New Trek to come to TV

[Jim of WVa]

That seems to be a recurring opinion for you. You think Star Trek is somehow "gay". Whatevs!

The android robots shown in the TOS episode I, Mudd were about as advanced as Data was in TNG.

When does a TNG character ever show real emotion?

How does an economy work with no money? Do not say that they were rich; that does not make a bit of sense.

When do two TNG characters have a difference that is not solved in 42 minutes of screen time?

Name one navy that allows officers and crew to bring their families.

Why does the only married couple on the Enterprise act as if they are not sexually attracted to one another?

Why does the technobabble on the bridge of the Enterprise sound as if it were written by people who have been told some of the language of science but have absolutely no native fucking knowledge of science whatsoever?

I could go on, but does this not demonstrate that TNG is much more "gay" than merely having sex with someone of the same sex?

The style of the song is like some of the 1950s pop tunes by vocal groups, but people in the 1950s would have received jail terms, if such a recording made it to air.

 

[Overmind One]

The android robots shown in the TOS episode I, Mudd were about as advanced as Data was in TNG.

True. But they did not have emotions, and they were built using technology far advanced. Mudd just took it over to create the new ones and give them new programming.

When does a TNG character ever show real emotion?

Really? Picard did on several occasions, as did Troi and Geordi. Many interstitial characters throughout the series provided that. It is not as important in a scifi show as it seems to be today.

How does an economy work with no money? Do not say that they were rich; that does not make a bit of sense.

EASILY. Supply and demand is a basic reality of life on earth. None of the civilizations before Greece used money and they built entire cities and systems of government and fed hundreds of thousands of people. When people come together and share the resources, the entire community is strengthened and motivated to keep it healthy. Money is completely worthless. It is a construct which allows those who have more of it to control more resources. But the system itself is rigged to create never-ending debt and it will not continue.

When do two TNG characters have a difference that is not solved in 42 minutes of screen time?

When there are two-parters. Star Trek is episodic for television. Episodic is GOOD. It allows anyone to come in at any time and enjoy it episode by episode. Serialized drama is not necessary in scifi, although it can make it appealing to drama fans.

Name one navy that allows officers and crew to bring their families.

Name one Navy which has ships which explore as well as defend. I do agree about the families. I do not see why people would be allowed to have their families onboard a starship which is also a military flagship. But several times they have described the Enterprise as primarily a ship of exploration in TNG.

Why does the only married couple on the Enterprise act as if they are not sexually attracted to one another?

?? Which couple?

Why does the technobabble on the bridge of the Enterprise sound as if it were written by people who have been told some of the language of science but have absolutely no native fucking knowledge of science whatsoever?

It's science FICTION. That is why there is quadro-triticale instead of triticale (wheat). That is why there is psilocynene and transporter pattern buffers (like the print buffers in a printer). I don't see a problem with their scifi license there. The real flubs were the Q, the Binars and some of the other races they encountered which seemed completely contrived for the episode.

I could go on, but does this not demonstrate that TNG is much more "gay" than merely having sex with someone of the same sex?

Gay as an adjective? Oh. I thought only teens used it in that way. So then what sort of scifi did you watch in the 1970s and 1980s and the 1990s? What would be a scifi show from our era which you don't consider "gay"?

The style of the song is like some of the 1950s pop tunes by vocal groups, but people in the 1950s would have received jail terms, if such a recording made it to air.

Which song? The Zappa tune or the Star Trek march tune?

 

[Jim of WVa]

...
When there are two-parters. Star Trek is episodic for television. Episodic is GOOD. It allows anyone to come in at any time and enjoy it episode by episode. Serialized drama is not necessary in scifi, although it can make it appealing to drama fans.

Episodic is bad.

Name one Navy which has ships which explore as well as defend. I do agree about the families. I do not see why people would be allowed to have their families onboard a starship which is also a military flagship. But several times they have described the Enterprise as primarily a ship of exploration in TNG.

British navy of the 18th and 19th centuries.

?? Which couple?

The only married couple. The O'Brien's.

It's science FICTION. That is why there is quadro-triticale instead of triticale (wheat). That is why there is psilocynene and transporter pattern buffers (like the print buffers in a printer). I don't see a problem with their scifi license there. The real flubs were the Q, the Binars and some of the other races they encountered which seemed completely contrived for the episode.

I do not suffer foolish writers gladly.

Gay as an adjective? Oh. I thought only teens used it in that way. So then what sort of scifi did you watch in the 1970s and 1980s and the 1990s? What would be a scifi show from our era which you don't consider "gay"?

Babylon 5, Firefly.

...Which song? The Zappa tune or the Star Trek march tune?

What I said is only true for the Zappa tune.

 

[Overmind One]

Episodic is bad.

Really? So why did you like Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis (assuming you did). Babylon was both episodic and serialized but it is a one-off so far.

British navy of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I do not count these because every "exploration" (actually reconnaissance) ended up in invasion and conquest of the "discovered" lands. Exploration was driven by a search for riches and resources, not for scientific advancement.

The only married couple. The O'Brien's.

Okay here I agree with you 100%. They were such a non-married acting "married" couple that I had forgotten about them! Did you like Voyager then? B'Elanna and Tom did act like a married couple. There was a lot of emotion from every core actor, even Tuvok the pure Vulcan. In many ways, Voyager was closer to TOS than any of the newer era Trek shows.

I do not suffer foolish writers gladly.

To date, Star Trek has included more actual scientific principles in the show than any other scifi TV show ever aired. Many scientific credits have been given in TNG episodes. It sure beats the Force or Goa'uld.

Babylon 5, Firefly.

Touche, but Firefly was a drama and not science fiction. Babylon 5 stands alone. What did you think of Deep Space Nine?

What I said is only true for the Zappa tune.

I never knew that tune existed! Funny as hell.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Deep Space Nine was a ripoff of Babylon 5.

 

[Overmind One]

Deep Space Nine was a ripoff of Babylon 5.

THAT is why I asked you if you liked it. It was literally a ripoff. Even the characters. Still, if you liked Babylon 5, then DS9 should have been to your liking as well. No?

 

[Jim of WVa]

THAT is why I asked you if you liked it. It was literally a ripoff. Even the characters. Still, if you liked Babylon 5, then DS9 should have been to your liking as well. No?

DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show.

 

[Overmind One]

DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show.

Mine was Voyager, with DS9 running neck and neck. What about Enterprise? To me, that was more about drama and loose serialization (outside of the story arcs). The drama took precedence over the science. I thought that the show was miscast. Scott Bacula does not do Starfleet Captains well. T'Pol was hot and her character was intriguing, but I would rather her be other than Vulcan. They were acting as though the Vulcans had not yet reached the state of Logic as a species until the time of Enterprise, when it was actually thousands of years earlier (per Spock of TOS). Even the Vulcans of Zephram Cochran's time in First Contact had logical Vulcans who came out of it. Why did they spray that skintight suit on her other than to make her especially tasty? Not Vulcan.

So, what are your thoughts about an Abramsverse Trek TV show?

 

[heisenberg]

It is fun to watch the ships, the aliens, the locales and the stuff they have moving around in the background. But the story is as shallow as a rain puddle. Like it was originally intended, it is a children's story packaged in a way "the whole family can enjoy". It is the equivalent of a visual campfire story. Having said that, I like watching them but I hardly find it engaging on an intellectual level. If I could not see what was going on visually, the dialogue would not keep me interested.

Trek, however, has a universe it can draw from. NuTrek has disconnected from that in a huge way by making the new Abramsverse (created by Kurtzman and Orci) into a simpleminded frat row. Uhura now has girlfriend sessions with her roommate (why does she have a roommate on earth? No space for everyone? Even Reg had his own pad with his cat.). And Spock is her boyfriend so whatever they do together is now a couples activity instead of professional. She is allowed to leave her station to give Spock goodbye kisses in the transporter room? Mkay.

Trek is far from flawless though. There are episodes that do make you cringe at times and are soapy and the first season of tng was bad.

I wish I had a reason to believe that this series was going to be good, but there is nothing about it that looks promising. The writers alone ruin it. Then there is the charging for viewing thing. Just LOL!. It will be online at eztv the same night it airs. I ain't payin shit to watch this crap.

What's eztv?

 

[Overmind One]

Trek is far from flawless though. There are episodes that do make you cringe at times and are soapy and the first season of tng was bad.

For me this is ANY episode involving the Q. It seemed that all of the episodes involving Deanna were soapy and emotional and sometimes involved romance.

What's eztv?

Eztv is the source of any TV show you want to watch. They have all of them, current (no later than next day), and that includes anything on TV including the paid channels. I guarantee they will publish the Trek series there even if it is on a paid channel. The short answer is that it is a source for pirated shows. It's an outlaw like Pirate Bay.

 

[shavedape]

DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show.

Donkey balls -- DS9 sucked them.

RE: the O'Briens. They sucked donkey balls too. Big ones.

 

[Joelist]

Donkey balls -- DS9 sucked them.

RE: the O'Briens. They sucked donkey balls too. Big ones.

Agreed.

