EDITORIAL: You Just Can’t Bring Star Trek Back To The Small Screen (But How You Would If You Could) | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

EDITORIAL: You Just Can’t Bring Star Trek Back To The Small Screen (But How You Would If You Could) September 19, 2013

by Jared Whitley , Filed under: Editorial,Trek Franchise,Trek on TV , trackback

In The Icarus Factor, Riker is offered his own ship and we meet his father for the first (and only) time. But the episode is better remembered for the subplot, where Worf is in a particularly grouchy mood. He yells “Enough!” at Wesley and “Be gone!” to Data, who – with his trademark gentleness – describes the Klingon as “out of sorts.” Worf’s friends determine that the only solution to his foul spirits is to hit him repeatedly with pain sticks:

I have been reminded of this episode as I’ve followed the recent furor over Star Trek Into Darkness. Just as Worf wasn’t really mad at his crewmates, I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film: fans are angry because they have to wait four years to see a new movie when what they really want is new episodes every week.

As a writer here said: “Star Trek should be back on TV. Period.” And of course Trek fans are going to say that – but even Rolling Stone said the same thing.

Since the success of the 2009 reboot, the subject has come up a lot, especially as some interested parties have tried to resurrect Star Trek on the small screen. This hasn’t happened (obviously) because, as some speculate, executives don’t want to kill the golden goose (again). But from a branding perspective, one movie every four years has still kept people buying merchandise, buying Blu-rays, and going to conventions. Plus the Internet is taking care of the Trek legacy by itself, with Patrick Stewart-themed memes and web series like SF Debris – so the suits are probably fine with the status quo.

Also I’m sure these execs have come to the conclusion that you just can’t make another Star Trek series because …

1) It’s all been done already.

As anyone will tell you, the biggest problem with doing anything Star Trek-related is that it’s already been done before. Some people will actually put together videos demonstrating how there is nothing new under any sun in the Alpha Quadrant:

While the Abrams team is certainly well versed in Trek lore, I’m going to bet they didn’t set out to make most of the allusions cited in this Red Letter Media video. But with about 750 hours worth of Star Trek, it’s probably hard to create something that doesn’t feel like man has gone there before, especially when …

2) Its core concept doesn’t work anymore.

Star Trek’s original concept was heavy-handed polemics about social issues behind the guise of science fiction, the only way to you could address these issues at the time because of network censors. (The Twilight Zone had shown the way a few years earlier.) This was creative in the 1960s. It was groundbreaking in the 1960s. It was relevant and interesting and bold to say that (space) racism was bad in the 1960s … but it’s not now. Even some of the more transparent allegories from TNG were eyeroll-inducing in the 80s, like when they taught us that drugs are bad, that space racism is bad, and that drugs are bad.

There aren’t any stories you can’t tell anymore. There aren’t any social issues you have to masquerade in science fiction – unless you want to talk about the collapse of white middle America, and then you have to use zombies. So because of that …

3) It wouldn’t fit into the modern TV landscape.
The best TV shows of the last 10-years are all about a damaged male protagonist who survives in an unfair world by making decisions that are mostly immoral, but entirely understandable: Walter White in Breaking Bad, Don Draper in Mad Men, Tony Soprano in The Sopranos, Stringer Bell in The Wire, and Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones.

And that paradigm is antithetical to Star Trek’s philosophy: good people from a perfect world doing good. They tried to change the perfect world part with Voyager, by isolating the crew to ostensibly make them desperate, but the effort was always half-assed. Trek demi-god Ronald D. Moore had to show them how to do it with both cheeks on Battlestar Galactica. (As to a lesser extent did Joss Whedon with Firefly.)

The only way they could make a Star Trek series that fit this new model would be to redo Deep Space 9 and make the main characters Quark and Morn. Cooking space meth. For the space mafia. While sexually harassing space secretaries at a space ad agency.


“Space nostalgia – it’s delicate, but potent.”

So everything’s been done, your core concept is 40 years out of date, and you wouldn’t fit on TV anyway. So what does that leave? Generic action movies in Star Trek drag. Folks can criticize the writers of the Abramsverse, but the dudes just don’t have a lot of options.

You just can’t do another Star Trek series again. You just can’t.

But here’s how you do it.

1) Put someone invested in charge.
We are living in a Golden Age of designer TV shows, and each one is connected to one or two key creative individuals – not studio executives, committees, or a revolving door of writers. A new Trek series would also need strong creative leadership.

The best team to lead a new Trek series would be one outsider and one insider. For the outsider, I’d pick Jane Espenson, who’s worked on Buffy, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Torchwood, Game of Thrones, and so on. That’s some serious industry and nerd credibility right there. For the insider, I’d pick Jonathan Frakes, whose work behind the camera has been more important than his work in front of it. And unlike Riker refusing command of his own ship, Jonathan Frakes would be happy to take the conn of a new show.

2) Keep it short.
The Next Generation created a standard that a Star Trek show should last seven years and 170 episodes. This is probably not the case. DS9 dragged out the Dominion War for one year too long and Voyager’s premise got so stale they had to retool it halfway through as Star Trek: Borg. Keep yourself to about 50 episodes over four or five seasons.

3) It’s the characters, stupid.
The problem with Star Trek’s demise in 2005 was not that the stories were all the same: it’s that the characters were the same – a bland array of uniformed individuals who increasingly felt like copies of copies. If the characters are fun and different, you can recycle stories.

The best example of this is “Arena” and “Darmok.” For those who don’t know, these are the episodes where the captain is forced into a hand-to-hand combat with an alien.


Linguistics has never been so bad-ass

Both episodes have the same premise. Both are awesome – and they both very different because Kirk and Picard are such different characters.

You could do another ship-through-the-universe show, but not a ship full of model Starfleet officers. The main characters might not be the senior officers, but rather the “Lower Decks” characters – or misfits who never would have made it onto the Enterprise. The most interesting characters on all of TNG were Barclay and Ro, both of whom were rejects dealing with their infuriatingly perfect senior officers.

All of this could be consistent with the known Trek universe but still fit the modern taste for grittier stories.

4) Please leave Wrath of Khan alone.
Yes, it was the best film. But the last three movies all cribbed heavily from it – that’s one-quarter of the film franchise. (Enterprise also did a Wrath of Khan three-parter in its last year. You probably haven’t seen it. It’s on Netflix.) There are other good episodes/movies you can reference. The real crime of Into Darkness is they cast this great up-and-coming actor and rather than create a new, exciting character, they shoe-horned him into a part that will, forever, be unfavorably compared to the star of Fantasy Island.

5) Listen to your fans – even the ones who hate you.
For years, Trek fans demanded a TV show about Captain Sulu. Rick Berman gave them Enterprise. Here’s a graphic of its ratings:

Here’s an unrelated screen capture from George Takei’s Facebook page:

So to put a fine point on it: more people follow George Takei on a daily basis than watched most of Enterprise. Who knew he was so charming and wonderful? (Answer: Star Trek fans.)

6) Find the right theme.
The original series and movies hit the right chord because they were essentially the Cold War in space. The US was the Federation and the Soviets were the Klingons. And from 1966 to 1991, that basic premise worked really well: it was timely, creative, and meaningful.

So you’d have to come up with something comparable. And no, it’s not “terrorism in space.” Terrorism-themed fiction had already been played out by 2005. A much better contemporary theme is the “The Post-American World” we now live in – so you could make a Trek series about a “post-Federation galaxy” or a “post-Earth Federation,” where alien worlds don’t need as much protection because the Klingons and/or Romulans aren’t as adversarial as they used to be. Or something akin to Asimov’s Foundation series, but with Earth as Trantor. Of course the trouble is they already kind of did this on Andromeda. But they could do it again with more interesting characters and the Trek brand. (And a cameo or two from George Takei for good measure.)

It would definitely be a challenge to get a successful Star Trek series up and running. But with the right people, the right concept, the right format, and the right characters, it could be done. The most important part of a successful TV show, viewership, is already taken care of – the furor over STID proves it. For fans, the best part about loving Star Trek is hating Star Trek. Bring on the pain sticks!


Jared Whitley is a writer and a nerd living in Washington, DC. His own review of Star Trek Into Darkness is here.


Comments

1. thx1138 - September 19, 2013

Excellent article, I completely agree!

2. Mad Mann - September 19, 2013

Uhhh, no.

You use the main arguement that there are so many Star Trek episodes that it would be impossible to create new stories. Using that same logic, then there should never be anymore police or doctor shows since they have been done so much. But, they keep on making new police and doctor shows, and they usually find an audience!

Star Trek can easily be done on TV and not recycle old stories. Police, doctor, and other tv shows are confined to Earth: Star Trek has the whole galaxy! (Well, at least a good portion of it) I would argue that Star Trek could potentially have more varied and new stories waiting to be told than any TV show ever. It just needs fresh minds.

I do agree that a shake up is in order. A Captain Sulu show (with John Cho) is a strong possibility, maybe with a crew of rejects like you mention.

3. LWR - September 19, 2013

Impressive

4. Simon Jessey - September 19, 2013

Someone should take the model of the Aubrey-Maturin series from Patrick O’Brian and turn that into a Star Trek series. It’s got all the right ingredients:

1. Navy background with officers and crew
2. Two strong, but entirely different characters
3. Humor
4. Voyages of discovery
5. Pursuit of enemies / flee from enemies
6. Shore life
7. Great fleet actions
8. Hardship
9. Class differences

5. kevan - September 19, 2013

They missed the mark without a Capt Sulu show with George in the centre chaire.

6. thomas thøgersen - September 19, 2013

As a dane(from denmark) I couldnt agree more, because trek need to be forever, but not re-cycling forever :-)

Make my startrek, but make it bold and new, I did love both new movies, and saw them both in my local cinema here in my town, and i look forward to see to next one in 2016 :-)

7. Riker's Mailbox - September 19, 2013

This article is perfect.

8. Cygnus-X1 - September 19, 2013

Thanks for the article, Jared. I really enjoyed it. And now, here’s a merciless litany of points about which I disagree with you:

—I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film: fans are angry because they have to wait four years to see a new movie when what they really want is new episodes every week.—

I’ll admit that this reasoning played a bit into my feelings in between ST’09 and STID, especially when we learned that JJ Abrams had put the Trek sequel on the back-burner in order to do Super 8. But at this point, I would honestly prefer that Bad Robot give Star Trek back up to the creative ether and let someone else have crack at it, even if that crack doesn’t happen for another 5 years. Yes, that is how put off I am by STID and what Bad Robot has done with Star Trek generally.

—For the insider, I’d pick Jonathan Frakes, whose work behind the camera has been more important than his work in front of it.—

Strike two. Frakes is a lovely guy, but he did not turn out particularly inspired TNG films. Insurrection was entertaining but riddled with plot holes and corny dialogue, and First Contact, Frakes’ most successful and entertaining Trek movie, likewise had plot holes and annoying, nonsensical scenes (like the holodeck/Borgs attacking scene). If Frakes couldn’t pick out and correct major writing problems in the movies he directed, he’s not a good choice for showrunner of a Trek series.

I didn’t find a strike three in your article, so it looks like you got a base hit. But I will say that I think you’re being overly pessimistic about the feasibility of doing a great new Trek series. As just one example, imagine Ron Moore’s Star Trek. It could still be an optimistic, hopeful, idealistic world that is portrayed as more gritty, “real” and true to life. Like when a crew member dies, the captain and rest of the crew don’t just carry on unaffected because the dead crewman wasn’t one of the main cast. And then, of course, there are the dark, seedy parts of the galaxy outside the Federation where the gritty realism that Moore gave us in BSG could really run wild. DS9 was premised upon being darker and outside the Federation, but it was still rather Pollyanna on the whole. The point being, there is no shortage of great premises for a new Trek series. It’s all about finding the right showrunner. Getting Manny Coto involved, as many posters here have called for, might be a good idea. Season 4 of Enterprise—after many people had given up on the series—was awesome! I’ve watched the entirety of Season 4 on Netflix three times now, and will probably watch it a fourth. For my part, that’s indicative of good Trek.

9. Roger - September 19, 2013

“2) Its core concept doesn’t work anymore.

Star Trek’s original concept was heavy-handed polemics about social issues behind the guise of science fiction, the only way to you could address these issues at the time because of network censors. (The Twilight Zone had shown the way a few years earlier.) This was creative in the 1960s. It was groundbreaking in the 1960s. It was relevant and interesting and bold to say that (space) racism was bad in the 1960s … but it’s not now. Even some of the more transparent allegories from TNG were eyeroll-inducing in the 80s, like when they taught us that drugs are bad, that space racism is bad, and that drugs are bad.”

And this is when I quit reading this nonsense.

10. Trekboi - September 19, 2013

There goes Free speach, were being Moderated.

The main reasons Trek left TV were because there were too many shows on, competing with each other & repeats as well.
The other problem was the same people who produced it clung to it & didn’t bring in new blood- they were too afraid of rocking the boat.

“Young Minds, Fresh Ideas, be Tolerant”

Old fans will bitch but watch & New Fans will think it’s new & shiny
Think Madonna/Lady Gaga- she just does the same thing madonna did 20 years ago but the teens think its Original/Art

11. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 19, 2013

A thought provoking piece.

I certainly would like to see another Star Trek series on the small screen, if it were done correctly. I, however, don’t really have any insights into how that could be achieved to please existing Star Trek fans (of all persuasions), to bring in new fans, and to achieve the required audience figures to be considered financially worthwhile.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a series set in the Star Trek universe (feel free to pick one) that was not Earth/Human/Starfleet centric. But that’s just me – others probably would not agree.

Also, if the Trekmovie threads are anything to go by, Mr Whitley is correct: “For fans, the best part about loving Star Trek is hating Star Trek. Bring on the pain sticks!”

12. Trekboi - September 19, 2013

No reason there cannot be another Star Trek show.
Just need to be new people who don’t repeat the (more obvious) mistakes made before.

13. BatlethInTheGroin - September 19, 2013

“I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film”

And you’re way off-base in that belief. People are upset with the film because of its writing failures.

14. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 19, 2013

@9. Trekboi – September 19, 2013
There goes Free speach, were being Moderated.

I could be wrong, but I think all that has happened is that Matt has become sick of explaining to some posters – yet again – why their posts have disappeared into the ether only to reappear some time later once they have been looked over… Hence the appearence of the little red notices.

For at least as long as I have been posting here, it has been usual for some posts to be caught up in the filter for moderation.

15. Cervantes - September 19, 2013

Great article Jared, and seeing ‘Worf’ hit with those ‘pain sticks’ reminded me of how I felt watching certain aspects of J.J.’s ‘alternate timeline’ movies…

Hoping for a weekly show instead wasn’t a factor in my disappointment with the wasted potential of his two big-screen reboots however…merely the fact that I disliked what he and his writers actually came up with in the end. While not everything was excruciating about them, too many aspects *were* – (from my own point of view anyway, which naturally is the one I’m most concerned about!)

I look forward to adding some specific, additional thoughts here eventually, and the eventual replies to this topic should prove as entertainingly varied as the ‘Star Trek is broken’ / ‘Star Trek is not broken’ ones turned out to be, I reckon…

16. Paul - September 19, 2013

Star Trek paradigm doesn’t fit anymore? Well then, do it the other way around!

Let’s have the UFP, uptight, rigid, way too politically correct for its own good, spewing their fusty doctrines and holier-than-thou attitude; destroying lives of ordinary people by imposing the public safety regulations nobody asked for; taking away small children because their parents happen to disagree with the official education; leaving whole civilizations to stagnate, perish and wither away because of non-interference directives, while happily interfering with yet other civilizations because of their huge deposits of dilithium. Let’s have Starfleet, the duranium fist in a velvet glove, taking care of exploration, defense, diplomacy and the like; their traders, more feared and despised than Ferengi; their counselors, seeing into the minds of enemies and allies alike, prying for tiniest seeds of dissent and using them as an excuse for mind-numbing counseling sessions and brainwashing medication; their covert ops commandos, causing chaos in the midst of enemy territory; their diplomats and mediators, enforcing alliances and treaties by the careful use of bribes and extortion, breaking up civil wars by ordering “humanitarian” orbital bombardment.

Now, let’s have our (anti)hero, the aging captain, a veteran of many battles, a bit grumpy, no longer an idealist he used to be. Think Walt Kowalski from “Gran Torino” meets Marko Ramius from “The Hunt for Red October”. He’s tired of bureaucracy, he’s disgusted by politics. He’s alone, his wife left him after his only daughter died in a terrorist attack. He’d seen people dying of hunger and diseases because Federation refused to share their replicator technology; he’d seen planets bombed to stone age because they refused to give up their weapons program; he’d seen colonists driven out of their homes because UFP wanted to use their planet as a bargaining chip in a deal with some tentacled alien monstrosity. He disagrees, but he still believes it is all for the greater good of Federation; not realizing this is no longer the same Federation he helped to build and swore to protect.

One unspecified episode roughly in the middle of the first season, just before dinner, our captain happens to find an indisputable proof that the aforementioned terrorist attack was the inside job. That’s the last drop. That’s the breaking point. That’s when he shoves his obnoxious political matters officer outta the airlock and goes on a one-ship crusade against everything he used to hold sacred.

And there you go: a Star Trek series based entirely on the problems of the contemporary world, and a hero everybody can relate with. :-P

17. Trekkee - September 19, 2013

Good article and I was never happy that TNG, DS9 and Voyager were all co-existing, it made it easy for guest appearances but I always wanted to know what happened next, same as TNG did for TOS.

Star Trek was always about the cast and crew of the Enterprise, so if the Enterprise K with its fancy new galaxy hopping warp drive could go and explore new galaxies after humanity destroyed the entire Federation after an accident in a pro to-matter lab, then I’d be interested in knowing what happened next.

So yeah, if it’s going to be done, do it boldly.

18. SoonerDave - September 19, 2013

This was the most Gerrold-esque commentary on Trek I’ve read in a long time – and that’s a high compliment in my book. Salient and to-the-point.

19. Damian - September 19, 2013

The Star Trek: New Frontier novels actually have an eclectic mix of misfit characters (Shelby being the only straightlaced character).

Something like that might work.

I don’t think a Sulu series would have fared any better actually.

At the end of the day, I think CBS is trying to squeeze out what they can with the different series for now. I don’t anticipate they will spring for a new show for a while.

If the new Blu-Rays fall flat (esp, with TNG upgrades) I suspect that will encourage them to leave things be.

20. Sean - September 19, 2013

I disagree with the opening comments in the posted article.

I AM not angry that I have to wait 3-4 years for another film; rather, I am angry that the movie took the lazy way out time and time again, that it had many opportunities to address moral issues on a deeper level, but didn’t, that the villain turned out to be another madman, hell bent on revenge, and finally after creating a new universe for these characters, they opted to spend the final act doing a well constructed but ultimately hollow beat by beat rip off of WoK. That is why I am angry. I want Star Trek out of the hands of these people. Just awful.

21. Nomad - September 19, 2013

Keeping aside the moralising and the political allegories, which usually set my teeth on edge a bit anyway, I think there’s still plenty of scope for a new series. The reason is that Star Trek, with few exceptions, has never been great at showing us alien worlds and alien beings that really felt like they were that. With modern CGI and the input of some serious heavyweight science fiction writers it would be nice if it could finally achieve that.

22. Josh C. - September 19, 2013

I think this article has some good ideas, but I think some of the ideas are contradictory to each other. The biggest one I see is this:

“Listen to your fans” vs. “Its core concept doesn’t work anymore.”

What do most fans want? The Star Trek TOS type episodes that you say won’t work anymore on TV. An Hour of Kirk and Spock (or whoever) sitting on the bridge exploring a nebula and helping a baby nebula-lifeform escape some nebula trap and then going on their merry way.

As much as I would have loved a Sulu show, it was based on the premise that it would be TOS all over again, essentially.

23. Nomad - September 19, 2013

Failing that, I wish someone would do another space exploration series – perhaps taking a lead from the classic novel “The Voyage of the Space Beagle”, which was a key influence on Star Trek. It was all about exploring space to add to our scientific knowledge, but it wasn’t hidebound by all that Prime Directive and we-are-perfect-future-humans stuff. Also the ship was run by the military and the science staff were civilians, a good source of drama that Star Trek would have found useful.

24. Weerd1 - September 19, 2013

SOME fans are mad about the writing in the Abrams-verse. Many fans, old and new, think it’s just fine. Anyone want to guess what the top selling video release was this last week?

Regardless, as someone who eats, drinks, breathes, and adores Trek, I would rather have a quality film every four years than a mediocre episode every week. Keeping something rare keeps something special. Let’s encourage the amazing crew of talented TV creators out there right now to do something new, make their own mark, and we can bow to the Great Bird every couple of years.

Unless we give John Cho a Sulu show. Then you got me.

25. Hat Rick - September 19, 2013

Many of the points raised in this article are valid, but perhaps the over-riding concern should be how Trek should evolve to meet the needs of the current audience for serious, dramatic programs.

While it is true that many fans believe that we should return to the past, it’s highly dubious that a TOS or even a TNG style show could make it in today’s market. The demographics of the viewing audience has changed. The availability of entertainment has changed.

The most highly respected SF shows these days aren’t really SF shows anymore. “Lost” and “Heroes” changed the landscape for science-fiction and fantasy. The most likely successor to Trek-type shows are those premised on exploration of strange new worlds that aren’t mere planets, but entire universes devoted to the weird and unknown.

NASA, in part, is to blame for this. Colorful exoplanets that look exactly like the pre-redigitalized versions of TOS worlds are now FACT, not fiction. Google “exoplanets” and you will see pink planets that look exactly as though they were taken from the film frames of the earliest versions of Trek. Granted — they’re postulations, but they’re still based on fact. So reality has caught up with TOS.

Except for the scale of ships and the existence of warp engines and teleportation, TOS is actually behind the times. (Quantum teleportation is not really the same as teleportation, and warp engines are just theoretical at this point.)

So what now?

When life gives you lemons, you don’t opt for strawberry Kool-Aid. Lemonade is still far more delicious. And thus the lesson is to embrace the new reality (in which we live the future only surmised by Trek), and make Trek as relevant today as the shows most audiences want to see.

Can we make interesting as a postulate of a future already past? Maybe, but maybe not. Why not recast Trek as a more radical version of its TOS self? Why not make Trek truly new, truly unknown, truly strange?

So the question is how one does that.

The new Battlestar Galactica by Ronald D. Moore and others was critically acclaimed for its realism. Yet the show was about machines taking over, or melding, or even creating, our form of humanity. The weirdness of the premise was breath-taking. The series ran for years, in a world in which 9/11 was still a recent memory.

Today, cyborgs themselves are becoming a reality. Supersoldiers in the near future may populate our actual military. Machine spies are omnipresent. The new BSG tapped into a zeitgeist was about to become real.

The trick for Trek is to predict the future yet still bring us something that is both fresh and grounded in reality. This feat may not be an easy one to accomplish, but it’s not impossible, either. It’s been done before — in a good way. A very good way indeed.

26. Marcus - September 19, 2013

“Star Trek: The Third Generation” type of television series, which take place three hundred years beyond “Voyager” and “Deep Space Nine”. Johnathan Frakes and Joss Whedon running the show. Its an empty pallet.

27. Russell Meyers - September 19, 2013

Appreciate Frakes as a director and sweet guy, but Ron Moore is the man for the Exec producer’s job, hands down. Espensen is welcome as head writer or contributor is she is too busy.

28. john - September 19, 2013

“Enterprise also did a Wrath of Khan three-parter in its last year. You probably haven’t seen it.”

Wow. You’re really making no bones about this site not being for Star Trek fans now.

29. Sean - September 19, 2013

This is the best summary of what a new Trek show needs that I’ve read in forever.

The Takei vs. Enterprise thing is a false comparison.Takei’s popularity shot up in the last few years because of Stern and his Facebook presence; doubtful that a 2004-ish Takei would have been able to drive a TV series.

But the most provocative and exciting part of this proposal is the post-American stuff. If anything has disturbed me about Trek fandom in the past few decades, it’s that the militaristic and nationalistic subtext of Trek (which Roddenberry swiped from Wagon Train to the Stars and his own military experience to provide some kind of structure) has become the supertext of Trek. Manny Coto — the guy who wanted to start a Conservative Comedy Network, ugh — turned Enterprise into a War on Terror series, and the political spin of Trek moved decidedly away from progressive in TOS to weakly liberal in TNG to outright reactionary in Enterprise.

So, the post-American thing strikes me as the most exciting because it reflects real issues in the *world* today, like TOS faced. Not TNG’s liberal perfectionist fantasy, but also not the Xindi arc’s “we gotta get the evil-doers” Bush-era garbage. I’d love to see a Trek that handled Earth’s role in a Federation that perhaps didn’t need the Earth like it did in the past, or certain human chickens were coming home to roost after several hundred years. A Federation in which we see more of the actual populace of the Federation rather than its military/exploratory “armada,” and how they interact in the world.

And, frankly, I’d love to see a flawed lead role. Perhaps not in a Walter White/Don Draper/Tony Soprano mode, but a lead (male or female) who made questionable choices, one one for whom there is an actual character arc. The idealism of original Trek was fundamental to its role in American and global media culture — we live in different times now, and reshaping the series to be less about cultural imperialism would be amazing to watch.

30. TardisCaptain - September 19, 2013

A Star Trek TV series needs to have someone at CBS who is enthusiastic about the project. Without this type of backing, I doubt a TV series will happen. They don’t need to be a full blown fan (nor should they), they just need to have the creative juices flowing for stories that can still be told in the Star Trek universe.

I would have to disagree with the theory that the show wouldn’t fit into a television landscape filled with mad men and drug makers. Star Trek has always been about a future that we could eventually reach. In this day and age of bad guy, bad guy, bad guy……it would be refreshing to see something positive. Yes the TV landscape has changed, but we still have an oversaturation of cop shows, doctor shows, “reality” shows, etc.

Long story short, CBS will make a television series if they believe they will make a profit. I don’t blame them as this is a business. We just need to show them that the market demand wants a Star Trek TV series.

CBS, I am very interested in seeing a new Star Trek TV series. Perhaps a groundbreaking deal with Netflix (who needs original content) could work.

31. REM1701 - September 19, 2013

Sorry but the all the “HATE” for “Into Darkness” is soley directed @ J.J. [Just wait till the next "Star Wars" comes out and see how they're fans act] Trek fans hate the alternative “timelime”. “Into Darkness is a good film, an intresting take on the WOK. Fans will never Trek characters re-cast. Had Roddenberry tried to recast TOS actors he would’ve caught “holy-HELL!” The keys to sucessful “Star Trek” is good writing and intresting characters [throw in a good director who knows the material]

32. runner - September 19, 2013

“I have been reminded of this episode as I’ve followed the recent furor over Star Trek Into Darkness. Just as Worf wasn’t really mad at his crewmates, I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film: fans are angry because they have to wait four years to see a new movie when what they really want is new episodes every week.”

Nah, the furor really is over STID ;)

33. Daniel Shock - September 19, 2013

I think the article is really on to something. I like the idea of re-doing Andromeda as Trek (which of course was originally for Trek series anyway).

34. SirBroiler - September 19, 2013

Had they not bastardized the Section 31 concept in STID I would have proposed a series focused on the black ops/covert division of Starfleet. I think this would be terribly relevant as a reflection of the current questions about government infringing on the rights of the people. (NSA anyone?)

How about a series based around Department of Temporal Investigations. Could still be a ship based show. Just a thought.

35. jerr - September 19, 2013

” I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film: fans are angry because they have to wait four years to see a new movie when what they really want is new episodes every week.”

NOPE!!.. not even close. That would be like blaming a video game for a movie not performing…

36. Matt Wright - September 19, 2013

@ ObsessiveStarTrekFan – Thanks for repeating my little spiel for me.
@ Trekboi – You were always being moderated, I just got tired of hearing people claim we’re deleting things. So I added the disclaimer. The influx of new people recently has led to repeated cries of deletion, censorship, etc. etc.

37. Aurore - September 19, 2013

“…For years, Trek fans demanded a TV show about Captain Sulu…”
_______

For years, I did not know some fellow fans had asked for such a TV show. I wasn’t among them ; as far as I remember, I first read about that request, a few years ago. On this site.

“…Rick Berman gave them Enterprise…”

Before the 2009 movie, which revived my interest in the Star Trek franchise, and, led me to get involved in online fandom, I thought “Enterprise” was a nickname of sorts for The Original Series ( in the United States ).

( Voyager, TNG, and, DS9…are shows I never was interested in…when I found out about them).

38. Marcus - September 19, 2013

“Star Trek” had problems way-way before JJ showed up on scene. “Star Trek ’09″ and “Star Trek: Into Darkness” just proved that everyone’s concerns were correct.

“Star Trek: Enterprise” came to a premature end due to franchise fatigue, bad creative decisions, and a lack of overall vision. When they used an old Rod Stewart song for the show’s intro, the creative department made the franchise feel old. Every time I heard “Faith Of The Heart” play, I kept thinking of an old guy pushing a walker.

This is how the introduction should have been:
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvEcaR9Cj7k

If the creative team used the song “Where ever you will go”, the series would have felt young and energized. People would not feel like they were 90 year old.

39. Mad Mann - September 19, 2013

I think that the creation of DS9 was on to something. Star Trek does not need to be on a starship, or even in space, to be an awesome show. The 1st season of Enterprise was originally planned to take place entirely on Earth, and that would have been something fresh and new.

Star Trek also does not need super big budgets, How about a simple show based at Starfleet academy? Or on a different planet? Or on a much smaller ship, scout class or even a civilian/non-Starfleet trade ship.

At any case, it should take place in the new JJ-verse. (same time period as Kirk and crew)

40. Oscar - September 19, 2013

The right concept? We have it
Star Trek:Vanguard.
Star Trek: Early Voyages
Star Trek: New frontier
Right people? We have It
David Mack, Peter David ,Chris Bennet…
Best producers: Josh Whedon+Jonathan Frakes.

41. Scott - September 19, 2013

Isn’t this exactly what Tim Russ is trying to do with Star Trek : Renegades? A crew who is operating outside of Star Fleet making decisions that effect the universe because Starfleet cannot due to the Prime Directive…reasonable people making unpopular decisions for the greater good. Sounds like a winner to me.

42. TomR - September 19, 2013

Enterprise was doing fine in its last season (story wise) talk about keeping it short do 3 more years of that.

43. CmdrR - September 19, 2013

Nicely stated.

I would love to see Trek done in a series (perhaps cable) where the run is limited (I’d go for 60-80 eps) and we see early on that main characters can change radically. That doesn’t mean they have to die! But, interesting things can happen that take them out of the pilot-mold… and let the series mature, a la Breaking Bad.

44. CmdrR - September 19, 2013

38: Only if they rename it Starbucks Trek.

That song is SO Gen-Z.

45. Marcus - September 19, 2013

When this theme song kills everything JJ can do in a “Star Trek” movie, you know there is something very wrong with the franchise:

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSZ_Onp0S0

46. Ensign RedShirt - September 19, 2013

Some nice points made, but the overarching premise that some of the fanbase is upset about STID because they want Trek back on tv is waaaaaay off. People are upset with the quality of the film itself.

47. Matt Wright - September 19, 2013

I think it’s funny that people keep posting that the author is missing the point, that it’s not about TV, rather the quality.

When in fact the author is making that very point (along with the TV argument), for him they go together. The point of being back on TV is to get the sort of small batch artisanal quality we’re seeing on cable shows right now. Which is something you literally cannot do on the big screen.

48. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

A very good article. I disagree with this statement

“I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film: fans are angry because they have to wait four years to see a new movie when what they really want is new episodes every week.”

