Actually Voyager makes it home, so no point of a movie. I'd like Brooks back on DS9 though!
Is There Even A REMOTE Chance Of A New Trek Series?
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
Actually Voyager makes it home, so no point of a movie. I'd like Brooks back on DS9 though!
I agree. Voyger had good characters and some of them could show up in a movie. Having characters from all three of those series would also attract fans form all three series as well.
Thats why you'd have the books written so that some of the more exotic aliens get put off ship and more traditional humanoid crew-members take their place.
Problem solved.
Better than a remote chance - if the movie is a big hit, and I think it will be (it's hard for heavily-marketed blockbuster action movies nowadays to be an international flop, even the crappiest ones make money!) then the natural step to capitalizing on the revived Star Trek brand is to send it back to TV. It will be a 23rd C series, but not starring Kirk et al. More likely, a new cast with the movie actors dropping by for special episodes.
But TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT will be strenuously ignored. A successful Trek XI will send a message that "people want TOS, forget that other stuff." An unsuccessful Trek XI will send a message that "people don't want Star Trek." Period.
There's no scenario under which I can envision a resurrection of TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT.
But TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT will be strenuously ignored. A successful Trek XI will send a message that "people want TOS, forget that other stuff." An unsuccessful Trek XI will send a message that "people don't want Star Trek." Period.
There's no scenario under which I can envision a resurrection of TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
That's why they do a Whedon-esque manuevor and kill Riker off early in the first season.
IMHO, and this may be an unpopular opinion, they should let it rest for a good long while. The movie coming out is, to me, even more reason to let it go for a bit. Let there be a hunger out there for it (beyond that in the core fan base) and then we can consider bringing it back. I vote for a 10 year hiatus, and I am not joking on this.
Remote?
If anything, I doubt a live action series would make it back to TV.
Now an animated series is a possibility. There, it would be just voice work and could even sustain the possibility of different actors.
A cheaper and less risky proposition capitalizing on the success of a Star Trek film while testing the waters of a return to TV.
In this latter-day acceptance of animated shows like Simpsons, Futurama, and the popularity of Adult Swim among others, animated shows don't have the stigma they once has as saturday morning fare.
Agreed on the idea of TOS only.
You're kidding, right? The only mainstream adult cartoons are raunchy comedies. Lucas talked about the problem finding a spot for his Clone Wars cartoon. If that show does well, then a cartoon might be considered, but I still doubt CBS would want to risk harming the Trek brand with another cartoon.
Heh heh. We typically refer to Trek show by a three-letter abbreviation -- TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. Would a Titan series be called TIT?
Yes, I'm in one of those moods.
Not if they decide to capitalize on the success of the movies with a TV series that keys off the movies. Maybe with the movie characters, maybe with characters from the 23rd C who can occasionally interact with the movie characters (in both TV and movies). If I were in charge of maximizing profits, that's what I would do.
Why not? What if the movie is a MONSTER hit?
I wouldn't discount an animated series, but it doesn't say "mainstream hit" to me. If the movie is a big hit, they'll want to keep building the brand in any and every way possible. Video games, fast food toys, all sorts of Internet shit...why leave out TV? Remember to the bean counters, TV is just another revenue stream. It's not some sort of sacred holy grail.
But despite all the fast food toys, they are also going to want to protect the brand by presenting it in a premium way. And to me, live-action feels more premium than a cartoon. Even a well-done cartoon (Futurama, not TAS) would raise the question of why they can't spend the $$$ to do live-action instead?
Last edited:
A live action series will be the only way for Trek to relly come back.
What if some TOS movies are sucessful and there is no TOS era series to exploit the newly-gained poularity ?
After another (probably even longer pause) where could they even pick up?
-Recast again and make more TOS movies, probably some day extending into the TOS movie era which would be odd to say the least?
-Make a TOS spinoff? Why not, but that would only work as a series
- Just keep making TOS movies with the current dudes until one of the films tanks?
this "reviving of Star Trek" might not last long if they just stick to movies.
Not saying it will worry Paramount, but shouldn't us fans be worried?
And about those movies: I am looking forward to ST XI, a sequel might also work well, but the problem remains: We know those fictional characters, and even if people don't, they can read up on what will happen to them in that fictional universe.
A universe we already even know the future of. That's not a recipe for a long series of movies.
Does Star Trek have a future as an ongoing Saga at all?
Or will we have to wait for the next resurrection of the franchise, maybe as a BSG-esque reinterpretation where the most popular elements of TNG and TOS are mixed with all-new canon? A female Captain Kirk fighting the Borg?
What if some TOS movies are sucessful and there is no TOS era series to exploit the newly-gained poularity ?
After another (probably even longer pause) where could they even pick up?
-Recast again and make more TOS movies, probably some day extending into the TOS movie era which would be odd to say the least?
-Make a TOS spinoff? Why not, but that would only work as a series
- Just keep making TOS movies with the current dudes until one of the films tanks?
this "reviving of Star Trek" might not last long if they just stick to movies.
Not saying it will worry Paramount, but shouldn't us fans be worried?
And about those movies: I am looking forward to ST XI, a sequel might also work well, but the problem remains: We know those fictional characters, and even if people don't, they can read up on what will happen to them in that fictional universe.
A universe we already even know the future of. That's not a recipe for a long series of movies.
Does Star Trek have a future as an ongoing Saga at all?
Or will we have to wait for the next resurrection of the franchise, maybe as a BSG-esque reinterpretation where the most popular elements of TNG and TOS are mixed with all-new canon? A female Captain Kirk fighting the Borg?
