Slashdot Mirror
CBS Delaying 'Star Trek: Discovery' To Maintain Quality (foxnews.com)
New submitter Zorro shares a report from Fox News: The premiere of "Star Trek: Discovery" on CBS' subscription streaming service, CBS All Access, was postponed nine months to maintain the quality of the brand. Executive producer Alex Kurtzman told the Television Critics Association Tuesday that they "spent a lot of time" discussing how to create this new world for TV that felt authentic to the "Star Trek" universe. Also during that time, executive producer Bryan Fuller decided to exit the series as showrunner to focus on other projects. Kurtzman said "it became clearer and clearer" that the targeted January debut would "compromise the quality of the show," so it was pushed with the blessing of CBS Chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves.
There's no way they don't ship it at this point, but given that the current plan is to make it available via their Streaming service, I bet when it tanks they blame streaming instead of the show.
We'll see, but I'm not hopeful.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.
There's always been a lot of escapist space-opera. Star Trek usually offered something greater than that, even when using an episodic, rather than a serialized format. Granted, that something-greater isn't for everyone, as there are a lot of people that like the escapist space-opera stuff that don't like Star Trek, but that's OK, they've managed to create well over 500 hours of content and are arguably the most successful science fiction media franchise in history, so clearly there's enough audience for what Star Trek has offered to justify it.
The problem is that if one attempts to change it to make it appeal to even more people then that special-something that built the fanbase in the first place is lost, and I have no doubt that more fans would be lost than would be found in the new format, at least for something that requires as much commitment as a weekly TV series.
TV shows struggle to find the balance between character-interaction/development and the situations that the characters find themselves in. Too much of one or the other and the audience shrugs and tunes in to something else. From what little I've heard about this new series it was going to be far too much on characters and not nearly enough on big-picture situations. Hopefully someone at CBS or whoever manages the franchise will realize that unless they manage to walk a fine line, they're going to end up spending a lot of money producing a show that doesn't build an audience.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The original Star Trek only ran for 3 seasons, but created a *HUGE* following, and led to several movies, a few of which were actually good. TNG was a reboot and it lasted for 7 seasons, and also had a HUGE following. It followed the same formula, and it did great!
Deep Space Nine - Star Trek on a space station. When the commander points his finger and says "Engage", nothing happens. That's why halfway through it's run, they brought in the Defiant.
Voyager - Gilligan's Island in space. I didn't care that the Captain was a woman, but apparently the rest of the demographic did. Halfway though it's run, they dropped Kes and got Seven of Nine for eye candy.
Enterprise - Star Trek with the guy from Quantum Leap. They deal with species that we never see in any of the other shows, and are missing the species that we WANT to see. Only lasted about 4 years.
There is only one formula that works. That's what the viewers want to see. CBS is *NOT* going to do that, so Discovery will suck.
If there's one place where SJW's belong, it's Star Trek. Frankly, the reboot movies were kind of boring because they were generic action flicks with none of the social commentary that Roddenberry was all about. Speculative fiction in general is partly built on presenting social issues with some of the prejudices stripped away through the use of alien ideas.
Even if the positions are silly or the metaphors don't hold up under scrutiny, at least they could've tried, rather than done yet another safe-but-not-super J.J. "I know how to start a story but have no clue how to finish it" Abrams vehicle.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Everyone is in some weird 1% that doesn't quite fit in.
Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.
And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
From what I saw, they are trying to change too much. We typically don't appreciate "Re-imaginings" of such an established universe... Klingons should look like Klingons. Seems like they are trying to sell it to a new generation too much, and ignoring the existing fan base, which is IMMENSE. This is probably going to backfire.
This whole thing has had "trainwreck" plastered all over it at least since Bryan Fuller left. Fuller has a great TV track record and solid Trek experience. When he doesn't want anything to do with a Trek project, you know it must be a piece of shit.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The original Star Trek only ran for 3 seasons, but created a *HUGE* following, and led to several movies, a few of which were actually good. TNG was a reboot and it lasted for 7 seasons, and also had a HUGE following. It followed the same formula, and it did great!
A season when TOS was made was 26 episodes with a new season every year. A "modern" season is 13 episodes with a new season every year and a half.
"His name was James Damore."
If you read the first two books of Plato's Republic, you'll find six or seven contrasting definitions of Justice. Even the ancient Greeks knew that "justice" was a beautiful-sounding word promising some vague celesetial virtue whose earthly manifestation could be anything convenient to the person speaking at the moment.
Never fight for buzzwords. Fight for specific, quantified goals.