What happens next?

[BillJ]

- A non-American captain (both in terms of the character and actor), so no Sisko or Janeway-esque (or Kirk in character, though obviously not actor terms). Somebody from either Europe, or even Africa, India or the Far East.

Why? Star Trek is primarily an American phenomenon as the box office totals for the latest film show. People want characters they can identify with.

- A Tellarite and an Andorian as major cast/senior staff crew members.

Expensive. And superfluous. You need an outsider character to reflect on us. That was what made Spock so special. More aliens make it more watered down.

- The Federation and the Romulans had signed a non-aggression pact, and there is no neutral zone.

This means absolutely nothing outside the hardcore fan base.

- New technology (some things I think would be cool would be personal holodecks, transwarp jumps across sectors, or shields that can absorb and even deflect energy).

Star Trek was already to the point of magic thanks to the 24th century shows. And you think it's a good idea to push it even further? This just further alienates the mainstream audiences.

- An enemy that comprises other humans/Federation members. Not a civil war as such, but an alien species as an enemy has been overdone. It could be Section 31.

Ah, Section 31. Every fans favorite boogey-man.

The less a new Star Trek depends on the minutiae of the previous incarnations... the better off it will be.

It seems that every fan thinks that a new Trek will be successful depending on the loose ends of the previous series and that just isn't the way it works. People need to realize that any new production is just looking to use the 'broad strokes' from previous versions of Star Trek.

 

[indolover]

So how come TNG was highly successful with a non-US lead?

And who cares if new tech is magical? If a new series is set post-TNG/DS9/Voyager it has to feature updated technology.

And DS9 technically had the majority of its senior staff as non-humans. Kira, Odo, Worf, both Daxs, and Quark. People can talk about DS9's poor ratings, but IMO this is due to sci-fi being seen as geeky. TNG had less competition, and perhaps better promotion. It also was more highly anticipated, since it was the first trek series in many years.

Appealing to mainstream audiences makes little sense, again, sci-fi is seen as geeky, end of story.

 

[BillJ]

So how come TNG was highly successful with a non-US lead?

Old, white male... close enough for American audiences.

And who cares if new tech is magical? If a new series is set post-TNG/DS9/Voyager it has to feature updated technology.

The further you move away from reality, the more likely you lose your audience.

And DS9 technically had the majority of its senior staff as non-humans. Kira, Odo, Worf, both Daxs, and Quark. People can talk about DS9's poor ratings, but IMO this is due to sci-fi being seen as geeky. TNG had less competition, and perhaps better promotion. It also was more highly anticipated, since it was the first trek series in many years.

The Next Generation and The X-Files seemed to have little issue drawing audiences.

Appealing to mainstream audiences makes little sense, again, sci-fi is seen as geeky, end of story.

Except when you hit that right mix of characterization and action to go along with the sci-fi elements. You have to appeal to the mainstream if you want Trek made again that is anywhere close to the production standards of prior Trek projects. Without the mainstream audience you get a bridge set that is multiple desk chairs and a green-screen. I for one don't have any desire to watch Trek made on the cheap.

 

[Biggshow]

BillJ, preach it. As ST 2009 showed, what a mainstream audience wants is Kirk, Spock, et al, and a big space adventure. That's where the bucks are and that's what the studio is going to gamble it's bucks on.

For TV, yeah, a new crew would be great and some continuation of our beloved timeline would be much appreciated but I think it's unlikely for all the reasons BillJ mentioned.

Whatever the timeline, whatever the crew, I just hope the producers start to try to compete with better shows in terms of characterization and story. The later incarnations of ST just seemed to be competing against ST.

 

[BillJ]

BillJ, preach it. As ST 2009 showed, what a mainstream audience wants is Kirk, Spock, et al, and a big space adventure. That's where the bucks are and that's what the studio is going to gamble it's bucks on.

Funny thing is... I'm not all that enamored with Star Trek 2009 as it felt creatively bankrupt. But from a business perspective, you can't argue with the results.

 

[indolover]

So how come TNG was highly successful with a non-US lead?

Old, white male... close enough for American audiences.

And who cares if new tech is magical? If a new series is set post-TNG/DS9/Voyager it has to feature updated technology.

The further you move away from reality, the more likely you lose your audience.

And DS9 technically had the majority of its senior staff as non-humans. Kira, Odo, Worf, both Daxs, and Quark. People can talk about DS9's poor ratings, but IMO this is due to sci-fi being seen as geeky. TNG had less competition, and perhaps better promotion. It also was more highly anticipated, since it was the first trek series in many years.

The Next Generation and The X-Files seemed to have little issue drawing audiences.

Appealing to mainstream audiences makes little sense, again, sci-fi is seen as geeky, end of story.

Except when you hit that right mix of characterization and action to go along with the sci-fi elements. You have to appeal to the mainstream if you want Trek made again that is anywhere close to the production standards of prior Trek projects. Without the mainstream audience you get a bridge set that is multiple desk chairs and a green-screen. I for one don't have any desire to watch Trek made on the cheap.

TOS was famous for being far from reality. Transporters, communicators and warp drive all lend to that. But what really is one to expect from a sci-fi show? It's supposed to highlight futuristic, even off the wall, concepts. People who demand realism are to a large degree missing the point. Star Trek is also a drama series/morality tale, so this in my mind are the key determinants of success. This is why TNG was as successful/noted as it was, not due to it being sci-fi per se.

I would say in the X-files case, again it was promotion. And that hardly had realistic concepts in it. The X-Files was a flagship show on a major network, so it had to have plenty of promotion. It's like in a way Unilever and Ben and Jerry's. of all Unilever's business units, Ben and Jerry's must receive primary funding, since it's a flagship unit/product for them.

As for the mainstream again, well all modern Treks have had similar formats/storylines in them. So why did DS9, Voyager and Enterprise get poor ratings? I can't think of many sci-fi shows in recent times that had high ratings, apart from perhaps Lost (if that classifies as sci-fi). I think it's a matter of promotion personally, that's all there is to it.

 

[BillJ]

TOS was famous for being far from reality. Transporters, communicators and warp drive all lend to that. But what really is one to expect from a sci-fi show? It's supposed to highlight futuristic, even off the wall, concepts.

But the transporters and warp drive weren't the stars of the show. They allowed us to move the story from point A to point B. The tech is not the concept, the tech represents the tools that allow us to explore the characters universe. No different from a car in a police drama.

Modern Trek became very wrapped up in the technology they were portraying,

I would say in the X-files case, again it was promotion. And that hardly had realistic concepts in it. The X-Files was a flagship show on a major network, so it had to have plenty of promotion. It's like in a way Unilever and Ben and Jerry's. of all Unilever's business units, Ben and Jerry's must receive primary funding, since it's a flagship unit/product for them.

Star Trek: Voyager was the centerpiece of a brand new network and was highly promoted when it premiered and continued to be so promoted until there was a changing of the guard that no longer saw Star Trek as important to the network. Star Trek: Enterprise was also highly promoted.

As for the mainstream again, well all modern Treks have had similar formats/storylines in them. So why did DS9, Voyager and Enterprise get poor ratings?

I honestly think over-saturation is what killed Modern Trek, that and a definite feeling of "been there, done that" for the audience.

 

[Utopianvista]

The masses have spoken with the success of Abrams Trek the real Star Trek universe, prime or whatever, is now dead.

They won't ever go back to it. It'll just be reboot or that stupid universe from now on. Depressing to think about, I know, but hey it's happen to basically every franchise.

 

[The Trekster]

I'd really love to see a series that takes place on a time ship, in the century that captain braxton was from. I know a lot of people hate the time travel eps, but I think it could be fun.

In another direction, format-wise, I'd also really love to see a series of Starfleet Medical or something. It could be like House or even ER, but in the future, and with Trek.

A comedy would be great, too(a la The Office or 30 Rock). But somehow I can't actually see that working.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

So how come TNG was highly successful with a non-US lead?

It wasn't Picard, it was the nature of the TV industry at the time. TNG was lucky to catch the tail end of an era when sci fi could get decent mass market ratings because the DVD and cable TV explosion had not quite happened. TNG would never get those ratings today because the genre audience has fragmented as entertainment options have exploded and the only the most mass market of shows (cop shows, reality TV) can get big numbers anymore.

A new Star Trek series needs to acknowledge that reality. The TNG mass-ish-market approach with bland, unchallenging characters and easy to digest episodic adventures would be suicide now. The mass market isn't going to watch, so the only way to survive is to really cater to the tastes of the core audience. And get on cable, where "successful" ratings can be signficantly lower - that means Showtime since the franchise TV rights are owned by CBS. But forget CBS itself because the demographic is wrong and Star Trek will never get the audience levels that CBS expects from any show it airs.

I don't care if the captain is non-American because nations don't matter in Star Trek. So why bother about that? The next captain should not be from Earth. Since the non-genre audience is not going to tune in anyway, we might as well start pushing the envelope a little harder.

25th Century? How about "Federation: Decline and Fall." Founded on high ideals, the Federation has become greedy and stagnant, held in thrall to corporate and military interests and the endless warfare they promote.

Please, no.

How about the Enterprise just boldly going?

You're right, the next Star Trek series needs to create lively and fun characters like TOS, set in the 23rd C and the JJ-verse (if only for simplicity's sake) and go back to the original template of space soldier/space cop with occasional personal stories and exploration.

Premises about the Federation falling or being corrupt or having a civil war always founder on the same problem - the Federation is just a big, black hole that has no detail or definition, so building a story on it is like building a house on sand - you'd have to lay a lot of foundation first, and that's boring, so why bother?

