Alex Kurtzman And CBS Planning Star Trek TV Through 2027, Including More ‘Discovery’ Seasons

Yesterday Alex Kurtzman made big news at New York Comic Con when he announced he was bringing Star Trek: Voyager star Kate Mulgrew back to play Captain Janeway again in the Nickelodeon animated series Star Trek: Prodigy. In a new interview, the executive producer in charge of Star Trek on TV talked about keeping that secret for a year, and how he is already planning the next decade of Star Trek television.

Janeway is part of Prodigy for a “wonderful reason”

Kurtzman was a guest on The Hollywood Reporter podcast Top 5, and he revealed that the decision to bring back Janeway has been in place for a year and it “blows his mind” it hasn’t leaked. He also talked about how they came to the decision to have Mulgrew join Prodigy:

When you’re looking at legacy characters you have to have a very specific reason to bring them back. Without revealing too many details, Kevin and Dan [Hageman] came in with a pitch that just blew the doors off the place. There was a really clear wonderful reason to bring Janeway into the story.

Prodigy is specifically aimed at bringing in younger fans. The EP talked about how this has been a challenge for the franchise:

I think one of the things that Star Trek has not done as effectively over time is bring in new people, particularly much younger people, and I don’t see any reason why that this amazing story that has existed for 55 years, that is so about everything that we are dealing with in our lives right now, cannot be shared and enjoyed by younger generations.

A variety of Trek shows planned through 2027

In 2021 Prodigy will be the fifth Star Trek series launched since Kurtzman has taken the reins of the franchise only a few years ago. With so many new live-action and animated Star Trek shows being worked on, the executive producer talked about how they balance pleasing the installed fan base and creating different Star Trek shows to appeal to different audiences:

You always have to sell the property to the deep fans. They scrutinize everything in a way that fans of Trek have done since the beginning. You can never be doing anything that seeks to sort of say “Well we’re only going to hit one group here and we’re not going to care about another.” That being said, I think that the death of a great franchise is when you try to please everybody… I think some things have to be really focused on specific groups or specific ideas and you can assume not everybody will love it.

And with even more shows coming, Kurtzman was pressed about if there could be too many. But he doesn’t seem concerned about oversaturation because of the emphasis on creating different kinds of shows:

I feel like the world needs Star Trek right now. The key is not to homogenize Star Trek. The way to do that is to make sure each show is carried by a different voice. I think about the crayon analogy. There’s a bunch of different colors in the box, but it’s all in the same box. That’s how I look at Star Trek, each show has to be a unique proposition, it can’t be like another show.

In a world where streaming content, and the way people consume streaming, is so ravenous, and given how hopeful and beautiful the messages of Star Trek are, I don’t think you can have too much. Because there’s something for everybody. And maybe you won’t want to watch all of them, maybe you’ll only want to watch one, but that’s okay because someone else will want to watch a different one.

He also revealed how far out he and his Secret Hideout production company partners are thinking as they work with CBS on developing the Star Trek Universe on TV:

Heather Kadin and Aaron Baiers, who work with me at Secret Hideout, we literally just got off a call before this with the network mapping out with us through 2027. When I say that, it’s not like it’s set in stone, it’s just “okay here’s a plan, here’s what we’re looking, here’s how the different shows are going to drop.” Consider the that it takes a year from start of production to airing, so you have to plan way way in advance to get these things done and you have to stay on top of the zeitgeist and make sure what you’re doing is relevant.

Years more of Discovery, with Paradise as an essential partner

All of this Star Trek started with the launch of Star Trek: Discovery on CBS All Access in 2017. The third season arrives on October 15th with the announcement of a fourth season expected soon. Kurtzman revealed to THR that he can see the show going on for years:

I’m going to say in all honesty there are years and years left on Discovery. I think that because, first of all, you know Star Trek, in general, has a long history of going seven seasons minimum, and we just jumped into the future, and in a way, it’s not that it’s a brand new show, but it’s a whole new set of variables with a whole new set of ideas and stories. I don’t think we limit ourselves to thinking, “Oh we’re capped at this place.” I’ll tell you that when the show starts to feel too stale to us, we’ll be rallying to stop it. But for now, it doesn’t feel like we are running into a shortage of stories.

During the second season, after Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg were let go as showrunners, Kurtzman stepped into the role and later he elevated Michelle Paradise to co-showrunner for the third season. He talked about working together with her and how she helps him balance his work on Discovery and the other Star Trek shows:

Michelle really became essential to my working process in season 2, I recognized very quickly that Michelle has a lot of things that I need from a partner… Michelle’s unbelievably organized, she’s very very thoughtful… I’m spending my days bouncing between many different shows. So I’ve learned to do this weird gearshift of like 100% focus on what’s in front of me for a window of time until everybody gets the answers they need and that thing can move forward and then I can shift to the next thing. Michelle makes that so easy for me, she’s very thoughtful about Star Trek and she’s great about running the [writers’] room. She has that amazing combo of real authority as a co-showrunner, but also the generosity of allowing people to own their ideas.

Season three of Discovery fits the COVID era

When asked if the pandemic has changed the kind of stories he wants to tell, Kurtzman talked about how the third season of Discovery already fit into some of the themes of these times:

We wrapped [Discovery’s third] season ten days before lockdown. What was crazy is that the whole season is about this cataclysmic event that changed the way people communicate and separated everybody, and it’s all about how to hold on to our hope when something like that happens. We had no idea this was coming, but in a funny way this season ended up being about what we’re going through right now.

Pandemic production needs military precision

For Star Trek to proliferate as planned, Kurtzman will have to return to production on the various live-action shows including Picard’s second season, the first season of Strange New Worlds, and (likely) the fourth season of Discovery. He talked about how Secret Hideout’s work on a non-Star Trek show is helping inform what they do next:

We just started shooting a new show [Clarice], and it’s been a real learning curve just in the three days that we’ve been doing it. The great news is that it’s very doable, but it’s a highly militarized operation, everything is slower. Between testing, and your set it doesn’t function like it used to function, there are groups that are vetted by the unions, pods within the groups themselves, there are rotations in and out of people so that if somebody gets sick in your pod, the pod just gets removed and another pod gets pushed in, but it doesn’t infect the whole group. It is a massive massive operation. And we haven’t even started that yet on the Star Trek shows.


Keep up with the Star Trek Universe at TrekMovie.com.

Subscribe
Notify me of
161 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

See? I just said a day or two ago that I knew for a fact more seasons of Discovery were already planned. And there you go. :)

Discovery season 3 looks exciting alright.

havent you said season of LDS?

Yep. That’s coming, too.

Hopefully this will finally shaddup the whiners who claim the fourth age of Star Trek is DOA.

Nahh, who am I kidding? :)

Tomorrow on YT: Alex Kurtzman is fired, and with him all remaining seasons of Discovery

;)

That’s right. The head of Disney+ has been hired to fire him…

“this cataclysmic event that changed the way people communicate and separated everybody”

So now he’s all but confirmed what we have speculated about here, that somehow subspace got damaged and warp drive and subspace radio won’t work anymore (or slower).

Maybe everyone ignored the Star Trek warp speed limit from TNG and subspace fell apart. Bit of a climate change analogy in there. I’m kind of over cataclysmic dystopian stories though. It’s a tired sci-fi trope.

The next generation of Warp-Drives solved that problem. Voyager Warp-Drive for example was such a type !

Lord knows we need a climate allegory right now, literally no show is talking about it and it’s literally the most important thing in human history

It’s fascinating that, by happenstance, they have hit on a classic Star Trek analogy tale.

It will be interesting to see if the show will bring in a broader audience that’s looking for stories to validate their experience without it being about a pandemic.

You are right – having people relate, even share the pain, without hitting them over the head or too close at home is the gold standard of storytelling, and by virtue of analogy one of the strengths of science fiction. So if that’s the storyline it seems like a great fit – Noah Hawley’s pandemic Trek movie, maybe not!

Yeah about that… Experience has taught us all that what he says is not exactly what we will see on screen. So take all that analogy talk with some very large grains of salt.

with ST: D s1 now airing on CBS (free) – I have a feeling a lot more people will start watching the show and it will quickly become a hit show for CBS – especially with the dearth of new programs for the rest of the year. Same for One Day at Time or other shows.

That’s a fantastically positive attitude there giiuyluy. I commend you for that.

if warp isnt working anymore…. how people even travel at all?
and with no travel… how there ist conflict, trade, anything`?

Personally I think it’s still working but massively slowed down, explaining why the core worlds of the Federation seem to be still remaining (6 stars in the flag; those are only a few light-years away) while much of the rest of the Federation has broken away for being unreachable. Or maybe they are using a warp alternative that yields the same effect.

If the Omega theory is correct, my guess is that parts of subspace were destroyed but not all of it. Ships have to take massive detours to go around the areas of space where warp is impossible, and some places are entirely isolated.

God Bless this man

happy dance for all the trek fans out there who like new trek… condolences to those who don’t

Excuse me, we all like new Trek! Just some of us don’t like BAD new Trek ;) Keeping my fingers crossed!

That’s not what he said – so the perpetual whiners need to get some cardio in, seven years is a long time to cry.

Who’s crying anyway? I just won’t make do with mediocre, and neither should anyone really! I want some quality alongside the quantity, and if somehow they managed that back in the crude 90s with 52 episodes of Trek per year (lets remember LDS now really only counts as half-episodes), they sure should be able to in this current age of self-proclaimed “Peak TV”!

Last edited 18 days ago by Vulcan Soul

Precisely. Putting the shows behind a pay wall like this means there is no excuse to NOT get it right coming out of the gate. And it is completely appropriate if not out right expected to hold the product to much tighter scrutiny than usual because of it.

I’d agree with some of that in that it’s prestige TV so you’d expect a top notch production but I think in terms of the technical aspects like sets, wardrobe, effects etc modern Trek doesn’t disappoint. Likewise these new series have been attracting a high calibre of creative talent both in front of and behind the cameras as show runners, directors and in the various writing rooms that would not be out of place on a Netflix or Amazon production. Is it realistic though to expect all of their creative choices to be a slam dunk just because it’s a premium product? Could you honestly say that you could pick any Netflix or Amazon original show in a genre you’re fond of and be guaranteed to like it or agree with all of their creative choices? I’d be inclined to call BS on yes answers to those questions.

Don’t get me wrong ML31, you’re a fan of the show who stumps up cash in order to watch their programming so I support yours and VS’s right to be critical if you don’t like stuff, I just don’t agree with the reasoning that creative choices should be right straight out of the gate because it’s behind a paywall. Those are subjective not objective decisions so it’s an impossible expectation.

So far, this is the one and ONLY one streaming service I have ever paid for. My friend shared his netflix account with me and I had Disney+ for one week last year to catch The Mandelorian. And trust me… Netflix is not worth it. There is a LOT of uninteresting stuff there and much of what I have seen has not been very good. A VERY small % has been OK and one or two really good jobs. But that’s it. Are two hits over 8 years worth their fee? I think not. If my friend opted to cut me off of his netflix I wouldn’t miss it. The point is, there is a lot of content out there in streaming land. But not very much of it was good. And to be honest I find that unacceptable when your product is behind a pay wall. When I go to a movie, I expect it to be good. Yes it not always is. But it is not unreasonable to EXPECT it to be good given the fact that you are going out of your way to pay to see this thing exhibited. What I am saying is at the very least these streaming shows should be scrutinized at least the same way we scrutinize a feature film. And again, even though movies aren’t always good I do always EXPECT them to be good.

Lol I still think that’s an unrealistic expectation but I do agree that as a consumer essentially buying their product you have every right to decide if you’re happy with your purchase and yeah, it goes without saying that you’re just as entitled to express your view on said product regardless of whether you like it or not,

hahaha thanks… yeah they don’t seem to get it…

I’m wondering if strategic planning 2022 to 2027 for the television side will also help sort out what makes sense (or not) for cinematic features.

Star Trek on TV is in healthy condition

Surak knows what the movie franchise urgently needs is STRATEGIC VISION. And someone helming it who’s not a suit and does it for more than just one outing (or a springbed for their actual pet projects).

Last edited 18 days ago by Vulcan Soul

I’d plan on cinematice features to be dead for the time being. Until someone comes along who’ll make Trek for the big screen at about 100MM, there won’t be any cinematic features.

A new movie will be announced soon.

It’s just crazy, ALL of these shows that are coming out and (assuming people like the shows) are an abundance of riches since there seems to be no end in site when a new show won’t be announced every year. And these shows aren’t cheap. Discovery probably cost around $100+ a million a year to produce. Picard probably just a bit lower since it only has 10 episodes.

But they can’t get ONE movie off the ground for around the same price? At this rate, we probably won’t see another movie in theaters for another 6-7 years. But there will probably be a dozen shows on by then.

Last edited 18 days ago by Tiger2

Well, the question is: Do they make more money by investing 100m into a a full season of a show or by investing it into a 2h movie? Also, as long as Amazon or Netflix are involved as international distributors, CBS actually pays far less per season out of their own pocket.

I agree, but it’s just nuts how different the dynamic is. Apparently you can make 6 shows and bring in money but ONE movie every few years is now a huge gamble to the studio. Of course the issue is that the Kelvin movies just cost WAY too much money and probably should’ve cost under $150 million from the beginning but they were thinking big. And that’s great but ironically because they thought so big and the gamble didn’t pay off as hoped may in fact put off another film for 5-7 years minimum. We’re already going on our fifth year since Beyond and not new a film in sight, so that’s not hyperbole.

If they kept them lower from the onset we probably would’ve had a fourth film by now even if Beyond did just the same BO because if it had a lower budget it would’ve at least made a profit.

Last edited 17 days ago by Tiger2

The point has always been that they should be able to invest in both formats and make money in both as well. Until Nemesis flopped, that was the norm for more than a decade. It looks good in their portfolio to have a healthy movie franchise going.

Last edited 17 days ago by Ian

Just DON’T give Kurtzman control of the movies, no matter how long you end up sitting on them.

ALL of ST, on both TV and film mediums, does not need to be creatively controlled by the same team (and should not be). This would be true even if the TV franchise was more widely acknowledged to be in better health.

The movies are coming. Cbs had to buy back Paramount first. Now that they’ve accomplished that the movie talks are already underway. There’s even talk about phasing the Kelvin timeline with the regular timeline.

Where did you hear this?

It’s the CBS angle that I’m concerned about, especially in light of Kurtzman.

And doing a lot of timey-whimey nonsense to the existing ST continuities (I refuse to say timeline) Is just fracking stupid. Save that stuff for the comic books and other secondary canon material.

(It sounds like wishful thinking to me. If more than a little seemingly typical of what fans at large probably want)

2027 seems like enough time for all this new content.

I like a lot of what Kurtzman says here, but gonna disagree on the amount of “hopeful” we’ve gotten out of streaming-era Trek. Lower Decks fits the bill, but that’s about 4.5 hours out of the slate. Discovery and Picard certainly have their bright spots (the former more than the latter), but I definitely don’t come out of either of those series feeling at all uplifted. Here’s hoping we’re on a course correction going forward – I’m very much looking forward to Disco S3 and Prodigy.

Kurtzman calling current Trek “hopeful” is as fake news as it gets. Minus Lower Decks, the one show he had nothing to do with.

“Discovery and Picard certainly have their bright spots (the former more than the latter)”

Bright spots?? I will say this. Picard was certainly an eye-opener ;)

Bright spots?? I will say this. Picard was certainly an eye-opener ;)”

Uggggh. Jail. Jail for you, sir. XD

But no, I wouldn’t call either one a complete slog; I can pick out moments that made me laugh throughout both. It’s just overall, any nod toward a hopeful future was complete lip service for S1 of Discovery and Picard (Disco S2 was an improvement). Picard, especially, felt like the writers didn’t believe what they were supposed to be selling and undermined the notion quite a bit.

The producers and writers seem to have an endless supply of show ideas that they are using to try to appeal to different audiences. I’m a bit concerned that the execution may suffer because they are spreading themselves so thin. There is after all some overlap of writers. Granted, they don’t have to fill 26 hours of tv per show (sometimes 52 hours in the same year across two shows) like the Berman era show but I think there is a chance of a different type of franchise fatigue than the Berman era had.

