RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,776
Posts: 5,216,976
Members: 24,216
Currently online: 731
Newest member: momogila

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 7 2013, 01:26 PM   #31
Shaka Zulu
Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Christopher wrote: View Post
Sooner or later, if Trek is to avoid being just an exercise in nostalgia, it'll have to break from all its prior continuity and reinvent itself from the ground up. Keep the characters and their relationships, keep the values and ideals, keep the best ideas but remix them, but start the continuity fresh and weave in ideas that are as cutting-edge by today's standards as TOS was by 1960's standards.
I like what you said here, Chris. Also, I'd shift the focus from the 23rd-24th centuries to the 25th and 26th centuries. Why? To give the Earth time to recover from World War III (if it's a nuclear conflict, it would take that long) or make said conflict a limited nuclear one that devastated Earth due to targeted pulse weapons that exploded in the upper atmosphere above a target, much like what happened in Red Dawn (2011 version), Dark Angel, and GoldenEye. Or, the conflict could be a bacteriological one of a limited but nasty duration similar to what was experienced in the movie version of V For Vendetta. As well, I'd get rid of the Eugenics Wars and the idea that Earth developed interplanetary spacecraft like the DY-100, as you said.

As for aesthetics, Apple Store works for me. Maybe they're getting a product placement fee from Apple.
That doesn't make sense, because there's no actual Apple logo, just an aesthetic that broadly resembles that of their stores.
Actually, the screen that Chekov was using looked a lot like the kinds of screens used on USN ships to display things (at least one of them). It's possible that Apple did in fact make the tech, but it's not acknowledged, just accepted?

But they should cool it with actual Nokia-style branding product placement. That's a jarring tone break.
Unfortunately it's impossible to make a big-budget blockbuster movie these days without the funding that product placement brings. And as product placements go, Nokia wasn't a bad choice. They're a telecommunications company, something that will continue to be relevant in the future; and they're a corporation whose origins stretch back to 1865, nearly a century and a half, so it's not out of the question that they could still be around in 200-plus years. I suppose you could say the same about the Budweiser placement in Uhura's drink order; that brand has existed since 1876.
I liked the product placement, but wished that the car the young Jim Kirk drives off a cliff was a brand new 2009 model and not a 1965 model Corvette-there no way any of those could have survived WWIII. A 2009 Corvette would have, however, enough that the car's an antique in the 2230's.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 04:12 PM   #32
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Also, I'd shift the focus from the 23rd-24th centuries to the 25th and 26th centuries. Why? To give the Earth time to recover from World War III (if it's a nuclear conflict, it would take that long) or make said conflict a limited nuclear one that devastated Earth due to targeted pulse weapons that exploded in the upper atmosphere above a target, much like what happened in Red Dawn (2011 version), Dark Angel, and GoldenEye.
Well, I don't want to get into the specifics of story ideas here, since as a professional I need to avoid such things. But I'll just say that if you really are rebooting the franchise from the ground up, you don't have to accept that its history happened the same way. I mean, the whole idea is to break free of the dated assumptions that the franchise was originally based on. The idea of a nuclear war happening in our future seemed inevitable in the 1960s when TOS was made and the 1980s when TNG was made, but by today's standards it's kind of a dated assumption. An isolated nuclear attack by a rogue state like North Korea is still a possibility, but global-scale nuclear war between rival superpowers feels like the concern of an earlier generation, and a Trek reboot grounded in modern futurism would probably portray the global crisis of the 21st century more in terms of climate change, perhaps economic upheavals and corporate dystopias, maybe conflicts over human enhancement (so the Eugenics Wars would actually be a better fit than the "Post-Atomic Horror"), that sort of thing.


