Bryan Fuller, head writer and showrunner of next January’s Star Trek television revival, revealed some details – some we suspected, but others new – about the upcoming series to Collider at last night’s Saturn Awards event.

As we have been expecting, the first season of the show has been set for thirteen episodes, a standard length by which many premium television series operate.

FULLER: We’ve got the arc of the first season entirely written, or arced out, and we’ve got the first six episodes entirely broken.

COLLIDER: I’m assuming this is going to be one story over thirteen episodes.

FULLER: Yes. We start [shooting] in September [through] probably March. I think our runtime is flexible because it’s streaming, [but] they gave us parameters – sort of, “No more than this, no less than that.”

In addition to those behind-the-scenes areas, the writer also spoke to the kind of content that will be part of the new show:

COLLIDER: Star Trek has never filmed certain subject material because it was filmed at a time when showing a gay character or showing certain kinds of characters was frowned on.

What I’m so looking forward to is to see you guys be so progressive and all-inclusive. Are you looking at it that way?

FULLER: Absolutely. I think the progressive audience that loves Star Trek will be happy that we’re continuing that tradition.

[Also,] because we’re CBS All Access, we’re not subject to network broadcast standards and practices. It will likely affect us more in terms of what we can do graphically, but Star Trek’s not necessarily a universe where I want to hear a lot of profanity, either.

Fuller also dipped into a general timetable of when we’ll start to hear more concrete info on the show, later this summer, but it seems that casting isn’t finalized yet.

I imagine [specifics will start] around Comic-Con. It’s interesting because normally I love talking about everything, and I’m sort of relieved I’ve been muzzled by CBS on it because I do less interviews, so I can spend more time writing.

We haven’t booked directors yet. We booked Vincenzo Natali, who will be our producing director, but he’s not directing the first episode. We’ve got stages and we’re very far along. We’re going to be putting sets up in a couple of weeks.

I’ve met with a few actors, and it’s an interesting process. There’s a few people that we like and we want to carry on what Star Trek does best, which is being progressive. So it’s fascinating to look at all of these roles through a colorblind prism and a gender-blind prism, so that’s exciting.

The new Star Trek series arrives this January.

  • Charlie Oakes

    I like the no profanity thing. Some people seem to forget that because their on a network where they can show / say anything almost – they just chuck in loads of swearing for the sake of it. It’s not edgy it’s tiresome.

    • scooternva

      In small doses though, I think it’s effective and seems natural. Chris Pine as Captain Kirk in 2009’s Star Trek movie comes to mind. When he encounters Spock Prime in the cave, his one-word epithet was absolutely perfect! 😎

      • Charlie Oakes

        Picard said Damn… I don’t want a Trek show where characters tell each other to fuck off.

        • Dwight Williams

          You haven’t read the Vanguard novels? As with the cinema example from 2009, the contributing authors for those novels picked their moments very carefully.

          • Zarm

            I have read the Seeker novels, where they choose their moments far LESS discriminately. But then, like the 2009 film, the characters all have the feel of acting far more contemporaneously, in references and manner of speech, and don’t really feel like they fit into the established Trek universe.

            (Not saying that to know 2009; I rather like it. But there is a certain stylization that several decades of Trek have established, a way people talk and act, that both of those examples seem to miss, rather setting them apart from the Star Trek franchise as a whole, stylistically.)

      • Dwight Williams

        In that context, on that occasion? Yes. Note perfect.

      • Zarm

        But completely in conflict with several-hundred hours of previously existing Star Trek that seem to indicate that’s not really the way people talk in 200 years. Even Kirk in Star Trek IV seemed to not really ‘get’ profanity- and referred to the more colorful forms as something specific to the past.

        (And after all- a future where we outgrow greed, hatred, want, etc.- but still keep centuries-archaic vulgarity, because that’s some positive aspect of humanity worth keeping around when we shed our vices?) 😉

        • Eric

          Well, double dumb ass on you!

      • robjoh

        What was that again? I don’t remember any epithet being said. Hmmm,guess I should see both movies again just before seeing the new one,lol.

    • grandadmiralbinks

      I agree. Bravo!

    • Gene’s Vision

      Get your popcorn ready…looks like they’re going to let it fly with all sorts of cutting edge social studies! “Progressive” indeed.

    • GIBBS v2

      FRAK YOU TROI! There is no FRAKKING way I am going in there with all that FRAKKING radiation!

      Bonus points for who said this?

  • Harvey1701

    I hope they do remember: Star Trek is a family show and it needs to remain that. It’s a show where generations can bond together. I’d hate for it to become a show where mom or dad tell their kids “ok, you have to leave the room now”.

    • prometheus59650

      It really depends on what’d make you want to make them leave the room, wouldn’t it?

      • David Dennis

        Gosh, those two men are a couple! Kids leave the room. Cause growing up in the 21st century they will new see that in the actual world.

    • JKO

      I agree. Let’s keep it clean and let’s leave out today’s crap from influencing the show.

      • prometheus59650

        “Today’s crap?” You mean, like gay people??? Like transgender people?

        You know that both have been around as long as people have existed, right? Genderqueers and the like aren’t something that someone made up last week just to upset your happy, happy life.

        You know that Fuller is gay, right?

        • JKO

          As in overly sexualized scenes and content just for the sake of getting someone’s attention, as in graphic violence and vulgar cursing. I don’t really know many people that are like that in real life so why are we inundated with it in media? Each year we get closer to dumping TV for good.

        • Zarm

          No offense, sir, but when the comment was about being unbound by standards and practices- which can include graphic sexuality, profanity, violence, etc.- as well as sexual practices that some find innapropriate- why are you jumping straight to assuming (and being offended by) those comments regarding homosexuality or transgenderism?

          • Visitor1982

            Join the real life.

          • Zarm

            That… doesn’t really answer my question. And I’m afraid I don’t get your meaning.

        • Tone

          F**k off. Fly your “PC at any cost” flag elsewhere. Nobody said anything about hating gays, or wishing they were dead, or anything remotely like it.

          So sick of people like you who just can’t wait to attack someone who does not want to watch graphic gay sex in from of his children, when all he wants to do is enjoy some Trek.

          Get over yourself, and your fake, but very polished cookie-cutter (insert cause here) outrage.

          • prometheus59650

            Touchy, touchy.

            You poor, porcelain thing, you.

          • Tone

            Move along Son. Play out your little act on someone else. XxX

          • prometheus59650

            I accept your concession.

            Bye.

        • danielcw

          You don’t know what the person is talking about, so you ask.
          And then you jump to stupid conclusions.

        • Ellie Arroway

          “You know that Fuller is gay, right?”
          THIS is the problem. A gay will be certainly in the show.

          • Stuart Quinn

            Just for a moment, let’s imagine that Gene Roddenberry was black. Now how would you feel about an exchange like this:
            “You know that Roddenberry is gay, right?”
            “THIS is the problem. A black will be certainly in the show”

          • prometheus59650

            It’s only a “problem” if you have a “problem” with gay people.

      • Gyor

        I’d be okay with a spin off series in the Mirror Universe, that’s darker and more adult in tone, with nudity and swearing, that way people can have their cake and eat it too!

        You have the family friendly serious and the edger mirror universe series.

  • jerr

    what does this mean? March? “Yes. We start [shooting] in September [through] probably March.”

    • It means they’ll still be filming when the show premieres. More like a broadcast network rather than a premium channel.

    • MattR

      The first season is being filmed September 2016 through March 2017. Seems pretty clear.

      • jerr

        ha… I didn’t see the R. I thought it was “though”. thanx

    • GIBBS v2

      It means they will spoon feed us one episode a week to maximized subscription lengths.

      • danielcw

        If you want to minimize your subscription length, just wait until your subscription would include the final episode. Aren’t tere also free trials?

        • GIBBS v2

          True, but what fan can truly wait! Arrrrrrrrgh!

    • jonahkrautter

      Les Moonves already said that they’re not going to dump entire seasons at one time like Netflix and Amazon. The episodes will start in January and then be released weekly for 12 more weeks after that.

  • As far as profanity and nudity and violence go, if it directly serves the particular story they’re telling then I don’t mind it. No “Alice Eve-ing it.” I’m encouraged that CBS is giving a lot of room to the creatives to define the show (or at least it sounds like they are).

  • So at least 2 weeks of filming per episode. That’s great news.

