sf/f TV development news - 2013

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

You're not hearing me over your own preconceptions. The point is, it's not about whether they liked a show, it's about how they defined it. Lots of people back then would have passionately denied that it was all a connected body of work. For decades, people have been claiming that the animated series wasn't "real" Trek, that the movies weren't "real" Trek, that TNG wasn't "real" Trek, that ENT wasn't "real" Trek.

I don't know about the cartoon, but the rest are connected whether people like it or not.

Heck, I see from your profile that you've been on this board since 2003. So I'm surprised you don't remember all the arguments about whether Enterprise was a "real" prequel or an alternate timeline. They weren't that long ago.

I just said that I've been there for all of it.

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Abrams' movies haven't caused Star Trek to "contract" as a story. Someone could come along and do a TV series and completely ignore his parallel universe. All the potential that was there, is still there.

And that's exactly what I'm hoping for.

I wouldn't make that assumption at all, and I'm sure Les Moonves wouldn't. For starters, if space opera is so wildly popular, why has it vanished from TV? That alone makes it hard for Star Trek to get back on the air. Maybe after another space opera series or two has returned and been a solid success, that hesitation might change. The TV business is not very daring, and CBS is less daring than most.

Even the much-maligned Enterprise got millions of viewers, which is enough to make Sciffy happy.

Christopher wrote:

---

I think the characterizations were the movie's strongest point. Abrams is good at keeping the focus on character even during the zap-pow-bang.

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

So even those who think he failed to create a good story should recognize that he still helped the franchise a lot more than he harmed it.

The harm is that Trek is now looked upon as a mindless action franchise, rather than the adult Space Opera it used to be. The chances of getting a new TV series may be higher, but the chances of getting a new TV series aimed at adults is lower. More movies are inevitable, but they will all be the same Asylum-level nonsense as the first.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

I don't know about the cartoon, but the rest are connected whether people like it or not.

And plenty of people would tell you that the Abrams films are also connected whether you like it or not. Other people over the years have rejected earlier incarnations of Trek as absolutely and unwaveringly as you reject the Abramsverse, and just as you dismiss their opinions as wrong, others will dismiss your opinion as wrong. It goes both ways.

You're also missing the point, because I'm not talking about anything as petty as personal likes and dislikes. I'm talking about the distinction between the textual pretense of continuity and the metatextual reality of the distinctions between different creators' interpretations of Star Trek. You're insisting on trying to evaluate things on only one level, that of internal continuity (plus the level of personal like and dislike which is really beside the point here), and I'm trying to point out that that's only one layer of analysis, and is often more a conceit than a reality.

[Temis the Vorta]

Sure SyFy would love to get ENT ratings but CBS wouldn't let them play in that sandbox.

How the franchise is viewed by the TV or movie audience isn't an issue. Most people aren't even thinking about it. If a grown up oriented TV show was made, the movies wouldn't impact it's chances much. What would, is whether the previews made it look appealing to the audience where it was going to air.

People don't obsess about TV show and movies. They just watch what's in front of their face and then forget it. A week after they saw the last Star Trek movie, most people had forgotten about it, because that's normal. What we're going here is abnormal.

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Ah, that's why they kept seeing it. They forgot how bad it was. Now I understand.

Christopher wrote:

---

And plenty of people would tell you that the Abrams films are also connected whether you like it or not. Other people over the years have rejected earlier incarnations of Trek as absolutely and unwaveringly as you reject the Abramsverse, and just as you dismiss their opinions as wrong, others will dismiss your opinion as wrong. It goes both ways.

You're also missing the point, because I'm not talking about anything as petty as personal likes and dislikes. I'm talking about the distinction between the textual pretense of continuity and the metatextual reality of the distinctions between different creators' interpretations of Star Trek. You're insisting on trying to evaluate things on only one level, that of internal continuity (plus the level of personal like and dislike which is really beside the point here), and I'm trying to point out that that's only one layer of analysis, and is often more a conceit than a reality.

I'm not talking about likes and dislikes either; First Contact and the Voyager finale were almost as bad as nuTrek. But the point remains that nuTrek is a reboot. That was the whole point. To start it over and dumb it down. People may wish that some of the other shows were out of continuity, but they're not. nuTrek is. It was designed to be.

[Caliburn24]

Post-apocalyptic shows seems to be all the rage these days, and TNT has decided to take another one to pilot.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/mich...l/#more-301779

EXCLUSIVE: TNT has given a pilot order to The Last Ship, an action drama series executive produced by Michael Bay. The project, originally announced as part of TNT’s development slate in May, is based on the popular novel by William Brinkley. Written by Without A Trace creator Hank Steinberg and Steven Kane (The Closer), The Last Ship centers on the crew of a naval destroyer who, after a global catastrophe decimates the earth’s population, are forced to confront the reality of their new existence in a world where they are among the only survivors. The project hails from Bay’s Platinum Dunes banner. He is executive producing the pilot with his Platinum Dunes partners Brad Fuller and Andrew Form; Steinberg, who serves as showrunner; and Kane. “The book The Last Ship is a gripping page-turner that has all the makings of a terrific television drama, including a great premise, memorable characters, intense situations and heart-racing action,” said TNT’s head of programming Michael Wright. “We look forward to working with Michael Bay and The Last Ship‘s outstanding production team.”

Between TWD, Falling Skies, the upcoming Revolution, and a couple other shows in development I am starting to get a little tired of of the sub-genre, but the navel premise should give it a different flavor than those other shows. Although it seems like it will share certain elements with Last Resort.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

^^ Ah, that's why they kept seeing it. They forgot how bad it was. Now I understand.

Do you bashers really not understand how obnoxious and mean-spirited it is to say things like that? You're not just insulting the movie, you're insulting the taste, judgment, and intelligence of those of us who did like the movie. Is it so impossible for you to admit that your opinion is just an opinion, not a universal truth, and that people of equal intelligence and judgment can simply disagree about the quality of a particular work? I respect your right not to like the film, but you seem to have no respect for anyone's right to enjoy it or find it worthwhile. Star Trek is supposed to be about respecting different points of view, not ridiculing them.

Christopher wrote:

---

I'm not talking about likes and dislikes either; First Contact and the Voyager finale were almost as bad as nuTrek. But the point remains that nuTrek is a reboot. That was the whole point. To start it over and dumb it down. People may wish that some of the other shows were out of continuity, but they're not. nuTrek is. It was designed to be.

That was your point, but it's too narrowly focused to recognize my point, which is that continuity is not the only level of analysis of a fictional work. Any pretense of continuity or discontinuity is just part of the fiction. It's imaginary, not real. Hell, two works that are blatantly in incompatible realities can pretend to share continuity, like having Mulder and Scully appear in The Simpsons. Continuity is not the all-encompassing truth you're treating it as, it's just one more element of the illusion. It's a tool used by storytellers.

What I'm talking about is the differences in interpretation among the storytellers themselves. Even with the pretense of continuity, different Trek series and films represent different points of view, different interpretations of what that continuity is, how it fits together, what belongs to it and what doesn't (e.g. whether the animated series or certain movies should count), what the ground rules of the universe are (e.g. whether it's based in plausible science or wild technobabble), etc. Ultimately it's all filtered through the interpretations of different creative minds, even when they are pretending it all forms a coherent whole.

It's analogous to how different artists draw a comic-book character. It may be meant to be the same person, but that person's appearance can differ wildly. John Romita, Jr.'s Peter Parker looks nothing like Humberto Ramos's wildly cartoony Peter Parker, even though they were working on parallel comics in the same continuity at the same time. Different artistic interpretations produced different results. Or when different actors play the same character, like James Bond or Zefram Cochrane, they bring different interpretations to the role. In-universe it's alleged to be the same uniform entity, but the real-world truth is that different creators bring their own differing interpretations to what they create. Whether they pretend those differing creations fit together or that they're incompatible realities is just part of the conceits of the fiction. Either way, they're still distinct creations on a more fundamental level.

[Temis the Vorta]

Is The Last Ship going to debut in the fall? If it appears later, Last Resort might be cancelled by then. It's got a terrible times lot with too much competition for the male demographic. TNT is a better place for that concept, since they don't demand as high ratings and they could sell the show to the Falling Skies audience. ABC has no compatible series to use to bootstrap a new guy show, since they program heavily for women.

[Jeff O'Connor]

Man, that's a decent enough twist on the genre, but I've never seen anything by Michael Bay I've enjoyed. Still, he's only producing it, so...

[JD]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

^^ Ah, that's why they kept seeing it. They forgot how bad it was. Now I understand.

Or maybe some of us thought it was a really good movie.

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

.
I'm not talking about likes and dislikes either; First Contact and the Voyager finale were almost as bad as nuTrek.

I know a lot of people hate Voyager, but First Contact? Really? For me FC is only behind the Abrams movie and Wrath of Kahn in my Trek movie rankings.

[Sindatur]

RJD, love ya, but, ya should dial it back a bit, you're almost saying those of us who accept and like NuTrek are ignorant plebes who can't even remember we didn't like the Numovie and osmosis makes us watch it again, thinking we'll "enjoy it this time too"

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Or maybe I just made a funny remark that bounced off of Temis's comment. If mine was insulting, then I guess hers was worse, right?

Christopher wrote:

---

Do you bashers really not understand how obnoxious and mean-spirited it is to say things like that? You're not just insulting the movie, you're insulting the taste, judgment, and intelligence of those of us who did like the movie.

Wow. You mean that every time somebody points out that something really popular is really bad they're doing all those terrible things? I guess I'll like everything I see without question from now on so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.

What I'm talking about is the differences in interpretation among the storytellers themselves. Even with the pretense of continuity, different Trek series and films represent different points of view, different interpretations of what that continuity is, how it fits together, what belongs to it and what doesn't (e.g. whether the animated series or certain movies should count), what the ground rules of the universe are (e.g. whether it's based in plausible science or wild technobabble), etc. Ultimately it's all filtered through the interpretations of different creative minds, even when they are pretending it all forms a coherent whole.

Of course. So what? In terms of Trek, all these different creators managed to be mostly consistent throughout the entire run. That's what creators should do when working with an established concept: Remain true to the concept while bringing something new to the table. I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.

JD wrote:

---

I know a lot of people hate Voyager, but First Contact? Really? For me FC is only behind the Abrams movie and Wrath of Kahn in my Trek movie rankings.

The Voyager finale was awful because of the timeline-changing plot-- something incredibly unethical that was treated as heroic. First Contact was decent for the last fifteen minutes or so, but prior to that was just a stupid, mindless zombie movie.

[Sindatur]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

^^ Or maybe I just made a funny remark that bounced off of Temis's comment. If mine was insulting, then I guess hers was worse, right?

That's not the way reads, especially since Temis points out, it's those of us, like on the board who are the exception (IE: We're the ones driving up the numbers by seeing it multiple times) IMHO. The General Audience might see it again, with another group of folks, but, they're not likely to watch it 3 or 4 or 5 times, like many of us

Not liking someone is fine, posting about that is fine, it's when that post comes off as personally offensive it's not fine

[stj]

Admiral Janeway's selfish history-changing plot in Endgame was exchanged for a heroic history-changing attack on the Borg. Genocide of the bad guys is the kind of history changing everyone can get behind. (The Admiral dies for her sins, what more do you want, gang-rape? Captain Janeway, like all of us, has the right to change her future.)

Yes, Fist Contact was a dumb space vampire (not mindless zombie, get the facts right!) movie. It was still the only re-watchable TNG movie.

As to the new Star Trek movie and concerns with continuity, as I recall there some tedious persiflage in the new movie that rationalizes that. Doesn't help the movie a bit. In Star Trek, Spock was the cool character and Kirk/Spock was such a famous friendship it inspired slash. In the new Star Trek movie, Kirk is the cool character and Kirk viciously attacks Spock, which we are supposed to believe is the foundation for a new famous friendship. Plus, Star Trek improved the believability of the setting and premises, while the new movie invents new offenses against plausibility.

Driveling about how narrow continuity has never been part of the Trek phenomenon misses the direct opposition between the two Star Treks. No doubt the completely white, completely non-geeky guy being the cool one is more popular. And no doubt adolescents of all ages feel like friendship is like being accomplices in defying the 'rents and the teachers, so that getting all drippy about each other has nothing to do with it. But as much as you might like the takeaway from the new Star Trek, the only thing it's got to do with the old Star Trek is Leonard Nimoy.

[AviTrek]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Is The Last Ship going to debut in the fall? If it appears later, Last Resort might be cancelled by then. It's got a terrible times lot with too much competition for the male demographic. TNT is a better place for that concept, since they don't demand as high ratings and they could sell the show to the Falling Skies audience. ABC has no compatible series to use to bootstrap a new guy show, since they program heavily for women.

If it's just going to pilot now, I doubt it will debut in the fall. My guess is if it gets picked up, it will either air with Falling Skies next summer or air in Falling Skies timeslot after Falling Skies finishes its run next summer.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

Wow. You mean that every time somebody points out that something really popular is really bad they're doing all those terrible things? I guess I'll like everything I see without question from now on so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.

Come on. It's not about whether you dislike a movie, it's about how you express that dislike and whether it's fair or hurtful.

I don't like The Wrath of Khan much. But I don't constantly hijack every Trek movie thread with mean-spirited, abusive rants about what a horrible movie it was and how only idiots and fools could possibly like it. I strongly dislike the choices Nicholas Meyer made. But I don't impugn his competence, intelligence, or motives just because he happened to make creative choices that don't conform to my personal taste. Criticism does not require hatred, hostility, or abuse. Disagreeing with the choices made by a creator does not require vilifying the creator on a personal level or damning the intelligence or judgment of anyone who liked that creator's choices. Those are the tactics of a bully, not a reasonable critic.

Of course. So what? In terms of Trek, all these different creators managed to be mostly consistent throughout the entire run.

Superficially, yes, but there were still differences in interpretation and nuance. And then there were the massive continuity glitches or retcons that the fans simply choose to ignore in the name of pretending it all fits together, like Khan's followers changing race and getting younger, or Deanna in Insurrection saying she's never kissed a bearded Riker despite doing so multiple times in TNG, or Jonathan Archer commanding a ship named Enterprise despite statements in earlier shows that Kirk's Enterprise was the first. As I keep saying, the pretense of continuity is just part of the fiction. Everything that happens in the franchise is made up, just something we're pretending happened, and sometimes that means pretending that something actually happened differently than we pretended earlier. Which is why you can't dwell too much on "continuity" as some kind of overriding truth.

That's what creators should do when working with an established concept: Remain true to the concept while bringing something new to the table. I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.

If you haven't figured it out yet, you never will. You're just not listening to anything except your own biases and preconceptions, so of course you're not able to understand it even though I've been explaining in detail for what feels like weeks now. So I'm done trying.