I liked the product placement, but wished that the car the young Jim Kirk drives off a cliff was a brand new 2009 model and not a 1965 model Corvette-there no way any of those could have survived WWIII. A 2009 Corvette would have, however, enough that the car's an antique in the 2230's.
I don't follow your logic. Why would a 2009 Corvette be better able to survive a war than a well-maintained 1965 one? And it's not as if the war would've uniformly damaged every single part of the Earth's surface. Naturally some places would've been devastated and others largely unharmed. Plenty of antique cars and far older antiquities survived WWI and WWII. There are still ancient cathedrals standing in cities that were otherwise largely bombed to rubble in WWII.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 07:34 PM   #33
Shaka Zulu
Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Christopher wrote: View Post
I don't follow your logic. Why would a 2009 Corvette be better able to survive a war than a well-maintained 1965 one? And it's not as if the war would've uniformly damaged every single part of the Earth's surface. Naturally some places would've been devastated and others largely unharmed. Plenty of antique cars and far older antiquities survived WWI and WWII. There are still ancient cathedrals standing in cities that were otherwise largely bombed to rubble in WWII.
A major city is the most likely place to see a 1965 Corvette be kept in a collection and have been targeted by a nuclear missile, is my reasoning. A factory on the outskirts of town that made said Corvettes would most likely be a place that survived said devastation; therefore, a 2009 or 2010 Corvette would have been the best survivor of a nuclear conflict (assuming said war wasn't a MAD conflict.)
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 08:02 PM   #34
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
A major city is the most likely place to see a 1965 Corvette be kept in a collection and have been targeted by a nuclear missile, is my reasoning.
But clearly every major city on the planet wasn't destroyed. San Francisco, for example, still has some recognizable landmarks, as does London in the new movie. And WWIII had to be a limited nuclear exchange or humanity wouldn't have survived it.

Also, I don't agree with your premise. A lot of car collectors are wealthy sorts who live in the suburbs. Not to mention all the classic cars that tour with auto shows all over the place.

A factory on the outskirts of town that made said Corvettes would most likely be a place that survived said devastation; therefore, a 2009 or 2010 Corvette would have been the best survivor of a nuclear conflict (assuming said war wasn't a MAD conflict.)
Why? The war wasn't in 2010. To all indications, it was somewhere around a decade before First Contact, i.e. the 2050s. So a 2009 car would also be an antique at the time.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2013, 09:50 PM   #35
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

All I see in what CBS is doing with TV now is greed and attempting to hang on to an older demographic that's dying off, or in the case of reality TV shows, loosing interest as time passes.
All the broadcast networks are dinosaurs. CBS is just the fattest dinosaur. Eventually the same thing that's hitting the other networks - audiences are gravitating towards content and means of delivery that suits their specific tastes vs the old mass market model - will hit them.

It will just take longer. The question is, will they realize that the time is now to start experimenting with the formats that will carry them into the future? They do have the luxury of time and money. They shouldn't wait till they're in NBC's situation.

But greed is not the problem. If Netflix is inventing the future with shows like House of Cards, they are being motivated by greed as much as anyone or maybe competitiveness is a more accurate way of saying it. It's the Silicon Valley style, they want to win. That's what motivates them to go to work every day. Money is a way of keeping score, but it's the same thing in the end.

Christopher wrote: View Post
As for aesthetics, Apple Store works for me. Maybe they're getting a product placement fee from Apple.
That doesn't make sense, because there's no actual Apple logo, just an aesthetic that broadly resembles that of their stores.
That was a joke.

As for continuity, there's enough wiggle room for a TV series to do whatever they like. There's no solid proof that the Abrams U branched off due to Nero's incursion.

Uhura's line of dialogue proves nothing since she couldn't possibly know what happened. (The line does signal the writers' intent, but that's a fifth wall thing that doesn't need to be canon.) It's possible that both universes existed in parallel since the Big Bang, even if the differences between them were not something characters in either reality would notice. All it would take is one flap of the wings of one butterfly on one worth in the Andromeda Galaxy, and that would make them different.

A TV show doesn't need to announce whether they are in the Prime U or Abrams U. Most of the audience would have no idea it's even an issue.

And the problem with product placement is when they choose brands that don't make the best sense even if we assume capitalism survives into Kirk's day. I thought Star Trek was supposed to be some kind of future paradise. That's incompatible with the continuing existence of beer-flavored water. As for Nokia, considering the trouble they've had, I wouldn't place bets on them making it to the 23rd C.

Last edited by Temis the Vorta; April 7 2013 at 10:07 PM.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 12:02 AM   #36
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Why would Netflix or CBS go with Star Trek if it a proven loser on tv? If I were Netflix, I wouldn't go with Star Trek being done by some but something just as good done by someone else who believes in what he's doing. A track record doesn't mean anything in this case. It winds up as well written crap again like most of the novels are. Political clout trumps artistic ability every time. We finally got rid of Berman, so anything is gonna seem good in comparison especially TOS on the big screen but the movie is gonna suck just like the last one less you like 'splosions and sex scenes for Joe six pack.

If I was CBS or the sci-fi channel I would go with another space opera that was similar to TOS but with another unique and original premise than something meant just for space cases and geeks and freaks or as Yvonne Fern put it, 'The media salvation for the internally inept.' Sci-fi keeps saying their looking for the next great space opera but the $1000 dollar suits are not doing anything about it when the could esaily ride Trek's '09's success directly to the bank with something else and not being under GR's shadow anymore. I think they're trying the next great time travel opera first to see how that goes which is what Netflix should do with space opera. Test out a few sci-fi feature pilots to see how they do and if they should go to series or not, but not Star Trek and definately not Enterprise. I'd rather see them do a series based on 2001 : A Space Odessy : The Search For David Bowman or any classic sci-fi novel that is due to get made and possibly go to series even another mini Dune. The last one sucked.

There's plenty of famous novels or remakes that could go to series potentially, but the guy in the $1000 suit at sly-fi is too lazy to do anything other than pick the same three or four ideas out of a hat from the same three or four writers and do that. He said so himself in an interview. Heck, the janitors working on Enterprise were wearing $1000 suits and fans have proven that they could do it all much better with no money. It's sad that the nature of power has to be so corrupt and greedy and political especially now since Star Trek is in competition with itself on free tv.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 07:24 AM   #37
Shaka Zulu
Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Christopher wrote: View Post
Why? The war wasn't in 2010. To all indications, it was somewhere around a decade before First Contact, i.e. the 2050s. So a 2009 car would also be an antique at the time.
But it would be an antique that the Kirks would have truly come into contact with, as opposed to a 1965 Corvette. I think that Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman used a '65 'Vette just because it was more iconic than a 2009 'Vette.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 07:28 AM   #38
Shaka Zulu
Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

xortex wrote: View Post
as Yvonne Fern put it, 'The media salvation for the internally inept.'
This being the same Yvonne Fern that gushed over GR in a book, but is now dissing the genre that he worked in. Yeah, I'll listen to her about this.

I'd rather be 'internally inept' than be tragically hip; at least, the TV shows are better and smarter than what the tragically hip think are cool and amazing (The Amazing Race? Big Brother? Survivor? This is all that CBS can put on the air that's a success? If I were running that company, the crime shows would be gone-the CSI shows &NCIS would be gone, the rest would stay until they finish their runs) and the reality shows would be completely eliminated. A mix of great sitcoms & drama similar to what was on CBS in the '70's and '80's would be what comprises the new schedule, followed by a new Star Trek show (on Monday night and in a good time slot for a change) with the crime shows relegated to other time slots that are just as good but that wouldn't crowd out or disadvantage the new Star Trek show (if Star Trek is such a legacy for CBS, then the suits in charge can fracking well treat it like one) and the other sci-fi shows would also be put on in advantageous positions so they wouldn't get low ratings and be canceled. Variety specials, retrospective specials (like the Carol Burnett one that garnered a ton of high ratings for the week it was on) and other similar shows would fill out the schedule, followed by a revived Saturday morning block with a Star Trek show as the most prominent part of it (again, if it's such a legacy...)

