I hear it'll be called Star Trek, flogging the dead horse series.
Spock and Scottie are no doubt turning in their graves as is Gene.
Star Trek will return in a new series in 2017, but the venerable program will quickly disappear from screens other than those subscribed to US broadcaster CBS' "All Access" video-on-demand platform. The as-yet-un-named re-re-re-re-reboot* "will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, …
Star Trek For the Windows 10 Generation
Next Generation was the first reboot, Deep Space Nine the second, Voyager the third, and Enterprise the fourth, making this the fifth. If we wanted to get really nerdy we could include The Animated Series as another reboot and also consider the recent movies another reboot, making the new show a re-re-re-re-re-re-reboot.
Just like a Bad windows 10 install
There is your tech Angle oh and incoming Black Ops Shuttle
..and Harry Kim was picked by Voyager from DS9 after Quark tried to swindle him. DS9 and Voyager were not reboots but were just more stories from the Next-Gen universe. Next Gen itself was set in the original's universe as Spock, Scotty and Bones McCoy all appeared on it.
The only reboot was the new films with Pratt and Qunito playing old characters.
Picard's Enterprise brought the original crew (including a reluctant Sisko) to DS9 in the first episode, and left Chief O'Brien behind. Worf was assigned in a later series, once TNG finished. These two overlapped by several series.
Similarly, Voyager docked at DS9 in its first episode where Tom Paris and Harry Kim met over one of Quark's scams (Quark, Morn, Gul Evek and Q being the only characters to appear in all 3).
TNG and DS9 overlapped also, so even then can't count as a reboot....
And since DS9 included flashbacks/crossovers with TOS even THAT can't be reboot....
So that leaves ent... err no even that has a crossover with TOS...
Ok already been said more eloquently by others...
Not entirely sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I love Trek from the original through TNG to DS9, on the other Voyager and Enterprise I'd rather forget. Time will tell I guess, but I can't say the recent movies have done much to give me hope.
Here's hoping my pessimism is misplaced.
Voyager is the weakest trek series but it had it's moments (Year of Hell would have been great if they hadn't hit the reset button at the end). Enterprise picked up in it's last two seasons. DS9 is still my favourite probably for the reason that most of the people I know who like trek don't like it. It was possible for stuff that happened before to come back and bite people in sensitive places rather than just flying away and never hearing from it again.
I agree with James 51 - DS9 (along with TOS) are my favourites. DS9 had great continuing stories, which were largely avoided in any of the other series. TNG had so much promise, but rarely delivered (Borg notwithstanding) - and the silliness with the changing face of Klingons almost undid the whole thing.
There was the end of series^H^H^H^H^H^Hseason finale where they'd saved the Earth from the Xindi, but to have a cliff hanger into the next series they suddenly went back in time (can't remember why) to when aliens were posing as Nazis (I don't /think/ I'm making this up, or am I getting confused with Galactica 80s?). Anyway, there was a definite "going back in time" CGI effect after which I fully expected Captain Archer to say "Oh boy!" (he didn't).
In what way are the subsequent
cash-ins er, I mean series reboots? They're no more a reboot of the original series than, say, Aliens is a reboot of Alien.
Questions of the quality of the subsequent series (especially Voyager) are fair enough, but they weren't reboots. They exist in the same Universe with what happened in the preceding series (Enterprise excepted, being a prequel) forming part of that Universe's history*.
* Unless rewriting or ignoring history worked for the plot.
The term "reboot" seems to have changed meaning (or I always misunderstood it), if TNG, DS9, et al are reboots of TOS. I thought a "reboot" is where you pretend the original never happened, so you can re-tell and update the story; for example the 2004 Battle Star Galactica series, or the 2012 Total Recall movie. In my mind, TNG, DS9 etc are sequel series, not reboots; they happen in the same space and timeline as TOS, and even have some characters from TOS appear in them (Spock, R.I.P.).
I believe TNG, DS9, and Voyager had some overlap as well, DS9 started before TNG ended, and Voyager starter before DS9 ended, so it's not as if you could say they were reboots in the sense of restarting something which had stopped.
So, is any spin-off or sequel now a "reboot"?
I'm going with misused, but also will have a crack at attempting to expand the definition.
The new movies are absolutely reboots - same universe, same characters, same rules, a different take on things.
I'd argue TnG was just about a reboot. Yes, it was on the same timeline but it deliberately stepped far in enough in time beyond ToS to create a lacuna that allowed for the insertion of entirely new elements. As the movies rolled out, bits of that lacuna were erased to get Kirk and Picard on the same screen. But hey, let's not spend the >>whole<< day arguing about Trek continuity. People might decide we're nerds ...
TNG may be discussed as a "reboot" but there is a far more accurate word to descibe it: sequel. And that's why that word exists, no need to try to redefine the meaning of another one
Deep Space Nine and Voyager are contemporaries, so therefore "offshoot" is the technically accurate desciption.
The latest Star Trek movie series is the only, true "reboot" in the discussion: taking all known aspects of a creation and reimagining them. In TNG et al, the Constitution-class starships existed as they were previously shown on screen; Kirk, Spock and all the other historical personalities, as well as all the events that surrounded them, stayed in place. Only with the new movies does all of that - all of it - change. That's a "reboot".
The new series may do well - no Berman or Braga!! That's a "+100" for its potential goodness factor right there! :-)
Even the new films aren't a conventional reboot. A typical reboot starts over with no explanation. The 2009 Star Trek movie establishes a parallel timeline where some characters (old Spock and the bad guy who's name a I can't remember) lived through and remember the original timeline but was involved in the time-travel event which changed things.
The second one get a tad more confused and more like a conventional reboot, because now some things prior to what should have been affected seem to have changed too.
I have to agree that DS9, TNG, Voyager and Enterprise are all firmly in the same universe (continuity errors aside).
I would've expected (and would like to see) a new series to take the same cast as the new films, not reboot all over again with another new cast.
We are due another new ST spin-off but unless they use the film cast, I want a spin-off not another re-boot please.
Sorry. Have you never heard of the term "spinoff"?
They (TNG, DS9, Voyager & Enterprise) are neither "reboots" nor "sequels". They are set in the original TOS universe, but do not continue to use any of the original cast as regular characters (beyond Majel Barrett, and I don't think we can count "Federation Computer" as an actual "character")
They are SPINOFFS. With occasional cross-overs and guest appearances.
The only true "sequel" would be ST:TAS.
The only "reboot" is the new film series set in the lens-flare universe. Does anyone have a handy chalk-board in their living room in order to sketch out where the time-line skews?
Also: Subscribing specifically to a series? Not going to work for me unless it's appropriately cheap. Consider that subscribing to the series means "watch it once... then you're done" (or possibly more than once within the subscription period) versus (say) buying something on DVD and watching it whenever I want, and how often I want.
Lets make a new series of star trek, lots of money in that !!!
Marketing Twat#87: Ok great Idea to maximise our profits, Lets make it really difficult to watch for most people, that way Nobody will pirate it due to ease of viewing.....
Boss#12: Umm sorry what?... sure yeah lets do that, you said maximise and profits in a sentence and I tuned out after that.
You've mucked that up rather badly even if you did get a fair bit of a helping hand from the author.
You don't subscribe to the series. You subscribe to the CBS service which they claim makes ALL of their content available to you. (Certainly true for anything currently on air and most of the stuff you'd find on the likes of Netflix et al that is true.) But the series will ONLY be available through the service.
Currently listing for $5.99/month in the US.
Of all the series cited as reboots only Enterprise can really be considered such.
TNG was explicitly a continuation of the timeline, not a reset nor did did it rely on any reset. DS9 and Voyager were also set in that same timeline (excluding those episodes in each of those series that deviated from that timeline for the purposes of weaving in an alternate timeline for unavoidable continuity preservation).
Enterprise, being set before TOS was (more) arguably a reboot for the simple reason that it was difficult to conceive that the technology presented in that earlier timeframe would or could "evolve" to the technology presented in TOS (in a way that was not so problematic for TNG and "later" vs TOS) even if strictly speaking we were supposed to accept that this is precisely what had in fact happened.
There is a somewhat reasonable attempt to explain the changes in tech between Enterprise and TOS, detailed in “The Romulan War”. It's explained as a counter-measure against Romulan malware taking over Starfleet systems. We'd probably have seen something like that in the TV series if it hadn't been cancelled.
All being well, this new proposed series will fit in with the previous series and all 10 films. If it fits in instead with the… other two…
"All being well, this new proposed series will fit in with the previous series and all 10 films. If it fits in instead with the… other two…"
That may not be a bad thing. Considering how far the previous producers /writers, Berman & Braga, backed the storytelling into an irrevokable corner by their stupid fixation with time travel stories, hacking up canon to meet a story's agenda, et al, maybe a fresh start will be healthy for the long term.
TOS is, in the Enterprise line of things, when the Federation were building starships and crazy 60s retro design was in vogue.
A bit like how, in the 2010s, the design zeitgeist for some crazy reason ditched advanced skeuomorphic desktop design for flat 8-bit CLUT 70s style iconography. I expect in 20 years time we will look back on Windows 8/10 and iOS 8/9 and OS X 10.9/10/11 and laugh at it.
Nope, Enterprise was a prequel.
Like all things Trek, they fucked up the timeline and ignored the problems. Leaving Trekies to cobble together some false rationale for their abject failures in continuity.
Don't get me wrong, I like original Trek, a fair bit of TNG (but not the first season), and DS9. Spock was my second hero after The Batman. But the writers and producers ignored both continuity and essential human traits with some regularity. Take any episode where they had access to untold knowledge and didn't make a copy: City on the Edge of Forever, For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky, Spock's Brain. Frankly, City on the Edge of Forever is the WORST offender because it starts out with Spock doing exactly that, the episode revolves around it as the McGuffin, then ignores it after they return from their trip into the past.
I'm inwardly "Squee-ing" like an ante-pubescent schoolgirl upon hearing a group of 30-something "boys" are shortly to appear at my local shopping mall.
Nevertheless I find your attempts to define what is, and is-not a "re-boot" troubling. Budding Jeffrey Albertsons might say that TOS was the first reboot from the pilot. Yes, Captain Pike came back as a parody of Jeffrey Hunter's acting skills in one of Hollywood's earliest ancestors of a "Clip show", but they have markedly different feels.
Similarly one could claim that TNG->DS9->V'GER (With their overlapping run-times) were really just one big show sliced-up as talent-contracts became too expensive.
The Star Trek movie was filmed as, and sold as a REBOOT. Period.
An abysmal failure in my estimation as it pretty much destroyed everything Roddenberry put into it that made it Trek, but none the less a reboot.
And AGAIN, it's not a subscription series. It's a series that will only be available on their CBS All Access service, which is sort of a mini-Netflix for CBS at about half the price of Netflix. They advertise 7500 shows and movies.
"other than those subscribed to US broadcaster CBS' "All Access" video-on-demand platform"
Since Australia is the arsehole of the world, and that's not available to us, we'll have to persevere with the torrents. Nicely packaged, without ads, a mere few hours after it's available in the US, terrible, just terrible.
"Since Australia is the arsehole of the world, and that's not available to us"
I've since found out that CBS has done a deal with the 10 network, so presumably it's going to be showing on free to air. That means it's likely to air at 2:00am, and laced with on-screen commercials for either cooking or home renovation shows. You know, because they're important.
That's the 10 network - the same one that starting this year butchered the Formula One seasons to an hour long "best of". With ads, that's 42 minutes program material, with the trophy handouts and top three interviews, that leaves maybe half an hour of racing for a race that's nearly two hours long in real life.
Torrents here we come.
A fricken' argument on the Internet about Star Trek! Woo Hoo!
Also an argument about what is and isn't a Reboot. Loving it, my kids are right, I'm a nerd.
Also John Tserkezis is correct. Those who don't live in the geographic zone that the idiots from CBS decide deserve to watch this will have to live with a better, quicker format.
Might as well make Zorbo's Executive Powder out of them.
That debut episode will need to be good
Think back to the first episode of TNG and DS9. Would anyone have subscribed to keep those on air?
Funnily enough, Voyager might have got a few subscribers since it promised a fresh take on things, inter crew conflict, seventy light years from home & having to survive without the Federation - they turned out some of the worst dreck imaginable:
Chakotay (aka Token), worst Indian ever!
Oh and even tho you said don't argue about the reboot issue. This is the internet and you are so utterly wrong. The only things I'll accept as a reboot are the new films, of which only the first held promise. The second one was unmitigated shit! and the third one could have been good but Hollywood has already told Simon Peg to untrek it a bit, so it'll have some good humour, some hidden digs at Paramount and be a rollicking good adventure - possibly.
Native American. Despite being more than a third of the world's population, India, China and other South-East Asian nations get barely a look-in in Star Trek.
You're right, on both counts, not sure why you got a downvote, so have another upvote. There was an Asian character captaining dad kirks ship in the reboot, but he barely survived 5 minutes.
"Think back to the first episode of TNG and DS9. Would anyone have subscribed to keep those on air?"
I was thinking the same question the other day - CBS Action is rerunning DS9 from the beginning and watching "Emissary" made me remember thinking "Oh, perhaps it will get better" after seeing it when the series first aired (and then wondering how long I was going to keep punishing myself after watching "Move Along Home" and "Dramatis Personae"!) My impressions of the first few TNG were the same - "Encounter at Farpoint" was just about the worst introductory episode of anything I have ever seen. Who could have anticipated the dark plotlines and solid storytelling that were to come, especially in DS9?
I hope it is less dystopian than the current trend in writing has become. ST:TNG was always aiming for something higher, Gene Rodenberry thought ST should elevate mankind more than playing to its fears.
I've been trying to watch Revolution and Defiance on Amazon Prime because they looked like interesting science fiction, but the problem is that the writers seem to feel inadequate unless they've killed off a key character every few episodes. I'm not saying "keep it light" but lets not have a constant negative spiral with long story arcs that result in a portion of the crew dying every few weeks, it gets draining on the soul.
"I hope it is less dystopian than the current trend in writing has become."
Current trend in writing? You make it sound like dystopia is a new thing. Hasn't science fiction always had a dystopian vein running through it? - for example: The Time Machine (1895), Brave New World (1931), 1984 (1949), Fahrenheit 451 (1953), The Chrysalids (1955), A Clockwork Orange (1962), Logan's Run (1967), Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968), and we haven't even made it to the 1970s yet!
Star Trek may have tried to be utopian, but Bob H appears to be discussing other series since he namechecks two of them and suggests 'current trends'. Since there hasn't been a new episode of any version of Star Trek (excluding the recent movies - are they 'canon'?), my guess is he's talking about dystopia in science fiction in more general terms than Star Trek.
Right over the top of your head.
Two in the space of as many hours. That's gotta be a record.
Part of the trope is that the red shirt was also always Ensign Expendable, not a main character. Guy played this wonderfully in Galaxy quest. Too many shows these days depend on their continuing characters having more heart rending experiences in an episode than most soap opera stars got in a season.
I heard some social theory the other day that future dystopias are popular because if we have resigned ourselves to the future being shit then we don't need to change our damaging behaviour.
I haven't fully decided about the truth of that yet. It might just be that future dystopias make good settings for violent -and thus fun! - video games!
My comment was in response to
"that result in a portion of the crew dying every few weeks"
which doesn't specifically state that it has to be a named character being killed off (yes I know the previous sentence is with regards the Game of Thrones-esque killing off of half the lead characters every season).
Reminds me of the joke about the actor whose agent calls him up to tell him he has a job:
"I've got you a major role in a leading fantasy series"
"How many series?"
"I'll be in the whole episode though right?"
"No, your character gets killed in the opening credits"
"How is that a leading role?"
"It's Game of Thrones"
"So he's quite a long lived character then?"
I did mention the need to kill key characters elsewhere in the posting.
I love the idea that dystopian futures are an excuse not to make our own lives better.
You seem to have pointed out quite a number of films more than TV series and yes there are many examples of both TV and films being dystopial. However my concern is valid because the writing trends elsewhere and notably more so to me recently, have been rather against what Gene R. wanted from Star Trek. We can assume the writers, producers and directors will be somewhat experienced in the genre and thus will bring their own interpretation to the series. However dark can also be viewed as a criticism of many ST films, but especially so of the TNG films.
"You seem to have pointed out quite a number of films more than TV series"
Call me old fashioned, but I was actually pointing out the books (the dates were publication dates, not film release dates), although almost all were subsequently turned into films - I think The Crysalids was only ever adapted into a radio play.
