Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek Xl?

[JarodRussell]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

But it's not all gone. None of it's gone. All that stuff still happened. That was the whole point of establishing Star Trek XI as taking place in an alternate reality. There are now two Star Trek universes (a third, if you include the Mirror universe). In the original universe, Romulus is gone and Spock has probably been declared missing and presumed dead, but otherwise nothing else has changed and life goes on there as before.

The point is that the chances of ever seeing that universe again, barring the novels and maybe comic books is virtually zero...

There's no guarantee that either of the two universes will still be around in 10 or 12 years...

The way it goes, there will be Abramstrek 2 in 2012, Abramstrek 3 in 2014, and then the movie franchise will be rebooted again by someone else. And with each reboot, it will get further and further away from the original.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

That's how it worked for 44 years, so yeah it is.

Still Star Trek, nothing else needs to be said about it.

Wrong. Try again.

It's Star Trek. Good luck proving otherwise.

Behold, JJ's target audience...

 

[Sabataage]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Its Star Trek. No ammount photoshop will change that fact. It just makes you stupid.

 

[Devon]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Well, technically, it is called Star Trek, yes. But then again, I mean, you know what it's like, don't you?

Wrong. Try again.

It's Star Trek. Good luck proving otherwise.

Behold, JJ's target audience...

^ A double shot of failure.

It's Star Trek. Good luck proving otherwise.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

It's Star Trek. Good luck proving otherwise.

Of course it is - nine out of ten Trek fans, and the rest of the world to the extent that anyone gives a damn, recognize that.

It's amazing that a tiny minority of folks who dislike it think that, based on incompetent arguments and pre-chewed analysis, they get to to wag the dog. But hey, they have to live that way.

 

[Captrek]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Personally, I’m not interested in another TV series set about a starship. After 3 seasons of TOS, 7 seasons of TNG, 7 seasons of VOY, and 4 seasons of ENT, it has been done to death. DS9 diverged from the formula, but only a little. At this point, I’m happy to see the adventures of Jim Kirk and the Enterprise confined to the big screen.

However, the Star Trek universe is rich with possibilities for all kinds of different shows that may be worth exploring. Like a sitcom about a Ferengi odd couple. Or a political/philosophical drama about the life of Surak. A “Law & Order”-style crime drama set on Cardassia, with their unique system of justice. A teen angst melodrama set at Starfleet Academy. Whatever. Why should the vast Star Trek universe be so narrowly limited in the kinds of TV series it can offer?

If there is to be a new series set aboard a starship, take it from a different angle: make a series set on a Romulan starship, showing things from the Romulan point of view, making the Romulan characters sympathetic without violating established canon.

There is a whole universe of possibilities. If there is to be a new Star Trek TV series, let it not be same-old-same-old. Let it be something original and unique.

If you want to see a TV show set aboard a Federation starship, you have 526 episodes of TOS, TNG, VOY, and ENT, plus however many DS9 episodes were set aboard the Defiant. You can watch an episode a week for more than 10 years without a repeat. Enough is enough. Do something new, or do nothing.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

It's Star Trek. Good luck proving otherwise.

Obviously, it is officially Star Trek because Paramount calls the product it sold a year ago Star Trek.

But can you prove that the content is also still Star Trek, and that it's not just a label slapped on something else?

You can't. Why?

Because the debate is philosophical, and so your demand "Prove otherwise." is silly. Is a product defined by its content or by its name? And can you, when it comes to films and novels, objectively prove that the content is one or the other?

So good luck proving that what we see there is indeed Star Trek.

 

[Devon]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

It's Star Trek. Good luck proving otherwise.

Obviously, it is officially Star Trek because Paramount calls the product it sold a year ago Star Trek.

Good job.

But can you prove that the content is also still Star Trek, and that it's not just a label slapped on something else?

You can't. Why?

Because the debate is philosophical, and so your demand "Prove otherwise." is silly.

You were the one who tried to argue against it and made a moot claim that it was Star Trek in name only.

But it's Star Trek, no amount of arguing, photoshop, or desperate claims can change it.

Acceptance is the next step.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

People, people!!!

Whoever actually does Star Trek decides what it is.

JJ Abrams does movie Star Trek. He decides what it is.

If and when CBS puts Star Trek on TV or hands it over to someone who will, they will decide what it is.

All other discussion is abstract irrelevancies. Star Trek is a trademark owned by corporate entities that control the trademark. Whatever they decide the trademark means, that is what it means. Legally.

Personally, I’m not interested in another TV series set about a starship.

