David Foster Preparing to Pitch New ‘Star Trek’ Series

[Dukhat]

Reboot Star Trek: Enterprise. Partial-reboot or whatever. C'mon guys, you know it makes sense...

That ship has sailed. It's far, far too late for anything like that now, not when it's been pretty much proven that a total reboot (whether it takes place in the nuUniverse or in even yet another universe after that one) is the way to go. Nobody gives a crap about Star Trek: Enterprise anymore except for a few fans on this BBS.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Nobody gives a crap about Star Trek: Enterprise anymore except for a few fans on this BBS.

Correction. Clearly you don't and never have... otherwise, you wouldn't make such a disingenuous statement. I'm fine with you not liking it incidentally. I wouldn't anybody telling which Star Trek I should and shouldn't care about either.

But you ought to try seeing past your own perspective, and then you'd know those who liked ENT (and probably only just discovering that they do - through various means) doesn't simply amount to a few fans patronising TrekBBS.

 

[Dukhat]

But you ought to try seeing past your own perspective, and then you'd know those who liked ENT (and probably only just discovering that they do - through various means) doesn't simply amount to a few fans patronising TrekBBS.

Fine. Then wake me when the Enterprise reboot happens, and I'll retract my statement.

Actually, what I meant was that the people in charge of televised Trek (i.e. CBS), don't care about Enterprise, and the few fans it still has wouldn't be enough to carry it even if they did.

And coincidentally, I just got Netflix, so I'm going to try to rewatch ENT along with the other Trek shows.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Fine. Then wake me when the Enterprise reboot happens.

Oh, no-one knows better than I do, that it'll never happen. Not even an idea to reboot, retool or do whatever to ENT.

In Hollywood, success stories where reboots are concerned, used to be pretty much reserved for remaking less well-known films and TV shows all over again. Especially the ones that weren't all they should've been the first time around. They're the ones that generally work 100%, while sometimes inviting what remains of a pre-existing fanbase to come along for the ride too. Even Richard Hatch and ye olde Cylons made appearances on BSG for instance... despite there being no real reason for RDM to make concessions.

But don't worry. I'm sure I can find some other reason to stand outside your home, keeping you awake by shouting into a megaphone!

 

[Captain Robert April]

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.

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.

So, the question is whether to set the show post-ENT but pre-TOS (Romulan War, April's five years, Pike's ten years) or post-Voyager. And that'll come down to how much it'd cost to produce, audience appeal for a particular era, and how easy it'd be to sell to the typical viewer who may or may not give a rip about another Star Trek series.

 

[Dukhat]

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.

Or, as I stated above, they could just make yet another universe. By the time a new show is actually produced, that would be the most logical thing they could do. Star Trek made and keeps making the precedent that there are multiple universes. So why not have a series set in one?

Plus, television viewers generally love lots of history in their shows.

Viewers maybe, but I doubt writers of a new Trek series would have the same love of dealing with 40 years of televised Trek history.

So, the question is whether to set the show post-ENT but pre-TOS (Romulan War, April's five years, Pike's ten years) or post-Voyager. And that'll come down to how much it'd cost to produce, audience appeal for a particular era, and how easy it'd be to sell to the typical viewer who may or may not give a rip about another Star Trek series.

My theory? If a new show even happens at all, it will take place after the new movies are done, and will utilize the sets from those movies as a cost-saving measure, even if it doesn't take place in the same universe as the movies. That's essentially what happened with TNG, minus the different universe part.

Oh, and it will take place on a ship called the U.S.S. Enterprise, whatever variation it may be

 

[Romulan_spy]

The secret to making Star Trek work is simple: do a show about the Enterprise boldly going where no one has gone before. That was the premise of TOS and TNG. If you have good stories and good characters, it will work every time!

 

[ChristopherPike]

TNG actually didn't always go where no one had gone before. The common critism of the first few seasons, before it found its stride in the third year, was that it felt like warmed over TOS but with blander characters, more interested in talk than action.

Actually only TOS (by virtue of being able to establish Star Trek) and *gasp* VOY, actually ever truly went where none had ever gone. Even then, the way aliens are depicted in this franchise was such, it always felt similar. Whether we're talking about bankers like the Ferengi on DS9 or whatever, they're basically often the less pleasant representations of what humans are like here and now.

What a Star Trek show needs to do, is to take an established race and flesh them out, even if it's often completely at odds with what we thought we knew. Isn't that how the Klingons were mined for drama?

Except I'd put a ban on Klingons dominating the series, just an occasional appearance but that's it. I'd go for the Romulans instead. Make them interesting. Ruled by a bunch of religious gangsters, like The Borgias. Give them an anti-Surak figure to worship. Some honourable. Some less so. Good and bad people in their midst. Their Praetor leader looked upon as a unquestioned divine person, who has the final say in whether the whole Empire goes to war, or not.

 

[Dukhat]

Except I'd put a ban on Klingons dominating the series, just the occasional appearance and go for the Romulans instead. Make them interesting. Rules by a bunch of religious gangsters, like The Borgias. Give them an anti-Surak figure to worship.

100% agreed. I'm so sick of Klingons that if I never saw them again I wouldn't care. (You reading this, David Foster?) But honestly I feel the same way about the Romulans.

Ironically, ENTERPRISE actually did right with the Suliban, a brand-new interesting adversary, with a good lead actor for the primary antagonist. However, the inherent problem with this was that ENT was supposed to be a prequel, so why did we never hear about the Suliban before? Or the Xindi, for that matter?

 

[ChristopherPike]

Ironically, ENTERPRISE actually did right with the Suliban, a brand-new interesting adversary, with a good lead actor for the primary antagonist. However, the inherent problem with this was that ENT was supposed to be a prequel, so why did we never hear about the Suliban before? Or the Xindi, for that matter?

That's why it should've been the Romulans. Canon rules that they can't be seen in the 22nd Century. But ENT writers just fell at the first hurdle, rather than think of ways around that. They claimed disinterest in doing them but were probably too tired to see what the answer was. A third party? Or some stooges they've created. The Remans perhaps? No problem with Remans being seen. We don't even know what the deal was with them! Are they a slave culture? They're bred for war apparently. The Romulans use them for cannon fodder. Use them as pawns on a Galactic chessboard. That's precisely their style. Manipulate other cultures into fighting themselves, while they sit back and appear not to be involved. Until they're found out and that's your final stage in the conflict.

Hell, Romulans would've remained identical in appearance to Vulcans... if it hadn't been for TNG. And there's some real world metaphor for friendly/unfriendly people who live in neighbouring foreign lands right there to exploit. Again, also a tense situation they're forced to live with every day... that the western world arguably put them in.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

In fact, this is what I'd like to see: returning to the "lone-ship-on-the-far-edge-of-the-frontier" setup like they had in TOS, with a series set in the Abramsverse. It's an old formula, but the thing is as a formula it's still only the bare bones of what "Star Trek" is all about. It's about trekking through the stars -- the rest is all wide open.

If they actually do remember that Star Trek is about being "on the frontier," then that would be great. They're not inside the Federation but they're also not a billion miles away, where the Federation doesn't count.

TOS wasn't just visiting unexplored worlds, it was also fighting Rommies/Klingons/other threats, visiting Fed outposts - looney bins, mining operations, colonies - and doing Fed-related work such as dealing with diplomats, sussing out new potential member planets and cleaning up Prime Directive snafus.

Add to that all the virus-loose-on-the-ship and personal stories of the main characters, and it turns out pure exploration was a small percentage of TOS episodes, and for the most part not the best ones. It's time for Star Trek to get back to the basics for the first time since 1969.

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.

How will Paramount be able to determine what timeline it's in? It would be simple to create a series that doesn't identifiably belong to either timeline. The presence of Vulcan means nothing - it could be the world that the Vulcans settled after their original one was destroyed, giving it the same name as before.

And congrats to Abrams for producing the most successful student film in history.

Plus, television viewers generally love lots of history in their shows.

If they've been watching the show faithfully. But Trek lore has vanished from the popular imagination on TV now, so any TV show would need to proceed from the assumption that it's all new to the audience.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If they actually do remember that Star Trek is about being "on the frontier," then that would be great. They're not inside the Federation but they're also not a billion miles away, where the Federation doesn't count.

True 'nuf, but just for the record a light-year is roughly 5.88 trillion miles.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I meant to say a zillion or perhaps a jillion, depending on which is bigger.

Also, we'll know something is happening when this story hits Deadline. Until then...eh.

 

[bismarck_1892]

No reason to stop thinking about a new series. I would probably agree that its a bit early for one, and there is no interest from CBS at this time.

However, I'm glad people are thinking of a Trek series set in the post TNG timeline and in the none JJ universe, i.e., real Star Trek timeline.

At some point they will have to make a decision about bringing back Trek to TV or cable. It doesn't hurt having various ideas being pitched.

 

[FalTorPan]

I don't think the notion of Klingons becoming antogonists again is too far fetched, look how easily the Duras family almost weilded power, and how quickly the Empire reverted to type when faced by the Dominion threat. Hell forget Praxis it was the Ent C at Narrendra 3 that really cemented the alliance.

I'm more weary of the Klingons than I am of the Daleks. If the Klingons never again appeared prominently in Trek, I'd be okay with that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Here's another project that's not going to happen. So nu?

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Pretty much.

 

[Broccoli]

So, a virtual nobody crafted an overly detailed including an extensive "history" for the show in addition to a season-by-season breakdown pitch for a new Star Trek series in which the details suggest it to be a little too fan-fictiony.

Nope. We won't be seeing this anytime soon.

Well, perhaps as a fan-film. Maybe Garrett Wang will be available. Oh, who am I kidding? Of course he will!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, perhaps as a fan-film. Maybe Garrett Wang will be available. Oh, who am I kidding? Of course he will!

OTOH, it's not necessary to describe the folks behind this so dismissively, just to politely note that the people studios put in charge of projects of this scale always have far more industry experience than they describe themselves as having.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No reason to stop thinking about a new series. I would probably agree that its a bit early for one, and there is no interest from CBS at this time.

It's not "too early." I remember how people were squawking about how the franchise needed to be "rested" after the ENT debacle, right up till Abrams' movie was announced. I guess JJ didn't realize that Star Trek was suffering from franchise fatigue and he better not make a movie because it's sure to flop due to that terrible fatigue problem.

But CBS isn't interested, you're right about that. And they won't magically become interested in the future, unless something changes. This isn't being held up by fans or the franchise or a dirth of workable ideas. It's being held up by CBS for perfectly understandable business reasons that can be summarized: why should they care?

If CBS became interested in a series, then it magically would become just the right time for a new series.

At some point they will have to make a decision about bringing back Trek to TV or cable.

Nope. CBS never has to make that decision at all.