Spaced Out: Re-Booting Star Trek

Admittedly, it takes a lot of nerve to offer to resurrect the "Star Trek" franchise when nobody has asked you to do that, but that's just what prolific writer/producer J. Michael Straczynski and I did back in 2004. We were working together on a network pitch for a limited series, "Cult", and we started talking about the state of the Trek universe and, before we could stop ourselves, we'd banged out a 14-page treatment called "Star Trek: Re-Boot the Universe."

Chutzpah on a Cosmic Level
{Art by Nancy Tokos, Tokos Design Associates}

I know, I know. If you read the papers, you already know that the "Star Trek" flame has been passed, if you will, to an incalculably larger solar giant, J.J. Abrams ("Lost", "MI3"). You can read all about it in Daily Variety, but the bottom line is that Abrams and his writing posse appear to be going back in time to prequel status.

Project, to be penned by Abrams and "MI3" scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, will center on the early days of seminal "Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.

What with this stellar creative team at work, there doesn't seem to be any upside in sitting on our own Trek fever-dream anymore. Might as well let the fans who'd heard about it and wanted to see it, see it, so you'll find the download link later in this post. There's no big agenda since it really was just a "Hail Mary" and we've long since moved on. These days, JMS is on fire, having just sold "The Changeling" to Imagine Films for Ron Howard to direct while also writing "Spider-Man" and "Fantastic Four" and several other titles over at Marvel Comics.

Our brush with this "Star Trek" story, though, starts back in 1999, I think, when Straczynski (I call him "Joe") and I met in the first class section of a flight between Los Angeles and Vancouver.

Back then, I was executive producing the TV series, "The Crow: Stairway to Heaven" and he was wrapping up a very successful run as the creator of "Babylon 5." Running a series between Canada and the U.S. can be a pretty grueling pace and the first class tickets are one of the few perks to look forward to. Except that as a writer/producer, you are usually writing next week's episode on a laptop only with more leg-room than you get when you're traveling for vacation.

Anyway, at that moment, we had a lot in common, both producing sci-fi series and, in particular, a devotion to five-year plans. JMS had crafted one for "Babylon 5" and Brent Friedman and I had done the same for our NBC alien invasion series "Dark Skies." By the time JMS and I reached our destination we'd traded contact info and said we'd get in touch.

That's what led to us agreeing to develop the "Cult" mini-series together, years later. I seem to recall having lunch at Art's Deli and our conversation veering off into the Trek situation. I  have no real clue why we felt compelled to write what we wrote but, looking back, I think it's because we had all these ideas and being writers it just felt more natural to write them down than to let them go. Then, once that happened, we felt compelled to share them. Like buying lottery tickets, I guess.

Joe and I had something that everyone in Hollywood seems to pay lip service to and that's passion. We both love sci-fi, have worked different ends of the spectrum, and thought maybe, given the chance, we might combine briefly to spark a creative debate that could be useful.

Anyway, the take that JMS and I came up with included using the original characters as the new film will do, apparently, but not as young officers at Starfleet Academy. We wanted to do what they do in the world of comics, create a separate universe ("Universe A") for all the past TV and film Trek continuity in order to free ourselves creatively so we could embrace the good stuff, banish the bad, and try some new things. In our re-boot ("Universe B"), we wanted to start over, use Kirk, Spock and McCoy and others in a powerful new origin story about what it was that bonded them in such strong friendship, and show them off as you'd never seen them before. It was, admittedly, pretty audacious but here it is if you want to take a look...

Star Trek Re-Boot.pdf

You may feel like, as I do re-reading it, that it leaves you wanting more specifics. My best defense is that we held back from putting everything we were thinking into it because, if we did, what would be the point of hiring us? So we suggested and prodded and explained and held some of the point-by-point work back for a meeting or an opportunity that never came. We don't think it's perfect, and with the passage of time, I have a whole new set of thoughts, but it is a snapshot, and offered in that spirit.

This was, I'm pretty sure, before the Sci-Fi Channel had done their terrific job with "Battlestar Galactica" (which I just voted for on my Emmy ballot as Outstanding Drama for the second year in a row). If you're trying to imagine the changed tone that JMS and I were thinking about, this would be a good place to start.

As we take pains to point out in that treatment, however, JMS and I both have lots of respect for the writer/producers who brought "Star Trek" to TV in so many forms over the years, including the last on-shift at "Enterprise," Brannon Braga and Manny Coto, both of whom were wrapping up as we did this. Same admiration for J.J. Abrams and where he's likely to take the franchise. No snark intended. He's a great talent.

So, for what it's worth, please just consider this another artifact to be found somewhere in the alternate "Star Trek" universe that never was.

And thanks to Stephen Hawking for making us all respectable again. Let's get at least some of these ideas out of the movie theaters and back on the launch pads where they belong!

What if JFK got out of Dallas alive?

Comments

[Herbie J Pilato]

Trek's Ron Moore recently visited the set of JJ Abrams new Star Trek film - and thinks JJ is doing a fine job of reinventing everything. Moore credits Harve Bennett with doing the same for the Trek franchise with The Wrath of Kahn.

Harve Bennett rescued the Trek franchise because he based his reimagining of the films based on the mythology of the original series.

As long as everyone keeps to the spirit of the original Star Trek, everything is fine. And that’s why NOTHING was fine with Voyager, Enterprise and Deep Space Nine. The latter was acceptable, if only in the last few seasons. But it had little to do with what Star Trek is all about. It was a very nice sci-fi show. But it wasn’t Star Trek. And as far as the Next Generation is concerned, my favorite season was the first season. That’s right - the first season. It all went down hill after that, and became a soap opera in space, when all the characters ever did was talk, talk, talk, talk.

The wonder of the original series was never seen beyond itself until nor since the Wrath of Kahn.

That all said, I agree with Moore and his assessment of a fresh star for the franchise.

