'Star Trek: Discovery' Gets September Premiere Date On CBS & CBS All Access, Season 1 Split In Two (deadline.com)

Nellie Andreeva, writing for Deadline: Star Trek: Discovery will debut Sunday, September 24, with a special broadcast premiere on the CBS TV network airing 8:30-9:30 PM. The first as well as the second episode of the sci-fi series will be available on-demand on CBS All Access immediately following the broadcast premiere, with subsequent new episodes released on All Access each Sunday. Originally slated for a January 2017 premiere, Star Trek: Discovery's debut was first pushed to May and then to fall 2017. At CBS' upfront presentation, the company announced that Star Trek: Discovery's first-season order had been increased from 13 to 15 episodes. The expanded season now will be split into two. The first eight episodes will run Sundays from September 24 through November 5. The season then will resume with the second chapter in January 2018. The break also will allow the show more time for postproduction on latter episodes.

Comments

Captain's Log, Stardate 43125.8

[Anonymous Coward]

We have entered a spectacular binary star system in the Kavis Alpha sector. Doesn't this asshole star realize gender isn't binary?

Re:Captain's Log, Stardate 43125.8

[Anonymous Coward]

The star is what the star CHOOSES to be.

Re:Captain's Log, Stardate 43125.8

[Anonymous Coward]

No! Give them all psychotectic treatment!

(Possibly also put Riker away just in case. His sexiness might be at the root of these problems.)

Re:Captain's Log, Stardate 43125.8

[Anonymous Coward]

All star systems will now need to have at least 37 stars. When referencing one of those stars you can't make assumptions about which of the 37 it is.

Re:Captain's Log, Stardate 43125.8

[Anonymous Coward]

Captain Snowflake and Number One its transvestite bottom bitch
  - that's pretty funny

Re:Captain's Log, Stardate 43125.8

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

+1. When the focus becomes preaching an agenda, instead of telling good stories, then it'll fail.

Yet another trek

[XXongo]

Hmm. Cautious optimism on this one.

I hated the Abrams movies, but looks like they're avoiding that direction. The question for me is, is there really anything left that's new to say in the way of Star Trek stories, or will they just recycle old stories with new spiffy efffects.

Re:Yet another trek

[93 Escort Wagon]

The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

Re:Yet another trek

[MBGMorden]

People have been asking "have all the good stories already been told" for centuries, yet new ground continues to be broken.

"Star Trek" is merely a starting point - and a limited one at that given that this is a brand new series. I'm sure they've got plenty of opportunity for good stores. That doesn't mean they'll deliver - it could be crap - but the chance is there.

Then again I've always been of the opinion that even bad sci-fi can still be worth watching. I actually mildly enjoyed watching Andromeda . . .

Re:Yet another trek

[cayenne8]

Yeah...

I wish CBS would get on the ball and put their channel On Demand stuff like the rest of the networks like ABC, NBC have, on the existing streaming services like Playstation VUE...Sling, DirectTVNOW...etc

I"m certainly NOT going to pay extra $6 just to get them on there, not worth it.

Re:Yet another trek

[Applehu Akbar]

The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

Especially if you already have CBS in your cable tier. That's why when I come back from the road to find I have missed a CBS episode, I have to Kodi it instead of being able to watch it on CBS streaming.

Re:Yet another trek

[k6mfw]

yet new ground continues to be broken.

maybe I'm too lazy to watch any new stuff, some of it I just don't get (maybe I'm too old). It seems to me when Roddenberry came up with his ST idea, it was new stuff. Space travel was new, having a command staff where not everyone is a white guy whose native language is english was new.

Previous decades the big thing for TV and movies was westerns. Someone wrote in 1957 TV Guide there are only seven plots to a western. I wonder for space stuff, how many plots?

Re:Yet another trek

[MightyMartian]

When I rewatched Enterprise (or rather rewatched the first two and a half seasons and the rest of season 3 and 4 that I had simply abandoned), I found, quite sadly, that there were some rather good episodes, and some of the best came in the last season after the production team and writers clearly knew the show was dead. But it's always about two things; does the crew jive with the audience, and is there enough good stories to outweigh the bad ones?

Obviously there are going to be rehashings, that's sort of inevitable consider the sheer volume of Trek episodes and movies out there, but if they can find a new angle then even a rehashed story can become interesting.

I'll say this about it. Star Trek Continues has demonstrated how good writing and a love for the source material can produce some outstanding SciFi, so if some fans working with fundraised cash can put together some pretty goddamned good science fiction episodes, surely a big studio can do the same if it wants to.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

The abrams movies weren't star trek, they were just shitty action movies with star trek character names and branding. they litterally through all of star trek in the garbage to create that steaming pile.

Re:Yet another trek

[jsm300]

Actually, I'm fine with what they are doing, although I don't think it is the smart thing for them to do. I think they are gambling that people will want to see each episode as soon as it comes out, and therefore will be pay the monthly fee for a while. But I think this plan of theirs is going to backfire. People who are willing to take chances will be more likely to just download it from various torrent sites rather than pay a montly subscription. I prefer to remain legal, but I'm also patient. I would have been willing to pay $20-$30 to buy a season pass to all the episodes. Instead I'll wait for the finish of the season, subscribe for one month, and watch all the episodes within that month. So they'll only get $5.99 from me (I may pay $9.99 for the commercial free subscription), which I consider a bargain.

Re:Yet another trek

[omnichad]

It's free to air in the US.

Re:Yet another trek

[93 Escort Wagon]

I believe that's only the pilot episode.

Re:Yet another trek

[Known Nutter]

I wonder for space stuff, how many plots?

42.

Re:Yet another trek

[EvilSS]

The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

Well if you are patient you don't have to pay anything (and can still be 'legal' about it). Just wait for the season to wrap up in winter 2018 and sign up for a free 7 day trial. Binge the show that week, cancel, then next year do the same thing with a new email address.

OK that last part might be a bit sketchy, but still...

Re:Yet another trek

[sconeu]

I though there were 6 type A subplots and 9 type B sublots, so to get one of each in your story. You therefore multiply six by nine to get the total.

Re:Yet another trek

[omnichad]

That won't go over very well... But if the pilot's good, I'll catch it when it makes it to Prime or Netflix in the US maybe 5 years from now. I'm in no rush.

Re:Yet another trek

[omnichad]

On the other hand, I could probably wait until the end of the second part of the season to sign up for a free trial and watch it all in one go.

At worst, I pay $5.99 - not much more than a movie rental before I cancel.

Re:Yet another trek

[x0ra]

or just wait 24h and go on any streaming sites.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Time will tell, if these Star Treks are also ruined by lens flares and jumping cameras.

Re:Yet another trek

[x0ra]

don't worry, there's gonna be a fat black three-legged otherkin as Captain.

Re:Yet another trek

[Oligonicella]

Read some scifi. They've **always** be rehashed stories from before.

Re:Yet another trek

[Rick Schumann]

The phrase I coined to refer to that is 'Star Trek-flavored movies'. Artificially flavored, of course. With sucralose.

Re:Yet another trek

[zlives]

i am sure they have forseen this and will only allow you to watch 1 episode a month
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Re:Yet another trek

[Strider-]

maybe I'm too lazy to watch any new stuff, some of it I just don't get (maybe I'm too old). It seems to me when Roddenberry came up with his ST idea, it was new stuff. Space travel was new, having a command staff where not everyone is a white guy whose native language is english was new.

Other than its progressive surface and the fact that it was in space, TOS really wasn't much more than a spaghetti western, in space. It was pretty much just an action series, with the bad guy of the week, and pretty much completely episodic. People forget that, and imho, the Abrams moves are a return to what Trek originally was.

It wasn't until TNG and the later movies that things started to become pseudo-philosophical and the like, with the long drawn out conversations around conference tables and what not.

Re:Yet another trek

[EvilSS]

or just wait 24h and go on any streaming sites.

(and can still be 'legal' about it)

Re: Yet another trek

[Registered Coward v2]

Roddenberry wasn't really original beyond taking place in space. It is was Wagon Train to the Stars in concept, not exactly a new idea. What he did was do it better once he got past the bug of the month.

Re:Yet another trek

[AmiMoJo]

You could wait for it to finish and then watch it all in one month for $6. Or just pirate it. If you weren't going to pay anyway then they didn't lose anything.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Go watch the TOS movies. I'd say rewatch, but you clearly never watched them.

Re:Yet another trek

[Grishnakh]

Yep, I found the same when I watched Enterprise for the first time several years ago; it had some really good episodes. The best ones were in seasons 2 and 4. Season 3 was annoying however because of the whole Xindi arc which was obviously inspired by 9/11 and brought in a bunch of militarism that was absent in the first 2 seasons. And season 4 had an excellent 2-part set of episodes set in the Mirror Universe, which BTW had an excellent intro (unlike the rest of the Enterprise show; the opening intro and theme song were easily the worst part of the entire show).

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, this will also be available on several free streaming sites...I am not paying ONE RED CENT to watch this...I don't care HOW good it is.

Re:Yet another trek

[MightyMartian]

That's one of the worst parts of Enterprise. That bad Rod Stewart-imitation theme song was just terrible, and the "remix" somehow found a way to make it worse. They could have taken any of the action incidental music and patched together a better theme song.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Enterprise was my favorite of all the Treks, and it got really good in the last season, especially with the Andorians. Some of the earlier stuff, though, like the desert warfare episode and the prison episode, were pretty good. They let a lot of the plot strings just flap in the wind, though: the terrorists from the first season or two were forgotten once the Xindi arrived, and then the mysterious time travel stuff never went anywhere.

Honestly, though, the Canadian Trek, Andromeda, was better than any of the US Treks. The Magog resemble the original ideas for Vulcans (demonic features - Spock was originally red), the Nietzscheans combine Klingon brutality with philosophy, the Systems Commonwealth is the Federation, and it falls utterly instead of always being saved in the nick of time.

Re: Yet another trek

[k6mfw]

hey, that would be Westerns Plot #1 by Frank Gruber: "1. THE UNION PACIFIC STORY. Into this classification fall all stories that have to do with the construction of a railroad, telegraph, or stage-coach line. Stories of wagon trains crossing the plains and mountains, accounts of building toll roads, also come into this grouping."

Re: Yet another trek

[JackieBrown]

Lol. I plan on pirating it but even I'm not so naive to act like that doesn't cost them anything.

I can't remember the last time I picked up a TV series box set which I used to do quite often.

If the Star trek show looks good (and isn't ridiculously priced like the previous treks) I would have eventually impulsed bought it.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Andromeda was, on some levels, far better than Trek. Once you get beyond the adolescent sexual themes, Andromeda actually has philosophy and depth that Trek can't even rival. Andromeda got me reading Nietzsche in German again. I never read anything because of Trek.

Re:Yet another trek

[nitehawk214]

Most of the first season of TNG was recycled scripts from TOS or abandoned scripts from the cancelled TOS Phase 2. And most of the first season of TNG was kind of bad.

I realize that both the public and executives have no tolerance for a slow start, and writing has greatly improved over the years... but it is what it is.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

The question for me is, is there really anything left that's new to say in the way of Star Trek stories

They keep going back before the events described in Voyager with new shows, but what about going forward to a time that has intersected with both the Voyager and Enterprise timelines? Does anyone else remember Captain Braxton from the 29th century or Agent Daniels from the 31st? Think of what they could do with a small crew on a Relativity class time ship enforcing the Temporal Prime Directive or perhaps the temporal agents of the 31st century who are so advanced that they can transport anywhere without the need for a ship. They could go anywhere in the galaxy at any time, opening up many new possibilities and story lines. They could spend more time developing the early stages of the Temporal Cold War, before it intersected with the events described in Enterprise. The Sphere Builders suffered a setback in Enterprise, but surely they could return to menace the galaxy once more. A faction of the Na'kuhl were defeated, but what about the rest of that race? And what about Future Guy? Surely we haven't seen the last of him. There needs to be a show covering the adventures of the temporal agents from the future. It would make for some really different takes on what Star Trek is and where it could go.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

i am sure they have forseen this and will only allow you to watch 1 episode a month

Perhaps, but you will only "discover" this after you've paid, doh!

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

The abrams movies weren't star trek, they were just shitty action movies with star trek character names and branding.

Precisely. The studio execs don't understand Star Trek. They never have and they never will. Any production of Star Trek without somebody who understands what makes it great in the captain's chair, so to speak, is doomed to failure.

they litterally through all of star trek in the garbage to create that steaming pile.

And we thought Rick Berman was bad before Abrams came along and showed us just how awful he could make it. Made the Berman years look like a golden age by way of comparison.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Special effects are expensive. Philosophy is cheap. Ask anyone with a degree in philosophy.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to see them explore the dyson sphere or encounter a ringworld..

Captcha: Wanderer

Re:Yet another trek

[rtb61]

Nearly every TV series for decades has been recycled ideas, by far the bulk of it. It doesn't matter whether or not it is recycled it matters, whether they a good stories told well. Jar Jar Abrams efforts were bad because they were stupid stories, told poorly but hey all the second set actions scenes were great even if they made no sense what so ever (Jar Jar ain't the bright, so stories are definitely not his forte but his action scenes are OK). Like most Sci Fi we can expect some good episodes and some crap episodes, the only thing is this case is Vulcan around or not and does anyone care.

Re:Yet another trek

[dave420]

Streaming is legal in many countries.

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

The phrase I coined to refer to that is 'Star Trek-flavored movies'. Artificially flavored, of course. With sucralose.

And lense flare(tm)

Re:Yet another trek

[rsmith-mac]

The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

Heck, it's not even paying that's the problem. It's that I'm paying for a subscription TV streaming service, so when that subscription lapses, I have nothing.

In the era of iTunes/Amazon/Google where I can buy a season pass for a couple of bucks an episode and go back and watch it any time I want, a subscription streaming service doesn't bring much to the table. I'll pay once, but I'm not going to pay twice.

Re:Yet another trek

[jowifi]

That assumes they leave the entire season up instead of doing something like only keeping the last five episode available.

Re:Yet another trek

[Oswald McWeany]

The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

Please don't. Wait patiently like the rest of us for the day it gets on Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu.

I really don't want the balkanization of online content to occur. Pretty soon it's going to cost just as much to watch internet TV as cable TV because every show worth watching is going to be on a different provider.

I'm hoping enough people hold off buying into CBS's venture online so it crashes and burns and they put stuff on Hulu like all the other networks.

I really want to watch this new Star Trek, but won't as long as it's on a CBS private access channel.

Re:Yet another trek

[Oswald McWeany]

If he lived outside the US he could watch it on Netflix. It's only in the US where CBS is punishing the consumer with this annoying private channel. Rest of the world gets it on Netflix.

Re:Yet another trek

[EvilSS]

Streaming is legal in many countries.

Not in the US, and if OP isn't in the US then why bother worrying about paying CBS All Access to watch the show, which isn't available outside the US.

Re:Yet another trek

[DarthVain]

Even more modern bad science fiction. Saw an ad for the new season of Killjoys... Looks horrible. I'll probably still watch it however. I even managed to slog my way though The Chronicles Shannara, and I'll probably do it again when the new season comes out. While Dark Matter isn't terrible, it isn't exactly top shelf either and I watch that also. The Expanse is probably the only really good science fiction television out there (although there are some Netflix series out there that look promising that I haven't watched yet). I think part of it is just like movies (though lately that has changed a bit) there is usually not a whole lot to really pick from, so if you really enjoy science fiction you watch all of it anyway if only because there are not a lot of options out there anyway (other than re-runs of old shows).

Anyway I'm looking forward to the new Star Trek, though I guess you could also say, any new Star Trek...

Oh forgot about Westworld, which was also very good and I look forward to more. Also all the Walking Dead stuff and Gotham, but then you start stretching the definitions of "science fiction" a bit. Give me some good old space ship type science fiction any day. Oh there was also the short lived show about the generational ship that left in the 50's, I also liked that, though I can't remember what it was called off hand or if it was ever coming back (probably not)...

Re:Yet another trek

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...

I wish CBS would get on the ball and put their channel On Demand stuff like the rest of the networks like ABC, NBC have, on the existing streaming services like Playstation VUE...Sling, DirectTVNOW...etc

I"m certainly NOT going to pay extra $6 just to get them on there, not worth it.

IIRC, they made a deal with Netflix. Maybe that's not the only deal as well.

Re:Yet another trek

[Rakarra]

Yeah...

I wish CBS would get on the ball and put their channel On Demand stuff like the rest of the networks like ABC, NBC have, on the existing streaming services like Playstation VUE...Sling, DirectTVNOW...etc

The networks are fighting to stay networks. They want one series to drive traffic for other series like NBC used to with their Must-See-Thursday lineup with three top-10 hit series: Friends at 8pm, a new show at 8:30pm, Seinfeld at 9pm, a new show at 9:30pm, and ER at 10pm. Networks desperately want that formula back, or at least be able to do something similar. They want one show's popularity to prop up their network and gain viewers for other shows they might not have considered.

Viewers care about this less and less now. They've always hated cable package bundling, where to subscribe to network A, they have to subscribe to X, Y, and Z as well, which they don't want. The networks grudging gave in to the 'a la carte' model, but now viewers want even more freedom, they want to subscribe to -shows-, not networks, and networks fight that a lot harder. The marginal benefit to ME for subscribing to a network rather than a single show is zero. The marginal benefit to the network for me subscribing to a whole network is much, much more. Different networks fight this to a certain degree. AMC seems pretty good; I can stream Breaking Bad and the Walking Dead on Netflix. On the other extreme, HBO wants to stay HBO, and they don't allow their shows to be seen without an HBO subscription. That's why Game of Thrones was so heavily pirated.

I anticipate that Star Trek: Discovery will overtake Game of Thrones as the most pirated TV show. No one will like paying $6/month for this one damned show.

Re:Yet another trek

[Rakarra]

Interesting. Star Trek pilot episodes have tended not to be representative of the quality of the series.

Re:Yet another trek

[Rakarra]

I really don't want the balkanization of online content to occur.

It's already occurred, you just mentioned "Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu." You can add HBO to that list too. I don't want to dish out that much money for all that. That's nuts.

Re:Yet another trek

[Rakarra]

That's one of the worst parts of Enterprise. That bad Rod Stewart-imitation theme song was just terrible, and the "remix" somehow found a way to make it worse. They could have taken any of the action incidental music and patched together a better theme song.

Orchestral themes rarely feel dated. You can bring something from a few hundred years ago and maybe with a small reworking, it can feel 'timeless.' Same thing for just about any Jerry Goldsmith composition. The last thing you want from your sci-fi series theme is to make it instantly dated. To give it whatever tune your producer was into that day. Especially if it's a bland "oldy" that already sounds like something most of society left behind. The only time I can recall this working was with Firefly, and that's because they were going specifically for a western feel, not a science fiction atmosphere.

Re:Yet another trek

[Rakarra]

The abrams movies weren't star trek, they were just shitty action movies with star trek character names and branding. they litterally through all of star trek in the garbage to create that steaming pile.

Hey, they were a big step up in quality from Star Trek: Insurrection and Star Trek: Nemesis. Star Trek was old and TIRED at that point, and it needed a shot of energy if the franchise was ever going to survive.

Re:Yet another trek

[Methadras]

What should have happened was that the franchise should have gone forward into the future, say 500 - 800 years or so. Have maybe the descendants of prior Star Trek heroes in the show. Show a federation that is basically galactic in scope with alliances with the Borg and new technology like taking a Borg transgalactic hub and positioning it around Sagitarrius A as means to power it and transwarp speeds are no longer confined to ships, but now extend to people. Literally people can walk into portal doorways from one end of the galaxy to the next. You can make it so that the latest antagonists actually come from The Large Magellenic cloud and have found a way to tap into the hub system and invade into Milky Way space. But nope, it's back to the future.

Re:Yet another trek

[Agripa]

That assumes they leave the entire season up instead of doing something like only keeping the last five episode available.

Damn, and I was hoping they would all be available on Bittorrent but if only the last five are, then I guess I will have to subscribe to CBS' fiasco of a streaming service.

Star Trek fan but...

[aicrules]

I would love to watch this series...but the hell I'm not gonna subscribe to another service to do it...so I guess I don't really want to watch it.

Re:Star Trek fan but...

[registrations_suck]

Yep. It's bad enough they've more or less gone full-blow with the PC route. But to expect me to a). Pay to watch it, and b). Watch it one week at a time is just too much. I MIGHT watch it if you put it on a service I am already paying for (that would be Amazon Prime) AND if you make all episodes available at once (i.e. such as the Netflix House of Cards approach). Otherwise, CBS can just fuck off.

Re:Star Trek fan but...

[Moridineas]

Realistically, I'm going to pirate at least the first episodes.

I subscribed to HBO Go basically just for Game of Thrones, though their catalog is far, FAR more appealing than CBS's.

3-4 episodes a month for $6 comes down to a buck or two an episode. That seems worthwhile, right?

Re:Star Trek fan but...

[Anonymous Coward]

same. i absolutely WILL NOT pay for their streaming service.

half the time, the on-demand stuff i'm supposed to be getting through the cable box is missing -- just another streaming service marketing ploy, i'm sure.

if cbs actually believed in the series, it would be on broadcast tv, and they would commit, now, to the requisite 7 years. even if cbs the network "cancelled" it after 3 or 4 years, the home video and netflix revenues would pay for the remaining production many times over.. but putting it exclusively on shit-b-s streaming service will KILL IT.

it will fail, somewhere towards the end of the first season production, some bean counter's going to see that it isn't worth it. the production costs are not worth the minuscule revenues it generates from new signups.. then they'll do a half season for a second and final season and kick it to the curb. all while claiming 1 1/2 seasons was their plan all along,

Re:Star Trek fan but...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh god it cast a female and black lead. SO PC. I AM SO OFFENDED. i am going to throw a tantrum on slashfuck because i am a sexist pig who deserves a kick in the balls from a hot dominatrix in leather.

Re:Star Trek fan but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Message to Star Fleet Command (aka CBS)
Star Trek Discovers that many earthlings will not part with six buck a month to be subject to endless commercials.
It's not the six bucks, it the thought of the greed.

Re:Star Trek fan but...

[Rakarra]

3-4 episodes a month for $6 comes down to a buck or two an episode. That seems worthwhile, right?

To watch? Or to buy? Because that's the purchase price, full, permanent purchase forever, for TV series' episodes. If that requires maintaining the subscription to watch them later, or you have to repurchase them in the future (say, DVD), then that $6/month is a serious, serious rip-off.

Re:Star Trek fan but...

[Rakarra]

Yep. It's bad enough they've more or less gone full-blow with the PC route.

So, just what is the problem with casting an African-American woman as the captain? Have you SEEN -any- version of Star Trek before? Did you happen to notice how much importance was placed on diversity, especially at a time (say the 1960s) where you had to fight tooth and nail to get non-whites on the TV? Did you not notice that the franchise has tried to push the envelope as much as possible against network expectations?

It's hardly like this was the first time there was a black female captain, Star Trek IV had one thirty-one years ago. 31! But a second black woman, that's just fucking 'PC', clearly it should be a white guy, because I'm a white guy, and "white male" should be the default, and in our utopian future where racism doesn't exist anymore, clearly it would still always be white guys in charge all the time.

As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

As a lifelong Star Trek fan I could give two shits. DSN was plenty of ST for one lifetime, and BSG pretty much put a bullet in the idea of Star Trek as the best ship-based SciFi franchise.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[elrous0]

Yeah, in a post BSG world, Star Trek is going to look pretty hokey if they don't really have their writing game in order. And DS9 was the last Star Trek series to have good writing for its time, and that was 20 years ago.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Moridineas]

Yeah, in a post BSG world, Star Trek is going to look pretty hokey if they don't really have their writing game in order

Called it--from now on the appearance of angels in the finale and imaginary spirit advisors are to be the hallmarks of good writing. Anything else will be considered just hokey.

(In all serious, I love Star Trek, Ron Moore, and 99% of BSG)

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Grishnakh]

BSG pretty much put a bullet in the idea of Star Trek as the best ship-based SciFi franchise.

You have got to be kidding. While I heartily agree that the BSG miniseries and first 2 seasons were fantastic, it quickly went down the drain, starting with the occupation of New Caprica, and especially later with the "Final 5" and the ridiculous series ending. That all really kinda ruined BSG for me, especially as far as being "the best ship-based Sci-Fi franchise". Unfortunately, unlike the Matrix movies where I'm somehow able to block the latter two installments out of my mind for the most part, I haven't been able to do that with BSG.

Honestly, BSG should be a testament as to why this "story arc" idea needs to be throw in the trash. It just doesn't work, because of the realities of network TV. (Obviously, I'll exclude HBO shows like GoT from this because they really do order them all in one season, and Netflix shows are even better because they produce them a whole season at a time and release the entire season at once.) The problem with this story arc stuff is that the writers can't come up with an actual plot arc that spans the entire run of the series because they have no idea how long the show will last before the network pulls the plug on it, so they just make shit up as they go along. It became obvious BSG was doing this sometime in season 2, and we saw the same thing with LOST.

ST:TNG really had a better format: self-contained episodes you can watch any time without needing to know all the details of what happened in previous episodes. Then, if the network cancels it, you're not just left hanging, like in "Terra Nova" or "Firefly".

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Richard_at_work]

When BSG was airing, Ron Moore routinely did a pod cast on each episode - he makes it painfully clear in those pod casts that the "Final Five" were not a thing at all until the writers noticed that the fan base had cottoned onto these missing five humanoid cylons and started writing them into the core of the story.

Thats why they had to fudge it at the end to account for the screwed up numbering (we had numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 named early on - of course they had set apart the five so it would make no sense to slot them in as 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12, so they slotted "Daniel" in as 7 and all of a sudden we went from 12 models to 13).

That right there ruined BSG for me - it became obvious that there was no overall story arc planned out, it was being made up as they went.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Oswald McWeany]

BSG started great but quickly went down hill. The first season was fantastic, an absolute classic, the second season was OK. I can't remember when I gave up watching because it became too awful. Probably around the beginning of the third season.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Baron_Yam]

>from now on the appearance of angels in the finale and imaginary spirit advisors are to be the hallmarks of good writing.

So... DS9 and B5 had it right? Maybe also ST:Voy if you count Chakotay getting high to converse with his spirit totem or whatever. Oh, and the Ascended of SG1.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[DarthVain]

While very short lived, Firefly as you know is up there as well. While BSG was very good, the later seasons got a bit ridiculous. Where I could watch every episode of Firefly ad nauseum. DSN other than the war also had a lot of weak episodes. Though recently watched some Enterprise, and though I like everyone else made fun of it when it came out, watched it anyway, find it better as it ages a bit.

The Expanse is currently the best in show right now so to speak I think (insofar as ship-based).

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Anonymous Coward]

When BSG was airing, Ron Moore routinely did a pod cast on each episode - he makes it painfully clear in those pod casts that the "Final Five" were not a thing at all until the writers noticed that the fan base had cottoned onto these missing five humanoid cylons and started writing them into the core of the story.

Thats why they had to fudge it at the end to account for the screwed up numbering (we had numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 named early on - of course they had set apart the five so it would make no sense to slot them in as 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12, so they slotted "Daniel" in as 7 and all of a sudden we went from 12 models to 13).

That right there ruined BSG for me - it became obvious that there was no overall story arc planned out, it was being made up as they went.

So what?

If you want perfect consistency, pick a format you can edit after the fact. Like a book.

Otherwise, you'll have to take in the little imperfections, and if you can't stomach them, just stick to books.

BSG was a great story. Imperfect as all TV shows are, but among its contemporaries a jewel nonetheless.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Rakarra]

>from now on the appearance of angels in the finale and imaginary spirit advisors are to be the hallmarks of good writing.

So... DS9 and B5 had it right? Maybe also ST:Voy if you count Chakotay getting high to converse with his spirit totem or whatever. Oh, and the Ascended of SG1.

I think DS9 really fell off the wagon in the last season, unfortunately with the whole Pah Wraith/Gul Dukat/Kai Winn thing. Meh.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Rakarra]

My general feeling for the "quality" of BSG -- absolutely excellent for the first 1.5 seasons, culminating in the Pegasus storyline. After the Pegasus arc, Season 2 floundered and stumbled a bit until the end, but the end of Season 2 was excellent, and I think the New Caprica storyline and the exodus was extremely well done as well. Once they escaped New Caprica, the series floundered a lot more and nosedived, never to recover. Even while I liked overall the season 3 ending, the final five thing was a bit ridiculous, as was the final reveal of "the plan." (Actually, The Plan was quite a good movie. I rather enjoyed it) Spoiler: The Cylons' plan was merely to blow up the 12 colonies, and that was about it. All those episodes of BSG that told us the Cylons had a plan.. well, the plan was over at that point. After colonies were nuked, the Cylons were rolling with the punches, reacting to what the humans were doing and trying to sabotage them.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Richard_at_work]

The issue is that they started the series by saying "we have a story, its a long one" and then they threw it out the window and took on board a fan theory.

It ruined it for me, and the later seasons show that change, and a lot of stuff got left unanswered, fudged or forgotten about to make it fit.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Moridineas]

I think DS9 really fell off the wagon in the last season, unfortunately with the whole Pah Wraith/Gul Dukat/Kai Winn thing. Meh.

Not to mention Vic Fontaine. Definitely meh.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Grishnakh]

I agree. And let's compare it to another TV show with a long arc: Game of Thrones. GoT isn't doing this at all (AFAICT, it's not over yet). By all indications, even though the author's books have been passed up because he's so slow, there is definitely an overall plan for the story, and the writers are sticking to that, instead of just making shit up as they go along.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. I rest my case.

Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan

[Richard_at_work]

An even better example is The Expanse - absolutely *massive* changes between the books and the series, but apparently it's OK because the authors are involved with both...

I'll reserve judgement, but...

[elrous0]

The Desgrassi Jr. High cast (sans the kid in the wheelchair) is not exactly filling me with confidence. Are they making a show to tell a good story--or to advance a very specific political/social agenda?

But I'll reserve judgement, out of respect for the Battlestar Galactica reboot, which I also expected to suck but which turned out great.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek was always about promoting Rodenberry's political and social views. ST:OS is pretty dated because it's themes are so anchored in the 60s.

I find ST:NG almost unwatchable now.

And the new movies are just mindless action with humorous quips from Pegg.

Star Trek has run its course.

Now the new stuff coming out has been great! Arrival, Interstellar, Passenger, I'm forgetting a couple of others were written by real science fiction writers - Rodenberry wasn't.

And the Star Wars coming out from Disney are better than anything Lucas ever did.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but Roddenberry wouldn't even recognize liberalism today. Re-segregation, white male hatred/discrimination, a culture of victimhood, the demonization of masculinity, etc.? He sure as shit wouldn't see any of that as part of the Star Trek vision. Star Trek was supposed to be a universe where we had CONQUERED all of that bullshit.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they making a show to tell a good story--or to advance a very specific political/social agenda?

STAR TREK couldn't possibly be involved in advancing a political/social agenda, why just think of the CHILDREN!

Captcha? Polemics. Oh the irony!

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the wheelchair like a free pass to being a misogynist or what?

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek was supposed to be a universe where we had CONQUERED all of that bullshit.

But more importantly, it was a setting where he could snog his secretary without his wife getting upset.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek's defining characteristic has always been a utopian vision of the future. It need not be a perfect nor flawless future, mind you. But even the darkest of the Trek series (DS9) presented a positive future of humanity having worked together to overcome almost all social ills. I fear that is not the modern liberal ideal anymore. Inclusivity and unity seem to have given way to a much darker vision of "victimhoodopoly," resegregation, and permanent social division. I fear that this series will advance an agenda that is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of the one Roddenberry created.

Worst case scenario, we get a new Star Trek where Lokai and Bele have to compete to determine who's the bigger victim (to decide which is the "good guy" and which the "bad guy"), or are told that their hatred of one another is okay since they come from "different cultures," or are encouraged to resegregate themselves rather than learn to live together.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[elrous0]

I don't know, I'll have to check an updated victimhood matrix to see which is the most morally superior.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek's defining characteristic has always been a utopian vision of the future.

True.

It need not be a perfect nor flawless future, mind you.

False. Read Roddenberry's guide.

But even the darkest of the Trek series (DS9) presented a positive future of humanity having worked together to overcome almost all social ills.

DS9 isn't even remotely dark, that's just because Sisko is black.

I fear that is not the modern liberal ideal anymore.

Your personal problems are your own issue. You should get over your groundless fears.

Inclusivity and unity seem to have given way to a much darker vision of "victimhoodopoly," resegregation, and permanent social division.

You should probably review the number of attacks on the ideals found in Star Trek episodes already.

I fear that this series will advance an agenda that is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of the one Roddenberry created.

And? Roddenberry's ideals were often flawed. Why not challenged them?

Worst case scenario, we get a new Star Trek where Lokai and Bele have to compete to determine who's the bigger victim (to decide which is the "good guy" and which the "bad guy"), or are told that their hatred of one another is okay since they come from "different cultures," or are encouraged to resegregate themselves rather than learn to live together.

Actually, they WERE left to themselves to keep on hating, that's the Prime Directive for you.

Did you not finish watching the episode?

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Moridineas]

I'm on the fence about Discovery--I hope it's good, but I'm afraid it will be more trash.

I am scared about the "diversity" factor as well, but with a major caveat. Star Trek has ALWAYS had a great deal of diversity (a black woman, a Russian, and a Japanese guy on the bridge crew in the 60s; female captain, black captain, etc.). Diversity alone should not scare any Trek fan. What does make me nervous are some of the quotes in the media about how they are approaching diversity. IMHO Trek's diversity has historically been so effective because it wasn't even commented on. Nobody made a big deal out of Uhura or Chekov or Sulu. Nobody make a big deal about Sisko or Janeway. It all just was. If STD continues that tradition, then bully on it.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, in the ST universe, we had WWIII before we conquered all that bullshit.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[sexconker]

Now the new stuff coming out has been great! Arrival, Interstellar, Passenger, I'm forgetting a couple of others were written by real science fiction writers - Rodenberry wasn't.

You can't see it, but I'm shaking my head left and right.

Arrival was fucking stupid. We start with aliens and some interesting premise about communicating with them, but we end up with political bullshit that gets solved with time travel, telepathy, and essentially magic. The whole premise is shot when that shit happens because: Why couldn't the aliens use their time travel telepathy bullshit to help themselves? Why couldn't the aliens see / prevent the bomb? Or even more to the point, why couldn't the aliens see learning our language and then just communicate with us in out language? The whole fucking time they're sitting behind their glass barrier and watching Pam from The Office (I know it's not her) pantomime shit. The only thing missing was a Speak and Say toy. The aliens didn't do a damned thing to communicate with us, despite it being revealed that they'll need our help one day.

Interstellar? Are you fucking kidding me? It devolves into time travel and spiritual/magical wankery so fucking quickly. And the first half is more about the fucking dust bowl than it is about sci-fi. As with any time travel movie, there are plot holes out the ass. But it doesn't fucking matter, I guess, because the movie is focused on a couple of people and how they are sad and dumb. The final scenes are like they watched 2001's LSD trip and decided to try and make something that makes even less sense.

Passengers? Well that started out with some potential, at least. But it ended up being a romance/drama movie more than a sci-fi movie. I get that the dude struggled with the idea of opening someone's capsule up and all that. But once the decision was made to open one up, why did he have to choose a useless lady? I don't even remember her credentials. Oh wait - I do. She had none. She was writing a book. Maybe next time when you're browsing through all the records you'll pick a mechanic, a machinist, a tech, a security officer, or anyone who can help you fix shit. He had three problems.

1) Why did I wake up early / what's wrong with the ship?
2) How can I go back to sleep in a pod so I don't die alone?
3) How can I get through the security door?

He chose to solve problem 4 - I'm sad and lonely and haven't gotten laid in a long time.

I'm not saying problem 4 wasn't a problem that needed solving. But he could've also solved problems 1, 2, and 3 had he picked the right person (or people) to wake up. There's a lot of the hemming and hawing about not wanting to wake even a single person up because it would doom them to die on the ship and (nearly) alone. But you've got trouble in River City, son. Trouble with with a capital T. Every fucking day he spent enjoying the bar from The Shining and not working on the problem was irresponsible and, more importantly, stupid.

He had access to everyone's records. He could have found a few people with skills / clearance to help him repair/reset the pods, fix the ship, or get past the security door to wake up people with more clearance / skills to repair/reset the pods and fix the ship.

But no, he waits months (or years) to just choose Katniss Everdeen, who provides no help on the whole "shit's on fire, yo" front. And when they do get a 3rd person, the whole thing about "Oh no, they woke up and now they're doomed to die here." is still focused on Katniss instead of the new dude who is actively dying a painful, drawn out death.

I can look past the generic reactor core shit, and the ship is broke but it don't know it's broke setup. But the movie as a whole had so very little to do with sci-fi and much too much to do with romance.

As for ol' Gene Rberry, I agree. He wasn't really a sci-fi writer.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I think the people are just making a stink about the PCness of the characters, but the show itself won't make a big deal out of it. It's not like they shoved it down our throats that Uhuru and Sulu were minority officers. They didn't shove it down our throats that the Federation was a socialist utopia either.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[rsborg]

Star Trek was supposed to be a universe where we had CONQUERED all of that bullshit.

But more importantly, it was a setting where he could snog his secretary without his wife getting upset.

Huh. I always thought it was Captian Kirk getting to hook up with all those green alien babes? Then again, it was a show of the 60's. Given all that it was quite a progressive/idealistic universe (IDIC, the lack of importance of money, replicators heralding an abundance economy, etc) - but it wasn't like liberalism/progressive thought is like in the last 20 years at all.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Rick Schumann]

Didn't read every single word of your comment, but want to say this: Ask any sci-fi author about using time travel as a plot device.. and they'll give you the hairy eyeball, assuming that is they're experienced authors. Time travel is a cheap-ass way to fix a problem deus ex machina, essentially, and writing anything that centers around time travel? You're asking for disaster. You almost certainly end up painting yourself into a corner, ruining any chance of redeeming your work. That's what authors have told me, at least.

Now on the other hand, if you're not a LUDDITE, then you have an APP for time travel..

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure he would recognize that those things exist only in your apparently fucked up brain.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[msk]

And the Star Wars coming out from Disney are better than anything Lucas ever did.

I take it you haven't seen The Empire Strikes Back.

If it comes from J.J. Abrams, give it the hairy eyeball.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[AmiMoJo]

As I told you last time, more than half the cast is white males.

What quota of white males would be acceptable to you?

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[ch0knuti]

Wasn't Star Trek always SciFi with a political/social agenda? Not a hardcore fan but that was always my take on it. Except for the movies. Especially the last three.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrival was absolute garbage

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[AmiMoJo]

I don't think many people would recognise those things as aspect of modern liberalism. Whenever people have accused me of supporting segregation, it's because they chose not to understand what I was saying, for example.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[AmiMoJo]

The irony is that if the original series came out now, these same people would be complaining bitterly about the diversity.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Voyager529]

Time travel is a cheap-ass way to fix a problem deus ex machina, essentially, and writing anything that centers around time travel? You're asking for disaster. You almost certainly end up painting yourself into a corner, ruining any chance of redeeming your work. That's what authors have told me, at least.

See, I think time travel can be an interesting mechanic as long as it's used properly, the rules are applied consistently, and the story is deeper than 'fix the thing'. Back to the Future gained mass appeal because it was a plot device tangential to the real theme of the movie - the fact that Marty came to realize he shared more in common with his parents than he thought. We forgave the butterfly effect problem and the motion of earth and the solar system in order to allow the rest of the story to advance. The new series "Timeless" has been fairly good because they've kept to the rules they established at the beginning and the fact that the slight alterations are historical fact to everyone who didn't travel through time.

Star Trek has been a mess with respect to time travel because the rules change a lot. The TOS crew achieved time warp in a craptastic Klingon vessel, but neither Picard nor Janeway gave it the ol' college try a hundred years later? In Voyager's case specifically, "Year of Hell" was a good concept that couldn't stand up to scrutiny, because "destroying the ship" did exactly what everyone wanted, including the antagonist, because "destruction" became "never existed", which made no sense, and that's completely sidestepping everything Captain Braxton did, or the fact that Starfleet would even have a fleet of timeships in the first place. I'm not even going into the mess that was "First Contact", but it's most heinous crime was giving the Borg some form of time travel capabilities that they then never used thereafter. Then, there's Doctor Who. Want to talk about a deus ex machina...he comes at just the right time to fix a thing, unless it's arbitrarily deemed a "fixed point in time"...

As stated, I think it's indeed very difficult to make a time travel story, but not impossible, as long as consistency is met and the story primarily uses time travel as a means to an end rather than a crutch upon which to base an otherwise thin-at-best story.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[drinkypoo]

Arrival was fucking stupid.

Not least because there was already a better skiffy movie with almost the same name.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[drinkypoo]

I take it you haven't seen The Empire Strikes Back.

who directed that again?

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Grishnakh]

Oh please, Roddenberry would absolutely recognize how things today have gone in relation to his vision. It's very simple: we're in one of those mirror universes where everything's gone to shit. Captain Kirk's universe isn't the universe we're in.

(We're not in the evil-Kirk universe with the ISS Enterprise either, because that requires spaceflight. We're in some other parallel universe where humans just go extinct in the 21st or 22nd century.)

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is ST:TNG and ST:TOS.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[MightyMartian]

Whatever Roddenberry's flaws, he really was a social justice warrior of his time, and pretty much planned Star Trek from the get-go as a means of taking on controversial issues, but using science fiction as a means of getting it past the network skittishness for not wanting to freak out the advertisers or affiliates. He had every intention of poking certain people in the eye, whether they noticed it or not.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[AmiMoJo]

His signature gives it away. There are no major Asian female characters in Star Wars. No black women. But for some reason, what matters is the representation of white males. And they have to be good guys, because there are so few examples of white male heroes for white boys to admire. If course they can't have non-white or non-male role models, that's just silly.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[MightyMartian]

Which was really the whole point. Even down to the Sulu with his husband scene in the last film. It's just done very matter-of-factly. There's no attempt to editorialize it. This is just how people are in the 23rd century, apparently.

Enterprise's last real story arc was about a xenophobic lunatic who wanted to get rid of all the undesirables (in that case, non-humans), but it's pretty clear the intent here was very much to bring up anti-immigrant sentiment in the US and other Western countries after 9-11. I suspect some people on Slashdot right now would believe that the writers were deliberately forcing their SJW beliefs on poor long suffering people who just want to be able to shout "Tell the Mexicans to fuck off" and have no one disagree.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What we have here is... failure... to communicate." - AmiMoJo

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Kjella]

Then, there's Doctor Who. Want to talk about a deus ex machina...he comes at just the right time to fix a thing, unless it's arbitrarily deemed a "fixed point in time"...

His time travel is just a backdrop to placing them in any setting from the distant past to the distant future, from right here on earth to strange alien worlds. Doctor Who is essentially about arriving in a blue box, getting into an absurd situation, coming up with an absurd solution, then flying away in a blue box. It's not a show you can take seriously and I think it'd be a lot worse if they tried. The way he runs head-first into danger he should be dead a thousand times despite the TARDIS and his magic wand.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Kjella]

I think you're being too harsh on Passengers. The entire crew was behind the security door, everyone else were just passengers like him so there was no point. Everyone else was a rational choice, Aurora was his obsession and that was the one thing that broke his will and made him do it. There are considerably worse stalker stories from real life. The problem was that it was so ridiculously predictable, okay so he's all alone he's going to freak eventually. The moment he sees Aurora, you know he's going to wake her up. Once she does wake up, the coming romance is obvious. The plot twist where she finds out he woke her up equally so. And then some BS story to save the ship, which of course they do. And since it was that much of a sob story, she forgives him.

I saw a recut/re-plot that was much more interesting, basically it's from her perspective, we don't know him.. but we learn as she learns about who he is and how he's been awake and then the bomb drops that he woke her up. And then it'll basically come as a flashback story to the officer that he used to be a normal guy... but he went obsessive. And instead of the silly end scene where he's resurrected using a million different procedures he should die... and then the movie end with her equally nuts a year later, waking someone else up using his gadget. Like he wasn't a bad person, the situation turned him bad. Now that would be a classic.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just done very matter-of-factly. There's no attempt to editorialize it.

Blurp?

"What a charming Negress. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know that in my time some used that term as a description of property."
"But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we've learned not to fear words."

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet those aspects are routinely supported by modern liberals. No, whenever people have accused you of supporting (re)segregation, it's because you dogmatically supported the actions of those who want (re)segregation.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[sexconker]

The rank and file / uniformed crew was behind that door, sure (even if you ignore the laughable error of putting all your eggs in one basket, the need for a locked security door when everyone's asleep, the inability of the ship's controls to be accessed in the event of such issues, etc.).

But there were surely civilians with skills and knowledge.of the ship. It was a seed ship. At the very least, a couple of dudes could've helped him pound away at the door and keep him sane. Of course, it would probably have been easier to go through the side of the wall than the reinforced door.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[jez9999]

I bet you just can't stand FUCKING WHITE MALEs eh?

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Irvin Kershner.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the T.A.R.D.I.S. is a sentient being dragging the Doctor around. The Doctor is just a tool.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[DarthVain]

I kind of liked The Arrival, if only for the idea. I agree about Interstellar, though I did like the blackhole part.

I agree with Passengers. I was pretty excited about that one, and thought it had a great premise and lots of promise. But it was basically a romance movie wrapped in a thin science fiction shell. Though I think you could argue the plausibility of his actions. He *was* a mechanic, a machinist, and a tech and he couldn't do anything. All the people that could help him were behind the locked door which he couldn't access (bit of a dramatic device there). So his only driver was loneliness and hopelessness which prompts him to awake a writer. It wasn't until the ship got hit and stuff starts breaking that the Officer awakes who was actually able to help, and would have maybe been able to help more had he not died so quick. Anyway I wasn't so critical of the plot, other than it existed, when it could have been something else so much better.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[DarthVain]

Also though it got horrible reviews, I liked Pandorum quite a bit, where it mixes up the whole "I woke up too early" with "I can't remember anything" which was pretty great. There are a couple books out there like that as well, and there are plenty of room to grow/material to draw upon. It kind of makes it a science fiction mystery which I think is a good combo. I guess I really hoped that Passengers might be a little more like that, but with better production values etc...

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Arrival was fucking stupid. We start with aliens and some interesting premise about communicating with them, but we end up with political bullshit that gets solved with time travel, telepathy, and essentially magic. The whole premise is shot when that shit happens because: Why couldn't the aliens use their time travel telepathy bullshit to help themselves?"

You're not wrong, especially the way it was portrayed in the movie vs the original short story. IIR the short story Correctly, the alien's experience the entirety of their lifespan simultaneously (as much as that term has meaning in this context). They don't change the future because the future already is. They keep doing things they would have done regardless of knowing the outcome may be unfavorable because they wouldn't know the outcome if they hadn't done it/aren't doing it/aren't going to be doing it. The human linguist picks up this trait via strong-sapir-wharf, but part of the point, I think, is that experiencing the future in this way has less impact on decisions than you'd expect. In the story, she chooses to have her daughter even knowing that she will eventually die not of an incurable disease, but because of a perfectly preventable rock climbing accident.

I'll give the film credit though for finally making the experience of meeting alien life actually feel as unnerving and strange as it probably would in reality.

The thing with Passengers was that anyone he woke up was doomed to die with him on the ship because the pods just keep you in statis, they can't put you into it. He didn't know there was a reactor problem that would kill them all, so as far as he was concerned his decision was to die alone (and probably go mad in the process) or wake someone up who might keep him sane, but at the same time doom them to his fate.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people bitching about ratios of white males are racist SJW hypocrites like yourself.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[epyT-R]

"But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we've learned not to fear words."

This is a perfect example where Trek's politics and today's SocJus diverge.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[msk]

Irvin Kershner. Who is coincidentally not George Lucas.

Screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett. Also coincidentally not George Lucas.

Too bad Leigh Bracket died. She could have made episodes 6 & 1-3 better.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[sexconker]

I liked Pandorum, but it was certainly more of a horror movie than a sci-fi movie. There's a psychological component to it as well, but it just boils down to a simple "Oh, he crazy." once stuff is revealed. It only serves as a superficial explanation of why there are crazy cannibal monster people things on a space ship and why Dennis Quaid is how he is. The madness isn't really explored in any interesting way, it's just the reason for the chaos.

A lot of movies and games follow this kind of formula for setting up the situation. There's a ship (of either the space or ocean variety) and something causes shit to go down. People start acting crazy, often killing and eating each other, etc. We often enter the situation as a separate ship responding to a distress beacon or someone on the first ship waking up.

It plays out in a few simple steps: 1: WTF happened and where's the crew? 2: OMG monsters/aliens/demons! 3: Actually, it was the crew! They went crazy! 4: OH NO it's happening to us! We're doomed to the same fate as them and I think our captain is kind of into it. 5: Oh, it's because they pissed off some aliens / stole an artifact / opened a hell portal, let's make them happy / dump the artifact / close the portal and escape with a few survivors.

See Doom, Dead Space, Event Horizon, The Sphere, Pandorum, etc. For an example that skips the sci-fi pretense, see The Descent.

At least with Pandorum the madness came from within (there was no alien orb or device that caused it, as far as I remember).

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[epyT-R]

No, they wouldn't, because today's socjus quackery is not yesterday's civil rights movement.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[martinfb]

Star Trek has always been about societal issues.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[sexconker]

"Arrival was fucking stupid. We start with aliens and some interesting premise about communicating with them, but we end up with political bullshit that gets solved with time travel, telepathy, and essentially magic. The whole premise is shot when that shit happens because: Why couldn't the aliens use their time travel telepathy bullshit to help themselves?"

You're not wrong, especially the way it was portrayed in the movie vs the original short story. IIR the short story Correctly, the alien's experience the entirety of their lifespan simultaneously (as much as that term has meaning in this context). They don't change the future because the future already is. They keep doing things they would have done regardless of knowing the outcome may be unfavorable because they wouldn't know the outcome if they hadn't done it/aren't doing it/aren't going to be doing it. The human linguist picks up this trait via strong-sapir-wharf, but part of the point, I think, is that experiencing the future in this way has less impact on decisions than you'd expect. In the story, she chooses to have her daughter even knowing that she will eventually die not of an incurable disease, but because of a perfectly preventable rock climbing accident.

I'll give the film credit though for finally making the experience of meeting alien life actually feel as unnerving and strange as it probably would in reality.

The thing with Passengers was that anyone he woke up was doomed to die with him on the ship because the pods just keep you in statis, they can't put you into it. He didn't know there was a reactor problem that would kill them all, so as far as he was concerned his decision was to die alone (and probably go mad in the process) or wake someone up who might keep him sane, but at the same time doom them to his fate.

I had forgotten about the awful dead daughter stripe than ran through Arrival. Ugh.

The whole thing about the pods only putting people into stasis once is fucking stupid. The ship was versatile enough to power up for him, feed him, serve him booze from a bar, etc. well before he was supposed to wake up. And they don't have a spare pod available? They can't be reprogrammed? No one on the ship has access to do such a thing? The fact that he woke up early told him there was a problem with the ship. Yet the ship is too dumb to expose a diagnostic screen? Access is restricted so hard that only people behind a locked door in one area of the ship can do anything, and they can't be woken up early in the event of a problem? Are you just shit out of luck if that section of the ship is damaged and they die?

I accept the whole plot about a problem on the ship, him waking up early, being unable to fix it, him not wanting to wake people up and struggling with that decision, etc. But it falls apart when you consider any of the details even within their established rules. Why was only his pod affected, for example? If he can't solve the problem, it doesn't mean no one else can.

And ultimately, he does decide to wake someone up. The struggle with ethics/morality is just as valid in the story whether you decide to wake someone up or not, but WHO you decide to wake up, and WHEN you decide to wake them up matters. I don't fault him for the whole "choosing love" thing, but he could've woken anyone else up (or multiple people up), and he could've done it much sooner to help work on the problem sooner. And yes, he should have known there was a problem that needed fixing - why else did he wake up early? And of course he was trying to get behind the security door for a long time, so he was trying to do something - get to the crew (likely to wake someone up, with no drawn out dilemma), get to ship controls and find out what the problem is, etc.

If the guy had months (or years) alone, he would have thought of a lot of things, and ultimately, I believe, ended up at the logical conclusion that he needs help (has to wake people up) and time is of the essence (ship has unknown

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always interpreted Dr. Who as a sort of Groundhog Day scenario. The reason that the doctor appears to be able to see around corners and applies just enough effort to solve the matter at hand, is because he's run through this scenario thousands of times and we are just watching the instance where the time-lord considers the outcome to be acceptable.

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Rakarra]

To be fair, in the ST universe, we had WWIII before we conquered all that bullshit.

And the Eugenics Wars, which I think were separate from WWIII. Depending on which series' description of the timeline you want to believe. :-)

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Rakarra]

I bet you just can't stand FUCKING WHITE MALEs eh?

I just can't stand that when a non-white-male is cast, a certain segment of our society throws a fit and shouts "PC bullshit! SJWs!!!" like white male should always be the default.

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Grishnakh]

Um, I remember that episode's ending fairly well I think, plus your own link describes it quite well. They were left to keep on hating because they were the only two of their kind left, and they refused to resolve their differences, so there was really nothing Kirk could do about it. They both voluntarily beamed down to the wrecked planet despite Kirk's offer for them to live with the Federation. There was no invocation of the Prime Directive, just merely respecting these peoples' decisions. PD doesn't really apply anyway because they had already developed spaceflight (one had been pursuing the other across the galaxy for 50,000 years).

