Jump to content


Photo

"New ‘Star Trek’ Series Coming to CBS in 2017"

star trek cbs 2017 series

  • Please log in to reply
1901 replies to this topic

#21 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 02 November 2015 - 01:16 PM

^Alteran, Morgan, completely agree with both of you.

I won't judge this show unfairly, it'll be given the same shot I gave all the shows and films that came before. If it's JJ-universe Trek though (replacing the Trek I grew up with), then I just wouldn't be able to accept it, I'll be honest and say that right now. Without sounding too dramatic, I'm completely in love with those shows, so having them be swept aside wouldn't go down well with me.

 

With all the previous show pilots, of course they don't reflect the series at their best, but they do give a great idea of what to expect. With TNG, DS9 and Voyager, their respective pilots showed maturity, being clearly aimed at 'adults' (even if those adults/mature people, where of a young age). To be clear, I only felt one of them was dishonest to what it later became, and that's Voyager.

Returning to the maturity theme, this is for me what the JJ films lacked completely, so the amount of scrutiny I have for the pilot episode of this new show will be massive, due to one of the main guys from those projects being involved here.

 

Now, one thing that did come to mind today, was Diamond Select's new Federation ship - could it be from this new show? I noticed their facebook page posted a link about today's news. Even if it isn't, they'll of course want to be cashing in on this, so I think it's safe to say the chances of us ever getting the Defiant, Voyager and Enterprise-C just shrank drastically. On that hypothetical note, I must say that if that were to happen (them moving onto the new series before making those ships), I'd find it very difficult to talk about that company without saying that they wasted the license. I can almost see it now: Years and years and years of the same answers appearing in every AskDST - "Yes, all those ships on our consideration list, we know a lot of people want it/them." - would suddenly become "The market for this new show is far bigger than the market for those old ships, and we feel like we'd lose money etc."
To be clear, I wouldn't disagree with them here, they are a business and that would be the sensible thing to do, but it would mean that for all the years inbetween Enterprise and 2017, they did the absolute minimum in terms of ships. Endless reissues of Kirk's Enterprises, with the D and E being the only ships made from the next generation era.

 

On the other hand, Prometheus, should Round2 ever make a big version of their little Defiant kit (more accurate to the studio model), I feel your services would be called upon. :D



#22 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 02 November 2015 - 01:23 PM

Now, one thing that did come to mind today, was Diamond Select's new Federation ship - could it be from this new show? I noticed their facebook page posted a link about today's news. Even if it isn't, they'll of course want to be cashing in on this, so I think it's safe to say the chances of us ever getting the Defiant, Voyager and Enterprise-C just shrank drastically. On that hypothetical note, I must say that if that were to happen (them moving onto the new series before making those ships), I'd find it very difficult to talk about that company without saying that they wasted the license.

On the other hand, Prometheus, should Round2 ever make a big version of their little Defiant kit (more accurate to the studio model), I feel your services would be called upon. :D

With what little information that was released, I doubt there is anything even close to a final ship design, I doubt even DST would hold off work on a new Federation ship for THAT long. 

 

No doubt after whatever is next, the new ship will be made if DST gets the rights. 



#23 Qcjoe

Qcjoe

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati
  • Interests:scifi,comics,actionfigures,baseball,football

Posted 02 November 2015 - 01:37 PM

I'm certainly excited for it, but I don't know if I want to pay $5.99 a month just for a new Trek series. 

 

 

Doesn't mean for certain that it is set in the Prime universe, just that it isn't related to Beyond. 

This is what scares me.  They put it behind a pay wall and if it fails they will blame Trek instead of the way it was distributed.  



#24 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 November 2015 - 04:35 PM

I should be excited and thrilled about this, but I'm honestly more worried and concerned given what information we've been presented with so far.

 

Doesn't mean for certain that it is set in the Prime universe, just that it isn't related to Beyond. 

