Hannibal Creator Bryan Fuller Will Be The Showrunner On CBS's New Star Trek Series

[Primetimer]

'Mads Mikkelsen for captain' write-in campaign starts now.

Read the story

[Sheena]

Please oh please let there be a "Will Dave Hate This?" segment about a Fuller-run Trek series! :)

[sjohnson]

The prospect of Bryan Fuller doing to all the sciences what he did to psychiatry and criminology in Hannibal is appalling to contemplate. If it wasn't for the fact the Hannibal delivered 39 episodes of homoeroticism, that show would have to be deemed a failure.

Quite aside from his inexplicable desire to do long term arcs when he can't plot them, nor even stick with the premises and themes he started with, Fuller has no feel for SF esthetics. He has a grand touch with fantasy esthetics, but that's not a qualification for Trek.

[AndySmith]

Dave is a smart man. Listen to Dave.

[Kromm]

Bryan Fuller is a surprisingly non-shitty choice.

 

Fuller has his problems as a writer and showrunner, but he's also not bound by the kind of gutless bland aesthetic/decisionmaking a lot of Hollywood is.

 

Quite aside from his inexplicable desire to do long term arcs when he can't plot them, nor even stick with the premises and themes he started with, Fuller has no feel for SF esthetics. He has a grand touch with fantasy esthetics, but that's not a qualification for Trek.

Original Trek WAS arguably fantasy (pre-movies I mean). They were classic morality plays in a futuristic setting, basically, with plotting and dramatic beats that in many episodes treated science like magic (or conversely, treated magic like super-science, especially with races like the Organians and the Thasians, or planets that magically paralleled Earth so closely they had the same history up to a certain point).

Not that I expect any current Trek to take that direction. I'm just saying that there's a history of Trek-as-Fantasy that makes that statement of yours more about where the franchise went than one that covers the entirety of the franchise. Not that it's going to happen (because it's not what any fans born after the 70s likely want), but the idea of Mr. Magical Realism (what several of Fuller's projects have been) getting a shot at that flavor of Trek is intriguing to ME personally. Then again, I always liked, for example, the Holodeck episodes of Next Gen, and those were basically magical realism (with an excuse called "science") too.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Kromm

[Latverian Diplomat]

Bryan Fuller is a smart, creative guy, but Star Trek depends on coherent storytelling. If he just takes "science fiction" as a license to do weird stuff that looks cool but doesn't make sense, then that's trouble.

And in Hannibal at least, I thought Mikkelson was kind of a mush mouth. Starfleet Captains do a lot of speechifying, and someone with a background like Patrick Stewart was a perfect choice.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Latverian Diplomat

[Kromm]

Well my comparison the magical realism vibe of pre-movie TOS may not be totally off-base.

This article has some clues about where Fuller's head may be:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/09/star-trek-bryan-fuller
 

 

Though there are not yet any official details about the story concept behind the new series, in previous interviews, Fuller has lent his thoughts on reviving Trek (which marks its 50th anniversary this year). “I would love to return to the spirit of the old series with the colors and attitude,” he said back in 2008. “One where you could go back to the spirit and color of the original Star Trek, because somehow, it got cold over the years.”

 

Also:

 

 

Fuller said one idea would is to not have the show set on the Enterprise, but the U.S.S. Reliant, perhaps best known for being hijacked by Kahn in the franchise’s second feature film Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn. “I think let that be the movies and let that be their story. I would love to do something on the Reliant … I want Angela Bassett to be the captain, that’s who I would love to have, you know Captain Angela Bassett and First Officer Rosario Dawson. I would love to do that version of the show and but that’s in the future to be told.”

 

 

That said, he'd definitely be working in JJ Abrams-verse, even if he was imposing the storytelling methods/vibe of the original show:

 

 

In 2013 he teased having a “very specific idea” for a relaunch: “Having spent four years on staff and another year of freelancing before that on Star Trek, it’s a very near and dear property to my heart, and also a philosophy. I would love to create a Star Trek show, so that’s on my dream docket. I think there’s something very exciting about the new J.J. Abrams-verse, and there’s also kind of an interesting reinvention. How would The Next Generation evolve from that? Where would that be? Where would that go? But there’s also … Star Trek is such a big universe, and there are so many places to go with it. I have a very specific idea that I would love to do. We’ll see if I ever get the opportunity.”

