Ben benieuwd waar die post over gaat op de voorpagina.

Star Trek Voyager could return??

Die link is namelijk dood.

Iemand wat meer info?

Nee dat artikel gaat over de mogelijke terugkeer van star trek serie op tv in de vorm van een nieuwe serie.

Waarom de link naar het artikel niet werkt weet ik ook niet.

Hier alsnog het artikel:

Could 'Star Trek' soon return to TV?

It's theoretically possible ... in the same way traveling faster than light is theoretically possible.

Here's rampant speculation followed by tangled reality:

>> Paramount’s twentysomethings-in-Starfleet "Star Trek" movie relaunch is coming in May (see the most recent trailer below).

>> CBS Corp. holds the "Trek" TV rights.

>> CBS also co-owns twentysomethings-in-unhealthy-relationships network the CW, whose forebear UPN aired the last two "Trek" series (“Enterprise” and “Voyager”).

>> The "Trek" revamp is directed by J.J. Abrams, who knows a thing or two about creating hit TV shows (“Lost,” “Fringe”).

If the "Trek" reboot is successful and you look at those above bullet points and you squint ...

Why, you could almost see it, right?

“Gossip Girl” in space!

Plus there’s “Pushing Daisies” creator and returning “Heroes” writer Bryan Fuller. He told IF magazine earlier this month he would like to relaunch Trek as a TV series, following up on similar comments he made to MTV last fall.

"I told my agent and told the people of J.J. Abrams' team I want to create another 'Star Trek' series and have an idea that I’m kicking around," Fuller said. "I would love to return to the spirit of the old series with the colors and attitude. I loved 'Voyager' and 'Deep Space Nine,' but they seem to have lost the ‘60s fun and I would love to take it back to its origin."

The “Trek” franchise was on television in one form or another for an incredible 18 consecutive years, not including the original series. If the new “Trek” movie is a hit (and that's looking like a good bet) executives would presumably feel tempted to revive the TV franchise. And the CW would presumably be tempted to jump on a name-brand property since the network made the biggest ratings splash in its history with the premiere of another revamp -- “90210” (and is now redoing “Melrose Place” in search of a similar bump).

Then there’s all the annoying Ifs, Buts and Howevers.

>> Movies pay off fast. TV pays off slow. If a company can produce hit movies, goes the thinking, why muck around with TV? "Trek" oversaturation was blamed for the franchise’s most recent demise and there would likely be resistance to going warp speed with "Trek" brand again so soon.

>> Paramount and CBS get along like the Hatfields and McCoys (or Spock and McCoy, if you prefer). Though CBS owns the TV rights, Paramount is presumably involved in any Trek-related movement while their movie is at bat. (All parties, by the way, absolutely detest answering questions on this subject, knowing any response they give will spawn headlines and inevitably get them yelled at by somebody).

>> Also there’s Abrams. The CW attempted a similar fanboy-movie-capitalization path last year, trying to make a Batman-verse project called "The Graysons." But “Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan reportedly frowned and made it vanish. When asked if he has veto power over any “Trek” TV project as part of his theatrical deal, Abrams emailed: “I have no veto power, nor the power of invisibility, nor the power to compel my children to eat their breakfast without asking them 50 times." Show of hands -- who's unexpectedly feeling charmed by J.J. Abrams today? Of course, the director's modesty aside, the powers-that-be would presumably be reluctant to launch anything "Trek" anytime soon without the blessing of Abrams, who along with his cast has agreed to be involved with up to two sequels.

>> How would a TV show work in the same new universe with a new theatrical film? It’s easier to make a big screen version of a TV show than vice versa. TV actors leap to do movies, enjoying the chance to get shot with better lighting and say their lines more than twice. But that interest flows one way. The closest a TV Trek project could be to the sensibility of the new "Trek" movie is a spinoff with a mostly different cast, which might be weird.

>> The CW is not UPN. Despite sniffing at the Batman project last year, the network is laser-focused on young women and “Trek” has always skewed hopelessly male. Of course, one could also simply remove CBS' sister network from this discussion altogether since "Trek" would easily have other suitors. Sci Fi Channel executives (who are currently fighting a nagging case of SyFy) would kill their mothers to get an Abrams-produced, newly hip “Trek.”

So what have we learned today?

We learned that asking speculative questions about a “Trek” TV show before the movie comes out tends to annoy PR people. We learned new weekly voyages of the Starship Enterprise are a long shot involving a lot of lawyers. And we learned there’s a general sense is that, inevitably, "Trek" will return to TV, but not likely without several strong-minded ducks getting into a row.

Could 'Star Trek' soon return to TV?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's theoretically possible ... in the same way traveling faster than light is theoretically possible.

Here's rampant speculation followed by tangled reality:

>> Paramount’s twentysomethings-in-Starfleet "Star Trek" movie relaunch is coming in May (see the most recent trailer below).

>> CBS Corp. holds the "Trek" TV rights.

>> CBS also co-owns twentysomethings-in-unhealthy-relationships network the CW, whose forebear UPN aired the last two "Trek" series (“Enterprise” and “Voyager”).

>> The "Trek" revamp is directed by J.J. Abrams, who knows a thing or two about creating hit TV shows (“Lost,” “Fringe”).

If the "Trek" reboot is successful and you look at those above bullet points and you squint ...

Why, you could almost see it, right?

“Gossip Girl” in space!

Plus there’s “Pushing Daisies” creator and returning “Heroes” writer Bryan Fuller. He told IF magazine earlier this month he would like to relaunch Trek as a TV series, following up on similar comments he made to MTV last fall.

"I told my agent and told the people of J.J. Abrams' team I want to create another 'Star Trek' series and have an idea that I’m kicking around," Fuller said. "I would love to return to the spirit of the old series with the colors and attitude. I loved 'Voyager' and 'Deep Space Nine,' but they seem to have lost the ‘60s fun and I would love to take it back to its origin."

The “Trek” franchise was on television in one form or another for an incredible 18 consecutive years, not including the original series. If the new “Trek” movie is a hit (and that's looking like a good bet) executives would presumably feel tempted to revive the TV franchise. And the CW would presumably be tempted to jump on a name-brand property since the network made the biggest ratings splash in its history with the premiere of another revamp -- “90210” (and is now redoing “Melrose Place” in search of a similar bump).

Then there’s all the annoying Ifs, Buts and Howevers.

>> Movies pay off fast. TV pays off slow. If a company can produce hit movies, goes the thinking, why muck around with TV? "Trek" oversaturation was blamed for the franchise’s most recent demise and there would likely be resistance to going warp speed with "Trek" brand again so soon.

>> Paramount and CBS get along like the Hatfields and McCoys (or Spock and McCoy, if you prefer). Though CBS owns the TV rights, Paramount is presumably involved in any Trek-related movement while their movie is at bat. (All parties, by the way, absolutely detest answering questions on this subject, knowing any response they give will spawn headlines and inevitably get them yelled at by somebody).

>> Also there’s Abrams. The CW attempted a similar fanboy-movie-capitalization path last year, trying to make a Batman-verse project called "The Graysons." But “Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan reportedly frowned and made it vanish. When asked if he has veto power over any “Trek” TV project as part of his theatrical deal, Abrams emailed: “I have no veto power, nor the power of invisibility, nor the power to compel my children to eat their breakfast without asking them 50 times." Show of hands -- who's unexpectedly feeling charmed by J.J. Abrams today? Of course, the director's modesty aside, the powers-that-be would presumably be reluctant to launch anything "Trek" anytime soon without the blessing of Abrams, who along with his cast has agreed to be involved with up to two sequels.

>> How would a TV show work in the same new universe with a new theatrical film? It’s easier to make a big screen version of a TV show than vice versa. TV actors leap to do movies, enjoying the chance to get shot with better lighting and say their lines more than twice. But that interest flows one way. The closest a TV Trek project could be to the sensibility of the new "Trek" movie is a spinoff with a mostly different cast, which might be weird.

>> The CW is not UPN. Despite sniffing at the Batman project last year, the network is laser-focused on young women and “Trek” has always skewed hopelessly male. Of course, one could also simply remove CBS' sister network from this discussion altogether since "Trek" would easily have other suitors. Sci Fi Channel executives (who are currently fighting a nagging case of SyFy) would kill their mothers to get an Abrams-produced, newly hip “Trek.”

So what have we learned today?

We learned that asking speculative questions about a “Trek” TV show before the movie comes out tends to annoy PR people. We learned new weekly voyages of the Starship Enterprise are a long shot involving a lot of lawyers. And we learned there’s a general sense is that, inevitably, "Trek" will return to TV, but not likely without several strong-minded ducks getting into a row.

Die would-should-could redenering ziet er goed uit.

Er zijn wel meer 'Als, Maars en Alhoewels' maar het zou best kunnen dat de Star Trek film, die volgende week uitkomt, de producers weer aan het denken zet.
En het reviven van oude series zit inderdaad in de lift.

Well, let's have our fingers and toes crossed

Ik begrijp hieruit dat de Voyager misschien terugkeert?

Das nog eens goed nieuws, was mijn favoriete startrek serie.


Bedankt voor de info>

Groet Harrie.

harrrie:

Ik begrijp hieruit dat de Voyager misschien terugkeert? Das nog eens goed nieuws, was mijn favoriete startrek serie. Bedankt voor de info> Groet Harrie.

Oke, dat is daan ook goed nieuws. Dat er een nieuwe Star Trek komt.

Hebben we ook vrede mee.

Ook dat is niet zeker.

Het is gewoon een cause-effect redenering.

M.a.w. het zou heel plausibel zijn dat de Star Trek franchise een nieuwe serie opstart.
We kunnen enkel hopen dat het die richting uitgaat.

We wachten dan maar gewoon af of er nog iets in de Star Trek stal gebeurd.

Maar, waar rook is....is meestal ook vuur.

Da's helemaal juist.

Hopelijk staat het huis in brand na de Star Trek film die begin April uitkomt.

Nah, zolang het van die dertien in een dozijn afleveringen zijn als bij Voyager en Enterprise mogen ze wat mij betreft de naam Star Trek lekker in de kast laten staan, been there done that. Als er meer diepgang in komt zoals bij DS9 werd gedaan met de Cardassians (Obsidian Order) en de Bajorans (Prophets en Pah Wraiths) en uiteraard de Dominion en Section31, laat dan maar komen. Star Trek leent zich echt wel voor goede verhalen, maar die één-wekelijkse meuk kan me verder gestolen worden, dan liever niet. Trouwens Ron Moore heeft het nog veel te druk om bij zijn oude vlam terug te keren en hem erbij is toch wel een pré.