Jump to content

New Star Trek Series in 2017


Guest El Chalupacabra

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Didn't Worf shred any chance he ever had at a promotion to captain when he saved Jadzia instead of completing his mission in that one episode?   I would like to see some sort of cap on DS9. It was a

Just a couple things to add to this--   1. TOS is a pop culture icon in a way the later series were not. I'm a TNG guy, and despite them popular enough to get 7 seasons and 4 movies, they never hit th

Too tired to post the casting links and latest news, but they are easily googled.   Anyway, bottom line is we have yet more delays, we have some decent actors that have been cast including the walking

Posted Images

It's still going to be a Lt. Commander. So we're still talking about someone pretty high up the food-chain. Which is fine with me. I mean, Lower Decks was a great episode. But the meat of the story will always be on the bridge.

 

Really, though, from TNG on forward, the relative strength of Star Trek was in its ensemble. Yeah, Patrick Stewart or Avery Brooks may have been the main characters, but in any given episode anyone in the cast could take the lead and often did. And that's why those shows were so successful.

 

Who knows if that's how it'll work out this time though. With the shorter seasons, the ensemble may not get as much of a chance to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Lower Decks is one of the best episodes ever. I think the Captain not being the lead is a great idea.

I think if handled similarly to how SG1 handled Hammond, it will be a good formula. And a LT commander could mean second or third officer.

 

What are your thoughts on it being set only 10 years before Kirk's time, and technically at the same time as Pike's command (with Spock), if this is indeed set in the prime universe? I am not sure I like that. It could turn out alright, but makes me a little nervous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

It's equal parts playing it safe and opening a lot of opportunity to mess up continuity. Everything about this for me is 50/50. I hope it turns out awesome, but I'm prepared for it to suck.

Good way to put it. I was pretty hopeful at first, but now that more details have been released, I am preparing myself for it sucking, too. Right now, I am leaning towards 40/60, in favor of it sucking. It's the "10 years before Kirk" thing I can't get past. The other details, I am fine with. But what possessed them to do a prequel 10 years away, and literally during a time when most of the original cast characters are actually in Star Fleet on other ships earlier in their career, is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't see much in what's been announced that would make me more or less excited either way. The 10 years before Trek thing doesn't bother me much really. It's not like the original Star Trek had this large overarching story that can easily be tripped over. It's a big fleet, it's a big galaxy. I'd much prefer if they had the open water of setting it post-Voyager, but I don't see this as particularly limiting to the series much more than any other series set in the Star Trek "past".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I thought it was bound to be a prequel so it could be prime universe without confusing the brand with the movies, but that would put it post Kelvin so that shows what I know.

I thought the same thing, and it seemed to make the most sense to me. Being post Narada incursion (I refuse to call it the Kelvinverse, because the Kelvin didn't cause the divergent timelines, the Narada did), this seems to exclude the movies. But with CBS owning the TV shows, and Paramount owning the movie rights, maybe that was the intention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

different divisions, same company, but it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Paramount took the Trek movies away from Gene and settled with giving him a direct to syndication TV deal. They didn't expect it to blow up. Soon enough, and this continues today, Hollywood is about brand IP, so they're going to make sure Star Trek is still somehow unified and cross-promoted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

different divisions, same company, but it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Paramount took the Trek movies away from Gene and settled with giving him a direct to syndication TV deal. They didn't expect it to blow up. Soon enough, and this continues today, Hollywood is about brand IP, so they're going to make sure Star Trek is still somehow unified and cross-promoted.

Question for you: how do you think are they going to do that if Star Trek Discovery takes place in the prime universe and past the point of the Narada incursion\Kelvin incident? Do you think they will fold Star Trek (1)4 back into the prime universe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it baffles me. I'm still trying to figure out why WB/DC is allowing their TV and movies to be different universes. Comic folk get it, but casual fans? Unless they are just doubling down and assuming everyone is a multiverse nerd now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Well I get it with the DC comic, because it always was kind of like that, going back to at least Superboy from the 1980s. People can separate movie Superman from TV Superman. Or Batman for that matter (IE Birds of Prey). It probably is easier considering there is a bigger comic book audience, and kids often grow up through 2-3 versions of Superman or Batman or Justice League.

 

But as far as Star Trek, the last 3 movies are the only things out there that are in a different timeline, and even then, they are offshoots of the original. I think even the casual movie goer understands that the latest movies are a soft reboot and different timeline. It's the fact they are seemingly going back to the prime timeline that I don't see how CBS and Paramount can expect the casual, or occasional viewer to understand. Unless, like I think, they WANT them to be separate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Yeah, maybe. Star Trek always was best on TV, from a narrative point of view. I think they should have either had a Star Trek movie released every year since 2009 (kind of have to to compete with Marvel or Star Wars these days, anyway), or they could have had a TV series a lot sooner to tie into the films as you suggested earlier. I understand they were trying to intentionally "under expose" Star Trek, considering that over exposure almost killed it off, but when you wait 3-4 years in between films, people tend to forget about you these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it baffles me. I'm still trying to figure out why WB/DC is allowing their TV and movies to be different universes. Comic folk get it, but casual fans? Unless they are just doubling down and assuming everyone is a multiverse nerd now.

Isn't it obvious? The movies are of a quality far beyond that TV Berlanti stuff, Can anyone see Supergirl or TV Flash operating on the same stage as the movie Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman or the Squad? There is a clear class difference in almost every level of production, with the TV series looking like poor cousins in comparison, and as of this date, WB/DC is enforcing the separation of universes.

