New Trek series coming in 2017

November 2, 2015

Article Text

As posted on, and many other places: "CBS Television Studios announced today it will launch a totally new Star Trek television series in January 2017. The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast on the CBS Television Network. The premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Network's digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service."

This is a significant development. And probably a logical one. Star Trek has been away from television for a full 10-plus years now. And with the television landscape having changed so radically in the past decade — and especially the past five years — it's interesting to see CBS make this move in this particular way. As far as I can tell, this would be the first for a major broadcast player: Using a flagship franchise property to drive people toward a digital subscription service — clearly their second tier at this point, but possibly an acknowledgement that this is the way of the future — rather than putting it on the airwaves that are their primary distribution vehicle. It is the Netflix/Amazon/Hulu model, plain and simple, to be performed by a traditional TV player.

So Trek is going to be a trailblazer again.

I've never used the CBS All Access service since it was launched last year, so I can't make any sort of useful comment on that platform. To me, among the admittedly very few streaming services I use, Netflix is still the gold standard because of its ease of use, widespread integration with other platforms (for example, Google Chromecast and most smart TVs and Blu-ray players), and its high streaming quality that is good, but still not as good as a cable broadcast. I am still a cable subscriber first and foremost. I know that probably makes me a quaint relic, and I hate forking over all that money to Comcast every month — but in my experience, the quality of the product is still superior and you get the most content for your money. If new Star Trek is going exclusively to a digital streaming platform, I hope that CBS All Access is a top-tier service that can be viewed on a large HDTV without feeling like a second-rate bitstream. I still do not watch television on a phone or tablet. Like I said, I realize I am a dinosaur and a quality snob.

I won't get into the speculation of the showrunners and so forth and what all that means. Alex Kurtzman has the distinction of having co-written and co-produced both the J.J. Abrams Trek films, which I'm sure will prejudice a lot of people from the start. I will say that won't factor into my opinion. What will factor into my opinion is what I start seeing on the screen in 2017. And I must also say that in this stage of the game, I have very little in terms of a preconceived notion of what a Star Trek series in 2017 should be. I really think it's wide open at this point. Hopefully they can come up with something that is new and also familiar and builds on at least some previous lore, whether it's the original universe's or the rebooted one.

So, then. Will I be reviewing the new Star Trek? Who knows? 2017 is quite a ways off. Maybe by then I will have figured out the work/life/hobby balance. Then again, maybe not. It is far too soon to say. I'll get back to you on that. Besides, I still have to finish that Into Darkness review, which is two-and-a-half years late. It's coming someday; I swear.

Discuss your thoughts on Trek 2017 in the comments.

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.

◄ Blog Index

Comment Section

256 comments on this post

    So... A new Trek series announced for January 2017.

    Two questions...
    Will Jammer have reviewed this movie, or the next, by the time it comes out?
    And the million dollar question... Will he be reviewing the new series?

    Since I don't know where else to write this, might as well be here (last entry in the comment browser): CBS just announced that a new Trek show under Kurtzman would begin in 2017!

    @Paul - Was just going to post this myself... but the Into Darkness guys doing it feels like rewarding failure...

    And I am worried about it being in the new timeline :-(

    I must admit that Kurtzman doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I don't like Abrams' Trek-that-would-be-Star-Wars and this guy was a screenwriter there. Then again, he did work on Fringe, which is one of my favourite SF shows of the last decade. I dunno, let's give him a chance, he may surprise us yet. And really, I find it hard to believe the rebooted Trek could be worse than Voyager and Enterprise. Truth be told, Trek had been on a downward spiral a long, long time before Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci came along.

    As for the new timeline, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but series rights and movie rights aren't held by the same studio anymore. I'm not sure if CBS Trek is allowed to set its stories in the movie alternate universe which is Paramount's IP. Still, I suppose that some sort of collaboration shouldn't be discounted.

    "As for the new timeline, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but series rights and movie rights aren't held by the same studio anymore. I'm not sure if CBS Trek is allowed to set its stories in the movie alternate universe which is Paramount's IP."

    I'll keep my fingers crossed. DS9 is my favorite Trek, but what I really want for a new Star Trek series is a ship with some new travel ability, or some kind of subspace gate that lets us travel beyond the scope of TNG-era Trek so we can get back to exploring strange new worlds. And having it be on the Enterprise F wouldn't hurt either.

    As much as I love TNG and especially DS9, I truly want a clean break. No more 24th century Federations in their pajama uniforms, no goddamn Klingon warriors and their quasi-honour bulshit, no fashion-challenged Romulans, or logical Vulcans with their eyebrows raised in eternal puzzlement and fascination, no Borg, Ferengi, holodecks, captain's chairs facing viewscreens in some weird school class/hotel lobby bridge-wanna-be mish-mash, no technobabble and psychobabble, universe that doesn't look and feel like my neighbour's backyard and is as much 'bold' and 'mysterious'.


    Is this a tall order? :)

    @Paul - Not bad, but I'd add that I'd like a Cardassian or a Romulan on the bridge. The whole point of Worf was to show that last generation's enemies are this generation's friends... a message of hope that we could use in this day and age.

    A Cardassian might fit really well too, considering the Federation is likely helping them rebuild after the war. A Cardassian child growing up post-DS9 might be interested in Federation ideals, and there will be a lot of orphans, maybe a Federation family might even raise one.

    I'm with you on the clean break though, I want to explore the universe, not the Alpha Quadrant. I'm all for having established aliens in our crew, but we don't need to spend half of our time dealing with Alpha Quadrant politics. Let's boldly go.

    Boy, am I excited!
    Maybe this new series will be far enough in the future so that even intergalactic travel will be possible. Maybe touch up on some old stories?
    Like the Kelvans from the Andromada Galaxy as seen in TOS.

    I didn't enjoy the 2 'reboot' movies, and I haven't liked some of the recent rumors I've heard about Star Trek series being pitched to CBS. So I'm more pessimistic than hopeful about this, but I certainly hope to be proven wrong.

    If I got any say in the series, it would be set in the main timeline, 20-ish years after DS9/Voyager. Enterprise was interesting towards the end of it's run, but this new series should go forward, not backward. It shouldn't be hard to make such a show accessible to brand-new viewers while throwing in some nods to earlier Trek Shows. CBS should be happy about that, as it would get new viewers interested in the old shows, which are owned by CBS.

    It would have mostly new characters, but appearances from previous shows wouldn't be off-limits. I wouldn't mind if 1 or 2 previous characters became regulars on the new show (if I had to name 1 character, I'd be interested in a new writing staff taking Dax and putting it in a new series...whether or not it's in the same host. That's certainly an appropriate character to embody the trek legacy). Again, it shouldn't be done in a way that's inaccessible to new viewers.

    I would make it more serialized than any previous series, so they can build stories slowly and more in depth, avoiding a heavy amount of "anomaly of the week" episodes. There's only so many such ideas any group of writers can come up with.

    The writers would then make long-term plans involving different stories in different areas of space. For example, the series might start in the Federation proper, move into the area of space around Cardassian territory on some mission for about a season, find the ship sent into some unexplored alien space for a 1.5 seasons, then return and have to deal with issues surrounding Romulan & Klingon politics and other races along the border for another year an a half. They can stay in one region long enough to do a good, compelling story, then move on and start fresh somewhere else.

    Finally---it should be hopeful. The ideals of the federation should absolutely be tested (as in DS9), but it shouldn't go so far as having the Federation break apart as I heard in one rumor for a possible new series last year.

    "Alex Kurtzman has the distinction of having co-written and co-produced both the J.J. Abrams Trek films, which I'm sure will prejudice a lot of people from the start."

    Count me firmly as one of them. I absolutely cannot stand the Abramsverse.

    I'll give it a chance once it finally premiers. However, I do not hold anything remotely like high expectations for it.

    It's hard to react to this announcement as we have very little information at this point. In fact, I almost wish I hadn't found out so far in advance that a new Star Trek series was being produced.

    It seems likely that this new series will be set in the "new" timeline established by the J.J. Abrams films. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. What will be important, as it always is, is the writing. A few things on my wish list:
    -A new and diverse cast of characters, with male/female parity
    -Taking advantage of the format by telling serialized stories, perhaps even more so than DS9. I'm not saying we should have a "war" arc like DS9 did, but the wirters should have a long-term plan other than 'ship exploring the unknown'.
    -Focus on character development and addressing socio-political issues rather than action, as the best Treks have been about.

    "Taking advantage of the format by telling serialized stories, perhaps even more so than DS9. I'm not saying we should have a "war" arc like DS9 did, but the wirters should have a long-term plan other than 'ship exploring the unknown'."

    I actually think they should try to have several short term plans. I'd always wanted this for Voyager. I felt like each area of space they passed through should have it's own feel, races, ongoing story, etc. and that Voyager should be a part of it but once they left it behind it was gone.

    I'd love to find a way for the new ship to boldly go somewhere new in such a way that we can get serialized stories and one-shots... but maybe not a 7 year long storyline.

    Oh good, I was hoping Jammer was on the ball with this announcement and of course he was!

    Even though I enjoyed the 2 new movies, I would really like to see this new series set 20 years or so after DS9 and VOY in the prime timeline. And then they can go and SAVE SISKO FROM THE DAMN WORMHOLE.

    Is there any possibility that this is the Captain Worf series that Michael Dorn has been kicking around for years? I'd say probably not, as he would have been busting a nut to tell us all about it if it were in fact green lit.

    "Not bad, but I'd add that I'd like a Cardassian or a Romulan on the bridge."

    Paul, that's a great idea! You could have a Cardassian join Starfleet with a backstory where he was impressed by the Federation's help in defeating the Dominion / rebuilding Cardassia or something.

    OR the Romulan could join Starfleet as they'd still be allied with the Federation after the Dominion War (as far as we know).

    "OR the Romulan could join Starfleet as they'd still be allied with the Federation after the Dominion War (as far as we know)."

    They'd also have to acknowledge what happened in "Nemesis", which was set after DS9. It seemed to completely ignore the previous existence of the alliance, as the Federation didn't seem to have good diplomatic relations with the Romulans at the beginning of the movie. However, it did end in a somewhat hopeful note, as some Romulans helped the Enterprise stop Shinzon.

    "From the Executive Producers of Scorpion" doesn't fill myself with any hope. I won't pre-emptively hate on the series...but I don't have high expectations either. I'm fearful that this will have a typical CBS drama writing staff/quality.

    Meh, the Federation became allies with the Klingons after a catastrophe. Technically in the Prime Universe Romulus is destroyed. I don't want to set this in the JJVerse, but should we go back to Prime I want Romulus gone. We shouldn't retcon the JJVerse either.

    I agree about wanting something new, set some time after DS9/TNG etc.

    Also I would love for them not to have the old 'set crew' format- have characters come and go, it makes for much more unpredictability and more dramatic storylines. Also if a character isn't working, you can write them out pretty quickly rather than being stuck with them for 7 years (Harry Kim etc).

    Whatever you think of the Abramsverse movies, take a look at Kurtzman's other film and television credits. See a lot you like there, or no?

    So, in order to watch our new trek....

    You must have access to CBS. Probably cable or satellite TV to see the premier ... $$$$$$

    Then in order to see the rest of the series, you need to pay for All Access CBS .... $$$$$

    ... of course you need to have internet access for that so ... $$$$$$

    ...and this "new deal" isn't even guaranteed to be commercial free. I'm sure a "deal" is forthcoming for extra $$$$$ for that privilege.

    So, on a day I should be excited.... I'm not so excited.

    Then on top of it, frakin Kurzman is producing.... with Orci along for the ride probably.

    On a lighter note....

    Did anyone already notice that you could write the start date of January, 2017 differently?



    Yanks- No, I hadn't noticed, pretty creative on CBS's part. I also like the idea of not having a set cast. That would take a lot of stress off of the writers about making forced character-centric episodes (I.e. Sub Rosa).

    The only real premise I ask for is anything besides Abramsverse. I want this new series to get to the heart of what Star Trek is and actually matter when taking the other series into consideration.

    I'll still watch it if is in the rebooted timeline, but I'll be a whole lot less enthusiast.


    The only film Kurzman has been involved in that was good was "Ender's Game" and even it wasn't great.

    The only TV he's been involved in that was good were "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and "Xena: Warrior Princess" and those were over fifteen years ago.

    Yeah, I'm sadly still not excited.

    "Whatever you think of the Abramsverse movies, take a look at Kurtzman's other film and television credits. See a lot you like there, or no?"

    Unfortunately not. His film credits are fairly awful across the board, and TV doesn't look that much better. (And that includes Fringe, which I was on board with for a while, until late S4. S5 sealed the deal)

    Would he be running the writing staff? I'd guess not, as it's just a production company credit. The show will live or die on the writing staff and the direction they choose...but again, looking at his other current shows on CBS...not filling myself with confidence.

    I have to admit, I'm rather befuddled at their decision making process here.

    In order to be a success, Star Trek needs to find new fans. This was easy enough to do for the movies; the barrier to entry was pretty low. There's a large audience out there that just wants a summer blockbuster, and Trek could deliver. Just throw in a Kirk/Spock bromance (about the only thing the general audience knows about Trek), flashy effects, random gags, gratuitous underwear scenes, and you're good to go. But these fans aren't going to sign up for CBS's online access just for that, especially since there will be no Kirk, no Spock, and fewer flashy effects. So all that's left is the hardcore Trek crowd which, like I said, is forever shrinking (as is any franchise that can't bring in new blood). Yet CBS clearly wants this new Trek to be an anchor for their online service. Yet they aren't going to get any word of mouth this way, they aren't going to get casual subscribers who would be interested in more than just Trek. And it's absurd to bank this whole program on just the hardcore Trek crowd. Or have they forgotten about UPN?

    Voyager had fewer fans than TNG. Enterprise had fewer fans than Voyager. Unless they can get some real hype around this (which is going to require a lower barrier to entry than $5.99/month), this series is going to have fewer fans than Enterprise. So how is that going to work?

    I know nothing about running a giant media conglomerate, admittedly, but I imagine if CBS didn't want this on their network, they could have had Netflix at their feet begging for the rights to the show. And I imagine that would be a profitable enterprise for both of them. After all, Marvel, which seems to have the uncanny ability to turn any of their characters into a successful movie, was willing to give Netflix some reasonably popular characters like Daredevil, the Punisher, and Luke Cage. So obviously Marvel is getting something worthwhile out of that relationship. And based on the positive media Netflix earned from S1 of Daredevil, it seemed to turn out well for them too. Why couldn't a similar arrangement be made for Trek? I think I read somewhere that the Trek shows are among the most watched on Netflix, so certainly they would be happy for it...

    In the grand scheme of things, most people have no interest in buying CBS Access, and even heavy entertainment junkies would balk at it after buying Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO... And I doubt a new Star Trek will change that equation.

    Meanwhile, if they are trying to just bank on the hardcore Trek fans, why go with a nuTrek producer? Needless to say, most of the hardcore Trek crowd wants the original timeline.

    And even if they do go with nuTrek universe, they can't piss off the hardcore fans by ignoring continuity. Thus, for example, they would practically be forced to use bushy-eyebrowed Klingons thanks to DS9 and Enterprise putting it into canon. Needless to say, that's a kiss of death.

    Besides all that, though, a clean, Third Generation would probably work best in keeping a strong mix of new fans and keeping old fans happy. With a decent enough time skip post-DS9 (40 years, perhaps?), you would not have to worry about too much canon to frighten off new fans, and you would reduce demands for endless cameos that would turn off the new fans as well (while still allowing some for fans to enjoy). TNG proved itself capable of finding a whole new audience while maintaining the TOS crowd; so hopefully a Third Generation could do the same.

    Also, if one considers Trek as a mirror to talk about current events (preferably without its signature sledgehammer style, but whatever...), then it seems to me that a post-DS9 universe could, conceivably, be a strong model for today. In the modern world, geopower between nation-states has been deemphasized, while asymmetrical warfare, economic concerns, and post-modernism have risen. Compare that to the post DS9 world:

    - ALL major races are defeated or in disarray (The Borg, Dominion, Cardassians, and Romulans (counting nuTrek as canon), and even the Klingons are predicted to be dying by the noted pundit Ezri). This leaves the Federation uncontested ruler of the Alpha Quadrant. Much like in the real world, there is no longer a cold war.

    - Despite that, the Federation is still reeling from its first real crisis in over a century. The Cardassian wars, the Romulan/Klingon threats, even Wolf 359 didn't impact the majority of Federation citizens the way the Dominion War did, with multiple Federation planets being occupied. Idealism and utopia are easy when you live in comfort; how will the citizens react to that?

    - An argument could be made that the Federation is at fault for the Dominion War, and shouldn't have pushed so hard in the Gamma Quadrant. Could a backlash against the explorative nature of Starfleet appear?

    - Section 31 being revealed makes it clear that the Federation is not as utopian as it claims to be. How will the citizens react to that?

    - How will the populace react to Starfleet in general? It seems clear that the fleet was bare-boned in the early TNG era, and strongly anti-military. This started to change after Wolf 359, and then completely changed into a military outfit during the Dominion war. So now, what kind of recruits are they getting to Starfleet Academy. The best of the best, renaissance men? Or fighters? Or neither, because nobody knows what Starfleet will be?

