Do you get totally FRUSTRATED with BSG, Stargate, etc. news too?!

[Temis the Vorta]

An animated show for kids wouldn't hurt anything, I guess. But it wouldn't appeal to me.

And it would be for kids.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I think any new Star Trek TV series on cable might have to be smaller in scale--not in production values--but with a smaller cast and a smaller number of episodes per season (perhaps 13).

I don't know that a smaller cast would save much money.

I wasn't so much talking about money as in story-wise focusing on a smaller group of regulars with supporting characters coming in only when necessary...sorta like how TOS did it before the concept of a "big seven" came into play.

Hiring a bunch of unknown actors would save you money vs. one brand name actor.

And a smaller bunch of unknown actors would save you even more.

Fewer episodes per season costs more money, not less - you can't amortize your fixed costs (sets, etc) over as many episodes so each episode is pricier.

Not necessarily. Fixed costs like standing sets can be considered start up costs that are separate from the budget allocated for later episodes. For example, Roddenberry originally didn't have an engine room scene in TNG's pilot and had to quickly write one in because he knew there wouldn't be money to build an engine room set afterward in the budget for subsequent episodes.

After an initial first episode, fewer episodes can mean less money. It probably could also mean, however, having fewer and possibly smaller sets than what we've been used to since TNG.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

An animated show for kids wouldn't hurt anything, I guess. But it wouldn't appeal to me.

And it would be for kids.

No, it would not completely be. Look at Justice League, Batman The Animated Series, Justice League Unlimited, Batman Beyond, The Zeta Project, Static Shock, Superman The Animated Series, Superman Doomsday, Batman: Gotham Knight, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Superman/Batman; Public Enemies, and Star Trek Aurora-these are all quite adult in their own way, as is Wolverine & The X-Men, Iron Man: Animated Adventures, Ben 10: Alien Force, X-Men: Evolution, plus let's not forget Star Wars: The Clone Wars. A Star Trek animated show can attract both kids and adults, as these above-mentioned shows do.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

^ They're marketed to kids. And I have zero interest in any of that stuff. I want a live action show, or forget about it.

The number of actors should be determined by the needs of the story. There are stories that need three main actors and stories that need 12.

But it's unrealistic to expect a bunch of unknown actors. TV producers are now heavily focused on shelling out money for name actors, because advertisers are leery of backing a series without a reasonably well-known star.

Fewer episodes per season costs more money, not less - you can't amortize your fixed costs (sets, etc) over as many episodes so each episode is pricier.

After an initial first episode, fewer episodes can mean less money.

Fewer episodes also mean you make less money. At best, the profit of 13 episodes is no worse than 22. It'll never be better. For Star Trek to get back on TV means reducing costs, but without scrimping on the name actors (who are a requirement for any series) and production values (a requirement for Trek).

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Star Trek: Aurora is not. You could try to look beyond the stigma of animation and watch that show at least; it's quite good.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The number of actors should be determined by the needs of the story. There are stories that need three main actors and stories that need 12.

Exactly my point. Over the years, Trek shows have sorta gone into a habit of having an almost mandatory seven to nine main actors. The same kind of stories could be told with a smaller group of main actors with reoccurring or guest characters being used when necessary.

But it's unrealistic to expect a bunch of unknown actors.

It worked for TOS and TNG. Neither one of those shows started off with household names. LeVar Burton was the most known actor on TNG, but he wasn't really what you call a household name.

TV producers are now heavily focused on shelling out money for name actors, because advertisers are leery of backing a series without a reasonably well-known star.

That's really an opinion more than a fact, because there are definitely shows out there in which that is not the case. Not every TV show out there starts off with a reasonably well-known star.

Fewer episodes per season costs more money, not less - you can't amortize your fixed costs (sets, etc) over as many episodes so each episode is pricier.

After an initial first episode, fewer episodes can mean less money.

Fewer episodes also mean you make less money. At best, the profit of 13 episodes is no worse than 22. It'll never be better.

I think it depends on how successful the show is and what its profits are in comparison to production costs. More than anything, I also think it depends on what the budget allocated to a series is.

