|
||||||||
New Star Trek Series Coming in January 2017 |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1
|
Quote:
CBS Television Studios distributes back-catalog TV series and has production rights for new Trek series
Paramount Pictures owns the Trek films Or that's how I understood it. You're right that the new movies did carry a "under license from CBS", but that's because CBS holds the rights to all the Star Trek characters. So Paramount/Bad Robot licensed the characters from CBS and made a new universe. It's not clear at all if the rights to that universe are retained by Paramount or if they go to CBS. Since Paramount/Bad Robot created it, I would guess that they retain the rights to that universe, but who knows, the Trek license split seems to be really complicated. Paramount owns nothing but the new trek and anything related to new trek. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,782
|
Quote:
CBS owns everything upto and including nemesis, toys, games, and TV rights.
Paramount owns nothing but the new trek and anything related to new trek. But yeah, am pretty sure that CBS owns everything related to the prime universe, whereas Paramount owns everything relating to the (new) JJUniverse. I still suspect though that this new show will be a reboot itself, or an entirely new universe. I just can't see them continuing on from the prime universe, they're going to need to create a show that'll attract an audience large enough to make the show worth while (and renewable); they're not going to be able to do that with 'traditional' trek. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Liverpool. Champions of Europe
Posts: 15,512
|
Any suggestions for the new captain?
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,839
|
Quote:
Any suggestions for the new captain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,782
|
Quote:
If CBS have any sense the show won't stick to the single ship/space station format of the past. That's been done to death now. I liked the suggestion of Trek meets Game of Thrones: basically a sprawling narrative that involves characters and story lines from all over the Alpha quadrant, all linked by some major event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,413
|
The time is right. Glad to have it back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 48,127
|
Quote:
I think this would be the next logical move, just without Dragons and Nudity. Other than that, I think a show based on the temporal prime directive? Agents from the future who's job it is to preserve the timeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,914
|
Quote:
I don't think it's that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 135
|
Quote:
Any suggestions for the new captain?
star trek preaches equality, toleration etc... but if they choose another man that's men 5 women 1 for captains. hardly equal. also race may be an issue. Picard was English/French. sisko was black. will they go with an Hispanic or Asian captain?? |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,778
|
Quote:
I think this is actually a key issue. male or women and what race?
star trek preaches equality, toleration etc... but if they choose another man that's men 5 women 1 for captains. hardly equal. also race may be an issue. Picard was English/French. sisko was black. will they go with an Hispanic or Asian captain?? Every Captain's been human too, which seems a bit odd. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,185
|
Quote:
Every Captain's been human too, which seems a bit odd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 48,127
|
Quote:
Every Captain's been human too, which seems a bit odd.
As for the gender thing, its not that there are no female captains in the Trek universe, its more that they are not leads in a TV series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,185
|
Quote:
If CBS have any sense the show won't stick to the single ship/space station format of the past. That's been done to death now. I liked the suggestion of Trek meets Game of Thrones: basically a sprawling narrative that involves characters and story lines from all over the Alpha quadrant, all linked by some major event.
![]() There's going to be a Star Wars movie every year for the next few years - probably not the best time for Star Trek to try anyting too epic. It just won't be able to compete with Star Wars (or GOT) in that particular department. The last thing I'd want for it is to become a poor man's GOT/SW. It may be an old formula, but the one ship scenario will probably serve as a nice contrast to the more ambitious SW (which if rumours are to be believed may itself have its own live TV series coming along at some point). |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 698
|
I have a feeling they will want to keep this as simple as humanly possible which probably means sticking with what they know works i.e. the ship and the human Captain, gender irrelevant, although I would say a gay main character is now morally unavoidable. Any show set post-DS9 and Voyager would have to account even obliquely with the huge changes in the Federation since the end of the Dominion War and the opening up of the Delta Quadrant/potential crippling of the Borg. That is a simply MASSIVE amount of continuity to cope with. The fans will lap it up, but that's not gonna turn a profit on the huge production expenditure involved, even with the most clever use of budget-cheats imaginable, especially if its only available on a pay-only streaming service.
