Ultimately I blame Tim Kring for everything...he's pretty much got final say on the direction of the show, with exception of the studio execs.
Fuller quits Heroes
- Thread starter firehawk12
- Start date
From the man himself...
"I'm crafting two pilots right now and it's a lot of work," admits Fuller, who has an overall deal with NBC. "It was just too hard to [juggle] Heroes and my development; something had to give."
http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/06/this-just-in-bryan-fuller-exits-heroes.html
No point going down with the sinking ship. Of course he has a deal with NBC so.... yeah... nevermind then...
"I'm crafting two pilots right now and it's a lot of work," admits Fuller, who has an overall deal with NBC. "It was just too hard to [juggle] Heroes and my development; something had to give."
http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/06/this-just-in-bryan-fuller-exits-heroes.html
No point going down with the sinking ship. Of course he has a deal with NBC so.... yeah... nevermind then...
That would be a difficult deal to make. Trek movies and Trek tv are currently run by different companies. It would be interesting to see what was exchanged for such a deal to be made.
^I heard that it's more of a handshake agreement than a formal deal. And it makes sense to me. CBS Paramount Television may retain the rights to ST on television separately from Paramount Pictures' rights to ST in motion pictures, but I'm sure CBS appreciates that the success of the franchise as a whole is riding on J.J. Abrams right now, and that making him unhappy is not in the best interests of anyone who wants to profit from a Trek series. So I doubt that Paramount Pictures and Bad Robot had to buy CBS's cooperation. It's probably just a friendly, informal agreement between companies who recognize that their success is intertwined.
^I don't think there's any correlation there. If Chuck is scheduled to premiere at a later date than Heroes, then its production will be geared toward that schedule and it won't be practical to move it up.
You never heard about the law of conservation for Pulp TV Christopher?
There's a finite amount of money that can and has to be used during a finite timeperiod, baring no remainder or surplus fearing complications form the bastards in accounts which WILL bite them in the ass next season.
There's a finite amount of money that can and has to be used during a finite timeperiod, baring no remainder or surplus fearing complications form the bastards in accounts which WILL bite them in the ass next season.
I seen series 1 of heroes and loved it but only got into a few eps of season 2 and never got round to catching up.
After reading some comments on here i think i will just stick with my season 1 memory's.
After reading some comments on here i think i will just stick with my season 1 memory's.
It really is for the best. I thought Season 2 was bad, bad...but then, I saw Season 3....and it was even worse.
Good for Fuller, don't get pulled down with this ship...
Quite right, all new contracts would have to be drawn up if they wanted Abrams to do a series.
Also, just becuse Fuller works for NBC it does not automaticaly disclude a Star Trek tv series. Many don't realize that CBS makes some shows for NBC , even though they compete there is alot of cross show production between the two companies. A Star Trek series by Fuller on NBC is more unlikly do to other political reasons. CBS may want to reap the profits from Star Trek yet the show does not fit in its current crime drama / procedural formula and they may not want to degrade Star Trek by putting it on CW or a cable network so it is possible to produce it for NBC and recieve profits from it. CBS right now would rather not take on Star trek directly and let others handle it (like Viacom is with the movie), but do need to be carefull that the brand name is not tarnished by mis-management.
IMO, the only 3 that have the best shot right now at showrunning a trek series are Abrams, Ron Moore and Fuller (or any combination of the above),
Last edited:
^The problem is that we're dealing with various related companies with similar names. Star Trek's TV rights are owned by a studio named CBS Television Studios (formerly CBS Paramount Television), which is owned by a media conglomerate named the CBS Corporation, whose properties also include the television network named CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (as well as The CW and Showtime). So the CBS that produces shows is not the same corporation as the CBS that broadcasts them; they're just owned by the same conglomerate. CBS Television Studios can choose to air its shows on the CBS network because of the corporate synergy, but as an independent television studio, they can sell their programming to any TV network (just as they did when they were named Paramount Television).
Paramount Pictures, the Viacom-owned movie studio, got an option to retain the movie rights to Star Trek when the old Viacom split into a new Viacom and the CBS Corporation. This was a side effect of CBS and Viacom inheriting Paramount's TV and movie libraries, respectively. That option would expire if Paramount didn't make a new Trek movie in a certain amount of time, which is why we got a new Trek movie now when everyone before had been expecting the franchise to lie dormant for a while longer.
As for Bryan Fuller, he's not "working for NBC" exactly; he's an independent producer whose company is called The Living Dead Guy Productions. He's signed a 2-year development deal with Universal Media Studios, which is the current name for the TV production arm of NBC Universal Television Group, the result of yet another mega-merger. So he's working with the studio that's affiliated with the NBC television network.
So if his deal with UMS is exclusive, that means he wouldn't be free to work on a Trek series for CBS Television Studios (CTS) until those two years expire (which would be the end of 2010 or thereabouts).
As for Abrams, he'd probably be an executive producer of any new Trek series, but his plate would be pretty full with the movies and maybe with Fringe (if that lasts), so if the showrunner gig went to anyone at Bad Robot, I'd expect it to be someone like Damon Lindelof or Kurtzman & Orci.
