Jonathan Frakes: Star Trek Isn’t Coming Back To TV

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the final episode of Enterprise, “These Are The Voyages…”, which aired on May 13, 2005 on UPN. The show’s finale marked the end of Star Trek’s run on television.

In the past decade, fans worldwide have asked “When will Star Trek return to TV?”. With no clear answer in sight and another feature film coming next year, the question remains.

Last weekend during a Q&A session at Fan Expo Regina, Jonathan Frakes, who played Commander William T. Riker in Star Trek: The Next Generation, was asked about the possibility of a new Star Trek television series. Frakes responded by saying that he had pitched a concept to CBS, which owns the rights to the franchise and unfortunately, and they don’t seem to have any interest in a new Trek series.

Frakes continued by saying that CBS feels it diluted the Star Trek brand throughout the 1990s and early 2000s combined with the poor box office performance of 2002’s Star Trek: Nemesis.

With the success of Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness, he said CBS wants to keep the property as focused and concentrated as possible.

via Leader Post

152 Comments Join the Conversation →

  • Palanet Roq

    That’s ok. Star Trek is done, its time to just move on.

    • Cabo 5150

      No, that’s not correct.

      Star Trek is not done. In actuality, the diametric opposite of that statement is factual.

      Based on the original series, Paramount released an extremely well received and financially successful film in 2009 called STAR TREK. It was followed by an even more financially successful sequel in 2013 under the moniker of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, both films were directed by J.J. Abrams.

      Paramount are currently prepping a second sequel, which is in late in pre-production, and is imminently about to start shooting. Directed by Justin Lin and co-written by Simon Pegg, it is set for release on July 8th 2016 – coinciding with Star Trek’s 50th anniversary year.

      • Lance

        JJ’s Star Trek is not the same. It’s summer action movie fare now. With no thought to what makes Star Trek, Star Trek. I enjoy them. But JJ’s complete lack of understanding of Star Trek shines very brightly, like a lens flare. Thankfully it looks like he gets Star Wars and I feel will be doing justice to that.

        • Cabo 5150

          Or more correctly, his Star Trek has no thought to what makes your subjective opinion on that which “makes Star Trek”. I find it incredibly conceited when fans proclaim JJ’s movies “aren’t Star Trek” because they don’t fall in line with their preferred iteration.

          It’s just a replay of the ridiculous fanboy reactions when TNG debuted back in the day. “How very dare they make a new Star Trek, it’s not Star Trek, I won’t watch”.

          The last two films are certainly very different to much of Berman era Trek, but for the first time in years, they’ve palpably brought back that sense of colourful fun, action, adventure – and yes – character interaction, that was so central to TOS.

          As a long time TOS fan, it’s been like seeing my beloved, and I openly admit, easily my favourite version of the franchise, lieterally come back to life before my very eyes. Albeit, with a modern presentation and cinematic gloss – which I’ve actually really enjoyed.

          Personally, I loathe what I find to be the pseudo-religious, “spiritual”, supernatural nonsense in DS9 – and the tedious, drawn out, multi season “war arc”. But it is “Star Trek”, it’s been produced and published as such, and I accept it IS Star Trek to its devoted fans. I don’t bemoan it as “not being Trek”, even though it’s a million light years away from my subjective understanding of it.

          Each to their own.

          • milojthatch

            No, he’s right, JJ-Trek isn’t Star Trek, it’s “JJ-Trek”. Sorry if you can’t see that.

          • Cabo 5150

            I actually feel considerably more (genuine) sorrow for you, milojthatch.

            I extend my sincere sympathies you don’t possess the rudimentary cognitive ability to grasp the very basic concept of subjective opinion.

            It’s frankly impossible to enter into impartial, courteous discourse with blinkered, arrogant know-it-all’s like you.

            Seriously, just think about it. You offer ridiculous, condescending, faux apologies to those who don’t share your subjective opinion. Because, anybody who doesn’t concur with you must be arbitrarily in error, right?


          • BlackSheep0ne

            I love TOS too; but what JJ did is an alternative reality.
            What I find far more delightful is “Star Trek Continues,” which very much *is* Star Trek. Right down to the two-fisted Captain and the irascible ship’s surgeon, with a Vulcan on the bridge trying to keep everything sorted and a Chief Engineer whose presence is uncannily close to the original from 50 years ago.
            The look, the sound, the writing, the acting — give it a try. It’s spot-on.

          • Cabo 5150

            As I’ve already said, BlackSheep0ne, it’s all subjective opinion. JJ Trek is indeed an alternative reality (it’s stated in the movie after all), but to me, it very much *is* Star Trek as you might put it. That is the nature of subjective opinion.

            I have absolutely no problem with the opinion of others, and only take exception when those opinions are presented by the author as absolute fact – with conceited, haughty intolerance for others. Manifested in this thread with lame sarcasm and “mock apologies” etc.

            I have, in fact, watched all three current ST:C episodes. For me, they were OK, but had that palpable veneer of amateurism I find so distracting in fan productions. This, despite the production values being fairly high, and some of the talent being working professionals.

            I understand many have enjoyed the episodes immensely, and that’s grand as Captain Picard would say. Episode 4, “The White Iris”, debuts in just two days. I hope you enjoy it just as much. I’ll definitely give a fair viewing too. LLAP.

          • Lance

            The thing is, I did enjoy both of JJ’s movies. I really did. It’s the fact that none of what I really love about Trek exists anymore. Once Trek became big summer blockbuster movie faire. The chance to ever get another TV series went away completely. Unless they can make at least 300 million of something Trek, they won’t bother. BTW, I do consider what JJ did to be Trek, I just don’t like that it’s the only Trek.

          • Cabo 5150

            I think the rights issues between CBS and Paramount are probably at the core of what’s holding back a televisual return for Star Trek. It really is one heck of a convoluted mess. From what I can ascertain, it’s way more complicated than TV – CBS/Movies – Paramount.

          • Lance

            I personally think it does feel a bit like TOS. But it’s not nearly as deep as the best episodes of TOS.

          • Cabo 5150

            Cool, we’re all different! It feels A LOT like TOS to me! Vive la différence!

            It’s unrealistic to expect a summer tentpole like Star Trek to be a “deep”, philosophical foray into the “human condition”. There’s no way Paramount are going to stump $150m + to produce the cinematic version of “The Inner Light” and see their investment go down the drain.

            To be honest I wouldn’t want to see it either (that episode is overrated to the Nth degree). “Spiritually”, the Bad Robot movies lean towards episodes like “The Doomsday Machine” – one of the very best TOS episodes.

            Some fans seem to be “ashamed” of TOS’s action/adventure roots – I’m not! The aforementioned summer tentpole flick is the perfect tableau to produce that type of story and make money for the studio.

        • Kim ~L.A. West :)

          jj’s twisted tales NOT Star Trek!

          • Cabo 5150

            Dateline: 28th September 1987 – TOS fans up in arms: Roddenberry’s new twisted tales, NOT Star Trek!

            Dateline: 08th May 2009 – TNG fans up in arms: Bad Robot’s twisted tales, NOT Star Trek!

            Speculative Dateline: Early 2020’s – Bad Robot Trek fans up in arms: “Insert New Name Here” Productions twisted tales, NOT Star Trek!

      • Tim

        The point still remains: Star Trek is dead. There is currently an imposter film franchise stealing it’s name.

        • Cabo 5150

          Thanks for that, Tim.

      • milojthatch

        JJ-Trek is a new franchise built on the fallen corpse of a much greater franchise.

        • Cabo 5150

          There’s really no point in either of us continuing this pointless discourse.

          I assume you’ve read my antecedent posts, so I have to surmise you’re either intellectually deficient – unable to grasp the concept of subjective opinion – or you’re just a troll. Childish and immature.

          Either way, I’m not interested in dragging this out with you. I love open debate, but can’t abide those who enter it with haughty conceit and outright disrespect for the equally valid opinion of others.

          Idiocy reigns supreme, so much for IDIC.

          • Amphioxys

            You’ve got quite some nerve accusing others, who merely are expressing their personal opinion, of “trolling”, while you have been carpet-bombing this entire discussion on some completely inane premise. Do you perhaps yourself understand the principle of subjective opinion? If someone writes that X is “greater than” Y, or X “is not the same as” Y, it is not automatically implied that it’s meant as concrete FACT. It’s still just an expression of opinion!

            Aside from that, there are in fact very clear and tangible characteristics that made the original Star Trek franchise unique and that are lacking in the JJ Trek franchise. If fans are expressing that they are missing those very ingredients, how arrogant and intolerant it is on your part, to simply dismiss those experiences as “ridiculous” and “conceited”. Do mind that none of these had attacked your or anyone else’s appreciation of the reboot, but merely expressed their own personal dislike of it.

            You could simply have stated that you don’t feel the same way and leave it that way. But NO you feel the inexplicable need to denigrate others, because they disagree with you. I find that behaviour highly contemptible and you ought to be ashamed of yourself!

            I mean: Seriously? What is your freaking problem!?

          • Cabo 5150

            What a load of self-righteous, sanctimonious twaddle.

            If by “carpet-bombing” you mean posting my opinion on an open discussion forum and/or replying to posts directly aimed at me, then I guess you must be right.

            I haven’t “denigrated” anyone. I’ve merely challenged others personal opinion with own to the best of my ability. Nothing more, nothing less. I certainly have nothing to be “ashamed” of.

            You call my “behaviour” “highly contemptible” after lecturing me on “arrogance” and “intolerance”. I find your subjective allegations against me to be themselves “denigrating”, unnecessarily personal, “intolerant” and extremely aggressive. IMHO, you are a hypocrite, sir.

            What’s *your* “freaking” problem?

            I’ll be very, very happy to have this out with you. We can take it point by point, dissect each of my comments and discuss them in their proper context without “quote mining” to serve your own fictive.

          • Amphioxys

            My “freaking” problem is that I really, really dislike people acting like jerks to others and acting all self-righteous and sanctimonious about it. Given the level of denial and projection that you have been showing until now, there is little use for dragging this out further, because I have better things to do. Of course someone like you, who wants to take everything personally and assume the worst possible faith in people, must have some screwed up reasons for doing so and will perpetuate his ego-defence until he gets the last word.

            And how laughable that you are accusing me of hypocrisy whereas you were the one who threw the first punches. I am merely giving you a taste of your own medicine. There’s nothing for me to be ashamed about for standing up for others against internet bullies.

            You understand the difference? I am standing up for others. You are merely defending your brittle, little ego.

            But let’s humour you a bit here. The very comment I responded to, was your aggressive attack on someone who merely made a comment on what they felt the current state of the Star Trek franchise is. He was not being “haughty”, “conceited” or “disrespectful” in any sense, but merely had a different point of view. He didn’t call you any names or even mention.

            You wrote in response to that: “…intellectually deficient – unable to grasp the concept of subjective opinion – or you’re just a troll. Childish and immature.”

            And you insist you haven’t denigrated anyone. Seriously?

            How about this one, your response to milojthatch, who just wrote that he agreed with Lance’s excellent post.

            You denigrated his “cognitive ability” and called him a “blinkered, arrogant know-it-all” and “Pathetic.”

            All because he said he was sorry if you didn’t see what Lance meant. In normal human interactions, that is a normal way of not overextending a discussion. It’s another way of saying “let’s disagree to disagree”. Whereas there may be some trace of condescension in that statement, the normal human, counter-reaction would be “Well, I am sorry for you!” Calling it “ridiculous, condescending, faux apologies” is an extreme overreaction.

            I expect you to sanctimoniously defend your behaviour now, and misconstrue how everyone’s been mean to you and that they had it coming. However, you are clearly in complete denial if you want to claim that you “haven’t denigrated anyone”.

            This will most probably be my last post on this thread, because until you have that narcissism problem fixed, nothing will penetrate your thick wall of defence mechanisms.

            I feel really REALLY sorry for you and hope it will someday be fixed.

          • Cabo 5150

            You’re so full or yourself, it’s close to unfathomable. Really, I’m just dumbfounded. Seriously, you should go and find yourself a nice little pulpit to preach in.

            I guess you feel fully justified in giving me “a taste of my own medicine” – getting EXTREMELY aggressive, hurtful and VERY personal. After all, you’re such a brave crusader, defending others from “internet bullies” with your lofty morals.

            The irony here is just perfect. You truly embrace and embody hypocrisy, sir.

            All of this based on your own, twisted, subjective, viewpoint – manufacturing a ridiculous, specious, farcical representation of my comments in this thread, so you can have your pompous, self-righteous rants.

            Suffice it to say, I wholly refute, and vehemently impugn your hateful allegations against me. I can’t elaborate of course, since you’ve already advised I should just “agree to disagree” or some such. Obviously, others can give their specific opinions, but if I don’t agree, etiquette dictates I should abstain from the same.

            Your presuppositional, pre-emptive statement reference my “expected defence” is lame and utterly absurd. Presumably, I should just accept your “chastisement”, your insults and your abusive aspersions on my character without the right of reply.

            If you make sweeping statements about me “being in denial” and “overreacting” etc, etc, you must of course be right. Perish the thought I might actually disagree with you – and gasp – want to defend myself. You can’t possibly be wrong.

            Is that the melody of hypocrisy I can hear playing yet again?

            Evidently, you’ve already made up your mind and are unwilling to enter into a civil dialogue – clearly revealing your own deep seated narcissistic, arrogant and aggressive personality flaws.

            Your posts almost come over as some kind of grotesque, inverse self therapy. It’s like you’re trying to work through your own issues by belligerently projecting them onto others as mechanism of coping with your own failings.

            Reply, or don’t reply, it’s up you or course. But be assured, the gloves are well and truly off for me now. I won’t be intimidated, or sit back and take this level of uncalled for abuse from the likes of you.

            Next time, I’ll be responding in kind matey. You can count on it.

          • Phil

            Sorry but Amphibious totally embarrassed you back there lmao. Everything he said was 100% true about you. Really entertaining though, thanks for all that.

          • Cabo 5150

            Sorry to let you know you’re 100% wrong, Phil – but you may used to that of course.

            Never mind, I’m sure you can do better next time

      • Palanet Roq

        A second sequel? So they’re replacing the original sequel, Into the Darkness, with another sequel after that should be after the Star Trek 2009? Why would they do that? I think thats cool but the article is talking about a tv series not coming back, the movies are still a go thanks to the 2009 reboot.

        • Cabo 5150

          The first sequel was “Into Darkness”, the second sequel will be “Star Trek Beyond”. It is fairly common practice to refer to a third movie in a franchise/trilogy as a second sequel. The key word here is “sequel”.

          I was simply correcting your sweeping statement, “Star Trek is done, its time to just move on.” Which doesn’t make any specific reference to TV and/or movies.

          Had you qualified your opinion by saying Star Trek is done *on TV* or some such, I may or may not have responded specifically to that point.

          • Palanet Roq

            The statement I made was referring to this article that I had replied to. Maybe you’re talking about a different article that referred to the movies? This one is about the tv so I did not have to state whether otherwise but to clarify for you and you only, I’m talking about the tv series.

          • Cabo 5150

            I wasn’t referring to any article, I was responding clearly, and specifically, to your sweeping statement “Star Trek is done”. It is extremely common for discussions on an open forum to segue into more detailed debates about the topic at hand, or indeed, affiliated and/or disparate deliberations.

            Again, I merely highlighted your erroneous comment in that tradition. Certainly, it was not unreasonable for me to have done so within the context of this article/discussion – particularly given the nature of your laconic, blanket statement.

            I note other posters have entered this thread and expanded the discussion into fan productions like Axanar and Star Trek Continues – neither of which are on TV. I presume you’ll be responding to those posters to remind them of the core debate in due course.

            Just out of curiosity, I see it’s taken you over three months to respond to me. It’s interesting you chose to employ thinly veiled sarcasm in an attempt to highlight what you, faultily, perceived to be my misuse of the term “second sequel” – before I, of course, corrected your error.

    • milojthatch

      While it pains me to admit it, you are right. It is done. It died 10 years ago and it’s never coming back!

  • Greg Silwanowicz

    Maybe he pitched it as captain riker as main character

  • Those corporate bureaucrats know nothing. Star Trek should go on Kickstarter and then make independent comeback, but not as those bad fan made TOS spinoffs. Most boring Star Trek series ever.

    • Scara Atch

      Have you seen Axanar?
      It looks promising.

    • Krazy Joe

      STar Trek Continues is certainly not ‘boring’ or ‘bad’. That series has been excellent!

    • Kim ~L.A. West :)

      Kickstarter just fully funded by Adam Nimoy

  • Benji Stanley

    I’m so relieved! No more TV series. Let’s keep it in film form from here on out. The films will probably always be kept at a PG-13 rating. Maybe someday we’d even get another PG Star Trek film. But if Star Trek comes back to tv it will end up being called “Star Trek: Homo” and be about absolutely nothing but gays and how they’re so much more superior to everyone else, and then any other extreme liberal nonsense they can come up with. It won’t be about good story telling anymore. It will be just like JJ Trek, all about special effects, except for on tv, they can turn it into a TV-MA show just like everything else is today. I don’t want Star Trek being turned into a drug junkie/porno/Saw series. And under today’s style of tv, there is no way that won’t happen. The violence will be over the top, they’ll have over the top sex and nudity and language constantly. They’d have to, to keep up with everything else that’s on today. Not trying to offend anyone, that’s honestly not my intention. But if you really take a minute to hear me out, and really think about what tv really is today in 2015, and then you look at all of Star Trek as it is. It just wouldn’t work today, without compromising it and turning it into the garbage that’s on every channel now. Plus we probably wouldn’t even get any individual stories anymore. We’d probably get a 10 to 13 episode season, with no stand alone episodes. That’s not what Star Trek is. Star Trek is supposed to be a collection of short stories, that at some point will intersect. But it’s just not what tv today is. It’s better than what tv today is.

    • Dustin Shadle

      what reality did you fall out of? you smell of repressed homoerotic fantasies and fear. you just showed the world your bigotry and lack of critical thinking.

      • Benji Stanley

        I suppose I fell out of the reality that is classic Star Trek. But it is funny to me that you can’t disagree or counter my argument without name calling. I don’t have any bigotry against anyone or lack of critical thinking. What I am saying is that a new Star Trek of today, would not be the Star Trek we know. In my opinion, and it’s exactly that, my opinion, nothing more or less, Star Trek would be utterly ruined with today’s style of tv. The way TV is made today, just doesn’t work for what Star Trek was. And maybe some people would want to see a 13 episode season that only focuses on just one primary story and nothing else. Maybe some people do want to see Star Trek taken from a family friendly show that you can watch with your kids, and turn it into True Blood? Or The Walking Dead? And there’s nothing wrong with those shows. There’s nothing wrong with making adult tv shows and having TV-MA shows. I’m just saying, that’s not what Star Trek is. Star Trek has always been a family show. There are no family shows today in 2015 that are actually successful. Unless you’re watching the Disney channel, or another kids channel, and it’s a modern day tv show that’s not a reality show, you’re watching something TV-MA. That’s just how it is. And I would also like to clarify my position about the gay thing. It’s not so much the idea of having a gay character per se. But quite frankly, just having a gay character will not be enough to satisfy the LGBT community. They won’t be happy until every single episode is shoving gay rights or gay stories down everybody’s throat. That’s how they work. And as soon as there is any one little thing they don’t happen to like, boom, now they’re being discriminated against, and EVERYBODY is a bigot. Again, that is not what Star Trek is, that’s not what it’s about. You call me a bigot, but look at Gene Roddenberry. He was famous for talking the talk, but not walking the walk. If you doubt me, go and listen to David Gerold’s interview with Mission Log at it’s supplemental episode number 7, I believe. He tells it straight up that Gene would claim to be all for gays, but out right refused to create a Captain Sulu series, and his only reason was because George Takei was gay. Gene secretly had a problem with gays. And while there were some writers that tried to get gays put into Star Trek, I’m pretty sure Rick Berman and Brannon Braga wouldn’t stand for it either. Now Star Trek never said anything bad about gays, and that’s good. They shouldn’t say anything about gays. But for the most part, they chose to leave it alone, which is what everybody should do in my opinion. Leave it alone, let people draw their own conclusions, and stop trying to force gay values and beliefs down people’s throats. It’s no different than forcing certain religious beliefs on people where maybe religion isn’t there thing. That would never be tolerated in this country, but you better not say you’re not into the whole gay thing. Honestly, DS9 did it perfectly with the episode “Rejoined” because you had two female hosts who wanted to pick up in their marriage from their previous hosts, and the episode had absolutely nothing to do with being gay. Nobody made it an issue. And from what I’ve heard, that totally pissed off the LGBT community that they didn’t turn it into this major issue. I hope that I have made my position more clear than before.

        • Balance of Power

          I don’t know what Star Trek you watched, but Star Trek has never been straight up family entertainment like Lost in Space or the Brady Bunch.

