Star Trek cast blames the bosses

[Mad Hatter]

I have to agree that the premise of the showis great because it is ripe with so much opportunity. I liked how the Vulcans weren't just viewed as the awesome aliens who help us out. There was friction and I liked that aspect of it. You have the early evolution of how humans viewed the other races and how the other races viewed humans and each other. That was great, but the writing simply didn't back it up.

But if they had to fail, I am glad they failed by going backward and not forward. I mean what kind of franchise and story writing can you have with all the push the button and the day is saved, technobable, or routing everything through the deflector array action going on?

At the start of this I told my friends that I'd love to watch a Trek franchise that was centered around the academy because then you could have some old cast members and maybe even resolve some Voyager issues. But that's just me.

 

[Ranger REG]

I can definitely see the attraction of a re-imagining TOS, it worked brilliantly for Galactica IMO, and Trek would presumably have a bigger budget.

I don't think so. What works for one sci-fi series [albeit short-lived in the late 70's] may not work for such a long-running establishment (5 live-action series, 1 animated series, 10 films, and a library collection of novels).

However, I can see them do a Special Edition of TOS, by touching up areas with CG special effects, including the ship and space footages.

 

[James Heard]

I don't think so. What works for one sci-fi series [albeit short-lived in the late 70's] may not work for such a long-running establishment (5 live-action series, 1 animated series, 10 films, and a library collection of novels).

On the other hand, it doesn't suggest that it wouldn't work either. We just don't know. All we know is that TOS is decisively, most surely, Trek in feel because it's the series with the most Gene in it. That's something that you might build on (or destroy I guess), but at least you'd have made the gamble.

 

[Aristotle]

I watched the original show and next generation. I fell off of DS9 about halfway through, and couldn't bear to watch Enterprise after the first few episodes. I doubt I'd invest any of my time into watching a 'reboot'. I would like to see a new Star Trek, especially since the franchise has been pretty much dead to me (with the exception of movies) since Next Generation went off the air. But about the only Trek I'm willing to consider would be one that takes place sometime after Next Generation. I want to see the franchise continued, not a prequel and not a reimagined rehash.

 

[mojo1701]

I don't think so. What works for one sci-fi series [albeit short-lived in the late 70's] may not work for such a long-running establishment (5 live-action series, 1 animated series, 10 films, and a library collection of novels).

I am not in favour of reboot, either.

We need to set our sights farther, a more futuristic ship, and, say... a bridge that doesn't have sparking, exploding consoles after a torpedo hit. Where did they get the electricity to produce such a feat?

 

[James Heard]

You could have a more futuristic ship with a reboot. Just because the original was shot during the 60s doesn't mean you could't reimagine the technology different. It would all be about finding and declaring the essential sacred cows of TOS. The uniforms, the cylindrical pods, the cast roles, and the Star Fleet issue two-fisted punch come to mind.

 

[DaveMage]

I fell off of DS9 about halfway through...

Then you missed the best part.

 

[Vigilance]

Trek will be back and I dont think it will be reimagined.

The idea that a Paramount exec wont walk in one day and say "hey, we can put these shows on the air and make money on them, then sell them as DVD box sets for 100 bucks plus, then syndicate them forever and possibly make RPGs and CRPGs out of them... that's a good product"

You see franchises go through hard times and lack of faith, like with WB and the Superman and Batman movie franchises, but they always come back, because a proven commodity is always attractive.

And the comparison between Trek and BSG, when it comes time to discuss any possible reboot, is to me laughable. BSG has about as much in common with Trek as Space: 1999 does with Trek.

Umm... they're both sci-fi.

Also, I fail to see how people discussing reboots can say "look at BSG, its good, Enterprise sucked". Now I might prefer BSG to Enterprise, but BSG has had one 13 episode season and Enterprise put 100 episodes on the air. Before you start the discussion of merit, let's see if BSG lasts as long, which at 13 episodes a season would be unlikely.

Enterprise was only a failure by TREK standards. In TV standards, 4 years and 100 episodes is the barometer of success.

Chuck

 

[Ranger REG]

I watched the original show and next generation. I fell off of DS9 about halfway through, and couldn't bear to watch Enterprise after the first few episodes.

Oh, gawd. Please tell me you're not a Voyager fan.

 

[Ranger REG]

I am not in favour of reboot, either.

We need to set our sights farther, a more futuristic ship, and, say... a bridge that doesn't have sparking, exploding consoles after a torpedo hit. Where did they get the electricity to produce such a feat?

Well, it is an EPS (electroplasma systems) network.