TNG Reboot/Re-imagining?

[T'Girl]

During this particular show Earth/Federation/Starfleet there will be no replicators. But there will be money.

Also not a big fan of money existing ...

There's a few reasons I would want to see money in a young (or any) Star Trek. Big one is that lack of money (and the presence of a replicator) to my mind makes things too easy, money can insert a extra level of complexity into the story.

Not sure just how "military" the show would be. I think today's audience might accept a more traditional military organizational structure.

... or Starfleet becoming more military.

Well, Starfleet is the military of the good guys. I was thinking of the depiction of Starfleet's organization and the ship's internal command structure.

The ship in the series would be our hero ship, but it would also be seen as a cog in Starfleet's overall machine.

 

[Orphalesion]

They made a big deal about the ship carrying families but only had a few unforgettable episodes that dealt with them.

Exactly, that is one of the reasons why I, despite everything would be somewhat interested in a TNG reboot. It had so many concepts that the writers left unused, families among them.

I was thinking to keep her in the sciences. Her diplomatic and public relations training would be on the command track, but she is also a psychiatrist, psychologist, sociologist, xenologist and linguist. Wouldn't be adverse to having her in red though.

Wasn't that really how Deanna was originally conceived, apparently Marina Sirtis was told that "she would be the brains" and in some early episodes Picard asks her about alien races they encounter (the Romulans for instance in Neutral Zone)

I remembered an old idea I had myself once for Deanna. That she was not an alien but an augmented human with telepathic abilities.
One idea I had that telepathic humans were a product of the Eugenic Wars like Kahn's people. Like him and his people the telepathic humans left Earth in suspended animation, but eventually reached a Class M planet that would become Betazed. Unlike the people of the Botany Bay they renounced war and spend the next few centuries building a peaceful, somewhat "utopian" society until being rediscovered by Starfleet and joining the Federation.
It would be interesting because it might cast some characters in the position of being suspicious, or even frightened/hostile towards Deanna's presence. In this case "Beta Zeta" might possibly be the name of the project that created the telepaths.

In my concept she'd be understanding of this to a certain extent and even make herself unsure if she isn't a dangerous genetic monster explaining it like this:
"Betazed and Kahn are both fruits of the eugenic madness. Who is to say that one isn't as rotten as the other?"

 

[2takesfrakes]

Nicely said, Frakes. Hard to argue.

Thank you, sir. On the other hand, I am, in fact, a HUGE fan of The Next Generation and would love for it to find relevancy, once again, within the franchise. At the time when it first came out, the original series cast had been playing their characters well into old age. TOS was a spent force in television, in movies. I'm surprised that Kirk & Company weren't rebooted right away, but then again, maybe not so surprised. For decades and decades, Shatner was Kirk. Kirk was Shatner. The TOS cast was all alive when TNG came out, so maybe there was fear of backlash from the fans, or something? I don't know. But if STAR TREK was ever going to go with a different crew that wasn't Kirk & Spock, then was the time. And I'm glad GR went for it and I really liked what he did with his new show. But that set of circumstances could never exist again. Kirk & Spock are anything but a spent force, now. But I do wonder, sometimes, where TNG stands, at times ...

 

[EnriqueH]

I was 15 when I became a huge fan of TNG.

Anyway, I would not want to see a TNG reboot because I'd like to go forward into the 25th century.

The reboot/sequel/prequel of the Abramsverse is fun, but I don't feel that it's a reboot so much as a timetravel/alternate universe story. With TNG era Ambassador Spock Prime acting as the link between the Primeverse and the Abramsverse. I've only seen the movie twice, but it seems to me that we're looking at a Spock Prime that's from the TNG era.

So eventually, I think it makes sense to go forward into the 25th century.

IMO, I don't think it would be good for the franchise to be stuck in reboots.

 

[Vger23]

Nicely said, Frakes. Hard to argue.

Thank you, sir. On the other hand, I am, in fact, a HUGE fan of The Next Generation and would love for it to find relevancy, once again, within the franchise. At the time when it first came out, the original series cast had been playing their characters well into old age. TOS was a spent force in television, in movies. I'm surprised that Kirk & Company weren't rebooted right away, but then again, maybe not so surprised. For decades and decades, Shatner was Kirk. Kirk was Shatner. The TOS cast was all alive when TNG came out, so maybe there was fear of backlash from the fans, or something? I don't know. But if STAR TREK was ever going to go with a different crew that wasn't Kirk & Spock, then was the time. And I'm glad GR went for it and I really liked what he did with his new show. But that set of circumstances could never exist again. Kirk & Spock are anything but a spent force, now. But I do wonder, sometimes, where TNG stands, at times ...

