Paramount+ Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread (2 Viewers)

I already subscribe to CBS All Access. We don't have cable so, it's the only way to watch CBS shows on our own schedule. We do have an antenna but, we got tired of always trying to be in front of the TV when a show came on and, not being able to pause anything. Obviously, if we had cable or sat with a DVR, we wouldn't even consider paying for this service.


Can't wait to see some new Trek in 2017.

Chris Will said:

I already subscribe to CBS All Access. We don't have cable so, it's the only way to watch CBS shows on our own schedule. We do have an antenna but, we got tired of always trying to be in front of the TV when a show came on and, not being able to pause anything. Obviously, if we had cable or sat with a DVR, we wouldn't even consider paying for this service.

Can't wait to see some new Trek in 2017.

Click to expand...

How about a TiVo that works with your antenna tv? They've had those for years.

For those of you - like me - who don't think Paramount or CBS knows what to do with Star Trek, or even what Star Trek is, this is not going to make you feel better:


http://trekmovie.com/2015/11/17/with-execs-calling-for-star-trek-zero-dark-thirty-does-paramount-just-not-get-trek/

Couple different thoughts on that:


1) It's not a bad idea. Marvel has proven it will work, Star Wars is next on the list to create an interconnected universe and DC is on deck. Why can't Trek? Movies that explore different facets of the universe that don't have to be $250 million blockbusters. If you produce a movie for a reasonable budget, it's much easier for that movie to make a profit. And, hopefully, it opens more doors for additional stories. I don't see this as a bad idea.


2) With that being said, you have to find the right corners of the universe to explore. It can't be all Earth-centric, all the time. Do something different...lets go see New Vulcan, let's branch out.


3) IIRC, JJ Abrams wants to do something like this between TV, movies and comics back for STID. He was shot down and, ultimtately, that's why he left for Star Wars. If there is one unifying force and vision, this can work. But everyone has to work together. That's going to be key.

Abrams did have something like that in mind.


Thing is, for something like that to work, Star Trek needs a leader to head it all up. Once upon a time, that was Roddenberry. And, all for the hatred he has among a lot of fans, Berman carried that torch quite well for a while before running it into the ground.


The success of Marvel lies in its relative independence from the studio that owns it. It's interesting that the same studio now owns Star Wars and is apparently giving its producers the same level of independence.


Paramount has shown time and again that they just can't keep their hands off the Star Trek franchise. I don't know yet if CBS is as bad when it comes to being "hands on". Either way, if they want a Marvel/Star Wars level of success (and we're still very early into the Star Wars effort to know - but the anticipation is there), then both Paramount and CBS need to step back and not dictate what they "think" Star Trek should be like. Get a team that includes people who know a thing or two about the show already (got to keep the history in mind - Marvel has Stan Lee, at least for support; and Star Wars has all of Lucasfilm which is full of Star Wars history), and plan out a strategy, tone, and options to take. Then, go from there.


But, I'm thinking that it's still too soon.

I really think it comes down to the needs of feature films vs. the needs of a tv series. Star Trek on the big screen is a tough fit, because it needs to be whiz-bang more than it needs to be intellectual in that format. Honestly, I'd have no problem with an occasional action scentric Star Trek film every 2-3 years if the new TV show nails the exploration/social commentary/intellectual angle that a TV series can afford to do, and do well.

I think part of the issue with Abrams and Trek was that the rights are somewhat complicated - CBS has the rights to the shows, Paramount has the rights to more movies, and they wouldn't play nicely together so Abrams wasn't able to launch something. I'm wondering if that's changed or if the show will be completely independent of the films.

I'm excited and interested in the new series. Will not pay for extra service but hope to eventually see the shows when they air.

Can't wait for all of the details too!

Joel Fontenot said:

Abrams did have something like that in mind.


Thing is, for something like that to work, Star Trek needs a leader to head it all up. Once upon a time, that was Roddenberry. And, all for the hatred he has among a lot of fans, Berman carried that torch quite well for a while before running it into the ground.


The success of Marvel lies in its relative independence from the studio that owns it. It's interesting that the same studio now owns Star Wars and is apparently giving its producers the same level of independence.

Click to expand...

Agreed. There isn't one person in charge of everything Trek to put the plan on the board and run with it. Marvel has a clear plan on what they want to do, Star Wars has a clear plan. Heck, Universal is trying to put together a plan for a reboot of all their classic monsters.

Josh Steinberg said:

I think part of the issue with Abrams and Trek was that the rights are somewhat complicated - CBS has the rights to the shows, Paramount has the rights to more movies, and they wouldn't play nicely together so Abrams wasn't able to launch something. I'm wondering if that's changed or if the show will be completely independent of the films.

Click to expand...

Sure, but there can be a windfall of money for both companies. They're being spiteful toward one another and they're both missing out.

Yes, but Star Trek needs someone like Kevin Feige (Marvel) or Kathleen Kennedy (Lucasfilm) in charge of the property, and it must be someone who understands the vast intricacies of the universe. I'd suggest Ron Moore (he's too in-demand), Ira Behr or Manny Coto. Not someone who has been involved with the reboot movies,

Sam Favate said:

Yes, but Star Trek needs someone like Kevin Feige (Marvel) or Kathleen Kennedy (Lucasfilm) in charge of the property, and it must be someone who understands the vast intricacies of the universe. I'd suggest Ron Moore (he's too in-demand), Ira Behr or Manny Coto. Not someone who has been involved with the reboot movies,

Click to expand...

Mostly agreed. I don't see why someone associated with the reboots can't be that person. Let's be honest: no matter who it is, people are going to have a problem with it.


Ron Moore: "He's going to turn Trek into nuBSG, which was a bastardization of the original"

Manny Coto: "He let Enterprise die in S4"

Ira Behr: "He did DS9 which was the beginning of the end of Trek on TV"


This is really a no win scenario until the show premieres.

For all the people clamoring for Ron Moore to return, it's worth noting that Moore has spoken about being in favor of the reboot. On the bonus features for the TNG Blu-rays, for instance, he talks about Trek having grown to large and unwieldy, with too much shared history, and says that a reboot or a reset would be the best way forward. I don't think CBS would have been interested in him, and I don't think he would have been interested in coming back, but if he had, I don't think it would have been TNG Part 2 or anything like that.

Yes, but that was before studios were seeking to each have their own universe, like Marvel or Star Wars. It's the "too large" part of Star Trek that is so appealing to the studio now, since they can have multi-platform shows/movies. Moore remains the best writer to come from the 90s Trek (which had a number of good writers), and his Battlestar reboot shows him to be a singular talent in Hollywood.


From 2014:

"I'd love to do Star Trek again, in all honesty," Moore said. "But I also don't have a great new Star Trek idea. I'm not saying I know exactly how to do a new TV show - I don't. Maybe I shouldn't do it until I have that great epiphany!"

Click to expand...

http://www.blastr.com/2014-2-5/why-ron-moore-says-star-treks-heart-and-soul-demands-return-tv

This was Chuck Lorre's vanity card at the end of tonight's Big Bang Theory:

CHUCK LORRE PRODUCTIONS, #509

R.I.P.

Network Television

1948 - 2015
​

CBS recently announced that it was bringing back the series Star Trek, but not for the CBS network, for a streaming video on demand system called CBS All Access. In lieu of flowers, CBS has requested that mourners send them six bucks a month.

Click to expand...

Mike Frezon said:

This was Chuck Lorre's vanity card at the end of tonight's Big Bang Theory:

Click to expand...

I saw that and loved it. He's not afraid to berate his own home network.

They need to bring in Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens as producers. Great writers, they were the ones who really upped the stories on Enterprise (unfortunately, too late) and have no problem working with established cannon of Star Trek. They know Star Trek. Their bibliography says it all.

My question: is the philosophically-based Star Trek I know and love what interests the general public anymore? Yes, a small number of Trek fans would love it, but in fairness to CBS, could that kind of show survive? I personally think a hybrid of philosophy and cutting edge action could work. It's all in the writing. And with Kurtzman as the showrunner, I am worried about the writing staff he will put together.

Carabimero said:

My question: is the philosophically-based Star Trek I know and love what interests the general public anymore? Yes, a small number of Trek fans would love it, but in fairness to CBS, could that kind of show survive? I personally think a hybrid of philosophy and cutting edge action could work. It's all in the writing. And with Kurtzman as the showrunner, I am worried about the writing staff he will put together.

Click to expand...

I'd be shocked if Kurtzman was actually the showrunner when this goes to series. Of the Orci-Kurtzman pairing, Orci was the Trek fan, and I was always under the impression that Kurtzman was just along for the ride. Plus Kurtzman has major writing deals with several film studios, and is attached to several TV shows as well. I don't see him being the full time showrunner. I see him as being a guy that the studio has hired to get the show started, and once the pilot is finished, he'll probably be hands off. Much the same way that J.J. Abrams has almost no involvement with any of the shows that carry his name these days.

I guess what I am fearing is that Kurtzman puts the writing staff together. I guess the good news and the bad news is that writing staffs always evolve over the course of a series, so it's a crap shoot in any case. I just want this show to know itself in episode one and not spend half its first season groping around trying to find itself.

Bryan Fuller has been named showrunner of the new Star Trek series:

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/star-trek-bryan-fuller-showrunner-cbs-hannibal-1201700606/