Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha

Forum:Star Trek "reboot" treatment from JMS and Bryce Zabel

Wasn't sure where to post this, and I know that it's not exactly MA stuff, but I thought that a number of people would find it interesting. A while back, Bryce Zabel and JMS (from Babylon 5 fame) put together a proposal for a new Star Trek series. Bryce released it on his blog tonight.

It's an interesting read, if nothing else. -- Sulfur 03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


No art for the TNG cartoon was ever published, to my knowledge. OTOH, since promotional art for Captain Chase's show exists, wouldn't some of it be fair use for this article? -- StAkAr Karnak 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a exclusive. They have permission to use these images, and this isn't promotional art, it is test art used in the pitch. Fair use for even one of them would be pretty hard to justify. --Bp 03:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The TNG cartoon supposedly has cel art somewhere... out there, and if that is ever found, I think it would be fair use. I think we should wait to hear about whatever happens to the 2006 animated show before we decide if the "pitch art" could be justified, or at least until someone contacts Rossi and asks.--Tim Thomason 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
if anyone wants any more details or images from the new animated show feel free to contact me--Anthony Pascale 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Zero Room Team have contacted me and told me it is ok for you guys to use the artwork that is on the site--Anthony Pascale 17:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate what Anthony said above:
"I know there was some debate about using artwork from my site...Rossi and his people said it is ok for anyone to use it. If you guys needed the artwork without the watermark that would be fine as well"
That was from an e-mail sent to me by Anthony himself. So, if we want to use the images without the logos, we can. All's good. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek XI

Does Star Trek really fit in this article? It isn't really "undeveloped", it is "in-development". --OuroborosCobra talk 03:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And so is the 2006 cartoon. I think XI can be stated to be "undeveloped" as it hasn't been fully developed yet. It (hopefully) will be, but maybe we should wait until filming begins to remove it.--Tim Thomason 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that neither the new TAS nor STXI fit within this category. All the others are 'abandoned' projects, or 'never to be developed' really. It is true that the new TAS has not recieved a greenlight, but neither has Star Trek XI. It is probably true in Hollywood parlance that Trek XI is 'more in development' than the new TAS, but neither fit with Phase II or other 'dead' projects. It also seems odd for the new TAS to be detailed on this 'category list' page and not given a page of its own like all the other projects --Anthony Pascale 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek XI has received the greenlight. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

as someone who talks to people inside Paramount regularly (and the author to most of the recent articles linked off the memory alpha Trek XI page), I can assure you that Trek XI has not recieved a greenlight. Sorry but I forgot to sign the above comment properly. No film recieves a greenlight until it has a budget. No film has a budget until it has a final script, and the Trek XI script is still not finished, the first draft was only recently handed in. In my video interview with JJ Abrams a month ago he also mentioned how the script was not done at the time. As I reported on a month ago, Paramount considers Trek XI 'as close to greenlit as you can get' but technically it is not. That is just simply the fact.--Anthony Pascale 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Memory Alpha, Mr. Pascale. While I do agree that Trek XI may not fit within the category of "undeveloped Star Trek projects", the inclusion of the new TAS is another matter altogether. Since it has not even been accepted yet by CBS (at last check anyway) and since it does not yet have a title (again, at last check), it was generally agreed here that an individual "Unnamed Project" article for the series would not be a good thing. However, there were also those who wanted the info to be included on the encyclopedia ASAP, so the placement of the information on the undeveloped Trek project page seemed a good compromise. However, one the series gets a title and is officially in development, then the info should definitely be moved to an individual article. :) --From Andoria with Love 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there are a couple of issues here. I guess I just see a huge distinction between something like Phase II and Star Trek XI and dont see why both are listed in the same category of 'undeveloped'. In a way the newTAS is somewhere in between. It is not 'dead' like phase II, but it isn't as likely to happen as Trek XI. But it is still a current project under consideration at CBS. Also, this 'undeveloped' page seems to be more of a 'list' page and so the newTAS doesnt seem to fit here either. But I sense it is some kind of comprimise because of some people's objections to giving it a page like Phase II? I cant say I agree but I am new here. However I do agree that Trek XI certainly does not belong here (unless Paramount puts the brakes on a project that appears to be headed towards pre production in about a month or two)--Anthony Pascale 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... well, we could move info on the animated series to a page like Star Trek projects in development... or something similar. We could also add a brief description of Trek XI there, supplying a link to the Trek XI article itself. Would that be okay? Does anyone have any other suggestions or any opposition to that suggestion? --From Andoria with Love 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Anthony has again requested that the information regarding the new animated series be moved from the undeveloped projects page. are there any further comments regarding my suggestion above? --From Andoria with Love 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it is currently undeveloped... however, it does make sense (since it is being "developed") to have its own page too... perhaps "Unnamed 2006 Animated Series" or something as such? -- Sulfur 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
But it is in development, hence my proposal to move it to an in development page. I think I'm gonna go ahead and move the info either to its own page of to the proposed page above. For the record, as Anthony Pascale reported at the Trek Movie Report, Spike's Star Trek Uniform site has a page for the uniform designs of this series; you can find that here. --From Andoria with Love 14:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Over the years I've seen it claimed a few times that Andromeda started as an idea for a Star Trek show (featuring the U.S.S. Andromeda surviving the fall of the Federation). It was alledgedly pitched in the period between TOS and TMP. (and yes, I know that it's well documented that Andromeda was also inspired by a number of other Roddenberry ideas). I've tried to find a source, but this bg stuff, and especially researching it, is hardly my Forte. I don't supposed anyone knows the story? Would make a great addition. -- Capricorn 04:02, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Worlds that Never Were

I've removed the following, as it has lacked a citation for over a year now. All I've been able to find online is Wikipedia (which doesn't provide a source), and various websites copying Wikipedia.

Worlds That Never Were
  • This was an alternative script for the sequel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, penned by Samuel A. Peeples. It included a (male) character called Doctor Savik which eventually morphed into Saavik. Eventually it was discarded and the earlier idea of the Genesis project further developed.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:38, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't TMP but rather TWOK which this script was developed as an alternative for, but rejected. It is covered in A "Making of TWOK" book by, I believe, Alan Asherman. Sir Rhosis 22:17, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Is it this book - The Making of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? I don't have it, but if you find a reference feel free to return the note with the necessary corrections.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:46, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I don't have a copy either, but read it years ago, thus I could cite the book, but not the page numbers. What is our policy on this? Sir Rhosis 13:37, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
The following references are available for Worlds That Never Were: The Making of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, pp. 47-51 and Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 3, Issue 5, pp. 84-85 -- Sennim (talk) 12:56, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
[Edit:]Upon consideration (and a lot of additional reading), I do agree with Cleanse's decision to remove this from the page, as this version has been a variant (and not really an alternative) of what eventually became Trek II-- Sennim (talk) 03:59, September 2, 2015 (UTC)


Any good info here not already used? [1] --LauraCC (talk) 21:55, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Orci version of Star Trek XIII?

Should this page mention the abandoned Roberto Orci version of what eventually became Star Trek Beyond? I don't think much of anything is known about that script, but it was under development for quite some time before Paramount gave Orci the boot and handed the reins to Justin Lin (who tossed the Orci/J.D. Payne/Patrick McKay script when he came on board). Would it make sense to mention this, even if it's just as a link to Star Trek Beyond#Under Roberto Orci? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 06:00, November 20, 2019 (UTC)