[james lopez]

There are literally millions of people who work in jobs that require them to wear scrubs. http://www.cheapscrubset.com is a site that offers visitors with a wide selection of medial scrubs at low cost. Looking at the site, it appears that most scrubs run in the $9.99 to $15.99. Although I could not find out too much information about the company as they do not have an About Us page (hint to website owners - you need an About Us page!), they do appear to have an address and phone number to contact. I often suggest to people if they are ordering from a site for the first time it is a good idea to call them first to ensure they are legit. The fact that they have their phone number accessible is great to see.

At the site (http://www.cheapscrubset.com), the company offers up a number of different products. They offer for sale medical jackets, lab coats, prints and pattern tops, and scrub sets. It was unclear if they shipped to places outside of the U.S. They also appear to have supply cards but the link was not working so I could not see what it was all about. Overall, an interesting site with some cheaply priced products.

for quality medical scrubs at great low prices visit http://www.cheapscrubset.com

[Katryn Dougherty]

I had a question about where you get character names when writing. I watched Pandemic rather recently, and had to get my eldest daughter...her name is Aria...

I took a music appreciation class and when I heard about opera being broken up into two parts and the solos called Aria's I thought it would make a beuatiful girls name. So...in 1996 when I had her, she was named Aria :)

[Roger Waite]

I think the re-boot is a great idea with just the odd exception here and there.

I agree with the previous comment about splitting the existing fan base with parallel ideas that diverge from the continuity of the original series eg. the possibility floated of a female Scotty. As much as I love the new BSG I still haven't forgiven them for making Starbuck and Boomer into women. Please, enough of the political correctness!

I think that the timing will be right for you's to have another shot at this Star Trek reboot after the new Star Trek movie. Would be great having JMS writing Star Trek as I am a HUGE B5 fan!

2004 was too soon but now the timing will be JUST RIGHT after Abrams new ST movie going back to where Kirk and Spock meet when young (I think he should give some credit to Harve Bennett for 'pinching' his Star Trek Academy movie idea he worked on that got canned for Star Trek VI).

I would love to see a re-worked original series that captivates like the new BSG but without the political correctness that stays true to the original. Surely our writers can be creative enough to come up with new stories without the need to tamper with core original concepts?

It was great to see who's playing the young Spock in the new movie. I'm keen to see who the young Kirk is gonna be. If these guys are well accepted then they would be perfect candidates for playing them in a rebooted Star trek series.

The timing will be just right after the new Star Trek movie as it will follow on chronologically in a perfect way.

THEN I would love to see a Star Trek: Excelsior. What a lost opportunity that has been so far but amazingly George Takei is still maintaining a young enough appearance to make such a possibility starring him work. Add Tuvok as the two established characters (Voyager had him serving with Sulu on Excelsior in one episode) and then a great new cast and the possibilities for great stories and adventures are plenty!

I say bring it on! Have another go at the reboot after a few tweaks based on what the fans here want!

[NB42T@.com]

A little twist for STNG.

Since Money is extinct, Storage or use of anything would be valued by energy. + Minimal Energy Use.
This could change some of the casts' backround attitude on things.
If a pickle, is used as a quick fix for a capacitor. It could be that it may use less energy to replicate a new pickle. Than to replicate a new capacitor.
So, you'd use less energy when, if the pickle starts to decay, you make a new pickle .

[Petronela]

Hi! Your site appeared very useful to me. Excellent work, thanks.

[Aleksander]

Thank you for your site
Good luck

[Michael]

I think this is brilliant. Star Trek requires a paradigm shift away from being obsessed with all sides of continuity. A reboot, a reimaging a re-whatever is required. Because now you can't tell any new and exciting stories when you have to consult the continuity Bible

[guanhua88]

This is Great! I have posted some related sites over here: http://todaytop10.com

[Alex]

Hi Bryce, this is a great idea! i´m a great fan of Star Trek etc. i saw every film and much magazines! Do you know when the next film started? greetings from cologne, Alex

[Zortov V]

Some excellent ideas. However, there are some key elements of Roddenberry's vision that I see missing from this that are critical : and that is a genuinely optimistic, utopian vision of the future. Certainly not a vision that eliminates conflict and drama, but one that is bold enough to envision a future where human intelligence (and not just technology) has begun to catch up in the learning curve with human stupidity and ignorance. If this is lost, the entire spirit of Star Trek is lost.

So not just new devices and technology, but bold examinations on confronting poverty, monetary systems, warfare, hunger, inequality, sexual and other kinds of diversity --- the boldness to submit difficult and inspiring utopian explorations in an modern age so addicted to cynicism that only "dark" visions are granted the status of reality. As Roddenberry said, "I believe in humanity. We are an incredible species. We're still just a child creature, we're still being nasty to each other. And all children go through those phases. We're growing up, we're moving into adolescence now. When we grow up - man, we're going to be something!"

[Joey]

Just one comment on my last post,
I shouldn't ramble on too much when I'm half asleep, I think that's my all time low for grammar.

[Joey]

Hey,
Interesting Idea of Rebooting, considering Star Trek's nature, it wouldn't be so much a reboot, as a Parallel Universe.
To be honest, as a Star Trek fan, the sound of "Rebooting" and what it usually means to "Continuity Canon" seems like an
insult to a beloved series, however, in this case it would be merely a parallel universe.
If handled right, a 'Reboot like this' could be no more of a reboot than the Mirror Universe.

