Exclusive: The True Story Behind The Bryan Singer ‘Pitch’ of “Star Trek: Federation” | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Exclusive: The True Story Behind The Bryan Singer ‘Pitch’ of “Star Trek: Federation” April 14, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview,Trek on TV , trackback

For years there has been talk about a Star Trek pitch made by director Bryan Singer, including a mention by Jonathan Frakes last week. Some details have been reported online, but TrekMovie has received an actual copy of the "Star Trek: Federation" proposal document, and has talked to one of the authors about the supposed pitch. Exclusive details below.


The true story of "Star Trek: Federation"

The rumored and discussed "Bryan Singer Star Trek Pitch" is actually a proposal for a show to be called "Star Trek: Federation". TrekMovie has a copy of the series proposal and this week spoke to one of document’s authors, Robert Meyer Burnett (currently directing episodes of Cinemax’s Femme Fatales) to get the real story behind the supposed pitch.

The story of "Star Trek: Federation" begins way back in late 2005, before this website even existed. This is the same year that Star Trek: Enterprise was cancelled, ending 17 years of consistent Star Trek on TV. It was also the same year that Erik Jendresen’s prequel script Star Trek: The Beginning died at Paramount, leaving no active Star Trek projects going on at the studio for the first time in decades.

So at a Seattle sushi restaurant in December 2005, three big Star Trek fans started to talk about creating the next Star Trek TV show, but these weren’t just three ordinary fans. This particular dinner was with director Bryan Singer (X-Men), Oscar-winning screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) and director/documentarian Robert Meyer Burnett (Free Enterprise). Singer and Burnett were working on Superman Returns at the time and the pair were visiting Singer’s long-time friend and collaborator McQuarrie to talk about their next project (the Tom Cruise WWII film Valkyrie).

Star Trek fan and director Bryan Singer’s cameo in "Star Trek: Nemesis" (2002)

At the dinner, the topic of "wouldn’t it be cool to create the next Star Trek TV show?" came up. The group of Trek fans saw that with no one at Paramount or CBS doing Star Trek, the door was open for new ideas. The team of three then hatched the beginnings of a plan to create a pitch for a new Star Trek series to be produced by Singer’s Bad Hat Harry production company, with a pilot written by McQuarrie and directed by Singer, with Burnett on board as an executive producer. This arrangement would not be dissimilar to how Singer put together the deal for the hit Fox medical drama House, which premiered the previous year.

At the dinner it was decided that Burnett would draft a series proposal document, which the team would tweak and then take to CBS Paramount TV in 2006. Burnett then turned to writer Geoffrey Thorne (Leverage, Law & Order: CI) a fellow Trekkie with a few stories published in Star Trek anthologies, who Burnett was already working with on a comic book ("The Red Line").

Burnett and Thorne then put together a 25-page long "series proposal", which outlined a new Star Trek series set in the year 3000 of the same continuity of the previous five Trek TV series, but in a Federation that has been on the decline. Burnett explains that they wanted to create an allegory both to the decline of the Roman Empire as well as to the 21st century "American Empire" which had started showing strains. The premise has a new threat facing the Federation with a brand new USS Enterprise (and a brand new Kirk) trying to return Starfleet to the glory days. Here is an excerpt from the document: 

The Federation hasn’t had a flagship in over two hundred years. They haven’t done anything either scientifically or in terms of exploration that comes near the deeds done in the long ago Age of Expansion.

There is no sense of true unity in the Federation and unity will be required if these new aliens return in force. The people need a symbol to remind them who they are, what they mean to each other and that there are prices to be paid for living in paradise.

They need, in short, a sense of Enterprise…
– from "Star Trek: Federation" series proposal

The series proposal contains a forward (assessing the state of TV drama and Star Trek), a "Welcome to the Future of the Future"/"Welcome to the United Federation of Planets in the Year 3000" outline of the "Star Trek: Federation" universe, a "The Crew" section on main characters for the show, plus outlines of the first four episodes. There are also two appendices: one on the technology of the new USS Enterprise, and one on the possible use of some "virtual sets" using CGI. The "Star Trek: Federation" The pitch document even had a new logo created by veteran Star Trek designer Mike Okuda.

The proposal was finished in late January 2006 and was sent to Singer and McQuarrie for review. At the time Singer was deep into post-production on Superman Returns and the notion was to pick up on the Star Trek project later in the year, refine the pitch, and then try and sell the show. However, in April Paramount revealed they were working with producer JJ Abrams on a new Star Trek feature film. As Star Trek was once again under new management, the Singer team felt that the window for new pitches had closed and so they dropped their plan and moved on to other projects.

So the truth is that the "Bryan Singer Star Trek Pitch" was never actually pitched. It was really more of a plan to make a pitch, but there were no meetings with Paramount or CBS. And although Singer and McQuarrie were at the dinner where it all started, neither ever had the chance to make comments on the first (and only) draft of the "Star Trek: Federation" series proposal written by Burnett and Thorne. 

Logo for "Star Trek: Federation" designed by Mike Okuda

More on Star Trek: Federation tomorrow

On Saturday morning TrekMovie will do a follow up article with exclusive excerpts and details from the "Star Trek: Federation" series proposal.


1. Dr. Image - April 14, 2011

(Glad it didn’t happen.)

2. Dee - lvs moon' surface - April 14, 2011

Ok… ‘ll be waiting for more… tomorrow!

:-) :-)

3. Newman - April 14, 2011


4. trekmaster78 - April 14, 2011

In the year 2525…

5. JP - April 14, 2011

“…and that there are prices to be paid for living in paradise.”

That’s the part that stuck out to me, and the part of this that I find the most interesting. The rest is standard fare, but that tag at the end suggests a lot of possibilities.

6. somethoughts - April 14, 2011

Pass, I prefer a reboot of TOS on TV or reboot TNG

No DS9, No Voyager, No Enterprise and no Year 3000 Federation crap.

7. Lt. Bailey - April 14, 2011

Year 3000 does not make that much sense…. unless you are Crewman Daniels, the time traveling Temporal Agent from ENT.

Since it is called ST FEDERATION, they could pick up in the year 2161 when Archer had the articles of Federation signed at the end of “These are the Voyages…” That way they can have stories about the beginning of the Federation.

It does not have to set so far in the future and meke out to be such a bleak future.

8. njdss4 - April 14, 2011

I’m so desperate for Trek to be back on TV that I can’t look at this pitch logically. TNG was a jump forward from TOS, so jumping ahead to the year 3000 doesn’t really matter. As long as they don’t bump into Fry and Bender, I’d be cool with it ;P

9. Kev-1 - April 14, 2011

My first reaction is against watching the Federation’s decline, but we don’t know how they would have realized the scenario. Would like to know what they planned for the Enterprise, though.

10. somethoughts - April 14, 2011

I never see it as a price to be paid to live in paradise, did the Native Indians have to pay a price to live in utopia before the invasion?

I believe in patriotism and defending ones land/beliefs but not in wars based on propaganda, designed to stimulate the economy/funnel money into black ops. At the end, it comes down to money and greed and self serving interests. Deal with the devil etc.

11. reb - April 14, 2011

Good on you, Anthony, for hunting down and getting the facts! Wonderful reporting.

Can hardly wait for the rest.

Good job!

12. Andy - April 14, 2011

The year 3000? Would the crew run into Zap Brannigan?

13. John in Chicago - April 14, 2011

Wow. This could have been very good. That is, if they had avoided the traps that doomed Enterprise. In my humble opinion, those traps were that the creators didn’t take advantage (both aesthetically and story-wise) of the possibilities their contruct presented. If you’re going to go BACKWARDS, you have to be BOLD. That’s where ST:09 succeeded: it’s creation of the alternate universe revealed an approach with huge cajones and added to the epic nature of the endeavor. Enterprise felt like a gray, muted retread by comparison.

Singer’s propsed show could have had two things that, in contrast with each other, might have proved fascinating. One is the future. Star Trek’s most lasting cultural impacts have been made by its characters and its technology. By setting the series in 3000, Singer could have “invented” a whole new scientific framework (and a whole new set of gadgets) that might have grabbed our 21st century imaginations like the transporters and holodecks did in the 20th century.

The other element Singer might have had going for him is the idea of the decline of the Federation. Trek has always worked best as allegory, and I have personally always appreciated it most when it focusses on the geo-politics of that world. Having a Federation in decline would not only be a wonderful way to talk about our world without talking about it, but from a character standpoint it would be a great way to give our new captain and crew something real to fight for. We would all remember the glory days of the Federation (the Age of Expansion, as they called it) and so, inevitably, would the characters. The fight to regain those ideals and that glory could have been wonderful to watch and to participate in.

But alas, we’ll never know.

14. Windelkin - April 14, 2011

I, for one, would have welcomed a new show like this and I still would. I love to sit and brainstorm with my trek buds about hypothetical new stories and a new crew. These people could have had a shot and I wish they would have taken it. Even if I didn’t love everything about it, I’d rather have hours and hours of material to bond absorb than 2 hours every 3 years, which is what we’re getting now.

15. svenden - April 14, 2011

Well I like the idea of a darker Star Trek, a grittier Star Trek in which the Federation has lost its way. You can still a do a show like that and have it be fundamentally hopeful and optimistic. In fact, the struggle to regain all that the Federation had lost could be rather inspiring.

But I agree with most everyone that there’s no reason to set it a millennium in the future. Keep it in the 2400’s or 2500s, a time that doesn’t seem so far off that it couldn’t really happen.

But all things considered, given the garbage that Bryan Singer typically puts out there, I’m much happier with Abrams at the helm.

16. astrodem - April 14, 2011

This overview sounds an awful lot like Andromeda. That said, I’ll still be interested to read about the technology they imagined and the reasons posited for Federation decline.

17. Simon - April 14, 2011

#15 – Garbage? He’s done some of the best genre pieces out there. As happy as I am with what JJ Abrams has done, I would welcome Singer into the world of STAR TREK.

18. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - April 14, 2011

Well. It looks like it would have been good. I would love to see what they had in mind for the Enterprise and if this new Kirk was a Decendent of James T Kirk. Thanks Anthony for this great Article.

19. Phil - April 14, 2011

1. Dr. Image – April 14, 2011

(Glad it didn’t happen.)

Really? Why?

20. Commodore Shaggy - April 14, 2011

While I’m sure that the series would have changed some by the time they got it to TV, I think the basic premise sounds interesting. It actually picks up on what Patrick Stewart wanted to do in a way after Insurrection (I think I remember reading about that) with the Federation becoming corrupt. Oh well

21. anthony - April 14, 2011

They should just do a Section 31 show or alternate ST show that deals with all the side and fringe ideas that have been brought up over so many years. They could include cameos from so many of the characters we love and also have new ones. Why not live and expand on the universe we all know and love. It seems to be working for STAR WARS (I know blasphemy) but you got to admit that franchise is stronger now than it has been in years and is only expanding on the universe it has already given us.
So many good ideas were already mentioned by characters within the ST universe that there are so many stories to tell.

22. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - April 14, 2011

It would be kinda cool if they picked up 10 to 20 years after voyager so they can impliment the new technologies that voyager came across like slip stream, blade of armor, transportrs that transport you 40k light years. cool stuff that star fleet never had…

23. Browncoat1984 - April 14, 2011

…they could actually still do it if Abrams was okay with it. I sort of find it an intriguing idea.

24. Christopher Roberts - April 14, 2011

It could have been potentially good. That said, I’m somebody who thought ENTERPRISE wasn’t afforded the chance to prove itself TNG, DS9 and VOY got. It was getting there in Season 3 and was on track with Manny Coto helping to steer the good ship. So yeah, I’d prefer to see what went into creating the FEDERATION in the first place. Namely the Romulan War and having the NX-01 properly secure their place in history. So sad it fell victim to CBS’ overall disinterest in looking after the Trekkies who stood by this franchise for almost two decades straight and whose good word of mouth, might’ve brought a generation of fans in. I see something like that from time to time, folks who came in just after ENTERPRISE got canned. Getting very interested in the Xindi Arc and the foreshadowing of the Original Series and Next Gen in Season 4, only to see all that enthusiasm drain away upon reaching the appalling last episode. :(

25. P Technobabble - April 14, 2011

I always enjoy hearing what people would like to do with Star Trek. Apart from this premise, the only other one I’m familiar with is the Straczynski re-boot. Have we already heard what Frakes and Shatner pitched?
No offense to these people, but I’d speculate that if Nimoy had a pitch it would have been brilliant.

26. Robert Meyer Burnett - April 14, 2011


If any of you have read Azimov’s FOUNDATION trilogy, well, that was kinda’ where I was going…

27. Keachick - April 14, 2011

For me, the year 3000 just seems sooo far away that it really would have little or no meaning. Maybe “in the year 2525, if man is still alive…”

I think that we were seeing signs of the Federation in decline in the DS9 series with the emergence of the marquee, who often had legitimate grievances against what the Federation and Starfleet were doing which they wanted to have no part of anymore. Of course, not all of the marquee were “saints” either.

#18 – “I would love to see what they had in mind for the Enterprise and if this new Kirk was a Decendent of James T Kirk.”

Now that appeals to my romantic/maternal side because that means that this Pine/Kirk will get to father at least one child, preferably two (minimum), because I don’t believe in one child families. A child needs at least one other sibling. Besides, Kirk’s menosian lady, Jasmia, needs to have a baby before she reaches 30 and a miracle is achieved here…

28. Robert Meyer Burnett - April 14, 2011

ASIMOV. Apologies.

29. Andy Patterson - April 14, 2011

If Burnett was involved I would have welcomed it. And contrary to some recent schools of thought I’d have liked seeing Singer involved too. I would have trusted it more than the current regime.

30. Craiger - April 14, 2011

Would a new Trek TV series be too expensive for TV in this economy? ABC just announced they are cancelling ABC All My Children and One Life To Live because of cost.

31. sci-fi bri - April 14, 2011

glad this didn’t happen

32. Chroniton - April 14, 2011

Sounds like a rip off of the fan audio series, “Lost Frontier” to me.

33. Phil - April 14, 2011

30. Well, the rating for both have been in the crapper for a while now, too.

34. Rusty0918 - April 14, 2011

Well, the “Federation has lost it’s way” could easily apply to the sequel movie. I’d say that would be the best bet.

35. I like it! - April 14, 2011

I guess it’s a matter of preference and opinion but i actually think the premise is brilliant. Star Trek has always been an allegory of us anyway and we have been in decline as a world power. Historically, empires decline after a few hundred years so it’s logical that the Federation could undergo such a decline.

A show which still pushes forward with Star Trek’s positive view of the future under the guise of actually beating (but barely) the odds of a collapsing “empire” is quite intriguing. I don’t think the year is significant. You could make it simply 100 years after Next Generation. That way, we can still have all the cool references like we sometimes did with TNG with TOS. Maybe Data is still around….

36. Zort - April 14, 2011

this strays way too far from the premise of Star Trek and Rodenberry’s conceptions for it. purist fans would’ve killed it faster than ‘Enterprise’ went belly-up. besides, it doesn’t ring Trek at all.

37. ensign joe - April 14, 2011

Sounds great. Love Foundation. I would watch this.

38. Phil - April 14, 2011

I’ve seen a few comments from people that they were glad it didn’t happen, and I’m still wondering, why? If your sole objection is the year or some other hardware/character issue, set those aside for the moment. This seems like a wonderful treatment, and it would have kept my interest because it was far enough down the line that the writers and producers would not have to look backward for inspiration.

39. joe - April 14, 2011

I kind of liked this idea. In a way it kind of reminded me of Roddenberry’s Andromeda which I thought was a good show although Andromeda was after the fall of the Commonwealth and this is in the decline of the Federation. Maybe setting it in the year 3000 was a bit much and I would be interested in seeing if the new Kirk was meant to be decended from James Kirk. Interesting idea.

40. Craiger - April 14, 2011

Also would another ship exploring the Galaxy seem repetitive unless they put a new spin on it? I’m wondering if they put Klingons and Harry Mudd in the sequel I think they running out of ideas and they just want to retell Trek to new audience. I did like the TOS reboot movie.

41. Jonboc - April 14, 2011

Cool. Nice job Anthony. Now I’m wondering what Shatner’s pitch was…if he really had one, that is.

42. Drij - April 14, 2011

Star Trek by “Bryan Singer would have been crap. Just like his movies.

43. Phil2 - April 14, 2011

The next Star Trek serie needs to break the tired mold with ensemble casts done in TNG, DS9, VGR and ENT. I’d rather follow the career of a main character in a continues story and have him be the captain in the last season.

44. Jeyl - April 14, 2011

Well, I’m not afraid of the “Undiscovered Country” that these pitches seem to represent. There are a lot of comments that reflect the don’t like the premise, but give no reason as to why. There’s a lot of potential in a Star Trek that is set very far into the future, and just because it sounds different and detached from things we already know of Trek (JJ and team reusing Kirk and crew solely based on familiarity for cripes’ sake) does not mean it gets an automatic “Glad they didn’t do it” from me.

I support a Star Trek that still wants to continue onward. I thought Trek09 was going to do that in some way, but it ended up not contributing anything to Star Trek at all. Say what you want in Trek09’s defense that history, lore and canon was a hinderance to Star Trek and that the franchise needed to get away from. It makes as much sense to say that aging is a hinderance on living things and we should stray away from it. Sure, you may do something like take the original crew and create a fresh start, but you’ll still end up with the same problem that you claim you’re getting away from. You’re creating history! When you’re doing a story where things ‘develop’, you will inevitably create a history for your overall story that you will most likely have to take into account for future endeavors.

Do you really want a Star Trek that is so detached from previous stories that the following episodes play like the previous episodes never happened at all? I sure don’t, but apparently that’s what everyone wants. All the sequel has to do is ignore the fact that Vulcan was destroyed, Nero didn’t time travel back in time, there is no prime Spock and bam. No more canon hinderance.

45. Jeyl - April 14, 2011

@43: “I’d rather follow the career of a main character in a continues story and have him be the captain in the last season.”

I freaking hate this “male by default” crap. You do realize that a female lead has just as much potential to be a strong interesting lead in a story as a male lead, right?

46. Jack - April 14, 2011

I see potential. Heck, for much of the first season we didn’t know how far into the future Star Trek was. Personally, I’m still a fan of the TOS formula — where there was no real hook (they didn’t start out as the best ship in the fleet, we weren’t there from the beginning to see how they gelled, there was no major back story (DS-9, Enterprise) they weren’t trying to get home every week, there was no romantic history between the characters, no families on board) it was about one ship of many and its varied adventures. The lone ship with something to prove and the constant danger of the project’s plug being pulled reminds me a little too much of Enterprise, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.

47. Daoud - April 14, 2011

Nothing new under the Sun. These are the same ideas Roddenberry himself had. Starship, Andromeda…. all came from the same core idea.
And wasn’t that cartoon that was proposed a similar concept?
Just jump to 2450 with a series, and make it ambiguous which universe it is in. It could even be both: as MWI of QM could certainly have a convergence of as much as is possible.
Even TNG was very ambiguous at first about when it was (after all, the didn’t even specify the old Admiral really *was* McCoy!)

48. Thomas E. - April 14, 2011

@ 45: Who said the next Captain had to be Human for that matter. Perhaps in the year 3000 the Captain of the Enterprise is a Romulan or Klingon. Maybe even something else entirely?

49. TBW - April 14, 2011

Hey, #5

You say…

“…and that there are prices to be paid for living in paradise.”

