Michael Dorn must be banging his head against a wall.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I should be excited about this. But I’m not. Why am I not?
…Because I know everyone who kept Star Trek good & fun won’t be involved. No Sternbach. No Okudas. No Drexler. No Frederickson. No Shimizu. None of that team that for 17 years kept the faith, saying “you can do this but you can’t do that, because it’s not what they would do!”
How far in the future do they plan to go? By the TNG/DS9/VGR timeline, it’s the year 2392 right now; will they stick with 2393 when this starts? It’ll probably be in the late 25th century, & I bet it’s a lot more brooding & angsty. Feh.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm pretty sure it will take place in the Abramsverse during nuTOS, since Kurtzman is the executive producer and CBS can get all the sets, props, costumes, CGI models, etc. from the new films at a fraction of the cost of making all new stuff.
And how do you know that there won't be a whole new set of people that will make Trek fun like Okuda, Sternbach and Drexler did?
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I'm pretty sure it will take place in the Abramsverse during nuTOS, since Kurtzman is the executive producer and CBS can get all the sets, props, costumes, CGI models, etc. from the new films at a fraction of the cost of making all new stuff.
Actually, from what I understand, CBS does not own the rights to the stuff from the Abramsverse movies. Paramount does. Yes, I know, that's weird. As such, a new CBS show would more than likely be set in the Prime timeline.
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: Actually, from what I understand, CBS does not own the rights to the stuff from the Abramsverse movies. Paramount does. Yes, I know, that's weird. As such, a new CBS show would more than likely be set in the Prime timeline.
CBS owns Star Trek in its entirely. They've given Paramount a license to produce Trek films, but if CBS wanted to do a new show based on the nuUniverse, they'd be well within their rights to do so. It's been stated that the new series won't have anything to do with the Star Trek Beyond movie coming out next year, but that doesn't mean that it won't take place in the nuUniverse with a different crew on a different ship.
Honestly though, at this point I'd prefer just a straight reboot. Prime universe is old and done. NuTrek, while great on the movie screen for the foreseeable future, would inevitably conflict with any TV show set in the same universe. Make some new characters that we actually care about in a universe with a completely clean slate. Just don't let it turn into Voyager, which essentially tried the same thing.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
As long as they don't go down the "dystopian universe" road that's been so popular over the last decade, I'm hopeful but cautious. Movies and tv shows are such different productions, and Trek has always been at its best on the small screen where it can tell smaller, more meaningful stories.
I'm not worried about the likelihood that many people from the old shows won't be involved. Frankly, part of the reason why Voyager and a Enterprise were lackluster is that they were running out of ideas. It's time for a fresh start with 21st century storytelling. I'm sure plenty of people will have good ideas. It's just up to the producers to find them. (Hence my "cautious" mentality.)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
While this series may end up being watchable or even good, I don't think there's much chance at all of its being so amazing that I'd be willing to pay $6 a month to watch it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
A smart writer could split the difference- say with an experimental drive landing a primeverse starship getting stranded in the oh-so-crappy Abramsverse- giving fans the best of both and contrasting the utopian ideals of primeverse with the...whatever the fuck the Abramsverse offers. Sex? Lens flares?Plot holes? Recycled plots?
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
A horrifying thought just occurred to me: the last time they used Star Trek as the flagship to launch/promote a new distribution platform, we got UPN.
I'm kind of the opposite end of the spectrum from TSN. I don't subscribe to any traditional TV service, I pay for it all via online ad-free services like iTunes and Netflix. I see so few ads these days that it's jarring and infuriating when I do. I'm pretty sure the CBS streaming service doesn't exclude ads. And it would have to be pretty amazing that I'd be willing to pay $6 a month and still have to sit through ads.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I didn't even know CBS went the Hulu route of charging you to watch commercials. That's another good reason not to subscribe. My original reason not to was simply that the Trek series would almost certainly be the only thing I'd watch on the service, and I don't want to pay $6 a month for one program.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The one thing that concerns me is the fact that the announcement (so far) is more about the CBS all access-plattform - and not about the new series.
I'm afraid they only want to push their download portal at all costs and only use Star Trek as a usefull vehicle. They don't care about us anymore...
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by o2: The one thing that concerns me is the fact that the announcement (so far) is more about the CBS all access-plattform - and not about the new series.
Maybe that's because no one has decided what the series is going to be about or who's in it yet. Can't report news that doesn't exist.
quote:I'm afraid they only want to push their download portal at all costs and only use Star Trek as a useful vehicle. They don't care about us anymore...
CBS only interested in making money? Say it isn't so!
And really, if they truly didn't "care about us," they wouldn't be making a show at all. And you know what? Who cares if the only reason they're making the show is to promote their streaming channel? THEY'RE MAKING A NEW STAR TREK TV SHOW! Just wait and see what we're going to actually get in fourteen months instead of immediately being a worry-wart.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
