David Foster Preparing to Pitch New ‘Star Trek’ Series

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So, what DID kill Star Trek then, in your estimation? (Assuming, for the sake of arguement, that it was dead.)

Familiarity. Everyone who'd gotten interested in the 1980s and 1990s other than a few million hard-core fans got bored with it after a decade or so. Most of them, BTW, abandoned it mid-run of DS9 and Voyager - a couple of years after TNG left the air.

This has happened to a lot of TV series that were watched by far more people than Trek ever was, so it's scarcely anything to be surprised by.

The movie built on the vast majority of remaining hard-core fans, intrigued "lost" viewers who had perhaps grown a bit nostalgic (again, movie released in 2009; most TV Trek viewers gone by 1997 or so) and attracted millions of younger people and folks who'd never paid a lot of attention.

 

[xortex]

Enterprise's production values were still born, no music, drab colors, stiff actors. T'Pol wasn't interesting at all. Bacula was exhausted and grim. That ship, that gritty submarine look - no optomism, no joy, no idealism, devolved into another war story compromising Archer's character. He's distant to begin with.
People don't want ugly and dismal and claustrophobic as they also stopped open submissions and Coto was advanced over Braga because he was mediocre like Berman. Hoya!

 

[Uhura's Panties]

The whole "franchise fatigue" thing is just a way to avoid the fact that what killed ST was shitty writing.

QFT!!!

After 7 shitty years of Voyager and 3 out of the four TNG films being over blown (and not that great) TV episodes, Star Trek was looking very lame and unwatchable to non-hardcore fans... Enterprise IMO was a step up but didn't go into high gear till season 3 and 4 and by that time it was too late.

For the future of Trek it doesn't matter if its on the big screen or small, what era its set in, or what reality...its ALL about the writing and execution!

If you build it right they will come.

 

[I Grok Spock]

Star Trek '09 was the coolest Trek had been in four decades. That sure helped.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

After 7 shitty years of Voyager and 3 out of the four TNG films being over blown (and not that great) TV episodes...

DS9 didn't hold its audience any better than Voyager did. What did you think of DS9's writing?

... Star Trek was looking very lame and unwatchable to non-hardcore fans...

It looked lame because it had been in their face forever.

 

[Romulan_spy]

The whole "franchise fatigue" thing is just a way to avoid the fact that what killed ST was shitty writing.

QFT!!!

After 7 shitty years of Voyager and 3 out of the four TNG films being over blown (and not that great) TV episodes, Star Trek was looking very lame and unwatchable to non-hardcore fans... Enterprise IMO was a step up but didn't go into high gear till season 3 and 4 and by that time it was too late.

For the future of Trek it doesn't matter if its on the big screen or small, what era its set in, or what reality...its ALL about the writing and execution!

If you build it right they will come.

100% agree!! I've been saying for awhile that Trek does not need a gimmick. It just needs interesting and entertaining stories and great characters. I would love a post-Nemesis TV series set on the Enterprise F if the stories and the characters were good.

 

[Broccoli]

I would love a post-Nemesis TV series set on the Enterprise F if the stories and the characters were good.

I love this comment that people tend to throw out. It is such a blanket statement that doesn't really say anything. What constitutes "good"?

Trek XI was not only critically highly regarded, but commercially successful. Isn't that "good" as well?

And Dennis is absolutely correct in saying that DS9's ratings plummeted during its run, yet that is typically considered by fans to be the best written Trek series.

So, you can have your Enterprise-F series written by Aaron Sorkin, J. Michael Starczynski, and Joss Whedon, but that doesn't automatically mean it would be a ratings winner. As much as I enjoyed Enterprise, Trek on TV was dying out and no amount of "good writing" was going to save it. For Trek to have mainstream success again, a new approach needed to be taken.

JJ Abrams did that and was successful.

 

[xortex]

Now you're confusing good with popular. He had fresh pacing and good looking sexy leads. Nobody knows what good is. Some know what good isn't and everybody knows what isn't bad.

