Bryan Fuller Interested In New ‘Star Trek’ TV Series

Published 3 years ago by , Updated July 24th, 2013 at 9:49 am,

Star Trek Enterprise TV Series Bryan Fuller Interested In New Star Trek TV Series

Even though his hands are plenty busy working on the Munsters reboot titled Mockingbird Lane, and now that his plans for the Hannibal television series have revealed an ambitious seven-year storyline, one would think Bryan Fuller would have little time to ponder a new Star Trek television series.

Apparently, that’s not the case.

While speaking with Entertainment Weekly regarding the upcoming NBC series Hannibal, Fuller was asked about his thoughts on a new Star Trek television series and what he had discussed with filmmaker Bryan Singer prior to J.J. Abrams rebooting the franchise with his successful 2009 feature film release.

It seems that since Abrams and Paramount are the current gatekeepers to the Star Trek franchise, any such television series would likely have to be met with their approval, and coincide with the release schedule of any further installments beyond next year’s tentatively titled Star Trek 2.

In his statement, Fuller said:

“Bryan and I are big fans of Trek and have discussed a take on what we would do, and we would love to do it. I don’t think anything is going to happen in any official capacity until after the next movie comes out. And I’m sure it would be wisely under J.J. Abrams’ purview of what happens. He’s the guardian of Trek right now.”

While that may be somewhat disheartening news for fans eager to have Trek back on the small screen, despite Fuller’s hesitance, common sense suggests that Paramount and Abrams certainly see the potential in a new series – provided it’s done right, of course. Given Abrams’ penchant for producing hit television – especially within the sci-fi realm - and Fuller’s past credits on Star Trek: Voyager, along with Pushing Daisies and Heroes, the idea of a Fuller/Singer collaboration with the support of J.J. Abrams sounds like a sure-fire hit.

The question remains, however, whether this proposed Star Trek series would be based directly on the lore established in Abrams’ films, or if it will take its cue from Bryan Singer’s unproduced Star Trek: Federation series?

According to details that emerged last year, Star Trek: Federation would take place in the same continuity as the original shows and films, but in the year 3000. Additional aspects saw the series serve as something of a metaphor for the decline of the Roman Empire, with Starfleet having fallen from scientific prominence seemingly waiting for another Kirk to lead the charge in restoring Starfleet to former glory.

An excerpt from the proposal says it best:

“The Federation hasn’t had a flagship in over two hundred years. They haven’t done anything either scientifically or in terms of exploration that comes near the deeds done in the long ago Age of Expansion.

There is no sense of true unity in the Federation and unity will be required if these new aliens return in force. The people need a symbol to remind them who they are, what they mean to each other and that there are prices to be paid for living in paradise.

They need, in short, a sense of Enterprise…”

That proposal varies a great deal from Abrams’ new, alternate timeline, and seeing as how mainstream audiences and (many) Trek fans took a shine to the reboot, it would seem a trip back to the original timeline might be counterintuitive in terms of the audience’s preference, and certainly, cross-promotion.

Whatever the case, it seems any Star Trek series will be years away from production, so there will be plenty of time to get the storyline straight.


Screen Rant will be sure to update you on any news regarding a new Star Trek television series.

Source: Entertainment Weekly, TrekMovie

TAGS: Star trek
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Hear hear Jim C. There are 2 things that make great Trek great. First is the relationships and tensions between characters, but there cannot be too much tension. Trek crews are family and the tensions are family tensions. No matter what comprises the relationships, in the end they deeply and authentically respect and sacrifice for one another. Second is hope. The very reason why trek is so popular is because it offers a vision that humanity will one day grow out of our current petty political self fetish and come together to work for things that are selflessly noble.
    If any new trek violates these basic principles, it will fail.

    • Then why did Star Trek(2009), and Star Trek: Into Darkness, not fail?

      Please tell me, because I can give examples of why your 2 “things” are not well served in either movie.

