New Star Trek TV Series Coming In 2017 (hollywoodreporter.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Star Trek is returning to television. In January, 2017, a new series will begin. The first episode will air on CBS, and subsequent episodes will appear on CBS's online platform, "All Access." "The new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966." The show will be produced by Alex Kurtzman, who produced the two recent Star Trek films in 2009 and 2013. No details have been released regarding what the show will be about, or who will star in it. CBS is currently looking for a writer to helm the show.

Comments

10 years was a decent rest

[peter303]

Running the 2nd thru 5th season in a row and overlapping probably exhausted the genre. Its had enough rest now for new ideas.

Re:10 years was a decent rest

[Tx]

It can't get any worse than Enterprise.

Then again, I thought it couldn't get any worse than Voyager, so I could be wrong.

Re:10 years was a decent rest

[__aaclcg7560]

I thought that was a rather interesting episode. You have two species of intelligent life that evolved and coexisted on the same planet, which is probably not a common occurrence in the cosmos. The species that looked down on the other species was dying out from a genetic defect. Providing a cure would only prolong the inevitable outcome by a few hundred years. This was the first episode that formed the basis for the Prime Directive to not interfere with emerging cultures.

Re:10 years was a decent rest

[MightyMartian]

No, they both sucked equally.

Re:10 years was a decent rest

[lgw]

In Enterprise, the "exploration of contemporary themes" often devolved into "dictating correct moral values through episode-end voice overs".

The beauty and genius of the original series was the way they sidestepped just that. Kirk would be forced to make some important decision of great moral consequence, and as a military leader, he'd make whatever decision made sense to him at the time and the crew would go with that. Only rarely were there even arguments over the right course of action.

What made that work so well was that they explicitly weren't presented as moral paragons. At the end of many episodes there'd be some quick conversation between Kirk and another officer or two along the lines of "Are you sure we really did the right thing there? No, but it was the best idea we had, and maybe it will work out for the best" Much less arrogant writing.

Which continuity?

[timholman]

From the article:

The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.

So will this show be set in the original TOS / TNG / DS9 continuity, or in the Abrams continuity?

Lots of plusses and minuses either way.

Trek is ABOUT Social Justice Warrioring

[Etherwalk]

Star Trek still exists because the original series was all about social justice. The original series was a commentary on society as much as it was science fiction.

Let This Be Your Last Battlefield.

TOS wasn't pro-hippie in that it recognized the importance of duty and responsibility and the complexities of life, but it was pro-equality, pro-egalitarian, anti-discriminatory.

Re:Trek is ABOUT Social Justice Warrioring

[Actually, I do RTFA]

e. It was basically Roddenberry's idealistic version of the USA in space. I mean, come on, the starship was named after one of the most staunchly pro-capitalist concepts ever.

Well, it's set in a post-scarcity communist utopia .The bridge crew was expressly made up of Americans, Russians and Japanese people in an era when fighting the "Japs" was a recent memory and the Russians were the new enemy, in a direct appeal to get over our differences. It featured the first inter-racial kiss as though black people and white people could get along (in spite of the still existent legal segregation). The one guy who was racist was shown as anachronistic.

But yeah, if you ignore everything and focus on the starship name, totally a paean to America!

Better idea ...

[BarbaraHudson]

Why not skip YASTS (Yet another star treck series) and bring back Firefly?

I don't give a crap...until it hits DVD

[anyaristow]

I will not check out CBS's "online platform".

I will not jump through hoops to see programming. I will not sign up for multiple entertainment services and take on yet more monthly bills. I will not tolerate piss-poor streaming quality. I most especially will not tolerate incessant advertising, even if the service is free. *Especially* if it is free.

We have reached the point where the number of entertainment choices, the un-originality of them, the hoops and interruptions and surveillance they come with, has reduced their value to next to nothing. What we need is fewer sources, not more. We need aggregators, like cable TV services with on-demand access, at fair prices, with actual competition and no sports channel taxes.

Netflix is the best we have, but they are moving in the wrong direction, increasing prices so they can offer their own programming. They don't have an ESPN tax, but they do have a Orange-is-the-new-black tax. And their selection isn't awesome and isn't timely or even stable.

I won't see the new Trek until it has been out on DVD long enough to drop in price, a lot, because I hate even the ads they sometimes put on DVD, so I won't pay more than $17 for a season of television programming.

Or maybe Netflix will pick it up and I'll get to see it before they drop it...and re-add it...and drop it... and...

Screw it. All this wonderful technology the 21st century has brought us has pretty much been squandered by shitty business models and fucking shareholder value.