Robin Bland

Bryan Fuller - News on the New Show

207 posts in this topic

“Disclaimer: Everything said represents only the personal views, bad tastes, and deficiency in moral fiber of the poster, it is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it is not to be taken seriously. The poster has a death sentence in several universes, traded her illusions for two bottles of kanar many years ago, and still considers it a good deal. Any semblance with here existing sentiments is purely coincidental and in fact a real miracle.”

Paramount and Bad Robot produce Beyond, and CBS produces the new series. Both productions are incompatible – one is a summer blockbuster, the other one is a series from a sci-fi narrative that has been going on for 50 years. For the time being, we don’t know for sure which universe or timeline the new show will be set in so the question is open to speculations and what-ifs. As for the hand-picked talents that Fuller has gathered in the writing room, this remains to be seen too. Each of these people might be very gifted and still there is no guarantee that they will make a good team or their strengths will be used properly. All these writers may have their ideas but which and whose ideas will make it to the screen, and whether they will work is not sure.  

Here is an overview of Fuller’s work for Star Trek so far and some of his creative decisions are not beyond criticism.

http://www.blastr.com/2016-2-29/every-bryan-fuller-star-trek-episode-ranked

A lot of his work in Trek was with Voyager, a show that was so creatively stifling many talented writers (for Trek or otherwise) had output that was less than successful. Ronald D. Moore was a great Trek writer, on both TNG and DS9...and his work on Voyager is nothing that memorable...and he eventually went on to develop a fantastic sci-fi series in the Battlestar Galactica remake.

Fuller was hit and miss on Voyager, but he did have a few memorable efforts from his time on Trek.  He then went on from Trek to create and develop several creatively successful and critically acclaimed shows.  He knows how to put a well written and creative show together...and he has a history with Trek...these are mostly positives in my book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

 

There are a lot more pluses than minuses here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... and quite a few VOY episodes he worked on sucked? VOY sucked anyway, so I really doubt they sucked because of him. He wasn't in a leading position when he worked on VOY, so his influence was limited either way.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked all of his episodes.  But even the Star Trek that sucked is good Star Trek IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Disclaimer: Everything said represents only the personal views, bad tastes, and deficiency in moral fiber of the poster, it is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it is not to be taken seriously. The poster has a death sentence in several universes, traded her illusions for two bottles of kanar many years ago, and still considers it a good deal. Any semblance with here existing sentiments is purely coincidental and in fact a real miracle.”

In other words, the new show is in the hands of a second-tier Voyager writer whose only contribution to Trek amounts to 22 episodes of mixed quality. Yes, he was a small cog in a large wheel and he is hardly responsible for Voyager’s flaws. Let’s hope he has gained some experience with the other projects he has worked on, has analyzed his Voyager-stint and won’t make the same mistakes as a showrunner for Trek. 

Yeah, and Fuller also did those little "Heroes" (4 year run; launched a few careers) and "Hannibal" (highly acclaimed for its writing) gigs... yeah, what a loser. 

tumblr_inline_o74dklVOvD1tmwpmm_500.gif

Oh, and there's also this Alex Kurtzman fellow (successful producer of NuTrek, Fringe, Alias, Sleepy Hollow, and others), Nick Meyer (that "Wrath of Khan" guy) and that Rod Roddenberry chap (the son of that '60s TV show producer).

Yeah, this 2017 show hasn't got a chance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping it'll be an utter disaster so we can have something to really chew over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuller's past work with Star Trek has to be seen in the context of his carreer path.

When he worked with VOY and DS9 in the 90s, he was in his mid 20s. It was basically the beginning of his carreer, and he was not in a too influental, not even mentioning leading position. Taking the quality of the VOY episodes he worked on as a yardstick for his talent would be pretty absurd on many levels; first of all, he was only involved in a supporting position, and second, he was just beginning to work in that field. It is a plus, though, because it shows he's not a total newbie to the franchise. Early in his carreer, he had to familiarize himself with the Trek universe.

When he later had a leading position on tv shows, like in case of "Pushing Daisies" or "Hannibal", the result was outstanding -- both shows became instant hits among critics and only had problems with a broader audience, because these shows were too intellectual or demanding, in other words, because they were too good for the mainstream. Fuller was widely praised for his writing and outstanding artistic talent, he didn't produce dumbed down stuff pandering to a mass audience, but had a vision. On streaming, where the new ST show will be, that won't be a problem, because streaming shows don't need mass appeal to be successful, a niche is fine enough.

That he can work successfully  on stuff that's popular in the mainstream too, he has proven with his involvement in "Heroes", a rather successful genre show with a great fan following (though IIRC, he didn't have as much influence over the show as in case of the abovementioned he created).

I really can't think of a better choice for showrunner. And if the choice of a person like Fuller is not the very contrary of "dumbed down mass appeal stuff" à la NuTrek, I don't know what is.

