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

[eyeresist]

Its a shame star Trek is in the hands of people who are not more savvy and daring.

I doubt there are any content providers out there dying to have Star Trek.

For some reason (perhaps because this reminds me of the recent JayZ/Tidal scandal), I'm thinking maybe the property should be leased to a Scandinavian producer. They are tech savvy, with good design sense, have been producing acclaimed series on relatively low budgets, and might put an interesting twist on things.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

This is definitely the first time I've seen someone suggest that Trek be leased to Scandinavian producers.

I don't know the first thing about them beyond what you just said, but hell with it, I'm onboard.

 

[newpball]

Star Trek has been overmilked.

What bothers me is that Roddenberry had a novel idea, surely new science fiction script writers can come with yet more novel ideas instead of perpetuating Star Trek.



32849195

 

[HIjol]

I think Ghost may be on to something. A "Star Trek", cast, written, and filmed with a "West Wing" flavor may just do the trick. Have the focus be "The White House", Starfleet Headquarters, and certainly have space scenes and Enterprise F or G, and mission of diplomacy and averting conflict/misunderstanding, etc., with strong characters we come to know and love or hate, great writing, and commitment to the tenera of the Franchise. If CBS won't do it and doesn't want to, why not lease it to HBO!?!?

 

[Ithekro]

Even a B-list superhero has the advantage of being set in the modern day. Sets and clothing are contemporary, so their is less expense for futuristic sets and props.

 

[The Overlord]

And also this talk about CBS not wanting to spend money on a sci fi series ignores the fact that CBS is willing to spend money a Supergirl show, who is kinda of B-list super hero.

On a B-list network with, likely, a B-list price tag.

Its on the main CBS network, how is that B-list for CBS?

And how do you know it will have a B-list budget, the Flash TV show looks good for TV and the Superman mythos can be pretty over the top in terms of sci fi.

All this talk about sci fi shows not being popular anymore, seems to be undermined by all the super hero shows being made.

As long as CBS lives in the past and decides these factors are good reasons not make a Star Trek show and sell it to an online platform, the more it will be left beyond by content makers who are more daring.

It takes two to tango. There has to be an online platform out there willing to pay what CBS sees as profitable for a series.

Well maybe if CBS shopped Star Trek to Netflix and Hulu, they would show interest.

I doubt there are any content providers out there dying to have Star Trek.

I disagree, it seems like almost every property with semi recognizable name is getting a TV treatment nowadays. 12 Monkeys and Scream have gotten TV shows. Is Star Trek really less popular then a lot of the properties that have been chosen to get the TV treatment nowadays?

Here is a question you seem to be tip toeing around, does CBS not want to make a Star Trek series because they did extensive market research and made an informed decisions or is it because they want to stay in their comfort zone and not take risk, the way many TV studios that are afraid of the modern media landscape seem to be? It seems like that there are media platforms that are starving for content that is both new and has a recognizable name.

I assume the later, because I think this day and age has far more money making platforms for Star Trek then the past did, Netflix is what syndication was back in the 80s.

I cannot force CBS to be more daring in dealing with the modern media landscape, but I can criticize them for wanting to stay in their comfort zone and not try to do more with Star Trek in this new media landscape.

Even a B-list superhero has the advantage of being set in the modern day. Sets and clothing are contemporary, so their is less expense for futuristic sets and props.

What about Game of Thrones, it is set in a fictional fantasy world, with very elaborate sets and fictional settings, it still makes HBO money. Is fantasy really that much more of an easy sell compared to sci fi in TV nowadays.

 

[fireproof78]

I disagree, it seems like almost every property with semi recognizable name is getting a TV treatment nowadays. 12 Monkeys and Scream have gotten TV shows. Is Star Trek really less popular then a lot of the properties that have been chosen to get the TV treatment nowadays?

Here is a question you seem to be tip toeing around, does CBS not want to make a Star Trek series because they did extensive market research and made an informed decisions or is it because they want to stay in their comfort zone and not take risk, the way many TV studios that are afraid of the modern media landscape seem to be? It seems like that there are media platforms that are starving for content that is both new and has a recognizable name.

I assume the later, because I think this day and age has far more money making platforms for Star Trek then the past did, Netflix is what syndication was back in the 80s.

I cannot force CBS to be more daring in dealing with the modern media landscape, but I can criticize them for wanting to stay in their comfort zone and not try to do more with Star Trek in this new media landscape.

I don't fault your criticism, but to be perfectly fair, it isn't your money to gamble with either.

As I have mentioned, CBS doesn't have to do anything, and they make money on Star Trek.

Yes, I think CBS is scared. I think most of the major media studios are scared as effects houses close up and consumers have more options and are less likely to consume traditional media. There is a lot of risk, and not seemingly viable way of predicting it.

Even a B-list superhero has the advantage of being set in the modern day. Sets and clothing are contemporary, so their is less expense for futuristic sets and props.

What about Game of Thrones, it is set in a fictional fantasy world, with very elaborate sets and fictional settings, it still makes HBO money. Is fantasy really that much more of an easy sell compared to sci fi in TV nowadays.

Yes, I think that fantasy is easier to sell than science fiction. Gone are the days where you can present an SF show an the audience buys in to with without expecting some form of realism or acknowledgement of how space travel actually works.

Fantasy gets a little more permission to hand-wave away aspects by claiming fantasy. Same thing with comic book films. Science fiction, especially lately, have been edging closer to harder sci-fi making it more difficult to hand-wave away some things.

tl:dr Yes, fantasy is easier to sell and CBS is not willing to risk money and I don't blame them.

 

[eyeresist]

All this talk about sci fi shows not being popular anymore, seems to be undermined by all the super hero shows being made.

I would argue that superhero and sci-fi are generally perceived as different things.

 

[JTShanks]

All this talk about sci fi shows not being popular anymore, seems to be undermined by all the super hero shows being made.

I would argue that superhero and sci-fi are generally perceived as different things.

I don't see why they cannot be both......

 

[BillJ]

Its on the main CBS network, how is that B-list for CBS?

Fair enough, I thought it was airing on the CW. But it still has massive advantages from a production budget point of view, as it will have limited effects and everything doesn't have to be designed from the ground up like it does for a space opera that takes place in the far future.

Here is a question you seem to be tip toeing around, does CBS not want to make a Star Trek series because they did extensive market research and made an informed decisions or is it because they want to stay in their comfort zone and not take risk, the way many TV studios that are afraid of the modern media landscape seem to be? It seems like that there are media platforms that are starving for content that is both new and has a recognizable name.

You don't think that CBS has departments that do nothing but crunch the numbers? CBS isn't going to leave money laying on the table, if they had the numbers to back it up, Star Trek would be on TV somewhere. It all boils down to 'CBS is stupid', the same argument people use as it becomes crystal clear that there will be no HD remasters of Deep Space Nine and Voyager, even though it is obvious that TNG-HD wasn't a success by any available measurement.

Star Trek is a mid-range product with an incredibly whiny and rapidly aging fanbase, it is no longer the massive cultural phenomenon (was it ever?) that fans seem to think it is.

I can see a scenario where Star Trek lies dormant on TV until there is again some groundswell of interest in space among the general populace.

 

[martok2112]

All this talk about sci fi shows not being popular anymore, seems to be undermined by all the super hero shows being made.

I would argue that superhero and sci-fi are generally perceived as different things.

I don't see why they cannot be both......

On the one hand, maybe certain aspects of a superhero show/movie would have sci-fi in them, but when it comes to the superhero his/herself, (the main focus of the story) there is very little actual science involved.

It is largely fantasy. (Radioactive spider turns a teenage geek into a ripped webslinger, cosmic rays turn four astronauts into elastic/transparent/fiery/rock people, gamma rays from a nuclear blast, or an accidental overdoes from a gamma machine--take your pick-- turn a meek scientist into a raging green force of nature, a yellow sun gives an alien from a far away, long destroyed planet the powers of flight, heat vision, super strength, etc, mutations that actually have benefits, etc.)

All of that, and more, any respectable scientist is going to decry as dangerously improbable and impossible. They'd have an easier time accepting "faster than light" travel in a space epic than they would that a human or other being could be transformed from zero to hero by a freak of nature.

The focus of the superhero story is fantasy. Pure, unadulterated fantasy. And it's all about the focus in the end, not the periphery that may accompany it.

Personal opinion, however. Do not take for gospel. I'm sure there are other views that are just as valid.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Science fiction as it's called in movies/TV doesn't have much functional difference from fantasy. The difference between Trek and some of those other popular ones is that it's a space based fantasy, and that's really all. For shows like these to get made, there has to be a precedent. For comic book stuff, there's a huge precedent in that a lot of it is selling, at least in the movies. The closest Star Trek is going to get as a precedent is if Star Wars finally gets a live action show and it does well. CBS isn't going to be the trendsetter there.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I've often quoted John Crichton's "wait for the wheel" speech in Farscape as my go-to gig on Star Trek eventually making it back. Space opera is as much a wheel as anything else; sometimes it's popular en masse, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's so popular that it manifests itself in myriad forms on television; usually it is not.

In my evaluation, if there is a single perennial leader in helping to dictate this trend, it's clearly Star Wars: its success in the late 70s and early 80s helped to make Trek movies possible for long enough to get TNG on the air, and its fandom resurgence following things like Zahn's novels probably helped keep space opera TV going in the 90s. The hype behind the announcement of the prequels helped carry those shows into the early 2000s, but the failure to turn those prequels into a major cultural zeitgeist likely impacted space opera's solidarity as of 2004 or so. And I'm just using Trek in these examples... I could cite all the rest, too.

So I've held out hope that further SW saturation, if received particularly well, would move things forward in the television landscape. With Disney at the "wheel", I think the odds of seeing space opera make a noteworthy comeback in the TV wheel are all the more likely. As Ryan says, if there's a show in a galaxy far, far away and it performs decently enough, that's going to be a thing that gets noticed. That would, hypothetically, push things into high gear. But similarly, if other shows get revivals and/or new ideas spring forth on the TV landscape, I think a lot of that is going to link up with SW making a big Hollywood splash as well. SW gets the mainstream thinking about how cool it is to fly through space, and that translates elsewhere. It translates to Trek, even as they're two very different franchises overall.

What I want to see right now is for The Expanse, Red Planet, Dark Matter to do well. At least one of them, anyway. Hell, that'd still be a coup. That'd still be something worth noting. I feel very strongly that networks are banking on Star Wars getting the wheel back on space opera for a little while, or at least part of the wheel, to an extent that Abrams Trek can't achieve. I think they're already greenlighting these book adaptations of space opera pieces because they're hoping there'll be a ripple effect, that public interest will trickle down into television material.

And if they're right, 2020 or so might look a lot brighter for Trek on TV.

Maybe.

In the meantime, the fandom is generally doing what is necessary to keep the franchise alive. Fan productions are at a peak that never would have happened if there were more than a couple of hours of new "canon" every few years. There's such a thirst, and it's manifesting itself brilliantly. Axanar, Continues, Renegades, Phase II. The list goes on, and that's a beautiful thing. Unfortunately the fandom also kind of shoots itself in the foot every time it loudly gangs up on what's currently being put out by Paramount; I'm not saying people shouldn't feel free to express their opinions, but the dead horse has been beaten to death the dead horse to death beaten beaten dead horse dead beaten. That isn't a random string of words; that's what it looks like when people on the internet talk about how bad the new movies are in 2015. It's immensely tiring and no doubt marvelously off-putting to TPTB. It suggests the existence of a strong fandom that isn't going to buy into their products, and that's enough to throw a wrench in a lot of 2010s-era pipedreams, I think.

 

[Amaris]

All this talk about sci fi shows not being popular anymore, seems to be undermined by all the super hero shows being made.

I would argue that superhero and sci-fi are generally perceived as different things.

I don't see why they cannot be both......

I guess it depends. For example, I see the original Iron Man more as a science fiction film than I do a superhero film. The Avengers, films, however, I see as fantasy superhero films. For me, it's all in the approach, and context is heavily involved in the decision.

 

[johnjm22]

Understandable reaction.
Where do you go from here now? Another show about a ship exploring space? Another show about a space station that is located on a strategic location? Or try something new like a West Wing style Star Trek show or a Starfleet Academy series.

I like the Game Of Thrones formula (in terms of format). Multiple story lines going on in different locations that all tie into a larger central story arc.

So for example you could have developing stories going on at Section 31, a Star Ship, the Borg home world in their infancy, Qo'noS, Romulus, various mysterious new places, the Orion Syndicate ect. The possibilities are endless. They all tie into a central theme and cross over with each other.

Allegory, real science fiction and moral dilemmas could all be worked in, as well as occasional one-off episodes.

 

[The Overlord]

I disagree, it seems like almost every property with semi recognizable name is getting a TV treatment nowadays. 12 Monkeys and Scream have gotten TV shows. Is Star Trek really less popular then a lot of the properties that have been chosen to get the TV treatment nowadays?

Here is a question you seem to be tip toeing around, does CBS not want to make a Star Trek series because they did extensive market research and made an informed decisions or is it because they want to stay in their comfort zone and not take risk, the way many TV studios that are afraid of the modern media landscape seem to be? It seems like that there are media platforms that are starving for content that is both new and has a recognizable name.

I assume the later, because I think this day and age has far more money making platforms for Star Trek then the past did, Netflix is what syndication was back in the 80s.

I cannot force CBS to be more daring in dealing with the modern media landscape, but I can criticize them for wanting to stay in their comfort zone and not try to do more with Star Trek in this new media landscape.

I don't fault your criticism, but to be perfectly fair, it isn't your money to gamble with either.

As I have mentioned, CBS doesn't have to do anything, and they make money on Star Trek.

Yes, I think CBS is scared. I think most of the major media studios are scared as effects houses close up and consumers have more options and are less likely to consume traditional media. There is a lot of risk, and not seemingly viable way of predicting it.

There is a lot of risk, but that also means there are lots of opportunities that didn't exist in the past. I think the media companies that do take risks in this environment will do better then those who want to live in the past and try to play it safe by not adapting to the new media landscape. I think other media companies are taking more risks then CBS. In business and entertainment, fortune favors the bold.

I think saying there is no way to make money on Star Trek nowadays, is due to a lack of imagination, rather then a solid assessment of the facts of today's media landscape.

Yes, I think that fantasy is easier to sell than science fiction. Gone are the days where you can present an SF show an the audience buys in to with without expecting some form of realism or acknowledgement of how space travel actually works.

Fantasy gets a little more permission to hand-wave away aspects by claiming fantasy. Same thing with comic book films. Science fiction, especially lately, have been edging closer to harder sci-fi making it more difficult to hand-wave away some things.

tl:dr Yes, fantasy is easier to sell and CBS is not willing to risk money and I don't blame them.

Star Trek has never really had realistic science and I don't think anyone cares about that, as long as it makes sense within the context of the story.

Time travel, god like beings, being split into good and evil halves, all of those are things that appeared Star Trek and have no basis in real science.

Look at Star Wars, they don't explain what the hyper drive is, its just an excuse to get from point A to point B. We don't need some bad attempt at a physics lesson to explain the Warp Drive, its just a plot device device. We don't need to focus that much on hard science in a sci fi, we are talking about entertainment, not something in a class room.

Star Trek is more interesting when it focuses on philosophy and the human condition, rather then hard science. The science in the Inner Light didn't make sense, but it didn't have to. You are underestimating willing suspension of disbelief an audience is willing to give a program if the stories are good.

 

[fireproof78]

I disagree, it seems like almost every property with semi recognizable name is getting a TV treatment nowadays. 12 Monkeys and Scream have gotten TV shows. Is Star Trek really less popular then a lot of the properties that have been chosen to get the TV treatment nowadays?

Here is a question you seem to be tip toeing around, does CBS not want to make a Star Trek series because they did extensive market research and made an informed decisions or is it because they want to stay in their comfort zone and not take risk, the way many TV studios that are afraid of the modern media landscape seem to be? It seems like that there are media platforms that are starving for content that is both new and has a recognizable name.

I assume the later, because I think this day and age has far more money making platforms for Star Trek then the past did, Netflix is what syndication was back in the 80s.

I cannot force CBS to be more daring in dealing with the modern media landscape, but I can criticize them for wanting to stay in their comfort zone and not try to do more with Star Trek in this new media landscape.

I don't fault your criticism, but to be perfectly fair, it isn't your money to gamble with either.

As I have mentioned, CBS doesn't have to do anything, and they make money on Star Trek.

Yes, I think CBS is scared. I think most of the major media studios are scared as effects houses close up and consumers have more options and are less likely to consume traditional media. There is a lot of risk, and not seemingly viable way of predicting it.

There is a lot of risk, but that also means there are lots of opportunities that didn't exist in the past. I think the media companies that do take risks in this environment will do better then those who want to live in the past and try to play it safe by not adapting to the new media landscape. I think other media companies are taking more risks then CBS. In business and entertainment, fortune favors the bold.

I think saying there is no way to make money on Star Trek nowadays, is due to a lack of imagination, rather then a solid assessment of the facts of today's media landscape.

Even a B-list superhero has the advantage of being set in the modern day. Sets and clothing are contemporary, so their is less expense for futuristic sets and props.

What about Game of Thrones, it is set in a fictional fantasy world, with very elaborate sets and fictional settings, it still makes HBO money. Is fantasy really that much more of an easy sell compared to sci fi in TV nowadays.

Yes, I think that fantasy is easier to sell than science fiction. Gone are the days where you can present an SF show an the audience buys in to with without expecting some form of realism or acknowledgement of how space travel actually works.

Fantasy gets a little more permission to hand-wave away aspects by claiming fantasy. Same thing with comic book films. Science fiction, especially lately, have been edging closer to harder sci-fi making it more difficult to hand-wave away some things.

tl:dr Yes, fantasy is easier to sell and CBS is not willing to risk money and I don't blame them.

Star Trek has never really had realistic science and I don't think anyone cares about that, as long as it makes sense within the context of the story.

Time travel, god like beings, being split into good and evil halves, all of those are things that appeared Star Trek and have no basis in real science.

Look at Star Wars, they don't explain what the hyper drive is, its just an excuse to get from point A to point B. We don't need some bad attempt at a physics lesson to explain the Warp Drive, its just a plot device device. We don't need to focus that much on hard science in a sci fi, we are talking about entertainment, not something in a class room.

Star Trek is more interesting when it focuses on philosophy and the human condition, rather then hard science. The science in the Inner Light didn't make sense, but it didn't have to. You are underestimating willing suspension of disbelief an audience is willing to give a program if the stories are good.[/QUOTE]


I probably am overestimating the willingness of the suspension of disbelief, but the fact that films like Interstellar and Gravity which depict a little harder version of science fiction than perhaps had been done in years past. So, I'm not saying the audience will not buy in to it, but rather there is now another consideration from a production standpoint that prior Treks really didn't have.

No, I'm not saying that Star Trek was ever "hard" but it the demand for harder SF was not nearly as prevalent either. I just think there is a different cultural attitude than existed before. Is it a bad thing? No, but I think that it gives some pause before making stuff. At least, it does me.

Also, you misunderstand me. I have not said there absolutely no way to make money on Trek-CBS does that by virtue of owning parts of that property. What I am saying is that CBS does not see a predictable way to do so. I think BillJ pointed it out (possibly in another thread) that the numbers are not lining up in a way that CBS sees as a worthwhile gambit.

I agree that the contemporary media landscape is ripe with opportunity and that bold attempts may create great rewards. But, the capriciousness of audiences is concerning too. There is not the same digesting of media on TV, or even streaming, that there use to be.

I want there to be a new Trek series, but I don't blame CBS for not wanting to start making one either.

 

[newpball]

Milking a 60 year old concept for yet another sequel can hardly be classified as a bold attempt.

Just saying.


11146

 

[Karzak]

In the scope of who I'll believe about what the future of Trek holds I'd definitely have to go with Frakes > everyone else in this thread.

 

[Ithekro]

Space Opera seems to come based on how the real world is doing in space flight. Right now, we are seemingly doing nothing. Or at least nothing that is really getting public attention or the imaginations of younger people going.

Maybe things will change by 2020. Or maybe Star Wars will be enough to get the space opera bug rolling again. We will see come next year.