What were the proposed ideas for a new series?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Besides, the time-line in Trek changed after the 2009 movie, so the entire 24th century series may not exist, or even if they did wouldn't exist in the same form.

This is effectively true, since the movie succeeded so well.

No it didn't.

Of course it did. That was the whole point.

Pretending otherwise is just denial.

Wait, what? The point of the way they did it (creating a new, parallel timeline) was to allow "our" prime timeline to remain (mostly) intact. They even say it in the movie.

Actually, the point of the way they did it was to get "your" prime timeline off the stage so that they can change anything and do whatever they think is a good idea.

Bye-bye old timeline.

 

[Sivar]

A SciFi/Medical series has been tried and didn't do too well. I think having individual episodes could have medical or CSI-like settings.

 

[Hober Mallow]

A Kirk/Spock episodic series written by real SF authors. Let's see some actual SF on television again. At least an attempt at SF. Interesting stories have been MIA from the Trek universe for a very long time.

No Captain Jason Eppes of the Federation transwarp ship Pioneer, no Captain Dominic Johnson of the Starfleet timeship Endeavor... No one cares. If it ain't real Star Trek, with Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise, Paramount will shoot themselves in the foot. Again.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Star Trek: The New Generation, set in the 2380's aboard the Enterprise-E after the ship went MIA for a week and returned with no trace of the crew. It'd be one way to have a 24th century Enterprise but have a new crew.

-B

 

[lawman]

Answering the original question, the only two that spring to mind are Robert Wolfe's pitch for a show set after the Federation has fallen, and which basically became Andromeda (obviously this pre-dates Enterprise), and Bryce Zabel and JMS' reboot idea from 2004: http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

Wow. I hadn't seen this before; thanks for sharing.

So: Paramount had a pitch from JMS to reboot Trek... and they handed it off instead to J.J. Abrams and the guys who wrote Transformers? Seriously?

We could've had a serious, intelligent reboot that riffed on the original continuity, looked to real SF writers for material, and played out a long-term, slow-build story arc... and instead we got last year's turn-your-brain-off movie?

I really don't understand how Hollywood suits think. It's a miracle anything good ever gets made.

A Kirk/Spock episodic series written by real SF authors. Let's see some actual SF on television again. At least an attempt at SF. Interesting stories have been MIA from the Trek universe for a very long time.

Yes. This. Would've been good. And apparently we could've had it, too.

 

[AviTrek]

Answering the original question, the only two that spring to mind are Robert Wolfe's pitch for a show set after the Federation has fallen, and which basically became Andromeda (obviously this pre-dates Enterprise), and Bryce Zabel and JMS' reboot idea from 2004: http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

Wow. I hadn't seen this before; thanks for sharing.

So: Paramount had a pitch from JMS to reboot Trek... and they handed it off instead to J.J. Abrams and the guys who wrote Transformers? Seriously?

We could've had a serious, intelligent reboot that riffed on the original continuity, looked to real SF writers for material, and played out a long-term, slow-build story arc... and instead we got last year's turn-your-brain-off movie?

I really don't understand how Hollywood suits think. It's a miracle anything good ever gets made.

Look at the money Paramount made and you'll understand how Hollywood works. Also remember, Paramount turned to the guys who created Lost. You don't get more of a "long-term, slow-build story arc" than that.

What it really comes down to is the needs for a movie are very different than the needs for a TV show. If/when a tv show is commissioned hope for real sf writers and an arc of some sort. A movie needs to be flashy, complete the story in 2 hours, and attract the largest audience possible. You can't compare a TV pitch with a movie.

 

[lawman]

Paramount has made metric tons of money from Trek over the years, even the shows and movies that we look back on as "failures." There is no reason that they had to decide to reinvent it as a "flashy," lowest-common-denominator summer tentpole movie.

Doing so seems to me to be matter of going after as much short-term money as possible (which obviously worked), but only at the expense of the long-term creative integrity of the property. Certainly, the very existence of the 2009 movie, in the form we got it, greatly reduces the likelihood that we'll ever see a "real SF" Trek series of the sort you describe... the very sort they had pitched to them five years ago, and decided to pass on even then.

(And just for the record, Orci and Kurtzman had nothing to do with LOST, which is a smart, slow-build SF series, and Abrams was really only involved at the very beginning. The real credit there goes to Damon Lindeloff, Carlton Cuse, and several key members of the writing staff. Although I feel safe in saying that had the network known the direction that show would go before it was already on the air and a big hit, they would never have given it a green light. Too "cerebral," I'm sure.)

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If it ain't real Star Trek, with Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise, Paramount will shoot themselves in the foot.

Much as I would love to see Pine and Quinto on a weekly basis, I doubt they could be persuaded to do it. Quinto, maybe. I have no idea why he hasn't already bailed on the ongoing trainwreck that is Heroes, so he must have an almost self-defeating degree of loyalty that trumps perfectly understanable considerations of his career or writing that is at least vaguely worthy of his talent. But Pine's clearly going for a movie career.

The next best thing is the adventures of a 23rd C Starfleet crew that isn't the Enterprise but are watchable in their own right. It's not at all impossible.

I remember that JMS pitch when it first showed up - it struck me as far more suited to B5 than to Trek. Thank goodness nobody took it seriously.

 

[Warped9]

Besides, the time-line in Trek changed after the 2009 movie

No it didn't.

The original timeline/continuity is still intact. The Abramsverse in a wholly alternate timeline/continuity. In Hollywood speak it's a reboot.

 

[lawman]

I remember that JMS pitch when it first showed up - it struck me as far more suited to B5 than to Trek. Thank goodness nobody took it seriously.

He'd already done B5; he had no need to repeat himself. And how is it similar -- aside from the general notion of having a long-term story arc, something intriguing going on behind the scenes that drives the plot of (some) individual episodes and gives added resonance to otherwise unrelated developments? You might as well say that LOST is like B5.

Besides, in terms of sheer creative talent, JMS is to Orci and Kurtzman as Led Zeppelin is to the Bee Gees or Robert Altman is to Joel Schumacher.

 

[ReadyAndWilling]

So no ideas were ever brought out into the open?

 

[Warped9]

The only way I can see getting back to the original timeline (such as a Pike series) would be an animated project. I could get into that I think. Live-action wise were stuck with the Abramsverse for the foreseeable future except perhaps in novels and comics. But I can easily see them pushing the Abramsverse in books and comics too if that haven't started already.

The real question that comes to mind is if they can build on what they have and go forward or are they going to run out of gas creatively. For all the hype and hoopla over ST09 it leaves a lot to be desired creatively and conceptually. I suspect a lot of its appeal is the simple fact it gets back to Trek's roots, albeit in a simplistic and shallow way, and that's the Star Trek people most recognize.

As far as doing something different I suspect that beyond hardcore fans there isn't much interest in revisiting TNG, DS9 or particularly VOY or ENT. TNG is the only other face of Trek people might gravitate to and yet it still doesn't resonate the way TOS does, at least with the general public. Some might not like hearing that, but it is what it is.

Doing something wholly fresh could be interesting, but it would take vision and guts to do that, and the entertainment industry isn't known much for that except on rare occasion.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Besides, the time-line in Trek changed after the 2009 movie

No it didn't.

The original timeline/continuity is still intact. The Abramsverse in a wholly alternate timeline/continuity. In Hollywood speak it's a reboot.

This is why I avoid calling the Abramsverse a "timeline" - Trek changes timelines all the time, and then resets them right back where they were. I like to call it a new "reality" to emphasize the fact that nobody is going to reset the Abramsverse back to the Prime Universe (complete with a youthful Shanter and Nimoy replacing Pine and Quinto).

I remember that JMS pitch when it first showed up - it struck me as far more suited to B5 than to Trek. Thank goodness nobody took it seriously.

He'd already done B5; he had no need to repeat himself. And how is it similar -- aside from the general notion of having a long-term story arc, something intriguing going on behind the scenes that drives the plot of (some) individual episodes and gives added resonance to otherwise unrelated developments? You might as well say that LOST is like B5.

It's been a while since I read the treatment, and I'm too lazy to re-read it now but I distinctly recall there being some mystical stuff that was far more suited to the B5 approach than to Trek. It just didn't feel like Trek.

Besides, in terms of sheer creative talent, JMS is to Orci and Kurtzman as Led Zeppelin is to the Bee Gees or Robert Altman is to Joel Schumacher.

Uh-huh.

I suspect a lot of its appeal is the simple fact it gets back to Trek's roots, albeit in a simplistic and shallow way, and that's the Star Trek people most recognize.

A two hour movie, with sufficient time devoted to space battles and splosions, is not going to be able to get beyond the "simplistic and shallow" level. We'd need a TV series for that.

The next movie will have a bit of character development for Kirk (growing into a leader) and Spock (emotional turmoil) with some good material for McCoy and Uhura maybe, in scenes playing off Kirk and Spock's arc material, and the rest will be space battles and splosions, roll credits. Don't blame Abrams for not being able to supercede the limitations of the medium.

 

[lawman]

Besides, in terms of sheer creative talent, JMS is to Orci and Kurtzman as Led Zeppelin is to the Bee Gees or Robert Altman is to Joel Schumacher.

Uh-huh.

Yes, "uh-huh." I gather you don't agree, but I don't actually see you defending O&K's body of work.

JMS, meanwhile, is one of a handful of writers whose work I will buy a ticket to or a copy of sight unseen, based strictly on his name. (A couple of others are Joss Whedon and Neil Gaiman.) It's not that he never misfires, but his hit-to-miss ratio is better than almost anyone in the business.

A two hour movie, with sufficient time devoted to space battles and splosions, is not going to be able to get beyond the "simplistic and shallow" level. We'd need a TV series for that.

...Don't blame Abrams for not being able to supercede the limitations of the medium.

That's funny: it's never been hard to find people who will argue that the creative constraints of a one-hour (really, 45 minute) TV show produced on a weekly basis limit one to "simplistic and shallow" material, and that to really "open up" the potential of a story you need the additional time, space, and money of a feature film. The grass is always greener, I guess.

Besides which: even within the genre boundaries of action-adventure material (which Trek has always been, I don't deny that), it's also not hard to find entries (in film, not just TV) that manage considerably more sophisticated levels of plot coherence, character depth, clever dialogue, emotional resonance, and thematic integrity than Trek09 had to offer. Are you seriously suggesting that Abrams' picture is at the same level as (say) Dark Knight or Casino Royale or the Lord of the Rings trilogy or The Matrix or Die Hard or Aliens or even ST II-IV, among countless other films? Or, reaching back in time, Butch Cassidy or Spartacus or North by Northwest or The Day the Earth Stood Still? C'mon, it's not remotely in the same league.

 

[AviTrek]

Besides, in terms of sheer creative talent, JMS is to Orci and Kurtzman as Led Zeppelin is to the Bee Gees or Robert Altman is to Joel Schumacher.

Uh-huh.

Yes, "uh-huh." I gather you don't agree, but I don't actually see you defending O&K's body of work.

JMS, meanwhile, is one of a handful of writers whose work I will buy a ticket to or a copy of sight unseen, based strictly on his name. (A couple of others are Joss Whedon and Neil Gaiman.) It's not that he never misfires, but his hit-to-miss ratio is better than almost anyone in the business.

A two hour movie, with sufficient time devoted to space battles and splosions, is not going to be able to get beyond the "simplistic and shallow" level. We'd need a TV series for that.

...Don't blame Abrams for not being able to supercede the limitations of the medium.

That's funny: it's never been hard to find people who will argue that the creative constraints of a one-hour (really, 45 minute) TV show produced on a weekly basis limit one to "simplistic and shallow" material, and that to really "open up" the potential of a story you need the additional time, space, and money of a feature film. The grass is always greener, I guess.

Besides which: even within the genre boundaries of action-adventure material (which Trek has always been, I don't deny that), it's also not hard to find entries (in film, not just TV) that manage considerably more sophisticated levels of plot coherence, character depth, clever dialogue, emotional resonance, and thematic integrity than Trek09 had to offer. Are you seriously suggesting that Abrams' picture is at the same level as (say) Dark Knight or Casino Royale or the Lord of the Rings trilogy or The Matrix or Die Hard or Aliens or even ST II-IV, among countless other films? Or, reaching back in time, Butch Cassidy or Spartacus or North by Northwest or The Day the Earth Stood Still? C'mon, it's not remotely in the same league.

