Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012 ^^ Rockne O'Bannon is the only reason I might give it a try. How can you thoroughly mine a universe? There's an infinite amount of opportunities in the concept; Trek novelists have been proving that for decades. Now the audience has the flash-bang "alternate approach" of Abrams' reboot in the theater, so why not continue enriching the more adult universe of the original on TV? There's your variety of approaches. Okay, fine. It's a challenge to write within the context of a shared universe; obviously you know that, since you do it. A good writer can take the inconsistencies or the errors and so forth and build something from them, the way writers like Roy Thomas and Steve Englehart and Kurt Busiek did for the Marvel Universe. They didn't need no stinkin' reboots. They had the Right Stuff. Yeah, fine. Like I said, sometimes it works, sometimes it's necessary for business reasons and a lot of times it's just plain bad. I'm advocating the approach I think is best. I'm not simplifying anything. I remember the history. There were a few malcontents all along the way, but TNG was accepted pretty quickly by most. DS9, VOY and ENT had increasingly more detractors because they strayed farther and farther from the core concept (though I happened to enjoy them all). So, again, if you're going to do that, why not just create something completely new, rather than just recycle names and terminology? Would RHW's Defender be improved by calling it Star Trek and naming the captain Kirk?