• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

British series approach?

How about a crossover mini-series with Doctor Who?

Please no. I love the sounds of ST even if they are noisy. I hate the noises of Dr.Who.. both their noises would make me explode in a wild rage that would be terrible to behold. (Sorry to all the Whodians whomight have been offended by this! I don't hate the show)

A British ST would be interesting though. Not sure about the short season thing.. I would love another TNG.. I would love for TNG to come back.. Mmmm TNG..
 
It why im with the "mixed" approach.

I think the 4th seires (minus the final episode) of ENT had it nailed down pretty well.

I think it was the best balance in any Trek series. Brilliant, and quite unfortunate that we didn't get a 5th season.
 
How about a crossover mini-series with Doctor Who?
Probably the best cross-over we could hope for since Benny Hill is gone.

Ahh, to have been able to replace the little man Benny was always slapping on the back of the head with Sir Patrick Stewart!

CBS itself would be the last place a new Trek series would ever be. It's the #1 US TV network with shows that are cheaper, easier to produce, and have broader appeal (bigger audience) than Trek does.
Alternatives would be for CBS to put Star Trek on cable themselves, or to farm it out to someone else who would.

:)
 
CBS itself would be the last place a new Trek series would ever be. It's the #1 US TV network with shows that are cheaper, easier to produce, and have broader appeal (bigger audience) than Trek does.
Alternatives would be for CBS to put Star Trek on cable themselves, or to farm it out to someone else who would.
I kind of doubt that CBS would ever farm a new Trek series out to someone else (I think they'd rather have full control and ownership of their TV properties), but I can definitely see it airing on a cable network, especially if CBS finally got around to getting a cable outlet like the other broadcast networks already have.
 
I'd actually like to see the British make Star Trek. They've done much better with Sherlock Holmes than American TV and films producers have been able to do these last few years.

Well, Holmes is intrinsically British. Trek is very much a part of American TV folklore.
 
Of course in a British Sci-Fi show the Federation is a totalitarian empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terran_Federation_(Blake's_7)

Sorry wrong show. :p

Sorry, citizen, I think you meant to say RIGHT show!!

h42A09CEE



As others have said, a British shorter season won't necessarily work for a US show. Advertising revenue on the commercial channels, isn't a really big issue, hence they're able to do shorter seasons such as crime dramas.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, you have the soaps that have 3 episodes a week, week-in-week-out, for eons!! Well, decades, it just seems like eons!! :)
 
I assume by the British approach you mean shorter seasons, which I would be all for.

Don't get me wrong, the more Trek, the better as far as I am concerned.

That being said all of my favorite TV shows are either on HBO or AMC and they all have shortened seasons and have all been critically acclaimed and they all represent different genres.

I think Star Trek would be a perfect fit for that style of show. Plus fewer episodes mean larger effects budgets.
 
Fewer episodes doesn't mean more money. Where do people get this idea from?

i.e. If a show costs say US$4m per episode, then a 20 episode season would have a budget of US$80m, converesly a 10 episode season would have a budget of US$40m
 
It's even worse than that. If a show has a budget of $4m/episode. That gets spent lets say $3m/episode variable costs and $1m/episode amortizing fixed costs. If the show only has 10 episodes, then its budget needs to become either $3m variable plus $2m amortizing fixed or more likely $2m variable and $2m amortizing fixed. So cutting the episode count either forces more to be spent per episode or forces fixed costs to take up a higher portion of the budget and results in even less money for variable costs(ie fx).

You can argue that cutting the episode count helps creatively, but from a budget perspective it's a disaster.
 
It's even worse than that. If a show has a budget of $4m/episode. That gets spent lets say $3m/episode variable costs and $1m/episode amortizing fixed costs. If the show only has 10 episodes, then its budget needs to become either $3m variable plus $2m amortizing fixed or more likely $2m variable and $2m amortizing fixed. So cutting the episode count either forces more to be spent per episode or forces fixed costs to take up a higher portion of the budget and results in even less money for variable costs(ie fx).

You can argue that cutting the episode count helps creatively, but from a budget perspective it's a disaster.
Yup, with more episodes, you can spread the cost of building additional sets CGI Models over more episodes (IE: with 20 episodes, if an additional set or CGI Model is going to cost you $1Million, you can spread that over all 20 episodes, only using up $50K of each episode's budget to build it. If it's spread over 10 episodes, that takes $100K out of each episode's budget)
 
Fewer episodes doesn't mean more money. Where do people get this idea from?

i.e. If a show costs say US$4m per episode, then a 20 episode season would have a budget of US$80m, converesly a 10 episode season would have a budget of US$40m


But if you wanted a larger budget per episode it would be more easy to sell.

If a low number of high budgetr episodes would pull in far more rateings than loads of low budget episodes then make sense to go for the former.
 
As others have said, a British shorter season won't necessarily work for a US show.

Worked for game of thrones ;)

Yes, but that's a specific cable show, like The Sopranos etc, where shorter seasons are the norm (6-13 episodes).

TPTB if producing a Trek show would want it mainstream and that means the standard 22-26 episode run, like most ABC/CBS dramas, to wring as many advertising $$$ as they can get from it, as they get nothing from people paying a subscription to watch it.

Trek would also need a lot more money in set-dressing, as whereas something like Game of Thrones can film on location, Trek would by it's nature be unable to get away with Stargate SG1's "Which planet does this Canadian forest represent this week?" attitude. :)
 
As others have said, a British shorter season won't necessarily work for a US show.

Worked for game of thrones ;)

Yes, but that's a specific cable show, like The Sopranos etc, where shorter seasons are the norm (6-13 episodes).

TPTB if producing a Trek show would want it mainstream and that means the standard 22-26 episode run, like most ABC/CBS dramas, to wring as many advertising $$$ as they can get from it, as they get nothing from people paying a subscription to watch it.

Trek would also need a lot more money in set-dressing, as whereas something like Game of Thrones can film on location, Trek would by it's nature be unable to get away with Stargate SG1's "Which planet does this Canadian forest represent this week?" attitude. :)

Didn't they already try that in ST though with Vasquez Rocks, it represent a lot of planets in it's various appreances TOS, TNG, VOY, ENT, ST (2009),
 
The why not go the cable route?

Why not indeed ? But I think CBS would rather the show air on its network. I might be wrong about that.
CBS itself would be the last place a new Trek series would ever be. It's the #1 US TV network with shows that are cheaper, easier to produce, and have broader appeal (bigger audience) than Trek does.

Perhaps Showtime? Isn't it owned by CBS? Has a long history of science fiction shows but hasn't had any in a while, maybe the time is ripe.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top