New Trek

My interest in the news of the new show peaked at "high curiosity" at seeing the headline about a new Trek series.  Then I read the article itself.  The NY Post has a great write-up that covers the problems.

Don't get me wrong ... I don't want to sound like the old curmudgeon who rejects anything new, because I'm not.

That said, though, I just don't trust modern Hollywood to get within light-years of correctly doing Trek.

For that to be overcome you'd have to show me that it was somebody like Ron Moore, Ira Behr, Manny Coto, or some wanktastic alliance of the three running it.  Instead we get part of the JJ-Trek writing team.  Kurtzman has a fine-looking resume, sure, in the sense of making profitable Hollywood fluff, but all indications are that he's a fruit loop like his old pal Orci.  I haven't seen most of his work, but titles like "Cowboys & Aliens" and his work with shallow blockbusters do not inspire.  What little I have seen of Scorpion was only watchable because of the death stares of Robert Patrick and the eminently stare-at-the-TV-worthy Katharine McPhee.  That's casting, not story.  A good story can overcome bad casting ... Person of Interest caught my attention despite main dude Jim Caviezel (though the other nerdy dude and Amy Acker's spot-on psycho-hottie performance do counterbalance).

Back to the point, though, to borrow from not-Trek, I have a very bad feeling about this.  Fortunately, though, the decision to put it on a subscription service that will fail (a la the UPN decision back in the day, but worse) probably means it will not trouble us for very long.  Even though it is now cheaper and easier than ever to make sci-fi that looks like it has decent production values, a sci-fi show is a rather ambitious original series and flagship for such a service, especially with the bar having been set so high in the past.

This also pretty much guarantees no DS9 in HD for the foreseeable future, which is a huge loss, and I presume they'll want to strip Trek off of Netflix soon.  I'd pay to see DS9 in HD, but CBS insists on not shutting up and taking my money.  Instead, they want to waste it.  They will do so without my support.


  1. You are coming across as a bit of a snob. The drastic differences between TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise are no more drastic then those of ST09 and into darkness, and 09 and into darkness don't add anything silly that wasn't already there in Star trek.

    It may be a good idea for you to write an in depth explanation as to what you feel is not "Star Treky" about Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness if you haven't already

    1. Seriously, dude? Supernova that can destroy galaxy, cadet who become a captain of Federation's flagship after only one mission, Shinzon's retarded "brother" who could easily save Romulus but decided to get stupid revenge on innocent people, without any rhyme or reason, dude with sword being sent to fight people who could destroy planets - like if energy guns didn't exist - Vulcan seending information about "seismic activity" instead of informing Starfleet that they are under attack, mining ship armed to the teeth with guns bigger and better than those installed on military vessels, people being exiled on ice planets, instead of being locked up in the brig, ice planet and desert planet being almost at the same distance from the sun... Should I continue? I don't have, because it is self evident that level of stupidity seen in "$tar Trek 2009" is unparalleled.

  2. Apperently it will be on tv and streaming lest thats how it reads besides its simply the future of tv ots best star trek takes advanage instead of being at the mercy of out of date Nelson rateings...plus! I believe cbs doesnt have the ip rights for the movie universe which is held by paramount so we may get prime universe for the series

  3. You're spot on! I'd just add the late Michael Piller's name to the greats. Now, that was a man who understood Star Trek. Honestly, the whole nuTrek has been a creative disaster precisely because Kurtzman and Orci are just bad writers. And the silly subscription cow-milking scheme isn't going to help. It pains me to see what's become of Star Trek. :(

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. I've rather enjoyed NuTrek, as it appears to be known, and most decidedly don't want a return to the stale and fatigued repetitive stuff that was VOY and ENT. That said, STID grows weaker with repeated viewing (unlike ST09), and could that formula sustain a series?

    I'm concerned as to what this subscription business means for me here in the UK. The major TV services (Sky and Virgin) don't tend to offer subscription services for one-off channels, instead doing packages. Netflix and Amazon Prime are available, but I don't think Trek will end up there. I certainly hope not!

    Time will be the judge. As it is of all things.

  6. I still hold out some hope for the new series. http://moviepilot.com/posts/3637893?lt_source=external,manual

  7. I hate $tar Trek 2009 with a passion, so I have no hope that Kurtzman who wrote this movie will do any better as producer. My only hope is that they will leave my favorite TNG alone, and they won't ruin it, like they ruin TOS.

  8. Gotta admit, I'm not holding out much hope for this either. After the one-two knuckleduster gut punches that were Stargate: Universe and Torchwood: Miracle Day, I pretty gave up any hope of TV sci-fi ever being good again, and one of the sad clowns who wrote Into Darkness (really, it's telling when you're secondary villain draws can draw parallels to the main villain of friggin' Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance) being the producer on this thing is the final nail the coffin for any enthusiasm I might otherwise have had. Obviously I'll still check it out, but I simply have to go in expecting it to be bad, if only for the sake of my heart. I had a hard enough time piecing its shattered remains back together after SGU and I won't make the same mistake again...