The 4 years delay was just a small factor, the main problem was with the writing. STID wasn’t a good Trek movie, it was just just another mindless summer blockbuster that you forget once the lights come on.

What they should do is bring Star Trek back to TV that is set in the prime universe with the help of people like Ron Moore. In the same time, keep doing the movies in the new timeline & with the relentless mindless action that they seem to like.

49. trekwho - September 19, 2013

Thank you Jared for a wonderful and witty article. I really never thought of a post_Federation series before but I like the idea. Can Star Trek return to TV? Of course it can. If it hits the right chord with enough people it will succeed like any other sucessful series out there right now.

As a Dr. Who fan, I look back at the classic Who episodes as compared to those of the new series. They are very different in many ways but hold onto a core that fans enjoy.

Find your core, Star Trek, and re-imagine it for today’s crowd.

50. Spock's Bangs - September 19, 2013

#13 “And you’re way off-base in that belief. People are upset with the film because of its writing failures.”

SOME people are upset. Not most…witness the box office and bluray/DVD sales.

51. Marcus - September 19, 2013

@47. Matt Wright,

I agree. If they brought “Star Trek” back to the small screen, the overall quality and pacing of the stories would drastically change.

Franchise fatigue is what ultimately brought “Star Trek” to a halt. Even though “Star Trek: Enterprise” had some conceptual issues, the real reason why everything went to hell was from ‘overexposure’. As a result of the studio pushing too hard, they didn’t realize the franchise needed to take a rest.

Money, money, money replaced quality, quality, quality.

CBS.Paramount should have stopped with “Star Trek: TNG” and “Star Trek: DS9″. Once a good ten years had past, the studio could have introduced “Star Trek: Voyager”. I think all three series happened too closely together. Paramount tried to do too much too fast.

“Star Trek” is not broken. Its just tired.

52. Shatner's Manly Swagger - September 19, 2013

Excellent article.

It’s time for some out-of-the-box thinking. Set it on Risa, fill it with beautiful young naked people and put it on HBO.

Ratings gold. Not to mention INFINITELY more interesting cosplay opportuntiies.

53. JGV (from Portugal) - September 19, 2013

Very interesting article and great comments, here are my 2 cents:

I own every Trek episode and movie ever made in DVD (Yes those first collections in great looking boxes, even TAS) or BRay so I’m a big fan but the way I see it in order to have Star trek back on TV I will have to make some concessions.

The most important value and principle of Star Trek for me is Hope for humanity, that may not mean that humanity is or ever will be completely flawless or it would cease to be just that, human.

That is why I think something like the TNG premisse will fail to capture audience today, because in a global world with atrocities being committed by the second (and shoved down our eyes) we know humanity isn’t perfect, and no matter how far in the future the series would take place, people must be able to relate to the characters.

I don’t believe this would betray Gene’s vision at all, because the ultimate goal could and should be to better ourselves past those insufficiencies.

Another important factor, the tone of the series. I Have been re-reading DS9 Companion on my Holidays and they talk about the ever Star Trek episode being censored for violence witch, in the opinion of both producers and actors, damaged the final result.

I know there in the US there are rules about these kind of things when syndication is concerned but violence and sex sells, always did, always will, just look at Moore’s BSG, for me one of the best modern sci-fi shows, they had plenty of both…

That is why I have no problem (I may have others) with Alice Eve’s bikini shot in STID, it’s eye candy for sure, but it’s good one.

And not to risk being prejudiced, if they really had a Cumberbatch shirtless scene (a la Man of Steel) they should have stuck with it, it’s part of the game and as long as it doesn’t “take over” the story I don’t think that’s so outrageous, just remember TOS and those lovely alien of the week characters (and their almost non-existent costumes).

So, Looking to myself as a Trek fan, if I adapt to these new times I believe the franchise can still delivery powerful TV without betraying Gene Roddenberry’s vision, new concept, definitively edgier but with great soul and bigger and bolder stories.

It’s possible, just as the human adventure is just beginning, the human imagination has no limits!

Regards

54. Red Dead Ryan - September 19, 2013

A new Trek series can’t be put on a network anymore. ABC, NBC, CBS, et al., are going with more reality series, talk shows, sitcoms and news magazine shows. Most sci-series in the past decade got cancelled after a few episodes. “Serenity” lasted only 13. “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” only lasted two seasons. “Heroes” lasted for four, but was only good for one.

“Lost” and “Fringe” are really the only network sci-fi series that lasted a fair amount of time, and remained good for the most part.

(Season six of “Lost” notwithstanding)

Therefore, I have to say the next series be produced on a premium cable channel like HBO or AMC, with a run of only ten-thirteen episodes a year so that each episode will be high quality and visual effects laden with no need for bottle shows or holodeck episodes as filler.

A John Cho – Captain Sulu series set in the Abrams unviverse would be perfect.

55. Smike - September 19, 2013

“Just as Worf wasn’t really mad at his crewmates, I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film.”

Nope. It had something to do with the film…among other things, it is inexcusable to puke on the legacy of real-world space travel heroes like Neil Armstrong and crew by pretending the moon is only a few seconds away from Earth on navigational thrusters. Star Trek TOS and real-life NASA exploration are emotionally connected on various levels and it is simply not acceptable to drop out of warp close to the moon and go down into the Earth’s atmosphere a moment later.

THIS is the pivotal moment for hating this film. Because it shows these people don’t give a darn about space travel or space itself but only care for explosions, action and entertaining SFX. That and the existence of transwarp-beaming halfway across the galaxy, rendering Starfleet pointless…

“1) It’s all been done already.”

On the contrary…almost NOTHING has been done. Yeah, it’s really sad, but even after 750 hours of Trek on TV, we haven’t even seen more than a dozen truly strange new worlds out there. Apart from some energetic creatures we’ve had our fair share of forehead aliens of the week and almost 100 worn-out holodeck episodes. We’ve had some wars and conflicts, some time-travelling, hundreds of ours of pointless technobabble, strange attempts at comedy (Lwaxana Troi, Ferengi stuff and the weaker Q episodes come to my mind) and some awkward space nebulae.

Aprt from that there is hardly any substance that really goes where no man has gone before. The first two shows didn’t have the technical means to go there (they did a pretty good job on some paper planets though), but all of DS9 and vast parts of VOY and ENT simply didn’t try to fulfill that promise.

So NO: as far as “space, the final frontier…these are the voyages… to EXPLORE STRANGE NEW WORLDS, SEEK OUT NEW LIFE AND CIVILISATIONS; TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE” is concerned, there aren’t 750 Trek episodes but about 100, and even those are limited by the production values of their day and age.

“3) It wouldn’t fit into the modern TV landscape.”

It’s called counterprogramming… After 30+ seasons of stuff like BSG, Dexter, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men etc… there must be millions of people looking for some hopeful, optimistic outlook. Not everything has to be gloom and doom…just look at NuWho… it’s a brilliant show but corny in so many positive ways. It brings our dreams to life…So does Once Upon a Time. There is plenty of potential for stuff like that…if they finally decided to go places we haven’t seen before!

56. John"the wise"Rambo - September 19, 2013

“Yes, it was the best film.”

No it wasn’t and it never will be the best film.

Wrath of Khan is not a Star Trek Film.

57. Jai - September 19, 2013

George RR Martin rejected the idea of his Game of Thrones books being adapted into a big-screen movie series for some of the same reasons now afflicting Star Trek: Films wouldn’t be able to depict the same depth of characterisation and complex storytelling as a TV show.

So yeah, ideally Star Trek needs to be back on TV. With short seasons of 10-12 episodes max. HBO would be best.

And give the franchise to someone who really loves and respects the source material. If you look towards the end of the large leatherbound “Companion Book” to Game of Thrones published last year — I think it’s on page 190 — one of the show’s main writers says something like “We love the source material. We’re not like those people involved in a certain genre who tie themselves into pretzels to publicly disavow that genre. I think that actually says more about that person than the genre itself”. I wonder who he was talking about? ;)

Themes? Section 31/Starfleet Intelligence is an interesting idea. So is the “post-American” suggestion; set the show a century or two (or three) after DS9, in an era when the Alpha Quadrant’s dominant superpower is no longer the Federation. You could combine both ideas too, and make the main character the Federation President. Or go with any number of other options.

Lots of possible ideas —– For a writing and production/direction team with the right level of reverence for the source material, the right level of personal maturity and intelligence, a solid understanding of real-world history, and the imagination to pull it off.

58. Phil - September 19, 2013

Relax, Dr. Pulaski, the holodeck safeties are all on. Worf will have a couple of rug burns, nothing more.

59. Danpaine - September 19, 2013

I think the anger over STID is entirely justified, and has nothing to do with whether there’s a new TV show or not. The plot was just thin and uninspired and a rip-off.

Otherwise, spot on article. Great piece.

60. JJ's Secret - September 19, 2013

What ‘Wrath of Khan’ Three parter is the writer talking about on Enterprise?….

61. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

@ 52. Red Dead Ryan – September 19, 2013

“A new Trek series can’t be put on a network anymore. ABC, NBC, CBS, et al., are going with more reality series, talk shows, sitcoms and news magazine shows. Most sci-series in the past decade got cancelled after a few episodes…….

Therefore, I have to say the next series be produced on a premium cable channel like HBO or AMC, with a run of only ten-thirteen episodes a year so that each episode will be high quality and visual effects laden with no need for bottle shows or holodeck episodes as filler.”

Well said, the networks are becoming the graveyard for sci-fi series. Just in the last couple years more than dozen shows got axed after just one season or two, shows like Awake, Caprica, Firefly, FlashForward, Jericho, Terra Nova, The Event, The River, V & many others.

62. Oscar - September 19, 2013

52
Abrams universe is only for theaters. And I think is a good idea. Two universes: original timeline in small screen, and abramsverse in big screen. And then ,Abramsverse is Paramount business and Original timeline CBS’s.
57. True.
I do not like STID, and it has nothing to do whether there is a new tv show or not.
If we want a new st tv series first step is a 90 minutes hours pilot..and if it is not possible a new trek tv series… They should make a couple of Trek tv movies , stargate type…

63. Phil - September 19, 2013

To some extent, the potential issues with new Trek on TV also apply to the movies, in so much that the movies are still stuck on the 60′s core concept – does anyone really believe we won’t be getting a Federation/Klingon war Errand of Mercy mash-up for the third installment?

Overall, I agree with the author’s observations. A few points to clarify, why this Trek brand could work today…
1. The core concept needed to evolve. Technology, Failed nation states with WMD technology, artificial intelligence have all evolved at rates unimagined in the 60′s. All are ripe for storytelling, with the proper creative team.
2. Also, consider the mini-series format. Test several short story arcs, and if one or two resonate with the audience build on it.
3. Gotta be careful here – Starfleet is clearly more then spiffy looking captains and admirals on the spotless bridges of their luxury liner starships. Unfortunately, anyone who isn’t towing the line has been portrayed as going rogue, and SF in general doesn’t seem to be the most competent group of people in the galaxy. It may be time to embracing a loosening on canon to actually portray SF and Federation citizens for whom they are.
4. It’s hard to believe that we need to rehash any Trek characters – leave them all alone. Use the next movie to introduce Trek equivalents of diplomats, Seabees, Peace Corps, whatever,, then let them do their thing.
5. Klingons – and not the neutered TNG variety.
6. There are lessons to be learned from Dr. Who here. Really.

64. Phil - September 19, 2013

@60. The augment arc.

65. Beamer - September 19, 2013

@ #9 Roger

I can’t say I don’t blame you. Allegorical stories have been and are still being used A LOT today in science fiction, and is the sole reason Star Trek was so critically acclaimed. Allegorical stories are still extremely applicable to today’s social & political issues. Non-interference & the prime directive is something that is extremely applicable to the present; others would be government aid to it’s citizens, monetary debt. There’s a whole wide range of issues I can’t even think of that Star Trek Can and very easy & allegorically could tell stories about without getting “reused.”

I will vehemently disagree in this regard because Allegorical stories are far from obsolete and thus Star Trek’s “core premise” is far from obsolete.

66. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

Star Trek is still very popular, heck even the politicians love Star Trek!

========================
Star Trek, NSA: Is Washington full of Trekkies?

Star Trek, NSA share a similar-looking ‘set,’ according to a Foreign Policy magazine article. In the galaxy known as Washington, that’s not where the enthusiasm ends for ‘Star Trek’ themes.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / September 18, 2013

A “Star Trek”-inspired command center was once NSA Director Keith Alexander’s pride and joy, apparently. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say it was it one of his chief means of impressing lawmakers and winning support in Washington’s corridors of power.

No, we’re not making this up. It’s a bit unearthed by Foreign Policy magazine in a lengthy profile of General Alexander titled “The Cowboy of the NSA.” When he was chief of the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command, Alexander brought many civilian officials and members of Congress down to Fort Belvoir, in suburban Washington, to tour his Information Dominance Center, writes FP’s Shane Harris.

“It had been designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek, complete with chrome panels, computer stations, a huge TV monitor on the forward wall, and doors that made a ‘whoosh’ sound when they slid open and closed,” writes Mr. Harris.

……..

Here’s our question: Is there something about “Star Trek” that is uniquely appealing to the men and women who are running the United States? Because this isn’t the only example of the use of “Star Trek” mythology within the government.

In 2010 Internal Revenue Service staff members produced an entire spoof “Star Trek” video for an agency conference. The six-minute film – for a meeting whose theme was “Leading Into the Future” – was produced on an Enterprise set built at the IRS audio-visual studies in New Carrollton, Md.

This spoof featured a trip to the planet NoTax, where chaos ruled over order. The narrative developed, if that’s a word that applies, from there. The actors were actual IRS officials, who bought or made their own costumes. Thankfully, nobody said anything about going where no deduction has gone before.

Yes, these are only two examples, but they’re pretty elaborate ones, if you ask us. Do any New York banks have Star Trek-inspired command centers? Back in June, National Journal published a piece about how “Star Trek” actually explains the NSA – given that the “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” TV spinoff featured an NSA-like electronic intelligence agency named Section 31.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0918/Star-Trek-NSA-Is-Washington-full-of-Trekkies

========================

On a lighter note, I think that Section 31 should be offended to be compared to the incompetent NSA.

67. star trackie - September 19, 2013

If Trek is to ever return to TV, it won’t be recognizable as anything remotely similar to what has been on TV before. It can’t be. That business model is a set up for failure and Trek’s production costs are way too high to bet the farm on a retread of TNG. IF it ever returns, and that is a big IF, it will be modeled after what is working for the studios today. An action/adventure oriented series produced in the same fashion as the last two movies. That is where the bread and butter is. The studios know it. Maybe, using the sets from the last two movies, just maybe, they could get close to a cost effective budget, but probably not. I fear, if Trek is to continue, it will be at the movies.

68. Astorix - September 19, 2013

What is missing is the original Humanist message of Gene Roddenberry, the epitome is Star Trek First Contact. His vision was, eventually, everybody can work out there differences and get along in a constant forward motion.

In the 60s, (23rd century) Kingons were the enemy. Fast Forward to the 80s, (24th century) Klingons started joining the crew.

Fast forward 500 years. The Romulans, Breen, Borg, Cardassians, Bajorans all have worked out their differences. There is a huge universe out there, tons of CGI effects now. Instead of simply “forehead aliens” there can be truly bizarre aliens to meet.

Like one person said about STID, “I did not want Star Trek: The Star Wars.”

Star Trek was more of an intellectual series, the mind, while Star Wars is more of action, brawn, as it were.

Go back to the original Humanist vision of people, races, species in constant improvement and moving forward.

69. THX-1138 - September 19, 2013

As much as Star Trek movies are fun and I do enjoy going to the theater and eating popcorn and drinking a soda, I can’t honestly say I prefer any Trek movie to a Star Trek series on TV. I think the failure of Star Trek on TV was a mix of things: franchise fatigue (it never struck me as a good idea to have two Trek series running simultaneously), becoming too milquetoast and losing their creative and story-telling edge, and the wrong premise for Enterprise. As a long time Trek fan I had an expectation of how things should appear and what the pre-history of TOS was going to be like. Enterprise was not it. I know just how “fanboyish” that might sound but I have no idea how one is supposed to not be at least a little fanboyish when you have been a “fan” of something from the age of 5 til your 40′s. Anyway, since I couldn’t get behind the premise I didn’t watch. Simple as that.

I would really love to have Star Trek back on TV and have a show I could look forward to every week during the season. If someone were to ask me I would agree that taking Star Trek a century or two past where it left off from Voyager would be great, and since my own personal bias is the Prime Universe, I would love to see it set there. After all, I have spent the better part of my life enjoying a fictional “history” of the future so I would love to see it continue. The concept presented here of a post-Federation galaxy is intriguing. Maybe it could feature an earth that has fallen on bad times and humanity has lost it’s allies for some reason. Put man on the bottom of the heap and have the series be about the scraps of human civilization trying to dig themselves out of a gigantic mess that has devastated the Alpha Quadrant. We would barely be able to sustain ourselves on earth and have lost contact with our allies so from the twisted scraps of Starfleet we set out among the stars once again to try to reach any of our Federation friends. The ship(s) could be a hodge podge of vessels patched together in order to make a starship capable of near light or light speed (maybe the ship cold be a coddled together TOS Constitution class that get’s renamed Enterprise) so that we weren’t just zipping off to Vulcan or Andoria in an episode. It would be a quest and our stories would center around what we found on our way to finding our Federation friends again. Like BSG, there would be a goal and hope, but there would also be a lot of misery to be found and resolved (or not). But the theme over it all would be that we were once a great civilization and we wish to be once again.

I don’t know, but it’s fun to talk about.

70. T'Cal - September 19, 2013

Good article. I especially agree with putting Frakes in charge. His heart has always been in Trek from his start with the franchise. I wouldn’t be put off by adding LeVar Buton as a Co-Exec Producer due to his commitment to Trek as well as his directing abilities. TV Trek would be in good hands. I think I might prefer annual or semi-annual miniseries with a story told over ten episodes shown on ten week nights. Then it would be rerun in different time slots followed by a release on disc five months later to coincide with the next miniseries being aired. As for the cast, characters, and plots, I’ll leave them up to the pros.

71. Admiral Green - September 19, 2013

I think there is one big reason why Trek is no longer on TV above all others: OVERSATURATION. If the exact same content had been spaced out over a longer period of time instead of having two shows on at the same time, it would have done much better. Having said that, if they had put some of Voyager’s best writers on DS9, and then carried some of DS9′s best over to Voyager AFTER DS9 was done, along with a few Enterprise stand-outs, it would have been better still. If they can avoid making that mistake again, new Trek on TV is likely to thrive.

The other thing that I am somewhat puzzeled by is this belief that the ideals of Star Trek and multi-layered characters who are less than perfect are somehow mutually exclusive. Imperfect people struggling to do what’s right makes for the best TV. It always has, and it always will.

72. Buzz Cagney - September 19, 2013

An interesting read, I would make 2 points. A Trek based on Sulu? Nah, would not work. Did you see him in TUC and that unspeakably bad Voyager episode he was in? He may well be a decent and charming man but as a central leading actor, well, I think not.
Also, i’m not frustrated by Darkness because it heralds a 3 or 4 year wait for the next, i’m frustrated because they got much- SO MUCH- right and good and fun about it. But they just couldn’t come up with a strong enough story that was worthy of the good parts- most notably the fine and talented actors, all of them, and the superb grasp of characters and the excellent work done on the big action sequences.
They got so damned close to greatness its frustrating.
As to Trek on the TV, well, maybe after the next movie things will become more clear.

73. TWOK fanatic - September 19, 2013

Many moons ago I came up with a story that takes place w/the crew of the U.S.S. Omni (different type of movie-version fed-ship) on their adventues; 20 episodes, 5 seasons from 2280-2285.

The last episode of the series would end w/one of the characters transfer to the U.S.S. Relaint prior to the events of TWOK.

Maybe I should keep my notebook in my junk drawer…..lol.

74. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 19, 2013

“While the Abrams team is certainly well versed in Trek lore, I’m going to bet they didn’t set out to make most of the allusions cited in this Red Letter Media video.”

Oh, I think they did. And it was one of their biggest mistakes. Last time around with ST09, Mr. Plinkett did somewhere around a 40 minute review about how he enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure. It was fun; these were nice fresh new takes on old characters; and there was this whole “new” timeline to play with. Hey, let’s see where it goes! :-)

Then came Into Darkness… :-/ I can understand Plinkett. After about 7 minutes of pointing out probably not even all of the “homages,” “rip-offs,” and “references,” he just had enough and quite literally said “F*ck it!”

I don’t need or particularly want any more Star Trek on tv. The one that I really liked, I’ve got. I just wish they had done a better job with following up on what was a great first movie. Perhaps the next one can do that… I don’t know.

75. Phil - September 19, 2013

@71. I’m not necessarily a fan of focus groups, but in the case of STID it would not have hurt to have a disinterested third party take a look at the script, and some test footage. When you look at all the really big budget movies that jumped the rails this year, I’d bet that’s going to change a bit.

76. Optimistic Doodle - September 19, 2013

Solid article, though a bit devious headline ;-)

Truth is, creating & selling a sci-fi tv series to TPTB is tough. However, it can be done. Star Trek is not broken.

Generations love stories. There will always be questions to ask. The answers … are out there! Characters abound. But sure, concept (and execution) is key.

Length doesn’t really matter so much; focus on quality.
Starting point is a strong creative, co-operating team. That and – again – a strong vision. Learn from past mistakes, get pro writers, evolve, interact … But never forget: make it Star Trek! Listening to all (respectful) fans is a must, but one has to be bold enough to actually be creative and pleasantly surprise people.

Bye the bye, love STID (except the international BR debacle), but your point number 4 is spot-on.

@41: Hear, hear!

Final note //
50th Anniversary demands a return to ST origins: tv (or web).
:-)

Movies and television series *can* co-exist.

‘joy!

77. Optimistic Doodle - September 19, 2013

Oh yeah: The ‘Small Screen’ isn’t so small anymore ;-)

78. Hat Rick - September 19, 2013

A little disturbing to read about the possible culturally resonant connections between a super-spy agency and Star Trek.

79. Phil - September 19, 2013

As the Prime Directive comes up frequently, I’m going to throw this out as something that needs to be reconsidered. It was also a product of Cold War mentality – allegory being what it is, it needs to be adjusted for the existence of the failed nation/state. In the Trek universe, where it seems ridiculously easy to steal a starship, suggesting that a backward civilization with such technology should not be interfered with is outdated. While a more advanced civilization might adhere to those norms, the failed civilization would probably have no issues violating them. There is security in cooperation, and by necessity that means dealing with people, even if they are not warp capable. Policy is never static, and Star Trek should not be, either.

80. SnappyPseudonym - September 19, 2013

I’ve had an idea for a series for years that happens to kind of fit into the “no shiny perfect officers” mold.

I was once thinking about how it’s always the Enterprise that stumbles into trouble. Even given their unique placement in the fleet, that seems unlikely. But you can’t do a different ship every week, so I came up with this as a compromise.

This series would focus on an Academy training ship. There would be one or two senior officers on board for guidance, but most of the characters are cadets, including the captain, advised by a Lieutenant or something in an XO position. They go out on missions cadets ought to be able to handle, and often stumble into bigger stuff.

Not all of the cadets can handle the pressure. Some get expelled. Some screw up and get held back a year. Some graduate and get replaced. Some get their commission and immediately turn around and get assigned to mentor the next crop of cadets on the ship. Some of them want to use you, some of them want to be used by you, etc.

So you have a ship full of untested young people on a shakedown tour, on missions they shouldn’t be ready for, who might turn out to be loose cannons, cowards, or heroes, with minimal supervision.

81. bjdcharlie - September 19, 2013

This is the most instructive and constructive critical essay on the future of Star Trek. The analysis is extremely compelling. Studio execs need to listen. The finesse it would take to deliver a satisfactory 50 episodes would be very high, and probably expensive, but it could be done – as Jared says with the right person in creative control. Above all, it is necessary to allow your characters to be flawed.
During the early Soviet period in Russia in the 1930s, the Soviets took their art and literature very seriously, and explored extensively the concept of a “hero” as the “new Soviet man”. They had committees to decide what was politically correct and how that should be reflected in art. It was of course all propaganda, with little room for art, or the unconventional, or an imperfect hero. This type of character was a ready made politically correct perfect example of how you should be as a Soviet citizen. The problem was that a character who has already reached the height of his moral capacity has nowhere to grow. A character who is ideologically certain is just plain boring. (And those Soviet novels are ridiculous for that reason.)
If we get flawed characters, there are plenty of stories to tell or refashion. The “flaws” so to speak are just what made the Kirk/Spock?McCot triad so believable as developing vulnerable human beings, or half-human as the case is with Mr. S. Less so in TNG, but you get my drift.

Again, FANATSTIC POST Jared

82. Corylea - September 19, 2013

What nonsense! Part of why science fiction is such a vibrant genre is because nothing is impossible. As real science advances, new science fictional ideas are generated all the time. For examples, see Robert J. Sawyer’s work.

Star Trek needs to go back to its roots, which means that it needs to hire name science fiction authors to write excellent science fiction stories that are set in the Star Trek universe and that use the Star Trek characters. TOS had Theodore Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, Norman Spinrad, Jerome Bixby, David Gerrold, and James Bloch, all of whom are real science fiction authors, and all of whom wrote the stories for many of the fan-favorite episodes.

Good fiction of any kind will always be about people. Excellent fiction will always include character development. Kirk and Spock are ripe for character development of all sorts; Spock, especially, is such a complex character that his psyche can be mined more or less endlessly for stories. And Weird Vulcan Crap that he needs to deal with can be generated more or less at will; Sturgeon did this very effectively in “Amok Time.” :-)

Part of what Star Trek used to teach us is that different cultures are different, and that’s okay. That’s still a message that the modern world needs to hear, and we can create incredibly rich stories if we explore alien cultures and mindsets. Those don’t have to be hostile aliens, either; the Federation is composed of enough different worlds that even our allies take some work to understand. (I’d love to see the new movies move away from a protagonist-villain mindset; we can have great adventures without having any villain besides ignorance or misunderstanding.)

This is one of the reasons why I thought that blowing up Vulcan in the 2009 movie was such a huge mistake, because so much anthropologically-themed science fiction could be created with an extant Vulcan. Their worldview is different enough from ours to be a bit jarring, yet it’s hard not to respect them, and the experience of having our own worldview shaken up through contact with theirs can be far more exhilarating than any number of special-effects explosions. I suppose those stories could still be created, with New Vulcan as the setting. I’d love to see them!

Call Lois McMaster Bujold. Send e-mail to Robert J. Sawyer. Contact Connie Willis. Get some REAL science fiction authors on board, and good Star Trek will happen.

83. Joss Whedon for next Trek Director - September 19, 2013

@16: so essentially, you want a series centered around The Maquis, or a revived Maquis.

84. Hat Rick - September 19, 2013

Not sure what the “utter nonsense” comment is supposed to be directed at, but if it’s meant to signify an impatience with the idea that the next Trek series (if any) should stick with the “tried and true” TOS formula, then perhaps we’re in agreement.

I have to say that part of the problem with TOS is that it brings back fond memories of the days when we were young and vibrant and the future seemed to be limitless. The future is not limitless, I’m sorry to say. I personally have seen enough of the future turn into the past to tell you that the future is pretty much the same as today, except with tailfins.

I’m kidding. Sort of.

Trek saw the future as depicted by the “space westerns” of the 1930′s through 1950′s (I’m talking black-and-white serials made on a budget that would barely pay for the wardrobes of today’s movies, spare as they may be), comprising “space rangers” and their cereal-maker sponsors, and took a space-hammer to them. Social commentary, adult themes, tragedy — all that lot. Yes, yes, yes.

But.

There is the idea that Trek was progress and EVER WILL BE. But that idea is probably wrong. Trek is no longer progressive if taken in the literal sense it was half a century ago. Think about it: Virtually half a century has passed since Trek was a glint in Gene Roddenberry’s eyes. He was a motorcycle cop at the time and reportedly pressed his first manuscript for this “Wagon Train to the Stars” into the hands of various studio personnel he stopped. “Bewitched” was still au courant. The Vietnam War was not to end for about a decade.

We cannot go back to the future with Trek.

We do not need a rehash of TOS, or TNG.

We do need, I heartily agreed, real science-fiction writers writing for Trek, in a way relevant to the 21st Century.

I remember, as a kid, reading and loving the stories of Robert Heinlein, but even then, I knew that most of these were of the older variety. Back then, Ben Bova was the new guy on the block. And then came other varieties of SF, including cyberpunk and other subcategories of SF that gave a big, fat middle finger to traditional SF, let alone traditional story-telling.

We are half a century removed from the inspiration that IS TOS, and about a century removed from Gernsback and the much-vaunted Golden Age of science fiction. That’s long enough for fans like me to say: SF is about the future, not the past. Can one say “avant garde”?

SF and Trek aren’t easy things to do right. You cannot possible please everyone. If you are, you’re doing it wrong. And yes, H’wood requires compromises.

I don’t think any less of the JJ Abrams Trek movies for it, and in fact I love them, but the fact is that we should be open, on the small screen at least, to the SF of today, packaged for general audiences.

When even stodgy old CBS can bring us “The Dome,” a Stephen King novel sugarcoating an SF premise with conflict appealing to the masses, it’s a job — not for Superman — but for someone even more powerful, and armed with a pen, to make Trek even more successful that it is.

It’s a job for a science fiction writer. Or two. Or ten.

85. LogicalLeopard - September 19, 2013

Eh, I don’t quite agree with his three reasons why Star Trek wouldn’t work for two reasons:

1) You put “Star Trek” in front of it, and you have a built in crowd.

2) You have good characters, good writing, and interesting stories, you’ll keep your built in crowd and expand it.

Yes, we think the goody goody characters and the moralizing don’t work anymore, but I think when things are done correctly, people will watch. Principled characters are not unentertaining, and the thing about Star Trek is, although the main human characters have sort of passed us up on the moral/ethical spectrum, aliens are still aliens with their own beliefs and codes.

Here are my suggestions:

1) Find a good setting, and good writers who have a vision for inventive, fun storytelling. Don’t necessarily look for a gimmick (Star Trek on a space station, Star Trek in a far flung quadrant), look for an environment (whether it be physical or social) in which the characters have a deep interaction with it. I admit, I didn’t watch a lot of Voyager after the first year…..but how homesick was the cast? It seemed like Star Trek as normal. That’s not taking advantage of the unique setting.

2) Make them sound like real people, like many of Joss Whedon’s characters. Or make them sound like real people WANT to sound. I loved Kirk’s antics in STID, like when Scotty hung up on him. Make it accessable for people.

3) Develop characters well, so the audience is invested in them…..then kill them off. *LOL* I hear it works for Game of Thrones *LOL* But the point of that is not so much a gimmick, but it creates an environment where the show stays interesting, people don’t know what to suspect, and new blood can come in and invigorate it. They don’t have to be killed, they can be transferred. But when you kill a character, don’t let it be some little oil slick creature. And if it is quick and senseless, make people FEEL it. Did anyone miss Tasha after she died much? Deal with stuff like that over a couple of episodes, make it realistic.

86. THX-1138 - September 19, 2013

BTW, Matt, comment #1 isn’t me. Not that they said anything out of line, but I got the name first, so……..mine mine mine.

Can you help a brotha out?

87. Bird of Prey - September 19, 2013

A series centered around Quark and Morn, constantly getting involved in not always entirely legal shenanigans? I would watch that! :-D

88. Khan was Framed! - September 19, 2013

The notion that “it’s all been done before” when describing a show about exploring an infinite universe is an excuse for your own lack of creativity, not a reason Star Trek can’t return to TV.