This is probably my first huge concern. It's not related to Star Trek Beyond, which is absolutely wonderful in my opinion, (no need to bring a universe designed specifically for two–hour action flicks to the small screen,) but it's also not confirmed that this will be a "Prime Universe" series, even though that would be the logical decision. My worry is that CBS Inc. is going to wind up creating yet another universe which will only wind up alienating everybody and leaving us with a mess similar to the one other franchises have gotten into when they start pounding the reset button regularly. If it's a Prime Universe show, I still have some hope depending on who else is involved with it beyond (no pun intended) Alex Kurtzman, who really seems like an unknown quantity tied to known problematic quantities. Right now his contribution to Trek has been the reboot universe, and the only other one of his contributions to CBS that I'm actually familiar with is a reboot of Hawaii Five–0, which is still an action–style reboot. (Granted, Orci was involved as well, so it's still possible that the style was more of his doing.) Kurtzman's other projects have also been "in the shadow of Abrams and Orci," at least the one's that I'm aware of, so that definitely gives me some concern. The "nightmare scenario" would be having Roberto Orci involved in this show, and while I could actually see his brother J.R. Orci doing something amazing as part of the writing team, (go watch The Blacklist if you want to see some of his work,) I would prefer having Trek alumni involved who were part of the "golden age," and if Star Trek Beyond delivers on its promise of gravitas, maybe bringing in Simon Pegg as part of the crew at some point. Then again, I'd feel a lot better if someone like Michael Dorn were involved from the get–go, even if this isn't going to be "Star Trek: Captain Worf." (Although I would absolutely watch something called Star Trek: Captain Worf if Michael Dorn can ever get it produced.)

 

Another possibility in the "nightmare fuel" category is that while not tied to "Beyond," this is still somehow set in the JJ–verse, and still in that same style. I actually think this is even worse than the other scenarios mentioned because it'll be another case of the show that we get not reflecting what fans are actually clammoring for, and that could be more problematic than usual given how this is being distributed.

 

I was SO excited until I saw who was producing and the fact that it will only be on their streaming service.  Using Trek as a way to drive business to a custom network just reeks of UPN.  That didn't help build the Trek audience and UPN didn't last.

If the other people involved seem to "get" Prime Universe Trek, I'd be a lot less concerned about Kurtzman's involvement. My concern right now is that he's the only name attached to this thing, and he's known for a universe that supposedly isn't tied to this project and that has its own set of controversies.

 

As far as being tied to CBS's streaming service, I wish that actually were comparable to UPN, because UPN was at least an actual network, and at least tried to do something unique with Trek as it's cornerstone. The "problem" was that UPN really was "The Star Trek Network," and everything on it that wasn't Trek wound up foundering relatively quickly. As soon as UPN lost Trek, it was on life support, and a year later it was dead. UPN was a solid concept, but it was programmed incompetently. It also didn't help that the network never grew to the point where it wasn't tied to FOX or another network outside of major metro areas. UPN got eyeballs on Trek, it just didn't keep them there once affiliates started bailing and people couldn't watch the show.

 

What CBS is trying to do here is far less predictable than trying to launch a fifth TV network. (UPN and WB have modern day counterparts in CW and MyNetworkTV, so it's not like the concept itself was problematic.) Streaming video is arguably crap without a really good internet connection. I live in an area where my internet connection is complete crap, and between 5:00PM and 9:00PM, it's virtually useless for anything other than sending text, very, very slowly. The rest of the time it's mediocre at best, but nowhere near on par with broadcast TV. I'm not expecting Blu–Ray quality without having to buy a Blu–Ray Disc, (and if this is good enough, I'll definitely do it,) but I do expect something comparable to broadcast TV. What's worse though, is that CBS expects me to pay for "All–Access," which I'd be willing to do if I'd actually be able to watch Trek for $6 dollars a month without buffering errors and the show looking like chunky salsa. I'm already paying through the nose for cable, as well as satellite, HBO, Starz, and I know someone around here has a subscription to Amazon Prime, but I absolutely hate its interface and only tolerate using it when I absolutely have too. I get why CBS wants to charge for Trek, but they could do that without ramming All–Access down my throat and forcing me to pay $6 dollars a month for another shoddy service. Heck, they could have dumped the entire show on iTunes and made it an "iTunes Exclusive" for a year, and I'd have paid significantly more than $6 dollars a month since iTunes actually downloads my purchases to the thing that I'm "streaming" them from, and lets me buy content outright. Heck, I might not like having to add Netflix to the list of stuff I'm paying for, but at least if Trek went there it would be going to a place where people already have eyeballs and not to an unknown like CBS All–Access. The fact that CBS is willing to premiere the first episode on TV proves that this show could air on broadcast TV, but that they're just going for a cash–grab, and that rubs me the wrong way, especially when I know it's going to be a chore just to get the show to play in halfway decent quality. UPN had its problems, but I didn't have to pay for UPN, I just had to find it on the cable box and flip to the channel ever Wednesday (or Monday in the early years) when it was time for Trek.