    Personally, my preference for an overall thematic arc of a new Trek series would be a rebirth of the Federation. Acknowledge the cynicism, acknowledge the potential flaws, and have the series start with a question of the perseverance of the Federation. Maybe have a few of the member planets split off the union. Allow uncertainty and even a bit of despair appear. And by the end of the series, wipe that despair away into optimism. Give the Federation a major victory (not military victory, but something that makes one's heart swell with pride), maybe having Cardassia or a different former enemy join the Federation. Let it be clear that the populous cheers for Starfleet again rather than be cautious around it. In the real world, the modern world is facing an existential crisis. Let Trek be used as a mirror and give us hope that we can overcome this crisis with renewed vigor.

    I have no idea how to do that, of course, but that's the theme I'd like to see. About the only thing I can add is that it would make sense, to me, if the Captain and XO have a bit of a contrast - one idealistic, the other cynical. Perhaps have the captain be a relatively young, idealistic captain, while the XO is older, a veteran of the Dominion war, and believes the Federation is in decline. Let that be the main character contrast that carries the show.

    But hey, I'm not paid the big bucks to run this thing, so who knows? I'll at least give the show a shot, what's the worst that can happen?

    I absolutely hate both Abrams-movies. Nevertheless I'd prefer a series in den abramsverse. I'm very happy with the way the novels continue the story in the prime-universe. A new prime-universe series would probably ignore the events of the novels.

    @Skeptical - Agree. I'm a hardcore Trek fan and I will not be buying CBS All Access for this. Not a chance. Just not going to happen.

    If they don't release it on another service (like Amazon/Google Play/VUDU) I'm just not going to watch it until the DVDs come out. And if I'm waiting for the DVDs to come out it better be really, really good. If it has garbage reviews and the show isn't failing I'm not picking it up 10 months after it launches.

    If they want me to try it on release day I better be able to buy a season pass on VUDU/Google/Amazon or screw them. I'm not buying their crappy service for this.

    Oh, and I'd be willing to bet you my 3d chess set that there is no download and play option for CBS all access, which is increasingly the only way I watch TV at all.

    Maybe they are just testing the water here...

    Maybe they will just end up airing it on the network anyways...


    Any time-line can work with good writing.

    If they aren't going with the "new" time-line

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

    I'd like to see the time period between when 'Enterprise' ended and the formation of the Federation to include the Romulan War.

    But like I said, it needs good writing regardless.

    I hope Kurtzman calls Coto & Moore.

    "Any time-line can work with good writing."

    Agree and disagree. The way Star Trek tends to work with teams of writers you always get some idiot who wants to fanwank things that shouldn't be there when you look towards the past. Like Ferengi before Kirk's time when Picard is the one that made first contact.

    It can work, but the caliber of writer that it takes to make prequel material work is just really too high a bar for most writers. Most writers just aren't talented enough to work within that kind of shackle.

    "Maybe they are just testing the water here...

    Maybe they will just end up airing it on the network anyways..."

    This is what I hope will happen, as there's been nothing but bad press & comments on this CBS all access bullshit.

    Oh and whatever new show they put out, PLEASE make it have higher production values than Enterprise.


    I watched part 3 of that Dr. Soong arc last night and my god what happened between Voyager and Enterprise? Did they lose 50% of their budget or something? The CGI ships looked downright terrible and fake, all the space shots totally jar with all the inside shots and aren't the seamless transitions that even early 90's TNG and DS9 could pull off week after week.

    You know they sure didn't give the money to the guy who wrote that crappy theme song!

    Sorry if this is old news, but I never remembered that show having such crappy production visuals that were light years behind the shows that came long before it.


    It's premiering in 2017? I guess we can look forward to Jammer's review in 2010 or so?

    @ Skeptical

    Good points. Your comments are better then the owner of this website, Jamahl.

    The new Trek will most likely be more violent and sexy, and less technical, most of the enemies will be absorbed into a bigger Federation, and of course new threats will show up as always.

    After 2 or 3 seasons, it will end for another two decades or so, because older Trek fans will repeatedly insult the show to death.

    Better to just let Trek die, but when there's money to be made, it never ends.

    "In order to be a success, Star Trek needs to find new fans."

    Star Trek right now is a success for CBS. TNG is still airing on cable, TOS is still syndicated in some markets, various Star Treks are airing internationally, and rumors about streaming say that the Star Trek series are some of the more popular "old shows" on Netflix (which should be taken with a grain of salt; hard numbers are never released).

    Also remember that as much as we talk about low ratings for the last few seasons of Enterprise, it was still always well over 2 million people and often over 3 million people watching an episode in the US. And the ratings for earlier seasons, not too mention earlier series (like TNG), were much higher. There's many millions of people who have been fans of Star Trek series.

    Note that the age of the viewers is less important for a streaming service; a 75 year old will pay the same subscription fee as a 25 year old.

    You're right that if CBS wanted to grow Star Trek, it would be put on their network, on cable, or on something like Netflix. CBS is using Star Trek to grow the CBS online service; they understand Star Trek still has a large fanbase.

    "all that's left is the hardcore Trek crowd which, like I said, is forever shrinking (as is any franchise that can't bring in new blood)."

    There are still fans discovering the shows on cable and Netflix. I won't argue that the total number isn't shrinking, but it's still huge. Other than super-heroes, there's very few TV shows you could create that would have a bigger built-in fanbase before it airs.

    "And it's absurd to bank this whole program on just the hardcore Trek crowd. Or have they forgotten about UPN?"

    First of all, a version of Star Trek ran on UPN for 11 years. When Enterprise went off the air new Star Trek shows had aired continuously for 18 straight years! That's a success, even if it couldn't single-handedly drag the ratings up an entire network.

    Secondly, the CBS streaming service is almost certainly making money for CBS already. It's hard to see how it wouldn't. They have to pay for the internet bandwith, but so far the only product they've been streaming has been shows CBS already controls. With limited costs and money from both advertising & subscriptions, the service is probably paying for itself (and CBS claims they're happy with the numbers).

    I think the Star Trek series will pay for itself easily for CBS, even before you consider international sales. That said, it's certainly possible that after a year they'll look at the numbers and say they could make even more money by selling the show for a huge fee to somebody like Netflix.

    As for myself, unless these streaming services change their pricing model to give you discounts for multi-month subscriptions, I expect I'll subscribe to CBS Online for about a month a year, then alternate subscriptions to Netflix & Hulu for the rest of the year. Why subscribe to more than 1 service at a time if you're not in a hurry to watch shows as soon as they come out?

    "the caliber of writer that it takes to make prequel material work is just really too high a bar for most writers. Most writers just aren't talented enough to work within that kind of shackle."

    I would say many writers aren't _disciplined_ enough to make that work. If you can write good stories without the continuity, you are capable of writing good stories with continuity. They just need to be bothered to do it (and there should be a continuity guy the writers could consult).

    "I'd like to see the time period between when 'Enterprise' ended and the formation of the Federation to include the Romulan War."

    I'd be very surprised if that was what they'd do to start with. I expect either a 'reboot' or something set years after DS9/Voyager.

    That said, I hope their long range plan includes some side projects. Right now, they should focus on setting up a fresh new series that goes 20 or so episodes a year, like a traditional show. If they're successful with that, they could supplement that with stories of different lengths. They could have a mini-series set on some planet or space station that they introduce in the new show. They could reunite the Star Trek Enterprise crew for a handful of TV-movies showing the Romulan War. They could do a comedic special portraying Chekov, Uhura, & Sulu as sarcastic professors at Star Fleet Academy teaching those kids life lessons applicable to outer space.

    These sorts of things would have a hard time getting produced for network TV, which focuses on series that last at least a half season. But they could get Star Trek fans to come back to the streaming service throughout the year. They would also give different creators opportunities to diversify & grow the Star Trek Universe (the biggest problem with Voyager & the early seasons of Enterprise was that it was mostly the same group of writers who had worked on TNG, writing the same type of story over and over and over...). It's the sort of thing Disney is doing with Star Wars & with Marvel.

    OK methane, perhaps I laid it on too thick. But on the flipside, when was the last time you heard a pop culture reference to DS9, VOY, or ENT? In all the news stories about this, when the outlets needed a stock photo, did they take it from DS9, VOY, or ENT? No. It's all nuTrek, TOS, or TNG. In fact, as you mentioned, TNG and TOS still appear in syndication, but not so much the other series. That's part of what I mean about it being a shrinking franchise.

    As for CBS Access, as far as I can tell, it has a very tiny audience at the moment. Sure, since it's just a bunch of reruns on it, it probably is profitable at this point for CBS. But they want to make original content on it, so they need to grow that audience quite a bit, because it costs a lot more to produce a show than it does to simply toss up reruns. Which means, like I said, they really need to grab a new audience. Sure, they can grab hardcore Trek fans, but they want CBS Access to be big-time, like Netflix. Which means they need a variety of genres to get a variety of fans. Now yes, you have to start somewhere, and Trek is a good a place as any, what with its built-in fanbase. But if they want that to be the starting point for growing the program, than the new Trek needs to have a cultural impact, like TNG did. It needs to be recognizable enough that someone might want to take a chance on it. I don't think DS9 or VOY or ENT ever got that recognition.

    A new show that just appeals to the fans, even newcomers, could work on Netflix, because everyone already has Netflix and Netflix isn't just relying on Trek to keep it afloat. But CBS is different. It's a much bigger risk that CBS is doing here. Maybe it'll work out for them, but with all the competition out there already, I have a hard time believing it'll work out.

    Oh, and regardless of whether or not ads are there, age does matter. Because as people age, their obsession with entertainment decreases, obviously due to other commitments. Our esteemed host reviewed every single episode of Star Trek, but isn't sure if he'll do it for this show. Robert has 803 comments on this site, and isn't going to get CBS Access. Me? I'll probably give it a try, especially since I buy so few entertainment items for myself that I could afford $6/mo just for a new Trek, but I have no problems dropping it if it isn't a high quality. And given Trek's traditional "first season is awful" approach, this could be a bad thing...

    I agree with Skeptical's general points. You do have a way with words! :)

    I'd personally like the new show to be, as you said, Third Generation. Any kind of prequel or even TOS/alternate TOS timeline wouldn't sit that well with me because, well, it's already been done. TNG/DS9/VOY timeline -- even one in not too far future of those series -- carries too much baggage and continuity/canon issues for anyone but the hardcore Trek fans to care about. Cardassians on the bridge? Romulan allies? I mean, it's all well and good, but to a new audience such references wouldn't mean a thing. Even me, as a longtime fan, would have trouble mustering enthusiasm for such a turn of events. I've had my share of Klingons, Romulans, and Cardassians over countless series and decades. Do we really need more?

    A clean slate is what I hope for. Set far enough in the future that prior canon isn't relevant except for occasional easter eggs, the new show should forge its own identity as a series that belongs in this time and place and not just be a warmed up serving of the franchise with barely anything new to tell.

    "A clean slate is what I hope for. Set far enough in the future that prior canon isn't relevant except for occasional easter eggs, the new show should forge its own identity as a series that belongs in this time and place and not just be a warmed up serving of the franchise with barely anything new to tell. "

    I think this is the smartest approach.

    Might I propose that Starfleet and the Romulan Star Empire find a cloaked Iconian Stargate in the middle of the neutral zone?

    One that has the potential to take us really, really far beyond what Warp Drive can do.

    Such a construct would give us a whole bunch of hooks for arc stories (cooperation with the Romulans, the mystery of the gates, a random new threat from far away that wants the gates, maybe even the remnants of a long gone Iconian empire), while also letting us plunge into a strange new world every week if we choose.

    Good thing nobody has made a popular science-fiction TV franchise featuring stargates before.

    In my opinion, Jammer, you are giving "Into Darkness" precisely the review attention it deserves. ;)

    I agree with the other posters that it should be set at least enough beyond the events in "Nemesis" where they can do something new with the world. There are a lot of fun pieces that TNG, DS9 and even Voyager added to the world, and Enterprise having to ignore them was one of its problems.

    I'm leery of this, for many reasons. Walling it off on a streaming service I don't want to subscribe to (and won't at all if the episodes are available on ITunes or Amazon download), and the involvement of the writer from the movies. But I am happy, in a broad sense, that more Star Trek will exist.

    I hope you review it, Jammer! I miss your writing.

    LOL, ok.... probably deserved that. Never saw that show though... so I'm not sure how it worked. I guess I meant something more like a wormhole. The Iconian Gate in TNG didn't seem to go that many places that weren't the Romulan Warbird or the Enterprise. I just kind of want a way to get away from the Alpha Quadrant but still be able to mix it up with the Alpha Quadrant races :) Kind of like all the perks of sitting next to the DS9 wormhole but with a more TNG style exploration focused show? Or all the perks of VOY without being lost?

    Kurtzman is the show runner of this? I'll pass.

    I highly doubt they'll be episodes like "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Measure of a Man" or "The Inner Light". It will most likely be a combination of dumbed down action/adventure and/or fanwank. Basically, anything remotely thoughtful will be jettisoned.

    If this was run by someone of the caliber of J. Michael Stracynzki or Joss Whedon, I'd be all over this.

    I agree with the comments above that this series, timeline-wise, should be to the TNG era what the TNG era was to the TOS era. I want to see what's going on in the Federation of the 25th century - What new tech has been developed? What new alliances have been forged and broken? - not be mired in the old stories of an era which has had its time in the sun, story-wise. (There's always the expanded universe for that.)

    That said, I was annoyed this week when I saw an article about the series titled "Surprisingly, the new Trek series will not be connected to the Abrams movies". Surprisingly????!!!! Bro, do you even Trek? (I think it was Wired). While the Abrams movies helped fire up enthusiasm for the franchise as a whole and probably made this series possible (although I would also give a large share of the credit to the fan productions like Star Trek Phase II and Star Trek Continues for keeping the fires burning all this time), it was ultimately too action-focused for my liking. I want the new Trek to be re-focused on ideas and characters. I'm not asking for every character to be a Walter White-esque antihero, but I do want some degree of sophistication.

    For all those commenting above on how we should go beyond warp drive (which was mentioned in an i09 article too), here's my idea:

    Fed starships still have conventional warp drive, but in addition they also have some [insert funny Treknobabble-sounding name] drive here, which is essentially a vortex generator that can jump you instantly to any point within a radius of, say, 50 light years. There are limitations: it's not 100% accurate in getting one to precise coordinates, and it takes 3-4 minutes to "charge up" before the tech can be used, followed by a 30-45 minute cooldown period. Hence, starships still keep conventional warp drive around for emergencies and because it is still 99.99% percent reliable in getting you to a precise destination on time. However, this new technology can, at least theoretically, get you to the Delta Quadrant instantaneously and zip you back to Earth in time for dinner, but there are still a lot of bugs to be worked out.

    This would allow for a lot of storytelling possibilities, I feel, such as Starfleet being interested in this for exploration, but an adversary, say the Cardassians, are afraid the Feds will use it for military purposes and use it to justify attacking Starfleet. Just my two cents on the subject.

    One option would be to create a series that eschews the traditional capsule episode format for a more serialized version of the show that's only somewhat been seen on DS9 and Enterprise. The modern TV show is much more of a serialized entity, and that's something that hasn't really been explored on Star Trek since the last series ended in 2005.

    A show like Game of Thrones is the perfect example, you can't miss an episode if you want to know what's going on. Content creators are no longer burdened by having to assume that their audience won't be able to see every episode in order whenever they want to, and that's not something that's been true of any Star Trek series ever.

    Another option would be an anthology series. They probably won't go this direction, but it has a lot of potential, allowing individual writers to explore whatever part of the Star Trek universe they want to explore. Imagine a 3 episode run that shows the story of Khan back before he was exiled from planet Earth. Or a few episodes done on the Human-Romulan war. It's incredibly safe because even if you're not successful with one story arc, maybe people will like the next one better. And you can bring in special guest stars from earlier Trek series whenever you want.

    For people wondering how this could make money.

    Let's say 23 episodes at $4 million an episode, a fairly large budget. With relatively unknown actors and little location shooting, that leaves a lot for special effects & fancy sets.

    Let's say international distribution pays $1.5 million an episode. (CBS head Les Moonves said "Right away, we’re more than halfway home on the cost of the show from international alone")

    That leaves $57.5 million dollars to make up per year.

    If this show gets 0.8 million households (0.69% of all US households) to subscribe for 12 months at $6/month, CBS will receive $57.6 million in revenue and the show has (barely) made a profit.*

    According to Nielsen, 40% of households last year subscribed to one of the big streaming services. If CBS targeted ONLY this group of households, CBS would need about 1.7% of this group to add CBS All Access to reach the above number.

    Maybe you don't think 0.69% of the US households are big enough fans of Star Trek to get a years subscription, or you think international sales won't be quite that big.

    Well, we haven't counted any revenue from advertising. We haven't counted any money from DVDs/Blu-Rays/digital-downloads. We haven't counted any money from licensing new comics/books/action figures/etc. based on this new series. We haven't counted any money from future sales when CBS eventually distributes this series to other providers**. We haven't counted the increased value of old Star Trek shows CBS owns as the franchise gets new attention (something that will be difficult to quantify, but will exist).

