For me, it's just that I'd rather see new stories. We've already got the existing stories to watch. That said, sure, I'd watch modern adaptations.
Spinoff....
- Thread starter ELCHawk
- Start date
I mean, in principle, new stories are fine, but if I have to choose between seeing a reuse of a derivative plot formula that's been done to death, or just a new adaptation, I'd choose the latter.
For example, a modern screenwriter could take an awful, sexist episode like Mudd's Women (which made light of human trafficking) and turn it on its head by portraying the women as actual human beings. And when it comes down to it, I'd rather retcon the execution of that episode than just tell a new story about human trafficking which conflicts with it, and somehow exists in the same universe.
Last edited:
Apart from Seven, none of the characters who would be in Legacy have any appeal whatsoever. It would be "TNG Babies". Hard pass from me. I agree that a TOS "reboot" with Paul Wesley et al. would be the most likely option for a future series at this point.
I'd prefer entirely original stories, but I'd be up for this idea if it was a mixture, like if one episode per season is a remake of an existing story while the rest are all new.
As you indicated with Mudd's Women, it'd be better for lower-quality episodes to be remade. There's no point remaking "City on the Edge of Forever" or "Devil in the Dark" because they're already very good, but you could definitely try a new spin on stuff with a good concept but awkward execution, like "The Alternative Factor" or even "Catspaw". They'd have to deviate massively from the originals to be worth the effort of remaking them, though.
I'm not really sure what they could do with Mudd's Women. A modern rewrite could use the women as the POV characters and reframe the whole thing, but I feel like a detailed response to a misogynistic work is just necessarily depressing, since it means you have to engage with the original misogyny to begin with. I'd like it if they just changed or added a character here or there in whatever episodes they remade, have female admirals hanging around, stuff like that.
Last edited:
I'd much rather see years four (not counting TAS) and/or five of the original five-year mission.What are your opinions? For me this is a big yes.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Paul-Wesley-SNW-Unit-Image-42d86167ac4d44a6b4462e4fc570d062.jpg)
'Star Trek: Year One' series with Paul Wesley's Kirk is '100 percent' dream plan (exclusive)
A 'Star Trek: Year One' series, about the first year of Paul Wesley's Kirk as captain, is '100 percent' the dream plan. 'Nothing would make us happier,' showrunners say.ew.com
What stories could they tell in one time period that they couldn’t tell in another? I mean we just had an episode about a holodeck malfunction in a time period before TOS, when the exact same story has been told several times already in a late 24th century setting.
The problem is that there’s no real difference anymore with these shows’ settings, so saying ‘I want a show in the early 25th century!’ is meaningless if you can write the exact same scripts, have the exact same technology, and show the ship getting to the planet-of-the-week in the exact same time, in any other time period. So the story is far more important than the setting.
The problem is that there’s no real difference anymore with these shows’ settings, so saying ‘I want a show in the early 25th century!’ is meaningless if you can write the exact same scripts, have the exact same technology, and show the ship getting to the planet-of-the-week in the exact same time, in any other time period. So the story is far more important than the setting.
I don't care when a Trek show is set as long as it's good.
it was the same in the Berman era too.
Is the concept of recruiting women to move to man heavy areas that's misogynistic, or is it the execution? Of course that makes me wonder, lets say your are transported back from the 21st century to 1850s Seattle with the job to solve the bachelor problem, what do you do?
Yeah, why would you do "Year One"? You're taking on all of the problems of SNW and magnifying them. After TOS you get more room. Of course after TMP you get even MORE room. And it gives you an excuse to keep the people you want and mix up the sets and costumes.
Because fans have been wondering about the Kirk's first mission as Captain for 59 years. Books and comics have been written on it. Of course they want to fill in that blank themselves given the chance.
That's not a series, that's an episode or a movie of the the week.
a mini/limited series could do it.
Or don't make every season = 1 year.
Historically, girls of the lower classes were recruited and given pretty nice economic incentives to be wives to settlers. But they were not required to marry if they didn't find anyone suitable. It was an opportunity venture for the women. In Here Come the Brides that was also the case (though they were unaware of the bet between the two businessmen sposoring them).
It was Harry Mudd that was the problem. And the pretty/sexy/magical makeup drugs
It's a godo opportunity. Akiva Goldsman told TrekMovie:
Presumably though the show will continue to follow Pike in the finale, are we going to his accident or ending a little before? They'll want an optimistic ending that wraps everything up
That's the one thing about a prequel - you kind of know where it's going so they need different ways to keep it interesting
Last edited:
"Mudd's Women" is a good story, but it's an odd one for Trek. It's a straightforward repurposing of a trope from genre Westerns, the mail-order bride story. As is crucial in those, it turns on the eventual assertion of some agency on the part of the lead female character, although within a limited sphere of reference.
Any contemporary version of such stories would necessarily result in the character asserting full independence from the expectation that she choose a husband, at all.
So, you could tell the story now, but it would wind up on a show with Trek's built-in limits as just another flavor of rote.
The only other TOS story I remember that borrowed so wholly and unapologetically from another genre was the Romulan submarine episode.
Well his accident was a couple years after Kirk took command, if they showed that it would as an epilogue.
For me, the problem with Mudd's Women is that it lacks a strong female perspective. Uhura, Chapel, and Rand don't interact with the women at all. I actually really like Eve as a character but it would have been nice for a woman to have helped with the solution. Rand, in particular, would have had a reason to interact with the 'guests' and could have helped solve the mystery. Having a woman big up other women looks better than Kirk mansplaining beauty with the help of a jelly baby.
Which is, inevitably, the reason that it will be widely and loudly reviled if it’s ever produced onscreen — absolutely no matter what that production actually does. You know what happens when the (any) actual franchise does its version of something fans have imagined in their heads for decades…
That would only motivate me more to do it if I worked in “the business”. Nothing should be off limits inherently in fiction. Take your best shot, hope it’s a success, but realize success is not guaranteed. I never view any art (fine or commercial, if the distinction is necessary) with the notion that I’m owed satisfaction. I’m owed the proposed experience—nothing more or less. I’m not entitled to anything else. I’m always puzzled by “the fans deserve (are entitled to)…” satisfaction. No one is.
Similar threads
