New Star Trek TV Series!

New Star Trek TV Series!

After ten long years of waiting, it finally happened: the announcement of a new Trek TV series to begin in January 2017! Actually, it was more like nine years for me, as I saw 'Enterprise' on first run terrestrial in the UK, which didn't get to the final episodes until 2006, but that's by the by, as it had been something anyone who cared about Trek had been waiting for far too long to hear. The big question is what will it be about? Apparently it will feature new characters and will not be related to the approaching thirteenth film, 'Star Trek Beyond.' Whether this means it will be in the Abramsverse or not is uncertain, and for me, a key issue in how my level of anticipation. For forty-three years we never even had this concern, but with the arrival of 'Star Trek XI' in 2009 a whole new can of particularly annoying worms was opened, the timeline and universe now said to be the 'Prime' Universe, as opposed to this new one, nicknamed the Abramsverse after J.J. Abrams, the creative behind it. It was a heart-wrenching decision for those who had eagerly followed every iteration, back in the day when all we had to worry about was where a series would be set in the timeline and who would be in it. This new headache of multiple universes, all seemingly as valid as any other, really lessened the impact of what Trek meant - because it basically said that nothing really matters, as everything and anything that could or would happen, just split off into another universe. This is the way contemporary theoretical science now looks at such things, but as far as most of us concerned, such theories may as well be fantasy as much as sci-fi.

Science proved our Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe, not even the centre of the Solar System, but we've yet to find another planet just exactly like ours that could support life, so we have to think of other ways to make ourselves seem less special, or that's how it seems to me. Trek was never about diminishing humanity, but rather holding it up as a paragon (not something I agree with, but it makes for a positive viewing experience!), and seeing what is right and good in human dealings, presented through interaction with alien culture. There are so many reasons why it's taken so long for Trek to return to TV, its natural home, not the least financial wranglings that came about because of the split between Paramount (owning the film rights), and CBS (the TV rights). We know that Abrams, in the absence of his beloved 'Star Wars,' wanted to create an industry out of Trek, his own Trek the only one that mattered, turning it into a cross-platform, marketing, merchandise juggernaut. But because he was stifled by the rights issues, and because CBS continued to make money from the Trek brand, despite not having any new additions to the canon, thanks to the loyalty of Trekkers who will always support the kind of Trek they love, his plans were curtailed and the new universe went into virtual limbo, a four year wait between 'Star Trek XI' and 'Star Trek Into Darkness,' a bizarre outcome in the modern world where timing and making sure product is available to the consumer, is everything.

Yet this may have been a good thing in the end because it gave those that were intrigued by the eleventh film, and saw it as the first film, plenty of time and opportunity to go back to all the Trek there had been before. So rather than create a line in the sand stating old Trek was finished and now a new generation would enjoy the new Trek, there simply wasn't enough new Trek for people to grab onto, a fandom based on one film can't last very long, but one that has a further ten films and over seven hundred episodes can nourish for years and years. It didn't help that 'Into Darkness' failed creatively, even though it made a good chunk of money, with those that had really been on board for 'Star Trek XI' less happy with what they got second time around. This may have pushed the interested parties further towards the 'Prime' than they might otherwise have been, but regardless, the Fiftieth Anniversary approaches, as well as the third film in the new series. All the hoopla and attention paid to the franchise for its very special birthday year was no doubt in the minds of those with TV rights… Another reason Trek didn't return is because in today's world of popular anti-heroes, it's seen as preachy, the upstanding morals and high-mindedness apparently turn off those raised on 'Breaking Bad' and 'Game of Thrones,' where complex narrative intrigue is mixed with sex and violence to produce ratings. Trek was always a family entertainment, so how could it fit into the modern viewing world and yet satisfy the cravings of a new generation?

It's a question the new series will have to answer. So what will it do? Reading myriad comments on message boards, I've seen compelling arguments for both sides about which way the series will sway: with Alex Kurtzman revealed as Producer, the guy who co-wrote the first two Abramsverse films, it would seem almost certain that that would be the setting. But what are the rights issues involved? Was there, as some suggest, an embargo on all Trek production to prevent competition between the films and any new series, and does it mean that clause has now run out of time? Will we see further Abramsverse films, or will the film series be put to bed for a bit? Will it depend on how well 'Beyond' does? All are valid questions and hopefully the answers will be forthcoming in the near future. For now, we can only hope. Some say that because of the rights issues CBS could only use the Prime Universe, and why wouldn't they? It's a rich, diverse playground for someone who knows their stuff. But that's also an argument against: the canon is 'too restricting.' Personally, I've never believed this, demonstrated best with 'DS9' that you can take up the tools and the pieces of your predecessors and mould them, develop them in greater depth and precision. There are countless reference tomes out there (not to mention Memory Alpha or the rerelease to come of the much-anticipated 'Star Trek Encyclopedia'), and plenty of creatives who have expressed interest in adding to the mythos, so it's a lazy argument. Some of these have a lot of support: Ronald D. Moore probably the front runner, though personally I'd be happy if they could get Ira Steven Behr (the 'DS9' Producer), or Manny Coto (the Producer of 'Enterprise' Season 4, the final televised season of Trek to date).

