CBS has its work cut out for them. They not only have to win over a good chunk of viewers with their new pilot episode (to be aired on network television), but they have to do so sufficiently to convince a good number of those who tune in to be willing to subscribe to a streaming service that many might not already be subscribed to in order to continue following the series (this is specifically true for U.S. viewers while those in non U.S. markets will have to wait for now to see how things will unfold).
Despite the impression created by images and programs seen on television and film most people are not living the ideal middle class existence and they might have to weigh the real value of spending another six dollars a month or whether they give something up to afford that extra six bucks.
But getting back to the pilot itself.
TOS was an oddity (by contemporary standards) in that the actual pilot episode that sold the series did not premiere the series. NBC opted to start the season with "The Man Trap" which seemed more like a conventional sci-fi monster story. The actual pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," would eventually be the third episode aired. Regardless the season started with three reasonably decent episodes with polish and the rest is history.
As a pilot episode (if it had indeed been aired first) WNMHGB would have been a very strong lead. It remains arguably one of the strongest episodes of the entire franchise and a fine piece of science fiction storytelling. It delivered on everything NBC had hoped for the show.
TNG's pilot episode was much more problematic. I can't have been the only one turned off by "Encounter At Farpoint." While there were interesting ideas presented in it the execution was rough. I think the A and B plots feels really forced and the show would have been much better served by focusing on only one story. I, and likely others, was so turned off by EAF that I nealry tuned out completely from thre on. I did tune in sporadically during the first season wherein I saw little improvement (in retrospect and rewatches I find there are some decent enough episodes in the first season, but I still think EAF is botched). Things were a little better in second season and with a couple of genuine first rate efforts ("Q, Who?" and "Measure Of A Man"), but TNG wouldn't really gets its legs until the the third season.
TNG benefited from being syndicated from the get-go. If it had aired on network television as is I strongly suspect the series wouldn't have survived. The first season simply wasn't very strong overall. By today's standards it would have been fortunate to last one entire season.
But TNG is something of an early look at what CBS currently faces. CBS is attempting to use Star Trek to really get its streaming service going. It's using Star Trek to help push a new model for watching television just as had been done with TNG. I think it's recognized that CBS' new pilot has to be better overall than TNG's pilot and the first season has to be a lot stronger than TNG's premiere season. Back in 1987 people were already paying for cable or could still watch TNG by antenna from their local station--it didn't involve an added cost to watch the then new show. And given there wasn't that much competition in sci-fi television at the time (and TNG was distinctly different from TOS) helped draw and keep viewers. I don't think that can be counted on anymore.
Today's television audiences (as well as the suits paying the freight) are a lot less forgiving than back in the late 1980s. The new pilot, as well as the subsequent episodes, are going to have to basically knock it out of the park right off. Really devoted viewers will likely hang in, but less invested ones and more casual viewers won't have much patience if the pilot and the series doesn't fly right off.
DS9's pilot was distinctly stronger and more polished than TNG's. It did a good job of setting a distinct tone from its immediate predecessor and setting out ot establish its own identity. DS9 would go on to draw a devoted following, but it doesn't seem to have really resonated with the broader audience. And this despite some ideas common in television today were seen some years earlier in DS9. It does leave one wondering if a show like DS9 would do better introduced today than it did initially. Are there clues in DS9 of things we might see (in terms of storytelling) in the new series?
I emphasize my view of VOY's and ENT's pilots are my own, but they might reflect what many casual viewers might have thought. They were bland. Except for those devoted followers there was nothing really distinct and engaging about the VOY and ENT pilots. And I think they fairely represented their respective series. VOY and ENT were basically TNG redressed and not in the best way. In general they just felt like tired same-old-same-old.
So CBS has five pilot episodes and five subsequent series as some sort of indication of what many might expect from their new Trek series. Those pilots and series, as well as current successful shows, should be ample in informing the new series' creators in regard to what they need to do to be successful.
Of course, no one sets out intentionally to make a bad show. But bad choices can be made by not reading the signposts properly. In that event one could realize too late that what looked like a great idea at the time turned out to be completely wrong in execution.
And so the question is what are the deal breakers? What needs to be done in the pilot and subsequently the series to win you over? Or what could they do that would completely turn you off?
Anyone?
Despite the impression created by images and programs seen on television and film most people are not living the ideal middle class existence and they might have to weigh the real value of spending another six dollars a month or whether they give something up to afford that extra six bucks.
But getting back to the pilot itself.
TOS was an oddity (by contemporary standards) in that the actual pilot episode that sold the series did not premiere the series. NBC opted to start the season with "The Man Trap" which seemed more like a conventional sci-fi monster story. The actual pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," would eventually be the third episode aired. Regardless the season started with three reasonably decent episodes with polish and the rest is history.
As a pilot episode (if it had indeed been aired first) WNMHGB would have been a very strong lead. It remains arguably one of the strongest episodes of the entire franchise and a fine piece of science fiction storytelling. It delivered on everything NBC had hoped for the show.
TNG's pilot episode was much more problematic. I can't have been the only one turned off by "Encounter At Farpoint." While there were interesting ideas presented in it the execution was rough. I think the A and B plots feels really forced and the show would have been much better served by focusing on only one story. I, and likely others, was so turned off by EAF that I nealry tuned out completely from thre on. I did tune in sporadically during the first season wherein I saw little improvement (in retrospect and rewatches I find there are some decent enough episodes in the first season, but I still think EAF is botched). Things were a little better in second season and with a couple of genuine first rate efforts ("Q, Who?" and "Measure Of A Man"), but TNG wouldn't really gets its legs until the the third season.
TNG benefited from being syndicated from the get-go. If it had aired on network television as is I strongly suspect the series wouldn't have survived. The first season simply wasn't very strong overall. By today's standards it would have been fortunate to last one entire season.
But TNG is something of an early look at what CBS currently faces. CBS is attempting to use Star Trek to really get its streaming service going. It's using Star Trek to help push a new model for watching television just as had been done with TNG. I think it's recognized that CBS' new pilot has to be better overall than TNG's pilot and the first season has to be a lot stronger than TNG's premiere season. Back in 1987 people were already paying for cable or could still watch TNG by antenna from their local station--it didn't involve an added cost to watch the then new show. And given there wasn't that much competition in sci-fi television at the time (and TNG was distinctly different from TOS) helped draw and keep viewers. I don't think that can be counted on anymore.
Today's television audiences (as well as the suits paying the freight) are a lot less forgiving than back in the late 1980s. The new pilot, as well as the subsequent episodes, are going to have to basically knock it out of the park right off. Really devoted viewers will likely hang in, but less invested ones and more casual viewers won't have much patience if the pilot and the series doesn't fly right off.
DS9's pilot was distinctly stronger and more polished than TNG's. It did a good job of setting a distinct tone from its immediate predecessor and setting out ot establish its own identity. DS9 would go on to draw a devoted following, but it doesn't seem to have really resonated with the broader audience. And this despite some ideas common in television today were seen some years earlier in DS9. It does leave one wondering if a show like DS9 would do better introduced today than it did initially. Are there clues in DS9 of things we might see (in terms of storytelling) in the new series?
I emphasize my view of VOY's and ENT's pilots are my own, but they might reflect what many casual viewers might have thought. They were bland. Except for those devoted followers there was nothing really distinct and engaging about the VOY and ENT pilots. And I think they fairely represented their respective series. VOY and ENT were basically TNG redressed and not in the best way. In general they just felt like tired same-old-same-old.
So CBS has five pilot episodes and five subsequent series as some sort of indication of what many might expect from their new Trek series. Those pilots and series, as well as current successful shows, should be ample in informing the new series' creators in regard to what they need to do to be successful.
Of course, no one sets out intentionally to make a bad show. But bad choices can be made by not reading the signposts properly. In that event one could realize too late that what looked like a great idea at the time turned out to be completely wrong in execution.
And so the question is what are the deal breakers? What needs to be done in the pilot and subsequently the series to win you over? Or what could they do that would completely turn you off?
Anyone?
