Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Television The Internet Entertainment

CBS Delaying 'Star Trek: Discovery' To Maintain Quality (foxnews.com) 228

New submitter Zorro shares a report from Fox News: The premiere of "Star Trek: Discovery" on CBS' subscription streaming service, CBS All Access, was postponed nine months to maintain the quality of the brand. Executive producer Alex Kurtzman told the Television Critics Association Tuesday that they "spent a lot of time" discussing how to create this new world for TV that felt authentic to the "Star Trek" universe. Also during that time, executive producer Bryan Fuller decided to exit the series as showrunner to focus on other projects. Kurtzman said "it became clearer and clearer" that the targeted January debut would "compromise the quality of the show," so it was pushed with the blessing of CBS Chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CBS Delaying 'Star Trek: Discovery' To Maintain Quality

Comments Filter:
  • Stinker (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:28PM (#54930153)

    They've got a real stinker on their hands and they know it.
    9 months to fix it? Good luck. That's long enough to tell us that there are serious fucking problems, yet not long enough for them to fix them.

    I expect this will either be delayed further, outright canned, or just put out as-is and never spoken of again.

    • Re:Stinker (Score:5, Insightful)

      by imidan ( 559239 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:34PM (#54930181)

      They've got a real stinker on their hands and they know it.

      In the long history of Star Trek, that knowledge has never stopped them before... and I say this as a fan of the franchise.

      • Re:Stinker (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TWX ( 665546 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:48PM (#54930261)

        Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.

        There's always been a lot of escapist space-opera. Star Trek usually offered something greater than that, even when using an episodic, rather than a serialized format. Granted, that something-greater isn't for everyone, as there are a lot of people that like the escapist space-opera stuff that don't like Star Trek, but that's OK, they've managed to create well over 500 hours of content and are arguably the most successful science fiction media franchise in history, so clearly there's enough audience for what Star Trek has offered to justify it.

        The problem is that if one attempts to change it to make it appeal to even more people then that special-something that built the fanbase in the first place is lost, and I have no doubt that more fans would be lost than would be found in the new format, at least for something that requires as much commitment as a weekly TV series.

        TV shows struggle to find the balance between character-interaction/development and the situations that the characters find themselves in. Too much of one or the other and the audience shrugs and tunes in to something else. From what little I've heard about this new series it was going to be far too much on characters and not nearly enough on big-picture situations. Hopefully someone at CBS or whoever manages the franchise will realize that unless they manage to walk a fine line, they're going to end up spending a lot of money producing a show that doesn't build an audience.

        • Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.

          Alex Kurtzman, one of Jar Jar's butmonkeys, is the "creator" of this upcoming shitfest.
          You can also tell from the promotion material that it follows Jar Jar Trek design in everything from the style of the font used for the logo to in-show visuals like lights and special effects.

          So it's no wonder they're having problems splicing it in between Enterprise and TOS.
          It's neither visually nor thematically similar to either of those - but it fits just fine next to Jar Jar Trek.

          • by GNious ( 953874 )

            I thought our little group was the only one referring to it as the Jar-Jar Star Trek universe :)

            But then, looking at your sig, I'm starting to think you're me .... much confuzzled.

            • I was never a fan of Jar Jar (Binks one too) but I didn't dawn on me it until all the hype regarding Cloverfield resulted in... warmed up Slusho with a side order of shit.
              Which is when I've actually browsed back through things he was involved with, realizing that hype, geeking out, piling shit on top of more shit and inability to make both the story and/or plot work or even connect logically - is his modus operandi.
              My guess is that he is really good at convincing people that he has passion about projects he

              • Well, I think the gays in the BBC who are trying to turn the next season of Dr. Who into a feminist transgender preach fest might give him a run for his money.

                • Naah... That's not it. If you think that LGBTQ is a new thing to Dr. Who universe, you haven't been paying attention.
                  It's the other thing.

                  Money.

                  There's more Dr. Who than all the Star Trek combined.
                  I'm not sure if anyone knows how much of it is actually out there - with all the books, comics, audio books, lost episodes and whatnot.
                  Except, they've "wasted" 8 iterations of the character on a tiny UK market and modern market doesn't allow for Tom Baker-like actor tenures.

                  On top of it all, the canon of the show

        • by Mandrel ( 765308 )

          TV shows struggle to find the balance between character-interaction/development and the situations that the characters find themselves in. Too much of one or the other and the audience shrugs and tunes in to something else. From what little I've heard about this new series it was going to be far too much on characters and not nearly enough on big-picture situations.

          Yes, that is a worry. Too much character just turns SF into a soap in space. SF also needs a good dose of tech, science, and sociology. Not fantasy — which is another worry if the main adversary is going to be especially dumb and brutal orc-like Klingons.

