Ron Moore Talks JJ’s Star Trek And Returning Trek To TV Roots | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Ron Moore Talks JJ’s Star Trek And Returning Trek To TV Roots April 4, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film),Trek on TV , trackback

In a new Q&A Star Trek TNG and DS9 writer/producer (and co-writer of two feature films) talked about his thoughts on JJ Abrams Star Trek and why he thinks Star Trek belongs on television. He also said that if it did end up on TV again, he is willing to be part of it. Excerpts below.

 

Ron Moore talks JJ Trek and returning Trek to TV roots

In a Q&A with StarTrek.com, Star Trek TNG and DS9 writer/producer (and Battlestar Galactica re-imagineer) Ronald Moore covered a lot of topics. Of particular interest were his thoughts on the state of Star Trek today and possibly in the future.

Moore weighed in on JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek:

The bottom line was, it really worked. I enjoyed it. I think most people enjoyed it. And I think it opened the door to a new generation of fans, because the franchise up to that point, as I said earlier, was so encumbered by its own continuity and its own back stories that I think it was really, really difficult to get new people to try Star Trek, because there was just such a huge learning curve they had to go through. Now, with the re-imagining of it, people could just start over and enjoy it and then go discover all the various permutations and spin-offs later on. It has to be inviting for people to sample it for the first time, and it did.

But more also said he felt Star Trek is best on TV:

I think that Star Trek, in its DNA, is a television show. The features are great. They’re a lot of fun and they’ve certainly opened it up to a lot of different audiences, but the features all are basically atypical episodes, if you think about it. The features are very big action-adventure movies, lots of spectacle, run and jump, shoot-em-up and blowing things up. The fate of the Earth, or the universe itself, is always at stake. It’s always about the captain, and one other character has a strong B-story, and everyone else sort of has very small roles beyond that. But Star Trek, as originally conceived, and as you saw play out in all the other series, was really a morality play every week, and it was about an ensemble of players. They were exploring science fiction ideas, sociological ideas and moral ideas. That’s really what the shows are about, and the movies are just pitched in a different way and at a different audience.

Moore also said that if Trek did return to its TV roots, he could be interested in being part of it…

I would love to do another Star Trek show. It would all depend on timing and who’s involved and what the auspices are and concepts, but sure. I have tremendous fondness for the franchise and I would love to do something with it again someday.

Much more from Moore at StarTrek.com (Part 1 and Part 2)

Comments

1. Jack - April 5, 2013

Was TOS an ensemble show?

2. Daniel - April 5, 2013

Moore is so right. Having the save the planet Earth in every film gets boring after a while. Insurrection deviated from this and that’s one reason I like it. Star Trek really does belong on TV as a weekly series, exploring smaller scale stories. Of course, a movie every few years is also welcome.

3. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 5, 2013

I’d have to say no… The first Star Trek ensemble was TNG. However, Moore’s comments above, except for the ensemble bit, still apply to the best of the TOS episodes as well.

4. Jim Nightshade - April 5, 2013

no….not really….at times it seemed more like it could be but mostly kirk/spock stories with some dr mccoy thrown in…..once in a while a story came along with bigger plots for scotty,sulu,chekov, etc but these were rare indeed….tng n deep space…all the newer shows were much better at plots involving the whole family even tho stories were mostly captain specific….
have to agree that trek works best on small screen…moore knows his trek for sure…

5. rogerachong - April 5, 2013

Not really! All Kirk, a few times Spock gets a chance to shine, with Mc Coy chiming in. Scotty IMHO was fourth in the pecking order then Uhura/Sulu were usually seen and not heard. Chekov entered in the second and penultimate season and had a decent run alongside Sulu.

TNG IMHO had a better balance for the main and side charaters.

6. singularity87 - April 5, 2013

I’d like to see a complete reboot of TOS (from both this movie version and the earlier Star Trek franchise) on TV – no time travel shenanigans, just a clean slate. With some new ideas and changes thrown in.

Kind of like how Ronald D. Moore did Battlestar Galactica and I believe I’ve seen a pitch for a new Star Trek that went just like this.

7. Marja - April 5, 2013

I’d really like it if they could see their way clear to doing a quality show with the actors from these movies, say, 10 shows a year so they could do plays and movies. I’d even settle for fewer shows, but I WANT THIS CAST they’re so great together.

8. Elias Javalis - April 5, 2013

Great guy! Always liked his style.

9. singularity87 - April 5, 2013

The other problem is that if it’s only action-adventure, then to me it doesn’t really feel like ‘Star Trek’.

