earth bound TREK

[USS KG5]

Earth in danger is a very good way of making us care about the characters

What? That doesn't make any sense. Check out the original series and see how many times their modern day Earth is ever the focus of an evil threat. I'm not talking about a galaxy wide disaster, I'm talking about someone or something going to Earth with the intent of destroying it. I don't recall any episode that had that sort of story line. So by your logic, we shouldn't really care about any of the original series characters because Earth was hardly ever in danger.

No, by the COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF MY LOGIC you should not care about the characters if Earth is not in danger.

Now admittedly I didn't actually mean to say "characters" I meant to say "story", but to reply to that by making an absolute logical construct out of a general subjective statement, is a bit daft.

 

[M-Red]

I'm just the opposite. I do not like the JJverse and would love a new series set in the true Star Trek universe. The original ST universe had a galaxy of possibilities for new original series...

Completely agree.


Except I do like the JJverse for the new films. It's good for the franchise right now, both financially and in introducing new fans.


The greatest thing about ST09 is that it opened up a whole new door for Kirk/Spock films while leaving the original timeline completely intact and unchanged, sans Romulus.


I'd be very disappointed if they made a new series set in the JJverse...because you know the nuTrek cast isn't going to the small screen, so they'd have to do something else. And if they're going to do something else, then it should be in the original timeline.

They should be out there. It should involve new worlds, new civilizations and going boldly if Star Trek is to be different than just any other science fiction about the future. That mission statement of the original Enterprise would be a good thing to stick to if you're going to make new Star Trek.

 

[Warped9]

I am totally against another TV series at this time. Especially any series that takes place in the old universe. Also, I don't think Paramount will ever green light a series that does take place in the old universe; so its a waste of time, IMO, to even think they will..

But what about an earth bound TREK show that takes place...duh..on Earth, and takes place in JJ's universe. How such a show would be interesting (think Caprica) is beyond me...but good writers can make anything work....

Rob

Excuse me, but what is the show called? Oh yeah, it's called STAR Trek. Did you miss that little word and what it implies? The show's about going to the stars, not what's over the next hill.

This is another case of professing to love the show and then simply morphing it into something unrecognizable. If you don't like what it is then find something more to your liking.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Excuse me, but what is the show called? Oh yeah, it's called STAR Trek. Did you miss that little word and what it implies? The show's about going to the stars, not what's over the next hill.

This is another case of professing to love the show and then simply morphing it into something unrecognizable. If you don't like what it is then find something more to your liking.

I tend to agree...

Gene Roddenberry's original concept for Star Trek was a western set in space. Earth Trek would be like if the western Star Trek was based on happened in New York City...

 

[RobertScorpio]

But what about an earth bound TREK show that takes place...duh..on Earth, and takes place in JJ's universe. How such a show would be interesting (think Caprica) is beyond me...but good writers can make anything work....

Your attitude to your own idea shows remarkable self-awareness, very rare in this forum.

Trek with a fixed outpost has been done in DS9, so does work. However Earth would be a bad choice, there is no real basis for good drama floating around a "paradise".

A new trek show really needs to be back to basics - starship, captain, boldly going exploring - and thats that.

...nope. In case you haven't noticed, that idea has been returning less and less numbers each time. Or had the awful ratings of ENTERPRISE and FIREFLY and FARSCAPE confused you?

Going back to the basics with another (yawn) TREK series in space will ruin the new movie franchise, which is why it isn't going to happen. So you need to 'think out of the box'.

But if you're standard answer is 'back to space with a new bumpy headed alien of the week' series, then you bore me, and the rest of the world. Use your imaginations; you're STAR TREK fans, that gives you a head start.

Rob

 

[USS KG5]

...nope. In case you haven't noticed, that idea has been returning less and less numbers each time. Or had the awful ratings of ENTERPRISE and FIREFLY and FARSCAPE confused you?

Farscape did well enough to last four series, that isn't bad, Firefly was totally different from anything attempted before and nothing like Trek except there is a space ship in it, and Enterprise was a below-par example of a franchise that had been going for 18 years, its hardly a surprise it failed.

Whereas the same concept applied in Trek 2009 was a massive success in the cinema, it is not the CONCEPT but the EXECUTION that matters.

Going back to the basics with another (yawn) TREK series in space will ruin the new movie franchise, which is why it isn't going to happen. So you need to 'think out of the box'.

WHAT? Seriously ANY new trek series will be basically a remake of TOS.

US TV absolutely loves re-using formats, the flatshare sitcom, police procedural etc are almost ubiquitous. If anything it is edgy shows that usually fail, and it is very unlikely trek will ever be lucky enough to be on HBO.

But if you're standard answer is 'back to space with a new bumpy headed alien of the week' series, then you bore me, and the rest of the world. Use your imaginations; you're STAR TREK fans, that gives you a head start.

No-one has said a new bumpy alien of the week show, its just that most of the premises posted in here are really, really shit.

Trek was massively successful when it was simple, the fact it went downhill had nothing to do with the premise and everything to do with a writing staff who only stuck around for the cheque. Whenever they put someone in charge who gave a toss (like Manny Coto is ENT S4) the quality generally went up.

 

[RobertScorpio]

...nope. In case you haven't noticed, that idea has been returning less and less numbers each time. Or had the awful ratings of ENTERPRISE and FIREFLY and FARSCAPE confused you?

Farscape did well enough to last four series, that isn't bad, Firefly was totally different from anything attempted before and nothing like Trek except there is a space ship in it, and Enterprise was a below-par example of a franchise that had been going for 18 years, its hardly a surprise it failed.

Whereas the same concept applied in Trek 2009 was a massive success in the cinema, it is not the CONCEPT but the EXECUTION that matters.

Going back to the basics with another (yawn) TREK series in space will ruin the new movie franchise, which is why it isn't going to happen. So you need to 'think out of the box'.

WHAT? Seriously ANY new trek series will be basically a remake of TOS.

US TV absolutely loves re-using formats, the flatshare sitcom, police procedural etc are almost ubiquitous. If anything it is edgy shows that usually fail, and it is very unlikely trek will ever be lucky enough to be on HBO.

But if you're standard answer is 'back to space with a new bumpy headed alien of the week' series, then you bore me, and the rest of the world. Use your imaginations; you're STAR TREK fans, that gives you a head start.

No-one has said a new bumpy alien of the week show, its just that most of the premises posted in here are really, really shit.

Trek was massively successful when it was simple, the fact it went downhill had nothing to do with the premise and everything to do with a writing staff who only stuck around for the cheque. Whenever they put someone in charge who gave a toss (like Manny Coto is ENT S4) the quality generally went up.

Great stuff in this post (mainly the reprised material I wrote)...but, for the most part, I agree with some of what you are saying.

But I look at things in a very pragmatic way. nuBSG was a ratings flop..so was Firefly..so was Babylon 5--Andormeda and Enterprise.

SPACE OPERAS, like Star Trek's ship based shows, are losing audiences because it has been done to death. The Western genre died because it had been over done. Its just the way things are.

Rob

 

[Warped9]

I think they're losing audience mostly because most of them are done badly.

 

[Herbert1]

Well look what happened with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? Originally the show was supposed to be centered around the space station and the planet Bajor. Characters were supposed to come to the station. Season three we get the USS Defiant.

I just don't think that the show would be Earth-bound for very long.