New, Canon-Faithful Star Trek Series Is In Pre-Production

An anonymous reader writes "Star Trek veterans such as Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Tim Russ (Tuvok), Robert Picardo (the Doctor) and others are busy in pre-production of a professionally produced pilot episode for a suggested new online Star Trek series named Star Trek: Renegades, which will be faithful to the original Star Trek canon. The events of the series are placed a decade after Voyager's return from Delta Quadrant. When the pilot is complete, they'll present it to CBS in the hopes that it'll be picked up. They have also opened an Indiegogo campaign, seeking more funds from Star Trek fans to help make the production even more professional. They've already reached their primary funding goal."

Comments

Shades of Blake's 7

[fredrated]

Sigh me up.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[alexander_686]

Don’t sign me up.

Star Trek for me always had a certain ethos. Peaceful exploration, conflict could be solved with enlightened rational diplomacy. There were a few phaser blasts, but it always ended on a positive optimistic note about the future. Yes, Kirk was a big Boy Scout.

“This necessitates more drastic measures, some of which are outside the Federation’s jurisdiction.”

This is not Star Trek. This is not optimism in human (and alien) nature. I could be a fine show – it just not going to be good Star Trek. It would be like the Doctor running around with a Sonic Blaster instead of a Sonic Screwdriver. Just the wrong vibe.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[Nutria]

Not only that, but rogues, renegades, edginess and fast pace just screams, "We don't know how to write interesting conversations!"

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[jythie]

While optimism was always a major part of Star Trek, the franchise has shown over the years it can explore darker themes and still be intellectually interesting. If it is all phasers and boob shots I agree it is not really 'Trek and would (for me at least) be painfully boring,.. but there is a lot of potential in exploring a weak federation that has to make (and live with) more complex moral choices.

I imagine the devil will be in the details, and being good or bad will come down to what they actually do with this situation.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[h4rr4r]

So then DS9 was not Star Trek?

Because it was the best series they ever made.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

My two favorite ST episodes were DS9. Far Beyond the Stars and In the Pale Moonlight. Both were kinda dark, but you're right...the power that they had was being a culminating part of a larger story. The writing was also great, unlike any other Trek series, the characters had depth and moral ambiguity. Much more like people I'd actually meet than one-dimensional paragons of virtue.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[newcastlejon]

Peaceful exploration, conflict could be solved with enlightened rational diplomacy.

I must have missed that one. For the life of me, I can't imagine any episode where Kirk didn't shoot, punch or screw at least one of the guest stars.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Except I heard they will be keeping red shirts for some of the minor characters in the landing parties.

Just for Esprit de Corpse...

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[wisnoskij]

Exactly, Star Trek is not just TNG, with Captain Picard being very unwilling to do anything more than ardently ask the natives to not murder his crew.

It is DP9 with traitorous officers, civil wars, racists, and war.
It is Voyager with a genocidal Janeway, cutting a swath across the Delta Quadrant, and being willing to destroy whole civilizations on her journey home.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[93 Escort Wagon]

I know I'm in the minority, but DS9 was my favorite Trek after the original - in part because they did a much better job developing the interpersonal relationships than other post-TOS Treks (which is part of the reason TOS stands up so well, even now).

And I actually enjoy long story arcs.

Re:Shades of Blake's 7

[Andtalath]

DS9 explored how no decision is ever morally perfect, even if the people performing them are well-meaning through and through.

Even the dickish spy moves in the series are quite justified, and this includes the potential genocide of an entire species.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you be faithful to the canon when the canon isn't internally consistent? (see especially Star Trek: Enterprise)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

Re:How?

[jandrese]

I think it is safe to say that they'll mostly ignore Enterprise, just like everybody else on Earth.

Re:How?

[SuricouRaven]

If you think that's bad, you should try being a Doctor Who fan.

Re:How?

[Guspaz]

He's playing Doc Zimmerman. He didn't want to reprise the role of The Doctor because he's aged too much, but when it was suggested that Zimmerman would have aged the same as he did, he was onboard.

Re: How?

[Enderandrew]

The reboot is an alternate timeline, so the original universe still exists separately.

You may be surprised to learn that not only did the "horseshit" reboot make more money than all the other Star Trek movies combined, it had a higher RT score than Wrath of Khan.

That Abrams guy is a real asshole. He turned a Star Trek movie into something entertaining that audiences, and critics who usually rip on blockbusters both seemed to have enjoyed.

Re:How?

[smooth wombat]

If you hack out the time travel portion of the middle of the series, Enterprise was quite enjoyable. One episode in particular gave insight into how things we took for granted in the later years came to be. Namely, the Prime Directive.

Sure, you could call Archer's speech about needing guidance a bit heavy-handed (he comes right out and uses the phrase Prime Directive), but similar to the original series and somewhat with TNG, that episode raised the question of how much interference/help should we give to another civilization without that help changing their natural progression?

As an aside, the actress who played the doctor's assistant in that episode, Elizabeth Cutler, and who had an attraction to him, died the year after that episode aired.

Re:How?

[Enderandrew]

I had a Vulcan one night stand with her.

It was Pon far and away.

Re:How?

[dgatwood]

They could really screw with everybody and produce a timeline in which Richard Woolsey is frozen after getting seriously injured defending Earth from a replicator attack, the Stargate program is abandoned and forgotten about per an IOA mandate, and Woolsey ends up being discovered on a distant planet by the Enterprise.

Re: How?

[Beardo the Bearded]

I kept wondering why in the 'verse they'd ever bother with ships again. They can beam across space to other planets without that pesky years-in-hard-vacuum bit in the middle.

Transwarp makes negotiations easier, too:

"Captain Awesome, the Klingon ambassador demands--"

*teleporter sounds*

"I beamed him into the sun. What's his successor want?"

Re:How?

[jellomizer]

Heck Cannon is out the Windows in TOS, even in TNG.

We see Trekees or Treckers (which ever one has the negative connotation) Coming up with extended reasons to explain every inconsistency.

Lets face it. TOS and TNG were TV shows meant to be have a full story in one episode. The fact that the guy died a few weeks ago isn't that big of a deal because he wasn't really part of the story, or the fact that minor character started to get more parts thus his history changes a bit.

O'Brian before he got his name, was a LT, his uniform had the LT pips... Then he became a Non-commission officer. Why well early on he was just an extra with a couple of lines. Then they made him a bigger part. Cannon out the window... Who cares.

Re: How?

[dpidcoe]

It felt like a version of Star Trek crafted specifically for people with short attention spans and little ability to spot plot holes.

Nailed it.

Not to show my inner hipster, but I really feel that massive box office sales actually mean that it's not a particularly good star trek. The series is enjoyed by nerds, and since the vast majority of people in the world aren't nerds, it will appeal to a very small subset of people. What appeals to nerds usually doesn't appeal to others, and vice versa. By expanding to include a wider audience, it will by definition need to abandon a lot of what made it "good". That might be great for making money, but the series is no longer star trek and has abandoned its initial fanbase.

Re:How?

[mwvdlee]

Ah yes, Enterprises' T'pol, famous from such unforgetable episodes as "T'pol rubbing some stuff on herself in the decontamination chamber", "Somebody else rubbing stuff on T'pol in the decontamination chamber" and "Could this decontamination chamber scene be any more suggestive and puritanical at the same time?".

Re: How?

[camperdave]

That Abrams guy is a real asshole. He turned a Star Trek movie into something entertaining that audiences, and critics who usually rip on blockbusters both seemed to have enjoyed.

He turned Star Trek into something that everyone BUT a Star Trek fan seemed to enjoy.

Re: How?

[dgatwood]

Ooh. I know this. The probe destroys Earth, and all the whales leave, saying, "So long and thanks for all the fish." No, wait.

Re: How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see about that. Amounts in parenthesis are adjusted for 2009 inflation.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Budget: $46,000,000 ($134,178,424)
Box Office: $139,000,000 ($405,452,196)
Gross Profit: $93,000,000 ($271,273,771)
Gross Margin: 66.91%
----
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Budget: $11,200,000 ($24,572,366)
Box Office: $97,000,000 ($212,814,248)
Gross Profit: $85,800,000 ($188,241,881)
Gross Margin: 88.45%
----
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Budget: $16,000,000 ($32,612,563)
Box Office: $87,000,000 ($177,330,816)
Gross Profit: $71,000,000 ($144,718,252)
Gross Margin: 81.61%
----
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Budget: $21,000,000 ($40,546,214)
Box Office: $133,000,000 ($256,792,693)
Gross Profit: $112,000,000 ($216,246,478)
Gross Margin: 84.21%
----
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Budget: $33,000,000 ($56,373,265)
Box Office: $63,000,000 ($107,621,689)
Gross Profit: $30,000,000 ($51,248,423)
Gross Margin: 47.62%
----
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Budget: $27,000,000 ($41,996,653)
Box Office: $97,000,000 ($150,876,867)
Gross Profit: $70,000,000 ($108,880,213)
Gross Margin: 72.16%
----
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Budget: $35,000,000 ($50,014,641)
Box Office: $118,000,000 ($168,620,790)
Gross Profit: $83,000,000 ($118,606,149)
Gross Margin: 70.34%
----
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Budget: $45,000,000 ($60,908,869)
Box Office: $146,000,000 ($197,615,442)
Gross Profit: $101,000,000 ($136,706,573)
Gross Margin: 69.18%
----
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
Budget: $58,000,000 ($75,976,862)
Box Office: $112,500,000 ($147,368,914)
Gross Profit: $54,500,000 ($71,392,052)
Gross Margin: 48.44%
----
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Budget: $60,000,000 ($71,141,000)
Box Office: $67,000,000 ($79,440,783)
Gross Profit: $7,000,000 ($8,299,783)
Gross Margin: 10.45%
----
Star Trek: Space Cadet Nukirk's Little Adventure (2009)
Budget: $150,000,000
Box Office: $385,500,000
Gross Profit: $235,500,000
Gross Margin: 61.09%

