Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Sci-Fi Television

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Star Trek TV Series Coming In 2017

Comments Filter:
  • by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:18PM (#50848243)
    Running the 2nd thru 5th season in a row and overlapping probably exhausted the genre. Its had enough rest now for new ideas.
    • 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.

      • by Tx ( 96709 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:29PM (#50848373) Journal

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:35PM (#50848429)

          Enterprise was vastly superior to Voyager.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            No, they both sucked equally.

            • 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

        • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:39PM (#50848475)

          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.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@worl d 3 . net> on Monday November 02, 2015 @02:22PM (#50849021) Homepage

            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.

          • by metlin ( 258108 )

            Voyager was pretty bad, especially because of the annoying captain. It was far worse than Enterprise.

            But Neelix was awesome, right?

        • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:41PM (#50848503)

          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.

          • 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)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Voyager was crap, but Enterprise wasn't that bad at all, especially the last three seasons.

        • by creimer ( 824291 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:44PM (#50848537) Homepage
          Enterprise was awesome as all the technology from the original Star Trek series wasn't fully developed yet. The transporters were still experimental for human transport. Tactical alert — RED ALERT! — took several seasons to fall into place. The captain chair needed tweaking to get just right.
        • 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.

          • 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.

      • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:38PM (#50848459)

        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.

  • "TV series" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkEdgeX ( 212110 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:18PM (#50848247) Journal
    I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'. I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame. (But if it flops, CBS will likely blame Trek and keep pushing ahead with the service anyways).
    • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:30PM (#50848379) Homepage

      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:"TV series" (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:30PM (#50848387)

      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.

      • by cruff ( 171569 )

        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.

      • 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

    • free online better then showtime. Or putting it on cbs sports network.

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'.

      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

  • Which continuity? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by timholman ( 71886 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:21PM (#50848269)

    From the 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.

    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.

    • 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"

    • 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

  • Please, no. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Please, no. Just let the poor thing rest in peace.

    • Disclaimer: What follows are my personal opinions; hurt feelings of all different types may result from consuming this content. People with over-sensitive feelings on the subject may wish to avoid it. You've been warned.

      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:

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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?

  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:25PM (#50848313) Homepage Journal

    Do the TV series follow the odd/even rule, or is that just the movies?

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      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

    • Just the movies. TOS was enjoyable, TNG was enjoyable, DS9 eventually became enjoyable, but Voyager was spotty throughout (maybe 40-50% of the episodes not being totally cringe inducing), and Enterprise had some good arcs.

      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

      • For me it was clear that the problem for Voyager was the Gilligan's Island main storyline. As soon as they made it back to Federation space, the series was going to be over. So they had to make more and more obstacles as Voyager got closer.
      • by Guspaz ( 556486 )

        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.

  • I loved watching various incarnations of Star Trek, but $6/month is a bit steep for 1 show.
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      $1.50 an episode is a bit much?

      • $1.50 an episode is a bit much?

        Cue the people who will say to steal it from a torrent.
      • >> $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.
         

  • by Tokolosh ( 1256448 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:29PM (#50848367)

    Why do I have this nagging feeling that will be less of going boldly?

    • 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.

      • 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)

        by Tokolosh ( 1256448 )

        SJW = equality of outcome
        Boldly = equality of opportunity

    • 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

    • 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.

  • 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

  • CBS is currently looking for a writer to helm the show.

    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 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)

    by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudsononline AT gmail DOT com> on Monday November 02, 2015 @01:50PM (#50848613) Journal
    Why not skip YASTS (Yet another star treck series) and bring back Firefly?
    • 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

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • by anyaristow ( 1448609 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @02:00PM (#50848749)

    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.

  • and made a series based on the alternate universe where th Federation was the bad guys lead by an emperor. A very different twist with a lot of potential.
  • New Star Trek TV Series Coming In 2017 to their online subscription based service only.

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @02:19PM (#50848971)

    ...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....

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:18PM (#50849557)

    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?"

If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke

Working...