Do you get totally FRUSTRATED with BSG, Stargate, etc. news too?!

[Roald]

It frustrates me to an extreme point when I hear all this news about series' renewals, plans for new spin-offs, etc., etc.... It makes me realise just how much I miss the excitement over a new ST series, a new season, a new episode..... I'm sure ST was always better or equally watched as Stargate.... Why is that show getting renewed and spinned-off (not sure if that's even a word...), and not ST..? I'm sure a new series set in Abramsverse would get decent numbers, why doesn't Paramount make one...???

So TOTALLY FRUSTRATING..!!!!

 

[JohnChod]

Patience, grasshopper.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I think you would better understand how it works with a new Trek series and also the brand & competition & brand image with the Trek feature films if you read the "What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?" thread in its entirety...

To answer your thread title no I don't get frustrated with the press on other science fiction genre shows.

 

[Withers]

No, I'm with you Rolad. Before XI came out I was terribly frustrated. At this point... I'm not tired of the Trek I like... but I've been enjoying it for a very long time. I've had more than a decade to appreciate it in its entirety and I'd like some new material.

I've given other science fiction shows a shot (primarily Stargate and BSG) and just haven't gotten into it the way I did with Trek shows. I don't know why exactly... but they just never struck the right note with me. They weren't bad... just nothing I'm going to be watching in 10 years. While watching those shows I kept thinking "... they could have at least given Enterprise 3 more seasons, geeze."

So, in spite of the realities of producing a television show, I was frustrated too. That has only eased since the release of XI. Now, it's only a matter of time. My stern hope is that it isn't about Enterprise but rather something else set in the new Abrams continuity. And I think it'll happen because its a potential money maker.

-Withers-​

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah, I haven't thought of it that way - any space opera on TV is good because the alternative is more frakkin' cop shows - but Stargate is just so painfully mediocre and BSG is at the opposite end of the spectrum - stop trying to be so artsy fartsy! Just give us good old solid fun entertainment! I swear the audience for Caprica is down to "people who equate being bored with virtue and greater intellect."

I'm sure ST was always better or equally watched as Stargate.... Why is that show getting renewed and spinned-off (not sure if that's even a word...), and not ST..?

Stargate and BSG have audiences in the 1-2M range which is fine for cable, which gets revenues from both advertising and subscriptions, but not for network TV, which is solely ad-supported (stuff like paid download and product placement being trivial).Compare that with the 3-4M viewers that ENT got around the time it was cancelled. Twice the audience of a decent show on cable is cancellation fodder even on the lamest network.

Star Trek needs to go on cable, which is the only place niche TV can survive nowadays, and all sci fi is niche TV, but Viacom's cable properties are inappropriate. The best option would be (ugh) Spike.

I think the biggest holdup to Trek on TV is corporate inertia. Star Trek is owned by CBS, which is making plenty of money off one brainless iteration of police procedural after another. CBS is not a network that is hungry enough to take big risks to reap big rewards, which is the appeal that Star Trek might hold to anyone motivated to put it back on TV. Too bad it's not in NBC's stable, which ironically is where it started out.

So what's to stop, say, Skiffy from saying, "Hey CBS, license Star Trek to us. You're not using it on TV and we could get 2-3M viewers from it easy." It could very well be that the value CBS assigns to Star Trek - a blockbuster movie franchise right now - is too high for that puny 2-3M audience it can expect to garner on cable, which is all it's ever going to get on TV, because on a network it would be cancelled for not getting the 8M it needs to survive there. Is Star Trek priced out of its own market? Maybe Skiffy is thinking, "frak Star Trek, we can get that same viewership from a BSG spinoff with plenty of space-battle action and not pay Viacom for the highfalutin' brand name."

 

[Roald]

Thanks for your post, Temis. You're making some very interesting remarks. The whole US cable/network system is a little hard to grasp for someone living in Europe, but you've made it very clear for me.

 

[AviTrek]

Not to mention that BSG and SG have lower production values than Star Trek. BSG had no aliens to worry about and almost exclusively used standing sets. SG had all their aliens look human, had every alien world set in a BC forest, and had every alien city look like the same medieval town.

For Star Trek to come back on cable, it will not only require finding a home, but will require a smart producer able to make a show on half the budget that Star Trek was used to working on.

 

[Roald]

Not to mention that BSG and SG have lower production values than Star Trek. BSG had no aliens to worry about and almost exclusively used standing sets. SG had all their aliens look human, had every alien world set in a BC forest, and had every alien city look like the same medieval town.

For Star Trek to come back on cable, it will not only require finding a home, but will require a smart producer able to make a show on half the budget that Star Trek was used to working on.

I think the final season of Enterprise was already shot with a smaller budget, cause they didn't use film anymore but HD Video cameras. Enterprise always looked very good in my opinion!

 

[AviTrek]

Not to mention that BSG and SG have lower production values than Star Trek. BSG had no aliens to worry about and almost exclusively used standing sets. SG had all their aliens look human, had every alien world set in a BC forest, and had every alien city look like the same medieval town.

For Star Trek to come back on cable, it will not only require finding a home, but will require a smart producer able to make a show on half the budget that Star Trek was used to working on.

I think the final season of Enterprise was already shot with a smaller budget, cause they didn't use film anymore but HD Video cameras. Enterprise always looked very good in my opinion!

The final season of Enterprise was also produced as a loss leader. Paramount lost money on the final season and only produced it to reach 100 episodes so Enterprise could be sold into nationwide syndication.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Not to mention that BSG and SG have lower production values than Star Trek

BSG managed to squeeze a lot out of their budget and look okay but that's another problem - a Star Trek TV series cannot look just "okay" without impinging on the movie brand, which has got to remain at a premium level in order to compete in the summer blockbuster frenzy, where looks are everything nowadays (and even moreso in the wake of Avatar.)

It would be tempting to say, "hey, we'll take Star Trek that only looks as good as BSG!" Personally, I'd take that - BSG didn't look so bad. But that's not how corporations think. If Star Trek is a "premium brand," it must be kept at a higher level than BSG. If that means movies only, no TV, that's okay. The movie revenues might matter so much more than TV that nothing is worth risking the movie revenues over.

The other complication is Paramount owning the movie rights vs Viacom owning TV. That's an awkward situation. It's hard to get two separate corporations to cooperate on anything. Their default instinct is to not cooperate and to spend their money and time on other opportunities.

I still think the main problem is corporate inertia. CBS could make money off Star Trek on TV, but who is going to champion it? It's a brand partly owned by another corporation. CBS is not sci-fi friendly. Championing Star Trek would not be a good career move for anyone at CBS and the only things that happen at corporations are the things that are good career moves for somebody.

 

[AviTrek]

Not to mention that BSG and SG have lower production values than Star Trek

BSG managed to squeeze a lot out of their budget and look okay but that's another problem - a Star Trek TV series cannot look just "okay" without impinging on the movie brand, which has got to remain at a premium level in order to compete in the summer blockbuster frenzy, where looks are everything nowadays (and even moreso in the wake of Avatar.)

It would be tempting to say, "hey, we'll take Star Trek that only looks as good as BSG!" Personally, I'd take that - BSG didn't look so bad. But that's not how corporations think. If Star Trek is a "premium brand," it must be kept at a higher level than BSG. If that means movies only, no TV, that's okay. The movie revenues might matter so much more than TV that nothing is worth risking the movie revenues over.

The other complication is Paramount owning the movie rights vs Viacom owning TV. That's an awkward situation. It's hard to get two separate corporations to cooperate on anything. Their default instinct is to not cooperate and to spend their money and time on other opportunities.

I still think the main problem is corporate inertia. CBS could make money off Star Trek on TV, but who is going to champion it? It's a brand partly owned by another corporation. CBS is not sci-fi friendly. Championing Star Trek would not be a good career move for anyone at CBS and the only things that happen at corporations are the things that are good career moves for somebody.

As I mentioned in my post, BSG squeezed their budget by having no alien makeup and only using standing sets. There were no alien ships to design every week. No cities/planets to build in a sound stage or on location. And not many guest stars coming in for a single week. All of that helped to let BSG be affordable given its ratings and provided a little room to throw money at SFX.

If you want a Star Trek show about a ship in an empty galaxy with almost no aliens or exploring planets then it can survive on BSG type budgets. If you want something more similar to previous Star Trek shows then it will need a larger audience/budget than BSG had.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I think any new Star Trek TV series on cable might have to be smaller in scale--not in production values--but with a smaller cast and a smaller number of episodes per season (perhaps 13). The show could run in 6 or 7 episode blocks, be repeated, then go away for a few months, and then return with another block of new episodes to end the season.

 

[Starbreaker]

Not at all. There's plenty of good stuff on TV, and a show would probably weaken the anticipation of a new movie.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If you want a Star Trek show about a ship in an empty galaxy with almost no aliens or exploring planets then it can survive on BSG type budgets.

That's not impossible. Do the "Birth of the Federation" all over again, but this time with the premise that Earth is on the far outskirts of the "populated" part of the galaxy, with spaceships too slow to get anywhere interesting. The Vulcans can be around, maybe a few intrepid aliens that make it to the hinterlands of the galaxy. Human colonists (the Boomers) could be major characters. Starfleet's job is to protect Earth and the colonies, and since they're likely to be a boisterous bunch, also to wrangle them into line and keep them out of trouble with the few aliens they encounter.

I'd watch that. It could even be good. But it wouldn't be good for the Trek brand.

Personally, I think any new Star Trek TV series on cable might have to be smaller in scale--not in production values--but with a smaller cast and a smaller number of episodes per season (perhaps 13).

I don't know that a smaller cast would save much money. Hiring a bunch of unknown actors would save you money vs. one brand name actor. Fewer episodes per season costs more money, not less - you can't amortize your fixed costs (sets, etc) over as many episodes so each episode is pricier.

a show would probably weaken the anticipation of a new movie.

Handled properly, a show should help bolster anticipation for each movie and the movies would also funnel an audience to the show.

 

[Anji]

Just remember: If it's not on the page, it won't make it on the stage.

You gotta have a good script.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Trek episodes per season

Personally, I think any new Star Trek TV series on cable might have to be smaller in scale--not in production values--but with a smaller cast and a smaller number of episodes per season (perhaps 13).

Depending on the budget I agree. I'd rather see 13 episodes be a season of Trek on cable TV that have the budget for a few more visual effects ship exterior shot and the better scripts chosen rather than 22-26 episodes with some scripts that are below average quality.

 

[twilitezoner]

I think it won't be until the JJ sequel hits that serious talk regarding another show would really amp up.

And for the love of God no SyFy channel please. 4-5 episodes and then the mid-season finale.

Imagine Greater indeed... I'm still waiting!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Trek episodes per season

Personally, I think any new Star Trek TV series on cable might have to be smaller in scale--not in production values--but with a smaller cast and a smaller number of episodes per season (perhaps 13).

Depending on the budget I agree. I'd rather see 13 episodes be a season of Trek on cable TV that have the budget for a few more visual effects ship exterior shot and the better scripts chosen rather than 22-26 episodes with some scripts that are below average quality.

Why would 13 episodes have more budget per episode than twice that number? The more episodes you do, the more you can amortize standing costs like sets and the lower the per-episode cost.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Re: Trek episodes per season

I'm not interested in a Trek series just for the sake of having a Trek series on the air. If they can find someone to do something good with Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise on a TV budget, then go for it. But no more spinoffs with different ships, crews. They've beaten that horse to death, and the public just doesn't care.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

If you want a Star Trek show about a ship in an empty galaxy with almost no aliens or exploring planets then it can survive on BSG type budgets.

That's not impossible. Do the "Birth of the Federation" all over again, but this time with the premise that Earth is on the far outskirts of the "populated" part of the galaxy, with spaceships too slow to get anywhere interesting. The Vulcans can be around, maybe a few intrepid aliens that make it to the hinterlands of the galaxy. Human colonists (the Boomers) could be major characters. Starfleet's job is to protect Earth and the colonies, and since they're likely to be a boisterous bunch, also to wrangle them into line and keep them out of trouble with the few aliens they encounter.

I'd watch that. It could even be good. But it wouldn't be good for the Trek brand.

Personally, I think any new Star Trek TV series on cable might have to be smaller in scale--not in production values--but with a smaller cast and a smaller number of episodes per season (perhaps 13).

I don't know that a smaller cast would save much money. Hiring a bunch of unknown actors would save you money vs. one brand name actor. Fewer episodes per season costs more money, not less - you can't amortize your fixed costs (sets, etc) over as many episodes so each episode is pricier.

a show would probably weaken the anticipation of a new movie.

Handled properly, a show should help bolster anticipation for each movie and the movies would also funnel an audience to the show.

Paramount/CBS/Viacom can always make an animated series, just like this one.