    • danielcw

      Not sure how you get to at least 2 weeks per episode. That’s assuming using the whole of October and March and no breaks

  • MeisterOlsen

    I hope this show is amazing but because CBS/Paramounts are so greedy corporate ***** I now have to bad mouth them at every opportunity. Shame on them #BoycottBeyond

    • jonahkrautter

      You do understand that Star Trek is a profit creating franchise for CBS and Paramount? If it doesn’t turn a profit, then that’s it for Star Trek. So as Gordon Gekko said, “greed is good.”

      • Christopher F.

        Being alive isn’t the same as living.

        What we’re getting now isn’t Star Trek, what we’re getting now is generic summer action space movie #37 with a starfleet uniform on it.

        None of the things that actually make Star Trek Star Trek are present. The intellectualism is gone, replaced by tits and explosions. The character building and interactions aren’t there, just Spock being flanderized into a whiny 13 year old girl. The entire core of TOS in the “Spock is reason, Bones is emotion, and Kirk mediates between the two” is gone so far that Bones is barely even in them.

        So yes, I have no problem with Star Trek dying. Its been dead since 2005 (or even earlier depending on your views of Enterprise, but I’m counting it because at least they tried). This re-animated zombie husk isn’t Trek anymore, the merciful thing is to double tap it twice in the head and give it a proper burial.

        • TheRenegadeRebel .

          Wow. Ok. I can agree with you about the JJ movies, but why don’t we wait until we see the new series before we judge it. That would seem to me ro be a logical course of action.

        • Gene’s Vision

          Have you seen Beyond yet?

          • Christopher F.

            Nope, and I don’t plan to. If I end up seeing it, I will pirate it. Paramount isn’t getting a penny out of me.

  • I HAD been excited about the new show, but the draconian new rules for fan productions have left such a bad taste in my mouth that now I’m not sure that I’ll subscribe after all.

    • Charlie Oakes

      Don’t blame them. Blame Alec Peters and Axanar.

      • Alec Peters and Axanar are the ones who made guidelines necessary, but CBS and Paramount could simply have stated that fan productions were not permitted to make money off of the films. Such a rule would have scuttled Axanar while still letting the Star Trek Continues and Star Trek New Voyages people do their thing.

        So, yes, I DO blame CBS and Paramount, because shutting down Axanar didn’t require limiting fan productions to 15-minute episodes.

        • Christopher F.

          And even then, both Peters and CBS legally acknowledge that they were in contact with each other prior to this. CBS knew what was going on, they had communication lines to Axanar, and they intentionally let it go until they thought they could sue some money out it.

          • danielcw

            > both Peters and CBS legally acknowledge that they were in contact with each other prior to this.

            That’s all, that they were in contact. No official statement of what they talked about.

        • Dwight Williams

          Other fanfilm groups had pursued ambitions prior to this, or were encouraged to pursue them. If not Axanar, some other operation would have been selected as the target.

          • Most of the other fan film groups used the money they raised solely to fund their productions. Axanar made a profit and paid its producer a salary; THAT’S what makes them different.

          • James

            Worse still, they built a studio and rented it out off the back of someone else’s IP. And they had the cheek to say it wasn’t a fan film and would be better than the official product.

        • James

          The rules are less onerous than the ones for Star Wars fan films. Axanar took the p*** and so I can’t blame CBS for protecting their IP.

      • Christopher F.

        No, I blame the people responsible for it, CBS and Paramount.

        Star Wars has long embraced and encouraged fan films, going so far as to make an open library of music and sound effects for the fan films to use, along with big fan film competitions with them showing the best ones off themselves.

        Paramount could have done that. They didn’t, they did this instead.

        • danielcw

          Didn’t the Star Wars films have a 5 minute limit?

  • bytes

    “…revealed some details – some we suspected, but others new…”

    What new, old, or suspected details? I did not learn anything new, old, or confirm anything previously rumored. “They are filming this fall. They have written a shown. Star Trek is about progressives.” That’s about all I got from this. Just saying…

    • Salvador Nogueira

      13 episodes per season (suspected), one story per season (rumored), all episodes from season 1 arced and 6 broken (new), building sets in a couple of weeks (new), filming starts september (rumored) and goes through March (new). We’ll have more on the specifics at Comic Con — dying to know.

      • bytes

        Cool. I just bundled that into “filming”. I was hoping for details about the show.

        • Salvador Nogueira

          I get you. Bet most people here want very much to get into specifics. But we must wait til Beyond is out of the gate. Soon now. 🙂

      • Kaine Morrison

        How will it be filming in march if it airs in January?

  • TrekRules

    I am still on the fence on this series. The profanity thing is alright with me – you really don’t need to go overboard on the swearing. In terms of violence and nudity, Trek has always been in a weird spot. Look at the Klingons – warriors yet you really don’t ever see the savage violence you expect. Then you get the Orions or Deltans who are sexual races yet no nudity. I don’t want over the top violence/nudity just to have it but at the same time I don’t mind them pushing the limits a bit since these are supposed to be races with different values so it is kind of silly that they adapt to human standards. TNG was a step up from TOS, I am hoping that this is a step up from TNG and more inline with the ideals of those series instead of following the JJ feel.

    • M33

      Yeah really…. dont make this Trek of Thrones!

  • jonathanwthomas

    Hi, nice to meet you. I will pay for CBS all access just for the new Star Trek. I want more Star Trek to exist and I will happily pay for it. I think the freedom of NOT being on network TV will make the show better. Have you seen the garbage on network TV lately? Star Trek wouldn’t stand a chance.

  • Salvador Nogueira

    Hell, I would pay two subscritions just to compensate for your piracy, so we all could enjoy Star Trek. 🙂

  • Zarm

    Wow. This is all… extremely ominous, and the exact directions I’d feared. I mean, honestly, I don’t think much of what standards and practices consider appropriate already, but for a showrunner to be excited about being unbound by even THESE lax standards?

    Why do I get the feeling that 2017 is going to be the year I jump ship on new Star Trek and stick to breaking out the old DVDs? 🙁

    (I can’t even say ‘breaking out the old blu-rays,’ because apparently we’re not going to GET any for DS9 and VOY…)

    • Visitor1982

      You sound like a conservative.

      • Zarm

        What makes you say so?

        • Salvador Nogueira

          Embracing the old versus embracing the new. That’s what conservative means. 😉

          • Zarm

            Fair point. 🙂 I do think that there’s ‘merit in the old’ here, at least in terms of the generally family-friendly standards that Star Trek had. If I couldn’t have shared it with my dad growing up, it wouldn’t have become the mainstay in my life that it is. If it’s something that I can’t share with my kids growing up, it’s going to really lose something from the Star Trek experience I knew. And the level of profanity, violence, and sexuality that are permissible even on standard broadcast TV these days tends to be something I would not be comfortable sharing with my kids. I always look to Star Trek as something that aspired to a higher standard, one that the whole family could embrace, and I do think that’s something worth ‘conserving.’ 😉 Hence why excitement at being unbound by standards and practices reads as ‘ominous’ to me.

          • M33

            Yeah really.
            Just look at the “kids” movie, Angry Birds.
            Good grief! I couldnt believe parents would let kids see this filth!
            As an adult oriented comedy it would have been fine, but it would be like talkings kids to see a Harold and Kumar movie (and I did like those!)

  • Zarm

    That’s illegal. Not liking someone doesn’t give you license to take what you didn’t pay for- not legally, and certainly not morally.

  • Nadav B

    Wow, 8 minutes and he barely said anything. you can really see how he considers every word.

    13 episodes – not surprising but bummer

    draws a lot from tos – makes me very very worried

    one story for the entire season – don’t know what to think of this..

    effects for transporter phasers and warp will be new and different – not a good thing. but hey, at least now we know for sure there’ll be transporter phasers and warp!

  • M33

    Progressive…? As an indepedent, I really hope they don’t mean politically. Gag me with a spoon if we have a slew of episodes about global warming and enforced income equilizaton.
    I love Star Trek, but when it gets preachy to one view it can be no fun
    Its about IDIC…remember?

    • Zarm

      Absolutely agreed. This needs to be a politically neutral show, or it will fail. (Or at the very least, fail to make any difference, as it will be preaching to the choir and alienating the very audience it seeks to ‘enlighten.’)

      • David Rothman

        Wow, what blindfolds did you have on while watching Star Trek before? Star Trek has always been very progressive, politically and otherwise.