Re:I'll reserve judgement, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he can't but I hear you like being fucked by white males, and black males and latino males...

Re: I'll reserve judgement, but...

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

Yeah, but Roddenberry wouldn't even recognize liberalism today. Re-segregation, white male hatred/discrimination, a culture of victimhood, the demonization of masculinity, etc.

And me with no mod points. Liberalism in Roddenberry's time was *reasonable* instead of radical. The worst mistake Star Trek ever made was to start thinking it was Star Trek. Also, it hasn't been science fiction since then either. I'm sorry but after being disappointed time after time, I will be very surprised if Discovery turns out to be any good.

Run on?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>"The first eight episodes will run Sundays from September 24 through November 5."
What is this "run on" garbage is? When is it going to be released on Netflix?

Re:Run on?

[shadowknot]

From what I've read, in the US it wont be on Netflix (at least not until CBS All Access dies). Outside of the US it'll be the primary distribution method, not sure if that'll be simultaneous with the September release date mentioned in TFA though.

Re:Run on?

[elrous0]

Well, at least they didn't say "air on."

Re:Run on?

[Gilgaron]

I have trouble seeing the CBS All Access thing succeeding, but if it is on Netflix worldwide then it'll at least have good international numbers and hopefully the old seasons will pop up on Netflix here within a year or so.

Re:Run on?

[omnichad]

Why does it matter? I still "dial" my phone, despite not having seen a rotary phone since the 80's. I "turn on" the lights, despite not having an oil lamp. We still include floppy icons to mean "save" - even when half the people alive have never touched a floppy disk.

Re: Run on?

[Anonymous Coward]

"hopefully the old seasons will pop up on the Pirate Bay here within a month or so."

FTFY

Re:Run on?

[Megane]

There's this amazing new invention called an "antenna" by which shows are streamed directly to your house, only everyone gets the same stream at the same time with no rewinds, and you get to watch it for free. There are even ads in it, too, just like most streaming!

But Sunday night live-watching for me is owned by Fox (at least if they don't keep wedging live-action stinkers in), so a computer will have to download the antenna stream for me (again, just like on the internets!), and let me watch it later. Not that I'm expecting much more than concentrated SJW builshit from it from what I've heard (Star Trek died for me anyhow even before they blew everything up a couple of movies ago and became millennial trash), so I suspect I won't even be DVR-ing it for more than two or three weeks.

Re:Run on?

[Megane]

I forgot to mention one other thing. I have been watching (or trying to) a Sunday night show on CBS, that being Elementary. They have an infuriating habit of letting professional sports run overtime (particularly handegg, which runs over the time slot about 90% of the time, and yes I know about the Heidi Incident, this is with normal games so they need to start making realistic time slots), and delaying the rest of the line-up. This means that if you wanted to record the shows on a DVR, then FUCK YOU, because now the published schedule is fucked up, sometimes by a full hour. Even worse, I missed the season finale because they changed the show name in the schedule to "Elementary (Season finale)", and my DVR failed to match it.

Fox finally got a clue last season and started putting a sacrificial rerun or two at the start of prime time so they could go JIT on it and leave the rest of the shows (and the local news) at their correct time.

Re:Run on?

[drinkypoo]

Here's the problem; the people with the least internet access are also the people with the least broadcast TV access. I can get zero stations in at my house. The situation is so bad where I live that we actually have a tv rebroadcaster here... hmm, I'm pretty sure they're finally gone now, but they were still going in 2006. You'd pay them for TV signals, and they'd rebroadcast a pretty fair selection of them to your house so that you could actually get them, with a decoder box to stop everyone else getting them for free.

Re:Run on?

[Grishnakh]

One of these is not like the others. How does "turn on" have anything to do with oil lamps? Anything that's electrical can be "turned on": your TV, your computer, a light, etc. What other term would you use, besides maybe the somewhat-stilted sounding "activate"?

Re:Run on?

[omnichad]

It was a phrase that sounded so good that it continued to be used for things that never had knobs. At the time the phrase came about, it referred to controlling the flow of a lot of things (gas, water, etc). And then, turning on lights was a physical act.

When lights went electrical, the phrase continued to be used. However, controlling the flow of electricity was also called "turning on" and "turning off." So you could argue it came from either/or just as well as you can argue that it came from both/and.

And even when referring to it as controlling the flow of electricity, that's anachronistic too. Neither act literally involves turning, with a few exceptions.

Re:Run on?

[Grishnakh]

Ah, I see what you mean now. Wow, that phrase is so ingrained I didn't even make the connection to "turning", or rotary motion; I was focused only on the "on/off" part of the phrase. I guess I thought of it like a lot of other English words, which can have totally different meanings in different contexts. I guess "switch on" would make more sense for an electrical device.

After what corporations did to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek Enterprise, I just wanted to die. They hate us so much. They made a great show then took it from us. I still cry sometimes because of that. This new attack on fans will resort on deaths.

Re:After what corporations did to...

[Jhon]

"Star Trek Enterprise, I just wanted to die"

There were a few good episodes. Not even a season's worth but a few.

Mirror Darkly 1 and 2 come to mind. Twilight wasn't that bad either.

Both those episodes were basically took place outside the dreck being served up as the season 2-4 plot line so they could actually tell some neat stories.

Re:After what corporations did to...

[MightyMartian]

The problem was that Enterprise was utterly botched. They had the whole pre-Federation story to tell, and wasted an entire season on the stupid Xindi thing, and had the idiotic Temporal War meta-arc throughout the first three seasons, actually right into the fourth. It wasn't until the fourth, with the series' already on the chopping block that they finally decided to show how the Federation was founded.

Enterprise actually had quite a few good episodes, and I actually thought Tucker, in particular, was an outstanding character who invoked the Montgomery Scott style of "Don't fuck with my ship!" attitude. But Enterprise squandered so many opportunities because Berman and Braga just couldn't get themselves out of the DS9-Voyager headspace, and littered what should have been a new start with the storytelling refuse of the two previous series.

A proper Enterprise would have avoided big multi-episode story arcs for the most part, modeling itself more on TOS and TNG. I get that you cannot reasonably have every episode about the Vulcans, Andorians, Tellerites, etc., but I finally abandoned the whole thing somewhere in the middle of Season 3 because it seemed to be suffering the same kind nonsensical storytelling that I found so grating in Voyager. But by that point Berman and Braga had developed their cookie-cutter approach to scripts and story arcs, and they were going to stick with it come hell or high water.

Re:After what corporations did to...

[Megane]

I barely got to watch it, because it was in the dying days of UPN, and where I lived at the time didn't have a UPN station. Cable TV actually brought in a station from the next market down, but I was strictly antenna and had to download it from Usenet. (this was before Bit Torrent) I watched it for most of two seasons, until my preferred uploader's posts started getting a lot of dropped messages (this was a year or so before par2), then I had to stop. I've heard that seasons 3 and 4 were much better, but I've never seen them, and they haven't appeared on the independent sub-channel networks in my market.

Re:After what corporations did to...

[AmiMoJo]

The Xindi arc was the best one they had. Real exploration of the unknown. Season 4 was where it went down hill, leading to cancellation.

Re:After what corporations did to...

[DarthVain]

I think they took a page from STTNG and DS9 in that the best parts of both those shows were "War with the Borg", and "War with the Dominion", so they were basically like, "Ok, or show isn't doing so well, lets make up an alien race and have a war with them, that should solve everything!" :)

As for the whole temporal war thing, I agree it was a bit silly, though it did give them the dramatic device to travel back in time to fight Nazi's etc... Which is really also taking a page out of the original series and STTNG, as that was a troup they used quite a bit that is pretty well established. Of course there have been plenty of time travel excuses without a temporal war thingy.

I will say they did have a couple of episodes I really liked. One was where Tucker and Malcolm get stuck in a pod together. It was more like a two person play, and also they got drunk which was amusing. The other was I believe another time travel episode, where they do back to the same time period as the original series, with the same uniforms, big blinky buttons and sound effects, and tribbles, I thought it a nice hommage. Finally they did one like Voyager (though I think a bit better), where they are in a parallel universe and they are all evil bastards. It was just kinda fun and you could tell that they don't take themselves so seriously. It also seemed like they really enjoyed doing that for a change and I think it showed.

Re:After what corporations did to...

[Grishnakh]

but I finally abandoned the whole thing somewhere in the middle of Season 3

You missed out on some of the very best episodes. Skip the rest of season 3 and go watch season 4. Especially watch the two mirror-universe episodes; they were fantastic. Even the opening sequence alone is worth the watch.

How to sabotage a TV show:

[Gravis Zero]

* Add massive amounts of time between seasons!
* Take one season and split it into two!

Well done CBS!

Re:How to sabotage a TV show:

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctor Who does both and it has been on the air for a little while now.

Re:How to sabotage a TV show:

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. These two things absolutely killed the Venture Bros., which at one time was the most clever show on TV.

It wasn't just the loss of audience, either. By not keeping up the pace, the writers slipped into their own obsessions, bogging the show down in a profusion of way too many characters and intricate subplots, instead of keeping the show fresh and the story arc focused.

Re:How to sabotage a TV show:

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, and the Sopranos were the worst!

Re:How to sabotage a TV show:

[EvilSS]

* Add massive amounts of time between seasons! * Take one season and split it into two!

Well done CBS!

Sorry, you know a show with less than 3 months between seasons that airs in the US?

Re:How to sabotage a TV show:

[MightyMartian]

I know there was some criticism of both Breaking Bad and Mad Men splitting their last seasons, though as I recall, with BB, it was the writer's strike that forced that. Of course, I finished up watching both series via streaming, so seasons don't mean shit to me anymore.

Not that stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, it's funny how dumb they think we are.

We were supposed to get a 13 episode season starting in Jan 2017.. which means the second ~13 episode season (if it got one) would probably start around Jan 2018.

Now we effectively get an 8 episode first season delayed to Sept 2017 and a 7 episode second season season in Jan 2018.

So no, the first season was not extended to 15... it was cut in half.

Also this series is gonna be shit and shame on CBS for locking it behind their crappy web service.

Re:Not that stupid...

[omnichad]

Now we effectively get an 8 episode first season delayed to Sept 2017 and a 7 episode second season season in Jan 2018.

This isn't even unusual for a fall premiere. Why call this a split season? All fall shows pretty much go on hiatus for November through December and come back in January after the holidays.

Want to check a great StarTrek series?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & Star Trek Continues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w/ - this episode's outstanding (titled "The Fairest of them all")

* "In every revolution, there's 1 man w/ a vision" & "Who told you that?" + "YOU did..."

(These guys have REAL potential...)

APK

P.S.=> It continues (pun intended) after the StarTrek TOS episode "MIRROR, mirror" (bearded Spock & all)... apk

Re:Want to check a great StarTrek series?