Last edited 18 days ago by David

Berman fatigue didn’t really kick in properly until Nemesis and then Enterprise in 2001-05.
Berman Trek era started in 1987.
Kurtzman started 2017.
So we are at the equivalent of 1990/91 at this point. It can be argued that the peak period was somewhere between 1992 – 1997.

OK, TNG was the only show on until 1993, but as Kurtzman says they are going out their way to make sure each show is different enough to keep things interesting and that they can cater to slightly different tastes. Even different moods I guess. Sometimes I want a slice of cheesecake (Lower Decks), Othertimes I might want to eat a Moussaka (Discovery), or perhaps I might fancy a cucumber sandwich with mint dressing (Picard).

All different is what they have to keep doing.

It could also be argued that the peak was seasons 4-7 of TNG, and that Voyager was a creative failure until they got rid of Kes and brought on Seven. Anyone remember the Vidiians?

I liked the vidians, I thought they had potential. They were far better than the other bad guys… I can’t remember their names just now.

Last edited 18 days ago by Dvorak

The Vidiians were at least creepy. They mined a decent couple of horrific stories out of them in Deadlock and Faces, and a sweet love story for the Doctor in Life Signs. Contrast that with the Hirogen and 8472 being memorable more for their designs than anything else.

I would argue that while Voyager was more superficially fun starting with season 3 and when they created such a strong character in Seven, the show was better off when it was trying to build its fundamentals in seasons 1 and 2. Michael Piller was still the showrunner then and you remember his mantra was how everything was all about character. We got some light serialization, episodes like Meld, Faces, Tuvix, Jetrel etc. which explored character. Contrast that with the show that turned Ron Moore off when it told
him how Barge of the Dead affected Torres’ relationship with Paris was not important. When you give up on character it means you have no fat to live off of when the plots aren’t great, and that was a big problem for Voyager later on – they coasted on Seven and the Doctor, and Kate Mulgrew could barely hold Janeway together over wildly frenetic characterization on paper week to week.

I liked the Vidiians too, although I couldn’t wrap my head around how such a society could ever maintain itself.

A LOT better than the dumbed-down Klingons called Kazon.

We also have to remember streaming is just a different animal in general. It doesn’t rely on ratings or how soon a show is watched like a network show. And I also think people have to realize that unlike a TV show where its cancelled and then removed from the network, on streaming sites shows NEVER go away. And because of that even if they are not that popular now, who knows what they will be like years from now? Like Netflix, All Access is trying to build a big enough library so years from now people will just sign up and watch all the various shows, old and new. Fatigue doesn’t really count the same way because streaming sites looks at things more long term.

And again, even if there was ‘fatigue’ my guess is Star Trek is the only thing on that site bringing any real views. Think of AMC and all The Walking Dead shows that network is making. Ratings drop every year, the main show is leaving soon and yet they keep making more of them because regardless how much ‘fatigue’ there is, they are probably still the most watched shows on that network as I imagine Star Trek will be for AA for a long time.

I’ve totted up the number of hours of Trek we have actually had since this ‘era’ started and I counted 40 hours (minus the short-treks) as of today (10th October). And all spread across three separate tv series’s.

At the same equivalent point in ‘the Berman era’ (1987-Oct. 10th 1990) there had already been 79 hours of Star Trek and all with one series, with just one movie that had the TOS cast.

There should not be any fatigue at this point and if there were then they would not be doing their job right.

Yeah I don’t see how either. It’s only been 3 years of new shows and as you said much more reduced episodes as well. Discovery has been off the air for literally a year and a half now and currently have less than 30 episodes total. If this was the old days it would’ve been in season 4 by now and had over 70-80 episodes already.

Of course in a few years and there are half a dozen shows running and if people think they mostly suck, then sure I can see fatigue setting in faster by then. But right now, Discovery is the only show that has even done more than a season yet. It’s just waaaaay too soon to see how people will feel long term.

I will say from personal experience from the last era of shows I was excited for it all and watched it loyally for years. But yes by the time Enterprise started I was one of those people who felt fatigue and stopped watching it. But by then I have been watching Star Trek for 14 straight years. And you have to include the 6 films that came out at that time too. There was a LOT of freaking Star Trek lol.

Last edited 18 days ago by Tiger2

I’d say the Berman era started in 1989-90 when Roddenberry became less active due to health. Berman-era fatigue was definitely settling in by 1993-94, with TNG Season 7’s cascade of “long lost family member of the week” episodes. A lot of us at the time hoped that Voyager would bring new vitality to the TNG format (DS9 was utterly different after Season 1 and followed its own path) and it sometimes did, but also gave us a bunch of episodes that felt like TNG story rejects. It was not enough to stem the tide of declining ratings and interest. Then Enterprise came along and depending on who you believe, Berman or studio meddling made it abandon the heart of its premise (“Birth of the Federation”) in favor of more warmed-over TNG-like stories (complete with Borg and Ferengi stories), and it never really gathered an audience.

Last edited 18 days ago by Thorny

2027??? But….but….but…..wasn’t Kurtzman fired (up)? Aren’t his Trek shows just bleeding CBS dry? Abject failures?

Proof once again that Midnight’s Edge is not someone anyone should ever take seriously.

One could say, ME is like the President of Trek News ;)

Yep! Both actively seek to mislead the masses via hatemongering and lies.

All companies etc plan ahead. Its a business and you have to have some kind of plan or else there would be chaos.

It’s funny Kurtzman mentioned the ‘7 season’ minimum thing because that would settle nicely at Discovery concluding about 2027 based the pace at which the show is being produced. They essentially skipped an entire traditional television season in 2019-20. And with the virus causing issues, with no sign of just disappearing next year, its likely filming will be delayed and take longer when it even happens.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Season 4 debuts later in 2022 now.

Picard Season 2 hasn’t even started filming yet has it? That will not be landing now until 2022 either probably.
October seems optimistic IMO.

OK. So Secret Hideout is going to be here for a while.

Since that is a reality I guess we as fans need to hope that the cross pollination of producers and writers between shows will STOP. Each show needs a nearly completely separate production crew and writers. You keep the current incestuous relationships and the shows are going to continue to be… Not good. He keeps saying how each show will have its own “voice” yet the people behind the shows remains mostly constant. He says one thing and his actions do not support what he says. That might be the most frustrating thing about Kurtzman and Secret Hideout.

There have been 4 seasons of Trek shows so far from this group. None have worked well.

I wholeheartedly agree! The problem is that the promise of “completely different flavors” has NOT been fulfilled so far, certainly not with Discovery and Picard. There’s way too much sharing both in technical categories (Eaves! Russo!) but it’s particularly disastrous in writing /producing given their current roster is, ahem, mediocre. And I fear for SNW seeing the expansive roster of all too familiar “executive producers”.

I do hope that Kurtzman et al. are taking note of the most positive reception of LDS among all of his shows so far, and the fact that is the show that is most of ‘its own thing’ ( by virtue of being animated, but also the usual gang completely staying out of its affairs) and make some adjustments for the shows to come! Most importantly, the episodic format of SNW lends itself to having a wide and diverse roster of writers, inviting prolific guest writers (dare I say, scifi novelists?) and directors, but also a variety of composers etc. in lieu of the simplistic diet we have been served on Discovery and Picard!

If Kurtzman is smart, he will let a thousand flowers bloom, and not in the historical political sense ;)

Last edited 18 days ago by Vulcan Soul

I completely agree! That would be best case scenario for SNW, but I still fear the worst.

If we have to stick with Kurtzman alum maybe get Jeff Pinker or JH Wyman the showrunners from Fringe? It was also a show with episodic plots but serialized character development. Although I think the plots too got more serialized as the show went on. I remember enjoying it back in the day, but haven’t watched it recently to see if it holds up.

Last edited 18 days ago by Zinc Saucier

Imagine getting guys like John Scalzi, Andy Weir, Timothy Zahn to write for Trek. That would be awesome.

