• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Where does the Star Trek go from here?

I'm sure it's been touched on in the past, but as far as revisiting Trek's 24th century post-NEM, couldn't a line of canon prime universe novels be produced? Perhaps written by many of the writers of the 24th century era shows? Seems to me that George Lucas approved a line of canonical novels, in-between Star Wars trilogies, that depicted events after ROTJ, with characters that made appearences in the prequel films and remastered original trilogy.

This could be done, and I actually prefer to think of the latest Enterprise: Romulan War series as canon.

Star Wars novels are not canon, and George Lucas has contradicted them with the prequels.

Canon Star Trek novels will never work. Besides, they've been developing a Star Wars novel-esque continuity for the past 6 years now.
 
I'm sure it's been touched on in the past, but as far as revisiting Trek's 24th century post-NEM, couldn't a line of canon prime universe novels be produced? Perhaps written by many of the writers of the 24th century era shows? Seems to me that George Lucas approved a line of canonical novels, in-between Star Wars trilogies, that depicted events after ROTJ, with characters that made appearences in the prequel films and remastered original trilogy.

This could be done, and I actually prefer to think of the latest Enterprise: Romulan War series as canon.

Star Wars novels are not canon, and George Lucas has contradicted them with the prequels.

Canon Star Trek novels will never work. Besides, they've been developing a Star Wars novel-esque continuity for the past 6 years now.

Plus, by its very nature, novels are not canon. "Canon" is simply what's shown on the screen. Now, someone could claim that a novel or other publication is "official," such as the TNG Tech Manual or the novel "Pathways," if they are written by someone actively involved in the production of Star Trek; however, if past history is any indication, these things end up getting contradicted anyway.
 
Judging by the Abrams film, straight into the toilet.

I'd love to have that toilet installed in my bathroom, because there's 300 million dollars floating in it.

I'd love to have just the detritus floating in my toilet, never mind the main dump!

Basically it will go with the guidelines of the Abramsverse, so first it was the movie and so on.


It'll go where ever the money goes...
 
Star Wars novels are not canon, and George Lucas has contradicted them with the prequels.

Yes, you're absolutley right...
~Although Lucas did use many of Timothy Zahn's concepts and ideas in the prequels and snuck some into the remastered original trilogy, when Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy was being released I recall Lucas giving them canonicity, but I'm wrong about that... Ooopsy doodle !!
 
Judging by the Abrams film, straight into the toilet.

I would modify that slightly.

Straight into the toliet in terms of intelligent film making, but straight to the bank in terms of ticket sales.

Kinda sad really.

I'm sorry, but the only Trek film with "intelligent film making" was Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was the only Trek movie to have a completely science-fiction-oriented plot. The rest of the Trek movies were just action films set against a futuristic backdrop. Extemely satisfying action films, but action films nonetheless.

And anyway, "intelligent film making" doesn't necessarily equate to a successful film. That's why a lot of indie films, while very good, do not see much critical or financial success.
 
Star Wars novels are not canon, and George Lucas has contradicted them with the prequels.

Yes, you're absolutley right...
~Although Lucas did use many of Timothy Zahn's concepts and ideas in the prequels and snuck some into the remastered original trilogy, when Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy was being released I recall Lucas giving them canonicity, but I'm wrong about that... Ooopsy doodle !!

Lucas took Coruscant and Kashyyyk from the Thrawn books. And while Coruscant is faithfully re-created in the movies based on the descriptions from the books, Kashyyyk underwent several changes.
 
I'm sorry, but the only Trek film with "intelligent film making" was Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was the only Trek movie to have a completely science-fiction-oriented plot.

Pretentious is not the same as bright, and the script for ST:TMP is solidly in the former category.

The artists did great, smart work though.
 
They're on the Highway To Hell
Highway To Hell
Highway To Hell
High....waaaay To Hellllllll!
;)
 
I'm torn. I've spent so many years vesting myself in the timeline that we all know (i.e. TOS through Nemesis). I want, very much, to see that continue on screen in some format... but I don't have any solid idea of where to take it from where it was left. Anything I've ever thought of would just be a rehash. Not to mention I'm not sure I trust those creators to "do right" with it after what became of Voyager and Enterprise. I mean... do they deserve another seat at the helm? So, much as I'd like that time line to continue on screen... I have my reservations.

I'd like to see a 09 Trek series even if it isn't based on the Enterprise. Why? Everything has changed. Kirk is in command way earlier and the dynamics of the quadrant have changed (The Klingons in that timeline have had a "Wolf 359" scale disaster). It would be interesting to see how things happened differently... but here again, I'd hate to see Enterprise all over again, and such a series would no doubt be lampooned by fans as it would almost certainly drag continuity further and further away from the "original" time line.

I'd like another series. I'm just not sure what I'd like it to be about. I know I don't want Star Trek: 90210. I don't want it to be about any one specific war. I hate the idea of Star Trek: Time Travel (the puns and tenses joke have been old for a long time now. 'I'll see you in a minute... I mean 30 years ago.' Wa-Wa-Waaaa) I don't want it to be about Riker or the Titan and I don't want a show about the 10 years between Enterprise' penultimate and final episode.

-Withers-​
 
I don't think Star Trek can continue. The show has always been about showing the possibilities of humanity and portraying us in an optimistic future.

Is there anyone out there that has an optimistic view of the future? The man who did is dead.
 
It is precisely in times of uncertainty that a sense of optimism can shine and be appreciated. Younger generations might think of the '60s as a time of classic rock and hippies and flower power, but it was also a time of uncertainty and civil unrest along with the threat of nuclear devastation.

I'm not of the camp that believes Star Trek must be radically altered to remain relevant. Adapted and modified to an extent, yes, but not thoroughly changed into something practically unrecognizable.

The next film will be a strong indicator of where things are going. At this point anything following will likely continue what Abrams has wrought. More is the pity. :rolleyes:
 
They'll continue to make successful Star Trek that entertains millions of people for a long time after we're forgotten. When it gets stale, they'll jump-start it again and again. They've demonstrated that it's possible.

Is there anyone out there that has an optimistic view of the future? The man who did is dead.

There were optimists before GR and have been since - many of them more grounded in reality.
 
I think the next Trek on tv should be as different as possible but still maintain as much as possible of Roddenberry's universe and must either be a prequal to tos or a sequel.
 
Judging by the Abrams film, straight into the toilet.

Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. All we can do is hope for old trek back. I regret all of the times I spoke badly about Berman and Braga and all of the 'lousy' episodes.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top