New ST to be pitched to CBS set in post STNG era/timeline

[Christopher]

The Syfy network would have been the perfect candidate, but I'm not sure about it now.

I just don't really get that channel. They show everything but sci-fi .

When it premiered, I expected to see Lost In Space, TOS, DS9, anything Star Wars related, Xena, sci-fi cartoons, etc, etc,

Instead it's network made B movies and TV shows that have nothing much to do with real science fiction.

What's happened to Syfy is no different from what's happened to a lot of other basic-cable channels over the past couple of decades. There used to be a lot of niche-oriented cable channels -- A&E and Bravo were fine-arts channels, CourtTV showed live courtroom coverage and legal news, The Nashville Network was self-explanatory, and so on. But commercial television stations rely on advertiser revenues to survive. Television viewership has been decreasing across the board due to competition from home video and the Internet, so the income a commercial station can get from a niche programming slate is smaller. It used to be that a niche channel could survive by airing reruns of old shows in its niche, like the way Sci-Fi's schedule used to be dominated by reruns of old SF/fantasy shows. But these days people can get those shows on DVD or streaming, uncut and without commercials, so it's no longer an effective draw for a cable channel.

So more and more, the niche channels have changed to more general-interest channels. Bravo is now mostly reality TV. CourtTV ceased to exist and became an all-reality-TV network. The Nashville Network became the generic TNN and is now Spike!TV. This is just the reality of commercial television. It's a business, not a charity, and it can only endure as long as it makes a profit. If the audience for niche programming isn't there, it's not the network's fault if it has to change in order to survive. It's the audience's choices that shape what the networks have to become.

If anything, Syfy has held onto its niche better than many of its contemporaries. Yeah, it relies heavily on wrestling and reality shows (because those bring in far more money than any original fiction shows they have), but it's still managed to hold onto a limited emphasis on SF/fantasy, rather than giving up its identity altogether as so many other cable networks have.

 

[AviTrek]

The confusing thing is that we're talking about various separate companies that are under the same corporate umbrella and thus use the same brand name. The CBS that owns Star Trek is actually CBS Television Studios, a production company that was formed through a merger of the company called CBS Productions (the production arm of the CBS network) with the production company that used to be named Paramount Television and before that was called Desilu Productions. It is owned by CBS Corporation (formerly Viacom), a media conglomerate that also owns CBS Broadcasting Inc, the television network (formerly the Columbia Broadcasting System). Currently, if Wikipedia is correct, all the shows produced by CBS Television Studios air on networks owned by either CBS Corporation (which owns CBS and the CW) or its spinoff company Viacom (which owns BET). But there's nothing precluding it from selling one of its shows to a network under different ownership. There are cases where that happens (for instance, 20th Century Fox Television producing shows aired on ABC, NBC, etc. rather than FOX).

TNT has a pilot Enigma that is being produce by CBS Television. I'm not sure how CBS Corp. would feel about CBS Productions selling a show to a direct competitor to CBS TV(ABC,NBC,Fox), but since Turner only has basic cable and CBS has no basic cable, they seem willing to work together.

 

[CaptainStoner]

When there is a new, legitimate pitch, I think they should describe it as a "wagon train to the stars".

 

[Dukhat]

When there is a new, legitimate pitch, I think they should describe it as a "wagon train to the stars".

That description would be suicide, because no one would know what you're talking about. "Wagon Train? WTF is that?"

 

[Christopher]

When there is a new, legitimate pitch, I think they should describe it as a "wagon train to the stars".

That description would be suicide, because no one would know what you're talking about. "Wagon Train? WTF is that?"

That's right. Roddenberry's pitch was not "wagon train to the stars," it was "Wagon Train to the stars." Wagon Train was a successful and popular television show famous for its format of featuring a regular cast but focusing each episode's storyline on a different guest star within the wagon train. Roddenberry's intent in using that phrase wasn't just to say "This is a Western in space" as people today often assume. Network execs in the mid-'60s would've understood his shorthand: he was proposing a space show that would be structured like Wagon Train, with a blend of anthology-style storytelling and a regular cast, and that would aspire to the same kind of serious, dramatic storytelling as the critically acclaimed Wagon Train rather than being a kid-oriented fantasy like most space shows with continuing casts to that point. And admittedly, since Westerns were hot at the time, couching his pitch in terms that evoked Westerns didn't hurt.

