Shatner's 2007 novel Star Trek Academy: Collision Course was based on a TV series concept he pitched in 2003. I guess that story would have been the first season, or something.
My view on a new Trek series.
- Thread starter Xhiandra
- Start date
If they do a new continuity, it should be another new reimagining.
You mean, another recycling?
No thanks. Trek doesn't need more dabblers who will make cosmetic changes and rehash the old material like that fella in your avatar.
It's really just a question of when an all-new continuity will come around. Given the current trend in Hollywood for reboots to come faster and faster (every third film or every ten years, it seems), another new take on TOS may actually come sooner than later.
A TOS reboot (real reboot, no alternate universe nonsense) was proposed by Straczynski and Zabel some 9 years ago. But Paramount decided not to go that route and chose the current movie thing instead. Actually, I think that reboot proposed by Straczinsky & Zabel might have worked, although I'm not a fan of reboots. A Trek series should be original, innovative and future-oriented, not some recycling of old material.
An awful episode, at that.
Which apparently worked. It had the benefit of being both a continuation and relaunch of the original continuity, with the end result being a new TOS with a clean slate ahead of it anyway.
I think with Star Trek XII, arguments about the previous film being better as a real reboot really becomes a moot point, IMO.
To me it's simple.
Do a modern day version of Next Generation
Core timeline, early 2380's, Enterprise F, exploration, diplomacy etc.
TNG was the most popular show, update it for the modern day, cast a quality popular actor as the captain, give it an attractive cast, make it a bit "cooler" and more action oriented, but keep the good storytelling intact.
We don't need a TOS reboot, Pine and co are not going to do a TV show, we don't need a THIRD captain Kirk, and we don't need to retread old ground, this needs to be in a new era, not one where we know what happened and we suddenly have Three canonical timelines (FOUR if you count trek-lit)
It's not hard is it.
Do a modern day version of Next Generation
Core timeline, early 2380's, Enterprise F, exploration, diplomacy etc.
TNG was the most popular show, update it for the modern day, cast a quality popular actor as the captain, give it an attractive cast, make it a bit "cooler" and more action oriented, but keep the good storytelling intact.
We don't need a TOS reboot, Pine and co are not going to do a TV show, we don't need a THIRD captain Kirk, and we don't need to retread old ground, this needs to be in a new era, not one where we know what happened and we suddenly have Three canonical timelines (FOUR if you count trek-lit)
It's not hard is it.
yeah almost.
TNG "era" or just after, same continuity but more of a TOS "feel"
I think that's debatable. It had more viewers in first run but struggled in strip syndication and at the theater in comparison to TOS.
And TOS is more broadly known among the general population.
well i don't want to get into the bones of it, but it pulled the sort of numbers a T.V show needs to stay on the air these days, and right now that is more important than syndication, because lets face it, unless any new Star Trek pulls TNG numbers out of the gate, it won't get more than a season to put into syndication.
Honestly, I think it was simply impossible that TNG would fail. People had been watching the same TOS reruns over-and-over-and-over for seventeen years at that point (I was one of them) and there was only seventy-nine episodes and four movies. There was a pent-up demand for new Star Trek.
A new live-action series simply will have a much tougher road to travel than TNG did, competing with seven hundred plus hours of already made Trek.
Unless CBS is ready with an amazing concept (that can lure both Trek fans and a general audience), amazing writers and amazing actors and has a "money is no object" mentality, it's probably best to leave it on the big screen.
At the time, there were indeed justifiable fears that TNG would flop because it wasn't the same Star Trek those people grew up/fell in love with since 1966. Would audiences accept Captain Jean-Luc Picard? A Star Trek series without Kirk, Spock, and Scotty? It really wasn't a sure thing back then.
A new live-action Trek series could focus on telling new stories, with new characters and situations like TNG did. It needs to be no more a slave to previous things than TNG was to TOS. The real question is whether CBS wants a new Trek series to play it safe by simply remaking TOS or TNG, or take a chance with new characters.
I actually do remember someone saying something almost exactly like that at a Trek convention about TNG even before the series was cast. He didn't think an all-new Star Trek TV series could ever work.
I actually do remember someone saying something almost exactly like that at a Trek convention about TNG even before the series was cast. He didn't think an all-new Star Trek TV series could ever work.
There's just a world of difference in where Trek was at in 1987 and where it's at in 2013.
It's not that it 'can't' work, it just has a tougher road to success than TNG. IMO.
Not really. Trek was essentially a movie franchise in 1986--it's essentially a movie franchise in 2013.I actually do remember someone saying something almost exactly like that at a Trek convention about TNG even before the series was cast. He didn't think an all-new Star Trek TV series could ever work.
There's just a world of difference in where Trek was at in 1987 and where it's at in 2013.
Not all all. TNG had a number of big hurdles to overcome to get on the air, including some reluctance by the "big three" networks (which forced it to go the first-run syndication route, which in itself wasn't easy because Paramount had to make all sorts of deals to get enough local TV stations to buy the show).
In hindsight, it all worked out, but there was a considerable degree of nail-biting about whether TNG would work. It was by no means guaranteed to be a hit from the get-go.
Any new series may have Trek's background as a hindrance. I would gloss over Trek's continuity if it's in the old timeline and set the show in the 25th century. Familiarity but new, that is key...
I wouldn't quibble over a JJ Abrams timeline series though, I think right now that is the most likely series.
RAMA
I wouldn't quibble over a JJ Abrams timeline series though, I think right now that is the most likely series.
RAMA
It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.
The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.
No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700. ST09 correctly decided to make the movie familiar but not saddled with too much backstory. Now I may have agreed with you in the 80s or early 90s, but the history of the last 3 Trek shows has proven the audience does not want to follow too much information.
RAMA