For Star Trek to get back on TV means reducing costs, but without scrimping on the name actors (who are a requirement for any series) and production values (a requirement for Trek).

Well, once again the idea of always having to have name actors for a Trek show is more a matter of opinion (and more of a thing of the Rick Berman era, IMO), but I agree that corners can't be cut on production values, so they'll have to be cut from somewhere else.

 

[Navaros]

I don't get frustrated with the items listed in the thread title.

However, I do get frustrated with news about Abrams' Trek products. I really don't care about Abrams' Trek products, I find it very annoying and offensive that in order to keep up with any news on other Trek products, I have to constantly wade through fluff 'news' related to Abrams' Trek products. Adding insult to injury, most of the time Abrams-related fluff is all there is.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Star Trek: Aurora is not. You could try to look beyond the stigma of animation and watch that show at least; it's quite good.

I'd check it out except I did that with Cowboy Bebop, which was supposed to be some "great" series that actually turned out to be boring and dreadful. It's hard to be open-minded and follow up on recommendations like yours when I've been burned so many times and wasted a perfectly good rental doing so.

Well, once again the idea of always having to have name actors for a Trek show is more a matter of opinion

When it's the opinion of the advertisers, who will spurn a show for not having that name brand actor (and that's what they're doing nowadays moreso than ever before), then that's more than just an opinion - that's a requirement. Any series that defies that requirement will be canned before it ever gets on the air.

I think it depends on how successful the show is and what its profits are in comparison to production costs.

A show that delivers X return on investment for 13 episodes will deliver that same X return on investment for 22 episodes. For 22, the return might be higher. For 13, it cannot be higher. The only reason the return might be higher is because of efficiencies of scale. You have to do more to get efficiencies of scale. It doesn't work if you do less.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

I'd check it out except I did that with Cowboy Bebop, which was supposed to be some "great" series that actually turned out to be boring and dreadful. It's hard to be open-minded and follow up on recommendations like yours when I've been burned so many times and wasted a perfectly good rental doing so.

Notice I said Star Trek: Aurora, NOT Cowboy Bebop. I said Star Trek: Aurora because its animated Star Trek I'm talking about-I even left a link for you so that you could click on it and see an episode.

If you give animation a chance, you'll find that it is quite as good as live action, and at half the cost.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Well, once again the idea of always having to have name actors for a Trek show is more a matter of opinion

When it's the opinion of the advertisers, who will spurn a show for not having that name brand actor (and that's what they're doing nowadays moreso than ever before), then that's more than just an opinion - that's a requirement.

Except when it's not.

Any series that defies that requirement will be canned before it ever gets on the air.

It totally depends on the show itself. As I said before--in the part of my quote you omitted--not every show has a big name actor in it and it certainly wasn't the case for TOS nor TNG.

I think it depends on how successful the show is and what its profits are in comparison to production costs.

A show that delivers X return on investment for 13 episodes will deliver that same X return on investment for 22 episodes. For 22, the return might be higher. For 13, it cannot be higher. The only reason the return might be higher is because of efficiencies of scale. You have to do more to get efficiencies of scale. It doesn't work if you do less.

It depends on the budget per episode that is set for a series. If a budget is set for 13 episodes, the return could be higher or lower depending on how successful or unsuccessful it is.

 

[AviTrek]

Well, once again the idea of always having to have name actors for a Trek show is more a matter of opinion

When it's the opinion of the advertisers, who will spurn a show for not having that name brand actor (and that's what they're doing nowadays moreso than ever before), then that's more than just an opinion - that's a requirement.

Except when it's not.

It totally depends on the show itself. As I said before--in the part of my quote you omitted--not every show has a big name actor in it and it certainly wasn't the case for TOS nor TNG.

I think it depends on how successful the show is and what its profits are in comparison to production costs.

A show that delivers X return on investment for 13 episodes will deliver that same X return on investment for 22 episodes. For 22, the return might be higher. For 13, it cannot be higher. The only reason the return might be higher is because of efficiencies of scale. You have to do more to get efficiencies of scale. It doesn't work if you do less.

It depends on the budget per episode that is set for a series. If a budget is set for 13 episodes, the return could be higher or lower depending on how successful or unsuccessful it is.

What happened with TNG doesn't matter. What the landscape of TV is today is all that matters. People make the same mistake all the time talking about TNG and syndication. Just because the TV market in 1987 allowed a show to go into first run syndication without a name actor and make money is great. But that doesn't mean it can happen today.

There are two ways a 13 episode season can make more money than a 22 episode season, if the 13 episodes cost less per episode to make, or if ratings are higher and therefore ad sales and revenue are higher. Temis has explained multiple times why 13 episodes must have a higher cost per episode. So are you claiming 13 episodes will get higher ratings than 22 episodes?

 

[C.E. Evans]

When it's the opinion of the advertisers, who will spurn a show for not having that name brand actor (and that's what they're doing nowadays moreso than ever before), then that's more than just an opinion - that's a requirement.

Except when it's not.

It totally depends on the show itself. As I said before--in the part of my quote you omitted--not every show has a big name actor in it and it certainly wasn't the case for TOS nor TNG.

A show that delivers X return on investment for 13 episodes will deliver that same X return on investment for 22 episodes. For 22, the return might be higher. For 13, it cannot be higher. The only reason the return might be higher is because of efficiencies of scale. You have to do more to get efficiencies of scale. It doesn't work if you do less.

It depends on the budget per episode that is set for a series. If a budget is set for 13 episodes, the return could be higher or lower depending on how successful or unsuccessful it is.

What happened with TNG doesn't matter. What the landscape of TV is today is all that matters.

Um, some things haven't changed.

The studio will cast who they want in a show and they will set what kind of budget they want for a show. Not every show has a big star in it. That's as true today as it was back in 1987 or in 1966.

There are two ways a 13 episode season can make more money than a 22 episode season, if the 13 episodes cost less per episode to make, or if ratings are higher and therefore ad sales and revenue are higher.

That's what I've been suggesting all along.

Temis has explained multiple times why 13 episodes must have a higher cost per episode.

See previous statements by both you and me.

So are you claiming 13 episodes will get higher ratings than 22 episodes?

If you actually looked at my posts, you'll notice that I've claimed nothing of the sort. All I said in my first post was that the studio might decide to do a Trek series on a smaller scale, which might mean a smaller number of episodes like 13.

 

[I am not Spock]

I've watched the odd ep of BSG or SG1, but to me, it just feels like a placeholder, a time killer until someone finally decides to make more Star Trek. We used to whine about it on here, but god I miss the days when we had new Trek of some kind on a weekly basis.

 

[AviTrek]

Except when it's not.

It totally depends on the show itself. As I said before--in the part of my quote you omitted--not every show has a big name actor in it and it certainly wasn't the case for TOS nor TNG.
It depends on the budget per episode that is set for a series. If a budget is set for 13 episodes, the return could be higher or lower depending on how successful or unsuccessful it is.

What happened with TNG doesn't matter. What the landscape of TV is today is all that matters.

Um, some things haven't changed.

The studio will cast who they want in a show and they will set what kind of budget they want for a show. Not every show has a big star in it. That's as true today as it was back in 1987 or in 1966.

That's what I've been suggesting all along.

Temis has explained multiple times why 13 episodes must have a higher cost per episode.

See previous statements by both you and me.

So are you claiming 13 episodes will get higher ratings than 22 episodes?

If you actually looked at my posts, you'll notice that I've claimed nothing of the sort. All I said in my first post was that the studio might decide to do a Trek series on a smaller scale, which might mean a smaller number of episodes like 13.

And how will 13 episodes yield a lower cost per episode than 22 episodes? As Temis has explained the initial fixed costs for building sets get spread out over all episodes. Cutting the episode order increases the amount each episode has to cover of the fixed costs. So how do you propose producing 13 episodes for cheaper per episode?

 

[C.E. Evans]

What happened with TNG doesn't matter. What the landscape of TV is today is all that matters.

Um, some things haven't changed.

The studio will cast who they want in a show and they will set what kind of budget they want for a show. Not every show has a big star in it. That's as true today as it was back in 1987 or in 1966.