There are aspects about Trek, which mistakenly became staples within the Rick Berman years, which locked Trek into this temporal loop of the same seven archetypes, exploring the same themes in a slightly redesigned ship.

But that isn’t the definition of Star Trek.

Star Trek is about exploring the philosophical depths of humanity through exploring the physical depths of our universe.

So to create a new series would require a creative team & a production house that’s bold enough to take Trek into REALLY new territory while keeping aspects of it familiar.

There’s so much we haven’t seen in the Star Trek universe, it’s hard to imagine anyone could look at this franchise & feel stuck. Here some ideas on the plot for the next TREK:

Spy Trek: instead of a ship & crew, a series that follows two Federation security agents; partners who travel from ship to ship, planet to planet investigating crimes, mysteries & internal security. With the two spies being male/female of different species we can marry the sexual tension with the classic trek “alien among us” dynamic. Regular side characters like informants, a C.O. & support team at a secret Starbase & recurring adversaries would fill in the rest.

Class of 2266: a series that follows a group of friends who graduate from Starfleet academy together, but are then assigned in pairs to different ships. This could follow different missions simultaneously, show how relationships change over distance & provide insight into the lives & careers of junior officers. Can friendship last over subspace?

The Next-Next Generation: a series set 100 years after the destruction of Romulus. The Federation has been devastated by war, Earth & several other planets have been destroyed, but ultimately the conquerors, a new species we have never seen, were defeated. Now a decade after winning the war, the surviving remnants of the Federation begin to rebuild. Pooling their resources, they build & launch the first new Starship in decades, to explore what’s left of the once mighty Federation & to assist outlying, surviving colonies in need.

There’s three original plot ideas, Berman wishes he’d thought of instead of Voyager & I’m only one Trekkie. Imagine how many more ideas are out there & your premise for this article is that there’s no more ground to cover?

Ridiculous.

in terms of production, here’s some thoughts:

AMC/HBO model – 13 episode seasons, written by a smaller team with more focus on consistency. A dedicated show runner who’s name is on the door like Vince Gilligan or Matthew Weiner.

Cable- Trek no longer fits on network TV, to really cover new ground & take creative risks, it needs a home on a cable network.

Animation – Everyone’s afraid of Trek becoming a “cartoon” but the production advantages like cost & story telling freedom make it a natural fit for Star Trek. The key to doing it as an animated series would be to continue to write it for 14 year olds, not 6 year olds. As long as it doesn’t become the Clone Wars, I think adults can handle an animated Star Trek.

In summary, Trek isn’t broken, it’s not worn out or tired & we certainly haven’t seen even a fraction of where it can go yet. The reason many fans feel this way is that we continue to see the same thing redressed & put in front of us as though it’s new.

I dare JJ, CBS & Paramount to really take a risk with a new & different Star Trek series.

I doubt any of them have the stones to do it.

89. ME!! - September 19, 2013

I disagree with the assessment that Trek “can’t” go back to TV and definitely disagree with the idea that it wouldn’t work because it wouldn’t be a carbon copy of every other TV show in the last 10 years. NONSENSE. It most certainly could be done if done properly.

It won’t work because they’ve all been done? Then why is Paramount bothering with the films? If no one would watch it, then where are all the movie ticket sales coming from?

The writer’s argument isn’t well thought out. In fact, it’s illogical…

90. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 19, 2013

Okay, I read this in-between doing other things and just finished now.

About #3: First, I’m not sure that those are all of the best shows in the last 10 years, and there is no “star” of Game of Thrones. That’s one of the reasons why it’s attractive. You can literally pick the “star” you want to follow, i.e. Danaerys, Tyrion, Arya, Jon Snow… Everyone on that show is damaged, not just Tyrion, and they are all making choices that affect themselves and other. Some of those choices, and depending on the character, all of those choices are immoral (but perhaps understandable…).

Then you said this:

“The only way they could make a Star Trek series that fit this new model would be to redo Deep Space 9 and make the main characters Quark and Morn. Cooking space meth. For the space mafia. While sexually harassing space secretaries at a space ad agency.”

Okay, so did you even watch the show? Going off of your “formula,” how was Benjamin Sisko not a “damaged male protagonist” at the show’s beginning? He was a lonely widower with a young son to raise all by himself, and he was so disillusioned with Starfleet that he was almost ready to quit. When he got the assignment to head DS9, the space station was busted down and broken. They had to rebuild and repair much of it. His first officer, the one that he requested, was equally damaged and also prickly too. They all had issues that they needed to work through. That was part of the appeal of the show: Watching them do that, together, while they turned that station around and eventually fought to protect the Alpha quadrant. It also didn’t hurt that they had some really great secondary and recurring characters with compelling stories of their own too…

In The Pale Moonlight was the epitome of “immoral but understandable” decision-making for Star Trek… I’m just going to say you lost me with number three, especially with what must be a bad joke about Quark and Morn… Then there’s also the fact that you say Trek can’t be done on tv anymore, but then you turn around to say how to do just that (in your opinion).

I respect the fact that you have your opinions, but I certainly can’t agree with them all…

Basically, in my view, they set a tone and theme, and even a direction, in ST09 that they did not maintain with the second film. Hopefully they can return to that. I think they can if they want to.

91. Bill Peters - September 19, 2013

I would say that WE need a Series that shows the Federation as something the grows and learns and does makes mistakes and does at times is In-perfect, also you need to show that the Federation Adds members and that it grows and how it makes Humanity better and itself better.

92. Bill Peters - September 19, 2013

Also CBS is Divorced From Paramount and has had no Interest in bring back Trek, thought I think if they did, it would be like when Doctor Who was Brought back by the BBC.

93. Corylea - September 19, 2013

@81 — Excellent comment!

94. Warped - September 19, 2013

It -is- a good article, with good points, but I don’t agree with all of it. So common in us trek fans is over analyzing the subject. I’m struck after reading this article that maybe a “KISS” (keep it simple, stupid—or maybe you prefer the more PC keep it simply simple) appoach would work.

1. Theyve got beautiful, expensive sets sitting around for years between movies. Use them on TV and save a bundle on building new sets for a new ST series

2. I agree with the author to keep it shorter. Use a 12 ir 13 episode season format. If on cable, make it a bit more gritty, but not too much. Don’t turn it in to Breaking Bad in space. But a a little more grit and edge wouldn’t hurt.

3. With the aforementioned sets, it will obviously be a JJverse constitution with a different crew. I LOVE the idea of focusing at least some episodes on lower deck characters. One of my favorite TNG epiodes of all time was “Lower Decks.”

4. Hire good actors and writers, and off you go. Any one of the movie cast characters might appear in ab episode. Zachary Quinto or any of them.

Just do it.

95. Anthony Lewis - September 19, 2013

I think people are misunderstanding the author here.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think he is saying that there are no new Star Trek concepts. As Khan was Framed! pointed out there are still a lot of framing devices left for Trek to follow and any number of them would be good.

I think the authors point was: What actual stories can you tell that haven’t already been told in other incarnations of Trek?

I’m sure someone has a list out there of every episode and every movie that is similar to a previous episode or movie.

Since there are only three kinds of stories to tell (man vs. man, man vs. self, and man vs nature) you are going to start getting repetitive.

It wouldn’t really bother me at all, but I could see it not appealing to casual viewers who might find it similar to past episodes.

96. Marja - September 19, 2013

16 Paul, The series you have described sounds like a Libertarian polemic starring a middle-aged white guy. Not so appealing to me, and I’d wager not so appealing to a large segment of Trek’s audience. While I support the idea of a “wounded” captain, revolution against the “Mommy-state” is something I’ve heard ad nauseum from the likes of Rand Paul. No thanks.

31 REM1701, Sorry but the all the “HATE” for “Into Darkness” is soley directed @ J.J. Trek fans hate the alternative “timelime”… The keys to sucessful “Star Trek” is good writing and intresting characters [throw in a good director who knows the material].
There you go again. “Trek fans hate the alternative timeline.”

Count me as one 43-year fan who likes it, while objecting strenuously to all the relentless action and violence. These actors would be fantastic in a more character-oriented, exploratory version of Trek. OK – seriously? to say “Trek fans” are only the people who hate NuTrek is insulting to those of us who like it. Or like a lot of it. Enough.

55 Smike, “It’s called counterprogramming… After 30+ seasons of stuff like BSG, Dexter, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men etc… there must be millions of people looking for some hopeful, optimistic outlook. Not everything has to be gloom and doom.”

Agreed. Especially with an eye to the younger generations who may be quite sick of the Dystopian view. Personally I’d like to see a 10 or 15-episode arc in which the NuCrew in the Altverse do a five-year mission, go through the character-building changes that real people do, and hand off the NuVerse to another crew [unless we could get the actors from NuTrek to do a few seasons, yay!] on another ship, or re-populate the Enterprise with a new bridge crew.

I could see challenges to the Federation by a fundamentalist religious group such as the Taliban [who view only their way as the right way, who don’t embrace IDIC as the Federation does], with rebels in its own ranks siding with the Federation … our heroes are there to help without getting directly involved, perhaps? Diplomatic furor results every time they try to help?

There are numerous present-day situations that could be told in allegory on a new Trek series.

One of the biggest bores in TV Trek was that characters didn’t go through life changes to the extent real people do. It was “hit the reset button” every week. At least for TOS.

57 Jai, “George RR Martin rejected the idea of his Game of Thrones books being adapted into a big-screen movie series for some of the same reasons now afflicting Star Trek: Films wouldn’t be able to depict the same depth of characterisation and complex storytelling as a TV show. So yeah, ideally Star Trek needs to be back on TV. With short seasons of 10-12 episodes max. HBO would be best.”

I agree with everything, but I feel Netflix would be a far better venue, as it is available to more viewers FAR more cheaply than HBO is. To get HBO in my area, I’d have to spend $150/month. [Trekfan that I am, regardless, I cannot possibly afford that.] Netflix I can get for about $8. Inspire the people who can’t afford HBO too. Yeah, Netflix doesn’t show a lot of naked T&A, but to my mind, those detract somewhat from GoT, which is a great series, outside of the whoring scenes.

63 Phil, I agree with what you say, particularly the allegory bits, but I DO want to see this Nu crew in it. I’m just attached because they’re really good actors.
Alas, the Paramount vs. CBS thing would probably come into play : (

75 Hat Rick, I, too am disturbed about this. But it proves the point that there are many different “take-aways” from Trek. I’ve seen Conservatives and Liberals who love it, for various reasons. I’ve also always been bothered by the Section 31 concept, but it probably compares well with today’s political climate.

76 Phil, “allegory being what it is, it needs to be adjusted for the existence of the failed nation/state. In the Trek universe, where it seems ridiculously easy to steal a starship, suggesting that a backward civilization with such technology should not be interfered with is outdated. While a more advanced civilization might adhere to those norms, the failed civilization would probably have no issues violating them.”

Hear, hear! And thus we can have our somewhat stainless Starfleet struggling with issues that are somewhat beyond their ken.

Heh-heh Matt, I applaud your decision to warn people in red : ) I bet you were sick of explaining “moderation” about once a day! The site also filters a lot of “special characters” [no I'm not speaking of trolls] like ampersands, dollar signs and whatnot, doesn’t it? Seems some folk have had issues with those in the past.

77 Corylea, I echo nearly every one of your thoughts. I really like the idea of personal growth in the main crew; as you say it’s the essence of excellent fiction to have the protagonist[s] evolve.

Though I think the rebuilding of the Vulcan society is rife with possibilities. Do they begin to assume some of their ancient warlike societal values after the devastation wrought by Nero? What will their new society look like?

Hell, I’d be happy if Netflix brought back “Firefly” too. What a great series, killed by the stupidest network around.

97. shawn - September 19, 2013

I agree yes and no.

it can still work if:

Its direct properly (not like a sitcom)
The world is not so perfect
The characters are not so perfect and make human mistakes.
With today sfx it would be easy to create strange new worlds on a budget.
Keep it funny
Keep the family/friendship theme
boost up the action.
Star trek can be like greys anatomy, homeland, battlestar, avatar, aliens, the walking dead. x-files… that’s was great about it … it can be all that cause its sci-fy and anything is possible.

It needs to be an arc… not episodic, it needs to hook people up in the first 2 episodes.

We need to see more then the bridge crew… the lower decks should be a big part of this new series and if i had time and the money I would love to write and direct an idea that the main character is an ensign straight out the academy… that would be both different and challenging.

There is no reason why star trek would not work if the good people are on board and make it cool and entertaining. The old ways will not work… gotta spice up the formula!

I think … I really do… that it could… could be one of the biggest hits ever on tv if done right… Bigger than before even! Bottom line its all about the story and the characters.

98. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - September 19, 2013

@83

Well said.

I have been saying for years that if they do another Star Trek on TV it has to move forward in time not a Prequal. Star Trek is about the next big thing. Next Gen was set 100 years after TOS. If they did another TV series 50 years after Voyager. They can go anywhere in the Galaxy with a perfected Slip Stream Drive, and meet new species, and explore new worlds

99. Gary 8.5 - September 19, 2013

88..
I like this idea.

100. spocky - September 19, 2013

A new Trek show would definitely work. It just needs the right mix of good characters, writing, production, etc. It also needs to strike a balance between stand-alone episodes and story arcs.

Content-wise, it needs to push a little further than Trek did before. I’m not talking about what Voyager did after TNG…I’m talking about bolder adaptations of concepts that were already presented (as mentioned in the article).

For instance…remember the Season 2 TNG episode when Dr. Pulaski must use a DNA sample to reverse her old age syndrome? What if a Starfleet crew “went rogue” and used this method to create a virtual “fountain of youth” and were discovered by Starfleet? This story would have great potential with elements of action and philosophical metaphor.

Star Trek would have to be ground-breaking again, just like Twilight Zone was (as mentioned by the author). JJ and Co. attempted to break new ground with Fringe, but I didn’t watch past the first 8 episodes or so (too much story arc, etc).

All Star Trek needs is a truly talented visionary leader, cast, and a supportive production company and audience that goes above and beyond!! Enterprise was on a pretty good track, but didn’t quite have all the elements it needed.

101. Brett L. - September 19, 2013

These sentiments standout to me as the most problematic:

“There aren’t any stories you can’t tell anymore. There aren’t any social issues you have to masquerade in science fiction…”

Really? I didn’t realize utopia had already arrived when I woke up this morning. Combating censorship and the ability to have a truly HONEST (and therefore productive) dialogue about hot button topics and societal values actually tends to be more difficult than it has been. We’re just better at disguising our true feelings or glossing over substantive issues. Political correctness and corporate control of media content are just some of the barriers. Sci-Fi has always been a less threatening way of “holding up the mirror,” challenging our assumptions, and looking at things from different angles– still a valuable way to begin the dialogue. A good writer doesn’t need to be heavy-handed, but can still use Sci-Fi to tackle subjects and themes that we can no longer talk about in meaningful ways: religion, race relations, gun control, corruption, militarism vs. diplomacy, population control, etc.

“Its core concept doesn’t work anymore…It wouldn’t fit into the modern TV landscape.”

Trek’s concept and core values are exactly what WOULD make it work now. Sure…modernize it, make it more sophisticated and nuanced, etc. The “problem of the week” format is long dead. Audiences won’t accept half white and half black guys. I get it. However, sophistication, realism, and optimism aren’t mutually exclusive goals. Trek’s role has long been to show people where the goal posts are– an increasingly lonely and singular role over the years. How many dark, depressing, post-apocalyptic movies and TV shows do we need these days? Good writing isn’t synonymous with dark and violent. Trek has the opportunity to cut a unique path and be a trendsetter in the modern T.V. landscape. However, it needs to be in the hands of those who truly embrace its uniqueness–like the kid in class who’s not quite wearing the “right” clothes, but still unafraid to stand front and center. We don’t need more writers secretly embarrassed by it, overly concerned with conforming, or proclaiming that it “doesn’t work anymore.”

102. Marja - September 19, 2013

31 REM1701, – Sorry but the all the “HATE” for “Into Darkness” is soley directed @ J.J. Trek fans hate the alternative “timelime”. The keys to sucessful “Star Trek” is good writing and intresting characters [throw in a good director who knows the material]
There you go again. “Trek fans hate the alternative timeline.” Count me as one who likes it. OK – seriously to say “Trek fans” are only the people who hate NuTrek is insulting to those of us who like it. Enough.

I do agree with your keys to successful ST.

55 Smike, “It’s called counterprogramming… After 30+ seasons of stuff like BSG, Dexter, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men etc… there must be millions of people looking for some hopeful, optimistic outlook. Not everything has to be gloom and doom.”

Agreed. Especially with an eye to the younger generations who may be quite sick of the Dystopian view. Personally I’d like to see a 10 or 15-episode arc in which the NuCrew in the Altverse do a five-year mission, go through the character-building changes that real people do, and hand off the NuVerse to another crew [unless we could get the actors from NuTrek to do a few seasons, yay!] on another ship, or re-populate the Enterprise with a new bridge crew.

I could see challenges to the Federation by a fundamentalist religious group such as the Taliban [who view only their way as the right way, who don’t embrace IDIC as the Federation does], with rebels in its own ranks siding with the Federation … our heroes are there to help without getting directly involved, perhaps? Diplomatic furor results every time they try to help? Even a group within the Federation could be a problem.

There are numerous present-day situations that could be told in allegory on a new Trek series.

One of the biggest bores in TV Trek was that characters didn’t go through life changes to the extent real people do. It was “hit the reset button” every week. At least for TOS.

57 Jai, “George RR Martin rejected the idea of his Game of Thrones books being adapted into a big-screen movie series for some of the same reasons now afflicting Star Trek: Films wouldn’t be able to depict the same depth of characterisation and complex storytelling as a TV show. So yeah, ideally Star Trek needs to be back on TV. With short seasons of 10-12 episodes max. HBO would be best.”

I agree with everything, but I feel Netflix would be a better venue, as it is available to more viewers FAR more cheaply than HBO is. To get HBO in my area, I’d have to spend $150/month. Yep, for reals. Netflix I can get for about $8. Inspire the people who can’t afford HBO too. Yeah, Netflix doesn’t show a lot of naked T&A, but to my mind, those detract somewhat from GoT, which is a great series, outside of the whoring scenes

63 Phil, I agree with what you say, particularly the allegory bits, but I DO want to see this Nu crew in it. I’m just attached because they’re really good actors. Alas, the Paramount vs. CBS thing would probably come into play : (

75 Hat Rick, I, too am disturbed about this. But it proves the point that there are many different “take-aways” from Trek. I’ve seen Conservatives and Liberals who love it, for various reasons.

I’ve also been bothered by the Section 31 concept, but it probably compares well with today’s political climate and sometimes makes for interesting stories.

76 Phil, “allegory being what it is, it needs to be adjusted for the existence of the failed nation/state. In the Trek universe, where it seems ridiculously easy to steal a starship, suggesting that a backward civilization with such technology should not be interfered with is outdated. While a more advanced civilization might adhere to those norms, the failed civilization would probably have no issues violating them.”

Hear, hear! And thus we can have our pretty-much-stainless Starfleet struggling with issues that are somewhat beyond their ken.

77 Corylea, I echo nearly every one of your thoughts. I really like the idea of personal growth in the main crew; as you say it’s the essence of excellent fiction to have the protagonist[s] evolve.

Though I think the rebuilding of the Vulcan society is rife with possibilities. Do they begin to assume some of their ancient warlike societal values after the devastation wrought by Nero? What will their new society look like?

Hell, I’d be happy if Netflix brought back “Firefly” too. What a great series, killed by the stupidest network around.

Apologies, Matt, if I’ve posted twice – I had a touchpad accident and wiped out my previous attempt at this post. I think.

103. Marja - September 19, 2013

Dammit, sorry Matt and fellow TrekMovie-ites. Double post. : (

104. Phil - September 19, 2013

@80. The Dukes of Quarks. Just the good ole boys….never meanin no harm…..

105. Marja - September 19, 2013

81 Khan Was Framed! Vince Gilligan – he’s a Trekfan and has worked on very notable series, from the ‘X-Files’ to his showrunning ‘Breaking Bad.’ He gets my vote for showrunner! And he’d def bring some cred to any money people banking on the show.

106. Red Dead Ryan - September 19, 2013

Another thing is, if Trek returns to tv, I hope the studios DON’T listen to the fans. I hope they hire the best sci-fi writers and produce the best show possible. Whether it be 23rd or 24th century, as long as its in the alternate universe, I don’t care. It’s all I can ask for as a fan.

107. Marja - September 19, 2013

88 Bill Peters, A Federation making mistakes would be a wonderful background for our beloved characters.

And story arcs would make Star Trek so much better. No “hit the reset button.” One arc in the background that comes to the foreground occasionally for the whole season. Three-episode arcs about opening negotiations with various wannabe Federation members, bringing in Ambassador Sarek once in a while.

Rebuilding Vulcan and problems with that.

A new ensign on board [as suggested above]; tell the 3-episode arc from hir point of view.

A Redshirts and Below the Decks arc. Hendorff loses a good friend and wants revenge and learns to cope with the loss while continuing his duties like a proper Marine.

A senior engineer passed over by Kirk in favor of young Chekov has to work with The Kid to bring him up to speed, but petitions Scotty and the captain to be Asst. Chief of Engineering

Spock and Uhura deal with aftereffects of Spock’s actions in STiD … [I can hear the resounding "boo" from certain folks already, I know you're out there. This is just my idea.]

Kirk and Spock play chess and in the 3-ep arc, have to deal with a real-life scenario that echos their chess-playing styles: Spock the strategist and Kirk, the tactician …

So many possibilities. But with the AU crew, PLEASE : )

108. et - September 19, 2013

Thanks for one of the most sober and insightful pieces on the issue so far. And thanks for not feeding into the “Trek is Broken!” fan hysteria. Before 2009, Trek was worse than broken, it was irrelevant, and had been since “Voyager.”

109. Platitude - September 19, 2013

Jane Espensen would be a great choice to write a new Trek series. I think a focused, 10 or 12 episode seasons would be great.

110. sean - September 19, 2013

I generally agree, though I definitely disagree that the core concept doesn’t work. Most shows continue to be allegories for one thing or another. I agree that TNG got too preachy about it, but if you don’t make it about *something*, it will be worthless. Even STID had a message, it just didn’t hit you over the head with it.

111. wi-kiry-lan - September 19, 2013

Ways to fix Star Trek.
1. Partial Reboot – Dump the JJ-Trek, TNG movies, and ST:Enterprise. They caused more damge then they are worth. I promise every TNG actor won’t mind if they get just one new paycheck from doing a guest appearance for a timeline that seems a little more “All Good Things” trending (that is to say the Enterprise-D is fine and Generations didn’t happen and Zefram Cochrane is from Alpha Centauri).

2. Get writers that are science fiction writers to do scripts.

3. Do not write stories that are just people in a star trek costumes to appeal to the trekkies that will literally watch anything with the Trek logo on it. They will watch a smart script just as much as a dumb one. The rest of us won’t.

4. The Galaxy is unimaginably large and complex there is no need to do a soap opera with the same old aliens and crutches. For example the reason for Voyager and ST:Enterprise’s settings were BOTH claimed by Berman to get away from the constrictions of the TNG/DS9 space. Voyager and Enterprise then went on to do Hologram, Ferengi, and Borg episodes anyway.

A total ban on technobabble and particles of the week and sonic screw drivers :-)

5. Produce a product worth buying and watching. I mean that in the sense Berman tried his best to keep the episode scores as dull as possible. Instead every episode score should be worth owning like TOS, Farscape or Babylon 5.

6. Characters should be worth emulating.

7. Given the state of current technology a show set centuries in the future is going to have to be able to tackle transhumanism and futurist topics.

112. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

What about JMS ? He already wrote an outline to reboot Star Trek back in 2004

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

& he knows a thing or two about running a TV show.

113. Cuphes - September 19, 2013

Start a new series by bringing back Manny Coto and Seth MacFarlane as the joint heads putting it all together.

Russell T Davies proved you don’t need to re-invent a known franchise, so put it in the Prime Universe. Coto and MacFarlane can do it with their eyes closed.

114. Trek Lady - September 19, 2013

I do not agree with all aspects of this opinion piece, but there are a lot of good points there.

#85 LogicalLeopard “Develop characters well, so the audience is invested in them…..then kill them off. ”

Personally, I HATE that trend, that calculating attempt to be “edgy” and “unpredictable.” Maybe it is because I see too much real loss and heartache in my life that the thought of encountering it in my choices for “entertainment” leave me cold. Death is not something I find “entertaining” and “new blood” can be overrated. I don’t WANT to invest in characters who are going to be killed off. In fact, I will totally avoid getting invested in such shows or such characters to avoid the hurt. I will watch a movie or show casually if characters are likely to get offed because I am not emotionally invested, but I will not become the repeat viewer and ongoing fan. When I invest in a show, I INVEST… as in become a fan for all time. I buy the merchandise, I read the novels, write the fanfic, join the online communities, go to the conventions, etc. If someone kills off the characters I have come to love… I stop watching and never go back. I have unfinished DVD series of shows where the Powers that Be decided to kill off beloved main characters – I never bought the rest of the sets and stopped following the shows. When I see folks suggest such an approach, I do not think they get “fandom” – maybe they get the casual viewer, or the guy who likes the show enough to buy the DVDs and watch, but they don’t get “fandom” as in the kind of community that builds up around beloved shows and characters – the fans that are truly emotionally invested in the characters. Maybe I am in a small minority, but the last thing you want to do if you want folks like me to “invest” is make it clear that major characters could be killed off because someone want to “shake up the status quo” and can’t think of a more creative way to do so.

115. AdmNaismith - September 19, 2013

Third time is the charm- yes, yes, yes to everything in this article.

The most important point, I feel, is getting someone invested in making good television. Jane Espenson and Bryan Fuller in one room would be awesome (Frakes can exec produce and direct).

And I would watch Morn and Quark cook space meth while harassing space secretaries at a space ad agency. For, let’s say, two 13-ep seasons?

116. Crewman Darnell - September 19, 2013

@38. Marcus
(“Star Trek: Enterprise”)
“When they used an old Rod Stewart song for the show’s intro, the creative department made the franchise feel old. Every time I heard “Faith Of The Heart” play, I kept thinking of an old guy pushing a walker.”
—————–
So true – and thanks for the much needed laugh!
I frequently muted my set for the duration of that intro music, which was every bit as inspiring as cold oatmeal.

117. Mikey1091 - September 19, 2013

Wait what? Did I read that right? Too many episodes to come up with good stories for a new Trek series? Yeah, I agree with #2 Mad Mann. Just because there are hundreds of Trek episodes out there already, doesn’t mean you can’t come up with new stories that are as good as, if not better than, the old ones. I do agree on your very last point, that it would be a challenge to do so, and I also agree that Captain Sulu deserved his own series. I enjoyed Enterprise, though, even though everyone wanted a Captain Sulu series instead and still wish they’d done seasons 5-7. So in retrospect, some of your points are well made, but some are also a little far fetched.

118. Curious Cadet - September 19, 2013

@93. Marja,
“I’ve also been bothered by the Section 31 concept, but it probably compares well with today’s political climate and sometimes makes for interesting stories.”

I’ve been saying all along that TOS would have never presented this kind of story head on. Oh yes, Kirk faced meddling bureaucrats who threatened to interfere with his command, but I don’t recall any aspects of Starfleet’s leadership that were involved in a conspiracy to undermine the principals of the Federation. In that respect perhaps Roddenberry had more than a personal ax to grind over TUC. But even TUC handled this story with kit gloves, with a few rouge agents within Starfleet, not a whole nefarious organization ultimately sanctioned by the powers that be.

Likewise with the STID story. TOS would have never told this particular story from within Starfleet. Kirk would have gotten in the middle of some other civilizations clandestine organizations plans, and then helped the forces of right defeat them. I said early on that STID was shaping up to be similar to TNG’s “The Hunted”, except that one was a perfect example of The Enterprise getting caught in the middle of another societies problems and brokering a resolution. They managed to tell a socially relevant story to our present society without involving our heroes, or their principles in it. If the Federation is our future, AND an allegory to our present culture, then it starts to get a little preachy when they point a finger directly at the audience.

So I wonder if that isn’t part of the problem here. STID made the underlying social commentary too personal. Khan was “one of us”, as was Marcus. Apparently, the way they did it in the 60s wasn’t aggressive enough, so K&O just laid it all out there in the most obvious way possible. Starfleet seemed corrupt, and broken, and Section 31 will forever be a dark undercurrent to the Federation’s principals assuring audiences that they can never trust anything. Kirk was used as a pawn BY HIS OWN PEOPLE, which somehow tainted the lessons he needed to learn as a captain, and Spock as a friend. All things considered, it was a dark, dank movie, with all the plot lines converging into darkness, and as if that weren’t clear enough, the title of the film hammered it home, complete with devastating violence and crippling explosions.

119. Marcus - September 19, 2013

I was scanning through everyone’s posts, and something very awkward dawned on me.

After thinking about the themes found in “Serenity/Firefly”, I am wondering if “Star Trek’s” overall premise no longer applies to our society. Even though its nicely wrapped in a world of diversity, the reality is that the “Star Trek” universe is based upon a big brother mentality. During the past four to eight years, the Libertarian and Independent movements have gained some serious ground. Republican and Democrat parties are slowly dissolving.

Libertarian = Small Government Constructs = Freedom.

When I saw those Starfleet uniforms in “Star Trek: Into Darkness”, I had this knee-jerk reaction to their existence.

Why would you want a government construct to provide you food, shelter, and clothing? Why would you want to rely on a government construct for space exploration?

Exploring the galaxy in your own ship is pure freedom. Sure, you have to work to provide for yourself, but is that not the ultimate goal?

Utopian society living under an all powerful government construct is not freedom.

Think about it.

120. David C. in Chelsea, MA - September 19, 2013

“You could do another ship-through-the-universe show, but not a ship full of model Starfleet officers. The main characters might not be the senior officers, but rather the “Lower Decks” characters – or misfits who never would have made it onto the Enterprise.”

Well, that is exactly what several former actors from Trek series are putting together now. It’s called Star Trek Renegades. They are making a pilot to present to Paramount, in the hopes of making it a webseries.

The website for their production states:

“Renegades will be a departure from previous Treks – delving into the dark side of the human psyche, pushing our heroes to their limits, forcing them to carry out actions that they never would have as Starfleet officers. The rules have changed, and they realize they might be the last hope to save the Federation.

Star Trek: Renegades will be action oriented, filled with suspense and espionage; all while exploring new worlds, encountering both familiar and new alien species, and boldly going where no Trek has gone before..”

I think it sounds AWESOME.

121. Crewman Darnell - September 19, 2013

Some time well before Abrams energetically shoved the classic Corvette into the ditch, an old friend and die-hard Trek fan, proposed a TV series with a possible title like: “Star Trek Federation.” The premise he suggested would have involved episodes spanning different eras of Star Fleet and the Federation, tied together with a unifying story arc. Such a concept though would likely be cost prohibitive, due to the need for so many different sets and costumes.

122. Thomas - September 19, 2013

Does a new Star Trek spin off require a Starship in the future? I don’t think it does and so I propose…

Assignment: Earth

Gene Roddenberry attempted this years ago and it didn’t get picked up. However Star Trek has obviously grown significantly since that original proposal. If you haven’t read the Eugenics War: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Sing by Greg Cox, I suggest you find it and read it. A series about Gary Seven in the late 1960s, early 1970s, fighting to protect Humanity from itself, as well as any outside influence that might be attacking sounds like a fun show.

Henry Starling could be a recurring villain on the show as he uses his 29th century technology to get rich. Gary Seven will have to prevent him from stepping on the wrong toes or killing people who stand in his way, yet Seven can’t just remove him entirely because Starling is necessary for Human technological advancement.

Vulcans crash on Earth in 1957 and one of them, Mestral, chooses to stay behind and live out the rest of his life with Humans. He sounds like someone who might show up on Gary Seven’s radar at some point. I would watch that.

If the show requires a Starship in order to be a “real” Star Trek, then I would like a show that takes place between Star Trek Nemesis and Star Trek (2009). It could lead up to the destruction of Romulus and deal with the aftermath of such an event. Star Trek Online is bringing up an Iconian connection and I think that too would be interesting to develop in a live action series.

123. Marcus - September 19, 2013

@118 Curious Cadet, “Oh yes, Kirk faced meddling bureaucrats who threatened to interfere with his command, but I don’t recall any aspects of Starfleet’s leadership that were involved in a conspiracy to undermine the principals of the Federation.”

—–

“Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country”

124. Curious Cadet - September 19, 2013

@122 Marcus,
I mentioned TUC directly in my post. And it doesn’t count.

125. Crewman Darnell - September 19, 2013

@121 Thomas
(“Assignment: Earth”)
Here’s what an intro to that series could have looked like, had Roddenberry sold it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6lmBbV3VWo

126. Marcus - September 19, 2013

116. Crewman Darnell
@38. Marcus
(“Star Trek: Enterprise”)

“When they used an old Rod Stewart song for the show’s intro, the creative department made the franchise feel old. Every time I heard “Faith Of The Heart” play, I kept thinking of an old guy pushing a walker.”
—————–
So true – and thanks for the much needed laugh!
I frequently muted my set for the duration of that intro music, which was every bit as inspiring as cold oatmeal.”

rofl…

Its sad. Its very-very-very sad.

127. Marcus - September 19, 2013

@ 123. Curious Cadet – September 19, 2013
“I mentioned TUC directly in my post. And it doesn’t count.”

grrr… You had to make it hard on me.

128. Marcus - September 19, 2013

*signs*

Its been a long road, getting from my bed to the commode.
its been a long road, and my depends are going to tear.

falalala…

129. Marcus - September 19, 2013

Fixed: *sings*

130. Markus McLaughlin - September 19, 2013

I suggest a TIME TRAVEL based Trek, a Time Warp Ship, a chase after a bad alien that interrupts the timeline constantly. I love time travel based shows, it might work! :D

Another idea is a Starbase/Planet model, kind of like DS9 but on a huge class M planet…

131. Vultan - September 19, 2013

Good article. Honest and direct. I like that. However, I disagree with the idea that a new Trek series would have to go the dark, gritty direction with a tortured male lead. Just like the War on Terror commentary, the dark stuff is getting old fast. Case in point: The Man of Steel. Even Superman can’t smile anymore, and people noticed.

An optimistic Trek is what we really need right now.

132. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - September 19, 2013

“An optimistic Trek is what we really need right now.”

The Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State Universtity has launched Project Hieroglyph to promote more positive science fiction in general.

I attempted to post a link to an article about it a little while ago, but it’s obviously currently caught up in the moderation net. Oh, well, eventually it will turn up for anyone who is interested in reading it.

I was attracted to the article in the first place because the news article was headlined “Cheer me up, Scotty” …

133. Hat Rick - September 19, 2013

Vultan, another great comment.

Do we need “dark, gritty Trek”? Yes, yes we do. But we do need optimism as well. That’s what I liked about DS9, and perhaps you did, as well. DS9 presented a gigantic war that I cannot believe people don’t take note of more often: “Sacrifice of Angels” presents the type of starship battle we never see on television. Hundreds of starships in a mortal struggle for survival. DS9 broke all the rules for Trek that said Trek was only about character stories and not about warfare or conflict.

But DS9 wasn’t just about warfare, either. It was about spirituality and truth, and life and death. It was about a future in which mankind fought the demons — both literal and metaphorical — that it found in the dark universe across the vast boundlessness of space. It was about a brilliant hope for humanity in a troubling time.

DS9 was basically as dark and gritty as it comes in Trek, and yet it still had that essential appeal to many Trekkies and Trekkers everywhere.

Which brings me to one of the greatest creative minds associated with that series. I, personally, am in favor of a return of Ronald D. Moore to the reins at Trek. But, after his turn at the new BSG, in which he demonstrated just how unconventional his take on popular SF could be, I’m not sure most people would be prepared for what he could bring.

But I do trust him implicitly. He is very, very smart guy, and a brilliant writer, who loves Trek. What more could you want?

134. Vultan - September 19, 2013

#131

I saw that article some time back. Thanks for the reminder. And I think they’re right. Sci-fi (and a lot of other fiction) needs to cheer up.

#132

Thanks, Hat Rick. And yes, DS9 is my favorite Trek series for exactly the reasons you listed. It was just the right balance of dark and light. And hey, they didn’t need to make Miles O’Brien a womanizing drug dealer for it to work! Go figure!

135. Sebastian - September 19, 2013

I agree with some of the essay’s points; namely that the starship and crew ‘boldly going where no one has gone before’ format doesn’t really speak to our time so much these days (our own space program does far more with automation than was conceivable in the 1960s), and most ideas within that limited format have already been tackled to one degree or another.

But that doesn’t mean a new ST has to stick so slavishly to that format! DS9 certainly didn’t, and it was IMO, the most successful (creatively) of the post TOS ST series. Maybe a new show could be set at Starfleet HQ (kind of a futuristic West Wing)? Or focus on an Federation member taking part in a cultural exchange program on a new alien planet (like DS9 and Bajor); with a race as interesting and culturally diverse as the human race on Planet Earth; a perfect Gullivers’ Travels format to examine current issues through an alien lens (as the best science fiction often does).

While I do think that the starship-based format in ST is a creative dead end, I really don’t believe EVERY idea within the ST universe has been done yet; not by a long shot. It’s a HUGE universe…

As Spock would say “There are always possibilities…”

And what about those gay characters that have been promised since the day one of TNG? That’s one demographic that has been continually ignored on Star Trek (both TV & movies) since the beginning. Even the newest movies failed to touch on that one (at a time when network TV shows have regular gay characters all the time now). Stop being so timid, Star Trek; you have openly gay actors… now show some guts and have an openly gay character or two.

136. Dswynne - September 19, 2013

@96 (Marja): I take issue with two of your statements, which are decidedly not Star Trek.

1) You charaterize Libertarianism is a faulty response to government, ignoring such things as how imminent domain laws could be used to confiscate private property, how land usage could be overly taxed or regulated, or how Mayor Bloomberg has issued strict dietary guidelines concerning soda and salt consumption. Perhaps you should actually study the Libertarian movement before being so judgmental? But keeping on Star Trek, the TNG and DS9 dealt with these themes of governmental paternalism in the form of the Maquis and ‘ST: Insurrection’, with the Federation willing to sell out its citizens for ‘the greater good’?

2) Regardless of how you see the Taliban, they have never attacked anyone outside of their country; they have attacked those who have interfered in their internal affairs. They are no different than, let’s say, the Bajorans, who are openly religious, and have attacked those that interfered with their internal affairs (mostly the Cardassisns). In fact, this situation was touched on by the DS9 first season story arc involving The Circle. So ST has dealt with this theme before.

Ultimately, we should think about these issues, not just react just because we personally might find them distasteful.

137. Marcus - September 19, 2013

135. Sebastian,
“Star Trek: TNG” brought int 9.0 to 14.0 million viewers.

“Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” brought in half of “TNG’s” numbers.

138. Marcus - September 19, 2013

@96 (Marja)
George Washington was a Libertarian. Surprise.

139. Captain, USS Northstar - September 19, 2013

Thought-provoking to say the least.

I happen to like the new vision of familiar characters the 2009 and 2013 films bring “to the table” and would like to see it explored in a cable (HBO or Showtime) series.

I believe there would be a lot of excitement to see Kirk, Spock, McCoy (“and the rest”) back for maybe 10-12 episodes a seasons over five years (five year mission).

Nothing new in the Alpha Quadrant? Are you kidding? Throw in the presence of Alice Eve as Carol Marcus, the relationship of “The Big 3″ as friends and colleagues, even the Kirk/Scotty relationship has taken on a different dynamic in this new timeline.

And, then there are the books — there’s plenty of great material there. Plus some of the more original ideas found in the comic book series (Mudd’s daughter, Robert April, etc.).

And, throw in a couple of light stories with a comic twist from time to time, stories told from a different vantage point (the lower decks) or a whole new perspective (how other StarFleet ships/crews interact with and relate to the Enterprise and her captain/crew) and there you have it — Star Trek back on television!

It can be done…and should be done. To lift one of my favorite lines: “It’s better for me, it’s better for you, it’s better for them. Think about it.”

Oh and @4 — love the Patrick O’Brian concept. I love those books and think something like that could also work as a spinoff series.

140. Tradgic - September 19, 2013

Star Fleet Academy. Plain and simple.

141. Ahmed - September 19, 2013

@ 138. Marcus – September 19, 2013

“@96 (Marja)
George Washington was a Libertarian. Surprise.”

You forget to add that Washington, beside running the Revolutionary War, he was also fighting for the survival of the human race ! At least that is what Bob Orci’s new show “Sleepy Hollow” is saying.

142. P Technobabble - September 19, 2013

A new Star Trek series? Yeh, can’t you just wait to be reading posts in here about how awful the new series is, or how the new team stinks, or how they’ve ruined Star Trek… Well, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility, hm?

A new Star Trek tv series, IMO, is in for a rough ride. I agree with most of what this editorial says and I don’t know what kind of series will satisfy enough fans to result in a hit.. Star Trek means different things to different people — enough that some fans wear boxing gloves as part of their Star Trek uniform. I have no doubt that plenty of people could come up with a premise for a new series. As to how new and original it could be is up in the air. There is about 50 years of Star Trek out there — tv, movies, books, comics… To some degree there is a particular formula inherent in the classic Star Trek story. What deviates from that is the exception — DS9, for example. But taking a starship around the galaxy, confronting aliens who cause, or have, problems that our heroes must resolve is the template. We can say there are a lot of possibilities in that and it’s all about creativity. But isn’t everyone always complaining that Hollywood has become bereft of creativity and originality? So what’s to be expected?
I have had this nearly 50 year love affair with Star Trek, but I must ask myself what is it precisely that I love? Do I love it just because I’m addicted to it? Or is it the memories it conjures up, thinking back to the first time I saw “WNMHGB?” Is it the characters? Well, of course!! There are probably a bunch of reasons, but the main thing is that in spite of all the changes and the ups and downs, Star Trek is still here (he said, pointing at his heart). That’s what it’s all about.

143. Marcus - September 19, 2013

@96 (Marja)
Majority of the founding folks who defended and built the United States were Libertarian. Its in our blood. It in our land. Its in hour hearts.

“Star Trek” is in a direct contradiction to Libertarianism and existentialism. While it may bring diverse people together, the reality is that its just another control mechanism. “Star Trek’s” hidden message is – In order to optimistically exist in a utopian society, you have to surrender yourself over to a military and/or social construct.

What do we historically know about democracies and/or governments in general? Over a period of time, democracies slowly become corrupt. You get an illusion of freedom.

140. Ahmed,
Yes. You will see why in my above reply. Someone over at Space.com wrote this awesome piece, which explains why space exploration is inevitable. I kick myself for not copying and pasting the damn thing. According to the article’s author, the push for space exploration will not be curiosity. It will be for prolonging the existence of freedom and democracy. Since we have no more islands to establish, people cannot currently escape when democracies become corrupt. We currently do not have anywhere else to go. According to historical truth, the most innocent democracies will eventually become corrupt. Get where I am going? United States and UK will eventually head down that windy road. So, where do we escape to? Space is all that is left.

144. Marcus - September 19, 2013

Our push for space exploration will be one for resources and freedom. Our curiosity will not be the driving force.

145. Marcus - September 19, 2013

If human nature holds any evidence, the first species we meet is going to trigger off a lot of psychological tremors. “Star Trek: First Contact” is such an optimistic fantasy that its not even funny.

146. Marcus - September 19, 2013

Please do not think what I wrote is pessimistic. According to Gene Roddenberry’s premise behind “Star Trek”, the only way the world becomes united is when 3/4th of the population is killed off by a nuclear holocaust. Talk about a dark view of the future.

147. Kev - September 19, 2013

There is still plenty to work with trek, OUR trek. what you need is someone with a vision running the show. Who knows the lure and the history and could expand upon it.

as only a lazy person would go there is nothing I can do with the Current TNG timeline

Despite so much happening with it, Romulus is gone, the empire is dispersed just like in the all good things time line along with the after effects of the dominion war.

and you could do episodes about how the Doctor and his mobile emitter got on after voyager along with Seven figuring out a way to permanetly destroy the Borg using the past as her tool

along with Making a retirement story for Picard who in the comics is now an ambassador which would allow them to fix a wrong that Generations created.

hell you could even do a story about them using that star destroying weapon from generations on the sun of Romulus and the hunt for the perpetrators to try and fix the mind bogglingly stupid logic of the first JJ film.

you just need a vision to do it, but dont go saying something is impossible to build upon.

148. Sebastian - September 19, 2013

# 137 Marcus~

I didn’t say just copy DS9. I said a “Federation exchange program” idea would have an element in common with it. I didn’t advocate remaking the show. And yes, TNG had relatively high ratings… but over time, other ‘ship-based’ ST series, such as VGR and ENT, saw their ratings steadily erode.

Ship based ST on TV is a dead horse. And the dressing of current social ills and taboos in metaphor seems a bit quaint in the post “Breaking Bad/Mad Men” era…

Modern TV shows just address these things head on now. A new ST show would have to be much braver and smarter than it’s predecessors to keep up with modern television audiences….

149. Marcelo - September 19, 2013

Good article. Food for thought, at least.

Frankly, I’m over it. Star Trek has had an awesome run, I love most of what came out, and I even enjoy the bad stuff. There are things to like about STID, from the performance of Cumberbatch (he did what he could) and Pine (who IMO is as good as Shatner, really strong) to the great effects to the killer score. I even liked some of the WOK retread. When Kirk said he was scared…I felt that action. There were HUGE problems, yes. And those problems are unsolvable. You just can’t thread that needle much anymore without being totally ridiculous. Which STID was.

I really bought the point about how the premise is out of date. Scientifically it’s becoming clear that FTL travel will not at all be like it is portrayed on Trek, that if we do go into space it’ll be more efficient to do it as postsingular digital instances in a ship the size of a Coke can or something. Aliens, even with CG assistance, are guaranteed to be unlike anything we’ve ever imagined. Science Fiction authors like Cory Doctorow, Rudy Rucker, and Charles Stross have been able to push science fiction beyond anywhere previously imagined. Some of the postsingular Sci-Fi is so compelling and fascinating, so revealing of the human (or posthuman) condition, why do I care about Trek anymore? Star Trek may have been able to weather the cyberpunk movement, but now it’s just too classically sci-fi. It’s almost quaint, the idea that we’d actually be able to move all this mass around in ginormous ships and transport people but not be able to duplicate them. Heck, we’re closer to becoming the Borg than becoming Starfleet.

Also, the fatigue point resonates with me. I love Star Trek, but I don’t mind if Trek stops making new things. I love a lot of things – the Foundation trilogy, for example, but it’s not like I want new Foundation novels no matter what. Everyone who wants to develop the next Star Trek series should instead work to develop something amazing, something new, something truly groundbreaking that is its own identity, its own IP, that’s not tied down to anything before.

I don’t want new Star Trek. Star Trek is done. It’s now a commercial whale and not a vanguard of forward thinking people. I want the next Star Trek, the show that will be what Star Trek was to people in the 60′s. Firefly did a decent job of being that show, as did Battlestar. Caprica could have been that show but it got tied to BSG for no reason (it was originally pitched as a completely different universe, a show about AI). Let’s see what’s new, what’s next, and stop clinging to the past.

150. FroJoeKoolaid - September 19, 2013

Cygnus-X1 Your opinion of Star Trek First Contact is so wrong that I move that it be considered by the entire world as completely invalid. Thanks for sharing it however.

151. CyranoDeJones - September 19, 2013

Everyone over-thinks this. Don’t blame Khan!

Don’t blame J.J. Abrams, either. As director, he did his damned best to deliver, but he didn’t write that screenplay. It’s all about storytelling, and Bob Orci & co. were simply afraid of making choices:

There’s a rogue secret agent (who’s not really a rogue secret agent) who has become a terrorist (except he’s not really a terrorist) whose name is John Harrison (actually, it’s Khan Smith… I mean Singh). He’s the villain, but really isn’t. Kirk can only try to be a captain, Spock can only try to be a friend, Scotty says “f*ck you” to his engines, Chekov can only try to be a chief engineer, McCoy can only stay on screen as long as Chekov, Uhura can only be an angry girlfriend (and speak Klingon), Sulu sits in the captain’s chair, and Admiral Alexander Marcus’ motivation (which is all we really know about him) is eerily close to John Frederick Paxton’s.

The most developed characters in this film are Carol Marcus and Christine Chapel.

You can revisit themes and characters as many times as you want as long as you’re creative, know who your characters are, and actually have something to say. There are fourteen Gilbert and Sullivan operettas with the same basic story structure. Most were wildly successful when they first were performed in London and fresh new productions of these works are still being performed over a century later all over the world. Again, it’s all about storytelling.

Orci & co. could have taken the Space Seed concept, turned it on its head and had a great action film that’s still a Star Trek movie. There were elements of Into Darkness that really could have worked, but the sequence of events and reveals were terrible.

What if the same elements had been reconfigured a little…

In the 23rd century, during a time of high tension between intergalactic super-powers, 73 genetically enhanced superhumans are freed and terrorize the galaxy in an attempt to conquer both the Federation and the Klingon Empire (think of all the fun JJ would have with that). The situation is only complicated by the fact that some worlds, whether out of fear or greed, align themselves with or ignore these supermen (a good source for social commentary based on the real world). A young Kirk & Crew must disobey the orders of a Starfleet admiral (Marcus, who unfroze and tried to control these supermen but they escaped, and he is only trying to cover his tracks deal with his guilt) and team up with a bloodthirsty Klingon captain (named Worf and played by Michael Dorn?) and hunt these supermen down. Once two supermen are left to catch, Worf takes one down, but is killed (with honor) by the last remaining superman: Joachim (doesn’t Benedict Cumberbatch look more like Judson Scott?). Kirk now must race against time before Joachim, in a suicidal rage, destroys a large chunk of Kronos, the Klingon homeworld. After saving the day, Kirk is shown gratitude by the Klingons when they let him go for his brave actions, but warn him that the danger to Kronos stemmed from human affairs, and should any human crosses them again, every last human in the galaxy will regret it. The promise of diplomacy is at best ambiguous. The Federation is bruised, but healing, and in an attempt to expand knowledge and promote peace, Kirk & Crew embark on a 5-year mission of exploration.

Much has been said about raising the stakes in the Abrams films, but nothing is scarier than a device that can wipe out every microbe on Earth in the hands of a madman, a destructive “force-of-nature” planetary probe that can’t be reasoned with, or wrecking a delicate intergalactic peace everyone fought hard to keep. Instead of copying Wrath of Khan, Paramount could have just turned to the brain behind it. Not only did Nicolas Meyer write three great Star Trek films, but also wrote and directed “Time After Time”, a great film also known as the inspiration for “Back to the Future”. The man is full of ideas. Instead of simply taking an old story and quickly filling in the blanks, he’d have created a bunch of dots and let the audience slowly connect them.

From a business standpoint, I don’t know how smart an investment Into Darkness was. Paramount had to put $190 million dollars on the table to get $456 million back. That’s a return of 240%. Wrath of Khan cost $11.2 million and made $97 million. That’s a return of 8660%.

Underneath it all, as a lifelong Trek fan (and paying moviegoer), I’m disappointed Into Darkness wasn’t everything it could have been and wasn’t a Star Trek story at heart. There was no vision of a future far better than our own, no message of progress and human brotherhood, no tale of morality, nothing to connect us to the real world, nothing at stake that isn’t already at stake in every blockbuster, and the characters were underdeveloped. My disbelief wasn’t suspended, and my imagination wasn’t engaged.

That’s just my $.02.

152. Sarek66 - September 20, 2013

I would love to see a Star Trek Anthology series done. No regular cast. A different part of the Star Trek universe would be explored each week. We also could find out what happened to The Next Generation crew or Deep Space Nine etc. One or two episodes per year of the previous series. But focus on new crews, Klingons, Romulans Ferengis as well as the Federation.

153. David C. Roberson - September 20, 2013

Yes, your core audience is 40 years out of date and optimistic science fiction with morals has no place on television anymore. It would never, ever, ever, ever in a million years work. -coughDOCTORWHOcough-

154. Rodriguez - September 20, 2013

122. Thomas

I would also love an Assignment: Earth series, as I loved the Khan novels and John Byrne’s comics. The one problem is that A:E’s premise is unintentionally very similar to Doctor Who. Both can be described thusly: a mysterious visitor from an advanced alien world take it upon themselves to become involved in intrigue regarding threats from and against lesser species (namely, humans) with the help of a young, female assistant. Even Gary Seven’s servo is very much like the Doctor’s sonic screwdriver.

As much as I would like this show, it would probably not make it to air without being drubbed as a Doctor Who-clone, especially when you consider that the earliest Doctor Who serials (fall 1963) predate the A:E episode by nearly five years (spring 1968).

155. ironhyde - September 20, 2013

The problem is that Star Trek isn’t trying to be the unique, human-positive, hopeful, good, bright, moral show it once was. That’s a big problem. That’s what Star Trek was. It’s not Tyrian Lannister, it’s not The Sopranos, it was, in fact, the one show that always made us believe humanity could survive, that there was goodness and rightness in the world, and that those things were not as gray and impossible as we are told. Boo-hoo I can’t write a show with main characters that don’t bicker over minutia…. boo-hoo. Get new writers.

Star Trek is about good, capable, strong humans, those kinds of people that make us proud of your race, you know? Going out and finding not so perfect things outside. That reflect how we once were. And then giving us a perspective on how to overcome that.

Take the oil monster that killed Tasha Yar. It was an idea — what if we could take all humanity’s evil and anger and hatred and racism and extract it it like oil from our hearts and then just dump it elsewhere. Creating an evil life-form with NO morality or judgement of it’s own. Star Trek very clearly accepts that anger and sadness are part of us, but it shows us healthy ways to deal with it.

I’m done with Trek if it ends up in the hands of poor writers giving me The Sopranos in Space. Not that I didn’t appreciate the Sporanos. But I appreciated Star Trek for letting me see something ELSE, something GOOD about man. For crying out loud, don’t just give up, exercise your imagination if you can’t figure it out!

This frightens me.

156. dswynne1 - September 20, 2013

@149 (Marecelo): Don’t let the door hit you on the way out…

157. Tom - September 20, 2013

It might be commented already, but I’d like to see a Twilight Zone approach. I don’t mean weird, I mean the universe is Star Trek, but it’s a different crew and ship (or something in the Trek universe) each week.

That way you can have stories where the crew isn’t immortal, you can have 100% alien stories, anything really…

Too expensive? Then go cable and do 13 episodes a year…

158. Captain John C Baron - September 20, 2013

.31 you say: “Trek fans hate the alternative “timelime”.”

It’s true to say some fans do, but equally some fans don’t. It’s ill advised to make sweeping generalisations and speak on behalf of fandom.

IDIC.

159. Horatio - September 20, 2013

This article again illustrates what is wrong with Trek: fandom.

Some fans love TOS, some find it archaic.
Some fans love TNG, some fine it boring.
Some fans love DS9, others believe it violates some kind of Roddenberry Law.
Some fans love Voyager, others believe this was the beginning of the end of Trek.
Some fans love Enterprise. Some despise it.
Some love JJ-Trek. Some fans actually consider the Abrams-verse the apocalypse of Trek.

Some fans love all of Trek: TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, TOS films, TNG films and the reboot films. Other fans pick and choose which series of television and films are worthy of their devotion.

The only constant in the Trek universe is this: when Trek does make its leap back to television there will be a chorus of fans who will bitch and moan about how it doesn’t live up to THEIR expectation of what THEIR Trek should be.

I mourn for Trekmovie.com. It used to be a great place to come to and get the latest scoop on the new movies and Trek news in general. Now its nothing more than a “My Trek is better than your Trek” bitch session.

160. crazydaystrom - September 20, 2013

@145. Marcus
“If human nature holds any evidence, the first species we meet is going to trigger off a lot of psychological tremors. “Star Trek: First Contact” is such an optimistic fantasy that its not even funny.”

Oh so true Marcus! Imagine the quakes from the theosophical implications of proof ‘we are not alone’. Humanity will shake rattle and roll. If only it would happen in my lifetime.

161. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - September 20, 2013

I think that CBS being the number one channel for TV shows needs to put out a bid for someone to produce a new Star Trek Series. I bet if it was aired on CBS they would get at least 10 million housholds a night.

162. Kirk's communicator - September 20, 2013

Great article, though I really don’t think Mr. Abrams gives two hoots as to the opinionsof fans. The overwhelming opinion on here when it was announced about Into Darkness was NOT to do a retread of Khan and look what happened.
Having said that, I started out with STOS at the tender age of 7 and so have grown up with Shatner & Crew, I still really enjoyed Into Darkness.

Love Long & Prosper,

Mike

163. spock - September 20, 2013

Did you see this article

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/09/19/7-directions-no-trek-has-gone-before/

I sort of like #1

164. Curious Cadet - September 20, 2013

@146. Marcus,
“According to Gene Roddenberry’s premise behind “Star Trek”, the only way the world becomes united is when 3/4th of the population is killed off by a nuclear holocaust. Talk about a dark view of the future.”

Did Roddenberry actually say that?

I always thought and believe I have read that the prospect of nuclear annihilation as an aspect of Trek’s fictional past was a warning to 1960s humanity, fresh off the Cuban Missile crisis and then engaged in a Cold War arms race and the escalation of the Vietnam conflict which no one knew where it would end.

But again, this was an aspect of Trek’s past. What TOS was imbued in from week to week was a hopeful vision of humanity where conflicts were worked out mostly without violence. Alien cultures were the standins for our own issues and problems of the day, while the Federation and Starfleet remained generally untarnished and above the fray on the high moral road.

At its core, TOS was a cautionary morality play that showed us on various fronts what could happen to us if we continued on our present course, but those things were never inherent to our heroes. They were always a paragon of optimisim. In very few cases did TOS blatantly hold the mirror up to itself, and thus ourselves; balance of Terror being an example that comes to mind — where a crewmember demonstrates blatant biggotry and racism in his racial profiling of Spock, or Errand of Mercy where Kirk’s lust for war had to be quelled by the Organians. But I feel that kind of direct finger pointing is rare. In general those less desirable traits for exploration were assigned to aliens, or examples from the past, e.g. Khan.

165. chrisfawkes.com - September 20, 2013

Four years of most fans saying “don’t do Khan, that would really suck” and they do Khan anyway and the real reason fans are mad is because there is no trek on tv

Denial.

Ok I know the tone is light and I enjoyed Into Darkness but was pained by some of the stuff that was purely to please to most die hard fan boy. Scenes such as Spock screaming KHAAAAAAAAaannnnn, or old Spock saying Khan was the most dangerous adversary the Enterprise ever faced.

That latter line particularly painful as it was not remotely true although there would be a small handful of obsessive fans that would love it to be true.

If they bring Trek back they need to follow the formula that made the original series great. Conflict between the characters.

And I do not mean by that 90210 type arguments and bitchiness between the characters (which the movies have kind of gone to as a way of creating conflict) but through the subtle personality clashes of how different types view the universe and the method’s they would go to to solve problems.

Perhaps get some professional psychologist to go through old episodes and tos movies and help the writers develop a working method that adopts a style or formula rather than directly copying the character interactions.

Or delving into petty arguing.

166. Aurore - September 20, 2013

“…The only constant in the Trek universe is this: when Trek does make its leap back to television there will be a chorus of fans who will bitch and moan about how it doesn’t live up to THEIR expectation of what THEIR Trek should be…”
__________

Series like Voyager and DS9, apparently thrived while I was not aware of their existence. My not being interested in TNG did not prevent the show from being a huge success.

I never felt the need to moan about shows I did not like ; I merely did not watch them. It won’t be any different when Star Trek makes its leap back to television ( assuming it could happen), if the show does not live up to my expectations.

Hopefully, the people in charge of bringing Star Trek back to television will strive to appeal to fans of… good shows first and foremost. In other words, in my opinion, a good Star Trek series would be a series which could be of interest to Star Trek fans as well as to people who never cared for the franchise before…

“I mourn for Trekmovie.com. It used to be a great place to come to and get the latest scoop on the new movies and Trek news in general. Now its nothing more than a ‘My Trek is better than your Trek’ bitch session.

These kinds of sessions, when they do occur, are harmless to me. For, I know the truth.

Star Trek : The Original Series is the best there ever was.

:)

167. Dr. Image - September 20, 2013

Finally a balanced voice of reason!
Sadly, yes, it would take some serious jumping through hoops to get Trek to work on TV today. Either Paramount would dumb it down and puke out some “Twilight”-like bastardized version, (that would probably become a huge hit) or they’d get some brilliant producers/writers that would end up getting it cancelled in a month due to studio politics. After the (in my opinion) unfair shake that STID got FROM TREK FANS, the future of Trek is looking dark indeed. Time to break out my DS9 dvds…

168. Marcus - September 20, 2013

@164. Curious Cadet,
“Did Roddenberry actually say that?

I always thought and believe I have read that the prospect of nuclear annihilation as an aspect of Trek’s fictional past was a warning to 1960s humanity, fresh off the Cuban Missile crisis and then engaged in a Cold War arms race and the escalation of the Vietnam conflict which no one knew where it would end.

*nods*

When the original concept was conceived, Roddenberry was using it as a warning to those living in a Cold War era. As “Star Trek” matured over time, he incorporated the concept into the series. I will do my best to find the exact quote, but here is a hint of it becoming canon:

———————————–

Star Trek: World War III
Link: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/World_War_III

“Rising from the ashes of the Eugenics Wars of the mid-1990s, the era of World War III was a period of global conflict on Earth that eventually escalated into a nuclear cataclysm and genocidal war over issues including genetic manipulation and Human genome enhancement. World War III itself ultimately lasted from 2026 through 2053, and resulted in the death of some 600 million Humans. By that time, many of the planet’s major cities and governments had been destroyed. (ENT: “In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II”; Star Trek: First Contact; VOY: “In the Flesh”) ”

———————————–

600 million is a conservative number. I will do my best to get you the original quote.

169. Marcus - September 20, 2013

If you read through the link I provided above, the Memory Alpha explains about the aftermath of World War III. Its an interesting read.

170. Eric Cheung - September 20, 2013

I’m in favor of continuing Enterprise. I recently rewatched it and it was much better than I remember. That said, the reason I want it renewed has more to do with the fact that we never saw the Romulan War and we never saw the birth of the Federation.

So, I’d be open to something simply set in that time period, perhaps a TV version of Erik Jendresen’s Romulan War trilogy. That would incorporate many of the themes listed in the article:

* It would be post-American
* It would feature an outsider in Jendresen, and possibly people from the TNG-ENT era shows
* It would likely be no longer than four seasons
* It wouldn’t involve Khan, and would hopefully not lean on vengeance as a theme.
* Most importantly it would be one possible hypothesis of how we may actually realize the future of Trek someday. There was some of that with the Coalition of Planets storyline and even with the hints that the Romulan War was about the Romulans stoking humanity’s worst side and tendencies against us until we show that we can rise above paranoia to serve a greater purpose.

I’ve also been reading the Greg Cox Eugenics Wars books and think that would make a really cool TV series too. It almost was one called Assignment: Earth but it would be cool to see the threads between real-world history and Trek history tied together.

171. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

#159.

“The only constant in the Trek universe is this: when Trek does make its leap back to television there will be a chorus of fans who will bitch and moan about how it doesn’t live up to THEIR expectation of what THEIR Trek should be.”

I absolutely agree, and this is why I stated earlier that I hope the new producers don’t listen to the fans. Fans are biased, and don’t know the first thing about writing a great script, even though I see a lot of fanwork being posted on this site. And most of it either involves going back to the Prime Universe, or bringing back old actors like Shatner, Takei, Stewart, etc.

As successful as the new movies have been — both critically and financially — there is a fairly large segment of fans out there who have ripped into J.J Abrams like he was some sort of heretic.

172. Phil - September 20, 2013

Interesting – by the 22nd century, humanity eliminated poverty, disease, war, hunger, hopelessness, despair, and cruelty. Yet all are displayed in abundance in Star Trek. Silly aliens….

173. Hugh Hoyland - September 20, 2013

Post-American? I dont get that aspect. The ideas of liberty, justice, ethics and a lot of other ideas found in Trek are not just American ideas (although the US Constitution and bill of rights are the best writen examples of law IMO), their human ideas no matter what country or people.

Also, they’re not limited to the 1960′s. they’re timeless and have been around the human race forever and a year. They work just as well today as they did 40 years ago. And maybe their needed more now than ever.

174. Moputo Jones - September 20, 2013

Excellent opinion piece. Much better than the Star TreK is broken and Star Trek is not broken ones. And yes, get George Takei involved somehow. The man has millions of fans, most of whom have never seen him in a Star Trek episode or film.

175. Disinvited - September 20, 2013

#164. Curious Cadet,
#168. Marcus – September 20, 2013

That the concept was in Roddenberry’s head was evidenced in his GENESIS II/PLANET EARTH realizations of PAX.

176. ety3rd - September 20, 2013

The only correction I’ll note is that, regarding a “Star Trek: Excelsior” series, people were asking for that post-STVI/pre-VOY … I would rather have had a Sulu show than VOY.

177. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

#174.

“Excellent opinion piece. Much better than the Star TreK is broken and Star Trek is not broken ones. And yes, get George Takei involved somehow. The man has millions of fans, most of whom have never seen him in a Star Trek episode or film.”

No.

178. Oscar - September 20, 2013

Sorry, pals ,but I think CBS does not want a new trek tv series. They earn a lot of money with CDs and Blue Discs, novels , comics and mechandasing. Easy money. A new sci fi tv series, trek or not, is a risky and expensive business.
Maybe if Disney buys ST, they would want to relauch it, otherwise…

179. Ross - September 20, 2013

Rather than have a new trek series focus on “the ship” with the same core crew, style it as a 24th century version of Hornblower. Make the focus a single officer and follow him or her through his/her starfleet career over a number of seasons. Have the ship and supporting characters change as the Hornblower-type gets promoted, changes assignments etc.
You could do pretty much anything with such a format. He/She could even leave starfleet for a while… the possibilities are endless.
It would keep the show from becoming stale for a good while at least.

180. Curious Cadet - September 20, 2013

@178. Oscar,
“I think CBS does not want a new trek tv series.”

If they were smart, CBS would hire a Chinese production company to produce a Chinese version of Star Trek for the Chinese market. Let the Americans watch a dubbed/subtitled version for a change.

They would retcon Sulu to be of Chinese ancestry, and make him the captain of a starship consisting of an Asian crew, like the all Vulcan ship. Throw in a few Westerner actors for some diversity, add aliens and voila! Who cares if it doesn’t make any sense. STID earned $56 million in China. That’s the single highest grossing country outside of the US, by a huge margin.

181. Yanks - September 20, 2013

2) Its core concept doesn’t work anymore.
3) It wouldn’t fit into the modern TV landscape.

I don’t agree with this at all. I believe there is a CRAVING for intellegent TV.

Follow this format and all is well. Folks, trekkie and non-trekkie alike will flock.

Source: Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide – April 17, 1967:
—————————————————————————————————-
Do the science fiction pros have any helpful hints for us?

Yes. Beware getting too wrapped up in The Wonder Of It All. The quality of an sf tale is usually inversely proportional to the pretensions a writer brings to it.

I’m a little unclear about technological devices of the future.

Can we invent anything which sounds reasonable?

Simply think of something logical, with some kind of science or projected-science basis. Generally best are projections of things we have now or which science is beginning to build now. For example, in the pilot we had a hospital bed which continually monitored all the key bodily functions, and in fact some advanced hospitals today are already doing part of this and working on further improvements.

How much science fiction terminology do you want?

The less you use, the better. We limit complex terminology as much as possible, use it only where necessary to maintain the flavor of the show and encourage believability.

IMPORTANT: The writer must know what he means when he uses science or projected science terminology. A scattergun confusion of meaningless phrases only detracts from believability.

Intellectual rather than physical or emotional conflict.

We’ve received some interesting analyses of possible alien civilizations, socio-economic speculation which seemed brilliant to us. But the characters were “sitting and talking” rather than “feeling, moving and doing.” They also fail cur “GUNSMOKE-KILDARE-NAKED CITY Rule” — that is, would the basic story, stripped of science fiction aspects, make an entertaining episode for one of those shows? Don’t laugh, try it.

Do you have technical advice directly available to the writer?

Yes. If you are on STAR TREK story or script assignment, call our office and we’ll put you in touch with the right people. If you’re on your own, we suggest you try to get help through your local NASA office, a University, or from the aero-space research and development industry.
————————————————————————————————–
3) It’s the characters, stupid.

Yeah, but it’s more the stories that use these characters. I don’t want to see a difunctional bunch of cast-a-ways because someone thinks that Star Fleet officers are “too good”.

I don’t want my Star Trek to look or feel like BSG.

4) Please leave Wrath of Khan alone.

This… for gods sake, THIS!!

5) Listen to your fans – even the ones who hate you.

Sulu, Captain? Really? Someone actually thinks that would have succeeded?

eeeesh….

I would say that you’re in trouble if you listen to hard. A bunch of internet nut-jobs does not make a series.

It’s all about the stories. Star Trek is known for taking little known actors and making them famous.

It’s all about the stories. It’s all about the stories without insulting the intellegence of your audience.

182. govna - September 20, 2013

(moderation test)

testing testing

183. Bill Peters - September 20, 2013

Was thining about this last night , there are plenty of Social and others Issues you could use in a New Star Trek Series, I don’t think the Old Premise is as Unworkable as this Article and CBS might Suggest.

Also you need a Federation cause that is part of what the show is about and the Human Adventure.

184. Marja - September 20, 2013

119 Marcus, Call me what you want. Sorry the prospect of everyone getting the basic needs of life is so disturbing to you.

IT FREES THEM TO DO OTHER THINGS THAN SCRABBLE JUST TO LIVE. They can make meaningful contributions to society instead of constantly worrying about dying.

I am frankly frightened of the Paul Ryans and Rand Pauls in Congress. They are in a position to quite literally put me out on the street. I’m too old to find a job and have certain disabilities – the culture is too youth-oriented. I am sole proprietor of a business I feel capable of running, but it is by no means a huge profit-maker and does not generate enough income to even pay the rent in a cheap apartment complex. If I was “in software” it might be a whole different story.

Pleas realize there are many people who do not occupy the prosperous middle and upper middle class. I’m tired of the easy assumptions by the prosperous that everyone who’s not making a mint is a lazy good-for-nothing.

185. Marja - September 20, 2013

Marcus, Also, I saw your comment [sorry I don't remember the number] that the founding fathers were Libertarians.

Study your history. This is a common misconception.

At any rate, they were all prosperous white landowners. A Negro counted as only partially a person and could not vote. Women could not vote and were quite close to being property themselves. Not OWNING property, BEING property. Nor could they hold jobs and keep their earnings should they “take in sewing or laundry” or wet-nurse the children of the prosperous.

Not an “ideal” I wish to return to, thank you very much.

I have nothing against prosperous people, by the way. I do object when they make decisions about my life circumstances and give me no voice. Mitt Romney didn’t even notice or thank the people who served him his food at the infamous “47%” dinner – it just isn’t “done” to notice those who occupy a lower rung of the social ladder.

186. Marja - September 20, 2013

143 Marcus, ““Star Trek” is in a direct contradiction to Libertarianism and existentialism. While it may bring diverse people together, the reality is that its just another control mechanism. “Star Trek’s” hidden message is – In order to optimistically exist in a utopian society, you have to surrender yourself over to a military and/or social construct.”

This begs the question – why did you fall in love with Star Trek in the first place.

Yeah, here’s another control mechanism for ya’. “Let [the poor] die then, and decrease the surplus population.” [Ebenezer Scrooge, a fictional character after whom Paul Ryan et. al. seem to have modeled themselves]

I hope you’ll be generous enough in a philanthropic way to help me pay for the drugs that keep me from suicide.

By the way, I was a Libertarian in the early ’80s, and a Fundamentalist Christian very briefly before that. When I left Reaganite Washington DC and was transferred to my duty station in New York City, I saw the results of Reagan’s de-funding of social programs – after Jimmy Carter loosened the rules governing hospitalization for indigent mentally ill people. Daily, I saw these people begging in the streets.

I’ve been on both sides, my friend. I’ve been prosperous and I’ve been poor. I am over 5 decades old. Please don’t presume to tell me about the varieties of liberty.

“Libertarianism” is control but it calls itself liberty. Be sure to contribute to the Suicidal Old Peoples’ fund. Or let me die, whatever you decide. Thanks a bunch.

Matt, sorry, this will be my last word on the subject, as I know it’s not Trek-related, except for Trek’s optimistic future.

187. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

The fans here who have been continually griping about JJ-Trek should not be rewarded with new TV series. These fairweather fans don’t deserve a new series, and I can guarantee you that one year into the series they will be complaining incessantly about this.

They should just continue with the JJ-Trek movies, and let the fairweather fans gradually leave the frainchise. Then, eventually, provide a new series for the people who appreciated JJ-Trek, including the new and more international generation of younger fans that JJ Trek is now creating.

You don’t reward spoiled old farts with more desert.

188. Marcus - September 20, 2013

186. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,
So, since you disagree with a certain group’s perspective, you think they should be punished for having an alternative opinion?

Even though I personally do not think “Star Trek: Into Darkness” is a successful movie, I think Orci should still have another shot at making something original.

Do you see the differences in our perspectives?

While you want the world to burn, due to people not agree with you, I want the world to show each other mercy and humility.

189. Trekbilly - September 20, 2013

Star Trek is hung up on “messages” and being preachy. If I brought it back, it would be an action adventure series FIRST (just as TOS was) and social commentary second. If the focus is back on real science fiction and action adventure, it could find an audience again on TV.

Anything too dark or preachy will fail.

190. Marcus - September 20, 2013

185. Marja,
First, I am not a fundamentalist anything. I do not see the world in black and white. I see shades of gray.

Second, I come from a military family. Even though there are certain aspects of “Star Trek” that are questionable, I think the positive aspects of the franchise outweigh the negative.

Sacrificing my freedom so others can get food, shelter, and clothes has always been a problem for me. If I can teach someone to fish, rather then to just give them a fish, I will have given them the skill to feed themselves.

191. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

“So, since you disagree with a certain group’s perspective, you think they should be punished for having an alternative opinion?”

You are twisting this around. I don’t want to reward malcontent complainers, who in my opinion, are fairweather Trek fans.

If it helps to you sleep better at night to pretend that you just have an honest opinion difference and that you are a legitimate positive Star Trek fan, than good for you personally.

From my POV, I would like to see long run of JJ-Trek movies, with a gradual dying off of the fairweather-complainer-malcontent fans. The negative malcontents are ruining Star Trek fandom, in my humble opinion.

That is my opinion — yes!

192. Smike - September 20, 2013

“Then, eventually, provide a new series for the people who appreciated JJ-Trek, including the new and more international generation of younger fans that JJ Trek is now creating…You don’t reward spoiled old farts with more desert.”

Really? Okay, I happen to be a HUGE fan of ST09 and I’ve been a huge fan of JJ’s TV series and I saw ST09 fourteen times on the big screen, draging in about 50 people to see it.

With STID I simply couldn’t. I couldn’t force myself to watch it more than four times, for it simply isn’t very well written. The plot lacks coherence and logic, it’s ripping off TWOK and many other classic Trek elements and many plot devces are simply stupid and don’t make any sense, in this timeline or any other one. Yeah, I loved to see the actors / characters again, the score is as good as ever but science, plot, cohesion and credibility are virtually non-existent.

Spock’s Brain makes more sense than Transwarp Beaming to Kronos, Khan being in Section 31, the superblood deus ex thing, the moon being far too close to Earth, the Neutral Zone being away a few seconds at warp, the big E going under water for absolutely no reason etc… This movie is so full of contreived, amateurish tinkering it simply hurts.

It’s not JJ Trek vs old Trek… ST09 was an absolute blast. I loved it. But STID was the ultimate let-down. It took them four years to cook up such a fanfic turd.
At least they got most of the characters right, but so did ST5:TFF and it’s still not very popular with most fans.

193. Dunsel Report - September 20, 2013

I disagree with this article. I’m not that interested in seeing small-screen Trek.

What upset me about Star Trek: Into Darkness was that the 2009 remake arrived on screen with so much promise. It seemed like an chance to create this classic standalone trilogy. This new three-part Kirk saga could have added up, by the end of pt. 3, to a story as well-crafted as “Breaking Bad.”
The second movie could have been as terrific as “The Empire Strikes Back,” and the pre-release hype hinted at what it could have been: a Battlestar Galactica-quality work of craftmanship, with “friendships torn apart,” etc.

Instead it sort of lay there on screen like lox on a bagel, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek VI’s Denny Martin Flynn. I don’t think I’m asking for a miracle here; there are plenty of incredibly talented people out there in Hollywood who could have made a better movie when handed this opportunity.

Vince Gilligan could have pulled it off, especially with this cast. Right now people are on edge across the country wondering what will happen to Walter White; not a lot of people are losing sleep over the new Kirk’s five-year mission, or affectionately remembering his Beastie Boys vinyl collection in Internet memes.

194. Marcus - September 20, 2013

188. Trekbilly,

If I were to make a modern “Star Trek” series, I would base it upon an a anti-establishment perspective. I would flip the coin.

“Star Trek: The Fringe”

I would create a “Star Trek” series, which shows the consequences of government corruption, war, and extreme socialism.

195. Marcus - September 20, 2013

…from outside of Starfleet.

196. Dave H - September 20, 2013

I agree with Beagle. That would be the ultimate payback for Ahmed, PaulB and their cronies here — many more JJ Trek movies and no TV series.

Why reward fan’s who tear down Star Trek?

197. Marcus - September 20, 2013

190. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,

So, you want to punish people who think differently then you?

rofl…

You said I was wrong, and then you proved me right.

198. Marcus - September 20, 2013

195. Dave H “I agree with Beagle. That would be the ultimate payback for Ahmed, PaulB and their cronies here — many more JJ Trek movies and no TV series. Why reward fan’s who tear down Star Trek?”

Why not just accept that they have a difference of opinion instead?

199. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

Smike, I did not call you out on this. I am talking about the people who so were so mean-spirited about this that they chased and embarrassed Bob Orci out the door. Those people know who they are. In my opinion, we would be better off without those folks as future fans of Star Trek. So if that means we need five more JJ-Trek movie and no TV series to “weed out” these mean-spirited malcontents, then I think that is a price worth paying for. Those of us who really love Star Trek will win in the end if we can cull these fairweather types out of fandom.

200. Marcus - September 20, 2013

198. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,
I think everyone embarrassed themselves on that day. Orci and the fans.

I also think there is room for ‘second chances’.

201. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

@196. This is what I am talking about. You can’t simply accept my words at face value, so you come back at me with your own twisted interpretation, which you think looks clever, and which is designed to discredit me.

202. Marcus - September 20, 2013

200. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,
Anyone who read your posts already knows you discredited yourself. You do not need anyone’s help.

203. Marcus - September 20, 2013

200. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,

While I may disagree with your perspective, I do not think Paramount should punish you by shutting down the movies.

204. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

@201

Sure, whatever. I appreciate your military service to our country — thanks.

However, you service to Star Trek fandom has been lackluster and disappointing, at best.

rofl…

205. Dave H - September 20, 2013

What’s with the newbie, “Marcus,” who seems be monopolizing posts here? This person has posted about 1/3 of the last 40 posts here?

Never heard of this person?

206. Marcus - September 20, 2013

203. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle,
So, since you could not debate me on a civil level, you had to attack my family on a personal level?

I think that kind of goes with your theme, right?

Since you are so upset with people who think differently, you want them to be punished for having a difference of opinion. When someone confronts you on a logical level, you decided to degrade the conversation to personal attacks.

Nice job.

207. Dave H - September 20, 2013

@205

There you go again, guy? Why don’t you cool down with the posting every 30 seconds. You are trying to monopolize your point of view here with your rapid-fire argumentative posts.

208. Marcus - September 20, 2013

204. Dave H,

rofl… Another one.

I must be some sort of dark agent from an underground of evil people.

209. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

@205.

What???

” I appreciate your military service to our country — thanks.”

I meant that !!!

Sheesh, will you use anything here to win an augment?

210. Dave H - September 20, 2013

“rofl”

So this is this newbies code word for “I can’t really think of anything intelligent to say in response, so I’ll just lazily throw in an ‘rofl” and go about my day.”

:-(

211. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 195. Dave H – September 20, 2013

“I agree with Beagle. That would be the ultimate payback for Ahmed, PaulB and their cronies here — many more JJ Trek movies and no TV series.”

I will be more than happy to watch more of JJ Trek as long as they are interesting & not targeting dumb people.

BTW, JJ will have no time for Trek, you know. He is busy with a little movie called STAR WARS.

And I can’t tell you how it is exciting to see a SW movie by JJ because that is his true love & I’m sure he will gives us amazing SW movies in the coming years.

212. Marcus - September 20, 2013

Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle & Dave H,
Have I posted a lot in this thread. Sure, I have been posting heavily within this topic. Its a great topic that grabs my attention.

Here is the thing… Go back and read your original statements. Both of you said you didn’t want a new “Star Trek” television series to be created, for it will reward people for thinking differently than you.

I am not twisting your words.

213. Bill Peters - September 20, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGO-SldLrNA

The Omega Glory Covers the Constitution Quite well, this speech is Awesome :)

214. Dave H - September 20, 2013

40% of the last 25 posts here are from Marcus.

This is a textbook example of how to “throw your weight around” on a intenet discussion thread.

215. Bill Peters - September 20, 2013

I think with Star Trek in the future in both Film and on TV when it gets back there we will have to live with IDIC.

216. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

@212

For the third time, you are twisting my words around. I do not want to reward “mean-spirited malcontents” who pretty much are on record here of hating JJ Trek and driving Orci, JJ and many others away. Let me be perfectly clear — for anyone who doesn’t agree with me, but who has a positive and constructive non-hate attitude about JJ-Trek — those people, no, of course I don’t want to punish them.

Get it now?

So stop making your blanket false statements about what I am saying here.

217. K-7 - September 20, 2013

The fact that the haters here need to hang their hat on the mean-spirited, F-Bomb-laced “Mr. Plinkett review” — a guy who is shown as a complete slob with no teeth and a drunk voice — says it all for me here. Plinkett is so much like the nuTrek hater crowd here. Plinkett is typical of the people who are these haters here on this site — that’s what I think a lot of these people are like.

So yea, the Plinkett video fits perfectly in providing a accurate look at what types of people hate this new type of Star Trek. In fact, if you can picture Jordan Hoffman with a few beers in him and a couple of teeth missing, that vision looks a lot like this Plinkett loser.

218. captain_neill - September 20, 2013

What the next Trek movie needs is to be its own entity. TNG became a stronger show when it stepped out of the shadow of TOS.

These reboots need to step out of the shadow of The Wrath of Khan and be fresh and new with little quote machine and tell a story Gene would have loved.

219. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

I agree with Dave H. and Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle. I would rather wait another five or ten years WITHOUT a new series if that means we still get the J.J-style movies which in turn continues to “weed out” the haters/Talifans/fundamentalists.

And its nice to see K-7 posting again!

220. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

This “Marcus” dude who is spamming posts on this thread reminds me of William Bradley, who resorted to the same tactics not too long ago.

221. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@217. K-7

Why are you back to the site that is full of HATERS ??

I thought by now, you would have created your own Trek blog where you & RDR & the rest of JJ worshipers can talk about JJ Trek without having to deal with the HATERS!

Seriously guys, go & create a blog to continue your worshiping of all things that are touched by JJ & Bob.

@219. Red Dead Ryan
“I would rather wait another five or ten years WITHOUT a new series if that means we still get the J.J-style movies which in turn continues to “weed out” the haters/Talifans/fundamentalists.”

LOL, very childish, no wonder STID is your favorite Trek, because the movie is clearly targeting children.

222. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

Oh whatever. Now people are “hating” on a Plinkett video for pointing out the inundating slew of “references” in STID. After 7 minutes he just got tired. So what. He didn’t attack the film; he just told the truth. Now, if people are expecting other people to LIE about STID just so they can feel good, well too bad. That’s not gonna happen. Plinkett and Co. are not haters. In fact, he liked JJ’s ’09 film.

And speaking of the ’09 film, I remember a lot of people here (some of you are still here) that were really nasty about aspects of that film, and I recall defending it. Some of you are the same ones that simply can’t stand that other people have things about STID that they don’t like and openly criticize. Well, all I can say is at least these “haters” aren’t telling anyone how it absolutely has to be, which is something I remember quite a lot around just a year or two ago from others.

Now, some of these same ’09 “haters” have become “lovers” of the STID film (and some even switched over after initially complaining about STID’s Khan, etc…) and they cannot stand that there are people that still don’t like it. Well just LOL!!!

Live and let live, folks. We all like what we like and don’t what we don’t. They’ll either stick with this new format or go back to the nice dynamics of the ’09 film. Either way, some will like it and some won’t.

223. Marja - September 20, 2013

209, …Beagle, Actually Marcus didn’t serve in the military, as I did. He “comes from a military family.”

And what he advocates for people who do not share his view of “freedom” does not bear thinking about.

224. Marja - September 20, 2013

Ahmed, You and I have disagreed, usually in a pretty civil manner, and sometimes we’ve even agreed.

I do want to let you know that I am neither a child, nor a worshipper of Abrams.

I’m a grownup who dislikes aspects of the movies, likes others, and disagrees with the portrayal of everyone who’s – for the most part – enjoyed the movies as childish worshippers of something you consider below par.

Let’s agree to disagree on the Abrams films. That’s fine. Calling me and others like me names is not cool.

Come on, man. I’ve seen you do better.

225. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

Ahmed, I thought you were going to change your behaviour here?

226. Forrest Leeson - September 20, 2013

“George Washington was a Libertarian.”

Everybody needs to read GEORGE WASHINGTON’S EXPENSE ACCOUNT and THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT 1789, both by Marvin Kitman.

Oh, and to restart STAR TREK properly you’d need to do it from first principles — so first we need remakes of FORBIDDEN PLANET and the Twilight Zone episode “Death Ship”. For some weird reason I want to see Wes Anderson write and direct them.

227. CaliburnCY - September 20, 2013

“Just as Worf wasn’t really mad at his crewmates, I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film: fans are angry because they have to wait four years to see a new movie when what they really want is new episodes every week.”

Maybe that’s true for some people, but I think most people who dislike STID actually *do* have issues with the movie itself. And it’s not all nitpicking or nostalgic yearning or believing that “action and thinking are mutually exclusive” (per Mr. Orci), either. I think many of STID’s critics would accept an action-oriented blockbuster Star Trek film; STID in particular (and perhaps ST’09 as well) just didn’t work for them.

Here is an insightful article:

http://badassdigest.com/2013/06/12/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-age-of-the-convoluted-blockbuster/

Don’t be fooled by the all-caps writing style. This is not a twelve-year-old or an angry fan banging at a keyboard. It is a thoughtful analysis from a writer who knows that *clarity* and *causality* are essential to good storytelling.

If you want to know why FilmCritHulk (an anonymous Hollywood someone) writes in this “gimmicky” all-caps way, read this interview with The Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/8/3611344/film-crit-hulk-interview

And if it really bugs you, use http://www.convertcase.net

This convolution isn’t the only problem with STID, but I believe it’s responsible for several of the other problems with regard to the characters and the credibility of the film’s world.

Regarding Star Trek returning to television, I don’t believe it’s as unthinkable as you imagine, but it’s not going to happen until we have at least one more film from Bad Robot, for better or for worse.

A couple other minor points:
1) While I don’t object to calling Jane Espenson a “Trek outsider” (in the sense that she was never a staff writer), I do want to point out that she wrote the episode “Accession” as a freelancer for DS9.
2) I’m sure syndication isn’t the huge market it used to be, but I’m pretty sure any new Trek series will still want to hit 100 episodes, not 50, since that’s a traditional benchmark for syndication, as I understand it. And even in a world of streaming and discs, more product than 50 episodes is almost certainly helpful for long-term profitability. Long-term profitability is one of classic Trek’s strengths, as Doug Drexler points out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_S5M1OJE4#t=11m02s

228. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 224. Marja – September 20, 2013

“Ahmed, You and I have disagreed, usually in a pretty civil manner, and sometimes we’ve even agreed.
I do want to let you know that I am neither a child, nor a worshipper of Abrams.”

Marja, my comment #221 was directed at K-7 & RDR who keep calling anyone who didn’t like STID haters. Recently I was ignoring any comments that like that but today, I kinda had enough with K-7 & RDR name calling.

For the record, I don’t HATE JJ, in fact I love most of his TV projects from Alias, Lost to Fringe. His first directorial debut, Mission Impossible 3 was my favorite MI movies after the first MI. And I can’t wait to see what he will bring to Star Wars.

I don’t like STID, that is my opinion. I enjoyed some of parts of the movie, specially all scenes with Pike but overall the movie was lacking in many ways & again that is my opinion.

Marja, my apology if you felt that my comment was directed at you, it wasn’t.

229. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 225. Red Dead Ryan – September 20, 2013

“Ahmed, I thought you were going to change your behaviour here?”

RDR, how about you express your view without restoring to calling anyone who disagree with you a hater ?

230. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 226. Forrest Leeson – September 20, 2013

“Oh, and to restart STAR TREK properly you’d need to do it from first principles — so first we need remakes of FORBIDDEN PLANET and the Twilight Zone episode “Death Ship”. For some weird reason I want to see Wes Anderson write and direct them.”

What about Damon Lindelof ? Somehow the guy is a little obsessed with the subject of purgatory, which might come in handy when the time come to remake “Death Ship”.

231. Sebastian - September 20, 2013

Problem is, you’ll never make any ONE show or concept that will please all the fans. There is a major schism in fandom right now, and there won’t heal any time soon, unless the next ST movie somehow (miraculously) hits the right balance and tone (and stops skewering toward the dumb action movie crowd). However, based on the last movie I sincerely doubt that will happen (especially since inexplicably made tons of money; despite the split it’s caused in fandom).

So given the current divided state of fandom? I can’t see the franchise unifying long enough to create an honest to goodness, genuine ST-style TV show again. STID fans would say it’s ‘boring’ or ‘out of touch’; TOS fans would probably say they miss the original actors or something.

My advice for those making a new ST series (for whatever it’s worth) would be this:

* Hire better writers. People who specialize in both scifi genre & character stories. Please no more rehashes or makeovers of older movies or episodes.

* Leave the dumb, empty action stuff to the movie guys.
TV is mostly about going on a journey with interesting characters, seeing relationships develop; not starships plowing into cities. That way, everyone’s happy (the original fans have a more relaxed paced, thoughtful TV show, and movie fans get their dumbed down spectacle they seem to crave). Win-win.

* Get at least one producer or writer who comes from outside the ST fan pool. A Nick Meyer or a Harve Bennett type. Objectivity is a healthy thing in art.

* Break the stale format of a ship/crew aimlessly exploring the *blank* quadrant. Pick a nice, largely unexplored corner of the canon ST universe and explore it in depth. Or a new corner we’ve never seen before, but stay there. Not a de facto remake of DS9, but perhaps similar in it’s radical departure from the traditional ST format.

* The idea of sending manned crews on ‘five year missions’ is a bit Apollo era. A new show should somehow reflect this (not sure how; I’m not a writer). These days most of the best exploration is done by automated robot probes. Maybe if & when humans go to Mars, it’ll feel relevant again. For a new series? I’d visit MIT or Caltech and get there ideas of where they see the future of space exploration and find a way to incorporate that into a new show.

* Listen to the fans, but don’t be slavish to them. There is no single voice in fandom; no unifying thought. Don’t be afraid to even slaughter a few sacred cows now & then too…

And a lot of good luck wouldn’t hurt, either…. ;-)

232. Red Dead Ryan - September 20, 2013

Ahmed, does this ring a bell?

“LOL, very childish, no wonder STID is your favorite Trek, because the movie is clearly targeting children.

You have been putting down STID fans with this statement. Before you point fingers at us, I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, pal.

BTW, you still owe Bob Orci an apology.

.

233. Jordan - September 20, 2013

From my perspective, this supposed “furor” over “Trek Into Darkness” is a little exaggerated. I myself am a lifelong Trekkie, and speaking for myself and the Trekkies I know the new film delivered in spades. Since when has Trek not dabbled in dark, militaristic, action-oriented motifs? True, it’s time to move away from the good guy vs. bad guy paradigm. But I thought STID was glorious.

234. Marcus - September 20, 2013

@222. Spock/Uhura Admirer,
rofl…

Don’t feel bad. I was originally having a nice back and forth conversation with people, and then I got sucked into a weird exchange.

At the start of the thread, I was trying to explore “Star Trek” themes and match them up with reality. My overall goal was to ask the question, “since the world around us is changing, does Star Trek’s themes still resonate with the next generation.” I accidentally made it into a long-winded exercise, and now I am being told that I am pushing my weight around. rofl….

I blame myself for not being clear.

235. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 219. Red Dead Ryan – September 20, 2013

“Ahmed, does this ring a bell?
You have been putting down STID fans with this statement. Before you point fingers at us, I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, pal.”

You have it backward my friend. That comment was in response to your following comment #219

“I would rather wait another five or ten years WITHOUT a new series if that means we still get the J.J-style movies which in turn continues to “weed out” the haters/Talifans/fundamentalists.”

I don’t have a problem with the fans who like STID, my problem is with the fans who don’t want anyone to disagree with them & call them haters.

236. K-7 - September 20, 2013

@221

Ahmed,

Your poor attempt at pretending to be “the new MJ” here is not working out so well for you. You have neither the wit not the humor to pull it off. Plus, you will go down in Star Trek fan history as the guy who who made Orci blow his top. That is more like infamy than fame.

Sorry that you feel it is inconvenient to have me back. But that is not your call to make. I will participate on this site even if it makes you and others’ uncomfortable.

237. K-7 - September 20, 2013

“I don’t have a problem with the fans who like STID, my problem is with the fans who don’t want anyone to disagree with them & call them haters.”