They could have fun with the sort of plots we’ve seen in ‘Star Trek’ and it looks like ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ when they also had other episodes to do other things like explore, or follow social and political allegories. ‘The Best of Both Worlds’ is how good action-adventure trek can be. They also had the TV show freedom of getting to write the captain out of much of the two-parter because it helped the plot.

The problem with having it as solely a movie franchise is that they haven’t got the same opportunity to vary things. The temptation is to play it safe with the action-adventure. At the same time I’m not sure they can do $150m movies and NOT do that. Perhaps if Trek is to be on TV and not interfere with a lucrative film franchise the continuities will be separated?

10. somethoughts - April 5, 2013

This guy gets Star Trek, I always enjoyed his work!

11. KevinA Melbourne Australia - April 5, 2013

I loved Moore’s work on TNG but hated Battlestar. I don’t want a reimanination to the level of Battlestar. I mean in the original series Starbuck was a man and Cylons were robots! He lost me with his interpretaion of BS.

I think Moore is a great story teller and I would like him to be involved again in the Star Trek universe but in a new incarnation not a reimagination.

12. bardicjim - April 5, 2013

I would like to see a JJ universe version of TNG. What differences do ya’ll think there could be??? :D

13. Mad Mann - April 5, 2013

I say get Ron Moore to do a show about Deep Space Station K-7 set in the Abrams universe. It’d sorta be like DS9 where Moore (and Ira Behr and others) really shined.

14. Damian - April 5, 2013

I have to agree with Moore mostly. Star Trek is best on TV. There is nothing wrong with films in conjunction with that. One of the most popular points in Star Trek history was when First Contact came out. Deep Space Nine had also come into it’s own and Voyager still had a decent sized audience.

No Star Trek wasn’t an ensemble show per se. But having a weekly show did allow them to focus at times on different characters. You got to see the secondary characters in greater roles at times (admittedly in conjunction with a main character). For example, you go to see more Uhura in “The Gamesters of Triskelion” more of Sulu in “That Which Survives” and so on. You couldn’t really do that in the movies.

15. enterprise1965 - April 5, 2013

Nooooooooo! Moore killed Kirk.

16. anotherscott - April 5, 2013

11, I didn’t mind changing Starbuck’s gender or the form of the Cylons, but I felt that BSG didn’t work because so many of the episodes were very weak as self-contained stories and really only functioned to advance the larger underlying story. (And to add insult to injury, the larger underlying story ultimately didn’t resolve very well. But if more of the individual episodes had been stronger on their own, that wouldn’t have mattered much.)

17. anotherscott - April 5, 2013

and p.s. — Moore had a hand in many of the very best TNG episodes. About as consistently as Brannon Braga had a hand in the worst. So if I had to pick one to get involved with a new TV franchise, I’d gamble on giving Moore another shot, despite BSG.

18. Weerd1 - April 5, 2013

I will defend to my dying day the end of BSG: exactly what it should have been. I am so adamant about that, I wrote this: http://popculturezoo.com/2013/03/deus-ex-scriptorum/

Hopefully the link posted.

19. Commodore Redshirt - April 5, 2013

No. Stay away from Trek Mr. Moore.
You had your time, but I think as your work progressed over the years it drifted further and further from the ideas and mentality of the original Trek. Gone were the “Earth colonies” and their experiments with humans living on “strange new worlds” and “in” was the “forehead of the week”.
The original Star Trek had almost as many episodes where humans were involved versus episodes with aliens. In the first season more than half of the episodes featured a colony, outpost, “Earth ship”, or some other HUMAN place in our galaxy.
The further the Trek franchise drifted from that idea of our “journey to the stars” the less interested I became.

20. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 5, 2013

I would love to see Ron More and Bob Orci team up and make a Star Trek Series. That would be my Dream team.

21. Rm10019 - April 5, 2013

20. This. That would be one good team

22. kmart - April 5, 2013

20,
TOS already did THE ENEMY WITHIN, I don’t want to see mirror- or Evil-Moore in combat with the real McCoy.

Can’t believe Moore gave AbramsTrek a passing grade, was expecting a little more Robert Meyer Burnette from the guy.

23. BH - April 5, 2013

It’s about deftness, IMO.

“It’s wrong to create a race of men to be used as slaves.”

“Above all else a god needs compassion.”

They started from those statements and built SF stories around those statements. JJTrek film1 seemslight in that area.

24. Third Remata'Klan - April 5, 2013

I would love to see Moore back in Trek. Of course, the writers were always a team, but many of my favorite episodes credited Moore as writer or co-writer.

25. JimGrant1701 - April 5, 2013

I’d like trek to return to TV and the best part is the “morality play” as well as pushing what we know about science. I find straight up action to be for lazy folk that don’t want to think. That’s OK as long as there is something for the rest of us. If you have more than 3 main characters, it gets the feeling of a soap opera. Those are the reasons I liked TOS better than the sequels.

26. Smike - April 5, 2013

@6: Please NO. They should never just start from scratch. This is what I loved about ST09 and the new movies. They opened it up for a complete new run, but still acknowledged the original timeline that came before. Had they just rebooted TOS without any explanation, I would have hated it, no matter how good it had been.

This is what I hate about comic book films. They just start anew, reboot everything and thereby flush the entire mythology down the toilet. Yeah, it worked with the new Batman trilogy, because basically the original four movies had been turds (yeah, even the Burton ones), but I hated the Spider-Man reboot just for being a reboot. It was totally unnecessary. I hope something like that will never happen to Trek. I am so grateful for these “timetravel shenanigans”, I can’t tell you. It’s both a sequel and a reboot and that I cherrish the most…

27. The Sinfonian - April 5, 2013

Deep Space 9 in the JJverse, would have played out almost exactly the same, I imagine! At least that’s the conceit I prefer now. That TNG, DS9, and VOY in the JJverse future… that Bob Orci’s interpretation of MWI and QM that the ‘wave functions’ recombine to produce a similar universe whenever possible.

But there’s no reason that after the threequel, that Michael Weatherly (post NCIS) as an older Kirk, TMP to TWOK age, and other similar continuation casting or recasting…. couldn’t advance to a TV series that would be set around 2278, twenty years after the defeat of Nero.

Now that could be a great “Phase 2″ of the real kind. Get Ron Moore involved, and Manny Coto as a show runner…. and involve K/O Paper Products…. there could be great morality plays, an ensemble of known and unknown characters put to use.

28. Phil - April 5, 2013

Yeah, Ron Moore would work. Just keep him far away from the fan productions…

29. Christopher Roberts - April 5, 2013

Ron Moore ought to reunite with his First Contact writing partner, and produce a fifth season of Enterprise.

http://www.facebook.com/StarTrekEnterpriseSeason5NetflixCampaign

30. Ahmed - April 5, 2013

Ron Moore is one of the best TV writers around, it would be great if CBS give him the chance to run a new Star Trek series.

And I can’t wait to see his new series “Helix”.

31. MJ - April 5, 2013

Let Moore lead the HBO TV return of Trek in 2016. 10-episode story arcs every year with near movie production values.

That I would pay to see!

32. Ahmed - April 5, 2013

@MJ.

“Let Moore lead the HBO TV return of Trek in 2016. 10-episode story arcs every year with near movie production values”

I doubt the suites at CBS will give HBO the rights to do that. All they doing is siting on their collective backs & not doing anything to bring Trek back on TV.

Bring it as a series or miniseries or even DVDs movies, just bring it back!

33. Damian - April 5, 2013

20–That would be an interesting combination, Orci and Moore. I doubt you’d ever see it though.

26–Agree. The beauty of Star Trek (2009) was that it wasn’t a straight reboot, sequel or prequel, but all 3 rolled up in one. I think a straight reboot would have been like a screw you to those of us who were fans right up to Nemesis and Enterprise. But instead, they creatively came up with a way to “reboot” the movie series, yet in a way to allow you to view this simply as a continuation of existing Star Trek. They also used theories in their story already proposed in episodes like “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and inparticular “Parallels”.

22–I’m not seeing any critique of Abrams Trek, In fact, it looks to me like Moore was saying it was exactly what Star Trek needed, sort of a fresh start. THe main point he was trying to get across was that Star Trek always has worked best on TV, something many here even have noted.

34. Matt Wright - April 5, 2013

@32 — Okay so it would be Showtime (since that’s a CBS network) not HBO, but same idea….

35. Trekkiegal63 - April 5, 2013

I liked Moore. But as Trek writing goes, I preferred the episodes penned by Taylor and/or Piller (insert “Insurrection” hate here… though I still maintain that wasn’t entirely Piller’s fault, the story he wanted to tell and what Berman strong armed him into telling? Two entirely different things, i.e. http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspot.com/2010/09/fade-in-making-of-star-trek.html). It’s really unfornate that one is retired and the other passed. :(

As for Moore, I admit that part of my ambivalence stems from “Generations”, which I did not like.

#15. enterprise1965:

Agreed.

A) There was no reason to even have Kirk in that film – the passing the baton thing was unnecessary and cliche and, in my opinion, poorly executed.

B) The death scene sucked. I’m not going to pull punches on this. I love Kirk, as one who grew up with such an iconic character does. I left the theater that day rightly pissed off.

C) Overall storyarch? Not that engrossing. Bit slow, actually. And it was disappointing to get so few lines from the supporting players, i.e. Riker, LaForge, Worf, Troi, Crusher, etc.

… having said all of that, he made some great points and I would love to see another Star Trek television series, and it would be nice to have someone with Trek experience consulting on such a project.

36. Cygnus-X1 - April 5, 2013

Moore’s comments are spot on.

Though, I would add that if Trek does return to TV, the new series should try not to involve yet another war in which the Earth hangs in the balance. I think we’ve had enough of the Earth being in peril.

37. Fctiger - April 5, 2013

Yes also agree with Moore comments!

I mean movies by nature have to BIG, life changing and action adventure. I mean thats fine and all and it gives us a big story, but Trek was just as much about the small morality stories as well. Or the ship is in trouble kinds of stories, not Earth or the galaxy every week. The show can be about one character or all of them. And more importantly we got a story every week vs every few years! And if the story sucked one week, there was a chance it could be great the next week. With a film, not only if it suck we waited years for nothing or have to wait more years, but one bad film can sink the entire franchise.

So I do hope we get another show in the future and would love Moore back at the helm. I’ve only seen litterally the first episode of of BSG but I seen all his Trek episodes and what he did with DS9 was amazing. Its my favorite show in fact.

But I want something new. I dont want another rehash of TOS or a rebooted TNG. Trek is bigger than one show as been proven countless times now. Something new please. They can even make a show in JJ universe, 23rd century and all. Just a new ship and crew with completely new stories and characters.

38. omegaman - April 5, 2013

Moore’s would be great, but there will not be another TV series for many years to come, if ever. Budget will be too prohibited. A mini series perhaps. 16 episodes max.

39. dswynne - April 5, 2013

Give Moore the opportunity to do a reboot of the TNG, but set in the JJ-Verse. In fact, my challenge would be that a reboot TNG would be a straight sci-fi movie, something that was promised when “Prometheus” was released.

40. John from Cincinnati - April 5, 2013

I agree 100% with Moore about Star Trek belonging as a television show.

41. Platitude - April 5, 2013

Someone needs to let this man make a new Star Trek show.

42. Stardate - April 5, 2013

#6. I kind of agree with you on this matter. I want 100% rebooted Star Trek series and go smillier root as BSG. We really need visonary tv producer that can create bold new Trek series inspired by Roddenberry vision.

43. JohnRambo - April 5, 2013

Star Trek always SUCKED on TV! The only good show was Star Trek from 1966!

PLEASE NEVER DO A STAR TREK TV SHOW AGAIN!!!

44. Ahmed - April 5, 2013

@ 43. JohnRambo – April 5, 2013

“Star Trek always SUCKED on TV! The only good show was Star Trek from 1966!
PLEASE NEVER DO A STAR TREK TV SHOW AGAIN!!!”

No one forcing you to watch, dude!

45. Hotchkiss Gould Executive - April 5, 2013

43. JohnRambo:

Star Trek is best on TV. In fact, it’s probably one of the best concepts ever devised for a TV show. The setting is “the universe.” You can tell just about any story and create just about any situation you can dream up.

But more importantly, you can tell smaller stories in television than you can in movies. It seems Star Trek movies have to have big plots or big villains instead of telling stories about the human condition.

46. boborci - April 5, 2013

20 That would be fun!

47. Hotchkiss Gould Executive - April 5, 2013

I agree on the Ron Moore/Bob Orci combinatino. They both rebooted shows that I loved and made them better. BSG and Hawaii 5-0 turned out better than the originals.

48. Lt. Dakin - April 5, 2013

It would be interesting to do a Star Trek series with two leads ala Shatner and Nimoy in season one or Mulder and Scully in the X-Files instead of the modern era bloated casts who are only featured one episode a year.

49. Desstruxion - April 5, 2013

43. JohnRambo = obvious troll.

50. JohnRambo - April 5, 2013

@49 Desstruxion

obvious not

51. JohnRambo - April 5, 2013

@45 Hotchkiss Gould Executive

I completely agree with you. But i can’t look away all those logic fails in the previous series.

