1 Shot-Hit or Miss? 22 Shots-Some Hit.Better?.Yes I Say.

[duranduran]

With all the bitching and a very,very fragmented audience hating and bitching vehemently about the new trek movie I suggest the best way of making the next Trek movie succesful would be not to make it at all.

A movie which has not been made cannot be a failure or a flop.

This approach would safeguard the integrity of Trek.

I suggest the $100 million money GAMBLE on a hit or miss film would be better invested in a new series with new actors and a new bold musical score.

In a series you have at least 22 Shots of hiting the mark and it would only cost about $30 to $40 million and would make money in tv rights,dvd's,etc,etc...

...and of course we would get 22 hours of trek instead of just 2 hours.
The hourly cost drops to just under $1 and a 1/2 million per hour from the $50 million a hour movie cost.

The economics cannot be refuted.

In other words we should try to get Paramount to make a series instead of a movie.

Remember this would be the opposite of The Phase II series.

THEY CANCELLED A SERIES TO MAKE A MOVIE.

BUT NOW THEY WOULD CANCEL A MOVIE TO MAKE A SERIES.

Discuss.


-------------------------------------------------------------

By the way I think I have won the most original thread title of the decade.

Where is my prize?

------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Basill]

Someone has already put their finger into that pond and found it a bit too chilly to swim, me thinks.

 

[Woulfe]

DruanDruan, talk to Less Moonves, he's in charge of the TV side of Trek, By the way, Les hates Sci-Fi and Trek, So you won't get verry far trying to get a new show, ever.

- W -
* Didn't we talk about this before ? *

 

[Lumen]

This films is getting made largely because of Abrams and Paramount.

Paramount can't make a Trek television on their own, and Abrams wants to pursue a film career.

Based on the ambitions and legal status of those involved, I don't think there was ever really a discussion of the two options. These people are in the business of making films, and that's what they want to do now.

In other words, we really can't make Paramount make a TV series, because they can't.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I actually thought people have been remarkably positive. The Quinto casting was generally well received. Of course this is against a standard of fan behavior that might be called "extremely negatory."

I suggest the $100 million money GAMBLE on a hit or miss film would be better invested in a new series with new actors and a new bold musical score.

Poor strategy. If I were a corporate bean counter, I'd veto it in a hearbeat. Trek on TV has gained such a bad rap that anything would have the stink of failure on it. But sci fi blockbuster movies based on known brand names - brands with far less cachet than Star Trek - are doing great at the box office.

So the far better strategy is to invest in making a kick-ass Star Trek movie based on the most well-known aspect of Trek, which even tho I'm a rabid Niner, I know damn well is Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. Do that right, be a big success, make three movies or so.

After that, I'm hoping they will see the wisdom of returning Trek to the small screen. If the lovely odor of sweet success is wafting over Trek, and a new fanbase has developed, a TV series would have a much better chance of success.

The corporate arrangements, who does movies, who does TV, isn't all that interesting to me and it doesn't much matter. If something has a serious potential to make money, those things will be arranged. JJ Abrams doesn't have to oversee the TV series. The important point is that the corporate bean counters who ultimately decide Trek's fate will see that a TV series - presumably with continuing movies every couple years - is worth big $$$ and therefore worth doing. Why do one medium when you can do two? They won't stop there, either. There will be novels, video games, toys, the whole gamut.

So far, I've been very impressed by Abrams' business savvy. I know we all want him to be the creative genius, but he also seems to know the right path to resurrecting Trek from a business standpoint. And that's his job, too. If he doesn't do that, he'll never get the chance to make more Star Trek.

In a series you have at least 22 Shots of hiting the mark and it would only cost about $30 to $40 million and would make money in tv rights,dvd's,etc,etc...





...and of course we would get 22 hours of trek instead of just 2 hours.





The hourly cost drops to just under $1 and a 1/2 million per hour from the $50 million a hour movie cost.

The important figure is revenues minus costs. From that perspective, movies are a much better bet at this point. They cost more than TV, but make more money and can't be prematurely cancelled.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I'm not sold on the idea on a new series on TV, even if XI is a big hit. I'd like to see it, but I don't think there are enough people interested in space-travel stories at the moment to sustain much more than Battlestar. I don't see lots of people trying to make space related things, or even scifi (unless you count Heros and Lost as scifi), and there must be a good reason.

If I had to make a space-series, I'd probably go with direct-to-DVD so that I don't have to worry about getting the non-scifi fans to watch it. It would cost less than a movie, possibly more than a regular TV show, but it couldn't be canceled after three episodes, and hopefully it would generate some good word-of-mouth.

 

[duranduran]

Temis the Vorta said:
I actually thought people have been remarkably positive. The Quinto casting was generally well received. Of course this is against a standard of fan behavior that might be called "extremely negatory."

I suggest the $100 million money GAMBLE on a hit or miss film would be better invested in a new series with new actors and a new bold musical score.

Poor strategy. If I were a corporate bean counter, I'd veto it in a hearbeat. Trek on TV has gained such a bad rap that anything would have the stink of failure on it. But sci fi blockbuster movies based on known brand names - brands with far less cachet than Star Trek - are doing great at the box office.

So the far better strategy is to invest in making a kick-ass Star Trek movie based on the most well-known aspect of Trek, which even tho I'm a rabid Niner, I know damn well is Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. Do that right, be a big success, make three movies or so.

After that, I'm hoping they will see the wisdom of returning Trek to the small screen. If the lovely odor of sweet success is wafting over Trek, and a new fanbase has developed, a TV series would have a much better chance of success.

The corporate arrangements, who does movies, who does TV, isn't all that interesting to me and it doesn't much matter. If something has a serious potential to make money, those things will be arranged. JJ Abrams doesn't have to oversee the TV series. The important point is that the corporate bean counters who ultimately decide Trek's fate will see that a TV series - presumably with continuing movies every couple years - is worth big $$$ and therefore worth doing. Why do one medium when you can do two? They won't stop there, either. There will be novels, video games, toys, the whole gamut.

So far, I've been very impressed by Abrams' business savvy. I know we all want him to be the creative genius, but he also seems to know the right path to resurrecting Trek from a business standpoint. And that's his job, too. If he doesn't do that, he'll never get the chance to make more Star Trek.

In a series you have at least 22 Shots of hiting the mark and it would only cost about $30 to $40 million and would make money in tv rights,dvd's,etc,etc...





...and of course we would get 22 hours of trek instead of just 2 hours.





The hourly cost drops to just under $1 and a 1/2 million per hour from the $50 million a hour movie cost.

The important figure is revenues minus costs. From that perspective, movies are a much better bet at this point. They cost more than TV, but make more money and can't be prematurely cancelled.

And if after spending $70 to $125 million on a movie and it's a flop then what?

 

[Vigilance]

And if after spending $70 to $125 million on a movie and it's a flop then what?

That's why you try to make sure it isn't a flop.

I think going into a series thinking "we're not sure we can make our money back at the theater, but if you give us 22 chances, at least SOME will be good and enough die-hards will buy the DVDs to guarantee we'll break even" is the sort of defeatist thinking that led to Enterprise being the "show that never saw a risk it wasn't willing to run from in stark terror".

Sometimes you need to take a chance.

There's a lot of precedent for that working, if done well (New Battlestar Galactica, Batman Begins, Casino Royale).

On the other hand, the appetite for "yet another safe series" was killed quite dead by Enterprise, especially when you examine the overall trend of the series, which was that every one after TNG did rather worse in the ratings than the one before.

 

[Lord Garth]

duranduran said:
With all the bitching and a very,very fragmented audience hating and bitching vehemently about the new trek movie I suggest the best way of making the next Trek movie succesful would be not to make it at all.

"All the bitching" is an overstatement. I'd say the opinions run the spectrum but there's a tendency to build up anything anyone says that's negative into more than what it is.