That’s the part that stuck out to me, and the part of this that I find the most interesting. The rest is standard fare, but that tag at the end suggests a lot of possibilities

I’d have to think that a lot of people here don’t share your view, though. (I happen to.) DS9 gets crapped on here a good amount, but from pretty much the moment the Maquis show up, that last sentence is the entire (damned near explicitly stated) premise of the show.

For all of the talk about Roddenberry’s “vision” around here, sticking to that becomes pretty limiting. Let’s face it, there are only so many variations that you can do with this type of exploration theme. After a while, on GLB becomes more or less like another. Same goes for “other-crew-creates-period-of-Earth’s-history-on-alien-world.” Eventually, you get up a creek when all of your conflicts are either external or non-serialized.

50. TBW - April 14, 2011

What backstory was there in DS9?

51. the Quickening - April 14, 2011

I think it would have been a fantastic idea. I’ve championed a fall of the Federation concept on various TREK websites for years. The real question now would be: what universe would it take place in? Universe A or B? I vote for A. Ignore B.

52. VZX - April 14, 2011

It’s funny, I wrote up a scenario for a new Trek series (I think all Trek fans have done this at one time) that sounded very similar to this one. Mine dealt with Federation woes several centuries after TNG like this one. Cool.

53. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2011

Thank god this didn’t happen! If I want to watch a galactic power in decline, I’ll put in my “Star Wars” prequels dvds into my Playstation 3.

If this had gone to air, Paramount/CBS would have been sued by George Lucas for ripping off of “Star Wars”!

I’m glad that we have J.J Abrams at the helm. But when “Star Trek’ returns to television, I wouldn’t mind having Duncan Jones (“Moon”, “Source Code”) produce the show. This guy gets sci-fi, and can add something unique to Trek while keeping it familiar, in my opinion.

54. Basement Blogger - April 14, 2011

Great reporting Anthony P. I had no idea that Bryan Singer or Chris McQuarrie (Osar winner for Unusual Suspects) were Trekkers. Their concpet was interesting. Perhaps with the succes of Trek 2012, (hey, I’m being optimistic) CBS may return Star Trek to series TV where it belongs. One can dream. And I love film but it”s hard in this day and age to put out an intelligent sci-fi movie without interference from the corporate powers..

55. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2011

And oh yeah, Bryan Singer is overrated as a director. The first “X-Men” was great, but both “X-Men United” and “Superman Returns” suck!

56. Sebastian - April 14, 2011

That’s very tantalizing. Like the ‘decline of the Roman/American’ Empire route as well. This could still be made someday….

57. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2011

I’d like to read Anthony Pascale’s thoughts on this.

58. Gabriel Bell - April 14, 2011

Anthony, sincere thanks for putting this article together. Great stuff. A real treat for a true Trekkie. As boborci said last week, “This is the best Star Trek site ever.”

59. MJ - April 14, 2011

The Federation becomes like The Fall of the Roman Empire. What the hell???

60. Simon - April 14, 2011

#55 you are probably the first person I have EVER heard praise X-MEN but not X2, which 99% consider superior to the first film (you being 1%).

PS: X2 had a whole TWOK vibe with the sacrifice of Jean Grey.

61. Michael Hall - April 14, 2011

Robert Meyer Burnett–

“If any of you have read Azimov’s FOUNDATION trilogy, well, that was kinda’ where I was going…”

But much of what made FOUNDATION work as more than just a space-age retelling of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” was Asimov’s ingenuity when it came to faking-out his audience by constantly undermining expectations about where the story might be going. Did you have something like that in mind for this series?

62. Red Dead Ryan - April 14, 2011


Well, I just found “X2″ to be pretty boring. It’s just my opinion of course, but I’ve known others who felt the same way.

63. Anonymous - April 14, 2011

I like the idea, and by the sound of it it’s not the the Federation as become bad, or that it’s darker or grittier (why does everything have to be that now?) I think the main point is the Federation has become stagnant, it’s no longer growing but things around them are still changing, and Starfleet is stagnant as well – content to sit around, instead of exploring. Maybe technology had become so advanced people can’t think of anything else to invent, but the Captain of the new ship is trying to get things moving to pursuing discovery again.

That said, I think it’d work better in an early 25th century or so – close enough that the Dominion War is still being felt. The stagnation could be caused by Starfleet and the Federation being overly cautious – after the Dominion and the Borg, they’re hesitant to go further out and find something new that could be a threat, so they don’t But Captain whoever is trying to make the case that things don’t have the be a threat – not everything discovered in the past was bad.

64. Tiberius III - April 14, 2011

@ 45: Thousands of men rolling their eyes.

65. Odkin - April 14, 2011

The only Trek show I want to see anymore would be an anthology of different ships in different eras. This would bring a hugely MISSING sense of danger and unknown back to Trek.

Anything could happen to any character, and to any ship. Famous guest stars would die to play a Captain in a one-time role. A show could be a character piece, or a mystery, action, comedy or horror episode.

Since everyone wears uniforms and ships are pretty modular and standard, even production costs would be limited.

Best thing would be luring talented writers who wouldn’t normally write for a series. And an especially popular episode could be the launchpad for and ongoing series.


66. somethoughts - April 14, 2011

I also found Xmen and Superman etc to be boring, glad JJ bob alex etc is in charge of Star Trek and not Bryan Singer.

I wouldn’t mind a series in between TOS and TNG, with the adventures of the Enterprise B or C, after the events of the Nexus and before the events of Yesterday’s Enterprise of course.

Also make the ship HUGE i’m sick of Rick Bermans small ships and funky looking outposts, yawn boring.

67. Jeff O'Connor - April 14, 2011

I think it’s worth pointing out that certain aspects of pitches always sound a little cheesy. The year very likely would not have been 3000; it would have been more like 3038 or something.

Anyway, I like it. Sounds like a sequel to a Sisko rant given a full-on treatment.

68. Hugh Hoyland - April 14, 2011

Well at this point I would take ANY TOS style Star Trek television show! lol Even this one, cause dang I miss new Trek on T.V.

But I really think any new show should skip the prequel/sidequel/thousand years into the future storyline.

Launch a reimagined TOS series based on the new time line started with Star Trek 09.

69. Magic_Al - April 14, 2011

A new Star Trek series needs to have a point. TNG and DS9 were risky and radical compared to their predecessors. VOY and ENT, ultimately, were not.

This “Federation” idea may have needed work, but it’s a legitimate product of the need to seek out something relevant for Star Trek’s premise to conflict with and redefine itself against.

TNG came 20 years after TOS and had l lot of new ideas that were difficult to accept as Star Trek at first. It’s been even longer since TNG now, so what are our new ideas?

70. Mikey1091 - April 14, 2011

Year 3000…umm…no. I’d be more comfortable with either an Enterprise reboot, a Titan series (you know…Captain Riker etc.) or…of course…a series set in the current STO timeline. But the year 3000? Yeah, you just kinda lost my support there.

71. rvp - April 14, 2011

@27 “because I don’t believe in one child families. A child needs at least one other sibling. ”

Erm, no. They don’t.

I like this idea fine and to be completely honest, I like Bryan’s body of work more than JJ’s. I do believe he could have made this work.

72. rvp - April 14, 2011

@70 Aren’t people sick of reboots?

The ST world is so rich and allows for so much, fresh ideas and fresh characters could do more for it than sticking with the same ol’ faces.

73. Rosario T. Calabria - April 14, 2011

Very interesting. I wonder if Singer and his team would be interested in revisiting the project after Abrams and crew are done with what they want to do with big screen Star Trek.

Looking forward to more details about this series.

74. Majicou - April 14, 2011

I think the larger time gap is probably wise. Having societal collapse in the much nearer term (a century or so) would cast a major shadow on the stories set in the 24th century–“Oh, they saved the Federation again, but it’s doomed within the lifetime of most of these characters.” The Star Wars: Legacy comics have the same problem, I think. If it’s 700 or so years away, it’s a lot easier for the audience to not to think the heroes’ efforts are pointless.

And yes, I would’ve watched the hell out of this show.

75. Jason - April 14, 2011

I think would have been cool. it sounds like they had new ideas

76. Admiral New - April 14, 2011

Yeah, that would have been interesting. Setting the story farther into the future would allow the writers to speculate on more advanced technologies. Also, setting the story in a less-than-utopian Federation would also open up more interesting themes.

77. Rastaman - April 14, 2011

I like the premise of an “empire” in decline. In a time of economic, ecological, and civic decline, I think the premise would have been very poignant.

78. Trekboi - April 14, 2011

I love Bryan Singer but what crap!
Could be interesting as an original sci-fi series but it’s not star trek.
Thank god nobody ever saw it- Thank god abrams (dispite his lense flares & a.d.h.d. editing got what star trek was- kirk-spock-macoy-uhura-enterprise & 23rd centurey exploration with relateble human drama is a space setting.

79. Canon Schmanon - April 14, 2011

Doesn’t sound like crap to me. Other than Superman Returns, Singer has done fairly well in my opinion. I would prefer a series about the original Enterprise crews like others here have said, but I’d give any new Trek series a chance.

80. TWolf3 - April 14, 2011

If CBS were smart, they would let this team run with this pitch as a high quality, web based, original series in similar form to the new mortal combat series being done now with jeri ryan. The old school media types need to accept the new media of the net and start producing high quality product for it, and there is no better suited product for this than Star Trek.

It has a built in fan base, already very tech savvy and net based, that would be more than willing and able to view said product. And the concept of a web based Trek serial has already been proven with the many popular fan series that exist out there.

They do not want to go with new Trek on TV because they feel it will overexpose the brand to the general public, that’s fine. But the absence of officially produced Trek leading to the fan films/series clearly shows that Trek fans will find a way to get their Trek fix, and if not from CBS/Paramount, then from within the community itself.

81. agentm31 - April 14, 2011

I invite my fellow trek fans to approach this with an open mind. After all, that’s what the franchise is all about, isn’t it? Keeping an open kind to other’s ideas and beliefs?

