TV: A reboot or a new crew?

[Rory1080p]

no series reboot, I am not overly keen on the new films tbh, any new Trek should be a new crew in a new setting or time frame (post TNG/DS9/VOY ideally) with a new more modern Sci-Fi take on things, maybe have the Federation decimated by war or something and have a much more diverse crew sent out to rescue survivors on various worlds and deal with threats, that would be kinda cool I think.

now just to pitch my idea to Paramount and hope for the best?

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

I'd like to see something new set in the 25th century. I wouldn't have Earth destroyed, but the planet has a lot of damage from a new race that attacked the Federation and Earth. Over 50% of the population is killed.

 

[BillJ]

More war and death? Ugh. Count me out.

 

[anh165]

Every time someone asks the question whether there should be yet another spin-off with a "new crew" - another question needs to be answered first.

The concept of the "TOS crew" have been there and done that for 50 years, what could an unknown set of new characters possibly have to offer?

A TOS/nu-trek script can easily mandate that Kirk and the Enterprise enters different galaxies, universes, time travel, get into war and conflicts, resolve them, and discover new life and perspectives and better themselves week in week out.

This is the scope of Kirk and co in Star Trek, there is no limit to what adventures the original crew can get into.

It is a winning formula, why anyone would think another Tom Paris, Harry Kim or Quark emulating what the TOS crew did would work I will never know.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Every time someone asks the question whether there should be yet another spin-off with a "new crew" - another question needs to be answered first.

The concept of the "TOS crew" have been there and done that for 50 years, what could an unknown set of new characters possibly have to offer?

Something we haven't seen before, new characters and situations for a new generation like TNG was (the same question was asked of them, but it's also asked of every new TV series with new characters).

A case could really be made that there was overkill after TNG with too many Trek shows coming out on the heels of one another (if not stepping on one another's toes). Had it not been UPN, VOY and ENT wouldn't have been made and there might have been a good long while without a Trek series after DS9 (it's even conceivable that we'd only now would be in a very different Series IV in such a case).

 

[JarodRussell]

New crew, new ship, new adventures.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

If created and developed properly, the focus and "hook" for a new Trek series should be the characters--who they are as individuals, how they interact with one another, and how they react to whatever situations they encounter.

With an all new crew you can do whatever you want with them (within reason of course).

 

[Kelthaz]

If created and developed properly, the focus and "hook" for a new Trek series should be the characters--who they are as individuals, how they interact with one another, and how they react to whatever situations they encounter.

With an all new crew you can do whatever you want with them (within reason of course).

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

New crew, new ship, new adventures.

Drew decreasing ratings with every attempt after TNG.

 

[C.E. Evans]

New crew, new ship, new adventures.

Drew decreasing ratings with every attempt after TNG.

And yet TNG (a series with a new crew, new ship, and new adventures) was a ratings success.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The concept of the "TOS crew" have been there and done that for 50 years, what could an unknown set of new characters possibly have to offer?

A TOS/nu-trek script can easily mandate that Kirk and the Enterprise enters different galaxies, universes, time travel, get into war and conflicts, resolve them, and discover new life and perspectives and better themselves week in week out.

This is only assuming that all you care about is the plots, which by and large most people don't really give a shit about. People are drawn more to characters. Kirk & crew are good ones, but after a while it gets played out. Any kind of TV reboot would have to reimagine their characters to make them fresh and vital. A 50 year-old crew just isn't going to cut it on TV without some retooling.

For me, the interest in seeing new characters is just because I'm tired of Spock, Worf, or Kira. You can do spins on them, or just make new ones. But the new ones have to be good. You can't just throw in token characters like Mayweather and Kim. The problem with shows like Voyager and Enterprise was that most of the characters were too dull or unlikeable.

New crew, new ship, new adventures.

Drew decreasing ratings with every attempt after TNG.

But at the height of Trek oversaturation. If they had done a reboot instead of Voyager or Enterprise, and it was stuck on UPN, it probably would have declined just the same.

The success of the new movies I think comes down to these factors:
1. Fresh blood. The people working on the later shows/movies were obviously burnt out.
2. Giving it a rest. There was a time (albeit short) where there was no Star Trek, and no foreseeable Star Trek. It wasn't two shows and one movie at the same time, which makes Trek a little less special.
3. Sticking to movies and action. They definitely made things more exciting like Star Wars, and less like the stagnant Trek. It didn't hurt that they had far more generous budgets.
4. And lastly, of course the original characters and reboot craze. People eat that up... at the movies. TV is a whole different beast.

 

[cal_nevari]

All new crew set in the Prime Universe.

Yep. I'd look forward to that. I'd also prefer four new Trek series with four different crews and installations over the next 20 years over 5 Trek movies over the next 20 years. Just imagining four different series with different show-runners, different writers, different directors - would do more to entertain me - than five more big budget Kirk & Spock and Uhura and Chekov and Scotty flicks. Enough already.