    To be fair, we also haven't considered the physical cost of sending the programs out through the internet, but I'd expect that to be more than covered by the advertising revenues alone. I don't think there's any way this show isn't a moneymaker for CBS, even if it misses that total of 0.69% of US households I listed above.

    If you want to say CBS could make more money by placing it on the broadcast network or selling it to Netflix, you might be right. CBS would certainly make more money in the short term by selling it to Netflix; in the long term it's quite possible that building up it's own service will create more value.

    *You could get the same revenue by having more households with fewer months/year...for example, 1.3% of households subscribing for 6 months would do the same thing for CBS.
    ** Just like HBO sells some of it's old shows (like Sex in the City) to cable TV and Amazon Prime, expect this Star Trek series to eventually be licensed to other providers, though it may be many years down the line.


    "But on the flipside, when was the last time you heard a pop culture reference to DS9, VOY, or ENT?"

    If you're talking about a mention in a movie or TV show, it's been awhile. However, I do see DS9 and sometimes VOY briefly brought up about once a month or so on an internet site that has nothing to do with science fiction. I'll be reading a football site or a webcomic with a discussion board that will ramble on to different subjects, and somebody will make a joke about something resembling a Cardassian policy, or somebody will mention what they're watching on Netflix...little asides that most people likely skip over (and many probably don't know what is being talked about). Granted, that may be just because I tend towards geeky sites that will attract people interested in science fiction, but I see it enough to know that these shows haven't been forgotten. There are clearly people still discovering them now (and with all the shows available on Netflix, Hulu, and CBS All Access, at least, the fact that they're not on any cable channel that I know of at the moment certainly doesn't stop people from watching them).

    Now I definitely admit TOS & TNG are better known (TNG giffs pop up everywhere all the time).

    "Sure, they can grab hardcore Trek fans, but they want CBS Access to be big-time, like Netflix."

    First, if you want to name who CBS is emulating, it's Hulu, not Netflix. Hulu is run by ABC, Fox, & NBC
    (CBS' competitors), and was started by those companies as a way to sell their programs to people leaving cable (providing a legal alternative to pirated downloads of their programs), while also offering programming from some other sources. It slowly added original content through the years. It began as ads-only, then required a subscription in addition to ads, and now offers a more expensive ad-free service.

    CBS didn't join its competitors at first, probably because it didn't want to encourage more people to drop cable. Now that it finally has, CBS appears to be following the Hulu model that it's competitors have worked out, although it has so far decided not to put any non-CBS content on there (which supports the fact that they're not trying to become a gigantic "Netflix" anytime soon). They went straight to a subscription + adds platform, and have just now said they'll offer a more expensive ad-free service. Star Trek begins their process of adding it's own original content.

    Second, Netflix isn't going to be "Netflix" in the future.

    Netflix benefited from being the first big streaming service. Producers of TV shows were making money by selling their programs to networks for the first run show, then selling DVDs, and then selling the reruns in syndication (and/or to cable networks) if a show was successful enough to reach 4 or more seasons. Producers of movies had box office returns, then sales of DVDs, then sold rights to Movie Channels, then sold rights to other networks. Both sets of producers saw streaming as something that would be small, and wouldn't hurt any of their other revenues. So Netflix got a lot of programming for a cheap price (as all those producers saw it as bonus money). It didn't take too many years for producers to realize they were wrong on both counts: streaming was big, and it does hurt their other revenues.

    This lead to Netflix generating much profit in the short term, which it has wisely used to try and get more original programming that it controls for a long contract. This is necessary because (predictably) many competitors have sprung up, and will continue to spring up, raising the price for content. Even as Netflix adds more original content, it's losing large amounts of the content that had previously defined it. Despite it's name, "Netflix", no longer has a great deal of recent movies, and it will likely continue to lose large sections of other content (like, maybe, its CBS shows) to other streaming services in the future.

    What's inevitable is that no service, including Netflix, will be able to provide the sheer number of choices at a low price that Netflix has been charging. This will happen not just because competing streaming services will drive up the price, but because producers of TV & movies have to raise their prices to make up for losses from DVD sales & syndication sales caused by streaming (otherwise they'll go out of business and not be producing any new content).

    There are a large number of streaming services now (Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, PlayStation Network, Amazon Prime, Acorn TV, Crackle, HBO Now, ...), and there will be even more in the future. There will be ones with content targeted to everyone, and those targeted to narrow groups. There will ones with a large volume of content, and ones with narrow libraries of shows. In the future, if you want the volume & variety of what you used to see on Netflix, you'll have to have several subscriptions, and it will probably cost you even more than a big cable subscription would cost you today (fortunately, I expect there will be some "bundling" enabling you to subscribe to multiple services at a lower price).

    You state that CBS is taking some big risk; you imply that if they're not Netflix they're a failure. That would be like telling someone starting a magazine 50 years ago that if they're not "Time", they'll be a failure. Until the internet cut down the magazine business, there were a huge number of magazines published, and they didn't need to be "Time" to be successful. Profits on streaming services in the future generally won't be as large as what Netflix achieved, but many will still be able to be profitable.

    CBS's actions don't seem to indicate they're trying to be "Netflix". If they were, they would be trying to acquire large volumes of other producers' content to bulk up their service. Instead, they're (so far) keeping everything in-house, building up their own service to get its share of the money going into streaming. Compare them to Hulu: in 5 years, if they can offer 1/3 of the content Hulu offers and sell it for 1/3 of the price Hulu does, they could make the same profit as each of their 3 competitors who share ownership in Hulu. If they cut costs by keeping everything in house, raise their appeal by having more popular programming (CBS is the network that gets the most viewers...if not always the best demographics), or get away with charging a higher price, they could make even more than their competitors.

    "Oh, and regardless of whether or not ads are there, age does matter. Because as people age, their obsession with entertainment decreases, obviously due to other commitments. "

    As people age, they watch more TV, not less. This was true before the internet boom, and is true now. Younger people go out to movies more, go to concerts more, go out to bars and restaurants more, play video games more. But people in their 40's watch more TV. And people in their 60's watch more than people in their 40s.

    In the modern age, everyone wants everything for free, and no one wants to pay hard working actors, producers, etc.

    Just like people want free pensions, free welfare, free health care, free roads, free water, free electric, free schools, free gasoline, free, free, free...

    and then they wonder why families are getting more poor.

    I should not be too harsh to Kurtzman. He actually has a far better track record on TV ("Alias", "Fringe", "Sleepy Hollow") than he does in the movies.

    Get a good cast, good writing, and some propulsive ideas to help flesh out the universe, and it should attract viewers. I do have the sense, though, that it will have to work overtime to do so if it's going to scale the All Access paywall.

    I have only been able to get through about a third of the thread so far, but so far I like the visions of Robert, methane, and Nic.

    I am a cordcutter and I already pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, as well as three months a year of HBO and three of Showtime. I will probably do one or two months a year of CBS to binge watch this show, timed to expire shortly after each season's finale.

    @Dimpy - Aside from taxes people had mostly free roads and schools for years. Nobody ever had free electric or water. Our parents actually had free pensions and free TV is the model everyone had before cable. I'm not paying my cable bill, which contains 3 million things I don't want to watch, which already pays a share of MY bill to CBS (so I can enjoy ONE of their shows) AND an extra $6 a month to CBS. Not happening. And it's not because I'm greedy or because you sound like a Republican campaign commercial. It's because it's ridiculous.

    Well, I just subscribed to Netfix to watch the A&E cancelled Longmire...

    I'm probably going to pay the frakin 6 bucks a month to watch my favorite franchise ever be revived...

    I've seen more than one mention of making this new show "more serialized," by which I'm taking it to mean "stronger, more persistent story arcs in the seasons, a la DS9."

    Trek has already done that...DS9 is like that.

    What about an "anthology" style series? From episode to episode, you could tell various space exploration stories with NEW characters every week, like The Twilight Zone.

    The only difference is that you would always want it to have something to do with a known Star Trek setting. The Twilight Zone could set the story wherever and whenever it wanted, but preferably with a 'Star Trek Anthology' series, the settings would be space, and the characters and vessels Federation, Romulan, Klingon, Bajoran, could try different things with each new episode.

    And here's the real could kill characters for a change, because the nature of such a show would require hiring a new set of actors every week anyway. So permanent character deaths could become a thing. It's something that Star Trek has usually shied away from in the past, perhaps it would be an interesting experiment? The viewer would never know who was going to live or die.

    One episode could be about the Enterprise, maybe. Another about the Saratoga. Another about a Vuclan ship that has a run-in with a Romulan ship. A story about Klingons just waging freaking war like they enjoy so much.

    An anthology series would be able to break out of the ordinary, routine tropes that Trek has beaten to death on TV over the years.


    If you like Star Trek so much, why don't you pay for it. Paying a cable bill or memberships on the internet is not the same as paying directly for something you love.

    Besides, if you give some of their shows a chance, I'm sure you could find something else you like. It's called shifting your memberships.

    One year watch HBO. The next watch CBS. The next, watch Netflix. Therefore you see everything, but not at the same time, and you have time to discover strange new show, seek out new episodes and new characters, to boldly go where every commercial has gone before.

    It's not TV shows your discovering, but the very nature of possibilities, just like Q said to Picard after saving his fish, Mr. Goldstein.

    Who's going to get the red shirts? Wouldn't it be cool if the captain wasn't human? Is it going to be dark like DS9? Are they going to feature some actual current pop culture/music instead of just featuring classical works, simply because they don't have to pay for the rights? Totes excited for this!

    I'm not a new Trek movie hater. Really liked the first one but found the second... Just a bit contrived. Entertaining though.
    I am really looking forward to the new movie and the news of this series has me excited.
    I'll certainly tune in however I can and will give it a chance.
    Trek has to move with the times and maybe we have to accept the fact that our old Trek just wont excite people anymore. I hope that new Trek keeps the essence of what Trek is supposed to be, added to the modern day binge type TV series that seems to have a cliffhanger at the end of every episode. Trek was very good at cliffhangers.
    The odd strong standalone episode would be good but

    If the thought of a new style of Trek upsets you too much then abandon it and stick with your box-sets of old trek.
    A new generation (groan) will either embrace the Trek or it will eek out what remaining popularity it has on the big screen before going away for decades and being rebooted in 30 years.

    @Dimpy - "If you like Star Trek so much, why don't you pay for it. Paying a cable bill or memberships on the internet is not the same as paying directly for something you love."

    Actually if you haven't read the whole thread (which you are forgiven for not reading, it's gotten quite long) I will quote myself from above "If they don't release it on another service (like Amazon/Google Play/VUDU) I'm just not going to watch it until the DVDs come out."

    I actually do 90% of my TV watching on VUDU at this point with digital season passes that convert to my UV account in case VUDU ever goes out of business. Those passes tend to cost $40, which is almost half the price of CBS' online streaming service.

    My point is just that there is no universe in which I'm buying CBS' streaming service. The problem with Cable is, to quote YOU, "Paying a cable bill or memberships on the internet is not the same as paying directly for something you love."

    When I pay Cable I'm throwing money at 1000s of shows I don't watch, as you pointed out. CBS' streaming service hardly seems like a cure to this problem, it just shifts the scale.

    Just a mention to the serialized vs non-serialized. Procedurals are very, very popular still, and those are largely NOT serialized. But what DOES happen is the character's lives change.

    I actually don't care if the show is serialized or not, I just want the show to not be a relic of when the entire point of TV was that it could later be watched out of order in reruns. That's preposterous in 2017. Make things happen, make actions have consequences, make characters learn/develop/change.

    Do that and I don't care if we have a serialized show or not. I will say that I tire of shows where season long main-plots are a thing. We don't need 22 hour stories.

    I feel like various shows that tried that (say Enterprise Season 3 and Heroes Season 1) have later gone back and realized that continuity and multi-episode arcs are cool, but that the time frame needs to be shorter.

    Buffy is a good example for how to do season long stories right. Obviously not every season worked perfectly, but there was typically a season long big bad and a season long theme, but every episode did not try to advance that ONE arc so we did not get bored of the main plot 10/22 episodes in.


    Ok, I understand. You love Star Trek, hate CBS and your either poor or cheap. Gotcha.

    Note: I have to keep posting back, just to be polite, so if you keep referencing me, then this conversation is forced to continue.

    I don't mind if they went the DS9 route and had a few 3 or 4 episode arcs, but like Robert said "We don't need any 22 hour stories" and I feel he's right.

    It's cool to go back and pop in an episode and not have to worry all the time about what happened before or after.

    Case in point: I recently watched all 13 episodes of the Syfy show Dark Matter. This is a prime example of a 13 hour story, totally connected by what came right before and generally with a cliffhanger at the end of each episode. Now while I thought it was pretty cool overall, I don't really want to go back and watch any singular parts of this show off the top of my head to be honest.

    So yeah, long-winded way of saying I think entire season stories might not be the best idea.

    Doctor Who seems to strike a good balance between serialization and standalone; each season typically has one overarching plot, aspects of which are gradually hinted at/developed/revealed over the course of the season, but most of the eps themselves are standalone. The season story arc is then resolved during the season finale. The execution tends to be hit or miss from season to season, depending on who you ask.

    I like increased serialization - it definitely increases the potential for more well-developed stories and characters if done right, but there definitely is a charm to being able to pop in a DVD and show my friends an ep without having to explain anything that happened before. Hence why I always find myself going back to TOS or TNG. As much as I love Lost, for instance, I can't simply pick out a random episode in, say, season 5, and re-watch it without feeling somewhat, well, lost, unless I start watching again from the pilot ep. Maybe it's just a matter of personal preference.

    MidshipmanNorris: Very intriguing idea about an Anthology series, speaking as a Twilight Zone fan myself. Not sure about how much it would cost relative to a cast of regulars, and there is definitely a comfort factor in checking in to the same group of characters every week to see what they're up to this time.

    But your idea is definitely really cool, I feel, and would open up a lot of storytelling possibilities as you detailed. And you needn't set all the eps in the same timeline either - one ep could be set in the TOS era, the next week could be set in the 29th century, and the week after that could be the TNG era mirror universe. I would love to see the Trek equivalent of "Monsters are Due on Maple Street" or "Time Enough at Last".

    @Dimpy - That's fascinating, I have the summoning power of a Dimpy pokeball. I choose you Dimpy!

    Don't hate CBS, but don't like the idea to reward them for what will be a precedent of people buying dozens of tiny streaming providers of disjoint things :P

    Am a little poor (house poor), temporarily, but I don't think I'd be buying the service anyway... I feel it's rewarding a bad model. But maybe I'm just old. You don't have to respond unless you want to discuss content providing options in detail or anything. If it's worth anything, I don't have Netflix either.

    Maybe I am just old.

    Would people prefer 10 episodes of a much higher quality production or 22 that come with the usual filler and quiet episodes to save budget for the big ones?

    Sorry if this has already been discussed, haven't read every comment.

    Anthology shows tend not to do well on TV, which is why you don't see many of them (I believe "Amazing Stories" is supposed to come back to TV next year).

    Fans of a non-anthology show will make an effort to watch the show every week. The fans have a comfort with the cast (subconsciously seeing them as friends or enemies) and make an effort to catch every episode to see what they're up to. Even if a show isn't serialized, the more you're a fan, the more you'll try not to miss any episodes.

    There isn't the same urgency with anthology shows. If a viewer misses an episode, those characters won't recur anyway. Maybe the viewer will catch the one they missed in reruns. It's easy for viewers of this type of show to miss an episode, then later miss a couple more, then fall out of the habit of watching the show entirely even if they think it was well-done.

    Obviously on a streaming service you'd never need to miss an episode, but there would be no urgency to keep a subscription every month. CBS is hoping to get fans to check out the new series, then keep renewing their subscription every month so they can watch the show as it comes out (and check out all the other content that will be available on the service). An anthology series removes the feeling that you need to catch up with what the characters are doing the week an episode comes out; it becomes easier for viewers to do what I said above: wait for the season to end and subscribe for 1 month a year.

    I know several people who more or less admit that there isn't much on HBO that they watch besides Game Of Thrones. Even though it would be cheaper to wait and rent or buy the blu-rays, they keep their subscriptions to HBO mostly so they can see the show as it comes out. I don't think they'd feel that need if the show was an anthology series of equal quality with no recurring characters.

    Of course, I'm interested in the anthology idea. Above, I stated that I hoped CBS would eventually supplement a new series with "side-projects" in the Star Trek Universe. That could be mini-series, specials, TV movies, or whatever. The new series would be the hook that motivated people to keep their subscriptions active, while the side projects would be extra material that would raise subscriber's satisfaction with the service (helping convince them it's worth the money).

    "Would people prefer 10 episodes of a much higher quality production or 22 that come with the usual filler and quiet episodes to save budget for the big ones?"

    I'd prefer longer, myself. The longer seasons allow you to take time to explore different characters. They also permit you to tell long arcs of stories while allowing time for one-off episodes that can be memorable.

    I find when I rate series that I have a curve. The more episodes a series produces, the more I overlook some weak episodes and a lower per-episode average. I'm sure others disagree with that.

    Here’s a guide to help you guys out:

    If you want to know what will be on the new show, re-watch these episodes:

    ST: TNG = Sub Rosa
    ST: VOY = Virtuoso
    ST: ENT = A Night In Sickbay

    If you want to know if you should spend money on CBS, re-watch these episodes:

    ST: DS9 = Profit and Lace
    ST: DS9 = Ferengi Love Songs
    ST: DS9 = Bar Association

    Please stop mentioning my name. Because I'm polite I have to come back, so you know I read your comments.

    I agree that a familiar cast of characters that recur from episode to episode is an element of television viewing that I hadn't considered fully.

    But Star Trek has mined that vein of storytelling pretty hard over the last 50 years it's been in existence...I'd be interested to see them try something different this time.

    If they are going to "boldly go where no one has gone before," they need to back it up with stories that are different than the ones they've made. We've all seen all the series multiple times at this point (do I exaggerate? possibly).

    What can they show me that's new and interesting?

    I prefer 22. 10 is great for a 10 hour mini series. That's basically what each GoT season is. There are just no room for the quieter episodes in those arcs. Blink of an Eye, Inner Light and The Visitor never happen if we need to service a 10 episode season. And that's Star Trek.

    While were throwing our ideas.... Can we have all the secondary characters played by Jeffrey Combs.

    I think too many shows have around 10 episodes a "season" now. I think those glory 80's & 90's ST years with 24 episodes a season are long gone unfortunately.

    "While were throwing our ideas.... Can we have all the secondary characters played by Jeffrey Combs."

    In all seriousness, he might very well come back. He's unrecognizable as Weyoun while playing Brunt so if he's someone else most people (i.i. not us on a ST message board) wouldn't know.

    Let's bring back Marc Aliamo too while we're at it, why not?

    I am a massive Walking Dead fan and think their model of 16 episodes with the break is fantastic. Especially as they now do random longer episodes.

    This would suit both perfectly as Walking Dead so filler episodes on the cheap and generally they're of a decent standard as they have good actors. When you have the big event episodes you need a lie down and a cold drink to help you calm down afterwards.
    So, 16 for me. Whether they do 8 episode arcs or random arcs, stand alones and perhaps season long. It can work and keep people on their toes.

    Ah shit, I paid for STARZ to watch Ash vs. Evil Dead I'm sure I'll be one of the suckers who'll pay for CBS blee blee bloo to watch more first run Star Trek.

    I've always liked the way Battlestar Galactica balanced serialization with the occasional standalone episode. I'd like the new series to have some sort of overarching story each season, but also take the time to breath every once in a while. More than anything though, I want this show to explore social and philosophical issues the way Trek used to. I want the episodes to be about something, not just entertain or have character drama. If I want character drama I have a lot of other shows to choose from. Trek is unique in that it makes you think.

    Maybe they're using the subscription model so that they don't live or die by the ratings. So many series I have watched end up cancelled without plot resolution because the great god of advertising revenue deems it so.

    Using the subscription model would mean they retain creative control and don't get pestered by the network to change it into something else in an attempt to shore up the viewing figures and please advertisers.

    Those of us who don't live in the US will have to hope it gets picked up by a local broadcaster, of course.

    As for the likely quality of the show, I'll wait to be pleasantly surprised. Maybe. ("Episode One: Spock's Other Brain")

    @Trajan, that's a good point about streaming as a way to get beyond TV's antiquated ratings system. Trek has always had bad luck with networks. That said, it doesn't explain why CBS wouldn't just partner with Amazon or Netflix or another streaming service with a wider subscriber base. I unfortunately can't help but think that CBS thought it would earn more money by having a smaller viewership and 100% of the profits than splitting the show and sharing the profits.

    It would be interesting to see a new technology post-Voyager allowing travel to an adjacent galaxy. That would be a simple new setting providing the opportunity for a new frontier. The old races would still be around having different motives in the new galaxy, as well as new ones. The Federation would be brought back in after being neglected in Voyager, you could have possible arcs like humans wanting independence and races grappling for resources, although I think episodic format would work best at first.


    I'm all for Mr. Combs gracing the Trek screen once again.

    I personally would be disappointed if we get something like a 10 episode season. Call me greedy, but I want 24!!

    If I was a betting man, I'd say something set after Voyager would be the smart thing to do.

    I'd like to see an even bigger reboot of the franchise than what the movies have offered. As much as I love TNG and DS9 and the TOS movies, there are some fundamental things about the Star Trek universe that just don't cut it anymore:
    1. Transporters - clearly a gimmick to avoid costly special effect sequences with shuttles. The technology makes no sense and it looks cheesy.
    2. Humanoid Aliens with forehead ridges - doesn't need explained. Society is also a lot more multicultural now than it was in the 1980s. Using aliens as stand-ins for non-white humans / non-American humans is offensive.
    3. The cave interior on a sound stage - we're not idiots, we know it's the same set redressed over and over again. Pretty much every good drama on TV does substantial location shooting; Star Trek must as well. And when they go on location, a campground, park or quarry outside of LA is not going to cut it either.
    4. Ship design - the saucer, two nacelle, bridge on the top is boring. That design was dreamed up in the 1960s and has been played with over time but I think in 2015 we can come up with a more interesting and realistic design for a ship.
    5. I think the success of Game of Thrones should inspire the new Star Trek series to do 10 episodes/season (not 26), to have multiple characters/story threads spread across a universe (the show doesn't need to be fixated on the 7 most senior members of crew on one ship), and to kill of main characters All.The.Time.

    Get rid of the transporters? They're one of the most iconic things about Star Trek? And why does Star Trek have to be like EVERYTHING else? Can it eschew the mainstream ethos of hate/revenge/violence and be its own thing?

    Star Trek was a special phenomenon that appealed to a broad base of people. (I actually said "was"--thanks for ruining the magic, J.J.)

    I agree with the idea of sprawling, cohesive, story arcs. And I agree 10 meta-plot episodes a season is a good number. But I would still like 26 episodes a season because it allows for the very trek-important stand out episodes, character study episodes, political parallel episodes, and playful episodes. Without those in the mix it won't feel like a trek series. Also, having those episodes in the mix preserves rewatchability of the series which is a huge part of trek also.

    Responding to some of Petetong's points.

    "Transporters - clearly a gimmick to avoid costly special effect sequences with shuttles. The technology makes no sense and it looks cheesy."

    Interesting because the Delft University of Technology is actually researching how to make teleportation possible.

    "Society is also a lot more multicultural now than it was in the 1980s. Using aliens as stand-ins for non-white humans / non-American humans is offensive."

    What's offensive to me is that you think society wasn't just as multi-cultural in the 1980s. As a half-Iranian who's not religious, isn't straight, and who was a kid back then, I was fully aware that our society was not largely homogenous.

    Though, I will agree with you -- to an extent -- that having other cultures stand-in for non-white Americans can be offensive, it can work if the stand-ins are not intended to be derogatory and if the point of view for why they think the way they do is explained.

    I also think that the Federation, at least in TNG, has more in common with the European Union than the United States. When Star Trek returns on TV, what I hope is that if the Federation is a stand-in for America, it's not a stand-in for Red America, like ENT Season 3 was. That was a _major_ turn-off.

    The Red State / Blue State Divide we now have would actually make for a great episode. Not for the Federation but, if the Enterprise, or whatever the ship it is, runs into a planet like this. That would be Star Trek commenting on our society as it currently is. Using another planet to make indirect commentary.

    "Ship design - the saucer, two nacelle, bridge on the top is boring. That design was dreamed up in the 1960s and has been played with over time but I think in 2015 we can come up with a more interesting and realistic design for a ship."

    It has to be recognizable as Star Trek or the audience will think its something else.

    Also, how are ships, shuttles, or craft designs in general that different between the 1960s and 2010s? And how does the concept a design being from 50 years ago mean that it shouldn't be the design for a ship in the future? I know of no ships in 1966 that looked like the Enterprise. I know of no ships in 1987 that looked like the Enterprise-D.

    When it was designed doesn't have to have anything to do with how much it's tied to that time. If I didn't know, I could probably tell the original Enterprise was designed in the '60s. But, I wouldn't be able to pin down the refit Enterprise to 1979 or the Enterprise-D to 1987. Those designs are timeless. The Enterprise-E not so much. I liked in 1996 but the more time passes, the less I do. Some of those designs have stood the test of time, others haven't as much.

    I'm cautiously optimistic about the new series. Here are my reasons:

    I'm not familiar with Alex Kurtzman's TV work but this *is* a TV series, so it doesn't have a film budget which means they can't afford to have nothing but constant "BLAM! BLAM! POW! POW!" Even if they tried, it wouldn't look as good as in the movies. They have to do something else.

    If it's written the way most modern series are now, and it's available for streaming, there's going to be a continuing story line and the necessary character development and character arcs to go along with it. That's what made DS9 so interesting to follow.

    Blockbuster Movies have to play it safe and conservative to make the most profit. With TV, you can get away with taking more time to explore relevant issues in-depth like Star Trek at its best did. The ONLY time important social issues were addressed in any of the films was TUC with the end of the Cold War. TVH to a lesser extent with "Hunting a species to extinction is wrong!" but TUC was harder hitting.

    The movies can be big, dumb fun. I don't care. As long as the TV series has more substance. It was the same way in the '90s. The TNG movies were already heading in the direction the JJ Abrams films have gone. I like to say the best TNG movie technically wasn't a movie, it was "The Best of Both Worlds".

    Thank you Lord Garth for your feedback. I didn't mean to suggest that society wasn't multicultural in the 1980s, just that it is even more so now. I also didn't mean to suggest that the alien races on Star Trek were stand-ins for non-white Americans, but rather non-white, non-Americans.

    Maybe it's wrong of me to want Star Trek to evolve to meet my current needs. Perhaps I have just outgrown Star Trek. I'm not interested in watching a show about 7 senior members of a star ship with a hundred extras in the background, interacting with 2-3 guest stars of the week from a mixed bag of talent, shot on a sound stage of maybe 3 or 4 sets. I'm definitely not interested in stories where the transporters cause two crew members to switch bodies, or the holodeck takes over the ship, or DNA does something wacky, or the crew travels back in time to 2016 Minneapolis (with LA as a stand-in), or an 8th dimensional develops a parasitic relationship with the warp core...

    I have zero faith it'll be any good. If you look at orci kurtzman and their track record their shows are pretty abysmal with lots of fast paced action, plenty of plot holes and recycled storylines plus bland characters. And the rebooted trek films were mediocre at best. So I fear the new series will be just as empty and unsatisfying even more so if it takes place in the Abrams timeline as opposed to the original Trek universe

    As much as I would be looking forward to a new trek series I'm under no illusions that sometimes you might think you want something then when you get it you realize you would have been better off letting it alone and enjoying the nostalgic memories--case in point all the reboots or sequels of older series from the 80s and 90s that have come out over the last fifteen years. Besides I still watch television on my big bulky old school television from the. 90s and have zero interest in watching a tv series on a laptop or phone from a streaming service.

    And I don't know about anyone else but frankly I'm not a fan of the style that every tv series nowadays has adopted. Namely I wouldn't want this new trek series to have a massive cast, some mystery puzzle format with lots of unanswered questions inside of some unwieldy series spanning convoluted mythology featuring flashbacks or flash forwards, interconnected collision storytelling with a breakneck pace and an over reliance of jerking the audience around with a lot of cutesy gimmicks

    Frankly tv in general but this new series specifically really should get back to basics. A modest ensemble of seven or eight main cast members. No overarching mythology but rather start off with standalone episodes--and I'll point out standalone isn't the same thing as procedural. Then once the characters are established then towards the end of the first season going into the second season start being a purely serialized series featuring a few season spanning arcs that result each year in being a self contained season long arc as opposed to something like Lost where the arcs span the life of the series. Slow down the pace. You know there is a happy medium between glacially paced shows like Mad Men or ADHD paced shows like BSG or Losf for instance.

    Was going to add but apparently can't edit a post once posted--that this notion that thirteen episode seasons is a good idea. Let me point out that a lot of shortened season shows are crap(salem, under the dome, extant, heroes reborn, caprica, V 2.0 , the strain, American horror story, scream queens, sleepy hollow etc). I'd much rather have a traditional sized season in the range of 18-22 episodes. It can be done. It has been done and most pre 21st century shows churned out pretty consistently good large seasons

    @David, I agree with you dislike of the way that many serialized shows use gimmicks and "mysteries" to string viewers along without ever delivering a payoff. I think when we look back, most of us like Trek because of the great standalone episodes that hit upon profound social or philosophical points. I'd hate for that to be sacrificed on the alter of some greater "mythology."

    That said, you do have to realize that making a TV show is a lot of work and there's just a tradeoff in quality if you shoot for quantity. It's possible to have 18-22 episodes per season, but it's a lot harder. If we got 18-22 excellent episodes, I'd say go for it, but we all know that even the best Trek had a lot of low quality filler episodes because the writers were so exhausted that they just filmed half-baked ideas.

    I actually thought the first two seasons BSG provide a good example of a middle ground. They're not overly serialized and there are some important overarching story arcs, but also enough room for good standalone episodes. You get the sense that the ship has an overall mission and the show has a sense of purpose, but the show can also take the time to explore other interesting issues. I've also been impressed by the earlier seasons of the new Doctor Who and how they have standalone episodes but build up to a finales using pieces scattered throughout the season (the later seasons under Moffat are unfortunately more of a mess).

    In terms of cast, maybe 5-6 leads, but it's nice to have a stable recurring cast as well. Even something as simple as having the same person play the same bridge officer would be a nice attempt to build realism into the show (unlike TNG, where the helm officer changed every few episodes). I think the number of leads and storylines has to be relatively small though with fewer episodes per season. I would hate something like the later seasons of Game of Thrones, where you have 20 different characters and plot threads, and each one gets 5 minutes per episodes to move forward. I think Trek really needs more time to breath and let each episode be about something more than just moving the chess pieces to their next positions.

    @Lord Garth, remember that even though there has always been diversity in the US and the world, it's certainly gotten MORE diverse since the 1980s. Just in terms of demographics, whites went from something like 80% to less than two-thirds of the population. Also, issues of diversity are in some ways more prominent in our national discourse and debates. With all of our involvement in the Middle East, Americans have been forced to understand other cultures in a way we really haven't for much of our history. So it's increasingly important for pop culture franchises like Trek to help us think about how we do that.

    I like "Mad Men" and its spiritual successor "Halt and Catch Fire". So, I'm also in favor of a major arc per season where the characters all have their own story.

    Unless it's done *really* well, I'm definitely not interested in nothing but disposable in-and-out, one-and-dones.

    TOS, TNG, VOY, the first two seasons of ENT. We have 19 seasons of Starship Trek done in that style. Nothing will make the New Trek series look stale and outdated right off the bat faster than that.

    And how long could they keep up a string of episodes that are so that well done that it would off-set the staleness of the formula? Especially when most of it's already been done and that's not how the Non-CBS Demographic watches TV. The first season would be the strongest, then it would drop off.

    I'm not saying it should follow the path of DS9, because I don't want to see another series escalating into an all-out quadrant-spanning war, but, structurally, the way DS9 was set up in its later seasons is the closest example of what a Star Trek series should be like in the Binge Generation.

    I just don't think it's wise to launch into a serialized freshman season. Standalones are the way to go. And I know it's popular to bash episodic storytelling these days but when the standalones are entertaining and fresh nothing wrong with that. In fact. The two most popular Trek series were nothing but standalones done well. The problem I think a lot of people have with standalones is the formulaic nature that shows like CSI or NCIS or Law and Order have or with Voyager and the first two seasons of Enterprise were they were boring or awful. But TNG was episodic but not formulaic. It provided a whole range of story types from morality plays one week to straight up high concept sci fi the next to character episodes or mysteries

    I really think standalones in the first season would help establish the characters first THEN in subsequent seasons adopt pure serialization. BUT NOT the type of serialization as shows such as Game of Thrones, Lost or BSG did. No, I'm talking about the serialization of primetime dramas of yesteryear did like Hill Street Blues and Dallas, falcon crest, knots landing, the original melrose place namely breaking down the modest ensemble cast and paring them off into three or four arcs that develop and span a single season whereby the set up, development and pay off occur in a single season and the arcs are self contained within that season with no spill over into the next seasons arcs. Then the next season has it's own new arcs

    While I enjoyed DS9s arcs I hated that it wasn't full on serialization. Nothing more frustrating than getting caught up in the arc then the next episode drops it for several weeks.

    @David - My frustration with episodic TV is the old standby requirement that came with old TV that said it could be watched out of order with no problem and treated that as a good thing. It's not (IMHO). It was a business limitation that has been lifted by DVDs and Netflix. That said, the fix is not necessarily a 26 part episode.

    I agree that the Freshman season should not be serialized, but that doesn't mean we should have 26 standalone episodes. I want character arcs.

    @Robert - The ability to watch out-of-order is a key part of preserving rewatchability. If the series compels you to watch it in order it will lose something as a series. Shows that you watch through in order can be a great first time experience but the return dimenishes sharply on rewatch. Whereas shows that are comprised of more stand alone episodes (even if they are contained within a larger arc) can be enjoyed many times without losing much value.

    Basically, I'm looking for a series that will hold up in the long run and I would be willing to sacrifice some initial enthralment (but not much) for the cause.

    I'm going to go back to "Mad Men" as an example. Never mind the "glacial pace" (I don't agree with that, I think it's more of a slow burn, but that's neither here nor there). A typical season would have an overriding story arc with a beginning, middle, and end.


    Each individual episode had its own beginning, middle, and end. It had its own integrity. So, if you watched just one episode and just that one episode ever, you'd get a complete story. A story within a larger story, for sure, but still a complete story.

    I'll be honest. I prefer DS9 but I'm more likely to watch VOY on Netflix when I'm looking for any old episode to watch. So, yes, I see the value of still doing self-contained shows. I just like the idea of if you put together each episode, you'll see something larger.

    I think the question isn't serialization vs. episodic, but rather how much do you want character development and larger plot lines. It's extremely hard to tell a big story in a 1 hour TV episode. When DS9 initially introduced the Dominion War, Berman wanted it to be a six-episode arc, but the DS9 writing team insisted that you can't have a war of that magnitude in just 6 episodes. And they were right. The Dominion War is a richer story because it had time to breath and had time to allow characters to react to events over time. That's the benefit of serialization.

    The drawback of serialization is that it loses focus. It's much easier to focus on a particular theme, idea, or character in a 1 hour chunk than it is over 10-20 separate episodes. TNG was at its greatest when an episode focused on a particular Big Idea and really ran with it (Darmok, I Borg, etc). Sometimes, I feel that in heavily serialized shows like Game of Thrones, individual characters and ideas get sacrificed to the overarching story. Each episode is more about moving pieces on the board than focusing on something important.

    Something like the first 4 seasons of the new Doctor Who might work well, which generally has standalone episodes, but a larger theme or plot thread throughout each season.

    Back to the premise for the new series, I suspect that it will not be anything that we are discussing here, but I hope that it is nonetheless something interesting.

    As for what it would include if I were God-Emperor for a day (sorry mixing SF universes there...):

    - Need to get it out of the Alpha Quadrant. I've seen enough of the Klingons, etc. Keep them in the series as background races and have them occasionally show up and get referenced... but we need new blood for new stories.
    - A problem with the old Trek series was that the Federation was too large and technologically strong. There weren't enough challenges to the protagonists short of vast alien empires attacking the Federation. I say send it to another galaxy. Say, a wormhole to the Magellanic Clouds? The protagonists need to work under material and technological limitations.
    - I would like to see the Klingon and Romulan Empires overthrown by their subject peoples between the end of the old series and the beginning of the new. I mean really, these empires probably brutally suppressed a lot of races that should be free.
    - It would be very surprising if the series was not serialized. All the best new series are, and that is a good thing.
    - The crew of the new ship should have some interior conflict. I would hope for a conflict that made sense and that would never be completely resolved. Call it Spock and McCoy II, albeit with a 21st Century Twist.

    "The ability to watch out-of-order is a key part of preserving rewatchability. If the series compels you to watch it in order it will lose something as a series."

    Yes and no. If the plot line of episode 18 can't be enjoyed without watching episode 19 you lose the quality you are referring to.

    It shouldn't ruin anything for REwatchability that Captain Sisko gets married, Worf had a child or Tasha dies. And if any character goes the same 7 years without development as INTERMINABLE ENSIGN Kim for a show in 2017 the show is a failure. Our views are not incompatible.

    "The ability to watch out-of-order is a key part of preserving rewatchability. If the series compels you to watch it in order it will lose something as a series. "

    See, this guy gets it.

    You develop your characters throughout (mostly) standalone episodes, with occasional unifying themes when it calls for it.

    P.S: I think even if CBS could do 26 episodes no way in hell they would, it would cost them way too much money. I think the day of the 26 episode season is long gone. Sad to say, but hey I still have my TNG / DS9 DVDs so it's not a total loss.

    Lots of interesting ideas here. I particularly like the Hill St Blues model- I think that would suit the ST universe. The mix of ongoing arcs and plotlines resolved within one episode was a hallmark of HSB. Consider (and I'm making these up based on HSB), Renko and Bobby chase and catch a felon from an unexpected sighting to collar (one ep), Frank argues with his boss (recurring but not sequential eps), the DA prosecutes a crime boss where several of the cast have to give evidence (multi ep arc) and there is a possiblilty of the precinct closing due to budget cuts (whole series). That kind of mix applied to ST would give many of you what you want without alienating the others.

    Of course, some will say that tries to be all things to all aliens and fails on all counts...

    "I think even if CBS could do 26 episodes no way in hell they would, it would cost them way too much money."

    Yeah. Somewhere else I said that the new series would probably end up lasting as long as TNG but only have as many episodes as TOS.

    I'd like to be wrong, but I see 13-episode seasons every winter. That's my official prediction. ;)

    I'd favour a heavily serialized series (a la Breaking Bad) set in the Prime Universe (can't stand the new films) and taking place maybe 20+ years after the events of Nemesis.

    "I'd like to be wrong, but I see 13-episode seasons every winter. That's my official prediction. ;) "

    Man, that'd be a LONG wait between seasons though. And I thought waiting 3 months was bad before!

    I'd favor something I can actually watch. CBS All access sounds like something very much U.S.-specific; watching that over here in Belgium might be complicated...

    Wouter Verheist, I was thinking the same. I'm in the UK.

    Let me get this straight. CBS is launching a new Star Trek but people are going to have to pay for it? They are just screaming,"Pirate our show. Please."

    "Let me get this straight. CBS is launching a new Star Trek but people are going to have to pay for it? They are just screaming,"Pirate our show. Please.""

    Its going to be based in the new universe so I will be pirating it without question.

    I really hope it's in Prime universe. If not then I hope it's some kind of TNG reboot. Not TOS/era. Trek. I feel awful about this. Mainly because I hate modern filmmaking. While there are people who can write out there, nowadays it's more about being flashy and dramatic than simply telling a good story. TOS and TNG, the two most iconic Treks, were fairly low-key affairs in terms of digital effects and emotional manipulation. Honestly, give me good writers with poor budgets over writers with CGI any day.

    What they need to do is make sure they have a good captain. The reason why everyone debates Kirk and Picard as best captain is because neither of these captains were created with Star Trek expectations in mind. Kirk is a Buck Rogers analogue, and Picard is the anti-Kirk. They both have strong identities based on who they are as individuals, not what they're expected to be to fit or contradict the Trek archetypes. We need an individual.

    They also need more discipline. Something that really bothered me about the Abramsverse, the TNG movies, and various episodes of DS9/VOY/ENT is that they don't act like people with military discipline. Granted, Starfleet isn't technically a military, but when they act like children, captive to the winds of their iffy emotions when they're supposed to be mature adults, really makes me lose respect for the characters.

    There's this cliche of a rebel Kirk floating around, but in TOS he was actually pretty regulation. Also, one of my favorite moments of DS9 was when Worf refused to continue looking for Sisko in "Waltz", because he knew that the convoy he needed to escort was more important than saving one man. That's edgy, tough, and interesting. Discipline is drama!

    Paul M. - Mon, Nov 2, 2015

    Just like people who take the Bible purely literally, you apparently have failed to appreciate the allegorical nature of SNG. The reason I love this series is its rich and imaginative symbolism of human consciousness and boldly going beyond the confines of what is known at present.
    Each member of the crew embodies a facet of our personality/consciousness:
    Riker - our libido
    Troi - our intuition
    Georgi- our scientific, mechanical abilities
    Worf - our warrior nature
    Data - unlimited knowledge
    Crusher - our healing abilities
    Q. - the unpredictable limitless possibilities in the Quantum Field
    Picard - the aware ego that needs to integrate the entire "crew"
    The Prime Directive - a reminder that we have no right to perpetrate on others, even if we think we know better
    The Enterprise - The vehicle for our journey through life

    Now, Paul watch any episode and suspend your judgements and dive a bit deeper. The people putting this series together really knew what they were doing and that IMHO is why it is such a treasured classic.

    I hope they remember that the philosophy and the heart is what makes Star Trek work best.

    Other wishes for the new series: find a way to make the CGI not look fake if they aren't going to use any models. Respect for the continuity. Hire real composers who can truly make you feel like you are in an epic adventure (no "sonic wallpaper"). Try to get modern/famous sci-fi writers interested in writing for the show again . . . Harlan Ellison could do a script for the Anniversary. No time travel or time-running-out-for-radiation-exposure episodes for the first two seasons (or hopefully ever). Finally include a gay character.

    Also, make sure the title music is orchestral, NOT a pop song. Maybe they could honor James Horner by using his theme from The Wrath of Khan?

    Just some ideas.

    Nice to be back on the site. Been awhile.

    "Also, make sure the title music is orchestral, NOT a pop song."

    Completely agree. Enterprise was swimming against the tide from the beginning with that song for the title music.

    It is a shame Joel Goldsmith is no longer around. He'd have made an excellent choice for the series composer.

    I also agree that time travel should be used sparingly, if at all. The new series, if it is to succeed, will need to be relevant and well-written and not rely on being "edgy" and "dark". DS9 is my favourite Star Trek series but virtually every series on the air today has gone down the edgy and dark route, for Star Trek to re-establish itself effectively it might as well go back to a more optimistic outlook.

    Other things that should be used sparingly if at all: the Borg, Q, Romulans. Things that should be expressly forbidden: re-working old plots, "alien of the week", "monster of the week", "anomaly of the week", holodeck malfunction.

    Completely agree about the orchestral theme song, Alex. Also, I want the soundtrack music in general to stand out - something that we would go out of our way to rush to iTunes to download. No more bland generic battle/romantic/sad musical cues. I want something like Ron Jones' BOBW score in terms of standing out - other good role models would be McCreary (BSG, Walking Dead), Giacchino (Lost), MurrayGold (Doctor Who), David Arnold/ Michael Price (Sherlock).

    Excuse me, Shira? What does any of that have to do with what I said about the next Trek show and/or TNG?

    You wanna know the secret? I LOVE TNG! I grew up on it and saw every episode countless times. Doesn't mean I want warmed-up rehashes of the same thing again and again. And honestly, Trek's allegorical nature has nothing to do with Klingon honour, Romulan fashion, or holodecks. Unless you think the only venue for Trek to explore its themes is through those specific examples. No, thanks.

    NCC-1701-Z, perhaps they could persuade Bear McCreary to do the music. I agree with you very much - Bear's music is some of the only music from a sci-fi series that I've made a particular effort to seek out. His style is unlike anything used in Star Trek before but I think it would be a great fit, and more contemporary.

    Alex: Bear McCreary doing the music for the new Trek would be a dream come true!

    I hope they do the new-age way of releasing ALL episodes for the season at once. CBS All-Access is $5.99 per month. I could watch an entire new season of Star Trek in the matter of a week or two. So $5.99 to watch a season of Star Trek? Hell yeah, sign me up.

    I'd more than likely be canceling the subscription when I was done watching Star Trek, but maybe they can convince me otherwise, which would be the main reason for making Star Trek online-exclusive.

    Mr. Jammer, there's plenty of time. Even if you don't review these episodes as they release we'll be hoping for reviews, even if they take years!

    I can bet any amount of money you want that the new Trek series will either be a hardcore, gritty, violent nuBSG-style affair or it's going to be in the lobotomized violent style of the JJ Trek movies.

    @Scott from Detroit

    That's what i'd do to, cancel it as soon as i'd seen the series,

    Be wary though because Amazon Prime has monthly subscription but a lot of the films and tv series on there have to be paid separately, for example seasons 1 to 4 of the walking dead are free to watch if you pay monthly but seasons 5 and 6 are £1.99 per episode

    Oh my god, Bryan Fuller is going to be the showrunner for this show. It might have a chance in hell of being good now. Maybe Kurtzman being attached can just be a vanity credit and we can get some real Star Trek.

    Ninjad by Matthew!

    Yeah, Bryan Fuller is gonna be the new showrunner. The guy worked in Trek before, but more importantly, after having seen the masterpiece that is Hannibal, I'm positive the new series is in good hands.

    @Paul M.

    Yeah Hannibal is just amazing and if Fuller brings that kind of creative force to Star Trek I will die happy. Just as long as Kurtzman's hands are kept far, far away from the writing desk.

    And it would definitely be fascinating to see a Golden Age of TV style, complicated, serialized Star Trek show. DS9 proved it wasn't totally impossible after all.

    Since I always like to bitch and moan about Berman&Braga, let me just quote Ron Moore on the way Voyager was being run:

    "The politics of the show were such that the egos of the people in charge of the series were threatened by the people who worked for them. To be blunt, [writers] Bryan Fuller and Mike Taylor were treated very shabbily, and it pissed me off. They took a lot of crap, and the only reason it was done was to keep the guys on the top of the pyramid feeling good about themselves."

    How cathartic it must be for Bryan to have a chance to run the new Trek show.

    Fuller coming on board is a big step forward. I hope he can steer the ship in a less Abramsy direction.

    So, it's going to be like nuBSG then. I guess I can live with that since it's an alternative to the JJ Abrams garbage we've been fed these last 7 years.


    There will never be an optimistic, humanistic Star Trek series ever again, will there?

    @ Pattrick D

    The thing is, you kinda have to BE optimistic for a show like that to happen. The 60's and the 90's had their problems, but those were waaaaay better decades for America than the last 15 years have been. Making that kind of Star Trek today, would seem quaint or naive.

    I would argue that's why Enterprise got better in seasons 3 and 4, and of course it's why the reimagined BSG was so good, because it better reflects issues of now.

    Humanism can be there, and optimism can be there, but it's going to need to be a little more bitter. More episodes like the ends of In the Pale Moonlight and Chain of Command, and less of everyone finding a fair compromise at the end.

    @ Matthew

    It might seem quaint and naive. But, on the flip side it could be refreshing escapism. I, personally, get worn down by the constant gritty, downbeat tone of modern pop entertainment. There's got to be others who feel the same way.

    I looked up the episodes Bryan Fuller wrote on Memory Alpha, and he wrote several good episodes of Voyager. “The Raven”, “Mortal Coil”, “Retrospect”, “Gravity”, “Relativity”, “Barge of the Dead”, “Alice”, “One Small Step”, “The Haunting of Deck Twelve”, “Flesh and Blood”, “Workforce”, and “Friendship One” are all episodes I can recommend. Most of those episodes are strong character studies. In several instances, the characters beliefs are tested or challenged.

    “Workforce” takes it one step further by destructing and reconstructing characterization by showing how the crew would interact as characters even if they had no memory of their lives on Voyager or where they were from.

    Some episodes are high-concept. In “Alice”, Tom Paris discovers an alien shuttle that slowly takes control of him. “The Haunting of Deck Twelve” is a spoof of “The Blair Witch Project”. “Relativity” is a wacky time-travel story that fully embraces its chaos.

    Then (or rather, before) there were the two episodes he wrote for DS9. “The Darkness and the Light”, a Major Kira story dealing with the ugly aftermath of Cardassian Occupation of Bajor and “Terok Nor”, an atmospheric episode on DS9’s sister station, where Garak (Andrew Robinson) is affected by a drug that turns him into a danger more akin to another character the actor the actor has played: Scorpio in "Dirty Harry".

    Out of 22 episodes he wrote, the only two "bad" ones were "Spirit Folk" (the second Irish village episode), which I don't have a problem with but most people do, and "Fury", the episode were Kes returns. That episode actually *is* horrible. So overall, that's a good ratio. 22 episodes and only two misses.

    Judging by all these episodes, I think Bryan Fuller would have the range you'd normally see in a typical Star Trek season.

    I haven't seen "Hannibal", so I can't say anything about that.

    Patrick D, I'm the same as you. The only modern TV I watch are cartoons and comedy shows, because they aren't inflicted by the cynicism and violence of what I've seen of regular adult TV.

    I get enough reality in my life, I don't need more of it in my entertainment. Kids have it the best out of all of us. Einstein once said "If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales".

    Star Trek used to be a fairy tale - I hope the new series will be too.

    Well, to guys that miss optimism in Trek, let me just point you in the direction of Fuller's (not so recent) comments where he indeed states that he'd like for Trek to return to the more "dynamic and passionate" style present in TOS.

    @Garth - He definitely wasn't the main writer on "Barge of the Dead", that was Ron Moore, whom I really like, thought I really don't like "Barge of the Dead".

    That said, "Raven" and "Workforce" are both tremendously excellent, "Mortal Coil" might be in my top 10 for VOY and most of the rest of those are fairly good except that the last 5 minutes of "Friendship One" makes me violently angry and I hope he didn't write that scene.

    Overall probably a net gain in my opinion of him though.

    I'm pretty excited about Brian Fuller. His work on Voyager (Fury not-withstanding) was outstanding.

    I guess I need to watch Hannibal... folks talk like it was outstanding.

    I still say he could call Manny... these two might make a great pair.

