Rebooting Star Trek

[BillJ]

What with the release of J.J. Abrams Star Trek last year, I've always wondered what people considered essential in a reboot. What characters and ideas would people hold fast too and what would they jettison in their new version of the show?

To me one of the first things I would jettison would be Uhura, Sulu and Chekov. Not that I dislike the characters, I just like the idea of having the flexibility to mix and match characters until I find a formula I'm comfortable with.

I would probably have the show be more arc based but with a healthy portion of stand-alone fun. The arc would probably reflect my fascination with all the humanoids and Earth like cultures encountered in The Original Series.

Have to admit this whole thread is fueled by my disappointment in last years movie. But I still have a strong desire to see the series updated.

EDIT: I also wouldn't attempt a back-door reboot like last years film. The slate would be wiped clean to open up the universe without creating nagging questions about how it fit in.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Abrams got the formula right (and it could have gone oh so horribly wrong):

1. The actors have to hew to the spirit of the originals, especially the important ones. Only Quinto as Spock is convincing as exactly the same character as the original, but for me, Spock has always been the heart & soul of Trek, so getting him right-est was the best part of the reboot. McCoy was next closest. Uhura and Kirk are different, for good reasons. The rest, doesn't matter so much. (But Chekov in particular seemed pretty convincing.) We're good to go!

2. The Federation and Starfleet are characters in their own right, and must be depicted correctly. Abrams got the tone right - the sense that there's some idea behind these people's adventures, that it is lofty, idealistic, optimistic but never boring and safe. We don't need a lecture about it, but we need to get the sense that it's there, behind the scenes, unspoken. (And a line or two of dialogue in the next movie wouldn't be amiss.)

3. The aesthetics have obviously moved on since the 60s, and need reinvention. I'm fine with what Abrams came up with. In 40 years, his Apple Store look will probably be horribly dated, but did anyone in the 60s think their garish color scheme and beehive hairdo's would seem laughable one day?

If you're talking about a new TV series, sure, I'm up for it. I don't want the TOS characters - Abrams did that just fine and I wouldn't compete with his reboot. I'd want a new crew of characters, set in the 23rd C, with ratings-boosting cameos from the film actors.

 

[BillJ]

Reallllly didn't want this to devolve into yet another pissing match about the new film...

 

[evilnate]

I started working on a complete reboot of TOS about 7 or 8 years ago, around the time that it seemed like a forgone conlusion that a reboot of TOS would be the follow-on to ENT. I figured that the essential elements of TOS were: the characters, the Enterprise, and the five year mission. Every thing else was up for grabs, and would have disregarded any pre-established continuity.

At the beginning, the Enterprise would be a broken ship with poor morale. Having been in drydock for almost two years, she'd become the laughing stock of the fleet. It would be the kiss of death to recieve orders to her. Her Captain and XO had been fired for failing to get her out of drydock, and the third in command, LCDR Gary Mitchell, is a poor leader. James Kirk would be pressed into command after Starfleet detects an ancient ship containing highly advanced technology, which is about to drift into Klingon territory. The Enterprise must intercept it and either salvage the ship or destroy it.

The Klingons were going to change from the cold-war era Soviet allegory to a mixture of various races bound together by worship of the Klingon god Kahless. The Romulans were going to remain almost as-is, except they're looked at as a galactic also-ran after losing their war with Earth.

After Kirk took command, he would have been very unpopular, since he has to come across as a hard-ass. My touchstone for this was the Gregory Peck film, 12 O'clock High, which has an Army Air Force General taking command of a bomber squadron under bad circumstances. He takes a hard line, and is ultimatly vindicated. That was the early arc I had planned for Kirk.

In addition to the Enterprise not being the "best ship in the fleet" yet, the "big three" would not have been cemented yet. Spock would have been pressed into service as the ship's science officer, due to his familiarity with the ship's sensors, Gary Mitchell would be XO (who is kept by Kirk, hoping to set his friend on the right path). McCoy would be ship's doctor, but he'd be new to service on a starship having been on "shore duty" most of his career, and hence, an outsider. The shoulder to lean on for Kirk, and his sole friend in the command would be the female Command Master Chief, who was Kirk's mentor when he first entered the fleet. Scotty, Uhura, and Sulu would be department heads, and highly resentful of Kirk. The previous CO was well liked, but ineffective. One of the primary arcs would be the development of the Enterprise and her crew into "the best ship in Starfleet".

The five year mission would of course be "to seek out new life and new civilizations", but it is also a race against the Klingons. After discovering the remnants of "the First Federation" and the starship Fesarius, they realize that the Klingons have a head start in recovering lost and highly advanced technology. So the Enterprise is sent into unexplored regions of the galaxy to beat the Klingons to the punch.

Anyway, that's pretty much it. I had the key points of the first and second seasons mapped out, and someday I might actually finish writing the pilot script that I started.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I have never agreed with the stance that a reboot was even necessary, and I still don't. There's enough room within the existing framework that you can do just about any story your pea-pickin' heart can dream up.

The only reason we got that movie was so that Paramount Studios could have their own Star Trek property to play with, without having to consult/pay a fee to CBS/Paramount.

 

[BillJ]

I have never agreed with the stance that a reboot was even necessary, and I still don't. There's enough room within the existing framework that you can do just about any story your pea-pickin' heart can dream up.

The only reason we got that movie was so that Paramount Studios could have their own Star Trek property to play with, without having to consult/pay a fee to CBS/Paramount.

I agree to a point. If Star Trek was a stand alone series without the movies or subsequent spin-offs. But it's not, Paramount mined these characters for all they were worth the first time around. We know Kirk doesn't die until circa 2371... we know Spock is still alive at that point and we know McCoy lives until at least 2364. Those decisions take the edge off ever being able to present these characters in any type of danger when telling stories in the Prime universe. Plus there are probably things that need to be rethought based on some technologies progressing much faster than TOS imagined and others that didn't progress quite as much as imagined.

I absolutely love TOS, to the point I think I've come close to being banned in the Trek XI forum. But it's not because I'm against the idea in general of TOS being redone... just on the how. Plus I'm absolutely positive that Abrams reboot isn't the last reboot of TOS I'll see in my lifetime. So I'm interested in how others would update it.

 

[Gary7]

I started working on a complete reboot of TOS about 7 or 8 years ago, around the time that it seemed like a forgone conlusion that a reboot of TOS would be the follow-on to ENT. I figured that the essential elements of TOS were: the characters, the Enterprise, and the five year mission. Every thing else was up for grabs, and would have disregarded any pre-established continuity.

At the beginning, the Enterprise would be a broken ship with poor morale. Having been in drydock for almost two years, she'd become the laughing stock of the fleet. It would be the kiss of death to recieve orders to her. Her Captain and XO had been fired for failing to get her out of drydock, and the third in command, LCDR Gary Mitchell, is a poor leader. James Kirk would be pressed into command after Starfleet detects an ancient ship containing highly advanced technology, which is about to drift into Klingon territory. The Enterprise must intercept it and either salvage the ship or destroy it.

The Klingons were going to change from the cold-war era Soviet allegory to a mixture of various races bound together by worship of the Klingon god Kahless. The Romulans were going to remain almost as-is, except they're looked at as a galactic also-ran after losing their war with Earth.

After Kirk took command, he would have been very unpopular, since he has to come across as a hard-ass. My touchstone for this was the Gregory Peck film, 12 O'clock High, which has an Army Air Force General taking command of a bomber squadron under bad circumstances. He takes a hard line, and is ultimatly vindicated. That was the early arc I had planned for Kirk.

In addition to the Enterprise not being the "best ship in the fleet" yet, the "big three" would not have been cemented yet. Spock would have been pressed into service as the ship's science officer, due to his familiarity with the ship's sensors, Gary Mitchell would be XO (who is kept by Kirk, hoping to set his friend on the right path). McCoy would be ship's doctor, but he'd be new to service on a starship having been on "shore duty" most of his career, and hence, an outsider. The shoulder to lean on for Kirk, and his sole friend in the command would be the female Command Master Chief, who was Kirk's mentor when he first entered the fleet. Scotty, Uhura, and Sulu would be department heads, and highly resentful of Kirk. The previous CO was well liked, but ineffective. One of the primary arcs would be the development of the Enterprise and her crew into "the best ship in Starfleet".

The five year mission would of course be "to seek out new life and new civilizations", but it is also a race against the Klingons. After discovering the remnants of "the First Federation" and the starship Fesarius, they realize that the Klingons have a head start in recovering lost and highly advanced technology. So the Enterprise is sent into unexplored regions of the galaxy to beat the Klingons to the punch.

Anyway, that's pretty much it. I had the key points of the first and second seasons mapped out, and someday I might actually finish writing the pilot script that I started.

I really like your take on the reboot. Of course, the "poorest ship in the fleet turns into the praised hero ship" has been done a number of times in previous military type movies, but your scenario is a refreshing take on it redecorated in TOS style.

Personally, I think the main reason why the reboot featured a recasting of our beloved TOS characters was for a solid hook... you get the people already very familiar with them, along with those who have certainly heard the names Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc. And there is that "curiosity" about how these people would have actually come to know each other before TOS got its start. But for me, I wouldn't want a reboot series to continue with the same characters. I want fresh blood... albeit an interesting and talented cast for certain, with their own style. It's time to let the old franchise characters take a good long rest. Seeing how we've had so many examples of movie remakes, I won't doubt that in the future (depending upon social circumstances) somebody is going to revisit the old Star Trek characters again in their own way. It took ~40 years to do it this time, could be even longer in the next.

But the key here is "social circumstances". Although I'd really like to see another Star Trek series, my guess is that it is not going to happen in the near future. Not without more certainty on enough public interest. Look what happened to Enterprise. One could fault it on the script writing, acting, or perhaps the time period within the Star Trek universe not grabbing enough public interest. I think there's enough interest in the franchise... after all, Star Trek XI did pretty well at the box office. It's just a matter of finding the right way to grab it.

 

[Pauln6]

The overall concept of the reboot was ok. For a clean reboot I think you'd have to be crazy to jetison the women and ethnic minorities (if Russian counts as an ethnic minority), although I do think that having a two-tier system that uses supporting characters when they're needed is a good idea even if that means that Chekov only appears in 6 espisodes per season.

For a straight reboot I'd probably work on updated, sensible uniforms that pay some kind of homage to the originals. I wouldn't be tempted to swap the race or sex of any of the characters but I would build in some of the more interesting guest stars Like Gary Mitchell, Ann Mulhall, Janice Rand etc and I'd have representatives of the various key races among the crew. Definitely more women among the key characters.

I'd have some conflict among the crew (not like NuBSG but some), I'd have some slightly murky Federation politics (to mirror some of the USA's or UK's self-righteous but questionable foreign policies), but the Federation is still basically pretty good. I'd have one overall plot arc per season whether that be exploring a particular area of space for a particular reason and fit several mini-arcs that run over 2-4 episodes within that overall arc - a bit like Buffy. I'd use Klingons, Romulans, Tholians, Gorn, Cardassians, Orions, the First Federation, plus some non-humanoid societies alonngside exploration episodes. No all-powerful beings like the Q but something more sinister like B5 shadows.

 

[Warped9]

Abrams got the formula right (and it could have gone oh so horribly wrong):

I just can't help myself. The more I hear and see of this "film" the lower my opinion of it.

Reallllly didn't want this to devolve into yet another pissing match about the new film...

Any discussion regarding reboot ideas is gonna raise opinions regarding Abrams', er, movie.

I probably wouldn't try to reboot Star Trek. I think I'd rather reinterpret some of its ideas and do something completely fresh and non Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

Abrams got the formula right (and it could have gone oh so horribly wrong):

I just can't help myself. The more I hear and see of this "film" the lower my opinion of it.

Reallllly didn't want this to devolve into yet another pissing match about the new film...

Any discussion regarding reboot ideas is gonna raise opinions regarding Abrams', er, movie.

Not if you don't let it. But you just intentionally did with your previous quote.

Really now, it's very easy to discuss the OP's question about a reboot of Star Trek without resorting to cheap shots about Star Trek '09. You just chose not to based on your bias.

Years ago (during ENTERPRISE'S run, which was probably the motivating factor for me doing so), I even wrote up a synopsis about a Trek reboot. I basically had it set about twenty years after Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, but having a different history from that point onward than what actually happened (i.e. no TNG influences, which started with Star Trek V onwards). In 2306, Kirk and Spock were ready to retire upon the decommissioning ceremony for the Enterprise-A. A new ship was built to replace it, the Diplomat-Class Ent-B. It's captain would have been Kirk's XO from the previous ship. I'll post the synopsis later when I have access to the file.

 

[Warped9]

^^ The more praise I hear for ST09 the harder it is for me to hold my lunch down.

 

[Mysterion]

I'd go with the reboot concept that Straczynski and Zabel worked up a couple years back.

Read it here: http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

 

[BolianAuthor]

For me in particular, the ONLY worthy TOS "continuation" or whatever, has been Starship Exeter, period. Again, that's me speaking for my own tastes.

 

[Dukhat]

^^ The more praise I hear for ST09 the harder it is for me to hold my lunch down.

And no one's stopping you from throwing up. Just stop telling us about what made you sick in the first place, because this thread topic isn't the place for that.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Personally, I really like the 2009 film and I think they did a good job of rebooting Trek. That said, if they were to actually do a TV series, more changes would have to be made, such as increasing the number of female characters. The producers would also need to assess how the show would be structured. Are we talking all standalone stories like TOS, a story arc for every season à la Buffy, series-spanning storylines as in Babylon 5?

I'd say that there would have to be a greater emphasis on standalone stories than in shows like B5 and BSG, since that's really what Trek's about.

Of course, it could be that the Trek formula is played out on TV. I'm now convinced the franchise has a future on the big screen, but whether more TV Trek would be preferable to something entirely new, I don't know.

 

[StarryEyed]

To me, Star Trek was never about any particular character, ship name, ship design, visual style or story format. To me it's about the optimism, boldly going and the Secular Humanist ethos. I'm also a tech/science geek so any reboot of mine would be WAY tighter on scientific accuracy.

 

[A beaker full of death]

What with the release of J.J. Abrams Star Trek last year, I've always wondered what people considered essential in a reboot.

I reject the term. is a new production of Hamlet a "reboot?"
if someone has something to say through a new interpretation of Star Trek, let them. It's a new, separate production. That's all.

That's all I require of any artwork. Have something to say. Otherwise what's the point of the exercise?
This is where the Abrams film failed.

 

[Warped9]

Star Trek has been rebooted numerous times really. With every new interpretation.

"The Cage" - The original version or rough draft if you will.
"Where No Man Has Gone Before" - A mild revision of the original ideas.
TOS - The finalized form after the previous two takes.
TAS - Elaborating on TOS (with limitations) where live-action couldn't go before.
TMP - TOS' ideas updated and writ large on the big screen.
TWOK-TUC - Star Trek gradually dumbed down to be more general audience friendly.
TNG - Essentially an updated and revised version of Phase II and TMP yet with new characters and a new setting.
GEN-NEM - TNG dumbed down for the big screen.
DS9 - Star Trek as space war.
VOY - Trek meets Lost In Space yet done as bad TNG lite.
ENT - A transparently dishonest reboot of TOS done as glorified fanfic.
ST09 - TOS as if it had been made as Star Wars and further dumbed down than anything that had come before.

 

[JarodRussell]

Would have been simple to satisfy me: if you reboot, then reboot. Batman Begins, nuBSG, that kind of style. If you make a prequel, then do a prequel. But not some shyte in between. But at best, never do a reboot or a prequel, just make a friggin' sequel!

 

[T'Girl]

To me, Star Trek was never about any particular character, ship name, ship design, visual style or story format. To me it's about the optimism, boldly going and the Secular Humanist ethos. I'm also a tech/science geek so any reboot of mine would be WAY tighter on scientific accuracy.

I've always seen the show (TV and movies) as being more character and event driven, than concept or philosophical. If the new Star Trek movies or a future show were to have a philosophical theme, I would hope that the different Starfleet characters would possess a wide variety of philosophical beliefs, not all optimist, bold or secular humanist. It's kind of hard to have a discussion when everyone thinks exactly the same. (yawn)

I have never agreed with the stance that a reboot was even necessary, and I still don't. There's enough room within the existing framework that you can do just about any story your pea-pickin' heart can dream up.

Like to see TPTB back the show up to somewhere around the first season of TOS, change the look slighty. The big thing is losing the majority of the canon/continuity that Star Trek drags behind itself like a over-full diaper.

^^ The more praise I hear for ST09 the harder it is for me to hold my lunch down.

And no one's stopping you from throwing up.

It not like Warped9 disliked the entire movie, the scene where nuKirk gets beaten bloody in the bar is his favorite part.