Star Trek (2017 series) - analysis, speculation, news, discussion

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Haha @ BeatleJWOL - I found Berman and Braga's comments interesting too.

Nice that Rick Berman mentioned Gene's vision though.

Whatever time and place it takes, I just hope it reopens possibilities and above all restores humanity. I'm sick of this dark ages of 'let's watch messed up people's lives for entertainment'. Shift back to growing generations with integrity, action, justice, faith, prosperity and so forth.

Exactly my sentiments. Contrast how calm and professional the crews act in the face of problems, with the modern propensity for characters to fly off the handle at every opportunity, and wallow in negative worlds. What is this teaching people? Is this contributing to the problems we have in the world today, where people are ever more obsessed with tribal identity, outrage and blame? I feel we need a show, more than ever, that shows humans are capable of surpassing base urges, and reasoning their actions. I feel that we need entertainment that glorifies the other path again; taking reasoned responses to things - one that shows the merits of civilization and justice. People sometimes argue that television needs conflict to generate drama, but I never had any problem being entertained by Star Trek, even though characters did not constantly betray and lie to each other, and acted professionally. Overcoming the next challenge is more than entertaining - its life-affirming. I'm sick of messed up things too.

I really like the idea of bringing in established Sci-fi writers to write episodes. Unfortunately several of the ones Straczynski referenced there have passed away now. There are some good female writers working like Station Eleven author Emily St John Mandel for example that I'd like to see have a chance too.

Yeah, I loved that part of the treatment he wrote. I thought "what if Star Trek poached all the best science fiction space opera authors of today". Alastair Reynolds, Richard K Morgan, George R R Martin, Ursula K LeGuin, Dan Abnett, Margaret Atwood, Niel Gaiman, James S A Corey, Ann Leckie, Dan Simmons, Stephen Baxter, Kim Stanley Robinson, etc, etc, etc, as well as Pocket Book's own ample group. How would a Star Trek series look in which they wrote short stories as stand-alone episodes - incorporating the latest trans-humanist and quantum physics ideas.

It would not surprise me if CBS did a reboot of TNG in the JJVerse, so much like in the 80's, Kirk is in the movies, Picard is on TV. Much like TOS, TNG was a huge success so CBS could count on that like Paramount did with the reboot of TOS. It would also mean, the character definition and setting of the TV/streaming reboot would also be defined by Roddenberry, much like the TOS characters of the movie reboot.

Maybe Paramount and CBS strike a deal for the shared JJVerse and Paramount even gets the option to bring the CBS show onto the silverscreen when the show was successfull for some years and isnt produced anymore (like "Generations" after the TV run of TNG).

Paramount played it safe with the reboot; would not surprise me if CBS does the same. In both cases the reboots would be based on successfull characters by Roddenberry himself.

Thats what I was thinking too - just like the 80s, when there was TOS on the movie screens, and TNG on TV - we could have TOS reboot on the movie screens feeding fans into a well-recast TNG reboot. Imagine six Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban movies, and then four based on the TNG crew - just like before. That would really be something wouldn't it? And it's not that far-fetched.

Right now, if you look at the highest grossing film franchises of all time, Marvel is top, with 12 movies. Only James Bond, Batman and Star Trek have numbers of movies reaching into the double figures. Star Wars will soon join them as Disney gives it the Marvel treatment, and turns it into a modern equivalent of a Greek epic - with numerous spin-off tales as well as the main story. One day I hope to see that Hollywood list read something like Marvel, Star Wars, Star Trek, DC, Middle Earth, James Bond. Right now, Star Trek is punching well below it's weight, because most movies came out in an era when cinema didn't earn billions (Wrath of Khan grossed 90 million in 80s dollars; it would be more like 300 million today) - but even two more reasonable rebooted TOS films (one of which is already finished filming) and it will shoot up the list - easily overtaking things like Indiana Jones and Toy Story, which barely have more revenue even now.