When we see 2001-2005 ENT Forum nonsense then I'll change my stance. As of yet I haven't and I'm not going to wallow in the thought that it's going to be that way. As I've said before, there's more talking about bashing than actual bashing. Simply talking about bashing doesn't make more of it magically appear.

 

[Mordock]

duranduran said:
And if after spending $70 to $125 million on a movie and it's a flop then what?

The same thing that would happen if a new series were launched and failed; filmed Trek would be dormant for a goodly interval, until an executive change at Paramount resulted in it being given another shot. You know, the same thing that happened after ENT was canceled.

Moreover, which network would buy this series you propose? As Lumen notes, Paramount no longer has a pet network that they can muscle into carrying it, and the CW is right out; if Dawn Ostroff were a big believer in Trek, she probably wouldn't have canceled ENT.

Besides, is there something intrinsically wrong with Trek being relaunched in an enormously expensive movie? It's kind of a weird argument for a fan to make, now that I think about it; there are many examples of Trek producers valiantly doing more with less, sure, but doesn't Trek deserve to have as much money spent on it as a less-tested genre concept like The Chronicles of Riddick? Modest, mid-budgeted Trek films have been tried before, but by NEM, that strategy wasn't working so well. Why not roll the bones on a costly, expansive Trek movie, with ILM effects and scenes on ice planets that need to be shot in Iceland? Isn't that at least a little bit exciting?

 

[Sharr Khan]

I suggest the $100 million money GAMBLE on a hit or miss film would be better invested in a new series with new actors and a new bold musical score.

I don't understand why people who are opposed to this film seem to speak as if some how its not going to be made. Clearly its gearing up to do exactly that and talk about the "gamble" or cost in doing so are highly academic at best.

I would think a film is a stronger medium to relaunch Trek in and tv lacks scope that Star Trek has been a long time in needing.

So the far better strategy is to invest in making a kick-ass Star Trek movie based on the most well-known aspect of Trek, which even tho I'm a rabid Niner, I know damn well is Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. Do that right, be a big success, make three movies or so.

I totally agree!

Sharr

 

[duranduran]

Sharr Khan said:

I suggest the $100 million money GAMBLE on a hit or miss film would be better invested in a new series with new actors and a new bold musical score.

I don't understand why people who are opposed to this film seem to speak as if some how its not going to be made. Clearly its gearing up to do exactly that and talk about the "gamble" or cost in doing so are highly academic at best.

I would think a film is a stronger medium to relaunch Trek in and tv lacks scope that Star Trek has been a long time in needing.

So the far better strategy is to invest in making a kick-ass Star Trek movie based on the most well-known aspect of Trek, which even tho I'm a rabid Niner, I know damn well is Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. Do that right, be a big success, make three movies or so.

I totally agree!

Sharr

If what you say is true they could easily put on a 2 part Enterprise episode in the cinema.

For example the orion slave girl episode with Brent Spinar which had an epic feel.

Joe public would have been non-the wiser and the trekkies are really too ftagmented to matter anymore.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Joe Public wouldn't have shown up for a film version of "Enterprise with special guest star Brent Spiner." If Joe Public wouldn't watch it when it was free, what makes you think he'd pay $9 to see it in a theater?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

duranduran said:
And if after spending $70 to $125 million on a movie and it's a flop then what?

Then no more "Star Trek."

However, a movie is what we're getting. It's not up to a fan vote.

 

[Sharr Khan]

For example the orion slave girl episode with Brent Spinar which had an epic feel.

Not so much, that was good but it was in the end only fanservice.

No Trek hasn't been epic in awhile and long before Enterprise came on the air.

Star Trek was reborn once on a movie screen, it shall be again.

And my point remains: Debating a movie over a tv show is pointless at the moment and not our decision at the moment. (we did have that choice and voted well enough) Enterprise's cancellation was what we as a fanbase one way or another voted for.

Want a tv show? Go see this movie. It might dawn on someone who can decide a tv show is a good thing to make one see Trek thrive on the big screen. I'm more then happy to settle for an epic movie every other year or so.

Sharr