 

[Broccoli]

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make, but I realize "good" is subjective.

However, as I mentioned in my post, Trek XI was highly critically received (94% at RT). Regardless of if it was popular, it was critically considered to be a good film. The fact that it was popular suggests that audiences considered it was good as well.

Enterprise I enjoyed highly. I am sure there are others that did as well. I thought it was good watching (especially during the last two seasons). However, it was a ratings disaster. Doesn't mean it wasn't good, but it did suggest that a new approach needed to be taken if Star Trek was to continue. Throwing on a new TV series, regardless if it was "good" or not likely wouldn't change the fact that Trek on TV was dying. The fact that ENT was canceled probably has cooled any prospective network heads to entertaining the idea of a Trek TV series for a while.

In any event, it doesn't negate my original point that saying "I'd like something if it was good" is a blanket statement that doesn't really say anything.

 

[xortex]

So you're saying Trek 09 was good.
Critics think TOS was hokey goofball crap and are most likely paid off their opinions.
The novel became a best seller because 18 yr old kids like to have it on their shelves when 18 yr old girls visit them, that's all. Money, power, control, sex, war, privilidge, politics. You know the little things that will keep Star Trek from ever being done right again. The normal things that are good for you, like being force fed broccali, for instance. The tyrannical principles of the Hollywierd jungle to which they have and are doing and you not and never will as they will see to that.
I'll give you a quick example. My father designed beautifully intricate woman's shoes that didn't sell because the style of the day was the standard army boot.

 

[Broccoli]

xortex, your post as a whole = whut?

However, I'll entertain what you said point by point.

So you're saying Trek 09 was good.

I could be wrong, but I never gave my personal opinion on the movie in this thread. However, critically, it was well-received. 94% at RT proves this (where it is also the best reviewed Trek movie on the site). That doesn't mean everyone will like it, obviously. No movie can do that.

Critics think TOS was hokey goofball crap and are most likely paid off their opinions.

Do they? I was under the impression that critics thought highly of the original series and still do. Can you provide a link or something to back up your claim.

The novel became a best seller because 18 yr old kids like to have it on their shelves when 18 yr old girls visit them, that's all.

What novel...what are you talking about?

Money, power, control, sex, war, privilidge, politics. You know the little things that will keep Star Trek from ever being done right again.

First: Uh...what?

Second: What is Star Trek "done right"? Is there some sort of definition? Or do you mean "how I want it done." There is a key difference.

The normal things that are good for you, like being force fed broccali, for instance. The tyrannical principles of the Hollywierd jungle to which they have and are doing and you not and never will as they will see to that.

Also, it's spelled broccoli.

I'll give you a quick example. My father designed beautifully intricate woman's shoes that didn't sell because the style of the day was the standard army boot.

When has the army boot ever been the "style of the day" for women?

And, I don't exactly see what you are trying to get at with this tale from your past.

 

[xortex]

The army boot was accessable, practical, emotional just like they were and it was in style at one time.

 

[Broccoli]

Yeah...for the army.

 

[xortex]

And apparently for the streets of NY at the time.

 

[bullethead]

I think everyone can agree that good characters should at least have consistent behavior, a decent mix of strengths and flaws, and entertaining to watch.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And not be cardboard caricatures of established characters.

 

[Broccoli]

And apparently for the streets of NY at the time.

No.

I think everyone can agree that good characters should at least have consistent behavior, a decent mix of strengths and flaws, and entertaining to watch.

Yes.

And not be cardboard caricatures of established characters.

Good thing that didn't happen in Trek XI's case.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And not be cardboard caricatures of established characters.

Good thing that didn't happen in Trek XI's case.

Well, given that the TOS characters are caricatures to begin with...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Blasphemy!

 

[Broccoli]

And not be cardboard caricatures of established characters.

Good thing that didn't happen in Trek XI's case.

Well, given that the TOS characters are caricatures to begin with...

But not cardboard. In any event:

Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, snap!