 

I'm baffled by the folks whining about having to pay for this.

It's not having to pay for this that bothers me; it's having to pay for it through CBS All–Access that bothers me. I'd gladly sink stupid money into a Blu–Ray/DVD release that I could watch without having to worry about whether or not my internet connection will keep up with the video. (And in much higher quality I might add.) I'd be fine with paying for this on a cable channel that I'm already paying for, or on something like HBO that I'm already subscribed too. I'd be fine paying for this through iTunes and then paying again when the inevitable DVD/Blu–Ray release occurs, or paying for a service that I might use for more than just Trek. It's not the act of paying that I have a problem with, it's paying for something tied to an unreliable system that's going to force me to watch Trek at midnight just to have a reliable and remotely plesant viewing experience.

 

This is what scares me.  They put it behind a pay wall and if it fails they will blame Trek instead of the way it was distributed.  

This is something that I'm worried about as well. I want to watch it, but I've dealt with problematic streaming video before, and eventually I just wait for it to come out on DVD/Blu–Ray. Also, the people who are going to watch Trek on a streaming service are the kind of people who probably don't want Alex Kurtzman anywhere near it, (even if the style of his previous contributions to Trek weren't really his "fault,") which makes me wonder just what CBS is thinking here. Trek's audience isn't made up of morons; they're smarter than most and know when they're being screwed with. Selling them a show from a driving force in the JJ–verse on an esoteric online platform doesn't really seem logical. I joked about it earlier, but this kind of distribution would actually make more sense for the Star Trek: Captain Worf idea that Michael Dorn was trying to get picked up, because fans would pay for it, and are typically more receptive to hearing that Michael Dorn is involved than they are to hearing that Alex Kurtzman is involved. (As an aside, I should point out that Michael Dorn wasn't going to call his show "Captain Worf," but that name for the concept just stuck, which makes it even more baffling that CBS didn't decided to run with that concept given that it seemd to have support from fans.) Again, this doesn't mean that the show will be bad or that Kurtzman won't do something amazing, but a lot more fans would probably pony up for All–Access if this was being created by someone involved in the "Prime Universe" rather than the JJ–verse.

 

Also, why was this not put into development last year so that it'd be ready for 2016? A new show seems like the kind of thing that should be kicking off the 50th anniversary celebration, not coming a day late and a dollar short. While this will line up with TNG's 30th anniversary, it seems like the kind of thing that would have made more sense getting a bump from the 50th anniversary. Hell, I hate to bring it up a third time, but that "Captain Worf" series seems like the kind of thing that would make more sense coinciding with TNG's 30th anniversary, which just makes this whole thing seem like it wasn't fully thought through as much as probably should have been. (And while I admit it's possible that this could turn out to be the "Captain Worf" show, it's very unlikely, and I might have to eat some ga'h if it is.) A new Trek series and a new Prime Universe Trek series at that is great and needs to happen. A new Trek series that seems like it's being set up to fail on the other hand is not something I want to see again, not after the mess with Enterprise, and not after sitting through the JJ–verse trilogy to get to this.



#25 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 02 November 2015 - 05:30 PM

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if the new show tried to be proper Trek, while being set in the JJVerse. I love the design aesthetics of the new movies, and would love to see it more fleshed out since I see a lot of interesting potential there. 

 

We know Starfleet ramped up exploration and technological development after Narada took out the Kelvin, would be interesting to see how things went between then and the 2009 movie in a more Star Trek style of story telling. 

 

Just because the movies have been more action oriented, doesn't mean a TV show set in the same universe would have to be the same. 

 

Edit: Also, I hate the idea of a Captain Worf TV show. His character was fleshed out enough during TNG and DS9, I don't need more. 



#26 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 02 November 2015 - 05:32 PM

Streaming and TV on Demand is the way the rest of the world watches TV nowadays and is undoubtably the future of TV series like Star Trek. It's likely that CBS will eventually sell the show to networks once it's finished its inaugural run anyway as I'm sure every network will be chomping at the bit to show a new Star Trek TV series and CBS would be foolish not to cash in especially if this new Trek is a hit.