        • M33

          Progressive in the non-political sense, meaning forward thinking.
          Yes, a society without money that where each individual is striving to improve themselves and others, not instituting doctrines to force everyone to do what they think is morally just.
          That is the whole point of the prime directive. Star Trek always did a great job of presenting all sides of an argument, where both were valid.
          It was (mostly) not about toppling regimes they didnt agree with because they thought they were bad (like these last two administrations), it was only done if there was no choice because they themselves were in danger, or the situation proved an advanced outside influence had corrupted what was there.
          Star Treks politics have always been shades of grey, because in the diversity of cultures they must interact with, one vantage never applys to all.

        • Zarm

          Progressive, yes. Partisan, no. There’s a difference between tackling progressive issues and just airing particular politics or bashing political opponents- as most of political discourse, in fiction and real life, seems to be these days.

          Trek at its best tackles universal themes- the folly of racism, the responsibility of a society to the war veterans it trained to kill, the need to treat the homeless as people instead of inconveniences. None of those are politically specific or tackle political themes; they’re things that left and right can both equally agree on.

          When Trek gets partisan, it gets petty, and it’s never at its best. And again, on general principle, a show that strives to enlighten or show the way is not going to reach those that don’t already believe as it does by attacking them.

          I’m not saying I don’t expect Trek to have a political leaning; Trek’s always leaned to the left and I don’t expect that to change. But there’s a difference between saying “Here’s what I believe is right, I’ll explain why,” or even “Here is something that, regardless of your worldview, we can all agree we need to do better on,” and what most shows/movies/people tend to do nowadays, which is “Here is why people that don’t believe like I do- as represented by this caricature- are evil!” or “Here’s why X bill/politician/political party/etc., in thinly veiled metaphor, sucks and why the one I support is awesome.”

          That’s the way political discourse tends to go nowadays- and that’s what Trek desperately needs to avoid to maintain credibility and reach an audience. It needs to maintain some semblance of neutrality and universal accessibility if it wants to have any value in teaching or promoting a message. Because if it promotes worldviews of a particular leaning and does so with eloquence and wit, it may convince people. If it just becomes a shill for a political viewpoint or engages in active attacks on the opposition, it simply drives off any audience it might have actually reached with its message.

    • danielcw

      What does politically progressive mean to you?

    • Muzer

      There were TNG episodes which had planets facing problems caused by environmental problems. And hell, the Federation didn’t even have money in the TNG era onwards (which I feel is completely stupid, myself, especially since they never elaborated on how they got by without it). But to say that this is going to be a unique (potential) problem to the new series is ridiculous.

      (Also, global warming in sane countries isn’t seen as a partisan issue. It’s an issue of science, and one on which the scientific community has long ago reached a consensus. Hint — it exists and is a problem.)

  • Xandercom

    Never found serialised TV sci-fi to be that engaging, particularly with the ever present cliff hangers every episode which give no real closure of a story. This is why Enterprise nose-dived.

    What’s wrong with these people? Just slapping the ST brand on to some shoddy serialised sci fi show with what, 13 episodes to allow the actors to get in to the roll before they jump to the next anthology?

    FFS, the first seasons of all trek series are all dry as hell as the actors find their feet and we get used to the characters they portray as having some kind of dimension to it, and they get a good 26 episodes.

    I’m not a writer, I’m a fan, and I think this is going to burn up. It’s also why they won’t commit to anything beyond the first 13 episodes for anyone involved in the production.

    This, and the new “fan film guidelines” lead me to believe that these people have no idea what they are doing beyond dollar signs and shoehorning to promote an online streaming service.

    I won’t be paying a dime to watch it, or Beyond. All this crap on the 50th anniversary?!

    This isn’t a new trek series, this is an advertising vehicle for a US only paywall TV platform with no interest in anything other than dollar signs. Ironic when the franchise and the fan base they are using to do this lives in a future where money does not exist anymore.

    Screw them, I’m done.

    • The first season of TOS gave us “The City on the Edge of Forever,” “The Devil in the Dark,” “Arena,” “The Menagerie,” “Balance of Terror,” “Space Seed,” and many more.

      You thought those were “dry as hell”?! Funny, one of those is considered the greatest Star Trek episode ever made, and many others are fan favorites…

      • Xandercom

        Not a fan of the original series at all. I’m an 80’s kid.
        No one in my house had any interest in trek, I just watched what I could on Sky One…
        How many kids are going to have credit cards to watch this stuff?