[sjohnson]

Treating science like magic gives us stuff like Interstellar and The Fifth Element and Disney's Black Hole movie and that movie where FTL raises demons. Star Trek never tried to be hard SF like 2001: A Space Odyssey. But as much as it finessed the double talk, it never treated magic like science. Who Mourns for Adonais? and Squire of Gothos and that Halloween episode never tried to leave it ambiguous about the existence of the supernatural. Fantasies that try to tame magic, somehow make it part of an everyday life where science and technology somehow still work never convinced me. Magic is always trumps and ordinary people don't rate in a magical world. But opinions on this are going to differ, no matter what. 

 

But insofar as this relates to Bryan Fuller specifically, consider the Voyager episode Barge of the Dead that he wrote. B'Elanna Torres has a near death vision of her mother in Klingon hell because B'Elanna doesn't have Klingon honor. Torres keeps persuading Janeway to let her induce near-death experiences so that she can commune with her dead mother. I forget how this came out in the end. I don't think Torres decided Klingon hell was stuff and nonsense. But the it's hard to see how persuading Mom into a positive attitude about B'Elanna's life choices would impress the Klingon gods. At any rate, the whole thing was treated as if Torres had really found out Mom was dead (from the other side of the galaxy!) and she had done something to get Mommy Dearest out of Klingon hell. I gather people who like Klingons ate this up. (Perhaps my Trekkie credentials have expired. I don't like Klingons.) I just thought this episode showed less coherence and ability than an episode of Touched By an Angel. I mean it was better than the same season's Survival Instinct, but it wasn't as good as the earlier Sacred Ground, which had an equally lame magical save at the end (of Kes in that episode.)

Edited February 10, 2016 by sjohnson

[mascan42]

I just worry what this means for his adaptation of American Gods. As brilliant as Fuller is, does he have it in him to run two very different high-profile shows at once?

[MisterGlass]

I wouldn't have predicted this. Star Trek has always had moral and social components, but it also has a lot of ahead of their concepts, like genetic engineering, advanced computers and communication, and even on-demand music. That's something that's been lacking in the JJ Abrams movies, much as I like them. Fuller can bring the intensity, but I hope he can bring the joy of discovery too.

Mads Mikkelsen should be an alien. He can do otherworldly.

[Dave in Chicago]

And in Hannibal at least, I thought Mikkelson was kind of a mush mouth.

I wouldn't just single out Mikkelson, there.  Everyone on that show was directed to speak in a smug, erotic stage-whisper at all times.

[stillshimpy]

Bryan Fuller is a smart, creative guy, but Star Trek depends on coherent storytelling. If he just takes "science fiction" as a license to do weird stuff that looks cool but doesn't make sense, then that's trouble.

 

Wow, I'm torn here.  My favorite Fuller series are actually Dead Like Me (yes, I know he left quite promptly but I loved the premise and adored the show) and Wonderfalls.   I tried Hannibal and whereas I could appreciate the operatic quality of the over-the-top, murder composed by artists, it just wasn't for me.  

 

Also, I hope this isn't a wildly unpopular opinion or anything, but having read what his plans were for Jaye in a season 2 of Wonderfalls, I was actually sort of glad it was canceled after one season ....and I liked that show.  It kind of convinced me that any show that Fuller is the showrunner on needs someone who is specifically in charge of wrangling Bryan Fuller's more peculiar instincts to the ground and holding them still until they stop squirming.   

 

This could be really, really good....or an unmitigated disaster and I have to say....I've no clue which direction it is more likely to lean in.  The guy's a genius and his inner-world is not merely rich, I think without question, it would scare the shit out of me if I was ever in his head for ten entire minutes.   

Still,  just the thought of Fuller writing a potentially female captain intrigues me, because he writes some really fun female characters.  

 

Yup.  Sounds like this could be Trek: The Really Weird Fever Dream and fifteen years from now, when we try to describe it to people, they'll look at you like people do now, if you describe how Cop Rock didn't actually suck anywhere near as much as it sounds like it did.  