That's what I've been suggesting all along.
See previous statements by both you and me.

So are you claiming 13 episodes will get higher ratings than 22 episodes?

If you actually looked at my posts, you'll notice that I've claimed nothing of the sort. All I said in my first post was that the studio might decide to do a Trek series on a smaller scale, which might mean a smaller number of episodes like 13.

And how will 13 episodes yield a lower cost per episode than 22 episodes? As Temis has explained the initial fixed costs for building sets get spread out over all episodes. Cutting the episode order increases the amount each episode has to cover of the fixed costs. So how do you propose producing 13 episodes for cheaper per episode?

Smaller scale.

 

[AviTrek]

Um, some things haven't changed.

The studio will cast who they want in a show and they will set what kind of budget they want for a show. Not every show has a big star in it. That's as true today as it was back in 1987 or in 1966.

That's what I've been suggesting all along.
See previous statements by both you and me.
If you actually looked at my posts, you'll notice that I've claimed nothing of the sort. All I said in my first post was that the studio might decide to do a Trek series on a smaller scale, which might mean a smaller number of episodes like 13.

And how will 13 episodes yield a lower cost per episode than 22 episodes? As Temis has explained the initial fixed costs for building sets get spread out over all episodes. Cutting the episode order increases the amount each episode has to cover of the fixed costs. So how do you propose producing 13 episodes for cheaper per episode?

Smaller scale.

What is smaller scale?

 

[Spork111]

Yes, I have to admit to a certain amount of frustration, but at the same time Trek has been the big kid on the block for so long, it seems kind of unfair to complain about other sci-fi shows' success now that Trek no longer has the corner on the market. I wish 'em the best, but that doesn't mean I'll watch them - I'll wait for my Trek.

Besides, we had 18 years of uninterrupted new Trek from 1987 to 2005, which altogether amounted to a whopping 25 seasons (because of DS9 running concurrently with TNG and VOY). I'm still in the process of collecting all the dvds for cryin' out loud!

 

[T'Cal]

I would watch an animated Trek series as would my teens. I applaud how the makers of the Batman/Superman/JLA series wrote and drew intelligent, mature, dark stories that appealled to adults, teens, and kids and then marketed toys to the kids. It makes good business sense and it doesn't cheapen the series at all.

But I would really love it if TV Trek was put in the capable hands of Ronald D. Moore. I resisted watching BSG for a few years until my college-aged son convinced me to try it. My wife and I watched it from beginning to end on DVD in a couple of months and we were blown away. Incredible writing, acting, directing, etc. He and his fellow writers know how to create deep characters with rich, intricate relationships. They know how to surprise the audience successfully with twists and turns, conspiracies, and revealed secrets. I will watch anything he does now.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And how will 13 episodes yield a lower cost per episode than 22 episodes? As Temis has explained the initial fixed costs for building sets get spread out over all episodes. Cutting the episode order increases the amount each episode has to cover of the fixed costs. So how do you propose producing 13 episodes for cheaper per episode?

Smaller scale.

What is smaller scale?

You people keep missing the point! Time to get this discussion a bit more focused.

The dilemma for space opera is that it is inherently costly, so it needs a big audience to support it. But it's in a niche genre, so the audience will be small. How do you resolve that dilemma? Doing 13 episodes per year vs 22 will not resolve it because it won't drive costs down, so there's no point to doing it.

As for shows needing to have a big-name lead or else advertisers won't support it (and that'll kill a show before it ever gets on the air), that's from a Hollywood Reporter article I read not too long ago. If I could find the link again, I'd link to it.

But just bopping thru a list of pilots, it's easy to pick out the "named" actors for each -

187 Detroit - Michael Imperioli
The Adam Carolla Show - obvious
Body of Proof - Dana Delany, Jeri Ryan
Boston's Finest - Katee Sackhoff
Chaos - Freddy Rodriguez
Defenders - Jerry O'Connell
The Event - Blair Underwood and maybe Jason Ritter, considering who his dad was
Hawaii Five-O - Alex O'Loughlin, Daniel Dae Kim
Hellcats - Ashley Tisdale
etc etc