This from the guy who had the big internet fight with Roberto Orci.

Like we are suppose to believe that that never happened now???

I don’t think so.

You throw this term “hater” around like it gives you some moral high ground; but the truth is that your uncontrolled negativity led Bob Orci to leave this site that he once loved.

Throw the “hate” word around if you must Ahmed, but I don’t recall that RDR or I ever insulted official Star Trek creators on this web site and embarrassed ourselves publicly like you did with your little Oric tantrum episode.

238. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 236. K-7 – September 20, 2013

“Sorry that you feel it is inconvenient to have me back. But that is not your call to make. I will participate on this site even if it makes you and others’ uncomfortable.”

Everyone is free to participate here, I don’t tell people to go away to another site when we disagree on something, unlike some of STID fans around here.

You need to understand that not everyone who dislike STID is a JJ hater. We all have different opinions, that doesn’t make anyone a hater or whatever you want to call them.

239. K-7 - September 20, 2013

@222 “Now people are “hating” on a Plinkett video…”

Actually the Pinkettt video is fairly accurate. Pinkett to me, in a broad sense, look’s and sounds just like several of the people here.

It’s an amazingly accurate video that does a tremendous job portraying the type of people who are such nitpickers and negative malcontents on nuTrek.

Red Letter Media really nailed perfectly those types of fans. That is the real point of this video. The video is so well done in calling out those types of fans.

240. K-7 - September 20, 2013

@238 “You need to understand that not everyone who dislike STID is a JJ hater. We all have different opinions, that doesn’t make anyone a hater or whatever you want to call them.”

Do you not see one, even, tiny bit of irony in you lecturing ME on this, when YOU were the one responsible for the Orci incident — your posts drove one of the Producers to leave this site.

And you are lecturing ME? LOL

241. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

K-7,

I see your point on the Pinkett video. Yea, the video actually seems to be more about satirizing the types of fans (e.g. “Pinkett-like” people) who incessantly nitpick and shoot down every little piece of the STID movie.

Int his context, this Red Letter video review is brilliant! While, at the surface, it’s purpose is ostensibly to be critical of STID, when you watch it several times, you come to conclude that it is actually a brilliant satire of the types of myopic spoiled and “intellectually slovenly” fans who continue to bitch about STID.

242. Red Shirt Diaries - September 20, 2013

Ahmed,

Seriously. Please drop your whole “I’m the voice of reason” nonsense.

Everyone here knows that you were the one who got in big, public pissing match with Bob Orci that drove him off this site.

So, no, you don’t get to be “the voice of reason” EVER on this site.

243. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 240. K-7 – September 20, 2013

“Do you not see one, even, tiny bit of irony in you lecturing ME on this, when YOU were the one responsible for the Orci incident — your posts drove one of the Producers to leave this site.
And you are lecturing ME? LOL”

Well, how about I refresh your memory about that “Orci incident” & how it started

————————

311. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

@307. boborci
“And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. ”
If you are the real Bob, I say this, you guys didn’t listen to the fans before & will always do what the studio want; which is a movie that has more action & less thinking.
So, the tone & attitude of the article doesn’t matter one bit.
Four years was wasted, I just hope you are not going to waste more time before we see the 50th anniversary movie.

312. boborci – September 2, 2013

308.
Ahmed, I wish you knew what you were talking about. I listened more than any other person behind the Trek franchise has EVER listened. And guess what? Glad I did becuase it lead to 2 biggest Trek’s ever.
You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive. Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?

315. Ahmed – September 2, 2013

@ 309. boborci – September 2, 2013
“You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive.”
No, we can have a movie with both action & brain, case in point Inception & Indiana Jones movies. What I’m saying that STID was a movie that has lot more action & explosions than a coherent story or character developments.
“Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”
I’m sorry but what plot ? Khan was found & used by Section 31 & then he put his own people in the torpedo to save them or whatever & the rest of the movie follow in the same illogical way.
No disrespect to you guys, STID made tons of money but it was worse than ST09 in many aspects.

318. boborci – September 2, 2013

312 Shitty Dodge. STID has infinetly more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the F**KING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: F**K OFF!

————————

So, I didn’t attack him personally or called him names in my comments, nevertheless, he went off & overreacted.

Bob went off not just on this site but also on twitter & TPTB probably told him to knock it off for now. So, why you don’t cut the crap & stop whining.

244. Crewman Darnell - September 20, 2013

@ K-7
Having watched the entire “Orci incident” as it unfolded, comment-by-comment, I’m of the opinion that it is Orci himself who is solely responsible for his own reactions , including the choice to distance himself from this site.

245. K-7 - September 20, 2013

@242. As I recall,

Bob offered a real apology for his part, whereas you offered some kind of platitudes short of an apology. And before you did that, you proudly provided us all links that showed how your incident was being publicized as a news story on other sites.

A lot of us are still waiting for “the closure” here of you legitimately apologizing to Bob? RDR said above:

“BTW, you still owe Bob Orci an apology.”

When are we all going to see you provide and legitimate public apology?

246. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

Crewman Darnell,

I completely disagree. Ahmed was bitching about STID for weeks before Orci blew his top. The build-up was significant.

247. K-7 - September 20, 2013

“Crewman Darnell, I completely disagree. Ahmed was bitching about STID for weeks before Orci blew his top. The build-up was significant.”

Yep.

248. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 245. K-7 – September 20, 2013

“Bob offered a real apology for his part, whereas you offered some kind of platitudes short of an apology. ”

“398. boborci – September 2, 2013

“don’ take me too seriously. if you’ve been on this board for the lar 5 years (as I have beeb) you know that twice a year I explode at the morons. today, there seemed to be a congregation, so it seemed like a good time.”

I guess this is what you mean by real apology!

249. Matt Wright - September 20, 2013

Easy everyone, this could get nasty real quick here… Don’t start ganging up on another commenter. Too much of that has gone on over the past few weeks.

Rehashing this stuff won’t help anything.

250. K-7 - September 20, 2013

Matt, I agree, provided Ahmed, who was one-half of the incident that led to Bob Orci’s departure (no matter how he attempts to define that incident), stops trying to act like he has some moral high ground here over others. He played a key role in Bob’s departure from this site — that’s a fact.

That is all I have to say on this. Thanks for your moderation here, Matt.

251. Sebastian - September 20, 2013

# 243 Crewman Darnell

Agreed.

Bob Orci chose not to take the high road on that one. He’s an adult; not a delicate flower.

You never even heard Berman or Braga berating the fans in such a way (and they certainly received their share of online criticism; almost ten years since their last TV ST and they still do). Even Shatner didn’t lash out when the fans pounced on him for “The Final Frontier.”

Ahmed (or any fan with a legitimate question or grievance) doesn’t owe anyone an apology. This is a message board, not an inquisition.

I’ve been a ST fan since 1972 (at nearly 6 years old) and whatever part of the franchise I like or didn’t like does NOT make me a ‘hater.’ It means I don’t just choke down anything with a ST label slapped on it. It means I’m selective….

I loved ST09 very much and I still do (I’ve defended it many times here and on other boards). However, I didn’t like STID. But please don’t anyone label me as a NuTrek ‘hater.’ That is simplistic drivel. I’ve been a ST fan since before most of you were born; I think I’m entitled to like and dislike any aspect of the ST franchise I feel like.

Opinions are like people; they can be complicated. NO ONE here should be faulted or called names for not falling in line with the wolf pack….

252. K-7 - September 20, 2013

And one final post — Ahmed tried to pretend that that quote he provided for Bob in post #248 was Orci’s “apology,” whereas he and we all know that this is the real, heartfelt apology that Orci provided on September 10th:

Orci took to Twitter to apologize for his rant against Star Trek fans unhappy with the recent movies. Although it also looks like Orci suspended his Twitter account, the good people at Blastr captured a few apologetic tweets before the page went down.

@masteractor not my finest moment. agreed. what can I say? i’m more than half human.

— roberto orci (@boborci) September 6, 2013

“@LawrenceBoucher: Hope you know many fans don’t agree w/ article or the obnoxious comments directed at you.” Thanks. Still sorry I reacted

— roberto orci (@boborci) September 6, 2013

So again, I will repeat — Ahmed has not come close to providing this type of a public apology himself for his part in this sad Star Trek fan altercation.

253. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

250. K-7 – September 20, 2013

“Matt, I agree, provided Ahmed, who was one-half of the incident that led to Bob Orci’s departure (no matter how he attempts to define that incident), stops trying to act like he has some moral high ground here over others.”

Perhaps you also need to remind yourself to stop labeling others haters & focus on discussing Star Trek without restoring to personal attacks.

Matt, I’m more than happy to go back to the real discussion about Star Trek.

254. K-7 - September 20, 2013

@251. Like clockwork, there you are! ;-) What a shock! ;-)

255. K-7 - September 20, 2013

“Perhaps you also need to remind yourself to stop labeling others haters & focus on discussing Star Trek without restoring to personal attacks.”

Actions speak louder than words. I have NEVER played a role in ejecting an person involved with either Star Trek movies or the series from this site. NEVER!

256. Matt Wright - September 20, 2013

Let’s be very clear:

1. K-7 it is not your place to “make” anyone do anything.

2. Bob Orci is an adult, he made his decisions. Likewise so is Ahmed. So what they will or will not do is something you cannot control.

So I would ask that you stop harping on the subject.

It’s a matter that appears to be closed (whether anyone considers it resolved or not is outside the scope of this), considering Bob Orci has currently severed his lines of public communication.

257. K-7 - September 20, 2013

I will, Matt. So long as Ahmed refrains from lecturing me likewise like he is “the moral high ground moderator” here who gets a free pass on actually trying to lecture me on what Trek fan negativity is all about.

I am calling it a night. Thank you, Matt.

258. James T. - September 20, 2013

Well I agree with some of your comments but strongly disagree with others.
You’re right they should stop trying to remake TWOK ( even though I did like the most recent movie ).

And yes back in the late 90′s the Star Trek franchise was suffering from over load. Two shows a week and a movie every 3 years. Too much of a good thing. However your comments about The Next Generation are really dumb. I’ve been watching the BluRays of TNG and have rediscovered what a good show it was!

Look Gene Roddenberry created a great platform for stories with Star Trek. I think someone else here said they have the whole galaxy to play with. That’s a pretty open ended situation. Star Trek can be on TV or the Movies it just takes imagination and trying to stay with what made it great before. What I haven’t been seeing much with Star Trek is that sense of wonder that we had with the old series. They really haven’t done anything like that since TMP. And any new attempt doesn’t have to turn out like that.

It’s problem was it needed a person with one central vision. Too many cooks spoil the meal. I suppose that kind of goes along with another of your points. Any attempt for TV or Movies can succeed if they just have good writing and imagination. Also they don’t have to do a anti hero Star Trek either. That’s just what’s popular now. Star Trek isn’t broken and it isn’t old hat. It just needs passion again.

259. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@ 256. Matt Wright – September 20, 2013

“It’s a matter that appears to be closed”

Agreed.

Thanks for keeping the site up & running, Matt.

260. Dave H - September 20, 2013

All,

That Red Letter Video is a spot-on satire on the type of Trek fans that are continually nitpicking Star Trek Into Darkness.

This is the funniest satire on overly serious Trek fans since the Shat’s SNL skit in the late 80′s. I have a couple of friends who are prettyu close to being like Pinkett. LOL

261. DWNicolo - September 20, 2013

Here’s how you revive Star Trek folks. Throw everything concerning Star Trek for the last forty years out the window and get a bunch of SF writers to come in and brain storm a new Star trek, That’s how you do it.

262. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

239/241 K-7/Beagle

”Actually the Pinkettt video is fairly accurate. Pinkett to me, in a broad sense, look’s and sounds just like several of the people here.
It’s an amazingly accurate video that does a tremendous job portraying the type of people who are such nitpickers and negative malcontents on nuTrek.
Red Letter Media really nailed perfectly those types of fans. That is the real point of this video. The video is so well done in calling out those types of fans.”

”K-7,
I see your point on the Pinkett video. Yea, the video actually seems to be more about satirizing the types of fans (e.g. “Pinkett-like” people) who incessantly nitpick and shoot down every little piece of the STID movie.
Int his context, this Red Letter video review is brilliant! While, at the surface, it’s purpose is ostensibly to be critical of STID, when you watch it several times, you come to conclude that it is actually a brilliant satire of the types of myopic spoiled and “intellectually slovenly” fans who continue to bitch about STID.”

Don’t take this the wrong way, but you both sound like you are in a hopeful delusion of sorts. Mr. Plinkett is a character used for comedic effect, yes, but the reviews are real. They are as real as the the half in the bag reviews where regular guys sit and talk about movies they watched while providing their own critiques.

I do think it’s interesting that you both are trying to say that anyone that either doesn’t like STID or is the least bit critical looks like the fabricated animation of Mr. Plinkett. So, anybody that didn’t like that film is a fat, sloppy, dirty, lazy, serial killer (yes, he pretends to be one sometimes), and wife/woman abuser (he’s joked about that too—see his Phantom Menace review). Hmm.

I’m sure at least some of these reviewers would disagree:

http://www.thenerdybird.com/2013/05/hera-help-me-i-hated-star-trek-into.html

http://amptoons.com/blog/2013/05/22/star-trek-into-darkness-its-a-white-mans-universe-spock/

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-dumbness-507058729

http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/23/sexy-or-sexist-how-star-trek-into-darkness-turned-heroines-into-damsels-in-distress/

I don’t know, call me skeptical, but I highly doubt that your apparent desire is the case. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could really merge that fictitious “Mr. Plinkett” character with real people in some small attempt to make yourselves feel better, superior even, than the people that disagree with you… It’s too bad that’s not the case. But you two can dream. And you both can have the added comfort of knowing that you can even dream together…

263. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

Dave H,

I agree. The Red Letter Pinkett video is going to go down as the greatest “spoiled Trek fan” humorous satire of all time. It complete captures and humorizes the “incessant STID bitcher” type of entitled fan that we are seeing far too much of today.

264. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

@256, Thanks, Matt.

@259, Dave, please see my post #261. Thank you…

265. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

@262

Beagle,

It’s not a satire on STID detractors, but I see that it is really and truly your desire for it to be so… Sad…

266. Dave H - September 20, 2013

Whoops, S/U Admirer — did you just make an unintended mistake to let it slip that you have a double identity here? Are you also “Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle?” That is post #261. Hmm ???

267. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

No, Dave. Look again. Post #261 is mine. Please get glasses if you need them and read again.

268. Dave H - September 20, 2013

@263. LOL. That is how the best “satire” works. You need to see “above the surface” of what is trying to be said by the creator. That is the whole point.

“A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—”in satire, irony is militant”—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This “militant” irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.”

269. Dave H - September 20, 2013

Nope, in my browser, Post #261 is AAPB. The first time I see you in this thread tonight is #262.

Come on, are you trying to cover for a momentary “slipup” of a double-identity?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
265. Spock/Uhura Admirer – September 20, 2013
No, Dave. Look again. Post #261 is mine. Please get glasses if you need them and read again

270. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

I just refreshed and it went away, so it must be in the moderation queue for some reason, but it should be there once Matt approves it…

And my, my. Your desire to pin me as Beagle is interesting…

271. Matthew - September 20, 2013

A new Television series would have to be in the new timeline, to much confusion for the new fans or people who only watched the last two movies.
My idea of a new series is. Captain George Samuel Kirk, the older brother of Jim Kirk is finally been promoted to captain after many long years in Starfleet. He has been bitter and Jealous for a few years after watching his younger brother walk into Starfleet and be promoted to captain of Starfleet flagship. Sam would be similar to Picard’s style of command, very disciplined and by the book Starfleet, quiet and reserved. Unlike his brother his not a ladies man, his not good with women. His career in Starfleet has been his life. Before that his been looking out for his little brother. Sam has been ignored for many years for promotion, he was a first officer for along time. Starfleet thought he was not suitable for along time, considered to safe, not willing to take risks, not looking outside the box. Before his promotion Sam was about to leave Starfleet and join the Federation research team , his a qualified biologist.
Sam is now in command of a new class of starship called USS endeavour. A ship slightly bigger then the Enterprise. Its designed for deep space exploration more then any starfeet ship. Its the 23rd century version of the enterprise D with a full research team, medical team etc. The Endeavour replaces or continues The enterprise mission of exploration of Deep Space. Sam’s disciplined and by the book style is very suitable for this mission, they need someone that will follow the prime directive to the letter. The Endeavour has also a security commander which has a elite force style team under his command. The Endeavour has a young and attractive female first officer ( female version of James Kirk). The science officer would be a Vulcan. Chief Medical officer would be recently promoted Christine Chapel. The Pilot should have Chris Pine and his Enterprise as guest stars. The series should character driven with a balance of action and science fiction, something between TOS and TNG. They need to make space and new worlds strange, a even scary.
Well that’s my idea, its sort of reboot of the TOS with a Kirk in command, in time you will see all the characters grow and change including the captain, see him change into more like his brother.

PS my title name would be simply called Star Trek, as its the first series in the new timeline.

Matt

272. Dave H - September 20, 2013

@267. Well, hey, you are one smart and aggressive person here. If anyone could pull of playing “both sides,” it would be you. And I mean that as a complement — your are very smart and formidable here.

273. Ahmed - September 20, 2013

@267. Spock/Uhura Admirer

Actually, Dave is correct. Post # 261 is Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle post.

274. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

Thank you, I think, Dave. However, I only post as myself, which would be S/U Admirer. Trust me, I have better things to do than to argue with myself. And since I tend to be pretty peaceful, I am of one minds about things…

Do you post as anyone else, since we’re on the subject?

275. Dave H - September 20, 2013

Thanks Ahmed. BTW, as I mentioned to you awhile back, I “made my peace” with being mad at you for the Orci incident and no longer hold it against you. We are cool!

However, you might want to be sensitive that, for some people, they perceive you as lecturing them on fan negativity as a bit hypocritical given your “Orci episode.” Surely you can appreciate how people might have those perceptions, whether they are accurate or not?

My advice to you would be just to lay off making comments that might be construed as making moral judgments (i.e, some fans are “haters”) on other fan’s comments, even if they happen to irritate you. Because they are just going to bring up your Orci episode again in response to you, and we are all frankly tired of hearing about that.

276. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

Ahmed, please read post #268.

My post is in the moderation queue. I took a small screen shot of what post# it will be when it should appear when Dave first said something, just in case the paranoia *not saying that’s you* got out of hand here…

Here you both go:

http://s1050.photobucket.com/user/SpockUhuraFan/media/Screenshots/SUApost261_09202013_zps8ff66b84.png.html?sort=3&o=0

It’s cut off at the bottom, but you get the gist…

277. Dave H - September 20, 2013

@272. Sure, I post as Spock/Uhura Admirer, Ahmed and Matt Wright.

(I’m kidding!!!)

278. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

Or, Ahmed, that would be post # 267, but the screen shot above lets you know…

279. Dave H - September 20, 2013

@274. OK, I see it, S/U. Thanks.

I still see that review as biting satire on nitpicking-spoiled Trek fans. And brilliant satire at that.

Remember, the whole point of those Red Letter Reviews in to be provocative and sarcastic. This one, they nailed those areas in spades.

280. Crewman Darnell - September 20, 2013

Re: Red Letter Media / Plinkett reviews

From what I’ve seen, these reviews along with the one from “Honest Movie Trailers” address the flaws of STID, with fairness and an obviously intentional dose of ‘humor.’ Nothing more. Nothing less.

The creators of Red Letter Media have expressed their intention of delivering thoughtful, sincere film reviews that are also (depending on one’s sense of humor) amusing to watch. Here’s another offering from RLM; their Plinkett-free take on STID:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs

281. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

” @274. OK, I see it, S/U. Thanks.

I still see that review as biting satire on nitpicking-spoiled Trek fans. And brilliant satire at that.

Remember, the whole point of those Red Letter Reviews in to be provocative and sarcastic. This one, they nailed those areas in spades.”

Well, that might carry some weight if Mr. Plinkett didn’t review other films. So, is he mocking “nitpicking-spoiled Trek fans” in every review, even the many reviews that came out long before STID? I think not. Plinkett is nothing more than entertainment provided while an honest and perhaps surprisingly insightful review is being delivered. Call him the spoonful of unconventional sugar that helps that “medicine” go down.

I’d say you should remember that Plinkett isn’t making fun on anyone but himself, and he’s not even real. That’s the only thing he nails in spades, unless we visit his basement. And I wouldn’t advise that…

282. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

” 275. Dave H – September 20, 2013
@272. Sure, I post as Spock/Uhura Admirer, Ahmed and Matt Wright.
(I’m kidding!!!)”

Even though you are “kidding!!!” I’ll still say that’s not the case. And I notice that you side-stepped my question earlier. Do you post as anyone else? I’d like to know…

283. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

@277 “The creators of Red Letter Media have expressed their intention of delivering thoughtful, sincere film reviews….”

LOL. Are you freaking serious??? Here is what they say about Mr. Pinkett:

“the reviews are narrated by the fictional Mr. Plinkett, a serial killer in self-admitted need of serious medication,”

Yea, you need to rethink your statement here guy. :-))

284. captainspock - September 20, 2013

this message appeared above the commit box did any one else get this message…

NOTE: Your comment may need approval from a moderator, please be patient if your comment disappears as soon as you post it, it will reappear as soon as it is approved.

Why do i need the moderator approvel to post a reply on this forurm , what did i do wrong …Humm ?

285. Dave H - September 20, 2013

@279. I had another singular identify at an earlier point in time on this site. These days, I go by Dave H, which is relevant to my actual real-world identity.

How about you — in the early days of this site?

286. Dave H - September 20, 2013

@281

That is a common disclaimer that Matt put on so that he no longer has to explain the process to people who kept complaining about delays in their posts.

287. Dave H - September 20, 2013

Good night, everyone.

288. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

Crewman Darnell,

Here is some more info on your “thoughtful” reviewer:

“Mr. Plinkett is implied to be a multiple uxoricidal murderer; recurring themes include the murder of his various ex-wives, and women held captive in his basement. He claims to have had a disappointing son who hanged himself in a gas station bathroom, and an “adopted” son he kidnapped from a grocery store parking lot.”

289. Crewman Darnell - September 20, 2013

@280

No need to rethink the statement at all. That is, unless I was totally oblivious to the common practice of genuinely thoughtful commentary being presented through a satirical or purely fictional medium.

290. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

I’ve always been Spock/Uhura, Dave. I am Spock/Uhura Fan over at the bbs, on my PB account as you can see, and when I first started posting here. I am Spock/Uhura Admirer here now.

Goodnight, Dave.

P.S. You know, your name makes me think of Dave Howe over at Syfy. I wonder if he’s still there… Don’t worry. I’m sure there’s no relation… or is there? ;-) Hee hee.

291. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

Matt, the more I read about this Mr. Plinkett character, the less I feel that it is appropriate for you to be linking this “sick puppy crap” to this site.

292. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

Crewman Darnell: “That is, unless I was totally oblivious to the common practice of genuinely thoughtful commentary being presented through a satirical or purely fictional medium.”

Ah, so you admit they are using satire in their reviews. But yet, you said about they were not using satire when I suggested that? Which is it?

Could it possibly be that the level of satire here is simply open to the individual viewer’s interpretation?

Or do you really know the intent on the STID review for a fact? If so,. please provide your evidence?

293. Optimistic Doodle - September 20, 2013

U-oh, I guess the next editorial will lock its phasers on the fans? :-)

Brace for impact!

294. Marcus - September 20, 2013

Do you know what the irony is?

“Star Trek: Into Darkness” is fiction. We are having a serious conversation about a fictitious form of entertainment. Regardless about who is at the helm, I think we should enjoy the ride while it lasts. “Star Trek” is beyond the sum of two movies, and it has a little of something for everyone.

“Star Trek: 2009″ was a decent movie. While I may have thought of it as a parody, “Star Trek: 2009″ was still a fun and exciting film.

“Star Trek: Into Darkness” was a rather disappointing experience for me. Does that kill the entire franchise? No way. “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” and “Star Trek: The Final Frontier” didn’t kill the franchise; therefore, “Star Trek: into Darkness” will not bring everything to an end. Its that simple.

Keyword is ‘fiction’. “Star Trek” is a theoretical interpretation of the future, which takes place in a fictional environment. Its not real. Did Roddenberry get it right? I guess that is really up for debate. Do the themes resonate with the youth of today; thus, the franchise has the bases for another television series? I really do not know. Everything around us is changing so rapidly. “Star Trek: TOS” was created at around the start of the a cold war. Even though we are standing at the beginning of another cold war, I do not know if the next generation can relate.

Orci’s storytelling is going to produce movies, which will both hit and miss the mark. What matters is that someone is trying.

295. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

@ Crewman Darnell

Post number 280, at least how it’s appearing for me now is my post to Dave, but I’m sure you are directing your post at Beagle. That’s why I try to add the names of the people I’m talking to in my posts usually, because the posts change numbers, especially when pending posts come through the moderation queue.

And just in case you are new here–Welcome. :-)

296. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

” 289. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle – September 20, 2013
Matt, the more I read about this Mr. Plinkett character, the less I feel that it is appropriate for you to be linking this “sick puppy crap” to this site.”

Well now, that’s something, especially when you and K-7 basically called anyone that didn’t like or had issues with STID a “Mr. Plinkett.”

And of course this in no way anywhere near being true…

297. Admiral Archer's Prize Beagle - September 20, 2013

@293. Well, the more I have learned about the reviewer site and Mr. Pinkett, the weirder and sicker that site and its creator has become for me. So, I take back what I said about any Trek fans being like this Mr. Pinkett.

In fact, I find the whole Mr. Pinket/Red Letter Media thing pretty much sick and morally bankrupt. What utter crap — from sick minds.

298. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 20, 2013

@Beagle
“So, I take back what I said about any Trek fans being like this Mr. Pinkett.”

Thank you.

299. Bucky - September 20, 2013

Erm, did this article just suggest that since Rick Berman didn’t make a Captain Sulu TV show it killed Trek on TV?

300. Crewman Darnell - September 21, 2013

@293. Spock/Uhura Admirer

Thanks for the welcome. Although I don’t comment often, I’ve been a regular trekmovie.com reader since the earliest days when everyone was fired up over the initial teaser images that were released, depicting the Enterprise delta/mission badges, with the gold and blue color schemes. Those were exciting times.

301. Crewman Darnell - September 21, 2013

@294. Admiral Archer’s Prize Beagle

If you can try to see past the satire, which the ‘quality’ of is understandably not to everyone’s taste, it’s pretty obvious these guys watched the film and are clearly expressing their views on its respective strengths and weaknesses, as they have done with *many* other films. This particular review (link below) does not contain the fictional Plinkett character. When “Mike,” “Jay” & “Rich” get down to the brass tacks of discussing the film, it’s quite clear that their review is in fact thoughtful, even if you don’t agree with their opinions, or their admittedly questionable sense of humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs

302. Marja - September 21, 2013

Well, whoever posted the link to Crit HULK reviews STiD, thanks. I have copied it to my computer so I can study it and examine the qualities of good writing.

Hulk definitely have point about mystery box.

303. Keachick - September 21, 2013

#184, 185, 186 Marja – Excellent posts.

#188 – Marcus “While you want the world to burn, due to people not agree with you, I want the world to show each other mercy and humility.”

First, the poster you refer to never intimated anything of this kind. It is also interesting that you wish each other show mercy and humility, given this quote below -
#190 – Marcus “Sacrificing my freedom so others can get food, shelter, and clothes has always been a problem for me. If I can teach someone to fish, rather then to just give them a fish, I will have given them the skill to feed themselves.”

How does having skills help people get jobs that don’t exist? Many of these jobs do not exist because often corporations run by VERY wealthy people decide that providing work in a particular area does not give enough profit… Frankly, in today’s environment, that particular mantra does not always apply, anything but.

I also find it interesting that someone like Spock is prepared to sacrifice his own life if it means saving a primitive people and their world, who he knows nothing about, from destruction, and yet you bemoan a little loss of freedom. What loss of freedom? Be very sick and in debt, living in a trailer park and then you’ll discover what real loss of freedom means.

Over time I have come to observe something interesting in the way people see the past etc. It is a generalization, however what I have noticed is that it is generally far more males who harp back to the past (where the heroes were better, greater freedoms etc) than females. I am reminded of this when Marja made her comment about how things were in the good ol’ days when libertarianism or whatever it’s called was embraced by George Washington and the like. Males may fantasize about the good old days (which weren’t necessarily so great for many men either), whether they be 30/50/80/100 years ago, especially if they are descendants of wealthy landowners – However -

For the majority of women, life was pretty shitty, even for the wealthier ones and what’s more, women today know it…

Women’s own physiology has always meant that her life experience could be anything but fun for a good deal of the time…menstrual cramping (sometimes as painful as actual labour), too many pregnancies or no pregnancy, a 40% mortality rate from labour (higher for the babies) and little in the way of pain relieving medication and other medicine that could help mother and baby.
On top of this, she was denied a vote, not allowed to own property, even property she inherited became her husband’s, often denied (higher) education, not allowed to travel etc.(Actually this is still how it is for many women in the world today.)

Good old days – like Hell!…:(

304. Keachick - September 21, 2013

Ahmed – “I’m sorry but what plot ? Khan was found & used by Section 31 & then he put his own people in the torpedo to save them or whatever & the rest of the movie follow in the same illogical way.”

It was that comment of yours to Bob Orci that pissed me off as well. It was intellectually insulting in that the movie does have a plot. There has to be a plot otherwise the film would just be a selection of images, which STID was not. You made no effort to explain the main storyline of the movie as Bob Orci had asked. He wanted a summary in order to assess what you remembered and understood and what might have been missing and/or inaccurate. But you just continued to rant on how bad the film was, answering in a rude dismissive manner, which is what you have doing since…forever, or so it seems. This is why Bob Orci said “FUCK YOU”. Sometimes there can only be one response…

Bob clearly wrote later that this response was not his finest moment. He seemed quite apologetic about his reaction in his reply to a post of mine, even though I was not actually talking to him about the incident…oh dear, poor Bob…He also said he still loved us…

No, no one can make you do anything, but there are times when people can help make life and our responses to it not as we would really want, if/when we have time for further reflection.

305. James McFadden - September 21, 2013

we could start a 5-season TOS-based show called Star Trek in 2017, with a movie being released between each season. the same could be said about a 5-season 24th Century show called Next Generation.

306. Thomas - September 21, 2013

154. Rodriguez

Although I can see certain similarities between the two series, Assignment: Earth would still be a pretty different show. Gary Seven is not an alien, he’s a Human from the 20th century who was raised on an alien world. He also wouldn’t exactly travel across the universe, or travel through time on a regular. Although seeing as every Star Trek can’t seem to help but travel through time at least once or twice, I can see it happening in this show as well lol. However that would not be the premise of the entire show.

307. Smike - September 21, 2013

@300:

2016: Star Trek – Five Year Mission (ST:FYM)

- 13 episodes a season
- real sci-fi writers + producers who really care about the franchise (Frakes, Coto, Foster)
- ONE annual cinematic special realized for about 50 million is due to be released each Christmas season for a limited three-week run to kick off each seasin

308. Oscar - September 21, 2013

K-7, I quote for you:
«It bothers me that the author of a legitimate editorial article was demeaned by a much powerful person, by a principal Star Trek movie writer, with a kind of attempted humiliation that smacks intimidation…I simply can not imagine Trek principals of any earlier time responding as Orci did to such critique…No writers should be shamed as spoiled children , or told their ideas are worthless because they are not millionaire screenwriters»
(Soul of Star Trek)
New Star Trek series. CBS stuff is the original timeline. CBS business is original timeline. ST 2009 did not destroy original timeline because CBS did not want. Why? Yes, because its main trek business is the original timeline.
Original timeline background is the most important sci fi background ever. Original timeline merchandising works…and nu trek merchandasing, does not.
So, next trek tv series. Where? In original timeline.Business, background and tradition.

