If star trek 2 is successful could CBS make more star trek attractions

[tmosler]

Hi I just have a quick question. I was wondering if anyone thinks that maybe if star trek 2 is succsessful does anyone think that CBS could reopen star trek the expierence and make more star trek tv shows, and make more star trek video games?

[C.E. Evans]

A Star Trek video game based off the Abramsverse (set between Star Trek XI and Star Trek XII) is slated for next year on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The Gorn will be the main bad guys.

A new TV series is also possible, but that's something that you'll have to take a wait-and-see approach to. There's just no way to say for certain until The Powers That Be at CBS decide that the time is right for one.

As far as reopening Star Trek: The Experience. Eh...it might not be the same as it was before (a new version could be scaled down or totally different from the original in layout), but anything's possible since CBS did say reopening it was possible sometime in the future, IIRC.

[Gojira]

I don't expect to see Star Trek on the small screen until after a 3rd New Trek movie. If it comes to the small screen at all.

[Nerys Myk]

All the success of Star Trek 2 can guarantee is there will be a Star Trek 3.

[Temis the Vorta]

Any TV series that's going to be made depends on the next movie to be a success. Once might be a fluke, but twice means Star Trek is bankable now.

Then Robert Orci can pitch CBS on a series. Based on what he's said publicly, that seems to be the overall plan. That would segue nicely with the third movie and TV premiere hitting the same year w/n months of each other.

Video games will be viable in any case.

[mswood]

Yeah, I don't think the powers that be will be in any hurry to double dip again after the clear change in Trek's theatrical business when TNG was airing.

Why watch for payment when you can watch for free, and while not everyone feels that way certainly, there is absolute evidence in the immediate impact TNG had on the theatrical side of Trek when it started.

Of course now there is the fact that CBS runs the tv side and another business runs the movie side, so it is possible that CBS production might eventually insist on some form of televised Trek.

But realistically with the tv business model under going such dramatic changes, its harder and harder and harder for a production to be a viable success, and like it or not having a Star Trek series is expensive, far more then the typical hour long drama.

[Dream]

mswood wrote:

---

Yeah, I don't think the powers that be will be in any hurry to double dip again after the clear change in Trek's theatrical business when TNG was airing.

Why watch for payment when you can watch for free, and while not everyone feels that way certainly, there is absolute evidence in the immediate impact TNG had on the theatrical side of Trek when it started.

Overexposure certainly hurt Trek near the end. I really had hoped they would wait until TNG was over before starting DS9, but Paramount got greedy! Two Trek show on at the same time never felt right to me.

But realistically with the tv business model under going such dramatic changes, its harder and harder and harder for a production to be a viable success, and like it or not having a Star Trek series is expensive, far more then the typical hour long drama.

TNG was extremely lucky when it first aired first-run syndication, no interference from networks on the writing, and it usually aired alongside high rated broadcast show. Best of Both Worlds!

That would never work today because first-run syndication shows are dead right now along with space opera shows.

[Mage]

Even with the succes of the second movie, a tv-show is doubtfull. Keep in mind, tv-shows are not doing all that well these days. Most shows get cancelled pretty quickly. Mostly because people don't like to invest a lot of time in getting to know characters, follow long story-line and keeping focused. That's why movies work. It take 2/2,5 hours, and you're done. That's what people like these days, things that require less effort. Sad, but true.

[Temis the Vorta]

There's no way to tell if overexposure hurt Trek considering that for many years, it stunk and that could explain the dive in ratings/box office. If VOY, ENT and the last couple TNG movies had all been great or even good, and they were unpopular regardless, then yeah I might blame overexposure.

My hunch is that a really great Star Trek series would get strong ratings regardless of whether the franchise is overexposed, especially if it appeals to a whole new audience, which it really needs to, since there's no Star Trek TV channel.

Wherever it ends up, that channel will have an audience who the show must appeal to, and nobody should assume that audience overlaps to any great extent with the existing fans, just as JJ Abrams didn't assume his movie could be a success appealing only to fans.

So if Star Trek has to cultivate a new audience in order to survive, either in movies or TV how is overexposure even an issue? Most of those people have little or no exposure to Star Trek. It's not overexposure that hurt the franchise but failure to adapt with the times and also not to suck.

Mage wrote:

---

Keep in mind, tv-shows are not doing all that well these days. Most shows get cancelled pretty quickly. Mostly because people don't like to invest a lot of time in getting to know characters, follow long story-line and keeping focused. That's why movies work. It take 2/2,5 hours, and you're done. That's what people like these days, things that require less effort. Sad, but true.

TV shows have always had a high cancellation rate. Overall, TV viewership has not dropped, it's just being spread thin among more outlets than ever.

What's been happening lately is that TV is splitting into two camps. The episodic format that you describe belongs to broadcast, which is hostile territory to sci fi anyway, especially sci fi that isnt a cop show in disguise.

The other camp is the cable camp, where long serialized formats are highly popular, especially in drama. Space opera isn't in evidence but horror and fantasy based genres are very healthy. Look at the huge ratings for The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Audiences have no difficulty following complex, character-centric storylines on cable.

Star Trek can't survive on broadcast so it'll have to go on cable, or a streaming only service like Netflix, where the rules for original content are more similar to cable than broadcast. When Star Trek comes back to TV, it will have many of the characteristics expected of a cable drama - serialized, grownup, complex, violent.

I still think they'll draw the line at soft core porn, if only for old times' sake. But it will probably be noticeably sexier as well, hopefully grownup sexuality and not the sniggering juvenalia that we've been subject to far too often.

[BillJ]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Star Trek can't survive on broadcast...

Proof?

I see things like Grimm and Once Upon a Time... surviving on broadcast. What makes them different from Star Trek?

A new Trek will likely be the most expensive TV show ever produced when it premieres. CBS isn't likely to shunt it off to a cable or streaming service, they'll see it like Paramount does... a tentpole franchise.

I think one thing that points towards a new series is that CBS has two of their strongest drama performers, CSI and NCIS getting long in the tooth. CBS will need something to continue to draw viewers.

[BillJ]

What the deal indicates is that CBS, like other members of big media, sees Netflix distribution as a serious competitor to the still-lucrative syndication market. Some of the shows that Netflix will be streaming, such as Cheers, have been in syndication for decades; their value to the secondary TV market doesn’t compare to a more current show like NCIS: LA, which USA picked up last year for $2.5 million an episode.

http://gigaom.com/video/cbs-netflix/

[Xaios]

My biggest fears are this regarding a new Star Trek series are these:

1) It sucks (because it could happen).
2) It's good or even great, but the Firefly effect torpedoes ratings before the show has a chance to gain some traction.
3) They go all "Stargate Universe" on it, making it "darker and edgier" to the point of parody. (God, I hate that series.)

[Temis the Vorta]

BillJ wrote:

---

Proof?

I see things like Grimm and Once Upon a Time... surviving on broadcast. What makes them different from Star Trek?

A new Trek will likely be the most expensive TV show ever produced when it premieres. CBS isn't likely to shunt it off to a cable or streaming service, they'll see it like Paramount does... a tentpole franchise.

I think one thing that points towards a new series is that CBS has two of their strongest drama performers, CSI and NCIS getting long in the tooth. CBS will need something to continue to draw viewers.

Grimm and OUaT are both based in modern-day America, which is more relatable for the audience. Grimm in particular started out as a procedural in order to build what audience it has.

Also, they are fantasy rather than sci fi, which seems to have more drawing power, especially on broadcast. My theory is that females would rather watch fantasy, and there are more females in the broadcast audience nowadays for drama.

And neither show is doing great in ratings. Grimm survives because NBC is beyond pathetic, especially on Fridays, which everyone has given up on, and this may very well be the last season for OUaT. Those two are both on thin ice. Knock down a few of their advantages in grabbing an audience, ratchet up the budget a bit, and you end up with something that's no longer viable for broadcast.

CBS's audience is completely wrong for sci fi. Star Trek is in no way interchangeable with NCIS. People who want to watch a modern day cop show arent going to be equally happy to watch green people on Alpha Centauri.

CBS doesn't do either sci fi or fantasy anymore, the only network that has entirely thrown in the towel for genre shows. They have good reason, every genre show they tried got poor ratings (doesn't help that CBS has the highest standars of any network). Jericho, which was only minimally sci fi, was the last straw for them.

The fact that Star Trek would be expensive is a reason why CBS wouldnt do it. Why do an expensive space opera when you can do another cop show and get a bigger audience?

The only outlets that would do an expensive show are those for whom its the cost of doing business. HBO with Game of Thrones for instance. They cold have done that on the cheap, but it would be counterproductive since their audience expects more, and will reward it with higher ratings. This equation works much better with a subscription service, where each viewer is far more valuable than the ad-based business model of broadcast.

But the problem with premium cable is that they probably see Star Trek as beneath them, tainted by association with free TV and summer popcorn movie-ness. HBO and Showtime are selling snob value. So that's why I keep mentionng Netflix. They're subscription based, but they aren't selling snob appeal.

[Temis the Vorta]

BillJ wrote:

---

http://gigaom.com/video/cbs-netflix/

This will help build up Netflix as the place to go for Star Trek. So why wouldnt CBS see Netflix as the ideal channel for a new Star Trek series? The audience is being coralled in one place, as though CBS has got some kind of long term plan.

Or maybe that's the cart before the horse. CBS is being opportunistic but once the Star Trek audience has been attracted to Netflix, then it becomes the logical place for a new series. It makes some sense, whereas CBS, the CW and Showtime all have serious drawbacks as the place for a new series.

[BillJ]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

The fact that Star Trek would be expensive is a reason why CBS wouldnt do it. Why do an expensive space opera when you can do another cop show and get a bigger audience?

You seem to totally discount CBS wanting to try and do something outside their comfort zone. The $2.5 million dollars per episode for the episodic NCIS in syndication may have CBS taking a hard look at what other properties, if done right, might have legs not only in first run but also in syndication. And it would take too long and require too much editing for an off-network Trek to hit big in the syndication market.

You can't hit a home run if you don't swing the bat.