They have to do something fresh, something that isn’t connected to the other Series.

If they do this then it might work out.

52. Reunite Shatner & Nimoy for Trek TV movie - April 5, 2013

Great comments from Mr Moore. Somebody who – with the greatest of respect to Mr Abrams – GETS Star Trek. JJ just directs a very enjoyable action film whose actors looks a little like the originals, and share the same names. But I really cannot call it true Star Trek at this point.

It kills me that people like Moore are out there, willing to give TV Trek a decent shot.

It also kills me that Mr Shatner & Mr Nimoy are still very much with us.

It kills me that Kirks silly death in generations was never ‘meta-explained’ as just a Nexus ‘echo’ or simething, of the real Kirk. Still alive and trying to be found… Spock feels a presence fom afar and goes on a search for his friend. The original Trek tale could come full circle using the original Kirk & Spock. And back on TV where they belong best. I’m sure a two or three part Kirk/Spock reunion would smash ratings worldwide, and be a great way to kick-start a new era of Trek on TV perhaps set in the TOS movie-Trek era.

Both actors are in their 80s, but what better show that Trek to show that age is just one more frontier to explore…..

When these two legends are gone, they’re gone! I wish somebody would realise the value of ending classic Trek properly, with Kirk & Spock alive, reunited, the bad taste of Generations washed away, and Trek restored to television to properly explore strange NEW worlds & Civilisations.

I wish….. :)

53. Reunite Shatner & Nimoy for Trek TV movie - April 5, 2013

^ Kills me that they’re still with us, and not being used together for Trek, I mean ;)

54. Reunite Shatner & Nimoy for Trek TV movie - April 5, 2013

I realise a new series with Mr Shatner & Mr Nimoy would be unrealistic, but a 2 or 3 part drama would he great!

These two actors and the characters they created deserve one last proper send off together, as a thanks to them, at least! A feel good reunion with a dakn fine uploftimg story. No deaths, just righting the wrongs of Generations and having these two go off into the sunset (again!) at the end. Their future fates left untold…

55. Reunite Shatner & Nimoy for Trek TV movie - April 5, 2013

Sorry for the typos! Damn virtual keyboards! ;)

56. Lens Flares Suck - April 5, 2013

New trek on tv?

Yes.

Ron Moore?

No.

57. BH - April 5, 2013

This year’s Oscars…

…might be the good Captain’s last appearance as such.

58. DisgruntledTrekkie - April 5, 2013

Moore is a hack.
I’m glad he is no longer involved in Trek.
He killed Kirk.
Screw him.

59. GarySeven - April 5, 2013

Moore is wrong. Star Trek was never a morality show. It was all about action, action, action, not thinking. It was about killing the “bad guys” before they kill you, That’s the beauty of JJ and Orci & company. They get what Trek was really about. They get what makes Star Trek unique, like one dimensional villains like Nero that blow up Vulcan. I can’t wait for STID. “You think your world is safe, it is not!” says the evildoer.

60. The Sinfonian - April 5, 2013

@59…. yeah, good point on that quote. Bones in Trek 2009 did say of space: “Space? Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.”

Wrapped IN DARKNESS…. interesting. The line in 2009 leads into the title of STID. Here Bones was suggesting staying planetbound would have been a better option, but no, along comes Johnny Khan stating your planet isn’t safe either!

@46… Bob, so we’re going to hold you to that after the threequel…. K/O Paper Products putting together a Trek series with guys like Moore or Manny Coto…. a whole team of people who get Trek 100%. That would be one fine little show.

61. JP Saylor - April 6, 2013

Well duh, he wasn’t talking about TOS. I mean, he wasn’t involved with Trek until TNG.

62. Jax Maxton - April 6, 2013

Ron Moore’s BSG commentary nailed why Trek stopped working in the 21st century: It still held on to an “idea” of what Gene Roddenberry would have done. In BSG, he tried to ask what Trek would have done, and, not always, but generally did the opposite. It wasn’t that he had a dislike of Trek, but he just felt it had gotten stale. And he was right! Now that Abrams has helped to re-define what Trek can be, I would LOVE to see Moore bring some of his Trek sensibilities back to Trek on TV. He knows the universe and knows what Trek is really about. He would bring a terrific mix of old-time Trek with modern dramatic storytelling. Someone make this happen TODAY!