 

[StarMan]

I just cannot imagine this production team going back to the prime universe. I'm leaning towards taking place either alongside the present adventures of The Enterprise or a generation ahead.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I just cannot imagine this production team going back to the prime universe. I'm leaning towards taking place either alongside the present adventures of The Enterprise or a generation ahead.

I hear you, but then again, CBS owns the television rights, and Paramount the film rights - it would make a lot of sense for them to keep the two separate; CBS do re-runs of the Prime Universe, so it's in their interest to build that, and Paramount earn from the films, so it's in their interest to build the Abramsverse. That podcast on TrekFM seemed to think it would make a lot of business sense too, since the majority of existing fans apparently want more Prime Universe content, as well as for other reasons. But anyway, I'm gonna try to leave the legalism and business stuff alone, as it's been done to death.

The new Abramsverse movies have so far felt the need for a strong villain for the audience to focus on, so I was wondering who would make for a strong villain in a potential rebooted TNG series, set in the Abramsverse. It would allow dead characters to be resurrected, or existing ones to be changed. Commander Tomolak? Enabaran Tain? The Intendent? Gul Dukat? Duras? Weyoun? I always felt Commander Sela, and the Romulans in general, were under-used.

They were the first villain empire in Star Trek, before the Klingons, and Memory Alpha looks at their inspirations:

Paul Schneider modeled the Romulans on the ancient Romans, naming the species' homeworlds after the mythical founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus. "It was a matter of developing a good Romanesque set of admirable antagonists that were worthy of Kirk," Schneider related. "I came up with the concept of the Romulans which was an extension of the Roman civilization to the point of space travel, and it turned out quite well." (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, p. 34) D.C. Fontana reckoned that Schneider basing the aliens on the pre-existing Roman civilization was the cause for the writer receiving insufficient credit for creating the Romulans. ("Balance of Terror" Starfleet Access, TOS Season 1 Blu-ray) Gene Roddenberry, interested in ancient Rome himself, approved of the initial depiction of the Romulan species. "He loved Paul's having endowed the enemy-Romulans with the militaristic character of the ancient Romans," wrote John D.F. Black and Mary Black. (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 2, Issue 11, p. 19) Roddenberry's original concept of the Romulans, however, was that they represented 1960s' Chinese Communists. (Star Trek Nemesis hardback ed., p. xx)

In common with Gene Roddenberry, the Blacks and D.C. Fontana also appreciated Paul Schneider's invention of the Romulans, the Blacks describing them as, "Villains strong enough and clever enough that the audience would be compelled to believe they were capable of the first move that would lead to the destruction of the Federation." (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 2, Issue 11, p. 20) Fontana enthused, "They were a wonderful, wonderful enemy [....] to have, because we could talk about them, people had seen them once, and we didn't know a lot about them. They were wonderfully mysterious. They've always been my favorites, actually – right up there, next to the Vulcans [....] Paul did a very good job of, you know, creating this race, ultimately, in the script." Fontana also cited the Romulans' exoticness, their pointed ears and relation to Vulcans as one element of why she liked the Romulans. ("Balance of Terror" Starfleet Access, TOS Season 1 Blu-ray)

A villain that can play the long game, and which is intelligent and admirable. Still an ideal society to look at. No doubt very diverse, like the Roman Empire and its auxiliary soldiers, although we never saw it much. If they wanted a rebooted TNG to be more action oriented, covert missions into Romulan space could be amazing.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

The more the merrier

Splendid! Always good to meet another big-time Mass Effect fan. That franchise has helped fill the Trek void for me this past eight years.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

The new Abramsverse movies have so far felt the need for a strong villain for the audience to focus on, so I was wondering who would make for a strong villain in a potential rebooted TNG series, set in the Abramsverse. It would allow dead characters to be resurrected, or existing ones to be changed. Commander Tomolak? Enabaran Tain? The Intendent? Gul Dukat? Duras? Weyoun? I always felt Commander Sela, and the Romulans in general, were under-used.

Running alongside this train of thought (one which I rather enjoy; I'd quite like a reimagined TNG) I think the first key principle that TPTB would want to adhere to is that it is important to begin big, with adversaries that are closer to pop cultural levels. Gul Dukat may just be my favorite antagonist in all of fiction, but he's a hard sell to a new audience next to more iconic nouns.

The nuTOS movies have, unsurprisingly, shied away from the Borg. They're not a TOS era element, and while that doesn't necessarily prohibit their usage by any stretch, it's a wise course to keep them out of the films so long as there's a snowball's chance of a 24th century reimagining. That's not to say it's ever safe to assume the Borg won't factor into subsequent nuTOS films (in the entertainment industry, it's rarely safe to assume much) but I do believe it's been a conscious effort. Keep Klingons and Romulans and Vulcans with Kirk and Spock and Bones, and let Picard deal with Locutus, so-to-speak.

Seeding the 2017 depiction of the Borg Collective across numerous wink-wink, hint-hint episodes is a smart move with regard to generating hype. The film and television industries have been looking for ways to generate water-cooler geek-gasm effects for a while, now, and established IPs can pull this off with aplomb. Think of all the times Marvel fanatics have gasped and whispered at one-another in theaters, then freaked out and ranted and raved after the post-credits scenes. This is staying power. The Borg can have that sort of direct and immediate impact, to a point.

Over time, as a hypothetical reimagining gained legs and proved itself, more familiar ideas could arrive. Suddenly, Gul Dukat won't seem as risky anymore. The fanatics will squeal and the legions of casual enthusiasts which CBS hopes to court will perk their brows and wonder what the big deal is, much as I have re: Marvel characters, and they'll be there in their seats, along for the ride -- just as I have re: Marvel movies.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The more the merrier

Splendid! Always good to meet another big-time Mass Effect fan. That franchise has helped fill the Trek void for me this past eight years.

Too right! It has been been on par with Trek and B5 and so on, during this dark age of space opera, that has been without anything on TV. Literally, aside from failed pilots like Virtuality and BSG: Blood and Chrome, and a couple of short lived shows in the BSG and SG-1 universes, there has been very little on TV space opera-wise since SG-1 and BSG ended.

I mentioned in another thread, you can see the massive difference between the golden age of the 90s, when there were multiple TV epics overlapping, and the last few years, from roughly 2008 to 2015:

The Golden Age of the 1990s:

- Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994)

- Babylon 5 (1993-1998)

- Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999)

- Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001)

- Space: Above and Beyond (1995-1996)

- Stargate: SG-1 (1997-2007)

- Farscape (1999-2004)

- Dune (2000)

The New Wave of the Mid 2000s:

- Andromeda (2000-2004)

- Star Trek: Enterprise (2001-2005)

- Firefly (2002)

- Children of Dune (2003)

- Battlestar Galactica (2003-2008)

- Stargate: Atlantis (2004-2009)

The Failed Last Wave of the Late 2000s:

- Virtuality (2009)

- Stargate: Universe (2009-2010)

- Caprica (2010)

- Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome (2012)

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Western society has shied away from television space opera for some time for a host of reasons. I do firmly believe that the prequel wave of Star Wars films helped keep the 90s levels going, to a point, into the mid-2000s; Star Wars has long been a catalyst for renewed public interest in watching weekly stories of men and women trekking through the stars. Nothing else delivers its numbers, of course, but hey, it's something. And the prequels weren't exactly received on the level of the originals; if this newer lineup proves superior, well, I think it's brighter pastures all-around.

Consider the projects en route now. The Expanse is set to premiere shortly, and it looks solid. Star Trek is returning to TV. Stargate is (alas...) going back to theaters. Spike TV (Spike TV!) has optioned JMS' script for a series based on Red Planet. The ever-present rumors of Netflix gearing up for a new Star Wars show are in full swing again. (OK, so this last one's a bit on-the-nose.) Dark Matter and Killjoys are airing on SyFy. The list will likely grow a bit more, even. I don't think we'll touch the 90s again in terms of volume, but I think we stand a chance of inching a fair bit closer than we have been in a while. If things don't crock out, I wouldn't be surprised to hear more good news in the next several years.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The new Abramsverse movies have so far felt the need for a strong villain for the audience to focus on, so I was wondering who would make for a strong villain in a potential rebooted TNG series, set in the Abramsverse. It would allow dead characters to be resurrected, or existing ones to be changed. Commander Tomolak? Enabaran Tain? The Intendent? Gul Dukat? Duras? Weyoun? I always felt Commander Sela, and the Romulans in general, were under-used.

Running alongside this train of thought (one which I rather enjoy; I'd quite like a reimagined TNG) I think the first key principle that TPTB would want to adhere to is that it is important to begin big, with adversaries that are closer to pop cultural levels. Gul Dukat may just be my favorite antagonist in all of fiction, but he's a hard sell to a new audience next to more iconic nouns.

The nuTOS movies have, unsurprisingly, shied away from the Borg. They're not a TOS era element, and while that doesn't necessarily prohibit their usage by any stretch, it's a wise course to keep them out of the films so long as there's a snowball's chance of a 24th century reimagining. That's not to say it's ever safe to assume the Borg won't factor into subsequent nuTOS films (in the entertainment industry, it's rarely safe to assume much) but I do believe it's been a conscious effort. Keep Klingons and Romulans and Vulcans with Kirk and Spock and Bones, and let Picard deal with Locutus, so-to-speak.

Seeding the 2017 depiction of the Borg Collective across numerous wink-wink, hint-hint episodes is a smart move with regard to generating hype. The film and television industries have been looking for ways to generate water-cooler geek-gasm effects for a while, now, and established IPs can pull this off with aplomb. Think of all the times Marvel fanatics have gasped and whispered at one-another in theaters, then freaked out and ranted and raved after the post-credits scenes. This is staying power. The Borg can have that sort of direct and immediate impact, to a point.

Over time, as a hypothetical reimagining gained legs and proved itself, more familiar ideas could arrive. Suddenly, Gul Dukat won't seem as risky anymore. The fanatics will squeal and the legions of casual enthusiasts which CBS hopes to court will perk their brows and wonder what the big deal is, much as I have re: Marvel characters, and they'll be there in their seats, along for the ride -- just as I have re: Marvel movies.

That's a great analogy - I would love to see them build up to the Borg on a TNG reboot by dropping fan-catnip hints, almost like Marvel's famous use of post-credits scenes - leading up to a re-imagined "Q Who" (still my favorite Borg episode, and still arguably the best). Wouldn't it also be amazing to ditch the problems the Borg had, and stick to the amazing vision that "Q Who" offered.

And like you say, if successful, the likes of Gul Dukat would eventually be embraced even by non-fans the same way the pop-culture-absent Thanos' appearance, encouraged non-comics fans to find out all they could about him, from friends and the internet. I'm not sure who my own favourite all time Trek villain is - I have a fondness for Romulans, Klingons and Cardassians - not to mention what little we have seen of the Breen. Probably Mirror Kira, as a singular character.

I would write up a big post about my other favorite villains aside from the Romulan Star Empire - the Klingon Empire - but frankly, that is one thing I think the Abramsverse has utterly utterly nailed - their depiction of the Klingons, especially in the rather unfortunately deleted scenes from Star Trek XI, utterly redeem them from being a stereotype, and again make them an intelligent and interesting enemy. The intrigue and sense of being a rival superpower to the Federation were back in force. When the D4 Bird of Prey intercepted Kirk, it was reminiscent of some Cold War jet intercepting a US spy plane over Eastern Europe.

I always thought that they had probably undergone some kind of militaristic revolution before TOS, explaining their greater organizational capacity in that era. I remember a scene in the video game Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, where the Klingons irradiate an entire planet just to quell dissidents - this is the single minded adversary I miss.

 

[Mudd]

The poll's options are too limited to be meaningful.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

It covers the three broadest extremes - I didn't want to go into too many options; just vote whichever is closest

Western society has shied away from television space opera for some time for a host of reasons. I do firmly believe that the prequel wave of Star Wars films helped keep the 90s levels going, to a point, into the mid-2000s; Star Wars has long been a catalyst for renewed public interest in watching weekly stories of men and women trekking through the stars. Nothing else delivers its numbers, of course, but hey, it's something. And the prequels weren't exactly received on the level of the originals; if this newer lineup proves superior, well, I think it's brighter pastures all-around.

Consider the projects en route now. The Expanse is set to premiere shortly, and it looks solid. Star Trek is returning to TV. Stargate is (alas...) going back to theaters. Spike TV (Spike TV!) has optioned JMS' script for a series based on Red Planet. The ever-present rumors of Netflix gearing up for a new Star Wars show are in full swing again. (OK, so this last one's a bit on-the-nose.) Dark Matter and Killjoys are airing on SyFy. The list will likely grow a bit more, even. I don't think we'll touch the 90s again in terms of volume, but I think we stand a chance of inching a fair bit closer than we have been in a while. If things don't crock out, I wouldn't be surprised to hear more good news in the next several years.

I eagerly want the Expanse to be as good as it promises to be. I have the books, but haven't read them yet. If Star Trek and Star Wars have a symbiotic relationship, and the new interest generated by Star Wars returning leads to Star Trek's fortunes going up - then thats great, haha, as long as it means more Trek for us! I couldn't really get into Killjoys or Dark Matter as much as I wanted to, as I felt they were weak on world-building (Killjoys being the stronger) - I think both shows rode off the unexpected success of Guardians of the Galaxy, but were not up to the standards of Farscape and Firefly. I'll resume them when I get a chance, but after about 8 episodes, Dark Matter was frustrating.

A lot of space opera's problems started with product placement - where Buffy could be eating some branded cereal, it was difficult to insert things like that into something like Star Trek or Farscape - but Star Trek and Star Wars, at least, I feel could simply sell their own merchandise to generate extra revenue, and more than make up for it in the long-run. Something studios have famously seemed very short-termist about; any Trek series is likely to earn back huge amounts in physical media sales, merchandise, and re-runs/streaming.

 

[ChristopherPike]

What would I rather see? Since that's the question being asked... None of the above. So, no vote from me I'm afraid.

nuTNG could be likely, since a Star Trek TV show has to co-exist with ongoing films featuring Kirk & Spock. Unless of course, if Beyond is the 3rd and final. There weren't two versions of Battlestar Galactica happening at the same time, each with different gender Starbucks running around. One was 70s archive, while the new version became this generation's take on it. And again a mooted current attempt at a film version, has had to wait for Ronald Moore's take to run its course. It might be different with the CBS Paramount rights split, but it's not that different. I can't see either purposely diluting each other, or confusing what will after all be the same audience.

I can't vote complete reboot based on the above.

I can't say I like the recast/reimagine TNG option. So again, no vote. I also have no interest in the Prime Universe post Voyager. Maybe some residual affection for Picard, Data and the Enterprise-E, since Nemesis wasn't the final chapter the 24th Century deserved. But the opportunity to redress that has long since passed.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

What would I rather see? Since that's the question being asked, none of the above. So, no vote from me I'm afraid.

Actually, that's just the poll. The thread is about something completely different

The poll was there for a bit of encouragement, but the thread is basically just a place for us to obsess over the possibilities, geek out, and have fun speculating about things.

 

[dub]

Can we add SeaQuest DSV to the '90s list since they went to another planet in one of the episodes?

I know there are plenty of prime universe naysayers, and I totally get it, and that's all fine. I actually don't care what they do as long as it's good.

But I think one possibility that could be cool is if they did something that took place years after the TNG era, things have majorly changed in some way in the Federation and lots of people are in hiding or carrying out missions in secret. There is an intergalactic mystery that a group of people/crew is trying to solve over the course of the series, and they do so at a great risk. They find logs or "security footage" which would just be clips from previous series (TNG/DS9, possibly some VOY if applicable), and these are somehow clues about the mystery. Occasionally, a cast member or two from a previous series is found and brought on for an episode or two - nothing heavy-handed, but it could make for cool television. That way, they can produce a series in such a way that if you didn't know anything about 90s trek, it wouldn't matter. But if you did, these little nuggets here and there would be cool and tie in some Trek history nicely. Plus, if things have changed in a major way in Federation space and it's years ahead of where we left off, the palette could be reinvented/reimagined for a new writing/production team.

Again, I'm open to anything that's good television. I just think that would be a good way to be serial, compelling, dramatic, and bring in bits of Trek past here and there as well.

 

[Bisz]

Option 2: taking place in the future of the original timeline.

Give me an Enterprise G, with a Cardassian first officer, Romulan at tactical, and a Vorta tending bar in 10 Forward, exploring beyond our Galaxy.

 

[Mudd]

Option 2: taking place in the future of the original timeline.

Give me an Enterprise G, with a Cardassian first officer, Romulan at tactical, and a Vorta tending bar in 10 Forward, exploring beyond our Galaxy.

This just reads as a variation of "a German, an Irishman and an Italian walk into a bar..." except that there really are German and Irishmen and Italians and suggesting that those identifiers tell you anything significant about them as characters would be recognizable as stereotyping. That's questionable in a joke, but in drama it's dumb at best and insulting at worst.

"What three collections of foam appliance pieces do I want to see pasted on actors' faces every week in the new Star Trek?"

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Option 2: taking place in the future of the original timeline.

Give me an Enterprise G, with a Cardassian first officer, Romulan at tactical, and a Vorta tending bar in 10 Forward, exploring beyond our Galaxy.

I like the sentiment. Although characters should never be cast for their origin alone, we can't deny that TOS deliberately made a statement in placing Japanese, Russian and African crewmen on the bridge. TNG made a statement with Worf. If there was a Next-Next Gen, I would be interested to see this tradition reflected.

 

[Mjolnir2000]

The main thing that matters to me is that we see stuff that's new. And that includes new characters. The Next Generation got 7 seasons, 4 films, and a zillion books. At this point, I really wouldn't be able to care that much if someone told me that we'd never get any more stories about Picard and co. We've seen their stories already. We don't need more. So for me, that rules out a JJ-TNG. It's bad enough that the new films are revisiting old territory - we don't need the TV show to do it too.

For similar reasons, I'd be skeptical of a complete reboot if the plan was to yet again give us Kirk's gang, even if there was gender flipping. If they want to show me an alternate history, that history can include alternate crew. Keep the Federation and the well known aliens, and keep the Enterprise, but otherwise start from scratch. That could be very enjoyable.

So my vote would be for the prime universe continuation, in part because I want to see where the universe goes from where we left off, but also because, ironically, it seems like that could be the most likely option for getting some new ideas. We'd a get a new ship and a new crew, and the writers couldn't just steal old ideas and use the excuse that it's a "reimagining". And to people worried about writers being burdened by continuity, I'd ask when that was ever actually a problem in the old shows. TNG made a handful of references to TOS, and DS9 and VOY made a handful of references to TNG, but by and large they were completely self contained, and someone could start watching any of them without needing any knowledge of the others. And it's not like the canon was ever that tight anyway. A few vocal fans get upset when something is contradicted, a larger subset will find clever ways of reconciling things, but for the most part I don't know that most people - even people who consider themselves fans - actually notice or care that much.

 

[Goji]

I don't care what year is chosen for the setting. I just want something new, something fun. Something.... unexpected. Please, no dusting off the dull TNG characters for a reboot. I will die a happy man if I never have to watch another Trek episode with a Troi in it.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The main thing that matters to me is that we see stuff that's new. And that includes new characters. The Next Generation got 7 seasons, 4 films, and a zillion books. At this point, I really wouldn't be able to care that much if someone told me that we'd never get any more stories about Picard and co. We've seen their stories already. We don't need more. So for me, that rules out a JJ-TNG. It's bad enough that the new films are revisiting old territory - we don't need the TV show to do it too.

For similar reasons, I'd be skeptical of a complete reboot if the plan was to yet again give us Kirk's gang, even if there was gender flipping. If they want to show me an alternate history, that history can include alternate crew. Keep the Federation and the well known aliens, and keep the Enterprise, but otherwise start from scratch. That could be very enjoyable.

In principle, I agree with this in many ways - but they are a business, and so, if they feel that a reboot would attract more audiences than a full on new crew, that is what they will go with - and I have a feeling that although a new crew of people wouldn't be a hard sell to us, it would be a hard sell to casual audiences, many of whom associate Star Trek with a set of characters, rather than the setting. The irony is that people felt this way in 1987 with TNG, but audiences came to accept them (eventually) - studios sometimes seem less willing to take risks and expand their material these days.

But, all is not lost, because I do think clever writers can be handed any crew, existing or not, and still make something new out of them. That is what separates a good writer from a hack I guess - people who can see past the veneer to the essence of what makes a good show. That's why I narrowly voted for a TNG reboot - because it would not have to necessarily feel much like the TNG that you are talking about with it's zillion Pocket Books. Literally, it could share character names and general appearances, and not much else - the entire feel of the 24th century could be different and closer to the one evoked in the recent movies, or closer to hard literary sci-fi.

Basically anything could work, with the right understanding.

So my vote would be for the prime universe continuation, in part because I want to see where the universe goes from where we left off, but also because, ironically, it seems like that could be the most likely option for getting some new ideas. We'd a get a new ship and a new crew, and the writers couldn't just steal old ideas and use the excuse that it's a "reimagining". And to people worried about writers being burdened by continuity, I'd ask when that was ever actually a problem in the old shows. TNG made a handful of references to TOS, and DS9 and VOY made a handful of references to TNG, but by and large they were completely self contained, and someone could start watching any of them without needing any knowledge of the others. And it's not like the canon was ever that tight anyway. A few vocal fans get upset when something is contradicted, a larger subset will find clever ways of reconciling things, but for the most part I don't know that most people - even people who consider themselves fans - actually notice or care that much.

This is probably just as likely as a TNG reboot at this point, to be honest - we really don't know which we will get, with some people arguing that we are in fact more likely to get this. There are some who feel it makes business sense, story sense, or legal sense.

I would have been interested to see a full gender blind reboot of TOS, because it could have literally changed the feel of the Star Trek setting, bringing it closer to the hard science fiction of modern novels - perhaps hiring novelists like Alastair Reynolds and Kim Stanley Robinson, and having NASA advisors take the shell of the original Enterprise and fill it with something straight out of a Robert Zubrin concept:

But taking the Prime Universe, and setting the series 100 years later or something, gives people the exact same opportunities as a reboot of TNG or a complete reboot. Basically all three groups of fans are arguing that their choice for the setting would allow greater freedom for thematic difference - and they are all right!! Basically, I don't think it matters which we end up with, as long as the writing staff and other show-runners are imaginative, intelligent and wise enough to see beyond the limitations to the possibilities (which in every case are immense). Just because the Enterprise J looks like a manta ray in space, doesn't mean it can't be more grounded inside, with a crew with the same hopes and dreams as us - who live in a normal house, etc:

But anything would work. You get some people arguing that "we can't have a show set in the future of the Prime Universe, because it would be too technologically advanced (with Voyager having ruined things by delivering babies via transporter and curing everything with nanotechnology)". For a good writer this isn't a barrier - TOS (and Frank Herbert) for example both thought of interesting reasons why genetic engineering and androids were not present in their settings. A good writing team would ground the OTT deus ex machina science of Voyager, and just get back to basics, depicting a crew of astronauts once again setting out from Earth. The details are wide open - from a crew that incorporates hard science things like man-machine interphases, to one that looks traditional. There is enough ambiguity in Star Trek, that even if you set it in the year 3000, it might still be a recognizable place.

Also, you get some people arguing we can't have a rebooted TNG because the ground has already been covered. But really, the Pocket Books continuity didn't cover that many possibilities, it only developed stories within the confines of what we saw of the Prime Universe, continuing plot threads, and only then if it didn't interfere with the setting too much. Again, a good writing team could ignore what they wanted, and only use existing TNG for a little background, if they really wanted. Picard and crew could be flying around in some shining version of the Enterprise D, doing things that wouldn't be out of place in a Greg Egan novel. They could encounter the Dominion early, and show an altered and more interesting version of them. The possibilities would be near-endless, for new drama. One thing I liked in the Abramsverse was how they made Starfleet look highly trained and fit - we saw elements of this in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, with crews repelling down rock faces - but for example, there would be no reason not to make a TNG reboot extremely physical - taking stealthy shuttles into enemy space to infiltrate enemy bases, etc. But perhaps the biggest possibility would be to take the characters in different directions, if they wanted to.

 

[voodoowoman]

The other threads about this read like a bar room economics conversation; analysing CBS shares and picking apart the modern state of the media. This thread is for outright Trekkie fanaticism; picking apart hints and set photos - speculating like complete nerds - hype. I'm frankly suprised this hasn't happened yet; we have been waiting 10 years for this; as long as Star Wars fans have been waiting for their new movie - and we have been living through a dark age of television sci-fi.

The Star Trek (2017 Series) Speculation / Analysis / News / Rumors / Discussion Thread




What are the present possibilities:

• A show set in the Alternative Timeline
• A show set in the Original Timeline
• A complete reboot of Star Trek

And what are the possibilities within these confines:

• A.T.: A show set during the timeframe of the JJ Abrams movies
• A.T.: A show set during the future of the Alternate Timeline (TNG era)
• O.T. A show set contemporary to James T Kirk's captaincy
• O.T. A show set contemporary to Jean Luc Picard's captaincy
• O.T. A show set 100 years after Jean Luc Picard's captaincy
• Reboot: A complete recast of the original series (gender blind casting?)

Who, over the dark years, has proposed or been rumored in connection with a new series:

• J J Abrams, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci & Damon Lindelof
• J Michael Straczynski & Bryce Zabel
• Seth MacFarlane
• Bryan Singer
• Bryan Fuller
• Sam Raimi
• Brannon Braga

Which of them would you have preferred had Alex Kurtzman not succeeded? Would you like them to join up in the new series as co-executive producers?

What will Alex Kurtzman's vision for the series be like, who will he hire? Will he take a cue from J Michael Straczynski's proposal and hire the best contemporary writers of science fiction to do stand-alone stories? Will he blend episodic arcs with stand alone episodes? Will it be entiely arc-based?

What will any new ship look like? What will it's top speed be? It's capabilities? Who will the major antagnoists be? Romulans, Klingons, the Dominion, the Borg? Will Commander Sela be recast, and be a main villain? Will a younger Garak run around a rebooted Enterprise D, sabotaging systems? Or will this turn out to be the adventures of the USS Kelvin, NCC-0514-C? What do you want to see?



Discuss!