![2023: A banner year for Star Trek — here’s why [Op-Ed]](https://treknews.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/star-trek-2023-year-in-review-600x337.jpg)
![[REVIEW] STAR TREK: SHORT TREKS "Children of Mars": All Hands... Battlestations](https://treknews.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/review-star-trek-short-treks-children-of-mars.jpg)
The new Star Trek TV series, set to premier in January 2017, will not star Michael Dorn as “Captain Worf”. Dorn himself, confirmed to the audience at Rhode Island Comic-Con on Saturday that the series will not be the project he pitched to the network. The new series is being developed specifically for CBS All Access, the over-the-top streaming service.
“I can confirm it right now.” Dorn said. “CBS/Paramount is coming out with a television series in 2017 and from what I’ve read, it’s going to be the J.J. Abrams-universe. So, it’s going to be a different timeline and we are not in in.”
Aside from Alex Kurtzman serving as executive producer of the show, I have not been told that the series will be part of the timeline created in Abrams’ Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness. At this early juncture, it may not even be decided.
Dorn was joined on stage in Rhode Island, for the “Faces of Star Trek” panel, by Terry Farrell from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and fellow Star Trek: The Next Generation stars Marina Sirtis and Gates McFadden.
Michael Dorn at Rhode Island Comic-Con (photo: TrekNews.net)
If you’d like to know more about the proposed series, you can read our exclusive interview with Michael Dorn from 2012.
Stay tuned to TrekNews.net for the latest information on the new series.
Follow @TrekNewsnet on Twitter, TrekNews on Instagram and TrekNewsnet on YouTube.
M Taylor
November 8, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Bummer. And here I was hoping to have something to watch again. New timeline? not this Trekkie
Cabo 5150
November 8, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Although it may be set in the alternate reality, the show will probably bear little resemblance to the films thematically.
Personally, I love the Bad Robot movies, but I doubt the new series will follow the modus operandi of those films to any great extent. The show may effectively be something entirely different and fresh, making its timeline/reality of no real consequence.
On that basis, I would recommend at least checking out the pilot with an open mind – judge it on its own merits, it may be something you actually like!
Abarmard
November 9, 2015 at 3:39 pm
If it’s the Kirk, Spok, and Maccoy in their younger days, then you can’t watch with an open mind because we have already seen them young, middle aged, old, and dead. Enough of that stuff. I want to see a new ship, a new captain, and new discoveries from the time that Voyager returned. I want to see what they do with that technology. What happens to the Federation. I don’t want to go back and see the Klingons that have already join the Federation, to be the BIG enemy. Not smart, not exciting, and not star trek…To me anything but forward lacks creativity and vision. Looping over and over with stories that we all already know. I knew that this would happen. I knew that they can’t make a real star trek and it would be some joke with cowboy character Kirk in his youth. Too bad…
Cabo 5150
November 10, 2015 at 8:07 am
Abarmard, with the very greatest respect, we literally don’t *know* anything about the new series. IMHO, the chances of it being Kirk, Spock and McCoy again are low in the extreme.
However, it almost certainly *will* be a new crew, ship, adversary etc. As I stated above, the timeline/reality will probably be practically irrelevant in this respect.
I’m not necessarily directing this at you, but personally, I find it very sad/narrow minded some fans may disregard the new show based purely on a need for it to be a continuation of the “prime universe”.
Back in ’87, as many new Trekkers were beginning to embrace TNG, I clearly remember the protestations of some hardcore TOS fans – using terminology such as “it’s not “real” Star Trek” etc.
IMHO, many of those hitherto fledgling TNG fans have now become firecly protective and myopic about “their” preferred iteration of the franchise, and are using EXACTLY the same lame rethoric to disparage anything outside their play-box.
I hate to say it, but TNG is nearly 30 years old now – and I’m sure it probably looks very “old hat” to many younger people these days. IMHO, those hoping for a continuation of Berman era Trek are being unrealistic.
Surely, it’s best to give the new show a chance and judge it on its own merits? You say you want new stories etc – you’re almost certainly going to get that. To all intents and purposes, the show may tick every box you require reference “vison and creativity” etc – other than being set in the prime timeline.
Abarmard
November 12, 2015 at 3:55 pm
I agree with you. I will definitely give the new star trek a chance, as I did for DS9 and Enterprise, and was nicely surprised. I wish that they keep the concept and move with that. Cheers.
Cabo 5150
November 12, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Cool – I hope it’s good enough for us *both* to enjoy it!!! But, just for right now, it’s amazing to have a new Star Trek series in the works *at all* after so long!
