RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,205
Posts: 5,437,164
Members: 24,951
Currently online: 660
Newest member: Zaminhon

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 April 12 2014, 05:00 AM   #61
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Should the next Star Trek series have a major war?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I think you can have a well-written series in a serialized format just as you can have a well-written series in an episodic format. For me the format is secondary. I just want well-written imaginative stories.
I've never been a fan of serialized TV. Too little payoff for too much investment of time.
For me it could go either way, but the advantage to doing episodic tales would be a greater variety of stories.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2014, 08:28 PM   #62
Timelord Victorious
TARDIS Janitor
 
Timelord Victorious's Avatar
 
Location: Germany, Earth, the Solar System
Re: Should the next Star Trek series have a major war?

I think Doctor Who could be a great role model for a new Trek show.
Have episodic stories with just enough serialization sprinkled in to spark the audiences interest and then have a big climax at the end of the season (please no major cliff hangers, though).

Maybe even similar episode numbers, so they can keep the quality up, throw in a two parter or two and you are good to go.

if a major conflict/war is the central theme, so be it, but not at the forefront and not series spanning.
Timelord Victorious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2014, 08:38 PM   #63
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: Αu Contraire!

BillJ wrote: View Post
It continues on in the novels by Pocket books.
Except it doesn't. The novel continuity has veered away from anything that was on the air or in the prime universe movies. If you're a fan of that Star Trek and want to read about those crews and their adventures, you don't want to read the current novels.

The crews have been broken up and redistribute to other ships and the there are brand new ships and many brand new characters that no one (other than current novel readers) have ever heard of.

Most fans would have a better read with novels written over a dozen years ago prior to the ill-conceived "relaunch" philosophy.

Elvira is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2014, 12:07 AM   #64
iPadCary
Ensign
 
Location: New York City
Αu Contraire!

Dennis wrote: View Post
The money that a few promoters make with conventions is a pittance compared to what the studio is making from nuTrek.
Oh, really?
I'm no movie mogul, but it's my understanding that the first movie was such a dog,
that the studio didn't know what to do with it.
That's why they kept moving the release date around so much.
This is NEVER done with a movie a studio absolutely knows is a rock-solid, guaranteed hit.
And ST: ID didn't do anywhere near the business they were hoping for.
I saw both, only because I thought it'd be unfair to
criticize them both without having actually seen them.
They both stink on ice.

Dennis wrote: View Post
They know what returns they were seeing from oldTrek in its final decade ....
Again, I'm no TV executive, but it's my understanding ENT was not cancelled because of low ratings,
but it was cancelled because of the wrong kind of ratings.

At that time, UPN was going for the "Twilight" (I guess what would now be called the "Hunger Games") crowd.
But despite ENT's having a weird emo vibe about it --
like the opening tease cutting to black instead of fading,
that horrible theme (with lyrics!!), etc., etc. --
it just wasn't catching on with that audience demographic.

So UPN tossed ENT out of the nearest airlock despite fan protestations
who were looking for any kind of Trek on TV.

Besides, as any true Trek fan knows, ENT isn't really a Trek show.
It didn't even have the bloody name "Star Trek" in it in the beginning!!

But you said "... in [Trek's] final decade ...."
ENT was only on for 4 years.
So are you including almost the entirety of VOY in that assessment?
I thought VOY was rather popular with the fans.
Personally, it's my #2 after TOS.

No: I absolutely believe a Prime Universe-based Trek TV show,
with Rick Berman at the helm and picking up right where "Nemesis" leaves off,
would do gangbuster business as far as ratings is concerned.
Look, Berman did TNG/DS9/VOY, so he knows what he's doing.
I'm sure he did ENT, for the aforementioned reasons, under duress,
as it's just so at odds with the rest of his previous Trek efforts.

We, the fans, are absolutely starving for such a show.

Last edited by iPadCary; April 19 2014 at 12:21 AM.
iPadCary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2014, 03:32 AM   #65
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Αu Contraire!

iPadCary wrote: View Post
I absolutely believe a Prime Universe-based Trek TV show, with Rick Berman at the helm and picking up right where "Nemesis" leaves off, would do gangbuster business as far as ratings is concerned.
Look, Berman did TNG/DS9/VOY, so he knows what he's doing.
You do realize that ratings started to slide with DS9 and that Enterprise was drawing less than two million viewers a week when cancelled?


We, the fans, are absolutely starving for such a show.
I'm sure not.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2014, 04:51 AM   #66
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Αu Contraire!

iPadCary wrote: View Post
I'm no movie mogul, but it's my understanding that the first movie was such a dog,
that the studio didn't know what to do with it.
That's why they kept moving the release date around so much.
This is NEVER done with a movie a studio absolutely knows is a rock-solid, guaranteed hit.
And ST: ID didn't do anywhere near the business they were hoping for.
I saw both, only because I thought it'd be unfair to
criticize them both without having actually seen them.
They both stink on ice.
I don't like the Abrams films, but there's absolutely no question they were two of the biggest hits in Trek movie history. There just isn't any arguing that point.

