RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,840
Posts: 5,473,685
Members: 25,039
Currently online: 486
Newest member: hig4s

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 27 2012, 11:03 AM   #196
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So if Berman was allowed to do a prequel with Kirk and Spock and the original Enterprise et al. on UPN without dumping the timeline, it would have been a failure? I don't think so. There have been only a handful of showrunners pushing their artistic vision and product - GR - Rick Berman/Micheal Piller - Ira Stevens Behr - Berman/Braga and Jeri Taylor and Harve Bennett and now J.J.. So take your pick. I'm thinking none of the above except GR, but that's just me.
A good product with the right approach can go far on the right channel but it's got to have the right person leading it, not ringleading it. Trouble with Trek is that too many people want control of it on tv and they wind up steering it into and over a cliff because of studio interference. Coto was no saver, he was a killer. The last nail in the coffin of the Berman regime.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2012, 03:44 PM   #197
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
So you'd also blame the viewers of TOS for its cancellation and not the budget reduction and bad time slot? Seriously?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
assuming "blame" is the right word to begin with, which it isn't.
Right. I didn't.
And, while we're on the subject, one more thing.

I challenge you to produce any objective evidence that NBC based its budgeting and scheduling for TOS on anything other than business decisions, which, based on all the data that was available to them, were sound for their overall plan to maximize their revenue. It's not like they invested all that money in the show just to have the pleasure of sabotaging it. Based on viewership and the competing shows aired on the other networks, NBC made the choices which most made sense for all of the shows under their control, to select their time slots and fix their budgets, given how much they could charge for advertising. They're a business, first and foremost, they're not out to lose money, and they're really out to make as much as they can. Are you saying you want to fault them for that?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2012, 04:14 PM   #198
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
I challenge you to produce any objective evidence that NBC based its budgeting and scheduling for TOS on anything other than business decisions, which, based on all the data that was available to them, were sound for their overall plan to maximize their revenue. It's not like they invested all that money in the show just to have the pleasure of sabotaging it. Based on viewership and the competing shows aired on the other networks, NBC made the choices which most made sense for all of the shows under their control, to select their time slots and fix their budgets, given how much they could charge for advertising. They're a business, first and foremost, they're not out to lose money, and they're really out to make as much as they can.
^This.

GR told and continually elaborated upon a number of bullshit stories about his dealings with NBC and their attitude toward Star Trek, none of which have been corroborated and several of which have been specifically repudiated by people like Herb Solow. In fact, GR's versions never made a lot of sense other than to lionize himself and flatter the fanbase. The real evidence is that NBC gave the series more than a fair shake, promoted it in creative ways and made their decisions based on the real business numbers.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2012, 05:23 PM   #199
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Herb Solow is deep throat to me. Maybe in this case more like cut throat. Who knows. Like he would have no reasons to lie and slant it his way.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2012, 07:10 PM   #200
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
So you'd also blame the viewers of TOS for its cancellation and not the budget reduction and bad time slot? Seriously?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
assuming "blame" is the right word to begin with, which it isn't.
Right. I didn't.
And, while we're on the subject, one more thing.

I challenge you to produce any objective evidence that NBC based its budgeting and scheduling for TOS on anything other than business decisions, which, based on all the data that was available to them, were sound for their overall plan to maximize their revenue. It's not like they invested all that money in the show just to have the pleasure of sabotaging it. Based on viewership and the competing shows aired on the other networks, NBC made the choices which most made sense for all of the shows under their control, to select their time slots and fix their budgets, given how much they could charge for advertising. They're a business, first and foremost, they're not out to lose money, and they're really out to make as much as they can. Are you saying you want to fault them for that?
Of course they wanted to make money with their product, of course the market for sci-fi was tiny in these days and of course they made the right decision to cancel TOS.
But ENT became better when it was cancelled so has it been the right decision to cancel that show from a mere business perspective? I have my doubts.

Anyway, what I wanted to emphasize is that merely wanting to make money will sooner or later backfire. I am sure you read Greg Smith's NYT article about his time at Goldman Sachs. Sure, milking your customers might be a sound short-run strategy but if you wanna be successful in the long-run you better care more about the quality of your product. And if you are just a little bit into corporate governance you might know that the incentive contracts for CEOs are often poorly constructed, creating an incentive for them to focus on mere short-run gains.

Back to TV, if you produce a good TV series it will sell. Perhaps not immediately, perhaps you will make more money later via DVDs, who knows. That's kinda what happened to TOS, fourty years after it first aired there is not just money to be made from it but it is even worthwhile to reinvest into the product and remaster it.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5 2012, 09:05 AM   #201
Kage Kazumi
Ensign
 
Location: CA, USA
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Kage Kazumi Send a message via Yahoo to Kage Kazumi
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Regardless of the economy I say it just needs new "spices." Even GR was quoted saying (paraphrasing) 'that he hoped someone would come along and take ST to new levels and to places he even never thought of' (Trek Nation).

I think for a TV series to survive it needs to have an aspect of what the fans love, but at the same time have an edge to bring in new viewers.
Kage Kazumi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6 2012, 09:23 PM   #202
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Kage Kazumi wrote: View Post
Regardless of the economy I say it just needs new "spices." Even GR was quoted saying (paraphrasing) 'that he hoped someone would come along and take ST to new levels and to places he even never thought of' (Trek Nation).

I think for a TV series to survive it needs to have an aspect of what the fans love, but at the same time have an edge to bring in new viewers.
Problem with that is that for the most part the people thus far associated with Star Trek have considered it to be about them, and not it to be about them being about Star Trek, ahem, GRR's Star Trek. Who? Yea, that old dinosaur. Therefore, it has only been about personalities, people and mediocre fragile egos who became more and more exclusionary as time went on. You know who I'm talking about. There they are. The writers.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7 2012, 11:32 PM   #203
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

But ENT became better when it was cancelled so has it been the right decision to cancel that show from a mere business perspective? I have my doubts.
You lost me. How did ENT become better after it was cancelled?
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2012, 12:59 AM   #204
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

As far as I know the cancellation happened during the production of the fourth season.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2012, 03:10 AM   #205
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

It was understood before production on season four started that it was the show's last year - the network really didn't want it any more, but the studio made concessions in order to get a minimum number of episodes for effective syndication marketing. The only thing that might have saved the show would have been a radical bump-up in ratings that didn't happen. Cancellation was a formality.

Season four was an improvement only from a narrow, pre-sold fannish point-of-view; it was, as one critic has put it, a big reach-around for the trekkies who'd stuck with the series. It contained little in terms of subject matter that could be expected to attract new viewers to the series, to intrigue someone who wasn't already a trekkie, and it didn't.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2012, 03:45 AM   #206
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

It became so drab and derivitively cannabalistic that I couldn't take it or the direction Coto was taking the characters. Sexing up T'Pol and Trip, turning Archer into an ogre. It was too swampy and dark and depressing. Berman churned it into the ground. You knew when Braga saw Coto come in and take the reins that it was all over. Like seeing the fat lady in an opera who was also a sadistic clown in a horror movie. It broke him. He also realized going in he didn't have an ounce of power over Berman who started exerting more and more creative influence on the show so what good was his title of executive producer if he couldn't even do anything with it.

Last edited by xortex; April 8 2012 at 01:39 PM.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2012, 04:01 PM   #207
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
It was understood before production on season four started that it was the show's last year - the network really didn't want it any more, but the studio made concessions in order to get a minimum number of episodes for effective syndication marketing. The only thing that might have saved the show would have been a radical bump-up in ratings that didn't happen. Cancellation was a formality.
I can't find anything on this anywhere, but I did find articles both on Wiki and at Memory Alpha that they didn't go into season four on the idea that it would be the last.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2012, 08:34 PM   #208
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Season 5 was under active pre-development when the axe fell. Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses had several story arcs already outlined and some in active pre-production (such as the Kzinti episode).

People couldn't get into Enterprise for a number of reasons in S4 that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of the show, such as the shrinking station-base as small local stations started breaking away given UPN's internal problems (which are well-documented).

One critic's cynical "reach around" is another critic's "return to it's roots". S4 is one of the single best seasons of Trek ever produced. Paramount was a fool to not give Coto and the Reeve's-Stevenses the chance to finish the turnaround on a better network.
Ian Keldon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2012, 09:59 PM   #209
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
It was understood before production on season four started that it was the show's last year - the network really didn't want it any more, but the studio made concessions in order to get a minimum number of episodes for effective syndication marketing. The only thing that might have saved the show would have been a radical bump-up in ratings that didn't happen. Cancellation was a formality.
I can't find anything on this anywhere, but I did find articles both on Wiki and at Memory Alpha that they didn't go into season four on the idea that it would be the last.
It was announced on this very site on Febuary 3, 2004. Everybody, including us, knew before season four was even filmed that it would be the final year.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8 2012, 10:15 PM   #210
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

RandyS wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
It was understood before production on season four started that it was the show's last year - the network really didn't want it any more, but the studio made concessions in order to get a minimum number of episodes for effective syndication marketing. The only thing that might have saved the show would have been a radical bump-up in ratings that didn't happen. Cancellation was a formality.
I can't find anything on this anywhere, but I did find articles both on Wiki and at Memory Alpha that they didn't go into season four on the idea that it would be the last.
It was announced on this very site on Febuary 3, 2004. Everybody, including us, knew before season four was even filmed that it would be the final year.
I couldn't find anything anywhere to support that claim, but I did find several articles on several sites (including the ones I already mentioned) in which they were planning a fifth season. Here's one of them:
http://trekmovie.com/2009/08/10/vega...rek-2009-more/
From a 2009 Q&A featuring Braga and Coto:


...And specific highlights on what Season 5 could have brought
  • Coto wanted to revisit the Mirror Universe on a regular basis with four or five episodes spread through the season as a "mini-series within a series." Mike Sussman and Coto had discussed places to go with it and it was "big regret" not getting chance
  • The two main things they wanted to do with S5 was the "origins of the Federation" and the "begin whispers of the Romulan War", and tying those two together
  • No other major villains were planned to be introduced, the Romulans were going to be the big villain, but would have new ones within new ‘mini-arcs’
  • Rick and Brannon thought Future Guy was "probably going to be a Romulan" and would tie into the Romulan War with a future Romulan trying to "instigate" things
  • They wanted to make Shran a regular character on the bridge of the NX-01 as an "auxiliary or an advisor…get Jeffrey [Combs] Somehow.
Doesn't sound like they were going into season four as the last season.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans 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 09:08 PM.

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