Yes, a 2 hour movie opens up more possibilities for character development than a single 42 minute tv episode. But 22 episodes of 42 minute each yields nearly 15 and a half hours of material to play with.

 

[kaysea]

I would love to see a series where it isn't focused on just only one ship. Maybe a little bit of starfleet command or the federation council. For decades people have built upon this great fantastic star trek universe why not flesh it out a bit more?.

Instead of being exploration based and introducing new species and worlds in each episode they should create dramatic story arcs like the Dominion war. I would love them to make it a little bit like Battlestar Galactica (new one) where everything seems more real, where people swear and fight. Make it less antiseptic and more gritty.

Oh and would it be so difficult if they hired some actual GOOD actors with decent writers. *shakes head* @ Captain archer, captain sisko and ensign mayweather i don't know if it was their lines or their acting but it was all just horrible

 

[Myasishchev]

Besides which: even within the genre boundaries of action-adventure material (which Trek has always been, I don't deny that), it's also not hard to find entries (in film, not just TV) that manage considerably more sophisticated levels of plot coherence, character depth, clever dialogue, emotional resonance, and thematic integrity than Trek09 had to offer. Are you seriously suggesting that Abrams' picture is at the same level as (say) Dark Knight or Casino Royale or the Lord of the Rings trilogy or The Matrix or Die Hard or Aliens or even ST II-IV, among countless other films? Or, reaching back in time, Butch Cassidy or Spartacus or North by Northwest or The Day the Earth Stood Still? C'mon, it's not remotely in the same league.

Actually, I think Star Trek compares very favorably with the Dark Knight in terms of plot coherence--and plot convenience. The bullshit that lubricates the flow of the action is present in roughly equal amounts in each.

For example, the observation "So the Joker sneaks into a hospital with nothing more than an (anachronistic, possibly entirely fantastical) nurse outfit?" is roughly on par with "So Kirk just happens to be marooned on the same planet, in the same rough location, as Spock?" Cellphones in the Dark Knight work about as similarly to real life as black holes in Star Trek, too. Gravity appears to be about as forgiving in both, also. The Joker's supernatural ability to recruit henchmen is explained exactly as well as Nero's ability to keep discipline among a crew who probably have better things to do than wait for two decades to blow up Vulcan (admittedly, the deleted-scene explanation that they were in a Klingon prison for twenty years is even worse, because it generates the question "the Klingons just left the Narada sitting there for twenty years? and how did they get up to it, jump really hard?")

Both are still pretty good movies, and both have severe, severe structural and plausibility problems. And both might say very bad things about the opinion of screenwriters' and directors' extremely low opinion of the cinema-goer's intelligence (alternatively, they say bad things about screenwriters' and directors' intelligence).

 

[Jeyl]

Actually, I think Star Trek compares very favorably with the Dark Knight in terms of plot coherence--and plot convenience. The bullshit that lubricates the flow of the action is present in roughly equal amounts in each.

Maybe, but that's not why I don't like Star Trek compared to The Dark Knight. I look at it from the story and character stand point. Let's compare Nero to The Joker.....

 

[JarodRussell]

I read the Straczynski pitch a while ago. It wasn't any better than what Abrams did. The guy characterized Kirk, Spock and McCoy as "Warrior, Priest and Doctor" for crying out loud. And the proposed story arc was way toooo Babylon 5-ish, and he even wanted to ditch the essence of the Prime Directive because of that.

 

[Myasishchev]

^In fairness, the PD was 1)very loosely applied in TOS and 2)was an inconsistent and extremely controversial policy even in the 24th century Trek. I think you might have a majority of fans who want to get rid of the PD. On the other hand, mythic archetyping can often be pretty lame characterization. We're talking about presumably complex individuals here, not trying to start a religion, or a D+D party. Although don't think I haven't noticed the ugly stink of the Hero's Journey all over Abrams' Trek.

Actually, I think Star Trek compares very favorably with the Dark Knight in terms of plot coherence--and plot convenience. The bullshit that lubricates the flow of the action is present in roughly equal amounts in each.

Maybe, but that's not why I don't like Star Trek compared to The Dark Knight. I look at it from the story and character stand point. Let's compare Nero to The Joker.....

I can get on board with that. The Joker's motivations were probably actually more logical.