Seth Macfarlane Should Helm the Next Trek Series

[BigJake]

Also among these pitches, a request to do a Star Trek movie. If this rising star thinks he can do something with Star Trek that will pull money in, why should the execs say no?

I always thought it was the studio that approached him, because why would Abrams request it? Star Trek was clearly something he didn't like, didn't get, and was nervous to be seen around. (At least he kept saying so at every opportunity and the style of the films seems to reflect it, certainly he's capable of making money doing more sophisticated and cohesive work.)

 

[Misfit Toy]

We do have a Future of Trek forum that is specifically designed for this type of thread. Moving this thread there...

 

[Nerys Myk]

Also among these pitches, a request to do a Star Trek movie. If this rising star thinks he can do something with Star Trek that will pull money in, why should the execs say no?

I always thought it was the studio that approached him, because why would Abrams request it? Star Trek was clearly something he didn't like, didn't get, and was nervous to be seen around. (At least he kept saying so at every opportunity and the style of the films seems to reflect it, certainly he's capable of making money doing more sophisticated and cohesive work.)

I thought it was Orci and Kurtzman who were offered Trek and they brought Abrams on board.

 

[Victory Is Life]

I'm curious, what is the basis for thinking Macfarlane wants to do TNG-flavored Trek in particular?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/10/12/seth-macfarlane-wants-to-reboot-star-trek-on-tv/

 

[Melakon]

Well, that's from nearly 3 years ago. Do you have anything more recent with him saying this?

 

[Nerys Myk]

"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting"- Spock.

 

[urbandefault]

While all the bickering about this and that and yadda-yadda is entertaining ...

I think he would probably be a good Executive Producer. He knows the Trek universe, and if he could hire great writers and directors and actors, and rally the troops to a common vision, he could make a great product.

Or not. I'm on the fence. Could go either way.

 

[Kelthaz]

It's hard to say. I'm not a fan of MacFarlene's animated comedies, but I'm sure that he wouldn't turn Star Trek into Family Guy in Space. Maybe he would be a great choice; I don't know enough about the man's work outside of Family Guy to judge how he'd handle a serious sci-fi TV series.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I must admit, it would be hilarious to see a Family Guy reference in Star Trek, for once.

 

[Hober Mallow]

One of the BIG things I disliked about GEN was the crossover of having Kirk and Picard meet face-to-face. It really struck me as fannish in the worst way.

It wouldn't even have made good fan-fiction. Kirk and Picard -- two icons -- come together to make breakfast.

 

[BigJake]

Or not. I'm on the fence. Could go either way.

That's pretty much where I come out.

 

[The Wormhole]

Also among these pitches, a request to do a Star Trek movie. If this rising star thinks he can do something with Star Trek that will pull money in, why should the execs say no?

I always thought it was the studio that approached him, because why would Abrams request it? Star Trek was clearly something he didn't like, didn't get, and was nervous to be seen around. (At least he kept saying so at every opportunity and the style of the films seems to reflect it, certainly he's capable of making money doing more sophisticated and cohesive work.)

I'm certain Paramount didn't approach him as they weren't really interested in doing anything with Trek after Enterprise ended and rejected many new movie and series pitches by others.

 

[BigJake]

What the Almighty WikiPedia says is:

After the split between Viacom and CBS Corporation, former Paramount president Gail Berman convinced CBS to produce a feature film. Orci and Kurtzman, both fans of the Star Trek series, were approached to write the film and Abrams was approached to direct it. Kurtzman and Orci used inspiration from novels and graduate school dissertations as well as the series itself.

This account could of course be wrong -- if ye be one of those prepared to doubt the Word of Almighty WikiPedia -- but it makes rather more sense to me than Abrams going out and pitching Star Trek to anybody.

 

[The Wormhole]

Admittedly, the only thing I have to support my belief is simply that I assumed that's the way it went. Almighty Wikipedia has been known to be wrong, though never when I'm using it as a source to prove my point.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I'd definitely like to see a show with the exploration/diplomacy aspect of TNG rather than the 'Beam in and shoot EXPLOSIONS' aspect of Abrams Trek. And I don't think it's 'Continuity porn' to prefer sequels to remakes.

Seth McFarlane though? Can he really, as a writer, go in directions other than gag a minute dirty humor? "Captain, the ship is going to explode in two minutes!" "You think that's bad, remember the time I played patticake with a Klingon?"

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Not sure what this scene proves in regard to Pine's Kirk "crying into his pancakes"

What I find funny about this is that from the episode it looked like Shatner's Kirk would be "crying into his pancakes" over Edith Keeler.

What, exactly would ShatKirk have done to save Vulcan it ST09,

Especially since like in the film it would be doubtful that he would even know Nero could destroy planets until he used the Red Matter to destroy Vulcan.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I'm curious, what is the basis for thinking Macfarlane wants to do TNG-flavored Trek in particular?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/10/12/seth-macfarlane-wants-to-reboot-star-trek-on-tv/

Thanks, sounds like he wants something more thoughtful than the direction of the new movies. "90s Trek" is vague enough to cover a lot of territory. I had forgotten he did that appearance on Enterprise as well.

Seth McFarlane though? Can he really, as a writer, go in directions other than gag a minute dirty humor? "Captain, the ship is going to explode in two minutes!" "You think that's bad, remember the time I played patticake with a Klingon?"