 

Regarding casual superhero movie fans--some do not even watch the TV series at all, much like many average Marvel movie fans disregard the TV series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. in terms of visuals, the movies are totally better. But they are terrible narratively. I'm not a big enough DC fan to watch the shows, but everyone I know who loves them says the writing is great. But I get your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Good points made by you both. Which begs the question, will the new Star Trek series be the same way: good writing, but sub par acting and dated FX (if they don't improve over that preview that was released), whereas the movies will have excellent FX, better than tv acting, and basic and action oriented story lines. Hopefully the next movie will be as good if not better than Star Trek Beyond, not that it was great, but was pretty good and certainly better than ST 2009 and STID.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest mistake Trek made was not breaking the mold. Enterprise was supposed to do that, but they choked and it ended up being more of the same. Nemesis recycled every beat it could from TWOK and it showed. People just plain got bored.

 

As flawed as Trek 2009 was, it was at least fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

You know what's crazy?

 

Star Trek had the perfect platforms to build for it's films but whoever's in charge of the films wants to change the established ethos.

 

Take TNG for example... 7 seasons of character development and they throw it out the window in favour of appealing to a wider audience. What is that all about? I know it's about numbers at the end of the day but they turn out so crap they lose any longevity they've established. If you made TNG today and built it up over a few seasons before releasing a movie it would have such a great grounding. People just didn't get that back in the day. Nowadays TV is such a brilliant thing and probably the better medium. But our movie makers and movie financing friends just don't have a clue how to exploit it. Only interested in the five buck to the dollar bullshit.

 

They think TV spin-offs of movies are a good thing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was part of the Darktower plan for awhile, but at some point there's going to be a franchise that has a TV show-- and the same cast will do a movie every couple years. Trek would be great. Week to week do the character development and long form stories, then every few years they have an action-y spectacle story that goes to theaters, then they go right back to TV.

 

I guess X-Files tried it with the first movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take TNG for example... 7 seasons of character development and they throw it out the window in favour of appealing to a wider audience. What is that all about?

 

If you think about it, it really wasn't a bad plan. They were 7 years in. The cast and crew were starting to get tired and that last season, while not bad, really wasn't the best. I've read some interviews from the writers where they admitted as much, though the cast was actually under contract for another season. Deep Space Nine had been successfully launched, so Trek had a solid show still on the air. Paramount was getting ready to launch UPN and with a fourth Trek show that would become Voyager.

 

So they knew they would have three Star Trek series running at once if they continued with TNG. At the same time, they wanted a replacement for the TOS movie series and TNG was very much the hot property and ready to ascend to the marquee feature.

 

It's difficult to believe how quick that Generations movie came together though. It wasn't until I did some quick fact-checking that I realized that it came out only 6 months after the series ended. It sure felt longer when I was 15.

 

 

 

They think TV spin-offs of movies are a good thing...

 

I've got no issue with adapting a movie for television. If done right, it could mean opening up a good idea and giving it room to breath outside of the two-hour constraint.

 

 

 

It was part of the Dark tower lan for awhile, but at some point there's going to be a franchise that has a TV show-- and the same cast will do a movie every couple years. Trek would be great. Week to week do the character development and long form stories, then every few years they have an action-y spectacle story that goes to theaters, then they go right back to TV.

 

I guess X-Files tried it with the first movie.

 

I've thought about such a plan myself. Set up a season of television to finally be resolved in a movie to be released soon.

 

Maybe this doesn't apply so much anymore with many networks requiring fewer episodes per season, but I suspect that it's not done very often because it's so difficult. I can't imagine the strain it must have taken on everyone involved to make series like those Trek series where they basically had to set a pace to release a new episode every two weeks for seven years straight. You toss in moving a good chunk of your crew onto trying to make a big-budget movie as well and I can see where things quickly reach their breaking point. I know there was talk about something like that as far back as the early 00s for shows like Buffy and 24.

 

Perhaps that's why the last season of TNG had a noticeable dip in quality. Preparations for the movie just took up too much creative energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the actors time, a 2-part episode isn't much different than a movie.

 

But the set pieces have to be bigger, the effects and lighting have to be planned for a big screen. Even the sets- you'll notice in Generations there is a lot of harsh lighting aboard the Enterprise. That's cause the TV sets would show flaws on a big screen. So lighting and setting up scenes takes twice as long to look right-- everything gets bigger and more expensive.

 

But these days, everything is digital and TV and movies are often shot on the same cameras.

 

The biggest difference is time and money. A TV show will always be under the gun time and money wise, a movie, less so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest El Chalupacabra

I'm not really surprised at all, considering we haven't even heard who is in the show, and this is September.

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/09/14/star-trek-discover-may-date

 

http://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discovery-has-been-delayed-until-may-2017-1786641176?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

 

BTW, I have heard that the Discovery depicted in the promo clip is NOT what will appear in the series, and it has been changed. But no details on what it will look like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I call BS on that.

 

Not that they may not change it, just that they showed us something that wasn't complete.

 

It's like Ryan Reynold's Green Lantern suit. They premiered on the cover of EW and fandom lost it's mind, so they quickly spent more money redoing it in the movie.

 

No one professional releases a first draft of something to announce its existence to the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...