2017 Star Trek TV series

1
Now that some meatier information is beginning to be revealed about the new series, I think it merits its own thread.

http://trekmovie.com/2016/04/13/breakin ... y-pre-tng/
CBS’s new Star Trek television series, which will be aired exclusively on the network’s new online streaming platform All Access, is going to be set in the time period between the original series film Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, BirthMoviesDeath is reporting. What’s more: it won’t be set in the JJ-verse timeline.

BirthMoviesDeath is reporting that the new Star Trek television series “definitely isn’t in the JJ rebootverse.”
A trusted source has chimed in and told me that it looks like the show will be a seasonal anthology, which means the first season will be set post-Undiscovered Country. After that the entire Star Trek universe is potentially open. So those of you hoping for a post-Dominion War show… don’t give up hope. That could come some day.
When Nicholas Meyer was announced as a member of the Star Trek All Access writing staff in February, he made some remarks that had people speculating that the new show would take place precisely after Undiscovered Country:
The one thing I can relate to you is that The Undiscovered Country—according to Bryan [Fuller]—is a real sort of taking off point, or touchstone for how I guess he’s thinking about the direction of the new show. I don’t want to be misquoted and I don’t want to misquote him, but he’s fond of that film. Let’s put it that way.
This news comes out just as the writers of the new show started an official, verified twitter account @StarTrekRoom.

CBS’s new television series comes to it’s online platform CBS All Access January 2017.
So, what's the take-home here? For starters, Prime Universe...YES! Secondly, apparently an anthology series format. For those that don't know, that means a different set of characters and different plot each season. Tho there are probably other examples of this, think American Horror Story (but with less sex, death, and sex and death).

So, I think those are both positives. Prime Universe definitely is, and I think the anthology approach might just be a good idea. If they come up with a bad story arc or bad cast, they start over fresh the following season. And they don't have to try to sustain an arc across 7 seasons.

For a story idea, I would have probably preferred something other than a followup to ST VI. I would have most preferred something focusing on events post destruction of Romulus. But I guess we can still hope for that down the line, assuming the show is successful.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

2
Prime Universe - Awesome
Anthology - It could work....
Time/Setting - Could be interesting but with the Anthology format, maybe we can explore post-Romulus destruction. We can get snippets and side stories of really anything with an anthology setting.

I'm on board.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

6
That's like a teaser for a clothes detergent that shows a washing machine spinning. :rolleye:

Redundant.

As for the whole "this is not an anthology" and "the time setting is not what people were speculating,": I would file all that under worrisome. I thought the concept was fresh and would give us something interesting. Now I'm worried about more formulaic crap, based on a time period that's been done before. I don't want Star Trek CSI, or Star Trek Agents of Shield - both full of young and sexy 20-something's that can't act their way out of a paper bag.
This Space for Rent

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

7
I'm all for young and sexy 20 year olds! ;) But ones that can act are preferred.

I'm not sure what to think about the format, because it still isn't really clear what it's going to be. I wasn't too keen on the post-STVI theory. Maybe what we'll get instead will be better.

Or maybe we will get post-STVI, and they're just trying to keep it hush-hush.

We'll know in January. ;)
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

8
Fuller did a brilliant job spearheading the Hannibal series, so I'm nterested to see what they are doing. For the most part, Hannibal was done like watching a long movie, and really stretched well outside the bounds of a normal tv show. The look, editing, acting, and music were all top notch.

I'm not getting my hopes high though, as I burned out on seeing ST retread itself over and over after DS-9 and gave up on it. I'm not sure what theyc an do that has not been done a dozen times already.
KRDS

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

11
I also am cautiously optimistic....

Star Trek's natural home is on TV. On TV, it can focus on telling a good story that doesn't necessarily require things to be blown up, and that doesn't have to be wrapped up in 2 hours.

The seasons will presumably be short, 10-13 episodes, so they can focus on developing better stories instead of more stories.

