How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?

[BigJake]

You know what I'd watch the heck out of?

Spies... in space!

Focus on a team of irregulars -- artists, scientists, entertainers, soldiers, of course one former Starship Captain and at least one seriously exotic alien -- whose mission is to investigate foreign threats, unusual classified phenomena, temporal incursions and breaches of the Prime Directive.

Sort of Jack Ryan and/or Mission Impossible meets Star Trek; or a take on Torchwood that's far, far less earthbound. It's actually the VOY Episode "Think Tank" that puts me partly in mind of it; I thought the villains in that episode would actually -- with a little more human in the mix -- make a pretty good concept for the heroes of a sci-fi show.

 

[plynch]

Issue of the week with tasty guest star of the week (too often bland in Berman-era) encountered by starship full of people we can admire, but who don't all get along. Who will be examples to my grandchildren of how to be, as Kirk and company were to me and his succesors were to my children.

Oh, and well-written.

THAT, I'd watch.

 

[Lucky]

If the right kind of people were behind it, I'd love to see a new Trek series. But it might be best to wait a while so the new series could have a fresh and unique ideas behind it.

 

[Enterprise1701]

I'd like a series involving the Enterprise-J. That way we could know if the Battle of Procyon V (from ENT: "Azati Prime") comes to fruition in the prime timeline and maybe flesh out the Sphere Builders more. Plus, Klingons part of the Federation!

 

[2takesfrakes]

"STAR TREK: S.O.S."

A series (any century, doesn't matter) where a Federation Starship blows up before the first commercial in the pilot. Escape pods and the shuttles try to make it as a convoy, but some of them splinter off from the main group and we follow their various outcomes.

One such escape pod could contain 3 married men, who've been seperated from their wives and they land on a planet of beautiful, exotic and sex-starved women. As the crewman make half-hearted efforts to send out an S.O.S., each one of them finds their fidelity to their wives vigorously tested ... but who will be the first to fall?

Elsewhere, a shuttle containing 4 crewman who crash-land on a planet of dinosauria and other primative, mega-fauna ... finding themselves being hunted relentlessly. Their S.O.S. is sent, but none of them knows if it was received, because a T-Rex is rolling their shuttle along the ground like a log, with its massive head and feet. It gnaws on a shuttle corner, licking it, trying to pop open that SPAM in a can!

Another escape pod has wandered too close to a Black Hole, as we watch the effects of their being about to be crushed, when Grey Aliens, anal probes at the ready, seem to come out of nowhere, rescuing them - seemingly.

And the main grouip of pods and shuttles still flying in formation, find themselves getting picked-off, one by one, because of various circumstances and latex-headed Aliens of the Week. Until, finally, only ONE just barely survives, rescued by a Federation ship answering their S.O.S. and taking them all home.

 

[Brolan]

You should call that Star Trek: Galactica

 

[Sci]

I'm not desperate at all. It'll be nice if/when it comes back to TV -- but in the meantime, we get a new Star Trek novel every month of the year, and I'm more than happy with that. (Honestly, I think the current era of Trek novels is artistically superior to most of the canon. Things like the Destiny trilogy, or The Never-Ending Sacrifice, or Crucible: McCoy - Provenance of Shadows, to me represent Star Trek at its creative apotheosis.)

 

[NX-01ftw]

Not at all but once I finish watching all the shows I might want a new series quickly. Since I am new to Trek I love that I am able to watch episodes for the first time.

 

[2takesfrakes]

If they don't put a new STAR TREK series on television soon, I may just end up on the evening news! We'll see which gets on T.V. first ...

 

[Salinga]

I am desperate, but also not optimistic it would be a series I would like. I love the TNG version of Star Trek, and that version is long gone and would never come back, because it probably was only possible in the late 80s to establish a format like this with the people behind and in front of the camera. Just because you slap the label "Star Trek" on it, makes it a high quality TV show - it depends on the team behind that label, filling it with creative content. I am not confident enough, that these people exist in the business right now.

