This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future.

[horatio83]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

And The Wire, as good as it was, had many aspects that make it a marketable product. For starters, it was about cops and criminals, a very durable and well-worn TV trope. Simon couldn't have chosen a less creatively risky topic if he'd tried.

As I said, you totally missed what the show was about.
Your reductionist approach, that everything and especially art can be reduced to marketing, is simply wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

...JJ is good, but he is just regurgiating what he has already seen. He knows how to fly the plane but has no idea where to take it.

Harve Bennett got five movies out of that.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

We need to get Trek back to what worked for 40 years.

Sydnication?

Not necessarily. But you can't argue that a 40-year franchise that earned multiple billions for Paramount hasn't done more things right than they did wrong.

Network TV saw TOS cancelled within 3, ENT within 4 and the only reason Voyager survived for 7 was because UPN other shows did so bad.

Trek ran for almost 20 years with something always on air...if it only survived by the proverbial skin of it's teeth, it still survived. And the reasons for the problems it experienced in later years are well known, and have more to do with studio problems and a changing distribution market than the quality of the product.

This has been discussed and proven many times over.

Star Trek is better off in movie form for the near future.

I fail to see how one film every 3-5 years is better for Trek than a steady flow of product every year for those same years.

Bottom line is there is no one who can take the franchise to the next level. Now, JJ is good, but he is just regurgiating what he has already seen. He knows how to fly the plane but has no idea where to take it.

We need a navigator.

We need to get Trek back to what worked for 40 years.

Many Coto deserves his chance to show us what Trek can really be with a GOOD showrunner at the helm.

The TV business has changed too much, so don't look to the past for ideas. Space opera has simply died as a genre because the general audience has splintered into smaller and smaller niches. There's still a space opera audience out there, but it's simply too small to support the expensive production now.

Instead of looking to the past, look to the future.

*snip an extended essay for space*

All that is the "nuts and bolts" of production. How does any of that mean that Many's artistic vision for Trek is no longer valid or desirable?

Ok, so we distribute on the net, or whatever...I'm talking about the CONTENT of the show, not how it is made or distributed.

 

[AviTrek]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

We need to get Trek back to what worked for 40 years.

Sydnication?

Not necessarily. But you can't argue that a 40-year franchise that earned multiple billions for Paramount hasn't done more things right than they did wrong.

Trek ran for almost 20 years with something always on air...if it only survived by the proverbial skin of it's teeth, it still survived. And the reasons for the problems it experienced in later years are well known, and have more to do with studio problems and a changing distribution market than the quality of the product.

This has been discussed and proven many times over.

I fail to see how one film every 3-5 years is better for Trek than a steady flow of product every year for those same years.

We need to get Trek back to what worked for 40 years.

Many Coto deserves his chance to show us what Trek can really be with a GOOD showrunner at the helm.

The TV business has changed too much, so don't look to the past for ideas. Space opera has simply died as a genre because the general audience has splintered into smaller and smaller niches. There's still a space opera audience out there, but it's simply too small to support the expensive production now.

Instead of looking to the past, look to the future.

*snip an extended essay for space*

All that is the "nuts and bolts" of production. How does any of that mean that Many's artistic vision for Trek is no longer valid or desirable?

Ok, so we distribute on the net, or whatever...I'm talking about the CONTENT of the show, not how it is made or distributed.

Content has no meaning without a means of distribution. Showtime Trek would be very different from TNT Trek which would be very different from CBS Trek. Look at Star Wars. Lucas has a show he wants to make, but hasn't made it because he can't produce the show cheap enough for the expected revenue. What makes you think Coto's vision is profitable via any distribution method?

 

[Ian Keldon]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Content has no meaning without a means of distribution. Showtime Trek would be very different from TNT Trek which would be very different from CBS Trek. Look at Star Wars. Lucas has a show he wants to make, but hasn't made it because he can't produce the show cheap enough for the expected revenue. What makes you think Coto's vision is profitable via any distribution method?

Again, content is not production mechanics (how to build the sets, models, etc. How to film, etc).

Story and characterization is the creative's "vision". Everything else is how to express that vision.

 

[AviTrek]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Content has no meaning without a means of distribution. Showtime Trek would be very different from TNT Trek which would be very different from CBS Trek. Look at Star Wars. Lucas has a show he wants to make, but hasn't made it because he can't produce the show cheap enough for the expected revenue. What makes you think Coto's vision is profitable via any distribution method?

Again, content is not production mechanics (how to build the sets, models, etc. How to film, etc).

