There have been a lot of rumblings across the web today after Birth.Movies.Death published a collection of rumors about next year’s Star Trek series coming to the CBS All Access streaming service – with a lot of claims that are exactly in line with what many fans have been clamoring for over the last decade.

Here are the pertinent segments from the BMD report (which starts out with “It definitely isn’t in the JJ rebootverse.” and then becomes six paragraphs of rumors):

I have heard some intriguing rumors about the new Star Trek TV show that will be coming to CBS All Access next year under the stewardship of Bryan Fuller: it won’t be set in the JJ Abrams reboot universe. The new show will be set in the original, classic continuity.

I’ve also heard the show, which will be heavily serialized, will not be set on an Enterprise, although that feels like a no-brainer.

One last rumble I heard, which I could not get second sourced at this time, so consider this a wild rumor: …Fuller has a plan as to how he can still feature villainous Klingons, something we haven’t seen in decades!

A trusted source has chimed in and told me that it looks like the show will be a seasonal anthology, which means the first season will be set post-Undiscovered Country. After that the entire Star Trek universe is potentially open.

Let’s just take a moment to take this stuff with healthy dose of skepticism. While we know some entertainment sites have taken the BMD rumors as straight-up fact — and yes, they’re clearly called rumors in the original report, though the author is now claiming to have “four sources” backing him up — we still remember how many articles came out ahead of the Enterprise release in 2000 and 2001 that ended up being debunked by the time the series debuted.

(And we’re not trying to bash BMD editor Devin Faraci or his reporting, but there’s also this adamant, early story definitively stating that ‘inside sources’ verified Into Darkness would not feature Khan.)


The first Enterprise promo, airing four months before ‘Broken Bow’

 

Could this stuff end up being true? Possibly, but we’re obviously unable to verify anything so specific when it’s still so early in the creative process.

There are going to be a ton of reports like this coming over the next few months, so let’s all just take a deep breath, relax, and remember: nothing’s official until it’s announced by CBS.

div_spacer

  • I’d still rather see it pick up about 20 years after DS9… around the time that Romulus was destroyed by the supernova that sent Spock into the JJ-verse.

    • Eric

      With an anthology series, both, and more could happen.

    • Locutus

      Ack! I’m fine if they do, but I hope they undo or ignore that ludicrous supernova, and the destruction of Romulus. I actually like the Abrams-verse well enough, but the science of that supernova is truly befuddling.

      • Tuskin38

        ~subspace~

    • Brian Thorn

      Just completely ignore everything about the Abramsverse movies. Leave Romulus alone.

      • Tuskin38

        CBS won’t do that, they’ve acknowledged the event has happened in the Prime universe.

        • Synaesthesiaa

          >Star Trek Online.

          Isn’t canon. It’s a game. Unless it’s on-screen (a better argument is that 2009 established Romulus’ destruction) it didn’t happen.

          • Tuskin38

            That wasn’t my point.

            CBS told them to acknowledge it. They own the rights to Star Trek on TV. So the best bet is they’ll acknowledge it in this TV show.

          • DaMac

            Yeah they can’t ignore it. Would love to see it’s repercussions.

      • Duncan Webb

        I agree, even though I HATE the romulans! They are without honor!

  • W Smith

    Prime universe… Seasonal anthology…
    Take my money now!

    • DaMac

      It’s too good to be true but I’m gonna believe anyway ’cause it makes me happy.

  • Eric

    I know they’re all rumors. But I tell you, if it’s post TUC, I am honestly most excited about the return of the Monster Maroons! I mean, duh. Bring them back in all their glory and variation. The field jackets, the bomber jackets, the vests, the military excursion uniforms from TFF. Then add to them with a few casual options, perhaps some dress whites. Do it up, y’all! I’ve always been a huge fan of the visual language of Star Trek, especially the many, many incarnations of the Star Trek uniform.

    • Jon1701

      I love the movie uniforms but can’t help feeling they would be ridiculously impractical on an actual spaceship

      • Zarm

        So would a lack of seatbelts. 🙂 Consider me another enthusiastic vote for the movie uniforms!