I agree. I love TNG too...and I did right from the start. Heck, I even love S1 and S2!

But, the practical person in me knows that TNG is not the future of Star Trek. The brand recognition and broad audience draw lies with the original concept and characters, without a doubt.

If Star Trek is going to live, that's where it will need to go.

 

[suarezguy]

While I'm not thrilled with having gone back to the original series characters or era, it would be a waste to abandon it near its beginning, in particular to not have Klingons as antagonists for a few stories rather than one or none.

OTOH, I like the idea of Michael Rosenbaum playing a younger Picard.

I wish TNG had focused more on the civilians on board but I don't think a lot of writers or audiences would be interested in them.
​

 

[borgboy]

Michael Rosenbaum would make a very good young Picard!

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm not sure I buy this whole idea of "moving forward" within STAR TREK. There's no limit to what this reboot can offer. The ENTERPRISE can even dispense with Warp Drive, altogether and just fold space, as its chief means of transport, I mean ... people can already beam across the entire Galaxy, as it is. And this is all with the show's primary focus being Captain Kirk and his crew. "Mixing it up" with different ships and crews doesn't add, or change anything. Especially, when at the end of every Great Journey in STAR TREK there is a reflection of "us" ... of Humanity.

V'GER needs something more to believe in. NuKhan is just protecting his family. TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT all gave us the same "Man Behind the Curtain" deal as TOS did. With Kirk & Co., we already have Time Travel, and Aliens of every kind and stakes that aren't just global, they're galactic. There's nothing really to "move forward" to but more of this "meeting ourselves" at the end of our STAR TREK travels. Mixing up ships and crews now will only water down the franchise and weaken it to where it loses all viability again. And I, for one don't want to see that, because I happen to like STAR TREK.

Nicely said, Frakes. Hard to argue.

I do not find it hard to argue.

Regardless of wether I like the TOS characters or era, I find something very uncreative, pathetic and even frightening about Star Trek just giving up, rolling over and just sticking with the TOS characters from now on till the sun goes nova.

How AWFUL would it be if there never, ever again was a female lead but Uhura, never ever again an Alien character but Spock? Never ever again a captain but Kirk? That's awfully restricting.
And I would say the same about ST remaking TNG forever and ever, only that it at least has more and movie varied characters.
It's a general trend in our culture in the last few years that we look back rather than forward. Nostalgia is running out of control as the past is somehow seen more desirable as the future. People cling to "used to be" and "back then everything was cooler!" like frightened children. There used to be a time when films could be creative or even art. Today its all brand recognition and adaptations (even of effing boardgames!) and remake and reboot after remake and reboot.

Star Trek is supposed to give us hope for the future, yet now its also become a victim of nostalgia.

I don't see creating a new crew as watering down the franchise. Creating 3 series at once again would be watering it down (as we have seen in Enterprise) as well as stuffing Kirk's era full of more and more events or endlessly retelling it.
A new crew could be a anew start, drawing a line again and just going forward from there.
And if sticking forever in a loop with the TOS era is the only way for ST to live, then I, personally wish it would die or have stayed dead.
Again I do not begrudge anybody their enjoyment of the new movies, I am just not a fan of the general trend they stay for.

 

[krash661]

i have thought about star trek producing a new series of today. maybe call it star trek universes. multi-dimensions. or such.

 

[Vger23]

I'm not sure I buy this whole idea of "moving forward" within STAR TREK. There's no limit to what this reboot can offer. The ENTERPRISE can even dispense with Warp Drive, altogether and just fold space, as its chief means of transport, I mean ... people can already beam across the entire Galaxy, as it is. And this is all with the show's primary focus being Captain Kirk and his crew. "Mixing it up" with different ships and crews doesn't add, or change anything. Especially, when at the end of every Great Journey in STAR TREK there is a reflection of "us" ... of Humanity.

V'GER needs something more to believe in. NuKhan is just protecting his family. TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT all gave us the same "Man Behind the Curtain" deal as TOS did. With Kirk & Co., we already have Time Travel, and Aliens of every kind and stakes that aren't just global, they're galactic. There's nothing really to "move forward" to but more of this "meeting ourselves" at the end of our STAR TREK travels. Mixing up ships and crews now will only water down the franchise and weaken it to where it loses all viability again. And I, for one don't want to see that, because I happen to like STAR TREK.

