It's not that TV shows get boring if they're made similar to movies, it's that TV shows can't afford to be made similar to movies. The JJ movie had a budget of $150 million while an episode on TV cost somewhere between $1m and $3m depending on what site you look at. Even if you remove the advertising costs from the budget, the movie still costs at least 10 times as much as a TV show per minute of aired content.
Idea for New Series
- Thread starter Bonko
- Start date
It's not that TV shows get boring if they're made similar to movies, it's that TV shows can't afford to be made similar to movies. The JJ movie had a budget of $150 million while an episode on TV cost somewhere between $1m and $3m depending on what site you look at. Even if you remove the advertising costs from the budget, the movie still costs at least 10 times as much as a TV show per minute of aired content.
Ok my pitch.
-A Trek TV show, not based in anyway on the JJ Abrams movies.
-Set in the TNG-DS9 timeline but in like a alternate universe with completley different characters. The look is very similar to TNG/DS9 but modernized.
-The ship can be called Enterprise and it can reference the well known species (Borg, Romulans) and tech but absolutley no referencing specific characters, so no "We got a hail from Admiral Janeway", references to Spock, cameos, etc. The show has to stand on its own two legs.
-Ideally it should be syndicated on free over-the-air tv, but because of the current tv landscape it would inevitably be on SyFy or something.
-I want the show to be like TNG in personality. Standalone episodes, can be both lighthearted and serious. Go back to the fundamental soul of Star Trek which is exploration of space and humanity.
-A Trek TV show, not based in anyway on the JJ Abrams movies.
-Set in the TNG-DS9 timeline but in like a alternate universe with completley different characters. The look is very similar to TNG/DS9 but modernized.
-The ship can be called Enterprise and it can reference the well known species (Borg, Romulans) and tech but absolutley no referencing specific characters, so no "We got a hail from Admiral Janeway", references to Spock, cameos, etc. The show has to stand on its own two legs.
-Ideally it should be syndicated on free over-the-air tv, but because of the current tv landscape it would inevitably be on SyFy or something.
-I want the show to be like TNG in personality. Standalone episodes, can be both lighthearted and serious. Go back to the fundamental soul of Star Trek which is exploration of space and humanity.
^
More of the same then?
More of the same then?
Sounds like an epic failure.
The bottom line is money. What will make me the most money?
Star Trek is the most profitable it has ever been. So my studio is going to produce a TV show based around Star Trek. Do I base that on the old model of Trek that ultimately failed due to a number of reasons or do I capitalize on the lucrative new universe that is raking in the cash?
At the end of the day that is who will greenlight the TV show and money is all they care about.
Either way I will be happy as any new Trek is better than no Trek for me. I love it all. It's nice to speculate but money is the bottom line and they don't see money in the "prime" timeline (which can't be restored BTW, since it hasn't been destroyed, it's still there the movie cameras just aren't filming their exploits anymore).
And I definitely think a fresh start was a HUGE selling point for people (namely, non Trek friendly people). They know "Kirk", "Spock", "Beam me up Scotty", and "KHAAAAAAAAAN" and they know the people who play those roles even if they aren't fans. They see the trailer for the new Trek movie and it screams "FRESH START". People hear the names but what they see arent the things they use to make fun of their Trekkie friends with.
I've lost count of people who got sucked into Trek through the JJ film because until that movie came out they wouldn't even give it a chance.
Star Trek is the most profitable it has ever been. So my studio is going to produce a TV show based around Star Trek. Do I base that on the old model of Trek that ultimately failed due to a number of reasons or do I capitalize on the lucrative new universe that is raking in the cash?
At the end of the day that is who will greenlight the TV show and money is all they care about.
Either way I will be happy as any new Trek is better than no Trek for me. I love it all. It's nice to speculate but money is the bottom line and they don't see money in the "prime" timeline (which can't be restored BTW, since it hasn't been destroyed, it's still there the movie cameras just aren't filming their exploits anymore).
And I definitely think a fresh start was a HUGE selling point for people (namely, non Trek friendly people). They know "Kirk", "Spock", "Beam me up Scotty", and "KHAAAAAAAAAN" and they know the people who play those roles even if they aren't fans. They see the trailer for the new Trek movie and it screams "FRESH START". People hear the names but what they see arent the things they use to make fun of their Trekkie friends with.
I've lost count of people who got sucked into Trek through the JJ film because until that movie came out they wouldn't even give it a chance.
The old way of the Berman era is dead. However, the Prime universe isn't dead necessarily, if the shows are formatted differently. For one thing, the alternate reality still gives hints and glimpses into the pre-Nero incursion-Prime universe thus keeping it alive.
Trek series, however, will no longer be seven seasons long and will no longer be able to wait until the third or fourth season to start putting out good episodes consistently. Times have changed. A first season doesn't have to be perfect, but if there are more than two or three clunkers then the series is likely to be cancelled.
Along with this, the lessons from Caprica have to be heeded. Caprica was a decent show with a lot of potential, but was so slow and boring developing that it was cancelled. A new Trek series cannot take its own good time developing.
Also, execution is key. You can have great concepts and ideas, but if you don't execute them properly, they'll make the series suck. The end of the Berman era is a prime example. Despite what the Berman and Braga bashers may say, concepts like the Temporal Cold War, using a holodeck to crossover with the crew of the Enterprise NX-01, and the Nexus could have worked brilliantly.
Another lesson from the Berman era is not to be too self-referencial. Homages and even rehashes are okay if done right and kept to a minimum. Canon and continuity are ultimately two-edged swords. They can provide great depth and great narrative posibilities, but at the same time can tie your hands. However, if you can handle walking that tight rope, great things will happen.
My concept for a new series is science fiction drama centered around the early Warp 5 program with Henry Archer and Zephram Cochrane as major characters, though not necessarily main characters, in the series. A young Jonathan Archer would also have a recurring role. However, the series would not be completely Earth-bound. Some of the characters would travel into space at times for various program-related reasons. Also, the United Earth Space Probe Agency and the Vulcans would be prominent.
Now, I realise my idea definitely needs to be refined and is risky. However, I believe with proper development the series could be very sucessful.
I also would love a 25th century series and an alternate reality series would be cool.
Trek series, however, will no longer be seven seasons long and will no longer be able to wait until the third or fourth season to start putting out good episodes consistently. Times have changed. A first season doesn't have to be perfect, but if there are more than two or three clunkers then the series is likely to be cancelled.
Along with this, the lessons from Caprica have to be heeded. Caprica was a decent show with a lot of potential, but was so slow and boring developing that it was cancelled. A new Trek series cannot take its own good time developing.
Also, execution is key. You can have great concepts and ideas, but if you don't execute them properly, they'll make the series suck. The end of the Berman era is a prime example. Despite what the Berman and Braga bashers may say, concepts like the Temporal Cold War, using a holodeck to crossover with the crew of the Enterprise NX-01, and the Nexus could have worked brilliantly.
Another lesson from the Berman era is not to be too self-referencial. Homages and even rehashes are okay if done right and kept to a minimum. Canon and continuity are ultimately two-edged swords. They can provide great depth and great narrative posibilities, but at the same time can tie your hands. However, if you can handle walking that tight rope, great things will happen.
My concept for a new series is science fiction drama centered around the early Warp 5 program with Henry Archer and Zephram Cochrane as major characters, though not necessarily main characters, in the series. A young Jonathan Archer would also have a recurring role. However, the series would not be completely Earth-bound. Some of the characters would travel into space at times for various program-related reasons. Also, the United Earth Space Probe Agency and the Vulcans would be prominent.
Now, I realise my idea definitely needs to be refined and is risky. However, I believe with proper development the series could be very sucessful.
I also would love a 25th century series and an alternate reality series would be cool.
I don't want to nitpick, because your post is genuinely interesting, but in what way would a 25th century series be different from a 24th or a 23rd century series? Every time someone says anything about the 25th century in Star Trek, all they want is more of the same with a fresh coat of technobabble.
The key would be to do something new, to change things up like DS9 did, perhaps a series based around two starships or a small fleet exploring some unexplored area of space or maybe something like the Vanguard series. Also, treknobabble solutions would have to be kept to a bare minimum.
A return to the spirit of the The Original Series would be important as well. This is not to put down any of the other series however. Still, a revamped return to basics is a critical part of making such a concept work.
Also, the main ship shouldn't be called Enterprise. However, it would be wise to have the Enterprise F or Enterprise G appear and perhaps have some recurring role.
I would also make the series less episodic than TOS, TNG, and Voyager. I'm not sure if season long arcs would necessarily be the way to go, but certainly multi-episode arcs would be a good idea with a few stand alones for extra flavoring and so new audience members wouldn't get too confused coming in or should they miss an episode.
Last but not least, the series has to be character focused. Within the first five or so episodes, the audience has to be enthralled by the characters. To help do this, it would probably be wise to have only four or five main characters, but lots of recurring roles.
Something else, it would be a good idea in-universe to modify the ban on genetic engineering to allow genetic defects to be corrected and limited augmentation when medically necessary. (Though the ban may not be as strict as implied in DS9 and Enterprise as evidenced by a few episodes of TNG and that Doctor Bashir wasn't forced out of Starfleet in addition to his dad being sent to prison.)
Last edited:
So VOY if RDM had been in charge...
Not necessarily. The idea is simply to do something different, something that won't be the Next Next Generation or a rehash of DS9 or Voyager. If that means to do a more futuristic take on RDM's ideas, so be it. However, while I was aware of his ideas, my intention wasn't to rehash them. Honestly, I had forgotten about them until I read your post.
I think a 25th-Century series could be as different from TNG as it was to TOS. I think every Trek show not only is a reflection of the time it's made in, but also of the mindset of the person creatively driving it. And with Rick Berman no longer in charge, I really can't see a return back to the tone and kind of storytelling of his time unless there was a deliberate effort to do so by the new creator and producers of a future series.
I agree. Though, I'm not sure that a series with a single ship exploring new areas of this galaxy or some other galaxy would be successful in today's network tv or cable market even with a change in tone. To be truly successful, in my mind, would likely require more of a change. Then again, perhaps Trek has been off tv long enough that a series based around a single ship that's well-made and has a different tone than TNG era shows could be a success.
I think you can do a lot with the single ship premise, but I believe the key to it is to have a variety of different stories. Both the original Enterprise and the Enterprise-D weren't always out exploring--they sometimes were back in Federation space dealing with things there, enabling them to avoid the "alien of the week" syndrome and mix things up, even show other Starfleet ships, facilities, and personnel on occasion.
Exploration is fine as a premise, but it's really just an excuse for our heroes to be out there so they can have lots of different (non-exploration) adventures as well.
I also think you also have to have a strong set of characters that audiences can relate to (or root for/hate to love), as well as be able to drive a number of stories as well.
Exploration is fine as a premise, but it's really just an excuse for our heroes to be out there so they can have lots of different (non-exploration) adventures as well.
I also think you also have to have a strong set of characters that audiences can relate to (or root for/hate to love), as well as be able to drive a number of stories as well.
You make good points. However, with a single ship, it's harder to differentiate the new series from the other series, in particular those from the Berman era. It's certainly not impossible, but any new live action Trek series is going to have a very small margin for error and a single ship based series will have an even smaller margin simply because it will be easier to slip into making the mistakes of the past. That's not to say some rehashing would be bad, but the key is making sure the rehash is better than the original otherwise the episode will be viewed at best as being mediocre and its writing will be criticized as lazy.
Last edited:
I don't think there's a problem with the single ship premise, but rather the safe single ship premise. A new series may need to break the TNG mold of having the same six or seven characters from beginning to end. It should be set up so that main characters come and go periodically--including the captain--introducing new dynamics as well as new storylines along the way like most dramatic shows do.
That could work. The only downside is that character development and relationships may be rushed or hindered, but if done right, they don't have to be.
What do you think about changing the number of main characters in addition to having them come and go?
Definitely. There can be two or three running characters--characters there for the entire run of the series--but others shouldn't be locked down in stone. That way, the producers can find out which characters work, which ones don't, and which ones simply run their course after awhile, IMO.
Similar threads