I did a thread somewhere in here where I explained why I think that DS9 was actually the place where Trek ran off the rails. And the reasons why were the dark tone (not a good thing for Star Trek which in every other show always had a more optimistic underlying tone), shipping (the first time in Trek wholesale shipping occurred) and illogical stories among other things.

 

[heisenberg]

wired wrote a very good article on the new trek.

What the New Star Trek Show Needs in Order to Triumph

Keith DeCandido on crew size:

“One other thing I would like to see—and it probably won’t happen, but I really, really, really want to see it—is a ship that only has like 40 people on it. One of the most frustrating things to me is that we’ve got this ship with—I think initially Voyager had 250 people on it, the original Enterprise had 430 people, the Enterprise D has a thousand people on it, and it’s like, for crying out loud, you’ve got all these people on the ship and the same seven people do everything. It would be nice to have a smaller ship [where] everybody knows everybody else, everybody’s working together, and you don’t feel like there’s a whole bunch of extraneous people who spend their time wandering the corridors and not actually doing anything important.”

John Joseph Adams on CBS All Access:

“It makes a certain amount of sense. Star Trek fans and science fiction nerds are going to go and find it wherever it is. If we have to subscribe to some new service, I mean, we’re going to watch our Star Trek. We’re not going to be kept away from our Star Trek because of a $6 monthly fee. At least, for the first couple episodes, and then if it sucks we’re going to bail, and then we’ll tell everyone how much it sucks, and then they’ll rue the day. … The thing that scares me about this is that it’s so important for Star Trek. If this doesn’t succeed, we’re never going to see another Star Trekshow for forever.”

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/geeks-guide-star-trek/

 

[Overmind One]

wired wrote a very good article on the new trek.

What the New Star Trek Show Needs in Order to Triumph



http://www.wired.com/2015/11/geeks-guide-star-trek/

They really want to make that money, don't they? If this doesn’t succeed, we’re never going to see another Star Trekshow for forever



That reminds me of Brad Wright saying that if people did not watch Stargate Universe, that Stargate would be gone forever. Sorry, but no! Paramount will sell the rights if they think the property is worthless. Or, they will license them to somebody who wants to do a reboot of some sort. Right now, CBS is already making money from Star Trek Continues, from Star Trek New Voyages, from countless toy manufacturers of TOS figurines and toys, to licensing prop replicas, etc. The fan made stuff is equal to or approaching the TV production values in some of this stuff.

The truth is that I really want NuTrek to fizzle out. I want the new movies to fail because of how they are written, or for somebody new to take the franchise back towards it's center. I want to dump the new universe and go back to an updated version of the old one. I want Vulcan back. I want science to come back into play. This TV show is going to suck if it is like the NuTrek movies which have come out so far. And they have Justin Lin doing the next one? He is a great action guy, not so much science fiction.

 

[shavedape]

I love the scare tactic of "No-more-Trek-EVAH!!!" as a way to con people. It's so lame.

The bottom line is give us a good product first of all. Screw the stupid subscription gimmicks. Just give us a good show. The rest will work itself out.

 

[heisenberg]

They really want to make that money, don't they? If this doesn’t succeed, we’re never going to see another Star Trekshow for forever



That reminds me of Brad Wright saying that if people did not watch Stargate Universe, that Stargate would be gone forever. Sorry, but no! Paramount will sell the rights if they think the property is worthless. Or, they will license them to somebody who wants to do a reboot of some sort. Right now, CBS is already making money from Star Trek Continues, from Star Trek New Voyages, from countless toy manufacturers of TOS figurines and toys, to licensing prop replicas, etc. The fan made stuff is equal to or approaching the TV production values in some of this stuff.

The truth is that I really want NuTrek to fizzle out. I want the new movies to fail because of how they are written, or for somebody new to take the franchise back towards it's center. I want to dump the new universe and go back to an updated version of the old one. I want Vulcan back. I want science to come back into play. This TV show is going to suck if it is like the NuTrek movies which have come out so far. And they have Justin Lin doing the next one? He is a great action guy, not so much science fiction.

I love the scare tactic of "No-more-Trek-EVAH!!!" as a way to con people. It's so lame.

The bottom line is give us a good product first of all. Screw the stupid subscription gimmicks. Just give us a good show. The rest will work itself out.

They do have some merit though but I could see where you guys are coming from. However, Stargate won't ever see a rebirth on TV. The movies I am calling it now are going to suck because the original creator although created a nice mythology, Brad Wright, Robert C Cooper and Joseph Mallozzi contribution is how the franchise got popular and this is factual and the original authors are just jealous that they couldn't cash in on them taking the franchise to the next level. Only people desperate enough are going to bother with the movies. Stargate works better as a tv series than a Movie and it's the same with Star Trek. I agree that this subscription is bullshit, but nothing you can do.

