Temis the Vorta wrote:
I could see a future Star Trek series that revamps the technology to be more in line with modern expectations about the future. A more sentient ship that can make independent decisions (the USS Moya)? Uniforms that look like silk pajamas but can deflect energy weapons? Personal shield generators and heads-up displays for away teams?
If the tech is a continuity break with the past, that can be explained away by saying we're in the Abrams U. I guess keeping Nokia around made all the difference.
As for aesthetics, Apple Store works for me. Maybe they're getting a product placement fee from Apple. Just not grubby, that's all. But they should cool it with actual Nokia-style branding product placement. That's a jarring tone break. I want the anti-capitalist no-religion-too Federation!
You can't have that with a series of movies based on TOS, which was somewhat capitalist in nature anyway. What we consider and accept as not being capitalist was what Roddenberry & Co. came up with for TNG. The thing is, if Roddenberry wanted us all to believe that capitalism had gone the way of the dodo, then he should have come up with a workable economic blueprint for the 24th century instead of slightly retconning Star Trek
to say that nobody gets paid and replicators provide everything for us seemingly without charge. At least the Star Trek: Phase II
episode 'To Serve All My Days' had a great idea of what the Federation economy was like based on what was already established in TOS
by Roddenberry, Coon, Fontana & Gerrold.
Temis the Vorta wrote:
Those examples are too old to be very useful. TV is changing fast, which may be in Star Trek's favor since broadcast is under extreme pressure to adapt to the future of narrowcasting exemplified by Amazon and Netflix (without having subscription revenues). Cable is also starting to feel the pressure.
The more the industry shifts towards narrowcasting (smaller audiences paying more for nichier content), the better it is for Star Trek which is in a niche (space opera) too small to work on broadcast and even basic cable is questionable anymore.
Premium cable might be able to swing it, but they'd be more likely to follow the Game of Thrones model and adapt some well-regarded novel series vs. going with a brand associated with free TV (not really the image Showtime wants to maintain - brand image being totally separate from the quality of the program itself.)
CBS is the most secure of all the broadcast networks, so they're under the least pressure to swing for the fences. Conversely, being in the more secure position, they might feel more free to experiment with new ways of delivering nichier content, like their collaboration with Amazon to produce Under the Dome (definitely genre, unlike Person of Interest, which is sci fi only under the most generous definition.)
All I see in what CBS is doing with TV now is greed and attempting to hang on to an older demographic that's dying off, or in the case of reality TV shows, loosing interest as time passes. CBS needs to realize that, contrary to what they and the other networks believe, reality shows and cops shows are getting tiring and boring, and people are tuning out the networks because of this-the real
reason ratings are falling, not what they believe and you believe.
If CBS and the other networks embraced things like variety shows and specials, a wider variety of sitcoms and dramas aside from police procedurals, retrospective specials like the I Love Lucy
, Carol Burnett & Andy Griffith ones, and
sci-fi/fantasy like Star Trek
, they'd be getting enough people to watch TV in the large amounts that they claim aren't as big as they used to be. The problem is, they aren't, and Leslie Moonves is a greedy POS who hates science fiction & fantasy, and won't have a sci-fi or fantasy show on his network (yet owns the rights to Star Trek
Speaking of Star Trek
, Paramount and Viacom should read the riot act to CBS Corporation/CBS Studios/CBS/The CW and make it clear that if they don't do something with the franchise, legal action and something else will be undertaken to force them to make a Star Trek
TV show, or to get them to drop the franchise and let Paramount Pictures get it back in order to make a TV show by itself as Paramount TV. If CBS can revive Hawaii Five-O
and remake Elementary
(a remake which most people didn't ask for and which many are saying is inferior to the original British show Sherlock
), then they can put a Star Trek
show back on the air. The existence of fan shows like Starship Exeter, Phase II, Intrepid, Hidden Frontier
and Star Trek Aurora
shows that there still is a wide audience for Star Trek
filmed as it used to be; if these shows can do what they do with donated
funds, materials and labor, then CBS Corporation/CBS Studios/CBS/The CW can make a show with paid-for
funds, materials, and labor just as it used to be in the past. All that's required is that they start to look past their balance sheets and start acting as the artistic concern that they say they are.