A new Star Trek t.v. series that can run whilst J.J. Abrams continues to build his newly revamped film franchise is something we have lobbied for extensively on this website over the years and we are just waiting for the moment to come when a smart writer/producer just hits the right buttons at CBS to convince them to pull the trigger on one.
We’ve heard recently about an awesome sounding but ultimately unrealised series titled Star Trek: Federations that Bryan Singer was trying to make a few years back before Paramount decided to go in the direction of a film franchise but for us that doesn’t mean a t.v. series can’t exist at the same time. In the 80′s and early 90′s, the original Star Trek crew made big screen movies whilst The Next Generation aired it’s seasons on the small screen and similarly when The Next Generation had their moment on the big screen…. Voyager, Deep Space Nine and Enterprise were on t.v.
There’s no reason this can’t happen again and it’s news stories like this that give us hope.
Trek Web yesterday posted an excitable interview from Creation’s 2011 Star Trek Las Vegas Convention with David Foster of 1947 Entertainment, who has been working since 2006 with co-originator Kevin Severson (who sadly died last September suddenly from a stroke) on a super secret Trek t.v. series pitch under the code name of S.E.T.I…
The series concept is fully developed, subject to change of course, with a solid 5-7 year series plan, pilot script and a conceptualized finale that intends to define Star Trek for generations, extensive character bios, costume and ship/set designs, and more. This is a drastic departure from the typical 8-10 page treatment of the previously pitched Star Trek series ideas that have not included even a pilot script.
Wow…they have clearly done their work! They have created essentially a Trek bible for what he wants his new series to be and effectively done all the work that television networks would have paid others millions to do on spec!
Apparently Foster has the support of past Trekkie producers, concept artists, visual designers and writers who are encouraging him to keep plugging away at his Trek series blueprint and finally it now seems after years of planning, he is ready to find the right executive producer (they have turned down some already) to take his pitch to CBS officially. But I doubt the executive producer he turns to will be J.J. Abrams because he might be offended;
Though Kevin and I did thoroughly enjoy Star Trek (2009), the vision that we have created is true to the “pre-2009 screen canon” (TV and movies).
The series is set in the post-Voyager era, and is designed to return Star Trek to its original series roots in big and mighty ways, without disregarding the other series and movies. As Star Trek (2009) was an alternate timeline, it will not conflict with any canon there either. The co-creators are avid believers in Gene Roddenberry’s ‘positive view of the future’ and intend to bring Star Trek back to its origins while moving forward with the timeline, integrating the best aspects of each of the previous series.
Obviously despite having no relation to the new films Abrams is still the man he should go to first because if he can convince him to put his name on it… the show will happen.
Setting a Star Trek movie after the events of Voyager is a smart idea as it would stay true to the four decade canon from the 60′s show to Enterprise and would be great for lifelong Trekkies and also won’t have any conflicts with the new film franchise. This pitch certainly has our support!
Here’s some more details from Foster who is probably now trying to drum up some publicity interest before he pitches this thing to networks;
The series is highly energized with a much younger cast, and uses cutting-edge future technologies with newly envisioned special effects and designs. It includes Klingons, Ferengi, Andorians, Vulcans, Trill, and many more. The Klingons are getting very restless since the Praxis incident forced them to come to the peace tables, and are tired of having to rely on the Federation for support. The Ferengi have discovered a vast new resource that has propelled them towards instant riches and power beyond anything they have previously experienced.
We were also careful with the Star Trek: Enterprise canon as well. Through the years, I have had the chance to get to know many of the original series cast, crew, and even some of the studio execs. I have developed an extremely deep passion for the original vision of Gene Roddenberry. And while Star Trek has moved on with other series that were not exactly in line with Gene’s original vision, the roots are there to tap into.
As the 60′s version of Star Trek is still my favourite depiction of the franchise, anything that tries to go back to those roots comes very welcome by me!
Here’s the Teaser: If evil wore the face of a hero, would you recognize it? If freedom came in the likeness of your oppressors, would you accept it? If you were your own enemy, who would be victorious?
As to what might happen next with the pitch?
There remains a possibility of a pitch trailer for this proposal, though the costs and logistics of adequate sets and locations seem to have tabled this option for us thus far.
So clearly at this point we all agree a new Star Trek t.v. series is a must right? Check out our Top 10 Reasons of How A New Star Trek Series Could Work.
We are currently seeking Star Trek contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Star Trek contributor, click here.
71 Comments
A much younger cast… yes, that’s what we need. That’s what will fix all the problems modern Trek has experienced over the last few years. Just youthenize everyone.
It’s possibly worth pointing out here that one of the most critically successful science fiction series of all time, the new version of Battlestar Galactica, featured a wide variety of ages in the cast, all the way up to Edward James Olmos, who is certainly no spring chicken.
Ah, well. Likely this won’t go anywhere anyhow, since CBS seems to not have a clue what to do with the franchise.
Omg…PLEASE let it happen!!
“Younger cast” Yep, because that was such a smart idea for the JLA movie, wasn’t it?
When will these creative types stop making pitches based on what they think will give the marketing morons a woody?
When I hear TV producers put the emphasis on things that don’t matter (like the chumps behind the The Good Wife vowing there’d be more sex next season –as if the whole damned show isn’t already softcore porn with a bigger budget, or how Voyager and Enterprise became all about who was making out with whom) I whince.
I like the idea of continuing Next Gen continity. With Rick Berman’s dumbass out of the way Trek has a chance now.
And although it’s confusing as hell I still find the taglines for the “teaser” to be confusing but interesting. A Trek universe where you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
In the right hands, it could work.
“it would stay true to the four decade canon from the 60′s show to Enterprise”
I find this an ironic statement since Enterprise, while enjoyable, totally scrapped Star Trek cannon, having a ship that never existed, changing how pretty much every species was first encountered and otherwise ignoring decades of established (and previously protected) canon.
Enterprise did none of the things you just described. The only things it contradicted were fanon and some novels, which don’t count as canon no matter how much people want them to. The 22nd Century was mostly a blank slate.
Actually, as a lifelong Trek Fan I have to side with Dave. The is a lot of info you can get from the series and “authorized” books that contradicts Enterprise. The Ship itself for example. If you look at the Motion Picture and in several other mediums you can clearly see that the first Ship Enterprise after the Space Shuttle was a Colony Ship that had rings and a center pod, looking much like Jupiter Station on it’s side.
When Picard met the Ferengi on the Stargazer and was attacked, they did not know what species they were, yet they met some on NX-01
The Zindi, who are they?
And even down to ideas like Archer and Tucker on Vulcan, if you actually ever watched the original series, specifically Amok Time, you would learn alot. Off worlders were forbidden at any ritual or ceremony’s until Spock got permission from T’Pau. And my final kick in the nose, the Romulans. It was stated that they only used Long Range Subspace Radio to communicate the Truce, yet the Technology of the time in Enterprise, both Human and Romulan contradicts that. Long Range visual comms with Earth via Subspace. Plus it was mentioned they used Nukes, yet in the show they clearly have disruptor.
Why don’t you actually watch the show before you bash someone for critiquing it…
Duh it goes against cannon, but only the cannon that no one should reasonably care about. It’s like being mad at the world because Khan didn’t pop up in the 1990s like he was suppose to. Let’s face it, in the days of skype, why would you have the Romulans using flimsy radio stuff? As for the Ferengi, your assuming those Ferengi were important enough to tell people about humans back home and for that knowledge to go directly into important records that all Ferengi studied in Galactic Social Studies in Middle School. Yeah, the encounter wasn’t important enough for something like that to happen. And besides, all the shows after the original have stepped on the toes of TOS cannon in one way or another. It’s because it’s not the 60s anymore. Let’s all get over the 60s and move on with our lives.
I think it’s a good idea as long as he does realize what Abrams did also effects the original timeline. The newest movie came with a prequel comic which included Generations characters caught in the conflict with Romulus exploding, Warf nearly dead, Data commander of their Enterprise, and Original series Ambasitor Spock disappearing into oblivion…
Of course it would be SUPER cool to get Bad Robot involved, because then who knows…these two timelines could still cross paths on occasion….
I developed a series of the same name with a friend in the mid-1990′s. Damn, they used our title ….
You, me… I think every Trekkie who enjoyed Babylon 5 and had some free time came up with their post TNG / DS9 / VOY and called it ST Federations!
Matt, you had me at ‘they have clearly done their work!’
It has indeed been a grueling undertaking to say the least, but the true joy is in the journey.
You are a tough one to reach, but I wanted to say thank you and let you know that the series would likely use all 10 of the ‘Top 10 Reasons of How A New Star Trek Series Could Work’ from your link. Maybe even 11, as what are restless Klingons without lots of Tribbles ;). I enjoyed that article back in April when it was written.
For the other comments, fear not, the cast isn’t that young, it was a generalization. Captains and doctors of any major ship in the fleet will typically be well seasoned. Make note that I have specifically used the words ‘careful with the Enterprise canon’.
Don’t get too crazy, CBS can always say ‘no’.
Make it so!
What was good with TOS was the vision of a better humanity forging its own destiny towards the stars; it was about Man and the universe,not about ray guns and spaceships. What was bad about it was the limitations of TV budgets and technical means of its time.
What was good about TNG was that it followed and expanded on the original vision and content. What was bad about it was that it introduced technobabble and too much emphasis on static scenes (the infamous briefing room scenes).
What was good about DS9 was that it introduced more action and grand scale to stories and visuals. What was bad about it was that it completely lost the true vision of Trek along the way while also making the 24th century exactly like the 20th century in mentality.
What was good about VOY was that it brought back the sense of wonder and discovery. What was bad about it was that it made Trek more fantasy than sci-fi with more technobabble, nonsense pseudo-science and sensationalism for the sake of it.
What was good about ENT was that it explored the roots of the Trek universe and vision and brought back the emphasis on Man and the Universe. What was bad about it was that it screwed up the whole established universe just for the sake of making something new.
What was good about the 2009 movie reboot was the rythm and the scale. What was bad about it was that it was not Star Trek at all except in looks and names: characters wrong, story ridiculous, science laughable, the whole made as a Star Wars rip-off and the Trek essence and vision completely absent.
Take the good, avoid the bad, and there you will have the revival of Trek I hope for.
I’d love to read more about this idea and how it ties in with all of the canon and to see what happens post-voyager with the Borg being dealt a blow, etc.
Personally, I love technobabble- Trek is about science and exploration, you have to have technobabble.
Word
Please do NOT get JJ Abrams involved in this. He did a disasterous job with the reboot and he not only knows nothing of Star Trek, he isnt even interested in as evidenced by him coming ot Jay Leno and saying he is more of a Star Wars fan. Just as his writers Kurtzman and Orci did. These people dont care about Star Trek, they care about a fat check and thus money that is connected to making the franchise. We need people who really put their hearts and minds to this, like Berman and Braga etc. If Abrams puts his name on this show, it will be a disaster. Then we might as well just call it Star Trek as imagined by J Abrams as it will not have anything to do with Gene Roddenberry and his vision.
I totally agree. I remember in 1979 how thrilled people were with Star Trek the Motion Picture… which now a lot (not me!) call the most boring Trek movie ever made. Same thing here; we’ve been so eager to get some Trek after ENT that we jumped on this one WANTING to love it, just like then; but in ten years, it will be called the worst Trek movie ever made, from lense flare galore to out of budget brewery engine room, from popcorn 1940 science to scaling blunders never seen since 1933 King Kong… and most of all, nothing that made Star Trek what it was except the wrapping. Take the rythm and the scale (and the musical score) and leave ALL the rest if you wish for any quality show, especially one to be called Star Trek. And don’t call in Abrams or Kurzman and Orci (of Bayformers fame, another massacred franchise)
Couldn’t agree more. I’d love to see a new Trek series…but one that stayed faithful to the original timeline. I don’t know what the hell J.J. Abrams thought he was doing with his “alternate timeline” crap, but he basically took 40 years of Trek TV history and threw it out the window! I hated the last Trek movie and couldn’t believe Leonard Nimoy went along with it! Yes…please make a new series…but for goodness sake, keep Abrams and his ridiculous version of the timeline away from it. This guy should have been fired for what he did! All that history and hard work over 40 years and this clown comes along and just tosses it for his own “vision”. In my opinion, his vision sucks and is a betrayal to every true Trek fan out there!
Jim: the new canon is complete and utter garbage. Except for the names it has little to do with Star Trek. It was poorly written and obviously the writers themselves understood very little of the show or of Roddenberry.
I really hope they place this in the 25th century. I’ve really been enjoying the relaunch novels and I would hate to see all of that erased.
Why don’t they do a Battlestar Galactica like reimagining of Star Trek?
I’m all for a new Trek series, but why does everyone with an idea for one always call it a ‘return to the original series roots’ and then launch into a description of how the Klingons are 10 minutes away from being the bad guys again? The Klingons and the Federation were a cold war parable, and now they’re (apart from a dust up on DS9) allies. Let’s move on, I mean Star Trek was all about strange new worlds not rehashing space politics. Also, let’s not forget the contributions of TNG. TOS is great and all, but I always thought Star Trek matured and hit it’s stride around season 3 of Next Gen.
I agree. I think they need to make a show that is the continuation of where we left off which is Star Trek Voyager. Revisiting the same stuff over and over again, like the events in the TOS when so much history has occurred seems like going back as opposed to moving the story in canon forward. I found Voyager and DS9 to be wonderful extension of the TNG and the continuation of some of the themes, like the Maquis, really showed the connection. Going back to TOS and populating them pretty boys (Chris Pine, Quinto) and intergalactic cheerleaders in go-go boots who are sexually involved with their Vulcan superiors is not having a vision and doesnt really do the Trek world any favors. After all, the show is about where no man has gone before, not revisiting the same garbage over and over again – especially not if done by incompetent people like Abrams and his writers.
Indeed. You should have new looks and new stories and new characters and still be able to bring back the spirit and the vision that defines Star Trek: the belief in Humanity, Humanity that can mature and forge its own destiny towards the stars by upholding the best it has within itself whatever it will be facing. Using the solid foundation of decades of established lore and moving forward with it is the only good way to achieve this; not returning to the past and rehashing old things… or ignoring and despising it like the last movie did.
What will happen:
*CBS: Does your story have any unneeded gore?
*David Foster: No…
*CBS: Does it have unneeded sex?
*David Foster: No…
*CBS: Does it have unneeded violence?
*David Foster: Nope…
*CBS: *Walks out of room without any comment*
ROFLOL!!!
Good one! Sadly, too true…
Very true indeed. Any show they will make today will have to involve 1) terrorism of some form as metaphors for today’s times since that is all we read in the news 2) the cast has to be young, sexy and hunky 3) someone in the cast has ot have been sexually molested as a child or severely abused a la Law and Order and of course the usual sex, violence etc. It wont be Trek episode today if we dont see a full body shot of a half naked Orion girl blowing the captain.
Do be sure to tell me if they make it. The sex, violence, & stupidity of 90% of current TV shows has caused me to largely abandon the medium. I’d hate to miss the first worthwhile series in so long…..
But it WILL have Charlie Sheen.
I would LOVE something like this. I didn’t much like the Abrams reboot. Post-Voyager Trek would be a very welcome show, as it would tie into the canon timeline and still would retain the core elements that made Trek excellent.
I really don’t know why everyone got so obsessed with cannon. Its impossible to sneeze in the Trek world without it being catalogued and compared with the history of sneezes through all Trek to make sure it doesn’t conflict with any rules. The writers of Star Trek have been breaking the rules since day one and no one seemed to care until somewhere around two years into Voyager when the whole warp ten argument started up. As if no other show in the world had errors in it. In any case. I don’t think this or any other show has a chance because fans won’t let the show have any breathing room. They have their own vision of the Star Trek future and they won’t let anyone tell them its different. I just don’t think Star Trek lives anywhere anymore except within our nerdy minds.
First of all there is something to be said about continuity not only within a show but also amongst shows. For example, the Maquis were introduced in TNG with Ro Laren and continued in DS9 and even into VOY. The internal consistency is not nerdy, annoying or lame but what makes Star Trek so great – the connection from the world in TOS until the world in 2378 when Voyager returns. And my god so many themes, causes etc have been introduced in these 900+ episodes that there is no way writers and producers could not come up with a continuation. My only issue is that it is not some version of the movie we saw in 2009 – with a bunch of 20 year old Hollywood bimbos who have no interest in Star Trek other than the fat paycheck that comes with the franchise.
Yes Lili, but see what you just did there? “the Maquis were introduced in TNG with Ro Laren and continued in DS9 and even into VOY” That’s incorrect. Yes in a way it was foreshadowed in TNG but not with Ro, it was in the Westley going off with the Traveler story. The real begining was the two parter on DS9 and THEN Ro Laren joined the Maquis. See? If you were a ST screen writer you would have just made a continuity error right there. It’s EASY to do especially after 700+ episodes and 11 movies. But I wouldn’t hold it against you anymore than I would have held it against the writers of Wrath of Khan when Khan recognizes Chekov even though Chekov wasn’t added to the show until way after Space Seed. These things happen, but if the story is capturing enough and the action thrilling, no one spends the time to whine about it. The problem with Star Trek isn’t that it’s changing and becoming inconsistent, its that its dull and boring and doesn’t grab out attention anymore. If it did, we wouldn’t be wasting time looking at every single little error.
Technically, the issue of the insurrection and its roots was started in season 4 with The Wounded and continued on with Ro Laren’s presence and defection to the Maquis in Preemptive Strike – a mere 4 episodes after Journey’s End. But yes, Journey’s End did in fact solidly introduce the Maquis and i was thinking about Ro Laren while jotting this down (which isnt a screenplay mind you) because I know she was approached to star in DS9 but refused to do so and that info stuck. Anyway, that is not even the point of what I said and you are not addressing any of my points but bring in this straw man argument to argue for something differnet. As a Trek fan I am quite aware of ALL the canon in ALL episodes and so would any decent writer the studios hire to write. So getting back to my original point: continuity is nice and important because it creates a connection and relates events ot one another as opposed to a bunch of unrelated stories here and there swirling around randomly disconnected. The issue with Star Trek is that the folks in the new film have been too focused on CGi and special effects and 20 million worth of product placement than story and script. This move was bad and if it is any indicator of what is to come, then goodye Star Trek as we know it.
As to 7 in VOY: yes, she was brought it to up the ratings and everyone, including Jeri Ryan, knew that. But, in the end, Seven’s character became more pronounced and people stopped looking at her as a piece of ass. A lot of quite intelligent story lines like the ones examining her humanity, for example, and the challenges involved her – so unlike Zoe Saladana, her role wasnt reduced to that of a go go boot wearing snob who didnt utter one intelligent sentence. I dont mind casting attractive leads, I have a problem with the attractive leads doing nothing but being attractive and decorating the screen, thus taking away from the quality of the show.
Haha. You really have something against those “go go boots” don’t you. I guess they should have had you do the fashion designing for the movie. Haha. Just kidding. I just find it funny that I don’t think I’ve seen one comment from you that didn’t reference those boots: boots I can’t even remember seeing. Obviously they didn’t catch my eye. In any case, I really didn’t find her that braindead a character. At least, that is, she wasn’t like a Transformers girl or a Bond girl. I still think she was more intelligent seeming than either Seven or T’Pol, and her character was definately way more developed than it ever was on the show where she basically had one line: “hailing frequencies open.” I think you’re just jealous that she got Spock and not you. Haha. Again, I’m just kidding.
I honestly think that whatever producers will come up with it is going to be some scrambled version of the 2009 cheap glossy tourist trinket by JJ Abrams. Dumb story, implausible science – even within the sci-fi realm – clichee filled story lines more focused on how “hot” the actors are than substance and dialogue and characters that dont truly inhabit their roles. If you think about it, today – in this day and age – if they were casting TNG, it would not be with the same people we know. No balding 50 year old captain, no middle aged chief medical officer, no middle ages first officer. No way. Today it would be mostly some good looking hunks and 25 year olds playing captain and engineer etc. And the female leads would be some scrambled version of Uhura in the 2009 movie, bimbettes in go go boots who are snide, rude, arrogant and sleep with their superior officers. People are also too focused on the events of the original series and i ma just about tired of Kirk and Spock. The Trek universe has come a long way since so why rehash the same garbage over and over? I really hope someone who actually like sci fi and Star Trek and knows something about it will be part of the team and not just a bunch of people who are looking to turn the show into another space Law and order.
“And the female leads would be some scrambled version of Uhura in the 2009 movie”
And you don’t think Seven of Nine was a pointless sex symbol? Oh sure she said things that sounded smart like… um… “irrelavent”… yup, she’s smart now. In fact, most of the “sex symbol” girls of star trek were very similar, just not quite to the Seven of Nine extreme: Troi slept around and wore clevage showing non-uniform suits, Dax slept around, T’Pol definately slept around whether with actual guys or in her twisted dreams (yeah, i know everyone thinks ENT is dumb and so we’re usually not even counting it). I’m just saying, things aren’t really changing. I remember hearing the bonus disk that comes with the “Star Trek: The Motion Picture Soundtrack” CD’s a recording of Roddenberry himself saying back in the 70s something to the result of “I will continue to use women as Sex Objects in my shows and movies…. AND I will continue to use MEN as Sex Objects too.” These things aren’t new. They just look different than they did in the ’60s.
I really think you should look up what go-go boots actually are. The boots in the film a knee-high combat boots.
Dear Lili I agree with both you and Juan you both seem well versed in trek lore. However i do not agree with you Lili because without T.O.S. and Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock you’d have nothing so we including you yourself have alot to be thankful for and respect should always be given to those actors because they are Star Trek (period) . So I ask you how can you get tired of Kirk and Spock really?If you disagree then you are not a true fan of Star Trek because they were Genes Visions of the future the original one and all others must be comparable in Story as well as Time.I am a fan of them all and cannot wait to give this new Vision a chance.
I think it will be interesting to see where this leads. I’ve been a fan of Star Trek since the original series and, while there have been continuity issues (and EVERY long running series has them) I felt that for its time it addressed very real issues to the people of its time.
I’m starting to think that I am one of the few Star Trek fans that actually likes Star Wars as well, but not in the same room. I’m also starting to think that the fact that I honestly LIKED the 2009 movie is going to be cause for a minor riot at the next convention…ah well.
My take on this: It’s trying. Plain and simple. Everyone has a different version of Trek they like, and everyone wants something different from a new series. I for instance, am a TNG kind of guy, but I want a MOVIE for the voyager crew, and I’m a little sad that didn’t happen. I didn’t like DS9, it was too soap opera for my tastes, and it only got good so late in the series that there was no point watching it because so much had happened.
Can there ever be a bridge for the different lovers of Trek? Sure, a new series to fall in love with, or hate. Afterall, the rivalry between different Trek has been there since TOS went to a cartoon (who even REMEMBERS that one?)
OK…I like the sound of the pitch at least. But no. We don’t need a return to the “traditional roots” of Star Trek. On the contrary: we need a RADICAL DEPARTURE from what Trek has always been. If the reimagined BSG had been made in the spirit of the original BSG, it would have been a failure. The producers of the next Star Trek series need to recognize that it’s not the 60s anymore and make a series that fits with the times in which we live. Don’t be afraid to GET political, because Star Trek was always at its best when it was giving social commentary/allegory for what was going on in the real world. But don’t peddle the same kind of bigoted, establishmentarian leftism that Roddenberry believed in 50 years ago. Don’t be afraid to make the Federation seem imperfect or even dystopian on occasion…have characters who are opposed to the system, and yet seem heroic. Conflict and drama, like what DS9 had only on steroids. And definitely with a concrete plan behind it and a goal towards which the series will be working, like B5 had. Rich, complex, interesting characters that come from diverse backgrounds and don’t always get along happily, like on Voyager. And definitely a lot of cameos and tie-ins to existing canon—including the STXI Alternate Reality, which has to be fit into the timeline if the series overlaps with the 2387 date for Romulus’s destruction. Make Star Trek into one full round…and truly go where this franchise has never gone before. That’s what we need in order to be successful.
But at any rate, it won’t happen while Les Moonves is still in power at CBS. So this is all just idle speculation.
Lemme get this straight:
‘If evil wore the face of a hero, would you recognize it? If freedom came in the likeness of your oppressors, would you accept it? If you were your own enemy, who would be victorious?’
Snooooooore. This general concept has been done to death in TV and video games for over 20 years. Not interested in seeing a Gen X ‘mind trip’ via the Trek universe. Try again.
Haha. Tell me about it. I read that and was like, “Isn’t this what the trailer to Spider-Man 3 said?”
You guys are rediculous. The only reason you guys can have a conversation about a new serious is BECAUSE of what the ST ’09 Movie did. Non-Trekkies could watch it and enjoy it, something you can’t say about VOY and DS9, both absolute pieces of garbage. TOS and TNG should have been the stopping point for TV, because we got Soap operas in space. Also, I see a lot of you pointing to the BSG remake, which was maybe the best Space opera ever on TV, and then complain about what Abrams did with ST ’09, which was a BSG imagining of the series, because it had crazy science and what not. New flash: ST isn’t realistic at all in the fields of science. If you want a show with some semblance of realistic sci-fi try Stargate (they try at least to be up to date with science). Honestly, I liked the 2009 ST movie quite a bit, and I never really was a Trek watcher, because of that movie I went back and watched TOS and watched TNG and watched DS9 (at least until it go so awful I stopped). This show needs to be a BSG style-remake, not post-VOY boring rehashed space politics. We need exploration, drama and character development a la BSG, not DS9/VOY/ENT.
Are they saying that this will take place after the events of Voyager but be based in 2200′s? I’m confused by some of the comments here. I initially took it that the show would actually take place after voyager.
”Gene Roddenberry was initially in charge of Star Trek: The Next Generation, as he well should be, and something happened politically to change that. You know, I had no idea what caused that change. But while Gene was in charge, he and I got along very well. We understood each other. And I liked him because of his creation of Star Trek, and he fully understood exactly where he wanted his show to go. Yet he was fully open to any ideas that we threw at him, and he would talk about that, and he talked about it intelligently. When Rick Berman took over the show, half way through the first season, every time we showed him a design concept, his constant response was, “no, we can’t do that, because it reminds me of something that I’ve seen somewhere”, or “it looks like a shaver”, or “it looks like something I’ve seen in a furniture store”. The only thing of note that Rick Berman did before Star Trek was a show called “The Big Blue Marble”, a kid’s show. For some reason, Paramount led him into this. I don’t know. I’ve heard conflicted stories that Gene thought he was a great producer and wanted to bring him in. Whatever it is, Rick Berman did not, in that time, and, as far as I can see from what is being produced, does not understand science fiction. I’ve seen a lot of great concepts, by Doug Drexler and a few of the other illustrators that they have been working on, passed over in favor of much more controlled concepts. My experience with Rick Berman is, you know, he does not understand what he’s doing, he does not understand science fiction.(…)I think Star Trek died when Gene died. Well, as I said, Gene understood exactly what he wanted for his show, and his main focus was maintaining consistency in the show. And everybody who cared about Star Trek eventually left the show. Bill Theiss, the costumer, left, I left, Bob Justman left. So… I don’t know what to say, it was very frustrating working on that.(…)I think he [Berman] cares about it for the money. I think he cares about it because he is confident that, no matter what they produce, if it has the name “Star Trek” on it, people will go watch it. They’ll complain about it, but they will still make money from the viewers. But, you know, this is just my opinion.”
Andrew G Probert
This is in a nutshell what happened to Star Trek.
Not surprising at all… but this makes us understand a LOT about what it went through, from the difficult beginings of TOS to the soaring of TNG to the downfall of ENT and the state it is currently in with the latest movie.
A remake of the original story demands respect and accuracy in bringing back to life not only the props, characters and setting, but even more the original spirit, vision and concept. The more you change however, the less good your show or movie will be. It is called a rip-off.
A new story based on the same spirit, vision and concept can and has been done with totally new looks, characters, settings and stories. But if you want to call it Star Trek, you have at one point to keep at least the vision, the spirit, the core concept that made Star Trek what it truly is.
Be it one or the other, the key elements are: the vision, the spirit, the concept.
That is what has been lost so far; what the old audience wishes back to share with a new audience that thinks Star Trek is just about space pew pew, pointed ears and a cool guy named Spock.
@Kheren: I’ll not speak to the internal details because I don’t know them, but for me TNG got better the more Roddenberry took a hands off approach to the show. I think to the extent he provided guidance in 3-4 it was useful, but the show got better when he gave up more control.
I think a refreshing new take on Star Trek would be to make it a bit darker. Yes the main goal is to seek out new life and new civilizations but also to defend the Federation from it’s enemies. They could deal with the intricacies of galactic politics and the ramifications of having to make tough moral decisions as a result of that. Imagine if Russell T. Davies was chosen to produce this new series. Sort of Torchwood meets Star Trek. Not literally just in terms of themes. Well, I can dream anyway.
If it is about using the darkness to make the light shine all the more brightly, maybe it could work; that was what years back made the Spider-Man saga Maximum Carnage so good. But if it is just to show more violence, more grit, more dirt and gore for the sole exploitation of them, if it is just to give justification for immorality, pessimism, cynicism and despair, don’t call it Star Trek. It won’t be Star Trek; just yet another rip-off.
Well, It does sound a bit like a game of “Mass Effect”, what You’re describing anyway. But why not? Seems like the big cheeses on top of the networks have forgotten a very important thing : make series the viewers want to see, not nessesaraly the series that will make the biggest instant splash, remember voyager? – started out quite slow, but around season3 it grew to huge preportions. Obviosly the a new series will pull the support of us older “dyded in the wool” fans(provided the dont stray to far from the roots left by voyager). But introducing some new elements will appeal to the younger, new generation trekkies, lets face it, the movie has them all curious as to this “star trek” thing…… good solid storyline, newage techology, new age specialFX, Deep and intersting characters, unyielding support from a reputable network. I see a bright future for the francaise, if its given a fair shake!
As long as they keep Abrams away from it. His movie was little more than his half-aborted man baby. If he is involved in the series, he’d probably blow up the Klingons or some other race or do something else really stupid.
Perhaps we could take the chance and approach the new series from a different perspective. The Star Trek Universe is made up of many species, a few favorites. Why not have each season focus on one species e.g Klingon’s. Bring their perspective into focus, their worlds, their battles, their secret organizations and their views of humans. Think it would make things a little more interesting :).
