Keep it as simple as possible. A crew on a spaceship investigating shit every week on planets populated by giant purple plants, green women and robots. Make it as weird as possible. Totally retro it up.
I doubt someone like Alex Kurtzman is going to be mentally deep enough to give the show anything more than frothy action and stunning visuals.
Might still be popular though.
can I just ask is this the reason most people don't want kurtzman doing it?
it will be sad if he can't maintain the deep, philosophical storylines of trek I agree. but like u say if they just pack it was action and great visuals they may just gain a 'new generation' of star trek fans (whilst risking isolating old gen trek fans)
It was always going to be part of the JJ gang that took Trek back to the small screen. I'm not 100% against that, I'm more than willing to give them a chance. It wouldn't have been my preference though - I'd have gone on bended knee to Ira Behr.
Beverley was made Captain of the USS Pasteur., and Hoshi Sato became Empress of the Terran Empire?..
I am a little bit uncomfortable with the idea of using the Mirror Universe to say that Star Trek is all for high ranking female characters.
Also as much as I like the idea of the USS Pasteur, that was only one possible time line, a time line unlikely to happen now, what with the Enterprise E, and Data being dead (or being B4, or alive in that prequel comic).
A line in Nemsis about Beverley joining the Pasteur would have been good.
I've read some articles that are talking about the CBS streaming service. most seem to believe its a shrewd business move from CBS to do this and also it makes it less likely to be cancelled as the pressure for high viewing figures won't be so high.
now I don't get the ins and outs of TV economics and logistics BUT i'm not sure why this is the case. i think CBS might be placing too high a trust in the loyal fanbase. surely if its rubbish after about 12 episodes most of the subscribers will cancel their subscription??
so basically I can't quite figure out why viewing figures aren't as important because its on a streaming service????
It'll be more like 2018 before any UK channel shows it. Plenty of time for fan fatigue to set in. Trek fans are far more likely still to be frothing at the mouth this time next year over how Simon Pegg killed the Trek movie franchise with what's likely to be the pretty excrable Star Trek Beyond, given his script writing skills.
Into Darkness didn't do well in the US, and outside of the hardcore fanbase, there seems to be declining interest in Trek. I'd suggest the only reason CBS have announced this new show is because there are so many unlicenced fan productions like Axanar being made, which are visually and technically as good as Enterprise was 10 years ago, that it thinks it can make money from tv Trek, which is why it's going subscription.
I think people are over stating the Fan Films element here, Star Trek Renegades has (rounding up) 800,000 views on YouTube , and despite having Trek actors in their original roles, it is poor.
Of course its worth pointing out, that those fans are very engaged and very supportive of it, as of this post its Kickstarter has 1,661 backers, pledging a total of 160,338 so far.
ok so Axanar has 1,608,285 views on YouTube, which is impressive, but its 20 minutes, so they could well include repeat viewers, and its been up a way
Star Trek Continues (my favorite) latest episode has 72,547 viewers, however in fairness it has only been up a few weeks.
Now 72,000 would be alot of viewers for a college students Star Trek inspired video filmed on his campus with university equipment, but it does not seem as much, when you look at the massive amount of effort that goes in Continues.
However lets say Axanar streams to 1 million in its first year, compare that to almost any British TV show, and it looks bad, this is based on a global audience.
I dont think CBS is making this new show, because of Axanar and Continues, for two reasons
1) if they didnt like the Fanfilms, they can shut them down
2) this is a new series set in the new timeline, fan films are banned from that timeline (and in fairness I understand that) if the new series was meant to build on an audience generated by Continues, it would be in the prime universe.
What I think is more likely, is the fact the new time line will soon be 3 movies old, and as I dont know peoples contracts, alot of contracts are for 3 movies, maybe they can keep the cast together for 4, but 5 and 6 will see cast changes. As I see it, the new show is an attempt to set up something, be it the full cast, a plot, or even just one character, who might be able to cross into the movies.
The new movies, are not the Star Trek of the TV series, and maybe that is a good thing, but what is a bad thing, is that they are wasting the characters, the TOS crew had 79 episodes and 6 movies, (before you start counting TOS appearances in other Star Trek shows and movies). that is alot of screentime, and a well built up timeline. This new timeline has 3 movies, 4 at the most. We will never really feel a connection to those characters, like we do the TV series cast, we simply will not have spent enough time with them.
I dont think CBS is making this new show, because of Axanar and Continues, for two reasons
1) if they didnt like the Fanfilms, they can shut them down
2) this is a new series set in the new timeline, fan films are banned from that timeline (and in fairness I understand that) if the new series was meant to build on an audience generated by Continues, it would be in the prime universe.
.
