In honesty, how likely are we to see 24th century Trek again?

[indolover]

I would like to see either Picard and co., Sisko and co., or Janeway and co. again. But in reality, is this likely?

With regard to TNG, has it become a mature product? Or is this only because the last two TNG films were poor? One factor is that a long running series may be a no-no, especially since many of the actors are nearing, or are in, retirement age. Would Sir Patrick Stewart be happy to do a full-time show at 77? A series of TV movies could work though. or a mini-series.

Regarding DS9, its comparatively low ratings may be a negative point in it not getting a motion picture. But on the contrary to that point, if any film is marketed properly, it can make good box office (which is what studios naturally care about the most).

And for Voyager, well why not a movie? The same point in this regard relates to it as it does DS9.

Should we accept that any new Trek series in the future would be another prequel or in a future era (maybe the 25th century)?

 

[-Brett-]

In the form of a remake, seeing TNG again is very possible.

DS9 and Voyager could be references or cameos in the aforementioned remade TNG. The chances of anything more than that are precisely zero.

 

[JiNX-01]

We had three 24th-century Trek series and you want to go back?! The Alpha, Delta and Gamma quadrants were pretty thoroughly explored during 21 (overlapping) seasons.

That leaves Beta.

Gee, I wonder what the Mary Poppins-practically-perfect-in-every-way crew of the Voyaprise will discover there. I'm thinking ... Aliens!!
Some will be friendly .
Some will be hostile .
Some will be duplicitous .
Some will be stupid

.
Some will be boring

.
And some will be KLINGONS !!!!

 

[indolover]

why not? the shows, characters and episodes were iconic. it's not wrong to have nostalgia, is it?

 

[The Wormhole]

The 24th century is done. For the immediate future, the only on screen Trek we're going to get is Abrams timeline 23rd century. If they ever return to the original timeline, it should be in the 25th century.

Though I do agree with the above comment that if the 24th cnetury is ever re-visited it'll likely be in the form of a TNG remake, possibly in the next 10-15 years.

 

[Nerys Myk]

We had three 24th-century Trek series and you want to go back?! The Alpha, Delta and Gamma quadrants were pretty thoroughly explored during 21 (overlapping) seasons.

That leaves Beta.

Gee, I wonder what the Mary Poppins-practically-perfect-in-every-way crew of the Voyaprise will discover there. I'm thinking ... Aliens!!
Some will be friendly .
Some will be hostile .
Some will be duplicitous .
Some will be stupid

.
Some will be boring

.
And some will be KLINGONS !!!!

The last three are redundant.

 

[USS Excelsior]

Only in fan productions it would seem.

 

[sbk1234]

Mathematically, there's a 50% chance: Either we will, or we won't.

 

[Lord Garth]

We might see the 24th Century onscreen again, just not the Prime 24th Century.

The TNG era is the new TOS Movies era. They've run their course.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I'd rather revisit the Prime-24th Century than have another visit to the Abrams-verse.

 

[Skywalker]

We had three 24th-century Trek series and you want to go back?! The Alpha, Delta and Gamma quadrants were pretty thoroughly explored during 21 (overlapping) seasons.

That leaves Beta.

The Beta Quadrant is the domain of the Klingons and the Romulans, so in a way, that's been fairly well explored, too.

If we do ever get another Trek show/movie in the Primeverse, I'd rather they jump the timeline forward to the early- to mid-2400s. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a TNG reboot in the Abramsverse someday.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Really, not very likely at all. It's simply not fiscally practical and certainly not all that profitable. And really, that's all that matters.

 

[StarryEyed]

Not going to happen. After all these years, Star Trek is finally dead.

I'll miss it but at least there is a LOT of existing material to enjoy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't miss it much. The TOS characters resonate and mean more to me,

 

[Arpy]

It's unlikely we'll see it anytime soon. The new movies will run their course at least till the next one in 2012. After that, they'll probably make another, and if we see a series, it's just as likely to be set in the 23rd century as the 24th. Of the new alternate universe that is.

Come to think of it, if they do a new series, the only chance it'll be set in the Prime Universe is if it's set in the 25th century - to give them a chance to redo everything like TNG did with TOS. And if they do that, why not set it in the New Universe all these new fans love, and that will have been the Trek universe for half a decade?

Adieu, Jean-Luc.

 

[Bill Morris]

Any Pakleds monitoring all this must think we're pathetic.

 

[Arpy]

Yeah well they can blow me. TNG was awesome and I don't regret feeling regret that I'll not see its like again.

I enjoyed the new movie very much but at the same time there was something really shallow about it.

 

[Archaeologist]

Unfortunately, I'm feeling rather pessimistic about the possibility of exploring the 24th century of Star Trek again. Let's face it, the cast for any of the series set during it, have aged almost a decade or more compared to when they were last featured. I wouldn't mind seeing a return of The Next Generation cast in a new movie, personally, but after Nemesis, it's unlikely to happen. At the least, we may expect more of J.J. Abram's parallel, early TOS-era universe. Some Star Trek is better than none.

If anything, the most logical step may be one taken forward, into the 25th century with a new a new crew and cast, setting, etc... if there is to be a new Star Trek series.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I don't think we'll ever see the 24th-Century again ever. Not even as as a reboot. Once the Abrams movies have run their course, they'll finally do the mother of all reboots, wipe the slate completely clean, and restart the 23rd-Century over from scratch (goodbye both the Prime and Alternate universes).

 

[Arpy]

...Let's face it, the cast for any of the series set during it, have aged almost a decade or more compared to when they were last featured...

1) So why not write stories for older characters? What's with Hollywood that they'd rather look stupid trying to en-young-ify older actors to play younger stories rather than come up with kick-ass stories for older actors? ST:II played with age masterfully.

1a) If I hear Brent Spiner talk about how he was too old to continue plaing Data one more time... He already played an older far more sophisticated Data in "All Good Things..." Why was he trying to play Season 1 data over a decade later?

2) Frakes, Spiner, Burton, and Dorn were too out of shape/gained too much weight to play the characters by INS. They made $$$ for those dream roles that they today would love to play again; they should have worked out before shooting. They had time and knew it was coming, and they didn't exactly need to go to Christian Bale lengths to pass for Starfleet officers.