Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[Terok Nor]

I don't mind having a heated debate. I'm perfectly willing to have my viewpoints changed by being presented with a different opinion. It often opens up my mind and makes me reconsider my stance. What I can't stand is the pack mentality of ganging up on the person you disagree with and patronising them with sarcasm and passive aggression just because YOU can't handle the fact I disagree with you and you have not convinced me to fall in line with your views. Nothing I have posted in this thread is sacred to me. If you present me with an opinion that makes me change my mind about anything I've posted then I'll gladly admit I may be wrong. A sarcastic attitude will get you nowhere with me. If you wish to continue to converse then dial down the snark.

***EDIT****

This post is not directed at fireproof78 FYI.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't mind having a heated debate. I'm perfectly willing to have my viewpoints changed by being presented with a different opinion. It often opens up my mind and makes me reconsider my stance. What I can't stand is the pack mentality of ganging up on the person you disagree with and patronising them with sarcasm and passive aggression just because YOU can't handle the fact I disagree with you and you have not convinced me to fall in line with your views. Nothing I have posted in this thread is sacred to me. If you present me with an opinion that makes me change my mind about anything I've posted then I'll gladly admit I may be wrong. A sarcastic attitude will get you nowhere with me. If you wish to continue to converse then dial down the snark.

Edit: just saw Terok Nor's edit. Please disregard.

Also, all jokes are meant in good fun and not directed at anyone.

 

[Terok Nor]

I don't mind having a heated debate. I'm perfectly willing to have my viewpoints changed by being presented with a different opinion. It often opens up my mind and makes me reconsider my stance. What I can't stand is the pack mentality of ganging up on the person you disagree with and patronising them with sarcasm and passive aggression just because YOU can't handle the fact I disagree with you and you have not convinced me to fall in line with your views. Nothing I have posted in this thread is sacred to me. If you present me with an opinion that makes me change my mind about anything I've posted then I'll gladly admit I may be wrong. A sarcastic attitude will get you nowhere with me. If you wish to continue to converse then dial down the snark.

Please review my post as I go in to depth, with no sarcasm implied beyond my joking about government help.

I didn't see your post until after I posted mine but I've already edited to make sure you know it was not directed at you

 

[fireproof78]

I don't mind having a heated debate. I'm perfectly willing to have my viewpoints changed by being presented with a different opinion. It often opens up my mind and makes me reconsider my stance. What I can't stand is the pack mentality of ganging up on the person you disagree with and patronising them with sarcasm and passive aggression just because YOU can't handle the fact I disagree with you and you have not convinced me to fall in line with your views. Nothing I have posted in this thread is sacred to me. If you present me with an opinion that makes me change my mind about anything I've posted then I'll gladly admit I may be wrong. A sarcastic attitude will get you nowhere with me. If you wish to continue to converse then dial down the snark.

Please review my post as I go in to depth, with no sarcasm implied beyond my joking about government help.

I didn't see your post until after I posted mine but I've already edited to make sure you know it was not directed at you

I just did the same, with additional disclaimers.

Also, I did add an edit to my post responding to one of your comments (should be top of the page).

 

[Drone]

So Moonves proclaims that Star Trek is the crown jewels of CBS. That sounds a bit grandiose as well as ironic, as has been pointed out. His supporting argument seems to place its importance on the ability he foresees in the new show being the driving vehicle that will substantively make their streaming service take off. Well, that's been heard too in the past, to little effect. However, the difference is the time that we are living in when the balkanization of broadcast platforms and the lessening appeal/quality of network offerings and their limitations makes this effort, albeit if executed in a truly invested and compelling fashion, much more of a going proposition than those examples from a time when broadcast philosophy was largely contained within orthodox, time honored constraints.

By personally making such a gung ho declaration, it would seem that monies will not be particularly stinted on nor artistic creativity be shortchanged. At a time when network share continues its inexorable decline, I think the exaltation of this property suggests that Moonves might think it could be competitive over the air, but his vision is to use its current regeneration as a tool for a more important and long lasting goal, to keep the CBS brand relevant as the consumption and expectation of mass entertainment evolves so rapidly.

