How would people feel if, in a few years, Star Trek was redone ala Battlestar Galactica? I have to admit, when someone brought this up to me, my immediate thought was "No way! That'd be horrible!" But, the more I think about it, it could be pretty cool. Watching BSG, I can see that an old sci-fi commodity can be re-done in an original and thoughtful manner. A new series can be a different take on an old idea, and not be constrained by the continuity of the previous shows (ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, and VGR). The new show would have the freedom to do whatever they wanted with this "alternate" Trek universe. So, what are your thoughts? And for those of you who think this may not be such a bad idea, and who are good artists (hey, we're modellers, we're all good artists :)), how about some designs for what the Enterprise, uniforms, characters, props, etc. might look like?

Dan

Sure!

I used to think that only Jeremy Brett could portray Sherlock Holmes until someone here mentioned the wonderful Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce movies from the 1940's. So there's no reason why other actors could not emulate that and do a fabulous job as Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest.

Huzz

Sure!

I used to think that only Jeremy Brett could portray Sherlock Holmes until someone here mentioned the wonderful Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce movies from the 1940's.

Huzz

Don't forget Christopher Plummer as Holmes in the underated "Murder by Decree" with James Mason as Watson(with a cameo by Nigel Bruce). And while it wasn't a purist Holmes movie the ultimate Watson had to be Ben Kingsley's "John Watson:THE CRIME DOCTOR!" in "Without a Clue".

Back on topic, I think the trek has too much a life of it's own to be remade ala' BSG.

I wouldn't mind a whole series set in the Mirror Universe. It'd have that "familiar yet different" tone, cross-series continuity wouldn't be an issue (for the most part), and you wouldn't have the "I like the original better" crowds whining and crying.

I think I've stated here in other threads that I felt that Ron Moore was in many ways poking his finger in the eye of his old bosses on Trek with his take on BSG. I think nearly everything he's done with BSG he tried to run by TPTB on Trek and got shot down. It is very easy for me to see Trek done as BSG is now.

BSG doesn't have the mythological status and rabid following of TOS, nor the recognizability of the actors in their characters. I'd lobby hard against a "reimagining." I'd much rather a different ship and crew set in the same time period.

BSG doesn't have the mythological status and rabid following of TOS, nor the recognizability of the actors in their characters. I'd lobby hard against a "reimagining." I'd much rather a different ship and crew set in the same time period.

My thoughts exactly but the words didn't come out when I was writing my version. I hit the "Back" button 'cuz it was a horrible post. Thank you for beating me to the punch. :thumbsup:

José

I'd much rather a different ship and crew set in the same time period.

Ya, that'd be cool, but how 'bout we bring in a new Director of Photography while were at it. Some different designers. Writers or course. I'm not saying throw it all out, but look differently at what is already there - let folks loose a little to have some fun with th material. One of my biggest disappointments with Voyager was that it looked and felt exactly like all the other modern Treks - smooth and textureless. I like the sets for Enterprise, but they were lit and photographed in the same way as TNG. Boring, boring, boring.

John O.

It would seem that the imagined "rabid following" has left. Otherwise the current show would not have been cancelled.

Starting from scratch, with an all-new Trek universe is the only way the subject can be made viable again, IMO. I would go back to Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al and start again. Keep the good, throw out the bad. New actors would be fine as well as updated environments. It should be obvious by now that "fanatic fans" are not enough to keep a show on the air so any new offering would have to reach out to a new audience too, just like BSG. The people at BSG have shown the way, to be sure, and the same sort of update-with-respect-to-the-original is quite possible with ST. In fact, I would welcome it. I love TOS to death and always will but would also love to see a new show that sticks to an established continuity, unlike ST in which every detail changed with every movie/show/season/writer.

Drama, action, science fiction concepts and strict (as possible) continuity. And how about a little ADVENTURE too??

Oh well, I won't be making it and neither will you. All we can do is hope for something good. Let's keep our fingers crossed that someone out there sees the possibilities (like JMS).

It would seem that the imagined "rabid following" has left. Otherwise the current show would not have been cancelled.

That's not entirely accurate. If anything, "Enterprise" showed that not all Trek fans are cut from the same mold. At its peak in the early 90s, there were tons and tons of people who considered themselves fans, but there were degrees of fandom:

- There were the casual fans, those who liked and enjoyed TNG but nothing else. They're not watching "Enterprise" and stopped watching anything Star Trek a long time ago.

What remained the hardcore ("rabid following") Trek fans. They break into two groups:

- Group one loves Star Trek (especially, though not necessarily, TOS) so much they considered "Enterprise" blasphemy and stopped watching it sometime in the last 3 years.

- Group two loves Star Trek so much they'd rather have anything Star Trek than no Star Trek at all. This is the last group left.

Obviously, the ones in this last group are not enough to prevent "Enterprise" from being cancelled.

José

Disagree José, by a degree maybe. I consider myself to be a life long Trek fan and I didn't think Enterprise blasphemous, just not very good television - thus I stopped watching 1/2 way throught the first season and have only caught a small handfull of eps since then which showed me that in fact not much had changed to bring me back. It was boring and childish (different than child-like) in presentation.

John O.

Hmmm.

Well, while a re-imagined Trek a la the current BSG could definitely work, I think the best option so far is that one suggested by John P as modified by John O. "The Two Johns". Here's why.

Right now there are still a lot of folks out there who think of Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock, Doohan as Scotty, etc. Re-imagining the show with new actors risks alienating all those fans who identify those actors with their characters. Developing new Trek characters in the same time period would avoid that.

Huzz

I'll always boost my anthology idea, as laid out here (http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3958404&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1) in my 4-page TVGuide advert entry in this months TrekBBS art contest:

http://inpayne.com/temp/trekseries6jp3.jpg

Four different Trek shows, four different time periods of Trek history, rotating in the same time slot each week. Different casts, different crews, different producers, different writers. Each crew has a whole month to turn out each episode and make it as good as they possibley can.

So John, how is the fund raising for these shows coming? :thumbsup:

I want to star in the TOS one! :D

Captain Collins to the bridge! :)

I still think that an anthology series would be a great run. An anthology showing different shows based on different ships, species and their perspectives, etc. would be great.


Imagine a "twilight zone" or "outer limits" type of series where one week it's be a starfleet episode on a capital ship. Next week, a show on a Klingon ship seeing things from their perspective, etc. No steady high paid stars, but guest stars each week. Most effects shots are done in CGI so it'd be cheap and the number of sets wouldn't be any greater than those used on a DS9. I think this approach would be a lot less "repetitive" than the usual series with the same people over and over.

Obviously we all have different opinions about the viability of "more of the same" vs "reimagined" but the last thing anyone attempting to make a new show should be worried about is "alienating those fans", meaning "the hard core". They no longer constitute a viable market (not enough of 'em I guess or too splintered into factions). Any new show that comes along really needs to carve out its own new audience. My personal preference would be as much continuity with TOS in terms of characters, environments and story as possible but I would not faint dead away from the sight new elements either.

As long as it were understood that this new show represented a new begining that is.

One of the things that always irked me about the shows which followed TOS was their claims of picking up the reins of the previous show while in fact changing everything that made it up. I don't care for the "Amazing Changing Universe" they created and constantly recreated. Lets have some continuity, for once.

I like TOS and TNG. Everything after was (for me at least) largely forgettable. Yeah, they tried a female captain, but I was more interested in 7 of 9 than Capt. Janeway or the stories :devil: ...sad but true!

Tried to watch Enterprise several times...I think I got as far as the first commercial once. The Enterprise needs a captain with character and substance (both of which Kirk and Picard had), not an unconvincing droog.

I think a reimagining was discussed in an earlier thread and with the right actors and DECENT writing could be an interesting proposition. The anthology idea has a lot going for it too.

Would I give it a chance? Yes. But to keep people who are caught up in the Star Trek universe interested, they've GOT to lose the hackneyed "formula" writers. To be fair, TOS and TNG each had their share of less than stellar episodes, but the ones that were good were outstanding."City on the Edge of Forever" and "Best of Both Worlds" come to mind.

Then again, I still like LIS! :D

Remakes of movies and shows--albeit, ones that were already as good as anyone could reasonably imagine they could get--don't do very well. There are few exceptions to this rule.

I'd be against a TOS re-imagining for this reason. I'd hate to see the stories redone.

A big HOWEVER is that I wouldn't mind different ships and characters from the TOS time period being in movies and series. I also wouldn't mind the TOS characters being shown before the original five year mission or a series with Captain Pike if done with the look and feel of the original.

I think the idea of an anthology or occasional TV or cable ST movie would be great.

I've always thought, 'why wait 3 or 4 years for theatrical movies when they can do something less than a series in scale and much more concentrated in quality and effort?'

The smaller investment could give other aspects of the Trek universe a gander. There could be movies concentrating on the Klingon or other alien perspective as well.

Lots of possibilities out there. I'd much rather see something like this than the crappola theatrical movies we've had lately where studio/star politics and favors mean more than a good story.

Then again, I still like LIS! :D

Oh, great! Now you've done it! You had to go and mention LIS! I've got that Johnny Williams theme song going through my noggin now thanks to you!

A reimagining for Trek seems more trouble than it is worth. Most of the other programs which have undergone this process have been based on properties from other media (comics to movies) or had less established history from which to draw -- especially true in the case of BSG. With BSG, you can either reimagine it, as has been done, or do a continuation -- it is primarily the story of one ship leading a small fleet. With Trek, it doesn't really cause problems to create a new ship and crew set in the same universe.

I think it would be difficult to successfully create a reimagined version of the original Trek, at least as long as a significant chunk of the audience includes those who remember TOS as their first exposure to the franchise.

Qapla'

SSB

I like John P's take on the anthology idea. Being mentioned before, the only problem with "random" anthology stories is the cost of creating new sets & finding new actors every week. The idea of having, as John said, four set shows rotating, would cut down on the cost somewhat for constantly casting actors. Even if you could do three story lines, I think it could work.

The only problem I see is the staff- basically you have three or four times the staff to create, essentially, a show for only one timeslot. TPTB would balk at it, thinking why waste all that money for one show when we could fill three slots with the same amount of staff.

Why does everyone forget DS9? Proof positive that you can remain in continuity, turn everything on its head, and create great television (IIRC, consistently one of TV Guide's "Best Shows You're Not Watching").

I like John P's take on the anthology idea. Being mentioned before, the only problem with "random" anthology stories is the cost of creating new sets & finding new actors every week. The idea of having, as John said, four set shows rotating, would cut down on the cost somewhat for constantly casting actors. Even if you could do three story lines, I think it could work.

The only problem I see is the staff- basically you have three or four times the staff to create, essentially, a show for only one timeslot. TPTB would balk at it, thinking why waste all that money for one show when we could fill three slots with the same amount of staff.

Matter of perspective. Yes, you have four sets of casts and crews, but they're only each doing 25% of the yearly work of a single continuous show, so it balances out in the end - 24 episodes of a single show vs 6 episodes each of 4 shows.

I expect there would be a single overseeing executive producer and his staff, with each show being run by four individual producers. I'd insist on little or no standing writing staff - using outside writers, spec scripts, etc, with a staff story editor, to keep it fresh.

But the production crew - art dept, effects dept, camera crew, grips, etc - I suppose they could be one crew that serves all four shows. That would be a logistical and cost saving.

I'm guessing, of course, with very little knowledge of how these things work. I wonder how rotational shows like "Name of the Game" and the "ABC Mystery Movies" worked it in the past.

Matter of perspective. Yes, you have four sets of casts and crews, but they're only each doing 25% of the yearly work of a single continuous show, so it balances out in the end - 24 episodes of a single show vs 6 episodes each of 4 shows.
A valid idea & point.

John P, that's how Roddenberry ran things. The problem now is that ST has been adopted by a corporation, solely for the money, leading to a series of unfortunate events, or maybe ' events of unfortunate series.'

Actually, a re-telling/re-imagining of the TOS timeframe would be nice. Another ship, another captain, but the same TOS timeframe. Of course, where would you find someone who could chew scenery like Shatner, today? That is why I say don't do the Enterprise story over.

Most times re...oh hacking up old show, fail. Look at such movies as Lost in Space, Wild Wild West, The Avengers, to name a few. So BSG has made it, but ST is more well known, and love by us old ones. If a series is like Starship Exeter, I could go for that.

JohnP,

Any chance your Enterprise B show could use an XO from a high-gravity world? I figure it is the only way to explain a fat guy in a Starfleet uniform.:D

Sorry, I am NOT gonna be Harry Mudd's son or a Tellarite! :lol: