Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley developing Star Trek reboot for Paramount
- Thread starter Casas9425
- Start date
You know all the firehoses are in neutral territory. What are you trying to do?
Nah. It's a new continuity. They can't be that stupid to have yet ANOTHER prequel series ...
It'd be really cool if this new movie had themes or some kind of idea behind it, all Trek has engaged in some way or another with the times it was situated in and this new take should do the same - tap into the current moment and have something to explore. TOS was fascinating in having roots in westerns (art) and the old frontier (history) while extrapolating Kennedy's "new frontier" and American liberalism into the future.
A lot of the power of TOS came from recognising that the Federation is a government with its own interests, seeing the colonial arm of the Federation in action (UFP's creator had criticism baked in to the concept), and seeing the America of the time reflected in the Federation of the future and whatever problem was being tackled. This coupled with the writing being cognisant of the tension that exists between, and Kirk reconciling, the wants of the government/organisation as well as the needs of the individual or foreign peoples made for great viewing. In this sense, DS9 is the show most close in conversation to TOS than any other.
There is a lot about the current day that could be explored and Trek shouldn't shy away from that, it'd be sad to see a spineless Paramount strip away what makes Trek Trek.
A lot of the power of TOS came from recognising that the Federation is a government with its own interests, seeing the colonial arm of the Federation in action (UFP's creator had criticism baked in to the concept), and seeing the America of the time reflected in the Federation of the future and whatever problem was being tackled. This coupled with the writing being cognisant of the tension that exists between, and Kirk reconciling, the wants of the government/organisation as well as the needs of the individual or foreign peoples made for great viewing. In this sense, DS9 is the show most close in conversation to TOS than any other.
There is a lot about the current day that could be explored and Trek shouldn't shy away from that, it'd be sad to see a spineless Paramount strip away what makes Trek Trek.
I do sort of wonder if it might be time for Star Trek to lean more toward science fiction in its purest form rather than action-adventure in space. Instead of chasing the tone of Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy, and the spectacle of an Avengers movie, imagine something more cerebral but still visually striking - a hybrid of The Motion Picture, Sunshine, The Martian, or even Moon and Solaris, updated for today’s audience.
This shift could help Star Trek stand apart from other big-budget sci-fi franchises that focus heavily on spectacle and space action/adventure. The franchise could use its universe to explore deeper themes: moral dilemmas, philosophical questions, and emotional complexity - the elements that actually defined some of the the best of ST on TV. Action can still be present, but as a complement to thought-provoking and emotional character-based storytelling rather than the core.
Picture stories like City on the Edge of Forever scaled up for cinema, or Where No Man Has Gone Before, or even In the Pale Moonlight or Similitude. Or even something like The Doomsday Machine (basically a submarine movie in space with character drama). These kinds of narratives feel accessible and marketable, especially with strong "name" casting, and they can be produced on a modest(ish) budget as contained, high-concept stories. You could even do something like The Siege of AR-558, set during the Dominion war and one ship/crew/character on a specific mission/story and do something very different within the universe without over-linking it to DS9.
They could also work independently of existing characters and settings - introducing a new crew (maybe even just one or two characters/actors) and a new ship if needed to tell self-contained "one and done" movie stories. If anything, this could be a chance to upscale what ST does really well but has often been overlooked in the movies.
Whats worked really well for reviving the Predator franchise, and Alien too for that matter, is not over-spending on spectacle. A decent, but modest compared to a blown-up Avengers budget that requires a £1b return isn't ST. Make it look great, but don't go wild with the budget - its enough for a franchise like ST to make a good return. In other words, go back towards the pre-2009 ST movie model, or the sweet spot in-between and do a plot that tells a different kind of story. Alien Romulus made decent coin on a fraction of the cost of Alien Covenant, which flopped hard due to how much it cost to make. It however still looked great.
This shift could help Star Trek stand apart from other big-budget sci-fi franchises that focus heavily on spectacle and space action/adventure. The franchise could use its universe to explore deeper themes: moral dilemmas, philosophical questions, and emotional complexity - the elements that actually defined some of the the best of ST on TV. Action can still be present, but as a complement to thought-provoking and emotional character-based storytelling rather than the core.
Picture stories like City on the Edge of Forever scaled up for cinema, or Where No Man Has Gone Before, or even In the Pale Moonlight or Similitude. Or even something like The Doomsday Machine (basically a submarine movie in space with character drama). These kinds of narratives feel accessible and marketable, especially with strong "name" casting, and they can be produced on a modest(ish) budget as contained, high-concept stories. You could even do something like The Siege of AR-558, set during the Dominion war and one ship/crew/character on a specific mission/story and do something very different within the universe without over-linking it to DS9.
They could also work independently of existing characters and settings - introducing a new crew (maybe even just one or two characters/actors) and a new ship if needed to tell self-contained "one and done" movie stories. If anything, this could be a chance to upscale what ST does really well but has often been overlooked in the movies.
Whats worked really well for reviving the Predator franchise, and Alien too for that matter, is not over-spending on spectacle. A decent, but modest compared to a blown-up Avengers budget that requires a £1b return isn't ST. Make it look great, but don't go wild with the budget - its enough for a franchise like ST to make a good return. In other words, go back towards the pre-2009 ST movie model, or the sweet spot in-between and do a plot that tells a different kind of story. Alien Romulus made decent coin on a fraction of the cost of Alien Covenant, which flopped hard due to how much it cost to make. It however still looked great.
Last edited:
If all canon is subject to change, why are you fixating on just one element of canon?
