Bob Orci: Spoke with CBS about returning Trek To TV

For somebody who has been trolling me in the Neutral Zone forum here, you have quite a problem with hostility yourself. As for "straw man", remember your snide comments on my voting preferences? You never did say what the hell they have to do with my opinions about Star Trek.

Exactly. He never had such a role; therefore, there is no way to judge in advance whether or not he would be good at a lead role in a Star Trek series. Some actors manage to step up and surprise people. I think Takei would have done a fine job.

Your point being...?

Fair enough, if you're basing your opinion on what you've seen. Too many people simply dismiss him out of hand without having made the effort to look at his other roles.

Takei was excellent in that episode. On the other hand, it was Grace Lee Whitney who did the crappy job that brought the episode down. Dunno what she was going for, but it came out as a bitchy shrew.

 

It has been a long-time since I saw the episode, but I don't remember being particularly impressed by Takei in it. I'll have to go back and revisit it when time permits.

 

I recall reading that the novel The Captain's Daughter had a fair bit to do with that as well.

At a time when there was a bit of a push for a Captain Sulu series, a good (IMO) novel by Trek's most popular author focusing on Captain Sulu did not sell well at all. That was used to rebut the suggestion that there was a big audience for a show centred around Sulu.

 

The mass market, the market were the money that makes or breaks a show or movie is at, don't want to watch the B-team. Nothing against Takei. I've met him, he's got a great personality, was a blast to talk to. I think he's a good actor. But am I interested in a Captain Sulu / Excelsior series? Nope. That's the same reason that I have no interest in a Captain Worf series.

 

I cannot see the current movie cast obligating themselves to a weekly tv series and not be available to other big name movies. If they recast I hope it is the time period right after TNG.

 

Congratulations. You managed to make it an entire sentence before debunking your own argument.

 

Compared to Takei's scenes in TUC, the "Flashback" reenactments were pretty dull.

The most outspoken proponent for a Captain Sulu series was George Takei. I don't think all that many other people were clamoring for a such a series.

 

Merely reminding you that you have no cause to call me hostile when you've displayed that kind of attitude yourself. I don't care where it happened, it was still hostile.

May I suggest you take your own advice and leave your attitude there?

I just wondered why you were essentially repeating yourself, since you'd already addressed that point.

 

I'm not really a fan of the Excelsior stuff in TUC. One of the big strikes, for me, against is the fact that Sulu is in command of Excelsior. Takei did wonderful with the stuff, but I just don't think they used the concept to its full potential.

 

It depends on what the show is... if they don't get the cast for it, then they need to focus elsewhere in the universe. Why not make a series based wholly on another race like a Romulan or Klingon centric show?

But, if they can get the cast.. why not do a run with them? And it isn't that farfetched... TV has become such a huge platform for actors over the last decade that many of them might be more than willing to do it. The only real problem I see... Karl Urban already being in a show it seems (I assume he is a regular for the Almost Human show).

 

Even if they could somehow convince the entire cast to sign a multi-year contract for a TV series, it would kill the film franchise. Few people will pay money to see the Enterprise cast on the big screen when we get them 22 times a year at home.

 

Most cable networks still have schedule requirements. Mad Men is one of the few that has slipped and that's because of cost fights. Most other cable shows still have to hit their release schedule, it just might be Jan or Jun instead of Sept.

Only premium channels allow the length to vary. All the AMC, USA, TNT, FX shows are an hour and have to fit in the slot.

Cable networks can interfere just as much of they want. There is nothing fundamental about cable that says the producers must get less interference.

 

I don't know why people keep saying this, when virtually the whole NuTrek cast is currently in, or bucking for, regular television work:

Pine has an ongoing series development deal with CBS;
Quinto has a regular role on "American Horror Story";
Urban has one of the two leads in "Almost Human";
Cho has a (supposedly) recurring role in "Sleepy Hollow";
Pegg recently shot a pilot for a regular role for a series called "Mob City".
Yelchin starred in "Odd Thomas" earlier this year, which many reviews maintained was intended to serve not only as a feature film, but a pilot for a series in which Yelchin would also star.

Just about the only member of the cast who isn't already involved in a television series, or actively campaigning for one, is Zoe Saldana.

 

This distortion effect that circles Star Trek needs to go away. General TV watchers don't care if someone is on the "A" or "B" team. That's a matter of fandom. If the writing, acting, and production are of good quality, the audience will not care one way or the other.

 

Star Trek is TV fastfood, a popculture Big Mac. Take the fans out of it, in the mind the average person, and it's Kirk and Spock and a funny looking space ship named Enterprise. You have to have a catch before people watch, the name Star Trek isn't enough anymore.

 

Very much disagree with this. You can do a Star Trek show without Kirk and Spock. That has been proven before. All you really do need is memorable characters to follow and you're set, with good writing being a bonus. The reason Trek TV died is because it became generic and over-saturated. When TNG started it didn't have the best writing, but it felt very ballsy, vibrant and had well defined characters that viewers were able to connect with easily. There was a passion behind it that one could feel, a passion that was very much absent from the start of ENT. ENT felt like a Trek show going through the motions, doing the same old same old but with a more generic tone that made the whole thing feel like it wasn't worth watching. I, like many viewers, gave the show a chance from the beginning. Remember, the show started off with very good ratings. After about 8 episodes, I pretty much gave up and wouldn't revisit ENT many years later, discovering the fourth season that felt like the kind of show that it should have been from the start.

So yes, you can definitely make successful Trek series with a new set of characters. Just because nuTrek decided to backtrack to Kirk and Spock doesn't mean that's the ONLY way Trek can move forward.

 

If did Star Trek on TV now, it's got to be Kirk and Spock. That's your Big Mac. People aren't going to these movies to see Sulu and Chekov, they're going to see Kirk and Spock which in pop culture means Star Trek. You're not going to get 2 or 3 years to get you legs under you like was needed with TNG, it's sick or swim in less than the first season. You go in with what sells. 20 years done the line with no Trek on TV, like TNG was, you might be able to get by with a different crew.

 

I'm sure many made the same argument in 1986 that the new ST was not going to work simply because it didn't have any of the original cast, characters in TOS and the movies (and this was right after the very successful TVH. They were wrong.