63. GarySeven - April 6, 2013

#62-
I couldn’t agree more. Roddenberry’s view of humanity improving itself is so tired and worthless. It’s been done a thousand times in TV and movies. We all know that new and improved storytelling consists of simple stories of good versus evil. Not thinking about how humanity could evolve is really true progress.
The only way to keep Star Trek alive is for Trek to purge itself of what Gene Roddenberry might have done. Star Trek must be cleansed of its philosophy and humanitarianism, and it must devote itself to killing the evildoers. That is modern thinking. And modern is always better.

64. Smike - April 6, 2013

Trek’s not better on TV, at least not the way it was done from 1987-2005. We had over 600 hours of screentime but only about 150 really good episodes burried among piles of fillers, rehashes, lame holodeck stuff and insignificant comedy.

If Trek returns to TV it has to get things right…

- only 13 episodes per season in order to avoid any fillers

- high-quality writing / concepts that’s worth rewatching time and again

- adaptations of the best Trek novels / comic books + other great SciFi stories / short-stories

- a writing team including at least two REAL sci fi authors, not just TV

The problem’s with TV in general. They’re just trying to fill up screentime too much. Even with those critically acclaimed serialized shows, lots of screentime is wasted…

Nope, the movies are much better…

“The fate of the Earth, or the universe itself, is always at stake.”

Nope. Not true either.

The fate of the Earth was at stake in movies 1,4,8,10,11… and only in 10 and 11 it was threatened by a classic villain.

They didn’t have to save the Earth in 2,3,5,6,7,9 and the universe itself has never been endangered after that TOS episode.

So it’s simply not true. You can make Star Trek movies about anything: peace, friendship, prime directive, seeking god, eternal life. It doesn’t always have to be a Pseudo-Romulan with a superweapon trying to blow up Earth… That’s been done the last two times but that wasn’t the way it was done before. In 1, 4 and 8 Earth was in danger, but due to higher forces, not villains. It simply depends on the writer’s imagination, creativity and wit to make Star Trek movies that are different…

65. Smike - April 6, 2013

You know, Trek isn’t 007. No one forces them to write about supervillains blowing things up. Even 007 didn’t have to save the world in the reboots yet. They could be easily making films about space drugs, religion and embracing the unknown… I want to see ALIEN PLANETS… AVATAR-like…really strange new words, strange new life and civilizations…going beyond those forehead aliens…yeah, even going beyond tattooed Romulans and pierced Klingons… Show us creatures never seen before, landscapes right out of Jules Verne, concepts that defy explanation… Don’t blow things up all the time, CREATE…

66. Disinvited - April 6, 2013

#64. Smike – April 6, 2013

“They didn’t have to save the Earth in 2,3,5,6,7,9 and the universe itself has never been endangered after that TOS episode.” – Smike

Not sure what you were trying to say but I’ll just point out that in ToS the universe was threatened by:

1. Lazarus/Anti-Lazarus
2. The Guardian at the Edge of Forever.
3. The Planet Killer given that Spock deduced that it came from outside our galaxy and there were more, and they never established its method of transport but it seemed to hop star systems (and likely galaxies) with relative ease.

67. Smike - April 6, 2013

@66: eah, I was thinking of the Lazarus episode. I couldn’t remember the name and forgot to look it up before posting. Sorry.

68. falcon - April 6, 2013

When a network or a large entertainment company owns a franchise (like CBS owns Star Trek), you can bet that nothing will happen that goes against the main objective of the entertainment company … that is, making money. If CBS determines that Trek will work again on TV, they’ll do it themselves. If they are able to get a Ron Moore, or a Manny Coto, or even a J. J. Abrams to do it on TV, that might be good for the franchise.

But let’s face it, CBS has not been gung-ho in promoting Trek. 20th Century Fox did a much, much better job marketing Star Wars. NBC, when the network ran Trek, always seemed to want to run it into the ground, paradoxically hoping people wouldn’t watch. And they were almost successful.

There’s a minor parallel to an NBC game show, Concentration. It ran on NBC for nearly 15 years, then was syndicated for six, then came back on the network for a short 4-year run, and now the concept is sitting in some NBC executive’s office gathering dust. Many have wanted to bring it back to television, but NBC steadfastly refuses, even keeping hold of the (allegedly) archived older episodes. CBS seems to be doing the same thing with Trek that NBC does with Concentration. (Remember, Paramount owns the rights to the movies.) CBS only recently released the remastered TOS episodes on Netflix.

