Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[Amaris]

Well I'm not sure we can say this is happening because the movies have been successful. I dont think it hurts but it could simply be they want to push their online service. Star Trek is one of their biggest properties and seems to be there go tofor this. They did it with Voyager for UPN, Phase 2 was meant to launch a network too.

It was inevitable they would do a series eventually, it just depended on when. Its also the 50th anniversary, good time to go for it.

Except that they've shown no interest in a ST tv show in years, this service they're 'launching' actually already exists now, and if this was supposed to be timed for the 50th anniversary, then their timing is terrible, because the actual show is going to miss that completely.

After Enterprise, Star Trek on tv was dead. It was inevitable that they would eventually try again, but without 2 successful movies and a 3rd (which they assume will be successful) set to hit this year, they almost certainly would not be there yet.

It does exist but its hardly been a huge success, it needs something big to make people get it. Yes they are missing the anniversary but only by a month and there could be a reason.

I guess we can agree to disagree on the movie part, I think if we hadn't had those movies at all, we could still be getting Star Trek now.

The movies made a half a billion dollars in the United States alone. They were both critical successes. There is a 3rd film being made as we speak, with names like Chris Pine, Zach Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Simon Pegg, and Idris Elba heading the cast.

Do you think without that, someone like Les Moonves would have said "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's use that franchise I canceled 10 years ago to become a major tentpole series for our streaming service! Surely the last iteration which failed as a critical series, and the last two movies which were financial bombs at the box office, will draw new viewers! Huzzah! Profit!"

No. The Abrams films put Star Trek back in the financial and pop culture crosshairs, and it may pay off big in the form of a television series.

 

[JoeZhang]

You can set it after our known timeline and give yourself freedom.

What's this obession that some fans have with the 'future' of this made-up time-line. How about getting back to basics and giving us *our* future?

Someone fresh, something that isn't just another rehash of the same old same old - we've got plenty of reruns for that.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You can set it after our known timeline and give yourself freedom.

What's this obession that some fans have with the 'future' of this made-up time-line. How about getting back to basics and giving us *our* future?

Someone fresh, something that isn't just another rehash of the same old same old - we've got plenty of reruns for that.

Yes but if they are going to do that what's the point of calling it Star Trek? Just make a new show.

 

[JoeZhang]

You can set it after our known timeline and give yourself freedom.

What's this obession that some fans have with the 'future' of this made-up time-line. How about getting back to basics and giving us *our* future?

Someone fresh, something that isn't just another rehash of the same old same old - we've got plenty of reruns for that.

Yes but if they are going to do that what's the point of calling it Star Trek? Just make a new show.

It can have all the elements of Star Trek - it just doesn't have to be hamstrung out of the gate with "Well Captain Picard had a prostrate exam on that date so I cannot see how that is possible".

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What's this obession that some fans have with the 'future' of this made-up time-line. How about getting back to basics and giving us *our* future?

Someone fresh, something that isn't just another rehash of the same old same old - we've got plenty of reruns for that.

Yes but if they are going to do that what's the point of calling it Star Trek? Just make a new show.

It can have all the elements of Star Trek - it just doesn't have to be hamstrung out of the gate with "Well Captain Picard had a prostrate exam on that date so I cannot see how that is possible".

And I was just pointing out if you set it far enough in the future you don't have to be completely hamstrung by the past. Of course its all imaginary but I like a Star Trek that Picard lived in.

Im not saying they have to do this or they should, I'll watch it anyway.

 

[TheSubCommander]

You can set it after our known timeline and give yourself freedom.

What's this obession that some fans have with the 'future' of this made-up time-line. How about getting back to basics and giving us *our* future?

Someone fresh, something that isn't just another rehash of the same old same old - we've got plenty of reruns for that.

Off hand, I would say that the Abramsverse is polarizing for some Trek fans....extremes on both sides. The side who hates it, hates it so much they don't want anything set in the Abramsverse at all.

I'd be excited if I had faith in the writers to actually do their job and not just give us the same warmed-over pablum we've been force fed all these years. I'm not going to waste my money on more of the same.

It is awesome when people make up their minds before page one of the series bible is written.

I know, right? We know absolutely nothing other than Kurtzman is involved (he may just be the producer, and leave writing and other duties to someone else), and how it will be distributed in 2017. And that's it.

I'm willing to at least see the first episode before I praise or damn it.

I think the important thing for me is Star Trek gets back to exploration, and I think in this day and age, we need multi episode if not multi season story arcs and well-developed characters. I personally would like to see a new cast of new characters, with a new ship (named Enterprise or not, doesn't matter). Whether it is Prime or Abramsverse or a new timeline\universe is incidental.

 

[urbandefault]

So, Moonves found yet another way to make money off Star Trek, and still doesn't have to have it on his flagship network? The man's a genius.

 

[Vandervecken]

...and the division in fandom caused by the reboot, especially Into Darkness, is a testament to that.

You do realize that the portion of the fandom that hates the Abramsverse that much is a pretty small portion, right?

Anywho, the goal is to expand the fandom, not to continue to cater to a shrinking fanbase.

I'm another. It's slam-bang mindless crap. It'd be so in any genre. It's lousy fiction, period, and Abrams' movies are bad movies first and bad Trek second.

Will have no interest in Kurtzman's dumbed down, formulaic anti-Trek.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

...and the division in fandom caused by the reboot, especially Into Darkness, is a testament to that.

You do realize that the portion of the fandom that hates the Abramsverse that much is a pretty small portion, right?

Anywho, the goal is to expand the fandom, not to continue to cater to a shrinking fanbase.

I'm another. It's slam-bang mindless crap. It'd be so in any genre. It's lousy fiction, period, and Abrams' movies are bad movies first and bad Trek second.

Will have no interest in Kurtzman's dumbed down, formulaic anti-Trek.

Is everyone who worked on those movies unacceptable?

Im willing to give people a chance, Im sure he will have his own ideas.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Late to the party, but this is wonderful news. Of course we'll have to wait for the final product before deciding if we like it or not, but for now - just the news that Trek is returning to TV is great news!!

 

[Campe]

Yes but if they are going to do that what's the point of calling it Star Trek? Just make a new show.

It can have all the elements of Star Trek - it just doesn't have to be hamstrung out of the gate with "Well Captain Picard had a prostrate exam on that date so I cannot see how that is possible".

And I was just pointing out if you set it far enough in the future you don't have to be completely hamstrung by the past. Of course its all imaginary but I like a Star Trek that Picard lived in.

Im not saying they have to do this or they should, I'll watch it anyway.

The further we get out from present day, the further we get from ourselves. The more centuries we add, the easier it is for the writers to [TECH] their way out of things. I don't want a series that harkens back to that period of Trek. It was fine for the 80s-2000s. Now, let's get some stories about people.

So, in my mind, unless the producers give me good reason, setting a show in the 25th, 26th, 29th, 27th or 124th century of the prime universe is not an answer for me. Unless its a compelling tale.

But (and I'm not pointing out you, Whiskeyjack), if that's the case, I will totally be okay with fans enjoying it, not bashing them for liking it. Cuz I gots better things to do.

 

[Autistoid]

Obviously, the regular series was seen as getting "boring" while Nu Trek is seen as a summer movie formula that polluted "prime" trek with a lot of endless action scenes and gimmicks.

So you've got these two different sides at each other. It's like watching history happen.

Totally. What the producers of the new show need to realize is that regardless of the format they choose, one of the biggest advantages of being in the prime universe (rather than the gimmick-verse, or even an agnostic-verse) is the richness of the world that has already been created for them.

Rather than just a name, the prime-universe is in actuality a universe - a huge world that has been created by and added to by countless imaginative and creative minds over five decades. It would simply be illogical to try and expand either the two-dimensional JJverse, or some universe-agnostic new show that exists in a vacuum.

It can still be prime-universe without having to be bogged down with paying homage to every single nuance of every show's canon which came before it, but c'mon.... all that's required is some simple continuity.

This is a grand opportunity to create something fresh, for everyone, and can honestly bridge the divide between new audiences and primers that occurred with those ****** movies.

I'm going to point this out, and it's very important for it to be received properly, so everyone needs to focus:

It's not a real universe.
It doesn't exist in real life and never will.
It exists to service the plot, whatever it may be.
It is not immutable, it is not constant.

It is a fabrication.

TL;DR - Sorry, Benny Russell, it's not real. In fact...

You know what that means? It means that the Abrams universe is just as "real" as the Prime universe.

I'm top of the list for dumping canon for a big of a reboot.

However what you and everyone that makes posts like this fail to realize is that canon, serves as a quality control on the writers.

I couldn't imagine how unpopular shows like the sopranons, breaking bad, game of thrones, mad men, etc would be if they were anywhere near as inconsistent as shows like voyager. It's not about nerds trying to be nerds, it's about non nerds not wanting some writers goofy ideas about time travel etc, removing all drama from a show.

 

[cooleddie74]

Watching the nerdrage from the folks who don't like a show that won't even go into production until sometime next year is going to be glorious. How about we wait until we know details before we start running to the zombie apocalypse bunkers and defending ourselves against the swarming hordes of rational fans? Sure, it might suck but then again it could turn out to be the best Star Trek series since the heydays of TNG and DS9 and become a worthy chapter in the franchise. And even if it's just "meh" Trek that's neither amazing nor awful, isn't new Trek that's decent and good enough to watch better than no new Trek at all?

I know, crazy talk, right? Breaking the warp barrier would be a greater possibility.

 

[JoeZhang]

However what you and everyone that makes posts like this fail to realize is that canon, serves as a quality control on the writers.

Say what now?

That's more far-fetched than any trek episode I've seen.

 

[Autistoid]

You do realize that the portion of the fandom that hates the Abramsverse that much is a pretty small portion, right?

Anywho, the goal is to expand the fandom, not to continue to cater to a shrinking fanbase.

I'm another. It's slam-bang mindless crap. It'd be so in any genre. It's lousy fiction, period, and Abrams' movies are bad movies first and bad Trek second.

Will have no interest in Kurtzman's dumbed down, formulaic anti-Trek.

Is everyone who worked on those movies unacceptable?

Im willing to give people a chance, Im sure he will have his own ideas.

The guys record speaks for itself.

He's on the who's who of B shows, where one writers deuxmachina is the rule of the day.

I personally like the new movies, however the lack of translatability to television is pretty large.

Stomping over canon that your own show created not fine.

 

[Autistoid]

However what you and everyone that makes posts like this fail to realize is that canon, serves as a quality control on the writers.

Say what now?

That's more far-fetched than any trek episode I've seen.

No actually it's quite a basic premise.

If I made transporters capable of traveling part way across the galaxy in one episode, and they can't make it across a small moon on the next episode it's just crap writing.

We all know what I'm talking about.

 

[Autistoid]

Watching the nerdrage from the folks who don't like a show that won't even go into production until sometime next year is going to be glorious. How about we wait until we know details before we start running to the zombie apocalypse bunkers and defending ourselves against the swarming hordes of rational fans? Sure, it might suck but then again it could turn out to be the best Star Trek series since the heydays of TNG and DS9 and become a worthy chapter in the franchise. And even if it's just "meh" Trek that's neither amazing nor awful, isn't new Trek that's decent and good enough to watch better than no new Trek at all?

I know, crazy talk, right? Breaking the warp barrier would be a greater possibility.

Because were hardcore fan's that don't want something were passionate about stomped over.

 

[JoeZhang]

However what you and everyone that makes posts like this fail to realize is that canon, serves as a quality control on the writers.

Say what now?

That's more far-fetched than any trek episode I've seen.

No actually it's quite a basic premise.

If I made transporters capable of traveling part way across the galaxy in one episode, and they can't make it across a small moon on the next episode it's just crap writing.

We all know what I'm talking about.

No we don't that's just fluff - it's nothing to do with quality engaging writing.

 

[cooleddie74]

I'm as hardcore as anybody on this entire message board about Trek. I have as much emotional interest in the new series as anyone else here.

But you don't know the established universe and continuity will get stomped upon. The series is at the earliest months away from going into production. We know nothing other than the venue which will broadcast it in the United States and that it'll be a new live-action Trek series that won't be connected to the events in the upcoming film.

That's it. Saying it's going to suck because of Orci or Kurtzman or anything else with more than a year to go before it even premieres is not only counterproductive but helps make the entire Trek fan community look bad. When the details emerge, then let's nitpick and see what's valid to criticize. But can't we wait?

Wanna complain about CBS All Access streaming service? Fine. I'm no fan of it myself. But the creative content of the series itself when we know close to absolutely nothing about it this early on? I don't get it. I know why it happens, but I just don't get it.

 

[Markonian]

I consider it likely that Series VII will have "Star Trek" in its title from the start. It's marketable again.