Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[The Habs Fan]

Comparing the movies to this new tv series is ridiculous. How many of the TNG movies are as good as the series? In my opinion, just first contact matches the quality of TNG the series. Movies require a different approach and aim for a different audience than a television show.

 

[AggieJohn]

This is unexpected good news. Star Trek is a show. I am glad to see it coming back to TV.

SO read this whole forum. Some things to consider, I like the idea of this being in the new universe. Look you set it in the 25th Century you run the risk of it being too far forward to be relate-able. I mean look at the difference between the 16-21 centuries. That is a lot of tech change. the 23rd is in our near future. They would remember us and this time as relative to their history. Not a lot of talk of the Hapsburg dynasty any more now.

Now to criticism of JJ's Trek. Ok guys I am an old fan and I have to say is relax. A few are really harsh on JJ and its not fair. I fear we look back on old trek only remembering the good times. The TOS and TNG had its share of crap too. You make a show that lasts years, your going to make a few fails.

Try to remember the last few Star Trek Movies prior to JJ. You really going to say that Nemesis was a deep thought provoking movie? The Final Frontier??? Insurrection??? Even First Contact was a Best of both worlds clone. Star Trek is amazing there is a LOT of great stuff but nothing is perfect and JJ's world is new. This is a chance to flesh it out like before. I hope that people give it a fair chance.

Now my concern is overall plot. Star Trek Enterprise has a great premise. Early years of Starfleet. It just failed in execution at times. There were some cool episodes but it failed to tell a great long term story. One wonders had they set a course towards conflict with the Romulans and the formation of the Federation sooner in the show's development what might have happened.

 

[Squiggy]

When you look at what the Marvel movies make, some of them with considerably smaller budgets (Ant Man, budget of $130m, taken nearly $514m global), JJ Trek's takings as a ratio of budget have been small fry. Avengers Age of Ultron cost $250m and has taken over $1.4bn. I'll be surprised if Star Trek Beyond comes in much under $200m, and what's it likely to take? Probably no more $450m.

But Star Trek simply has never been in that league. Anyone expecting those numbers from a Trek movie is delusional.

What do you mean, not it that league?

How can people say this?

Marvel Comics were something that didn't seriously exist outside of paper, once upon a time, then didn't exist outside of cartoons, and now, they are the most successful cinema franchise of all time.

And people are telling me that Star Trek, a show which featured guest appearances by Professor Stephen Hawking (for god sake), and inspired astronauts, and which has a massive cultural presence, can't have a blockbuster movie on the same level as Marvel?

I have some doubts about this line of argument.

Newsflash: Steven Hawking isn't going to bring you a billion dollar movie.

You know what is a billion dollar movie? Two hours of superpowers and explosions. That shit sells.

 

[BillJ]

When you look at what the Marvel movies make, some of them with considerably smaller budgets (Ant Man, budget of $130m, taken nearly $514m global), JJ Trek's takings as a ratio of budget have been small fry. Avengers Age of Ultron cost $250m and has taken over $1.4bn. I'll be surprised if Star Trek Beyond comes in much under $200m, and what's it likely to take? Probably no more $450m.

But Star Trek simply has never been in that league. Anyone expecting those numbers from a Trek movie is delusional.

What do you mean, not it that league?

How can people say this?

Marvel Comics were something that didn't seriously exist outside of paper, once upon a time, then didn't exist outside of cartoons, and now, they are the most successful cinema franchise of all time.

And people are telling me that Star Trek, a show which featured guest appearances by Professor Stephen Hawking (for god sake), and inspired astronauts, and which has a massive cultural presence, can't have a blockbuster movie on the same level as Marvel?

I have some doubts about this line of argument.

Can you name a Star Trek movie, made by anyone, that has performed as well as the Marvel films?

 

[Corran Horn]

Exclusive to streaming makes me think the budget for this series will be not too much. Could be wrong.

I thought subscription series tended to benefit from higher budgets than network TV?

They do. Better production values too.

That might work for subscription-level things like Game of Thrones on HBO, yes.

But when I look at things like Longmire or Daredevil my thinking isn't that they went streaming because there's more money for budgets or because they had a choice - my thinking is that without the streaming options those shows might not exist.

Meaning, if they were so successful (or projected to be so successful) they would not need to be streaming - they'd be on broadcast TV (or HBO).