82. sean - April 14, 2011


“It makes as much sense to say that aging is a hinderance on living things and we should stray away from it”

Uhhh, I’m pretty sure that makes all kinds of sense. Aging is a hindrance to living things. It’s the process in which we decay and inevitably die, which is a hindrance to our continued existence. I think most people are keen to avoid it.

As far as this show idea goes, it sounds interesting. It may have been a bit dire, but it depends on how they developed it. I’m all for seeing a darker edge to Trek, but overall it’s a series about hope and optimism, and I’m not sure a show about a bloated Federation dying a slow death would fit the bill. But who knows? It’s just another one of those concepts that goes into the ‘What if?’ column.

83. Dr. Cheis - April 14, 2011

3000 seems too far ahead in the future. It was probably a move to avoid running into any continuity from the already-established shows, which I get the impression would have annoyed fans more than anything.

84. Maj - April 14, 2011


If any of you have read Azimov’s FOUNDATION trilogy, well, that was kinda’ where I was going…”

I noticed that. Since Foundation was actually a backdrop for an earlier historical work, The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbons.

The pitch was good in my view. I loved Foundation (all of them) and I still feel that Star Trek could benefit from some of those ideas.

85. virgin vulcan basement nerd - April 14, 2011

I do want…

86. matthias wieprecht - April 15, 2011

i hope a new series will be produced. and i hope, it will embrace the spirit of gene roddenberrys positive future. if they do think about THAT, every new series would also be embraced by me.

87. Gold Coast Rob - April 15, 2011

I’m more than ready for a new series. I’m tired of waiting three years between drinks.

88. Admiral_Bumblebee - April 15, 2011

I’m getting sick of reading the term reboot everywhere and I can’t understand that people prefer reboots over original ideas. Must we turn around in circles over and over? Why can’t we go forward? See and explore something new? Isn’t that what Star Trek was about?
So I really can’t understand why Star Trek fans prefer a reboot over going forward…

89. Vultan - April 15, 2011


I agree, Bumblebee.

Let’s keep going forward. And if not that, at least give us a new ship and a new crew… in a new series. Something original—[GASP!]—original—a dirty word in Hollyweird.

And for all you who keep going on about franchise fatigue and overload, let me ask you: if Trek would be in danger of overexposure with a new series and the Abrams movies running together, why are so many channels still rerunning the previous Trek series (TNG, Enterprise, etc.)? It hasn’t seemed to hurt their ratings any. I mean, a sizable number of people must be watching, must be enjoying Trek on TV… or they wouldn’t continue to air.

90. Will - April 15, 2011

Sounds really good. The opportunity for every known species to be in a totally different place would have been a great way to subvert all expectations. And Singer always brings subtext, whereas JJ often does not. It could have been very good.

Maybe someday we’ll find the episodes were in fact made, in an alternate universe, and we’ll be able to watch them.

91. Dom - April 15, 2011

I always thought the Federation of TNG was scarily authoritarian and likely to implode. I would have loved to see Trek deal with hot topics such as AI and genetic engineering as part of everyday life, not as an anomaly such as Data. TNG, TOS and even JJ’s Trek seem a little quaint in terms of technology, given the progress we’ve made already in the 21st century.

It would be fascinating to see the sorts of environments and types of people technology would create – think of the universe of Revelation Space, for example.

92. Maj - April 15, 2011

It was understandable that the 2009 movie was somewhat of a ‘reboot’ but certainly not in the traditional sense either.

But for a TV series they do need to look forward. The idea of a 31st century Star Trek with the Federation in decline is a very good and original idea, I haven’t heard anything like that from anyone else to be honest.

I wish they’d done this show instead of Enterprise.

93. Will - April 15, 2011

“I would have loved to see Trek deal with hot topics such as AI and genetic engineering as part of everyday life, not as an anomaly”

Enterprise did a few episode arc with an ancestor of Dr. Soong who was doing that… It tied in to the Khan stuff of the movie series.

94. Jack - April 15, 2011

50. Sisko and Locutus, Sisko losing his wife, Sisko and Dax being old friends, all the Bajor/Cardassian stuff, the wormhole prophets

Not tonnes of back story, I guess, but a lot of setup. It was the kind of show that needed all of that. But I kind of like how TOS didn’t have an origins show (here’s how they all met), and it started somewhere in the middle of things. True, Gary Mitchell and Kirk were old friends, but that was integral to just that story. Yeoman Rand was kind of part of a setup for future stories, I guess — potential love interest… “why did they give me a female yeoman” — but, luckily, it never panned out that way. There was no villain. There was no objective, other than what was explained in the credits. I wonder if it’s part of why it did so well in syndication, because you could start watching, for the first time, with any episode, and, generally, be able to get the show.

Voyager had tons of setup and promised drama and some of it either didn’t really work or was abandoned almost immediately.

i’m fine with Trek being an interesting serial (like BSG or Caprica), but I do kind of wonder if the relative simplicity of the TOS formula could work again. I’d love if itu could.

After a clunky first couple of seasons, TNG eventually put a lot of its setups (Riker and Troi, Jack Crusher and Picard/Beverly/Wesley, Geordi and his
blindness, Tasha and the rape gangs) on the back burner (and became an
even better show later when they ditched Wesley and Alexander). it was best when it was about exploration and ideas (and not about further examining Klingon culture, or yet another attempt by data to explore humanity).

95. Kavinsky - April 15, 2011

Glad this didnt happen the last thing trek needs is to become a tasteless miror version of the world today in the future.

96. Schultz - April 15, 2011

Pretty sure it would’ve been effin’ great! But throw in some Section 31 as well. ;)

97. Dom - April 15, 2011

93. Will: ‘Enterprise did a few episode arc with an ancestor of Dr. Soong who was doing that… It tied in to the Khan stuff of the movie series.’

Again, that’s an anomaly. More interesting would be that genetically engineered humans and cybernetic enhancements were so everyday that they barely rate commenting on by the protagonists!

95. Kavinsky: ‘Glad this didnt happen the last thing trek needs is to become a tasteless miror version of the world today in the future.’

Sci-fi ***is*** a mirror of the contemporary world! It always has been! The sci-fi of any era is often the best reflection of that era! One of the major reasons Berman’s Trek shows ultimately failed is that they became so immersed in their own fantasy universe that they forgot that the real world and television shows had moved on since the early 1990s!

98. Werbwolf - April 15, 2011

I really like the idea. Who read the pot-TNG Novels (especially the Typhon Pact Arc) will see that there already are the first signs of this, with even founding members wanting to leave the federation. It would be interesting how that could conclude into a total decline.

99. Remington Steele - April 15, 2011

Apparently in the year 3000 not much has changed but they live unerwater

And apparently your grea great great granddaughter, is pretty fine….

100. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

As a concept, it’s very much trying to have its cake and eat it. Fans apparently want the original Star Trek universe to push forward into the far future, but deep down know that could be deeply uninteresting – with the likes of Captain Harry Kim and Admiral Wesley Crusher, Mr and Mrs Troi in charge of their ship – so to combat that, there’s the thinking “what this really needs is another Kirk”.

It’s ironic Star Trek The Beginning (the original idea for film number eleven) was trying to have a create that was decended from Kirk, but an ancestor instead.

On top of that, there’s the notion of a Federation crumbling from within, which troubles me deeply.

For me the better option was to show how that organisation came into being. There are times during Enterprise when humanity were less like the Gene Roddenberry model and there’s still the untapped potential there, of showing how we arrived at and the sacrifices we made for the greater good. The Xindi arc showed some of that, but could’ve gone much further… so long as it arrived at something close to moral Starfleet by the time the Federation is created. To combat corruption from within (Section 31), conflict without (the Romulans) and alliances threatening to tear us apart (pacifist Vulcans, who won’t lay a finger on their cousins – Andorians who relish in war – Tellarites who argue at everything).

Come on, Singer, McQuarrie, Meyer Burnett! That’s what STAR TREK FEDERATION needs to be about! Adjust the 22nd Century characters to fit your own writing style and direction. Invent different heroes if you absolutely have to… but that’s the more interesting saga in the mythology.

101. P Technobabble - April 15, 2011

I agree with those who feel the year 3000 is a bit too far in the future. Beyond being extrememly optimistic about our chances of making it there, I wonder how anyone could project what life and technology would be like by then. TOS was set a couple of hundred years in the future, so it seems plausible we might have an idea of what things would be like by then. But 1000 years? It seems unlikely that things will have changed so much the world and human civilization (presuming there is one) would be unrecognizable.

102. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

100 (cont) – Plus it now has the added importance of having occurred in two universes and could be made into something directly relevant to the rebooted film series and TOS, TNG-DS9-VOY timelines.

103. Star Trek 3000 - April 15, 2011

wow i am glad this didnt happen and we got an TOS $150m Star Trek movie starring Leonard Nimoy instead

usually its the other way round (i.e. oh man that wouldve been sooo much better than what happened – e.g. Cameron and Scotts Alien 5 instead of AvP)

104. Star Trek 3000 - April 15, 2011

wasnt there some disguarded anime Star Trek that was kind of similar to this? set in the 25th century when the Federation was in trouble or somethin?

105. Star Trek 3000 - April 15, 2011

anyone read the ‘Star Trek Federation’ novel with Kirk and Picard on the cover? (think it was out around the time of Generations as i mistakenly thought it was the novel of the movie at the time)

i bought it years ago as it had a cool cover but never bothered to read it

106. Star Trek 3000 - April 15, 2011

oh yeah i found that anime thing here – kind of similar i guess

knew i hadnt imagined it

btw “Star Trek: Final Frontier” would make a great title for the sequel – yeah its similar to Trek V but so what

107. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

105. It’s a great book, but partially decanonised by the events of Star Trek First Contact, which showed how Zefram Cochrane made history.

106. I’d sooner The Final Frontier wasn’t used as a title again.

I’d suggest “To Boldly Go…” or something suitably synonymous with the words Star and Trek.

