Think We'll Ever See A Trek Series Longer Than 7 seasons?

[Kegg]

Christopher wrote:

---

And these days original TV movies are pretty much extinct, except for cheap productions on some cable channels.

...and also not so cheap (i.e. actually pretty expensive) TV movies on cable channels. Like HBO's Recount and Game Change and what have you.

skilzkid wrote:

---

Dexter is about to start Season 7, and that is also starting to get repetitive minusthe huge endings to the even number seasons.

This is true. Dexter really felt like it had run itself into the ground by season six. And this show had seasons which are half the length of any given Trek show. Hence:

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

I think five seasons could be the new magic number for future Trek shows.

We're back to the never-quite-done 'five year mission'.

skilzkid wrote:

---

I think 13 episodes is too short for a season, especially one with 8 or so characters to develop like a Trek series.

I think it really depends on what kind of show we're talking about. Generally, the more dependent a TV series is on arcs, the more advantageous it is for that show to have a shorter season run.

But if the series still wants to do a lot of the kind of episodic stories Star Trek is best known for then there's a case for a longer season (though one could still do those in a thirteen episode run).

In the case of heavily serialized TV, expanding episode counts can be messy - look at BSG, which was never quite as tight as it was in its first season. There, the sideplots can feel like padding or whatever.

[R. Star]

13 episodes is more a mini-series than a season. Not to mention it would put the show at a rating disadvantage by airing repeats so early on in the process.

Really though, I'm just not sure there's enough interest in an age of hundreds of channels in a basic cable package for a new Trek series. Let's face it, we are a rather targeted audience and it's a lot easier for the people who might casually like it to flip the channel when they have a 100+ other choices at any given time they might like better.

[Christopher]

^It's actually been quite common for many, many years now to have 13-episode seasons on cable shows and in the UK, and it's certainly been known to happen with network shows too; for instance, both of Dollhouse's seasons were 13 episodes long, though that's because neither one got the back-nine pickup. All four seasons of Blake's 7 were 13 episodes long, and of course, so is every modern season of Doctor Who.

So yes, 13 episodes does count as a season, and has for a very long time.

[Temis the Vorta]

Zombie Redshirt wrote:

---

Really though, I'm just not sure there's enough interest in an age of hundreds of channels in a basic cable package for a new Trek series. Let's face it, we are a rather targeted audience and it's a lot easier for the people who might casually like it to flip the channel when they have a 100+ other choices at any given time they might like better.

You've got it backwards, the more options there are, the more important it is that any given option be something that really appeals directly to some audience. Lukewarm-appeal, "it's good enough" shows are the ones that will increasingly struggle in the future.

When there were just three channels, the choices at any given time might be a Western, a sitcom and a cop show. If you wanted something else, tough. You picked from those options whatever was the least bad approximation of what you really wanted.

The more options there are, the more you can get what you really want. Audiences are less and less inclined to compromise. The broadcast networks are continuing to see big ratings declines because they havent adjusted to start making more niche content. Financially, they might not be able to.

This is a great environment for Star Trek, a product with strong niche appeal - for those who like it, there's nothing lukewarm about it - that is well known even outside the niche, so that it can cut thru the clutter and be found even among countless options. The bad news is the budget problem, for which there may or may not be a solution, such as: distribute to a larger global audience; get more revenue from ancillary products; do an animated series.

[MacLeod]

Well aside from the specials year, the 2005- era has all been 14 episode seasons.

But the UK model isn't exactly the same as the US model when it comes to TV. Just because the 14 episode season works in the UK doesn't mean it'll work in the US.

Also in the case of DW, it's one of the most watched scripted drama shows in the UK. It's easier to justify the cost of producing the show if you are one of the best in your type of show (Drama), In the Top 10 for the channel if not for all channels. The DW Christmas special usually appears in the top 10 programmes of the entire year.

In ST's case by the end it was getting what 2-4m viewers in the US? As DW has already been mentioned, DW is getting about double that in a country with about a quarter of the population (UK)

[skilzkid]

One show that is showing that a new Trek might be feasible in the US (as Dr. Who does for the UK) and how to approach it is Falling Skies. Their seasons are 10 episodes each so far, which is a little short even for modern shows but points to the 10-15 show seasons being a modern sweet spot. Their ratings are good enough to get a third season, and while it isn't loaded with twisting-phasering-exploding spaceships, it still has a reasonable amount of effects for Sci Fi (it has been pointed out that investors might be scared since special effects cost $$$). Obviously, broadcast is out, but a station that can reair/marathon the episodes to get use out of them for continual ad money, plus enough of a possible viewer base would be an ideal target stations. I guess TBS/TNT are probably on standard cable for all huge providers and can get casual viewer, but don't know if SyFy is well carried or can get out of its image of being a niche broadcaster. I don't know how FS does on DVD/iTunes resell for residuals, or what longer term syndication plans there are, or if Spielberg backing is what is carrying it, but there should be something there that can be taken away for a new Trek.

[Kegg]

MacLeod wrote:

---

But the UK model isn't exactly the same as the US model when it comes to TV. Just because the 14 episode season works in the UK doesn't mean it'll work in the US.

I was talking about a US model of TV, actually, which is around 10-13 episodes. Like Falling Skies or Terra Nova or Walking Dead or Game of Thrones or American Horror Story... and that's me sticking to genre examples.

I haven't watched a single new American TV series with over thirteen episodes to a season in years, and I've watched a lot of American TV.

[Christopher]

^Exactly. Seasons of around 13 episode in length have been standard on cable for a couple of decades now, and many broadcast network seasons are that short as well, though usually only the underperforming ones. So I'm bewildered by this perception that it's somehow a novelty for American shows. It's already pretty standard.

[Temis the Vorta]

I have no idea whether this is relevant, but the chickens are finally coming home to roost with CBS's business-as-usual strategy (keep churning out a narrow range of mass market programming types and depend on volume to make up for an audience that skews too old.)

CBS is down 25%, worst drop of any network so far (though FOX is not far behind). Okay, CBS had more padding going into this year, but it is an indication that business as usual is not going to be a viable strategy forever, and then what?

Meanwhile, cable is posting big gains, specifically both Sons of Anarchy and The Walking Dead. Put the broadcast and cable news together and you have a strong indication of where viewer tastes are headed.

[skilzkid]

...and it looks like cable can go round for round with broadcasters. This from CNN about the Walking Dead:

"Sunday night's third season premiere of "The Walking Dead" delivered a huge 10.9 million viewers for its first telecast. But what's really impressive is the show's adults 18-49 demo rating of a 5.8.
That's stunning.
The closest broadcast entertainment programs has gotten this fall to that number is ABC's "Modern Family" season premiere that pulled a 5.5 (all these are apples-to-apples next-day ratings, not including DVR). Football has delivered bigger numbers, but that's sports and we're talking entertainment programming. And AMC accomplished this rating with an extra disadvantage — not having a major distributor, Dish Network, on board due to its carriage contract dispute (imagine how many more viewers the episode might have had with Dish on board). You know, aside from AMC's other major disadvantage being a pay cable network that's only available to a fraction of U.S. households compared to the Big Four broadcasters."

[Temis the Vorta]

And Game of Thrones is a big hit too.

All the signs are there. CBS needs to do a kick-ass, intense, violent (but intelligent and character focused) Star Trek series and put it on Showtime. It would astonish everyone how well it does and inspire a tsunami of imitators, most of which would flop or suck or both but at that point who cares.

However, it would be very different in style from the Star Trek that's been on TV to date and different from Abrams' movies too. It could keep the "core" of the franchise, the notion that the Federation is a paradise and all the tough and dramatic stuff happens on the frontier, to Starfleet, and still be as gripping as any of those cable shows mentioned. But one way or the other, fans will have to adjust their expectations to whatever comes next.

It could work. All that's required is guts and vision. Hah!

[Tiberius]

Christopher wrote:

---

It doesn't seem likely. There are practical reasons why the shows were ended after seven years. Actors and other staffers get raises every year they stay with the show, so unless a show rotates its cast pretty often, it will eventually get prohibitively expensive to keep making it. (Smallville ran for 10 years, but largely because it only had one of its original cast members left as a regular by its final season.) And just about any show's ratings will fall over time, so generally they have to cut the budget more and more with each successive season in order to survive.

So the formula for an extended lifespan for a Trek series would entail 1) getting rid of a lot of the actors and replacing them with new, cheaper ones and 2) slashing the budget and reducing the amount of special effects, location work, action, elaborate sets, guest stars, etc. they can afford to fit into each episode. The question is, would that be desirable? I'd say no. Better to wrap up the show while it's still affordable to make it impressive.

I wouldn't mind that, actually...

Periodically replace the actors as the show continues. Face it, people get transferred, new crew members come on board. it would be highly realistic to see that Captain Johnson gets promoted to admiral, Commander Jones gets promoted to Captain, new first officer comes on, and you can still have the now Admiral Johnson appear every now and then as a guest.

Hell, even Next Gen came close to doing in the Best of Both Worlds.

[Christopher]

^That part could be workable; other shows have done it. It's the inevitable slashing of the budget that would be less desirable.

[Knight Templar]

Ti-BOO!-rius wrote:

---

I wouldn't mind that, actually...

Periodically replace the actors as the show continues. Face it, people get transferred, new crew members come on board. it would be highly realistic to see that Captain Johnson gets promoted to admiral, Commander Jones gets promoted to Captain, new first officer comes on, and you can still have the now Admiral Johnson appear every now and then as a guest.

Hell, even Next Gen came close to doing in the Best of Both Worlds.

I've suggested and advocated that before and more than a few have said that it "wouldn't be Star Trek"

[Tiberius]

I can just imagine Captain Riker, his first officer Commander Shelby and the rest of the USS Enterprise crew. It would certainly be trek to me...