Are you apprehensive about the new series?

[RandyS]

Re: OT, but: NEW TREK TV SERIES ANNOUNCED

http://comicbook.com/2015/11/02/new-star-trek-tv-series-official-details-released/



EDIT: Oops, didn't see the other thread...

Don't feel bad. There are at least five different threads in all the various forums.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: OT, but: NEW TREK TV SERIES ANNOUNCED

It's way too early to start worrying about how or if this is going to affect the books.

Let's cross that star-bridge when we come to it.

 

[Greg Cox]

The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.

suggests that it's NOT Abramsverse..

Which does not necessarily mean that it's set in the old continuity either.

There's no real way to know at this point.

 

[Sci]

Even if the entire Litverse is erased, it'll be fine as long as they keep hiring these awesome writers. They can make it work.

 

[dansigal]

The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.

suggests that it's NOT Abramsverse..

Which does not necessarily mean that it's set in the old continuity either.

There's no real way to know at this point.

Yeah to me this only suggests that the Beyond won't be setting up the new show. Considering who's involvement and the financial success of the new movies, if I had to put money on it, I'd say it's going to be in the Abramsverse.

That being said, my preference would be a continuation of the Prime continuity. I think that's highly unlikely (Abramsverse or brand new continuity seem much more likely), but I would love it. I'm a big fan of the Litverse. I think it would likely mean an end to the Litverse continuity as we know it, which would be a shame, but would still be worth it to me, to see a Prime continuity continuation.

 

[RandyS]

Even if the entire Litverse is erased, it'll be fine as long as they keep hiring these awesome writers. They can make it work.

Now, THIS I agree with.

 

[Stevil2001]

The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.

suggests that it's NOT Abramsverse.

Personally, I'm not apprehensive; I'm disgusted by the idea that it will be offered exclusively through a subscription streaming/video-on-demand service: some of us neither HAVE nor WANT broadband Internet at home. Some of us still use landline phones, and still use cellular phones that are PHONES. Some of us, when we buy recorded music or video, still buy it on physical media. Some of us would rather spend $70 and an afternoon's work on the roof and in the attic, mounting and hooking up a Yagi antenna pointed at Mount Wilson, in order to get decent reception of KUSC, than listen to it online. Some of us still read books, instead of e-books, and find nothing but irritation when publishers issue e-book-only releases.

I mean, you're obviously entitled to vomit at whatever you want to vomit at, but I hope in the 1950s, people wrote to newspapers to complain that there were episodes of Our Miss Brooks that they couldn't access with their perfectly functional radios. "Some of us still have imaginations, we don't need PICTURES."

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

At any rate, a lot can happen in well over a year. Including some premium or advertiser-supported cable/satellite channel picking it up (after all, didn't episodes of USA Network's Monk get rebroadcast on a broadcast network?) And now that I think of it, I seem to recall that DirecTV has an alternative way to order on-demand programs, for those whose STBs aren't Internet-connected.

 

[Greg Cox]

The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.

suggests that it's NOT Abramsverse.

Personally, I'm not apprehensive; I'm disgusted by the idea that it will be offered exclusively through a subscription streaming/video-on-demand service: some of us neither HAVE nor WANT broadband Internet at home. Some of us still use landline phones, and still use cellular phones that are PHONES. Some of us, when we buy recorded music or video, still buy it on physical media. Some of us would rather spend $70 and an afternoon's work on the roof and in the attic, mounting and hooking up a Yagi antenna pointed at Mount Wilson, in order to get decent reception of KUSC, than listen to it online. Some of us still read books, instead of e-books, and find nothing but irritation when publishers issue e-book-only releases.

I mean, you're obviously entitled to vomit at whatever you want to vomit at, but I hope in the 1950s, people wrote to newspapers to complain that there were episodes of Our Miss Brooks that they couldn't access with their perfectly functional radios. "Some of us still have imaginations, we don't need PICTURES."

And Gunsmoke and Superman and Jack Benny and Burns & Allen . . . .

 

[Idran]

At any rate, a lot can happen in well over a year. Including some premium or advertiser-supported cable/satellite channel picking it up (after all, didn't episodes of USA Network's Monk get rebroadcast on a broadcast network?)

Yeah, that's how syndication usually works, but shows don't usually get shopped around for syndication until the 100 episode mark.

 

[Paris]

Re: OT, but: NEW TREK TV SERIES ANNOUNCED

It's way too early to start worrying about how or if this is going to affect the books.

Let's cross that star-bridge when we come to it.

uh...Greg, we're Star Trek fans, and this is an internet message board. That first sentence makes no sense

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I think hbquikcomjamesl has a good point -- there are going to be people who simply won't be able to access this program, even if they want to. There are places where the broadband infrastructure doesn't exist, especially in rural areas, and probably won't ever exist. On top of that, the bandwidth for ever-increasing streaming content isn't there without massive investment in the grid that the internet companies are unwilling to make. So I won't say that moving from over-the-air/cable to streaming is like moving from radio to television because it's not simply a case of buying a new piece of hardware (as buying a television was) to access the material. The problem is the pipe.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

The thing that struck me with this announcement are the parallels to the launch of Voyager. Much like they used Voyager to inaugurate the UPN network back in '95, the new Trek series will be spearheading CBS's first venture into original programming for their streaming service.

I also remember back then, people were very concerned about not being able to see Voyager, since UPN didn't have local affiliates in every part of the country. Those same concerns are now being echoed by people who aren't able (or are unwilling) to subscribe to the CBS streaming service to see the new Star Trek series.

 

[DimesDan]

I think hbquikcomjamesl has a good point -- there are going to be people who simply won't be able to access this program, even if they want to. There are places where the broadband infrastructure doesn't exist, especially in rural areas, and probably won't ever exist. On top of that, the bandwidth for ever-increasing streaming content isn't there without massive investment in the grid that the internet companies are unwilling to make. So I won't say that moving from over-the-air/cable to streaming is like moving from radio to television because it's not simply a case of buying a new piece of hardware (as buying a television was) to access the material. The problem is the pipe.

All good points I guess. Not!

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I think hbquikcomjamesl has a good point -- there are going to be people who simply won't be able to access this program, even if they want to. There are places where the broadband infrastructure doesn't exist, especially in rural areas, and probably won't ever exist. On top of that, the bandwidth for ever-increasing streaming content isn't there without massive investment in the grid that the internet companies are unwilling to make. So I won't say that moving from over-the-air/cable to streaming is like moving from radio to television because it's not simply a case of buying a new piece of hardware (as buying a television was) to access the material. The problem is the pipe.

All good points I guess. Not!

Eventually. Maybe.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't see Time Warner or Comcast letting Google deploy something like that in the United States.

 

[DimesDan]

I think hbquikcomjamesl has a good point -- there are going to be people who simply won't be able to access this program, even if they want to. There are places where the broadband infrastructure doesn't exist, especially in rural areas, and probably won't ever exist. On top of that, the bandwidth for ever-increasing streaming content isn't there without massive investment in the grid that the internet companies are unwilling to make. So I won't say that moving from over-the-air/cable to streaming is like moving from radio to television because it's not simply a case of buying a new piece of hardware (as buying a television was) to access the material. The problem is the pipe.

All good points I guess. Not!

Eventually. Maybe.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't see Time Warner or Comcast letting Google deploy something like that in the United States.

I doubt it's really up to them to be fair, plus you know, more people getting on the web means more money being made via ad revenue and just general revenue of the ISP's so yes, I'm sure they'll be ok with that espcially as it would be a far cheaper way of reaching those who ordinarily would suffer from shite infrastructure.

 

[BrentMc]

Re: OT, but: NEW TREK TV SERIES ANNOUNCED

I'm not worried about the books. Star Trek books are not canon, but I enjoy them anyway. I'm fine reading a book that has since been contradicted by a show. A new series set in the prime universe would not stop me from reading books contradicted by it.

As far as what gets published I think they will publish what sells. That's supply and demand economics. Maybe a few books related to the new show will take slots that would have gone to another book series. I'm not going to worry. I think a new show will open up exciting new story telling possibilities.

 

[Kor]

Re: OT, but: NEW TREK TV SERIES ANNOUNCED

Maybe there will be a way to do a line of novels that ties into this new TV series (and maybe, by extension, the AbramsVerse, if the series is in any way related to the movies).

It was always quite odd that IDW Comics was allowed to print all kinds of stuff related to the AbramsVerse, but Pocket Books only got to do the novelizations of the movies.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

Re: OT, but: NEW TREK TV SERIES ANNOUNCED

I'm not worried about the books. Star Trek books are not canon, but I enjoy them anyway. I'm fine reading a book that has since been contradicted by a show. A new series set in the prime universe would not stop me from reading books contradicted by it.

That's not what people are concerned about. If the new series were set in the Prime continuity, then the novels would have to abandon the current novelverse in order to stay compatible with whatever the new series established. That's what happened to the '80s Pocket continuity when TNG came along and contradicted it.

Of course, if the new series is set in the Abramsverse or yet another new universe, which is what I'd expect, then presumably that would have no impact on the novelverse. Maybe this time we could actually get to write books in both continuities.

 

[BrentMc]

Re: OT, but: NEW TREK TV SERIES ANNOUNCED

Thank you for the clarification. I'm still not going to worry though because it is so early there is so much we don't know. I bet we will still get TOS,TNG,DS9, VOY,ENT books just like we do now.