Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
- Thread starter mkstewartesq
- Start date
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
"Oh, and you won’t be able to fast-forward through the commercials. You heard me. Commercials."
:facepalm :facepalm
Pay to watch commercials? Sounds like fun!
"Oh, and you won’t be able to fast-forward through the commercials. You heard me. Commercials."
:facepalm :facepalm
Pay to watch commercials? Sounds like fun!
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Isn't that the same as Hulu? You have a sub but you still have commercials.
I saw the trialer peek for this and it looks like they are trying to distance themselves from the movies. "New Worlds, new crews, new blah blah blah"
Isn't that the same as Hulu? You have a sub but you still have commercials.
I saw the trialer peek for this and it looks like they are trying to distance themselves from the movies. "New Worlds, new crews, new blah blah blah"
Riceball
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
But at least with Hulu there's Hulu Plus which gets rid of most of the commercials, for the few shows that do have commercials there's only 2 per episode, 1 in the beginning and one at the end.
Isn't that the same as Hulu? You have a sub but you still have commercials.
I saw the trailer peek for this and it looks like they are trying to distance themselves from the movies. "New Worlds, new crews, new blah blah blah"
But at least with Hulu there's Hulu Plus which gets rid of most of the commercials, for the few shows that do have commercials there's only 2 per episode, 1 in the beginning and one at the end.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
They aren't guessing. CBS all access is a thing now. You can sign up now if you like.
They aren't guessing. CBS all access is a thing now. You can sign up now if you like.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Seems unclear so far. Some sites are saying all access EXCLUSIVELY, but just poking around a bit I have3n't seen CBS actually say that. Possibly it'll hit All Access first, then things like itunes a little later, like HBO does.
Seems unclear so far. Some sites are saying all access EXCLUSIVELY, but just poking around a bit I have3n't seen CBS actually say that. Possibly it'll hit All Access first, then things like itunes a little later, like HBO does.
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Other than some video game quality graphics and a new logo, the trailer didn't show anything.
Other than some video game quality graphics and a new logo, the trailer didn't show anything.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Or maybe not Prime Universe?
http://1701news.com/node/1209/treks-prime-universe-closed-business.html
Or maybe not Prime Universe?
http://1701news.com/node/1209/treks-prime-universe-closed-business.html
Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
If the new series is in the JJ-verse then I am done with Trek. (except for TOS, TNG and DS9 and movies 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8)
If the new series is in the JJ-verse then I am done with Trek. (except for TOS, TNG and DS9 and movies 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8)
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Yep. I can only feel the same. They can suck it. JJ Verse is not or will ever be Star Trek to me.
They are idiots if they double down on that crap on TV... AND expect people to pay.
I fully think the TV audience wants connections to the rich legacy of the various series.
Yep. I can only feel the same. They can suck it. JJ Verse is not or will ever be Star Trek to me.
They are idiots if they double down on that crap on TV... AND expect people to pay.
I fully think the TV audience wants connections to the rich legacy of the various series.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
I like how this article mentions that it's been 12 years since anything was filmed in the prime universe as though that should a point to take seriously. Might as well say that all new Star Wars material must take place before Episode IV on the grounds that the current generation of fans have only known the prequel era of Star Wars since 1999. And the original trilogy ended 33 years ago, so how does 12 > 33?
Let's also add a bit more perspective on that Alex Kurtzman bit. Along with Roberto Orci, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk and JJ Abrams, these five individuals were not only responsible for creating NuTrek, they were also known as the 'Supreme Court'. The group who made all the major decisions in NuTrek. After STID, some of them called it quits. Bryan Burk, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman moved onto other things while Roberto Orci and JJ Abrams remained onboard with NuTrek. Now here is where the "Alex Kurtzman is onboard so it MUST be part of NuTrek" is nonsense. If there's anyone who controls the NuTrek universe, it's JJ Abrams himself. Guess who is not producing the new Star Trek series? And while we're at it, guess who is not writing or producing Star Trek Beyond? How can this new series take place in the NuTrek universe when none of the people working on their own Star Trek projects are working together?
Here's another nice bit. This is not the first time that Alex Kurtzman has worked on franchise, both in movie and television form that have had their movie and television show counterparts not take place in the same universe. After being done done with the Transformers movies, both Alex and Bob moved on to Transformers Prime, a television series that does NOT take place in Michael Bay's Transformers universe. Did anyone say 'Michael Bay's Transformers movies are super popular, so the show must take place in that universe'? No. That same thing is still happening with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, G.I. Joe and even the DC Universe. If DC can have two universes sharing the same characters, Star Trek should have no trouble doing the same.
I like how this article mentions that it's been 12 years since anything was filmed in the prime universe as though that should a point to take seriously. Might as well say that all new Star Wars material must take place before Episode IV on the grounds that the current generation of fans have only known the prequel era of Star Wars since 1999. And the original trilogy ended 33 years ago, so how does 12 > 33?
Let's also add a bit more perspective on that Alex Kurtzman bit. Along with Roberto Orci, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk and JJ Abrams, these five individuals were not only responsible for creating NuTrek, they were also known as the 'Supreme Court'. The group who made all the major decisions in NuTrek. After STID, some of them called it quits. Bryan Burk, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman moved onto other things while Roberto Orci and JJ Abrams remained onboard with NuTrek. Now here is where the "Alex Kurtzman is onboard so it MUST be part of NuTrek" is nonsense. If there's anyone who controls the NuTrek universe, it's JJ Abrams himself. Guess who is not producing the new Star Trek series? And while we're at it, guess who is not writing or producing Star Trek Beyond? How can this new series take place in the NuTrek universe when none of the people working on their own Star Trek projects are working together?
Here's another nice bit. This is not the first time that Alex Kurtzman has worked on franchise, both in movie and television form that have had their movie and television show counterparts not take place in the same universe. After being done done with the Transformers movies, both Alex and Bob moved on to Transformers Prime, a television series that does NOT take place in Michael Bay's Transformers universe. Did anyone say 'Michael Bay's Transformers movies are super popular, so the show must take place in that universe'? No. That same thing is still happening with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, G.I. Joe and even the DC Universe. If DC can have two universes sharing the same characters, Star Trek should have no trouble doing the same.
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
What it all boils down to is that the prime universe had staying power for a reason. The JJ verse will burn itself out simply because there is no depth, no originality, and no connection between the characters. It's generic fluff with a group of young hotheads who bitch at each other, get put in a terrible situation, and then come up with a hastily and poorly thought out plan that will get them out of a jam. It doesn't matter if it involves curing death or beaming to the next galaxy as long as it's exciting. They can just forgot the illogic of the previous movie the next time around and play fast and loose all over again. That is not what the world needs but unfortunately it appears that's what the movie going chowderheads want at the moment.
What it all boils down to is that the prime universe had staying power for a reason. The JJ verse will burn itself out simply because there is no depth, no originality, and no connection between the characters. It's generic fluff with a group of young hotheads who bitch at each other, get put in a terrible situation, and then come up with a hastily and poorly thought out plan that will get them out of a jam. It doesn't matter if it involves curing death or beaming to the next galaxy as long as it's exciting. They can just forgot the illogic of the previous movie the next time around and play fast and loose all over again. That is not what the world needs but unfortunately it appears that's what the movie going chowderheads want at the moment.
astroboy
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
How on earth are you supposed to build a believable universe if everything is a destructive crisis all the time. It works for a summer blockbuster, but not of a weekly series
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
Not only that, but the JJ verse is too upsetting. It's full of mass destruction.
Not only that, but the JJ verse is too upsetting. It's full of mass destruction. Everywhere you turn, planets are blowing up and species are going extinct.
How on earth are you supposed to build a believable universe if everything is a destructive crisis all the time. It works for a summer blockbuster, but not of a weekly series
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
Zombie_61
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
That being said, Paramount rebooted the franchise in an effort to create the next generation of fans, so it would make more sense for them to base this new series on the current incarnation rather than base it on Trek that existed before most of the new fans were born. You might even say it's logical.
Face it folks, Paramount no longer cares about those of us who have been watching Trek for the last 50 years; they're only interested in the people who will keep it going for the next 50 years.
I fully think the vast majority of the TV audience couldn't care less about Star Trek. They want the Kardashians, not the Cardassians.
That being said, Paramount rebooted the franchise in an effort to create the next generation of fans, so it would make more sense for them to base this new series on the current incarnation rather than base it on Trek that existed before most of the new fans were born. You might even say it's logical.
Face it folks, Paramount no longer cares about those of us who have been watching Trek for the last 50 years; they're only interested in the people who will keep it going for the next 50 years.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
When I say TV Audience I certainly mean the multi-generational Trek fans that watched the various series. Those are the people that would most likely tune in.
When I say TV Audience I certainly mean the multi-generational Trek fans that watched the various series. Those are the people that would most likely tune in.
Similar threads
- Locked
