What's interesting, is that CBS may not automatically have the rights to base a new TV series off of Paramount's movie. They might have to pay Paramount to do so.
They'd have no motive to do anything unless they were capitalizing on Paramount's success, which means if they have to pay, it's a necessary expense.
Look at it the other way. Why would CBS give a flip about making a Star Trek
series? They are the most successful network by keeping very disciplined about serving their geriatric audience with very standard cop/doctor/lawyer shows. Their attempts to branch out, such as Moonlight
, have been failures.
is not going to be very attractive to them, and if it weren't for Trek XI'
s stunning success, it would be totally unattractive to them. My hope is that somewhere in the bowels of CBS, somebody is getting bored at the very thought of developing yet another friggen CSI
spinoff and is willing to take a risk on Star Trek
. That's the only way I see a TV series happening at all.
It may be legally easier (and one less royalty to pay) for a show to be "Prime Universe" based.
The Prime Universe may make the lawyers happy but the bean counters will veto it. What's the point of doing anything if you aren't capitalizing on the success of Trek XI
? How are you going to successfully argue that such a series would be any more successful than ENT
was? Why should CBS waste time on a series of the sort that flopped on piddly little UPN when they could spend their time on yet another friggen CSI
spinoff that's guaranteed 20 million viewers?
There are some positive aspects for Star Trek if they eventually went to show time,
Neither Showtime nor HBO would touch Star Trek
. Their brand strategy is to justify charging viewers for subscriptions by offering stuff you couldn't get on free TV. Since Star Trek
has already been on free TV, you can't make that argument successfully - people associate it with NBC et al, so why pay for it? HBO is developing sci fi shows, but they are more in line with their anti-mainstream-TV strategy.