quote:

---

We will keep the classic silhouette of the Enterprise, but fit her out with a level of amazing technology based on what the best and the brightest minds tell us the future will look like in 200 years. Tricorders and communicators were predicted by the original Trek and are already upon us in GPS technology and cell phones. What new wonders can we predict for the future knowing what we know now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
I don't think rebooting the series would work right now. Enterprise has only been off the air for a year. Rebooted shows like Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who came from shows which were cancelled years ago. While the original Star Trek is still liked, if rebooted people would just go "not another one!". I'd say let a couple of years pass and then let us see about this re-booting business.

---

I think that's a big point. BSG's "reboot" works because the franchise was untouched since 1978/1979 (ignoring Galactica 1980 and the scant few books). People tried to revitalize the series in the meantime, but the NuBSG we have now is the only one to see fruition.

Star Trek, on the other hand, has had a steady stream of new stories since 1979. 10 movies and 4 spin-off series.

I think this volume of work is too fresh for a reboot to work now. Further, I think the amount of material Trek related is so enormous that a reboot would be ill-received.

There are a ton more Trek fans than Battlestar fans. The backlash against NuBSG was a small ripple compared to the backlash Trek fans would unleash.
 

---

Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
 
While noisy and boisterous, I don't think fan backlash would bring something like this down. (In fact, as stated in their proposal it probably would only increase media attention.) Unless the show really sucked. Which by the sounds of it, it wouldn't. I'm a little disappointed, actually, that they'd recycle the original characters. I'm wondering whether their plans included an event from "Universe A" to set into motion their "Universe B".

I'm just a little mad that my (non-trek) show has some similar elements and so now I'm going to get accused of ripping JMS off despite having only read the pdf this morning.
 

---

Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
 
What, is JMS a "one-trick pony" or something? What is it with his "obsession" with the idea of the Ancients?

Babylon-5: The focus of the entire show centered around the Shadow War where known races fought against an ancient race (or races, counting the Vorlon) with advanced, mysterious, technology.

Crusade: Tales of a starship and her crew exploring the galaxy in search of lost technology of the Ancients in order to find a cure for a plagued Earth.

Star Trek: Reboot is sounding a lot like this same concept, only without the initial idea of a war. I can easily imagine, however, the story turning into a war between the Federation and other Alpha Quadrant races (Klingons, Romulans, etc...) over who would ultimately possess said Ancient technology.

I can, however, see the appeal of tying certain Star Trek stories into one cohesive whole. The time portal from "City on the Edge of Forever" coming from the same technology that created the Planet Killer in "Doomsday Machine," and both technologies being linked to the civilizations discovered in "Wink of an Eye," "Return to Tomorrow," and "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky."
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Well, it's hardly fair to count B5 and "Crusade" separately. I mean, since the First Ones were a major factor in the B5 universe, it kind of makes sense they would crop up in other shows set in the same universe.
 

---

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
I'm a negatory on this one - ditch Berman and EVERYONE in the old guard, but keep jms and others out of it too. The B5 arc is a proven history of failure with jms at the helm; it's worked only once, and that concept was a hit and miss five years of television that was hardly rewarded with stellar ratings. My opinion is that he's just redressing his same old formulae AGAIN but hoping to use the Trek franchise name to make it happen. Pass.

And jeez, can you imagine the interminable jms monologuing with some actor trying to give a Kirk delivery? Weren't some of those speeches long ENOUGH already?!

Mark
 

---

Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
 
How about "Alien vs. Straczynski".


....and I'll place 2000 Quatloos on the facehugger.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Reboots are evil. Period. Take the trouble to fix whatever's gone wrong with Trek. Don't just throw everything out and start over again. That's lazy and lame.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
And what if we, the fans, are the problem?
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
So how exactly do you fix the problem of hundreds of hours of story cruft squashing an interesting core concept, given your guideline there?

There's nothing wrong with starting something over. Not intrinsically. And not to belabor the Battlestar comparisons, but it is the best show ever times three, so, you know. Not that I'm saying that this is necessarily Star Trek's "problem."

The only way to defend your claim is if you think that consistancy is the sole storytelling virtue, and that is some sad wrong thinking. (In my opinion, anyway, of course. Poorly thought out building metaphor: Consistancy is the hidden I beam, not the lobby. Or, uh, you can be consistant and bad, or boring, or whatever.)

((And there are plenty of good writers who happen to be writing comic books at the moment, whether or not JMS happens to be one of them.))
 

---

Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
I also feel the number of episodes that star trek series had per season also played into its undoing. 26 episodes per year is a little much, especially when series like TOS or TNG had no overall story arc or like DS9 and Voyager had an overall story, but just did not always stick to it. Enterprise was just a mess when came to this, since it followed the poorly planned Temporal Cold War and the Xindi story wasn't that great either. Perhaps by limiting the number of episodes and sticking to the overall story, writers could write better shows more often instead of writing a few good episodes in a season full of rehashed plots and poorly executed concepts.
 

---

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Uhhh...26 episodes is a standard US season. This isn't Britain with their wacky 8-episode seasons.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
The problem with Trek is that the people who have been running it have persisted in repeating the same formula with some token variation, and this has caused it to cease being interesting. We need to have something that is distinct from the tired "lone crew on a starship meeting assorted alien species" format. It's boring.

TOS originated and showed the merits of the concept, and TNG brought it to its full fruitition. No problem so far, except that TNG ran one or two seasons too many and some laziness began to creep into the storytelling.

DS9 was great because it was a completely different kind of show, with a fresh concept and a more unpredictable set of dynamics between the main characters.

Then we get this bullshit VGR show that's like a watered-down version of TNG with the ultimately-meaningless window dressing of the Delta Quadrant, Maquis, a female captain, etc. Seven wasted years that just sucked everything out of it all.

So what do they do next? ENT: another show with the same premise and different window dressing. They try to pass it off as an origins story, but they eschew that concept in favor of the inane and not-really-thought-out Temporal Cold War, more Aliens of the Week^TM, and insipid post-9/11 rhetoric. By the time they get back to what the show should have been about from the beginning, it's too late. It's already been run six feet into the ground.

Meanwhile, the movies have become increasingly Hollywood-ized to the point of losing most of their connection to the source material and turning into formulaic action flicks with cool explosions and comic relief.

So, you ask, if this is all so terrible, why not just wipe the slate clean and start anew? Because, my pretties, it won't help. Regardless of what they come up with to "replace" it, to the average Joe it will still be just another Star Trek show, and it will only serve to further fragment the extant fanbase as they fall into endless flame wars about which continuity is better and so on.

Besides, can't you see that rebooting will only give writers an excuse to repeat the same kind of stories yet again? There is a better way, and that is to utilize the rich universe and continuity generated by what has come so far as fertilizer for better story-telling. Follow DS9's example (but NOT its premise) by finding some aspect, some corner of the Trek universe that is conducive to new and interesting situations and character dynamics and exploring it in depth. And, for Pete's sake, GET NEW PEOPLE TO PRODUCE IT! Waiting a few years wouldn't hurt, either.

They don't have to go back and start all over again. All they have to do is come up with something that's new and different on a deeper level than just what the bridge crew's demographics are or whether the side arms are called "phasers" or "phase pistols." The fallacy is in thinking that, in order to do this, you've got to forget about everything that's already been done. You don't. Instead of thinking of all that history as baggage, think of it as background. Make use of it--it's the best thing this languishing franchise has going for it.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
That explains it quite well. But I think at this point a reboot would be as easy to accomplish, and succed, as any new show based on established continuity.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Easier, probably. Still, I think it would alienate some fans of the current continuity, and I count myself among them. I just wouldn't find it as interesting, since a big part of what I like about Trek is its status as a complex, integrated, and largely cohesive fictional universe.
 

---

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
Interesting, I hadn't realized that JMS' proposal and the reboot pitch were the same thing.

The whole thing has gotten me itching about my own personal fantasy of a reboot.

What I would love to see (and do), along the lines of the Ultimate Marvel line, would be a massive miniseries reboot. Have several episodes devoted to each of the major elements of Star Trek:

-The pre-Federation/Founding era
-The Original Series (what could be considered the Federation's great expanionist period)
-The Next Generation (what has been discussed as the Federation's Pax)
-Deep Space Nine and the Dominion War
-And Voyager and the Post-War period (revised into something a little more relevant, with the kind of over encompassing story-arc that would be more in line with the rest of the series and should've been in Voyager all along)

All prefaced with some air time devoted to showing World War III and showing, at least in part, the beginnings of how we get from the imperfect world we live in today to the future history and "perfect society" of the Federation.

In my opinion, it'd be a fantastic opportunity to smooth out the great tapestry that is Trek, to make the historical turns with Klingons, Romulans, the Borg, and Dominion the proper breadth - without cinching them off episode by episode or movie by movie and eliminating the necessity to retcon the really minor details that are really frustrating to reconcile (like UESPA and Klingons as full-fledged Federation members).

Of course, my being in any kind of control of the Trek franchise at any point in the near or distant future is astronomical, but a boy can dream...
 

---

Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Easier, probably. Still, I think it would alienate some fans of the current continuity, and I count myself among them. I just wouldn't find it as interesting, since a big part of what I like about Trek is its status as a complex, integrated, and largely cohesive fictional universe.

---

However, in this I suspect you are a tiny fraction of their target demographic. A reboot would give them a shot at a new audience (who won't feel like they've been left out of the loop) as well as viewers who may have wandered (not to mention to tap writers unwilling or unprepared to dig through the vast vagaries of canon for consistency's sake.) Mark's right though, on the JMS monologues delivered in Shatner-style. That might get... Well they'd lose whatever new audience they were hoping to wrangle.

I hear you on the lazy and lame thing, and I definitely think there's ample room for more Star Trek without having to recycle characters. It's just, well Nemesis flopped and the numbers for Enterprise really didn't warrant the expense. They're hurting and I'm sure Paramount is looking to make a safe bet. TOS is smack in the middle of nearly everyones comfort zone. (This gossip of M. Damon as Kirk for JJ Abrams next Trek film seems like they might be thusly inclined...)
 

---

Posted by Alshrim Dax (Member # 258) on :
 
Mighty Monkey of Mim: I can see what you're saying there.. but couldn't you view a reboot as another opportunity to get involved in a new complex, itegrated, and cohesive fictional universe based on the same characters - only this time - you have to start from scratch?

Or is that what you don't like about it - is that you'd have to start from scratch - to relearn a new 'history'?

Like i said, I can see where you would have an issue with the reboot.. but i don't think it would alienate poeple who love continuity - i would suggest it should attract "continuity-buffs" to a new continuity. Perhaps this time, they'll write the episode more in an Arc-type structure -- paying more attention to historical details as they went along..

I suppose we can look at it both ways... the big Question is .. will the Brass go for it? For now, i don't think they're willing to spend the money...
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I thought that a Star Trek series based in another part of the galaxy with no contact with the Federation and having to rely on unconventional methods to survive was a good premise in theory.

I thought a Star Trek series based in the past and concerning the foundation of the Federation and the coming Earth-Romulan war was a good premise in theory.

I think a reboot of Star Trek is a good premise in theory, since it seemed to work well with both Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica.

See where I'm going with this? The "premise" was never the problem. It was the execution of said premise by the powers that be at Paramount that was less than stellar.

No matter what they come up with, no matter what spin they take about it in an interview in a sci-fi magazine, no matter who they get to star in it, if the same people at Paramount are in charge, it just won't work.

Doctor Who had been effectively off the air for over fifteen years (not counting the TV movie). There is a totally different BBC in charge than there was in 1987. The format of the new show is totally different. With the exception of ONE guy, the production cast is totally different. There is a large hint that something really, really bad has happened in the intervening time off-camera, and we as the fans will slowly find out just what that is as the new show progresses.

Doctor Who was a hit.

That's the ingredients for a real reboot. Until Paramount stops viewing Star Trek as a "franchise" of which to make money off of, and starts fresh with the idea that they want to actually entertain people and make the loyal fanbase happy, then another successful form of Star Trek in the near future just won't happen. And I have no reason to believe that this early in the game that JJ Abram's take on ST will be any improvement, as long as the current Paramount regime is in charge of his doings.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I totally agree Dukkie, except that I don't see there being a larger "Paramount regime" figuring into it. I hold Rick Berman and Brannon Braga as being almost single-handedly responsible for Trek's decline. I say this because DS9 and ENT S4 were great, being under the control of different executive producers but many of the same other production personnel. Success comes from having leaders who actually care about the material and treat it seriously, which Behr, Piller, Wolfe, and Coto did. B&B didn't. All they saw Trek as was a meal ticket, and the rest is history.

Whether this means JJ Abrams' take will be good or not, I can't say. I remain cautiously optomistic, though, based on his statements of being a TOS fan and wanting to become thoroughly familiar with the franchise beforehand. He sounds like the kind of guy who'll give it the kind of treatment it deserves.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
We'll see...

Anyway, if one has to make a reboot of Star Trek now, I'd be curious to know how each of us would like to envisino it. Here's my idea, based on my pro-TOS leanings:

Everything from TOS through Star Trek IV-The Voyage Home is considered canon, right up to the point where Kirk & Co. fly away in the brand-spanking new Enterprise-A.

After that, nothing else happened. No Star Treks V & VI, no TNG, no DS9, no Voyager, no TNG movies, and certainly no ENT (even though it's supposed to take place before TOS, but that's irrelevant).

Star Trek IV was shown in 1986. My proposal is that the new show would take place exactly twenty years later. That would also correspond to (surprise!) 2006 in real time, so that Shatner, Nimoy et. al would look exactly like they'd look in 20 years time. The first ep would concern the decommissioning of the Ent-A, to coincide with the launching of a new ship, the Diplomat-class Enterprise-B. Shatner, Nimoy et. al (with the exceptions of Kelley and Doohan, obviously) would basically have cameo roles in order to shift the focus to the new crew & ship, which would span the entire first season. By season two & beyond, it would be all the new crew.

Do I think this will happen? Not a chance, especially since both Shatner & Nimoy's asking salary combined would break Paramount's bank. But it's nice to dream.
 

---