 

Doesn't mean he will necessarily be successful with Trek2017, even great people can fail; but so could any other showrunner who "plays it safe". It will be a task for him to go the tightrope walk between balancing his artistic ambitions and respect for the established franchise. And even if he successfully creates an ambitious, original and coherent show, perhaps his style, no matter how good, will not be to the taste of everybody.

But as others said before -- I'd rather take a bold creative vision that works or does not work, over dumbed down formula writing in an attempt to "play it safe" to pander to a mass audience, any time of the day. I'd rather have a new show that's really good but some people don't like, than formulaic mass stuff that hurts nobody but has no originality whatsoever.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Disclaimer: Everything said represents only the personal views, bad tastes, and deficiency in moral fiber of the poster, it is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it is not to be taken seriously. The poster has a death sentence in several universes, traded her illusions for two bottles of kanar many years ago, and still considers it a good deal. Any semblance with here existing sentiments is purely coincidental and in fact a real miracle.”

In other words, the new show is in the hands of a second-tier Voyager writer whose only contribution to Trek amounts to 22 episodes of mixed quality. Yes, he was a small cog in a large wheel and he is hardly responsible for Voyager’s flaws. Let’s hope he has gained some experience with the other projects he has worked on, has analyzed his Voyager-stint and won’t make the same mistakes as a showrunner for Trek. 

Years ago before a new show was even on the radar he had said stuff about how he found Voyager to be frustrating, because they always made him put in reset buttons and the like...he then went on to create 3 creative and inventive TV shows, work on the successful "Heroes" show and develop a critically acclaimed series "Hannibal."  Yes. I think he has learned plenty, both from what he personally admits were a few of the failings of Voyager and from the several shows he has worked on and/or created since. 

I think the thing is...I am looking at Fuller more from his work since he moved on from Trek. I discovered how much I truly enjoyed his output when I watched the first season of "Dead Like Me," which dipped in quality the moment he left after disagreements with Showtime. Then he did "Wonderfalls" which was great, followed by "Pushing Daisies" was fun and creative...then I discovered during the short run of "Pushing Daisies" that he had actually worked on Star Trek.  I am not basing any of my enthusiasm on the fact that he did anything Trek related...to me his career was started via the Script Submission Program on Trek, but it didn't take off until he created "Dead Like Me."  He has since learned lessons and definitely grown as a writer/producer. And he has brought on people old (Meyer, Menosky) and new (Coleite, Alexander, Powers), and people new to TV but with a connection to some successful Trek stories (Beyer).  He is assembling a team that I think will truly be good for this new series.  That clearly, to me, shows he has learned a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at Fuller's time on VGR as his training wheels; he really came into his own AFTER the show.  I feel (like Kenman) that his post VGR work is the good stuff that has me excited for his return on ST17.   His work on VGR was more gun-for-hire.  Some decent stuff, but he was heavily constrained by the limits of the show's edicts (largely set by Berman and Jeri Taylor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping it'll be an utter disaster so we can have something to really chew over. 

Please... don't jinx it! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping it'll be an utter disaster so we can have something to really chew over. 

Please... don't jinx it! :P

Once again, Robin...

tumblr_inline_o8kl5sEwVT1r53amc_500.gif :P :laugh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Fuller a guarantee for an amazing series? Of course not ... there are many reasons why it can fail, that depends on many factors and also on how you define "fail".

All I wanted to say above was that Fuller's track record makes me think that IF it fails, it will not be because it'll be "dumbed down" or formulaic. Some consider NuTrek a failure because of that, and I just don't think someone like Fuller would fail because of the same reason. Especially not when someone like Meyer is backing him up.

With Fuller's track record of very creative and original tv, I guess it's more likely that the show will fail -- IF it fails -- because Fuller tries to be too original and creative, in a way that doesn't work out (or maybe because fans don't feel it's Trek-like enough?), or is not popular enogh (though in the letter case, I'm not sure it would necessarily be a "failure"; there are many amazing short lived shows that were a ratings failure, but which I consider creatively very successful).

And the other thing I tried to say is that Fuller was the best choice for a showrunner I can think of: Someone who has a track record of making creative and original shows, not someone who is good at pandering to a pew-boom-bang mass audience. When Fuller was chosen, they obviously wanted creativity over mass appeal, and that's what they got. This is a bold statement already in itself. That choice was quasi an "anti-Abrams choice". And for an extra bonus, Fuller even brings a remote experience with 90s Trek. So what else could you ask for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think judging a thing before it has been written is tantamount to jealousy, or a kind of lunacy that teeters not on wit or comedy but a deep and moribund misanthropy. It's not like predicting what a player might play like in a football or baseball game based on past performances; it's not like predicting the weather based on information from satellites. I'm not saying writing is magic, it isn't, but it's far from being a science that is measurable, quantifiable or remotely formulaic. All those stupid books about how to write a script or a novel don't tell you how to write - they tell you how things worked for someone else. They give you archeaology, not the living. They're not currency, they're measurements, blueprints created after the fact that describe the foundations of where a building stood. They certainly don't tell you about the creative process of it being built.   

Fuller is an evolving writer, but we have no idea yet how he'll come at Star Trek in 2017. Apart from the fact that it is actually happening, which is tremendously exciting, the idea that some moneybags somewhere within CBS has had faith enough in it to fund it, and put about as offbeat a talent as it's possible to find in Hollywood behind it, is pretty encouraging. 

We should all reserve the right to hate it, if that's our honest reaction in 2017. But allowing the man who has been entrusted the chalice the room to make it without being predictive and proscriptive upfront is the least we can allow him. We've also got to allow ourselves the possibility of enjoying it. Anything else is just so utterly boring. It's just the most tedious impulse in all fandom. 

 

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think judging a thing before it has been written is tantamount to jealousy, or a kind of lunacy that teeters not on wit or comedy but a deep and moribund misanthropy. It's not like predicting what a player might play like in a football or baseball game based on past performances; it's not like predicting the weather based on information from satellites. I'm not saying writing is magic, it isn't, but it's far from being a science that is measurable, quantifiable or remotely formulaic. All those stupid books about how to write a script or a novel don't tell you how to write - they tell you how things worked for someone else. They give you archeaology, not the living. They're not currency, they're measurements, blueprints created after the fact that describe the foundations of where a building stood. They certainly don't tell you about the creative process of it being built.   

Fuller is an evolving writer, but we have no idea yet how he'll come at Star Trek in 2017. Apart from the fact that it is actually happening, which is tremendously exciting, the idea that some moneybags somewhere within CBS has had faith enough in it to fund it, and put about as offbeat a talent as it's possible to find in Hollywood behind it, is pretty encouraging. 

We should all reserve the right to hate it, if that's our honest reaction in 2017. But allowing the man who has been entrusted the chalice the room to make it without being predictive and proscriptive upfront is the least we can allow him. We've also got to allow ourselves the possibility of enjoying it. Anything else is just so utterly boring. It's just the most tedious impulse in all fandom. 

 

^
Very well said.

And yes, it's not like Gene Roddenberry had many successful years as a science fiction writer/producer when he created TOS...

When I see the show and its reception, I will be able to say to what extent this team has really satisfied the expectations of the majority. Jumping for joy before that seems premature. 

So does stomping on its grave...

And it's not premature, as a ST fan, to be interested or (dare I say it?) excited at the prospect of the first new ST series in 12 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We should all reserve the right to hate it, if that's our honest reaction in 2017. But allowing the man who has been entrusted the chalice the room to make it without being predictive and proscriptive upfront is the least we can allow him. We've also got to allow ourselves the possibility of enjoying it. Anything else is just so utterly boring. It's just the most tedious impulse in all fandom. 

 

To this, I agree: We won't know for sure if we'll like it or not, before we've seen it. And yes, we should allow to look at it without too many good or bad expectations that jinx our experience one way or another.

But to that:

I think judging a thing before it has been written is tantamount to jealousy, or a kind of lunacy that teeters not on wit or comedy but a deep and moribund misanthropy. It's not like predicting what a player might play like in a football or baseball game based on past performances; it's not like predicting the weather based on information from satellites. I'm not saying writing is magic, it isn't, but it's far from being a science that is measurable, quantifiable or remotely formulaic. All those stupid books about how to write a script or a novel don't tell you how to write - they tell you how things worked for someone else. They give you archeaology, not the living. They're not currency, they're measurements, blueprints created after the fact that describe the foundations of where a building stood. They certainly don't tell you about the creative process of it being built. 

Yes and no. I absolutely agree when it comes to the creative achievements of a particular writer or team.

But Fuller, like all other showrunners, are working under constraints, their bosses give them a certain direction. Or so I imagine it, correct me if I'm wrong. That means the choice of particular producers or showrunners, and their track record, tells us something about the general direction of a given show or movie, as that's something the suits have looked at when they made the choice.

So I imagine Disney chose Abrams for Star Wars, because they have seen NuTrek and felt: "Yep, we want something like that for our Star Wars franchise, too". Perhaps they liked Abrams' technical skills for making blockbusters, his visual style, his capacity to reinterpret and rearrange old content in a modern, fresh way, and so on -- and that's probably what they told him, when they hired Abrams. "Mr. Abrams, you did this and that on Star Trek, and we want you to do this or that on Star Wars for us. Can you do it?" Abrams was neither free to suddenly make an experimental art movie, nor was he free to suddenly rethink his past approach and style from scratch.

Likewise, I imagine when the CBS suits and Kurtzman sat together, debating the general direction of ST17, they at some point in their discussion reached the conclusion they want a show that also finds the love of the old fans, and not a watered down NuTrek copy for the small screen. And then they looked into the track records of several candidates for showrunner, looking in their past work for things they wanted for Trek17, and then hired Fuller because he came closest to what they had in mind.

And that alone gives me a lot of excitement. Because I'm inclined to think all clues point into the direction that the suits "get it" this time, that they are looking for the right things in the right places.

