Seth Macfarlane Should Helm the Next Trek Series

I always thought it was the studio that approached him, because why would Abrams request it? Star Trek was clearly something he didn't like, didn't get, and was nervous to be seen around. (At least he kept saying so at every opportunity and the style of the films seems to reflect it, certainly he's capable of making money doing more sophisticated and cohesive work.)

 

We do have a Future of Trek forum that is specifically designed for this type of thread. Moving this thread there...

 

I thought it was Orci and Kurtzman who were offered Trek and they brought Abrams on board.

 

http://trekmovie.com/2011/10/12/seth-macfarlane-wants-to-reboot-star-trek-on-tv/

 

Well, that's from nearly 3 years ago. Do you have anything more recent with him saying this?

 

"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting"- Spock.

 

While all the bickering about this and that and yadda-yadda is entertaining ...

I think he would probably be a good Executive Producer. He knows the Trek universe, and if he could hire great writers and directors and actors, and rally the troops to a common vision, he could make a great product.

Or not. I'm on the fence. Could go either way.

 

It's hard to say. I'm not a fan of MacFarlene's animated comedies, but I'm sure that he wouldn't turn Star Trek into Family Guy in Space. Maybe he would be a great choice; I don't know enough about the man's work outside of Family Guy to judge how he'd handle a serious sci-fi TV series.

 

I must admit, it would be hilarious to see a Family Guy reference in Star Trek, for once.

 

It wouldn't even have made good fan-fiction. Kirk and Picard -- two icons -- come together to make breakfast.

 

That's pretty much where I come out.

 

I'm certain Paramount didn't approach him as they weren't really interested in doing anything with Trek after Enterprise ended and rejected many new movie and series pitches by others.

 

What the Almighty WikiPedia says is:

This account could of course be wrong -- if ye be one of those prepared to doubt the Word of Almighty WikiPedia -- but it makes rather more sense to me than Abrams going out and pitching Star Trek to anybody.

 

Admittedly, the only thing I have to support my belief is simply that I assumed that's the way it went. Almighty Wikipedia has been known to be wrong, though never when I'm using it as a source to prove my point.

 

I'd definitely like to see a show with the exploration/diplomacy aspect of TNG rather than the 'Beam in and shoot EXPLOSIONS' aspect of Abrams Trek. And I don't think it's 'Continuity porn' to prefer sequels to remakes.

Seth McFarlane though? Can he really, as a writer, go in directions other than gag a minute dirty humor? "Captain, the ship is going to explode in two minutes!" "You think that's bad, remember the time I played patticake with a Klingon?"

 

What I find funny about this is that from the episode it looked like Shatner's Kirk would be "crying into his pancakes" over Edith Keeler.

Especially since like in the film it would be doubtful that he would even know Nero could destroy planets until he used the Red Matter to destroy Vulcan.

 

Thanks, sounds like he wants something more thoughtful than the direction of the new movies. "90s Trek" is vague enough to cover a lot of territory. I had forgotten he did that appearance on Enterprise as well.

Who knows, but perhaps he'd make a good showrunner, I think I would have trust in his overall vision for a Trek show.

 

It's wrong, plain and simple. And please cite the example of 'it' being called that on Enterprise. I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

Yet another big deal. Yes, it shouldn't have been said, but again, who (except for rabid fans) gives a shit?

 

I think Mike did a little bit of graphics stuff to help pull the 2009 movie's butt out of a production fire, but not much else. I certainly wasn't part of either JJ film, thank goodness. In super high resolution hindsight.

Rick

p.s. - I think I actually like "Risk" Sternbach. Sounds like an Indiana Jones kinda character.

 

Incidentally, what I said earlier about Abrams being afraid to be seen taking the material seriously? The Hobus supernova thing is a particularly prominent example of it. Abrams does not believe a supernova can blow up a galaxy, neither does the writing team. I find it hard to believe it's anything other than a deliberate "mistake," a way to play up the pulpiness of the setting and distance the creators, Abrams in particular, from the accusation of having played it straight.

Things like that (I'm speculating but I think it's not ill-founded speculation), thing like that which add up to break the believability of the Abramsverse were meant to do just that. Because if you try to make a setting believable, you're investing in it, you're associating yourself with it and taking it seriously -- at some level -- on its own terms. That Abrams was skittish about doing this to the point of self-sabotage is, as far as his films supposedly being Trek films, the really annoying thing about "mistakes" like that.