I think that’s why LDS is a much bigger hit among the base unlike DIS and PIC because McMahan had a clear vision from the start and there is not ten ‘executive producers’ who have a say in it. Maybe because its animation they look at it differently, but they seem to let him be completely in charge of that show and it worked amazingly.

And he’s not trying to reinvent the wheel. He is obviously doing his own thing but he is still using all the elements from the TNG era that really worked and why that show is getting a different response than DIS got when it premiered. Season one of DIS kind of felt like it was trying NOT to be Star Trek or a ‘different’ Star Trek for today’s audience and I don’t think it worked as well as they hoped.

McMahan was smart to stick with what works while making it clear it’s a comedy so it has a bit more leeway in that as well.

Last edited 18 days ago by Tiger2

Star Trek Lower Decks has 6 executive producers. Obviously, for Discovery it’s a little more complicated because of the firings but it looks like they didn’t have more than 6 executive producers at a time during season 2. So that’s the same number as Lower Decks.
You seem to imply that Secret Hideout was somehow less involved in Lower Decks than Discovery or Picard but I don’t think that’s the case.
Picard had the most with 8 executive producers. Based on interviews, it does indeed seem that people like Chabon and Goldsman may have had conflicting ideas where to take the show.

Funny thing is: Rod Roddenberry and Trevor Roth are listed as executive producers on all the new shows but I don’t think it has ever been revealed what their actual contribution is.

I think Rod Roddenberry is one of those In name only producers who only get the credit because he is representing the creator of the franchise. This is the same way how family members of writers like Philip K Dick or Frank Herbert get producer credits for the stuff made from those writers works.

Trevor Roth also represents the Roddenberry estate.

We know they’re consulted, but the EP role is legacy from everything we’ve heard.

6 executive producers is still nothing close to what the other shows have. I think Picard has between 12-13 which seems nuts lol.

And what I’m saying is McMahan seems to have a lot more freedom to make the show he wants versus Michael Chabon and Picard as you said yourself because unlike McMahan he wasn’t the one who created the show on his own. And I think obviously there is probably much more importance on Picard.

I just think LDS has a more singular vision vs the other shows where there seems to be a lot more opinions on where to take the show. Discovery is a little different because it did originally had that with Fuller and once he left then that changed a lot.

And of course I’m not saying having one guy mostly calling all the shots is necessarily a good thing either, it just worked in LDS case. Sadly if Fuller stayed on Discovery I don’t know if that would’ve been a good thing seeing how divided the first season one was. I think he would’ve stuck to his guns.

I haven’t looked closely but my point was not how many producers there are but how many of them have appeared on all the series’. I looked at SNW’s list and I think there was one, perhaps two new names on the list. The rest were the same people involved in STD and STP. THAT is the problem.

I actually think that LDX works among some hard core fans because of all the fan service more than anything else. McMahon’s vision seemed to be just to have 10 episodes of fan-gasms. But yes it is also the show with the least amount of overlap behind the scenes. That’s good but as LDX has shown it doesn’t mean the end product will be better. But I will still say it increases the chances.

I just think it brings back a lot of classic Star Trek as well! It’s all the things people have been moaning about that Picard and DIS lacked.

-It’s episodic for one, something we haven’t really gotten since Voyager.
-It’s about actual EXPLORATION again. A huge plus for me.
-It’s optimistic.
-It looks and feels like the old shows, just in animated form. Romulan ships look exactly like Romulan ships. Klingons look like Klingons. 24th century starships look like…you get it.
-It’s really part of the TNG era again. Since it only takes a year after Nemesis we can see characters like Will and Troi onboard the Titan as an example. Picard is really in a post-TNG era being 20 years after that movie and everyone’s lives have dramatically changed since.

But if I’m being honest, if we had a new live action show that was doing these things already, then no I don’t think LDS would get as much praise as its getting. But since we don’t, well yeah. Its just feels like the most authentic Trek show for some, at least since Voyager. But yes the easter eggs are also a huge win too! ;)

Last edited 17 days ago by Tiger2

So it sounds to me that your take is that the show is LOOKING better than it really is because it is being compared to Discovery and Picard. That is perfectly understandable.

I think its just a better show in general, but yes looks better too.

I don’t know if you read my reviews or not, but literally every episode I complement the story line just as much as I do the details they get right. The last four episodes were all great to me, which is funny because the sixth episode was the only one I DIDN’T like at all and I was worried it was going to be a big fall from that point on. But nope, just the opposite for me. :)

Anyone else sick to their stomach at the idea that Kurtzman and Secret Hideout will be in control of Trek for the next SEVEN YEARS??? I like how he says that Trek series last “seven years minimum.” Like bro what does that even mean? No Trek series has gone beyond seven years, and three of them lasted four seasons or less lol like can you even do math or know what words mean? What do you mean seven minimum, like that’s the maximum? Unless he’s referring to TNG which got four movies, but again those ended prematurely because they focused on ACTION over story, something his productions totally fail to grasp.

When he says there’s a “clear wonderful reason to bring Janeway in,” I just keep thinking how JJ told him when he and Orci and Lindelof were writing STID, “Can we make him Khan? Let’s make him Khan.” I’m not buying it buddy! He says he wants to sell the property to “deep fans” who “scrutinize everything,” yet they blew that from the get-go with Discovery and the way it trampled on established canon. It’s like everything he says is marketing; I’ll believe it when I actually see it. And with the exception of Lower Decks, I haven’t seen quality Star Trek sci-fi storytelling in over ten years now.

Last edited 18 days ago by albatrosity

Very much yes.

Completely agree. Everything this guy says is meaningless marketing spin. Their supposed “unique voices” feels more like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, and Discovery especially has undergone wild course corrections in each season to try to fix the incoherent mess.

It’s honestly baffling that they’re planning to throw more money at this guy for the next 7 years when everything they’ve made so far has been so poorly received (I say this not just because all of the dedicated Trekkies I know have avoided the new stuff since Disco season 1, but even the non-Trekkie sci-fi fans I know haven’t watched the 2nd season of Disco and wanted nothing to do with Picard, so if they’re not drawing in the existing fans OR new fans, who exactly is watching these shows??)

At this point, the only thing I’m looking forward to is the tell-all behind the scenes book in 20 years exposing the dumpster fire that I can only assume is blazing in Secret Hideout and CBS ala the early seasons of TNG.

Last edited 18 days ago by aceofwands

haha word, yeah unfortunately I know hardly any sci-fi buffs outside the Trek community watching these shows – there’s SO much better fare out there, and CBSAA is such a terrible platform. It’s so sad that, five years, ago, we were all so giddy about the idea of all this new Trek. But anything is possible, and maybe some of what they’re trying to do with all of this will catch fire in the coming decade.

I’m not enthused at all. I don’t understand how ST got this guy. Is ST any kind of challenge for him? He doesn’t appear humble about taking it on at all.

I’m all for breaking ST’s “rules” and traditions (quite bluntly it doesn’t happen often enough). But you still need to understand and respect them first. Berman at least got that part right. You can’t say you’re breaking the rules if in actuality you wouldn’t know how to follow them (the emperor has no clothes). Even when he gets the people who know ST, it would appear they get drowned out in the writers room.

In fact, never mind not knowing how to write ST (fans act like it’s a huge deal, but it’s really not)… Does he know how to write drama, period? Does he know how to block a story? If you can do THAT, you can write for ST with just a handful of notes.

So what gives?

No….

Hard no albatrosity.

The franchise was languishing until Kurtzman sold a new strategic vision.

It’s had a really rough start, but let’s not forget that the early days of TNG were rough enough to earn the title “Chaos on the Bridge.”

Yeah but when the strategic vision is “sell as much low-quality writing and mindless action as can fill the screen,” is that anything to celebrate? It isn’t hard to say “let’s make as much Trek as possible,” but if it’s poorly executed and the fans are upset and hardly anyone watches it then what is the actual point beyond making a quick buck? I would rather have no new Trek than bad new Trek and watch character assassination as they shoehorn in familiar faces only to do them no justice.

I can buy what you said except I wouldn’t exclude Lower Decks. It’s not quality, either.

How is Section 31 the only thing anyone has run with from DS9? TNG and TOS get plenty of callbacks and reboots and alumnus showing up again, totally understandable. I love Jeri Ryan and am happy to see Seven back, even if Picard didn’t do her justice, but I don’t like that Voyager is getting so much more love in the Kurtzman era than DS9. It’s frustrating.

Voyager was more popular with the more recognizable characters. That’s all they care about. But I do agree, DS9 was better, but maybe we’re better off with them mostly ignoring it. The one thing they took from it, which you pointed out is Section 31, they’ve ruined and are running into the ground. So I guess I’m kinda fine with them mostly leaving DS9 alone.

Last edited 18 days ago by Zinc Saucier

Voyager was by and large a more typical “planet of the week” format like TOS and TNG, compared to the ongoing storyline that was the bulk of DS9. That probably makes Voyager much easier for occasional viewers to watch than DS9 (you don’t have to remember what happened in the previous episode.) That’s probably why it is more popular in syndication and streaming.

Last edited 18 days ago by Thorny

I think this has got to do with the popularity of Voyager on Netflix. I think there was an article here couple of months saying how the Voyager episodes were some of the most often watched Trek on Netflix. This is why first they put Seven and now they are putting Janeway in their shows.

Absolutely on the mark alphantrion.

Voyager has established itself as the entry series for many new fans, including many who are now in the core target advertising market.

Bridging characters from Voyager to new series is as important as bringing TOS characters to the new series was in the 90s.

Exactly! I know this may shock some people here, but Voyager is a pretty popular show. MAYBE not on the level of TOS or TNG, but certainly up there. And I think for first time viewers today Voyager is easy to get into, certainly than DS9 IMO. Yes DS9 is a much better show, but it starts out MUCH slower, especially for new viewers. And certainly more complex.

I can’t remember who I had this conversation with but it was somebody on this site who said that CBS wanted people not to think about the older shows like VOY and DS9 because they weren’t as big as TNG was so they should try to reference them very little on the new shows. To me, this idea sounded so short sighted and unrealistic in so many ways. You can’t compare ratings on UPN back in 1999 compared to today when these shows are on multiple streaming sites worldwide. What’s crazy now is Star Trek has more visibility today than it did it’s first forty years. I do a lot of traveling (or use to ;)) and I was in Vietnam, the Philippines and Singapore a year ago. Thanks to Netflix I was still watching episodes of DS9, TOS, VOY, etc while catching trains, boats and buses for a few weeks. In other words, these shows are everywhere now and in places they may not have been just a decade ago.

So CBS is probably taking the OPPOSITE view and want to highlight all the old shows as much as possible because you have millions of people watching them worldwide now. And Star Trek is the ultimate gateway drug in the sense you watch ONE show, you probably will end up watching the others at some point too. And it’s probably due to the popularity of how Voyager is doing in multiple places why they want to expand those characters anyway they can because it gets old Trek viewers to give Prodigy a chance since Janeway is there and it gives new viewers to the franchise who watch Prodigy for the first time to later check out Voyager if they fall in love with Janeway on the show and want to see her in live action. It’s a win-win!

But it really does tell you how successful Star Trek is as a brand. We all sit here and talk about 20 year old shows as if we just watched them yesterday (and some of us probably did ;)), but these characters will probably live on for decades as more Trek shows comes out and emphasizes the brand as a whole.

Last edited 17 days ago by Tiger2

I think at some point we will see something more from DS9, but the others said it, I think Voyager gets a lot more views on the streaming sites and is a pretty popular show. And it just proves that what people here think is ‘popular’ is probably not what the fanbase as a whole does.

That said DS9 is clearly loved in the fanbase, it just may not get the repeat views like Voyager does. Part of that could just be because it gets much more serialized later on versus Voyager where you can pretty much watch an episode any season and not feel too lost.

But then you have the arguments in favor of streamers and bingeing which favor DS9 and its serialization.

I think bingeing isn’t as popular or common as some seem to believe. It seems to be the popular “thing” with COVID around, but there is still the burn-out effect, a lot of people can’t handle watching the same show for hours and hours on end, and I suspect there are actually a lot more of them than there are people who binge-watch. That’s just my opinion, I work in a library with a great DVD collection and I know a lot of people bring back DVD sets saying they couldn’t watch that much of one show at one time.

So I suspect “but DS9 is serialized, so it should be more popular on streaming” isn’t necessarily so. I’m not among them, I can binge with the best of ’em! So far this year, Frasier, Futurama, The Big Bang Theory, Wings, Monk, and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. (Yes, it was a Tony Shalhoub summer!)

Last edited 18 days ago by Thorny

Well yeah I think binging is certainly popular but to a degree. DS9 is the only Trek show for example I have ever binged watched. I’ve done it about 5 times which probably sounds like a lot but the show has been around over 25 years. And the reality is its just a lot of freaking episodes lol. Its around 170 episodes, so most people may binge it once in their life but you have to be a real hardcore fan to watch it that way over and over again.

Most streaming shows don’t have anywhere NEAR that amount of content. Even the most popular shows that last awhile it’s about half that. GOT for example only has around 70 episodes so its more reasonable to do that with. The most binged shows today have around 13 episodes or less a year.

As for Star Trek itself, I think most people just pick and choose episodes to watch over and over again. I rewatch episodes from the first 5 shows all the time and yes I watch DS9 a little less even though its my favorite show. I watch it tons but not as much as TNG or VOY because those shows just makes it easier to skip around.

I for one hope they stay far far away from DS9 and any of its characters – unless they plan on bringing back the original writing team and leaving them to it with no interference from the dozen exec producers who’ve f-ed up Disco and Picard.

Didn’t they show a “Quark’s” establishment in one episode of Picard? Lower Decks even visited DS9 in a short flash-back scene. So it’s not like they’ve been ignoring it completely.
Also, while maybe not directly related to characters from DS9, it seems that Discovery will revisit the Trill in season 3. Fans are hoping to see the Dax symbiont and maybe even some of the previous hosts again.
For Picard, bringing back TNG characters is kind of obvious. With Seven, the connection was that they shared the experience of having been Borg.While Picard did hand over command of DS9 to Sisko in the pilot there’s less of an obvious connection between Picard and DS9 characters, except for Worf of course.

Didn’t they show a “Quark’s” establishment in one episode of Picard? 

And they mentioned “Mr. Quark of Ferenginar”.

there’s less of an obvious connection between Picard and DS9 characters, except for Worf of course.

And O’Brien.

Sorry,I totally forgot O’Brien.

I think they mean something beyond references and to see actual characters on the shows since there are TNG and VOY characters around.

But yes a lot of people are hoping Dax may show up in Discovery this season. That would ba a huge plus.

At least the writers and producers all pay tribute to DS9 as their inspiration, for what it’s worth.

That’s the thing ALL the shows gets represented in some fashion with the new shows, from TOS to ENT, which I’m personally happy with. But fans will want different things of course. Some fans want every major character from the old shows to show up if possible lol while others want the opposite and just start completely fresh without even referencing the old shows.

I’m somewhere in the middle. I want every show to feel it can be its own thing but of course as a fan it’s nice to at least get references from the old shows and maybe a few cameos, but not the end of the world if it doesn’t happen either.

For example I expected LDS to have tons of cameos from characters from the TNG era with all three shows. But they didn’t really do that and only 3 characters showed up by the end, Q and the Rikers. But I think it was fine because the show was just fun enough on its own. And most fans are probably just happy to hear references, which there are tons of already.

Last edited 17 days ago by Tiger2

I look forward to the eventual rebuilding of the Federation story line, possibly after new writers and crew are hired, possibly long down the road. Bit it does seem the only logical story progression from all this destruction and alleged deconstruction of the Federation. Should we assume if Discovery does continue on as long as they want it will eventually take that path? I mean, I don’t really have any faith in Discovery with Kurtzman at the helm of ever being good, so even if it does I still doubt it’ll be my cup of tea.

But maybe years down the line after someone else takes the reins on Star Trek we’ll get the results of the Federation’s redevelopment and maybe it’ll be pretty cool. Gotta find the bright side.

