Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television series

[RobertScorpio]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

I wouldn't mind a TV series but it would probably be best to not do so for a while. Keep it as a series of movies for a while and make them a big event. Hype the shit out of em and try and re-do what happened in the 80s

Yep...They didn't even bring back TREK TV until 1987, nine years after The Motion Picture. And the success of VOYAGE HOME was what inspired them to do it. I say do the same thing. Let at least three of these movies come out, then if there was a big success and the movies seem to have reached their peak, then you bring the TV show back...and as someone said earlier; ONLY ONE SERIES at a time.....

And I think the new series should be centered in the new reality the movies created..in fact, I can even see the title of this new show...

STAR TREK; DEEP SPACE K-7

Rob

 

[dudley]

Re: a possible re-emergence of the television series

Part of what got "Star Trek" in trouble over the last 15 years was the over satuartion of it's market. At one point they had two series on tv as well as new films being produced.

I don't think they want to over do it at this point. I hope they don't produce a tv series for a long time.

True, though it wasn't just that. The universally-enjoyable magic of TNG's television run was never recaptured, despite how enjoyable DS9 was. VOY and ENT demonstrated to us what happens when television episodes are produced (or churned, rather) by uninspired, unenthusiastic, and dispassionate folks. There was no fire in their bellies! No sparkle in their eyes. And their souls were wholly void.

If even they clearly don't love what they're doing, how could anyone else?

 

[Jbarney]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

[/QUOTE]

I hope you are totally wrong. Doing another series now would be wrong headed and foolish and would gut this emerging movie series. There is enough STAR TREK TV episodes to last a lifetime. Making more new episodes, which will no doubt reuse sets from the new movies, will only make the movies look like two-hour episodes of a series, and Joe Q public will not fork over big bucks for movie. Nemesis and Insurrection, two movies that were not even as good as mediocre episodes, left a dirty taste in the mouth of regular non-trek-geek movie going public. Why on earth they (paramount) would risk this is beyond me...

JJabrams is no dummy. I am quite sure there will be no STAR TREK TV series until, at least, after the second movie comes out, and even then, months later.

STAR TREK TV SERIES has been done to death. No reason to give CPR to that dead monkey.

PS..the pink slips given to BERMAN/BRAGA and the cast and crew of ENTERPRISE (4 years instead of 7) are all the proof I need that STAR TREK TV should be left in the past...we are in the big leagues now (BIG BUDGETED MOVIES) and that is where TREK should stay...IMO

Rob[/QUOTE]


I really don't see where you are disagreeing with what I wrote.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se


I hope you are totally wrong. Doing another series now would be wrong headed and foolish and would gut this emerging movie series. There is enough STAR TREK TV episodes to last a lifetime. Making more new episodes, which will no doubt reuse sets from the new movies, will only make the movies look like two-hour episodes of a series, and Joe Q public will not fork over big bucks for movie. Nemesis and Insurrection, two movies that were not even as good as mediocre episodes, left a dirty taste in the mouth of regular non-trek-geek movie going public. Why on earth they (paramount) would risk this is beyond me...

JJabrams is no dummy. I am quite sure there will be no STAR TREK TV series until, at least, after the second movie comes out, and even then, months later.

STAR TREK TV SERIES has been done to death. No reason to give CPR to that dead monkey.

PS..the pink slips given to BERMAN/BRAGA and the cast and crew of ENTERPRISE (4 years instead of 7) are all the proof I need that STAR TREK TV should be left in the past...we are in the big leagues now (BIG BUDGETED MOVIES) and that is where TREK should stay...IMO

Rob[/QUOTE]


I really don't see where you are disagreeing with what I wrote.[/QUOTE]

You're right..I just re-read your post. I stand corrected. No offense intended...

Rob

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

As much as I want more Trek NOW, I agree with Rob.

Lets not make the same mistakes. Lets let TV land rest for a while.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

For a while now, I've assumed that a successful movie would lead within a few years to a new TV series, definitely 23rd C based, definitely the "same old starship going boldly" routine, but probably not with all the movie characters (the actors aren't all going to agree to TV), maybe without any of them except for the inevitable guest star roles, definitely tied to the movie in content, tone and timeline.

No TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT-linked series; none of the perpetually popular fan ideas like Klingon-centric, Federation Civil War, etc. Corporate rivalries between CBS and Paramount will not inhibit them making nice in order to make a buck. If JJ Abrams comes up with some cool idea and wants it on TV, it will happen, because his credibility will be thru the roof with a big hit revitalization of the franchise.

"Spider-Man" didn't spawn a series, nor did "Lord of the Rings."

Unlike those two, Star Trek came from TV. Poor analogy. Star Trek has already proven it can survive on TV, it just needs to be managed properly.

 

[Tulin]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

Spider-Man without cash is a guy in a gimp suit; LOTR without cash is Xena, Warrior Princess. Star Trek without cash is VOY/ENT.

Actually no - VOY and ENT are ST done without creativity. They had quite a bit of money thrown at them - moreso than they deserved, given how they ended up and how the vast majority view them today.

 

[perigee]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

Spider-Man without cash is a guy in a gimp suit; LOTR without cash is Xena, Warrior Princess. Star Trek without cash is VOY/ENT.

Actually no - VOY and ENT are ST done without creativity. They had quite a bit of money thrown at them - moreso than they deserved, given how they ended up and how the vast majority view them today.

I wouldn't argue that - however - and not to speed the counter-arguments to this film - "Star Trek" has 150M worth of "Gee Whiz" factor loaded onboard. We already know that the story on this one is pretty meh, but we're up for the ride anyway.

Let me turn the argument upside down - This Star Trek, Minus the Cash, is ENT or VOY. If they had tried this on TV, it probably wouldn't be drawing this kind of universal whooptie-do. (AMEND - One thing this one has that neither of the other two had is probably not creativity, but passion. I've had math teachers more compelling than the command crew of those two series..)

Any deficits in storyline in this one will not be as easily forgiven come JJTrek 2. Trekkies are a tough crowd - and that's coming from a Philly sports fan.

 

[miraclefan]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

Part of what got "Star Trek" in trouble over the last 15 years was the over satuartion of it's market. At one point they had two series on tv as well as new films being produced.

I don't think they want to over do it at this point. I hope they don't produce a tv series for a long time.

I hope that if they do plan a new series, it's at least 3-5 years down the line. Trek died once because of over-saturation. It'd be a shame if it happened again since it'd be a lot harder to revive it next time.

Oh, and only one series at a time.

As much as I want more Trek NOW, I agree with Rob.

Lets not make the same mistakes. Lets let TV land rest for a while.

If this is true, Then why are there so many Law & Order, C.S.I. shows STILL on the air?

 

[NCC74894A]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

In the "Rebooting A Classic" thread several posters mentioned a remark by Ron Moore that Roddenberry/Berman-era Trek ultimately got too bogged down by the sheer amount of its own canon. I tend to agree, and that's the main reason why I don't think a new TV series in the Abrams universe would be such a good idea: having 26 additional hours of canon produced each year would bring the Abrams universe that much closer to its own "death by canon" scenario that much more quickly.

Let's just stick to one two-hour feature film every couple of years - i.e. about an hour's worth of canon per year. That way there's zero chance of canon burnout, as it would take over 600 years for the new Trek canon to grow to the same size the old one did in about 40.

 

[BenRoethig]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

I don't think the JJ-Verse is all that well suited to a TV-series and personally I wouldn't be surprised if the two sequels weren't a continuation of the events of this movie.

 

[I am not Spock]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

No new series for a while, I think. Trek needs to stay in the movies for the time being.

As long as the sequel to this new film is as good as XI (apparently) is, of course. Remember a few years ago when Casino Royale came out, and it silenced nearly all critics? And then they already blew it with the follow up Quantum of Solace (which met with very mixed responses from critics and the public). Bond- reboot has already jumped the shark. I hope this doesn't happen to Abrams Trek. (How many movies do you think Abrams will stick around for anyway, until he moves on?)