309. Gerry Alanguilan - September 21, 2013

I think the writers of a new Star Trek TV series should look forward rather than backward. What made the 60′s series so great, and to a certain extent, TNG, was that they both looked forward. They postulated new things, new ideas and new technology.

I mean, back in the 60′s things like the transporter, warp speed, communicators, etc, must have blown people’s minds. In the 80′s, the holodeck was like, holy crap, man, that’s awesome. Such technological “inventions” was one of the most interesting thing about the show because it inspired future scientists to come up with these things for real. And what do you know… a lot of these things are possible now. Thanks to Star Trek.

So yeah, when shows like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise came along, they were OK and interesting in their own right, but they didn’t really look forward. DS9 and Voyager pretty much stayed where TNG was. Enterprise downright looked backwards.

Even the movies, as awesome and incredible they are, also look backwards. We’ve seen all this stuff before. New incarnations of Star Trek have forgotten what made the 60′s show so mindblowing.

Future writers need to come up with a NEW future for us to dream about, new things to aspire to and new things to blow our minds with. As it is, I think the TREK universe is so limited and so shackled by conventions. Why can’t we leave this galaxy again? I mean, the Universe is much much much much much much much much much much much bigger than ONE galaxy. Voyager gets lost in another quadrant? BIG DEAL. That’s kiddie stuff. Let’s throw a ship to ANOTHER galaxy where everything is so completely different that it’s just whacked out.

REMEMBER? To Boldly Go Where No Human Has Gone Before?

All they need to do is keep that in mind. All the time. There’s a whole damned universe to explore out there. LET’S GO THERE!

310. g_trek - September 21, 2013

@16 Paul

I really lime your basic premise. Our country is at a cross roads. Perhaps our whole social order. There are fractions so deep and troubling that the idealusm of the Trek universe seems farther from reality than ever. These issues and potential solutions could be examu ed throught the allegory of scifi.

311. Kevin Beaney - September 21, 2013

A well-reasoned analysis except for one thing you don’t really mention. (I’ll admit to not reading the comments here; maybe it’s already been raised.) The real foundation for a successful series is EXCELLENT SCRIPTS. You need writers who may not be keyed into Start Trek lore and history, but must be able to craft drama with inside humor, moralistic lessons well coated with interesting characters and “plausible” situations.

312. gingerly - September 21, 2013

Hmm.

Yep. I said Khan was a bad idea.
I said, acquiescing to old fans who are afraid of change, was a bad idea.

…And it was.

You know what else I said?

…everything in this thread from 2010:

http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/25/roberto-orci-reveals-star-trek-sequel-tidbit-in-nyt-article-about-ipad/

And now Orci and co. have a hit show on their hands starring Nicole Beharie, in Sleepy Hollow.

(Thanks for listening guys! Glad it paid off. :)

So, I disagree with #2. Those concepts still need to be addressed, but in an evolved way, hence the success of Sleepy Hollow and that brilliant bit of verbal banter about female Lieutenants and emancipated slaves in the pilot.

Stop listening to Trekkies who are afraid of change.

Take risks, write great characters and involving stories and you’ll have a better Trek.
So, I’d add, bring in more diversity dramatic TV shouldn’t and isn’t a white boy angst club anymore.

313. K-7 - September 21, 2013

@301 “If you can try to see past the satire, which the ‘quality’ of is understandably not to everyone’s taste, it’s pretty obvious these guys watched the film and are clearly expressing their views on its respective strengths and weaknesses,…”

After hearing now that these movie reviewers have created a character to publicized reviews, that has raped, tortured and killed women for fun, etc. etc., how can I even began to trust their review of any movie?

Would I trust a movie review by Jeffry Dahmer (if he were still alive)? No, in fact, out of principle, I would’t even read his movie review.

Crewman Darnell, not only should you not trust this review for these reasons, you should be very ashamed of yourself fore being an “enabler” of this sick crap by defending it as you do.

314. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 21, 2013

“Would I trust a movie review by Jeffry Dahmer (if he were still alive)? No, in fact, out of principle, I would’t even read his movie review.”

Okay, this is just not even blurring the lines between fiction and reality. It sounds like the lines don’t even exist for you here.

1. Jeffery Dahmer is real. He really did abuse and murder people.

2. Mr. Plinkett is not real. He’s never actually done anything to anyone because he’s not real.

3. The Plinkett reviews, however, are real. Take or leave them as you may…

I’m sorry, but I just felt like there was a need for some clarity here…

315. K-7 - September 21, 2013

@314. Yes, OF COURSE.

Let me be more clear then.

I can’t trust any movie reviewer who thinks its funny to get his movie reviews out by using the character of a serial torturer and killer of women. In my opinion, there is something wrong mentally with a person would would do that, and I would therefore not trust “anything” that came from that person, nor would I enable that person “a living” by going to his web site ever again.

Are we clear now?

316. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 21, 2013

@#312 gingerly

Welcome back, gingerly.

“I said, acquiescing to old fans who are afraid of change, was a bad idea.

…And it was.”

Yes, it was…

“And now Orci and co. have a hit show on their hands starring Nicole Beharie, in Sleepy Hollow.

(Thanks for listening guys! Glad it paid off. :)”

You know, I did end up watching that, and as over-the-top crazy as it was it was also pretty good. I like the team they’ve assembled and the leads seem to work well together. I hope they can keep this one interesting.

And I hope they please don’t go the “Person of Interest route” by taking the great team they created and virtually tearing them apart halfway through the second season… After taking away Carter/Reese, I’ve now read that Fusco and Carter don’t even work together anymore and she’s getting a new partner. Wow…

Anyway, I digress. Maybe the next ST movie will work, maybe it won’t. I can only hope that it does. I’ll have to check out your link.

317. Ahmed - September 21, 2013

@ 312. gingerly – September 21, 2013

“And now Orci and co. have a hit show on their hands starring Nicole Beharie, in Sleepy Hollow.”

Sleep Hollow was a fun show & the fact that John Nobel will join the cast is a very welcome addition. I will make sure to watch the show simply to see the amazing Nobel again.

318. Eric Tan - September 21, 2013

Wow! 300+ lengthy comments, and counting!

I completely agree with your article, but I’d like you to address the fans that demand that Star Trek return to the way it was, i.e., the TNG years. I think TNG fans were denied closure because there wasn’t a TNG feature film that ended with a sendoff the way the TOS crew did with An Undiscovered Country. Well, after Nemesis, there was never going to be a sequel. In all honesty, all four of the TNG movies were mediocre at best, and they all felt like overlong TV episodes with slightly larger budgets, but with the same previously told story lines and jokes, with Data and Worf as comic relief, and yes, with nothing new in their stories.

Many of the so-called diehard Star Trek fans want Star Trek to be about exploration, discovery, meeting alien races and solving their problems, of a harmonious and peaceful future, which is what TNG was mostly about. So, I ask where is the drama? A story without conflict is no story. Characters can be fleshed out over a few weeks’ worth of TV episodes, but if all you have is a two-hour movie, there’s very little time to do that. Both Abrams’ movies have been able to show us some, but not lengthy, character development, especially with the two leads, Kirk and Spock. The TNG movies were only about Picard and Data, and they showed us nothing new about these characters, and of course, everyone else barely had anything to do. Perhaps they should have killed one, huh?

I’d like to point out that the most successful TOS movies, Khan and Undiscovered Country, were made by people who knew very little about Trek and were not even fans. They basically took good stories, drawn from sources like Shakespeare, Melville and other classics, and translated them to the Trek world. The story mattered and they succeeded. And they were not movies about exploration, discovery and a perfect future.

Obviously there are many faults and flaws with the two new(er) Trek films. No one is disputing that. Yet, in my opinion, both movies were successful as sci-fi action movies, that brought in the box office dollars and brought in new fans. The TNG movies all failed at that.

If a new Trek TV series were made today, and we all wish for this, it would need to be very different from what we’ve had before. It’d have to compete with some really good material airing on cable channels. And all the diehard vocal critics would still complain loudly and endlessly, cuz haters gotta hate, right?

319. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 21, 2013

@K-7

It’s interesting that you say this:

”@314. Yes, OF COURSE.
Let me be more clear then.
I can’t trust any movie reviewer who thinks its funny to get his movie reviews out by using the character of a serial torturer and killer of women. In my opinion, there is something wrong mentally with a person would would do that, and I would therefore not trust “anything” that came from that person, nor would I enable that person “a living” by going to his web site ever again.
Are we clear now?”

Because I remember you saying this earlier:

Post#239 “Actually the Pinkettt video is fairly accurate. Pinkett to me, in a broad sense, look’s and sounds just like several of the people here.
It’s an amazingly accurate video that does a tremendous job portraying the type of people who are such nitpickers and negative malcontents on nuTrek.
Red Letter Media really nailed perfectly those types of fans. That is the real point of this video. The video is so well done in calling out those types of fans.”

So which is it? Is Plinkett brilliant for “portraying” anyone that didn’t like STID as all of those things you describe above, or is he a movie reviewer you “can’t trust” for the reasons you state in the uppermost quote above?

It seems either way that you didn’t really do your research before you started making assumptions and using those assumptions to label people in what could be a hurtful and/or harmful way… You are free to do that, of course, but I think it is the epitome of bad form.

That to me is clear…

320. steve - September 21, 2013

Excellent article.

I’d like to address the statement that it’s “core concept doesn’t work anymore”. I’d like to argue against that, but unfortunately I can’t. I’d love to see a new Trek series go back to the original “morality play” concept, with allegories abounding. But I agree that it probably won’t work today.

Why? Because if people were paying attention, it’s already been tried, with “Caprica”. The format was genius; twelve worlds, with twelve distinctly different cultures, which could’ve been developed over multiple seasons and provided HUGE opportunities for allegorical story-telling. If people would’ve just thought about it, they would’ve realized that was more akin to the original Star Trek than any series since.

And, Caprica was building their stories out of issues that are just blazing hot in today’s world, issues around identity, privacy, technology, impact of automation on the world, religion/terrorism… In just one season, they’d set the stage for an absolute brilliant show.

AND… it failed. Even with a built-in BSG-based audience.

So I have to reluctantly and depressingly agree with the author that it just can’t be done with today’s audience. You just can’t make an SF show that smart anymore and get more than a million viewers.

321. Disinvited - September 21, 2013

#313. K-7 – September 21, 2013

Hmmm…You seemed to have declared “Plinkett is so much like the nuTrek hater crowd here. Plinkett is typical of the people who are these haters here on this site — that’s what I think a lot of these people are like.”

Before you had all the facts of what exactly you were trying to liken “the nuTrek hater crowd”.

What do you expect reasonable people to make of that?

322. Ahmed - September 21, 2013

Keachick,

Here is something for you :)

—————————-
Star Trek: How Chris Pine Made Us Believe He’s Kirk

“When actor Chris Pine was hired to play James T. Kirk in the J.J. Abrams Star Trek films, he knew he couldn’t simply do an impersonation of William Shatner; it would have come across as parody.

He had to find a way to capture the essence of Kirk without directly imitating the original actor. This was fairly easy in 2009′s “Star Trek” because he was playing a very young Kirk – something Shatner had never done.

But with “Star Trek Into Darkness,” Pine was required to take on the more familiar captain’s role, and he manages to make it his own.

Here’s a look at five moments when Pine’s performance made us say, “Oh yeah, that’s Kirk!””

http://whatculture.com/film/star-trek-how-chris-pine-made-us-believe-hes-kirk.php

—————————-
Number 4 is simply ridiculous, but who cares, it is a fun article :)

323. K-7 - September 21, 2013

@321.

I will confess that I thought the Pinkett was just some silly looking “grumpy-miserable-negative” type of guy giving a movie review before Beagle did some research and showed us that he likes his women dead and bloody. So no, I no longer think that he represents ANY segment of Trek fandom. Yes, I was wrong on that.

The comments about his character being a serial torturer and killer of women though are public record if you want to look them up yourself.

324. K-7 - September 21, 2013

@319. See my response above to Disinvited.

Yes, it was “bad form” of me. I cede this point to you.

“Cha-ching” for you in the Trek fan debate scorecard here.

325. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 21, 2013

It’s not about keeping score, K-7. Although, if it were, I’d point out that Beagle seemingly only did his “research” after I pointed those things out in (now) post 262.

Thank you for agreeing that this wasn’t the neither the best nor accurate comparison to make about people that are critical of STID.

That, I can appreciate.

326. Spock/Uhura Admirer - September 21, 2013

I meant to put “was neither…” but you get the gist. ;-)

327. K-7 - September 21, 2013

The way the Intenet is going, it is only a matter of time before some 20 year old becomes “famous” for having a cartoon Osama Bin Laded read his material on a web site. :-(

328. K-7 - September 21, 2013

“Laden”

329. Keachick - September 21, 2013

Thank you, Ahmed, for the link to that article. I have actually read it, but it is good that it is here on this site now.

330. Russell T. - September 21, 2013

I have a great idea for a series! Who does one talk to? Where do you start?

331. miketen - September 21, 2013

This article is perfect and should be e-mailed to the powers that be at CBS/Paramount.
All the channels on TV there has to be some room for new Trek, especially with a shortened season. I always thought the seasons were too long and the writers had to struggle to come up with good stories.

332. Dennis Bailey - September 21, 2013

Aside from the inane observation about “Captain Sulu,” this article is pretty damned good.

They don’t need an “insider” producer. They just need one of the producers to really knows and love Star Trek.

333. P Technobabble - September 21, 2013

If we look at some of tv’s longest running shows and try to find out what made them successful, we MIGHT come up with a way to make Star Trek a successful tv series. Problem is most of the longest running shows, in general, have been news programs, game shows, info shows, some kids’ shows, soap operas, comedies, cop shows, sports programs, talk shows… not much sci-fi in there at all. Must be a reason for that. Could it be that the majority of the typical, tv-watching public is not all that interested in sci-fi dramas?
I am a great fan of the Star Trek Universe, but I don’t think a new Star Trek series on CBS would last more than 2 or 3 seasons — if that — nevermind become a major hit. And isn’t that what the network is going to expect to happen before it puts any real energy into it? It might do better as a limited run thing, or it might do better on cable. I still think a new series is in for a rough ride. Just my 2 cents.

334. Marja - September 21, 2013

303 Keachick, Thanks for adding some facts and opinions. I can’t tell you how insulting it is to be told I ought to “learn to fish” – especially since I was probably “fishing” / making a living when the poster was still in nappies. I share your opinion that many of these fantasists are not only middle-aged white males, but also imagine that many of them are younger, prosperous due to their choice of profession, or confidently dream of making millions.

I love the “dream” of Star Trek b/c people are honored with the basic needs of life so they can make intellectual and artistic contributions to their society. Isn’t that what a great society is? And by the way, Libertarians et. al., I’m sure the Federation would grant such Freedom-Seekers their own entrepeneurial world where they could thrive – or not – to their greater good, freedom, or peril. Perhaps such people would demand the Federation put the Prime Directive prohibition on helping them should they sink while trying to “fish,” when they’re too crippled or too old to work, etc.

Oh, but wait, that would be too cruel and selfish for the Federation.
================================

333 Technobabble, TNG was on-air for 7 years on a syndicated network. X-Files went about that long [maybe a little too long] on Fox.

Star Trek doesn’t belong on a network – networks not only want to make pots and pots of money, they demand it happen within weeks, which is impossible when a show is finding its audience. “Firefly” is a heartbreaking example – after 13 episodes it got cancelled because their devoted audience was not large enough. They probably would have hugely increased their numbers by the second year through word of mouth, but nope, pull the plug, it’s not rakin’ in a fortune.

Star Trek would find a wonderful home on NetFlix. I think Dorothy Fontana, Ronald D. Moore and some excellent Sci-Fi “guest” writers would make a new Star Trek fantastic. If the writing is great, there is no need to invest a huge amount in special FX, and they wouldn’t need to reinvent the wheel anyway if Paramount and CBS could agree; they could use the FX protocols created for the movies. And oh, I WISH, the cast from the movies. Even 10 eps a year would make me SO happy.

335. dswynne1 - September 21, 2013

@303 (Keachick): The problem is that you’re looking at America from a New Zealand POV, so I doubt you’ll understand what Marcus is getting at. In your worldview, you and others like you feel that it is the government’s responsibility to provide, rather than the local community to enable. This is what is confounding when American “liberals” and foreigners do not understand the meaning of American exceptionalism which is defined as this expression: “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere”. In fact, theme of “Star Trek” grew out of the idealism of JFK’s “New Frontier” philosophy concerning the space program, when, in a speech, Kennedy pushed for a moon landing within ten years, regardless of the politics and cost of doing so. Fast forward to the present, you have presidential administrations no longer believing in having a robust space administration, preferring to focus on pet projects (Bush with the “War on Terror”, while Obama is engage in wealth distribution politics) that are purposely playing to the base of the political parties constituents. Only in the private sector and academia are there any real development in space-centric science and technology, which is explains why the “Star Trek” franchise has been reduced to pop-culture status, simply because the leadership of the United States doesn’t think it is worthwhile to rigorously pursue. Hence, we have entered a post-American world where the leadership and politicians, reduced to partisanism, doesn’t believe in the philosophy of exceptionalism. Marcus is only saying that it is not the responsibility of the government to provide, only that the government provides the opportunity for society to determine its own priority without the fear of heavy-handed meddling, such as taxation and regulations. Sadly, as long as the politicians continue to believe that it people can’t make it on their own without the paternalistic nature of “Big Government”, no one will be able to say that American exceptionalism is still alive and well in the USA.

By the way, as an aside, small business produce the most jobs, not corporations, but feel the most from policies concerning regulations and taxation. So don’t blame the corporations for being profitable; blame the politicians that don’t allow small business from being profitable enterprises as well.

336. dswynne1 - September 21, 2013

@334 (Marja): Ergo, you embrace “Social Humanism”, the philosophy of Gene Roddenberry. And that is fine, but be aware that not everyone needs or desires the government to take care of his or her needs, or be told how to think and conduct themselves in their lives.

337. Ahmed - September 21, 2013

@334. Marja

“And oh, I WISH, the cast from the movies. Even 10 eps a year would make me SO happy.”

With the exception of Chris Pine & Zoe Saldana, everybody else is working on some TV show these days:

Zachary Quinto (American Horror Story)
Karl Urban (Almost Human)
John Cho (Sleepy Hollow)
Simon Pegg (Mob City)
Anton Yelchin (The Life & Times of Tim)

But it is very unlikely that the actors will actually want to do a Trek TV show.

338. Curious Cadet - September 21, 2013

@333. P Technobabble,
“If we look at some of tv’s longest running shows and try to find out what made them successful, we MIGHT come up with a way to make Star Trek a successful tv series. Problem is most of the longest running shows, in general… not much sci-fi in there at all.”

With all due respect, every studio and network out there most likely look at the longest running shows on TV in an attempt to repeat their success. But doing that is a sure fire recipe for disaster. Just like trying to give the audience what it asks for, rather than surprising it with something unexpected and original.

As for long running shows, Stargate SG-1 is quite likely the longest running American SciFi show. It ran 10 seasons, longer than any incarnation of Star Trek. The only reason it was cancelled was because it had become to expensive to produce after 10 seasons, the common reason behind the demise of most successful series. Dr. Who of course wins the prize at over 26 seasons, not including the current 7 of the reboot after a 15 year absence. So there are your sci-fi models.

But TV goes through cycles. Gunsmoke ran for 20 years, and was previously the longest running US scripted series until the Simpsons came along and bested it. But you don’t see too many westerns on TV today. So I don’t know what that gets you. The things that made Gunsmoke successful aren’t likely to help with a modern TV series. Likewise for Stargate SG-1. These things are like gossamer, you can’t hope to take them apart and pattern a new series after them based on their structure and expect it to be as successful. What makes them successful is tapping an audiences collective interest, with a compelling cast, riveting stories, and establishing itself in popular culture during its run. No one can formulate what those things will be, or whether they will persist beyond the initial interest. The best they can do is produce good concepts that they themselves are passionate about in the hopes it will spark similar passions in their audiences.

Likewise with Star Trek. Stop second guessing what the fans want, and develop a good concept they are passionate about and offer it.

339. P Technobabble - September 21, 2013

334. Marja
I remember it being rather groundbreaking when TNG was released in first-run syndication. Unfortunately, it looks like the only shows in first-run syndication these days are shows like Judge Judy or Entertainment Tonight. etc.
I totally agree with you about “Firefly,” which I thought was terrific. It is the perfect example of a show that needed some time to grow an audience. It seems the downfall of things is the result of greed. Ratings are low? Ok, show’s over.
I think Star Trek could work outside the box — like putting it on Netflix would be good PR and getting people like DC Fontana, Ron Moore, etc. on board would be icing on the cake. It would certainly draw in the fan base. I don’t know how many viewers it would take for Netflix to say “the show is a hit,” but the original programming it has put out seems to be standing up to conventional network programming just fine — 14 Emmy nominations ain’t bad.
I’d love to see Star Trek come back to tv… Hate to think about how long it might not be around though…

340. Marja - September 21, 2013

335 dswynne, ” In fact, theme of “Star Trek” grew out of the idealism of JFK’s “New Frontier” philosophy concerning the space program, when, in a speech, Kennedy pushed for a moon landing within ten years, regardless of the politics and cost of doing so.”

But you can bet libertarians would kick and scream about any taxes needed to support the likes of NASA.

“[If] people can’t make it on their own without the paternalistic nature of “Big Government”, no one will be able to say that American exceptionalism is still alive and well in the USA.”

Y’know, I don’t give a rat’s ass about “American Exceptionalism” if it means what you folks propose. Again I say, what of people who can’t make it on their own? What do you propose for them? These are the elderly, the poor who have little access to healthy diet [and therefore healthy brain development], the disabled? Do you propose that they pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Honestly, what do you propose?

“Small Business” is the catchphrase many conservatives use to make people think that that’s who needs the huge tax breaks. Small businesses. But large corporations benefit the most from “government welfare.” As long as they can buy the votes of congress, they’ve got it made. Thanks a lot, conservative Supreme Court, for your gutsy decision in “Citizens United.” At least the blinders are off now, and we know the only people who are going to succeed in the US are the rich [who are comprised mostly of those who've inherited wealth, not earned it themselves].

What local community is going to “enable” aged retirees and others, and to do what? We have a conservative legislature in my state that cuts child health initiatives for cripesake. What’s to gain from having children die from dental infections? What’s to gain from having people die of simple illnesses that could have been prevented by accessible, inexpensive healthcare? Oh! I know! Killing off the “useless” am I right?

As for the rest of us [who can no longer "make it" according to your lights] I guess, in spite of loyally working for our government, military or businesses for decades, our contributions no longer matter now that our service is finished.

Oh, by the way, when you call the police, they come, right? If your house is on fire, the fire department comes to extinguish the blaze, right? In your society this wouldn’t happen. No taxes, no public services. For anybody.

I cannot say enough how selfish “you and others like you” sound. You fail to understand or display basic compassion. Elderly people? Disabled people? Kids in poverty? What use are they?

IRT your 336, “be aware that not everyone needs or desires the government to take care of his or her needs, or be told how to think and conduct themselves in their lives.”

Fine. Please go where you won’t have a government, think for yourself how to set up your society, conduct yourselves as you please. Don’t stay here and make life a complete misery for those who are not like you. Rebel, create your own nation-state somewhere outside the US.
=========================================================

337 Ahmed, You have a great point, and actually they might commit to a “short season” [say 10-ep] Star Trek a la Game of Thrones, but on Netflix … Quinto’s not in the 3rd season of AHS. As for Pine and Saldana, nothing’s to prevent Capt Kirk or Lt Uhura from going on temporary assigned duty and coming back in episode 3 or 5 or whatever. It wouldn’t be a year-long commitment and would keep them free enough to do movies or stage drama.

338 Curious, I say put Dorothy Fontana, Ronald Moore, Bob Orci, two popular SciFi authors and Vince Gilligan in a room and see what kinda Star Trek they could come up with : )

341. P Technobabble - September 21, 2013

338. Curious Cadet
You’re right, I’m sure networks, producers, and so forth analyze successful shows and probably make plenty of pitches like “It’s 60 Minutes meets MASH.” I think we see a lot of tv programming — or even movies — that are alike because they’re all trying to follow some formula, hoping lightning will strike twice.
But one of the things you mention: “Stop second guessing what the fans want, and develop a good concept they are passionate about and offer it,” I have to wonder about this, from the point of view that developing a “good” concept is such a vague and broad thing. It would seem to me that no creative person would develop something they weren’t passionate about, but there’s no way to know whether it’s any “good,” whether taking the fans into account or not. I guess if someone puts out a new Trek series we will get what we get and let the cards fall where they may. I imagine if I ever (in my wildest fantasies) were given the opportunity to develop a new Star Trek show I would be terrified beyond my wildest fantasies. I almost pity the (potential) producers of a (potential) new Star Trek show. What do you think?

342. Keachick - September 21, 2013

#335 – “In your worldview, you and others like you feel that it is the government’s responsibility to provide, rather than the local community to enable.”

No, you are wrong. It is more a view of providing a proper safety net whereby nobody goes without the basics of life, especially when they cannot provide for such themselves. What does the local community enable mean? The government is supposed to be made up of various individuals representing ordinary people and who are themselves also part of a family and community.

Most NZers work and provide for themselves and their families and have always done so. However, there are some things that, as a people belonging to a community and as a matter of conscience, most cannot abide seeing – like poor or sick people having no access to adequate housing, medical care or education. These were the realities that prompted the NZ Government 80 years ago to set up the kind of socialist style democracy we have today. The reality is that, for the most part, it has worked very well, and can still work, with vision, faith and hard work. This is where a fair taxation system comes in. One can argue over whether there is too much tax taken or too little, but the majority of NZers believe that taxation is a good thing if they see it being put to good use.

Each time a family member, a neighbour, a co-worker, a stranger gets the medical care they need at any public free-at-entry hospital (patients are not billed), whether it is for observation or for major life-saving surgery, we see everyone’s tax dollars at work and I have always felt very proud to have been able to work to support myself and pay such tax.

NZ faces many of the same problems re employment, or lack of, as do other countries like the US. Small businesses here have it tough because of competition from larger businesses, many of them multinational corporations. The taxation anomaly that self-employed people face is something else again and the arguments are ongoing.

Nothing is perfect, just as Star Trek’s 23/24th centuries are not perfect. However, they do provide an ideal, something to aim for.

Despite all of this or perhaps because of this, we have WETA! WETA is NOT a state-owned enterprise. It is a private business and always has been.

* Various government programmes and financial assistance are available for people who need them but people must apply for them and meet certain criteria as per eligibility. Nobody can force anyone to apply for any assistance if they do not want it. I know – my parents refused to apply for such assistance, despite their desperate circumstances. The GP did all he could to persuade them…my father then had a second heart attack and only then did he accept the genuine charity of good people via the form of a sickness benefit…in 1982.

343. Marcus - September 21, 2013

341. Keachick,
Look up the word: Existentialism.

Once you understand the word existentialism, you will realize the reality of your situation.

Government mandates do not equal up to personal freedom. You either believe in freewill or you don’t. When you put government mandates onto another person, you take an individual’s rights to choose.

You cannot believe in existentialism and government mandates at the same time. They contradict each other.

344. Keachick - September 22, 2013

Please do not even attempt to explain the reality of my situation.

Freewill, however you might define it, is conditional – it is not a matter of belief. It is a REALITY.

Existentialism – “n. a philosophical theory emphasizing the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining his or her own development.” Concise Oxford Dictionary

In our actual REALITY, certain NZ Government mandates that allow for medical care be provided for my husband’s chronic pain problems actually help safeguard his freewill, to the extent that he is able to use it, given that the condition that is outside most of his control. I do not define being able to exercise freewill as being in so much uncontrollable and unexplainable pain that he has often considered suicide his only option. That is NOT freewill.

How dare you talk about freewill and existentialist rubbish to me!!!

I am all too aware of the level of our individual freedoms and responsibilities.

345. Jackson Bushrod - September 22, 2013

Abrams filmed his Trek movies no differently than he did the Transformer movies–camera shake, pieces flying off of the ships like they were made of scrap metal, and non-stop action sequences. This is probably considered entertainment for the younger crowd, but Trek originally was more about the story than the visuals. He assembled a good group of actors, but they were caricatures. Bruce Greenwood did wonderful work portraying Pike, but this was the exception. STID was entertaining, but the plot was subordinate to the visuals. That, IMO, is the basis for much of the negative commentary regarding the movie. I look forward to seeing Abrams’ version of Star Wars.

346. Marcus - September 22, 2013

344. Keachick,
Humanistic-Existentialism – is a philosophical movement that emphasizes that we are free, painfully free, to make our own choices and imbue our lives with a sense of meaning and purpose.

———-

Reality: We all have external and internal elements, which influence how be behave in the world. Governments, physical, religious organizations, parents, etc… As I was trying to say in my post, we do not actually have 100% freewill. …and, that is the source of our pain.

Why would I want to live in a future, which humanity substitutes one social construct for another? Starfleet is just another construct, which puts restrictions on one’s freewill. Why would an evolved human species want to do such a thing?

347. Curious Cadet - September 22, 2013

@341. P Technobabble,
“I almost pity the (potential) producers of a (potential) new Star Trek show. What do you think?”

Yup. To a point. Obviously from a creative perspective they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t, and any professional knows that going in; which is why any professional who snaps at the fans is surprising. But here’s the thing, these guys are paid astronomical amounts of money to do what they do, between the initial salary and subsequent royalties. You give them the benefit of the doubt that they are passionate about the shows they produce, but perhaps they are merely passionate about the prospect of the millions of dollars they will earn. Many creative individuals in Hollywood don’t have a choice of what they work on, other than the choice of not working at all. While Orci may or may not necessarily fall into this category, if a franchise with the potential of Star Trek is offered up to a writer or producer, it would be pretty hard for someone not to try and make a go of it, even if they were bereft of ideas for it.

And that’s where the problem starts in TV, the desire to keep the money rolling in. I think of Berman and Braga pandering to the fans in what was seemingly a desperate effort to keep the money tree green and growing. They did what the studio wanted, they did what the fans wanted, but what did they actually fight for? The status quo? They certainly didn’t try to push the envelope, instead falling back on other successful tropes from earlier in the franchise. But no matter how low the ratings dropped, the money kept rolling in, like some kind of corporate golden-parachute. And it’s still rolling in, every Blu-ray that sells. And it’s so much money, you can’t even imagine, how much money, nor the effect it has on these people and their morals and their ethics, much less their perspective. What wouldn’t they say or do to make sure that money doesn’t stop rolling in …?

348. Ahmed - September 22, 2013

@346. Marcus

“Starfleet is just another construct, which puts restrictions on one’s freewill.”

In what way Starfleet is doing that ?

349. Schinzon's Lover - September 22, 2013

This article lost me when it referred to RDM as a “demi-god” and that a Captain Sulu series would have been more successful than Enterprise (spoiler: it wouldn’t).

350. Dswynne - September 22, 2013

@342 (Keachick): First you say ‘no’, and then you say that it is society’s moral imperative to provide a basic social safety net to the less unfortunate. You can only do that by empowering a centralize authority, an idea that has always been at odds with American exceptionalism. At least, until now…

But I won’t continue this line of thought because we’re veering away from ‘Star Trek’. I thank you for your input, and I hope that we can discuss things, on various topics in the future.

