Seveneves: A Novel -
The Moon blew up without warning and for no apparent reason.
quote [ A totally new Star Trek television series is coming in January 2017! The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast of the premiere episode on the CBS Television Network, and the premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access. ]
And many other sites saying the same thing as CBS
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Star+Trek+television+series+is+coming+in+January+2017!&oq=Star+Trek+television+series+is+coming+in+January+2017!&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
|
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 12:23am GMT on 3rd November
Star Trek 2009 was an okay action movie, but it wasn't anything like "Star Trek." It sacrificed any pretense of sci-fi to DUDEBRO-SEXY-ACTION-ZOWIE! That's fine for movies, I guess, though it led to some really stupid decisions for the franchise. I kind of figured us sci-fi fans that like a little steak (high concepts, character development, clever plots) with our sizzle (things blowing up, people trying to murder each other with future-tech) when we saw the Enterprise being built on the fucking ground along with uniforms right out of the 1970's including miniskirts and go-go boots.
It had been my hope that if they were going to reboot 'Trek, they would've done it like BSG, giving us a more grounded premise that we might believe came from our own era, not a re-hash of the 70's TV show. One of the coolest things about the early non-Abrams 'Trek movies was that they got real uniforms that looked like uniforms, sets that looked plausibly like they were on starships, and updating of a lot of the cheesy stuff into more realistic stuff.
JJ Abrams' 'Trek was basically what you got when a bunch of people who weren't fans of the show cherry-picked things they thought looked neato on the first pass and put them into their movies without any of the corresponding depth. It was even worse in the second Abrams movie, where Khan is plopped in with no real reason for being there, or one that's so contrived as to be laughable. But hey, it's Khan, right, nerds? What more do you need? Even a flimsy reason for him being such a bad-ass would be nice.
And they make the most common reboot mistake usually only seen in comic books: They fail to fix the problems the previous series had and even made them worse. Apart from not having a head writer and/or a vision of where the show is going (DS-9 only had this when it realized Babylon-5 was eating its lunch), Star Trek's biggest monument to stupidity and lazy writing is godlike technology that totally breaks the premise of the show. So far we have Khan's Resurrection Blood, so nobody should ever die again, Trans-Warp Drive, so distance means nothing, and galactic transporters, so why the fuck do you even need starships anymore?
These yahoos were making barely watchable movies that were only entertaining so long as you didn't think about them too much. They're not equipped to make a sci-fi TV show, unless they plan on turning Star Trek into a poor man's Farscape.
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 12:29am GMT on 3rd November
Star Trek 2009 was an okay action movie, but it wasn't anything like "Star Trek." It sacrificed any pretense of sci-fi to DUDEBRO-SEXY-ACTION-ZOWIE! That's fine for movies, I guess, though it led to some really stupid decisions for the franchise. I kind of figured us sci-fi fans that like a little steak (high concepts, character development, clever plots) with our sizzle (things blowing up, people trying to murder each other with future-tech) weren't the ones being targeted when we saw the Enterprise being built on the fucking ground along with uniforms right out of the 1970's including miniskirts and go-go boots.
It had been my hope that if they were going to reboot 'Trek, they would've done it like BSG, giving us a more grounded premise that we might believe came from our own era, not a re-hash of the 70's TV show. One of the coolest things about the early non-Abrams 'Trek movies was that they got real uniforms that looked like uniforms, sets that looked plausibly like they were on starships, and updating of a lot of the cheesy stuff into more realistic stuff.
JJ Abrams' 'Trek was basically what you got when a bunch of people who weren't fans of the show cherry-picked things they thought looked neato on the first pass and put them into their movies without any of the corresponding depth. It was even worse in the second Abrams movie, where Khan is plopped in with no real reason for being there, or one that's so contrived as to be laughable. But hey, it's Khan, right, nerds? What more do you need? Even a flimsy reason for him being such a bad-ass would be nice.
And they make the most common reboot mistake usually only seen in comic books: They fail to fix the problems the previous series had and even made them worse. Apart from not having a head writer and/or a vision of where the show is going (DS-9 only had this when it realized Babylon-5 was eating its lunch), Star Trek's biggest monument to stupidity and lazy writing is godlike technology that totally breaks the premise of the show. So far we have Khan's Resurrection Blood, so nobody should ever die again, Trans-Warp Drive, so distance means nothing, and galactic transporters, so why the fuck do you even need starships anymore?
These yahoos were making barely watchable movies that were only entertaining so long as you didn't think about them too much. They're not equipped to make a sci-fi TV show, unless they plan on turning Star Trek into a poor man's Farscape.
/
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 12:23am GMT on 3rd November [Score:3 laz0r]
Star Trek 2009 was an okay action movie, but it wasn't anything like "Star Trek." It sacrificed any pretense of sci-fi to DUDEBRO-SEXY-ACTION-ZOWIE! That's fine for movies, I guess, though it led to some really stupid decisions for the franchise. I kind of figured us sci-fi fans that like a little steak (high concepts, character development, clever plots) with our sizzle (things blowing up, people trying to murder each other with future-tech) weren't the ones being targeted when we saw the Enterprise being built on the fucking ground along with uniforms right out of the 1970's including miniskirts and go-go boots.
It had been my hope that if they were going to reboot 'Trek, they would've done it like BSG, giving us a more grounded premise that we might believe came from our own era, not a re-hash of the 70's TV show. One of the coolest things about the early non-Abrams 'Trek movies was that they got real uniforms that looked like uniforms, sets that looked plausibly like they were on starships, and updating of a lot of the cheesy stuff into more realistic stuff.
JJ Abrams' 'Trek was basically what you got when a bunch of people who weren't fans of the show cherry-picked things they thought looked neato on the first pass and put them into their movies without any of the corresponding depth. It was even worse in the second Abrams movie, where Khan is plopped in with no real reason for being there, or one that's so contrived as to be laughable. But hey, it's Khan, right, nerds? What more do you need? Even a flimsy reason for him being such a bad-ass would be nice.
And they make the most common reboot mistake usually only seen in comic books: They fail to fix the problems the previous series had and even made them worse. Apart from not having a head writer and/or a vision of where the show is going (DS-9 only had this when it realized Babylon-5 was eating its lunch), Star Trek's biggest monument to stupidity and lazy writing is godlike technology that totally breaks the premise of the show. So far we have Khan's Resurrection Blood, so nobody should ever die again, Trans-Warp Drive, so distance means nothing, and galactic transporters, so why the fuck do you even need starships anymore?
These yahoos were making barely watchable movies that were only entertaining so long as you didn't think about them too much. They're not equipped to make a sci-fi TV show, unless they plan on turning Star Trek into a poor man's Farscape.