Nicely said, Frakes. Hard to argue.

I do not find it hard to argue.

Regardless of wether I like the TOS characters or era, I find something very uncreative, pathetic and even frightening about Star Trek just giving up, rolling over and just sticking with the TOS characters from now on till the sun goes nova.

How AWFUL would it be if there never, ever again was a female lead but Uhura, never ever again an Alien character but Spock? Never ever again a captain but Kirk? That's awfully restricting.
And I would say the same about ST remaking TNG forever and ever, only that it at least has more and movie varied characters.
It's a general trend in our culture in the last few years that we look back rather than forward. Nostalgia is running out of control as the past is somehow seen more desirable as the future. People cling to "used to be" and "back then everything was cooler!" like frightened children. There used to be a time when films could be creative or even art. Today its all brand recognition and adaptations (even of effing boardgames!) and remake and reboot after remake and reboot.

Star Trek is supposed to give us hope for the future, yet now its also become a victim of nostalgia.

I don't see creating a new crew as watering down the franchise. Creating 3 series at once again would be watering it down (as we have seen in Enterprise) as well as stuffing Kirk's era full of more and more events or endlessly retelling it.
A new crew could be a anew start, drawing a line again and just going forward from there.
And if sticking forever in a loop with the TOS era is the only way for ST to live, then I, personally wish it would die or have stayed dead.
Again I do not begrudge anybody their enjoyment of the new movies, I am just not a fan of the general trend they stay for.

You again miss the point, though. A point I have tried to make clear several times. It's not about what you or I PREFER. It's about what is viable. And what is viable is the original series.

Why do you think that Paramount made the movies they are currently making? Movies are a multi million dollar endeavor, and major studios are big business. They don't do anything without understanding the market. And, the market data obviously shows that people won't respond to new crews or reboots of TNG era crews the way they wil to the original franchise.

What are the most popular fan productions?
New Voyages
Continues
Axanar

All of these are based on the original series.

This isn't emotional. It's not speculation. The availablefacts support what I'm saying.

Again, we need to have the ability to separate our desires and preferences from reality. Star Trek is not the same as it was in 1994. The market is not the same. The hardcore fanbase is not the same. A television studio is not going to produce an expensive science fiction series that isn't a sure thing. And TOS is the only thing close to a sure thing.

We can disagree with that thinking all we want. But, your disagreement is based off what you'd like to see and not like to see, not based on what is most viable.

 

[Vger23]

I'm not sure I buy this whole idea of "moving forward" within STAR TREK. There's no limit to what this reboot can offer. The ENTERPRISE can even dispense with Warp Drive, altogether and just fold space, as its chief means of transport, I mean ... people can already beam across the entire Galaxy, as it is. And this is all with the show's primary focus being Captain Kirk and his crew. "Mixing it up" with different ships and crews doesn't add, or change anything. Especially, when at the end of every Great Journey in STAR TREK there is a reflection of "us" ... of Humanity.

V'GER needs something more to believe in. NuKhan is just protecting his family. TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT all gave us the same "Man Behind the Curtain" deal as TOS did. With Kirk & Co., we already have Time Travel, and Aliens of every kind and stakes that aren't just global, they're galactic. There's nothing really to "move forward" to but more of this "meeting ourselves" at the end of our STAR TREK travels. Mixing up ships and crews now will only water down the franchise and weaken it to where it loses all viability again. And I, for one don't want to see that, because I happen to like STAR TREK.

Nicely said, Frakes. Hard to argue.

I do not find it hard to argue.

Regardless of wether I like the TOS characters or era, I find something very uncreative, pathetic and even frightening about Star Trek just giving up, rolling over and just sticking with the TOS characters from now on till the sun goes nova.

How AWFUL would it be if there never, ever again was a female lead but Uhura, never ever again an Alien character but Spock? Never ever again a captain but Kirk? That's awfully restricting.
And I would say the same about ST remaking TNG forever and ever, only that it at least has more and movie varied characters.
It's a general trend in our culture in the last few years that we look back rather than forward. Nostalgia is running out of control as the past is somehow seen more desirable as the future. People cling to "used to be" and "back then everything was cooler!" like frightened children. There used to be a time when films could be creative or even art. Today its all brand recognition and adaptations (even of effing boardgames!) and remake and reboot after remake and reboot.

Star Trek is supposed to give us hope for the future, yet now its also become a victim of nostalgia.

I don't see creating a new crew as watering down the franchise. Creating 3 series at once again would be watering it down (as we have seen in Enterprise) as well as stuffing Kirk's era full of more and more events or endlessly retelling it.
A new crew could be a anew start, drawing a line again and just going forward from there.
And if sticking forever in a loop with the TOS era is the only way for ST to live, then I, personally wish it would die or have stayed dead.
Again I do not begrudge anybody their enjoyment of the new movies, I am just not a fan of the general trend they stay for.

And oh by the way it is a totally horseshit selfish attitude to say you would rather see it die then going to direction you would prefer it not to go. That is a selfish and shortsighted as anything. Certainly more shortsighted then those who prefer nostalgia vs moving forward.

If a franchise goes and direction you don't wanted to go in, simply stop watching it. Don't wish it to die. That is robbing potentially millions of other people from enjoyment.

This whole "it better go the way I want it to or it should die so nobody can enjoy it" thing has always bothered me. It's selfish and completely irresponsible to say something like that. The franchise continuing on in a direction you prefer it not to go does not hurt you at all. Simply stop watching it. But if it dies altogether that hurts millions of other people.

Unreal.

 

[Orphalesion]

Nicely said, Frakes. Hard to argue.

I do not find it hard to argue.

Regardless of wether I like the TOS characters or era, I find something very uncreative, pathetic and even frightening about Star Trek just giving up, rolling over and just sticking with the TOS characters from now on till the sun goes nova.

How AWFUL would it be if there never, ever again was a female lead but Uhura, never ever again an Alien character but Spock? Never ever again a captain but Kirk? That's awfully restricting.
And I would say the same about ST remaking TNG forever and ever, only that it at least has more and movie varied characters.
It's a general trend in our culture in the last few years that we look back rather than forward. Nostalgia is running out of control as the past is somehow seen more desirable as the future. People cling to "used to be" and "back then everything was cooler!" like frightened children. There used to be a time when films could be creative or even art. Today its all brand recognition and adaptations (even of effing boardgames!) and remake and reboot after remake and reboot.

Star Trek is supposed to give us hope for the future, yet now its also become a victim of nostalgia.

I don't see creating a new crew as watering down the franchise. Creating 3 series at once again would be watering it down (as we have seen in Enterprise) as well as stuffing Kirk's era full of more and more events or endlessly retelling it.
A new crew could be a anew start, drawing a line again and just going forward from there.
And if sticking forever in a loop with the TOS era is the only way for ST to live, then I, personally wish it would die or have stayed dead.
Again I do not begrudge anybody their enjoyment of the new movies, I am just not a fan of the general trend they stay for.

And oh by the way it is a totally horseshit selfish attitude to say you would rather see it die then going to direction you would prefer it not to go. That is a selfish and shortsighted as anything. Certainly more shortsighted then those who prefer nostalgia vs moving forward.

If a franchise goes and direction you don't wanted to go in, simply stop watching it. Don't wish it to die. That is robbing potentially millions of other people from enjoyment.

This whole "it better go the way I want it to or it should die so nobody can enjoy it" thing has always bothered me. It's selfish and completely irresponsible to say something like that. The franchise continuing on in a direction you prefer it not to go does not hurt you at all. Simply stop watching it. But if it dies altogether that hurts millions of other people.

Unreal.

Ah no, you have misunderstood me. Read the last sentence, I don't begrudge anybody the enjoyment of the new movies. I just don't like the general cultural trend they are produced by. I, personally, for myself, would rather have no ST movies than just nostalgia trips, but that doesn't mean I begrudge other people that enjoyment. I get my wish anyway by not watching them. I only saw Into Darkness because a friend brought it to a movie night. And I actually still haven't seen 09.

I'm sorry if it came over wrong.

And I understand that it is viable, you mistook my rant lamenting general trends in the movie industry for wishful thinking for it to be different. I just lamented that in general not just with Star Trek, that Hollywood is not very keen on originality anymore, instead sticking to adaptions, remakes and reboots. Star Trek is far from the only thing that I am interested in, but also far from the only thing that suffers from it.

However I don't think that ST should stop trying to break that mold again, it might not work or it might, things like that are unpredictable.

 

[fireproof78]

I do not find it hard to argue.

Regardless of wether I like the TOS characters or era, I find something very uncreative, pathetic and even frightening about Star Trek just giving up, rolling over and just sticking with the TOS characters from now on till the sun goes nova.