    Patrick D, James, and others: I'm in full agreement with you on Trek's need for an optimistic, humanistic outlook; as much as I enjoyed nuBSG, I feel that if Star Trek took that path it would be a death sentence for the show in the long run. I think that's one of the reasons why people left Enterprise; it cleaved a bit *too* close to contemporary issues at the time, especially in S3 (even for me, speaking as someone who thought highly of ENT S3 as a whole). There's nothing wrong with commentary on contemporary issues, of course (after all, it was such a big component of TOS/TNG), but there's a fine line between insightful commentary versus paralleling current events *too* closely and being about as subtle as a brick clanging to the floor.

    That's probably the reason why I became such a big Doctor Who fan; for the most part IMO it was able to recapture the optimistic sense of anything-can-happen adventure that Trek used to have but lost sometime in the middle of DS9. Anyone looking for a show with a mostly optimistic outlook, I strongly recommend giving the 2005 version of Doctor Who a try, at least to tide you over till 2017. I find it to be the closest thing to TOS/TNG currently on the market as far as official TV shows are concerned (not counting the fan series New Voyages and Star Trek Continues which are also very, very good and well worth checking out too). If Bryan Fuller uses Doctor Who as a model for the new Trek series I will be very happy indeed.

    Looking up Fuller's record, I'm hopeful. According to Memory Alpha, in 2009 he said in an interview he wanted a new series based on "old style" Trek. To quote him: "I loved Voyager and Deep Space Nine, but they seem to have lost the '60s fun and I would love to take it back to its origin."

    Going back to Memory Alpha, Fuller's record includes:

    "The Darkness and the Light"
    "Empok Nor"

    "The Raven"
    "Mortal Coil"
    "Living Witness"
    "Bride of Chaotica!"
    "Course: Oblivion"
    "Barge of the Dead"
    "One Small Step"
    "Spirit Folk"
    "The Haunting of Deck Twelve"
    "Flesh and Blood"
    "Workforce, Part I and II"
    "Friendship One"

    Someone else can compile an average of the Jammers ratings for this eps; I'm not going to do it. ;)

    I was already thinking about doing someone similar to that anyway, except using my own personal ratings, but this exercise is basically the same thing, so I'll bit the bullet.

    Pulling up another tab, to look for Jammer's ratings, and plugging in the numbers...

    "The Darkness and the Light" - 3
    "Empok Nor" - 2

    "The Raven" - 2.5
    "Mortal Coil" - 3
    "Retrospect" - 3
    "Living Witness" - 4
    "Drone" - 4
    "Gravity" - 2.5 (one of my favorites, so I disagree with this)
    "Bride of Chaotica!" - 2
    "Course: Oblivion" - 1.5
    "Juggernaut" - 2.5
    "Relativity" - 3
    "Barge of the Dead" - 4
    "Alice" - 2.5
    "One Small Step" - 3.5
    "Spirit Folk" - 1
    "Fury" - 1.5
    "The Haunting of Deck Twelve" - 1.5 (sounds way too harsh)
    "Flesh and Blood" - 3.5 (not so sure about that... )
    "Workforce, Part I and II" - 3.5 for Part I, 3 for Part II
    "Friendship One" - 2.5

    "Flesh and Blood" and "Workforce" count twice as two-part/two-hour episodes.


    63 stars divided by 23 episodes (Memory Alpha counts "Flesh and Blood" once I believe, I'm counting it twice) provides a star average of...

    2.739 stars.

    Now that I have a bit of down time, I went back and did my own mini-statistical analysis of Fuller's episodes, based off Jammer's ratings. Granted the star ratings don't always tell you the full story but it's a good overview (granted it should be taken with a grain of salt since VOY went off the air in 2000 and Fuller has had 15 years to improve his craft) to see where things stand.

    So according to Jammer:

    -Fuller has written 22 episodes total (I'm counting "Flesh and Blood" as one ep). Of those, 4 were 1.5 or less (18.18%), 2 were 2 stars (9.09%), 3 were 2.5 stars (22.72%), 5 were 3 stars (22.72%), 3 were 3.5 stars (13.64%) and 3 were 4 stars (13.64%).
    -That means that 11/22 of his eps are considered "recommended" by Jammer. Not too shabby in my book.
    -Yes, Fuller wrote the awful "Spirit Folk" and "Fury", but he also wrote (or had a part in writing) four episodes I consider Voyager Classics - "Living Witness", "Drone", "One Small Step' and "Flesh and Blood". I can forgive him one or two bad days.

    Doesn't really tell us much though; we'll just have to wait and see what's on our screen in 2017. I imagine this is the point where news starts to trickle out a little at a time. My predictions: We'll get full casting/writers info in March-May, filming will start in June and go till August/September, and we'll get the first trailer in August/September.

    Hey, with Fuller aboard and apparently knowing Trek canon like the back of his hand I'm really optimistic that this new series will be:

    A) Set in the Prime Universe and
    B) Take place about 20 years after DS9 / Voyager

    If they did this.. I mean, you could even base this series out of the fallout of the Dominion War. Damn, that'd be awesome.

    P.S: VOY's "Alice" was a terrible episode, let's not count that one lol

    @ Robert
    Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 1:09pm (UTC -6)

    Wait? He wrote SPIRIT FOLK?

    Ok, he's dead to me.


    Now come on Robert... we always get an episode based on the lead actors make-up/race/beliefs... 'Far Beyond the Stars' in DS9 and 'Spirit Folk' in DS9 :-)

    Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant. :-)

    I'm prepared to be totally wrong BUT here's my prediction for the setting of the series and why:

    Short Answer: My prediction for the setting of the next Star Trek series: Prime Timeline, 25th Century. After "Star Trek Online".

    Long Answer: We've already seen the TOS era, TNG era, we've seen glimpses of in-between. None of it will look new. It either has to be Pre-TOS or Post-NEM.

    Setting it in-between ENT and the 2233 timeline split would look cowardly. Like they'd be too afraid to make a stand and say if this is set in the Prime Timeline, Abrams Timeline, or a Third Timeline. So that leaves Post-Nemesis.

    Here's why I think it'll take place after Star Trek Online. If you set it any earlier (and still have it be post-Nemesis), it might alienate fans of Online or fans of the novels because the new series will most likely overwrite them. If you want fans to *pay* for the CBS streaming service, you'll have to make them _want_ to spend the money. That's also why I think it'll be set in the Prime Universe.

    I'm actually even more excited by the quality of Fuller's work on Heroes. His screenplays for that show were some of the series' best, and even television's best in the opinion of some.

    Man, I'm more stoked for Trek's future than I have been in years.

    Fuller wrote VGR's "Living Witness"--my favorite episode of the Trekkian canon. Maybe this will be better than I thought. Kurtzman as a part of this still makes me hesitant.

    Kurtzman or no, Fuller will be the showrunner as I understand it, so he'll call the shots. Kurtzman will probably be more involved in the production side of things. At least I hope he will.

    What the new Star Trek *DESPERATELY* needs is "smart optimism".

    When Gene Roddenberry died 25 years ago and when TNG went off the air 22 years ago, a big hole in Trekdom had opened up. When I was watching it for all those years I noticed that the world of TOS and TNG got ripped up into a dichotomy where Deep Space Nine got the brains and Voyager had received wide-eyed optimism--and thus, neither show had the cultural impact of its predecessors. (Enterprise? I could never make myself watch it all the way through--and I've really tried).

    But, anyway, there seems to be two major wings in modern television as I see it: the dark, gritty path that's smart prestige television. Or there's the dumbed-down, play-to-the-cheap seats fare but will make people have "good feels". What TOS and TNG excelled at was straddling that abyss and making two series that made people feel good without insulting their intelligence (for the most part). Star Trek guru, Mark A. Altman basically said years ago that Trek needs to have a little "West Wing" influence to get it back on the right track--and frankly, I think he's right.

    I hope Bryan Fuller can bring back the "smart optimism" to Trek that's been missing for the last several decades. If he does, I'll watch it religiously.

    @Patrick D

    You are so right- that is the core of what Trek is and why it matters. I'll be hoping right along with you!

    I agree. I also hope the next series has "smart optimism". Otherwise, where Star Trek left off in the 24th Century doesn't look too good when you scratch underneath the surface.

    Outside of "Pathfinder", "Endgame", and "Star Trek: Nemesis", DS9 is the final word on the 24th Century Alpha Quadrant.

    Circumstances aside: Sisko agreed, and Starfleet allowed, evidence to be forged to convince the Romulans to join them in the war against the Dominion. "In the Pale Moonlight" is one of my favorite DS9 episodes BUT nevertheless, as Sisko says, "I lied, I cheated, I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I'm an accessory to murder. But Garak was right about one thing. A guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant." The audience is on Sisko's side because of how bad the war is going for the Federation but what would the audience have thought if it were Section 31 that lied to the Romulans?

    Likewise, during DS9's Final Chapter, Sisko basically orders Worf to assassinate Gowron. Just not in so many words. He tells Worf that Gowron must be stopped, knowing full well that he won't back down. The only way to stop him is to kill him. And the only way to do that is to have Worf challenge him. "But Worf is a Starfleet officer!" Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges. In time of war, the law falls silent.

    Finally, Section 31 infected the entire Great Link with a lethal disease with no known cure. They were basically willing to commit genocide to stop an enemy threat. "But Section 31 isn't Starfleet!" No, it's not. But they work with Starfleet and are still part of the Federation, even if it's the underbelly.

    So, at the end of DS9, the Romulans, Klingons, and the Federation were allies but only because the Federation deceived the Romulans (and planted a mole inside the Senate) and the Chancellor of the Klingons was killed so they could have *their* guy, Martok, the one who they preferred, in the position. And the war with the Dominion was over, because Section 31 brought the Founders to their knees. For all their bravado, they ended the war once Odo offered to cure them.

    As a post-script, the entire Romulan Senate is wiped out at the beginning of "Star Trek: Nemesis" but even though it looks like their relationship with the Federation will become stronger at the end of the film, in "Star Trek" (2009) Romulus is destroyed, so who knows what happened after that?

    Basically, the last we see of Star Trek, chronologically, is a pragmatic dystopia. That's why there needs to be another series and that's why it needs to be set *after* everything we've seen.

    The Federation isn't everything it wants to be. The galaxy isn't always going to agree with it. It's a painful lesson to learn but what was the lesson to be learned? Where does the Federation go from here after what it's been through (since the war)?

    Parallel to Current Events: America isn't everything it wants to be. The world isn't going to always agree with it. It's a painful lesson to learn but what was the lesson to be learned? Where does America from here after what it's been through (since 9/11)?

    I used to defend DS9 pretty hard. I understand what it was trying to do and what it was trying to say. It doesn't take away from what the series was. During the Post-Cold War, Pre-9/11 Period, "The End of History", we had a Golden Age if not a paradise where Bill Clinton was committing America toward building a bridge to the 21st Century. "It's easy to be a Saint in Paradise", DS9 warned. No kidding.

    But 17 years, two presidencies, and two over-lapping wars later, not to mention a partisan divide so sharp that it's impossible to take a middle ground on anything, I think a new Star Trek series needs to say something else.

    It needs to point to how things can be better. "We didn't destroy ourselves" isn't enough. "We got ourselves out of this mess. We got ourselves out of the muck." That's the message we need to see.

    Apparently Tony Todd (Kurn, Old Jake) is being considered for a major role in the new Trek series. Nothing definitive yet, but he's on a short list.

    Trek news of the day: Nicholas Meyer is beaming on board as a writer and consulting producer!

    Yes, the Nicholas Meyer who wrote Wrath of Khan and also co-wrote The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country!

    I don't know about anyone else but my excitement levels just went up!

    I never thought I'd be seeing Nick Meyer and Trek together again. I was happy with Fuller on board. I'm insanely excited now. Wonder who else will be on the staff.

    Nick Meyer? Hell yes. Grounded and imaginative. This series is looking better and better all the time. CBS is making some strangely smart moves here.

    The man who wrote/directed my favorite Star Trek movies, and the man who enthralled me for 3 seasons with Hannibal. Working together.

    Now I just have to figure out whether God was answering my prayers, or if this is Satan's way of telling me he took my deal and my soul belongs to him now.

    Nick freaking Meyer whaaaaaat!!!

    I suppose that Fuller looked at the writers who'd done Star Trek and decided he wanted the one who kicked the most butt. :D

    I am quite pleased! This is fortuitous.


    One TOS era writer - Meyer
    One TNG era writer - Fuller
    One "nu" trek writer - Kurtzman

    I wonder if this was done intentionally?

    "Apparently Tony Todd (Kurn, Old Jake) is being considered for a major role in the new Trek series. Nothing definitive yet, but he's on a short list. "

    No way, awesome!

    Any chance it could BE Kurn? His memory was wiped out but he's still very much alive I believe.

    They want a Star Trek show to attract people to CBS All access and it will be a mess and worst of all they will want the new series to please fans of the reboot films so even if they try to please fans of TNG like me there is more than likely to be enough dumbing down to put me off, by season 2 they will stop caring about older fans and the new series will become just a clone of the reboots, that's my prediction anyway.

    Annnnd they just beamed Rod Roddenberry (Gene's son) on board as exec producer. I don't know about anyone else but the powers that be sound serious about this thing.


    For all we know Roddenberry jr may just be involved in accounting or the legal issues, there's no reason to believe he'll be involved in the creative side,
    i'm also not overly optimistic about Meyers being involved, as great as Star Trek II & IV were they deviated greatly from established lore, like having a crying Vulcan in II, a lying Vulcan in IV, making Kirk and his crew semi-racist, The prospect of the new star trek series being like II & IV is tantalising but if he was willing to change Star Trek that much before he may be willing to change it again but this time to please the fans of JJ Abrams dumbed down Trek,
    I refuse to believe that the new series will be any good till i've atleast seen the pilot in its entirety, even then i may not be comfortable saying it's good until i've watched more episodes.

    An interesting quote by Meyer:

    "The one thing I can relate to you is that The Undiscovered Country—according to Bryan [Fuller]—is a real sort of taking off point, or touchstone for how I guess he’s thinking about the direction of the new show. I don’t want to be misquoted and I don’t want to misquote him, but he’s fond of that film. Let’s put it that way."

    Huh. What could he mean by that? Will the new Trek show be set in the period after the original crew and before TNG? Or will it be more contemporary political, just how Undiscovered Country basically depicted space Chernobyl and the end of the Cold War?

    Whatever Fuller has in mind, I am definitely intrigued. He's proven to be a literate, smart guy and looks upon one of the more literate and smart movies in the franchise for inspiration. The only thing that gives me pause is this horrible CBS online streaming thing. I can't help but think that it will be disastrous for the show (read: canceled after a single season.)

    It could pick up after Star Trek (2009) -- on the Prime side.

    The destruction of Romulus is even worse than the destruction of Praxis, both are similar would lead into ground that could've also been covered in a post-ST VI setting.

    If there's an Enterprise in this series, Picard could be retiring and handing the reigns to a new crew similar to how Kirk had to face handing the reigns to a new crew. Thematically, the TNG Era (for the sake of argument, we'll call it 2364-2387) had reached the same point the TOS Era (2265-2293) was at when it ended.

    Hopeful, but not too optimistic. If it's in the original time line rather than the modern films rebooted universe, that's at least one reason to feel hopeful.

    Someone mentioned The West Wing as a role model. I always felt that the West Wing was essentially The Next Generation transcribed into the White House. The way it married episodes which were self contained with a bunch of coexisting story arcs, and development of character is very much what I hope to see in the new series.

    If only they can steer clear of too much Space Opera, and over hectic action stuff... But realistically that doesn't seem too likely. However the Next Generation was such a brilliant reworking of the Original Series, perhaps they can do it again.

    I highly doubt Mr. Meyer is going to let anything go out the door without feeling like he's done his due diligence on it. I'm stoked as all get out.

    2017, the year Nick Meyer saves Star Trek again! :D

    So... Rumours now state it will be set after The Undiscovered Country but before TNG... Not sure I am completely along with that.

    HOWEVER... Another rumor is that it will be an anthology series with every season set in a different time period... or different universe.

    That I like the sound of.

    "So... Rumours now state it will be set after The Undiscovered Country but before TNG... Not sure I am completely along with that."

    Agree. That's just not a time period I feel like going back to. The biggest problem with a Star Trek prequel is that the WRITERS need to want to. They didn't want to do Enterprise. They wanted to keep doing VOY, which was an extension of wanting to keep doing TNG.

    Writers have to be passionate about their project. Their project (ENT) was to go do the pre-Federation period. But they didn't want to. They wanted to do the Borg, the Ferengi, the Romulans, etc. Even though they really shouldn't have been mining those things (especially the first two).

    Even the whole 28th century thing SCREAMS of the writers not liking their assignment. We knew Earth/the Federation couldn't really be destroyed ever (because we already saw the future). So we ruined their "stakes". The solution? A 28th century temporal cold war with tech and gadgets way beyond VOY era. Why did the writers do this? Because they didn't want to be in the era they were in.

    Obviously none of this applies to S4 where the writers actually seemed passionate about exploring the ideas that lead to the birth of the Federation. But everything leading up to that just felt like people doing a job (and sometimes doing it well) that they weren't into.

