Seth McFarlane wants to Reboot Trek on TV

[Temis the Vorta]

There can be a bit more capitalism and religion in the 23rd C than the 24th, it's good to see a progression between the two, but neither element is predominant as it is today. Money is nowhere near the motivator for exploration in Star Trek as it is in human history and religious references are few and far between, for either century.

For a really unenlightened, money-grubbing romp, the 22nd C is the best bet. One of the great missed opportunities of ENT was boringly depicting Starfleet and Earth as being indistinguishable from the 24th C, except that they have worse taste in starship captains.

I'd also like to see an honest exploration of the Federation's official atheism in the 24th C someday. They sure pussyfoot around that issue.

It's a lie, but Star Trek is based on lies. Honestly does anyone think humanity will ever give up capitalism or religion? I don't.

And aparently so does TOS.

I'm sure you realize that Star Trek includes more than TOS.

Let's also not forget two raving capitalists, Harcourt Fenton Mudd and Cyrano Jones.

And they're also depicted as being outside "Federation values" even in the 23rd C. By the 24th, capitalism is the province of the Ferengi and maybe a few rogue hew-mons (like that nasty arms dealer on that one episode of DS9).

 

[CorporalClegg]

Imagine it, a producer of a science fiction show who's actually interested in science!

*I* would prefer that. At least a few people around here would prefer that. But the question is are there any such producers out there with the talent to do it successfully? I doubt I'll ever see it happen.

I will admit, this is an usual partnership as far as Cosmos is concerned.

To be fair, MacFarlane is a pretty bright guy, at least in comparison to most of his peers.

It's a lie, but Star Trek is based on lies. Honestly does anyone think humanity will ever give up capitalism or religion? I don't.

And aparently so does TOS.

Which is why it worked. It dealt with these issues in the abstract in a fable-esque kind of way.

TNG dealt with issues in the absolute and became way too pedantic for its own good. Which is why I think it has aged so poorly (aside from the obvious design faux pas).

DS9 returned to the fable, and, in fact Sisko had a very Odysseus-like quality to him. Which is why, despite the obvious technical differences, DS9 was the most similar to TOS of all the spinoffs.

 

[xortex]

No wonder why GR's Earth was a paradise. It was all about money, power and land.

 

[Captain Robert April]

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Which is why it worked. It dealt with these issues in the abstract in a fable-esque kind of way.

TNG dealt with issues in the absolute and became way too pedantic for its own good. Which is why I think it has aged so poorly (aside from the obvious design faux pas).

I think TOS dealt with money (limited resources, really) in a concrete way when it dealt with it at all. In Devil in the Dark, Kirk was shockingly driven to get the mining operations started up again. I have no idea what oh-so-vital pergium is used for, but Kirk's behavior definitely didn't give the impression of a society where resources are not an issue.

TNG seems dated compared with DS9 for a different reason: DS9 used the serialized format that is more strongly associated with quality series on cable now, and because of that serialization, they didn't have to wrap things up in a neat little bow at the end of every episode, which seems more mature and honest. But both operated on the assumption of abundant resources within the Federation.

By the 24th C, the resource constraints notion had been pretty well dropped. Even Voyager, lost in the ass-end of the galaxy, had enough power to run the holodecks. The lack of limited resources on that show was glaring and even annoying, considering that it was a lost opportunity for good drama.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No wonder why GR's Earth was a paradise. It was all about money, power and land.

You've never actually seen TOS have you?

 

[ArcherFanForever]

I would be a little nervous about Seth McFarlane rebooting Trek on TV. His Family Guy show seems to be a bit extreme at times, at least for my taste. Still, I would give a reboot by McFarlane a chance.....

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I'm a bit nervous about this Gene Roddenberry guy making a space show. He's only ever made cop shows and westerns and the like.

 

[Maurice]

My take on McFarlane is that I've seen no indication that he's got the chops for writing a dramatic series, as writing gag comedy isn't the same animal. On the other hand, there's nothing I know of that indicates he can't.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I'm a bit nervous about this Gene Roddenberry guy making a space show. He's only ever made cop shows and westerns and the like.

We have a winner.

 

[CaptainMatt]

I have thought some more about this, and I would like to apologise for coming off as overly opinionated about Seth doing the next Trek series. Maybe he can do it some justice, despite his background and all. I hope so, for Trek's sake. I worry overall about a constant reboot being used whether in film or on television, as I feel we should not totally ignore what came before, especially the original series and their films, which basically laid the groundwork for other TV series spinoffs and feature films to date.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm certainly cool with ignoring the TOS-based movies for continuity purposes - they lurched in one direction or another from one film to the next without rhyme or reason.

 

[CaptainMatt]

I do appreciate your candor, Legion. Perhaps the films are not as pivotal to a reboot after all. i just would like to see more TOS inspired elements in any next film. To make it extra special.

 

[Balrog]

Why doesn't MacFarland attempt a "Galaxy Quest" TV series. That would be more up his alley, and he wouldn't be screwing with Trek.

 

[Captain Robert April]

In the words of the late George Miller, "Hey, why can't we have both?"

 

[CaptainMatt]

Now I am just confused. Do we NEED another TV series? Can't we just worry about the new films without yet one more series to focus on?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Star Trek is a creature of television, that's where it's at its best and has achieved the most. Feature films are an uneven fit at best, a gross distortion at worst.

 

[xortex]

I think there's a new saying in Hollywood - 'Nobody's gotta do nothin'. They're making enough money doing nothing which also explains why chinese food is so tasteless.

 

[Kemaiku]

Seriuosly, WTF are you talking about?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Now I am just confused. Do we NEED another TV series?

Of course we do! If it sucks, we can ignore it. If it didn't exist, its timeslot would just be filled by yet another cop show or "reality TV" about ghost hunters, so we're not losing anything by giving it a shot.

People bitch about Abrams' movies being too Star Warsy, but that's because they're movies. They're always going to be short on ideas and character development and long on action. With only two hours to work with, it's not like Abrams has a choice there. If you want Star Trek back "the way it used it be," you'll have to wait till it's back on TV.