That's the only TV series topic that has a hope in hell of getting the ratings needed for survival.

Like a sitcom about a Ferengi odd couple.

Cancelled in two episodes.

Or a political/philosophical drama about the life of Surak.

Cancelled in one episode, and that's being generous.

A “Law & Order”-style crime drama set on Cardassia, with their unique system of justice.

Call it CSI: Star Trek and it should last a season or two. Otherwise, cancelled in five episodes.

A teen angst melodrama set at Starfleet Academy.

If there is a God, it will be cancelled before it has a chance to putrify the airwaves.

Why should the vast Star Trek universe be so narrowly limited in the kinds of TV series it can offer?

Neilsens.

If there is to be a new series set aboard a starship, take it from a different angle: make a series set on a Romulan starship, showing things from the Romulan point of view, making the Romulan characters sympathetic without violating established canon.

Cancelled in four episodes.

Think about it. ENT didn't survive. What chance do exotic and less approchable ideas have, really?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Remember, the whole point of the movie was so that the studio could have it's own Star Trek property to play with, since CBS already owns the other 99% of the franchise, and the alternate universe angle is a nice way to avoid either side of the Viacom empire having to correlate with each other. Somebody on the studio side doesn't even want tie-in novels competeing with the next film, so there's no way in hell they're gonna go along with a tv series cluttering up their nice new sandbox.

So, that simple fact of Hollywood life alone would dictate that any new tv series would either be based upon the original timeline or be yet another reboot (ala the new Hawaii Five-O).

 

[Captrek]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Think about it. ENT didn't survive. What chance do exotic and less approchable ideas have, really?

ENT didn’t survive, therefore the only viable concept is to do is the same thing that ENT did?

I think ENT’s demise showed that this concept has been played out. If there is to be another TV series set in the Star Trek universe, it needs to be a different kind of series. If there’s nothing to do on TV in the Star Trek universe that hasn’t been done before, then TV Star Trek has to die. I think there are other kinds of shows that can be set in the Star Trek universe, but if the only choices are more of the same or nothing, then I choose nothing.

 

[Devon]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Think about it. ENT didn't survive. What chance do exotic and less approchable ideas have, really?

ENT didn’t survive, therefore the only viable concept is to do is the same thing that ENT did?

I believe Temis' point was that ENT wasn't viable.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

ENT was perfectly viable, until it turned into Voyager Redux.

 

[Bishop76]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

I can agree with that - once they went back to the old tired and true Trek 90s formula, ENT ceased to be interesting

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Because the debate is philosophical, and so your demand "Prove otherwise." is silly.

Philosophical? Puh-lease, let's not put on airs. The "debate" is fannish masturbation, nothing more.

 

[Lord Garth]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

Series VI has a better chance of succeeding 2009-post than it did pre-2009.

ST XI got people interested or re-interested. People who used to watch Star Trek are going to be more likely to say "It's been a while, I miss Star Trek, when are they going to start a new series?" instead of the reaction from most people I knew back in 2001, which was "They're coming out with another one?! When will it end?" These were -- and are -- my sentiments as well.

A break and a change in creative hands was all that was (desperately) needed.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

^Doesn't necessarily mean that they have to base it on the movie.

 

[Bishop76]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

^ No, but they'd sure be stupid not to.

 

[Lord Garth]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

^Doesn't necessarily mean that they have to base it on the movie.

I didn't say it did. CBS might want to go in a different direction, or they might want to follow Abrams' lead. We'll have to wait and see. A lot of this depends on timing and exactly when there will be a new series, if there is one. The question was "Is a new Star Trek TV series doomed even more because of ST XI?" and I said no, then explained my rationale.

The reason why Star Trek was put back on TV in the first place was because TOS only lasted three seasons and lacked 100 episodes. They could get by with 79 but 100 was better, especially since the movies proved there was still interest in Star Trek. In the '80s, Paramount wanted to bind syndicators to a full-season commitment of 26 episodes for TNG. If TNG only lasted one season then, in turn, Paramount would've wanted TNG added to the TOS syndication package, bringing to total number of episodes to 105.

Unlike 25 years ago, there are more than enough episodes of Star Trek now. CBS doesn't need any more episodes of Star Trek unless they think they can make money off of a new series due to interest generated by the rebooted films.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Is A New Star Trek TV Series Doomed Even More Because of Star Trek

But it's Star Trek, no amount of arguing, photoshop, or desperate claims can change it.

Acceptance is the next step.

But you are not even remotely convincing. Prove to me that it is Star Trek in content.