Again, I'm no TV executive, but it's my understanding ENT was not cancelled because of low ratings,
but it was cancelled because of the wrong kind of ratings.
Ratings were complete shit. TNG was the highest-rated syndicated drama during its entire run, scoring between 10 and 12 nearly every week. ENT was at the very bottom of the network barrel, with first-run episodes scoring ratings a fraction of TNG's rerun ratings.

At that time, UPN was going for the "Twilight" (I guess what would now be called the "Hunger Games") crowd.
But despite ENT's having a weird emo vibe about it --
like the opening tease cutting to black instead of fading,
that horrible theme (with lyrics!!), etc., etc. --
it just wasn't catching on with that audience demographic.
It wasn't catching on with any demographic.

I thought VOY was rather popular with the fans.
Personally, it's my #2 after TOS.
VOY's ratings were also shit.

We, the fans, are absolutely starving for such a show.
No, we aren't.

EDIT: Here's a chart for you to show the relative box office scores of all the Trek films (except ID) and a chart showing the relative ratings of all the Trek spinoffs. Holy ratings-drop, Batman!

EDIT2: Check out this list of TNG ratings and compare them to ENT's dismal numbers.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike

Last edited by Hober Mallow; April 19 2014 at 05:02 AM.
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2014, 07:55 AM   #67
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: Αu Contraire!

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Holy ratings-drop, Batman!
As always you have to take into account the changing TV market, one of the reasons TNG commanded such ratings is that it had much less competition. There wasn't fifty plus other channels of content in most markets.

Today, the three and a half to four million viewers Voyager was getting toward the end of it run would be considered pretty good for the average cable show.

The ratings TOS was getting in it's third season would be out and out fantastic today.

Elvira is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2014, 04:48 PM   #68
bigboojeg
Vice Admiral
 
bigboojeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Prime Trek

iPadCary wrote: View Post
... I absolutely believe a Prime Universe-based Trek TV show,
with Rick Berman at the helm and picking up right where "Nemesis" leaves off,
would do gangbuster business as far as ratings is concerned.
Look, Berman did TNG/DS9/VOY, so he knows what he's doing.
I'm sure he did ENT, for the aforementioned reasons, under duress,
as it's
I would have preferred they continued using the Prime timeline in the 25th century instead of doing Enterprise but without Berman at the helm.
bigboojeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2014, 01:26 AM   #69
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Αu Contraire!

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Holy ratings-drop, Batman!
As always you have to take into account the changing TV market, one of the reasons TNG commanded such ratings is that it had much less competition. There wasn't fifty plus other channels of content in most markets.
Sure there was. You're right, the TV landscape has changed over the last few decades, but that doesn't automatically account for all the lost numbers. TNG faced virtually no competition when it started, but in its later years faced a huge amount of competition in an oversaturated syndication market. The viewers stuck with the show all through its run, no matter the level of competition. The downward trend of the ratings happened the moment TNG went off the air.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2014, 02:27 PM   #70
iPadCary
Ensign
 
Location: New York City
Prime Trek

Sorry for the late response.
Absolutely no disrespect intended!

I, quite literally, cannot express in words just how incredibly shocking both of those charts are!


1] ST2 wasn't a superduperblockbuster hit?!?
They way it's constantly talked about, you'd think it was!
I'm blown away by the fact that both ST4 & ST6 made substantially more money than ST2.

2] I'd always believed that the TNG movies were just a tad more popular with Trekkies: if only for being more shiny & modern & new and all of that.

3] Again, the DS9 & VOY ratings: just absolutely shocking.
I thought the introduction of The Dominion War was what turned things around for what was otherwise a mediocre Trek show in DS9.
It looks as if I was horribly wrong.
And if VOY's ratings were so abyssmally bad, that makes me ask:
how'd it manage to stay on the air for 7 years in the take-no-prisoners world of TV moneymaking?


If I may, I'd like to posit an idea that may explain those charts.
Look at the dates.
Notice an inverse corellation between the advent of the internet & the box office/ratings drops?
My theory: I don't think either the movies or the TV shows
were doing so poorly as time went on because they were
gradually losing interest/viewership for the Trekkies.
No.
What I think happened is that fan interest/(potential) viewership is as strong as ever.
It's just that with stuff like Usenet, that thing before Kazaa whose name escapes & finally bit torrent, fans were using, um .... "alternate methods",
let us say, to watch the movies/TV shows rather than going about it in the usual ways:
like buying a ticket or watching TV and having it recorded by a Nielsen box.
I don't think it has anything at all to do with "not being popular anymore".

And in that recent "Spock Vs, Spock" TV car commercial,
look who ends up having the upper hand at the end ....
Why do you think the producers of that ad decided to go that way?

Someone earlier said that "oldTrek" is only making money for a few convention promoters.
Well, let's take the money the promoters make out of it just for a second.
The fan interest that those conventions generate ....
The passion that's always generated at these gatherings ....
You're telling me that "oldTrek" isn't popular?!?

And ask yourself this: if those JJ Abrams abominations are so hot, why is absolutely no one from those things ever the main attraction at a Trek convention, much less ever actually appearing at one, hmm?
I don't recall ever seeing a Zack Quinto, or a Chris Pine
or a Simon Pegg anywhere near a Star Trek convention, do you?

A couple of years ago at a con, all 5 captains got together on the same stage.
People where so moved by this, they were weeping openly.
And this for a show that's "dead"?

Your Honor, the defense rests.


bbjeg wrote: View Post
I would have preferred they continued using the Prime timeline in the 25th century
instead of doing Enterprise but without Berman at the helm.
That's interesting.
I don't agree, but it's interesting. lol
Couple of questions:
1] What (I think you mean) 24th century storyline would you like the show to be about?
2] Why not Berman?
3] If not Berman, then who?

Last edited by iPadCary; April 21 2014 at 07:43 PM.
iPadCary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21 2014, 02:56 PM   #71
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Prime Trek

iPadCary wrote: View Post

And ask yourself this: if those JJ Abrams abominations are so hot, why is absolutely no one from those things ever the main attraction at a Trek convention, much less ever actually appearing at one, hmm? I don't recall ever seeing a Zack Quinto, or a Chris Pine or a Simon Pegg anywhere near a Star Trek convention, do you?
I'm pretty sure all three have been at some Star Trek conventions, but I could be wrong.

You seem to confuse something that has a very niche audience (conventions) with something that requires a very broad audience (TV shows). A TV show can't survive on a few thousand fans watching weekly. They can't really survive on the final numbers Enterprise was drawing and still have the large budgets that Star Trek series normally have.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2014, 01:52 PM   #72
bigboojeg
Vice Admiral
 
bigboojeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Re: Prime Trek

iPadCary wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
I would have preferred they continued using the Prime timeline in the 25th century
instead of doing Enterprise but without Berman at the helm.
That's interesting.
I don't agree, but it's interesting. lol
Couple of questions:
1] What (I think you mean) 24th century storyline would you like the show to be about?
2] Why not Berman?
3] If not Berman, then who?
1) The 24th century timeline would just be TNG, DS9, and Voyager (as well as ties to TOS, the Prime Universe).

2 and 3) Don't get me wrong, Berman had a good run but he had his time. Who should replace him? I don't know, but a new direction would have mixed it up like what they intended with Enterprise.
bigboojeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2014, 02:48 PM   #73
Dr. Sevrin
Vice Admiral
 
Dr. Sevrin's Avatar
 
Location: Melakon's grave
Re: Αu Contraire!

iPadCary wrote: View Post
At that time, UPN was going for the "Twilight" (I guess what would now be called the "Hunger Games") crowd.
But despite ENT's having a weird emo vibe about it -- like the opening tease cutting to black instead of fading,
that horrible theme (with lyrics!!), etc., etc. -- it just wasn't catching on with that audience demographic.
This is pretty amazing that UPN was going after the Twilight fans as early as 2001, considering that the first novel in that series wasn't even published until about 5 months AFTER Enterprise went off the air in 2005.
__________________
Dr. Sevrin is insane.
Dr. Sevrin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2014, 06:42 PM   #74
iPadCary
Ensign
 
Location: New York City
Re: Αu Contraire!

Melakon wrote: View Post
This is pretty amazing that UPN was going after the Twilight fans as early as 2001, considering that the first novel in that series wasn't even published until about 5 months AFTER Enterprise went off the air in 2005.
OK, "Twilight", whatever! lol
You know perfectly well what I mean.

Jeez, what's with all the primeTrek loathing around here?
You'd think a board with the name "Trek BBS" would appreciate the wonderful gift Gene Roddenberry bestowed upon us ....
iPadCary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 22 2014, 07:17 PM   #75
Dr. Sevrin
Vice Admiral
 
Dr. Sevrin's Avatar
 
Location: Melakon's grave
Re: Αu Contraire!

iPadCary wrote: View Post
Melakon wrote: View Post
This is pretty amazing that UPN was going after the Twilight fans as early as 2001, considering that the first novel in that series wasn't even published until about 5 months AFTER Enterprise went off the air in 2005.
OK, "Twilight", whatever! lol
You know perfectly well what I mean.

Jeez, what's with all the primeTrek loathing around here?
You'd think a board with the name "Trek BBS" would appreciate the wonderful gift Gene Roddenberry bestowed upon us ....
No, I don't know perfectly well what you mean. Are you referring to ENT episode "Twilight", or the "Twilight" vampire novel and film series?

I started with Star Trek in 1966, so I'm old school about it. But I don't know anything about the Twilight books or the Hunger Games books or their respective films. I'm an old person.
__________________
Dr. Sevrin is insane.
Dr. Sevrin 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 08:19 PM.

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