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from the United Federation of Planets and reunify with the Romulans, the Bajorans of Deep Space Nine would have also withdrawn and become a planet full of religious monks, like a “Tibet in space.”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

1 hour ago, iso_55 said:

DC Fontana must not be around anymore.

I believe she's still active but at 77 perhaps not up to the rigors of network television. I could see her submitting stories thoigh, if they are willing to accept story submissions. 

6 hours ago, iso_55 said:

DC Fontana must not be around anymore.

Not as popular as Marvel Fontana.

38 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Not as popular as Marvel Fontana.

I don't know who that is. DC Fontana was a writer on Star Trek: TOS.

10 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I don't know who that is. DC Fontana was a writer on Star Trek: TOS.

LOL @FrostyWinnipeg .  He's joking.  DC vs Marvel.  YOU'RE A WEIRDO FROSTY!!! 

Edited May 31, 20169 yr by Logan007

Guess you had to be there.

Anton Yelchin was killed last night. He played Checkhov in the current movie series. This is a huge blow to the movie series as the character Checkhov was aways seminal to the ST brand. IF... there is a fourth Star Trek movie should his character be re-cast? Or would it be better to just explain Checkhov's untimely death in the series & go forward without him? I've always liked Checkhov. I wouldn't be against his character being re-cast.

Edited June 19, 20169 yr by iso_55

His character in these films is rather minor. In that respect it doesn't matter what they do but if it was me I'd not recast and keep the character alive in the universe by way of reassignment. In that way they Honor the actor. 

The third film is in the can so they don't have to worry for awhile. No guarantee of a 4th. Although as gruesome as it sounds Anton's death will surely result in a few extra bucks for the films box office 

I had read he died but didn't know he was killed. Poor kid. He was a good actor too. I had watched him in some other films. 

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

His character in these films is rather minor. In that respect it doesn't matter what they do but if it was me I'd not recast and keep the character alive in the universe by way of reassignment. In that way they Honor the actor. 

The third film is in the can so they don't have to worry for awhile. No guarantee of a 4th. Although as gruesome as it sounds Anton's death will surely result in a few extra bucks for the films box office 

Checkhov was originally created by Roddenberry to try to make the original series more hip. he had longer hair & there were storylines created where he was one of the main characters. Walter Koenig took the character from being a minor one to one where he was a major player in the ST franchise. I don't agree he's a trivial one but JJ Abrams made him so just like he trivialized ST lore by just changing it. It's too bad what the Star Trek movies have become. Trek fans love a story. They also love action but the action has to make sense with the story. All ST has become & from what I understand it will be overboard in the new film is a super fast action special effects train wreck film series. At least the movies have spurred CBS to bring back Star Trek as a tv series & in our universe not an altered one. Let's hope the writers bring back some some of Gene Roddenberry's values back into the new series. 

I think major character is a bit of a stretch for Chekov.  TOS was never an ensemble until the films. 

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think major character is a bit of a stretch for Chekov.  TOS was never an ensemble until the films. 

Never said it was an ensemble but if you do your TOS history, walter Koenig was brought in as Checkhov to bolster the ratings with younger demographic as the show was struggling. He got as much if not more television time as other characters orther than the Big 3. Don't forget when ST returned to the theatres in 1978, Checkhov was there with everyone else. If he was a minor & unimportant character he never would have been brought back.

Edited June 20, 20169 yr by iso_55

You're misrepresenting what I said. Firstly the actors who played Chekov, Sulu, Scotty and Uhura were not critical to the return of the TOS in 1978. Had any of them held out or opted out the films still would have happened 

In fact arguably the only person critical was William Shatner. When TOS was going to be a relaunched TV series in the 70's Nimoy opted out. 

Chekov was as important as the other secondary characters. That is to say not very, nostalgic aside. Scotty would have been the most important of the secondary characters  

Rand and Kyle were in the films too but most people won't even know who they are.  I always liked Chekov a lot as a kid so don't get me wrong. But let's be realistic.  

In the new film series he shouldn't have even appeared until this third movie. 

What does that mean?

7 hours ago, iso_55 said:

What does that mean?

Which part?  That he shouldnt have appeared until the third movie?  Because he was so much younger than everyone else in TOS.  He was born earlier in the JJ films to explain how he could be in Starfleet at that time.  I didnt think it was necessary.  While he had the one critical role of beaming them out while they were falling, it wasnt a scene that necessitated creating this entirely new Chekov character.  If it was me, I would have not had him in the film at all.  Maybe you tease him in STID being "dropped off" at the Academy if you want to be cute.

And then in the third one, he's introduced.  Its another little hook for the third film and parallels TOS in that Chekov wasnt there from the beginning then either.  It would have allowed them to use Gary Mitchell (who was the Ops officer in the second pilot) although I imagine tasking those writers with giving Kirk more than one friend in Starfleet was probably asking too much.

 

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Which part?  That he shouldnt have appeared until the third movie?  Because he was so much younger than everyone else in TOS.  He was born earlier in the JJ films to explain how he could be in Starfleet at that time.  I didnt think it was necessary.  While he had the one critical role of beaming them out while they were falling, it wasnt a scene that necessitated creating this entirely new Chekov character.  If it was me, I would have not had him in the film at all.  Maybe you tease him in STID being "dropped off" at the Academy if you want to be cute.

And then in the third one, he's introduced.  Its another little hook for the third film and parallels TOS in that Chekov wasnt there from the beginning then either.  It would have allowed them to use Gary Mitchell (who was the Ops officer in the second pilot) although I imagine tasking those writers with giving Kirk more than one friend in Starfleet was probably asking too much.

 

Abrams probably never saw the original ST: TOS pilot from 1964. Gary Mitchell became a God. A naughty one mind you. Kirk had to kill him off or be killed. Then again, he didn't know what it was like... to be... a.... God.

2 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

Abrams probably never saw the original ST: TOS pilot from 1964. Gary Mitchell became a God. A naughty one mind you. Kirk had to kill him off or be killed. Then again, he didn't know what it was like... to be... a.... God.

Certainly.  JJ was never a Trek fan.  He admits this.  He was a Star Wars fan.  He felt Trek needed to be more like Wars.  That was his angle in taking on Star Trek.  Also, the purpose of creating a new universe was a plan by Bad Robot to own all derivatives of their "universe".  They wanted to create an entire new Star Trek Universe with merchandise, animated programs etc.  The plan was to basically write over traditional Star Trek with this new version and own it.  Paramount disagreed on things and that was basically the break down in the relationship.

There were some rumors of money paid to JJ that didnt add up also.

CBS also refused to stop selling TOS merch because it made so much money and outsold the new universe merch.  Bad Robot tried to get CBS and Paramount to come together and play nicely (with the intent of Bad Robot becoming the new keepers of Trek) to no avail.

I asked one of the writers a few times what research they did and never got an answer.  I believe their research was likely watching the TOS films, if even that.  Because they didnt seem to have a basic understanding of the voices of the characters or their histories.  The JJ characters were all sort of paraodies.  Like Kirk was the wild womanizer, the stereotype of James T Kirk in popular culture but nothing like what the character really was like.  Spock was the emotionless character who always struggled with emotions...so in JJ films he was constantly emotional.  Bones was scene chewing one liners.  Scotty was comic relief.  None of it was true to the originals.

When Nick Meyer was hired to make Wrath of Khan, he didnt know Star Trek.  So he immersed himself in it, watching every episode so he understood what Star Trek was and, more importantly, understood who the characters were and their relationships to each other.  I dont believe Bad Robot did any of that.  One of their writers was the self-professed Trek expert so they all deferred to him.  Except he wasnt a Trek expert and not a very good writer and so we got stuck with two films that ranged from underwhelming (09) to awful (STID).

1 hour ago, iso_55 said:

Abrams probably never saw the original ST: TOS pilot from 1964. Gary Mitchell became a God. A naughty one mind you. Kirk had to kill him off or be killed. Then again, he didn't know what it was like... to be... a.... God.

See, Gary Mitchell would have been a great alternative to Khan.

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

See, Gary Mitchell would have been a great alternative to Khan.

Yes and would have fit the timeline better.  But then Bob Orci couldnt do his war on terror story.

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yes and would have fit the timeline better.  But then Bob Orci couldnt do his war on terror story.

Could still have it just diff character.

55 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Could still have it just diff character.

The War on Terror wasnt a bad idea in theory but Bob's perceptive was very anti-USA which permeated the entire script and rendered it almost useless.  Too much focus on the sympathetic terrorist and the evil government.  The way to do it was to make Marcus the main bad guy and expand his character and motivations.  He was the **** Cheney stereotype.  But show us some sympathy on his part, show us why he believes what he does. 

If you have to involve Khan, make it a lie...make it Khan's right hand man pretending to be Khan to save him.  That would explain why he looks and acts so different.  Plus preserves the reveal and gives you a shocking swerve when its revealed he's not Khan (use Prime Spock for that reveal so his cameo is more than just a "hi guys, whats shakin, yeah its nice here on New Vulcan.  Take care.  Love Spock".

Mitchell would have taken the story in a completely different direction and rightfully so.  It would have been the deep space, crew on the final frontier, all alone type of "episode" story.  And the likelyhood of its success would have meant Paramount didnt panic and fire the Bad Robot production team and provided an opportunity to do a 50th Anniversary film thats worthy of the 50th Anniversary rather then this irrelevant movie we're about to get.

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

If you have to involve Khan, make it a lie...make it Khan's right hand man pretending to be Khan to save him.  That would explain why he looks and acts so different. 

Would not work, they would have pics of Khan(see TOS episode).

36 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Would not work, they would have pics of Khan(see TOS episode).

Then it really makes no sense since the actor in STID looked nothing like Khan. 

In the TOS episode Space Seed Spock said records were fragmented and he was guessing at Khan's history. 

The whole khan thing in STID was convoluted and pointless anyway but if they had Joachin (or whatever his name was) pretending to be khan they still get the I am khan reveal (which Kirk never checked out anyway). And when they phone Spock to say hi he could say "that is not khan" so his cameo means something.  Use the revelation against Joachin to defeat him. 

End the film with the camera panning the cryotubes and lingering on the face of a young Montalban. Voila. 

Thought Spock pulled up pics of Khan on the viewer in TOS.

Time to hit Kodi...

Edited June 21, 20169 yr by FrostyWinnipeg

Or just not make a movie that stupid to start with. I feel like your discussing what type of sprinkles to put on your pile of ****.

38 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Thought Spock pulled up picks of Khan on the viewer in TOS.

Time to hit Kodi...

Yes but he still looked nothing like the actor from STID