        • danielcw

          Credit cards are more common in the U.S., besides there are parents.
          Wasn’t the UK’s Sky One behind a paywall too?

          • Tone

            Star Trek TNG was not shown on Sky One. It was aired on BBC2, which is available to all residents of the UK with a TV, every Wednesday at 18:00!

          • StuUK

            Ah BBC2, Wednesdays at 6PM! I remember those days so well!! haha!!!
            Then I think that was chased up with either Ren and Stimpy or Rapido!

            As I recall, Sky One normally got a head start with the first run showings of the new seasons after they had been shown in the States; I remember rushing ’round a mate’s place once a week to see it.
            Sky One would also show the older episodes twice a day.

          • Tone

            Oh yes, Ren & Stimpy completed the evening very nicely! Those were the days!

            I was not aware that Sky were showing TNG at the same time as BBC2. I thought they started showing it a few years after season 1 first aired. I am probably wrong though. But we did have Sky at the time, and I remember being very upset that Wimbledon was on, and they cancelled that weeks episode. I surely would have watched it on Sky instead…… Mystery… But maybe if it was on at 22:00, I would not have been allowed to stay up so late, as there was school in the morning…

          • StuUK

            Simpler times indeed… I would have been around 13 or 14 years old by the time the Beeb got their hands on TNG.
            I only caught the first airing of Season 7 on Sky so that was what, 1994/95… I don’t know how they handled the schedules prior to then. I was pretty envious of my pal who not only had Sky in his house, he had access to Sky TV in his bedroom (years before Sky even offered multi-room deals). It was on pretty late though; and yes on a School night… Sunday’s I think. 🙂

          • danielcw

            The person I am replying to wrote they saw it on Sky One.
            Anyway, can you tell me, if Sky One is or was behind a paywall?

          • Tone

            Yes, Sky One is a “free” channel after you subscribe to any SkyTV package, so yes it was behind a paywall. But there were ways to see it free of charge, at the time that TNG was on the air, all you needed was an analogue satellite box, but Sky soon stopped that from happening!

      • Zarm

        To be fair, the first half- pre-Menageria- can be a little dryer. It still has gems, but as an 80s kid who IS a huge fan of TOS (Season 2 is my personal favorite), it has been a little more of a challenge to get through some of these episodes, waiting to get to many of the ones you mention above. (Not that any are poorly-made; some are just a bit slower-paced than others. And it may not help that I’ve seen episodes like Charlie X about a thousand times.) 😉

        I would agree that overall, season one of TOS is a classic, and even that first half is ten orders of magnitude better than any of the other first seasons (and doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with them). But on the proportional scale of TOS, rather than the whole spectrum of Trek, the first half of one probably IS the driest part of TOS, for my money. Still great- but not AS great as the rest of the series will go on to be.

    • Igor Marić

      Have you seen anything Fuller did in recent years? I am convinced that we have the right to and that we should expect very much, and that Fuller is going to surprise us all with something better than we could have ever expected, not just from the technical standpoint, but from the creative too… But, to everyone, his own…

    • TheRenegadeRebel .

      I can agree that the first season of a new show is generally weaker than what follows. But there are fantastic season one episodes. I still think “Duet” is one of the greatest hours of Trek ever created. “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, “Conspiracy”, “Shuttlepod One”, There are fantastic season one episodes. TOS and DS9 had the best first seasons of of all the series. I can think of many great episodes from both.

      • Zarm

        Good point. Actually, I find Voyager’s first season to be reasonably strong as well; at least, it captured the ‘one ship all alone, and conflict between the crew’ tone better than any subsequent seasons. In a lot of ways, the ‘bad season one’ rep is mostly the fault of TNG. 🙂 (But, most Treks do get BETTER than their first season, even if their first seasons contain some gems- and they do tend to have the highest clunker-per-capita count).

    • Allen

      You’re an idiot. Looking at studios, movies, and really, all media, do you SERIOUSLY think CBS doesn’t want this to become a massive success for both fans and casual viewers? I mean, really – an advertising vehicle? Dry as hell? Slapping the Star Trek name on? You have seen NOTHING of the new show,. You don’t like serialized story telling? Fine. Why on earth would you criticize them for doing it when you have Z-E-R-O idea what their implementation will be? Cliff hangers every episode is a gross oversimplification of a format used successfully in most highly rated TV shows these days. Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, and many others advanced a story without constant cliff hangers. Hey – DS9 did TOO!!