[AmiMoJo]

I tried to view it, but apparently youtube.com is blocked by my hosts file...

Do they have faith or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that kind of faith.

Don't they usually start messing with and splitting seasons when the show is running out of steam at the end? Can't say I'm too interested, and I remember the original appearance of the Talosians.

CBS? What about Netflix?

[GNious]

Who cares when it releases on obscure channel in a single country - Proper question is, when does it release world-wide on Netflix?

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[omnichad]

obscure channel

Obscure channel? You mean the company that owns the Star Trek IP? CBS/Paramount is not obscure by any measurement.

But the originating network is going to premiere before Netflix, so it's going to be at least that date, possibly later.

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[Anonymous Coward]

Derp derp. CBS is an obscure channel!

It only is the highest rated network in the U.S., reaches basically the entire U.S. television audience, and has been around for 70 years, producing far more content that is syndicated around the world than Netflix could even dream of.

It also broadasts on 4 continents, owns among other properties Columbia Records, Simon and Schuster Publishing, Showtime, C-Net, Last.FM, and until recently one of the largest outdoor advertising operations in North America.

Like I said, obscure!

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[GNious]

Sry, I thought it was obvious when placed next to "single country" - no one outside of the USA can access it, so to us it's a fair bit more "obscure" than Netflix :)

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[omnichad]

Obscurity has nothing to do with access. They're well known. And their release pretty much defines the earliest date anyone else will have their hands on it. Netflix tends to go for simultaneous release - even when they're not the primary producer. So it is likely you'll see that.

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[lusid1]

CBS all access is pretty obscure. We all know it exists, but even Star Trek can't get us to climb that paywall. If it wasn't for Star Trek, nobody would even be talking about it. And all we're really talking about is how nobody is willing to pay 6+ads to watch it.

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[Misagon]

Netflix has the exclusive rights to the show outside the US and Canada.
Each episode will be available in 188 countries within 24 hours from the US premiere.

You could have simply looked it up. ;)

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[Rakarra]

Netflix tends to go for simultaneous release - even when they're not the primary producer.

But that's mostly because that's the only way they can legally get ahold of the shows. They get full seasons on DVD, which tends to be the time when full seasons air on streaming. I'm sure Netflix wouldn't mind if they got TV show episodes one at a time as they're actually aired, but no network will release shows to them like that.

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[Rakarra]

Derp derp. CBS is an obscure channel!

It only is the highest rated network in the U.S., reaches basically the entire U.S. television audience, and has been around for 70 years, producing far more content that is syndicated around the world than Netflix could even dream of.

Oh, if only that was the network that Star Trek: Discovery was airing on. But it's not airing on CBS. It's airing on "CBS: All Access," a subscription service that is obscure even in the realm of subscription services.

It also broadasts on 4 continents, owns among other properties Columbia Records, Simon and Schuster Publishing, Showtime, C-Net, Last.FM, and until recently one of the largest outdoor advertising operations in North America.

Like I said, obscure!

It doesn't matter what the parent company owns.

Re:CBS? What about Netflix?

[omnichad]

I guess concurrent release would be a better word. They don't release any sooner/later than the main network with rights in a lot of their distribution deals.

I don't know where you're going with DVDs. This is not how Netflix acquires the source material for their stream. They usually use badly beat up secondhand Betacam SP or Digital Betacam tapes for most HD shows. How do I know? Because when watching some less popular streaming shows, the picture sometimes drops out to a blue screen with a "no signal" type error message.

In fact, lots of networks released shows on a weekly basis to Netflix (at least for distribution outside the US). Netflix would prefer to drop them all at the start, but the original network still wants to be premiering them before anyone anywhere is talking about the episodes. A couple of examples are Riverdale and Better Call Saul.

Big Brother: Star Trek

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Splitting it in two will also allow it to exist after the end of BBOTT 2. If BBOTT 2 doesn't happen, then pushing it to September puts part 1 after BB 19 is over as well.

In either case, I won't pay for CBS All Access without BB. One 24 hour a day show I will, one hour a week, nope.

There is nothing besides BB I would watch for free, much less pay for. I know this from experience of having All Access for BB in other years.

Re:Big Brother: Star Trek

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Hey, CBS! How about putting previous years' BB live streams online instead of just the broadcast shows? Now that I might pay for!

Re: Big Brother: Star Trek

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt there will be a BBOTT2. CBS made some big mistakes with BBOTT that undoubtedly hurt it quite a bit. I'd think that if BBOTT was successful, CBS would have talked it up rather than remaining quiet about how it was doing. It's a shame because BBOTT had a really good cast that was better than what's been on BB in recent years. BBOTT casting was done by the Amazing Race casting team instead of the normal BB casting.

CBS is heavily promoting BB right now despite the cast not yet being announced. They didn't really promote BBOTT that much, so I'd bet that a lot fewer people knew about it to begin with. The format was also much closer to BB1, which wasn't particularly successful. After that season, CBS changed the format to be more like Survivor, which had huge ratings for its first season. I also get it that the live feeds really are the show, but it's good to still provide updates for people who miss stuff or just don't watch the live feeds. Normal BB has three shows a week that are all one hour long. They're really cheap to produce because two full shows and part of the third each week are simply clips from the live feeds. I think they drove off a lot of people who don't watch the live feeds much or at all.

If there's one thing they did right, it was allowing viewers to see the entire competitions and the meetings. I've never understood why they don't do that with the live feeds for normal BB. Once the competitions and meetings are over, everyone knows the outcome anyway. That would be a welcome change for BB.

BB could run year round if it was successful. It has to be really cheap to produce compared to scripted shows. If BBOTT was successful, I'd have expected BBOTT2 to run during the spring. That's been the format of Survivor and the Amazing Race for nearly all of their runs.

Running BB year round is one of the few ways that CBS could get people to continuously subscribe to All Access. Actually, the only other one I can think of is to start putting some live sports exclusively on there. Otherwise, there's no incentive to not just subscribe for a month or two out of the year to watch full seasons when they've fully been released. If there were two seasons of BBOTT only on All Access each year, I'd probably subscribe to watch them. I've never really gotten into watching the live feeds when I can get updates on Twitter. But I'd watch three episodes per week if they did that. Watching the competitions in their entirety is pretty entertaining, too. Unfortunately, BBOTT is probably dead.

As an aside, if they would eliminate some of the stupid rules, I'd like to see Hunted back for another season. If nothing else, it did a good job of demonstrating just how much surveillance there really is. If it raises awareness of how much we're being tracked, I'm in favor of it returning.

Being the oracle.

[Anonymous Coward]

It will not be anywhere close to Voyager or TNG.
Too much LGBT, too much focus on anything else but the whole concept.

Re:Being the oracle.

[MightyMartian]

Considering one of the original concepts of Star Trek was to delve into controversial social issues, how would, for instance, episodes on LGBTQ rights be out of place. This is franchise that arguably gave at least the United States its first televised interracial kiss, and a franchise where tolerance for the "other", however that might be defined in any given episode, was considered one of the highest ideals of the Federation.

Re:Being the oracle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about the black communications officer. At least the show after that the bridge crew was all white except that one black man who was always getting put in his place for being dumb and aggressive just like how blacks are in the real world.

Then they made a black man an administrator of a whole space station! Just because Star Wars did something that unrealistic doesn't mean Star Trek had to do it too! A black man could never handle running a space station or a cloud city without rampant political correctness. Lando and Sisko were clearly both diversity hires.

Then they made a woman a captain! I should have figured that would happen when they had female admirals in that second Trek series. A black woman as a comm officer I can handle, but not that kind of political correct drivel. And black Vulcans? WTF. Black people are too illogical to be Vulcans.

Now they want to have LickButt (or however LGBT is pronounced) characters? Star Trek is dead to me.

(Disclaimer: This is a pathetic attempt at sarcasm. I hope the person from the red site who posts about LigButts won't mind my borrowing that. Do you even come here anymore, person I lifted LickButt from?)

Re:Being the oracle.

[x0ra]

LBGTTTQQIAA is nowhere "controversial" is the western world... Get over it.

Re:Being the oracle.

[MightyMartian]

If it isn't controversial, why do some posters here not want to hear anything about it?

Re:Being the oracle.

[Anonymous Coward]

"first televised interracial kiss" No, that's a myth. Star Trek did NOT give us the first interracial kiss.

Re:Being the oracle.

[x0ra]

Because we're fed up of that constant proselytism of the progressive left.

Re:Being the oracle.

[MightyMartian]

In other words, LGBTQ issues are controversial.

Re:Being the oracle.

[x0ra]

I'm not going to french kiss and grab my women's pussy in the street (or at least, not outside the Folsom Fair), and it is nowhere "controversial". To what level do you want it to be uncontroversial ? I'm not going to wack off gay porn, that's not my thing, and I'm not sorry about that. Deal with it.

If you had an ounce of honesty, you'd go fight in Arabic countries where you can still get the death sentence for it, but you're too much of a pussy for that.

Re: Being the oracle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who did then?

Re:Being the oracle.

[x0ra]

Oh, and btw, explain this: why do we allow the LBGTTTQQIAA to do in the street, during pride parades, in broad daylight where underage children are present, behaviors that we do not allow, as a society, underage children to see on TV (most of the time involving straight sexuality) ? Strange double standard...

Re:Being the oracle.

[PrimaryConsult]

With Trek there typically isn't continuous focus on any romantic relationships; they would either involve a recurring guest, or the characters would be separated frequently enough by circumstance to allow other stories to be told. Hoping this one keeps that trend.

Re:Being the oracle.

[tsqr]

"first televised interracial kiss" No, that's a myth. Star Trek did NOT give us the first interracial kiss.

The first known interracial kiss on television was in a British broadcast of the play, "You In Your Small Corner", which aired in the UK in 1962. The first interracial kiss on American network television was in the episode "Plato's Stepchildren," which aired on 22 Nov 1968, when Captain Kirk (William Shatner) kissed Lieutenant Uhura (Nichelle Nichols). The Star Trek kiss was widely believed to be the first interracial kiss on any television broadcast ever, until the "rediscovery" in 2015 of the British broadcast.

Re:Being the oracle.

[green1]

I don't think posters have a problem watching a show that includes it, just like people watched a show that included a black woman on the bridge, and later a black captain on a space station, and then a woman commanding a starship. Going to LGBTQ stuff would be par for the course for Trek. What people DO have an issue with is that the people putting this show together haven't come up with anything better to say about the show than that it will include these issues. That screams "We don't have a good story to tell, but at least we're politically correct!" nobody wants that. People want good storytelling, and want it to include that sorts of social commentary. They don't want social commentary just for the sake of social commentary.

Re:Being the oracle.

[MightyMartian]

Thanks for demonstrating my point that LGBTQ is controversial.

Re:Being the oracle.

