend the DC analogy that far.)

That’s been my impression as well. While I agree that words like “holistic” are tossed around maddeningly in the biz, I reckon it’s not the worst one the bigwigs could have chosen here.

Provided that such things come to pass, of course.