Bryan Fuller Stepping Back From Showrunner Role on ‘Star Trek: Discovery’

[eyeresist]

^^ What's with the 700 word posts?

I really love Bryan Fuller's work, especially Pushing Daisies and Hannibal but he has never done a show that was actually successful. So maybe him stepping back isn't such a bad thing, he got it off the ground, mapped out the story arc and wrote the first two episodes and now others take over to maybe make it a bit more accessible?

He's certainly the cult favourite rather than the commercial success. But the personality of his shows is so strong I don't see how anyone could have pulled them back to be more "normal", without basically making a different show. Will there be a de-Fuller-isation process to make the series more "normal", in the same way Antman was rejigged to fit the standard Marvel format?

 

[fireproof78]

^^ What's with the 700 word posts?

He's certainly the cult favourite rather than the commercial success. But the personality of his shows is so strong I don't see how anyone could have pulled them back to be more "normal", without basically making a different show. Will there be a de-Fuller-isation process to make the series more "normal", in the same way Antman was rejigged to fit the standard Marvel format?

Given how much money CBS is pouring in to this project, and that Kurtzman hasn't changed, means we might not see that de-Fuller-isation process.

Not sure. This all sounds like standard Hollywood politics that will get picked apart because "Star Trek."

 

[Shalashaska]

Actually Goldsman is a much more prestigious name than Fuller in the industry. Fuller has produced a handful of acclaimed and short-lived shows. Goldsman has an Academy Award and lots of big budget movies as well as some TV shows to his name.

I don't care. Fuller makes great TV shows and I prefer his work to Goldsman's whose resumé is lots and lots of Hollywood run-of-the-mill schlock.

You put so much trust into awards and fake achievements and "prestige", I don't care. I don't care how prestigious they are in the business, I care about the quality of their work, not their stylish, flashy medals and shiny big budgets.

 

[Mudd]

"Quality" as fans use the term is an entirely subjective synonym for "what I like."

Awards, box office, etc. at least introduce some quantifiable information into discussions which are otherwise just folks waving their, uh, personal preferences at one another.

 

[Shalashaska]

^^ What's with the 700 word posts?

He's certainly the cult favourite rather than the commercial success. But the personality of his shows is so strong I don't see how anyone could have pulled them back to be more "normal", without basically making a different show. Will there be a de-Fuller-isation process to make the series more "normal", in the same way Antman was rejigged to fit the standard Marvel format?

I do fear this. Fuller has such a strong sense of style, personality and quirkiness to his work that it always felt a little too good to be true. I don't think Fuller was pushed out like Wright on Ant-Man, maybe CBS did like his work so far. His style can't be replicated though.

 

[Shalashaska]

"Quality" as fans use the term is an entirely subjective synonym for "what I like."

Awards, box office, etc. at least introduce some quantifiable information into discussions which are otherwise just folks waving their, uh, personal preferences at one another.

Personal preference isn't relevant in an argument?

I like to hold my own opinion and thoughts on a subject rather than pointing at others and saying "look how much they like it!".

 

[Balok's Decoy]

"Quality" as fans use the term is an entirely subjective synonym for "what I like."

Awards, box office, etc. at least introduce some quantifiable information into discussions which are otherwise just folks waving their, uh, personal preferences at one another.

Well, yes and no. Awards are decided by people, based on their entirely subjective opinions about what constitutes "quality." Box office is a representation of a lot of different factors -- subjective opinion, public taste and interest, word of mouth, complex marketing campaigns, etc. I think the subjectivity of "quality" extends far beyond mere fan opinion.

 

[Mudd]

Well, yes and no. Awards are decided by people...

So are elections of all kinds, and they produce objective winners.

Success in the marketplace is measurable. Artistic success is another matter entirely, but financial success is among the most, if not the most important measure of the value of popular art. Popular art is a commercial product to which fans become emotionally attached.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

So are elections of all kinds, and they produce objective winners.

Success in the marketplace is measurable. Artistic success is another matter entirely, but financial success is among the most, if not the most important measure of the value of popular art. Popular art is a commercial product which fans invest with personal meaning.

So Transformers: Dark of the Moon is one of the greatest movies of all time.

 

[Mudd]

So Transformers: Dark of the Moon is one of the greatest movies of all time.

If that's your personal opinion you're entitled to it. Some folks will certainly have contrasting opinions.

Of course, that's neither what I've written nor implied.

