I heard a rumour...

[Tom]

CBS isn't the problem. "Star Trek's" popularity is the problem.

Trek doesn't draw audiences of sufficient size or the desired demographic to make it viable on anything other than a niche channel like SCIFI right now.

But this always leads to the question of why Star Trek has to have HUGE numbers or nothing at all. The expectation level seems to be set to high. A new series could get good numbers but that does not seem to be good enough for CBS they need mega numbers or nothing at all. Right now CBS as led by Moonves has no interest whatsoever in a Star Trek show.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

What constitutes a "reasonable" number for TV viewers is a moving target. The entertainment biz continues to fragment in terms of Nielsens audience while other revenue sources - DVDs, paid downloads - continue to grow. This trend will continue to help niche genres like Star Trek-style space shows because it puts more emphasis on revenues derived from a dedicated fanbase and less on the general audience.

Based on the last TV season (which of course was bizarre), it looks like 10M is enough to be a decent sized hit on a "real" network. Series survive just fine on cable with 1M-2M. ENT debuted around 9M or so as I recall and that was on pathetic little UPN.

Right now, sci fi is the hot new thing, but it's more a real-world based sci fi and not space opera. And the business trends favoring niche shows still have a ways to grow. It will still take a leap of faith for any network to return Star Trek to TV, but all the trends are lining up for that to occur.

However, CBS is a poor prospect for that return. It really has nothing that it can pair up with Star Trek (a new show, even one with a big name, needs to have a compatible lead-in - and you need to be able to advertise to the audience on your other shows) and its attempts at fostering a "buzz generating" genre series have failed. It seems content to just feed off CSI and other procedurals as a steady but unexciting mainstay.

NBC or ABC would be better places for Star Trek. Especially NBC, since they have the most compatible shows and are the most desperate/least likely to pull the trigger on a low-rated show and give it some time to grow, especially if it gets critical buzz.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But this always leads to the question of why Star Trek has to have HUGE numbers or nothing at all.

In order to compete on a real network Trek's numbers have to be much higher because other shows get much higher numbers on broadcast.

It's that simple. There's nothing special about Trek or CBS's treatment of it - their expectations are based on the property's recent performance.

Right now, a Trek series on CBS would probably be slaughtered in four weeks by whatever was opposite it on the other networks.

 

[Aragorn]

I haven't understood why Paramount said they had no further interest in Star Trek after Enterprise's cancellation, yet when anyone else showed interest or the fans suggested someone else buying the franchise, Paramount don't want to do that either.

That's how studios are. For example, Columbia has no intention whatsoever to make Ghostbusters III, but they don't want another studio to make it either.

How many scripts have sat on the shelf collecting dust at one studio because they don't want anything to do with it, but the minute another studio shows interest it's suddenly "hands off my script," even though they still won't make it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I haven't understood why Paramount said they had no further interest in Star Trek after Enterprise's cancellation...

Where's the quote from someone who runs (or ran) Paramount saying that they had "no futher interest in 'Star Trek'?" I missed it.

 

[Tom]

But this always leads to the question of why Star Trek has to have HUGE numbers or nothing at all.

In order to compete on a real network Trek's numbers have to be much higher because other shows get much higher numbers on broadcast.

It's that simple. There's nothing special about Trek or CBS's treatment of it - their expectations are based on the property's recent performance.

Right now, a Trek series on CBS would probably be slaughtered in four weeks by whatever was opposite it on the other networks.

Well yes, thats expected if run on CBS itself, but CBS owns other channels (like the CW, that is co-owns) that have a lower expectations with the numbers. My point is whats wrong with putting in on one of these channel were 6 million views is acually good. Are they they just holding Star Trek as 'major network hit show' or bust type of thing. Of course the other underlineing reason is cost of production vs. revenue a non-major network can rake in for the show, but as other scifi shows have proven there are ways to to make it in expensive to produce.

 

[The_Emperor]

Putting it on the Sci-Fi Channel would be the worst thing that could happen to Star Trek, considering Sci-Fi's habit of axing shows. They cancelled Farscape the day right after production finished on one season, with the cast and crew thinking they were doing another season (as Sci-Fi was signed and committed to do one. Sadly, they weaseled out of it). They cancelled Stargate SG-1. They never picked up Crusade, despite how well the reruns did in the ratings, nor did they give Legend of the Rangers a chance. And Ron Moore is wrapping up Battlestar Galactica because if he doesn't Sci-Fi is gonna can it. Being on the Sci-Fi Channel is a guarantee of getting poor ratings to begin with, and Sci-Fi is all to willing to can a show if it's had a bad season ratings-wise, no matter how well it performed in the past, and no matter how amazing the show is. And frankly, getting cancelled by the Sci-Fi Channel would be the final ignominy. May as well bury Star Trek for good after that.

 

[Spockula]

I tend to be a cynic, but I have to say this . . . When I was in high school, in the early 90's, carrying around a copy of Fellowship of the Ring was not exactly the way to make yourself "cool." A few years later, and jocks were playing PS2 LotR games in frat houses. So you never know: Star Trek could easily become cool again.

There's also a huge nostalgia audience, who may go to see the new "Kirk/Spock" Trek, despite having been oversaturated by the 90's series/movies.

I predict a respectable box office, with above average DVD sales, and a sequel on a slightly more modest budget (similar to the TMP/TWOK scenario).

 

[tharpdevenport]

Signed up for three is just that -- "signed". The actors in "Serenity" were signed for three, as I recall, and Diesel was signed for three "Chronicles of Ridddick".

 

[pimp]

The Star Trek franchise is a product and if the product is not selling then it's not a viable business and why would a company pursue more films and tv series if no one watches them???

but i hope this rumour is not true.

 

[Brolan]

Come on! This rumor is too ridiculous to even be addressed. Paramount is always trying to wring the last dollar out of the Star Trek franchise.

If the new movie is successful expect a new TOS series to come quickly to the small screen. If not, then it may be a while; but they will not give up easily.

 

[RaymondJames]

I think for people, network executives to say Star Trek can't make a new series because Star Trek won't get a diverse and dominate fan support is a little too early to judge.

Years ago i would agree but not in todays world. Sci-fi in general is on the rise people flocking to shows like Lost, the new BSG. New shows comming in like T-sarah connor chronicles, Fringe, Eureka. Slowly but surely Sc-fi is gathering a fallowing and I don't see why not a majority of those fans wouldn't wander ove rinto Star Trek if given a good written star trek with a great cast. I think it can be done.