What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?

[jefferiestubes8]

Showtime's channels - premium cable

By chance, does Showtime have a Science Fiction channel?

Showtime operates eight multiplex channels and a video on demand service (Showtime On Demand).

* Showtime (SHO)
* Showtime 2 (SHO2)
* Showcase (SHOC)
* Showtime Beyond (SHOB): The channel features a mix of science fiction, fantasy and horror films as well as Showtime original sci-fi series.
* Showtime Extreme (SHOX)
* Showtime Family Zone (SHOF)
* Showtime Next (SHON)
* Showtime Women (SHOW):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showtime#Channels


Showtime Beyond would be the channel but even IF CBS Television were to put a brand new Star Trek series on premium cable Showtime which after reading this thread I highly doubt that would happen it would be on the main Showtime channel for the most brand name recognition and audience.

Showtime Beyond schedule
http://www.sho.com/site/schedules/channel.do?channel=SHB
i don't see anything but movies on there today or Friday.

Hey just wondering does anyone know the budgets of any of the Showtime original sci-fi series on Showtime Beyond ?

 

[AviTrek]

Re: Showtime's channels - premium cable

I don't think Showtime Beyond has first run programming. It's just used for sci fi themed repeats. So a sci fi show would air on Showtime the same way Dexter does, and then be repeated on Beyond when new episodes aren't running(and maybe as repeats between episodes on Showtime).

 

[Yug]

Wha? Syfy's no good cuz they changed their name? It's still a science fiction specialty channel. It's been doing well for years, it still shows more original Sci-Fi than ever, we're lucky to have it, and it's earned the right to show new Trek..

Showtime Beyond's not worthy cuz it doesn't have original programming? Maybe it never had a reason to up until now, have some vision...

CW skews female? Smallville! Supernatural! Vampire Diaries! (well, Ok that last one is a bit 13 yr old girlish) But the CW is Paramount, anyhoo...

Very little of any of that matters.

Star Trek is a TV show, one that can easily be shown on any channel that will have it and pay for it, Spike, Syfy, CW. I don't deny that demographics plays a huge role, but honestly, Trek has a miriad of non demo specific but devoted followers. Trek can do network, it can do cable, and if Trek indeed has risen to some higher standard thanks to the new film, then it can do Premium cable too (maybe Cinemax). Point is, even syndication can do the do, and let programmers decide. Trek, if it's done well, can take advantage of the fresh fandom created by the film and go just about anywhere.

In fact, maybe it's time to rebuild the franchise slowly and have some smaller form of Trek exist on tv for now, not make some huge production of it... a cgi series, a small budget live action series even. Perhaps one new big budget Trek film every two years or so and a small budget TV project can co-exist without getting in each others way. Something new and fresh that we haven't seen, a small ship with a small crew... or some new route that still honors the premise without asking for the stars. Something just a bit lighter then the Trek series we've seen before. Smart tight stories with allegorical intrique and danger, infused with science... but high energy adventure, and oh yeah: FUN !!!

I want Trek to smile again, TOS made me smile, Trek XI made me smile. A small show, shown anywhere, lofty goals need not matter.... don't put so much pressure on Trek, let the ol' girl breath new life.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Wha? Syfy's no good cuz they changed their name?

No. It's no good cuz it sucks.

It would help if they just admitted to themselves that they are a channel that shows science fiction.

CW skews female? Smallville! Supernatural! Vampire Diaries!

If you look at their programming strategy as a whole, it is definitely female skewing. They have made no secret of their disdain for the too-male-skewing Smallville and Supernatural and in the future we can expect more emo vampire and bitchy high school girls. Not that I'm criticizing them. They're a small player up against bigger competitors and when a business is in that position, focusing on a narrow market is a good survival strategy.

But the CW is Paramount, anyhoo...

So?

Star Trek is a TV show, one that can easily be shown on any channel that will have it and pay for it, Spike, Syfy, CW.

It can't be shown on a channel that doesn't see the value in it and therefore won't buy it.

I don't deny that demographics plays a huge role, but honestly, Trek has a miriad of non demo specific but devoted followers.

Star Trek skews young male, which should be a benefit, since young males are difficult for advertisers to reach, so whoever is selling the show will definitely use that in their sales strategy. But it's much less of a benefit for the CW, which wants a female audience, and CBS, which is doing fine casting a wide net that skews older than the 18-49 demo. Star Trek fits much better with NBC and FOX's strategies. It's just bad luck that it happens to be owned by a corporation that doesn't value the very thing that competitors would value.

I wish CBS would just see the sense of selling Star Trek to a competitor that would value it. What's the point of hanging onto an asset you don't plan to capitalize? But there hasn't even been a rumor about that.

if Trek indeed has risen to some higher standard thanks to the new film, then it can do Premium cable too (maybe Cinemax).

It can't rise high enough for HBO and Showtime, whose strategy is to justify their prices by giving audiences stuff that they could never expect to get elsewhere on TV. However Starz and Cinemax are an interesting suggestion - they seem to be a step down from the real premium cable outlets. They might just bite.

In fact, maybe it's time to rebuild the franchise slowly and have some smaller form of Trek exist on tv for now, not make some huge production of it... a cgi series, a small budget live action series even.

Wrong strategy for Star Trek. Go big or don't go at all. It's had the stink of failure on it for many years and Abrams has finally erased that stink with a $150-million bubble bath. It would be absolutely insane for someone to come along and wipe out that expensive effort with a cheap-ass TV show, although Paramount paid for the bubble bath and CBS might not feel obligated to care what Paramount thinks about its brand sabotage.

 

[Lord Garth]

10 years ago I would've said Sci-Fi. Five years ago I would've said Sci-Fi. That was then, this is now. Today I'll say AMC.

 

[Yug]

Wha? Syfy's no good cuz they changed their name?

Temis: No. It's no good cuz it sucks.

It would help if they just admitted to themselves that they are a channel that shows science fiction.

And yet, it shows nothing BUT science fiction, sorry they have to supplement with monster movies, but hey, science fiction has always had a cheese factor... I don't see what the issue is. Trek can't exist on a science fiction channel???...still don't see why not.

CW skews female? Smallville! Supernatural! Vampire Diaries!

Temis: If you look at their programming strategy as a whole, it is definitely female skewing. They have made no secret of their disdain for the too-male-skewing Smallville and Supernatural and in the future we can expect more emo vampire and bitchy high school girls. Not that I'm criticizing them. They're a small player up against bigger competitors and when a business is in that position, focusing on a narrow market is a good survival strategy.

Your probally right about that.

But the CW is Paramount, anyhoo...

So?

So, maybe they might want to show their own properties on their own network, I know, crazy right?

Star Trek is a TV show, one that can easily be shown on any channel that will have it and pay for it, Spike, Syfy, CW.

Temis:It can't be shown on a channel that doesn't see the value in it and therefore won't buy it.

EXACTLY... you basically repeated the same notion back to me.

I don't deny that demographics plays a huge role, but honestly, Trek has a miriad of non demo specific but devoted followers.

Temis: Star Trek skews young male, which should be a benefit, since young males are difficult for advertisers to reach, so whoever is selling the show will definitely use that in their sales strategy. But it's much less of a benefit for the CW, which wants a female audience, and CBS, which is doing fine casting a wide net that skews older than the 18-49 demo. Star Trek fits much better with NBC and FOX's strategies. It's just bad luck that it happens to be owned by a corporation that doesn't value the very thing that competitors would value.

Good points.

In fact, maybe it's time to rebuild the franchise slowly and have some smaller form of Trek exist on tv for now, not make some huge production of it... a cgi series, a small budget live action series even.

Temis: Wrong strategy for Star Trek. Go big or don't go at all. It's had the stink of failure on it for many years and Abrams has finally erased that stink with a $150-million bubble bath. It would be absolutely insane for someone to come along and wipe out that expensive effort with a cheap-ass TV show, although Paramount paid for the bubble bath and CBS might not feel obligated to care what Paramount thinks about its brand sabotage.