As you can see, Star Trek 2009 didn't even make as much as Star Trek: The Motion Picture and fell well below the profit margins of all but The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. In fact, the only reason that it even did as well as it did is because they throw a fuckton of money at it. Give me $150,000,000 and I could do the same; it's easy to make money when you have money. That and there hadn't been a Star Trek film for seven years at that point, so the audiences were starved. Little did they suspect the platter of steaming excrement that they were about to be served.

Re:How?

[0100010001010011]

Based on the preview I think that the intro is going to go something like this:

In 2972 , a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum-security stockade to the Sol system. Today, still wanted by the Federation, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem...if no one else can help...and if you can find them...maybe you can hire...The Renegades

YES PLEASE!

[maliqua]

recent star trek movies make me sad time travel and rewriting is the tool of lazy sci-fi writers out to make a buck on an established name.

Re:YES PLEASE!

[lnunes]

Don't, worry, I've got you covered! And here, take one, too!

Re:YES PLEASE!

[interkin3tic]

Tools depend on the skill of the person using them. I thought the new movies were good. In fact, I watched the Wrath of Khan after the most recent star wars movie and (takes a deep breath and cowers behind flame shield) the old one is pretty horrible IMHO.

I'd further argue that J.J. Abrams was a bigger name than Star Trek in the circles that counted when the first remake movie came out. Not among fans obviously, but among the studios.

Re:YES PLEASE!

[dgatwood]

No place to go? It's an infinite universe with an infinite timeline. Therefore, there are an infinite number of things that could happen that don't involve interactions with anyone important and therefore don't affect the timeline. You could write a story about the war between the Vulcans and the Romulans, for one. That's never been explored in any depth. Heck, that could be an entire series by itself, with almost no risk of significantly violating the canon.

Re:YES PLEASE!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But the current reboot is nothing like episode The City on the Edge of Forever which wasn't a lazy use of time travel.

Re:YES PLEASE!

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, it sort of depends on how you define "time travel."

First, you have the "real" time travel episodes: City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, All Our Yesterdays, and Assignment: Earth. These are episodes where people are supposed to actually be in a different time.

Second, you have the "pseudo" time travel episodes: Patterns of Force, A Piece of the Action, Spectre of the Gun, Plato's Stepchildren, The Paradise Syndrome, and Bread and Circuses. While these don't actually involve time travel, they take place in environments that are the same or similar to Earth history. Patterns of Force and A Piece of the Action take place on planets where, due to human interference, the inhabitants have adopted the dress and demeanor of Nazi Germany and 1930s Chicago. Spectre of the Gun is an illusion of the Old West, Plato's Stepchildren takes place on a planet modeled after Ancient Greece, The Paradise Syndrome is inhabited by people who look and act like Native Americans, and Bread and Circuses takes place in a 20th Century Roman Empire.

Third, you have a few of "time traveler" episodes: "Who Mourns for Adonais," where the crew of the Enterprise meets the ancient god Apollo, "The Savage Curtain," where Kirk meets simulations of Abraham Lincoln and Genghis Khan, and "Requiem for Methuselah," where they encounter a man who has been alive since 3500 BC and was Leonardo DaVinci, among other historical figures.

So if you consider "real" time travel, only four episodes had anything to do with time travel. Out of 79--I'd hardly call that a "main plot element" of the show. On the other hand, if we throw in the six "pseudo" time travel episodes and add in the "time traveler" episodes, you come up with about 16% of the episodes having something to do with known Earth history. I'm still not sure I'd call that a "main plot element" of the show--hey, it's no "Time Tunnel" or "Quantum Leap"--but it's definitely noticeable.

The Trekkies will finance

[ikhider]

Somehow, I don't think they will have trouble getting funding for this. I am sure Wil Wheaton will be on this as well. Trekkies are a massive economic force to be dealt with. I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe. A cursory glance at the newer shows and I have no idea what is going on and thus no reason to care. Heck, while I am at it, why don't the script writers add a bit f science to their sci-fi. That would be nice.

Re:The Trekkies will finance

[fahrbot-bot]

I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe.

