• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

What would you rather see?

  • A reboot of Star Trek: The Next Generation set in the Alternate Timeline

    Votes: 8 6.1%

  • A new series set 100 years after Star Trek: The Next Generation

    Votes: 94 71.8%

  • A complete reboot with gender blind casting?

    Votes: 29 22.1%
  • Total voters
    131
Whew! Havn't been here in awhile. Excited to hear about new series but I am puzzled as to its broadcasting. It says CBS all stream or something like that. I'm sure I don't have that. Will it eventually be on ordinary cable?
 
If rebooting a spin off isn't the very definition of creative bankruptcy, it should be. If it turns out to be a remake of TNG count me out. Wouldn't be thrilled at another remake of TOS either, but I'd give it a fair shot, I guess.

I want them to at least make an attempt at originality. New characters and (if applicable) a ship visually distinct from any iteration of the Enterprise, at least.
 
I would be very happy to see a she-boot of TOS' bridge crew. It could be a very sexy and fun show, if they were cast around, say, 25, so the show could have a nice run and maybe even a few movies before they're all cougars.
 
Complete reboot - the last really popular trek show went off air 22 years ago, that is a bigger gap between the end of TOS and the start of TNG.

Put something on a mainstream audience wants to watch - not tired old rubbish about wars and characters only a hardcore give a crap about to start with.
 
Why do so many seem to ignore the most important piece of news we have about this series?

The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.

New characters, new worlds, new civilizations. It sounds to me like TOS or TNG, but set a century or two later with a new crew aboard a new Enterprise.

While many think it's a given that the new series will be set in the Abramsverse, the FACTS, not theories, seem to suggest that it'll fit into Prime continuity. There's no good reason why they'd decide to go with the Abramsverse over Primeverse, unless they're stupid enough to think people go see the NuTrek films because of its alternate reality and not its dumb fun summer blockbuster action.
 
Shalashaska said:
Why do so many seem to ignore the most important piece of news we have about this series?

The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.

New characters, new worlds, new civilizations. It sounds to me like TOS or TNG, but set a century or two later with a new crew aboard a new Enterprise.

While many think it's a given that the new series will be set in the Abramsverse, the FACTS, not theories, seem to suggest that it'll fit into Prime continuity. There's no good reason why they'd decide to go with the Abramsverse over Primeverse, unless they're stupid enough to think people go see the NuTrek films because of its alternate reality and not its dumb fun summer blockbuster action.
Click to expand...

"New characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations" could apply to anything. A new ship in the Abramsverse set during the same time period? Yep. Primeverse set 20 years after Nemesis? Sure. An unnamed universe set 2 centuries later? Why not. An entirely new reboot? Sounds good.

The description is generic marketing meant to sound like Trek and excite the fan base. It can apply to anything and leaves Kurtzman free to do what he wants.
 
Shalashaska said:
Why do so many seem to ignore the most important piece of news we have about this series?

The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.
Click to expand...

Because that's vague, generic marketing pooh-bah, not news.

I'd rather see the oldTrek continuity deprecated and a new TOS-like TV series, whether set in the nuTrek continuity or an entirely new framework.
 
Okay, Robert Meyer Burnett has taken a brief break from defending his attempt to make a 150 million dollar space epic for less than one percent of what that costs to Tweet that he's heard rumors there will be an announcement or reveal this week about the new CBS All Access Star Trek series:

https://twitter.com/BurnettRM/status/696830308558118913

These things usually happen on Tuesdays...
 
If this turns out to be true, then it's even more inexcusable that CBS didn't include Star Trek in the All Access Superbowl ad.
 
Excellent news. He has done some great non-Trek shows.
 
Last edited:
milo bloom said:
He's been after this a while, right? Let's hope he still has the passion for the project.
Click to expand...
Yup.

On 2 March 2009 Fuller told iF Magazine that he is pushing for a new Star Trek TV series based on "old style" Star Trek. In the interview he stated that "I told my agent and told the people of J.J. Abrams' team I want to create another Star Trek series and have an idea that I'm kicking around. I would love to return to the spirit of the old series with the colors and attitude. I loved Voyager and Deep Space Nine, but they seem to have lost the '60s fun and I would love to take it back to its origin.
Click to expand...
 
I thought this was a really good post:

SpaceLama said:
Honestly, I mean no offence to anyone, but whoever made those maps was waaaaaaaaay out.

The one where the galaxy is utterly covered by political powers is utterly absurd - I understand some really Z-canon sources like certain card games and stuff may have depicted this, but most people are of the opinion that the Federation is a small entity, nothing remotely like the huge galaxy-sized empires of Star Wars, Foundation or Warhammer 40,000.

The best site I've ever found that collates geographic information in a similar way to how Ex Astris Scientia does starships, is this one:
http://www.stdimension.org/int/Cartography/federation.htm

Its is by far the most consistent with evidence - and it depicts the Federation as tiny.

Q: Why do some episodes suggest a Federation about 150 ly wide, when First Contact said "spread over 8000 ly"?

A: Because the furthest scientific outposts are that far, but core member worlds are within a 150 ly core. In one episode of DS9 it is stated that a ship can circle the Federation in just 90 days at high warp - suggesting a perimeter of perhaps 300 ly and a diameter of perhaps 100 ly.

Q: Why does the Federation seemingly have a presence on distant stars like Deneb?

A: In space, political territory is not contiguous, so the Federation has occasionally attracted distant members well beyond the Federation's core, or the Romulan/Klingon empires. Effectively, it has multiple small cores scattered very far out, like the USA controls small pacific islands.

It actually fits everything we have seen PERFECTLY.
Click to expand...

The size of the Federation is a point that may come up in regards to the new show.

http://www.stdimension.org/int/Cartography/federation.htm

And that site is excellent.
 
Or they messed up the dialogue for that one episode another Defiant class ship turns up crewed by the cast of Glee, and the other 50 times it mentions taking weeks or months to cross it at the fastest speed are right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
B5's Deconstruction of Falling Stars, Trek-ified (Part 1)
Replies
1
Views
149
Allah Gold
A
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top