Star Trek Tv shows are what has sustained the Star Trek series for as long as it has. A 2 hour movie every 4 years will never generate the kind of interest in Star Trek that will fuel merchandising, future movies and future tv shows. TNG did well for 7 years with the formula that worked for TOS. Paramount changed things up with DS9 and then went back to the TOS formula for Voyager except they were displaced in the Delta Quadrant. I know that ratings were not as great for DS9 and Voyager, and i think it was because the producers were moving further away from a proven formula and tried to see how far they could push Star Trek in the opposite direction and by the time Enterprise and Nemesis came along, fans were tired of it. We dont have to have Kirk and Spock, but we really need a return to what made TOS and TNG work- seeking out new life and new civilizations and boldly going where no one has gone before. We dont need a whole season arc, stand alone stories work just fine.we need to pick up where Nemesis left off in the future and respect what came before and fans will love it.
Paramount Lays off workers, Star Trek into Darkness is one of the reasons
#21
-
- Members
-
- 3,165 posts
Leonard Nimoy fan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Southeastern North Carolina
Posted 14 October 2013 - 09:42 PM
#22
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:22 PM
Yea ok but thats the past, they've served Star Trek well and continue on doing so through re-runs and Blu Ray but what does Star Trek look like today, for someone who has seen very little or no Star Trek, for the kids who need something like Star Trek but have no way into it.
There's a rumour going round that Bob Orci has been speaking to CBS about a new Star Trek TV series (see www.trekmovie.com) so we shall see if that rumour is true.
My idea would be to open the flood gates, JJ Abrams movies running along side TV shows, animated and live-action, Hasbro launching a bigger toy line, video games for all the major consoles licensed to an external developer like EA games or the people who make Mass Effect... And really push the brand out there.
I'm not sticking up for CBS or Paramount, I think they've been completely ridiculous but you won't see them return Star Trek to a post Nemesis universe. Aside from perhaps Orci and co reintroducing it through new movies or a TV series, I think we can say that that universe is now done with, which is fine by me, it's a great period of Trek but you can't go back to that well anymore. Lets get this new universe established for a new generation because it's a new fan-base that will carry on the Star Trek legacy.
#23
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 15 October 2013 - 05:12 PM
If we go by whats popular on TV, Star Trek Should be re-invented as some type of "reality" TV show! 
#24
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:50 AM
One of the things that's constantly popular on UK TV is... Star Trek! It's all re run and re run over and over, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT... Perhaps that's part of the problem, why produce something new when the old shows are still watched and loved and still making money! Its like Friends or Frasier, it's repeated constantly. Perhaps the way to go about producing a new Star Trek TV series is by removing the older Star Trek TV series from the airwaves, waiting 6 months and then bringing Star Trek back in the form of a new TV series produced by Bad Robot, Produced by Abrams, show run by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Ronnald D. Moore, Many Coto and Bryan Fuller and based on the logical progression from the current movies and going from there.
Furthermore: an animated TV series is a MUST!!! As is a popular video game franchise based on Star Trek and an extensive toy range... In short, what has been done for Star Wars and the Marvel Universe (as a business), should be done for Star Trek, not just focused on current Abrams Trek but incorporating all of it, old and new and developing multi-leveled media platforms with all of it, because if you don't like Abrams Trek then you're going to love another aspect of it and vice versa...
The only way for Star Trek to continue to thrive, is for it to be believed in by it's owners, by the people charged with it's creation and to come out of the gate confident about what it is and really begin to appeal to the young as well as the old and the established fan-base.
#25
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 16 October 2013 - 02:38 PM
Yes to Coto & Moore. Orci/Krutzman are on my "Hack" list. Not interested in them any more.
#26
-
- Members
-
- 3,165 posts
Leonard Nimoy fan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Southeastern North Carolina
Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:16 PM
Yes to Coto & Moore. Orci/Krutzman are on my "Hack" list. Not interested in them any more.
Me either. Coto and Moore would be my choice as well. A live action series and an animated series would be great as long as they have substance to them and are not just advertisements for a toyline.
#27
-
- Members
-
- 156 posts
Lives in the city on the edge of forever
- Gender:Male
- Location:Huntington Beach, CA
Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:13 AM
Young minds, fresh ideas.......Nothing against Mssrs. Coto & Moore, or Orci & Kurtzman, and, in fact, I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for what these gentleman have done for the Trek Universe. But I'd like to see Star Trek: The Next, Next, Next Generation. Too much of the same is what killed Star Trek after TNG. Too much of the past places limits. Let's see what awaits us in the deep future of the Trek Universe.
#28
-
- Members
-
- 3,165 posts
Leonard Nimoy fan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Southeastern North Carolina
Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:28 PM
I think there needs to be some familiar aspects to any Star Trek show. TNG expanded the Klingons, introduced new alien species, explored many places that TOS never went, but they also did have a few TOS characters appear from time to time. TNG could have been fine without the TOS character appearances, but they were quality stories and tied the two series together, which strengthens it IMO. I think that to make a series that bears so little resemblance to the original that its hard to tell they are even related takes away a lot of the appeal of the show to me. I loved Stargate SG1 and Stargate Atlantis but Stargate Universe was like a completely different show and even occasional appearances by Sg1 cast couldnt save it. This was a lot of the problem with Enterprise. The producers figured that out by the fourth season and improved the show but it was too little too late.
#29
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 17 October 2013 - 05:57 PM
I also think that the writing for Enterprise, and STITD for that matter, just wasn't in sync with the times. What I mean by that is that TOS, TNG and even DS9 were able to capitalize on the basic political realities of the day. Overall through the years of TOS and TNG the prevailing issue in world politics was really the cold war. The Federation was the west and Klingons were the soviets. With the end of the cold war we tried to forge new relationships with Russia, and likewise Star Trek reflected that with the Federation / Klingon alliances and stories. Voyagur and especially Enterprise tried to go back the same "cold war" formula, and it wasn't the best received, but by the time of Enterprise, it was clearly outdated.
In like manner, Star Trek seems to have been remade to be all about terrorist, whether its a Romulan terrorist from the future, or an internal terrorist. This would have played well from about 2002 through 2008, but is actually passe now. The world politics are currently more about the west's decline in influence and an awaking by regions are countries that have been more oppressive until recently. Its also about the rise of and importance of the east. Maybe they can try to tell some stories about a bright future for the federation, but one where the federation isn't the epoch or center of all things?
#30
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:41 AM
If you were to do Star Trek for today's world, following the original Roddenberry blueprints then it would be more like Star Trek Into Darkness. Into Darkness was not really about terrorism although terrorism is still a huge problem in our world and to believe otherwise is narrow minded. It may have had that terrorism aspect to it but it was more about how the west deals with its enemies and how western leaders deal with perceived threats and dangerous dictators and countries. unmanned drone attacks on an unsuspecting target/race of people, a ruthless dictator at first an ally, made to work for Marcus and then turning against him and the Enterprise, Starfleet soldiers sent into start an illegal war and Kirk reacting like anyone of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, 7/7 and many, many more terrorist attacks and of course all told within the cloak of Science Fiction ...
If we see the Federation as the UN is in today's world and we see Starfleet as the US/western world military then Star Trek Into Darkness is what you get. Now unfortunately in a 2 hour summer blockbuster, you can't fully delve into all aspects of that universe but that has been the problem with all the Star Trek movies but I still believe that out of the 12 movies we have had so far, Star Trek Into Darkness is the most allegorical of them all.
Star Trek is a commentary on today that just so happens to be set in the future, the reason Star Trek has become more about terrorism is because terrorism is one of the main issues that stand in the face of freedom and peace in todays world. You think about how many episodes of TOS had to do with averting nuclear war, commentaries on Vietnam and indeed terrorism...
I do think Star Trek's place is on our TV screens because I think translating what the current writers and producers on the new movies are writing about would work better over the course of several episodes/a season rather than cramming it all into one 2 hour movie.
