Tim Russ says people actively pitching a new Series

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Animated is probably the way to go.

In fact, there's no reason that they have to develop a new set of characters in order to do an animated series - they'd probably be far better off signing the TNG cast as voice talent and continuing that series in some form.

 

[AviTrek]

So where do we believe Trek stands as a " series " right now? If the sequel to ST:XI does well, are we then looking at a return to starfleet in the TOS timeline for a series? I hope not, after spending the better part of 2 decades invested in the TNG timeline( TNG/DS9/Voyager ) I find it shocking to just abandon it now. I can see flashing forward a decade or 2 but not going back 10-12 decades. Just my 2 cents...don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

Who knows. We dont know who would be involved in it. JJ I think has said he would be up for it. If he and his crowd made it, it might well be in the JJ timeline. Although thats not actually a guarantee. Even a JJ series might be a departure from the movies.

If a totally different group are hired and its clear that JJ is not their boss and has no veto over them, who knows what you could have. You could have some totally out of the box Star Trek idea that is quite unlike anything we've seen before in Trek. It will probably have to be to make it as a Showtime series. Which i think is the most likely home right now.

You could have a police procedural Trek. Or something set among people in a badlands type environment. Something more raw, physical, dark and sexual. Or...something not like that at all. I really think its wide open. But something... different. Whatever it is. I just dont see a TNG type series at all, at this point.

I believe someone asked one of the producers, and was told they are not interested in a TV show. And given the failure of Undercovers and the struggles of Fringe I don't think Abrams or Bad Robot is an automatic green light for a TV show anymore.

Either way, the timeline question really doesn't matter. Whoever produces the show can figure that out. The key point in getting a new show is someone convincing CBS they can make more money from a Trek show than they can from another procedural.

 

[BillJ]

The key point in getting a new show is someone convincing CBS they can make more money from a Trek show than they can from another procedural.

Which is probably impossible to do.

 

[froot]

Animated is probably the way to go.

Oh, this, this, one million times this.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Every time i see this thread come up on the main forum page I desperately want to ask Tim Russ to define "people".

 

[C.E. Evans]

If Trek XII is successful and JJ pushed a series, he would probably get one.... however don't look for the series to be about Kirk and crew because Pine and the others would not do a series with out big money that CBS would not pay. Also they would want to keep them available for possible future movies so they would not recast Kirk and the crew again just for the sake of having them in a TV series. I can never see a Kirk and crew TV series ever really happening since that dynamic is best left for the big screen now.

CBS doesn't have any kind of connection with J.J. Abrams or any of the creators of Star Trek XI other than as a licensor. Otherwise, Star Trek XI and any future Abramsverse stuff is solely Paramount/Viacom's thing, and all CBS wants is their cut from that, IMO.

CBS head Les Moonves probably wouldn't touch anything from Paramount with a ten-foot pole anyway since that's now considered "from the other camp."

But there's really nothing stopping CBS from recasting Kirk and Spock for a new TV series at any time other than disinterest in doing so right now...

 

[MichaelDornFan]

Unless it's comedy, cartoons are for children. I would like a mature and intelligent show, please.

 

[BillJ]

Unless it's comedy, cartoons are for children. I would like a mature and intelligent show, please.

Never underestimate the intellectual value of an 'animated' show. I've found Spongebob Squarepants to be absolutely brilliant when in comes to using innuendo.

 

[Anji]

We don't need a pitch man. We need somebody with a vision, with a philosophy. Philosophy is the core of Star Trek.

And in my opinion CBS is no different than Paramount. Unless they see money in it, they are not gonna do anything.

 

[Sisk0]

the title of this thread made me happy; the content made me sad

 

[Amaris]

Unless it's comedy, cartoons are for children. I would like a mature and intelligent show, please.

I disagree. Cartoons are for everyone. I've watched animated shows that make many live action shows seem positively stunted in their maturity and intelligence.

 

[Harvey]

While I would definitely enjoy a cartoon aimed at adults, they're few and far between, and outside of comedies like Archer, Futurama, or The Simpsons, cartoons aimed at adults are completely absent from the television landscape.

Even in feature films, animation aimed at adults is incredibly rare, and even rarer are the successes. I loved A Scanner Darkly, but at best it broke even financially.

A series like The Clone Wars is squarely aimed at children (to a lesser extent, so was the animated Star Trek in the early 1970s). If that's what the Star Trek franchise would need to be in order to return to television, then count me out.

There's the outside chance, of course, that somebody will take a risk and decide to do Star Trek: The Next Generation (or something like it) in animation, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[C.E. Evans]

A series like The Clone Wars is squarely aimed at children...

No more so than any of the Star Wars feature films are, really...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A series like The Clone Wars is squarely aimed at children...

No more so than any of the Star Wars feature films are, really...

And that's also why it would have some hope of success.

 

[Captaindemotion]

A series like The Clone Wars is squarely aimed at children...