Over all, while I loved setting around watching the original series, it as well as Voyager were the points in Star Trek's universe
I felt the most iffy about, while I loved the adventures in the original series, both Original and Voyager seem to have the least
potential of holding up as a serious universe.
Original episodes to me were a group of adventures, with interesting characters (while lacking real continuity, reset button hit
at ending credits) would eventually grow into the movies where you actually watch the characters grow old together.
Next Generation to me I loved greatly, even more than the original, this is the one that made me first interested in Star Trek,
before I started watching Next Gen in 1991 I had no interest in Star Trek.
I soon came to love both the Original and Next Generation.
The Next Generation was a pretty big retcon to the Star Trek universe, I noticed this as I started watching the two shows, as I
am someone who picks up and enjoys the little details in such universes. To me Next Generation had more humanism than any
other Star Trek, and to me that makes it very special.
Also, the Next Generation as well as the original and Enterprise, made the idea of Trekking around the Galaxy feel fun.
Star Trek Deep Space Nine, while I found the final season a bit Dull and Depressing, I came to love this show more than the
original and Next Gen, Deep Space Nine was more character driven, and also was willing to show our ethical future humans
in a more stressed environment, however Enterprise season 3 would take this farther.
Deep Space Nine also stayed still to dig deeper into the mythology of the Star Trek universe.
Star Trek Voyager to me was everything wrong with Star Trek, some good characters, but the bad ones stand out, and story
quality dropped lover than the original 60's TV episodes.
Star Trek Enterprise, along with Next Gen and DS9, Plus the movies Star Trek IV the Voyage Home and Star Trek
Nemesis, are best examples of keeps me coming back for more Star Trek, by the end of Voyager I was more interested in
many other Sci-fi shows far more than anything Star Trek, but Enterprise brought me back.
Star Trek Enterprise is the ONLY show I enjoyed even more than Babylon 5 and Crusade.
(I'm not comparing, just pointing out how much this one captured my interest)
Season 1 reminded me of what I loved in Next Gen and Deep Space Nine, mixing in some of the emotion from the original
than came from the (almost mystical) feeling of watching a ship travel to strange new worlds.
Broken Bow (1st episode) is still one of my favorite TV moments, it expressed an idea this series was about exploring and
developing, one of the things important to the Original and Next Gen but had became a perfunctory line in Voyager.
The only Episode of Enterprise that disappointed me were "Dear Doctor" "Cogenitor" and a few of the stand alone episodes
from Season 4.
In Enterprise the story, mood, tone, music, everything about it was more than I expected, it was what I felt Star Trek should
have become long ago.
With Season 1, I had found the Star Trek show that was my clear favorite, or at least equal to my favorite seasons of Next
Generation and Deep Space Nine.
Season 2, my opinion lowered, the first half of season 2 fell into a Voyager-esque formula, but I loved the 2nd half of season
2, dealing with the Klingons finally dealt with how the empire changes over time, more with the Vulcans and Andorians, finally
the Borg follow up to First Contact, I as very disappointed in the movies First Contact, loved the planet based half of the
movie, but hated the Picard-Borg half of the story, I was still curious how Star Trek would deal with "Fall out" from First
Contact, Regeneration along with the Next Generation TV episodes are the only Borg stories I actually enjoyed, oddly like all
things Star Trek Enterprise, I was sad to see this picked apart in hostile manners on the internet as it not only was amazing it
would have been weird for them not to do some kind of episode like this, and, I am infinitely happy that Star Trek has done
that episode before the series ended.
With the first two seasons of Enterprise, and my always checking the Internet to find any thing I could on this series (I hadn't
been that fascinated in a TV series in more than 10 years) I came to be disappointed with how Star Trek fans attacked both
the show and Enterprise fans, however a strange aspect of fandom can be seen in Star Trek history often the fans hate the
series, how one can be a fan of what you hate is strange for me, but with Star Trek this strange variation of fans seemed to be
building up ever since the current produces allowed the Galaxy Class Enterprise to be destroyed and replaced with the
Sovereign class (Petty reasons, hilarious in some ways, I find it a strange attitude, even if I myself also preferred the Galaxy
class) and this was magnified by Voyager's low quality, and enhanced by anyone who ever felt the need to fight over weather
Next Gen or Original was better. Fans who hate is a strange concept for me, but those who hate are usually the loudest
voices.
Considering the first half of Enterprise's 2nd season was Enterprise's worst, I'm pretty happy with this series.
Season 3 I loved even more, more desperate and gritty like the new Battle Star Galactica, except the new Battle Star
Galactica doesn't have any characters that I don't despise. (Still, unlike Star Trek fans whom hate Star Trek Enterprise I'm not
going to go into Galactica fan web sites to tell people Galactic fans how much I hate every character on their show, we'll the
human and Cylon who fell in love were somewhat sympathetic characters)
Season 4 for me is my favorite, but a bad sign of things that could be, as in this season writing in stand alone episodes were
becoming sloppy and dull.
It started off with an end to the temporal cold war, and they were the lest interesting episodes to deal with the temporal cold
war.
Then One of the Two good stand alone episodes in the season were when the Enterprise returned to Earth, the other good
stand alone was the final episode.
Great Stories with Star Trek mythology made this my favorite season, include a mix of Data's past with the Eugenics Wars,
and the (they were going to do it sooner or later) Klingon for head story. Also good was the hints of the soon to come
Romulan wars.
Bad was how Trip and T'Pol's back story became cheap back story, as in Trip leaves the ship, seemed like a good way to tie
in the NX-02, however, in one of the stand alone episodes, and this season was one of very bad stand alone episodes for
example, Trip spend all episode promising not to come back, just like the last few episodes established he couldn't come back
right (at least not right away) only for us to see he came back at the end of that episode.
The last 3 episode were an excellent send away for the series, 2 of the last 3 focussed on humanity overcoming 'it's self' that
was on one way one of the most special stories in Star Trek mythology, followed by an other excellent final note.
The Next Generation looking back, a way to tie the generations, show the characters of Enterprise would be remembered,
and by hinting at the Federation's birth, (Years after the time of the season take place in) bring the Voyages of the NX-01 to
it's end. (it was also great to see a Holodeck story where the Holodeck doesn't do a strange dangerous malfunction)
My only problem with that 'often complained about episode' is how easy Trip died, but then I think how often he (and other
regular characters) 'rolled the dice' in situations with low odds and surveyed, and it's about time to see more 'regular'
characters get spanked by the universe for taking the high risks.

Anyway, while a movie is coming out soon or someday, I don't see why a new Star Trek show couldn't be born.
As for me, with out ether Gene Roddenberry or Rick Berman (whom continued Roddenberry's work even when he was still
alive) the new movie is no more official to me than any old Star Trek novel.
I do however, enjoy many Star Trek novels.
I'm a bit extra cynical about the next movie, for one it's been stated the person behind it 'JJ' hasn't seen all the Star Trek
movies, that's a bit like reading a writer of Star Trek novels doesn't watch the shows, as a fan of Star Trek including NEWER
Star Trek shows and movies it would seem there is little reason for me to get excited about the new movie.

I think any writer involved in ether Star Trek or Star Wars should beware of the fans, SOME fans will attack anyone whom
takes a series in any direction not the direction they hoped for, this includes such details as who the characters fall in love with,
or what a space ship looks like, if there are a lot of fans behind such series, and ANY big group of humans includes a lot of
unusual and unbalanced individuals, with Star Trek (or Star War, or any long lived sci-fi series) one wrong move could make
you one of the most hated names on the internet.
An other Star Trek show could be great, me, I'll be wishing for some kind of TV or DVD movie follow up to Enterprise or
Deep Space Nine (I know I wouldn't get that wish, but it never hurts to wish) and what ever the fans may say, give it a good
decade for the haters to calm down to find the reasonable opinions. I wish anyone willing and able to make a new Star Trek
story, or Star Trek universe good luck, and just because a new movie is coming up, that doesNOT mean a new show couldn't
be made someday.

[WIlliam Dwyer]

I was among the fans of Trek that enjoyed DS9, because of it's angle against Roddenberry's "perfect" vision of humanity in the future. I am a Trekkie, but I never bought into that ideal. It seemed too perfect a thing that humanity could ever accomplish. DS9 showed what I liked about Trek. Putting humanity to the test, seeing if all the proclamations of humanity were true. In some cases they were, in others it proves humanity still needs to grow. Which after all, if humanity was perfect, what fun would that be. If there ever was a series of quotes that summed my feelings towards Trek up, it came from "Q-Who?".

In response to Picard arguing against Q killing 18 crew members to prove a point...then Picard talking with Guinan.

Q: "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you had better go back home and crawl under your bed..."

Q: "...It's not safe out here! It's wondrous, with treasures to
satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."

Picard: "Maybe Q did the right thing for the wrong reason."
Guinan: "How so?"
Picard: "Well, Perhaps what we most needed was a kick in our complacency to prepare us for what lies ahead."

For me...this is what made me a Trekkie for life. Of course once VOY began, it became clear fairly quickly that there was no real direction, NTM a constant use of the reset button just distracted from the stories, and more and more episodes just started to mean less and less. I much rather would have seen "Year Of Hell" as it was meant to be (a season long arc). For me, VOY all fell apart once Jeri Ryan was added. Don't get me wrong, she's hot. But, in what amounted to a blatent grab for ratings, nearly all the remaining stories then started to shift focus to Ryan's character "Seven of Nine". After being disappointed (I felt betrayed) in VOY, I was not ready for another Trek. That was my set-up for Enterprise.

When ENT was announced I was interested simply because of the notion of potential the story could tell. I was expecting a bridge between Cocraine's time and TOS. It wasn't long before it was clear that who ever was in control was simply telling a "Star Trek" story in name only. It became clear why B&B wanted (and did) drop the name "Star Trek" from the title. They wanted to create their own story while being allowed to use the fan-base to start with. That alone turned my stomach. And in the ultimate form of a slap in the face to the fans. The finale showed us a bridge to TNG...not TOS as what should have been.

Of course the fans are who ultimately dictate ANY Trek show. The reason why "Star Trek" reappeared in the title. The reason why Coto was ultimately given a few episodes towards the end. Among others. Which brings me to my point. The high level mark for Enterprise is widely seen as the few episodes Coto was part of during Season 4.

It proves that a prequel Star Trek can be effectively written and still be within the restrictions of continuity that Star Trek is. Even improve on and effectively create a buzz about a lot of gaps between TOS and TNG...like the Klingon head ridges. Even fix a lot of the crap from previous seasons...like the Vulcans.

IMHO, it's down right laziness that states Star Trek must be "rebooted" in order for it to be "saved".

I believe a reboot in Trek will end even worse than Enterprise did. Why do I say this? Because the people it will target are already fans of what we know of as Trek. No one who isn't a fan of Trek is going to be interested in a Trek show, reboot or not. You are not gaining any new fans unless they are kids being introduced (a mistake ENT suffered through in the first 2 seasons). This is the mistake that is constantly made with the movie franchise, and with VOY and ENT. TPTB seem to feel that the only way "Star Trek" can survive is to bring in new fans between 18-32. They just cannot fathom the thought that when a Trek show or movie is made, your audience is already there. You do not need to make the conscience effort to bring in new fans with unnesessary skin and F/X...at the expense of turning off the fans you have. ENT is a prime example of this. And because these unnesessary additions fail, we are suppossed to just junk what has come before...just to see a new Trek eventually follow this same formula? If you think it won't your not paying attention.

If it were made, ultimately what will happen is that this new Trek will be bound to what we know as Trek. Even though it will be a reboot. It will be compared to everything that Star Trek currently was, is, and should be. And with that it will fail. I want to see a Trek series done right...not a reboot that shares the same name.

[Kyusai]

Why not do the same with Pike's ship?

TOS is a reboot. On day one. The original original had a competely different set up. The first officer was female, spock was the science officer nothing more. And the captain was a bit less Kung-fu Kirk.

Besides which there's actually a lot more room to move around. There isn't much "history" for that series. The only real rules are:

1.) Spock can't die
2.) The ship can't be blown up
3.) The federation must still exist.

Other than that, you can do anything you want. And the rules aren't very restrictive.

