David Foster Preparing to Pitch New ‘Star Trek’ Series

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't understand the whole thing with attracting so many newcomers, there are plenty of Star Trek fans to give any new show great ratings. And they'd RETAIN those ratings if they kept the writing sharp and the universe consistent.

No there aren't, and no they wouldn't. Believing otherwise is why you don't understand what the studio is doing.

Of course, there are a lot more people into Trek right now than in 2008, thanks to J.J. Abrams's success at attracting newcomers.

I almost wonder if Foster completely realizes that this pitch is going to go nowhere fast, but intentionally talked to that news site as a way to increase his profile and/or to network with other professionals. If so, that's kinda clever on his part.

I'm guessing that really is at least one element of this.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Of course, there are a lot more people into Trek right now than in 2008, thanks to J.J. Abrams's success at attracting newcomers.

Are there really? How many of those newcomers promptly forgot about the whole thing ten minutes after they left the movie theatre?

For that matter, how many newcomers started digging and found out the older stuff is better and now couldn't give a crap out JJ's version?

Answer: You don't know, and neither do I. But we should get a hint when (or if) the next movie finally comes out.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

This 'if' business seems ridiculous to me.

 

[ChristopherPike]

For that matter, how many newcomers started digging and found out the older stuff is better and now couldn't give a crap out JJ's version?

Answer: You don't know, and neither do I. But we should get a hint when (or if) the next movie finally comes out.

I'm staying out of the argument over which is better, JJTrek or older stuff. That's subjective but it was obviously popular and appealed to the mainstream, in a way nothing from Star Trek had ever done before.

However on the issue of the movie drawing new fans into what came before, there's one way to know. How successful each series faired in DVD sales in the years immediately following the film? Recently in Netfix, Amazon and online viewing perhaps? Only TOS can be found listed on CBS' site. But Amazon do charts and if that's anything to go by, DS9 is popular. Netfix not having it until October is a pretty huge factor though.

Circulation and sales of Star Trek publications maybe? Although those probably just peaked between cinema release and availability to buy, before dipping again to where they had been before. Lower with no series around at all would be my guess.

However such information isn't in the public domaine and only CBS would know about trends year-on-year. Everything we've got access to fluctuates hourly, daily, weekly. Bound to be TOS-R though given their investiment and that show's already iconic status, isn't it?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm staying out of the argument over which is better, JJTrek or older stuff.

Which is fine, because it's a meaningless question.

However on the issue of the movie drawing new fans into what came before, there's one way to know.

A "fan" is anyone who will watch and enjoy it. The fans the studio cares for most, of course, are those who will pay in some way to watch and enjoy it. Interest or lack of interest in participating in "fannish" activities apart from enjoying the shows is just a measure of perspective and, possibly, where one falls on the spectrum of mental health.

 

[Broccoli]

Star Trak? Isn't that the one with Dr. Spock and those beamer things? I liked the one with the whales.

 

[thumbtack]

How successful each series faired in DVD sales in the years immediately following the film?

You're looking at the wrong Star Trek. Current Star Trek was released in 2009 and sold over 100M on dvd and brd. That is the only number Viacom is looking at. No one was asked to revive the deceased portions of the franchise and no one ever will be.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Are there really? How many of those newcomers promptly forgot about the whole thing ten minutes after they left the movie theatre?

Most of them.

For that matter, how many newcomers started digging and found out the older stuff is better and now couldn't give a crap out JJ's version?

Very few of them.

Answer: You don't know, and neither do I.

Educated guesses are perfectly possible. Most people walk out of movies and forget what they saw. They have more important things to do with their lives, like start thinking about the next cool movie they want to see.

But we should get a hint when (or if) the next movie finally comes out.

The next movie will do just fine, and its success will say nothing particularly useful about whether and how to get Star Trek back on TV.

Star Trek on TV needs to be created to fit the channel it is airing on. The audience must be built by the marketing campaign, which, like all new TV show campaigns, will have a heavy component marketing to current viewers of that same channel. Those people, not Trekkies, will be the primary target audience for the campaign because they are the easiest to reach (other than Trekkies, who don't need to be reached - they will find the show on their own).

Therefore, the show had better be something the viewers of that channel would want to watch. Trekkies will find the show and watch it anyway and then bitch a lot about it but keep watching. Viewers of the channel the show is on will tune out if they don't like what they see.

The awareness built by Trek XI will help some, and tying the TV campaign into a movie release would be a smart idea, but nobody is going to depend on the movie to create or maintain awareness for the TV show, which will need to have its own independent audience-building campaign. This is particularly true because of the unusual situation where different corporations are involved. CBS is not going to rely on Paramount to sell its products (or vice versa).

If CBS is not going to market the show, they're not going to make the show to begin with. They're not stupid enough to invest money in a new show and then do nothing to sell it. So you can assume that CBS will handle the audience-building job, and that the show will be calibrated to make that job easier. That's the way it always works, so why should Star Trek be different?

 

[Mach5]

Who the hell is that Foster guy anyway?

 

[Broccoli]

Who the hell is that Foster guy anyway?

He's Australian for beer.

 

[ChristopherPike]

No one was asked to revive the deceased portions of the franchise

To my mind a recast of TOS characters, counts as reviving a deceased portion of the franchise. Taking it back to the original concept, which lead to the first and second stages of said franchise - an animated series and feature films. But still part of a franchise nevertheless. You look around any retailer you like and Star Trek 2009 is right there, rubbing shoulders next to everything that came before it. It will always be that way too.

...and no one ever will be.

Based on any particular insider knowledge? Or merely your own personal distaste for successive Treks? You probably are right. But what happens next, won't come down to making you happy and you alone.

But all means, you be as ungracious "in victory" as you like! Your opinion makes absolutely no difference, just like mine.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[thumbtack]

what happens next, won't come down to making you happy and you alone.

Then it is fortunate coincidence I find myself in the majority.

Your opinion makes absolutely no difference, just like mine.

Obviously. Only when all of us accept this as fact can we stop pretending that the purpose of new Trek is to make old Trek come back again.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

We all just pawns in game of life. [/Mongo]

 

[Captain Robert April]

I get no kick from champagne
Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all....

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Harsh.

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/08/breaking_guy_has_an_idea_for_a_new_star_trek_serie.php

 

[Harvey]

But true.

 

[AviTrek]

While the fake pitch deserves to be bashed, it would help if the basher at least had his facts right. Throwing around Paramount's name instead of CBS shows he doesn't understand who controls Star Trek right now. And of course, Singer never pitched his show to anyone. Singer was marginally attached to an idea someone else wrote up, and then decided to shelve it without pitching it when the JJ movie was announced.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And he heard that both Shatner and Frakes had both been rejected.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

While the fake pitch deserves to be bashed, it would help if the basher at least had his facts right. Throwing around Paramount's name instead of CBS shows he doesn't understand who controls Star Trek right now. And of course, Singer never pitched his show to anyone.

Foster should bash right back, with an opening like that. We'll get entertainment value out of this one way or the other.

However, that article does have things basically right, that it doesn't matter what kind of ideas you have for a new series or how faithful you are to whatever you define as canon, if the folks that control the franchise don't care and you aren't the sort of person they'll listen to.

Yes, many studios would like to hire someone who has passion for the project, but the real determination is always cost vs. potential profit.

Which is a calculation just as complex as the most verbose series outline. I'd be very interested in knowledgeable analyses of that end of the equation vs eternal debates over which century or reality to set a new series in, which always just comes down to idiosyncratic matters of taste anyway.