Has there been substantial demonstration of wanting new?
Ok. What is the chance of a Picard spinoff?
- Thread starter ELCHawk
- Start date
Quite the opposite given Lord Terry is a canonized saint for regurgitating the franchise's greatest hits.
^ You guys are aware there's no one forcing you watch any of this, right?
If they make more series set in the early-25th Century, just don't watch it.
If they make more series set in the early-25th Century, just don't watch it.
It's interesting to see what is valued in a Trek series.
I have no objection to an early 25th show in theory. I just don't want the Berman era revival everyone else seems to be clamoring for. The Berman era is done, time to move on.
I have no objection to it either. I'm fascinated by what drives others interest in a potential show.
Granted the Space 70's would be very cool for a one off, but yeah they'd never do it... unless somehow Quentin Tarantino was involved.
Even with Post-TUC/Pre-TNG you run into late 80's/early 90's production design if you want it to be an in continuity period piece... which would be tall odds. The only thing I could see happening here is some kind of Young Picard on the Stargazer series that manages to contradict half of what had already been established...
We can always bring back TOS vs TNG, with a full on post-SNW TOS reboot trading off with a TNG continuation.
My whole thing comes down to rebooting Star Trek just makes it into a generic space sci-fi show. With no past continuity to anchor it, it has to be damn good on its own terms... in which case why not make it into its own IP? While THE ORVILLE does scratch an itch, it probably wouldn't even fall into the top 5 genre series of the last decade.
put it so Koenig and Takei are the correct ages for a first episode cameo.
How in the wide world of sports did Star Trek survive just being TOS and TNG?
Both are pretty damn good?
So why can't a reboot do that too?
Because none of the people that have been involved in the franchise since 2005 could likely do a better job? Because I'm a fan of the pre-existing lore and (non-revisionist) characters, and not just the format? Because many new things could just as easily be accomplished by a 25th century continuation instead of throwing out decades worth of world building?
Rebooting concepts like Battlestar Galactica and V that never reached their full potential made sense. One worked, the other not so much. Rebooting Star Trek would be like rebooting Star Wars.
And, yes, ST09 made money... but it was unsustainable in the long run.
I would've been fine with that before they started shoving SNW down my throat for the past several years and telling me everything else I like sucks or that they shouldn't be doing it. First it was Section 31 they were trying to stop, then it was Discovery they trashed non-stop once they had SNW, then they moved on to trashing Picard, and now they're trying to stop Legacy. Doesn't matter what anyone might think of those projects, the point is every time there's been something I've looked forward to or wanted to see, they've been like, "Nope! Nope! Let's have Strange New Worlds!"
And what's their pitch? "Why watch more of something you like when there are gaps in history to fill?!" Gaps in history. Like it's school or something. And they don't realize the quickest way to make me not interested in something is to say, "Hey! That thing you like sucks! Come watch our show! Come watch our show! Come watch our show!" No, I think I'm good. "Come watch our show!" No, really, I think I'm good. "Come watch our show!" Umm, can I go now? "Come watch our show!"
Last edited:
Nope. The only fillings I've ever needed were when a dentist told me I had a cavity.Do these "gaps" necessarily need filling?
But would they go all out and remake the OT?It hasn't stopped Disney.
How many prequels/sequels has SW had so far?
All I can say is I really really liked the Pike series... when Marvel did it in the 1990's with Star Trek: Early Voyages.
Depends who you ask.Do these "gaps" necessarily need filling?
I think they would.
I sure hope so.
Assumption.
The lore is not as important. TOS built lore from the ground up and people engaged because of characters, not just imagined history.
Was it? Or was it crippled by a need to repeat lore because that was the expectation?
Similar threads
