"It's about time Star Trek returned to TV" - Matt Littledyke

"A new Trek TV series would be excellent" - David Ryan

"Hell yeah! Bring it on!" - Carl Waring

NBC Universal

Digital Spy's Star Trek fan quotient have spoken and the consensus seems clear - they want Gene Roddenberry's groundbreaking sci-fi franchise back on television.

And they're not alone - Captain Kirk himself, William Shatner, has voiced his support for Trek's return to the small screen, saying: "You get a lot of... CGI effects [in a film], which is the epic movie-making aspect of today. But when you get into the small screen, you need stories - entertaining, interesting, vital stories."

> Star Trek should return to television, says William Shatner

But is The Shat correct? Should Star Trek be back on television? Could the iconic franchise hope to flourish in the current US TV climate? Or is it best left to the multiplexes, to JJ Abrams or whoever steps into the director's chair for the upcoming Star Trek 3?

Join the Week in Geek as we weigh up the pros and cons of a new Trek TV jaunt...

Week in Geek - Batman on TV: Best and worst of the Dark Knight on the small screen

Week in Geek - Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi and why it's good that Steven Moffat lies



WHY STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TELEVISION...

NBC Universal

Alright, so he might be a little biased, but there's a certain amount of truth in what Shatner says - a new Trek television series could allow for more intimate, character-based science-fiction stories.

It's doubtful that you'd see the likes of TNG's 'The Inner Light' or DS9's 'The Visitor' on the big screen, given that Star Trek's transformation into blockbuster cinema requires an epic action sequence every other parsec.

That's not a criticism - Abrams has done a great job of taking a 'dead' franchise and reinventing it as popcorn entertainment. But a TV series could potentially offer a more thoughtful, less frenetic take on Trek.

There'd also be the opportunity to do something truly new and original with Roddenbery's creation - while 2009's Star Trek went to great lengths to establish a new status quo, its 2013 sequel Into Darkness arguably relied too heavily on reheated relics of the past.

Perhaps, with an all-new cast of characters to play with, Bryan Fuller - the man who recently did a bang-up job of reinventing Hannibal Lecter - could be the man to refresh Trek for television?

WHY STAR TREK SHOULD STAY AT THE CINEMA...

Let's face a hard truth - Star Trek disappeared from television because, after a truly admirable run, the franchise had run its course on the small-screen.

Once TNG, DS9 and Voyager had all left our screens, there was an attempt to shift gears with prequel series Enterprise and, while a bold attempt, that show struggled to find its footing and was never wholly successful in doing so.

Ultimately, the rebranded Star Trek: Enterprise - and so Trek on TV as a whole - went out with a whimper and not a bang in misguided 2005 finale 'These Are the Voyages...' and, without JJ Abrams and his movie reboot, who's to say that Star Trek wouldn't have stayed dead?

There's also the question of whether CBS Studios would really get behind a big-budget science-fiction series in the current US TV climate, even one with the Star Trek brand attached.

The appetite for weekly instalments of Star Trek will remain so long as there are Star Trek fans around who still remember that luxury, but perhaps, with the movie franchise flourishing, Star Trek should stay on the big screen, where people are actually willing to spend money on it?

Should Star Trek return to television? Or should it stay at the cinema? Make your voice heard and vote in our poll below:

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io