Star Trek Final Frontier as a cartoon series was a bad idea.

They would be starting from scratch again, with all-new characters. I’d sooner they resurrect old one and give them a different twist. Or take a neglected and some might say poorly executed idea, like Star Trek Enterprise, and take it to the level it ought to have gone.

108. Holger - April 15, 2011

What a idea! And also partially borrowed from Roddenberry’s Andromeda concept. Please, never!!

109. Holger - April 15, 2011

108: Err, between “a” and “idea” I had inserted “expletive deleted” in pointed brackets. Didn’t know that is actually is an executable command. OK, so let’s say it: I think the idea sucks!

110. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

107. (cont) Star Trek needs to trade off name recognition, even if it has to turn something only half remembered, completely on its head.

Mentioning Admiral Archer and his prized beagle during the last film got a brief flicker of remembrance.

That’s where I’d like live-action to continue. Maybe reimagined or refitted to account for a look set after Enterprise Season 4.

If it’s a cartoon series were talking about, then 24th Century has possibility free from the expense of recreating sets, as they once were.

111. Weerd1 - April 15, 2011

1) Sounds like “Andromeda.”

2) When you get far enough in the future, the technology and culture would be so different it may not be recognizably Trek anymore. Technically Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Blackhawk Down” happen in the same timeline; but there’s not a lot in common between the two films.

3) I have had enough of the “Federation’s about to fall” motif. Very prevalent in the new books, hinted at as Trek has progressed through the 24th Century fighting war after war and having various unscrupulous Admirals and politicians do bad things. I understand that in the real world, an entity like the Federation would eventually fall, a la Rome, or the Ottoman Empire; or perhaps just change like the British Empire or Soviet Union. However, As much as I like “realism” in my Trek, the utopian concept that the human race will continue to improve and help others do the same is the heart of Star Trek. It doesn’t have to reflect reality, that’s why it’s science fiction.

I am sure the series would have been well written and produced; I am a big fan of Singer’s (I even loved Superman Returns); however, I think I prefer a Star Trek that regards the Federation this way:

“You understand what the Federation is don’t you? It’s important. It’s a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada…”

So long as @BobOrci helps the next film continue the Human Adventure, I think we will be just fine.

112. Robert H. - April 15, 2011

This might work just as well in an alternate reality of a Star Trek without a Federation.

113. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

111. Weerd1 – 2) When you get far enough in the future, the technology and culture would be so different it may not be recognizably Trek anymore. Technically Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Blackhawk Down” happen in the same timeline; but there’s not a lot in common between the two films.

You look at Star Trek’s own depictions of the far future and in the 29th Century, you’ve got Starfleet exploring time as well as space. That’s according to Voyager.

Then there’s Enterprise and it’s Temporal Cold War, with Daniels hailing from the 31st Century (the time this series is set?). The future of humanity seems to be pretty broad, with Daniels describing himself as “more or less human”. They also no longer need even craft as we understand them to travel about. Opening a door and stepping through, to visit the past. Or as in “Future Tense”, a TARDIS like shuttlecraft from that time period, found floating around the 22nd Century – which is far bigger inside than out.

This far in the future and technology is indistinguishable from magic. Throw a Kirk decendant into that mix doesn’t quite fit. Kirk is a man of action, with one foot in the past of antiques and history and I have a hard time seeing a character-type like that, having truck with super advanced holodecks, super evolved humans and fantastical powers that defy our understanding.

114. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

Look at the Enterprise-J and it seems such an impossible design. It’s unreality. That’s technology far removed from Gene Roddenberry’s take on space rockets crossed with flying saucers, with a dose of Navy terminology so we can understand it all.

The closer Star Trek stays to 22nd, 23rd, 24th centuries the truer it is all that. Personally the early part of that scale, helps an audience enormously “get” how this all might be right around the corner and possible in the future. With added bonus of getting character to sound like you and me out there exploring new worlds. Even the worst, most badly written episodes manage that. Scale back the technobabble. Scale back how far into the future it goes.

115. noleknight - April 15, 2011

Agreed, stupid. It should take place sometime in the 25th century. We all know that the federation has been through turmoil, between the Borg, the invasion from the Gamma quadrant, destruction of the Romulin home world, etc. It’s a natrual recourse from these developments. Federation goes through a dark period, as we are right now. Just seems logical to take place in the 25th century.

116. Matt Oracle - April 15, 2011

Very interesting. I’ll just grab my Multidimensional transporter device and pop over ‘next door’ to see how that all worked out (Cue the sound of a transporter phase transition coils).

A few hours later…

Ok, that sucked. The year 3000. Nothing new of any scientific or exploratory importance. Slow couple of centuries, huh. LOL.

Then again, I’ve loved what Bryan Singer has done with the X-Men franchise, so who knows. It could have been really good. The 1/2 a billion dollar question is, whether Star Trek-Federation would have re-invigorated Star Trek the same way JJ has done with ST2009.

Pity my multidimensional transporter is imaginary.

Anthony, if you’re reading this, it would be great to see the entire treatment in addition to any excerpts tomorrow for those of us wanting to delve fully into what was written… of course it’s understandable if the copyright holder would rather you not, but boy did this news update pique my curiosity!

117. Dom - April 15, 2011

It’s arrogant to assume the Federation would last 700-odd years as a pre-eminent power. I ignore the 30th century rubbish from the TV sows, considering it merely a possible future. I’m much more interested in seeing how the Federation falls, hopefully shortly after the TNG era and what replaces it!

118. Victor Hugo - April 15, 2011

>The 1/2 a billion dollar question is, whether Star Trek-Federation would >have re-invigorated Star Trek the same way JJ has done with ST2009.

I don´t think so, because of the word “Federation” sounds like boring government stuff ,George Washington, FBI, money, taxes, bean counters, museum boring bureaucratic stuff.

that´s what killed “Star Wars Episode I”, “Trade Federation”, etc.

119. Dorothy - April 15, 2011

So the Federation becomes the Galactic Republic?

120. Captain Joe - April 15, 2011

Sounds interesting, but not sure it would work (or should I say, would have worked). Look forward to seeing more about it. Though it does seem similar to Star Trek: Final Frontier (the proposed animated series from a few years ago) by Star Trek 3000’s comments.

121. Mike Poteet - April 15, 2011

Sounds very cool. I’d be on board for that.

122. Star Trek 3000 - April 15, 2011

maybe if Singer had pitched it as a movie the Paramount execs wouldve jumped at that

i have to say im kind of surprised they didnt go for it anyway as Singer was red hot at the time (before Superman)

123. Horatio - April 15, 2011

As one of the few who liked Superman Returns, I have faith in Singer. Not sure what I make of the year 3000 timeline but I do like the idea of the Federation losing its way sorta like the Foundation series as mentioned way up above.

Important for everyone to note that just because JJ and his crew are currently doing the current Trek movies doesn’t mean they will be involved in any future Trek on television.

Babylon 5’s Michael Straczynski allegedly was also allegedly wanting to pitch a new Trek series. Does anyone have any idea what his idea was about? Anthony?

124. Damian - April 15, 2011

I agree with 101. The idea seems interesting, though I have to agree that the 31st century just seems to far in the future. It would be hard to relate in terms of technology and Federation society. It is interesting, though, that the current relaunch novels following Destiny have portrayed a Federation not so utopian anymore. They even lost a founding member. A similar idea in that the Federation is currently in decline in the novels.

105–A good novel that gives a glimpse into World War III. But as 107 noted, it is contradicted partially by First Contact.

I always felt there was a missed opportunity when Enterprise was cancelled. We were just on the cusp of the Romulan War and the creation of the Federation. The 4th season, more than any of the others, really started feeling like a true prequel. A lot of credit goes out to Manny Coto for working to get the show’s premise back on track. Season 1 and 2 were ok in the terms of pure exploration, but did not relate much for me to the original series. Season 3 stories improved with the Xindi (esp, regarding how far was Archer willing to go to get info about the Xindi), though it was hardly a prequel idea. It would have been interesting to see instead of a season arc involving the Xindi, a season arc involving the Romulan War. We were almost there (thankfully, the novels have decided to pick up on that missed opportunity).

JJ Abrams did breathe new life into Star Trek, thankfully. The only thing I wonder is did it create new bonafide Star Trek fans, or will these new “fans” leave when Abrams moves on to other things. Only time will tell.

125. Damian - April 15, 2011

123–Agree about the possibility of Abrams doing Star Trek on TV is not likely. I actually think that possibility is highly unlikely. Judging by their comments, I’d say they will probably due a total of 3 (maybe 4) movies before moving on.

126. Boozba - April 15, 2011

My prediction……the next Trek tv show will be Starfleet Academy with good looking 20-something people, a sexy vampire and a shirtless werewolk.

127. Star Trek 3000 - April 15, 2011

when there were rumours about a new trek movie in 2004 or 2005 i figuered that if they ever did a proper modern day big budget movie of star trek directed by Bryan Singer or whoever itd be with a new ‘movie’ crew with some familiar genre names filling roles (not kirk, spock etc) – like Michael Biehn for the captain of the Enterprise F, Bill Paxton for the Doc, a big star for the villain and maybe a big star trek name cameo like Shatner, Nimoy or Stewart playing their role – something like Mission Impossible where the characters were different bar the odd character cameo

alternativily i thought they might explore the Capt Pike adventures on the NCC 1701 – with a big star like Cruise or Crowe as Pike and do a series of those with the final scene of the final movie showing him handing the ship over to a CGI 1960s ‘WNMHGB’ Shatner.

but going back to TOS made the most sense as most people wouldnt be that bothered about another next generation crew or Pike and would be wondering where the hell Captain Kirk, Mr Spock, Scotty etc were

really doing star trek without Kirk and Spock was abit like doing an Indiana Jones film with Mutt Williams as the main character or a ‘Force Unleashed’ Star Wars film

128. Desstruxion - April 15, 2011

Were any ship concepts sketched? Would love to see them.

