Concerns about the new ST

[AdmiralBruno]

ST should be at LEAST 22 episodes a season. 13 is not enough.

Also, they better not use this as a vehicle to push a radical agenda by making "LGBT" characters specifically just to say they have them. I remember one thing in DS9 where there was sort of a lesbian moment, but I think it had to do with a past trill relationship which was heterosexual. Besides for that I don't think there is very much of that. They could've done that on Enterprise, and they didn't. Why does it have to be done now? SO we can push a certain agenda that is not present in either the new movies, or any of the other movies or shows? Rather absurd.

Also, I hope the rumors that it takes place between TOS and TNG isn't true. It would make it nearly impossible for any guest stars from the newer series, and for that reason alone in feeling a connective tissue to past series it shouldn't be so. Set it after Voyager/Nemesis. Since characters might age slower due to the longer life-spans maybe jump ahead like 30 years instead of 15, but that would be best.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Per this notification, threads about the upcoming series should be the Future of Trek forum. Energizing....

 

[JWPlatt]

At what point does this show get its own forum? It's about as close as a show can get without releasing a title. It is a show now - not just wishful thinking.

 

[Shalashaska]

ST should be at LEAST 22 episodes a season. 13 is not enough.

Good argument.

 

[Brainsucker]

I prefer 13 episodes. Because they need only to split their budget to 13, rather than 22. Thus they can give me better everything to each episode.

 

[Tosk]

Also, they better not use this as a vehicle to push a radical agenda by making "LGBT" characters specifically just to say they have them.

It's not an agenda to reflect what society actually looks like.

Also, I hope the rumors that it takes place between TOS and TNG isn't true.

It's not true.

 

[Maestro]

I hope they have LGBTQ characters and that they're treated like they're completely normal.

 

[BillJ]

Too early to be concerned about a TV series we know very little about.

Though for the folks who get squeamish by "teh gays", they might want to find something else to watch.

 

[dbcooper]

Their didn't seem to be any "clunky" insertion of gay characters in Hannibal. I suspect that gay characters in the new Trek will just be characters who happen to be gay, which will not be their defining characteristic.

 

[Maestro]

Their didn't seem to be any "clunky" insertion of gay characters in Hannibal. I suspect that gay characters in the new Trek will just be characters who happen to be gay, which will not be their defining characteristic.

Works for me!

 

[Greg Cox]

Also, they better not use this as a vehicle to push a radical agenda by making "LGBT" characters specifically just to say they have them. .

Oh, for God's sake, this again? Let's look back at the beginnings of STAR TREK:

"The Cage": The whole episode is about aliens trying to get a straight guy to mate with one of three attractive women.

"Where No Man Has Gone Before": Gary Mitchell and Dehner have a thing, plus we hear about a cute blonde lab technician Kirk almost married.

"Mantrap": Meet McCoy's old flame. And the Salt Vampire attracts its prey by turning into an attractive member of the opposite sex. (Kind of a missed opportunity there: suppose one of the creature's intended victims had been gay--and the Salt Vampire appeared to them as a same-sex object of desire instead? That would have been a nice touch, although probably a bit too much for 1966.)

"Charlie X:" Charlie develops an inappropriate crush on Yeoman Rand.

Need I go on? Would you say that those episodes were "pushing an agenda" by continually stressing how straight all these characters are just because they can? I mean, did we really need that gratuitous bit about the cute blonde just to shove Kirk's heterosexual lifestyle down our throats?

Seriously, the mere existence of gay characters does not constitute an agenda. And if such a character runs into an old flame, develops a crush on another crew member, or gets seduced by a sexy alien with ulterior motives . . . well, that's what STAR TREK characters have doing since Day One. No "agenda" there . . . just old-fashioned STAR TREK plotting, updated for 2017.

If STAR TREK can handle straight characters being casually straight, it can surely handle gay characters being casually gay. It's that simple.

 

[JWPlatt]

It's not an agenda to reflect what society actually looks like.

I think there are better arguments; I don't trust this one. There are a great many attributes of society that are underrepresented. Many of those are undesirable human traits. So if you make the argument, you have to take the bad with the good about how you represent society in your casting.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

I prefer 13 episodes. Because they need only to split their budget to 13, rather than 22. Thus they can give me better everything to each episode.

That's not how it works. It's PER episode. If the average network drama costs $3.5 million per episode.. they don't magically lump the budget together. They didn't spend $77 million on 6 episodes of the x-files.

 

[JeffinOakland]

13 episodes is perfectly normal for a 1st Season. The reason is because the network will know pretty soon (within about 10 episodes) if the show is catching on. That way, if they decide to pull the plug, they won't have wasted time and money on a full Season. Personally, I feel the same way about the new series as I did/do about the new Star Wars movies: I don't care what they are about or the contents thereof as long as they don't suck. that's the only thing I care about. Just don't suck.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

13 episodes is perfectly normal for a 1st Season. The reason is because the network will know pretty soon (within about 10 episodes) if the show is catching on. That way, if they decide to pull the plug, they won't have wasted time and money on a full Season. Personally, I feel the same way about the new series as I did/do about the new Star Wars movies: I don't care what they are about or the contents thereof as long as they don't suck. that's the only thing I care about. Just don't suck.

I liked the new SW movie, but it's a shame they did not use Lucas's ideas. That would've been better.

and yeah... it's normal for SOME shows now. ST is a show best told in 22-26 episodes. If we're talking about a full-season story arc.... once we get to the Season 3 Xindi arc for Enterprise I BLAZED through those. So addicting.

 

[JeffinOakland]

I agree but I'm amazed CBS even agreed to do a new ST show after Enterprise's crash and burn.

 

[somebuddyX]

I hope there's a bunch of scenes with hot hunks of meat just making out in the corridors and the captain is like whatever dude.

 

[Rollar]

you have to take the bad with the good

The way (imho) it should be, show a cross-section of the greater society. Gays yes, utopia no.

I don't care what they are about or the contents thereof as long as they don't suck

Have to admit, I seriously want more than "don't suck." YMMV.

 

[Duck Rogers]

Hello to you all I think 10-13 episodes is just the right number. They can make a tight story with some good twists and turns (if needed) but we are spared from filler episodes (that are often just mostly average or even worse)
Also with smaller number of episodes, they can keep production values higher and hire quality actors

 

[JWPlatt]

13 episodes is perfectly normal for a 1st Season. The reason is because the network will know pretty soon (within about 10 episodes) if the show is catching on. That way, if they decide to pull the plug, they won't have wasted time and money on a full Season.

It's a good thing this sort of short-term thinking wasn't in charge for shows like Cheers, Seinfeld, etc.

Not that I object to the 13-episode season. It seems to be a standard for streaming shows of higher quality that gives its stars a chance at doing other varied work instead of slaving their careers away for six or seven years on a single show and character. I only object to the short-term thinking.