Tribble Herder
Lieutenant Commander
Since we've seen the last of the original timeline, at least for a good while, isn't it about time we got one, final, wrap-it-all-up edition?
Discuss.
Discuss.
Howabout a new edition of the Concordance?
- Thread starter Tribble Herder
- Start date
Wasn't Captain Robert April working on this a few months ago? I wonder what became of it?
He's still working on it.
Really? I was under the impression that all future novels (at least "for a good while"
) would be in the Prime timeline, and hence we have definitely not seen the last of it.Tribble Herder
Lieutenant Commander
Books don't count, so unless Seth McFarlane's plans include a return to the original timeline (which I don't discount, I just think it'll be a while, provided it ever gets greenlit in the first place), I think it's safe to say a new Concordance wouldn't have to worry about being in need of updating for a while.
Even in the LITERATURE forum?
For the "Concordance" they don't.
Bjo Trimble counts canonical stuff, plus TAS, plus those stray factoids mentioned in scripts, call sheets and writers' guides that didn't make it to screen (eg. Planet Neural's name, M'Ress being a Caitian, Shran's name in "The Andorian Incident" - yes, he was never named onscreen in that first appearance. Neither was Thon - only Keval and Tholos.)
Why would you single out MacFarlane? He's just one of multiple producers who have spoken to the press about wanting to bring ST back to television, and it's nothing more than talk and wishful thinking. He never even made an actual pitch for such a series; he just said to a reporter that he'd like to take a crack at it in the extremely unlikely event that he ever got the opportunity.
Tribble Herder
Lieutenant Commander
McFarlane just strikes me as the kind of guy who'll toe the continuity line. He seems more interested in a relaunch, not another reboot.
I don't know about that. McFarlane is a big Star Trek fan. I suspect he would have more regard for what has come before and the fans than Abrams.
Of course, McFarlane is stretched so thin with all his projects, I can't imagine him having time for a Star Trek series.
Of course, McFarlane is stretched so thin with all his projects, I can't imagine him having time for a Star Trek series.
Umm, I think you misread what Tribble Herder wrote, because you're actually agreeing.
From what I've seen, MacFarlane has very little imagination (or talent) and just imitates or alludes to pre-existing stuff. So of course if he got to do a Trek series, it would just be a tired, fannish rehash of things we've seen before. I'd much rather see a fresh take from someone who actually has innovative ideas and can bring in a whole new audience, rather than just pandering to the nostalgia of the existing fanbase.
But again, this is all purely hypothetical. MacFarlane has never actually pitched anything and there's no reason to think he ever would get the chance to do it. He just said to some reporter that he'd like to do it in theory, and also said that he didn't expect he'd ever actually get the chance.
Tribble Herder
Lieutenant Commander
He got a pretty decent amount of press in the industry mags, with headlines like, "'Family Guy's' MacFarlane Wants To Relaunch 'Star Trek' On TV". And with his resume, if CBS decides it's time to give a series another shot, he's got to be on the shortlist of who to go with.
Plus, what you see as lack of imagination, I see as having a knack for finding innovative ways of playing with the toys already in the sandbox, rather than upending the whole thing and trying to reinvent the sand.
Plus, what you see as lack of imagination, I see as having a knack for finding innovative ways of playing with the toys already in the sandbox, rather than upending the whole thing and trying to reinvent the sand.
Won't it depend on what CBS would want in the way of a new ST series? It's not like they can do a continuation with any of the original TV casts, and it's highly unlikely that all of JJ's actors will be affordable or agreeable to do TV if they're doing big, successful non-ST motion pictures.
Not matter how much of a ST fan MacFarlane - or anybody - is, a new ST series with familiar characters can't be totally consistent with the old timeline. If you recast everyone, and remake every old TOS costume and set, it's still not going to be any more consistent than the popular fanfilms, just more professional. If you go with a series set decades after TNG/DS9/VOY, there's a chance you can have the old 24th century characters making cameos and guest appearances, but it will feel like a whole new beginning, no matter which timeline is used, Roddenberry's or Abrams'.
Don't forget to sift out all the cat poo.
