RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,936
Posts: 5,478,975
Members: 25,057
Currently online: 480
Newest member: JeremiahJT

TrekToday headlines

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 5 2013, 11:51 PM   #16
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
I doubt that. ENT's budget was generally on par with network shows with big names commanding high salaries, but it was pulling in fewer viewers.
That's just a case of cable networks evolving from their original small origins to something that can compete with the broadcast networks. They're all trying to get as many viewers as they can.

But to be fair, BBC America is based in New York and is really just an American network that carries BBC programming that tends to do well among most Americans.
Not true at all, SOME stars on network shows were making as much per episode as a single episode of Enterprise cost!! Others came very very close to it.

Edit: Just looked this up for modern TV, in this age of low ratings and dispersed viewership, the top stars are making about half the budget of Enterprise per episode:

http://www.tvguide.com/News/TVs-High...s-1051754.aspx
Um, those are 2012 numbers, not the numbers from ten years ago when ENT was on. An episode of ENT back then cost (on average) around 2 million dollars each, the same price as many shows back then with bigger name stars. Sure, there are a few shows that cost more than ENT, but usually those shows were delivering very high ratings to justify their cost.
Yes, I stated that...TODAY they make LESS because of the lower demand for network TV. More actors made $500,000+(Some $850,000-1 million+) in the last few decades than they make now. Even so, there are some who make about half of what ENT cost per episode. In fact the 4th season of ENT actually avged a budget of about $850,000 per episode, slightly more than Ashton Kutcher makes per ep.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2013, 11:59 PM   #17
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote:
RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
I doubt that. ENT's budget was generally on par with network shows with big names commanding high salaries, but it was pulling in fewer viewers.
That's just a case of cable networks evolving from their original small origins to something that can compete with the broadcast networks. They're all trying to get as many viewers as they can.

But to be fair, BBC America is based in New York and is really just an American network that carries BBC programming that tends to do well among most Americans.
Not true at all, SOME stars on network shows were making as much per episode as a single episode of Enterprise cost!! Others came very very close to it.

Edit: Just looked this up for modern TV, in this age of low ratings and dispersed viewership, the top stars are making about half the budget of Enterprise per episode:

http://www.tvguide.com/News/TVs-High...s-1051754.aspx
Um, those are 2012 numbers, not the numbers from ten years ago when ENT was on. An episode of ENT back then cost (on average) around 2 million dollars each, the same price as many shows back then with bigger name stars. Sure, there are a few shows that cost more than ENT, but usually those shows were delivering very high ratings to justify their cost.
Yes, I stated that...TODAY they make LESS because of the lower demand for network TV. More actors made $500,000+(Some $850,000-1 million+) in the last few decades than they make now. Even so, there are some who make about half of what ENT cost per episode. In fact the 4th season of ENT actually avged a budget of about $850,000 per episode, slightly more than Ashton Kutcher makes per ep.
In other words, ENT was on par with network shows that had bigger name stars.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 01:19 AM   #18
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

RAMA wrote: View Post
Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.
Actually if a show has "big names," then a higher percentage of its budget will go to cast salaries and that means less of it will go into production values. So maybe that's not the best comparison to make.

TNG was definitely a big-budget series compared to its contemporaries. Its cast wasn't very well-known at the beginning; British audiences were very familiar with Patrick Stewart, but to American audiences the most famous cast member was LeVar Burton. But because the Trek movies were performing so well at the box office and bringing Paramount so much profit, combined with the ongoing success of TOS reruns in syndication and home video, the studio saw ST as its most profitable property and thus was willing to invest top dollar in the new series, wanting it to be as prestigious as possible.

The first Abrams movie did quite well at the box office. If the next two perform similarly, that might create the same incentive for Paramount and CBS to invest in a big-budget Trek TV series.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 05:58 AM   #19
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.
Yeah...it has more bearing on the actual possibilities for the "future of Trek" on television than anything that's been posted in this forum since Enterprise was canceled. So I guess we'll go ahead and discuss it.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 05:18 PM   #20
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote:

Um, those are 2012 numbers, not the numbers from ten years ago when ENT was on. An episode of ENT back then cost (on average) around 2 million dollars each, the same price as many shows back then with bigger name stars. Sure, there are a few shows that cost more than ENT, but usually those shows were delivering very high ratings to justify their cost.
Yes, I stated that...TODAY they make LESS because of the lower demand for network TV. More actors made $500,000+(Some $850,000-1 million+) in the last few decades than they make now. Even so, there are some who make about half of what ENT cost per episode. In fact the 4th season of ENT actually avged a budget of about $850,000 per episode, slightly more than Ashton Kutcher makes per ep.
In other words, ENT was on par with network shows that had bigger name stars.
Let me summarize:

Shows in ENT's time with big name stars had much larger budgets because they paid so much to the big name stars. Consequently they still had to pay for the rest of the show on top of those salaries, god forbid there was more than one actor making more than 500,000. An example might be Friends, where the 6 cast members EACH made $1 million per HALF HOUR episode for the final season (omg, that's 6 million per ep before you pay for anything else!). Charlie Sheen recently was making $2 million per episode. Several actors still make $500,000 an episode DESPITE the decreased ratings...today a 10 is good. STNG avged a 12-13 in it's final seasons by comparison.

Yes, the shows had bigger ratings and so on than Enterprise but ST probably had better syndication deals (better ad revenue) and ENT probably made more in it's UPN network deal as well. Still, it has to be known shows like ENT cost more, but to produce, not to pay out to big names, so the money actually goes INTO the production of the show...more bang for the buck.

Today, with lower ratings but some actors still making large salaries, I think you can make a case for a sci fi show like ST, on a niche network or syndication-type deal or even streaming outlet doing well enough to warrant a good budget....knowing you don't need to score a 20 rating to be popular. A streaming series might get away with a budget of $1 million, and with 12 episodes, would cost less than the 25 episode seasons of past Trek. H+ the excellent, ward winning webseries by Bryan Singer cost $2 million to produce for 255 min, featuring FX, international locations, etc. Drone, another praised webseries cost a fraction of that and looks better than almost any studio produced network series.

A model:

http://scifipulse.net/2013/01/indien...eries-of-2012/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qOb_S_Q_iI

http://singularityhub.com/2012/09/02...noid-soldiers/

Christopher wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.
Actually if a show has "big names," then a higher percentage of its budget will go to cast salaries and that means less of it will go into production values. So maybe that's not the best comparison to make.

TNG was definitely a big-budget series compared to its contemporaries. Its cast wasn't very well-known at the beginning; British audiences were very familiar with Patrick Stewart, but to American audiences the most famous cast member was LeVar Burton. But because the Trek movies were performing so well at the box office and bringing Paramount so much profit, combined with the ongoing success of TOS reruns in syndication and home video, the studio saw ST as its most profitable property and thus was willing to invest top dollar in the new series, wanting it to be as prestigious as possible.

The first Abrams movie did quite well at the box office. If the next two perform similarly, that might create the same incentive for Paramount and CBS to invest in a big-budget Trek TV series.
I think you misunderstood me, see the post above. Hopefully I was clearer.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 05:37 PM   #21
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

^The issue isn't clarity, it's your choice of example. I don't think Enterprise is a good comparison here, because it came on the tail end of the last era of Trek on TV and film, when the franchise's performance was in decline. I chose TNG as my comparison because it's a closer analogy to the hypothetical situation we're talking about here -- the first new Trek series on TV in a number of years, following the strong success of a series of Trek motion pictures. (Because it stands to reason that our odds of getting a new Trek TV series are better if the next couple of Abrams movies perform comparably to the '09 film.)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 06:49 PM   #22
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

I don't agree and here's why: Babylon five and BSG both did direct to dvd movies that were aired on network tv every so often. If the next movie flops which I hope it does and so should everybody because then CBS might follow that pattern of putting out small tv movies out every so often on netflix or somewhere where the quality of the stories matter more than the wiz bang special effects explosions, unless you prefer that over quality story telling. Testing the waters in that way would more assuredly and effectively lead to the success of another series than totally bankrolling a singular vision of a singular team of idiots like Bad Robot and putting all your eggs in one vapid basket.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 06:59 PM   #23
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

xortex wrote: View Post
I don't agree and here's why: Babylon five and BSG both did direct to dvd movies that were aired on network tv every so often. If the next movie flops which I hope it does and so should everybody because then CBS might follow that pattern of putting out small tv movies out every so often on netflix or somewhere where the quality of the stories matter more than the wiz bang special effects explosions, unless you prefer that over quality story telling. Testing the waters in that way would more assuredly and effectively lead to the success of another series than totally bankrolling a singular vision of a singular team of idiots like Bad Robot and putting all your eggs in one vapid basket.
So far the evidence suggests ST09 was a boon for ST and it's associated merchandise. Its possible that STNG-R may not have had the final green light without the success of ST09. As of right now, the leading candidate for a new ST series is JJ Abrams and co, and Lindelof stated they were interested in producing one IF the next movie is a success. To which I say: I'm already awaiting the announcement.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 07:03 PM   #24
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

So you're interested in Trek merchandizing more than great stories?
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 07:14 PM   #25
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

xortex wrote: View Post
So you're interested in Trek merchandizing more than great stories?
I'm including getting STNG-R into stores...a huge undertaking and incredibly worthwhile. This has led to ENT getting the 1080p treatment, and likely other shows. Even if ST09 accomplished only that it would be a success.

ST09 is a great story, its the only ST movie to be nominated for a Writer's Guild Award, Nebula(Bradbury Award), Saturn, Hugo. It wouldn't have been nominated for its writing if it wasn't any good.

JJAbrams and CO have produced and written some excellent series on TV in the genre (Fringe, Lost, Person of Interest), so the track record is very good. Nothing would lead me to believe their ST TV show would be otherwise.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 07:19 PM   #26
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

Their writing is great, it's their ideas that suck. The high mind concept is still king. It's what differentiates Beethoven and Mozart from Salieri or do you listen to rap music?
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 08:32 PM   #27
yousirname
Commander
 
yousirname's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

xortex wrote: View Post
Their writing is great, it's their ideas that suck. The high mind concept is still king. It's what differentiates Beethoven and Mozart from Salieri or do you listen to rap music?
Lol.

"'High mind concept', Admiral?"
"Yes. You'll see it in all the dramatists of the time - Roddenberry, Hurley, Piller..."
"Ah. The giants."
yousirname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 08:56 PM   #28
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

RAMA wrote: View Post
As of right now, the leading candidate for a new ST series is JJ Abrams and co, and Lindelof stated they were interested in producing one IF the next movie is a success. To which I say: I'm already awaiting the announcement.
Either them or Kurtzman & Orci, who now have their own independent production company. There's been speculation that K&O could produce a Trek animated series, much as they've done with Transformers Prime.

Still, of all the producers who've thrown their hat into the ring as potential makers of a new Trek series, the ones I'd choose are Bryan Fuller & Bryan Singer. I bet they could come up with something really interesting.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 11:13 PM   #29
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

RAMA wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post


Yes, I stated that...TODAY they make LESS because of the lower demand for network TV. More actors made $500,000+(Some $850,000-1 million+) in the last few decades than they make now. Even so, there are some who make about half of what ENT cost per episode. In fact the 4th season of ENT actually avged a budget of about $850,000 per episode, slightly more than Ashton Kutcher makes per ep.
In other words, ENT was on par with network shows that had bigger name stars.
Let me summarize:

Shows in ENT's time with big name stars had much larger budgets because they paid so much to the big name stars. Consequently they still had to pay for the rest of the show on top of those salaries, god forbid there was more than one actor making more than 500,000. An example might be Friends, where the 6 cast members EACH made $1 million per HALF HOUR episode for the final season (omg, that's 6 million per ep before you pay for anything else!). Charlie Sheen recently was making $2 million per episode. Several actors still make $500,000 an episode DESPITE the decreased ratings...today a 10 is good. STNG avged a 12-13 in it's final seasons by comparison.

Yes, the shows had bigger ratings and so on than Enterprise but ST probably had better syndication deals (better ad revenue) and ENT probably made more in it's UPN network deal as well. Still, it has to be known shows like ENT cost more, but to produce, not to pay out to big names, so the money actually goes INTO the production of the show...more bang for the buck.

Today, with lower ratings but some actors still making large salaries, I think you can make a case for a sci fi show like ST, on a niche network or syndication-type deal or even streaming outlet doing well enough to warrant a good budget....knowing you don't need to score a 20 rating to be popular. A streaming series might get away with a budget of $1 million, and with 12 episodes, would cost less than the 25 episode seasons of past Trek. H+ the excellent, ward winning webseries by Bryan Singer cost $2 million to produce for 255 min, featuring FX, international locations, etc. Drone, another praised webseries cost a fraction of that and looks better than almost any studio produced network series.

A model:

http://scifipulse.net/2013/01/indien...eries-of-2012/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qOb_S_Q_iI

http://singularityhub.com/2012/09/02...noid-soldiers/

Doesn't really change anything.

Christopher wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
As of right now, the leading candidate for a new ST series is JJ Abrams and co, and Lindelof stated they were interested in producing one IF the next movie is a success. To which I say: I'm already awaiting the announcement.
Either them or Kurtzman & Orci, who now have their own independent production company. There's been speculation that K&O could produce a Trek animated series, much as they've done with Transformers Prime.
I really wouldn't be surprised if that's the route that's taken.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 01:07 AM   #30
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production

xortex wrote: View Post
I don't agree and here's why: Babylon five and BSG both did direct to dvd movies that were aired on network tv every so often. If the next movie flops which I hope it does and so should everybody because then CBS might follow that pattern of putting out small tv movies out every so often on netflix or somewhere where the quality of the stories matter more than the wiz bang special effects explosions, unless you prefer that over quality story telling. Testing the waters in that way would more assuredly and effectively lead to the success of another series than totally bankrolling a singular vision of a singular team of idiots like Bad Robot and putting all your eggs in one vapid basket.
If the next movie flops, neither Paramount nor CBS will bother to do anything with Star Trek on TV, Netflix etc. But since the next movie will not flop, this is a moot point.

The fact that Star Trek is in the good graces of the Viacom brass as a money-maker is the only reason for hope for a Star Trek series at all.

xortex wrote: View Post
So you're interested in Trek merchandizing more than great stories?
The people with the power to greenlight a series are. Do you really think they give a flip about "great stories"? They just want someone to convince them that a Star Trek TV series will make them a lot of money.

Realistically, the best argument is not money. Some cookie cutter cop show will deliver a better return on investment. The argument for Star Trek is that it's a great way for CBS to test out the waters of the future of TV, namely niche programming on subscription based streaming services.

It's an investment in the future, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pay off right now. CBS is in a healthy financial position and can afford to experiment. And now is the time for experiments like this.

Otherwise, the TV business will be in the same boat as the music business was, with their business model suddenly destroyed while they stand around with their mouths open wondering what truck just ran over them. The lesson there should be obvious: if you are a content producer and technology is changing how people consume your content, you better be the one driving the truck.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.