All right, I realize this thread has gone ridiculously off-topic, but the discussion has been fun to read, so I might as well chime in on the "current" topic of the thread.
First off, I have to ask this question:
since when does
Star Trek have to be like
Star Wars in order to be successful? This isn't a comparison of apple's to oranges, or dog's to cats, it's a comparison of dog's to alligators; Trek and Wars are two totally different animals. The "what do we have that's like Star Wars" quote is constantly taken out of context; it was made when every movie studio was getting pounded because they were all offering the same thing, except for FOX which was offering "Star Wars," and actually making a profit. The Trek film that was supposed to "be like Star Wars,"
never made it out of pre-production, and the film that we did get was originally written as the pilot for the TV series that had been planned (Phase II, In Thy Image,) and was to remain quote un-quote "cerebral." The script was even recycled a second time to create "Encounter at Farpoint," as were several other completed "Phase II" episodes.
Roberto Orci has stated that the direction of the next Trek film will largely be decided by fan opinion, more specifically fan request. Maybe Orci's asking fans what they want to see at conventions, or has asked Paramount to devote some people to reading forums like these to see what fans are asking for. J.J. Abrams still hasn't signed on yet, Orci said he won't sign on until the script is complete and he reads it, much as he refused to sign onto the last film until the script was complete and he read it. However, Orci also caution that the fan input needs to be completed by December, so I highly suggest those of you planning to give your input find out how to do so.
As for the direction that Trek should take in the future, I think it has to fit the medium that it's being presented on. The 2009 film was perfectly suited to movie theaters and to the summer blockbuster crowd. The 2009 film was a bit more action-driven than what I want to see in 2012, but it did what it needed to, which was to bring casual viewers and casual fans into Trek. Not every Trek series or film needs to do this mind you, but once in awhile there needs to be something you can give "new" viewers to help them get their feet wet. The next step for Trek films should be fleshing out this alternate continuity that was just created, and I believe that should be left to the big screen.
For television, Trek needs to re-establish its presence there as well. The next TV show should be set in the 25th Century, far enough after VOY/NEM to allow for back story to be developed, but close enough that the characters from past shows can make a cameo here and there. Let's see the fallout from the destruction of Romulus. Do the Romulans reunify with the Vulcans, begin to die out, join the Federation, have a problem with others like Nero, or establish a new home world and attempt to rebuild their empire, if it's the latter, do they use something like the Genesis Device to do so? TV gives you the ability to run new episodes of a show each week, to explore characters in-depth, and to do things story-wise that you can't do in film. Let this be the more "cerebral" form of Trek.
If you really want to push the envelope, launch two new Trek shows at once, the one with the general concept noted above, and one more that can be handled in one of two different ways. The second show can be set on a Federation Colony or a space station like DS9, but unlike DS9, could and would feature a "revolving door" of cast members that would change each year. Maybe one or two people would stick around for a second or third year, but they too would only last for three years at most. This series would be designed to run indefinitely, and since it's plot-driven rather than character-driven, it could run for 20 seasons straight, except each season would feel like an individual series. This is not a substitute for Trek as we know it, but rather, a way to make Trek more accessible to people who have never seen it before. The other option for the second Trek series is to do something that's animated; I wouldn't mind a
Voyager cartoon that picks up right where "Endgame" left off if Trek took this route. VOY was initially written by Roddenberry as a concept for a children's series, which was later modified to become a Trek series, so it's actually quite possible, and not too difficult to create a Voyager cartoon that would likely do well with children. Voyager tended to have quite a few action-driven story lines to begin with, so there's already a route that it could take to be more accessible to children than, say DS9. In fact, you could go a step further here and actually do a live-action follow-up to VOY aimed at children. In the '90s Nickelodeon had
Space Cases, which really was a sort of "Voyager for children" concept, with Bill Mumy and Peter "New Frontier" David at the helm. A Trek series aimed at children would likely wind up on Nickelodeon as well, given CBS' good relations with Viacom. Right now Nickelodeon has
iCarly as a live-action show, and they're adding the new Saban-produced
Power Rangers series sometime between January and February of 2011. A live-action Trek series for children could be "hammocked" (industry jargon for placing a "weak/new" show between two "old/strong" shows,) between the two aforementioned shows.
While the second Trek show would be nice, the next movie and a return to prime-time television should be top priority. (With CBS owning the series, I can no longer use the pun of "Paramount.") People need to stop measuring Trek's success in relation to the success of Star Wars. They're two totally different things, and trying to make them act as if they were the same will only ruin both of them. (And for the record, I'm a fan of both; I just happen to be a bigger Trek fan...even if I have Star Wars sheets...with a Trek poster hanging above them.
)
