How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?

They did that in TMP and TNG.

You're still working under the assumption that the continuity is what makes Star Trek, Star Trek.

 

Bingo. Superman is still Superman, regardless of whether you're talking Silver Age continuity, post-Crisis continuity, the George Reeve TV series, the Christopher Reeves movies, Lois & Clark, Smallville, or Man of Steel. (Hell, I've written for at least two of those and my brain hasn't exploded.)

Saying that a new continuity would be Star Trek, but not Star Trek, doesn't make any sense to me. Star Trek is bigger than its continuity.

 

See, when characters inside the Trek universe referenced the famous Kirk, then it was also a reference to Shatner-Kirk, and that was nifty. Even now, Old Spock is there to make that in-universe/fandom connection. The fictional pop culture and the real pop culture matched each other, so to speak. That was great. I liked that.

The DS9 tribbles episode wouldn't have worked had they recast the crew and redesigned the Enterprise.

 

They probably wouldn't do such an episode with a new continuity/cast.

 

There's continuity in the Superman universe. There's always a Superman outfit, Lois Lane, Smallville, The Daily Planet, and Clark Kent. He's always raised by human parents. He has super powers. He is from Krypton. Those are the cultural touchstones of Superman. It's okay for the mass audience, like me, to see something that re-writes the rules, partially, because the interpretations of Superman reflected the times in which they were made. They are dated. Seeing Christopher Reeves movies, you say "That's good. For an 80s movie." Seeing him fly in Man of Steel versus seeing him fly in the Reeve television series.

I think Star Trek is more timeless than that. I still enjoy the movies that were made 30 years ago. It was written, and produced, to be timeless. It was a 39-year tapestry that covered 200 years in the universe. Many are not ready to let it go.

I, personally, would like Star Trek to get creative and go in a whole new direction, keeping the fact the people have jobs to do and are scientists. I'm just pointing out that what the layman knows about Superman is still in the universe.

 

In TMP and TWOK and TNG and ENT and even in (heaven forbid) JJtrek one can say, "Hey, this is what it really looked like."

TMP is a good example because we are being asked to squint and believe it plausible that the Trek universe went from looking the way it did in TOS to how it looked in TMP within three years. We accept it because we want to, but it doesn't have to be like that. One could say TMP was the more realistic view of the Trek universe and what was seen in TOS was a simplified/stylized approximation.

Or put another way: TOS and TMP are parallel timelines where identical events happened in both only they each looked different. So from TMP's perspective every thing that preceded it had a similar aesthetic. And from TOS' perspective everything that followed reflected its aesthetic. That means in TMP's timeline the pre-refit Enterprise and Starfleet and Klingons and everything looked more detailed, and in TOS' timeline the refit and everything else is just slightly more evolved looking (except Klingons who still look like they did in TOS).

It's not the explanation, but just one explanation, a different perspective.


With that in mind one could reboot Trek while retaining many familiar references within the creative conceit that this is how it's always been. Indeed this is how JJ could have rebooted Trek and without the deconstruction of everything else. His starting point could simply have been Pike transfering command to Kirk along with the introduction of each character and how they learn to work together. Everything can look drastically different even as other things are still comfortably familiar.

You could reboot Trek a la TNG idea: a new Enterprise in the 26th or 29th century with an entirely new crew setting out at the beginning of a new era of exploration after the Federation has regrouped after a long hard fought war (with whomever). Maybe the Kelvans from Andromeda came calling after all and the protracted conflict changed a great deal in the quadrant. Maybe there are still pockets of Kelvans still loose. The Enterprise (and other ships) could sometimes encounter former Federation member worlds and seek to have them rejoin. Maybe the Romulans are now a much more influential power and the Klingons are a shadow of what they once were.

This is just one idea and it could look very different from came before. You don't have to rationalize the past, but just keep any references to the past in general terms. You could still squint and say it's all one continuity or just accept it as this is the way it has always been.

 

I think we're using the word "continuity" differently. Sure, every version of Superman shares certain common elements, just as any future iteration of Star Trek is likely to feature Starfleet, Vulcans, Klingons, the Prime Directive, and so on. But it's not as though Henry Cavill is going to be referencing some old 1950s TV episode in the next movie or refering to that time Jimmy Olsen turned into a giant turtle-man. And I think that even "the layman" understands that Marlon Brando's ice-planet "Krypton" belongs to a different continuity than Man of Steel.