#27 Morgan

Morgan

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 667 posts

Posted 02 November 2015 - 05:35 PM

NYT says it won't be related to Beyond, but that doesn't rule out a JJ-verse setting. Given the fact that Beyond is JJ verse, I dunno if they'd want to have two competing Trek universes airing one right after another -- they could see it as damaging to JJ verse and the movies if they're disparate.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-2017.html?_r=0

 

I'm fearing a retro setting but the production values, if the SciFi channel shows are any indication, can be quite good. Even ENT operated in a different production climate, and that wasn't that long ago.



#28 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 02 November 2015 - 05:35 PM

Streaming and TV on Demand is the way the rest of the world watches TV nowadays and is undoubtably the future of TV series like Star Trek. It's likely that CBS will eventually sell the show to networks once it's finished its inaugural run anyway as I'm sure every network will be chomping at the bit to show a new Star Trek TV series and CBS would be foolish not to cash in especially if this new Trek is a hit.

Just don't give it to Sy Fy because they'll somehow manage to murder it like they do with every other show that isn't Smackdown. 



#29 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 02 November 2015 - 05:46 PM

From the press release it suggests to me that CBS are carrying on with their prime universe. There also may be contractual issues with CBS using the JJ Abrams universe as I believe that anything that relates to JJ Abrams and Paramount's universe would have to involve Paramount and Bad Robot. Furthermore, if we look at the DC universe, the TV and Movie universes are separate. It work's well for WB and there's no reason why it couldn't work for Star Trek. 



#30 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 02 November 2015 - 05:50 PM

From the press release it suggests to me that CBS are carrying on with their prime universe. There also may be contractual issues with CBS using the JJ Abrams universe as I believe that anything that relates to JJ Abrams and Paramount's universe would have to involve Paramount and Bad Robot. Furthermore, if we look at the DC universe, the TV and Movie universes are separate. It work's well for WB and there's no reason why it couldn't work for Star Trek. 

I'm good with either one, I liked the JJ Movies (2009 one more than ID) but would love to see what's happened in the prime universe after everything that's happened with Voyager, the Dominion War, and the destruction of Romulus. 

 

I also want to see a new canon Enterprise. 



#31 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 02 November 2015 - 11:01 PM

Some articles about this are now tacking on their own judgment on which universe this will take place in, as if they have some inside information or better opiniom than everyone else or something.  Example, claiming the jjverse:

 

http://arstechnica.c...n-january-2017/

 

It's a confusing time for us fans.  Since we've been over the whole JJ vs prime a billion times since ST2009 I am basically excited but not all that interested in thinking about or discussing this until more is known.  In the meantime, our only hope is Beyond ... If Pegg succeeds where JJ failed it could redeem the new universe to many and change the tone of the conversation.  If this is prime I will monetarily support it with all my might, if anything else, I feel that I will reluctantly watch it via "alternate channels" as soon as I can be bothered to...then again we all know what the Trek drug can make us do.  Come friends, the first step of getting over our addiction is admitting we have one.



#32 BadBunnyMike

BadBunnyMike

    Wishes He had Spots

  • Members
  • 2,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockton, California

Posted 03 November 2015 - 12:27 AM

Something I havent seen mentioned about Prime Universe and JJ Verse, is maybe CBS doesnt have the rights to the JJ Verse, sine the movies are licensed to Paramount. So we might be in for another Prime Universe which I personally hope for myself

#33 BadBunnyMike

BadBunnyMike

    Wishes He had Spots

  • Members
  • 2,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockton, California

Posted 03 November 2015 - 12:28 AM

1701D beat me to it

#34 VaadwaurRevenge

VaadwaurRevenge

    Toys before the light bill.

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2015 - 12:35 AM

It's not just on streaming service it will be airing weekly on CBS January 2017.

#35 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crapland....some call it Norway.

Posted 03 November 2015 - 12:55 AM

And on regular tv all over the world,apparently. I'll wait for the dvd,lol!

 

But I'll be on the fence about this till I see some ship designs and casting. Totally fun reading comments on a lot of other sites though. Trek fans can be SOOO negative,which is kinda funny,seeing what show they're loving or claiming to be a fan of,lol!

