Rooted in realism: Ideas for a more likely series six

[Admiral Buzzkill]

After the next two movies, Paramount will reboot again for more feature films just as is currently being down with Spider-Man and seems to be perpetually in rolling progress with X-Men.

I wouldn't know; I've never seen any of those films because I'm not a big fan of movies based on Marvel characters. But if they're going to reboot the reboot, then it stands to reason that the "re-reboot" will not be using the same stuff as the previous films, in an attempt to distance it from why they needed to re-reboot in the first place. So there'd still be a lot of leftover crap

In terms of sets and stuff, yeah. But Paramount might still not want Kirk and Spock and company on TV while they're shooting a new movie starring Justin Bieber as Kirk.

 

[Harvey]

Since John Cho has already indicated a willingness to commit to television (the one-season long Flash Forward, though his contract for the canceled series was likely for a full run) I'm hoping for a U.S.S. Excelsior spin-off down the line.

Or, hell, once this movie series wraps, why not give Sulu (and whoever else from the cast who will come aboard on a television budget--it's worth remembering that Quinto was on Heroes for that series' entire run, too) and let him take command of the Enterprise. That way they can just re-use the sets from the movie and give themselves scale not otherwise available on a television budget.

That's if we're talking television, though. I bet Paramount will continue to make films for the foreseeable future.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Realistically[...]

As usual, I'm complete agreement with you. Showtime is where I'd love to see the television series air as it's the best of limited realistic options, albeit still with quite the hurdle.

It is precisely the network's commitment to long-term storytelling and the audience's willingness to embrace such a thing that has me stoked for the slight possibility of it all.

Here's what I think will happen realistically.

1. We will not get any new Trek television series until the next two films are done. Which means around 2015 or so.

2. I think the next two films will certainly be successful, but with diminishing returns. By 2015, I think the ride will be over movie-wise.

3. Therefore, Paramount will have all the sets, props, costumes, physical and CGI models, etc. from these movies and nothing to do with them. At the same time, CBS could realize that they could create a Trek series but not have to shell out all that money for the above stuff, because it already exists from the films. They could then make their own nuTOS series for a fraction of the cost of making it from scratch. All they'd have to do is recast the crew again (a la M*A*S*H movie to M*A*S*H TV series) for the small screen.

I truly believe this is the only way Trek will ever return to television.

Diminishing returns? You really believe so? I mean, it's certainly possible. No doubt about that. But lately I keep seeing sequels to popular first films grabbing all the more dough, plus there's a lot of talk of Star Trek XII riding serious momentum and pulling in as much as one-and-a-half times the coin. (Well, some say a lot more than that, but I'm trying to stay firmly rooted in realism...)

As for recasting everyone, my gut impulse is to say that I don't see it happening so quickly, but with all that Marvel stuff it wouldn't be all that surprising to me.

Since John Cho has already indicated a willingness to commit to television (the one-season long Flash Forward, though his contract for the canceled series was likely for a full run) I'm hoping for a U.S.S. Excelsior spin-off down the line.

Or, hell, once this movie series wraps, why not give Sulu (and whoever else from the cast who will come aboard on a television budget--it's worth remembering that Quinto was on Heroes for that series' entire run, too) and let him take command of the Enterprise. That way they can just re-use the sets from the movie and give themselves scale not otherwise available on a television budget.

That's if we're talking television, though. I bet Paramount will continue to make films for the foreseeable future.

Oh man, I love the idea of Cho helming the Excelsior so much. Talk about a hard-earned half-victory to those Excelsior campaigners from the turn of the last decade.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think the next Trek series could be an animated one

I'd vote for this as likely, too - why couldn't Star Trek follow the footsteps of The Clone Wars? - but I can't envision this airing on CBS, CW or Showtime, and why would CBS make a series for The Cartoon Network, which isn't one of its outlets?

The CW does currently have a 4-hour Saturday morning cartoon block. Currently it's dominated by action-adventure anime shows, but it hasn't always been and likely won't be forever. They don't really have a truly big "familiar name draw" show in the line-up presently.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I think the next Trek series could be an animated one

I'd vote for this as likely, too - why couldn't Star Trek follow the footsteps of The Clone Wars? - but I can't envision this airing on CBS, CW or Showtime, and why would CBS make a series for The Cartoon Network, which isn't one of its outlets?

The CW does currently have a 4-hour Saturday morning cartoon block. Currently it's dominated by action-adventure anime shows, but it hasn't always been and likely won't be forever. They don't really have a truly big "familiar name draw" show in the line-up presently.

I never knew that before. Interesting...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Is anyone discounting the idea that it has to be done on network/cable television? I think that there is a possibility of having a sixth series that is completely free to do as it wants (to the extent that it pleases its advertising partners), by running it as a web only show.

There's not enough financial incentive for anyone with rights to the franchise to bother with. Internet-based Star Trek properties are far more likely to be gaming based. Why bother with a format that gives you interactivity and not use it?

