How might you have rebooted TOS?

[Herkimer Jitty]

True, it could very well be done within canon. I do agree that Star Trek didn't choke on it's own canon. Its audience did.

Allow me to elaborate.

As TNG was riding the top of its popularity wave, Deep Space 9 came into existence. DS9 was continuity heavy and relied on viewer knowledge. Casual viewers said "fuck it" and tuned out. Voyager wasn't as reliant on arcs and continuity, but people regardless felt that they needed to be like experts or something, just to watch it. Even today, when someone new gets into Star Trek, they don't ask "What series is the best?" but rather, "What series do I need to watch to understand all this?".

So, I ain't talking about the fans - the Trekkies, Trekkers, Trekkerians - whatever. I'm talking about Joe Everyman, Jane Whats-Her-Face.

So, the goal with a new series is to be mindful of that. I don't think a new Star Trek series could survive for very long just on the core fandom base. Not if we want decent production values, anyways. If someone can create a new series that fits in the canon... well, cool beans, great. I'd make sure all concepts are easily understood by anyone though. Mainstream appeal, without compromising intelligence and all the important stuff.

The canon's never been an impediment, yeah... it provides part of the foundation for the stories that take place... it's basically lower on my priorities list than say... casting the show right, getting good stories and making sure the Enterprise doesn't look lame. In-show continuity is max-o important though. Otherwise, there's great potential for jump-the shark moments, head scratchers and general WTFs.

The general consensus seems to be that either full inclusion to canon or a full reboot are the best bets. Calculating in my head, its hard to determine which one would be the best approach, storytelling-wise.

 

[Warped9]

If a show or film is too self-referential then that does give the impression of needing to know what happened before to get a sense of what's going on presently. If a show is arc heavy that creates the same problem.

I think that TOS could have been restarted without an overt reboot, all dependent on smart writing and smart execution. They could even restart without wiping out all established backstory--just don't get heavily self-referential. Just get on with the story at hand.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Indeed. I don't mind a drop about Cardassian Sunsets now and then, but nobody is going to give a shit about who Noonien Soong the Second or Worf's Other Grandpa Who Looks Exactly Like Him (Well, besides us people who know...)

 

[Wingsley]

^ None of which is necessary to preserve continuity.

All writers and producers have to do is (1: be creative and come up with fresh material, and (2: make sure the new material doesn't contradict what has been done before.

An example I found annoying in TNG was "Where Silence Has Lease", (1988) in which the Enterprise-D encountered a strange starless void. The TNG characters acted like this phenomenon had never been encountered before. That's because the folks running the new show had never seen "The Immunity Syndrome", where the original series had gone before in 1968.

So no, it isn't necessary that continuity be viewed as some kind of super-involved nuisance. SG-1 showed that semi-serialization isn't either. The biggest challenge is actually the most logical and straightforward: just avoid contradiction.

I also disagree that a TV show/movie/mini-series (of any kind) will alienate its audience through either meticulous continuity or serialization. Shows like L.A. LAW, CHINA BEACH and ER have done this successfully for years and they each won a loyal following. L.A. LAW also proved the corollary of this point: the show nearly self-destructed when the producers and writers left after five successful years on NBC, and the show's ratings fell as the quality of stories declined. (The show's new creative leadership initially sucked big time.) The show was on life support, one step away from being cancelled, but new people came in and kept the show going through its eighth year.

 

[Anticitizen]

I like this thread. It's imaginative.

I would've gone the clean slate route, personally. Just start over, like BSG.

 

[Therin of Andor]

They should have done essentially what Battlestar Galactica did, creating a new Trek for the new millennium, taking what they wanted from the original series, discarding what they didn’t want, and billing it as a “reimagining.”

And people would have said, "Why is Star Trek copying Battlestar Galactica?

 

[Therin of Andor]

You can start the story with a Federation ship encountering a threat, but no Klingons or Romulans and time travel stuff. If you really want to play with the new continuity then introduce the Borg, but better yet come up with something fresher and hopefully equally nasty. You could still have George Kirk as an officer who sadly bites the dust here, but ditch the part of his pregnant wife just escaping and giving birth at the same time. The aliens also learn of humanity, the Federation and Earth during this encounter.

Nah, there's a poster here called Warped9 and he would reject this idea soundly.

Oh.

 

[Captrek]

They should have done essentially what Battlestar Galactica did, creating a new Trek for the new millennium, taking what they wanted from the original series, discarding what they didn’t want, and billing it as a “reimagining.”

And people would have said, "Why is Star Trek copying Battlestar Galactica?

Presumably those would be the same people who criticized Battlestar Galactica for copying everything else that had ever been remade before it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm canonnista and continuity wonk at heart so I'd make it fit between the spaces of the Original Series, only with new actors, SFX and updated sets and costumes. No doubt it would be a failure.