A brilliant idea. You want a series focused on action and war, make a Klingon series; you want one focused on spy and intrigue, make a Romulan series… Lots of potential there. And through those, the vision of Trek can easily be conveyed (i.e. the horrible futility of war and violence through the Klingon series). However, producers (THEM again) might be wary about having a series (read their profit) rests on the shoulders of alien characters… characters people might not easily identify to. Remember, THEY were insistent on removing Spock (and Number One btw, remember her?) based on that argument… have time truly changed enough in THEIR eyes to go for it? Visionary producers with something significant to say like Gene Roddenberry, are not quite a dime a dozen…
I’ve watched Star Trek since I was born back 92 and I don’t understand the hate of Trek ’09. It’s not this sex-crazed, uber-action movie everybody says it was. No, it wasn’t a TOS episode, but I never expected any of the movies to be (and aside from TMP and TVH, they really haven’t. First Contact? Zombie-Trek anybody?).
I’m honestly sick of it. This is Trek, does anybody remember IDIC? Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations? Star Trek is about adventure, to boldly go where no one has gone before ya know? Trek ’09 has it. It recaptured what Trek is really about, to go to the stars and explore.
They blew up Vulcan (which by the way caused a bit of fight in development) because they wanted to show everybody that this is a new timeline and that they are in control. That is the radical departure that Trek needed. That put Star Trek in everybody’s heart again, not canon, only the fans really care about canon, Star Trek is for everybody, not just us.
In conclusion, this is the change we needed to keep Trek in place, without it Trek would’ve been lost. Simple as that. After Enterprise, it was dead.
As for this show idea, I think it should take place farther into the future, maybe mid-2500′s. We need a new jump in time here.
you say it was dead. But judging by the sales of the novels and computer games that it was not. It needed a rest perhaps. Too late now though. Trek 09 was fun but it wasn’t Star Trek, not if you are honest with yourself.
It was though. It was a Star Trek movie.
There were problems, of course, Nero as character was almost two dimensional but, we saw what the crew of Enterprise will become. Kirk offered to help Nero, Nero refused. We saw Spock fight with his emotional side.
The moral of the movie? Revenge solves nothing. Hiding from your past makes you weak. When somebody, even after mass murder (including your father) is in need, extend an arm to help.
There are the morals you get from the movie.
He offers help with a sneer. Not so moral. It was effects over story, , and characters were secondary to the shiny tech. It also lacked any effort to be plausable. Ok so any Star Trek episode or film needs you to suspend reality. But a bunch of cadets instantly become the crew of the most advanced ship in the fleet? DS9 had a more sensible spin on what would happen in similar circumstances. I can forgive plenty of the changes but some of the scene set ups are an insult to the viewer. The conviently sized water pipes for Scotty to ride in (this is fine for the Goonies but come on, really?) JJ Abrams by his own admission had never seen star trek properly and was more of a star wars fan. The similarities to Star Wars have been often noted so I don’t need to repeat them. TWOK was a work of a man that respected Star Trek enough to watch every episode before creating a screenplay. Despite the Checkov incident it showed that the existing universe could yield a good film. I like JJ Abrams films, to the point of defending Cloverfield to others. But as entertaining as his star trek was, it lacked the spirit of star trek. he paid homage in some ways but personally I feel he was doing as little as he could get away with.
Kirk was cocky, Spock showed more emotion in his first ten minutes on screen than the character did in the previous fourty years (death and spores exallowing)
star trek also prided itself on the bridge designs, could anyone really work in the brightly lit white environment, which is such a sci fi cliche anyway I’m amazed he used it. Some will argue that it is a new timeline so all this change is fine, but it doesn’t explain why phasers now look more like the laser bolts you see in just about everything else, fBuck Rogers, the original version of Battlestar Galactica for example. Phasers were unigue to Star Trek but t now they’ve been made too look the same as all the others, why?? The enterprise herself looks a mess, aside from the saucer section and why the hell is a starship being built in Iowa, it made much more sence to have it built in orbit. We saw little genuine character development,. Spock forcd to battle his emotions, but that took killing his mother and destroying his homeworld. Kirk and Spock acted like petulant youths squabbling over r who goets to drive the car. this film was about mmaking money and nothing else. Even when the studios comissioned the previous ten films, there was a group of people on each of those films that cared about more than making money. And strived to make a film that would please the audience, the long serving fans and the studio.
I didn’t see a sneer. Maybe when fired upon the Narada but not when he offered help.
I agree, the engineering section sucks (they didn’t have enough money).
Of course Kirk was cocky, it’s James T. Kirk! Without a dad no doubt, who turns into a rebel who just doesn’t give a f**k. And Spock was kid. What do you expect?
I thought the bridge was all right it’s no big deal, remember the E-D’s? It was stupidly huge. (And the cliche now-a-days is a “dirty” look a la Battlestar Galactica.)
TWOK had phaser pulses, rapid fire but still. And the Defiant’s. Also, what does it look similar to?
What does it matter if the ship is built on the ground?
The bridge arguments came after Vulcan went up (in?) so Spock was kinda emotionally compromised (If they lose control Vulcans are even worse when it comes to emotions than we are, and he’s half-human, remember?).
Blow up Earth and kill my mother, and I’d flip too. It showed his human side, the side he has (and will) battled with for many years.
JJ wasn’t a fan back then, aye, but I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. Give us a different perspective of the adventure, give it to an outsider, and see what he can do. You preach again and again that it was purely a money-maker, it was also critically acclaimed (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/ and http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-trek) and won awards (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_%28film%29#Awards_and_honors). Hell it was the first Star Trek movie to win an Oscar!
