The Star Trek Thread!

[iso_55]

7 hours ago, Logan007 said:

Yeah, I'd prefer the 22 season episodes, especially if it's a show I love, but you have to remember a lot of those are filler episodes.  As long as they don't put fillers into a 13 episode season and they are all quality, I'm all for it.

Every series on major networks are at least 22. I don't recall too many people complaining it's too many. Your slant is different. I just think that the producers & writers are delaying the debut until May. Why not wait now until next September. Maybe that video of the Starship got such bad reviews they realized they had to go back to the drawing board.

[iso_55]

8 hours ago, Logan007 said:

There is a huge amount of people who prefer this than 22 episodes.  I've also read a lot of people say they'd actually prefer a 10 episode season instead of 13.

Why? That makes no sense. Why not go 5 or 3? Why not just delay it 6 months?

[wbbfan]

1 hour ago, iso_55 said:

Bakula's character wasn't the worst. he was an inexperienced explorer. No book was written in his time as to how situations should be handled. Janeway was an experienced Starship Captain who preached the Prime Directive every week & broke it every week. She was an awful character & Captain. It's a wonder her crew never killed her.

I didnt mind any of the star treks too much. Voyager and enterprise are certainly at the bottom though for me. Voyager had some good supporting character stories, Enterprise seemed pretty balanced like that too. Though too much of the threatening to kill off a key character only to pull out.

 I really hated how enterprise ret conned story to insert the borg despite superior stories told in better wings of the franchise. and ferengi.

 Thats part of why I really wish they would set some thing in the future instead of trying to cram in more prequel stuff that will only lead to changing stories that will probably be better done in other areas of the franchise.

 syndicated tv (in the internet era), the final frontier. These are the voyages of the star trek retread. Its cut short mission to explore the same life forms and civilizations, to boldly go where soo many have failed before! da nuh na na na  

Allways kinda bugged me how you didnt run into one shows single important race in others. Like betazoids, shape shifters, etc. But every one wants to roll with the borg.  Give me a show about none star fleet transport crew. Or marquis, or disgraced klingons going place to place in search of valor and honor. Or even a final big borg war in a post ds9 world. even a star fleet academy spin off.  

[iso_55]

31 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

I didnt mind any of the star treks too much. Voyager and enterprise are certainly at the bottom though for me. Voyager had some good supporting character stories, Enterprise seemed pretty balanced like that too. Though too much of the threatening to kill off a key character only to pull out.

 I really hated how enterprise ret conned story to insert the borg despite superior stories told in better wings of the franchise. and ferengi.

 Thats part of why I really wish they would set some thing in the future instead of trying to cram in more prequel stuff that will only lead to changing stories that will probably be better done in other areas of the franchise.

 syndicated tv (in the internet era), the final frontier. These are the voyages of the star trek retread. Its cut short mission to explore the same life forms and civilizations, to boldly go where soo many have failed before! da nuh na na na  

Allways kinda bugged me how you didnt run into one shows single important race in others. Like betazoids, shape shifters, etc. But every one wants to roll with the borg.  Give me a show about none star fleet transport crew. Or marquis, or disgraced klingons going place to place in search of valor and honor. Or even a final big borg war in a post ds9 world. even a star fleet academy spin off.  

Meanwhike in the JJ Abrams universe there must be no Klingons. 

Edited September 16, 2016 by iso_55

[FrostyWinnipeg]

2 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Every series on major networks are at least 22. I don't recall too many people complaining it's too many. Your slant is different. I just think that the producers & writers are delaying the debut until May. Why not wait now until next September. Maybe that video of the Starship got such bad reviews they realized they had to go back to the drawing board.

All the nominees for Best Drama this year at the Emmy's are so called half season shows. With the exception of Downton Abbey(which is BBC anyway) they all come from networks other then the big 4 if they can still be called the big 4 anymore.

Game of Thrones, Better Call Saul, Mr. Robot, House of Cards, Homeland, The Americans & Downton Abbey. 

Just saying.

Edited September 16, 2016 by FrostyWinnipeg

[Rich]

Netflix shows are in the 12 episode range as well. 

It is the way that TV is moving to.  Higher quality shows means higher production costs and therefore less episodes. 

The effects and finishing on a lot of these shows are close to being on par with movies.   That adds to the time it takes to finish shows post filming and another reason for shorter seasons. 