Nope, that was what the reboot was all about: bringing on even more teen angst than a a sparkly vampire tv show. I might, maybe, possibly have been able to torture myself into accepting their time is linear except when we need it to be timey-whimey for dramatic purposes plot point except for that issue.
Michael Dorn (aka Worf for the one person on here who might not already know who he is) has been trying to get a new (TnG continuity, some time after the end of Nemesis) series going about what happened to Worf for quite some time now. He seems to have had some success - at least up to the point of being in discussions with CBS about it, and it would be nice for him to succeed, although the cynic in me suspects that he won't have and this will be a reboot movie tie-in with the same old characters because some market test suggested that would sell better.
A "Star Trek" set in the TnG timeline but with a focus on the Klingons could be an interesting show I think. It gives an opportunity for the Federation to still be the shining light that Rodenberry always wanted it to be, for there to be that feeling of "We can be better than we are" but would also allow more dark storytelling because you'd be seeing that from the outside.
We all know what happened to Worf. He fell through a hole in the space time continuum and wound up in Slough in 1932. Understandably of course, his frustration at being dumped in Slough of the 1930s, caused him to repeatedly try to beat his own brains out by head butting the damp plaster moulds hanging in the chocolate factory he had taken refuge in. The resulting confectionary cast using the damaged moulds was an instant success, and Forrest Mars took Worf on as senior mould-maker until Worf's untimely demise in 2006, after which time the company was no longer able to fend off aggressive corporate takeovers by meeting them with a level of aggression not seen in the boardroom since.
>that feeling of "We can be better than we are" but would also allow more dark storytelling because you'd be seeing that from the outside.
Then sod it, let's just have Iain M Bank's The Culture adapted for screen, big or little. In accordance with his wishes, and I quote, it should have "a fucking big budget!".
Much of the Culture novels explored the limits of what a utopia could be, and where it clashed.
Of the major broadcast networks in the US, CBS is the only one that charges for online content - but only under specifically weird circumstances. I can watch recent episodes of current shows for free on my laptop, but I must pay to do that with my Roku or Android device?!? The other networks all allow you to stream pretty much anything they offer for free, regardless of method.
Assuming this new Star Trek is even worth watching (and that is definitely NOT a given); if it is subscription only and NOT also on other popular subscription platforms like Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime, then it simply cannot last. There aren't enough people who will pay USD$6/month to watch one show. Oh, and you still are privileged to watch commercials. Granted, paying customers see "fewer" of them but, you cannot fast forward or otherwise bypass them. No thank you.
subscription-only will ensure a quick death
Ah, finally, someone noticed the main problem with this article.
The problem is that on American TV [and even cable - look what happened to SyFy - it's a wrestling channel now!] is that Science Fiction seems to be a hard sell. I'm still waiting for the next season of Sarah Connor Chronicles, and to see what happens in Stargate Universe.
The term reboot is just a PR hack to tie into computer jargon. Were the 2 follow star treks a reboot, absolutely not because they did not follow onto the originals and were just pretty lame, very poor story, second set action movies, with that poor story just barely enough to tie together the often pretty silly action scenes. Pretty much a lame cash in on the original franchise and they did a ton of damage to that franchise.
New TV series, I just know it going to be some half assed 90210 in space, to target a younger audience.
Pretty much the last two movies killed the franchise, the second one even worse than the first.
A smarter reboot would reuse the theme but dump that particular universe as unrecoverable.
CBS along with everyone else wants to add 'exclusives' to their online streaming offerings. What good is it if you have to subscribe to CBS, ABC, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, HBO, ESPN and on and on and end up spending $200 a month?
If it were on TV I'm sure I'd watch it. Making it online streaming only I won't even watch the teaser episode on TV - what's the point, since I can't watch the rest? If it is any good it'll be available elsewhere down the road and can be binge watched.
Only people who've already abandoned traditional cable/satellite TV would be interested in this, but even among them unless they already subscribed to CBS (and why the hell would you?) the only new subscriptions they'll get are from die hard Trekkies who are afraid not watching them when they come out will mean 'spoilers' when they go to a Trek con.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019