      • yea, I'm keeping an open mind. I think the whole ancient klingon stuff is great. Just 2 issues for me from what I can tell.

        One is strictly from a look standpoint (at least with the uniforms, ships and tech in the background of some production stuff, I actually like the alien designs including the ancient klingons...if that's what they are). One reason some stuff can't look like exactly like the predecessors is because the star trek license is split between two corporations.

        The second issue is they were want

        • by imidan ( 559239 )

          I don't necessarily have a problem with the internal strife among the crew. I think that's one of the things that made DS9 great TV. Yes, it wasn't Roddenberry's grand vision of the utopian Federation, but it was a comfortable realism in which people didn't always get along and go along. The problem that I have is when that strife becomes "soapy" and the show is more about the crew's personal problems than it is about some interesting concept in science fiction.

          Look at the TNG episode Relics, where Scotty c

      • In the long history of Star Trek, that knowledge has never stopped them before... and I say this as a fan of the franchise.

        Obligatory Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]

    • Re:Stinker (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mhkohne ( 3854 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:35PM (#54930189) Homepage

      There's no way they don't ship it at this point, but given that the current plan is to make it available via their Streaming service, I bet when it tanks they blame streaming instead of the show.

      We'll see, but I'm not hopeful.

    • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @08:02PM (#54930331) Journal

      Whatever either Alex Kurtzman or Akiva Goldsman touch - it turns to shit.

      Though, granted, they did find a worse combination than joining Kurtzman with Orci, Jar Jar and Lindelof, as usual.
      I'm guessing that adding that "From the writer of "I Am Legend", "The Da Vinci Code", "Angels and Demons", "I, Robot", "Lost in Space", "Batman & Robin" and "Transformers: The Last Knight"" credit clinched it.

      But hey! At least they've gotten rid of the guy who worked on DS9 and Voyager!
      That'll make the Noo Trek so much better!

    • Re:Stinker (Score:5, Interesting)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @08:35PM (#54930479)

      This whole thing has had "trainwreck" plastered all over it at least since Bryan Fuller left. Fuller has a great TV track record and solid Trek experience. When he doesn't want anything to do with a Trek project, you know it must be a piece of shit.

      • Re:Stinker (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Thursday August 03, 2017 @02:35AM (#54931545) Homepage Journal

        People seem to forget how bad all the other Star Trek series were at first. TNG had a really bad first season, and the original series had one failed pilot and a difficult start too. Even DS9 and Voyager weren't brilliant from the get-go.

        Having said that, the trailer for Discovery looks okay. At most I'd say it's too early to pass judgement.

        • I thought DS9 was pretty well-written from the get-go, but some of the acting was severely painful, like worse than Babylon 5 in the first season painful. IMO Voyager took at least two years to really get going. I rewatched both not too long ago.

          Having said that, the trailer for Discovery looks okay. At most I'd say it's too early to pass judgement.

          I'd say it's too little footage to pass judgement. But if they're spending the next nine months fixing it somehow, then you couldn't make a call anyway because they might fix it or break it somehow.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            The headline is misleading. The September launch date is still going ahead, it was just supposed to be January, i.e. 9 months ago. The trailer is what it's going to be like when it starts next month.

            • Even so, the trailer doesn't tell us much beyond what some of the characters will look like. The biggest reason I'm skeptical that it will be worth watching is that it's going to be on CBS, not anything I saw in the trailer. I, for one, do not actually give a damn about the ethnic makeup of the cast and Trek is almost always preachy so as long as it doesn't spend all its time being preachy about the same thing, I'll be fine. On the other hand, I'm not actually going to subscribe to their service to watch it

              • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

                The headline copies a confusing mistake from the article headline. "Delaying" should have been "Delayed." Apparently, the headline author not do English so good.

          • I thought DS9 was pretty well-written from the get-go, but some of the acting was severely painful, like worse than Babylon 5 in the first season painful

            But some of it was very good. I could point out Duet was first season.

        • Even DS9 and Voyager weren't brilliant from the get-go.

          Voyager was brilliant? When?

          • by Wulf2k ( 4703573 )

            Remember when Janeway and Paris abandoned their lizard-babies on that planet without a second thought?

            I always felt that was something special.

        • by GNious ( 953874 )

          ST:DS9 took about until the middle of 3rd season before it got good - sorta coincided with certain people having left DS9 to work on ST:Voy

    • I think they are just making up reasons about quality. The real issue here is that they plan on publishing on a paid online service at a price that might only attract die hard Treckies. They should have put it on their regular channel, but there are likely some who think that they can milk this franchise to the max. I like Star Trek a lot, but not as much as that I would spend extra money on it. Rather wait until it is out on DVD or on Amazon Prime.
  • It needs to be on showtime as well. in Canada it's planed to be on basic cable.

    Do they need make the 1st show kick ass with a big next week on Star Trek: Discovery to sell CBS All Access ???

  • Headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thad Boyd ( 880932 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:34PM (#54930185) Homepage
    I know the headline is Fox News's and not yours, but it really should be "delayed", past tense, not "delaying". The article is talking about the delays the show has already experienced, not a new delay. The show is still scheduled to premier on September 24, as the closing graf makes clear.
    • Exactly. And at the very moment of me writing this the Wikipidia page still lists the release date as September 24th. Kind of begs the question. Do they mean 9 months from this new date in September or do they mean months from January. Because the article mentions a 'targeted January debut'.

      At this point I don't know if anyone has any idea what's going on with this project. For all I know this turd burger could end up being so messed up that it's stuck in development hell until CBS just gives up on it.

    • Thank you. When I read the summary I thought, "Another delay?" This is old news, basically. Bad title, bad summary that isn't a summary but is instead an excerpt missing context. TFA mentions that the first episode will air next month, while the summary makes it sound as though we'll have to wait longer. Naturally I wanted to blame FOX news because they are the source for this non-news, but their write-up is fine.
  • even if it is released I don't see it doing well. There's only so much money available to be spent on streaming services, and Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.
    • Re:doomed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:52PM (#54930279)
      Exactly. The notion that we're all going to subscribe to tens of monthly streaming services at 12$ or so a pop (particularly just to watch a single exclusive series) is ludicrous. CBS was counting on this series to be their flagship for why you should subscribe to their service. The fact that the showrunner is now gone tells you that a) he quit because there was too much interference, or b) they fired him, thus proving there's too much interference.
  • by Steve Jackson ( 4687763 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @08:34PM (#54930475)
    From what I saw, they are trying to change too much. We typically don't appreciate "Re-imaginings" of such an established universe... Klingons should look like Klingons. Seems like they are trying to sell it to a new generation too much, and ignoring the existing fan base, which is IMMENSE. This is probably going to backfire.
  • is just to not release it.

  • the fan made series are better than glossy network produced shows. The latest episode of Continues was spot on with a plot that left Kirk between a rock and hard place holding to the prime directive, or saving an entire race of people, well worth the free. (as in beer), viewing.
    https://player.vimeo.com/video... [vimeo.com]
    This labor of love is by far the best spin on the ST universe.

  • The article is awful but if you trudge through it, they are talking about the previously announced delay that got made known some months ago. There is no additional delay at all. The show will still debut in late September as scheduled. My understanding is that there will be a split season with something like 7 or so episodes shown this year, a gap of some months as they do special effects and such on the remaining episodes, and then sometime in 2018 they will show the final episodes of the season.
  • Why do they keep calling it "Star Trek returns to TV" when it's an internet streaming show, rather than on the actual broadcast network?

  • From all the comments here, seems like I'm not the only one who feels Discovery will suck. Maybe the execs at CBS/Paramount are trying to attract a different crowd - trying to rope in new viewers that would have not originally viewed the previous television series, and at the same time capture to a limited degree the older/true ST fan base because we have no choice. Nothing has happened in over 10 years so "we'll accept anything". I too feel the same way about Abrams ruining the feel of ST with the movie
    • by Nikkos ( 544004 )

      I think you're spot-on. Consider this like music. Assuming you're above the age of 30, nobody cares about the music you used to listen to, and the music that is produced now isn't for you, it's for the 13-24 year old age group that actually spends money on music.

      Each iteration of Star Trek isn't about the 'old guard' so much as attracting a new generation of viewers. The old guard isn't enough to bank a show on, unless their kids get in on it.

  • Seriously does anybody want this? I don't see the demand for a new Star Trek series at this time and particularly not a new Star Trek series that is going to be on a new pay service without any other content worth paying for to speak of. I'm 52 years old. I was born in 1965 and from what I've been told I have been watching Star Trek since I was in the cradle. Now to date I think I've watched upwards of 720 episodes of Star Trek and I've watched 13 feature films. I loved it at times, cringed at it here and t
    • Good science fiction (maybe intermittent at times) is what fans want. If you can pump it up with season arcs and more social development (no relation) all the better.

      I can forgive barking Klingons in skeleton zoot suits if the stories are good. (The golden glow sepia stuff needs to go though.)

      When's Orville starting?

      • I understand and I continue to watch and read science fiction as well but I just no longer feel like that must include Star Trek. Granted nobody else is getting much done right now but Star Trek, whether it's the new movies or the trailer for this series just strikes me as something I've already seen. It's time to look for something different for me at least and if I'm any indication of what the older fans are thinking then they may have realized that it needs a longer hiatus than they thought. Admittedly t
  • Last night (8/2), CBS was still advertising and promoting a Sept 20th date.

    Maybe, that's just for the series premier with the series itself being delayed?

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.

Working...