 

J-R!



#36 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2015 - 02:27 AM

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if the new show tried to be proper Trek, while being set in the JJVerse. I love the design aesthetics of the new movies, and would love to see it more fleshed out since I see a lot of interesting potential there.

The problem with this is that the JJ–verse is fundamentally designed to be an action–flick universe. The second it becomes the setting for this new show, it's inevitably going to bring in people who are expecting the show to mimmic the movies in that sense, and when it fails to do that, it'll lose its audience. If it pivots to the action–flick crowd to compensate for this, it'll alienate the fans who were supporting the show in the first place, and not wind up winning over any of the people it lost who weren't really Trek fans to begin with. I've been pretty indifferent to the design aesthetics of the new movies, and distancing this from "Beyond" will almost inevitably result in an aesthetic change of some sort anyway. While there's potential to do something with the JJ–verse in that span between the Narada destroying the Kelvin and the launch of the Enterprise, I think it would be better suited to a miniseries than a full–scale TV series. If you jump ahead to the JJ–verse's 24th century to get away from "Beyond," you're pretty much proving that there's no point in staying in the JJ–verse anyway, because you could do the same thing by jumping to the 25th century in the Prime Universe and actually producing a show that would be more appealing to fans.
 

We know Starfleet ramped up exploration and technological development after Narada took out the Kelvin, would be interesting to see how things went between then and the 2009 movie in a more Star Trek style of story telling.

As much as this could be interesting, I'm personally burned out on 23rd century JJ–verse Trek and have been for quite some time. I honestly think that even if this idea were attempted, it would wind up devolving into a JJ–verse action series, and ultimately wind up facing a lot of the same criticisms as Voyager for doing so. It might work, but it definitely has a lot of potential for disaster as well.
 

Just because the movies have been more action oriented, doesn't mean a TV show set in the same universe would have to be the same.

 While you're right that the show doesn't technically have to mimmic the movies, it's what will inevitably wind up happening. CBS Inc. will immediately alienate a chunk of the fans just by setting this in the JJ–verse, and they won't bother to pay $6 dollars a month for it. When the numbers are low, CBS Inc. will tell the producers to make it more like the movies, (making the incorrect assumption that the JJ–verse moviegoers will pay $6 dollars a month for Trek,) which will in turn alienate the rest of the Prime Universe viewers who were paying $6 dollars a month for this, while subsequently not bringing anyone new in. As soon as the JJ–verse is referenced, the expectation is going to be an action–series, even if that's not what this turns out to be. I actually think you could do a miniseries or even a direct–to–video movie series or miniseries about the part of the JJ–verse that you referenced in the style of traditional Trek, but I'd be very reluctant to bring it to the small screen for weekly episodes. I've been poking around other places since this announcement and the most common thoughts I see are people hoping that this is a 25th century Prime Universe series, so hopefully CBS Inc. is paying attention to those claims.
 

Edit: Also, I hate the idea of a Captain Worf TV show. His character was fleshed out enough during TNG and DS9, I don't need more.

 I can understand why you feel that way. I actually hate the idea of spending anymore time in the JJ–verse myself, and while I'd enjoy the "Captain Worf" series, it's actually not my favorite concept that was pitched to CBS Inc. I chose it for my examples specifically because it was the most fleshed out concept, and supposedly had a lot of support from people in the company who were aware of what Michael Dorn wanted to do. While I doubt this new series is the "Captain Worf" series, it's still certainly possible that they're one and the same. My favorite concept was actually Manny Coto's 25th Century Trek idea that would have followed Enterprise in production order and Voyager/Nemesis in continuity, specifically because he turned Enterprise around and I felt he could create the next Trek to do what TNG did in terms of giving us another long run. That idea combined with some of Bryan Singer's concepts for "Star Trek: Federation" would have definitely gotten my attention, and could actually work quite well following the destruction of Romulus as the one contribution the JJ–verse made to the Prime Universe. Lose the 29th century concept as a 25th century revision, go with a larger ship, and keep some of the overall concepts from "Federation," and you'd have something that I'd pay to watch, and apparently other people would pay to watch as well. (Just don't call it "red matter" in the Prime Universe as anything other than a slang term and we're good.) This new show is still obviously very early in its development, but it needs to be handled carefully to avoid becoming the next Enterprise for all the wrong reasons.
 

Streaming and TV on Demand is the way the rest of the world watches TV nowadays and is undoubtably the future of TV series like Star Trek. It's likely that CBS will eventually sell the show to networks once it's finished its inaugural run anyway as I'm sure every network will be chomping at the bit to show a new Star Trek TV series and CBS would be foolish not to cash in especially if this new Trek is a hit.

1701D, the funniest thing about what you've just mentioned is that the rest of the world is going to be getting this on actual television. One thing people outside of the United States don't seem to realize is that the way streaming is utilized here is very different from the way it's utilized elsewhere. A show doesn't go for streaming as long as a broadcast channel or even a cable network will pick it up. Shows in the United States get dumped on streaming services because nobody else wants them, and nobody else is willing to pick them up. While you occasionally get a show like House of Cards, you also get a lot of junk, and House of Cards only went to Netflix because nobody else would touch it. There's also no actual TV station showing older episodes of that show or other streaming shows in the states the way there are in other parts of the world, because anything that debuts on streaming is seen as undesirable by actual TV stations here. The real problem is that there is a channel that wants a Trek TV series, and that wanted it for the fall 2016 television season at that, and that's the CW, which is partially owned by CBS. What CBS is doing could effectively kill this series because of how it's distributed; while I don't even have my eyes on the CW these days, it's still a network, and network's still command the highest budgets and the most respect for their shows in the states. All CBS would have to do is put this new Trek series on the CW, and they'd make the CW happy and avoid driving away other channels that might be interested in distribution rights. Instead they're shoving it on CBS All–Access as a streaming series, which is putting it at a huge disadvantage. CBS All–Access doesn't even have the name recognition that Netflix has, and if actual TV stations won't touch a show that debuts on Netflix, they're definitely not going to touch a show that debuts on CBS All–Access.
 
I was actually working with someone up in Canada who couldn't understand why people were laughing at his idea to launch a show on a streaming platform in the United States when he tried to get funding for it. The people he was working with in Canada and other parts of the world were very interested in his proposal while everyone in the U.S. looked at him like he was crazy. It took two people actually living in the United States to explain to him why nobody was taking his proposal seriously, and this was after Netflix had already created successful original shows. (Needless to say, his idea fell through due to lack of funding.) While other stations will take this new Trek series in syndication outside of the United States, no broadcast or cable network is going to touch it in the United States if it debuts on a streaming platform just because of the politics of the US TV industry.
 

NYT says it won't be related to Beyond, but that doesn't rule out a JJ-verse setting. Given the fact that Beyond is JJ verse, I dunno if they'd want to have two competing Trek universes airing one right after another -- they could see it as damaging to JJ verse and the movies if they're disparate.

 While the way the original article was worded doesn't rule out the JJ–verse, the further this is from the JJ–verse the better. I'll pay $6 dollars a month for a good Prime Universe Trek series, (especially if it's set in the 25th century after the destruction of Romulus,) but I will not pay $6 dollars a month for something set in the JJ–verse, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. The best thing CBS Inc. could do is keep the movies and the TV show separate from each other. The Prime Universe is perfect for a TV show and the JJ–verse is perfect for a big–budget movie, and there's no reason why each shouldn't be utilized for what it's best at. Even J.J. Abrams himself stated that Trek needed to get back to the Prime Universe eventually when he was promoting Trek XI, and this would be as good a time as any to do so. I know how Marvel does things, but that's exactly why I stopped caring about most of what Marvel does a long time ago; they mastered reset button mashing before it was cool and have continued it to this day. I was interested in the Spider–Man movies before the fourth film became a reboot, and rebooting the franchise again for the next film has only made me less interested in it than I was before. Trek's Prime Universe works, and sticking the new show anywhere else is just asking for unnecessary trouble, and premiering it on CBS All–Access is going to create enough of that without the addition of another artifical obstacle. Likewise, not having this related to "Beyond" and then setting it in the JJ–verse is only going to cause more confusion because people are going to wonder why it's not connected to "Beyond." Setting the show in the Prime Universe solves that problem and makes it easier for newcomers to avoid wondering why it isn't tied to the films. Setting it in the 25th Century effectively will do what TNG did for Trek in the '80s, and allow this show to be its own thing without another unnecessary pseudo–reboot.
 

From the press release it suggests to me that CBS are carrying on with their prime universe. There also may be contractual issues with CBS using the JJ Abrams universe as I believe that anything that relates to JJ Abrams and Paramount's universe would have to involve Paramount and Bad Robot. Furthermore, if we look at the DC universe, the TV and Movie universes are separate. It work's well for WB and there's no reason why it couldn't work for Star Trek.

 1701D, I would hope that you are right about the Prime Universe. While that seems to be what the press release implied, the fact that they didn't just come out and say the new show would be in the Prime Universe does have myself and others worried that it might not be. I would love for CBS to put this to bed today and just amend the release to say that the new show "will be unrelated to Star Trek Beyond, and set in the show's Prime Universe where all other Star Trek series have taken place." That would end any speculation about where the show would be set instantly, and still wouldn't give anything else that's really significant away.
 
As for potential legal issues, it's my understanding that although Paramount retains the rights to produce the new movies as they've done since the Viacom split, the material that they produce is ultimately owned by CBS Inc. as CBS Inc. owns the overall rights to all things Trek. Looking at the fine print on my Into Darkness every–format–imaginable–sans–holodeck release, this appears to be the case. While Paramount is now distributing their own discs, (something that they didn't do for the '09 movie,) the legal copy on them notes that "Star Trek and all related marks and logos are the property of CBS Studios Inc., used with permission." This woud indicate that they're licensed to use the Star Trek property, but that they do not own it. It's also been implied that Abrams could have used the Prime Universe in the films if he wanted too, but chose to create a pseudo–reboot instead to distance the films from Enterprise, which would indicate that CBS Inc. is really just having Paramount produce the films as a sort of "works for hire" since CBS Inc. isn't in the business of making their own movies.
 
It's also interesting that you bring up the WB though, and the fact that the DC Universe TV and film franchises are separate. CBS and WB jointly own the CW, so this would be consistent with the format that WB is using on shows that are airing on their jointly–owned network. (It also further pushes the question of why CBS is trying to shove All–Access at Trek fans when a new Prime Universe Trek would not only follow the format of other shows on a network that they jointly own with WB, but on a network that wants Trek no less.) This same format could definitely work for Trek, and was actually how Trek was going to be handled back in the '70s before the Paramount Television Network fell through, and Star Trek: Return of the Titans was dropped in favor of turning the Star Trek: Phase II's "In Thy Image" pilot into a motion picture instead. Interestingly, Paramount is supposedly going to begin producing TV shows again soon, with the possibility of launching a new network again at some point under consideration as well, so it's starting to feel a lot like 1995 and possibly 1979 (depending on your age) all over again, and not necessarily in a bad way.
 

It's not just on streaming service it will be airing weekly on CBS January 2017.

Where are you getting your information from? Is there a reliable source that's made this claim and backed it up, or is it just coming from a clickbait site like Collider making plausible but not neccessarily factual information up? So far everything I've seen from reputable sources has claimed that only the pilot will be shown on CBS broadcast TV, and that the streams will debut in January 2017 on CBS All–Access.

 

Finally, I should note that I have a theory, and that I want to stress that this is only a theory of mine, and should be taken as pure speculation. I honestly think that the real reason CBS Inc. plans to show the pilot on CBS isn't really to use it as "bait" to get people to sign up for CBS All–Access. While I'm well aware that the first hit is always free, Star Trek is a drug that has plenty of junkies who've been in withdrawl since '05, and who will easily watch this if it's a new Prime Universe series. CBS could give the first episode away for free on the free portion of CBS All–Access if they really were just handing out the first hit for free, completly negating the need to debut the pilot on network television. What I'm guessing CBS is really doing is debuting the pilot on network television not only as "bait," but as a way to measure ratings of the show on network TV. If it draws in a large number of viewers and CBS All–Access loses most of them, I fully suspect that CBS will quickly find a way to work the show into their actual broadcast schedule rather than distributing it as initially planned. A January debut on All–Access would imply that the pilot will likely be shown in the fall of 2016, and if All–Access loses most of the people who watched the pilot, I could see CBS deciding to show season one as part of their summer broadcast line–up to see if they're still able to pull in the kind of numbers that they got for the pilot. If they do, I fully suspect that season two will premiere on CBS in the fall of 2017 rather than on CBS All–Access. I could be wrong, but Netflix, iTunes, and multiple other sites all give pilots away for free, so there's no reason why CBS couldn't do the same thing without a network debut if they weren't trying to see how this show might fare on network TV. If they really just wanted to have some sort of special "spectacle" for the pilot, they could just set up one of those fathom events that they've been doing with movie theaters for TOS–R and TNG–R, and easily have the same effect that showing the pilot on network TV as "bait" would have. I know I'd personally pay to watch the premiere of this on the big screen if CBS were to go the fathom event route, just as I paid for TOS–R as a fathom event, and would have paid for TNG–R if the one–night showings didn't always occur when I was away in an area with no movie theater holding such a showing within a 40 mile radius.



#37 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 03 November 2015 - 06:27 AM

In my mind it makes perfect sense for CBS to continue on with their Prime Universe and for Bad Robot and Paramount to continue with their Alternate Star Trek Universe. Set the series 80/100 years beyond the voyages of Captain Picard and you've instantly created some breathing room for writers to develop and redefine aspects of the established prime universe set far enough away from the constraints of previous series allowing new writers to develop further the established universe and it's inhabitants and technologies yet not so far beyond TNG that we loose the fundamental aspects of Star Trek.

 

For example, in TOS a communicator was a flip phone, in TNG it was a badge on the chest, for a new series it could be an implant within the brain or eye. A new tool for storytelling could be introduced just as the Holodeck was for TNG, transporter technology could have become so advanced that they can transport from ship to planet without having to go to a transporter room. Turbo lifts could be a thing of the past, the Enterprise could be something completely different than the Enterprise D and its Original predecessor, retaining the iconic shapes, the Enterprise could be something totally new. Warp Speed could be an archaic form of transportation...

 

Whatever they decide the style of this new Star Trek should take, I think going beyond and further into the future is the right course to chart.  



#38 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 03 November 2015 - 07:45 AM

 

For example, in TOS a communicator was a flip phone, in TNG it was a badge on the chest, for a new series it could be an implant within the brain or eye. A new tool for storytelling could be introduced just as the Holodeck was for TNG, transporter technology could have become so advanced that they can transport from ship to planet without having to go to a transporter room. Turbo lifts could be a thing of the past, the Enterprise could be something completely different than the Enterprise D and its Original predecessor, retaining the iconic shapes, the Enterprise could be something totally new. Warp Speed could be an archaic form of transportation...

 

These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise NCC 1701-J with internal transporters instead of turbolifts and a crazy future design that still has the iconic look. I know Robster would be excited about a series featuring the J. 

 

The transporter rooms aren't required to beam to the surface, they've shown that several times that they can just beam where ever they want from where ever they are on the ship, it's probably more of a formality. 

 

I'd like to see holo technology incorporated everywhere, peoples quarters could be completely customized to look like whatever they'd want. You could have your quarters look like your in San Fransico, or Risa, or wherever you'd want it to be. 



#39 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 03 November 2015 - 08:13 AM

Cbs streaming is a new one that is just getting started. A lot of networks are starting to go with this model. NBC is doing it now too and even though you can watch a lot of their shows on Hulu there are a few you can only watch on their service. It's going to be the way of things to come. I know people are complaining that they have to pay just to watch Star Trek but thats not the case. You are paying to watch all of CBS programming, Star Trek is just going to be one of many shows you are paying to watch, because some choose to watch only one show is up to them.

I honestly can't wait to here more about this. I don't care one way or another who is involved. When watching each new show I couldn't tell you one way or another who was involved in producing it when they came out. I just didn't care. All I cared about was new Star Trek and with that have been a fan of each series. I think people put way to much stock into "producers, show runners, etc...". Just wait and see and enjoy it for what it is. Hell, we don't know the first thing about the show other than there is going to be a new show and all I'm seeing on the Internet is complaining and whining about it. No wonder people make fun of Star Trek fans. Lol

#40 Commodore Kor'Tar

Commodore Kor'Tar

    The Great Tribble Hunter

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U.S.S. Kahless NCC-76108 AKA Fort Worth TX
  • Interests:Playmates figures and ships (90s era), Art Asylum and DST figures and ships , Galoob figures and micro machines .

Posted 03 November 2015 - 12:44 PM

29bkbpf.jpg







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: star, trek, cbs, 2017, series

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users