That's the way to run a network, and the idiots who run CBS/The CW/CBS Studios have forgotten that, obsessed as they are with the almighty buck. Maybe something like what I've proposed will bring the viewers back.

Last edited by Shaka Zulu; April 8 2013 at 08:10 AM.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2013, 02:58 PM   #39
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
Why? The war wasn't in 2010. To all indications, it was somewhere around a decade before First Contact, i.e. the 2050s. So a 2009 car would also be an antique at the time.
But it would be an antique that the Kirks would have truly come into contact with, as opposed to a 1965 Corvette.
What????? Why? The war was in the 2050s. George Kirk obtained the car sometime prior to the 2230s. What is your reason for thinking that George would be more likely to come into contact with an automobile from four decades before the war and 220ish years before his own era than with an automobile from nine decades before the war and 270ish years before his own era? They'd both be prewar cars, they'd both have equal chances of surviving a nuclear war, and they'd both be very, very, very old by the time of the movie. So what is the difference?

I think that Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman used a '65 'Vette just because it was more iconic than a 2009 'Vette.
And isn't that exactly why the '65 would be more likely to survive to the 23rd century? If it's more iconic, then there would be more interest in acquiring, restoring, and preserving antiques of that model.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 03:17 AM   #40
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Why would Netflix or CBS go with Star Trek if it a proven loser on tv?
How may IP brands can become the basis for a top ten box office hit movie? Especially if the one this summer is another top ten hit. There aren't many solid, evergreen brands like Star Trek around. Even lesser brands like Ironside and Charlie's Angels keep getting resurrected.

The main problem is how to make the best use of it on TV, considering that TV has become hostile territory to space opera and the TV business itself is in turmoil (which may represent more of an opportunity than a threat.)

If I were Netflix, I wouldn't go with Star Trek being done by some but something just as good done by someone else who believes in what he's doing.
The reason Netflix or Amazon would want Star Trek is that it's one of the very few brands that can elicit this reaction in potentially millions of people: "Netflix is getting X? Holy shit! I gotta become a Netflix subscriber." Joe Blow Space Opera isn't going to do that, no matter how much he believes in what he's doing.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9 2013, 08:10 PM   #41
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Speaking of Star Trek, Paramount and Viacom should read the riot act to CBS Corporation/CBS Studios/CBS/The CW and make it clear that if they don't do something with the franchise, legal action and something else will be undertaken to force them to make a Star Trek TV show, or to get them to drop the franchise and let Paramount Pictures get it back in order to make a TV show by itself as Paramount TV.
One of the silliest things I've ever read on these boards. CBS owns Trek, Paramount has absolutely no say-so legal or otherwise over Trek. CBS could do a revival of TNG with Ed O'Neill as Picard and Matthew Perry as Riker and Paramount can't do jack-shit about it.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10 2013, 05:36 PM   #42
hyzmarca
Fleet Captain
 
hyzmarca's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

xortex wrote: View Post
Why would Netflix or CBS go with Star Trek if it a proven loser on tv?
With the exception of Enterprise and the original run of TOS, Trek had consistently good ratings. TNG did awesome in syndication, and DS9, too. Voyager was UPN's highest rated series.

Heck, even TOS reruns do pretty well in ratings.

Trek on first-run TV has two loses, three wins. TNG era Trek was popular enough to spawn three spinoffs, which is a record for anything not All in the Family.
hyzmarca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10 2013, 06:32 PM   #43
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

hyzmarca wrote: View Post
TNG era Trek was popular enough to spawn three spinoffs, which is a record for anything not All in the Family.
What about The Mary Tyler Moore Show? It spun off Rhoda, Phyllis, and Lou Grant. Then there's Happy Days -- itself a spinoff of sorts from Love, American Style -- which in turn spun off Laverne and Shirley, Joanie Loves Chachi, Blansky's Beauties (debatably), Mork and Mindy, and Out of the Blue (the last two in a backdoor-pilot kind of way). And of course there's Law and Order, which spun off L&O: Special Victims Unit, L&O: Criminal Intent, L&O: Trial by Jury, Conviction, L&O: Los Angeles, and arguably L&O: UK (though that's more a remake than a spinoff).

Maybe you could also make a case for Sanford and Son, which had two short-lived spinoffs (Grady and The Sanford Arms) and a short-lived revival/sequel (Sanford) -- and was in turn a remake of the British Steptoe and Son. And The Brady Bunch spawned the variety show The Brady Hour, the animated series The Brady Kids, and the revivals The Brady Brides and The Bradys. And Beverly Hills 90210 spun off Melrose Place which spun off Models, Inc. in turn, and was revived as 90210.

Ooh, and Knight Rider has had a backdoor-pilot revival movie (Knight Rider 2000), a loose reimagining pilot movie (Knight Rider 2010), and two sequel series (Team Knight Rider and Knight Rider), none of which are in continuity with each other.

In animation, you've got Batman: The Animated Series spinning off 5-6 other series and four movies in the DC Animated Universe, depending on whether you count Justice League and Justice League Unlimited as separate shows.

And of course in the UK you've got Doctor Who, which has spawned the failed K9 and Company pilot, the revival Doctor Who series, Torchwood, and The Sarah Jane Adventures, as well as an extracanonical Australian spinoff series K9.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog

Last edited by Christopher; April 10 2013 at 06:44 PM.
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 10 2013, 08:30 PM   #44
Shaka Zulu
Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

BillJ wrote: View Post
Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Speaking of Star Trek, Paramount and Viacom should read the riot act to CBS Corporation/CBS Studios/CBS/The CW and make it clear that if they don't do something with the franchise, legal action and something else will be undertaken to force them to make a Star Trek TV show, or to get them to drop the franchise and let Paramount Pictures get it back in order to make a TV show by itself as Paramount TV.
One of the silliest things I've ever read on these boards. CBS owns Trek, Paramount has absolutely no say-so legal or otherwise over Trek. CBS could do a revival of TNG with Ed O'Neill as Picard and Matthew Perry as Riker and Paramount can't do jack-shit about it.
Call it what you will, I'm just tired of CBS having control over Star Trek and not doing anything with it other than license it out to Paramount for movies, while limiting it's ability to be on TV and not letting a show be made. As a wise old saying goes, CBS should shit or get off off the pot. If Paramount potentially can/wants do a TV series with the franchise and is willing to do so as the cornerstone for a new TV division, then they should be able to do so without CBS holding on to it for dear life like some kind of cosmic ATM used only to get extra cash from licensing.

hyzmarca wrote: View Post
xortex wrote: View Post
Why would Netflix or CBS go with Star Trek if it a proven loser on tv?
With the exception of Enterprise and the original run of TOS, Trek had consistently good ratings. TNG did awesome in syndication, and DS9, too. Voyager was UPN's highest rated series.

Heck, even TOS reruns do pretty well in ratings.

Trek on first-run TV has two loses, three wins. TNG era Trek was popular enough to spawn three spin-offs, which is a record for anything not All in the Family.
A better reason for there to have a new Star Trek show on TV again, I've not heard.

Also, Star Trek can be on network TV again; it just needs a network willing to air it fully and to resist the cynical siren call of profit in order to make it a success. After all, Hawaii Five-O's a success now on CBS, why not a new Star Trek show?

Last edited by Shaka Zulu; April 10 2013 at 08:31 PM. Reason: Spelling correction
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10 2013, 08:35 PM   #45
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount's Brad Grey Wants to Build a TV Studio

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Call it what you will, I'm just tired of CBS having control over Star Trek and not doing anything with it other than license it out to Paramount for movies, while limiting it's ability to be on TV and not letting a show be made.
We survived without a Trek series on the air between 1974 and 1987. It's only been eight years since the last series ended.

And if you want more Trek fiction than what's on the movie screen, there are active, ongoing novel and comic series out there.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.