That's because journalists need something to fill space with and so they'll gladly manufacture a story where none exists. All too often, a reporter will fish for a story by asking an interview subject "Do you want to do X?" Whereupon the subject may say "Sure, I might like to take a stab at X someday," and then the reporter will inflate that into a banner headline "FAMOUS PRODUCER WANTS TO DO X!!" and thereby create the false impression that the story originated with the producer instead of being manufactured wholly by the reporter. It's a common tactic of journalism, especially when reporting on something like Star Trek which generates a finite amount of actual, meaningful news. When there isn't any significant news to report, insignificant news gets blown up to look like it's significant, because the news outlets need to fill airtime or column space with something.
Heck, last year there was a similarly big fuss about some other producer's proposal to reboot ST, but that "producer" was some guy who had only one or two credits to his name and effectively zero chance of getting his ideas heard. But he put his proposal on the Internet and it became a big deal because the Internet doesn't have newsworthiness filters.
But the only shows he's produced are animated sitcoms (which are pretty much just the same sitcom over and over again, which in turn is a ripoff of The Simpsons). Why would you think he'd be on the short list for producing a live-action drama? I mean, we've got people like Bryan Singer and Bryan Fuller (who actually was a Trek producer before he became the big name he is today) talking about wanting to co-create a new Trek series. If CBS were actually to choose from the producers who've expressed public interest (which is a pretty silly "if" in itself), the two Bryans would strike me as much more likely prospects.
Innovative? I saw part of one of his Star Wars parody episodes of Family Guy, and I wouldn't even call it parody. It was just slavish, shot-for-shot recreations of scenes from Star Wars with the occasional disgusting pedophilia reference thrown in.
And I for one think that upending the whole thing is a damn good idea. Star Trek is supposed to be about the spirit of exploration and adventure, about gladly embracing the new and different. It's supposed to be innovative and on the cutting edge. The original Star Trek broke new ground and redefined mass-media science fiction, bringing it a new level of maturity and sophistication. Its look and production values were revolutionary for its day, and it daringly pushed the envelope in sexual content and controversial subject matter.
So it saddens me that so many fans these days want Star Trek to be safe and conservative, to cling to the comfortable and familiar and avoid taking chances. That's what ST became in the TNG era and after, a stalwart bastion of the establishment and upholder of the conventional, and so it surrendered the cutting edge to other franchises like Babylon 5 and the Buffyverse. And that's part of why its popularity and relevance to the larger cultural landscape diminished. New Star Trek should recapture that sense of freshness and daring and novelty that TOS had. Abrams's film did just that, not just clinging to the old but reinventing it with a modern sensibility. And that may not have pleased the conservative fans who like their Trek to be comfortable and familiar, but it certainly pleased general audiences and critics and made the film a huge box-office success. Any new Trek series would similarly have to find a fresh, modern approach and not be afraid to break new ground. Trek should be about looking to the future, not clinging to the past.
Tribble Herder
Lieutenant Commander
I think he's got more in his bag of tricks than we've seen. Plus, I think he's looking for an excuse to call it a day on "Family Guy" at this point.
It would be difficult to have less.
As much as I enjoy Seth McFarlane's shows, I doubt he'd have a chance against the two Bryans when it comes to people making a new Trek show. Both of them have a history, not only with Trek (Fuller was a writer for both DS9 and Voy, Singer already made a pitch before Abrams' movie was released, and had a small acting role in Nemesis), but also with their own sci-fi TV and movie properties. I just don't see how anything McFarlane has done would make people think he could do a better Trek show then Singer and Fuller.
Actually MacFarlane had a bit speaking part as Ensign Rivers in two episodes of Enterprise ("The Forgotten" and "Affliction"), and had five lines in total, which I believe is five lines more than Bryan Singer had. So I wouldn't say Singer's Nemesis cameo counts as one of his advantages over MacFarlane, although of course he has many other advantages.
Tribble Herder
Lieutenant Commander
Frankly, every idea I've ever heard from Fuller sounded depressing as all hell, so I wouldn't go with him in any case.
Whereas Mr. MacFarlane....
Now, THAT'S the kind of pitch I wanna hear from a prospective Star Trek producer!
Whereas Mr. MacFarlane....
Now, THAT'S the kind of pitch I wanna hear from a prospective Star Trek producer!
I think a Family Guy reference in a Star Trek episode may make my head explode. In a good way.