[iso_55]

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

All the nominees for Best Drama this year at the Emmy's are so called half season shows. With the exception of Downton Abbey(which is BBC anyway) they all come from networks other then the big 4 if they can still be called the big 4 anymore.

Game of Thrones, Better Call Saul, Mr. Robot, House of Cards, Homeland, The Americans & Downton Abbey. 

Just saying.

Cable networks have different standards than the major networks when it comes to content. They don't have as strident restrictions. On the downside, cable networks also don't have the budgets either hence half the shows. You can't convince me that fans of The Walking Dead or Game Of Thrones wouldn't be thrilled with 22 episodes rather than 13. Yeah, they just love 13. Then have to wait a full year to see another 3 month season. Even with different standards there are some outstanding series on the major networks like The Big Bang Theory, Blue Bloods & Criminal Minds.

Edited September 16, 2016 by iso_55

[The Unknown Poster]

13 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Why? That makes no sense. Why not go 5 or 3? Why not just delay it 6 months?

I guess you've never written anything.

[bigg jay]

8 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Cable networks have different standards than the major networks when it comes to content. They don't have as strident restrictions. On the downside, cable networks also don't have the budgets either hence half the shows. You can't convince me that fans of The Walking Dead or Game Of Thrones wouldn't be thrilled with 22 episodes rather than 13. Yeah, they just love 13. Then have to wait a full year to see another 3 month season. Even with different standards there are some outstanding series on the major networks like The Big Bang Theory, Blue Bloods & Criminal Minds.

13?  I'd love 13 since they only do 10 GOT episodes a season and they are even cutting that down starting next season!

[iso_55]

Just now, bigg jay said:

13?  I'd love 13 since they only do 10 GOT episodes a season and they are even cutting that down starting next season!

Smaller cable networks just don't have the resources to go all in. Too bad. The big advertising dollars still belong to the major networks.

[The Unknown Poster]

11 hours ago, wbbfan said:

I didnt mind any of the star treks too much. Voyager and enterprise are certainly at the bottom though for me. Voyager had some good supporting character stories, Enterprise seemed pretty balanced like that too. Though too much of the threatening to kill off a key character only to pull out.

 I really hated how enterprise ret conned story to insert the borg despite superior stories told in better wings of the franchise. and ferengi.

 Thats part of why I really wish they would set some thing in the future instead of trying to cram in more prequel stuff that will only lead to changing stories that will probably be better done in other areas of the franchise.

 syndicated tv (in the internet era), the final frontier. These are the voyages of the star trek retread. Its cut short mission to explore the same life forms and civilizations, to boldly go where soo many have failed before! da nuh na na na  

Allways kinda bugged me how you didnt run into one shows single important race in others. Like betazoids, shape shifters, etc. But every one wants to roll with the borg.  Give me a show about none star fleet transport crew. Or marquis, or disgraced klingons going place to place in search of valor and honor. Or even a final big borg war in a post ds9 world. even a star fleet academy spin off.  

Unfortunately its all about ratings.  I thought the Borg episode was pretty clever in showing the effects of time travel and just because First Contact ended happily, doesnt mean all the loose ends were tied up.  Archer should have been more of a cowboy in the vein of Kirk, if he was going out exploring.  But he almost seemed too brooding and too by the book.  The real issue with Enterprise was it was a prequel in name only.  Nothing about it or the development of its characters spoke to us as being pre-TOS.  Which is a shame.

I think the prequel concept is the best thing going.  Because the closer it is to our current time, the easier it is to embrace I think.  You could do an Enterprise C era or Enterprise B era (E-B is one I was hoping for a bit) but if you're not going beyond Nemesis, then I think pre-TOS makes the most sense from a marketing perspective.  But Star Trek isnt fantasy like Star Wars, its meant to be us, extrapolated into the near future.  When you get into the 25th, 26th centuries, the technology becomes so fantastic that it stops being grounded in realism, in my opinion.

[The Unknown Poster]

8 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Cable networks have different standards than the major networks when it comes to content. They don't have as strident restrictions. On the downside, cable networks also don't have the budgets either hence half the shows. You can't convince me that fans of The Walking Dead or Game Of Thrones wouldn't be thrilled with 22 episodes rather than 13. Yeah, they just love 13. Then have to wait a full year to see another 3 month season. Even with different standards there are some outstanding series on the major networks like The Big Bang Theory, Blue Bloods & Criminal Minds.

Im not sure why this is so difficult for you.  You dont think Netflix or HBO have the budgets for 22 episode seasons???  Ofcourse they do.  They spend a ton of money developing original shows.

