@alexgreat:
I agree with you entirely, watching something that is not “official” has not the right feel, and it wont matter in official compendia etc. But with the indiscriminate slashing of what has grown organically, what is official and whatnot can change so quickly (and for the worse, in my personal opinion), that any fan-created piece has the same legitimacy (correct word?) as the studio staff. All the ore enjoyable when its so well done. Even if the voice in the back of the head says “its not real”.
Ha! Very well said my friend. For apparently not speaking English as a first language you are quite eloquent in your wording.
And I agree with you. When I referenced the studio (being the source of all that is “Official”) willing to blow up everything in Trek and create alternate realities simply to re-invigorate their product… You appropriately rhetorically questioned if “any fan created piece has the same legitimacy?”
At that point, I think that fan-fiction could easily have the same level of legitimacy as the trademarked material. On an emotional level it certainly feels that way.
Thx :)
Always embarrassed when I confuse staff and stuff, though. I dont know why, this particular mistake hounds me for years now.
http://www.startrek.com/article/bryan-fuller-named-co-creator-of-new-star-trek-tv-series
Bryan Fuller Named Co-Creator of New Star Trek TV Series
February 09, 2016
Bryan Fuller, who launched his career writing for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager, will return to the television franchise as co-creator and executive producer of the new CBS Star Trek series.
Star Trek will be produced by CBS Television Studios in association with Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout. Kurtzman and Fuller will be joined by Heather Kadin as executive producers.
I saw the Brian Bryan Fuller add the other day. Didn’t know who he was until I read his resume. The more people they bring in from TNG, DS9 and VOY the better, IMO. I assume there is some particular style that they are framing the series as (like the reboot is framed as TOS slicked up for the 2000s), so I don’t know how much creative influence the old guard folks can really bring. But having them around cannot hurt. They at least know what Star Trek is.
absolutely agree.
Very, very good news in the Star Trek TV show world… Nick Meyer (Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country) is on board for writing the new tv show.
That provides a lot of hope I think, since he has made some of the best Star Trek films ever. The mitigating issue is that his writing will have to bend to the creative will of Kurtzman.
Also, I don’t know if this indicates the era of the show. Far as I know, Nick Meyer was only ever involved in the original cast/TOS era films… therefore will the new show be placed in that era? A continuation of the new movies rather than a TNG/DS9 era show. To be honest I think that is most likely the situation.
Also, I don’t know if this indicates the era of the show. Far as I know, Nick Meyer was only ever involved in the original cast/TOS era films… therefore will the new show be placed in that era? A continuation of the new movies rather than a TNG/DS9 era show. To be honest I think that is most likely the situation.
Perhaps it will be the case and perhaps it won’t…but either way, I’d argue that Nicolas Meyer’s involvement doesn’t in itself point towards either hypothesis. As you say, he made some of the best films of the Trek canon – so it’s clear that he’s talented, that he’s knowledgeable about the subject and that he has a good feel for (and respect for) the Trek universe. (Contrast this with Jonathan Frakes, who directed the Thunderbirds movie that came out a few years ago. I loved the original TV puppet series – which was actually quite serious in its tone – but I disliked many things about his movie, which came across as a kind of “Spy Kids” semi-comedy film. So I wasn’t surprised to hear that Frakes allegedly said that he’s never actually seen any of the original Thunderbirds episodes.) Someone with Meyer’s qualifications should, in principle, be able to do good work in any Star Trek era. To assume otherwise would amount to saying, “He’s great, but he’s a one-trick pony who can only work in the Kirk era,” which would actually be something of a put-down.
Even if Kurtzman is in charge I’d like to imagine Meyer will be a vital and necessary voice in the room to question ideas and propose alternate one. It’s always dangerous to have a closed group of buddies/cronies produce a film or series.
@CWO:
Perhaps it will be the case and perhaps it won’t…but either way, I’d argue that Nicolas Meyer’s involvement doesn’t in itself point towards either hypothesis.
Someone with Meyer’s qualifications should, in principle, be able to do good work in any Star Trek era. To assume otherwise would amount to saying, “He’s great, but he’s a one-trick pony who can only work in the Kirk era,” which would actually be something of a put-down.
That would be a put down, but I did not mean to imply that… only that that is the era in which he worked and found success and therefore may have been contracted for that reason; to bring legitimacy to a rebooted-level TOS. I think that is much more plausible.
