Exploring a darker theme in a future star trek series

[Lynx]

RandyS wrote:

---

And if true, that right there is a reason to worry.

Agree!

But in that case, we don't have to worry about watching any Star Trek at all, if it turns out to something like NuBSG or Stargate Universe. Better to stick to the old DVD.s.

[The Overlord]

Lynx wrote:

---

Agree!

But in that case, we don't have to worry about watching any Star Trek at all, if it turns out to something like NuBSG or Stargate Universe. Better to stick to the old DVD.s.

But there is a compromise between creating a clone of TNG or creating a clone of NuBSG.

You can meld some darker themes into a show and still have an an optimistic view point win out in the end. Its always darkest before the dawn.

The fact is TV has changed since the 80s, so a new show would have be different from TNG. A new Star Trek show would need an ongoing story and stronger continuity to make it in today's TV landscape.

[BillJ]

The Overlord wrote:

---

The fact is TV has changed since the 80s, so a new show would have be different from TNG. A new Star Trek show would need an ongoing story and stronger continuity to make it in today's TV landscape.

Yet CBS, the number 1 network, has very few of these types of shows. Leaning more on episodic offerings.

[The Overlord]

BillJ wrote:

---

Yet CBS, the number 1 network, has very few of these types of shows. Leaning more on episodic offerings.

And most of those shows are considered to be inferior in quality compared to the stuff on cable, which does have ongoing stories.

Besides I think its likely a new star Trek show will end up on cable rather then network TV and shouldn't Star Trek try to be the same league as the good TV shows on cable rather then the mediocre stuff on network TV?

[FreddyE]

How about a Star Trek thats Buffy-style in terms of "darkness"? It would be lighter in the beginning, get darker as the series progresses, but always have commedy to relax the mood, and have a hopefull ending to most seasons.

[BillJ]

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.

[RandyS]

The Overlord wrote:

---

But there is a compromise between creating a clone of TNG or creating a clone of NuBSG.

You can meld some darker themes into a show and still have an an optimistic view point win out in the end. Its always darkest before the dawn.

They did THAT long before TNG existed.

It was called "Old BSG".

[The Overlord]

BillJ wrote:

---

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.

RandyS wrote:

---

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.

[Hartzilla2007]

The Overlord wrote:

---

But there is a compromise between creating a clone of TOS or creating a clone of NuBSG.

There fixed it for you

[Temis the Vorta]

The next series won't be a clone of TNG or even recognizably close, especially in two fundamental ways: episodic format and sanitized approach. But a clone of nuBSG would be tone deaf to what makes Star Trek unique. If the next series ends up on premium cable, it will be more nuBSGy than if it were on TNT or SyFy. But there is simply no place on TV now for the TNG approach. Do people think CBS is going to invent a new network just for Star Trek?

[Temis the Vorta]

BillJ wrote:

---

Yet CBS, the number 1 network, has very few of these types of shows. Leaning more on episodic offerings.

Sure, cop shows. CBS doesn't do sci if. Sci if and the episodic approach have parted ways because episodic shows are for broadcast and the more broadcasty cable networks like USA, no sci if there either, while sci if is for cable networks like AMC and TNT which veer towards serialization. There's still some episodicish sci fi on SyFy but God help us if Star Trek falls into their clutches. And would CBS really make a series for an NBC property anyway?

[RandyS]

The Overlord wrote:

---

Except you would have handle that differently now, TV has changed a lot since the late 70s.

Indeed it has. Only not for the better.

That's been the real problem all along.

[The Overlord]

RandyS wrote:

---

Indeed it has. Only not for the better.

That's been the real problem all along.

What are you talking about? many of people are saying this is the best era of television ever, at least in terms cable content.

The late 70s didn't quality programing like the Wire, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and many other shows found on cable. Television is vastly superior now to what it was in the late 70s.

[RandyS]

The Overlord wrote:

---

What are you talking about? many of people are saying this is the best era of television ever, at least in terms cable content.

The late 70s didn't quality programing like the Wire, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and many other shows found on cable. Television is vastly superior now to what it was in the late 70s.

I disagree. Everything is Daddy issues, and angst, angst, angst.

I'm sick of it.

[The Overlord]

RandyS wrote:

---

I disagree. Everything is Daddy issues, and angst, angst, angst.

I'm sick of it.

I think most viewers and TV critics disagree with your assessment. I would say, the Wire is better then TV shows in the 70s.