The only thing that needs to happen is to change the approach. None of the so called standards (transporter malfunctions, holodeck anything, time travel) should be allowed. If something will take weeks or months to repair, it stays broken until then. If someone dies, they should stay dead, and be mentioned again. Long story short, while the series itself can be episodic, the series must lose the magic reset button. That isn't a radical change, just a change of approach -- the old style has to go. The universe is fine.

[Frank]

I love the old Trek series, I hope J.J's film can live up to the glory of the old Trek series. For a laugh check out this spoof of the series posted on Steven Spielberg's new reality T.V. show "the lot":
http://films.thelot.com/films/21427

[John]

Someone (Isaac Asimov, I think) once said that science fiction fandom is the most intelligent, articulate and verbose fandom of all, and I can agree that majority represent such people. Interesting comments all.

But let's take a look at the Star Treks and Babylon 5. With respect to ST, I understand that there is something of a disagreement in the ST fan base between those who like the original series and those who like Next Generation and/or the later incarnations.

Myself, I'm a TOS fan, and I'll explain why in two words, and those words are, "characters" and "stories". TOS had fewer resources to work with - less money, yes...less special effects, yes...but also a far more restrictive censors. There were limitations to what TOS could explore that NG and the others didn't have to face.

But when you look at the TOS stories that work (and, admittedly, a lot of them don't), the great stories are about challenging ideas, and don't have neatly packaged endings. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc., often contact a planet, charge headlong into a problem, and don't resolve it. They just put the situation on a path that may lead to a solution. Realistically, you can't change the dynamics of a planetary culture overnight. Here, I'm thinking of "A Taste of Armageddon" as a classic example - Enterprise leaves the planet with peace talks still ongoing.

As far as characters go, the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy are archetypes - there I agree with Mr. Zabel and Mr. Straczynski - but I disagree as to details (McCoy - the human heart; Spock - the human mind; Kirk - the imperfect fusion of both).

By contrast, NG and the later incarnations did not, in my opinion, take advantage of their greater resources to tell more compelling stories - NG occasionally sidled up to issues and usually chickened out by the end of the episode. Think of the NG episode that introduced - oh, I'm drawing a blank - the species that Dax on DS9 is part of. In that episode the guest alien is a negotiator, and develops a love interest with Dr. Crusher. But then the host body dies, and the brain is temporarily installed in Riker until a new host can be sent from their homeworld - who happens to be a woman. Rather than exploring what happens in a relationship where the outer body of one of the partners changes every few years, NG copped out and Dr. Crusher couldn't wrap her head around the idea.

Similarly, while TOS posited that humans had evolved, DS9 showed that, confronted with shape changing enemies, bureaucratic paranoia is still alive and well in the Federation - apparently the evolved humans of the 23rd century still have to learn, as Ben Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

I'll confess that I've seen every TOS episode at least 5 times. NG episodes - I haven't seen them all, but I've seen some multiple times. DS9 I watched most of the first season, Voyager about 3 episodes, and Enterprise parts of season 1 and 2 that added up to a full season.

Just so everyone knows where I'm coming from.

If one looks at the most popular TOS episodes, you find titles such as "Space Seed", "City on the Edge of Forever", "The Trouble with Tribbles", "Balance of Terror", "Devil in the Dark", "Journey to Babel", and others. Most of these are "character" shows, where the writer takes the main character and, as Joe Stracynski likes to describe it, "puts him up in a tree and then throws rocks at him." Or they're comedies, or tense action-adventure-suspense tales.

NG and the later incarnations seldom did this well. Too often I found the endings too pat, too tidy. The writers and producers were often able to put their characters up very big trees and throw big rocks really hard at them, only in the last 5 minutes to have the characters gather up all the rocks and dump them out of the tree, then slide down the trunk. I can think of only two NG episodes that really, really got me, and both were character episodes - the first has almost no science fictional aspect to it, but recalls the McCarthy witch hunts, as first a young med technician and then Picard himself are nearly destroyed by an overly aggressive admiral investigating an explosion in Enterprise's engineering section. The final scene, when Picard bows his head as the admiral continuously badgers him with questions, is awesome. The other episode was a two-parter where Picard is interrogated by the Cardassian officer played by David Warner. I can still hear Patrick Stewart's hoarse "There are...four lights," followed later by his admission that he saw five...

But as time went on, I found the "tidy ending-itis" annoying. I found the introduction of concepts that violated continuity (Borg in "Enterprise"? Sorry - no) boring - I saw them as blatant grabs for ratings.

I'm not even going to talk about the movies, as the premises that for the last several seemed to me so lame that I never bothered watching them.

So what works for TOS that doesn't in NG and others? In my view, it was the over-arching belief that humanity will grow up - we will become mature, able to react to stimuli without fear and teach ourselves and others to do the same. Also, the exploration of controversial issues, the belief that improving oneself takes time and effort. Also, courageous story telling. I don't feel NT and the others achieved much of that (though NT more than the others).

As an aside, David Gerrold wrote in his updated "The World of Star Trek" that a series can erode in two ways - one is by mistaking format for formula - that the format of a show - "Kirk makes a decision" - becomes a formula - putting Kirk, Spock, McCoy or Scotty in danger, or having them fall in love, or whatever. The other is by painting itself into a corner - Gene Roddenberry created the transporter to avoid having to shoot expensive landing and take off shots, but then the writers had to come up with different ways to keep Kirk from pulling his communicator out and saying, "Beam me up," when the going got rough. After the 15th iteration of jamming, Enterprise's controls being frozen by superior technology, being lured away by false distress calls, transporter malfunctions due to unusual mineral deposits, etc., the idea was stale.

Babylon 5 is probably my favourite TV series, and yet as I've been slowly re-watching all 5 seasons on DVD, I've been finding that the optimism, the belief in a better humanity, doesn't exist in B5 and is a bigger void than I would have guessed. Mr. Straczynski's vision of humanity is that in the next 250 years, we won't change much - people are still be self-centred, frightened, capable of allowing others to take our freedoms away, etc. This isn't - quite - a criticism. But I find myself wanting to pull out my old VHS tapes of the best ST:TOS episodes again. So while B5 has an epic story that is vastly compelling, great characters and some great dialogue (G'Kar quietly upstaging Londo in the Council chamber in Season 2 - "If it takes a 1000 years, we will be free."), there is something missing that is spiritual - not religious, although religion is sprinkled liberally throughout B5. Call it faith in humanity, perhaps.

