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

#61 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 05 November 2015 - 04:10 PM

I'm all for al a carte TV, I like the idea of paying for just the channels I want to watch. However if i'm paying money directly to that network, no middleman like Comcast, why should I have to deal with advertisements? 

 

The best way for CBS to do streaming would be to follow the Hulu model to an extent. 

 

Have a free option, where only the newest episode or two of a show is available to watch with advertisements for a week or two before they go away. That way you can stay caught up with your favorite series, and not have to worry as much about missing a week. Make the videos only work if you don't use an adblock so you don't lose out on the ad revenue, just like Hulu does. You could then have the entire catalog of the show available if you do pay the monthly subscription that you can watch without ads. 

 

Hell if they wanted to they could even throw banner ads up that don't interfere with the videos even if you are subscribed. 

 

I'll support the show by buying it later on iTunes, I would even watch the show with ads if I could watch it for free, but I will not pay a monthly subscription for a streaming service if I still have to watch ads.



#62 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 05 November 2015 - 05:47 PM

I'm not outright saying I won't watch it at some point because of course I will, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar, but there's nothing to get me excited so far; nothing that would fill me with confidence (like for instance seeing some production guys from the old series' come onboard).

 

Soooo, you are going to watch it!

 

I think there's a sense that Star Trek fans have bolted to the negativity of having to pay $5.99 a month for the series rather than being happy that a new Star Trek series is going to be arriving! As you say, it's early days so why not just enjoy the prospect of a new series, rather than seeing the negative in EVERYTHING! 

 

This isn't intended as a personal attack on anyone in particular, it's just that from the Trek news sites i've visited, there are a lot of negative comments out there from fans who don't know what this new series is going to entail and latching onto this being a show that will be played exclusively on CBS's own on demand service... That's also available on Apple TV, will be sold to multiple international markets and will eventually launch onto Blu-Ray, iTunes and other platforms.  

 

I have a NOW TV box and Netflix and I don't see the problem in having those and paying for them on top of my TV license.  

 

CBS have to make sure they produce an excellent, world-class, must-see Star Trek series. It's a tall order but right now I'm just really happy that Star Trek is returning to the format it works best on. 



#63 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 05 November 2015 - 06:10 PM

If you go back and read all my posts, you'll see I never said anywhere that I wasn't going to watch this.

Regards any negativity guys, bear in mind that some people don't like the JJ stuff, and look past it. Opinions are just that. If the new show is JJ-verse, then know that I'll be delighted for fans of it, and the only resentment from me will be aimed squarely at AA/DST for not making more ships since 2003. Close to thirteen years, and only two ships from TNG-era Trek, makes me sad. :(

As I always say, I have 14 seasons of great tv and 10 films I love. :)

#64 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

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

Posted 05 November 2015 - 10:10 PM

Yep,just like I said 1701,a lot of negativity. Hardcore Trekkers are always dissatisfied I guess. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost. But it's their problem and they have to deal with it,lol.

 

J-R!



#65 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 November 2015 - 06:39 AM

Alex, when I say Netflix, you can definitely assume I also mean Hulu, Prime and the rest (just easier to write!). :)

Also, regards Drexler, he's really not a fan of JJ Trek (similar to LeVar Burton in terms of opinions on it, only a lot stronger). I also hate those types of tabloids (not a big fan of the media generally to be honest), so without knowing anything about the article's author, I do agree with his opinions nontheless.

Jay K, thanks for clarifying what you mean by "Netflix;" I was afraid you might be singling out that service specifically.

Regarding Drexler, I can understand why he's not a fan of JJ Trek, (I know at least one person whose been a Trek fan since she was a kid that's considering skipping "Beyond" in theaters just because of how much ID and the JJ–verse alienated her, so I understand the sentiment,) and while I'm not huge on it myself, I do understand that it makes sense for the kind of spectacle that most big–screen outings tend to be. I'm also generally not a fan of reboots, especially when the propery that's rebooted is something that didn't need a reboot to begin with, which is why I've never been that big on the JJ–verse. (ID also left a terrible taste in my mouth too, and I had some issues with Trek XI as well.)
 

As may have been said here, and has definitely been said elsewhere, don't get too worked up over the streaming aspect of this.
 
