CBS Announces a New Star Trek Series to Engage Viewers in 2017 https://t.co/E2x4PZHAl0 pic.twitter.com/JAc4Unojc2— Heroic Hollywood (@heroichollywood) November 2, 2015
They're going to piss off some people by airing the pilot on CBS then putting it behind a paywall for the rest of the series. Personally, I'd love to see a series based in the OG reality, and not the new movie reality, but I don't think that will happen. God, I miss DS9.
Re which universe: "Alex Kurtzman, who co-wrote and produced the blockbuster films Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) will serve as executive producer for the series." Seems clear it'll be in the new one. From the BBC story.
I hope it picks up after DS9, involves a return to exploration and deals with the ramifications of the war. Possibly 20+ years after the war. I mean there's so much unexplored territory in the Alpha and Beta quadrants. With Alan Kurtzman involved I'm scared. I don't know if I want to experience a Star Trek universe where Vulcan doesn't exist, things like that would annoy me. Fingers crossed but I'm fully prepared to be disappointed.
I feel the same way. Vulcans were the major non-Terran influence in the Federation and especially Starfleet. The other founding members of the Federation, the Andorians and Tellarites, didn't seem to mix a lot on ships (in one episode of TNG it was specifically said that there were no Andorians on the Enterprise D). Without Vulcans, the main non-humans on starships would probably be Bolians with Deltans a distant second. Terrans would totally dominate Federation politics and implementation of those policies.
Well if this is in JJ Verse maybe that's the direction they'll go. The Enterprise is off doing it's thing and the Federation is dealing with the fallout from Vulcan being destroyed. Make the main protagonist a Vulcan, play on the split loyalties with the Federation and Confederacy of Surak (which is what the new Vulcan government is called apparently). Have power plays between the Andorians, Tellarites and maybe some of the minor species like the Caitians can be given more focus. It would still bother me but they could potentially create a good show.
It's got my attention, I'll watch then make up my mind but Star Trek has been missed. We race against a boat named Spar Trek, always make me think of the show, fun crew. Not like the skanks on Gardyloo or Running with Scissors.
I've been reading some articles about wishes and guesses for the new series, and I've been thinking about the theme a new show might have. Basically, after the base of TOS and TNG were defined, there were three possible directions a spin-off show could go in. By happenstance Star Trek went in all of them. You could continue being an episodic adventure (Voyager), you could build the world (DS9), or you could build the mythology (Enterprise). World building means politics, creating history, and having repercussions for decisions. Building mythology means explaining why things are the way they are, celebrating touchstones, and recognizing heroes. The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie was about building a new mythology. Which, as an alternate time line, it had to do. Fine. But a show mostly based on mythology is going to be weak because it depends on people liking the property first (clearly not enough people cared about Enterprise teaching us how the Federation was formed). New Star Trek will be even worse because it will be constantly comparing its mythology to the old mythology. How do I know? Because that's what they did in both movies. The first was weirdly reverential to the old series mythology, as if "Star Trekness" was contained there. The dying red shirts and the Sulu with a sword and the "I'm a doctor not a _" and most of all the foundational supposition that Kirk must run the Enterprise with Spock and Scotty and Bones and the rest no matter how much the universe changes. And the second movie reworked "Space Seed"/Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan into something where someone yells "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" only it's Spock this time. They didn't trust themselves with really breaking away. I'm afraid the show will consist of episodes like TNG's "The Naked Now", a TOS retread that was horrible, boring, and derivative. I don't think the new writers can resist the trap of visibly, purposefully differentiating the new universe from the old one. Even if they don't do it, the audience will.
Les Moonves was interviewed yesterday and asked about why Star Trek is going on CBS All Access, he admitted that the reason they're doing it is to drive people to a pay service because he knows Trekkers will pay. He said he wants to make CBS All Access into a Netflix style service and what better property to do that with than Star Trek. He said they're already making at least half of the budget from international distribution. They've been getting a ton of interest from overseas.
Probably not that odd these days. When Marvel opted to develop shows for Netflix I doubt they fully knew what direction they were going. Even Iron Fist is still up in the air. They probably sold Netflix on the idea that they will develop 4 interconnecting shows. It wouldn't surprise me if Marvel started the discussion knowing they wanted to create content for Netflix, then considered what would work best, which is probably still happening.
How about a Borg or 8472 invasion and all of Alpha quadrant has to unite against them? And what if they're losing? But yes, it has to be taking place after what has happened in the old time line - not another Enterprise please.
They already did this in the novels years ago (the "Destiny" trilogy). It was a good thing to do back then because: 1) they needed to get rid of the Borg as a bad guy. They were so scary that every writer kept wanting to use them, and after First Contact they became so boring it was always terrible. 2) Star Trek needed its own 9/11 event to be a mirror of society (as good science fiction should), and to create a beacon of how an enlightened society reacts to such tragedy. But this Star Trek can't do that now if they want to be relevant (wishful thinking given the producer, I admit). We're not in the post-9/11 world any more. We're in what the post-9/11 world shat out. It's a world of shifting sands where every conflict has 5 sides and the difference between ally and enemy is undefinable and where the status quo is untenable but every option is worse. You want to do have a relevant JJ Abrams-universe Star Trek? The first movie is the 9/11 event. Make the Vulcans a major refugee problem in the Federation, exacerbating frictions that exist between Terrans and non-Terrans. Have the Romulans be a big help on that front, but because of fear of their own survival make them enemies on other fronts. Put the Klingons in conflict with the Kinshaya (the other religious zealots of the Star Trek universe) and create ramifications that force the depleted Starfleet to respond, but with no clear right choice. Create a path to hell paved with good intentions, and then make a path back out using those same paving stones.
That invasion idea is not too different from the last few seasons of Deep Space Nine when The Dominion invaded. They were successful in part (initially) because of a divide-and-conquer approach that was a lot more interesting than the Federation all pulling together. And Enterprise was a lot better than I thought it was at the time it aired. That 3rd season arc dealing with the Xindi was fantastic. And while it did in fact repeat a time-travel-back-to-the-Twentieth-century episode reminiscent of TOS' Harlan Ellison-scripted "City on the Edge of Forever," they did it extremely well, sending T'Pol and Archer back to Detroit to prevent the development of a bioweapon that would destroy the human race...
I thought that the 4th season of Enterprise was the best, when Manny Coto took over. He really got it going, it was sad to see it end then. The series finale though, ugh.