Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Sci-Fi Television

New, Canon-Faithful Star Trek Series Is In Pre-Production 401

Posted by Soulskill
from the facing-off-against-lensflare-trek dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Star Trek veterans such as Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Tim Russ (Tuvok), Robert Picardo (the Doctor) and others are busy in pre-production of a professionally produced pilot episode for a suggested new online Star Trek series named Star Trek: Renegades, which will be faithful to the original Star Trek canon. The events of the series are placed a decade after Voyager's return from Delta Quadrant. When the pilot is complete, they'll present it to CBS in the hopes that it'll be picked up. They have also opened an Indiegogo campaign, seeking more funds from Star Trek fans to help make the production even more professional. They've already reached their primary funding goal."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New, Canon-Faithful Star Trek Series Is In Pre-Production

Comments Filter:
  • Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fredrated (639554) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:33PM (#44658433) Journal

    Sigh me up.

    • by alexander_686 (957440) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:06PM (#44658743)

      Don’t sign me up.

      Star Trek for me always had a certain ethos. Peaceful exploration, conflict could be solved with enlightened rational diplomacy. There were a few phaser blasts, but it always ended on a positive optimistic note about the future. Yes, Kirk was a big Boy Scout.

      “This necessitates more drastic measures, some of which are outside the Federation’s jurisdiction.”

      This is not Star Trek. This is not optimism in human (and alien) nature. I could be a fine show – it just not going to be good Star Trek. It would be like the Doctor running around with a Sonic Blaster instead of a Sonic Screwdriver. Just the wrong vibe.

      • by Nutria (679911) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:11PM (#44658789)

        Not only that, but rogues, renegades, edginess and fast pace just screams, "We don't know how to write interesting conversations!"

      • by jythie (914043) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:21PM (#44658945)
        While optimism was always a major part of Star Trek, the franchise has shown over the years it can explore darker themes and still be intellectually interesting. If it is all phasers and boob shots I agree it is not really 'Trek and would (for me at least) be painfully boring,.. but there is a lot of potential in exploring a weak federation that has to make (and live with) more complex moral choices.

        I imagine the devil will be in the details, and being good or bad will come down to what they actually do with this situation.
        • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Friday August 23, 2013 @06:23PM (#44660169) Homepage

          Exactly, Star Trek is not just TNG, with Captain Picard being very unwilling to do anything more than ardently ask the natives to not murder his crew.

          It is DP9 with traitorous officers, civil wars, racists, and war.
          It is Voyager with a genocidal Janeway, cutting a swath across the Delta Quadrant, and being willing to destroy whole civilizations on her journey home.

      • The Doctor is a Medical Hologram, He would normally have medical tricorder.

        (I am kidding, I am a big fan do Dr. Who)

      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:38PM (#44659175)

        So then DS9 was not Star Trek?

        Because it was the best series they ever made.

        • So then DS9 was not Star Trek?

          Because it was the best series they ever made.

          Agree 100%, but Roddenberry would have been aghast at how it portrayed his rosy view of the future.

        • by Andtalath (1074376) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @01:24AM (#44662271)

          DS9 explored how no decision is ever morally perfect, even if the people performing them are well-meaning through and through.

          Even the dickish spy moves in the series are quite justified, and this includes the potential genocide of an entire species.

      • by newcastlejon (1483695) on Friday August 23, 2013 @05:03PM (#44659455)

        Peaceful exploration, conflict could be solved with enlightened rational diplomacy.

        I must have missed that one. For the life of me, I can't imagine any episode where Kirk didn't shoot, punch or screw at least one of the guest stars.

  • How? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:34PM (#44658445)

    How can you be faithful to the canon when the canon isn't internally consistent? (see especially Star Trek: Enterprise)

    • Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)

      by jandrese (485) <> on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:36PM (#44658471) Homepage Journal
      I think it is safe to say that they'll mostly ignore Enterprise, just like everybody else on Earth.
      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        We can only hope. We can also hope that Picardo plays the Doctor instead of Johnnycab Who.

        Seriously, though, *fingers crossed* I hope CBS picks it up.

        • Re:How? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Guspaz (556486) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:00PM (#44658695)

          He's playing Doc Zimmerman. He didn't want to reprise the role of The Doctor because he's aged too much, but when it was suggested that Zimmerman would have aged the same as he did, he was onboard.

          • Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)

            by dgatwood (11270) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:13PM (#44658817) Homepage Journal

            They could really screw with everybody and produce a timeline in which Richard Woolsey is frozen after getting seriously injured defending Earth from a replicator attack, the Stargate program is abandoned and forgotten about per an IOA mandate, and Woolsey ends up being discovered on a distant planet by the Enterprise.

            • Re:How? (Score:4, Funny)

              by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @09:17AM (#44663273)

              Based on the preview I think that the intro is going to go something like this:

              In 2972 , a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum-security stockade to the Sol system. Today, still wanted by the Federation, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem...if no one else can help...and if you can find them...maybe you can hire...The Renegades

      • Re:How? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:05PM (#44658737) Homepage Journal

        If you hack out the time travel portion of the middle of the series, Enterprise was quite enjoyable. One episode in particular gave insight into how things we took for granted in the later years came to be. Namely, the Prime Directive.

        Sure, you could call Archer's speech about needing guidance a bit heavy-handed (he comes right out and uses the phrase Prime Directive), but similar to the original series and somewhat with TNG, that episode raised the question of how much interference/help should we give to another civilization without that help changing their natural progression?

        As an aside, the actress who played the doctor's assistant in that episode, Elizabeth Cutler, and who had an attraction to him, died the year after that episode aired.

    • Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)

      by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:43PM (#44658543)

      If you think that's bad, you should try being a Doctor Who fan.

    • What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

      • by optikos (1187213)

        What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

        I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.

        • What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

          I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.

          I guess that must have happened after I quit watching. Not really quit, I just wasn't motivated enough to chase its time slot all around. Could've also TiVo'd it I guess, but again, lacked motivation to press necessary buttons.

          It did have a good start.

          • What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

            I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.

            I guess that must have happened after I quit watching. Not really quit, I just wasn't motivated enough to chase its time slot all around. Could've also TiVo'd it I guess, but again, lacked motivation to press necessary buttons.

            It did have a good start.

            The Temporal cold war plot point was established in the pilot episode of Enterprise, so you must've quit very early into that series and forgot about it.

            When I heard they decided to introduce time travel as a key arc in a *prequel* to shows we already had, implying there wasn't enough interesting pre-Federation history to sustain the show on its own, I wrote off the entire series.

        • Yes, it was about this point that I stopped watching Enterprise.

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Star Trek: Enterprise was just a Holodeck program, didn't had to be consistent. Even opening theme was a clear signal that something wrong was happening there.
    • Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:36PM (#44659143)

      Heck Cannon is out the Windows in TOS, even in TNG.

      We see Trekees or Treckers (which ever one has the negative connotation) Coming up with extended reasons to explain every inconsistency.

      Lets face it. TOS and TNG were TV shows meant to be have a full story in one episode. The fact that the guy died a few weeks ago isn't that big of a deal because he wasn't really part of the story, or the fact that minor character started to get more parts thus his history changes a bit.

      O'Brian before he got his name, was a LT, his uniform had the LT pips... Then he became a Non-commission officer. Why well early on he was just an extra with a couple of lines. Then they made him a bigger part. Cannon out the window... Who cares.

      • Who cares, indeed.

        More importantly, ST has never been about consistency, or even quality plots. For every socially relevant episode of TOS (spoiler: racism is bad.), there are a dozen episodes of beating up some monster with laser pistols or making up some new weird biological feature for the pointy-ear'd guy to get out of a pickle.

        The real problem is that ST is a 900lb Gorilla, sucking the sci-fi dollars of hollywood, resulting in the starvation of all other properties, current or imagined. Star Trek get

  • YES PLEASE! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maliqua (1316471) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:34PM (#44658451)

    recent star trek movies make me sad time travel and rewriting is the tool of lazy sci-fi writers out to make a buck on an established name.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sponge Bath (413667)
      Why even make an alternate timeline if all you are going to do is rehash old episodes and movies (poorly)?
      • by verbatim (18390)

        Because, clearly, the loyal fan base really wanted a thinly-veiled remake of WoK to make up for the four TNG films.

    • by Tr3vin (1220548)
      You know that time travel has been a main plot element of Star Trek since the original series, right?
      • Re:YES PLEASE! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:27PM (#44659029) Homepage
        But the current reboot is nothing like episode The City on the Edge of Forever which wasn't a lazy use of time travel.
      • Re:YES PLEASE! (Score:4, Informative)

        by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Friday August 23, 2013 @06:57PM (#44660441) Journal

        Well, it sort of depends on how you define "time travel."

        First, you have the "real" time travel episodes: City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, All Our Yesterdays, and Assignment: Earth. These are episodes where people are supposed to actually be in a different time.

        Second, you have the "pseudo" time travel episodes: Patterns of Force, A Piece of the Action, Spectre of the Gun, Plato's Stepchildren, The Paradise Syndrome, and Bread and Circuses. While these don't actually involve time travel, they take place in environments that are the same or similar to Earth history. Patterns of Force and A Piece of the Action take place on planets where, due to human interference, the inhabitants have adopted the dress and demeanor of Nazi Germany and 1930s Chicago. Spectre of the Gun is an illusion of the Old West, Plato's Stepchildren takes place on a planet modeled after Ancient Greece, The Paradise Syndrome is inhabited by people who look and act like Native Americans, and Bread and Circuses takes place in a 20th Century Roman Empire.

        Third, you have a few of "time traveler" episodes: "Who Mourns for Adonais," where the crew of the Enterprise meets the ancient god Apollo, "The Savage Curtain," where Kirk meets simulations of Abraham Lincoln and Genghis Khan, and "Requiem for Methuselah," where they encounter a man who has been alive since 3500 BC and was Leonardo DaVinci, among other historical figures.

        So if you consider "real" time travel, only four episodes had anything to do with time travel. Out of 79--I'd hardly call that a "main plot element" of the show. On the other hand, if we throw in the six "pseudo" time travel episodes and add in the "time traveler" episodes, you come up with about 16% of the episodes having something to do with known Earth history. I'm still not sure I'd call that a "main plot element" of the show--hey, it's no "Time Tunnel" or "Quantum Leap"--but it's definitely noticeable.

    • by roc97007 (608802)

      recent star trek movies make me sad time travel and rewriting is the tool of lazy sci-fi writers out to make a buck on an established name.

      ...generally true. But old Trek had gotten so stale that there wasn't really any other place to go. I know many Trekkers don't like the reboot, and there are aspects that I wasn't excited about, but let's face it -- is a series made by old pharts for old pharts really where you want to be? It's starting to sound like being a Deadhead... "Yeah, there are a few members of the band still playing, let's follow them. Quick, Sundove, get in before the grandkids haul us off to the nursing facility." ("Grand

      • Re:YES PLEASE! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:18PM (#44658897) Homepage Journal

        No place to go? It's an infinite universe with an infinite timeline. Therefore, there are an infinite number of things that could happen that don't involve interactions with anyone important and therefore don't affect the timeline. You could write a story about the war between the Vulcans and the Romulans, for one. That's never been explored in any depth. Heck, that could be an entire series by itself, with almost no risk of significantly violating the canon.

      • by Nutria (679911)

        The thing, though, is that ST:TOS was pretty topical for it's era, with metaphors to the Cold War, Civil (black & women's) Rights, all wrapped up in US optimism that was a carry-over from WW2.

