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.

Comments

Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

Looks like Paramount stole their business plans from Mel Brooks.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

Definitely it's about money. The whole leftist conspiracy you allude to has more to do with media coverage and social media than it does with the political beliefs of rich executives at production companies. Ultimately all of them, left and right, worship the same god, the Almighty Dollar.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[ch0knuti]

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?)

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[nitehawk214]

Pushing narratives gets views. Executives don't care if the watchers hate the product or love it. Causing controversy is much easier than producing a good product.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Dragonslicer]

diversity... I really wouldn't want to see Star Trek fall victim to this kind of manipulation.

You didn't watch the original Star Trek, did you? Diversity was a significant part of Roddenberry's conception of the future.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead the lead was an ugly unfeminine thing played by Sonequa Martin-Green. I don't remember if they ever revealed a guy named Michael was either a man or a woman, but either way it was so ugly that it was difficult to watch the show.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Mark of the North]

There's so much more media than one could possibly consume, with left or right narratives, that one can choose only that which supports their preference. And that's a problem.

I try to watch a bit of both camps to mix things up. But both Fox and MSNBC's Trump coverage make me lose my appetite. More Fox than MSNBC, but still...

And that's just televised news. Social media makes me violently ill.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Anonymous Coward]

Causing unwanted and artificial 'controversy' is also a very effective way to destroy a media property. A good example of this is literally right in front of our faces: the /. web site. This was once the premiere tech-oriented online destination. Industry leaders used to participate here on a daily basis. Getting your product or service noticed by the /. community used to be a huge deal. It's hard to believe it these days, but /. used to be an extremely important and influential media outlet. Then we started seeing more and more submissions, many of them politically charged, that appear to only have been on the front page to generate 'controversy'. While this did result in lots of discussion, and presumably lots of advertisment views, in the short term, it also has had serious long term repercussions. Many of the top individuals who were influential in the industry wanted no part of this nonsense, and they left for other discussion forums. The low quality submissions also started driving away other regular users who made positive contributions to the community here. As the community has continued to disintegrate due to this forced 'controversy', we've seen, in my opinion, things get quite bad around here. The submissions, comments and moderating are now the worst that I've ever seen here. The sense of community is long gone; all we get now is bickering and name calling. In my opinion, the generation of 'controversy' here shook the foundations of this community, ultimately fracturing it in a way that is likely irreparable. If manufactured 'controversy' could ruin /. so completely, I can see it doing the same to other media outlets and series. It's a very risky stunt to attempt.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Anonymous Coward]

One would assume that Roseanne, or even Trump would understand that their tweets would almost always be "taken out of context", and that as a grown up it is the responsibility of the tweet sender to use even a fucking small amount of discretion or thought before sending something out that millions of people, including the press, would read.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

Trying to apologize for Roseanne is a job for the witless and the dickless.
Which are you?

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

To be honest ABC's quick response was a shock to me. And I do doubt in that instance that ABC's decision was driven by profit. Perhaps there is some risk to brand name that Disney at least perceived, but that's hard to put into numbers to weigh in the cold logic of profit.

It's certainly ABC's right to refuse to work with someone based on their behavior and politics. Political Affiliation Discrimination isn't normally a protected class, but it is illegal in California. Perhaps she could win if it is an extreme case and in the right court. (the show was filmed in the CBS Studio Center in Los Angeles, so pretty easy to use California as jurisdiction)

As to the original point. Most films are an investment that are expected to pay back. Individuals on the film may have additional motives besides profit. Usually producers aren't willing to sacrifice too much of their money or reputation on pushing a political agenda, especially if that turns it into a flop. I would take the Ghostbusters reboot as an example. An all female cast, is that a leftist agenda, or a gimmick to fuel a marketing campaign? Given how much marketing went into the film I really do suspect this was a carefully considered move, even if it didn't pan out. The Ghostbusters film missed breaking even, although some people still made a lot of money on it. Maybe it would have turned a profit if they wouldn't have spent $140 million on marketing, which was nearly as much as the film's regular budget.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's razor

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Tablizer]

pushing a divisive leftist narrative and agenda? We've seen numerous movies and video games where faux 'diversity' has been crammed in solely to try to promote a leftist agenda.

I don't get something about these kinds of claims. Maybe you can explain it. If the right is worried that the left controls Hollywood and most entertainment, why don't they make their own studios and produce right-leaning content?

John Wayne remakes/clones, Leave it to Beaver reboots, The Osmonds: The Next Generation, Lawrence Welk in Space, Hee Haw II, NASCAR++, Thurston Howell's Island, whatever floats your boats.

It's not like the right doesn't have start-up money; they probably have more than the left. Stop complaining and make your own.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[AmiMoJo]

TV shows are about making money. Thank you Captain Obvious.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[AmiMoJo]

Most of the series were. TNG had a French captain, female security officer, and Data's personhood was the basis of a few plots over the years.

DS9 had a black captain and did more than any other series to explore the lives of aliens and their cultures.

Voyager had women in several key roles including captain.

Enterprise was a bit of an anomaly and seemed to suffer from not having that strong social justice aspect to drive the stories.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Gavagai80]

I would take the Ghostbusters reboot as an example. An all female cast, is that a leftist agenda, or a gimmick to fuel a marketing campaign?

When a [non-comedy] show uses a cast of all unattractive overweight women, I'll believe they're pursuing a leftist agenda. Until then, they're just trying to simultaneously sell men on sex appeal and women on empowerment to take money from both.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

Enterprise tl;dr - time travel == bad

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[sexconker]

$140 million on marketing, which was nearly as much as the film's regular budget.

As a flat number, $140 million on marketing is fucking peanuts these days. As a percentage, many major films now spend as much on marketing as they do on production, if not more.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Iamthecheese]

Diversity was an important backdrop. It wasn't ever pushed in the viewer's face. There was a black woman on the bridge, and very little was said about that. I'm okay with that kind of diversity. The modern kind of "diversity" is fake. It's diverse like a wax apple is a fruit. Diversity of opinion is forbidden and a whole race and sex are strongly depreciated. It's sexism and racism by a different name. By all means have a diverse cast. If it's a good show I'll watch it. But make every third person a fat black lesbian otherkin and you're not only not diverse, you're clearly throwing the whole show under the bus.

Re:Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[blindseer]

Will there be a Star Trek flamethrower?

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[BasilBrush]

ABC's reaction with Rosanne was still a profit based decision. They feared losing advertisers.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Tablizer]

They do, and they're usually garbage

Garbage is in the eye of the beholder. If you feed people's fantasies and paranoias, they come back for more, even if their fantasies and paranoias are, well, odd.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[sysrammer]

The U.S. wasn't a terribly polarized place back then compared to now.

You don't remember the Generation Gap, do you? Four dead in Ohio? Silent Majority? Damned Hippies? 'Nam?

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[BasilBrush]

Not just Uhuru, the regular cast also had Japanese, Russian, Scottish and of course Vulcan characters.

Hard to realise the significance of a Russian character as one of the good guys at the height of the cold war.

And then of course you had episodes that were dedicated to condemning racism, such as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" where the aliens were half black, half white.

And of course having Kirk and Uhuru kiss was quite literally "pushing it in the viewer's face", at a time when segregation was still an issue in some US states.

If you have a problem with diversity in 2018, you are an asshole.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Ocker3]

And be nice to Data

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Anonymous Coward]

Having Kirk and Uhura kiss was one data point. But most of the series, nobody commented on the (human) diversity of the crew because it didn't matter. That was the point. It didn't matter what race they all were; they were all human.

Compare that to Discovery. It's clearly important /to the characters/ that and how they are diverse. Science fiction is good at pointing to the ills of society by using aliens and the like as foils. Discovery does not do that.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[h33t l4x0r]

I wish they'd leave Roseanne on and cancel Trump. Why do we hold comedians to a higher standard than world leaders?

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Mashiki]

I don't get something about these kinds of claims. Maybe you can explain it. If the right is worried that the left controls Hollywood and most entertainment, why don't they make their own studios and produce right-leaning content?

First problem, is that Hollywood and most entertainment is held exclusively by the left. That makes entrance very difficult, never mind the culture of "if you don't belong, they go after you" mentality in entertainment itself. Same hold in a lot of education as well, people don't seem to realize that in general the left has a hold on most of society and conservatives are the general minority outside of the population.

But, they have made their own stuff in the past. Most have moved to far more profitable fronts like video games, and we can see the problems there with gaming site gatekeepers trying to push the same garbage that "if you're not xyz inclusive, etc" they'll attempt to ruin your brand. See stuff like Detroit Become Human, and several other similar titles.

Let's not forget that conservatives already did what you suggested in scifi with pointing out the utter hypocrisy and circle-jerking, that was with sad puppies and rabid puppies. The entrenched leftists in the hugo's decided that burning everything down and ruining the brand rather then allowing conservatives to have a voice was the acceptable option.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[blindseer]

Enterprise suffered from not having much of a story.

Enterprise suffered for Starfleet not having much of a story. What is Starfleet? It's got a rank structure that we'd recognize as a navy, but then lots of noncombat organizations do. They fly around in ships that are armed, have science teams, do diplomacy, but they make it clear in many ways that they are not a military. They don't fight wars unless absolutely necessary. They don't have "soldiers" as we'd recognize them, only "security officers" or some such are armed with any regularity. It seems that there's more staff in stellar cartography than any other department on the ship. Not that you see these people, we see what the engineers, medics, and command officers are doing.

The Enterprise, in all it's iterations in the Trek-verse, is never described as a warship. It encounters warships and often it perseveres over the warships through some combination of smarts, luck, enemy incompetence or arrogance, or whatever combination of such that moves the plot. They are always on some kind of science mission, making way to some diplomatic function, responding to some call for assistance. What equivalent do we have in our world to this?

Probably the best approximation to Starfleet would be the Coast Guard. One of the biggest function of the Coast Guard is to assist in trade. They perform ship inspections, check paperwork, and so on. This is in addition to things we see Starfleet do like search and rescue, get called up to fight in wars, do science missions, and even in some cases have to be diplomats.

I believe that Enterprise would have been more interesting if it was described as a ship in what we'd recognize as something of a Coast Guard in space. They'd still be doing diplomatic missions, map out stars, respond to calls for assistance, and even fight as a light battleship and/or flying hospital in times of war. In addition they'd have to deal with things like make sure interstellar freighters met safety standards, check for people smuggling illegal aliens, and maybe even hand out citations for speeding. Maybe that sounds boring to many people but there were episodes of Enterprise where they did some of this stuff. Also, there's all kinds of TV shows about police forces. There's shows about ships at sea doing this kind of stuff, transfer that kind of plot to ships in space.

Seems to me that the powers that be tried real hard to not make Starfleet a military, and failed in many ways, and also didn't want Starfleet to look like "cops in space". Well, some organization needs to be the cops in space because people don't always behave. If that's not Starfleet then who is? Make a show about space police and I'd probably watch it.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[rtb61]

ie there is only one question I want answered about Star Trek, will Klingons continue to be ugly cannibals who clad their star ships in coffin armour and behave like idiotic Hollywood ideologues or change back. Not to forget, will star drives go back to being science based or push further into pixie dust territory and how long before captain nancy pants as a commanders name ie for the next expelled cadet that gets made captain of the federation of planet fleet flagsship by the commandant of that academy because he is too stupid to command a starship (well that is pretty self evident).

Will it be STEM Star Trek or liberal arts Stupid Trek. I'm betting liberal arts Stupid Trek where they strive to take the science out of science fiction not by choice simply by nature, that low IQ nature supported by nepotism nature.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Voyager529]

I don't think the issue is with diversity, but with presentation. Yes, TOS had "Plato's Stepchildren" and "Last Battlefield" and the one with the nuclear war fought within a computer...but how often was putting a Russian in charge of navigation and shields a point of contention? How many times was Sulu's Japanese heritage brought up (remember, we didn't like Japan much after WWII, and it was still very much in living memory)? Uhura being black during the civil rights movement is what everyone remembers, but how often did her gender come up in the context of her being a bridge officer and other than Plato's Stepchildren, did her race come up more than maybe once or twice? The answers to all of these questions are "It didn't", "It didn't", and "It didn't", and "I'll have to double check...but I'm pretty sure it didn't".

Roddenberry's most amazing statement throughout TOS was paradoxically the most subtle - these things were such non-issues that they weren't worthy of anyone's attention. Uhura wasn't perceived by the crew as "a black woman", she was "the communications officer, and a damn good one", and everyone from Kirk on down respected her as such. Same for Chekov and Sulu. The whole ship was egalitarian in that sense - skills and rank were respected, but nobody treated anyone else better or worse based on race or gender. As it should be.

I don't know the GP, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have an issue with a diverse cast in itself. The issue is when that becomes such a point of focus that it starts being the defining characteristic of the individual at the expense of anything that would give the character any real amount of depth. When a show starts doing that, the push for diversity starts seeping into the scripts. Even then, there's presentation to be had. The infamous interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura was controversial based on its existence, but the story itself didn't depend on the shock value of that scene. Roddenberry did this sort of thing well. Few today can say the same - characters intended to provide diversity tend to make that diversity a featured part of the story, rather than "the person doing the thing who happens to be a non-SWM".

Sometimes things do need to be pointed out directly, but most of the time, treating it like a non-issue is the best way to illustrate how normal something is in the future. Few directors can do this well.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[blindseer]

I don't think the issue is with diversity, but with presentation.

Precisely.

Roddenberry's most amazing statement throughout TOS was paradoxically the most subtle - these things were such non-issues that they weren't worthy of anyone's attention.

There was a bit of cultural differences pointed out in TOS where people made reference to their ancestry in what might be considered stereotypical ways. For example the Russian liked his vodka and spoke kind of funny. It was always played for laughs or a just to round the character out a bit. It wasn't tossed in your face. TNG and DS9 often took things a bit far. Voyager, Enterprise, and the movies seemed to have that subtlety return.

Roddenberry did this sort of thing well. Few today can say the same - characters intended to provide diversity tend to make that diversity a featured part of the story, rather than "the person doing the thing who happens to be a non-SWM".

Now that you mention single white male I noticed something, few or none of the crew in any Trek-verse show or movie were married. People had children but the spouse was often dead or, less often, the child was illegitimate. The few times we saw crew married to someone they were childless. A notable exception is O'Brian and his family. Where there any others?

I can see a need to have a number of crew members that are unmarried for the sake of having romantic tension among the crew and to allow them freedom to date others. Seems odd in a culture with faster than light travel, relative peace, and general abundance of resources, that more people didn't take advantage of that to have a family. Even if that meant leaving the family on some planet and going off on a lengthy tour in space. People in the military do that now, a quick Google search tells me about half of those in the military are married. I'd also expect more of the crew to pair up while serving and get married. We might see crew members share quarters (and a bed) for a while, but they rarely get married before or after this "shacking up".

This notable lack of married couples may in fact be a subtle commentary on diversity and the views of the people behind the shows. They may have simply thought that in the future people just didn't marry, or marriage was defined differently than it is now, as in people weren't considered married until they had children. Perhaps it was a view that married people didn't belong in a militaristic force like Starfleet, that if they married they left/retired or just didn't join. Perhaps those married were never deployed on long missions to space, there were married people in Starfleet but just not on five year missions.

If there is a "word from god" explanation for this somewhere then I'd like to see it.

Sometimes things do need to be pointed out directly, but most of the time, treating it like a non-issue is the best way to illustrate how normal something is in the future. Few directors can do this well.

Yep.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[AmiMoJo]

The original series episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" had aliens who were literally half black and half white, fighting a racist war with the half white half black ones. It was extremely "in your face" and obvious. Then there was the first on-screen interracial kiss, again very obvious and if you read the history of the episode something that Roddenberry had to push very hard to include.

In the TNG era you had episodes that were quite overtly about the oppression and "treatment" of LGBT people, featuring a genderless race of aliens and one who does not conform to their traditional concept. Not to mention episodes based around Data's rights as a person/machine, Trill relationships when their gender suddenly changes, respecting the rules and laws of other cultures, racial/genetic supremacists, travellers, Native Americans and so on.

DS9 introduced a lot of religious aspects, and looked at how a principled and progressive society could fight a war. Voyager was all over the place but did lots of social justice episodes, not least the recurring theme of criminal rehabilitation and examination of humanity from Seven's point of view.

So maybe Trek isn't for you, and that's fine.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[thegarbz]

We've seen numerous movies and video games where faux 'diversity' has been crammed in solely to try to promote a leftist agenda.

Yeah, one of those is known as the original series of Star Trek which among other things had the first black woman to kiss a white actor on screen.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm old enough to remember that kiss. It caused quite a furor for many families, and was still widely discussed in re-runs years later. However, it wasn't the first interracial kiss on television, just the first on American television. See https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20... for notes on a British television interacial kiss, six years earlier.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Carewolf]

And will the Klingon continue to be racist blackface villians? I was surpriced that they not only gave the a black textures (sure more different texture colors to alien races, and including black, yay), but then added negroid features and then made them culturally primitive psychopaths...

It is the most racist thing I have seen on TV in decades.

And then added on top with a toxic masculine main character that just happens to be female. The show was trolling the left.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[tbannist]

Because the people who can fire Trump are afraid of offending the people who vote for them. Specifically they refuse to cancel him because they're afraid that their voters will cancel them immediately afterwards (by voting for someone else in the primaries). This is fallout from gerrymandering and partisan propaganda being so successful that they fear primary challenges far more than general elections.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[mjwx]

diversity... I really wouldn't want to see Star Trek fall victim to this kind of manipulation.

You didn't watch the original Star Trek, did you? Diversity was a significant part of Roddenberry's conception of the future.

Shhhh,

Dont interrupt his baseless rant with facts. He's got an SJW to harass from the comfort of his trailer or some such before crying about the injustice of being born a white, middle class, educated male who's never had to feel real discrimination in their life on the MGTOW forums.

WRT diversity, it wasn't that in Gene Roddenbery's vision of the future that we simply had diversity... But no-one cared about it and the fact all were treated as equals was the status quo, no one on the bridge cared that Uhura was black or a woman, it simply didn't matter.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Mr. Slippery]

But that narrative works to convince people who haven't seen it that it's bad,

It is bad...but not for any social justice reasons. I had to quit on the show when they made Sarek of Vulcan a liar. Between "those aren't Klingons!" and "if your magic stardrive is so great why is no one using it later?" and "Vulcan suicide bombers!?!?!" , I was screaming at the TV too much.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[meta-monkey]

I agree with you except for the gender bit. In the pilot episode Captain Pike opines that he has trouble getting used to the idea of women on the bridge. So blacks, aliens, no problem...but chicks?!?!?

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[JackieBrown]

Pushing narratives gets views. Executives don't care if the watchers hate the product or love it. Causing controversy is much easier than producing a good product.

Then Rosanne would not have been canceled

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[JackieBrown]

I wish they'd leave Roseanne on and cancel Trump. Why do we hold comedians to a higher standard than world leaders?

It depends on the politics. Michelle Wolf's show isn't being canceled.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Chris Mattern]

The U.S. wasn't a terribly polarized place back then compared to now.

I don't think you can talk about how the U.S. is more polarized now than it used to be until we fight another civil war.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Chris Mattern]

Uhura being black during the civil rights movement is what everyone remembers, but how often did her gender come up in the context of her being a bridge officer

In the first pilot ("The Cage"), the first officer was played by Majel Barrett (before she became Nurse Chapel) as "Number One". The network made Gene get rid of her because they didn't think a woman as the second in command would fly. Let's not even talk about "Turnabout Intruder".

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[JackieBrown]

Now if all 5 shows have someone like Jay Michael Stransynski (sp?) behind them, plus a decent budget, well, then you have something.

If he did it, you'd end of with 2 good seasons then he quit and bitch about the studio executives for the next 5 years

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[iamhassi]

Star Trek already fell for leftist manipulation, Discovery is based on Trump's election http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[iamhassi]

But... but... Discovery producers said Klingons are Trump supporters, so they're suppose to be racist...? http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

Well sure I guess time travel can be an overused (bad) trope. But I meant that the plot for Enterprise is the lesson that when you travel through time bad things happen. My "tl;dr" is sort of crap if it I can't summarize unambiguously. oh well.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[nitehawk214]

The in-universe social justice of the Prime Directive and other moral dilemmas is part of what made TNG great. Even if you don't always agree with the Prime Directive as a concept, it makes for great drama. Its the real life social justice of Discovery that makes people cringe.

DS9 was pretty great, but its whole arc of "well akshully the federation was founded on lies and is run by evil people", was were it loses me. I like William Sadler as an actor and loved his character, but hated the entire idea of section 31. I hear that Discovery continues this crap. It fits in with the 90s to modern day "secret agents of the government are always evil, even if they want to do the right thing" concept that gets beat to freaking death in every movie that contains a government three letter agency. Evil secret agents is the exact opposite of the Federation. I don't think Gene would have approved.

Though a much bigger problem was CBS trying to use it to push their otherwise useless streaming service that was the real problem for me. I only watched the first couple episodes as a result.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[Mike Van Pelt]

Make a show about space police and I'd probably watch it.

I'd love to see a reboot of the old BBC series "Starcops". Yeah, sort of an over-reaching name for a law enforcement agency that covered the Moon and/or space stations, and later Mars, but perhaps that's where the series might have headed in later seasons if it had lasted.

As long as they did it with as much intelligence as the original, of course. Alas, they'd probably give it to Jar Jar Abrams for him to excrete all over.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[terrycarlino]

Enterprise was not Starfleet. Starfleet didn't exist at that time. As a matter of fact in the last show (occurring 10 years after the rest of the show) Archer gives the speech that leads to the formation of Starfleet.

At best Enterprise describes an experimental ship sent out by a United Earth. After the terrorist attack which destroys Florida it becomes a more or less military platform with soldiers embarked sent on a specific mission to catch/stop the terrorists. The problem is that the story wasn't very impelling. it was obviously colored by the events of 9-11. Much of the first season was setup for the Original Series: Why do they use Red Alerts? Why does the captain have a special chair? Why is Vulcan society and government the way it is? What is the relationship between the Vulcans and the Andromidans?

Any social issues were well thought out and often solid answers on which side was right were left to the viewer to decide. Unlike modern shows where the SJW just want to preach to you. It's gotten so bad that I'm about done with the CW DC shows. I watch to see metahuman's kicking butt. I don't need to hear an LGTB lecture or why gun control is bad, in a story where the vigilantes are armed to the teeth and all the cops are crooked. How much sense does that make?

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[terrycarlino]

I think the marriage thing had two causes. One was that characters not being married meant that it was easier for the writers to introduce guest stars as romantic interests. Look at other shows of the times. Unless the show was a specific family program, like Dick Van Dyke or Danny Thomas the protagonists were almost always single.

The other is the fact that through most of history sailors and other explorers who were separated from their homes were not married. As far back as the Roman Empire only senior officers were allowed to be married. There is an old saying in the military:Lieutenants can't marry, captains may marry, majors must marry. Often lower ranked enlisted were the same way with only seniors like sergeants and above being expected to marry.

O'Brian actually talk about how most Starfleet officers don't marry. Gordi talks to his parents several times and its made clear they are both Starfleet officers and are stationed at different places, but no mention is made if they are married or not, or whether they had ever been married.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[soc_cost_priv_gains]

Weren't there a bunch of shows in the 80's that worshiped the 1%?

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

$140m marketing for a $144m film is peanuts? It's 50%. That is typical and cited as a "rule of thumb", but it's not peanuts. The marking is a significant portion of the budget (even as you stated, it can be more than the film itself).

It doesn't take much looking to find articles that Hollywood struggles with these ballooning marketing budgets. Just because the industry does something doesn't mean it is the most profitable or best balance of risk versus investment. There is serious risk when film budgets are huge, and it's not clear that more marketing can guarantee a recoup of that capital.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[thegarbz]

It caused enough of a furor in the studio. Apparently they were never supposed to kiss according the the plan and it was supposed to cut beforehand. As the story goes they did several retakes each which Will Shatner purposely fouled up forcing them to use the actual kiss.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[sexconker]

As a flat number, $140,000,000 in marketing for a major film is peanuts. It's absurd, but that is the state the film industry is in.
If you want to profit from your film you need deep pockets or a lot of luck. Nothing gets sold without vast media junkets in the US and in Asia.

If you do not have this budget and no major studio will pick u your project and run with it, your best option is to beg Netflix for a deal that includes them slathering their main screen with a trailer for your shit.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

As a flat number, $140,000,000 in marketing for a major film is peanuts

"Average Movie Budget of these 33 movies: $139,084,697" -- http://hollywood-movies.yoexpe...

Being average is not the correct meaning of peanuts. You need to work harder on your vocabulary.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[sexconker]

Are those major movies? How much profit did they turn out for the studio?

Yes, it is fucking peanuts in Hollywood. Just because it's a big number to you doesn't mean it's not a small number for the industry. This has been a problem in Hollywood for along time, and it's only getting worse. They chase blockbusters and sequels as the only safe way to make money and target them at Asian markets because ticket sales (number of tickets) continue to plummet in the US. They prop up ticket sales buy spending big on media hype campaigns and ticket giveaways / deals.

I think there's one for buying two bags of Doritos to get a cheap / free ticket to Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. Pizza Hut also has something going on because the latest spam email they sent me featured a glass of water with animated vibrations. (I actually intend to see this film this weekend, partly because I got cheap tickets, and partly because I've heard it's actually good. I'll be on the lookout for Pizza Hut boxes and Doritos bags.)

Hell, at Disney's grand premiere event for Solo, they had a 500 seat theater and fucking PAID 400 people to attend (mainly social media whores) because they couldn't find more than 100 people willing to buy a ticket.

If your cast isn't on every morning talk show, every late night talk show, in 3 video games, and generating "impressions" left and right on social media you're not gonna make any money in the US. A full on media blitz is expensive, and actors charge for their social media marketing of a project as a separate line item on their contract. (Because the value of the social media marketing comes from the actor's personal followers / audience, where as attachment to traditional media junkets are figured as the movie being central to the appeal of an interview, guest appearance, etc.)

Eyeballs are expensive. If you don't buy attention no one will fill the seats unless you get very, very lucky.
$140,000,000 in marketing for a major film is peanuts today.

Re: Spaceballs 2: the quest for more money

[OrangeTide]

Take a peak at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .. except for the top 5, there are dozens that fall in the $200m's. And these are considered very expensive films.

The other $139m number I cited came from "[A] list [of] the top 20 highest movie budgets of all time according to the best information gleaned from studios, and the top 20 movies with the lowest budgets that earned at least $1 Million at the US box office."

And finally from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
peanuts :
2. (informal, figuratively) A very small or insufficient amount (especially of a salary). Synonyms: pittance, trifle

I'm not sure what sort of Trump-era math you use when $140m is very small versus say $380m for the most expensive film of all time (that number is likely $410m minus rebates). I can totally understand your position if films were $1B and we were only talking $100m. 10% is easier to argue as small than 50%. But on top of all this, typical films in Hollywood are not huge $380m films.

Basically you're being an ass about this. You don't have to concede, you could stop replying, but squawking bullshit does nobody any good.

dude I hope its flute guy

[Anonymous Coward]

the jean luc one should totally be about his life as flute guy

Re: dude I hope its flute guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Seven years of great acting and stories, and we get "I hope it's flute guy"....

Is this a joke?

[Rick Schumann]

I think I'm going to vomit.

Re:Is this a joke?

[Rick Schumann]

Before any of you waste your mod points on me because you don't like my opinion read this:

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.

Now, do you really think that's such a great idea? Most of you hated Wesley Crusher on ST:TNG and wished his character would get killed. How can you get behind this bullshit? Garbage.

Re:Is this a joke?

[butchersong]

I haven't seen an episode of Dynasty but I was pretty underwhelmed by Marvel's Runaways. It.. isn't encouraging I'll grant you that but I don't think it's a terrible concept.

Re:Is this a joke?

[dgatwood]

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.

Now, do you really think that's such a great idea? Most of you hated Wesley Crusher on ST:TNG and wished his character would get killed. How can you get behind this bullshit? Garbage.

I could actually see this concept working, if it is done well.

Wesley was, indeed, annoying — to the point that IIRC there was a whole newsgroup dedicated to coming up with ways for his character to die — but it wasn't because the concept of kids in space was so horrible. No, Wesley was annoying because the writers didn't know what to do with him. As a result, nearly every Wesley episode could be summed up as "Wesley broke something. The ship is about to blow up. Wesley somehow figures out a way to fix what he broke. Everyone lives to see him break things another day."

I seem to vaguely remember the episode where Captain Picard got stuck in an elevator with a bunch of kids as an episode that worked reasonably well. In fact, I'm really hoping that the show involving Patrick Steward is the "teen-oriented" show. He could play an academy teacher or headmaster or similar, after having retired from active duty. I think the interaction between him and young people would play very well on TV when it isn't being forced by a character who doesn't really fit the context (Wesley).

I'm assuming such a show would be about Starfleet Academy, though it could also work approximately as well if it involved slightly younger people who were still in school and were studying in hopes of joining Starfleet Academy. Either way, the premise is easy, and reasonably well grounded in the Star Trek universe. The open question, of course, is whether they can come up with writers who are capable of coming up with plots that are both plausible sci-fi (in the context of the Trek universe) and involve young people, without getting so mired in angsty teen drama that nobody wants to watch it, and without the plots quickly devolving into "Saved By the Bell In Space" levels of superficiality under the mistaken belief that young people are incapable of conscious levels of thought.

Re:Is this a joke?

[AmiMoJo]

Well, the animated series had a few good episodes...

Okay, yeah, it sounds terrible. Maybe it could do something about some cadets who joined to be scientists and explorers but ended up fighting the Klingon war.

Re:Is this a joke?

[magarity]

without the plots quickly devolving into "Saved By the Bell In Space" levels of superficiality under the mistaken belief that young people are incapable of conscious levels of thought.

I picture a semi-retired Picard as more of a Head of the Class kind of teacher.

Re:Is this a joke?

[dgatwood]

They did that as a side story in one of the movies twenty years ago. It works fine as a ten second "oh, that's so sad that the cadet died" story, but as a core plot line, it doesn't sound like it would appeal to young people much at all. If anything, you'd get a bunch of Wesley Crusher stories that will be hated equally by everyone, regardless of age.

Re:Is this a joke?

[BasilBrush]

Maybe it's not meant for you. Maybe it's, you know, meant for kids.

Has anyone insisted you watch it?

Re:Is this a joke?

[darth.hunterix]

I seem to vaguely remember the episode where Captain Picard got stuck in an elevator with a bunch of kids as an episode that worked reasonably well. In fact, I'm really hoping that the show involving Patrick Steward is the "teen-oriented" show. He could play an academy teacher or headmaster or similar, after having retired from active duty. I think the interaction between him and young people would play very well on TV when it isn't being forced by a character who doesn't really fit the context (Wesley).

So pretty much "Star Trek: Hogwarts" with sir Patrick as Dumblecard? I'm in and I have some more suggestions:
1. Emma Watson as science teacher
2. David Tennant as humanities teacher, making him Keating (from Dead Poets Society) IN SPACE
3. Ian McKellen as Dumblecard's husband
4. Nathan Fillon as Hagrid-type character
5. Claudia Christian as McGonagall-type character
6. Sarah Michelle Gellar as janitor
7. Mark Hamill as one-time villain reprising his role as Joker, with obligatory Star Wars reference

Ultimate geekgasm!

Re:Is this a joke?

[JackieBrown]

Agreed. I actually liked quite a few of the animated stories. The episodes were hit or miss but most shows are.

Most of the good ones where sequals to some of the original episodes.

Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[magarity]

What's Discovery even like; I completely lost interest in the whole franchise after the "re-imagined' of Wrath of Khan.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[beheaderaswp]

What's Discovery even like; I completely lost interest in the whole franchise after the "re-imagined' of Wrath of Khan.

It's as if fungus was the core of the Standard Model. And tartigrades were the conduit of the universe.

I know... it doesn't make sense. Apparently a can of Lotrimin spray will collapse the entire universe... theoretically of course.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Drethon]

What's Discovery even like; I completely lost interest in the whole franchise after the "re-imagined' of Wrath of Khan.

It could be but mostly it is on the wait and see list these days. I even find myself somewhat nostalgic watching Voyager on Netflix (working on watching all episodes from each series just to do it once in my life), then they have a stupid episode I can hardly sit through, but at least it had the occasional real Star Trek feel.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[OzPeter]

What's Discovery even like; I completely lost interest in the whole franchise after the "re-imagined' of Wrath of Khan.

The whole "pay for the streaming service to just watch one program" thing kinda of stopped me*.

*That plus I thought the show sucked anyway. Between watching the first episode of that and also of The Orville .. I could see more potential in the latter.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[The Grim Reefer]

What's Discovery even like;

From what I could tell from the previews and have heard second hand, it's like Trek Continues. Except it has a lot more and better CGI, a bigger budget, nonsensical plot devices, maybe a bit better acting, worse stories, ignores a lot of Trek canon, and isn't made by people who actually enjoy Star Trek.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Between watching the first episode of that and also of The Orville .. I could see more potential in the latter.

Orville had likable main characters. The main character in STD is disgusting looking so it makes you not want to watch the show so you don't have to see it. Plus they had a female actress play a male character which was unsettling. I'm a FtM, but even I couldn't relate to it.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Dragonslicer]

What's Discovery even like; I completely lost interest in the whole franchise after the "re-imagined' of Wrath of Khan.

I'm impressed you made it that far.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Discovery isn't Star Trek story telling. It's focused on one main character and lots of drama surrounding her, the issues she needs to deal with, and how she's the struggling, misunderstood hero. Star Trek was normally about a group of characters and how they solved issues together. Issues that came up in a futuristic, utopia-striving society interacting with other societies. Part of the point of STNG was to solve things without using violence. Violence was the last resort on our path to becoming better humans. Discovery is an action/drama flick. It completely ignores all the values Star Trek had. A crew suddenly standing up for their captain isn't the same thing.

It also has a dumb species which is supposed to sense death coming in the near future. That doesn't many any sense. At least older shows tried to make things reasonable.

I expect all the new Star Trek shows are happening due to standard business cycles. There's been a lack of good space, sci-fi shows and marketers have finally seen that gap and are rushing in with a bunch of bullshit to try to fill it. They'll be a sudden influx which will over saturate the market leading it to collapse again as none of the shows get enough viewers to keep running. I doubt we'll see good quality content. By that I mean STNG style content where people spend more time thinking about solving problems than fighting their way through them and there isn't a single hero to love. Probably most of them will use the stories to drive crew drama rather than the stories being the main focus of the plot. There's enough TV where personal relationships are the main focus, not everyone wants that bullshit. Live and let live, so you can solve interesting problems instead of problems from people being idiots.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[oogoliegoogolie]

Discovery has redesigned Klingons that dress in King-Tut outfits and take 15 seconds to say every word, a Fungus drive that derives it's power from space-fungal spores, and an unlikable protagonist who routinely disobeys orders and stabs everyone she works with in the back yet somehow was promoted to being just one step away from being Captain. What's not to like?

They did do one cool episode, though, in the "Mirror-Mirror" alternate universe where some bridge-equivalent rebels hear about and set out to steal this new Empire warship being developed. It ends up being the Empire's equivalent of the original NCC-1701 Enterprise. They steal it and you finally get a feeling for Big-E's power, how far advanced it was compared to other ships at the time, and get to watch it do battle like never before! Oh wait, that's an episode from Enterprise.
 

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[TeknoHog]

It's as if fungus was the core of the Standard Model. And tartigrades were the conduit of the universe.

The tardigrade count is strong in this one.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[AmiMoJo]

The TV series has nothing to do with the new movies.

It's mostly about the Klingon war. It's good, worth watching on Netflix or DVD.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[jwhyche]

There was a rumor a while back to do a Star Trek Academy or something like that.

Personally, I would like to see a Star Trek from the point of view of the Klingons. Not those crappy Klingons from the discovery series, but real Klingons from TNG universe.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched Orville S1 and ST:D S1 as they aired. I was extremely disappointed with ST:D and sometimes it seriously felt like it was the satire comedy (the tardigrade stuff especially) while Orville was the serious thought provoking sci-fi (especially the 'social networking/popularity reputation' episode).

It blows. I wish Michael Dorn would have gotten the spin-off he wanted. He had several previous ST cast members interested.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[thegarbz]

Welcome to the USA. The rest of the world saw it on Netflix at a better quality and with surround sound that CBS never broadcast in their home country.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Dahlgil]

Yup. That's where I've semi-officially ended Star Trek. I continue to watch everything up to that movie, but have abandoned everything post.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Rhipf]

But at least they can follow some kind of continuity. You have the Klingons from TOS that look human. The Klingons from TNG that have cranial ridges (ok it takes place after TOS so maybe something happened to mutate them). Then the Klingons in Enterprise also have cranial ridges even though it takes place before TOS (but at least this is eventually explained). Then Discovery comes out and is supposed to take place 10 years before TOS (and in the same continuity universe) but the Klingons look nothing like previous Klingons. Some how they are going to be human looking in 10 years?

That is one of my big problems with Discovery. No one seems to have bothered to even try to maintain continuity.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[JackieBrown]

I completely lost interest in the whole franchise after the "re-imagined' of Wrath of Khan.

I'm fully aware I am in the minority but I actually liked the newest movie. I do agree that the Wrath of Khan reboot was horrible.

Re:Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans?

[Mike Van Pelt]

Ugh. The Great Klingon Transmogrification was something that is utterly impossible to make sense out of. The DS9 crew was surprised at the human-looking Klingons and didn't know what they were for sure? Seriously? There were people alive in DS9 time who were alive in TOS time. At least three individual Klingons from TOS showed up on DS9, with bumpified foreheads.

The only plausible explanation is Roddenberry's: "The Klingons always had snapping turtle shell foreheads. We just didn't have the budget for all those snapping turtle shells back in 1968." In "The Trouble with Tribbles" it was a big surprise that Darvin was a Klingon, like it was a huge deal for a Klingon to pass as human. What? A shave is that improbable? But if they'd had to do serious plastic surgery on his forehead for him to pass as human... that plot point would make a lot more sense.

The proper thing for that "Back to the Tribbles" episode of DS9 was to have Michael Dorn be without the snapping turtle shell on his forehead when in the past, and no one make any mention of the difference. Or better, since they supposedly had a blank check for CGI for that episode, add digital snapping turtle shells to the foreheads of all the TOS Klingons. (Except Darvin, of course.)

All Access?

[Thelasko]

Will it only be available on the infernal "All Access" app?

Re:All Access?

[olsmeister]

I never watched Discovery because of that. Shame.

Re:All Access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus Sonequa Martin-Green is vomit-inducing ugly. I don't understand why they picked a main character that is so disgusting that you had to look away from your TV to keep from getting sick. Looking away from the screen really takes you out of thse show. The rest of the casting, especially Cadet Tilly was great.

Re:All Access?

[pr0fessor]

It was basically lens flare after lens flare. The Orville on the other hand was hilarious.

Re:All Access?

[MrL0G1C]

No, Pirate Bay will also have downloads available.

Re:All Access?

[CanadianMacFan]

Yes, each one will have it's own infernal "All Access" app requiring a separate monthly payment in addition to the one for Discovery (if that's still around).

Re:All Access?

[martinfb]

Really! This "All Access" crap is totally focused on gleaning more money out of an old idea.

Way too much crap (TV) is out there now. We'd watch more if it were not so poorly done, or at extra cost.

I refuse to pay for these special services and then watch commercial ads as well!
Your crap, and greed, are way to abusive.

Re:Oh, God. Not again.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Surely if HBO can finish driving GoT into the ground CBS can reap the sweet revenue of 4-5 additional shows forked from a major franchise. I for one welcome the new series of space mushrooms which control warp and teleportation fields (not really, but it's tough to top the stupidity of STD.)

Please, just let it die.

[sizzzzlerz]

So we've got 5 Star Trek shows in the works and 7, 8, or 9 Star Wars prequels, sequels, whatevers, as well. This isn't innovation. It's not new ideas. And it certainly not exciting. It's whipping a dead cow laying out in the desert somewhere for the past 2 years in order to get a few more drops of milk.

It's done, guys. It's over. Time to let go.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody needs to come up with a new concept for the space/future of humanity story type. Something grittier and dirtier than Trek and less fairy princessy than Wars. Something with less hopefulness and more brutality. Something a bit more reflective of where we actually seem to be heading.

Maybe spin on the idea of a secret group jetting themselves off this rock just to get away from the crazy only to find out they brought they crazy with them. There, studios. Free idea that took me five seconds to dream up and is already more interesting than attempting to replicate the magic of a property that's been on life-support for several decades.

The only future concept I've seen that doesn't instantly make me turn off the TV is The 100, but that's well past jump the shark territory at this point and really only stays on because my wife is in love with it.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[The Grim Reefer]

Somebody needs to come up with a new concept for the space/future of humanity story type. Something grittier and dirtier than Trek and less fairy princessy than Wars. Something with less hopefulness and more brutality.

I guess you missed the Battlestar Galactica remake.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[ArchieBunker]

Enough of shows being "gritty". Sometimes I want to watch an episode without it being part of a larger plot or ending on a cliffhanger.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[CanadianMacFan]

I wish I had. The first two seasons were good but then it found God and started with the religious theme. Mind you not as bad as Caprica.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[nmb3000]

Agreed, though I think BSG redeemed itself a little bit during the mid-fourth season with the trial of Baltar and some other stories.

The real problem is that Ron Moore just doesn't know how to wind down and end a TV series. You can see the exact same problems with Deep Space Nine -- a great show that floundered at the end and also ended up going down the religion rabbit hole.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[andydread]

lost in space. Dr Smith...

Re:Please, just let it die.

[HeckRuler]

I dunno man, I'm not so mad about there being yet another Star Trek series. The format of the show lends itself well to spinoffs. It was an engaging SETTING which fostered a lot of stories. I'm cool with that. I'd honestly be interested in hearing how the most devious Klingon and the most bloodthirsty Romulan managed to team up and keep their sides politically aligned during the ${ST_COLD_WAR_ANALOGY}. And it was cool to see how things played out after the collapse of the Klingon Empire and the war-hawks tried to flare it up. Some of the movies were good. There's room for the stories to continue.

Star Wars on the other hand... Well, honestly, same damn thing. It's an interesting (if less hard) setting. Bounty hunters and rogue squadrons and the Vong. Good stories. Some of them. But NONE of that was picked up by the corporate masters. All that was taken out back and shot. We got ep4, the retelling. A direct path to killing off all the old actors. And filling the gaps. (Personally, Rogue One was probably the best of Disney's effort). And star wars got the same treatment. A "reboot". Fuck your canon. THAT'S not innovative. They're literally retelling the SAME old ideas. They're trying to cash in on the fact that people know the name "spock". tch.

Although, it IS kinda cosmic justice if Picard got a ridiculously bad animated series. Something like the stiff flash graphics from Archer, but with Tribbles?

Re:Please, just let it die.

[HeckRuler]

the Federation to expand to the point where they approach Borg-controlled space and have a full scale war with the Federation.

With fringe worlds getting swamped with refugees fleeing the warfare. And an unsettling number coming into the Federation, any one of which could be a borg sleeper agent/spy. "All it takes is one self-replicating nanomachine hiding in their bloodstream and we've got neighborhoods in SanFran getting assimilated, RIGHT UNDER FEDERATION'S NOSE!"

Everyone is worried about subspace pollution causing planets to get stranded and cut off from the resulting subspace ruptures. International politics try to get the Ferengi traders to limit their freighters to no avail.

Meanwhile the Klingons are STILL there and still rattling sabers. And the Romulans are playing the markets, and undercutting Federation efforts by abusing the shit out of the Remans. And their spies keep stealing Federation tech.

It's like modern day issues could find a sort of PARALLEL in the Star Trek setting. **Cough**COLDWAR**Cough**. But what kind of corporation would have the balls to make meaningful social commentary? Nope, we get commander Michael instead.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[HeckRuler]

How about...... the crew of a spaceship are all indentured servants to a all-powerful master race that must be served? With a commissar on board to enforce that. Because most of the crew are AI constructs, with the nameless faceless background characters being more like scripts and drivers. Every bloody solenoid and tcp packet is a valve they need to manually turn or a package they need to deliver. And then they go rogue or something after their "admiral" fails to wake up from cryo.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[antdude]

OK, Kylo Ren.

Re:Please, just let it die.

[martinfb]

Agreed.
Unless someone there has ideas beyond just milking it, like an original story perhaps?!

I'm impressed

[meglon]

5 Star Trek Shows in Development

I didn't know Seth MacFarlane could develop so many shows all at once.

Re:I'm impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

5 Star Trek Shows in Development

I didn't know Seth MacFarlane could develop so many shows all at once.

Of course he can; they're all just cookie cutters versions of Family Guy.

Re:I'm impressed

[mfearby]

And they're all far better than any of these new Star Trek series will ever be. I never thought I'd say this but "Enterprise" is almost watchable compared to "Discovery". I'll probably check out the one with Patrick Stewart, if it comes to pass, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for it, not unless they sack the Klingon makeup department and hire some better writers.

"beloved" character Khan

[fahrbot-bot]

A limited series based around the beloved character Khan ...

The series will revolve around Khan's earlier days as founder of a non-profit educational organization and the challenges he, and his students', faced in fast-paced the world of on-line academia and, later, how the stresses of life and continuing education drove him actualize his genetic-designed potential for world domination. The rest, as they say, will be History.

Re:"beloved" character Khan

[AmiMoJo]

Could be a really interesting story there. Khan started from a not unreasonable position - he and his people had been used, abused and discarded by humanity and deserved a life, a chance to live. But he's also been bred for war and despite his intelligence he can't suppress those instincts entirely.

Those things pulling him in different directions, and what Kirk unintentionally did to him made a great movie.

at least put it on showtime if not CBS OTA!

[Joe_Dragon]

at least put it on showtime if not CBS OTA!

Re:at least put it on showtime if not CBS OTA!

[antdude]

Heck no. Leave it on OTA like older ST used to do!

Re:No, thanks.

[doconnor]

Star Trek has always been "leftist propaganda". The difference is the Internet is around to inflame people's passion.

--
proud subscriber of alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die

The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan ...

[Anomalous Co-worker]

I have long wanted the books by Greg Cox to be made into a TV series for two reasons: 1. It is centered on 20th century Earth, and has minimal alien involvement and only Kirk's influence from the future. 2. It can truly start with a clean slate.

Re: Is Star Trek still a real thing for scifi fans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Prequel

[Roger W Moore]

The series will revolve around Khan's earlier days as founder of a non-profit educational organization

I thought his early days involved leading hordes of horsemen from the Mongolian plains and performing so much rape and pillage that there is a fair chace you are related to him.

Re:Prequel

[sconeu]

Possibly also having something to do with building a stately pleasure dome.

Re:Prequel

[tbannist]

Hey! Don't spoil the overarching plot for Season 2.

Great News!

[oldmac31310]

Hey everyone. Did you hear the news? William Shatner is getting married to Stevie Nicks? When asked if she would be keeping her name or not, a close friend said 'Stevie Shatner-Nicks'.

Plot reveal:

[CaptainDork]

To boldly go where no man has gone before ...

Shocking allegations?

[110010001000]

What were the shocking allegations? All I heard was that two guys got canned for making too much money and yelling at some Millenials.

Re:Shocking allegations?

[Topwiz]

Most of the stuff in the summary is not in the linked story so either msmash did a horrible job typing it up or made up things. The linked story doesn't say anything about Patrick Stewart or the reasons for the show runnner's dismissal.

Pay Streaming? No Thanks...

[rally2xs]

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...

Re: Pay Streaming? No Thanks...

[TJHook3r]

If you stopped at the first episode you missed a good series. I would say the fight scenes are very well done and feature fairly believable physics.

Re:Quick! Add a pansexual!

[OzPeter]

Who falls in love with robots! It's a sure winner!

You never saw the films in high school.

Re:Quick! Add a pansexual!

[DontBeAMoran]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

One of those might be worth checking out

[imidan]

If Nicholas Meyer makes a Star Trek show, I may actually be excited about watching it. He did both Star Trek 2 and 6, the best of the movies IMO.

I've never seen Discovery. I'm certainly not going to pay for a streaming service for the purpose of watching one show. And I haven't heard anything positive enough about it to pirate it. I just don't care that much, which is a bit sad considering I've watched every Star Trek show up to this point.

Re:No, thanks.

[iczer1]

I don't think I read alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die, but I remember seeing it when looking thru newsgroups to subscribe to. Good times back then.

Re: No, thanks.

[doconnor]

I don't know what you are talking about. Can you provide some examples?

Re:No, thanks.

[youngone]

Thanks A/C. I forgot that we're still pretending there's a "left" in US politics.

Existed and killed

[SuperKendall]

Maybe spin on the idea of a secret group jetting themselves off this rock just to get away from the crazy only to find out they brought they crazy with them.

That is Firefly. Change my mind.

The only future concept I've seen that doesn't instantly make me turn off the TV is The 100, but that's well past jump the shark territory at this point

Yeah but come on, it is some epic shark-jumping they are doing on that show. If you are going to jump a shark, jump a whole pile of them or a mega-shark - and that is what that show does far better than any other from season to season... within each season I still feel like they are doing a pretty great job.

Is it about the future?

[0100010001010011]

I grew up on TNG and DS9 because it was about the 'future'. Both series had a good balance of soap opera in space and technobable. TNG brought us the Borg. Voyager the Delta quadrant. DS9 the changlings and the wormhole. And then they went and started redoing established history. Stop overwriting canon so that we can see "Kirk" on screen.

I want to see what happens after DS9. Something set as far ahead of DS9 as TNG was ahead of TOS.

Get some tech consultants and map out some future tech. Get out beyond the quadrants of the Milky Way. Make up some new aliens, in the future. It makes no sense to say "eh, in the past we had these aliens but they somehow don't exist anymore by time TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY do".

There's so much existing IP that there should be no shortage of material. Borg, Cardassians or Changlings part of the Federation? Federation disbanded? Mirror universe travel 'normal' as interstellar travel? (Without being Sliders).

Time it right and you can still do cameos like Scotty in TNG (even if you screw up the episode so much that you have them beaming through a shield). The DS9, TNG and VOY crews should still be mostly alive, especially Data and the Doctor.

At this point they're just going to set a series in 2028 and call it 'ultrapre-history Federation'.

Re:Is it about the future?

[dyslexicbunny]

That's something I would find interesting and wish people would actually think about and push towards.

I've watched all of TNG and DS9 in the last couple years and they're amazing shows. I watched TOS as well and I can appreciate it but I didn't enjoy it as much. Voyager has its flaws but I enjoy it enough too.

I really don't care about events in Kirk's time. Khan just feels lazy and wanting to build something based on name recognition. I likely won't watch the Academy show but it could be an interesting series as it's at least different from other series.

BITCH! You left out ST:tAS!

[Thud457]

More animamated modern liberated[1] Kzinti cat-gurlz plz!


[1] yeah, I know what I do there.

New Series?

[cashman73]

A series about Khan is risky, IMHO. The core fan-boys will either love it or hate it; there is no in between there.

A show about starfleet academy could be interesting. Might bring in some younger viewers. But it could also completely suck if they make it like Beverly Hills 90210 In Space ,. . .

Re:New Series?

[CaseCrash]

I'm going to go ahead and ignore my own sig as this does seem appropriate, but Penny Arcade called it, sort of:

Tormented, Science-Fiction Youth (https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/04/27)

Just one phrase from TFA

[bettodavis]

Teen-oriented series?

Uh-oh.

Sounds like the Teen Titans and Thudercats Roar treatment for Star Trek.

Discovery?

[markdavis]

>"In the wake of shocking allegations against Star Trek: Discovery's showrunners"

Discovery? Is that really a thing? I am a huge Trekkie and have not seen a single episode. Their distribution model sucked, and I have heard it is nothing but "PC overkill" combined with total fantasy. Strangely, I don't know ANYONE who has actually watched "Discovery" and when I ask them, they have no interest in doing so, even the Trekkies like me. But....

Meanwhile, the Orville came along and THAT became my Star Trek after Enterprise. Enterprise was a bit shaky, but was just getting into its grove when they killed it. Reminded me of the issues with Deep Space 9, until STTNG ended and the writers apparently focused their attention on DS9 and it improved a lot. Anyway, who would have thought "Orville" would have somehow hit the Trek nail on the head??? I am still in disbelief.

I loved the original, REALLY REALLY loved ALL of The Next Generation, loved most of DS9, really loved all of Voyager, loved much of Enterprise, after the awkward start. Most of the original Trek movies were so-so (Wrath of Kahn clearly the best). The Next Generation movies were all quite good. And I really loved the reboot movies. But now it seems Paramount has really lost their way, at least with TV (and especially in combination with CBS).

Re: Discovery?

[AmiMoJo]

Don't let the "pc overkill" nonsense put you off. There is far less of it than the original series or TNG. It's just some people with an agenda saying that.

You can get it in DVD and it's worth watching.

Re: Discovery?

[mfearby]

I agree with you about The Orville. It's 5 starts compared to Discovery, which I'd give 1 star. TNG, DS9, and VOY are all my favourites, but Enterprise had a weakling for a captain and it drove me mad. I watched a few episodes of Discovery (appropriate acronym: "STD") and regretted it. The Orville is where it's at, now.

Re: Discovery?

[markdavis]

Enterprise had a weakling for a captain and it drove me mad

I liked most of the characters but had a REALLY hard time swallowing Scott Bakula. Although eventually he started getting into the role and I could deal with it. He sorta reminded me of Chapote on Voyager (my least liked character). One problem is that I kept thinking at any moment he would say "Oh Boy"....

Re: Discovery?

[skegg]

There's probably a dose of PC* injected into Discovery, but I very much enjoyed it and look forward to upcoming episodes. I think anyone who likes science fiction (and particularly a Trekkie) would be unnecessarily depriving themselves of entertainment by sidestepping this series.

* There's arguably an over-representation of strong and competent females vs males in the upper Starfleet ranks. Then again Janeway (and Admiral Nechayev) cleared this path years ago. (Our timeline ... Discovery is set before them in the Star Trek universe.) Anyhow, if that's not someone's cup of coffee (black) then "get off my ship!"

Re: Discovery?

[AHuxley]

STD could have done a good supporting cast with ideas like Saru, Airiam.
But then the plot had to work via Michael. For a good STD the rest of the cast would have had to have some role.
The new plots have to be more interesting than 5 times a STD with a winning Michael vs bad and evil monoculture.

Re: Discovery?

[rally2xs]

I had trouble with just 2 aspects of The Next Generation. I got tired of the lack of action - they were cruising all over the known universe in the most advanced battlewagon built by man, and worrying about Wesley Crusher's identity crisis. That sucked. And then there was the fact that they kept bouncing the broadcast times for it around unpredictably. I'd set of my VCR (remember those?) to record it, and instead I'd get a baseball game or somesuch. Got tired of chasing it for that, and for the lack of action.

There just isn't anything as great as the original series.

Re: Discovery?

[AmiMoJo]

Can you give some specific examples of plot points that you consider to be "SJW nonsense"?

Re: Discovery?

[mjwx]

>"In the wake of shocking allegations against Star Trek: Discovery's showrunners"

Discovery? Is that really a thing? I am a huge Trekkie and have not seen a single episode. Their distribution model sucked, and I have heard it is nothing but "PC overkill" combined with total fantasy. Strangely, I don't know ANYONE who has actually watched "Discovery" and when I ask them, they have no interest in doing so, even the Trekkies like me. But....

Discovery sucked for many reasons, mainly because they tried to make it dark and gritty like BSG and the Trek universe doesn't fit in to that... But also a lot of production annoyances (like the Klingons speaking Klingon, but the Vulcans speaking English).

However the whole "PC overkill" thing was a complete and utter fallacy made up by people who wanted to cry about the world becoming less bigoted than the 1960's.

Watch it, it got slightly better towards the end but I honestly didn't think it deserved a second season.

Re: Discovery?

[Cro Magnon]

Totally agree! My biggest gripe about the Orville is, the season was too damn short.

Re: Discovery?

[Mike Van Pelt]

I never gave The Orville a chance, because it was a creation of Seth McFartjoke, who I find insufferable at best.

What I heard about the first couple of episodes didn't give me any reason to give it a chance. However, people whose taste I ... am not entirely appalled by ... have said it got really good later on. So, I suppose I'll have to give it a try at some point.

After I've caught up with "The Expanse." Now that's *good*.

Re:Quick! Add a pansexual!

[blindseer]

There weren't any pansexuals in that video!

Here's a video with a pansexual wookie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And just for fun here's Darth Vader on the accordion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

For some reason I have a compelling desire to start cello lessons.

Humans with Klingons

[Tablizer]

They should make a series about two Federation human newbies stationed on a Klingon ship. A man and a woman. The culture clashes would be fun and interesting. The Earth man can date a Klingon woman, and he always walk out of their room with bruises but smiling.

Re:Humans with Klingons

[Tablizer]

Entire show wouldn't be that, it would be kind of a side issue. Anyhow, can't please everyone.

Re: No, thanks.

[doconnor]

He didn't really give any examples is bad "leftism". You don't get much more gratuitously diverse then having a Russian crew member in the middle of the Cold War.

If anything should be excised from Trek...

[Oligonicella]

it should be Patrick Stewart. His presence just made the Federation ooze pomposity.

total lack of imagination moving forward

[nnet]

once again no one is moving forward into the future with star trek.

Re:Pay Streaming? No Thanks...

[Oligonicella]

Something a bit more reflective of where we actually seem to be heading.

You should read up on crime statistics then. We're heading *away* from violence, despite the 24/7 coverage on TV.

Counteroffer

[king neckbeard]

I have a counteroffer: 5 Patrick Stewart shows. 1 could be Star Trek.

Re:Counteroffer

[93 Escort Wagon]

Patrick Stewart is something like 110 years old. Let the poor guy enjoy retirement.

A recurring Picard (Re:Is this a joke?)

[blindseer]

I picture Picard as being a recurring character. Maybe he'd "bookend" each season, providing continuity with the larger Trek universe by playing a prominent role in these episodes but otherwise be largely absent. Maybe he'd bookend each episode by giving a "captain's log" style opening and/or Mork and Mindy style closing report to some authority on how things played out.

Why do I think Picard would be portrayed in such a way? Because Patrick Stewart is getting old. I saw an interview he had where he'd talk about sitting in a hotel room, watching a Star Trek episode he had been in and not remembering that episode being taped. While watching TV there would be a knock at the door and he'd see room service had brought him food that he didn't remember ordering. He was lighthearted about the experience, merely addressing that his memory isn't like it was.

If he's going to portray Picard then he's going to have to do so in a way that he can disappear for long periods and have the viewers not wonder where he's been. I was surprised to see that Stewart took on a new show, Blunt Talk, given his statements in that interview. I see it's been cancelled. I hadn't seen the show so I don't know how much screen time he had or how well he had performed. Was the show cancelled because Stewart couldn't keep up? Was he forgetting his lines? Or did Stewart's performance have nothing to do with it not continuing?

Even if Stewart felt he'd be up to being a main character on a new Trek-verse show there is still convincing the powers that be that someone that will hit 80 in the second season will be able to keep up.

Re:A recurring Picard (Re:Is this a joke?)

[dgatwood]

I saw an interview he had where he'd talk about sitting in a hotel room, watching a Star Trek episode he had been in and not remembering that episode being taped.

Meh. I'm O(half his age), and half the time, I couldn't tell you what I did at work last week. :-) Besides, I'm pretty sure he's not actually losing his marbles. Minor memory problems like those (including doing things while distracted and forgetting you did them) are actually reasonably normal at that age, and are not inherently a sign of anything serious.

Given his relatively good health (from all outward indications), I'm fully expecting him to out-age Betty White.

Re:A recurring Picard (Re:Is this a joke?)

[blindseer]

Besides, I'm pretty sure he's not actually losing his marbles.

I'm not saying he is either. Stewart was merely telling a little tale on how/when he recognized he's not as young as he used to be. It sounds like he's still active in theater and does acting on screens big and small. What he's unlikely to do though is be a main character in another sci-fi adventure show.

I've seen those behind the scenes shows that show what the main actors have to do everyday to produce a typical sci-fi adventure show. They'll work 10, 12, or even 16 hours on set for 4, 5, or 6 days a week for 12 to 20 weeks a year. These actors that are often between 20 and 50 years old find this difficult. When an actor gets to be in their 60s and 70s then they tend to take on roles with limited screen time. They'll be an admiral, school principal, precinct captain, or whatever in an office that shows up on screen for maybe 10 minutes total in a 45 minute episode. They'll stride into a conference room or something, hear what the main characters have to say, make a decision, and then disappear until the end of the episode where they congratulate the main characters for a job well done. That's assuming they show up at all in that week's episode. They might be mentioned in conversation, converse over a telephone, or make an announcement on a PA if they don't appear on screen.

Don't expect to see Captain Picard "star trekking" across the universe. What you'll see is Admiral Picard come out of his office once in a while to bestow his wisdom and intellect upon the rest of the cast and then disappear into his office to review TPS reports or something. Or maybe we'll see a retired Picard on a vineyard in France, tending to his vines, so that a troubled young Starfleet officer can beam in from wherever to seek his advice from time to time.

Re:A recurring Picard (Re:Is this a joke?)

[dgatwood]

I've seen those behind the scenes shows that show what the main actors have to do everyday to produce a typical sci-fi adventure show. They'll work 10, 12, or even 16 hours on set for 4, 5, or 6 days a week for 12 to 20 weeks a year. These actors that are often between 20 and 50 years old find this difficult. When an actor gets to be in their 60s and 70s then they tend to take on roles with limited screen time. They'll be an admiral, school principal, precinct captain, or whatever in an office that shows up on screen for maybe 10 minutes total in a 45 minute episode. They'll stride into a conference room or something, hear what the main characters have to say, make a decision, and then disappear until the end of the episode where they congratulate the main characters for a job well done.

That's the nice thing about an ensemble cast. You can have a number of characters who are still fairly major characters, without them all having to have them on screen for the entire episode. For example, he could be one of three or four teachers, and in a majority of scenes, there would be at least one of the teachers present, but rarely all four.

That said, from what I've read about him, if he asked for a less major role, I'd expect the reason to be so he could spend more time doing higher-calibre acting in the theater, rather than because he didn't want to act as much. :-) Just saying.

Re: No, thanks.

[Gavagai80]

Having a comedically over-patriotic Russian and making minorities all obey all orders of a midwest American white man was not nearly as liberal as Roddenberry wanted to believe.

Re: No, thanks.

[doconnor]

You mean have mirror Chekov meet non-mirror Lorca? I look forward to your fanfic.

5 shows?

[AHuxley]

5 times the STD for everyone?
With Michael crews and STD related plots?
Captain, First Officer, Lieutenant, Admiral, Tactical officer? All with their own Michael story.
Any civilian, ambassador, alien encountered will be out smarted by Michael.
In every explode and as a series plot arc.
5 times the Michael winning plots.

Re:5 shows?

[samwichse]

Make that Terry Crews and I'm sold

Re:Pay Streaming? No Thanks...

[rally2xs]

I don't believe there are women that can do combat as well as _any_ man. Their exceptionals can do combat as well as an average man, but when you talk Rangers / Seals, or someone built like Rambo... nope, I don't think I've ever seen any. I've seen pix of the body builders, and the guys are _always_ bigger than the gals. In hand-to-hand fighting, size matters.

Re:Please stop

[rally2xs]

Yeah, they _finally_ made a movie out of "Ender's Game." Waited decades for that. Now, if they would just do it for Footfall - they can do great pachyderm aliens with the CGI capabilities that the movie makers have now, and Archangel Michael at the end would be a very satisfying conclusion to the conflict. But yeah, there's great stories all over the place. I imagine, tho, that building a blockbuster from scratch, so's it makes several hundred million dollars to offset the production costs of the CGI and stuff is much harder than doing it for something with a familiar storyline. Now, Disney is totally f-ing up the Star Wars story line so they may be killing or may have killed that goose that was laying those golden eggs. I did like "Solo" tho, but I may be easy to please. Just don't like the overwhelming number of women in the main storyline now. And I can see how it might negatively impact the interest of boys in the series - I mean, the video game is advertised as, "Start Rhea's Journey..." As a boy, who would want to do that?

Re:WTB Captain Worf

[HeckRuler]

Half flashbacks to crazy good-day-to-die war stories and half drunken Klingon version of.... are you thinking more Red-Green, Hee-Haw, or LetterKenny?

Stretching too thin

[TJHook3r]

As has happened with the countless and generally crap Marvel spinoffs, sometimes less is more. The market will not support more than one or two shows running and certainly doesn't need any highschool settings!

LOL just more ships to buy ...

[MxMatrix]

... in star trek online.

Re:Pay Streaming? No Thanks...

[AmiMoJo]

female captain goes one-on-one with a Klingon and doesn't die

That didn't actually happen in the first episode, and in the second... Well, spoiler alert.

I'm also tempted to point out Klingons are not actually that great in hand-to-hand combat with other species. Worf kinda proved that but the basic issue is that they are big and slow. Against each other it doesn't matter, but against more nimble opponents with weapons it's a disadvantage.

You have to figure that their love of hand-to-hand combat is mostly traditional. If they really wanted to win they would use guns, but instead choose the more honourable bladed weapons. It makes even more sense in Discovery's time, with that particular group of Klingons being very religious and wrapping themselves in tradition and dogma.

I have lost faith in Star Trek

[Crookdotter]

..... but, somewhere deep down in the dark, alone in a corner crying, is the part of me that might just, maybe, reach out a hand to Star Trek again if Sir Pat Stew is the show lead as Capt (Admiral?) Picard. I hope.

Chateau Picard Wineries

[CanEHdian]

Patrick Stewart stars as Captain Picard in a 10-episode spin-off where the retired Starfleet dignitary will engage us in the art of wine-making. It's sponsored by the California winemaking industry, so it comes as no surprise the locale is California, Earth. A former SF training facility was gifted to Picard in recognition of his outstanding services, which was remade in to a 21st Century-style winery, dubbed Chateau Picard. Together with his Akkorexian assistant, Bh'arf, the duo will take us on an exciting journey which takes us from growing grapes to the bottling process. Four out of five stars.
[****O]

No new ideas?

[biggaijin]

Don't the entertainment people ever have any new ideas? I was sick of Star Trek by 1971 and was never able to get interested in any of the interminable sequels. Yet, someone apparently does.

Re:Pay Streaming? No Thanks...

[doconnor]

Captain Georgiou was killed fighting the Klingons. First Office Burnham managed to escape, but she was trained in Vulcan martial arts. Almost everyone knows strength isn't everything in combat.

In the Star Wars universe, the ability to use the Force is the most important in combat. "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?" - Yoda

I wanted Axanar

[techm]

... but lawyers killed it. That was the last time I was interested in Star Trek. I am seriously not interested in CBS' offerings. I refuse to subscribe to their service just to watch it.

Make It So

[maxbuzz]

Engage!

Yes

[OrangeTide]

Because it's not racist to make a simian comparison to a white person. Pointing out that a picture of G.W. Bush makes him look like a chimp, and that Trump looks like an orangutan is doesn't have the same historic baggage as comparison a black person to an "ape" or "gorilla".

I guess one solution is for you to open a book once in a while. If you want to avoid being turned into "toast" (whatever that means) and socially ostracized by polite society. If you're blind to the last few centuries of American history, then tread lightly.

The Academy

[DarthVain]

Well I've watch all the Star Trek, so I'm looking forward to a continuation of the Discovery series. As to the rest I guess we'll see.

A couple comments:

On the STTYG (Star Trek The Younger Generation) the first thing I thought of was that parody episode that Stargate did by replacing all the actors with sexy young counterparts where everything turned into sexy young angst and romantic relationships... Which when I watch the modern equivalents that have come out in the years since, really were not that far off the mark. Heck go young enough and you get a Hogworts spinoff! Though as soon as I heard Patrick Stewart's involvement while I hoped it might be a limited reprisal role in the main series (Discovery), many point out that he would be perfect headmaster materiel for Starfleet Academy... The producers could just save themselves a bunch of money and just make edits to the X-Men movies and have enough footage to last forever. They might have to find an excuse to put him in a wheel chair (Pike anyone?), and give him mind powers, but heck stranger things have happened in the Star Trek universe...

I would hope that the "animated" series would be Akira level of badassery, and not ProStars type level of consumption, but I would bet on the later than the former unfortunately... Animation directed at young kids, not to adults. For bonus points, if they are going to have inter-dimensional travel like the rest, PLEASE do a single Rick and Morty cross-over, as that would be *hilarious*!

The confidential plot looks intriguing... There was plenty of that on DS9 which were some of their better ideas... I'd no doubt give it a decent shot at least. Favorite quote from the article's comments: "To boldly skulk behind the scenes like no one has skulked before." lol nice!

As for the whole Khan idea... that seems a bad move. Come up with a new idea rather than beating that dead horse. It has been done numerous times already, even so much as to blame them for the changing Klingon looks over the years which is up there on the miticlorian level...

Finally only because there is the usual bashing of Discovery and their fungus warp, I get it... it is a bit silly. However it does have an "out" in that if the entire network is destroyed it would explain away why a technology in the prequel isn't around in later series, also it being top secret it wouldn't really be common canon.