Weren't the Friends cast picking up a million per episode for Season 10?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Weren't the Friends cast picking up a million per episode for Season 10?
Perhaps. But, again, each new planet every week. Make up every week. There's a lot of cost to a Sci fi show.
And again, cost means nothing as long as there is profit. BBT has a lot of profit. A new Star Trek show on a streaming service... It's a financial risk. You have spend enough to make it look good to great, but not so much you lose your red shirt.
The Red Shirt of Bankruptcy.
Putting new Trek on all Access is a smaller risk than putting it on CBS...
Well. Yes. Less expectations of audience size.
People keep comparing the budget of BBT to a Star Trek show. Which isn't fair to Star Trek. BBT is the most popular comedy on TV. 15 to 17 million people watch it. Star Trek would be lucky to get half that number.
Of course, another reality, most shows, even successful ones, lose money at the beginning, certainly for the producing entity. It's when it gets sold into syndication, world wide, etc, that profits start happening. Putting it on Access will upend that model some what. I'm curious to see what creative choices they are going to make.
The only reason people bring up BBT, was because someone earlier mentioned it was a cheap show, but it's really not. The three principles make 1 Mil, per episode a piece... it's a pricy show, as are most hits when they hit the back end of their run.
CBS is a challenge, because they cancel shows that would be bonafide hits on other networks.
Essentially New Trek is also a marketing expense-- a tool for new subscriber acquisition. It's a show that they know has a built-in audience hungry for new content. Putting the first new Trek series in 10 years brings a "buzz factor", and putting it CBS All Access brings in a big base of subscribers as well as garners it a lot of media attention.
If it were on network TV it would be all about the ratings from day one. This way, ratings are just one component, and there's probably a greater willingness to spend on budget and higher quality if it's on CBS All Access because of those other factors.
If it were on network TV it would be all about the ratings from day one. This way, ratings are just one component, and there's probably a greater willingness to spend on budget and higher quality if it's on CBS All Access because of those other factors.
I mentioned about 4 shows, BBT Mike and Molly, 2 broke girls Moms, and the sitcoms like them. CBS can throw together shows like quite a bit and have solid cheap shows.
And right now, CSI and NCIS are bigger ratings franchises that Trek.
Heck if they wanted to do an Elementary spin off, Elementary: Twin Cities it would probabkly be less of a risk for CBS than Trek.
Well, one thing some here seem to forget is that CBS has already stated they WILL sell it as a TV series for broadcast in foreign markets; and even hinted that they could offer it as a TV show in the U.S. if CBS Digital streaming doesn't go like they planned. I'm sure at some point Blu-Rays and other merchandise would be available down the road - as would eventually selling it to some cable network at some point. I also believe they did say the pilot episode WOULD be broadcast on the CBS Network (to give fans a taste of what they'll see should they decide to subscribe to the service.)
In the end, I don't think CBS thinks they'll loose money on the series regardless of how it performs for they Digital streaming subscription service. They know they have a variety of options to recoup any production/marketing expenses.
Sitcoms aren't necessarily cheap shows to make. They can be cheap shows to start, but they are also very risky most Sitcoms don't ever make it anywhere near the syndication mark.
CSI is dead, NCIS, yes continues to be a rantings juggernaught...
Elementary is one of the shows that has been at risk for cancellation each season it's been on.
It wasn't that long ago that people were flooding threads to offer their cynical reasons why a new Trek show simply made no business sense, and the little tidbits we got from veterans like Jonathan Frakes as early as last April seemed to confirm that it was a pipe-dream.
The fact is that it's always possible to mount a negative case against producing any sort of entertainment. But it's the job of a media company to, ya know, get off the pot and DO SOMETHING. Considering that we're in an era of flogging preexisting IP to death, with Disney coming out recently to say that they will keep making Marvel movies "forever" it would seem rather silly for CBS to wimp out by limiting itself to just home-video and merchandising sales. Trek as a franchise may not be Marvel or Star Wars, but it's big enough to justify a new series.
The fact is that it's always possible to mount a negative case against producing any sort of entertainment. But it's the job of a media company to, ya know, get off the pot and DO SOMETHING. Considering that we're in an era of flogging preexisting IP to death, with Disney coming out recently to say that they will keep making Marvel movies "forever" it would seem rather silly for CBS to wimp out by limiting itself to just home-video and merchandising sales. Trek as a franchise may not be Marvel or Star Wars, but it's big enough to justify a new series.
Times change. It took 10 years (and the original Star Wars film in 1977) to get Paramount to finally greenlight the STAR TREK: The Motion Picture; and I'm sure the multi-billion dollar Box Office draw of "The Force Awakens" (which was predicted) played a part in Paramount going "Hey maybe it's time for another weekly series as science fiction seems popular again; and we can try to position ourselves in streaming media..."
Most everyone was of the opinion that it wasn't if Paramount/CBS would do a new Star Trek series; it was a question of when. Even so, I'll be surprised if said new series takes place anywhere it what fans commonly call the "Prime" Star Trek universe - and further surprised if the century is set in anything other than the 23rd. Guess we'll see in a year or so.
As for Disney claiming they'll make Marvel and Star Wars movies "Forever" - remember in Hollywood, "Forever" = As long as the Box Office returns and Merchandising sales bring in a good ROI. Once that falls below a certain point we'll see the end of "Forever" in that regard.
Yeah, but it's not like they didn't do anything with ST in the meantime. Paramount bought Star Trek when it was cancelled and dumped it into syndication, as it got more popular they did the animated series first and immediately after that work started on a TV movie and then Phase II which ultimately morphed into TMP.
Paramount bought Desilu in 1968, Trek was just a part of the acquisition. They tried to sell Trek to Roddenberry in the early-70's.
And that's yet another factor: supporting the brand and promoting the brand. Unlike most shows, Star Trek spawns many millions of dollars in product merchandising. Even during the window when no Trek was on TV and no movies being made (2005-2009) there were still millions worth of toys, t-shirts, comics and other merchandise being sold and licensed by CBS Consumer Products. Movies and TV show releases spike those numbers.
A new show or movie provides new content for new products. So the show doesn't actually have to do as well as other shows like NCIS or Criminal Minds to be just as financially successful.
I'm doubtful that played any significant part. I'd wager that this was a plan stretching back 5-6 years from the start of the 2009 movie. Get movies going, resurge the brand, and when it feels stable again, spawn back to television.
If anything, it was the success of the Trek movies, along with the likes of Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar, and reboots of other classic franchises like Planet of the Apes, that convinced them that the audiences would welcome-- and were ready-- for the return of Trek, a classic sci-fi space-adventure television series.
The series was announced a month before TFA was released, meaning talks were in the works a couple a months ahead of that.
Anyone with a functioning brain stem knew that TFA was going to be a monster - but there weren't any hard numbers to back that up until well after the announcement.
Interstellar, The Martian and Gravity prove also that audiences will embrace thoughtful science fiction drama if it is of high quality. Hopefully CBS looks more towards those than to Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars and Into Darkness.
Frankly, they might have to. To create a Star Wars level action show 10 times a year may be too much to ask. Part of why Star Trek has always been more about the human drama was in an effort to save money. I sometimes wonder if they had been given bigger budgets would the shows and movies we all loved have devolved into standard mass-audience action schlock?
I'm reminded of the phrase "Art Through Adversity."
Frankly, they might have to. To create a Star Wars level action show 10 times a year may be too much to ask. Part of why Star Trek has always been more about the human drama was in an effort to save money. I sometimes wonder if they had been given bigger budgets would the shows and movies we all loved have devolved into standard mass-audience action schlock?
I'm reminded of the phrase "Art Through Adversity."
That just proves people like movies - and you'd rather them do one form of sci-fi over the more successful form of sci-fi. I'm sure CBS would rather have a billion dollars over Oscars or Emmys.
And doing a Martian or Gravity 10 times a year would be easier? The Martian's budget was 108 billion and made 600 million. Gravity made 700 million on about 100 million budget. Those are 6-7x returns.
TFA is about to cross 2 billion on a 200,000,000 budget. That's a 10 time return on investment.
If Roddenberry really cared about the "art" then he would've produced plays in some Pasadena art house.
Television has always been about getting the most bang for the buck.
Story telling on TV has changed so dramatically in the time since Enterprise has gone off the air.
I expect the new series would take a shortened seasoned approach (13-16 episodes) with a serialized approach, as opposed to being the more procedural of most produced tv trek.
- Status