RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,421
Posts: 5,506,567
Members: 25,129
Currently online: 449
Newest member: Talosian1978

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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.

View Poll Results: what TV channel do you think would be most realistic in 2010-2013?
Showtime - subscription TV channel (owned by CBS Corporation) 15 28.85%
Spike [formerly Spike TV] cable/satellite TV channel (a division of MTV Networks, owned by Viacom) 0 0%
SyFy - cable TV channel- (part of the entertainment conglomerate NBC Universal) 16 30.77%
CBS broadcast network (owned by CBS Corporation) 14 26.92%
The CW broadcast network (owned by CBS Corporation) 7 13.46%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 18 2010, 01:57 PM   #106
Yug
Lieutenant Commander
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Wha? Syfy's no good cuz they changed their name?
Temis: No. It's no good cuz it sucks.

It would help if they just admitted to themselves that they are a channel that shows science fiction.
And yet, it shows nothing BUT science fiction, sorry they have to supplement with monster movies, but hey, science fiction has always had a cheese factor... I don't see what the issue is. Trek can't exist on a science fiction channel???...still don't see why not.


CW skews female? Smallville! Supernatural! Vampire Diaries!
Temis: If you look at their programming strategy as a whole, it is definitely female skewing. They have made no secret of their disdain for the too-male-skewing Smallville and Supernatural and in the future we can expect more emo vampire and bitchy high school girls. Not that I'm criticizing them. They're a small player up against bigger competitors and when a business is in that position, focusing on a narrow market is a good survival strategy.
Your probally right about that.

But the CW is Paramount, anyhoo...
So?
So, maybe they might want to show their own properties on their own network, I know, crazy right?


Star Trek is a TV show, one that can easily be shown on any channel that will have it and pay for it, Spike, Syfy, CW.
Temis:It can't be shown on a channel that doesn't see the value in it and therefore won't buy it.
EXACTLY... you basically repeated the same notion back to me.

I don't deny that demographics plays a huge role, but honestly, Trek has a miriad of non demo specific but devoted followers.
Temis: Star Trek skews young male, which should be a benefit, since young males are difficult for advertisers to reach, so whoever is selling the show will definitely use that in their sales strategy. But it's much less of a benefit for the CW, which wants a female audience, and CBS, which is doing fine casting a wide net that skews older than the 18-49 demo. Star Trek fits much better with NBC and FOX's strategies. It's just bad luck that it happens to be owned by a corporation that doesn't value the very thing that competitors would value.
Good points.




In fact, maybe it's time to rebuild the franchise slowly and have some smaller form of Trek exist on tv for now, not make some huge production of it... a cgi series, a small budget live action series even.
Temis: Wrong strategy for Star Trek. Go big or don't go at all. It's had the stink of failure on it for many years and Abrams has finally erased that stink with a $150-million bubble bath. It would be absolutely insane for someone to come along and wipe out that expensive effort with a cheap-ass TV show, although Paramount paid for the bubble bath and CBS might not feel obligated to care what Paramount thinks about its brand sabotage.
But going "big" is what killed it on TV in the first place, that's what loses money. Nurture it with smaller supplemental projects, like a CGI series. Or make a smaller show, without a huge cast. There are a lot of things that can be Trek as long as it honors the premise of the Trek universe.

All efforts shouldn't be judged only by big production expense. Especially these days where it's a bit easier to make things look pretty good without a huge budget... Battlestar Galactica did not have the budget Enterprise did, and yet BSG had stunning visuals, effective stories, capable actors, and believable sets...if Trek wants to keep breathing beyond the current proposed string of films, it needs to adapt.

Not everyone who saw the film will watch a Star Trek TV series, the film had a mass apeal to Trek fans AND the curious average movie goers alike, most of the latter may never have watched much Trek other than TOS when they were kids. A TV show won't bring the audience the film did, cater the show to reflect that.

