Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

startrek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 200 posts

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#91

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

Aqwis wrote: post #9
thehodge wrote: post #2

Hopefully this will be a look forward beyond Voyager rather than going back again..

Unless they put it in the alternate timeline, which it doesn't sound like they will given this quote: >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. ...they'd have to some serious retconning to place it anywhere before Voyager. Too much existing canon to take into account when writing the scripts.

That quote really doesn't explain anything, since they could put it in the 24th or 25th century in the new timeline, and not have it impact the upcoming movie.

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#92

Post by [deleted] »

Aqwis wrote: post #9
thehodge wrote: post #2

Hopefully this will be a look forward beyond Voyager rather than going back again..

Unless they put it in the alternate timeline, which it doesn't sound like they will given this quote: >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. ...they'd have to some serious retconning to place it anywhere before Voyager. Too much existing canon to take into account when writing the scripts.

[deleted]

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#93

Post by dogma1138 »

hansjorg wrote: post #54
dogma1138 wrote: post #21

Kinda worried that this will be a "web-only" series, Star Trek needs quite a good production to work well, The budget for a TNG episode was 2M$ which was pretty unheard off back then and is even considered expensive these days (GOT which is currently the most expensive running show has about 6M per episode and when you count the fact that TNG had 24-25 episodes per season the overall season budget was almost the same…

> I really hope that this won't be in the rebooted universe because it was well kinda meh I'm not a hardcore Star Trek fan, but was very disappointed with the new films. They're mostly generic action in space with some familiar names and Starfleet uniforms. Every little thing that made Star Trek entertaining has been stripped away. Not too surprising considering JJ Abrams told in an interview that "I would watch epis…

I'm not a hardcore fan either I watched TNG, DS9 and Voyager as just another Scifi show back when MGM, Paramount and 20cent Fox still wanted to make television we had Stargate, Babylon 5, Star Trek, then Scifi was pretty much left to in the hands of syndicated TV productions and basic cable which resulted in well meh.

Shows like BSG are pretty much unicorn's these days no one seems to want to make serious scifi the best we can hope for is for the random Canadian show to be picked up by SyFy and not being shredded (Continuum was good, Dark Matter seems interesting but very goofy).

SyFy is also trying to get of their asses together I'm still hoping that they'll pick up Ascension it's backdoor pilot / mini-series was one of the most interesting Scifi concepts of late and if they don't screw up 'Childhoods End' (which from the trailer looks like an HBO show which is great) I might actually believe that they still can produce something besides fake reality shows and wrestlemania.

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#94

Post by untog »

dogma1138 wrote: post #21

Kinda worried that this will be a "web-only" series, Star Trek needs quite a good production to work well, The budget for a TNG episode was 2M$ which was pretty unheard off back then and is even considered expensive these days (GOT which is currently the most expensive running show has about 6M per episode and when you count the fact that TNG had 24-25 episodes per season the overall season budget was almost the same…

> I really hope that this won't be in the rebooted universe because it was well kinda meh.

I'd bet money that it will be. The potential for movie tie-ins alone will make it irresistible. (also the producer of the movies is involved)

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#95

Post by toxican »

potatolicious wrote: post #52
dogma1138 wrote: post #21

Kinda worried that this will be a "web-only" series, Star Trek needs quite a good production to work well, The budget for a TNG episode was 2M$ which was pretty unheard off back then and is even considered expensive these days (GOT which is currently the most expensive running show has about 6M per episode and when you count the fact that TNG had 24-25 episodes per season the overall season budget was almost the same…

Yeah, tying this to an unproven web streaming service seems like the modern equivalent of giving a show a time slot in the middle of the night. Maybe worse, actually. The "Captain Worf" show was AFAIK never in serious consideration. Michael Dorn was a huge fan of the idea and kept proposing it everywhere he went, which is the only reason it gained as much publicity as it did, but as far as I can tell it was never tak…

I don't know that a post-TNG Worf would be all that interesting anyway. He largely overcame his struggle between his Klingon and Star Fleet self, which is where most of his appeal lay (for me at least).

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#97

Post by exelius »

runako wrote: post #83
exelius wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sci Fi shows are expensive to make period - which is why there aren't usually a lot of them on TV. Just think about it: for a normal sitcom or drama, costumes can be bought off the rack and shots can be done on location or on a sound stage with easily-sourced furniture / decoration / etc. Everything on a Sci Fi (or fantasy) show has to be custom-made; from the costumes to the wall decorations to the light fixtures to…

>> for a normal sitcom or drama, costumes can be bought off the rack and shots can be done on location or on a sound stage with easily-sourced furniture / decoration / etc. Worth noting: for sitcoms, staff costs are often as high/higher than the SF shows that make it to the screen. For example, actors on _The Big Bang Theory_ are rumored to earn $1m per episode each . Ditto other shows like _Modern Family_. Likely th…

The staff costs for sitcoms don't get to be that high until the show has already established itself as a ratings draw. So as a network, you can invest in 10 shitty sitcoms, pay tons of money to the 2 or 3 shows that actually build an audience and come out ahead. You have to invest a lot of money into a Sci Fi show before it even makes it in front of an audience, which means it's a riskier bet. TV executives hate risk, so there aren't a lot of Sci Fi shows on TV right now.

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#98

Post by toxican »

baldfat wrote: post #59
exelius wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sci Fi shows are expensive to make period - which is why there aren't usually a lot of them on TV. Just think about it: for a normal sitcom or drama, costumes can be bought off the rack and shots can be done on location or on a sound stage with easily-sourced furniture / decoration / etc. Everything on a Sci Fi (or fantasy) show has to be custom-made; from the costumes to the wall decorations to the light fixtures to…

> Sci Fi shows are expensive to make period So never saw the Dr. Who series int he 1970s and 1980s :) Personally I loved the campy Dr Whos a lot. BBC - "Your almost Out of Budget and you have 3 part series to finish" Producer - "No problem we will put a trash can over that guy and tape up a few trash bags, throw some kids paint on it and there is our new monster." "We will also call the gravel pit see if we can use i…

Final episode of the series then features a monster that looks suspiciously like a pile of gravel.

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#99

Post by untog »

codezero wrote: post #90
beat wrote: post #85

I, for one, am optimistic. Even though the JJ Abrams reboot movies sucked, he's not the only one who can do the work. There are hordes of people in Hollywood who grew up on Star Trek, love it properly, and want to bring back the spirit of exploration and optimism and the ensemble cast work that make the older series so compelling. I think the world needs a new Star Trek - one that isn't just shiny effects, but holds…

What did you dislike about the reboot films? I really liked them, I thought they were cast well, and were over-all pretty good. edit: others in the comments have noted that the reboots are basically just action sequences with none of the underlying social themes that made Star Trek significant in the first place.

They're fine movies (and I think people sometimes forget that Trek movies are, on average, not great), but they're not particularly "trek"-y, aside from reusing the broad strokes of some historical characters.

And personally, I have zero interest in seeing Captain Kirk again. I feel like it was a backwards step to take a broad universe and refocus on the original iconic characters. There are a lot of stories to be told, the Borg are still one of the most fascinating sci-fi creations in years, etc. etc.

Basically my objection is that they don't really "boldly go" anywhere, they just retread.

Re: New Star Trek Series Premieres January 2017

#100

Post by happycube »

delecti wrote: post #89
danso wrote: post #43

I was a big Trekkie when I was younger...but I'm surprised at how poorly the show has held up when rewatching on Netflix. I think what spoiled me was the revamped Battlestar Galactica. It's not the dated special effects that bother me, it's the way the utopia of Star Trek's future and technology began to provide way too many plot crutches. By the end of TNG, it seemed like every crisis resolution involved reversing t…

Voyager is definitely the worst offender with "reverse the polarity" plot devices, but it also doesn't take itself so seriously. It was very much the polar opposite of BSG in that regard. I didn't find DS9 picked up that problem in the later seasons though, so I've got to disagree with you there.

... because Ron Moore was DS9's showrunner.
Post reply on HN