Seth MacFarlane Wants To Reboot Star Trek On TV |
jump to navigation

Seth MacFarlane Wants To Reboot Star Trek On TV October 12, 2011

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

This is no joke. Seth MacFarlane loves to drop Star Trek jokes into his various TV animated comedy shows, but the Family Guy creator now says that he wants to take his love of Trek to the next level and get a chance to reboot Star Trek on TV.



MacFarlane’s Star Trek?

Seth MacFarlane is featured as one of a series of showrunner profiles in the Hollywood Reporter. The of multiple hit Fox animated comedies says he is already looking beyond Family Guy and towards the future. MacFarlane also happens to be a big fan of Star Trek and drops Trek gags into all of his shows. He has even talked about doing a full Star Trek parody like he has done with Star Wars, but according to THR he would also like to take Trek on seriously. Here is an excerpt:

“I don’t know who would give me the keys to that car,” he jokes, acknowledging that the films have been so profitable for Paramount that he isn’t so sure they have a lot of interest in getting back into the TV business. “But I’d love to see that franchise revived for television in the way that it was in the 1990s: very thoughtful, smartly written stories that transcend the science fiction audience.”

Read more from Seth at THR.

MacFarlane is one of many successful TV producers who have expressed an interest in taking on Star Trek for the small screen. As I have expressed here before, I think Star Trek is best when it is on TV as it has the opportunity to do more character development and complex storytelling. MacFarlane clearly has a love for Star Trek and a track record of making successful TV series, so I am intrigued with the notion. Of course there is no indication right now that CBS is even taking meetings to talk about Star Trek on TV, but hopefully CBS sees his interest (and that of others) as an indication they have lots of options when it comes time to bring Trek TV back.

Here is more from Seth from last year when he was promoting his Star Trek TNG reunion Family Guy episode .


POLL: Seth Trek?

Seth MacFarlane certainly loves Star Trek, and he has been a successful TV producer (albeit for animated comedies). So do you like the idea of him bringing Star Trek back to the small screen?

Seth MacFarlane To Reboot Star Trek on TV?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...




1. Elliot - October 12, 2011


2. =A= - October 12, 2011

not dirty trek!!!

3. Luke Forrester - October 12, 2011

Already made the 3 worst TV shows on TV, why not go for 4…

4. Elliot - October 12, 2011

I think he would need to hire a really good team of writers and have another producer. I am skeptical because he’s really known for comedy.

5. Craiger - October 12, 2011

I never thought of it that way that Paramount might be thinking that the film franchise is more profitable than the TV side for Trek and wouldn’t care about doing Trek on TV anymore. Maybe they think Trek is cheaper to make on film than on TV? I wonder if we will ever get the official word if Trek on TV is done or not? Would Paramount take a risk of Trek on TV because Trek on TV would have to get at least 10 million viewers a week to justfy spending 3 Million an episode and then having to cancell if it got poor ratings during its first season. I also wonder how many new Trek fans the movie got that would make them want to demand Trek on TV again?

6. James - October 12, 2011

@2 I think Kirk and Riker already made Trek pretty dirty.

@3 And your definition of the best network comedy would be…?

7. Markus McLaughlin - October 12, 2011

I like to see a Trek set on a different starship in the same REBOOT era; exploring themes that TOS and TNG always told! Telling stories about our times in the 23rd Century… Make it so! :D

8. bill hiro - October 12, 2011

Star Trek has always stood for humanism, compassion, and tolerance. MacFarlane has produced some of the most inhumane, heartless, and intolerant shows on in the air in the last dozen years or so, making fun of gay people, AIDS sufferers, Parkisnons disease sufferers, the mentally handicapped, and who could forget his riff on “prom night dumpster babies”. Seth MacFarlane is a loathesome human being and I would hate to see his snide, snarky, callous fingerprints on something that has been a little beacon of good intentions in the entertainment industry for 45 years.

And I understand the impulse, fellow commentators, to rally behind this guy, because you like to think that the fact that he’s “cool” and the fact that he likes Star Trek will mean the mainstream, who have largely scoffed at and made fin of Star Trek and its fans for years, will also think Star Trek is therefore also “cool” – but would caution you to think twice about who you cozy up to. I can’t imagine Gene Roddenberry or Bob Justman chuckling at a barbershop quartet singing “You’ve got the AIDS” in four part harmony to a man dying in the hospital.

9. Kevin A Melbourne Australia - October 12, 2011

I think Seth is one of the smartest guys in Hollywood. He’s no idiot. He would not turn Star Trek into Lost in Space. He has a loving eye for Star Trek and that’s what we need. He also has money and clout and that is also needed.

Captain Kirk (Shatner) went from serious to comedic. Comedy has always been one of the pleasures of Star Trek. Comedy has always been a good base for serious actors. Look at Robin Williams, Bruce Willis even Will Smith. Producers can do it too.

So come on CBS. Give him a go.

10. Kevin A Melbourne Australia - October 12, 2011

Can’t get pole to work????

11. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - October 12, 2011

Animated Trek perhaps?!? I like Seth … But would like Manny Coto as he knows his sci-fi & Trek a lot more…

12. SED - October 12, 2011

I doubt MacFarlane’s the man that’ll eventually “get the keys”, but if you catch him away from his animated world, like on “Real Time with Bill Maher”, for example (he’s appeared a few times), it’s obvious that he’s a sharp guy with a real desire to explore and question our society a little more deeply. That, plus a genuine love of what makes “Trek” great is, at least, a pretty good start.

13. SandieK - October 12, 2011

For years, I’ve been saying that a good way to reboot Star Trek was to ignore Star Fleet and the Federation completely (okay. almost). A reboot could be looked at two ways (well, pre-movie reboot it could have…): “There are 40 years and multiple series I have to try not to screw up” or “I have 40 years worth of material to expand on”. Trek is SO much more than Fleet and Fed. For instance, I would LOVE to see a series focused on Klingons: Kahless The Unforgettable and the Tyrant Molor. Or perhaps something on the Vulcan Great Awakening, where Surak led the Vulcan to the age of Logic (and the Romulans went off on their own). Maybe a Deep Space Nine prequel about the Occupation? If you look at it from this perspective, the possibilities are endless.

14. jeff rubin - October 12, 2011

seth mcfarlane is a brilliant, creative guy, and those criticizing his “inhumanity” above are just upset that he uses his shows to take on sacred cows. he’s a huge supporter of science and reason over faith-based fear mongering. he’s even remaking cosmos, with the endorsement of sagan’s own widow.

he’s the perfect guy to bring something fresh to trek, at a time when we could sure use a show that reminds us why science and rational, “logical” thinking are cool.

15. Give me TOS, or Give me Death! - October 12, 2011

I choose Option D- Bring Trek back but with a different producer.

16. jeff rubin - October 12, 2011

and can we just forget manny coto and any of the other brilliant minds that eventually ran trek into the ground? enterprise was. at its best,.very mediocre television. trek needs something fresh,otherwise why bother?

17. Andy Patterson - October 12, 2011

Have to admit that intrigues me too.

18. Vultan - October 12, 2011

Agree with him that Trek should be thoughtful and smartly written.
I only wish he practiced what he preached.

19. Weerd1 - October 12, 2011

I’m in.

20. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - October 12, 2011

I’m in. What about you Bob Orci.

21. Sybok's Secret Brother - October 12, 2011

Watch out Bob… ;p

22. Gorp - October 12, 2011

I’m fine with reviving Star Trek. But get someone who can actually write science fiction to do it.

23. Holo J - October 12, 2011

I love Family Guy, but please no more rebooting! How about a new crew but set some time after the next generation era? Set it in the prime universe and I’m there :)

The thing that has made Star Trek so unique, in my opinion, from any other franchise has been and is being destroyed. It was a continuing 40 year story that was still unfolding on screen, but that story was effectively ended by the new movie. So if the movies have to be set in this new reality for the foreseeable future then please at least keep the torch burning for the Prime universe on TV.

24. Polly - October 12, 2011


25. Alex Prewitt - October 12, 2011

Shut up, Meg!

26. TrekMadeMeWonder - October 12, 2011


I’ll help!

27. NX-17000 - October 12, 2011

I dont know…. I like trek how it has been. I’m sure McFarlane could do a good job, But I’d be cautious of the jokes and gags that would get pulled over. #8 Pretty much sums up what I’m thinking… I dont want trek to go to that level. Parodies, fine. There’s no much control over parodies. But the actual show, No.

28. Patty Wright - October 12, 2011

The word “reboot” says everything I want to know about this project: not interested!!

29. crazydaystrom - October 12, 2011

If given a chance I think MacFarlane would give us some thoughtful and interesting Trek, which is what I crave.

30. Boozba - October 12, 2011

Trek will come back to tv when JJ is done with his movie trilogy,,,,2017 or 2018 maybe???

31. Exodus_Captain_A62 - October 12, 2011

@#8 You mad bro? Seriously man, that’s your argument? If you are really that offended by his material then you truly are a human being with no sense of humor, which also means that your are the biggest bore of all time. Just like the saying goes, “if you aint laughin, you aint livin”. Yah, some of his jokes are raunchy, and yah they may seem hurtful, but if that was the case, why is the show still running? Why is it one of the highest grossing comedy franchises of all time? Obviously somebody finds it funny. And you want to know who the majority of the people are that find his shows hilarious? Those gay people, AIDS sufferers, Parkisnons disease sufferers, the mentally handicapped, and those “prom night dumpster babies” surprisingly, are the biggest audience. These people are strong enough to look in the mirror and laugh and say, “Life could be worse”. They love the humor he brings to the table because its real.

I mean, come on, If we didnt have humor in this day and age, we’d all be like you, boring and dry. Star Trek needs someone like MacFarlane to give it that revitalization it deserves. He’s a huge fan of the series, so Im sure he’s not gonna get radical with it. I personally think that he would give it new depth, while keeping it favorable to us, the fan base. Don’t be like those “GeeWun” transformers fans who think everything new will ruin the franchise forever. Come join the rest of us who accept change in this new day and age.

32. Towerpower3000 - October 12, 2011

As of right now %2% say good idea – not me. Not interested in his version.

33. Towerpower3000 - October 12, 2011

That’s 52% – not 2% – wish it was 2%.

34. Odkin - October 12, 2011

I side with the “South Park” take on MacFarlane’s shows. They’re pointless cutaway gags all strung together without regard to story, as if written by a tankful of manatees pushing random “joke balls” into a chute.

35. T'Cal - October 12, 2011

Only if every two-parter has a 5 minute fight between the captain and a large chicken…

36. John Cooley - October 12, 2011

#2 and #34:

Hear, here. I already lost the prime universe in the last reboot, let’s not loose the whole damn thing to someone like Seth. He’s NO Gene.

37. John Cooley - October 12, 2011

Oh and #8 actually summed it up better in one post than I could.

38. Will_H - October 12, 2011

The guy makes good TV and I’m glad to see he’s not stuck on going back to the TOS recipe. I’d love to see him team up with RDM to bring Trek back to TV.

39. BoltBait - October 12, 2011

While I’d love to see some Star Trek on TV, I’m not sure Seth MacFarlane is the right person to put this together. His “humor” is “way over the top” for the Star Trek franchise.

I’m not saying that Star Trek couldn’t use a little more humor–I think it lost something when Gene died. I just don’t think this would be the right direction.

But, who knows? He says he’s a HUGE fan, maybe he’d do it right.

40. thebiggfrogg - October 12, 2011

God, no.

41. jvanme - October 12, 2011

When Star Trek was first brought on the air, who would have believed what came from the series. The original idea for cell phones was a Star Trek communicator. Then we got Ipads from TNG. Engineers were inspired by “Mr. Scott”. To let the “Next Generation” of sci-fi writers have a crack at Star Trek now, what could inspire the upcoming generations. Maybe the talk of what the “Federation” was about might come true. Isn’t it time to inspire and thrill us again. Instead of the “Jersey Shore” crap, or another Kardashian wedding [that will be down the drain in a few months]. Let new blood start “Trek” and truly go boldly where no man or woman has gone before.

42. SirBroiler - October 12, 2011

McFarlane is a true fan and has the power and talent (yes, talent) to get things done in Hollywood. But this time, they need to partner with a major cable network – even pay cable. None of this syndication or broadcast network bu!!ish!t. Trek needs the Game of Thrones treatment. Shorten the seasons, increase the budget for FX and hire some great actors and cast them beyond just the main crew. Broaden the scope of story with continuing seasonal arcs in the Abrams Universe. Don’t try to cram missions into 45 minutes. Make the show can’t miss television. Dare I say grittier?

43. thebiggfrogg - October 12, 2011

Or, should I say: God! NO!
Right on #34.
I have seen occasional snippets and my nephew got me to watch a Family Guy ep (or part of one). I love smart humor, occasional snark, and wit, but as for FG can I have my 15 minutes back, please?

That said, he seems tolerable on Real Time with Bill Maher. So maybe only his work sucks.

44. Bill Peters - October 12, 2011

I say go for it, he is a true fan and he can do for Trek on TV what JJ has done with the Movies, I expect the next Movie too be good.

45. Michael - October 12, 2011

My vote is for Manny Coto – loved his work on Enterprise. The whole 4th season was for the fans and done very well.

46. Mike - October 12, 2011

Family Guy is amazing! Seth MacFarlane is a brilliant and tallented writer and I bet I’d LOVE his Star Trek. :)

47. Pat Payne - October 12, 2011

I can sum up my opinion on Seth McFarlane doing Trek with the following:

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Nooooooooooooooooooo. No! Non. Nyet. Dame desu. Iie. Nein.

And in conclusion, NO!

I can’t stand Family Guy, American Dad or The Cleveland Show. Letting him run the asylum over at Star Trek? No. Just… no.

48. 'Drew - October 12, 2011

Why not a tv series in JJ continuity, but crew the ship with little-seen charicters from TOS (or thereabouts) that weren’t refered to in ST XI bus “should” have been /somewhere/ in the universe (hopefully not on any of the of ships in the ill-fated academy fleet!) — “Number One,” Jose Tyler, Gary Mitchel, Lee Kelso, Janice Rand, Phillip Boyce (or Mark Piper or Dr. M’Benga), Ben Finny, J.M. Colt, Will Decker, Ilea, M’Ress, Arex, and first-nameless wonders Finnegan, Kyle, Leslie and DeSalle. The list goes on… we can surely pluck a good senior staff from it.

Such a series could be used to tell some more Trek-like stories, and also to devlop these seldom-seen, oft-remembered charicters of whom we know so little (in cannon).

49. BringBackKirkPrime - October 12, 2011

A fan who “gets” Trek, producing it would be great. In any case, I hope SOMEONE will get Trek back on t.v. None of us are getting any younger, and having to wait year after year for the next movie with nothing on tv is not ideal.

50. Nony - October 12, 2011

Trek should try some British showrunners. I find British genre tv to be some of the most fun and creative out there, as well as some of the most emotionally powerful. Maybe an injection of Who or Torchwood?

51. saavik001 - October 12, 2011

Hell no to Seth McFarlane. I hate his shows.

52. Spock's Uncle - October 12, 2011

Seth couldn’t be worse than the “Enterprise” years… give him a chance! Funny, smart, loves Trek… I say go for it!

53. Scooter - October 12, 2011

I like the idea of a new Trek TV show, but not with McFarlane. Talented guy but not right for this based on his current work.

54. Chadwick - October 12, 2011

Reboot series by MacFarlane and the votes favor ‘Good idea’!? What the frack!

I want a new series which takes place after Voyager/Nemesis.

The original series does not need to be rebooted. TOS belongs to THOSE actors and THOSE writers. TNG belongs to THOSE actors and THOSE writers. To reboot any Star Trek series is taking away a piece of the legacy which belonged to that era and robbing this era of a truly new show with new voyages.

Since there were never any true TOS movies (TMP was in away the next generation of the TOS series) a reboot movie of TOS composition and form was fine, even though some people had a problem with it. Even though TOS was rebooted in motion picture form its different from rebooting a TV series.

Is Hollywood that drained of inspiration that things need to be remade instead of new adventures and new ideas formed (not knocking you Bob). Even though the new movie was full of new ideas but it was still based on something that has come before. Its one thing to do a Star Trek series, its another to redo or reboot a series.

Star Trek could be covered from the late 24th century onward which gives writers and idea makers hundreds of years to play with. We could cover the Federation expanding, going deeper to unexplored sections of the galaxy or even explorations in another galaxy etc. It seems like the word ‘reboot’ is being released like vomit becoming the new fodder on the warfront of ‘lack of new ideas.’

We have read in articles that a new Star Trek series is on hold not just because of the movies but because that wonder of the original series has never been recaptured, and that is what the largest problem is, recapturing that spark. We all know how TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT have all remade numerous episodes of TOS and other series came before any said series/

I can admit that Battlestar was successfully rebooted, it was brilliant. Since TOS has been rebooted with the movies, does TOS really need a TV reboot? Does TNG really need a reboot?

I say new series, new ideas, new voyages. These new movies should do just that, invigorate the entire franchise, not just the original and therein sparking the demand or desire to do a NEW SHOW, new ideas, new voyages, completely new show, NO REBOOTS.

Im angry? Your damned right I’m angry. If I wasn’t so passionate I would be so heated over this. I don’t just want any rebooted Star Trek series out of disparity to see a new series. If its going to be done, do it right the first time…and make a uniquely new show!

55. Sven - October 12, 2011

I want serenity, I want firefly trek.

56. kmart - October 12, 2011

A billion times better choice than Abrams, but that still puts him kinda low on the totem pole compared to more than a few other supertalented folks out there.

The folks who do MI:5 should be writing Bond movies, and I have a feeling they could bring some serious relevance back to TREK, assuming they worked with people who knew and or understood SF on some level.

57. Red Dead Ryan - October 12, 2011

I’m not sure about this. I feel that “Family Guy” has run it’s course. And writing bathroom gags is a lot different than writing thought-provoking, action-packed, live action drama.

Not going to discount the guy’s talents though.

Also, Seth McFarlane appeared on “Enterprise” as a MACO in season three.

58. Pizza - October 12, 2011

This is what happens when there is no new Trek to watch.

The roaches come crawling out of the woodwork.

59. StalwartUK - October 12, 2011

Family Guy IN SPACE!?

No thanks.

60. Cygnus-X1 - October 12, 2011

At least MacFarlane is a long-time fan with an appreciation for the best of TV Trek. I’d give him a crack at it before Abrams.

61. Dr. Diehard - October 12, 2011

YES!!!!!!! MacFarlane was an extra on Enterprise.

62. Sewanee - October 12, 2011

I see my former post was deleted. I think Seth McFarlane is an @$$. He is sarcastic and sardonic. This is his sense of humor, and what he is good at. I think he should stick where his talents lie, which do not include science fiction or Star Trek.

63. Starman - October 12, 2011

Bring back Star Trek on TV, but instead of having Mcfarlene, get Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams/Orci to take care of the show.

64. Browncoat1984 - October 12, 2011

No thanks, I’ll pass. His TV series MAY be successful but he’s never done a serious, sci-fi live-action show before. Perhaps he should try an original SF show and if that’s successful MAYBE then I’d consider that.

And I agree with #63. Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams/Orci and J. Michael Strazynski (Babylon 5) would be an awesome Star trek team.

65. Starman - October 12, 2011

#63….use another name….

66. Opcode - October 12, 2011

@#63 Starman – You serious? JJ Abrams/Orci cannot even take care of producing a movie in a 3 years period, why do you think they would take care of another TV series (in addition to the dozens projects they are already involved)??!

67. Odkin - October 12, 2011

@42 SirBroiler
“increase the budget for FX and hire some great actors and cast them beyond just the main crew. Broaden the scope of story with continuing seasonal arcs in the Abrams Universe. Don’t try to cram missions into 45 minutes.”

I hope someone in power sees this and does the EXACT OPPOSITE of
every one of your recommendations.

1) FX budget irrelevant. If the writing and camera work is good, I don;t care if they use old “Thunderbirds” footage.

2) They need to hire a great LEAD actor (aka Shat) a couple of good supports, and keep the crew in their place. TNGs weakness was trying to be an ensemble show. Trek is a HERO show.

3) “Story arcs” immediately mean the show will have no casual viewers. Sorry, most grownups just can’t catch every show every week, and trek needs wide appeak

4) No Abramsverse. TOS universe is the only one with mass audience appeal.

5) Yes, you CAN tell a good story in an episode. Granted it’s a bit of a lost art, but see #3 above. Trek needs episodic adventures, not limping, lingering, soap operas.

68. BeatleJWOL - October 12, 2011


Remind me again why we’re assuming the only way Seth would handle Trek would be as a provocative comedy? I know he’s a “TV person” that Roddenberry spoke poorly of (and deservedly so in many cases!), but are we really going to assume that Family Guy-type humor is ALL he’s capable of?

69. N - October 12, 2011

#68 has he actually done anything else? I really don’t like his comedies but I’ve no idea if he’s ever made anything serious. In his defence he wants it to be like it was in the 90’s (seriously the best decade to grow up in as a geek) so he’d probably know to stay away from his own brand of humour.

70. Dr. Cheis - October 12, 2011

I’ve never seen MacFarline do any serious shows before, unless you count the few comedies he did that weren’t remotely funny. But I’m inclined to think he’d be good at this. Maybe that’s just my personal bias because I am a huge Family Guy fan though.

71. Deflector Dish Guy - October 12, 2011

Of course I would LOVE to have Trek back… But PLEASE do not leave it in the hands of that disgusting, partisan, hack!!

72. Tony - October 12, 2011

It’d be interesting, him, JJ, and RDM with Bear McCreary composing?

73. Red Dead Ryan - October 12, 2011


“Can’t get pole to work????”

Actually, my pole works fine, but thanks for asking!

74. claypool2011 - October 12, 2011

Trek belongs on TV. If we don’t have a series soon, I’m going to stop watching the movies. It’s that simple.

It’s a TV show. 2 hours every 5 years or so isn’t sufficient.

75. claypool2011 - October 12, 2011

Also, #8 if you seriously think that the stuff he does for his humor shows is what he would do with Trek, I won’t white wash it:

You’re a moron.

You’re exactly the kind of person he lampoons with his humor. You don’t understand Roddenberry’s original concept at all.

76. Trekkie626 - October 12, 2011

I think it’s narrow minded to just dismiss Seth McFarlane’s vision of a Star Trek TV show as Family Guy in space. Family Guy and the other shows are an extreme parody of the depravity of the modern world. If you actually read the article all the way through you will see that Seth is tiring of Family Guy because he feels it has run its course.

Star Trek would be different because it wouldn’t be a cartoon; he’s respectful of Star Trek and aware of what it is.

77. SirBroiler - October 12, 2011

@67. Odkin

TOS Universe is the only one with mass appeal? Go back and compare the box office of the every Trek movie and let me know which one had the most “mass appeal” – even adjusted for inflation. More money means more people went to see it, thus mass appeal. (in case you’re still wondering, it was Trek ’09)

TV Trek died because it was the same thing, year after year, show after show. Hard for die-hards to accept that Trek ’09 was a hit because it was DIFFERENT than everything that had come before it. So you can knock JJ all you want, but he revived Trek for a new audience, something that hadn’t happened in the 15 years since TNG ended.

Also, story arcs don’t have to be limping, lingering soap operas…and don’t immediately turn off casual viewers. it’s actually a great way to hold an audience. Ever heard of Lost? Or maybe True Blood? Boardwalk Empire? Weeds? Breaking Bad? Walking Dead? They seem to have pretty strong audiences and they are just some of the great shows with multi-episode, and even season-long story arcs.

I think what you’re looking for is easy to find – just pop in one of your TOS DVDs. No one will mind if you don’t watch the new stuff. Hell, with $257 million in box office receipts, I’m sure you won’t even be missed.

78. Count - October 12, 2011

Seth and Peter David could come together and make New Frontier a TV series. It seems to me that Seth and Peter’s writing are very similar to each other and NF is well suited to a miniseries/tv movie approach.

don’t need to reboot, just continue on.

79. The Keeper - October 12, 2011

No, I don’t want to see McFarlane’s vision of Star Trek on TV.
I can’t believe so many people do…they must be going thru the DT”s

Logic should tell you this isn’t a good idea.

80. KevinA Melbourne Australia - October 12, 2011

73. Ha ha!

81. Devon - October 12, 2011

I actually would like to see what he could come up with. Just because someone writes comedy doesn’t mean they CAN’T write something else.

82. FusionVok - October 12, 2011

@ #10: That’s what she said.

83. Red Dead Ryan - October 12, 2011


Well, I just had to respond, especially seeing that Harry Ballz somehow missed it!

84. Adolescent Nightmare - October 12, 2011

McFarland would be perfect. Yet another choice that would not allow Star Trek to get bland and nerdy.

85. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - October 12, 2011

Wouldnt JJ, Orci and gang be the ones to bring ST back to small screen. It would be like letting Rick Berman run the movie side and Brannon Braga run the Small screen side…

86. Canon Schmanon - October 12, 2011

I don’t make a point of watching MacFarlane’s shows. Family guy is the only one I’ve watched more than once, and while I found it often funny and entertaining, I never felt compelled to return. So I’ve only seen a handful of shows.

I’ve seen interviews with MacFarlane and I find him to be quite intelligent and thoughtful. I can’t discount him because of his animated comedies – many people are able to do both comedy and drama. But I’d like to see him do some other kind of drama before I’d trust him with Trek. Still, I’m certainly not horrified by the idea. I’d really like to hear his pitch.

I agree that Trek works best on TV. I’d really love to see another series. Well, a GOOD one. A two hour movie every four years really doesn’t fulfill my Trek need, and quite I’m tired of reruns. I needs some new stuff.

87. Thomas Jensen - October 12, 2011

Let him confine himself to everything that isn’t Star Trek.

88. Frank Fischer - October 12, 2011

Please bring back Star trek to TV as a live action series! I am really desperatly waiting for a new Star Trek TV series. I am sure I am not the only one so it will be an instant hit.
I also would really like a new live action Star Trek TV series under the command of Bob Orci and his team! I am crossing my fingers!

89. Driver - October 12, 2011

Hell, put “Star Trek-Enterprise” back on the air. After all, Star Trek IMHO is all about the Enterprise and her crew. Too many shows went astray from that – DS9 & Voyager. A great missed opportunity was to put a new crew on the Enterprise after STVI which should have taken the place of TNG. After that, would have been about Enterprise B and her crew and on and on.

90. boborci - October 12, 2011

Let’s team up, Seth!

91. Admirmal_Bumblebee - October 12, 2011

A reboot of TNG in the new rebooted timeline…

Witch an arabian Captain, as Picard never was born and some of the old crew in new positions. We need drastic changes in Star Trek! Like the death of a major character like Kirk in the TOS timeline!

92. Cassie - October 12, 2011

As long as it doesn’t end up like any of his cartoons and has some depth that TOS and TNG had, then I’m down. I LOVE STAR TREK! And this is coming from a teenage girl. So I think he’d probably have a wide demographic.

93. Basement Blogger - October 12, 2011

@ 91

Okay, CBS. Bob Orci wants to work with Seth MacFarlane. Lt. Uhura, hail CBS CEO Les Moonves. I’m guessing that CW which CBS has a stake in, is more available than the defunct UPN. Choose your network Les. If there’s availability ala cable or satellite to the people, Star Trek can succeed.

94. Rob - October 12, 2011

@ 67

You’re plain, silly, giant, simple wrong.

Star Trek doesn’t need to be a “Hero” show at all. Certainly not in the way you’re describing. I’m sure everyone thought Scott Bakula had the necessary “heroics” to lead his crew of inexpensive milquetoasts, and all he did was a George W. Bush impression for four years.

