Brent Spiner Thinks A ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ Big Screen Reboot Would Be “Cool”

It’s been 27 years since Star Trek: The Next Generation went off the air, and now one of its stars thinks enough time has passed for Paramount Pictures to start thinking “reboot.”

Spiner predicts TNG reboot

Even though CBS All Access (soon to be Paramount+) has (at least) five Star Trek television shows going, Paramount Pictures has spent the last five years considering a number of different projects without giving any the green light. Will they continue the Kelvin films, return to the Prime Universe and tie into the current television shows, or do something completely different?

Star Trek: The Next Generation star Brent Spiner thinks one thing is inevitable. Speaking to Syfy about his upcoming “memoir,” the actor said:

“I’ve loved the recent movies. I think that sooner or later, they’re going to do a reboot, a motion picture version of Next Generation, and cast some young guys in our parts.”

Publicity photo of Brent Spiner as Data from season one of TNG

Asked if he had any negative thoughts on a recast of his iconic role of Data, the always sardonic Spiner had a quip but still seemed genuinely optimistic about the prospect:

“Well, of course, I do,” he jokes. “But no, I look forward to seeing it. I think it would be cool if they spun our show off.”

A reboot of TNG may be a reasonable expectation. Since coming off the air, no Star Trek television series has achieved the same level of ratings and mainstream success as TNG. And consider this: It was eighteen years between the release of the final TOS-era movie (1991’s Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) and the 2009 J.J. Abrams Star Trek TOS-era reboot. As of 2021, it has been 19 years since the last TNG-era feature film (2002’s Star Trek: Nemesis).

The cast of Star Trek: Nemesis


Find more discussions of upcoming Star Trek films at TrekMovie.com.

79 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NOTE. Earlier today there was a problem with the comment system. However that has been resolved and people can now make comments again.

I mean how hard can it really be to come up with something new and original in the Star Trek universe? It is a huge universe, you can do literally anything you want in it, but all the producers seem to want to is to go back to the same well that has already been threaded. Having said this though, if this reboot happens the only actor I can see playing Data is Tom Hiddleston.

It is and has never been about “how hard is it to come up with something new and original.” The real challenge is how hard it is to get butts in seats. That’s why studios do reboots, remakes, sequels, and adaptations.

HECK, THAT’S WHY STAR TREK IS STILL AROUND AT ALL! Instead of creating a new sci-fi series in 1979 or in 1987, they made a film series and TNG. Spinoffs in 93, 95 and 2001. A reboot in 2009. A revival in 2017. Spinoffs in 2020, 2021…

So the reality is that Trek itself is the studio constantly going back to the well. Quibbling over the characters and time periods they use just seems silly once you recognize that.

Exactly my point though. You have this huge universe and you just want to use the same characters. I know originality doesn’t often sell, but sometimes you need to take risks to get greater rewards.

I think you’ve missed my point entirely, to be honest. Trek itself is the studio constantly going back to the same well. Fans quibbling over re-using characters is fans trying to have it both ways. In one moment you demand they create something new, but then say it can’t be TOO new, it still has to be Star Trek, the Federation, etc.

I agree with you that constantly revisiting the same characters isn’t what I want out of the franchise, just that I can totally understand why they do it, and do not begrudge them. This is a business after all, and you can’t continue a franchise if it’s not making money (Trek has already been killed at least twice for that very reason).

If you ask me, if anyone is best set up to follow the “Marvel Formula” it’s Trek. And that’s because in a way, they were following the Trek Formula (Feige has always said he was a huge Trek fan): an interconnected universe of shows and movies that focus on strong characters, and build a franchise where the BRAND NAME is more important, and quality stories that give audience confidence when they see that brand name.

When audiences hear “Marvel” they know they’ll get their moneys worth of good superhero stories with fun, likeable characters. In the 90s, when you saw “Trek,” you knew what you were getting: quality science fiction with compelling characters. That should again be their focus.

Ah, now its more clear and yeah, we are actually agreeing on the same things. You are correct that Trek is going back to the same well because that is what sells, but I also absolutely agree with your point about the Brand name.

Last edited 2 months ago by alphantrion

Yep, and when someone does they get savaged for raping either canon, TOS, or Gene’s “vision”….

Let’s get Tom Hardy playing Picard – this would be a great reference to the clone in Nemesis.

If the Kelvin movies had turned into a long-running series as they obviously hoped they would, I could see some form of Next Generation getting rebooted like TOS was, but now not really.

TNG is my favourite series but I don’t feel its likely TNG will be rebooted. It was popular in its day but nowadays its just now become more of a cult series within the franchise. Those outside the main Trek fandom think of Kirk and Spock if you ask them if they know Star Trek.

