I'm sorry, but I don't understand you at all. Movies have become TV shows before. WHAT are you talking about? Who in the world told you this?
Is Bryan Fuller right? A series in the Kirk era, but not on the E?
- Thread starter gastrof
- Start date
I'm sorry, but I don't understand you at all. Movies have become TV shows before. WHAT are you talking about? Who in the world told you this?
You mean in the uniforms we already know will be used in the movie? The near-exact copies of the TOS uniforms?
gastrof, after just having reminded you in another thread about three posts in a row and use of the Multi-Quote button, I come here and find four posts in a row. Please combine multiple replies made close together into a single post, whenever possible; Multi-Quote makes it very easy. Three and four posts in a row is considered spamming, and we'd really prefer that people not make a habit of doing this.
Interesting thoughts. I've thought the Paramount-owned movies (if successful) would be TOS-based, but a CBS-owned series could be TNG-based, perhaps Riker's post TNG career or Geordi's ship. Each company could build it's own franchise while not overlapping.
See above. Since Paramount owns the movie franchise and CBS owns the television rights, I just don't see the two overlapping as you suggest.
Depends on their contractual obligation to Berman. My scenario of a ship other than the big E, with a TNG character as captain might not obligate CBS to pay Berman anything. After all, GR created the main-crew characters originally.
I like it, too, a lot. But that seems to be BSG in particular, and even then, I've seen a few remarks from some that if that does turn out to be genuinely supernatural goings on, the show will suck at that point, etc, etc.
There have been several threads and many posters expressing disdain for such matters.
I'm surprised you seem to have missed them.
The universe is...but are the fans?
I don't think that it's a good idea, mainly because the problems of making it look realistic compared to TOS.
Look at "Enterprise"! It was supposed to be a series in which the events took place before TOS but the design, the computers and everything looked as if it was 24th century. If they make a retro series, then they should make it look like TOS too.
I must also admit that a TOS serie without Kirk and the others looks a bit lame and I'm also tired of them trying to milk the last possible drops out of TOS by making this new movie with new actors who have very little resemblance to the TOS characters as we remember them (portrayed by Shatner, Nimoy and the others).
TOS was a wonderful series. Let it rest in peace and be remembered as the masterpiece it was. No more "re-makes", thanks!
Let us have a new series in the 24th century instead, as series which takes place 2-3 years after "Nemesis" were some old favorite characters from TNG, DS9 and Voyager could show up from time to time.
As for Fuller, he should concentrate on making weird series with weird, crazy characters, that's the only thing he's good at. I don't like him.
You mean in the uniforms we already know will be used in the movie? The near-exact copies of the TOS uniforms?
Yes but I've been led to believe they been given a somewhat modern twist with the layering and such. I'm not a big fan of 70s attire like long-sleeve form fitting shirts and one-piece minis.
Anyway, it's just a personal opinion. You and everyone else is entitled to one as well.
Nah, I don't understand this notion about ENT looking more advanced than TOS. I believe as technology becomes more advanced we will also develop simpler and more efficient ways to interact and use the technology through better UI design and making some parts of it more automated therefore it will appear simpler. When I look at the NX-01 bridge and then look at the bridge of the 1701 Enterprise I think: "Oh, nice. They've managed to make the bridge more roomy and comfortable. It's much simpler and easier to use than when compared to the NX-01 bridge yet it's much more advanced and powerful." So, I see no problem with doing a show that would be based somewhere around the time of TOS.
Hmmm. Well, we DO know we will be seeing gold, blue, and red shirts paired presumadly with black pants and possibly boots, but I have a feeling they won't be campy and clowny.
You mean in the uniforms we already know will be used in the movie? The near-exact copies of the TOS uniforms?
I'm not a movie wardrobe expert, but I bet there ARE movie wardrobe experts who could pull off making the uniforms look like TOS uniforms, but an up-to-date version of them.
ScatmanRescueMe
Lieutenant Commander
My first choice for a new trek series would be a TOS or TOS-movie era ship & crew.
Plenty of 24th century stories have been told and the 22nd century just doesn't do it for me.
If you look at the 79 episodes and the movies there is plenty more story left to be told within that era.
Plenty of 24th century stories have been told and the 22nd century just doesn't do it for me.
If you look at the 79 episodes and the movies there is plenty more story left to be told within that era.
ScatmanRescueMe
Lieutenant Commander
Hmmm. Well, we DO know we will be seeing gold, blue, and red shirts paired presumadly with black pants and possibly boots, but I have a feeling they won't be campy and clowny.
You mean in the uniforms we already know will be used in the movie? The near-exact copies of the TOS uniforms?
I'm not a movie wardrobe expert, but I bet there ARE movie wardrobe experts who could pull off making the uniforms look like TOS uniforms, but an up-to-date version of them.
Agreed. If they couldn't make the TOS style uniforms look good they would have changed them, but by all accounts they have pulled it off.
Same with the bridge---
it is looking very much like the TOS bridge but all reports are that it looks fantastic and modern and functional.
That's what I wanted to hear. Good to know.
Star Trek should be about the voyages of the starship Enterprise, regardless of the crew. So far the only incarnation of Trek that couldn't have done so was DS9. Voyager should have simply been the eighth season of TNG but with a cast shakeup.
And Trek really does belong on TV.
And Trek really does belong on TV.
I don't think i'd wanna see the Kirk era without Kirk or the enterprise.
My ideal new series would be the Next-Next generation.
it wouldn't necessarily have to be similar to TNG in any fashion, it could be any new status quo they can think of.
something that doesn't exist just to fill gaps or give us any era we've seen before
My ideal new series would be the Next-Next generation.
it wouldn't necessarily have to be similar to TNG in any fashion, it could be any new status quo they can think of.
something that doesn't exist just to fill gaps or give us any era we've seen before
I'm all for it! I love that series.
Leave TOS to the big screen with its focus on the three main characters. That works well in movies. TNG did only so-so at the theatre because it was designed to showcase its ensamble cast, which works much better on TV.
I want another series distanced in time from STXI and any of its sequels. I would prefer a Titan series (even an animated one) but that seems unlikely. If not, I would prefer one set well after NEM in which the technology is sparsely available and/or often unreliable. This could be because the ship is heavily damaged or out of date due to a sustained war.
I want another series distanced in time from STXI and any of its sequels. I would prefer a Titan series (even an animated one) but that seems unlikely. If not, I would prefer one set well after NEM in which the technology is sparsely available and/or often unreliable. This could be because the ship is heavily damaged or out of date due to a sustained war.
^ Actually it's ironic. The TOS movies tended to be serialized ensemble pieces where TOS, the show, was an episodic show that focused on the main three. The TNG movies were stand alone films that focused on Picard and Data while the show was slightly more arc-driven and egalitarian with regard to the treatment of its characters.
The reason for the change in format for the movies was probably because the TNG films took place at the same time as shows made concurrently with the films. So, if the TNG movies were to be as serialized as the TOS films, they'd either have to lag behind DS9 and VOY in terms of the timeline or they'd have to cover more story time in the course of the film.
Of course Insurrection was really the only one to do any commentary on the state of the galaxy at the time of the film. It's a film drowning in mediocrity, but what saves it in my mind is that it's a portrait of its time, in that the Enterprise has grown world-weary and cynical as the diplomatic force in wartime--but I digress.
The reason for the change in format for the movies was probably because the TNG films took place at the same time as shows made concurrently with the films. So, if the TNG movies were to be as serialized as the TOS films, they'd either have to lag behind DS9 and VOY in terms of the timeline or they'd have to cover more story time in the course of the film.
Of course Insurrection was really the only one to do any commentary on the state of the galaxy at the time of the film. It's a film drowning in mediocrity, but what saves it in my mind is that it's a portrait of its time, in that the Enterprise has grown world-weary and cynical as the diplomatic force in wartime--but I digress.
read it again... >_<
i did not say movies cannot become tv shows. >_> sigh....
i said movie characters are not allowed to be part of tv shows as that devalues that property. if you currently have a movie franchise about particular characters, execs will not allow you, as per contract, to make a tv show about the same characters. so in order to maintain movie properties at a high value, they will have to be off-limits to tv shows. the contract with the studio and creator actually have this written where the characters can only be used for this purpose and this media. there are some very rare cases where characters can guest spot, but they will not be regulars or they are not the same character(s) as featured in movies. existing tv show characters can venture into movies, but from movies to tv is very very expensive for people paying the rights to use those characters. so not only is it unwise to use them because of movie franchise value, but it's also quite costly for the studios to try to venture them into tv. given the success of the movie, any tv show developed using the same characters will cost them more than they paid for them for the movies as they will have more constant exposure. the creator will want more money than the studio deems economical to pay. so any tv show that might be made will either be in the same timeline just with diff characters, or in the near future. a future setting might be allowed to have some of the same characters as the movie but then again that is also highly unlikely as the studios don't want you to know the futures of their movie characters.
given enough time between the movie franchise and the tv show, you CAN have the same characters in it, but only the contract and renegotiations will decide. this is how the stargate shows came to be. the movie franchise was dead so it was easier to get the rights to develop tv shows based on the same characters. if they proposed to do the tv show right after the movie, there was no way it would have been financially feasible for them to have that.
this making any sense to you at all? i apologize if english is not your native language. >_< i just don't know how to explain it anymore. it's one of those things that you just have to think like an exec and worry about the financial stuff in order for it to make sense. this is simply how they think, "why would anyone want to pay for a movie to watch the same characters when they can just watch them on tv." that is how they think. might not make sense to everyone, but it makes sense to them.
Were these post made before or after I read your reminder?
Also, as said the other day, I've never seen any rule on this or any other message board that said multiple replies must be posted together. "I didn't know there was any such rule."
Really, this is the very first time in all the time I've been a member here that a mod has said something like this to me, let alone calling it "spamming".
Could you please tell me where the policy is posted, so I can be aware of how things are actually worded?
Thanks.
Similar threads
