1. why not go as far back as the Third World War, and write a series involving that period in Trek History. That is still our future, and there has been enough written and said about it in the Cannon that you could frame a series around it.

2. What about an earth based show durring any period of Star Trek. It could be a West Wing meets 24 meets Law and Order meets….in the world of Star Trek.

3. What about a series involving section 31

4. What about…..

and I could go on….

Hey if anyone can point me to a blog or a part of this website that is devoted to the possibiltys for new star trek series, post it for me.

Although I frankly loved the original series, it’s old hat.!!A funny aside to a series that has places to go. Kirk and Spock in their Academy years is going to be like adding Scrappy Doo to the Scooby doo series! Funny sometimes perhaps but ..might kill the whole thing!

As much as I would love to see Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner get their just rewards for the series, Let’s NOT go there!!!! Give the guys some cash make em happy let em work on it in someway but let’s NOT do that story! Leonard and Shatner shoud help us advance into the next generation…wait that’s been used , the ‘New Frontier’ of Star Trek. Take on issues in current time ie it always had…what if the breen were the Iraqi or something?? I dunno pay ME if you want ideas but don’t pay for old nostalgic BS!!!

My opinion, beyond any political notion or opinion, concerns the series completely. When I was younger (I am 29 as of today), and presented with ST around 1998, I didn’t really like the TOS for its obvious lack of arts, effects, cool interesting tech and the sort. So I took on TNG first, found it ELEGANT and so not dehumanized or arrogant, interesting (even as I didn’t see the action and indubitable emotion per se) and again found it was all about the characters, the acting and the art. The characters intended as what the writers created, the acting as the feeling and detail that the actors have provided from them into these characters; and the art that makes a Sci-Fi series stand apart. The way these three factors combined is, in my view and feeling; really what the series and its transmitting message are all about. The continuity problems are sorrowful, and it is clear that any mythology have to be consistent in its fundamentals and timeline.

What TOS lacked in technical advance (by 1990 standards, don’t shoot!) was compensated in superior acting and character development. In TNG, no financial or health worries and an upper-class dignity for all humans, made the exploration and the challenge to the human nature a good move forward, with wild raging philosophical drama (Hey, we’re near perfect, what do we do now?), and then being rapidly torn it apart by a dose of Borg humility medicine and some all powerful being testing their arrogance at every corner. That produced many cherished characters, did it not? DS9 and Voyager were “Let’s stick these Kirk wannabes all in a new environment and see them develop”. For example, I like the Miles O’Brien of DS9 far more than his previous TNG beginnings.

My point is, in its different explorations, the show (except Enterprise, only defended by art) have combined these three factors successfully and provided variety at least in each of their corresponding micro cosmos. I believe that this new director have a lot of experience in writing and character development. LOST is a character intensive show (weird as hell, but all about the characters and hints). Under his experience, I believe that our most cherished characters may come to be what the have become over the years. Spock had to overcome being ostracized by his own kind for his cross breeding and wish to join the academy (parental conflict and all). Kirk personality, courage, wisdom and ebullience cannot have emerged overnight. Let’s see Kirk’s spark in a scared boy or Spock’s fire in a failed Vulcan. Or may be see them meet for the first time in old NCC 1701, in the middle of hell and moral ambiguity, and really doubt that they could ever be friends or guess how in the world they even got to work togheter with different styles and different notions.

Let’s make Spock confront a young cocky cowboy captain, replacing his good to the death friend Christopher Pike, after his accident. Let’s watch him, sitting in his chair, giving him orders; and let’s see Spock human side trying not to resent it! Let’s see NCC 1701 manoeuvring and fighting and taking hits, more like Defiant in ENT “In a Mirror, darkly”, full CG throttle!

If that’s what ST XI is all about…I’m game! Back or forward is irrelevant then.

About “Going Forward”

The future is what you make of it, just because one show displays a version of the “future” does not mean that that is where it has to go. The future is malleable as it has not been written yet. So even if a framework is set, however rigid, there will always be ways to bend and shape it to suit.

Who says you have to continue to go into the future with the series? The series is already set into the “future” so no matter what story is told that will be true. Tell a story about Kirk and Spock’s academy days, tell a story about Captain Archer’s crew in a way that doesn’t merely copy an old TV episode. Develop an entire new crew on a different ship. Develop Excelsior, what about it’s crew and stories?

Who says you shouldn’t “go forward”? Tell a story about Voyager’s later years, tell a story about a new crew. Tell continuing story about Enterprise after Picard.

Who says you can’t “go sideways”? Tell a story from the Romulans point of view, the Klingons, Vulcans, what of their “histories”? Does it absolutely positively HAVE to always be about the federation or humans or Kirk and Spock? If so, you are selling yourself short and limiting yourself from limitless potential.

Whatever is told, give the makers a chance to tell it before screaming at them and saying “you should tell it this way!”

Actually none of the posts you made had any objective comments on any of the political topics you spoke of. The people you were speaking to were all obviously pro bush, you obviously are not. None of your topics made anyone think objectively.
You over stepped your bounds by pronouncing me pro-bush. None of my posts was pro anything. I simply stated that you blasted a lady at the post office for being pro-bush and then stormed out like a little girl that had her lollipop taken away. Seriously, enter the 24th century already and get a life.
I was reading an article today about wrath of khan. I find it interesting that the guy wasnt even a track fan, had no interest in bending to the will of trek fans and made the greatest trek movie ever. Makes me wonder if the right choice was made by going with an overzealous trekkie that looks like he will do everything to please other trekkies.

Actually, I haven’t been watching much Star Trek recently, not since they stopped showing TNG reruns regularly (about 8 years ago, when I was young). The shows just weren’t as fun to watch. I put TOS and TNG on equal footing in that they showed the same society, which had changed over 80 (?) years as all societies do. It just happened to be in direct proportion to how much ours changed over twenty years.

Has anyone ever read the books? William Shatner in particular wrote some great Star Trek books (and others too, but I’ll take a political tactic: go with name recognition). One depicts the Federation on the verge of an internal collapse because of a disagreement on what is best for humanity’s course to the future. It is a very intriguing and dark book, which has enough human drama, action, plot, and storyline (and strictly obeys “canon”) to keep both trekkies and a mainstream audience happy. If no one ever reads these here, they should. Shatner manages to work the action and intrigue deep into Trek history, over a hundred years I would guess, and so much more. Highly recommended for those here and maybe even in general. That is the direction the new series should go, if it is to go anywhere (which currently seems unlikely).