How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?

[JirinPanthosa]

Not to mention stupidity and hypocrisy; weren't people so pissed off with Berman & Braga that they hated the franchise, and yet now they want it back on TV just like that? And to hound the showrunner of said new series into a heart attack, stroke, coronary or nervous breakdown when the inevitable bitching starts? At least J.J. has his assignments spread out over years so that this won't happen to him, but any showrunner who was to do a new show would be affected in the manner mention above.

This is possibly the most pompous thing I've ever seen written on this forum, putting even early series Picard to shame.

Nobody hated the franchise, just the writing. Nobody is demanding anything, they are stating what they would like, with a clear grounding in the business reality that such a show is unlikely. And as for 'Giving the new showrunner a stroke', I think you don't succeed in show business without having a thick skin about fan feedback, and anybody who accepted the job of running a Star Trek series would enter quite prepared for the fan reaction.

I'm glad you've evolved beyond the need to want a new series, but please stop imagining your Big Bang Theory Trekkie stereotypes onto the rest of us.

 

[Nerys Myk]

See, when characters inside the Trek universe referenced the famous Kirk, then it was also a reference to Shatner-Kirk, and that was nifty. Even now, Old Spock is there to make that in-universe/fandom connection. The fictional pop culture and the real pop culture matched each other, so to speak. That was great. I liked that.

The DS9 tribbles episode wouldn't have worked had they recast the crew and redesigned the Enterprise.

They probably wouldn't do such an episode with a new continuity/cast.

My point.

DS9 wouldn't suffer the episode was never made. Nor was it better because it was.

 

[JarodRussell]

They probably wouldn't do such an episode with a new continuity/cast.

My point.

DS9 wouldn't suffer the episode was never made. Nor was it better because it was.

The entire DS9 show wouldn't have been made had they just rebooted TOS over and over again instead of making continutations.

 

[Warped9]

I'm going to further stick my foot in it.

I really like STC because it perpetuates the Star Trek I love. But I know that something like STC most probably would never fly as studio made Trek broadcast on a network.

To that end any new Trek will have to step away from what looks familiar. It won't look like TOS or TNG or DS9 or VOY or ENT or JJtrek. It could be like a fresh space adventure, but called Star Trek.

For one thing I'd go back to something that really struck me so very long ago when I first started watching TOS. At the time I thought Star Trek looked so much cooler and so much more advanced than what else was being done. Part of that was how it was shown, that veneer of credibility. I would want to revisit that sense in looking at some of the most cutting edge ideas and different approaches to aesthetics and design than what everyone else is doing.

Suffice to say the idea is that a new Star Trek wouldn't look like anything else being done. A new Trek would look beyond simply redressing what it has already done.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Not very. I assume a new series would be the kind of action-adventure in space that the movies have delivered. I much prefer the philosophical Trek, which is why I enjoy the Trek relaunch books so much; there's action-adventure in bounds, but there's also the kind of thoughtfulness you won't find in nuTrek.

 

[Warped9]

I much prefer the philosophical Trek...

Definitely like to see this return.

 

[Clark Terrell]

Not very. I assume a new series would be the kind of action-adventure in space that the movies have delivered. I much prefer the philosophical Trek, which is why I enjoy the Trek relaunch books so much; there's action-adventure in bounds, but there's also the kind of thoughtfulness you won't find in nuTrek.

I agree with this and would like to see characters more deeply fleshed out than they've been in nuTrek. The characters in the Abrams movies look like their counterparts from the TOS films, but the essence of who the characters are supposed to be is missing.

 

[BigJake]

. . . any new Trek will have to step away from what looks familiar. . . a new Star Trek wouldn't look like anything else being done. A new Trek would look beyond simply redressing what it has already done.

Yes, completely agree with this.

 

[mendelin]

The entire DS9 show wouldn't have been made had they just rebooted TOS over and over again instead of making continutations.

Agreed. Totally.

 

[dub]

I think we're using the word "continuity" differently. Sure, every version of Superman shares certain common elements, just as any future iteration of Star Trek is likely to feature Starfleet, Vulcans, Klingons, the Prime Directive, and so on. But it's not as though Henry Cavill is going to be referencing some old 1950s TV episode in the next movie or refering to that time Jimmy Olsen turned into a giant turtle-man. And I think that even "the layman" understands that Marlon Brando's ice-planet "Krypton" belongs to a different continuity than Man of Steel.

Same with Star Trek. The "mass audience" knows the basics of Trek, just like they know the basics with Superman. But nobody expects the next Man of Steel movie to treat the older movies and TV shows as "canon." So why should any or all future versions of Star Trek be any different?

Here's why -- Star Trek, unlike those other franchises, has used timeline/universe continuity to carry the torch from the The Motion Picture through today. Although the writers didn't always get it right, missed and sometimes ignored things, the overall effort to make one continuous timeline (with other timelines/universes tied to it) without rebooting anything is part of the culture and heart of Star Trek as it has continued beyond TOS. It's one of the things that makes the franchise so unique. It's part of its appeal. Part of what makes it tangible. Even Trek'09 and STID are tied to the original timeline through Spock Prime. JJ's "reboot" wasn't a true reboot because of that tie. We're just in an alternate timeline right now with the new films. Even if Spock Prime is never mentioned again, the prime timeline was acknowledged in Trek'09 and STID and therefore this new series of movies continues in an alternate timeline. They took care to make that tie-in. So the Trek universe and its continuity is expanded in that way. The franchise is not truly rebooted. If at some point the franchise actually gets rebooted and COMPLETELY and purposefully ignores what came before timeline-wise, then Trek would go down the road of all of the other franchises and lose that part of its uniqueness. I'm glad they haven't done that yet and I hope they don't. That's my view anyway.

 

[Warped9]

^^ No, the heavy continuity isn't what made Trek unique. And it certainly had nothing to do with it when it was good. And it certainly isn't something that occurs to me when I think of good Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

^^ No, the heavy continuity isn't what made Trek unique. And it certainly had nothing to do with it when it was good. And it certainly isn't something that occurs to me when I think of good Star Trek.

+1

 

[dub]

^^ No, the heavy continuity isn't what made Trek unique.

Yeah, +1 here too on that point at least. You're absolutely right. But that's not quite what I said and it wasn't my point at all. My point was that the overall continuity is part of what makes the franchise unique as it has continued beyond TOS. Whether you agree with aspects of continuity being "good" or not, or whether you think of it when you think of good Trek or not, the effort itself over the course of the many films and spin-offs is a phenomenon that's unique to Trek.

 

[BillJ]

^^ No, the heavy continuity isn't what made Trek unique.

Yeah, +1 here too on that point at least. You're absolutely right. But that's not quite what I said and it wasn't my point at all. My point was that the overall continuity is part of what makes the franchise unique as it has continued beyond TOS. Whether you agree with aspects of continuity being "good" or not, or whether you think of it when you think of good Trek or not, the effort itself over the course of the many films and spin-offs is a phenomenon that's unique to Trek.

I don't think continuity is a bad thing to a degree. But eventually Star Trek drowned in its own continuity. For me, there's a bit of excitement at starting completely over from square one.

 

[Warped9]

^^ No, the heavy continuity isn't what made Trek unique.

Yeah, +1 here too on that point at least. You're absolutely right. But that's not quite what I said and it wasn't my point at all. My point was that the overall continuity is part of what makes the franchise unique as it has continued beyond TOS. Whether you agree with aspects of continuity being "good" or not, or whether you think of it when you think of good Trek or not, the effort itself over the course of the many films and spin-offs is a phenomenon that's unique to Trek.

I don't think continuity is a bad thing to a degree. But eventually Star Trek drowned in its own continuity. For me, there's a bit of excitement at starting completely over from square one.

Yes. And it could be argued that the heavy continuity could dissuade someone from trying Star Trek because of the perception of having to know everything that came before. It isn't true, of course, but that perception can be there.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, +1 here too on that point at least. You're absolutely right. But that's not quite what I said and it wasn't my point at all. My point was that the overall continuity is part of what makes the franchise unique as it has continued beyond TOS. Whether you agree with aspects of continuity being "good" or not, or whether you think of it when you think of good Trek or not, the effort itself over the course of the many films and spin-offs is a phenomenon that's unique to Trek.

I don't think continuity is a bad thing to a degree. But eventually Star Trek drowned in its own continuity. For me, there's a bit of excitement at starting completely over from square one.

Yes. And it could be argued that the heavy continuity could dissuade someone from trying Star Trek because of the perception of having to know everything that came before. It isn't true, of course, but that perception can be there.

That perception was definitely there. Rightly or wrong, a fair number of people had the idea that you needed to be an expert in Klingon politics (or whatever) to really "get" Trek. And we the fans may have been partially responsible for the impression by appearing to obsess over minutiae.

 

[BigJake]

And we the fans may have been partially responsible for the impression by appearing to obsess over minutiae.

"Appearing" to obsess?

 

[dub]

And we the fans may have been partially responsible for the impression by appearing to obsess over minutiae.

"Appearing" to obsess?

"Minutiae?"

 

[BigJake]

And we the fans may have been partially responsible for the impression by appearing to obsess over minutiae.

"Appearing" to obsess?

"Minutiae?"

"over"?!

 

[JarodRussell]

They should do computer games. The audience for games is just as big as for films nowadays. And the story possibilities are endless. You could tell an entire TV season of stories in one game. And with performance capture, the original actors could actively take part in the game, not only in voice overs, but with full performances. Games are the future.