Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

[NeroShrimp]

Netflix may be interested in making a new Star Trek series but I hope they just announce it and get on with it already.

 

[C.E. Evans]

No, it's the definition for action-adventure movies.

No, it's the definition of a standard plot.

Sorry, but it's not. It's the definition of a genre of movies, TV episodes, books, etc.

There are plenty of movies that would not be categorized as action-adventure, and that don't even have those elements, which would still fit under what you said.

Not really. They'd just be movies with action-adventure elements or vice-versa.

The definition of an action-adventure movie is plain and simple. It's a movie with lots of action content...

Actually, the action-adventure content can vary from production to production (be it a movie, TV episode, etc.), and it would still be an action-adventure production. Such as Star Trek.

, and where the characters go on an adventure. Star Trek is that, but it's not hyperfocused on that.

As I said more than once, action-adventure is something that varies between productions. As you said, Star Trek is an adventure series. What you consider "hyperfocused" is your opinion.

No. TOS had plenty of action in it. It was actually a major draw for many viewers.

I never said there wasn't action, I just said it wasn't the end-all-be-all.

Neither did I. Action-adventure is a big genre and covers many both filmed and literary works. It's not limited to just anything fast-paced.

Surely people watched it for that, as people tend to watch shows for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that action was not the basis of everything.

Actually, the very premise of TOS is that of an action-adventure series, a ship going out into space and encountering all sorts of things out there, both good and bad. I said from the very start, the scope of that enabled the show to tell many different kinds of stories.

In a lot of episodes, particularly the good ones, the action was very secondary to the drama and the plot, not the other way around.

Truthfully, they tended to go hand-in-hand. Often, drama was the result of action as much as action was a result of drama. Many of the Enterprise's adventures tended to be varied.

With the respective characters, but not much else.

That falls under the superficial I described. There is more than that which people can differentiate. Hell, as a kid I wasn't really big into either and I understood the difference.

My point is that their differences beyond their respective geekdoms are generally considered superficial. People knew the difference between Luke Skywalker and James Kirk or Darth Vader and Spock, but the more esoteric aspects tended to be less well known outside of the sci-fi community.

You're going to have to explain this. But in any event, the point stands regarding TMP's story.

No it doesn't at all.

Oh, yes, it does. Unless you were simply a die-hard Trekkie, TMP was not a very exciting movie.

Maybe if you're trying to make a point that's largely tangential to what I was actually discussing. The point was in reference to what Gene Roddenberry would do, as if his opinion was all that important anyways. It's almost treated religiously, and like religion people have this tendency to speak for what they think their god would want. It's ridiculous.

Nah, that wasn't what I was talking about at all. Just how the movie was received in general. "Lukewarm" is probably putting it kindly, although I have met a couple of people who did fall asleep during the movie.

The point was that TMP had a large budget, and it was not as action packed as the new movies, or even contemporary action movies of the period. They had the money to make something with as much action as Star Wars, but they opted to go a different route. That's just one reason of many why you couldn't claim anything about what GR would want. Quality has zero bearing on that point.

See above response.

 

[BillJ]

Netflix may be interested in making a new Star Trek series but I hope they just announce it and get on with it already.

I'm not so sure that they are. They seem to be having no issue with creating original programming. Why pay CBS for the license when they could create their own space opera? If that's an avenue they're interested in exploring.

 

[NeroShrimp]

Netflix may be interested in making a new Star Trek series but I hope they just announce it and get on with it already.

I'm not so sure that they are. They seem to be having no issue with creating original programming. Why pay CBS for the license when they could create their own space opera? If that's an avenue they're interested in exploring.

I remember the big campaign on bringing a fifth season to Enterprise through Netflix. I guess that only really worked with Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Arrested Development.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Sorry, but it's not. It's the definition of a genre of movies, TV episodes, books, etc.

No, the definition I gave is. What you defined was really basic, and I'll prove it by showing how a non-action movie fits it:

The movie I'm using is Identity Thief (2013) (not a very good movie, but still...)

"Characters undertake a journey or mission": The main character goes on a journey/mission to find his identity thief.

"Wind up in a jam they have to get out of": They wind up in several jams as he tries to bring her home to justice.

No one would ever say this is an adventure film, and I'd be hard-pressed to call it action since there is only a small portion of violence in the movie. What you defined is one of a few types of basic plots that is inherent to just about every genre, and isn't contingent upon action-adventure. Way too vague.

Actually, the action-adventure content can vary from production to production (be it a movie, TV episode, etc.), and it would still be an action-adventure production.

Ok, amend that to "enough action content." Basically it has to fill a quota to be considered an action movie. And yes, Star Trek does.

What you consider "hyperfocused" is your opinion.

Perhaps, but I think many would agree that an episode like "City on the Edge of Forever", one of the most widely held to be the best of all Trek, was much more focused on drama, science-fiction, and plot, than action.

Actually, the very premise of TOS is that of an action-adventure series, a ship going out into space and encountering all sorts of things out there, both good and bad.

The premise of TOS is basically what's listed in the opening monologue, and while that is adventure, action is not entirely implied. And let's cut the fat here, no one was complaining that there was too much adventure in the new movies. We're focusing more on action.

Truthfully, they tended to go hand-in-hand. Often, drama was the result of action as much as action was a result of drama.

One then might wonder about the new movies whether the action is there to serve the plot, or whether it's there just for the purpose of having cool action. I think many action movies fall under the pressures of having lots of "kewl" scenes. There's nothing wrong with that really, but if that's the case it is a different approach than most of the movies and other shows.

My point is that their differences beyond their respective geekdoms are generally considered superficial.

I know what your point is, and it's wrong. I already said, before I was much into either franchise, I had a pretty strong idea of the differences in tone and theme between the two. I'm sure I could find several examples of people who could as well.

Oh, yes, it does. Unless you were simply a die-hard Trekkie, TMP was not a very exciting movie.

I really don't like TMP at all, but that's still way besides the point!

I got wrapped up in another point made by someone else here, but the conversation basically went like this:

YOU: If they had more budget/technology in the past, they would've made more action like today.
ME: But they had a big budget for TMP, and it didn't really have that much action for its budget.

And then you went on to talk about the quality of the film, which is a total non-sequitur. The point is, they had the money, and that didn't necessitate making high amounts of action. And when they did make action, they still balanced it out and paced it so that it wasn't as constant.

And just to set the record straight, I don't even really care that much. Yes, the new movies have a lot more action, and I still enjoy them. They're built a lot more like traditional movies rather than two-hour episodes. But I think I'd prefer something with more of a pace to develop things rather than cramming in lots of characters, one-liners, and action. Movies these days tend to have a format that's all about highlighting those aspects because it's what people pay for and want to see, and the new Star Trek movies are no exception to the trend.

Television these days does exactly that. That's what I want out of Trek.

 

[AviTrek]

Netflix may be interested in making a new Star Trek series but I hope they just announce it and get on with it already.

I'm not so sure that they are. They seem to be having no issue with creating original programming. Why pay CBS for the license when they could create their own space opera? If that's an avenue they're interested in exploring.

I remember the big campaign on bringing a fifth season to Enterprise through Netflix. I guess that only really worked with Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Arrested Development.

It only worked with Arrested Development. Clone Wars episodes were basically finished. They were always going to be shown somewhere, the question was just where.

And the first question is, is CBS interested. If CBS is not interested in making a new show, then Netflix can't just do it on its own.

 

[NeroShrimp]

I'm not so sure that they are. They seem to be having no issue with creating original programming. Why pay CBS for the license when they could create their own space opera? If that's an avenue they're interested in exploring.

I remember the big campaign on bringing a fifth season to Enterprise through Netflix. I guess that only really worked with Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Arrested Development.

It only worked with Arrested Development. Clone Wars episodes were basically finished. They were always going to be shown somewhere, the question was just where.

And the first question is, is CBS interested. If CBS is not interested in making a new show, then Netflix can't just do it on its own.

Obviously not.

 

[wulfio]

Just skimming this thread now that it has devolved away from the topic, but this is a beauty here:

...The exception is Abrams trek, which is a pile of mindless garbage, with a few TOS homages thrown in between the action beats....None of the pre lens flare Star Trek movies are action oriented movies(nemesis and insurrection don't exist for me).

So, basically, ignore the movies that disprove your point. Got it.

You're assuming I consider Abrams stuff trek.

Mighty presumptuous of you.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Sorry, but it's not. It's the definition of a genre of movies, TV episodes, books, etc.

No, the definition I gave is. What you defined was really basic...

*SNIP*

For the sake of brevity, let's just say that you see things differently and move on.

 

[Ben]

I'm not so sure that they are. They seem to be having no issue with creating original programming. Why pay CBS for the license when they could create their own space opera? If that's an avenue they're interested in exploring.

I remember the big campaign on bringing a fifth season to Enterprise through Netflix. I guess that only really worked with Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Arrested Development.

It only worked with Arrested Development. Clone Wars episodes were basically finished. They were always going to be shown somewhere, the question was just where.

And the first question is, is CBS interested. If CBS is not interested in making a new show, then Netflix can't just do it on its own.

It worked with the Killing, too.

And with Community, though that will be on Yahoo, not Netflix.

 

[The Doctor]

Just skimming this thread now that it has devolved away from the topic, but this is a beauty here:

...The exception is Abrams trek, which is a pile of mindless garbage, with a few TOS homages thrown in between the action beats....None of the pre lens flare Star Trek movies are action oriented movies(nemesis and insurrection don't exist for me).

So, basically, ignore the movies that disprove your point. Got it.

You're assuming I consider Abrams stuff trek.

Mighty presumptuous of you.

It's got 'Star Trek' right in the title. You may not like it, but it's Star Trek, baby.

 

[BillJ]

Just skimming this thread now that it has devolved away from the topic, but this is a beauty here:



So, basically, ignore the movies that disprove your point. Got it.

You're assuming I consider Abrams stuff trek.

Mighty presumptuous of you.

It's got 'Star Trek' right in the title. You may not like it, but it's Star Trek, baby.

+1

 

[wulfio]

It's got 'Star Trek' right in the title. You may not like it, but it's Star Trek, baby.

The nice thing about this world, is that we don't need to all share the same opinion.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I don't think it's really much of an opinion. If something is made by those who own it and they put Star Trek in the title, it's pretty much Star Trek. It may not be what you like about Star Trek or what you consider the essence of Star Trek to be, but that's different than just saying it's not Trek.

 

[trekker670]

I remember the big campaign on bringing a fifth season to Enterprise through Netflix. I guess that only really worked with Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Arrested Development.

It only worked with Arrested Development. Clone Wars episodes were basically finished. They were always going to be shown somewhere, the question was just where.

And the first question is, is CBS interested. If CBS is not interested in making a new show, then Netflix can't just do it on its own.

It worked with the Killing, too.

And with Community, though that will be on Yahoo, not Netflix.

"Arrested Development" was only a moderate success with Netflix. They did notice a spike in subscribers and users due to the release, but only 10% of viewers watched the entire season. This was attributed to the drop in quality of the show, and the new format used for the new season.

Here's an excerpt from the an article enumerating some reviews:

The Wall St. Journal commented, “At its worst, the new/old Arrested Development is reduced to doing a shaky imitation of itself: the characters and themes are there but the beats are slightly off, as is the tone.”

The New York Times goes even further, saying, “Chalk one up for the Internet: It has killed ‘Arrested Development,'” and “it’s hard to imagine being anything but disappointed with this new rendition.”

Variety reports Netflix shares fell 5 percent as a result on Tuesday morning.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Just skimming this thread now that it has devolved away from the topic, but this is a beauty here:



So, basically, ignore the movies that disprove your point. Got it.

You're assuming I consider Abrams stuff trek.

Mighty presumptuous of you.

It's got 'Star Trek' right in the title. You may not like it, but it's Star Trek, baby.

By that logic, I could make a YouTube video of myself shooting laser beams at a green puppet, call it 'Star Trek' and it would be Star Trek.

IMO for something to be spiritually, not just legally, Star Trek it needs to be creatively in sync with the original material.

I consider Abrams Trek to be a different Star Trek than our Star Trek. Just like Nolan Batman is a different Batman than comic book Batman. Same IP, different universe. The relationship between Abrams Trek and our Trek is similar to the relationship between the show 'Elementary' and the show 'Sherlock'.

 

[trekker670]

I consider Abrams Trek to be a different Star Trek than our Star Trek. Just like Nolan Batman is a different Batman than comic book Batman. Same IP, different universe. The relationship between Abrams Trek and our Trek is similar to the relationship between the show 'Elementary' and the show 'Sherlock'.

I'm pretty sure he would agree with you, hence the whole alternate universe/timeline.

 

[trevanian]

If netflix ever had the op to do something like this, it'd have to be a section31 show. That's pretty close to what they've already got with the Othello-like HOUSE OF CARDS, but doing it in the TREK universe lets you see the corruption happening in a much different light, showing WHY it these enhanced humans can act all saintly while living in paradise, and the personal cost in ethics to make that happen.

 

[VST]

You're assuming I consider Abrams stuff trek.

Mighty presumptuous of you.

It's got 'Star Trek' right in the title. You may not like it, but it's Star Trek, baby.

By that logic, I could make a YouTube video of myself shooting laser beams at a green puppet, call it 'Star Trek' and it would be Star Trek.

IMO for something to be spiritually, not just legally, Star Trek it needs to be creatively in sync with the original material.

I consider Abrams Trek to be a different Star Trek than our Star Trek. Just like Nolan Batman is a different Batman than comic book Batman. Same IP, different universe. The relationship between Abrams Trek and our Trek is similar to the relationship between the show 'Elementary' and the show 'Sherlock'.

Sorry but if it's legally called Star Trek, then it *is* Star Trek - no matter how much you personally may not like its creative direction.

The great headline news is what *you* consider Star Trek is still there & always will be.

 

[urbandefault]

In my opinion, the "fans" are the reason there probably won't ever be another tv Trek series. Maybe if they'd pull the board out of their ass ... but that won't happen.