@DataMat: Agreed. I love TNG but it is not even close to being that popular anymore. The movies didn’t work too well even in the 90s. Basically, TNG was a variation on TOS, born out of the Phase II / TMP concept. Decker became Riker, Ilia became Troi, Xon became Data…

TNG has already been brought back! It is called The Orville now! That series has basically extrapolated TNG’s unique features (characters, set designs, themes) and turned them in a wonderful homage. But neither TNG nor ORV are movie material.

There is a reason both the TNG movies and PIC feel so different from TNG / ORV… TBTB don’t feel TNG would fit with a modern audience. Either you turn TNG into something totally different or it won’t work…

People say these things but seems to ignore the fact TNG is still the most binged show according to the internet polls. It was only other top 10 episodes from Netflix rewatch Trek viewing a few years ago (but most went to Voyager). It still gets constant novels, comic books and merchandise. TNG seems to be just as popular today when you actually go on big Trek sites like Reddit where it’s discussed every day in detail. I live in L.A., the show reruns here on two different channels (but one airs all the shows) and BBC America.

My guess more people still watch TNG due to all the access there is compared to any of the new stuff today, including Picard itself.

And speaking of Picard, the only reason why Picard is not a TNG revival show is because Stewart didn’t want to do TNG again. My guess is if they could’ve convinced him to put back on the space suit and bark orders on the bridge they would’ve gotten back as many TNG actors as they could and put them on the Enterprise F or something, CBS would’ve greenlit that show with bells on the way everyone is excited for Pike now. All that hype just to bring Picard back himself, imagine how much bigger it would’ve felt if most of the other TNG actors came back full time on a new ship? I mean, half of them are already rumored to be coming back in second season anyway. They are only trying to put the band back together in some way because they think it will get them more subs; hence bringing Picard back at all.

Its just an odd argument., especially since Picard is the face of TNG the same way Kirk is the face of TOS. That and it’s still pretty much everywhere in every major Trek circle today.

And let’s also be honest, how many TNG fans think Picard is a better show than that so far? Very few circles is praising the new show as a substitute for TNG for a reason. And what was the most popular episode of Picard in its first season? Nepenthe, because it was the closest thing that felt to TNG for fans out of the entire season, just to see those characters reunited again.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

I would argue TNG was out of gas by the time of Insurrection and Nemesis. It had basically become a joke. After a decade of strong success of Trek on tv, it was dead. New series never garnered the same large audience or mass appeal, the feature film series was dead as well. The old Trek is gone. Even JJ trek appears to be dead, with only Discovery and spin offs left.

Though I agree TNG never quite achieved the level of “icon status” that TOS did, it is far more than a cult series. Even today, it’s wildly popular even among Gen Z thanks to it being widely available in HD on Netflix. Whether they were exposed to it through the facepalm meme, reruns when they were little, or something else, I have found a lot of people 18-25 cite TNG as one of their favorite classic genre shows along with the X-Files.

Oddly, DS9 has been also getting a LOT of love in the past 5-10 years among younger audiences, in a way it never did when it was on the air.

Hasn’t DS9 even gotten more viewings on Netflix than TNG has? Or was that Voyager?

That is Voyager, at least based on rewatches.

People just want to see 7 of 9. :P

And why she’s in Picard now, she’s hugely popular in the fanbase.

Go away now.

That is why I believe the KU went back to TOS. Familiarity with the general public. TNG got the higher ratings but for the general movie going public if you say Star Trek they immediately think Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. Regardless of how much TNG preferred fans say otherwise. I honestly think a TNG reboot would be a tougher sell to studios and the public than a TOS reboot.

I agree. My rule of thumb, the more screen time the original actors have the harder it is to reboot. Within that aspect a mediocre show can be rebooted just about any time. A highly popular show with primitive effects might need 50 years to fade enough that people can tolerate a reboot. A highly popular and modern looking show like TNG might need 70 years before a reboot is accepted fully.

Otherwise sequels and spinoffs are the better route.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jeff

I think — owing to incessant reboots / prequels (hard to believe we’re already on our third major “Spock” performer), esp. ones aimed at a general audience; the archetypical nature of the three major characters; the number of years it’s had to reverberate in the pop-cultural landscape; and the power of wealthy Boomers in setting the pop-cultural agenda — TOS is the most broadly recognizable Star Trek instance. But I don’t think that’s the metric that matters. Indeed, if it were, you’d have expected the Kelvin-verse films to have done better at the box office — the first two were only moderately successful given their budgets, and I think the substantial dropoff for the third film (and resulting long wait for a fourth) suggests that it was Abrams’ “magic touch” that made them as successful as they were. (I say this begrudgingly, as someone who viscerally loathes almost everything JJ Abrams has produced on an artistic and philosophical level. His Star Wars films especially.)