But going "big" is what killed it on TV in the first place, that's what loses money. Nurture it with smaller supplemental projects, like a CGI series. Or make a smaller show, without a huge cast. There are a lot of things that can be Trek as long as it honors the premise of the Trek universe.

All efforts shouldn't be judged only by big production expense. Especially these days where it's a bit easier to make things look pretty good without a huge budget... Battlestar Galactica did not have the budget Enterprise did, and yet BSG had stunning visuals, effective stories, capable actors, and believable sets...if Trek wants to keep breathing beyond the current proposed string of films, it needs to adapt.

Not everyone who saw the film will watch a Star Trek TV series, the film had a mass apeal to Trek fans AND the curious average movie goers alike, most of the latter may never have watched much Trek other than TOS when they were kids. A TV show won't bring the audience the film did, cater the show to reflect that.

Why is everything "cheap ass" vs "big budget bubble bath"? You can make an effective show on a decent budget and with good well written stories. Again: Battlestar did it, why can't Trek?

 

[AviTrek]

Wha? Syfy's no good cuz they changed their name?

Temis: No. It's no good cuz it sucks.

It would help if they just admitted to themselves that they are a channel that shows science fiction.

And yet, it shows nothing BUT science fiction, sorry they have to supplement with monster movies, but hey, science fiction has always had a cheese factor... I don't see what the issue is. Trek can't exist on a science fiction channel???...still don't see why not.




Your probally right about that.



So, maybe they might want to show their own properties on their own network, I know, crazy right?




EXACTLY... you basically repeated the same notion back to me.



Good points.

In fact, maybe it's time to rebuild the franchise slowly and have some smaller form of Trek exist on tv for now, not make some huge production of it... a cgi series, a small budget live action series even.

Temis: Wrong strategy for Star Trek. Go big or don't go at all. It's had the stink of failure on it for many years and Abrams has finally erased that stink with a $150-million bubble bath. It would be absolutely insane for someone to come along and wipe out that expensive effort with a cheap-ass TV show, although Paramount paid for the bubble bath and CBS might not feel obligated to care what Paramount thinks about its brand sabotage.

But going "big" is what killed it on TV in the first place, that's what loses money. Nurture it with smaller supplemental projects, like a CGI series. Or make a smaller show, without a huge cast. There are a lot of things that can be Trek as long as it honors the premise of the Trek universe.

All efforts shouldn't be judged only by big production expense. Especially these days where it's a bit easier to make things look pretty good without a huge budget... Battlestar Galactica did not have the budget Enterprise did, and yet BSG had stunning visuals, effective stories, capable actors, and believable sets...if Trek wants to keep breathing beyond the current proposed string of films, it needs to adapt.

Not everyone who saw the film will watch a Star Trek TV series, the film had a mass apeal to Trek fans AND the curious average movie goers alike, most of the latter may never have watched much Trek other than TOS when they were kids. A TV show won't bring the audience the film did, cater the show to reflect that.

Why is everything "cheap ass" vs "big budget bubble bath"? You can make an effective show on a decent budget and with good well written stories. Again: Battlestar did it, why can't Trek?

The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.

 

[Yug]

The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.

That's a decent point, you're right, Trek does do a lot more "strange new worlds" stuff then BSG did. But it's not really about using the BSG "model". I still think a good series can be done with more use of CGI characters and sets, some kind of cross between BSG and Babylon 5 (or even, dare I say, Doctor Who) but taken further. While B5 did suffer from poor production values, it had some well crafted creative and epic stories augmented by the burgoning CGI effects.

