Paramount+ Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread (4 Viewers)

[joshEH]

Fuller be like:

Losing Bryan Fuller is awful enough, but bringing Akiva Goldsman into the fold drags it down into a whole new chasm of fuckery. What, they didn't see that Uwe Boll just freed up his schedule?

It's a joke. Like, I'm not even sure if we could come up with something this bad if we were just drunk-bullshitting and throwing out awful theoretical scenarios that would make Discovery terrible. "Haha, can you imagine if they booted Bryan Fuller and brought in Akiva Goldsman??" / "... Actually, no."

I feel so weird for giving absolutely zero shits about American Gods. I love Fuller, I like the concept of the book (the book itself is weak sauce -- very "lesser" Gaiman), and the cast is incredibly promising. But I would trade every episode of American Gods that ever gets made for Fuller's Star Trek: Discovery.

As far as we know, he's in the writer's room. I was under the impression that he wrote episode two, but the above articles seem to contradict that. But I don't think he was ever intended to be the showrunners or the chief voice in there. Frankly, this seemed a little more like a paycheck job than a passion project for him - not that there's anything wrong with that, but if he wasn't considered the guiding voice on this show from the start, I don't think they're looking for him to fill that role now.

Right, I just meant that more in the sense that, with Fuller out, Meyer is sort of the remaining glue left that's keeping my interest alive.

If Bryan Fuller had announced that he was simply boosting the creative role of his pilot co-writer Nicholas Meyer in place of Akiva effing Goldsman (not even necessarily making him a showrunner), they could have turned this relatively-bleak news into a positive new development for the show.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

As I said earlier, I think Kurtzman is bringing in Goldsman because they worked well together on Fringe, which happens to be a show I really like.

Goldsman is a terrible screenwriter in my view, but it's entirely possible that he's merely delivered the scripts he was contracted to write. If the directors were happy, the blame could be as much theirs as anyone else's. But his work on Fringe was good.

The show long term may be better off without the cult of personality that seems to follow Fuller. People seem to expect a Bryan Fuller show to be a Bryan Fuller show first and foremost, and then whatever else it's supposed to be as a secondary thing. I never much cared for his previous work so his hiring didn't excite me. None of the ideas about the new show revealed at the Star Trek Mission convention appealed to me, and they were Fuller's ideas. Losing him doesn't bother me in the slightest.

What bothers me is that the studio seems to have no clue what they're doing and are blowing very simple things. Didn't the article say that Fuller left because the studio was dragging its feet? Why on earth is the studio dragging its feet? That's the problem.

Nick Meyer has said (in the context of discussion STII) that art thrives on limitations. I think these guys need to be on a network, with a date and an episode schedule to match, so they can just go and start making this thing. Deadlines are good. Being forced to deliver a product every week is generally good. This freedom of being digital only where there's no expected start time and no rules isn't helping. I think if they had a date they couldn't miss, they'd step up and deliver - some of these problems may be from having had too much time and not enough structure.

 

[joshEH]

^ Although, to be sure, Fringe was pretty much run by other people more tied to the main creative-thrust than by Goldsman himself. His possibly-peripheral "consultant" role there doesn't come close to getting him out of the doghouse for Batman & Robin, Lost In Space, A Beautiful Mind, and his own pet project Winter's Tale.

Everything he has written independently on his own is just the absolute worst. Hopefully he can work with the other writers to produce something that transcends this previous track-record.

 

[Nelson Au]

Hey Josh, I was curious about your take on this news since you attened that Discovery panel at the convention and got to see what they were going to talk about.

I looked up Bryan Fuller's IMDB and was surprised he was a later fan, not from the TOS era but DS9. Nothing wrong with that. I just had the wrong impression.

I liked his Pushing Daiseys series but haven't seen his other works outside of Star Trek. He does express similar frustration Ron Moore did about working in the Star atrek universe where situations ended being reset by the end of the episode. So I agree I'm not all that sad Fuller is out as the daily show runner as I am not that invested in his work.

