BREAKING: Bryan Fuller’s Departure from “Star Trek: Discovery” is Bittersweet, and Final

Ever since the news broke that Bryan Fuller “stepped down” as the showrunner for Star Trek:Discovery, fans were still thinking of him as a driving force behind the show, and still working in an active Executive Producer role. But an exclusive interview with Newsweek reveals that he’s no longer involved in the series at all.

“Ultimately, with my responsibilities [elsewhere], I could not do what CBS needed to have done in the time they needed it done for Star Trek,” Fuller said. “It felt like it was best for me to focus on landing the plane with American Gods and making sure that was delivered in as elegant and sophisticated a fashion as I could possibly do.”

“It is bittersweet,” he added. “But it was just a situation that couldn’t be resolved otherwise…so I had to step away.”

Fuller will keep his executive producer credit, and has written the first two episodes of the show as well as developed the story arc that will unfold over all 13 episodes of the first season. Sources close to the production have reported that the creative vision he set forth for the series is still the guiding force behind the show. But he told Newsweek that he’s no longer directly involved with the series.

“I’m not involved in production, or postproduction, so I can only give them the material I’ve given them and hope that it is helpful for them. I’m curious to see what they do with it.”

He adds that his plans were always to respect Gene Roddenberry’s original vision in:

“…creating [Discovery] and getting to the heart of what the important themes were to me as a Star Trek fan—how do we get along with people who are different than ourselves? How do we find common ground? How do move into the future together? Those themes were implicit in the scripts that I wrote before I left.”

Will he return for season two? Right now there’s no plan on the table for that, but he told Newsweek, “They have my number and if they need me I will absolutely be there for them.”

Read the full article.

The latest casting news for Star Trek: Discovery is that Michelle Yeoh, Doug Jones, and Anthony Rapp are all aboard. Get the details on their characters here. The show is scheduled to premiere in May 2017.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

Please come back Bryan.

I wish that he had chosen Star Trek over his other projects, but I’m sure that Discovery will still be good without him.

Never heard of it before now. Just looked it up. Sounds dumb.

I think I will save Tay’s reply to use elsewhere!

STEAMPUNK: “Never heard of it before now. Just looked it up. Sounds dumb.”

KETCHUP: “Never heard of it before now. Just looked it up. Sounds dumb.”

OLD PEOPLE: “Never heard of it before now. Just looked it up. Sounds dumb.”

THE COLOR BLUE: “Never heard of it before now. Just looked it up. Sounds dumb.”

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: “Never heard of it before now. Just looked it up. Sounds dumb.”

LOL!

I never heard of it before either and it doesnt sound like my kind of thing but yes its hard to judge something I never read or seen first and unfair to do so. Hopefully its good.

Stardust and Coraline… I have seen them, good stuff, but nothing special… Neil Gaiman seems to be the kind of independent author who’ll never deliver a meaningful franchise…

Gaiman stuff doesn’t sound “dumb” per se, but it’s just nothing that matters beyond its ten minutes of fame. Star Trek matters. Fuller has made the wrong choice IMHO.

wow…Neil Gaimen’s “nothing special 10 minutes of fame” has stretched into a few decades of award winning work…as in LOTS of awards, including 4 Hugos, 2 Nebulas, 1 World Fantasy Award, 4 Bram Stoker Awards, 6 Locus Awards, 2 British SF Awards, 1 British Fantasy Award, 3 Geffens, 1 International Horror Guild Award and 2 Mythopoeic Awards. That’s why I hope American God’s is well made, and I hope Star Trek Discovery is a great show. It’ll be interesting to see what Kurtzman can do when every episode does not have to be a block busting smash hit where they have to include everything including the kitchen sink. I like Fringe a lot and I’m not overly concerned about Fuller leaving because you still have a lot of talented folks working on the show. Put Anna Torv in the Captains chair and warp on out of orbit –

That says far more about you than it does about the show.

Can’t say i’m *totally* suprised by this. “american gods” is a a hot piece of intellectual property and I can see why he kept his focus on that particular ball. That being said, it is a bummer he won’t be around for STD. I am still optimistic about the series, but mostly because Nick Meyer is involved. If he leaves…….

No Biggie.
The chances of him continually being actively involved was slim, we knew that.

Nah no biggie at all. This show is well in hand with the geniuses at CBS.

So what are we thinking here? Did he jump or was he pushed?

Yes

I don’t mean that in a gossipy kind of way. My cautious optimism about the show is starting to waver, at the suggestion of a hard break between Fuller and CBS.

I think CBS almost certainly lost patience with him and pushed. But honestly, what was CBS thinking when they hired him? They knew he already had two major projects lined up in Amazing Stories and American Gods.

My guess is they just thought he could make it work. We do have to remember there are a lot of TV producers out there with a lot of balls in the air but some just manage it better than others I guess. And maybe they just liked what Fuller wanted to do with it and gave him a chance.

But yeah I also think the problem is he’s launching multiple shows at once. ONce it gets on the air you have breathing room but trying to launch multiple shows at once is a different animal. If he at least had American Gods running through first season is one thing but trying to finish its pre-production AND two other new shows is just crazy. There is only so much time in the day especially if you are hands on with all of them.

I’d suspect they waited a bit but weren’t willing to wait any longer. Probably no great conspiracy or juicy story. Fuller was spread too thin and studio didn’t want to wait for him. No harm no foul.

He wanted out. He knew this show was going nowhere so he jumped ship for better things. Smart guy.

Do you have insider knowledge?

Harry doesn’t even have knowledge let alone insider knowledge.

You are so right Tup. LLAP

There you go, trolling me again. Ah TUP you are nothing if not predictable.

Trolling you (which I am not) is certainly a lesser crime than someone being so bored (or sociopathic) to troll an entire community as you have been doing here Harry. Time to grow up kid.

Tupperware, my opinions are my opinions. You don’t like them? Don’t respond, but its fun that you do respond to me, so keep ’em coming chuckles. I’m doing a public service by keeping you engaged and off the streets.

This seems like poor planning. The show is supposed to start in May and they haven’t started filming because they haven’t even finished casting. I hope the movie based on Neil Gaimans book American Gods was better planned than this seems to be but I’m hoping for the best… but I’d be relieved if Ron Moore was brought in to run the show.

Moore should have been their “Go-To” guy from the start.

That would’ve been impossible. He’s incredibly tied up with Outlander.

@Chris… “The show is supposed to start in May and they haven’t started filming…”

Not unusual at all. Star Trek: Enterprise started production late May 2001 for September 2001 debut, just four months. Jolene Blalock was the last of the main cast signed for the show, just two weeks before production began.

With that as a guide, production will probably start in late January. Plenty of time still.

Indeed. Most TV pilots get written cast and shot all within 4 months — and that’s a brand new show where everything is a complete unknown. Most network series start shooting in July and are on the air by end of Aug.-Sept. — all of 2 months, often with barely a months prep for a brand new series.

So there’s nothing unusual about any of this. As long as they start shooting by March, there will be no worries whatsoever … In fact they will have had so much planning by the time they start shooting, it should be better prepared than most TV …

Time is the fire in which we all burn!

Seems like poor planning? This show has seemed poorly planned since its beginning. Wish JJ was involved, give it a good Star Warsy kick in the butt that it needs so it doesn’t become some boring piece of pseudo-intellectual trash to appease a tiny audience of TOS fans.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Lol Harry is clever and funny sometimes.

Wish JJ was involved?? Hahahahahahaha Harrys also a comedian.

Yea who wants a successful show. JJ’s had no success ever on TV or movies. God Tup you truly are an idiot. CBS I GUARANTEE YOU would love to have someone like JJ running their show. You claim I have blind hatred for Shatner but you’re the same with JJ. You think he wouldn’t help this pathetic floundering Discovery show that is currently dying on the vine? Jump off the nearest cliff please and stay out of the gene pool.

Haryy Plinkett,

Re: JJ’s had no success ever on TV or movies

Well, having some success in TV in no way means that he can’t tank some:

BELIEVE,

REVOLUTION,

ALMOST HUMAN,

ALCATRAZ,

UNDERCOVERS,

SIX DEGREES,

WHAT ABOUT BRIAN

Well I wouldve been fine if Abrams had input on the show but people seem to over estimate with Abrams do on these shows. Back in the Felicity/Alias days he was a show runner, wrote and directed episodes and was the creative lead of where they went. These days the guy is mostly a producer in name only when it comes to TV shows because his attention now is films where the real money is.

All Abrams would’ve done is what he done for the last half dozen shows he’s had his name on including the most recent one Westworld: Help come up with the premise and a basic story plan and then let other people actually run the show. Thats it. If they are lucky he’ll stop in on a few production meetings in the season. He wouldnt be ‘running’ the show, the guy hasn’t ran a show in over a decade now. There are people out there who think he ran LOST when all he did was work on the pilot and produced the first season but it was other people who actually ran it and came up with all the ideas. He would basically be what Alex Kurtzman is to this show now, ie, hire someone else to run it like Fuller. Thats the best you would get.

@Tiger2 – good point. I forgot about Westworld, which I love. And JJ’s influence there might have most been felt in keeping HBO committed when the series looked in big trouble. JJ has stroke. And can clearly manage a project and manage a studio.

