'Star Trek: Discovery' Gets September Premiere Date On CBS & CBS All Access, Season 1 Split In Two (deadline.com) 243
Nellie Andreeva, writing for Deadline: Star Trek: Discovery will debut Sunday, September 24, with a special broadcast premiere on the CBS TV network airing 8:30-9:30 PM. The first as well as the second episode of the sci-fi series will be available on-demand on CBS All Access immediately following the broadcast premiere, with subsequent new episodes released on All Access each Sunday. Originally slated for a January 2017 premiere, Star Trek: Discovery's debut was first pushed to May and then to fall 2017. At CBS' upfront presentation, the company announced that Star Trek: Discovery's first-season order had been increased from 13 to 15 episodes. The expanded season now will be split into two. The first eight episodes will run Sundays from September 24 through November 5. The season then will resume with the second chapter in January 2018. The break also will allow the show more time for postproduction on latter episodes.
Captain's Log, Stardate 43125.8 (Score:2, Funny)
We have entered a spectacular binary star system in the Kavis Alpha sector. Doesn't this asshole star realize gender isn't binary?
Yet another trek (Score:2)
I hated the Abrams movies, but looks like they're avoiding that direction. The question for me is, is there really anything left that's new to say in the way of Star Trek stories, or will they just recycle old stories with new spiffy efffects.
Re:Yet another trek (Score:5, Insightful)
The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?
Re:Yet another trek (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish CBS would get on the ball and put their channel On Demand stuff like the rest of the networks like ABC, NBC have, on the existing streaming services like Playstation VUE...Sling, DirectTVNOW...etc
I"m certainly NOT going to pay extra $6 just to get them on there, not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
i am sure they have forseen this and will only allow you to watch 1 episode a month
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re: (Score:2)
The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?
Especially if you already have CBS in your cable tier. That's why when I come back from the road to find I have missed a CBS episode, I have to Kodi it instead of being able to watch it on CBS streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
It's free to air in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that's only the pilot episode.
Re: (Score:3)
That won't go over very well... But if the pilot's good, I'll catch it when it makes it to Prime or Netflix in the US maybe 5 years from now. I'm in no rush.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I could probably wait until the end of the second part of the season to sign up for a free trial and watch it all in one go.
At worst, I pay $5.99 - not much more than a movie rental before I cancel.
Re: (Score:3)
The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?
Well if you are patient you don't have to pay anything (and can still be 'legal' about it). Just wait for the season to wrap up in winter 2018 and sign up for a free 7 day trial. Binge the show that week, cancel, then next year do the same thing with a new email address.
OK that last part might be a bit sketchy, but still...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or just wait 24h and go on any streaming sites.
(and can still be 'legal' about it)
Re: (Score:3)
You could wait for it to finish and then watch it all in one month for $6. Or just pirate it. If you weren't going to pay anyway then they didn't lose anything.
Re:Yet another trek (Score:4, Insightful)
People have been asking "have all the good stories already been told" for centuries, yet new ground continues to be broken.
"Star Trek" is merely a starting point - and a limited one at that given that this is a brand new series. I'm sure they've got plenty of opportunity for good stores. That doesn't mean they'll deliver - it could be crap - but the chance is there.
Then again I've always been of the opinion that even bad sci-fi can still be worth watching. I actually mildly enjoyed watching Andromeda . . .
Re: (Score:2)
yet new ground continues to be broken.
maybe I'm too lazy to watch any new stuff, some of it I just don't get (maybe I'm too old). It seems to me when Roddenberry came up with his ST idea, it was new stuff. Space travel was new, having a command staff where not everyone is a white guy whose native language is english was new.
Previous decades the big thing for TV and movies was westerns. Someone wrote in 1957 TV Guide there are only seven plots to a western. I wonder for space stuff, how many plots?
Re: (Score:2)
42.
Re: (Score:2)
I though there were 6 type A subplots and 9 type B sublots, so to get one of each in your story. You therefore multiply six by nine to get the total.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe I'm too lazy to watch any new stuff, some of it I just don't get (maybe I'm too old). It seems to me when Roddenberry came up with his ST idea, it was new stuff. Space travel was new, having a command staff where not everyone is a white guy whose native language is english was new.