Why is everything "cheap ass" vs "big budget bubble bath"? You can make an effective show on a decent budget and with good well written stories. Again: Battlestar did it, why can't Trek?
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19 2010, 03:53 PM   #107
AviTrek
Fleet Captain
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Yug wrote: View Post
Wha? Syfy's no good cuz they changed their name?
Temis: No. It's no good cuz it sucks.

It would help if they just admitted to themselves that they are a channel that shows science fiction.
And yet, it shows nothing BUT science fiction, sorry they have to supplement with monster movies, but hey, science fiction has always had a cheese factor... I don't see what the issue is. Trek can't exist on a science fiction channel???...still don't see why not.




Your probally right about that.



So, maybe they might want to show their own properties on their own network, I know, crazy right?




EXACTLY... you basically repeated the same notion back to me.



Good points.




In fact, maybe it's time to rebuild the franchise slowly and have some smaller form of Trek exist on tv for now, not make some huge production of it... a cgi series, a small budget live action series even.
Temis: Wrong strategy for Star Trek. Go big or don't go at all. It's had the stink of failure on it for many years and Abrams has finally erased that stink with a $150-million bubble bath. It would be absolutely insane for someone to come along and wipe out that expensive effort with a cheap-ass TV show, although Paramount paid for the bubble bath and CBS might not feel obligated to care what Paramount thinks about its brand sabotage.
But going "big" is what killed it on TV in the first place, that's what loses money. Nurture it with smaller supplemental projects, like a CGI series. Or make a smaller show, without a huge cast. There are a lot of things that can be Trek as long as it honors the premise of the Trek universe.

All efforts shouldn't be judged only by big production expense. Especially these days where it's a bit easier to make things look pretty good without a huge budget... Battlestar Galactica did not have the budget Enterprise did, and yet BSG had stunning visuals, effective stories, capable actors, and believable sets...if Trek wants to keep breathing beyond the current proposed string of films, it needs to adapt.

Not everyone who saw the film will watch a Star Trek TV series, the film had a mass apeal to Trek fans AND the curious average movie goers alike, most of the latter may never have watched much Trek other than TOS when they were kids. A TV show won't bring the audience the film did, cater the show to reflect that.

Why is everything "cheap ass" vs "big budget bubble bath"? You can make an effective show on a decent budget and with good well written stories. Again: Battlestar did it, why can't Trek?
The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.
AviTrek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19 2010, 04:47 PM   #108
Yug
Lieutenant Commander
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

AviTrek wrote: View Post
The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.
That's a decent point, you're right, Trek does do a lot more "strange new worlds" stuff then BSG did. But it's not really about using the BSG "model". I still think a good series can be done with more use of CGI characters and sets, some kind of cross between BSG and Babylon 5 (or even, dare I say, Doctor Who) but taken further. While B5 did suffer from poor production values, it had some well crafted creative and epic stories augmented by the burgoning CGI effects.

And honestly, I've never been a proponent of the over all "It's never been done, so it can't be done" mindset... I think creative people, imaginative writers, and a good show runner can do anything on any budget. That's the real difference, the production crew. Not whether you can do this or that, or even what channel it goes on... it takes someone with vision enough to say why can't we?, and let's try it !! Ronald Moore and Manny Coto showed that kind of drive and vision. Moore talks all the time that his Trek experience was littered with opposition regarding branching out on new ideas. It's a new and constantly improving world of SFX, and a Trek series can take advantage of the new technology. And move the concept forward with new and different stories and new challenges. Similar in manner to TOS in the 60's, I feel that Gene Coon (and Roddenberry) really pushed what a weekly sci-fi show could be beyond the "monster of the week" concept. Creating more thought provoking storylines with interesting characters fused with adventure and action, elevating the concept on a fairly low budget for the times. But then aspects of Next Generation, on thru DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise really watered all that down until it became a formula that wore itself out.

It may take a while to create a new live action series, and I think it deserves a creative staff to find a way to craft it correctly, it will be worth the wait... and it CAN be done.

(I also need to stop obsessing about this stuff.)

Last edited by Yug; January 19 2010 at 05:55 PM.
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2010, 12:40 AM   #109
AviTrek
Fleet Captain
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Yug wrote: View Post
AviTrek wrote: View Post
The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.
That's a decent point, you're right, Trek does do a lot more "strange new worlds" stuff then BSG did. But it's not really about using the BSG "model". I still think a good series can be done with more use of CGI characters and sets, some kind of cross between BSG and Babylon 5 (or even, dare I say, Doctor Who) but taken further. While B5 did suffer from poor production values, it had some well crafted creative and epic stories augmented by the burgoning CGI effects.

And honestly, I've never been a proponent of the over all "It's never been done, so it can't be done" mindset... I think creative people, imaginative writers, and a good show runner can do anything on any budget. That's the real difference, the production crew. Not whether you can do this or that, or even what channel it goes on... it takes someone with vision enough to say why can't we?, and let's try it !! Ronald Moore and Manny Coto showed that kind of drive and vision. Moore talks all the time that his Trek experience was littered with opposition regarding branching out on new ideas. It's a new and constantly improving world of SFX, and a Trek series can take advantage of the new technology. And move the concept forward with new and different stories and new challenges. Similar in manner to TOS in the 60's, I feel that Gene Coon (and Roddenberry) really pushed what a weekly sci-fi show could be beyond the "monster of the week" concept. Creating more thought provoking storylines with interesting characters fused with adventure and action, elevating the concept on a fairly low budget for the times. But then aspects of Next Generation, on thru DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise really watered all that down until it became a formula that wore itself out.

It may take a while to create a new live action series, and I think it deserves a creative staff to find a way to craft it correctly, it will be worth the wait... and it CAN be done.

(I also need to stop obsessing about this stuff.)
If you want to make a comparison make it to Sanctuary. Personally I think Sanctuary looks awful, but realistically a CGI background is the only way to produce a show with alien worlds on the budget of a SyFy series.
AviTrek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2010, 02:53 AM   #110
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Yug wrote: View Post
I think creative people, imaginative writers, and a good show runner can do anything on any budget.

Yug wrote: View Post
Not whether you can do this or that, or even what channel it goes on...
Okay Yug but stay on topic. That is exactly what we are talking about in this thread...the channel that a new Trek series would be on (in the United States).
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2010, 01:13 PM   #111
Yug
Lieutenant Commander
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
Okay Yug but stay on topic. That is exactly what we are talking about in this thread...the channel that a new Trek series would be on (in the United States).
Okay, you're right... How 'bout the USA Network?
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2010, 05:38 PM   #112
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Yug wrote: View Post
jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
Okay Yug but stay on topic. That is exactly what we are talking about in this thread...the channel that a new Trek series would be on (in the United States).
Okay, you're right... How 'bout the USA Network?
Yug, perhaps you should read this thread's posts?
see above what AviTrek posted:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...9&postcount=65
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2010, 06:36 PM   #113
Yug
Lieutenant Commander
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Thank you for your constant guidance Jefferiestubes8, I'll show myself out.
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2010, 05:06 AM   #114
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

But going "big" is what killed it on TV in the first place, that's what loses money. Nurture it with smaller supplemental projects, like a CGI series. Or make a smaller show, without a huge cast. There are a lot of things that can be Trek as long as it honors the premise of the Trek universe.
Yet going big in movies paid off big. Okay, those are different business models. For TV, you can go small, but think niche audience/quality product. Never cheapen the product.

A smaller cast and using CGI doesn't necessarily cheapen the results, btw. It's all in how it turns out.

All efforts shouldn't be judged only by big production expense. Especially these days where it's a bit easier to make things look pretty good without a huge budget... Battlestar Galactica did not have the budget Enterprise did, and yet BSG had stunning visuals, effective stories, capable actors, and believable sets...if Trek wants to keep breathing beyond the current proposed string of films, it needs to adapt.
Being "cheap" in the way BSG was cheap sounds fine with me.

The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.
TOS never ventured outside the greater LA region for its location shooting. CGI has come a long ways. If the acting and writing is really up to snuff, the audience can forgive some sketchy eye candy. Sanctuary doesn't look great but if the writing and acting were better, it would come off a lot better and I probably wouldn't have bailed on it.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2010, 01:42 AM   #115
Yug
Lieutenant Commander
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
For TV, you can go small, but think niche audience/quality product. Never cheapen the product.

A smaller cast and using CGI doesn't necessarily cheapen the results, btw. It's all in how it turns out.
It won't "cheapen" the product, that's exactly what I'm talking about !!
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2010, 02:05 AM   #116
AviTrek
Fleet Captain
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.
TOS never ventured outside the greater LA region for its location shooting. CGI has come a long ways. If the acting and writing is really up to snuff, the audience can forgive some sketchy eye candy. Sanctuary doesn't look great but if the writing and acting were better, it would come off a lot better and I probably wouldn't have bailed on it.
Most shows don't leave their cities for filming, but it's hard to make Los Angeles or Vancouver look like multiple different alien worlds. That's why Star Trek has done most of its alien worlds on sound stages. But constantly rebuilding sets to show different worlds is expensive. So we return to the same basic 3 options, every world is a Vancouver forest, every episode is on the ship with very few alien worlds, CGI, or a budget that is cost prohibitive for cable.
AviTrek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2010, 02:41 AM   #117
Yug
Lieutenant Commander
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

AviTrek wrote: View Post
So we return to the same basic 3 options, every world is a Vancouver forest, every episode is on the ship with very few alien worlds, CGI, or a budget that is cost prohibitive for cable.
That's technically 4 options... but why so limiting? And I think there's plenty more options than that, including muppets. But really, I think a good looking show can be made on a cable budget. Truth is, lot's of cable channels will pay for a Trek series, even if it's budget is more than most cable shows. We may not see Enterprise budgets again for awhile, but an interested, well marketed, cable channel can produce a quality Trek product.

Vancouver forest... huh?
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2010, 12:16 AM   #118
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Yug wrote: View Post
Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
For TV, you can go small, but think niche audience/quality product. Never cheapen the product.

A smaller cast and using CGI doesn't necessarily cheapen the results, btw. It's all in how it turns out.
It won't "cheapen" the product, that's exactly what I'm talking about !!
A CGI series on a regular TV station wouldn't be perceived as cheap, so I'm fine with that. Put the same CGI series on DVD or download only, and it becomes cheap, because of the perception that it wasn't good enough for TV (and indeed, if it is good enough for TV - why isn't it there?)

Vancouver forest... huh?
Stargate reference.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2010, 12:41 AM   #119
Yug
Lieutenant Commander
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post

A CGI series on a regular TV station wouldn't be perceived as cheap, so I'm fine with that. Put the same CGI series on DVD or download only, and it becomes cheap, because of the perception that it wasn't good enough for TV (and indeed, if it is good enough for TV - why isn't it there?)
Ah, but this is the TV thread, not the download/DVD thread. I never brought up any of that here. JefferiesTube8 will set you straight I'm sure.
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2010, 06:11 AM   #120
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

Yug wrote: View Post
Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post

A CGI series on a regular TV station wouldn't be perceived as cheap, so I'm fine with that. Put the same CGI series on DVD or download only, and it becomes cheap, because of the perception that it wasn't good enough for TV (and indeed, if it is good enough for TV - why isn't it there?)
Ah, but this is the TV thread, not the download/DVD thread. I never brought up any of that here. JefferiesTube8 will set you straight I'm sure.
This aint TWOP! Let the threads meander as they will!
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 02:49 PM.

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