If star trek is no longer interesting on the small screen, it will be shelved for another 50 years perhaps.By that time, I'll be in a wheel chair and saying, "back in my day"....

 

[Overmind One]

They do have some merit though but I could see where you guys are coming from. However, Stargate won't ever see a rebirth on TV. The movies I am calling it now are going to suck because the original creator although created a nice mythology, Brad Wright, Robert C Cooper and Joseph Mallozzi contribution is how the franchise got popular and this is factual and the original authors are just jealous that they couldn't cash in on them taking the franchise to the next level. Only people desperate enough are going to bother with the movies. Stargate works better as a tv series than a Movie and it's the same with Star Trek. I agree that this subscription is bullshit, but nothing you can do.

Well wait...Emmerich and Devlin was asking for a sequel to Stargate, and Showtime was willing to pay for the rights to make it into a series. The rights were purchased and Brad Wright and Glassener took over against the wishes of the original creators. I am one of those who was hooked from the movie first, and SG-1 seemed dumbed down to me when it came out. Brad and Glassener and Cooper gave us some great Stargate, but that was not a reflection on any failing of Emmerich and Devlin. Brad and those other names you gave actually killed TV Stargate with no help from Emmerich and Devlin. They made it popular as a TV show, but they also killed it. I personally am looking forward to the Emmerich and Devlin reboot and I hope that they get to hold on to the property if it ever comes to TV.

If star trek is no longer interesting on the small screen, it will be shelved for another 50 years perhaps.By that time, I'll be in a wheel chair and saying, "back in my day"....

I doubt this. The studio (CBS) is well aware of the fan angst regarding this new Trek. I believe the reason it is going to pay TV is because that is the way ST: TNG helped launch the UPN network. I think that if not enough people pay for this NuTrek thing, that CBS will fund one of the other many Trek productions they are already licensing. It would not make any sense to shelve it when there are still Trek movies in the pipeline at Paramount. Remember, the licensing is split. CBS has TV and Paramount has the films. I think that CBS is going NuTrek because of the movies. We already know that the NuTrek movie cast will not be in the TV show. We do not even know if the new show will have an Enterprise

 

[heisenberg]

Well wait...Emmerich and Devlin was asking for a sequel to Stargate, and Showtime was willing to pay for the rights to make it into a series. The rights were purchased and Brad Wright and Glassener took over against the wishes of the original creators. I am one of those who was hooked from the movie first, and SG-1 seemed dumbed down to me when it came out. Brad and Glassener and Cooper gave us some great Stargate, but that was not a reflection on any failing of Emmerich and Devlin. Brad and those other names you gave actually killed TV Stargate with no help from Emmerich and Devlin. They made it popular as a TV show, but they also killed it. I personally am looking forward to the Emmerich and Devlin reboot and I hope that they get to hold on to the property if it ever comes to TV.

I'll answer this in the stargate thread.

I doubt this. The studio (CBS) is well aware of the fan angst regarding this new Trek. I believe the reason it is going to pay TV is because that is the way ST: TNG helped launch the UPN network. I think that if not enough people pay for this NuTrek thing, that CBS will fund one of the other many Trek productions they are already licensing. It would not make any sense to shelve it when there are still Trek movies in the pipeline at Paramount. Remember, the licensing is split. CBS has TV and Paramount has the films. I think that CBS is going NuTrek because of the movies. We already kinow that the NuTrek movie cast will not be in the TV show. We do not even know if the new show will have an Enterprise

Well, I hope they at least intend to use some of these stories that they just found. . Some long lost treasures. Oh man!

http://www.gatefans.net/gforums/thr...t-data-recovered-from-200-floppy-disks.28177/

 

[heisenberg]

lol now CBS is removing the entire star trek series from Amazon prime.

The Star Trek TV shows are set to stop streaming on Amazon Prime, February 15. Is the franchise about to boldly and exclusively go to a broadcast network’s fledgling streaming service?

Amazon Prime has been streaming all five live-action Trek series, as well as the animated version. Trek Core reports that comes to an end, in the middle of next month.

http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/star-trek-franchise-leaving-amazon-prime-in-february/

 

[Overmind One]

lol now CBS is removing the entire star trek series from Amazon prime.



http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/star-trek-franchise-leaving-amazon-prime-in-february/

Predictable. It will also most likely be pulled from syndication of reruns too. They want to put it behind a counter and make us pay for it. Sorry, but no! If they were smart, they would fund Axanar to the hilt (after taking complete control over it) and work with the folks at Horizons and STC and New Voyages and give us some real Trek. And you know what? I would pay TWENTY dollars a month for that.