        Likewise, ST:TNG echoed the wretched sensitivity of the 80s & 90s, and ST:ENT did the terrorism thing.

        Why couldn't a new ST deal with the over-arching themes of the 2010s?

    • Re:YES PLEASE! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:14PM (#44658831)
      Tools depend on the skill of the person using them. I thought the new movies were good. In fact, I watched the Wrath of Khan after the most recent star wars movie and (takes a deep breath and cowers behind flame shield) the old one is pretty horrible IMHO.

      I'd further argue that J.J. Abrams was a bigger name than Star Trek in the circles that counted when the first remake movie came out. Not among fans obviously, but among the studios.
  • by ikhider (2837593) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:45PM (#44658555)
    Somehow, I don't think they will have trouble getting funding for this. I am sure Wil Wheaton will be on this as well. Trekkies are a massive economic force to be dealt with. I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe. A cursory glance at the newer shows and I have no idea what is going on and thus no reason to care. Heck, while I am at it, why don't the script writers add a bit f science to their sci-fi. That would be nice.
    • I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe.

      I always felt that was one of the biggest problems with Star Trek. It's pretty hard to tell a deep/complex/compelling story in only 40 minutes.

    • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:13PM (#44658811)

      I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe.

      Then you would have disliked Farscape as it was very serial - at least to get it all. True many episodes could stand alone, but the season/series arcs really tied things together and many details were intertwined throughout most episodes. Actually one of the reasons I liked it - though I won't discount my crush on Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black) - and most of the other women on the series :-) [ I do like strong, smart, independent women. ]

  • Beam me Up (Score:5, Informative)

    by decipher_saint (72686) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:47PM (#44658579) Homepage

    Lately I've been on a Trek retrospective (Trekrospective?) thanks to Netflix and by Evil Spock's beard do I miss Star Trek

    All power to the engines!

  • that some of us who watched the first season of the first series in it's first run, before reruns, are still alive and kicking. Of course back then we watched it on black and white T.V. My brothers and I each got a plastic model of the Enterprise for Christmas. Wonder whatever happened to them? The models, not my brothers.
    • by cruff (171569)

      My brothers and I each got a plastic model of the Enterprise for Christmas. Wonder whatever happened to them? The models, not my brothers.

      Being young boys of that era (one of which I am also), you may have used the models for BB gun target practice or blew them up with fire crackers while performing your own special effects. Or possibly flew them into a simulated star (camp fire?) and watched them burn up.

  • This has "SUCK" written all over it.

    It's been nearly 50 years. Time to give it a rest

    • Re:No Thanks (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:04PM (#44658723)

      So long as a show doesn't stagnate (I'm looking at you Simpsons), I see no reason why a particular time limit needs to be put on a show. I'm a big Doctor Who fan that that's been around for 50 years now. (Granted, I haven't seen many of the classic Doctor Who episodes yet. I began watching last year with Doctor Nine and worked forward. Eventually I'll go back and watch the classics.)

  • Pointless (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jiro (131519)

    Being stars of the series and/or professionals doesn't mean you own the copyright. Producing something you don't have the rights to produce is just as likely to get you a cease and desist order.

    And even ignoring that, although this is "professionally produced", the people who own Star Trek will produce what they want. I'm pretty sure that if they had wanted a Star Trek pilot to be made, they could have commissioned one on their own. If they're not willing to commission one, they're probably not willing t

  • ST Continues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:51PM (#44658631)
    Star Trek Continues is very, very good. The first episode features the return of Apollo, played by original actor Michael Forest. I've already sent them money; I'd rather see this funded than more TNG era stuff. The era had its moments, but this is a really faithful back-to-the-roots adaptation that captures the heart and soul and the *feel* of Star Trek better than anything else I've ever seen. The attention to detail is amazing. Gorn Bob says check it out: []
    • by Guspaz (556486)

      It's somewhat confusing that there are now two separate and mostly unrelated TOS continuations (well, Vic Mignona is involved in both) shooting on the same soundstages (specifically the ST:NV ones), though. ST:NV has changed most of the actors one or more times anyhow, so it's not entirely clear to me why they're not collaborating more directly seeing as how they're already using the same facilities.

    • Yup. What I'd like to see is a series based on Sulu's time as captain of the Excelsior. That to me would kick some serious ass.

  • I wish them godspeed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:54PM (#44658653) Journal

    I really do. And it's good to see Walter working again. But Voyager and Enterprise pretty much soured me to Old Trek. I'm sure some people will really enjoy this, and the best to them. But I'm done. I'd much rather see something (relatively) new and different move forward, like L5 []. Or a series based on literature that hasn't been done yet, like Ringworld or even the Heinlein juveniles. Why must we continue to flog dead horses?

    • by Guspaz (556486)

      The problem is that L5 did one pilot, it ended on a cliffhanger, and a year and a half later there's no indication of any work to continue it.

      • by roc97007 (608802)

        The problem is that L5 did one pilot, it ended on a cliffhanger, and a year and a half later there's no indication of any work to continue it.

        Yes, that is a problem. But the difference between that and this is that it wasn't trying to drag a dead franchise out of its casket and slap it awake. L5 had some interesting ideas, and I'm sad that it never went anywhere.

        There are people who will watch anything that's Old Trek, even if it's the original crew playing Wheelchair Basketball. Maybe there are enough geriatric fans out there to make another series a moderate success. But it has to be a steadily decreasing number.

    • by mark-t (151149)
      Because flogging a living one will get you in trouble with the SPCA, maybe?
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday August 23, 2013 @03:58PM (#44658683) Homepage

    After locating the nuclear wessels (a Russian inwention), Psi-cop Alfred Bester finds a way to travel back to the 1980's and muck with Khan Noonien Singh's head (explaining why Khan recognized Chekov on Ceti Alpha V).

    • by mark-t (151149)

      You know, just because Koenig wasn't on the series during Space Seed is no reason to think that Chekov was not on the Enterprise at all.

      There were over 400 crewmembers on board the Enterprise, Chekhov's absence in a first season episode is easy to explain simply by having him not yet assigned to full-time bridge duty.

      Also, the novelization of Space Seed explicitly mentions Chekhov as being on night watch.

  • by arpad1 (458649) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:02PM (#44658709)

    ...does that mean there'll be lots of lip service to the Prime Directive while completely ignoring it? Does this mean the captain of an important Federation ship will get into fist fights as part of his duty as well? Will there be significant loss of life among the crew as a regular occurrance during peace time and will the ship regularly engage in ship-to-ship combat during this same peaceful time as well?

    If the answer's "yes" then this new production will be faithful to the original.

  • There's no way this is ever going to get the big stamp of approval. If Paramount did launch a new TV show, I would be shocked if it wasn't based on the JJA universe. Why in the world would they want to introduce the confusion of two separate Trek universes being marketed at one?

  • Compared to TOS wouldn't this be way in the future? I know TNG, DS9, and Voyager occur in less than 20 years. The TOS characters that make an appearance all have some excuse to still be alive. Scotty is only alive due to storing himself in a teleporter. Kirk was trapped in the nexus. Spock is late to middle aged, for a vulcan, and his father is elderly. Maybe he's playing Pavel Chekov Jr, like Brent Spiner played Data, Sung and a few of Sung's ancestors.
  • by ShooterNeo (555040) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:14PM (#44658835)

    I would greatly prefer if the writers for this series, in the unlikely event it takes off, focused on being self consistent.

    Don't show the "time police" one episode, complete with an enforcement vessel called the USS Relativity, that ruthlessly polices the timeline, then magically resolve all the outstanding problems by having your captain come back from the future with cheat-technology in a later episode. (because if the time police let this stand, why don't they simply give the Federation the best tech of all time from day 1?)

