Temis the Vorta wrote:
None of that really addresses what I said: the sole business motive for putting Trek back on TV will be to capitalize on the movie's success.
Of course it would be, but my point is that capitalization doesn't necessarily equal slavish imitation. Star Trek
is a broad, diverse franchise and has room for variety. DS9 was made to capitalize on TNG's success, but it was anything but a clone of TNG.
True, most network executives do believe they have to imitate the things they want to capitalize on. I'm just saying that it will be good if the CBS/Para executives are smart enough to recognize that the key to STJJ's success was not the specific formula or setting or tone he used, but the fact that he was given creative freedom and the fact that he's a prominent name that attracts audiences independently of what franchise he's working in. So they could theoretically decide that what they need to emulate is not a 23rd-century setting or a young Starfleet crew or whatever, but the willingness to pick a prominent name creator and turn him loose.
Why would CBS be interested in doing their own version of Trek (and given their approach to TV, we'd probably get CSI: Star Trek)? Their only interest would be to make $$$ off a suddenly viable property they own, and they'd recognize that they can make a profit off the work Paramount already put into revitalizing the brand. They'd have to be idiots to reject a gift like that and go off doing their own version of Trek.
I don't understand what you mean. Obviously a new TV Trek would not be about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy on the Enterprise
, because that setting is reserved for J.J. Abrams now. So no matter what, it would have to be "their own version" -- a different set of characters in a different situation. I'm not proposing a separate continuity (although it could be, since Abrams' film is itself a separate continuity from previous Trek and that doesn't seem to be hurting it), just a show with a different emphasis and an original style.
Besides, do you think FOX were idiots for going off and doing their own version of Terminator
(The Sarah Connor Chronicles
) that conflicted with the third and fourth movies? There's certainly precedent for TV networks developing adaptations or spinoffs that are far from slavish copies of the films whose success they're capitalizing on. Particularly in animation; the current Spectacular Spider-Man
and Iron Man: Armored Adventures
series are very different in style, tone, and continuity from the movie franchises whose coattails they're riding. What matters is the brand recognition, not the details of style and content.
What it really lacked was a motive for the audience to keep watching. Being macabre isn't going to do it; what Fuller needed to do was raise the stakes on the drama, so that Ned stood to lose something that the audience couldn't help but care about.
Huh? He stood to lose the woman he loved if he ever so much as touched her. I can't imagine higher dramatic stakes than that.
Maybe I shouldn't have said Fuller is "sugary" when the real problem is that the dramatic tension was too low, and that's why people tuned out. Not sure why his other shows failed, since I never watched em, but PD failed because it gave the audience the option not to watch.
I don't understand why you'd have a problem with a comedy having low dramatic tension.
And the dramatic tension on Heroes
has ramped back up considerably since Fuller returned; it isn't just a bunch of random plot twists, but we actually care about the characters again. And Fuller wrote "Company Man," the most acclaimed episode of Heroes
' first season, and those 42 minutes probably had more dramatic tension than the rest of the series put together.
As for Wonderfalls
and Dead Like Me
, the former was on FOX when it was still in the hands of executives who were quick on the cancellation draw, and DLM was taken out of Fuller's hands very early on. So I don't think their cancellations say anything about Fuller's abilities, certainly not in the latter case.