Who knows, but perhaps he'd make a good showrunner, I think I would have trust in his overall vision for a Trek show.

 

[Victory Is Life]

Saying that a 'reanimated Trek' that is commercially succesful makes it viable is like telling Flava Flav in the 80's to hug a cop. Commercial success does not a successful Trek make, at least in my books. If you were worth your salt as a Trekkie, then you would have found the simple statement of 'Klingon Warbird ' in the 2009 reboot, as cringe-worthy as I did. That was an affront, to others, a minor one, but still an affront.

Po-tay-to, po-ta-to. So they called the Klingon ship a Warbird; well frack me, it does look like one, and was even called it on Enterprise.

It's wrong, plain and simple. And please cite the example of 'it' being called that on Enterprise. I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

Spock's statement that a 'supernova threatened to destroy the galaxy' was also cringe-worthy.

Yet another big deal. Yes, it shouldn't have been said, but again, who (except for rabid fans) gives a shit?

It's wrong and it is an elementary mistake. It makes suspension of disbelief all the more difficult. It is such an overtly wrong statement that it is the equivalent of saying up is down and black is white.

That was all a telepathic vision in the mind's eye of Spock, or didn't you (as a supposed longtime fan) get that?

How could I get that when everything in the film indicates that Spock was placed there deliberately by Nero to see the genocide firsthand. If what you say was indeed the case, why not keep him on the Narada and kill him after? Exactly, because what you say is A) not canon and B) stupid. Did you an I watch the same movie?

Another big deal. People seeing it might have thought that it was a fictional garage kit/extrapolation, just like the real world fans of Star Trek do and make said art/model kits now.

Ummm. No. with your reasoning, J. Edgar hoover would have let his files on JFK lay about his desk for all to see. Let's break it down, Starfleet Admiral is creating a war machine with a genocidal monster who started the eugenics wars, to simultaneously usurp the ideals of the Federation and raise the ire of their enemies. No, your logic is flawed. You do not invite questions about an exercise in treason, you hide it if you are a traitor.

Khan would do anything if his mind was erased and his face altered, and that's just what happened (although the mind erasure didn't last long, obviously.)

I dont remember face altering or mind erasure, please refresh my memory?

Saltwater wouldn't hurt the outside of a ship, but the inside's a different matter; if a window broke or a seal ruptured and water came in, then they would've had problems.

I think it is relatively easy to conclude that Scotty was talking about hull damage based on the following statement: "Do you have any idea how rediculous it is to hide a starship on the bottom of the ocean? We've been down here since last night. The salt water's going to ruin the. ...."

Ever heard of travelling at the speed of plot? Well, that happened a lot in Star Trek in the past, so it happens now; again, big deal.

yeah, I have, thanks for being a condescending douche. Only Abrams regularly and egregiously abuses this, ala the trip to Vulcan in the first reboot. It took 5 minutes after Sulu depressed the 'parking brake'...Ridiculous.

Watch the movie again; they were using a different ship, and said ship was in a part of the planet that was largely uninhabited.

Different ship? Uninhabited? Your point? Humans were detected on Qo'nos, or in true Abrams Trek-raping fashion "kronos". My point being, logical as it is, dictates that Klingons would trace the origin of the ship and send a fleet of 'warbirds' to greet the Enterprise, carelessly loitering at the very edge of Klingon space.

According to visuals, the Praxis disaster already happened, this is a lazy shout out to Trekkie. In the original universe, this happened decades later, and required the collaboration of alpha quadrant powers to rectify, here, its a lazy pandering to idiots.

Why do things have to happen years later as they did before? And who cares?

Shall we begin?

You never even started.

No I started, you just haven't made it to the starting line yet. Hey don't sweat it, the world needs ditch diggers too...

 

[Rick Sternbach]

(looking at you, Risk Sternbach and Michael Okuda)

I'm not sure why you're singling out Sternbach and Okuda when they had nothing to do with the Abrams films.

I think Mike did a little bit of graphics stuff to help pull the 2009 movie's butt out of a production fire, but not much else. I certainly wasn't part of either JJ film, thank goodness. In super high resolution hindsight.

Rick

p.s. - I think I actually like "Risk" Sternbach. Sounds like an Indiana Jones kinda character.

 

[BigJake]

It's wrong and it is an elementary mistake. It makes suspension of disbelief all the more difficult. It is such an overtly wrong statement that it is the equivalent of saying up is down and black is white.

Incidentally, what I said earlier about Abrams being afraid to be seen taking the material seriously? The Hobus supernova thing is a particularly prominent example of it. Abrams does not believe a supernova can blow up a galaxy, neither does the writing team. I find it hard to believe it's anything other than a deliberate "mistake," a way to play up the pulpiness of the setting and distance the creators, Abrams in particular, from the accusation of having played it straight.

Things like that (I'm speculating but I think it's not ill-founded speculation), thing like that which add up to break the believability of the Abramsverse were meant to do just that. Because if you try to make a setting believable, you're investing in it, you're associating yourself with it and taking it seriously -- at some level -- on its own terms. That Abrams was skittish about doing this to the point of self-sabotage is, as far as his films supposedly being Trek films, the really annoying thing about "mistakes" like that.