Of course, we're talking Hollywood - which has made how many boring Superman movies featuring the origin tale in one form or another? (or Spiderman - two?) How many Superman movies in the next 20 years will tell his 'origin'? Hollywood... in many ways, sucks. You know that most likely within the next 20 years if they keep making trek movies, there will beanother one about Kirk in his early days. It's just the Hollywood way - 'the origin movie did well, let's remake it, reboot it!'

People are drawn more to characters. Kirk & crew are good ones, but after a while it gets played out. Any kind of TV reboot would have to reimagine their characters to make them fresh and vital. A 50 year-old crew just isn't going to cut it on TV without some retooling.

For me, the interest in seeing new characters is just because I'm tired of Spock, Worf, or Kira. You can do spins on them, or just make new ones. But the new ones have to be good. You can't just throw in token characters like Mayweather and Kim. The problem with shows like Voyager and Enterprise was that most of the characters were too dull or unlikeable.

Just saw your message, and agree. There are many popular shows on TV I don't currently watch (just because- I don't actually have the time to watch 50 hours of tv a week)- one of them Brooklyn Nine Nine, won some Golden Globes recently. I heard some interview this week where they compared the show to Barney Miller. I don't know if that's reasonable or preposterous, but I know the actors don't play the same characters as were on Barney Miller. Almost makes me wonder if there's some message board out there with fans clamoring for a new show with new actors playing Barney and Fish and Wojo and Yemana (yeah I had to look a couple of them up on wiki)... I'd love a new series or two that are Star Trek shows but I do not need the characters to be Kirk and Scotty and Wojo and Yemana.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

New crew, new ship, new adventures.

Drew decreasing ratings with every attempt after TNG.

And yet TNG (a series with a new crew, new ship, and new adventures) was a ratings success.

Yeah and then the next three shows weren't. Not to mention that when I think about it have their really been that many spin offs without only the most minor of connections to the main show that went far.

New crew, new ship, new adventures.

Drew decreasing ratings with every attempt after TNG.

But at the height of Trek oversaturation.

Yeah, I always found that was a lame excuse considering that the ratings drops started when it was TNG, DS9, and the occasional movie.

And again when I think about it I don't think there have really been that many spin offs without only the most minor of connections to the main show that went far.

I mean look at CSI, they had CSI, CSI: Miami, and CSI: New York and now its just down to CSI. That just seems to be less over saturation and more the spinoffs puttering out.

 

[T'Girl]

New crew on a new Enterprise. Leave Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the original gang for the movies.

The movie adventures of Kirk, Spock and the rest in the original universe would be great.

 

[Relayer1]

I really don't want to see any of the shows recast and remade.

New show please !

 

[Ryan8bit]

Yeah, I always found that was a lame excuse considering that the ratings drops started when it was TNG, DS9, and the occasional movie.

Isn't that by definition when things were starting to be oversaturated?

And anyways, I didn't say that it was just oversaturation alone that made things die, that's just simplifying things too much. That wasn't the point either, but rather that if they had made a reboot of the original series at that time, there's no way it would have wildly outperformed the others because the franchise still had all the other negatives still going for it.

A spinoff can work, or it can't. Using DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise only as examples of them not working seems to ignore examples of it actually working, and the other inherent problems of them, least of which was that they weren't Kirk and Spock.

I don't think there have really been that many spin offs without only the most minor of connections to the main show that went far.

I can't even parse what you're trying to say here.

As for CSI, the only one still standing might as well be one of the spinoffs considering how much of the original cast is still there.

 

[Relayer1]

You can't say DS9 and Voyager were not successful - how many shows get to five seasons, let alone seven ? DS9 was also a high watermark for Trek creatively.

 

[David.Blue]

New crew. I want something refreshing and interesting to watch, that veers away from the formulaic way TREK seems to be done for a long time now. For example, bigger and better space battles! Bleh! As a big BSG fan, I don't mind space battles--but the story and characters are sooooo much more important!

 

[C.E. Evans]

Drew decreasing ratings with every attempt after TNG.

And yet TNG (a series with a new crew, new ship, and new adventures) was a ratings success.

Yeah and then the next three shows weren't.

Of those three shows, two of them did well enough in their respective venues to run just as long as TNG did, however. Only the last one didn't.

A spinoff can work, or it can't. Using DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise only as examples of them not working seems to ignore examples of it actually working, and the other inherent problems of them, least of which was that they weren't Kirk and Spock.

Agreed, although in the case of DS9 and VOY it was more that those shows did work, but not at the generally unheard of scale as TNG (syndicated/upstart network dramas usually don't even come remotely close to rivaling--much less sometimes even beat--the big network shows). On their own, though, they did very well against other similar (action-adventure drama) shows in syndication.

 

[SharkD]

I would like to see a new series on a new ship with a new crew starring Ka D'argo, Zhaan, Chiana and the others.