Any re-boot of Star Trek, I think, will work well as long as it is handled with respect for the intelligence and care that the fans pour into the show. A younger Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.? Why not? They're iconic characters, and there is some value in, as Mr. Stracynski once said of his B5 flash-forwards, "I want to show people where we're going, but make how we get there interesting." If someone else thinks that's a bad idea, so be it. I think it could have worked if done correctly.

The things to avoid are violating continuity, of having disrespect for the characters, the stories and/or the fans. To show Earth, the Federation, and humans being easily susceptible to political expediency and base motives. The Federation doesn't have to be portrayed as a utopia, but perhaps as a hard-headed blend of idealism and practicality.

I think Mr. Stracynzski could have done this, based on my experience with his writing on B5 and elsewhere. I have no personal experience with Mr. Zabel's work, so I can't say what I think of him, but (in the spirit of Star Trek) I would certainly have given him the benefit of the doubt and let him have his shot.

Thanks for letting me put my 2 cents' worth in (about 50 times), and I apologize for the length. There's that verbosity Asimov was talking about...

[Danny]

Concerning the premise for the new startrek:

The idea to have the enterprise's new mission to find the ancient race who basically started civilization and encoded the info in the DNA of species from the startrek universe, is not a new idea.

The story line was already done on startrek:tng, and done quite well. You should check it out.

The humans, the romulans, the klingons, and the ferengi have each uncovered a clue to an ancient riddle contained within their DNA. The answer can only be acquired by joining forces, sharing info , and working together.

As for those who came up with the supposed new story line for the new Startrek,...You should do your homework before proposing an idea for a new startrek that has already been done.

Keep working on it though.
A new working of startrek will be gratefully received.

[Jason The Saj]

In truth, I love Star Trek but fear the management.

Enterprise had potential, we saw it in season 4. But the first three seasons it felt like the management didn't care about the fans, the history or the characters.

I do believe a re-imagined Star Trek could work. I think a lot of youngers would gravitate to such.

But in truth, I think we need something far earlier than Star Trek's world. We need something closer to home.

We need a series that entails the very early colonization of space by mankind. A world more in line with Robert A Heinlein's writing. A colony on the moon, a colony on Mars. Perhaps a few "mining colonies" throughout the solar system. And a handful of nearby planets recently colonized in the last 80 yrs since FTL was developed.

Population problems on earth. An earth that is present day and yet much akin to the geopolitical situation of the colonial period.

Technology that is equally of the same level in terms of inter solar system travel. We can journey to stars, it's a long voyage (months & years). It's risky but not impossible. Many take the risk hoping for a better life. Many traders make money in the journeys back and forth.

A world (a series) focused on the early colonial space period of mankind. A multi-season arc. Perhaps even more daring that most. A set of arcs with gaps in them. These arcs would last 2 yrs or so but there would be a decade or so gap between the arcs. New characters, older characters, new worlds.

The first three years would focus on mankind, exploration, colonizing, etc. Then perhaps in season 3 reports of unusual anomalies would culminate in the end of season 4 with the discovery of an alien race(s).

Perhaps humanity would find itself stumbling into the middle of an inter-stellar war. (ala Man-Kzin wars).

It is an area of time that's been greatly covered in a multitude of science fiction writings but poorly shown on television in any real way. Babylon 5 was great...but how did we there? How did man go from his humble little rock to the story of Babylon 5?

In a quick summary this would be the story that covers from the earth of the near future to getting out there. The space between Star Trek, Babylon 5, and nearly every other sci fi show.

- The Saj

[Adam]

Fast Forward 6 months since the last post. I read the entire treatment. There are very good concepts in there. Unfortunately it seems while you (bryce) are very proud of Dark Skies and The Crow. Both were total failures ratings wise and were quickly axed. Lois and Clark being the only commercial success you have ever had at the time the treatment was pitched to paramount.

With JSM B5 was a wholly original series in which paramount copied out right with Deep Space 9. JMS is also very adamant that he have total creating control. To too many at paramount B5 was the enemy. I don't know how that is now. But there is that history with them.

I think that politics had a more pivitol role in the rejection of your ideas than anything else. Isn't Star Trek owned by CBS now? Why yes it is. Since hopefully different people are in charge why not try again? But I know that won't happen, you've both moved on, which is fine. After all It's just a T.V. show and BG is the current innovative, rating champion.

While I wish JJ Abrams all the luck. I fear that it will be another Me-too movie. I saw nemesis only once in the theater. I was not impressed at all. But it was better than Insurrection. Of course ANYTHING is better than Insurrection!

Also with the up coming Star Trek Online game. Having TV or out of game tie ins could have all kinds of possibilities.

How's this for an idea. Instead of going back to the beginning, which in the end seems like a giant cop-out, cuz everyone is doing it! Why not go into the future. The Star Trek Online game takes place 20 years after Nemesis. There will be a new alien enemy race and a dark secret waiting to discovered that will center around the story of the game. Have a TV show. I would not want a movie based on this since 2 hours is just not long enough to do much when you dealing with a story being developed in an MMO. The TV show would have the final events of each season played out in the game, and let the fans decide the out come. But I'm sure TV executives are STILL TERRIFIED of their own fans and will never even consider this, cuz they know best. At least they think they do.

In the end TV is about making money. They really do not care anything of the creative process or doing something good, only something consumable by the masses. After all Sci-fi is VERY expensive to produce. Why not make another Survivor rip off and make 100x ROI instead of the 10x ROI on a sci-fi show. It just does not make economic sence. Now we come the the crux of our problem. Companies like CBS or Paramount cannot take risks with another Star Trek or sci-fi show. Their structure is based on maximum ROI. Anything else is rejected outright. Sci-Fi Channel can experiment and make shows like Battlestar Galatica because there business model is not the same. They have to take risks to get an audiance. CBS does not. Just look at survivor a CBS show, the first time they produced it, it was cheap to do. So if it was a total failure no big deal, not much investment was put into it. But if it was successful which it is, the money earned would be staggering since production costs are nothing compared to a Sci-fi show that costs 2 million an episode. Im sure the entire searson of surviver costs less than one episode of BG or even Everyone Loves Raymond. The start up costs for a new Sci-fi costs are 100 times more than a survivor. If the new sci-fi show fails to find an audiance in this hyper competative, canceled after 3 episodes (Smith Anyone?) world. The major studios are not going to front run millions of dollars only to have it fail out of the gate. They tried this with Enterprise for 4 years and look where it got them.

When the Star Wars TV show come around in 2008. And that is a hopefully will come around. It will have an instant audiance. It remains to be seen if George can do something as innovative and creative as BG.

Thank you for reading.

[Mark]

One thing that made the series so enjoyable in the 60's was that it seemed to be paying attention to the details in the universe they were imagining, but there are two "details" I'd like to suggest improving in any re-imaging.

One is the "tridimensional chess" prop that played a part in several episodes. The prop was fadged together without attention to what a playable 3D chess should look like, and if you pay close attention to the gameplay in the episodes where it appears, it doesn't make any sense. Yes, I know the Franklin Mint produced sets and shipped them out with a "rules booklet", and there are people who have played games on this board. But making a game that "plays right" is not something you can do at random, it would be much better to START with a 3D chess that's known to work and THEN build your props on that design. Small point, maybe; but if the game were actually playable, I bet a lot of fans would play it.

Second, a matter that would probably interest more people -- I wish they would get a linguist to devise a complete Vulcan language, as they eventually did for Klingon. And I hope Vulcan turns out to be more euphonious than Klingon.

[Jonathan]

I always thought most of your stuff was vastly overrated and soporific. Of course that was before the video valium of Firefly.

Star Trek reboot gets filed under "O" for overrated with the majority. And JJ Abrams would attract more credibility if he had a show that didn't go into life support in Season 3, regardless of what ultimately occurs.

Meh.

[Florian Haag]

Although I appreciate the trouble you have taken to conceive this idea, I fear the proposed re-boot would be one of the worst ideas ever for the future of Star Trek.
First of all, creating a remake is somewhat contradictory. It's like saying "I like the original, for that reason I discard it and create a completely new, different version from scratch." This brings the great danger of changing exactly those elements that many people used to like about the original.
With the current notion of making everything suitable for the so-called main-stream, this would mean more action-oriented plots (as it's mentioned in the PDF file) and more skin. Interestingly, this is exactly what was critized by many fans about quite some Enterprise episodes that were lacking a comprehensible story but showed lots of explosions, ridiculous stunts, many hand-to-hand combats and some bedroom scenes. This kind of main-stream-compatibility is what creates much resistance in parts of the fandom while for those who like this kind of action-oriented stories, Star Trek would just be one out of many average productions. So far, Star Trek has been outstanding in that it did _not_ try to comply with mainstream standard, maybe even in trying to change the mainstream standard by being different.

Another problem about a remake is that remakes are a continuity killer. As was correctly mentioned in the PDF file, there is ST universe A, and with the remake, there will be ST universe B. This makes me wonder why, if there are two completely disjoint universes, one has to replace the other after several follow-up series that all took place in universe A have shown that they can and do benefit from what was presented before.
In my opinion, one of the greatest advantages of Star Trek is its rich background history that was established during hundreds of tv episodes. Granted, it is difficult to bear in mind every little bit of information that was previously mentioned when writing a new story. Yet, there are countless fans who are sufficiently capable of this, so it is obviously well possible. If a remake is done in favour of those authors who do not want to cope with any previously established information, I am afraid to say those must be the wrong authors for the task. They are free to tell their stories in any other universe, if they don't want a background history. No need to dismantle Star Trek's legacy for this sake.

The basic idea of a remake is always using an established story and creating a new variation of it. I am not sure about what the motivation for this might be - whether it is a shortage of new ideas (which are, considering Star Trek, still available when looking at many fan-made stories or even movies), or rather the belief that the remake is going to be better than the original - but one issue might be to show the same story again with other aspects emphasised. This might work for some movies, which are basically one story. Their remakes would therefore be the same story in many disjoint universes.
This is completely different about series such as Star Trek. Star Trek is not one single story that could be shown in many universes. Star Trek is one huge universe with countless different stories. The only way to see Star Trek as one single story would be to abstrahize it very much. Once that degree of abstraction has been reached, though, enough details have had to be ignored that the exact characters do not matter any more. The new story could as well take place in universe A then, on another ship and with other characters (surely, it is credible that the Enterprise is not the only starship with three members of the bridge crew forming a special "triumvirate") or in a completely different universe without calling it "Star Trek". If the remake is done to show the same stories using state-of-the-art technological knowledge, Star Trek episodes such as Trials and Tribble-ations have shown that clinging to the 23rd century design with modern special effects is possible.
You might object that the spirit of Star Trek is not about story details, which is very true. Yet, Star Trek is not supposed to be a collection of single episodes which don't have any connections in between, as for example Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone. Star Trek episodes/movies/stories are supposed to take place in the very Star Trek universe, with all the previously seen information given.

In these days, many remakes of more or less successful movies, novels etc. are created. Advertisements always sound like the next new film will be unbelieveably successful for it is a remake of another film, which used to be successful, too. And yet, they are well-known for a short time, then they drown in oblivion. One of the main reasons for this is probably that the remakes simply are not original. They are based on a good idea, but if the original version was already well-executed (and it usually was, as otherwise no-one would have dared to create a remake), those remakes are at most good entertainment but nothing to remember over a longer period of time.
Those stories that are remembered need not be entirely new, but they must be sufficiently different. New actors or a few new details are not enough of a difference here.

