Do you think there will be a TNG movie EVER again?

[Temis the Vorta]

UWC Defiance said:
A theatrical movie? No. But there will probably be some TNG-based TV project one of these days. CBS, after all, may be looking in a few years for a Trek project that doesn't involve them in complicated negotiations with Paramount Pictures, and TNG would fit the bill.

I could see someone recasting one of the Trek TV spinoffs for another TV series someday (no way they're dragging the old farts back into it), but if nuTOS (hee hee ok I'll stop) is a big hit, it would make more sense to do something more directly related so the new movie audience will understand the connection. It doesn't pay to confuse people, and they shouldn't assume that anyone remembers or cares about TNG anymore than they remember or care about TOS at this point.

Any new TV series would be driven by the success of the new movies, and TNG will have nothing to do with that. So it makes no sense to bother with those characters in particular.

I could see a TV spinoff in the same time period as TOS, maybe with appearances from the movie characters (Spock, Kirk etc). I'm not so wedded to the original characters that I would turn my nose up at some well-written, well-acted new ones. After all, DS9 is still my favorite Trek so I'm very pro-spinoff. :thumbsup: The 23rd C might be the kind of place we'd want to stay for a good, long time.

 

[ancient]

Aside from Fan-Films, I think it's doubtful. Not when there are other fresher and more promising ways to take the franchise.

I could see them doing a TV reimagining or prequel in 15 years though. (like a Stargazer series) But I doubt it'll be anything like the TNG era we know.

 

[Jon1701]

Temis the Vorta said:

nuTOS

I like it.

ON TOPIC

The TNG movies werent very good, and generally speaking didnt make any money. I cant understand why they would make another one.

 

[garak1]

I guess since Nemesis's failure that pretty much meant the end of TNG movies.......for now.

But do you think it's even a little bit possible that we will see one sometime in the next 10 years, even if it just has like a couple of TNG people (as opposed to the complete cast)? Especially if Star Trek XI is a success and revives the Trek franchise?

I agree, that it is possible that we might see a TNG film, but highly unlikely.

The TNG story has reached a conclusion. 'Nemesis', despite being a box office failure, was, in my opinion, a very good film. I thought there were some beautiful and very poignant moments in the film.

The prospect of a TOS film sounds very interesting, especially given the success of some prequel films (Batman Begins). I second the comments of other poster who believe that Trek is headed in a different direction.

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about how far Trek has gone in 10 years. Back then, we were in the thick of it. Two series were on television, and the franchise was riding the wave of success that was 'First Contact'. These were the halcyon days of Trek.

And we come to now. 'Nemesis' was a failure. Enterprise was cancelled. It saddens me that Trek reached such a stage, which I blame partially on those who were in charge of the franchise back then, whom I believe were overeager to get anything 'Star Trek' out there to capitalise on the market.

24th Century Trek brought us some wonderful and fascinating characters and wider exploration of the Trek universe, and, most importantly, many hours of fantastic entertainment.

But, as much as I would love to see the 24th century again, I simply don't see it being financially viable, which would be the deciding factor to any studio.

That chapter of the story has most likely finished on the big and small screen, and I believe that Trek is headed in a somewhat different direction now.

The imagination runs wild....

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"nuTrek" will do fine, I think.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Remember, the "TNG-era" is only a SETTING. You could easily do another film, series, whatever in the TNG era without it being a TNG movie. You could tell a story that has ZERO to do with anything created during the TNG era, just set in that same time period, and it could have a totally different (ie, non-technobabbly) feel to it.

 

[seigezunt]

what Cary said. Played out. Maybe a recasting in a few decades, when we are feeling nostalgic for the 1980s again.

 

[RookieBatman]

Yeah, I think at some point in the future, if Trek XI revives the franchise, somebody nostalgic for what they grew up with, TNG, will make a new movie or series or mini-series set in the 24th century, but probably not recasting the TNG characters.

 

[seigezunt]

RookieBatman said:
Yeah, I think at some point in the future, if Trek XI revives the franchise, somebody nostalgic for what they grew up with, TNG, will make a new movie or series or mini-series set in the 24th century, but probably not recasting the TNG characters.

why not recast? We could start posting threads conjecturing what child actors, ages 6-10, would be cast to play young Picard in Star Trek (2028)?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Cary L. Brown said:
Remember, the "TNG-era" is only a SETTING. You could easily do another film, series, whatever in the TNG era without it being a TNG movie. You could tell a story that has ZERO to do with anything created during the TNG era, just set in that same time period, and it could have a totally different (ie, non-technobabbly) feel to it.

Yeah, but it's really hard to lure a large audience back with a setting. Most people respond to the promise of seeing characters and - where possible - actors that they already love.