#31
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 19 October 2013 - 12:39 PM
Terror, terrorism, anarchist etc have been prevalent through out history, at least through out U.S. history so ... Sorry, but we're gonna disagree that it is, and will continue to be a main concern in forming world affairs and world politics. Its never going to go away, but its not like the "cold war" where its going to drive world affairs for decades, and in fact its already taking a back seat to more prevalent issues in the world affairs center ring.
That's my point. Movies that come out that are centered on terrorism are behind the times.
Look at the recent news. Saudi Arabia just turned down a seat on the UN security council saying that the west is weak and ineffective.
How is that reflected in STITD? Where did it show member planets defying the federation and saying its failing to do what its supposed to? Modern (and I mean Abrhams) Star Trek doesn't begin to reflect an analogy anywhere close to what you've suggested... the federation as the U.N.? No Way?! Starfleet as a military operation?! Its not supposed to be... if you think thats what STITD says, then I think your reading into it what you want, because none of that has been established in either of the two movies that I saw.
#32
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 October 2013 - 04:15 PM
Goth you have to accept that whilst in a TV series Star Trek would be able to explore multiple current themes effecting the world today, in a 2 hour summer blockbuster movie competing with the likes of Iron Man, Fast & Furious 6 and Man of Steel that it has to appeal to a mass audience and simply can't be everything it 1) could be as a Star Trek story and 2) focus on very weighty and controversial issues. NO Star Trek movie has ever and I do mean EVER been as you wish Star Trek Into Darkness had been.
And this is my biggest issue, why is it that after films like Insurrection, The Final Frontier, Nemesis, Generations (all of which have huge issues and no allegorical message unless you read into something inparticular) these two new movies have been given across forums like this, the bums rush by fans who seemingly moan about anything?
then I think your reading into it what you want, because none of that has been established in either of the two movies that I saw.
Isn't that EXACTLY the point?
#33
-
- Members
-
- 3,165 posts
Leonard Nimoy fan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Southeastern North Carolina
Posted 19 October 2013 - 04:27 PM
By the 23rd century, the Earth has evolved into a peaceful planet, with hunger, terrorism and disease (for the most part) has been done away with. Starfleet headquarters happens to be located on earth, with many other planets that form the Federation are equally at peace. Starfleet is not about trying to take over or encroach on the Klingon or Romulan empires territory or start any wars with them. The mission of Starfleet is about peacekeeping and exploration. I dont see how the Commander of Starfleet could building a secret war machine thats obviously built for war without his superiors finding out. The federation council is made up of more than people from Earth and a peaceful Federation would not start a build up for a war that has not been threatened. Admiral Marcus covertly had the Vengeance built without StarFleets knowledge. He had private security onboard because actual Starfleet Officers could not have been a party to an illegal operation. The whole idea of a Commander Starfleet involved in a conspiracy like this is preposterous. I doubt Roddenberry would have approved.
#34
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 19 October 2013 - 05:42 PM
1701, I get that the new movies can't establish the entire ethos and backstory that the original series, and movies established. Its supposed to be a reboot after all, so either you wipe the slate clean or you don't. But at the same time, just as you've been arguing, it needs to be relevant to the times right? I'm actually agreeing with your point on that. What I'm saying, and this is just my opinion, is that it actually failed to be current and relevant, because the primary focus of world affairs that was relevant from 2001-2008 has actually changed. STITD isn't the only movie to make this mistake, so I'm not picking just on it. I was trying to suggest what *might* make Star Trek interesting and relevant to current viewers today.
VF. I agree. The federation isn't supposed to be dysfunctional and dystopian organization, which is what STITD depicts.
I get that conflict sells. People don't want to go to a movie that has no intrigue and conflict. Even Shakespeare understood that! Heck he makes fun of it in plays like "much ado about nothing". So add some conflict, but keep in line with the basic idea of a Star Trek that is interested in peaceful exploration.
#35
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:27 PM
I was trying to suggest what *might* make Star Trek interesting and relevant to current viewers today.