 

Or it could be great.   One things for sure, it will be visually fantastic.   No way in any galaxy Fuller will bland up the joint in terms of visuals.  

Edited February 10, 2016 by stillshimpy

[AndySmith]

Depending on who you ask, the first version of Trek was envisioned by Gene Roddenberry as a sort of Wagon Train to the Stars meets Gulliver's Travels' with lots of allegories thrown in.

 

The science fiction as magic element of the show could be just as due to the writers just making it up as they went along, which was probably what was going on. Internal logic and continuity wasn't really a thing until we get to TNG, and even then, the first few years are just as sloppy as anything we got in TOS. In a way, science fiction is magic on Trek in the sense that it does allow the writers a way out of something if they end up writing themselves into a corner, especially with regards to technobabble ("Captain, if we reverse the polarization of the tachyon particle acceleration through the warp nacelle in conjunction with a decrease in proton phase inducer levels, we can break free of the temporal anomaly!" "Make it so!"). And to a certain extent, technology at the level this show exhibits would be seen as magic anyway, in our eyes, in as much as someone from the 1600s would regard the way we live.

 

Visiting plants that are similar to ours was due to more budget restraints than anything else.

 

I'm not sure if Fuller is a good match for this. Then again, I might be biased since I can't stand most of his shows. But I do love Trek, so will at least try and watch it with an open mind. It can't be worse than what JJ gave us.

[sjohnson]

Strictly speaking, if it makes sense, it's not technobabble. (But in practice, most people just confuse unfamiliar words usually mislabeled as "big" with technobabble. )

But most of the technobabble was aimed at first creating artificial physical jeopardy, particularly for creating some reason why the transporter or the warp drive can't whisk everyone away from danger. Then, technobabble "explains" how the artificial barrier the script erected is whisked away. There are two problems here. The notion that physical jeopardy is drama relies on the truism that "Conflict is drama," but sadly, it isn't true. And when the technobabble is badly written, it still doesn't convey conviction. Unfortunately the kind of writers who actually think dialogue with fictional science is just "technobabble" are rarely able to write stylish technobabble.

[Chaos Theory]

Well I for one am incredibly intrigued. I love Fuller and I love Trek so I want to see what he does with it. For the record I have the fairly unpopular opinion of liking DS9 the best because of story telling. I liked that it told a story instead of alien of the week that came before and after. Fuller is more then capable of telling a compelling story of that is your thing. If your game is science and technobabble and the alien of the week stories of TOS and TNG then I am not so sure.

[stillshimpy]

I loved DS9.  I liked it more than TNG, but be honest, but I did like TNG.  I didn't watch any of them until about 7 years ago, so I got to watch them all in order and whereas TNG really came into its own, I think it struggled mightily with Roddenberry's vision of a world in which there was no internal conflict on the Enterprise, and despite that still was a good show.  

I think DS9 was the better story overall, I loved a lot of the actors.   And I think Voyager...uh....had really good theme music and a winning cast and that when I die, and go to the hell I don't even believe in, Neelix will follow me everywhere, because that's how much he sucked.  

 

Truly, my only concern with a Fuller driven Trek is the guy really, really likes to have things be ....for lack of a better term....surreal in a way that I have trouble envisioning for a Trek reboot.  

 

ETA:  Also, I'm just going to go ahead and admit that I've actually encountered this as a piece of news before, but the first two times I read "Bryan Fuller" my brain kept subbing in Bryan Singer, because that made more sense to me and my main area of surprise was "Oh, he wants to do a TV series?  Interesting." 

Edited February 10, 2016 by stillshimpy

[AndySmith]

For the record I have the fairly unpopular opinion of liking DS9 the best

 

Not as unpopular as you might think.

 

For the record, Fuller only wrote 2 episodes of DS9, and also worked on...81 episodes of Voyager. And quite a few of them focused on Seven of Nine, for what it's worth.

Edited February 10, 2016 by AndySmith

[benteen]

I loved both TNG and DS9.  I prefer the more arc-based structure of DS9.

 

I haven't seen any of Fuller's shows I have to admit although I know they were all critically acclaimed.  He was also a co-producer and writer on the first season of Heroes (ie the one good season) and he wrote "Company Man" which was easily the best episode of the show.

 

Everything I've heard about him and given his experience with Star Trek, I think this is a really good hire.

[Kromm]

Well I for one am incredibly intrigued. I love Fuller and I love Trek so I want to see what he does with it. For the record I have the fairly unpopular opinion of liking DS9 the best because of story telling. I liked that it told a story instead of alien of the week that came before and after. Fuller is more then capable of telling a compelling story of that is your thing. If your game is science and technobabble and the alien of the week stories of TOS and TNG then I am not so sure.

Is it really an unpopular opinion?

 

To me DS9 is the second best show, after only TOS. Why? Because it was totally committed to being the polar opposite to TOS rather than the wishy-washy way the other shows positioned themselves. While most of Fuller's work (and stuff he's said in interviews) leads me to believe me might like to try the magical realism approach of TOS with a new show, when he was on DS9 he worked well in a show that veered a lot closer to hard Sci-Fi (despite the presence of the Prophets, which were a bit of magic inserted back into that show). 

 

To me, TNG spent a long time floundering and only later on worked well. Voyager had a few good aspects and episodes, but was deeply flawed in many ways. Enterprise didn't get good practically until they canceled it.  But DS9 was pretty good from Day 1 (and from Season 2 on was even better). 

Not as unpopular as you might think.

 

For the record, Fuller only wrote 2 episodes of DS9, and also worked on...81 episodes of Voyager. And quite a few of them focused on Seven of Nine, for what it's worth.

I thought he'd had more work on DS9 than that.  And less on Voyager, which rarely impressed me. That said, the Seven of Nine based stories did tend to be the ones which worked better.  On balance though, it makes me hope he's not going to try to recreate Voyager with a new show. I'd far rather he brings in influences from his outside work than what was arguably the worst of the Trek shows.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Kromm

[DavidJSnyder]

Fuller was a junior writer on Voyager so it's impossible to really extrapolate how much the end product of the episodes he worked on were actually due to him.  Even when he's the credited writer there will have been rewrites done by the showrunner.  If you listen to the Nerdist Writers Panel podcast he did from February 15th 2014, Fuller talks about how he would have preferred to be hired on Deep Space Nine as they had a more supportive writer's room and tended to be more character driven.

Edited February 10, 2016 by DavidJSnyder

[AndySmith]

Next Gen is probably my favorite Trek show, and would have disagree that it spent a long time floundering. Season 1 sucked, true, but there were some good moments in season 2 (and a handful of really good episodes, like A Matter of Honor, The Measure of a Man, Time Squared, Q Who, and The Emissary). And season 3 is, well, when TNG really finds itself and becomes the great show that is was. And pretty early in the season as well.

 

DS9 would probably come in second for me.

 

Fuller was a junior writer on Voyager so it's impossible to really extrapolate how much the end product of the episodes he worked on were actually due to him

 

Yeah, it wasn't the same as Ronald D. Moore, who did end up having a much larger voice beyond being a writer during his tenure with both TNG and DS9 (he also worked as a producer in some sort of capacity).

Edited February 11, 2016 by AndySmith

[Kromm]

Digital Spy: Here's what Star Trek's new TV series could look like with Bryan Fuller at the helm
Looking for clues about the next five-year mission?

[azshadowwalker]

I'm not sure if Fuller is a good match for this. Then again, I might be biased since I can't stand most of his shows. But I do love Trek, so will at least try and watch it with an open mind. It can't be worse than what JJ gave us.

I haven’t watched anything the guy made since Wonderfalls, so I really have no opinion of him. My biggest concern is his expressed interest in what Abrams did to the franchise. I hated everything about JJ fucking with the universe, so Fuller doesn't fill me with confidence.

[Kromm]

I haven’t watched anything the guy made since Wonderfalls, so I really have no opinion of him. My biggest concern is his expressed interest in what Abrams did to the franchise. I hated everything about JJ fucking with the universe, so Fuller doesn't fill me with confidence.

That demand is likely coming from the studio.  Fuller's done a good job of sounding like a good soldier talking as if he LIKES what Abrams did (a monstrosity, I agree--I fucking hate almost ALL of it), but that said, I do think there's a way to simply use Abrams' back-in-time stuff as a way to revisit an older period of Trek history and leave the ridiculous differences largely alone (the stupidest bit would have to be writing stories assuming Vulcan is destroyed, but at least super-dumb shit like a Starfleet that promotes cadets to insta-Captaincies can be largely left in the background/ignored).

