Jonathan Frakes: "Star Trek won't be coming back to TV."

[TheSubCommander]

Star Trek should be a higher and be a great example of people unwilling to move on to another show with different characters, I mean look at how many people were less willing to see TNG when it was first announced because it didn't have Kirk and Spock in it!

^This.

I think the problem might have a bit to do with not having someone viewed as THE Star Trek person - the one that holds the vision of what ST is and should/will be. I had started a tread about who the future standard-bearer could be (not to promote the tread, just reference). There doesn't seem to be that person(s).

Without the vision of the original creator (Roddenberry) or someone that had been with the show in the past and was linked to the creator in some manner, there doesn't seem to be anyone with the credibility and therefore a strong enough voice to push such an initiative through. I don't think Berman and Braga, although previously connected with the show and the creator, would be very popular. Of course Frakes is a fan favorite, but he was unable to convince the folks at CBS.

Not that I'm trying to make Gene Roddenberry out to be some demi-god, but it was his and he did have the vision and the ability to convince people to televise it - even before syndication was popular (thinking of TNG here).

Not that I disagree with you there, but the original creator of a show, or a tangential connection to said creator, isn't always necessary for a spin off of the original concept to be successful.

For example, take Stargate. In my opinion, SG1, Atlantis, and SGU far exceeds the original movie by Roland Emmerich, and with Emmerich finally "reclaiming" Stargate and doing a reboot, I think he will actually be seen by most fans of the series as a pretender to the throne of sorts, of his own concept.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

The Emmerich scenario is an interesting one.

Wright, Glass, RDA, Mallozzi, Mullie, et al... those are definitely the creative minds of Stargate for me. I'm not a fan of Emmerich's work, and I'm not a fan of the 1994 original movie beyond the novelty coolness of its plot device. But what came after it is one of my favorite franchises and there's zero creative input from Emmerich in any of the 340+ episodes.

God, I miss TV Stargate. Almost as much as I miss TV Trek.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I like the Game Of Thrones formula (in terms of format). Multiple story lines going on in different locations that all tie into a larger central story arc.

I think part of what makes that format work is the actual desire for conquest of many. Star Trek can work within the framework of war, but perhaps DS9 covered those bases.

What might be interesting in this format is something based off of TNG's "Conspiracy." That could involve a lot of different organizations and how they handle the invasion. It could be really good, although I don't know if it would have the power to last more than a season.

Which brings us to a point here: The shows that are coming back like 24, X-Files, Twin Peaks, etc. are miniseries "events". With 24, it may be spinning off into a future full series. I get the feeling that if Star Trek were to come back that they might want to test the waters like these other shows before going gung ho. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Trek event series.

 

[eyeresist]

All this talk about sci fi shows not being popular anymore, seems to be undermined by all the super hero shows being made.

I would argue that superhero and sci-fi are generally perceived as different things.

I don't see why they cannot be both......

A superhero show is about a super-powered person fighting crime, usually in a universe that includes magic and supernatural beings.

A science fiction show is ... not. The stories are based on speculative science (something a bit more serious than "Ice Man has a freeze ray!") and/or set in a speculative future.

Star Trek is a mid-range product with an incredibly whiny and rapidly aging fanbase

Speak for yourself - I am aging at the normal rate.

 

[BillJ]

Speak for yourself - I am aging at the normal rate.

It is getting all "The Deadly Years" up in here!

 

[Ryan8bit]

A superhero show is about a super-powered person fighting crime, usually in a universe that includes magic and supernatural beings.

A science fiction show is ... not. The stories are based on speculative science (something a bit more serious than "Ice Man has a freeze ray!") and/or set in a speculative future.

Not every superhero needs to have superpowers though. Batman, particularly the new ones, seem like they lean a bit more towards realism or at least explaining the technology. Iron Man is similar, albeit a bit more fantastic. And there's no reason that some of these movies couldn't have a more scientific rationale, but there's not really any point to that.

Just the same, Star Trek hasn't really much been based on speculative science. Sure, there are some elements of science thrown in there, but there are plenty of superpowers thrown in as well.