Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[RAMA]

http://wordofthenerdonline.com/2015/11/star-trek-fans-need-face-reality-cbss-new-trek-series/

As much as we love and revere Trek in our hearts, it is a commodity owned by CBS. It is a product that is intended to make money. As such, when marketing the series they can and will charge what the market will bear. Whether that’s by selling advertisements or charging fans directly for the streaming service, CBS is trying to run a business. They know that by featuring the series on CBS ALL-ACCESS that millions of fans will pay to watch it. This is a given. It’s just good business. To be completely honest, $5.99 per month seems to be a more than fair price to watch new Trek.

 

[Tim Walker]

I don't get this obsession in that podcast and in others I've heard with a return to the Prime Universe. ("It's got to be Prime," to quote Dr. Trek.)

It's deader than a redshirt, Jim. Trekkies need to live long and prosper with that fact. A new show set in a universe with that much baggage — i.e. canon — is a suicide decision.

Sure to make the CBS All Access to work, CBS needs to attract the fanbase, but they don't have to pander to it. They likely want to draw in the general audience that loved the last two movies. Logically, the produces will look to replicate the success of the last two movies in a episodic series.

For STAR TREK to survive into the future, it needs to build a new fanbase, not continually feed an aging one.

What gets me is that we always hear how STAR TREK is about moving forward, but when someone comes along with a new take (TNG, '09, ItD) everyone panics at the disco and wants a return to the old stuff.

Why make it Star Trek then? The logical extension of your logic is that any set rule or concept is baggage. Therefore anything that makes it star trek is something that can be changed. I just don't understand how canon, or story, can be considered baggage. Having to work within the rules requires greater creativity and often is a good way of producing good writing, since it requires more that a cursory idea.

STAR TREK isn't about the canon. Canon isn't story. It never has been.

What makes STAR TREK, STAR TREK is an action-adventure story with compelling characters with the occasional exploration of social conscious themes. That's STAR TREK, not the 50 years of canon.

And that core is the constraint that requires creativity. Not the tech specs or some minutia.

STAR TREK needs to return to that core. Not canon. Or the Prime Universe.

And that strand of optimism in the Trek make up!

 

[RAMA]

Why make it Star Trek then? The logical extension of your logic is that any set rule or concept is baggage. Therefore anything that makes it star trek is something that can be changed. I just don't understand how canon, or story, can be considered baggage. Having to work within the rules requires greater creativity and often is a good way of producing good writing, since it requires more that a cursory idea.

STAR TREK isn't about the canon. Canon isn't story. It never has been.

What makes STAR TREK, STAR TREK is an action-adventure story with compelling characters with the occasional exploration of social conscious themes. That's STAR TREK, not the 50 years of canon.

And that core is the constraint that requires creativity. Not the tech specs or some minutia.

STAR TREK needs to return to that core. Not canon. Or the Prime Universe.

And that strand of optimism in the Trek make up!

How long have I been saying this? Bravo

 

[Harvey]

According to what I've seen, any demographic data was rudimentary, and didn't supply much useful data till the 1970s. They didn't use that information for Star Trek, that much we know.

Like many things that are "known" about the original Star Trek, this is not true.

NBC was already measuring demographics by the mid-1960s, before Star Trek was even on the air. Their appeal among younger audiences even became part of the way NBC marketed itself, with slogans such as "number one network among young adults" appearing during this period.

Indeed, Star Trek was probably renewed after the first season because of it's appeal to younger demographics. Paul Klein, the vice president of research for the network, said as much in both Television magazine and TV Guide in 1967. From the interview in Television, he said, "A quality audience--lots of young adult buyers--provides a high level that may make it worth holding onto a program despite low over-all ratings." In the later TV Guide interview he said that the series was renewed, in spite of poor ratings, "because it delivers a quality, salable audience...[in particular] upper-income, better-educated males."

(I wish I could present this as my research, but it comes from Roberta Pearson's article "Cult Television as Digital Television’s Cutting Edge," published in the recent anthology, "Television as Digital Media.")

Roddenberry's story was that ratings that were broken down by demographics would have saved the show if they had existed in 1969, because the show appealed to a young audience with disposable income that appealed to advertisers. But NBC already had this ratings information, and likely renewed the show for a second and third season because of it. Roddenberry's version is either a lie, or just misinformed.

(He's not the only one to bring up demographics, though; Bob Justman uncritically mentions the myth about them in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, too)

There's more evidence debunking this longstanding myth under the section titled "What About Demographics?" in this article.

 

[Greg Cox]

Nobody is disputing that TNG was a huge success, both critically and commercially, that played a big part in carrying the franchise forward into the eighties and nineties. And no doubt it helped create a whole new generation of Trekkies for whom TNG was their gateway drug instead of TOS.

But those of us who were Trekkies for decades before TNG showed up are always going roll our eyes at the notion that STAR TREK didn't matter until Jean-Luc Picard first appeared on the scene.

 

[RAMA]

There's more evidence debunking this longstanding myth under the section titled "What About Demographics?" in this article.

