That's what she said!
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
I have a few opinions on the matter as to whether or not "Star Trek" should continue.
1. Yes, I think it should.
2. This particular era should be sunset. All things have their start-ups, their peak, and their end decline. It's not a slam or a bad thing, it's just reality of everything in life. This era's time has come.
3. A new approach to Star Trek, in my admittedly personal opinion only, would be one of two formats:
- A "Lost Era" series that picks up right after The Undiscovered Country. Pioneering, exploring, adventuring, but in a post-cold war universe where the galaxy is trying to find a new order of things. A galaxy where the Klingon Empire is fragile. A galaxy where a major multi-power conspiracy was just uncovered and put down. It's a great universe for sci-fi storytelling, and it's a great place for Star Trek to re-establish itself as a thoughtful, sci-fi adventure franchise with a rich backdrop to build off of.
- A TOTAL reboot built along the same lines as the rebooted Battlestar Galactica. Give it the same feel, same general DNA, but start completely over. Have the same approach as in 1966 that science is going to be a part of this new show. Make it science fiction aimed at Star Trek fans, and go back to the roots of a ship that is out on the frontier of space, exploring and getting into adventures. Discard absolutely everything, except for bare-bones structural things (the Enterprise, the Federation, Transporters, Warp Drive, etc) and start the whole thing over again with more reasonable budgeting, creative intelligent sci-fi writing, a clear-cut vision for what the show is, and a clear target audience.
No matter what, if Star Trek is to continue, it needs to be created by people who love the franchise, understand intelligent science fiction writing, have a clear vision that can align behind those two things, and isn't trying to be "all things for all people." Star Trek isn't Marvel. It's build for a different breed of genre fan.
1. Yes, I think it should.
2. This particular era should be sunset. All things have their start-ups, their peak, and their end decline. It's not a slam or a bad thing, it's just reality of everything in life. This era's time has come.
3. A new approach to Star Trek, in my admittedly personal opinion only, would be one of two formats:
- A "Lost Era" series that picks up right after The Undiscovered Country. Pioneering, exploring, adventuring, but in a post-cold war universe where the galaxy is trying to find a new order of things. A galaxy where the Klingon Empire is fragile. A galaxy where a major multi-power conspiracy was just uncovered and put down. It's a great universe for sci-fi storytelling, and it's a great place for Star Trek to re-establish itself as a thoughtful, sci-fi adventure franchise with a rich backdrop to build off of.
- A TOTAL reboot built along the same lines as the rebooted Battlestar Galactica. Give it the same feel, same general DNA, but start completely over. Have the same approach as in 1966 that science is going to be a part of this new show. Make it science fiction aimed at Star Trek fans, and go back to the roots of a ship that is out on the frontier of space, exploring and getting into adventures. Discard absolutely everything, except for bare-bones structural things (the Enterprise, the Federation, Transporters, Warp Drive, etc) and start the whole thing over again with more reasonable budgeting, creative intelligent sci-fi writing, a clear-cut vision for what the show is, and a clear target audience.
No matter what, if Star Trek is to continue, it needs to be created by people who love the franchise, understand intelligent science fiction writing, have a clear vision that can align behind those two things, and isn't trying to be "all things for all people." Star Trek isn't Marvel. It's build for a different breed of genre fan.
This is my preference
This era’s barely four years in, storywise, and its steps into rebuilding the galaxy and the setting itself are still just beginning; it’s essentially wide open because of that. If there’s any era that shouldn’t be retired, and whose time has barely begun, it’s this one.
Now, would I like an episodic series about a starship exploring the planet of the week in this setting, and one whose focus is primarily on the new rather than references to previous eras? Yes, I would.
Now, would I like an episodic series about a starship exploring the planet of the week in this setting, and one whose focus is primarily on the new rather than references to previous eras? Yes, I would.
This. Completely this.
Unfortunately I don't think the change of setting/timeframe is going to be anything more than cosmetic, nor will it refresh things any more than Enterprise being set in the 22nd century did. They've been at this for a decade now and I think their writing and production style is starting to grate in the exact same way Berman's did.
They even had their own shot at a TOS soft reboot with SNW and they wound up turning it into all the same tropes, weak plotting, and rehashed ideas they fall back on every time.
I generally like SFA so far but already they've started to repeat the same trends as the other shows, including being obsessed with revisiting ideas from TOS/TNG/DS9/VGR. They've had almost ten years to make their mark and IMO they've mostly failed to come up with anything worthwhile; again I like SFA but I deeply hope it's their last show and that the franchise gets entirely new people and goes in a totally different direction after this - another vote here for the full reboot idea.
Last edited:
Agreed. Although I have issues with the streaming format, but those issues are larger than just Star Trek.
Again, agreed. I have pretty much completely lost interest in CBSTrek. I stopped watching DSC after S3, SNW after S2, and have no desire to watch SFA. I did enjoy the two seasons of Prodigy however, and would have continued watching it had it not gotten cancelled.
I have mentioned this before, but I personally would LOVE a show set during the Lost Era. Unfortunately, having it be produced by CBS would basically make it look and feel no different than SNW, PIC, DSC, or Section 31 (which was actually set during the Lost Era, not that you'd know it by looking at it.)
Apparently that is the goal for the people who are making the next Trek film. Unfortunately, there have been so many crying-wolf moments with Trek movies that I doubt this will ever happen either.
As long as CBS holds the IP, none of that is going to happen.
So why call it Star Trek?
I think this is true already.
What I'd like to see is, I suppose, functionally the same as a reboot: set a spacefaring-style show at some unexplained and not immediately obvious point in the Star Trek timeline. (use stardates). As suggested above, include a few bare-bones elements from what we know of "star trek" just for connective tissue. But no references to previous events, characters from other shows, etc. No Borg, Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Bajorans, Xindi, etc (other than perhaps very fleeting references to same). Space is wide-open for you again, see if you can get writers to tell original sci-fi infused tales in the old semi-anthologized format. If you can't create interesting fiction within that platform, then you shouldn't be the star trek business and (to go back to the original question of this thread) maybe star trek shouldn't be in the star trek business.
Because the brand name still has a measure of familiarity but going to a reboot gets a more level playing field for new audiences. Current Star Trek, dating all the way back to TNG loves its references and it seems the only way to get away from those is a reboot.
For the same reason why the new Battlestar Galactica was called that?
In an ideal reboot, it'd immediately feel like Star Trek, using the same adventure-of-the-week structure, same general tone, same storytelling conceits like phasers, and so on.
You could use the Enterprise (and even the original crew, obviously with some new additional characters), but that's not necessary.
The key at this point - for me, anyway, obviously others will disagree - is a return to the TOS anthology-esque format and a return to the setting being a blank canvas for any type of high-concept story a writer wants to tell. Nothing from TOS (or the spinoffs) need ever be included, nor should any story feel constrained by what's come before it. It's a model of storytelling that's more or less vanished at this point, but it's where I feel Star Trek's at its best.
tl;dr: Space should be an ocean of limitless and varied adventures, with fresh and entirely new ideas every week, rather than a tiny map with "KLINGONS" and "ROMULANS" written over shaded bits. If someone manages that, and wraps it in a mostly-upbeat tone, they've made Star Trek, and the franchise name will feel entirely earned and natural.
This was my feeling as well. An honest reboot - from the start.
Exactly this. And I would go one step further and put up a map of the galaxy, and mark areas they go to and create a sweeping grand view of travel for the anthology of the stories.
Honestly, my wife has been in a huge Clone Wars and Bad Batch kick, but the map of the galaxy and planetary placement is problematic. Setting these ideas up in advance would be helpful for a new anthology.
One of the things I find off-putting about (2/3 of) the Star Wars sequels is the disappearance of alien races from the earlier trilogies outside of legacy characters. The streaming shows do better in this regard.
Enough with the 23rd century. It's been done to death.
Why? What difference does it make what "century" it's set in?Enough with the 23rd century.
It's just been done to death.
What can we do that the movies, TOS, Disco, the Kelvin films, and SNW hasn't already covered?
Last edited:
Because there are still fundamental elements of what makes the franchise tick that I'd include.
Similar threads
