I am glad Star Trek is being revived for TV. I just don't like the idea of paying for another channel one show.
As a life long fan who started out way back in 1971 by watching the first syndication run of ST:TOS on our local TV station and getting hooked big-time, I am actually surprised at myself at how little I care about this "new" series announcement. Maybe my attitude will change as we get closer to the debut episode but it seems to me that any new series will obviously be heavily influenced by the two reboot movies and while I found both enjoyable enough for what they were, I was also disappointed at how much "Star Trek " was left out of both. And I wonder if a group of producers/directors who are now fairly far removed from Gene Roddenberry's original vision can even pull off yet another TV version of Star Trek at this point. I will be thrilled to find that I am wrong however.
I couldn't have put it better myself. IIRC, Voyager started on the (then new UPN channel). I was later seen on another network (FOX I believe). If the new show is limited to CBS All Access, the ratings won't be that good. Darryl
Based on the two new movies that they did, it will be an abomination. It might be good, if they have a new ship, a new crew, and a new mission. No Kirk, No Spock, No Picard, No Data. They need something new. The only thing they should keep is "Wagon Train To The Stars."
There is no guarantee that it will be anything like the movies at this stage, especially since CBS does not have the rights to the movies. I hope not!
A number of people get confused as to where the 80s/90s STAR TREKs ran. I'll attempt to clarify. When TNG was being prepared, it was decided that instead of a traditional network, the show would air in first-run syndication. That means that any local station in any market could sign on to run the new TREK show. In many markets, that turned out to be the FOX affiliate, which results in a lot of confusion where people think the show ran on the FOX network. It didn't. It just ran on a local FOX station. In other markets it might have run on an ABC affiliate or a CBS affiliate. It just depended on which station signed up for it. There are cases too where mid-run, the show shifted from one local station to another. Next up was DS9, and it used the same model, syndicating directly to local stations. In many cases, it was the same station on which TNG ran. In other cases, it was a different local station. When VOYAGER came along, Paramount tried making its own network with VOYAGER as its crown jewel program. It scheduled the show on Wednesdays at 9 PM, IIRC. ENTERPRISE followed suit onto UPN for its four years, after which UPN fell apart and became the CW from the ashes. In Philly, where I lived during those years, the FOX affiliate aired TNG on Saturdays at 7 for the entire run. They also aired DS9 for the first few years, shoehorning it into the schedule whenever they could. As FOX 29 was very slow to add stereo, we only got all of those shows in mono. When UPN started, it went to channel 57 in Philly, previously an independent station. When VOYAGER started, this channel also picked up DS9 away from the FOX channel, who was now done with STAR TREK altogether. So on 57, we got both DS9 and VOYAGER finally in stereo sound. ENTERPRISE also ran on UPN 57, but by then, they had begun carrying sports and many times the show was preempted and run in the middle of the night - if at all. The week after ENTERPRISE aired its last episode, we got our first HDTV, so I never got to watch a live showing of an episode in HD. I have a gut feeling that much will change between now and when the next TREK is ready. The whole concept of CBS All Access may change, and if the show is at all promising, they may not relegate it to streaming only. I'm content to wait and see and if I have to stream it, so be it. Harry
I think basing it on previous characters is a mistake, as some will like that, and many will not. Why not just update the whole original "idea", and really start fresh. The last 2 movies, were not fresh, but simply recycled old characters into a Video game reality of star trek. Really do it new, and make it adult, and not relying on just flash bang stuff.
Based on the official statement, there is little doubt that the new series will feature new characters. I don't believe it will be similar to the previous two films as this will be a multi-episode yearly series as opposed to a two hour film being released every three years.
