New Star Trek Series in the Works

[STSF Seiben 0]

http://www.slashfilm.com/david-foster-preparing-pitch-star-trek-series/

 

When Star Trek: Enterprise was cancelled in 2005, it marked the end of an era: the franchise had had at least one ongoing series on the air since Star Trek: The Next Generation debuted in 1987. That hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of Trek enthusiasts any, though, and J.J. Abrams’ hit 2009 film introduced the franchise to a whole new group of fans. Might it be time for a new Star Trek series?

 

David Foster of 1947 Entertainment thinks so. He’s not the only one — we’ve already told you about a failed Bryan Singer Star Trek pitch and a very, very tentative animated Star Trek idea — but in contrast to the other two, Foster’s project sounds like it may actually get off the ground. In a recent interview, Foster spoke a little bit about the premise of his new show, the development process, and reaching back to Gene Roddenberry‘s original vision.

 

In an interview (via What Culture) at the 2011 Star Trek Convention in Las Vegas, Foster explained that he began developing the project, code-named “S.E.T.I.,” in 2006 with Kevin Severson. Severson, sadly, died of a stroke last year, but Foster’s continued working on their idea. It seems Foster’s already done quite a bit in terms of fleshing out the concept:

The series concept is fully developed, subject to change of course, with a solid 5-7 year series plan, pilot script and a conceptualized finale that intends to define Star Trek for generations, extensive character bios, costume and ship/set designs, and more. This is a drastic departure from the typical 8-10 page treatment of the previously pitched Star Trek series ideas that have not included even a pilot script.

Foster envisions his series as a return to Roddenberry’s original concept. “[W]hile Star Trek has moved on with other series that were not exactly in line with Gene’s original vision, the roots are there to tap into,” he said. Don’t expect something

too

old-fashioned, though — Foster also lists Joss Whedon, Ron Moore, Manny Coto, and J. Michael Straczynski as his inspirations on his site.

 

Timeline-wise, the new series will very definitely be moving forward. The show will take place in the post-

Voyager

era, and will remain faithful to pre-2009 canon as well as

Star Trek: Enterprise

canon.

(Since Abrams’ 2009 film took place in an alternate timeline, Foster’s story would not be in conflict with Abrams’.)

Although Foster was reluctant to spill too many details, he revealed a bit about the plot:

The series is highly energized with a much younger cast, and uses cutting-edge future technologies with newly envisioned special effects and designs. It includes Klingons, Ferengi, Andorians, Vulcans, Trill, and many more. The Klingons are getting very restless since the Praxis incident forced them to come to the peace tables, and are tired of having to rely on the Federation for support. The Ferengi have discovered a vast new resource that has propelled them towards instant riches and power beyond anything they have previously experienced.

Later in the interview, he also offered up this “teaser”: “If evil wore the face of a hero, would you recognize it? If freedom came in the likeness of your oppressors, would you accept it? If you were your own enemy, who would be victorious?”

 

An AfterElton.com story published earlier this year suggested that Foster’s project would involve two openly gay characters — a male lead character and a secondary female character — but Foster did not go into details about the characters in the more recent interview.

 

Foster happily reported that he’d already gotten the encouragement and advice of several people involved with previous incarnations of Star Trek, including former producers, artists, and writers. However, there are still several steps to go before Foster’s vision actually comes to life. The production is currently seeking an executive producer to help pitch the project to CBS.

 

The current film series is still going strong, with Abrams preparing to start production on his second

Star Trek

film early next year. But that certainly doesn’t mean there’s no room for a television series. I’ve never been much of a

Trek

fan, myself, but if Foster really does succeed in combining Roddenberry’s “positive view of the future” with touches of Whedon and Moore, sign me up.

[Crash Calestorm 0]

 

Foster envisions his series as a return to Roddenberry’s original concept. “[W]hile Star Trek has moved on with other series that were not exactly in line with Gene’s original vision, the roots are there to tap into,” he said. Don’t expect something too old-fashioned, though — Foster also lists Joss Whedon, Ron Moore, Manny Coto, and J. Michael Straczynski as his inspirations on his site.

That's quite a pedigree listing of inspirations there - Coto, Whedon, Moore, Straczynski. Works for me!

 

With regard to a new series, I wish Mr. Foster all the best with the project. But, no matter if this new Trek series gets off the ground or not, it's not going to please all of the Star Trek fans.

 

You always have...to put this delicately...the 'needs to get a life' sort of fan that gets miffed because a new Star Trek TV or movie project happens to not be about a personal favorite Star Trek.

 

OMG! What do you mean we won't see (insert established Captain here) and why are they changing the design of the (insert established ship class/name here)! You can't have the TV show take place in *that* year because according to (insert character name here) on (insert canon Trek show here) in (insert canon episode here) they did this and that in the timeline, etc etc.

[V'Roy 0]

A new series right now is a terrible idea, especially one based on the original canon. It is still too soon after the Enterprise disaster.

 

As Calestorm said there are still too many fans who live in their parents' basement and will insist everything be perfect and the writers are boxed into a corner. Plus we still have no idea how the last two movies will play out both plotwise and with the audience.

 

The new movies have a shot at restarting the franchise, but it must be done carefully. Market saturation is part of what killed it before. Did we really need DS9, VOY, and a movie in theaters or in production all at the same time? It was too much. Yeah TNG was much better than expected once Roddenbery was forced out of creative control (Yes he was a visionary, but as a hands-on person he sucked.) but every series since then had declining viewership. Maybe Trek has simply played itself out as far as it can go on TV.

 

You know there will be people who say "Great. Another Enterprise. You know what the definition of insanity is, right?" Unfortunately such criticism is well-deserved. Remember the travesty that was "These Are The Voyages..."? The writers were expecting a 3 year run, at the end they were given another year they weren't expecting, and they STILL couldn't retire the franchise with dignity.

 

I think the fans were to blame. We were so in a rush to see anything with Star Trek in the title that, as long as it stuck to canon for the most part, we didn't care how bad it was. Hey, at least we weren't like those Star Wars fans who rushed to see the changes to the original trilogy... Oh wait, yes we were. That's what the CGI touch-ups to TOS were.

 

A new series can't just be a little better than Enterprise. It has to be a LOT better. Today's science fiction fans are more discerning. BSG was a quality series. Good acting, good effects, great character development, great story. How did that spill over into Caprica? It didn't. SyFy assumed it could just carry over the same fan base to a new series and it didn't work. As a series Caprica wasn't bad, but the fans resented the assumption that we would blindly follow and we didn't.

 

So a new Trek series at this time is simply too risky. Better to see how the next couple movies go and then make a decision about what a new series could add, if anything.

[WxMurray 0]

But, no matter if this new Trek series gets off the ground or not, it's not going to please all of the Star Trek fans.

I think we've reached the point...and Enterprise was the real proof of this (and to some degree, anything beyond TNG)...that nothing is going to please everyone, and the biggest pains in the butt about it are also the loudest, no matter how small a group. These days, people are likely to start flaming something if Spock raises his eyebrow wrong.

[V'Roy 0]

That's kinda what I'm getting at. We care so much about the nuances of eyebrow raises and spacial coordinates that it became all that mattered to us. Plot didn't matter, story didn't matter. We forgot that it was plot and story that drew people to Trek to begin with.

 

If Trek could have been said to be dead we were the ones that killed it.

[WxMurray 0]

That's kinda what I'm getting at. We care so much about the nuances of eyebrow raises and spacial coordinates that it became all that mattered to us. Plot didn't matter, story didn't matter. We forgot that it was plot and story that drew people to Trek to begin with.

 

If Trek could have been said to be dead we were the ones that killed it.

I agree, but I would say that some blame lies with producers trying the same old thing over and over again and beating a dead horse.

 

I would also agree in that I think it's too soon. A) There's a movie series going on that's a different continuity. Let that one have it's time before muddying the waters with something different. B) It just hasn't been long enough. It's not been 10 years since Enterprise was canceled. As I (and presumably some others) said when Enterprise started on the heels of Voyager, Star Trek needs people to want to watch it, and I don't think the masses of fans are there yet. It needs at least another five years or so.

 

And I say this as someone who was a die-hard Trekkie back in the day. If it was on TV, I was watching it. Now, I can honestly say I've not watched any episode or movie of Star Trek in probably about five years now. I watch other things, and I don't sit around saying, "Boy, I wish that were still on the air!" I do a little, but then I look at my other options, and I move on.

[V'Roy 0]

The producers (and writers) did indeed try the same thing over and over again, but we were at fault for watching. We let them get away with it. If it was connected to Trek we watched it, no matter how bad it was. The producers knew that, no matter how bad it got, the loyal fans would always watch so there was no immediate need to change. We should have had the courage to walk away, not petition for a 4th season.

 

Was Enterprise profitable despite only appealing to the loyalists? It probably was. Another thing we forgot, however, is that just being profitable is not enough. It has to be more profitable than the other possibilities the network has for that time slot. When they moved it to Friday night they pretty much ensured any other show would beat them out. BSG beat them out. Sports beat them out. Hell, even the Bush v. Kerry debates beat them out!

 

Eventually the loyalists did walk away, but it was too little too late. We should have had the courage to walk away in Season 1.

[V'Roy 0]

Having said that, I understand it is easier said than done. If I'm at home, there is nothing I need to do, and the only thing on is Enterprise then I'll watch Enterprise, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it.

[Chirakis 1]

In answer to V'Roy's post, I must say that I did walk away from Voyager after a few episodes when I realized that the one whom everyone called "Captain" would never have the command presence I kept waiting for, nor would she show any leadership qualities. I walked away from Enterprise because it was obviously geared towards the young-teen age group - aliens, action and adventure without substance.

 

The Original Series and The Next Generation appealed to me as a fan of science fiction because they both dealt with social issues. The science fiction setting gave the audience a chance to face those issues and deal with them in a semi-objective manner - social commentary, if you will. Gene Roddenberry was "radical" by any standard then. He dared put a person of colour as a main character - and a woman at that. He included a Russian on the bridge at the height of the Cold War. An alien with pointed ears was First Officer, leading radical religious groups to dub it a satanic image. This "radicalism" struck a chord with the generation maturing in the 1960's; it gave us hope that the future could be less prejudiced, that harmony could exist in an age of social upheaval. TNG continued in that vein and added a captain with a more mature personality, a command presence, and a leadership image to emulate. DS9 began in that vein, then deteriorated as the years wore on. I lost interest as soon as the series - and subsequent series - deteriorated to mere action and danger without anything of substance.

 

::tosses her two credits into the mix:::

[V'Roy 0]

DS9 lost me when they did a mirror universe episode every season. They cheapened the concept. It stopped being a parallel universe and became merely an opposite universe, to ridiculous extremes.