New Star Trek TV Series Coming In 2017 (hollywoodreporter.com) 438
An anonymous reader writes: Star Trek is returning to television. In January, 2017, a new series will begin. The first episode will air on CBS, and subsequent episodes will appear on CBS's online platform, "All Access." "The new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966." The show will be produced by Alex Kurtzman, who produced the two recent Star Trek films in 2009 and 2013. No details have been released regarding what the show will be about, or who will star in it. CBS is currently looking for a writer to helm the show.
10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, I think it may be lost in space after the passing of the creator. It feels like yet another franchise now, willing to compromise its vision for whatever sells. Unlike the other "Star ..." franchise, in this case I think it's probably a bad thing.
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Interesting)
It can't get any worse than Enterprise.
Then again, I thought it couldn't get any worse than Voyager, so I could be wrong.
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Informative)
Enterprise was vastly superior to Voyager.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they both sucked equally.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to give Voyager the edge here, it had three decent seasons. Enterprise had roughly three-quarters of a decent season.
More over I could bear to watch Voyager even when it was stupid and underachieving. I stopped watching Enterprise, the mind-numbing stupidity of every character on the show was just too horrible to watch. The best example of what was hideously wrong with the the terrible, terrible scripts for most of the show is this: A crew member is trapped on a planet, he refuses to be beamed up
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:4, Informative)
The episode was nominated for the 2003 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation (short form) and received the highest Nielsen ratings for any episode of Enterprise during season two at that point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Night_in_Sickbay [wikipedia.org]
A highly rated low point for the series.
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that was a rather interesting episode. You have two species of intelligent life that evolved and coexisted on the same planet, which is probably not a common occurrence in the cosmos. The species that looked down on the other species was dying out from a genetic defect. Providing a cure would only prolong the inevitable outcome by a few hundred years. This was the first episode that formed the basis for the Prime Directive to not interfere with emerging cultures.
Is that the one that came immediately before the one where Phlox calls the Organians "appalling" because they won't cure his patients for him?
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:4, Interesting)
In Enterprise, the "exploration of contemporary themes" often devolved into "dictating correct moral values through episode-end voice overs".
The beauty and genius of the original series was the way they sidestepped just that. Kirk would be forced to make some important decision of great moral consequence, and as a military leader, he'd make whatever decision made sense to him at the time and the crew would go with that. Only rarely were there even arguments over the right course of action.
What made that work so well was that they explicitly weren't presented as moral paragons. At the end of many episodes there'd be some quick conversation between Kirk and another officer or two along the lines of "Are you sure we really did the right thing there? No, but it was the best idea we had, and maybe it will work out for the best" Much less arrogant writing.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh goody I can't wait. Glee Trek: The Heterophobic Generation
Re: (Score:3)
It is almost as preposterous as having a black norse god Heimdall in Thor. Just why?
Why not?
Seriously, you're watching a show about norse gods and you care about their fucking skin colour? How about the fact that they're talking in American English? Or that they exist at all?
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. Enterprise was actually a pretty good show. I'm only sorry I listened to people like you and didn't watch it until about a year ago on Netflix.
There's two main problems with Enterprise: 1) the opening theme song sucks donkey balls (except for the two mirror-universe episodes in season 4, that opening sequence is fantastic). 2) the whole Xindi arc in season 3.
Voyager was pretty bad, especially because of the annoying captain. It was far worse than Enterprise.
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Informative)
Enterprise was a return to what made Star Trek good - the ideas. Voyager had some, but always copped out by resolving every moral or philosophical question by firing an inverse tachyon beam at it.
My worry is that this new TV series will suck like the new movies did. They were okay as action movies I guess, if you like being blinded by lens flare, but as Star Trek they were the worst of what Voyager wanted to be - an action driven show. DS9 had action but you actually cared about it, not so much in Voyager or the two new movies.
Re: (Score:3)
But Neelix was awesome, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the concept of Voyager, but the implementation was meh at best. Enterprise was sort of the same. Both series went in a different direction than I would have liked to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - I liked Voyager too. Enterprise didn't get good until the last season - maybe the fire of cancellation allowed them to Go Boldly !
Granted Voyager did have a few weak seasons and slow story arcs. Overall I liked it.
Enterprise though suffered from being weirdly outside the 'Verse. The whole Kinder Gentler thing was weak. Just thinking about the World and current state - I expect we'd be more Military in our approach to space exploration "v1" - not a bunch of scaredy cats. Sure I know that we as h
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't get any worse than Enterprise.
Then again, I thought it couldn't get any worse than Voyager, so I could be wrong.
Rule #1 of sequels: It can always get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't get any worse than Enterprise.
Then again, I thought it couldn't get any worse than Voyager, so I could be wrong.
Rule #1 of sequels: It can always get worse.
MOAR LENS FLARE!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Voyager was crap, but Enterprise wasn't that bad at all, especially the last three seasons.
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I did tire of them always getting their asses kicked.
Re: (Score:2)
Enterprise could best be described as "Run Away! Run Away!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So like the U.S. navy or military got its ass kicked in our formative years? You mean like reality?
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda like the opposite of Waterboarding.
Re: (Score:2)
Every ST series has a low quality episode or two. That being said, Voyager and Enterprise BOTH had issues. And that being said, it's hard to beat Voyager's use of absurd plot devices to wrap up the last episode.
Re: (Score:2)
And that being said, it's hard to beat Voyager's use of absurd plot devices to wrap up the last episode.
I pretty much abandoned Star Trek after the last episode of Voyager. It was the kind of story resolution that I'd expect from a movie on MST3K.
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:4, Informative)
DS9 beat B5 to air by a couple of weeks but B5 was in concept phase at least a couple of years before DS9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually its creator wasn't that great. TNG seasons 1 and 2 were kinda bad, and those were the only two seasons that he had a heavy influence. After that, the writers started breaking some of the rules that Roddenberry had established for the series.
Re: (Score:2)
Rick Berman saved TNG and made it what we came to know and love. When Roddenberry was in charge along with his henchmen Maurice Hurley, the show was pretty lame; that's what happened with seasons 1-2. Hurley even pushed out Gates McFadden (Dr. Crusher); when Hurley left the show after season 2, Berman asked her to come back, replacing the unliked Dr. Pulaski.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And then we have the Wesley Crusher episodes. Makes even JarJar Binks in Star Wars seem to be a relief.
Re:10 years was a decent rest (Score:4, Funny)
Meesah loving Wesley Crusher!
Re: (Score:2)
"TV series" (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be aired in todays conventional methods (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be on a torrent site 10 min after airing so you can watch it are you leisure. Now if I was them I'd put it up on a torrent site right after it aired with the commercial intact. That way you beat the pirates to the punch and people probably wouldn't care about the tv ads.
Re: (Score:3)
But they haven't figured out how to track the viewers and charge the advertisers for that.......it's sort of the same problem that a lot of internet content has. Pay per impression is the model that they understand and when you can't easily track impressions, it's hard to turn that into a business model.
Re:"TV series" (Score:5, Informative)
We actually tried CBS's All Access service after getting a month free promotion. I've found the selection limited and there are a lot of ads. Every commercial break is about 1.5 minutes of ads. Contrast this with Hulu which has 20-30 seconds of ads in each break. It's amazing how quickly you lose your tolerance for long commercial breaks when you cut cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Every commercial break is about 1.5 minutes of ads.
That sounds like a much more reasonable amount of ads than the common 4-6 minutes of ad breaks in some broadcast TV shows recently. I find myself routinely queuing up 4 minutes of ad skip on my Tivo Roamio.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrast this with Hulu which has 20-30 seconds of ads in each break.
A couple years ago I paid for Hulu Plus for a couple months, but the ads drove me crazy - and the number of ads and the frequency of ad breaks actually was increasing during that two month period! It was ridiculous. I quit, and even though I knew they'd never read it... I wrote a fairly long screed telling them why.
Apparently I wasn't alone in my sentiments, though, because they now have an ad-free tier that's priced somewhat reasonably (considering the breadth of content available on Hulu). We've been subs
Re: (Score:2)
None of the streaming services I've used are $15 a month, Hulu is $12 for their ad free subscription. CBS is only $5, but still not worth it at all. It deserves to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
free online better then showtime. Or putting it on cbs sports network.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your idea, but I think most people consider House of Cards and Orange is the New Black TV shows, even if you have to stream them.
This is CBS's attempt to enter that arena of on-line hit shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Well sickbeard has been my conventional method for 5 years now. Are you saying that I won't be able to get it on sickbeard?
