Too many stories...

[Neopeius]

This may sound silly, but I really don't want to see any more Kirk/Enterprise stories.

Don't get me wrong. I love TOS. I love the crew. I love the Enterprise.

But do the math--79 episodes in 3 (or 5) years. That's 79 remarkable incidents in one tour of duty. Most ships, even in wartime, get a dozen memorable stories.. maybe.

Cramming more stories into the same Crew just beggars the imagination!

That's why I've always been a big fan of an Anthology Trek--following a different Crew every episode (whether on screen or in written fiction). That's why Exeter was so promising. I want to see all the ships of the Federation, from the freighters to the Battlewagons.

Anyone else feel this way?

 

[RandyS]

I don't. But, if you feel that way about TOS, how do you feel about 178 adventures of TNG, 176 adventures of DS9? and 172 adventures of Voyager?

 

[Warped9]

In an odd way that what makes rebooting TOS practically a necessity. It's really the only way to do more TOS stories with any credibility. Unless you do TMP era stories.

 

[JarodRussell]

The thing I'm asking myself is: What story is there that can't be told unless it has Kirk and Spock in it? Same problem I already had with ENT. All of the stories could have been done in the 25th century. Why is a prequel or reboot necessary? The straight answer is that it isn't.
TNG, DS9 and VOY didn't have that problem because, well, they were simply a continuation, so the question: "Is that really necessary?" was never raised.

You'll see that the next Trek movie could be told in any timeframe, TNG, DS9, VOY, a new series.

That's one of my problems with rebooting.

 

[Neopeius]

Right. Why reboot? The universe is huge and compelling. Tell lots of different stories!

I don't. But, if you feel that way about TOS, how do you feel about 178 adventures of TNG, 176 adventures of DS9? and 172 adventures of Voyager?

What are these other shows of which you speak? ^_~

 

[F. King Daniel]

"Why reboot?" becuase it's not just the universe, it's the characters. I'd much prefer an (updated) Kirk and co. adventure on the Enterprise over the adventures of the USS Whatever, crewed by nobodies, in the 25th century.

That's why they keep remaking Batman instead of invinting new heroes.

 

[JarodRussell]

"Why reboot?" becuase it's not just the universe, it's the characters. I'd much prefer an (updated) Kirk and co. adventure on the Enterprise over the adventures of the USS Whatever, crewed by nobodies, in the 25th century.

That's why they keep remaking Batman instead of invinting new heroes.

Problem with that is that they are not the same characters, in my opinion. Heck, Chekov is even acknowledged to be a whole different person because he was born years earlier and is a superkid now.

 

[Warped9]

^^ It depends on how you reboot it. And the way ST09 did it sucks huge.

 

[F. King Daniel]

"Why reboot?" becuase it's not just the universe, it's the characters. I'd much prefer an (updated) Kirk and co. adventure on the Enterprise over the adventures of the USS Whatever, crewed by nobodies, in the 25th century.

That's why they keep remaking Batman instead of invinting new heroes.

Problem with that is that they are not the same characters, in my opinion. Heck, Chekov is even acknowledged to be a whole different person because he was born years earlier and is a superkid now.

Adam West's Batman isn't the same as Christian Bale's. Yet they're both Batman. Having the new actors exactly copy the originals' speech patterns would have been a disaster, IMO.

IMO Chekov's Chekov. Messing with his age to fit him in doesn't bother me one bit (you could always say he was BSing when he told his age in TOS if you wanted to, too). Although he's a whizz-kid now, there's nothing to say TOS Chekov wasn't bright for his age when he was 17.

 

[T'Girl]

That's 79 remarkable incidents in one tour of duty.

To be fair, thay weren't all grand adventures that shocked the Federation to it's core. Amok Time was really a small personal story. Neither Mudd's Woman nor Shore Leave were particularly big storys. Much of what Kirk did could be described as a average mission for a Starship Captain. Things like Metamorphosis and A Piece Of The Action.

I just ran through a episode list and a surprising number of episodes were really small routine stuff.

 

[Neopeius]

That's 79 remarkable incidents in one tour of duty.

To be fair, thay weren't all grand adventures that shocked the Federation to it's core. Amok Time was really a small personal story. Neither Mudd's Woman nor Shore Leave were particularly big storys. Much of what Kirk did could be described as a average mission for a Starship Captain. Things like Metamorphosis and A Piece Of The Action.

I just ran through a episode list and a surprising number of episodes were really small routine stuff.

You're right, of course. But I feel like those 79 eps was just within the limits of credibility. More than that is gilding the lily. I don't really need a novel which details the AMAZING EVENTS which happened in the heretofore unknown time period between Stardates 3765.3 and 3765.4.