If Star Trek was such a hero show and the crew needs to be kept in their place, why bother booking Walter Koenig or James Doohan for ST: IV The Voyage Home? Robin Curtis and Merrit Buttrick would have come cheaper, been JUST as funny, they would have stayed in their “place” (Makes me so angry to hear that. You must be over 50 years old, right? “Back of the bus, boy.”)

There’s a little show called Breaking Bad. It’s an ensemble drama with some humor. Each 10 episode or so season is interconnected, and it’s generally seen as the best show on television. There’s another little show called Game of Thrones, again, ten episodes, each season trimmed of any fat and amazing. Casual viewers quickly get the point that they’re missing out on something special, and get up to speed (or “in their place” if that helps you understand…)

But by all means, keep thinking that those 12 or 13 completely worthless episodes of each season of TNG, DS9, VOY (especially VOY) and ENT brought in “casual” viewers.

Indeed, it was these episodes that destroyed Star Trek on television.

95. Charla - October 12, 2011

I say give the guy a shot. In the article his quoted statement was that he would like it to be “very thoughtful, smartly written stories that transcend the science fiction audience.”

He may just want to break from his mold- he want’s to do it, and we want it. It’d be very cool to have Bob on board too if he really wants to work with MacFarlane as you say Basement Blogger.

96. G - October 13, 2011

I loathe Family Guy, but I would not be at all surprised if McFarlane produced excellent Star Trek if given the chance. He’s highly intelligent, well-rounded, capable, and seems to be able to discern which content is appropriate in which contexts (granting that Family Guy’s content is appropriate for *any( context). Of those who’ve expressed interest, I would have the most confidence in his efforts.

97. Jim Nightshade - October 13, 2011

i also love seths shows-comedy n satire–his humor may seem offensive to some—but he hired a downs syndrome girl to voice a similar character on fg then she had to defend the character she played from the press–
i like seths perspective mentioning tng in the 90s as best examples of great thought provoking trek- im with those who say no reboots–and bob orci offering to team with seth-great idea–both love n respect trek-could make the show edgier-but i agree if it happened it would need to be on a major pay channel like hbo normal networks wouldnt do–show wouldnt survive at first n be so expensive to make-those offended by seths shows–dont watch them–personally i think south park is too vulgar at times butttt its damned funny too almost always satirizing contemporary politics n entertainment–

98. John Cooley - October 13, 2011

Seth’s message to anyone who believes in anything but his brand of atheism is an absolute moron. Check out an interview or two of his. That’s a far cry from Gene’s idic philosophy. Gene was an atheist as well but one who cod embrace anybody’s beliefs as their’s and accept it, and even celebrate it. Seth is a bitter Dawkins style ass who couldn’t be more removed from Gene Roddenberry’s gentle wisdom in this area. That alone should tell anyone, and particularly anyone raised on REAL RODDENBERRY STAR TREK all they need to know. This guy has NO BUSINESS being allowed anywhere near the franchise. And if you have to look up what IDIC is then…damn, Trekkies must have forgotten what means to follow STAR TREK at all.

99. Neumann - October 13, 2011

My issue would be tone… I wouldn’t want a new Trek TV series to be too “TV” … like “Chuck” or “Stargate SG-1,” just straightforward and all, but it shouldn’t be dark and moody like “BSG” or “Stargate Universe.”

Maybe there’s a happy medium between the two… can you guys think of any?

The special effects would have to be up there, movie-quality, sharp.. but the actors… can you guys name a live-action show that looks like you’d want a new Trek to look?

And let me say for the record I didn’t dig the look of Enterprise.

100. Cridz - October 13, 2011

#8 clearly has a problem understanding satire, parody and sarcasm. Geez.

101. I'm Dead Jim! - October 13, 2011

I just wish someone would do it.

102. Hugh Hoyland - October 13, 2011

Bob Orci would you be willing to team up with Seth and do a show? You guys could be good together.

103. Pauln6 - October 13, 2011

If an animated series is a genuine possibility then this wouldn’t be a bad pairing.

104. KevinA Melbourne Australia - October 13, 2011

#90 Bob said it!

I could see you guys doing it together !!!!!!…OMG! Seth and Bob bring in Manny Coto and there you have it boys. A CLEAR WINNER!

STAR TREK – THE REBOOT – created by Seth Mac Farlane, Robert Ochi and Manny Coto! Lets go forth and multiply!

105. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - October 13, 2011

Ive been saying ever since Enterprise went off the air that either Seth or Bryan singer should be given a crack at producing a trek series. Both are huge star Trek fans. Seth even has sppeared in 2 episodes of Star trek enterprise as enginer Rivers. And I definately think it should be a live action trek series.

106. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - October 13, 2011

And for the record I hate all of his animated shows, but guess what there is more to him than that. just like any producer writer actor etc who gets pigeon holed into specific type.
The guy is talented and he loves star trek as i said above ive been saying either he or singer should get a shot perhaps even togeather, to make a new trek series or movie.

107. David C. Roberson - October 13, 2011

I think it’s an interesting concept. I’ve often felt that one the things lacking in latter-day Star Trek was humor. Were Seth to make an honest attempt at drama, I think it might work out, but in all honesty, I would rather someone else take the helm in creating a new Trek series. Tim Minear, maybe?

108. Praetor Tal - October 13, 2011

Holy crap, this could be amazing.


Might as well dream big, because the corporate meanies will never bring Trek back to TV.

109. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - October 13, 2011

And this is not the first time he has indicated his interest in producing a star trek series either.

110. KevinA Melbourne Australia - October 13, 2011

Sorry Robert – in all my excitement I misspelt your name.

STAR TREK – THE REBOOT – created by Seth Mac Farlane, Robert Orci and Manny Coto! Lets go forth and multiply!

111. Chief Engineer - October 13, 2011

Seth doing TNG in this new universe would be very interesting. Why not?

112. Mark Lynch - October 13, 2011


Can’t stand “Family Guy” it is just not funny at all.

However if Seth can do serious work and is such a Star Trek fan, why not let him have a crack at it. As long he gets Manny Coto on board from day one, how can it go wrong?

If it’s no good, CBS will just cancel it anyway.

113. P Technobabble - October 13, 2011

I think MacFarlane would do a fine job with a Trek tv series. I realize some people are going to base his entire bundle of abilities on Family Guy, but I think Family Guy does the same thing TOS was doing — observing and criticizing modern society — except the show does it with comedy rather than sci-fi. IMO, when a society takes itself far too seriously (like the one we presently live in), the most outrageous kinds of “anti-serious” comedy will emerge — just as the most outrageous kinds of erotic literature emerged during the Victorian era. And that’s what Family Guy does. When TOS was on, Roddenberry knew he couldn’t tell certain kinds of stories, or make certain kinds of criticisms of society within an ordinary setting. The sci-fi format made it possible to do so. Comedy — particularly animated — also makes it possible to do so.
I’ve heard MacFarlane recite entire Kirk monologues, so he obviously knows his Star Trek. I don’t think there’s any reason to think he couldn’t do a good job. And perhaps a fresh point of view from out of left-field would be a good thing for a tv Trek, just as a fresh point of view was good for the films.
I think it’s only a matter of time before Trek returns to tv anyway.

114. Allvar - October 13, 2011

No, he doesnät wants to reboot it, he wants to revived it, big difference.

115. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#90 + #104 + #112 – Manny Coto is a prerequisite. By far the #1 Trek producer showrunner since the death of the Great Bird. His greatness was submerged in the mess that you-know-who made of the first couple of seasons of ENT but give him a clean sheet of drafting paper and certified geniuses such as Bob and Seth and it becomes the ultimate Trek Dream Team.

That’s how you win your night, CBS. This is a tentpole you can really build a sked around!

116. NoSeth - October 13, 2011

Yeah, because a cartoon comic actor should be running Star Trek.

Star Trek is at its best with Kirk and crew leading the way. Because of the movies, that means that either you recast for TV, OR you do an animated series. MacFarlane has NO track record in anything other than comedy cartoons. He’s great at that, but if I’m running a studio, he’s about the last person I would put at the head of the franchise.

You need a sci-fi producer with sci-fi writers and a sci-fi track record. You need Star Trek experts involved. You need someone smart enough to hire Judith and Gar Reeves Stevens as writer/producers. You don’t need Seth MacFarlane.

117. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#116 – I despise everything about Family Guy but you’re mistaking the singer with the song. Seth has the massive syndication resume which = $. He’s a brilliant producer who has effectively acknowledged that he’s burned out on doing scatological cartoons. Reeves-Stevens are just writers, for cryin’ out loud. You need producers with dilithium cojones! Bob + Seth + Manny = A formula that would produce the best Trek since Inner Light and Yesterday’s Enterprise. Or, NoSeth, do you expect “Kirk” to produce his own show? Duh!

118. SirBroiler - October 13, 2011

@94 Rob


119. Victor Hugo - October 13, 2011

Here i´m hoping they forget the FLINTSTONES reboot they suggested.

Being in love with that show, watching full seasons on DVD recently i´m know that kind of family (and smart) humor is totally out of reach of Seth MacFarlane´s unfunny brain.

120. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#119, if you are lumping in Seth as a comedian only you’re way off track and don’t know him. Don’t think for a second that he’d push to put Stewie in charge of Engineering. Seth can pull off straight drama better than 99% of the hacks who call themselves TV producers. With Bob’s vast experience in the genre to temper any of Seth’s impulsive vectors, and Manny to make sure that every Klingon forehead ridge is in the right place, you have a prime time series that would do a 10+ share consistently and would have the syndication chops to speak to Les Moonves in the only language he understands: Benjamins.

121. VZX - October 13, 2011


Yoooo….are you serious? That would be great! I’m sure MacFarlane would respect the material and teaming up with Orci would be the perfect storm!

Don’t tease me, bro.

122. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#121 Don’t forget Manny. We’re talking the ultimate triad here. We have Bob and Seth who know how to pull in ratings around the world (remember that syndication is the key to the success of any big budget US primetime show) and Manny who acts as Trek Historian. Of course the series would have to run in the JJ universe and in about the same time period so that there can be the occasional crossover for sweeps, so we can shelve the wet dreams about George Kirk prequels on the Kelvin (besides, after Thor the show couldn’t afford Hemsworth). All efforts would have to be resisted to buttonhole the series, so none of this “let’s put them in the Delta Quadrant so we can show new aliens” stuff that you-know-who (I can’t even bear to type his name) saddled TV Trek with. Bob, Seth, and Manny could throw the show into the middle of the “new” Federation and produce what could be the best Trek EVER.

123. Damian - October 13, 2011

I used to enjoy Family Guy at one time. I’m certainly one that likes a good comedy. For example, I love South Park and love the fact they are equal opportunity offensive. But after a while Family Guy just wasn’t so funny for me anymore. I wasn’t offended or anything, it just started feeling like I’ve seen it before. I’m not sure about him running a Star Trek show. I haven’t seen anything he’s done of a serious nature (at least not that I’m aware of) so I’m not sure how he’d handle it. I certainly think a Star Trek show should be a straight sci-fi drama, and not some comedy spoof. I’d rather have a Star Trek TV show in the prime universe. Leave the reboot universe to JJ Abrams, Orci and co. There’s too much of a chance of contradicting each other otherwise, besides a show in the JJ universe will not have the actors from the movies, and I think that would be a loss.

124. Steve T. in NY - October 13, 2011

@120 – I agree with you on this. Macfarlane wouldnt be doing this by himself. If Orci and Coto were to do it with him I think it would be a consistantly great show.. and might even appeal to more than just the fan base. If you look at some of the series now very popular on TV, they deal with issues while not really beating you over the head with them. The Series Person of Interest, Hawaii 5-0, and a few others deal with character relationships, as well as topical issues. They seem to develop their characters more, as well as have running storylines that may or may not be completed by the end of a seasonl. Personally I enjoy that type of storytelling.. and find it refreshing with many of these Dramas now on network TV. I am hoping that this will herald a new age for scripted TV, and relegate reality shows to cable where they belong.. Well one can dream .. right??lol

125. Lyle - October 13, 2011

I’d rather see them give it back to Rick Berman than to let Seth McFarlane anywhere near Star Trek… I agree with poster #8.

126. Gordon Ramsey's knife - October 13, 2011

Federation Medical CSI show

127. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#123, I can assure you that Seth has no intention of making Galaxy Quest. Just erase Family Guy from your mind. I’ve only had the pleasure of chatting with Seth for a few minutes but even in that short time he comes off like a supernova of brilliance. As I’ve said before don’t expect him to be nothing more than a puke joke pitcher. And do yourself a favor and save yourself from a letdown: There is not going to be anything else ever again produced for TV or movies in the prime universe. No one in his right mind is going to take on a project where they have to write around 650 hours of straitjackets. Besides it would only appeal to hardcore Trekkers and we all saw how well that worked in the ratings in ENT Season 4. The JJverse is IT. Why? Because it makes money. Don’t think for a minute that content is produced by TV or movie studios for a higher purpose than sheer mountains of cash. I’ve also had the (dis-)pleasure of meeting Les Moonves and I can assure you that in an alternate universe he would have been Bernie Madoff. There are three things that motivate Les: $, $ and $. If Les sees Bob and Seth (he wouldn’t value Manny much) coming his way with a Trek TV series, he’ll greenlight it in nanoseconds. If you don’t like this scenario which is the only one which can see Trek return to TV, stay happy and keep rewatching the old stuff on Netflix. :)

128. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#124: +1. But it’s not a dream. Bob is interested in working with Seth as we see above. I’m pretty sure Seth would be just as thrilled at working with Bob. IMHO we have the first real breakthrough since ENT got cancelled for TV Trek.

#125: Bite your tongue! You’ve just mentioned the unmentionable! :(

129. cjc869 - October 13, 2011

MacFarlane’s desperate reliance on unfunny gags (which he clings to in defiance of his entire audience) tells me everything I need to know about his ability to run a show.