Now of course that does not mean Fuller cannot fail -- of course he still can. Or his team can. But at least the general direction seems to be right on target this time. IMO.

Of all the possible reasons why the new show could fail, all those possibilities that have to do with a false premise, a wrong general direction, are eliminated. That leaves a smaller pool of possible reasons for failure. Which is what I tried to say above -- if it fails, it will most likely not because the producing team will "play it safe" or "dumb it down", but for other reasons.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The A-team of ST tycoons such as Berman, Moore, Behr, Braga, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Beimler, Echevarria, Manning, retreated, retired, PIller passed away (R.I.P.) or have their own successful projects. They are not interested in this Trek because they know better.

^
Or because they weren't approached to do it.   

TV Star Trek is a mummy that has been rotting gloriously in its tomb since 2005.

^
Well, that's a kind of gothic, morose way to look at it.  Others might just say it's a beloved TV show...

He has dug up 2-3 antiques from the 1980’s and 1990s’ to show them around as a living proof of continuity. Rod Roddenberry’s only achievement is being Gene Roddenberry’s son so he has his hereditary interests in financing a ST show.

His IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0734473/

I've met Rod Roddenberry, and he's a genuinely decent guy.   I've seen examples of his other efforts (independent of ST) at various conventions.  He's trying to do other projects, but ST is also his father's (and mother's) legacy, and he's more than aware of that and he's humbled by it.   If your parents created a beloved franchise that's also a potential gold mine?  You might be well advised to continue in the family business.   Or you could piss away the opportunity and bitch/whine when others try.  RR is choosing the former; good on him.

And once again, you ignore that Nick Meyer is also involved in this production.  Not to mention Alex Kurtzman, who was also a successful TV producer ("Alias") long before NuTrek came along. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Disclaimer: Everything said represents only the personal views, bad tastes, and deficiency in moral fiber of the poster, it is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it is not to be taken seriously. The poster has a death sentence in several universes, traded her illusions for two bottles of kanar many years ago, and still considers it a good deal. Any semblance with here existing sentiments is purely coincidental and in fact a real miracle.”

In fact, no one knows what will happen and we are just speculating. The show might be successful or might fail and our emotional involvement or lack of such can’t change this. I can’t say anything about the outcome but the motivation and the stakes of the involved parties are interesting.

Fuller is the champion of the fans – they view him as the saver of the franchise, one of their own, the rightful heir who will bring back Star Trek to its proper place, namely the TV screen. In reality, Fuller did not have to fight hard for this privilege. The A-team of ST tycoons such as Berman, Moore, Behr, Braga, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Beimler, Echevarria, Manning, retreated, retired, PIller passed away (R.I.P.) or have their own successful projects. They are not interested in this Trek because they know better. What we see here is the runt of the litter, the boy who they sent for doughnuts and coffee. The boy grew up and found out that the writing room was empty and now he can have it for himself because no one with a real TV Trek background wants it anyway. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a king.

TV Star Trek is a mummy that has been rotting gloriously in its tomb since 2005. Its eternal sleep was disturbed by the tomb raider JJ Abrams who stole several artifacts, brushed off the dust, and sold them successfully. However, his success proved that there still might be something valuable in the sarcophagus, that the old mummy might be invoked and resurrected and its worshippers might pay for it.

So Fuller bravely entered CBS Studios and promised to bring the mummy back to life by making both the worshippers and the CBS bean counters happy. He also promised that unlike JJ Abrams he would not steal but genuinely resuscitate the vital remains of the franchise.

In terms of Trek experience, he has nothing but his memories from the 1990’s when ST was filling in the TV screens and ran on all channels and his fan boy ambition to prove that he can play with these long-coveted toys too. He has his good reputation as a writer and an executive for modern shows and that is why he will be entrusted with the financial risk that will be shared between several producers and further minimized by the All Access.

He has dug up 2-3 antiques from the 1980’s and 1990s’ to show them around as a living proof of continuity. Rod Roddenberry’s only achievement is being Gene Roddenberry’s son so he has his hereditary interests in financing a ST show. Menosky has created some of the watchable VOY episodes and Meyer is a respected veteran who can use some limelight and royalties. Fuller has also gathered several non-entities that no one has ever heard of and who will do what he tells them to do. He and Kurtzman have their own company, Secret Hideout (an interesting title), where they will hide if the worst comes to worst and the mummy’s cult followers want their heads on a platter.

Mummies don’t have graves, they have mausoleums – big, dusty and covered with spider webs. I am really curious to see whether this mummy will make it again, whether it will be able to function properly or it will be just a brainless zombie kept alive to so that the CBS suits can milk its followers.

When you hate Star Trek so much, and when you have such a disdain for pop culture, why are you spending so much time on a Star Trek fan website?!

One would think that a person so intelligent and educated that he's above stupid, unintelligent pop culture that's even so old it's rotting in its grave, would know better things to do with his time, than trolling fans on a Star Trek board. Why don't you go doing something that better suits your elevated status, like dealing with "the real world" and "doing what has to be done"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
troll2
trōl/
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
  1. 1
    informal
    make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
    "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"

^
Here's the definition.

