Honestly it should've been a no brainer to make a new show - a limited series at least - for the 50th anniversary. But then they missed the anniversary entirely, so who knows what exactly they were thinking?
Definite New Series/Limited Series with Patrick Stewart Returning
- Thread starter MvRojo
- Start date
Honestly it should've been a no brainer to make a new show - a limited series at least - for the 50th anniversary. But then they missed the anniversary entirely, so who knows what exactly they were thinking?
A 10 episode miniseries, or even a 3 hour special, with selected key characters from across the franchise. Some convoluted timey-wimey thing to bring them all together.
They made the most money a Star Trek film has ever made, especially 09 and ID.
Not sure what "successful" is being defined here then...
And I’m saying that I completely disagree with your opinion, because the facts contradict what you’re saying.
No, they don't. I'm saying that even without the new films, making a "Star Trek" show on CBS All Access probably would have happened.
There are no "facts" to dispute, I'm posing a hypothetical.
Fact: Les Moonves, the former head of CBS, never liked ENT and cancelled it after four seasons and steadily decreasing ratings. Some people equate this with thinking that he hated science fiction shows (and Star Trek specifically), but that wasn’t true. He hated shows that were expensive to produce but showed little returns in the way of ratings and money. That’s why crap like reality TV shows constantly get made: because they cost relatively little to produce yet soar in ratings. Then UPN died a silent death. As far as Moonves and CBS were concerned, ENT and Star Trek in general were cash cows that were simply not worth the effort.
So there would have been no way that a new Star Trek series (much less several at a time) would have been produced for CBSAA had Moonves and CBS not seen the potential returns given that the Abrams films were wildly successful (the merits of which you seem to constantly downplay for whatever personal reasons you have against them). As a matter of fact, I’d argue that without DSC, CBS wouldn’t have created CBSAA at all.
Last edited:
One of many reasons that it is good that Les Moonves is no longer of importance to the franchise.
I'm downplaying the movies as a factor because the last movie had a significant drop off in financial success than the first two did.
And because Hollywood executives are smart enough to know that, even without that, success in the film medium doesn't necessarily translate to TV or vice versa.
And because a new Star Trek spinoff with all new characters is an entirely different beast than rebooting the "classic" Kirk/Spock characters, which had big marquee value even to casual fans.
There are many, many reasons why you can't take as a given the success of the film franchise translating to TV.
What you CAN do, however, is look at recent trends in TV, which have been awash in remakes and reboots, often (if not always) on streaming platforms.
Everyone is mad for content. And if your'e going to launch a splashy new streaming platform, you need to get noticed. And one of the best ways to do that is by reviving or continuing a known property.
What was CBS All Access' ACTUAL first show? A Big Brother spinoff. Followed by "The Good Fight", also a spinoff of a very popular other program.
What came after "Discovery"? "Twilight Zone."
There's a reason why CBS didn't lead with "Strange Angel."
CBS All Access Was going to revive Star Trek. It's arguably one of the biggest, most popular legacy franchises they now control.
DSC had zip to do with the creation of All Access. That's patently absurd. CBS was the sole major network hold-out to Hulu when it was launched. CBS was eyeing their own streaming platform even back then. And it wasn't because they were going to make a friggin' Star Trek show.
Now you've entered into the realm of pure fantasy.
Which means nothing.
Tell that to the people who produced M*A*S*H, Stargate, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.
Which was why CBS's marketing campaign constantly referred to DSC as "Ten Years Before Kirk and Spock."
A meaningless statement. The opposite is just as true. See my examples above.
Yes, a known property that was at death's door but was majorly helped out by a successful series of 'reboot' films.
True, CBSAA didn't debut with DSC. But to think that having a new Trek show produced based on the success of the films was not in the minds of the bean counters at CBS is also entering into fantasyland.
Last edited:
Most successful films franchise in history
Star Wars and MCU have had some TV shows. Not been comaraboe successesto their big screen counterparts by any means. Potter and Bond haven’t even attempted TV.
Star Wars and MCU have had some TV shows. Not been comaraboe successesto their big screen counterparts by any means. Potter and Bond haven’t even attempted TV.
"Yo! My name's Comaraboe Successesto! What'sa matta you, eh?"