      I would add that with an attitude like this you are not as much of a Star Trek fan as you think. Star Trek has to evolve – the original creators are gone and new people bring new ideas. If you can’t accept that before you’ve heard seen a single minute of footage than you need to find a new hobby because Star Trek isn’t it.

    • Drifter

      ” they won’t commit to anything beyond the first 13 episodes ”
      That’d be because there are only 13 episodes in each season.

      “What’s wrong with these people?”
      “These people”? Do you mean the showrunner who has been involved with a fan of Trek since he was a kid, contributed stories to DS9, and wrote a bunch of episode for Voyager?

  • weerd1

    “All ages” does not have to mean “childish.”

  • Brian Thorn

    My how freely you admit to being a thief. “They want to charge for it, but I’m just going to steal it!”

  • REMINDER: We are moderating all pro-piracy comments – so please don’t brag about or encourage others to pirate content.

  • Eric

    Jonathan Frakes! To have him direct the pilot would be a huge sign of embracing the Star Trek family.

  • Drew V.

    Well I’m done… NO, NO, and NO! Been a lifelong Trekkie for all of my 33 years… CBS/Paramount issued new fan production ‘guidelines’ today and these new ‘guidelines’ are absurd and in no way enable any fan-films to continue. I have officially decided here and now I WILL NOT purchase a ticket to go see BEYOND and I WILL NOT subscribe to ALL ACCESS to view this new series. I truly just stopped caring about Star Trek today… I’m just simply done and over with it… I do not have a cable subscription, just youtube, netflix, and hulu. And thats fine for me… For Star Trek: Continues, you guys did great work and I will miss your efforts online. The only way to send a message to CBS/Paramount is to vote with your $$$ and I have spent thousands over three decades on toys, collectibles, DVDs, etc… no more… not one cent more for Star Trek. I was optimistic when JJ Abrams and Justin Lin announced that the Axanar lawsuit was being dropped and that the powers that be would allow the fan productions to continue, but I read these ‘guidelines’ throughly today and it is an absolute joke. If you agree with me then do as I am doing… Even if you really want to see “Beyond” and the new series, you just have to leave it alone and not spend any money on it. I know it is difficult, but our $$$ is clearly the only thing CBS and Paramount are interested in with “Star Trek” as a franchise so DO NOT GIVE ANY MORE MONEY TO CBS/PARAMOUNT, I WON’T! -Andrew V.

  • Tone

    Yeah, lets shoe-horn Gays in to Trek. Thats the only reason we watch it, right? I mean thats all we want Trek to be focused on these days, because we only want it to be just another soap opera, or reality series.

    I think we should grow beyond needing the characters sexuality as the only reason/excuse to make Trek in this day and age.

    • James

      I doubt that the show will be exclusively about homosexuals. Star Trek was progressive with regards to civil rights and one would expect the new series to continue in that regard.

      • Tone

        I hope so. I love Star Trek to be what it always was. I would like the acting to be modern, and realistic, and the stories to be bold, gritty, challenging and epic at times, but I could not care less for blatant sexuality in Star Trek, it really does not need it.

        • BeatleJWOL

          Star Trek showed heterosexual relationships without “blatant sexuality” for literal decades before Enterprise, and they can do so with heterosexual, homosexual, and any other kind of relationship in the new series too.

          • Tone

            Lets hope that is what they do. But I feel that would not be enough for some, and would still complain that gays are not being treated correctly.

            However, I’m sure the vast majority of gay people do not want or need graphic, or in your face sex scenes of any type in Star Trek. Star Trek is not about who is in bed with who, and if thats where it goes, I won’t be watching it, because it simply won’t be Star Trek anymore.

        • M33

          Oh yeah… decontamination scenes were just painful to watch.
          Worst Trek Moments Ever.

          • Zarm

            Seriously awful. Never again, please.

    • Toto’s Titan Toilet Twinkie

      What are you afraid of?

      • Tone

        My man-love for you

  • The Chadwick

    Well for me Im for and against the profanity aspect. There really hasn’t been any profanity in Star Trek and I like that, bettering ourselves blah blah blah. I did like Enterprise tossing a few in, no F words or anything but “son of a bitch from” Archer, Archer had a few, I liked that, seemed natural. But to be honest, most of us human swear, (except those goody goodies) when we’re annoyed or angry, its only natural. Star Trek with swearing would be natural humans. Star Trek with no swearing would keep true to what has come before and stay vanilla. Either way I am fine, but there are always arguments and valid points for both sides.

  • jackson roy kirk

    Its sad about today. How lazy people are and just want to steal. Go get a job and pay for it!

  • Tom

    Ok. Here is something progressive. Give us a Shatner appearance!!!!! Come on Bryan make it so!

    • Tone

      I love Kirk/Shatner, but how exactly is a new Trek series featuring Kirk/Shatner “progressive”?

  • Locutus

    We will see more “space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence” type stuff. I expect we will see some more graphic horror and violence. He’ll probably show what a Bat’leth is truly capable of, for instance. I’m glad that Fuller doesn’t buy vulgarity as adding much to Trek.

    I’ve been watching a lot of his episodes of Voyager he penned since finding out he is the new showrunner. I notice he incorporates more horror tropes than other Trek writers. (But also great character development.) I’m okay with that, so long as there is also interesting character and plot development. I doubt we’ll suddenly see a lot of raunchy sex and vulgarity though. More violence and horror–most likely. Space should be a little horrifying at times. I trust he can strike the right balance.

  • Drifter

    “When I first sat down with them, it was “Do you have a plan of what you want to do?” And they said, “No,” and I said, “I have a plan,” and we started talking.”

    This, to me, is why I am most excited. Fuller has clearly been thinking about what he’s wanted to do with Trek ever since Voyager ended, and now that he’s honed his skill in the world of television I can’t wait to see what he has in store.

  • War Doctor

    Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with light profanity and sexual situations in Trek (ala Enterprise), but I do want the new series to be something my future children should be able to see without having to “leave the room” because there’s tits or wangs (not Garrett) on screen.

    • Kaine Morrison

      I’m by no means anything close to resembling a pos liberal, but god forbid a tit is shown amidst extreme violence!
      Some things that are accepted while others that aren’t is just odd!

      • Zarm

        Well, some of us are on record as not wanting either…

  • James Keen

    Sounds pretty awesome. No problem at all with a gay character as long as it doesn’t turn into Social Justice Warriors: TNG.

    A transgender character wouldn’t make sense. I mean they’d just be the other gender, no longer transgender. If there are procedures to make you look like another species (Romulun for example) then switching genders should be easy. Having someone who specifically looks 21st century transgender just for the “message” would be silly.

  • M33

    Wait… I thought we already had a gay character in Star Trek.
    HIKARU SULU!
    Didnt he come out in Star Trek IV when he said:
    “San Francisco…I was BORN there.”

  • pittrek

    Well, one story spread over 13 episodes? That’s not what I was hoping for, but unfortunately it could be expected.

  • Lostrod

    I agree about the profanity aspect. Profanity is simply laziness on the part of the writers to generate meaningful dialogue.
    Regards,

  • The Chadwick

    Quick thought on profanity. One side, trek has never needed it, and is better without it, future, progression, better humanity etc etc. I did like when Archer dropped the “you son of a bitch” or Picard said damn, that is the kind of profanity I would accept. Even the odd “fuck” might be alright but that is were some people draw the line. Other swear words referencing genitals or female dogs have no place in trek. On the other hand, most of us when angry or bumped our head, its natural, its real. A truckers mouth is different, if you can’t speak without cursing, you have a problem. But those people who do not swear at all…are also maybe too goody goody, its the other side of the spectrum. The occasion swear word is natural because we do it. Battlestar had a clever way, frack, I love it, it worked, and when they cursed in Battlestar it felt real, like when we do it, it didn’t seem fake or disingenuous nor did it seem “lazy on the part of the writers to generate meaningful dialogue.” To me, completely excluding something is exactly that, completely excluding something whether its cursing or LGBT, its an exclusion of something natural and common place…..please don’t hurt me 🙂

  • Tone

    Odd that this series is only being commissioned with 13 episodes per season. I wonder if it’s running with the budget of a 24 episode series? I can’t imagine that it would be a risk to make longer seasons of a new and highly anticipated Star Trek series

  • Pedro Ferreira

    So it’s going to be serialised? Oh great…

  • Deads

    DS9 had homosexuality. so… Or do they mean only TOS?