Sure they can. They don't need to write in the style of TOS. The continuity will be fine too.
Legacy is a horrible idea. I'd love a Seven of Nine show, but not if its Berman's greatest hits.
Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series
- Thread starter Quinton
- Start date
Legacy is a horrible idea. I'd love a Seven of Nine show, but not if its Berman's greatest hits.
I suspect a writing campaign might likely yield a comic book continuation, much like LDS or KT stuff, but SNW fans should do what they feel is right.
I'm surprised there isn't a # for this, if Goldsman and Myers are genuine about the prospects of this happening. Get it properly trending.
But yeah, I'd rather the money go a 25th century continuation anyway, it's just my preference.
I'm surprised there isn't a # for this, if Goldsman and Myers are genuine about the prospects of this happening. Get it properly trending.
But yeah, I'd rather the money go a 25th century continuation anyway, it's just my preference.
I think I just want a TV show with all original characters that is not a direct spinoff of something else. New crew, new paradym. Not a prequel, nota direct sequel or direct sequel to a prequel.
But.... do standalone streaming movies for ideas like Year 1 and Legacy. I like Goldman"s idea as a TV movie or short mini series. Not sure about a TV show tho. Also wouldn't mind seing more classic Trek stories via Prodigy Style CGI animation. Not necessarily for kids.
But for the next long-form live action TV show , I want all new characters . There's been 3 major narrative eras of Trek. TOSera, TNG era , Discovery Era(s). I want a new one that is distinct from each one of those. . 25th Century is ok but 26th Century I think would probably be better. An era where very few characters that are from the recent shows can appear. A new distinct era ( in the future) that we havnt seen before ....like how TNG was to TOS. 32nd Century Discovery was kinda like that but was still based on a Pre TOS 22nd Century setting/origin point.
But.... do standalone streaming movies for ideas like Year 1 and Legacy. I like Goldman"s idea as a TV movie or short mini series. Not sure about a TV show tho. Also wouldn't mind seing more classic Trek stories via Prodigy Style CGI animation. Not necessarily for kids.
But for the next long-form live action TV show , I want all new characters . There's been 3 major narrative eras of Trek. TOSera, TNG era , Discovery Era(s). I want a new one that is distinct from each one of those. . 25th Century is ok but 26th Century I think would probably be better. An era where very few characters that are from the recent shows can appear. A new distinct era ( in the future) that we havnt seen before ....like how TNG was to TOS. 32nd Century Discovery was kinda like that but was still based on a Pre TOS 22nd Century setting/origin point.
Last edited:
"Year One" has as much chance as Legacy of happening.
Slim.
We're just in the first phase, where TPTB try to get fans worked up into making it happen.
They haven't even finished making the show that got cancelled yet, and we viewers are still two seasons from it being over. Any bump in interest right now would be pointless, in my completely unprofessional opinion.
Slim.
We're just in the first phase, where TPTB try to get fans worked up into making it happen.
They haven't even finished making the show that got cancelled yet, and we viewers are still two seasons from it being over. Any bump in interest right now would be pointless, in my completely unprofessional opinion.
No more TOS, ever! Sick and tired of Kirk and Co.
This ship sailed when DSC started and vanished over the horizon when SNW did.
This is where I'm at as well.
I don't hate the concept of a prequel that leads directly into TOS, I just saw how Andor led perfectly into Rogue One, but I don't believe it's currently possible for Star Trek to do that in a way that feels as satisfying and correct. Plus I don't think the way to improve SNW is to replace Ortegas, La'an, Una and Mitchell with Sulu, Kelso, Piper and Mitchell.
I'm surprised how many comments there are to the effect of "you can't have a multi-season 'Year One' series!"
Of course you could. The writers choose how fast time passes in-universe, and (unless your cast includes children), time in real life and on the show do not have to be synced. It's common for there to be TV shows where the whole season occurs in a compressed window of time.
For a recent Trek example, Lower Decks covered about 2 years of in-universe time during its five seasons.
"True Blood" and "Lost" also jump out to me as shows that particularly manipulated their timelines to be whatever their story needed.
But honestly, I don't think any form of a Kirk-centered series could be satisfying, because Paul Wesley is the only serious casting misstep of the modern era. He's horrible in the role, and the only thing no series can overcome is a bad lead.
I mean, I'm skeptical of the impact of this approach, but they're timing it to the merger. Decision-making at Paramount has been stalled until that resolves, and now the new bosses are going to start making big-picture decisions on how all the brands will be managed going forward. If there's going to be a next show, the time to start developing it is now.
Though I really hate this "we have the sets!" pitch, because for me it highlights a big financial problem with this idea, which is that most of the core cast is already expensive.
The reason you cancel a successful existing show, to start a new show on the same sets, is to cut all the people whose salaries have grown large over years of annual bumps, and start again with a new team at low first-season rates. But in this case, we'd have to carry over an already-expensive Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and Scotty (and maybe Chapel?). It makes it a much less appealing proposition, money-wise.
Of course you could. The writers choose how fast time passes in-universe, and (unless your cast includes children), time in real life and on the show do not have to be synced. It's common for there to be TV shows where the whole season occurs in a compressed window of time.
For a recent Trek example, Lower Decks covered about 2 years of in-universe time during its five seasons.
"True Blood" and "Lost" also jump out to me as shows that particularly manipulated their timelines to be whatever their story needed.
This sums up my feelings exactly (including on Spock/Chapel, I'm regularly stunned how well their modern SNW story tracks into TOS). Though it's possible to do multiple seasons set within one calendar year, it's a much better idea to go post-TMP.
But honestly, I don't think any form of a Kirk-centered series could be satisfying, because Paul Wesley is the only serious casting misstep of the modern era. He's horrible in the role, and the only thing no series can overcome is a bad lead.
In my recently-retired-from-entertainment opinion, there's no better time.
I mean, I'm skeptical of the impact of this approach, but they're timing it to the merger. Decision-making at Paramount has been stalled until that resolves, and now the new bosses are going to start making big-picture decisions on how all the brands will be managed going forward. If there's going to be a next show, the time to start developing it is now.
Though I really hate this "we have the sets!" pitch, because for me it highlights a big financial problem with this idea, which is that most of the core cast is already expensive.
The reason you cancel a successful existing show, to start a new show on the same sets, is to cut all the people whose salaries have grown large over years of annual bumps, and start again with a new team at low first-season rates. But in this case, we'd have to carry over an already-expensive Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and Scotty (and maybe Chapel?). It makes it a much less appealing proposition, money-wise.
Last edited:
