And that's the question and I don't believe that they will. Which will show less demand and decrease the apparent interest in the project.
How Did the TNG Remaster "Not Turn a Profit?"
- Thread starter Cryogenator
- Start date
Didn't the Voyager documentary thing (that doesn't seem to be happening?) raise more than any other crowd funded documentary?
Also - here's a quote from John Van Citters, the VP of Franchise Planning and Star Trek Brand Development at ViacomCBS, commented on the HD situation for DS9 and “Voyager,” saying: “I believe it will happen at some point.” He said this in November last year. He's the Vice President, so if he wants it.....
Many many years ago, RMB said that each episode cost $70,000 to remaster (so the Voyager documentary raised enough money to remaster half a season - probably a whole season as scanning tech is much improved). Why oh why don't they just remaster the TV movies of the week that get such good ratings on Netflix! I'd be totally fine with it if they never remastered all of Voyager - just the spectacular two parters.
Last edited:
He needs to allocate or request the funds.
It comes down to money and is there a big enough audience willing to actually buy it, and not just talk about it.
Maybe? I don't know what it's at now. But in the time frame CBS was evaluating at the time, it apparently didn't sell enough to meet their profitability goals. In particular, bear in mind that the sales of the remastered BluRays didn't just have to cover the cost of the remastering -- they also had to cover all the same costs that any home video release would have had to cover (distribution, production, etc. -- do actors get paid residuals based on home video sales?).
ETA: And even if it did eventually make money, that doesn't mean it made enough money for Paramount Global to think it's worth it to shell out the same amount of money for less-popular shows that are also more than a quarter-century old at this point. It may well be that in Paramount's calculation, spending A to remaster DS9 and VOY will produce B amount of profit, while spending C (where C equals A + D) will produce new shows will produce E amount of profit (where E equals B + D). End Edit.
Love it when Guys On The Internet refer to an extremely complex process as "just re-do the thing!"
For the TNG Remaster, the team there had to essentially re-do all of postproduction for every episode, virtually from scratch. In essence, they had to do one-third of the process of making a TV show in the first place, all over again, 179 times. Basically, TNG went back into production.
That's an extremely complicated process that would cost a lot of money, not just in terms of raw visual effects costs but in terms of labor -- even just finding the original elements (old film negatives) would be difficult and costly, as it was for TNG ten years ago. And it's not like labor costs are going down.
I do agree that Paramount Global needs to accept that while Star Trek appears to possess exceptional enduring appeal, it is also only ever going to be a mid-list or upper-mid-list property. Star Trek has lasted and probably will continue to last longer than a lot of other franchise trends, but it is also never going to be on the level of Star Wars or the Marvel Cinematic Universe at its height. Star Trek is a long-distance runner, not a sprinter.
Last edited:
I'm certainly aware that it's a complex and expensive process, but they could remaster all of Deep Space Nine and Voyager for the cost of one new season of Discovery or Strange New Worlds: fourteen seasons in high definition for the price of one—or, really, thirty-five for the price of one, since modern seasons are about two-and-a-half times shorter: 348 episodes for the cost of ten.
Also, the last five seasons of Deep Space Nine were shot with widescreen protection, and all of Voyager may have also been, so they could be presented in 16:9 without cropping.
The equivalent of 35 modern seasons never before seen in HD (with maybe all but two in 16:9) for the price of one new season could bring many old fans back to the shows and bring in many new fans who won't watch in low-tier SD. That would add a lot of content to Paramount+ and they could also charge more to license it to other platforms.
Not remastering the shows just doesn't make long-term business sense—and according to Mark Altman on Inglorious Treksperts last October, Paramount understand this and have finally begun to move toward making it happen.
Also, the last five seasons of Deep Space Nine were shot with widescreen protection, and all of Voyager may have also been, so they could be presented in 16:9 without cropping.
The equivalent of 35 modern seasons never before seen in HD (with maybe all but two in 16:9) for the price of one new season could bring many old fans back to the shows and bring in many new fans who won't watch in low-tier SD. That would add a lot of content to Paramount+ and they could also charge more to license it to other platforms.
Not remastering the shows just doesn't make long-term business sense—and according to Mark Altman on Inglorious Treksperts last October, Paramount understand this and have finally begun to move toward making it happen.
Last edited:
Time will tell if people will actually buy it.
My money is on not.
My money is on not.
Blu-ray sales are largely irrelevant at this point. The real value is in having more HD content to stream on Paramount+ and sell to other platforms for decades to come.
Which is banking on future income with zero guarantees.
To the contrary, it's guaranteed income. Streamers want more HD content, which is why so many old series which were edited on film and don't use much or any CGI have been rescanned: Dallas; Dynasty; Baywatch; The Virginian, Gunsmoke; Miami Vice; Magnum, P.I.; Quantum Leap... with a focus on streaming distribution, with Blu-rays often coming much later (Babylon 5 took years to come to Blu-ray after the HD streaming release), only in Germany (The Virginian), or not at all (Gunsmoke, Dallas, Dynasty).
There's a lot more hesitation to remaster series that require reassembly and new CGI rather than just rescanning, but that's due to short-term thinking. The Next Generation remaster has undoubtedly turned a profit by now (and continues to sell even on Blu-ray, so, yes, fans will buy it and have bought it) and the inevitable (even if still years or decades away) Deep Space Nine and Voyager remasters will inevitably turn a profit, too, sooner or later.
I trust you have informed Paramount then.
And, no, I don't see it as a guarantee since TNG was vastly more popular than DS9 or VOY or that fans will actually spend money since they say a lot but don't actually do it.
So certain are you?
~Yoda
Yes, as have many other fans through these discussions for the past decade.
Licensing deals and value added to their own streaming service means profit is absolutely guaranteed over the long term. The first episode of DS9 doesn't enter the public domain until January 1, 2089 and the last episode of Voyager not until January 1, 2097. Remasters will certainly be profitable long before then through streaming alone.
If you say so.
I certainly hope that Paramount Global decides that remastering DS9 and VOY will be worth the cost. But I do think we should bear in mind that if the cost of remastering all of DS9 or all of VOY equals the cost of one new season of a modern ST show, then ultimately that means the question becomes: Which choice will attract more subscribers to Paramount+, a season of new television or remasters of old shows?
I'm not sure I believe that number is accurate, but supposing it is, the question still remains whether remastered old shows or a new season of TV will attract more subscribers.
This has come up a few times on the Inglorious Treksperts and YouTube... if I remember correctly it's the cost of 3-4 NuTrek episodes for each series.
The Next Generation remaster cost around $20 million, whereas Discovery cost around $8 million per episode. Assuming Deep Space Nine and Voyager would cost twice as much as The Next Generation due to using more CGI, that's $80 million to remaster 348 episodes, equal to the cost of a ten-episode season of a new show. In the long run, it certainly makes sense to do. Also, as render costs continue to drop and scanning technology continues to improve, remasters become increasingly likely.
Exactly!
$20 million in 2012 dollars is equal to about $26.72 million today. Multiply that by 2 for two series -- $53.44 million. Then multiply that by two to account for increased use of CGI and for increases in labor costs since then -- suddenly we're at $106.88 million.
And we still haven't seen any evidence such a remastering project would bring in more P+ subscribers.
So, the equivalent of 35 ten-episode seasons for slightly more than one new season, then; still an excellent deal. Also, I just assumed it would cost twice as much to be safe, but CGI is cheaper now, so it probably wouldn't cost twice as much. As Cal said above, Inglorious Treksperts estimate it would cost the equivalent of three or four new episodes per show.
We have. As I mentioned above, HD remasters of old shows for streaming only has become common in the past few years. Most of these use little to no CGI and don't require reassembly, but that proves there's an interest in streaming-exclusive remasters of old shows. HD content, even if archival, receives more attention and makes more money. Remastering the last two Star Trek shows would be significantly more expensive but would certainly be worthwhile in the long run, especially since they could stream them and charge more to license them to other platforms for the next seven decades before they enter the public domain. According to Inglorious Treksperts, Paramount's finally moving toward this.
This is my larger question. Other than niche places, like here, is there the demand. Not imagined demand, not imagined future earnings, but actual consumer interest that will make money?
Because Paramount is going to need more than hollow promises of possible money to invest substantially in to these projects.
Similar threads
