Rebooting Star Trek

[JarodRussell]

The big thing is losing the majority of the canon/continuity that Star Trek drags behind itself like a over-full diaper.

I hear many people say that, but what exactly was the problem with canon? When did canon ever stand in the way of the story of the recent Star Trek movies or shows? Yes, in a prequel it of course stands in the way, but who forced anyone to do a prequel? Just because George Lucas did it everyone has to do it?

I don't think canon was the reason that Nemesis bombed at the Box Office. And I don't think that ignoring canon was the reason that Star Trek 2009 made a lot of money.

 

[Captain Robert April]

That's all I require of any artwork. Have something to day. Otherwise what's the point of the exercise?
This is where the Abrams film failed.

WE HAVE A WINNAH!!

 

[Captain Robert April]

^^ The more praise I hear for ST09 the harder it is for me to hold my lunch down.

And no one's stopping you from throwing up. Just stop telling us about what made you sick in the first place, because this thread topic isn't the place for that.

Who the hell died and made you the moderator?

 

[StarryEyed]

Like to see TPTB back the show up to somewhere around the first season of TOS, change the look slighty. The big thing is losing the majority of the canon/continuity that Star Trek drags behind itself like a over-full diaper.

Awesome imagery!

It did get to the point where that diaper was so full, it was leaking the brown, sticky stuff.

I can't understand the people who don't think canon/continuity is important. How can you look at one episode or movie as if it exists in a vacuum? There has to be a continuity between the individual stories or the whole thing falls apart.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The way I see it, if you can't find a way to tell your story somewhere in the Star Trek universe, then you're just plain lazy.

Or, your agenda isn't to tell a compelling story, but to just waltz in and wreck the place because you don't like the way it's set up. To those people, I urge them to go somewhere else and set up your own universe, a lot of folks like things just the way they are.

 

[A beaker full of death]

When did canon ever stand in the way of the story of the recent Star Trek movies or shows? And I don't think that ignoring canon was the reason that Star Trek 2009 made a lot of money.

It didn't ignore canon. Quite the contrary, the raison d'etre for the entire plot was to deal with canon. It may have been more a slave to canon than any other film.

 

[Sector 7]

What with the release of J.J. Abrams Star Trek last year, I've always wondered what people considered essential in a reboot. What characters and ideas would people hold fast too and what would they jettison in their new version of the show?

To me one of the first things I would jettison would be Uhura, Sulu and Chekov. Not that I dislike the characters, I just like the idea of having the flexibility to mix and match characters until I find a formula I'm comfortable with.

I would probably have the show be more arc based but with a healthy portion of stand-alone fun. The arc would probably reflect my fascination with all the humanoids and Earth like cultures encountered in The Original Series.

Have to admit this whole thread is fueled by my disappointment in last years movie. But I still have a strong desire to see the series updated.

EDIT: I also wouldn't attempt a back-door reboot like last years film. The slate would be wiped clean to open up the universe without creating nagging questions about how it fit in.

I think you have the possibility of legitimate discussion, but it is devolving into another bashing of the latest movie. I'll check back later to see if it gets back on topic.

 

[number6]

It won't.

 

[BolianAuthor]

I know this thread is about reboots, but really, I think we ought be discussin' reboots using THIS TOS as a starting point, and not even talk about the JJ film, since the Trek BBS already has a whole subforum devoted to nothing but the JJ film.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What with the release of J.J. Abrams Star Trek last year, I've always wondered what people considered essential in a reboot.

I reject the term. is a new production of Hamlet a "reboot?"
if someone has something to say through a new interpretation of Star Trek, let them. It's a new, separate production. That's all.

That's all I require of any artwork. Have something to say. Otherwise what's the point of the exercise?
This is where the Abrams film failed.

Not sure if the Hamlet analogy works. Because even a new production is usually working from Shakespeare's script. They can change the location or time period but not the story. Also as a standalone story, Hamlet is quite different than the series of standalone stories and multiple themes seen in a TV show like Star Trek. Star Trek is flexible enough to tell any number of stories (and as a TV show was designed too), Hamlet is more or less stuck with one no matter how you change it up.

Everytime a new movie, episode, comic or novel is written the creators are putting their spin on "Star Trek". It the nature of the beast. One could say it was rebooted twice ( though in reality probably more) before the first season was finished. Even shows like TNG, VOY and ENT ( to a lesser extent DS9) as well as the various films are reboots of Star Trek. The basic frame work remained the same but the characters and setting continued evolved and/or change. There is no reason it can't continue to evolve and it has and will. Star Trek has and will aways have good bones. And an infinite type of stories can be hung on those bones.

If I was rebooting Star Trek for TV, it would be going back to the basics ,there isn't much I'd change. The characters still work, as does the setting. The sets would be redesigned and the costumes slightly up dated. In keeping with current trends an arc based storyline would probably be developed and greater involvement and depth for the secondary characters. Giving them more to do and arcs of their own. Possibly even introduce some reoccuring characters and cut down on the out of nowhere specialist that turns up in one episode and then disappears. Someone like Ann Mulhall or Marla McGivers would introed long before they get their "spotlight".

