Jonathan Frakes: "Star Trek won't be coming back to TV."

[The Overlord]

Right now, tv is so awful. Coarse, violent, etc. Let this era pass because "Trek" would not fit in this environment. "Trek" WILL return to tv one day.

'Coarse' and 'violent' only to people trapped in a bath of nostalgia cause by endlessly re-watching 50's 60's and 70's shows (but mostly just the first two mentioned decades.) Not to anybody else.

And if Star Trek is to return to TV, it may have to be somewhat like that.

Yeah, I wouldn't trade in Breaking Bad, House of Cards or Game of Thrones for Dukes of Hazard, the A-Team and Miami Vice, people who think TV was better in the past are relying on nostaglia. TV shows now just have better stories then they did in the past. There is nothing wrong with violence a show, as long as it serves the story.

Anyway if this is true, then I think it demonstrates backwards thinking on CBS' part. Ratings do not mean as much as they used to in the Netflix era. Really a slick 13 episode Star Trek series on Netflix would not be that over whelming and would not cause that much over saturation. Marvel has several movies and TV shows going at the same time.

 

[BillJ]

Anyway if this is true, then I think it demonstrates backwards thinking on CBS' part. Ratings do not mean as much as they used to in the Netflix era. Really a slick 13 episode Star Trek series on Netflix would not be that over whelming and would not cause that much over saturation. Marvel has several movies and TV shows going at the same time.

Whether it be through advertising dollars or licensing fees, someone has to be willing to pay for that new Star Trek series. CBS has probably done their homework and found no one willing to fork over the money to make it happen.

 

[thepigeon]

Anyway if this is true, then I think it demonstrates backwards thinking on CBS' part. Ratings do not mean as much as they used to in the Netflix era. Really a slick 13 episode Star Trek series on Netflix would not be that over whelming and would not cause that much over saturation. Marvel has several movies and TV shows going at the same time.

Whether it be through advertising dollars or licensing fees, someone has to be willing to pay for that new Star Trek series. CBS has probably done their homework and found no one willing to fork over the money to make it happen.

I can only think of two characters that would be great for a netflix series and that is commander Riker or Tasha Yar.

 

[The Overlord]

Anyway if this is true, then I think it demonstrates backwards thinking on CBS' part. Ratings do not mean as much as they used to in the Netflix era. Really a slick 13 episode Star Trek series on Netflix would not be that over whelming and would not cause that much over saturation. Marvel has several movies and TV shows going at the same time.

Whether it be through advertising dollars or licensing fees, someone has to be willing to pay for that new Star Trek series. CBS has probably done their homework and found no one willing to fork over the money to make it happen.

Wasn't Netflix interested in a Star Trek series at one point? Heck Netflix is making a Full House spin off and was willing to make a show about a super hero whose previous media outing was a failed movie from 2003. Clearly Netflix is willing to invest on franchises that may not be super popular at the moment. Unless Full House is a bigger franchise then Star Trek, I do not think it would take much to coax Netflix into investing in it, CBS just has to put an effort forward and adapt to the new media landscape.

 

[Greg Cox]

Wasn't Netflix interested in a Star Trek series at one point? Heck Netflix is making a Full House spin off and was willing to make a show about a super hero whose previous media outing was a failed movie from 2003.

This where I feel obliged to point out that that "failed movie" actually did very well at the box office, and probably would have done even better if the East Coast hadn't been buried beneath a major blizzard the weekend it opened.

Not that I'm biased or anything . . . .

 

[eyeresist]

The suggestion that a guy who was the executive producer nearly twenty years of massively successful television was suddenly unemployable because his show was finally cancelled is, to put it politely, unobservant.

Yes, it's a "failure" any TV producer would envy.

 

[Amaris]

Anyway if this is true, then I think it demonstrates backwards thinking on CBS' part. Ratings do not mean as much as they used to in the Netflix era. Really a slick 13 episode Star Trek series on Netflix would not be that over whelming and would not cause that much over saturation. Marvel has several movies and TV shows going at the same time.

Whether it be through advertising dollars or licensing fees, someone has to be willing to pay for that new Star Trek series. CBS has probably done their homework and found no one willing to fork over the money to make it happen.

I can only think of two characters that would be great for a netflix series and that is commander Riker or Tasha Yar.

Oh hell, no. People remember Kirk and Spock. They might remember Scotty, Uhura, and a few others. They remember Sulu because George Takei has a bit of notoriety on the internet, so possibly Sulu as well. Picard? Perhaps, but most people would probably recognize Patrick Stewart as Professor X before they would Captain Picard.

So outside of Kirk and Spock, nothing would be a sure bet at all, and even then it would have to be packaged a certain way. The movies do this very well. Right now, there's no call for a TV series, and certainly not one that would star actors that have played bit parts since their Star Trek heyday back in the early to mid-1990s.

Just on a side note, as much as I liked Yar in TNG, Denise Crosby can't act (I know, subjective). She's wooden on a good day, and cringe inducing on a bad one. There's no way I'd be remotely interested in a Yar show.

Riker? Yeah, it would be neat with him on the Titan, but that would be a niche show that few would likely watch, at least those outside Trek fandom, and that's still not enough to get money flowing.

 

[The Overlord]

Wasn't Netflix interested in a Star Trek series at one point? Heck Netflix is making a Full House spin off and was willing to make a show about a super hero whose previous media outing was a failed movie from 2003.

This where I feel obliged to point out that that "failed movie" actually did very well at the box office, and probably would have done even better if the East Coast hadn't been buried beneath a major blizzard the weekend it opened.

Not that I'm biased or anything . . . .

It didn't do that well, according to Wikipedia it made $179.1 million, that is not really gang busters, especially for a super hero movie.

But my point, is Netflix is willing to revive properties that are more obscure then Star Trek, so really I think getting a Star Trek series on Netflix is doable, if CBS looks past the archaic network television system that is obsessed with ratings.

Whether it be through advertising dollars or licensing fees, someone has to be willing to pay for that new Star Trek series. CBS has probably done their homework and found no one willing to fork over the money to make it happen.

I can only think of two characters that would be great for a netflix series and that is commander Riker or Tasha Yar.

Oh hell, no. People remember Kirk and Spock. They might remember Scotty, Uhura, and a few others. They remember Sulu because George Takei has a bit of notoriety on the internet, so possibly Sulu as well. Picard? Perhaps, but most people would probably recognize Patrick Stewart as Professor X before they would Captain Picard.

So outside of Kirk and Spock, nothing would be a sure bet at all, and even then it would have to be packaged a certain way. The movies do this very well. Right now, there's no call for a TV series, and certainly not one that would star actors that have played bit parts since their Star Trek heyday back in the early to mid-1990s.

Just on a side note, as much as I liked Yar in TNG, Denise Crosby can't act (I know, subjective). She's wooden on a good day, and cringe inducing on a bad one. There's no way I'd be remotely interested in a Yar show.

Riker? Yeah, it would be neat with him on the Titan, but that would be a niche show that few would likely watch, at least those outside Trek fandom, and that's still not enough to get money flowing.

They don't need to get the most popular character for a Netflix series, most the Marvel heroes Netflix is making TV shows about are not the most popular. Iron Man was not really popular till his first movie came out. They could create a new cast of characters and sell the TV series on the strength of the brand, as long the show is good, word of mouth will help it.

 

[BillJ]

But my point, is Netflix is willing to revive properties that are more obscure then Star Trek, so really I think getting a Star Trek series on Netflix is doable, if CBS looks past the archaic network television system that is obsessed with ratings.

More obscure equals cheaper to license.

 

[Trekkin]

Have you seen Daredevil? It's a crime show in a modern city setting. Whilst I don't think it's exactly cheap, I'd be willing to bet that it would have nothing on a full-blown Star Trek series.

To put it in perspective - ENT was about 5 million an ep nearly a decade ago. Daredevil is 3.3 million an ep now.

 

[Campe]

After inflation, let's say that the cost of an episode of ENT is $6 million today. Using that as a base point, a 26-episode season would cost $156 million. A 22-episode season, $132 million. A 13-episode season? $78 million.

Let's be honest and say the face of TV has changed and CBS would not receive the ROI on that in the way they want. More and more of the budget is coming through in product placement. How are we going to do that with Star Trek? People complained when they had a Budweiser in Trek 09! Do we really want to see the adventures of the Captain and crew of the Enterprise as they drink their Coca-Cola, eat their Taco Bell and play around with their Samsung Galaxy 50s and MacBook Universes? Oh, and let's not forget their Toyota Shuttlecraft -- the Highflyer.

Come on.

 

[Dukhat]

I can only think of two characters that would be great for a netflix series and that is commander Riker or Tasha Yar.

What?

 

[JTShanks]

Anyway if this is true, then I think it demonstrates backwards thinking on CBS' part. Ratings do not mean as much as they used to in the Netflix era. Really a slick 13 episode Star Trek series on Netflix would not be that over whelming and would not cause that much over saturation. Marvel has several movies and TV shows going at the same time.

Whether it be through advertising dollars or licensing fees, someone has to be willing to pay for that new Star Trek series. CBS has probably done their homework and found no one willing to fork over the money to make it happen.

It's almost difficult to believe that no investors would be interested in investing into a new Star Trek series with all these Kickstarters going around with the fanmade productions and what not.

 

[BillJ]

It's almost difficult to believe that no investors would be interested in investing into a new Star Trek series with all these Kickstarters going around with the fanmade productions and what not.

You have a few/several thousand fans donating cash. But I'm not sure that it is indicative of how general audiences feel about Star Trek. Which is the $64 question for CBS.

 

[RandyS]

Yeah, I wouldn't trade in Breaking Bad, House of Cards or Game of Thrones for Dukes of Hazard, the A-Team and Miami Vice, people who think TV was better in the past are relying on nostaglia. TV shows now just have better stories then they did in the past.

In your opinion. In my opinion, you're wrong. There's a reason some of us think TV was better in the past.

It was.

There are exceptions of course, but they're so few, it's not worth it to mention them.

 

[Greg Cox]

Wasn't Netflix interested in a Star Trek series at one point? Heck Netflix is making a Full House spin off and was willing to make a show about a super hero whose previous media outing was a failed movie from 2003.

This where I feel obliged to point out that that "failed movie" actually did very well at the box office, and probably would have done even better if the East Coast hadn't been buried beneath a major blizzard the weekend it opened.

Not that I'm biased or anything . . . .

It didn't do that well, according to Wikipedia it made $179.1 million, that is not really gang busters, especially for a super hero movie.

Well, not making AVENGERS money is not the same thing as being a failure. There's a tendency these days to talk about the DAREDEVIL movie as though it was this tremendous box-office bomb, which is hardly the case. There's a big difference between "not really gangbusters" and being a notorious flop. And this was back in 2003, remember, before Marvel superhero movies were the biggest thing in the world.

CUTTHROAT ISLAND it was not . . . .

 

[fireproof78]

This where I feel obliged to point out that that "failed movie" actually did very well at the box office, and probably would have done even better if the East Coast hadn't been buried beneath a major blizzard the weekend it opened.

Not that I'm biased or anything . . . .

It didn't do that well, according to Wikipedia it made $179.1 million, that is not really gang busters, especially for a super hero movie.

Well, not making AVENGERS money is not the same thing as being a failure. There's a tendency these days to talk about the DAREDEVIL movie as though it was this tremendous box-office bomb, which is hardly the case. There's a big difference between "not really gangbusters" and being a notorious flop. And this was back in 2003, remember, before Marvel superhero movies were the biggest thing in the world.

CUTTHROAT ISLAND it was not . . . .

It's budget was 78 million, so it made back its money and then some. Which is what studios want. As Greg noted, this was before Avengers, and Marvel Studios made super hero movies summer block busters like they are now.

It may be a critical failure, but the money was certainly there.

 

[The Overlord]

Yeah, I wouldn't trade in Breaking Bad, House of Cards or Game of Thrones for Dukes of Hazard, the A-Team and Miami Vice, people who think TV was better in the past are relying on nostaglia. TV shows now just have better stories then they did in the past.

In your opinion. In my opinion, you're wrong. There's a reason some of us think TV was better in the past.

It was.

There are exceptions of course, but they're so few, it's not worth it to mention them.

How was it better? If you make a position, its good to have defense for it. Its not just me, a lot of people think TV is better now, hence the all this talk about the "Golden Age of Television".

Really TV in the 80s was it was strictly formula, every episode was the same and it didn't matter if you missed the last episode, the next one covered the same ground. Sure something like TNG is an exception, but all the other TV shows I mentioned were strictly formula.

No offense, but saying TV was just better in the past and not explaining why, sounds like pure nostalgia.

This where I feel obliged to point out that that "failed movie" actually did very well at the box office, and probably would have done even better if the East Coast hadn't been buried beneath a major blizzard the weekend it opened.

Not that I'm biased or anything . . . .

It didn't do that well, according to Wikipedia it made $179.1 million, that is not really gang busters, especially for a super hero movie.

Well, not making AVENGERS money is not the same thing as being a failure. There's a tendency these days to talk about the DAREDEVIL movie as though it was this tremendous box-office bomb, which is hardly the case. There's a big difference between "not really gangbusters" and being a notorious flop. And this was back in 2003, remember, before Marvel superhero movies were the biggest thing in the world.

CUTTHROAT ISLAND it was not . . . .

It might have made some profit, but that doesn't mean it was super successful either. It was a movie with mediocre box office results, the movie didn't really make DD a household name like the 2008 film did with Iron Man. The fact is before the Netfilx show, the only media experience people had with DD was a movie that is generally considered to be mediocre, it is not god awful like Catwoman, but it was not great like many other comic book films. Netflix did take something of risk making a show about DD, likely a bigger risk then a show about star Trek would be. Just because the DD film wasn't a huge bomb doesn't it was well received or well remembered, I also think its pretty dated, it screams early 2000s.

The fact it was released in the winter seemed to indicate that Fox didn't have much faith in it, the winter months are generally when studios release films they have no faith in.

 

[BillJ]

No offense, but saying TV was just better in the past and not explaining why, sounds like pure nostalgia.

Or simply taste...

 

[The Overlord]

No offense, but saying TV was just better in the past and not explaining why, sounds like pure nostalgia.

Or simply taste...

Fair enough, but simply saying "TV was just better in the past" and not expanding on that is not a good position to have, because you have not defended it.

Saying there should not be a new Star Trek show because TV was just better in the past, without explain why TV is better in the past, is a non starter with me. Really a new Star Trek show wouldn't be Game of Thrones, but it could take some of the successful ideas of modern TV landscape and adapt them to suit a more modern TV era. Star Trek can still be itself, without seeming like a repeat of the past and trying to recreate a 60s or 80s show in today's TV landscape.

More obscure equals cheaper to license.

Is the Marvel license itself a cheap one? I would doubt. I don't think Netflix or Hulu or any major online streaming service would have a problem paying the licences fees assoicated with Star Trek, they are hungry for content and content with a known name is always a good choice for these companies.

Have you seen Daredevil? It's a crime show in a modern city setting. Whilst I don't think it's exactly cheap, I'd be willing to bet that it would have nothing on a full-blown Star Trek series.

To put it in perspective - ENT was about 5 million an ep nearly a decade ago. Daredevil is 3.3 million an ep now.

Netflix spent a ton of money on Macro Polo and that did not have any product placement, I don't think budgeting is the problem here. Heck if budgeting is the problem, they could do what Star Wars did and make an animated series.

Again all this talk about ratings seems archaic to me, if CBS can't make money off a Star Trek show in this day and age, it seems like they are stuck in outmoded thinking, there are so many more platforms to promote content then there was 10 years ago.