      • @IhateAbrams

        First of all I’m a huge Star trek fan and I’m also a huge Adrams fan. Did you know that he begged the studio continuously for nine months so he could get his stories out.
        Seems to me your stuck in the old universe and narrow minded.

        I’ve pointed this out before and I’ll do it again, JJ did not reboot the franchise, it is a sequel-prequel that’s in an alternate universe. Like in the Mirror, Mirror, were the evil Spock posed as a threat.

        You need to get over it, because Adrams Trek is gathering steam. A new TV series is happening, another Trek film has been greenlighted.
        Paramount gave up the franchise because it wasn’t making them any money.
        Adrams wasn’t thinking about the fans of the old, he was thinking of bringing in a larger audience. This is about making money and nothing more.

        Are You a Comic Book fan? DC or Marvel?
        How many times have they remade those two universe’s?
        Did fans love it at first?

        So before you continue your unwanted attacks. Think about these questions.

        • Narrow minded? Stuck in the old universe? Huge Star Trek fan?

          I grew up with Star Trek and every series was GREAT LONG BEFORE Mr. JJ Abrams had anything to do with it. I really don’t mind him taking some artistic license to keep things fresh, but what you are endorsing is throwing away all the shows and history of the Star Trek including that which Gene Roddenbury had a hand in making. And all of it reimagined and reinterpreted by JJ Abrams?!?!? Why? If you’re a fan of those shows? Why would you think that was OK?
          SOME FAN OF STAR TREK YOU ARE SIR!(*much sarcasm*)
          I would appreciate and hope that they, including Abrams, don’t just throw away the long previous history of Star Trek shows and movies and decide to just abandon us older Star Trek fans. It is just NOT necessary. I have been and continue to hope that they tie the two timelines back together in a twist of storyline that dazzles the audience. Failure to do so is like saying the rest of Star Trek isn’t good enough. There is no reason why they can’t still tie them together. Star Trek would be all the better for it, but fracturing the overall story and fan base with a new story that isn’t even like the other Star Treks with actors that are good standins, but cannot replace the originals. I’m sorry Chris Pine is a great actor, but saying his version of Kirk should replace Shatner’s is anti-Star Trek. The same can be said for Leonard Nimoy’s Spock. Gene Roddenberry and the original actors made those characters and they’ll never be done better by someone else and that goes for Picard, Sisko, and the rest. Anyone who says differently just doesn’t have the same love for the characters and Star Trek univers as created by Gene Roddenberry.

      • Because they really didn’t touch any real topics about humanity except how much more someone can achieve when they know someone believes in them and when they believe in themselves and that there is merit in just being yourself.

    • Amen

  2. It’s essentially a reboot because it allows the writers to basically rewrite everything that has already occurred in Star Trek canon, with the exception of Enterprise. That’s about as much a definition of “reboot” as any. As much as I would love something right after Voyager timeline, I don’t think it would work anymore. The hardcode fans will dig it, but that’s not enough to sustain a TV show. I actually wouldn’t mind seeing a reboot of Star Trek TNG in the new JJ timeline – alternate Picard, alternate Data, reimagined Borg, sounds kind of awesome.

    • Worst idea yet.

    • uh yeah man(*takes a hit off the bong) and we’ll like call it Star Walk.

    • I agree about the TNG thing. If they want to re-imagine anything, a slightly altered Picard, etc would be great. Imagine, for yourself, a Data onscreen not fully played by an actor but part cgi, who is awkward. He freezes, his voice is sometimes slightly low frequency and , in his early childish fascination with his surroundings, his sub-concious talks out loud with high speed jabber. In other words, maybe TNG is MORE in need of a re-boot using modern tech.

    • I’m afraid that Nero’s going back in time has not only altered the universe and affected TOS TNG DS9 and VOY but enterprise as well because first the prime universe was altered there is no more Agent Daniels to go back in time to talk to Archer and 2 the enterprise timeline was created by the enterprise E going back in time in first contact so if First Contact did not happen then how is enterprise still in existence.

