The future of Trek is to create a show like Star Trek but not called that?

[WraithDukat]

I'm thinking Orville here, Orville is generally praised by Trekkies (because it practically IS Star Trek) yet if it were called Star Trek: Orville. It would be getting constantly slated for it's immature themes and that it contradicts something that was said 40 years ago (another advantage is the freedom from 'canon') and don't get me started on the fact that the engine core is a circle on the wall. Also outside the existing fan circle 'Star Trek' is considered nerdy and uncool, another reason to drop the name, then more mainstream viewers may watch it.

Personally I wish they had made Star Trek Orville (25th Century?) and Star Trek Discovery side by side, they major difference in tone would balance each-other out nicely.

Thoughts?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

If the Orville was an actual Trek show then it would be done differently to make it a little more serious, in keeping with all that has come before it. As a non-Trek show that is as much an homage and satire of Trek then it can get away with a lot more and have a different tone.

Once the Galaxy Quest TV show is released then Orville would be best compared against it, to see which one did it best.

Besides, the PTB tried making a Trek show not called Trek and we all saw how well that worked before the finally added it to the title.

 

[WraithDukat]

Yeah but I'm thinking more a complete rehash, Enterprise was not called Star Trek Enterprise - but to anyone who even just knows just the cultural references it clearly was.

 

[Valenti]

They call that submarining another show or concept into a new show called Star Trek. What's in a name? It's the concept and execution that counts. There's no longer any need to reference TOS any more. Leave the thing alone. It shouldn't be clung on to the way it is.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm thinking Orville here, Orville is generally praised by Trekkies (because it practically IS Star Trek) yet if it were called Star Trek: Orville. It would be getting constantly slated for it's immature themes and that it contradicts something that was said 40 years ago (another advantage is the freedom from 'canon') and don't get me started on the fact that the engine core is a circle on the wall. Also outside the existing fan circle 'Star Trek' is considered nerdy and uncool, another reason to drop the name, then more mainstream viewers may watch it.

Personally I wish they had made Star Trek Orville (25th Century?) and Star Trek Discovery side by side, they major difference in tone would balance each-other out nicely.

Thoughts?

Forget the humour, Orville would be slated by Trekkies for doing nothing but recycling the same old Trek plots in exactly the same way TNG, VOY and ENT did again and again. And by keeping to the tired formulaic story structure which hadn't changed since 1987.

It's fun nostalgia for 90's Trek fans, but if it actually had the Trek name attached it'd be immediately crushed by the Weight of Expectation™.

 

[Valenti]

Concepts are what sustains things like movies and tv shows and everything rests on it and the premise to keep afloat. A good enough concept can raise the Titanic. My father used to say, with a good enough crow bar, you can move the world.

 

[Valenti]

The concept is what keeps it from sinking. That and the premise is what it all hangs on. My father used to say that with a big enough crow far, you could move the world.

 

[tharpdevenport]

The future of Trek is to create a show like Star Trek but not called that?

It was tried. It was called "Enterprise". It failed.

 

[Valenti]

That's because it wasn't done right.

 

[Vger23]

Forget the humour, Orville would be slated by Trekkies for doing nothing but recycling the same old Trek plots in exactly the same way TNG, VOY and ENT did again and again. And by keeping to the tired formulaic story structure which hadn't changed since 1987.

It's fun nostalgia for 90's Trek fans, but if it actually had the Trek name attached it'd be immediately crushed by the Weight of Expectation™.

Totally agree. You put Orville in the "Official Star Trek Universe" and so many fans would uncontrollably deficate themselves and be flinging the feces at each other about how horrible, derivative, unoriginal and immature it is that I wouldn't be surprised if the internet itself imploded.

Funny thing is...it would be the exact same fans that are now praising it while it is NOT an official Star Trek show. Frigging weird.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm thinking Orville here, Orville is generally praised by Trekkies (because it practically IS Star Trek) yet if it were called Star Trek: Orville. It would be getting constantly slated for it's immature themes and that it contradicts something that was said 40 years ago (another advantage is the freedom from 'canon') and don't get me started on the fact that the engine core is a circle on the wall. Also outside the existing fan circle 'Star Trek' is considered nerdy and uncool, another reason to drop the name, then more mainstream viewers may watch it.

Personally I wish they had made Star Trek Orville (25th Century?) and Star Trek Discovery side by side, they major difference in tone would balance each-other out nicely.

Thoughts?

No thanks.

Just do something new.

 

[iliescu]

They could still call it Star Trek and work with new combinations, or could remaster or do a side timeline of an already done series or event within a series - there is lot of potential.

 

[WraithDukat]

Funny thing is...it would be the exact same fans that are now praising it while it is NOT an official Star Trek show. Frigging weird.

Exactly, which goes back to my original point.

 

[uniderth]

I think it would be interesting to develop a TV show that strictly adheres to the Star Trek universe and its history, but never references the trademarked elements, so it could be its own franchise.

 

[Butters]

I think it would be interesting to develop a TV show that strictly adheres to the Star Trek universe and its history, but never references the trademarked elements, so it could be its own franchise.

I’ve long thought that this was the way forward.

For every viewer that the brand attracts, there’s probably ten more that don’t like Star Trek and are put off it simply by the name. That’s a guess of course, but Trek does carry a lot of baggage, doing jury duty in a costume and the like. Growing up, liking Trek was something you kept to yourself mostly. Repackaging it wouldn’t hurt.

 

[mos6507]

I think it would be interesting to develop a TV show that strictly adheres to the Star Trek universe and its history, but never references the trademarked elements, so it could be its own franchise.

In other words, Renegades. I find that approach creatively unethical to say the least. Orville is guilty enough of this as it is (especially in the way it brings in Trek veterans in front of and behind the cameras).

 

[Valenti]

I think it would be interesting to develop a TV show that strictly adheres to the Star Trek universe and its history, but never references the trademarked elements, so it could be its own franchise.

This. there's room in Rodenberry's huge universe for this even if it's in a so called expanded universe as long as it doesn't interfere with canon. I know, I know, but the shareholders and all..

 

[Tenacity]

Orville would be slated by Trekkies for doing nothing but recycling the same old Trek plots in exactly the same way TNG, VOY and ENT did again and again

Which to be honest, is basically what quite a few trekkies want.

 

[-Brett-]

I think it would be interesting to develop a TV show that strictly adheres to the Star Trek universe and its history, but never references the trademarked elements, so it could be its own franchise.

That sounds like the worst of both worlds to me. No creative freedom of an original IP, and no built in audience of an established brand.

 

[fireproof78]

Which to be honest, is basically what quite a few trekkies want.

Yes, indeed. Change seems to be a taboo word.