But he was no good for Star Trek. At least creatively. Perhaps were it not for JJ, we wouldnt have gotten big budget Star Trek. But realistically, three films later and it looks like its going back in the deep freeze, so its not like he over-saw the golden revival of the franchise. Star Trek would have happened without JJ. And there’s no way to know, but perhaps we’d still be talking about the 4th film rather then talking about how much the 3rd film lost.

@Harry – You can’t possibly be that dense.

I dont have any blind hatred for anyone. Never called JJ names like you do to everyone here on a regular basis. Loved The Force Awakens. I thought at times Lost was one of the greatest shows ever. I dont want JJ anywhere near the creative aspect of Star Trek. And if you watched the Bad Robot produced films, you’d feel the same way while noting that the best of the three was the one JJ was least interested in.

Interesting gamble by Bryan. Trek is TREK and American Gods is relatively obscure outside of those who like Gaiman. My prediction is that AG will suffer the same fate as Hannibal (I’m still bitter!) in the end but ST:DSC will warp onward…that is, after the first season when CBS pulls its cranium from its rectum and actually AIRS it on regular TV!! I’m with commenters Legate Damar and Gary 8.5: No biggie, carry on. I’m also hoping with commenter Chris that perhaps Ron Moore might catch a Trekworthy scent and come aboard.

What people seem to miss here though is American Gods was something he pushed to get on the air. Its only there because he made it happen. Its his personal project so obviously he wants to see it through. Discovery was happening with or without him. He had no involvement of getting it on the air and as much as we like Fuller hasn’t been involved with the franchise since Voyager ended. Its sad because yes everyone seems to like him but its not a surprise since it was clear he wasn’t as focused on it as he should have been. Something has to give. He already got it pushed back four months, CBS wasn’t willing to push it back farther and I can’t blame them. Their project has to come first and someone who is going to be there fully to make it happen. It was just bad timing on both of their parts but at least his premise and everyone he hired to run it stays.

Streaming services will eventually replace “regular TV”.

Just buy a Netflix subscription if you want to watch it, even if you wait until a whole season is released so you can buy a single month subscription just to watch it. It’s still worth the £7.

I wish everyone would stop being so tight about it.

Or they could simply try it free for 30 days and watch the first season within that timeframe. However neonblue, that only applies to anyone outside the States. American fans will have to pay up to $10/month for the privilege of watching it on CBS All Access, as, disgracefully, theirs is the only country in the world where the show isn’t being made available to stream through Netflix. So they aren’t being ‘tight’ about the potential outlay, they’re just considering whether or not they want to pay an additional rather unfair cost for something that pretty much everyone else is getting for free.

Not being tight when CBS All Access is drek, except Trek. Why spend $7 or more a month for All Access to get one show when you can spend the equivalent on Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu and get a load of good content. If I were single I’d probably go for it, but wish me luck convincing my wife to blow $7 a month for one show when she isn’t even a sci-fi fan, especially when we already shell out for services that have content the whole family can enjoy. In the grand scheme it is a few bucks, but you start adding the nickels and dimes of all your monthly expenses together and it ends up real money.

You can always just wait for the show to end at the season and then just pay for one month of it. I don’t want to sound mean but I don’t understand why people think they are being forced to pay for it for months on end? If you don’t want to pay for the entire run, wait for it to be over and pay one month for it. I refuse to believe people here can’t afford one month of it when the same fans will shell out $20+ dollars to see a Star Trek movie in theaters.

Tiger2,

Re: I don’t understand why people think they are being forced to pay for it for months on end?

While I think the strategy you propose wize, the reason people believe the months on end thing is because CBS has said they are only going to keep 4 episodes up at most per month for a block feed.

Well if CBS does that they are idiots. How do you expect to compete with sites like Netflix and Amazon if you can’t binge watch these shows? Thats ultimately why those sites are so successful in the first place. I get CBS is trying to get people to sign up as much as possible but that would only drive people away INCLUDING me who plans to order the service on day one but if I can’t binge watch the show anytime I want I may have to rethink it.

Tiger2,

Re: ifCBS does that they are idiots.

Indeed. And I don’t believe this restriction exists for any of their other shows? So even more idiocy if they go through with it for Discovery.

Good move being smart enough to not spread yourself too thin, unlike a certain team I could mention that had bunches of irons in the fire, most of which are now stone cold.

I will watch AG as well as ST:DSC. Can’t wait, in fact.

disappointed, i have hope that it will still work, agreed with the get moore on board and ira

Both Moore and Behr are busy with Outlander.

If there are any doubts, just ask Nicholas Meyer what to do.

SPOT ON! Meyer and the rest of the A-list writers!

Seriously, I love Fuller work and it was a good fit for Star Trek, but if he wasn’t going to have is attention in it 100% and start another project to which he gave preference, maybe he should have declined to do Star Trek from the beginning.

Having Fuller write the first two episodes is huge, even if that’s the end of his involvement. The TV series HEROES, for instance, was really mediocre but was elevated SIGNIFICANTLY by his involvement on key episodes.

And his premise stays. Even though I’m not super keen on the prequel premise but hopefully it will turn out well. But yes he still created the show and the characters so the people there now will make it work. Shows lose show runners all the time and while it would’ve been nice if he stayed through the first season at least it sounds like he did enough to steer it in a solid direction.

Dead Like Me got a lot better once he was removed. I’m not familiar enough with his other series. It was good that he worked on Trek previously though and seemed to “get it”.

Hopefully the new show runners remain committed as much as possible to respecting the world of Trek and the canon.

Hannibal was AMAZING!! Its not a show for everyone though lol. It was quite graphic and gory for even a cable network but more so on NBC. But yeah I loved it and why it convinced me if his work on that would translate into Discovery then we were in for a crazy ride.

Again though he might be gone but all the people he’s been working with are still there so my guess is they are probably going to stick in the direction they were already going. If it was wholesale changes they would’ve replaced a lot more people. And they been at it 10 months now and he only just left last month so I don’t see much changes in direction of the current story, just someone else in charge of it.

Not super surprised, but pretty bummed.

Oddly feels a bit like the Bob Orci situation again with Beyond. Not the same thing because the reasons for leaving are different but it is incredible they constantly try to tell us nothing is really happening, its all a process, no one is being shown the door, etc and at the end its exactly like that.

Although the other difference being Orci idea’s were completely scrapped whatever he was planning vs Fuller which sounds like the show he created will continue, just simply without him. Sucks but thats life. Maybe something will change in the future where he comes back but hopefully he won’t NEED to come back if the show is in the right hands now.

I don’t think it’s like Orci unless producers felt that Fuller’s ideas were so bad they needed him removed. Sounds like what it is. That Fuller is spread too thin and the studio didn’t want to wait for him.

Yeah thats what I said although I don’t think they thought his ideas were ‘bad’ so much as it was just too different a direction they wanted like Pegg hinted to. His idea was too ‘Trek-y’. Now it doesn’t mean it was good either but it sounds like he was taken off appealing more to hardcore fans instead of the general audience they wanted.

And I was also talking about its similar in the sense before both officially left they kind of played up the fact they were still going to be around and involved just because they weren’t going to be director or show runner. The word ‘producer’ gets tossed a lot in these discussions and kind of what they both would stay on doing when in reality it became in name only and they had no more responsibilities from then on. I kept telling everyone (on another site) that Fuller would still be involved because a month ago thats how it sounded. Now we know differently. That’s life though and the show must go on.

I think Shatner was a non-starter for Paramount for some reason. They seem to want nothing to do with him. Not sure if it was previous salary demands or he parked in some execs spot one day. But since he’s worked a lot since Star Trek, the idea its a personality clash rings hollow.

But the 50th went by without much fanfare. Whereas you look at the Star Wars revival and its all about embracing their original superstars.

And I still think Orci or someone on his behalf leaked the Shatner thing as a last ditch effort to keep the film. But even with all the immense positive (and free) media, it wasnt enough.

I certainly agree about Shatner. I think the guy has just burned bridges at Paramount for his high demands and fees and my guess is they just don’t want him involved in Trek anymore because while he brings interest for fans he simply tries to take too much advantage of it. This basically was confirmed over a video I saw with Rick Berman and Brannon Braga discussing the show Enterprise. Its an hour long video and its actually really fascinating about their views of the show, how they went about it, the mistakes etc. Anyway they got to a part where Braga discussed when Shatner called him and said he had an idea for the show pitching how Kirk could make an appearance on it. He said he was excited about it and they set up a meeting to discuss and sure as you know it was the rumored Mirror Universe idea that floated around but it would be the same MU Kirk from TOS just in the future from Enterprise timeline. Anyway what was funny about the story was Braga went to Paramount and told them Shatner wanted to come on the show and they were immediately cynical about it because they thought it was just a ploy to wrangle a lot of money out of it. SURE ENOUGH his lawyer called to negotiate his appearance and he wanted 20 times more the usual pay for that kind of an appearance. It sounded like millions lol. They literally laughed… Read more »

Tiger2,

Re: Greed

Why are you so naive as to believe that Shatner, who I sincerely doubt was as greedy as the studio would have you believe, is the only one at the negotiating table that’s in the grip of greed? This willingness to believe that Paramount only wants to make STAR TREK out of the goodness of its heart for posterity is as laughable as the fictional 20x more Paramount laughed out of the office.