Star Trek isn't about the Federation. It's essentially a Western, set on the frontier, where all the action happens. The Federation is a big, bland, peaceful, sleepy place. It's paradise, which means it's a bore. Starfleet protects the Federation by intercepting threats at the border, fighting wars on the border, and exploring beyond the border. Star Trek can be visualized as a bright ring of excitement and thrills surrounding a big black hole of who-cares.

You have to appeal to the mainstream if you want Trek made again that is anywhere close to the production standards of prior Trek projects.

I think the mainstream is gone for good, and the best template for success is The Walking Dead on AMC - highly acclaimed, daring, quality production, and a big fat hit at a mere 5M viewers. If the show were on CBS, it wouldn't be safe from cancellation at twice that level, which just goes to show the difference in finances for all-ad-supported TV vs even basic cable that gets some amount of subscription support.

It certainly looks like a few bucks are being spent on it. Granted, there is no need for spaceships or alien worlds, but I can only hope that CGI advances can mitigate the costs somewhat because I don't think Star Trek will ever get a network TV budget again. There's no space opera and very little sci fi of any sort on network TV and what there is, is dumbed down depressingly for the mass audience.

I think Lost is the swan song of anything interesting on network TV. From now on, we'll have to look to cable for the good stuff, including the good sci fi, and we'll never see anything as outlandish as space opera on network TV.

As ST 2009 showed, what a mainstream audience wants is Kirk, Spock, et al, and a big space adventure. That's where the bucks are and that's what the studio is going to gamble it's bucks on.

Movies and TV are such different businesses that you can't extrapolate from one to the other. The ST 2009 approach is the best idea as a basis for a TV series, with more in-depth characterization and sophisticate plotlines, because that's what the cable audience expects and Star Trek can do that well, as we've seen from DS9. But we won't get Spock and Kirk on TV because the actors will stick with movies. We need Spock- and Kirk-like characters invented for a new TV series.

So why did DS9, Voyager and Enterprise get poor ratings? I can't think of many sci-fi shows in recent times that had high ratings, apart from perhaps Lost (if that classifies as sci-fi). I think it's a matter of promotion personally, that's all there is to it.

No amount of marketing will never make Star Trek appealing to the mainstream TV audience again. Advertising is not some magic wand that can overcome cold, hard reality. The problem is far more fundamental, down to the business model of TV. With a proliferation of entertainment venues, what used to be the Star Trek audience for TV has been stolen away by entertainments that are ever more particular to their tastes.

Star Trek needs to adjust to a world where it will get an audience of 4-5M max. Whether that is good news or bad news depends entirely on whether you are on network or cable. A Star Trek series made for network TV would be even blander than TNG ever was, so it's a good thing that that's not even an option.

 

[Biggshow]

Star Trek isn't about the Federation. It's essentially a Western, set on the frontier, where all the action happens. The Federation is a big, bland, peaceful, sleepy place. It's paradise, which means it's a bore. Starfleet protects the Federation by intercepting threats at the border, fighting wars on the border, and exploring beyond the border. Star Trek can be visualized as a bright ring of excitement and thrills surrounding a big black hole of who-cares.

...where is the damn spit take smilie...oh, well...

As ST 2009 showed, what a mainstream audience wants is Kirk, Spock, et al, and a big space adventure. That's where the bucks are and that's what the studio is going to gamble it's bucks on.

Movies and TV are such different businesses that you can't extrapolate from one to the other. The ST 2009 approach is the best idea as a basis for a TV series, with more in-depth characterization and sophisticate plotlines, because that's what the cable audience expects and Star Trek can do that well, as we've seen from DS9. But we won't get Spock and Kirk on TV because the actors will stick with movies. We need Spock- and Kirk-like characters invented for a new TV series.

That's kinda what I was getting at. A movie has only about 2 - 2.5 hours to get story and characterization in plus a lot of action. A TV show would, ideally, have more time for character development, especially since they're not going to have a huge effects budget. And I realize that the motion picture actors probably would not make the transition to TV. Doesn't mean the characters wouldn't, unlikely as that may be.

No amount of marketing will never make Star Trek appealing to the mainstream TV audience again. Advertising is not some magic wand that can overcome cold, hard reality. The problem is far more fundamental, down to the business model of TV. With a proliferation of entertainment venues, what used to be the Star Trek audience for TV has been stolen away by entertainments that are ever more particular to their tastes.

Star Trek needs to adjust to a world where it will get an audience of 4-5M max. Whether that is good news or bad news depends entirely on whether you are on network or cable. A Star Trek series made for network TV would be even blander than TNG ever was, so it's a good thing that that's not even an option.

While I tend to agree with you for the most part, I don't think you can completely discount the idea of ST on a "major" network. Given a major reworking or dove-tailing off a successful movie franchise, I could see a ST marketed towards the "NCIS" and/or "Big Bang Theory" crowd. Instead of a space western, ST could evolve into a space procedural/space mystery, which some of the best ST episodes of the past were anyway.

Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see.