One would argue that JJ Abrams has indeed made it interesting and relevant to current viewers today.
#36
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:34 PM
By the 23rd century, the Earth has evolved into a peaceful planet, with hunger, terrorism and disease (for the most part) has been done away with. Starfleet headquarters happens to be located on earth, with many other planets that form the Federation are equally at peace. Starfleet is not about trying to take over or encroach on the Klingon or Romulan empires territory or start any wars with them. The mission of Starfleet is about peacekeeping and exploration. I dont see how the Commander of Starfleet could building a secret war machine thats obviously built for war without his superiors finding out. The federation council is made up of more than people from Earth and a peaceful Federation would not start a build up for a war that has not been threatened. Admiral Marcus covertly had the Vengeance built without StarFleets knowledge. He had private security onboard because actual Starfleet Officers could not have been a party to an illegal operation. The whole idea of a Commander Starfleet involved in a conspiracy like this is preposterous.
That is exactly the message of Into Darkness... Starfleet isn't about taking over and thats why Marcus was indeed the real villain in Star Trek Into Darkness in trying to militarise Starfleet - its a logical step that there would be someone inside Starfleet paranoid after Vulcan was destroyed and the Klingons were picking off Starfleet ships on routine exploratory missions. As for a model of the Vengeance on his desk, and as for the federation members not finding out or being concerned, etc... it's easy to pick it apart but the same holes can be picked in any TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT episode, and movies 1 through to 10... If you begin to pick it all apart, then I'm surprised you've actually enjoyed any Star Trek from day 1.
I doubt Roddenberry would have approved.
I doubt Roddenberry would have much cared and if he did then whilst he may have done something different, even he would have come to terms with the fact that Star Trek had become bigger than him back in 1982 with the very anti-Star Trek values movie, The Wrath of Khan... or The Undiscovered Country (or Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Racism of Captain "let them die" Kirk)
#37
-
- Members
-
- 3,165 posts
Leonard Nimoy fan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Southeastern North Carolina
Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:19 AM
The movies have always had to be concerned with drawing people into the theater, and selling tickets, thats more of a chore to do than drawing an audience into the living room. The movies have used special effects and broader scopes to make the movies bigger to appeal to those looking for a thrill to go with their popcorn and soda. They generally were, as i believe Goth stated, a fluffy dessert to consume, whereas TOS , TNG and DS9 were the entree course, where the main meat of the philosophy of Star Trek was served. There were some awesome, wonderful moments in the pre Abrams Star Trek movies as well, and some that were not so wonderful, but i still like them all, even with their weaknesses. TV is where Star Trek belongs, where thoughtful stories can be told without worrying about a huge special effects thrill ride to keep the interest. If TOS and TNG stories are too boring for you then you may have missed what Star Trek is about to begin with. Many in todays generation dont have the attention span to listen to 5 minutes worth of dialogue being spoken without an explosion or life altering event occurring. There is plenty of excitement in Star Trek, but it all does'nt involve conspiracies and magnificent battles in space. Many of the best episodes had none of that.
#38
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:32 PM
The movies have always had to be concerned with drawing people into the theater, and selling tickets, thats more of a chore to do than drawing an audience into the living room. The movies have used special effects and broader scopes to make the movies bigger to appeal to those looking for a thrill to go with their popcorn and soda. They generally were, as i believe Goth stated, a fluffy dessert to consume,
So... Whats your problem with Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness? I mean the only difference between these movies and the first 10 movies is that budgets are bigger and resources are far greater allowing for bigger movies. A Trek movie done today like any of the first 10 movies were done would fail instantly because it would be a low budget, minor event movie so Star Trek had to go big or go home as thats the chore of the modern day movie.
whereas TOS , TNG and DS9 were the entree course, where the main meat of the philosophy of Star Trek was served. There were some awesome, wonderful moments in the pre Abrams Star Trek movies as well, and some that were not so wonderful, but i still like them all, even with their weaknesses.