A TOS homage would fail only if APOLLO 13 had failed.

.

I'm not sure I see the connection. Apollo 13 is a historical drama based on actual events. Historical accuracy should be expected. Star Trek is close to 100 % fictional.

 

[Broccoli]

They should have done essentially what Battlestar Galactica did, creating a new Trek for the new millennium, taking what they wanted from the original series, discarding what they didn’t want, and billing it as a “reimagining.”

And people would have said, "Why is Star Trek copying Battlestar Galactica?

I doubt that, unless Trek did a 180 on its tone and became all depressing and super dark.

 

[Wingsley]

And people would have said, "Why is Star Trek copying Battlestar Galactica?

The new STAR TREK movie is a BSG-style reboot, obviously calculated to target the Gen Y demographic, so if the shoe fits...

I'm not sure I see the connection. Apollo 13 is a historical drama based on actual events. Historical accuracy should be expected. Star Trek is close to 100 % fictional.

You misunderstood what I was saying. Ron Howard's film was indeed historical, and it was crafted as a homage to the era it was set in; 1967-70. The music and other aspects of the imagery were obviously an homage to capture that era and bring it forward. So to me, the clear success of Howard's film lays it down in spades that a homage to the era would not fall flat on its face. I really doubt that remaking TOS in HD, and being reasonably true to recreating TOS, would fail because a bunch of Gen Ys would sit there in the theater and say "I don't get it." I really doubt that would happen.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yeah, pretty much. TOS doesn't need a whole lot of format tweaking in order to be brought up to specs.

Why target Gen Y? Surely, some timeless universal appeal can be tapped into. Pandering to Gen Y is only going to date this new series rapidly before you can sing "Hey, brother!". I'm sure we can all agree on that particular point. I'd rather have a low-moderately popular show that stays relevant for 20 years than a highly-popular show that loses its oomph in under 10.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And people would have said, "Why is Star Trek copying Battlestar Galactica?

The new STAR TREK movie is a BSG-style reboot, obviously calculated to target the Gen Y demographic, so if the shoe fits...

I'm not sure I see the connection. Apollo 13 is a historical drama based on actual events. Historical accuracy should be expected. Star Trek is close to 100 % fictional.

You misunderstood what I was saying. Ron Howard's film was indeed historical, and it was crafted as a homage to the era it was set in; 1967-70. The music and other aspects of the imagery were obviously an homage to capture that era and bring it forward. So to me, the clear success of Howard's film lays it down in spades that a homage to the era would not fall flat on its face. I really doubt that remaking TOS in HD, and being reasonably true to recreating TOS, would fail because a bunch of Gen Ys would sit there in the theater and say "I don't get it." I really doubt that would happen.

I'm not sure "homage" is the right word for what Howard or other film makers do when pepper the sound track to a historical film with music from the era it takes place. It's almost a rule these days to do so. Not sure about the imagery. I don't recall any recreations or allusions to past works made in the Apollo Era.

TOS could be remade as a modern TV show, its characters, and setting are pretty still solid. The basics designs still work. If it can succeed is a different question. TV has changed. Done in one episodic comedies and dramas aren't common. Story arcs and character arcs are where is at.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I doubt that.

You doubt that Star Trek fans would whinge and complain?

 

[Forbin]

I'm canonnista and continuity wonk at heart so I'd make it fit between the spaces of the Original Series, only with new actors, SFX and updated sets and costumes. No doubt it would be a failure.

A TOS homage would fail only if APOLLO 13 had failed.

.

I'm not sure I see the connection. Apollo 13 is a historical drama based on actual events. Historical accuracy should be expected. Star Trek is close to 100 % fictional.

That doesn't matter. The point is, a writer should be able to write within an established historical structure whether it's real history, or the established fictional history of a TV/movie series.

 

[Wingsley]

Yeah, pretty much. TOS doesn't need a whole lot of format tweaking in order to be brought up to specs.

Why target Gen Y? Surely, some timeless universal appeal can be tapped into. Pandering to Gen Y is only going to date this new series rapidly before you can sing "Hey, brother!". I'm sure we can all agree on that particular point. I'd rather have a low-moderately popular show that stays relevant for 20 years than a highly-popular show that loses its oomph in under 10.

That's one of my concerns about the new movie. The "familiar" cast look like a bunch of twentysomethings. If you look at TOS, you see two, maybe three generations represented in the regular characters. (The TOS actors were born between 1920 and 1937, IIRC; and they seem to portray characters with an even greater age difference.) And people still remember TOS fondly after more than 40 years, or Paramount would not have remastered those old shows and put them for sale on DVDs.