That's the problem with traditional narratives on the internet, the only motive is to do cheap versions of things we're used to seeing far more polished and professional versions of. That logic will never go anywhere except round and round in its own little cultish world.

Instead, figure out a way of making a Star Trek game less, err, "gamey" - meaning the barriers to entry are lower, and more along the lines of social media, which when you think of it, is just one big, free-form game - and you could be onto something.

Don't just plop old media forms onto new media without any innovation other than "it's cheap." Figure out how to expand the gaming audience out of the ghetto its current ghetto.

The CW does currently have a 4-hour Saturday morning cartoon block.

Then that's another viable avenue for new Star Trek. And I guess I shouldn't discount the notion of CW doing a prime-time animated show.

 

[ColeMercury]

It's going to be Abramsverse -- there's no question about it. Any new TV series is going to come after at least three big blockbuster movies (probably), all set in the Abramsverse, so that's where modern Star Trek series will have to offshoot from.

I seriously doubt there'll be any recasting of the main roles. Recasting them the first time was fraught enough, but twice in ten years is really pushing it. And besides, if their objective is to coast off the popularity of the movies into the TV series, then recasting again makes no sense because it cripples that "momentum".

My hunch is that the next Star Trek series will have its premise set up in the last Star Trek movie before its premiere, so the series looks like a proper continuation of the movies -- but it will not revolve around the movie cast, or at least not all of them. Maybe one or two, with the rest making guest appearances at different points in the show's run.

In fact, the idea of John Cho as the lead in a USS Excelsior series sounds perfect. Sulu's a main character in the movies, we know John Cho does TV, and the premise of an Excelsior show would be Star Trek at its basics -- trekking through the stars, exploring strange new worlds. That's a necessary step before you start doing shows like Deep Space Nine or Voyager, which are like variations on a theme. (Plus, another bonus: Sulu captaining the Excelsior is part of Prime-universe canon but was never really depicted on screen, so the series won't seem like some kind of wild tangent or unconscionable trespass by Prime-universe purists.)

In fact, something's just occurred to me -- John Cho is about ten or more years older than Sulu is supposed to be, right? Well, for the series, why don't they do a time skip of about ten or fifteen years? That way, not only will Cho's age match his character's age, but it'll also explain why Sulu is now a captain. Maybe Zachary Quinto could guest-star in the premiere as Spock -- Vulcans age slowly anyway, so his appearance won't matter.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's going to be Abramsverse -- there's no question about it.

In fact, there's nothing but questions about it.

We don't know when the next Trek series will come or who will be the creative force behind it. We don't know how long the Abramsverse will be around, because it might be considered "old hat" like the Prime Universe by the time CBS decides the time is right for another Trek series...

At this point, it's still anyone's guess what a new Trek series will be or what direction it will go in, IMO. I wouldn't assume automatically it'd be in either the Abramsverse or the Prime Universe, because we just don't know what the state of the franchise might be in when it comes...

 

[ColeMercury]

It's going to be Abramsverse -- there's no question about it.

In fact, there's nothing but questions about it.

We don't know when the next Trek series will come or who will be the creative force behind it. We don't know how long the Abramsverse will be around, because it might be considered "old hat" like the Prime Universe by the time CBS decides the time is right for another Trek series...

At this point, it's still anyone's guess what a new Trek series will be or what direction it will go in, IMO. I wouldn't assume automatically it'd be in either the Abramsverse or the Prime Universe, because we just don't know what the state of the franchise might be in when it comes...

Okay, fair enough. I'll revise that: Operating on the assumption that any new Star Trek television series will be developed and premiere soon after the completion of the Abramsverse movie series (which seems reasonable -- they don't want to oversaturate by doing it too soon and invite backlash), as well as the assumption that the Abramsverse movies will all be profitable (again, reasonable), there's no question that the new television series will follow on from the movie series and thus be set in the Abramsverse as well.

Why? Because Star Trek has a tradition of having only one continuity. It's not like (for example) Batman, where you could have the comic books and the live-action movies and the animated television series all going simultaneously and operating in alternate continuities -- Star Trek has movies and television series all telling different stories set in different places and different time periods, all interconnected in the same universe. That's why Batman can "reboot" its movies and no one objects, while Abrams doing effectively the same thing in his 2009 movie was such a Big Goddamn Controversy. It's also why Abrams had to mitigate it with the whole "Nero changed the timeline" thing. And it's also why CBS/Paramount/whoever-ends-up-doing-it almost definitely won't try to pull the same stunt twice. Particularly as the 2009-movie "rebooting" was as much a reaction to Enterprise's lack of success as anything (like how the "rebooted" James Bond in Casino Royale came out after Die Another Day) -- doing it again after a successful series would make no sense.

Now, if there is no immediate follow-up to the Abramsverse movies, and the next Star Trek series is made something like ten or twenty years later, then you'd be absolutely right. In fact, in that case it would be most reasonable to assume that they'd make it set in a third continuity completely separate from the Abramsverse and the Primeverse: by then, both would be "old hat", as you say, with no one around trying to defend their virtue. (Not only that, but the dates for when World War III would be scheduled to arrive would be getting uncomfortably close...) But if the Abramsverse movies are successful, I see no reason why they would wait around rather than trying to capitalise on that success.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In terms of sets and stuff, yeah. But Paramount might still not want Kirk and Spock and company on TV while they're shooting a new movie starring Justin Bieber as Kirk.

