June 13 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Trek On TV Again?

1 min read


According to Sky News Entertainment Reporter Joe Michalczuk, there is ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of getting Star Trek back on TV again.

The information comes courtesy of Star Trek into Darkness Co-writer Roberto Orci.

“Bob Orci just told me they’ve had a meeting with CBS to revive @StarTrek on TV,” said Michalczuk. “This made me v[ery] excited.”

However, it was only a few weeks ago that J.J. Abrams spoke on the matter, as reported by TrekWeb. “What I’ve been told from the powers that be [At CBS] is that they’re not interested.”

Thanks to TrekToday Just a Guest for the tip!

About The Author

113 thoughts on “Trek On TV Again?

  1. Hawaii 5-0 Ick
    Sleepy Hollow double ick
    Fringe- Their involvement was minimal after season 1 but it was great, since it came before they decided every show on TV should be their creation.
    They are just too busy to take anything that seriously.

  2. Critics [not the Rotten Tomatoes People] are pretty much split on both movies. STID when adjusted for inflation was #4 grossing Trek movie and 2009 is neck- and- neck with TMP.
    I love Trek. I don’t like it when someone makes an explosion movie along the lines of the Transformers and passes it off as Star Trek.
    Have to wonder how well the older movies would have done with half the budget?

  3. At least Berman and Braga gave Trek their undivided attention.
    That needs to happen again with someone, and soon.

  4. Are they pocketing the donations? I haven’t heard anything about these people, i never took the fan based stuff very seriously anyway.
    Just curious.

  5. Just revive The Next Generation with the same cast. Except for Sir Patrick Stewart, it’s not as if these guys are are really all that busy. Maybe he can drop in once a year for a cameo as an Admiral. Frakes will make a great captain for the Big E
    Brent Spiner can come back in as B4- who’s to say B4 didn’t have an aging algorithm built into him?
    Let Showtime have it, 10- 13 well done high budget episodes per year released to syndication the following year.
    Let someone such as J. Michael Straczynski take it over..

  6. It wouldn’t surprise me if Vic and Farragut Films did pocket the donations. Especially Michael Bednar(who is vice-President of Farragut films). After being lied to by him, that thieving SOB and his friends are capable of anything illegal.

  7. I’d disagree with all of that – except for the bit amout JMS.

    For me, the TNG cast are all too old and many of them haven’t done any acting since Nemesis.

  8. The science on Star Trek has always been just as mind bogglingly bad as the science on Fringe. What’s the difference? You have to suspend disbelief constantly to be a fan of Hollywood sci fi.

  9. Forward which timeline, prime or JJ?

    I’d be interested in a future JJ timeline, but we’ve already seen several different glimpses of the future Prime timeline, and none of them seemed any different than what we already saw during the TNG era: ships were sleeker, time travel was apparently commonplace, and their pajamas were a little glittery… but other than that, there was nothing to make me think “I would really like to see a show set during this era.”

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d watch it and I’d root for it to be good. I’m just not clamoring for it.

  10. Agreed, even 2001 required some amount of suspension of disbelief.* However, I stand on my assertion that Star Trek science is nowhere near as laughably bad as on Fringe. The difference is in how much belief you have to suspend.
    Voyager excepted, Trek at least tried to be internally consistent, ie. even though some of it does not conform to known physical laws in our universe, they had established rules and stuck to them.**
    Out of twenty-eight seasons’ worth of Star Trek episodes, there were maybe half a dozen that made me feel dumber for having seen them.*** When Trek is stupid, it’s usually for reasons other than the science.
    Now; let’s start with if I’m not mistaken the very first episode of Fringe.
    A girl with a capsule containing radioisotopes implanted in her head (real technique) is emitting microwaves (ok… not too farfetched so far…) powerful enough to explode peoples’ heads… from six, eight, ten feet away… in seconds. Not cook, not burn, but Scanners-style explode… and it doesn’t kill her, cook her brain, or cause her head to blow up.This is so ridiculously wrong it’s not even funny. This is Michael Bay-level science.**** This is something that even five minutes with your loveable old pal Google will tell you is not possible.
    So what we have here is the typical pattern for these knuckleheads:
    Hear about something real that sounds cool;
    Take the idea and run with it in a way that they think is clever, but makes eighth-grade science students facepalm;
    For Star Trek, you have to suspend your disbelief enough to accept a little impossible***** physics that generally are handled in a consistent manner.
    For Fringe, or anything those knuckleheads have done, you have to suspend your belief enough to accept that time, space, distance, and sequence of events are entirely meaningless******, that logic is something exotic that nobody really uses, that cool factor overrides all that nerdy science stuff anyway, and oh hey, boobies!
    This is why I say over and over that Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindehof continuously show a contempt for science. It’s not that they can’t write, because I enjoyed Trek ’09 enough to forgive its faults; it’s that basic research or logical chains of reasoning are pretty far from a priority with them.

    * Primer didn’t, but it was a dry, dry film.
    *** Umm let’s see… Threshold I think was the newts; Omega Directive was the one where they had subatomic molecules; Catspaw from TOS, and who could forget Spock’s Brain.
    **** What a coincidence!
    ***** Or extrauniversal, seing as how it’s already clear that our present does not match Star Trek’s past.
    ****** Warp to Vulcan in 30 seconds! Supernovas can blow up a galaxy!

  11. Lol I can’t argue with any of that. But what it comes down to for me is this: When I watch a sci fi show, I watch it to see human relationships, human interactions and human values, set amidst fantastic circumstances. I’m willing to suspend an awful lot of disbelief if I genuinely care about the characters and buy into the characters’ actions and reactions. It can be the most ridiculous premise, but if how they cope with it is logical to me, or I can identify with them personally, I’ll go along for the ride. Ultimately, it was the father-son relationship between Walter and Peter, and the love between Peter and Olivia, that kept me hooked. And it was their logical responses (I can’t remember ever saying “nobody in real life would do that”) that made me buy into the stories. That’s the same reason I loved TOS, TNG and DS9, and didn’t really care about VOY and ENT (although after rewatching those two a decade later on Netflix, I came to think I judged them a bit too harshly when they first ran).

  12. I see your point – the new Subarus are competitive modern cars (although the current Impreza drivetrain does trade off horsepower for greater fuel economy versus its predecessor), and if their interiors have a higher proportion of cheap plastic than 6 or 7 years ago, so too do other manufacturers’ cars. But the original Trek series had its share of ludicrous writing too (admittedly not as ludicrous, on average, as the two AbramsTrek movies.) And cars have to meet crashworthiness standards, whereas movie scripts don’t. Nonetheless a great many AbramsTrek tickets have been sold, and I feel (as evidently you do) that AbramsTrek just isn’t Star Trek despite these ticket sales, just as I feel that modern Subarus just aren’t Subarus despite record high sales in the U.S. Unrecognizability despite having the same name, rather than perceived lack of quality, is what I was trying to get at.

    I think it will be illuminating to see how sales figures for the DVD and BluRay versions of STID compare to those for the 2009 movie. Will anyone want to see the movie again, much less own it, given all the story flaws (with which I concur) listed above?

  13. Vic Mignogna’s Star Trek Continues would be the better description for Star Trek Into Dickiness.

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.