The Walking Dead has 16 episodes, by the way.

Everyone here has explained the benefits and reasons for lesser episodes.  Money.  Production.  Attracting bigger name, higher quality actors.  And the fact it works for the delivery method - Netflix, HBO etc, are concerned with subs, not ratings.  They invest in shows that drive subs.  They are more apt to give a good show time to grow.  If HBO & Netflix had subs drop off when a 12 episode season ended, they would extend it.  But they are driving content to keep subs. 

Ofcourse, if you love any series, you want more of it.  But the story-telling involved in a 10-16 episode season is generally better than a network show of 22+ episodes.  I re-watched the X-Files series awhile back and back then a season was like 26, 27, 28 episodes.  It was looooong.  X-Files was brilliant but even they had a couple of throw away episodes per season.  You can always pick out the episodes where they saved money and didnt go anywhere or use any SFX, so they had more money for bigger episodes. 

[The Unknown Poster]

7 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

Smaller cable networks just don't have the resources to go all in. Too bad. The big advertising dollars still belong to the major networks.

Ummmm HBO has about 30 million domestic subscribers and yearly revenue of $5 billion dollars.  Its owned by Time Warner.  Is that a small network? 

CBS is under $4b in revenue.

[Logan007]

13 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Every series on major networks are at least 22. I don't recall too many people complaining it's too many. Your slant is different. I just think that the producers & writers are delaying the debut until May. Why not wait now until next September. Maybe that video of the Starship got such bad reviews they realized they had to go back to the drawing board.

It's not my slant.  Go read Reddit or Facebook.  Most people (and there are many that post) are saying they'd prefer a 13 or 10 episode season like GOT.  I don't know if it's more fun to binge watch shows like that or what.  Like I said, I prefer 22 episode seasons, but a lot of those are filler episodes.  It's hard to come up with good ideas.

[The Unknown Poster]

Star Trek filming has been delayed til November, hence why the debut was delayed as well.  It sounds like the SFX people wanted more time with some speculating they are waiting on a specific actor to become available.  Either way, the producers asked for more time and the network agreed.  This isnt 1984 where launching in September and ending in May is as critical.  The series is meant to be the cornerstone of their streaming service.  They can launch whenever they want.

Also, Iso, you're referencing "smaller cable" channels and mentioned The Walking Dead so I can assume you're referring to AMC but you also mention Game of Thrones and this is a thread discussing Star Trek, produced by CBS.  So if your point is only the Networks can afford to have full seasons, which isnt true, but Star Trek is only 13 episodes and its produced by CBS, what say you?

[The Unknown Poster]

Fuller steps down as show runner. Claim he's too busy to devote full attention but remains as exec producer. Uh oh 

[Logan007]

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Having seen ST:B I guess the ship design in the promo was based on the Franklin.

[Logan007]

On 10/29/2016 at 2:52 PM, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Having seen ST:B I guess the ship design in the promo was based on the Franklin.

I liked the design of the Franklin a lot more than the one for the promo.

[The Unknown Poster]

Deadline today has allegedly confirmed that Michelle Yeoh has been cast in a role as a Starfleet Captain in Star Trek: Discovery. Specifically, Deadline’s sources state that her character’s name will be Han Bo and she will captain the U.S.S. Shenzhou, a vessel that will “play a big role in Discovery’s first season.”

***Casting a Chinese actor to play a Chinese character on a Chinese ship seems a bit on the nose to me.  But its good casting.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

5 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Deadline today has allegedly confirmed that Michelle Yeoh has been cast in a role as a Starfleet Captain in Star Trek: Discovery. Specifically, Deadline’s sources state that her character’s name will be Han Bo and she will captain the U.S.S. Shenzhou, a vessel that will “play a big role in Discovery’s first season.”

***Casting a Chinese actor to play a Chinese character on a Chinese ship seems a bit on the nose to me.  But its good casting.

Wonder if Alibaba and/or ChinaFilm is a producer.

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Wonder if Alibaba and/or ChinaFilm is a producer.

No doubt, its for the international market.  Im cool with that.  Just seemed a bit of a stretch creatively that the ship is named after the Chinese space program and has a Chinese Captain.

[Logan007]

Either way, at least they hired a good actor to play the part.  Even though it's a little too, on the nose, as you said.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

https://us.yahoo.com/tv/star-trek-discovery-doug-jones-anthony-rapp-join-182506881.html