 

Here's the evidence 

v

“Disclaimer: Everything said represents only the personal views, bad tastes, and deficiency in moral fiber of the poster, it is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it is not to be taken seriously. The poster has a death sentence in several universes, traded her illusions for two bottles of kanar many years ago, and still considers it a good deal. Any semblance with here existing sentiments is purely coincidental and in fact a real miracle.”

In fact, no one knows what will happen and we are just speculating. The show might be successful or might fail and our emotional involvement or lack of such can’t change this. I can’t say anything about the outcome but the motivation and the stakes of the involved parties are interesting.

Fuller is the champion of the fans – they view him as the saver of the franchise, one of their own, the rightful heir who will bring back Star Trek to its proper place, namely the TV screen. In reality, Fuller did not have to fight hard for this privilege. The A-team of ST tycoons such as Berman, Moore, Behr, Braga, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Beimler, Echevarria, Manning, retreated, retired, PIller passed away (R.I.P.) or have their own successful projects. They are not interested in this Trek because they know better. What we see here is the runt of the litter, the boy who they sent for doughnuts and coffee. The boy grew up and found out that the writing room was empty and now he can have it for himself because no one with a real TV Trek background wants it anyway. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a king.

TV Star Trek is a mummy that has been rotting gloriously in its tomb since 2005. Its eternal sleep was disturbed by the tomb raider JJ Abrams who stole several artifacts, brushed off the dust, and sold them successfully. However, his success proved that there still might be something valuable in the sarcophagus, that the old mummy might be invoked and resurrected and its worshippers might pay for it.

So Fuller bravely entered CBS Studios and promised to bring the mummy back to life by making both the worshippers and the CBS bean counters happy. He also promised that unlike JJ Abrams he would not steal but genuinely resuscitate the vital remains of the franchise.

In terms of Trek experience, he has nothing but his memories from the 1990’s when ST was filling in the TV screens and ran on all channels and his fan boy ambition to prove that he can play with these long-coveted toys too. He has his good reputation as a writer and an executive for modern shows and that is why he will be entrusted with the financial risk that will be shared between several producers and further minimized by the All Access.

He has dug up 2-3 antiques from the 1980’s and 1990s’ to show them around as a living proof of continuity. Rod Roddenberry’s only achievement is being Gene Roddenberry’s son so he has his hereditary interests in financing a ST show. Menosky has created some of the watchable VOY episodes and Meyer is a respected veteran who can use some limelight and royalties. Fuller has also gathered several non-entities that no one has ever heard of and who will do what he tells them to do. He and Kurtzman have their own company, Secret Hideout (an interesting title), where they will hide if the worst comes to worst and the mummy’s cult followers want their heads on a platter.

Mummies don’t have graves, they have mausoleums – big, dusty and covered with spider webs. I am really curious to see whether this mummy will make it again, whether it will be able to function properly or it will be just a brainless zombie kept alive to so that the CBS suits can milk its followers.

^

Calling ST a 'rotting mummy' & 'brainless zombie' and implying that its fans are mindless 'followers' of said mummy/zombie is TROLLING.

 

Shada~

Warning for trolling.  You are ON a Star Trek site; we ARE fans of this 'rotting mummy/zombie'.  If you have such a clear disdain for it?  You are not compelled to remain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Disclaimer: Everything said represents only the personal views, bad tastes, and deficiency in moral fiber of the poster, it is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it is not to be taken seriously. The poster has a death sentence in several universes, traded her illusions for two bottles of kanar many years ago, and still considers it a good deal. Any semblance with here existing sentiments is purely coincidental and in fact a real miracle.”

Or these established names were contacted but they wisely decided that the new ST series are too much of a trouble – inflexible fandom, too many conflicting expectations, unclear parameters as to in what direction the new series should go, movie rights vs. TV series rights. It is simply a long shot. I can’t blame them.

Whether Rod Roddenberry is a decent guy, or eats little kittens for breakfast is irrelevant. His hereditary association with ST does not mean that he is a professional moviemaker or writer. He has dabbled with fan productions and goes to cons. He is there solely because of his name.

It is not sure whether Meyer’s function won’t be purely decorative and Kurtzman is the same guy who together with Orci produced one of the most beloved movies in the history of Star Trek, namely STID. In fact, most people in executive positions have experience in movie business but enumerating their previous projects does not prove anything.   

On the subject of trolling:

“Exceptions: disrespectful, derogatory remarks, et cetera, are permitted via Freedom of Speech to be made of any Government, Political Party, Celebrity or other Public Personality, Franchise, or Corporation.”

This quotation is from your own board policy. ST is a franchise, the people involved in its production are public personalities and celebrities.

Trolls are forum members whose opinions and/or personalities are not liked by the admins and their cronies. In this sense, if someone does not like my attitude and metaphors, they might disregard my posts altogether or post their views on the matter. I don’t agree with everything people say but I don’t expect them to change their views and respectively I won’t change mine. I am not a Trekkie and I don’t have to be, I watch many different movies, I have a lot of hobbies, and I can comment on whatever aspect of pop culture pleases me. Star Trek is an old, classical sci-fi show that has become a synonym of nerdiness exactly because of too many rabid fans who suppress ordinary, critical viewers.

Here is another rumor to chew over.

http://moviepilot.com/posts/3948302

You still haven't answered my question. When you have such a disdain for Star Trek and its fans, why are you wasting your time posting here?

The only possible answer is that you enjoy inciting and anger the fans here.

By all means, bother someone else. I can't speak for the entire forum, but as far as I am concerned, you are not welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Disclaimer: Everything said represents only the personal views, bad tastes, and deficiency in moral fiber of the poster, it is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it is not to be taken seriously. The poster has a death sentence in several universes, traded her illusions for two bottles of kanar many years ago, and still considers it a good deal. Any semblance with here existing sentiments is purely coincidental and in fact a real miracle.”

Or these established names were contacted but they wisely decided that the new ST series are too much of a trouble – inflexible fandom, too many conflicting expectations, unclear parameters as to in what direction the new series should go, movie rights vs. TV series rights. It is simply a long shot. I can’t blame them.

Whether Rod Roddenberry is a decent guy, or eats little kittens for breakfast is irrelevant. His hereditary association with ST does not mean that he is a professional moviemaker or writer. He has dabbled with fan productions and goes to cons. He is there solely because of his name.

It is not sure whether Meyer’s function won’t be purely decorative and Kurtzman is the same guy who together with Orci produced one of the most beloved movies in the history of Star Trek, namely STID. In fact, most people in executive positions have experience in movie business but enumerating their previous projects does not prove anything.   

On the subject of trolling:

“Exceptions: disrespectful, derogatory remarks, et cetera, are permitted via Freedom of Speech to be made of any Government, Political Party, Celebrity or other Public Personality, Franchise, or Corporation.”

This quotation is from your own board policy. ST is a franchise, the people involved in its production are public personalities and celebrities.

Trolls are forum members whose opinions and/or personalities are not liked by the admins and their cronies. In this sense, if someone does not like my attitude and metaphors, they might disregard my posts altogether or post their views on the matter. I don’t agree with everything people say but I don’t expect them to change their views and respectively I won’t change mine. I am not a Trekkie and I don’t have to be, I watch many different movies, I have a lot of hobbies, and I can comment on whatever aspect of pop culture pleases me. Star Trek is an old, classical sci-fi show that has become a synonym of nerdiness exactly because of too many rabid fans who suppress ordinary, critical viewers.

Here is another rumor to chew over.

http://moviepilot.com/posts/3948302

 

Here's another quote (the relevant one, this time):

 

  • Section 5: Trolling - We strive to ensure The Omega Sector is a positive place for all posters. Please do not troll (IE, posting inflammatory statements and/or images for the sole purpose of inciting an emotional response) either via post, private message, avatar, signature or other available contact information contained within a users profile, as this is not permitted. 

Apparently you missed that one.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We should all reserve the right to hate it, if that's our honest reaction in 2017. But allowing the man who has been entrusted the chalice the room to make it without being predictive and proscriptive upfront is the least we can allow him. We've also got to allow ourselves the possibility of enjoying it. Anything else is just so utterly boring. It's just the most tedious impulse in all fandom. 

 

To this, I agree: We won't know for sure if we'll like it or not, before we've seen it. And yes, we should allow to look at it without too many good or bad expectations that jinx our experience one way or another.

But to that:

I think judging a thing before it has been written is tantamount to jealousy, or a kind of lunacy that teeters not on wit or comedy but a deep and moribund misanthropy. It's not like predicting what a player might play like in a football or baseball game based on past performances; it's not like predicting the weather based on information from satellites. I'm not saying writing is magic, it isn't, but it's far from being a science that is measurable, quantifiable or remotely formulaic. All those stupid books about how to write a script or a novel don't tell you how to write - they tell you how things worked for someone else. They give you archeaology, not the living. They're not currency, they're measurements, blueprints created after the fact that describe the foundations of where a building stood. They certainly don't tell you about the creative process of it being built. 

Yes and no. I absolutely agree when it comes to the creative achievements of a particular writer or team.

But Fuller, like all other showrunners, are working under constraints, their bosses give them a certain direction. Or so I imagine it, correct me if I'm wrong. That means the choice of particular producers or showrunners, and their track record, tells us something about the general direction of a given show or movie, as that's something the suits have looked at when they made the choice.

So I imagine Disney chose Abrams for Star Wars, because they have seen NuTrek and felt: "Yep, we want something like that for our Star Wars franchise, too". Perhaps they liked Abrams' technical skills for making blockbusters, his visual style, his capacity to reinterpret and rearrange old content in a modern, fresh way, and so on -- and that's probably what they told him, when they hired Abrams. "Mr. Abrams, you did this and that on Star Trek, and we want you to do this or that on Star Wars for us. Can you do it?" Abrams was neither free to suddenly make an experimental art movie, nor was he free to suddenly rethink his past approach and style from scratch.

Likewise, I imagine when the CBS suits and Kurtzman sat together, debating the general direction of ST17, they at some point in their discussion reached the conclusion they want a show that also finds the love of the old fans, and not a watered down NuTrek copy for the small screen. And then they looked into the track records of several candidates for showrunner, looking in their past work for things they wanted for Trek17, and then hired Fuller because he came closest to what they had in mind.

And that alone gives me a lot of excitement. Because I'm inclined to think all clues point into the direction that the suits "get it" this time, that they are looking for the right things in the right places.

Now of course that does not mean Fuller cannot fail -- of course he still can. Or his team can. But at least the general direction seems to be right on target this time. IMO.

Of all the possible reasons why the new show could fail, all those possibilities that have to do with a false premise, a wrong general direction, are eliminated. That leaves a smaller pool of possible reasons for failure. Which is what I tried to say above -- if it fails, it will most likely not because the producing team will "play it safe" or "dumb it down", but for other reasons.

My points were very broad, and while I have a friend who is privy to the inner workings of CBS, I'm not, so anything I write is hearsay, albeit on good authority. Yeah, writers are "cast" in similar fashion to the way an actor might be cast for a role, except in these cases it's the execs rather than casting directors who make the choices or suggestions. AFAIK, Fuller was a front runner because of his later, post-Trek work. Many candidates were on it who fulfilled the criteria of at least having written Trek before and having later showrunning experience (I'd lay bets that Naren Shankar and Rene Echevarria were on that list too - but neither have had as varied and inventive a post-Berman-Trek career as Fuller's). Basically, they asked Ron Moore first (who we know couldn't do it, and why), and Fuller was second on the list - because of his post-Trek work and how distinctive it is. Because he went on to do shows as offbeat and odd as Wonderfalls and Hannibal. Even his shows that were canceled due to viewing figures were all critical darlings. He conforms to the mainstream view of a maverick - experimental, a world builder, happy to push at the edge of mainstream envelope. Yet he can also mastermind a bona fide hit, like Hannibal, Heroes or Pushing Daisies. It's not hard to see why the suits went for him - they understood enough that a modern TV iteration of Star Trek can't be like it was in the late 90s, or even the exercise in flashy nostalgia that the JJverse movies are.

In the end, all these things are a show of faith, of instinct, no matter what's on the resume. Whatever your screenwriting and production experience, Hollywood is a glamorous betting house, at the best of times. But if the curriculum vitae is studded with interesting weirdness (by their standards) as Fuller's is, your bet is about as loaded as it can get.

Whether we like it or not remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We should all reserve the right to hate it, if that's our honest reaction in 2017. But allowing the man who has been entrusted the chalice the room to make it without being predictive and proscriptive upfront is the least we can allow him. We've also got to allow ourselves the possibility of enjoying it. Anything else is just so utterly boring. It's just the most tedious impulse in all fandom. 

 

To this, I agree: We won't know for sure if we'll like it or not, before we've seen it. And yes, we should allow to look at it without too many good or bad expectations that jinx our experience one way or another.

But to that:

I think judging a thing before it has been written is tantamount to jealousy, or a kind of lunacy that teeters not on wit or comedy but a deep and moribund misanthropy. It's not like predicting what a player might play like in a football or baseball game based on past performances; it's not like predicting the weather based on information from satellites. I'm not saying writing is magic, it isn't, but it's far from being a science that is measurable, quantifiable or remotely formulaic. All those stupid books about how to write a script or a novel don't tell you how to write - they tell you how things worked for someone else. They give you archeaology, not the living. They're not currency, they're measurements, blueprints created after the fact that describe the foundations of where a building stood. They certainly don't tell you about the creative process of it being built. 

Yes and no. I absolutely agree when it comes to the creative achievements of a particular writer or team.

But Fuller, like all other showrunners, are working under constraints, their bosses give them a certain direction. Or so I imagine it, correct me if I'm wrong. That means the choice of particular producers or showrunners, and their track record, tells us something about the general direction of a given show or movie, as that's something the suits have looked at when they made the choice.

So I imagine Disney chose Abrams for Star Wars, because they have seen NuTrek and felt: "Yep, we want something like that for our Star Wars franchise, too". Perhaps they liked Abrams' technical skills for making blockbusters, his visual style, his capacity to reinterpret and rearrange old content in a modern, fresh way, and so on -- and that's probably what they told him, when they hired Abrams. "Mr. Abrams, you did this and that on Star Trek, and we want you to do this or that on Star Wars for us. Can you do it?" Abrams was neither free to suddenly make an experimental art movie, nor was he free to suddenly rethink his past approach and style from scratch.

Likewise, I imagine when the CBS suits and Kurtzman sat together, debating the general direction of ST17, they at some point in their discussion reached the conclusion they want a show that also finds the love of the old fans, and not a watered down NuTrek copy for the small screen. And then they looked into the track records of several candidates for showrunner, looking in their past work for things they wanted for Trek17, and then hired Fuller because he came closest to what they had in mind.

And that alone gives me a lot of excitement. Because I'm inclined to think all clues point into the direction that the suits "get it" this time, that they are looking for the right things in the right places.

Now of course that does not mean Fuller cannot fail -- of course he still can. Or his team can. But at least the general direction seems to be right on target this time. IMO.

Of all the possible reasons why the new show could fail, all those possibilities that have to do with a false premise, a wrong general direction, are eliminated. That leaves a smaller pool of possible reasons for failure. Which is what I tried to say above -- if it fails, it will most likely not because the producing team will "play it safe" or "dumb it down", but for other reasons.

My points were very broad, and while I have a friend who is privy to the inner workings of CBS, I'm not, so anything I write is hearsay, albeit on good authority. Yeah, writers are "cast" in similar fashion to the way an actor might be cast for a role, except in these cases it's the execs rather than casting directors who make the choices or suggestions. AFAIK, Fuller was a front runner because of his later, post-Trek work. Many candidates were on it who fulfilled the criteria of at least having written Trek before and having later showrunning experience (I'd lay bets that Naren Shankar and Rene Echevarria were on that list too - but neither have had as varied and inventive a post-Berman-Trek career as Fuller's). Basically, they asked Ron Moore first (who we know couldn't do it, and why), and Fuller was second on the list - because of his post-Trek work and how distinctive it is. Because he went on to do shows as offbeat and odd as Wonderfalls and Hannibal. Even his shows that were canceled due to viewing figures were all critical darlings. He conforms to the mainstream view of a maverick - experimental, a world builder, happy to push at the edge of mainstream envelope. Yet he can also mastermind a bona fide hit, like Hannibal, Heroes or Pushing Daisies. It's not hard to see why the suits went for him - they understood enough that a modern TV iteration of Star Trek can't be like it was in the late 90s, or even the exercise in flashy nostalgia that the JJverse movies are.

In the end, all these things are a show of faith, of instinct, no matter what's on the resume. Whatever your screenwriting and production experience, Hollywood is a glamorous betting house, at the best of times. But if the curriculum vitae is studded with interesting weirdness (by their standards) as Fuller's is, your bet is about as loaded as it can get.

Whether we like it or not remains to be seen.

Thanks for the information, that's very enlightening. :)

They really asked Moore first? Wow, I didn't know that. I assume he had no spare time because of his "Outlander" thing? Guess he would have been a choice leaning more to "playing it safe", though less regarding a mass audience, and more regarding SF fans.

Maybe I find the choice of Fuller even more interesting, as loaded as that bet is, because we've seen a Moore-heavy Star Trek already, and as much as I love DS9, Fuller's approach is probably going to be even newer. And won't invite comparisons to DS9 and BSG by default.

But yeah, now we'll just have to see if we indeed like it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I'm looking forward to the series more than Beyond (though I'm looking forward more to "Star Trek: Bridge Crew" on VR this fall than both of them - and that *IS* set in the Kelvin timeline).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your point is. He wanted the job, lobbied for it (he went to Abrams thinking he had some control over a new show, when in fact he had none), and eventually got the job he wanted...ok! 

Others like Fuller have been pitching Trek shows since Enterprise left the air. Brian Singer, J. Michael Straczynsi, and even Michael Dorn. Fuller wasn't the only person on the list for CBS I am sure, and what makes you think that CBS would consider him better at targeting a younger audience than X-Men hit maker Brian Singer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject tagline here might be better said, 'Bryan Fuller, Rumors about the New Show'. The subject makes it sound like someone actually knows what the show is going to be about and has interviewed Bryan Fuller, which they certainly have not. You can find stuff where people have asked him out there on the next, and he's not talking details.

How does one of the posters know Ron Moore was even asked? I suspect like many others, he is just guessing. Is there a link to Moore's actual page?

Moore (likely) wanted his own vision for a series, as did others, and it would have been too dark, from what I've found on the net, and his love of darker stories like his BSG reboot. We do not need a series with a Federation cast in ruin and a ragged crew struggling to survive, in a post Sept. 11 world allegory. Dystopia is getting old and cliched, in many opinions, and the new show needs to be fun and fresh.

Fuller will likely do a fine job. On Voyager he was a writer, not a producer. The writer is one of the positions at the studio, but it is nowhere near producer.

Top level, executive producer. producer, director...

Farther down, chief editor, editor, script coordinator, head writer, writers...

Fuller has gone on to become a producer, as did Moore. He had to get there though. His early work is not a problem. It shows he grew into it. He eventually was good enough to go from writer to editor and then on to direct and produce.

Trek is not a zombie, but it had Borg.

Heroes started to fester after season 3.

 

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now