new star trek tv show in the works

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Online now: DEyncourt, Google [Bot], maurvir, Warin
Post Reply
TOS
User avatar
to be helmed by "hannibal" producer brian fuller

Quote:
In a statement confirming his new role, Fuller repeated how much Trek has meant to him. “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,” Fuller said. “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 … with fellow franchise alum Alex Kurtzman.”


Quote:
Fuller began his TV writing career doing freelance scripts for Deep Space Nine and eventually became a co-producer of Voyager. In addition to the critically beloved Hannibal, he also created the well-reviewed Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, and Pushing Daisies. He’s currently also working on an adaptation of American Gods for Starz. There’s been buzz about Fuller doing a reboot of Amazing Stories for NBC as well


but ...

Quote:
The pilot for the new series will air on the CBS broadcast network before flying over to a permanent home on CBS All Access. CBS chief Leslie Moonves last week told Reuters the new Trek would serve as the digital streamer’s version of House of Cards — i.e., the show he hopes will be a tipping point for subscriber growth.

obvs There. I said it.
User avatar
  1. Which Star Trek universe will this be in?
  2. I won't be subscribing to CBS All Access, and not specifically for Star Trek.

Vulture 420
User avatar
Very interested in details. Brian Fuller did an amazing job with Hannibal.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Like his brushes.
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
I'll watch it, but I wont be getting another subscription for it. Piratebay it is.
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
mmaverick posted:
I'll watch it, but I wont be getting another subscription for it. Piratebay it is.


Outside the US it'll be on regular TV; so you'll probably be fine.
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
Conner posted:
mmaverick posted:
I'll watch it, but I wont be getting another subscription for it. Piratebay it is.


Outside the US it'll be on regular TV; so you'll probably be fine.



Yay me!
Malkin kick 'em in the face; taste the body
User avatar
I worry that it will be more reboot style crap. Entertaining, but not Star Trek.

I like Star Trek Continues for REAL new Star Trek.
My money is on something TNG-ish in the post-movie timeline.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Malkin posted:
I worry that it will be more reboot style crap. Entertaining, but not Star Trek.

I like Star Trek Continues for REAL new Star Trek.

This.
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
I want more DS9 (or Star Trek like that); seems like we probably won't get that though. Sad.
ukimalefu Pondering
User avatar
More of the same would be nice. More Star Trek of any kind would be nice. I love Star Trek continues and subscribe to their RSS feed to be notified of new videos from them.

I'd prefer some entirely new Star Trek, completely unrelated to any Star Trek done before.

Wouldn't mind a TV series in the "new trek" universe.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
More of the same would be nice. More Star Trek of any kind would be nice. I love Star Trek continues and subscribe to their RSS feed to be notified of new videos from them.

I'd prefer some entirely new Star Trek, completely unrelated to any Star Trek done before.

Wouldn't mind a TV series in the "new trek" universe.

I agree 100%.
I am sick to death of the pinheads whining about canon and acting as if they are debating the actual history of an actual culture instead of of several series of often only peripherally connected fictional anthologies.
I strongly dislike the recent Star Trek movies not because they represent a change but because they are a bad change and suck dorky balls. But Trek sure could use a fresh perspective brought in, just not by Abrams cuz he did a hack job.
Mustapha Mond Daring to be stupid
Send private message
One thing that I think old school fans have a legit complaint about is that the new Trek isn't "Trek" because it lacks the thoughtful (and often moral) core that made up much of the original series and which then followed Picard into Next Generation. I think there's an audience for thoughtful Sci-Fi, but my bet is that any new Trek series will be more like Hawaii Five-O in Trek clothing. (Not that I don't like a good action show. I just don't want that from Star Trek.)
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Mustapha Mond posted:
One thing that I think old school fans have a legit complaint about is that the new Trek isn't "Trek" because it lacks the thoughtful (and often moral) core that made up much of the original series and which then followed Picard into Next Generation. I think there's an audience for thoughtful Sci-Fi, but my bet is that any new Trek series will be more like Hawaii Five-O in Trek clothing. (Not that I don't like a good action show. I just don't want that from Star Trek.)

A thing I hate about the recent Trek movies is that the interior of the new Enterprise makes no stick fiddling sense at all. The vast voids spanned by cat walks, giant tanks that make parts of it look like a big brewery or something, the absurdly bright and glaring lighting.
Ugh.
Mustapha Mond Daring to be stupid
Send private message
Yeah. I always likened the Enterprise (or any sci-fi spaceship, really) to a submarine or aircraft carrier, neither of which seem to waste an inch of space.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Mustapha Mond posted:
Yeah. I always likened the Enterprise (or any sci-fi spaceship, really) to a submarine or aircraft carrier, neither of which seem to waste an inch of space.

There is the waste issue and the containment issue. It is nuts to expect the audience to accept the idea of a space ship that is designed with no consideration for compartmentalization in case of a hull breach.
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
Pariah posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
Yeah. I always likened the Enterprise (or any sci-fi spaceship, really) to a submarine or aircraft carrier, neither of which seem to waste an inch of space.