There have been many remakes produced, and the fact that they were only remakes instead of new stories often made them less interesting, in my opinion.
Years ago, when I had been watching "The adventures of Lois and Clark" for a while, I was very much looking forward to seeing one of the Superman movies when it was about to be on tv. I was aware I wouldn't be seeing the same actors, as the movie was older than the tv series, but I did expect to see the same characters and a new adventure. However, I was very disappointed when I noticed those persons only had the same names but behaved quite differently while seeing each other for the first time once more.
Now, I understand why there weren't any new stories told in this particular case - this is not possible in the universe of Superman (and similar comic heroes). Their stories are about their own life, the life of one single person (usually only in our century) and the events surrounding it. That is why there are several re-imaginations of the first encounter between Lois Lane and Clark Kent. It is not possible to produce anything new about their universe without using contrived quirks like their descendants having the same superpowers as the originals and happen to do exactly the same as their predecessors some decades later.
Star Trek, in contrary, does not suffer from these restrictions. There are myriads of stories waiting to be shown in the Star Trek universe without breaking continuity, simply because Star Trek is not about one single person. If there's a story which could not take place like that on the original Enterprise as it would contradict some of the later character development of the main crew, use another ship and another crew for the story. Starting with the same character names, but in a new universe so there is actually no canon background information available about those persons yet, is as good as starting with completely new characters. If a certain story cannot be done because certain political circumstances or a certain technology would be an anachronism in the Star Trek timeline, use another century without leaving the established Star Trek universe.
After all, one reason Star Trek has been so popular for that long a time and there is so much material available about it is that all tv and cinema productions together comprise the Star Trek universe. They are not supposed to exclude one another; every episode adds more information to what is known already. That's why James T. Kirk and Mr Spock, for example, are convincing characters, for much information about them has been collected in the course of the years from many episodes and movies. That's how there can be fantasy cultures like the Klingons, as there is one single universe, where every single remark about the Klingon culture can be added to the complete image.
This would not be possible if for some parts of the Star Trek universe, there would be several canon variants. All of these established facts would be completely redefined (presumeably rather in different ways than in similar ones) in every new universe. The only advantage of calling it still "Star Trek" and using the established names of characters, starships and species might be that it's easier to market the new show or movie. This is - sorry - abuse of the name "Star Trek".

I do want MORE Star Trek that ADDS to the old one, but I absolutely do not want a NEW Star Trek INSTEAD of the old one.

[Andy Geisel]

Bryce called what he and JMS came up with a "snapshot," but if I were a Paramount executive, I probably would have snapped it up in a nanosecond! The problem is, I'm not a Paramount executive and these days, with all the brain dead decisions that studio has made in the last decade or so, I'm not sure what qualifies one as a "Paramount executive." This is a studio that has fallen from the top so far it boggles the mind that they've had VERY LITTLE box office success since "Titanic," and single-handedly managed to screw into the ground the franchise that pretty much made them what they are, or at least were: STAR TREK!

As an aspiring writer, I've pitched to various incarnations of the series (NOT the original 1960s version-I think I was six when it went on the air), and having done that out of wanting to be a part of entertainment history and love for Gene Roddenberry's concept of the future, I feel a bit of what JMS and Bryce may have gone through with not being given a go ahead to do their Universe B version of STAR TREK (like that it would have that name, just by itself-excellent idea). Reading through the "Reboot" pitch, one can clearly get their devotion and respect for what STAR TREK is all about and I like what they said about protecting the franchise leading to its undoing and wanting to take it back to what made it great in the first place.
I am very disappointed at the lack of imagination shown by Paramount, especially with interesting, viable concepts like "Star Fleet Academy" left to rot, while they take other great concepts like "Mission: Impossible" and gut them in favor of what amounts to little more than mass marketable big screen eye candy. It's this very "reimagining" concept that worries me about the Abrams version. I HATE what has become of Mission: Impossible" on the screen and am fearful that STAR TREK will become some unrecognizable effects dependent glop of star driven drivel that "M:I" has turned into. Don't get me wrong, there's a way to make a great film and market it to the masses-but Paramount apparently has lost their ability to figure out how to keep quality intact while still making the project attractive to ticket buyers-one of the reasons I wonder if another big screen interpretation of STAR TREK will be successful or effective.
Certainly I don't think it will have the brush strokes that Bryce and JMS would have brought to their series version on TV.
Let's hope for better from Paramount and STAR TREK in the future, and that perhaps, even though I think it's a long shot, the JJ Abrams' movie version is as good as it can be and not "M:I" in space with three guys who happen to be called Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
Good job, though, Bryce and JMS! VERY entertaining and enlightening - thanks for sharing the document with all of us!

[Christopher]

I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but what you and JMS have proposed here is something I've been yearning for for years. Ever since the short story "Mind-Sifter" from Star Trek: The New Voyages captured my imagination and broke my heart, I have yearned for more original stories from the original crew. You're right... Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are icons, and there are wonderful actors out there who would do justice to these beloved characters.

As a long-time B5 fan (from the pilot movie's original airing!), I would have loved it if you and JMS were the ones "righting the ship," as it were. We need good SF on TV these days that actually captures our imagination and inspires us to explore the universe and find our place in it. Unfortunately, most of what's thrown at us comes nowhere near that. I adore both Classic Trek and Next Generation, yet I fell asleep halfway through Nemesis. I still haven't bothered to watch it again to the end. Yes, that's how far the franchise has fallen for me.

Ironically, it is my love of Trek that inspired me to work in TV to begin with, so I am in the middle of developing a re-boot of another SF series from my childhood. If things work out, I'll get the chance to pitch it in front of some real decision-makers. Reading your pitch gave me the additional encouragement I needed to keep pressing forward with it. Thanks so much, and I wish you and JMS nothing but success in your future endeavors.