I think, though, that TNG is — at the moment — the most important Trek instance (at least in its TV incarnation). For Generation Xers and Millennials who are the most likely to actually engage with Trek, it’s the prototype — aesthetically, narratively, philosophically. (DS9 I think never had the wide acceptance that TNG did, and is far more space-operatic — that’s to say, I think that while there are many fans of “dark, gritty” pop-sci-fi who prefer DS9 over TNG, many of those fans prefer BSG over DS9; VOY certainly has its fanbase, but I’d note that VOY is much more a lineal descendant of TNG. ENT is practically forgotten at this point.)

And anecdotally, speaking for myself (as an older Millennial), I have no interest in any Trek moving forward that doesn’t follow the TNG lineage, so to speak: I watch PIC (strongly disliked the ending, but thought the rest of the season was fine), gave up on DSC after season one and have zero intention of going back, and have no real interest in anything besides PIC among the announced forthcoming shows/etc. If there were more TNG (or VOY) continuation, or a new Trek-IP that was narratively/philosophically/tonally so aligned (something more “cerebral”, as the suits like to put it) I’d give it a chance. But — to put it provocatively — I’m not into 60s cosplay or comedy-adjacent animation.

Since I don’t think I’m the only one like this (even if I may be rare among those who would post here), I think there’s a fairly good chance TNG is eventually rebooted. But I also think it’ll be a while — the clock doesn’t start until the final appearance of a TNG character, whether that’s the end of PIC or a Worf series, or whatever.

Last edited 2 months ago by Logician

Essentially I feel if they reboot TNG it will have to evolve into something that fits in better to the film format. First Contact was the one film that utilised all the characters better: a new TNG film series would have to be more constructed to work all the characters into the story better. Or perhaps just focus in on fewer central characters instead of trying to make a story fit around a large ensemble for the sake of it.
IMO

Like I say I love TNG and I’d for sure he excited and curious to see a new movie series, but how on earth you’d sell it to the general public is something that ain’t going to be easy.

(Think my original post didn’t clear the admin mod so I’m trying to he careful, lol)

I think you’re 100% right that they would need to evolve it for a film reboot. And probably, a film would be the route they’d take for a reboot. But, with the streaming landscape evolving and the home/theater divide starting to break down, maybe a series reboot (which would be a better fit out-of-the-box) is possible…

I can expect a reboot…but now?? Too soon. Maybe in 30/40 years…I would consider it then!

The Kelvin movies rebooted TOS, not the TOS movies. So really about 45 years had passed, not 18.

Tbf. Paramount apparently seriously considered a reboot of TOS in 1989/90.
Harve Bennett who was in charge of the film series at the time wanted to go in that direction after Final Frontier.

From what I understand it wasn’t a reboot but some sort of adventure they had when they were all much younger. The studio would have none of it. Then Harve suggested bookending it with the regular characters and Paramount still would have none of it.

Yes, it was the Starfleet Academy pitch with Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley filming a framing sequence with young actors playing their characters at the Academy. Paramount said no. Nimoy later talked them into making Star Trek VI.

If by TNG reboot he means ignoring the bland snooze fest that was the TNG we know with its effortless space travel, all the aliens wanting to be those superior humans and replacing that with the best of TNG (Borg as the ultimate enemy collective / stagnation in the UFP, Maquis freedom fighters, artificial intelligence usage like Data, Deltans/Betazoids but as a matriarchal society with ethical issues surrounding mind reading, wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant/Dominion, etc) and putting into a more movie era action-adventure series then yes.
I now believe Trek would have been so much better had Nick Meyer gotten to do TNG post Star Trek II: TWOK with Saavik, David Marcus, Captain Sulu, etc. Throw a rebooted Data in there. Who wouldn’t want to see the Dominion situation redone where Starfleet doesn’t just have thousands of ships to throw around and every crew counts deciding the fate of whole systems. Also movie era uniforms please!!

TNG was the best series.

Are you a troll? I’m asking because all your posts take a swipe at TNG. Every. Single. One. It’s not healthy dude.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dvorak

He just one of these people who claim a show was so bad that he still watched religiously every episode for 7 seasons….and then spent the next 30 years moaning about it. Star Trek fans, am I right? ;)

LOL. You are spot on as always Tiger2.

Command. Bremmon is an unabashed archetypal TOS fan of a certain type. LOL

But at least he’s self honest about it. He knows what he didn’t like about the Roddenberry aspirational utopia and what he did like in terms of action and adventure. So, it’s interesting to hear his excitement about less utopian societies in Discovery, Picard and SNW.

I can almost see the market researchers checking off which of the new series will appeal to which fan archetypes.

Now, 180 degrees from Cmdr Bremmon we have those whose first series was TNG, and who feel Discovery and Picard can’t be real Trek precisely because they aren’t putting the utopian society front and centre.

If you say that they are like old TOS fans who never accepted Berman-era Trek, they respond that they were open to the other 90s series. They couldn’t be repeating the pattern. No really, not them!

Trek fans can like what they like. That’s fine, we all have our preferences. But he comes off as borderline trolling to the point he seems to think his viewpoint on TNG is a consensus when it clearly isn’t. He seems to want to rewrite history about the show and that it wasn’t as popular (then and now) because HE didn’t like it. And the 80s are over, it’s time to let go.

Thankfully he doesn’t speak for fandom. I’m thankful a lot of fans don’t speak for fandom though lol.

“Command. Bremmon is an unabashed archetypal TOS fan of a certain type. LOL”
Absolutely, that’s me. I fight for my corner (aka. good action/adventure Wagon Train to the Stars, Space the final frontier Trek).
Ironically I find the one lesson TNG did well was lost on most.
Is my diverse position allowed, or I must conform to the unimind?
Resistance is futile?

Last edited 2 months ago by Cmd.Bremmon

Loved Firefly, Battlestar Galactica and the new Lost in Space reboot. They were more Star Trek “Wagon Train to the Stars” than TNG.
Ironically these were also critical hits, the fans of action/adventure science fiction I would argue remain the largest audience, they’ve just moved on from Trek.
Quite frankly I did move on from Trek, VOY being horrid that I couldn’t finish watching and made me reflect that TNG was a utter waste of time.
DS9 kept me in, ENT should have been the best Trek but was totally done wrong (writers couldn’t last one hour without transporters, phasers on stun and peace with the Klingons) .
Discovery is easily the best of the new Trek, that and DS9 to me are the real “TNG”

Last edited 2 months ago by Cmd.Bremmon

I wouldn’t be so hard on him. I get where he is coming from. Back when TNG was aired in the late 80’s early 90’s I never thought overall the show was that good. There were good episodes and Stewart made bulk of the bad shows watchable. But honestly the only reason I (and a couple, not all, of my friends) watched it was only because it was new Trek. For me, DS9, once they figured out what they were, was the gold standard of Berman era Trek. They started changing things up and made people and events more interesting. And again, don’t get me wrong. I appreciate what TNG made possible. There would be no DS9 without TNG. And TNG did bring Trek back in the popular culture.

I did like DS9 (which pretty much through out the TNG rule book). I think they pretty much did in your face too blowing up the Odyssey as an allegory.
My problem with DS9 was the thousands of starships though.. tactical starship combat became 10,000 ships against 10,000 ships just shooting across a line. Very bland vs. say ST: II TWOK where every starship counts. Wish you could take DS9 and transport it back to the TOS era where every starship combat situation between crews would impact whole sectors and taking down a starship / Dominion battlecrusier was of strategic consequence.
Also, I think the TNG era works great for comedy re: Lower Decks.

That’s just something you have to get over. Star Trek has depicted thousands of star ships for decades now. The only two shows that didn’t do that was TOS and ENT. But every other show since, including Discovery has done that, which was actually the first show to state how many Starships are out there, which are around 7,000 in the show. Again, I don’t get bizarre hang ups like this. The organization is already a hundred years old by TOS time. They fought a huge Romulan war and help create the Federation and clearly becomes the defense force in the Federation and watches over not one, but two neutral zones; similar to how America basically is the primary defense for its allies around the world today

You’re going to need hundreds if not thousands of ships to do that because A. space is very very big and B. you are matching fire power and resources with species and groups centuries ahead of you in the space race.

It’s also why while I didn’t really like Discovery’s depiction of Section 31 because it went against canon from what we know about them, it’s probably a more realistic approach to see them with ships and bases as a major force to prevent war from happening.

If the Federation actually had a military of some sort whose sole purpose is to defend against everything from the Romulans to the Borg, OK, I can kind of buy a smaller contingent of ships. But knowing what we know about all the dangers in the galaxy, it only makes sense.

The many ships was what they did back then. They did it in the feature First Contact as well. I was never a huge fan of these giant Star Ships corkscrewing all over the place. But it is what it is.

And yes, The TNG era was the obvious move for Lower Decks AFAIC. It is more rife for comedy. Sadly, the show never took advantage of it. They decided to just be a 10 episode fangasm.

“ That’s just something you have to get over. Star Trek has depicted thousands of star ships for decades now.”
Redo TNG, get some writers who understand that a show can only follow
one crew that the more special the ship, the higher the stakes and the better the show.

Again, it’s not just TNG. It’s TNG, DS9, VOY, Discovery and the Kelvin movies.

Yes yes, all of the above are subpar vs. TOS / TOS movies.
ST II:TWOK, Balance of Terror and Doomsday Machine still have real episode long combat scenes that excite more than any of those you listed including even a TOS reboot (Kelvin) where the Big E lasts like 30 seconds in combat.

Last edited 2 months ago by Cmd.Bremmon

Agree to disagree, a lot! TOS is my fourth favorite show in the franchise these days. But the TOS movies are still the best compared to TNG and the Kelvin movies, so we agree on that. But the movies in general are a far second place in terms of my interest in the franchise as a whole.

Again it has less to do with his feelings of the show and more about trying to frame it as not a beloved show by most of the fanbase out there. That is what gets annoying about internet boards. When you love something, you constantly argue it’s a success that is loved and adored my most fans. But when you hate something, you argue the opposite and that it’s really not that good and maybe even on the verge of cancellation. I see it time and time again, especially here. I get it, that’s just human nature. It’s still annoying.

But with TNG, it was both a huge critical and ratings success and put Star Trek on the map no other show ever did before and probably since. But of course not everyone loves every show. DS9 is my favorite show as much as you seem to like it. not TNG. But there is a contingent of fans who hate that show too for various reasons, some also on this board. I completely accept that of course. It’s all subjective at the end of the day. I just don’t understand why some people can’t say a show wasn’t for them, but they understand it is loved and popular for others but instead trying to spin the notion not many love that show either. Or simply question their taste over it. That’s what gets annoying beyond anyone’s personal opinion and frankly why Star Trek fans get the reputation they get.

But yes also if it’s that bad, then how did you get through 176 episodes for 7 seasons?

Young and the restless has been on for like 20 seasons, TOS 3 – in no way would I rather watch The Young and the Restless.

Uh, OK.

But with TNG, it was both a huge critical and ratings success and put Star Trek on the map no other show ever did before and probably since.

I would disagree with this. TOS is not only what made TNG possible but it put Star Trek on the map like no other show before and so far, since. It spawned the conventions. The fandom. The language that became part of popular culture. TNG merely picked up the baton. It rode the wave that TOS created. Sure, it could have crashed and burned. But for various reasons (some we can debate) it didn’t.

And once again for the record, I personally never HATED TNG. I just felt it was more mediocre than anything else. Yes, they had their share of really good episodes. But honestly the ratio of good to bad episodes I felt was pretty bad. Yes, TOS had its share of dog episodes as well. But I would argue the good to bad ratio for TOS was pretty high for stand alone episodic television.
And with all that, the main reason I watched TNG back when it aired was mainly because it was new Trek. Not a rerun. And overall it wasn’t so very bad that it was unwatchable. The charisma of Patrick Stewart saw to that. Back then, he had the acting chops to make even the weaker episodes watchable. And IMHO, his casting went a VERY long way to that show’s success. I never cared for the character of Picard but Stewart made me want to watch how he led his crew.

I think I’m drifting a bit as I tend to do. So I’ll stop.

ML31, I think given a world where there is no TOS movies to build up interest and one in which we can watch more than 4 channels I think TNG would crash and burn into Veridian III to be long abandoned.
We have to agree to disagree, I personally do think TNG was horrid and unwatchable and it’s legacy prevents us from getting good Trek (10000 starships, free energy nonsense, all the aliens wanting to be like us, etc).
EXCEPTION – the one where Picard destroys the Starfleet as part of an evil collectivist uni-mind. Message Spock?

Last edited 2 months ago by Cmd.Bremmon

And yet 30 years later TNG is still very very popular, so your odd view of it just doesn’t align with reality dude. For pete’s sakes, we wouldn’t have a show called Picard if people didn’t still love TNG lol. Picard embodied that show in every way the same way Kirk did TOS, so I have no idea where you get this stuff? In fact we would probably have a direct TNG show on now if they could’ve convinced Stewart to wear a Starfleet uniform and be captain of a starship again. But he didn’t want to redo the past, which I completely understand and have no issues with. But it’s not like TNG was forgotten since every story line from Picard was literally born out of TNG! Was it not? I don’t even know how newbies can get into this show since so many of the plot elements came from literally decades old story lines and Nemesis.