So: I would love a new Star Trek show, but even if there is one, chances are good I would not love it like the old shows or even care about it at all. It might very likely happen like with ENT, and I dont watch it anymore after giving it a shot for one season or so.

 

[Warped9]

I am desperate, but also not optimistic it would be a series I would like. I love the TNG version of Star Trek, and that version is long gone and would never come back, because it probably was only possible in the late 80s to establish a format like this with the people behind and in front of the camera. Just because you slap the label "Star Trek" on it, makes it a high quality TV show - it depends on the team behind that label, filling it with creative content. I am not confident enough, that these people exist in the business right now.

So: I would love a new Star Trek show, but even if there is one, chances are good I would not love it like the old shows or even care about it at all. It might very likely happen like with ENT, and I dont watch it anymore after giving it a shot for one season or so.

The emboldened words are on point. I think it is possible to have a new series and I disagree in that I think there are people who could do it, but I'm not optimistic it would be a show that would interest me.

I have no illusions that it could replace my favourite (TOS), but it would be nice if it were something I could really like like I enjoyed Babylon 5. But I'm cynical and feel it's more likely they would fashion something that would stray too far from what impressed me with Star Trek. I could even enjoy a TNG oriented show if it were done a certain way.

But I have no interest in revisiting the Berman era as it was. And I have no interest in seeing anything like VOY or ENT. I've no real interest to revisit something like DS9 either because, for me, space war is not a primarily element of Star Trek.

If I can't have a Star Trek series I could like than I'd rather have a non Trek space adventure series.

I'm wondering if part of the issue is the times. People seem to have different ideas about entertainment and science fiction today that could be incompatible with what made Star Trek work. I certainly have no interest in seeing cherished familiar characters deconstructed to such degree as to make them unrecognizable and even unlikable (a big issue I have with JJtrek). I also have no real interest in seeing overly heavy arc based structures despite them being the trend today. It's okay in some other works, but I've no real interest in seeing it in Star Trek.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Here's the thing. I think a Star Trek series could be quite successful on a network like Syfy, at least more successful than Stargate or BSG. Just, the company that owns the rights to it would only want to put it on major networks, on which it would not be successful.

Maybe a TNG style Trek could be successful on a network, if it was written like a procedural, but I'm not sure I'd personally enjoy that as much.

 

[The Wormhole]

Here's the thing. I think a Star Trek series could be quite successful on a network like Syfy, at least more successful than Stargate or BSG. Just, the company that owns the rights to it would only want to put it on major networks, on which it would not be successful.

Maybe a TNG style Trek could be successful on a network, if it was written like a procedural, but I'm not sure I'd personally enjoy that as much.

I could see a Trek series on SyFy being just as successful as Stargate or BSG were in their heyday, or even Farscape for that matter, but I'm not sure about more. Unfortunately, SyFy doesn't really have very much actual sci-fi these days. Aside from Defiance, what else is there on that channel that counts as sci-fi? Continuum, I guess, and even that is just as much a cop show as it is sci-fi.

Hell, even Stargate and BSG got turned into spin-offs that were more character dramas than they were sci-fi (SGU and Caprica).

 

[Greg Cox]

It's probably worth noting that, even at their heights, Farscape and BSG rarely attracted more than two million viewers. They were big fish in a small pond.

To put that in perspective, The Walking Dead routinely attracts 16-18 million viewers every week.

Would a new Trek series should do better than BSG on Syfy, or would it do about the same? Hard to say.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Why bother calling it STAR TREK if you have a new continuity? Because it's still STAR TREK if it looks and sounds like STAR TREK. Again, the continuity is not the essence of Trek. It's the basic concept that matters.

Agreed. It this point it's gotten too large, or large enough. I've also gotten tired of the canon and continuity arguments and debates. Start with a clean sheet.