Paramount Pictures, the Viacom-owned movie studio, got an option to retain the movie rights to Star Trek when the old Viacom split into a new Viacom and the CBS Corporation. This was a side effect of CBS and Viacom inheriting Paramount's TV and movie libraries, respectively. That option would expire if Paramount didn't make a new Trek movie in a certain amount of time, which is why we got a new Trek movie now when everyone before had been expecting the franchise to lie dormant for a while longer.
As for Bryan Fuller, he's not "working for NBC" exactly; he's an independent producer whose company is called The Living Dead Guy Productions. He's signed a 2-year development deal with Universal Media Studios, which is the current name for the TV production arm of NBC Universal Television Group, the result of yet another mega-merger. So he's working with the studio that's affiliated with the NBC television network.
So if his deal with UMS is exclusive, that means he wouldn't be free to work on a Trek series for CBS Television Studios (CTS) until those two years expire (which would be the end of 2010 or thereabouts).
As for Abrams, he'd probably be an executive producer of any new Trek series, but his plate would be pretty full with the movies and maybe with Fringe (if that lasts), so if the showrunner gig went to anyone at Bad Robot, I'd expect it to be someone like Damon Lindelof or Kurtzman & Orci.
Damn, there goes Heroes, barring a miracle... 
I just got around to watching season I of Dead Like Me (about time, huh?) with my 16 year old son, who loves it.
Oddly enough, he didn't like Pushing Daisies that much.
But makes me wonder if Fuller is the right guy for Trek... unless his body of work includes something a little more ... genre friendly?
Forget about Moore. Abrams? Why not?
I just got around to watching season I of Dead Like Me (about time, huh?) with my 16 year old son, who loves it.
Oddly enough, he didn't like Pushing Daisies that much.
But makes me wonder if Fuller is the right guy for Trek... unless his body of work includes something a little more ... genre friendly?
Forget about Moore. Abrams? Why not?
12 episodes, outstanding content, I'd love that.
Showtime canceled SG-1 and Jeremiah and I think that 5 year show (Odyssey or something)... don't see them doing Star Trek any time soon.
I loved most of his writing on Voyager and he wrote Heroes' best episode, "Company Man", but the show has now really fallen apart at the seams and is in a much more untenable position than Lost ever was, and why tru keeping a dead duck afloat?
I'm not that big of a Fuller fan. I wasn't that impressed by a lot of his Trek work with such episodes as Empok Nor, Spirit Folk, Fury, Juggernaut, Retrospect, Course Oblivion, Gravity.
He did write Heroes' best episode to date--"Company Man" and wrote "Collisions"--a decent set-up episode. Season one of the show was great but it is hard to really separate out in these arc-based shows who came up with what. So I don't really know the extent of Fuller's influence.
I can say that I wasn't impressed by his return in season three when a lot of people were saying he was going to come back and save the show. "Cold Snap" was a good episode but not an excellent one and the last six episodes while a tad bit better than the preceeding ones still weren't that great. So all the savior talk about Fuller much like about Moore I didn't get.
I honestly don't know what happened to this show. How Kring went from a highly complex entertaining season long arc with dozens of characters with lots of great twists and cliffhangers permeating with tension to a rather plodding show with dull characters is beyond me. I remember thinking that Heroes first season was great and you can even tell that Lindelof and Cuse saw its success and started treating LOST seasons as volumes with a series of questions introduced and answered by the end of the season instead of dragging things out.
Maybe the fact that he had a few years to really develop season one was the answer. Maybe NBC scuttled Kring's vision by insisting on keeping the characters around from season one when he had planned on adopting a revolving cast.
Fuller might say it was all about having too much on his plate but honestly I think it had to do with creative differences and he is just trying to be polite.
He did write Heroes' best episode to date--"Company Man" and wrote "Collisions"--a decent set-up episode. Season one of the show was great but it is hard to really separate out in these arc-based shows who came up with what. So I don't really know the extent of Fuller's influence.
I can say that I wasn't impressed by his return in season three when a lot of people were saying he was going to come back and save the show. "Cold Snap" was a good episode but not an excellent one and the last six episodes while a tad bit better than the preceeding ones still weren't that great. So all the savior talk about Fuller much like about Moore I didn't get.
I honestly don't know what happened to this show. How Kring went from a highly complex entertaining season long arc with dozens of characters with lots of great twists and cliffhangers permeating with tension to a rather plodding show with dull characters is beyond me. I remember thinking that Heroes first season was great and you can even tell that Lindelof and Cuse saw its success and started treating LOST seasons as volumes with a series of questions introduced and answered by the end of the season instead of dragging things out.
Maybe the fact that he had a few years to really develop season one was the answer. Maybe NBC scuttled Kring's vision by insisting on keeping the characters around from season one when he had planned on adopting a revolving cast.
Fuller might say it was all about having too much on his plate but honestly I think it had to do with creative differences and he is just trying to be polite.
I think that's it. These characters and their arcs were designed to run for one season only. At the end of the season, their stories had been told. Everything after that was just an attempt to artificially extend them past their shelf life.