Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the facing-off-against-lensflare-trek dept.

Sci-Fi 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."

cancel ×

401 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shades of Blake's 7 (4, Interesting)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#44658433)

Sigh me up.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (4, Insightful)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (3, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#44658789)

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

Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a year ago | (#44658889)

Sometimes violence is the rational solution, as with the Borg. /vulcanlogic

Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658899)

So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer – erase that entire personal log.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (4, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7 (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#44658955)

I prefer my science fiction to not be all sunshine, rainbows, and utopias.

How? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658445)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658469)

Pretty much no canon is totally consistent. I assume they mean abandoning the horseshit that was the reboot.

Re: How? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#44658569)

I hope they do abandon the so-called reboot.

Re: How? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658755)

I hope they bring back Reboot, that show was awesome.

Especially the episode with Rob Cursor.

Re: How? (1)

Bomarc (306716) | about a year ago | (#44658877)

There is so much that Paramount COULD have done but didn't.

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. One item that really tested Kirk's metal: The vampire cloud and watching Captain Garrovick die.
The list of possible good movies goes on...

I am looking forward to seeing this, by the people the care about ST!

Re: How? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44658909)

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: How? (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year ago | (#44658707)

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: How? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44658771)

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? (5, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#44658915)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658843)

He did it by making it Star Wars and taking out everything that made Star Trek what it was. It was completely watchable and for many people enjoyable. If it had been something other than Star Trek it probably would have been even better received by ST fans. The heart of what made Star Trek what it was is that it invited the viewer to aspire to make the world that was portrayed a reality. The new Star Trek films do nothing of the sort, despite the fact that they are great popcorn flicks. I respect j.j. Abrams as an artist and a director, but you can't just slap a name on something, rehash a few fan elements, and call it the same thing. Star Wars is a wonderful space epic. Star Trek is not a space epic, it's a Sci-fi drama. It may not appeal to everyone, it may not make as much money, but people don't tend to make the future from the popcorn flicks, they make the future because of those things that make them reach past themselves into the future of what could be.

Re: How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658969)

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.

Yeah! I don't want this sci-fi bullshit you're hawking, not even the soft kind that plays better on movies than those stupid books the REAL pathetic nerds read! None of this intrigue or character development nonsense, I want BOOBS and REALLY LOUD EXPLOSIONS AND OTHER NOISES! That's what makes a movie BETTER, because it MAKES MORE MONEY!

Re: How? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#44658973)

RT score?

Re: How? (2)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#44659017)

Meh, that is not saying much. Every summer we have 'highest grossing movie of all time!'. The big question will be how well it holds up over time, since the majority of summer blockbusters end up in the bargin bin within a couple of years and rarely have much of a following.

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 for attracting another market. Good business, but then again so is reality TV.

Re: How? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44658799)

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:How? (5, Funny)

jandrese (485) | about a year ago | (#44658471)

I think it is safe to say that they'll mostly ignore Enterprise, just like everybody else on Earth.

Re:How? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658551)

Everybody on Earth, except JJ Abrams. Both of the new movies contained references to ST Enterprise.

Re:How? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658573)

It is pretty hard to ignore Enterprise. Holy shit - that one had T'pal on it. Ignore her? Not a chance. Hell of a hottie.

Re:How? (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#44658773)

Kirstie Alley was the hottest Vulcan ever, back in the day.

Re:How? (3, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year ago | (#44658801)

I had a Vulcan one night stand with her.

It was Pon far and away.

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658585)

It did have a good season. Was nice to see a plot extend beyond one or two episodes. I loved what the ship looked like by the end of that season.

Re:How? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44658591)

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? (5, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#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? (5, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44658817)

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? (3, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#44658737)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658741)

thank god enterprise is not our timeline.

Re:How? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44658933)

I think it is safe to say that they'll mostly ignore Enterprise, just like everybody else on Earth.

..... invisible to the critics..... invisible to the fans ..... Enterprise! ...now with a cloaking device! Now it's even disappeared from the schedule.