I suspect in the name of keeping it simple and cost-effective, Kurtzman and Co are probably going to throw out most of the continuity and find a way to do it if not in the modern movie universe, something else and reuse some of the left-over kit from those films. It'd be cheap, after-all, how else did they do it in the past without constantly cannibalising from past productions, especially as Paramount either sold everything or destroyed everything so they have nothing to recycle now except the film stuff? There is a business-case i.e. sustaining the franchise for another 50 years, for Paramount and CBS coming to some kind of agreement. Or else do something which runs vaguely parallel to the Original Series because that is clearly the easiest period to market and requires the least specialist knowledge. Of course even though I personally didn't care for either of the two films one jot, it is at least a good sign that the Grand Old Lady of American sci-fi is going back to where she belongs - a television screen. They can at least take their time with storylines, let them and their characters breathe a bit and go into more detail about the universe we now encounter. I wouldn't object to something a little bit like the Typhon Expanse or something like that, a structure, another part of space but a way to bring-in some established species if required. My real objection to this is basic. Why is it necessary to put it on a pay-service? Isn't that limiting the number of people likely to be watching as they have to fork-out subscriptions on-top of whatever other entertainment outgoings they have? Some will. Others will sigh and simply by the DVDs/whatever they get replaced with on-spec praying its worth the money. Does that not guarantee that it forces it onto Amazon or somewhere else like that when it goes international. Given my own soon-to-be-redundant status and the difficulties that are likely to come with actually getting a decent job with an acceptable wage, it seems likely that this is going to be the first Trek show I can no longer afford to actually see. That seems like both a weird approach given Trek's universalist agenda and deeply depressing, that your ability to actually watch (not just to collect memorabilia, tie-in novels, DVDs etc.) and your ability to just happen upon it by accident and be drawn-in, is now exclusively determined by the size of your wallet. Maybe George Orwell was right after-all, maybe some animals really are more equal than others - and what do you suppose the Great Bird would make of that? Or did it signal that CBS just don't have much faith in it really and don't want to give-up a prime spot in their schedules to Star Trek for the inevitable thirteen-episodes before they get nervous and cancel it. I'm not sure that Star Wars is competition, I mean its a different medium and its a very different universe. I mean there are lots of successful superhero/comic movies and they don't seem to be hurting each other too much at the Box Office.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,494
|
Quote:
It would be nice if they did not do it as a planet of the week series - Star Trek has after all done that four times (TOS, TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise).
Be nice if they took my suggestion of doing the series starting 2 minutes from the end of Star Trek First Contact - so we can see how a broken war torn Earth took itself to the stars. Doubt that would happen. Some other posts have mentioned that people don't like the new timeline in the movies. Maybe Star Trek should stick to space and leave time travel to Dr Who. |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 135
|
Quote:
Every Captain's been human too, which seems a bit odd.
however not 100% of star trek viewers are male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 930
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 698
|
About the link - they have an undeniable point, well three actually.
First, Kurtzman represents everything I hate about Trek. Basically the ENTIRITY of the Abrams movies, HATED THEM. Not Trek to me. Could be any franchise, not really different from superhero tat. Second, we are an opinionated bunch and there's no way that Kurtzman stands a chance of developing something that isn't going to piss-off a hell of a lot of people to the point that groups about the place won't boycott it, assuming that we are so desperate we will watch anything called Trek doesn't hold, not anymore. There is moving with the times, TNG did it simply by not getting cancelled in year one and thus providing a base to build from, DS9 did it by experimenting with its format. Voyager did not although it wanted to, for example by casting a woman in the lead - but the difference between it and say Farscape which dealt with some of the same material and overlapped is astonishing. Enterprise didn't even try, they didn't think they needed to. We are talking about something that was conceived in the 1960s here. Its not just that the world is totally different, its that Roddenberry wouldn't recognise the media world now, the basic standard of what we require from television is so far superior to what was required of TNG for example is not even comparable. Its not just going to get compared with the best or more innovative of genre television of which Game of Thrones is just the most obvious example at the moment, it's going to be compared with the absolute best of television period. I cannot imagine how you can both be recognisably Star Trek, a crew of a starship or a space station facing space-based adventures and challenges as a team each week and a modern, sophisticated ensemble drama show that can stand-up to the sheer weight of its very name without pissing off at least half of the audience. Remember how Enterprise was supposed to be a return to old fashioned adventures? That just won't work anymore. When it did try to change its approach, from Season 3 it was already too late and too many of the same problems remained. From about The West Wing, and The Sopranos time through to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, we the humble television viewer got spoilt and Trek just did not keep-up with what was happening in the very best in the medium. It relied on the same old writing, cinematography, editing, God awful music and recycled actors either in-front of or behind the camera. Presumably the lesson would be to do what Wrath of Khan did and bring-in a creative team who have had absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek whatever (Bennett and Meyer), maybe even people who aren't fans and allow them to start slaughtering sacred-cows on a vast scale to get it into shape that would survive now without hang-ups about what the fans like and what they personally like. This new shows either has to be about a 10th as good as the aforementioned serious dramas or don't even show-up because it won't make it past the first few episodes and if this gets cancelled after the first say six or eight episodes, that's it, the franchise really is dead, there's no way to bring it back from there and maybe, a please don't hate me, but maybe it deserves to die. The third problem with regard to our exploitation, as 'suckers' who will buy anything is very true. We have been taken for-granted and conned out of a lot of money over the years, putting it on a pay-only access model is just the natural conclusion to the 'Fan as Income-stream' model upon which Trek post-Roddenberry has been built. It's immoral and disrespectful but that is sadly par-for-the-course. I just really don't find anything positive about CBS's announcement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
this is of course the humanity bias of Earth based sci-fi, I suspect most planets have the same problem with their sci-fi.
