Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

[Kemaiku]

Um, I was just pointing out that to accommodate storylines like the one that they just did, they probably would have defaulted away from he if created today instead of 1963. But as Jinn pointed out they did a magical fix for it so it really wasn't necessary. I would argue that entertainment these days is not the one obsessed with these issues.

*handwaves* I use "they" pronouns these days and even I don't need a magic hammer to validate me.

 

[Lord Garth]

So, unless those years are just coincidence, I'm guessing you started with the Crisis (or perhaps Dark Knight?), and stopped with the "New 52"? Pretty glaring contrast between a well-executed reboot and a badly executed one. The latter almost drove me away from comics, as well.

It's half a coincidence. I guarantee you there's NO WAY my mother would've let me read The Dark Knight Returns when I was seven. I was reading Star Comics and comics geared towards little kids.

On the 2011 end, yeah. Flashpoint and the New 52 turned me off. And I was only a fan of DC. I didn't have the disposable income I used to (utilities, rent, groceries, and all of the good stuff), I was massively in debt, and I'd already hit my 30s, so I figured it was time to let it go. The reboot made the decision pretty easy.

 

[eschaton]

I would add Sheridan, vir, Deleon to the list. Oh and Marcus.

I mean, they weren't bad by any means. But I could easily see someone else in those roles who put in an even better performance.

But I guess that shows why a reboot could work so well. JMS is still reasonably young and could rework all of the episodes he wrote (which is most of them). Only two of the actors were so good you'd have to worry about someone lesser following in their footsteps. The "first-wave" CGI looks terrible in retrospect (and didn't look good really when I was a teenager either), and the rest of the show was markedly low budget. So there's really nowhere to go put up.

 

[fireproof78]

Funny enough, New 52 gave me hope I could get in to it. Then the comics promptly lost me again...

My only series that I truly have enjoyed has been Injustice.

 

[Belz...]

get that a lot, do you?

As a relatively neutral observer on this issue, yes, a lot of people get that a lot even for entirely reasonable comments or criticism of something that happens to have some connection to women or minorities.

On the other hand, some people treat every female or minority casting as some sort of attack on Western Civilisation.

I'm surprised you find it surprising that people like what they like and don't like what they don't like, and have a sentimental attachment to the former but not the latter.

Well I'm surprised that you're surprised that I find something that I didn't say surprising.

Perhaps you should read what I say more carefully. What I _did_ say is not that fans dislike things that aren't to their tastes, but that they think that the show should be made for them individually and specifically. That's insane.

The personal is political, as the saying goes, and always has been.

First of all, no, the personal is not political; not necessarily, and certainly not always; and that's the title of a 1970 book. Second, it doesn't mean that one has to make every topic about politics. Watching a Star Trek series or movie doesn't need to be about Donald Trump, for instance.

 

[jaime]

It's half a coincidence. I guarantee you there's NO WAY my mother would've let me read The Dark Knight Returns when I was seven. I was reading Star Comics and comics geared towards little kids.

On the 2011 end, yeah. Flashpoint and the New 52 turned me off. And I was only a fan of DC. I didn't have the disposal income I used to, I was massively in debt, and I'd already hit my 30s, so I figured it was time to let it go. The reboot made the decision pretty easy.

I had a similar mother.
Though the trek books could be pretty racy.
I am still trying to find the tng issue where tori and crusher are at a waterfall on the holodeck, and there’s this odd single breast bared swimsuit. I remember the art on the waterfall being gorgeous..like some Franzetta thing. But I just can’t find it. (Trek comics experts, there’s your challenge...)

 

[eschaton]

Wow, I ordinarily agree with you so much that this statement really shocks me! I think B5 not only stands up admirably to re-watching (I've watched it beginning-to-end more than once), but arguably stands out as the single best SF series in TV history. And seriously, you can't say "other than the writing," because the writing is what made the show. What JMS accomplished there was and is amazing. Not only did B5 pioneer long-form serialization and nail the landing better than any show since, not only did it do slow-build reveals and dramatic payoffs that really worked, but it was chock-full of the kind of wonderfully intricate politics and shifting allegiances and evolving characters that characterized, say, the early seasons of Game of Thrones (before it went past the books).

The post I was replying to was basically making the point that it might be dicey to reboot Babylon 5 because it wouldn't do the original justice. Yes, I loved the writing of the series very much. But the limitations - both of the era and the budgets that were given to JMS - are obvious.

