Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

Hailing Frequencies Open: Media Articles, Casting News, Scheduling

Recommended Posts


The JJ Abrams universe? So the new Star Trek series isn't really Star Trek at all, then. I think I'll pass.

I don't think we know squat at this point--so we can't conclude that for sure. We know it's not a "Captain Worf" show. 

 

Admittedly it's probably the JJ version.  But if you are nostalgic for the original:  http://www.startreknewvoyages.com

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've watched a few of the episodes of "Star Trek New Voyages" and enjoyed them. I also like "Star Trek Continues."

There's a new one just out just this week (meaning years in production but just released), where they somehow managed to use James Doohan (who died a decade ago). I was scratching my head about that until I realized he must have done it for them in their early days and they just managed to find a way to edit it (I suppose they buried it at least half because the amateur actress in the scene with him has about the worst line reading I've ever heard anywhere). They also recast their Kirk from the guy who's been doing it for years to a new guy who hasn't quite gotten it down pat yet. 

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that this show will only be available on a site that very few people subscribe to means it will immediately rocket past Game of Thrones as the most pirated media property in the world when it debuts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So...crickets on the news that the man responsible for Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country is getting involved??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My enthusiasm is in the negative numbers as far as this is concerned.  Y'all know I was hoping for a revival of Enterprise, but that's not the main reason (really!).

I find the fact that CBS plans to put the new series on a streaming service to be greedy, unscrupulous and just plain tacky.

It's a lovely way to reward 50 years of loyalty and support from the fans who have kept the franchise going and have enriched CBS' coffers by millions if not billions.  They've also yanked all of the Treks from Netflix.

Nice.

Isn't that nice for the 50th anniversary?  "Here you go, assholes.  Happy anniversary from CBS.  Hand over your wallets; Papa needs a new Ferrari."

Suffice to say, this old Trekker will not be subscribing to the streaming service.  As far as I'm concerned, CBS can p--- right off.  I refuse to be treated like a bottomless wallet; I've given them quite enough of my cash over the years,

Thankyouverymuch.

Greedy, short-sighted SOBs.

Edited by Pippin · Reason: Because looks count!
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

20 hours ago, Pippin said:

Suffice to say, this old Trekker will not be subscribing to the streaming service.  As far as I'm concerned, CBS can p--- right off.  I refuse to be treated like a bottomless wallet; I've given them quite enough of my cash over the years,

Agreed! I just read the Hollywood Reporter article about this and my heart sunk. I'm just not going to pay for this. I'm sick of being nickle and dimed, especially by the likes of CBS. It's not worth it to me to pay $5.99 per month for one show! Good luck with that, CBS you greedy jerks! When this experiment fails, the execs will probably blame Star Trek and claim that there isn't enough interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

But, what if it's good?  What if this new show is entertaining and thought provoking - full of great characters, interesting aliens, a cool ship, new technology...  Are we really going to skip it over $6 a month?

Look, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money.  However I don't think it's asking too much for fans to actually see the finished product before passing judgement on whether or not it's worth paying for.  My plan is to watch the pilot on CBS, then decide if I'll sign up for All Access.  Until then, I'm keeping an open mind.  Based on the few things we've heard discussed about the show though, I think there's room for optimism.

So why the negativity?  Because All Access has a monthly fee that basically costs the same as one trip to Subway?  For that we get 4-5 new episodes of Star Trek.  Watching the entire season will probably be like a fairly nice steakhouse dinner.  At that point, we can opt out, and that's the end of it.  Oh, and there's a free trial week as well.  Even if we only watch the new Star Trek, those actually seem like fan-friendly conditions - we really only pay for what we want.

When they first announced this would be a streaming series, I was upset too.  But in the past few weeks, I've seen plenty of sci-fi and other "genre" shows get cancelled because of "ratings" or "budgets" - to the point that I don't want new Star Trek anywhere near broadcast TV.  Sure, I can't say right now if All Access will be the best home for this show either - but I'd rather take a chance with it there, than subject it to the same system that sank The Muppets.  In any case, it certainly won't work if "fans" write this off because of the business model.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

For me, it just doesn't seem like a good value compared to the other streaming services I pay for. 

I don't watch any current show on CBS and don't care about their archives, so it would be six bucks a month for a single show. A couple more dollars a month gets you Amazon, Hulu or Netflix which, in addition to their respective exclusives, have larger movie and TV catalogs. 

In addition, I'm annoyed because I suspect CBS knows that their catalog stinks in comparison, yet charges an amount similar to the other services based on the exclusivity of a single show, Star Trek. And I'm annoyed that I won't be able to sign up for a month and binge watch like I do with Netflix.

I hope the show does well, but I don't like the business model CBS is using.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

But, what if it's good?  What if this new show is entertaining and thought provoking - full of great characters, interesting aliens, a cool ship, new technology...  Are we really going to skip it over $6 a month?

Look, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money.  However I don't think it's asking too much for fans to actually see the finished product before passing judgement on whether or not it's worth paying for.  My plan is to watch the pilot on CBS, then decide if I'll sign up for All Access.  Until then, I'm keeping an open mind.  Based on the few things we've heard discussed about the show though, I think there's room for optimism.

So why the negativity?  Because All Access has a monthly fee that basically costs the same as one trip to Subway?  For that we get 4-5 new episodes of Star Trek.  Watching the entire season will probably be like a fairly nice steakhouse dinner.  At that point, we can opt out, and that's the end of it.  Oh, and there's a free trial week as well.  Even if we only watch the new Star Trek, those actually seem like fan-friendly conditions - we really only pay for what we want.

When they first announced this would be a streaming series, I was upset too.  But in the past few weeks, I've seen plenty of sci-fi and other "genre" shows get cancelled because of "ratings" or "budgets" - to the point that I don't want new Star Trek anywhere near broadcast TV.  Sure, I can't say right now if All Access will be the best home for this show either - but I'd rather take a chance with it there, than subject it to the same system that sank The Muppets.  In any case, it certainly won't work if "fans" write this off because of the business model.

I am absolutely with you on this. I don't know if this show has a chance, but I do know that it wouldn't last long in the climate that  has in the last year killed Person of Interest, Limitless, The Muppets - even Hannibal, for that matter, way before their time. There's no space for difference anymore.

There is, however, online.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Heroes and Hostages?  Wow....those are so not thongs to brag about.   Both of those shows were convoluted messes and the latter in particular had some of the most illogical bulls hit they expected us to swallow that I've seen in a long time. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So, I have been following this thread since it came out and now I am worried that the new show is going to be a mess like Heroes (seriously that show a) went down hill fast and b) was just a huge pile of mess that couldn't be fixed). 

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with Heroes was/is very much that the showrunner never had a cohesive, coherent vision for the storyline. This became very obvious last season when it briefly returned. I've never noticed the showrunner of this new show to lack a firm idea about the themes and characters of any of his previous series.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

It's really hard to know how much credit or blame to allocate to a writer based on the shows they worked on as long as they're not showrunning.  Fuller would have worked with Coleite on Heroes and presumably liked him.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Lebanna said:

The problem with Heroes was/is very much that the showrunner never had a cohesive, coherent vision for the storyline. This became very obvious last season when it briefly returned. I've never noticed the showrunner of this new show to lack a firm idea about the themes and characters of any of his previous series.

 

^^^This I totally agree with. 

8 hours ago, DavidJSnyder said:

It's really hard to know how much credit or blame to allocate to a writer based on the shows they worked on as long as they're not showrunning.  Fuller would have worked with Coleite on Heroes and presumably liked him.

 

Wasn't he a co-producer for Heroes though?

Share this post


Link to post

Streaming service? Nope. I spend all the money I can spare on Netflix and Amazon. Not paying another fee for a single network. I won't even pay for HBO. Nice way to kill any interest in someone who was raised by Trekkies from the 1960s and has been a devoted fan until JJ Abrams made a mess of things.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fine with streaming services I just get peeved with the idea of a broadcast channel having its own. It's not a fully rational thought, but my feeling is that if they want to stream they should give up the airwaves to someone else. Plus, they apparently hooked up with Netflix for countries except the US and Canada, which is annoying. 

I hope it's good. I hope people enjoy it for as long as it lasts. I can't get myself to pay for it, though it's not expensive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yup. Everyone else in the world gets Star Trek with the streaming service they likely already have. 

Like that's not going to backfire... is the show viable with a huge international audience but a small domestic one?  Plus since the delay to International Netflix will only be 24 hours, that means the show will be pirated like crazy back to the US market.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the good news is that if it doesn't work out financially for CBS, Netflix might continue the series? 

Share this post


Link to post

I completely and utterly love the name. 'Discovery' is perfect. With Beyond turning out to be so fantastic, this is a really good week for Trek.

And with those red nacelles and the shape, doesn't it look a tiny bit... Klingon? Fascinating.

Edited by Lebanna

Share this post


Link to post

DavidJSnyder your link is dead. However, here's an active one! And yeah, I really like it. Different, but I can live with that.

Share this post


Link to post

The body is shaped like the Starfleet logo...What is the timeline again? between TOS & TNG?

Share this post


Link to post

Fuller denied the rumor of it being set between VI and TNG a while ago.  This weekend he said they weren't telling us when it's set yet.  The NCC Number seems to imply before  TOS, but I can see Fuller doing something more complicated than that.

Edited by DavidJSnyder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, DavidJSnyder said:

Fuller denied the rumor of it being set between VI and TNG a while ago.  This weekend he said they weren't telling us when it's set yet.  The NCC Number seems to imply before  TOS, but I can see Fuller doing something more complicated than that.

Before TOS would allow them to dodge the "is it the old or new continuity" question I'm sure they'd prefer to dodge.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Before TOS would allow them to dodge the "is it the old or new continuity" question I'm sure they'd prefer to dodge.

I honestly think it might be better to set it in the ENT - TOS interregnum.  The idea of the Federation starting to gel is a good one.  What if it's the ship with the first crew that's made up of all the different members of the Federation, instead of just the United Earth Starfleet?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The design of the ship is from an old Ralph McQuarrie model.  That was going to be what the Enterprise looked like in Star Trek Planet of the Titans...that was the first story they considered when they planned to make Star Trek a movie in the early-70s.  They also planned to make the Enterprise look like that in the early development of Star Trek Phase 2.

I like the ship design and the trailer such as it was and am very much looking forward to it.  I admit some leeriness about when it's set.  I don't need more of the 24th century but feel that setting it before then is limiting to the story and the Star Trek Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
On 24/07/2016 at 10:11 AM, Kromm said:

Before TOS would allow them to dodge the "is it the old or new continuity" question I'm sure they'd prefer to dodge.

But then they have technology caps - if TOS & TNG is the unchangeable future canon for the timeline.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, paigow said:

But then they have technology caps - if TOS & TNG is the unchangeable future canon for the timeline.  

Enterprise already dealt with this, like it or not. In a nutshell they just had to pretend the TOS original timeline was filled with people who had a retro fetish and made their tech look clunky, since Captain Archer's ride already had stuff that looked more sophisticated. 

Holodeck is the main thing they lose. You'd also think some advanced form of VR should have existed in the gap between now and holodecks on Next Gen, but alas does not manifest.

You can kind of fudge artificial intelligence in a few ways to bluff the apparent lack of it in TOS. 

I suspect as with Enterprise, any new series is just going to have the "previously unseen but always has been in the background" approach to tech. Combined with bluffing. I mean only through BS can people say for example that the combination of the curiously bulky communicators, and the data PADDs first seen (but not too closely) on Original Trek somehow replace what we already put in devices that are full computers and comm devices that we already carry with us today.

Share this post


Link to post

 Anyway, in twenty years the 'futuristic' tech on Enterprise will look almost as out of date as that of TOS does to us now. Look at their wall mounted grainy plasma screens or chunky tablets - we can do better than that already, ten/fifteen years later. So, yes, it's pointless to worry about that stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kromm said:

You can kind of fudge artificial intelligence in a few ways to bluff the apparent lack of it in TOS. 

Especially since Dr. Daystrom still had glitches in the M5 field test....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Fuller talks! It's set in the prime universe ten years before TOS, which is disappointing. I just don't like prequels and don't think they work.

The star will be a female lieutenant commander, rather than the captain. There will be aliens and robots, a gay character, sex, and only new characters to start with. Familiar characters will appear in S2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It took so long to get a new series and once again it's a prequel? All of my excitement is gone now. We went from Enterprise, to a reboot then back to ten years before TOS? Why are they focusing so much on this era?! There is so much Star Trek has to offer. I'm so sick of them focusing just on the beginning. It also limits what they can do and where they can go. The last prequel was easily the absolute worst thing to happen to this series yet they decide to do another one. SMH.

On casting a diverse cast: “Star Trek started with a wonderful expression of diversity in its cast … our lead of the show is going to be subject of that same level, of who’s the best actor and also what can we say about diversity on the show. We haven’t cast her yet, so we don’t know what level of diversity she will be, but that’s forefront in our minds. We’ll probably have a few more aliens than you typically have on the show. We wanted to paint a picture of Starfleet where we’re going to have new exciting aliens and also new imagining of existing aliens.” Fuller noted some of the changes might upset hardcore fans used to seeing things a certain way. “We’re producing the show in 2016. We have to update the style of the effects, the style of the sets, the style of the makeup.”

That's from the EW article. Now if you know it's going to upset fans, why do a prequel? Why give yourself all of these other issues if your goal is to modernize the franchise, update the style of makeup and effects, why do a prequel that will limit your creativity? A show set post-Voyager would've allowed him to do all of this without any limitations or worry that something he does will upset fans. Now instead of focusing on the content of the show you'll have people focused more on the continuity errors between this, Enterprise and the new series.

Edited by KnotsLanding
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I really like the idea of not having the captain as the main character.  Fuller is correct here.  We've had 6 shows form the POV of the captain...it's definitely time for a change.

My main issue with a prequel is that it limits the kinds of storylines you can do.  You can't really have the highest possible stakes if it's a prequel and you know that everything is going to turn out find.  You can't really do game-changing stuff in the Star Trek universe.  At the same time, I wasn't exactly looking forward to a 25th-century show either.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm wondering how the idea of a lead who isn't the Captain is going to work in practice.  If you look at the first season of The Next Generation it feels to me like they were trying to set up Riker as at least the co-lead and failed.  Or on The West Wing where the originally though the show was going to be staffers and the President only an occasional presence. If you're on a ship as the show goes on the Captain is the one making final decisions of importance.

Even as a more minor character, I still hope the Captain of the ship isn't another straight white guy.  Unless he turns out to be evil.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, DavidJSnyder said:

If you look at the first season of The Next Generation it feels to me like they were trying to set up Riker as at least the co-lead and failed.

How much of that was due to writing and perhaps, Frakes himself?  I like the guy, but he's not Patrick Stewart, and Data and Worf ended up taking over the show anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size