News Exclusive: Scott Bakula Eyeing Star Trek Return In President Archer Series Pitch From ‘Enterprise’ Producer

[Detached Nacelle]

The most recent Sci-Finatics video on the subject discussed the depiction of the attack on Salem Station 4, which is a big historical event in the Trek universe (that I really couldn't remember, but was mentioned several times in the Berman era).

That would only be if the show did flashbacks to the Romulan War. The destruction of Salem Station was what started the Romulan War iirc.

There would no doubt be plenty of times the war could be mentioned but a war that ended 25 years before the show began might not be the most relevant to the plot in an organic way.

Romulans being all sneaky like in the background is an easy plot device but nothing too overt.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

The destruction of Salem Station was what started the Romulan War iirc.

Canonically, we know nothing about Station Salem One other than it was a "bloody preamble to war" similar to Pearl Harbor. Which comes from TNG The Enemy. A quick search on Memory Beta doesn't indicate tie-in material has ever addressed what or when Salem One is, so there's no reason to believe it was connected to the Romulan War.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Canonically, we know nothing about Station Salem One other than it was a "bloody preamble to war" similar to Pearl Harbor. Which comes from TNG The Enemy. A quick search on Memory Beta doesn't indicate tie-in material has ever addressed what or when Salem One is, so there's no reason to believe it was connected to the Romulan War.

So it could have been the Romulan War or one of the collective Border Wars with the Cardassians, Tzenkethi and Sheliak or a whole other war we've just never heard mention of before?

 

[The Gatekeeper]

Yes, as long as it happens prior to TNG S3, it could be anything.

 

[Daedalus]

From what Mike was saying, it would be part of the reason why Federation HQ was shifted back to Earth from Babel. So basically an event to be depicted during the show.

I could've misunderstood of course, it mightve been part a flashback sequence.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

From what Mike was saying, it would be part of the reason why Federation HQ was shifted back to Earth from Babel. So basically an event to be depicted during the show.

I could've misunderstood of course, it mightve been part a flashback sequence.

When was Federation Headquarters ever on Babel? It was just a neutral diplomacy site wasn' it?

 

[Daedalus]

When was Federation Headquarters ever on Babel? It was just a neutral diplomacy site wasn' it?

In TOS, yes. Sussman imagines that Babel is a big domed colony surrounded by an arid landscape, and that's where it will be in President Archer's time. Later to be relocated after a unspecified incident (probably the Salem thing??).

I'll have to rewatch all his interviews, but that's the basic idea from what I remember.

His pitch was rejected by Paramount because SFA is largely set on Earth, and they didn't won't two shows with similar settings, so he reworked it to shift the bulk of the story to Babel.

 

[Danja]

UPN ditched their version of Star Trek to go toward gaining a larger portion of female viewers ... and where are they now.

It's an underserved market (women control 85% of consumer spending in the U.S. ).

P+ would like to sell commercials for something other than beer, Old Spice, and Ford F-150 trucks.

P+ is not going to revive a dead flop simply because a group of fans feel the need to "explore the era".

 

[Detached Nacelle]

It's an underserved market (women control 85% of consumer spending in the U.S. ).

P+ would like to sell commercials for something other than beer, Old Spice, and Ford F-150 trucks.

P+ is not going to revive a dead flop simply because a group of fans feel the need to "explore the era".

What really constitutes serving a female audience? Does a show need to be led by a woman or have a majority women ensemble to skewer female viewers? Does it need to be abundant with skantily clad male models?

I wonder if there is any data on whether Voyager and Discovery have a more prominent female viewerbase than male in comparison to the other shows.

 

[Danja]

What really constitutes serving a female audience? Does a show need to be led by a woman or have a majority women ensemble to skewer female viewers?

This is P+'s decision. Make of it what you will:

Paramount+ Lands ‘Discretion’ Starring Nicole Kidman & Elle Fanning With Straight-To-Series Order In Major Move For New Regime

Paramount+ has landed Chandler Baker's 'Discretion' starring Nicole Kidman & Elle Fanning with straight-to-series order in major move for new regime.

deadline.com

According to sources, Holland and her top programming executive, Jane Wiseman, EVP, Head of Originals for Paramount+, had been sending out feelers to the creative community about their interest in premium female-driven drama series to compliment Sheridan’s male-skewing slate, with female thrillers near the top of their wish list.

Does it need to be abundant with skantily clad male models?

It's done wonders for Grey's Anatomy ("Dr. McDreamy", "Dr. McSteamy")

 

[Detached Nacelle]

This is P+'s decision. Make of it what you will:

Paramount+ Lands ‘Discretion’ Starring Nicole Kidman & Elle Fanning With Straight-To-Series Order In Major Move For New Regime

Paramount+ has landed Chandler Baker's 'Discretion' starring Nicole Kidman & Elle Fanning with straight-to-series order in major move for new regime.

deadline.com

That doesn't really answer my question.

Is there merit that just having a woman as a showrunner and lead will bring in female audiences? Is genre not a factor in this, are there simply not whole genres and franchises that will always have a larger male viewerbase regardless of showrunner or lead? Will not any Star Trek series always be viewed as a more male thing and not miraculously bring in legions of brand new female fans and subscribers simply because a woman like Seven of Nine is the lead?

I know there are a lot of vocal male douchebags on the internet that seem to fragile to watch a show with a female lead but are female audiences that shallow that a female led Star Trek series will appeal to them simply by virtue of shared gender? And would they not watch the hypothetical Archer show simply because he is a man?

I'm not entirely certain why you feel Legacy is a stronger pitch than United in this regard. I ask simply out of curiosity.

Just so of course we have no misunderstanding (intention in text based communication can be so imprecise) I as a male certainly have no issue with female led shows in the genres I like. I loved The Acolyte and Legends of Tomorrow is my comfort blanket show.

 

[Danja]

I'm not entirely certain why you feel Legacy is a stronger pitch than United in this regard. I ask simply out of curiosity.

Star Trek is about exploration.

Combining Trek and The West Wing would make for a VERY talky series. Trek is about action, not diplomats endlessly walking and talking down hallways.

Legacy has Seven of Nine and the Enterprise-G. It's closer to traditional Trek than United would ever be.

Legacy would bring Trek forward from the 22nd-23rd centuries (we've wallowed in the past enough as is with Strange New Worlds -- the show P+ tried to cancel after S4). United would have to deal with the same canon issues that SNW is now having to deal with.

Legacy would bring back Terry Matalas (I do hope they pair him with Kirsten Beyer; she wrote the Voyager follow-up novels and hence, can write for Seven of Nine). He can come back as an Executive Producer if he can't be a showrunner.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Star Trek is about exploration.

Combining Trek and The West Wing would make for a VERY talky series. Trek is about action, not diplomats endlessly walking and talking down hallways.

A matter of taste of course but Trek has always been quite talky. Mixed with space battles of course. But I would certainly disagree that Trek is about action.

Legacy has Seven of Nine and the Enterprise-G. It's closer to traditional Trek than United would ever be.

Legacy would bring Trek forward from the 22nd-23rd centuries (we've wallowed in the past enough as is with Strange New Worlds -- the show P+ tried to cancel after S4).

Discovery and Academy have already done that.

Legacy would bring back Terry Matalas (I do hope they pair him with Kirsten Beyer; she wrote the Voyager follow-up novels and hence, can write for Seven of Nine).

A matter of taste again with Matalas. Beyer knows her stuff without devolving into fanfiction however.

But I meant more specifically why you feel Legacy would be a show that would bring Paramount Plus more female subscribers as to meet the goal you linked to.

 

[Danja]

A matter of taste of course but Trek has always been quite talky. Mixed with space battles of course. But I would certainly disagree that Trek is about action.

It's a rather large component of it. What would Trek be without its space battles and phaser fights?

Discovery and Academy have already done that.

Disco and its magical "programmable matter" (Push a button and a chair can become a vase or a water glass!)

The show just strayed too far from credibility in that regard.

As for Academy, the jury is still out given that the show has yet to air.

But I meant more specifically why you feel Legacy would be a show that would bring Paramount Plus more female subscribers as to meet the goal you linked to.

I don't know how to answer that question.

This is P+'s thinking. They want more female-led shows to counterbalance Taylor Sheridan's male-skewing universe.

 

[137th Gebirg]

What really constitutes serving a female audience? Does a show need to be led by a woman or have a majority women ensemble to skewer female viewers? Does it need to be abundant with skantily clad male models?

I wonder if there is any data on whether Voyager and Discovery have a more prominent female viewerbase than male in comparison to the other shows.

Well I do clearly remember, during VOY’s initial run, a metric fuck-ton of tampon commercials. I’m talking orders of magnitude more than any other Trek series, before or since. UPN knew who they wanted their target demographic to be. Don’t know if they ever really got it, though. I don’t think Nielsen tracked such statistics. I doubt we’ll ever really know.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Michael Sussman talks about the pitch.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DaveyNY]

Legacy has Seven of Nine and the Enterprise-G. It's closer to traditional Trek than United would ever be.

"Traditional" Trek has been done ad infinitum, the new owners are indicating that They want to try something new, both in the theaters and on TV.
(though They also seem to indicate that They want to stay with the TOS era with the movies. ,,,, go figure)

The Trek: UNITED idea may actually be something that peaks Their interest, but only time will tell.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

I don't know how to answer that question.

This is P+'s thinking. They want more female-led shows to counterbalance Taylor Sheridan's male-skewing universe.

But not for altruistic reasons purely to bring in a new crop of subscribers, perhaps they have internal metrics that show they are struggling with gaining or retaining female audiences. I fail to see how Legacy as pitched will help them achieve this goal.

I doubt the hypothetical United show would also achieve this but then I do not believe any Star Trek show will, however I simply cannot see how Legacy is a stronger pitch with Paramount's goals being factored in.

I think all these pipe dreams are only going to be measured in entirely subjective ways. Alas none of them are likely to happen with the big change up coming so we must try not to fall in love with any concept too deeply.

 

[Steve Roby]

Call me a hater, but I don't want Sussman's Archer show and I don't want Matalas's Legacy. I also don't believe either will happen. I've been wrong about a few things before, though.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

Neither will happen, but of the two, the President Archer series is certainly the more intriguing sounding.