Same with Star Trek. The "mass audience" knows the basics of Trek, just like they know the basics with Superman. But nobody expects the next Man of Steel movie to treat the older movies and TV shows as "canon." So why should any or all future versions of Star Trek be any different?

And as for "timeless" . . . Superman has been around for 75 years. Trek is pushing 50. They both seem pretty timeless to me.

 

Reboots are all "what if's" to me. Smallville is "what if the Superman characters all met as teenagers/young adults?", Man of Steel is "what if Superman was in a less idealistic world?". Sherlock moves Sherlock Holmes into the present day and asks "what if his amazing abilities are because he's some kind of high-functioning savant?", Elementary moves it to the present, to New York, makes Holmes a recovering addict and asks, "what if Watson was a woman?". Batman Begins tries to make the world of Batman as plausible as possible, while '89 Batman was a lot more surreal, and Adam West's 60's version rolled around in the campy cartooniness. Star Trek is "what if the TOS crew met as young adults?"

It's fun. I love it.

 

I'm desperate enough to post in a thread about it.

 

Right on! Some Star Trek fans revel in their excessive amount of esoteric knowledge and act as if THEY know these fictional characters so well that they are the final arbiters of what is right and accurate. A future Trek show should contain the big elements, the main ingredients if you will, that makes Trek special. These elements would be fairly easy to identify - the show is primarily in space, revolves around a crew of a starship or space station, has familiar aliens like Klingons, transporters and phasers,etc. But it would not have to slavishly adhere to previous stories.

 

To fan who worry about continuity, I say the following: why not have the new series involve a ship and crew that exists in parallel to previous canon? I don't mean a parallel universe, but rather, a ship that's in service during Kirk's five-year mission and is involved in different missions and activities than its Enterprise counterparts.

Having a series that's not about Kirk and Spock might turn off casual fans and TV watchers who think Star Trek is merely about those two characters, but as long as the basic premise of Trek remains and the writers and producers can tell an interesting story, people will eventually buy into it.

For my money, I'd love to see a series that takes place between TMP and TWOK. As much of that time period is a blank canvas (aside from Christopher's novels), there'd be plenty of room for ideas and concepts that haven't been tried before. I doubt anyone would object because there's nothing to disprove anything that might be put on the small screen.

--Sran

 

Problem with all of that is, we know the Federation, Starfleet and Earth will be largely if not totally unaffected by anything that happens. And if anything really major comes up, why not just call the Enterprise?

 

We've no way of knowing that at all. Yes, there's no mention of anything during that time in the subsequent TOS films or the twenty fourth century series to suggest something major happened, but that doesn't mean that it didn't. No one talks about the V'Ger incident, but everyone who's seen TMP knows it happened and was a big deal. And

I actually it makes things seem more realistic rather than less if something happens that's largely (albeit retroactively) ignored by the other series. In real life, people don't rehash every major event that's happened to them every time they meet a friend they haven't seen in a while.

Edit: As to your second point, remember that as the primary protagonists of their own show, the Enterprise and her crew were always at the center of what was happening because the plot demanded it. A new series would undoubtedly place the featured captain and crew in that position, so calling Kirk and company wouldn't be necessary.

--Sran

 

Deep down I would like to see Star Trek return to television. Of course having my own preferences a great deal would depend on the form it would take.

The Star Trek I know and love is gone. It exists only in memory and on DVD and Blu-Ray. The only other way that Star Trek can continue is through fan productions. No network is going to restore it to television in prime time.

That isn't to say aspects of it cannot be perpetuated within a new form. It can and the new could take different forms.

I think now it isn't advantageous nor truly desirable to remain tied to previous continuities. Whether it be Prime Universe or Abramsverse we should let it be and go forward. Learn and understand the best elements of the most successful Treks---TOS and TNG---and adapt them to the new form.

One thing I think is absolutely essential to return to is a core element of the best Star Trek: an adult approach. This doesn't mean gratuitous and graphic sex and violence, but rather a mature approach in tone. This also doesn't mean excluding the young at heart because the visual spectacle and sense of adventure can draw the youthful viewer just as it did for many of us when we were younger. But by working on multiple levels the show can appeal to varying age groups.

Another element I think matters is a return to ideas and issues periodically explored amidst the adventure. This was yet another core element that set Star Trek apart from the competition. It doesn't have to be heavy-handed (although occasionally it can be), but it does re-affirm the notion that popular entertainment can still have something to say and provoke thought and discussion.

If we forego those two core elements then whatever we're doing is no different than what everyone else is doing. And if that is the chosen approach then you might as well not bother doing Star Trek.

For myself I would prefer quality over quantity. To that end I would plan for something fitting a 10-13 episode season. I might go with each season having some sort of arc or plot threads running through it, but there needn't be a huge arc running throughout the series. Indeed I think this approach would make the show more accessible.

You could reboot the familiar characters in a revamped setting or introduce a new group in a revamped setting. Whichever route taken it isn't tied to what came before. That doesn't mean you can't make general references to similar events, but we are accepting that this is separate from the previous continuity.

I cherish what came before, but it can't be done that way anymore except in some much smaller scale form. But what I love about what came before can be adapted into a new form. And this has been done before when you've watched other non Trek productions and yet gotten a familiar vibe from them.

That could be done again with something that actually is Star Trek.

 

I'm okay with the idea, though I'm not desperate. Right now, the J.J. Abrams films are keeping me happy on that front.

If there is a series, all I ask is that it not be something like Vikings, or similar. I don't like the slow speaking, World Championship Wrestling, slow motion, everyone-forgot-how-to-bathe scripted shows that seem to be more popular now. I don't like too "gritty," and I don't like blood for the sake of blood. Nothing against those who do, it's just really not my cup of tea.

To be honest, I'd rather see a Firefly series return to the television instead of Star Trek. Let's be honest, Star Trek has 700+ episodes, 12 movies (and counting), novels, magazines, and video games out the wazoo. If we left it alone for 10 years, it would still saturate the market.

So while I'd be okay with it, I'd rather see a fun, engaging space type show, and if that's not Star Trek, I'm fine with that. If Star Trek comes back, it will need to be fun, and engaging, or I won't watch it.

 

My point.

 

"Fun" can be defined in different ways.

 

Same here. In fact, I'd take a Star Trek: Starfleet Academy show set in the Abrams-verse focusing on new characters coming up the fast-tracks (and with the occasional guest star appearance by Pine & Co. as Kirk & Co.; it would work very well, and could be a staple of the CW and MTV, or even Nickelodeon.

Not to mention stupidity and hypocrisy; weren't people so pissed off with Berman & Braga that they hated the franchise, and yet now they want it back on TV just like that? And to hound the showrunner of said new series into a heart attack, stroke, coronary or nervous breakdown when the inevitable bitching starts? At least J.J. has his assignments spread out over years so that this won't happen to him, but any showrunner who was to do a new show would be affected in the manner mention above.

For now, I think that (barring my mention of a Starfleet Academy show) the movies, novels, video games, and comic books should be all that we get of Star Trek until fans get a better perspective of things.

 

I agree with your post. What I would add is that if it works on multiple levels, as most Trek did, as you grow older, you remain a fan.

An example: I used to be obsessed with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Loved it. Had all the Playmates figurines, turned in every Saturday to watch it. I would talk about it with my friends. I was 5-9 years old.

Now, I tune in to see what they did, but they hit their demographic sweet spot after the first TMNT movie (in 1989). It is more intelligent than it used to be, but it remains a children's cartoon.

It repeats this way with My Little Pony, Saved by the Bell, all those comedies from the 80s and 90s (Charles in Charge, Happy Days, Who's the Boss? Head of the Class, Friends, Victoria's Closet, Seinfeld), etc. Discarded them all. Discarded Saturday Night Live. Discarded The Tonight Show, Discarded Bill Maher's shows.

Star Trek, for different reasons throughout my life, has stuck with me. I started watching about the time I got out of TMNT. I would buy the books and figurines, the VHS tapes, and watch the re-runs. I was just as obsessed as I was over TMNT. But out of nostalgia, I went back and watched a few episodes I didn't like when I was growing up. And I found that Star Trek carried, with me, something more to it than my other interests.

If fans grow up and don't discard you, and you continue to make new fans, then you remain popular.

 

I'm not desperate but I want it. But it has to have a good space opera feeling to it this time, I want the REAL timeline not movie time line, I want it good, deep, story archs.

If it doesn't have all that.. I'm not that desperate