NuTrek's big, controversial premises

[Rahul]

In the 90s & 00s, premises for new Trek shows had been bold ideas like "it's a new crew", "it's a station, not a ship", "it's a ship, but lost" and "it's a prequel".
Certainly not the most radical of concepts.

But even back then, there had been a ton of horrible, bad, no good, twist ideas for epic new Trek shows, usually spewed out on internet boards and magazine comments by people without a clue, that would never, ever work in real Trek.

Looking back at the Kurtzman/Abrams era now, it is quite amusing that it went like a checklist through every single one of the most controversial premises:

What if we recast Kirk & Spock? Twice. What if we do Fall of the Federation? What if we go a thousand years into the future? What if we do a reboot? What if we do an alternate timeline? Both at the same time. Twice. What if the Dominion & Borg team up against the Federation? What if we do a Section 31 show, with a bunch of baddies as main characters? What if we do Academy - twice - but instead of an academy, we make it Top Gun (movie), or 90210 with horny teenagers (series)? What if we bring Data back? Twice. What if we do a full season set on Earth, in present day? What if we do a TNG reunion, but make it exactly like the TOS movies?

It's almost ridiculous. It feels like there is no bad idea to go to anymore, because we went through all of them already.

I think the only ones on the 90s/00s BBS bullshit bingo board we're still missing is What if we go to another galaxy? And What if we do a time travel show? Did I miss any?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

What about "what if we make it about one character instead of a crew"/what if the main character is not the captain"?

 

[UssGlenn]

Star Trek: Firefly
Star Trek: Klingon

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

They've done everything except Captain Sulu and Captain Worf.

But yeah I was surprised when they finally actually did the fall of the Federation and Starfleet Academy projects they've been threatening for decades.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm still holding out for "Assignment: Earth," the series.

And those weren't all inherently bad ideas.

Nothing wrong with recasting Kirk and Spock or whoever. And I'm still in mourning for SFA, which I was really enjoying . . . and would've loved to have a written a book for.

 

[Rahul]

And I'm still in mourning for SFA, which I was really enjoying . . . and would've loved to have a written a book for.

Hey who says that won't be still possible?
The beauty of tie-in books is that they are unaffected by shows ending, actors aging out, budgets not being available - they can be written and take place whenever, wherever, and only imagination is the limit!

 

[Greg Cox]

Hey who says that won't be still possible?
The beauty of tie-in books is that they are unaffected by shows ending, actors aging out, budgets not being available - they can be written and take place whenever, wherever, and only imagination is the limit!

Good point . . . says the guy who is still writing novels based on a TV show that was canceled in 1969!

 

[Rahul]

They've done everything except Captain Sulu and Captain Worf.

But yeah I was surprised when they finally actually did the fall of the Federation and Starfleet Academy projects they've been threatening for decades.

Ah, I forgot about the "Lost era Trek show". Aka What if everything is still the same except everyone is wearing the monster maroon uniforms without turtlenecks?
With the Enterprise-C, the only Enterprise that was a one-off 80s television studio prop model.

.... and I just realized technically even that was covered with Rachel Garrett on the Section 31 movie/aborted show...

 

[fireproof78]

bad, no good, twist ideas for epic new Trek shows, usually spewed out on internet boards and magazine comments by people without a clue, that would never, ever work in real Trek.

Ah, yes, the real Trek argument.

What is real Trek?

 

[Firebird]

Good point . . . says the guy who is still writing novels based on a TV show that was canceled in 1969!

I'd take a season three and four of SFA as written by you, Greg!

 

[Denise]

Good point . . . says the guy who is still writing novels based on a TV show that was canceled in 1969!

Thank goodness.

 

[CoveTom]

Ah, yes, the real Trek argument.

What is real Trek?

Everything before Alex Kurtzman got involved. Er, I mean J.J. Abrams. Well, actually, Rick Berman. Scratch that. Harve Bennett. No, definitely pre-Fred Freiberger.

You know what? Maybe it's more like Justice Potter Stewart in that we just know it when we see it?

 

[The Wormhole]

"Real Star Trek" just means "Star Trek I like."

 

[1001001]

What is real Trek?

One of the most tedious and boring discussions on this board?

 

[Firebird]

"Real Star Trek" just means "Star Trek I like."

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I think you can start with just about any basic premise (where it takes place, when, who the villains are, etc.) and make something people eventually like, whether or not they're skeptical of it beforehand.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

"Real Star Trek" just means "Star Trek I like."

A Star Trek episode that appeals to Star Trek fans does have a pretty high chance of being Star Trek, it's true.

 

[Rahul]

One of the most tedious and boring discussions on this board?

It's only Star Trek if it comes from the Stars area of California.
Otherwise it's just sparkling sci-fi.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's almost ridiculous. It feels like there is no bad idea to go to anymore, because we went through all of them already.

Speak for yourself, I've much enjoyed what they've done - especially SFA (which I've been waiting for since the movie that never happened in the 90's) and Prodigy. Silly ideas? Maybe. Bad ideas? Nope.

Section 31 was the only thing that I wasn't convinced by as a series premise (although was giving them benefit of the doubt) and became a dreadful movie.

I'm glad they didn't do the exact same thing over and over with different faces.

What would you have done?

 

[Greg Cox]

There's no such thing as "real" Trek, only variations on a theme.