351. Marcus - September 22, 2013

Analytical thinking is a hard concept for many people, for they never had an opportunity to develop such a skill. Around the age of eighteen to nineteen, the human brain completes its development cycle. During this period of time, the brain must be trained to think abstractly. If an individual does not get the necessary training, the ability to think analytically remains dormant. Adults can go a whole lifetime without developing or being aware of such a skill.

When I was talking about existentialism, I made the false assumption that everyone here could think abstractly. I apologize for introducing a tough and complex subject matter, which would require individuals to think ‘outside of the box’.

Someone dropped the definition of existentialism as a reply; however, they never dag into the concept to see it had multiple sides. Existentialism has roots in art, philosophy, and, as of a few years ago, psychology. Each person within the field of study has their own interpretation of existentialism. Its the same thing with every other scientific study Multiple angles of the same concept.

352. Keachick - September 22, 2013

Actually the concept of Existentialism has its roots in Buddhism, or at least, some people’s misunderstanding of some aspects of Buddhist philosophy.

In some way this discussion has everything to do with Star Trek and our understanding of what Gene Roddenberry had been trying to get at when he made the series existing in a more “utopia” like society.

I am quite capable of thinking and discussing the abstract and have successfully done so with people whose IQs were AT LEAST 150 (average IQ – 90-110). In fact, I suspect I have become a little rusty over time, but I am sure I could reacquaint myself with such abilities quite quickly.

It is also a matter of what I deemed worthy of further analysis and discussion and what I deem not worthy. Frankly, if I may so frank,

“Why would I want to live in a future, which humanity substitutes one social construct for another? Starfleet is just another construct, which puts restrictions on one’s freewill. Why would an evolved human species want to do such a thing?”

This is crap and represents the most fundamental and egregious misunderstanding of what it means to have freewill and be a free spirit.

353. Mr. X - September 22, 2013

I already have written a 7 seasons series on the Star Trek universe.
I have shown the scripts to my friends, and all said: It’s amazing!
All new stories that I am prodded to be the owner, the problem is that I am not living in USA.
The point is, There are a lot of new stories that can be tell, a lot more.

354. Keachick - September 22, 2013

I guess my response to Marcus’s post at #351 is still awaiting moderation. Hopefully, despite the use of the word “c*ap”, it will turn up here.

“Thinking outside of the box” has got me into trouble sometimes and confused others. The view that you and others are expressing here are not new to me – anything but. I have heard it (and read it) in the late 70s and early 80′s and intuited it then to be nonsense and rather unkind at that. Another little catchphrase that comes to mind is “enlightened self-interest” spoken by people who simply used that fancy term to disguise the reality that they were greedy, self-centered SOBs. People argued with me, but sadly, later they found out that what I had already intuited was pretty much a reality.

I have been intuiting stuff (I guess they would be called abstract ideas) since I was 16…sort of my cross and *salvation*

355. Bill Peters - September 22, 2013

Marcus I do find some of your posts Interesting, Yet I think It is well pointed out in Omega Glory and few other Episodes that the Constitution of the United States is Foundation of the Federation Planets and Starfleets Rights and liberties in it Governing laws.

As for Critical Thinking Skills bit you bring up in #351, I don’t think people here lack Critical thinking skills here, it is just that they disagree with you’re point of view.

356. Destructor1701 - September 22, 2013

I agree wholeheartedly with nearly everything you say in this article, with the exceptions of:

1) Jane Espenson: NNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! She took over the writers’ room from Ronald D. Moore in the third season of Galactica… remind me when that show turned to crud? Oh yeah. Third season. THEN she ran Caprica… need I say more?

2) No more stories to tell: Of course there are. You point this out yourself in the article, but let me put it differently:
- Make Star Trek the science lesson it felt like in the TNG days. Stargate Universe managed to throw in some awesome science, and have it dictate plot: Aero-breaking in a Gas Giant’s atmosphere, syncing the ship’s rotation with that of a derelict spacecraft. It can be done, you don’t have to constantly dumb things down for your audience!
- Depict *alien* aliens. The budget for VFX in modern shows stretches a hell of a lot further than it used to. Explore beyond the territory seeded by the ancient humanoids, tell stories about overcoming seemingly insurmountable communications issues.
- Show us people in the Galaxy who aren’t starship crew, who aren’t military. Delve more into the richness of the universe’s underbelly.

357. Marja - September 22, 2013

Marcus, “Reality: We all have external and internal elements, which influence how be behave in the world. Governments, physical, religious organizations, parents, etc… As I was trying to say in my post, we do not actually have 100% freewill. …and, that is the source of our pain.

“Why would I want to live in a future, which humanity substitutes one social construct for another? Starfleet is just another construct, which puts restrictions on one’s freewill. Why would an evolved human species want to do such a thing?”

Okay, I am still puzzled as to how you became a Star Trek fan.

Not having free will may be the source of your pain, sir, but it is not the source of mine. Again, you are always free to leave this country and found your own society which will – surprise! – necessitate rules for the common good.

The military puts restrictions on one’s free will. This is for the good of the group.

The government puts restrictions on free will too. This is why murderers, embezzlers and thieves are arrested and jailed. Interestingly, though, the murders, embezzlers and thieves with lots of money often escape conviction. Just look at the high-powered bankers who ripped off the taxpayers and used TARP to feather their own nests.

But, back to Trek:
How in the world would you even manage to build a starship and crew it, in a world where there is complete free will? Oh, wait, through private “enterprise,” correct? Is this your view? In order to keep costs low, safety may be compromised. Workers would be poorly paid and dismissed when they didn’t live up to the private business owners’ standards – which might well be, shut up and do as you’re told, and stop complaining about safety issues.

I think it would be great, as I said previously, if all the Libertarian and Free Will types lived on one planet, founded and ran their own society, found a way to keep it going, and didn’t expect rescue from the big bad government if failure came into the picture.

Meanwhile, leave the rest of us [or the Federation] to advance our own society.

I notice that for every concrete example or scenario I bring up, all you’ve done is invoke concepts and abstractions. I have never heard a Libertarian answer specifics with specifics.

Because their specifics are too cruel and too Spartan.

By the way, I can be analytical as well. However when I talk sociopolitics I tend to think in real-world terms; I think of possible impacts of certain actions. You think of possible impacts but your thinking seems so abstract as to counteract any involvement with actual people and society. Your patronizing tone is yet another example of a Libertarian viewpoint. These unenlightened socialists will be the ruin of us, and so on.

Theories are fine but they don’t put food on your family, as “W” so memorably said.

And theories are easily spouted by those who don’t face the day-to-day reality of merely surviving.

And – surprise! – What did George Washington want after Shay’s Rebellion? A stronger central government.

358. Marja - September 22, 2013

350 DSWynn, I believe you made an earlier reference to “American Exceptionalism” which led to the space program.

NASA would never have existed without the American tax structure.

Unfortunately it has bit the big one because of uncalled-for military adventures in Iraq and elsewhere. What the US Government spent in Iraq in a month probably could have funded NASA for years.

359. Marja - September 22, 2013

347 Curious, The problem of keeping the money rolling in has certainly dogged the two Star Trek movies. Paramount likes their cash cows as much as CBS does.

360. cd - September 22, 2013

” I believe that much of the anger toward STID has nothing to do with the film: fans are angry because they have to wait four years to see a new movie when what they really want is new episodes every week.”
Fans are angry they have to wait four years to see a new movie and it’s crap.
>;>}

361. Lemingsworth Bint - September 22, 2013

The critics are loving Sleepy Hollow. Maybe Orci/Kurtzman could get it back on tv.

Seems like a longshot, though.

362. Christopher Roberts - September 23, 2013

I prefer Star Trek Enterprise’s Augment three-parter to Into Darkness.

363. Baxter - September 23, 2013

NICE

364. TUP - September 23, 2013

I just engaged in a lengthy debate with a buddy about this very issue.

He believes strongly you must go 70-100 years beyond the TNG timeframe. I believe that would never work. Here’s why:

TNG worked because it was original. The “next generation” aspect spoke both to the idea that it was 70 years after TOS but also that there was now a new generation of Trek fans. It updated the SFX and technology in a reasonable manner.

But going another 100 years into the future would dis-associate it from the present day far too much. It would become science fantasy rather than science fiction. It would not be relatable.

TV has to ask itself some important questions:

- Which universe will it take place in? (Prime vs JJ’s)

- What time frame will it take place in?

- How do you appeal to the core demo (Trekies) while making it accessible to the science fiction fanbase AND appeal to casual or former Trek fans?

All very difficult questions.

365. Blue Thunder - September 23, 2013

Like THX-1138 stated. An excellent and well-written article that certainly hit the nail on the head, concerning key issues and matters that have plagued Star Trek since it’s near death in 2005.

Paramount should have gone with a Star Trek series about Captain Hikaru Sulu and the heroic crew of the U.S.S. Excelsior. That would have been more entertaining and watchable than the garbage known as Rick Berman’s portion of TNG, DS9(a Babylon 5 rip-off), Voyager, and Enterprise. Let alone the internet road apples(i.e. HS)that is Starship Farragut and Star Trek Continues.

If Paramount had gone through with Star Trek-Excelsior, it would have also dealt with the social and political issues of the ‘gloomier ’90′s’ and quite possibly the first decade of the 21st Century, itself.

Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Ronald D.Moore(he is NO demi-God by any stretch of the imagination), and the old guard at Paramount could have pursued something that would have kept Star Trek going full steam.

It’s funny how incompetence, mishandling of certain matters, one of the seven deadly sins, and inept, fatous, and inane mentalities can cloud a person or person(s)better judgement. Let alone how that can foolishness can spill over into fandom when making fan films and how to go about their productions.

Right John, Michael, Dennis, and Vic?

I thought as much.

366. Ensign RedShirt - September 23, 2013

@ Blue Thunder

A weekly Sulu series wouldn’t have worked, maybe a yearly tv movie. I love George, but as his appearance on Voyager demonstrated, he doesn’t have the chops to carry a series on his own.

Star Trek didn’t need another series after Voyager – it needed a rest.

367. Basement Blogger - September 23, 2013

Here’s what Anthony Pascale, the founder of this site has to say about whether Star Trek should be on TV.

“I do believe that Star Trek is at its best on TV, a medium that allows for more complex storytelling and character development. I also believe that eventually CBS will start considering a new Star Trek TV series, likely after Paramount has made three JJ Abrams Star Trek movies. ”

http://trekmovie.com/2011/04/16/exclusive-details-excerpts-from-star-trek-federation-series-proposal/

I totally agree with Anthony. Star Trek belongs on TV. It can be difficult to develop ideas in a two hour movie. TV allows a more mature type of storytelling.

P.S. Anthony we miss you. I hope you’re well and will come back soon. Live Long and Prosper.

368. Marja - September 23, 2013

364 TUP, I feel the same way, thus, my protest about any new Trek series taking place in the TOS verse.

Well, I also protest b/c I love this new team of actors ….

365 Blue Thunder, I thought Trek was nearest death from 1969-1979 … and TMP didn’t do a lot to revive it, except in the TechieTrekkies’ hearts ; )

But much as I love George, I don’t think a Sulu series would have flown.

366 Ens Redshirt, I liked Enterprise, though I did not see it while it was on TV [I don't have a TV for several reasons]; I saw it online.

No disrespect to the cast of Voyager; they did a good job with the material presented to them, but the technobabble and artificial deadline suspense got old in the first two seasons. I didn’t watch much of that one.

367 Bernie, yet I hope that Paramount/Bad Robot will discuss the rights to the AU for any new TV series.

Ten-twelve Eps/Year … This cast … Year-long story subplot arc with 2-3 ep arcs for shorter stories … on Netflix, hungry for material and low-cost for viewers.

369. steve davidson - September 24, 2013

Wow, you certainly generated a lot of thought on the subject. So much so that my desire to comment outweighed my desires to read each and every comment, so if I hit some points others have already touched on – sorry.

I disagree entirely that fan upset is due to the wait between films. I think it is because the current films have completely abandoned Star Trek itself. The first reboot received acceptance because – “NEW TREK!” and JJ’s ways with film managed a good job of obscuring that fact. By the time STID arrived, folks had had a chance to really think about things and came to the realization that the new Trek was not Trek – it was super heroes in outerspace.

The whole point of Trek (among many) was – people in space. US in space. Real people with real people issues – not super-humans who can defy logic and physics when the need arises.

When you remove the people-oriented issues that Trek was brilliant at exploring, it may have Trek trappings, but you’ve gutted the core of the franchise.

So far as a new TV show is concerned? Two points. Now more than ever we need a show that goes right back to the roots and examines racism and sexism and all of the other isms, one-step removed (as in SF setting, outer space in the future) because we’re not done with those issues and we desperately need some more re-examining.

But to go with your theme – I’ve always advocated the mirror universe as the place for the next television show to go, and it fits perfectly with your description of “modern” television: “The best TV shows of the last 10-years are all about a damaged male protagonist who survives in an unfair world by making decisions that are mostly immoral, but entirely understandable”

We shove one normal, decent person (Kirk) into a universe filled with damaged male (and female) protagonists trying to survive in an unfair world, forced to make mostly immoral decisions. Reverse the view.

And the aggressiveness of the mirror universe provides all the scope and options anyone will ever need to justify a brawl or space battle of the week.

370. TUP - September 24, 2013

Here’s what I think:

- Sulu series? Give me a break. George is, was and always will be a supporting actor AT BEST. Sulu was great in Star Trek VI and terrible in VOY, showing that a shorter taping schedule, lesser director etc meant a far less effective actor. And what a boring crew with some bad actors.

Excelsior likely had enough name value to carry a non-Enterprise series though and thus, an Enterprise B series might have worked which would have allowed guest appearances from the TOS originals (including Sulu). Generations was awful but the best part was the opening and it perfectly set up a series. An inexperienced Captain, now dealing with the guilt of killing James T Kirk? I wrote some fan fiction after that movie that included Chekov being forced out of retirement and assigned to the EB as first officer to “baby sit” Harrimen.

- a TV series would likely have to take place in the Prime Universe unless Paramount re-ups with Bad Robot for several more movies. If you’re going to have TV in tghe JJ-verse, then you have to have JJ’s team. But Im not sure people will care enough about what they have already seen.

- Enterprise could have been tremendous. it *was* a good idea with the worst possible execution. Its easy for Berman et al in hindsight to blame the studio by saying they (Berman) wanted to be Earth-bound for the entire first season but the network wouldnt allow it but you have to fight for your vision.

Creatively Berman et al just didnt have anything left in the tank by the time they did Enterprise. The ship looked wrong, the tech was wrong, the canon was wrong. It only started getting right in the last season.

One idea I’ve kicked around is a Temporal Investigations show. It might be too high concept for the masses but it would allow story arcs that visit multiple time frames and potentially involve various guest starts.

371. Starshipcaptain - September 24, 2013

ST:3000.

Intergalactic Enterprise I… Problems of the Milky Way are solved… Exploration of new galaxies leads to unimaginable creatures/planets/stories where everything we know about the trek universe is turned on it’s head! That’s a show I’d like to see! Could even throw in a few more ships for security… A halaship. Give it a battlestar galactica feel crossed with stargate universe mission but make it the trek we love to tune into week after week!

372. TUP - September 24, 2013

The thing that makes Trek work in my opinion is it is us…we can identify with it. It’s not 1000 years in the future. It’s not crazy science fantasy. You can see how todays tech evolved into TOS and TNG etc. The characters are still human with all the faults and promise of humanity.

That must be kept intact.

373. David Greybeard - September 24, 2013

You’ve all to easily tossed out the idea of socially relevant episodes of Star Trek. There will always be social issues to push against. ST has yet to have gay characters. It needs to address all of those issues that that entails.

374. TUP - September 24, 2013

Im not sure how they would do a gay episode without seeming like its a gay episode. I’d rather they just have characters who are “with” same sex partners without it seeming like a big deal. While it’s the human rights issue of our time, its something Trek has dealt with years ago in both TNG and DS9.

DS9 in particular played it well as no character even batted an eye when Dax and the woman had a fling. Not to mention Mirror Kira being a vampy lesbot.

375. Starshipcaptain - September 24, 2013

@372… Set that far in the future gives it a “fresh start”… Ronulan, Klingon, Borg, Breen, Cardasian etc. crew members facing fresh faces with relevant human issues and characters to explore and discuss. Agreed, the characters make it work, but if you dismiss the “cool” Sci-fi factor of the show, you miss what many people find exciting about trek.

376. Cmd.Bremmon - September 24, 2013

This article ignores the success of Star Trek 2009. Isn’t that success evidence that the audience came back specifically to see Star Trek TOS after the blandness of TNG wanting wagon train to the stars, exploration with good vs evil, Soviet Union vs USA, etc. I think the same phenomena was seen with Firefly which brought back fans to sci-fi. With Star Trek Into Darkness we got a hybrid, TOS action scenes pieced together with TNG hidden agendas that just did not glue together. It felt like the puzzle pieces were forced together to the point the plot just did not make sense. Compare balance of Terror to STID – in BoT Kirk crosses the neutral zone risking casualties, war, etc because logically it makes sense to the objection of McCoy; here Kirk is just everywhere to the point we feel more sympathetic for Khan than Kirk – who ever wanted to see a TOS movie where we felt “sorry” for Khan?!?!? I get that we want to see our politics in movies since they work better there in reality but this progressive( “perfect?”) world is just boring. It turns Khan into just a misunderstood gentleman, epic battles between starships where the fate of the galaxy is at stake becomes a two minute shoot out where nacelles are disabled again and again with no consequences, every alien race just ends up yet another progressive race to be assimilated by the Federation. Look at Enterprise – people tuned in after Voyager to see TOS, a world in crisis, the Federation being formed, Romulan war, machine guns and imperfect technology and instead they got TNG again!! I like Marcus’s idea (not the Admiral in STID, the poster) in that its actually thought provoking (indeed I heard in Star Trek IV they wanted the crew to leave the Federation but Roddenbery objected as he was moving more and more towards the blandness of TNG). Please stop, this would be wrecking Trek for the third time!

377. Keachick - September 24, 2013

“every alien race just ends up yet another progressive race to be assimilated by the Federation.”

Odd that you would use the word “assimilated”. Do you see the Federation as being like the Borg? Interesting if you do…and scary at how off your understanding is.

378. TUP - September 25, 2013

@377 I get the point trying to be made actually. In Star Trek, these other races are seen through our (human) eyes and their development is all about them becoming more human. In the cases of Spock and Data it was a gimmick to explore humanity but it is a true point that when we see Kilingons, Romulans etc, its all about making them more human.

And I still insist that a far-future Trek would not work. Trek is us in the “near future” not Science Fantasy. I can appreciate a 1000 years in the future sci-fantasy program…but that isnt Trek.

379. Cmd.Bremmon - September 25, 2013

@ 377
The problem is that all of the alien races in the future (hopefully?) should end up embracing progressiveness; the Klingons should end up peaceful people, the Romulans should embrace working with the community.. . Okay, so everyone ends up a progressive human…. is that really that exciting? Enterprise should have been fun because it was before even that – why and how did these diverse races learn to work together? Some of the most interesting stories were with the Vulcans and the Andorans, real unique cultures in development different than humans, but by then the whole show was too TNGized that everyone tuned out.

I’m not saying the Federation is the Borg. In TOS the Federation was like NATO, the Andorans and Vulcans did not seem to get along but they made it work because they wanted to cooperate but the world was not perfect. Human miners went out to make credits. Starfleet was seen as a quasi-military force with ships named after warships and classified as “heavy crusiers” of which there were barely enough. The Federation seemed to have a tough time selling individual rights. All of the bureaucrats from the Federation seemed to be insane actually and even Sulu remarks “I always hoped that if I ever had to choose between betraying my country or betraying my friend, I’d betray my country.” Kirk often went against Starfleet regulations and even exclaims on Organia “I’m a soldier not a diplomat”. The Federation certainly was not perfect and there was a lot of diversity – the fun was in watching them explore and try to better themselves.

Compare that to TNG. Now everyone in the Federation gets along, well suddenly all the other Federation races are boring (I guess Betazed was kind of cool, they could read minds) to the point I think people can list more Federation members from one episode of TOS than all of TNG. TNG we see that everyone is moving towards working for the “collective good”, no mention of credits (some mention of pay, hard to figure out) – so what does everyone else do? It’s so boring, we really don’t know apart from making wine (DS9 tried to rectify some of this by escaping the boundaries of the Federation). The original bad guys with reformed cop turned writer Roddenberry were going to be the Ferengi who only cared about profits. The problem – the Ferengi were boring and laughable as a nemesis to the Federation. It also quashed the TOS concepts of diversity and individualism.

What was the answer for TNG – ironically to create the ultimate socialist utopia – the Borg. All are united. All are one. All are working to better themselves as one. There is no dispute, there is no conflict, everyone else with another philosophy is “scary” and must be assimilated. That anyone that sees a risk of the Federation ending up the Borg as “scary” and to be marginalized… well, I’ll leave you to think about that. What I do know however is the moral dilemmas surrounding this are more exciting for story lines.

That is a real threat I think – the day where anyone thinks there should be no debate, that we know the 100% best way for everyone, etc. I am pretty sure that is what the Prime Directive was in part established by the Federation to avoid; but will it last when the Federation converts everyone in the Milky Way to embrace “inalienable human rights”.

Also another question I have for posters, if the Federation colonizes the Milky Way then what do they expect to see differently in other galaxies? You think the races in an elliptical galaxy will be more exciting than those in a spiral galaxy? The only benefit I see in terms of story line in getting away from the Milky Way again is escaping the Federation “where no one has gone before” – something already done in TOS (at least until subspace communications suddenly became instantaneous and Earth is five minutes from Qo’nos).

380. Paul - September 25, 2013

@83. Joss Whedon for next Trek Director

That’s close, but not entirely. What I was thinking about is more like a prelude to civil war / revolution thing. Maquis could surely take a part in that, if they are still around.

381. TUP - September 25, 2013

Dont even get me started on the economics of Star Trek – First Contact really screwed this up with Picard explaining to Lily how no one works for pay anymore. Give me a break.

Enterprise was the best concept to come a long since they screwed up Voyager by the 2nd episode. And like VOY, they screwed up Enterprise before the debut was even over.

Trek doesnt need to get away from it’s prior concepts, it just has to do them correctly.

I was watching Flashback last night and it struck me – Janeway explains to Kim how everyone from Kirk’s era would be booted out of Starfleet if they were around at Janeway’s time. Thats exactly what hurt Star Trek – Berman changed everything. Janeway’s opinion doesnt even hold water when compared to DS9, which ofcourse took place in spite of Berman.

A new TV series to hire Behr and the guy who showran the end of Enterprise.

382. Curious Cadet - September 25, 2013

@381. TUP,
“since they screwed up Voyager by the 2nd episode.”

That’s why Ron Moore is the guy for this in my mind. Battlestar Galactica is exactly what he tried to make VOY, but no one would let him. Imagine if VOY had been done realistically like BSG, it might have actually worked. In fact, taking a page from that, they should have run into another Federation ship that had gotten pulled into the DQ, and teamed up with them, perhaps with two ships with partial crews for a season or two, ending with that ship being destroyed, many of the crew killed and then combined on a repaired VOY from parts of the destroyed ship. Then later, join forces with another alien ship, changing the crew demographics, adding new faces, as others are killed off. Heck, I could have gone for VOY being destroyed itself and the crew having to press on in a derelict alien ship not yet assimilated by the Borg, and modified with Starfleet technology. Instead they hit the reset button almost every episode. Wasted opportunity.

383. TUP - September 25, 2013

In watching VOY, it aggravates me. Decent cast, great concept, even a few really good episodes. But they undermined their own concept in such a blatently lazy way.

When the first episode was over and the Maquis had joined the crew, they were doomed. Yeah, they had, what, two episodes dealing with unrest amongst the Maquis? Such a wasted opportunity. They contradicted themselves so much. They need a cook because they cant waste replicator energy but they can goof off in the holodeck anytime they want?

The bridge crew cosisted of a guy drumed out of the service (and should have been the same character from TNG) who only had his “dark” side explored, what, in two episodes? A green-as-grass ensign, a maquis engineer with little to no Starfleet experience, a first officer who was actually a Starfleet commander but gave it up and now gladly embraces Starfleet again, a junior grade lieutenent tactical officer who for whatever reason has been in Starfleet for decades but never advanced in rank.

It was basically the least experiences crew you could imagine yet they all peformed like veterans.

Just awful.

And the final episode where they skip ahead to being home already and then work backwards via time travel? Terrible. A forced romance between Chakotay and Seven that came out of nowhere? Terrible.

De-nutting the Borg? Terrible. Creating a new bad guy species and then immediately de-nutting them by giving them the persona of an old groundskeeper from San Fran? Horrible.

We could go on and on…

384. Cmd.Bremmon - September 25, 2013

@ 383 and 382
Yep, I tuned into the first year of Voyager so excited we were going to return to some TOS Trek only to tune out about a year in. I thought we would see more exciting episodes where Janeway had to make major decisions with no Starfleet Command in sight, where former enemies both work together and compete (Maquis and Starfleet), maybe see them perform some First Contact missions(some maybe gone horribly wrong), the need to perhaps establish a Federation by themselves to combat the Borg, the Maquis not beholden to the Prime Directive stirring up trouble, the ship after a heavy battle being damaged and struggling to survive having to mine, bargain for resources, maybe set up colonies, etc. Instead we got seven more years of TNG minus even the hint of the exciting races and potential conflicts from TOS.

385. Keachick - September 25, 2013

I have not seen much of the new Battlestar Galactica series, but what I did see, I remember not liking. My husband watched more it than I did and he described it as a “bitch-fest in space”, with everyone having their own agendas. Sometimes I think he wished that the Cylons would destroy these people in order to put them out of their own misery, as well as ours.

The Star Trek spin-off series may have had their problems but so did some of these television spin-off series of other TV sci-fi programmes. It seems that it has been either too “bright, ooey gooey” perhaps or too “dark, bitchy and horrible”.

Hopefully, these new iterations of Star Trek might be able to provide a better balance.

386. Cmd.Bremmon - September 25, 2013

@ 385 regarding ” “either too “bright, ooey gooey” perhaps or too “dark, bitchy and horrible”.”

Star Trek TOS, II, III, IV, VI and ST 2009 had it just right IMHO as did some episodes of DS9 (wish I had watched the show more but lost interest after the disappointment that was TNG). TNG too ooey gooey, BSG too dark. That being said dark is way more exciting than ooey gooey which is why I was able to watch BSG while eventually stopped watching TNG (still remember being seven years old and disappointed Friday after Friday, at least until the Borg and Spock showed up)

387. Keachick - September 25, 2013

I prefer a little “ooey gooey” over a “dark bitch-fest” type drama. I want to be able to like my characters. I don’t need to watch people play-acting being mean and stupid. Life can be difficult enough…

Besides, TNG wasn’t all “ooey gooey”.

388. gingerly - September 27, 2013

@316

One of the biggest things I wrote about in that thread from waay back when is that black women aren’t allowed to have normal human feelings…

And now, we have in Abbie Mills a woman who clearly loved her surrogate dad (Clancy Brown’s Sheriff) and is actually allowed to express that. And not only that, she is comforted by her co-lead and friend, who notices her pain and acts as a friend would in that situation.

This shouldn’t be revolutionary, but it is.

Again, boborci if you’re still lurking these threads?

THANK. YOU. :)

389. Todd - September 29, 2013

First, there are plenty of ideas that one cannot discuss openly in the liberal-capitalist media that would be quite groundbreaking. The folks that have run Star Trek have not been interested in that. But, that said, actually having a show that says we can do better than the liberal-capitalist nightmare the world currently suffers under would be transgressive when even new Star Trek is dark and mean spirited.

While there were some Star Trek episodes that were quite weak, they were much more tolerable than the really poorly written mess that is Into Darkness. Because the bad episodes were merely one in many, they could more easily be tolerated. While I have not watched all the bad episodes of Voyager and Enterprise, Into Darkness is a horrible illogical mess that is as low as the worst of the original series or the Next Generation, and worse than any outing of DS9. This is why there is so much hostility towards Into Darkness, and this bad writing was not worthy of one of the great characters of the original series, Khan.

The notion that a super genius would hide his people in torpedoes that he made for his captors is really incredibly bad writing. My review of the first film was “inoffensive and unmemorable.” This film was stupid, illogical, and groan worthy. I am heartened that Star Trek fans have rightly rejected it as crap.

As an aside, I would like to suggest that Into Darkness has revealed that the actual point of divergence in the time lines was not when the Romulan mining ship arrived, but instead it was when a pasty white guy was made into Khan, and he actually wasn’t all that smart, like the Asian-Hispanic Khan of the prime universe. Once you admit that the Into Darkness Khan is actually much inferior to the average human intelligence, much of the movie begins to make a little more sense.

390. Captain Slow - September 29, 2013

Something that the article (which no one seems to be talking about anymore) doesn’t mention is an animated series. I think this is the best way to give us new Star Trek stories on TV until CBS is willing do spend a lot of money on a live-action series.

Which leads me to a somewhat insane idea I had. Based on a design I saw online I made this CG version of Kirk:

https://vimeo.com/73995402

So what I would like to do is make a short animation featuring Kirk that would show TPTB what a new TAS could look and feel like. I know it’s a crazy idea and probably wouldn’t accomplish anything but I feel that it’s worth a try and can’t do any harm. The only problem is that I can’t think of what could be done using just Kirk that would be interesting. Any thought/ideas?

391. bassmaster22 - September 29, 2013

Star Trek needs a good twenty or thirty years off from both movies and TV. There’s too many people who all think they are experts on where it needs to go next and they all conflict with each other.
It doesn’t need to go anywhere next. Let it rest, let some fresh minds look at it in a few decades.
Or, heaven forbid, leave it in the past. Star Trek owes no one anything. It’s got more than enough to keep a new fan going for years. Why do we need to squeeze every last drop out of a shrivled up old raisin at this point?

392. ajdczar - September 30, 2013

I really enjoyed this article, particularly the zombie/white America reference.

As far as settings and plot lines, I think a more accurate inference would include the roles of corporations running governments. Politicians these days should wear nascar emblems to denote who they support; the supreme court has ruled time and again the corporations have human rights and many Americans have been led to believe that our government (of/for/by the people) is less trustworthy than corporations who are run by board of directors and cannot be voted out by “the people”…and whose primary function is to profit at any cost.

The Ferengi would be proud…but isn’t this a great way to use the Next Generation era with new timeline? 2001 A Space Odyssey touched on this corporate space venture notion, which I think is more realistically where we’re headed. If we survive the next few decades.

This is just an opinion, but I think enough people share it that wouldn’t mind seeing a show that discusses it…

393. Suellen from Savannah - October 13, 2013

Actually I think ST Academy Days could be an excellent way to bring it back. Thus you go have them all start as freshman and give it 4 years and then graduate them in a series finale.

Shatner’s book about how Spock and Kirk met is actually not bad, and certainly could be a could starting off point. I know his story of how they ended up at the academy make sense than JJverse.

YOu would need to play with the ages a little, but Bones could actually be graduated and the MD who treats the cadet at Academy Health Center.

Thus you are open to reel in the younger crowd and make it interesting enough for the older ones as well. Its a fresh idea and open the door for lots of new stories that are not re-telling of old one.

Think of the fun you could have with Drill Sargents the first week, when all these brash young people hit the reality. You can watch grow into the fully fleshout command officers they will be.

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