New Star Trek Series Coming in January 2017

1323335373887

Comments

  • Flash525Flash525 Posts: 8,862
    Forum Member
    I wonder whether Netflix have refused to use such an ugly ship, and that's why it's been delayed. :p
  • GDKGDK Posts: 9,467
    Forum Member
    Just a word of caution on the budget. Sometimes lack of budget contributes to inventing creative solutions to story telling problems.

    A classic example would be the transporter. Conceived as a way of saving money by not having to create all those "ship landing on a planetary surface" shots it also had the benefit of propelling the principle characters into the meat of the story very quickly.

    Of course it also created another problem: Having used it to get our characters down to the planet very quickly, the writers then had to come up with explanations as to why, when our heroes inevitably got into to trouble, they couldn't be extracted by transporter just as quickly.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GDK wrote: »
    Just a word of caution on the budget. Sometimes lack of budget contributes to inventing creative solutions to story telling problems.

    A classic example would be the transporter. Conceived as a way of saving money by not having to create all those "ship landing on a planetary surface" shots it also had the benefit of propelling the principle characters into the meat of the story very quickly.

    Of course it also created another problem: Having used it to get our characters down to the planet very quickly, the writers then had to come up with explanations as to why, when our heroes inevitably got into to trouble, they couldn't be extracted by transporter just as quickly.

    I agree - sometimes bottle shows force the writers to focus on characters and plots rather than easier action/sci-fi stories. But at least this gives them the option to do more location shooting and add in ship battle footage if needed.

    It's not a coincidence that the biggest budget show on tv is also the best (GOT) :)
  • GDKGDK Posts: 9,467
    Forum Member
    I agree - sometimes bottle shows force the writers to focus on characters and plots rather than easier action/sci-fi stories. But at least this gives them the option to do more location shooting and add in ship battle footage if needed.

    It's not a coincidence that the biggest budget show on tv is also the best (GOT) :)

    Agreed. When shows go on location extensively, as GoT does, the results are far more impressive than series that only use sets constructed on sound stages. GoT also has the benefit of some great character writing.

    The money spent on location shoots shows in the final product.

    Sound stage sets are good for interior scenes but scenes that are meant to be exterior usually need to be shot outside to be really convincing.

    Impressive visuals can help a story, but plot and character are most important, otherwise it's just "stuff blowin' up".
  • ThrombinThrombin Posts: 9,416
    Forum Member
  • EraserheadEraserhead Posts: 22,016
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GDK wrote: »
    Just a word of caution on the budget. Sometimes lack of budget contributes to inventing creative solutions to story telling problems.

    A classic example would be the transporter. Conceived as a way of saving money by not having to create all those "ship landing on a planetary surface" shots it also had the benefit of propelling the principle characters into the meat of the story very quickly.

    Of course it also created another problem: Having used it to get our characters down to the planet very quickly, the writers then had to come up with explanations as to why, when our heroes inevitably got into to trouble, they couldn't be extracted by transporter just as quickly.

    "I can't get a lock" quickly became something of a running joke, but yes I agree, sometimes I think the show's writers ran the risk of backing themselves into a corner with some of the tech solutions (like the silly reasons they couldn't shut power to the holodeck every time it malfunctioned).

    And it's a shame that for a long time saving money by not having shuttles landing still meant that the planet-of-the-week locations looked horribly like cheap studio sets, although I appreciate how difficult and expensive it is to do real location shooting, especially if you're trying to create an environment which looks suitably alien.

    Still, I think for the most part fans accepted the budgetary limitations. It's the same for why most alien races looked just like humans but with pointy ears or brow ridges etc. Even on the most modest budget there's always scope for the outstanding dramas of "Inner Light" or "Duet" if the writing is strong enough.
  • WhoAteMeDinnerWhoAteMeDinner Posts: 4,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Didn't the most recent reboot Star Trek movie flop at the box office ? My sense is the new TV series has left it too late, and the world is no longer as optimistic and outward looking as when the other older series aired. This hopeful mindset is what Star Trek is all about.
  • daz100daz100 Posts: 284
    Forum Member
    Didn't the most recent reboot Star Trek movie flop at the box office ? My sense is the new TV series has left it too late, and the world is no longer as optimistic and outward looking as when the other older series aired. This hopeful mindset is what Star Trek is all about.

    Star Trek beyond did so, so. Is doing good business in China at the moment.
  • performingmonkperformingmonk Posts: 20,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Didn't the most recent reboot Star Trek movie flop at the box office ? My sense is the new TV series has left it too late, and the world is no longer as optimistic and outward looking as when the other older series aired. This hopeful mindset is what Star Trek is all about.

    It's a shame cause it's 10 times better than Into Darkness. It really does feel like a Star Trek film and is really entertaining for any Trek fan! The mistake they made was with the marketing and covering a big star as Idris Elba in prosthetics so people couldn't immediately recognise him.
  • WhoAteMeDinnerWhoAteMeDinner Posts: 4,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another wrinkle is this new series is only being aired on CBS On Demand service in the States and on Netflix here. Not going to be the glory days of Voyager and Deep Space Nine being viewed by tens of millions, is it ?
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another wrinkle is this new series is only being aired on CBS On Demand service in the States and on Netflix here. Not going to be the glory days of Voyager and Deep Space Nine being viewed by tens of millions, is it ?

    The tv environment has changed since then. The recent most respected shows in the world (Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Mad Men) didn't score well on traditional viewing figures. These days it's quiz shows and soaps that rate well - serious drama and real entertainment are found on streaming/pay tv.
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Another wrinkle is this new series is only being aired on CBS On Demand service in the States and on Netflix here. Not going to be the glory days of Voyager and Deep Space Nine being viewed by tens of millions, is it ?
    If you want to talk about glory days in terms of viewing figures then that honour goes to TNG. Neither DS9 nor Voyager got near TNG (on an ongoing basis), and in fact declined steadily season after season.
  • WhoAteMeDinnerWhoAteMeDinner Posts: 4,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe that explains Paramounts' and CBS' lack of confidence in putting it on broadcast television.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe that explains Paramounts' and CBS' lack of confidence in putting it on broadcast television.

    Broadcast tv isn't the pinnacle of tv anymore.

    House of Cards, Homeland, Veep.
  • malcy86malcy86 Posts: 562
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JDF wrote: »

    Nonsense. It's like when people were trying to say ENT was in a different timeline or had created a new one.
  • James_PicardJames_Picard Posts: 232
    Forum Member
    IF this show (fingers crossed) ends up being a hit- r we likely to see further trek spin-offs? kinda like how when TNG was successful in the 90s we saw DS9 & VOY follow in quick succession.


    i'm perfectly happy to see what this prequel series will offer but surely star trek has to go into the 25th century eventually. :confused:
  • PencilPencil Posts: 5,700
    Forum Member
    As long as this new series isn't more prequal crap, it should be successful. :)
  • Captain StableCaptain Stable Posts: 2,242
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pencil wrote: »
    As long as this new series isn't more prequal crap, it should be successful. :)

    Looks like it's set between Enterprise and TOS.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I see that the Axanar stuff isn't going away:

    http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-fan-film-lawsuit-moving-forward/

    What do people think about this by the way? I haven't seem much discussion on it on these boards.

    Obviously my heart wants Axanar to be made as the 'prequel' was fantastic and you feel that they have the expertise and passion to make a great fan film.

    However I do understand the studio's position; ultimately they are the copyright holders and they can't just give people a free hand to do what they want with the Trek brand. The whole idea that if something 'doesn't make a profit' it's ok is not good enough - Axanar are clearly selling this film via crowd funding, they are paying the people involved and building a studio with crowd funded money. CBS are right when they say this isn't a fan film.

    Unfortunately CBS missed an opportunity with their recently released guidance on film films; they were so ridiculously restrictive that they would be unworkable for anyone that had greater ambitions then just filming their friends in custom.

    I would argue that a better approach would be for CBS to set up a separate 'fan films' studio that would be financed by crowd funding and created by third parties but ultimately controlled by CBS. They would then be able to ensure that no one is profiting from fan films and that the content (and behavior of the production) doesn't damage the Trek brand.
  • GDKGDK Posts: 9,467
    Forum Member
    Maybe that explains Paramounts' and CBS' lack of confidence in putting it on broadcast television.

    "Lack of confidence"!? That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how TV works these days.

    If there was any "lack of confidence" they wouldn't be making it at all, let alone trying to use it as a way of boosting subscriptions to CBS All Access in the USA. Nor would Netflix have signed an exclusive global deal to show the series outside the USA and Canada. That Netflix deal has secured the show financially.
  • GDKGDK Posts: 9,467
    Forum Member
    I see that the Axanar stuff isn't going away:

    http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-fan-film-lawsuit-moving-forward/

    What do people think about this by the way? I haven't seem much discussion on it on these boards.

    Obviously my heart wants Axanar to be made as the 'prequel' was fantastic and you feel that they have the expertise and passion to make a great fan film.

    However I do understand the studio's position; ultimately they are the copyright holders and they can't just give people a free hand to do what they want with the Trek brand. The whole idea that if something 'doesn't make a profit' it's ok is not good enough - Axanar are clearly selling this film via crowd funding, they are paying the people involved and building a studio with crowd funded money. CBS are right when they say this isn't a fan film.

    Unfortunately CBS missed an opportunity with their recently released guidance on film films; they were so ridiculously restrictive that they would be unworkable for anyone that had greater ambitions then just filming their friends in custom.

    I would argue that a better approach would be for CBS to set up a separate 'fan films' studio that would be financed by crowd funding and created by third parties but ultimately controlled by CBS. They would then be able to ensure that no one is profiting from fan films and that the content (and behavior of the production) doesn't damage the Trek brand.

    Pretty much the same feelings as you. I'd loved to have seen Axanar made, at one point I considered buying into it, but I completely understand and accept the studio's point of view. Star Trek is their intellectual property and they have to protect it to protect their future earnings from it. Axanar clearly goes way beyond a "normal" fan production.

    As regards the short the Axanar crew produced. It was a well made, polished production with good visuals and professional actors, but I felt the writing was poor and the concept didn't sit right with me. It felt wrong that major players in this important historical event would supposedly sit around afterwards being interviewed for a historical documentary. Especially the Klingon and Vulcan characters. Too much of a contemporary documentary style for me to find credible.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GDK wrote: »
    Pretty much the same feelings as you. I'd loved to have seen Axanar made, at one point I considered buying into it, but I completely understand and accept the studio's point of view. Star Trek is their intellectual property and they have to protect it to protect their future earnings from it. Axanar clearly goes way beyond a "normal" fan production.

    As regards the short the Axanar crew produced. It was a well made, polished production with good visuals and professional actors, but I felt the writing was poor and the concept didn't sit right with me. It felt wrong that major players in this important historical event would supposedly sit around afterwards being interviewed for a historical documentary. Especially the Klingon and Vulcan characters. Too much of a contemporary documentary style for me to find credible.

    I actually liked the concept but agree that it was pushing credibility having the Klingon there - I highly doubt he would have taken part in a Federation documentary after losing the war (he'd have probably been killed).

    I have to say though that it was probably my favourite 20 mins of Star Trek since 'What you leave behind'.
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Never been a fan of the fan films. They tend to be dire. Even the more professional ones with actual actors have an awkward feel to them - like the actors know they're scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
Sign In or Register to comment.