Who else feels robbed of Star Trek?

[AdmiralBruno]

I am not one of those people who hates on the movies. Yes, they are more action oriented.... but you can expect that when you have the length of 3 episodes to explore a story rather than like a 22-episode season, and also 9 figure budgets.

Having said that, I find it insulting that Viacom thinks that having one ST movie every 3-4 years would mean we wouldn't watch a TV show. I mean REALLY? That does not over-saturate the market.

Why not 'Captain Worf'? He is one of the most popular characters ever, and I like Michael Dorn's idea.

And some people hate on 'Enterprise' too.... when I first watched the show I was very iffy and unsure if I liked it. By the time you get to the 3rd or 4th season the show is pretty darn brilliant. It was robbed of three seasons. There was NOTHING I disliked other than the Japanese girl who was an annoying and unnecessary character.

 

[The Wormhole]

Enterprise was cancelled due to low ratings, and we only got a new movie series as soon as we did because a high profile Hollywood director took an interest to Star Trek. Maybe the could increase how often the movies get made, but it's no surprise there isn't a TV show, and I suspect it will be quite a while before one happens again. Even that animated series set in the Abramsverse that Orci used to talk about seems to be little more than a pipedream.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

They should make a deal with Netflix.

Even 13 episodes to binge a year would be better than nothing.

 

[The Wormhole]

But is there really any demand for it? Depending on who you talk to, some are of the opinion STID disappointed at the box office. Anything else Trek related, and this includes Beyond is going to need to be a smash hit in order to be considered worth it.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

But is there really any demand for it? Depending on who you talk to, some are of the opinion STID disappointed at the box office. Anything else Trek related, and this includes Beyond is going to need to be a smash hit in order to be considered worth it.

STID:
Budget $185 million[3] Box office $467.4 million[4]
ST:
Budget $150 million[2] Box office $385.7 million[2]

Both movies made a decent profit. The studios get about half of that. How can you say disappointed? No it's not the billion dollar behemoth that Star Wars will be, but they are not losing money making these movies.

 

[hux]

The new movies and the TV series are entirely different animals so yes, I do crave a new television Star Trek show as the movies don't really fill that hole (no matter how many they churn out). I want ongoing, serialised storytelling and the opportunity to watch characters develop. I want a rich, intelligent, complex world with fascinating strands going in all possible directions.

But most of all, I want Trek that is innovative, gritty and brilliantly written. A show that genuinely competes with the likes of Breaking Bad, Madmen, GoT etc which means I most definitely do NOT want "Captain Worf." That would be going backwards. Those days are done. More of the same is not the answer.

If I have to wait longer for the kinda show I want... so be it. The new films have reinvigorated the franchise. Let's not spoil that by rushing some God awful Captain Worf cheese into everyones faces. That will only damage the franchise at a time when it's finally getting back on its feet.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

The new movies and the TV series are entirely different animals so yes, I do crave a new television Star Trek show as the movies don't really fill that hole (no matter how many they churn out). I want ongoing, serialised storytelling and the opportunity to watch characters develop. I want a rich, intelligent, complex world with fascinating strands going in all possible directions.

But most of all, I want Trek that is innovative, gritty and brilliantly written. A show that genuinely competes with the likes of Breaking Bad, Madmen, GoT etc which means I most definitely do NOT want "Captain Worf." That would be going backwards. Those days are done. More of the same is not the answer.

If I have to wait longer for the kinda show I want... so be it. The new films have reinvigorated the franchise. Let's not spoil that by rushing some God awful Captain Worf cheese into everyones faces. That will only damage the franchise at a time when it's finally getting back on its feet.

God awful? ST is about exploration dude

 

[MacLeod]

Get back to us in 2020, the other big Sci-Fi TV show DW went off the air for 16 years (except for 1 TV Movie). It was cancelled due in part to falling ratings, a long wait isn't always a bad thing. ST went off TV for 18 years between TOS and TNG. So a long gap isn't new. A longer gap might make it more of an event when it does return.

 

[T'Girl]

Budget ... Box office

Does "budget" include all money that Paramount was out in the total process of placing the movie in hundreds (thousands?) of theaters around the world, including distribution and advertising?

I take it for granted that the "box office" is vastly more than what Paramount made in profits.

What were the profits anyway?

 

[Greg Cox]

ST went off TV for 18 years between TOS and TNG. .

Indeed. Some of us grew up during a time when all we had was reruns of the original 79 episodes to watch over and over again in syndication, but I don't remember feeling "robbed."

And then we got the movies and, eventually, TNG and the other Trek series.

 

[Green Shirt]

Let's not spoil that by rushing some God awful Captain Worf cheese into everyones faces.

That would be almost as bad as a Captain Sulu show. Imagine what it would be like if every actor thinks their character could carry a tv series?

How about The Blue Barber:Adventures of Mr. Mott

 

[AdmiralBruno]

I would have wanted to see a USS Titan spinoff with Riker and co..... but the ship sailed on that a long time ago. They should've did it at least a decade ago.

 

[Terok Nor]

TV is where Star Trek belongs. As much as I love Wrath Of Khan, The Voyage Home, First Contact and most of the first 10 movies it's not the same as having new Trek episodes every week. That said, I don't feel robbed. We already have over 700 episodes to enjoy. That's more than most franchises get. Yes I'd love to see Star Trek back on tv but I can't see it happening any time soon. I'm not much of a fan of the new movies but I'm glad they exist because they keep Star Trek in the public consciousness and allow it to continue on. Maybe one day it will end up back on tv.

 

[Terok Nor]

And I also agree that a fresh new cast is necessary for any new tv show that may happen. As much as it pains me to say it the old crews have had their day. They can still show up for guest appearances like Spock, Bones and Scotty did on Next Generation.

 

[Granola Gwen]

I guess the 80's-90's reboot era of the franchise with multiple series and such was just a special time to be in. Maybe we'll be able to experience something like this in our current age or maybe not. Either way, there's still a large vault of series to rewatch. If a potential show doesn't start from a fresh perception, then new audiences probably will be turned off. So I'd vote no on Mr. Worf for his own series even though I did enjoy his screen time from back in the day.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Let's not spoil that by rushing some God awful Captain Worf cheese into everyones faces.

That would be almost as bad as a Captain Sulu show. Imagine what it would be like if every actor thinks their character could carry a tv series?

How about The Blue Barber:Adventures of Mr. Mott

I have two words that are going to blow your mind.

Captain.

Morn.

 

[M'Sharak]

Who else feels robbed of Star Trek?

I don't.

As has already been pointed out, some of us went a fair bit longer than ten years with no new Trek on television. It's not robbery; it's just an absence of new Trek on TV. No big deal. We're not entitled to it, after all.

Having said that, I find it insulting that Viacom thinks that having one ST movie every 3-4 years would mean we wouldn't watch a TV show.

One thing CBS would have to consider on the way to producing a new series is this:

Looking at the graph, the question becomes: would the audience be large enough to make it profitable for CBS to produce such a series? That chart does not exactly inspire confidence in profitability. If CBS (for that or for any of a number of other reasons) declines to produce a series you say you'd watch and I say I might watch too, isn't it just a tiny bit silly to "find it insulting"?

 

[BillJ]

After the oversaturation of the 90's, I'm liking getting a new movie every three to four years. Enough to keep me interested, not so much to burn me out.

If I do get the itch for Trek beyond that, I can revisit old episodes/movies or pick up a novel or comic. In November, we get A Child of Two Worlds by Greg Cox. That'll scratch the itch for new Trek between now and Star Trek Beyond.

 

[The Wormhole]

But is there really any demand for it? Depending on who you talk to, some are of the opinion STID disappointed at the box office. Anything else Trek related, and this includes Beyond is going to need to be a smash hit in order to be considered worth it.

STID:
Budget $185 million[3] Box office $467.4 million[4]
ST:
Budget $150 million[2] Box office $385.7 million[2]

Both movies made a decent profit. The studios get about half of that. How can you say disappointed? No it's not the billion dollar behemoth that Star Wars will be, but they are not losing money making these movies.

Well, I did say it was an opinion held by some, which a look through random threads in the Trek XI forum will confirm. It is worth noting however that STID was slaughtered at the box office by a Fast and Furious movie. Dwell upon that for a moment. The Fast and the Furious outperformed Star Trek at the box office.

After the oversaturation of the 90's, I'm liking getting a new movie every three to four years. Enough to keep me interested, not so much to burn me out.

If I do get the itch for Trek beyond that, I can revisit old episodes/movies or pick up a novel or comic. In November, we get A Child of Two Worlds by Greg Cox. That'll scratch the itch for new Trek between now and Star Trek Beyond.

Good point. We do get a steady output of monthly Trek novels and comics, which definitely tides me over during the interregnum between movies.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

But is there really any demand for it? Depending on who you talk to, some are of the opinion STID disappointed at the box office. Anything else Trek related, and this includes Beyond is going to need to be a smash hit in order to be considered worth it.

STID:
Budget $185 million[3] Box office $467.4 million[4]
ST:
Budget $150 million[2] Box office $385.7 million[2]

Both movies made a decent profit. The studios get about half of that. How can you say disappointed? No it's not the billion dollar behemoth that Star Wars will be, but they are not losing money making these movies.

Well, I did say it was an opinion held by some, which a look through random threads in the Trek XI forum will confirm. It is worth noting however that STID was slaughtered at the box office by a Fast and Furious movie. Dwell upon that for a moment. The Fast and the Furious outperformed Star Trek at the box office.

After the oversaturation of the 90's, I'm liking getting a new movie every three to four years. Enough to keep me interested, not so much to burn me out.

If I do get the itch for Trek beyond that, I can revisit old episodes/movies or pick up a novel or comic. In November, we get A Child of Two Worlds by Greg Cox. That'll scratch the itch for new Trek between now and Star Trek Beyond.

Good point. We do get a steady output of monthly Trek novels and comics, which definitely tides me over during the interregnum between movies.

You mean Star Trek Legends? lololol

inb4disney

And well, F&F made even more money because Paul Walker died from a horrible disease of no fault of his own, so yeah....

ST will get a lot of Nimoy sympathy people next time.