 

[BillJ]

You know what is a billion dollar movie? Two hours of superpowers and explosions. That shit sells.

+1

At the end of the day, you have to make a movie people like.

 

[Squiggy]

Comparing the movies to this new tv series is ridiculous. How many of the TNG movies are as good as the series? In my opinion, just first contact matches the quality of TNG the series. Movies require a different approach and aim for a different audience than a television show.

Agreed. People complaining about the "lack of science" in the movie fail to understand that these are essentially action movies. You can't break the flow to explain the adverse mechanics of inverted neutrino matrixes.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

If someone could work that into a summer blockbuster AND still make it a summer blockbuster then they'd be crazy rich because they just invented a new genera of film.

Also, most of the science in Trek has been total, unadulterated, horse-shit. It's all magic with sciency-sounding names.

 

[BillJ]

Meaning, if they were so successful (or projected to be so successful) they would not need to be streaming - they'd be on broadcast TV (or HBO).

How is streaming different from HBO? Both are subscription services. The reason it isn't on HBO, is because Netflix has a relationship with Disney.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Good science?

Okay - this needs addressing once and for all, because I knew people would bring it up as soon as I mentioned it.

People who deride Star Trek for it's scientific accuracy are not watching the same show I remember. It was never hard-sci-fi. It was never a physics paper. But what I do remember is, discounting odd things like The Naked Time, Star Trek always tried to present something relatively respectful of science and engineering, and not just blatantly Doctor-Who esque. It wasn't always consistent, but I remember Spock giving quite good exposition at times, using scientific principles, I also remember a lot of rigor in subsequent shows.

Is this really laughable? When I compare it to some shows, it inspired people to think critically, and made a big deal out of how problems have engineering solutions.

 

[CoveTom]

Some initial thoughts after reading the press release and (most of) this thread:

1. I am excited that there will be more new Trek! Period.

2. I am thrilled that Trek is (sort of) coming back to TV. I've always said that while I like the feature films, Trek works best as a series. And I think that, creatively, TV is where most of the interesting things have happened for some time now.

3. I am disappointed that CBS has chosen to make it an online-only product for the United States and, even moreso, that they've chosen CBS All Access as the platform. I get that they want to drive people to their streaming service. But to me, it feels like "we're not really confident Trek can draw a big audience, so we're not putting it with the A-list shows on our major network." I feel like Trek deserves better than to be relegated to CBS All Access.

4. I feel pretty certain that this show will be set in the Abrams universe but not directly connected to the films. I can't imagine them going back to the Prime universe. That horribly disappoints me, but it is what it is. However, my biggest fear is that I have no faith in modern Hollywood to deliver something that is intelligent, thought provoking, *and* entertaining without always relying on big explosions and lots of sex. I want to hope that this new Trek series will be the exception to that, but I fear that it won't.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

But Star Trek simply has never been in that league. Anyone expecting those numbers from a Trek movie is delusional.

What do you mean, not it that league?

How can people say this?

Marvel Comics were something that didn't seriously exist outside of paper, once upon a time, then didn't exist outside of cartoons, and now, they are the most successful cinema franchise of all time.

And people are telling me that Star Trek, a show which featured guest appearances by Professor Stephen Hawking (for god sake), and inspired astronauts, and which has a massive cultural presence, can't have a blockbuster movie on the same level as Marvel?

I have some doubts about this line of argument.

Can you name a Star Trek movie, made by anyone, that has performed as well as the Marvel films?

You miss my point - there hasnt been one YET.

Doesn't mean there won't be. Just means so far, they haven't been up to that standard.

But I take it you believe our beloved franchise just doesn't have the capacity, period?

 

[Samurai8472]

Newsflash: Steven Hawking isn't going to bring you a billion dollar movie.

You know what is a billion dollar movie? Two hours of superpowers and explosions. That shit sells.

No. It will however earn you some Oscars

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm torn on the fact that it's not related to the new films, they've gone to all this trouble to make all the new concepts that it seems a shame to not utilize them, but it will also be good to get back to the Prime universe. I'm hoping for another 100 year jump past the TNG era for new stories.

I haven't seen anything stating they are going back to the Prime universe?

The official notice has this comment:

The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.

I seriously doubt they would make a *third* universe for this new series.
\]

Why not? It's not like the new SUPERGIRL tv series is set in the same universe as MAN OF STEEL, or SMALLVILLE, or LOIS & CLARK, or THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN . . ..

Bill J is right. Nowhere does that press release say that they're returning the Prime Universe, and we certainly can't jump to that assumption.

 

[BillJ]

Good science?

Okay - this needs addressing once and for all, because I knew people would bring it up as soon as I mentioned it.

People who deride Star Trek for it's scientific accuracy are not watching the same show I remember. It was never hard-sci-fi. It was never a physics paper. But what I do remember is, discounting odd things like The Naked Time, Star Trek always tried to present something relatively respectful of science and engineering, and not just blatantly Doctor-Who esque. It wasn't always consistent, but I remember Spock giving quite good exposition at times, using scientific principles, I also remember a lot of rigor in subsequent shows.

Is this really laughable? When I compare it to some shows, it inspired people to think critically, and made a big deal out of how problems have engineering solutions.

It really is silly.

"The Naked Time" is one of my favorite episodes, but it is full of non-sense. From the water turning into complex molecules, that they couldn't recognize. To the water being able to move across to Tormolen of its own volition, to PSI 2000 surviving after its sun went nova.

Star Trek gave me a love of sci-fi. But it is incredibly lightweight, full of inaccuracies and just plain silliness much of the time.

 

[Squiggy]

Newsflash: Steven Hawking isn't going to bring you a billion dollar movie.

You know what is a billion dollar movie? Two hours of superpowers and explosions. That shit sells.

No. It will however earn you some Oscars

To be fair, that movie was pure Oscar-bait.

 

[Philip Guyott]

https://youtu.be/7sInYju_-xI

 

[Corran Horn]

Meaning, if they were so successful (or projected to be so successful) they would not need to be streaming - they'd be on broadcast TV (or HBO).

How is streaming different from HBO? Both are subscription services.

Penetration/footprint I would guess - particularly with the CBS platform.

However, this is likely to help grow the platform.

The budget is just a stray thought I had - I'm not willing to defend it that much.

 

[Lubitsch]

A TV series and a movie blockbuster are two vastly different things.
Blockbusters since the mid 90s are mostly extremely high budgeted action stuff with special effects. It would be difficult to imagine different Star Trek movies for a large audience than the Abrams ones, maybe they could have been a bit more intelligent, maybe they could have been made to fit a niche for slightly more unusual scifi a la GRAVITY. But in the end they are just a piece of a CGI wave.
A TV series demands more attention to plots and characters especially since series became more serialized. So the damage Kurtzman can do is more limited and there is mor e freedom.
This aside we know at the moment nothing. Even the statement about the lack of relations to ST Beyond leaves many possibilities open, it may just mean that the storylines aren't connected, but it still may take in the Abramsverse.

So we can just lean back and wait and hope they hire good people and analyse carefully the reasons for the decline of the franchise.

 

[BillJ]

But I take it you believe our beloved franchise just doesn't have the capacity, period?

I just don't think it works for Star Trek. There's only so much wiggle room in a market where bad guys and wise cracking superheroes reign supreme.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

But Star Trek simply has never been in that league. Anyone expecting those numbers from a Trek movie is delusional.

What do you mean, not it that league?

How can people say this?

Marvel Comics were something that didn't seriously exist outside of paper, once upon a time, then didn't exist outside of cartoons, and now, they are the most successful cinema franchise of all time.

And people are telling me that Star Trek, a show which featured guest appearances by Professor Stephen Hawking (for god sake), and inspired astronauts, and which has a massive cultural presence, can't have a blockbuster movie on the same level as Marvel?

I have some doubts about this line of argument.

Newsflash: Steven Hawking isn't going to bring you a billion dollar movie.

You know what is a billion dollar movie? Two hours of superpowers and explosions. That shit sells.

The broader point I am trying to make is that Star Trek, like Marvel, has a cultural presence, and has the depth of themes, that it could make a very successful movie, if handled by someone who had the understanding of a Kevin Feige.

Marvel doesn't actually sell due to explosions after all - everyone knows this - to suggest that's all there is to them is disingenuous. There is a reason other superhero movies bomb, while theirs rock the industry.