Star Trek: Reboot The Universe

In 2004, Bryce Zabel and JMS came up with this wacky idea: Reboot Star Trek. Hey, it worked for Battlestar Galactica… Obviously, nothing ever came of it, but it’s still fun to chew on. Zabel’s long writeup on the proposal, and I’ve mirrored a copy of the proposal itself here in case of Slashdotting or anything (PDF, 700k).

11 replies on “Star Trek: Reboot The Universe”

  1. Timeshredder says:

    Star Trek: The Reboot
    This had been one of Roddenberry’s ideas when he was developing NextGen. It seems a better idea to develop an entirely different show with a similar premise. They’d get the audience if it was any good, and avoid further tarnishing fan’s memories.

    • dgswensen says:

      Re: Star Trek: The Reboot

      This had been one of Roddenberry’s ideas when he was developing NextGen. It seems a better idea to develop an entirely different show with a similar premise.

      <p>I thought that’s what Andromeda was.

      • babasyzygy says:

        Re: Star Trek: The Reboot

        I thought that’s what Andromeda was.

        That’s right – it was supposed to be set after the fall of the Federation, which would have had so much more of a visceral connection…

  2. Trekkie says:

    Hmm
    I was very intrigued until I came upon the fact that Bryce was responsible for the TV version of the posiden adventure….<shudder>

    • Dave says:

      Re: Hmm

      I was very intrigued until I came upon the fact that Bryce was responsible for the TV version of the posiden adventure….<shudder>

      But he was also responsible for the awesome "Crow" TV series, and the sorta-awesome "Dark Skies."

  3. J_W_W says:

    I’d much rather ….
    I’d much rather see JMS do more in the Babylon 5 universe than move over to the Star Trek one.

    I think it does need to be asked. Did J.J. Abrahms read this? The concept being tossed around for the new movie does almost reset the original Star Trek concept.

  4. fliptw says:

    Bleh
    thats not a reboot of trek… its a reboot of Crusader using a trek cover.

    Original Trek never had a underlying sub-plot, the rationale is probably the most firmest foundation for a creative series – humanity’s curiosity of its surroudings. You don’t really need something approaching B5 to create good trek. Do what made TNG successful and why Who is back on the air – its character more so than plot that made these shows work.

    Outside of the fact the basic fetch quest for this reboot has already been done in at least one episode of TNG.

    • nkuzmik says:

      Re: Bleh

      Original Trek never had a underlying sub-plot, the rationale is probably the most firmest foundation for a creative series – humanity’s curiosity of its surroudings. You don’t really need something approaching B5 to create good trek. Do what made TNG successful and why Who is back on the air – its character more so than plot that made these shows work.

      Take a quick look at Who… No long term plot? Bad Wolf any one?
      And character in B5? Uh… Garibaldi, Ivanova, G’kar, Londo?, Marcus… And these people all had subtle shadings to them. By season three, you knew what it took to turn Garibaldi into a raging lunatic, or a big ol’ somewhat balding teddybear, or just a plain ol’ goofball!

      A major aspect to the magic that was Babylon 5 was JMS’s balance between character driven material and plot-driven material. What can often happen is a writter, such as Micheal Stackpole, who by his own admission is better at plotting than character development, or so he said on his website a few years back; Mr. Stackpole, if you’ve since retracted the aforementioned statement, I apologize; will focus on plot, at the expense of character development. This can give the impression that the plot is dragging the characters along. On the other hand, If a writer swings the other way, and focuses too much on character, there is little plot development, and the story can feel like soap opera. Then in order for the story to move ahead, the writer must introduce contrived circumstances because they have not setup what is external to the characters.

      Both of the above are the extremes of the spectrum. What JMS did in B5 was a well timed and balanced arrangement of character and plot focus. He slowly introduced us to Sheridan, Ivanova, Garibaldi, Delenn, in an episode here, and episode there. Then when the emphasis shifted to plot, he put Sheridan or one of the others in a room with a decison they had to make, He knew what they would do. We had a pretty good idea what they would do, though Marcus was always a little unpredictable… And then much as Delenn said of the stone garden in the Gathering, we saw a single mind change the course of the history.

      Look at Londo for example: Its hard to say when he’s rising and when he’s falling. He starts the story a burnt out, washed-up diplomat from a race that’s well past its heyday. His story is that of how he makes a pact with some rather nasty folks, who put his people back in acendancy, and make him a rising star, but at the same time we watch his moral decay.

      Then he reverses his stance, and ultimately destroys himself, for the better greater good. Every decision he makes is a personal one, but it drives the plot of the story. Would the Londo of Season 5 been nearly as power a figure if we never knew the harmless, comical Londo of Season 1?

      • Trekkie says:

        Re: Bleh
        Babylon 5 had more character development than most shows on television anywhere in any genre. It was a work of art that no one has been able to capture since.

        Every character had a backstory. *every* year there was a moment where you’d smack yourself in the forehead when you’d find a moment of realization of what something that happened on the show two years earlier meant finally.

        And I giggled with glee the moment when the prophecy of ‘want to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and put it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come at too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this.’ That little wave of his was priceless both in the original context and then in season 4.

        You don’t have those moments in the Star Trek universe, not like that. Sure they referenced something, but there was never the level of continuity that ther was in B5 and I loved that show for it.

        I watch all five seasons every summer since I got them on DVD years ago.

        And I’ve not watched the TNT network channel since, on every TV I own it is deleted from the dial.

        SciFi suffered that same fate after Farscape’s cancellation until BSG came along and I wanted to give it a chance. Farscape was a great show, but still not on the level of B5.

        The bad part about re-watching B5 is you can’t help but draw parallels with President Clark and current politics in some ways. A nameless thing to fear, spying on your own people, things like that. Sure it probably isn’t anywhere near the same but it just adds creedence to itself. Yes I know that was Germany in the 30s and 40s but still it’s weird how it all repeats itself.

        • Trekkie says:

          Re: Bleh
          Oh yeah, forgot about Fox, killing Firefly killed me as a viewer of their network.

          There isn’t much left to watch when you do that.

        • Fozzy_Bear says:

          Re: Bleh


          The bad part about re-watching B5 is you can’t help but draw parallels with President Clark and current politics in some ways. A nameless thing to fear, spying on your own people, …

          The actress who played Tallia Winters (I forget her name off the top of my head) went on after B5 to get a job at CNN doing the news. – It was actually out of HER mouth that I first heard of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. – My first thought was the image of when Zach first wore the black arm-band. That was one of the most scarry memories I have.

          .

Comments are closed.