Any Plans for a "Reboot" or New Series?

[Temis the Vorta]

Something to keep in mind: The whole point of the last movie was to give Paramount their own Star Trek franchise to play with, without having to share with CBS. Based on that, I suspect that any new series would be a Prime Universe one, not JJverse.

So let's say all the TNG movies were resounding successes. Paramount would have stopped making them anyway, because the profits are all going to CBS?

Why were they making them in the first place?

Everything in the new movie is sufficiently different to qualify as a new product. The only thing Paramount would have to pay CBS for is the names that are registered trademarks (Captain James Kirk, Mr. Spock, U.S.S. Enterprise, etc.) and maybe not even that, depending on how that division of the franchise was drawn up.

"Kirk," "Spock," "Enterprise" and "Star Trek" are by far the most valuable parts of the franchise. All the details that go into the stories - the color of nacelles, what Klingons have on their foreheads, how short the skirts are, what universe the characters think they're in - are trivia by comparison. Those names are the franchise, just like the name "Big Mac" is far more valuable to McDonalds than whatever crap they actually put between the buns.

But in the end, CBS got all the properties that were formerly Paramount Television, while Viacom got Paramount Pictures (the movie studio). Paramount no longer really owns Star Trek, but they are allowed to continue making Trek movies under license from CBS. They have to pay to play, so to speak.

If CBS is licensing the rights to "Star Trek," then that's the relevant part of this discussion. Paramount must pay CBS for the rights to make anything called "Star Trek." They could make the same movie they just made and strip out all the identifying details that would get them into legal trouble, and not pay. They also wouldn't make nearly as much money without that recognizable name. Conversely, if they made a movie called "Star Trek," it could be complete nonsense to the fanbase and have nothing to do with any "Star Trek" we recognize, and assuming it had enough explosions and some bankable stars, it would probably do just fine.

So if Paramount is paying CBS just for the "Star Trek" name, they are paying for the part of the franchise that matters - the part that makes money. Having characters in the movie state that the story is now taking place in an alternate reality has no bearing on what part of the franchise is worth paying for, and must be paid for.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Doesn't mean I'm wrong, smartypants.

It means that your remark is without basis in fact and unworthy of serious attention.

 

[C.E. Evans]

But in the end, CBS got all the properties that were formerly Paramount Television, while Viacom got Paramount Pictures (the movie studio). Paramount no longer really owns Star Trek, but they are allowed to continue making Trek movies under license from CBS. They have to pay to play, so to speak.

If CBS is licensing the rights to "Star Trek," then that's the relevant part of this discussion. Paramount must pay CBS for the rights to make anything called "Star Trek." They could make the same movie they just made and strip out all the identifying details that would get them into legal trouble, and not pay. They also wouldn't make nearly as much money without that recognizable name. Conversely, if they made a movie called "Star Trek," it could be complete nonsense to the fanbase and have nothing to do with any "Star Trek" we recognize, and assuming it had enough explosions and some bankable stars, it would probably do just fine.

So if Paramount is paying CBS just for the "Star Trek" name, they are paying for the part of the franchise that matters - the part that makes money. Having characters in the movie state that the story is now taking place in an alternate reality has no bearing on what part of the franchise is worth paying for, and must be paid for.

Either way, Paramount has to pay CBS to use them, alternate universe or not.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Right - the "alternate universe" setting doesn't change the deal, and why should it? It didn't contribute significantly to the financial success of the movie. I'm pretty sure it was just a sop thrown to the fans that went unnoticed by at lest 90% of the audience. If they noticed, they probably thought it was all just technobabble.

So there was no financial incentive to setting the movie in an alternate universe.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The incentives are in their having their own version of Star Trek which they can do with whatever they want. With the alternate timeline, they can now kill off any cast member who balks at contract negotiations, turn the ship into a giant banana, whatever strikes their fancy, and CBS really can't say much.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Right - the "alternate universe" setting doesn't change the deal, and why should it? It didn't contribute significantly to the financial success of the movie. I'm pretty sure it was just a sop thrown to the fans that went unnoticed by at lest 90% of the audience. If they noticed, they probably thought it was all just technobabble.

So there was no financial incentive to setting the movie in an alternate universe.

I don't think this follows. If one is willing to assume that this "sop" is worth even 2.5% of the gross revenue, then that's $10 million. Eight-figure income is a financial incentive. Also, it's a very efficient way to make money, by just barfing out a few lines of Treknobabble.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Where did that 2.5% figure come from? Just as likely, it
was 0.0%.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Tom Selleck, in recounting the difficulties the folks working on a Magnum, PI movie are having in casting someone "to wear the shorts", summed up the whole thing rather well regarding big budget movies based on old tv series. Paraphrasing heavily, they basically spend $100 million, put in lots of explosions, and spend most of the time making fun of the original series, then stick in an old cast member to get something resembling a seal of approval. That's essentially the modus operandi for every movie remake of a tv series for the past fifteen years, Star Trek included.

As it stands, Selleck is refusing to have anything to do with the Magnum movie. Unless they toss some ridiculous amount of money his way; then he'd have to think about it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Good luck to Magnum PI making $385M at the box office.

And if it did, it wouldn't matter one iota what Tom Selleck thought about anything.

 

[Mr Awe]

The problem is that all the previous movies are directly tied to the television properties, making them CBS property as well and leaving Paramount with nothing of their own.

I don't totally know the situation but it seems like you're mushing together the flavor of Trek with the distribution method. I *think* Paramount could make their movies based on the TV series and they would still own it.

The downside for Paramount in this scenario is that it the movie promotes CBS properties. So, I don't think it's quite as direct/concrete as what you say but I can see how Paramount would want a movie that would promote their own line.

Again, kind of similar as what you're saying but just not quite as direct and concrete.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Doesn't mean I'm wrong, smartypants.

It means that your remark is without basis in fact and unworthy of serious attention.

Wow, and that's coming from someone who disagrees with how a dictionary defines basic words like "plot"!

Mr Awe

 

[Distorted Humor]

The alternate universe is so that they can still be star trek, without the burden of 40 years of writing, which ran out of steam of new ideas somewhere in the VOY or ENT years. I can't really blame them.

 

[xortex]

The alternate universe is so that they can still be star trek, without the burden of 40 years of writing, which ran out of steam of new ideas somewhere in the VOY or ENT years. I can't really blame them.

Oh, yea, and the new movie is just bristling with new ideas.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The alternate universe is so that they can still be star trek, without the burden of 40 years of writing, which ran out of steam of new ideas somewhere in the VOY or ENT years.

Second year of Trek TOS, for the most part...

 

[xortex]

The first year of TNG is devoid of stories except that arms race device thing.

 

[lonewriter]

I think a new series set in the JJverse would be a good idea but it won't happen. Scifi shows of any kind don't last anymore. Most people only want to watch Law/Doctor shows or really bad sitcoms. That is why I read or watch movies.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Scifi shows of any kind don't last anymore.

Stargate just had a good long run (about ten years longer than they needed, in fact). The Walking Dead had a great debut on AMC. My hunch is that sci fi will do just fine on cable and maybe some on broadcast, but the quality really does need to be there. I'd keep an eye on upcoming shows like Falling Skies and Alcatraz as indications of the health of the genre.

 

[thumbtack]

The Walking Dead had a great debut on AMC.

I'm very interested to see how well this one does. If it has continued success, it could inspire some outlets to take more risks.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The Walking Dead had a great debut on AMC.

I'm very interested to see how well this one does. If it has continued success, it could inspire some outlets to take more risks.

I think the audience will be back in the fall - there's nothing else like it on TV, so there's no "alternative" for them to watch instead.

Game of Thrones on HBO is another test case. It's based on a novel franchise with a dedicated following which is probably large but can't be as big as Star Trek's international following, and therefore needs to appeal to more than the core fans. It's doing well (not spectacularly) for HBO. If that can do well on HBO, why couldn't Star Trek do even better on Showtime? Showtime's whole strategy is to be as good as HBO someday, and even if they haven't quite gotten there, they're a lot better than they used to be.

And if you look at the just-concluded pilot season, there are more risks this year than usual. Not so many cookie-cutter procedurals. Lots of sf/f genre series. NBC and ABC are aping Mad Men, of all shows (which doesn't even get great ratings by cable standards!)

 

[Jetfire]

Ok, no Star Trek...no Star...just "Trek" Tuesdays at 8PM on The CW!

[edit] The theme(opening credits) will be done by Taylor Swift.