    Don't show a space station next to earth one movie, with a massive infrastructure, then show the Enterprise and another ship have their illegal fight between Federation warships right next to earth, so close that the Enterprises crashes into the earth in the same movie!

    If you establish that maximum warp has a speed, don't show a ship getting from the border of the Klingon neutral zone to Earth in 5 minutes of warp.

    If you establish that Bones is the medical officer on the ship, aka the only qualified doctor, and you then show the Enterprise taking massive damage with mass casualties, don't have him quietly standing on the bridge lecturing Kirk instead of getting his ass to sickbay to treat the critically wounded.

  • Politics... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jythie (914043) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:33PM (#44659119)
    Right now, too many careers and face are invested in the reboot. It does not matter how good or bad this would be, it is unlikely the IP owners would allow it to succeed since it would hurt the personal careers or people in charge right now.
  • by Tighe_L (642122) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:39PM (#44659177) Homepage
    I was talking to a friend about my idea for the next Star Trek show. One set in a remote federation outpost where a Federation Admiral is corrupt, and there is a crew of a non-federation (human captain) ship that is constantly having to deal with him. Think Dukes of Hazzard. The Admiral makes them out to be criminals, but the reverse is true and this ship is always coming to the aid of people in the sector while trying to scrape out a living and possible get the big score. The crew would be a Human male captain (I am thinking about reprising William Campbell as Thadiun Okona) An old Klingon with a death wish (just wants to die in battle, but whenever he get the chance he is needed and misses the opportunity) (also he likes 80s rock and plays the guitar) Exiled Romulan who constantly clashes with the Kingon (looking for evidence to go home and reunite with his family) Orion Slave Girl A female Nausicaan (twist that female Nausicaans are attractive) Vash might be a recurring guest star.
  • by franblets (1643087) on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:51PM (#44659321)
    This is the same mistake made by all that have gone before... Sell it to one of the broadcast networks where it will be canceled in 2 years or less. Sell it to the SciFy channel where it will be watched and supported.
  • by onyxruby (118189) <.ten.tsacmoc. .ta. .yburxyno.> on Friday August 23, 2013 @04:53PM (#44659343)

    Sorry, but Mission Impossible is an entirely different series, not based in space at all.

    The problem is that with the advent of millions of fans and the Internet every little flaw, tick and tock is well known. There is no true canon as such as there are too many inconsistencies in the series.

    You see to get a Star Trek series that was canon compliant you would have to start by axing every single series after the original. Even if you did that and stuck with the movies you would have to draw the line at a certain movie without voiding canon. By the time you were done taking an axe to everything in the name of purity you wouldn't have much left to work with. The younger fans know the newer series and you would alienate them by saying their favorites simply didn't exist.

    You can't even really say that Star Trek is an idea, as the very idea of what Star Trek means has changed quite a bit over the years. If you did go with the canon of the original ideas you would end being accused of being politically incorrect (why do the women wear miniskirts and why is the Captain banging all the aliens?). The bottom line is that you can't take a series made back in the spirit of the 1960's and make it again today. Society, the series, the actors, the story and just about every other thing about the show has changed.

    This is why franchises get rebooted, it all gets too messy, and there far too many fan-boys and fan-girls to appease with far too little benefit for the cost of being canon compliant. It's not an accident that they just rebooted Star Trek with the 2009 movie.

  • by LongearedBat (1665481) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @01:53AM (#44662331)

    When the pilot is complete

    Is the pilot an android?

  • by mitcheli (894743) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @07:54AM (#44663035)
    Gotta admit, I cringed when I heard the words, "J.J. Abrams" and "Star Trek" used in the same sentence. And so far, ... yep... not impressed. Pretty curious to see Grant Imahara's spin on his character. That sounds pretty interesting.

Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to be appointed to do the work.