It does look like a somewhat dim way to start off a flagship series for the All Access service.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The problem is that A Beautiful Mind won him the Oscar, so he's forever an Academy Award winning writer with all of the credibility that comes with that.

I can't really blame him for Batman & Robin - it's pretty much a beat-by-beat remake of his earlier Batman Forever, and undoubtedly what Joel Schumacher asked for.

To me, he's kind of in the same category as a David Koepp - a guy who directors love working with and who gives them exactly what they ask for. I can't really blame Koepp for movies I don't like anymore. If there's a problem with a Steven Spielberg movie, or another big name director, it's on the director with final cut and full say over the project. Goldsman, like Koepp, works on those kinds of projects.

I get where you're coming from, but the problems with this show seem to be at the conception level - Goldsman will execute the concepts Fuller's leaving behind, and I don't have much faith in those concepts to begin with. An entire series of Lower Decks? Oh boy, I can't wait for a show where we follow junior grade officers who have no control over the mission or direction of the story. The reason having a captain at the center of the shows and movies works so well is that we're spending time with people who can drive the narrative forward. With the "Lower Decks" concept, that makes everything far too passive to me - our lead will be someone who reacts to situations outside their making instead of driving the story forward, and I don't think there's a writer on the planet that could fix that flawed concept.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The interesting thing about Alex Kurtzman as primary showrunner is that I'm not sure he's ever served in that capacity before. He co-created "Fringe" and co-wrote the pilot, but Jeff Pinkner took over as showrunner when the show went to series, and he never wrote another episode after the first season. Similar deal with "Sleepy Hollow"; he co-created it and co-wrote the pilot, but Mark Goffman became showrunner when FOX took it to series and he stopped writing for it after the first season. Same deal applies with the "Hawaii Five-0" reboot; he co-wrote the pilot and a handful of first season episode, but someone else (Peter M. Lenkov, in that case) stepped in as showrunner.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yeah, I agree that it's an interesting wrinkle. And from what I remember from the Trek '09 bonus material, Kurtzman wasn't even a Trek guy - he did it because his then writing partner, Roberto Orci, was. I would have understood hiring Orci but I haven't really understood the hiring of Kurtzman from day one. Not that I object to it, but it seemed less than obvious to me.

Kurtzman strikes me as an Abrams-type - lend your name to the first episode, give a pep talk to the writers room, hand it off, and let the studio pay for your name for advertising. JJ Abrams has almost nothing to do with any of the shows that bear his name and I expected this to be the same. (The downside to this type of producing is that the name means nothing to me anymore - I've liked movies that Abrams has directed, and Kurtzman has written, but since I know they don't actually do anything on the shows with their names attached, their names being there isn't enough to get me to watch.)

 

[joshEH]

Should we be worried about Kurtzman? I have no way of really judging Kurtzman's work on his own, because just about all of it is paired up with Orci. It should probably be reiterated, though, that Kurtzman is the guy who actually sought out Fuller, and has since hired a lot of very reputable writers onto the staff. When the first news of this show involved him as a producer, I was very skeptical, but that quickly faded once more names got involved. I assumed he was really just going to take a more-managerial role rather than a creative one, given the amount of projects he's been building up under his own production company.

Until the show debuts, I'm not gonna be too worried about Kurtzman.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Nah, I wouldn't worry about Kurtzman too much. The knock I was giving him about quickly leaving projects is a reflection on his style of working in the past, but not the work itself. (It disappoints me, for instance, that Abrams jumps ship on things so quickly because I like him, and I think some of the projects he's lent his name to have suffered for his absence.)

But anyway, I think Kurtzman will be fine. I think people who were hoping for an all science, all talk, no violence or spectacle Trek may be disappointed with his selection - but they would have complained about his involvement already. I think some Trek fans were hoping for a show that was nothing at all like the new movies, and in the year 2016, I'm not sure that's a realistic hope. This new show will almost certainly feature more effects and stunts than any previous Trek show, in no small part because that's what modern TV looks like.

