Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[RAMA]

...The main advantage of a series now is that ratings are so much lower for niche TV..Arrow and Flash are bonafide genre successes, and Arrow had a 1 rating this week. Enterprise on it's worst week was 2-3 times better. A new ST show could comfortably have 1.5-3 million viewers and stay on forever.

Interesting.

I wonder what the viewer numbers will have to be for a streamed show?

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-originals-viewer-data-1201480234/

 

[EJD1984]

Jeniffer Morrison for captain?

And Lana Parrilla in charge of Section 31

 

[RAMA]

It was almost two years.

Using TOS as the metric by which popularity and success is measured isn't the best way to go about doing things.

Really, we have George Lucas to thank just as much as Roddenberry for Star Trek returning in 1979.

I have to quibble with this every time I see it. Star Wars did indeed effect Star Trek, but it would have been come back one way or another, indeed, a Star Trek project had been in the works since 1975. SW did two things: It accelerated STTMP by about a year and gave it a locked in release date, AND two it changed the plan from a TV show or low budget (Planet of Titans/In thy Image) movie to a big budget one.

Which would gone over as well and be remembered as fondly as any other low-budget late-70s scifi.

This is Star Trek we're talking about. You don't think a Phase 2 show or a movie would still be talked about today??

 

[cooleddie74]

It was almost two years.

September 8, 1966 - September 2, 1969.



Unless that was a typo or an inside joke I didn't get.

 

[fireproof78]

I like the Kirk who lies about an explosive substance called Corbomite and talks machines into blowing themselves up. Not the one who beams in with no plan and shoots everyone. I think the casting and characterization of Spock is one of the high points of NuTrek.

In STID, there's a lot of big explosions and gun fights, a number of ship battles and it ends with a starship crashing right into San Francisco.

So if the next movie wants to top this, what would it do?

"300" "the Terminator" "Kill Bill" are among my favorite movies, so I like action. But too many explosions gets boring fast. They become expected and that's bad for entertainment.

It creates the same effect as being bored from watching a slow paced movie with too much talking.

But also I feel they put zero effort into anybody but Kirk, Spock and Uhura. All they did with Chekov is make fun of his accent and all they did was Sulu was throw in some token sword fights. Too many fan winks.

Admiral Marcus was one of my favorites. I wish they kept him.

I see it as nepotism on Pike's part, but it ends up backfiring. I don't have a problem with it, so far as the story actually addresses it later.

Honestly, to me, it is more of a pacing issue. They had to go so fast to get through their story that it felt rushed. Of my issues with Trek 09 pacing is at the top of the list.

Kirk's promotion also doesn't bother me because of field promotions, and all the military science fiction I read. So, for me, I can rationalize it away a little bit easier. Could it have been done better. Absolutely, and heard several proposals to that effect. Does it ruin the film for me? No.

I think this is what might have put some fans off the movie from the start. That premise was just too much get over.

Pacing--that's what I think is one of the main reasons some fans were just turned off of Trek. Everything seems so quickly mashed together.

The 09 movie's storyline is very similar to Starship Troopers. Which one handled it better?

Personally, I would lean more on Trek 09, as I feel it is a bit more relevant to contemporary society, and not a deliberate riff on fascist regimes that drown out the leadership themes. I'm a big fan of the Starship Troopers book, which actually helps me enjoy Trek 09 more. But, Starship Troopers was too over the top, in my opinion, to be effective.

But, I can see why the pacing would be off putting. But, I have been going back over the 09 film and analyzing it since it came out on DVD. I find Kirk's arc to be very much relevant to modern society, and find it applicable when talking about psychology.

 

[Squiggy]

I have to quibble with this every time I see it. Star Wars did indeed effect Star Trek, but it would have been come back one way or another, indeed, a Star Trek project had been in the works since 1975. SW did two things: It accelerated STTMP by about a year and gave it a locked in release date, AND two it changed the plan from a TV show or low budget (Planet of Titans/In thy Image) movie to a big budget one.

Which would gone over as well and be remembered as fondly as any other low-budget late-70s scifi.

This is Star Trek we're talking about. You don't think a Phase 2 show or a movie would still be talked about today??

In the alternate reality where Star Wars was never created and Star Trek went on to air a Phase 2, then it would remembered as fondly as Space 1999 and the original Battlestar. No where NEAR what it is today.

It was almost two years.

September 8, 1966 - September 2, 1969.



Unless that was a typo or an inside joke I didn't get.

Oh, I know. I meant it was almost canceled after the 2nd season.

 

[cooleddie74]

Gotcha. And you are correct.

One of the few times a mail-in campaign saved a doomed show that was actually worth saving.

 

[Kor]

...and then we got "Spock's Brain."

Kor

 

[cooleddie74]

Don't complain. Here, take upon your head the Teacher. It is powerful and will instruct you.

 

[Yanks]

...The main advantage of a series now is that ratings are so much lower for niche TV..Arrow and Flash are bonafide genre successes, and Arrow had a 1 rating this week. Enterprise on it's worst week was 2-3 times better. A new ST show could comfortably have 1.5-3 million viewers and stay on forever.

Interesting.

I wonder what the viewer numbers will have to be for a streamed show?

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-originals-viewer-data-1201480234/

Thank you.

 

[Greg Cox]

...and then we got "Spock's Brain."

But we also got "Day of the Dove" and "All Our Yesterdays"--and enough eps to make the series viable for syndication.

 

[Mudd]

Humanity's future is watching.

You're on a forum where people still talking about a 50 year old series that's coming back in 2017 and you're nope-ing that?

Of course I am. "Humanity's future is watching" is pure cant - it sounds heroic, but it's empty of any meaning at all. You might as well post "North Dakota's aardvark is dancing." Deep, man. Deep.

Oh, and I'm on a forum where people are arguing about the minutiae of an old TV series and where people fight about every trivial aspect of the fiction - the uniforms, the casting, the continuity of how the transporter works for chrissakes. You're telling me that this is somehow evidence of Star Trek's importance to the human race? I'd say it's evidence that a lot of us have a lot of free time to take our hobbies way too seriously.

You know what else people here still talk about after decades? William Shatner doing a late night comedy skit with the punchline "Get a life!"

 

[Karzak]

I hope there's a burn unit nearby because Makarov you just got scorched!

 

[RAMA]

Which would gone over as well and be remembered as fondly as any other low-budget late-70s scifi.

This is Star Trek we're talking about. You don't think a Phase 2 show or a movie would still be talked about today??

In the alternate reality where Star Wars was never created and Star Trek went on to air a Phase 2, then it would remembered as fondly as Space 1999 and the original Battlestar. No where NEAR what it is today.

It was almost two years.

September 8, 1966 - September 2, 1969.



Unless that was a typo or an inside joke I didn't get.

Oh, I know. I meant it was almost canceled after the 2nd season.

I don't see it. We're talking about a Phase 2 series, maybe it lasts 5 years and spawns a sequel series in 1985 instead of 1993. Or a movie that spawns sequels 2 years early..and the only Space Opera in town? I think we'd be talking about it right now.

 

[Squiggy]

To a vast vast vast majority of people, it's not a "space opera" it's a "sci-fi show" and they're a dime a dozen - especially of that vintage, and they're all pretty crap.

I also don't see how Phase 2 would do any better than TOS. It was the same people behind the scenes. Same cast, crew, setting - just with groovier lapels and more beige on the bridge. Just with no Spock. That would've gone over great.

Nah. We'd get two, maybe three seasons (again) and then the franchise would rest for another decade if Roddenberry didn't want to immediately try with a movie. But again, without Star Wars pushing sci-fi through 77-85, I don't think it would've happened at all and Trek would be a historical foot note of failed sci-fi dramas.

But, this would all require that Paramount Network. Say it does launch and P2 does air - maybe it would've lurched until 1985 like Voyager, but it would just because the network didn't have anything else better (maybe, who knows? Timey wimey.)

 

[Warped9]

Not counting The Cage.

"The Cage" sold TOS as a concept, but not as a series. WNMHGB did sell it as a series and it was a very strong pilot followed by a season that was not only TOS' best but arguably the best and strongest season overall in the entire franchise.

"Taking awhile to get its legs" simply doesn't apply to TOS. In terms of storytelling it was solid and competent from the get-go.

You really can't include TOS in the conversations referring to the spin-offs. By the standards the spin-offs are held to TOS was a failure.

None of the spin-offs launched a franchise. And barely a year after NBC cancelled the show they tried (and tried repeatedly) to get it back until Paramount condescended to an animated production.

And, yes, you can include TOS. The assertion that had been made was that all Trek series took awhile to get their legs. And that assertion is false.

 

[fireproof78]

"The Cage" sold TOS as a concept, but not as a series. WNMHGB did sell it as a series and it was a very strong pilot followed by a season that was not only TOS' best but arguably the best and strongest season overall in the entire franchise.

"Taking awhile to get its legs" simply doesn't apply to TOS. In terms of storytelling it was solid and competent from the get-go.

You really can't include TOS in the conversations referring to the spin-offs. By the standards the spin-offs are held to TOS was a failure.

None of the spin-offs launched a franchise. And barely a year after NBC cancelled the show they tried (and tried repeatedly) to get it back until Paramount condescended to an animated production.

And, yes, you can include TOS. The assertion that had been made was that all Trek series took awhile to get their legs. And that assertion is false.

Agreed.

One aspect of TOS that appeals to me is that it inserts you in to a world that already exists. A lot of fun to imagine that world.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I like the Kirk who lies about an explosive substance called Corbomite and talks machines into blowing themselves up. Not the one who beams in with no plan and shoots everyone. I think the casting and characterization of Spock is one of the high points of NuTrek.

In STID, there's a lot of big explosions and gun fights, a number of ship battles and it ends with a starship crashing right into San Francisco.

So if the next movie wants to top this, what would it do?

"300" "the Terminator" "Kill Bill" are among my favorite movies, so I like action. But too many explosions gets boring fast. They become expected and that's bad for entertainment.

It creates the same effect as being bored from watching a slow paced movie with too much talking.


Admiral Marcus was one of my favorites. I wish they kept him.

I see it as nepotism on Pike's part, but it ends up backfiring. I don't have a problem with it, so far as the story actually addresses it later.

Honestly, to me, it is more of a pacing issue. They had to go so fast to get through their story that it felt rushed. Of my issues with Trek 09 pacing is at the top of the list.

Kirk's promotion also doesn't bother me because of field promotions, and all the military science fiction I read. So, for me, I can rationalize it away a little bit easier. Could it have been done better. Absolutely, and heard several proposals to that effect. Does it ruin the film for me? No.

I think this is what might have put some fans off the movie from the start. That premise was just too much get over.

Pacing--that's what I think is one of the main reasons some fans were just turned off of Trek. Everything seems so quickly mashed together.

The 09 movie's storyline is very similar to Starship Troopers. Which one handled it better?

Personally, I would lean more on Trek 09, as I feel it is a bit more relevant to contemporary society, and not a deliberate riff on fascist regimes that drown out the leadership themes. I'm a big fan of the Starship Troopers book, which actually helps me enjoy Trek 09 more. But, Starship Troopers was too over the top, in my opinion, to be effective.

But, I can see why the pacing would be off putting. But, I have been going back over the 09 film and analyzing it since it came out on DVD. I find Kirk's arc to be very much relevant to modern society, and find it applicable when talking about psychology.

I like Kill Bill too, and I love Mad Max and other bang bang action films. But if you put out a movie like that and slap the name 'Star Trek' on it, the name doesn't mean anything. You might as well make Star Wars VIII a documentary about knitting. Not that there's anything wrong with documentaries about knitting, they just aren't Star Wars.

 

[Mudd]

Well, since no one at any time has done anything like that with a movie titled "Star Trek," it's not really an issue.

The main difference between Star Trek 2009 and many previous Trek film is just that it's a really good movie, and one that people who like really good movies can enjoy whether or not they give two craps about where on the ship the transporter room is.

 

[Yanks]

"The Cage" sold TOS as a concept, but not as a series. WNMHGB did sell it as a series and it was a very strong pilot followed by a season that was not only TOS' best but arguably the best and strongest season overall in the entire franchise.

"Taking awhile to get its legs" simply doesn't apply to TOS. In terms of storytelling it was solid and competent from the get-go.

You really can't include TOS in the conversations referring to the spin-offs. By the standards the spin-offs are held to TOS was a failure.

None of the spin-offs launched a franchise. And barely a year after NBC cancelled the show they tried (and tried repeatedly) to get it back until Paramount condescended to an animated production.

And, yes, you can include TOS. The assertion that had been made was that all Trek series took awhile to get their legs. And that assertion is false.

One can argue that TNG spawned all the rest, not TOS. Had TNG tanked, we wouldn't have DS9, VOY & ENT - regardless of the TOS movies. TNG's numbers were not just good, they were legendary.

Your last statement doesn't make any sense... TOS was almost cancelled how many times?