The show has some staff with series Trek cred.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

12
Head over to the Pure Star Trek Discussion thread and watch the Comic Con panel for intermittent discussion of the new series. I have to say I now have another reason to be optimistic about the series. From Fuller's comments, it's clear that he gets what to me is the single most important thing about Star Trek: that we can survive and learn to get along, and build a bright new future. I think the new series is in very good hands.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

17
So to clarify an earlier comment, when I said my preferred time period for the new series was post-Voyager, what I really meant was post-Romulus: the aftermath of the destruction of Romulus. That could be an extraordinarily rich canvas upon which to tell Star Trek stories.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

18
Olorin wrote:an extraordinarily rich canvas upon which to tell Star Trek stories.
Which is precisely why it won't be what we will see, because these writers/directors/producers/whathaveyou delight in running counter to everything the fans always seem to want.

I'm hoping fervently this whole pre-TOS thing is just them being coy with the ship's registry number, but even if not, I'll have to pull a Han Solo here and say: "I've got a bad feeling about this..."
This Space for Rent

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

20
Just read this article:

http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-disc ... t-captain/

Still not pleased with the prequel aspect, but I am intrigued with the "lead not being the captain" idea. I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what happened 10 years before TOS to make them want to do this for the new series.

I still am holding out a string of hope that this series will be some sort of anthology or kick Star Trek back into action so we can see what happens post Romulus "go boom."

As much as I have made my peace with the new movies, I still am made a JJ for blowing up Romulus and then leaving the entire timeline and leaving us hanging!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

21
An incident 10 years before Kirk's mission, that has been mentioned before? AXANAR, anyone?

Anyway, the confirmation that this is a prequel, even if one set essentially at the same time as TOS, does not fill me with joy. Sigh, it will be what it will be.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

27
I don't know who the replacements are, as in, I don't recognize their names or seen their previous work, but judging by the comments section of that article, this does not bode well for the series.

Can we just admit that the carcass that is Star Trek is really starting to stink bad? If the main guy that was behind this is already finding better things to do, what does that really say about the confidence this projects for the fans?
This Space for Rent

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

28
I wanted to rename this thread to "Star Trek: Discovery," but phpBB doesn't seem to allow you to rename existing threads.

Anyway, here's something interesting: http://trekmovie.com/2017/02/11/breakin ... discovery/

So, they've changed the Klingons again, though only maybe in making them bald (I'm assuming they won't be getting hair, since why bother with the full head prosthesis otherwise?). I thought in ST:ID, having one Klingon completely bald, even with no beard, was an interesting touch. You never saw the others without their helmets, so you don't know what they looked like. Maybe the only one we saw had alopecia! But to make all of them bald, unless it's just a personal choice aboard their ship (a la Romulans in mourning aboard the Narada), it opens up just another can of worms. One of the readers posted a thought that maybe they are Klingons from a different world in the Empire and thus are not true Klingons. Someone else posited that they were originally Klingons but spent enough time on another world that they evolved into a subspecies. Who knows? And who knows if we'll get an explanation? And I guess since HR Giger is dead, they aren't worried about being sued for IP infringement in the look of those uniforms.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

32
Minor question first (triggered by reading the comments following the trailer):
I know what TOS, TNG, DS9 stand for . What does ENT stand for and what year(s) did it air?

Major question: what did you think of the trailer; i.e., what it portends?

"Eternity is an awful long time, especially towards the end."

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.” -- CSL

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

33
ENT - stands for Star Trek Enterprise, ran for 4 seasons from 2001-2005. Gotta started off slow, but I think the writing of the 4th season earned it a 5th, but I digress.

Overall, I think the trailer is nice and I do want to watch the new series. With that said... what the :cursing_r is up with the look of the Klingons?!?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

34
BladeCollector wrote: Thu May 18, 2017 2:39 am ENT - stands for Star Trek Enterprise, ran for 4 seasons from 2001-2005. Gotta started off slow, but I think the writing of the 4th season earned it a 5th, but I digress.

Overall, I think the trailer is nice and I do want to watch the new series. With that said... what the :cursing_r is up with the look of the Klingons?!?
Your question about the Klingons takes up a hefty portion of the comments after the trailer....you should check that out if you haven't already. There are some pretty strong (and varied) opinions about the "Klingon look"

"Eternity is an awful long time, especially towards the end."

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.” -- CSL

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

35
Finally broke down and watched the trailer despite my misgivings. It came across as a mish-mash of ENT and the JJverse in terms of visuals and vibe, but I suppose that's inevitable given those are the two most recent incarnations of Star Trek. While I remain opposed to this constant need that producers have to go backwards in terms of timelines, I was hoping that they would at least make a little bit of effort to reconcile visual continuity. I get that a show made today can't and shouldn't look like TOS, but for a show set a mere ten years from Kirk's five-year mission, this prequel looks and feels 10,000 light-years away. The mental connection and reconciliation one needs to make in order to believe these two shows are a part of the same universe is near impossible like this. Adding further fuel to the flames is the total retcon of the Klingon's physical appearance. I understand we don't know if these are typical Klingons, but if not, then it's just change for the sake of change. Without purpose against the backdrop of Star Trek, it is meaningless change. The TOS Klingons would look ridiculous now, and did so even by the time STTMP came out, hence why they revised the race to look more alien, but must we continue to move in a direction that makes them less and less recognizable with each iteration of this universe? Even so, the beauty of that whole first change in appearance was that it was actually acknowledged within the shows, and there was an explanation for it. Yet now, I'm guessing by the time Star Trek gets rebooted again on the big screen (and you can bet that will happen sooner than you think at this rate,) Klingons will have four arms and can fly, because... why not? :huh:
This Space for Rent

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

36
I am not really in ST in any of its permutations, altho' there is a soft spot in my heart for TOS and I like a couple of the movies quite a lot (WoK and which ever one had them in SF looking for "nuclear wessels") .
So I am not qualified to analyze the trailer the way you did, VAl.
But from what I do know about all the different iterations ,I agree with you...and the trailerleft me unimpressed, kind of like "well, OK" .
As you said it's more like 10,000 LY from Kirk's mission.
Definitely a pass for me.

"Eternity is an awful long time, especially towards the end."

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.” -- CSL

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

37
I was pretty cool toward the trailer. I thought the special effects were very poor. Enterprise had outstanding effects, a fact I'm reminded of by just having rewatched the whole series a couple of months ago. I'm hoping the effects in the trailer are unfinished effects and that the final product will look better. If CBS thinks fans will be forgiving of a cheap-looking show, they've got another think coming. The dialog and the dramatic scenes hinted at in the trailer were also very clunky.

But we have to remind ourselves that other Trek series had clunky trailers and still turned out ok. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtmsI07AMsE . 30 years later and I still cringe whenever I watch it. So in spite of the misgivings I voiced above, and Val's misgivings which I mostly share, I will watch this show and give it every chance to catch on with me. TNG was mostly very lame its first two years. It had the benefit of airing in an era and on a format (syndication) where you could be lame and not get canceled after the second episode. If it were debuting today on network TV, it would've been DOA. I'm hoping Discovery gets a chance to go through those early-episode growing pains and find its voice. And I'm hoping it earns my faith in it.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

41
I am still holding out hope for this series, although I am more interested in moving forward with the original timeline post-Nemesis era, but a successful Trek series may lead to other successful series.

I was reading somewhere that the new uniforms, jokingly, are going to be "hated by cosplayers" since those gold areas are individual tiny little bitty delta emblems. So to be screen accurate, one is going to have to replicate it :)
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

43
So, is anyone watching? We're up to the 5th episode now (counting the initial two-parter as 2). I find I am really starting to enjoy the show. While it's not your father's Star Trek, other than the very high-tech look, it's more tried-and-true Trek than Abrams-verse (which is good, because it's prime timeline). They did redesign the Klingons yet again (no in-universe explanation yet given...we may have to wait another 40 years like we did for the explanation for the smooth-headed TOS Klingons, LOL!).

Tonight gave us Trek's first F-bombs, 2 within 5 seconds of each other, and also we came very close to Trek's first man-on-man kiss, or so it seemed. It never happened though. Probably they thought that plus F-bombs in the same episode might be too much for some people (like the first interracial kiss), those hypothetical viewers in the Deep South.

Anyway, it's been interesting, and there's one huge tech thing going on that they are going to have to explain away at some point to reconcile the show to canon. Let's just say it dwarfs trans-warp.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

45
I haven't made up my mind yet.

I find myself caught between the excitement of seeing Trek on tv again, not having it be part of the abominable JJverse. feeling bored and indifferent to the story, and trying hard to connect with the characters. And then there's the Klingons... oh boy

I understand the need for an update. I have no issues with that. Yet I also feel (as I've noted in my comments before) that change just for the sake of change feels unnecessary and reeks of self-congratulatory 'we did it because we can' attitude. I think the change is too radical to reconcile in my mind, and it pulls me out every time they are onscreen, which is a bad thing. They didn't have to go this far, or if so, the tomb ship faction could have been an isolated group of genetic misfits within the Empire, not a representation of the entire race. In fact, when all the Klingon houses showed up in the pilot episode, I was still hoping fervently that they would resemble more traditional Klingons, but when it was just more of the same, I nearly gave up then.

The ships are radically different, the customs are different, the uniforms are different, etc. It's too much. Also, the decision to have them speak every single line of dialogue in their language is really bogging things down. Between that, the amount of makeup and prosthetics needed, and the stiffness of their new costumes, I feel like I am watching an Entmoot or a bunch of turtles having a chat, rather than the dynamic and dangerous warrior race I was accustomed to. I have literally zoned out and dozed off a few times the Klingons are onscreen speaking for what seems like hours. Honestly, can you picture Worf as one of these guys?!?

Another thing I can't stand is the need to have every ship in science-fiction these days behave like an X-wing fighter. Was Nick Meyer the only one that understood how these massive starships should behave in combat? Even in Star Wars, when capital ships duke it out, they move slowly, trading broadside fire like the ponderous vessels they are. It annoys the crap out of me to see these Federation ships zipping about like one-man fighters. Then there's the weapons. I guess the days of the continuous-beam phaser are gone in favour of the fast and flashy pew-pew bolts. Even the hand phasers are more like Star Wars blasters. So much for the science part of science-fiction that Trek has always tried hard to stick close to. Look up how the blaster is fantasy, and the old phaser is not.

Lastly, yes... there is the matter of the new plot device that is making a lot of people scratch their heads and continue to feed conspiracy theories that this is not taking place in the Trek-prime universe as they keep telling us. It seems kinda silly to lead with something that extraordinary when every fan knows there is no way it ever will succeeded because there 24 seasons worth of other Trek shows that took place after Discovery and where such a thing does not exist. So thanks for telling us right away that whatever happens, this new tech is doomed to fail. Not exciting. Or maybe Section 31 ran off with it.

So far, I rate Discovery as two and a half 'Mehs' out of five.
This Space for Rent

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

46
Valkrist wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:09 am I haven't made up my mind yet.

I find myself caught between the excitement of seeing Trek on tv again, not having it be part of the abominable JJverse. feeling bored and indifferent to the story, and trying hard to connect with the characters. ...
The ships are radically different, the customs are different, the uniforms are different, etc. It's too much. Also, the decision to have them speak every single line of dialogue in their language is really bogging things down. Between that, the amount of makeup and prosthetics needed, and the stiffness of their new costumes, I feel like I am watching an Entmoot or a bunch of turtles having a chat, rather than the dynamic and dangerous warrior race I was accustomed to. I have literally zoned out and dozed off a few times the Klingons are onscreen speaking for what seems like hours. ...
Well, I kind of liked the [real] Entmoot ;) ...wish I had been there to see it....

"Eternity is an awful long time, especially towards the end."

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.” -- CSL

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

48
Valkrist wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:32 pm Precisely, Deimos, which is why I prefer my Entmoots to contain actual Ents, not Klingons.
Got it.
When I get wind of the next Entmoot I will let you know. :thumbs_up

"Eternity is an awful long time, especially towards the end."

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.” -- CSL

Re: 2017 Star Trek TV series

50
Olorin wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:19 am Renewed for a second season.
I've stalled on Ep3.

Got the others waiting on the PVR but I feel no rush to watch them, though I will get around to it. I think that attests to overall lack of extra excitement about the series.

Olorin, what do you think about the continued rumours that Season 2 will be the Nick Meyers-based Ceti Alpha V story? Many people seem to insist that the current season is a one-off, and the original plans for having self-contained multiple seasons with different stories and casts is still in place and borne out by the Nick Meyers project. :huh:
This Space for Rent
Post Reply

Return to “Star Trek & Star Wars”