Concerns about the new ST

[AviTrek]

Anyway, its perfectly normal for a show to start with less than a full season. Sometimes a lot less. If the 1st season is successful, CBS will order a full season's worth of episodes for season 2. Its nothing to worry about.

Not likely. 10-13 episodes is the norm for streaming services. It will likely stay the same for every season.

But you're right, it's nothing to worry about. Different broadcast model reflecting changes in the past 30 years. The OP gave no reason why 13 episodes was problematic other than it's different from what Star Trek has done in the past. But if House of Cards, Daredevil, Man in the High Castle, and all other streaming shows can be successful with 13 episodes, then so can Star Trek.

 

[urbandefault]

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.

I think 13 is plenty to carry a story arc. Any more than that and it starts to get fluffy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

If there's a good reason to have any type of character in the storyline, fine. If they put a particular type in just to say "Hey, we're hip! We're down with the struggle! Fight the power!" then the writers should leave it out.

The timeline has not been revealed from official sources. If I were you I wouldn't expect any guest shots from any previous characters. That era of Trek is over.

Stay calm. Trek lives.

 

[Nerys Myk]

 

[Shalashaska]

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

Bob Iger?

Is that you?

I'm curious about these ideas, could you mention a few?

No one knows of Lucas's ideas except the execs at Disney.

It sounds like fanboyism to me.

 

[Shalashaska]

Exactly. New era, new platform, a new experiment.

This isn't 1966 anymore, or 1987. We're not talking NBC or first-syndication or even UPN. The old rules don't necessarily apply.

Nor should they.

People need to stop comparing this new series with the old.

It's a modern show using a modern format with modern storytelling, and it just so happens to be set in the Star Trek universe. This new series will probably have more in common with Game of Thrones than it does with TOS and TNG.

Let it be a show for this era of television, just as TOS was a show for 1966 audiences and TNG was a show for 1987 audiences.

 

[RAMA]

I'm just giving an example, because a 26 episode show will NOT have a $5 million per episode budget, but a 13 episode series just might.

As for the budget estimate, we've discussed this topic before here..and the closest comparison for a modern space opera is "The Expanse" which has a per episode budget of $5.4 million. Or it could be $5 or 6 million. Either way, you need to calm the Hell down.

$2 million with inflation is worth more than double what it was 30 years ago.

And you're literally just pulling numbers out. NO where does it state the budget is $5m per episode now, and the budget can be across 13, or 22 episodes... or whatever... the idea being it's not money they lose. THe higher the budget the less they make in profit from ads.. that's all.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

The Expanse is SOOOOO boring. I can't believe people like that show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've been watching it all day. So I guess I disagree.

 

[Mudd]

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.

Absolutely none of this is of any concern whatever.

 

[Dukhat]

Absolutely none of this is of any concern whatever.

But it wouldn't be Star Trek if fans didn't think they knew better than the television producers.

 

[Greg Cox]

But it wouldn't be Star Trek if fans didn't think they knew better than the television producers.

But, of course, that's not just a STAR TREK thing . . . .

 

[AdmiralBruno]

The producers of EVERY other ST series apparently agreed with me?

The gay stuff was pretty accepted during Enterprise... they didn't put it in that

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

The gay stuff was pretty accepted during Enterprise... they didn't put it in that

I know blatant homophobia is your thing, but what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Dukhat]

The producers of EVERY other ST series apparently agreed with me?

Nobody agreed with you. 26 episodes was how TV was done back then. It's not done that way now. It's as simple as that.

The gay stuff was pretty accepted during Enterprise... they didn't put it in that

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

 

[-Brett-]

The gay stuff was pretty accepted during Enterprise... they didn't put it in that

You recall that Enterprise was pretty much universally panned by both the mainstream audience and fans alike, right? Maybe not the best example.

 

[JeffinOakland]

"the gay stuff"? Grow up & GTFO with that bigoted crap.

 

[Dukhat]

Methinks he's just doing it to get attention.

 

[angry apple panda]

Radical agenda... really? I wince when I see this kind of thing. It's not radical to portray a diverse cast. It's the same people complaining about people of color on the original Star Trek. We should be absolutely supportive of including LGBT characters "just to say we have them."

Roddenberry did the exact same thing with the original show, deliberately choosing unique people from wildly different backgrounds and races to fill out the cast. It's been a Trek tradition. We might as well keep expanding that edict by deliberately being even more inclusive with each successive installment of Trek. It has always been a reflection of modern day issues, and a primary topic that they keep coming back to over and over is civil rights. To include LGBT people in Trek and depict their relationships in a natural way is absolutely in line with Roddenberry's vision.

Being me and wanting the same rights and freedom as everyone else is not radical. We just want to be treated as human beings. To see people like me depicted on Star Trek would be such a wonderful thing. Whoopi Goldberg said in interviews how meaningful it was to her to see people like her on Star Trek. You can imagine then how much it would mean to LGBT people around the world who suffer daily from discrimination, violence, and threat of murder.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

You recall that Enterprise was pretty much universally panned by both the mainstream audience and fans alike, right? Maybe not the best example.

any true Star Trek fan would like Enterprise. You're probably one of those people complain about the theme song to because it's different and you can't appreciate something unique like that. It's actually a pretty good song and it fits nicely in the show. Enterprise started off slow but gets better as it goes along... And by the time we get to season three and four it was absolutely brilliant. It's the equal if any Trek

 

[CorporalClegg]

You're probably one of those people complain [...] because it's different and you can't appreciate something

Really?