That is exactly the opposite of what I've heard.
Star Trek back on TV!!!!!
- Thread starter DeMilburn
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Yeah, I won't believe anything until it comes from CBS itself.
I'm a little surprised nobody has tried to do another Trek series. In 2005 people were tired of it, but now that the franchise has had time to breathe it's free money.
Is it though? The fan base is so fragmented at this point, I'm not sure who you'd even point a new show at. Then you'd have those that are unhappy trying to sink a new series before a frame of film is ever shot.
Not exactly great conditions for a series that will likely be the most expensive on TV when it debuts.
CBS is collecting free money from the licensing deal with Paramount.
There are a lot of audiences who would like a new Star Trek franchise to exist. The younger audience watching Gotham and Agents of Shield, and the older audience who watched TNG when it was on. The Trek superfans like us are probably the only ones who wouldn't like it.
Any experienced team of writers trying to make an adventure show that's accessible could write a Star Trek show and make it succeed. The hardest work has already been done for them.
If they're looking to make something accessible then I'd rather they style it after Deep Space 9 than, say, Enterprise. DS9 had over-arcing story lines (which seems to be the trend), memorable/relate-able characters (always a must), and enough brainy humor, technology, and diplomacy to keep hardcore fans happy. It also has the distinction of of being the only series to not take place on a starship, meaning nobody could criticize it as being a carbon copy of the other series.
I think that, if the same things came together which made DS9 successful, the series would be a hit with everyone.
OK. Not everyone will be happy. It never works out like that. But mostly everyone.
That is exactly the opposite of what I've heard.
^^DS9 wasn't really very popular while it was on the air. What positive support it now has was a result of people getting into it after it ended. And even then, it's still considered by many to be the red-headed stepchild of the franchise.
Regardless of when it happens, a new Trek series is almost certainly going to be starship based, as that is the case with TOS and TNG, still considered to be Trek at its most popular. Now hopefully, a future series learns the mistakes of the past and doesn't try to make the new show a carbon copy of either, but it should go without saying that any future Trek series will be set on a ship named USS Enterprise, since to the layman that is the very textbook definition of Star Trek.
IMO, the main thing a new Trek series needs to do is focus on having a cast comprised of characters they have story material for, not like Enterprise which loaded its cast up with filling the job postings on the ship despite the fact that only three or four characters had anything meaningful to do.
Regardless of when it happens, a new Trek series is almost certainly going to be starship based, as that is the case with TOS and TNG, still considered to be Trek at its most popular. Now hopefully, a future series learns the mistakes of the past and doesn't try to make the new show a carbon copy of either, but it should go without saying that any future Trek series will be set on a ship named USS Enterprise, since to the layman that is the very textbook definition of Star Trek.
IMO, the main thing a new Trek series needs to do is focus on having a cast comprised of characters they have story material for, not like Enterprise which loaded its cast up with filling the job postings on the ship despite the fact that only three or four characters had anything meaningful to do.
IrishNero
Commodore
Very little of what went wrong with Enterprise was the crew. If there was any ambiguity associated with the crew, it would be because the writers failed to instill a personality and a backstory with which people could identify.
The only ones who really had any kind of story material were Archer, T'Pol, Trip and occasionally Phlox. Reed, Hoshi, and Mayweather were essentially just filling in positions on the bridge. Especially Maywather, who even got killed a few times with no one to replace him.
Where do we separate the crew itself from what the writers made of them?
Most of the series focused solely on Trip, T'Pol, and Archer.
Trip would make a mistake or T'Pol would withhold important information, and then Archer would have to fix it. There would be tension between Trip/T'Pol or Archer/T'Pol. Trip/T'Pol or Archer/T'Pol would hide their feelings for one another. Etc.
And then the Trip/T'Pol massage sessions started and it seemed like massage therapist T'Pol and shirtless Trip got more screen time than every other character.
Where's Hoshi? Besides one episode where she meets a guy on Risa (ENT: Two Days and Two Nights) and one where she rules the world (ENT: In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II), she's rarely given any significant dialogue.
And Reed? Reed was an interesting character, but the writers really missed the opportunity to explore his past more. We got a bit about Section 31, but that was really it.
Mayweather? Mayweather's only lines in the entire series were in the form of "I used to do X when I was a boomer." His only significant role was when the writers gave him ENT: Horizon so that we could finally see what he's been talking about during every episode.
Phlox? Phlox is an interesting character, too, but he only really appears when the writers needed to write in an outlandish alien custom.
It isn't. CBS and Paramount confirmed that what was said by Latino Review was based on a misreading of an old concept; like most of these stories on the Internet reported by these sites, this is all conjectural clickbait.
IrishNero
Commodore
Yup. No new series in the works for now, and probably for some time to come. CBS is making oodles off of the movies, and appears quite content to milk that cow for now. Every rumor I've seen points to the same two or three sources, and their information is a decade old, so...
I hardly think trek will be gone forever.
Look at doctor who fandom in the 90s. The series was put out of its misery in the late 80s then a few television specials and a weak made for tv movie seemed to put the final nails In the coffin of the doctor.
Doctor Who was a national joke and fandom seem resigned to books and other non tv media being it's only new output.
Then a minority department of the bbc was courting an acclaimed writer to join its stable and he said he would do so long as he got to bring back the doctor.
And since he remembered the show at its best and not the way it limped to the farm, he and his team brought it back to be the dominant force in television it is today.
It's not quite the same in trek terms. The franchise is still continuing to the wider public.
I think it is wise to let the 3 films stand on their own and not saturate the market, marvel style .
However the third film is widely known to be the last in this "era" and will likely be released amid huge publicity of the 50 th anniversary so it'll be fascinating to see how the powers that be build on that and where the franchise is taken after Film 3.
Or even if film 3 is used to set up a future series/next generation of films...
who knows?
Look at doctor who fandom in the 90s. The series was put out of its misery in the late 80s then a few television specials and a weak made for tv movie seemed to put the final nails In the coffin of the doctor.
Doctor Who was a national joke and fandom seem resigned to books and other non tv media being it's only new output.
Then a minority department of the bbc was courting an acclaimed writer to join its stable and he said he would do so long as he got to bring back the doctor.
And since he remembered the show at its best and not the way it limped to the farm, he and his team brought it back to be the dominant force in television it is today.
It's not quite the same in trek terms. The franchise is still continuing to the wider public.
I think it is wise to let the 3 films stand on their own and not saturate the market, marvel style .
However the third film is widely known to be the last in this "era" and will likely be released amid huge publicity of the 50 th anniversary so it'll be fascinating to see how the powers that be build on that and where the franchise is taken after Film 3.
Or even if film 3 is used to set up a future series/next generation of films...
who knows?
Isn't DS9 considered a nerdy nichey thing and Voyager considered the red headed stepchild?
Whenever I speak to real people, ie not the internet, I am always amazed at their opinions on Star Trek. They have seemingly never heard all the FACTS years on this BBS have taught me.
IrishNero
Commodore
Yes, outside of these boards, Star Trek is a very minimal thing in most people's minds. My daughters are too young to remember any of the series (they were 2 and 3 years old, respectively, when Enterprise signed off), and they are not interested in watching the 'old' TV shows I watch. On the occasions that I get a package in the mail for my little Star Trek Collection, they will tell me "You got another one of those 'Star Track' things..."
A
Amaris
Guest
I love the end of this episode. The scene where they keep passing the buck from one person to the other, while Kirk just gets more and more irritated just gets me every time.That is exactly the opposite of what I've heard.
Similar threads