The main reason Paramount is afraid to deal with him is that he’s business educated, and he’s not liable to fall for any of their historic tricks in cheating talent out of their fair share of the spoils because he’s already had those cards played against him in prior negotiations. He’s been around the block, seen their act and peeked behind the curtain.

Will you get a grip man. And yes as I said in my post he clearly was THAT greedy if he was asking 20 times the usual amount for an appearance fee to be on Enterprise. They said it was literally 20 times lol. And look I don’t personally care how much they pay Shatner as long as they are willing to pay it. But clearly they aren’t and that’s what has mainly kept him from playing Kirk again. No one claims Paramount is doing this for charity but yes its a business and they have decided the price Shatner usually ask for is not enough to attract enough people to watch a film or show to see him. He can cut down his fee, he doesn’t so no more Kirk. Look I don’t care either way if I never see Kirk again and clearly that will remain the case. The guy is in his mid 80s to even play Kirk again would feel ridiculous. That said I’m not against seeing him again and the idea Bob Orci had to put him in the last film sounded fine. But yes it probably didn’t work out because Paramount didn’t want to deal with the headache of his demands. Notice this has NEVER been an issue with the other TOS cast members. Most are just happy when they are asked for an appearance again and oblige. Again no one is suggesting they just shut up and put on a Starfleet uniform again… Read more »

Tiger2

Re: Will you get a grip man.

No, why don’t you get a clue about Paramount and their contracts? Paramount didn’t break their MI contract with Cruise because he danced on Oprah’s couch. They want to get away with paying talent 1/20th of what they’re worth. And they are not above lying and exaggerating in the press to gain sympathy for the unconscionable things they do in pretending to fulfill contractual obligations while doing everything in their power to cause this to actually be what they retain.

And I’ll repeat, Paramount’s Brad Grey doesn’t want to risk negotiating with Shatner because he fears that Shatner’s Priceline boon means there’s a chance the actor might best him at the negotiating table turning Grey into a laughingstock after his dirty tricksters have been carefully crafting Bill’s doddering old fool image to keep him in his existing contracts’ place.

While I’m getting a grip, why don’t you read up on Paramount versus Art Buchwald and Brad Grey versus Gary Shandling?

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-17/local/me-3895_1_net-profit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-hope-weiner/pellicano-trial-on-bert-f_b_92131.html

No offense but you sound like Shatner’s agent. ;) No one is saying Hollywood doesn’t low ball when it can but do you honestly believe that is the issue going on with Shatner? As far as I can tell Star Trek actors are paid pretty freakin well. Maybe not TOS because it was a cheaper show but later shows casts were paid well. Stewart kept getting huge raises with the TNG films. I think it went from half a million in Generations to $13 million by Nemesis. Shatner got paid $5 million in Generations and he worked 10 grueling days. And at the time there would be no movie without him so it was understandable but he’s kidding himself if he thinks he can make millions playing Kirk now, especially when he doesn’t even star in these productions. Look I’m not saying you’re completely wrong, but I am saying its been known for decades now Shatner has always had high demands to play Kirk, more so than any other Trek cast member and I think Paramount got sick of it. Back during the TOS films sure he could make demands. I mean he even worked his way to direct Star Trek V but luckily after that bomb he was never let back in the director’s seat again. Anyway I get you have your feelings on this my only point is if fans want to see Shatner play Kirk one last time well they saw it 22 years ago already because… Read more »

Tiger2,

Re: do you honestly believe that is the issue going on with Shatner

Not just Shatner but any actor who they feel are so well off that they are getting too big for their financial breeches as they see it [|=i the offensive word bot doesn’t like edwardjay’s last name for some reason:

http://edwardjayepste|n.com/CruiseFT.htm

Re: Star Trek actors are paid pretty freakin well

Only after every one of the mains went to court against Paramount in one form of legal action or another. I believe Nimoy was the first.

Are you comparing TOM CRUISE deal with William Shatners? Ok you are definitely his agent lol. Cruise an A-list star, yes he has high demands but he’s a global star, thats apples and oranges. Of course I get your basic point actors feel like they are getting duped for their services or value at times. What I’m saying is I don’t think thats the case with Shatner. I think he’s trying to get more than his worth IMO. I will go back to the example on Enterprise. When Rick Berman (sorry it wasn’t Brannon Braga I remembered it wrong) said he wanted 20 times more than the usual fee the guy wasn’t exaggerating. He said this 4 years ago, he was’t working for Paramount or the show anymore. He said that they were excited when the guy called, loved his idea of the story he pictched but the money was SO obscene it was no way they could do it. It had nothing to do with someone trying to low ball him, Berman said specifically Shatner wanted 20 times than the TOP pay for a guest staring role. My guess he might’ve been able to do it if it was twice as much or maybe five times as much but the money he wanted was out of the realm of basic reality. Look we can do this all day, the point I’m only making is Paramount doesn’t want to deal with the guy anymore because no matter how you argue… Read more »
Tiger2, Re: your basic point actors feel like they are getting duped for their services or value at times Thanks for getting that but while many actors are uneducated enough about it to only feel, many others, like Shatner, are wizened enough to know when they are being handed a raw deal. And like FINANCIAL TIMES’ EJE says studios execs prefer a cya morality play story that demonizes actors to cover their own fiscal malfeasances. Re: Are you comparing TOM CRUISE deal with William Shatners No, I am demonstrating the dirty tricks the people running the studio are willing to apply, as I said, on “any actor”, from Shandling to Cruise in negotiations to the negative negotiations studio PR feed that you are swallowing about Shatner and the fact that you want me to believe that the low balling SyFy channel’s series HAVEN paid Shatner 20x the usual fee to guest star. And yes, I’m saying Berman is known to exaggerate and is willing to toe the company line, even while unemployed, in hopes of being granted a return gig where he’d have to reenter such negotiations with actors. Re: Paramount doesn’t want to deal with the guy anymore We can agree on that. I disagree that while they characterize it as such, that it’s the money. It’s the egg on the face fear the younger bucks have that he might prevail, especially after they’ve gone to all the trouble to paint him has a doddering old fool, and that… Read more »

Man thats fine. We just have to agree to disagree at this point. I’m not doubting what you’re saying in general, I just don’t think it applies to Shatner all that much personally. He just sounds like someone who asks for too much to play Kirk. You disagree, understood. Anyway it sounds like Shatner is done as Kirk if Paramount has their way regardless.

Tiger2,

Re: agree to disagree

OK. But just for S&Gs how much do you honestly imagine Shatner got to appear as Kirk in Kimmel’s opening Oscars’ gag?

LOL no idea. Never saw it.

Oh I wanted to specifically addressed what you said here:

Re: about Shatner and the fact that you want me to believe that the low balling SyFy channel’s series HAVEN paid Shatner 20x the usual fee to guest star.

No thats NOT what I’m saying lol. And whats funny is that was addressed by Rick Berman himself when he was talking about how much Shatner was asking for to be on the show. He (or Brannon Braga) said they believe there is a price he asks for non-Trek jobs and a completely different price when he plays Kirk. This guy stars in a lot of B movies and low budget TV shows these days no one is paying him millions lol. I oddly just saw one movie he was in recently called A Horror Christmas story. That film looks like it cost what he got paid to make Generations with. So I’m pretty sure for most of his roles he takes whatever is offered its when it comes to Kirk when his team of lawyers shows up to haggle over salary.

And to make this clear of course thats understandable. Thats his most iconic role and always will be. He simply seems to ask for too much or want more screen time when its no longer about Kirk anymore and why the studio no longer feels they have to bend to his will.

Tiger2,

Re: a completely different price when he plays Kirk.

Well, then your whole premise for entering into these Shatner’s asking price discussions is false, because it has always been more than evident that Berman was NOT negotiating with Shtaner to appear on ENTERPRISE as James T. Kirk.

He was suppose to play Kirk in the Mirror Universe. That was stated at the beginning. They did come up with a different idea but that was the idea Shatner pitched to them personally. Look man I don’t get why you are so bothered by this lol. I dont have an issue with the guy I’m only stating he plays hardball when it comes to playing Kirk and Paramount simply doesnt seem to care anymore since they killed him off 20 years ago. Now to be FAIR maybe he would’ve compromised more to appear in the last Trek movie and he sounded excited about it but alas as this all started Paramount didn’t even want the idea of him being in the movie so thats that.

Maybe they may work something out with him on Discovery. Probably doubtful due to the premise but Fuller at least was open to the idea. Now that he’s no longer there though who knows? Wouldn’t hold my breath.