But why it’s useless to have a real discussion with you because you cherry pick everything.

Get off Trekmovie and actually go to the other and bigger fan sites like Reddit where TNG is clearly the most popular and talked about show on that site. And a lot of those fans are under 30. Thanks to streaming, all these shows are getting a second life with, sorry, the next generation. Hell it’s why Picard exists now, to help capture all the new fans and will get them into the old shows too if they haven’t already.

I love Trekmovie, but it’s clear that so many people here are over 40 and super old fans because you act like the only people who watch these shows now are people like you who’s been watching it since the 60s, 70s and 80s. You don’t even realize entire new generations of fans have become fans of these shows looooong after they ended. They are creating new fans literally every day. You don’t see it on Trekmovie, but you see it in many other places, especially in social media. I talked with a girl on Reddit a few weeks ago about her thoughts on Drumhead because it’s her favorite Star Trek episode. She’s 16 years old.

So again, you can hate the show, but your perception of it is very very far from reality. I suspect we will have another TNG spin off show in a few years after Picard is done as well. TNG will still be just as important for decades to a big segment of the fanbase, especially as more shows are being made in that era.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

I mean in terms of it spinning off so many shows after it. I didn’t mean Star Trek only became important after TOS since there was entire series of films for that cast.

I mean it proved that Star Trek could be just as popular even without the TOS characters or even the Enterprise. It was that show that proved Star Trek wasn’t just a product, but a brand and that you can do many different things with it beside Kirk karate chopping a Klingon every week and still be successful.

That’s also what I mean and why we got shows like DS9, VOY and even shows like Discovery today. We wouldn’t have the variety we did if TNG itself failed. We probably would’ve had our fourth iteration of TOS by now and that would’ve bored me to tears. I love how expansive Trek feels now being on so many different ships expanding from the 22nd to the 32nd century. All of that was possible because TNG proved fans will give any form of Star Trek a shot 30 years ago. And we have a much more expansive universe now.

But of course I give credit to TOS for TNG. It’s called ‘The Next Generation’ for a reason lol. But what’s funny is I actually tout TVH that made TNG possible since that movie was the biggest film at the time and showed that Star Trek can actually have mass appeal and wanted to try it with another show. But I’ll stop there since I know your feelings on TVH lol.

But yes, if it was not for that movie, not sure we would’ve gotten another Trek show, at least not one so soon after.

And I have no issues with how you feel about TNG or any of the shows. You have your personal taste, nothing wrong with that. None of it is black and white and every show, every show, will have its lovers and haters, from TOS to DIS. We probably agree on most shows than disagree. That’s fine. These are just TV shows at the end of the day, it’s not that big of a deal, even for uber fans. ;)

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

Personally I always felt Star Trek could survive without Kirk or Spock. In the 80’s I was actually endorsing the idea of a show with a new ship and a new crew. I recall when TNG was announced and the media talk was “Can Star Trek survive without Kirk and Spock?” And my answer was “OF COURSE it can!!!” My concern at the time (which was since proved wrong) was setting the new show some 75 years later. I wanted a show in the same era as the feature films. I understood why Gene wanted to distance the shows. But at the time I was not a fan of the idea. And to be honest still would have preferred the show been set in the same era as the existing features.

I do, however, don’t think TNG was born from TVH. I think Gene was more interested in doing a Star Trek show without the interference from a network. Which is why they went straight to syndication with it. He was a different person than he was in 1966 and TNG reflected that. He was different and the show was different. And I think we have to be honest here. Given the chaos behind the scenes and the overall quality of that first season any other show would have been canned. But Trek fans watched it in droves in spite of all that. The ratings for syndication were absurdly high because of the built in audience of fans of TOS.

I think I’ll stop. Not all that interested in a lengthy back and forth here. And I do think we agree on Trek things more than we disagree as well.

I agree with Spiner. Frankly it’s not an ‘if’ but only a ‘when’. It’s bound to happen one day. I don’t think anytime soon because like TOS, as long as the original actors are still young enough to play those parts, most fans won’t accept a reboot right away. And now thanks to Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy and everything else coming around the corner we will probably be seeing a lot of these characters (minus Data ;)) again for the next several years to come. So it would be a bad idea to try it anytime soon.