Other than its progressive surface and the fact that it was in space, TOS really wasn't much more than a spaghetti western, in space. It was pretty much just an action series, with the bad guy of the week, and pretty much completely episodic. People forget that, and imho, the Abrams moves are a return to what Trek originally was.
It wasn't until TNG and the later movies that things started to become pseudo-philosophical and the like, with the long drawn out conversations around conference tables and what not
Re: Yet another trek (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet another trek (Score:5, Insightful)
When I rewatched Enterprise (or rather rewatched the first two and a half seasons and the rest of season 3 and 4 that I had simply abandoned), I found, quite sadly, that there were some rather good episodes, and some of the best came in the last season after the production team and writers clearly knew the show was dead. But it's always about two things; does the crew jive with the audience, and is there enough good stories to outweigh the bad ones?
Obviously there are going to be rehashings, that's sort of inevitable consider the sheer volume of Trek episodes and movies out there, but if they can find a new angle then even a rehashed story can become interesting.
I'll say this about it. Star Trek Continues has demonstrated how good writing and a love for the source material can produce some outstanding SciFi, so if some fans working with fundraised cash can put together some pretty goddamned good science fiction episodes, surely a big studio can do the same if it wants to.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I found the same when I watched Enterprise for the first time several years ago; it had some really good episodes. The best ones were in seasons 2 and 4. Season 3 was annoying however because of the whole Xindi arc which was obviously inspired by 9/11 and brought in a bunch of militarism that was absent in the first 2 seasons. And season 4 had an excellent 2-part set of episodes set in the Mirror Universe, which BTW had an excellent intro (unlike the rest of the Enterprise show; the opening intro an
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the worst parts of Enterprise. That bad Rod Stewart-imitation theme song was just terrible, and the "remix" somehow found a way to make it worse. They could have taken any of the action incidental music and patched together a better theme song.
Re:Yet another trek (Score:5, Insightful)
The abrams movies weren't star trek, they were just shitty action movies with star trek character names and branding. they litterally through all of star trek in the garbage to create that steaming pile.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Read some scifi. They've **always** be rehashed stories from before.
Star Trek fan but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, I'm going to pirate at least the first episodes.
I subscribed to HBO Go basically just for Game of Thrones, though their catalog is far, FAR more appealing than CBS's.
3-4 episodes a month for $6 comes down to a buck or two an episode. That seems worthwhile, right?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
oh god it cast a female and black lead. SO PC. I AM SO OFFENDED. i am going to throw a tantrum on slashfuck because i am a sexist pig who deserves a kick in the balls from a hot dominatrix in leather.
As a lifelong Star Trek fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, in a post BSG world, Star Trek is going to look pretty hokey if they don't really have their writing game in order. And DS9 was the last Star Trek series to have good writing for its time, and that was 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, in a post BSG world, Star Trek is going to look pretty hokey if they don't really have their writing game in order
Called it--from now on the appearance of angels in the finale and imaginary spirit advisors are to be the hallmarks of good writing. Anything else will be considered just hokey.
(In all serious, I love Star Trek, Ron Moore, and 99% of BSG)
Re: (Score:3)
BSG pretty much put a bullet in the idea of Star Trek as the best ship-based SciFi franchise.
You have got to be kidding. While I heartily agree that the BSG miniseries and first 2 seasons were fantastic, it quickly went down the drain, starting with the occupation of New Caprica, and especially later with the "Final 5" and the ridiculous series ending. That all really kinda ruined BSG for me, especially as far as being "the best ship-based Sci-Fi franchise". Unfortunately, unlike the Matrix movies where
Re:As a lifelong Star Trek fan (Score:4, Informative)
When BSG was airing, Ron Moore routinely did a pod cast on each episode - he makes it painfully clear in those pod casts that the "Final Five" were not a thing at all until the writers noticed that the fan base had cottoned onto these missing five humanoid cylons and started writing them into the core of the story.
Thats why they had to fudge it at the end to account for the screwed up numbering (we had numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 named early on - of course they had set apart the five so it would make no sense to slot them in as 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12, so they slotted "Daniel" in as 7 and all of a sudden we went from 12 models to 13).
That right there ruined BSG for me - it became obvious that there was no overall story arc planned out, it was being made up as they went.
