Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

[urbandefault]

The thing is, going back to the original topic of Trek on Netflix, a limited-reach network like that is going to have to depend on the fan base to watch. If they do, great. If they don't, it's sunk.

Not everyone has Netflix (I don't), just like not everyone has HBO, Showtime, whatever. The investment for putting a high-cost show on would have to have a high return on investment. If I were a Netflix exec I'd have to see numbers that would guarantee a break-even point early on, or it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

My opinion.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Just because you're on this board doesn't mean you are a trek fan, and everyone else that's not on here isn't. Just because you don't speak Klingon doesn't mean you're not a trek fan. Berman and Braga made a show that didn't appeal to the fan base. You think those 12 million that tuned in never saw star trek before, and think the franchise is silly? Those 12 million grew up with tos, or tng, or ds9, or voyager.

I think you're defining "fan" differently than was the original intent.

Sure, there are lots of casual fans, but there are also those high-strung ones that get upset when stardates don't match or when ships aren't the right size. Those are the ones that were referred to, and I don't believe they have any affect on what studios decide to do with their properties. Nor does Hollywood.

 

[VST]

Yeah that's really the crux of what you're saying Wulfio - what defines a *fan*?

Answering that really does get to the root of the argument about their interest in Trek. You can flip this one over and say said fan base can *make* a Trek show, or film. Would you say said fans made STID earn just shy of $500 million at the box office? Because I doubt that. Abrams made two films that appealed not just to (some) Trek fans, but a broad cross section of viewers who either casually watched it, or indeed never saw it before. That's the point. It's that cross-section who define a success or not, as opposed to the fan base.

You also have to remember, creatives like Berman/Braga/Behr etc… are trying to make shows for the fan base, but Paramount & the studios? They care far less about fandom than they do making money. And they will always always reign supreme.

 

[wulfio]

I'm not talking about super fan boys that quibble over minutia.

I don't know I'd call them casual fans, because they get what star trek is about. whoopi goldberg for instance, can't tell you the distance between qo'nos and earth, but she loves trek. There's a lot of people out there like that.

People tuned in to star trek to see something with heart. People tuned in to stargate to see macguyver(or someone doing an impersonation) hamming it up. Franchises have an identity. To ignore your fan bases wants without doing your due diligence in market research would be stupid is my point. Because when the big wigs ignore it, it's happened in the past that the fans will impact the success of the property and kill it.

I saw someone say people don't care what the fans want. I think that's an absurd statement.

As for STID, as I said, in my opinion I think there's a big difference between a summer blockbuster, and serial television. I don't think STID style would have the same success as a tv show. It would run, but I really don't believe it would have legs. Definitely no more than a show like V or Terra Nova. In my circle of influence, the majority of people I know that watched and enjoyed STID could not be bothered to follow a tv show, let alone one about star trek. They will however take a date/partner to the movie, and watch it. Fans make a tv show, making a successful movie is entirely different.

And on to your final point, I agree. Studio's might not care, but the threads topic is about a tv show. And to make a tv show with a complete disregard to that franchises fan base, is in my opinion, idiocy.

 

[VST]

You go from one extreme to the other in your points here. It's all about balance.

Look, of course a studio in an ideal world will want a fan base to be happy - nobody's gonna sit around a table and actively go 'right what can we do to fuck off all those guys in their mom's basement who buy our Spock action figures?'. But whether it's on TV or at the movies, the same point applies - they want a Trek project that will garner as many viewers as possible. At the movies, it's box office receipts. On the box, it's viewing figures which justify funding a show long enough to hit the magic 100 episodes so they can syndicate the series forever & a day & make endless cashloola. So many shows die quickly now because networks shovel a ton of money into a product & demand an immediate return, from a broad viewer base.

To bring this back to the original topic, if Netflix therefore were going to make a Trek show these days, it's not for the fans as much as everyone who buys that service. Like I said, most Trek fans would watch regardless, as they did with ENT. Most Trek fans' idea of what a new series should be is also a combo of either desperate fanwank, hopelessly old fashioned or steadfastly 'pure Trek'. None of that will sell these days. Sexier, flashier, punchier nuTOS, whether you like it or not, is what sells now. And if Trek wants to survive another series, that's pretty much what it needs to be.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I'm not talking about super fan boys that quibble over minutia.

That's typically what's inferred when people start talking about "fans" in quotes. It's about an insidious group of people who are thought to be responsible for all the woes of Star Trek. But they're just a small fraction not worth considering. And that's what the original point was.

Of course the powers that be should care about general fans, and this kind of shows in the new movies with the amount of fan service. There is a lot of fixation on what popular culture perceives Star Trek to be, so there couldn't be too much more catering to fans in that regard. But that was not what the point was.

 

[mos6507]

Sure, there are lots of casual fans, but there are also those high-strung ones that get upset when stardates don't match or when ships aren't the right size. Those are the ones that were referred to, and I don't believe they have any affect on what studios decide to do with their properties. Nor does Hollywood.

Maybe, but they've tried to convert the biggest convention where they congregate into a big PR event for their projects.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sure, there are lots of casual fans, but there are also those high-strung ones that get upset when stardates don't match or when ships aren't the right size. Those are the ones that were referred to, and I don't believe they have any affect on what studios decide to do with their properties. Nor does Hollywood.

Maybe, but they've tried to convert the biggest convention where they congregate into a big PR event for their projects.

and....?

 

[wulfio]

You go from one extreme to the other in your points here. It's all about balance.

Look, of course a studio in an ideal world will want a fan base to be happy - nobody's gonna sit around a table and actively go 'right what can we do to fuck off all those guys in their mom's basement who buy our Spock action figures?'. But whether it's on TV or at the movies, the same point applies - they want a Trek project that will garner as many viewers as possible. At the movies, it's box office receipts. On the box, it's viewing figures which justify funding a show long enough to hit the magic 100 episodes so they can syndicate the series forever & a day & make endless cashloola. So many shows die quickly now because networks shovel a ton of money into a product & demand an immediate return, from a broad viewer base.

To bring this back to the original topic, if Netflix therefore were going to make a Trek show these days, it's not for the fans as much as everyone who buys that service. Like I said, most Trek fans would watch regardless, as they did with ENT. Most Trek fans' idea of what a new series should be is also a combo of either desperate fanwank, hopelessly old fashioned or steadfastly 'pure Trek'. None of that will sell these days. Sexier, flashier, punchier nuTOS, whether you like it or not, is what sells now. And if Trek wants to survive another series, that's pretty much what it needs to be.

I'm not talking about super fan boys that quibble over minutia.

That's typically what's inferred when people start talking about "fans" in quotes. It's about an insidious group of people who are thought to be responsible for all the woes of Star Trek. But they're just a small fraction not worth considering. And that's what the original point was.

Of course the powers that be should care about general fans, and this kind of shows in the new movies with the amount of fan service. There is a lot of fixation on what popular culture perceives Star Trek to be, so there couldn't be too much more catering to fans in that regard. But that was not what the point was.

Someone said fans don't matter, I even quoted him on it in my original post. My contention was that fans can, and have killed shows in the past. That is all, end of story. No innuendo, no insinuations, no double entendre, just a statement of fact, that it's happened in the past.

You guys piled on arguing semantics. Seriously, internet forums baffle me, it really exemplifies a persons ability to pick apart a single word and begin a discussion that is completely irrelevant within the context of the original comment.

And whatever, if you want to think the only star trek fans out there are sweaty nerds in their mothers basement go for it. But you're 100% wrong, and living in you're own world by thinking that.

 

[VST]

The fact you can't tell when someone's being facetious says it all, dude.

 

[wulfio]

The fact you can't tell when someone's being facetious says it all, dude.

Ya I guess if we like to misuse the word facetious you're right.

 

[VST]

I have the definition taped to the underside of my eyelids at all times, so don't be worrying!

As I said before anyway, happy trails.

 

[AviTrek]

To bring this back to topic. CBS has now confirmed they're interested in making shows for streaming services. This is probably the best sign for a future Star Trek series we've had since the first JJ movie.

Source

 

[BillJ]

To bring this back to topic. CBS has now confirmed they're interested in making shows for streaming services. This is probably the best sign for a future Star Trek series we've had since the first JJ movie.

Source

Nothing there that makes me think a Trek series is any more likely than before.

 

[Ryan8bit]

You guys piled on arguing semantics. Seriously, internet forums baffle me, it really exemplifies a persons ability to pick apart a single word and begin a discussion that is completely irrelevant within the context of the original comment.

It wasn't arguing semantics, it was you misunderstanding the context of what someone was saying. "Fans" in quotes does not mean what you think it means.

And whatever, if you want to think the only star trek fans out there are sweaty nerds in their mothers basement go for it. But you're 100% wrong, and living in you're own world by thinking that.

No one even thinks that.

 

[Tom]

To bring this back to topic. CBS has now confirmed they're interested in making shows for streaming services. This is probably the best sign for a future Star Trek series we've had since the first JJ movie.

Source

Nothing there that makes me think a Trek series is any more likely than before.

Well it would alleviate the main problem that a Star Trek show can not get enough rating to survive directly on CBS. So when other 'not so ratings sensitive' outlets open up it may make it easier for CBS to finally green light a new Trek series.

 

[urbandefault]

None of that matters as long as Les Moonves is not interested in putting new Trek on TV.

As it is, he doesn't have to invest a dime of CBS capital, and the cash just keeps pouring in.

 

[Tom]

None of that matters as long as Les Moonves is not interested in putting new Trek on TV.

As it is, he doesn't have to invest a dime of CBS capital, and the cash just keeps pouring in.

There are diminishing returns on the older library. CBS has put money in the HD upgrades for TOS and TNG to help sell there broadcast rights in markets that less and less do not want SD products. A new product will have to be introduced at some point to keep the value of the franchise at an acceptable level.

 

[C.E. Evans]

None of that matters as long as Les Moonves is not interested in putting new Trek on TV.

As it is, he doesn't have to invest a dime of CBS capital, and the cash just keeps pouring in.

There are diminishing returns on the older library. CBS has put money in the HD upgrades for TOS and TNG to help sell there broadcast rights in markets that less and less do not want SD products. A new product will have to be introduced at some point to keep the value of the franchise at an acceptable level.

It's the "acceptable level" part that is the question. CBS has so many once popular properties under its belt that are basically dormant, http://www.cbsconsumerproducts.com/tvcity/4400.html but it still holds onto them solely to license them. It is conceivable that the current management at CBS may never make a new Trek series and allow the franchise to exist as it currently is (a licensed Paramount movie every few years or so).

 

[publiusr]

I loved Blockbuster, then RED BOX kills them. I get cable, then Netflix comes out with streaming..I buy a DVD and they invent Blu-ray.

Oh, for them to leave crap alone.