Re:How? (5, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44658543)

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

Re:How? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#44658583)

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

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658679)

Baccula. Traditionally, this refers to a whale's penis.

Re:How? (1)

optikos (1187213) | about a year ago | (#44658713)

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

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

Re:How? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#44658781)

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:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658783)

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

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

You mean the storyline that identifies the entire series as taking place in an alternate timeline, thus making many differences from the original series' entirely explicable and not inconsistent in the slightest?

I get tired of all the Enterprise hate, to be honest. Yeah, it wasn't exactly the best thing ever, but it wasn't *that* bad. And some of series 3 was actually pretty good.

Re:How? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44658809)

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

Re:How? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44658635)

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? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#44659019)

What?

I've not watched many episodes and probably won't, but this sounds interesting. Can you tell me a bit more or point me in the right direction?

YES PLEASE! (5, Insightful)

maliqua (1316471) | about a year ago | (#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:YES PLEASE! (0)

echnaton192 (1118591) | about a year ago | (#44658513)

+1 insightful, if I had modpoints

Re:YES PLEASE! (3, Funny)

lnunes (1897628) | about a year ago | (#44658559)

Don't, worry, I've got you covered! And here, take one, too!

Re:YES PLEASE! (2, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44658539)

Why even make an alternate timeline if all you are going to do is rehash old episodes and movies (poorly)?

Re:YES PLEASE! (1)

verbatim (18390) | about a year ago | (#44658627)

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

Re:YES PLEASE! (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about a year ago | (#44658553)

You know that time travel has been a main plot element of Star Trek since the original series, right?

Re:YES PLEASE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658597)

a little time travel episode here and there is hardly the same, at least the characters were consistent, not "lets put spoc in the romantic subplot because it did better in focus groups"

Re:YES PLEASE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658725)

Yes, Star Trek should forever remain an AARP sausage fest. Just look at the above trailer - "Not your grandpa's Star Trek?" You wouldn't know it from the two old farts grimacing through the whole thing.

Re:YES PLEASE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658839)

lets put spoc in the romantic subplot

That was a blatant reference to Uhura serenading (and being accompanied on the Vulcan lute by) Spock in "Charlie X". Have you even watched the TV show?

Re:YES PLEASE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658735)

Post like these make me sad. Rehashing the same tired argument over and over from lazy posters. Where's the originality?

Re:YES PLEASE! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44658739)

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." ("Grandma! Your name isn't 'Sundove'! Drop the bong and back away from the microbus!")

Isn't it better to let the franchise die when our memories are still of young people doing exciting things, not arthritic pharts arguing at a conference table?

Re:YES PLEASE! (5, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44658897)

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:YES PLEASE! (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#44658995)

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

My preference would have been "somewhere else". Not "reboot" the franchise. If Abrams wanted to do something new, he should have done it. Not something half-new. Just as time travel/alternate universes crap is the crutch of the lazy sci-fi writer, rebooting an aged but recognizable and previously successful franchise is the crutch of the lazy producer and risk averse investor.

Re:YES PLEASE! (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#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.

What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658479)

I literally finished watching the last episode of Voyager today. That's *really* good timing. Well played, Star Trek.

Re:What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658541)

How was Mrs. Columbo?

YES (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658493)

Fantastic news!

The Trekkies will finance (5, Interesting)

ikhider (2837593) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:The Trekkies will finance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658669)

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 sign of the times. I think it was the '80s (Hill Street Blues?) before American prime-time shows started using multi-episode story lines.

I agree that the story arc concept is one of the reasons I have largely given up on prime-time television.

Re:The Trekkies will finance (2)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year ago | (#44658715)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658787)

Stand alone episodes are the fodder of retards, especially ST where the winning strategy comes down to re-configuring the deflector shield and a 2 minute explanation by the crew between themselves how they once again defined the laws of physics for the audience.

tl;dr: Trekkies are the dumbest of the dumb when it comes to serious sci-fi/space-fantasy.