 

[ancient]

But the whole premise of VGR was that they would copy the setting...hmm...well...time heals all wounds.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

UWC Defiance said:

Cary L. Brown said:Remember, the "TNG-era" is only a SETTING. You could easily do another film, series, whatever in the TNG era without it being a TNG movie. You could tell a story that has ZERO to do with anything created during the TNG era, just set in that same time period, and it could have a totally different (ie, non-technobabbly) feel to it.

Yeah, but it's really hard to lure a large audience back with a setting. Most people respond to the promise of seeing characters and - where possible - actors that they already love.

I think maybe you've missed my point. All I'm saying is that the setting is essentially IRRELEVANT. Which is, I think, largely the same thing you're saying... right?

All I'm saying is that if they came up with a good story with good characters that just happened to be set in that era, there's no reason that it would "automatically suck" because it's in one particular setting.

 

[Jon1701]

All Trek eras are the same. The only difference is that they were made in different decades of the 20th (and 21st) century.

They all have Captains and Starships and Phasers. Port and Starboard. Klingons. Transporters. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

jon1701 said:
All Trek eras are the same. The only difference is that they were made in different decades of the 20th (and 21st) century.

They all have Captains and Starships and Phasers. Port and Starboard. Klingons. Transporters. Everything else is just window dressing.

Absolutely Right(TM). It's true from the 22nd on through the whatever-century-the-temporal-Federation-existed-in on "Voyager." Was that the 29th or 30th?

 

[Sharr Khan]

I could see a TV spinoff in the same time period as TOS, maybe with appearances from the movie characters (Spock, Kirk etc). I'm not so wedded to the original characters that I would turn my nose up at some well-written, well-acted new ones. After all, DS9 is still my favorite Trek so I'm very pro-spinoff. The 23rd C might be the kind of place we'd want to stay for a good, long time.

Couldn't agree more.
A Spinoff directly within TOS with a new ship (not even Constitution Class - but ah that would be to much fun not to do) and crew would be awesome.

Maybe Manny Cotto can be lured into to be the Show runner with JJ Abrams as Executive producer?

Sharr

 

[Aragorn]

I really really hate the Trekkie armchair quarterback fanboys who say that Star Trek is all about looking forward and that subsequent series all need to be set further ahead in time than the previous series (of course, George Takei only said this about Enterprise because it wasn't going to be the Sulu show, which contradicts him from the get-go because that show would've been set a century before TNG).

It's not what the story is about that makes it good or bad, but how it goes about it.

 

[Jon1701]

UWC Defiance said:

jon1701 said:
All Trek eras are the same. The only difference is that they were made in different decades of the 20th (and 21st) century.

They all have Captains and Starships and Phasers. Port and Starboard. Klingons. Transporters. Everything else is just window dressing.

Absolutely Right(TM). It's true from the 22nd on through the whatever-century-the-temporal-Federation-existed-in on "Voyager." Was that the 29th or 30th?

29th I think.

I'm hoping that The next series is set in the 43rd Century on the Enterprise A-A, the 29th Starship to bear the name...

The ship is in the shape of a decagon and is 100 miles long, but only two decks high. She is powered by 20x Multi-transwarp engines, two mounted on each of the corners.

It can reach speeds of Warp 199.9999999999.047

 

[Cary L. Brown]

jon1701 said:

UWC Defiance said:

jon1701 said:
All Trek eras are the same. The only difference is that they were made in different decades of the 20th (and 21st) century.

They all have Captains and Starships and Phasers. Port and Starboard. Klingons. Transporters. Everything else is just window dressing.

Absolutely Right(TM). It's true from the 22nd on through the whatever-century-the-temporal-Federation-existed-in on "Voyager." Was that the 29th or 30th?

29th I think.

I'm hoping that The next series is set in the 43rd Century on the Enterprise A-A, the 29th Starship to bear the name...

The ship is in the shape of a decagon and is 100 miles long, but only two decks high. She is powered by 20x Multi-transwarp engines, two mounted on each of the corners.

It can reach speeds of Warp 199.9999999999.047

And of course, it's "KEWLNESS CLASS"

 

[RookieBatman]

jon1701 said:
I'm hoping that The next series is set in the 43rd Century on the Enterprise A-A, the 29th Starship to bear the name...

Pardon my excessive curiosity, but I gather that the 27th starship to bear the name would be the Ent-Z (since the first had no letter), but what letter(s) would the 28th have?

 

[RookieBatman]

Cary L. Brown said:
And of course, it's "KEWLNESS CLASS"

I would've said "PWNAGE!1 CLASS"