    So this is a long way of saying that if you're going to set this thing in the past, find people who are really, really damned excited about that premise. Because nobody working on VOY was really interested in that premise and nobody working on ENT (until S4) was really interested in that either.

    I don't know how I feel about the Anthology thing.

    I've been watching a lot of The Twilight Zone episodes on Netflix lately and I'm all for an Anthology IF:

    *At least one season is devoted to a post-Dominion war DS9 era


    *At least some cameos from other TNG or DS9 characters could be a possibility.

    At first when I heard it was going to be between UC and TNG I thought *ugh* no, let's not go backward in the timeline again like ENT did, let's have it take place after DS9 / VOY. At least with an anthology, this still could technically happen.

    Though it would sort of suck to get attached to a new crew and then just not see them again for the rest of the show after their season was done.

    A ten episode arc set in a specific period could be really good.
    I think the Fargo series employs something similar.
    Start off post Dominion War, then maybe do a post old war style series after TUC.
    Maybe clean up some of the mess Enterprise made...

    One series of TNG style set in the reboot universe could be fun. Especially as the technological advances in that reality are so much more advanced now.

    Well, it is just a rumor. But since I like to speculate...

    If true, though, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea in general. There is a comfort factor in tuning into the same crew every week, but it could work. I'd be on board with an anthology series initially set between Undiscovered Country and TNG if there was the possibility of jumping into a post-TNG era at some later point. Maybe it could be something like the movie "How the West Was Won" which tracks different generations of a family through different eras of the West's settlement. Someone mentioned Twilight Zone above; who would fill the Rod Serling narrator role then? (wink, nudge)

    If there is to be one crew, I'd much rather have something set a century or so after the TNG era.

    "Someone mentioned Twilight Zone above; who would fill the Rod Serling narrator role then? (wink, nudge)"

    That's easy, Q!

    No, much like the Borg, The Q were ruined by Voyager too and even the great John DeLancie couldn't save them.

    At the last ST convention I went to a couple of years ago, Nana Visitor said that if they ever asked her to play Kira again she'd do it in a heartbeat. You hear that, producers? Get on it!

    I am about 99.999% sure that I will NOT be buying CBS all access. But a guest appearance by Captain or Admiral Kira?

    Shut up and take my money!

    This was posted about 5 hours ago. It seems like the buzz is that the show is going to both start off after Undiscovered Country *and* be an anthology show, with each season being a different setting.

    The first season will be set after Undiscovered Country. Then subsequent seasons will change settings.

    Also, it seems that this show will not involve an Enterprise. To be fair, Wild and Willy Shakespeare himself said, "What's in a name?" There will be spaceships, presumably, or there's no show.

    And lastly, I wanted to say something to you guys, relate a bit of an anecdote: Nick Meyer is the guy who came up with a way to "un-leak" Spock's death in Wrath of Khan by (or in the process of) inventing the Kobiyashi Maru training simulation.

    In other words, Meyer was born at night, but not last night. He knows how to keep his cards close to the chest, but seem like he's dishing.

    New teaser trailer for this series. It's supposed to have easter eggs.

    "New crews". Maybe there is something to the rumor about this being an anthology series.

    In other news they just added Joe Menosky to the writing staff (the guy who wrote Darmok). Hopefully that means more episodes like "Sokath his eyes uncovered" and less like "Shaka when the walls fell" (Menosky has written his share of "Shaka when the walls fell" episodes, put it that way, but he's had quite a lot of "Sokath his eyes uncovered" eps - Darmok, First Contact [the S4 ep], Scorpion, Year of Hell, Timeless, Muse)

    I expect they'll announce casting and a general synopsis of the premise this summer, if they start filming in the fall.

    I'm curious. If this new series turns out to be an anthology, would anyone else be interested in a season or 2 focused on Enterprise? I know, it's regarded as the worst, but I've been going through it, and it was really starting to hit it's stride in S4. If they could continue building on the potential the show was finally exhibiting, I think there's plenty there for good TV. Not to mentions some of the stuff I've read regarding plans for S5. Am I alone on this? Are there others that would watch it, or did the show burn away all it's interest?

    Nolan: Maybe a season focused not on the NX-01 crew per se, but something set five years later focusing on a crew of the same era fighting in the Romulan war/ right when the Romulan war starts (which was foreshadowed in S4) with occasional references (eg "Captain Archer is leading the fleet in the other sector")


    I used to think along the same lines as you. I wasn't a huge fan of Enterprise, less so the first two seasons (thought 3 & 4 were decent) but my opinion's changed the last year.

    Partly because I bought the series and have been doing a full rewatch, and by going in and expecting Voyager, I avoided dissapointment and in fact found the show more cohesive than VOY. Then S4 has seemed great so far having recently seen TOS, I can see some of the connections.

    More impotantly though, and why I personally would be on board for more ENT is that I've been reading some of the ideas Manny Coto had come up with for S5 before cancellation came and fell in love with where he was going to take the show.

    Basically the NX-O1 was to be refit with a secondary/engineering hull, bring ship design into TOS, Shran was to join the main cast as an advisor on the ship of sorts, T'Pol was going to be revealled to us as half Romulan, born of an undercover spy, which would explain her flaky, emotional Vulcan character, there was to be an episode about first contact with the aliens from "The Cloud Minders" and yes, more lead up to both the Federation, through a sort of UN type council that would grow, and to the Romulan War. Not to mention a probably focus on Reed as a proto- Section 31 agent. That all sounds pretty awesome to me, and I'm actually dissapointed it ended now.


    Plus, I'm getting sick of Klingons as the go to villians, and have always found Romulan treachery and underhandedness to be far more interesting. Not to mention how criminally underused they've been.

    A star trek novelist was added to the writers of the show

    And the veteran trek writer Joe Menosky

    I think the addition of Joe Menosky is a good one. He's penned some trek classics!!

    @Nolan: Completely agree. Enterprise S4 might not have been their best executed season but concept-wise it was what the series should have been from day one. It's a shame the series got cancelled just when it was starting to find its footing; I would have liked to see a season 5 too, based on the future episode concepts you shared.

    Sadly, the cast is probably too busy/old to come back to Enterprise, but maybe someone could create a fan series that would fill that void a la James Cawley's Star Trek Phase II/New Voyages or Vic Mignogna's Star Trek Continues (assuming CBS doesn't crack down on them like they unfortunately did with Axanar).

    And as far as Klingons go, I think TNG/DS9 milked that particular cow dry. Don't get me wrong, they did a very good job on the whole of developing Klingon culture to its full potential, but it's time to bring the focus to bear on new/underused villains. Star Trek Nemesis did sort of focus on the Romulans and hint at their future direction, but that was never explored owing to Nemesis killing the TNG franchise for good.

    Well I for one still like the Klingons, but as allies.

    I'm all for more Romulan treachery though. I say bring it on!

    Star Trek DS9 was the last Trek television series that I really enjoyed, even though I did have some objections to the whole Prophets/Pagh-wraiths stuff. (Don't even get me started on what I see as a failed bid to replace Jadzia with Ezri.) I tried to like Voyager, but abandoned it with no regrets in the end; and Enterprise destroyed the last of my goodwill. I stopped watching it pretty soon after it started and even my attempts to give it another chance on Netflix failed miserably.

    I've been interested to read about Michael Dorn's attempts to get something going that features Worf, but when I read that the trailer for the new Trek show doesn't even feature any of the cast, I didn't bother to watch it. The further news that only the pilot episode will be available without a subscription only soured me further on the new series. In fact, the more I read about the new Trek show, the less I want to watch it. I couldn't sit through the pilot episode for the show Scorpion, so telling me that its producers are also responsible for this show isn't a draw; neither is the revelation that Kurtzman has anything to do with it.

    As sad as I am to admit it, I agree with someone else here who said that Star Trek should disappear from the screen (small and big) completely and be left to the written word. I can't conceive of a show that could take Star Trek into a better or more interesting direction than the current novels do. I think the Star Trek most people know and love belongs to a past era. The Abramsverse, while "catchy", is but an empty echo of Trek's past greatness, right down to the repeated storylines and noisy action scenes with little heart. The only thing a new Trek show has to offer, in my opinion, is better effects, including more futuristic technologies and species that have, up until now, been confined to the page because of the difficulties of making them three-dimensional.

    If this show will take place in the Abramsverse, then my main request is please, *please* just make it a completely new crew and new characters, as opposed to running into alternate versions of Picard, Sisko, Janeway, or anyone else as "altered" by the time travel shenanigans of the 2009 movie. While I'm not too fond of the Abramsverse, I'd probably enjoy it more if just presented as a full reboot rather than as kinda-sorta taking place within the previously established Trek universe.

    New updates from Fuller himself:

    -13 episode season, tied up in a story arc. Sounds like he's trying to move away from self contained episodic stories.
    -Not an anthology series.
    -Not set between Undiscovered Country and TNG.

    Separately, Brent Spiner told IGN that he would be open to playing a role on the new series, much like how he played Arik Soong on Enterprise.

    Thoughts, anyone?

    Sounds good. A little disappointed they're not going down the anthology route as I think there are, obviously, many more places to go and you can keep each season fresh. More expensive from a production standpoint though. Also hope that with the episodic style they don't start leaving cliff hangers at the end of a season. That doesn't mean one seasons actions shouldn't effect another though.

    Wouldn't surprised if we get a very big name actor/actress to try and push it out to the masses.
    Would be good to see some familiarity to the previous shows, little easter eggs and name drops

    "Would be good to see some familiarity to the previous shows, little easter eggs and name drops"

    There had better be an episode 1 cameo! TNG (Bones), DS9 (Picard) and VOY (Quark) all did it (sadly ENT really couldn't really have a VOY cameo). I don't care if it's an ENT cameo (depending on the time period setting) or a TNG-era cameo but I really want a passing of the torch moment.

    In order of preference (for me)
    1. Admiral Picard would issue their first mission orders
    2. The ship takes off from DS9 and Captain Kira wishes them well
    3. Anything else would do

    @Robert, Ent had a First Contact cameo (Cochrane), which is not Voyager but still keeps the cameo tradition alive.

    "@Robert, Ent had a First Contact cameo (Cochrane), which is not Voyager but still keeps the cameo tradition alive."

    Hey, the finale had a couple of cameos too. Let's not forget those ;)

    True! I think Picard would make the best cameo though. DS9 appearing would be awesome for me, but I think it'd make the world feel smaller.

    And Admiral Picard would really give the cameo the right weight and note. In many ways he is the lead of the Berman/Braga era of Trek, and that is the right person to do it.

    Unless the time it takes place prevents that from making sense.

    Maybe Ambassador Picard -- I thought that potential path for him (in AGT) made a lot of sense.

    Hey, let's not discount the possibility that the show will track a black ops outfit instead of a starship doing exploration. I think Admiral Janeway would be far better suited to overseeing that kind of dirty work than Admiral Picard would.

    Lol. Maybe it will be revealed that ST: Nemesis was all a weird black ops simulation, in the style of "Inquisition," headed by Admiral Janeway to, um...gosh, I dunno. See how Troi responds to her dozenth telepathic violation maybe. Adm. Janeway is not as good at Sloan at running the simulations, I guess, in this scenario.

    @William B: I wish.

    I'd have to agree with most of the above, if a "pass the torch" cameo were to occur, getting Patrick Stewart back to play Admiral or Ambassador Picard one last time would be the ultimate display of awesomeness. Jon Frakes as Captain or Admiral Riker would also be a really good choice as well, if Patrick Stewart is unavailable.

    I'd cheer if they could get Kate Mulgrew as Admiral Janeway, but since TNG is more of a cultural touchstone than DS9, VOY or ENT, a TNG cameo would definitely carry the most weight.

    I reckon Patrick Stewart would come back for a cameo, maybe even a guest star in an episode. He knows he owes Star Trek a lot and he still seems to talk fondly of it.
    Pretty much all of the modern era stars would... Well except for Terry Farrell maybe. ;o)

    "Well except for Terry Farrell maybe."

    Aside from her character being dead and some hurt feelings with the producers she never said she didn't want to come back.

    In the first place she wanted Dax to guest star in S7 and not be killed off. They could easily have accomplished this by making her a Captain and having her and Worf deal with a long distance relationship and have her be around in the premier, finale and 1 or 2 random episodes.

    After that she was open to guest starring (maybe as a prophet or in the alt universe, etc.) but it never worked out.

    The thing with the lawsuit over her images has had a lot of mixed communication over the years, but largely it involved them using her voice/image in Penumbra without permission/payment.

    I'm not taking sides, but I highly, HIGHLY doubt that she dislikes Star Trek or is against coming back. Aside from the fact that her character is dead.

    I really really hope they go with an opening theme like the first four shows I can't handle another Theme song like Enterprise.

    @ Robert: "I'm not taking sides, but I highly, HIGHLY doubt that she dislikes Star Trek or is against coming back"

    I saw her at a convention a couple years ago and unless she's now the world's best actress she definitely loves Trek and her place in the grand scheme of things.

    I also think her fielding questions like "Why didn't you come back in S7? You were so awesome and Ezri sucked!" over the past 20 years probably helped lol.

    RE: Picard coming back

    I thought I've read a few times that though Patrick Stewart appreciates the character he's done playing him. I think that him coming back at all would be FRIGGIN' GIANT though. Definitely the best cameo / torch passing thing they could possibly do. Patrick's an odd duck the past few years (his portrayal of Avery on American Dad is insanely awesome) and he IS getting up there in age so who knows he just might be up for a one-off.

    Hey guys, I read yesterday that Netflix has picked up this series to air in 188 countries including the US and Canada to air 24 hours after CBS's streaming pile of poo does. Then in another article I read it said something like the US will still have to get CBS all access to watch the new show.

    Anybody know for sure what the deal is? I hope I can just wait a day and watch it on Netflix as I already have it.



    I'm about 10000000000% positive that in the US for sure you are going to have to purchase CBS All-Access. I know CBSAA does not go to every country so adding it to Netflix to cover those countries might be an option, I don't know.

    Hay Jammer, I hope you intend to review the new series when it hits the streets. I'm sure I'm not alone here. :-)

    There is no way this is going to be on Netflix in the U.S. a day after it airs on CBSAA. That would defeat the whole point of their business model.

    Hi Yanks and Jammer!

    I was just googling 'Star Trek 2017 series' the other day (which I do a lot to look for any new info on it) and came across a bunch of articles saying it was getting picked up by Netflix and I guess some of them had the wrong info.

    I was thinking it'd be a really bad move on CBS' part because nobody in their right mind would ever buy their streaming service if that were the case.

    The official Netflix news is "excluding the U.S.", because CBS's service is exclusive to U.S. customers at the moment. I guess I wouldn't mind paying six dollars per month *if the show is good*. Like TNG/DS9 good, not VOY/ENT good.

    Though I think if CBS doesn't come up with some alternatives (like day-later viewings with ads), they're going to encourage piracy from people not willing to pay for a CBS subscription.

    I wouldn't be surprised if CBS doesn't move all the treks and movies to CBS All-Access. I think that would be smart.

    Chrome, well NTFLIX will host outside the US 24 hours after it aired on CBSAA, if I'm reading it right. Does CBSAA have frellin commercials?

    I watched a few of the free Trek eps on CBS's All Access a week ago ("Redemption I and II", fyi) just to see how good the All Access service is. Sadly there are quite a large number of ads in between episode acts. Nothing the mute button can't take care of but still annoying.

    Granted I wasn't logged in and I was watching the free episodes offered. I don't know what the experience is like once you pay.

    Also, for everyone's info I believe there will be a Star Trek panel at Comic Con this Saturday. I'm hoping they drop some more info there. (Casting and basic storyline would be nice)

    News drop on Star Trek Discovery, as the up-till-now-nameless 2017 series is called, and there's a trailer featuring the ship:

    It reminds me of some concept art I saw for the cancelled Star Trek Phase II series (not the James Cawley fan series) which later became ST The Motion Picture - especially the spacedock carved into the asteroid.

    The Phase II concept art in question. You can see the visual similarities between this and the trailer:

    I'm not so sure I'm a fan of the ship design...


    I make computer games and have been an artist most of my life. I don't think I'd ever try to slap a friggin' triangle on a round saucer like they did with the Discovery. It just looks so shitty to me, but if this is for some hybrid Federation / Klingon crew I might get used to it. This would also explain why that teaser trailer had said "New Crews" before: I thought that meant it was an anthology series, but it could very well be a combined crew a'la Voyager's Feds and Marquis. Oh no, don't look to VOY for inspiration, guys!

    Regardless of this, I am much less a fan of the CGI they're using. Honestly guys, it looks worse and more fake than ENT. It looks much worse than early season episodes of DS9.. Made with presumably much less of a budget and more than 20 years ago! I know everybody is quick to say "it's an early prototype release footage!" but they made a big deal about something getting shown at the CC, and it shouldn't look like something a 7th grader in his bedroom could whip up in a night.

    If ever there was an argument to bring back practical effects and ship models, god damn it this is it right here:

    It also looks like this isn't going to be set after DS9 and VOY, which is also disappointing. I thought they learned their lesson with ENT in that Trek shouldn't look backwards, but forwards.