          Star Trek has always pushed the boundaries of science fiction and social commentary, whether it was the Kirk-Uhura kiss, Kirk’s numerous romantic liaisons, or the episodes that explored sexuality (albeit in 90s social mores) and racism, and torture and environmentalism (etc.. etc…) on Next Generation just to name a few.

          A Star Trek of today would hopefully retain that while updating it for modern audiences.

          It really amazes me, however, that anyone who considers themselves a Star Trek fan would have the views you do. Star Trek has always been about acceptance, tolerance, diversity and the rejection of racial/social/sexual prejudice. Even from its earliest days this has been the case. Yes you’re here talking about “The gheyz and their superiority;” what the hell? Seriously?

          Star Trek was more than just phaser banks and Klingons. Star Trek has always espoused traditional liberal values. This should not be news to you, and yet somehow you seem blisfully unaware of this. Perhaps its time for you hang up your communicator and face the fact that you’ve never truly been a Star Trek fan, just a bigot who enjoys escapist science fiction.

          • Benji Stanley

            Wow. Once again with the name calling, simply because I had the audacity to say something YOU don’t happen to like. You claim to know me and know what I’m about and pass your liberal judgment on me, and try to say I’m not a fan, when in reality, I probably know more about the franchise than you do. I’m a Star Trek Encyclopedia, just for your information. Everything you said about Star Trek is true. Yes it pushed some boundaries for it’s time, but just because that’s true doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been a family show. It doesn’t have to be The Brady Bunch to be family friendly. Can you name an episode of any of the series that is legit R-rated? Can you name any episodes that can seriously be classified as something that kids shouldn’t see or know about? And I’m not saying just strictly topics, but actual on screen stuff? We very rarely had any on screen sex. And when it did happen it was very mild. Extremely mild by today’s standards. I think the biggest sex scene in Star Trek for a while was the sex scene in Nemesis between Riker and Troi as a married couple, and the scene served an actual purpose to the story line. It wasn’t even just shoved in there for the sake of having it in there. Language for the most part has been pretty mild in Star Trek. Got a little strong a time or two in the TOS movies. But for the most part, Star Trek has always been pretty tame. Perhaps you haven’t seen it? Perhaps you aren’t a fan? Maybe you’re just a bigot who attacks anyone who doesn’t fall into line with your liberal agenda like a good little sheep? And as far as Star Trek being all about liberal values. That’s a load of bull. Star Trek is actually pretty moderate. There are some liberal episodes and there are some conservative episodes. Star Trek looks at both sides. You really think liberals would actually fight the Dominion for their freedom? They’d surrender in a heartbeat. You think liberals would fight the Borg? No, they wouldn’t because liberals ARE THE BORG! Liberals go around trying to assimilate everyone into their liberal collective and attack anyone who doesn’t fall into line. Have you even seen episodes like “In The Pale Moonlight”? You seriously think that’s liberal? Or “Past Tense”? “Past Tense” is an episode speaking out against liberals and their government interference. The whole sanctuary district thing was showing exactly what happens when the government gets involved with anything. Or what about “A Taste of Armageddon” That whole episode was anti-liberal. It would be the liberals fighting a computer war and forcing people into disintegration chambers instead of fighting a real war because they’d be so worried about hurting a tree or something. And Kirk wasn’t going to stand for it, because it’s STUPID! And yeah there are some very liberal episodes out there too. “Repentance” is one, dealing with the death penalty. Very good episode, as a matter of fact. So, would care to make any further accusations about me, and how I’m not a fan and don’t know what I’m talking about?

          • Jason Buffone

            you are so wrong on Past Tense is was about income inquiry and the poor fighting back. There are racial undertones. I am a liberal Star Trek mad me that way. A Taste of Armageddon is about the complacency of war. Star trek has many liberal and libertarian ideas. They want to make episodes about gay issues put they didn’t think they could do it.

          • Benji Stanley

            Yes, but the idea of the sanctuary district, being run by the government and forcing people into them because the economy had been run so far into the ground, yeah that’s a very anti-liberal idea. Liberals think of the government as God. And Past Tense showed us the government at work. The whole idea of how they worked, and how they were intended to be a good idea on paper, but the government never does anything efficiently.
            And I never disputed that there are liberal ideas. Libertarian as well, except for Libertarians tend to be more moderate and conservative than you might want to believe. But despite your being in denial, Star Trek has Conservative values too. Whether you want to see them or not is entirely your choice, but they are there. And I am a Conservative, and Star Trek helped make me that way. Something there for everybody.
            And the gay issue thing, you really haven’t stated anything that I haven’t stated. Yes there were some writers who wanted gay stories. Ira Steven Behr and Ron D. Moore were two of the biggest writers pushing for gay stories. Ron Moore has started it was never going to happen as long as Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were around. They were the two pretty calling the shots and they said no. They said no, because they wanted people to draw their own conclusions, and not only that, but they were smart enough to know that saying anything on such a sensitive topic one way or another would end up offending and pissing people off on both sides. So they chose to leave it alone. And even still they kind of touched on it a little bit. In TNG with “The Outcast” that was intended to be a gay episode. And in Enterprise “Stigma” was also meant to be a gay episode. And let’s face it “Rejoined” was straight up supposed to be a gay episode. The Trill in general were originally supposed to be some kind of metaphor or allegory for transgendered people. So yeah it’s out there. But it was the fact that they put it in there and left it open to interpretation that pissed people off. Which is why I’ve said that the LGBT community will not be satisfied with just a few hints and winks. They want it shoved down everybody’s throats. The evidence is there. If you don’t see it, it’s because you don’t want to see it. The LGBT community pretty much wanted Star Trek to say gay pride rocks and if you disagree than you’re a horrible person. And when it didn’t do that, people got mad about it.

          • T.J.

            Completely agree with everything you said Benji, all it would do is spark an unnecessary debate and therefore, put Trek in a negative light. Not saying having gay stories would per se, but it’s just a very sensitive issue and someone, somewhere, will be offended by something. SO I agree that it’s better to leave it off tv. I love many shows of today, I don’t mind anything rated TV-MA and have no issues with violence or language or anything but that IS NOT Trek, and if Trek were on TV today…I truly believe the networks would try and make it to fit the times, and no care that, that’s not what Trek is all about.

          • Akai Koru

            Actually Libertarian is completely different depending on which side of the pond you are speaking of it from?

          • Kennon Gilson

            Thanks for the item. BTW–For more on what Libertarians are actually
            doing worldwide on these and other topics in every country, please see the
            Libertarian International Organization at

          • Balance of Power

            You’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Your views are completely incongruous with the values at the heart of Star Trek in all its manifestations. There is no escaping this.

            Needless to say I find it comical that someone who goes out of their way to neurotically rant about “the gays” and their homo-erotic agenda has the nerve to complain about name-calling. The word bigot here is descriptive not prescriptive. At least have some integrity and accept who you are. I for one do not shy away from being called a liberal which you use as a pejorative; that’s what I am – and Star Trek was instrumental in shaping my humanist / liberal values.

          • Akai Koru

            Yep Star Trek is about extreme Right Wing thought processes. As opposed to Social commentary by an Atheist. That is why the Federation was entirely based upon war, and the only important thing to those in the federation was material wealth.

          • Fantastic Alice Fox!

            So True! Unfortunately we only had Mirror Mirror for our “Real” conservative Trek the rest is about peace, utopia, interracial harmony. Doggone that Roddenberry wanting to show a universe without hate or bigotry!

          • Krazy Joe

            “Star Trek has always espoused traditional liberal values”

            NOPE NOPE NOPE

            Liberals just assume that.

          • Balance of Power

            The only assumption here is your silly belief that no one will know better. But then your attitude shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering conservatives have spent the last 15+ years revising history to suit their needs, it was only a matter of time before conservatives tried to claim Star Trek for their own.

            Star Trek envisioned a future free of racial, ethnic and social injustice at a time when these issues were still occurring in the world. This alone makes its values left of center.

            Nowadays conservatives claim the mantle of civil rights but it’s pure fantasy, especially considering many continue to push the “states’ rights” canard as an argument against the Civil Rights Act of 64/65.

            In addition, conservatives have always been suspicious of Star Trek’s vision of equality and humanism; I can’t tell how many times over the years I’ve seen many right wingers suggest that Star Trek is actually some form of futuristic space socialism / communism because of its egalitarian ideals. They just can’t wrap their head around a post-scarcity society.

            No my friend, there are no assumptions here.

            Perhaps you believe in the *ideals* of Star Trek, but the politics you belong and the bigotry you’ve expressed are completely and irreconcilably incompatible with those ideals.

          • BlackSheep0ne

            Star Trek’s core philosophy is infinite diversity in infinite combinations. To deny that is to be like every hardcore wingnut limiting God to a fellow hater.

        • Akai Koru

          You should write a book. Then burn it. Then seek professional help for the drugs.

        • Jim Gallagher

          I agree with Benji on this. He has a particular viewpoint, yes… and I see it differs from the liberal side. His commentary about LGBT agenda, although maybe delivered as in-your-face, is one that I have considered in the past. Any disagreement with whatever they deem acceptable at the time is met with wrath. Sorry, I don’t have to listen to anyone – I’m my own person.
          In addition, the idea that ST has some ownership from the liberal side is, IMO, far from the truth. Tolerance, acceptance, peace, humanity aren’t liberal ideals. They’re shared by many out here that don’t identify with a liberal agenda. Finally, for those that want to argue that I am not a ST fan — I don’t have to prove my affinity for ST – what a stupid exercise that would be.

          • Benji Stanley

            Thanks, Jim. And it honestly wasn’t my intention to turn this into a “In your face” I honestly just tried to tell it the way I see it. Now the guy who tried to say that I’m not really a fan, yeah that pissed me off. I am one of the biggest Star Trek fans out there. And like you pointed out, you can follow and agree with Star Trek values, without being a liberal. The thing, I’m not against any groups. I’m not against gays. I’m not against environmentalists or anyone else. I agree with tolerance and acceptance and peace. But there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance, vs. condoning or agreeing with life styles or choices. And by agreeing or condoning, I’m just saying hey I’m not into the gay thing. But gays should still have rights. But gays should not have SPECIAL rights. And that’s been the whole liberal agenda all along, giving gays, blacks, Hispanics, Islamists, whoever, special and better rights than whites, as if being white is somehow a crime. We’ve done a 180 turn around to turn whites into a minority and discriminate against whites. And I guess maybe liberals think that’s poetic justice, maybe? I agree everyone should get equal rights, but not extra or special rights.

      • Dusty Ayres

        He smells of neocon bullcaca and way too much time spent watching Faux Noise, while not bathing, as well.

    • Elmer the fish

      Seriously you need help

      • Benji Stanley

        Have anyone in mind for the job?

        • a lot of hard work and meditation 😉 This helps everyone. Better then medication.

    • Akai Koru

      Lay off the drugs man.

      • Benji Stanley

        Never done drugs a day in my life man. Just not a liberal drone.

        • EricB

          No. You’re a Fox News drone.

          • Benji Stanley

            I don’t just watch Fox News either. I look at the world around me. Just calling it like I see it.

          • Krazy Joe

            Fox News is the only news network that tells the truth!

    • David Stewart

      You are frightening. Your bizarre ranting suggests that you have a few things to work out mentally, emotionally, and likely orientation-wise as well.

      • Benji Stanley


    • Chris

      I do see your point in that TV and movie plots have become
      mindless dribble, centered on CGI and action more than thought provoking ideas.Shows today seem to lend credence to the labels that society has chosen to divide us (conservative v liberal, black v white, strait v gay, this religion v that religion)

      In your post you have called me a sissy “Homo”, saying that because
      you would label me a liberal I would not fight for what I believe in. I never
      expected the kind of generalizations of people coming from a group of people that I held in such high esteem (Star Trek Fans). Your use of the words “they”as if you know what everyone in the LGBT community wants or what our agenda is.I can tell you I have never been to any meetings to discuss our “agenda”. You also make reference that my “life style” is a choice, unless you are a neuroscientist who is about to publish the fact that you have proven the homosexuality is a choice, you have no way of knowing that it is a choice.

      It would be great to set down and debate the messages of each Star Trek episode, and how they apply to life and the time they written for. I think the fallacies in the argument is trying to label it, liberal or conservative, they are ideas that provoke independent thought.

      • Benji Stanley

        Well I never once used the term “sissy homo” just saying. And yeah here lately, the only people liberals fight against are other Americans. They’re all backing down to everyone else. Just not American’s who want to defend their country. Because if you love the United States and you want to fight for it, than in the eyes of liberals, that makes you a terrorist. But the people in the middle east who are part of ISIS cutting people’s heads off every day, they apparently aren’t terrorists and we need to nice to them and understand them. But these American’s just apparently need to shut the hell up…

  • Progressive_Joe

    The face of network television changed forever when American Idol hit the scene and the network execs realized they could make 10x profits off of reality shows. Scripted dramas are dead unless they are CSI or NCIS garbage the public seems to love.

    Star Trek seems like a better fit these days for the Syfy channel or similar. Personally, I’ll wait until it hits Netflix.

  • Maybe they didn’t like his pitch.
    (I’d watch a Titan series, though)

    • Krazy Joe

      They have rejected every pitch.

      Face it, CBS isn’t interested in Star Trek. Paramount is, and they no longer hold the TV rights.

  • morris tallevi

    Star trek is done? The franchise has made 5 billion dollars over the years people still watch the old series I would say that star trek is far from done

    • Papi Peligro

      You are right. Go look at netflix. Name another series where every movie and every franchise version is on Netflix. That’s for a reason. People are watching the show still. Cause it is good TV.

    • Krazy Joe

      It’s 100% done on TV until someone wrestles the TV rights away from CBS.

  • Star Trek’s “final” movie in 2002 was release up against Die Another Day and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. That was a stupid marketing move.

    • Ray Ray

      I agree. Why would u release a new star trek movie with the number trilogy of its time still in its prime. That was totally stupid to do

      • Benji Stanley

        I had never considered this. This is so true. I’m sure nothing stood much of a chance against Lord of the Rings with as popular as it was. Plus I think there was another Harry Potter movie out around that time too as well? Lots of great movies all out at the same time.

