RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,164
Posts: 5,402,974
Members: 24,753
Currently online: 442
Newest member: kev404

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 15 2008, 03:00 PM   #61
StarMan
Vice Admiral
 
StarMan's Avatar
 
Location: ... in another place.
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

So, movie franchise to TV franchise, as opposed to the other way round? Is there a precedent for that?

I can picture a series set in the revamped TOS era, perhaps. But with the recast TOS crew? Na-ah.
__________________
Let's rock!
StarMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2008, 03:05 PM   #62
Kegek
Rear Admiral
 
Kegek's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere You're Not
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

StarMan said:
So, movie franchise to TV franchise, as opposed to the other way round? Is there a precedent for that?
Aside from Star Trek's previous metamorphsis from TVH to TNG?

Yup. Stargate. Buffy too I believe. Neither show used the same actors as the films, IIRC.


I can picture a series set in the revamped TOS era, perhaps. But with the recast TOS crew? Na-ah.
Which is the problem. Aside from the TNG example I gave, these series recast the principles, and in the case of Stargate, put hopes of a film trilogy indefinately on hold.
__________________
"Tell me this, do they have auditions for television?"
"That's all television is, my dear - nothing but auditions."

- All About Eve.
Kegek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2008, 08:15 PM   #63
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

StarMan said:
So, movie franchise to TV franchise, as opposed to the other way round? Is there a precedent for that?
Sure. Lots of hit movies become TV shows, just as lots of hit TV shows have become movies. But mostly, the entire movie cast won't agree to signing a five-year contract, or their asking price to appear in a TV show is just too high, or they're busy making other movies, so the TV version gets an all-new (or mostly new cast).

A good example would be... "M*A*S*H". Gary Burghoff (Radar) was a sole survivor.

And no way were Walter Pidgeon and Joan Fontaine (1961) signing up for the TV version of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" (1964-1968)!

At one time, TMP was going to spawn a TV movie, but ST II ended up with a theatrical release.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2008, 09:06 PM   #64
Dale
Vice Admiral
 
Dale's Avatar
 
Location: Mt. Baldy, CA
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

stj said:Slash was invented to explain how Kirk and Spock got to be such friends. That's the only interesting character backstory.
Slash was invented because 'shippers see sex everywhere and some people just have to perv' every thing up. I think exploring the friendship between these two very different individuals is much more interesting than simply dissecting every scene looking for clues that "GASP! They're DOING IT!"
__________________
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. - 2 Timothy 4:3
Dale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2008, 10:43 PM   #65
Plum
Rear Admiral
 
Plum's Avatar
 
Location: Out on the water...
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

Therin of Andor said:
Plum said:
Let's imagine a reasonable, say, 3 season production. A real vision, something classy.
Unlikely. The standard Hollywood contract is a five-year minimum, studio's option to renew. If they signed actors to less than that, like UK did with the recent incarnation of "Doctor Who", they'd have their lead actors dropping out mid-stream. And when/if the show is popular enough to renew, the actors' agents put their prices way up.

Also, the expensive standing sets for Star Trek TV series are budgeted across the assumption of a five-year run. TNG didn't really start making Paramount money until Season Six.
Ouch. Double whammy. Thanx for the info, oh blue one.
__________________
Samuel T. Cogley said: "Look, every single one of us is going to see Star Trek XI. So let's cut the crap."
Plum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2008, 11:24 PM   #66
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

Plum said:
^^^
Oh, a new TNG era show. That's a thought. But without B&B in the picture (they would have loads of royalties, I reckon) that option might not be very attractive to the studio. Just guessing.

EDIT - Thought you meant 24th Century, oops. My brain... not... tzzt...
24th C is what I don't think we'll get for a while. They'll want to stick to the milieu that the movie covers, not just the century but the tone, look & feel, however they pull it off. I expect something that isn't quite TOS or TNG/DS9/VOY.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2008, 11:45 PM   #67
Kegek
Rear Admiral
 
Kegek's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere You're Not
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

^
The period we shouldn't be thinking of is 23rd century and 24th century. It's the 60s and the 90s. This film won't be the 60s, and any return to the '24th century' won't be the 90s.
__________________
"Tell me this, do they have auditions for television?"
"That's all television is, my dear - nothing but auditions."

- All About Eve.
Kegek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 12:35 AM   #68
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

Kegek said:The period we shouldn't be thinking of is 23rd century and 24th century. It's the 60s and the 90s. This film won't be the 60s, and any return to the '24th century' won't be the 90s.
Well, you're right.. kind of.

The thing to keep in mind is that people haven't changed in any real way from the 60s to the 90s to today. Human nature remains utterly unchanged (though on-screen portrayals of it have changed slightly... and not necessarily in ways that make the portrayals MORE realistic in all ways). Hell, human nature hasn't changed througout the entire duration of human history, as far as anyone can tell.

And neither, ultimately, has what people really enjoy as part of GOOD STORYTELLING. No period has a lock on "better storytelling" but each period does have its own unique flaws. Today is no different in that regard... films and shows made today are every bit as much a reflection of how we WANT to see the world as it was how people back then wanted to see their world. The bleak, depressing, "more realistic" effect that some people want to see really isn't any "more realistic" than the overly CHEERY attitudes that get denigrated so frequently. It's just a reflection of a curious, contemporary "style."

So, then... what part of the original series was really "The 60s?" Well, we know that womens' hairstyles, the presence of miniskirts and go-go-boots, not to mention hairstyles that are not currently in fashion (but ya never know, could come back next year as far as any of us can know!)... that does tend to "date" the show somewhat. The overuse of colored gels in lighting the sets (but not the sets themselves!) give us a "dating" as well. And certainly, with more money and more time, plus today's somewhat more advanced technologies, we can make (for example) a better Bridge set that is, at first glance, indistinguishable from the original, but which is of much higher quality and much more functional.

You're right... the shows and films are "dated" to the time they were made, in every case. But the amount that needs to be "tweaked" to remove that "dating" is far less than I think most people tend to claim when making that argument.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 12:46 AM   #69
Kegek
Rear Admiral
 
Kegek's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere You're Not
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

^
I was mainly referring to style; not merely design and colour aesthetic, but also narrative styles. TOS very much has various attitudes more typical today than in the sixties, besides the brightly lit sets and episodic storytelling format - for example, its treatment of women. Kirk maintains an expectation in "Who Mourns for Adonais?" that marriage is equivalent to ending one's career.


Cary L. Brown said:
films and shows made today are every bit as much a reflection of how we WANT to see the world as it was how people back then wanted to see their world.
Precisely my point.


But the amount that needs to be "tweaked" to remove that "dating" is far less than I think most people tend to claim when making that argument.
I certainly wouldn't claim that. But just as TOS is a product of its time, so is Abrams' production, and it should not have to indulge itself in retro-futurism.
__________________
"Tell me this, do they have auditions for television?"
"That's all television is, my dear - nothing but auditions."

- All About Eve.
Kegek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 12:48 AM   #70
Woulfe
Commodore
 
Woulfe's Avatar
 
Location: 3rd Rock From The Sun
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

40 years from NOW Star Trek 2008 will look cheesy to the young people in that time, just you wait and see.

They'll be wearing go-go boots, have beehive hairdoos, ect
Woulfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 12:55 AM   #71
Kegek
Rear Admiral
 
Kegek's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere You're Not
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

Woulfe said:
40 years from NOW Star Trek 2008 will look cheesy to the young people in that time, just you wait and see.
Sure. Dated, anyway. These things are subjective. I think Metropolis (1927) holds up great; but ultimately it's a matter of taste.
__________________
"Tell me this, do they have auditions for television?"
"That's all television is, my dear - nothing but auditions."

- All About Eve.
Kegek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 01:01 AM   #72
Woulfe
Commodore
 
Woulfe's Avatar
 
Location: 3rd Rock From The Sun
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

Metropolis is pulp all the way, the designs of the miniture bulidings, the background paintings, pretty much everything is verry much like the cover of Astounding, Amazeing, Ect from that same time period, Art Deco everywhere
Woulfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 01:07 AM   #73
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

I suspect that if there was an influence there it went from "Metropolis" to the pulps rather than the other way around. The first publication of "Amazing Stories" only predates the release of "Metropolis" by a year or so, and Lang was working in Germany.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 01:10 AM   #74
Woulfe
Commodore
 
Woulfe's Avatar
 
Location: 3rd Rock From The Sun
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

^ Now that I think about it, yea, possibly the other way around, Art Deco was the thing in the early 20th cent in real life, it just got reflected in the films and pulp stories of that time period, still retro-future tho'
Woulfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16 2008, 01:11 AM   #75
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

Woulfe said:
40 years from NOW Star Trek 2008 will look cheesy to the young people in that time, just you wait and see.

They'll be wearing go-go boots, have beehive hairdoos, ect

I won't be a bit surprised to see it, either. Everything, including goofy styles, seems to be cyclical.

I'm just curious when powdered wigs and hoop skirts will make THEIR come-back.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.