I doubt I’m gonna convince you otherwise, this Star Trek is more than a summer blockbuster, it’s Star Trek.
Now if you wanna talk about stupid gimmicks and movies based (well, mostly) on making money, how about we talk about Avatar?
Don’t get me wrong, I thought the film was a blast, and I’m a fan of Abrams other films. Maybe I’m just being a stick in the mud but the style was just a bit flash. I thought the casting was superb, particularly with Karl Urban (ok he has more stature than Kelly but he got the character to a tee) and Bruce Greenwood impressed me (talking of Avatar).
I just feel that the film could have been just as impressive if it had kept a little more of the trek lore intact.
I am, seemingly, in the minority as it is in that I liked DS9 and Enterprise (despite Enterprise also ripping the mythology apart at time). What I wonder about is when the newer fans attractwd by the film start drifting away, will those that embraced star trek outnumber those that were lost due to the film. As for the phasers, I always felt there was something graceful about the traditional style. Ok Defiant had its own style, (similar to a fighter jets cannons) but that was an exception rather than a wholesale change.
I also wonder what Gene Roddenberry would’ve made of JJs film.
I can forgive Avater (and Titanic) because James Cameron also gave us two of the best sequals ever made. (I get the impression you will already know the two I mean)
It was slightly flash but then again, it’s the twenty third century, computers are everywhere and technology is light-years ahead of ours. Have you ever seen the cockpit of an F-22? It’s pretty “flash”.
Star Trek will always have fans, I’ve been told that when TNG came out, a lot of people hated it for the same reasons, same with DS9, but those turned into two fan favorites. And I love Deep Space Nine, it’s my favorite series.
As for the mythology, we have no idea what will happen. This is the first movie that reboots the show. It’s not enough to go on.
I actually feel that this pitch would work quite well and it fits perfectly with the established canon: 2378 – Voyager returns, 2379 – Star Trek Nemesis (the last full prime-universe events), 2387 – Romulus is destroyed and Ambassador Spock is lost (everything needed for reasoning the dark and gritty emphasis), 2388> – new series.
Having watched all 726 episodes (live action and animated) and 11 movies, I agree there have been occasional hiccups with continuity but I just simply dismiss them as minor alterations to the timeline caused by events during time-travel episodes (cause and effect but on a much smaller scale).
If that is the case, I would say a series based on the event of the Romulans attempting to re-build their Empire and how the rest of the quadrant(s) deal with the fallout of Romulus being destroyed.
I too do not think that a series based far into the future is a good idea. I also don’t believe a “darker” version is needed, Trek is about morality, and doing what is right; if that is based in a darker period of time, such as the turmoil of the events of Romulus being destroyed, than possibly that would be good as well.
Anyone noticed that most of the fans of trek 09 are pretty much kids?
I don’t think these 09 fans really are capable of understanding what Star Trek was really about before Jar Jar Abrams molested the franchise. I really hope that a new series, true to the real spirit of star trek is made. And contrary to what some may believe, Enterprise, nor Nemisis killed star trek. star Trek is much harder to kill than that. In fact Star Trek is the most enduring series ever in my opinion. Only Dr Who has survived more attempts at assisination, and now it is stronger than ever.
Trek lives, and one day it will return on the small screen in it’s true form.
I bet a hundred bars of gold pressed latinum!
I understand it fine. Just because I’m not a close-minded or stupidly conservative man doesn’t mean I’m not a fan.
Star Trek had to change, it was the same thing, over and over and over again. Nemesis? Insurrection?
Also we have to remember, we are basing all of this on one movie. Not a series but one movie. Were TMP or WOK the same? No.
You say you are not close minded yet you contradict yourself immediatly.
How am I closed minded?
I don’t think these 09 fans really are capable of understanding what Star Trek was really about before Jar Jar Abrams molested the franchise. I really hope that a new series, true to the real spirit of star trek is made. And contrary to what some may believe, Enterprise, nor Nemisis killed star trek. star Trek is much harder to kill than that. In fact Star Trek is the most enduring series ever in my opinion. Only Dr Who has survived more attempts at assisination, and now it is stronger than ever.
Trek lives, and one day it will return on the small screen in it’s true form.
I bet a hundred bars of gold pressed latinum!
ull. You probably wouldn’t be able to tell star wars and star trek apart if they didn’t have the titles at the beggining. Stick to watching shallow blockbusters.
Gene Roddenbury’s original vision of Star Trek was secular humanism.
The idea that we can use rationality to see past prejudices toward our ‘enemies’, whether they be blacks, jews, communists, chinese, muslims, or any other group that the media has conjured fear about.
It was a strongly rationalist show, devoid of superheroes and gods, and it’s message was that human intellect and compassion will triumph any challenge – that we can engineer a better society.
That message was lost somewhere along the line, and JJ Abrams Star Trek was reduced to the kind of simplistic entertainment that does not make you think, and was about as far from this as you can imagine.
If these guys really are loyal to the original vision, then let them try.
Instead of constantly showing us ‘darker and edgier’ entertainment: translation, cynical entertainment that shows the worst of humanity, and inspires nobody to become better.
Please DO NOT use Leonard Nimoy’s name, as you are clearly NOT HIM. To do so is an insult to a great man.
I really like the idea. Of a new series, I think it will be worth watching, I can’t wait!!