      • Eric

        Honestly, the monster maroons, I think, are the most practical and realistic uniforms of the incarnations in the prime universe, minus ENT. They had a jacket and a belt that could be easily removed on camera. Roddenberry, in an attempt to look futuristic, didn’t allow zippers to be seen in any of the uniforms. Look at the TOS uniforms, TNG, DS9 and VOY. They all needed help getting in and out of them. Since ENT was a prequel and closer to our time, they had zippers galore, almost to many. TMP cast members hated their uniforms for good reason. Nicholas Meyer and Robert Fletcher reimagined them again with Horatio Hornblower in mind. They are the most like our Navy Service Dress Blues of today. Yeah, a bit formal for everyday, but that fit Nicholas Meyer’s vision of a more militaristic Starfleet; the Enterprise as a submarine in space. So that’s why I said come up with a few more casual options, and make the monster maroons a semi dress uniform.

        • MJ

          Good post!

          For me, TMP uniforms have the advantage of looking futuristic, and never seem “dated.”.

          • Eric

            Really?? The Motion Picture uniforms? No offense, but I think they are the least attractive of all. I have honestly enjoyed them all. And there is a bit of nostalgia, even for those. As trekkies, many of us can enjoy things about Star Trek we know aren’t very good (TFF, for example!). But I have to say that TMP uniforms were sooo bland and unattractive and unshapely and impractical. The cast members needed help getting out of them; they were made of synthetic materials and so didn’t breath; and worst of all they needed to be steamed while they were being worn, between takes. Think moisture!

            They seemed to me to be an attempt to follow the lead of 2001: A Space Odessey. This was an ongoing theme with TMP and it never quite worked. But like I said, as a trekkie, I still have a soft spot and affection for them because its Trek!

            By the way, I’m glad you like my posts! Thanks.

          • MJ

            You are missing my point. I wasn’t claiming they are the best looking Trek uniforms. I was claiming that they are timeless….they don’t look dated over time. By contrast, the Nick Meyer era uniforms, look a bit dated now.

          • Brian Thorn

            Kirk’s two-toned uniform is the only one that worked (it even reappeared in the 2009 Star Trek.) The other uniforms all looked way too much like pajamas.

        • GIBBS v2

          If we are debating pure sensibility, Enterprise had the most practical and functional uniforms. Aesthetically and with a nostalgia throw in you gotta now with the Maroons!

        • Jon1701

          The movie uniforms do not look great on anyone who is…put It this way they were designed partly in mind to cover up any extra “girth” round the middle. That’s what the belt was for. Look, I loved the design. It could work as a Yesterday’s Enterprise version with all the heavy stuff missing but I agree the TMP stuff seems more practical for space (McCoys disco collar notwithstanding)

  • Soraya Xel

    My immediate response was “Please let this be true”. I’m not going to take it as fact, but I can hold out some hope!

  • Michael Spadaro

    The original press release said the new series wouldn’t be tied to Beyond, which would seem to imply it has nothing to do with the Abramsverse.

    • Imply, perhaps: but the only *fact* is that it’s not connected to ‘Star Trek Beyond.’

      • Eric

        That’s right. Could be in the “Abramverse” and still not directly tied to STB. We just don’t know.

        • Duncan Webb

          I hope not!

    • Hope so.

  • Tzadik

    A great, measured response.

    1. Wouldn’t an anthology series be CRAZY EXPENSIVE? Jumping from the NX-01, to the 1701-B, to Klingons, to post-Nemesis Borg… I know international deals are paying for 60% of the series, but geez…

    2. I would think that the series could still be set in the Abrams alternate timeline, as long as they don’t use the designs of the movies (which are owned by Paramount & Bad Robot). So, couldn’t a 24th century Abramsverse show work?

    • There are several popular anthology series on television now; FARGO, for example, is wonderful and just spent two seasons in two totally different time periods with different casts. It’s not an impossible idea, especially with the costs of digital effects today compared with when ENTERPRISE went off the air in 2005.

      • Eric

        I think Tzadik’s point #1 is still important. Star Trek sets and costumes and makeup would be so much more expensive than any version of a show like FARGO. To have to almost start from scratch every year in a new setting would be VERY expensive!