I’m sure in his pilot, the captain would trip and skin his knee. And then cradle it, hissing in pain, for a full 60 seconds.

Then in the second episode, he’d do it again.

Then in the fourth, he’d do it again.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Give Star Trek to someone who can be trusted to tell compelling stories with characters the audience will care about.

130. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#129: In DEFIANCE of his audience? Oh, you mean the hundreds of millions of people around the world who don’t miss an episode. That audience! Yeah, you’re right. Seth would turn Kirk into a buffoon. (eyeroll)

131. Tony - October 13, 2011


I concur, I’d hate to have my favorite franchise begin to criticize (non-constructively) my beliefs or anybody’s beliefs.

I’m all for questioning my faith, it helps my reevaluate it and by extension myself, but I don’t want to feel like the vision of the future is hostile to those like me.

132. davidfuchs - October 13, 2011

Seth might be good at what he does, but….

133. Desstruxion - October 13, 2011

Give Trek back to Ron D. Moore. This time take off the reigns.

134. davidfuchs - October 13, 2011


If BSG was Moore of the reins, no thanks. I’d rather watch something with characters I like or care what happens to.

135. Trekus Fanus - October 13, 2011

Whoever gets to make a new Trek TV show (JJ? Seeing as he’s made some of the best TV shows ever and milked his chops on the awesome new films), I think the journey shouldn’t be to a quadrant but to the centre of the Galaxy (forget Star Trek V).

With todays FX this could be a stunning looking show too.

136. SoonerDave - October 13, 2011

I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read about tv production costs, it takes a first-run television about five years or so to start hitting the break-even point, with the real money not seen until you can start cycling the show into strip syndication. You hit a diminishing-marginal-returns point when you hit about 7 or 8 seasons, where there’s not much more marginal revenue to be gained by making more episodes.

When I read that I was interested to note that tracked the life of TNG pretty closely; it was about the fifth year I started hearing rumblings about a movie, syndication was big, and it was shut down after the seventh year and made the shift to theatrical releases.

The key for CBS, I suspect, is can they get five solid years of Trek in a TV reincarnation while Paramount is making rebooted feature films, which is precisely where Trek was when it reached its saturation point in the ill-fated Nemesis/Voyager/Enterprise era. I think CBS is loathe to do that.

137. Anthony Lewis - October 13, 2011

People who want a show post NEM to you I say good luck. That part of Trek is dead and gone. This is a business and it needs to make money.

The money is with what JJ and co. have established and that is where any future TV show will likely live. I’ll just be happy to see Trek on TV.

As for Seth, I HATE his shows. But you know what? That doesn’t disqualify him for doing Trek. I’ve heard him speak elsewhere and on political talk shows. He’s funnier than his shows are, he’s really smart, REALLY likes Trek, and totally gets it. I’d have no issues if he was part of a creative team for a new show.

138. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

From a recent MSNBC article on Seth:

“I talk to the fans and in a way I’m kind of secretly hoping for them to say, ‘We’re done with (Family Guy),’ ”


Family Guy, for instance, is the No. 1 show among male teens and a top five show among young adults, which justifies its $220,000 30-second ad rate, according to media-research firm SQAD Inc. What’s more, they’re triple threats in that they repeat well (particularly impressive in an era of DVRs and infinite options), stream well and syndicate well.

If anyone commenting on this site does not understand how the Star (Treks) are lining up in the Hollywood universe, then you couldn’t buy a clue about how the TV business works. :)

139. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

1. Les loves cash.
2. Les knows that JJ’s ST2 is going to have a promo budget well into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
3. Les knows that if he has an JJ-related ST series on the air when that promo budget hits the streets CBS will benefit from the buzz at 0 cost.
4. Les is a despicable excuse for a human being, but he’s not stupid.

140. falcon - October 13, 2011

As much as it pains me to say it, I believe Star Trek’s days on TV are over. It’s better suited to movies now, and a TV series would simply drive over the same ground from the 1960s. Today’s short-attention-span-theater aficionados would ditch it in an instant.

141. The Last Vulcan - October 13, 2011

#140, “a TV series would simply drive over the same ground” ??? With Bob, Seth & Manny at the helm? Give your head a shake, dude. :)

142. Christine - October 13, 2011

#99 :: I thought Stargate SG-1 was a fantastic show (well, I’m watching it now and it’s incredible) that lasted for ten seasons (!!) and Chuck has had a good run so far, too. However, the advantage the former always had was being on cable networks… It wasn’t competing with ridiculous reality shows and Idol and the like.

I know Enterprise tried and failed early in its life to have more mass appeal, but when they finally realized that wasn’t working, it got better. Lots better.

I think if we got a team of veterans and some fresh minds in (fresh minds that know how to write sci-fi, that is) a new Star Trek could happen, and it could work. They key would be not getting canceled after a season or two like too many other shows these days. The fact that Chuck and Fringe are still rolling gives me hope.

Also, people who are giving Manny Coto a hard time… seriously? He was far from being the root of the problem with ENT. In fact, I’d say he helped give us one of the best ‘Trek seasons of all: Season 4 of ENT.

143. 1701A2E - October 13, 2011

I know quite a few folks would love to see Star Trek back on TV. Let’s hope something creative could be done so the new series can be in produced and broadcasted in parallel with current movie…

144. CmdrR - October 13, 2011

Why not think in terms of 90 minute TV movies? Think of the fun. About one a month would be good. They did it with Columbo a million years ago, and that show is still a classic. If possible, let’s make it a new ship… possibly set in the JJverse.

As for MacFarlane, sure, why not? (If Paramount sees dollar signs when they look at him, how are any of us going to say otherwise.) True, he’s not the master of smart scripts, or of consistent quality. Let me rephrase that. I meant to say that whole seasons of his shows have sucked. Even so, if he’s the one to get it done, let’s hope he picks a team that can really deliver.

145. James - October 13, 2011

A lot of the nay sayers on here with regards to Seth Macfarlane remind me of the people who were screaming blue murder when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman…turned out they were eating humble pie for a long time.

The only thing with a Trek series is i wouldnt want that to be a reboot i would like it to be a natural progression (maybe the the federation starting to rot and collapse as it has grown too big and is faced with new threats). I would prefer it to be what it always was – great story telling that often provoked conversation and in some cases controversy that are relevant to todays world.

146. Captain Hackett - October 13, 2011

Orci/Lindelof/MacFarlane/Coto team would be so cool!

147. Craiger - October 13, 2011

How about Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the next Trek series? LOL

148. n1701ncc - October 13, 2011

We need a new show but DONT MESS WITH THE CANNON

149. Craiger - October 13, 2011

#146 How about Orci, Kurtzman and Coto?

150. Craiger - October 13, 2011

#148 They got rid of canon for the movie reboot and it was a hit. The same thing could be true about a TV series reboot. Maybe set it on a future Enterprise and the Enterprise wouldn’t have a letter after it?

151. - October 13, 2011

I would still like to see a mini series each year that just builds into the Trek Universe.

6 hours of the civil war between the two species of Klingons. One half seeing itself as more evolved.

One set in the future of the new universe where an aging Kirk and Spock and McCoy played by Nimoy Shatner and Macey (William H) have to team up one last time and go out in a blaze of glory, a true sacrifice to save the universe.

Plus that would establish that the events of generations do not take place now. Waving the berman death of Kirk goodbye without any elaboration.

A story about a race of beings who have their own rise of the machines to become the borg.

The story of earth under the rule of genetically engineered supermen and how they overcame them.

It would feed the fanbase for years

152. - October 13, 2011

To remain fresh all you usually need is a different way of doing things.

153. THX-1138 - October 13, 2011

Here are some requirements that I agree with:

No New Universe Trek on TV. Stay with the Prime Universe. Let JJ and those folks play in the alternate reality.

Stay on the Enterprise and set it in the future ala TNG. Get the best writers and MAYBE someone from the past TV regime to head it up like Manny Coto, to give the spirit of the show some continuity. And don’t reboot anything. Just move the universe into the future.

Seth is the wrong guy for this, no matter how much he likes Trek. I am not a fan of his shows at all. I find them neither clever or funny.

All in all though I am sure glad that there is someone out there who is promoting the idea that Trek should be on TV. Seth has unfortunaely saddled himself with the baggage of his animated series, which are clearly divisive among Trek fans. And that is a bad place to start a series.

154. Adolescent Nightmare - October 13, 2011

Hooray for Bob and Seth! Booooo for Manny and the old style.

155. NoSeth - October 13, 2011

117–you need good producers, but I’m willing to bet that MacFarlane has never even heard of the Reeves Stevenses. You can’t give the keys to the kingdom to the court jester.

It’s ridiculous.

Abrams was qualified. He had successes in the same genre created from scratch. MacFarlane is not a sci-fi guy. He may enjoy it, but that doesn’t mean he can create it.

156. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 13, 2011

67. No Abramsverse. TOS universe is the only one with mass audience appeal.

What the…?!?! Is today opposite day?!?!?!?!

157. PEB - October 13, 2011

#8 (and a lot of others) i dont think you guys get macfarland. you call him all these names and says he’s basically out of touch and just creates dirty television but have you ever heard him speak during interviews, at college graduations, etc? he’s an incredibly intelligent guy who stands up for a lot of different people. Listen to him speak and know his positions before you judge the man. All In The Family could easily be called an insensitive sitcom, especially during the era that it was on the air and to be honest I think that show is really at the heart of Family Guy when you look at it for what it is. He’s also has a love for 80s television so you see a lot of jokes, side stories, and scenes that are sometimes lifted word for word from 80s television and movies. And on top of that, he’s got a musicals and old 40s 50s throwback music which he deliberately puts in his shows and has now recorded as a stand-alone album. The man is multifaceted and again, you cant judge him for a couple of television shows (which dont intruigue some audiences), judge him for who he is.

158. Greenberg - October 13, 2011

This guy needs to be kept AWAY from Star Trek. He doesn’t have the intelligence to deal with it properly.

159. NoSeth - October 13, 2011

I’m not doubting MacFarlane’s intelligence. You can’t be that funny without being smart, and I do think Family Guy is very funny. I’m not a fan of Cleveland Show or American Dad, but despite my not wanting MacFarlane anywhere near Star Trek, I am a fan. Hey, Albert Pujols is one of the best baseball players alive, but I wouldn’t put him in the NBA. That doesn’t make him less of a great athlete.

Sci-Fi is not MacFarlane’s genre.

But if he really wants to prove he can do it, let him create a sci-fi show from scratch, all original, and see how it does/ THEN, think about giving him the franchise.

160. CmdrR - October 13, 2011

Just do a 30 minute version of “The Rikers at Home.” Let ’em tear into it and just animate the damn thing. It would be epic!!

161. Kirk, James T. - October 13, 2011

Not once did McFarlane say he’d like to do Star Trek… I think he’s more likely to want to see it done by someone else than do it himself. I think I’d love for Paramount/CBS to grow some balls and give it to him to parody just as he did with Wars though.

162. Christopher Roberts - October 13, 2011

142. Christine, I couldn’t agree with you more, when it comes to Season 4 of Enterprise. Friday night scheduling on UPN were the reason for the ratings falling off a cliff. Definately had nothing to do with the writing.

163. N - October 13, 2011

Ronald D. Moore and Manny Coto would be the best choices to create a new series, judging by who can make a better story and characters over who could pull in more ratings.

No offence to Bob Orci & co who did it a great job with XI but they’re better suited to movies.

164. et - October 13, 2011

I don’t think Seth is the guy to bring Star Trek back to the airwaves — and honestly, I don’t think he thinks he is, either.

But I will always be grateful to him as the man who got Patrick Stewart to say, “Look at me! I’ve got girl-boobs!”

165. Mazzer - October 13, 2011

“Very thoughtful, smartly written stories that transcend the science fiction audience”. So, the exact opposite of JJ’s films. I would buy that approach to a new TV series.

166. John from Cincinnati - October 13, 2011

Seth Macfarlane and new Trek all the way baby!

Give us new Trek on TV dammit! – Dr. Leonard Mccoy

167. Justin - October 13, 2011


I am not sure what show you were watching, but I have never seen a show in which I cared MORE about the characters than I did for those in BSG. Particularly Helo, Admiral Adama, and Starbuck.

168. Justin - October 13, 2011

Too many people here are underestimating MacFarlane. He knows his audience – his shows makes hundreds of millions for Fox, and he is smarter and more dynamic than any of us, despite what you think about Family Guy.

I should add that I haven’t been able to stomach Family Guy for quite some time. American Dad is far better, at least lately. Seth, if you are reading this, let Family Guy go. It’s done. Have your people talk to Les Moonves’ people. Make this happen.

169. b - October 13, 2011

I love the fact that they refer to bringing Star Trek back to what it was in the 90s. I’d be open to the idea of letting the Star Trek Movies continuing through the alternate time line they established with the last movie but bring back the prime universe Star Trek that worked for 35 years on TV.

170. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 13, 2011

It didn’t work for 35 years. It worked for about 9.

171. Greg2600 - October 13, 2011

Star Trek belongs back on TV. When the TNG and DS9 were regularly on TV, that was a great time in my life. Loved those shows.

172. PEB - October 13, 2011

#23 while I respect your stance, I really think something else ran Trek into the ground and it’s not JJ and the new team. I think somewhere midway through TNG and more-so AFTER TNG, Trek lost the core of what it was. The franchise was really about the characters. Sure, I mean, hands down, the ships and tech were awesome from the very begining but you cared about Kirk, Spock, Bones, and the rest. During TOS, it was the characters and the stories (great allegories) that made Trek so popular with the people who watched it and demanded its continuation in film. TNG was a perfect mix of character/story/tech. It increased the populary of Trek all over the globe and spawned an entirely new generation of men and women who found inspiration in the new characters. Deep Space Nine, even didnt suffer from technobabble so much as it did from its darker tone and more militaristic feel (which appealed to military friends of mine). Voyager suffered from it and Enterprise, although the premise was good on paper, was just dry. Star Trek, in my oppinion needs to get back to its roots if it’s going to make a splash on today’s tv screens. That doesnt mean there needs to be a literal translation of James Cawley’s web work either, but I think there needs to be the refreshing quality that JJ brought to his Trek film mixed with the writing that made TOS and TNG so great. Keep giving us great movies and give us a tv show that is just as great and gives time to flesh out stories and characters the way that other series have.

173. N - October 13, 2011

I have to disagree with you #172, I honestly think midway through TNG was when Trek became good, maybe it’s because I grew up on DS9 and Voyager and those are the kind of shows I like. I can’t see TOS as anything more than a Star Trek spoof poor effects, poor writing, poor acting. But then I’m too young to be nostalgic and I’m not some weird hipster.

I’d say Trek needs to get back to the 90’s that was it’s highlight, I love Enterprise from season one don’t get me wrong but it tried to be too modern it got better when they called it “Star Trek: Enterprise”

174. Rocket Scientist - October 13, 2011

173. N: TOS was the prototype for all that followed. It was state of the art television, and to these eyes it stands the test of time. You get past some of the outdated visuals and acting styles because the stories and characters are powerful enough to sustain viewer interest and inspire an unprecedented number of spinoffs.

What you’re doing is akin to criticizing a P-51 Mustang for not having the latest jet propulsion. It’s still a damn fine machine that wears its years well.

175. Max - October 13, 2011

A crass tastelessness would certainly open new horizons for the franchise, but I think MacFarlane would be more suited to developing a show where the characters boldly explore strange new discoveries in a toilet.

176. ME!! - October 13, 2011

For the love of God, please no.

Get someone who comprehends Star Trek, not just a fan of it and especially when said fan points to the 90s Star Trek shows as a highlight. Trek is best when it’s done in the same vein as the Original Series. We don’t need a return to the dark days of Berman Trek when continuity and common sense took a back seat to a cute scene or clever line of dialog or stories that cheat the audience by offering a major and exciting change only to alter it all back at the end. I’m not talking about ones where there’s some fiddling going on with timelines or whatnot, I’m talking about episodes like TNG’s Bloodlines where we’re told Picard has a son only to find out in the end he isn’t really Picard’s son and everything is back to “normal” by the end of the episode. Why not introduce such a game changer? Imagine the possibilities for future episodes. They did it with Worf, why not Picard? It certainly made Worf’s life more interesting. Too late now of course, but the point is we don’t need a return to Bermanized Trek. We need fresh Trek along the lines of the Original Series, perhaps set in the “Prime” timeline so as to not interfere with the Abramsverse of the new films.

177. Celeste - October 13, 2011

I dunno. Maybe if Seth really CAN take it seriously and not make it Star Trek meets Family Guy. When Seth is good, he’s very good. But Seth has been very hit and miss with me lately, with more emphasis on the miss side

178. ME!! - October 13, 2011

#174, amen, my friend!!

The Original Series stands the test of time.

As for “N.”‘s comments about not being nostalgic, N., what does that have to do with it? Granted you weren’t around when the series was on. So? I was 2 when it was in it’s final season. I grew up watching it in reruns in the 70s and I enjoyed TNG (most of it…HATE season 1 though), Voyager is my least favorite, Enterprise is ok and has grown on me over the years, and DS9 is my second favorite of all of them (after TOS).

My kids, one born in the 90s the other in the 2000s both LOVE the Original Series and have stated on numerous occasions it’s their favorite of all the Trek shows including TAS. They can see past the 60s-ness of the show and they love the colors, the action & the stories not to mention the characters. They’ll actually ask to watch it and, if I recall correctly, they both saw TNG and/or DS9 before ever seeing an episode of TOS.

Sounds like you don’t care for the style (60s tv was known for it) and can’t stand anything not done CG like practically EVERYTHING today. Have you ever even seen the remastered TOS? The effects are CG and it enhances the show considerably (the few goofs notwithstanding). Perhaps that would be more to your liking. Fact of the matter is, regardless, it’s your opinion, not a fact about TOS. You simply don’t care for 60s tv. I personally think that’s shallow, but to each his own.

Point of fact: it’s not about nostalgia, bud.

179. FastFashionBlitz - October 13, 2011

I’m sure MacFarlane would run the show very seriously as he is a big fan. However, in his current shows he constantly allows his political and personal beliefs to influence the storytelling (as “humourous” as it is.) I don’t want that for a new Star Trek series. Give me great stories, not “this is how I feel and you should feel this way too”.

180. Tony F - October 13, 2011

Is this what you mean?

181. Kev-1 - October 13, 2011

I think Mr. MacFarlane is talented, but, I wonder if his reliance on stereotypes and ethnic and religious humor would fit with Star Trek’s core philosophy of tolerance. I saw what Parker and Stone did with “Thunderbirds” with “Team America”, so this idea might or might not work. In the last case they said they were influenced by Gerry Anderson. Gerry’s shows were about saving folks and “Team America” was about saving folks (kind of) and kickin’ you know what.

182. PEB - October 13, 2011

#173, I get SOME of what you’re saying, but I wasnt even born when TOS was on the air and I was EXTREMELY young when TNG began its run on television. So I started out with TNG and DS9. I remember watching the premier of DS9 with my older brother and thinking how cool it was that a new show was basically born out of one of the coolest episodes of TNG. I think about all the great TNG episodes & moments and through all the tech they still maintained great character stories. BUT I have to disagree with you on the point that Trek got better midway through TNG. I think for techs, it got better. Think about it, TNG fans were more hungry for techs and specs than TOS fans were during their era and because of the team involved with TNG (Okuda especially), fans were now able to know about every tiny detail of the ship along with all of the amazing science behind trek. On TNG’s show, you started getting stories that went more into detail about the tech and science than prior stories had. Engineers and many scifi fans ate it up -myself included, but I still feel like you had a large number of people who simply wanted good stories. And I dont say it to come down on the series at all, but what I am saying is that if you stop and look at episodes from the middle of the show until the end, there was a heavy use of tech. The series finale was full of it but because we had known and loved these characters for so many seasons, the humanity wasnt lost.
DS9 dealt with tech but really not in the same way as TNG or Voyager did. What set that show apart was Sisko. That man was different than any other leader we had known in the Trek realm because of the lines he was willing to cross vs the ones he didnt. He felt the most realistic maybe because he felt like an actual military leader of today than a Starfleet captain. Voyager was watched because the time came when it was the only Trek on TV. Alot of the episodes werent great or good episodes and they like Enterprise) began looking to older Trek to keep viewers interested (Sulu & the Excelsior, Q, Troi and Riker, Troi and Barkley, Voyager ran into Romulans twice if not more and it felt forced). Its all Trek, and I watch it all because I’m a fan just as I’m a huge fan of what JJ is doing right now but I feel like Trek did lose its way, and 09 was just the start of it getting its true spirit back.

183. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - October 13, 2011

Why are is everyone so close minded in thinking that MacFralane is only capable of producing a certain type of film.
Look at Robert Rodriguez, the guy goes from a Hard Core R rated film to G and PG rated kiddie movies every other year.

I mean thats like if trek fans had been saying oh JJ Abrams wouldnt be a good fit for star trek cause he created Felicity before he did the new trek series.

Their are countless other examples of creative talent going back and fourth between opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of the movies or shows they produce.

184. Demode - October 13, 2011

If anyone working in Hollywood could get one more ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ movie made, it would be Seth MacFarlane. Totally serious!It could be a theatrical release, or it could be a made-for-TV (HBO or Netflix) release. Fans want it, and it would be guaranted to sell DVDs forever. He is friend’s with Patrick Stewart and has worked with all the TNG actors. God, make it so!

185. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - October 13, 2011

enough with all the you cant make a new show without Manny Coto crap.
That ship has sailed, he had his shot with Trek. His work on Enterprise was awesome, but seriously that ship has sailed, the same with Ronald D moore who i would love to see back in control of Trek tv series but again the ship has sailed.

I still think any new tv series should be done by anyone other than Bad Robot.

either Seth MacFarlane or Brian Singer would be a great choice to launch a new trek series

186. rebecca - October 13, 2011

I think Bryan Singer or Seth MacFarlane will be great choices to launch a new Star Trek TV series someday. They’d be brilliant at it

187. Adolescent Nightmare - October 13, 2011

I don’t distinguish between TOS and the spinoffs. They’re equally outdated and dull. Modern Star Trek is the one for me!

188. SPOCKBOY - October 13, 2011

I can’t see it happening, but who knows?
As long as he makes sure there is brilliant “non Bermanized” music.


189. James - October 13, 2011

Maybe Tom Hanks could create a new Trek series with the help of Spielberg…. Seeing how Bob Orci doesnt want him in the movies (not that i am still banging on about him being perfect for the role of Commodore Matt Decker or anything…;-)

190. AJ - October 13, 2011

McFarlane GETS ‘Star Trek,’ and he is a brilliant satirist, among other things.

His clout would get the best and the brightest back to the franchise.

My only worry is: Does he know what he’s getting himself into?

191. Weyoun 9 - October 13, 2011

One laugh an episode, if yr lucky that is & hes a great comedy director… really?

192. Kevin A Melbourne Australia - October 13, 2011

MacFarlane, Orci, Coto – Live long and possibly bring back STTV!

193. ironhyde - October 13, 2011

First impression is that Seth MacFarlane isn’t the right guy for it… but his notion of rebuilding a star trek “the way that it was in the 1990s: very thoughtful, smartly written stories that transcend the science fiction audience.” is EXACTLY what I want to see. So maybe they should give him not total control, but enough control that his idea of what Trek is will influence the outcomes. This flashy, bang-bang, light it up, snap it by, don’t stop to think, don’t explain anything Trek needs an injection of ‘thoughtful, smartly written.’ :)

194. Bruce Banner - October 13, 2011

To all the Seth critics: Dying is easy, Comedy is hard

195. Rob - October 13, 2011

@195 Does that mean Star Trek V is a nobler effort than TWOK?

196. Craiger - October 13, 2011

Don’t forget you have to get the general audience to like a new Trek TV series just like they did with Abrams Trek movie. Otherwise doing Trek like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise just represent the Trek fans only.

197. John - October 13, 2011

If he’s sincere! Make it so!

198. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 13, 2011

The naysayers don’t understand the tremendous ratings potential if MacFarlane casts himself as the captain and does the whole thing in his Quagmire voice.

199. N - October 13, 2011

#178 the way I see it and maybe I’m completely off the mark but a lot of (if not most) TOS fans grew up with it. It becomes a symbol of their childhood/young adulthood, something that grew as they grew and fond memories will be associated with it, to them it’ll always be a classic. But from my eyes it’s dated. Experience can affect perception and I don’t believe I ever presented my opinion as if it were fact but if I did I apologise. Maybe I am shallow, but it’s not just the visuals I don’t like, it feels a parody of itself and one of the reasons I love Trials and Tribble-ations is because it makes fun of TOS, whilst simultaneously brings back fond memories for those that grew up with it. I did enjoy watching The Prisoner though and Aliens is always a good watch so maybe I’m not so shallow.

And I’m not one of those people that hates everything non-cgi, as that would exclude most of Trek.

200. Wes - October 13, 2011

I am a little skeptical at MacFarlane rebooting Trek for the small screen. I think this is all a big joke played at our expense while we all wait anxiously for the new movie, hopefully coming out in the winter of 2012. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for new Star Trek, but only if put in the right hands, and I’m sorry but MacFarlane is not the right hands to put it in. He will just make another bad animated comedy (Family Guy can be sometimes really dumb) on Trek and I think Trek is nothing to be made fun at (except if it was a spoof, and that’s why I am in total support of him parodying The Wrath of Khan).

It’s gotta be a serialized drama, like Deep Space Nine (who pulled it off brilliantly even though they were ahead of their time in terms of storytelling). He’s already rebooting The Flintstones for a release sometime in 2013, so why doesn’t he stick with that and work on his other shows?

201. Jim Nightshade - October 13, 2011

Wil wheaton and brent spiner were just on big bang theory and they were funny as hell!
Trek can be funnier if done right…

202. John Gill - October 13, 2011

Let him pitch his idea to CBS! If it’s crap, like so many would like to think, it won’t fly, but I’m willing to bet he could put some Kirk/Picard-styled Trek back into TV.

203. MJ - October 13, 2011

Memo to Seth — can’t stand your material — stay away from my Trek!!!

204. VulcanFilmCritic - October 14, 2011

I’m currently reading “Captain Quirk: The Unauthorized Biography of William Shatner,” and I was surprised to find that Desilu was contemplating a spin-off starring Roger C. Carmel as Harry Mudd. He was such a popular character that they brought him back once. The plan was to have him as a recurring character and maybe his own show, but Roger C. Carmel was involved in other projects.

Rather than a strict re-boot, perhaps Mr. MacFarlane might test his mettle on a show set in the Star Trek universe (hopefully not TOS but TNG) involving a minor character. It might be interesting to see Star Trek from the viewpoint of civilians, aliens, or even criminals.

Let him try his hand at that and if the show is not an embarrassment, then perhaps the familiar crew could start making appearances. We might even engage in some limited time travel and have the stars of the old TNG make some guest appearances.

Harry Mudd or Khan or Sarak might make interesting stars in the TOS universe, but I’m not that familiar with TNG to suggest a pivotal character.

205. Schiefy - October 14, 2011

I do not think MacFarlane understands IDIC…his animosity toward people of faith is appalling and would not serve Trek well.

DS9 was able to treat religion respectfully and still tell good stories. Even TOS offered the occasional “religious” episode without slamming faith in the manner that MacFarlane would be prone to do.

Trek appeals to a lot of different people: atheist to humanist to Christian to Islamic to spiritiual as well as the logical to the emotional. The reason it has this appeal is because it embraces the concept of IDIC (not perfectly but consistently and respectully) which while not necessarily pro- or anti- something does often strike a common chord with all people: MacFarlane does not ultimately strike me as someone who would maintain that tradition just so we can get someone who might bring something “new” to Trek–we need creative people who respect EVERYTHING Trek is and can still tell intelligent and exciting stories that can comment on today’s world while remaining hopeful and not put down the positive to be found in other worldviews that don’t agree 100% with yours.

206. Frank Sinatra Jnr. - October 14, 2011


207. Crusade2267 - October 14, 2011

I appreciate MacFarlane’s way of doing things. He has a message, and he is not afraid to say whatever he thinks. But I think he’s a bit too blunt for Star Trek. Trek TV can’t always be said to be subtle, but it’s a little more refined than MacFarlane tends to be.

208. Phil - October 14, 2011

Commendable that MacFarlane wants to do this, but I think he’s wrong for that responsibility. Just because someone wants to do something dosen’t mean they should – Seth Rogan didn’t work out all that well in Green Hornet now. Will Smith didn’t help Wild Wild West, either.

209. MJ - October 14, 2011

@205 “I do not think MacFarlane understands IDIC…his animosity toward people of faith is appalling and would not serve Trek well.”

Exactly. It would be like hiring George Carlin to lead the remake of Ben Hur.

210. - October 14, 2011

Funny how some of you guys would assume that if McFarlane did Star trek it would be like family guy.

Ironically that is not due to his limited creativity or imagination.

211. Oddness - October 14, 2011

Did anyone see the Last seasons Fringe episode where it was in the future?

Anyone notice how Peter looked kinda like the original “Jeffery Hunter” Pike character in that episode: A nod? Id love to see (The Fringe) team do a Trek TV show. Yeah I’m weird..I mean they already got the theatrical flicks … I think keeping with the same team would be cohesive. Star Trek – Pike
Or go forward to a new time after TNG.

212. MJ - October 14, 2011

@210. Ah yes, I forgot about the great thinker that is Seth MacFarlene, the guy who is remaking the Flinstones and a directing a movie about a live Teddy Bear…ah, and then there were the genius Gilmore Girls guest appearances and the appearances on Conan.

Yes, I stand corrected. Give MaFarlene the keys to Trek.

(now there is some real irony for you to digest)

213. Oddness - October 14, 2011

I see Seth as a Trek enthusiast. He sees the inherent humor and camp in it. which Trek has always had. More for those who dont “get it” Not sure he’d be a good idea for the keys gig though… heh! No doubt hes talented though

I want to see Peter Bishop from Fringe finding Warp Technology and building a Time ship to go around repairing the dimensional rifts created by Walter and Bell (Nimoy) heh coincidence? Hell change his name to Chris Pike
and Anna Torv can be his #1 … woot .. We already have the traveler guys in Fringe not unlike from TNG. Im just goofin :)

214. Toonloon - October 14, 2011

Jesus!!! Are some of you out of your minds??? Have you even seen star trek??? Imbeciles!! Do you honestly think Gene Rodenberry would find farlane’s work funny or inteligienf??? I’m with #8.

Bob Orci – I sincerely hope you posted with you tongue firmly in your cheek, if not, it’s the first franchise based idiotic thing I’ve heard you say and I would be sincerely worried about the next trek movie if you honestly thought pitching a series with a person who has made millions from laughing at the less fortunate, or people from different backgrounds is in the spirit of star trek.

215. Justin - October 14, 2011

It amazes me how many of the people in this thread do not understand the function of comedy.

216. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - October 14, 2011

The fact that he’s citing 90’s Trek as being good Trek makes me think he’s the last person who would know how to do Trek properly (other than Berman, Braga, or Abrams).

217. Buzz Cagney - October 14, 2011

#201 I always laughed at that pair on Trek. The problem was I don’t think I was supposed to.

218. Adolescent Nightmare - October 14, 2011

Hey Bob,
Is that true up above that films are much more profitable than TV? I know you work in both.

219. Danpaine - October 14, 2011

215. Justin – October 14, 2011

I’d like to buy you a beer for that one.

No doubt about it.

220. denny cranium - October 14, 2011

For those of you who don’t like Family Guy- Vote with your remote. Change the channel.
He pushes the envelope sometimes but some of his stuff is pure genious.
Its his pop culture references that just make me giggle.
I think he may surprise some of us with his take on Star Trek.
But please put Trek back on TV. It was comforting every week to see the characters we all know and love

221. Toonloon - October 14, 2011

Please 215, explain the function of comedy to me, I can’t wait to hear your wondeful insights.

222. Michael Hall - October 14, 2011

“I’m sure MacFarlane would run the show very seriously as he is a big fan. However, in his current shows he constantly allows his political and personal beliefs to influence the storytelling (as “humourous” as it is.) I don’t want that for a new Star Trek series. Give me great stories, not “this is how I feel and you should feel this way too”.”

Seriously, you think that TOS didn’t aggressively wear the political views of Roddenberry, Coon, et al on its sleeve?

That’s why I’ve always been bemused by the injunctions on this site for fans not to openly debate politics. For its time, TOS was the most political TV series on the air.

223. Justin - October 14, 2011

@ 221 – Take some entry level humanities and anthropology courses, then ask me again so that your new-found understanding of the fear response as it pertains to how humans decide what is “funny” gives you a basis of understanding the terminology that I am going to use.

Then, don’t ask me because you no longer need to ask.

224. Craiger - October 14, 2011

Breaking News! – Gustavo over at Trekweb is thinking about stepping down. I guess Trek news has gotten slow lately. I wonder how much their will be between now and 2013 if the movie comes out then?

225. THX-1138 - October 14, 2011

In order for Seth to convince me that he could helm Trek responsibly, I would need to hear what his pitch for the series would be. The capper would be some work of his within the genre, and I am not talking about the Star Wars cartoons.

Thusfar I have been underwhelmed by any of his animated offerings. I see that many people here don’t see why Seth has the rep of a one-note Johnny, and it makes me laugh. Seth seems to be doing the same animated series over and over again.

226. Chadwick - October 14, 2011

@ 148. n1701ncc

Well said, plain and simple. A new show, completely new, and no mincing words, not a new reboot but a new show without rebooting.

227. Eric Cheung - October 14, 2011

Seth MacFarlane is very talented and intelligent. He’s a strong writer and performer; whether his resume featured comedy or drama shouldn’t be the most important thing to consider. The concerns I’d have are probably more in line with the concerns depicted in the South Park episodes. Would he be inclined to go for lazy Mad-Lib style storytelling? Given his passion for Star Trek and what it represents to him, my thinking, and my hope, would be no.

There was an article here on TrekMovie a long time ago wherein he presented an award .

That makes me think he gets it.

I think he definitely could do a good job.

228. navamske - October 14, 2011

If Trek came back to TV, I would love the series to be set in the TOS era, using sets and costumes like those in “Trials and Tribble-ations,” though of course with present-day special effects. They could even have cameos by the remaining living cast members — say the ship gets a message from the Enterprise and it’s Uhura speaking… but it’s a voice message only. As long as you don’t see the original actor — and there are a number of different scenarios that could be used for this — there’s no continuity problem.

229. Justin - October 14, 2011

I know that Seth has a legitimate interest in science, as it shows in his work and he has talked about it in interviews. However, I wonder if his involvement with Cosmos is a means to build cachet with more seriously minded folk so that a dramatic/sci-fi series would not be viewed as such a stretch.

230. Bruce Banner - October 14, 2011

@195 Rob: You made my point for me. Star Trek V The Undiscovered Country shows how wrong it can go when comedy is done badly.

231. Chadwick - October 14, 2011

Well, MacFarlane supports the Democratic Party, has spoken out about gay rights, won the Harvard Humanist of the Year 2011, and he wants to legalize cannabis so I retract my earlier statement, he is the bomb!

By simply winning Humanist of the year (along with his love of Star Trek) makes him a perfect candidate to work on Star Trek. Granted he has mostly done comedy, but would be nice if he could brainstorm on some new trek.

….I just don’t want a rebooted TV series after the rebooted movies. I mean…c’mon fare more can be done before a reboot TV series is considered. Don’t just jump to reboot because its such an accepted term today.

232. Chadwick - October 14, 2011

@47. Pat Payne

In a sense I agree with you. I am not really a fan of those shows either. Who he is as a person makes him a positive candidate to usher in a new era of Star Trek, BUT his work credentials do not. Placing his minor endeavors aside and looking at his big three, Family Guy (its ok), American Dad (its ok), and The Cleavland Show (which is just terrible) do not give him the credentials to create a new Star Trek. Its vulgar comedy, the complete opposite of Star Trek. Seth would have to do something serious and a little more high brow before I would give him the keys to Star Trek. He has the ability but has not proven it yet. Where Bob has a slew of movies and TV’s under his belt which represent a wide variety of concepts Macfarlane does not yet have that. If all JJ did was direct a show like The Office I would not say that he is a candidate for Star Trek, but JJ has done a plethora of work and his talent is proven, Macfarlane is not quite there yet. I don’t doubt he can do it, but first he has to prove it with something else.

233. Tony F - October 14, 2011

You mean like World Enough and Time ?
or Maybe To serve all my days ?
wow …A tv series with new special effects and cameos from the original TOS actors …
Where on earth could one possibly watch anything like that ?
Oh wait
Its called Star Trek Phase II or (New Voyages) and it happens to fill ALL of your criteria.
Do you have any idea what we could do with a budget and a real money to work with?

234. James Bond 007 - October 14, 2011

Seth MacFarland ? Who, never heard of him.

Family Guy? Never heard of it.

Wait you’re grown men watching a cartoon? and this is the guy you want to lead a new Star Trek show?
Why don’t we just get Forrest Gump or that nitwit Sheldon from BBT to make one.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

235. John - October 14, 2011

Seth Macfarlane = Full Blown Narcissism

236. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 14, 2011


Well, you certainly have no trouble promoting yourselves.

Relentlessly and distastefully.

237. AJ - October 14, 2011

I am one of those who gags when people here start using the word ‘IDIC,’ which is a concept NOT invented by Star Trek (except to sell slag). Then, the gushing begins about the ‘Great Bird”s “philosophy” like he’s some dime-store L. Ron Hubbard.

Gene Roddenberry was a foul-mouthed sexist who liked a drink or three, but happened to understand what the world could be like if we used our minds to comprehend the greater good of the unity of diverse elements vs. the exclusion of them based on hatred and prejudice.

Hatred and prejudice stem historically from organized religion, and its ability to cloud logic with outlandish promises of what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (like Ghostbusters), and of an afterlife.

Christians and Muslims spilled oceans of blood for centuries to achieve dominance, and generations have lived in abject poverty with no hope, except that they would die and ‘go to a better place.’ A lie perpetrated by the upper class to keep men down while they had Heaven on Earth, and the paid higher education to know how important that was. Look at India’s decaying caste system.

Prince Vladimir of Russia “shopped” in the 10th century for a version of Christianity which would keep the serfs and peasantry in line, and chose the one with the most shiny baubles to keep them blinded to how miserable they were. Today it is called Russian Orthodoxy.

Roddenberry was aware of this. Landru, Vaal, Apollo, Gary Mitchell (and the Film Which Cannot be Named): they were all expressions of the true nature of organized religion and those who are attracted to it. Shatner was lambasted by the religious right for his ‘secular’ view. He was actually right on target, bless him.

Only when belief and the spiritual intersected ‘our own’ reality in Trek, as with the Vulcan Immortal Soul, the “Katra,” did Trek create something to think about which transcended earthly debate, which seems to spiral downward almost every day these days. It’s called pandering to the lowest common denominator. Most Trekkers don’t reside there, thank goodness.

Indeed, Seth McFarlane understands this. He is a liberal pro-gay, pro-diversity intellectual from a NYC suburb. The characters in his three current cartoons erase ethnic and even ideological barriers, and include talking animals, homosexuals (unlike Trek), child molesters, half-Asian sex-addicts, virulently conservative government employees and guilt-addled Jews.

Recent “FG” episodes have seriously shown opposition to antisemitism (and Disney), the out-of-control deification of Christ, and the “Christianity” (ha!) of the Founding Fathers, and even the detrimental effect of Christianity on humanity’s advancement in general.

These are ideas, boys and girls, and Trek is not ‘Three’s Company’ with head-ridges. It’s not about Klingons and Romulans, either. It’s about shocking us into getting ready for what’s ahead.

McFarlane is also a Trek purist. The combination is perfect for stories that will make us think, and to get TV Trek into the 21st century with its edge intact.

238. Tony F - October 14, 2011

Sorry but this a subject that Phaee II most definatly knows something about
we have been doiing exactly what 228 said he/she wanted for the last 8 years
My comments were directed at 228 specifically in this case

If Seth is really serious about this subject (Which I doubt)
We can help him in ways that “Quite Frankly He couldn’t possibly Imagine or believe”)

239. Radioactive Spock - October 14, 2011

No. Don’t need a Trek series with poorly written jokes about how awful republicans are.

240. Gene Roddenberry's Mama - October 14, 2011

Do you Nerds have to run with every Star Trek Reference and Soundbite? He is not going to reboot Star Trek. Paramount is not putting Star Trek back on television. They want to keep it in the films and they want the films to be accessible to a wider audience a la the 2009 movie. I loved the Trek series with the exception of Voyager and the first three years of Enterprise but the problem was that in order for anyone to really keep up you had to have some knowledge of the other shows. The Next Gen movies were like television episodes with the exception of First Contact. I think that putting Trek back on television is not the way they want to go. They don’t want to confuse people. The reason why the Next Gen failed is because Trek became an exclusive Nerd Club and didn’t bring anyone else into the club. Seth McFarlane is not rebooting Trek for TV. I wish you guys would stop posting this crap and getting the little Nerd Boys panties all excited. Its a comment. It aint gonna happen. Im done.

241. Jeff - October 14, 2011

“35. T’Cal – Only if every two-parter has a 5 minute fight between the captain and a large chicken…”

Long before Family Guy existed, Ben Stiller did a skit where he played Captain Kirk fighting “Chicken Man”, a guy in a chicken suit. (I saw it on YouTube a while ago, but it looks like it was taken down.)

242. Vultan - October 14, 2011

Aside from the thoughtful, smartly written material that has so many times raised Trek into the realm of quality fiction (not just science fiction), it has also had a good deal of what many would call, for lack of a better term, “heart.”

Whether it’s the warm fuzzy you feel at the end of “Search for Spock” with the crew all gathering around our favorite Vulcan with eyebrow firmly arched, or the delight in watching Data trying to figure out if Riker is bluffing at a friendly game of poker, any fan knows—or SHOULD know—that Star Trek is really at its most basic form about friendship.

Do I see these things coming from Seth MacFarlane?

Eh… not much. Or at least his works haven’t demonstrated it. Trek is like seeing an old friend, whereas MacFarlane’s shows are… not.

243. Canon Schmanon - October 14, 2011

237. AJ – Well said, Seth MacFarlane!

244. MJ - October 14, 2011

@237. Be careful, coming across as having “it all figured out” and being condescending about it is just as bad as what the religious zealots preach.

For my part, being agnostic, I don’t trust the in-your face atheists any more than the creepy Christian radicals and Muslim radicals. Its people who are searching for truth AND who respect others’ beliefs who I trust. And I’ve always wondered about some atheists who seem so hell-bent (pun intended) on convincing others of their position — are they really that much different than the in-your-face fundamentalists who are peddling their own beliefs?

245. Vultan - October 14, 2011


I’m with you there, MJ.

I saw a video of the late Michael Crichton talking about this very subject to a group of students a while back. He said it was (at that time) one of the things that puzzled him about the world, how humans seem to have this inner need to force their beliefs onto others. (Afraid I’ve been guilty of that myself.)

I suppose progress can only be made when we identify these urges and learn to control them… like old mister pointy ears. ;)

246. Jim Nightshade - October 15, 2011

AJ 237….Well said—-also to others mentioning that many of those expressing negative opinions that they dont seem to understand the concept of humor and satire bravo…south park is another comedy that seems gross even hateful but if u really watch it u see that they use shock humor but always have a usually brilliant commentary or political statement to make regarding humanity society…fg is one of the very few shows on tv that usually dohave points to make about humanity just like the best of trek..those who say seth is hateful judt dont get it and havent really watched iy imho…

247. MJ - October 15, 2011

@246. I pity anyone who needs mean spirited immature cartoons to teach them morals and to educate them on society. Read the fracking newspaper and THINK, people!

248. DonDonP1 - October 15, 2011

Cool! I have no problem with the return of ‘Star Trek’ to television. With respect to Seth MacFarlane, however, he should–either with or without the necessary assistance from Manny Coto and/or J.J. Abrams and/or Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci–create a Kirk/Picard-styled series set in the prime universe either between the events of ‘Nemesis’ and ‘Countdown’–the quad-issue comic book prequel to ‘Star Trek XI’–or between the events of ‘Countdown’ and ‘Star Trek Online’ or–better yet–either during or after the events of ‘Star Trek Online’ and to air in the United States on either CBS or the CW. Go ahead, Seth, make it so! Do it, do it, do it!

249. DonDonP1 - October 15, 2011

Oh, and make it as serious as the previous TV incarnations, with tiny bits of comedy.

250. Eric Cheung - October 15, 2011

There’s always seems to be this prejudice against animation and comedy, and more broadly, against someone who is known for doing one thing. Assumptions are made in all three cases that those things are the only things that a person in those fields can do, that what someone is known for is all that they’re capable of.

There’s this assumption that comedy isn’t serious, that because it’s job is to make people laugh that it’s inherently tossed off. The reality is that the truly funny, as with anything else that’s just so good, requires talent and hard work. The truly funny often has a complexity and skill that appears effortless on the surface. It’s that *appearance* of effortlessness that’s often funny itself.

234. There’s this assumption that because a lot of animation, especially in America, is aimed at children that all of it is. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Ask Ralph Bakshi, or indeed, Seth MacFarlane, or Matt Stone and Trey Parker, or the original Looney Tunes guys (whose anarchic satire was often aimed more at adults than children in the original shorts).

Isn’t that was sci-fi fans like us have been complaining about for decades? Isn’t that why a lot of us complain about sci-fi not getting the critical acclaim it often deserves? I think an argument could be made that Deep Space Nine is one of the most important TV shows of the 90s, since it was a step toward the serialization that many dramas and even comedies today enjoy. But it only won Emmys for things like costumes and effects. Well deserved as those were, that show deserved recognition for the characters and stories it told.

And yet the critics and academia are capable of that kind of recognition for comedies, animation, and sci-fi/fantasy. The Simpsons is often cited as one of, if not the, best American TV show of all time. As are lots of comedies such as I Love Lucy, The Dick Van Dyke Show, All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Cheers, and Seinfeld, and sci-fi like TOS and the Twilight Zone.

The Pythons have influenced many in comedy, yet who would say they’re not equally capable of drama or sci-fi. Michael Palin was absolutely chilling in Brazil for example.

Again, I think there are possible concerns with Seth MacFarlane as a Star Trek showrunner, but I think those concerns should come not from the genres that show up on his resume, but the execution of those genres.

251. Jim Nightshade - October 15, 2011

Well MJ thanx for the pity but I dont think I really need it….I had reading comprehension of a third year college student when I was in grade school so yeh….I read Papers Books u name it…it is your opinion these shows are mean spirited…I do not really think they are…to me mean spirited is more like Don Rickles style comedy where a comedian just picks on one person and cuts them down as the butt of their jokes and insults….the humor in Family Guy is broader than that and funnier….the best of humor allows us to laugh at ourselves and realize how ridiculous the world or some things can be….Further Comedys aim is not to teach anyone anything more just to entertain and smile/laugh….Ive never needed lessons from comedy but they can reflect some aspect of societys human foibles that u may not have thought about likewise I dont think Trek ever taught us much either but the allegories and points of view were appreciated as it lent more substance to the entertainment…same with Shows like Family Guy and Seth….
MM I was at a craft store a few days ago was wearing my Star Trek the Experience Gray golf short sleeve shirt….has small white lettering in upper left chest just saying star trek the experience Las Vegas Hilton with a small delta shield on it….Some guy in the store noticed and stepped in front of my face and did the vulcan hand sign and said live long and prosper in a mocking tone and said that he used to live in his parents basement also….I managed a snotty FUNNY comment which I hoped he noticed i was being sarcastic….now THAT to me was mean spirited…

252. Aly - October 15, 2011

If our nation – no, our WORLD ever needed a Star Trek show currently running on Television, it is NOW.
Star Trek was part of the inspiration behind the “Information/Computer” age leap which we’ve made, as it inspired an entire 2 generations to go into fields of science and technology.
With the precarious state of the world today, children DESPERATELY need to see more than CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds, etc….Why not show them something POSITIVE, other than just more sex and violence… Any successful producer who wants to put Star Trek back on the air DEFINITELY has my vote!

253. Aly - October 15, 2011

For all those who in their comments condemned Seth as a possible Star Trek producer SOLELY on the basis of his reputation as being a comedy writer – I would remind you to recall some of the problems Gene Roddenberry ran into. He was a writer for Have Gun Will Travel – he then found it nearly impossible to be taken seriously in any other genre because he was known as a WESTERN writer…Then he made Star Trek. And after Star Trek, he had great difficulties getting a job because he was known as a SCIENCE FICTION writer. The state of television today leaves much to be desired. Just as Gene had to struggle with the sensors, TV producers today appear to have to struggle with networks wanting crudeness and sex and violence. The fact that he wants to produce a series the way trek was in the 90s – in its heyday – with THOUGHTFUL writing – I think we (and CBS/Paramount) ought to give him a chance.

254. SciFiGuy - October 15, 2011

Thoughtful is fine…but I want ACTION! People forget that Star Trek at it’s best in the 60s was an action adventure show set in space…but with superior writing. That’s what it needs to get back to…and truthfully, even TNG didn’t rise to that level. DS9 did a bit more…which is why I prefer it over TNG. I thought TNG was way too preachy, dogmatic…and frankly, a bit SLOW.

255. Chingatchgook - October 15, 2011

I don’t have any doubt that McFarlane could do this. Lately he’s been trying to stretch a bit farther than Family Guy. He’s already planning to do a new Cosmos series, he’s also putting out a singing album as well. The guy’s got some talent and he definitely thinks outside the box. Could he pull this off? Given the chance, I think so.

If anything, there have been several TV producers that have toyed with the idea of a new Trek series, most of which have been reported here in TrekMovie. McFarlane’s interest just goes to show that Trek is alive and well, and it would be nice if CBS took note. We need a new TV series, and a good one.

256. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 15, 2011

This sort of thing…

242. the delight in watching Data trying to figure out if Riker is bluffing at a friendly game of poker

250. Deep Space Nine is one of the most important TV shows of the 90s

252. If our nation – no, our WORLD ever needed a Star Trek show currently running on Television, it is NOW

Undoubtedly leads to this sort of thing…

251. Some guy in the store noticed and stepped in front of my face and did the vulcan hand sign and said live long and prosper in a mocking tone and said that he used to live in his parents basement also

257. MJ - October 15, 2011

@250 “The Simpsons is often cited as one of, if not the, best American TV show of all time.”


258. richpit - October 15, 2011

I didn’t read all ~9 billion responses…but I say, what the heck? Give him the opportunity to at last write a “treatment” and see what’s what.

If he’ll “shake it up” a bit and make Trek not as “talky” and “cerebral” as the 24th century series (don’t get me wrong, I was a fan of TNG), I’m all for it. Trek needs action.

I know most of you like to think that Gene was some higher life form with all these lofty ideals for the show, but the fact is that he was making a sci-fi show for TV so he could make money. TOS, in my eyes, was never too lofty, ideal or utopian. It was “cowboys in space” (to loosely paraphrase). All that “feel good” crap came in with TNG. Men in skirts? Really? No monetary system? Please.

259. LJ - October 15, 2011

I hope not. I have watched some American Dad and Family Guy, and whilst some are watchable (the Family Guy Star Wars spoofs, for example) most just leave me wanting a shower: and I’m no prude.

McFarlane has made a fortune peddling what ‘guys think’. I admit guys do think the way he writes: after eight pints of Stella Artois. The content he writes has a time and a place: in the pub at eleven thirty on a Friday night (normally my mates and I start at five: six-and-a-half hours is plenty of time for eight pints). That is where it should remain.

I’d need more evidence of versatility as a writer before I’d be happy with him helming any Trek.

260. AJ - October 15, 2011

“Family Guy” has indeed been able to provide its share of meaningful moments.

One example: A depiction of the Germans’ assault on Warsaw in 1939 with a soundtrack bit from “The Winds of War” as part of a time-travel Stewie & Brian ‘road’ picture was chilling.

Having lived four years in Poland, they had cartoonized’ the Warsaw Old-Town, palace, and surroundings so well, it was easily identifiable, even before the caption came on.

THAT attention to detail is something McFarlane can definitely bring to the table, which we Trekkers all love to death.

Oh, and he can bring back Ron Jones!

I’d by that for a dollar.

261. AJ - October 15, 2011


262. Christopher Roberts - October 15, 2011

I don’t envy him. If it does come down to Seth MacFarlane choosing what form Star Trek on TV takes next. You instantly upset a subset of fans for not carrying where the 24th Century left off, or setting up an entirely new universe neither the Prime or Abrams. And after you’ve been going a few months, the comparisions and accusations start… “That episode was a complete rip-off of a DS9 one.” “What’s with all the T&A? And the pop music? This show has sold out!” “Oh, this has been done before on TNG, VOY and TOS.”

Not as if steering clear of online forums will help. Fans will just spread enough bad word of mouth, you’ll have to no choice but to take part… defend your corner if the latest Star Trek is cool with you. Even then it’ll likely get cancelled and be labelled the unpopular one by some hack journalist who spent all of ten minutes researching their article.

Good luck, S M. You’ll need it and the best creative minds behind you. But more importantly studio support. Perhaps the real reason so many of the modern spin-offs got to run and run.

263. MJ - October 15, 2011

What’s next — how about we let Mike Judge of Beavis and Butthead fame get a crack at a new trek series? LOL

264. Khan was Framed! - October 15, 2011

I think he could do it.

Why not?

As long as it doesn’t cut away to non-sensicle flashbacks every ten seconds like his other work does, it could be good.

Comedy & SciFi share a common weirdness that someone like Seth may be able to understand better than your average showrunner.

I say go for it dude! Anyone who gets any form of new Trek on TV will be my hero!

265. MJ - October 15, 2011

While we’re at it, we might as well bring in Johny Knoxville and Spike Jonze of “Jackass” to hear their concepts on a new Trek series.

266. Red Dead Ryan - October 15, 2011

I say let’s see how well the sequel does before we start planning/hoping for a new Trek series.

If the next movie makes a half-billion dollars (if its good, then there’s no reason is shouldn’t) then a new show will be inevitable.

If “Star Trek 12″ sucks, and tanks at the box office, well, that’ll be the last new Trek we enjoy for a long, long time. Paramount will bury the film franchise, or sell it to another studio.

267. MJ - October 15, 2011

And last, but not least, let’s see what Erik Fogel’s (of Celebrity Death Match fame) concept would be for a new Trek series?

268. Vultan - October 15, 2011


Don’t stop there. Let’s see a SNL version of a Star Trek series!
Hey, there’s gotta be at least a couple of fans in that cast.

269. Spatan555 - October 16, 2011

NO NO NO AND NO! There is enough Star Trek TV shows, give them a rest. Paramount would be wise to make a profit from the movies.

270. Sarah - October 16, 2011

Rebooting Star trek on tv would be a great idea. If Star Trek isn’t utilized in some way, it’ll eventually be forgotten. Don’t let that happen!

271. Sarah - October 16, 2011

I’d love to see Phase II on tv. Jerry Trainor would be a great Spock.

272. thebiggfrogg - October 16, 2011

Hey guys, Quinto’s gay. So all this time he should have been snogging Sulu instead of Uhura. Seems like Trekmovie is a bit slow on the uptake these days.

273. Chadwick - October 16, 2011

And Seth bud, “isn’t so sure they have a lot of interest in getting back into the TV business,” are you nuts?

Paramount said they wanted a shot at a movie before CBS makes a new TV show, because a new TV show was on the horizon, it was going to happen.

Success of the movies will not stop the production of a TV series, it will do the opposite. It will create hype and desire for the franchise. If the next movie is as successful as the first then yea they are going to want to maximize profits which would make a TV show VERY likely.

274. Chadwick - October 16, 2011

271. Sarah OMG yes, Phase II on TV, perfect! But they condensed those years in the ST timeline. TMP was 10 years later but in ST timeline its only what…only 2 years from end of TOS to TMP, unless Phase II focused on another crew.

272. thebiggfrogg

No doubt on both parts. Add MacFarlane in the Quinto category as well.

275. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 16, 2011

237. AJ!

276. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 16, 2011

247. “Read the fracking newspaper and THINK, people!”

Newspapers are not satirical. They are a different animal.

277. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 16, 2011

Of course, we’ll also need to add thebiggfrogg and chadwick to the obese virgin category.

278. Brett Campbell - October 16, 2011

With “Futurama,” Matt Groenig is far more qualified for this than McFarlane — not that either of them are truly qualified.

279. Jason S. - October 16, 2011

I’m really not a fan of Mr. MacFarlane for more reasons then just “Family Guy.” That said, I am aware that some how he got his mitts on “The Flintstones.” I think, depending on how he does with that might say how well he’d do with running “Star Trek.” If he can that that property which has its own loyal fan base and come from the same era of tv that “Trek” does and not botch it up, that may bode better for him doing “Star Trek.” If he screws it up and turns it into his new “Family Guy,” then him touching “Trek” might actually be worse then what Mr. Abrams has given us.

280. AJ - October 16, 2011

Congrats to Zach Quinto on coming out!

281. Adolescent Nightmare - October 16, 2011

Everyone loves gay Vulcans!!! The slash ladies are going to be so happy!!!

282. Keachick (rose pinenut) - October 16, 2011

@272 Quinto may be gay, but he is also a professional actor. Therefore, he will snog either male or female according to the dictates of the script and director. What we know is that Quinto is gay but Spock is not. I don’t have a problem with that and I doubt that Zachary Quinto has a problem with it either.

I believe that Zachary Quinto wanted to keep his private life, well, private. However, upon hearing of yet another suicide by young gay teenager, it prompted him to make the statements he made, where he included the fact that he was gay also. Whether he intended to mention his own sexual orientation or whether it just came out as part of what he was addressing, I don’t know. But it/he is “out” now. No doubt he will experience some backlash, but not from me. BTW, I am not gay.

283. thebiggfrogg - October 16, 2011

Go Zach! (though I imagine the flame wars will be starting any moment now).

@ 277. and 282. BTW, I am not a virgin or gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But obese, ehhhh? I could stand to lose 20 pounds or so. LOL

Nice to know I got my virginity back. Should be fun to explain to my wife. “Honey, that goes where?!?”

284. thebiggfrogg - October 16, 2011

I wonder what Vulcans would think about homosexuality?
On the one hand, there is IDIC. And I would like to think that a highly evolved species aren’t prejudiced (then again, Yesteryear and Star Trek 2009 show that Vulcans have their prejudices and foibles too).
On the other hand, if they don’t believe in emotion, which to me is the strongest reason for supporting gay rights: love is love, caring is caring. Then would the fixate on procreation, which obviously homosexual people would not do.
I guess, Vulcans could also look at sex as not only for procreation, but as a release, but pon farr seems to mitigate against a “sex for pleasure, sex for bonding” ethos.

Better, go I’m starting to sound like one of those obese virgins. Not gay though!!! LOL

I think Patrick Stewart shock said it best to Ricky Gervais’ character in Extras, “You’re not married, you haven’t got a girlfriend and you’ve never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!”

Which brings us full circle. Ricky Gervais to take over Star Trek. Now THERE is a comic genius I’d support taking over the franchise. The U.S. Office doesn’t hold a candle to the U.K. one. Write in vote for Gervais.

285. CarlG - October 16, 2011

Hmm, has Seth ever done any non-comedy work? Can’t really judge without a basis for comparison.
On the other hand, who would’ve though that weird-looking blond guy would make such a great 007? Or that a former teen heartthrob / pretty boy would be such an epic Joker?

BTW, congrats to Zachary Quinto for coming out! Though I’m sure the worst of the Fan Dumb on both sides will start eating each other in about 5 seconds…

286. thebiggfrogg - October 16, 2011

285. Good points.

287. Christopher Roberts - October 16, 2011

284. Pretty much how they reacted to people who enaged in mind melds during the 22nd Century, I presume. Not very tolerant or enlightened at all.

288. Christopher Roberts - October 16, 2011

287. (continued) Depending on where you are in history. Clearly some points in history have further to evolve than others.

289. Christopher Roberts - October 16, 2011

^ Scratch that. 23rd Century Vulcans embrace IDIC. The ones during Enterprise’s time too, after the fourth season trilogy, when Surak’s teachings are recovered, the old (Romulan influenced) High Council is deposed and T’Pau and the Syrranites take over.

290. Andy Patterson - October 16, 2011

263. MJ – October 15, 2011
“What’s next — how about we let Mike Judge of Beavis and Butthead fame get a crack at a new trek series”

Judge has done some pretty good live stuff. “Office Space” and “Idiocracy” are good examples. I know you were making a joke but I think he could do something worth seeing.

Not completely supporting Seth (or all his views), but for a Trek TV series…. I have to think he’d take it seriously. He does love Trek. Would hope it’d be be better, if not certainly different, than Abrams version.

291. N - October 16, 2011

good for Quinto, he’s been a role-model for me for some time

292. DeShonn Steinblatt - October 16, 2011


You may have taken it more seriously than was intended.

Just noticed he’s rebooting Flintstones! That is going to be really… different.

293. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - October 16, 2011

Well all the talk about having a gay character for the next film looks like we already had a gay character… gay spock! Good for him though if he is happy then live long and prosper :D

294. MJ - October 16, 2011

Who cares whether Quinto is gay or straight? I don’t give a damn. I wish they’d make the fracking sequel.

295. MJ - October 16, 2011

@277 “Newspapers are not satirical. They are a different animal.”

The point is that I think only the weak minded need to develop their views on society, politics and morality from watching some silly juvenile cartoon with tons a of teenagerish toilet humor.

“Animal Farm” — that is real satire. Family Guy is Fratboy/pub-level humor that pretends it is doing some real satire so that people watching it can claim that it is more than it is.

296. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 16, 2011

295. Some here seem to enjoy what they deem as an intelligent show, but the comment never stated that it taught morals. The quote mentioned it had “…a usually brilliant commentary or political statement to make regarding humanity society…” There is the difference.

297. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 16, 2011

Animal Farm, hmm. It’s been a while. Don’t remember much insight there; perhaps stating some obvious lessons from history. To be fair, I’d have to watch it again. As for Family Guy, it doesn’t hold my attention for more than a minute. The British kid seems funny, then I loose interest. ADD most likely.

298. MJ - October 16, 2011

@298. You’ve got to be kidding me??? If you think Animal Farm is a tv show, then that kind of proves my point here about the audience of people that like Family Guy.

I take back what I said. This proves that there is in fact is a certain element of our population that probably does need shows like Family Guy to get moral and societal compasses lined up right. :-))

299. Bob Tompkins - October 17, 2011

Loved his little cameo on Enterprise… He has the brains, the talent and most of all —the balls— to take on Star Trek- in any medium. He’d be a great replacement for Abrams once Paramount figures out Abrams has no love for the Franchise.

300. 25 Starr General, CapN Crunch - October 17, 2011

Yes, well Seth, I’m gunna need you to just go ahead and uncouple the transporter’s Heisenberg Compensators and allow them to re-scramble randomly. We can then beam a holodeck object or a person off the grid with all of the cohesion of conventional matter — and back on to TV.

301. Sebastian S. - October 17, 2011

Not really a fan of the Simpson–er, Family Guy. Show’s really labored IMO, and not really all that funny (even their much lauded Star Wars episodes).
And I’m not too sure about McF putting his stamp on The Flintstones, either (that show kind of belongs to the ’60s; every attempt to revive it so far hasn’t been very good).

As for his take on ST? It’d have to be from an honest place; like the Phase 2 folks. Do it with love and respect, or don’t bother. If McF’s hope is to make some kind of smart-a$$ed, winking, self-referential, ‘oh-so-clever’ parody of ST then lots-o’-luck, but I sure as hell won’t be watching.

Frankly? I’d rather see the movie series finish it’s cycle first (probably in the summer of 2026 at this rate) before anyone talks about TV again. The lesson of ST’s over saturation of the late ’90s and early 2000s shouldn’t be forgotten so soon…

302. On Vacation With Landru - October 17, 2011

ST did just fine when one crew was in the movies and the other was on television, so unless they want to launch four different television series I don’t get the “learn from over saturation” bit. Heck, ST was fine when TNG and DS9 were on because they were different. It was Voyager and Enterprise that were overkill and a lot of that was simply due to bad writing and bad acting – neither were particularly innovative concepts, either. Same with the Next Generation films. It wasn’t a matter of simply too much ST.

I would LOVE to see what Seth would do with Star Trek.

303. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 17, 2011

Animal Farm a TV show?

304. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 17, 2011

Oh I see. -Animal Farm was a book written by George Orwell. In 1954 it was turned into an animated full-length movie. When you compared the two, it seemed that you were reffering to the animated version. Haven’t read the book in even longer. No matter, the point is the same.

305. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - October 17, 2011


306. The Last Vulcan - October 17, 2011

Come on Seth + Bob! Let’s get it on the air for next fall! :)

307. Red Shirt Diaries - October 17, 2011

Ref: Seymour Hiney. Nice recovery from the Animal Farm embarassment. But it certainly looked to me like you didn’t have a clue what Animal Farm was?

308. KlingonPenguin - October 21, 2011

Some quotes to ponder:

“Death, destruction, disease, horror. That’s what war is all about, Anan. That’s what makes it a thing to be avoided.”
– Captain Kirk

“We can admit that we’re killers, but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes.” – Captain Kirk

Isn’t this the kind of message people need to hear nowadays? lately it seems obvious that we are reliving the sixties all over again, with discussion of war, protest, and social problems. I can’t think of a better time to inject some optimism onto TV for a change.

309. 24thCenturyRockStar - October 21, 2011

I wouldn’t be opposed to him being a guest writer of some kind that’s for sure, he obviously loves the material. Maybe he should try his hand at a writing a Trek comic book series? You know, sort of a “walk-before-you-run” kinda thing. His sense of humor and personal comedic tastes aside, MacFarlane has shown himself to be a pretty sharp guy. I don’t know if I’d “give him the keys” in terms of the entire franchise, but he could have some interesting things to bring to the table. Seeing as he’s already worked with a surprising number of Trek alumni before, it would be pretty easy for him to put together some kind of print media blitz (novels, comics), and get some of the actors on board for their blessings. I can definitely say that I’d check out a serious (ie played straight and not a Star Wars style spoof) MacFarlane Trek project just to see what he’d come up with.

– 24thCRS

310. Stygian Scribe - October 24, 2011

Here’s an article that discusses whether or not Star Trek should return to TV:

311. Scott - November 3, 2011

I love the idea of him bringing it back to TV. The current generation of young people need to be reminded of what the Star Trek series is all about. Over time older shows lose appeal to the younger crowd, that’s why this should be done. As long as it is well thought out and doesn’t disrespect the older shows from the 1990’s!! I love Star Trek Next Generation and there are big shoes to fill when casting someone to play a captain like Picard.

312. I want a new tv series - November 8, 2011

Though i don’t like his jokes on Family Guy, I think that he might be able to do some great things. I hope he would continue the thing i like the most about star trek……


Maybe he could bring Q back or the borg or even work the after the war Dominion, Cardassian Union or Klingon Empire or after Nemesis Romulan Empire. I think that this tv series should exisit near the late 24th Century or early 25th Century.

I hope they bring back Star Trek to tv!

313. Bill Lutz - November 11, 2011

couldn’t be any worse than JJ Trek…

314. Trojan - December 6, 2011

It is too bad that never will mostly likely be a Captain Robert T. April series that start in 2245.

I believe there is enough loopholes to have Captain Robert T. April to be the first captain of the enterprise in 2245-2250 in Star Trek alternate universe created by J.J. Abrams.

315. Brock - December 14, 2011

Niice to see some love for 90s trek which was by far the best Trek.

316. Commodore KorTar - December 16, 2011

I made a fan page on the subject. Let’s boldly go and make it happen people!

317. kari - January 28, 2012

It probably won’t happen. Paramount are very culture cautious.

318. Matt King - March 27, 2012

I don’t know if McFarlane is the guy to pull off a new Trek series, but would love to see a new show on T.V. Loved STTOS and TNG. I always thought DS9 got a raw deal by the critics out there. Ben Sisko was the definition of cool. Enterprise never even got a fair shot. Would have been a better show if they started it with the Romulan War and skipped the whole Zindi stupidity. Never was a big Voyager fan until Seven Of Nine showed up, and even then it seemed kind of lame and boring at times.
But I’m all for a new Trek series.

But here’s a thought. How about a Trek show centered around the Klingons? I think there’s some real promise there! You’ve got it all with the Sons Of Kahless, war, betrayal, honor, lust, vengance, memorable characters. What more could you ask from a Trek Show? Maybe Worf could even show up now and then. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.