polishgenius Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Bryan Fuller is making another TV show. You all are being moaning gits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 27 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Bryan Fuller is making another TV show. You all are being moaning gits. This. Why would they return to Star Trek Prime timeline? That's like saying Battlestar Galactica(see below) should return to TV but follow the original 70's timeline and character storyline. Paramont has moved on. Get over it. Granted, I'm not a huge Star Trek fan. I really enjoyed NG. Never caught up enough with DS9, though I hear it was great. I watched Voyager and Enterprise off and on, but neither show was interesting enough to me to make it a habit. Yes, I like the new movies. No they're not great, but the ST movies have always been "not great". JJ didn't damage that part of the brand. Though I get the criticism Trekkies have with him, the movies never really put Roddenberry's vision on the screen like the tv shows could. Hearing that Fuller is onboard is the first time a new Star Trek sounds interesting to me. Unless they bring back original casts from ST Prime, who cares where Fuller places his show? It'll reference new Kirk and gang in the same way as a Prime show would reference Kirk, Picard, etc. Now, this streaming channel nonsense is a whole other barrier. Looks like I'll be catching it on Netflix (assuming it ever gets there). ETA: Just saw this: Battlestar Galactica reboot gets producers. lol They're following option c: reboot the reboot, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Myrddin said: ETA: Just saw this: Battlestar Galactica reboot gets producers. lol They're following option c: reboot the reboot, To be fair, a series of BSG films isn't an entirely horrible idea, and they couldn't really do that without another reboot. However, they're really going to struggle to differentiate it from the series while keeping it something that will please people. I mean, even on the small screen, the show had big spectacle sewn up, so it can't sell just on that, and despite it coming from 80s cheese, the franchise is so associated with the gritty, real-edged SF thing it did that dialling back from that is going to be a tricky proposition, but not doing so will just make comparisons even more inevitable. They really should just adapt Revelation Space if they want a dark-ish space opera franchise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 24 minutes ago, Myrddin said: This. Why would they return to Star Trek Prime timeline? That's like saying Battlestar Galactica(see below) should return to TV but follow the original 70's timeline and character storyline. Paramont has moved on. Get over it. Yes, I like the new movies. No they're not great, but the ST movies have always been "not great". JJ didn't damage that part of the brand. Though I get the criticism Trekkies have with him, the movies never really put Roddenberry's vision on the screen like the tv shows could. Hearing that Fuller is onboard is the first time a new Star Trek sounds interesting to me. Unless they bring back original casts from ST Prime, who cares where Fuller places his show? It'll reference new Kirk and gang in the same way as a Prime show would reference Kirk, Picard, etc. If you're going to call it Star Trek, then it belongs in the Star Trek Universe. What JJ Abrahms did was take names and places and such and re-use them in a space action movie. It wasn't Star Trek. If this new series is set in the JJverse, then just call it something else. It isn't actually Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 15 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: If you're going to call it Star Trek, then it belongs in the Star Trek Universe. It is in the Star Trek universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yes, it is in the Star Trek universe, the same universe where there is no point to have space ships if you can just teleport people between planets hundreds of light years apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, polishgenius said: It is in the Star Trek universe. The Abrahmsverse is the distinction to differentiate what JJ Abrahms did with his two movies from the actual Prime Star Trek Universe. If this proposed new streaming show is set in that Abrahmsverse, then it needs to be called something other than Star Trek, as that isn't what JJ Abrahms made. He merely co-opted some names and places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: The Abrahmsverse is the distinction to differentiate what JJ Abrahms did with his two movies from the actual Prime Star Trek Universe. If this proposed new streaming show is set in that Abrahmsverse, then it needs to be called something other than Star Trek, as that isn't what JJ Abrahms made. He merely co-opted some names and places. Is there supposed to be some insult in the way you're spelling his name? I dun get it. Anyway, you don't like what he did with the films, and fine. I don't like what he did with the second one much either and I'm not even a Trek fan. But stubbornly pretending that it isn't the Trek universe when it clearly is (to the point it had the original Spock in it) isn't going to get you anywhere, and writing off everything in it forever because the Abrams version was too actiony is just silly. Like, that's not likely to be the route Fuller goes with this. If it fits the original spirit, why does it being in the same timeline as the films bother you so much, especially if it's the complete new version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The real tragedy is that Bryan Fuller isn't working on Hannibal anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Veltigar said: The real tragedy is that Bryan Fuller isn't working on Hannibal anymore Oddly I'm starting to think the show ended at the right time. There was a decent chunk of season 3 where it was disappearing up its own backside (although still glorious to watch). Another season may well have worn thin. I'd take a TV movie down the road but fear another season may have caused me to turn on it. I think the BSG analogy is one worth keep in minding with this. If the show is excellent we'll probably all be discarding our reservations (although I'm sure there're still a lot of people think the recent BSG was sacrilege). The TV show may well redeem the film universe. 33 minutes ago, Corvinus said: Yes, it is in the Star Trek universe, the same universe where there is no point to have space ships if you can just teleport people between planets hundreds of light years apart. One of the greatest destruction of in-film logic I've witnessed. Up there with the revelation that the machines in Matrix could have just built solar panel towers above the clouds and done away with the human battery nonsene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 32 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Is there supposed to be some insult in the way you're spelling his name? I dun get it. Anyway, you don't like what he did with the films, and fine. I don't like what he did with the second one much either and I'm not even a Trek fan. But stubbornly pretending that it isn't the Trek universe when it clearly is (to the point it had the original Spock in it) isn't going to get you anywhere, and writing off everything in it forever because the Abrams version was too actiony is just silly. Like, that's not likely to be the route Fuller goes with this. If it fits the original spirit, why does it being in the same timeline as the films bother you so much, especially if it's the complete new version? No insults to the name. I was just butchering the spelling of it. Not intentional. People pretend the Star Wars Holiday Special and Highlander 2 don't exist all the time. Writing off the most recent movies, purportedly meant to be Star Trek, isn't all that far fetched. Do a proper show in the Prime Universe and move forward simply forgetting JJ Abrams was ever allowed near Star Trek seems like a fine plan to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, red snow said: One of the greatest destruction of in-film logic I've witnessed. Up there with the revelation that the machines in Matrix could have just built solar panel towers above the clouds and done away with the human battery nonsene. It's a universe in which you don't need spaceships and there's a cure for death. Justin Lin's on record as just being like 'pfffffffffffft fuck it I'm ignoring it'. The human battery was nonsense long before you saw the sky, since they'd get a lot less energy out of the humans then they'd be spending keeping them alive - and there's no good reason for them to be conscious even if you make it work. The original idea was to have the brains networked as a sort of mega-computer or something, which while probably no more sensical in an achievability sense is a lot more workable as an SF idea. 2 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: People pretend the Star Wars Holiday Special and Highlander 2 don't exist all the time. Writing off the most recent movies, purportedly meant to be Star Trek, isn't all that far fetched. The Star Wars Holiday Special was officially canon until like three years ago, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 41 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Anyway, you don't like what he did with the films, and fine. I don't like what he did with the second one much either and I'm not even a Trek fan. But stubbornly pretending that it isn't the Trek universe when it clearly is (to the point it had the original Spock in it) isn't going to get you anywhere, and writing off everything in it forever because the Abrams version was too actiony is just silly. Like, that's not likely to be the route Fuller goes with this. If it fits the original spirit, why does it being in the same timeline as the films bother you so much, especially if it's the complete new version? Sure, it's now the trek universe. And it was much better before. Obviously, YMMV, but getting annoyed that a bunch of S.T. OG fans hated these fucktastic movies is...pointless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Relic said: Sure, it's now the trek universe. And it was much better before. Obviously, YMMV, but getting annoyed that a bunch of S.T. OG fans hated these fucktastic movies is...pointless? I'm not annoyed that ST fans hated the movies. I am a bit annoyed that some people are writing off a show, and particularly a Bryan Fuller show, just coz it's set in the same universe, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Ultimately I'm writing it off because CBS seems to think they need to stream it. If they show the first episode on the Network, I'll check it out. I do try not to spew vitriol about something I wholly dislike without at least checking it out first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 If being set in the Abram verse meant it was gonna be exactly like those films, and being set in the prime meant it was exactly like the previous series, I could see the issue. But it clearly won't have a bearing. The desires of CBS, Fuller's vision of what he wants, the writers, the cast, dozens of other factors; these will be far more relevant to how the show ends up. I'm not sure I follow his comments about how the old series 'ended up' - does he mean in universe, or quality? Cos the old series ended with Enterprise, which is strangely enough, canon to both universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I'd definitely give the show a shot if it was on CBS proper, syndicated TV, or streamed on Amazon Prime, Netflix, or Hulu, you know one of the three streaming services I'm all ready subscribed to. I'm not signing up to another one just for Star Trek. I think I'd feel that way even if it was a Prime Universe show and not a possibly Trek in name only show, but it'd be a tad more tempting is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 1 hour ago, drawkcabi said: I'd definitely give the show a shot if it was on CBS proper, syndicated TV, or streamed on Amazon Prime, Netflix, or Hulu, you know one of the three streaming services I'm all ready subscribed to. I'm not signing up to another one just for Star Trek. I think I'd feel that way even if it was a Prime Universe show and not a possibly Trek in name only show, but it'd be a tad more tempting is all. Yeah. I'm curious has CBS been taking it's shows off the established streaming services? I don't know that I've ever followed a CBS show in my life, now that I think about it. Though maybe not...did they do a saturday morning cartoon thing in the late 80's-early 90's? Anyway they clearly have the wrong idea about streaming services. It'd be one thing if CBS were doing this so the show could have HBO/Showtime (or even just FX) type content that wouldn't fly on network TV. (I don't mean like nudity in each episode, but being able to say fuck and have people die in ways that are upsetting would be nice. ) But I doubt that's the plan. Oh, and if there's one thing I want from this show above all else, it's continuity. I don't mean avoiding the the nitpicking shit, just the idea that watching the episodes out of order would be stupid and confusing. Too much would-be-great TV was ruined by the thought that viewers should be able to just "jump in" and watch the episodes out of order. With Fuller I'm fairly confident that won't be an issue. But you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 A key concern is whether it's going to get a decent budget. For a Trek show you're going to be looking at about $4 million an episode, minimum. But will they give a show that's only going to be on a streaming service that much? It also seems very disrespectful to take your flagship franchise, one of the biggest TV shows ever made and the second-oldest currently-active SF franchise (behind only Doctor Who), and then lock it behind a paywall and away from your mass audience in its 50th anniversary year. A new Star Trek series should be a flagship show for CBS on primetime with a massive budget and marketing spend behind. Instead they're acting like they are ashamed of it. It's totally incomprehensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Werthead said: A key concern is whether it's going to get a decent budget. For a Trek show you're going to be looking at about $4 million an episode, minimum. But will they give a show that's only going to be on a streaming service that much? It also seems very disrespectful to take your flagship franchise, one of the biggest TV shows ever made and the second-oldest currently-active SF franchise (behind only Doctor Who), and then lock it behind a paywall and away from your mass audience in its 50th anniversary year. A new Star Trek series should be a flagship show for CBS on primetime with a massive budget and marketing spend behind. Instead they're acting like they are ashamed of it. It's totally incomprehensible. I hadn't considered the boded, but I don't think they're acting ashamed of it. Quite the opposite I think if anyhting they're putting too much faith in it's appeal. They're essentially making the same mistake the UPN made when it counted on Voyager to launch a successful syndication based TV network Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.