I also feel like I've seen enough of the Enterprise Crew. Let's see some new characters!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I read the Trek novels too.

Make that 300 amazing incidents in one tour of duty!

No time to eat! No time to sleep!

Only space adventure ALL THE TIME for five years.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Nah. I'll never tire of Kirk and the gang. The characters aren't real, they never have to age, and there's always some new story to tell. A good story is a good story, and if it's with characters you know and love, so much the better.

(As for the bad ones, well, I won't be revisiting those, anyway. )

 

[Greg Cox]

This may sound silly, but I really don't want to see any more Kirk/Enterprise stories.

Don't get me wrong. I love TOS. I love the crew. I love the Enterprise.

But do the math--79 episodes in 3 (or 5) years. That's 79 remarkable incidents in one tour of duty. Most ships, even in wartime, get a dozen memorable stories.. maybe.

?

Yeah, but that's reality. In fiction, Columbo or Sherlock Holmes encounter a devious "perfect murder" every other week or so. And nobody on GREY'S ANATOMY ever performs a routine appendectomy, just risky, ground-breaking surgeries. And tv cops pull their guns every week even though a real cop can go for years without getting into a gunfight with a brilliant serial killer.

And amazing things happen to the crew of the ENTERPRISE every week . . .

So what? It's not realistic, but that's how series fictions works.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Don't get me wrong. I love TOS. I love the crew. I love the Enterprise.

But do the math--79 episodes in 3 (or 5) years. That's 79 remarkable incidents in one tour of duty. Most ships, even in wartime, get a dozen memorable stories.. maybe.

Cramming more stories into the same Crew just beggars the imagination!

That's the nature of series television. Or any kind of serial fiction, for that matter. How many adventures did Tarzan have? Or Zorro? Or the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew? Unless you want to fit each and every Trek episode into a specific “fanon” chronology, “doing the math” is irrelevant.

Hey, it's FICTION.

EDIT: I see the previous poster covered pretty much the same ground.

(In the case of Sherlock Holmes, 60 original stories were published over the course of 40 years, from 1887 to 1927. Solving one fascinating mystery every eight months doesn't strain credulity too much.)

 

[Jeri]

More importantly, it's entertainment. It has a job to do. That's the overarching logic.

 

[plynch]

I'd love an anthology show. Heck, I'd have even liked to see more recurring minor characters. Like Riley. M'Benga. Etc. Chapel was done well.

I grew up watching the 79, so my mind can handle 'em, but 21 seasons of TNG-era: my mind can't begin to keep them straight.

 

[Shatnertage]

To some extent I agree that it would be fresher to see new adventures with a new crew. But there's also something to be said for the view that it's not the source material itself that makes any new stories, whether reboots, re-imaginings, or just continuing adventures, different: the audience itself has changed tremendously since the characters were created. And that opens up all kinds of new possibilities.

For example, in the 09 movie both Kirk and Spock are angsty--probably because we like angsty a lot more these days than we used to. Even if they tried a shot-for-shot remake of, say, Return of the Archons, we'd get something very different, and not just because of the obvious technical differences in story-telling. The audience has different expectations, so we're going to get different stories.

Of course, in the real world rebooting rather than starting from scratch has a very real importance. There are plenty of people who would have paid $10 to see characters called Kirk and Spock flirt with green-skinned women and raise their eyebrows, but wouldn't have turned out to see something new.

It might be a short-cut (we're already invested in the characters, so the filmmakers don't need much effort to set them up), but it's just as conducive to good story-telling as starting from scratch, provided the story-tellers do something compelling.

 

[JarodRussell]

"Why reboot?" becuase it's not just the universe, it's the characters. I'd much prefer an (updated) Kirk and co. adventure on the Enterprise over the adventures of the USS Whatever, crewed by nobodies, in the 25th century.

That's why they keep remaking Batman instead of invinting new heroes.

Problem with that is that they are not the same characters, in my opinion. Heck, Chekov is even acknowledged to be a whole different person because he was born years earlier and is a superkid now.

Adam West's Batman isn't the same as Christian Bale's. Yet they're both Batman. Having the new actors exactly copy the originals' speech patterns would have been a disaster, IMO.

IMO Chekov's Chekov. Messing with his age to fit him in doesn't bother me one bit (you could always say he was BSing when he told his age in TOS if you wanted to, too). Although he's a whizz-kid now, there's nothing to say TOS Chekov wasn't bright for his age when he was 17.

Batman is a comic book character. He has no original looks and no original speech pattern. Kirk, Spock, et al have.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Stories have been written about Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, Heracles, Odysseus, and Achilles for several thousand years. I think Kirk and Spock still have some mileage left.