Wert's Star Trek: The Next Generation rewatch (now in added HD!)

[Werthead]

But would you set it in the JJ-verse? Or the original timeline?

The original timeline. The Abramsverse is okay in an Ultimates kind of way to grab the fickle mass attention, but going back and repeating yourself endlessly on TV is pointless. Trek was always about moving forwards and going back completely goes against that. Fortunately, the Abrams movies have only been moderately successful, not massively, so the temptation to use them as a springboard for a new TV show seems to have been avoided.

[RumHam]

If a new series were to be set post-DS9/Voyager (my preference) then I see no reason to diverge from the original timeline. JJ-verse is fine for what it is, but I think it works a lot better on the big screen than it would on TV.

I really can't see them doing that. Presumably they plan to keep making these rebooted movies. They wouldn't wanna risk confusing people, or be bogged down by all the existing continuity if they can avoid it. With a series in the rebooted universe they can pretty much reuse any ideas and characters they want.

[Jaxom 1974]

But would you set it in the JJ-verse? Or the original timeline?

Perhaps you could do a show set after the events of TNG, but in the JJ verse. :dunno:

Any television projects should have absolutely ZERO to do with the JJ universe. It isn't really Trek.

Build on where the other shows had gone. Build, don't look back.

[Bronn Stone]

I think the technology was getting too powerful and that the decision to try to make Voyager do without it a good one (the execution, on the other hand...).

Enterprise was a great step and I found it to be like TNG itself - wildly varying in quality but with some episodes that were completely awesome - In a Mirror, Darkly being on my list of top 5 episodes of any manifestation of Trek.

I think the proper slot for the next manifestation of Trek is between Enterprise and ToS.

[Shryke]

Reboot. Launch with coherent continuity.

[DaveSumm]

This has come up before, possibly this thread, can't remember.....how often does the Planet Vulcan get mentioned on any given series of Trek? And so how would you identify whether it was JJ-verse or not? I don't think the question needs answering, just throw a decent cast on a ship and let the internet argue about what universe it's all taking place in.

[williamjm]

I think I'd probably set it some time after the end of Voyager/DS9. Perhaps at least a few decades later so they could start from scratch.

And so how would you identify whether it was JJ-verse or not?

Presumably the amount of lens-flare visible would be the main way of identifying each Universe...

[felice]

I think I'd probably set it some time after the end of Voyager/DS9. Perhaps at least a few decades later so they could start from scratch.

Personally I think the best option is reusing the concept for Andromeda (which I've never actually watched) - a Star Fleet ship gets frozen for a few centuries before emerging in a universe with no Federation. Kind of Voyager-esque, but much better suited for ongoing storylines since they wouldn't be spending most of their time running away from everyone they've met so far at maximum velocity. The cause of the Federation's fall would have to be something that couldn't be easily fixed by the inevitable time travel episodes; I'd suggest revisting the "warp drive damages subspace" plot, with the cummulative effects eventually making faster-than-light travel and communication effectively impossible in our galaxy, isolating all the inhabited worlds. A safe form of FTL travel would subsequently have been invented, which the Star Fleet ship would need to be equipped with very quickly, but access to the new drive would be limited, and many worlds still wouldn't have had any outside contact before the Enterprise (or whatever the ship's called) visits them. This allows for a more primitive universe without the limitations of another prequel series.

[Jaxom 1974]

I think I'd probably set it some time after the end of Voyager/DS9. Perhaps at least a few decades later so they could start from scratch.

I'd rather see an adaptation of the current line of Next Gen, DS9, and Voyager novels.

[Raksha 2014]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I kinda love Genesis but I'm well aware how hated it is by the rest of the fandom. It's basically the Trek equivalent of a really dumb horror movie.

Masks is just kinda dumb. The whole thing kinda rests on Brent Spiner's ability to overact and that's just not enough.

I totally forgot about Subrosa though. Apparently, I managed to completely blocked that one from my mind.

I actually enjoy re-watching Masks and Genesis. I love the usage of religion and ritual in Masks; and Genesis abounds with goofy horror-fun.

[drawkcabi]

Anybody watch the "awful-thon 2015" on SF Debris?

Since I've found this site I don't agree with everything he says, and while I never cared for Enterprise in its first 2 seasons, and Voyager at all except for the Doctor episodes and a precious few handful of others, it's made me re-examine just how awful the actions of Captain Archer were and also just how bad a show all around was Voyager.

[Werthead]

I really can't see them doing that. Presumably they plan to keep making these rebooted movies. They wouldn't wanna risk confusing people, or be bogged down by all the existing continuity if they can avoid it. With a series in the rebooted universe they can pretty much reuse any ideas and characters they want.

The problem is that they've already created a problem for themselves: Star Trek is seen by many (if inaccurately) as Kirk, Spock and co on the Enterprise. They can't do that - the movies are doing that, obviously - so it raises the question of what you do. Another ship and crew in the Abramsverse? A remake of TNG in the Abramsverse but 80 years on? Why?

The two options are to return to the prime universe and do a "Next Next Generation", the adventures of the next Enterprise some decades on from TNG, DS9 and Voyager, or wait untl the Abramsverse is over and do a clean reboot from scratch with a new Kirk and Spock and co. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

[RumHam]

So I guess we should all hope the next movie bombs and they decide to reboot again or return to the original timeline. If the new movie franchise continues to be successful I can't imagine them doing a TV show that was not set in that universe.

[drawkcabi]

Michael Dorn still wants to do his Captain Worf series. This is a lot like when Takei was pushing his Captain Sulu Master of the Excelsior show.

[Rhom]

Michael Dorn still wants to do his Captain Worf series. This is a lot like when Takei was pushing his Captain Sulu Master of the Excelsior show.

Maybe they could stick it in Takei's eye and do the show, but in the JJ verse and with John Cho as the main character. :lol:

[RumHam]

Maybe they could stick it in Takei's eye and do the show, but in the JJ verse and with John Cho as the main character. :lol:

I think you've just accidentally described the plot of Harold and Kumar 4: In Space.

[Shryke]

The problem is that they've already created a problem for themselves: Star Trek is seen by many (if inaccurately) as Kirk, Spock and co on the Enterprise. They can't do that - the movies are doing that, obviously - so it raises the question of what you do. Another ship and crew in the Abramsverse? A remake of TNG in the Abramsverse but 80 years on? Why?

The two options are to return to the prime universe and do a "Next Next Generation", the adventures of the next Enterprise some decades on from TNG, DS9 and Voyager, or wait untl the Abramsverse is over and do a clean reboot from scratch with a new Kirk and Spock and co. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Isn't there a mess of rights issues too?

[Aemon Stark]

Anybody watch the "awful-thon 2015" on SF Debris?

Since I've found this site I don't agree with everything he says, and while I never cared for Enterprise in its first 2 seasons, and Voyager at all except for the Doctor episodes and a precious few handful of others, it's made me re-examine just how awful the actions of Captain Archer were and also just how bad a show all around was Voyager.

Now that I think of it, the only real interesting aspect of Enterprise is the prospect of connecting Captain Archer to, well, Stirling Archer. I mean, they already did a Bob's Burgers thing. Of course, Kirk is really kinda like Archer, only without the booze.

I don't necessarily want to see more Star Trek movies per se. But I'd love a TV series with cable-level production values, even if it meant shorter seasons. We got BSG, but has there been any other scifi series like that? If it can work for fantasy... I've often thought that DS9 with present-day production values and execution would be pretty cool.

[Calibandar]

It's a shame to think that the movies are doing anything to hold up a new series, intentionally or not.

I wish it would have spawned a new series already. It's been too long since a new show aired in this universe, far too really. As much as there is plenty to dislike about some of the past shows, it also had some really good stuff, and the technology is here for an updated take in series form.

[Werthead]

Isn't there a mess of rights issues too?

io9 had an interesting article on what to do with the franchise going forwards. They identify the rights problem between Paramount and CBS, with Paramount having film and TV production rights but CBS the broadcast and merchandising. The two companies are willing to work together, as shown by the TNG remasters, so it just depends on finding the right venue for the new show. io9 suggests Showtime (owned by CBS), which seems reasonable, but throws a bit of a curveball by also suggesting the CW. They point out that the CW is the successor station - kind of - to UPN (where Enterprise and Voyager aired) and a new Star Trek show could be a prestige project for the channel to increase its audience and kudos, a bit like BSG (and hopefully The Expanse) on SyFy.