[MightyMartian]

I did say:

This is franchise that arguably gave at least the United States its first televised interracial kiss

The fact is that Roddenberry had no problem directly invoking controversial topics when he wanted to, so considering some still find gay people some horrifying and awful thing that should be kept off the TV, well, that's not so different as to how some people felt in even in the mid and late 1960s that any interracial sexual contact was horrifying and awful.

For chrissake, people were freaking out about the Sulu and his husband thing from the last ST film, and it was like a five second chunk of film of the most modest kind of affection. The way some people were freaking out, you think it was full on gay sex happening.

Re:Being the oracle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and btw, explain this: why do we allow the LBGTTTQQIAA to do in the street, during pride parades, in broad daylight where underage children are present, behaviors that we do not allow, as a society, underage children to see on TV (most of the time involving straight sexuality) ? Strange double standard...

Public "service" ? :-)

Re:Being the oracle.

[Rakarra]

Oh, and btw, explain this: why do we allow the LBGTTTQQIAA to do in the street, during pride parades

The "pride parades" do not reflect most gay/les/bi/whatever people, they are just highly visible, which is why they're so closely associated with "gay people." Even there, such behavior is usually one small subsection of a parade as well. It's part of a very specific subculture among non-straight/etc people, an image that both that subculture promotes (because it's them) and regular culture promotes as well, because most people without gay friends don't have any experience with non-straight folks who look and act like straight folks.

Re: Being the oracle.

[Rakarra]

There was a British soap opera which portrayed an interracial kiss in 1964.
But in the US, there are a few factors at first. Would the kisses between Hispanic Desi Arnaz and White Lucille Ball be considered interracial, or would you say Arnaz is a white male of Cuban ancestry? Probably the latter.
An episode of I Spy in 1966 featured a kiss between a white man and a Eurasian actress.
The first black/white kiss aired on US television was from Nancy Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr, a year before the Star Trek episode aired.
Star Trek featured the first black/white kiss in US scripted television.

Re:Being the oracle.

[x0ra]

Oh, and btw, explain this: why do we allow the LBGTTTQQIAA to do in the street, during pride parades

The "pride parades" do not reflect most gay/les/bi/whatever people,

Yet, they "pride" themselves to speak for all LBGTTTQQIAA, including conservative ones.

Re:Being the oracle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree with the decision to make Sulu gay, but I found that the scene itself was tastefully done. What panicked people was ahead of the release was that they announced it.

Even George Takei whom the decision was meant to honor felt: "Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154

"Scotty, we need to fail faster"

[enjar]

Aye aye Captain, let's put it on Netflix everywhere else but make US consumers jump through stupid hoops. Also, we won't air it on the broadcast network in the US and we'll charge money for the app access with no other compelling content, then dribble the episodes out as long as we can. I'm giving all I've got!

Re:"Scotty, we need to fail faster"

[ConceptJunkie]

I still watch a little bit of network TV (on Hulu, of course), but I can't remember the last time I watched anything from CBS. I am definitely not going to subscribe to something for one show that I may or may not like. Looking at their plans for this show, they seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from how TV has changed in the last decade.

Re:"Scotty, we need to fail faster"

[enjar]

We have an antenna connected to a TiVo plus the usual suspects with respect to streaming services. If they had followed in the footsteps of Starz by offering this as an add-on to Amazon Prime for a few bucks a month I'd likely have given it a shot, or even offered it straight up on Amazon as a subscription I'd have taken a look. But another login, a show that looks kinda meh and a backlog of other stuff that's been getting decent reviews or I'm already into? Plus GoT coming back July 16th ... I can wait to see if there's anything here worthwhile. The other things I watch on CBS are sports (NFL football) and Big Bang Theory, although truth be told that show is really coasting along nowadays and if I never watched another episode I doubt I'll miss a thing.

Re:"Scotty, we need to fail faster"

[Anonymous Coward]

Serves you right for having extra content and blocking outsiders and VPNs..

How to kill a new TV series

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep it off of over-the-air broadcast TV.

What's CBS?

[Anonymous Coward]

WB replaced the CBS channel where I live. RIP CBS.

Here's hoping

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's hoping that this is actually star trek, not some touchy feely crap about social injustices written by millennials for millennials. I can just see it now, the Borg getting a stern talking to about bullying and feminism wave 5 striking risa

CBS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that might get me to figure out how to get TV reception here. I haven't bought a new TV since 2010, but I've never used this one as a TV set.
I wonder if they've changed which channel is the CBS affiliate.
OMG! Does that mean I'm going to watch a commercial?

season 1.5 on showtime after CBS All Access fails?

[Joe_Dragon]

season 1.5 on showtime after CBS All Access fails?
 

'Streaming only', and other complaints

[Rick Schumann]

Between the 'streaming only' delivery of it (I'm not paying for that any more than I'd pay for cable anymore) and the whole Axanar debacle, CBS can kiss my ass, Do Not Want. If I feel the need for a Star Trek fix, there's reruns of all of it on the H&I Channel.

Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints

[Rick Schumann]

Oh, and one more big 'FUCK YOU' to CBS, since someone reminded me of it: Sueing 'Star Trek Continues' into non-existence. If you never had a chance to see it, it was excellently written, acted, and produced, professional, broadcast-quality.

Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints

[Baron_Yam]

I was unaware they'd done that. That's horrible. It was a perfect continuation of the old series.

They should have bought it out and kept it going if they couldn't abide it's independent existence.

Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints

[ZenShadow]

Okay, wow.

1: Star Trek Continues has never, to the best of my knowledge, been sued by CBS. In fact, they apparently have a pretty good relationship from what I've heard.

2: Axanar was probably a scam. Do some research on the guy behind it, and then ask yourself: where did the million bucks go? They had pro-bono representation, so it's doubtful they spent anywhere near that on their short-lived defense. They produced only a few minutes of video. And they were so flagrant about violating Trek IP that they were single-handedly responsible for CBS deciding they had to clamp down on fan productions -- and CBS could have done far, far worse than they did.

You can hate on CBS for a lot of things, but at least do it for something they deserve to be hated on for... Axanar is not so clear cut, and I have no clue where you came up with the supposed ST:C lawsuit.

Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints

[drinkypoo]

They should have bought it out and kept it going if they couldn't abide it's independent existence.

It was really going to make them look like assholes when more people watched that than their new series.

Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints

[Rick Schumann]

Okay.. some of my information, apparently, is out of date. Last I'd heard, ST:C was in a legal kerfuffle with CBS, mainly over the fact that they were producing a broadcast-quality program, and CBS wanted them to either stop completely or dumb it down to the point where it looked like a skit done in a hallway at a science fiction convention. Apparently they've backed off that.

Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints

[Baron_Yam]

I don't know about that. I mean, it was an almost perfect recreation of the old series, with the special effects and makeup improved a bit (without destroying the 60s feel) but it still had a bit of 'fan effort' air to it, and... it was an almost perfect recreation of the old series.

I think there's a limited audience for that. Also, some of the casting was off, and (Let That Be Your Last Battlefield notwithstanding) some of the moralizing was heavy-handed and amateurish.

Or the new series could really be so bad that a decent fan series mimicking a 50 year old low budget show kicks its ass. That's a possibility too.

Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints

[oldmac31310]

? According to the ST Continues website there are still three more episodes to come. Are you thinking of the Axanar debacle? The Axanar people made a lot of stupid mistakes in their negotiations, if I remember correctly.

Re:season 1.5 on showtime after CBS All Access fai

[Anonymous Coward]

season 1.5 on showtime after CBS All Access fails?

Maybe. And CBS All Access will fail.
I hate to say this because I love her work, but if Summer Glau was it in, we would be 80% certain it would be cancelled after 4 episodes and CBS All Access dismantled.

If the teaser posted is anything by which to judge

[WindSword]

, I'll be giving this a very wide berth. Why is Star Trek Continues superior to every mega-budget effort on display?

I love the GOT ST:D crossover episodes

[WillAffleckUW]

They're the best!

Skipping

[p51d007]

If it isn't on "free TV" I won't bother. Also, you can bet it will interject political correctness, and be biased against anything of a "democratic" nature.

Re:Skipping

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you even comprehend yourself as a star trek fan?

The federation is literally gay space communism, all inclusive.

TOS had black and asian characters ffs. IT STARTED POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

Did You Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

From the trailer @ 1:29, the Klingons are a racist black caricature. Smooth move CBS.

Re:Did You Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Smooth move CBS.

You forgot a comma. That should say:

Smooth move, CBS.

Oh boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait for episodes of STD.

Their Klingons don't even look like Klingons

[mfearby]

I'll pass. It won't even be worth downloading a torrent off the pirate bay and will probably be another "Enterprise" joke.

The Orville looks more Promising

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, watched the trailer. Boring. The Orville looks more promising even if they played cliched music during it.

Trek is dry and should die. Same old stories and stodgy, unrealistic philosophy.

Why 8:30 for one hour show? Death Sentence!

[Anonymous Coward]

CBS is AGAIN killing what could be a great show, even before it starts. They do not understand it, so they kill it. Starting a 1 hour show on the half hour? WTF?
What will the lead in show be? Housewives of Beverly Hills or Kim and Kanye? Perhaps that half hour will be the football wrap up.
Not really the audiences for Star Trek,

Star Trek was PC before there was a PC

[Cpt_Kirks]

So, I'll give the new trek a shot.

The trailers do look good, movie quality even.

Actually though, The Orville looks just as good.

THAT I want to see.

Come on now: You're better than that!

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Ase unlike other securitytools you've total control of hosts. Open it in a text editor & remove it as blocked there, easily, yourself!

APK

P.S.=> Somehow (sarcasm) I know you know how this is done & you know the above (+ yes, I doubt you're telling the truth as well), so you're only giving me guff but, there you are... apk

STAR TREK FIRST FRONTIER

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see STAR TREK FIRST FRONTIER for free on YouTube! It also premiers in 2017, and it also takes place BEFORE Kirk. https://youtu.be/kNF4VgPLscY

The Best ST is ST Continues

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

Few people know about it, but the best Star Trek since Star Trek is ST:Continues. It perfectly captures the look and feel of TOS & is a damn sight better than just about anything I've ever seen. The first episode "Pilgrim of Eternity" especially is a proverbial home run out of the park.

Muslim haters

[Anonymous Coward]

The Xindi were Muslims. If you didn't see the real life allegory they were trying to push, well, I guess you are blind. Every show at that time was all about the terrorism. BSG almost fucked up with the terror shit but quickly turned that around in S2. The Xindi arc was pandering to the popular topic at the time. It was garbage. I found the whole devious Vulcan/Andorian plot much more exciting. I am a big fan of Enterprise and was since the first episode, but the constant terrorism crap wore thin quickly.

Incredible News

[williamreview1]

So excited! Can't wait to see this event, really! http://williamreview.com/im-vi...

Scumbags

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put it on regular TV that we are already paying for. Fuck CBS.