I agree. The problem with "continuity" fights is that it creates a sacred priesthood of Star Trek who are responsible for preserving the "vision" of Gene Roddenberry. This same priesthood is also responsible for kicking out anyone who dares interfere or (heavens no!) CHANGE the "canon" in a way they find unacceptable. Let's take key elements of the Trek franchise and use them in a NEW story!

Agreed. It this point it's gotten too large, or large enough. I've also gotten tired of the canon and continuity arguments and debates. Start with a clean sheet.

I agree. The problem with "continuity" fights is that it creates a sacred priesthood of Star Trek who are responsible for preserving the "vision" of Gene Roddenberry. This same priesthood is also responsible for kicking out anyone who dares interfere or (heavens no!) CHANGE the "canon" in a way they find unacceptable. Let's take key elements of the Trek franchise and use them in a NEW story!

Motherfracking Lords of Kobol, didn't I just say something like this months ago?

 

[2takesfrakes]

Go ahead! Keep screwing with canon - why not? They've already blown up Vulcan ... popped, like a balloon! Amanda, the most beloved of STAR TREK women, not only perished with it, but we were given loving close-ups of her fate. I mean ... what more can they do to us?

 

[Warped9]

Go ahead! Keep screwing with canon - why not? They've already blown up Vulcan ... popped, like a balloon! Amanda, the most beloved of STAR TREK women, not only perished with it, but we were given loving close-ups of her fate. I mean ... what more can they do to us?

I guess you missed the distinction.

No one can eliminate canon. If it has been committed to screen then it exists as canon. No one can erase continuity because it also exists onscreen. JJtrek's continuity is its own and doesn't eliminate what came before no matter what they choose to say.

But the recurring arguments over continuity are tiresome. Let what came before continue to exist as it does. And ignore JJ trying to make the waters even murkier. Let's start with a clean sheet that respects things we love and jettisons what we don't need to forge a new continuity separate from what came before. It doesn't replace or eliminate what came before. It merely offers an alternate version. It's done all the time in comics to stay relevant and contemporary.

Batman is and will always be Batman only instead of being born around 1920 or so he's now born around 1980-85. Same with when Superman's rocket landed on Earth: around 1920 or sometime in the 1980s.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Go ahead! Keep screwing with canon - why not? They've already blown up Vulcan ... popped, like a balloon! Amanda, the most beloved of STAR TREK women, not only perished with it, but we were given loving close-ups of her fate. I mean ... what more can they do to us?

Kirk. Carol. Daughter. There will be much gnashing of teeth in the fandom.

 

[-Brett-]

Go ahead! Keep screwing with canon - why not? They've already blown up Vulcan ... popped, like a balloon! Amanda, the most beloved of STAR TREK women, not only perished with it, but we were given loving close-ups of her fate. I mean ... what more can they do to us?

Can't tell if serious.

 

[RAMA]

Go ahead! Keep screwing with canon - why not? They've already blown up Vulcan ... popped, like a balloon! Amanda, the most beloved of STAR TREK women, not only perished with it, but we were given loving close-ups of her fate. I mean ... what more can they do to us?

I guess you missed the distinction.

No one can eliminate canon. If it has been committed to screen then it exists as canon. No one can erase continuity because it also exists onscreen. JJtrek's continuity is its own and doesn't eliminate what came before no matter what they choose to say.

But the recurring arguments over continuity are tiresome. Let what came before continue to exist as it does. And ignore JJ trying to make the waters even murkier. Let's start with a clean sheet that respects things we love and jettisons what we don't need to forge a new continuity separate from what came before. It doesn't replace or eliminate what came before. It merely offers an alternate version. It's done all the time in comics to stay relevant and contemporary.

Batman is and will always be Batman only instead of being born around 1920 or so he's now born around 1980-85. Same with when Superman's rocket landed on Earth: around 1920 or sometime in the 1980s.

Geez, are you feeling well?

RAMA