There is the waste issue and the containment issue. It is nuts to expect the audience to accept the idea of a space ship that is designed with no consideration for compartmentalization in case of a hull breach.


Emergency forcefields are a beautiful thing.
Mustapha Mond Daring to be stupid
Send private message
What about for the water slide?
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
It should be noted that the Warp Core is like a 16 deck hole through the center of the ship.

Yamato_warp_core.jpg Yamato_warp_core.jpg
504.3 KiB - Viewed 1005 time(s)

Conner posted:
Pariah posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
Yeah. I always likened the Enterprise (or any sci-fi spaceship, really) to a submarine or aircraft carrier, neither of which seem to waste an inch of space.

There is the waste issue and the containment issue. It is nuts to expect the audience to accept the idea of a space ship that is designed with no consideration for compartmentalization in case of a hull breach.


Emergency forcefields are a beautiful thing.

To be honest the usage of such force fields was one of those on-here, off-there, things that sometimes failed only for the convenience of the plot throughout all versions of Star Trek:

"If we go into that nebula, Captain, then our deflector shields will become useless!"

"OK, then let's not go into there since that would also compromise our hull shields. More ideas?"
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Conner posted:
Pariah posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
Yeah. I always likened the Enterprise (or any sci-fi spaceship, really) to a submarine or aircraft carrier, neither of which seem to waste an inch of space.

There is the waste issue and the containment issue. It is nuts to expect the audience to accept the idea of a space ship that is designed with no consideration for compartmentalization in case of a hull breach.


Emergency forcefields are a beautiful thing.

To be honest the usage of such force fields was one of those on-here, off-there, things that sometimes failed only for the convenience of the plot throughout all versions of Star Trek:

"If we go into that nebula, Captain, then our deflector shields will become useless!"

"OK, then let's not go into there since that would also compromise our hull shields. More ideas?"


Deflector shields aren't the same as containment force fields. The former prevent the ship from being damaged by energy/kinetic weapons; the latter are mainly used to maintain pressurization on the ship (see: Anytime they have a hull breach, or the main shuttle bays).
Conner posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Conner posted:
Pariah posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
Yeah. I always likened the Enterprise (or any sci-fi spaceship, really) to a submarine or aircraft carrier, neither of which seem to waste an inch of space.

There is the waste issue and the containment issue. It is nuts to expect the audience to accept the idea of a space ship that is designed with no consideration for compartmentalization in case of a hull breach.


Emergency forcefields are a beautiful thing.

To be honest the usage of such force fields was one of those on-here, off-there, things that sometimes failed only for the convenience of the plot throughout all versions of Star Trek:

"If we go into that nebula, Captain, then our deflector shields will become useless!"

"OK, then let's not go into there since that would also compromise our hull shields. More ideas?"


Deflector shields aren't the same as containment force fields. The former prevent the ship from being damaged by energy/kinetic weapons; the latter are mainly used to maintain pressurization on the ship (see: Anytime they have a hull breach, or the main shuttle bays).

You state that as if knowing that there is such a distinct difference in the principles behind them. :)
Mustapha Mond Daring to be stupid
Send private message
This is starting to sound like the worst of Trek, when the whole plot was driven by nothing but a weird pseudoscience phenomenon.
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Conner posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Conner posted:
Pariah posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
Yeah. I always likened the Enterprise (or any sci-fi spaceship, really) to a submarine or aircraft carrier, neither of which seem to waste an inch of space.

There is the waste issue and the containment issue. It is nuts to expect the audience to accept the idea of a space ship that is designed with no consideration for compartmentalization in case of a hull breach.


Emergency forcefields are a beautiful thing.

To be honest the usage of such force fields was one of those on-here, off-there, things that sometimes failed only for the convenience of the plot throughout all versions of Star Trek:

"If we go into that nebula, Captain, then our deflector shields will become useless!"

"OK, then let's not go into there since that would also compromise our hull shields. More ideas?"


Deflector shields aren't the same as containment force fields. The former prevent the ship from being damaged by energy/kinetic weapons; the latter are mainly used to maintain pressurization on the ship (see: Anytime they have a hull breach, or the main shuttle bays).

You state that as if knowing that there is such a distinct difference in the principles behind them. :)


They're related technologies, but they aren't the same thing. Sort of like how replicators and transporters are similar, but not the same.
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
Mustapha Mond posted:
This is starting to sound like the worst of Trek, when the whole plot was driven by nothing but a weird pseudoscience phenomenon.


There is an important difference between having a grounded universe and using technology as a crutch when it comes to the plot.



TNG and Voyager were pretty bad about this (DS9 and ENT not so much).
Mustapha Mond Daring to be stupid
Send private message
I agree. I'm just teasing.

Though near the end, TNG was almost nothing but subspace anomalies wreaking havoc. It was getting pretty unbearable. Fortunately, their final episode, "All Good Things," put a nice bow on the series.
Metacell Branch Dravidian
User avatar
Mustapha Mond posted:
Though near the end, TNG was almost nothing but subspace anomalies wreaking havoc...

...on the holodeck's AI matrix.
TOS
User avatar
Mustapha Mond posted:
This is starting to sound like the worst of Trek, when the whole plot was driven by nothing but a weird pseudoscience phenomenon.


every debate on trek always boils down to this sort of conversation for some reason

people talk about stories and characters and big concepts, but super-fans always seem far more ready to lose themselves in the made-up technology

personally i always thought of the tech as laughable nonsense that existed solely to advanced the story -- pretty absurd that people take it so seriously
maurvir Perfectly balanced - mostly
User avatar
Star Trek was always at its best when it was centered around a moral dilemma, or took a 24th century take on a persistent problem. The decent episodes were the ones which showed the human spirit as it could be, not as it generally is.

The episodes where the crew were basically fighting some subspace anomaly were filler.
TOS
User avatar
i always thought the big missing piece in the star trek universe was the early chapters of human exploration and colonization of space, stuff that kirk & company referred to as happening when they were kids

colonial leaders becoming insane dictators, brutal diseases ravaging populations, criminals and pirates, and wasn't the federation at war with the romulans for like a hundred years?

i feel like a series set in that era would be fantastic ... i mean just imagine the people of today suddenly gaining the ability to colonize distant solar systems, it would be a frigging nightmare, and think of the relevant stories and allegories that could be told

they kind of touched on this in enterprise but mostly just blew it

anyway it's all irrelevant because it's sure to be set in the rebooted universe, which has no interest in anything but reasons to throw a bunch of dense, quick spectacles onto the screen
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
i always thought the big missing piece in the star trek universe was the early chapters of human exploration and colonization of space, stuff that kirk & company referred to as happening when they were kids

colonial leaders becoming insane dictators, brutal diseases ravaging populations, criminals and pirates, and wasn't the federation at war with the romulans for like a hundred years?

i feel like a series set in that era would be fantastic ... i mean just imagine the people of today suddenly gaining the ability to colonize distant solar systems, it would be a frigging nightmare, and think of the relevant stories and allegories that could be told

they kind of touched on this in enterprise but mostly just blew it

anyway it's all irrelevant because it's sure to be set in the rebooted universe, which has no interest in anything but reasons to throw a bunch of dense, quick spectacles onto the screen

As much as I admire much about Roddenberry's vision his fixation that the future had to be better got in the way of producing a lot of story lines that would have been more compelling and ended up producing a lot of overly simplistic pablum. That and the way TOS was all to often just propaganda for the protestant work ethic got very tedious at times.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Trying to remember the TOS episode where Kirk was the survivor of some kind of genocidal attack ... and it had something to do with Hamlet ...
TOS
User avatar
yeah there was an actor on a traveling theatre troupe who was secretly a genocidal ex-governor of a colony or something who had been presumed dead ... as i recall a low-level crew member had identified the guy, only to wind up dead

kirk meanwhile had fallen in love with the bad guy's hot daughter, only to discover that she had murdered the crewman to protect her father's identity

father was sad to see that his past actions had ruined his daughter, kirk was sad to see hot daughter be a murderer, spock raised his eyebrows a few times, fun had by all

uh ... not that i really remember or anything
dv
User avatar
Kodos the Executioner. You all knew the name: admit it, you losers.
chikie The same deviled egg
User avatar
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
Pariah posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
One thing that I think old school fans have a legit complaint about is that the new Trek isn't "Trek" because it lacks the thoughtful (and often moral) core that made up much of the original series and which then followed Picard into Next Generation. I think there's an audience for thoughtful Sci-Fi, but my bet is that any new Trek series will be more like Hawaii Five-O in Trek clothing. (Not that I don't like a good action show. I just don't want that from Star Trek.)

A thing I hate about the recent Trek movies is that the interior of the new Enterprise makes no stick fiddling sense at all. The vast voids spanned by cat walks, giant tanks that make parts of it look like a big brewery or something, the absurdly bright and glaring lighting.
Ugh.


I actually found that aesthetic much more realistic than the usual "every bit of technology is circuits printed on plastic sheets with blinking lights and fiberoptic cables". My preference would be a combination of the two, mixed with some CERN.
I found the most tolerable to be 'Enterprise' and I think another attempt at origin stories could be fun.
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
TOS posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
This is starting to sound like the worst of Trek, when the whole plot was driven by nothing but a weird pseudoscience phenomenon.


every debate on trek always boils down to this sort of conversation for some reason

people talk about stories and characters and big concepts, but super-fans always seem far more ready to lose themselves in the made-up technology

personally i always thought of the tech as laughable nonsense that existed solely to advanced the story -- pretty absurd that people take it so seriously


whynotboth.jpg

Seriously, Star Trek's technology was more important than "something to advance the story." The entire premise of the Star Trek universe was humanity in a technological utopia.
Ribtor posted:
I found the most tolerable to be 'Enterprise' and I think another attempt at origin stories could be fun.

Ugh. I thought that the over-arcing time-traveler story in "Enterprise" was a waste of time and it completely lost me.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

new star trek tv show in the works

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5