Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[kitik]

Great news, it's about time!

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

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.

I think you can have an action movie AND deep thinking.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. I refuse to choose - I would rather have both. And are we going to sniff at the numbers that films like "Interstellar" and "The Martian" did? (The latter of which is the most Star-Trek like movie in mentality, that I have ever seen!) Neither are run and gun films. But say that they were? I'm sure you could have the action of Into Darkness, married to a film that also makes people really think.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

I watch so little of current CBS programming that I'd forgotten that CBS All Access even existed until this announcement.

I imagine that's why they are doing it. They want to attract viewers to their streaming service the way Netflix attracted viewers with Daredevil. And we get new Star Trek out of it.

And I agree with Squiggs assertion that this will be Abrams-verse related. It just makes sense. They want to do with Star Trek what Disney and Marvel are doing with their TV and movie offerings.

 

[BillJ]

I think you can have an action movie AND deep thinking.

I'd argue the Abrams films do give people the opportunity for deep thinking. From one's place in the universe to its decidedly critical take of US execution of foreign nationals without trial and drone warfare and quite a bit in between.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. I refuse to choose - I would rather have both. And are we going to sniff at the numbers that films like "Interstellar" and "The Martian" did? (The latter of which is the most Star-Trek like movie in mentality, that I have ever seen!) Neither are run and gun films.

I don't think the Abrams films offer just one or the other for people that are paying attention.

As much as I love Star Trek: The Motion Picture, a similar film in this day just wouldn't fly with the "Star Trek" label attached to it. People want to see big battles with awesome weapons and spaceships.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I am curious how anyone knows the new series will be all the things they hate and if they are willing to share their time travelling secrets with me.

 

[BillJ]

I am curious how anyone knows the new series will be all the things they hate and if they are willing to share their time travelling secrets with me.

Really. I could use Wednesday's Powerball numbers!

 

[Beckler]

Page after page of trekkie-babble I skipped over. Why not just be excited over the amazing news that there's finally a new ST series coming?!

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I think you can have an action movie AND deep thinking.

I'd argue the Abrams films do give people the opportunity for deep thinking. From one's place in the universe to its decidedly critical take of US execution of foreign nationals without trial and drone warfare and quite a bit in between.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. I refuse to choose - I would rather have both. And are we going to sniff at the numbers that films like "Interstellar" and "The Martian" did? (The latter of which is the most Star-Trek like movie in mentality, that I have ever seen!) Neither are run and gun films.

I don't think the Abrams films offer just one or the other for people that are paying attention.

As much as I love Star Trek: The Motion Picture, a similar film in this day just wouldn't fly with the "Star Trek" label attached to it. People want to see big battles with awesome weapons and spaceships.

Okay, granted I did like the themes brought up in Into Darkness, but felt they were almost incidental - an episode of TNG would have explored them to the fullest - STID basically implied for a moment in Kirk's speech at the end, that maybe the Federation had let fear corrupt it's purpose - always a nice theme to touch upon, but not exactly explored in any depth.

Questions like "Why" do people get into this mindset were given superficial treatment. Questions like how a civilization rises or falls on the back of it's ideals, etc, were barely hinted at. Questions of the ethics and consequences of extrajudicial action against the Klingons were not exactly borne out.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I am curious how anyone knows the new series will be all the things they hate and if they are willing to share their time travelling secrets with me.

Really. I could use Wednesday's Powerball numbers!

People are just afraid that if this turns out to be another flop, it will mean the death of Star Trek for another 20 years. Can you blame them? They want this to be right.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Yep Star Trek isn't about "the adverse mechanics of inverted neutrino matrixes." or at least it wasn't originally.

I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame-
work. We must reach out, hold and entertain
a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we
simply don't stay on the air.

II. Tell your story about people, not about science
and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain
the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare
never did a monologue about the theory of anes-
thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis-
cusses the breed of his horse before he rides
off on it.

III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate
field of literature with rules of its own, but,
indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story
-- including a jeopardy of some type to someone
we learn to care about, climactic build, sound
motivitation, you know the list.

IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter-
weave in it any statement to be made about man,
society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some-
thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do
on any other show. We don't need essays, how-
ever brilliant.

V. Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy;
whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre,
must have some basis in either fact or theory and
stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy
Starflight capability and then have them engage
our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords.)

VI. Don't try to tell a story about whole civilizations .
We've never yet been able to get a usable story
from a writer who began... "I see the strange
civilization which...".

VII. Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How
many cowboys, police officers and doctors wrote
westerns, detective and hospital shows?

 

[Greg Cox]

Seriously, this announcement is only a few hours old and we're already wringing our hands about it?

Me, I'm going to take a wait-and-see attitude and hope for the best. Like I would with any new TV series or movie.

Whatever happened to giving a new show the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately fretting about what might happen if it flopped?

 

[BillJ]

Okay, granted I did like the themes brought up in Into Darkness, but felt they were almost incidental - an episode of TNG would have explored them to the fullest - STID basically implied for a moment in Kirk's speech at the end, that maybe the Federation had let fear corrupt it's purpose - always a nice theme to touch upon, but not exactly explored in any depth.

Questions like "Why" do people get into this mindset were given superficial treatment. Questions like how a civilization rises or falls on the back of it's ideals, etc, were barely hinted at. Questions of the ethics and consequences of extrajudicial action against the Klingons were not exactly borne out.

But that's the difference between a TV series and a major motion picture. The latter is there to give you an by-the-seat-of-the-pants thrill ride.

They introduce the ideas and I can give them the consideration I want. Much like things played in TOS.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

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.

Yep Star Trek isn't about "the adverse mechanics of inverted neutrino matrixes." or at least it wasn't originally.

I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame-
work. We must reach out, hold and entertain
a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we
simply don't stay on the air.

II. Tell your story about people, not about science
and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain
the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare
never did a monologue about the theory of anes-
thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis-
cusses the breed of his horse before he rides
off on it.

III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate
field of literature with rules of its own, but,
indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story
-- including a jeopardy of some type to someone
we learn to care about, climactic build, sound
motivitation, you know the list.

IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter-
weave in it any statement to be made about man,
society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some-
thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do
on any other show. We don't need essays, how-
ever brilliant.

V. Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy;
whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre,
must have some basis in either fact or theory and
stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy
Starflight capability and then have them engage
our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords.)

VI. Don't try to tell a story about whole civilizations .
We've never yet been able to get a usable story
from a writer who began... "I see the strange
civilization which...".

VII. Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How
many cowboys, police officers and doctors wrote
westerns, detective and hospital shows?

Thats amazing - and it also shows Trek did indeed concern itself with realism and believably - maybe not to the point of being hard science, but certainly in a dramatic context, things had to follow on from things logically.

 

[Zaku]

Three hours have passed from the announcement and we have sixteen pages. Now we have to hold out for only another 14 months.

 

[StolenThunder]

This is interesting and exciting news. New Star Trek! That doesn't happen so often anymore! I'll certainly watch in 2017 - and the quality of many of these 'subscription service' TV shows has been excellent in the last few years.

 

[BillJ]

Thats amazing - and it also shows Trek did indeed concern itself with realism and believably - maybe not to the point of being hard science, but certainly in a dramatic context, things had to follow on from things logically.

I'd argue though that they threw realism out the airlock almost day one.

 

[Aragorn]

I am curious how anyone knows the new series will be all the things they hate and if they are willing to share their time travelling secrets with me.

Really. I could use Wednesday's Powerball numbers!

People are just afraid that if this turns out to be another flop, it will mean the death of Star Trek for another 20 years. Can you blame them? They want this to be right.

But what is "right" when you have numerous people here who have a "I'm the only person who knows what true Star Trek is and everyone else has it wrong" mentality?

Some of the comments here remind me of the guy who used to post endlessly against the first Abrams movie years before it came out, and in response to the box office success of the 2009 movie, he actually stated that he wanted his Star Trek to be a money-losing endeavor that not that many people watch.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Thats amazing - and it also shows Trek did indeed concern itself with realism and believably - maybe not to the point of being hard science, but certainly in a dramatic context, things had to follow on from things logically.

I'd argue though that they threw realism out the airlock almost day one.

It was more important that it feel real than be real.

 

[JoeZhang]

But that's the difference between a TV series and a major motion picture. The latter is there to give you an by-the-seat-of-the-pants thrill ride.

Which is how Patrick Stewart sees it - which is why via his influence the action was ramped up.

 

[Isolinear]

Interesting. Will we finally see Wil Wheaton as captain Wesley Crusher?