Tiger2, Re: don’t get why you are so bothered by this Because you misrepresented this substituting Berman’s executive suite covering his posterior story for what really went down. Berman came to the meeting ready to specifically ignore Shatner’s pitch (But he thought it good enough to borrow its setting for IN A MIRROR, DARKLY), and had the nerve to insist to Shatner an idiotic concept that he claimed was superior. He wanted Bill to instead play Chef [Where have we heard that before?], a distant relative of old James T. Kirk who bore a striking resemblance to him, that the Federation Temporal War guy plucked out of time to take the Captain’s place because some enemy time agent had disappeared Kirk in the latter years of his life, and he couldn’t be found throughout all time. To see the flaming idiocy of what Berman was pitching recall that by this stage of Kirk’s life they have established the Federation uses brain scans, fingerprints, DNA and voice analysis to ID Kirk because of his security clearances — all of which Chef would fail and if the FTWG could use his tech to balm over those deficiencies then why wouldn’t he use one of his agents surgically altered to resemble Kirk and avoid the untrained and inexperienced Chef altogether? The only character that would have made even remote sense in Berman’s scenario would have been the very character that Shatner was there to pitch: a wizened Tiberius [Mirror Kirk] who had been… Read more »

Tiger2,

Re: Shatner has always had high demands to play Kirk, more so than any other Trek cast member

For this statement to have even one scintilla of validity you would have to explain how it could possibly be true flying in the face of the fact that both Nimoy, who they not only wanted to appear in GENERATIONS but to direct it as well, and Kelley declined GENERATIONS while Shatner did not.

Nimoy didn’t appear in Generations because of money he didn’t because he didn’t like how the story was structured. He even offered Paramount to rewrite parts of it but they declined because they wanted it out ASAP and he declined to appear or direct. Kelly for the same reason.

The only reason why Shatner didn’t decline because they were paying him $5 million lol. And the film revolved around his character. Nimoy and the others didn’t like the idea they were just going to be in it for the first 15 minutes as just a glorified cameo and I can’t blame them for that.

I get it you think Shatner should get everything he demands…well the studio disagrees and its their right to do so.

Tiger2, Re: Nimoy didn’t appear in Generations because of money From all the ways you described “high demands” about Shatner, I believed you meant more than money. But regardless, your suggestion that as proven director and onscreen performer in toto that Nimoy would have worked for $5 million or less is absurd. Re: the film revolved around his [Shatner’s] character. Oh, so my original interpretation was right; you did mean high demands to include more than just money. Clearly Nimoy and Kelley had higher demands other than their fellow cast members Doohan and Koenig. You don’t know Nimoy the man or director if you think the size of his part, a minor reason at best, was the SOLE reason he walked away from directing GENERATIONS and got so pissed at Berman. You are just cherry picking to make Shatner’s very normal negotiations seem unusual. Just as you are twisting Nimoy’s and Kelley’s motives for declining which had little to do with your anti-Shatner bias oriented suggestion. Nimoy declined because when being wooed as a director he suggested improvements to the script and was told what was ultimately revealed as a grand lie: that the script was locked and that any changes were economically impossible. Shatner was told the same thing. As you may recall, the studio magically found the script money to change Spock and McCoy’s parts and then when the test screenings showed the script was still the turkey that Nimoy fingered they again went to their magic money… Read more »

LOL man again get a grip. Nimoy simply didn’t think Generations was a very good story so declined to appear in it. Now to make this clear money ALSO could’ve been a factor but from what it sounds like it was just mainly the script not being up to par in his opinion, or at least with the scenes that included the TOS cast. No I don’t pretend to know him lol I’m only saying what he said at the time why he didn’t appear or direct. Everything you just said is EXACTLY what I’m referring to and said and I agree. He simply didn’t want to do a glorified cameo and felt the script could’ve been better. I don’t give him any illwill towards that. And notice he still had a very good relationship with the studio, they just couldn’t work out together with that film which happens all the time. Thats life.

And guess what I don’t give Shatner any illwill if he doesn’t play Kirk anymore because they don’t meet his asking price. I don’t personally care if we never see Shatner as Kirk again. They killed him off, I moved on long ago.

The ORIGINAL point was Paramount didn’t want to deal with Shatner’s demands. You can argue whose fault it is but at the end of the day there it is and yeah they don’t have to.

Calm down you’re sounding unhinged.

Tiger2,

Re: Nimoy simply didn’t think Generations was a very good story

Regardless of whether he did or did not, for you to say that’s the only reason he demurred when they had that idiot Berman wooing him for director and telling him wouldn’t be allowed as director to make changes to the script — well that sounds equally unhinged from my side of this.

OMG man this is about Shatner and his demands and why Paramount doesnt want to work him again. Its not about Nimoy and his issues with Generations. I AGREE with you on that but the point being it didn’t change anything in terms of his relationship with Paramount. Yes they disagreed on the script, he decided not to do it and it was 22 years ago already. Life went on. Do you want bring up anything else not relevant to the topic?

Tiger2,

Re: this is about Shatner and his demands

Well, you are the one who first introduced Shatner and his GENERATIONS’ demands which opened this up to comparison to the others demands there.

Re: the point being it didn’t change anything in terms of his [Nimoy’s] relationship with Paramount

It most certainly did:

http://www.ign.com/blogs/scottcollura/2016/09/26/leonard-nimoy-hated-star-trek-generations-and-other-great-behind-the-scenes-facts

Nimoy stopped speaking to Berman.

Give the show over to Nick Meyer if he’ll take it.

I think with him leaving there is now zero chance we see William Shatner appear in the series. Fuller had hinted that he was open to a Shatner return

Whew, big fat egotistical narcissistic bullet dodged

not necessarily. I’m sure there is some other big fat egotistical narcissistic person involved in the production

Best. Comment. Ever.

What is with this irrational and ridiculous hatred of Shatner? Good lord.

I love the Shat! Are you kidding me. That man is as close to a human god that there is on earth! You know how I know that? He told me.

In that case then, Shat would be a perfect fit for American Gods!

Harry is just a troll and the easiest way to troll a Star Trek site is to be irrationally negative about its biggest star. And when pressed he can only repeat silly claims of the supporting cast, all of whom seem to like him a lot more than Harry.

Too bad troll accounts are allowed here. It’s occasionally entertaining though when Harry calls Shatner names that so clearly would apply to himself. Hypocrite much? Lol

You keep telling yourself that snowflake. I know you cry into your Shatner pillow at night trying to keep those negative voices out of your head. You go ahead and keep defending someone who doesn’t even know you’re alive or gives a crap when you die there buttercup.

@Harry – you seem extremely upset by my post. No one here cares if you die and yet you’re still arguing your irelevant point. Try taking deep breaths or going offline for a few days. You might be less angry and bitter at the world.

I assume Harry doesn’t run a business. Not with that glaring lack of business sense. I’m assuming you’re one of the idiots on twitter that Shatner schools on a daily basis! Lol

Only idiots go on twitter. You say Shat has an account on twitter eh? Yea. . . only idiots go on twitter.

I Khan Believe It An\\\'t Butter

They should bring in Trump now.
He’ll make it great.
He’ll build a wall around it…and Mexico will pay for it.

No, just kidding.
This entire production is going to be one giant lackluster with a tiny obscure viewing base of of free wanting TV.

It’ll likely end up being none canon any way.

Or it will be great.

Where, do I out down my ten bucks a month?

The Emperor does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation

How could it be non cannon? If the Abrams films are canon this definitely will be.

And I get people are pessimistic about all of this, eeriely the same pessimism we had about Beyond’s very rocky production but at the end it turned out fine. No it doesnt mean everyone loved it but the consensus is its a decent film even if not a very memorable one.

Discovery can still be great and the beauty of TV is they have time to get it right. So even if its not amazing first season they can still turn it around. We’ll just have to wait and see but I’m hoping for the best and I HATE its another going back to the past prequel but it may surprise me.

I Khan Believe It An\\\'t Butter

Move along…No surprises here…
It’ll be been there done that all over again.

Abrams movies being canon is a contradiction in terms. Officially they may count as “canon”, but they are actually outside of canon since they completely ignore, or rather circumvent, the canon. The new series, on the other hand, will adhere to canon since it takes place in the actual Star Trek universe (i.e. the so called prime timeline)

In the prime universe Romulus is still destroyed in the 24th century and Spock goes missing in the prime universe. So yes its still canon even if in another universe because those events still happened in prime universe. If they (ever) make a show taking place post Voyager/Nemises the Romulus situation would still be an issue.

The only thing canon about JJ’s films are the 24th century things like Romulus and Spock and the Kelvin immediately before Nero’s arrival.

Make Trek great again.

Good riddance.

huh?

This sucks. Hope he comes back.

Damn. I wasn’t expecting that from him so soon, but then isn’t a surprise given the fact that his plate is full with American Gods. He is in the way of becoming the producer of the best cancelled series I like, so if he isn’t really 100% invested in Discovery, then he is doing the proper thing as keeping away as possible, but distancing himself that way, doesn’t seems like him.

All the politics, delays, a New York City convention about the show with no information, rumors, joy and anger from fans, whew! I feel like Dorothy running from a cyclone within a sepia atmosphere, searching for family, then running into a house for safety, getting struck by debris and now watching all manner of people sail by through a rectangular view screen. I hugging my Toto for safety and hope for a safe landing!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC77XzYR8YGsFJ3u17dlR0qg

Reading between the lines – “This show is going to suck, I don’t want my name attached to this garbage. I’m outta here”

Smart move Bryan

Yup.

That’s probably what the real Harry Plinkett would think if he saw your posts.

GOOD.

No more prequels for god’s sake.

6 months to go guys…Better get crackin’…

LOL actually only 5 months. No pressure.

I reckon May launch is a placeholder. They may air the pilot episode in May and the main series launches in September, hence more time to perfect the show, work out the chinks!

Work out the “chinks”? You want anyone of Chinese decent out of the show? YOU’RE RACIST!

Might be time for a vacation Harry. You’re quite unpleasant.

Ah poor TUP, do you need a safe space from my opinions? You poor little snowflake. Let me clear a spot on the floor over here so you can sit and have a good cry.

@Harry – no, I was giving you some subtle advice for which you’re too ignorant to see. Preferably, you’ll just be exiled anyway. And I’d miss how your awful posts makes everyone else’s posts look so much better in comparison.

Wow… um, the term is “work out the ‘kinks'”… definitely one of those things you need to say right.

Jerry Seward & Harry Plinkett

People were “working out the chinks in one’s armor” long before the 19th century’s racial slur, Chink, was invented.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/chink

and while it is easily converted into a sports metaphor racial slur with capitalization, “Chink in the armor”, use of chink in DataMat’s case is not pejorative.

No they wouldnt do that. How many shows can you think of where they run the show 3 months after they air the pilot? It will all start at once whenever that ends up being.

They’ll just push it back again. No biggie. Competence is overrated anyway

at least he got the ball rolling and ‘trek’ back on tv.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Honestly though… For someone who claims to be a Star Trek fan this is kind of lame. Honestly, why even be involved at all if you’re going to back out and claim you don’t have enough mojo??? I think it is kind of ridiculous and shows that you really don’t care as much about Trek as you claim you do.

This is clearly a statement from someone with no knowledge of TV or movie production.

I’d like to see YOU take on Fullers workload!

Armchair quarterbacks… don’t you just love ’em.

Apparently, not even Bryan Fuller could take Bryan Fullers workload.

Yes, Bryan Fuller’s just simply too busy. And anyone else whom I would’ve loved to have been DSC’s showrunner is busy, too. Ron Moore’s busy running OUTLANDER, Manny Coto is busy with 24: LEGACY, and even someone non-Trek like J. Michael Straczynski is busy with SENSE 8.

It’s still mainly Fuller’s premise moving forward and we still have Meyer on board.

Dude you sound ridiculous. Think about your job and whatever you do in life and now multiple that same job by two only the number of hours stay the same and tell me if you in all honesty can do it for months on end? And TV production is already a 12+ hour a day job with just one show. These people devote a lot of time to this. They work extraordinary hours, basically 7 days a week when a show is in production. You can only do so much when you’re just one person and Fuller was trying to launch three new shows at once (adding Amazing Stories although that sounds like its just in concept phase).

They already pushed the show back four months to accommodate him…they weren’t going to push it back farther.

To bad he didn’t leave sooner. Maybe we would have been spared the weird focus on the second in command, a gay character, and a laughable attempt, even for Star Trek, at “diversity”.

I’d say the weird focus on the gay character comes more from the anti-gay crowd around here.

Agreed. The show could have it’s problems but a gay character won’t be one of them. Incidentally, given Hollywood’s current compulsion for promoting diversity at every turn, i’d wager that a gay character would have featured anyway even if Fuller hadn’t been involved. Him being gay personally did not ‘make it so’.

There have been gay characters on TV for years now. Its weird it took Star Trek this long to even get one. And I’m not saying they ‘needed’ one but yeah gay characters are all over the TV and film landscape. And I say this to ALL the anti-gay people here and please understand this: There are COUNTLESS gay actors, writers, producers and directors in Hollywood. They have CONSTANTLY promoted heterosexual characters and story lines including many in Trek itself. They have done this for decades and I think most are fine with it, but what exactly is wrong with them simply making and writing characters that represent them? If you are any other minority people almost expect you to do it. If you are a woman you usually write about women characters. If you are black, black characters, Asian, Asian characters, etc. Now I’m saying thats all they write about but I am saying its ‘OK’ too, right? And its not a shock most characters are white straight males because *GASP* thats the majority of people who work in the industry, so I get it even if I’m not one. But what exactly is wrong with having these other voices? Yeah nothing. They work in the industry they write straight characters all the time but they are never allowed to write about anything that represents them? If you believe that I have a Star Trek episode for you: “Far Beyond the Stars” Watch it (again). That episode represented EVERYTHING… Read more »

In case anyone misunderstood me, when I said ‘Agreed’ in the above post I meant with Harry, not with Ted! I think the show might be in trouble now, what with Fuller legging it, but I don’t think for a moment that a gay character constitutes a ‘problem’ for it (or for any other show for that matter). It’s a shame that some posters here, do. But what I find quite amusing here is the assumption on the part of some, that a gay character being present on the show relates automatically to Fuller’s homosexuality. As if he is somehow tasked with-if you’ll excuse the term-‘bringing the gay’ to whatever project he’s working on. That sort of assumption does a disservice to minority writers-who, like all writers are concerned with chronicling aspects of the whole human experience-of which, sexuality is only one.

@Harry – we agree 100% on that. The “I dont have a problem with gays, but…” crowd.

Of course, just try to get a traditionally religious character on Star Trek. No, no, we’re too “advanced” for that.

Why would they want a traditionally religious character? Star Trek characters are professionals who work side by side with people from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds; they’re scientifically literate; they respect education; they use science to understand what they don’t know; they don’t assume they have all the answers and they don’t strip people of their civil liberties because they obey the voices in the head of some bastard 2000 years ago. Star Trek is about a better future than what we have. There is no place for a traditionally religious character.

Last thing Star Trek needs is a bunch of Muslims or Catholics running around causing the same kind of crap they do in the 21st century. It would be nice to see a future in Star Trek where religion is finally banned for the evil that it is.

I dont go to Church, dont pray dont do anything. But to say that people who believe in something should be banned and labeled as evil, or worship it, is wrong. I dont have the answers to weeding out the, yes, fanatical monsters living among us, but tarnishing whole beliefs and people with the same brush is counter to any future resembling Starfleet and utopia.

Of course utopia aint ever going to happen. Not a chance and I definately believe that. However, Im optimistic that the future can be better.

It’ll be banned eventually. The world can only take so much stupid for so long.

Dude I’m an atheist as well but that is silly. We are in the minority. Only 5% of the world are. No one will be banning religion man. You can’t even get an atheist President in America. We will get a gay one before you get a atheist one. And frankly religion is too steeped in all cultures. You remove religion you remove a big part of culture in the world so no its not going away. Maybe less of it but never entirely gone.

Harry’s usual rhetoric. If he doesn’t agree then it’s stupid. Too bad he keeps missing the mark

Religion is responsible for more wars and deaths in the past 2000 years than anything else. It’s rhetoric to want it gone? It’s not me who’s missing the mark my backwards friend.

Yes religion has caused many wars and deaths, agreed. But so has government. No one suggests getting rid of that, just to improve it with more checks and balances. And lets be honest majority of religious people aren’t violent or support violence. I agree the ones that do make the others look bad but there are billions of religious people who has never been part of that. When was the last time you heard a Hindu or a Buddhist try to kill someone in the name of their religion? In fact there are hundreds of religions worldwide that are peaceful, we just think of the big famous ones with their bloody imperial history and consider the whole thing bad because of what they do. And as said the vast majority are peaceful, including Islam, but yes clearly that one has bigger problems to contend with.

I’m not ‘defending’ religion, I would be one of the last people to ever join one and a lot of it just feels outdated in terms of specific views but its a big part of the world and millions of people are better people because of it. There can be improvements to some of it for sure but the idea you are going to try to ban something over 6 billion people believe for thousands of years in is about as realistic as changing our orbit around the sun.

I don’t think ‘ban’ is the right word, or even intention. A devout hope that we evolve beyond the need for such crutches as religion would be closer to the mark, and in the right spirit, to use a word that can be (mis)used to convey a whole host of different notions, religious and otherwise.

It would be nice we stop doing a lot of things but we do have to face reality while some things have gone away over human history many have stayed for a reason. Religion has been with man literally since inception. I don’t think its going to go away in any reasonable time because religion is passed down family to family. Sure some generations breaks away from it and its a fact every newer generation sees it as less important but the fact is over 90% of the population still consider themselves religious. There are multiple countries out there that still base laws around religion. Half the holidays in America and many other are religious based including the biggest one of all: Christmas. I mean as I said here before religion is too ingrained in every day culture. Even as an atheist who doesn’t practice it I realize its part of my life even if indirectly.

Yes if it was up to me there would be no religion. But same time I understand the value of it even if I disagree. Its one of those things that still feels like an outdated superstition on one hand but same time has defined a lot of our culture we take for granted today. Its an odd situation but its been an institution for thousands of years now.

Gotta agree with HP here. It’s one thing if you use religion the way Santa Clause is used, as a crutch for letting kiddies understand things till they are old enough to know better (and no, I’m not big on Santa either, but haven’t seen too many wars outside of showroom lines at the holidays), but for grownups? Too many are enslaved by dogma, and that transcends any particular religion, or even special interest group (if trekkies had phasers, there’d be fewer trekkies, because of all the dogma associated with GR and his creator status and the butthurt feelings of the lemming-like can-do-wrong followers.)

Is this the Red Letter Media guy or someone using his name?

@Nachum – the Red Letter guy is clever and witty. This one isnt. Theres your answer.

Heh heh.

How tolerant!

Toleration is not exactly the call of the faithful though is it?

Eventually yeah, maybe six hundred thousand years from now.
I wouldn’t expect the end of religion to happen too soon, if at all.

Yeah, Catholics are killing lots of people in the 21st century. How tolerant of you!

Well at least you’re seeming to concede that Christianity has been at the heart of an awful lot of killing for a couple millennia. Not to take any ‘credit’ away from other religion-inspired wars, but ‘to church on Sunday and to hell on Monday’ certainly sums up my experience of many (not all) Christians.

BTW, tolerance for intolerant behavior isn’t ethical, in that it will only serve to get you more of the same. The ‘leave her to heaven’ philosophy certainly wouldn’t have worked (in a timely manner anyway) against many of the world’s tyrants.

Harry Plinkett,

Re: Last thing Star Trek needs is a bunch of Muslims or Catholics running around causing the same kind of crap they do in the 21st century

But the earlier Romans, Chicago mobsters, and Nazis — no problem! Eh, Plinkett?

You’re right, bring on the Catholic terrorists. Maybe there will be some abortion clinics still to bomb in the 23rd century.

How tolerant of you!

I agree with this. They can have religious characters from other species to tell that story much as they did on DS9 (and very well).

Let’s hope by the 23rd century we aren’t still fighting to the death over silliness like religious beliefs. And even if some do that it wouldn’t permeate a space exploration organization.

What are you talking about? Deep Space Nine was very much about the Bajorans – a very spiritual and religious people. Or does it have to be a “Christian” religion to count for you?

Sure. It’s easy to idealize the “exotic.” I want to see some recognition of the here and now. It’s been done in other sci-fi. (I’m Jewish, by the way. Never a single identifiable Jew on Star Trek in fifty years, and in the US at least there are just about as many Jews as gay people.)

Only its not the here and now. It takes place centuries in the future although Enterprise acknowledged religion still existed on Earth and TOS had a church altar. And how many different religions exist on Earth? I think they just acknowledge people are religious.

That’s fair enough. On the other hand, you had some pretty absolutist comments on TNG and some a bit less so on DS9 (my favorite, as it happens).

Nachum,

Re: Never a single identifiable Jew on Star Trek

As a person, who’s been taken for Jewish on occasion, I’m fascinated by how you would expect an unorthodox Jew in the 23rd century to be identifiable to the here and now? I mean Shatner and Nimoy were in fact, Jews. How exactly did the production remove their identifiableness?

Perhaps you can also show me where I was mistaken that in BREAD AND CIRCUSES it seemed clear that most of the non-Romans were Jews?

And what about the hunted and exterminated by the Nazis, Zeons? Too on the nose?

“Perhaps you can also show me where I was mistaken that in BREAD AND CIRCUSES it seemed clear that most of the non-Romans were Jews?”

Maybe they should have called it “Bagels and Circuses” instead. Oy vey!

Harry Plinkett,

Re: should have called it “Bagels and Circuses”

Nah, Jews didn’t schmear bagels until long after the Son of God, but they and he were breaking bread.

Ah, the Zeons! Forgot those. They all had kind of Jewish names as well.

Eh….you can make a case for Worf’s adopted parents the Rozhenkos are Russian Jews in the 24th century. (It’s a thin case, but you could make it. Particularly the mother. )

Diversity was always part of Trek, wasn’t it?

Huh, women, Asians and aliens in Star Trek is laughable? I seriously don’t understand why diversity is such a bad thing – the world is diverse. A future showing a united humanity in a united group of world’s should be, well, diverse.

Have some imagination.

This is what kills me, Starfleet is essentially the UN out in space. The point is ALL races, genders and nationalities are represented so what is the problem??? This is what the show has always been about why are people suddenly moaning about it now? I say this all the time but can’t look at a TOS documentary without the first 10 minutes talking about the diversity of the show and what it meant overall. That is Star Trek. You’re watching the wrong show if you are moaning about other people being shown on it that lives on the same planet as you, geesh.

I almost wish every character was gay. Just to see the “I’m not a bigot but…” crowds heads explode.

The wisest thing to do is just heed Nicholas Meyer’s suggestion, “fans should lower their expectations”.

If I am honest I have no idea what to expect…?

Doesn’t bode well. Looks like the singular vision, needed to drive Trek forward is gone. Too many cooks in this kitchen…

Why do people like Fuller, JJ etc treat Star Trek like it’s some kind of chore? Bring on Ira Steven Behr

Wasn’t he primarily the Deep Space Nine writer? No thanks.

Brannon more to your liking?

Brannon? Ugh

Harry hates all Star Trek. lol

I’d be excited if Ira was brought on. Although the risk with bringing someone who was very good so long ago is that they might not have changed with the times. We’ll see if thats the case with Meyer.

I actually see a lot to be optimistic about with the creative team on STD. Hopefully it all comes together.

Well frankly because they already had thriving careers and priorities when they were asked to take on Trek. Abrams had multiple shows and was getting more directing gigs. He was asked by Paramount because they liked his work on Mission Impossible 3 or actually it was Orci and Kurtzman who asked him would he be interested in directing and he said yes. But I don’t think he thought Trek was going to suddenly become his life and admitted he wasn’t a huge fan of it. Just put his mark on it, make money with some of the merchandise but still do all the other things he was doing. Now its pretty crazy he’s moved on to stuff like Star Wars and created more big shows and mini series like 11.22.63 and West World. Abrams is a busy guy with a lot of stuff on his plate. Star Trek was never going to sole thing. Even Star Wars is not something he wants to invest years in clearly. Fuller though I think its just bad timing. My guess is if he was asked to do Discovery before American Gods he probably wouldve made that his priority. Unlike Abrams he loves Star Trek and talked about what he would do with it if he got the chance to make it again. Well he did but unfortunately he too had a lot of stuff on his plate. But yes I would love someone like Ira Steven Behr. I’m sure he’s busy too but… Read more »

I’m aware that they had multiple projects, it’s just that cbs/paramount needs to do a better assessment of priorities from these guys. At the same time I’m a little peeved these guys piggy back trek just to boost themselves, but hey it’s their careers. manny coto is a good example of how someone motivated and devoted to trek can transform something that was woeful in enterprise into a good show. Too bad for enterprise it was too little too late

Blame the folks who liked and paid to see 09 in the theater (I don’t belong to either category); Abrams didn’t deserve a career bump based on that mess (or anything else of his I’ve ever seen, except maybe FORCE AWAKENS, which I actually find sorta entertaining in a ‘well it is in focus and Oscar Isaac nails the casual hero 100% kind of way’)

Part of this with Fuller may go back to Meyer in a strange way. Before TWOK Meyer said (paraphrasing here) it isn’t my job to hear what people want and give it to them; it is to make them want my vision. Perhaps Fuller wasn’t strong enough to retain that kind of focus in the face of all the pressures inherent in launching this whole thing, which admittedly are greater than even the ones that were on Meyer back then.

Keep in mind, with The Force Awakens, the early rumors from the set was JJ and Kennedy clashing because JJ wasnt used to oversight. Then the rumours came out that he would be one and done. And then some time later, he agreed to stay on. JJ learned to play nicely in someone else’s sandbox and it took Kathleen Kennedy to instill a little discipline. Maybe she can take on Star Trek next!

Yes but they haven’t done anything any successful producer does, ie, go from project to project. Look at all the people making Star Wars now, most of those guys are working at other things while they make those. Thats just how it is. Its the Kathleen Kennedys who runs the whole operation. But yes of course I agree with you and have said it over and over again the franchise needs another Rick Berman, someone at the top delegating everything else. Rick Berman basically signed on with the idea he was going to make Star Trek a full time gig once he got Deep Space Nine up and running but he was clearly devoted to TNG. But that was also a different time when Trek was under one roof, it was a big priority and you had the same group of people working together on the various shows and films. Its just a different animal now. The movie people and the TV people might as be working for two different companies and Trek is not treated like the entity it was back then. Its still a viable property obviously but not one anyone running to see as a main priority. Maybe the day that happens again there will be another Berman or a group of Bermans. At the moment, its just about finding whoever they think can get the current property made, they dont seem too worried whose going to be there for the long haul. Trek is just not… Read more »

Keep in mind, JJ never liked Star Trek. He took on Star Trek because of the immense marketing potential. It was dollar signs. They wanted to own their own version of Star Trek and turn it into a “Cinematic Universe” style franchise where Bad Robot would get a piece of the action all along the way.

JJ lost interest when it was clear that wasnt going to happen and when he couldnt convince CBS to give up the TV side of the deal (and marketing the originals).

So, it was Paramounts fault for pushing a production company that didnt like Trek, didnt know Trek and only wanted to squeeze money out of it.

It wont matter until the two sides are under the same roof again. But when that happens, they badly need a Star Trek czar to over-see the whole operation. Like Kathleen Kennedy at Lucas. Or whatshisname at Marvel. Someone who gets it who can be the voice on the vision and make Star Trek the expansive universe it deserves.