1. The cast had two stellar performers, and then a mix of journeymen actors and downright terrible actors (particularly in many of the lesser roles).

2. The effects, both CGI and practical, were low-budget for the time, and don't hold up well today at all. Hell, the sets were cheap as hell too.

3. Even the overall arc suffered due to the whims of production. First JMS had to do a lot of unimpressive standalones in Season 1 to prove he had what it took to do a series. Then he had to hurry along his five-year plan in the fourth season when he thought it was going to be canceled. Finally when it was unexpectedly saved for a season, he had to pull an entirely new unplanned season out of his butt so to speak. A reboot wouldn't have these pacing problems, since the entire arc is there for all to see.

I think a reboot of Babylon 5 would be great. But as long as they cast Londo and G'Kar with actors who could follow in their footsteps, nothing much would be lost. Although, come to think of it, Peter Jurasik is still alive, and only 68, meaning he could easily play Londo again in a reboot.

 

[jaime]

I mean, they weren't bad by any means. But I could easily see someone else in those roles who put in an even better performance.

But I guess that shows why a reboot could work so well. JMS is still reasonably young and could rework all of the episodes he wrote (which is most of them). Only two of the actors were so good you'd have to worry about someone lesser following in their footsteps. The "first-wave" CGI looks terrible in retrospect (and didn't look good really when I was a teenager either), and the rest of the show was markedly low budget. So there's really nowhere to go put up.

I couldn’t, not for those three. I find it hard but just about doable for Garibaldi, Ivonova and Talia. And Bruce really pulled a blinder as he settled into that role. Even the guest cast were usually solid.

I agree with you about the effects and stuff, but saying that, you could always see the idea that was there...like with the Matte paintings. There’s something so beautifully nineties about everything in the show, and I would hate to see that Voodoo graphics card and blouse sleeved shirts style get lost in the hands of today’s dull designers, even if Mass Effect is like the child conceived in an odd three way between B5, Spirits Within and Trek, it’s not the right style for B5.

 

[lawman]

Perhaps you should read what I say more carefully. What I _did_ say is not that fans dislike things that aren't to their tastes, but that they think that the show should be made for them individually and specifically.

I was merely interpolating from your statement (which I did quote, after all) just as you were apparently interpolating from the statements of others. Certainly no one has actually said "the show should be made for them individually and specifically." So either you're misinterpreting what is actually a pretty trivial and reasonable phenomenon (as I posited), or you're arguing against a straw man.

First of all, no, the personal is not political; not necessarily, and certainly not always; and that's the title of a 1970 book.

Yes, it really is. I'm aware of the book (of course), but it was making a general statement, not something specific to its times. Pretty much every human action — every artistic expression, every business decision, every interpersonal interaction, every lifestyle choice — has political implications and sends political messages, whether intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect. They all involve assumptions and expectations about proper social roles within specific social constructs, and they all implicate power dynamics that arise from such things. That's what social scientists spend their lives studying, for heaven's sake. Political scientists per se study the formal political institutions and structures, but that doesn't mean the informal ones don't exist, and they have other specialized disciplines devoted to them.

Second, it doesn't mean that one has to make every topic about politics. Watching a Star Trek series or movie doesn't need to be about Donald Trump, for instance.

No, of course not. (And the Trump-esque dialogue Lorca was saddled with in his final episode was a little too on-the-nose.) But they need to be about something, and unless the story is deadly dull and completely trivial, that something will almost certainly have political implications.

 

[Vger23]

I was merely interpolating from your statement (which I did quote, after all) just as you were apparently interpolating from the statements of others. Certainly no one has actually said "the show should be made for them individually and specifically." So either you're misinterpreting what is actually a pretty trivial and reasonable phenomenon (as I posited), or you're arguing against a straw man.


Yes, it really is. I'm aware of the book (of course), but it was making a general statement, not something specific to its times. Pretty much every human action — every artistic expression, every business decision, every interpersonal interaction, every lifestyle choice — has political implications and sends political messages, whether intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect. They all involve assumptions and expectations about proper social roles within specific social constructs, and they all implicate power dynamics that arise from such things. That's what social scientists spend their lives studying, for heaven's sake. Political scientists per se study the formal political institutions and structures, but that doesn't mean the informal ones don't exist, and they have other specialized disciplines devoted to them.


No, of course not. (And the Trump-esque dialogue Lorca was saddled with in his final episode was a little too on-the-nose.) But they need to be about something, and unless the story is deadly dull and completely trivial, that something will almost certainly have political implications.