As for the gender thing, its not that there are no female captains in the Trek universe, its more that they are not leads in a TV series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,839
|
Quote:
About the link - they have an undeniable point, well three actually.
First, Kurtzman represents everything I hate about Trek. Basically the ENTIRITY of the Abrams movies, HATED THEM. Not Trek to me. Could be any franchise, not really different from superhero tat. Second, we are an opinionated bunch and there's no way that Kurtzman stands a chance of developing something that isn't going to piss-off a hell of a lot of people to the point that groups about the place won't boycott it, assuming that we are so desperate we will watch anything called Trek doesn't hold, not anymore. There is moving with the times, TNG did it simply by not getting cancelled in year one and thus providing a base to build from, DS9 did it by experimenting with its format. Voyager did not although it wanted to, for example by casting a woman in the lead - but the difference between it and say Farscape which dealt with some of the same material and overlapped is astonishing. Enterprise didn't even try, they didn't think they needed to. We are talking about something that was conceived in the 1960s here. Its not just that the world is totally different, its that Roddenberry wouldn't recognise the media world now, the basic standard of what we require from television is so far superior to what was required of TNG for example is not even comparable. Its not just going to get compared with the best or more innovative of genre television of which Game of Thrones is just the most obvious example at the moment, it's going to be compared with the absolute best of television period. I cannot imagine how you can both be recognisably Star Trek, a crew of a starship or a space station facing space-based adventures and challenges as a team each week and a modern, sophisticated ensemble drama show that can stand-up to the sheer weight of its very name without pissing off at least half of the audience. Remember how Enterprise was supposed to be a return to old fashioned adventures? That just won't work anymore. When it did try to change its approach, from Season 3 it was already too late and too many of the same problems remained. From about The West Wing, and The Sopranos time through to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, we the humble television viewer got spoilt and Trek just did not keep-up with what was happening in the very best in the medium. It relied on the same old writing, cinematography, editing, God awful music and recycled actors either in-front of or behind the camera. Presumably the lesson would be to do what Wrath of Khan did and bring-in a creative team who have had absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek whatever (Bennett and Meyer), maybe even people who aren't fans and allow them to start slaughtering sacred-cows on a vast scale to get it into shape that would survive now without hang-ups about what the fans like and what they personally like. This new shows either has to be about a 10th as good as the aforementioned serious dramas or don't even show-up because it won't make it past the first few episodes and if this gets cancelled after the first say six or eight episodes, that's it, the franchise really is dead, there's no way to bring it back from there and maybe, a please don't hate me, but maybe it deserves to die. The third problem with regard to our exploitation, as 'suckers' who will buy anything is very true. We have been taken for-granted and conned out of a lot of money over the years, putting it on a pay-only access model is just the natural conclusion to the 'Fan as Income-stream' model upon which Trek post-Roddenberry has been built. It's immoral and disrespectful but that is sadly par-for-the-course. I just really don't find anything positive about CBS's announcement. As long as it sticks to the fundamental principles of what Trek is about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 48,127
|
Quote:
So, what was Janeway then? Wasn't she a female, a captain and the lead character?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,999
|
Quote:
fair enough I worded that wrongly
Beverley was made Captain of the USS Pasteur., and Hoshi Sato became Empress of the Terran Empire?.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 135
|
in regards to a setting what are peoples wishes?? I want it set post voyager in the prime timeline and from what I see most would agree.
however I have heard another view which seems to have a few fans online. quiet a few people I've read want it to be set post-kirk but pre-picard (early 24th century). although I would prefer post voyager I think this setting could possibly work. a lot happens after Kirk and pre-TNG. there could be quite an interesting story to tell here. although it might STOP you from bringing in another awe-inspiring enemy like the Borg. that's potentially the only problem. ![]() just as long as its not in the Abram's-verse, Starfleet academy or pre-enterprise (dear lord please NO)- I will be relatively content. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,957
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: up the stairs!
Posts: 11,649
|
Quote:
So, what was Janeway then? Wasn't she a female, a captain and the lead character?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:54.