Art is subjective and is what is "says".

 

[jgdst]

I'd go with the reboot concept that Straczynski and Zabel worked up a couple years back.

Read it here: http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

I remember not being to keen on that when I read it a while ago, but reading it again since last year's film, I think it might actually have turned out good. With a few tweaks here and there, at least. Mathematical codes embedded in genes is a bit blah... But the feel of the series feels more akin to the Vanguard novels, which can only be a good thing.

Mind you, I say that only having watched a couple of B5 episodes since it first aired on Channel 4 while BBC2 was just starting DS9's run. B5 always felt like the weaker of the two efforts, but I'd need to watch it again to form a proper opinion of Straczynski's skills and potential to have made a good reboot.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Reallllly didn't want this to devolve into yet another pissing match about the new film...

What pissing match?

Abrams & the gang did what they needed to, in order to placate most of the fans and make money. I've never seen anyone suggest any formula for rebooting Star Trek that would have worked better. Most of the ideas I read would bury the franchise for good. It doesn't do any good to have ideas that don't work as business propositions.

Like this...

The only reason we got that movie was so that Paramount Studios could have their own Star Trek property to play with, without having to consult/pay a fee to CBS/Paramount.

Since Paramount being able to make a buck is a precondition to them doing something with Star Trek, there was never any way it was going to happen otherwise.

Plus I'm absolutely positive that Abrams reboot isn't the last reboot of TOS I'll see in my lifetime.

I think there will be another reboot w/n coming decades, too. This time around, we were lucky that it was done by people who were respectful of Star Trek. Next time we probably won't be so lucky.

I probably wouldn't try to reboot Star Trek. I think I'd rather reinterpret some of its ideas and do something completely fresh and non Trek.

We need more space opera on TV, and it doesn't need to have the Star Trek label. And we also need movies and TV shows with the Star Trek label. I want everything. What I don't want is the way TV is now: wall to wall cop shows.

^^ The more praise I hear for ST09 the harder it is for me to hold my lunch down.

If you're going to stay around this place, I suggest dramamine.

I'd go with the reboot concept that Straczynski and Zabel worked up a couple years back.

I remember when that made the rounds. It's not Star Trek. JMS should adapt it as B5 or some new franchise.

The way I see it, if you can't find a way to tell your story somewhere in the Star Trek universe, then you're just plain lazy.

Abrams ability to tell a story was not the issue. It was his ability to get someone with millions of dollars to back his movie, and that required that he center the movie on what the general public knows to be Star Trek: Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, to get butts in seats. If you're going to use Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, and not either get yourself into a creative straightjacket or cause a fan riot, you have to walk the narrow line just the way he did.

And he could have been completely disrespectful of Trek canon, history, etc, and still made his millions. A "fan riot" wasn't a real threat to him; I guess he just didn't want to be crass. The money men just wanted recognizable names to advertise. They don't give a shit whether Spock has green blood or what colors Enterprise's nacelles are, and neither do 95% of the people who went to see Trek XI.

Bottom line: Abrams doesn't need us. We need him. We aren't going to get any Trek besides novels and fan films without him. He knows how to produce watchable Trek that is true to the history of Trek, and to make it profitable enough that we get more in the future.

 

[T'Bonz]

We can disagree, and have different opinions, but let's be civilized and polite to each other while discussing Trek, please.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No kidding. People don't have to have a pissing match unless they are determined to have a pissing match.

If anyone has a reboot idea that will achieve what Abrams has - attracting the big money in Hollywood as an ongoing, successful franchise - I'm interested in hearing it.

For instance: forget movies, they're taken care of for now. The bigger issue is, how do we get Star Trek back on TV? There's a business model I can't even come close to figuring out how to crack, especially since that dratted CBS is involved.

 

[Warped9]

If I were to reboot Star Trek (and I mean TOS) I'd think long and hard. Firstly I'd have to decide whether I'd want it mild or drastic.

I'd be clear, though, and I wouldn't be beholden to many things established in TOS. Here's why: the characters I loved are gone because the performers that breathed life into them are no longer with is. And the writing and production staff that contributed the magic that was TOS are gone as well. And so to some extent the project would be a different animal.

For me Shatner will always be the real James T. Kirk, and Spock as Nimoy and so on. Anyone else stepping into those roles and no matter how close they come they will not be the characters I love.

And so I could still have the starship Enterprise exploring the final frontier and so many other things that TOS made cool and interesting, but it would be different and I wouldn't force-fit it into established continuity.

I know I wouldn't do an origin story and waste time trying to be cute and getting everyone together right off the bat. I'd already be into year one and pick up from there.

And the tone of it would be something along the lines of TOS Season 1 and 2 and the best of 3. It would be about story and not trying to cram in as many cliche in-jokes and references as possible. I'd want a space adventure that was unapologetically science fiction yet with a human perspective of some genuine ideas. Go for the kind of thing that TOS could be good at rather than a meaningless farce like Abrams' "movie."