Maybe as DVD release only ... but would it attract people who know nothing about the series and pay their 15 dollars to see a film about characters they know very little about.
I wouldn't mind seeing it, but is it too late now?
With a new show depends on how the movies goes.
My money is on them doing both, with the TV TOS cast waiting in the wings to take over the film franchise.
Look at the way Iron Man has taken off. Ha ha to my so-called "LA insider" friend who told me the movie would tank because "nobody has heard of Iron Man."
(Damn I should call him now and gloat.) Well that's true, he's not a first-rank comic book character to the vast unwashed masses who don't really follow comics, but that just goes to show that if a lesser-known brand name like that can take off, with a bit of good management, Star Trek should have no problem doing the same.That won't be a problem, for two reasons:
1. When the new movie makes a whole lot of new fans, most won't know anything about the future events, or if they saw any of the series at one point, they won't recall, or if they recall (like me), it won't detract from their enjoyment. Again, look at Iron Man. The movie is based on the character's origin, 45 some odd years ago, and the intervening decades have seen a mammoth amount of story created for the character. How many people standing in line for tickets now know or care anything about all that material?
2. Who says knowing the future makes a story boring? We know how the Civil War ended. Does that make Gone with the Wind boring? We know how WWII ended. Does that make Band of Brothers boring? LOTR was a popular movie series, and a large percentage of the viewers knew how the story turned out before they saw the first frame. Why didn't LOTR crash and burn at the box office?
Yes, an indefinite future of enduring popularity and profitability. All it requires is something it hasn't had for a while: good management by people who understand its strengths and have the ambition to create something both respectful of the past, and exciting & new.
And as much as I love DS9, we won't see the TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT characters resurrected anytime soon. The focus for the foreseeable future will be going back to the 23rd C and building up that era, with the TOS characters at the core. Not that the 24th C is "played out" (the notion of an entire century worth of story in an entire galaxy being "played out" is bizarre beyond belief) but just because it's a smart strategy to build from strength, and Trek XI will in large part create that strength.
Last edited:
To quote an old Firesign Theatre title, "Everything You Know is Wrong". Guys, if you look at the writing on the wall and read between the lines (and other cliched metaphors), this is the BSG reboot. Abrams and company are making a film that will appeal to Trek fans and the mass movie audience alike. However, if what happens in the movie discounts something in current Trek canon (like for instance Chekhov being on board from the get-go) but still makes cinematic or story sense, they'll do what works for this story.
And that's fine for an old-timer like me. This is not your father's or grandfather's Trek. This is a whole new deal. Any new series will take place in this new universe and anything that came before is the ST of an alternate universe.
Enjoy.
And that's fine for an old-timer like me. This is not your father's or grandfather's Trek. This is a whole new deal. Any new series will take place in this new universe and anything that came before is the ST of an alternate universe.
Enjoy.
Absolutely Right(TM).
Right now, everything is riding on the success of Abrams' Trek film. If Star Trek (2008) is as financially and critically successful as Paramount hopes it to be, then the Trek franchise will continue. However, I think that for the immediate future, Trek will stay on the big screen. The actors have said that they're contracted for 3 films. Paramount is looking to make Trek a big-budget Hollywood film franchise. I don't think anyone at Viacom/Paramount/CBS is thinking about another Trek series.
IF Trek were to return to the small screen in a few years, whatever new show they created would likely be based within the "reinvented" universe that Abrams is creating with the new film franchise. Call it a re-boot. Call it a re-imagining. Call it an alternate universe. Whatever it is, it will exist in its own little bubble and won't rely on the Trek series from yesterday. There won't be any major references to TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT. Those characters are gone from the on-screen Trek canvas. Stick with the novels because that's all we're getting from those series.
IF Trek were to return to the small screen in a few years, whatever new show they created would likely be based within the "reinvented" universe that Abrams is creating with the new film franchise. Call it a re-boot. Call it a re-imagining. Call it an alternate universe. Whatever it is, it will exist in its own little bubble and won't rely on the Trek series from yesterday. There won't be any major references to TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT. Those characters are gone from the on-screen Trek canvas. Stick with the novels because that's all we're getting from those series.
it almost seems a reboot is trek's only chance now that they're taking the TOS remake path.
Nope.
Right. It is a small revenue stream if it is a hit, otherwise it gets canceled - fast.
Your statement of "Holy Grail" (in this case live action trek) is something trek has fallen short on for too many years to have the trek tv stigma simply wiped out by yet another live action trek.
And to me, yet another live action tv trek series is asking the populace to believe in more than can be expected. TV and big budget motion pictures are different animals of capitalism.
Regardless of the above, if animation can give something more than bumpy-forehead of the week then whoo-hoo!
I think the time for Titan has gone and past. By the time the show got on the air, Frakes will almost be 60 years old. I doubt he'll want to put in the kind of committment that it would take for another 7 years of a weekly tv series. I can see Frakes making a cameo appearance or even having an occuring guest starring role in a new series, but definitely not an entire Riker/Titan show. They need new characters and new conflicts instead of retreading old material and adhering to the same old formula. that made TNG successful
Personally I want to see a TOS era show or once set inbetween TOS & TNG that is about a different ship on its 5 year mission to explore the galaxy. I think the VOY finale with all that TECH screwed up any chance of a decent show set at the end of the 24th century or after.
I so hope we never see a TREK show set in the era when we are nothing more than timelords.
I so hope we never see a TREK show set in the era when we are nothing more than timelords.
Similar threads