I think if LDX is gonna take off it’ll be now that all the episodes are out. Since people like to binge everything nowadays. Maybe they’ll advertise more. I just saw one on my Roku with “all episodes available” displayed.

I should like Lower Decks more in theory. I wish the execution were a little different. Maybe it needs a few seasons to find itself, just like Next Gen it wants to emulate so bad. I still haven’t actually watched the second half since my free trial ran out but I kinda want to now. I saw that you-know-who shows up in the finale, so, okay, I guess you got me. I want to see that. I did however watch all of Twilight Zone season 2 while I had it and it’s a vast improvement over season 1 minus a couple episodes. “Ovation” and “8” were memorably bad, but I think I enjoyed most the rest.

Last edited 18 days ago by Zinc Saucier

Lower Decks has taken off Zinc Saucier, it’s doing very well according to the only independent stats that are available for streaming demand (Parrot Analytics).

Whether it will attract more viewers now that the entire season is available for streaming is to be seen, but from what Kurtzman said in the Top 5 interview (which I’ve listened to), LDS has been successful in attracting younger viewers who aren’t established Trek fans.

However you look at it, it’s already a success.

It remains to be seen if LDX will have any legs. It seems reasonable to say no because it relies so heavily on existing Trek knowledge for the vast majority of their jokes to work. And even then the jokes weren’t all that good unless one thinks fan service shout outs are funny. And I guess some do. But you need to be heavy fans to think so.

But you got into a streaming pet peeve of mine. There is just no excuse for ANY streaming show to need multiple (short) seasons to “find itself”. These shows are behind a pay wall. There are only 10 or so episodes. They have no real deadlines to produce a final product. There just is no excuse on Earth that they didn’t have all their s**t together from day one.

Nice to hear that new TZ got better. I’m paying for CBSAA and I have not watched one show from the 2nd season because the first was so monumentally bad. That first season Replay, Wonderkind, Not all Men and Point of Origin were some of the absolute worst episodes of any show I have ever seen. And that’s 40% of the first season! Given how bad that show was it literally had only one direction it could have possibly gone. I just didn’t think it would.

Those incriminating photos that Kurtzman obviously has hidden away somewhere continue to be effective. You have to hand it to him.

After listening to the entire interview myself, I’m a bit intrigued about what Kurtzman ducked in his responses.

Specifically, the interviewers asked about other potential series, and asked what was happening with the “rumoured” S31 series and Academy series.

First off the choice of the term “rumoured” is interesting since CBS and SH have previously announced that both of these shows were in development.

But the key thing is that Kurtzman did not say that these were still in development. Radio silence on those. His response was mainly that each new show had to be distinct and have its own premise.

On the other hand, he noted that the Hageman brothers original pitch for Prodigy depended on Kate Mulgrew being willing to reprise Janeway – and he can’t believe they kept it under wraps for more than a year. (We also know there was nothing official said publicly about SNW for more than a year after development was sold and Kurtzman had hoped to announce something as early as the spring of 2019.)

Lesson learned: with the executive turnover at CBS, the merger, and the pandemic the strategic communications folks at ViacomCBS have implemented a very different approach to sharing information. We are not likely to get word on anything new in the Trek franchise until it’s in an advanced stage and greenlighted. Even then, information will be dribbled out.

That does mean that there may be a lot more being cooked up behind the scenes than anyone has an inkling of.

Last thought, there remain a number of niches and audiences Trek hasn’t spanned to as yet.

I’ve been chatting with Phil on the off-topic Chat thread about the Hallmark-style niche that could work. Romance and domestic “It’s a Wonderful Life” type stories have been successful in episodic Trek, and the success of Nepenthe shows that there is still a place for them. (We’re not talking CW melodrama here, but character-based stories grounded in the universe that would appeal to the W premium cable audience in Canada and similarly elsewhere.)

Would romance and domestic character stories work as 2 hour streaming movies? Maybe? In any event, between the two of us we quickly thought up at least a half dozen stories we’d like to see and I don’t think that either of us are the target for that niche.

If they plan on an episode a week, they may need more series, or at least to churn out the ones they have more frequently. So far I count:

-Discovery
-Short Treks
-Picard
-Lower Decks

And in the works:

-Strange New Worlds
-Prodigy
-Section 31

There was talk of an Academy series and a Khan mini-series, but those seem to be gone.

Anything else, besides movies?

There has to be, but what? (See my post just below.)

Prodigy will be on Nickelodeon. Although it may be simulcast on CBSAA/Paramount+ now that I think about it.

No, ViacomCBS has said that Prodigy will only come to streamers a couple of years later.

This is intended to be a flagship show for both Nickelodeon and Eye Animation, and it seems generally that the streamers will lag getting new content from Nick.

There is a whole phenomenon where parents with young children are drawn back to linear television. The cable companies are wanting new exclusive content for that.

Certainly we would have cut the cord long ago but for our kids. Instead we had premium satellite when they were little and now premium “cable” through Bell Fibe’s internet service just to get the dedicated children’s channels.

Short Treks is a placeholder though, isn’t it? It fills a gap when full-fledged series aren’t available. Once Paramount has all these series in constant production post-COVID, I think Short Treks will be few and far between, if any at all.

I think the Starfleet Academy show is the most likely next series to be announced. Hard to see Paramount/CBS turning down a show that is aimed squarely at the lucrative late teen/young adult audience.

Short Treks have a series Emmy nomination, and there are signs that shorts are a growing portion of the streaming market.

Short Treks have also been a successful experimental format for the franchise.

Expect more not less.

Ahh, after ten years of Kurtzman running Star Trek, the franchise will have all the luster and prestige of Teen Monster Academy on the CW. Drink it in.

It is pretty evident that the focus of Star Trek is to make a plethora of shows, each with a different and unique look and feel. IMO if they are going to have multiple shows going simultaneously, it is very wise not to try to make each show appeal to all fans.
On a micro scale, the movies demonstrate what may happen. Sci-Fi channel up here in Toronto is airing a Star Trek movie marathon this long Canadian Thanksgiving Weekend featuring all 13 motion pictures. The film writers obviously tried to appeal to all Trek fans and despite their good intentions, they only managed to deliver about 7 very good movies with the remaining six being, well mediocre to okay at best. Trying to do the same with 3-4 tv shows targeting the same audience IMO would be a recipe for disaster. That being said, with the NHL done and no NBA or MLB tonight, I am sure I will be tuning in no matter which movie is on… well maybe not Sybok or Nemesis haha.
As for production of both Discovery S4 and SNW S1, Toronto and Mississauga (the home of SNW) just went back to Stage 2.5 restrictions this morning, because a surge of COVID cases in the region. I think all of Ontario (about 15-16 million people) reported 900 new cases yesterday – so they are trying to get things under control. Let’s hope this doesn’t mess things up too much, but I would not count on getting back to “normal” until after a safe and effective vaccine is widely available OR the numbers are back to where we were in the summertime (about 90-110 per day for the province).
At least for me, LDs turned out to be a pleasant and now Discovery S3 will take us into 2021. After that who knows when we will next get to see more live action Star Trek, but I am thankful for what we’ve got and at least we know LDs S2 can be made and I assume Prodigy S1 will also be in production soon.
Btw In today’s world with Lower Decks, I laughed out loud when Kirk said Spock did too much LDS in the 1960s and I forgot about the following line from The Voyage Home – Gillian “Are you sure you won’t change your mind?” Spock: “Is there something wrong with the one I have?”
LLAP everyone and happy Canadian Thanksgiving!!

Happy Thanksgiving back at you DeanH.

We’re marathoning back through Discovery S1 and S2 in our household.

In addition to the Trek movie marathon, CTV Sci-fi channel has all episodes of both Discovery seasons available On Demand this month.

LOL I’m doing the same TG47!

I’m almost done with first season of Discovery in fact, will watch the last two episodes of that season tonight. It’s the first time I have rewatched the first season since it aired. My feelings on it are still….mixed. I’m pretty excited to watch season 2 since I did generally like most of the episodes. But trying to finish before Thursday!

Since I have seen most of the movies (well the ones I like) at least 4-5 times each, streaming Discovery seems like a great idea. I started watching S1 about E9 (I really dislike that they killed off Prime Georgiou in E2) and will watch the rest of the season along with all of S2. Funny watching Lorca now that we know who he is – should have been obvious at the time. And since today’s list of NFL games seem pretty lame, I am sure I will also find time to check out First Contact this afternoon too.

Last edited 17 days ago by DeanH

Yeah I’m glad I did it. I kept AA for literally YEARS just because I kept saying I’m going to rewatch these seasons but never did lol. I had planned to rewatch season 1 before season 2 started but just had no motivation. I really did not like season 1 much when it was all over. But by the time season 3 came around, its been SO long since I seen season one I was finally ready to do it. And as I said still don’t love it unfortunately. Even with huge hindsight it just did not get much better for me. Some of the episodes I didn’t like was a little better but not a lot.

I do realize how much I had grown to like Lorca though, but yeah. And yes they make it VERY obvious upfront who he was, we just didn’t know the clues. I don’t have a huge issue with any of the characters, but didn’t love any of them right away either. Most came off VERY cold rewatching it but they all got better at least.

Still glad I did it though. Just started season 2 today with the first episode and thats still great. But I’ve seen that one now a half dozen times. Watching the others soon. Definitely give it a shot.

Last edited 16 days ago by Tiger2

I just can’t bring myself to re-watch that tire fire. But I do recall really likeing the Lorca character at first. But watching it again knowing up front what he was to me would just make the season even worse that it was as his big “twist” was easily the dumbest thing I have ever seen in Trek. And it’s not even close. The entire concept of Wesley Crusher looks like a great move compared to the Lorca “reveal”. They completely destroyed what could have been a GREAT Trek character like one we have never seen. Sad sad sad.

I thought I was over all that but reading comments about season one just brings it all back. Sorry.

Thanks for the heads up about streaming Discovery – I will definitely check out some episodes leading up to Thursday.

I’m sure it’s not going to happen, and most fans probably don’t want it to happen, but I’d love to see the TOS characters back on tv. They are my favorites in all of Trek.

I don’t need it look like the original series, style wise, that’s just silly. ( well, I do need the enterprise to have a saucer, primary hull and 2 nacelles. Oh and the neck, I need the neck. Outside the enterprise e, everything ship from voyager on, looks hideous). In any case , whether it’s a reboot or what, I want new Kirk, Spock, Mccoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekhov stories. I miss those characters.

You’ll get Spock and the Enterprise (under Captain Pike) in Strange New Worlds. They may bring in other TOS characters for guest spots for that show.

When Strange New Worlds was announced there were rumors that young Kirk and Uhura were being cast, but who knows if that was more than just rumors. If the show does work and go several seasons, it seems inevitable that pre-TOS Kirk, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, and/or Scotty will show up. Chekov probably would be to young to be in Starfleet, but maybe Pike will visit his elementary school or something.

I’d really rather they didn’t, or at least left Kirk and McCoy until several seasons in.

I’m one of those who have really wanted the early years of the Enterprise following The Cage ever since I saw the first reconstructed VHS video in the 80s.

Let’s let this crew and era breathe and find themselves.

Young Sulu and Urhura would be welcome as recurring lower decks crew, but I don’t want or need a lot of Kirk and McCoy in SNW.

Isn’t it enough that we have all the TOS and Kelvin movies on top of 3 seasons of TOS and 1.5 of TAS.

I think many people would agree with you, and I might too. That said, I thought that I really did not want to see young Spock in Discovery for the same reasons you cite re: Kirk, and it turned out well. Time will tell whether they show up or not.

I would think that Kirk will likely not show up in season 1 but he will in season 2 if the show isn’t doing well.

I tend to agree. As much fun as it would be to see Lt. Kirk I’d rather the show not include the TOS crew. There is only one I think that might fit in well and that’s Scotty. I could easily see him on the engineer’s staff. Just waiting to get his big promotion when Kirk takes over.

A sad day for Star Trek.

Wow, there’s a lot of completely out of touch people in the comments… It’s amazing to see people ragging on what has been some of the best Trek we’ve ever had in favor of their nostalgia tinted memories of shows that were completely amazing, but not at all what they remember.

But they’re still watching mysticaldigital, which helps the rest of us get new Trek content. ;)

A. That’s your opinion. A lot of people just feel the opposite and think the new shows so far suck because for them it does. Just because you like them and others don’t doesn’t mean you’re right or people are ‘out of touch’, you just feel differently and that’s OK.

B. Ironically this is nothing new. Basically ALL the shows before people thought they sucked lol. They just had to give it more time but most will come around if the shows improve.

C. All that said, yes, some people will never come around or will never like the new shows no matter WHAT they do. But guess what, there are still people out there that has never accepted anything but TOS. There are some people who only want shows in the 23rd century. Others only care about TNG, etc. In other words, fans are fickle. MOST fans are actually pretty level headed but yes the most vocal ones are usually the ones who are not happy or only accept Star Trek in a certain way. You’re not going to ever change those people’s minds, but most here ARE level headed. They are just not happy with some of the new content and that’s OK. Plenty of people here, myself included, has had our minds changed, some for better, some for worse, so it’s not like everyone just locked in to one opinion. Most of us can be swayed. It doesn’t always mean for the better though. Picard proved that lol.

But again, no one ever gets on anyone’s case here who are enjoying the shows. No one is attacking you liking it, so don’t take it so personally. People are just giving their opinions.

Last edited 17 days ago by Tiger2

Words of wisdom Tiger2! I for one dislike Discovery. I watched the first season, really didn’t like it for many reasons, but still continued watching for the 2nd season. After about half the season thought it was too much and I just stopped watching. And it actually turned me off for Picard, which I have not watched at all… However, this is my personal taste and I know many people like Discovery, so it’s not for me to say it’s trash. It’s just that I don’t like it.

People here are from every walks of life; different ages, countries, professions, gender, ethnicities, … Of course there’s going to be disagreements. No one is wrong, no one is right when it comes down to taste.

I’m enjoying rewatching Discovery for what it is (visually gorgeous) with a little more distance and fewer expectations.

I’m working through the broadcast version of season one with one of our kids as CBS puts it up weekly. So far, it hasn’t lost anything crucial and flows well.

I just rewatched the season 2 two-part finale “On Demand” with my spouse. I really liked it. It stands up.

More, I understood the dynamics of the battle so much better this time. I’d definitely rather that then the over simplicity of the seeming cut-and-paste stand-off of fleets at the end of Picard.

I just find responses like that SO mindboggling on a message board.

“WAIT, YOU MEAN THE SHOW I REALLY REALLY LOVE ISN’T LIKED BY EVERYONE ELSE ON A PLANET OF 7 BILLION PEOPLE??????? YOU’RE ALSO TELLING ME SOME OF THESE SAME FREAKS MIGHT LIKE A SHOW MORE THAT I DIDN’T LIKE MUCH BEFORE???? WHAT IS GOING ON??? CLEARLY IT’S BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE GREAT TASTE AS I DO OR SADLY JUST ‘OUT OF TOUCH!!!!'”

Apparently some people have been introduced to message boards for the first time this year.What someone thinks is ‘the best Star Trek EVER’ may not be a consensus everywhere else. It’s called opinions for a reason. It would be nice if some people just accepted that around here instead of trying to shove their tastes down other people’s throats or get offended because not everyone shares the exact same views of TV shows and movies as they do.

And for the record, I didn’t enjoy first season of DIS much either (and I just rewatched it again this week and sadly just confirmed my original feelings). But second season I liked a LOT more and it’s probably one my top second season Trek shows, while acknowledging it still had tons of issues. But others still thought it sucked as much as the first one. Others thought it was even worse. That’s life.

Last edited 17 days ago by Tiger2

Oh to be so easily pleased. Best Trek we’ve ever had? You’ve crossed the threshold from misguided enthusiasm to embarrassing delirium. I prescribe one paper bag and some whale song.

You belittle or ignore a huge percentage of Trek fans who have jumped off this nu-Trek wagon, Abrams-Trek was ok for big budget hollywood spiel but this Kurtzman stuff, imho, is the worst Trek yet. We are still your friends! :) We are happy for you and sad at the same time, why can’t both groups be catered for? Nostalgia is not a bad thing, it is a symptom of this dystopian future we are being steamrolled into by minions of the left/marxism. The progressive left have took the steering wheel of Trek. The producers and executives are well and truly minions of this agenda and it shows through in this iteration of Trek. I don’t like it but if you like it then thats good for you, I can still enjoy the old stuff and there is plenty of it.

Having just rewatched the season finale of season two, I’ve realized two things that most of us seem to have lost track of:

1) The powering of the time crystal utilized Queen Po’s incubation technology for recrystallizing dilithium. So, Discovery not only has that knowledge, they have a working incubation cradle that they know how to use. This would be huge if dilithium has been denatured or crystallized by “The Burn.”

2) Discovery is bringing the sphere data to a more advanced century.

So, the ship may be a “model-T” but it brings with it advanced technology beyond the spore drive.

..no thank you. As long as he is involved, it won’t be True Trek. Besides, I heard cbs turned everything back over to Paramount

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️

You do realize there was a merger, ViacomCBS has both CBS Studios for television and streaming and Paramount for movies, with the streaming service being branded as Paramount+ as it rolls out to international markets.

But hey, just believe what you want and don’t let the evidence get in the way.

Why this worship of Paramount? They’ve made some incredible blunders over the years. Demanding Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: Generations be made on unrealistic schedules, which seriously hurt both movies. Nickel-and-diming the movies for 30 years by making them with TV production values and on glorified TV budgets (until the Abrams movies.) Saturating the market with new Trek in the 1990s, with TNG-DS9 and then DS9-VOY running concurrently with 24 episodes per year. Price gouging Star Trek fans for decades with ridiculously overpriced VHS and DVDs.

Paramount has never managed Star Trek well.

Last edited 17 days ago by Thorny

You make some cogent points Thorny.

I don’t get the stanning of Paramount either, it seems to be the much weaker strategically of the two parts of the ViacomCBS house.

Paramount has never managed Star Trek well.

They produced 25 seasons of Star Trek over 18 years. Very few shows of any kind have that kind of track record. Your statement is objectively false on that front, Thorny.

They have also made 13 feature films. Very few film series have that durability, but no doubt that Paramount has run the modern film series into the ground. The J.J. Abrams film series started off with much promise and has apparently crashed.

I hope future series have better planned release dates. To date international viewers have yet to view the 2nd season of Short Treks amd Lower Decks through legitimate channels. I subscribed Netflix and Amazon Prime just for the sake of watching Disco and Picard legally. I sure hope I wont have to take up a new streaming service everytime a new Trek series comes to air.

Oh what joy [/sarcasm] personally I think Kurtzman Trek is and has been the worst Trek-era and now we are stuck with more of it. I don’t like it and will not watch it for now. I am happy for those who enjoy it, good for them. As for me I will enjoy the older stuff and hope for better to come in the future when the world has regained its sanity and defeated the forces of evil :-) soon hopefully !

Last edited 17 days ago by Flazak

Paramount just got it’s big budget project announced….and its not Star Trek. Patti Jenkins and Gal Gadot will be doing Cleopatra, and the project is being fast tracked.

Enjoy Trek on TV folks, that’s were we’re going to be for the next seven years.

Stop with the arrogant punditry. You have no idea what Paramount’s movie plans are.

Last edited 16 days ago by Just Another Salt Vampire

Their plans are Cleopatra. It’s a big budget epic. Its also not Star Trek, Transformers, Mission Impossible, or Top Gun. Given where we are in the post coronavirus world, its completely understandable that Paramount wants something they can take to the bank, and Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot are leading the charge. Like it or not, the studio has made its intentions known.

They are making two Mission Impossible movies right now.

Yep. Approved under previous management. MI7 is in post production, MI8 in principle photography in foreign locations. Top Gun II is in post production as well. Doesn’t change the fact that new management seems to be looking elsewhere for it’s next big budget project.

You said that the studio had no plans for Mission Impossible in the future, which is clearly false. You act like you have special insider information, which is clearly also false.

Last edited 16 days ago by Just Another Salt Vampire

Salt, you’re better than this.

Perhaps next time you should do a web search before snarking and accusing someone to false pretensions of insider information.

I just did and found a Deadline article posted 22 hours ago that says the following:

“Paramount Pictures has won an auction for an epic that will have Gal Gadot wearing the crown of a real wonder woman of history. Wonder Woman helmer Patty Jenkins will direct Gadot in Cleopatra, a period biographical drama scripted by Laeta Kalogridis. This is the first major project package won by Paramount Motion Picture Group President Emma Watts in an auction that came down to Universal, Warner Bros, Netflix and Apple, I’ve heard.”

You may not agree with Phil that Paramount’s big resource commitment for this Cleopatra project, that it won at auction, will constrain new investments in Trek or MI cinematic features, but it’s a reasonable inference.

TG47, I do not mean to be snarky. On every thread about Trek movies Phil makes unilateral pronouncements that there will be no more Trek movies and all of the known projects are dead, when that is plainly not true. Now he is saying that Paramount will no longer be making Mission Impossible and Transformers movies, when the studio is making two back-to-back MI movies!

At any rate, Phil will troll shamelessly regardless of whether he is called out, and I will no longer engage with him and get in aimless arguments. I appreciate your constructive criticism.

You may want to scroll on over to review Hawley’s latest comments. As you’re selectively recalling partial comments, let me remind yo that I’ve also said repeatedly Trek will be made when a production house steps up and agrees to do one for 100MM. Hawley is talking about budgets of 25-50MM, so I greatly over estimated what they may be looking at to return to the big screen. Further, if they balked at the project and Hawley had agreed to any budget in that range, that’s just further confirmation that Trek isn’t a priority for Paramount at the moment.

Thanks Salt for taking my post in the spirit intended.

Go back and look at what I said. You’re stretching quite a bit here to assume that because I was commenting on Emma Watt’s big budget epic that there was nothing going on at Paramount initiated by previous management. Lets assume Ms. Watts also reviewed the MI franchise. We know: 1). MI7 is in Post, MI8 is in principle photography. Any delays have been because of Covid-19. 2). The MI franchise has been pretty profitable for Paramount of late. 3). A seemingly random cancellation would likely result in piles of lawsuits. 4). If these movies are successful in a post-coronavirus environment where the theater distribution model is severely constrained for a while, there’s nothing stopping Ms. Watts from moving ahead with future projects.

There’s nothing “insider” here. Just applying some critical thinking skills to known information. Doing the same for Trek, three proposals for another movie post Beyond have been aired, if you ignore all the wild eyed speculation on sites like these, none have passed muster or will see the light of day. Ms. Watts clearly has her eye on more bankable projects at the moment. Unlike JJ, Ms. Jenkins didn’t tell Ms. Watts she wanted to make a Trek movie…..and in my defense, if you’re going to cherry pick your comments, I’ve also said dozens of times that when someone comes along and proposes a Trek project that fits Paramount’s business model for these types of movies, they’ll make another Trek movie. Until then, we’re left with Cleopatra (and whatever other projects Paramount decides to move forward with).

“When you’re looking at legacy characters you have to have a very specific reason to bring them back.”

Like gouge their eye out and leave them for dead, you mean?

I don’t think Icheb really counts as a “Legacy” character. And it provided some real motivation for an ACTUAL legacy character. That episode, in my view, was the best of the season.

Last edited 15 days ago by ML31

Legacy character is losely defined here. Very losely. A Horta is a legacy character for some people.

I would have strong feelings about the Horta. “Devil in the Dark” was the first episode I saw as a schoolchild.

One of our kids, a Voyager for whom Icheb represented a child/teen freed of the Borg, stopped watching after seeing Icheb’s death. They were afraid that Seven might also die, and even after the finale had passed and we could reassure them Seven would be fine, the complete refusal remains. They are also rewatching Voyager less after that.

So, that one creative choice managed to turn-off a loyal target-aged fan. I know they can’t please everyone with every series, but whatever the creative merit for the story, I don’t think that was a successful approach for bringing Voyager’s large teen and global fanbase into a series anchored by a TNG captain.