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

[thepigeon]

1. Nobody cares about Tasha Yar.

Except it wouldn't be Denise Crosby's Tasha, it would be a (largely) brand new character, she would be built by the new actress and the production team.

So what would be the point of making her Tasha Yar then?

Same could be said for every show netflix or not. Nobody knew who doctor house was until the show actually aired.

You missed the point. House wasn't based on another character of the same name who was only in seven or eight episodes of another show before being killed off and largely forgotten by casual audiences.

I didnt miss any point. I pointed out being unknown isnt an issue since new characters arent known any way. with tasha yar she isn't known like people have said. They dont know her character. And next time quote the entire argument dont cherry pick.

 

[Tom]

I think the Netflix show could be successful. I just don't think CBS wants to spend the money.

It may be outdated thinking, but I don't think anyone has demonstrated to them that the financial risk is worthwhile.

The is such nonsense. Trek is a massive brand and everyone knows it`can make money.

Times have changed drastically and 90`s trek is just as dated as TOS was in the late 80s.

Trek has always been hit or miss in the theatres.

However on the small screen it was a juggernaut.

That being said 2 takes frakes, or any other glorified fanboy will not get to touch the series.

Given the fact that CBS has to do nothing right now and make money off of Star Trek, versus investing probably a million or so dollars to get a show started, they are going to ere on the side of caution.

It's a simple matter of risk. They don't want to risk money.

Problem is the Star Trek property is deprecating fast. Licensing values for the old shows get lower every year. The HD conversion for TOS and TNG only helped a little, but not as much as they hoped. Merchandising revenue for Star Trek is going down. They get some money for the new movies via there licensing deal with Paramount/Viacom but that is dependent on how the films do etc...

They need to make the property fresh again and they means a new show of some type. It may never be on TV, it could be on there streaming service for all we know. A new show in the prime universe help spawn interest in the old shows and thus help there value. That's is one of the reasons Fox is bringing back the X-File to help raise the licensing value of the old show to places like Netflix etc..

 

[fireproof78]

Problem is the Star Trek property is deprecating fast. Licensing values for the old shows get lower every year. The HD conversion for TOS and TNG only helped a little, but not as much as they hoped. Merchandising revenue for Star Trek is going down. They get some money for the new movies via there licensing deal with Paramount/Viacom but that is dependent on how the films do etc...

They need to make the property fresh again and they means a new show of some type. It may never be on TV, it could be on there streaming service for all we know. A new show in the prime universe help spawn interest in the old shows and thus help there value. That's is one of the reasons Fox is bringing back the X-File to help raise the licensing value of the old show to places like Netflix etc..

I agree that they need to make it fresh, and I don't have the answer as to the best way to do so (TV series, Netflix, animated, etc?).

However, the general attitude of the Hollywood has been one of caution, and working with properties that they know will be successful, for the most part (there are always exceptions).

Star Trek may be diminishing returns, but that doesn't CBS has to move or even that they want to. I just CBS as too cautious for their own good right now.

The next film may be the tipping point for them, however.

 

[thumbtack]

A failed movie does not lead to a TV series.

I gotta agree here.

No one could possibly believe a failed movie leads to a tv series. They're just frustrated.

Of course, I can see the impossible scenario they face that's causing the frustration:

"How do we kill nuTrek without killing the entire franchise?"

 

[Tim Walker]

What they're doing now is working. The new movies are financially successful

Which is the one thing live action Trek has going for it. And as long as it remains a money maker, what incentive is there for The Powers That Be to reinstate the Prime timeline?

No, I don't see a way to kill NuTrek without killing the franchise for good.

 

[Dukhat]

I didnt miss any point. I pointed out being unknown isnt an issue since new characters arent known any way. with tasha yar she isn't known like people have said. They dont know her character. And next time quote the entire argument dont cherry pick.

Your comparison between Tasha Yar and House are two completely different things. Yes, House was a character no one knew before. Tasha Yar was a character from a late 80's Star Trek spinoff that lasted all of eight episodes before she was killed off and forgotten (well, except for Yesterday's Enterprise.) House was a quirky medical doctor. Yar was some Starfleet lieutenant whose character was barely developed before she was killed off, but what was developed seemed quite uninteresting.

Between the two, it's no contest who I'd rather see in a series.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Netflix presents: "Tasha Yar - the Untold story".

Millions of Americans: "Who?"

Fans (pulling up youtube videos): "You now, that actress who dresses liek a homeless lady and doesn't say anything at conventions when with other cast members."

 

[Shaka Zulu]

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.

-Not just Budweiser in the 2009 movie, but-

-BMW (motorbike that Kirk rides [I think that it was a BMW? If not, please correct])

-Chevrolet (Corvette driven by Kirk as a boy in that sequence [and it should have been a 2009 model which would have been an antique in 2258!])

-Nokia (communications device used by Kirk as a boy inside the Corvette)

Capitol Records (company that owns Beastie Boys songs enjoyed by Kirk in the 2009 and 2013 movies)

 

[thepigeon]

I didnt miss any point. I pointed out being unknown isnt an issue since new characters arent known any way. with tasha yar she isn't known like people have said. They dont know her character. And next time quote the entire argument dont cherry pick.

Your comparison between Tasha Yar and House are two completely different things. Yes, House was a character no one knew before. Tasha Yar was a character from a late 80's Star Trek spinoff that lasted all of eight episodes before she was killed off and forgotten (well, except for Yesterday's Enterprise.) House was a quirky medical doctor. Yar was some Starfleet lieutenant whose character was barely developed before she was killed off, but what was developed seemed quite uninteresting.

Between the two, it's no contest who I'd rather see in a series.

The comparison is valid since they are both unknown characters as people posted on here have said if you made a series about her people would go, "Tasha who?"

 

[eyeresist]

The problem is that the mainstream would say "Tasha who?" while the continuity fans would, the minute the show actually existed, start nitpicking it to death.

 

[Trekkin]

I don't consider over saturation to be a 'good reason' to dump continuity.

I do. Because not only is there a high bar for entry for people new to the franchise, you also have the potential to chase away the best and brightest TV and filmmakers because they don't want to be handcuffed creatively by 45 years of continuity.

I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase what I meant.


I don't think saturation is the only reason why the latest batch of writers have taken the route that they have.

 

[Ithekro]

"Tasha Yar"

"She's in a Galaxy Yar, Yar, Away."

 

[lewisniven]

"Tasha Yar"

"She's in a Galaxy Yar, Yar, Away."

And I think we're all done here.

 

[Amaris]

Do you think we went A Bridge Too Yar?

 

[Disco]

I think this could be a Yar-ly debate.

 

[Amaris]

Yar can't be serious.

 

[mos6507]

Do something good in that continuity and it will perform. It's not the fault of the world. It's the stories that were presented in it. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are lots of shows that were considered "good" that were cancelled. There's concept. Of course there is execution. But there's also time slot and competition and how receptive an audience is at any point in time. Even in the streaming world, people only have so much time to give to entertainment.

Well, if you want to think that pessimistically, why should anybody ever launch a new TV series? Nothing can ever succeed, right?

 

[mos6507]

I don't consider over saturation to be a 'good reason' to dump continuity.

I do. Because not only is there a high bar for entry for people new to the franchise, you also have the potential to chase away the best and brightest TV and filmmakers because they don't want to be handcuffed creatively by 45 years of continuity.

If they really are the best and brightest TV and filmmakers and they are intimidated by the handcuffs of 45 years of continuity then they can make up their own show from scratch and not call it Trek!

There's no law that says every damn thing has to be a franchise reboot.

 

[Amaris]

Do something good in that continuity and it will perform. It's not the fault of the world. It's the stories that were presented in it. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are lots of shows that were considered "good" that were cancelled. There's concept. Of course there is execution. But there's also time slot and competition and how receptive an audience is at any point in time. Even in the streaming world, people only have so much time to give to entertainment.

Well, if you want to think that pessimistically, why should anybody ever launch a new TV series? Nothing can ever succeed, right?

He's just pointing out how the studio generally sees things. They're not going to bother with a new series as long as they're making money off of the content they already have.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Yar can't be serious.

Did you hear about the new Star Trek:Pirates series?

It's rated Yarrrr.