14 months is a long time in today's media landscape.  By next January they may change their strategy altogether, or alter their pricing, or who knows what else.  Another pattern of late has been for episodes to be made available for free for a limited time after airing...maybe they will do some of that.

While I agree with you that 14 months is a long time in today's media landscape, that's exactly the reason why I am worked up over the streaming aspect of this, and am kind of happy to see that I'm not the only person who is. You're right that CBS could change their strategy by next January, but there's a better chance of them doing that if they're subjected to a constant backlash over it than there is if everyone seems to just go with it. The longer people complain about this, the more likely they are to second guess the "streaming only" idea, and to eventually change it. Episodes are typically made available for free when they air on actual TV channels for a limited period of time; for streaming everything is behind a paywall from the get–go.
 

Also, few seem to be thinking of the obvious solution where we simply wait for the season (which will probably be short like modern series are trending) to be over and subscribe for a single month to binge-watch them all.

 This is something else that I'm not fond of with throwing the show on CBS All–Access. I don't want the kind of short season that non–network shows typically get; I want a decent–length season like CBS broadcast shows typically get, even if it's broken down into two halves the way a lot of network shows are. My real issue goes beyond paying the $5.99 a month to the issue of not actually being able to view what I'm paying for because the All–Access player is crap that's unlikely to be redesigned, and my internet connection is obnoxiously unreliable without any alternative providers. (I'd have dumped my ISP a decade ago if there were a better alternative.) Unless CBS plans to lay a line to my house to provide reliable internet access, I'm likely going to have an issue even if their player doesn't get all wonky like it always inevitably does.
 

Guys, this is exactly how TNG was born, instead of streaming it was first run syndication. That was a huge success story. Can the same be repeated? Theres no reason to suggest it won't work. We are just a handful of fans and regardless of what you say now, you may just be saying something different in a years time when CBS tease you with trailers and a cast, a new ship etc... It is also only $5.99 a month and you don't just get Star Trek for that price too.

1701D, there's a huge difference between TNG being in first–run syndication and this new series being on a streaming service. First–run syndication wasn't network television, but it still had a decent level of respect, and was still available to everyone who had access to network TV. The "joke service" of 1987 was cable television, and while there's plenty that Gene Roddenberry could be criticized for with regards to his ideas for TNG, his hardline position that TNG not be relegated to cable where it would have been laughed out of existence is certainly not one of them. Things have changed and cable is now very widely respected while stream is the "joke service." I would not mind this winding up on a competent cable channel (read: not SyFy) if it were the only way for it to be picked up, but the simple truth is that it doesn't even need to go to cable because the CW's president has already stated that he wanted a Trek series on that network. Likewise, CBS Inc.'s willingness to show the premiere on CBS's actual broadcast channel is proof that they're not opposed to the idea of having Trek on CBS proper. There is absolutely no reason why this show couldn't and shouldn't be on the CBS broadcast channel, or at the very least, the CW. This isn't a worldwide money–grab either; international markets are going to be getting the show on traditional TV channels while only U.S. (and Canadian?) viewers will be subjected to paying through the nose for a third–rate streaming service that's being forced down our throats. I already pay for cable; if I want to watch something that CBS broadcasts and that I've missed, I either use my DVR or quickly catch it on–demand before they move it to All–Access, since I'm still paying for the "free" on–demand content as part of my overall cable bill every month. I won't pay for HBO on–demand, (I'm already paying for HBO proper,) and unless this is Prime Universe Trek, I'm not paying for All–Access either.
 

Bottom line... If this is Prime Universe Star Trek, I don't care what any of you guys say, you'll be signing up. CBS All Access has to start somewhere, they will undoubtably put more exclusive and original content onto All Access and what better show to start with than their biggest property, a property that has always done better in the first run syndication 80's and 90's equivalent to today's 21st century streaming on demand. Plus all we're talking about is $5.99 a month, that's $71.88 a year, the price of a plastic star trek ship from DST.