Then you would have disliked Farscape as it was very serial - at least to get it all. True many episodes could stand alone, but the season/series arcs really tied things together and many details were intertwined throughout most episodes. Actually one of the reasons I liked it - though I won't discount my crush on Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black) - and most of the other women on the series :-) [ I do like strong, smart, independent women. ]

Beam me Up

[decipher_saint]

Lately I've been on a Trek retrospective (Trekrospective?) thanks to Netflix and by Evil Spock's beard do I miss Star Trek

All power to the engines!

ST Continues

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

Star Trek Continues is very, very good. The first episode features the return of Apollo, played by original actor Michael Forest. I've already sent them money; I'd rather see this funded than more TNG era stuff. The era had its moments, but this is a really faithful back-to-the-roots adaptation that captures the heart and soul and the *feel* of Star Trek better than anything else I've ever seen. The attention to detail is amazing. Gorn Bob says check it out: http://www.startrekcontinues.com/

I wish them godspeed

[roc97007]

I really do. And it's good to see Walter working again. But Voyager and Enterprise pretty much soured me to Old Trek. I'm sure some people will really enjoy this, and the best to them. But I'm done. I'd much rather see something (relatively) new and different move forward, like L5. Or a series based on literature that hasn't been done yet, like Ringworld or even the Heinlein juveniles. Why must we continue to flog dead horses?

Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph

[dkleinsc]

After locating the nuclear wessels (a Russian inwention), Psi-cop Alfred Bester finds a way to travel back to the 1980's and muck with Khan Noonien Singh's head (explaining why Khan recognized Chekov on Ceti Alpha V).

By faithful to the canon...

[arpad1]

...does that mean there'll be lots of lip service to the Prime Directive while completely ignoring it? Does this mean the captain of an important Federation ship will get into fist fights as part of his duty as well? Will there be significant loss of life among the crew as a regular occurrance during peace time and will the ship regularly engage in ship-to-ship combat during this same peaceful time as well?

If the answer's "yes" then this new production will be faithful to the original.

Re:No Thanks

[Jason Levine]

So long as a show doesn't stagnate (I'm looking at you Simpsons), I see no reason why a particular time limit needs to be put on a show. I'm a big Doctor Who fan that that's been around for 50 years now. (Granted, I haven't seen many of the classic Doctor Who episodes yet. I began watching last year with Doctor Nine and worked forward. Eventually I'll go back and watch the classics.)

Self Consistency Canon

[ShooterNeo]

I would greatly prefer if the writers for this series, in the unlikely event it takes off, focused on being self consistent.

Don't show the "time police" one episode, complete with an enforcement vessel called the USS Relativity, that ruthlessly polices the timeline, then magically resolve all the outstanding problems by having your captain come back from the future with cheat-technology in a later episode. (because if the time police let this stand, why don't they simply give the Federation the best tech of all time from day 1?)

Don't show a space station next to earth one movie, with a massive infrastructure, then show the Enterprise and another ship have their illegal fight between Federation warships right next to earth, so close that the Enterprises crashes into the earth in the same movie!

If you establish that maximum warp has a speed, don't show a ship getting from the border of the Klingon neutral zone to Earth in 5 minutes of warp.

If you establish that Bones is the medical officer on the ship, aka the only qualified doctor, and you then show the Enterprise taking massive damage with mass casualties, don't have him quietly standing on the bridge lecturing Kirk instead of getting his ass to sickbay to treat the critically wounded.

Politics...

[jythie]

Right now, too many careers and face are invested in the reboot. It does not matter how good or bad this would be, it is unlikely the IP owners would allow it to succeed since it would hurt the personal careers or people in charge right now.

This could have been better

[Tighe_L]

I was talking to a friend about my idea for the next Star Trek show. One set in a remote federation outpost where a Federation Admiral is corrupt, and there is a crew of a non-federation (human captain) ship that is constantly having to deal with him. Think Dukes of Hazzard. The Admiral makes them out to be criminals, but the reverse is true and this ship is always coming to the aid of people in the sector while trying to scrape out a living and possible get the big score. The crew would be a Human male captain (I am thinking about reprising William Campbell as Thadiun Okona) An old Klingon with a death wish (just wants to die in battle, but whenever he get the chance he is needed and misses the opportunity) (also he likes 80s rock and plays the guitar) Exiled Romulan who constantly clashes with the Kingon (looking for evidence to go home and reunite with his family) Orion Slave Girl A female Nausicaan (twist that female Nausicaans are attractive) Vash might be a recurring guest star.

I'll never understand

[franblets]

This is the same mistake made by all that have gone before... Sell it to one of the broadcast networks where it will be canceled in 2 years or less. Sell it to the SciFy channel where it will be watched and supported.

Watch out guys...

[denzacar]

Sure, but when your typical oldster starts talking about how optimistic TOS was he really means naive.

We're dealing with a Betazoid over here.