    • Devon Sullivan

      Lol “movie”

    • Maybe, but it still was an awful movie.

    • dommyinla

      i knew a lot of trek people at the time as i live and work in hollywood… we read the script a long before production… i was so excited to read it and it was great… everyone though john logan did a great job… however as production went on, everyone realized this was not gonna be as epic as many had hoped. the end result with stuard baird as director and a cheap budget was a really bad movie… competition had little to do with it…

      • Krazy Joe

        I can’t imagine any scenario where that script was good. Nemesis had an awful story.

        • dommyinla

          lol try harder… it was… script to film is not always pretty… i’ll give you an example of one scene… the scene at the beginning where the female senator played by dina meyer places the device that destorys the senate… in the original script it read awesomely… the descriptions were very lush and detailed and it was supposed to be a huge cavernous senate, one that’s been around for generations… and when the senator comes in she’s not noticed and when she places the tiny device on the table no one realizes it… it’s a fairly epic scene as it’s written… jump cut to what was actually filmed… a small room with a bunch of costumed guys looking like they do in the series and she walks in plops down a huge thing then leaves… the tone, the style all changed thanks to bad direction and budget issues… the story itself was a good one that just didn’t work as it was filmed… john logan is such an awesomely good writer and was a big trek fan it’s a shame they couldnt do a better job… and that’s not saying it was the best story ever… i’m sure there were many stories that would have worked but toss in stuard baird and a 60 million budget in which spiner and stewart got like 1/3 of it and you’re looking at most probably another shitty star trek film

    • Papi Peligro

      I’m sorry but that last Star Trek movie when the doors would close the walls would shake. That’s how low budget it was. It was still a good movie. The JJ Abrams thing is old. Kirk needs to get back in the directors chair with the same amount of money you are throwing at these JJ Abrams films.

      • Ron Bo

        Seriously, you think Star Trek V was any good? The basic plot was dumb (oh look, he isn’t really god after all!), Spock’s sudden brother and out of character surrender, tons of money spent on stuff that never made it on to the screen (rockman sequence anyone?). I love Shatner, but he’s an actor, definitely not a director.

        • Krazy Joe

          Star Trek 5 is an excellent movie. People trash it because it’s fashionable to do so, but it never deserved it.

          • Benji Stanley

            I really enjoy Star Trek V too. I really like the character moments between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I don’t understand why people hate it so much.

        • Jonathan Bresnihan

          Star Trek V was one of those movies where almost everybody who watched it (like myself) say to themselves this crap is sooo ridiculously cheesy and unintentionally funny that we actually end up going back to it for laughs and giggles. The Insane Santa Clause with laser eyes at the end was kinda cool though

          • Ron Bo

            Dang it now you’ve made me decide to go back and watch it again. Joooonnnnnn!!!!!!

      • Krazy Joe

        “I’m sorry but that last Star Trek movie … It was still a good movie.”

        No, no it was NOT. Nemesis is an AWFUL movie.

    • Jonathan Bresnihan

      First of all, though The Original Series was my PERSONAL favorite, The Next Generation was a GREAT Television series (I’ve seen them all – Frakes as Riker is my favorite ST character and he’s a GREAT director), probably the BEST out of all of them; unfortunately, however, the TNG put out but 4 movies and 3 of them were absolute CRAP. First Contact directed by Frakes was, and still is, one of the GREATEST ST movies to date and the rest of them stunk. Doesn’t help matters.

  • OphidianJaguar

    I don’t think Frakes knows as much as he might think. Corporate bureaucrats can change their mind in a split second. Star Trek may have been diluted on TV but it belongs on TV. Don’t forget Star Trek did years ago what Marvel is doing now, TV shows and movies at the same time. DS9 & VOY + TNG movies was Star Trek’s high point, but agreed Nemesis and Enterprise were not. Besides Paramount and CBS have an understanding that CBS cannot do a TV until the “3rd” movie is released, then all cards are on the table.

    • Krazy Joe

      CBS is not interested in Star Trek. End of story

  • Elmer the fish

    Shame but star trek is dead for most fans I certainly don’t bother with the films as they are nothing like real star trek

    • MarkL12

      They are JJ Abrams’ demo reel fro Star Wars and should be viewed as such. With that in mind, the 2009 one is actually a lot of fun.

    • dommyinla

      yes the billion dollars in revenue represents no one like you following trek anymore… good observation

      • ImBabu

        Ohh, and the queen from Long Island, masquerading around like a native LA’er, comes to yet another Star Trek comment section to pretend to be an expert on all that is Trek. Give it up, honey!

        • dommyinla

          an anonymous online insult… ha.. original… Leonard would be very sad if he knew so called trek fans acted like you. shame my scared little friend…

    • Krazy Joe

      “I certainly don’t bother with the films as they are nothing like real star trek”

      Star Trek XI was, and most of Star Trek XII was until Kirk’s death ruined the film.

  • Gert Waterink

    Even from a commercial point of view this is stupid. Does CBS know what HBO, Netflix and Amazon are doing? TV series on the whole are “hot” again. Famous Hollywood stars like Kevin Spacey and Matthew McConaughey (“House Of Cards”, “True Detective”) love the format. And then there are the comic book universes. Marvel has THREE TV series now. “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D”, “Agent Carter” and Netflix’ “Daredevil”. DC Comics has got “Gotham”. Does CBS realize this?? Once the Star Trek universe was the biggest universe from a storytelling point of view. Not anymore, if you look to Disney, Marvel and DC Comics.

    The biggest problem IMO is the fact that CBS and Paramount have divided the Movie rights and TV rights of Star Trek too strictly. They need to cooperate again. Because from a marketing/financial point of view THIS IS the moment to create a new Star Trek TV series. Doing nothing makes the trek brand only weaker. And with it the survival of the franchise is at stake.

  • Kyder Dog

    Star Trek is not returning Via Corporate TV but on the internet its seems alive and well

  • Kyle Edgecomb

    Ugh get your head out of the sand CBS, take a note from Doctor Who, they have been around longer then Star Trek and still going with it being clear that we have another 5-10 of the show, hell Doctor Who’s cancellation didnt last as long as Star Treks. The franchises 50th anniversary is next year and alls we are getting is a film? Come on, Doctor Who had several tv specials, one of which became a box office hit, plus a new doctor. Now Star Trek has a film…thats it? Come on make a tv series, if Disney can bring Star Wars back, then why cant CBS bring Star Trek back?

  • Stephen Miller

    I have to agree with Benji. I get tired of every show pushing the gay agenda, and star trek as a show…well, would do just that. It gets so old. Just so old. So more star trek

    • Benji Stanley

      Thanks, Stephen.

    • Andrew Lee

      what’s the gay agenda? world domination? genuinely curious.

      • milojthatch

        Yes, that would be it in simplest terms. Total domination of all thought and action. Communism on steroids. People doing bad things and demanding that there be no criticism/consequence and that everyone agree with them/ look the other way. The end of liberty for the masses. I think that covers it for the most part…

  • Johnny Lamadd

    the pinacle of star trek was for me tos, tng and movies 1-4 (esp 2-4) and ds9 after ds9 star trek went downhill especialy with the mostly terrible tng movies 9 except first contact).voyager was slightly horrid as complaining to get home was against the star trek spirit and enterprise was just shoddy, archer was too angry, the uniforms sucked, lack of wow factor. if anything i was hoping for a series based on the temporal wars timeline with new trek members going back in time and visiting older trek shows/cast members as guest stars. that would have been boss. guess thats not going to happen. i miss having a star trek show to watch, even a shoddy one. as andy grifith might have said shame, shame, shaame, shame shame. :p

  • Pay

    Star Trek was made for and better suited to be on tv than film. Look at all the movies, out of 12 movies maybe 4-5 of them are quality and the rest were mediocre to horrible. I see a lot of people bashing Enterprise which means none of you watched the 4th season when Manny Coto took over and made it incredible. The 4th season of Enterprise is one of the best seasons in all of Star Trek(except for the last episode that basically served as a companion piece to a TNG episode).
    Star Trek has always been one of the most liberal pieces of media ever created, interracial kissing, homosexuality(Riker hooking up with an androgynous alien, Jadzia hooking up with a wife from a previous host, DS9 had several homosexual plot points and instances) promoted diversity and brought current day issues to us in the form of a futuristic setting. Gene Roddenbury’s vision is something that has influenced the last 50 years of media and technology in our all our lives, it shouldnt just be left for dead and re-imaged as a star wars knock off like Bad Robot writing and producing is currently doing to it.

  • Howard Sands

    There’s a very cool reboot of TOS at
    Everything looks exactly as it did in the 60s series. the characters are the same, the uniforms. Its a very faithful reboot. There are three episodes so far. James Doohan’s son plays Scotty.

  • Section 31

    damn theres a lot of republicans here!

    • MarkL12

      Or maybe just people are getting tired of being beaten over the head with one particular viewpoint by their television as if it were universally accepted, when its not.

      • Benji Stanley

        Amen! Some of these fans here claim to be all for diversity, until something differs from their viewpoint, and then you get told you need professional help….how tolerant and accepting is that?lol

        • MarkL12

          Well, in fairness you could have made your point without the lurid wall of text above. But I agree that Star Trek’s quality has always suffered whenever the show runners blindly pander to special interests.

          • Benji Stanley

            That’s fair. I don’t deny that I am conservative. And to clarify, I have known many democrats, and have many democrat friends that while we don’t often see eye to eye politically, democrats or liberal democrats who are just your regular U.S. citizens don’t always think or act the same way as these liberals we’ve elected in congress. But I see a lot of the liberals who are actually in charge do and say some crazy things over the years.

      • milojthatch

        AMEN! Can I shake your hand? On countless Star Trek fan forums I’ve seen Liberal Trekkies amazed at how many Conservatives Trekkies there are. It turns out there are more of us then the other side ever thought and they don’t have the corner on the Star Trek market!

        I have a firm believe in God, see marriage as between man and woman, and I’m a Star Trek fan. It isn’t a “one or the other” kind of thing!

        • MarkL12

          As I mentioned, I’m not a conservative either.

        • cjm69

          It’s baffling because Star Trek has always been, deep at its philosophical core, a a show about profoundly liberal ideals. It’s not impossible for conservatives to be fans of such a thing, but it’s hard to imagine how they grapple with the cognitive dissonance involved.

          (By way of inverting the dynamic, think about the show 24… whether or not you liked it, you have to admit its worldview was fundamentally conservative. For some viewers that caused serious aggravation.)

          As for your own beliefs, there’s nothing inherently political about your (or anyone’s) choice of religious faith, unless you choose to make it so. Your attitude on equal protection of the law for couples who want to get married is another matter, and I suppose you’re perfectly entitled to stand on the wrong side of history if you like, but surely you can see that a fictional universe that’s chock full of *interspecies* romances isn’t going to make a big deal about gender?…

  • Dennis Uhrmacher

    What about Star Trek: Renegades?

    • MarkL12

      Its production values are impressive for a fan film, but it still looks like a sy-fy original. Also “Lexxa Singh?” Really? I want to like it but it just feels like fan fiction in video form. I’m somewhat excited about Axanar.

  • Steve Cramsie

    This article should have been titled, “A Star Trek Series Set in the Original Universe Isn’t Coming Back to TV” — which isn’t even news at all.

  • MarkL12

    A Better Title: “Jonathan Frakes Does Not Believe Star Trek Is Coming Back To TV Based On Feedback He Received From A Failed Series Pitch He Made In The Early 2000’s”

  • imnga

    If Star Trek is done it is only because of poor leadership of CBS and Paramount. The lack of visionary talent in creating and managing TV series is the only reason Star Trek will not be back

    Voyager and Enterprise failed to live up to their promise due to poor leadership in story line development, promotion, belief in the product and scheduling. Does anybody disagree that these series had the potential to be great if they had had a show runner like Gene Roddenberry controlling the development and production?

    • MarkL12

      I agree with everything except the part about Gene Roddemberry. There is this tendency to almost deify him, when really he was a mere mortal with a lot of ideas, some brilliant, most merely entertaining, and some obnoxious. The truth is, Roddemberry created Trek, but Rick Berman saved Trek from Roddemberry’s myopic vision. Its too bad there was no one in turn to save Trek from Berman.

      • milojthatch

        That isn’t fair to Rick Berman. In the years since it has come out that he was never a fan of putting out another Star Trek show after TNG ended and then ultimately after Voyager end. He worried about the franchise being deluded, but it was the studio that wanted more.

        Fans need to stop blaming Rick Berman for Paramount/CBS TV’s bad choices!

        • Benji Stanley

          Yeah this is completely true. Rick Berman told them not to make Enterprise right away. But he was pretty much told, you’ll make it or we’ll find someone who will. And then they blamed him when it failed after he told them up front that it was too soon. He was treated very unfairly by the network and by the fans.

  • Scott Tarrant

    The Stories Star Trek tells belong on TV. Movies do not allow for the character stories or development. DS9 actually did it well with the well crafted story arches. I think the Style of TV today would allow for even better crafted Stories. with most Series having 13 or so episodes a season it allows for tight arches without the “filler” episodes that were needed when most of the Trek Series’ were made.

    • MarkL12

      You are so right about filler episodes. Some are unwatchably bad. I skipped over them without mercy when binge-watching DS9 and got a much better experience for having done so.

  • Lester Anderson

    One major point that I think that Jonathan Frakes may be missing, CBS does not want to do a “Prime Universe” TV show. Every concept that I have heard of has been set in the original universe that Gene Roddenbery created with classic Star Trek, and expanded upon by all the following shows, fan films, and printed book material. The furthest anyone has gone from that universe is the “Mirror” universe first shown in the classic episode “Mirror Mirror”. Every series except Voyager did some episode’s there.
    I personally believe that CBS is looking for someone to pitch a Star Trek tv show in the “JJverse”. They want any new tv show to be able to interact with the movie’s, like how “Admiral Janeway” was able to give Picard orders in the last 2 Next Gen movies, or how “the Doctor”, Voyagers EMH program, was included in the new Enterprise E sickbay. CBS wants a new TV show to be able to do the same thing.