129. Red Dead Ryan - April 15, 2011

Paramount wasn’t likely going to approve of this idea anyway. They cancelled “Enterprise” because of low ratings and figured people weren’t interested anymore. Why would they approve of yet another spinoff when the last one didn’t do so well? As a result, they had probably planned on putting “Star Trek” on hold indefinitely. Then J.J Abrams came along, and Paramount agreed with his proposal to return to the TOS characters. Which was inarguably the right decision.

Plus, how would you be able to convincingly depict technology, people and events 900 years into the future?

130. Dac - April 15, 2011

Year 3000 was maybe a bit too far – if it were late 25th/26th Century instead I feel it would have been more palatable, and related to previous series.

131. dennycranium - April 15, 2011

Would oo love to se Trek back on TV.
For everyone slagging this concept-
This was just the seed or jumping off point for the pitch.
It could and probaby would have morphed into something totally different.
On a selfish point I would really like to see Pine and Co do a weekly Trek series.
It would never happen as they are movie stars now.
Any Trek series in my opinion would have to be a TOS (Kirk/Spock/McCoy)
Thats why Trek 09 worked.
Any new TV series would have to do the same

132. dennycranium - April 15, 2011

As to the poster who was lamenting all the reboots?
Its obviously what the public wants.
With an aging population and the baby boomers with the disposable income -nostalgia will be HUGE.
Show business will folow the money.
They have to.

133. trekmaster - April 15, 2011

Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens had a novel called “Federation”. It was a story beginning in the 21st century and ending in the year 3000. In 3000 the federation was able to travel between galaxies.

134. Joseph - April 15, 2011

As much as you complain about going backwards and not creating anything new, the fact is that ST09 created an entire new universe which exists alongside the original one (which only came about because of all the history you claim it disgraced, even though the writers seem to have gone out of their way to incorporate it wherever they could and to do so with quite a bit of reverence) and made some rather bold decisions as to the direction it would take.
Just pretending that movie didn’t happen, however, would be exactly the kind of revisionist and amateurish move that you claim the movie is guilty of. Smooth.
Seems to me that the problem here isn’t that ST09 failed to move the franchise forward. More that it failed to do so in the direction you wanted it to go. Vulcan’s gone. Mourn it and move on. Take a page from ST09 and consider that trying to go back and fix something that already happened only ends with beloved planets exploding.
As much as I love all of Star Trek, as a writer I do have to agree with Abrams on this one. TNG maintained only marginal ties with the original series. There was no “required reading” one needed to get into it. All you had to do was sit down and within a few episodes you could figure out what was going on. It was extremely approachable for new audiences, and the swell of new viewers reflected that. When we saw the Romulans reintroduced with massive starships that dwarfed the Enterprise-D, we suddenly knew that these were not the Romulans we knew from the original series. These Romulans had spent the time becoming something far more dangerous and unpredictable. They were enigmatic, dangerous, and we loved relearning everything we thought we knew about them along with people who had never even heard of “Balance of Power”.
But truth be told by the time Voyager came around, we’d lost that. Years of accumulated story material had started to weigh the episodes down. Someone who had never seen any Star Trek would now sit down to a constant barrage of references to things they knew nothing about and deprived of that context found episodes to be undecipherable and rather poorly scripted, even though those of us who had watched for years knew better. Now when a Romulan appeared on screen there were two sets of viewers. We saw members of a highly politicized empire which specialized in carefully orchestrated plans and manipulation, using brute force only when the same goal could not be accomplished some other way. When se saw a Romulan provoke an incident, we knew that it was just the first part of a far more elaborate scheme. But the casual or new viewer only saw some guys in pointy ears and rather odd looking tunics who didn’t bother to explain their motivations and seemed to just enjoy creating conflict. Is it any wonder why so few people recognized how great some of these episodes were?
I’m not going to say that DS9, VOY, and ENT were horrible shows, because they weren’t. Well, most of the time they weren’t ( VOYAGER TIME TRAVEL .) But the fact is that they were Star Trek written for the fans, and only the fans. They weren’t really written with the average viewer in mind. That wasn’t tenable in the long term. Poor writing choices and plot reuse was starting to bore long time fans, and the aforementioned obtuse nature of a backstory-heavy show like Star Trek was becoming simply too daunting for a new viewer to get invested. The viewer base that sustained Star Trek was dying off faster than it was being replenished. Arguably Enterprise could have probably sustained it for a few more years once Coto took over had the network not decided to can it, but let’s not kid ourselves by imagining that there would have been another series waiting in the wings after it ended.
What Abrams did was exactly what was needed. He created a simple accessible movie. It was self-contained, straightforward, and approachable. And people flocked to it in droves. We actually have NEW Star Trek fans, who are now going back and taking the time needed to invest in all that backstory we hold so dear.
I know you may not like the fact that Star Trek is no longer the exclusive property of the fans that it once was. But if we ever want to see the kind of Star Trek we’ve grown accustomed to again, movies like ST09 is an essential first step.

135. Red Dead Ryan - April 15, 2011


Well said, except the TOS episode is called “Balance Of Terror”.

136. dr_Beckett - April 15, 2011

I would definitely have watched this show!

137. Danpaine - April 15, 2011

6. somethoughts – April 14, 2011
Pass, I prefer a reboot of TOS on TV or reboot TNG

Why the hell would anyone want a “re-boot” instead of an original idea?

I would have liked to have seen “Federation” happen.

138. Danpaine - April 15, 2011

126. Boozba – April 15, 2011
My prediction……the next Trek tv show will be Starfleet Academy with good looking 20-something people, a sexy vampire and a shirtless werewolk.

Unfortunately, you’re probably not far off the mark.

Star Trek: Twilight. (ugh)

139. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

Maybe that should be a shirtless wereworf? LOL!

Agreed about it being an awful idea, that’s pretty much inevitable given the current mentality of TV network executives.

140. Will_H - April 15, 2011

Eh, looks kinda lame honestly, too fanboyish. I say if anybody’s cut out to come up with a new Star Trek series it would be Ronald D. Moore.

141. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

139. Just to be clear… Star Trek Twilight is the awful, inevitable idea. Not Star Trek Federation, which is okay-ish… just not what I personally want from the franchise right now. It would obviously get its own fanbase and the odd nod of support to the effect of – “having some Star Trek back on TV, is better than nothing at all.”

142. LJ - April 15, 2011

This would have had serious possibilities. Set so far in the future, this may have been ‘strange new galaxies’ rather than ‘strange new worlds’. To reflect the sheer size of the Federation at this point, the crew may have been more alien than Terran. Imagine a Jem’Hadar security chief (they’ve been off the White for 500 years), a Founder science officer, and a host of new races: with only one/two human characters. Klingons, Romulans and Vulcans would barely mention, and the Borg will have been wiped out.

By this point, the Federation would have become to big to manage, and various regions may be looking at breaking away: kind of like the end of the British Empire. Throw in a massive new threat from an ancient and powerful culture from one of the older galaxies, further away from the universal core, and you have the potential for lots of tension.

The name given to the 23rd/24th century period is also telling – the ‘Age of Expansion’. We already knew that the Klingons and Romulans saw the UFP as an imperial power: perhaps there would also be internal tensions and resentments brewing by the year 3,000. Imagine this: Earth’s (or another founder member’s) waning influence as the Federation grows causes it’s colonies to wish to secede: and secession is not permitted…

Some posters have mentioned that the idea of a Federation in decline does not sit well with Roddenberry’s vision: well I always saw the vision to be that we deal with adversity, and diversity, in a positive way, and grow to overcome our difficulties and prejudices. This could have dealt with that well. Besides, in storytelling, utopia is kind of boring: all stories need conflict, tension, and the risk of great loss.

143. Mattyb.uk - April 15, 2011

I am so glad this never saw the light of day. I am so glad they went back to kirk, spock and mccoy. People go so bored with all the 24th century stuff.

144. Horatio - April 15, 2011

#26 – Its still a great idea. What don’t you guys resurrect this and put it in some other universe besides Trek. Mankind emerging from (or trying to prevent descending into) a second dark age.

That would be a great show and need not be burdened with the Trek historology.

145. dennycranium - April 15, 2011

@142- while I love the idea of the diversity of Jem Hadar etc personally- it would be tough for a new viewer to catch up. Its that kind of weighty canon the JJ wanted to get away from with Trek 09
Star Trek Federation would have needed a human crew with one or two alien species for the humans to play off of. That would have created the necessary friction for drama.
Populating the ship with all these different alien races would have made it hard for the humans watching the show to identify to identify with.
A show imagined that way would have sunk under its own weight in my opinion.
TOS worked because of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triangle. Kirk and McCoy had the two different ways of approaching humanity while Spock was great for the catalyst for the drama.

146. Craiger - April 15, 2011

Wasn’t the Enterprise J set in the year 3000 and the time cops?

147. gingerly - April 15, 2011

Remember back before Bryan Singer made Superman Returns, when the idea of him pitching a Star Trek project would’ve been exciting?

Fun times. :)

148. Alex Rosenzweig - April 15, 2011

Admittedly, 700 years post-TOS is so not the way I would have gone. But this premise has some potential, especially with the idea being not simply about the decline of the Federation, but rather some bold individuals taking steps to fight back against that decline.

It’s *certainly* better than a *ptui!* reboot (no matter what window-dressing is dumped on the latter).

#134 – As for Vulcan, well, it’s gone in Abrams’s ‘verse, and can be mourned there, but back in the Primeverse, it’s just fine, thank you. ;) (Okay, it gets smacked around a bit in 2381, but it weathers that storm, too.) OTOH, ironically, by 2387 in the primeverse, it’ll be ch’Rihan/ch’Havran that are gone, while in the Abramsverse those worlds may yet survive and Vulcan is history. Might be interesting to see if Spock Prime leaves the Rihannsu a message, to the effect of “Take the readings from Hobus seriously.” ;)

Either way, since I have no interest in nor careing about alternate universes, what happens to the Abramsverse is of no consequence to me. As a possible look at the far future of the “prime” Trek Universe, the “Star Trek: Federation” idea definitely intrigues, even if it wouldn’t have been my first choice.

149. gingerly - April 15, 2011

TBH, his pitch is good.

The first captured people’s imaginations because it dealt with issues of the times.

Honestly, I think one of the biggest issues of this time is apathy and jadedness. …At least here in the U.S.

So his pitch, had it actually gone through, would’ve had some great potential.

150. Will - April 15, 2011

To the folks thinking 3000 is too far, and that we have no way of imagining what things will be like, bear in mind that we still ride carriages down stone roads. Yeah, they’re gasoline powered now, and the stones are asphalt — but things have not really changed in thousands of years. Fundamentally we’re still living in the same world that we lived in when Rome was an empire.

151. Dom - April 15, 2011

I wonder what Bill Shatner’s pitch was . . .

Although people moan about reboots (granted there are a lot at the moment) it’s hardly unknown throughout modern literary history to overhaul ideas. Comicbooks do it all the time, novel series frequently play fast and loose with their ideas, be it updated Three Investigators novels, Fletch Won and and Fletch Too, The Saint or whatever. Actually even John Ford’s My Darling Clementine was a remake of Frontier Marshal, even using some of the same sets.

It’s also not without precedent to experiment with ‘Children of…’ and ‘Son of…’-type stories, usually before reverting finally to a refurb of the original characters.

The problem for me with a lot of the Star Treks is that they became bogged down in their own universe and it’s myriad details. To me, the principle of Star Trek is quite simple: a bunch of people go into deep space to new worlds and have adventures. For the most part that’s what we go in the original showt. Occasionally we’d see some Klingons and Romulans pop up or visit a starbase, but generally the crew were out there in the unknown.

TNG got way too locked into what had already been explored and fascinated with its own bubble, DS9 I won’t count because it’s meant to be set in one region, Voyager went to the other side of the galaxy and conspired to take most of the Alpha Quadrant with it.

I mean, people go on about how big Vulcan’s destruction is in the events of ST09, but I’m a little dubious about how much impact it should have on Star Trek itself. If the Enterprise is in deep space, dealing with a race that’s never heard of the Federation, arguably Vulcan barely deserves mention.

It’s still theoretically perfectly feasible, disregarding ephemera such as the size of the Enterprise and its crew, to remake almost every episode of TOS using the new crew with barely a single line of dialogue needing changing! Even Journey to Babel needn’t be changed ***that*** much!

At the end of the day, I would rather see a Star Trek film or TV show than a film or TV show ***about*** Star Trek. From now on, forget Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians and Andorians. There’s a whole universe out there to be explored so let’s see new races and new ideas!

152. Jefferies Tuber - April 15, 2011

Yikes, what a stinker. So they agreed that the least talented of them in narrative storytelling would write a pitch? Sounds fishy.

153. Jack - April 15, 2011

” I mean, people go on about how big Vulcan’s destruction is in the events of ST09, but I’m a little dubious about how much impact it should have on Star Trek itself. If the Enterprise is in deep space, dealing with a race that’s never heard of the Federation, arguably Vulcan barely deserves mention.”

Agreed! I don’t want to see the saga of New Vulcan. Give me strange new worlds, baby.

154. Larry Nemecek - April 15, 2011

Franchise and canon and accessibility being “weighed down by backstory” are all in the eye of the handle/ showrunner. You can either fumble it, or make it look effortless.

For all the griping about canon and the alternate timeline choices, you have to admit that Orci & Kurtzman and JJ’s Supreme Court packed a lot of backstory and assumption into ST 09, and handled it deftly, for the newcomers. And that’s just two hours–a series can unwind more slowly.

155. P Technobabble - April 15, 2011

134. Joseph

Well said, and I completely agree.

156. Bill Lutz - April 15, 2011

I’d rather watch Star Trek Phase II.

157. Adam C - April 15, 2011

my guess is a new series will only come about after a few more new movies, butttt hey nobody ever had a serious attempt at a star wars series so i guess it could be all movies from now on.. sci-fi space opera on tv is in dire straights

158. Will - April 15, 2011

In some ways, his idea has elements of Enterprise. In Enterprise, relations between the human race and the Vulcan race were off to a bad start. There was sniping and general condescention towards the humans, and humans attacking Vulcans in San Francisco… The year 3000 story would probably have shown those two races back off on their own.

Or it could have been a Aeon Flux-like paradise, it is hard to know from just a treatment. But that rift (or hard-scrabble developing bond) was one of the bestparts of Enterprise.

159. Mike - April 15, 2011

A series utilizing the ST: VANGUARD novels as source material would be welcomed, IMO.

160. NX-03 - April 15, 2011

I know this was proposed beforehand, but I can’t really see Paramount/CBS going anywhere near the prime universe or anything even remotely canon heavy anytime soon. When it does come back to TV, unless they feed back into the prime universe via a JJ verse movie, I can’t see it being anything but universe B based.

An idea I really like is that at some point in the movies, they introduce us to a separate non-Enterprise crew, that perhaps crop up a few times over several films and eventually they go on to become the new televisual crew. In the JJverse that is…..

…unless their first TV voyage see them cross over to universe A, where their once seemly average size ship dwarfs the hell outta everything else.

161. Maj - April 15, 2011


**Babylon 5’s Michael Straczynski allegedly was also allegedly wanting to pitch a new Trek series. Does anyone have any idea what his idea was about?*

Well, it couldn’t have been much different than the Star Trek: Federation–pitch. Since Straczynski also used the Foundation novels as a large inspiration for Babylon 5.

162. Maj - April 15, 2011


I concur.

Very well put.

163. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

Since we’re all in the land of regrets, lost opportunities and what-might’ve-been.

An interest titbit about John Logan’s Star Trek XI – the so called Justice League of Trek movie.


Plus two ideas Enterprise had to bring Bill Shatner onboard for a two-part episode. It’s a shame they didn’t just go ahead and make that Kirk ancestor as Chef storyline – saving for DVD release, a year after the cancellation to celebrate the 40th Anniversary.

164. Dom - April 15, 2011


Straczynski’s and Zabel’s proposal is available somewhere out on the web. IIRC, it was a reboot going back to the start of the five year mission with some added undertones. Essentially, the Federation suddenly decides to send twelve of its most important ships into deep space officially on am exploration mission, with a hidden mission to search for something to do with powerful, potentially dangerous ancient races that are threatening to rise again.

The team felt that Trek’s core strength lies in the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship (something with which I fully agree) hence the reboot.

165. NX-03 - April 15, 2011

Whatever form TV Trek decides to take in the future, as long as Jeffrey Combs gets in on the action, it’ll be fine by me.

166. Bill - April 15, 2011

Wow this is awesome!! Clearly at the time though it just would have been way too much, with Berman killing the franchise by oversaturation. But now its prefect, I would dare say it would be a great animated series (if done right).

This concept could lend itself to either the prime time line or the 09 new time line though that might be more difficult.

Hope they do at some point.

167. Majicou - April 15, 2011

@142: Finally someone said so. Star Trek is optimistic in that it believes we can overcome our problems, not because it declares that everything will be awesome and wonderful forever. After all, part of its future history is a nuclear war with 600 million casualties between now and 2063.

168. brady - April 15, 2011

#156…. I’d be happy if they ever get around to another phase 2 episode ;(

169. Ryan - April 15, 2011

I have an interesting idea for a Star Trek mini-series… who do I call or write to?

170. sean - April 15, 2011


Is it that arrogant? Rome lasted nearly 2000 years in one form or another. The Republic alone spanned nearly 500 years. I don’t think it’s that strange to imagine the Federation, a galactic power with thousands of member worlds, lasting that long.

171. Anthony Pascale - April 15, 2011

looks like the update to this story will be coming on Saturday morning.

Regarding the Shatner pitch, I am working on the “true story” on that one too, hopefully be able to report something on that in May if i can get approval from parties involved.

172. Alex Rosenzweig - April 15, 2011

#154 – To a point, I agree, Larry, but it only shows that they might have had little trouble creating the prequel to TOS that they originally led us to believe they were doing. With even a little care, continuity is easy, and when people start whining about it, it’s usually my first alarm bell that something has gone seriously awry.

Consider: one of the most highly-regarded Trek films is also the most continuity-reliant of the whole bunch. The writers dealt with that in about 30 seconds of exposition, and got on with telling the story. Doing a proper “Star Trek Zero” might have required a bit more than that, but it would still have been relatively easy. Abrams and co. simply chose not to bother. More’s the pity.

The irony was, as much as I *hate* reboots (any reboots, not just Trek), the part that surprised me more wasn’t that they’d piss off the fanboy in me with poor choices like imploding Vulcan and creating an alternate universe. It was that every 20 minutes or so, the movie did something so unutterably unbelievable (and usually stupid) that it threw me right out of the story, going, “WTF???” And it surprised me because the three or so Orci/Kurtzman movies I’d seen before Trek were all very smartly written. Of course, the one right after Trek was even dumber, so it might be that the guys were having a bad year, and hopefully they’ve bounced back. :)

#156 – I love “Phase II”. I thank goodness that people like James Cawley and his team, and John Broughton and *his* team with “Farragut”, and a bunch of other folks as well, have remained committed to telling Trek Prime Universe storytelling.

#159 – “Vanguard” is currently my favorite Star Trek series. It is smartly-written, exciting, and absolutely compelling. It takes place alongside TOS, temporally, but stands on its own very well, and as the story continues to build, I am champing at the bit for more, especially knowing that there’s a story collection and two more full novels still in the hopper.

#164 – Aside from its similarities to “Vanguard”, I though Straczynski’s and Zabel’s idea was interesting, but not as a reboot of TOS. Use that to tell the story of another ship’s mission, maybe something the Kongo was off doing while we were following the Enterprise, and it had the potential to be gold. As a TOS reboot/rewrite, it suggests that exploration and discovery aren’t “good enough” reasons to send a ship out there, and that would be a huge fail. yet another example why reboots so rarely work effectively.

#168 – Word is they have finally gotten “Enemy Starfleet” to where they’re satisfied with the post-production and it’s due for release later this month. And they have three more, IIRC, in various stages of post-production, including the “Phase II” answer to ST2009, with an in-continuity TOS backstory. And, IIRC, this June’s shoot will be an adaptation of Shirley Maiewski’s “Mind Sifter”, which was a phenomenal story.

173. Dom - April 15, 2011

170. sean

But the Roman Republic wasn’t the Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was something else again. And the Eastern Roman Empire might have continued for an extra 1,000 years, but its Western equivalent pretty much bought the farm by 500AD.

That the United Federation of Planets would continue is ridiculous. There might be a ‘second federation,’ a new coalition or something, but I tend to assume that an authoritarian organisation like the United Federation of Planets that bans its own citizens from making money in the 24th century, thereby rendering trade and travel beyond its borders impossible for civilians, simply can’t survive for long.

There will likely be secessions or major new races becoming involved. For that matter, who’s to say the Federation itself wouldn’t be subsumed by a larger organisation?

So no, I reckon the far future TNG/Enterprise stuff can easily be ignored. I’d be very interested to see what would emerge from the Federation’s ashes, though!

174. section9 - April 15, 2011

Can you all see how this could have gotten trapped by writers interested in wrapping up the Temporal Cold War and the Xindi Arc?

This is WAAAAY too far in the future to be relevant to viewers, btw.

175. still waiting for a series - April 15, 2011

ANYTHING would be better than nothing, and I would certainly go back in time to sabotage the ST:09 project to give it a chance.

176. Chadwick - April 15, 2011

This was a great read, I like to read of these proposed projects like Star Trek Phase II into Star Trek Planet of the Titans into ST TMP. But then again this is just another story of a failed attempt at Star Trek and there have already been far too many of those with regards to TV series and movies. It would be nice if a new Star Trek TV series were to begin once the third movie ended.

177. Alex Rosenzweig - April 15, 2011

#173 – “That the United Federation of Planets would continue is ridiculous. There might be a ’second federation,’ a new coalition or something, but I tend to assume that an authoritarian organisation like the United Federation of Planets that bans its own citizens from making money in the 24th century, thereby rendering trade and travel beyond its borders impossible for civilians, simply can’t survive for long.”

Did we watch the same show? ;)

I never saw the Federation as *banning* anything like making money. I think Roddenberry got lost in this utopian idea that people just wouldn’t care about it so much anymore, that the shift away from capitalistic pursuits would be something more natural, not forced, and driven by a technology that made it much easier to get stuff. By the time of DS9, though, much of that idea seemed to have been dispensed with.

Personally, I think Roddenberry underestimated the ability of a capitalistic economy to adapt to such things, not to mention the fact that even with quantum-level replicators, they still need raw materials and energy, and those things have to be paid for. And so forth.

178. Michael Hall - April 15, 2011


” . . . but I tend to assume that an authoritarian organisation like the United Federation of Planets that bans its own citizens from making money in the 24th century, thereby rendering trade and travel beyond its borders impossible for civilians, simply can’t survive for long.”

*Sigh* Cite me one quote from TNG, Dom, that stated the 24th century UFP “bans its citizens from making money” and I’ll donate 5000 quatloos to the libertarian organization of you choice.

The only overt reference to this matter I can think of was Kirk’s claim in The Voyage Home that the people of his era (that being the 23rd century) didn’t use money. Nick Meyer was responsible for that line of dialogue, and though an unabashed liberal he’s no utopian, having been responsible for everything from militarizing Starfleet to installing “No Smoking” signs in the transporter room. And since the “no money” notion is not only contradicted by TOS but also by the other movies in the series Meyer worked on, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that Kirk was referring not to money, but to cash.

As for the TNG era, yes, by design (and Roddenberry’s evolving attitudes) it was more overtly utopian than TOS. But the only specifics about Earth’s economy and how people there lived were references to the fact that no one was poor any longer, not to how that enviable situation was brought about. And again, the evidence points to at least a barter economy, if not a cash one, unless you think that Picard’s brother and Sisko’s father gave their fancy vino and Cajun dinners away for free. Picard did once inform that defrosted 20th century tycoon that the people of his time had better priorities in life than grubbing dollars all day, by pursuing the best versions of themselves that they could be. I’m sorry if that concept offends you, but it sounds like real freedom to me.

179. Will - April 15, 2011

“This is WAAAAY too far in the future to be relevant to viewers, btw.”

LOL. There are films with stories that take place in universes that don’t even EXIST, and they don’t have any problem being relevant to viewers. Lord of the Rings, anyone? Ultimately everything is relevant as long as it has human interaction that we can relate to.

180. Phobos - April 15, 2011

I want to see this new year 3000 Federation post-decline series.

181. Phobos - April 15, 2011

Berman killed nothing. We should be grateful he worked on ST. I consider him to be a genius.

What killed Enterprise was a cable network called UPN, bad timeslots, fan downloads (absence of viable CBS downloads), and plain old franchise fatigue.

182. Phobos - April 15, 2011

And I absolutely loved the fresh new feel of Enterprise. ‘Regeneration’ was one of my favorites. The ice planet Andorians, the Augments (with Brent Spiner), etc tons of amazing episodes.

183. Thorbury - April 16, 2011

err … blame the timeslots if you must, but Berman/Braga were the ones to come up with some of the fetid, awful ideas that permeated the first 3 years of Enterprise. And that awful finale? Another polished Berman turd.

I really appreciate what he did for TNG (more so now than I did at the time) but let’s be serious here – Enterprise was a boo-boo. It doesn’t make him the devil for making a mistake, even if it was a very public one.

184. CaptainJoe - April 16, 2011

#30- first off those two soaps run 5 days a week 52 weeks a year. where as star trek would only run (like any prime time show) aprox 24 episodes a season
secondly part of the reason why AMC is canceled is because its consistantly waaaaaaay over budget, and the reason it is over budget, is due to the sky high salary of a certain actress.

finally you cant really compare a day time televsion series to a prime time series.

185. Christopher Roberts - April 16, 2011

183. The irony is if Enterprise had properly run its course, we wouldn’t even be having this argument.

There were just as many “fetid, awful ideas” permeating the first 3 years of TNG, DS9, and VOY.

I know this because I like to watch all the Star Trek incarnations side-by-side. I do this from beginning approach quite regularly. Each iteration has its ups and downs, ENT has about as much to feel bad about during those years, as any of the others.

186. Christopher Roberts - April 16, 2011

181. Actually I can vouch for that fan download thing. ENT must’ve been very highly rated in illegal torrent circles… proving audiences were being taken away from the timeslot UPN were giving it.

And don’t get me started on how they only began counting TIVO and weekend repeats, to justify the existence of all the various other pieces of $#*! the network was pumping out, AFTER Enterprise had been cancelled.

STAR TREK’s current TV predicament has indeed always been attributable to the actions of one man and one man alone… but it certainly wasn’t Rick Berman.

Try the President and CEO of CBS.

187. T'Cal - April 16, 2011

I need a new Star Trek TV series. NEED!!! The last scifi series that truly grabbed me was BSG. RDM knows how to develop characters and relationships. He knows how to write intricate stories that draw me in. He knows how to surprise me. I would love to see him do the next one.I trust RDM to come up with the era and the premise. I think a miniseries is the way to start.

188. Disectivore - April 16, 2011

I’d love to see this as the new Trek in a few years time.

The state of the universe they mentioned has tonnes of potential – a weak Federation (though nothing as obvious and pretentious as it being the result of an ‘epic war’ or whatever.) Weakened economically and politically simply by complacency and lack of ambition; starships powered by technology that has advanced little in the past few centuries. Then, a gleaming new starship Enterprise, with a Kirk in command, representing the desire for betterment within the Federation, hoping to be the embryo of a new golden age of exploration….

But in the early days of the Enterprise’s mission they run into an exploration ship from another galaxy…

Setting it in the year 3000 could also make it a sequel to the reboot or original – I mean, who cares! But if you do, you can take your pick of which canon it follows.

189. JUSTIN HADTOSAYIT - April 17, 2011

Thanks to the luke warm receptions of SUPERMAN RETURNS, Bryan Singer couldn’t pitch a donut to a cop at this point.

190. Victor - April 22, 2011

For The love of God… Make this show please WoW !!!!!

191. ToMaHaKeR - April 23, 2011

Nice idea, but we’re still waiting for the show/movie that features the famous EARTH-ROMULAN WAR (2156-2160)

192. J.R. LeMar - May 15, 2011

Geoffrey Thorne gives his side of how this all came about:


193. Jason S. - November 6, 2011

@ 166:

Berman didn’t “kill” Trek, Paramount did. Berman wanted to let DS9 run by itself after TNG ended. It was Paramount that demanded a new show, so we got “Voyager.” Then Berman wanted to give the franchise a break after Voyager, but again, the studio wanted more, so we got “Enterprise.”

Many of the directions the franchise has gone the last ten years or so, while it is popular with fan boys to say “Berman killed Star Trek,” the reality is the studio was the ones behind it. Berman could have walked away, and they would have done stuff without him. He stuck around as long as they let him so that the various shows would have some actually connection to what had come before.

Remember, unlike JJ Abrams, Gene Roddenberry actually handed the rains of the show over to Berman. The man was hand picked by the creator. As such, Berman felt an obligation and I for one am happy for it. I’m just sad the studio walked away from him “Romulan War” film in favor of the JJ-verse. The Romulan War may be the biggest moment in Trek history not on film.

194. Neil Bronson - June 7, 2012

to obtain an notion of distinct kinds of headers that people use in WordPress blogs

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.