From what I've seen--and I did look some of it up--the data back then was criticized as not being very useful. It was simplistic and I don't think the network trusted the data, so they simply ignored it. More advanced methods of electronic demographics didn't come into play until a few years later. I suppose they may have been proud of what they did know and touted it in ads, but unfortunately it didn't help the series any.

 

[Flake]

Prime Universe or not I am just looking forward to a Star Trek TV show that is not operating on the constraints set by Rick Berman and his co-producers.

I think Rick Berman did produce some great Star Trek but I got sick and tired of it toward the end. This is not a rant against Rick Berman but rather relief and optimism that new people are having a try and with them comes fresh ideas and a new take on the concept.

Personally I think that CBS will have talked to Paramount and arranged to use sets and props constructed for the movies in this new TV show because it makes sense financially and this has happened before in Treks past, therefore it will be alt-verse imho.

 

[Flake]

Oh and no analysing and worrying about TV ratings! We won't know about the ratings but we will hear about how the new Star Trek will be putting CBS All-Access on the map and we can hear about how subscribers have gone up and so on, also less interference and not having to go up against rival programming on at the same time and timeslots etc.. great choice by CBS imho.

 

[LLAP]

I don't think setting it in the prime universe will be restrictive. I don't think it's necessary to jettison the stories we've heard so far to get fresh again. 'Canon' isn't important in and of itself, it's the richness it can give to the current story. Tolkien's universe works so well because of a rich mythos that is in the background of the story we are witnessing. It simply makes the viewing experience that much more immersive and that much easier to thread greater meaning within each story, each frame and each character. Keeping it in the Prime Universe gives more story opportunity than it takes away I feel.

I don't think keeping things in the Prime Universe and being fresh or true to the ideals of star trek are mutually incompatible at all, which seems to be what people imagine.

 

[Tim Walker]

I don't think setting it in the prime universe will be restrictive. I don't think it's necessary to jettison the stories we've heard so far to get fresh again. 'Canon' isn't important in and of itself, it's the richness it can give to the current story. Tolkien's universe works so well because of a rich mythos that is in the background of the story we are witnessing. It simply makes the viewing experience that much more immersive and that much easier to thread greater meaning within each story, each frame and each character. Keeping it in the Prime Universe gives more story opportunity than it takes away I feel.

I don't think keeping things in the Prime Universe and being fresh or true to the ideals of star trek are mutually incompatible at all, which seems to be what people imagine.

Picard spoke of the ancient Romans and the Visigoths (The Best of Both Worlds Part I). That added a bit a depth, without being obscure canon. And Picard was the sort of character for whom such a reference seems plausible.

Didn't work so well, though, when Dylan Hunt (Andromeda) described World War II as "ancient" Earth history. That war occurred within living memory.

 

[Tim Walker]

Personally I think that CBS will have talked to Paramount and arranged to use sets and props constructed for the movies in this new TV show because it makes sense financially and this has happened before in Treks past, therefore it will be alt-verse imho.

Or perhaps a soft reboot, using said borrowings?

 

[Warped9]

The Prime universe or continuity is restrictive only so much as it's allowed to be. The Prime continuity offers a host of possibilities that have little to nothing to do with what has come before.

There is a lot of trepidation about what we might get fueled partly by prior disappointment and partly by what many of us would like to see. We could all be wrong and get something that we couldn't have imagined being done and we end up liking it.

I include myself in this. I, too, fear what might be done, but I can allow that something could be done that I simply can't forsee. It's simply easier to imagine your fears becoming reality than your hopes being realized.

And yet if we're honest we can all point to something new that exceeded our prior expectations.

- I initially thought Babylon 5 was a DS9 rip-off yet I quickly fell in love with the show and thought it much better than DS9.
- I was leery of Daniel Craig and a blond James Bond and yet, for me, he's right up there with Sean Connery as the best to bring 007 to life on the screen.
- after what had been done with Batman I was leery of what was forthcoming with Chris Nolan's reboot and yet he made what I think is the best live-action Batman ever. I now think he'll be a tough act to follow.
- I was never a fan of superhero teams in comics, but I really enjoyed the first Avengers film. I was only dimly aware of The Guardians Of The Galaxy in Comics and yet I loved the recent film.
- after the disappointment of Superman Returns I was skeptical about Man Of Steel and yet I enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to BvsS.
- I never forsaw that I would enjoy (so far) the Supergirl television series.

Those are but only a few examples, but they're enough to illustrate that what we're afraid of doesn't automatically equate with "definitely will happen."

I've been disappointed with Trek since TNG, but I can allow that maybe, just, maybe, someone will get it right in a way that gets me really interested even though I feel I can't presently forsee.

 

[Flake]

I would *love* to rejoin the prime universe 15 years post Nemesis and deal with:

Aftermath of Dominion War
Cardassians in disarray (join the Feds?)
Romulan catastrophe aftermath, what happens to them?
A new threat?
A new form of propulsion for exploration purposes?
Wormhole to another galaxy?
Aftermath of Borg hub destruction (VOY: Endgame)

Potential for guest appearances by former cast members & former ships/stations from three different shows.

I think it would be a challenge for a writer to write something in this rich universe that appeals to newbies and old fans alike.

 

[Rincewiend]

FACT

Allcaps is not proof, it's shouting. Arguments are not made more legitimate the louder they get.

It's a point of emphasis. Wishing TNG to be the "father of all that follows" doesn't make it a fact.

The franchise already existed. TNG built on and grew it, but did not create it.

Without the success of TNG there would be no DS9, VOY or ENT or any movies after the 3rd or 4th one...
The success of ST09 and STID are why they are now thinking a new tv show is an option as well...
TOS started the ball rolling but the successes of TNG and ST09 made the rest possible...

 

[Warped9]

Allcaps is not proof, it's shouting. Arguments are not made more legitimate the louder they get.

It's a point of emphasis. Wishing TNG to be the "father of all that follows" doesn't make it a fact.

The franchise already existed. TNG built on and grew it, but did not create it.

Without the success of TNG there would be no DS9, VOY or ENT or any movies after the 3rd or 4th one...
The success of ST09 and STID are why they are now thinking a new tv show is an option as well...
TOS started the ball rolling but the successes of TNG and ST09 made the rest possible...

Oh, brother...

Without TOS nothing comes afterward.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Why make it Star Trek then? The logical extension of your logic is that any set rule or concept is baggage. Therefore anything that makes it star trek is something that can be changed. I just don't understand how canon, or story, can be considered baggage. Having to work within the rules requires greater creativity and often is a good way of producing good writing, since it requires more that a cursory idea.

STAR TREK isn't about the canon. Canon isn't story. It never has been.

What makes STAR TREK, STAR TREK is an action-adventure story with compelling characters with the occasional exploration of social conscious themes. That's STAR TREK, not the 50 years of canon.

And that core is the constraint that requires creativity. Not the tech specs or some minutia.

STAR TREK needs to return to that core. Not canon. Or the Prime Universe.

And that strand of optimism in the Trek make up!

Yep! That optimism that says we've come along way but we still have a ways to go, but we're going to get there.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

- I initially thought Babylon 5 was a DS9 rip-off yet I quickly fell in love with the show and thought it much better than DS9.

I guess you now know it was more the other way around

Honestly, I don't ever use the term rip off, unless things really are lifted directly; like entire lines and stuff. DS9 probably borrowed the general concept of a station and nearby gateway from B5's pitch document to Paramount, but beyond that the two are radically different. Two shows being on a space station does not make them similar; the themes and so on are what count.

And I agree B5 is superior, despite being a Trekkie

 

[Yanks]

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

You're kidding right?

Star Trek Continues?

 

[RAMA]

The Prime universe or continuity is restrictive only so much as it's allowed to be. The Prime continuity offers a host of possibilities that have little to nothing to do with what has come before.

There is a lot of trepidation about what we might get fueled partly by prior disappointment and partly by what many of us would like to see. We could all be wrong and get something that we couldn't have imagined being done and we end up liking it.

I include myself in this. I, too, fear what might be done, but I can allow that something could be done that I simply can't forsee. It's simply easier to imagine your fears becoming reality than your hopes being realized.

And yet if we're honest we can all point to something new that exceeded our prior expectations.

- I initially thought Babylon 5 was a DS9 rip-off yet I quickly fell in love with the show and thought it much better than DS9.
- I was leery of Daniel Craig and a blond James Bond and yet, for me, he's right up there with Sean Connery as the best to bring 007 to life on the screen.
- after what had been done with Batman I was leery of what was forthcoming with Chris Nolan's reboot and yet he made what I think is the best live-action Batman ever. I now think he'll be a tough act to follow.
- I was never a fan of superhero teams in comics, but I really enjoyed the first Avengers film. I was only dimly aware of The Guardians Of The Galaxy in Comics and yet I loved the recent film.
- after the disappointment of Superman Returns I was skeptical about Man Of Steel and yet I enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to BvsS.
- I never forsaw that I would enjoy (so far) the Supergirl television series.

Those are but only a few examples, but they're enough to illustrate that what we're afraid of doesn't automatically equate with "definitely will happen."

I've been disappointed with Trek since TNG, but I can allow that maybe, just, maybe, someone will get it right in a way that gets me really interested even though I feel I can't presently forsee.

By preserving the prime universe and creating a divergence from it, JJ gave us the best of both worlds. The question is not is it too hard for writer/creators to understand it, but if those outside of Trek fandom can. By starting over, they really opened it up to non-fans. The numbers show it.

 

[Yanks]

STAR TREK isn't about the canon. Canon isn't story. It never has been.

What makes STAR TREK, STAR TREK is an action-adventure story with compelling characters with the occasional exploration of social conscious themes. That's STAR TREK, not the 50 years of canon.

And that core is the constraint that requires creativity. Not the tech specs or some minutia.

STAR TREK needs to return to that core. Not canon. Or the Prime Universe.

And that strand of optimism in the Trek make up!

How long have I been saying this? Bravo