I thought science fiction was supposed to be a creative, imaginative genre


All day long, my social media have been pinging with jubilant people repeating the message that a new Star Trek series is coming out in 2017. Now don’t get me wrong — I was once a 9 year old boy who begged his parents to let him stay up late to watch Star Trek — but I felt a despairing groan deep inside me.

Let it die.

The series came out 51 years ago. We don’t need another rehash, reboot, repeat, whatever of the same stories. It’s not as if this is the only science fiction future we can imagine, it’s not even as if this was the best framework for telling stories ever. Inspire me with something new. Do something brash and wild and surprising.

I know, this is commercial television, which lives for the predictable and bland, the lowest common denominator that will draw in the largest audience. I will point out two things: 1) in its time, Star Trek was that weird wild card that network executives didn’t understand, and 2) now its virtue to television producers is that it is an entirely known quantity with a built in audience, and is therefore the precise opposite of what good science fiction ought to be.


  1. microraptor says

    I’ll admit, the only Star Trek I find remotely watchable anymore is DS9. And even then it’s not that often.

  2. says

    Hollywood: dedicated to those jolly fellows, the writers of Ecclesiastes since 19…well forever
    “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

  3. starfleetdude says

    I think of Star Trek not as a set of already told stories, but a stage with certain constraints when it comes to the backstory. So what you get with Star Trek isn’t a canon, but a certain mindset that’s one of optimism and justice, not to mention one that doesn’t have much regard for gods. Still, the law of diminishing returns is applicable and it certainly applied to the last iteration of Star Trek. My more cynical side says this is a way for CBS to trial a subscription streaming service with a known quantity, just to see what the market may be for that medium. In any case, it’s going to happen and I’m game to see what happens.

  4. M. L. says

    The executive producer was the writer who brought you such great films like Transformers and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

    It is also a web series so I have no faith in the budget being decent.

  5. Elladan says

    You know, I’ve always kind of hated Star Trek for its annoyingly dumb, incoherent stories and infantile depiction of space exploration. The original show was pretty great for its time, but badly dated as it is, it’s still better than the spinoffs.

    That said, basically every SF show (and most movies) these days is about the grimly horrifying future of darkness and pain which awaits us, where we have nothing more to look forward to than an endless progression of conspiracy, fascism, and death. A booted three-toed foot stomping on human dreams forever.

    So hey, maybe a new Star Trek show will be a step up. Maybe they’ll break new ground in television and have a character who’s happy or something.

  6. Eric O says

    I can think of several sci-fi series that I enjoyed immensely, and I felt kind of mournful when I read the final book, knowing that the fictional universe that I had been immersed in for years was over and done with (sometimes because the author died and took the whole universe with him). I can certainly sympathise with the people who don’t want to see Star Trek just stop.

    But I think it’s true that all good things must come to an end, and really, I’d rather see a series that I love end on a high note than see it slip into mediocrity (Star Trek was a bit late in that regard, unfortunately).

  7. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    If I was in charge, I would commission an “anthology” style rendering of the ST universe. as in, remove the focus from a single ship/crew. Explore all the sidestories, of recoveries after the StarFleet smashes through. Highlight remedial missions, rather than confronting newly appearing enemies.
    I know my recommendations are figments of my imagination, yet this seems the right venue to ~share~.
    in conclusion, I hate to prejudge STreboot 404, there are possible approaches they might take, given the number of previous attempts to reboot the series.

  8. Elladan says

    Where’s J. Michael Straczynski when you need him?

    He’s making a show with the Wachowskis. The first episode starts with a woman blowing her brains out in a church.

  9. says

    Problem is, rehashes, reboots, repeats, and whatevers are all much safer bets than trying to create an entirely new story. How many other brash, wild, and exciting ideas fell by the wayside around the same time Star Trek came along? More than a few, probably.

    I remember reading an article on this very issue when Caprica (the short-lived BSG prequel) came out. The original proposal exploring the fusion of VR and AI had nothing to do with the Battlestar universe, but had been turned down, and it was only when the BSG producers adopted the concepts into the Battlestar family, did it get the green light. That did not work out well.

    Exploring the rise of VR/AI in a completely new setting would have been an extremely cool idea, but commercial reality (especially for a channel like SyFy) intervened.

    Still, it’s not always a bust to capitalize on a recognized brand. It’s given us the series, Fargo, which is one of the best shows on TV at the moment.

  10. mabell says

    There’s still plenty of life left in the franchise. That is, unless they insist on literally going back and telling us what we already know. I would love to see Star Trek return to Roddenberry’s original positive view of the future where people actually worked together. These last couple of decades have all been about the rogue team that get’s things done despite Star Fleet’s and the UFP’s incompetence. I would also point out that the last Star Trek series (Enterprise) was put out of its misery early. I’m ready for a pleasant surprise.

  11. Grue Convention says

    David Brin’s Uplift War, with today’s CGI, would do nicely. Or seriously, any science fiction author other than Philip K. Dick would work too.

  12. 00001000bit says

    Where’s J. Michael Straczynski when you need him?

    He’s making a show with the Wachowskis. The first episode starts with a woman blowing her brains out in a church.

    It’s sense8, it’s on Netflix, and it’s excellent.

  13. jonmelbourne says

    Star Trek is science soap, not science fiction, and it always was imo. I’ll probably watch it, but won’t be too surprised if it’s cancelled after three seasons.

  14. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Since we seem to be straying from ST specifically to Sf in general. I would like to throw in my vote for for Amber Series (author: Moorcock)as a TV production. Combining Hard Fantasy in a SF style, requiring massive CGI effects and episodic story elements, would seem appropriate for primetime tv. (lookin at you SyFy).

  15. Alverant says

    I’m going to go against the trend and say that we need more Star Trek. There’s too many gritty dark future sci-fi that only last a season or two. At least with CBS a new Trek series has a chance of lasting more a handful of seasons. Star Trek gives us a positive future, something to shoot for, instead of something to dread. The fact is that it’s familiar and that will give it the chance it needs.

    Do something brash and wild and surprising.

    Like it would be watched. You try something like that and it won’t make it past the 3rd episode before getting replaced by Simpsons reruns. Yes, I know that’s pessimistic but we have to work with what we have. First we get a positive SF show back on a major network. Then we consider how something different can survive.

  16. Adam James says

    But it’s Star Trek from the mind of the man who penned sci-fi classics like Transformers and Transformers 2! What more could you want!?

  17. favog says

    Zelazny, not Moorcock. Speaking of which, I’d love an Elric series, but I know what kind of look will pass over a network exec’s face when they get to the “Blood and souls! Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!” part.

  18. moarscienceplz says

    Leaving aside all other considerations, ST has been developed into a “universe” which the fans now demand must be logically consistent. Gene Roddenberry never intended this. He wanted a vehicle to allow him to poke all the tender spots of our own dysfunctional society without running afoul of the censors and the pinched-faced self-appointed guardians of morality and “innocence”. He couldn’t care less that it is absurd to think that another planet could develop the Roman Empire or the communist-capitalist conflict, and he certainly wouldn’t have spent a nanosecond wondering whether or not the Squire of Gothos was a member of the Q continuum.
    DS9 did manage to get in some commentary about racism (although the best ones required Sisko to essentially hallucinate, and thus didn’t really need a sci fi format show, even a cop show could have done that). Other than that, what did all the ST successor shows accomplish? Mindless escapism for geeks? Big effin’ deal. And why should we hope for anything more substantive from yet another one?

  19. Vivec says

    I mean, I enjoyed most of star trek, with the exception of like 2/3 of voyager and all of enterprise. I can’t say I’d really be opposed to more works that take place in the same setting.

    That being said, I really would prefer a star trek that was more heavy on the social commentary and less about “haha man i blew that weird alien out of the sky with my cool ray gun” or some monster-of-the-week deal.

  20. johnwoodford says

    The first Amber novel was published in 1971, and the last of the second series came out in 1991. That’s over twenty years ago. Elric’s first appearance was in *1961*. The Uplift novels are relatively recent; Sundiver came out in 1980, and Heaven’s Reach was published in 1998. We’re still talking about works that started between 35 and 54 years ago–these aren’t exactly cutting edge F&SF, no matter how much we might like them.

  21. Becca Stareyes says

    Going to echo some of the commenters:

    1. If you just go with the basic setting conceit of ‘okay, folks from post-scarcity Earth who explore the universe for funsies’, you can still do some interesting SFnal things that don’t necessarily bog down in 50 years of backstory. Using an existing franchise can be limiting, but it also lets you draw in people from elsewhere. Maybe getting folks into Star Trek will mean you have room for new space shows*.

    2. Having a show where most of the characters are basically good people who are from a future that often doesn’t suck, and don’t constantly have shit shoveled onto them until even the heroes are dark gray from muck would be nice. This is fueled from reading Mark Oshiro’s blogging of watching The Next Generation and how often that you still have real conflict while not constantly making the characters whittle their morals into a tiny shred of human decency.

    Now, if I could get these things outside of the Trek franchise, I’d be happy. If new-TV Trek doesn’t give me these things I’ll be disappointed. But basically I figure when it comes to the intersection of me and risk-averse TV executives, Star Trek might work.

    * I remember in the later-TNG-DS9-early Voyager heyday, there was no shortage of SF for a teenaged me to watch. I wonder how much of that was that network execs saw that Star Trek was a Thing, so gave green lights to things like Babylon 5 or Farscape or other things to get the same audience.

  22. Matrim says

    I adored TNG and the bulk of DS9, I’m fine with the idea of another Star Trek series, but I’m hesitant because I expect that this will be J.J. “Abrams’ Star Trek: The Series.” I hope it’s better than that.

    I was still kinda holding out hope for the Captain Worf series Michael Dorn wanted to do.

  23. favog says


    I wasn’t claiming that the Elric stuff is cutting edge, despite my aside about some elements would keep it out of certain mediums … although one could argue that in that context, it still is. And there’s nothing wrong with making your first appearance in 1961 anyway. (Puts away birth certificate.)

  24. says

    The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.

    I can’t find much fault with this. I mean, maybe it sucks or maybe it’s great, but being placed in the Star Trek universe isn’t going to determine this one way or the other. It’s a very interesting and open-ended universe in which sufficiently talented writers can do almost anything. TNG wasn’t bad because it borrowed the universe from the OS, it was awesome because it took that universe and did all sorts of cool things with it with new characters. A “reboot” would be a terrible idea (and was not so great for the newer movies, especially when they recycled an old plot), but that does not appear to be what they’re doing here.

  25. golkarian says

    The only thing I’d want to see is a post-Dominion War universe to see how they rebuild (ya, I know it’s fiction) and how the politics with the Bajorans and Cardassians plays out now that most of Cardassia is destroyed. That and the politics of the Romulan alliance now that the dominion is gone. But of course that wouldn’t satisfy new viewers who won’t know what’s going on and will disappoint the old happy-go-lucky viewers who want to explore new worlds (which is great but Star Trek somehow exhausted that).

  26. Holms says

    There is no reason a new Star Trek series should be considered a “rehash, reboot, repeat, whatever of the same stories.” The setting, and the history and familiarity that comes with that, is not the story. New stories can be told in old settings and there’s nothing wrong with that.

  27. auraboy says

    I don’t think it should die. That’s a bit like saying Terry Pratchett should have been stopped at six discworld books because y’know, only new stuff need apply. Having a consistent world built still allows you to tell new stories but with a common background which saves you having to explain the whole setting again and again. I’m not sure I’d have told Ursula K LeGuin to ‘let it die’ in regards to returning to Earthsea all those years later – just because she’s moved on to other worlds, the latter Earthsea books were spectacular – and playing with the conceptions from the original quartet allowed some consciousness raising left turns.

    Some people still treat TV like its the poor stupid cousin to novels. I would hope that attitude is changing.

  28. ragdish says

    Just saw Voyager series finale. Ingenious the way Janeway finally defeats the Borg. My favorite was the episode when Neelix and Tuvok were fused and became Tuvix. Loved the ethical dilemma in this and most episodes. Star Trek was all about exploring ideas. Given the track record of the JJ Abrams movies, I think a reboot series will only focus on special effects and no good stories.

  29. Gregory Greenwood says

    If we are to see more Star Trek, then I hope it does return to its roots in some regards, and gets away from the misbegotten time travel reboot mess that Abrams has created. As noted upthread, in many ways the Star Trek universe is more a general setting that a specific continuity. As starfleetdude puts it @ 3;

    I think of Star Trek not as a set of already told stories, but a stage with certain constraints when it comes to the backstory. So what you get with Star Trek isn’t a canon, but a certain mindset that’s one of optimism and justice, not to mention one that doesn’t have much regard for gods.

    and as Holms says @ 32

    There is no reason a new Star Trek series should be considered a “rehash, reboot, repeat, whatever of the same stories.” The setting, and the history and familiarity that comes with that, is not the story. New stories can be told in old settings and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    I am from the school that sees fiction, including SF, as a distorting mirror held up to our society so that we can more easily see it from different perspectives and in a new light. So long as the stories are well written and conceived and have something of merit to say about contemporary society and its various failings (and how those failings might be addressed), then it doesn’t matter to me overmuch if the backdrop is the United Federation of Planets. Whether or not the series is set in the Star Trek universe is not going to be the determinate factor of its merit.

  30. purestevil says

    Where’s J. Michael Straczynski when you need him?
    He’s making a show with the Wachowskis. The first episode starts with a woman blowing her brains out in a church.
    It’s sense8, it’s on Netflix, and it’s excellent.

    Sense8 is beyond excellent. It’s about the best thing I’ve seen this decade. If you haven’t seen it yet, get on Netflix and watch the first three episodes now.

    As far as the new Trek thing goes, I’m happy to give it a chance. [I don’t have my hopes set too high] Trek ToS and TNG were pretty good and made you think from time to time, but since reading The Culture series from Ian Banks I’ve decided that “the prime directive” is a bit of a morally weak position. The Culture had it much more correct as there are some societies where it is indeed right to fix them. A series based on the Culture stories universe would be something I could get really excited about.

  31. Rob Grigjanis says

    purestevil @40:

    I’ve decided that “the prime directive” is a bit of a morally weak position

    During TNG, it evolved to a sociopathic position.

  32. drst says

    Given that it’s Alex Kurtzman, aka “the guy who helped write the catastrophe that was Star Trek Into Darkness” I have absolutely no hope that this show will not suck. They need to take the Trek franchise away from everyone connected to the reboots and ban them from touching anything Trek related again.

  33. Rich Woods says

    @purestevil #40:

    Sense8 is beyond excellent. It’s about the best thing I’ve seen this decade. If you haven’t seen it yet, get on Netflix and watch the first three episodes now.

    It was a little bit slow getting started, but it’s well worth the wait. It’s one of the few things I’ve seen which looks like it was written for a global audience, and in that it reflects its internal premise very well too. To anyone who’s not sure whether to bother with it or not, I can’t recommend Sense8 highly enough.

  34. says

    Rich Woods @ 43:

    I can’t recommend Sense8 highly enough.

    I’m looking forward to seeing it. Regular television networks would have a fit if this was pitched to them. I have seen a number of people posting about it, going on and on and on about how there’s too much raunchy sex, oh, all those sex scenes, do they have to force their agenda down our throats?* And so on. Generally, that’s a good sign I’ll enjoy something.
    *I’m willing to bet that not one of these idiots would have thought to complain if it was all, y’know, proper hetero sex and stuff.

  35. microraptor says

    Anselm Lingnau @ 33

    Firefly’s never coming back, and here’s why: Summer Glau is too old to play a teenager any more. But if you want a show that gives a good Firefly vibe, I recommend Dark Matter.

  36. komarov says

    I’d certainly welcome a decent new ST series. NOT, mind you, not a reboot. The terrible reboot movies* aside, the Star Trek universe is so vast that it is simply not necessary. I generally like stories that continue in a familiar universe, but not because it’s the same old. Telling new stories in a (partially) set background takes skill and, when the storeytellers get it right, creates an even bigger story when everything meshes together.

    There’s certainly lots of potential for new and relevant stories (i.e. social commentary). The rebuilding after the last war has been mentioned (although empires other than Cardassia seemed to take the total war and universal destruction in their stride).
    You could also do a show around, for example, the Romulans, where there is lots of room to grow. You could fit in any amount of social commentary since you’re outside the Federation and it’s supposedly perfect society. The Romulans are rather underdeveloped story-wise and seem to be much more pragmatic when it comes to a functioning society.
    Or maybe something dealing with the not actually perfect Federation society, the gritty parts like the Orion Syndicate and whatever else may go on in the bowels of the Federation. Not that this would make for a particularly upbeat theme.
    If you want both optimism and social commentary you could take a camera team to the Gamma quadrant. Watch as the Dominion crumbles and rebuilds itself, partly due to a lost war and unwilling client species taking their chance to break free in the aftermath, and partly because of Odo’s influence as he tries to get them to move beyond universal order and ‘victory is life’.

    As for other SF: I might like to see some Arthur C. Clarke novels turned into movies. You know, SF so hard you can land on it and stick a flag in. Right now I’m thinking of A Fall of Moondust, which could be a fairly actiony fast-paced(ish) movie to appeal to the imagined average movie-goer of today, all within a solid SF setting. No magic or touchy-feely throwaway stuff which so often screws up SF movies these days. Perhaps someone who isn’t obsessed with laser battles could have a go at making that. There are plenty of excellent short stories for them to practice on, after all.

    Finally, another reason Firefly isn’t coming back: Wash and Sheperd Book are dead. As much as I loved the show I’m not sure I’d want to see it with empty seats.

    *We’re too lazy to think up new characters or continue an existing story, so we’ll just steal some old characters and throw in time travel.

  37. jimb says

    purestevil @ 40:

    A series based on the Culture stories universe would be something I could get really excited about.

    Seconded. Among some of my favorite books.

    Caine @ 44

    I’m looking forward to seeing it.

    Me too. I was initially interested when I heard JMS was involved (big B5 fan), then kept hearing really good things about it once it debuted.

  38. unclefrogy says

    I will admit that I liked all of the tv series and looked forward to seeing them. The thing I liked least of all in any of them was the opening theme song for Enterprise whose lyrics were too cringe worthy to bare.
    As has been said it was the story and characterizations that led the series not the effects. Any series that puts that first will be a success.
    I would think many stories could be generated that touch on may aspects of society in a series based on “Global Frequency” .
    the pilot was really promising.
    A new “real” SF series would be great but I will wait and see.
    uncle frogy

  39. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re @46:
    Arthur C. Clarke is slated for December on SyFy. Childhood’s End is due. Not quite the hard SF one expects from ACC. It gets all mystical/psychic etc. Interesting tac SyFy is taking to get back some scifi cred.

    Syfy has also started producing several “space opera” adventure shows. One is almost a direct copy of Firefly, with interesting twists to differentiate it. ie:Dark Matter

    re @48:
    seems you triggered my inner whovian: you are correct essentially everyone hated Hartnell as Who. This whovian just likes to reiterate that Who was saved by Daleks (ironically). Who was on the verge of immediate cancellation after merely the 1st episode, when 2nd episode introduced the Daleks, that every kid who saw them, enjoyed immensely and spurred merch revenue (Dalek costumes, props, etc). Rescuing Doctor from cancellation.


  40. says


    Finally, another reason Firefly isn’t coming back:

    Joss Whedon said that it would never be back, because the window where that might have been possible was closed, and the moment has simply passed. He did say that he might revisit that ‘verse at some point, but if he did, it would be a completely different show.

  41. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    oops forgot to mention during my attempted derail@50:
    Fans of Firefly might want to seek out Con Man, [online only] about an actor trying to recover from the premature cancellation of the show he was on, where he had played the pilot of a rogue spaceship with a rascally captain who didn’t follow any but his own rules.
    *spoiler alert*
    meta commentary about being Wash on Firefly. even Fillion occasionally guests as the lead from that cancelled series. (Malcolm, of course). Premature cancellation referring to Firefly having been cancelled before broadcast, yet they ran the first season, out of sequence, anyway (which totally backfired, making popularity skyrocket, turning fans into a cult).

    /derail (definitely)

  42. rrhain says

    Interesting you should say that since the viewership for the beginning of Series 2 of the 1st Season of Doctor Who were about the same for the end of Series 1, about 6.5M (though it did continue the trend of increase), which is about the same UK viewership that Doctor Who receives now. In fact, the average for Season 1 is better than the last four Doctors…and that’s with the increase in population (about 7.9M to about 7.5M, excluding specials). Of course, Doctor Who is now a worldwide phenomenon so the fact that the UK numbers are flat is made up for by the increase in world viewership.

    There are still stories to tell. In some sense, Star Trek is the American version of Doctor Who: You get into a metal box and go jaunting around space, running into other creatures and meddling in their affairs, and every now and then meeting your old nemesis. When you’re done with this incarnation, you create a new leader with new companions and keep going. To make a variation on the “Doctor who Regrets/Forgets,” Kirk is the Captain who Seeks. Picard is the Captain who Defends. Sisko is the Captain who Stands. Janeway is the Captain who Returns. Archer is the Captain who Tries. I don’t have a problem with them coming up with a new Captain and a new motivation.

    Of course, if you don’t find the universe interesting, then there isn’t much one can do to make it better. Star Trek has a flavor and it isn’t to everyone’s taste.

  43. mudskipper says

    I’d like to be optimistic about this series, but it is hard to be. Here’s my prediction: it will include a cast of about 7 to 9 main characters, 2 to 3 of which are women. And one of those women will have to wear a tight-fitting catsuit with high heels.

  44. Rob Grigjanis says

    slithey tove @50:

    you are correct essentially everyone hated Hartnell as Who.

    Who is this “essentially everyone” you speak of? Certainly not me or any of my friends in 1963.

    Who was on the verge of immediate cancellation after merely the 1st episode,…

    Was it? Considering it aired on Nov 23, 1963, it did fairly well.

    …when 2nd episode introduced the Daleks

    It was the second serial (5th to 11th episodes) which introduced the Daleks.

    You can see the viewership numbers here.

  45. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re 55:
    got me. overGeneralizing what I saw in a docudrama recreation of the genesis of the series, which BBC broadcast as celebration of the 50th anniversary of Who. The show really emphasized the original exec’s berating the creative producer, for producing this piece of ‘fluff’. When she said she was late for the meeting ’cause the bus was delayed due to all the kids in dalek costumes, the exec relented and gave her the greenlight. sorry I overgeneralized that docudrama.

  46. tbtabby says

    Elladan @ 5

    All of this. Allow me to throw comic books on that pile too. Both DC and Marvel have gone way overboard with the grimdark in the past, although Marvel has somewhat eased up on it in recent years. It all comes down to one word: Mature. There’s a conception of sci-fi as being just for kids, so adult sci-fi fans are perceived as man-children living in their parents’ basements who only indulge in sci-fi because they don’t want to accept adult responsibility. They try to combat this by making their stories as dark, serious and “realistic” as possible to show how mature they are. not realizing that obsessively trying to show how mature you are is one of the most childish things you can do. The Graphic Novel Picture Show illustrates the problem better than I ever could.

    If you want stories that are actually lighthearted and fun, I recommend One Piece. High adventure, zany characters and screwball comedy keep the mood light much of the time, but there’s also plenty of dark, serious moments, and they work not only in spite of the lighter moments, but because of them. Because we see the characters at their highs, we can contrast them with the lows so that it has more impact. You want your stories to be realistic, writer? Well, is it realistic for someone to go through their entire life without ever once laughing, smiling or enjoying one moment of happiness? People have their highs and lows in real life, so why shouldn’t fictional characters be the same if you wan them to be realistic? I’m not saying you shouldn’t ever be dark or serious, but there’s a time and a place.

  47. microraptor says

    Well, if we’re discussing comic books and you want something that refuses to succumb to the grimdark of the modern era, I recommend PS238, which can be read for free by following that link. It’s a story about the first public school for the children of superheros, so the majority of the cast is under the age of 10. Good story and it avoids the ridiculous power escalation of shonen stories like One Piece.

  48. Vivec says

    Personally, I’d kinda like a more “ground level” star trek, even if that would make the name kinda false. Like, have the main characters be civilians, maybe on a space station a la DS9 or something. It just seems like there’s a lot of social issues you could tackle by focusing on civilians instead of starship crews.

    Also, even if it’s a setting where the military is legitimately well-meaning and has no imperialistic goal, I get really, really fucking tired of military centered/glorifying SF. Show me civilian life, new cultures, a future where integration into galactic civilization doesn’t involve “killing those ugly ridge-heads”

  49. Anselm Lingnau says

    Joss Whedon said that it would never be back, because the window where that might have been possible was closed, and the moment has simply passed.

    It’s clear we can’t have Firefly pick up where it left off (with the same characters and cast). But we could still have “Firefly: TNG“. For sure the new Star Trek series isn’t going to pick up where TOS or TNG stopped, either.

  50. says

    Anselm Lingnau @ 60:

    But we could still have “Firefly: TNG“.

    Oh gods, no. No, no, no. I’m pretty sure Joss Whedon would never do that, and I’m grateful for that. If he ever revisits that ‘verse, it will be a completely different show, and as good as Firefly, I’m sure, but Firefly is over.

  51. microraptor says

    I’m trying to wrap my head around what the heck a Firefly: TNG could possibly be, anyway.

  52. says

    Microraptor @ 62:

    I’m trying to wrap my head around what the heck a Firefly: TNG could possibly be, anyway.

    Bad. Horrible. Stupid. Awful. Franchise hell.

  53. says

    Firefly:TNG, outline:

    Eu-Meh Reynolds, granddaughter of Malcolm and Inara, inherits a mothballed Serenity, puts together a crew, and takes up jobs as a high-speed courier. Her engineer is the son of Kaylee and Simon, a collrge-educated engineer with a yen for reading manuals. River Tam, now in her eighties, provides insights and moral guidance.

    Other new characters include a former spy for the Alliance, a female grifter type, and her partner, the crew’s main physical skills person.

    The Verse has moved on, less like a Western than a more 30s gangster/mobster ethos. The Alliance has slowly spread out to the Rim planets, as they become less frontier-like and more settled.

    How’s that?

  54. says

    I truly love Star Trek, in Roddenberry’s original concept of a socialist and secular future – and that’s why I want it to go ahead and die. Please, not another remake or offshoot that tries to make it relevant to the current crop of darkness and suffering. It said what it came here to say, just like Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica and Lost In Space and Batman 1966.

    Make something new and original.