 

[Vykan12]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

Hmmm. Being a bit of a trek newb, I don't really comprehend why you guys think the tv series needs to ferment a little before a new one emerges. If fans were so dissapointed with Voy/Ent, then this movie alone already repairs some of that damage, but ultimately what's going to restore the fanbase is the quality of the shows, not how much time people are given to recover from bad treks. Moreover, I understand that Trek films tend to be fairly inconsistent in terms of their quality, so what would make you guys think we're going to be getting 2-3 amazing trek movies in a row, no less depending on that for a new tv series to emerge?

 

[npsf3000]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

Trek tv series is a must, because trek needs both movies and a series, it is neither one nor the other.

However all the main actors currently are signed on for 2 more movies... and are unlikely to want to work a main tv series(at least not all of them).

Let the trilogy be made, then later reboot the tv series.

 

[Vykan12]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

From what I know, most trek movies take characters from the T.V. show and put them in movies, not the reverse. Why would the actors of XI necessarily be the ones in this prospective new show?

 

[Tulin]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

Spider-Man without cash is a guy in a gimp suit; LOTR without cash is Xena, Warrior Princess. Star Trek without cash is VOY/ENT.

Actually no - VOY and ENT are ST done without creativity. They had quite a bit of money thrown at them - moreso than they deserved, given how they ended up and how the vast majority view them today.

I wouldn't argue that - however - and not to speed the counter-arguments to this film - "Star Trek" has 150M worth of "Gee Whiz" factor loaded onboard. We already know that the story on this one is pretty meh, but we're up for the ride anyway.

I have to agree with you there.

I read the synopsis and, beside my first thought being, "Not the time travel McGuffin AGAIN?!?", I thought it was basically pretty pedestrian.

It also made me laugh when I heard Eric Bana extolling the virtues of Nero(STILL don't like that name - why not call him Alexander, Rasputin or Adolf?)and saying how excited he was because this was a villain the likes of which ST fans had never seen before.

WTF?

We've probably seen about four of him JUST in the film series, let alone about four hundred episodes of tv Trek.

So, yeah - this film is now being driven a lot by the hype, which is exactly what Paramount wants, not because it is in anyway a revolutionary story.

 

[Tulin]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

Lets not make the same mistakes. Lets let TV land rest for a while.

If this is true, Then why are there so many Law & Order, C.S.I. shows STILL on the air?

Because the vast majority of the mundanes are quite dumb. Police/hospital/lawyer procedurals lull them to sleep at night and become "comfort viewing". They're safe, easy and formulaic.

The masses don't want challenging science fiction(not that even ST was very challenging, but they certainly don't want even THAT, as a group)after a hard day at the office/on the checkout/digging holes.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

From what I know, most trek movies take characters from the T.V. show and put them in movies, not the reverse. Why would the actors of XI necessarily be the ones in this prospective new show?

Why wouldn't they try to get them if they could for this hypothetical series?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

It would indeed be foolish to do a new Star Trek TV series now. It would knock the wind out of the new movies' sails. Targeting a younger audience with a cartoon series sounds like a better bet.

 

[Tulin]

Re: Does this movie imply a possible re-emergence of the television se

From what I know, most trek movies take characters from the T.V. show and put them in movies, not the reverse. Why would the actors of XI necessarily be the ones in this prospective new show?

Why wouldn't they try to get them if they could for this hypothetical series?

There is a "prestige heirarchy" for actors that means, usually they only do tv once their movie careers are waning. Filming for a movie may take as little as six weeks and the pay cheques can be astronomical. Compare that to a tv series which can shoot for more than half the year with not as much pay. The attitude that tv is "slumming it" is of course changing these days with high quality cable shows being produced but more often than not, an actor will want to do 2-3 films per year, regardless of their quality, over a tv show whose quality, more often than not will be subpar.

In regards to the nuTrek actors, if this film is big, they will be catapaulted further into "movie stardom", which will mean offers for bigger roles. People like Pine and Saldana(the pretty ones)will be offered rom coms and more prestigious projects. Their desire to commit to 22-26 episodes per year of the weekly grind of making a tv show will be almost zero! Urban is already a very steadily working actor and Pegg has his own projects on the go.

This is part of the reason Paramount wanted a new cast every few years - you can commit them for less money and start a brand new show, rather than give more money to the TNG cast, for instance, who will want higher pay cheques in lieu of moving onto movies and their own vanity projects.

As with all things in Hollywood, it all comes down to money.