I liked the first film but had mixed emotions about the second but it seems, in discussion of the Trek films vs. the new potential TV series, the words "abomination" , video games, etc. Crops up about the current films. No one seems to look beyond the surface of the films (and there is plenty of surface that makes it appealing). As I've said in previous posts, comparing two films a part of a reboot of a franchise that had gone stale, is akin to comparing St:TNG to the original series based on the first four episodes of the series. By that definition, ST:TNG could be said to be poorly written recycling previous ideas from other shows and even racist (based on the one where the security gal,has to fight an African American gal for her "man" on alien planet). I mean, really? Abomination seems a strong word from some of the other posts. The fact is that Abrams came in combining more traditional elements of Space Opera with Star Trek (and there were strong contemporary elements of Space Opera in the original series including a healthy helping of "Forbidden Planet") reviving a moribund franchise (with help from two writers who are Trek fans one of which is working on the new series) I would hardly say they are perfect films but neither was the original series nor any of the spin offs. I mean, are we forgetting the first season of ST:TNG, episodes like "The Man Trap", "Where No Man Has Gone a Before", (both of which are fine episodes but have Space Opera elements in each) and we call the first films because they don't appeal to "our" sensibility an abomination? Really? As with any show or movie where it's an extension of a franchise, the vision will vary just as they did with the Trek films. Successful or not, there's a lot good, bad and indifference that impacts this Universe. There IS no definition of what Trek truly is for the movies as they varied depending on the writer and director and that's what made Trek special--it was flexible with a variety different subgenres mixed in with the science fiction of the series. It was always, though, about the characters, the relationship and a somewhat optimistic view of humanity's future (which is ironic given that it's sold by a corporation that is strictly for profit a different view of humanity than what Roddenberry hoped) . Usually that definition is individual for each fan of Trek where they prefer episodes with a certain tone or approach over others. Even when some of the series try and embody elements of Trek but try a different style, our inflexibility to,that differing view informs our judgment of whether or not the films, episodes or series are worthwhile. In other words, it's a matter of taste and how flexible we are to seeing each versiom of Trek. I think what we accept as Trek reflects on us as much as it does on the films or series because we reflect what we see to an extent. If the reboots had been the first Trek films I have the feeling we would see things a bit differently. Anyhow, enough of my rant.
No, not "Hatred" at all. Misguided in the attempt to solely do it in a style that they assumed would be trendy, lots of action, younger characters that could act sexual, fight, have arguments and so on. I saw it not as hatred, but a really missed opportunity to take trek deeper into a more realistic and adult science fiction drama. They went the way of just style over substance. They were moderately enjoyable movies, but really not all that much of a star trek movie really. Face it, when an average person likes it a lot, it has lost what makes it star trek. I reserve hate for much more flawed things. These were hugely wasted opportunities. I see most of the Trek movies as flawed, I disliked some of the earlier ones even more than the last two. What gets me, is that with all this knowledge of the past, and of new S.F. series, they were not able to learn to make it better. When will they actually use all of what trek could be?
A correction to my post (doing it from my iPad made it easier than seeing on my phone--the episodes mentioned for the original series were NOT on St:TNG but ST.
Thank you for that historic clarification. My experience was similar, although I can't remember the exact details on what station I watched what show. I only remember that it was frustrating, and confusing to stay on top of airings.
I've had the exact same experience. I think the bottom line here is the sheer amount of time we've been fans of Star Trek - burnout is finally catching up with us after almost 45 years.
I liked the first film, and liked the second film a lot less. I view the NuTrek films as standalone, compartmentalized adventures, much like Marvel's "What If?" comic book series of years past, or a DC Comics "Elseworlds" version of Star Trek. I'm hoping the new Star Trek series will use the past TV series and movies as they're universe, and continue that tradition, rather than following the NuTrek movie universe.
I'm with you! If this Trek isn't gonna stay on "reg-lar" CBS, screw it. I have 4 of the 5 Trek series on home video. As the years go by, I'm becoming ripe to watch them again. I might watch this new Trek someday but I'll not be streaming it.
Yeah, like everyone else I wish it were free...but if the pilot (which will air on CBS) looks promising, I don't mind shelling out (estimating here) $30 for 15 hours...like I pointed out earlier, we pay $10 (per person) for 2 hours worth in the theaters.
This was probably the funniest part of the last Big Bang Theory show. the vanity card 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.
I love Trek. My wife and I just finished watching the complete series from TOS to Voyager's last episode all back to back in chronological order. Absolutely great. I can't really imagine how they're going to spin this new series. I feel they're kind of limited in terms of what they can do. More worlds to explore, it's been done. Ship flung in a another quadrant, been done. Seeing the beginning of the federation, it's been done. having the series set another generation in the future, it's been done. Time travel, it's been done. New Enterprise ship (if that's going to be the ship in the new series), it's been done. new aliens, it's been done. The only thing that could be entertaining is actually taking the new series outside of the milky way altogether, and have it set in the Andromeda galaxy. Let's say the series takes place 200 years after the ST next generation and the federation expanded beyond the milky way and set up shop in a new galaxy. But who knows. In the end if it's Star Trek, I'll watch it regardless.
