Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[cooleddie74]

At least twice. At its height, TOS ranked #52 in the year-end Nielsen ratings and that was its premiere season (1966-67). It was downhill from there. I love and respect the series and what it set in motion once it went into syndicated reruns and became a pop culture phenomenon, but let's not mince words here: without the runaway ratings and critical success that TNG established starting at the end of the '80s we wouldn't have the vast Trek empire that exists today. Even the first four movies with the original cast - as successful as they were - wouldn't have been enough to sustain the entire franchise for the rest of the century and into the new one.

 

[Warped9]

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?

You're wrong. Without TOS there would have been no subsequent films and no TNG to build on what came before. Without TOS there was no franchise to grow.

NBC realized its mistake soon after the fact. NBC had been aware of demographics, but that wasn't a significant enough measuring stick at the time. At the time sheer numbers is what mattered more. But after TOS ended NBC soon realized that they had had the exact series they wanted to reach the target audience they desired, but they had let it go. The fact that TOS grew evermore in popularity after it ended its original run merely proved that the show had not been the failure the network had believed it to be.

TOS also illustrated the value of syndication even as far back as those years so long ago when the series was aired by stations beyond only the NBC affiliates and those stations scheduled the show where they thought it would have the most pull unlike the shitty timeslot TOS had been stuck in during its third season.

 

[Squiggy]

NBC realized its mistake soon after the fact.

Yet it remained cancelled. How funny is that?

 

[Warped9]

NBC realized its mistake soon after the fact.

Yet it remained cancelled. How funny is that?

Because Paramount had no interest in reviving the series despite repeated requests from NBC to bring the show back. They finally relented by allowing production of TAS.

 

[Amaris]

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.

I like movies that are self-contained. Going in, I shouldn't have to know how a transporter works, what a warp drive is, or why Vulcans have pointed ears. I should be brought up to speed on what I know as I go, while also not losing track of the plot or the sequence of events.

For me, Star Trek 2009 manages to hit all of the right spots. I feel that if I had not been a Trek fan going in, I would have still known exactly what was going on.

 

[Mudd]

Nobody needs warp drive, transporters or Vulcans explained to them. It's old stuff and has been for decades.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

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.

I like movies that are self-contained. Going in, I shouldn't have to know how a transporter works, what a warp drive is, or why Vulcans have pointed ears. I should be brought up to speed on what I know as I go, while also not losing track of the plot or the sequence of events.

For me, Star Trek 2009 manages to hit all of the right spots. I feel that if I had not been a Trek fan going in, I would have still known exactly what was going on.

I can pretty much confirm it. Several of my friends were introduced to Trek by yours truly with that movie and none of them felt lost.

 

[Greg Cox]

Nobody needs warp drive, transporters or Vulcans explained to them. It's old stuff and has been for decades.

For us maybe, but not necessarily for the average moviegoer.

 

[martok2112]

The average movie goer might need a brief explanation of the mechanics of how warp drive works, but warp drive/warp speed has become as much a household colloquialism as light speed as a result of pop culture consciousness.

Using that pop culture colloquialism, they know that warp speed means very fast...about the same as light speed means very fast. That's all they need to know to get their foot in the door. If they want to know more, for that, there's decades of back material. If not, they'll just sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Mudd]

Nobody needs warp drive, transporters or Vulcans explained to them. It's old stuff and has been for decades.

For us maybe, but not necessarily for the average moviegoer.

Seriously? Someone at this late date doesn't get "beam us up?"

Other than the transporters specifically, most everything in Star Trek is in Star Wars and dozens of other blockbusters every year: fast spaceships, aliens, ray-guns. And it has been for forty years at least.

The average movie goer might need a brief explanation of the mechanics of how warp drive works.

Uh-uh. You push the button and the spaceship goes faster - there's the mechanics that movie goers need to know. They see that. They get that. Same thing happens in the Millennium Falcon.

 

[fireproof78]

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 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.

But there is a difference between a straight action film and Trek 09, in my opinion, namely that they recognized that TOS had action in it. It might not have been at the pace that contemporary films or TV are at now, but they were action pieces for their day.

I think that is the disconnect when looking at TOS now, versus its contemporaries and what is was to a 60s audience. TOS was actually on par in terms of pacing and structure for other TV series, like Wild Wild West, and similar in action and stunts.

Personally, I think Abrams brought the sense of action and adventure with a more contemporary feel, including a faster pace. Did the pace need to be as fast as it was? In my opinion, no, but that doesn't ruin the adventure, and the commentary I find in Trek 09.

 

[TheSubCommander]

Nobody needs warp drive, transporters or Vulcans explained to them. It's old stuff and has been for decades.

For us maybe, but not necessarily for the average moviegoer.

Seriously? Someone at this late date doesn't get "beam us up?"

Other than the transporters specifically, most everything in Star Trek is in Star Wars and dozens of other blockbusters every year: fast spaceships, aliens, ray-guns. And it has been for forty years at least.

The average movie goer might need a brief explanation of the mechanics of how warp drive works.

Uh-uh. You push the button and the spaceship goes faster - there's the mechanics that movie goers need to know. They see that. They get that. Same thing happens in the Millennium Falcon.

Gawd I love how some people think you have to spoon feed plot devices to the audience like transporters and warp drive. Derp Derp Space ships go fast. People disappear and reappear elsewhere. I think I grasped the concept at age 5 when I was watching TOS reruns.

 

[cooleddie74]

Trek itself didn't explain transporters and their origin until almost 40 years after Gene invented that universe. "Realm of Fear (TNG)" took us inside a transporter beaming process to see what a transport subject sees, but until "Daedalus (ENT)" introduced us to the inventor and backstory of the technology we didn't know much more in 2004 than we did in 1966.

Even the creators of Trek and its spinoffs realized that transporters were one of those facets of futuristic technology that didn't need elaborate explanations. Every once in a while it's fun and interesting to tell some of the backstory but you don't necessarily need it.

We didn't know the year in which humanity broke the warp barrier and made official First Contact with an alien race until a movie was released in 1996, three whole decades after TOS first premiered and 29 years after the character of Zefram Cochrane was introduced to audiences. Even Trek takes its sweet time explaining things, if it does in the first place.

 

[RAMA]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gurufoc...-new-star-trek-series-add-to-cbs-bottom-line/

Final thoughts
As a CBS shareholder, I wanted to do a ballpark guess as to what the new “Star Trek” could add to the bottom line. The average “Game of Thrones” episode costs $6 million to make. The recently aired “Supergirl” pilot is rumored to have cost $14 million to make. “Star Trek” is the company’s crown jewel, and my guess is that CBS will invest heavily.
Let’s say the new “Star Trek” season 1 averages $6 million per episode and has 10 episodes for a total cost of $60 million. Taking my base case for subscription revenue and then subtracting episode costs ($192 million – $60 million) would net $132 million for 2017 domestic subscription income. That’s not taking into account other forms of monetization like advertising fees or international distribution.
As of the third quarter, there were 480 million shares outstanding which means that the new “Star Trek” would add 27½ cents to EPS if my assumptions are correct. That’s not bad considering that the current dividend is 15 cents per quarter. Of course, I’m guessing and might be way off base. I would be interested in reader feedback.

 

[RAMA]

I rarely listen to these but enjoyed this one:

The New Star Trek Series, with Larry Nemecek


A Closer Look at CBS’s Plans.


In this special episode of The Ready Room, Star Trek historian Larry Nemecek and Trek.fm’s founder Christopher Jones pick up their mics to break down the possibilities for this new ‪#‎StarTrek‬ series and explore the nuts and bolts of the development process.

http://www.trek.fm/the-ready-room/190

 

[BillJ]

Because Paramount had no interest in reviving the series despite repeated requests from NBC to bring the show back. They finally relented by allowing production of TAS.

Like many other things where Star Trek is concerned, I wonder how accurate those claims really are?

I never bought the idea that NBC didn't know who was watching Star Trek.

 

[Terok Nor]

I hope this is set in the new timeline. Prime Trek had it's day, and should be left where it is.

Largely, I feel this way too.
I certainly won't be opposed if the show takes place in the prime timeline, but I would like to see more of the new timeline.

The bottom line of either time line is: Give us good stories, and give everyone a reason to love Trek again.

(passes the peace pipe around.... Terek Nor? )

Takes a hit

 

[RAMA]

So here's a thought. There was no new Star Trek on TV for 28 out of the 49 years since TOS started. More than half. Trek aired: 1966-1969; 1972-1973; 1987-2005. The two longest gaps: 14 and 12 years. The only fan made show of broadcast quality was Axanar, but I'm not counting that.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Because Paramount had no interest in reviving the series despite repeated requests from NBC to bring the show back. They finally relented by allowing production of TAS.

Like many other things where Star Trek is concerned, I wonder how accurate those claims really are?

I never bought the idea that NBC didn't know who was watching Star Trek.

I don't know if NBC was demanding the return of a failed show, but I do know demographics didn't come into play till after the show left the air.

 

[martok2112]

I hope this is set in the new timeline. Prime Trek had it's day, and should be left where it is.

Largely, I feel this way too.
I certainly won't be opposed if the show takes place in the prime timeline, but I would like to see more of the new timeline.

The bottom line of either time line is: Give us good stories, and give everyone a reason to love Trek again.

(passes the peace pipe around.... Terek Nor? )

Takes a hit

Cool pic!