Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[E-DUB]

First off, canon. It should be respected, just not worshiped. If you come up with a good story that requires ignoring something minor that happened in an episode three years ago, great.

However, if it's a mediocre store that requires ignoring something major that happened in an episode three weeks ago, go back to your desk and try again.

There is a role for purists, for people who will say, to sort of quote Rod Serling because I'm too lazy at the moment to look for the actual phrase, "There may be more of you, you may be louder, but I am right, at least I think so". Purists keep us honest. The actor who refuses to push a button because doing so would blow up the ship keeps us honest.

Why do you think we're here now, fifty freakin' years later, talking about this? Because they did such a good job making that original series that it transcended its origins. It was so good at what it was that it became more than what it was.

Yes, much of the product of that time has been dusted off and remade for purposes of cheap nostalgia and the quick buck. But ST is different, it never got dusty in the first place.

And with that history of being more that what it was comes a responsibility of being no less than it can be. Anything else is criminal

 

[cooleddie74]

The Eugenics Wars never happened. It was the Cola Wars that devastated our society. The records from that period of late 20th century history were fragmentary, after all.

Coke. Khan. It's easy to see how the historians in later centuries got confused.

 

[TheSeeker]

Honestly, the best thing the writers could do would be to ignore everything the fans say and just concentrate on telling good stories. As much as I love all the years of continuity it really does box them in storytelling-wise.

 

[fireproof78]

The Eugenics Wars never happened. It was the Cola Wars that devastated our society. The records from that period of late 20th century history were fragmentary, after all.

Coke. Khan. It's easy to see how the historians in later centuries got confused.

Stupid ZIP disks...

 

[BillJ]

Honestly, the best thing the writers could do would be to ignore everything the fans say and just concentrate on telling good stories. As much as I love all the years of continuity it really does box them in storytelling-wise.

+1

The show has to be entertaining and build its own mythology within the broad strokes of what came before. Dates and milestones shouldn't even enter the equation for this show.

 

[Greg Cox]

The Eugenics Wars never happened. It was the Cola Wars that devastated our society. The records from that period of late 20th century history were fragmentary, after all.

Coke. Khan. It's easy to see how the historians in later centuries got confused.

Or maybe it was Madeleine Kahn who started the Eugenics Wars.

That would explain why everybody gets the spelling of the name mixed up.

 

[cooleddie74]

Get to work on a novel about that theory! Nobody said the Eugenics Wars books had to stop after a trilogy.

Put lots of Mel Brooks movie references in it. Toss in Spaceballs. Cross the streams and stir the pot!

 

[fireproof78]

The Eugenics Wars never happened. It was the Cola Wars that devastated our society. The records from that period of late 20th century history were fragmentary, after all.

Coke. Khan. It's easy to see how the historians in later centuries got confused.

Or maybe it was Madeleine Kahn who started the Eugenics Wars.

That would explain why everybody gets the spelling of the name mixed up.

Oh, it's like this...

All so clear now.

 

[E-DUB]

One idea I've booted around in the past is something I jokingly call "Star Trek: Sliders".

Every episode takes place in a different universe anyway, no chance for canon issues there, eh?

 

[Kor]

I'm looking forward to the new series coming out, and then discovering its most vocal critics on this forum:

A) haven't actually watched it, and

B) haven't actually watched much Trek that was produced after 1969

It's fun to stereotype, isn't it?

I have noticed something entirely different: people who are highly attached to the 24th century spin-offs and want this new series to be a continuation of that tired, restrictive old universe and ignore the Abrams movies.

By choice, I generally don't watch much Trek that was produced after 1969, although, through the years, I forced myself to watch all of later Trek out of a misguided sense of loyalty, at the time convincing myself that I liked it.

But the Abrams universe finally offered something fresh, interesting, and relevant, and made me care about the franchise again after getting utterly and irreversibly burnt out on the spin-offs. I would much rather have this new series be related to the JJ 'verse than have to go back to TNG.

Kor

 

[Hoshi3]

I've been a Trekkie all my life (which is probably not that long, but hey), but I thought the idea of a new series was just too far-fetched and something that was unlikely to happen. I'm probably not the only one who thought of it that way.

When I first read the news of a new series, I thought it was just a hoax. I can't describe how happy I am to see it's not. Whether they want you to pay for it or not, Trek is a franchise I'm perfectly happy to pay for.

Now let's just hope they don't mess it up. ;p

 

[BillJ]

I'm looking forward to the new series coming out, and then discovering its most vocal critics on this forum:

A) haven't actually watched it, and

B) haven't actually watched much Trek that was produced after 1969

It's fun to stereotype, isn't it?

I have noticed something entirely different: people who are highly attached to the 24th century spin-offs and want this new series to be a continuation of that tired, restrictive old universe and ignore the Abrams movies.

By choice, I generally don't watch much Trek that was produced after 1969, although, through the years, I forced myself to watch all of later Trek out of a misguided sense of loyalty, at the time convincing myself that I liked it.

But the Abrams universe finally offered something fresh, interesting, and relevant, and made me care about the franchise again after getting utterly and irreversibly burnt out on the spin-offs. I would much rather have this new series be related to the JJ 'verse than have to go back to TNG.

Kor

I'm a TOS guy more than anything else, loved the Abrams films and can't wait for the new show.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Leslie Moonves Explains Why 'Star Trek' Went to CBS All Access

The CBS Corp. president and CEO called the new series a "world-class effort that will make all 'Star Trek' fans proud."


One of the most common responses to news that Star Trek was returning to the small screen was the surprise that it would run on CBS' digital VOD subscription platform, CBS All Access.


Speaking to reporters Tuesday during its third-quarter earnings call, CBS Corp. president and CEO Leslie Moonves explained why Star Trek is boldly going where it's never gone before.


"A lot of conversation went into what we were going to do [with Star Trek]. All Access is very important," Moonves told analysts, stressing that CBS will remain both a content supplier of second-window fare for Netflix as well as a competitor.


"We remain a good partner for Netflix and Hulu. Star Trek is a family jewel; it's an important piece of business for us as we go forward," said Moonves. "We're looking to do original content on All Access and build up that platform. Netflix is our friend a competitor. They compete with [CBS Corp.'s] Showtime. All Access will put out original content and knowing the loyalty of Star Trek fans, this will boost it. … There's about a billion channels out there and because of Star Trek, people will know what All Access is about."
CBS announced Monday that its new Star Trek series, which hails from its sibling studio, would be executive produced by Alex Kurtzman. The series will premiere in January 2017 on the network with subsequent episodes produced exclusively for its digital subscription VOD platform, CBS All Access. Star Trek will be the first original scripted series produced specifically for its digital platform and comes as every series in the cult classic is already part of All Access' programming library. Moonves also stressed that Star Trek will be the first of a scripted expansion for All Access.

The executive also stressed that all of the Star Trek series have done "exceedingly well" in streaming on All Access and noted that the beloved franchise still "resonates today."
"All the series have done well in terms of streaming, he said. "Added in to that, Star Trek is a huge international franchise. Our international distribution guy is going crazy; he can't wait to get out to the marketplace and sell that. Right away, we're more than halfway home on the cost of the show from international alone. The risk is small in seeing the track record. We think it'll be great and bring in a lot more subscribers. We're really excited about it."
Star Trek 2017 will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966. The next series comes four months after the beloved franchise celebrates its 50th anniversary.


While Moonves declined to provide the total number of subscribers, he revealed that All Access posted its largest subscriber growth yet in September and recently debuted on Apple TV.


Moonves opened the call by noting that the company can "live long and prosper" with a nod to the property. He said additional announcements about Star Trek — both behind and in front of the camera — would be coming soon.
"[Star Trek 2017 is a] world-class effort that will make all Star Trek fans proud," he said, calling Trekkies the "most passionate fans in the world." Moonves anticipated "millions" signing up for All Access, which will allow diehards to watch the new series any time, any place and on any device they'd like — a move the exec said is consistent with how many viewers are watching CBS' content.

 

[Jedman67]

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.

I've said it before, I felt that the first JJTrek was an entertaining popcorn flick with little substance. I haven't seen much of Social Commentary, aside from some emotion at the loss of Vulcan. I can handwave the physics, the transwarp beaming and red matter as being Rule of Plot, although it really doesn't hold up to major scrutiny. What I felt really ruined the movie was the complete lack of character development - Kirk was on the verge of being expelled from the Academy, and is jumped to command of the flagship; with no prior experience, no indication of his command abilities...and the rest of the ship is crewed by his former classmates. Kids. It doesn't make any sense from a real world or fictional perspective. I don't hate the films, i just couldn't care less.
The fact that someone else enjoyed it where i nitpick doesn't bother me in the least.