Story and characterization is the creative's "vision". Everything else is how to express that vision.

But you can't have a "vision" without knowing the rest. If you take the Game of Thrones vision as is and pitch that show to NBC, they will decline the show because they can't air the vision. So a smart producer needs to cater his vision to his intended distribution method. Without that, a vision is destined to remain just a vision.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Doesn't matter how long or how well an engine has run - when it finally wears out, it doesn't work. OldTrek doesn't work any more.

 

[xortex]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Unless it is reimagined to work. somebody mentioned an anthology animated series. That sounds interesting. So a new spin or twist on the old format could help it find a place to thrive. Someone said selling a story to Trek was like not only landing a quarter on a dish but landing it heads up too. So it's both and maybe neither.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Doesn't matter how long or how well an engine has run - when it finally wears out, it doesn't work. OldTrek doesn't work any more.

In your opinion, in response to which I make the following observations:

Again, perhaps the mechanics of delivering the content need to be reworked, but I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that the content delivered, if created by the proper hands, is deficient.

Many Coto was turning Enterprise around when the changing of the guard on the studio side caught up with him. He was never given a fair opportunity to shine as showrunner.

Instead we got CBS on the TV side, which will never do anything new TV wise with Trek so long as the current regime is in charge.

On the Paramount side, we got JJ "What can we learn from Star Wars" Abrams who turned in a big "run and jump" and "pew pew pew" action film in Trek clothing. The equivalent of cinematic junk food: gets the audience hyped up, but is composed of "empty calories" and ultimately neither filling nor nutritious.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Nothing did in ENT except ratings. No one turned ENT around. See for yourself. Ratings just got lower, and lower, and lower, and lower, year after year. Basically, episode after episode.

You can call STXI empty calories, but enough people disagree with that, or if they agree then they don't think it's a bad thing, that - guess what - STXI turned a sinking ship around. Saying you'd like things to go back to the way they were is saying that you wish Star Trek would go back to being financially inviable.

Don't blame CBS, though. Blame all the people who didn't watch ENT, INS, and NEM, and who stopped watching DS9 and VOY in droves, assuming "blame" is the right word to begin with, which it isn't.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

You can call STXI empty calories, but enough people disagree with that, or if they agree then they don't think it's a bad thing, that - guess what - STXI turned a sinking ship around.

Really, Abrams and company raised the hulk from the ocean floor, made it seaworthy and relaunched it as new.

There are a minority of determined fans who are nonetheless convinced that "everyone is out of step but Johnny."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

My girlfriend calls me, "Johnny".

Really, Abrams and company raised the hulk from the ocean floor, made it seaworthy and relaunched it as new.

Quite. (That is pretty funny, BTW.) And, of course, there's plenty worth saving from that shipwreck.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

My girlfriend calls me, "Johnny".

Really, Abrams and company raised the hulk from the ocean floor, made it seaworthy and relaunched it as new.

Quite. (That is pretty funny, BTW.) And, of course, there's plenty worth saving from that shipwreck.

They were just lucky Cameron hadn't gotten there first.

 

[horatio83]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Nothing did in ENT except ratings. No one turned ENT around. See for yourself. Ratings just got lower, and lower, and lower, and lower, year after year. Basically, episode after episode.

You can call STXI empty calories, but enough people disagree with that, or if they agree then they don't think it's a bad thing, that - guess what - STXI turned a sinking ship around. Saying you'd like things to go back to the way they were is saying that you wish Star Trek would go back to being financially inviable.

Don't blame CBS, though. Blame all the people who didn't watch ENT, INS, and NEM, and who stopped watching DS9 and VOY in droves, assuming "blame" is the right word to begin with, which it isn't.

So you'd also blame the viewers of TOS for its cancellation and not the budget reduction and bad time slot? Seriously?

About ENT, virtually everybody who has seen the last season of ENT considers it to be a great season. The very fact that this quality increase is not reflected in some stupid ratings illustrates how flawed it is to refer to them in the first place. I also think it is weak, cowardly and intellectually lazy to hide one's option about a piece of TV or a movie behind its financial success. Makes one wonder whether you even have an own opinion.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So you'd also blame the viewers of TOS for its cancellation and not the budget reduction and bad time slot? Seriously?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

assuming "blame" is the right word to begin with, which it isn't.

Right. I didn't.

I also think it is weak, cowardly and intellectually lazy to hide one's option about a piece of TV or a movie behind its financial success. Makes one wonder whether you even have an own opinion.

The topic of this thread is, and I quote, "This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future". It's not, "CorporalCaptain's Blu-ray wish list".

 

[xortex]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So if Berman was allowed to do a prequel with Kirk and Spock and the original Enterprise et al. on UPN without dumping the timeline, it would have been a failure? I don't think so. There have been only a handful of showrunners pushing their artistic vision and product - GR - Rick Berman/Micheal Piller - Ira Stevens Behr - Berman/Braga and Jeri Taylor and Harve Bennett and now J.J.. So take your pick. I'm thinking none of the above except GR, but that's just me.
A good product with the right approach can go far on the right channel but it's got to have the right person leading it, not ringleading it. Trouble with Trek is that too many people want control of it on tv and they wind up steering it into and over a cliff because of studio interference. Coto was no saver, he was a killer. The last nail in the coffin of the Berman regime.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So you'd also blame the viewers of TOS for its cancellation and not the budget reduction and bad time slot? Seriously?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

assuming "blame" is the right word to begin with, which it isn't.

Right. I didn't.

And, while we're on the subject, one more thing.

I challenge you to produce any objective evidence that NBC based its budgeting and scheduling for TOS on anything other than business decisions, which, based on all the data that was available to them, were sound for their overall plan to maximize their revenue. It's not like they invested all that money in the show just to have the pleasure of sabotaging it. Based on viewership and the competing shows aired on the other networks, NBC made the choices which most made sense for all of the shows under their control, to select their time slots and fix their budgets, given how much they could charge for advertising. They're a business, first and foremost, they're not out to lose money, and they're really out to make as much as they can. Are you saying you want to fault them for that?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

I challenge you to produce any objective evidence that NBC based its budgeting and scheduling for TOS on anything other than business decisions, which, based on all the data that was available to them, were sound for their overall plan to maximize their revenue. It's not like they invested all that money in the show just to have the pleasure of sabotaging it. Based on viewership and the competing shows aired on the other networks, NBC made the choices which most made sense for all of the shows under their control, to select their time slots and fix their budgets, given how much they could charge for advertising. They're a business, first and foremost, they're not out to lose money, and they're really out to make as much as they can.

^This.

GR told and continually elaborated upon a number of bullshit stories about his dealings with NBC and their attitude toward Star Trek, none of which have been corroborated and several of which have been specifically repudiated by people like Herb Solow. In fact, GR's versions never made a lot of sense other than to lionize himself and flatter the fanbase. The real evidence is that NBC gave the series more than a fair shake, promoted it in creative ways and made their decisions based on the real business numbers.

 

[xortex]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Herb Solow is deep throat to me. Maybe in this case more like cut throat. Who knows. Like he would have no reasons to lie and slant it his way.

 

[horatio83]

Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

So you'd also blame the viewers of TOS for its cancellation and not the budget reduction and bad time slot? Seriously?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

assuming "blame" is the right word to begin with, which it isn't.

Right. I didn't.

And, while we're on the subject, one more thing.

I challenge you to produce any objective evidence that NBC based its budgeting and scheduling for TOS on anything other than business decisions, which, based on all the data that was available to them, were sound for their overall plan to maximize their revenue. It's not like they invested all that money in the show just to have the pleasure of sabotaging it. Based on viewership and the competing shows aired on the other networks, NBC made the choices which most made sense for all of the shows under their control, to select their time slots and fix their budgets, given how much they could charge for advertising. They're a business, first and foremost, they're not out to lose money, and they're really out to make as much as they can. Are you saying you want to fault them for that?

Of course they wanted to make money with their product, of course the market for sci-fi was tiny in these days and of course they made the right decision to cancel TOS.
But ENT became better when it was cancelled so has it been the right decision to cancel that show from a mere business perspective? I have my doubts.

Anyway, what I wanted to emphasize is that merely wanting to make money will sooner or later backfire. I am sure you read Greg Smith's NYT article about his time at Goldman Sachs. Sure, milking your customers might be a sound short-run strategy but if you wanna be successful in the long-run you better care more about the quality of your product. And if you are just a little bit into corporate governance you might know that the incentive contracts for CEOs are often poorly constructed, creating an incentive for them to focus on mere short-run gains.

Back to TV, if you produce a good TV series it will sell. Perhaps not immediately, perhaps you will make more money later via DVDs, who knows. That's kinda what happened to TOS, fourty years after it first aired there is not just money to be made from it but it is even worthwhile to reinvest into the product and remaster it.