Bryan Fuller showrunner for new trek...consequences?

[TheAlmanac]

You knew what I meant, right?

I'm aware that "Arrowverse" is the commonly-used term, but I've preferred "DCW" ever since I first encountered it, so I'll stick to the term I like that's an easy-to-understand pun on "DCU" and takes less time to type.

But it doesn't really fit anymore since 2 of the 6 shows aren't CW shows.

As already mentioned, five of the six shows aren't Arrow, so "DCW" is actually more inclusive...

It's also the term used by the producers and people involved with the shows, so it just seems weird to me not to use it.

Tell you what--I promise to use "Arrowverse" whenever I'm talking to the producers or people involved with the shows about it. Otherwise, I'll stick with my preference.

 

[JD]

But almost as many shows as aren't Arrow aren't on The CW, and that's even more true if we do include the '90s Flash series. Sure, most of the shows aren't Arrow, but it was the show that started the universe, so naming the whole universe after it is a way to recognize that.
Ok, I got that out of my system, so I'm done. I just thought you might now be aware that Arrowverse is more or less the official name, and apparently you are.

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's the Arrowverse, not the DCW.

Wait, I have a 'verse?!?

Since I've never seen any of those shows and don't really know what any of you are talking about, I'm just gonna pretend it's all about me!

 

[Lynx]

The man who came up with "Fury" as the new man in charge?
It made me lose interest immediately!

 

[Idran]

I'm pretty sure there has literally never been a showrunner or screenwriter that has never come up with a bad script. You really ought to judge him by the totality of his work in and out of Trek, not just a single episode.

 

[Christopher]

I'm pretty sure there has literally never been a showrunner or screenwriter that has never come up with a bad script. You really ought to judge him by the totality of his work in and out of Trek, not just a single episode.

Quite so. Mistakes and failures are a key part of how writers learn to become better writers. How anyone learns to become better at anything, really. The important thing is not whether someone has ever made a mistake -- because we all have -- but how they reacted to that mistake afterward. Did they learn from it and strive to do better, or did they pretend they'd done nothing wrong and just keep on making the same mistakes? The fact that Fuller is now a veteran showrunner in demand from the networks shows that he must have learned and improved.

 

[Stevil2001]

Also didn't Fuller co-write the screenplay to "Fury" with Taylor, to a story by Berman and Braga? There were a lot of hands involved in the making of that turd.

 

[Idran]

The fact that Fuller is now a veteran showrunner in demand from the networks shows that he must have learned and improved.

Yeah, thinking of Bryan Fuller as "one of the people behind 'Fury'" is as weird at this point as thinking of Joss Whedon as "that guy that used to write for Roseanne", or Vince Gilligan as "the guy behind the Lone Gunmen spinoff". This is the guy that created "Dead Like Me", "Pushing Daisies", and "Hannibal".

(And also an amazing Munsters reboot pilot that I still wish had gotten picked up. )

 

[Terok Nor]

I love Fury.

Time travel, Vidiians, evil old Kes. One of my favourite Voyager episodes.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, thinking of Bryan Fuller as "one of the people behind 'Fury'" is as weird at this point as thinking of Joss Whedon as "that guy that used to write for Roseanne", or Vince Gilligan as "the guy behind the Lone Gunmen spinoff". This is the guy that created "Dead Like Me", "Pushing Daisies", and "Hannibal".

Or thinking of Gene Roddenberry as that guy who wrote "The Omega Glory" and "Turnabout Intruder" . ..

 

[Idran]

Or thinking of Gene Roddenberry as that guy who wrote "The Omega Glory" and "Turnabout Intruder" . ..

Or Gene L. Coon as "the guy behind 'Spock's Brain'".

 

[Christopher]

Or Ron Moore as the guy behind "Aquiel."

 

[Greg Cox]

Or Richard Matheson as the guy who wrote "Jaws 3-D."

(And, yes, I would have liked to see more of Fuller's revisionist take on the Munsters, too.)

 

[Jarvisimo]

Really, to judge someone on one script from early in their career? Why not look at his work from later - Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies and of course Hannibal.
Fuller is an excellent even visonary showrunner; in Hannibal did some of the most impressive visually striking and skillful characterisation from the past few years' network tv. Whilst it isn't NBC that will be working with him, I think he's an excellent choice by CBS - hopefully they will give him the freedom. Also this might finally be filmed Trek with a much more inclusive world! Consider his last interview about Hannibal with Sepinwall, where his awareness and his ability to communicate and negotiate are on show:

You've talked about this relationship in romantic terms. Bedelia makes that even more explicit in some of her conversations with both men this season. Was there any thought given to having them do more than embrace at the end, or would that in some way be diminishing the very unique and strange nature of their relationship?

Bryan Fuller: Mads and Hugh, there were a lot of takes where they got very intimate, and lips were hovering over lips. I definitely had the footage to go there, because Mads and Hugh were so game. They called me and warned me: "We really went for it!" And then I saw the dailies, I thought there was a fine line from that #Hannigraham fan fiction motive to give the hardcore audience exactly what they want in terms of this actually being a homosexual relationship between these two men, and what is authentic for the characters in that final moment. I mean, it's not "Brokeback Mountain." Mads isn't gonna be spitting on his hand and getting to work. (laughs) We felt we had to keep it genuine to the tone of the relationship as we've been telling it in the series, and even in that moment when Will asks if Hannibal is in love with him, and Bedelia says, "Of course he is, ya big queen!" Even in that moment, it's not quite dipping into the physical passions that would be the case if they were both homosexual. But I feel one is ominisexual and one is heterosexual and there's a lot of influence going back and forth, who knows with a six pack of beer what would happen.

In the past, you've said that you wanted the violence on the show to be operatic and almost like science-fiction, because you weren't interested in evoking all the real violence out there in the world. And for the most part, the most graphic things on the show are done to dead bodies. This season, though, we had incidents like the lip-biting, or the eel swimming right down Mason's throat, that seemed much more graphic and explicit than anything you'd done before, especially since they involved victims who were still alive at the time. Why the shift?
Bryan Fuller: In a way, it felt like it was all a part of this devil's bargain. All the characters made this devil's bargain with Hannibal, and they suffer for it. In fact, the only person who appears to get away with somewhat of a happy ending is Alana Bloom. You see her flying away with her wife and her child. You see one getting away, and you know she's going to be surrounded by men with guns for the rest of her life to make sure Hannibal doesn't come in through the window. It really was about where the story was taking us. The investigations, where we've used the pendulum to reverse time and allow Will to crawl through a wormhole into the headpsace of John Malkovich or whoever was doing the murders and see them that way, it felt with Chilton in particular, it was a little bit of that "Let's kill Kenny" zeal of, "Oh, we've got to do this to Chilton." He got shot in the face, he got gutted, and part of the meta fun of the show was that we're going to do something horrible to Raul Esparza every season, and the hope is that you really dig it.

You talked before about NBC really indulging you over the years, and your own lack of interest in the procedural stuff. In a million years, would they have allowed you to come in at the start of the series with the season 3 aesthetic? Or did you have to slowly immerse them in the water and heat it up or else they'd have never let you get that far?

Bryan Fuller: Absolutely. We had to earn their trust. We had to be able to say, "This is the procedural version of the show." If the show was a huge hit, and really connected with an audience in a way that "The Blacklist" did, they would have said, "No, this is the format of the show, and you're keeping to it." But because the show wasn't a huge hit, and had a very niche but passionate audience, I think they saw no harm in allowing me to play.

And it will be beautiful

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

Really, to judge someone on one script from early in their career? Why not look at his work from later - Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies and of course Hannibal.

Don't forget Wonderfalls, which is underappreciated. And Heroes season 1. I believe Fuller's "Company Man" is widely considered one of that series's finest episodes.

 

[Idran]

He did "Company Man"? Oh wow, I hadn't known that; I didn't even realize he was involved with Heroes. He's even higher in my eyes then, yeah.

 

[Christopher]

^Yup, Fuller was a writer-producer on season 1 of Heroes. As in, the only good season of Heroes. I don't consider it a coincidence that the show went to hell right after he left.

 

[JD]

(And also an amazing Munsters reboot pilot that I still wish had gotten picked up. )

(And, yes, I would have liked to see more of Fuller's revisionist take on the Munsters, too.)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person around here who liked Mockingbird Lane.

 

[Sci]

All works are built of influences from other works, but the reboot brings the Dna too close. It's the thing that scuppers Into Darkness for some people. It has the dependencies on an original that something like an alternate world story has, but ultimately depends on that original too much. But I digress.

Pure nonsense. Star Trek Into Darkness has an almost completely original story. It's just that the one sequence that is constructed to closely parallel an earlier sequence -- Spock watching Kirk die from radiation exposure and yelling, "Khan!," paralleling Kirk's scream of Khan's name and Kirk watching Spock die of radiation exposure in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- resonated in people's memories more than the rest of the movie. The actual plot of the movie -- Kirk is ordered to use authoritarian, abusive methods to track down a terrorist, only to discover that that terrorist was manipulated by a conspiracy within his government that wants to provoke a war -- bears no relationship to anything from the earlier films. Really, the closest any of the earlier Star Trek shows did to Into Darkness was the DS9 two-parter "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost."

I have no recollection of any reboot of an ongoing story ever besting the original, and very rarely matching it, certainly for popularity with a fanbase. Galactica is probably the exception, and even then it annoyed a set of people with its last series or so.

Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012) was a successful reboot of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumaker Batman film series (1989-1997). (And Tim Burton's 1989 film can be seen as a reboot of the Adam West film.)

The new Deadpool film (2016) is a reboot of the earlier version of Deadpool that appeared in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009).

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) is a reboot of the 1990 Captain America.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) is a reboot of the original Planet of the Apes (1968).

The Incredible Hulk (2008) was a reboot of Hulk (2003).

Casino Royale (2006) was a reboot of the James Bond franchise.

The Marvel Television/Netflix series Daredevil is a reboot of the Ben Affleck film Daredevil (2003).

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (2010-present) is a reboot of My Little Pony (1984-1987).

And, of course, Star Trek (2009) was a wildly successful reboot of the Star Trek franchise, grossing an adjusted North American box office of $284,274,572 -- which is approximately $16 million more than the franchise's previously all-time high of $268,198,020 for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), and approximately $131.9 million more than the previous films' average box office of $152,342,319.70.

Sorry, but plenty of reboots are very popular and successful, and Star Trek is a prime example of that.

The reboot is the fan fiction training wheels of creativity. It's playground 'wouldnt it be cool if' but without any evolution beyond that.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

You see that in people liking say....Q-who over The Naked Now.

The one where Trelane introduces the Cybermen?

Exactly. There often seems to be this weird idea that a new version will somehow "replace" or "ruin" the previous version, which isn't really the case.

Hitchcock's PSYCHO is not going away or being ruined in any way just because we had a bad remake a few years ago. Nor is BATES MOTEL (which I'm liking so far) going to stop people from enjoying the Hitchcock movie--or the original novel--for years to come.

Not to make you feel any older, but Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was released on 4 December 1998. That's two presidents ago -- two two-term presidents ago. A child born on that day can be a licensed motor vehicle operator and can see R-rated movies without their parents, and they're just a few months away from becoming a legal adult. More than "a few years ago" now.

Those books got pretty naff towards the end of the run.
I still feel bad for the very active retcon they got hit with, and it does pretty much guarantee I will never buy another star wars book for myself ever again, as a relatively casual reader of them. What's the point. They become the same level as fan fiction over night.

1) They were never going to constrain anyone who made new Star Wars films and it was ridiculous to ever expect them to. No, Lucasfilm is not going to constrain the makers of Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens because of something in a book published in 2002 that sold maybe a few thousand copies. Anyone who made you think otherwise was full of it.

2) They are not "on the level of fan fiction" because they were still professionally produced and authorized by the intellectual property owners.

I also can't be bothered with the new film because of the things it then borrowed from those books, and the way it goes for the shock and awe (I was one of those who inferred a couple of things from the trailers and promo guff, and was sad to find out I was right. I might watch it on telly in a few years.)

You are missing out on a wonderful movie for incredibly silly reasons.

* * *

TL;DR:

As Captain Kirk said in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: "Some people are very threatened by change."

 

[jaime]

Pure nonsense. Star Trek Into Darkness has an almost completely original story. It's just that the one sequence that is constructed to closely parallel an earlier sequence -- Spock watching Kirk die from radiation exposure and yelling, "Khan!," paralleling Kirk's scream of Khan's name and Kirk watching Spock die of radiation exposure in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- resonated in people's memories more than the rest of the movie. The actual plot of the movie -- Kirk is ordered to use authoritarian, abusive methods to track down a terrorist, only to discover that that terrorist was manipulated by a conspiracy within his government that wants to provoke a war -- bears no relationship to anything from the earlier films. Really, the closest any of the earlier Star Trek shows did to Into Darkness was the DS9 two-parter "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost."



Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012) was a successful reboot of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumaker Batman film series (1989-1997). (And Tim Burton's 1989 film can be seen as a reboot of the Adam West film.)

The new Deadpool film (2016) is a reboot of the earlier version of Deadpool that appeared in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009).

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) is a reboot of the 1990 Captain America.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) is a reboot of the original Planet of the Apes (1968).

The Incredible Hulk (2008) was a reboot of Hulk (2003).

Casino Royale (2006) was a reboot of the James Bond franchise.

The Marvel Television/Netflix series Daredevil is a reboot of the Ben Affleck film Daredevil (2003).

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (2010-present) is a reboot of My Little Pony (1984-1987).

And, of course, Star Trek (2009) was a wildly successful reboot of the Star Trek franchise, grossing an adjusted North American box office of $284,274,572 -- which is approximately $16 million more than the franchise's previously all-time high of $268,198,020 for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), and approximately $131.9 million more than the previous films' average box office of $152,342,319.70.

Sorry, but plenty of reboots are very popular and successful, and Star Trek is a prime example of that.



You have no clue what you're talking about.



The one where Trelane introduces the Cybermen?



Not to make you feel any older, but Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was released on 4 December 1998. That's two presidents ago -- two two-term presidents ago. A child born on that day can be a licensed motor vehicle operator and can see R-rated movies without their parents, and they're just a few months away from becoming a legal adult. More than "a few years ago" now.



1) They were never going to constrain anyone who made new Star Wars films and it was ridiculous to ever expect them to. No, Lucasfilm is not going to constrain the makers of Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens because of something in a book published in 2002 that sold maybe a few thousand copies. Anyone who made you think otherwise was full of it.

2) They are not "on the level of fan fiction" because they were still professionally produced and authorized by the intellectual property owners.



You are missing out on a wonderful movie for incredibly silly reasons.

* * *

TL;DR:

As Captain Kirk said in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: "Some people are very threatened by change."

Aggressive. Adversarial. Lol.

Will only answer to few things then.

Some of the things you mention are reboots, some are remakes, some are soft reboots of series that already regularly soft reboot (the bond films. Judi Dench as M is carried over in Casino Royal, and Bond films soft reboot every time there's an actor change. It's also an adaptation from a book, which means reboot rules in some ways dont apply...I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but every version of Jane Eyre would not be a reboot of the previous. It would be a different adaptation.)

Oddly, I studied Creative Writing, among other things, and got a decent enough degree in it, so my opinions are not merely based on fan rage. They are opinions, but in a clarifiable way, I do know what I am talking about.

As Trelane never introduced an enemy from Doctor Who to captain Kirk, it's safe to say that Q-who is not a reboot or remake or borrowed concept from the original series, no matter the providence of the borg concept.

In terms of the Star Wars novels, I never expected them to be accepted as 'canon' by the new movies, regardless of the old Lucas approach, I also did not expect them to be raided while the grave earth was still loose (and why would a certain child of certain characters be called Ben?)
Reviews from friends, who I naturally have respect for regarding Star Wars films, suggest that waiting for a TV showing is a valid choice over buying the film when it comes out (I don't do cinema these days for a variety of reasons anyway.) and I do not appear to be missing out on much.

Into Darkness was an interesting film right up until Nimoy showed up (God rest his soul) but after that it does what I describe, depending on a another source entirely for its emotional weight and a large chunk of dialogue. Which is a shame, because for a moment there, I thought it was going to live up to its promise. There is a character on screen basically saying 'yeah, it's a whole new universe and everything will unfold differently....except him. No matter what has changed he's going to be a villain. You shouldnt trust him. I am a guy from a whole other continuity and I am telling you this'

As for the other reboots/remakes, some I am not familiar with, Deadpool wasn't even out when I posted, and X Men films did a fairly decent film lately where they changed the timeline, not to mention it's one character who was a part of an earlier film. I don't think it's a reboot any more than the changes to different versions of the White Queen or Cyclops are in those films. Besides which....they are adaptations once again.
I am still pretty certain that the majority of actual reboots, in film and television, are usually not as successful as their original versions. Literary reboots are rare, but probably suffer from the same issues, comic reboots are likely an exception, but in recent years the scale of that makes it hard to judge, not to mention devising a fair test, and possibly tilt the scales against the reboot being a success (basically DC sort of got away with it years ago, but this Marvel thing hasn't panned out yet, and I am not sure heroes reborn went down too well in the 90s, but the ultimate universe did gangbusters but existed alongside the other continuity and so probably isn't a reboot.)

There's enough fan opinion on both sides to suggest there is good reason for my opinions and rejections.