    • jameseey… Everyone’s entitled to their opinions, but yours is a “been there, done that” scenario.

  3. Well, if a new series is based in the Abrams universe and cross-promotes with these awful reboot movies, I won’t be watching it.

    • So it’s not your kind of music, I understand that. BUT, did you ever actually listen to the lyrics??? It’s right in line with what Enterprise was about how the crew felt about their mission. I for one liked the song and have recently started trying to become a pilot. I will play it on my first solo flight.

    • Spot on with that intro song. Worst intro song in TV history, I have to mute it or skip through on Netflix. They got a lot of complaints about it and tried to change it up a little about half way through the series. Still was bad. I don’t know how the hell that one got the greenlight

      • That song is just a warning; an introduction to years of failure.

        The entire series was garbage. The only episode I managed to sit all the way through, except the “pilot”, was the final episode. Watching old Frakes and Sirtis reprise their roles was harder to look away from than an exploding 5-car pileup.


    • I think Abrams worked on the big screen because it brought in a lot of new fans that were not attached to the old Star Trek. I think small screen should move forward not backward. There is plenty of good ways to do that. I think a TV show will have as many fans of the old Star Treks as of the new. They may leave if they get more alternate timeline. I will. I have seen every Star Trek movie made. Although I did not want a refund after the most recent; I prefer the older ones, and would be grateful to see more of that TV or Theater.

  5. What ther can only be one alternative universe?

  6. I have been a Trek fan for many years. More than I care to remember. The Abrams films are NOT Star Trek, despite what the titles says.
    The films one through to ten, the various series and even the cartoon version is Star Trek. They are all built around Gene Roddenberry dream and vision. This rebooted rubbish isn’t. All the fans of the Abrams films might like to know that his latest offering has been voted the WORST. Yes, even worse than Star Trek Five. So obviously his version of what Star Trek should be is not bringing in the new generation as he had hoped. Funny that.
    It’s also funny that kids today would far sooner watch repeats of the original series than either of the two Abrams offerings.
    Like one poster said, if it’s not broke don’t fix it. Abrams went too far. He tried to change the fundamental basis of what Trek is all about. His first film worked mainly because people were curious, and Star Trek was dead by then. Trouble is having that in the title does not make it a Star Trek film.

  7. Ok ok, first off, we know die-hard fans will never be happy with anything that hasn’t already been published. The studios know this as well, and so the oppinions of these people matter little to a company interested in making money, which of course is all of them. Now to alienate die hard fans out of hand is also not something studios want to do, unless of course you’re talking about Star Trek, because everybody knows the stereotype of unhappy Trekkies parading in uniforms discussing nonsense fiction and fighting with Star Wars fans. Given this, bringing Star Trek to a larger audience is going to be hard on everybody. They have to distance themselves from the stereotypes and make liking Star Trek a thing most people can like with without making girls roll their eyes and walk away. Like Battlestar Galactica. Give us a good show without inventing idiotic problems with fictional devices, and focus on good storytelling. I love Star Trek, up until Data’s cat devolves into a lizard, or the antimatter-trans-field-gravitron-router-thingamajig blows up and everybody has to deal with a sex change for an episode.

  8. Abrams take on Star Trek was a century too late. It was a good re-imagining of the early franchise but the major thing was that is exactly all it was, a re-imagining simply put it failed to deliver the subtle aspects that were Gene’s department. A new series to boot won’t do it justice if it simply follows in suit of the movie, they would be better to follow in the steps of (DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) rather than copy paste. The Trek universe brought something people still come back to. If a new series is to boot lets hope it does contradict Abrams conception. Otherwise its just steamrolling over original ideas rather then bring something new to the table.

  9. Eeeeeeh …. Attention screenrant dot com! CBS owns the rights to any new Star Trek Television series that would be produced. Paramount and Abrams’ permissions would be nice and anyone producing such a series would probably consult with them, but by no means would it be required.