But since people today have largely forgotten Wagon Train, most of us no longer understand that pitch as it was intended. So it wouldn't have any meaning to modern executives either. What Roddenberry did was what TV producers still do today -- pitching a show or movie by analogy with another famous, successful show or movie that it resembles, one recent or current enough that the network execs and the general public will instantly understand your intended analogy. So a pitch for a new Trek series would have to use some more modern referent.

 

[Doug Otte]

When there is a new, legitimate pitch, I think they should describe it as a "wagon train to the stars".

That description would be suicide, because no one would know what you're talking about. "Wagon Train? WTF is that?"

That's right. Roddenberry's pitch was not "wagon train to the stars," it was "Wagon Train to the stars." Wagon Train was a successful and popular television show famous for its format of featuring a regular cast but focusing each episode's storyline on a different guest star within the wagon train. Roddenberry's intent in using that phrase wasn't just to say "This is a Western in space" as people today often assume. Network execs in the mid-'60s would've understood his shorthand: he was proposing a space show that would be structured like Wagon Train, with a blend of anthology-style storytelling and a regular cast, and that would aspire to the same kind of serious, dramatic storytelling as the critically acclaimed Wagon Train rather than being a kid-oriented fantasy like most space shows with continuing casts to that point. And admittedly, since Westerns were hot at the time, couching his pitch in terms that evoked Westerns didn't hurt.

But since people today have largely forgotten Wagon Train, most of us no longer understand that pitch as it was intended. So it wouldn't have any meaning to modern executives either. What Roddenberry did was what TV producers still do today -- pitching a show or movie by analogy with another famous, successful show or movie that it resembles, one recent or current enough that the network execs and the general public will instantly understand your intended analogy. So a pitch for a new Trek series would have to use some more modern referent.

How about "CSI to the Stars"?

Doug

 

[Noname Given]

It'll be rejected. CBS may be somewhat seperated from Paramount on paper; but CBS isn't going to piss in Paramount's pool by putting another Star Trek series (especially in the 'Prime' timeline) while Paramount still has a Star Trek feature film series going.

Neither Paramount nor CBS want to revisit 'franchise fatuige' again. Pitches like this are nothing new, and it doesn't matter how much pre-production they may have done prior to te pitch - if CBS doesn't want it; it ain't going to happen.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Although it has perhaps little to no bearing on your point, in your picture of free and over the air American television, you forgot to mention PBS.

I didn't mention it because there's no hope that PBS can fund a Star Trek series. They don't have nearly the funding to be able to do that, and if they tried - wow! - people would be livid that their tax dollars are being spent on some stupid show about space cadets and aliens.

PBS has to hew to stuff that everyone is forced to agree is "good for you" - Frontline, POV, Nova, Sesame Street, opera, ballet, etc. Maybe people don't flock to watch those things, but they can't point to any of them as evidence that PBS is wasting their money.

They also air shows produced and funded elsewhere, which costs a lot less than funding a fictional series themselves. Maybe PBS would air reruns of a Star Trek series, but who is going to pay to make that series?

And PBS has a lot of political enemies. Right-wingers despise the idea that it exists at all, because government has no right to take people's money and make TV shows about education, politics and art, let alone space aliens. Those things will be produced by the free market, if people value them. PBS can't afford to give their enemies any more ammo that they've already got.

I would think if a "name" producer like JJ came in, the networks would be fighting to sign the show up. All the vacillation would be out the window.

RAMA

Yep. That's the single most important element to getting a series back on the air. Someone with clout has got to make a case for it.

The Syfy network would have been the perfect candidate, but I'm not sure about it now.

I just don't really get that channel. They show everything but sci-fi .

Look at their ratings, and it all becomes clear. They're successful because they're ignoring "real" sci fi. Wrestling does well. Stupid "reality shows" about ghosts do well (and I'm sure are cheap). Fluffy cutesy poo shows that are basically sci fi versions of USA shows do well. Why should they air a pricey space opera and watch the ratings stumble?

TNT has a pilot Enigma that is being produce by CBS Television. I'm not sure how CBS Corp. would feel about CBS Productions selling a show to a direct competitor to CBS TV(ABC,NBC,Fox), but since Turner only has basic cable and CBS has no basic cable, they seem willing to work together.

Star Trek couldn't survive on broadcast anyway. TNT would be the best of all the cable channels because it fits the Star Trek tone better than any of the cable channels. It's not overly edgy like FX, or overly artsy like AMC/HBO/Showtime. Star Trek would have to be changed a great deal to fit any of those channels, but TNT could take it pretty much as is. However, Falling Skies might be taking up the sci fi slot; would TNT really do two series so close in subject matter?

And admittedly, since Westerns were hot at the time, couching his pitch in terms that evoked Westerns didn't hurt.

Thanks to Justified, Westerns may be hot again. Now there's the pitch: the main character is Timothy Olyphant's character, but he's a spaceship captain, kicking butt among the miscreants of the galaxy! Can we get Elmore Leonard to write it?

but CBS isn't going to piss in Paramount's pool by putting another Star Trek series (especially in the 'Prime' timeline) while Paramount still has a Star Trek feature film series going.

CBS isn't beholden to Paramount and won't make programming decisions based on what would or wouldn't make Paramount happy. Conversely, Paramount doesn't care what CBS puts on TV.

A TV series and movie at the same time might help each other marginally, just by getting the brand name out there. If they conflicted wildly in content, it might cause confusion, but I can't envision how that would happen in practice.

Even to tell what reality the movie or show is in, wouldn't be that easy. If Vulcan exists in the TV series, what does that mean? That we're back in the Prime U, or that the Vulcans renamed their new colony after their destroyed planet?

 

[CaptainStoner]

Oh, right. What I mean to say was, "Soul Train to the Stars".

 

[AviTrek]

And admittedly, since Westerns were hot at the time, couching his pitch in terms that evoked Westerns didn't hurt.

Thanks to Justified, Westerns may be hot again. Now there's the pitch: the main character is Timothy Olyphant's character, but he's a spaceship captain, kicking butt among the miscreants of the galaxy! Can we get Elmore Leonard to write it?

It's like Firefly, but with aliens.

 

[Anji]

Won't work. We fans are not going for an idea that has no depth.

Give it to the kid. I've been saying it all along, give it to Rod. The kid understands what his father was about. He can do it.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, it's impossible to say how much depth the idea has when all we've heard is a couple of sound bites about it. For all we know, it could be a really elaborate, deeply detailed proposal. But it's still unlikely to get anywhere, because the person who developed it has virtually no professional credentials, and because CBS is undoubtedly going to develop any new Trek series in-house when they feel the time is right.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Won't work. We fans are not going for an idea that has no depth.

But millions of TV viewers go for shows with no depth all the time.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the next Trek series will be made "for fans" or even needs to appeal to them.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

there is no conceivable Star Trek series that would succeed on CBS.

Not even one that is basically Star Trek: NCIS?

That could also be a starting point for the Roddenberrian approach.

Yeah but which Roddenberry? The 1960s version or the 1980s version?

 

[Winterwind]

^ Indeed.

Roddenberry may as well have been two completely different people when you look at his TOS vs TNG views. And I far prefer the former, not the boring, bland, "no conflict among ourselves, we're too PC and evolved" BS.

 

[Lord Garth]

That could also be a starting point for the Roddenberrian approach.

Yeah but which Roddenberry? The 1960s version or the 1980s version?

Given the way the world is today, it would have to be the '60s version adapted to the present.

To be more specific, IMO, the world today is more like 1975-1980 than after the end of the Cold War. When TNG was on, the future looked bright and perfect times looked like they were on the way.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Won't work. We fans are not going for an idea that has no depth.

"We fans" is a very small group of people who have been "outvoted" for many years now. When CBS decides to do more Trek on television, it will be aimed at bringing in many, many new viewers - same as the movie.

Give it to the kid. I've been saying it all along, give it to Rod. The kid understands what his father was about. He can do it.

No.

 

[AviTrek]

If there is any "kid" I want touching Star Trek, it would be Shawn Piller. At least he has actual hollywood tv experience and did real work for the later Trek shows.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

there is no conceivable Star Trek series that would succeed on CBS.

Not even one that is basically Star Trek: NCIS?

That wouldn't be Star Trek!

 

[BriGuy]

STAR TREK!

YOUNGER!!

NOW WITH HOMOSEXUALS!!!

... pass...

I think an "after the fall" of the Federation would be a good setting for a new Trek series. Just don't do Andromeda again.