How AWFUL would it be if there never, ever again was a female lead but Uhura, never ever again an Alien character but Spock? Never ever again a captain but Kirk? That's awfully restricting.
And I would say the same about ST remaking TNG forever and ever, only that it at least has more and movie varied characters.
It's a general trend in our culture in the last few years that we look back rather than forward. Nostalgia is running out of control as the past is somehow seen more desirable as the future. People cling to "used to be" and "back then everything was cooler!" like frightened children. There used to be a time when films could be creative or even art. Today its all brand recognition and adaptations (even of effing boardgames!) and remake and reboot after remake and reboot.

Star Trek is supposed to give us hope for the future, yet now its also become a victim of nostalgia.

I don't see creating a new crew as watering down the franchise. Creating 3 series at once again would be watering it down (as we have seen in Enterprise) as well as stuffing Kirk's era full of more and more events or endlessly retelling it.
A new crew could be a anew start, drawing a line again and just going forward from there.
And if sticking forever in a loop with the TOS era is the only way for ST to live, then I, personally wish it would die or have stayed dead.
Again I do not begrudge anybody their enjoyment of the new movies, I am just not a fan of the general trend they stay for.

And oh by the way it is a totally horseshit selfish attitude to say you would rather see it die then going to direction you would prefer it not to go. That is a selfish and shortsighted as anything. Certainly more shortsighted then those who prefer nostalgia vs moving forward.

If a franchise goes and direction you don't wanted to go in, simply stop watching it. Don't wish it to die. That is robbing potentially millions of other people from enjoyment.

This whole "it better go the way I want it to or it should die so nobody can enjoy it" thing has always bothered me. It's selfish and completely irresponsible to say something like that. The franchise continuing on in a direction you prefer it not to go does not hurt you at all. Simply stop watching it. But if it dies altogether that hurts millions of other people.

Unreal.

Ah no, you have misunderstood me. Read the last sentence, I don't begrudge anybody the enjoyment of the new movies. I just don't like the general cultural trend they are produced by. I, personally, for myself, would rather have no ST movies than just nostalgia trips, but that doesn't mean I begrudge other people that enjoyment. I get my wish anyway by not watching them. I only saw Into Darkness because a friend brought it to a movie night. And I actually still haven't seen 09.

I'm sorry if it came over wrong.

And I understand that it is viable, you mistook my rant lamenting general trends in the movie industry for wishful thinking for it to be different. I just lamented that in general not just with Star Trek, that Hollywood is not very keen on originality anymore, instead sticking to adaptions, remakes and reboots. Star Trek is far from the only thing that I am interested in, but also far from the only thing that suffers from it.

However I don't think that ST should stop trying to break that mold again, it might not work or it might, things like that are unpredictable.

I appreciate the clarification, because it was a little difficult to take. I understand the frustration of reboots because that is not what I would prefer to watch. However, from a business standpoint, I get it and don't begrudge them that they will try to play it safe. This is one of the reasons Jupiter Ascending is on my "must watch" list in February

Personally, I don't find Trek 09 or ID as nostalgia trips, beyond having Kirk and Spock on the big screen again. I found it to be in the spirit of TOS but its own adventure, with much more energy and a modern sensibility.

Regardless, if TNG is rebooted I think it needs to carry on that modern sensibility, feeling like it is predicting the future. I don't mind all the ideas purposed in this thread, any more than I mind the idea of a cold reboot, or a new series set in 25th century.

My point is, to find that positive and cooperative spirit that TNG became known for will be just as compelling as any inspiring material.

 

[Wadjda]

Rebooting VOY as a good series would be more intriguing.

 

[Vger23]

I do not find it hard to argue.

Regardless of wether I like the TOS characters or era, I find something very uncreative, pathetic and even frightening about Star Trek just giving up, rolling over and just sticking with the TOS characters from now on till the sun goes nova.

How AWFUL would it be if there never, ever again was a female lead but Uhura, never ever again an Alien character but Spock? Never ever again a captain but Kirk? That's awfully restricting.
And I would say the same about ST remaking TNG forever and ever, only that it at least has more and movie varied characters.
It's a general trend in our culture in the last few years that we look back rather than forward. Nostalgia is running out of control as the past is somehow seen more desirable as the future. People cling to "used to be" and "back then everything was cooler!" like frightened children. There used to be a time when films could be creative or even art. Today its all brand recognition and adaptations (even of effing boardgames!) and remake and reboot after remake and reboot.

