The best time imo would be after TNG but no too long after (30 years maybe).

In fact set it in about 2390 which is a couple of years after the destruction of Romulus (and the splitting off of the movie timeline).


Tech wouldn't be too much advanced from what we have seen before and it would allow for the odd cameo from TNG/DS9/VOY characters.

IIRC, throughout the course of the show, not all romulans had ridges. Some had flat foreheads. I believe the ones (in the flashback) of JJ's Trek even had flat foreheads.

It's either a cosmetic thing, maybe to differentiate themselves, or it's a genetic thing, and maybe some Vulcans (that we've not yet seen) inherit the same thing.


This is exactly why I think they need to reboot. A completely fresh timeline (without the time travel dynamics of JJ's Trek).

The guy doing it knows Roddenberry's lore and such, so he can base a new show on that, but rewrite the whole damn thing. Such the decision would offer up an entirely new slate where continuity and story progression goes. That's what Trek needs.

I meant the visual style of the show in terms of the design of costumes, sets and props - especially Starfleet gear.

Of course here in the real world design fashions and styles and special effects have moved on a lot since TNG, just as they had between the original series and TNG.

The original series look, while great in its day, to me, isn't really credible as an ancestor or precursor of TNG.

By contrast, the costumes, sets and props of TNG, DS9 and Voyager all share a similar look. As a result it feels credible that they're set in the same fictional universe in the same time period. And that's probably because they were made at a similar time by mostly the same people. The visual style is something that Enterprise did manage to get right. I felt it was credible that its designs were the forerunners of the TNG era (if not the original series).

Personally I'm hoping this transition will be more credible than that between the original series and TNG. That the Okudas are involved is a good sign for that.

It would have been the easier path for the makers of the new series to choose. It too would have been constrained by continuity, but not as much as the period now apparently chosen.

I've long thought that a series set after the collapse of the Federation would be the most exciting way forward for Star Trek. A Starfleet vessel is thrown into a future where the Federation has collapsed. This is the Star Trek series proposed by Robert Hewitt Wolfe that eventually emerged as Andromeda. Andromeda was quite good to begin with, but became the Kevin Sorbo (Hercules in Space) show after a couple of seasons.

It'll never happen of course. It would go against Gene Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future of humanity and sentient-kind in general. And the Federation stands as a metaphor for the USA itself.

I would have been happier with this approach too. I wonder why it wasn't taken? It would have opened up a number of familiar characters to appear.

I too assumed that they would simply set the story in the same period as the TNG/DS9/Voyager era plus the 15 years that have since past. That would allow them to get the actors back to play the same characters if they wanted to.

I suppose some reasons why they didn't:

1. Complete change of setting. The producers might have taken the view that the late 24th century had been 'done' by the other 3 shows and that viewers might get bored with the setting.

2. Desire to NOT bring back old characters. If they set the show in the TNG era then there's going to be endless expectations from fans that certain people are going to return. That might prove frustrating for the writers, there might be rights issues (Paris/Locarno), actors might have retired or want too much money or they might be completely out of 'shape'.

3. It's a 'safer' option to set the show in an earlier time period as you can base stories on conflicts of the time rather than having to invent new ones. Obviously you risk upsetting the fans with continuity problems but it's less risk than inventing a entire new period of history.

Read an article yesterday stating that it will not be in the JJ Universe timeline but in the prime universe shortly after "The Undiscovered Country" and not aboard an Enterprise.

Star Trek - As Yet Untitled

This bit wasn't in the Digital Spy article linked previously.



So if true the 2nd season could be set post TNG or at any other period.


I presume each season would then tell a complete story and not just be planet of the week.

How can they do a successful anthology though? Aren't they suppose to build their characters so that we care about them? Unless this show is going to be based on a time ship and start off shortly after the Undiscovered Country, then said crew wouldn't still be around post TNG; it would be a different crew, and a different bunch of characters for us to love/hate.

I wouldn't mind a show that's about the crew of a Federation timeship mind you. There's a lot of potential there, providing they don't try and change the timeline too often, more make sure that it doesn't change, or merely interact with history. Maybe we'll get a show about a bunch of time traveling historians?

that premise certainly gives potential to some interesting scenarios. due to the fact the original series got cancelled after a meagre 3 seasons one can't help but (hypothetically) wonder about the alien races that were short-changed.

off the top of my head didn't we only ever seen races like the Gorn and the Tholians only once ever in TOS?? neither was mentioned at all during TNG (from memory). what about that species that hijacked the enterprise and tried to return to the Andromeda galaxy? what about those cloudminders in stratus? did their planet ever resolve their differences after Kirk & co left?? just a few storylines off the top of my head could maybe be explored/resolved.

also (as mentioned) we could introduce the cardassians in this series. TNG references that earth & cardassia had been at war in the past.

You are right in that neither the Gorn, nor Tholian are mentioned again until (a least) DS9 - the Tholian anyway. I don't know about the Gorn. I would like to see more of them though, and with CGI being cheaper and more affordable these days, it should (in my opinion) be a priority for the creative team here.

With regard to a lot of other TOS species (and some TNG ones too), here were many that seemed... silly? Giant glowing spheres with aliens that were essentially children? I'd rather have credible aliens in a new show; ones that we can believe in (within the realm of Trek and Fiction). I know Trek is fictional anyway, and hypothetically anything is possible, but I'd still prefer more credible results. I don't think a new show is going to be taken seriously if the aliens we meet are like half the ones on TOS and early-TNG.

The First Federation (Balok, at least - we only saw him) were aliens that only looked like human(oid) children. As such I don't find Balok's appearence implausible. I think the point was to contrast the overwhelming power and threatening appearance of fake Balok with the unthreatening appearence of the real Balok.

A (CGI) Gorn turned up in Enterprise not sure if that was their only other appearance or not.

I always found it a bit of a continuity problem that the Federation had apparently been at war with the Cardassians for so long but no one mentions it in the first few series of TNG. They were apparently such a threat that the Federation felt it necessary to hand over a number of colonies to them in order to establish peace; however no one seems to care about them much until 'Chain of Command'.

O'Brien enlists in Starfleet specifically to fight in the war and is recognized as a tactical expert, however then for some reason becomes a transporter operator on an exploration ship 6 years before the war actually ends.

I'm sure that it could all be explained with some good story telling but i'm just pointing out that the new series doesn't have to tie itself in knots . . . .

If they did re-visit any original series aliens presumably they'd update their appearance as they did with the Klingons and Romulans and as Enterprise did with the Gorn. I actually think it might be interesting to follow up what happened to the Federation's relationship with the First Federation. How did the Capellan's fare after Kirk's visit? Could we see more Suliban, Denobulans, Orions, Andorians and Deltans? Xindi? What about the development of Tyree's people? If there's one doomsday machine, there's likely another one built by the first one's opponents. What happened on Sherman's planet? Did anyone ever go back to the Guardian of Forever? And what about that energy barrier at the edge of galaxy?

The list is almost endless, and many have been revisited already since the show aired in books and/or comics, but it's not hard to imagine that if any were re-visited they'd also need to be updated visually. And the series trumps anything written in other media.

Like props, costumes and sets some aliens will need updating to meet modern standards and tastes too,

That said, the new series needs to establish its own identity first and not dig into existing continuity too much. Otherwise it risks alienating new audiences by giving too much fan service,

For any Star Trek series to "work" with the general public the show needs to be about people and the social problems we encounter today.

As Gene Roddenberry once said it's about today, not just meaning the 60s/70s but the universal problems of human societies.

The only other option is to make it about family/relationships, which in many ways Next Generation was doing. And Voyager too, but in a thinned-down state.


Having got the focus right then the cast can encounter various situations, but it really cannot be a show about those situations because it just won't survive as a series.

the only reason TOS's aliens may have seemed silly can surely be put down to time and budget. i'd imagine baloks child appearance at the end was probably down to some kind of budget restraint. I might be wrong but I think that was a common occurrence on 1960s TOS. incidentally that's one of my fav ever TOS episodes. might be cool to see the fercerrius (spelling) with updated graphics.

like GDK says i'm sure updated special effects would smooth over all those potential pitfalls.

So maybe it'll be about an existential terrorist threat resulting from the Federation not interfering enough (or too much) in the development of other worlds. Or a threat to civil liberties within the Federation brought about by security concerns. Or Vulcan or Earth wishing to secede from the Federation. Or all of the above.

DS9 tried to broach some of these issues - paranoia in times of war, the need for people to do illegal things to keep us safe, the realities of war.

I think the issue of intervention is one that Star Trek could explore more. Surely there would be some resistance to the idea that you'd allow civilizations to suffer and die just because they haven't developed to a certain level yet. And the issue of democracy in general - no one ever talks of politics or elections. How are the Federations' leaders chosen?

Roddenberry deliberately steered the original series away from showing Earth (later the Federation as a whole) as much as possible to avoid any political controversy today. The Enterprise never returned to Earth in its own time period.

There have been stories that touched on the ethics of the Prime Directive in TNG (Data's Pen Pal) springs to mind.

I think there's room there to explore how the Prime Directive, treated more as a "rough guideline" in Kirk's time , then became much more seriously taken by the time of Picard and TNG's era.

Perhaps a big mistake/event somewhere in between the two eras taught Starfleet and the Federation a lesson? It might be interesting to cover the story of the failed colony that Tasha Yar came from.

Personally, I'm not sure the Prime Directive is always the correct answer. Sometimes it seems like an excuse to do nothing.

Filming begins September in Toronto. Getting closer! Sure it won't be long till we have lots more details about cast etc.

Wonder if it means it will be set on the NCC-1701-EH?

Well, William Shatner is Canadian and he's managed to play Kirk all these years without going "eh" at any time.

(Besides, it seems the show won't be set on a ship called Enterprise.)

Will the new shows be the traditional 43-44 minutes or will being on a streaming service mean that we get more erratic lengths?

That is a good question. I wonder if it will still fit the traditional length as they will want to sell it overseas to broadcast stations and they will probably prefer non erratic episodes.

HBO and Netflix don't seem to worry about that. But then I suppose Star Trek is one of the most 'syndicated' shows on earth.