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.

Firefly was great, but didn't generate enough appeal to run a full season. I very much enjoyed it, but on rewatches I find it to be less satisfying. Stargate was consistently superior than Enterprise in terms of acting and directing. In season 5 or 6, you had an entire episode where the heroes are rescued by a couple of scientists who had barely any military training. There are episodes which focus on secondary and even tertiary characters, even though it wasn't much of an ensemble. There was intrigue. action. even sex to a minor degree. Plenty of humor to balance the seriousness of the show. Voyager and Enterprise just couldn't make the cut.

There's something to be said about borrowing some of the gritty realism of BSG, would have been fabulous in Enterprise.

The Eugenics Wars never happened. It was the Cola Wars that devastated our society. The records from that period of late 20th century history were fragmentary, after all.

Coke. Khan. It's easy to see how the historians in later centuries got confused.

The Dentist's Revolt: Battle of the Gums was an oft misunderstood piece of history.

 

[Jedman67]

I think, in order for a new Trek series to thrive, it needs:
-Sometimes quick and witty banter... perhaps ala Aaron Sorkin style.

Picard: "The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based! And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform! I'm going to make this simple for you, Mr. Crusher: Either you come forward and tell Admiral Brand what really took place, or I will."

Wesley: "The truth? You can't handle the truth! Captain, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

 

[Campe]

I've said it before, I felt that the first JJTrek was an entertaining popcorn flick with little substance. I haven't seen much of Social Commentary, aside from some emotion at the loss of Vulcan.

Does every Star Trek adventure HAVE to have social commentary? Can't they just be a fun romp? Because there sure are a lot of Star Trek adventures that don't have commentary to them.

 

[JD]

My only real hope for the new show at this point is just that they don't fall into the same formula that the later 24th Century shows did. I love TNG, Voyager, and parts of Enterprise, but most of them kind of fell into the same basic formula. That formula was OK for TNG, but by the time Voyager came around that formula was starting to get a little stale, and by the time Enterprise came around it was like rock hard bread. I appreciated that the later parts of Enterprise did try to play with the the formula, but sadly it was to little to late.
That formula did manage to give us some great stories over the years, but I just don't know if it would really work in the modern television landscape.

 

[cooleddie74]

Even "The Way to Eden" found a way to insert some social commentary into the story by showing how overly-idealistic hippie types searching for their own personal vision of paradise always come up short because it's an unattainable goal and contains the potential to damage society and other lives along the way. The search for an unrealistic utopia creates nothing but carnage.

And with that paragraph I just put more thought into that episode than the creators and writers likely did.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I'm a TOS guy more than anything else, loved the Abrams films and can't wait for the new show.

I wonder about this. For those clamoring for the old continuity, it doesn't really matter because the show is going to be wildly different from a show made in the 90's. It could be very similar in style to Abrams' movies.

Just the same, I wonder if those who adore the Abrams movies will be put off when this show doesn't star Kirk and Spock. It being what is presumably a mostly new cast of characters doesn't effectively make it different than any of the other spinoffs.

I think a lot of people have a large affinity towards their mom's mac and cheese, and that's what they want to keep having. But that's not what anybody is going to get here. We're much more likely to get something like the Abrams movies than Berman Trek, but it's still going to be wholly different due to the differences between TV and movies. I don't think you can expect it to be just like the movies.

Does every Star Trek adventure HAVE to have social commentary? Can't they just be a fun romp? Because there sure are a lot of Star Trek adventures that don't have commentary to them.

I think ideally the best entertainment makes you think about it a long time afterward. It makes you remember.

I don't think social commentary is the only way to do that, but it's one big way, and plenty of the best TV shows of the last decade have included it.

 

[Campe]

Even "The Way to Eden" found a way to insert some social commentary into the story by showing how overly-idealistic hippie types searching for their own personal vision of paradise always come up short because it's an unattainable goal and contains the potential to damage society and other lives along the way. The search for an unrealistic utopia creates nothing but carnage.

And with that paragraph I just put more thought into that episode than the creators and writers likely did.

Okay. How about "Threshold?"