        • Tzadik

          Right! I’m not totally opposed to the idea… but, I’m skeptical. They COULD make it work, but that’s a tall order.

          I’d also be a little concerned with drawing in new fans… basing the series, even an anthology series, in the post-TUC setting could cause curious non-fans to skip the series. “You mean, I have to watch a movie from 1991 to get this show? PASS.” Starting a totally new show, in a totally new setting, solves that (and could make transitioning fans from Abrams movies more comfortable, as they may only know Trek from the new films).

          • MJ

            Agreed. I mean, why do they even have to commit to which universe it’s in? They could do this in a way that deliberately does not give the answer to which universe it’s in, which I think would be the best solution.

        • MJ

          You make it sound like costume expenses are like a huge percentage of production costs…that’s just not true. Seldom do they exceed 5% of costs, and are typical much lower than that.

          • Tzadik

            It’s not just costumes… it’s costumes, makeup, FX, sets… sci-fi shows are notoriously expensive, and Trek is the cream of the sci-fi crop. This ain’t “House of Cards.” 😛

          • MJ

            The costs keep coming down on the special effects though. Have you seen how good the effects and costume are on SciFi’s The Expanse, which I would be is being produced for half or less of what the new Trek series budget will be?

          • Tzadik

            Not saying it can’t be done, but Trek has to be top-notch… gotta beat anything on SyFy. Fans won’t accept “good enough”… CBS has to hit a home run here. And, that could get pricey… even if they do CGI sets, ship models, etc.

          • Brian Thorn

            Oh Lord, please don’t let SyFy’s cut-rate Sharknado! special effects be your measure of what is good…

          • Brian Thorn

            Makeup probably won’t be any more expensive on an anthology than on a regular show like TNG. You still have to pay the makeup artists, its just a matter of what type of alien they’re making up each year, lots of Vulcan ears this year, lots of bumpy forehead aliens next year.

          • Eric

            Its not just the costumers, but yes, I am skeptical about the 5% number since as costumes on high-end show like Trek would all be conceptualized and made from scratch. Realistic shows set in the present could supply much of the wardrobe from existing clothes. But its also the sets! Every ship set would have to be built. That’s a lot of money. Non earth planet sets, if they are practical and not green screen, might also need to be built. I’m hoping for a quality level closer to Game of Thrones. Might be unrealistic but why not?

      • MJ

        “True Detective”

        Nuff said.

    • Thomas Mossman

      It’s worth pointing out that anthology series tend to run fewer episodes per season. Fargo, for example, has aired only twenty episodes over two seasons. It could be that CBS may elect to have a shorter season than the 22-episode production schedule we’ve been accustomed to.

      As for the Abramsverse, while I would be interested in a series set there, they’re really their own thing, and will probably continue to be treated as such. They’re still canon as far as I’m concerned, but I’ve felt fans tend to overvalue canon anyway. It’s like saying the most valuable part of a Porsche is the owner’s manual.

      • The show is almost certainly going to be 10 to 13 episodes anyway.

        • Section31

          Why is that to be assumed?

          • It’s the current model for nearly all non-network content, from premium cable to Netflix/Amazon originals.

          • Section31

            Thanks for your answer. Hm, somehow I would be disappointed if I won’t get the old 22+ episodes model I am used to from former trek series, especially since trek on tv was absent for this long time.

          • danielcw

            Many people, esspecially in this day and age of serialized story telling, would argue that fewer episodes leads to higher quality and less filler.
            I am not one of them, but the quality over quantitty argument can be made.

            Also we do not know, how long the episodes are going to be. Most of the streaming-originals tend to have longer episodes than broadcast-originals

          • SpaceCadet

            I understand both sides of the argument – growing up on 22-26 episodes of Trek, there was that much more to look forward to every week or enjoy in reruns. But honestly, so many of those episodes were lacking in quality and hearing all of those interviews with writers on the blu-rays, it was a struggle coming up with workable material. When you do have a shorter season of 10-13 episodes like we see with such quality shows like Game of Thrones and House of Cards, you get rid off all of the filler material and can create a clear and streamlined arc going from episode to episode if they’re doing serialized storytelling. And even if it’s not serialized but the stand-alone episodic format, it’s still less taxing on the writers to come up with original material.

          • danielcw

            The thing is, when people talk about past season of Star Trek, it seems that quality comes in seasons, and not in episodes. Of course that is only true, because those season had good episodes, but it also shows, that it is possible to have an almost constant stream of quality. For example look at seasons 3 to 6 of TNG. Many other series over the years have shown it is possible. And a bad episodes does not hurt as much, if wer get more good episodes for it.

            If the new series turns out to be really serialized, thean shorter seasons are probably better, but if the episodes turn out to be rather stand alone, or at least chunked, more episodes are better.

            Besides, if we get more episodes, it means there is more budget for writers, and also more chances to shuffle the budget.

            I was surprised to learn in “Chaos On The Bridge”, that TNG almsot failed because a buyer wanted 13 episodes, but the budget was meant for 26 episodes.
            I assume that means, that some costs, like standing sets, etc were higher than I would have expected.

          • Zarm

            I would argue that in the average season, more than 10-13 of the episodes were decent or better. I would rather take a few mediocre stories to get more episodes in general than have only 10-13… especially because (as with most seasons of, say, Doctor Who, for me), that doesn’t prevent there being the odd clunker or terrible episode… and those episodes are far more disappointing when they represent an entire 10th or 13th of the season.

            Then again, I’d also prefer a non-serial format; Star Trek has always done well with stand-alone episodes (and some arcs or serialization within them). even DS9 has a 6-episode serial and a 10-episode serial, but otherwise just had strong continuity and ongoing storylines, not an active serialized story. When you do that, you do indeed end up with ‘filler’ episodes, as everything before the last 3-5 eps of the season has to wheel-spin to delay the progress of the singular ‘story.’ When you’re telling 10, 13 or 24 stories a year, they don’t have to wheel-spin because they’re not trying to contribute to a larger arc- they’re only trying to be good in and of themselves.

            Star Trek is made up of hundreds of stories, and I’d rather get a dozen- or better, a couple-dozen- more per year then a bunch of mini pieces contributing to one single, long ‘story’ throughout the year; it isn’t the Star Trek style, and it does indeed lend itself to much more ‘filler’ than a series of stand-alone episodes existing unto themselves.

            Then again, nobody at CBS cares particularly what *I* want, so we’ll see what we get… 😉

          • Zarm

            Or, to put it less eloquently, ‘Well, that would suck…’

          • Brian Thorn

            Star Trek is different though. Very high upfront costs, so CBS will want more than 10-13 episodes of a low-budget show like OITNB or Daredevil. My money is on 18-20 episodes.

  • OphidianJaguar

    Until its officially announced by CBS, Kurtzman or Fuller, ill take everything with a grain of salt. That being said, speculation is fun. If this were true, its bitter sweet for me. Upside: Prime universe, plus a chance to watch more than one era of Star Trek. There are three main periods to still explore. I would not count pre Enterprise as there is not much there, ENT pretty much covered it. But post ENT pre TOS. Post TUC pre TNG. And Post NEM. There is a lot of time between shows that could be explored plus centuries after Nemesis. A serialized show could do that. Downside: One season per era, per crew is not enough time to really get to know the characters and their changes whereas 7 seasons will do that. TNG, DS9, and VOY accomplished that. TOS was too short to achieve that, ENT was cut short just as character were starting to blossom. Bottom line, there is far more to look forward to with this new series than there is to oppose it based on these rumours. Still, serialized, new crew, new era each season would not by my first choice as a fan. Who knows, could be fun!

    • SpaceCadet

      I would agree with pretty much everything you said except regarding TOS not being on the air long enough to really get to know the characters. If that were the case, the franchise as a whole would have never blossomed into what it is today because those very characters were so loved and understood even though they only got three seasons on TV. Unlike the modern era Trek series which would each take several seasons to find their groove and identity, TOS was pretty much strong and iconic right out of the gate.

      • GS

        Plus TOS runtimes were longer due to less commercials. There was more screentime than you’d get in 79 episodes today.

  • Cygnus-X1

    “The Fox” made a claim to this effect here six weeks ago. At the time, the mods said they’d check his sources privately. I asked for them to report back but they never did. I didn’t even get a reply.

    It would be nice to get some sort of update on what happened with the fact-checking of The Fox’s insider sources.

    • When we have confirmed reports of new information, we publish it. If we don’t – then we don’t.

      • Cygnus-X1

        Thanks.

    • MJ

      The Fox makes so many outrageous claims that some are eventually bound to stick, out of sure luck and stats.

  • Captain Jon

    I like the idea of an anthology series. I’ve long believed that Star Trek is a good universe to feature such storytelling. You can shift time periods, crews, ships, space stations and have the best of all worlds. You could even mix up the cast of season 1 with season 2, or even bring in casts from previous series! It makes it more appealing to bigger name actors who wouldn’t want to be tied down for more than a year or 2.
    Not to mention, if they fall upon a premise in one season that doesn’t quite work out as well as it should, they can reset for the next season with an all new cast. I mean, let’s face it, after 21 seasons of starships boldly going where none have gone before (DS9 was a space station), there are only so many more trips to the well that can be taken without things seeming like a retread. If it’s serialized and constantly shifting from one premise to another, it should always feel fresh.
    And if the first season is set in the post-TUC/GEN-prologue era, then they won’t be constrained for very long by having to maintain franchise continuity because season 2 could be the 25th century even!
    I like what I’m hearing!

  • SpaceCadet

    Regardless of the rumors, I’ve always thought it would be nice to pick up post TNG-era because people really loved those characters and even if the new series isn’t about them, and really it shouldn’t be, they’d still have the opportunity to pop in from time to time. That, and by not taking place in an earlier era, the writers aren’t constrained by continuity and are free up to do whatever they want. And while the anthology idea sounds interesting, I like the tried and true formula of having the same cast for several years growing as a family not just with eachother, but with their viewing audience as well.

  • Locutus

    The idea of an anthology is interesting, although it also makes me nervous.

    First, Trek shows don’t hit their stride with the characters until season three or four.

    Second, I also like growing familiar with characters over the years. I like the familiarity I came to feel with DS9’s ensemble, for example. They grew on me a lot as time went on until they were my favorite cast of characters.

    Third, there is the danger that the cast changes are not always positive. Take True Detective. I know a lot of people who abandoned the show 2nd season because of the cast changes.

    On the other hand, perhaps the anthology series attract higher caliber talent with the single season commitment, but would Star Trek attract or Paramount shell out for A-list actors?

    I would be interested to see Fuller attempt the anthology as Star Trek has such a rich universe to drawn upon, but I have some trepidations too. I would certainly give it a shot. I also love the idea of starting in the post-STVI era. Nick Meyer as a writer choice suggests that to be a logical direction.

  • Gilbetron

    I suppose a lot of this (or all of it) is wishful thinking, and I acknowledge that, but I’m inclined to believe there may be something to do these rumors. Ever since Nicholas Meyer came on board, I’ve been wondering what exactly would attract him to the series — and I can’t think of a scenario that better accounts for it than a one-season post-TUC story. Not to say I think Meyer would only stick around for one season, but I think he’s the kind of writer/producer/director who might not look for a long-term series commitment at this point in his career. So this theory explains it quite nicely.

    Bear in mind that the anthology format also allows for the possibility of occasional behind-the-scenes creative turnover too. Who’s to say Ron Moore or Ira Steven Behr couldn’t be coaxed back to the writer’s room for a season?

    This very quickly and easily turns into a black hole of wishful thinking… but it’s an awfully nice way to spend the evening.

  • HippyCheese

    I am looking forward to the TV series far more than the movie. I hope it is written for fans, and the writer’s write for the fans who have enjoyed Star Trek for a long time. I am not here to incite a debate on classic trek or jj trek. The Star Trek I enjoyed, The TOS, TNG, DS9, and some of Enterprise. I gave it an honest try to like JJ Trek, but it is as they say, not my father’s Star Trek. The people who like it can, for me, classic Trek is what. I think of when someone says Star Trek. I hope the new series is closer to classic Trek. The trend these days is to make everything dark and gritty. Make it fun, give us something to think about. I look forward to it.

    • danielcw

      I am upvoting you, not because I agree with your stance, but because if everyone wo dislikes the new universe, for whatever reason, would write the way you do, Star Trek comment sections would literally be a better place

  • Thomas W.

    After 10 episodes: we proudly present the alien of the week…
    Let me guess: there’s a space ship that will be attacked every week by aliens, every second week it will be boarded by aliens. And there will be lots of intelligent aliens with warp drives. In every sunsystem, behind every asteroid. The universe is mysterious and sooooo … small… (*yawn*).

    Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?

    • Alien Timetraveller

      Depends if the writers lack imagination not…

  • cropsy

    I bet (and hope) that this is gonna start with the battle of Narendra 3 from “Yesterday’s Enterprise” which led to a thawing in Federation/Klingon relations and the “villianous Klingons” will be the ones who don’t want that peace to happen. That would be beyond awesome imo.

    • FC

      When did the Klingon take place? before Narendra 3 I’m assuming? and how soon after ST6 Undiscovered Country was that?

  • Bshaw

    Haven’t we just had April 1st? This sounds almost too good to be true

  • Your Worst Nightmare

    THANK YOU! I’m not saying it’s not a possibility and I’m not opposed to this idea but I’m so glad there’s a site out there that actually taking Faraci’s article for what it actually is: rumor. Let’s wait until we actually get an announcement from CBS before we get excited or not about this.

  • daddyjay76

    I hope they don’t put it in that timeline I’m sure they will have some good stories to tell but I’m so sick of going back because they did that with enterprise and it was canceled. they need to go to the 25th century so there won’t have any restrictions because of the timeline. there are so many unanswered questions that they can answer like what happen to the Borg, the Founders, Dominion, Cardassia, Q, etc…. With going back they are restricted to the timeline. One of the reason TNG was successful is because they went forward and they need to do the same here……………………

    • Zarm

      They do face the same trap, too- setting themselves in a universe of restrictions but not being willing to live by those restrictions and creating a continuity headache (especially because you KNOW they won’t make the technology look appropriately-period)- much as I’d love the movie time period, I’d much rather they didn’t unless they were actually going to hold themselves to the movie aesthetic, technology, and timeline.

      • daddyjay76

        I’m sorry you got me at a loss with that comment. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. for an example they can’t do any stories on the Borg, Q or any other new species that TNG, Voyager, or DS9 created. Also they can’t do to much to mess with the timeline as far a technology wise or events. that’s what I meant. So I don’t see how doing it in the 25th century would have had restrictions. please explain… Or are you talking about philosophy or directive restrictions if so that’s not what I was talking about..

        • Zarm

          Sorry, I was responding to the first part of your comment, “I hope they don’t put it in that timeline I’m sure they will have some good stories to tell but I’m so sick of going back because they did that with enterprise and it was canceled.” and “With going back they are restricted to the timeline.” In other words, if they do that again, then they face the same trap.

          So, I was agreeing with you (that they should do it in the 25th century, so they wouldn’t face the same trap that Enterprise did)- just very unclearly. Sorry for the poor wording.

    • DaMac

      I don’t think there’s really any lingering questions about the Dominion or Cardassia after DS9. I mean you COULD show more of them, but there was no cliffhanger, DS9 ended well.

  • Krazy Joe

    I’m on board for a Pre-Next Gen/Post Undiscovered Country time frame, but ‘seasonal anthology’? Ugh. I’d rather not.

    • Alien Timetraveller

      Aren’t you getting tired of watching the same story unfold over an entire season? I mean shows like Game of Thrones do it very well. But I for one miss the old days when we had a completely different story every week (albeit with the same main characters). It never got old. This sounds like it would be more like the Outer Limits which I am also a fan of. I am slightly interested in this new series now. Unfortunately I am still boycotting. Sorry Les.

      • MJ

        Wrong, it got extremely old during the latter Berman era.

        • Alien Timetraveller

          Well you can just skip this new show then can’t you….

      • Bradley Schwartz

        No it definitely got old. And no, I’ll never tire of good long stories, and characters that have multiple seasons to develop into something completely different from how they started. That’s why TV is so great.

      • DaMac

        I like both styles depending on the show and story. Serialization worked well in Enterprise season 3 and DS9. I do prefer each season have an ending though, rather than one long story, so hopefully the rumors are true it’s an anthology series with a different story and setting every year.

    • GIBBS v2

      I want bigger stories and larger sets of characters like Game of Thrones. All those lands and cities represent races or ships. I think as much care should be given to say our main villain as our main hero. I don’t want to be stuck on the same ship with the same seven people for the next 4-7 years. That is probably fine if the canvas is much larger.

      Maybe that ship we are first introduced to ultimately gets destroyed and we follow but a couple of survivors to new ships that we transition into over and entire season. I am talking about Red Wedding levels of shock, and a season later we are just as invested in new faces as the ones we lost.

  • Alien Timetraveller

    They could even do episodes from the original series’s with the same characters. They could do an Enterprise Romulan war episode for example….

    • DaMac

      A Romulan war season with some cameos from Enterprise actors would be great. There’s literally so much they could do with an anthology series.

  • Brian Thorn

    “but we’re obviously unable to verify anything so specific when it’s still so early in the creative process.”

    I don’t agree that this is early in the creative process at all. They must already know what the setting and scope of this show will be, now only nine-ish months from debut. Would CBS really have green-lit a show six months ago without knowing exactly what kind of show it would be?

    • Darkthunder

      Exactly this. 9 months out, there’s plenty that the writers and showrunners already have planned for the show. If the above rumours are true, it sounds mostly good (any show that takes place in a universe other than the JJverse, has my blessing).

      Now, if CBS actually wanted people to sign up for CBS All Access and feel a sense of anticipation, the marketing machine should already be at full steam ahead. Yes, even if it’s 9 months out. I vaguely recall “Enterprise” being promoted already in January of 2001, a full 9 months before “Broken Bow” first aired.

      • 11thIndian

        There hasn’t been any announcements about casting or anything at this point. I’d wager starting probably in June we’ll start to see a pretty steady stream of info about the show as it moves into production. They have to build sets, cast, shoot, and do post on at least the pilot well before the end of the year. It’s amazing how little time there is from here.

  • 11thIndian

    I’m glad the author back peddled a bit on “bashing” B.M.D reporting. People can have problems with his opinions, but Devin is not a garbage recycler, and he’s reasonably well connected when he posts stuff like this. If he’s saying this is the case, then you can be pretty certain that this is the current thinking in the production. Things may change during the year, but I wouldn’t hand wave away his reporting.

  • bytes

    How does the Paramount owned movie time period, make any sense for the new CBS owned show? This hope for the prime universe (which I fully support) is flirting with being a hipocrit, if we are supporting the post TUC era. Set in the 24th century. I bet the 2390’s are a fun time.

    What does anthology format mean? Is there an official term for this, or is it more speculation?

    • A collection of somewhat unrelated stories. Perhaps each season of this new show will feature a different setting and different cast? I’m hoping for a season of Captain Sulu and the USS Excelsior!

  • Elliott Lockwood

    Consider me salted with many grains. Still, it’s sounding good!

  • Xandercom

    it occurs to me that the new series could be with a temporal starship like Captain Braxton’s, and correcting changes to the timeline…

  • Fox

    …We’ve seen villainous Klingons in literally *every* incarnation of Star Trek, though.

  • Milo

    “…Fuller has a plan as to how he can still feature villainous Klingons, something we haven’t seen in decades!”

    Um, Klingons were bad guys on Enterprise, so um, ya. Not decades with an “s” but decade.

  • Abarmard

    Perhaps it’s time to develop some alien cultures in their planets. Similar to DS9, a combination of space travel and in depth stories of characters living in their own planets and dealing with their systems. Possibilities are endless there and allows to draw similarities with today’s issues, along with developing stories far fetch to satisfy those who love Science fiction, action-adventure, and romance. That’s the only way that going to the era before DS9 or Voyager would be satisfactory. Otherwise, if it’s about exploration, then make sense to continue from Voyager, with new added technologies and space map.
    Hope they consider their plans carefully, because a mistake here, would end Star Trek for true fans, for good. I trust the Star Trek franchise to make it right.