Star Trek: Reboot The Universe

Jan posted this over on the forums of jmsnews.com, and I think it should be spread here. Share the love, that sort of thing. (I hope she doesn't mind my posting the link here too.)

jms and Bryce Zabel wrote a treatment for rebooting the universe of Star Trek. Bryce has posted a 14-page pdf file of the treatment in an entry of his blog.

Interesting idea, and I would have been in favor of it. I BELEVE that this was put together before the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica in its miniseries was announced, correct? Still that being said, there are a couple coinsidences with it:

1) Same concept of rebooting an original series.

2) Scotty as a female? Even if they said it was just an example, boy thats funny igven what BSG did with Starbuck.

Also in the description it seems that JMS was hoping to go back to his bread-and-butter 5 year series with 1 season equalling 1 year of real-time in the show. Same basic outline for the series as Season 1 of B5. Also appeared to have "million year old ancient culture" overall story arc.

Not saying it was going to be B5 redone in Star Trek, but the basic framework is there.

Either way I really liked the concept. As a Trek fan I would have embraced this --- especially given how well BSG has turned out. I don't think the original Trek Series (TOS) can compare to the original BSG series --- it was far far superior, but I do agree that after all that has been established, maybe refreshing things is in order. I also like that they would introduce some original stories, brought up to modern times.

Additionally, I've always said that even though effects and even acting were rough at times in the original series, that you needed to remember that it was state-of-the-art for the time it was made in. If you take that great original concept and put it in today's world where series and movie writing has gotten better and more has been learned (yes I do believe this is the case) then you could end up with a real masterpiece that would get the fans into something they can look forward to.

Too bad it never and won't come to pass.

Point of discussion:

Do you think the powers-that-be are making a mistake by re-releasing Trek after its hiatus as a big-screen movie? Granted JJ Abrams has a good track record, but do you think the hiatus has been long enough, and do you think moving back into things as a feature-length film was the right call? Or do you think doing a series as JMS outlined may have been a better way?

As much as JJ Abrams has a good record to most people, the way Alias more or less pooped out in seasons three, four, and five, I do worry that he's been tagged to continue on Star Trek because he's a name that people know right now and not because he'll do the subject matter well.

I don't think the hiatus has been long enough between the end of Enterprise and the release of the news about what's coming next, but it'll probably be enough time between the end of Enterprise and the new movie actually coming out if the movie is really really good. Going for a movie instead of a series probably feels less long-term committed for the bigwigs, and thus a safer way to go. If another movie sucks, it'll probably just be chalked up to being yet another sucky movie. If a new series sucked, then people would place blame on the execs and say they just don't know to deal with Star Trek properly.

Personally, I would have loved to have seen jms and Bryce, with strong backing from the studio execs (and funds that come with it), produce the series they described in the treatment because of how much substance they would be capable of putting into executing their idea.

Point of discussion:

Do you think the powers-that-be are making a mistake by re-releasing Trek after its hiatus as a big-screen movie?

Click to expand...

Yes, they are making a mistake. And what hiatus? It's barely had a hiatus.

Granted JJ Abrams has a good track record, but do you think the hiatus has been long enough,

Click to expand...

No, not nearly long enough. I'd say they should leave it alone for an absolute minimum of 10 years. 20 years would be better.

and do you think moving back into things as a feature-length film was the right call?

Click to expand...

Doing anything Trek, at the current time, is not a good call, be it in TV or movies. It's just that the Trek universe is so damned old and worn out. If anything should be done in the Trek universe right now, I'd say it should be with nobody (characters or actors) from the existing Treks, but rather with a completely different set of characters set in the Trek universe. Only in that way could they come up with something even remotely fresh.

Or do you think doing a series as JMS outlined may have been a better way?

Click to expand...

No, not that way, either. Trek has too much baggage to do that, especially in 2004 or now. Maybe in 20 years, but not now. Now, there will be too many comparisons made to the existing Trek for the new one, Abrams' or the JMS/Zybel one, to succeed. Much more time is needed for the existing Trek to fade from people's memories.

Yeah, it was too early then.

Reading through, it all seems very cool, this bit caught my eye...

We will keep the classic silhouette of the Enterprise, but fit her out with a level of amazing
technology based on what the best and the brightest minds tell us the future will look like in
200 years. Tricorders and communicators were predicted by the original Trek and are
already upon us in GPS technology and cell phones. What new wonders can we predict for
the future knowing what we know now?
We will keep the history of the characters, but give them the full range of dramatic
possibilities that exist now, as opposed to the more rigid standards that existed in 1968.
More complex, adult relationships.

Click to expand...

No, not nearly long enough. I'd say they should leave it alone for an absolute minimum of 10 years. 20 years would be better.

Click to expand...

10 years! I might die of waiting!

But seriously, by the time the movie comes out, it will probably be more like 4 years of no trek, which, while isn't that long, might be long enough to get people interested again.

I pretty much agree with what Recoil said, that this series would have probably been pretty interesting with JMS in charge. At the same time I don't think that rebooting trek is the way to go. But that’s an issue for another thread.

More Trek? Lame.

Making a good Star Trek show is impossible. Making a good show with Star Trek is not (DS9), but then what's the point?

Well, keep in Mind GKE, this is old stuff they're finally releasing. This concept was put forth before Enterprise had officially died

Well, keep in Mind GKE, this is old stuff they're finally releasing. This concept was put forth before Enterprise had officially died

Click to expand...

To what end? To see other actors be Kirk and Spock, et al, cultural icons represented with other people? To show us the politics of Starfleet, which is completely missing the point of Star Trek?

It could not be anything like "re-booting" Battlestar Galactica, a one-season hacky curiosity. It would be more like the various Twilight Zone revivals and remakes that have been hoisted upon us- just sad.

Science fiction itself is about the future, imagination, wonder- all of which run counter to insisting on throwing the defribulators on Trek over and over again.

Science fiction itself is about the future, imagination, wonder- all of which run counter to insisting on throwing the defribulators on Trek over and over again.

Click to expand...

RotFLMAO

It's a fair point. Trek took over science fiction on TV. Remember JMS's story about the Trek fan complaining about B5's hand-mounted links, because "It's been established that in the future communicators will be on the chest"?

Trek's (to my mind unrealistic) view of the future has strangled things to an extent. It opened certain doors, but closed others. Let the franchise die, and move on to new fields.

Hollywood's obsession with "remakes" and "re-imaginings" has frustrated me for the past couple of years. Now, after reading this ridiculous "reboot" idea, it's starting to worry me.

What happens when all the stories have been re-told? Do we then re-RE-tell them? Where's all the originality and creativity gone?? Why do we have to keep re-hashing so many great stories in favor of new, original ones, especially when so many of the re-hashings turn out to be complete shit?

To what end? To see other actors be Kirk and Spock, et al, cultural icons represented with other people? To show us the politics of Starfleet, which is completely missing the point of Star Trek?

It could not be anything like "re-booting" Battlestar Galactica, a one-season hacky curiosity. It would be more like the various Twilight Zone revivals and remakes that have been hoisted upon us- just sad.

Click to expand...

GKE is right. I don't want to see classic characters who have helped write the history of this franchise be played by someone else. No one is Captain Kirk but Bill Shatner. No one is Sulu but George Takei. No one is Dr. McCoy but DeForrest God-rest-his-soul Kelley. And while I disagree with KoshN's suggestion that we wait 20 years, I do think somewhere around 10 would be about right.

How can you "re-boot" something that is turning FORTY?

No. A re-telling is not the answer. Continuation is the only way to keep Star Trek going, and it shouldn't be done for a while yet. The focus doesn't HAVE to be on technology, or inverted ionic pulses, or "attempting to compensate." Voyager made this mistake. Enterprise made the mistake of trying too hard to create an intricate storyline without a memorable cast chemistry to back it up. Any future Star Trek series should be done by different people (like J.J. Abrams or JMS) who understand that Star Trek is about humanity and the desire to improve ourselves, despite our destructive nature.

I still don't see what would be gained even by waiting 10 yrs, or 20 yrs, or whatever. Just to make people hungry for Trek again? What are we, slimy Madisan Ave advertisers now?

No matter what is done w/ Trek or when it's done, or when it takes place or with whom, you're still stuck with the established universe, having to not repeat any of the stories told in ~566 hrs of live-action Trek, be contemporary but "true to the spirit of Trek."

It's simply impossible.

In 10 yrs, either the level of Trek fandom will die down with no new Trek to keep it going or it was remain powerful in the hearts and in place of social lives for hardcore geek fans. In the case of the former, why should people give a shit about Trek when it finally comes back in 10 yrs? In the latter case, those same geeks will be too obsessed with continuity to give it a fair shot.

Frankly, I think Star Trek is a so a product of the late 60s that it never really made sense to take it outside of that framework.
(Yes, I've adopted the only-original-Trek-is-good philosophy lately)

(Yes, I've adopted the only-original-Trek-is-good philosophy lately)

Click to expand...

Wow GKE. That might be the most interesting sentence in this thread. I thought you were always a huge TNG fan, and an even bigger DS9 fan (I know this because I bought all my DS9 DVDs from you ). That sentence just seems different from what I had come to think about your Trek preferences.

I'm not sure if he's meaning it here, but good as DS9 was .. it never really was "trek" in the classical sense .. as it never tried to be about the kind of stuff Trek should be about - exploring the galaxy in the oh so perfect and peaceful future, in which everybody loves everybody..

(Yes, I've adopted the only-original-Trek-is-good philosophy lately)

Click to expand...

Wow GKE. That might be the most interesting sentence in this thread. I thought you were always a huge TNG fan, and an even bigger DS9 fan (I know this because I bought all my DS9 DVDs from you ). That sentence just seems different from what I had come to think about your Trek preferences.

Click to expand...

Well I guess I was kinda being half-serious.

I've changed my opinion about a lot of things: music, movies, art, and TV, including some of the stuff we talk about here.

In a kind of "objective" sense, yes, modern Trek is nothing compared to TOS. It meant more when it came out, it was bolder, had more heart and spirit and was more fun. Though I'll be the first to make fun at some of the ham acting and wacky look, at least they went for it, full throttle (up until season 3).

This is not to say I have a certain fondness for TNG, my intro to the Trek universe, or DS9. They were finely crafted, told some good stories. But it just doesn't compare.

But yes, Chili is right in that DS9 is far removed from Trek. However, I'll quibble with the "everybody loves everybody" oversimplification- in TOS, humanity has improved, but it's far from perfect as well.

True .. it's really Voyager that bummed me on that concept. Big drama setup, with two crews combined that should be at eachothers throats at all times .. and within 2 episodes, they're all the bestest of best friends .. yeah, right. I do think the optimistic view of the future thingy is something that worked in the 60s, but less so in "modern trek", yes.

Thank you, Chilli. I'm not the only one that found that amazing.

Voyager had such an amazing premise. It makes me weep to think of where it could have gone.

If they wanted to force the crews together: throw a disaster at them. Make them work for their very survival. Do you recall how early in season 1 that sense of "how the fuck are we going to SURVIVE?!!" kind of died out?

People might not like DS9 for it's stealing of ideas from B5, but I can't help but like that series. People weren't always noble. They didn't always get along.

Does anyone recall the title of the episode where Sisko admits (talking directly to the camera, I think?) that he made some very "iffy" command decisions, but ....?

I'd love to hunt that episode down on DVD but I don't know the title.

Does anyone recall the title of the episode where Sisko admits (talking directly to the camera, I think?) that he made some very "iffy" command decisions, but ....?

I'd love to hunt that episode down on DVD but I don't know the title.

Click to expand...

From the episode In the Pale Moonlight, (Season 6) when Sisko is making his personal log:

At 0800, station time, the Romulan Empire officially declared war against the Dominion. They already attacked 15 bases along the Cardassian border. There's even a 'welcome to the fight' party being held tonight in the wardroom. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! This could even be the turning point in the war. I lied, I cheated, I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men, I am an accessory to murder. But the most damned thing is, I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it again, I would. Garak was right. A guilty concious is a small price to play for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it. I can live with it. I can live with it...

Click to expand...