A great number of Star Trek's best stories had no intended political "message" or allegory whatsoever.

I don't view...

Where No Man Has Gone Before
Devil in the Dark
Trouble with Tribbles
Corbomite Maneuver
Mirror Mirror
Journey to Babel
Specter of the Gun
Tholian Web
The Inner Light
Yesterday's Enterprise
Best of Both Worlds
Darmok
TMP
Wrath of Khan
Search for Spock
First Contact

...as deadly dull or completely trivial.

So, struggling to agree there.

 

[Belz...]

I was merely interpolating from your statement (which I did quote, after all) just as you were apparently interpolating from the statements of others. Certainly no one has actually said "the show should be made for them individually and specifically." So either you're misinterpreting what is actually a pretty trivial and reasonable phenomenon (as I posited), or you're arguing against a straw man.

No, I've had Trekkies tell me exactly this, first, and second, paraphrasing is not strawmanning, so I can characterise some Trekkies' arguments as such without issue, when they boil down to that.

Yes, it really is.

It really isn't. My personal concerns are not a political issue. They're my concerns. If you think your personal concerns are something that should be the government's concerns then you have an inflated opinion of yourself.

I'm aware of the book (of course), but it was making a general statement, not something specific to its times. Pretty much every human action — every artistic expression, every business decision, every interpersonal interaction, every lifestyle choice — has political implications and sends political messages, whether intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect.

That's ridiculously reductionist and simplistic. You can probably not take a single human issue and encapsulate it with a single cause, dynamic or solution. When I draw a starship, I'm not making a political statement, and the drawing has no political implication. So you're clearly wrong.

No, of course not. (And the Trump-esque dialogue Lorca was saddled with in his final episode was a little too on-the-nose.) But they need to be about something, and unless the story is deadly dull and completely trivial, that something will almost certainly have political implications.

That's quite a boring worldview concerning fiction. When I watch movies or TV series, I don't want people to try to draw me into their political nonsense. I tend to steer away from that kind of stuff. I see enough politics in real life.

 

[Belz...]

The post I was replying to was basically making the point that it might be dicey to reboot Babylon 5 because it wouldn't do the original justice. Yes, I loved the writing of the series very much. But the limitations - both of the era and the budgets that were given to JMS - are obvious.

1. The cast had two stellar performers, and then a mix of journeymen actors and downright terrible actors (particularly in many of the lesser roles).

Who are the stellar ones, might I ask? I'm assuming Londo and G'Kar, but I want to make sure. Plus, I think Boxleitner and quite a few others delivered, if not stellar performances, pretty solid ones.

2. The effects, both CGI and practical, were low-budget for the time, and don't hold up well today at all. Hell, the sets were cheap as hell too.

Meh. I don't care much about how good the CGI was. I was there for the story and characters.

 

[mos6507]

The story was centered about all the characters overcoming the bad situation. How they worked together, to solve the central puzzle of the episode.

Amen. Star Trek I think reflected the problem-solving attitude of the space program at the time when it seemed like the whole country was mobililized to solve huge engineering problems. Kirk drop-kick aside, action often revolved around the strategy of the fight (like the cat and mouse of Wrath of Khan) rather than who could serve up the bigger beat-down (witness Spock thrashing Khan in into-darkness).

I think that's just as significant if not more of a significant contribution to the cultural conversation than the diversity aspect. Sure, diversity is great, but have the crew then proceed to work together (not engage in lover's quarrels on the bridge in a moment of crisis like into darkness or the mutiny right in the pilot of Discovery in order to make it GOT "edgy").

I think since today society is so fragmented that Trek reflects this fragmentation. Trek has changed because we've changed.

 

[BillJ]

Whilst it’s a money thing in the end, it’s usually the number of viewers that determines cancellation.

Because viewers represent dollars to production companies and content providers.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Ya know. When I watched coming to America with Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall, I didn't complain about a lack of white representation. I wasn't bitching about the only white male in there was that fat comedian. Nope. I didn't care.

*slow clap* How brave of you. Perhaps that's because you could immediately turn around and watch 5,000 other films starring white male protagonists and a predominately white cast. But it's mighty white of you to give a free pass to what was at the time still one of a relative few examples of the same positive represenations for black people.

But now, you've got these people who make it All about race, gender and so on. That's unfortunate. That's the problem.

That would be you, every thread, all the time. You're obsessed with it. You can't stop talking about it. Every time a woman or minority or LGBTQ person or disabled person is cast in any genre property you're like Johnny on the Spot to whine about the SJW vagenda ruining sci-fi and victimizing the poor downtrodden straight white mans man with their identity politics. Sometimes you do it with genre properties you admit that you don't even really care about.

The only ones who make a huge deal out of this stuff is guys like you who are worried about a minor loss of automatically earned status in the world in order to make things just a tiny bit more equitable for others who have been traditionally underserved. To everyone else, if you weren't constantly throwing temper tantrums about it, it would just be called "casting" and wouldn't involve all this endless manchild angst.

If it's just the character happens to be this or that, it feels natural. Not an agenda. Like the casting of Idris in Pacific Rim. Great actor who happens to be black.

Oh, you don't think Idris Elba gets this kind of shit thrown his way all the time too? Just find any discussion on the internet about the mere possibility of him playing James Bond, or the bruhaha over him playing Heimdall.

When they turn it into a mantra and a "Ha! In your face Whitey! Sexist, mysogonist, bigot!" then it's a problem.

Right, that sounds like a typical Hollywood casting call or press release to me, because you know how much they just love to alienate their largest viewing demographic in America.

Where does this happen except in the paranoid fever dreams of the professional faux-victim class? Please, give me some examples.

Especially when that's used anytime a white fan has a complaint about the show that's legit, and reasonable. That's the issue that many are dealing with now and it's industry wide and across all properties, star wars, marvel comics, soon the MCU, and DC comics and tv shows, STD, and Doctor who.

Your definition of a legit complaint from a white fan and reality are at a pretty far remove. But you let me know when one finally comes up around here. I'll be waiting with bated breath.

 

[eschaton]

Who are the stellar ones, might I ask? I'm assuming Londo and G'Kar, but I want to make sure. Plus, I think Boxleitner and quite a few others delivered, if not stellar performances, pretty solid ones.

Yes, as I indicated elsewhere, those too. I think a lot of other cast members delivered, but IMHO there's a difference between that and elevating material.

Meh. I don't care much about how good the CGI was. I was there for the story and characters.

Of course you don't. But a reboot is going to try and attract the next generation to Babylon 5. IIRC it's on Amazon Prime now, but I can't imagine many millennials checking it out, because you'd need the nostalgia factor to look past the production limitations.

In contrast, I rewatched DS9 around the same time as Babylon 5. Aside from the ridiculously terrible Odo-morphing effects, everything about it stands the test of time.

 

[fireproof78]

No, I've had Trekkies tell me exactly this, first, and second, paraphrasing is not strawmanning, so I can characterise some Trekkies' arguments as such without issue, when they boil down to that.

Same here. I generally disagree with a lot of Trekkies over this view, but I have seen it articulated, including to the point of "I prefer no Trek than Trek I don't like."

Meh. I don't care much about how good the CGI was. I was there for the story and characters.

That's all I want. Otherwise I would not enjoy some fan films.

 

[eschaton]

A great number of Star Trek's best stories had no intended political "message" or allegory whatsoever.

I don't view...

Where No Man Has Gone Before
Devil in the Dark
Trouble with Tribbles
Corbomite Maneuver
Mirror Mirror
Journey to Babel
Specter of the Gun
Tholian Web
The Inner Light
Yesterday's Enterprise
Best of Both Worlds
Darmok
TMP
Wrath of Khan
Search for Spock
First Contact

...as deadly dull or completely trivial.

So, struggling to agree there.

Devil in the Dark was one of the classic TOS allegorical/"message" episodes. It starts out seeming like a simple monster movie episode, and then it turns out that in reality the "monster" was another sentient being who viewed humans as being the real monsters. The theme of the episode was basically to try and understand even those who are very different from you, and to show compassion. One could perhaps argue this wasn't directly political, but it was as openly political as Trek got.

 

[Lord Garth]

Of course you don't. But a reboot is going to try and attract the next generation to Babylon 5. IIRC it's on Amazon Prime now, but I can't imagine many millennials checking it out, because you'd need the nostalgia factor to look past the production limitations.

Thanks for dropping this little tidbit. I had no idea Babylon 5 was on Amazon Prime. I'm not going to be spend my holiday arguing about Disco, and it's way too hot to do much outside -- so I know what I'm going to the rest of the night...

 

[fireproof78]

Thanks for dropping this little tidbit. I had no idea Babylon 5 was on Amazon Prime. I'm not going to be spend my holiday arguing about Disco, and it's way too hot to do much outside -- so I know what I'm going to the rest of the night...

Good catch