First of all stop comparing the TV shows with the movies. As you say quite rightly, it's a different beast so don't compare them. There are some wonderful moments in the Abrams movies as well. Pike passing away after being shot by Khan and Kirk's emotion and Spock figuring emotion out was truly epic, George Kirk sacrificing himself to save his crew and his wife and newly born child was tear jerking, the banter between the main crew, especially Spock, McCoy, Kirk and Scotty is brilliant. Abrams movies are certainly bigger and brasher but they totally get the spirit of the original series if they are, understandably, a little light on the philosophy of Star Trek but honestly I think everyone has a different opinion on what makes good Star Trek and what makes bad Star Trek and there isn't really a right or wrong answer to that.
TV is where Star Trek belongs, where thoughtful stories can be told without worrying about a huge special effects thrill ride to keep the interest. If TOS and TNG stories are too boring for you then you may have missed what Star Trek is about to begin with. Many in todays generation dont have the attention span to listen to 5 minutes worth of dialogue being spoken without an explosion or life altering event occurring. There is plenty of excitement in Star Trek, but it all does'nt involve conspiracies and magnificent battles in space. Many of the best episodes had none of that.
Star Trek belongs anywhere and everywhere, on TV, online, on the big screen, in your toy box, on a kids wall in a cartoon, a poster, a games console, books, fan fiction, fan web series, Star Trek belongs and deserves not to just simply be a TV show that lasts a maximum of what 5 years? TV isn't the same as it was when even Enterprise was on the air so if you're thinking that the next Trek TV series is going to be a 7 year TV series that explores a strange new world each week and delves head first into a hidden and suggestive diatribe about an issue of the week, then you don't understand the TV landscape right now. Star Trek on TV would have to be different from TOS or TNG or DS9 or VOY or ENT.
Being a 20 year old girl I think this statement is completely short sighted. I think you need to really appreciate that good Star Trek works well when it's working on a lot of different levels, I loved TNG and appreciate TOS (TOS wasn't "my" Star Trek) but what I took from those shows I'd bet you is something different from what you took from them and you can apply that to every fan. Trek isn't something specific, it is just such a broad canvas, a franchise where you can do a big sweeping action epic then follow that by doing a very quite, character driven piece. Thats been the way Trek has been since day one, Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness are just the latest instalments and they've been big, bold and brash character driven pieces that yes have a ton of spectacle and that's just as much what Star Trek is and was about as those philosophical and thoughtful stories.
#39
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:27 PM
TV isn't the same as it was when even Enterprise was on the air so if you're thinking that the next Trek TV series is going to be a 7 year TV series that explores a strange new world each week and delves head first into a hidden and suggestive diatribe about an issue of the week, then you don't understand the TV landscape right now. Star Trek on TV would have to be different from TOS or TNG or DS9 or VOY or ENT.
You crack me up 1701! The fact that TV isn't the same is exactly what I have been saying... and trying to engage a discussion in how Trek could be done differently to suite a changed TV landscape, but you seem to have taken exception to that, only to come around and say exactly the same thing!
You're logic is truly circular!
After reading quite a few opinions, I really think its a mistake to try and reboot TV Trek in a TOS or even TNG age. I get that Paramount has decided that TOS is the way they want to brand Trek, thus the TOS reboot, and they are probably right on the mark there for the movies because the casual movie goer knows Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise. But TV is a different beast, people want something quite different for TV, and I think you've agreed with that.
Maybe Kirk and TOS are relegated to the Big Screen and something different, something more forward looking is done for TV.
#40
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:29 PM
Another thing I'd like to introduce into this discussion is that I think a lot of fans who comment on these types of forums perhaps like the idea or ideals of what they think is Star Trek more than they like the reality of Star Trek and the realities of it being a billion dollar franchise.
