So many shows with the same formula are cancelled early on, only some special ones survive. If you hit the right strings with the right crew, the right ship and the right adventures, you have a winner.
TV: A reboot or a new crew?
- Thread starter Ryan8bit
- Start date
So many shows with the same formula are cancelled early on, only some special ones survive. If you hit the right strings with the right crew, the right ship and the right adventures, you have a winner.
this^
Enterprise had less viewers imo cause they tried to reinvent the wheel a bit by setting it BEFORE TOS, don't get me wrong there are a lot of things I loved about ENT but I think for a Trek show to really last it needs to be more futuristic imo, going back won't work
a show set in the future with a new crew and new enemies/threats and a new take on things would be best like I said before!
Totally. People undersell DS9 and VOY. Some people like to pretend Star Trek fell off the public radar when TNG ended. It didn't. That kind of historical revisionism does get to me. It irritates me because the fact is, while neither show reached TNG's stellar heights in the public consciousness, they didn't exactly tank either. There was a natural drop-off from TNG's popularity, but it was never as big a catastrophe as this revisionist opinion would have us believe.
Some people's expectations were too high They expected too much. They expected TNG levels of success to continue on, to build and build. But it was actually perfectly natural, IMO, for that to drop off a bit. But no, neither DS9 or VOY was as big a 'failure' as some people are now seemingly all too happy to pretend they were.
As to a new show, whether a new TV series is a reboot or a sequel is not important. It's the quality of the show that matters. Some people in internet land talk about the original Star Trek universe as if it's somehow been "tainted" by some of it's entries in the past, and that nothing short of a total continuity reboot can save the franchise. I disagree with that lazy assessment, on so many levels.
No new crew; reboot.
Oh that is going to be lame pretty soon.
Again?
Yep. We've got six hundred plus hours of "new crew" and less than a hundred featuring TOS characters.
If, gods forbid, the PTB did decide to reboot, then I would want Nu-NuTOS to be a total reboot, to throw in things and make changes rather than just rehashing the same stuff with different actors.
For example: make Kirk bisexual, turn Pavel Chekov into Pavla Chekova and make her the security chief, have Ilia in from the beginning, do away with the miniskirts or have TNG-style skants for the men (with main male characters wearing them from time to time), make it more of an ensemble series rather than just Kirk/Spock/McCoy, have at least twenty alien races (including humans) represented in all group scenes.
For example: make Kirk bisexual, turn Pavel Chekov into Pavla Chekova and make her the security chief, have Ilia in from the beginning, do away with the miniskirts or have TNG-style skants for the men (with main male characters wearing them from time to time), make it more of an ensemble series rather than just Kirk/Spock/McCoy, have at least twenty alien races (including humans) represented in all group scenes.
If you're going to change the characters so much you might as well just create new ones.
Exactly.
Don't you want something new? How many times can you watch the continuing missions of the starship Enterprise and its brash captain, unemotional commander caught between two worlds, racist country doctor, and the rest? It's been done twice now. I don't want to see it a third time.
Since there has been about 18 hours of material featuring those characters since 1979 (34 years), I'm all for seeing some more. For me, the TOS gang is nowhere near wearing out their welcome.
Between Trek literature, TOS, TAS and the movies (+ Abrams movies); I have processed every nuance of those characters lives from their Academy days, the lost years, two five year missions to retirement and beyond. I know you are a Kirk and Spock guy at heart but it is a little bit disingenuous to simply count TV hours and pretend like their story has played second fiddle to other crews in the Trek universe.
That being said, I could probably handle another reboot to the TOS crew on TV but I would prefer it to have some connection with the Abrams movies in some way. It would be nice not to have to separate what Trek universe I am watching.
"Something new" wouldn't be something based on a fifty-year-old television series. If what you want is something new, then turn to something, well... actually new.
To general audiences who don't inhale every single bit of merchandise, Kirk and Spock are the most underutilized elements of the franchise outside of Star Trek: Enterprise, yet are still the most identifiable part of it.
And if we start in 1987 when TNG premiered, there is about ten-hours of material featuring Kirk and Spock. Yet they are still the most identifiable part of the franchise.
At the end of the day, for me, Kirk and Spock are Star Trek. They always have been. I've went down the spin-off road, watched them all. Ultimately, the spin-offs were mostly forgettable.
Exactly.
To general audiences who don't inhale every single bit of merchandise, Kirk and Spock are the most underutilized elements of the franchise outside of Star Trek: Enterprise, yet are still the most identifiable part of it.
And if we start in 1987 when TNG premiered, there is about ten-hours of material featuring Kirk and Spock. Yet they are still the most identifiable part of the franchise.
At the end of the day, for me, Kirk and Spock are Star Trek. They always have been. I've went down the spin-off road, watched them all. Ultimately, the spin-offs were mostly forgettable.
Exactly.
Agree with Kelthaz here BillJ but you pretty much made my point for me with the other stuff. Calling TNG "forgettable" is beyond lazy though. Just we need, another guy that gets to tell others what Star Trek "is." Gotta love em.
Just we need, another guy that gets to tell others what Star Trek "is." Gotta love em.
Somehow you completely missed (intentionally or not, who knows?) the "for me" part of my statement. You also deemed to leave out the "mostly" in my statement about the spin-offs being forgettable.
Just we need, another guy that gets to tell others what Star Trek "is." Gotta love em.
Somehow you completely missed (intentionally or not, who knows?) the "for me" part of my statement. You also deemed to leave out the "mostly" in my statement about the spin-offs being forgettable.
I actually did miss that first part. My apologies. I've just noticed a tendency with you to try to slam other shows whenever someone criticizes TOS. I don't know why you feel the need to constantly do that. Sorry, I'm more pissy than usual this week. My wife is battling pneumonia and I'm trying to work from home while the kids are driving us up a wall today.