Justin Bieber? Wasn't he shot and killed?

 

[el Chalupacabra]

I think whatever they do decide on, they should take a lesson from TNG. Put it far in the future of the 24th century, just as TNG did with TOS. That way, it does not conflict with anything that came before, but you still have the back story of Trek. It should be in the "Prime Universe," perhaps the late 25th century. It should be familiar, and recognizable as Trek, but far enough away to establish its own mythos, and time travel should be shunned. It also should borrow from Babylon 5 and have the entire story of the show mapped out for 5 seasons, and have each season with its own arc.

Also, rather than self contained episodes, it should learn from DS9, Enterprise, and especially Battlestar Galactica, and incorporate a long running story arc. Hell, I would be for bringing back Ronald D Moore and Michael Rymer for this!

My personal dream plot would be that by the 25th century, the federation has nearly collapsed after continuous invasions and wars with the Borg, Dominion, and Klingons (as in the events of STO), and is fracturing, if not in the midst of all out civil war. The entire Alpha quadrant is in turmoil, and has entered a dark age of sorts. The plot would revolve around human protagonists attempting to rebuild the federation and end the internal conflict, while maintaining an uneasy truce with the Klingons, Borg, or maybe even a new alien race from beyond our own galaxy.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Fine and dandy as that all sounds, I just don't see them realistically doing any of it. Not for an initial attempt at returning to television.

I'd love to see a season-by-season arc-based show, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it would be the wisest thing to start with.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Particularly as the 2009-movie "rebooting" was as much a reaction to Enterprise's lack of success as anything (like how the "rebooted" James Bond in Casino Royale came out after Die Another Day) -- doing it again after a successful series would make no sense.

For the record, "Die Another Day" was financially the most successful Bond movie before CR. It was most definitely not a lack of success that prompted the producers to reboot the series, since the idea of showing the beginnings of Bond's career came up as early as after "A View to a Kill" (back then, the idea was dropped in favor of "The Living Daylights").

 

[BillJ]

If I had my choice, it would be a Picard on the Stargazer animated series.

 

[Dukhat]

Diminishing returns? You really believe so? I mean, it's certainly possible. No doubt about that. But lately I keep seeing sequels to popular first films grabbing all the more dough, plus there's a lot of talk of Star Trek XII riding serious momentum and pulling in as much as one-and-a-half times the coin. (Well, some say a lot more than that, but I'm trying to stay firmly rooted in realism...)

I'm not saying that that's what I'd like to happen, just that that's what I think will happen.

But then again, we got an entertaining first "Transformers" movie, followed by a horrendously shitty sequel, and yet there's a third movie on it's way. We'll see what the third one is like, and how that will determine future installments of that franchise. Maybe that will give some insight about what happens with the new Trek movies.

 

[BillJ]

But then again, we got an entertaining first "Transformers" movie, followed by a horrendously shitty sequel, and yet there's a third movie on it's way. We'll see what the third one is like, and how that will determine future installments of that franchise. Maybe that will give some insight about what happens with the new Trek movies.

You have to remember: that 'horrendously shitty' Transformers sequel did $800 million dollars in business. A Hollywood executive would've been stupid not to green-light a follow-up.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I actually hated the hell out of that first Transformers movie. I can only imagine how terrible the second one was.

And yeah, BillJ definitely raises the obvious point. Money = greenlight, not quality. If I had my way (and I'm well-aware public opinion disputes this, of course) a second film would have never happened, either.

 

[Dukhat]

You have to remember: that 'horrendously shitty' Transformers sequel did $800 million dollars in business. A Hollywood executive would've been stupid not to green-light a follow-up.

True, but I didn't realize how shitty of a movie it was until after I'd paid for my ticket. A ticket to see a movie based mainly on the fact that I liked the previous one. And now that I know the second movie was shitty, I am now debating if I should waste my money buying a ticket for the third one. Get my drift?

 

[BillJ]

You have to remember: that 'horrendously shitty' Transformers sequel did $800 million dollars in business. A Hollywood executive would've been stupid not to green-light a follow-up.

True, but I didn't realize how shitty of a movie it was until after I'd paid for my ticket. A ticket to see a movie based mainly on the fact that I liked the previous one. And now that I know the second movie was shitty, I am now debating if I should waste my money buying a ticket for the third one. Get my drift?

I thought Star Trek 2009 was shitty, but I'll be there in 2012... money in hand to see the sequel.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I think whatever they do decide on, they should take a lesson from TNG. Put it far in the future of the 24th century, just as TNG did with TOS. That way, it does not conflict with anything that came before, but you still have the back story of Trek.

The Abramsverse exists to solve just that problem. In the 23rd C.