If night rider why not star trek

[CobraCommander]

Re: If Knight Rider why not star trek

On a seperate tangent, all new Sci-Fi shows (even most TV shows) nowadays have had the sexual innuendo ratcheted way up. All the recent reboots and most of the new shows on TV are about inserting the simulated sex to boost up ratings. The problem with this is that this device is used to mask the inadequacies of a show's stories. Battlestar Galactica, for example, had simulated sex in every single episode.

 

[Captain Pike]

Re: If Knight Rider why not star trek

On the subject of Paramount being corrupted by greed - it was never a pure, virtuous little flower to begin with. It was and still is a business working like all business to further iit's own ends and to line the pockets of it's shareholders.

It was always motivated by greed.

 

[CobraCommander]

Re: If Knight Rider why not star trek

On the subject of Paramount being corrupted by greed - it was never a pure, virtuous little flower to begin with. It was and still is a business working like all business to further iit's own ends and to line the pockets of it's shareholders.

It was always motivated by greed.

True Indeed. Paramount (Viacom) has taken greed to a whole new level by recycling Star Trek with a reboot and hoping everyone will watch. In fact all networks have been greedy by pushing out cheap to make Reality TV that has raked in more profit with less overhead. I wish that the Hollywood studios and TV networks would try to find competant writers, producers, and input to either add fresh material to the Trek universe or just make some new good Sci-Fi that will last the test of time.

 

[Plumster]

Re: If Knight Rider why not star trek

On the subject of Paramount being corrupted by greed - it was never a pure, virtuous little flower to begin with. It was and still is a business working like all business to further iit's own ends and to line the pockets of it's shareholders.

It was always motivated by greed.

True Indeed. Paramount (Viacom) has taken greed to a whole new level by recycling Star Trek with a reboot and hoping everyone will watch. In fact all networks have been greedy by pushing out cheap to make Reality TV that has raked in more profit with less overhead. I wish that the Hollywood studios and TV networks would try to find competant writers, producers, and input to either add fresh material to the Trek universe or just make some new good Sci-Fi that will last the test of time.

Fact of the matter is that people are watching.

As are you.

 

[CobraCommander]

To be honest, I don't watch that much TV anymore. There isn't much out there. Even the reruns I like are scarce and hard to come by.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Bottom line - Star Trek was dead. PPC gave it a second chance based upon two factors:

1) Good sales of the "remastered" DVDs.
2) The fact that Abrams ASKED for this as part of his multi-picture deal with the studio.

PPC and CBS are now two (mostly separate) wings of the same organization... so whatever happens on TV is (mostly) unrelated to what happens on the big screen. This is something new, and probably NOT in the best interests of the Trek franchise, but it's just how things are for now. What happens in the theater doesn't necessarily relate to what happens on your TV screen at the moment, in other words.

What will come out of this, however, will be a change in attitude towards Trek as a property. Either "Trek is alive, and was just dying because it was mishandled for a period of time," or "Trek is dead, and we need to stop throwing good money after bad in an vain attempt to revive it."

In either case... if the movie is a resounding success, this does not translate into anything from this movie being used on TV. In fact, the legalities of that would be... challenging, to say the least, I think.

However, if this film is a reasonable success, it will provide fodder for the argument that the reason Trek went downhill for the past few years was because of creative stagnation, not audience fatigue (as the prior Trek crew would like to say, it seems), and we might well see someone else given a chance to do a Trek series... given the precondition that it not be "Trek - Stagnant." They'd pretty much require that it be all new people (probably people unrelated to the movie!) and a drastically different take on things in general.

Things to expect to see go by the wayside:

1) The TNG-era musical style.
2) The TNG-era makeup style.
3) The TNG-era set-design style.
4) The TNG-era script style (including the "requirement for A and B plots")
5) The TNG-era "ensemble feel."

and many other factors which have contributed to everything blending into one boring, bland mush over the past few years.

I'd expect to see something that "shakes things up." There are several proposals out there (including but not limited to the animated series which has not, despite lack of news, been "passed on" at this point). I'd expect something darker in a real sense... and with more "edgy" humor. Something made to feel more real, and less Utopian.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an entirely new "form factor" used... ie, not as a weekly series at all, but rather as, say, a "monthly series" of two-hour episodes... especially if we're talking a live-action series rather than an animated one.

But NONE of this will happen unless the "powers that be" become convinced, on the basis of their gamble on giving Trek one last chance with Abrams, that the franchise is still viable.

There's a LOT riding on Abrams' movie. And that's why some of us, I think, are more critical of things than some others among us seem to be... it's not "just another weekend movie." It's what will save, or will (probably permanently) kill, Star Trek as a major entertainment franchise.