Edited February 20, 2016 by Kromm

[Chaos Theory]

Again unpopular opinion but I like the JJ Abrams movies. I thought they did a good job of reinventing the franchise the same way Ron Moores BSG reinvent the show but then I can see how hard core fans and some others might not like it. I found the new story interesting.

[MisterGlass]

 

Next Gen is probably my favorite Trek show, and would have disagree that it spent a long time floundering. Season 1 sucked, true, but there were some good moments in season 2 (and a handful of really good episodes, like A Matter of Honor, The Measure of a Man, Time Squared, Q Who, and The Emissary). And season 3 is, well, when TNG really finds itself and becomes the great show that is was. And pretty early in the season as well.

 

Agreed, in Season 3 it hit a pretty strong stride.  I think it was a little too bound to the era, structure, and design of the original series.  I've really enjoyed the Den of Geek Revisiting TNG article series because it really highlights episode by episode what works and what doesn't.  I have watched some of DS9 and there are some very good episodes.  Voyager is ... not a favorite of mine.  Enterprise is kind of an odd duck.  It just felt flat, even though interesting things were going on.  I think the series and movies that click are the ones that have the strongest character development and the best acting.  However, Star Trek has such history that without new concepts, unpredictability, and a sense of wonder everything feels like a retread, however well it's done.

 

I do like the freshness of JJ Abrams's movies, but you have to not think about the internal logic of some things. 

[azshadowwalker]

I was never a DS9 fan. It wasn't Trek to me. I hated when Worf was brought on as a love sick fool mooning over a woman the show wanted me to see as more irresistible than I actually saw her. Sisko was the captain I liked the least because of the bluster. I absolutely hate the Ferengi, so any show that focuses as heavily on them as DS9 did isn't going to make it for me. They were the most worthless species on any Trek.

I didn't care for the focus on Seven of Nine in Voyager, but I do agree that her stories were the strongest. I am sure Fuller didn't have a say in the direction of the story, but I will give him credit for decent stories on my 3rd favorite Trek series behind TNG and TOS.

[Kromm]

Again unpopular opinion but I like the JJ Abrams movies. I thought they did a good job of reinventing the franchise the same way Ron Moores BSG reinvent the show but then I can see how hard core fans and some others might not like it. I found the new story interesting.

Actually I think my hatred of the reboot is the unpopular opinion, not liking it. I accept I'm in the minority on this.

I mean yes, the "classic" fans as a block probably MOSTLY hate it, but movie tickets don't lie. Far too many people saw the movie (and sequel) and so many reviewers said they liked it too for that to be "the minority". Liking it seems to be... more people.

[Bort]

I also did not like DS9 and liked Voyager better. And for all Voyager's faults, I thought the writers at least had the sense to realize what WAS working and go with it (like them noticing the chemistry between the Paris and Torres actors and taking advantage of it).

[Lexx]

Actually I think my hatred of the reboot is the unpopular opinion, not liking it. I accept I'm in the minority on this.

I mean yes, the "classic" fans as a block probably MOSTLY hate it, but movie tickets don't lie. Far too many people saw the movie (and sequel) and so many reviewers said they liked it too for that to be "the minority". Liking it seems to be... more people.

 

As a hardcore fan who has been watching Star Trek since my dad plopped my toddler self down in front of the t.v. for TNG's live airings, I like the JJTrek movies.  The key to liking them is accepting that they aren't "my" Star Trek.  They're action movies in a sci-fi setting that borrow names and themes from the franchise I grew up with.  Also, it gives me hope that "my" Trek might get brought back one day.  That being said, I was much more interested in Prelude to Axanar as a story than I was either of the JJ movies' stories.

[blueray]

I'm not sure if I'm going to watch this, as I'm not really a fan of the JJ adam's movies, so if that's the universe that it is in, then meh. I've seen them and they were okay but I don't consider them Star Trek.

As for the TV shows:

DS9: Is by far my favorite. Great characters (and actors), storyline that was serial. The show developed many of the races further such as the Frerengi.

