http://www.latino-review.com/news/star-trek-exclusive-trek-is-going-to-return-to-tv

 

So, GREAT news, Trekkers, CBS is looking to bring Star Trek back to TV.

 

The last we heard of a Star Trek TV series, was around 2006 before the Abrams movie planted its flag and destroyed most of what we knew (except Spock and - presumably  the plot of Star Trek: Enterprise)  there were two competing versions: Bryce Zabel (writer, Dark Skies) and J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5, but I like crediting him as the good writer on The Real Ghostbusters) pitched a version called “Star Trek: Reboot the Universe” that actually made it online in PDF form.

 

The second was developed closer to the JJ reboot and was written by producer Geoffrey Thorne, novelist and writer on things like Leverage and Criminal Intent and was called Star Trek: Federation and was conceptualized with producer Robert Burnett, Bryan Singer (the X-Men director and producer of TV’s House among others) and Christopher (director of Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation). This other series wouldn’t reboot the Star Trek universe, but would vault it forward past the DS9 and Voyager series timelines into a far flung future where the Utopia Federation that we knew from other TV series had become boring and complacent.

 

Federation would have seen the titular group reduced to a mere peacekeeping force as the old ways broke apart. Vulcans withdraw from the United Federation of Planets and reunify with the Romulans, the Bajorans of Deep Space Nine would have also withdrawn and become a planet full of religious monks, like a “Tibet in space.” The Klingons wouldn’t be as warrior-obsessed anymore, but would instead be warrior mystics. The Ferengi would have a female Nagus. The Cardassians would have abandoned war and become an artist/philosopher race.

In essence, Federation would have advanced the timeline of the Star Trek Universe far enough in the future to re-define some of the characters that had been the same since the original series’ inception.

 

We don’t have too many details about the new Star Trek series CBS is going to get working on, but I spent some time filling you in on Federation, because it seems like the same people who made that pitch could be involved. Bryan Singer's name has been mentioned for the new CBS Trek as a possible Executive Producer through his Bad Hat Harry productions. While "Star Trek: Reboot the Universe" was invalidated by 2008's movie Trek, Star Trek: Federation still has a trio of enthusiastic producers, a script and a writer ready to go should CBS decide to give Singer the ahead to develop this new series. 

 

Robert Burnett is rumored to be working on a non-Trek project with Skydance Productions (Skydance worked with Paramount, McQuarrie and Bad Robot on M:I 5) and simultaneously keeping one foot in the Trek world. He's currently producing (one of the producers) a project independent of all previously mentioned parties,  Star Trek: Axanar, a 90-minute fan-made feature film about "The Four Years War," as mentioned in the TOS episode "Whom Gods Destroy." The film has scraped up and impressive cast and released “Prelude to Axanar” last year to show how this great venture can be pulled off on a fan-donated budget:

 

That’s the sort of Star Trek product Brunett can use as an example of how producing a reasonably-budgeted TV series set in the Star Trek Universe this day and age should be a piece of cake.

 

Back to our Federation three:

 

CBS is interested in Bryan Singer developing (and Singer reportedly loves Prelude to Axanar) and Federation co-conspirator Chris McQuarrie was still game for the project as of last December, if Twitter is to be believed.

 

As far as when to expect some sort of official announcement about who snagged the NEW Trek production job, that’s a bit tougher to predict.

 

Star Trek 3 seems to be the Trek Paramount would like us to focus on (Elba for Mogh of the House of Martok, right Simon Pegg?), Singer is only tweeting about making the new X-Men movie and McQuarrie is wrapping up the edit on Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation for later this year. The Star Trek: Federation story document still exists, though, and I’m told Geoffrey Thorne might have taken that treatment all the way to a pilot script before the project cooled, which would allow this show to get off the ground much faster.

 

For the sharp-eye’d Trek fan, all eyes are on Star Trek: Axanar (official site here) to show off what Trek on a budget can look like. If that can work and CBS can see it work, then we might get a riff on Star Trek: Federation. Either way, CBS is convinced it's a good idea to probe the idea of a Star Trek TV show, so TV Trek’s likely on the way.

 

I’ve been saying it since summer of 2005…

 

...no, I’ve been saying it since summer of 1990: There should ALWAYS be Star Trek on TV

 

Edited November 23, 20196 yr by The Unknown Poster

Just now, iso_55 said:

I wasn't. Just like I'm not a fan of the new Trek alternate universe. They could have played Cochrane a bit more straight edged just to keep the spirit of the character alive. Not saying the movie First Contact wasn't good as I enjoyed it. I just want screen writers to pay closer attention to details of the Trek history. It's too easy to change the dynamics in sci fi by simply creating an alternate universe because some of them only want to change things just to simply change things. .

Bad Robot had no respect for Star Trek at all. They created the so called new universe to free themselves of canon and then used canon all the time to show Star Trek street cred. It was very disappointing. There was no reason to thumb their nose at the existing franchise. 

1 hour ago, Logan007 said:

I hated the Klingon's in ID as well.  The Klingons in the ST tv shows all had uniqueness about them.  These Klingons all looked the same and wore that stupid headgear.  It just looked ridiculous.

I didn't mind this as much. Mainly because they didn't show the Klingons enough to do much damage to them!

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I always took his money argument as being a put on from a guy who was nervous and more humble than he let on.  Remember how he reacted when Laforge told him about the statue.  He was afraid of the importance that would come with being the first Warp capable human.  So he gave Riker a line about money.  Riker responded with the quote about being a great man to remind Cochrane that he knows its not true.

 

Yeah, to a degree.  But for Vulcan's to be near earth, they are pretty advanced.  It just seemed weird they wouldnt pick up the Enterprise orbiting Earth.  Again, I can overlook it.  But if we wanted to nitpick we could.

 

Agree whole-heartedly.  And I've argued with Bob Orci about this many times.  The first film was ok, able to overlook some issues but STID was so awful it made the first one worse in retrospect.  They just didnt know the character.  Their Kirk was the stereotype of James Kirk in popular culture not the actual character.  Same with Spock really.  Bones was the best of the lot in the 09 film but in STID he was a parody, rattling off one liners.

They forgot the most important thing about Kirk-Spock-Bones.  Spock & Bones were basically the devil and angel on Kirk's shoulder, the logic vs emotion.  And Kirk was the very complicated combination of them both, a guy who used both logic and emotion to his advantage.  He was a cowboy but a diplomat too.  You could say he was the reason Starfleet made rules like the Prime Directive because no one else could be trusted to make the decisions he did. 

In TOS, Kirk was described as a cadet who was a stack of books with legs.  I think JJ went the easy route with the sterotype of a young rebel without a cause.  If it was me, I would have kept the opening with the Kelvin but made it the Enterprise from TOS with Robert April as captain.  Destroy it as seen in the movie.  Young Kirk doesnt grow up with an absent mother and jerk step father.  Instead his mother never re-marries, is devoted to Kirk, instilling in him the values we would later see.  But the shadow of Kirk's father looms over him.  George was now a hero and the new Enterprise was constructed in the middle of Iowa because it was George's hometown.  Kirk was always looking to the stars but never went because of his mother's fear of losing James too.  So Kirk sacrificed the destiny that was pulling at him.

Make Pike more of an Obi Wan type, a guy who is "around", someone James loves because of the stories of being in space, someone that maybe Kirk's mother is hinted at having romantic feelings for but also resents that he inspires James.  Pike implores her to let Kirk follow his dreams, she angrily refuses to risk losing him.  Pike gives her some words of wisdom.  Then gives Kirk the same but, staring off at the Enterprise being built, he says he cant go, cant disappoint his mother.  Finally, she relents, tells him he's meant for bigger things.  Follow your heart.  He joins the Academy.

I think that's more interesting.  And with a stronger sense of this unseen force of destiny pulling Kirk towards his rightful place.  At the academy he should be more serious, perhaps slightly awkward.  Someone the girls like but he's more focused on studies.  We see him evolve and gain confidence.  In fact, at the risk of making him a bit sleazy, he should come to realise his effect on women can help by "dating" a girl that gains him access to the Kobiashi Maru test, which he re-programs.  Sits up in bed with a beautiful young cadet, flashes the grin and says "I need a favour..."  Now he's learning something we would see him use later on.

In the film, he made a mockery of the Maru test and it was ridiculous.  In WoK he says he re-programmed the test so he could win, not so he couldn't lose.  End the film with Kirk getting his commendation for original thinking for beating the test and then being promoted to Lieutenant.  He goes off to the Farragut, his first assignment.  Spock goes off to the Enterprise with Pike.  The others, not so important.  But the idea is they go their separate ways.  But Spock Prime provides some final words of wisdom that indicate that destiny will bring them back together.

Way better *story*.

Maybe but not bad. Provide some depth to the Kirk character for sure. As a Trek Fan I don't need to see the actual growth & development of Kirk so the first movie could have actually started with Kirk as Captain instead of the extreme lunacy of a Cadet being promoted to Captain with no experience.  All it did was lessen my respect for the actual Kirk character, showed weakness in Spock & made Pike look like he was crazy promoting Kirk to Captain. I mean, c'mon.... When they reversed the scene where Kirk died saving the Enterprise instead of Spock,  I wasn't even moved. I remember fans crying in the theatres when Leonard Nimoy's Spock died. The depth of the new Kirk just isn't there with fans because he comes across as an arrogant little  ..... at times. He's not as likeable. I think it's just the way Kirk is played by Christopher Pine.

35 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

Maybe but not bad. Provide some depth to the Kirk character for sure. As a Trek Fan I don't need to see the actual growth & development of Kirk so the first movie could have actually started with Kirk as Captain instead of the extreme lunacy of a Cadet being promoted to Captain with no experience.  All it did was lessen my respect for the actual Kirk character, showed weakness in Spock & made Pike look like he was crazy promoting Kirk to Captain. I mean, c'mon.... When they reversed the scene where Kirk died saving the Enterprise instead of Spock,  I wasn't even moved. I remember fans crying in the theatres when Leonard Nimoy's Spock died. The depth of the new Kirk just isn't there with fans because he comes across as an arrogant little  ..... at times. He's not as likeable. I think it's just the way Kirk is played by Christopher Pine.

That's another example of the writers not getting it.  We were moved when Spock died because we knew these characters for nearly 20 years.  And we knew *their* relationship.  In STID, they tried to invoke the same emotion about characters that barely knew each other.  Spock weeping over his friend of about a year when he barely emoted over his mother and his entire planet dying.

I have read that Chris Pine was never a ST fan growing up & barely knew about any of the the tv series or  the history of the characters. And he portrays Kirk much the same way. He doesn't get it. Neither it seems did Abrams & the writers.  

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I didn't mind this as much. Mainly because they didn't show the Klingons enough to do much damage to them!

Not many Klingon ships left after the Narada took them out, same with the Federation.

Edited March 16, 20169 yr by FrostyWinnipeg

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

That's another example of the writers not getting it.  We were moved when Spock died because we knew these characters for nearly 20 years.  And we knew *their* relationship.  In STID, they tried to invoke the same emotion about characters that barely knew each other.  Spock weeping over his friend of about a year when he barely emoted over his mother and his entire planet dying.

And who cares about Kirk dying right?  Because SUPER BLOOD!!!

Kirk died as well in the last TNG movie, sorry forget the name.... But people were shocked. The death of Kirk portrayed by Chris Pine & subsequent revival was met with meh from the fans in the theatre maybe because we all knew he'd somehow come back to life or what's the point of continuing to make these movies?

I just wish that guys like Abrams wouldn't take on projects like Star Trek & then pay little or no attention to the history of the franchise. Just the arrogance of Abrams saying HE was going to save Star Trek because of HIS vision. No, people have grown up with Star Trek. since 1966. Grandparents passed on their love of ST to their kids & so on down the line ever since. Give fans a great movie & they'll support it Alternate universe or not.

I remember the anticipation & excitement back Christmas 78 when ST; The Motion Picture came out & the movie nearly bombed because it was a piece of crap. What a total let down.

You know who actually saved Star Trek? It was producer of the second ST movie, Harve Bennett who wrote & produced Wrath of Khan. It was an action sci fi movie with everything fans loved. Battle scenes, Conflict between the 3 main characters, good vs evil, two starships in battle, etc. It was everything the first movie was not. Had Wrath of Khan in 1981 bombed there's have been no more Trek series or movies. It would have been finished as a franchise. Abrams never saved the franchise.  He changed it because he could. Harve Bennet saved Star Trek because he knew how.

Edited March 16, 20169 yr by iso_55

2 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I have read that Chris Pine was never a ST fan growing up & barely knew about any of the the tv series or  the history of the characters. And he portrays Kirk much the same way. He doesn't get it. Neither it seems did Abrams & the writers.  

There are a couple of moments where Pine lets some Shatner-isms come through. Primarily at the end of the first film when he walks onto the bridge and says "Bones". Also he sits in the chair much like Shatner did. Id say he was directed to be less like Shatner 

JJ admits he was a Star Wars fan not a Trek fan. He took the project with the arrogant presumption he was going to "fix" Star Trek by making it more like Star Wars. Trek doesn't need fixing. It just needs to be made by people that understand and care about it. 

20 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I see Space has discontinued their late night/early morning showings of Voyager & TNG. They've played those 2 shows over & over for years & totally killed them. Even late at night.  Why they wouldn't show DS9 & TOS in their place or even Enterprise is surprising. I really enjoyed DS9 although I stated on an earlier thread I didn't like continued storylines. It was the best of all the series. Voyager was the worst. The final ending was absolutely horrendous. It tied nothing together to give fans closure with the characters. The writers slapped their fans in the face.

 

Are you sure you're not confusing Voyager and Enterprise.

With Enterprise, Braga and Berman have admited they made a mistake having Riker (note the spelling*) and Troi dominate the episode and if they could have done it again they would have. BTW, there were 4 seasons of Enterprise and it sucked that it was cancelled because season 5 would have been kick-ass from what I've read.

*I have had the Trekkie pickiness drilled into me from posting a Trek boards for a number of years.

 

41 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

Are you sure you're not confusing Voyager and Enterprise.

With Enterprise, Braga and Berman have admited they made a mistake having Riker (note the spelling*) and Troi dominate the episode and if they could have done it again they would have. BTW, there were 4 seasons of Enterprise and it sucked that it was cancelled because season 5 would have been kick-ass from what I've read.

*I have had the Trekkie pickiness drilled into me from posting a Trek boards for a number of years.

 

No, I was referring to Voyager. But now that you mention it, the ending of Enterprise was very bad, as well. The entire series was nothing but a holographic exercise being watched by Ryker & Troy?? Like frack off.

But back to Voyager. Wouldn't it have been great to see Paris meet his father just to show him how he matured & changed in 7 years? As well as introducing him to his wife B'Lanna  & daughter? Harry Kim who said it wasn't about the destination but the journey so his  reaction to being home & leaving his Voyager family where he grew up as a junior officer? Seven of Nine & Chakotay married but both died, why?? No explanation. The Doctor carrying on a normal human life as a hologram. Voyager fans wanted to see the ship actually get home. Maybe skip ahead a year after they all got home to see how some of the crew were or were not coping. Instead we got a future Admiral Janeway trying to change the past battling the Borg Queen. Ugh.

Edited March 17, 20169 yr by iso_55

23 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

Are you sure you're not confusing Voyager and Enterprise.

With Enterprise, Braga and Berman have admited they made a mistake having Riker (note the spelling*) and Troi dominate the episode and if they could have done it again they would have. BTW, there were 4 seasons of Enterprise and it sucked that it was cancelled because season 5 would have been kick-ass from what I've read.

*I have had the Trekkie pickiness drilled into me from posting a Trek boards for a number of years.

 

Which trek board?

also, agreed about Enterprise finale. Awful stuff. 

I had no idea that so many of us liked Star Trek.

you guys have become legion...

jk i got no prob with trek, but im more of a star wars kinda guy, and i always think of that movie Fanboys when i think of the 2 

Star Wars is great. Nothing wrong with that.

nope, same with star trek, I think i just fell into a time where i was too young for TOS, and by the time TNG came around i was still too young and it was too complicated (i think i would have been 5 or so when TNG came out) 

26 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

I had no idea that so many of us liked Star Trek.

I stumbled across TOS as a kid. I thought it was "new" and my mom told me she watched it when she was young.  As I got older I just fell in love with it. 

I see that you all have crazy issues with the latest movies,  but from a non die hard and traditionalist to the previous stuff, I think they were ok enough to entertain the unenlightened such as myself.  Could I see where they could have done better,  absolutely but I wonder if the way they went about it wasnt to try and appeal to a new audience

Edited March 17, 20169 yr by Taynted_Fayth

such as reading your opinions on Chris Pine and his performance. I've seen enough TOS episodes over the years to know how Shatner acted both in his younger and older days, which for the most part wasnt the way Pine was,  but if your going to usher in a new "kirk" maybe that was the point, in various cinematic and television formats often let the actor add his own spice when rehashing an already established and beloved character

Edited March 17, 20169 yr by Taynted_Fayth

The "appeal to a new audience" thing. I know all of us heard that a lot, Taynted Fayth. Thing is, if a new audience doesn't know or understand very well the ST franchise history or don't care then why the need to change it? The appeal thing wouldn't matter to anyone who never really followed ST. Just put out an entertaining & visually stunning movie & people will like it. So, I understand what you are saying but I think Abrams used that as an excuse to change things around. It didn't upset everyone but still upset a big percentage of the fan base, I believe. There was no need to change anything about Star Trek to appeal to a new audience. That's my opinion, anyway.

6 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

The "appeal to a new audience" thing. I know all of us heard that a lot, Taynted Fayth. Thing is, if a new audience doesn't know or understand very well the ST franchise history or don't care then why the need to change it? The appeal thing wouldn't matter to anyone who never really followed ST. Just put out an entertaining & visually stunning movie & people will like it. So, I understand what you are saying but I think Abrams used that as an excuse to change things around. It didn't upset everyone but still upset a big percentage of the fan base, I believe. There was no need to change anything about Star Trek to appeal to a new audience. That's my opinion, anyway.

and you make a good point, you dont want to piss off your loyal and die hard fan base. I just get the feeling thats why abrams was brought on, make this movie big badass and a blockbuster and it'll open the door to way more TV and movie options for the foreseeable future.  I'm not sure what the state of Star Trek has been in the 2000's but seemed like there was a time, at least for sure in the 90's there was star trek everything anywhere you looked,  movies, tv show after tv show.  did they need a shot from the defibulators to respark huge interest again or have I just not noticed TV the way i used to

Edited March 17, 20169 yr by Taynted_Fayth

Star Trek was hugely popular in the 90's & judging from what I saw back then we probably could have done without at least one series. At times, there were 2 series playing simultaneously which in the long run was bad for the Star Trek franchise. How many Law & Order & CSI series did we have on tv five to 10 years ago? The CBS network pushed the new series as it was in their best interests. I do believe Enterprise was on the Sci Fi Network as maybe was Voyager but someone can bring me up to speed on that as I'm not sure.

Here's the thing. I know that CBS owns the syndicated TOS series & if another series did come to pass they would probably broadcast it. They have all kinds of ST memorabilia, etc. They have no interest in an alternate universe ST as financially it would not be in their best interests aftger half a century. So, you have the movies in the alternate universe & any new series would be in this universe.  At some point it becomes a conflict as neither the movies or a new & the old syndicated series would support one another.

I think at some point ST the motion pictures will have to return to this universe for it to have any chance of being long term on television again as CBS will be in play. personally, I'd rather watch a tv series than a movie every 2 to 3 years.

Edited March 17, 20169 yr by iso_55

12 hours ago, Logan007 said:

They only reason they helped him rebuild it was because they wrecked it and needed to rebuild it in time for when the Vulcan's pass by.  Also, the reason Ryker and LaForge joined him in the maiden voyage was that his crew mates who were supposed to fly with him got killed in the Borg attack.

Also, I didn't mind them showing him that he was in it only for the money.  You have to remember, they were still in a time where people used money and there probably wasn't a lot of jobs at the time.  Crap was happening all over the earth, so most people didn't have a great attitude about things.  I agree that the part could have been done better, but I'm fine with how he did it.

Thanks for clarifying Logan.  I haven't seen First Contact in years.