Yes, Trek has much more international support than a silly game show, but the bottom line for both companies is the same – if it won’t make money for me now, I’m not going to let anyone touch it.

69. Marcus - April 6, 2013

While I am open to the idea of a new series, I think J.J.’s movie has made it economically impossible. Unless they tone down the CGI, hire stars that would work for TV-series salaries, and simplify the ship’s bridge, I do not think a J.J. “Star Trek” television series could happen.

Now, if CBS/Paramount were to continue the prime era franchise, I can see how a new series would be cost affective. Even though Ron Moore has earned his stripes, I think the television portion of the franchise needs to be put into new hands.

Ron Moore has contributed greatly to the franchise; however, I think the old guard ran out of new and original ideas. As a result of getting writer’s block, “Star Trek” had suffered from recycles content and stale concepts.

On the flip side, JJ and Orci have a fantastic approach to action-adventure storytelling. When is comes to a “Star Trek” series, the franchise needs someone who can write stories about the human condition, philosophy, science, psychology, etc… I do not think JJ and Orci can create such a series. While I do love their various movies, I do not think JJ and Orci would be good for the job.

If CBS/Paramount does go for a new series, the best they can do is hire someone who has : (1) a unique and obtainable vision of the future, (2) an understanding of literature and psychology, and (3) a clear perspective of the Roddenberry Philosophy.

I would hire Rod Roddenberry to pull the team together.

70. Drij - April 6, 2013

BSG sucked, no to Ron Moore.

71. navamske - April 6, 2013

@ #6

I would like to see a series set in the TOS era, on a different ship, using sets like those in “Trials and Tribble-ations” but done with today’s production values and effects. The surviving TOS actors could cameo, as long as, say, the ship receives a message from the Enterprise, “audio only.”

72. Jack - April 6, 2013

65. “Trek isn’t 007. No one forces them to write about supervillains blowing things up.”

Agreed.

73. Retro315 - April 6, 2013

TOS isn’t “crew ensemble”, if in 20+ episodes a season, Spock gets two showcases, Bones gets two, and Scotty gets one, and the rest of the crew has to fight for scraps if they’re lucky.

But because of the nature of the guest-star, and because often a “junior crewman” was featured – your Garrisons or Yeomen or Stiles, or the rare and powerful “Another Captain! Kirk’s friend or Kirk’s enemy?” in conjunction with the aliens of the week, yes, it’s ensemble.

The villain is definitely part of an ensemble cast, and all the more compelling when they’re allegorical and not just “Villain with a capital V”, like Daystrom, Kang, Kor, Koloth. (Although the “V” villains like Khan, Thelev, Trelane, they’re all great, too.)

But yeah, there’s a lot of roles in the “one-shot member of the crew” area that are inclusive to ensemble. A majority of episodes feature one of these, to play off of the “Three Musketeers”, and Scotty’s D’Artagnan.

74. Khan was Framed! - April 6, 2013

I’d love to see a spy series set within the post-Nemesis era.

Following a pair of Starfleet intelligence agents around on their missions to different ships & planets; some we’ve seen before & some that are new.

If trek returns to TV, it will have to be in a new way, something other then the same 7 archetypes stuck on the same ship…agin.

75. Stefon - April 7, 2013

Maybe Moore can start a new Trek series and rip more story ideas from hard working writers.

76. Stefon - April 7, 2013

Meant to say “rip off” but he wasn’t the only one. They all started doing it once Gene was gone. Especially after Piller was gone.

77. Tim - April 7, 2013

I’d like to see a crew/operatives/agents that travel from the 27th century to various points through out Trek series and alternate timelines to maintain the them. You could revisit any events, any ships. The possibilities would be endless.

Passing on Into Darkness. I’ve got better things to do than watch everyone run around with guns and blow stuff up. It’s not looking to be a movie made for thinkers.

78. T'Cal - April 7, 2013

I agree with all he said. Trek works best as an ensemble cast TV show and movies typically don’t lend themselves well to that kind of story telling. His overwhelmingly great work in Trek TV, ST First Contact, and BSG all make up for his part in Generations, a movie that the more I see it, the less I like it. I blame Braga for that mess ;) . Still, seeing Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov on the big screen one more time, as well as the Enterprise-B made it worthwhile over all. I’ll give anything RDM does a chance after the epic that was BSG. It replaced TNG as my all-time favorite series of any genre. Just awesome.

79. T'Cal - April 7, 2013

Tim, you don’t care for action films?? Blasphemy! Give it a try and pretend it’s not Trek.