I've heard a lot from fans about how Roddenberry would disapprove and that this is an outrage and JJ Abrams et al are hacks etc... I think thats quite a childish view. The truth is none of us know what Roddenberry would have thought or would have done differently. We will never get to see a truly Roddenberry Star Trek again because, news flash... He's dead! No creative person tasked with coming up with current or future Star Trek's should be held in comparison to Roddenberry. You know, Star Trek changed in 1982 when Roddenberry was bumped from Executive to Consultant and then again when the younger writers under Michael Pillar came into TNG and IMO changed for the better! Obviously I think that creative team that started on TNG outstayed their welcome (however much I loved Enterprise) by the time Voyager had come around. But to say that JJ Abrams doesn't get Star Trek's ideals or the philosophy behind Star Trek is nonsense. He and his team like any of us here, have taken what they feel is important to the fabric of Star Trek, the team following this current group will again interpret Star Trek in their own way.
To say that Star Trek isn't Star Trek unless it conforms to the ideals and philosophies laid out by a long since dead man, clearly doesn't understand the industry Star Trek has and always will be a part of. Thats not to say I understand the industry either but what I do understand is that current and indeed future incarnations won't be Star Trek as I have known it since I began watching it, wont be what many of us if not all of us here have known Star Trek as being. What it will be is another man's (or woman's) idea of what Star Trek is to them and I think as fans we should embrace the fact that Star Trek will as it has done before, many a time, continue to change.
So whilst discussing, agreeing, disagreeing about aspects of stories, characters within a Trek movie or TV episode is fine, I think these sweeping statements like "JJ Abrams doesn't have a clue" or "It's not Star Trek bla bla" by some here and elsewhere are just so irrelevant and just sound so childish and so pathetic that really I think those are the fans who really can't understand the need for change or that Gene Roddenberry is in fact dead and that anyone tasked with reinventing Star Trek for TV or for film has some how got it wrong. Roddenberry is dead, he can't be here consulting those trying to reinvent Star Trek. Abrams and co and any future creative team have only got their own interpretation of what Star Trek is to them to go by.
If Roddenberry were alive and well today and still making Star Trek I'm sure it would be different from JJ Abrams but it would also be different from Many Coto's, Brian Fuller's, Ronnald D Moore's and any other writer/producer out there, including himself, I doubt Roddenberry would have had his crew run around in tighter spandex talking about the issues he addressed in TOS and TNG. So please, I ask those fans with the same view as VF, just look at Star Trek from a realistic point of view and enjoy it for what it is, just don't dismiss it because it's not what you think Roddenberry would have done or because it wasn't "Star Trek" to you... Those words are just empty and mean absolutely nothing.
Anyway, look, to the mainstream Kirk and Spock are household names, everyone knows who Kirk and Spock are. Clearly rebooting Star Trek, the obvious choice was to do KIrk and Spock... Now that the franchise has been relaunched with two great movies with a third movie on it's way, I think now's the time for CBS and Paramount to really think about the best way to broaden Star Trek's appeal globally, the encouraging numbers from outside the US will be of some comfort but certainly more needs to be done to keep the Star Trek brand name relevant and in the public's eye. With the 50th Anniversary coming up, I think now would be a perfect time to continue the work Abrams has done in giving Trek that mass appeal and run with it.
You look at Doctor Who and the success that has enjoyed, I mean that's the franchise CBS and Paramount should be looking to in how to make Star Trek remain in the public's eye and on the radar globally. DW has done in recent years what Star Trek did with TNG, remained very popular with family audiences, appealing to parents as well as kids, having an extensive marketing strategy, with toys, games etc... Trek does need to return to episodic television, what form that takes I'd suggest going with traditional broadcast TV and selling the rights to the BBC in the UK and a widely distributed network suitable for Star Trek in the US and other markets and aired at tea time (in the UK perhaps taking Doctor Who's time slot when DW is off the air).
Trek needs the family viewership. How they introduce Star Trek on TV to families could be doing something new with a new crew yet set onboard the Enterprise, or it could mean doing this current universes version of TNG. One thing I think is a must is that they remain in the new universe set up in the movies, It needs fleshing out and properly explored and since it's new yet familiar, it's in a perfect place to still bring in new audiences that may not have even seen Abrams movies.
The other thing I'd like to see is either CBS or Paramount either sell or buy Star Trek so that it was under one roof, this split isn't helping.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