  • Papi Peligro

    Star Trek needs to get out of the past and get into the future. Execs are playing way to safe. Nobody wants to watch them reinvent warp technology etc. Enterprise was good but we are already past that. Lets focus on the future. It sucks CBS owns the rights to the TV series.

  • Michelle Glasscock Torio

    If Duck Dynsty, Sister Wives, and Honey Boo Boo can have a show then dammit Star Trek can make it too. LOL

  • gaykirk

    We need more gay in trek.

    • MarkL12

      Read as much slash fanfiction as you like.

  • Paul Shackell

    star trek should came back to T, V

  • Paul Shackell

    star trek should have old kirk on new starship

  • Paul Shackell

    william shatner play captain kirk and sulu back old cast left

    • MarkL12

      Without Nimoy, whats the point?

  • Melkur

    No CBS, the game’s not over. From hell’s heart, I stab at thee….

  • Mombasa69

    Who really knows for sure? Let’s just hope it isn’t based on the current Star Trek JJ Abrams universe, that was sh*t.

  • feenix219

    Its okay…. Star Trek Continues. 😉

  • JKMas

    Star Trek will return to the small screen in time, but I’d agree that the outlook isn’t good for the immediate term, or likely for a while beyond that. With the re-boot film franchise being a work in progress, they likely don’t want to commit to any path forward at this point for a TV series. It’s worth noting that until 2009, the films had exclusively stemmed from the TV programming, and now that relationship has potentially been turned on its head. It raises the question of whether or not a future TV series would be tied to the new films—there are clear advantages and pitfalls with such an arrangement that will need to be navigated.

    In any case, CBS is probably right to avoid developing another Star Trek property and potentially clashing with the films at the moment. Sure the ownership of TV and film rights are split following the Viacom breakup, but there’s still a vested interest for all parties involved not to damage the value of the brand.

    Also, maybe goes without saying, but if I were a CBS executive and going to bet big by putting Star Trek back on network television, I would not tap Jonathan Frakes to do it. There are probably a lot of reasons beyond the franchise’s current situation to say no to any pitch coming from him, even if they *did* want to do a new series right now.

  • smcase77

    Back in the middle of the last dacade, Battlestar Galactica rebooted a campy original series with a smarter, edgier, darker formula that drew viewers to the SciFi channel. At the time, I thought the blueprint was in place for a Star Trek reboot.

    Then Star Trek 2009 came along and we got Fast and the Furious meets Willy Wonka in the Chocolate Factory.

    I think it’s going to be another 10 years before Star Trek gets a fair shake at a TV reboot. This JJ Abrams mess needs to run its course (one or two more movies). As someone else put it below, most of the networks are stuck on reality TV and NCIS mode these days. CBS is probably not about to gamble on something with a different message than the movies. The right person needs to come along to match Roddenberry’s vision with a re-imagined arc, and I don’t think Jonathan Frakes is it.

    Star Trek will come back to TV, but it is going to be a while.

  • milojthatch

    As a fan of Star Trek from TOS to Enterprise, I’d love to see another show with the same “feel” as the original five live-action shows. The thing is I’m smart enough to know that those eras are never coming back. Even if CBS does green light a new show, with the current state of Hollywood, I doubt I’d care for whatever they came up with. Somehow, I doubt I’d be alone in that feeling. Most likely a new TV show produced with today’s TV sensibilities would turn off as many long time fans as JJ-Trek has.

    The only thing I wish is that maybe for the 50th, CBS green-light one final TV film or mini series and better wrap up the TOS-TNG-DS9-Voyager-Enterprse franchise, because while I enjoyed them more than most fans, I agree that Nemesis and “These are the Voyages…” should not be the last words on the original franchise. Maybe something to do with the Romulan War?

    Past that,I’m good with either moving on or watching quality made fan films. I think the days of canon have passed us. “Canon” moving forward is whatever you personally see as canon. For me, some of these fans films like “Star Trek: Continues” is more canon than anything from JJ-Trek. It just doesn’t matter anymore. After ten years without new Star Trek, I’ve learned to enjoy the past for what it is. I mean in all honestly, with 700+ episodes and ten films, it’s not like original franchise fans are hurting that much. How many other studio franchises can say they have produced that much material? You see my fellow Trekkies, it could be worse. Just think about the poor fans of Firefly and how much screen time their “franchise” got.


    Forget cbs. They’re old school. I wish Jonathan frakes would get this message but he should try pitching it to Netflix if he hasnt already. They already have a wide audience of which I’m a part of. I heard on npr they’re more likely to give something a shot because they don’t need appeal to such a specific audience.

  • Flick

    Frakes isn’t exactly the one who makes these decisions on whether a show is coming back to television or not. CBS may have simply not liked what he was pitching. Maybe they’re looking for someone fresh, away from the Braga and Berman era. And you can’t much blame them.

  • sawadee2000

    There still are many Star Trek themes worthy of a series. How about one based on a group of cadets going through Star Fleet Academy? How about one based on the colonization of a newly terraformed planet? How about one based on The Traveler? How about one based on the Time Corps? How about one based on a kind of Federation CSI group? I know all of you could think of many more ideas.

  • troy

    What is the most missed thing for me about it is. Never knowing where Rodenberry or the writer will take your mind, will they take it to places never imagined before, or to a new idea or concept of like, they take us to the great unknown where imagination runs wild, where we all love to be, and look forward to on a weekly bases. All CBS cares about are profits not people, or they would seek out new life and new civilzations and take us where we all want to go! The are scared the great unknown might hurt their bottom line.

  • Kim ~L.A. West :)

    CBS? Kickstarter fully funded for proves tons of TREK interest!!!

  • Jonathan Bresnihan

    I’m a Star WARS fan first and foremost – and that’s EXACTLY where J.J. Abrams needs to be concentrating his efforts. But I do enjoy my Star Trek (TOS and TNG); I do not, however, see ST coming back to the small any time soon for at least ONE obvious reason: it’s been MORE than 20 years since ST has put out a good television series. Furthermore, the next obvious dilemma, and I don’t know how to phrase it otherwise, was the simple fact that Star Trek Enterprise was straight garbage.

  • Marcie Redford

    Actually, when you have Direct TV, if you have it like I do, you can dvr it. I am watching Star Trek: The Next Generation and I have fallen in love all over again with Data, Riker and Captain Jean Luc Picard.

  • Guy

    Lol yeah right, maybe they were just unimpressed with Frakes proposal.

    Apparently Michael Dorn’s Captain Worf (hopfully a working title lol) is inching its way steadily towards an air date.

  • lolwate

    Star Trek is dead, JJ-Trek is Star Wars wanna-be garbage.


    Star trek the tng was a corny show with predictability but somehow or another it shined better than deep space nice or voyager. I liked the inner light episode and many other concepts like the holodeck,transporter and first contact. It’s all about the writing it’s a tough job to figure out less predictability,but when it comes down to it every show on cbs is predictable like Scorpion and ncis la or whatever.

  • Clinton_Molly_Mollomini

    had to come back and necro this seeing how wrong he turned out to be in the long run