Do we know this for a fact?
In a market where even marginally well known franchises are turned into tv series (Minority Report, Super Girl, Limitless), it would be amazing if CBS didn't try to capitalize on Star Trek's brand recognition. Even if they create something that is a complete anathema to the die hard fan, basically just slapping Trek IP on a standard sci-fi action series, it will still generate tons of press and drive traffic to their pay-tv service.
I think people are over stating the Fan Films element here, Star Trek Renegades has (rounding up) 800,000 views on YouTube , and despite having Trek actors in their original roles, it is poor.
What I think is more likely, is the fact the new time line will soon be 3 movies old, and as I dont know peoples contracts, alot of contracts are for 3 movies, maybe they can keep the cast together for 4, but 5 and 6 will see cast changes. As I see it, the new show is an attempt to set up something, be it the full cast, a plot, or even just one character, who might be able to cross into the movies.
I do believe that Pine and Quinto (at least) have signed on for a 4th film. There was an article I read a few months back about it, something to do with them having negotiated better deals for themselves.
I do agree that this new tv series needs to be it's own reboot though. Doesn't need to be any specific era either, they can always set the show up in the 27th century for all it'll matter, and then have history having played out entirely differently.
I do believe that Pine and Quinto (at least) have signed on for a 4th film. There was an article I read a few months back about it, something to do with them having negotiated better deals for themselves.
I do agree that this new tv series needs to be it's own reboot though. Doesn't need to be any specific era either, they can always set the show up in the 27th century for all it'll matter, and then have history having played out entirely differently.
ok so Star Trek 4 is looking on a slightly more stable ground than I thought, but not by much.
Its going to be JJs timeline, where in the timeline is up for debate true, personally I cant see them getting too far away from the movies, which is already just slapping Trek IP on a standard sci-fi action series.
That the new tv series will be set in the new timeline?
Personally I think from a creative point of view that the period between TOS and TNG offers the most. However I think that CBS will be tempted to have a post Voyager setting in order to have some of the established characters return.
1) why create a new time line and not use it?
2) its being created by one of the people JJ works with alot, why would he go outside JJs timeline?
3) its logical
4) even the hint of a crossover between movie and TV is good.
1) why create a new time line and not use it?
2) its being created by one of the people JJ works with alot, why would he go outside JJs timeline?
3) its logical
4) even the hint of a crossover between movie and TV is good.
1) CBS didn't create the new timeline bad robot/paramount did.
2)he is on CBS payroll and has tv credentials.
3) I disagree if they are appealing to the core fan base to launch the new platform they need to keep it old school.
4) in theory yes but will not happen as they are two competing companies.
It'll be more like 2018 before any UK channel shows it. Plenty of time for fan fatigue to set in. Trek fans are far more likely still to be frothing at the mouth this time next year over how Simon Pegg killed the Trek movie franchise with what's likely to be the pretty excrable Star Trek Beyond, given his script writing skills.
Into Darkness didn't do well in the US, and outside of the hardcore fanbase, there seems to be declining interest in Trek. I'd suggest the only reason CBS have announced this new show is because there are so many unlicenced fan productions like Axanar being made, which are visually and technically as good as Enterprise was 10 years ago, that it thinks it can make money from tv Trek, which is why it's going subscription.
There's nothing wrong with his script writing skills.... it'll be his "Scotty" that kills it.
I see quite a lot of negativity on this thread about the prospects for both the next feature film and the new series.
Jeeze, you lot are worse than Doctor Who "fans"!
Of course, the only reason CBS want to do a new series is because they think they'll make money out of it. They're running a business that needs to make money for its investors. That's a given.
The "creatives" that choose to be involved also want to make a living and (largely) want to create something that challenges them and that they'll be proud to be involved with.
Personally, I'm more than happy to see the new film and the new series and then - and only then - judge them on their merits.
I've been a dyed-in-the-wool fan since the original series hit UK television screens and I've enjoyed almost everything in the Star Trek franchise ever since (though it's had its ups and downs), up to and including the last two feature films.
The problem with Pegg, which admittedly I didn't really think of until now, is that he brings a comic element to an otherwise serious character. The Scotty in TOS/TMP wasn't a comedian, whereas Pegg is, and he brings that into the newer films.
I don't think that took away from the films, I think it added to them. It did however take away from the original character. The films however were always intended to attain a newer, younger audience, and I think for the most part, they achieved that,
I suspect Trek 3 will continue that pattern. When Pegg says it wont be Trekky, I think he means it wont be TOS, rather than it wont be Trekky at all. It'll probably follow in JJ's theme, and yes, whilst it can be debated as to whether that's true Trek or not, it is the Trek that's going to get that audience.