Yes I agree. I like Abrams but it was clear he only wanted to only make more Star Trek to fatten his pockets and thats fine but he doesn’t seem to have any passion for the franchise itself. He clearly likes it more now but its not a priority to him. I feel if he was given the chance to expand Star Trek beyond (lol oops) his films he could’ve done some interesting things with it but I HIGHLY doubt he would be the main person to do it like Berman was. No he would just set it all up and give someone else the job to over see it. Its really just about money for him and why he jumped to Star Wars and admittedly what he was a big fan of. Kevin Feige at Marvel lives and breathed Marvel comic books all his life, nearly everyone there has so yes its clearly about making money but they have a passion for it, knowledgeable about all of and has made the films and shows the spirit of the comics the best they can. They don’t always get it right but no one questions their intent. Thats what Star Trek needs again. I don’t know if it will ever happen. I’m sure if Fuller wasn’t so busy he probably would like to take the reign, try to produce several Trek shows and other projects but that guy is just too busy to do it full time. Hopefully if Discovery is… Read more »

And the drama continues!

Just Another Salt Vampire

I’d much rather that they put the drama in the show rather than the backstage shennanigans.

Not surprising all. I just would’ve liked to see CBS scrap everything Fuller has dreamed up for this show. I and many of my friends have been severely disappointed with all of Fuller’s ideas after it was announced Trek was returning to the prime timeline. Even if they somehow make this prequel show good you’re really limited going forward considering how close this show bumps into TOS. They should of went post nemesis and moved the story and universe back to the future and set up Star Trek for multiple new tv series and movies for the 21st century like TNG did in the 80’s. What a wasted opportunity. Cannot express my disappointment for what CBS and Fuller have decided to do with my favorite entertainment franchise.

I said this before and its just a personal theory but I kind of suspect Fuller was a bit happy to go ONCE he realized fans weren’t exactly loving his ideas. It doesnt mean everyone hated them but its pretty clear people are very mixed on the ideas overall just reading sites like this and I’m almost certain he was shocked how ugly people saw that ship that frankly put off TONS of people including myself.

Its clear Fuller is trying to go a different way with the franchise if that ship didn’t say it but he was probably concerned fans weren’t going to like what he was going to do. Now make no mistake I doubt very little if anything changes from what he done but I don’t think he wants to get the scrutiny others gotten when fans turned on their work like what happened Berman, Abrams, Orci, etc. Maybe he knew he could be in for a rough ride and why deal with that headache? Lets face it as Trek fans we are a very fickle bunch.

All that said most fans will give it a chance (ie watch the pilot). What happens after that is the question but my guess is even if people aren’t in love with the premise people are so starved for Trek as a show again they will stick it out through the first season at least, just as long as the stories and characters themselves are good.

Which ideas werent they loving? The only relevant criticism was to the lousy CGI/Ship Design (and the backlash to the ship design might have been a by-product of the lousy CGI). If the CGI was, as claimed, simply unfinished and if I were Fuller and knew it would look fantastic when completed, why would I be bothered about that?

People weren’t loving the idea of another prequel show. The majority of people want to go forwards and not backwards. Just because you have stated you want to put up an artificial wall after nemesis and never explore beyond it doesn’t mean others do not. Also that doesn’t make their critiques of the current course that Trek is on any less valid than yours. We all have our opinions and preferences. You don’t decide what is valid or relevant and what is not.

Overall, I’m very excited about everything I’ve heard about Discovery and am thrilled its set in the Prime universe. I even like the ship! My only concern has been some of Fuller’s comments about “reimagining” certain aspects of the existing canon (aliens, uniforms, etc.) My preference is for the show to find perfect harmony of fitting into the known visual continuity for the time period while still looking completely modern… Hopefully the new show runners will find that balance and/or have a rational reason for why things are different.

People who equate going “forward” with being post Nemesis and a prequel with “backwards” arent relevant since its an irrational and silly perspective.

It’s incredible how condescending you are. You’re the worst type of fan. Someone who always thinks they’re right and that their opinions are facts. I don’t know why I even respond to you but this will be the last until you can respect other people’s opinions and views.

@Da Trufe – Yes, the worst kind of Trek fan. The ones who are insightful, logical and articulate. The best kind are you, who insult and whine without expressing an alternate view.

Your motto must be “I dont know why you’re wrong but you are”. Tell me. I gladly admit when I agree with other’s opinions which happens often. There are some VERY insightful people here, far moreso than me.

Even the people I disagree with more often, I respect like Marja and others.

Back to the point at hand. Show me why my statement was wrong. “Going forward” taken literally to mean post nemesis is silly. Show me why you disagree. I bet you cant.

YEah exactly. Many seem put off not only by the prequel idea but that its so close to TOS. And look I don’t think its a Star Trek issue so much as people simply are not big on prequels and yet Hollywood keep shoving them down our throat. People simply like going forward because it keeps the story telling fresh and unpredictable.

Imagine instead of Disney announcing the new Star Wars sequel trilogy showing what happened after ROTJ they announced they were making a trilogy based on Rogue One leading up to A New Hope. Can you imagine the moaning over it? One standalone film people are fine with but everyone was super excited about Episodes 7,8 and 9 for a reason. Thats what got Star Wars fans invested again. No one wants more prequels and in fact everyone seems to hate the Han Solo project.

Well thats what Discovery feels like, Rogue One only its an entire show. Post Nemises is what most fans want. They will clearly give this a chance like they gave Enterprise but its obvious the excitement level isn’t really there and Fuller knows it.

But I always say this of course it can be good and if it is I think most fans will come around in time.

Tiger2,

STAR WARS? Bah! Anything that takes place there is billions of years ago, at least. Its tales are all prequels to us.

It doesnt mean being set in the past is a prequel lol, simply stories that takes place before an already set of known stories. The problem with prequels a lot of times, NOT always, is they are there to set up the events to stuff we already know. Sometimes its good sometimes its bad but it does kind of feel like a check list of what we already know but tell us the story of how it actually happened. Thats why I have ZERO interest in Rogue One. Yes it has its own characters and story lines but did we really need a story to tell us how they stole the death star plans to a film that is now 40 years old? It just feels so lazy and a way for Disney to latch on to the OT again. I may go see it if the film itself is good but currently have no plans to versus TFA where I saw that opening night. But then take Fantastic Beasts. Now technically thats a prequel to Harry Potter but yet it feels more original because they aren’t trying to set up what happened in those series of books and films. The story isn’t there to set up Voldemort its focusing on totally different characters. Its in that universe but its more of a spin off than a straight prequel. So that is at least more interesting to watch because you don’t have to know who Harry Potter is to watch… Read more »

People were put off with the prequel idea in the same sense you could say people were put off had it been post Nemesis. There will always be the case that you cant please everyone. I dont think the anti-prequel crowd was representative of a majority of fans at all. I think most fans just want a quality show. When it takes place is just window dressing that makes for fun debate.

Definitely a misnomer to say most fans want post nemesis. If you specifically wanted a prequel would you still feel that way?

And what is it a prequel to? Its post Enterprise. Its post the opening of the first JJ film. Its more accurate to say its a show that takes place within the established time line. There is nothing wrong with that.

Whether it’s good or bad will determine whether its good or bad.

We’re talking about fan boards in general. I read almost all of the major ones including obviously this one and its pretty obvious more people wanted a post Nemises show than another prequel. And as said mostly because we have been inundated with Trek prequels since 2001, Enterprise and now the KT films. It would be one thing if this was the first one but its not. Its the third series of yet another prequel. People simply want to go forward at this point. Not everyone but most. Prequel to most people are stories that happen before the latest time period so anything before Nemesis is a prequel just like anything in Star Wars that happens before TFA is now a prequel like Rogue One. And at least with Enterprise the time period was significant because it was when Starfleet was still young and no Federation. There was lots to explore and see how it all came together. Discovery sounds like it will revolve around one crisis in Starfleet history which is fine but not sure why they couldn’t just come up with a new one in a future timeline and we don’t have to wonder if the ship is too advance, will it contradict canon, should Klingon have ridges or not and all that useless stuff people like me don’t care about. And if it wasn’t a prequel no one would have to care. Again its nothing WRONG to have a prequel, most people just seem tired of the… Read more »

You dont often hear people refer to Rogue One as a prequel though. The term Prequel is really reserved for the Prequel Trilogy. I think the anti-Prequel crowd work themselves into a lather over this. In fact, assuming Rogue One is a hit, the idea Trek is closely following with its own “fill in the blanks” show is rather telling in the sense its a wise creative decision.

Much like Meyer’s explanation for why studios do sequels and remakes. Its similar – something new is always a gamble. Something that is a revisiting of something successful is less so.

My only concern is them choosing to jump into the franchise mid-canon and completely ignore it. I hope Im wrong about that.

Well they may not say the word but its OBVIOUSLY a prequel. It sets up A New Hope just like the prequel trilogy set up the original trilogy. And Disney was smart to give people both, prequels and sequels. As I said if it was JUST Rogue One type stories I dont know how that would fly? I mean yes people would see them but yes they would’ve been moaning about wanting to see stories post-ROTJ too at some point. The PT didn’t have that problem because at the time Lucas kept saying ROTJ was it, there was no more story after that ala LOTR and people just wanted Star Wars again. And the rise of Vader sounded great so while not wildly excited about it a prequel setting up the entire universe did sound great. I think with Discovery people just want to see whats beyond Voyager at this point. When Enterprise premiered Voyager was literally off the air a few months. DS9 about a year. There was no big crazing because we had years of it so a prequel, while not wildly popular, sounded interesting and just different. It made sense to do it. And even then we still had the TNG films to show the current timeline so we didn’t truly leave the 24th century, stories were still being told until Nemesis bombed and that put an end to those. But yeah it was different at the time. Now its been 15 years and people just want… Read more »

I honestly dont care to see whats beyond Voyager. We got a glimpse in Enterprise. It gets into fantasy stuff. Time to take a step back and get back to what Trek is – us in the near future. It needs to be familiar in that way.

And thats fine. Not everyone is going to want to see the same things but yes for many of us Star Trek is about going forward and like to see that again ONE day, thats all. And we had a show about us in the near future, it was called Enterprise. Oddly it was specifically made for that reason, to have a show a bit closer that we can personally relate to. Discovery just sounds like an excuse to trout out TOS which is still 300 years into the future so its no more about ‘us’ than someone who was born in the year 1716.

And we have the films which sounds like we are getting another one. This show only takes place 10 years from those although yes in a different universe. Just sick of prequels but hopefully this will be good.

Again “going forward” isnt meant to be taken literally. One time in the franchise’s history, they jumped ahead in time. That’s it. Star Trek is not about constantly showing us further and further into the future.

The TOS films were contemporary to the TOS show. They jumped for TNG and the TNG films, DS9 and Voy were contemporary to TNG. They went back in time (from Voy’s perspective) for Enterprise. They went back in time for JJ Trek.

So Im missing where moving forward in time by leaps and bounds is somehow apart of Star Trek. It just isnt.

In most story telling going forward kind of is taken literally as we have way more sequels than prequels and thats any story telling medium. I don’t think Star Trek has any restriction how far in the future it goes. Unless I’m missing something it can go as far as people decide at the end of the day. Most people don’t expect it to be a thousand years into the future maybe the next century. Some just want it to take place in the relative time since Voyager ended, about 15 years after that crew made it home. Again people simply want to see something new again, thats all. Discovery may be interesting but it has already limit what it can do in terms of story telling and you would think after Enterprise they learned their lesson.

Look obviously people will have different opinions when they like to see it. You prefer a prequel, I dont. Thats OK. But it is funny you haven’t liked any of the last two prequels from what I read. You seem to hate both Enterprise and the KT films so I dont know if Discovery is going to be any better. But it is funny though as you said both of those prequels weren’t completely so because even the studio seem afraid of just telling a story that doesn’t reference the future. Maybe Discovery will be the first one set strictly in the past again. I guess we’ll see.

Damn

Im sure he was delegating a bit more than they would have liked, perhaps the studio had their bullet points they wanted in there and perhaps that brought conflict. Sounds like he just pulled the pile together and handed it to them and said its all you. Kind of hard to read through the lines here. Much of this has felt forced to me for a while , I hope that it still ends up being some value added Trek all the same.

Today, I was going through my emails and I found one I’d never seen from Nimoy. Shicked me to see it un opned in my in box. He sent it after I pitched him Trek 3 at his house. Thought Trekmovie was the right place to share this. Happy holidays.

“Bob: in the late 50’s Eugene Ionesco wrote a play about cultural conformity. It was titled “Rhinoceros”. There was a show stopping scene which takes place in an outdoor cafe. At separate tables people are having two conversations. A couple at one table start a sentence which is competed by people at another table. It is about simultaneous thought. Strikes me this might be an interesting area to explore between the two Spocks and Kirks. Just a thought. Leonard.”

Sent from my iPad

Well it’s kind of funny isn’t it? That he said that to you in an email which you did not open until now? I guess he was on the money with that one.

Is this where we heap praise upon Bob for an idea he keeps teasing but wont reveal?

Give us the damn synopsis Bob! ;-)

boborci

That idea definitely could have worked if done the right way, in service of a meaningful theme. And gotten you kudos from your peers. One of the themes of the movie could have been the absurdity of time-travel, how it’s paradoxical and doesn’t seem to make logical sense, as with so many aspects of physics and the cosmos, that it’s easy to fall into the trap of finding it all (and life) utterly meaningless—a sort of 24th Century Theatre of the Absurd type of theme—and then you’d have earned the Ionesco reference as a thoughtful homage as opposed to just a cheap lift for effect.

Kinda sad, though, that you’re only reading his communication now that he’s gone. Imagine what else might have been in that email. You should get X-notifer or some other app that stays lit up on your screen until all of your emails have been opened.

The scene Nimoy suggested in the e-mail Bob Orci was kind enough to share sounds like he was trying to get Shatner a scene in the movie at that time. While that may have been before they weren’t on speaking terms, it could have been an interesting scene.

Like Cygnus x-1 mentioned: “One of the themes of the movie could have been the absurdity of time-travel, how it’s paradoxical and doesn’t seem to make logical sense”.

Or, as The Doctor once said: “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint – it’s more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly… time-y wimey… stuff”.

had nothing to do with Time Travel

boborci,

Thank you fore sharing.

Re: had nothing to do with Time Travel

Well one assumes that as the frames unspool at least standard forward time travel. Otherwise, a movie that takes place in a timeless void might be a trippy feature.

boborci

had nothing to do with Time Travel

Well, whatever it was, the point is to include some sort of Absurdist theme in order to make it an Ionesco homage as opposed to just a steal. And it would make the whole scene more interesting and thought-provoking, too. Two pairs of the same two guys having conversations in different universes—there’s no shortage of material for absurdist commentary there.

Would have been interesting to try and unravel how they ignored canon with the multiple universe stuff or at least make sense of the fact they had no problem going back and forward in time and then for some reason just couldn’t anymore.

But not involving time travel…I dont know. Sounds like a gimmick. Like “we are so smart we came up with a way to bring the two different Kirks & Spocks together and its not time travel because thats lame and we’re too smart for that”. If its not really Kirk interacting with Kirk and Spock interacting with Spock, then its not really worth it…or as emotional as it might be otherwise. Thats part of why the JJ films didnt resonate I think – it just wasnt the same characters, even when they tried to shoe horn in the “same” characters (but new and improved). Tried to have their cake and eat it too but it was rotten.

Anyway..still would like Bob to stop beating around the bush and give us the story. We will pay for it. Write the damn story! lol

TUP

If it wasn’t time-travel, then I guess it was either a scene of Kirk/Spock Prime from the Prime Universe/Timeline cut vis-a-vis a scene of Alt Kirk/Spock from the Alt Universe/Timeline, or some sort of simulation of Kirk/Spock Prime—like a recorded message, hologram or holodeck scenario.

@Cyg – yeah, Prime Spock/Kirk interacting would have been good. But if there was Prime Kirk interacting with new Kirk but not in a real way, I think its a mistake. There is no emotional connection there. Its not real.

Captain On The Bridge

Bob, as always, thank you for sharing.

Since Mr. Nimoy referred to two Spocks and Kirks, am I correct in assuming that William Shatner would have been back had your script gone forward. If so, what a shame for that missed opportunity.

Thanks again.

Yup.

yup

Very interesting Bob. Thanks for sharing, LLAP.

Great stuff Bob
I really wish we could have seen you get Nimoy and Shatner together again. Unfortunately it seems Leonard may not have been up for it physically as his son expressed in his docmentary. You had mentioned that you would eventually share some stories of the day you spent with Leonard while pitching Trek 3.
Also with thoughts and ideas such as these why is JJ so adamant that Shatner cant be included??

Thank you for sharing that, Bob.

Thanks so much for sharing!

The sad state of affairs of the ‘Trek franchise. You have fans bickering over what constitutes as “real STAR TREK”, you have the studios alienating fans (particularly with trouble concerning fan films), and you missed opportunities to expand the franchise thanks to poor planning (example: no STAR TREK Legos, which means no game version of the series by Tell-Tale). This is on top of the fact that BEY under-performed (with one of the actors dying tragically) while a major talent just walked away from a proposed television series that is being done in order to highlight a streaming service. Sigh. Maybe in 25 years, my beloved ‘Trek will return to the greatness that it deserves to be…

Thank goodness his focus with star trek was way to narrow. He couldn’t even get his casting done. Let someone who is able to actually put time, effort, and love into the project. Fuller was more interested in American Gods than he was Star Trek.

Wish we could resurrect Harve Bennett….

Actually, I’m just not bothered with this show anymore. Maybe they could make a show about the behind-the-scenes life of working on ST:D; that might be… ahem… interesting!!;)

After a lifetime of being a Star Trek fan, I’m tempted to defect to Star Wars. Even when they’re massively rewriting and reshooting, they seem to be keeping calm and hitting deadlines!!!

I’ll be the showrunner, and I’m cheap too (100k a year)!

comment image

Dude we get it. I usually don’t care about going off topic but its starting to feel like spamming at this point. Anyway yes you laid out some cool stuff but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

mj hows plinkett?

What?

He was too progressive.

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger