Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

[jaime]

When it was on air, TNG eclipsed TOS. And even afterwards, TNG so friggin' influential on the franchise - and spawned so many spin-offs - that, hell, even DIS qualifies actually more as a TNG spin-off series than a TOS companion series.

There is but one major reason why (currently) TOS is the bigger franchise: It was recently revived with a (mostly) successfull blockbuster franchise.

TNG on the other hand, never managed to capture mainstream success with it's movie series. Domn't get me wrong: I like the TNG movies mostly. But they are hardly as influential, popular or even well-known as the TOS movies.

But here is a very important destinction: This is the current state of the Trek franchise. It's not written in stone - it has changed a lot in the past, and it will change again. If they actually make that new Picard series - then THAT will be the juggernaut of the franchise, easily overshadowing DIS, and probably even the Kelvin timeline movies purely because of the novelty and it being the "new" iteration of the franchise.

This is the beauty about the Trek IP: It's fluid. It suports lots and lots of different versions. It's not like "Battlestar Galactica" or "Lost in Space", which are one single entity, and then always variations or supplements to the one original IP. TNG proved the Star Trek universe itself is as much a playground for new characters and stories that can be equal or even eclipsing the original.

TOS might have been the original "Avengers", in that it started the craze on a whole new level. But TNG was their "Infinity War", where they proved the IP is not limited to the original few characters, but can sustain complete new sets of characters and stories as well, and not lose any of it's appeal or be a pure shadow of the original.



I have to disagree there strongly. I personally don't like the JJverse movies that much. All of them have elements that I truly love, but overall they were a disappointment for me.

But it can't be understated how helpfull they were for Star Trek as a franchise. Yes, they have become stale nowadays as well. But at the time, a whole new generation of audiences was able to see "cool" Star Trek for everyone.

Literally all people I know that are significantly younger than me that are Trek fans - started out by watching the JJTrek movie. That was their gateway drug. They saw it, and if they were interested they realized there is a wealth of material to check out. I don't love those movies. But they are the single reason why many people today are familiar with the whole beaming/starships/shields/phasers on stun/Warpcore-schtick and all the major Trek concepts in the first place.

See, for me, the JJ films didn’t have that impact in those around me that are younger. Voyager did for the now early twenties crowd. Maybe that’s because the films had a rating, rather than being PG. maybe it’s because there’s a money barrier to film releases that doesn’t exist for watching TV trek on whichever channel is showing it. So the splash didn’t look that big to me.
They meant I could get me and my son some starfleet uniforms without being gouged (last Halloween me and him were scotty and Kirk, even before the day, he’s had his Kirk-shirt for years...and we popped mummy and aunty in my older uniforms, so we were all on theme....) and I could buy him a Lego enterprise, even if it had blue Bussards. Relatives cottoned on, and he got a set of action figures...but they lay forgotten while Star Wars does its thing. As it ever was....except when TNG had a toy range. Then those figures were everywhere. In the olden days.
I saw some fan art on Deviantart, but overall, it felt it’s splash damage in geekdom was slightly above Tron Legacy but below pretty much everything else.

I would say STO is driving as many new fans as the movies some days...and that’s...kind of sad in a way.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The JJ films...all three of them across a decade....are barely life support for the franchise.

So, three films that collectively grossed about $1.2 billion at the box office on budgets totaling roughly $520 million, netting collectively north of $675 million, give or take, that's barely life support?!

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Beyond

 

[Belz...]

If that's the case, an animated CGI series covering Kirk's lost 5-mission on the Motion Picture refit would make perfect sense - no need for Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley.

If they do that, they'd better not touch the TMP Enterprise design.

Yeah, could you imagine if they'd done that with TNG/DS9/VOY? Total disaster!

Actually, it kind of is. TNG and VOY interfered with DS9's ability to get a larger audience, and VOY was just more of the same. It was a bad idea, and it hurt the franchise. The only reason DS9 and VOY were never cancelled, from what I understand, was that they were Star Trek. They should've ended TNG after season 5 and let DS9 run its course before coming out with another series (NOT Voyager, ideally).

I'm definitely not in favor of a Starfleet Academy TV show.

Me neither. The idea has never interested me. We saw in the 2009 movie all the academy I'll tolerate.

It is my second favorite Star Trek movie behind TMP. There was a lot to build a sequel off of, and Paramount got cold feet over a hundred fans voting it the worst Trek movie. Per usual, Paramount is its own worst enemy when it comes to Star Trek.

That's why "listening to the fans" is such a bad idea: you always end up listening to the most vocal and negative subset of the fandom.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TNG and VOY interfered with DS9's ability to get a larger audience

Oh, please.

DS9 steadily shed its viewers, because it wasn't holding their interest, pure and simple. It's the same story for VOY and ENT. If the shows had in fact been more interesting to the people at home, their respective viewerships would not have declined so steadily.

I know it's not the sort of thing that fans want to hear and think about, but....

 

[Rahul]

So, three films that collectively grossed about $1.2 billion at the box office on budgets totaling roughly $520 million, netting collectively north of $675 million, give or take, that's barely life support?!

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Beyond

That is - of course - not the full truth. While the first two films broke even, the third one didn't. And overall the domestic income of all three movies constantly declined through the run of the entire series. That is a problem. And largely the reason why we haven't seen a Trek 4 already.

Like, if you lump "Man of Steel", Batman v. Superman" and "Justice League" together, as a sum, they massively broke even. But right now WB is in FULL crisis mode - because "Justice League", the latest iteration the previous ones built up to - massively underperformed. And hell, even JL was still more successfull than "Beyond". The Kelvin timeline franchise is not in that great a shape at the moment.

That being said: The opposite ("barely on life support") ain't true either. It's still a successfull series with a dissappointing third part, like so many movie series beforehand. If they halt the series right now, it can be overall viewed as a moderate success, big when it began, that then kinda' fizzled out a little. Who would have known how a 4th Tobey Maguire Spider-Man, or a X-Men 4 would have played out? That's the situation we're in.

But really, if they decide to continue with the same iteration, it's going to be the next installment that will be the make-or-break point of this movie line. If ST4 continues the same trajectory, and makes only as much money as "Beyond" or even less, this movie series can safely be called a failure overall, in that it had a promising start, but then failed to meet expectations. OTOH if ST4 makes makes good money , "Beyond" will simple go down as a fluke in an overall successfull movie line.

Really, 3 datapoints is not that much. Currently, the situation really isn't as clear cut as anyone likes it (that's why Paramount is neither abandoning the Kelvin crew, nor were they in any kind of hurry to make a sequel up until now). The same data really allows for multiple, wildly different interpretations. We will probably only know which one of those was correct when the franchise moves forward.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

That is - of course - not the full truth. While the first two films broke even, the third one didn't. And overall the domestic income of all three movies constantly declined through the run of the entire series. That is a problem. And largely the reason why we haven't seen a Trek 4 already.

True.

That being said: The opposite ("barely on life support") ain't true either. It's still a successfull series with a dissappointing third part, like so many movie series beforehand. If they halt the series right now, it can be overall viewed as a moderate success, big when it began, that then kinda' fizzled out a little. Who would have known how a 4th Tobey Maguire Spider-Man, or a X-Men 4 would have played out? That's the situation we're in.

Right, which was my primary point. But well said.

 

[jaime]

So, three films that collectively grossed about $1.2 billion at the box office on budgets totaling roughly $520 million, netting collectively north of $675 million, give or take, that's barely life support?!

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Beyond

Sigh. Always comes down to the money doesn’t it?
Box Office means jack if it doesn’t translate into ongoing cultural impact, in the subjects we are talking about here...fandoms...franchises.
You can have a movie make fifty two quatrabajillion dollars.
If it’s in the DVD bargain bins within five years, and isn’t driving interest in its ‘universe’ or having kids interested in building models, playing with toys, if it’s not being quoted in playgrounds and dull jobs, then it’s cultural impact is very short term.
Titanic, a personal favourite of mine, is probably the most successful one and done film in the history of the medium, an absolutely unrepeatable perfect storm. So much so, that yes, it still has a little cultural resonance, particularly for my generation....but I bought it’s two disc special set in a post office. (The epic tale of Titanic coming to DVD is a whole other conversation to do with tastes of makers, and wants of audiences..) some of us may occasionally say ‘draw me like one of your French women jack..’ or ‘i’m King of the world’ even now but...ten years from now? When us thirty somethings are the old fart brigade? All that cultural capital will wane. Trek can still have cultural capital. I was two when TWOK came out, and thanks to fandom and cultural capital accrued, I can still quote it and the quote be recognised. If audiences don’t continue growing, things die.
I don’t care how many dollars it put in cause in my experience, it hasn’t put many ideas into the imaginations of people. Something the other Treks definitely did.
Maybe that will change now there’s a synergy, and something of a return to the late eighties with films in theatres and stuff on the small screen. Who knows.

 

[jaime]

That is - of course - not the full truth. While the first two films broke even, the third one didn't. And overall the domestic income of all three movies constantly declined through the run of the entire series. That is a problem. And largely the reason why we haven't seen a Trek 4 already.

Like, if you lump "Man of Steel", Batman v. Superman" and "Justice League" together, as a sum, they massively broke even. But right now WB is in FULL crisis mode - because "Justice League", the latest iteration the previous ones built up to - massively underperformed. And hell, even JL was still more successfull than "Beyond". The Kelvin timeline franchise is not in that great a shape at the moment.

That being said: The opposite ("barely on life support") ain't true either. It's still a successfull series with a dissappointing third part, like so many movie series beforehand. If they halt the series right now, it can be overall viewed as a moderate success, big when it began, that then kinda' fizzled out a little. Who would have known how a 4th Tobey Maguire Spider-Man, or a X-Men 4 would have played out? That's the situation we're in.

But really, if they decide to continue with the same iteration, it's going to be the next installment that will be the make-or-break point of this movie line. If ST4 continues the same trajectory, and makes only as much money as "Beyond" or even less, this movie series can safely be called a failure overall, in that it had a promising start, but then failed to meet expectations. OTOH if ST4 makes makes good money , "Beyond" will simple go down as a fluke in an overall successfull movie line.

Really, 3 datapoints is not that much. Currently, the situation really isn't as clear cut as anyone likes it (that's why Paramount is neither abandoning the Kelvin crew, nor were they in any kind of hurry to make a sequel up until now). The same data really allows for multiple, wildly different interpretations. We will probably only know which one of those was correct when the franchise moves forward.

I’m not saying the films are on life support. I liked Beyond. I am saying they are life support for the fandom, for the franchise. A shot in the arm every four years.

 

[Belz...]

I'm neither pessimistic nor optimistic. I'm no longer particularly invested emotionally

I don't believe you. If you weren't invested you wouldn't make a point to post negatively every chance you get.

Not if it sucks.

Yes, even if it sucks, because more Trek means some of it will NOT suck. No Trek means none of it will not suck.

I think you're more afraid of the possibility of there being a whole lot of Trek, and it being plenty successful, and just not catering to your own personal likes.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

I partially avoid superhero shows because I really friggin hate villains. Not as in I love to hate them, as in I hate stories which have simplistic bad guys who the heroes have to defeat.

You missed out on quite a few cool superhero movies, then, either because their villains were good or because the villains were not important to the experience.

"Hey, remember that needle you hated being poked with? Here, let me poke you with it a few more times. Gosh, I hope that doesn't bother you..."

It's really incredible how many fan think that Star Trek is or should be made for them specifically.

 

[XCV330]

DS9 steadily shed its viewers, because it wasn't holding their interest, pure and simple

in fairness that is true of most tv shows, however. Daytime soaps may not fit into that mold, I dont know, but otherwise, before the era of binge viewing, people tended to lose interest in shows after a few seasons, and viewership dropped off. I dont know if that holds up now, or not.

 

[eschaton]

in fairness that is true of most tv shows, however. Daytime soaps may not fit into that mold, I dont know, but otherwise, before the era of binge viewing, people tended to lose interest in shows after a few seasons, and viewership dropped off. I dont know if that holds up now, or not.

One could also argue that DS9's proto-serialization hurt it, insofar as it could only lose viewers, with relatively few willing to jump in midstream given there was no way to "catch up" with what happened to date.

Speaking personally, although I was a regular watcher of DS9 early in its run, I drifted away while it was on the air in the later episodes. This had nothing to do with not enjoying the show - I found it superior to TNG even at the time. Instead it was because I was growing up, and once I went away to college I wasn't about to structure my life around tuning in to a TV show at a set time to watch. Every so often in the latter years I would catch an odd episode and would be tremendously confused by how much I had missed.

 

[cooleddie74]

TOS reached its peak in the Nielsen ratings during its first season, when it finished the 1966-67 season at #52 among all series that year. It was more or less a slow and steady decline from that point on.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

I think a Babylon 5 reboot would do extremely well in the age of Netflix.

 

[jaime]

I think a Babylon 5 reboot would do extremely well in the age of Netflix.

It would. And higher production levels would be great for it...but....but....

It would be so sad. Because B5 achieves its own greatness, and I don’t think a reboot could ever do it justice.

 

[XCV330]

It would. And higher production levels would be great for it...but....but....

It would be so sad. Because B5 achieves its own greatness, and I don’t think a reboot could ever do it justice.

It remains one of those potential franchises out there like Wild Cards or Bas-Lag that I have to assume SOME Studio has sitting out there on the backburner just in case.

 

[eschaton]

It would. And higher production levels would be great for it...but....but....

It would be so sad. Because B5 achieves its own greatness, and I don’t think a reboot could ever do it justice.

I'm sorry, but other than much of the writing, and the performances of Katsulas and Jurasik, nothing much about Babylon 5 stands the test of time.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Because B5 achieves its own greatness,

When?

 

[mos6507]

I'm sorry, but other than much of the writing, and the performances of Katsulas and Jurasik, nothing much about Babylon 5 stands the test of time.

B5 has a series of what I'd call "special dramatic moments", usually philosophical monologues. Delenn's Star Stuff speech, for instance. They stick with you, but surrounding it all is a lot of fluff and filler. To the uninitiated it seems like a whole lot of waiting around for the good stuff.

 

[Belz...]

It's interesting as a counterpoint to the TNG movies, because it's basically feature length. As I said, Trek works better on the small screen, and a big part of this is because the Trek format works much better when there aren't "villains." All Good Things... had conflict and suspense, but no bad guy. All 3.75 of the TNG movies, in contrast, insisted on having bad guys. The latter three made it something of a personal conflict between Picard and the main baddy, turning him into a shallow action hero character.

Every Trek movie since TWOK except TVH has had a villain. I think they believe they need one, but they don't. In fact, I'd put money on the theory that FC had no singular villain before the suits asked for one, and we got the Borg queen for it.

The moment the coach starts listening to the fans up in the stands for advice on what plays to call, that team is dead. Fans watch, writers write, directors direct. Simple constructs!

Indeed.

If anything, I hope they pat themselves on the back for pissing off the right people. This is an area where they should dig in hard and not cave in at all.

Them: "Where are all the straight white men?"
Me: "I don't know. Serving on other ships?"

I wonder if they'd be bold enough to do the opposite.

You: "Where are all the minorities?"
Them: "I don't know. Serving on other ships?"

Anyway, Trek has always been more diverse than a lot of other shows, so seeing it now isn't a surprise. So long as it's not done with an obvious political agenda, I don't care what the ethnic or sexual composition of the cast is.

 

[mos6507]

So long as it's not done with an obvious political agenda, I don't care what the ethnic or sexual composition of the cast is.

Ah, and there's the rub isn't it? Everything takes on political overtones today, whether it's intentional or not, thanks to the internet.