As to the basis on which the show is going to be defined, I think that all that really matters to Moonves in making this move is the possibilites that the films have shown in generating a large new fan base that has clearly found elements to enjoy and be energized by in these two efforts. As long as the movies effectively maintain the mix of excitement and compelling characterizations, it is logical that the new series be an outgrowth of this altered universe that they have created. As has been said innumerable times, there will always be debate, dissension, and disappointment whenever a new iteration is introduced. But I believe that the overriding, perhaps subconsciously, belief is that the viewers that matter in this experiment, are these neophytes for whom continuity to a version of their new passion from the distant past is meaningless. Perhaps the only continuity that resonates is in the franchise's name. I'm not saying that the names of Picard, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer are totally unfamiliar, but more than likely the recognition is vague and certainly with no accompanying necessity to make an effort to connect these relics to be able to make more sense of the Trek saga than what is playing out before them now. That's not to say that CBS isn't calculating that a sizable number of these newbies that gobble up the new series won't be drawn to delving into the past, available in its entirety with the shekels they are already shelling out.

I don't believe that the CBS powers have any concern for the Prime Universe other than as an ancillary income stream. They are not covert acolytes of the Old Order, in reality, initiates in the culture of True Believers who have taken a blood oath to maintain and nourish what came before. That reality is gone, save the novels and independent productions. Personally, I would have liked it to have endured. Maybe if Enterprise had made its turn sooner and been able to complete its run, with a necessary couple of years or so to work out an intelligent and varied successor in whatever time frame was chosen, we wouldn't be talking about the influence and divergence of two films that likely would never have been made. Maybe, could've, should've, what might have been, etc. But 50 years is a nearly unprecedented lifespan for a television entity to survive and have the influence on its audience in so many different ways. As unlikely as the occurrence of that type of history, much more so is the hope that for ever long that franchise is able to remain viable, that the self-same back stories with their traditions and shibboleths can maintain a stranglehold on its development forever.

So, ultimately my feeling on how the new production is going to be constituted is in the Nuverse at a time between the present period and TNG (a term that has no meaning here), perhaps a bit closer to Kirk's time, with new characters (maybe the odd guest appearance), but certainly with references to the influence of Kirk and Spock as portrayed in the films, and with new characters on a new Enterprise. The action may not be so overwhelming but I think there will be a vibe that almost anything can happen. We'll see the same immediacy between characters with volatile relationships and the introduction of LBGT crewmembers. With 13 or so episodes, it would seem that the arc of a major conflict would make sense. As with the movies, angst and engagement will be the order of the day, with precious little time devoted to basic exploration or some putative contemplation of cultural or societal issues with which the audience is much encouraged to draw comparisons with what humankind struggles with today, at least not until the program can prove itself an unqualified success with a long term future.

This is the world we live in and an example of the reality of how even an exalted entertainment institution can hope to survive as a major presence much longer into the future.

 

[JWPlatt]

Ugh...God!

You Trek fans sound like a bunch of old nagging women.

Support the show and quit complaining, because if you don't support it you will be the ones to blame for it being killed.

Agreed. That was what killed the Stargate franchise.

It was bullshit when Enterprise apologists were saying it and it's bullshit now.

Fans are under no obligation to support shitty shows out of brand loyalty.

It won't be apparent who is right or wrong until the series is airing, and even then all fans will agree when Hoth boils over.

But you make an excellent point in concept. I give you this as a supporting historical reference - replace "Disney" with any favorate brand:

DoMs: Bad for the Brand

They pop up for all businesses, big or small, industrial or entertainment. They claim to love the product so much that they feel they have to blindly support it no matter how reasoned or legitimate any criticism of it may be. Like busy bees, they flit from forum to forum online making life unpleasant for those that even begin to offer an opinion different from their unquestioning "must be positive" view, and Lord help those who feel it can be done better.

These are the Defenders of Mediocrity, or DoMs for short. And they are the single most damaging thing that can happen to the Disney brand.

You've seen their postings: Light Magic? They loved it, it was the best show they never saw because they only heard the MP3 or saw it on YouTube. Rocket Rods? What a great ride, not everything needs to be themed, the red light bulbs were wonderful! Deteriorating Attractions? Walt Disney was wrong about keeping up the exterior, the peeling paint and broken ride elements fit right into the Haunted Mansion theme. DCA? Isn't it swell it's so uncrowded and it has one good ride? Epcot's 25th? Wow, the fans got a slapped together ceremony, and they should be thankful for it and the two boxes of merchandise they offered! etc... etc... etc...


The hat from the Orlando studios park seems apt for this group.

It's well known the Disney company keeps an close eye online, and more than a few times the immediate and unsparingly honest feedback for their latest offerings has resulted in refinements, reworkings and even the rare shutdown of a show or ride. But the gushing DoM fan postings supporting a product that is of a lower quality than what Disney should offer get monitored too - and more than a few times they have been used to try to convince the higher-ups that customers don't care or notice.

The people who care about quality at Disney are very encouraged by the sea change in management at the company, from Iger on down. Unlike the latter of the two decades under Eisner, or the 10 years with Pressler there is a lot being done right nowadays. But there are still those DoM postings that get printed out by those more concerned about budgets or cutbacks that worry some of the folks spearheading the renaissance going on right now. Walt Disney World in particular suffers from the incredible amount of damage these DoMs can inflict - those little salvos praising the poorest quality shows or attractions can hold back those who want to improve the offerings out there.

How can those who care be helped? All they ask is that if you see a DoM posting making excuses for a botched product or service, that you take a few moments to respond to it. Take a minute to post how important the higher standards Disney is usually known for justify their premium pricing, and that the best quality product is important to you. It doesn't need in any way to be a putdown, it just needs to be honest about what can be done better.

It can give those who care a weapon (in the form of a counterpoint) in their quest to up the quality of what the Mouse offers. And even DoMs will ultimately benefit by getting a better product that they can gush even more about.

 

[Autistoid]

Ugh...God!

You Trek fans sound like a bunch of old nagging women.

Support the show and quit complaining, because if you don't support it you will be the ones to blame for it being killed.

Agreed. That was what killed the Stargate franchise.

It was bullshit when Enterprise apologists were saying it and it's bullshit now.

Fans are under no obligation to support shitty shows out of brand loyalty.

Yeah the voyager apologist are even worst.

Yeah people got so burned out from so much trek.

Then completely glossed over how ronald d moore wipe the floor with them with bsg.

We know full well that bsg was what trek should of been.

The one unrelenting fact of the popularity of a 2017 board, is that you don't have to be an apologist to be a fan.

 

[martok2112]

I don't mind having a heated debate. I'm perfectly willing to have my viewpoints changed by being presented with a different opinion. It often opens up my mind and makes me reconsider my stance. What I can't stand is the pack mentality of ganging up on the person you disagree with and patronising them with sarcasm and passive aggression just because YOU can't handle the fact I disagree with you and you have not convinced me to fall in line with your views. Nothing I have posted in this thread is sacred to me. If you present me with an opinion that makes me change my mind about anything I've posted then I'll gladly admit I may be wrong. A sarcastic attitude will get you nowhere with me. If you wish to continue to converse then dial down the snark.

Please review my post as I go in to depth, with no sarcasm implied beyond my joking about government help.

I didn't see your post until after I posted mine but I've already edited to make sure you know it was not directed at you

I can respect one's opinion as long as they do not try to go on the campaign to make me feel stupid for liking what I (or any others who feel as I do) like. Once you go down that road, well....it's gonna be a motherfucker of a ride for you.

You (and the few others) wanna hate the new Trek? That's fine. Be less condescending.

"Oh, the new movies just don't spark my mind."
"Oh, the JJ films are (garbage, rubbish, mindless)."

Because when you talk shit like that.... here's what you're saying:

"Oh, the new movies don't spark my mind... and clearly no one else has a mind to spark if they do like them."
"Oh, the JJ films are (garbage, rubbish, mindless) and anyone who likes them are mindless garbage/rubbish lovers."

See how that works?

See, I grew up in a time when it was not cool to like sci-fi/space fantasy. As such things became more popular, I thought I would find like minded folk. Instead, all that has happened is that the fans have learned the bad traits of the dumbass jocks and rednecks, and now, having learned from such piss poor role-models they figure they can be the ones to bully around anyone who doesn't think they way they do.

So, I fight back. And I fight back hard. The other guy? He's not standing.

It's never fun to be the other guy, is it?

 

[fireproof78]

Agreed. That was what killed the Stargate franchise.

It was bullshit when Enterprise apologists were saying it and it's bullshit now.

Fans are under no obligation to support shitty shows out of brand loyalty.

Yeah the voyager apologist are even worst.

Yeah people got so burned out from so much trek.

Then completely glossed over how ronald d moore wipe the floor with them with bsg.

We know full well that bsg was what trek should of been.

The one unrelenting fact of the popularity of a 2017 board, is that you don't have to be an apologist to be a fan.

Well, I agree on the last statement.

The rest is:

 

[Autistoid]

This is where I will disagree, politely but firmly. Abrams had some of the most interesting social commentary that I have seen in Trek in a while. To me, it will be more apparent after a few years, as we recognize what he was commenting on and why it is important. It's subtle, but there.

I"ll say this for the record once and for all.


The subtext is huge in the new films.

I honestly think jjbrahs as a non fan was directly sugguesting a criticism of kirk, and not simply dumbing down the character. Nukirk heightlighted alot of the real flaws of williams shatner in my opinion.

That's ignoring a insane amount of depth that was created with spock.

However this nutrek sucks or rocks argument is compeltely beside the point.

No one is explaining to me on either side how a 13 episode series could ever hope to be as action packed a movie.

IT's a non existant thought, there is no way to keep that kind of energy going.

 

[Autistoid]

What formula? The one that TNG difficult to watch for the first three seasons or the one that DS9 promptly threw out the window in favor of its more arc based storylines?

Star Trek has been about action and adventure from the beginning. The social commentary has come and gone, depending on the writer, and some were successful and some where less successful.

So when the inevitable star wars series gets released, Syfy's big budget The Expanse, and whatever sci fi gets cooked up by the competition, how is star trek competing what is it offering other then action and adventure?

Star Trek was largely swept under the rug, by shows like Stargate, Firefly, and BSG, and if one can't understand that this is a lost cause.

 

[martok2112]

I am going to apologize for my previous post.

I am going to apologize for my snarkiness and combativeness.

As I sit back and allow the cooler half of myself to prevail....this is what I have come to:

It is gratifying to see that Trek is indeed coming back to tv, albeit, streaming media.

Whether it is set in the PU or the new universe, or some other timeline altogether, the important thing I think we can all agree on is that as long as the stories are good, the characters engaging, and the scope fulfilling, we are all going to be in for a helluva ride.

The show will be able to cover the things that a big screen blockbuster won't have time to cover.

Folks go to movies to have a good time, and bang for their buck for two hours.

TV shows will allow for the development that folk can invest a little more in.

It is quite possible that even if the show is set in the JJ Abrams era, the stories that are told would be those that even the opponents/initial haters would come to appreciate because the time is there to develop and invest in, both in terms of quality by the writers and acceptance by the fans/admirers.

Not having Trek on TV for quite a while has left quite a vacuum to fill. In that vacuum, we have only had the two movies, which were blockbusters. Unforutnately, that did not satisfy everyone's needs. But as the old saying goes: "You can't please everyone all the time." (or words to that effect).

So, perhaps with the new series on the air, able to tackle the stories that a two hour blockbuster cannot (because the blockbuster has to go for the biggest grab of money in a short amount of time), fans and admirers of Star Trek of every stripe will finally be able to get the best of both worlds.

Have the series for the thought provoking allegory and deeper interpersonal stories, and have the blockbuster movies as the "big events" to go to and be wowed by. I think, as long as there is that mixture, without oversaturation (i.e., having two Star Trek series on at the same time while feature films are being produced), that could be a doable intermix formula.

It seems to be working for the MCU. Why couldn't it work for Trek?

I think, in order for a new Trek series to thrive, it needs:
-Sometimes quick and witty banter... perhaps ala Aaron Sorkin style.
-Good, thought provoking tales in the likes of the older Trek writers, and even some others (whether quick or dead) like Alan Dean Foster, Phillip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Herbert and any other sci-fi luminaries that I can't quite bring to mind.
-Intriguing tales in the vein of Tom Clancy and Craig Thomas
-Thrillers in the vein (but not too deep in the vein) of Stephen King
-Epic scaled story arcs, in addition to the stand alone, take a breather episodes.
-Visual effects that have shown such series to be just a bit too big for the small screen. VFX in the quality of Firefly, or the recent Battlestar Galactica series.

The list could go on....but I am trying to get this humbled, and apologetic message out there...especially to those whom I have needlessly maligned.

 

[Autistoid]

It was bullshit when Enterprise apologists were saying it and it's bullshit now.

Fans are under no obligation to support shitty shows out of brand loyalty.

Yeah the voyager apologist are even worst.

Yeah people got so burned out from so much trek.

Then completely glossed over how ronald d moore wipe the floor with them with bsg.

We know full well that bsg was what trek should of been.

The one unrelenting fact of the popularity of a 2017 board, is that you don't have to be an apologist to be a fan.

Well, I agree on the last statement.

The rest is:

BSG was lightyears better than Enterprise, and was a clear illustration of what Voyager should of been.

Yeah the show went slightly off the rails towards the end, but that understandable. The point is they raised the bar and then some.

 

[Autistoid]

Whether it is set in the PU or the new universe, or some other timeline altogether, the important thing I think we can all agree on is that as long as the stories are good, the characters engaging, and the scope fulfilling, we are all going to be in for a helluva ride.

So, perhaps with the new series on the air, able to tackle the stories that a two hour blockbuster cannot (because the blockbuster has to go for the biggest grab of money in a short amount of time), fans and admirers of Star Trek of every stripe will finally be able to get the best of both worlds.

Have the series for the thought provoking allegory and deeper interpersonal stories, and have the blockbuster movies as the "big events" to go to and be wowed by. I think, as long as there is that mixture, without oversaturation (i.e., having two Star Trek series on at the same time while feature films are being produced), that could be a doable intermix formula.

Problem is they got hte movie guy doing the slower paced series.

Its as if they learnt nothing from past mistakes.

A lesson could be learned from how HBO, AMC, and Netflicks do things and that lesson isn't being absorbed.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah the voyager apologist are even worst.

Yeah people got so burned out from so much trek.

Then completely glossed over how ronald d moore wipe the floor with them with bsg.

We know full well that bsg was what trek should of been.

The one unrelenting fact of the popularity of a 2017 board, is that you don't have to be an apologist to be a fan.

Well, I agree on the last statement.

The rest is:

BSG was lightyears better than Enterprise, and was a clear illustration of what Voyager should of been.

Yeah the show went slightly off the rails towards the end, but that understandable. The point is they raised the bar and then some.

BSG's formatting and story telling may have been more engaging, but I would not go so far to say it was "better." Obviously, the popularity speaks a different story, but for me, the characters are just awful. I have tried to watch it recently and the tone is so depressed and morose that I stopped after half-hour, I felt so jaded and cynical.

For all ENT's faults, I at least could enjoy it and have fun with a lot of it.

Raise the bar? Possibly, but at the cost of the characters and optimism that are at the heart of Trek.

 

[martok2112]

Whether it is set in the PU or the new universe, or some other timeline altogether, the important thing I think we can all agree on is that as long as the stories are good, the characters engaging, and the scope fulfilling, we are all going to be in for a helluva ride.

So, perhaps with the new series on the air, able to tackle the stories that a two hour blockbuster cannot (because the blockbuster has to go for the biggest grab of money in a short amount of time), fans and admirers of Star Trek of every stripe will finally be able to get the best of both worlds.

Have the series for the thought provoking allegory and deeper interpersonal stories, and have the blockbuster movies as the "big events" to go to and be wowed by. I think, as long as there is that mixture, without oversaturation (i.e., having two Star Trek series on at the same time while feature films are being produced), that could be a doable intermix formula.

Problem is they got hte movie guy doing the slower paced series.

Its as if they learnt nothing from past mistakes.

A lesson could be learned from how HBO, AMC, and Netflicks do things and that lesson isn't being absorbed.

I must ask though:
Wasn't it Kurzman, or maybe Orci who stated that they wanted to go back to something that felt a little more "Trek" to them? I forget which. If it was Kurzman, perhaps that could be advantageous to the fulfillment of the series. (It might have been Orci though...so, yes, there could be a bit of uncertainty with Kurzman being involved.)

The only way to know for sure is to give the show a chance (a few episodes of viewing) to see if the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Autistoid]

Well, I agree on the last statement.

The rest is:

BSG was lightyears better than Enterprise, and was a clear illustration of what Voyager should of been.

Yeah the show went slightly off the rails towards the end, but that understandable. The point is they raised the bar and then some.

BSG's formatting and story telling may have been more engaging, but I would not go so far to say it was "better." Obviously, the popularity speaks a different story, but for me, the characters are just awful. I have tried to watch it recently and the tone is so depressed and morose that I stopped after half-hour, I felt so jaded and cynical.

For all ENT's faults, I at least could enjoy it and have fun with a lot of it.

Raise the bar? Possibly, but at the cost of the characters and optimism that are at the heart of Trek.

a) the tone of the characters in 2015 do appear a bit cliched, but that's totally in retrospect.

b) It was just after 911 and was trying to strike a nerve of reality with people without actually being reality.

c) Optimisim is fine, but pre 2000s, television was essentially a format where depression didn't exist. It really is something that is somewhat hard to understate. And really point to how strong the mental health stigma really is in america.

d) BSG's biggest problem was it's own success, they really got mixed up on which season they were ending the show.

e) This still isn't a reason to ignore what a leap the series was in terms of character development in a sci fi.

 

[Autistoid]

I must ask though:
Wasn't it Kurzman, or maybe Orci who stated that they wanted to go back to something that felt a little more "Trek" to them? I forget which. If it was Kurzman, perhaps that could be advantageous to the fulfillment of the series. (It might have been Orci though...so, yes, there could be a bit of uncertainty with Kurzman being involved.)

The only way to know for sure is to give the show a chance (a few episodes of viewing) to see if the proof is in the pudding.

I'd rather reject it now, and hope many fans agree that this is likely a decline in quality for trek, and not a sign of improvement.

Possibly CBS folk might actually come to their senses about their approach to a new series.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I hope this is set in the new timeline. Prime Trek had it's day, and should be left where it is.

 

[fireproof78]

BSG was lightyears better than Enterprise, and was a clear illustration of what Voyager should of been.

Yeah the show went slightly off the rails towards the end, but that understandable. The point is they raised the bar and then some.

BSG's formatting and story telling may have been more engaging, but I would not go so far to say it was "better." Obviously, the popularity speaks a different story, but for me, the characters are just awful. I have tried to watch it recently and the tone is so depressed and morose that I stopped after half-hour, I felt so jaded and cynical.

For all ENT's faults, I at least could enjoy it and have fun with a lot of it.

Raise the bar? Possibly, but at the cost of the characters and optimism that are at the heart of Trek.

a) the tone of the characters in 2015 do appear a bit cliched, but that's totally in retrospect.

b) It was just after 911 and was trying to strike a nerve of reality with people without actually being reality.

c) Optimisim is fine, but pre 2000s, television was essentially a format where depression didn't exist. It really is something that is somewhat hard to understate. And really point to how strong the mental health stigma really is in america.

d) BSG's biggest problem was it's own success, they really got mixed up on which season they were ending the show.

e) This still isn't a reason to ignore what a leap the series was in terms of character development in a sci fi.

I'm not saying the characters are cliched. I'm saying they are downright awful. I do not find them redeemable or commendable in a way that makes me want to support them. There was a reason I stopped watching the show during its run and no revisisting of it has changed my mind. Not cliched-just awful characters.

So, no, I don't think BSG "raised the bar" in terms of character development for sci-fi, because I don't see any development that is unique. It feels like Moses leading Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, and all the other angsty super heroes and anti-heroes to the Promised Land.

Some may enjoy it, and the majority of viewers might like it. I personally, don't need to watch something that makes me feel depressed and cynical about humanity. I see enough of that on the news, and you know what? I'll take one of my psych professor's advice: "Turn off the TV!"