Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[BillJ]

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.

If it is just people standing around and talking for 48-50 minutes, I imagine I'll get bored with it pretty quick.

I want the new show to, at least partially, return Trek to its action-adventure roots. It would be neat to have Kirk and Spock, but it isn't required. Entertaining stories are though.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

The point that I have attempted to make is that Abrams Trek has plenty of social commentary, that is subtle and woven throughout the films.

Also, I will disagree on character development. Kirk and Spock go through tremendous changes and struggles to reach the points that they do as part of their character arcs.

I'll not go on, as I think there are legitimate grievances with Abrams Trek and I don't think they are perfect. I do think they capture the adventurous spirit of TOS with some social commentary included in.

 

[Squiggy]

Also, I will disagree on character development. Kirk and Spock go through tremendous changes and struggles to reach the points that they do as part of their character arcs.

Plus, it's two hours. How many characters in any of the series go through much development in two episodes?

 

[Mudd]

There's more worthwhile social commentary in STID than in the last twenty years of Star Trek.

 

[Kor]

I thought "Into Darkness" had plenty to say about terrorism, foreign policy, pre-emptive strikes, militarism, etc.

But maybe we're so used to such issues in real life that we don't notice them when they appear in fiction.

To me, ST09 was about aspiring to be more. So many people are content with mediocrity. You certainly know plenty of people like this in real life, branded as "losers" (whether deserved or not).

Pike: 'Cause I looked up your file while you were drooling on the floor. Your aptitude tests are off the charts, so what is it? You like being the only genius-level repeat offender in the Mid-west?
Kirk: Maybe I love it.
Pike: Look, so your dad dies. You can settle for less than an ordinary life. Or do you feel like you were meant for something better? Something special?

TNG's perfect people lectured ad nauseum about human betterment, advancement, enlightenment, etc.
But ST09 showed an actual human being working toward something better.

Kor

 

[Ryan8bit]

If it is just people standing around and talking for 48-50 minutes, I imagine I'll get bored with it pretty quick.

I want the new show to, at least partially, return Trek to its action-adventure roots. It would be neat to have Kirk and Spock, but it isn't required. Entertaining stories are though.

The spinoffs never departed from the action-adventure roots. Everyone seems to perpetuate this idea that all they did was stand around and talk, but there was plenty of action, and probably not much different than TOS in ratio. The movies only emphasized this because they had the budget to do so.

Expect a new TV show, especially one on a streaming service, to include a lot more time talking than punching or blowing things up. The action quotient will be the same as TOS and TNG, which really weren't that different from each other, and less than the movies. This new series won't be that functionally different from the other spinoffs in that regard.

 

[Jedman67]

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 was responding to fireproof.

The point that I have attempted to make is that Abrams Trek has plenty of social commentary, that is subtle and woven throughout the films.

Also, I will disagree on character development. Kirk and Spock go through tremendous changes and struggles to reach the points that they do as part of their character arcs.

I'll not go on, as I think there are legitimate grievances with Abrams Trek and I don't think they are perfect. I do think they capture the adventurous spirit of TOS with some social commentary included in.

Plus, it's two hours. How many characters in any of the series go through much development in two episodes?

in the Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo and Sam go through plenty of character development. Even Boromir, one of the weaker characters in the film had some interesting development.
Done right, anything is possible.
I felt watching ST09 that the main characters were "forced"; they had shallow, contrived arcs that just didn't feel "natural". To each his own .

(@Ghouleddie: By character development, I mean that Chris Pine's Kirk had the consistency of warm yogurt, McCoy had the rough and tumble feel of an old undershirt discarded for having too many holes to wear, and Uhura was just a pair of legs.)

 

[garoo1980]

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.

God you're completely right. I feel like I've been missing that my whole life.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Personally, I don't care what the cast is. I mean, if they decide to utilize Abrams universe, then there are several characters that I would enjoy seeing:

"Cupcake"'s security adventures.

This alien and her story.

Saavik makes her entrace and becomes science officer.

Or

A new ship patrolling the Neutral Zone and discovering new threats to protect the Federation against.


I'm fine with all of it. Or none of it.

 

[garoo1980]

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.

Hopefully this new series will have 20 episodes/year or whatever and we can a bit of both. I think fans can handle having an episode one week that really suits them and the next have one that doesn't. Hopefully

 

[BillJ]

The spinoffs never departed from the action-adventure roots. Everyone seems to perpetuate this idea that all they did was stand around and talk, but there was plenty of action, and probably not much different than TOS in ratio. The movies only emphasized this because they had the budget to do so.

Expect a new TV show, especially one on a streaming service, to include a lot more time talking than punching or blowing things up. The action quotient will be the same as TOS and TNG, which really weren't that different from each other, and less than the movies. This new series won't be that functionally different from the other spinoffs in that regard.

Not all action-adventure is about punching and blowing things up. It's about pacing and movement and character interaction.

The spinoffs had obligatory action scenes, but many times they seemed to be an afterthought or filler.

 

[fireproof78]

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 was responding to fireproof.

The point that I have attempted to make is that Abrams Trek has plenty of social commentary, that is subtle and woven throughout the films.

Also, I will disagree on character development. Kirk and Spock go through tremendous changes and struggles to reach the points that they do as part of their character arcs.

I'll not go on, as I think there are legitimate grievances with Abrams Trek and I don't think they are perfect. I do think they capture the adventurous spirit of TOS with some social commentary included in.

Plus, it's two hours. How many characters in any of the series go through much development in two episodes?

in the Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo and Sam go through plenty of character development. Even Boromir, one of the weaker characters in the film had some interesting development.
Done right, anything is possible.
I felt watching ST09 that the main characters were "forced"; they had shallow, contrived arcs that just didn't feel "natural". To each his own .

(@Ghouleddie: By character development, I mean that Chris Pine's Kirk had the consistency of warm yogurt, McCoy had the rough and tumble feel of an old undershirt discarded for having too many holes to wear, and Uhura was just a pair of legs.)

Well, after that description, I feel like we have watched two different films.

Kirk's character in 09 is about potential. As Kor pointed out, Kirk is not reaching for anything. He is content sitting on his rear end, apparently causing trouble because is a "repeat offender" and doing nothing with his life, contributing nothing to society. The whole point of GR's vision (especially in TNG and oft repeated in DS9) was that humanity was all about bettering itself. Well, Kirk is not doing that-until Pike challenges him.

Spock faces a similar challenge and Sarek encourages him to be that "child of two worlds" he felt his son could be.

Really, the film is about the importance of fatherhood and its role in shaping people. Before the daggers come out, I think there are strong maternal themes as well, but the impact of fathers cannot be understated.

 

[Squiggy]

The spinoffs had obligatory action scenes, but many times they seemed to be an afterthought or filler.

And there was never any risk. The closest we ever got was Locutus but that was because Stewart didn't know if he wanted to come back.

But in the end, in the very very very, space magic happened and the Cube just blowed up.

That's been one of BermanTrek's biggest flaws. There was never really any danger. If someone actually died then there'd be some alternate copy beamed in/crossed over/cloned/or it was all a dream.

But the big shows today, the stars aren't safe. I won't spoil who dies in Game of Thrones, but it's pretty much everyone you like. Major stars also die in House of Cards.

If there's some risk or danger in the new show, say the captain dies a couple of episodes in and stays dead then that could give Trek some oomph that's hasn't been there since TSFS.

 

[cooleddie74]

Okay. How about "Threshold?"

I'm creative, not a suicidal lunatic.

 

[Campe]

Okay. How about "Threshold?"

I'm creative, not a suicidal lunatic.

 

[Yanks]

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.

Too bad it's rating were worse than 'Enterprise's'

...and it fell off the frakin bridge, not just the rails... and the closer was worse than DS9's.

The only thing they raised was the mindless glorification of those that think sex and character assassination is good writing and sci-fi.

 

[JWPlatt]

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.

You're taking the wrong perspective. Hollywood wants youthful demographics - not a real world command and crew age and experience distribution of a fully armed and operational battleship. As Uhura says, "this is fantasy." It makes perfect sense from the reality of the cynical Marketing department.

 

[BillJ]

I'm wondering if it'll be available in 4K?

 

[Yanks]

There's more worthwhile social commentary in STID than in the last twenty years of Star Trek.

This.

Too bad they thought the had to use Khan and that they ruined the whole thing with the ending.

 

[Kor]

Okay. How about "Threshold?"

I'm creative, not a suicidal lunatic.

"Threshold" was a nihilistic challenge to Roddenberry's utopian vision of human advancement, showing that, no matter how hard we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity, in a million years we're just going to end up as a bunch of giant salamanders.

Kor