And honestly, I've never been a proponent of the over all "It's never been done, so it can't be done" mindset... I think creative people, imaginative writers, and a good show runner can do anything on any budget. That's the real difference, the production crew. Not whether you can do this or that, or even what channel it goes on... it takes someone with vision enough to say why can't we?, and let's try it !! Ronald Moore and Manny Coto showed that kind of drive and vision. Moore talks all the time that his Trek experience was littered with opposition regarding branching out on new ideas. It's a new and constantly improving world of SFX, and a Trek series can take advantage of the new technology. And move the concept forward with new and different stories and new challenges. Similar in manner to TOS in the 60's, I feel that Gene Coon (and Roddenberry) really pushed what a weekly sci-fi show could be beyond the "monster of the week" concept. Creating more thought provoking storylines with interesting characters fused with adventure and action, elevating the concept on a fairly low budget for the times. But then aspects of Next Generation, on thru DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise really watered all that down until it became a formula that wore itself out.

It may take a while to create a new live action series, and I think it deserves a creative staff to find a way to craft it correctly, it will be worth the wait... and it CAN be done.

(I also need to stop obsessing about this stuff.)

 

[AviTrek]

The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.

That's a decent point, you're right, Trek does do a lot more "strange new worlds" stuff then BSG did. But it's not really about using the BSG "model". I still think a good series can be done with more use of CGI characters and sets, some kind of cross between BSG and Babylon 5 (or even, dare I say, Doctor Who) but taken further. While B5 did suffer from poor production values, it had some well crafted creative and epic stories augmented by the burgoning CGI effects.

And honestly, I've never been a proponent of the over all "It's never been done, so it can't be done" mindset... I think creative people, imaginative writers, and a good show runner can do anything on any budget. That's the real difference, the production crew. Not whether you can do this or that, or even what channel it goes on... it takes someone with vision enough to say why can't we?, and let's try it !! Ronald Moore and Manny Coto showed that kind of drive and vision. Moore talks all the time that his Trek experience was littered with opposition regarding branching out on new ideas. It's a new and constantly improving world of SFX, and a Trek series can take advantage of the new technology. And move the concept forward with new and different stories and new challenges. Similar in manner to TOS in the 60's, I feel that Gene Coon (and Roddenberry) really pushed what a weekly sci-fi show could be beyond the "monster of the week" concept. Creating more thought provoking storylines with interesting characters fused with adventure and action, elevating the concept on a fairly low budget for the times. But then aspects of Next Generation, on thru DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise really watered all that down until it became a formula that wore itself out.

It may take a while to create a new live action series, and I think it deserves a creative staff to find a way to craft it correctly, it will be worth the wait... and it CAN be done.

(I also need to stop obsessing about this stuff.)

If you want to make a comparison make it to Sanctuary. Personally I think Sanctuary looks awful, but realistically a CGI background is the only way to produce a show with alien worlds on the budget of a SyFy series.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I think creative people, imaginative writers, and a good show runner can do anything on any budget.

Not whether you can do this or that, or even what channel it goes on...

Okay Yug but stay on topic. That is exactly what we are talking about in this thread...the channel that a new Trek series would be on (in the United States).

 

[Yug]

Okay Yug but stay on topic. That is exactly what we are talking about in this thread...the channel that a new Trek series would be on (in the United States).

Okay, you're right... How 'bout the USA Network?

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Okay Yug but stay on topic. That is exactly what we are talking about in this thread...the channel that a new Trek series would be on (in the United States).

Okay, you're right... How 'bout the USA Network?

Yug, perhaps you should read this thread's posts?
see above what AviTrek posted:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3509399&postcount=65

 

[Yug]

Thank you for your constant guidance Jefferiestubes8, I'll show myself out.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But going "big" is what killed it on TV in the first place, that's what loses money. Nurture it with smaller supplemental projects, like a CGI series. Or make a smaller show, without a huge cast. There are a lot of things that can be Trek as long as it honors the premise of the Trek universe.

Yet going big in movies paid off big. Okay, those are different business models. For TV, you can go small, but think niche audience/quality product. Never cheapen the product.

A smaller cast and using CGI doesn't necessarily cheapen the results, btw. It's all in how it turns out.

All efforts shouldn't be judged only by big production expense. Especially these days where it's a bit easier to make things look pretty good without a huge budget... Battlestar Galactica did not have the budget Enterprise did, and yet BSG had stunning visuals, effective stories, capable actors, and believable sets...if Trek wants to keep breathing beyond the current proposed string of films, it needs to adapt.

Being "cheap" in the way BSG was cheap sounds fine with me.

The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.

TOS never ventured outside the greater LA region for its location shooting. CGI has come a long ways. If the acting and writing is really up to snuff, the audience can forgive some sketchy eye candy. Sanctuary doesn't look great but if the writing and acting were better, it would come off a lot better and I probably wouldn't have bailed on it.

 

[Yug]

For TV, you can go small, but think niche audience/quality product. Never cheapen the product.

A smaller cast and using CGI doesn't necessarily cheapen the results, btw. It's all in how it turns out.

It won't "cheapen" the product, that's exactly what I'm talking about !!

 

[AviTrek]

The BSG model won't work. BSG was 99% on ships. In its four year run there were 7 or 8 planets visited total and no aliens. I mean you could create a Trek show exploring ion clouds, subspace tears, and gaseous anomalies, but you won't be exploring strange new worlds or seeking out new life and new civilizations on a BSG type budget.

TOS never ventured outside the greater LA region for its location shooting. CGI has come a long ways. If the acting and writing is really up to snuff, the audience can forgive some sketchy eye candy. Sanctuary doesn't look great but if the writing and acting were better, it would come off a lot better and I probably wouldn't have bailed on it.

Most shows don't leave their cities for filming, but it's hard to make Los Angeles or Vancouver look like multiple different alien worlds. That's why Star Trek has done most of its alien worlds on sound stages. But constantly rebuilding sets to show different worlds is expensive. So we return to the same basic 3 options, every world is a Vancouver forest, every episode is on the ship with very few alien worlds, CGI, or a budget that is cost prohibitive for cable.

 

[Yug]

So we return to the same basic 3 options, every world is a Vancouver forest, every episode is on the ship with very few alien worlds, CGI, or a budget that is cost prohibitive for cable.

That's technically 4 options... but why so limiting? And I think there's plenty more options than that, including muppets. But really, I think a good looking show can be made on a cable budget. Truth is, lot's of cable channels will pay for a Trek series, even if it's budget is more than most cable shows. We may not see Enterprise budgets again for awhile, but an interested, well marketed, cable channel can produce a quality Trek product.

Vancouver forest... huh?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

For TV, you can go small, but think niche audience/quality product. Never cheapen the product.

A smaller cast and using CGI doesn't necessarily cheapen the results, btw. It's all in how it turns out.

It won't "cheapen" the product, that's exactly what I'm talking about !!

A CGI series on a regular TV station wouldn't be perceived as cheap, so I'm fine with that. Put the same CGI series on DVD or download only, and it becomes cheap, because of the perception that it wasn't good enough for TV (and indeed, if it is good enough for TV - why isn't it there?)

Vancouver forest... huh?

Stargate reference.

 

[Yug]

A CGI series on a regular TV station wouldn't be perceived as cheap, so I'm fine with that. Put the same CGI series on DVD or download only, and it becomes cheap, because of the perception that it wasn't good enough for TV (and indeed, if it is good enough for TV - why isn't it there?)

Ah, but this is the TV thread, not the download/DVD thread. I never brought up any of that here. JefferiesTube8 will set you straight I'm sure.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

A CGI series on a regular TV station wouldn't be perceived as cheap, so I'm fine with that. Put the same CGI series on DVD or download only, and it becomes cheap, because of the perception that it wasn't good enough for TV (and indeed, if it is good enough for TV - why isn't it there?)

Ah, but this is the TV thread, not the download/DVD thread. I never brought up any of that here. JefferiesTube8 will set you straight I'm sure.

This aint TWOP! Let the threads meander as they will!