Slashdot Mirror
5 Star Trek Shows in Development, 1 Could Star Patrick Stewart, Reports Say (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In the wake of shocking allegations against Star Trek: Discovery's showrunners, producer Alex Kurtzman recently took over the role of showrunning the latest Trek series' sophomore season. But according to multiple reports today, he's just signed a new deal with CBS that could usher in multiple new Star Trek shows. Variety reports that Kurtzman has inked a $25 million deal with CBS as part of a five-year plan to bring more Trek shows to TV in the wake of Discovery's success. According to the site, five series are currently in early development: A teen-oriented series set at Starfleet Academy from Stephanie Savage and Josh Schwartz, the duo behind the recent Dynasty reboot and Marvel's Runaways adaptation. A limited series with a currently confidential plot. A limited series based around the beloved character Khan, from the original Star Trek and the classic film The Wrath of Khan -- something that's been rumored for a while as being spearheaded by Wrath of Khan director Nicholas Meyer. An animated series with another currently confidential plot.
Remember that Voyager was created during the very early years of the public adoption of the Internet and the WWW. Although some episodes may seem dumb today, at the time it was pushing societal boundaries in many ways, before information traveled as quickly as it does today. One example is the depiction of Ensign Harry Kim. If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the first, if not the very first, character in a mainstream production to suffer from micropenis syndrome and the difficulties it entails, such as the inability to form and maintain romantic relationships with women. Instead of being ostracized, he was shown as receiving compassion and care from his fellow crewmates. For many viewers this was their first introduction to a physical disorder that can be particularly challenging to deal with. But that's really what Star Trek has long been about: challenging societal norms in a non-confrontational manner that serves to enlighten, rather than to anger.
If they can get it on my cable TV somehow, the cable I'm already paying big $$$$ for, then maybe I'll set the DVR. Oh, and despite the sexy graphics of the Discovery show, I stopped at the 1st episode where the female captain goes one-on-one with a Klingon and doesn't die. Female-lead combat command also ruined The Force Awakens for me, as it is seriously unrealistic in that, although women could probably do these things, you don't find many aspiring to such roles. Getting them "all over the place" in the flick... fantasy. Kirk could barely go 1-on-1 with Klingons, so its preposterous for a female sans Marvel Universe super-powers to be doing it. Wonder Woman yes, any other woman, no... Just gimmie a break, make it available without extra $$$, and don't do silly-s-stuff like women-lead combat units and then maybe...
I too am sick and tired of the overabundance of leftist narrative and agenda in media these days but wasn't Star Trek always filled with progressive leftist viewpoints? I liked the new discovery the only thing that stood out was no cisgendered white male in a major role (kid of sexists and racists isn't it?)
It was basically lens flare after lens flare. The Orville on the other hand was hilarious.
Thank you for saying this. It's why the 1966 WorldCon attendees rallied to get the show continued aftr it was axed. And why Mr Chekov was added later - for fair representation of humanity. Adding a Russian at the height of the Cold War was controversial. On the other hand, not having representatives of all spacefaring nations at that time (total =2) was silly.
[Topic change]
The OP said "shocking". I don't mean to shitpost, but get a grip. Many things in life are shocking, and many things that Hollywood companies do are shocking (Sony breaking your computer, Disney buying politicians to keep copyright on that mouse). But anything they do to their own properties is not "shocking".
As said, OP needs to get a grip. Or get out more.
Was Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd considered attractive in the 1984 film? at least I don't think their characters were considered to have any sex appeal.
There is a thin line to walk when you make a film that caters men's desire for sex appeal. You have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate the 52% of female moviegoers. The naive approach is to make a film that appeals to 100% of people equally, but then the film might be bland and uninteresting. A polarizing film or at least one that caters to a particular niche is an old formula. And I feel like Ghostbusters 2016 couldn't decide if it was a film for women, or a film for everyone, or a film for Ghostbuster fans. That vagueness in finding an audience is probably where it went wrong. And if I had the rights to produce a Ghostbuster film I would have gone after people in their mid 30's to 40's who watched the Saturday morning cartoon series as a kid, of course that isn't at all what Dan Aykroyd wanted to see. (P.S. probably good reason I'm not in charge of multi-million dollar film studio budgets)
Ultimately I think Ghostbusters 2016 was an experiment in marketing that was not successful in its goals and not an preview into a new world order of liberal-socialist PC police.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire