The Shuttle Pod Crew Discusses The New Kurtzman Era Of Star Trek On TV

The Shuttle Pod crew scrambled to our shuttle so we could talk about the recent announcement by CBS that Alex Kurtzman and his production company Secret Hideout would be expanding the Trek TV franchise with a new 5 year production deal.

Shuttle Pod 52: The Kurtzman Era?

Subscribe to Shuttle Pod: The Podcast on iTunesGoogle Play Music and Pocket Casts! Like what you hear? Please feel free to leave us a glowing review on iTunes.

Jared, Kayla, and Matt discuss what the official press release says, the rumored project pitches for new series, mini-series, and a cartoon.

  • A series set at Starfleet Academy created by CW alumni Stephanie Savage and Josh Schwartz.
  • A limited series whose plot details are being kept under wraps.
  • A limited series based around the “Wrath of Khan” story.
  • An animated series whose plot details are being kept under wraps.
  • A Jean-Luc Picard limited series which features the return of Sir Patrick Stewart to the iconic role.

Lastly, we walk through Alex Kurtzman’s relationship with CBS and the Trek franchise, and his general work as a writer and producer.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I remember concerns back in the 90’s that Trek began competing with itself as TNG wasn’t that old, DS9, Voyager and then straight away Enterprise. Now look at what’s happening with Star Wars and Solo. Its great for fans though I hope Kurtzman has a good team around him – that’s a lot of projects to manage.

I think one of the problems with the Berman era was that a lot of the same people were working on TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT, so there was a sameness that set in. I don’t think it was a bad sameness at all, and of course there were exceptions with DS9 trying to be serialized and when Manny Coto came in for the last two seasons of Enterprise.

Even though Kurtzman might be managing multiple shows, he might not be creatively running all of them. For example, the Starfleet Academy show has Stephanie Savage and Josh Schwartz attached. If this is true of all the shows, I think it’ll be a good thing to have each show have a distinctive voice…more along the lines of how Kevin Feige is running the Marvel universe now rather than how Kathleen Kennedy seems to be running the Star Wars universe.

Kurtzman will be the new Berman and we’re looking at essentially what was done with Star Trek by the 90s and the approach the CW has taken with Berlanti and the DC shows. Some will be stronger than others but, ultimately, it’s a single voice driving the entire franchise with multiple showrunners at the helm of each show.

You are correct in terms of Voyager and Enterprise looking a lot like poorly recycled TNG. However, DS9 was largely left alone, and it ended up being the most original of all of those series, and was even better than TNG because of this approach.

I would have to agree.

Definitely, and DS9 is my favorite series. I’m just saying that I think the approach that was taken with DS9 is more likely the situation with at least some of shows in development, which is why I don’t think this will end up like with the burnout experienced with the Berman era. Savage and Schwartz are pretty notable and successful producers that would probably be left alone.

Yeah DS9 was the one series I did not watch that much of so now I have the great pleasure of watching episodes in syndication. It truly was well written and acted and the serial format used in the latter seasons really seemed to work well.

@DeanH — I’d have to say I also didn’t watch much of it during the original run. It just didn’t draw me in. It’s been running in syndication, and I have to say I’ve yet to get pulled into it. The episodes that I like the most are also episodes they could have done in TNG on a Starship. For me it didn’t really get interesting until they started routinely going out on the Defiant. And I really never liked Avery Brooks as Sisko. He makes Shatner look practically understated, and Oscar caliber by comparison. Otherwise, it seems like a solid cast, and well produced, but just not enough of an compelling storyline to keep me tuned in. I think I’m not a fan of the Cardassians for some reason, but I haven’t really given it a lot of analysis since there’s other stuff for me to explore in the Trek universe.

DS9 was so strong because they had to defend themselves against Babylon 5 ;)
There were many parallels: from an epic conflict down to details like Defiance and the B5 White Star.

“DS9 was so strong because they had to defend themselves against Babylon 5 ;) There were many parallels: from an epic conflict down to details like Defiance and the B5 White Star.”

Yea, you remind me what a great time that was to be both a Trek and sf fan. Watching both of those shows at about the same time in the mid-90’s was just glorious. I am hoping for many more years of DSC and The Expanse in the same vein!

This old Trekker agrees.

Yes, the hope with this good news is that it will offer the freedom to a lot of different storytellers to tell stories both familiar but also perhaps truly original (which then offers its own potential spinoffs).

…oh, it was a “bad sameness’ alright…a VERY “bad sameness”.

Not for me! I had no issue with the sameness. ;)

Although yes Enterprise did feel like it was wearing out its welcome but I also hated it was a prequel as well. THAT said I really like the show a lot now. I like all the Trek shows, including DIS even if I’m still on the fence overall with it like I was with Enterprise.

Yeah lol.
Star Wars didn’t even last as long as Star Trek in the popularity stakes did it?

Apparently everybody turned away from solo, (myself included).

Crazy Series?
Guardian on The Edge of Forever: the Teen Years.

I never thought we would EVER have Star Trek movies out gross a Star Wars movie. It has finally happened with Solo lol. I guess it proves there can be too much of something after awhile and maybe not having a new SW movie every year is the way to go.

Oh and prequels suck!


Re: Star Trek movies out gross a Star Wars movie.

Isn’t this a bit premature to call? According to boxofficemojo it’s still in release.

Looking forward to all these news shows!!!!!!!!! NOT excited about an animated series. I feel it cheapens the universe to have characters be drawn and not live action. I love Star Wars Rebels but feel the exact same way about it. If there is an animated series, please don’t make it cannon. Keep it like the comics… related but not “real.” Gene Roddenberry disavowed the animated series as being cannon. It the only thing that scares me about this new announcement. Otherwise I’m soooooo excited! :)

Whether the cartoon would be canon or not isn’t really relevant…why wouldn’t it be? You don’t have to watch it if you don’t like it.

Gene Roddenberry thought a lot of things weren’t canon. He felt that Star Trek V and VI shouldn’t be canon. By the time TNG came out, you couldn’t take his ideas seriously.

The rule these days is that the TV shows and films are canon. It doesn’t matter whether or not they are animated or live action. If you simply don’t like it because it is a cartoon or if you can’t except it as official Trek because they don’t look real, that’s fine, you don’t have to watch it.

For years the animated series wasn’t excepted as canon and many writers thought it was stupid, because they worked hard to make it the best show they could. David Gerrold once said he saw it as canon and Gene Roddenberry’s name was even on the show so why wouldn’t it be?

Plus you got important stories in there like “Yesteryear,” which was one of the best Star Trek episodes ever written. (DC Fontana)

I am wondering though, since it’s 2018 now, are we going to see traditional animation or computer animation?

While I would so much wish to see a traditionally animated show, these days it has to be computer animation. Personally, when not done well, computer animated shows can really suck so they have to be careful and not cheap out on the designs and animation.

It only cheapens the universe when they go cheap on the animation, and the writing too for that matter. Many a bad script can sink a series. True for animation as well as live-action.

Why do you think they’d go cheap? It’s not like they’d use Filmation.

I don’t. Not them specifically. But those who do go cheap.

Yep. TAS has pisspoor Fimlation animation. But many of the stories were top notch and would have made for fantastic live action shows. I, for one, look forward to what a new animated Trek show could be. There is so much more you can do in animation vs live action.

Luke, I’d cite shows such as Clone Wars, which are very well made indeed. Mr Roddenberry’s ‘disavowal’ of TAS was for legal reasons at the time, not story reasons. Indeed, with new animation and a new sound mix, TAS itself deserves a second shot. It was often very imaginative and, indeed, is something of a stylistic evolutionary ‘missing link’ between TOS and TMP. With modern animation allowing for some facial expression, the voice performances could really be enhanced.

I know there’s a snobbery among some hardcore Star Trek fans about animation, but most normal viewers won’t have that prejudice and especially youngsters won’t. The solution for people who dislike the idea of a cartoon is simply to ignore it.

Rodders also increasingly disavowed a lot of other Trek. By the end of his life, it seems, he didn’t see TOS and any movie post-TMP as ‘proper’ Trek either.

‘TOS season three and any movie…’

Yes. I would love to see a reanimated version of TAS. Add the computers games from the 90s and perhaps the audio books as well. Get William Shatner and company to do more voice work. Have new actors come in and play all the guest starring roles. It could be a limited run of 2 to 4 seasons. That would certainly get my attention.

Exactly, Sarek 66. Patrick Stewart and Marina Sirtis could voice Robert April and Sarah Poole, for example. The original voice work from all the spinoffs is there for the lead actors and it’s a shame not to use it.

@Dom and Sarek66 — they could even add Chekov back into the episodes!

Yes, Dom and Curious Cadet. Bring the surviving cast members back including Walter Koenig as Chekov to do the voice work. Have actors of today come in and do voicework so that every episode has a name actor attacked to it. Every week that a new episode is premiered that actor would help promote it.Patrick and Marina could be involved. I always imagined that Trekkie Tom Hanks would do a guest spot. I imagine that he would be either a Federation Captain or Admiral or perhaps he could be a Vulcan. Their are a lot of famous actors who are Trekkies who I could see wanting to make an appearance and work with William Shatner and posthumously Leonard Nimoy. Shatner and George Takei are good at promotion, so I see that they would promote the show. All this loose audio from TAS, the games and the audio books should get put together. They could make all the episodes hour long, live action style animation. Complete the five year mission.

Yes, CC, I agree about Chekov returning. Within boundaries, they could use the existing materials and do something very worthwhile with what’s already there.

It was often very imaginative and, indeed, is something of a stylistic evolutionary ‘missing link’ between TOS and TMP.

To what are you referring exactly? Aside from a second door on the bridge, and the perfectly round workstations and rails Roddenberry always wanted there, virtually everything else was the same as TOS. In fact the holdodeck TAS introduced wouldn’t come back for over 100 years.

As much as anything, Curious Cadet, it was the larger scale of things. Vejur could more easily exist in the world of the cartoon than TOS, along with giant space plants. And holodecks no doubt would have been introduced had TMP been followed by more Roddenberry films. I feel, conceptually, it sits comfortably in the middle space between TOS and TMP. Certainly, the look of the universe of TMP is less jarring if it follows TOS.

Anyway, why the hostility again?

Depends on the animation for me. Star Wars The Clone Wars is excellent in quality for me.

And it’s the one way, you could get away with having the likes of the TNG cast voices their characters for younger versions of their characters. You could go back to the TNG show!

Hey, give it a chance. Batman The Animated Series remains the most seriously taken, least cheesy, and most coherent Batman mainstream visual media to this date.

This may seem ridiculous but to me our “real life” is not in the same timeline as the Star Trek Prime Timeline.

So in their timeline the Eugenics Wars happened and in ours, they didn’t.

Exactly, there were no orbiting nuclear weapons platforms in the late 1960s or 70s, and the Saturn V was only used to launch Apollo manned and unmanned missions plus the Skylab space station, not an atomic warhead. Plus there was no unmanned probe named nomad launched into deep space. In other words, for all the fanboys who are so strict about canon, relax it is science fiction so you can change things whenever you want and update the timelines when needed to match up with real history.

“In other words,” hahaha. What a nonsense comment. God forbid sci-fi writers were encouraged to write cohesively to further enrich a 50 year universe that fans are passionate about. Burn people who like continuity! Make fun of them because you are so much cooler!

@DeanH — uh, I don’t think you can say any of that with any certainty. Indeed Assignment Earth makes it clear that rocket launch in particular was top secret.


Re: Saturn V was only used to launch Apollo

Wait…are you saying NASA did NOT issue CIA Astronaut spacesuits, or that you have verified sources confirming their classified uses to exclude all STAR TREK’s fictional possibilities? And there were definitely classified Space Shuttle US Air Force payload missions of unknown purposes — not to mention the shuttle’s design, itself, was modified to meet the USAF’s 1960’s space program’s design specs.

Come to think of it, has their ever been an accounting of every object the USAF’s 1960’s NRO program secretly orbited?

Heck, while you are at it, tell us everything the USAF’s X-37B has been up to?

Errata, in #comment-5405585 above:

“has their” should be “has there”

Indeed, TREK on the TUBE. People tend to forget that Star Trek’s ‘positive future’ is set in a post-apocalyptic society where two thirds of the Earth’s population had died in the Eugenics War and a nuclear World War III. As with all decades-long literature, radio, film and TV series, it’s probably better to ‘blur’ the dates of the earlier events a bit, if you’re not going to restart them.

@Dom — I don’t think we can criticize Trek for depicting an apocalyptic near future, while setting the series in the positive far future. Trek was meant to teach us a lesson about the path we are on, and give us hope for something better. TOS gave us something better, while reminding us that the path we were on, and sadly still are, will result in cataclysmic horror.

Curious Cadet. I wasn’t criticising anything or anyone. It’s only a TV show. Don’t be so sensitive! ;)

@TOTT — the ideal is that Trek is our future. It certainly was in 1966, 50 years ago. As for the actual conflicts — one theory poised during the great STID debates was that the Eugenics wars happened in a clandestine way, and only became common knowledge much later. Of course the easiest way to deal with it, is to move it 100 years into the future set in the 2090s.

TOS’s failure was assuming the progress in space and science would continue unimpeded by social and political factors which eventually derailed it only a few years later. I’m not saying we would have had Eugenics wars, or sleeper ships in the early 90s otherwise, but I think we can all agree to adapt certain things to better align with our own history. After all, nobody writing scripts on these shows expected them live on much past the original broadcast, much less going on 6 decades, with the cult following they have.

As fans, I think we have to acknowledge the original intent of this series and adjust the fictional events which have come into direct conflict with actual events to keep the ideals alive. Indeed, even 300 years from now, I think we owe it to the creators to keep on pushing the timeline into the future, to preserve the spirit of the show, unless of course the concepts presented are so badly out of date then they couldn’t possibly continue to be the future of our society.

Agreed, Star Trek always works best when viewed as our future and if that means retconning or even ignoring aspects of canon then I’m fine with that. In Space Seed it actually states onscreen that much of the records from that time period have been lost so there’s a credible reason for tweaking the years or retconning the event as some sort of secret war that dates all the way back to the actual episode that introduced the Eugenics War to canon.

Seriously irradiated computer memories, will be rife with errors resulting in much data loss – it’s definitely going to set Google, Watson, Alexa. Siri, etc. back

The Mummy 2017 is not a bad movie. It’s not amazing, but it’s not bad. And those that think it is are simply clinging too hard to The Mummy 1999. Remember how terrible the 2 sequels were? Kurtzman was tasked with not only re imagining the classic tale but also introducing an entire Cinematic Universe. It was a very tough job. And he did a decent job in my opinion.

So I’m good with him being at the helm of Star Trek.

Is it okay to cling to The Mummy 1932? Because I wish Universal would go back to making actual gothic horror movies instead of action extravaganzas.

Glad you said that, Gonzo. Remember when Universal’s horror movies actually contained elements of horror?

Uh… I’m thinking… the remake of The Wolfman had a nice spooky, gothic tone, but unfortunately it too turned into an action movie.

True, the latest Wolfman with Benecio Del Toro did have the right atmosphere, at least. I enjoyed it, but not as much as the original. Like you said, it turned into an action flick at the end.

I love Tom Cruise and watch him in anything but The Mummy was dreadful IMO.

The youngsters today would probably not even watch the classical 1932 Mummy, but that movie should have been the benchmark for creating a new one, not the 1999 version, as much as I enjoy that one as an action-adventure yarn.

The 1959 version with Peter Cushing was excellent, with Christopher Lee as the Mummy. Great, creepy vibe to it with a classic feel.

I plan to see the Hammer versions, heard nothing but good things about them.

Oh come on you dont have the slightest clue what “the youngster from today” would do. Stop your ageism… is pathetic.

So you’re saying the youth of today would watch the 30s Mummy film? Spoiler: they would not

They would definitely not, and there is nothing agist about this. It is just the truth.

I would have to agree with that…my 23 year-old would have no interest in watching a film from the 1930’s. My guess is only film students that age would.

As a film professor myself, I can assure you that those wonderfully inquisitive 18-21 yo cinephiles who would patiently sit through anything from the 1930s are few and far between. And that’s not a knock on students, its just the reality of generations who have grown up on different types of media experiences.

Yeah, I am a teacher and I can’t even get my students to watch Back to The Future, and that is relatively new considering the original Karloff Mummy. Apparently anything made before the 2000’s is considered old and unwatchable by them. Of course there are always exceptions, but they are far and away.

That *is* surprising! I only say that because BTTF is a huge part of US pop culture, its designed to be such a breezy, accessible film, and the 1980s are all the rage today (BTTF2 anticipated this so brilliantly). Its always been that one 80s text I’m surprised no one’s tried to reboot/remake (not counting that stage version).

Robert Zemeckis has basically forbidden a reboot of BTTF. Which I think is wise. It’s a classic ’80s trilogy. But as you guys said, apparently that means its ancient to today’s youth?

That’s too bad, if true. I was saying the exact opposite–in the age of Stranger Things and IT, among everything else, BTTF is very accessible to audiences today. A version of BTTF where a high schooler today has to go back to the 80s, or even 90s, to intervene with her/his parents’ first meeting would be huge.

Robert Zemeckis has basically forbidden a reboot of BTTF.

Now, there’s a man with “taste.”

Well, to be perfectly honest I am not from the U.S and I don’t teach in the U.S so that might also be a big reason for this. Different cultures find different films more endearing. For example while Back to the Future was not as popular in my country, the Police Academy series was huge. Of course these films are not as widely shown in our TV’s as it was when I was growing up, this might also be another reason.

Great point. Maybe BTTF doesn’t translate globally and so doesn’t have the same appeal as a franchise today.

Maybe after all these decades it is finally time for PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED to get its due as the sharpest and most heartfelt time travel movie of its era (and yeah, admittedly, that’s in spite of Cage’s utterly terrible work in the film), instead of BTTF, which I’ve always found massively overrated and seriously hard to watch.

BTTF was the last movie I ever went to at a drive-in, and it was so disappointing that I pretty much walked out on it (turned around and watched LIFEFORCE on a different screen behind us.) Not a fan of THE GOONIES either — in terms of simple-minded SF, I think things peaked in the 80s with V and THE LAST STARFIGHTER, because those really did have their hearts in the right place.

Some interesting choices there kmart, I haven’t seen Peggy Sue Got Married yet, but I plan to. I like Nic Cage in most of his movies despite his crazy acting, or perhaps because of it. He keeps the viewer on their toes because of his unpredictability.


What about ALIENS, THE FLY, MAD MAX: BEYOND THUNDERDOME, THE ABYSS and THE RUNNING MAN (story by Stephen King, directed by Paul Michael Glaser of Starsky and Hutch!)?

I don’t consider the Cronenberg FLY to be simpleminded SF, just simplified somewhat (he was quoted as saying you’d need something the size of a miniseries just to do the subject of teleportation justice.)

I don’t consider early Cameron to be simpleminded either — they’re just good for the most part. I probably watched ALIENS 40 times on laserdisc.

You’re right about RUNNING MAN, though I always skip the prologue, because it plays better if you don’t know what really led to Arnold’s incarceration.

Not a fan of THUNDERDOME – a decent first 1/2 hr doesn’t make up for what I remember as being very a very dismal continuation of the awesomeANDcheesy ROAD WARRIOR.

V was fresh in my mind because there is a 20minute stretch near the end of the first miniseries I like to rewatch every month or two, just becaue the music is terrific and it has two moments that make me tear up massively (and yes, they are both cheesy beyond belief, but that doesn’t make my response any less legitimate … the bits are the “my grandfather fought with Zapata … I spit in their faces … I tell them nothing!” scene and the moment when the benevolent scientist lady finally draws done on an attacking spaceship in a wholly useless gesture of defiance.)

You walked out of a drive-in? :)

I did post to say exactly what Matt said just below but then spotted his comment. I’m on the fence with this, I love the trilogy and would hate to see the series damaged by a poor fourth entry but I still think there’s potential there. Even the 2015 we saw wouldn’t be an issue as it could easily be explained away as the timeline being drastically altered by something the Doc did.

I watched Kurtman’s Mummy but after all the harsh things have been said about it. So I popped the disc in thinking it would be complete garbage. It wasn’t. Perhaps that was because my bar for it was already very low. That can affect how we perceive things. The movie wasn’t great but it certainly didn’t seem to deserve the rotten fruit flung at it.

I totally agree with your opinion of The Mummy reboot.

Wow. I did think The Mummy 2017 was terrible, but to each his own. :-)

hopefully kurtzman put more thought into the new startrek series than fuller put in to discovery.

Fuller put too much thought into STD or was it not enough thought in regard to changing the Klingons. If we see the next gen era Klingons in the next season or two then all is forgiven :)

Star Trek is not going back to the lame 90’s Kiss Army Klingons.

th..e army Klingons is startrek. did you not watch tos and the movies and tng and ds9 that’s Klingons. worf comes from a warriors race not some pancey race

Your comment does not make sense.

This would be more informative if somebody hadn’t slammed the volume down to low after about 10 minutes and I could actually hear it.

I am just about in tears thinking that Patrick Stewart may come back!!

That show will likely overshadow the others since it will be an extension of the original Star Trek era and Star Trek in its purest form. The irony, of course, is that Discovery will likely feel like the outlier if we get a post TNG series since the Berman era fully embraced its TOS roots.

Without the right talent behind the camera Picard is nothing but an empty cipher. I see no evidence at this point that Kurtzman respects TNG style Trek. Which is going to be a problem as the character did not shine in isolation, but mostly due to the excellent subtle characterisation and actual, you know…clever stuff coming of his mouth on a pretty regular basis.

I am sure if Patrick Stewart himself is involved, he will make the writers be as smart as they can be with the character. After all he is a knight now, he needs to have some respect and clout. Unless he wants to go the Han Solo route and wants to kill off the character, which can possibly happen after what happened to Professor Xavier in Logan.

I think I’d prefer to see him walk off into the sunset. That’s what Kirk deserved, if not for Brannon “I will kill everything you love” Braga.

“….Brannon “I will kill everything you love” Braga.” Ha! That gave me a chuckle. So true. But seriously, I don’t know what this says about me (an excellent nerd, I guess), but in 1994 I was pretty shattered for a few months after the way Kirk went out in Generations. Such a damned waste.

Agreed. I just couldn’t believe it.

Time to undo Generations and give Kirk a proper end. Now they could do it with a miniseries

Star Trek:Regeneration. Captain Kirk’s echo is still in the Nexus. So is Soren. The Nexus is becoming unstable and Federation starships as well as Klingon, Romulan, Ferengi and Cardassian ship are getting caught in it. Soran has stolen a Federation shuttlecraft and escapes the Nexus. He is caught by Captain Riker of the Titan. He asks for a deal since he has important information about the Nexus. Admiral Janeway orders Captain Picard to the area. She uses her Admiral prerogative to tag along for the ride. Several Voyager and DS9 veterans can be on the Enterprise and Titan. I like the idea that Captain Worf of the Klingon ship has been lost in the Nexus. He meets Captain Kirk and they must join together to fight some enemy in the Nexus. I can see Kirk and Worf having some good scenes together. Eventually Captain Picard and company enter the Nexus and meet Kirk and Worf. It is now a race against time to get out before the Nexus explodes. A complication occurs when Soren decides that he does not want to leave the Nexus even though he is aware that it will explode. Eventually Kirk, Picard save the day and everybody escapes the Nexus. A nice happy ending for our heroes.

Same Allan!

This is clearly the show that is attracting the most interest and for a good reason. I will watch the others but frankly I don’t care if none of those air or not. Bringing in Picard though is a big deal for most fans.

How would you do a story around Wrath of Khan? What timeframe would it be set in? Eugenics Wars, post Space Seed, or just prior to TWoK? I’m really not interested in it. If they go ahead, this really should be a mini / limited series… but I have less interest in seeing a Khan show than I do a Bobba Fett Star Wars movie.

If I’d write it, I’d set it in Ceti Alpha V, with flashbacks towards the Eugenics Wars…

You would have to set in on Earth prior to them fleeing. There’s no other time frame where interesting stuff happens to Khan left to tell.
Between Space Seed and TWoK it’s just them building a colony for 6 months and then struggling to survive once the disaster struck.
You could go into why the Augments were created, maybe do something clever to integrate their story with our actual history.

@EHF — Oh I don’t know. I think it has to be set on Ceti Alpha V, maybe after the CA6 explodes, so that we see their struggle. Then tell their story in flashback, showing us the Eugneics wars (setting them officially in the 2090s retconing canon), and the events of after arriving on CA5 — I could see that being very interesting with challenges to Khan’s authority, and infighting among the augments. Another approach could be a series which starts with the creation of Khan and rise to power during the Eugenics wars up to going into hibernation on the Botany Bay. That could be 2 or 3 seasons right there. The following season picks up with the Botany Bay’s arrival on CA5, and another 1-2 seasons as they build their colony and fight for power, and then another 2 post explosion leading up to TWOK. Depending on the ratings, that schedule could easily be accelerated to tell the whole story in less time, with less detail.

But make no mistake, this wouldn’t be Star Trek as we all expect it. But it does open the door to tell anthology stories about the ancillary characters which are worth telling on their own. For instance — I’d like to see the story of John Gill on Ekos, or what happened after the Horizon left Sigma Iotia II, or after the Beagle arrived on planet 892-IV, and so on.

capt. april it could be fun to see the war.i think its a good ideal.

Cool! I myself have been hoping for the next television incarnation of “Star Trek” after “Discovery” to take plce after the events of 2002’s “Nemesis” and be set primarily on board a new Federation starship with a new crew and a new Captain and would air on either CBS or The CW.

Why would it air on The CW?

I think they meant that a proposed Starfleet Academy show would air on the CW. Just like Smallville did and other shows aimed at a younger audience. Let’s face it folks, those of us who actually watched the show in the late 1960s aren’t going to be around forever and a new audience has to be cultivated if Star Trek is going to be around in another 20-30 years. And that is not that far away.

Again, why would it air on The CW?

Because they’re assuming a Starfleet Academy series would be made for a younger crowd. It’s not a bad assumption to make considering the CW’s lineup.

Every single one of these is going to be made for — and will debut on — CBS All Access. CBS will do this so it can keep more of its subscribers year-round, rather than have people cancel (like I do) during the times when no Trek is airing.

There is zero chance The CW is going to be involved in any capacity.

Thanks for the inside info.

It’s not inside information, it’s common sense.

Yes, it is common sense that CBS is looking for ways to keep subscribers on All Access. It is not necessarily any less common sense to say that the Academy series may be on the CW.

I think it’s clear that the mini-series ideas (Picard, Khan, etc.) would be used to fill the time between DSC seasons on All Access.

Thus far, all current and announced AA original content appears to be targeted at ~30-50 year olds.
The Academy series is being made by CW alumni, it seems pretty clear they’re targeting this at 20-somethings and teens. It’s the natural demographic based on the series title and rumored creators.

It is also quite possible that CBS may be looking to get more eyes on the Trek brand, so they take the Academy series, which is a full series, not a mini-series, to the CW. It’s a nice “gateway drug” of sorts into more Trek. And if someone wants more, then there’s All Access for more Trek content.

It’s of course possible that only a few of the ideas listed by Variety will even get made, and then yes, they’d likely want all Trek content on AA. But if they do indeed develop multiple mini-series along with the Academy series, there’s good reason for CBS to spread Trek around to capture a wider and younger audience.

Good points all!

Absolutely, CBS has essentially realised that the majority of CBS All Access subscribers are indeed Star Trek fans or individuals looking for the new Star Trek show – Star Trek Discovery. With intense competition heating up in the VOD (Video on Demand) space with Disney moving into the business shortly, CBS has probably realised they have a cash cow in their hands… the Star Trek Universe with one of the largest fan bases of all popular cultures.

Indeed, as an Australian, CBS All Access is starting operations in Australia at the end of the year and I am sure they will attempt world-wide operations in other countries to get into the global Star Trek market.

As a trek fan, I’m really excited about this news and will take in any new Star Trek I can get. Really looking forward to all of these new shows and I for one, am happy to subscribe to CBS All Access to get new, high quality Star Trek content. (In fact, Star Trek Discovery would probably not been possible without CBS: All Access – it’s just too expensive for Cable/Free TV).

@Aussie — interesting to know. Is DISC on Netflix in Oz now? If so, what happens to that when CBS AA opens for business?

It’s now very clear to me that CBS AA intends to be a competitive worldwide streaming platform, eventually pulling their programming from Netflix, Amazon and Hulu. Given that, it’s curious to see Netflix investing so heavily in their own demise.

@Curious Cadet – Yes, DISC is on Netflix at this stage and from what I have heard, DISC will continue to remain on Netflix due to the contract which was signed by CBS and Netflix Global Distribution. However, it is possible that all future Star Trek content (and other CBS AA content such at Twilight Zone) is not part of that contract and will probably stream on CBS AA here in Australia.

Yes, it is interesting regarding these new developments. However, that’s probably another reason why Netflix is investing in so much original content as they are, I am sure, acutely aware of the content soon being pulled from their services (Disney, CBS, etc…).

@Bryant Burnette — I don’t think that’s what they announced at all. I think the point is to make Trek available on as a wide a platform as possible, Streaming, Cable, and Network. That way they can attempt to draw in as wide an audience as possible, eventually using the product to draw them to the other platforms to get more Trek.

I wouldn’t rule the CW out entirely, as it’s still got a strong DC comics base of fans who would definitely tune into a properly targeted Trek show, which was not the case 12 years ago when ENT would have been on the CW alongside 90210, 7th Heaven, Gilmore Girls, Gossip Girl, One Tree Hill, Veronica Mars, and so on (is there still any mystery as to why ENT was cancelled?).

Much depends on what happens to the CW now that ATT bought WB, for for the near future it’s still a viable platform for shows like Trek geared toward a younger audience.

The entire point of AA is to bring NEW audiences to that site, including younger audiences. CW doesn’t have any trouble in that regard.

Absolutely correct and well put! TREK MUST cultivate a younger audience!

Well, the showrunners are described as CW alumni.

So, the assumption is that that the Starfleet Academy show is being developed for the CW, a network that has done its share of Teen Centered shows in the past

Maybe. Or maybe they just want to bring that demographic over to AA and this is a way to do it.

I think the mimiseries would be a great platform for a William Shatner return as Kirk. Surprised they didnt mention it.

Not a bad idea, but I am not sure if Hollywood takes William Shatner seriously anymore, or even for say the past 10-15 years. He has done a great job reinventing himself and his career but unlike Leonard Nimoy who continued to do serious dramatic acting work (plus some funny commercials with Quinto) until his death, I am not sure if the Shatman would even be up for another series. I do however like the potential for an Anson Mount/Christopher Pike NCC-1701 mini series.

Shatner was amazing as Denny Crane!

@Tom — I love Shatner. I loved him as Kirk. I don’t want to see him play Kirk again. Every new appearance I see of him only reinforces this feeling for me. That said, I wouldn’t mind a SPACE COWBOYS kind of approach for him, which in no way attempts to take the subject seriously. The only problem is, there’s really nobody left to team him up with, and no I don’t want to see Kirk, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov go on a mission together. If Nimoy were still around I’d feel differently about it. Maybe there’s another character from TOS or the films that’s still alive which could work.

@Curious Cadet
Space Cowboys could definitely work. I think there should be a way to have Shatner back that works. Now is the time. They are looking to do multiple formats. This enables fans of all the different eras to be catered to. Seeing Shatner as Kirk again would be a great opportunity to give the TOS fans another adventure and lets just say a less controversial sendoff for the character

Space Cowboys?

Another great shuttlepod; great job, guys!

I’m in for all of these potential iterations. I mean, I don’t want 700 more hours of trek so that we end up with trek fatigue again. But I’m very interested in CBS filling in the long gaps in between discovery seasons with limited run trek shows.

As for potential Khan actors, I’d like to see Nestor Campbell.

Keep up the good work!

I too, liked all the proposals in this podcast, meant humorously or not.
– Guinan cameos/Guinan Forever
– Slips, Strips, Bars, and Bricks (with Armin)
– Lower Decks
– Young Kira Chronicles (with Dukat)

Just make it good, and let the creatives create (and hire Ira Steven Behr and Coto again for a couple of them). There is so much room for all great Trek.

You mean Nestor Carbonell? from Lost and Bates Motel. Absolutely excellent choice, and he is a very underrated actor.

And the Brooke Sheilds comedy, Suddenly Susan.

Yup, you’re right (Carbonell)! Dang autocorrect!

I would love too see Dax again… even in Discovery, and it would totally work!

Dax is one of those characters that can show up in any era! Would love to see him/her too on Discovery.

No comedy.

Listened to the podcast and as always found it interesting and enlightening. For my part, though, I can’t say I’m optimistic about CBS’s plans to turn Trek into some kind of Hydra-headed monster like the Marvel Universe, or about Alex Kurtzman’s ability to creatively lead such an endeavor. He strikes me as a nice-enough guy (of course, Harberts and Berg seemed nice too), as well as being a seasoned producer who knows how to things done. I don’t doubt that his stated love for Trek is genuine. But he seems to have little in the way of really unique or cool ideas to contribute to a franchise in desperate of such, and if you’re looking for storytelling choices and plot twists that actually make sense—well, best look elsewhere. The Lorca reveal and the resolution to the war arc (along with Burnham’s too-easy redemption, which paralleled that of Kirk in the Abrams films) were a creative fiasco that IMO ruined what had been a promising season, and all of that happened on Kurtzman’s watch and under his stewardship.

Still, you never know. We’ll see.

OK. My comments on the podcast.

Not sure where they get the idea that a Starfleet Academy show would be on CW and not CBSAA. Just because CW has a few “young adult” aimed shows? I don’t see it working there. Seems to defeat the purpose of what CBS is trying to do. I’d welcome it but I’d be surprised all of these aren’t earmarked for CBSAA. The service NEEDS it to survive.

Regarding what this decision means for STD… I deem it as an indication that the churn was much much higher than CBS ever expected. This “STEU” may have been something they were planning on but I suspect they moved it forward in response to subscribers bailing immediately after the STD finale. If STD was doing great, I think they would have gone forward with plans for more other original content rather than lay nearly all their eggs in the Star Trek nest.

They said STD was generally critically praised but I sure haven’t seen it. I think it is fair to say the critics have had mixed reviews. But the suits really don’t care about that. They mostly care about how lucrative it is.

They spoke of a comedy involving characters near, but not a part of the main action. I will say that it was done before on NBC with “Powerless”. Which I thought was a fantastic idea but what they did with it ended up not really working. But I also want to say that I would be on board 100% with a Trek themed comedy.

For me, when the Admiral in TUC says, “Those men have literally saved this planet” I think of TMP. Not the dumb whale story.

And regarding Guinan showing up anywhere in this… No. Just…. No.

I’d like to ask Matt Wright where he saw the market data showing that fans of JJ-Trek have retroactively become fans of TOS, TNG, DS9 etc… in significant numbers.

Most of the evidence for that does indeed seem anecdotal. “My best friend’s cousin saw Trek 2009, loved it, and decided to check out _____”, etc. Not sure that I buy it either, to tell you the truth.

Of course it’s anecdotal. There’s been no marketing study. However, I’ve read many anecdotes over the years that say ST ’09 pulled people in. Is it a huge number? hard to say.