Re: (Score:3)
My general feeling for the "quality" of BSG -- absolutely excellent for the first 1.5 seasons, culminating in the Pegasus storyline. After the Pegasus arc, Season 2 floundered and stumbled a bit until the end, but the end of Season 2 was excellent, and I think the New Caprica storyline and the exodus was extremely well done as well. Once they escaped New Caprica, the series floundered a lot more and nosedived, never to recover. Even while I liked overall the season 3 ending, the final five thing was a bit r
I'll reserve judgement, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Desgrassi Jr. High cast (sans the kid in the wheelchair) is not exactly filling me with confidence. Are they making a show to tell a good story--or to advance a very specific political/social agenda?
But I'll reserve judgement, out of respect for the Battlestar Galactica reboot, which I also expected to suck but which turned out great.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on the fence about Discovery--I hope it's good, but I'm afraid it will be more trash.
I am scared about the "diversity" factor as well, but with a major caveat. Star Trek has ALWAYS had a great deal of diversity (a black woman, a Russian, and a Japanese guy on the bridge crew in the 60s; female captain, black captain, etc.). Diversity alone should not scare any Trek fan. What does make me nervous are some of the quotes in the media about how they are approaching diversity. IMHO Trek's diversity has histo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that if the original series came out now, these same people would be complaining bitterly about the diversity.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Star Trek always SciFi with a political/social agenda? Not a hardcore fan but that was always my take on it. Except for the movies. Especially the last three.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever Roddenberry's flaws, he really was a social justice warrior of his time, and pretty much planned Star Trek from the get-go as a means of taking on controversial issues, but using science fiction as a means of getting it past the network skittishness for not wanting to freak out the advertisers or affiliates. He had every intention of poking certain people in the eye, whether they noticed it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
His signature gives it away. There are no major Asian female characters in Star Wars. No black women. But for some reason, what matters is the representation of white males. And they have to be good guys, because there are so few examples of white male heroes for white boys to admire. If course they can't have non-white or non-male role models, that's just silly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but Roddenberry wouldn't even recognize liberalism today. Re-segregation, white male hatred/discrimination, a culture of victimhood, the demonization of masculinity, etc.? He sure as shit wouldn't see any of that as part of the Star Trek vision. Star Trek was supposed to be a universe where we had CONQUERED all of that bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think many people would recognise those things as aspect of modern liberalism. Whenever people have accused me of supporting segregation, it's because they chose not to understand what I was saying, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, Roddenberry would absolutely recognize how things today have gone in relation to his vision. It's very simple: we're in one of those mirror universes where everything's gone to shit. Captain Kirk's universe isn't the universe we're in.
(We're not in the evil-Kirk universe with the ISS Enterprise either, because that requires spaceflight. We're in some other parallel universe where humans just go extinct in the 21st or 22nd century.)
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek was supposed to be a universe where we had CONQUERED all of that bullshit.
But more importantly, it was a setting where he could snog his secretary without his wife getting upset.
Huh. I always thought it was Captian Kirk getting to hook up with all those green alien babes? Then again, it was a show of the 60's. Given all that it was quite a progressive/idealistic universe (IDIC, the lack of importance of money, replicators heralding an abundance economy, etc) - but it wasn't like liberalism/progressive thought is like in the last 20 years at all.
Re: I'll reserve judgement, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the new stuff coming out has been great! Arrival, Interstellar, Passenger, I'm forgetting a couple of others were written by real science fiction writers - Rodenberry wasn't.
You can't see it, but I'm shaking my head left and right.
Arrival was fucking stupid. We start with aliens and some interesting premise about communicating with them, but we end up with political bullshit that gets solved with time travel, telepathy, and essentially magic. The whole premise is shot when that shit happens because: Why couldn't the aliens use their time travel telepathy bullshit to help themselves? Why couldn't the aliens see / prevent the bomb? Or even more to the point, why couldn't the aliens see learning our language and then just communicate with us in out language? The whole fucking time they're sitting behind their glass barrier and watching Pam from The Office (I know it's not her) pantomime shit. The only thing missing was a Speak and Say toy. The aliens didn't do a damned thing to communicate with us, despite it being revealed that they'll need our help one day.
Interstellar? Are you fucking kidding me? It devolves into time travel and spiritual/magical wankery so fucking quickly. And the first half is more about the fucking dust bowl than it is about sci-fi. As with any time travel movie, there are plot holes out the ass. But it doesn't fucking matter, I guess, because the movie is focused on a couple of people and how they are sad and dumb. The final scenes are like they watched 2001's LSD trip and decided to try and make something that makes even less sense.
Passengers? Well that started out with some potential, at least. But it ended up being a romance/drama movie more than a sci-fi movie. I get that the dude struggled with the idea of opening someone's capsule up and all that. But once the decision was made to open one up, why did he have to choose a useless lady? I don't even remember her credentials. Oh wait - I do. She had none. She was writing a book. Maybe next time when you're browsing through all the records you'll pick a mechanic, a machinist, a tech, a security officer, or anyone who can help you fix shit. He had three problems.
1) Why did I wake up early / what's wrong with the ship?
2) How can I go back to sleep in a pod so I don't die alone?
3) How can I get through the security door?
He chose to solve problem 4 - I'm sad and lonely and haven't gotten laid in a long time.
I'm not saying problem 4 wasn't a problem that needed solving. But he could've also solved problems 1, 2, and 3 had he picked the right person (or people) to wake up. There's a lot of the hemming and hawing about not wanting to wake even a single person up because it would doom them to die on the ship and (nearly) alone. But you've got trouble in River City, son. Trouble with with a capital T. Every fucking day he spent enjoying the bar from The Shining and not working on the problem was irresponsible and, more importantly, stupid.
He had access to everyone's records. He could have found a few people with skills / clearance to help him repair/reset the pods, fix the ship, or get past the security door to wake up people with more clearance / skills to repair/reset the pods and fix the ship.
But no, he waits months (or years) to just choose Katniss Everdeen, who provides no help on the whole "shit's on fire, yo" front. And when they do get a 3rd person, the whole thing about "Oh no, they woke up and now they're doomed to die here." is still focused on Katniss instead of the new dude who is actively dying a painful, drawn out death.
I can look past the generic reactor core shit, and the ship is broke but it don't know it's broke setup. But the movie as a whole had so very little to do with sci-fi and much too much to do with romance.
As for ol' Gene Rberry, I agree. He wasn't really a sci-fi writer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Time travel is a cheap-ass way to fix a problem deus ex machina, essentially, and writing anything that centers around time travel? You're asking for disaster. You almost certainly end up painting yourself into a corner, ruining any chance of redeeming your work. That's what authors have told me, at least.
See, I think time travel can be an interesting mechanic as long as it's used properly, the rules are applied consistently, and the story is deeper than 'fix the thing'. Back to the Future gained mass appeal because it was a plot device tangential to the real theme of the movie - the fact that Marty came to realize he shared more in common with his parents than he thought. We forgave the butterfly effect problem and the motion of earth and the solar system in order to allow the rest of the story to advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Arrival was fucking stupid.
Not least because there was already a better skiffy movie with almost the same name.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you haven't seen The Empire Strikes Back.
If it comes from J.J. Abrams, give it the hairy eyeball.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you haven't seen The Empire Strikes Back.
who directed that again?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I'll have to check an updated victimhood matrix to see which is the most morally superior.
Re: (Score:3)
Which was really the whole point. Even down to the Sulu with his husband scene in the last film. It's just done very matter-of-factly. There's no attempt to editorialize it. This is just how people are in the 23rd century, apparently.
Enterprise's last real story arc was about a xenophobic lunatic who wanted to get rid of all the undesirables (in that case, non-humans), but it's pretty clear the intent here was very much to bring up anti-immigrant sentiment in the US and other Western countries after 9-11. I
How to sabotage a TV show: (Score:2)
* Add massive amounts of time between seasons!
* Take one season and split it into two!
Well done CBS!
Re: (Score:2)
* Add massive amounts of time between seasons! * Take one season and split it into two!
Well done CBS!
Sorry, you know a show with less than 3 months between seasons that airs in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
I know there was some criticism of both Breaking Bad and Mad Men splitting their last seasons, though as I recall, with BB, it was the writer's strike that forced that. Of course, I finished up watching both series via streaming, so seasons don't mean shit to me anymore.
Want to check a great StarTrek series? (Score:4, Informative)
See subject & Star Trek Continues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w/ [youtube.com] - this episode's outstanding (titled "The Fairest of them all")
* "In every revolution, there's 1 man w/ a vision" & "Who told you that?" + "YOU did..."
(These guys have REAL potential...)
APK
P.S.=> It continues (pun intended) after the StarTrek TOS episode "MIRROR, mirror" (bearded Spock & all)... apk
Re: (Score:3)
I tried to view it, but apparently youtube.com is blocked by my hosts file...
CBS? What about Netflix? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares when it releases on obscure channel in a single country - Proper question is, when does it release world-wide on Netflix?
Re: (Score:2)
obscure channel
Obscure channel? You mean the company that owns the Star Trek IP? CBS/Paramount is not obscure by any measurement.
But the originating network is going to premiere before Netflix, so it's going to be at least that date, possibly later.
Re: (Score:2)
Sry, I thought it was obvious when placed next to "single country" - no one outside of the USA can access it, so to us it's a fair bit more "obscure" than Netflix :)
Re: (Score:2)
Obscurity has nothing to do with access. They're well known. And their release pretty much defines the earliest date anyone else will have their hands on it. Netflix tends to go for simultaneous release - even when they're not the primary producer. So it is likely you'll see that.
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix has the exclusive rights to the show outside the US and Canada.
Each episode will be available in 188 countries within 24 hours from the US premiere.
You could have simply looked it up. ;)
Big Brother: Star Trek (Score:2)
Splitting it in two will also allow it to exist after the end of BBOTT 2. If BBOTT 2 doesn't happen, then pushing it to September puts part 1 after BB 19 is over as well.
In either case, I won't pay for CBS All Access without BB. One 24 hour a day show I will, one hour a week, nope.
There is nothing besides BB I would watch for free, much less pay for. I know this from experience of having All Access for BB in other years.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, CBS! How about putting previous years' BB live streams online instead of just the broadcast shows? Now that I might pay for!
"Scotty, we need to fail faster" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still watch a little bit of network TV (on Hulu, of course), but I can't remember the last time I watched anything from CBS. I am definitely not going to subscribe to something for one show that I may or may not like. Looking at their plans for this show, they seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from how TV has changed in the last decade.
Re: (Score:2)
season 1.5 on showtime after CBS All Access fails? (Score:2)
season 1.5 on showtime after CBS All Access fails?
'Streaming only', and other complaints (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was unaware they'd done that. That's horrible. It was a perfect continuation of the old series.
They should have bought it out and kept it going if they couldn't abide it's independent existence.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have bought it out and kept it going if they couldn't abide it's independent existence.
It was really going to make them look like assholes when more people watched that than their new series.
Re:'Streaming only', and other complaints (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, wow.
1: Star Trek Continues has never, to the best of my knowledge, been sued by CBS. In fact, they apparently have a pretty good relationship from what I've heard.
2: Axanar was probably a scam. Do some research on the guy behind it, and then ask yourself: where did the million bucks go? They had pro-bono representation, so it's doubtful they spent anywhere near that on their short-lived defense. They produced only a few minutes of video. And they were so flagrant about violating Trek IP that they were single-handedly responsible for CBS deciding they had to clamp down on fan productions -- and CBS could have done far, far worse than they did.
You can hate on CBS for a lot of things, but at least do it for something they deserve to be hated on for... Axanar is not so clear cut, and I have no clue where you came up with the supposed ST:C lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Skipping (Score:3)
Their Klingons don't even look like Klingons (Score:3)
I'll pass. It won't even be worth downloading a torrent off the pirate bay and will probably be another "Enterprise" joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least they didn't say "air on."
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it matter? I still "dial" my phone, despite not having seen a rotary phone since the 80's. I "turn on" the lights, despite not having an oil lamp. We still include floppy icons to mean "save" - even when half the people alive have never touched a floppy disk.
Re: (Score:2)
There's this amazing new invention called an "antenna" by which shows are streamed directly to your house, only everyone gets the same stream at the same time with no rewinds, and you get to watch it for free. There are even ads in it, too, just like most streaming!
But Sunday night live-watching for me is owned by Fox (at least if they don't keep wedging live-action stinkers in), so a computer will have to download the antenna stream for me (again, just like on the internets!), and let me watch it later. N
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention one other thing. I have been watching (or trying to) a Sunday night show on CBS, that being Elementary. They have an infuriating habit of letting professional sports run overtime (particularly handegg, which runs over the time slot about 90% of the time, and yes I know about the Heidi Incident, this is with normal games so they need to start making realistic time slots), and delaying the rest of the line-up. This means that if you wanted to record the shows on a DVR, then FUCK YOU, becau
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem; the people with the least internet access are also the people with the least broadcast TV access. I can get zero stations in at my house. The situation is so bad where I live that we actually have a tv rebroadcaster here... hmm, I'm pretty sure they're finally gone now, but they were still going in 2006 [record-bee.com]. You'd pay them for TV signals, and they'd rebroadcast a pretty fair selection of them to your house so that you could actually get them, with a decoder box to stop everyone else getting
Re: (Score:2)
"Star Trek Enterprise, I just wanted to die"
There were a few good episodes. Not even a season's worth but a few.