 If it's Prime Universe Trek, I might sign up, maybe. I didn't say I won't be watching this, I just said I might not pay for all–access; I'll very likely buy this on Blu–Ray the day the full season comes out, and possibly pay for it on iTunes, but this has to be Prime Universe Trek that's on par with TNG–VOY if I'm going to consider paying for All–Access and not being able to enjoy the show because of constant technical glitches. As noted above, on–demand streaming isn't comparable to first–run syndication in the slightest; it would be analogous to sticking TNG on cable in the '80s when virtually no one was using it, and even the best shows on cable were typically viewed as joke and usually didn't last more than a couple of seasons. $71.88 a year is hardly cheap, especially for a service I have to use in the middle of the night just to have a shot at seeing something in halfway decent quality, and given what Trek DVD/Blu–Ray Discs typically go for, I could pay $30–40 more and own the thing on Blu–Ray without having to worry about whether or not I'll only get to see a fraction of an episode before I start having problems. It's not paying for the show that I have a problem with, it's paying for a shoddy service that relies on my shoddy internet connection, doubling the chances that I won't be able to watch the show at a sane hour, and then adding insult to injury by running ads on top of that. I will be watching this, that much is obvious; it's just a matter of how I'm going to pay to watch it, and whether or not I'm going to put up with a headache service like All–Access or just wait for the Blu–Ray release that I'd buy regardless of where this ran, and possibly an iTunes release as well.
 
Also, the real problem isn't getting die–hard Trek fans to pay for this, CBS acknowledged that; the real problem is getting people who might pick this up if they were just casually watching an episode on CBS to pay for All–Access, and that's not likely to happen. Casual fans and curious newcomers aren't going to shell out for some esoteric streaming service to check this out, and that's going to wind up unnecessarily hurting it.
 

The comments I've read on various Trek sites and other general tv and movie sites have not been all celebratory. A LOT of negativity,hence my previous comments about Trek fans,lol! Only thing I post amongst all that negativity is this. You can piss and moan all you want,but in the end you KNOW you'll be watching it.
 
I look forward to it......while still sitting on my fence till I see ship designs and casting.
 
J-R!

Oh, there's no question I'll be watching this; it's just a matter of how I'll be watching it. If it's Prime Universe Trek, I'll definitely be buying the Blu–Ray Disc release the day it comes out, and possibly another release as well. Maybe I'll try All–Access and if it doesn't give me the kind of headache I had the last time I used it, I'll keep the subscription too. If it's JJ–verse Trek, I'll just wait for the Blu–Ray release and avoid All–Access. I'm not negative about the series itself, and I'm actually cautiously optimistic about it; what I'm negative about is CBS All–Access and the blatant money–grab that's likely to damage the series instead of helping it, and right now a new Trek series needs to be in front of as many eyeballs as possible; if it wasn't pulling in the numbers to justify remaining on an actual network I would be completely behind moving it to All–Access, but it's not even getting a proper chance on a network outside of the pilot episode.

 

Also, we have a new name next to Kurtzman's as a fellow EP, Heather Kadin. According to the IMDB she's served as EP for Limitless, Sleep Hollow, Scorpion, and Matador. Make of that what you will.



#66 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 06 November 2015 - 07:48 AM

One thing I have noticed.  Usually I'm one of the only people in the room praising VOY but all of a sudden I am seeing a lot of voices mentioning it by name as something the new show should try to be like (along with TNG/DS9).  And for that matter when ST'09 came out the internet was logjammed with "TOS is better than the rest" and now I hear nobody mentioning that one for an example.  :P



#67 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 06 November 2015 - 06:52 PM

I'm really looking forward to this new series, I pray though that it's set in the prime timeline.

Who do we want to see join Kurtzman and Kadin? I'd like to see the Okudas back as well as other behind the camera crew from Star Trek's past. I'd love to see some modern day science fiction writers pen treatments and I'd love to see Seth McFarlane take on some kind of writing along with Ron Moore and Ira Steven Bher!

#68 Morgan

Morgan

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 745 posts

Posted 06 November 2015 - 09:38 PM

I think we can rightfully expect that it's not going to be based in an original movies or TNG/DS9/Voy timeframes -- that would be too much fan service... even though we know everyone would urinate themselves if it turns out to be set on a ship during the original movies timeframe, red jackets and all, like what's pictured on my avatar. That would be just outta control.

 

Writers always want the freedom "to tell new stories" and other BS so I have a feeling it'll be a TOS timeframe, and in the JJ universe in order to boost the relevance of the JJ Abrams movies. I think there will be a desire to make it a companion series to the latest films with the same general look and feel. (They might even film in the same brewery). I don't think there is enough bravery on the part of the production to risk it somehow with something novel, but there are production expenses to consider.

 

If it turns out to be something other than that, I'm going to be very surprised.



#69 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 07 November 2015 - 03:22 AM

I think we can rightfully expect that it's not going to be based in an original movies or TNG/DS9/Voy timeframes

I wouldn't be so sure about that... This might not be a series that is set within the TOS or TNG era but I'd bet good money on it being based in the prime timeline.

CBS have already said that this series has no relation to Star Trek Beyond and whilst that doesn't conclude the fact that this won't be set in the alternate timeline, i think the fact that this production doesn't involve Bad Robot or Skydance or Paramount in any way whatsoever precludes any new series being set in a universe that was developed by Bad Robot.

As I understand it, CBS own the intellectual rights to the entire Star Trek library but that if they wanted to develop a series within the alternate timeline they would have to develop that with Skydance, Bad Robot and Paramount. I mean forget the legal crap, if CBS were going down that route it would make sense to work with at least bad robot on a new series.

Also sometime over this summer, Skydance seemingly had no idea about a new show being developed due to the relationship between Paramount and CBS... This suggests this was developed without Paramount or Bad Robot or Skydance suggesting to me at least that CBS have no need for them. The deal was three movies before CBS produced another tv show, by January 2017, those 3 years would have been up and bang on time CBS are back.

Furthermore, and this is just sheer speculation now, but I don't believe for one minute CBS really cares all that much about doing stories based in a Paramount or Bad Robot alternate reality, or indeed cares at all about that universe altogether.

I can totally see CBS developing a new series set in a prime universe. I think they can see the continued popularity of stories set in the prime timeline by seeing just how popular the older series still are. If they set this thing far enough away from what has come before to not be constrained by the past but at the same time, to be able to expand upon that universe in a new and original way then I don't think it does anything to hinder the freedom of a writing staff.

This isn't to say that CBS wouldn't acknowledge the alternate timeline in some manner but I think because of the relationship between the two studios, because of the populairty of the prime timeline still, I think CBS would do fine basing a new series in the prime universe whilst Paramount continues to develop stories for the big screen.

The two universes could run side by side, complimenting one another very nicely.

#70 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

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

Posted 07 November 2015 - 03:50 AM

Oooooh,a timeline crossover! YES PLEASE! lol

 

J-R!



#71 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 07 November 2015 - 04:50 AM

I see no reason for that not to happen down the line. As I understand it there's a rumour going around that Paramount are looking at 2019 for the 4th movie. Between a CBS Prime Timeline series and Star Trek 4/14 we could see a "Yesterday's Enterprise" style story to tie it into the movies but I'm more of the opinion that this should be treated like the DC multiverse. You have your CBS TV series and your Paramount movies separate for the most part but both complimenting one another by acknowledging each other's existence.  

#72 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

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

Posted 07 November 2015 - 11:23 AM

Sounds logical. I actually like DC on tv,but the movies.......not so much,so far. I enjoyed MoS,but none have had the thing Marvel does. Don't like Marvel on tv though. lol! So I guess I'll have my fun Marvel heroes on the big screen and fun DC heroes on the small screen. Love SW on the small AND big screen,so far. Ditto ST of course. Still hoping a teaser for STB will be shown with SW.

 

As for new tv series.......more info please! lol. Casting and ship design,NOW! Before my attention span wanders off into the sunset again. lol

 

J-R!



#73 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 09:18 AM

Their plan to rely on the "loyalty of Star Trek fans" to draw in subscribers to their new service is going to encounter some roadblocks if they do not have a firm grasp of the fact that the loyal fans, I am certain, overwhelmingly would prefer a prime timeline series.  It is fairly frequently that I've seen people who loved the new movies with 0 caveats whatsoever priding themselves on just how little they cared for Star Trek before that.



#74 WORF22

WORF22

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

  • Members
  • 1,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.J.

Posted 09 November 2015 - 03:46 PM

this is my thing about the JJv. when TNG came out the TOS fans well some were livid cus it was not going to be a TOS era show but the time line was the same. now i kinda feel like the TOS fans of old about this new trek but my thing is that the time line is not the same. no hate just did not like the direction JJ took. NO HATE.... well.............................................



#75 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 10 November 2015 - 04:49 AM

I think that's the biggest thing going against the new movies. It's a new universe so even if it doesn't throw away what has already been established in the prime universe, its not OUR universe but some alternate reality that just doesn't have the same importance to the established fan base.

By bringing back the prime universe and in some manner acknowledging that there is this alternate universe then it validates the Abrams-verse and makes it a part of this franchise. By setting a new series solely in the alternate universe you might as well call it something different because Star Trek is a 50 year old franchise and part of its importance is because of that massive, complex timeline. It would be like recasting Star Wars and asking it's fan base to forget about everything you've seen over 50 years because we're now going to start again but kind of skip over the details and minutia that make this property unique and loved the world over.

I think we can all agree that there does need to be some separation from TOS - ENT for new fans to enter into this franchise but to just throw away THE timeline that started it all isn't the way this franchise should go.

Since It's due to the sheer volume of information contained within that era of Star Trek that puts people off from investing in this series but at the same time the thing that keeps the fan base happy. A balanced medium ground is the way to go to both keep established Star Trek fans on side as well as interesting new fans to the fold is to do exactly what they did with TNG... Set it far enough into the future so that its separated from what has restricted writers before but set it close enough to what we know and love about Star Trek so that it continues and compliments the timeline we know.

#76 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 10 November 2015 - 05:21 AM

As a side note, it would be fantastic if CBS do a one off thing with William Shatner experiencing some kind of dream sequence showing clips from all three new Star Trek movies and then waking up on the bridge of the Enterprise D with Patrick Stewart standing over him

#77 Morgan

Morgan

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 745 posts

Posted 11 November 2015 - 07:04 PM

Shatner wakes up "Bones I.... had....a dream... about this parallel universe where the Enterprise could... go.. underwater!"

 

And just like that the JJverse is revealed to have been a dream.



#78 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 11 November 2015 - 07:12 PM

The Enterprise underwater thing always bugs me. Not because it did it, but because people keep saying it isn't possible.

In the Voyager episode Thirty Days, Janeway said Voyager could be retrofitted to be able to go underwater. If for whatever reason Starfleet decided to have the Enterprise observe a planet from underwater, no doubt she was modified to do so before the mission began.

Alternatively, if for whatever reason they were having issues observing from space, they could retrofit the ship on the fly since Voyager could be retrofitted in a week in the middle of the Delta Quadrant.

#79 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2015 - 06:30 AM

One thing I have noticed.  Usually I'm one of the only people in the room praising VOY but all of a sudden I am seeing a lot of voices mentioning it by name as something the new show should try to be like (along with TNG/DS9).  And for that matter when ST'09 came out the internet was logjammed with "TOS is better than the rest" and now I hear nobody mentioning that one for an example.   :P

Whirlygig, think back to where Trek was in the run up to '08 before the film was delayed until '09. At the time the last piece of Trek to be shown was Enterprise, and it had crashed and burned. Paramount had pased on an idea for a film set between ENT and TOS, (rather humoursly because they were afraid to introduce new characters on the big screen,) and with the reviews Nemesis had received, Paramount was reluctant to touch anything from TNG at the time. TOS sort of "won by default," although it was also the only era of Trek that hadn't been touched for awhile, and the 40th anniversary of TOS had just passed, while TNG was only just turning 20, giving people a bit more of a desire for TOS. I never liked the "TOS is better than the rest" mentality, but it was there because everyone sort of knew that it was likely what we were going to get, whether it was a reboot or something set alongside TOS in that "retro–future" style used by some TOS–era fan films, and "In a Mirror, Darkly."

 

It's also worth mentioning that at the time, the thought was that the new movies would be developed on the same two–year schedule that Paramount used for every TNG film except Nemesis, which was intentionally delayed as a result of Inssurection tanking. (And INS tanked because it was a terrible film, not because people didn't like TNG.) With an '08 release date, the thought was that Trek XI would be released in '08, (it was pushed back to '09,) Trek XII would follow in '10, and Trek XIII would be out in 2012, and that come 2011 we'd have a new Prime Universe series to celebrate the 45th anniversary of Trek as a whole kicking off the festivities, and Trek XIII bookending them a year later. That obviously didn't happen though, Trek XI was pushed back to '09, Trek XII wound up getting bumped from '12 to '13, and with the film that became "Beyond" not getting fast–tracked right after ID wrapped, it pretty much wound up giving us a '16 release date barring another delay. VOY gained a lot of fans over the past 15 years, including people who weren't able to see it originally, and younger people who did see it originally, but who weren't numerous enough to really be heard. The new movies also did bring in some new fans who went back to check out Prime Universe Trek, and the ones who did that largely determined that it was what they preferred. VOY has more people defending it now, because it has more people who have finally given it a chance and realized that it's not as bad as a handful of loud critics made it out to be.

 

I'm really looking forward to this new series, I pray though that it's set in the prime timeline.

Who do we want to see join Kurtzman and Kadin? I'd like to see the Okudas back as well as other behind the camera crew from Star Trek's past. I'd love to see some modern day science fiction writers pen treatments and I'd love to see Seth McFarlane take on some kind of writing along with Ron Moore and Ira Steven Bher!

The one good thing about this going to CBS All–Access is that I can vote with my wallet if it's not set in the Prime Universe. You've covered a good deal of the people I'd like to see return, although I'd also throw in Johnathan Frakes behind the scenes since he's directed some good stuff, (including my favorite Trek film,) and wanted to direct the upcoming film before Justin Lin was chosen for it, even asking Abrams for the job. Oh, and if Kurtzman and Kadin can't pull off getting Seth McFarlane to pen a script or two, they're clearly doing something wrong; the guy is a huge Trek fan with a ton of pull that could get people to watch well–written Trek. Sure, he's synonymous with Family Guy and TED, but he also produced the remake of Cosmos, and even with Family Guy he managed to give us a humerous nod to TNG. I wouldn't even mind seeing Brannon Braga write a script or two so long as he's not allowed to have Rick Berman as a writing partner since the two of them together was the problem, not the two of them separately. Likewise, if Simon Pegg proves he can make the JJ–verse have some level of substance to it, I wouldn't mind seeing him try his hand at the Prime Universe, and it might even make me a bit more comfortable with having Kurtzman as showrunner. Oh, and if Drexler or Eaves can be persuaded to design a new Prime Universe ship, I think we could see something interesting.

 

I see no reason for that not to happen down the line. As I understand it there's a rumour going around that Paramount are looking at 2019 for the 4th movie. Between a CBS Prime Timeline series and Star Trek 4/14 we could see a "Yesterday's Enterprise" style story to tie it into the movies but I'm more of the opinion that this should be treated like the DC multiverse. You have your CBS TV series and your Paramount movies separate for the most part but both complimenting one another by acknowledging each other's existence.  

Paramount managed to get Pine/Quinto to sign on for a fourth movie as part of an agreement for them to get a raise they were demanding to appear in "Beyond." Whether or not they actually produce such a film is certainly up in there as it doesn't sound like any of the other actors have signed onto a similar agreement. However, if the goal for the next film is 2019, that might not be a huge issue. I could easily see Paramount wanting to "throw the baton forward" to the stars of the new TV series, and you could probably do that simply by having a universe–crossover with Pine/Quinto cameos. Of course, it's also possible that Paramount will sign the rest of the cast for a fourth film, or wind up going in another direction entirely. Before Trek XI Paramount had considered a "Search for Data" follow–up to Nemesis if Brent Spiner wound up regretting his decision as much as Shatner/Nimoy did, as well as a film set between ENT and TOS, and numerous other concepts before settling on JJ Abrams as producer and the idea of a pseudo–reboot for the basic premise.

 

Their plan to rely on the "loyalty of Star Trek fans" to draw in subscribers to their new service is going to encounter some roadblocks if they do not have a firm grasp of the fact that the loyal fans, I am certain, overwhelmingly would prefer a prime timeline series.

Whirlygig, if CBS can't figure this out, they should probably take a step back and rethink what they're doing immediately until this sinks in. The kind of people who are going to pay for Trek are going to be looking for a Prime Universe show, and they might not pay for a JJ–verse show. Likewise, if they try to pander to the people who watch the JJ–verse films and aren't otherwise invested in Trek, they're going to be in for a sore surprise when nobody watches the new show, since I don't see really casual viewers paying for a new Trek show, even if they might pay for a movie ticket. I kind of hinted at this above, but the one good thing about CBS All–Access is that it lets me vote with my wallet, which might be enough of a kick in the pants for them to avoid screwing this series up and going against what fans want.

 

I think that's the biggest thing going against the new movies. It's a new universe so even if it doesn't throw away what has already been established in the prime universe, its not OUR universe but some alternate reality that just doesn't have the same importance to the established fan base.

I think we can all agree that there does need to be some separation from TOS - ENT for new fans to enter into this franchise but to just throw away THE timeline that started it all isn't the way this franchise should go.

1701D, I just want to touch on these two paragraphs in particular. First, I partially agree with you about the JJ–verse, but I think it's the combination of it not being "our" universe along with the whole flashy–explosion tone that its ultimately become synonymous with. The people who became fans as a result of JJ's films have grown to prefer the Prime Universe while the people who just watch JJ's films with no regard for anything else Trek aren't the kind of people who will pay for a small–screen Trek series. This show needs to appeal to the fanbase, and the fanbase overall wants Prime Universe Trek in a familiar universe.

 

Also, while I agree with you that this does need some separation from ENT–VOY, but I don't even think you need to go as far as you did with TOS and TNG. Voyager/Nemesis were set in the 2370's, so simply setting the show in the early 25th century would put some distance between the past shows and this show, while still allowing for plenty of cameos when they might make sense without having to stick people in transporter pattern buffers or give them Vulcan age spans. While I think setting this after the Horbus supernova would be the wisest choice, I wouldn't even say it's a necessity so much as it's just a smart decision. The Prime Universe needs a new series and Trek doesn't need to avoid it; there are plenty of ways to create something that's accessible to newcomers and still set in the Prime Universe that we know and love.

 

The Enterprise underwater thing always bugs me. Not because it did it, but because people keep saying it isn't possible.

In the Voyager episode Thirty Days, Janeway said Voyager could be retrofitted to be able to go underwater. If for whatever reason Starfleet decided to have the Enterprise observe a planet from underwater, no doubt she was modified to do so before the mission began.

Alternatively, if for whatever reason they were having issues observing from space, they could retrofit the ship on the fly since Voyager could be retrofitted in a week in the middle of the Delta Quadrant.

I didn't have a problem with the Enterprise underwater concept as a concept, nor do I buy the "impossible" argument. What I did have a problem with was how the ship was able to just go underwater so easily with no modifications whatsoever, or at the very least, not even so much as a simple line of dialogue about Scotty working round the clock to make the ship capable of underwater travel. This is where I feel ID differs from VOY, and not for the better. In Thirty Days, Janeway states that Voyager could be retrofitted to be able to go underwater as you've pointed out, and then a retrofitting procedure is performed. Even if we don't see much of it, it's acknowledged. What ID did was effectively just have the ship go underwater with no retrofitting and no damage from lack of said retrofitting, which is where it gets into "fly the Enterprise–E with a joystick" territory for me. (It also wastes a perfectly good opportunity for Scotty to shine by desparately holding the ship without retrofitting together.) Voyager was retrofitted in a week with decades of technology beyond what was available in TOS. Even if you factor in the JJ–verse's advanced development that allowed the JJ–prise to be more like the constitution–class refit, that's still a huge gap between the technology of Voyager and the technology of the JJ–verse. It wouldn't hurt to show some consequences from the lack of retrofitting, or even Scotty doing some on–the–fly retrofitting to make the scene believable. It's not that it was done so much as how it was done that bothers me.



#80 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

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

Posted 12 November 2015 - 11:26 AM

If it can go in space it can go underwater. I mean,why could it not?! Why would anything need retrofitting and such? Hmmm,have to ask my rocket scientist friend at JPL about this....LOL!

 

J-R!







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