Well, my impression is that far from engendering a lasting interest in Trek or SF, general audiences saw Trek 2009 as an enjoyable ride and promptly forgot about it fifteen minutes after leaving the theater. But I’ll admit that’s also anecdotal, and probably even more suspect, filtered as it is through my absolute loathing for that film.

I do think there’s a distinction to be made between ST09 getting some people curious to “check out” TOS and how many of those people then liked TOS enough to become a fan of the show (and TNG, DS9…). It’s hard to imagine people who found ST09 satisfying, with its slick production, characters running around almost non-stop, quick cut-cut-cut editing style and pacing fast enough to outstrip your ability to reflect upon the story as it’s going by, watching TOS afterward and finding it satisfying, being that it’s the opposite of ST09 in pretty much every fundamental respect, save the names and likenesses of the characters and ship. And I say this as someone who greatly enjoyed ST09 when I saw it in the theater and even the first time I saw it on DVD. But, I was obviously already a fan of TOS, and have since become an un-fan (de-fan?) of ST09 upon repeated viewings.

I think it mostly opens the door to the rest of the franchise. So a lot of folks found (or re-found) ’90s Trek, which isn’t that old.

Matt Wright

I can see ST09 increasing brand awareness of Trek for people who didn’t watch Trek in the 90s, particularly younger people. But, that raises the issue of the other effects that JJ-Trek is having on the Trek brand. I recall reading several reports in the wake of STID revealing that the marketing strategy for the JJ-Trek movies was to almost exclusively target non-Trek fans. In fact, JJ Abrams said as much during press junkets for ST09. One of the taglines for ST09 being “Not your father’s Star Trek” is yet another piece of evidence of said marketing strategy.

For people well familiar with Trek from TOS onward, it is easy to separate Roddenberry and Berman Trek from JJ-Trek and to think of them as separate brands. But, targets of the JJ-Trek marketing strategy are necessarily not as savvy as long-time fans, pretty much by definition. That’s not my opinion, but rather it’s implied by what JJ, himself, has said about whom he made ST09 for. So, what’s that doing to the Trek brand? We now have a generation of fans for whom the JJ movies are Star Trek. What does that do to the Trek brand? At what point does Trek-branded entertainment become a fundamentally different thing in mass-perception from the cerebral, thoughtful, science-promoting, inspiring show that made fans of, not just people like me, but of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous scientists, astronauts, intellectuals, actors and so forth who are on record as having been inspired in their lives and careers by Trek (mostly by TOS but also by TNG)?

And, from purely a business-strategy perspective, what made TOS as long-lived and lucrative as it has been is precisely what is lacking in the JJ-Trek movies and DSC. Those movies and that show aren’t going to be nearly as important or influential in 50 years as TOS and TNG are today. And that all translates to a weaker brand with fewer licensing opportunities and so forth, to say nothing of what a travesty it all is to have “Trek” go from signifying something intellectually and artistically valuable and meaningful to signifying just another brand of ephemeral action/adventure entertainment.

But no one knows this! Maybe the Kelvin films and DIS will be forgotten sooner than the others but you seem to discount one piece of reality: both of those are STILL running. I mean its kind of silly to suggest people will forget about DIS when its barely just one season in. I’m almost certain most people felt that way about TNG after its first season and here we are again 30 years later still discussing that show (and hopefully discussing new episodes of it in the not too distant future).

As for the Kelvin movies, yes Beyond kind of proved the fanbase isn’t in love with these films as Paramount probably hoped but if the next film shows up and knock it out of the park then maybe that franchise will live long and prosper too. And I’m the guy who was convinced the Kelvin films were completely dead after Beyond but I can admit when I’m wrong.

Fifty years from now is a long time. We really don’t know which shows or films will hold up. But considering most of the hardcore fans do indeed watch basically all of it and give it all a chance then I’m not ready to discount anything out, especially when you are talking about fans that are not even born yet and how they will decide what’s relevant and what isn’t.

“I mean its kind of silly to suggest people will forget about DIS when its barely just one season in.”

True. But when you go more than a year between seasons it sure doesn’t help people REMEMBER STD either.

No it doesn’t but we’re mostly talking about when the show is completely over and its just reruns like the others. Its just hard to say how it will be remembered.

And we also have to factor in technology. There are so many people on Reddit who comes to that page having watched TNG, VOY, ENT, etc for the first time because its all on Netflix and Amazon. People are watching these shows because of the easy access to them. It may be a different thing if they had to go out and get them on DVD if they weren’t airing on TV. But thats how so many old shows are being discovered today by younger people.

And I literally can’t imagine where technology will be in 50 years. Hell maybe it will be holodecks lol. But we can’t discount anything for a number of reasons.


It was TNG story editor Tracy Torme who said he doubted that TNG would have anything like TOS’ longevity, in an interview he gave when he left the show after winning the Peabody for his script for “The Big Goodbye.”

Even in the very first episode of TNG, as annoying and sub-standard as one may find some of the performances or even the writing, the story was still premised upon a meaningful theme, i.e. humanity being morally judged by an alien (and, in many ways, superior) life-form. That single idea is more potent, meaningful and thought-provoking than everything in all three of the JJ-Trek films put together or anything that I’ve seen in DSC. And TNG only got better from that point on. My impression of DSC is that it’s just not trying to be that kind of a show.

In spite of the fact that overall I found the first season of DSC to be a real disappointment (in large measure due to major creative missteps in the final episodes, though I truthfully had issues with just about all of them), I didn’t find the series lacking at all in thematic content, and honestly don’t understand how you could fail to find it. But to each, his own.

Michael Hall

Well, I only saw a few episodes and don’t remember much about them. So, you could be right. Also, “thematic content” is a very broad description. A person debating whether or not to take an umbrella to work could qualify as thematic content, though it’s not very compelling in terms of the human condition, and I wouldn’t compare it with the meaningful, relevant content of TOS, TNG and DS9.

I’m just curious Cygnus but how many episodes did you actually watch? And which was your favorite and worst? I’m just trying to get a gauge of where you’re at with it.


I watched 4 or 5 back-to-back over a couple of days. They all blend together in my memory as one story-line. I remember thinking, from the very beginning, that the cause of the whole Klingon War seemed contrived and a bit silly. I didn’t find any of the characters interesting or relatable, and I didn’t particularly care about what happened to any of them. Everybody seemed whiny and pouty. I just found them kind of annoying. The one thing that I was pleasantly surprised by was the Klingons. I went in thinking that their re-characterization was going to be offensive to past Trek, but it wasn’t. I recall the plots and whatever themes there are being not bad, but not great. But, I just didn’t care about any of the themes, hence why I can’t recall any of them. It just wasn’t a compelling or even interesting show. I got no sense that the show was genuinely out to explore the human condition and reflect it back to us, let alone thought-provoking scientific and philosophical concepts that were the bread-and-butter of TOS and TNG.

I honestly didn’t like the Klingon war story line either. As you said it felt contrived, because it was. And it just wasn’t executed very well at all. BUT I will say the mirror universe episodes is where I truly loved the season. Those aren’t perfect either but they were at least more fun and it got back to being ‘crazy sci fi’ Star Trek, which is what I like the most about Star Trek. I WOULD say try and give those a chance and see if you feel differently.

I think I said this before that a big problem of Discovery’s first season IS the lack of Discovery. They do try to do a good job of specific character arcs but again so much of it felt a bit rushed, especially how they resolved Burnham’s arc.

But yes I’m hoping they heard of and next season it will start to feel a bit more like bread and butter Trek now that that the Klingon story line is done.

Actually, I think the question over whether to take an umbrella to work could possibly be very compelling indeed in the hands of a great writer. And there’s the rub, obviously: it all comes down to talent, irrespective of good intentions. I thought DSC actually posed some interesting questions in those initial episodes (that is, interesting in the context of the Trek ‘verse, as well as relating to the human condition), but as it turned out they were questions the producers were in no way equipped to answer. It was all quite a shame.

Excellent point Michael. In fact most of the cast thought the show would just last one season and that would be it. Patrick Stewart has said a few times his agent told him the show would probably bomb in a year but told him to take the job anyway to get his foot in the door in Hollywood. Very few thought it would succeed but to fair it was the first spin off and without any of the TOS characters. Everything about it felt like a risk.

But now its completely different. TNG proved Star Trek is a bigger than one crew or set of actors. Maybe DIS will follow this, maybe it won’t but its way too early to say either way.


We have only seen one season of DSC. I see no reason to think that the fundamental values and sensibilities of the show are going to change, but you’re right in that it is possible. I was mostly speaking about the JJ-Trek films, which we’ve seen three of. I’d consider it wishful thinking at this point to believe that they’re likely to fundamentally change. Also, I didn’t mean that JJ-Trek will be entirely “forgotten” in 50 years. There is no shortage of light entertainment made 50 years ago that still entertains some people and evokes a sense of nostalgia. That’s a pretty low bar. What I mean was that JJ-Trek won’t be significant in terms of cultural importance in 50 years, because it lacks all of the elements that made TOS and TNG culturally important.

“What I mean was that JJ-Trek won’t be significant in terms of cultural importance in 50 years, because it lacks all of the elements that made TOS and TNG culturally important.”

In a way, I was actually thinking about that the other day, Cygnus. In terms of cultural importance, nothing will ever hold a candle to TOS in that many of the things we each use on a daily basis (cellphones, tablets, etc) were actually invented because future inventors saw those things on TOS as kids and made them a reality. The JJ films are nice for what they are, but hardly ground-breaking in any way.

OK fair enough. I’m just trying to be objective. Its no secret to anyone I have a lot of issues with the show as others but its also a TV show, things can improve. And with Star Trek they actually usually do. When DS9 came on I watched every episode but I didn’t think I was ever going to like it and somewhere in season two I had even thought of no longer watching it completely because I just found the show boring and couldn’t get into the characters. Today its my favorite show out of all of them by far, no question. This is what I always keep in mind.

I was arguing with another member here in a different thread I don’t see the show as being that popular and in fact I’m convinced its the least popular iteration so far by the fanbase. So trust me when I say I’m not arguing DIS is some great show that has become an instant hit by all. But I really do try and be fair about it.

Like I said in another thread DIS is new and its different from the others so its harder for a lot of fans to accept it (some for VERY valid reasons) but it will change and improve in time I believe. And fans will either appreciate what its doing and get on board or remain skeptical. Most did that for TNG and DS9 but less so for VOY and ENT although I feel most fans generally like those shows too now. We’ll have to see where DIS lands in a few years.


Fair enough. You guys have seen more of DSC than I have. I’m assuming that what I’ve seen is a representative sample, but it’s possible that it wasn’t. Like I said in another thread, I’d be interested to read what problems people have with the show, being that I lack the motivation to re-visit it, and neither am I inclined to pay for something that I don’t enjoy just to figure out exactly why I don’t enjoy it. My criticisms about DSC are based on my experience which is more limited than yours.


I’m not getting on your case for not liking the show. Hell, I’m not even defending the first season all that much.

I’m NOT saying the show is perfect or great, far from it. But that seem to be the case with most of the Trek spin offs first season. But they all improved IMO. There seems to be some debate how much did Enterprise really improve by its last season but most people seem to think it improved a LOT vs where it was first season. Others still disagree but the consensus does seem to be the show got better. And I always said if the show got seven seasons like the rest of them, many of us might be citing it as one of the best shows. We will never know of course but I am fairly convinced it would’ve fell into my top three shows at least BASED on where it was going fourth season and I gave up on the show after the first season.

That’s all that is being said here. DIS may not improve in your view. In fact it may get worse. But it also could just get really better.

Your criticism isn’t invalid, but its a big head scratcher to me how anyone can assume the show just won’t improve based on the history of the franchise. You seem to just assume it won’t get any better after just 15 episodes.

Remember where TNG was after its 15th episode? But yes it got better, MUCH better. Every show has had this same conversation after their first season, right? Why is it so hard to believe this show can’t improve like the others?

And this isn’t for the people who already thinks DIS is great and thinks its the best opening season of any of the spin offs. And the fact people already think this probably does speak to the idea the show isn’t bad to every one.

I COMPLETELY get why a lot of people have issues with the show though and I don’t give anyone any illwill for having those issues because I do too, but I just love Star Trek and I keep the faith it will find its footing in time. Now that the original show runners are gone maybe that’s the first positive sign it will go a different direction.

Edit: I wrote this long rant forgetting you said in another post it could improve. OK, as long as you’re open to that idea at least.


Why is it so hard to believe this show can’t improve like the others?

Because I have no faith in the person in charge of the show. The fish rots from the head. And, having seen several Kurtzman-produced TV shows and two Kurtzman-penned Trek movies, and now the first 4 or 5 episodes of DSC, I have no reason to believe that Kurtzman has either the wherewithal to know what made TOS and TNG great or the desire to figure it out. We’re talking about a show (DSC) being produced by a man who is creatively satisfied by making shows like Hawaii Five-0 and Scorpion and who co-wrote two Trek films that are each the antithesis of TOS and TNG in their fundamental values and sensibilities. I’m not saying it’s impossible that Kurtzman might in the future, say, by accident, hire a show-runner who actually does understand what made TOS and TNG great, but I’m not counting on it.

OK well there is no point of trying to persuade you then. If you haven’t liked anything Kurtzman has put on in literally a decade and you haven’t liked any of the new Trek stuff then yeah maybe the show just isn’t for you.

As a big Trek fan I give everything a chance. I never loved the new movies but they are at least fun IMO. As for DIS you obviously know where I stand with it now but I still have faith it will get better and unless it just gets hopelessly bad I’m going to stick with it.

I think it would be great to see more Star Trek TV productions running concurrently.
Remember, due to DSC’s Löw episode count/year, even if we got two more shows of the same volume, it would still be LESS new Trek on a yearly basis than when DS9 was on.
Peppering in smaller things like Marvel did with Agent Carter would be a cool way to shorten the wait between DSC seasons.
And as you mention on the podcast, widening the appeal of the franchise would be a good way to get in younger viewers (especially with DSC behind the double hurdle of CBS AA and MA rating).
As long as we don’t end up with vapid shows just set in the Star Trek universe there’s a lot of potential here.
It needs to keep the “Trek” in Star Trek though.

around the 48 minute mark, discussing the Red Shirt comedy angle… it was already done as Fan films it is a shame that she stopped doing those (presumably because of Axanar) but as a full on series? No… as something added to a series? maybe…

~Pensive’s Wetness

@ThePW — I hope you’ve seen RED SHIRT BLUES. If not, search for it on YouTube and enjoy. I like THE RED SHIRT DIARIES all right, but RED SHIRT BLUES is the best effort I’ve seen.

Talking about Siddig El Fadil changing his name part way through DS9. I’ve heard at one point that He changed to Alexander Siddig simply because he felt it wasn’t suitable as an acting name because although some fans will remember, not everyone will so it would make it easier for producers and such. Also, conveniently would allow him and his wife, Nana Visitor, to have their names appear on the opening credits next to each other as it was alphabetical by last name.

Another question… You guys discussed Kurtzman’s resume as a producer and made the point that CBS must be happy with the results that he’s achieved on shows like Hawaii Five-0 and Scorpion. This part of the discussion reminded me of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Inside the Actors Studio interview in which she credited the Weinsteins (of Miramax at the time) “impeccable taste” in part for her success. Looking at the Weinsteins’ resume of films, it is easy to see Paltrow’s point. Along side global award-winners like GOOD WILL HUNTING, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE and THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, they also had the “taste” to grab up Quentin Tarantino’s TRUE ROMANCE script, and of course, they distributed RESERVOIR DOGS and then produced all of Tarantino’s movies from PULP FICTION onward, but also hidden gems, like SHE’S SO LOVELY. Getting back to Kurtzman’s resume, you guys reasoned that his role as executive producer for the new Trek shows will be similar to his role as executive producer of Hawaii Five-0 and Scorpion—to hire creative visionaries to run whatever additional Trek shows he’s put in charge of—and, as such, that there’s no need to worry about Kurtzman “infecting” the new Trek shows with his poor writing. My question, then, is this: when you watch Hawaii Five-0 and Scorpion, do you get the impression that the person in charge of those shows (Kurtzman) is particularly qualified to hire creative visionaries who are likely to turn out content as creative and inspired as TOS, TNG or DS9? Do you see evidence in Hawaii Five-0 and Scorpion that Kurtzman has the “taste”—the ability to discern and hire the requisite talent? Do you see that sort of inspiration in those shows?

My answer would be “no”. Those shows are mostly guilty pleasures for me and I enjoy watching them by turning off my brain, something the exact opposite of Trek needs to be. I don’t want a dumbed down, big mac version of Trek. I want the juicy steak version.

Couldn’t say, never having watched those shows (though if anything could get me to watch a Hawaii 5-O remake, Grace Park certainly could.)

Well, she isn’t in the cast anymore so that fact would probably deter you from watching. I am amazed at the fact that that lady never ages. She is better than fine wine.

Grace Park is a draw, I’ll give ’em that.

Well, you obviously don’t see that sort of inspiration.
If you don’t like something just say it.
Dont hide it in snarky questions.

Gary 8.5

It’s not a snarky question. Firstly, taken as a rhetorical question, it’s no less constructive. But, it’s also a legitimate question that I don’t know the answer to. It’s possible that Matt, Kayla and/or Jared see some sort of inspiration in Hawaii Five-0 and Scorpion that I haven’t seen. And, if they don’t see that sort of inspiration, then that would seem to invalidate the point about Kurtzman not “infecting” the new Trek shows on the basis of him not running and/or writing for the new shows. In other words, the “infection” would be Kurtzman’s lack of ability to discern what makes a good Trek show that is true to the values and sensibilities of the best of Roddenberry and Berman Trek—his lack of “taste.”

Although I thoroughly enjoyed TLJ, I hope they don’t ‘Luke Skywalker’ Picard with neuromonic syndrom. Make him a badass like Admiral Picard in Future Imperfect.

Had tried to post this before, but It got lost? Just wanted to totally gush and say how much I liked this particular podcast– ya’ll are very positive hosts! One thing I noticed in my own googling this week is that Robert Duncan McNeill was one of the exec producers of Chuck, the same producers who seem to be working on the Academy project. Perhaps that was their way in.

Star Trek Pike!

Are you guys going to continue the “Deep dives” into the rest of the Trek movies?

Anyway, it looks like Kurtzman is the new Berman. That kinda sucks, but I’m looking forward to animated Trek again.

We are indeed going to continue our movie series. We’ll probably do TWOK next.

That’s awesome! Even though TWOK is obviously the superior movie, I was looking more toward to you doing TSFS next. I always felt that TSFS is the most under-rated Star Trek movie of all. And thanks for doing the podcasts.

Thank you for listening! We really appreciate it.

We decided to do TWOK first since TSFS is a direct sequel to it.

From the man who brought you the failed Mummy remake with Tom Cruise that killed Universal’s “Dark Universe”, The Not-So-Amazing Spiderman 2 that killed Andrew Garfield’s version of the character, the worst Transformers movie ever, AND Faux Khan Into Whiteness comes a new chapter in Star Trek history! With a stellar track record like that, what can possibly go wrong?

When you lump all of his greatest hits together like that, it doesn’t look nearly as promising. Surely he’s had a success or three?

Bamasi, when you read the article which one of Alex’s success stories popped up in your mind? If the answer is none, you have your answer.

“Faux Khan Into Whiteness“ I burst into laughter. Jesus, his record with Trek so far is disturbingly bad. (Record with everything..)

Exciting stuff. But for a show about the future it’s disappointing that none of these new incarnations will take the show further into the future.

Well if the Picard rumor is true that WILL take us a bit farther into the future. Maybe not 100 years or so what others want but at least it won’t be another prequel.

But then again it could be a show where old Picard travels to another universe where he meets a young Picard starting his early days in starfleet after Cardassia is destroyed and chased by a Cardassian from the prime universe who blames him for the destruction of his homeworld. I just completely came up with that though.

I’ve long said I would like a show with maybe three or four parallel tracks:

* WWIII reconstruction/birth of United Earth
* Earth/Romulan War reconstruction/birth of the Federation
* the lives of those affected by the changes made by economists and politicians in charge of those reconstruction periods

Good podcast, but I really am looking forward to hearing this STID discussion that seems to be in the works. I think STID has to be one of the most interesting flexion points in the whole of Trek fandom. I think it’s pretty illuminating to compare sentiment when it immediately came out to as time wore on. At first, reaction was like mixed but overall positive, but then it quickly fell into disfavor, which is surprising considering one thing: it’s more of the same of ST09. It’s almost a carbon copy movie. And it’s surprising, because yeah, it could’ve been incredible, and it could’ve been the Trek franchise’s Dark Knight, but instead it wound up being a whiff of a movie that turned people off but nonetheless made money. Everyone says the story made no sense, but neither did ST09, and that didn’t stop us all from enjoying it and hailing it as a classic ten years on.

My Khan pick is Nestor Carbonell

One of the most interesting aspects of this announcement, in retrospect, are the Starfleet Academy series and the animated series because they both address one of the most crippling problems of the STAR TREK brand: attracting younger viewers. Kudos to the creative team, whether intentional or otherwise, for including these two in the design of all this new material. As an older gentlemen and viewer of TREK, neither appeals to me, but I do wish for TREK to continue and these two directions are very important for the franchises’ future. Way to go!