Re: (Score:2)
How come? Consider the source of the word "television," tele meaning from a distance, and vision being to view something. The show is still being presented to a large audience over a great geographic distance, you're still viewing something remotely from where it's produced. Only the technology behind it has changed, moving from radio frequencies ov
Re: (Score:2)
Who are they going to sue? The citizens of the US collectively?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, this. As much as I love Star Trek, I'll be forced to either pirate or unintentionally boycott. I don't live in an area with fast enough internet to stream and I also use linux, not Windows or Mac. So all the "controlled and approved" streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu etc that don't give you a "download in advance and watch in the app of your choice" option will never be able to get my business. Nevermind, I'll just download the torrent.
Which continuity? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
So will this show be set in the original TOS / TNG / DS9 continuity, or in the Abrams continuity?
Lots of plusses and minuses either way.
Re: (Score:2)
It will Abrams Trek, so we'll have lens flair and quick cuts so bad that the show will have a warning "Can cause seizures and brain damage"
Re: (Score:2)
While the show needs to grow and match the desires of a modern audience - I look at the shows that they reference the director/producers having been a part of. Would I want to watch a Star Trek that looked and felt like Scorpion? Fast conclusion jumping & non-plausible stories? (I watched 1 episode of Scorpion this year and it seemed more of a comedy/don't-take-this-serious than the few I watched last year).
And is it Abrams? Great question. It was supposed to be a Reboot Franchise film - you can't
Re: (Score:2)
That's not possible. This thing is being produced by the dolts who made JJ's two crappy movies, so you're not going to get good stories.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're looking back at early TNG and DS9 with rose-colored glasses. Neither were good in their second seasons.
He never said that TNG (or DS9) was good in its second season. He just offhandedly said that at this rate, this new show, in *its* second season, might be as good as TNG. (Although you bring up a good point: maybe after two seasons at this improvement rate it'll only be as good as the Pulaski episodes, which of course is far short of the classic 3-5 seasons of TNG.)
It really wan't until t
Re: (Score:2)
Well in that case. Why call it Star Trek when it is not Star Trek. It would be fine to make a new TV sci-fi series, but using the name Star Trek requires that you interconnect with the rest otherwise it looks fake. And there is a enough space out there to either make something new in Star Trek or invent a new series.
And any inconsistencies are fun to discuss or to point our in the series, as long as you do not try to answer, like the non walnut Klingons in TOS, which where fun mentioned in DS9, but lame whe
Please, no. (Score:2, Informative)
Please, no. Just let the poor thing rest in peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, no. Just let the poor thing rest in peace.
I second the motion.
Last night I saw a Maybelline commercial, advertising Star Wars-themed makeup. Note that this was aimed at adult women, not little girls or teenage girls. That by itself was the Writing On The Wall, telling the story of what's become of the entire Star Wars franchise:
Beating A Dead Horse? (Score:2, Informative)
Come on, the universe has already got enough of the shows. We do not need another bunch of poorly written Trek. Didn't they get that memo when "Enterprise" was suddeny cancelled by UPN a few years back?
Ob (Score:3)
Do the TV series follow the odd/even rule, or is that just the movies?
Re: (Score:2)
I would say no.
I really liked DS9. I might have liked it better than TNG because I found it more realistic. Frankly early TNG had to much of the Hippy 1960s feel of TOS for my taste. But then to be honest I believe that any Utopia will be someone's hell. DS9 showed a universe that seemed more real than TNG.
I really did not like Voyager all that much and really disliked Enterprise at all.
I am also not a big fan of the new movies but that is just me.
And yes I will keep watching them and the new shows hoping t
Re: (Score:2)
The Prime-verse series just degraded over time, as the core crew that contributed to the best parts of the earlier series just drifted away. TNG was a clean break from TOS, but the fact that they still had some of the original writers and Gene behind it meant it still had some roots in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original TOS crew that came back for TNG were a big part of why the first two seasons were so weak, and the show only became good in the third season, when all of the TOS crew had left. As such, I don't think that having that connection to the roots of the series was at all helpful. Quite the opposite.
value (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$1.50 an episode is a bit much?
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the people who will say to steal it from a torrent.
Re: (Score:2)
>> $1.50 an episode is a bit much?
Yes - I'll bite. I currently pay $8/mo for Netflix and my family watches perhaps 5 episodes of something off it per day. That's about 150 episodes for 800 cents, or $0.05-0.06 per episode. For a new Star Trek? That's probably worth a good $0.10/episode to me. Otherwise, yeah, it's coming down the same I get GOT.
Social Justice Warrioring (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I have this nagging feeling that will be less of going boldly?
Trek is ABOUT Social Justice Warrioring (Score:3, Interesting)
Star Trek still exists because the original series was all about social justice. The original series was a commentary on society as much as it was science fiction.
Let This Be Your Last Battlefield.
TOS wasn't pro-hippie in that it recognized the importance of duty and responsibility and the complexities of life, but it was pro-equality, pro-egalitarian, anti-discriminatory.
Re: (Score:2)
TOS wasn't pro-hippie in that it recognized the importance of duty and responsibility and the complexities of life, but it was pro-equality, pro-egalitarian, anti-discriminatory.
And ST:TNG could be, um... like this
https://youtu.be/9JqPJBZTsXM?t... [youtu.be]
Oh, myyyy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SJW = equality of outcome
Boldly = equality of opportunity
Re:Trek is ABOUT Social Justice Warrioring (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it's set in a post-scarcity communist utopia .The bridge crew was expressly made up of Americans, Russians and Japanese people in an era when fighting the "Japs" was a recent memory and the Russians were the new enemy, in a direct appeal to get over our differences. It featured the first inter-racial kiss as though black people and white people could get along (in spite of the still existent legal segregation). The one guy who was racist was shown as anachronistic.
But yeah, if you ignore everything and focus on the starship name, totally a paean to America!
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's set in a post-scarcity communist utopia .The bridge crew was expressly made up of Americans, Russians and Japanese people in an era when fighting the "Japs" was a recent memory and the Russians were the new enemy, in a direct appeal to get over our differences. It featured the first inter-racial kiss as though black people and white people could get along (in spite of the still existent legal segregation). The one guy who was racist was shown as anachronistic.
But yeah, if you ignore everything and focus on the starship name, totally a paean to America!
It appears you know nothing about Communism, or Star trek. The post scarcity thing was not introduced until TNG, there was still an idea of scarcity in TOS.
In TOS, the Federation represented the US with it's democracy and respect of freedom, the Klingons represented the Russians, barbaric and imperialistic. This is why The Undiscovered Country was produced during glasnost and the fall of communism. It was, at the time, quite subtle propaganda (well obvious propaganda to non-Americans like myself).
Als
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I have this nagging feeling that will be less of going boldly?
Fine I'll take the bait.
Star Trek has always been highly progressive. In the 60's they had black women and Russians at the height of the Cold War. They had the first on-screen inter-race kiss.
In the late 80's and early 90's they continued with their cashless society, they were an explicitly diplomatic vessel that was actively trying to find peaceful solutions to violent confrontations.
DS9 was based around something that looked very similar to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Star Trek has always embraced tough
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I have this nagging feeling that will be less of going boldly?
If CBS had any confidence in the series, they'd give it a spot in their television lineup, instead of only streaming it.
.
The current handling of the series does not bode well for going boldly, indeed, it's more of a going timidly, toe in the water type of thing.
cautiously optimistic (Score:2)
The problem with movies is they don't have enough time for significant character development. Assuming a movie tells a good story, at best, you're talking one good story every few years. The Next Generation thrived as a tv series, but failed miserably in movie form.
In my opinion, the most recent movies have too much action, without much storytelling. I'm hopeful that a TV series simply won't have the special-effects budget to make the episodes non-stop eye-candy, and will instead try to tell good stories wi
Brilliant! (Score:2)
Well now, I can barely wait for this gem!
"We have the product placements all lined up; the token morality lessons of the week to push our thinly-veiled political agenda; the distribution gimmick to force fans into using our otherwise dead-in-the-water online service... Now we just need a show!"
Klingons! (Score:2)
Klingons are a sure ratings magnet: they appeal to both wrestling/NFL fans and geeks .
Have 2 Earth Federation rookies, a male and a female, be assigned to a Klingon ship shortly after Klingons join the Federation, in a cultural exchange program. The rookies have to be cunning both physically and socially to survive. Lots of plot room for action, showdown drama, and humor.
Better idea ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not skip YASTS (Yet another star treck series) and bring back Firefly?
There is an obvious problem with that: Castle is a very popular show; trying to restart Firefly without Nathan Fillion would be a disaster. It would at the very least have to wait until Castle ends, which doesn't appear to be anytime soon (or, at least, not for a few more years). Additionally, Nathan Fillion isn't getting any younger, and neither are the rest of the original cast of Firefly, assuming you could even get them all back together at this point. You might be thinking 'get an all-new cast for the
Re: (Score:3)
Why not skip YASTS (Yet another star trek series) and bring back Firefly?
Is it a little surprising none of the recent young-enough-to-love-it billionaires hasn't funded it as a vanity project? It may cost $1.5M per episode, but it would make back a chunk of that in its initial release, plus international distribution, and streaming revenues for decades.
Plus, make your enemies rage by becoming a nerd folk hero.
New opportunity for inclusion (Score:2)
We had the woman captain, and the black captain, so I'm thinking the new captain should be transgendered. They could make the captain both transgendered and transvestite if they want to save money on costume costs.
I don't give a crap...until it hits DVD (Score:4, Interesting)
I will not check out CBS's "online platform".
I will not jump through hoops to see programming. I will not sign up for multiple entertainment services and take on yet more monthly bills. I will not tolerate piss-poor streaming quality. I most especially will not tolerate incessant advertising, even if the service is free. *Especially* if it is free.
We have reached the point where the number of entertainment choices, the un-originality of them, the hoops and interruptions and surveillance they come with, has reduced their value to next to nothing. What we need is fewer sources, not more. We need aggregators, like cable TV services with on-demand access, at fair prices, with actual competition and no sports channel taxes.
Netflix is the best we have, but they are moving in the wrong direction, increasing prices so they can offer their own programming. They don't have an ESPN tax, but they do have a Orange-is-the-new-black tax. And their selection isn't awesome and isn't timely or even stable.
I won't see the new Trek until it has been out on DVD long enough to drop in price, a lot, because I hate even the ads they sometimes put on DVD, so I won't pay more than $17 for a season of television programming.
Or maybe Netflix will pick it up and I'll get to see it before they drop it...and re-add it...and drop it... and...
Screw it. All this wonderful technology the 21st century has brought us has pretty much been squandered by shitty business models and fucking shareholder value.
Could have taken a page from Enterprise (Score:2)
Title (Score:2)
New Star Trek TV Series Coming In 2017 to their online subscription based service only.
Not "on television" but "online" (Score:3)
...subsequent episodes will appear on CBS's online platform, "All Access."...
Looks like I won't be able to see the show, because all I have here is an old TV antenna clinging to the side of the chimney....
Great, let's sink the franchise even lower (Score:4, Insightful)
The first episode will air on CBS
Red flag #1. CBS sucks ass and they have 0 balls. If this show is anything like all the other bland shit that's on network TV these days, it will make even Voyager look good by comparison.
subsequent episodes will appear on CBS's online platform, "All Access."
subsequent episodes will appear on CBS's online platform, "All Access."
Red flag #2. Network doesn't even believe in it enough to put it on their regular broadcast channel. They're just using it to promote their shitty also-ran streaming channel. Hello, lots of low budget episodes.
The show will be produced by Alex Kurtzman
Red Flag #3. Let's get the fucktard behind those shitty action-movies-with-a-Star-Trek-skin to produce! He understands that REAL Star Trek ain't about all that thinkin' shit, it's about 'PLOSIONS!!!!
CBS is currently looking for a writer to helm the show.
Red Flag #4. CBS says "We don't even have a clue yet what it's going to be about, where we're going to go with it, or who's going to write it. But dammit, let's greenlight this thing! Just slap a Star Trek label on it and people will watch, right?"
Re: (Score:2)
"Asimov has a shit loads material. So does Heilein."
Asimov? Because they did so well with 'I Robot' and "Bicentennial Man", right? And The Movie About Night Falling That Shall Be Unnamed? I've no trust in ANYONE producing a good Asimov film *OR* a TV series.
And Heinlein? Do you not remember Starship Troopers? Or Puppet Masters? At least the latter had Donald Sutherland (and he nailed the 'old man') but it otherwise sucked. At least "All you zombies" had a "respectable" attempt last year with Predesti
Re: (Score:2)
"Asimov has a shit loads material. So does Heilein."
Asimov? Because they did so well with 'I Robot' and "Bicentennial Man", right? And The Movie About Night Falling That Shall Be Unnamed? I've no trust in ANYONE producing a good Asimov film *OR* a TV series.
And Heinlein? Do you not remember Starship Troopers? Or Puppet Masters? At least the latter had Donald Sutherland (and he nailed the 'old man') but it otherwise sucked. At least "All you zombies" had a "respectable" attempt last year with Predestination so maybe all is not lost here...
Bicentennial Man was descent as far as movie adaptations go.the I Robot movie was bad fan-fiction of Asimov. But I do cringe when I hear they want to make adaptions of things like foundation series, that a clearly not written in such a way as to make good movies. Now if they would do the robot series (these might be interesting as kinda scifi/film noir) or even maybe some of the empire books it could be interesting.
Heinlein as long as you ignore the his fetish for fascism or blatant racism, can be okay.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bicentennial Man was descent as far as movie adaptations go"
You have very low expectations. I'm not saying it wasn't a bad "MOVIE". It was entertaining and a kind of "corn-ball" that made me think Buster Keaton. I do not feel I wasted my time or money watching it way-back-when (tm).
However, the movie was not what I would call a good adaptation of Heinlein's story. But, we can have a difference of opinion. It appears we both thought the movie as OK...
Re: (Score:2)
I think that both Starship Troopers and Puppet Masters weren't the best stories by Heinlein for movies anyway.
The big problem with making a good movie is that there's too much reliance on special effects and too little on acting. And both Heinlein and Asimov were more about psychology than technology even though the technology was a hook to hang the story on in their books it was never the main thing.
If you want to make an action movie or TV series - look at Keith Laumer.
Re: (Score:2)
The BEST adaptation of an Asimov story I have saw was a VHS Video "who-done-it" game based on Caves of Steel. It actually was decent for "B" grade actors and "direct to video" special effects of the 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
And we can't get Farscape back.
Star Trek is lame. It was never science fiction and neither is Star Wars.
Farscape was a very good show without a doubt. But one could just as easily say that Farscape was just 'Muppets in Space', and not science fiction either, and for that matter much more 'science fantasy' than either Star Trek or Star Wars.
But crap (i)s what (i)s marketable. There (i)s hope - Tolkiens stuff was made into decent movies.
You're knocking something for not being science fiction and then you talk about Tolkien, which was pure fantasy? I'm confused, now, what were we talking about? Also much of Asimov and Heinlein is over the heads of the average person, and the average person is who they're trying to get to go pay to see movies in a theater, yes. Since you don't seem to be paying attention, you wouldn't realize that they're working on a Moon Is A Harsh Mistress motion picture adaptation of the book.
By the way you apparently need a new keyboard; your 'i' key is intermittently bad.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shitty stories in Space: The Next Generation"
Re: (Score:2)
get the flame war going, I still contend that DS9 was the best of them all.
I doubt you will get a flame war going for contending that http://io9.com/5016403/how-bat... [slashdot.org]">Ron Moore's DS9 was a great series.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a real story arc? DS9 was good until the end.
Also, how about real science? Not plot stupidity? Use a real map of the galaxy. Either the Klingons are right next door or they are not. How long does it take to go how far at what speed? Is "deep space" a week away by shuttlecraft?
Don't create a new tech to solve the crisis this week and then abandon it next week.
Hire some real writers to write for the show. NOT people who write scripts. The stories can be turned into scripts. But starting with scripts
Re:First salvo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck with that. This series is being headed by the producers involved with JJTrek.
It'd be interesting to see more episodes in the mirror universe though, even if it is a little depressing because that's actually our universe. The "prime" universe you speak of, where most Star Trek occurs, is actually a parallel universe for us. Humans in our universe are nothing like that; we're really a bunch of evil, power-hungry murderers just like depicted in the mirror universe episodes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You two must be Gay.
T'Pol was HOT. So was Hoshi Sato
Re: (Score:2)
They took what could have been a fun season's worth of plot development and jammed into an episode as cliche and absurd as possible.
You're not the only one who noticed that. I was left with the general feeling that the episode was fun, but that it was unlikely that they'd be able to sustain that level of energy for even one season, let alone for many seasons. Eventually they'll run out of ideas and it'll get stale and grind to a halt. There's a chance that won't happen but I don't see it being very likely at all.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Quentin Tarantino?
Re: (Score:3)
Can you imagine how bad the original Star Trek would have been if SJWs had been involved?
http://heydeadguy.typepad.com/... [typepad.com]