Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[Isolinear]

So all you JJ haters out there can relax. The new series apparently won't be related to the current movie franchise.

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/new-star-trek-series-movies/

But that doesn't mean it will be Prime Universe Trek. Could be a BSG style reboot.

 

[Jedman67]

All the ships will have engineering sections that are based on breweries.

The USS Yorktown? Sam Adams

The USS Andrew Jackson? LandShark

The USS Berlin? - well you get the picture.

and what will sickbay look like?

Based on the articles I've read, and quite limited understanding of the IP rights, I would imagine, as other people have mentioned, that it would "borrow" from the Abrams movies in much the same way that TNG "borrowed" sets and props from the TMP era. If it's required to be an entirely separate entity from the current movies then all bets are off.
Personally, I didn't much care for ST:2009 in terms of story and plot. As a mindless summer blockbuster it was a lot of fun, but I've never bothered to watch ST:ID.

 

[Kemaiku]

If the 2016 movie about wraps up the five year mission aspect of the new universe, it serves as a neat finishing point for that set of characters. The new series will likely pick up on a new ship and crew that happens to still be set in it.

Or something entirely new, but with members of the reboot production staff being in charge of it's production point to be it still being semi-Abrams related.

Either way it's 15 months away, hard to really be enthusiastic about something there is literally no information on this far out.

 

[Karzak]

 

[Computer Voice]

This is all very exciting.

Coincidence or marketing ploy that January '17 = 1701?

 

[Karzak]

Only in Europe. But still, pretty neat.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

This is all very exciting.

Coincidence or marketing ploy that January '17 = 1701?

Thats 0117 in the US

 

[DBR]

Currently googling:

"What is CBS All Access?"
and
"How do you get CBS All Access in Canada?"

 

[Bad Atom]

I'm one of those weird people that would be perfectly happy if there were no more Star Trek TV shows or movies. We've been blessed with a ridiculous amount of material, both good and bad, over the last 50 years. But I also understand the desire to bring Star Trek to new audiences, and I'm certainly willing to give a new series a chance. Because if Star Trek has taught me anything, it's to keep an open mind.

 

[Squiggy]

I am curious how anyone knows the new series will be all the things they hate and if they are willing to share their time travelling secrets with me.

Really. I could use Wednesday's Powerball numbers!

People are just afraid that if this turns out to be another flop, it will mean the death of Star Trek for another 20 years. Can you blame them? They want this to be right.

The only people worried about this flopping are the people who ignore how successful the last two movies are.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Thats amazing - and it also shows Trek did indeed concern itself with realism and believably - maybe not to the point of being hard science, but certainly in a dramatic context, things had to follow on from things logically.

I'd argue though that they threw realism out the airlock almost day one.

It was more important that it feel real than be real.

Thats a good way of putting it.

People are just afraid that if this turns out to be another flop, it will mean the death of Star Trek for another 20 years. Can you blame them? They want this to be right.

But what is "right" when you have numerous people here who have a "I'm the only person who knows what true Star Trek is and everyone else has it wrong" mentality?

Some of the comments here remind me of the guy who used to post endlessly against the first Abrams movie years before it came out, and in response to the box office success of the 2009 movie, he actually stated that he wanted his Star Trek to be a money-losing endeavor that not that many people watch.

I can believe it. Sadly, there are some fans who think that "popular" and "accessible" are dirty words, and who really don't want to share STAR TREK with "the masses."

Yeah, cos that's exactly what people said isn't it.

Out of interest, JMS's proposal for a new series is still available, to see how that would have gone down:

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

 

[TheSeeker]

Currently googling:

"What is CBS All Access?"
and
"How do you get CBS All Access in Canada?"

The press release seems to indicate it'll only streaming be in the US. I hope that's the case because I'm moving back to Canada next summer.

 

[wulfio]

is CBS even allowed to create a show in the abramsverse? That company doesn't seem like they'd be willing to give points to Paramount just to set it in the abramsverse.

Well, what is the Abramsverse, legally speaking? Do they have to pay Paramount for a cameo by Simon Pegg as Scotty (or any Star Trek character not invented for the recent movies)?

I can see a series using some design elements indicative of the Abramsverse, and maybe even some characters reimagined from the original timeline (plus, of course, Klingons and Romulans and Vulcans and cetera). It doesn't have to talk about the Hobus supernova or how Nero did that one thing and Admiral Marcus did that other and watch out for Idris Elba and all that.

Paramount doesn't have to get a dime if CBS is careful with its references yet still wants to keep it in the "Abramsverse." The destruction of Vulcan might be a hassle to get around. But then again, Vulcans were barely ever mentioned in TNG and DS9 (outside of select episodes).

No, you can't reference it at all. It doesn't matter how crafty it is. The second they even hint at the possibility of being int he same universe, paramount will slap them down quicker than you can blink.

Abramsverse is proprietary. That's everything within the abramsverse, not just the actors portraying the characters. I can't go make a Peter Pan movie, and make sly references to Spielbergs Hook, without them coming down hard on me. From marketing to the finished product. They'll either slap an injunction on me probably, or force me to pay royalties. That's how copyrights work.

 

[JohnnyTenToes]

Really excited about this! Really made my day.
Wouldn't mind an Abramsverse "TNG", set 50-100 years after the new movies, maybe even re-imagining a couple TNG characters (nuWorf anyone?), but mostly new ones.

Would be cool if they worked some kind of deal to use the sets from the movies, that would be some high quality stuff for a TV show

edit: Wulfio is probably right about the rights to Abramsverse. If they go Prime, maybe just continue on from Voyager.
Either way it's ST back on the small screen! So awesome

 

[DBR]

Currently googling:

"What is CBS All Access?"
and
"How do you get CBS All Access in Canada?"

The press release seems to indicate it'll only streaming be in the US. I hope that's the case because I'm moving back to Canada next summer.

It's interesting: up until very recently, I had no problem watching a show a few days later, but with Twitter, social media, etc., and the world always at my fingertips, I find I wan't to be in the moment with everybody else!

 

[Warped9]

True.

 

[Nerys Myk]

JMS is not my go to guy...for anything.

 

[TheSeeker]

Currently googling:

"What is CBS All Access?"
and
"How do you get CBS All Access in Canada?"

The press release seems to indicate it'll only streaming be in the US. I hope that's the case because I'm moving back to Canada next summer.

It's interesting: up until very recently, I had no problem watching a show a few days later, but with Twitter, social media, etc., and the world always at my fingertips, I find I wan't to be in the moment with everybody else!

Not to mention all the spoilers you get on social media now right after an episode has aired.

 

[Nerys Myk]

is CBS even allowed to create a show in the abramsverse? That company doesn't seem like they'd be willing to give points to Paramount just to set it in the abramsverse.

Well, what is the Abramsverse, legally speaking? Do they have to pay Paramount for a cameo by Simon Pegg as Scotty (or any Star Trek character not invented for the recent movies)?

I can see a series using some design elements indicative of the Abramsverse, and maybe even some characters reimagined from the original timeline (plus, of course, Klingons and Romulans and Vulcans and cetera). It doesn't have to talk about the Hobus supernova or how Nero did that one thing and Admiral Marcus did that other and watch out for Idris Elba and all that.

Paramount doesn't have to get a dime if CBS is careful with its references yet still wants to keep it in the "Abramsverse." The destruction of Vulcan might be a hassle to get around. But then again, Vulcans were barely ever mentioned in TNG and DS9 (outside of select episodes).

No, you can't reference it at all. It doesn't matter how crafty it is. The second they even hint at the possibility of being int he same universe, paramount will slap them down quicker than you can blink.

Abramsverse is proprietary. That's everything within the abramsverse, not just the actors portraying the characters. I can't go make a Peter Pan movie, and make sly references to Spielbergs Hook, without them coming down hard on me. From marketing to the finished product. They'll either slap an injunction on me probably, or force me to pay royalties. That's how copyrights work.

CBS owns Star Trek. In a sense, Paramount "works" for them.

 

[Hound of UIster]

^Wrong.

CBS and Paramout are two different companies since the split post-Enterprise. One has the movie rights and another the TV rights. In theory the JJ-version is proprietary, developed and owned by Paramount. CBS has no claim to it.

is CBS even allowed to create a show in the abramsverse? That company doesn't seem like they'd be willing to give points to Paramount just to set it in the abramsverse.

Well, what is the Abramsverse, legally speaking? Do they have to pay Paramount for a cameo by Simon Pegg as Scotty (or any Star Trek character not invented for the recent movies)?

I can see a series using some design elements indicative of the Abramsverse, and maybe even some characters reimagined from the original timeline (plus, of course, Klingons and Romulans and Vulcans and cetera). It doesn't have to talk about the Hobus supernova or how Nero did that one thing and Admiral Marcus did that other and watch out for Idris Elba and all that.

Paramount doesn't have to get a dime if CBS is careful with its references yet still wants to keep it in the "Abramsverse." The destruction of Vulcan might be a hassle to get around. But then again, Vulcans were barely ever mentioned in TNG and DS9 (outside of select episodes).

No, you can't reference it at all. It doesn't matter how crafty it is. The second they even hint at the possibility of being int he same universe, paramount will slap them down quicker than you can blink.

Right to our benefit: Paramount has been insanely protective of the JJ-verse. It all but guarantees either a return to the old continuity or a third reboot.