If CBS/Paramount (whoever) created a film following ST:Nemesis, and set a new film in that timeline with that tone, they just wouldn't get the returns from it. That Trek (Roddenberry's Trek) has run it's course, and I don't think with today's society they're going to be able to continue with it. Not if they want big bucks (which they no doubt do).
This new series is likely going to be more JJ than Roddenberry, though I don't think it'll be in the JJ timeline. I'd think they'll want to keep their two universes separate, save one tarnishing the other. I don't think Kurtman is the man for the job either (not broad-minded enough) but I guess we'll see... If this new series doesn't take off as is hoped, then I think that'll be it, Trek will be finished (with the exception of however many JJ films remain).
The problem with Pegg, which admittedly I didn't really think of until now, is that he brings a comic element to an otherwise serious character. The Scotty in TOS/TMP wasn't a comedian, whereas Pegg is, and he brings that into the newer films.
Laddie, don't you think you should rephrase that?
Doohan could bring comedy and/or authority to the role as required. Pegg brings neither. I like the new films but he is by far the weakest link.
I am cautiously optimistic about the new film. Simon Pegg I think can write scripts, I'm still of the opinion that his "not Star Trekky" comment is taken little out of context (given I've read his original blog post where that quote comes from), and he has said that he would prefer to write his own character out of the film as much as possible, since he doesn't want to have to do too much work!
(Though, I don't really see what's wrong with Pegg's Scotty. Scotty was always a bit of a joker when the need arose (or are you forgetting the episode where he drank an alien under the table?), and while he's not a patch on James Doohan, neither is anybody when compared to the original actors and characters).
Back on topic. I hope it's not picked up by Sky, or if it is, it's not shown first on Sky Atlantic.
Comments
Might still be popular though.
LOL okay fair enough.
but what time period?
can I just ask is this the reason most people don't want kurtzman doing it?
it will be sad if he can't maintain the deep, philosophical storylines of trek I agree. but like u say if they just pack it was action and great visuals they may just gain a 'new generation' of star trek fans (whilst risking isolating old gen trek fans)
Also as much as I like the idea of the USS Pasteur, that was only one possible time line, a time line unlikely to happen now, what with the Enterprise E, and Data being dead (or being B4, or alive in that prequel comic).
A line in Nemsis about Beverley joining the Pasteur would have been good.
now I don't get the ins and outs of TV economics and logistics BUT i'm not sure why this is the case. i think CBS might be placing too high a trust in the loyal fanbase. surely if its rubbish after about 12 episodes most of the subscribers will cancel their subscription??
so basically I can't quite figure out why viewing figures aren't as important because its on a streaming service????
Into Darkness didn't do well in the US, and outside of the hardcore fanbase, there seems to be declining interest in Trek. I'd suggest the only reason CBS have announced this new show is because there are so many unlicenced fan productions like Axanar being made, which are visually and technically as good as Enterprise was 10 years ago, that it thinks it can make money from tv Trek, which is why it's going subscription.
Of course its worth pointing out, that those fans are very engaged and very supportive of it, as of this post its Kickstarter has 1,661 backers, pledging a total of 160,338 so far.
ok so Axanar has 1,608,285 views on YouTube, which is impressive, but its 20 minutes, so they could well include repeat viewers, and its been up a way
Star Trek Continues (my favorite) latest episode has 72,547 viewers, however in fairness it has only been up a few weeks.
Now 72,000 would be alot of viewers for a college students Star Trek inspired video filmed on his campus with university equipment, but it does not seem as much, when you look at the massive amount of effort that goes in Continues.
However lets say Axanar streams to 1 million in its first year, compare that to almost any British TV show, and it looks bad, this is based on a global audience.
I dont think CBS is making this new show, because of Axanar and Continues, for two reasons
1) if they didnt like the Fanfilms, they can shut them down
2) this is a new series set in the new timeline, fan films are banned from that timeline (and in fairness I understand that) if the new series was meant to build on an audience generated by Continues, it would be in the prime universe.
What I think is more likely, is the fact the new time line will soon be 3 movies old, and as I dont know peoples contracts, alot of contracts are for 3 movies, maybe they can keep the cast together for 4, but 5 and 6 will see cast changes. As I see it, the new show is an attempt to set up something, be it the full cast, a plot, or even just one character, who might be able to cross into the movies.
The new movies, are not the Star Trek of the TV series, and maybe that is a good thing, but what is a bad thing, is that they are wasting the characters, the TOS crew had 79 episodes and 6 movies, (before you start counting TOS appearances in other Star Trek shows and movies). that is alot of screentime, and a well built up timeline. This new timeline has 3 movies, 4 at the most. We will never really feel a connection to those characters, like we do the TV series cast, we simply will not have spent enough time with them.
Do we know this for a fact?
In a market where even marginally well known franchises are turned into tv series (Minority Report, Super Girl, Limitless), it would be amazing if CBS didn't try to capitalize on Star Trek's brand recognition. Even if they create something that is a complete anathema to the die hard fan, basically just slapping Trek IP on a standard sci-fi action series, it will still generate tons of press and drive traffic to their pay-tv service.
I do believe that Pine and Quinto (at least) have signed on for a 4th film. There was an article I read a few months back about it, something to do with them having negotiated better deals for themselves.
I do agree that this new tv series needs to be it's own reboot though. Doesn't need to be any specific era either, they can always set the show up in the 27th century for all it'll matter, and then have history having played out entirely differently.
ok so Star Trek 4 is looking on a slightly more stable ground than I thought, but not by much.
Its going to be JJs timeline, where in the timeline is up for debate true, personally I cant see them getting too far away from the movies, which is already just slapping Trek IP on a standard sci-fi action series.
That the new tv series will be set in the new timeline?
Personally I think from a creative point of view that the period between TOS and TNG offers the most. However I think that CBS will be tempted to have a post Voyager setting in order to have some of the established characters return.
1) why create a new time line and not use it?
2) its being created by one of the people JJ works with alot, why would he go outside JJs timeline?
3) its logical
4) even the hint of a crossover between movie and TV is good.
1) CBS didn't create the new timeline bad robot/paramount did.
2)he is on CBS payroll and has tv credentials.
3) I disagree if they are appealing to the core fan base to launch the new platform they need to keep it old school.
4) in theory yes but will not happen as they are two competing companies.
2415: The (new ship) Excalibur ventures to DS9 to visit captain Jake Sisko:) who has been running deep space nine for the past 15 years now!!!!!
they en-route to the Gamma Quadrant to investigate strange anomalies THAT are emanating from a mysterious unexplored sector.
There's nothing wrong with his script writing skills.... it'll be his "Scotty" that kills it.
Jeeze, you lot are worse than Doctor Who "fans"!
Of course, the only reason CBS want to do a new series is because they think they'll make money out of it. They're running a business that needs to make money for its investors. That's a given.
The "creatives" that choose to be involved also want to make a living and (largely) want to create something that challenges them and that they'll be proud to be involved with.
Personally, I'm more than happy to see the new film and the new series and then - and only then - judge them on their merits.
I've been a dyed-in-the-wool fan since the original series hit UK television screens and I've enjoyed almost everything in the Star Trek franchise ever since (though it's had its ups and downs), up to and including the last two feature films.
Long may it continue!
So, you think she was "just a bloke" in drag?
Sorry, just caught up with your post and couldn't resist.
Pegg's already said his script for Beyond isn't "Star Treky", so I fear the worst.
And his "Scotty" already killed Into Darkness. Worst turn by a Star Trek actor in the history of the franchise.
Scripts can be polished (mostly) but his Scotty is beyond redemption (and that saddens me tbh because I've always enjoyed his stuff)
I don't think that took away from the films, I think it added to them. It did however take away from the original character. The films however were always intended to attain a newer, younger audience, and I think for the most part, they achieved that,
I suspect Trek 3 will continue that pattern. When Pegg says it wont be Trekky, I think he means it wont be TOS, rather than it wont be Trekky at all. It'll probably follow in JJ's theme, and yes, whilst it can be debated as to whether that's true Trek or not, it is the Trek that's going to get that audience.
If CBS/Paramount (whoever) created a film following ST:Nemesis, and set a new film in that timeline with that tone, they just wouldn't get the returns from it. That Trek (Roddenberry's Trek) has run it's course, and I don't think with today's society they're going to be able to continue with it. Not if they want big bucks (which they no doubt do).
This new series is likely going to be more JJ than Roddenberry, though I don't think it'll be in the JJ timeline. I'd think they'll want to keep their two universes separate, save one tarnishing the other. I don't think Kurtman is the man for the job either (not broad-minded enough) but I guess we'll see... If this new series doesn't take off as is hoped, then I think that'll be it, Trek will be finished (with the exception of however many JJ films remain).
Doohan could bring comedy and/or authority to the role as required. Pegg brings neither. I like the new films but he is by far the weakest link.
(Though, I don't really see what's wrong with Pegg's Scotty. Scotty was always a bit of a joker when the need arose (or are you forgetting the episode where he drank an alien under the table?), and while he's not a patch on James Doohan, neither is anybody when compared to the original actors and characters).
Back on topic. I hope it's not picked up by Sky, or if it is, it's not shown first on Sky Atlantic.