Temis the Vorta wrote:
The only way you could pull of one or two movies (like they did with Battlestar Galactica) is to use establised characters.
I don't see why that would be true at all. Star Trek
is the known brand name to use as the main draw, and unless the show is animated, they can't make use of the well-known names of Kirk and Spock, so they may as well just invent new characters.
It's possible that characters from the other series could be recast (most of the actors being simply too old by now to build a new series around) but other than the TOS characters and Data, they really aren't iconic in their own right, as a separate thing from the actors who played them. I could see Alan Tudyk as Data. I really can't think of another non-TOS character who could be recast and still be a draw.
Do you think that a lot of people would have gone and see TrekXI in the cinema's if they were completely new characters?
Doubtfull. Same thing goes for TV movie, unless you invest a long series of tv movies where these new characters can be developed more. And, like I said, 6 90 minute movies as a season is not an American way of making tv, it's more a British thing. So, logicaly they would use the standard 40-45 minute format.
And since it's been established already that CBS is currently not interested in doing a Trek series in that format, it's highly unlikely we will see Trek TV movies.
See, for the studios, it's not about pleasing fans. Yes, I know, shocking. It's about money. Probably a lot less shocking. And right now, long running SciFi, set in space like Trek, B5 and SG, are no longer profitable. It's not cool. Vampires and supernatural stuff is. So they make those. If, ten years from now, someone dares to make a show set in space and it works and it makes money, you'll be seeing a new Trek series.
Why? Because they can make dollars. Not to please us, not for fans-sake, but for the money.