Where is your confidence level now with ST:Dis?

And what evidence might that be?

 

Pretty much as I said. Jim Lanzone CEO of CBS Interactive.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...e-ceo-interview-star-trek-reboots-more-960655

What was behind Bryan Fuller's high-profile exit from Star Trek?

He deepened his commitment to American Gods [for Starz], the other show that he was making. Our time frame did not wind up [lining up] with the time frame of the show that he was already committed to. The good news is we have his entire vision for the show. He's still the show's creator. And Alex Kurtzman is still the executive producer. It's essentially the same team, but his full-time commitment was not something we were able to secure.

 

The same as Abrams Trek and Enterprise, very low. Myself, I am not interested in prequels and reboots, in general. I hope to see a brave new creative team that cares about Star Trek to a shot, one day. I would like to have a post Nemesis series.

 

A matter of applying common sense, rather than choosing to "side with corporation."

Without the corporation, the talent doesn't have a platform, at least in the case of IP like this. It's a symbiotic relationship. The corporation provides the funds and access to the IP, and the talent delivers within parameters set by the corporation.

An author writing their own IP can work to their own timetable, a writer on a TV show cannot.

Discovery is a big part of All Access. Discovery may not have been created if not for that role. A delay leaves a rather large hole in that service. CBS granted one delay; they could not be expected to grant another.

Further, people had been hired to work on Discovery with dates in mind. Are they expected to sit around and keep their schedules clear until Fuller decides it is worthy of his attention, having chosen another project as a higher priority?

Harlan Ellison only delivered City On the Edge of Forever after much haranguing, threats and finally being locked in an Desilu office (though he escaped out a window at one point).

They couldn't afford to sit around waiting for him to deliver, even if it could have been a better product. Nor could CBS with Discovery.

 

Well, no. They are investing millions of dollars in it, they need to begin recouping that money as soon as possible. Just basic economics.

 

Didn't they get Mexico to pay for it?
Your point remains that Mexico would have an interest to release it ASAP, but they've always seemed more open to "when it's ready" principle.

 

There is also the matter of deadlines and budgets. Creators are not just allowed to run rampant. Some strange ideas on this thread last few days. Hopefully I've dispelled them.

RAMA

 

But, that's not how TV and show development works.

It's not siding with "the corporation" (whomever that is in this case). It's recognizing the business that this is and the limits that come with it. As others have stated (@donners22 & @RAMA) there are more than just artistic considerations but millions of dollars on the line for the companies that are invested. Which means they have to adhere to the time frame, budget and rules put in place by the boss.

Delays cost money-how much of your money would you be willing to put up in order to cover the delay? As you pointed out, delays cost them one of their producers.

Secondly, from my experience, art thrives under pressure. It can provoke creativity, team work, and innovation that wouldn't have happened with the luxury of time. TWOK is a perfect example of this as is "Star Wars". So, giving them more time may actually work against the creative process in the end.

Finally, not sure why this runs in to an "anti-corporation" argument. There are multiple factors involved, and the corporations are only one. One doesn't have to be "pro-corporation" to recognize their involvement in this project.

 

Actually, it's Netflix which is paying for the entire production of Star Trek: Discovery. "Basically, Star Trek is going on CBS All Access for free."

Thanks! I needed a good laugh!

 

Your quote is not quite accurate. "Basically, Star Trek is going on CBS All Access for free" is how it reads. This doesn't mean CBS hasn't invested money in to it, but that they have already made that investment back.

In the business world, that is an important distinction. Of course, I'm sure that will be treated as a distinction without a difference.

 

Well of course you would. Your accuracy rate with your claims is very low.

Actually the sale of the show and rights to the TV franchise have simply gone towards the cost of the show which was the plan all along. Only 20-30% was expected to come from subscriptions and they simply made more than expected. You need to keep up. Old news.

RAMA

 

I'm guessing that whether any Trekkies' confidence level is either low or high right now, once production starts and we start seeing photos, videos and anything else that has to do with the show, everyone will be happy.

UPN- era Trek is dead and gone. (Notice I didn't say Berman-era? Because he was never the culprit.) CBSAA Trek is here to stay. And it better be, because if it doesn't, we'll have no Trek at all.

 

My confidence level is pretty damn low.

From the botched trailer, to the weak ship design, to the awful logo, to Fuller's departure, to the fact that it comes out in what...less than 5 months and they haven't even started shooting yet. Duncan Jones, a major cast member just did an interview stating he has no idea what the show is about or what he'll be doing yet. Really?!

CBS All Access has a weak business model. Apparently it's been out for years now and they're just now deciding it's time to actually pay attention to it? So their answer is a whopping 2 shows. Big whoop.

So yeah...hopes slightly higher than they are for the Trump administration.

 

They start filming this month. They've been working on set construction, scripts and effects simultaneously for several months. Your concerns about Fuller leaving and the show being delayed are interrelated. Delays are why he departed.

I really think there's far too much hand-wringing and doomsday prophecies from fans right now. Tv shows are complex enterprises (no pun intended) and there's a lot of moving pieces. Different aspects start and stop at different times. If anyone thinks producing a show should be free of any and all controversy or change, you're kidding yourself. This is nothing. Everyone needs to chill.

 

Seconded. We don't have enough information (despite what websites might say) to know exactly what's going on. In this day and age, were information is money, keeping things tight to the vest might be frustrating for fans, but might be deemed necessary by production executives.

 

I'm not confident at all in the new show. Another prequel is just not what I care about. It takes place 10 years before TOS. Why do we care? Nothing too universe shattering can happen since TOS happens in 10 years. They are going to be restrained even more than Enterprise. I tried to watch Enterprise and I was just so bored. A Klingon on earth lets bring him back! Like we didn't know how that would end.

Star Trek should be about the future and moving forward. TNG and DS9 were awesome adding to the universe. I wish there would be another 24th century show after the Dominion War. There's still more stuff out there but no we have to see the old starfleet 23erd century YET again sigh..

 

There's nothing out there in the 26th century that isn't there in the 22nd.

Because there's no future or past. It's a series of stories made up by the same writers no matter what the setting.

 

Yeah the idea that there are no stories left in the 23rd century because there's 79 hours of 23rd century material is so short-sighted and unimaginative it's...actually pretty ironic, given the criticism people ascribe to this idea.

 

I've learned from the (RA)MAster…

 

If there's no stories left to tell in the 23rd century there's none left anywhere else either. Fundamentally the best trek stories are morality plays at heart, not explorations of the setting. That stuff happens but as a byproduct of good story telling, not as a driving force, for me that's where Voyager went haywire. Frankly given that we are talking about an entire century on a canvas the size of a galaxy 79 hours seems pretty tiny anyway.

Sufficiently talented writers can explore a given concept in any setting and there's no reason to suspect moving further into the future is somehow going to allow different ideas to become available.

EDIT: just realised Serveaux said it better