My view on a new Trek series.

[Infern0]

anh165 wrote:

---

Basically TOS rebooted.

yeah almost.

TNG "era" or just after, same continuity but more of a TOS "feel"

[BillJ]

Infern0 wrote:

---

TNG was the most popular show...

I think that's debatable. It had more viewers in first run but struggled in strip syndication and at the theater in comparison to TOS.

And TOS is more broadly known among the general population.

[Infern0]

BillJ wrote:

---

I think that's debatable. It had more viewers in first run but struggled in strip syndication and at the theater in comparison to TOS.

And TOS is more broadly known among the general population.

well i don't want to get into the bones of it, but it pulled the sort of numbers a T.V show needs to stay on the air these days, and right now that is more important than syndication, because lets face it, unless any new Star Trek pulls TNG numbers out of the gate, it won't get more than a season to put into syndication.

[BillJ]

Infern0 wrote:

---

well i don't want to get into the bones of it, but it pulled the sort of numbers a T.V show needs to stay on the air these days, and right now that is more important than syndication, because lets face it, unless any new Star Trek pulls TNG numbers out of the gate, it won't get more than a season to put into syndication.

Honestly, I think it was simply impossible that TNG would fail. People had been watching the same TOS reruns over-and-over-and-over for seventeen years at that point (I was one of them) and there was only seventy-nine episodes and four movies. There was a pent-up demand for new Star Trek.

A new live-action series simply will have a much tougher road to travel than TNG did, competing with seven hundred plus hours of already made Trek.

Unless CBS is ready with an amazing concept (that can lure both Trek fans and a general audience), amazing writers and amazing actors and has a "money is no object" mentality, it's probably best to leave it on the big screen.

[C.E. Evans]

BillJ wrote:

---

Honestly, I think it was simply impossible that TNG would fail. People had been watching the same TOS reruns over-and-over-and-over for seventeen years at that point (I was one of them) and there was only seventy-nine episodes and four movies. There was a pent-up demand for new Star Trek.

At the time, there were indeed justifiable fears that TNG would flop because it wasn't the same Star Trek those people grew up/fell in love with since 1966. Would audiences accept Captain Jean-Luc Picard? A Star Trek series without Kirk, Spock, and Scotty? It really wasn't a sure thing back then.

A new live-action series simply will have a much tougher road to travel than TNG did, competing with seven hundred plus hours of already made Trek.

A new live-action Trek series could focus on telling new stories, with new characters and situations like TNG did. It needs to be no more a slave to previous things than TNG was to TOS. The real question is whether CBS wants a new Trek series to play it safe by simply remaking TOS or TNG, or take a chance with new characters.

Unless CBS is ready with an amazing concept (that can lure both Trek fans and a general audience), amazing writers and amazing actors and has a "money is no object" mentality, it's probably best to leave it on the big screen.

I actually do remember someone saying something almost exactly like that at a Trek convention about TNG even before the series was cast. He didn't think an all-new Star Trek TV series could ever work.

[BillJ]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

I actually do remember someone saying something almost exactly like that at a Trek convention about TNG even before the series was cast. He didn't think an all-new Star Trek TV series could ever work.

There's just a world of difference in where Trek was at in 1987 and where it's at in 2013.

It's not that it 'can't' work, it just has a tougher road to success than TNG. IMO.

[C.E. Evans]

BillJ wrote:

---

There's just a world of difference in where Trek was at in 1987 and where it's at in 2013.

Not really. Trek was essentially a movie franchise in 1986--it's essentially a movie franchise in 2013.

It's not that it 'can't' work, it just has a tougher road to success than TNG. IMO.

Not all all. TNG had a number of big hurdles to overcome to get on the air, including some reluctance by the "big three" networks (which forced it to go the first-run syndication route, which in itself wasn't easy because Paramount had to make all sorts of deals to get enough local TV stations to buy the show).

In hindsight, it all worked out, but there was a considerable degree of nail-biting about whether TNG would work. It was by no means guaranteed to be a hit from the get-go.

[RAMA]

Any new series may have Trek's background as a hindrance. I would gloss over Trek's continuity if it's in the old timeline and set the show in the 25th century. Familiarity but new, that is key...

I wouldn't quibble over a JJ Abrams timeline series though, I think right now that is the most likely series.

RAMA

[C.E. Evans]

RAMA wrote:

---

Any new series may have Trek's background as a hindrance. I would gloss over Trek's continuity if it's in the old timeline and set the show in the 25th century. Familiarity but new, that is key...

It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.

The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.

[RAMA]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

It worked for the TNG in the 24th-Century.

The real key with any continuity--regardless of its size--is not to get bogged down in the specific details, to use only a little bit of it briefly in passing in throwaway lines a small handful of times like TNG did. That's enough to give any fictional universe a sense that it wasn't just created overnight, IMO.

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700. ST09 correctly decided to make the movie familiar but not saddled with too much backstory. Now I may have agreed with you in the 80s or early 90s, but the history of the last 3 Trek shows has proven the audience does not want to follow too much information.

RAMA

[RAMA]

BillJ wrote:

---

There's just a world of difference in where Trek was at in 1987 and where it's at in 2013.

It's not that it 'can't' work, it just has a tougher road to success than TNG. IMO.

Other side of the coin: TV doesnt get high ratings anymore period. A show can be a success with 5 million viewers now. Even lower viewership numbers might support streaming content, the end result is the same...new ST show.

BillJ wrote:

---

I think that's debatable. It had more viewers in first run but struggled in strip syndication and at the theater in comparison to TOS.

And TOS is more broadly known among the general population.

STNG was a huge success in syndication and an even bigger one on various cable channels, selling for the 100s of millions of dollars each time (the original stripping rights were in the $100 million+ range), its no surprise the overall life in syndication was shorter though, TOS had little competition channel and genre-wise, which cannot be said for post STNG syndication and cable airings.

STNG also gets strong ratings for the cable channels it has aired on(I've posted links on this before) and originally sold for $300 million in it's first network outing. I was surprised to see it still airing on BBC America recently. On Netflix it is described as a "popular" series, located in that category. Both added to Paramount/CBS' coffers.

RAMA

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dix wrote:

---

No thanks. Trek doesn't need more dabblers who will make cosmetic changes and rehash the old material...

It "needs" producers like Abrams a great deal more than it "needs" fans who complain when it becomes successful by some means they disapprove of.

[Infern0]

Abrams did fine with the movie, but I don't think a new trek show "needs" him or "needs" to be like his movies, TNG was different to the TOS movies it was alongside.

Star Trek 11 is an action movie basically, any new series does not "need" to be like that, game of thrones is the most popular genre show right now and has a very healthy amount of story and character development, two things star trek 11 was short on and two things any new trek should aim to have

[Nerys Myk]

Dix wrote:

---

No thanks. Trek doesn't need more dabblers who will make cosmetic changes and rehash the old material...

You've just described everyone who's produced Star Trek from Roddenberry on TNG to Abrams. Yes, that does include the sainted DS9.

[C.E. Evans]

RAMA wrote:

---

No, STNG had 83 stories to draw from, there are now over 700.

Doesn't make a single bit of difference, because a future Trek series really doesn't need to refer to more than one or two things from the past, and only then in passing. Heck, TOS had to invent a history like the Eugenics Wars and the Romulan Wars. It'd be no different if a future character namedrops the Dominion War or the Borg Offensives in a conversation and leaves it at that.