• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Star Trek (January 2017 TV Series) News and Speculation Thread of Boldly Streaming

Status
Not open for further replies.

TDLink

Member
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?

Not at all. It's probably the most consistently strong of all the Star Trek series thus far. And definitely the most interesting.

And I say this as a huge TNG fan.
 

Aikidoka

Member

Not at all. It's probably the most consistently strong of all the Star Trek series thus far. And definitely the most interesting.

And I say this as a huge TNG fan.

DS9 is probably the best of what Trek can do. Fuller spent more time with Voyager (81 episodes). He only did two of DS9 episodes "The Darkness and the Light" and "Empok Nor".

Ah ok. I just tend to hear that it's best to skip a season or two and jump in when it starts getting good.
 

I'm relieved to hear that the setting rumor is false. I'm sure Fuller could have made a good show in that time period, but it sounded like a weirdly continuity-driven, backwards-looking premise that would have significantly limited the show's appeal beyond fans of the prior TV incarnations.

This also leaves open the possibility that the series is set in the Abramsverse, which I would love to see just for the meltdowns.
 
To be fair, it starts getting good in Season 3 and then gets really good when Worf shows up, but S1 and S2 are still good TV.

S1 has Duet; I could never recommend skipping it.

On Roddenberry's "vision"... I don't know about "ignore?" But it definitely shouldn't be viewed as some kind of ideal. TNG got much better after they started distancing themselves from that, DS9 basically engaged in a lengthy critique of it at times ("everyone's a saint in paradise"), but ditching it entirely? I dunno.
 
I'm relieved to hear that the setting rumor is false. I'm sure Fuller could have made a good show in that time period, but it sounded like a weirdly continuity-driven, backwards-looking premise that would have significantly limited the show's appeal beyond fans of the prior TV incarnations.

This also leaves open the possibility that the series is set in the Abramsverse, which I would love to see just for the meltdowns.
Er, did you read his full comments? He basically all but confirmed it'll be set in the Prime Universe with his "eventually" remark in returning characters.
 

Lhadatt

Member
Kind of off topic but could i ask for some advice from TrekGAF? I'm noticing the Star Trek TNG blurays are coming down in price on Amazon. I was curious which version is the better purchase?

Option 1

Option 2

They're the same sets, just different boxes. Green is the UK box, blue is the US box. A review on the US box says the box itself is not as nice as the UK box. Some of the reviews indicate that the discs in both boxes are identical to the individual season sets.

The important part: Both boxes list the discs as region free. The cheaper green UK box should play on any region Blu-Ray player.
 

TyrantII

Member
Star Trek is at its best when "Roddenberry's Vision" is completely ignored.

Eh, nuTrek and Voyager wasn't very good stuff.

Trek works fine, but focusing on conflict and their continuing struggle to be better is more interesting than already having achieving it.

TOS vs the worst preachiness of the TNG era. I do t think we need gritty Trek, but squeaky clean Trek doesn't work either.

Gene was fine till he was hitting the last year's and wanted to see the conclusion of his world... which wasn't very interesting and forced all conflict to be with those outside the federation.
 

TyrantII

Member
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?

DS9 and Babylon 5 are pretty much the gold standard for Space TV series before nuBSG game along (which was a a DS9 vet as the show runner).

On the new news, happy they're going with heavy serialization. Still wish CBS went to HBO, just for the budget one they would have got.
 
Eh, nuTrek and Voyager wasn't very good stuff.

Gene had nothing to do with any of the movies outside of the first one, nothing to do with later-era TNG, nothing to do with DS9. Didn't have much to do with the Original Series after a certain point, really. Most of what made that show great can be traced straight back to the efforts of Gene Coon and DC Fontana, really. Gene got successful and immediately started tending towards fucking everything up.

Gene was fine till he was hitting the last years

Gene got forced out (and rightfully so) long before his last years. Letting him back in was partially why Next Gen almost died before they ever made it to Season 3.

Absence of Gene != "Gritty Trek" either.
 

BorkBork

The Legend of BorkBork: BorkBorkity Borking
Wow, I would actually love if they explored the time period between Undiscovered Country and TNG. Lots of material to work with there.


Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage?

Where did you hear this? By general consensus along with TNG it's a top-tiered entry into the franchise.
 

jstripes

Banned
Gene had nothing to do with any of the movies outside of the first one, nothing to do with later-era TNG, nothing to do with DS9. Didn't have much to do with the Original Series after a certain point, really. Most of what made that show great can be traced straight back to the efforts of Gene Coon and DC Fontana, really. Gene got successful and immediately started tending towards fucking everything up.

Gene got forced out (and rightfully so) long before his last years. Letting him back in was partially why Next Gen almost died before they ever made it to Season 3.

Absence of Gene != "Gritty Trek" either.

Gene was one of those guys who was good at coming up with a concept, but needed to hand it off to others for it to thrive.
 
Gene was one of those guys who was good at coming up with a concept, but needed to hand it off to others for it to thrive.

Absolutely. And if he'd invented Star Trek even 10 years later, he would not have become as deified by his own fanbase as he was. He absolutely used the birth of the fan convention circuit to his advantage, and that 10 year run of unimpeded, self-assisted hagiographing is why people still seem surprised when they find out about how damaging to the forward motion of Star Trek Gene consistently ended up being.
 

teiresias

Member
Kind of off topic but could i ask for some advice from TrekGAF? I'm noticing the Star Trek TNG blurays are coming down in price on Amazon. I was curious which version is the better purchase?

Option 1

Option 2

The first is the UK release (according to the reviewers), but it's apparently region free. No idea how it compares to the other one in terms of included extras though.
 

jstripes

Banned
Absolutely. And if he'd invented Star Trek even 10 years later, he would not have become as deified by his own fanbase as he was. He absolutely used the birth of the fan convention circuit to his advantage, and that 10 year run of unimpeded, self-assisted hagiographing is why people still seem surprised when they find out about how damaging to the forward motion of Star Trek Gene consistently ended up being.

Ya, I came to that realization in the '90s when I tried watching early TNG reruns (it's almost like two different shows), and when I read an interview saying DS9 could never have been made with him still around.

People are really led to believe that he was the soul of the show.
 
Absolutely. And if he'd invented Star Trek even 10 years later, he would not have become as deified by his own fanbase as he was. He absolutely used the birth of the fan convention circuit to his advantage, and that 10 year run of unimpeded, self-assisted hagiographing is why people still seem surprised when they find out about how damaging to the forward motion of Star Trek Gene consistently ended up being.

Anywhere I can read up more on how he affected Star Trek? I've always heard this from fans but I've only seen TNG and I'm almost done with DS9 so I'm not too familiar with his original vision.
 

nomis

Member
I believe we're no longer supposed to use "The Abramsverse" or "rebootverse" but "The Kelvin Timeline" now, I guess.

I'm not one for adhering to marketing just for the sake of it, but I do think "Kelvin Timeline" is pretty tidy looking and classier than Abramsverse.
 
Anywhere I can read up more on how he affected Star Trek? I've always heard this from fans but I've only seen TNG and I'm almost done with DS9 so I'm not too familiar with his original vision.

The problem is that his "original vision" wasn't really arrived at until the '70s, after having years of smoke blown up his ass by his own fanbase. The "original vision" of Star Trek was a hopeful, allegorical western in outer space, with all the fucking, fighting, and friendship that goes along with that.

And then he came out the other end of the '70s and suddenly his "original vision" was this shimmering, beige, conflict-free utopia, and all attempts at adhering to that vision led to subpar, uninteresting, and boring entertainment.

There isn't really any single one-stop shop to get all this info, though. You basically have to bounce around a wide variety of biographies, essays, documentaries, commentaries, so on and so forth.
 
My view is that the idea of a truly united human race with a great society is good and should be what Trek keeps, but stuff like no money and no conflict between humans at all was absurd. I'm fine with Section 31 coming into existence during the Dominion War and with it cropping up in the Kelvin timeline, but I didn't like at all the implication that it was around during TOS, for instance.
 
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?

Well, it depends on your definition of "a lot," but while every Trek, including DS9, has its share of utter garbage, it's arguably the best and most consistent Trek. It certainly didn't experience as severe growing pains as TNG did.

Ah ok. I just tend to hear that it's best to skip a season or two and jump in when it starts getting good.

Season 4 is often seen as when it gets good. I'm in the minority on that issue and actually consider Season 2 to be one of the best seasons not just of DS9 but all of Star Trek.
 
You really think that's what the questioner was talking about?

All "canon" means, at least out of context, is that the characters aren't original and exist in preexisting Trek canon in some fashion; it doesn't rule out rebooted Abramsverse versions. I could point you to pre-release STID interviews where Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman were asked about whether Cumberbatch's and Eve's characters were original or "canon," even though they obviously weren't "canon" in the Prime continuity.

Bottom line: it doesn't confirm anything at all about which continuity the series is set in, and we'll just have to wait and see.
 

jstripes

Banned
The problem is that his "original vision" wasn't really arrived at until the '70s, after having years of smoke blown up his ass by his own fanbase. The "original vision" of Star Trek was a hopeful, allegorical western in outer space, with all the fucking, fighting, and friendship that goes along with that.

And then he came out the other end of the '70s and suddenly his "original vision" was this shimmering, beige, conflict-free utopia, and all attempts at adhering to that vision led to subpar, uninteresting, and boring entertainment.

There isn't really any single one-stop shop to get all this info, though. You basically have to bounce around a wide variety of biographies, essays, documentaries, commentaries, so on and so forth.

It's amazing what influence a crazy fanbase can have on a franchise.

Look at that gigantic shitshow that was the Star Wars EU.
 

HUELEN10

Member
My view is that the idea of a truly united human race with a great society is good and should be what Trek keeps, but stuff like no money and no conflict between humans at all was absurd. I'm fine with Section 31 coming into existence during the Dominion War and with it cropping up in the Kelvin timeline, but I didn't like at all the implication that it was around during TOS, for instance.
But 31 was in ENT!

And so was a 31 character in both TOS and ENT!
 
The problem is that his "original vision" wasn't really arrived at until the '70s, after having years of smoke blown up his ass by his own fanbase. The "original vision" of Star Trek was a hopeful, allegorical western in outer space, with all the fucking, fighting, and friendship that goes along with that.

And then he came out the other end of the '70s and suddenly his "original vision" was this shimmering, beige, conflict-free utopia, and all attempts at adhering to that vision led to subpar, uninteresting, and boring entertainment.

There isn't really any single one-stop shop to get all this info, though. You basically have to bounce around a wide variety of biographies, essays, documentaries, commentaries, so on and so forth.

Ah ok I gotta look around then, one complaint that I do have about Star Trek (at least in TNG/DS9) is that all races fall under this giant umbrella of how they act. All Klingons are this and Bajorans are that etc when a whole planet full of humanoids should be as diverse as the races themselves. It's weird when they visit a planet and one city speaks for the entire planet.
 
Ah ok I gotta look around then, one complaint that I do have about Star Trek (at least in TNG/DS9) is that all races fall under this giant umbrella of how they act. All Klingons are this and Bajorans are that etc when a whole planet full of humanoids should be as diverse as the races themselves. It's weird when they visit a planet and one city speaks for the entire planet.

Oh, while Roddenberry's vision was part of what prevented species like Klingons from being presented with more nuance (he objected to how they acted in The Undiscovered Country, for instance), that's more due to the nature of sci-fi shows. The audience has to know what to expect from a character given their species.
 
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage?



Lord no. DS9 is one of the best.
 
Oh, while Roddenberry's vision was part of what prevented species like Klingons from being presented with more nuance (he objected to how they acted in The Undiscovered Country, for instance), that's more due to the nature of sci-fi shows. The audience has to know what to expect from a character given their species.

Yeah I mean I get why they do it at the same time they could have explored a single race/planet more if they had diversified them a little more.
 

jstripes

Banned
Ah ok I gotta look around then, one complaint that I do have about Star Trek (at least in TNG/DS9) is that all races fall under this giant umbrella of how they act. All Klingons are this and Bajorans are that etc when a whole planet full of humanoids should be as diverse as the races themselves. It's weird when they visit a planet and one city speaks for the entire planet.

TNG has an interesting aspect of that with Worf.

Worf was a Klingon orphan who was raised in a human family, so growing up away from Klingons he acts like humans think Klingons act.

When actual Klingons come around, they're nowhere near as uptight and reserved as Worf is.
 
TNG has an interesting aspect of that with Worf.

Worf was a Klingon orphan who was raised in a human family, so growing up away from Klingons he acts like humans think Klingons act.

When actual Klingons come around, they're nowhere near as uptight and reserved as Worf is.

I feel DS9 played up on that really well too. They show up quite a lot on that show and and you can tell he's actually just as uncomfortable with most Klingons as he is with humans.

ds9 worf > tng worf
 

t-storm

Member
To be fair, it starts getting good in Season 3 and then gets really good when Worf shows up, but S1 and S2 are still good TV.
I've absolutely loved DS9, definitely one of the best ST series. I skipped most of it when it was on air as a kid but have been making my way through the whole series over the last several months and don't want it to end.

I'm halfway through season 6 now.
 
Isn't a lot of Deep Space 9 utter garbage? What episodes exactly did Fuller write?

Yes, there's a lot of crap to wade through. To be fair, it's also some of the best Trek out there when it's good. The highs are super high. It's got a weak beginning, weak ending, but some great stuff in the middle mixed with some crap filler too. DS9 has always been overrated to me, but it still has some of the best Trek to be seen within it. People seem to just excuse the low points for some reason though. All the crap with the Bajorans and high religious tones was always uninteresting for me.
 
http://deadline.com/2016/07/new-star-trek-series-david-semel-direct-1201790606/

David Semel is set to direct and executive produce the opening episode of the upcoming Star Trek reboot series.

Created by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman, the new Star Trek hails from CBS TV Studios where Semel is under an overall deal. Semel has a strong track record at CBS, helming three consecutive pilots that have gone to series which will be on the network’s fall schedule — returning Madam Secretary and Code Black and new medical drama Pure Genius. Other pilots he has directed that have gone to series include CBS’ Person of Interest and Intelligence as well as Heroes, Legends, No Ordinary Family and American Dreams. Semel also recently helmed the opening episodes of two high-profile straight-to-series Amazon drama series, breakout The Man In The High Castle, which has been renewed for a second season, and David E. Kelley’s upcoming Goliath starring Billy Bob Thornton.

That's a pretty good pedigree.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Yes, there's a lot of crap to wade through. To be fair, it's also some of the best Trek out there when it's good. The highs are super high. It's got a weak beginning, weak ending, but some great stuff in the middle mixed with some crap filler too. DS9 has always been overrated to me, but it still has some of the best Trek to be seen within it. People seem to just excuse the low points for some reason though. All the crap with the Bajorans and high religious tones was always uninteresting for me.

To me, the biggest change now is back then you had 26 episodes a season. I give them more leeway to have lows than I do Netflix shows, which disappoint me far more when they have half the episodes and a single overarching plot line and still end up uninteresting or meandering.

The Bajorans and their religiosity was always interesting to me, but towards the end it had become just a shambling mess. The wormhole aliens and the pah'wraiths' antagonism never fully gelled, nor did the fact that the wormhole aliens seemed utterly nonplussed by the reality of the people outside of the wormhole yet the pah'wraiths wanted to destroy everything. And then it ends with a book that makes no sense being the key to releasing the pah'wraiths.

In other words, they couldn't decide if they were a science fiction show or a bullshit fantasy one, and then ended up with the latter.

Really you can probably condense down every Trek series into two or three seasons of back-to-back great episodes and be happy that way.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
DS9 is probably the most consistent of Trek Series. While it does get better, Season 1 isn't 100% crap the way TNG was and is still very enjoyable. The show made the most of what it had, and while there is the occasional bad episode, it's overall a fantastic series.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom