Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Okay, things are finally moving forward on this so I thought I'd start a thread about the new Star Trek TV series set to premier on CBS sometime in 2017.
Scant news has come out so far but it now seems that the ink has dried on Brian Fuller's contract to be the showrunner for the new series.
Sandy Schaefer wrote:New Star Trek TV Series Sets Hannibal’s Bryan Fuller As Its Showrunner
2016 is the 50th anniversary of Gene Roddenberry’s original Star Trek TV show (and thus, the Star Trek franchise in general), which is why there are some major projects in the works to commemorate the occasion. Not only will the next Star Trek film, Star Trek Beyond, hit theaters this year, but there is also going to be the Star Trek 50th anniversary cruise taking place, a fresh Star Trek convention held in New York City (the location of the first Star Trek convention in 1972), and a Star Trek TV show that will debut in early 2017. CBS will use the new Star Trek TV series to boost viewership for its streaming service (which is called CBS All Access), with Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness writer Alex Kurtzman set as an executive producer on the project.
Plot details for the new Star Trek series are scarce to be found, though it’s been confirmed the show will follow a brand-new set of characters “seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations,” on their adventures through space. Now, however, the series has a showrunner formally in place – Bryan Fuller, to be exact.
CBS has confirmed that Fuller will serve as showrunner on the new Star Trek series, while Kurtzman has praised Fuller’s “encyclopedic” knowledge of the Star Trek property in a statement – saying it is “surpassed only by his love for Gene Roddenberry’s optimistic future, a vision that continues to guide us as we explore strange new worlds.” Here is the official statement from Fuller, regarding the news:
“My very first experience of ‘Star Trek’ is my oldest brother turning off all the lights in the house and flying his model of a D7 Class Klingon Battle Cruiser through the darkened halls. Before seeing a frame of the television series, the ‘Star Trek’ universe lit my imagination on fire. It is without exaggeration a dream come true to be crafting a brand new iteration of ‘Star Trek’ with fellow franchise alum Alex Kurtzman and boldly going where no ‘Star Trek’ series has gone before.”
Fuller, for those not aware, actually got his start in television serving as a writer for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and as a writer/producer for Star Trek: Voyager. He has since created numerous short-lived, but nevertheless critically acclaimed cult hit TV series – including, the grim reaper comedy Dead Like Me, quirky supernatural crime-solving comedy Pushing Daisies – and most recently, the often darkly surreal (and twisted) Hannibal series. Currently, Fuller is working on the Starz TV adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s novel, American Gods, with filming on the show scheduled to begin in Spring 2016. However, American Gods also boasts Michael Green as co-showrunner, so presumably the latter will be stepping up to keep American Gods moving full speed ahead while Fuller turns more of his attention to getting the new Star Trek series off the ground.
That combination of experience writing for Star Trek TV shows of old – series that (as a whole) placed more of an emphasis on socially-progressive themes and science fiction allegories than the recent (and by comparison, more divisive) Star Trek movies – and proven knack for being able to serve up creative spins on well-established genres bodes well for the prospect of Fuller leading the charge with this new Star Trek TV show. Fuller has expressed an interest in making a new Star Trek TV show for years now, so there’s all the more reason to believe that he will make a good effort to deliver a Star Trek TV series that Trekkies of all shades can fully throw their support behind.
And, if that isn't enough for you, apparently CBS will not have any creative control over the series.
Valerie David wrote:Star Trek: CBS Has No Creative Control Over New Streaming Series
Back in 1966, when the original Star Trek series debuted, no one could have imagined that this spaceship crew’s five-year mission would stretch to a half-century legacy…and beyond. The show spawned four follow-up series, two spin-off movie franchises, and the current big screen reboot which kicked off with 2009’s Star Trek.
That reboot’s third installment, Star Trek Beyond, will hit theaters this summer in honor of the original show’s 50th anniversary. Less than a year later, a sixth TV series will premiere on CBS. The pilot episode will air on broadcast TV in January, but U.S. fans will only be able to watch subsequent episodes on CBS All Access, a digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.
Despite being the launchpad for the new Star Trek series, CBS Entertainment’s new president Glen Geller revealed to Slashfilm that the show has been developed exclusively by and for the All Access streaming division.
“I’m not sure about the plans creatively for new characters. I don’t have anything to do with it. It really is for All Access. While the network will be broadcasting the pilot, I actually can’t answer any creative questions about it. I’m looking forward to seeing the new Star Trek. I think it’s going to be an exciting project.”
With even the head of Entertainment at CBS in the dark about plot and character details, not much is known about the direction of the upcoming series. The official description of the show sounds much like its ancestors, promising a new crew exploring “imaginative new worlds and new civilizations,” with storylines touching on “dramatic contemporary themes.”
While Geller says the new TV show will have no connection to the upcoming film, it may be inspired tonally by that franchise. Alex Kurtzman, who co-wrote and produced the J.J. Abrams-directed Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), will executive produce the 2017 series. He’ll be joined by Heather Kadin, with whom he also produces CBS series Limitless and Scorpion.
The first episode of the sixth Star Trek series will have to be impressive enough to convince viewers to sign up for a subscription service to see the rest. Netflix has set a precedent for getting new fans to sign up in order to watch episodes of series like Orange is the New Black and Daredevil, and CBS will be hoping longtime Trek fans will be extra motivated. For $5.99 a month, viewers can watch the new Star Trek series, plus every episode of its five predecessors. The service also includes on-demand viewing and live streaming of many of CBS’s other shows.
It’s a strong possibility that the new series will be serialized, similar to the multi-episode story arcs in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Leaving viewers with unresolved plot threads after the pilot would definitely add incentive to sign up for more. It also allows for developing more complex ideas, a good way to get back to the political, multicultural, and existential philosophizing that made the previous series so popular. The films have recaptured some of the swashbuckling fun and wry humor of the original characters, but hopefully the TV show will strive to go deeper into those “contemporary themes” the network is promising.
Noooooo! Gotta say, none of the shows listed inspire my confidence save Hannibal and DS9, and he was just a writer for one of those. The rest were all quirky but boring. Quirkiness for the sake of quirkiness does not good TV make.
But at least he has a passion for the source material and that can carry someone pretty far in and of itself.
Alex Kurtzman, who co-wrote and produced the J.J. Abrams-directed Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), will executive produce the 2017 series
God damn it! Throw in that stupid subscription and I'm out. Wait for it to go on DVD or something.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/10 01:03:35
Breotan wrote: Hey! J.J. Abrams isn't involved. How bad could it possibly be?
JJ is just the guy who catches all the flak for the plot holes Kurtzman writes into his movies! I mean sure we can blame JJ for working with the guy over and over again, but come on XD
I think it's going to be challenging to write this show so that it appeals to new audiences AND gets the ST diehards fully on board.
Superfans are inherently very conservative. They want their tastes to be recognized and validated. And that's how all that stagnancy set in with the ST franchise before Abrams.
Cripes, I remember Trekkers freaking out that the opening credits to Enterprise used a Rod Stewart song instead of a graceful orchestral suite. And that was just about the only "innovative" thing about Enterprise. Superfans don't want boats rocked...sometimes not even a little.
But then I dunno how many regular folks are going to pay to watch a ST show filled with the S.O.S. There are TONS of old episodes out there if that's what you want to watch.
I'm not sure if this can work, because the familiar star trek tropes have been done to death.
We've had the awkward outsider shining a light on humanity (Spock/Data/7 of 9)
We've had the multi-story arc (DS9) which was handled way better by Babylon 5 and Farscape
and of course, the old weekly, formulaic, visit a planet and solve their problems and then fly away, was pretty much the entire basis of TNG.
Having enjoyed BG, Farscape, and of course, B5, I find it hard to watch old trek series these days.
If it wants to get me back watching, it'll have to be pretty good.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ive been rewatching Voyager the last few months. It actually had some pretty decent episodes from time to time and I found the characters that I hated when I originally watched it growing on me.
TNG is still my fav series however. It had a lot of just good old sci fi ideas and episodes.
DS9 spent too long on the war and sub arcs related to it for me.
Enterprise I simply could never get into.
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
The problem with voyager is it allowed for fan scripts.
that they had this great subplot(Marquis/starfleet crew)
Neelix is fine IMO The problem was the sociopathic captain.
The main problem with Voyager was that by the end of the pilot, they had already mostly ditched the most interesting part of the concept...a bunch of Starfleet personnel and terrorists thrown together, far away from home with (importantly) no Big Starfleet to watch over them. That *could* (should) have led to a slow integration process, major crew conflicts, morally grey actions and struggles with Federation ideals and methods, and probably a "ragtagification" of the crew and ship over time.
But they become one big, mostly happy STARFLEET crew almost immediately. There were only ever minor bumps in the road, and nothing long-lasting.
The concept was good, but there was no institutional fortitude to do something edgier and different. So it was all watered down, tamed and sterilized, as was the ST formula of the time.
An episode-writing obstacle (not something that couldn't be overcome, but an obstacle all the same) was that the premise took any and all Federation-related plots off the table. Out went all the potential episodes involving political intrigue and interactions with other ships. It didn't help.
Nevelon wrote: $6 a month paywall? Nope, I’m out. Not for one show. I pay for Netflix and get a lot of value out of that. Not going to subscribe just for this.
Hope it turns out good. I’ll catch it if it ever gets bundled/broadcast with something I have access to.
Yeah, $6 a month is asking way too much.
Hopefully it gets put on Netflix after it's finished.
INSANE army lists still available!!!! Now being written in 8th edition format! I have Index Imperium 1, Index Imperium 2, Index Xenos 2, Codex Orks Codex Tyranids, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Space Marines!
PM me for an INSANE (100K+ points) if you desire.
The way I see it, Voyager could basically have been the reimagined Battlestar Galactica a decade before it. But Gorgon hit the nail on the head.
I mean, there were good characters - The Doctor and 7of9 together made the show watchable for me. Paris and Torres actually became proper characters too (admittedly, not characters I particularly was interested in, but there was character development and story stuff there, so I'm not complaining).
Janeway though, the way I see it, Janeway wasn't a character, she was a Plot Device.
Crimson wrote: Involvement of Kurtzman doesn't fill me with confidence. Fuller is OK, I guess.
I really hope this is set in the prime-universe. I don't want the new series to be tainted by JJ-verse.
If this doesn't turn out to be so good, I hope it IS set in the JJ-verse.
Actually, after Enterprise, the prime-universe isn't that well off, either. :(
People forget that TNGs first 3 seasons where crap. and that, even after season 4 was rocky. If enterprise continued, IMO it would be remembered more fondly
They say that their service will include all the previous Star Trek series. I bet you right now that when that service kicks off and they start airing the new series they yank the rights from Netflix and Hulu (?) first chance they get.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm not sure if this can work, because the familiar star trek tropes have been done to death.
Sure... but for the most part, they were done to death twenty years ago.
By this point, even if they just remake one of the original shows with a new ship and crew and modern effects, it will still have an audience.
I'm not convinced. Streaming and the DVD box set have changed TV for evermore. Shows like Game of Thrones and madmen highlight an audience that wants slow burning, multi-layered stories, that go on for a few seasons.
The days of Captain Perfect, and the USS Economy, turning up to save Planet X from a giant blob in a 50 minute time slot, and then everybody lives happily ever after, won't wash with a modern audience IMO.
I'm not saying that a new Star Trek wouldn't work, but if they take the Next generation approach over the DS9 option, then it's doomed to fail.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
People forget that TNGs first 3 seasons where crap. and that, even after season 4 was rocky. If enterprise continued, IMO it would be remembered more fondly
People don't remember that because it isn't true. TNG's first season was pretty weak, but after that it was solid. Enterprise started to have some good episodes in season 4, and then it was way too late.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 10:43:48
Nah. Enterprise peaked in Season 3 (and by peaked, I mean it was passable), then hit rock bottom with time travel alien Nazi shenanigans. After that everything was bad, save the Mirror Universe two parter, which was pretty sweet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 10:48:27
Voyager = Weekly "We found a way home, but it would violate the prime directive." Also, 7 of 36D.
Enterprise = "We could have shown the beginning of the Klingon/Federation War or the Romulan War, but instead we're going to introduce time-traveling sentient seals."
Deep Space 9 = "We ran out of ideas. I know, everyone like's Worf. Put him in it."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 13:08:08
It's all about the captain- for the Jj verse, we need smug, smarmy and just a little over dramatic. I vote Joel mchale. Just imagine his apparently heartfelt speeches overlaying a cynical core at being disgracefully exiled on an 'exploration' mission with people who don't believe in the federation- but learn to, on their 5 year mission amongst the stars.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
kronk wrote: Voyager = Weekly "We found a way home, but it would violate the prime directive." Also, 7 of 36D.
Enterprise = "We could have shown the beginning of the Klingon/Federation War or the Romulan War, but instead we're going to introduce time-traveling sentient seals."
Deep Space 9 = "We ran out of ideas. I know, everyone like's Worf. Put him in it."
Although in fact, DS 9 was "Babylon what? When is that coming out? It's got a story? We're doing that. With Worf."
Compel wrote: The way I see it, Voyager could basically have been the reimagined Battlestar Galactica a decade before it. But Gorgon hit the nail on the head.
I mean, there were good characters - The Doctor and 7of9 together made the show watchable for me. Paris and Torres actually became proper characters too (admittedly, not characters I particularly was interested in, but there was character development and story stuff there, so I'm not complaining).
Janeway though, the way I see it, Janeway wasn't a character, she was a Plot Device.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head.
Ron Moore -- producer and writer on BSG -- was a writer on TNG and DS9. And he quit Voyager after a very short stint there. I believe he's said that BSG was about him doing all the things he wasn't allowed to do on ST. And suddenly it all makes sense!
My impression is that there was some idea at Paramount that they need to do something different and shake up ST. The *premises* behind Voyager and Enterprise suggested something fresher, but obviously both never delivered -- not Voyager past the end of the pilot, and not Enterprise past the friggin' opening credits.
I *suspect* that what was pitched with both series *was* something genuinely fresher, but that it ended up getting rolled back and sterilized in development. Could have been Berman's work.
ST is a little weirder than most franchises just because of the Roddenberry true believers, who think the crew must always get along, the future must be a borderline utopia, etc. That's appealing if you're also a true believer, but otherwise it'd hamstring writers striving for scripts that connect with regular audiences.
kronk wrote: Voyager = Weekly "We found a way home, but it would violate the prime directive." Also, 7 of 36D.
Enterprise = "We could have shown the beginning of the Klingon/Federation War or the Romulan War, but instead we're going to introduce time-traveling sentient seals."
So true! I was particularly disappointed with Enterprise, the premise was great.
Deep Space 9 = "We ran out of ideas. I know, everyone like's Worf. Put him in it."
ST is a little weirder than most franchises just because of the Roddenberry true believers, who think the crew must always get along, the future must be a borderline utopia, etc. That's appealing if you're also a true believer, but otherwise it'd hamstring writers striving for scripts that connect with regular audiences.
This is kinda me. I think TNG was the golden age of Trek and really got the portrayal of the utopian society right. DS9 was well made show, but I really didn't care for all that war. I particularly hated Section 31 stuff that really felt very out of place in Trek.
JJ-films totally abandoned the 'true believer' ideals you mentioned and they were gak for it. Idealism is a big part of the appeal of Star Trek and it sets it apart from other scifi franchises.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 21:43:54
ST is a little weirder than most franchises just because of the Roddenberry true believers, who think the crew must always get along, the future must be a borderline utopia, etc. That's appealing if you're also a true believer, but otherwise it'd hamstring writers striving for scripts that connect with regular audiences.
Its still entirely possible to have a near Utopian Federation and have a the crew work together well (as in reality they would anyway as they have a chain of command and are mostly professional military) while still making a far more realistic and modern series. The interesting 'gritty' situations and plot arcs could easily be supplied from outside the Federation.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