However, if I know the Trek fan base as well as I think, of one thing I am certain, it’s going to instantly polarise said fan base the moment the pilot goes out! 😉
Abarmard
November 13, 2015 at 9:50 am
Again I agree. There are those fans who only look to loop and re-loop the original series style. Then they are those who only search for a more violent star trek: they desire war between the species. There are some small groups who like the Abram’s take and want that to continue. Then they are some other fans, which I fall to that group, who want to see the continuation of Voyager and DS9 timeline, with the new technologies and quadrants to consider and move forward. However, I believe that if the most important ingredients of star trek concept is met, most fans would eventually follow it. Those are:
-Friendship and trust
-Chess-strategy style of thinking for the captain
-charismatic leadership
-Humanistic, peaceful, and superior in thought process based on team work and prime directive’s guidelines. In my opinionJean Luc Picard and Janeway did that the best among the rest.
Let’s see if any or all of those ingredients are present in this new series. And yes, I am very excited and have been waiting for this moment for a long time.
Bob
January 7, 2016 at 2:49 am
You forgot to add this to your list – not having contrived, hyper-convenient things happen just in the nick of time which are so overly unrealistic! Oh, and less technobabble and more proper technical terms, please! Lol.
Bob
January 7, 2016 at 2:45 am
“I find it very sad/narrow minded some fans may disregard the new show based purely on a need for it to be a continuation of the “prime universe”.”
Narrow-minded to not continue on, be more, extend? I think you mean broad-minded; narrow-mindedness is not having the ability to do extra; rather, doing the same old things over and over and over and over and over again.
Cabo 5150
January 7, 2016 at 10:57 am
Umm, no, I really did mean narrow-minded, as in insular, conservative, not willing to try something new. A perfectly legitimate use of the word in the context of my post.
Would you like to comment on the actual topic at hand by the way? Do you have an opinion on it? Or would you prefer to get into a petty “word play” back and forth?
Perhaps we can start posting links to dictionary definitions etc, and begin a lengthy dispute over a single word? Anything to avoid, you know, the actual discussion.
Bob
January 7, 2016 at 3:22 pm
Lol. I was referring to Star Trek, more than obviously. They do the same
thing over and over and over and over again. Stock characters; the same
plot lines; the same interactions; etc. That is narrow-minded because it’s all the same. Wanting a continuation – new things – of the same universe is not narrow-minded because it is wanting more things – broad.
I am not here to discuss your troll attempts about word meaning; I am talking about Star Trek. Of course, you will continue to reply in your same vein.
Cabo 5150
January 7, 2016 at 6:19 pm
Err, it was actually *you* who elected, sporadically, and completely out of the blue, to reply to my post by drivelling on about correct word usage – telling me “what I meant” etc. And you now have the barefaced audacity to accuse *me* of being a troll.
You are a hypocrite, sir.
I have been nothing but polite and civil and to the other posters in this thread. Seemingly, you are unable to extend me the same courtesy – resorting to petty and childish name calling (troll).
Suffice it to say, I disagree entirely with everything you’ve said in your antecedent post, but, you are of course, entitled to your subjective opinion. As I always do, I will respect your viewpoints. I will certainly not hurl abuse at you because they conflict with mine.
I’m quite happy to leave this here, but if you want to extend this unpleasantness, I will continue to defend myself. I won’t make any facile, pre-emptive, presuppositional remarks about you “continuing in the same vein” either, as I don’t believe attempting to discredit someone on comments they haven’t even made is fair or principled.
Bob
January 7, 2016 at 2:43 am
They reason they redo the same things over and over and over – and over – again is because they know fans are sheep and will watch them – and pay to watch them. Oh, and so they can make more money from it. Oh, and because they can’t come up with new ideas.
I have seen Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, and the amount of light glares on the camera – which retard abrams decided was amazing because he can’t do proper VFX – was annoying and distracting from the rest of the clean, white, clinical bright ship. He also “needs” to make it emotional to make the stupid sheep continue to not be able to think for themselves; rather, to be brainwashed and mind-controlled by the media which they pay for.
I haven’t seen idiot abram’s Star Wars yet but I was told there is also the same light glares on the camera lenses and the same emotional rubbish there, as well. He’s an amateur “professional” and reckons he’s amazing.
Of course everyone wants to see what happens next – obviously. I have seen a number of American “comedy” programmes and they are all the same but with a different topic or theme – why can’t they do anything else, new, and original? Because they can’t, and want to milk as much money and ratings as possible.
“Too bad.”
It’s not too bad at all; in fact it’s not bad enough.
Abarmard
January 7, 2016 at 9:11 am
I understand your frustration. Most fans are frustrated. I hope for one of the two things at this point:
1- Star Trek finds its roots and move forward with new ideas
or
2- They don’t completely destroy the Star trek as we have come to know and appreciate.
Bob
January 7, 2016 at 3:28 pm
This clever primitive technology won’t let me edit, so I had to delete it and do it again.
“I understand your frustration. Most fans are frustrated. I hope for one of the two things at this point:
1- Star Trek finds its roots and move forward with new ideas”
Try explaining that to Cabo 5150 above. I said very clearly Star Trek is narrow-minded for having the same things all the time and not having new things; he said it’s narrow-minded of people to want new things. Having new, different things would be broad-minded, whereas Star Trek repeating the same things all the time is narrow-minded. Anyway…
“or
2- They don’t completely destroy the Star trek as we have come to know and appreciate.”
I’m afraid retard abrams has already done that. They don’t care about you. They have money. They are the “elite”, the 1%.
Cabo 5150
January 7, 2016 at 6:42 pm
You just can’t leave it alone, can you?
Now you’ve got to work your petty disagreement with me reference the usage of a single word into a reply with another poster – with some lame “try telling him that” diatribe.
Just move on fella, you got it wrong. It happens to all of us. I’ve already explained my use of that word, and how is was perfectly legitimate in the context of my post.
Let it go.
ZeekDuff
October 18, 2016 at 2:20 pm
Looks to me like both of you would rather see an entirely different show, so why don’t you go buy the DVD collection of Babylon V and knock yourselves out, rather than trash up the Star Trek universe with your trash-talk. You’re both boring, so i won’t read your posts anymore, regardless.
Cabo 5150
October 18, 2016 at 3:51 pm
No, I merely want to see a entertaining Star Trek show – and remain open minded to new possibilities. The crux of my antecedent comments you have seemingly been unable to comprehend.
I found your post to be wholly without merit, failing, as it does, to address any of the issues/arguments relating to the subject at hand. Instead you elected to make uncalled for and rude allegations reference your entirely subjective appraisal of “trash talk”.
The irony is not lost on me here.
It’s a pity you won’t be reading this – because I bore you and you’ve chosen to forgo reading my future posts. You might have learnt something about entering into a civil debate sans the need to throw pointless and blatantly inflammatory remarks that do absolutely nothing to progress the actual discussion.
Corylea
November 9, 2015 at 11:01 am
Dorn admits, later in the article, that he DOESN’T ACTUALLY KNOW whether the new series is in the Abrams universe or not; he’s just speculating.
JC Calhoun
November 9, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Not a fan of the Abrams timeline either.
SisterChristian69
November 8, 2015 at 7:02 pm
Was anyone really so delusional as to think it WOULD be a Worf series?
Brendan Smith
November 8, 2015 at 8:45 pm
Hope it would be? Yes. Think it would be? No.
NursultanTulyakbay
November 8, 2015 at 8:45 pm
I think the new movies are okay. Not as interested in a series though. Much rather see a continuation of the TNG universe say, post Voyager era. That would almost make me sign up for CBS all access.
towergrove
November 8, 2015 at 9:26 pm
“I can confirm it right now.” Dorn said. “CBS/Paramount is coming out
with a television series in 2017 and from what I’ve read, it’s going to
be the J.J. Abrams-universe. So, it’s going to be a different timeline
and we are not in in.”
Aside from Alex Kurtzman serving as executive producer of the show, I
have not been told that the series will be part of the timeline created
in Abrams’ Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness. At this early juncture, it may not even be decided.
So I dont understand is this in the Abrams universe or isnt it?? The first paragraph says yes the second says maybe (??)
Abarmard
November 9, 2015 at 3:43 pm
I have a feeling that it would be the Kirk in the younger days. What a waste of time and money, including fan base on that junk…Create a star trek post Voyager, that would be something. Other than that, useless garbage…I am really tired of all the Kirk remakes. Enough of that…really. It was good then but let’s move forward…
jjjjjjjjjjj1122345352352134
July 8, 2016 at 8:03 am
I hope not! I agree it will be a waste of time and money.
Credo
November 9, 2015 at 9:06 pm
The official Star Trek announcement says it is not related to Star Trek Beyond and that it will feature a whole new set of actors (Unless there is a 3th actor that is going to play Kirk ..) What is Dorn reading then? I really don’t know …. But my excitement is frozen by Q on the Enterprise D if the series will be set in the alternate timeline… Why not just continue in the 25th century and give us the Enterprise-G since we have seen the Enterprise-F in Star Trek Online.
Demode
November 13, 2015 at 1:38 pm
Chances are, the Enterprsie F would not be the same ship used in the game.
Jun
November 9, 2015 at 1:47 am
Disappointed…..I had enough J.J. Abrams-universe already, wasn’t bad but don’t want more of it.
Jon1701
November 9, 2015 at 11:59 am
I love Michael Dorn but I wish he’d leave this alone. Twas never gonna happen
Jack2211
November 9, 2015 at 1:29 pm
It’s like Takei and Excelsior. Or Norma Desmond and Salome.
Jack2211
November 9, 2015 at 1:32 pm
I don’t really understand the dislike of the Abramsverse. It’s a fresh continuity where pretty much anything is possible, storywise (unlike the 29 or so combined seasons of TOS etc.). Basically, it’s like starting TOS again without baggage — there’s a whole universe out there and nothing is predetermined… (might there be a Klingon peace eventually? Not necessarily.)
Boobi
November 9, 2015 at 1:53 pm
There will never be a Worf show (or a Sulu show for that matter)
Demode
November 9, 2015 at 2:15 pm
No. Probably not. But that doesn’t rule out the possibility of the occasional 2-hour made-for-TV movies featuring those characters. A platform like CBS All Access could allow this to happen.
Corylea
November 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm
That’s a good idea!
The Gorn
November 9, 2015 at 2:53 pm
A new series not based on canon, written by the people who brought you Transformers and behind a pay wall. This will suck hard.
Abarmard
November 9, 2015 at 3:44 pm
I have a feeling that you may be right.
Andy
November 9, 2015 at 5:28 pm
I was hoping that the new series would take place after Voyager. Rebooted, slightly grittier and more edgy…
Ctrot
November 9, 2015 at 10:35 pm
If it is JJ Trek count me out, not interested.
Mark Cleary
November 11, 2015 at 11:27 am
New series is called Star Trek Federation.. CBS are filming script, Just after the Romulan war finished “Thats inside info”
ginettanyk
February 6, 2016 at 12:42 pm
This article was from 2011. Star Trek Federation, unlikely.
https://trekmovie.com/2011/04/14/exclusive-the-true-story-behind-the-bryan-singer-pitch-of-star-trek-federation/
Imran
November 12, 2015 at 9:32 am
I hope its a continuation from the star trek voyager universe
Brent
November 12, 2015 at 4:42 pm
Fuck Abramsverse!!!
Willie Jones 3rd
November 15, 2015 at 5:02 pm
it should be about the crew of the enterprise ncc-1701B and their adventures into the unknown as well as revealing those missing and mysterious unknown years of star trek between tos and next generation timeperiods! call the tv series either star trek: the lost era! or STAR TREK;1701B.
zogtheobvious
December 9, 2015 at 6:06 pm
I may watch it if it’s the new timeline, but I’m sure not going to pay for it. I paid for two movies, and, while they’re not as awful as some of their detractors claim, they really aren’t that good either.
SteveQuaid
December 24, 2015 at 7:23 am
I like how TNG was the most popular series and Paramount wants to bury it, and even gives the original series precedence over it.
Jerks.
Jay USN-ET2
February 13, 2016 at 1:09 am
So Bloody Disappointingly Sucky Awful!!!
Sorry J.J Abrams, but your Star Trek universe has no soul compared to the previous Roddenberry universe. Lots of action and special effects, but no redeemable personality!!! Yes, you made lots of money with your weak ripoff of Star-Trek, but your Kirk, Spock and crew are not the same characters. They are 2 dimensional pseudo characters without the charm that made the originals so great. The Next Generation characters with Worf would have been far better choice than your universe.
Guess I won’t be recording or watching this show.
Guy
May 11, 2016 at 4:27 am
LAME!
KB
June 15, 2016 at 12:24 am
They lost me at “not Captain Worf.” Yawn. Giving whatever it is a miss.
jjjjjjjjjjj1122345352352134
July 8, 2016 at 7:50 am
I would happily watch Captain Worf. I don’t like the new time line and the new direction the movies went. I would happily also watch a brand new Star Trek with new crew and in the far far future from either the original or the new timeline. I would love to see new worlds, new aliens and brand new adventures.