New, Canon-Faithful Star Trek Series Is In Pre-Production 401
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."
Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh me up.
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, but rogues, renegades, edginess and fast pace just screams, "We don't know how to write interesting conversations!"
Re: (Score:3)
So why the uniforms? Why not just "casual"?
Esprit de Corps.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. Except I heard they will be keeping red shirts for some of the minor characters in the landing parties.
Just for Esprit de Corpse...
Re: (Score:3)
Except that fails as a narrative device in this situation.
Having each character wear their own outfit would allow for a visual "shorthand" for that character's history and personality.
Firefly and Blake's 7 are great examples of this. Why does Mal wear that long coat? Inara wears skirts and dresses but Zoe is usually wearing trousers. Jayne's outfits are different from Simon's.
We Are Out Of Work Actors - Our Agents Gave Up (Score:3)
Years ago...
Can you help? C'mon gang! Let's put on a show!
Actually, I'd pay GOOD MONEY to see anything with Larissa and Chasty prominently featured.
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:4, Interesting)
I know I'm in the minority, but DS9 was my favorite Trek after the original - in part because they did a much better job developing the interpersonal relationships than other post-TOS Treks (which is part of the reason TOS stands up so well, even now).
And I actually enjoy long story arcs.
Re: (Score:3)
The Doctor is a Medical Hologram, He would normally have medical tricorder.
(I am kidding, I am a big fan do Dr. Who)
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
So then DS9 was not Star Trek?
Because it was the best series they ever made.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:4)
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.
Watch out guys... (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, but when your typical oldster starts talking about how optimistic TOS was he really means naive.
We're dealing with a Betazoid over here.
Re: (Score:3)
Izzat so.
Maybe you're talking about then and now.
If you'd lost track of time in the books, there was a knock on the door, "Hey! Star Trek's on." Scoot down to the rec room, into the rows of chairs gathered in front of the maybe 14" b&w tv, and for an hour we had an escape, a story, a parable, however cheesy it may have seemed even at the time. Optimistic? Hell, yes. We needed a bit of that. Kids dealing with the draft, others coming home to an often alien world. Lynchings and other murders of peo
Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
How can you be faithful to the canon when the canon isn't internally consistent? (see especially Star Trek: Enterprise)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon
Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Did you even watch the show? (Score:3)
Enterprise just killed me when they would have this big long speech about the need for readiness and make Count Bakula say a line like: "We need some sort of alerting the crew about danger, maybe with light, a colored light, maybe we should make it red, so it could be known as a red alert."
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tactical_alert [memory-alpha.org]
Tactical alert was a security protocol instituted by Malcolm Reed under the influence of dangerous mind-affecting radiation aboard the Enterprise NX-01, in response to the perceived number of threats that were being encountered by the ship in their deep space exploration mission. The protocol was kept due to its usefulness. It was a precursor to the alert system used on later Starfleet vessels.
The alert was designed to automatically bring the ship to battle-ready status when a pre-programmed set of circumstances occurred (for instance, an impact to the hull, or an order from the captain). When a tactical alert was initiated, the hull plating would be polarized, the weapons were automatically charged, and critical systems such as the warp core were secured. In addition, all crewmembers would report to battle stations upon initiation of the alert.
While in the process of naming the new condition, the terms "Reed alert", security protocol and condition red were suggested. The term "Reed alert" was sarcastically suggested by Commander Tucker as the name for the new tactical alert system Reed was working on, but was later dismissed by Lieutenant Reed as being "a bit narcissistic," whereas security protocol was deemed "not very dynamic." (ENT: "Singularity")
By the 23rd century, tactical alert was replaced in Starfleet by the red alert, yellow alert and blue alert conditions. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, et al.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How? (Score:4, Funny)
I had a Vulcan one night stand with her.
It was Pon far and away.
Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes, Enterprises' T'pol, famous from such unforgetable episodes as "T'pol rubbing some stuff on herself in the decontamination chamber", "Somebody else rubbing stuff on T'pol in the decontamination chamber" and "Could this decontamination chamber scene be any more suggestive and puritanical at the same time?".
Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)
If you think that's bad, you should try being a Doctor Who fan.
Re: (Score:2)
What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...
Re: (Score:2)
What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...
I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was about this point that I stopped watching Enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He might be referring to the very last episode of Enterprise, where key events were part of a holodeck simulation being run by Riker and Troi during the events of the TNG episode "The Pegasus".
I don't think that suggests the entire *series* was a holodeck storyline, but I think gmuslera's comment was more more tongue-in-cheek anyway.
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they do abandon the so-called reboot.
Re: (Score:2)
In the first reboot by JJ; he crated an exciting movie, but why bother to call it ST? (The 2nd one really sucked - with the number of GLARING plot holes, errors and bad re-writes. It is the first ST move that I won't buy)
Movies that I would like to see that would require actual THOUGHT to write: The Constellation - and the the Dooms Day Device with Decker loosing his crew, Captain Kirk's Brother - when the planet they were on was invaded.
Re: (Score:3)
Doomsday Device is my absolutely favorite ST of any iteration. That was one fucking awesome episode. Well-written, full of tension and suspense. The fact that the Device looks like a badly-rolled joint is besides the point. That was some damned fine writing.
Re: (Score:3)
One item that really tested Kirk's metal
The plate in his head? Or did you mean mettle?
Re: How? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reboot is an alternate timeline, so the original universe still exists separately.
You may be surprised to learn that not only did the "horseshit" reboot make more money than all the other Star Trek movies combined, it had a higher RT score than Wrath of Khan.
That Abrams guy is a real asshole. He turned a Star Trek movie into something entertaining that audiences, and critics who usually rip on blockbusters both seemed to have enjoyed.
Re: (Score:2)
The first one wasn't bad. The second one felt like a half-assed attempt at remaking Wrath of Khan, and didn't hold together very well, IMO. It lacked plausibility in many respects, and also lacked the emotional depth of Wrath, because they brought the main character back before the movie ended. It felt like a version of Star Trek crafted specifically for people with short attention spans and little ability to spot plot holes.
Re: How? (Score:5, Funny)
I kept wondering why in the 'verse they'd ever bother with ships again. They can beam across space to other planets without that pesky years-in-hard-vacuum bit in the middle.
Transwarp makes negotiations easier, too:
"Captain Awesome, the Klingon ambassador demands--"
*teleporter sounds*
"I beamed him into the sun. What's his successor want?"
Re: How? (Score:4, Interesting)
It felt like a version of Star Trek crafted specifically for people with short attention spans and little ability to spot plot holes.
Nailed it.
Not to show my inner hipster, but I really feel that massive box office sales actually mean that it's not a particularly good star trek. The series is enjoyed by nerds, and since the vast majority of people in the world aren't nerds, it will appeal to a very small subset of people. What appeals to nerds usually doesn't appeal to others, and vice versa. By expanding to include a wider audience, it will by definition need to abandon a lot of what made it "good". That might be great for making money, but the series is no longer star trek and has abandoned its initial fanbase.
Re: (Score:3)
The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) to ever be trusted to support something new. Even "Lord of the Rings" got lots of nerd rage for cutting out Tom Bombadil, replacing about a million elfs with Galadriel and Elrond, adding humor to Gimli's character not to mention the whole Aragon/Galadriel love story which was too much of a chic flick taking away from the Frodo/Sam story and the list goes on and on. And really, what pe
Re: (Score:3)
The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) ...
The very length of the list of characters accepted by "old fans" disproves your thesis. Have you seen any Star Trek? Do you realise how badly those series treated the fans? Trekkies have put up with the a history of writers and producers who don't respect the "universe", hammy actors, cheap production values, the endless threat of cancellation, and continued to love the shows. If you've got $100m to throw at a green screen and you can't please those guys for 90 minutes then you are a moron.
No, NuTrek was ha
Re: How? (Score:5, Funny)
Ooh. I know this. The probe destroys Earth, and all the whales leave, saying, "So long and thanks for all the fish." No, wait.
Re: (Score:3)
And true, Abrams put out a movie with mass appeal, but so what? The majority market already has pretty much everything catered to them, all he has really done was taken something that had a large following and used it as inspiration
Re: How? (Score:4, Insightful)
That Abrams guy is a real asshole. He turned a Star Trek movie into something entertaining that audiences, and critics who usually rip on blockbusters both seemed to have enjoyed.
He turned Star Trek into something that everyone BUT a Star Trek fan seemed to enjoy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Budget: $46,000,000 ($134,178,424)
Box Office: $139,000,000 ($405,452,196)
Gross Profit: $93,000,000 ($271,273,771)
Gross Margin: 66.91%
----
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Budget: $11,200,000 ($24,572,366)
Box Office: $97,000,000 ($212,814,248)
Gross Profit: $85,800,000 ($188,241,881)
Gross Margin: 88.45%
----
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Budget: $16,000,000 ($32,612
Re: (Score:2)
Gawd yes. As bad as Voyager and Enterprise were, compared to the hideousness that is the reboot films, they're works of genius.
But frankly, I could give a s--t about another show in the TNG era. I'd much prefer to see a show with Sulu as captain.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be fabulous!
Yes, I did go there, don't you judge you me. It is funny and he is awesome.
YES PLEASE! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, clearly, the loyal fan base really wanted a thinly-veiled remake of WoK to make up for the four TNG films.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:YES PLEASE! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:YES PLEASE! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:YES PLEASE! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Trekkies will finance (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:The Trekkies will finance (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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!
Just wanted you youngsters to know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No Thanks (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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 [l5-series.com]. 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph (Score:5, Funny)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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 faithful to the canon... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
No way. (Score:2)
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?
I AM THROWING CASH AT MY MONITOR (Score:2)
Yes, please.
How is Chekov still alive? (Score:2)
Self Consistency Canon (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
This could have been better (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll never understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Mission impossible (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but Mission Impossible is an entirely different series, not based in space at all.
Though, ironically Leonard Nimoy *did* appear in it. [wikipedia.org]
Completing the pilot (Score:3)
When the pilot is complete
Is the pilot an android?
Cool! Looking forward to it! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No...
THERE ARE **FOUR** COMMENTS
[crap to defeat the lameness filter]
[crap to defeat the lameness filter]
[crap to defeat the lameness filter]
[crap to defeat the lameness filter]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)