The characters in the new movie look and act so Gen Y that I fear the voyages of the new JJ-prise will be forgotten even sooner.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yeah, for the cast for my own take on a reboot, I probably would have a bit more variation. (Assuming it's set in 2255-58ish)

Using known "main" crewmembers:

Dr. Boyce - Early 60s

Captain Pike - Mid 40s

Number One - Early 30s

McCoy - Late 20s/early 30s

Kirk, Spock, Mitchell - Late 20s

Jose Tyler - Mid 20s

No Sulu and Chekov, since Sulu'd probably be at the academy and Chekov would be like... 13 or something.

 

[Praetor]

Loved the movie, but-

• Do it on TV. People expect a lot more out of movies and with the budget it took to take Star Trek to the big screen... it wouldn't be able to be anything other than a blockbuster action flick (unless losing buttloads of cash is no problem). I mean... a well-written Star Trek series would have almost no competition on TV now that BSG is gone.
• Same cast. Whoever Abrams had doing the casting made good picks, IMHO.
• Drop the time travel aspect, make it more of a blatant reboot. Yeah, that'd ruffle a lot of fandom feathers... but it'd be like a Heimlich Maneuver, forcing years of continuity out of Star Trek's throat. And bucking off the canon-crazed Star Trek fans in the process (until they start micro-analyzing "NuContinuity" or "Marvel Ultimate Star Trek" or "TINO" or whatever the hell the Alternate Universe Angry Trekkies would call it.)
• Have actual science fiction writers writing for the show.
• Don't be quite as restricting on what qualifies as a "Star Trek Story" as past groups (Berman-Era) have been. I'm sure there were plenty of perfectly good stories that didn't make it through because they weren't dry enough.
• The visual look of it would have to be updated, to be frank. Hardcore fans of TOS alone aren't enough to keep a high-budget TV space opera alive. Most people would laugh the TOS designs off the screen to be frank (not saying that I would, mind you). Designs would imitate their iconic predecessors, being shaped similarly, but wouldn't be exactly the same. Added slickness and style, etc. I love the original Enterprise... hell, there's nothing wrong with it... it just doesn't look cool to people anymore. They understood this making TMP (And Trek XI). Though, I obviously would go for a more sensible redesign a la TMP. The same could be said of the bridge and props. They're all practical, but they're lacking in a certain aesthetic that screams "futuristic" to the general audience (like the said props, sets and models once did back in the 60s). Update, but keep the general functional intent intact. As far as the general design aesthetic... let's go with TMP meets Art Deco/Streamline, with healthy heapings of soundly-designed speculative stuff. Heck, let's get some new stuff in there. Fresh uses and imaginings for current speculative theories... keep Star Trek's science up-to-date as it goes... i'd be all for that.
• Keep from doing "continuity arcs" or at least doing them too often. Make the show accessible - anyone can tune into any episode and not be completely lost. Two-parters excluded, of course.

Basically, make a show that Star Trek fans can enjoy, but can also introduce Joe Somebody to Star Trek, someone who likes intelligent TV, but may have tuned Star Trek out due to its more recent, shall we say- dry installments.

This... (and forgive me for bulleting your list, H.)

With emphasis on doing the straight reboot. Re-evaluate everything. Figure out the strengths (for my money, the basic concept and the characters, particularly the Holy Trinity) and the weaknesses (lack of additional characters, lack of consistency on some issues, some weaker scripts). Emphasize the stronger aspects, fix the weaker.

Visual updates are also key. Use this to make Star Trek the future of the 21st century, not the 20th. Rethink the technical aspects of the show, but keep what is still plausible and logical. Update the technological speculation based on new scientific theories. For my money, the basic concept of the way the ship works still works, but have some heirs to the spirit of Jefferies take cracks at redesigning everything.

Most importantly: make sure you adhere to the "show, don't tell" rule and the "Gunsmoke" storytelling rule, although for the purpose of the update, maybe it should be the "House, M.D." rule. ("Would this be an interesting story if stripped of it's sci-fi elements and made on _____?")

 

[Nerys Myk]

A TOS homage would fail only if APOLLO 13 had failed.

.

I'm not sure I see the connection. Apollo 13 is a historical drama based on actual events. Historical accuracy should be expected. Star Trek is close to 100 % fictional.

That doesn't matter. The point is, a writer should be able to write within an established historical structure whether it's real history, or the established fictional history of a TV/movie series.

Sure it does, there is more leeway in a fictional construct like Star Trek, you can make it up as you go along and even change things you don''t like. History is less forgiving.

 

[Wingsley]

^ Not quite correct.

Continuity can be demanding, but not unreasonably so.

Imagine STARGATE SG-1 if an uninitiated writer just walked in with a spec script, and nothing fit into continuity. It wouldn't work.