Ultimately, no his hiring doesn’t explicitly mean anything. As posted a few months back, they also hired a DS9-VOY writer to do work… so that would perhaps imply the opposite of Nicholas Meyer. I don’t think both can be true. Ultimately, I think they are looking for a legacy of Star Trek people to add legitimacy and quality to a TV show which, God-willing, will have the time and breathing room to be a little more deliberate, contemplative and given time to grow naturally than the recent films.
http://www.framerated.co.uk/bryan-fuller-star-trek-predictions/
I want something consciously different from the PC lecturing of TNG.
Running into alien, truly alien (not Russians with plastic nose ridges) civilizations would need decision making which could never be tidied up with neat solutions and platitudes.
Its a big, bad universe out there full of things that will want to kill/eat/enslave us and won’t join the United Nations however much money we spend persuading them that racism is “wrong”.
http://www.framerated.co.uk/bryan-fuller-star-trek-predictions/
I want something consciously different from the PC lecturing of TNG.
Running into alien, truly alien (not Russians with plastic nose ridges) civilizations would need decision making which could never be tidied up with neat solutions and platitudes.
Its a big, bad universe out there full of things that will want to kill/eat/enslave us and won’t join the United Nations however much money we spend persuading them that racism is “wrong”.
This is a great article Flashman, thanks for posting.
Resolving conflicts in a realistic manner (particularly among very different groups of people/species) has never been something Star Trek has done particularly well. The Dominion War is one of the few major exceptions, but in general violence is eschewed for the ‘evolved solution’. Humans may one day get to that point, but the odds are that most other species in the universe would be less than accommodating. Gene Roddenberry can be lauded for his positive aspirations for the future, but more often than not it is not realistic and makes for less interesting TV. Not to mention the overtones of preachiness.
I have been wondering for some time how the next show or iteration of Trek, that is not simply a reboot of the old stuff, follows or bucks the formula set forth by TOS, built upon by TNG and then continued in reverse by Enterprise. Personally, I would love to see something grittier and more down to earth than a weekly morality play. I think that will certainly differentiate any new Trek from its predecessors. You can keep a lot of the hallmark elements of the show, making or breaking will happen in the writing and casting more than anywhere else. Speaking of casting, I am open to changes from the formula there too. It will be hard to do a token emotionless character like Spock or Data and have it come off as innovative this time around. Star Trek has the reputation of being on the cutting edge of pushing social boundaries, but it has never been panderingly obnoxious about it. Star Trek didn’t cast an Asian actor, a black actress and a Russian actor and trumpet to the world why they did it or write scripts about their marginalization. Their very presence as an unquestioned and normal part of the crew was all that was required to demonstrate human evolution; that is one thing they weren’t too preachy on. I guess I am just hoping that something similar happens in the new show. If they go out on a limb with characters or the cast… don’t politicize it. Just tell some great stories.
Back to the article… it is simultaneously exciting and heartening to hear the author make these predictions based on the best evidence we have to go on. At the same time, the facts he presents that this could be reboot-universe continuation is also disturbing. Seems like it could go either way. I will say that if Bryan Fuller wants to be his own man and play with the boundaries of what Trek is, I think the better way to do that is continue the Prime timeline and leave the JJ-crap behind without mention. Although, he may not have that much control over which timeline he gets to play in…
As for the show being on the Enterprise somehow… it would be interesting, but I don’t think it necessary. And given the multitude of possibilities in NOT being on the Enterprise, I would think that is the route they will take. It has already been said that the movie will have nothing to do with Star Trek Beyond, so hopefully that is a sign that the Enterprise and JJ-timeline are not involved together. That would be a disastrous letdown if they were.
Found this today. Not really more info on specifics, but insinuations…
I don’t think we can assume too much from an interview whose first quoted line is “I can’t tell you anything!”, and many of whose statements are actually opinions which start with the phrase, “I think that….” Nor is the statement about TUC terribly helpful; Meyer starts by describing it as “The one thing I can relate to you”, then promptly dilutes it by phrasing vaguely and, in his reference to Bryan Fuller, by saying that it’s “how I guess he’s thinking”. Guess?
Note that Meyer doesn’t actually say that TUC will have any relationship with the new series in terms of what era it’s set in. He simply says that he “guesses” that there’s some linkage in Bryan Fuller’s mind between TUC and the direction of the new series. This “touchstone” linkage could mean anything. It could simply mean that there’s something which Fuller liked about TUC that he wants to do similarly in the new series. (In my case, I liked the music a lot.) It could even mean that there’s something which Fuller hated about TUC that he wants to avoid at all costs in the new series.
I think this interview is simply a pro forma one, dictated by the fact that it would have looked strange if a high-profile new guy associated with the future series didn’t quickly meet with the media and say something about his involvement in the show, no matter how vague and meaningless. Perhaps I should even have said “preferably vague and meaningless,” since this so far appears to have been the communication strategy of CBS: whip fans into a frenzy by saying that a new Star Trek series is in the works, then whip them into even more of a frenzy by not telling them anything else about the show itself for as long as possible.
(Alternately, the explanation might be that the producers themselves may as yet have no clear idea of – or no consensus on – what this show is going to be about, and they’re bringing in people like Meyer to help them figure things out. Meyer’s vagueness may be a genuine case of him trying to keep secret decisions that have already been made, or he may be covering up for the fact that no decisions have actually been made yet…sort of like the old conspiracy theory which says that the elaborate security measures and secrecy at Fort Knox Depository are simply a ruse to conceal the fact that there isn’t actually any gold in it at all.)
Interesting article, at least the first half. More clearly delineates who-owns-what regarding Star Trek.
I am wondering if Paramount owns movies and CBS owns TV… then is it even possible that there is crossover between the two? Such that the TV show will be in the universe of the recent films. I would think yes only because there seems to be a fair amount of collaboration between both companies and CBS has their logos on DVDs and such, but maybe that is just distribution related. I don’t know.
More clearly delineates who-owns-what regarding Star Trek.
I am wondering if Paramount owns movies and CBS owns TV… then is it even possible that there is crossover between the two? Such that the TV show will be in the universe of the recent films. I would think yes only because there seems to be a fair amount of collaboration between both companies and CBS has their logos on DVDs and such, but maybe that is just distribution related. I don’t know.
I once did some research with the aim of preparing a chart that explains the who-owns-what structure of the Star Trek properties. I quickly gave up because the answer is both very complicated and very simple. The complicated part is that the parent companies involved are very large, with many divisions and affiliates, and that they’ve gone through many corporate mergers and splits and reorganizations over the years. At one point, in fact, CBS and Paramount (with Viacom thrown into the mix somewhere) were all the same company, but that didn’t last long. The simple part is that, if you look far enough up the line, you’ll find that CBS and Paramount are both owned by a company that, if you’re like me, you’ve probably never even heard of: National Amusements. And if you go even further up the line, you’ll find that the majority owner of National Amusements is a businessman called Sumner Redstone (whose name I’ve heard once or twice in connection with Star Trek, though I never paid much attention at the time). So in essence, Star Trek is owned by Sumner Redstone. His daughter Shari is heavily involved in the family business; at one point she was being groomed to take over from her father, though apparently the two of them later had some sort of falling-out. According to the Wikipedia article about him, “Currently, Redstone owns over seventy percent of the voting interest of Viacom. Viacom and CBS Corporation are both controlled by Redstone through National Amusements.” The article also notes that “In February 2016, at age 92, after a court-ordered examination by a geriatric psychiatrist whose findings have not been publicly disclosed, Redstone relinquished the chairmanship of CBS to Moonves and the chairmanship of Viacom to Dauman. A trial was ordered for May 2016, to judge Redstone’s mental capacity.”
Yeah… confusing to say the least. If there is one thing I dislike about capitalism is the way property laws get in the way of “art”. Granted, property laws aren’t the blocker, it’s the people/companies involved. I mean I cannot blame them for doing things in the best interests of their companies either, but the results tend to form a compromise from a creative aspect.
Yeah… confusing to say the least. If there is one thing I dislike about capitalism is the way property laws get in the way of “art”. Granted, property laws aren’t the blocker, it’s the people/companies involved. I mean I cannot blame them for doing things in the best interests of their companies either, but the results tend to form a compromise from a creative aspect.
To use MGM as an example, it’s been pointed out that although the studio’s official motto is “Ars Gratia Artis” (“Art for the sake of art” in Latin), the fact remains that MGM is fundamentally a multi-billion corporation. If a person wants “art for the sake of art” in the movie world, their best bet is to watch the creative output of film students who are still in university and who shoot their productions with budgets equivalent to the price of an extra-large cappuccino at Starbuck’s.
@CWO:
To use MGM as an example, it’s been pointed out that although the studio’s official motto is “Ars Gratia Artis” (“Art for the sake of art” in Latin), the fact remains that MGM is fundamentally a multi-billion corporation. If a person wants “art for the sake of art” in the movie world, their best bet is to watch the creative output of film students who are still in university and who shoot their productions with budgets equivalent to the price of an extra-large cappuccino at Starbuck’s.
Good comparison. I can appreciate the purity of such a medium (independent or amateur work), but more often than not it is not of a subject matter that interests me or scale and overall quality that cannot match a large, studio production. Unfortunate, but just reality. There are few film directors today who can operate in that near-complete level of control over their art. Studios are reticent to give that blank checkbook and complete creative control considering how much money Hollywood films spend per production. Guys like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino appear to be guys in that category. Stanley Kubrick had to be one also. They have established a track record to get to where they are. Even though I may not like everything they make, it is unarguably quality production.
A very similar thing is true of the music industry. Big labels are pretty conservative about the stuff they let their artists do… much of it is down to a formula to cater to what will have broad appeal. It takes subtlety and a proven track record for an artist to circumvent the industry’s overlords and truly blaze a creative trail. Seems like the mainstream music (and film) industry has become so focused and scientific since the early 2000s; every move is a financial calculation. I mean, it has always been that way to some degree (I still find it very hard to comprehend how Jimmy Page, back in the 60s, was able to wrest complete creative and production control from Atlantic Records… before Led Zeppelin even mad their first record at that! - I don’t think that could ever happen today), but it is especially so now.
Case in point would be a band called Falling Up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Up_(band)) that I have followed since their first release in 2004. Initially they began as a Christian Alt-Rock band on Christian label BEC. They had a very pleasant, interesting, edgy sound that was highly marketable, even if it was not totally unique (their first album “Crashings” could draw comparisons to Linkin Park). They probably reached peak popularity with their second and third albums, the latter of which was a record of unusually tasteful remixes. Come 2007, Falling Up began trending in a more enigmatic direction. The sound of their fourth album “Captiva” was still pretty standard alternative fare, but introduced some more elements of electronica and particularly unusual lyrics. One song was noticeably different in sound and construction from all the rest and was clearly a studio-driven demand for a radio-friendly single.
Falling Up’s next album would cement a complete creative departure from standard Christian-label rock music. “Fangs” was essentially a concept album which told a fantasy story. Honestly, I have no idea how they were able to record such an album on a label given how unconventional it was and how different it sounded than everything else in the genre. I am not sure how successful the record was, but the creative differences were so apparent between the band and the studio that Falling Up separated from BEC afterwards and subsequently disbanded.
Shortly after that, Falling Up returned tentatively for a fifth album but this time recorded and produced it independently and crowd funded the project for somewhere around $12,000. What came of this was a truly stunning musical masterpiece. “Your Sparkling Death Cometh” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Sparkling_Death_Cometh) was released in 2011 and (in my opinion) became their most incredible and beautiful work. It cemented a particular sound and identity for the band which they seemed to have previously been searching for and nearly found on Fangs. Your Sparkling Death Cometh would set much of the tone for their following projects up to and including their final album, self-titled as “Falling Up”, which was released just last year.
To me, Falling Up’s journey in the music industry is perhaps the model for the ideal creative process and being able to truly, finally shape your art: beginning in the system, learning things, getting some needed “polish”, having success and finding out what your imposed limitations are and how you want to grow organically from there. They were good to begin with, but they only got better and better as time went on until they just exploded after the limitations were finally gone and they were no longer beholden to anyone but themselves and their fans.
If this at all sounds intriguing to anyone here, I really encourage you to check them out. Their sound may not please everyone, but it is pleasant, highly creative, unique and very raw in terms of its purity and honesty. http://fallinguplives.com/ https://fallingup.bandcamp.com/music
More rumours:
Hmmm… nice find Flash. This is very compelling.
To me this is nothing but good news. I have no idea how accurate all the claims and assumptions are, but I hope that most if not all are true.
The serial/season anthologies is a unique concept to Star Trek and I think it would provide a welcome change from the standard 7 season long marathon. With serialized tv shows these days, I can very much relate to the fatigue factor (I think of Sons of Anarchy). Often it becomes like watching a very, very long movie. You can’t miss episodes or there is a gap in your understanding. Plus, with Sons, the story arc was fairly logical, but by season 5 it felt like how many more bad things can we throw in to extend the series. A season anthology would break that format up into more manageable and defined portions.
Taking place in the Prime timeline is my number one request. That eliminates the issues of the JJ stuff, but introduces Enterprise-like problems if set as a prequel of sorts. This could be mitigated if the show is not about the crew of the Enterprise, but I almost always find the visual aspect of a prequel-Trek jarring. Example: Enterprise is how many years before TOS?, but obviously a show filmed in the early 2000s will have more modern style than a show filmed in the 60s… even though the older show is supposed to be the more advanced time. Whatever. It is what it is. I just can’t see this new show (if set between TOS and TNG) using the uniforms from Undiscovered Country/“Yesterday’s Enterprise”/“Tapestry”, etc… which they would likely need to do for total continuity.
I am splitting hairs.