No more so than any of the Star Wars feature films are, really...

Yeah, I caught an episode the other week where Anakin seems to have extracted information from a suspect a-la-Jack-Bauer ('Who needs Jedi mind tricks?'). This was at least as grown up as anything in the movies.

 

[chardman]

I'm not expecting a new series until Abrams' movies have finished.

I know CBS are under no obligation to NOT do a Trek series while the movies are coming out, but I'd be surprised if they went ahead with one.

I just don't understand why people keep saying this. Why would CBS intentionally not capitalize on the (presumed) success of a movie series? Why would they wait until Paramount stopped making Trek films, which, let's face it, they'll only do once they feel that interest in Trek has begun to wane? If CBS ever does make another Trek series, they'll introduce it so that it directly benefits from the popularity of the film franchise, and most likely while a Trek film is still in the theater.

As to the actual subject of the thread: I'm sure if you were to talk with Bob Denver, he could probably tell you that there are folks actively pitching ideas for a reboot of "Gilligan's Island". And he'd be right.

Hollywood is known for recycling all sorts of ideas, and as such is full of people seriously pitching revivals of just about every moderately series that was moderately popular at one time or another (and quite a few that weren't). That people are allowed to make these pitches, (simply on the off chance that they'll come up with something remotely marketable), doesn't mean that the network is necessarily fishing for a pitch, let alone for a given property.

So, Tim Russ is probably right about Star Trek pitches being made, but the mere fact that Trek pitches are occuring doesn't make them any more significant that the pitches being made for an all new "Three's Company", that "My Mother the Car" reboot, or yet another retread of "The Addams Family".

 

[C.E. Evans]

I'm not expecting a new series until Abrams' movies have finished.

I know CBS are under no obligation to NOT do a Trek series while the movies are coming out, but I'd be surprised if they went ahead with one.

I just don't understand why people keep saying this. Why would CBS intentionally not capitalize on the (presumed) success of a movie series? Why would they wait until Paramount stopped making Trek films, which, let's face it, they'll only do once they feel that interest in Trek has begun to wane? If CBS ever does make another Trek series, they'll introduce it so that it directly benefits from the popularity of the film franchise, and most likely while a Trek film is still in the theater.

Don't bank on that.

It could be said that there was too much Trek at one point--TV shows and movies running concurrently--leading to the often talked about "franchise fatigue" (not so much from hardcore fans, but maybe from mainstream audiences, IMO). CBS may have adopted a policy to prevent that from happening again.

Another thing to consider is just how CBS regards Star Trek. They may be perfectly content with the way things currently are--licensing Trek out to Paramount to make new movies and repackage DVDs/blu-rays/holograms of the TV shows forever, without having to invest millions in a new production themselves.

In such a scenario, one has to ask "Does CBS really need to make another TV series?" CBS' motivation for creating another Trek series might just be a future time when the brand needs to be revitalized again...

 

[chardman]

Sorry, but I think you misunderstand me. I figure CBS probably won't bother with Trek at all, for the very reasons that you mentioned.

I merely stated that if they ever did, they'd do so while the property was still theatrically active and thus provably popular. They would not wait 'til "Paramount was finished with it", because that simply won't happen until Paramount feels the idea is "played out". And why would CBS want to make a TV series of an idea that's played out theatrically? They wouldn't.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Sorry, but I think you misunderstand me. I figure CBS probably won't bother with Trek at all, for the very reasons that you mentioned.

I merely stated that if they ever did, they'd do so while the property was still theatrically active and thus provably popular.

Well as I said before, don't necessarily count on that because of how CBS may view the property--as something that they may only fiddle with if they feel it's popularity is waning. Once again, CBS may be perfectly content to allow Trek to run solely as a theatrical franchise for the forseeable future and just collect their cut from Paramount.

They would not wait 'til "Paramount was finished with it", because that simply won't happen until Paramount feels the idea is "played out".

We actually don't know that, though because we don't know what CBS' plans actually are. They may indeed wait until the movies begin to dip in popularity, or they may decide to launch something next year, for all we know. It's even conceivable they may not launch anything within the next ten years (or until Les Moonves retires) as well.

And why would CBS want to make a TV series of an idea that's played out theatrically? They wouldn't.

Which also means that CBS doesn't have to make a TV series at all.

 

[wonderstoat]

I think the point around ST Movies vs TV shows is that to make a gazillion bucks, they have to bring in the mainstream. The mainstream isn't interested in Star Trek TV shows. They're seen as nerdy, come with too much back story and have crappy effects and funny foreheads.

Ordinary people aren't interested enough to invest an hour a week in watching "Alien of the Week" type shows. TV has moved on. They ARE happy enough to come along to the cinema every couple of years to see a new Star Trek adventure. They'll come along for the ride, for the spectacle, the humour, because the wider maintstream media got behind JJ Trek, and for the older ones, out of a residual fondess for classic Trek (i.e. like my dad did. He's 67).