David Foster Preparing to Pitch New ‘Star Trek’ Series

[Quinton O'Connor]

There are three options: TV, cable and nothing at all. CBS is content with the lattermost option until further notice. There's little fandom can do about that except to keep positive word-of-mouth going and whatnot.

The movies (unless the sequels suck) will do an OK job of that with or without core fandom's help though.

 

[Chris3123]

This argument never made any sense:

ENT was supposed to be a prequel, so why did we never hear about the Suliban before? Or the Xindi, for that matter?

The Praxis disaster was never mentioned on TNG prior to TUC, and Kirk's heroic "death" was never mentioned prior to Generations. Why not?

Answer that and you got the answer to your question.

 

[ColeMercury]

Going back to the point that CBS already owns Star Trek and can do a new series any time they bloody well please, if they were to base it on JJ's little overbudgeted student film, that means having to pay Paramount, whereas if they stick to established timeline, they don't. Advantage: established timeline.

Are you sure about that? As I understand it, Paramount (i.e. Viacom) has the rights to make Star Trek films while CBS Corporation has the rights to make Star Trek television shows. That doesn't mean that Paramount owns the Abramsverse timeline.

Plus, television viewers generally love lots of history in their shows. NCIS is a prime example, with all the episodes centering on Gibbs' history, Tony's childhood, what Leon was doing way back when with Eli David, etc. So, while 40+ years of continuity might be daunting for writers (I call these writers "lazy wimps with no imagination"), it has a big appeal for viewers. Hell, it's one of the reasons "The Menagerie" was such a hit with the fans, because it opened up this whole new period in the Enterprise's past. It also makes it a lot easier for guest appearances by past cast members as their old characters. Again, advantage: established timeline.

Ah, but the thing is, the history and mythology which you're giving in those examples are established in the shows themselves, not in their predecessors. Of course any new Star Trek series is going to develop its own history, its own mythology, and its own character stories and recurring plot threads -- but they can't be too reliant on what has come before, or else the new series simply won't have its own identity.

To extend your NCIS comparison -- what David Foster is proposing is the equivalent of if you had to be intimately familiar with the early seasons of JAG in order to understand NCIS:LA.

 

[Yminale]

I like to know who David Foster is and what makes him think he has a shot at getting a new Star Trek series off the ground. Did he have a hand in some show that I know about.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Foster's 1947 Studios does not even possess a Wikipedia page right now as far as I can tell. No disrespect toward the potential quality of his works intended but that should definitely tell you all you need to know about his relative recognition industry-wide.

Here is their website though.

http://1947entertainment.com/

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Perhaps he's bucking for that Wikipedia page.

 

[Yminale]

I still feel I'm missing something. To me he seems like a fanboy with a low budget production studio.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I'm honestly surprised a Trekkie hasn't granted him one yet.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I still feel I'm missing something. To me he seems like a fanboy with a low budget production studio.

Well I should hope whoever helms a potential Trek series is a fan... but as for your other point, quite so.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd rather see someone with an outsider's interest and broader skills who isn't a fan take it over.

They're more likely to look at the property and see what's actually there, and to work from that.

That's worked twice, with Bennett and with Abrams, to right the ship so to speak.

 

[Dukhat]

This argument never made any sense:

ENT was supposed to be a prequel, so why did we never hear about the Suliban before? Or the Xindi, for that matter?

The Praxis disaster was never mentioned on TNG prior to TUC, and Kirk's heroic "death" was never mentioned prior to Generations. Why not?

It's very simply, really. It's called a retcon. And in almost every single instance when a "prequel" is made, a retcon does not make any logical sense in the large scheme of things.

Take the SW prequels for instance. Thanks to them, we are now led to believe that R2D2 pretty much knew everything about Anakin's past history, including the fact that Vader was Luke's father...and never told Luke? Or that Owen Lars didn't recognize C3P0 when he bought him from the Jawas, even though Threepio was previously living on his farm for years when his father was married to Shmi? And these are just two minor examples of this; the prequels are littered with them. But we're talking about Trek here...

The Xindi destroyed part of Florida. That's a big deal. Even the Romulan War did not canonically even reach Earth, and barring V'Ger and the Whale Probe incursions (which weren't aggressive in nature), Earth never was attacked like that again until the Dominion War.

Your examples of Praxis and the circumstances behind Kirk's death were not problems because there was never anything previous that either contradicted it or used it as part of the story they were telling, other than Scotty's comment in "Relics," which still was not integral to the story. The Suliban were shape-shifting, time-traveling alien invaders, and the Xindi were basically a fully-fledged empire unto themselves, yet thanks to being a retcon, not a peep out of them did we hear before.

 

[ChristopherPike]

The Xindi destroyed part of Florida. That's a big deal. Even the Romulan War did not canonically even reach Earth, and barring V'Ger and the Whale Probe incursions (which weren't aggressive in nature), Earth never was attacked like that again until the Dominion War.

Actually I thought there was a line of dialogue in DS9 "Homefront" stating that the Changelings presented the kind of serious threat to Earth, not seen since the founding of the Federation. So, er, there were Romulans infiltrating human society then? Some of those Vulcans hiding out in the San Francisco compound, occasionally popping out to visit jazz clubs with T'Pol, weren't all they seemed perhaps?

And why not? We knew they were active on Vulcan influencing the High Council and ultimately, how they held back humanity from the rest of the quadrant.

 

[Dukhat]

Actually I thought there was a line of dialogue in DS9 "Homefront" stating that the Changelings presented the kind of serious threat to Earth, not seen since the founding of the Federation.

Although the line was clearly a reference to the Romulan War (based on Okuda's conjecture in the Encyclopedia that the war took place right before the founding), it isn't necessarily inferring that the Romulans were masquerading themselves on Earth, simply that they were a threat to Earth.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Xindi destroyed part of Florida. That's a big deal. Even the Romulan War did not canonically even reach Earth, and barring V'Ger and the Whale Probe incursions (which weren't aggressive in nature), Earth never was attacked like that again until the Dominion War.

At least, for now. Wait until the next retcon!

 

[ChristopherPike]

Although the line was clearly a reference to the Romulan War (based on Okuda's conjecture in the Encyclopedia that the war took place right before the founding), it isn't necessarily inferring that the Romulans were masquerading themselves on Earth, simply that they were a threat to Earth.

The same way, there's absolutely no reason for Stiles to suspect Romulan spies aboard the Enterprise in "Balance of Terror", I suppose. But you know, any good writer could pick up on seemingly unimportant dialogue like that... given a open mind and not a closed one, obviously. Canon factoids are not a rod for Star Trek's back. They can be as flexible as somebody creative enough wants to make them.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

there's absolutely no reason for Stiles to suspect Romulan spies aboard the Enterprise.

That's true, since in the history of warfare espionage has never been a factor. Not.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's very simply, really. It's called a retcon. And in almost every single instance when a "prequel" is made, a retcon does not make any logical sense in the large scheme of things.

It doesn't make sense to you. I'm fine with it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I still feel I'm missing something. To me he seems like a fanboy with a low budget production studio.

Well I should hope whoever helms a potential Trek series is a fan... but as for your other point, quite so.

I don't think they need to be a "fan." It might be helpful to have a fan on staff (given the proportion of Trekkies in the population, it's probably inevitable that there would be several anyway).

It's far more important that they have the track record that will induce CBS to listen to them and take their proposal seriously, and enough understanding of the TV business to known what objections CBS would raise.

For starters, do they know why CBS hasn't made a Star Trek TV series already? It's been several years, they've had plenty of opportunity. Understanding the correct answer to that, and making sure that their pitch neutralizes that concern, is a vital step.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Yeah, the person helming the idea would need to be all those things well before they were a fan. Like you say, it might be helpful to have a fan or two on-hand with the operation but I do rescind the insinuation that the man or woman in charge would need to have more than a passing familiarity.

It might even restrict them: it's easy to ignore this but quite frankly being a huge Trek fan could be detrimental. While working meticulously to perfect timeline inconsistencies (and undoubtedly stepping on a section of fandom's toes regardless) would make many hardcore Trekkies happy it could also throw some -- perhaps all -- most viable avenues for success out the window. Trek on TV is very much unproven in today's landscape and hasn't been a remarkable source of profit for a good deal longer than it's been since it went off the air at that.

If a few nagging continuity issues have to arise or a strange interpretation of TNG is a source of reboot or Seska is referenced as still alive once by accident then so be it. I'd sooner smile at Trek getting the greenlight at all than I would at a completely 'accurate' series getting cut short and proving to Moonves there's no future down that path once and for all.

That doesn't mean I want The CW giving Data, Troi and Crusher a love triangle though, but... oh, wrong thread.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

While working meticulously to perfect timeline inconsistencies (and undoubtedly stepping on a section of fandom's toes regardless) would make many hardcore Trekkies happy it could also throw some -- perhaps all -- most viable avenues for success out the window.

This is absolutely the case.

Star Trek has foundered badly twice - in 1979 and the early years of this century - and twice outsiders have been given the keys to the thing and they've got it up and running again not by ignorance of its history but by looking at the actual previous productions and responding to what's resonant to the newcomer. That works.