Let me try again. By definition, head canon doesn’t matter to anyone but the person who believes it. It’s irrelevant to any conversation because it’s not a commonly accepted frame of reference. The place for head canon is in the head canon believer’s head. It serves no purpose anywhere else.
Exactly. It reeks of agenda -- "I don't like it so they should get rid of it." There's been lots of things in Star Trek that I haven't liked very much, but I've always accepted it as part of the tapestry.
And as they say in another franchise, "all of this has happened before". I remember people making similar arguments about ignoring the Romulan Supernova from Star Trek 2009 and, IIRC, there were actual licensed Star Trek products that tried to do something similar with Star Trek 5.
And as for changes to canon, I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever if someone came up with a plausible story reason, that worked in-universe and didn't seem forced, that retconned the cause of The Burn to something else ("you mean it wasn't really that Su'kal kid's fault after all? Huh."). I would say go for it. Adding new context to established characters and stories is working for the most part in Strange New Worlds.
It's true head canon only means something to the individual but I would say the same about official canon as well but that also applies to the artist making Trek. Canon only means something if they feel it serves a story purpose or maybe has a selling purpose. I feel like if they are making new Trek they might factor in that their will be less fan blowback if they decided to erase Discovery than if they tried to do that with TOS or TNG. I also am not sure how much they know that their are plenty of fans out their that has no problem with new Trek outside of the Prime universe which is why they keep insisting all the new stuff is in the prime universe even when it's a bad fit. Like they feel a need to hold onto it or fans won't consider the new stuff legitimate Trek
Still unsure if they just mean not connected to any Star Trek production i.e no characters or spinoff characters and events from existing trek.
TNG S1 was kinda like that. It was its own thing with no ( direct) connection to TOS. Except this time not even the Enterprise name would likely be retained .
But it could still be Prime Timeline just not a prequel or recognizable sequel to existing trek characters or events.
Technically TNG was a "sequel" to TOS but really almost felt almost like a soft reboot especially in Season 1.
And No I don't consider anything prior to the 32 century as a "prequel" Discovery made a post-premise decision to jump ahead far into the future . Some will argue the point with me but I do not consider that to be the default "current " timeline".
TNG S1 was kinda like that. It was its own thing with no ( direct) connection to TOS. Except this time not even the Enterprise name would likely be retained .
But it could still be Prime Timeline just not a prequel or recognizable sequel to existing trek characters or events.
Technically TNG was a "sequel" to TOS but really almost felt almost like a soft reboot especially in Season 1.
And No I don't consider anything prior to the 32 century as a "prequel" Discovery made a post-premise decision to jump ahead far into the future . Some will argue the point with me but I do not consider that to be the default "current " timeline".
Last edited:
But then that just sets a precedent for any incoming person to just be all like nah I choose to ignore this, this and this because I feel like it and we end up with a franchise that goes nowhere and is just stale reboots from the same jumping off point like Terminator.
That's where Trek will go because it's servicing the fan's rather than telling stories. There is a legitimate fear of fan blowback which is why you see the interconnected need for everything.
It definitely did and reflected a far different era shift in it's attitude and ethos.
That would be counterproductive. They could have made a movie about a random ship and crew at any time. They didn't because name recognition still means something. If you are starting Trek fresh, with a true reboot you start with Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise, by definition. That's where the franchise started so that's where a reboot has to start, it can't do anything else and still be called a reboot. If you have a show on a different ship, there is simply no point in rebooting. I can't think of a single franchise that rebooted it's continuity without keeping some form of the original setting and characters. It would be like setting Ron Moore's Galactica on the Battlestar Poseidon, and having all new characters.
Not disagreeing but perhaps unlike when TNG launched , They feel Trek has amassed and grown enough back log and brand recognition that they can get away without the Enterprise moniker or other overt Trek-related traits. Perhaps the bare basics, Starfleet , transporters etc is all they think they need in 2025
Last edited:
Um, no.
If Trek was going to go for some sort of reboot, I'd honestly try and pivot it a bit away from the pulpy, comic-book-like aspects towards a bit harder of a setting. Not actual hard-sci-fi, but something closer to The Expanse.
Some things I'd retcon would be:
- Minimizing the use of ESP/psychic powers (this stuff was still seen as normal sci-fi content during the Campbellian period, but it's sci-fantasy these days.
- Coming up with some semi-realistic explanation of how most of the humanoid alien races can interbreed (I'd prefer something with the Iconians having mucked around, settling modified humans on many planets).
- Building posthuman/transhumanism into the setting more from the ground up, to reflect the advances in computing over the last 60 years.
- Developing a clearer explanation of the relationship between the Federation and Starfleet, and why the latter seems so full of humans (my preferred explanation being Starfleet is an Earth-based NGO with a fleet, but only one of many similar organizations within the Federation which helps with defense).
Agreed, and it is clear that DISCO and SNW selectively cared about canon, never treating it as fixed, fictional history, but something to be changed for whatever whims motivated those behind it.
I would not count on that; your idea assumes the people behind the new ST production actually care about the legacy series, when recent ST history revealed a concerted effort to alter or erase parts of the in-universe history
The precedent for altering the ST universe is already in place.
So just like all the other Star Trek series, then.
Exactly. Any "changes" that that DSC or SNW made to the canon are largely on the "James R Kirk" level of inconsequentialness.
I was going to say "Enough about TNG or TMP, or even TWOK."
Alterations to the continuity are baked in at this point. It is not, nor has it ever been, a real world history that reflects events. It has modifications throughout. It's why I want a reboot and for the new series to set up it's timeline and create the rigid history that Trek has always assumed to have , but didn't really.
Similar threads