It may take another 10-20 years for it to happen but it will definitely happen just like I knew we were going to get a post-Nemesis show again and why we have Picard now. This is Star Trek, just think about the last 3 years alone when Discovery showed up and now we gotten everything from the Borg, tribbles, Spock and Seven to Picard, Pike, Guardian of Forever and Talos IV. Some people were shocked to see some of these characters or elements again. I wasn’t in the least. I expect to see pretty much everything show up again eventually with 20 new shows in the works.

This is how Hollywood works, everything gets recycled over and over again. I always say this, if it made money once, then someone will think it can make money again. It’s really that simple. That’s literally what keeps Star Trek alive as a franchise.

All I hope is if they do do it, then just make it a straight reboot. Nothing like the Kelvin idea. That didn’t really work out as hoped. Just start completely over and go from there.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

“All I hope is if they do do it, then just make it a straight reboot. Nothing like the Kelvin idea. That didn’t really work out as hoped. Just start completely over and go from there.”

No, just no! The only thing that had me accept the KT movies was the time travel / timeline thing. A straight reboot is always a very bad idea. And the days of those are over. On the contrary: both Marvel and DC are putting lots of effort into realigning different timelines in order to sell the franchise as a unified product. Straight reboots are just pointless, a colossal waste of continuity and world-building.

How is a straight reboot a bad idea? It’s been done countless times these days. Sure Marvel and DC are combining universes, but that’s all a Star Trek reboot would be doing anyway. It would just be another multiverse of Star Trek, which ironically that’s all the Kelvins films are as well. The only difference is they brought in Prime Spock to let you know it’s all connected.. But you take away Spock, it’s just a modern reboot of TOS, right? We overthink this stuff but that’s all the Kelvin universe already is.

So would you suddenly stop caring about it (assuming you care at all) because Spock didn’t meet alternate universe Kirk in a cave? I admit, I just don’t understanding this mentality. They are still the same characters, but yet they have different events and dynamics away from the same characters we see in TOS. And basically from the first film on, they basically just existed with their own stories and backgrounds in another universe. How is that a waste of ‘world building’ when you already have a film series that did just that? And that people, at least at the beginning, seemed excited about doing? To see these characters in a new light? That’s why Spock and Uhura are a couple, Sulu is gay and the Enterprise looks like it was designed by Steve Jobs.

And to me, I guess I get very frustrated with this stuff. On one hand, I keep hearing from one side of fandom who constantly say they are sick of ‘canonistas’ and want to free Star Trek of 50 years of convoluted canon. I heard that over and over again when the Tarantino movie project was being brought up (and honestly why it probably was never really in the cards). But then there are people like you who seem to think if you change any canon (i.e. not follow the prime universe) then it’s a complete waste to even attempt something out of that box.

Trek fans seem more divided than Democrats and Republicans at times lol.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

And one more thing, if Star Trek can never be rebooted directly, then there will never be another TOS show either, ever. That’s probably why the Pike show is a good idea, because it’s the closet we can get to a ‘remake’ of TOS without rebooting anything. But if we go by that sentiment then we’ll never really see a new version TOS or TNG.

And for the record I’m OK with that, but sooner or later (and maybe it’s much later) someone is going to bite the bullet and redo these shows fully someday. They are steering clear of it now, but it will probably happen at some point. That can only happen by rebooting it.

But if you’re personally against seeing a remake of TOS or any of the shows, then OK, I see your point. I just think for many out there, especially big TOS fans they would like to see it.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

Yeah, the inclusion of time-travelling Prime Spock was indeed the bit that I needed to embrace the KT… or any other sort of on-screen link / explanation. Not having that would have made me reject those movies entirely.

I’ve been very angry at Marvel and especially DC for churning out reboot after reboot without any such connection: I’m happy that has changed recently. But then, I’m not even that much of a CBM fan but I DO care about Trek more than about any other franchise!

Freeing Trek of its canonical restraints cannot work because it is what makes it special. That’s the very reason I fell in love with it back in 1993. Three interconnected series, an animated series, six movies… that was exactly what I had been waiting for. The quantity and complexity of it is what made it stand out back in the day, before the two CBM franchises expanded…

But I get your point to some degree. The closest thing to a straight Trek reboot is The Orville. It is “Star Trek” at its best without the canonical burden and that makes it easily accessible. I can enjoy that a lot because it ISN’T official Trek.

But Trek should always be interconnected.I can live with visual rebooting à la DSC or even major continuity bloopers. I’m not a nitpicker. But the general idea has to be of Trek being one complex universe / multiverse that connects on-screen.

And please don’t mention the sheer horrors that this QT movie would have been. A lot has happened since I openly agitated against that grim perspective – I’ve lost my mother and my childhood home- but I still feel strongly opposed to the very thought that QT may ever be involved with Trek.

OK I get it, reboots are just not your thing. And for the record, I don’t love reboots either. I would prefer the franchise just goes forward and that way you can avoid it altogether. Like what Discovery is doing (although it doesn’t have to be that extreme).

But there is also a reason you have fans who are convinced Discovery is not even in the prime universe even now, because for some just changing the look of the show completely and adding on canon like giving Spock a sibling is basically all but a reboot in name only. I’m convinced Fuller just wanted to reboot the franchise and just make Trek in his own image going forward. And to be fair to update it for a modern audience which the Kelvin movies also did. But TPTB probably just didn’t want that knowing how important the prime universe is to most fans (and yes because many rejected the Kelvin universe because it wasn’t the prime universe).

But that’s the issue. Clearly many people want to give Star Trek a different approach, which I’m fine with. But when you try to do it against 50 years of canon, it just creates more problems for you, hence throwing Discovery 1000 years into the future just to get rid of all the canon issues it created. If they made it clear it was just a rebooted show it would be in the 23rd century today. But I loved that they moved it and always wanted to see Trek in an advanced future, so no complaints from me on that. It just never should’ve been a prequel in the first place once they ignored most of TOS.

But this really drives me up the wall (not from you) that I hear that Star Trek is too constrained by all the canon after 700+ hours of content (and counting). So you suggest the only way to avoid that is just to reboot it and start over but then many people who are crying Trek is too constrained by canon doesn’t seem to want that either lol. So basically they DO like canon, they just want to avoid certain canon elements I guess, but then you get stuff like Discovery and the Kelvin films which oddly only muddles things and why they aren’t as accepted. For instance if they made it clear the Kelvin films were just a complete reboot then you wouldn’t have issues like Khan for example. He could look and sound any way he wants. But because they made it this quazi ‘it kind of follows the the prime universe but doesn’t’ it only makes things worse, not better.

But yeah.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

I have no problem with a straight reboot. In fact, at this point I am starting to PREFER it given how Secret Hideout has been treating “canonical” Trek.

I like the Kelvin idea because it is an adjacent timeline it didn’t erase the Shatner version. Also fully inline with the mutiple worlds theory and the episode of TNG parallels. It was not a prequel to TOS it was a reimagining without all the baggage of canon.

No….just…no. Sorry Brent….reboots must stop. Period.

I ‘d be thrilled if the Relaunch litverse became the inspiration and source material for new TNG era films or limited streaming series.

The Destiny trilogy is just waiting to be on screen.

well … no. as much as i like spiner and company, that ship has sailed. tng was a good thing because of the writers, the actors.
i think they should move on. why not give a chance to hawley? why not something completely new on the big screen? i don’t think that star trek is only capable of all kinds of reboots!
come on, do something fresh and new.

I agree with this. I believe a TNG reboot will happen at some point, but I rather just see something completely new and different. And I feel the same way about anymore TOS reboots as well.

My very first instinct was “no”. But then I gave it some more thought…

If they could do a reboot but actually change the characters so they are more interesting it very much could have some potential. I would say go for it if they alter things enough.

Triggering intensifies…

Vin Diesel would make a great Picard.

Ryan Reynolds as Riker?

Oh hell yeah.

It would be cheaper to do a TNG big screen movie too as they’re less on constant VFX and explosions and more on cerebral talky stuff. I think it was kinda sad how they dumbed down Star Trek for the young Kirk movies to get a wider audience and didn’t want to do something intelligent.

The 90s will always be the heyday of Star Trek. So long as Kurzman is at the helm expect continued disappointment.

No Thanks.

Let’s do it! Reboots work so well in Star Trek.

TNG isn’t really a reboot, more a continuation. Rather than simply rebooting TNG like the Kelvin Timeline, and with the decline of cinema thanks to COVID, it’s probably better that things focus on the TV series for now, and then when the time is right, surge into the voyages of the Enterprise F or G by handing on the batton.

why would you reboot the series, just come up with a new crew new show, iconic characters played by different people no thanks!

“Since coming off the air, no Star Trek television series has achieved the same level of ratings and mainstream success as TNG.”

In terms of decades long worldwide syndication, decades long media sales, and movie franchise success (including a full movie reboot series), sorry, but TNG can’t hold TOS’s “mainstream jock-strap,”

It’s not even close. It is what it is.

Last edited 2 months ago by Methusalah

I’d rather see the 4th reboot movie you know the one they won’t greenlight or put money behind. That Chris Pine as Captain Kirk thing. The one they cannot come up with a decent script for if it bit them on the ass. Its been five years where is that movie.

i really want this