What should be done with the "Star Trek" franchise?

[Doug Burke]

Not really. We wouldn't have a Klingon onboard as a starfleet officer. Besides, a re-imagined TOS would have been a lot more grittier, since it is billed as the "Wild Wagon to the Stars," sort of like pioneers heading toward the uncharted western frontier, following the Lewis & Clark trails.

You know, that wouldn't be too bad of an idea if you ask me....

:: prepares to be flamed::

[jkp1187]

You know, that wouldn't be too bad of an idea if you ask me....

:: prepares to be flamed::

I'm with you on that, Doug. Imagine! Klingons being evil again! And the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701, with JT Kirk at the conn, no A, no B, no C, no D, no toupee....

[REG]

You know, that wouldn't be too bad of an idea if you ask me....

:: prepares to be flamed::

Personally, I thought they were going to restore/re-edit TOS, most especially those ship footages for something more CG and believable.

[Dan Stack]

I actually imagine it is a matter of time before a remake/reimagination of TOS is made.

Looking at it from a corporate perspective. You have a well-known product. However, each iteration released after TNG has been less successful (financially speaking). In addition, the franchise is has gotten very complex, to the point where bringing in new viewers has become problematic. And it also makes writing a chore as well - how do you avoid contradicting an episode which aired nearly forty years ago? What new concept do you offer in a new series?

So what do you do? You go back to your roots. You probably put the franchise to sleep for a few years and then relaunch it with a new Captain Kirk, a new Mr. Spock.

You see this happen all the time. DC's Crisis on Infinite Earth, Marvels Ultimates line. The James Bond franchise has effectively done this - the threats that Bond fought originally no longer exist yet the character is always roughly the same age and same person.

I'm not saying whether I think this is a good idea or not, but I bet this is what eventually happens.

[REG]

I actually imagine it is a matter of time before a remake/reimagination of TOS is made.

Yeah, but if they play it right, they won't do it until Star Trek is on a big break. After all, we didn't really see any new Star Wars motion pictures until George Lucas decided to make his Special Edition, to reignite nostalgia and reintroduce it to the new generation, not to mention give the audience an awareness that a new trilogy of films is on the horizon.

[JALU3]

And if you plan to do a reinterpretation of TOS . . . then you need a break, maybe a decade plus.

But what of Post DS9 . . . I believe that DS9 was the height of 'modern' trek. It was grittier, more realistic, and more believeable. If we move away from tecnobabble and uberships . . . and have it driven by story, character, and discovery in a Post-DW world . . . you can have a pretty good series in that.

[JALU3]

with no reference to "canon" questions.... This isn't the Papacy.

And what is wrong with making sure what is previously said, means something, Star Wars does that, and thus the novels have been much better and more consistant then the Star Trek novels. I am not saying that it should be the sole thing that drives the new stories, but it should be a factor.

But, yet no one comments about the idea regarding fan input. We all say here on the boards that the shows would be much better if they actually tried to listen to us, so why don't we pitch it to them. It's worth a shot. Furthermore, if they do it means that they keep their base stable. And all franchises need a base.

[REG]

But what of Post DS9 . . . I believe that DS9 was the height of 'modern' trek. It was grittier, more realistic, and more believeable. If we move away from tecnobabble and uberships . . . and have it driven by story, character, and discovery in a Post-DW world . . . you can have a pretty good series in that.

Alas, it is but a "middle child" that is ignored by everyone, but for the simple facts that it is not a starship that explores and been unceremoniously dubbed "Soap Trek."

[JALU3]

Alas, it is but a "middle child" that is ignored by everyone, but for the simple facts that it is not a starship that explores and been unceremoniously dubbed "Soap Trek."

:-( This is very unfortunate, IMHO, I think that some of the best story archs were written for this series, and was far superior to Voyager. Not that Voyager didn't have its moments, I liked it . . . and struggled to watch it during the beginning, and closer to the end . . . but I don't think that its story archs matched up to those done in DS9.