80. Jack - April 7, 2013

61. “But Star Trek, as originally conceived, and as you saw play out in all the other series, was really a morality play every week, and it was about an ensemble of players.”

____
An ensemble of three.

Separately,

I think this idea is what bugs me about the overplayed Takei, Nichols, Koenig grudge (which we’d never heard of until nearly a decade after the last TOS-cast movie). Sure, they keep getting asked about it, but Koenig has basically said that Shatner just didn’t get that it was an ensemble show (and he pointed to Stewart understanding this on TNG). Except it wasn’t.

Shatner was the star, it was the way things worked then (I’ve read he also got a share of the show’s profits, I don’t know if there were any) — and his oft-complained-about requests for more lines all happened behind-the-scenes, not on set in front of the other actors.

If they’re pissed off, they’re pissed off. But Trek, on TV, would have been Trek without Chekov, Sulu or Uhura. Don’t get me wrong, I liked ‘em. Scotty was essential, I’d argue.

Later Trek was billed as an ensemble, but shows like Voyager turned into The Janeway, Seven and Doctor Hour. Even TNG was, arguably, mostly (except for the few Riker episodes and the occasional doomed-in-love Troi, Geordi or Crusher episode) — Three Men (Picard, Data, Worf) & A Starship.

Some characters are more important than others.

81. jas_montreal - April 7, 2013

Bring back Moore to the franchise :) He is such a talented guy. He would bring amazing writing to a trek tv show, just as he brought his amazing writing to Battlestar Galactica.

82. Red Dead Ryan - April 7, 2013

“Deep Space Nine” got the ensemble part down pat. Plus they had a fairly large secondary cast as well, many of whom appeared at least a dozen times or more during the entire run of the series. Considering also all the events that went on during the seven years, it was really impressive how each the characters had multiple episodes centered around them.

This is what bugs me about Terry Farrell’s reason for leaving the show. She claimed her character was getting short-shrifted, but Dax had gotten married to Worf a few months prior. And there were a few other Dax-centric episodes I could think of off the top of my head, including the one where she was on trial, and one where she kissed another woman.

83. Jovius the Romulan - April 8, 2013

^ Didn’t understand that myself. She got a lot to do.

The latter episode you mention was very important in that it showed a relationship between two people who just so happened to be of the same sex being treated as a normal thing. At no time does anyone raise eyebrows at that fact, Bashir doesn’t get excited at the idea of “lesbians” (in fact they end up boring him to death with their reminiscing), and the reassociation wasn’t even meant as a Trek metaphor for homosexual scandal.

I wish Trek after that would have done something similar, but unfortunately it was just more and more of the same heteronormativity. I do wonder what the Klingon stance is on homosexuality, given their focus on the traditional roles of men and women in marriage.

84. Damian - April 8, 2013

83–One of the Enterprise novels depicted a gay Klingon couple.

85. Leo R - April 8, 2013

Moore needs to stay away from Trek. He has his run. Its time to get Trek, if it returns to television, new blood but old-school. Someone who is a real Trek fan and knows what Gene would have wanted. The only thing that Moore wants is HIS own vision. We’ve seen what other peoples’ vision of Star Trek is and its not what fans want.

86. 47 - April 8, 2013

Ron Moore is a Trek veteran, he knows what he’s talking about, and it would be great if he could be part of the next Star Trek TV series, whenever it comes.

87. Captain John C Baron - April 9, 2013

46 – give him a call then Bob, get the ball rolling! ;)

88. Kyle - April 9, 2013

BSG was, simply put, brilliant television. It was not Star Trek, but never set out to be Star Trek. Moore understands the difference. A new ST series could be terrific, but as pointed out, cannot be a continuation of the Abrams movies; rather, it should use them as a point of departure.

To boldly go…

89. Basement Blogger - April 11, 2013

Ron Moore says above,

” They were exploring science fiction ideas, sociological ideas and moral ideas.”

Yes, that’s Star Trek. Some of the films explored those ideas. Star Trek: The Motion Picture explored whether a machine could be alive. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home had an environmental message. Star Trek VI was about whether we can set aside our prejudices to create a better future.

90. Yanks - April 23, 2013

Trek’s “DNA” is on TV. So right Mr. Moore.

I would welcome him back to trek along with Manny coto.

While the new timeline does give writers new lattitude, I still think you need some trek knowledge/background to keep it where it needs to be.

I don’t want my trek to become BSG.

Also agree about the movies. They primarily are to make money.

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