  10. J.J. Abrams ruined Star Trek. Paramount put profit above principle. Gene Roddenberry would be rolling over in his grave (if he was in one). I will never watch anything associated with J. J. Abrams again.

    If they could get Rick Berman and company involved there might be a chance for a quality show that people would watch.

    It’s not supposed to be all action, guns blazing, fighting stuff all the time. It’s supposed to be thought-provoking.

    I would rather see Star Trek given an honorable retirement than to see it brought back and ruined just for money, like in the latest movies.

    • I hope Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave but he probably does not have one cause they chucked the body in the ditch, Gene Roddenberry had a idea of a peaceful future and what some fanatics don’t seem to realise is that people don’t want that crap no more all peace loving crap that TNG was selling no that’s trash DS9 was great cause it was dark and gritty if Gene was alive he would not let them do DS9 he even prevented them from doing Wrath of Khan why do you ask, because it was action packed and Roddenberry did not want that but they did it anyway also Majel Rodenberry tried to get DS9 off the Air saying that this is not what my husband wanted he did not want a series about War Gene Roddenberry was from a different time I am glad that JJ Abrams tok the helm and is injecting the series with action.

  11. What the new Trek movies fail to realize is that people enjoy the original Star Trek because it paints the future as a better place. It gives us hope to believe that we could be better than what we currently are. The new Trek movies reinforce the concept that we are a violent, out of control race on the path of destruction. Although exciting, it lacks the positive future Gene Roddenberry was trying to project. In our current state in the world, we really need a path to show us a better future. We don’t want a future filled with violence and death. As fans, we want and deserve more than that.

  12. The problem with all those ideas so far is that it has the possibility of alienating the hardcore trekkies even further. Alot of them bit the bullet when realising how pointless it would be to boycott JJ-verse. Sure it would of been possible to boycott the new movies, but trekkies knew that Star Trek needed a shot in the arm. So when JJ the trek messiah entered the fray and succeeded by bastardising the canon, many let this slide as long as Trek had a guaranteed future albeit not in the true vision of Gene Roddenberry.

    Now you have a new series being reimagined by Bryan Fuller. The danger is if he tries to go all Flash Gordon on our asses or do some JJ-verse addendum. He might just completely break the model entirely. Yes it may work but it will no longer be trek. His new audience will just be general scifi fans and others who liked watching Lost and Heroes. It wont be hardcore fans. Some might say who cares if hardcores let go. The thing is hardcore fans are what kept the franchise relevant for decades when there was nothing around. So you can’t ignore them.

    I think it would be better not to isolate fans further. Make a series that continues the JJ-verse to keep both camps happy (hardcore and new fans) but with actual movie characters. Sign up John Cho and fulfill the dream of trekkies to witness an Excelsior series. Get your best writers to expand on the spirit of pioneering and the Federation way. As much as I dont mind seeing a year 3000 trek, I can’t really take it seriously if its a completely removed experience from original trek. 3000 trek in a jj-verse means even more historical discrepancies and a complete divorce from prime universe contributions. There are still fans out there that dream of a return to the original timeline, this will just confirm their worst fears.

  13. Enjoyed the New STAR TREK MOVIES —So when is this Franchise going to do a Movie with the ‘VOYAGER ” Crew ???? There are Movies with Most of th Star Trek Crews –Why Not “VOYAGER” ???

    • Why not DS9? I mean… I liked most of it, but I’m not totally sold on the whole Star Child Sisko thing and I’m sure any movie made would involve him being sent back in time to fart which would cause the Big Bang, or some idiotic crap like that… but if they hadn’t botched the ending so badly there could’ve been a movie (sans Vic Fontaine… ugh).

      Hell, why not a new DS9 series with Kira as Station Commander? Bashir and Dax stuck around, Worf isn’t too far away as a liason between the Feds and Klingons, Garak could be some mid-range Cardassian leader trying to usher his people into an era of peace but haunted by his Obsidian Order past habits, and who could forget Grand Nagus Rom?

  14. I am sitting here watching DS9 again. I think a series that picks up with O’brien and Worf. By now they both could be higher in rank with worf being a Captain. Stick with what works and like many have said focus more on the good in humanity and less in the constant gloom doom battle stuff.

    • Jay, you have the right idea. This is the time to create a new StarTrek series that contains a mix of characters from previous series. And, of course, introduces new younger characters to become the next generation for StarTrek… if StarTrek is to survive at all.

      If they wait much longer, the existing characters will be too old, and the whole series will almost certainly become the absurd infantile parody that JJA created, or similar (difficult to imagine it could be worse).

      Such a series could be fabulous. For a long time I thought it was sad that Data couldn’t be in a new series like this, because Data should not age, while the actor most certainly has. However, this is easy to fix… Data could say he modified his appearance to make his long time friends feel comfortable with him, and to better simulate being human as he always sought to achieve.

      If I was creating this series, the main cast would include about 4 or 5 of the existing characters from TNG and DS9 [and voyager if the time frame fits, which I think it does]… plus 4 or 5 new characters.

      In the series premier, I’d start out with 8, 12 or perhaps even ALL the TNG/DS9/VOY characters. But I’d have several/half of them killed off or badly injured in the series premier, leaving only 4 or 5 of them as permanent cast. And, in fact, I think it would be wise to eliminate (loose in deep space somewhere) or kill off one of these old timers every 2 or 3 years (or whenever the actors want to retire to change gigs). Well designed episodes when long-time, greatly-loved characters get lost, killed or badly injured can be great, memorable episodes that make the fictional world seem real, serious, and very dangerous.

      Who would I choose for the old timer characters in such a series? Wow, that’s difficult, because they’re all so great. I’d definitely love to have Data in a new series… perhaps having endless trouble with a new breed of android that are better than Data in many ways, but perhaps not as creative… or perhaps they are “too emotional” or “inappropriately emotional” – so Data ends up in the funny position of ranting against the emotions he wanted to have himself.

      Tuvok might be a good choice… he is still young enough to act for many years in case the series continues for a long time. I’d definitely be happy to include Jordy, and he is still young enough for a long series. Worf would be good. If we can figure out a good justification (and way) to extract Odo from his shape-shifter soup-planet, he’d be a great character to have (though a bit more fantastical than the kind of sci-fi I prefer). But he’s a great character, and part of the real cannon. Oh, I’d love to include the doctor – always good to include another quirky gentically modified super-genius in the crew.

      My favorite character of all for a new series? Without a doubt: Reg Barcklay! He might be the single best character in all of StarTrek (though I won’t argue this because he has a lot of competition).

      I don’t know whether this would work (the character might be too recognizable to sci-fi fans to work optimally), but I’d love to cast Rodney McKay from StargateAtlantis as an engineer in the new series (more or less bringing the same role and personality from that series).

      I’m not sure who should be the new characters. To choose them for a series like this is always very difficult. But I’d definitely want to find actors with exceptional talents that can be featured now and then… especially physical [fighting] talents like the characters in StargateAtlantis (Ronan). When you have young actors with great physical skills available, you can shoot scenes that are just obviously more real and exciting without breaking the FX budget (which by definition will be over-stretched on a series like this).

      I almost wonder whether a bunch of fans, perhaps in concert with the folks at StarTrekPhase2, should design such a series… then float it to the pervs that own the franchise. Maybe someone needs to put this in front of their faces. Not much chance, but more chance than just wishing.

  15. Abrahm’s Trek is nothing but fan fiction turned screenplay. Period.

    Spock making out with Uhura and non-sensical Universe-altering plotlines? Pure pubescent Internet-posted fan fiction.

    Might as well call it 50 Shades of Trek.