Despite my criticisms of it I'd shoot for something more along the lines of TWOK.

 

[BolianAuthor]

If I were to reboot Star Trek (and I mean TOS) I'd think long and hard. Firstly I'd have to decide whether I'd want it mild or drastic.

I'd be clear, though, and I wouldn't be beholden to many things established in TOS. Here's why: the characters I loved are gone because the performers that breathed life into them are no longer with is. And the writing and production staff that contributed the magic that was TOS are gone as well. And so to some extent the project would be a different animal.

For me Shatner will always be the real James T. Kirk, and Spock as Nimoy and so on. Anyone else stepping into those roles and no matter how close they come they will not be the characters I love.

And so I could still have the starship Enterprise exploring the final frontier and so many other things that TOS made cool and interesting, but it would be different and I wouldn't force-fit it into established continuity.

I know I wouldn't do an origin story and waste time trying to be cute and getting everyone together right off the bat. I'd already be into year one and pick up from there.

And the tone of it would be something along the lines of TOS Season 1 and 2 and the best of 3. It would be about story and not trying to cram in as many cliche in-jokes and references as possible. I'd want a space adventure that was unapologetically science fiction yet with a human perspective of some genuine ideas. Go for the kind of thing that TOS could be good at rather than a meaningless farce like Abrams' "movie."

Despite my criticisms of it I'd shoot for something more along the lines of TWOK.

^

This.

First off, there would be no reason to HAVE to use the established characters... I for one, would absolutely love to see a series about the 1701 under the command of Captain April or Pike. There are plenty of stories to be told from those missions when the galaxy was an even bigger place then when Kirk entered the scene.

I would from the get-go take the concept seriously, and not use the revival as an opportunity to parody what Star Trek used to be... I would take the formula that worked, and the elements that worked best for the original, and bring it all up to date... despite what any Hollywood OR fanfilm producer will tell you... you absolutely CAN keep the design of the 1960's show in ALL aspects, and have it work, and work damned well... as long as you know what the hell you are doing, and approach it the RIGHT way. The trick is to come at it from the correct approach. But it CAN work.

I would not have so much camp, yet at the same time, I would also not make it dark... in fact, if anything, it would be quite a bright vision. The key again, as Warped9 pointed out, is all in STORY... I would develop a lineup of fresh, unique, engaging, and thought-provoking stories, that would put the brain and thought back into Star Trek, while also be very entertaining and fun to watch. Again... there ARE fresh, unique, engaging, and thought-provoking stories out there to be told... all a writer has to do is sit down and THINK for a few minutes, and not be lazy. But it is very easy to do.

Lastly, I would not just throw any old thing at the fans, and expect them to love it because the name Star Trek is on it... I would HONOR both the legacy of what Star Trek was, and also the intelligence of its fans, and not give them a substandard product.

But, that's just me.

 

[Penta]

That's the thing, given the precondition that CBS has to be involved, I don't think there is a way to get Trek back on TV anytime soon. Sci-fi (or at least space opera, not more paranormal types of sci-fi) has traditionally done better on cable then the networks, since cable began having an impact. Before that, again, space opera hasn't been done on network TV (to my knowledge) since the original Battlestar Galactica in 1978-79 - TNG was a syndicated show.

Primarily, this is because CBS has no cable outlets. If they did, we'd be having a much different conversation, to be honest.

 

[StarryEyed]

Abrams ability to tell a story was not the issue. It was his ability to get someone with millions of dollars to back his movie, and that required that he center the movie on what the general public knows to be Star Trek: Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, to get butts in seats.

You really think Star Trek is the character of Kirk and Spock and a ship named Enterprise? Those are just surface details.

It's very easy for a movie studio to find actors who look and act similar enough to William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy and to build a model or CGI that looks like Enterprise NCC-1701. Telling a story worthy of fitting into the real Star Trek universe is entirely something else.

What Abrams did is the equivalent of putting a blond wig, lipstick and eye shadow on a pig and calling it Marilyn Monroe. It might fool the casual observer but it sure wouldn't fool Joe DiMaggio.

 

[number6]

CBS will trot out a new Trek series when the demand for one is there.

Right now, they've got their eyes on reviving the film franchise. If the next film or two does well, we could see a new Star Trek on TV. It's only a matter of time and the desire to see Trek on TV again. Right now there are only a few who would want that: The Star Trek fans, but even they are completely splintered about what approach to take, so what makes you think CBS/Paramount has any idea. Right now, revisiting the TOS characters with a new spin seems to be working for the film franchise. Who knows?

That said, I still want to see a "Right Stuff" of Star Trek, with Captain April's newly commissioned Starship Enterprise.

 

[number6]

What Abrams did is the equivalent of putting a blond wig, lipstick and eye shadow on a pig and calling it Marilyn Monroe. It might fool the casual observer but it sure wouldn't fool Joe DiMaggio.

This is why we can't have nice things.