At the Star Trek Mission convention, someone asked how the new show would compare to the previous shows, saying that they loved all previous Trek series but hated the new movies, and asked if she could expect the new show to not be anything like the new movies but instead more of a clone of what's come before. And Meyer quipped "lower your expectations" - which got a nice laugh from everyone but the lady who asked the question. But he then went on to explain that for the show to be any good, Meyer had to focus on telling a good story and not just hitting checkboxes on everyone's lists. He said that if either he or we came in loaded with preconceived notions of what it "had" to be, it would be a lot harder to enjoy. And I get what he's saying and for the most part I agree. Maybe that's part why of why I like the new movies more than a lot of old school fans.

Despite my reservations, I think the show could be good. The design of the ship doesn't really matter in the end if the story is good. I could be wrong about their idea to focus on non-command characters - maybe it'll be great. (For example, The West Wing is a show more about White House staff than the presidency itself, and that show didn't suffer for that. So a show on a starship where the captain is only a minor character could still work.) I just think they need to get started. Enough navel gazing. Enough spitballing in the writers room. Get started. Find out what you have. See what works and doesn't, what clicks and what's best left behind. Worked for TNG and DS9 - they all started as one thing and quickly evolved into something better. But I think they just need to stop waiting around and get moving.

One other this, apropos of nothing - Meyer said he missed appointment TV. Being on the payroll, he wasn't gonna say he hated this digital only idea, but he thinks we're losing something as a culture when you can log into Netflix and get an entire new season dumped into your lap at once instead of having to wait from week to week and watch it as part of a collective audience. I agree completely. I think this will premiere week to week instead of all at once, which is good, but I think if you got Meyer off the record he'd probably say it belongs on real broadcast TV.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Well said Josh. I think the West Wing comparison is apt.

Also, people shouldn't throw the show in the garbage if they don't like the first few episodes or think they fall short of perfection. It took TNG 20-30 episodes to be consistently good, and the road to get there in S1 especially is often terrible episodes and character writing. Sometimes good can come out of imperfect beginnings.

As for the shifting role of Fuller - if he's so distracted as to possibly delay the start of the series again I don't blame CBS one bit for getting the ball rolling. As Josh says sometimes you gotta get into production and find what works best not just on the page but between the cast and the vibe of the show. TNG would have never figured out how good the Worf Klingon episodes would eventually become based on their pre-production ideas, for example.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I thought - and please correct me if I misread - that Fuller left because he had other commitments and couldn't continue to wait as CBS kept delaying. I didn't think Fuller was the cause of the delay, but rather, the delay caused the show to go past the time that Fuller had alotted for spending on it.

So if I'm not misunderstanding, my question remains, why is CBS dragging their heels on this? A show announced in 2015 shouldn't have an issue making a 2017 premiere!

 

[Brandon Conway]

Variety stated it was CBS getting frustrated with Fuller's schedule slowing the process down:

"Sources said there had been some strain between “Star Trek” producer CBS Television Studios and Fuller over the progress of production on the show, as Fuller is also juggling the final weeks of shooting and post-production duties on Starz’s upcoming drama “American Gods” and prepping a reboot of “Amazing Stories” for NBC. Fuller has penned the first two scripts for “Discovery” and has hammered out the broader story arc and mythology for the new “Trek” realm. But it became clear that he couldn’t devote the amount of time needed for “Discovery” to make its premiere date and with production scheduled to start in Toronto next month."

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thanks Brandon! And if that's the case, I'm 100% behind getting rid of Fuller. The last thing the new show needs is someone in charge who can't devote time to the project but won't let anyone else proceed either.

 

[Sam Favate]

CBS apparently doesn't think a Star Trek series could survive on network television:

CBS Interactive CEO Jim Lanzone told Recode Media that even if the CBS All-Access platform has only moderate success, it still eclipses their expectations for Discovery having succeeded on CBS proper:

Sci-fi is not something that has traditionally done really well on broadcast. It’s not impossible, for the future, if somebody figures it out. And things like LOST and Heroes have had parts of sci-fi, but historically, a show like Star Trek wouldn’t necessarily be a broadcast show, at this point. So, you kind-of look at the other networks we might have, The CW and Showtime, it just fit the digital audience. And it’s something unique for All-Access that would bring subscribers.

http://screencrush.com/star-trek-discovery-cbs-all-access-explanation/?trackback=fbshare_top

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I guess I must've imagined that three of the last four Trek series ran on broadcast television for seven years apiece.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Based on Star Trek's solid 50-year history of exclusive, paid streaming over the Internet with commercials included, I am forced to bow to the infallible logic put forth by CBS.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

To a point, I can understand their reasoning. Look at the numbers the last two shows actually brought in - on a minor network that ended up getting sucked into another minor (although, now maintaining a better position) network.

Somehow, I just don't see a weekly Star Trek show drawing the kinds of numbers that it would need to stay on CBS. As it is, interest seems to wax and wane, even among fans, over every little tid-bit of production information that comes out that could sound like things are not going well.

It probably could do well on the CW today, but that network is already crammed with stuff between the DC and supernatural shows, including... well... Supernatural.

Still, I won't be subscribing even if it wins Emmy's

 

[Brandon Conway]

Most modern great TV shows - the ones with the freedom to take bold directions and also cater to their main viewers - are not on network television. Most great TV shows these days are on basic or pay cable channels and have shorter seasons, eliminating the need for filler episodes. The pay cable and streaming service shows in particular don't need to follow the 7-act network drama formula or specific time constraints, which opens up a lot more possibilities for the writers on how to shape the scenes.

In a way this is like TNG being first-run syndication in 1987 - not beholden to the normal network mandates of its time.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

I guess I must've imagined that three of the last four Trek series ran on broadcast television for seven years apiece.

To be fair, TNG and DS9 were in syndication, and Voyager and Enterprise were on UPN, which only technically qualified as a network.

Still, it was a stupid comment by the CBS guy. Voyager was pulling in 4.5 to 5 million viewers a week on UPN, and if Enterprise had survived an extra season, it would have been the highest rated show on the new CW... the same CW which is now Superhero central, which is just sci-fi for people who don't want to think too much.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Most modern great TV shows - the ones with the freedom to take bold directions and also cater to their main viewers - are not on network television. Most great TV shows these days are on basic or pay cable channels and have shorter seasons, eliminating the need for filler episodes. The pay cable and streaming service shows in particular don't need to follow the 7-act network drama formula or specific time constraints, which opens up a lot more possibilities for the writers on how to shape the scenes.

In a way this is like TNG being first-run syndication in 1987 - not beholden to the normal network mandates of its time.

I can't really argue with any of that, and there are times when such an approach can be beneficial. But I think we're also losing something by discarding the entire structure that's worked for the history of television. I find the commercial-free shows that run on networks like HBO to all suffer from dreadful pacing issues, and it gets worse when they don't feel constrained to stay within an hour time limit for supposedly hour long series. The pacing just never feels right to me, and even shows with premises that I like I end up losing interest in.

Nick Meyer loves to say that "art thrives on limitations" and I think the limitations of broadcast television have led to some amazing shows over the years. I'm not sure that the limit-free environment of premium cable (or online streaming) has given us enough to justify throwing out the broadcast model once and for all. And I think there's a place for streaming services and premium cable. But I think it's also kinda sad that Star Trek, which used to be available free to anyone with a television, is now going to be only for the tech savvy and the wealthy. The same thing essentially happened when Sesame Street moved from PBS to HBO. For people who already have HBO, it's not a big deal, but it kinda helps guarantee that people will no longer just stumble on the programming, that they'll have to go sign up for it and look for it and pay extra for it. I don't think that's a good development. The best Star Trek stories are for everyone, and this new arrangement all but guarantees that these new episodes won't be.