    Notice Klingon style musical motifs in the last part of the trailer.
    Thinking the Klingons have joined the Federation and this is the first of a joint design Star Fleet ship.

    I'm pretty disheartened by what I've seen so far. The ship design didn't exactly grab me (even the NX-01 had a nice symmetry to it) but this will be the third prequel we've gotten since 2001. It would have been nice if they could have moved beyond the 24th century into uncharted territory. Instead it looks like we're going back again. I expected something a little more daring from Bryan Fuller. :/

    I'm glad it's Prime Universe. I'm glad it's in an earlier time-period (whatever flaws Enterprise had, they weren't *because* it was a prequel).

    The ship design is odd, but we still haven't seen anything important about the series on-screen. No real clues about themes, characters, or writing.

    I shall remain optimistic and excited for new Trek.

    I was hoping the version of the video I saw was a spoof - Klingon-like Starfleet ship in an asteroid with terrible (as in obvious) CGI. From comments here I guess not. Oh dear.

    They wanted to show something but the CGI is computer game level stuff. I'm not thinking this will be any kind of representation of what the series will really look like. It's like a proof of concept.

    I'm hoping for set after Voyager/Dominion War rather than a midquel. I have faith though, they have some of the great names of Trek involved in this.

    They haven't actually said when in the prime timeline Star Trek Discovery will be set in to my knowledge, just that it will be in the prime timeline, not the Abrams timeline (yay!). Does anyone have any documentation on when they said it will be set between TOS and TNG, besides the original unconfirmed rumor?

    I'm going to suspend judgement until the first full trailer comes out, but I'm not too sold on the ship design. There's a reason the original concept art was rejected, put it that way.

    @ NCC-1701-Z:

    I think Fuller publically debunked the rumor that this was going to be set between ST6 and TNG the same time he said this wasn't going to be an anthology series.

    What if this somehow WAS set after DS9 and VOY? I don't know how, but if you had a Klingon / Federation crew(s) on this flying eyesore as a result of the fallout from the Dominion War that'd be pretty awesome if done right.

    "but if you had a Klingon / Federation crew(s) on this flying eyesore as a result of the fallout from the Dominion War that'd be pretty awesome if done right."


    If it is not a joint crew then I imagine the Klingon's legal team will be contacting Starfleet shortly.

    " If it is not a joint crew then I imagine the Klingon's legal team will be contacting Starfleet shortly."

    Better call Saul!!

    Hey, I wonder of the design/silhouette of the 'Discovery' is based on the IDIC symbol?

    Pullquote from Jammer's Star Trek Nemesis review:
    "...the space battles rely a bit too much on the Trekkian staple that Voyager made officially unwatchable: scenes where sparks explode on the bridge and tactical officers urgently inform the captain that shields are down to X percent. I'm thinking "Shields down to X percent" is the line most in need of being banned from all future Trek-related scripts. Make it so."

    Discussion topic: If you were in the writers' room of Star Trek Discovery, how would you guys change up Trek battles to be more exciting? I would personally add the possibility of a cyberattack - i.e. the enemy ship downloads a virus into the Discovery computer which significantly hampers ship operations - i.e. helm takes several seconds to respond sluggishly, phaser power reduced by a lot, torpedoes don't even come close to their target, etc. We saw this once, in DS9's "For the Uniform", but sadly this concept was never explored much again. Just my two cents.


    An interesting side topic indeed, NCC-1701-Z (mind if I call you Z?).

    I thought NuBSG got it pretty right from the very beginning (the miniseries). Take for instance the battle at Ragnar Anchorage. Visually engaging, dialogue pretty good - Tigh issues realistic sounding commands "stand by suppression barrage".

    Partly I think this is because the combat usually has purpose - Galactica making itself a shield for the fleet or vipers engaging bogies during patrol. Trek combat tends (DS9 aside) to be enemy-of-the-week attacking for god-knows what reason, standoffs or stubborn-captain-faces-down-aggressive-enemy type scenarios (could almost do with a mini-tropes website about combat scenarios). DS9 being the only Trek series with a full blown war going on had some very memorable combat sequences, the destruction of the Odyssey and the battle in Sacrifice of Angels come to mind.

    I think it would be good if the next Trek series could avoid battles for the sake of battles. The combat is more interesting if there is a strong reason for it to occur, rather than the scenarios that seemed to dominate Voyager.

    @ NCC-1701-Z
    Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 9:32pm (UTC -5)

    Discussion topic: If you were in the writers' room of Star Trek Discovery, how would you guys change up Trek battles to be more exciting? I would personally add the possibility of a cyberattack - i.e. the enemy ship downloads a virus into the Discovery computer which significantly hampers ship operations - i.e. helm takes several seconds to respond sluggishly, phaser power reduced by a lot, torpedoes don't even come close to their target, etc. We saw this once, in DS9's "For the Uniform", but sadly this concept was never explored much again. Just my two cents.


    If I can be brief.... don't have as many of them. Remember when 1701 got hit by the Reliant? .... that was epic and gut wrenching because it didn't happen every week on the series. I really felt something when my star ship was damaged.

    DS9, Voyager and Enterprise suffered from too much "pew-pew". It simply doesn't mean as much anymore.

    Alex in the UK: That would be neat - definitely something I wouldn't mind ST Discovery taking from BSG. Granted, with the kinds of weapons at Starfleet's disposal, contemporary military/naval strategy wouldn't work so well in space. (I wouldn't want to be like Khan and limit myself to two-dimensional thinking ;) ) Photon torpedoes could be laid as mines (it's been done before), and TOS "Balance of Terror" had a "proximity blast" setting for the phasers (they hadn't yet come up with photon torpedoes yet ;) ). But I think you have a point - there needs to be a defining purpose for the battle, i.e. creating a shield against enemy fighters, versus just blasting away for the heck of it.

    Yanks: That's a good point. The only other times that a starship getting heavily damaged was so gut-wrenching were in DS9 "Changing Face of Evil" when Defiant got blown to pieces (sniff), and ENT "Azati Prime" when the NX-01 got the crap pummeled out of it, and no spacedock nearby to magically heal it. I guess to make heavy damage meaningful, one of two things needs to happen: (1) Have the damage carry over for several eps, especially if the ship is far away from starbase (cough Voyager cough), (2) Heavy damage a la TWOK or "Azati Prime", or even DS9 "Starship Down" should only take place once every two seasons at most, and not be magically repaired by the next episode (cough Year of Hell cough - just kidding, Year of Hell was actually a good episode, but the point still stands).

    >> (I wouldn't want to be like Khan and limit myself to two-dimensional thinking ;) )

    Apart from a few battles in Trek not much use has been made of the 3D nature of the battle space. We tend to see two capital ships pinging each other's shields (and the dreaded "shields down to n%" line from a bridge officer).

    I agree that Trek can't really use direct military or naval analogues in the same way that NuBSG did. Trek ships aren't aircraft carriers like the battlestars of NuBSG, nor are the weaponry conventional. That said if there isn't enough imagination to do combat both realistically and imaginatively (to make use of the setting, the period and the battle space) perhaps it would be better to avoid combat entirely.

    Although I am not a "Gene's legacy" purist like some, I do think there is a generally strong correlation between the quality of the series and the quantity of literal combat. TNG used combat more sparingly - limited effects budget or better writing? Both? Did limited budget require the writer to work harder? Did digital effects make the quantity of pew-pew rise unchecked by budget concerns?

    I enjoyed Enterprise probably more than a lot of fans did. It was silly much of the time and some unfortunate trends made their way over from Voyager but I have to say I can't remember any Enterprise episode really making me think. Some TNG episodes did, some DS9 episodes did. It'd be nice if we could get a modern science fiction series that has excellent production values but with the soul and spirit of the best examples of Trek e.g. Darmok, Inner Light, Duet, In the Pale Moonlight, The Visitor, Rapture, Blink of an Eye.

    Strong negative correlation, the above should say - or to avoid misunderstanding, I mean the quality decreased as the quantity of combat increased. Only DS9 bucks that trend in my opinion.

    Combat in Trek, you say? I agree that one of the main problems since the days of Voyager was the overabundance of action sequences. When the ship is in superficial and dull battles every other week, they come off as pure filler and (repetitive) eye candy. My advice would be:

    (1) Make battles more sparse so that when they do happen, they feel "big" and important. If there are more of them during the course of a season, vary their types and combat scenarios so that each has a unique feel to it;

    (2) Slow down the action sequences. I am not a big fan of fighterlike zipzapping that has dominated Trek for quite a while. Ships don't need to be as slow and cumbersome as in TWoK for instance, but a little bit of that naval feel where it's made clear that we're dealing with space behemoths would be appreciated;

    (3) Battles should always have a clear goal for both sides. That's something BSG excelled at and why their action sequences worked so phenomenally. Whether it's a tactical game of cat and mouse in attacking the Tylium asteroid, an all-out attack on Basestars and the attached Resurrection Ship, or a simple delaying action while the civilians jump away, battles in BSG always had a purpose and realism to them. Trek battles all too often devolve into silly pew-pew for the sake of it.

    (4) Damage and consequences should be felt. I am reminded of the great shot from Undiscovered Country where a torpedo punches right through the hull. Or how about the severe damage suffered by the Enterprise in TWoK when Khan suddenly slices through the engineering section during the first encounter with the Reliant. Make the audience feel how all hell is breaking loose when ordnance slams into the ship. And I don't mean circuits exploding and bridge shaking, if that's isn't clear. :)

    Guys, just found out that they released a lot of new info about the show and it's pretty depressing.

    Looks like the official word now is that STD (yeah, that's going to be mighty fitting I'll bet) is set 10 years before TOS. They're going to have a female lead but this time she's not going to be a Captain but instead a Lt. Commander. They're making a big deal about having a gay character on the show and will probably go way out of their way to shove it down our throats each week (giggity).

    But my main concern is: WHY GO BACKWARDS AGAIN!?? Have they not learned anything from Enterprise? And they couple this with their streaming service only crap? And that terrible ship design?

    Holy shit guys, I think they're seriously trying to kill this franchise. Wow.

    "There may be the possibility of seeing younger versions of the characters seen in Kirk's crew, but not until the second season."

    Does that mean they abandoned the idea of anthology series?

    I read a bit about ST:D (great acronym), and I'm intrigued about the following, as reported by Polygon:

    "Fuller couldn't get into details about the main story arc, but said it's an event that was referenced in the original series but never properly explored. He added that it was an event most Trek fans would know and that it was canonical with the original series."

    Okay, fellow fans who are better acquainted with TOS era than me: what do you think this is? What happened 10 years before Kirk's 5-year mission (ca. 2256) that was mentioned but not explored in TOS and is high enough in profile that most Trek fans would know about it?

    @ Paul M,

    We don't know that much, but the possibilities that come to mind right away are:

    1) The Federation-Klingon war, which ST: Axanar was going to portray (before Paramount derailed that project).

    2) Captain Pike's 10-year tour on the Enterprise leading up to Kirk's command.

    Both could be good grounds for Trek material, but I'll note that I would be *extremely* displeased to learn that Paramount axed Axanar only to steal their idea and use the exact same premise, and then proceed to do it worse.


    After digging around for an hour, seems Fuller denied that it's about Axanar. There are some hints it may be dealing with the Klingons in some capacity which, if true, is unfortunate. Do we really need more Klingons? They were never all that interesting to begin with, aside from the TNG Seasons 3 and 4 commendable Klingon/Worf arc.

    It occurred to me that ST:D could maybe have something to do with Kodos the Executioner (The Conscience of the King, one of my favorite TOS episodes). It happened 20 years before TOS, not ten, but it's close enough.

    Apparently, the main character will not be the ship's captain, but one of the officers because Fuller is interested in exploring a different dynamic. It definitely sounds like an interesting idea that could be used to good effect.

    Del_Duio said:

    "But my main concern is: WHY GO BACKWARDS AGAIN!?? Have they not learned anything from Enterprise?"

    Robert above went into this in detail, but the problems with Enterprise had nothing to do with the time period. In fact, the show was generally better when it focused on stories that took advantage of the premise (predominantly in season 4).

    This isn't the time period I would have chosen, but there certainly can be good stories set in that time period.

    Another prequel? enthusiasm for this series just dropped by about a third. (The Fed-Klingon war would be an interesting timeframe though. If they choose that, it would explain why they axed Axanar, but I completely agree with Paul G's sentiments on that front.)

    I'll try my darned best to watch it with an open mind though. I'll catch the first episode when it airs on CBS, and if I like what I see I'll shell out $7/month to watch the first season. But if I'm not terribly excited about what's going on in season 1, I'm quitting and going back to my TOS/TNG/DS9 DVD sets.

    Prequel, no prequel... doesn't matter to me when all is said and done. Bryan Fuller blew me away with Hannibal which has to be one of the most daring, crazy, and visually arresting TV shows in a long time. If ST:D is even half as good, we're in for a phenomenal incarnation of Star Trek. Most of all, I don't fear "been there, done that" mentality with Fuller at the helm. I think we'll be treated to a quite revolutionary series, for Trek standards at least. I have the highest of expectations in every department: script, directing, editing, visual style, etc. Maybe my hype train is overloading, but I'd say that the guys behind the show warrant it.

    Methane: You have a point about Enterprise; S4 was my personal favorite ENT season overall. At the end of the day it's the quality of the writing that makes the most difference. If you don't do anything with your premise no one will be interested. Breaking Bad could have easily fallen on its face, but the writing quality was what ultimately distinguished it from the crowd and it got about 200% potential out from its given premise.

    I tend to view this as a pyramid:
    -Good script writing is the base. Without this, the whole thing collapses. This is on the level of characterization, dialogue, etc.
    -Next level is the overarching plot. Even if the plot is good, without good writing it will never reach its full potential.
    -Next level is acting/directing. Certainly crucial, but not as crucial as writing in my opinion.
    -And at the top is visuals. The icing on the cake, but it's just that - the icing. Without a good base it's all for naught, while cheap effects can be overcome with a good script.

    But at the same time I think most Trek fans (including myself) were hungering for something set in the 25th century. Discovery might turn out to be the best spinoff yet. But to use a food analogy, if I go into a restaurant with a huge craving for steak, but I am instead served roast chicken, I'm still going to be unsatisfied even if the roast chicken turns out to be the best one I've ever had. But you never know, the chicken might be so good I forget about my steak craving.

    NCC, if you don't mind me asking, are you from US? I just ask because I noticed that Americans appear to be obsessed with food analogies! :-) Then again, Sisko did talk about souffles (either rising or not), so I guess food analogies are right at home on a Star Trek fan site!

    Paul M : Yup! I never really considered food analogies to be strictly an American thing :)

    Guess I learn something new every day! I suppose Sisko's souffles, and his burnt peppers (foreshadowing worse things to come in "Changing Face of Evil") make food analogies acceptable on a Trek site as well.

    "Sigh" Do we really need another prequel series thats just going to bank on TOS nostalgia? I'll definitely watch the first episode that airs on CBS but i'm not paying a subscription for a service I have netflix and hulu for.

    I just realized that STD(Love the acronym)will need to decide whether or not to use TOS Klingon or TNG klingon designs. has Kurtzman said which ones they'll use?

    Ivanov, I'm gonna say neither. TOS Klingons are pretty much humans. TNG obviously aren't, but I have a sneaking suspicion Fuller and his team would really like to update and reexamine the visual style of Trek, aliens included.

    Not to mention does this mean they're planning on recasting some TOS crew members.... Again? So at the next ST convention I can see 3 iterations of Kirk potentially. The same guy who watered down the Borg on VOY at the helm of this too?

    Blah, this is terrible.

    No, Fuller said we won't be seeing any old characters for the time being.

    Del_Duio, what do you mean by "the same guy who watered down the Borg on VOY at the helm of this too?" Fuller wasn't at the helm of Voyager, that was the responsibility of Taylor, Braga and Biller. And Berman I guess. Fuller was just one of the stuff writers operating under the abovementioned guys and gals. Ron Moore in his (in)famous interview even mentions that Fuller, together with some other writers, was treated very shabbily just so the guys at the top would feel better about themselves.

    Fuller's later body of work speaks for itself. Hannibal is a goddamn masterpiece, and while I haven't watched Pushing Daisies and Heroes, quite a few people said that the former was brilliant and the latter's best episodes were also Fuller's. Apparently, Heroes took a nosedive when he left the show.

    Paul M-

    What I mean is subtraction by addition. Having too many Borg episodes in VOY made them a lot less interesting to me, just like if they cast a "Nu Nu Kirk" in STD later it would lessen the impact of the current 2 actors. IMO, of course!

    So when I say the same guy who watered down the Borg on VOY, I just mean was it (insert random suit)'s idea for this as well. :D

    I read another possibility today and the more I think about it he more I think there might be something to it:

    Remember these guys? That initial scuff with the Federation would take place around the same time. If nothing else nobody would have ever guessed the show would be about this particular incident.

    That would seem to fit some of Fuller's comments that seem to indicate the show will be more "alien." There certainly is room to do something different with that story.

    Submit a comment

    ◄ Blog Index