Knock yourself out tackling those straw men.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Of course, that's neither what I've written nor implied.

I mean, I don't want to misunderstand you, but what you seem to be saying is that box office receipts are an objective measure of quality. And if that's the case, then blockbusters are inherently "better" than smaller or independent films.

 

[LtChange]

Eh, I'm not too worried about it.

The press release is basically PR-speak for "he was just working too damn slow with all his other projects, but we already sold a series, now we have to deliver the product ASAP". It puts a big emphasis on that they are still talking with each other.

Compare that with the press release from when Robert Orci was booted from Star Trek 3, which behind all the "have a long history of great work together" basically summed up to "we fired his ass and will never call him again", and you can see the difference.

Besides, the show has a clear direction now, and is helmed by the people hand-picked by Fuller to co-run it with him. It'll be fine. It might not be 100% Fullers' vision anymore, but since none of us know what that was, it's hard to complain. And a bit of pressure sometimes is very good for the arts - I would be more worried if everything worked like clockwork, because that usually spells "bland generic Hollywood product".

Exactly. This is what I think too. Rumor goes that basically Netflix payed for the whole first season for the international rights and now they expect a product to be delivered ....

 

[Mudd]

I mean, I don't want to misunderstand you, but what you seem to be saying is that box office receipts are an objective measure of quality.

I am saying that there is no objective measure of quality for popular art (nor, arguably, for any art).

There are objective measures of success in the marketplace, however, that bear on the acceptance and popularity of a work.

It's not evident that there's any great value in maintaining online disagreements about movies, TV, comics etc. as fact-free exchanges where assertions wrapped in the mantles of tradition, anecdote, and/or the putative authority of critics with whom a poster agrees are privileged as having merit while citing real measurements of audience preferences as expressed through their choices are derided as mere philistinism.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I am saying that there is no objective measure of quality for popular art (nor, arguably, for any art).

There are objective measures success in the marketplace, however, that bear on the acceptance and popularity of a work, and no real excuse for being dismissive of those metrics when they're brought into conversation.

Okay, that distinction makes more sense. I agree that there is no objective measure of quality in art. And I agree that there are marketplace metrics of success and popularity, which are different from the concept of "quality," but can still be useful. That usefulness, for me personally, is more relevant to predicting business decisions, such as how Beyond's financial status could determine whether or not ST4 (14?) gets made at all, and if it does, what that movie could be.

 

[BillJ]

Okay, that distinction makes more sense. I agree that there is no objective measure of quality in art. And I agree that there are marketplace metrics of success and popularity, which are different from the concept of "quality," but can still be useful. That usefulness, for me personally, is more relevant to predicting business decisions, such as how Beyond's financial status could determine whether or not ST4 (14?) gets made at all, and if it does, what that movie could be.

The Transformers movies aren't my cup of tea. One being a success would be a fluke, but obviously there are a ton of people out there that think they are "good" because the keep buying tickets to them. I imagine Paramount wants Star Trek to be that kind of "good".

 

[Mudd]

The Transformers franchise is hugely successful. I know my own taste well enough to be pretty sure that I will never see one, but I don't feel too urgent or frequent a need to bash people for liking Michael Bay movies.

It might not be 100% Fullers' vision anymore,

Well, the original Star Trek benefited tremendously from not being anywhere near 100% Roddenberry's vision.

 

[BillJ]

The Transformers franchise is hugely successful. I know my own taste well enough to be pretty sure that I will never see one, but I don't feel too urgent or frequent a need to bash people for liking Michael Bay movies.

I've seen a few, my wife likes them. First one was okay, wanted to gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon during the others.

Well, the original Star Trek benefited tremendously from not being anywhere near 100% Roddenberry's vision.

Yep. Peeples, Fontana, Justman, Coon. To name a few contributors.

 

[Jedman67]

The Transformers franchise is hugely successful. I know my own taste well enough to be pretty sure that I will never see one, but I don't feel too urgent or frequent a need to bash people for liking Michael Bay movies.

Speaking of Michael Bay...

 

[Dr. Chandra]

More episodes =/= better.

Good shows in 2016 do not have more than thirteen episodes a year. Hell, even thirteen is pushing it.

Hey, I'm on board. Maybe they'll cut it back to one or, at the most, two episodes! That would make them awesome!

 

[chicagodavepsn]

Really bummed to see fuller leave hes a terrific showrunner, heres hoping he can still stay somewhat involved in the process.