Mirror Darkly 1 and 2 come to mind. Twilight wasn't that bad either.
Both those episodes were basically took place outside the dreck being served up as the season 2-4 plot line so they could actually tell some neat stories.
Re:After what corporations did to... (Score:4)
The problem was that Enterprise was utterly botched. They had the whole pre-Federation story to tell, and wasted an entire season on the stupid Xindi thing, and had the idiotic Temporal War meta-arc throughout the first three seasons, actually right into the fourth. It wasn't until the fourth, with the series' already on the chopping block that they finally decided to show how the Federation was founded.
Enterprise actually had quite a few good episodes, and I actually thought Tucker, in particular, was an outstanding character who invoked the Montgomery Scott style of "Don't fuck with my ship!" attitude. But Enterprise squandered so many opportunities because Berman and Braga just couldn't get themselves out of the DS9-Voyager headspace, and littered what should have been a new start with the storytelling refuse of the two previous series.
A proper Enterprise would have avoided big multi-episode story arcs for the most part, modeling itself more on TOS and TNG. I get that you cannot reasonably have every episode about the Vulcans, Andorians, Tellerites, etc., but I finally abandoned the whole thing somewhere in the middle of Season 3 because it seemed to be suffering the same kind nonsensical storytelling that I found so grating in Voyager. But by that point Berman and Braga had developed their cookie-cutter approach to scripts and story arcs, and they were going to stick with it come hell or high water.
Re: (Score:2)
The Xindi arc was the best one they had. Real exploration of the unknown. Season 4 was where it went down hill, leading to cancellation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we effectively get an 8 episode first season delayed to Sept 2017 and a 7 episode second season season in Jan 2018.
This isn't even unusual for a fall premiere. Why call this a split season? All fall shows pretty much go on hiatus for November through December and come back in January after the holidays.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering one of the original concepts of Star Trek was to delve into controversial social issues, how would, for instance, episodes on LGBTQ rights be out of place. This is franchise that arguably gave at least the United States its first televised interracial kiss, and a franchise where tolerance for the "other", however that might be defined in any given episode, was considered one of the highest ideals of the Federation.
Re: (Score:2)
With Trek there typically isn't continuous focus on any romantic relationships; they would either involve a recurring guest, or the characters would be separated frequently enough by circumstance to allow other stories to be told. Hoping this one keeps that trend.
Re: (Score:2)
If it isn't controversial, why do some posters here not want to hear anything about it?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think posters have a problem watching a show that includes it, just like people watched a show that included a black woman on the bridge, and later a black captain on a space station, and then a woman commanding a starship. Going to LGBTQ stuff would be par for the course for Trek. What people DO have an issue with is that the people putting this show together haven't come up with anything better to say about the show than that it will include these issues. That screams "We don't have a good story t
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, LGBTQ issues are controversial.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for demonstrating my point that LGBTQ is controversial.
Re: (Score:2)
"first televised interracial kiss" No, that's a myth. Star Trek did NOT give us the first interracial kiss.
The first known interracial kiss on television was in a British broadcast of the play, "You In Your Small Corner", which aired in the UK in 1962. The first interracial kiss on American network television was in the episode "Plato's Stepchildren," which aired on 22 Nov 1968, when Captain Kirk (William Shatner) kissed Lieutenant Uhura (Nichelle Nichols). The Star Trek kiss was widely believed to be the first interracial kiss on any television broadcast ever, until the "rediscovery" in 2015 of the British bro
Re: (Score:2)
I did say:
The fact is that Roddenberry had no problem directly invoking controversial topics when he wanted to, so considering some still find gay people some horrifying and awful thing that should be kept off the TV, well, that's not so different as to how some people felt in even in the mid and late 1960s that any interracial sexual contact was horrifying and awful.
For chrissake, people were freaking out ab