But one thing about it was that it was a FAR more gritter and realistic view of the future . . . but that has never been a Trek strong suit. It was suppost to be idealistic, and pretty. A socialist democracy haven where equality is a rule of thumb, and diversity is not something that needed to be 'tolerated', but happily excepted . . . where there was no want for basic needs.

[jkp1187]

And what is wrong with making sure what is previously said, means something, Star Wars does that, and thus the novels have been much better and more consistant then the Star Trek novels. I am not saying that it should be the sole thing that drives the new stories, but it should be a factor.

And all franchises need a base.

Absolutely. But too many chefs spoil the stew, too. I think that the writers need to be given the creative freedom to write stories as they see fit. The problem is that the more worried we are about 'what went before', the bigger the 'show bible' becomes. Now, if we're at the point where we're counting rivets on a console, that's energy/money expended by someone that could have been diverted toward character development and story.

Star Trek can, and should, be about the human experience -- using a show set in the future and in space to reflect political, social, and economic problems faced by society today. I have the sinking feeling, though, that if some fans had their way, they would put a priority on "historical accuracy" over good stories.

If that's what the fans want, that's, ultimately, what they'll get. And since Paramount is a business, they will give that kind of show to the viewers as long as they're making a profit on it. But what will be created will be a show that, in my opinion, will be mediocre, predictable, and generally not worth watching.

I just don't think that people writing stories for us at the dawn of the 21st century should be held to throw-away lines written in the mid-1980s, or the late 1960s.

As an aside, I'm probably the only ones, but I found the Vulcan portrayal prior to this season to be...well, somewhat refreshing. This was different. Maybe it could've been done better, but I have to admit, I'm kind of not looking forward to Vulcans becoming...the same, drab, boring creatures that they became in earlier incarnations of Trek. I mean, just the idea of a Vulcan stellar fleet sounds kind of cool. Can you imagine what they would do with it? What kind of weapons they would have?

[Captain Blake]

I actually imagine it is a matter of time before a remake/reimagination of TOS is made.

Looking at it from a corporate perspective. You have a well-known product. However, each iteration released after TNG has been less successful (financially speaking). In addition, the franchise is has gotten very complex, to the point where bringing in new viewers has become problematic. And it also makes writing a chore as well - how do you avoid contradicting an episode which aired nearly forty years ago? What new concept do you offer in a new series?

So what do you do? You go back to your roots. You probably put the franchise to sleep for a few years and then relaunch it with a new Captain Kirk, a new Mr. Spock.

You see this happen all the time. DC's Crisis on Infinite Earth, Marvels Ultimates line. The James Bond franchise has effectively done this - the threats that Bond fought originally no longer exist yet the character is always roughly the same age and same person.

I'm not saying whether I think this is a good idea or not, but I bet this is what eventually happens.

Funny that. That was the idea/hope I had for Enterprise. Use the Temporal Cold war as an excuse to reboot the entire franchise. Eliminate everything, perhaps using Trek X or XI as a platform for crossovers.

Have a group of mini-series things to explain what's changed/happened. Show, don't tell, some of the new high points in history.

Then create a new NCC-1701/Kirk series, with some changes. Get back to the character driven stuff of the past, jettison the unnecessary baggage, and create a whole new future for the franchise.

But, then I liked Crisis on Infinite Earths, and the aftermath of the same, making me a minority.

Alex

[Doug Burke]

But, then I liked Crisis on Infinite Earths, and the aftermath of the same, making me a minority.

You and me both, Alex.

[REG]

But one thing about it was that it was a FAR more gritter and realistic view of the future . . . but that has never been a Trek strong suit. It was suppost to be idealistic, and pretty. A socialist democracy haven where equality is a rule of thumb, and diversity is not something that needed to be 'tolerated', but happily excepted . . . where there was no want for basic needs.

Hmm. Yet there are some who believe that Star Trek is too squeaky clean. DS9 was supposed to change that (as well as VOY that want to emulate) in order to draw in more audience, but that didn't go well with its own fans who are comfortable with the squeaky clean premise.