Same reason why any remake happens.
Would remaking TOS episodes make you upset?
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
They'll probably do it anyway (they already have at least a couple of times), so why get upset?
As long as it's not like the shot for shot Psycho remake, which was a million percent pointless.
This is why instead of continuing directly on from SNW, I’d have a Kirk show skip a few years and pick up after TMP. That way all the SNW plots that were resolved during TOS can be referred to if necessary, then simply moved on from. Yep, that thing with T’Pring happened; let us not discuss her further.
A fascinating idea!
I'd love a TMP era show; but at the same time, it would be awfully expensive compared to just sticking with SNW and changing the cast around a little.
I wonder? Since the SNW sets are already different from the original TOS ones, you could just modify them a little and, so they look different from the TMP ones? No problem, we’ve already set the precedent for that! Either mention “the recent refit”, or don’t bother. Run off a new set of uniforms that are vaguely TMP-like (or even just jump ahead to the “next” uniform), change the Enterprise exterior model just enough, and that’s all you need. If it’s expensive, it’s probably no more expensive than any previous DISCO/SNW upgrade.
It’s a little more expensive if you decide to actually match the look of TMP, which admittedly would be my preference, but I tend to doubt they’d go all in on that. As long as you can squint and say it’s “close enough” in the same way as with SNW/TOS — or alternatively as long as you can tell yourself that sure, they just had another refit after TMP, now don’t worry about it — I’d think this would be doable.
(Apropos of nothing, for years I imagined the names of two subsequent TOS-movie-era series: Star Trek: The Human Adventure, for the five years post-TMP; and Star Trek: The Adventure Continues, for the five years after ST5. Am geek.)
Last edited:
Interesting discussion so far guys. I do want to push back a bit on the idea of "why bother telling stories we've already seen" though.
Adaptation is a central element of storytelling from before the dawn of human history. We hear stories and we retell them with our own spin. Stories borrow from one another and shift over time (like how there's a very similar flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible). Theater is to a large extent about choices in adaptation, as centuries-old plays are brought to life with new sets and direction.
Now, reboots have a pretty bad reputation in the modern era, because they're often shameless cash grabs. But there's examples out there of somewhat faithful adaptations which still brought something new to the table over the last few decades, like West Side Story, It, Little Women, Dune, etc. Hell, friggin Pride and Prejudice has been made into a movie 17 times! None of the new adaptations in any way invalidate the old ones, even when they are "better."
But I think there's a strong argument that if you're going to bother using existing characters, you're leaving tons of storytelling potential on the floor if you don't examine how you could reinterpret what has already been established. Hell, SNW has already started this, with choices like having Spock and Chapel be romantic partners, which recontextualizes the romantic obsession that Chapel had with Spock in TOS.
In the end, an adaptation is in discussion with the original creative work in a way that an entirely new story simply is not. That makes it almost certain there is something there beyond just shallow enjoyment, something to analyze and consider. And, at least to me, seeing an alternate take on a TOS classic seems like a more intriguing storytelling opportunity than just a new story (which will, inevitably, be somewhat cribbed from other Trek episodes).
Adaptation is a central element of storytelling from before the dawn of human history. We hear stories and we retell them with our own spin. Stories borrow from one another and shift over time (like how there's a very similar flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible). Theater is to a large extent about choices in adaptation, as centuries-old plays are brought to life with new sets and direction.
Now, reboots have a pretty bad reputation in the modern era, because they're often shameless cash grabs. But there's examples out there of somewhat faithful adaptations which still brought something new to the table over the last few decades, like West Side Story, It, Little Women, Dune, etc. Hell, friggin Pride and Prejudice has been made into a movie 17 times! None of the new adaptations in any way invalidate the old ones, even when they are "better."
But I think there's a strong argument that if you're going to bother using existing characters, you're leaving tons of storytelling potential on the floor if you don't examine how you could reinterpret what has already been established. Hell, SNW has already started this, with choices like having Spock and Chapel be romantic partners, which recontextualizes the romantic obsession that Chapel had with Spock in TOS.
In the end, an adaptation is in discussion with the original creative work in a way that an entirely new story simply is not. That makes it almost certain there is something there beyond just shallow enjoyment, something to analyze and consider. And, at least to me, seeing an alternate take on a TOS classic seems like a more intriguing storytelling opportunity than just a new story (which will, inevitably, be somewhat cribbed from other Trek episodes).
While I hear what you’re saying, the example you give is a perfect example of why I’d prefer new stories instead of simply retelling the old. SNW’s recontextualization of the Spock/Chapel dynamic — which I love, btw — is itself a new story, one which recontextualizes the old but doesn’t tell it all over again. This is an excellent approach, as far as I’m concerned. Seeing a remake of “Amok Time” or whatever would be uninteresting to me; but a new story that reveals a previously-unseen/unwritten side of an existing one? Bring it on!
I’m not opposed to actual remakes/reinterpretations, but not within the same actual series. For example, on I think Amazon there are what’s presented as two seasons of Record of Lodoss Wars. I watched the first season and enjoyed it; then I started the second season, and quickly realized that it was literally just an expanded new retelling of the same story as the first — not a new story following the same model, like one of the sequels to The Magnificant Seven, but literally the same actual story retold. To my mind this was pointless, and I stopped watching.
(I’m guessing that Amazon actually took the original series and some remake of it and lumped them together as the same series, which is weird. I’d have no problem with “here’s one version, and here’s another one over here”, but presenting them as two seasons of the same show threw me for a loop.)
It's 100% impossible for them to give me a series about adventures taking place between TOS episodes that I would find accurate enough, so nothing about that idea would interest me. A faithful post-TMP series is more plausible as those were movie-quality sets, but I seriously doubt it'll ever happen so I don't care about that idea either.
I can't think of a single remake I've ever enjoyed as much as the original and I'm at the point now where I pretty much skip all of them, so a TOS remake has basically no appeal to me. Would it make me upset though? If they said that time travel had erased the old continuity and this is what actually happened, then yeah I wouldn't like that at all. I give Trials and Tribble-ations a pass, but that's the limit. DON'T TAPE OVER MY TOS. If it's explicitly stated to be a Kelvin-style parallel timeline however, then fine, whatever. Maybe it'll get new viewers into Star Trek, maybe some good could come out of it. Either way I'll probably skip it.
To summarise:
New TOS adventures -
TOS remake -
TOS parallel universe -
Something new that builds on existing continuity -
Leave TOS to the novels and comics etc. in my opinion.
I can't think of a single remake I've ever enjoyed as much as the original and I'm at the point now where I pretty much skip all of them, so a TOS remake has basically no appeal to me. Would it make me upset though? If they said that time travel had erased the old continuity and this is what actually happened, then yeah I wouldn't like that at all. I give Trials and Tribble-ations a pass, but that's the limit. DON'T TAPE OVER MY TOS. If it's explicitly stated to be a Kelvin-style parallel timeline however, then fine, whatever. Maybe it'll get new viewers into Star Trek, maybe some good could come out of it. Either way I'll probably skip it.
To summarise:
New TOS adventures -
TOS remake -
TOS parallel universe -
Something new that builds on existing continuity -
Leave TOS to the novels and comics etc. in my opinion.
In all likelihood we're more likely to see the adventures of Rachel Garrett in a post-TOS and movie era, than taking the time and money to redo old episodes for TV. Why do I think that? Well, she's in section 31 and was teased in PIC S3. Call me suspicious, if you like.
(Those SNW sets could function quite well as the Enterprise-C interior in an unseen launch configuration, with some early 24c modifications of course.)
However, the 60th anniversary might be a chance to do some kind of homage or remake of a classic episode during SNW's 4th season. A light hearted take on Space Seed or Arena after Kirk is hit with macguffin ray and sent into a dream world bla bla bla. Was it real? Was it canon? Who cares, it was fun.
(Those SNW sets could function quite well as the Enterprise-C interior in an unseen launch configuration, with some early 24c modifications of course.)
However, the 60th anniversary might be a chance to do some kind of homage or remake of a classic episode during SNW's 4th season. A light hearted take on Space Seed or Arena after Kirk is hit with macguffin ray and sent into a dream world bla bla bla. Was it real? Was it canon? Who cares, it was fun.
That's not an adaptation. An adaptation is telling the same story in a different medium. Everything you mentioned started as a book. Telling the same story in the same medium is a reboot, which we don't need. Batman Begins wasn't a reboot of Batman (1989) because they were adapting the same material. Netflix's Lost In Space very much was a reboot of the original show from the sixties.
Not true. Spielberg's 2021 West Side Story wasn't based upon a book. It was a modern adaptation of the original. Admittedly it was a play in 1957 prior to the 1961 movie, but I think it's more in conversation with the first film than the stage versions of it.
While I would argue that a TOS reprisal overall will have to be a reboot by definition (even if it's theoretically kept within continuity) if existing scripts are used as the basis of new episodes, then it's an adaptation of the story of that episode.
It was a reboot, by definition. And West Side Story is a strange example in general, as it's very much a setting-updated adaptation of Romeo And Juliet.
You're suspicious, but I'm 100% in favour of this idea. Of course, this would be after SNW has a long and successful run.
It's pretty much a Star Trek tradition at this point for the newest series to cannibalize the sets from the previous series/film.
I'm about....75% in favour. The idea is slowly growing on me, but I need to see Kacey Rohl in action.
I feel like the SNW bridge could be turned into something that resembles the next step after the Enterprise B bridge. With carpet, don't forget the carpet
Which is not the purpose of a remake.
I think chasing feelings from TOS as younger me is a fool's errand. I'm older and don't want to be like my younger self
The Fly or The Thing? Also the famous version of The Maltese Falcon is the third remake of the book.
Similar threads