Re:The Trekkies will finance (4, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#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. ]

Begone where no man has begone before :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658571)

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Beam me Up (4, Informative)

decipher_saint (72686) | about a year ago | (#44658579)

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 (2)

Sam_In_The_Hills (458570) | about a year ago | (#44658595)

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.

Re:Just wanted you youngsters to know (1)

cruff (171569) | about a year ago | (#44658643)

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 (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44658611)

This has "SUCK" written all over it.

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

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658651)

blasphemer

Re:No Thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658691)

You speak in strange whispers. This is not the way of Landru.

Re:No Thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658697)

He is not of the body.

Re:No Thanks (3, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#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.)

Re:No Thanks (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#44658943)

Well I wouldn't put it like that, but this is just a single short sequence, even with ST veteran actors, with some spliced CGI to make a trailer. I'm going to go into "wait and see" mode.

It doesn't help that whenever I hear Koenig's voice all I can think of are nuclear wessels (sorry). His voice and accent are just TOO iconic!

Sarship Mythbusters - Grant Imahara (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658621)

Nuff said :)

Myth: Is it true that the Borg lives in the Delta Quadrant ? Let's find out.

Pointless (1, Interesting)

Jiro (131519) | about a year ago | (#44658625)

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 to buy one either.

All this is is a piece of expensive live action fanfic.

ST Continues (4, Interesting)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year ago | (#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: http://www.startrekcontinues.com/ [startrekcontinues.com]

Re:ST Continues (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#44658731)

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:ST Continues (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44658873)

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 (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44658653)

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:I wish them godspeed (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#44658747)

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:I wish them godspeed (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44658797)

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:I wish them godspeed (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#44658837)

Because flogging a living one will get you in trouble with the SPCA, maybe?

Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#44658683)

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 faithful to the canon... (4, Insightful)

arpad1 (458649) | about a year ago | (#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.

Lol (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year ago | (#44658719)

Old-school "dreck" is dead, and the world is better for it. The new version is actually almost watchable, and people have already forgotten about the dreary TNG-verse. Abrams' Dreck is now the only Dreck. Get over it. :)

huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658795)

What is this voyager? Anyway, while they're at it, I'd suggest making a sequel to the Matrix.

No way. (1)

605dave (722736) | about a year ago | (#44658805)

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 (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#44658821)

Yes, please.

How is Chekov still alive? (1)

guru42101 (851700) | about a year ago | (#44658825)

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.

Re:How is Chekov still alive? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44658985)

McCoy was still kicking at the start of Next Gen, with no technobabble to get him their beyond their implied superior medical tech. Checkov was much younger (stupid bastardization of the new movies aside) and could be an oldish but not decrepit man.

Or he passed out in a ship travelling 99.99999% the speed of light in normal space for a few minutes, fill in the exact details.

Or pattern buffer.
Or time travel.
Or he fell into the sarlac pit whose digestion process actually kept him alive for 1000 years somehow but he got rescued early.

Self Consistency Canon (5, Interesting)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about a year ago | (#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.

CBS? (1)

trparky (846769) | about a year ago | (#44658869)

They're going to present it to CBS? Seriously? Well, that's a one way ticket to cancellation. Better for them to present it to say, NetFlix, at least there it would stand a chance of survival.

Remember, this is CBS we're talking about here; mainstream media. Mainstream TV media wouldn't know a good TV show if it came up and slapped them upside the face.

Re:CBS? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658941)

CBS owns the TV rights to Star Trek.

Pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44658871)

OK, so the saying goes "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." I'd say we're at level 10 and still digging now. Trouble is that from level 5 on down it's all known as "extruded crap". Jeez, can't these clowns get work? Trek "canon", what a joke.

Donated (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44658885)

$150 in.

Chekov? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44659011)

Voyager returned from the Delta Quadrant in the year 2378. The events of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country took place in 2293. How is Chekov still alive 85 years later?

Oy vey. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44659015)

Not another one. Please. This horse is so dead, it's not even usable as glue anymore. When IS there finally a good day to die??

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?