Why bother to gather all this information and chuck it in a blog post? Because I have a big stake in Trek, it's my favourite form of entertainment, and I'd like to add my own view to the storm of speculation. I would love to see a series set in the 2380s. This would be after the events of the 24th Century-set series' and films, but could also tie into the events of 'Star Trek XI' - one of the biggest irritations of that film was not only that we were never going to see the story of how such iconic characters first met (because it's an alternate universe), but that we were teased with a huge change in the 'Prime' universe that would have affected the Alpha Quadrant, and perhaps the wider galaxy, in unknown magnitude: the destruction of Romulus. It was basically saying 'one of the key planets in the old universe is destroyed, bye bye, you're never going to know what happened next!' It's infuriating because it could have such fascinating consequences. So to have a series set, perhaps in the Neutral Zone, a colony that is protected by a Starfleet ship, also tasked with exploring the Zone, would be amazing. It could be set a year or two prior to the destruction and then show the aftermath, or the event could happen in the pilot, but either way it would be a melting pot of drama and spy intrigue, while also developing a culture (the Romulans), that's remained the least developed of all the major races, as well as fulfilling all the precepts of exploration both internal and external that we hope to see in Trek.

The likelihood? I don't know, but I have the feeling that, thanks to the relative success of the current films, the 23rd Century, or Kirk's era, to the uninitiated, seems like the most profitable avenue because it's somewhere traditional viewers know well and could also attract filmgoers. I could see them cannibalising the film sets (as happened back in the day), especially if they aren't going to make another film, but I wouldn't like to see this era unless it stayed true to the aesthetics that we've seen before. I'm not suggesting they would have to make a Constitution-class ship and all the sets exactly the same as on 'TOS,' but they also couldn't update it in the way the Abramsverse did. If they want to make advances in technology they really need to go further into the future. I'd be happy enough with a 25th Century-set series - they could still deal with the aftermath of Romulus' destruction. There is another alternative, and one that I'm not in favour of: to create a third alternate universe so they aren't 'constrained' as some people put it, and can chart their own course completely divorced from the past, whether to new galaxies or whatever. But what's the point of calling it 'Star Trek,' except for the brand recognition, if you're not making it part of a grander history, a living, breathing reality that is remarkably consistent when you take into account the breadth of people and companies involved over four decades! Canon is not a constraint, but a guide to help you on the journey, to force you to examine your motives and your ability: is it just for profit, to bang out a series and cash in on the name, or is it a longterm project that will rake in the cash by developing loyalty?

The thing with Trek is that there are so many possibilities, but few that would be certain to satisfy those of us that have witnessed the adaption and development of Trek's world: 'TOS' started it all and created a compelling, futuristic setting to explore that was supposed to be our own future. 'TNG' took this further by jumping a century forward in time and examining the same issues from a new perspective and aesthetic. 'DS9' plumped itself down in one location and yet somehow managed to craft the most compelling construct, utilising all that had come before. 'Voyager' explored the opposite end of a large galaxy we still know so little about. And 'Enterprise' filled in details on how the Federation came to be, cut off at the knees before it could really fulfil this precious mission. I'd love to see a series set during the Earth/Romulan War of the 22nd Century, I'd be interested in one set aboard the Enterprise-B or -C, teaching us about a period we know little about, the decades between 'TOS' and 'TNG.' But these things would be genuinely a headache and would require great patience, planning and people that love, respect and are willing to put the effort in to connect dots as well as be creative, so I think they're the least likely.

The most exciting thing about the announcement is that they've left us largely in the dark. With Kurtzman in charge we can imagine the style it will take, but we don't know who will be writing it. We don't know who will star, whether there will be any characters from other series' (played by the original actors in true Trek tradition, of course) - my pick for this would be Mr. Worf, as Michael Dorn is desperate to play him again and with the right writing, could raise a series higher just on his own. I really hope they get people involved who know Trek back to front: Doug Drexler, the Okudas, Larry Nemecek. These names have become as legendary as the series' they worked on. It's wishful thinking, as many such people are at the end of their careers or see it in sight, and it may be viewed as another 'constraint' to have throwbacks to the old regime. It depends how much they want to please longterm viewers or whether they're only interested in courting the younger viewer, ones that haven't bothered to search out more Trek after the films, or maybe haven't even seen the films themselves! Perhaps it's to be completely unrelated to all Trek that's gone before? Either way, just as we could thank it in the seventies for kickstarting interest in space drama, 'Star Wars' must bear much of the credit. If there were no vast SW behemoth rolling out this year then Trek might have remained a pipe dream, floating in the clouds.

Whatever the outcome, I hope that story and character is at the heart of all discussion. I blame 'Enterprise' for initiating the return to action-based, less thinking man's Trek in the 21st Century. As much as I enjoy that series (and think it had the strongest opening salvo of episodes of any series), it messed up the Vulcans, making it okay for them to be emotional, it placed action ahead of drama, and it failed to sufficiently develop the characters, something that gave Abrams precedent (if he needed it), to remake Trek in 'Star Wars' image, something that wasn't playing to its strengths. Yet even 'Enterprise,' with Season 4, showed what it could be capable of if the needs of canon were adhered to, using the canon as a canvas rather than a wall, to explore and develop themes and character that we want to see. If this new series can understand just what made Trek work so well in the golden age of the nineties, then it has the potential to reach the heights of my personal favourites, 'DS9' and 'Voyager.' The former fully reached its potential and remains a joy to see unfold, the latter never quite got there, but nonetheless provided quality entertainment that was exciting, moving and dramatic. But at the heart are strong characters that you care to see. I didn't even mind when story ideas were repeated across the various series' because if you can do it with different characters you will see variations, and that in itself is fascinating. Trek could well live for another fifty years, but only if it is nurtured by people that care about it, not about how much it makes - it's got to be more than just another job.

Anticipation Rating: ***