TNG and Voyager: are both good. Have some great episodes and some not so good ones. But both shows I enjoyed watching.

TOS: classic sci-fi and I've liked what I've seen of it, even if its a bit cheesy. I like the characters and I've seen all the movies which I liked.

Enterprise: the only just "okay" show. Sure it had some good episodes and some bad episodes, mostly in the middle. I would say was the weakest of the shows.

Edited May 15, 2016 by blueray

[Kromm]

23 minutes ago, blueray said:

I'm not sure if I'm going to watch this, as I'm not really a fan of the JJ adam's movies, so if that's the universe that it is in, then meh. I've seen them and they were okay but I don't consider them Star Trek.

Latest rumor says you've got it backwards.  I don't blame you though, because reading through this thread we (me personally quite a lot) talked about thinking it was in the JJ-verse. But.. okay, here's the latest rumor.

The New STAR TREK TV Show Will Be Set Before THE NEXT GENERATION

Quote

I have heard some intriguing rumors about the new Star Trek TV show that will be coming to CBS All Access next year under the stewardship of Bryan Fuller: it won't be set in the JJ Abrams reboot universe. The new show will be set in the original, classic continuity.

But when? Will it be a prequel, like Enterprise? Or will it be the next generation for The Next Generation? Neither, I've heard. The show will be set some time after the events of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, so between the original series and The Next Generation. 

That said, the writer doesn't name his sources. It could just be some guy on the Internet.  The other part of the rumor is that it's going to follow a seasonal Anthology model, which is an interesting idea if true. That claim actually is the one I'm most skeptical of though. Why? Because with what Star Trek has to do for production, that sounds expensive. Making new sets each season for a Science Fiction show is expensive.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Kromm

[AndySmith]

It would make more sense to set it after TNG/DS9/Voyager. Given how much more advanced technology has become, it will be probably be reflected on the show as well, and would probably be weird having more advanced technology appear on a show set before the TNG/DS9/Voyager. It can occasionally happen with sci-fi shows. Also they'd have to keep making sure everything fits in continuity wise with regards to other alien races and stuff that has been mentioned historically. Just start with a clean slate by having the show set, say, a decade after the war with the Dominion.

Edited May 16, 2016 by AndySmith

[DavidJSnyder]

CBS released a video promo at upfronts which doesn't show you anything, but does say "New Crews" plural, which maybe supports the idea that it's an anthology show.

[Kromm]

I not only hate that video (because it's just mindless), I hate the font they used for the text of the logo.

If they had to have a tease, since we know there's no footage I would have simply had 30 seconds on tape with Fuller and Rod Roddenberry talking.

[Anna Yolei]

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:49 PM, AndySmith said:

It would make more sense to set it after TNG/DS9/Voyager. Given how much more advanced technology has become, it will be probably be reflected on the show as well, and would probably be weird having more advanced technology appear on a show set before the TNG/DS9/Voyager. It can occasionally happen with sci-fi shows. Also they'd have to keep making sure everything fits in continuity wise with regards to other alien races and stuff that has been mentioned historically. Just start with a clean slate by having the show set, say, a decade after the war with the Dominion.

Meh. I thought Enterprise did an okay job of mixing old tech with our modern sensibilities. But to be far, ENT was my entry into Trek, so most of the cosmetic stuff like the Akiraprise drama never bugged me much.

But Berman, Braga and UPN/Paramounthe did so little with the prequel premise that there isn't much in the way to contradict, IMO.

[AndySmith]

Well, they had to dance around the issue of having the Romulans and Borg appear on the show but still fit it all into continuity, and was usually done in a somewhat clumsy way. Plus having all the Xindi stuff happen, which the show told us was SO VERY IMPORTANT, even though it was never referenced on the other shows, made it feel more whatever than anything else.

Also, part of the appeal of Star Trek is how fantastic all of the future technology is. Given how far our technology has advanced since the days of TNG/DS9/Voyager, even some aspects of the technology on those shows feels a bit dated, especially the look of the touchscreens on those shows. Setting the show further along from the TNG/DS9/Voyager would allow the show to really go crazy with the future tech, I believe, rather than making some drab attempt to have everything fit into the pre-TNG era.