He could sit and spin after his treatment of ENT during its final year on UPN. His snide dismissal of Trek as unworthy of his network's time and investment was indicative of how ill-suited he was to call the shots for the franchise.
Exactly. The saddest part about that was, prior to cancellation, Coto had started showing signs of turning that ship around to make it a better show and, ergo, more profitable. Old Mooney wouldn't have anything to do with it at that point. Kind of wondering if Rick "We're all very pleased/THIS ISN'T THE MANNY COTO SHOW!!! 
" Berman was whispering in his ear on that front towards the end, wanting it all to end.
Additionally, his extracurricular activities that earned him a spot as a poster-child for the #MeToo movement next to the likes of Spacey and Weinstein didn't help his case much with anyone, either. SO glad he's out of the picture now.
" Berman was whispering in his ear on that front towards the end, wanting it all to end.Additionally, his extracurricular activities that earned him a spot as a poster-child for the #MeToo movement next to the likes of Spacey and Weinstein didn't help his case much with anyone, either. SO glad he's out of the picture now.
Last edited:
1) Star Trek is a valuable legacy property with a lot of name recognition and many people who consider themselves fans
2) Companies will almost always bet on an existing IP before trying something new
3) Many, many old properties have been revived in the era of "Peak TV", with the rise of countless new platforms. It's a virtual "gold rush" as companies are clamoring to put out more and more shows. Many "dead" franchises or shows or characters have been brought back, from "Full House" to "the Karate Kid", from "Fargo" to "One Day at a Time."
4) CBS was launching a new streaming service. They wanted to do so by showcasing attractive, splashy properties that would get people's attention.
5) The TV rights to Star Trek are now held by CBS. It's arguably one of the largest legacy assets they own.
The movies "helped". Sure, fine. The movies reached a broader audience than arguably any Trek property in decades, if not ever. It refreshed the brand in many people's eyes.
That doesn't invalidate or make irrelevant every other fact.
It's almost a certainty CBS would have made a Star Trek show, given everything else, even if the films never existed.
I appreciate your certainty, even if I don't agree with it. CBS certainly did not need to throw more money at the property they already owned, and could have continued making money through merchandising and streaming the established series.
I'm not saying I know for sure, but I'm not confident that this was a certainty. At least, not to the extent you are.
It's also quite likely that the Paramount/Viacom/CBS split played a role in the 12 year absence of Star Trek from TV. While CBS does and had retained the rights to the property, it's entirely possible that there were some rights issues that needed to be worked out post-split.
Another actor confirmed. This technically counts as a leak since it wasn't officially announced by CBS, but it was confirmed by the actor.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BzyrMXnpjBU/?igshid=18okcm07wfp4p
https://twitter.com/mckenziewestmor/status/1149479163444596736
Screencaps if they're deleted:
https://i.imgur.com/LRbHUc5.png
https://i.imgur.com/eG0ARwp.png
She's the daughter of Michael Westmore, makeup artist on TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
She also appeared in one episode of TNG, in Insurrection and in an episode of Voyager.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/McKenzie_Westmore
https://www.instagram.com/p/BzyrMXnpjBU/?igshid=18okcm07wfp4p
https://twitter.com/mckenziewestmor/status/1149479163444596736
Screencaps if they're deleted:
https://i.imgur.com/LRbHUc5.png
https://i.imgur.com/eG0ARwp.png
She's the daughter of Michael Westmore, makeup artist on TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
She also appeared in one episode of TNG, in Insurrection and in an episode of Voyager.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/McKenzie_Westmore
Last edited:
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Pi...8773188X/ref=pd_sbs_14_3/147-4766786-8803309?
Picard Official Collector's Edition spotted on Amazon.
If it's like the Discovery one, then it will be a collection of behind the scenes articles and pictures.
It has a November release date, if that is accurate, then the show might be aiming for a September or October release. The DSC Season 1 book also released in November.
Picard Official Collector's Edition spotted on Amazon.
If it's like the Discovery one, then it will be a collection of behind the scenes articles and pictures.
It has a November release date, if that is accurate, then the show might be aiming for a September or October release. The DSC Season 1 book also released in November.
According to the imdb she appears in episode 1.2 which is titled "Rhomsew". Maybe some Romulan word or name.
That’s “ Wesmohr” spelled backwards. Holy hell, the Romulans also cloned Wesley as well as Shinzon!
Similar threads
