Idea for New Series

[DalekJim]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

It will not happen. Going back to something that people were not interested in makes no sense.

Haha, what? The general popcorn munchers won't give a damn either way. It's not like it was Nero's timeline interference which made them flock to see JJ Trek.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Haha, what? The general popcorn munchers won't give a damn either way. It's not like it was Nero's timeline interference which made them flock to see JJ Trek.

No, what made them flock to see the movie, besides the fact that it was fun, entertaining and emotionally engaging, was the promise of a "back to basics" Trek without the heavy baggage of byzantine continuity. Saying "the new approach worked but now we're going back to the old approach that didn't work" makes no sense at all. In fact, it's insane.

[DalekJim]

Just because something is set in the Prime universe doesn't mean it requires continuity to understand. Especially if the ship is seeking out new life, new civilisations and going where nobody has before.

I'd just like a science-fiction series set in the Star Trek universe instead of an action film set in another universe. My personal preference.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Just because something is set in the Prime universe doesn't mean it requires continuity to understand. Especially if the ship is seeking out new life, new civilisations and going where nobody has before.

If you're not using the Prime universe continuity then your story may as well take place in the current continuity, since it doesn't make much of a difference and prevents you from fighting an uphill battle.

I'd just like a science-fiction series set in the Star Trek universe instead of an action film set in another universe. My personal preference.

I understand and I respect that. I'm just saying that it will never, ever happen.

[DalekJim]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

If you're not using the Prime universe continuity then your story may as well take place in the current continuity, since it doesn't make much of a difference and prevents you from fighting an uphill battle.

Yeah, it could work I'd just prefer to know what I'm watching takes place in the proper Star Trek universe. A TV series set in the NuTrek timeline could work just as well if they just took the older, more science-fiction driven approach instead of the more hack-ish Orci and Kurtzman take on it. Which I know some people on here prefer and that's fine but I'm a science-fiction fan and want Trek to be ideas driven.

I understand and I respect that. I'm just saying that it will never, ever happen.

Well, I'm being an optimist. There are millions and millions of fans of old and young ages (I'm only in my early 20s!) that cherish the old continuity. It's possible that one day, some of these people will be put in charge of the franchise instead of people like JJ Abrams. A man who, I guarantee, would never have considered destroying Star Wars' continuity because he's a huge fan of that franchise.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Yeah, it could work I'd just prefer to know what I'm watching takes place in the proper Star Trek universe. A TV series set in the NuTrek timeline could work just as well if they just took the older, more science-fiction driven approach instead of the more hack-ish Orci and Kurtzman take on it. Which I know some people on here prefer and that's fine but I'm a science-fiction fan and want Trek to be ideas driven.

Ultimately, it's meaningless. Trek has always been a mix of different things, and that's what made it successful. If you want genuine idea-driven science fiction, read books, preferably not Star Trek books.

Well, I'm being an optimist. There are millions and millions of fans of old and young ages (I'm only in my early 20s!) that cherish the old continuity. It's possible that one day, some of these people will be put in charge of the franchise instead of people like JJ Abrams.

Very few people actually care about the old continuity all that much. Most Star Trek fans just enjoy Star Trek. I don't see "millions and millions of people" campaigning to get back to the Neelixverse. And no, in ten years, no person in their right mind would ever think about proposing something as absurd as "hey, remember the version of Star Trek that was slightly different than the one we have now and which ultimately failed so miserably that it had to be rebooted? Let's get back to that".

[DalekJim]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

If you want genuine idea-driven science fiction, read books, preferably not Star Trek books.

I do. Though I'm starting the DS9 Relaunch series at the moment.

And no, in ten years, no person in their right mind would ever think about proposing something as absurd as "hey, remember the version of Star Trek that was slightly different than the one we have now and which ultimately failed so miserably that it had to be rebooted? Let's get back to that".

That has nothing to do with continuity though. If somebody made a lens-flared, action-packed Pine Kirk blockbuster set in the Prime universe and made Insurrection II in the JJverse, which one would do better? The general public don't give a shit about continuity. Half of them probably didn't even notice it wasn't a proper prequel.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

That has nothing to do with continuity though. If somebody made a lens-flared, action-packed Pine Kirk blockbuster set in the Prime universe and made Insurrection II in the JJverse, which one would do better? The general public don't give a shit about continuity. Half of them probably didn't even notice it wasn't a proper prequel.

You're being deliberately obtuse. People liked the idea of a fresh approach without years and years of baggage. It's not a matter of which continuity they'd rather like, it's like wanting to buy a new bag instead of one which has been worn out by years of use, is covered with stickers and full of stuff you don't even remember putting there in the first place.

[Temis the Vorta]

I don't know that the "fresh approach" was the draw for the movie. That assumes that the audience was made up of people familiar enough with Star Trek that they'd know whether the approach was fresh or stale.

Abrams made a movie that was well crafted to take advantage of the expectations of the general global audience for summer tentpole action franchises. It focused on the franchise's most well-known names/images (Kirk, Spock, Enterprise) and was marketed as slam-bang exciting action that could be appreciated by people who'd never seen one minute of Star Trek before, just like Iron Man and The Avengers appealed to people who'd never read those comics (and had to, in order to be profitable movies).

None of this has much bearing on a TV series, which has entirely different constraints and exists in a different industry - smaller budget, the need to produce at least 13 episodes per year, not two hours every three years, and the need to appeal to the audience of whatever channel it ends up on.

The only connection between movies and TV is that the movies represent a huge PR boost for any TV series, and that's the overriding reason why a TV series might take place in the same continuity, or at the very least, give us no indication that it's not doing that. The odds against any TV series, particularly live action, are so severe that I don't think they can afford to snub anything that will help boost ratings and also boost the confidence of Les Moonves, who is no fan of Star Trek and seems content to keep making cookie cutter cop shows, sitcoms and reality TV.

[Bonko]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Abrams made a movie that was well crafted to take advantage of the expectations of the general global audience for summer tentpole action franchises. It focused on the franchise's most well-known names/images (Kirk, Spock, Enterprise) and was marketed as slam-bang exciting action that could be appreciated by people who'd never seen one minute of Star Trek before, just like Iron Man and The Avengers appealed to people who'd never read those comics (and had to, in order to be profitable movies).

Completely true. Movies are unfortunately like that. TV shows, however get boring if every episode is centered on that kind of thing. The TNG TV show was completely different from the TNG movies. The movies were all based off weapon fire and explosions, wheras the TV show had some weapons and explosions, but was also entertaning and had lots rewatchable content.

[AviTrek]

Bonko wrote:

---

Completely true. Movies are unfortunately like that. TV shows, however get boring if every episode is centered on that kind of thing. The TNG TV show was completely different from the TNG movies. The movies were all based off weapon fire and explosions, wheras the TV show had some weapons and explosions, but was also entertaning and had lots rewatchable content.

It's not that TV shows get boring if they're made similar to movies, it's that TV shows can't afford to be made similar to movies. The JJ movie had a budget of $150 million while an episode on TV cost somewhere between $1m and $3m depending on what site you look at. Even if you remove the advertising costs from the budget, the movie still costs at least 10 times as much as a TV show per minute of aired content.

[panthers34343]

Ok my pitch.

-A Trek TV show, not based in anyway on the JJ Abrams movies.

-Set in the TNG-DS9 timeline but in like a alternate universe with completley different characters. The look is very similar to TNG/DS9 but modernized.

-The ship can be called Enterprise and it can reference the well known species (Borg, Romulans) and tech but absolutley no referencing specific characters, so no "We got a hail from Admiral Janeway", references to Spock, cameos, etc. The show has to stand on its own two legs.

-Ideally it should be syndicated on free over-the-air tv, but because of the current tv landscape it would inevitably be on SyFy or something.

-I want the show to be like TNG in personality. Standalone episodes, can be both lighthearted and serious. Go back to the fundamental soul of Star Trek which is exploration of space and humanity.

[The Mirrorball Man]

^
More of the same then?

[Enterprise is Great]

Sounds like an epic failure.

[Cinema Geekly]

The bottom line is money. What will make me the most money?

Star Trek is the most profitable it has ever been. So my studio is going to produce a TV show based around Star Trek. Do I base that on the old model of Trek that ultimately failed due to a number of reasons or do I capitalize on the lucrative new universe that is raking in the cash?

At the end of the day that is who will greenlight the TV show and money is all they care about.

Either way I will be happy as any new Trek is better than no Trek for me. I love it all. It's nice to speculate but money is the bottom line and they don't see money in the "prime" timeline (which can't be restored BTW, since it hasn't been destroyed, it's still there the movie cameras just aren't filming their exploits anymore).

And I definitely think a fresh start was a HUGE selling point for people (namely, non Trek friendly people). They know "Kirk", "Spock", "Beam me up Scotty", and "KHAAAAAAAAAN" and they know the people who play those roles even if they aren't fans. They see the trailer for the new Trek movie and it screams "FRESH START". People hear the names but what they see arent the things they use to make fun of their Trekkie friends with.

I've lost count of people who got sucked into Trek through the JJ film because until that movie came out they wouldn't even give it a chance.