Why is there such certainity that there will be another show?

[ThePlumsofWrath]

I'm not so sure there will you know. It was the dilution of Trek by the flooding of Trek on TV in the 90's and early 00's that buried it and made it mundane, it ultimately failed to connect, that's why it stopped.

Isn't it?

'Event' movies every 3 years or so seem to be a more sensible way of keeping the flame alive for everyone. Why would I pay to go the cinema to watch something that I'm pretty much getting on TV?

Like how it was with TNG, DS9 et al.

 

[TheQman]

I'm not so sure there will you know. It was the dilution of Trek by the flooding of Trek on TV in the 90's and early 00's that buried it and made it mundane, it ultimately failed to connect, that's why it stopped.

Isn't it?

'Event' movies every 3 years or so seem to be a more sensible way of keeping the flame alive for everyone. Why would I pay to go the cinema to watch something that I'm pretty much getting on TV?

Like how it was with TNG, DS9 et al.

I think what most people are saying is that a new show will happen in a few years, after a couple more movies. People will be ready (trek hungry) by that time.

I of course think there is never enough trek, I wouldn't care if there was 50,000 episodes, the more the better.

 

[Tara]

I don't think a new series is a certainty at all--but threads here are mostly wish fulfilment. What we, as fans of the franchise, would like to see if there were another series.

But I don't think there's any actual potential for another TV series at the moment. Not while hour long scripted television is in dire straits on broadcast telly. The industry is a mess right now (and once you factor in the licence fee, even worse shape--just look at what happened to Sarah Connor Chronicles getting axed in favour of FOX's wholly owned train wreck Dollhouse ), which is why I think the films are the focus of the franchise, currently.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Because I was right here in this forum when ENT was cancelled and the doomsayers were ranting how Trek is dead for 10 or 50 years, or maybe forever!!!!

I didn't believe em then. Why should I believe em now?

I'm not so sure there will you know. It was the dilution of Trek by the flooding of Trek on TV in the 90's and early 00's that buried it and made it mundane, it ultimately failed to connect, that's why it stopped.

Isn't it?

Nope.

If "oversaturation" killed Trek, then why the frak can't it kill CSI and the Saw franchise? Kill the stuff that should be killed, dangit!

The TV series will be made for the same reason the movie was made: if there's money to be made off an idea, somebody will do it. Making money is the reason Hollywood exists. That's why I didn't believe the doomsayers and wasn't at all surprised when the new movie was announced a couple years after Trek "died forever" due to ENT's cancellation.

BSG and V were resurrected on TV, and they certainly have far smaller fanbases than Trek.

Why would I pay to go the cinema to watch something that I'm pretty much getting on TV?

Movies are much bigger-budget and have spectacular production values you'll never see on TV. And although people now have big-ass TV screens at home, it's not the same as seeing it all happen on a really big-ass movie screen.

Movies are also social events in a way that a mere TV show cannot match.

Movies can be the special events for Trek, but the main character development and narrative drive should be handled on TV.

 

[Supreme Admiral]

To be honest with you, we will see the very end of CSI franchise in the future.

To make more room for new shows and that star trek series as well.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

To be honest with you, we will see the very end of CSI franchise in the future.

And in the future, the Sun will expand to burn Earth to crisp, too. I just want CSI to die die die sometime before that happens.

 

[Supreme Admiral]

To be honest with you, we will see the very end of CSI franchise in the future.

And in the future, the Sun will expand to burn Earth to crisp, too. I just want CSI to die die die sometime before that happens.

You sure?

Wait until we got new boss of CBS.

 

[ThePlumsofWrath]

Because I was right here in this forum when ENT was cancelled and the doomsayers were ranting how Trek is dead for 10 or 50 years, or maybe forever!!!!

I didn't believe em then. Why should I believe em now?

I'm not so sure there will you know. It was the dilution of Trek by the flooding of Trek on TV in the 90's and early 00's that buried it and made it mundane, it ultimately failed to connect, that's why it stopped.

Isn't it?

Nope.

If "oversaturation" killed Trek, then why the frak can't it kill CSI and the Saw franchise? Kill the stuff that should be killed, dangit!

The TV series will be made for the same reason the movie was made: if there's money to be made off an idea, somebody will do it. Making money is the reason Hollywood exists. That's why I didn't believe the doomsayers and wasn't at all surprised when the new movie was announced a couple years after Trek "died forever" due to ENT's cancellation.

BSG and V were resurrected on TV, and they certainly have far smaller fanbases than Trek.

Why would I pay to go the cinema to watch something that I'm pretty much getting on TV?

Movies are much bigger-budget and have spectacular production values you'll never see on TV. And although people now have big-ass TV screens at home, it's not the same as seeing it all happen on a really big-ass movie screen.

Movies are also social events in a way that a mere TV show cannot match.

Movies can be the special events for Trek, but the main character development and narrative drive should be handled on TV.

This is interesting Temis and I'm not saying you are wrong at all but don't you think things are different for Trek now, that things have moved on for Trek now? I'm minded to believe that the studio won't make the same mistakes that it made with the Berman et al era.

To that end, I rather enjoyed the build up to the Abrams movie and the theatre of it all in a way that I have not enjoyed Trek for many years. I was trawling the net for info in a way that I haven't really ever bothered before.

That feel good factor is what puts money in the till isn't it?

120 odd episodes of mediocre and occasionally good TV does not generate MAXIMUM cash in my opinion, better to make 2 hours of quality film that invigorates the franchise every two or three years than 5/6/7 seasons of patchy quality that runs down your income stream and kills it cinematic credibility like DS9/VOY/ENT did to TNG movies. All that will happen is Trek fatigue again.

I don't know why the studio would bother to be honest?

That said, I could see serious mileage in an animated show sooner rather than later.

Cheers.

 

[Kegg]

Because I was right here in this forum when ENT was cancelled and the doomsayers were ranting how Trek is dead for 10 or 50 years, or maybe forever!!!!

I would have been one of those people. I wasn't here when ENT was cancelled (crap I'd buggered off during the second season), but I definitely felt the gig was up for the Trek franchise. Call that my excessive naivete.

But nobody's saying that now, they're just saying there wouldn't be another TV series. I personally don't think there will be another TV series for as long as the J.J. Abrams films go on; the focus of the franchise will strictly be on them, Chris Pine, Zach Quinto and the like.

Once that's done? Well, maybe then a TV show, and for my money likely a Kirk & Spock show.

So I think one could say that, if one assumes the franchise will continue for the indefinite future, then another TV show is a possibility; though then again in the post-Abrams film world maybe they may just try to reboot the film franchise or whatever.

I do think a fundamental shift has happened, though: Star Trek has gone back to the roots of Kirk and Spock and I do not think it's going to leave those. Future incarnations will be as much about the new Kirk and Spock as Batmans are about the new Caped Crusader and Bonds are about the new 007.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

but don't you think things are different for Trek now, that things have moved on for Trek now?

Star Trek isn't some kind of unique thing in Hollywood. I'm sure it's considered just more fodder, and the question is, is it useful fodder with money-making potential?

There's just been an announcement of a new Charlie's Angels series. To the people who make the decisions, a new Trek series is no more or less sensible than that. They're the same thing: remake of an old show. That may seem like an in-sayyy-ne idea to us, but it just goes to show how our perspective isn't really the relevant one. If Charlie's Angels' time can come around again, Star Trek's time can do the same.

I'm minded to believe that the studio won't make the same mistakes that it made with the Berman et al era.

The biggest barrier to Star Trek on TV is that CBS owns the rights and has no apparent motive to disrupt their current highly successful approach: All Police Procedurals, All The Time. Berman won't have anything to do with the series, so his specific mistakes won't be repeated.

120 odd episodes of mediocre and occasionally good TV does not generate MAXIMUM cash in my opinion, better to make 2 hours of quality film that invigorates the franchise every two or three years than 5/6/7 seasons of patchy quality that runs down your income stream and kills it cinematic credibility like DS9/VOY/ENT did to TNG movies.

The movies will make $$$ in any case. A TV series running at the same time won't siphon off box office and should help somewhat by keeping the franchise in the public eye.

I do think a fundamental shift has happened, though: Star Trek has gone back to the roots of Kirk and Spock and I do not think it's going to leave those.

It will definitely spin off from there. We'll stick with the 23rd C for a while - maybe for a long while. What was the reason to jump to the 24th C, anyway? In retrospect, I can't say it added much. I love DS9, but couldn't that story have been told in the 23rd C? Couldn't Kirk and Spock been part of the Dominion War?

 

[ThePlumsofWrath]

but don't you think things are different for Trek now, that things have moved on for Trek now?

Star Trek isn't some kind of unique thing in Hollywood. I'm sure it's considered just more fodder, and the question is, is it useful fodder with money-making potential?

There's just been an announcement of a new Charlie's Angels series. To the people who make the decisions, a new Trek series is no more or less sensible than that. They're the same thing: remake of an old show. That may seem like an in-sayyy-ne idea to us, but it just goes to show how our perspective isn't really the relevant one. If Charlie's Angels' time can come around again, Star Trek's time can do the same.

I'm minded to believe that the studio won't make the same mistakes that it made with the Berman et al era.

The biggest barrier to Star Trek on TV is that CBS owns the rights and has no apparent motive to disrupt their current highly successful approach: All Police Procedurals, All The Time. Berman won't have anything to do with the series, so his specific mistakes won't be repeated.

120 odd episodes of mediocre and occasionally good TV does not generate MAXIMUM cash in my opinion, better to make 2 hours of quality film that invigorates the franchise every two or three years than 5/6/7 seasons of patchy quality that runs down your income stream and kills it cinematic credibility like DS9/VOY/ENT did to TNG movies.

The movies will make $$$ in any case. A TV series running at the same time won't siphon off box office and should help somewhat by keeping the franchise in the public eye.

I do think a fundamental shift has happened, though: Star Trek has gone back to the roots of Kirk and Spock and I do not think it's going to leave those.

It will definitely spin off from there. We'll stick with the 23rd C for a while - maybe for a long while. What was the reason to jump to the 24th C, anyway? In retrospect, I can't say it added much. I love DS9, but couldn't that story have been told in the 23rd C? Couldn't Kirk and Spock been part of the Dominion War?

Cheers Temis, I think I'm reading what you'd like to be the case rather than an objective business case to substantiate the notion.

What I could see happening here, with your scenario, is that Trek becomes niche again, as it was before Abrams came in and messed with it. Niche means failure ultimately, the success of Abrams Trek is for all the opposite reasons of niche production.

TV would inevitably shrink the Trek universe again and turn it into commonalities rather than events that get gazillions into the studio's coffers and keep people hanging in there for more so long as the quality remains. TV Trek never did that apart from TOS which obviously was a slow burner, even the most ardent Trek fan has to concede that new TV Trek was hit and miss at times.

Your DS9 point is interesting, I agree definately. A story arc on TOS was never something we were never treated to and this was the grandest of arcs that was never really done justice in my opinion.

Regards.

 

[James Bond]

Why would I pay to go the cinema to watch something that I'm pretty much getting on TV?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but... umm... to see that particular story? Hello..

 

[ThePlumsofWrath]

Why would I pay to go the cinema to watch something that I'm pretty much getting on TV?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but... umm... to see that particular story? Hello..

It's a fair point but it's not an event to the other 90% of the cinema going public, it's just more of the same.

It has to engage everyone all of the time for that to work.

Doesn't it?

And to date, it demonstrably has not.

 

[James Bond]

Why would I pay to go the cinema to watch something that I'm pretty much getting on TV?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but... umm... to see that particular story? Hello..

It's a fair point but it's not an event to the other 90% of the cinema going public, it's just more of the same.

It has to engage everyone all of the time for that to work.

Doesn't it?

And to date, it demonstrably has not.

Fair enough.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm not at all sure that there will be another Trek TV series.

 

[Supreme Admiral]

Like I said..

WAIT UNTIL WE GOT NEW BOSS OF CBS!!!

 

[Tara]

Whereas I always feel, like Ambush Bug, the disembodied head of Les Moonves will haunt me well into the 30th century.

(Why yes, I am still bitter about EZ Streets and Jake 2.0, thank you.)

 

[Supreme Admiral]

I can never understand you people. Les Moonves is the reason why he ended Star Trek in eighteen years strong on television. If we got new boss to replace him, there will be brand new faces on to revive the star trek franchise to return on tv!

Guarantee!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

What I could see happening here, with your scenario, is that Trek becomes niche again, as it was before Abrams came in and messed with it.

It's still niche in TV terms. Sci fi on TV = automatic niche. But HBO's whole output for example is also niche, so on TV, niche is not a bad thing at all.

Niche means failure ultimately,

In movies, yes. On TV, you either go vanilla mass market (CSI, American Idol) or niche - two paths that both can lead to financial success. The niche TV approach is where all the interesting stuff is happening anyway. Nobody wants CSI: Star Trek.

the success of Abrams Trek is for all the opposite reasons of niche production.

To the extent I understand what you mean by this...Abrams' reworking of Trek (and it wasn't really reworked all that much at all, more just restored to the feel of TOS and DS9) can lead to two paths of success - big-budget popcorn extravaganza for mainstream movies; back to the strength of characterization and plot for niche TV.

TV would inevitably shrink the Trek universe again

TV would expand it. If we get three new movies, that's six hours of running time, versus let's say 23 hours per season at 42 minutes per = 16 hours of running time and change. TV is the only place where Trek can be fully fleshed out as it deserves.

even the most ardent Trek fan has to concede that new TV Trek was hit and miss at times.

DS9 was terrific, TNG was popular (in a very different business environment for TV which will never be repeated) and creatively bland, VOY and ENT failed creatively and financially. But the people who handled the creative end are gone and there's only one right financial approach, to embrace the niche-ness of Trek and make it work on TV, the way all cable networks are making their niche products work.

So what we need is a new group that can make a series creatively successful like TOS and DS9 were, and can use the cable-TV niche model as their business template. It's not impossible at all.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

DS9 was terrific, TNG was popular (in a very different business environment for TV which will never be repeated) and creatively bland, VOY and ENT failed creatively and financially. But the people who handled the creative end are gone and there's only one right financial approach, to embrace the niche-ness of Trek and make it work on TV, the way all cable networks are making their niche products work.

Daaamn....!