Star Trek is supposed to give us hope for the future, yet now its also become a victim of nostalgia.

I don't see creating a new crew as watering down the franchise. Creating 3 series at once again would be watering it down (as we have seen in Enterprise) as well as stuffing Kirk's era full of more and more events or endlessly retelling it.
A new crew could be a anew start, drawing a line again and just going forward from there.
And if sticking forever in a loop with the TOS era is the only way for ST to live, then I, personally wish it would die or have stayed dead.
Again I do not begrudge anybody their enjoyment of the new movies, I am just not a fan of the general trend they stay for.

And oh by the way it is a totally horseshit selfish attitude to say you would rather see it die then going to direction you would prefer it not to go. That is a selfish and shortsighted as anything. Certainly more shortsighted then those who prefer nostalgia vs moving forward.

If a franchise goes and direction you don't wanted to go in, simply stop watching it. Don't wish it to die. That is robbing potentially millions of other people from enjoyment.

This whole "it better go the way I want it to or it should die so nobody can enjoy it" thing has always bothered me. It's selfish and completely irresponsible to say something like that. The franchise continuing on in a direction you prefer it not to go does not hurt you at all. Simply stop watching it. But if it dies altogether that hurts millions of other people.

Unreal.

Ah no, you have misunderstood me. Read the last sentence, I don't begrudge anybody the enjoyment of the new movies. I just don't like the general cultural trend they are produced by. I, personally, for myself, would rather have no ST movies than just nostalgia trips, but that doesn't mean I begrudge other people that enjoyment. I get my wish anyway by not watching them. I only saw Into Darkness because a friend brought it to a movie night. And I actually still haven't seen 09.

I'm sorry if it came over wrong.

And I understand that it is viable, you mistook my rant lamenting general trends in the movie industry for wishful thinking for it to be different. I just lamented that in general not just with Star Trek, that Hollywood is not very keen on originality anymore, instead sticking to adaptions, remakes and reboots. Star Trek is far from the only thing that I am interested in, but also far from the only thing that suffers from it.

However I don't think that ST should stop trying to break that mold again, it might not work or it might, things like that are unpredictable.

Understood, thank you.

 

[JarodRussell]

Wonder why people always bring a TNG reboot up.
What do you gain from another actor playing a character called Picard?
What do you gain from a Galaxy class that is redesigned?

And wouldn't you get all that from an original series with that actor and that new ship design?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Wonder why people always bring a TNG reboot up.
What do you gain from another actor playing a character called Picard?
What do you gain from a Galaxy class that is redesigned?

And wouldn't you get all that from an original series with that actor and that new ship design?

Well they're ramming NuTrek down our throats, seems a logical progression to think how other series might be jazzed up.

Hopefully this is only a little fun though, I wouldn't want to see a revamped TNG, loved it the way it was. But it'd be sacrilege if they even thought to improve DS9!

 

[Owen Wildish]

A TNG reboot would instantly nullify my biggest complaint with the reboot universe (that it went back to my least favourite set of characters in the whole of ST)

It would be interesting to see what they would change and what they would keep from the old series. If they decided for a look in tune with the new movies they would still have to be careful to present the ship and style different enough from the current enterprise as to be feasible for a ship that was built decades later.

There is a lot of fun speculation here: like, would they keep Tasha? Would they include her and kill her off in the first movie?
I'm not good at fan-castings because I don't play much attention to celebrities but on other sites people suggested Matt Bomer as Riker (well that'd be interesting, would be confusing for me to suddenly find Riker attractive) and Cote de Pablo from NCIS as Deanna Troi.
I agree with those two choices and would add that I can somehow see Orlando Bloom as Data. He is good at looking puzzled, which is an important part of the character.

But who as Picard, really? I can't imagine anybody else in that role. But I realize it must have been similar for TOS fans to see Kirk recast.

My other complaints (movies instead of a series, rehashing rather than making something new) would still be there, however.

if you think about it this way, some probably felt that when ST:TNG first came out but it did grow on people quickly and became the success that it did

 

[2takesfrakes]

TNG should've ventured into animation, somewhere in the mix. I suspect it would've been supremely entertaining and much better animated, than TOS' original.

 

[TheSubCommander]

I am not sure I would want to see a TNG reboot.

That said, I WOULD be for a young Captain Picard story aboard the Stargazer.