The Overlord wrote:
And most of those shows are considered to be inferior in quality compared to the stuff on cable, which does have ongoing stories.
I don't think anyone will disagree that Star Trek
will be insanely expensive to produce weekly.
In order for a show that is expensive to survive, it has to be put out in a manner the maximum number of people can see it. To drive revenue. Plus, cable TV providers continue to bleed subscribers here in the U.S.
Now are you going to take and put your (depending on number of episodes) $60-110 million dollar investment on a business model that looks to be slowly dying or are you going to place it where the most people possible can see it, driving advertising revenue?
The problem, as I see it on the outside, is live-action Star Trek
'done right' is too expensive for Netflix or Showtime to turn a profit off of (I don't believe it would drive subscriptions as those who really want to see it will either download it or wait for home video) and wouldn't draw enough viewers to justify a spot on a network line-up, especially at CBS.
I really don't see live-action Star Trek
coming back anytime soon, especially with CBS making a rather large profit off their back catalog and and taking no risks with Paramount footing the bill for the motion picture franchise.
Cable channels like HBO are still doing well.
Look at the production values on Game of Thrones, those are amazing production values and that show is on cable.
The fact is I don't think a Star Trek show would be able to bring in enough viewers stay on the air on a network channel. It would have a better of surviving on cable.
I do think you are right about it being unlikely we see a new live action Star Trek show anytime soon.
They did THAT long before TNG existed.
It was called "Old BSG".
Except you would have handle that differently now, TV has changed a lot since the late 70s.
Also I like nuBGS better then the old one.