Not any more. The rights passed to Viacom, and are now split: motion picture rights with Paramount Pictures; TV rights with CBS. And CBS Consumer Products approve the licensed tie-ins for both Paramount and CBS.
Is star trek dead on tv
- Thread starter tangent9
- Start date
Not any more. The rights passed to Viacom, and are now split: motion picture rights with Paramount Pictures; TV rights with CBS. And CBS Consumer Products approve the licensed tie-ins for both Paramount and CBS.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Which I don't understand...why didn't they keep the "Star Trek office" as a single organizational unit the way it was under Paramount?
My impression was that the dissolution of the "office" was a sign by CBS et al that they no longer felt Trek viable enough a property to warrant dedicated staffing, but here we are just a couple of years later, talking about a new movie, maybe a cartoon, and so forth...
What changed?
My impression was that the dissolution of the "office" was a sign by CBS et al that they no longer felt Trek viable enough a property to warrant dedicated staffing, but here we are just a couple of years later, talking about a new movie, maybe a cartoon, and so forth...
What changed?
I still think this is just accepted thinking, just opinion. There have always been things that were thought unlikely to be done because the conventional thinking is it won't work, then someone comes along and does it and makes it work.
A well known example is Dances With Wolves. No major studio believed a western would fly in a contemporary market, and then Costner and his film bat it out of the park. Next thing westerns were okay again.
Granted the TV landscape has changed with the advent of specialty channels and the like as well as changing viewing habits and the tech to facilitate it. But a show like Stargate isn't that far off what a decent space adventure could offer with just a moderate increase in budget, and Stargate SG-1 ran for ten years.
If most of what we get is crap and it bombs it's short sighted to say, "Oh, this stuff doesn't work anymore." But the truth is people don't want crap. If a good project came along and found its audience then it could succeed. Like always it takes some vision, some ambition and courage and a fair measure of talent.
Last edited:
I don't know I really hope if we get a new ST series I hope it is new characters not Kirk and Spock.
It has become painfully obvious that the Trek vision of the future is basically the Sixties vision of the future. It's as retro as Captain Proton. If they revamp the technology (modern treatment of computers and AI, genetic engineering, etc.) it would be fresh but it would be science fiction instead of a nostalgia trip.
Besides, the Manny Coto Trek left a really bad taste in the mouth.
I doubt there will be a new TV series that lasts.
Besides, the Manny Coto Trek left a really bad taste in the mouth.
I doubt there will be a new TV series that lasts.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Stargate ran for 10 years ON CABLE (first Showtime, then Sci-Fi Channel). Exactly what I meant by "niche". The ratings it garnered would never have gotten it renewed for Season 2 on a major broadcast network.
Look, I'd LOVE to see a sci-fi renaissance on broadcast TV...hell, I was hoping TOSR would've been aired at "original running time length" on CBS in prime time.
The objective reality is that it didn't happen, it isn't happening, and there is NOTHING to suggest that it will any time soon. They aren't even making PILOTS for space-based sci fi, it's all "near future" or "contemporary" sci-fi lite/fantasy type stuff like Heroes.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
The question isn't "what you would happily watch?", it's "what are the NETWORKS willing to back?"
Your contention that the nets would readily back space-based sci-fi if only someone pitched the right idea simply isn't borne out by empirical fact. Even Sci-fi channel, the natural home of such, has been trying and trying to move AWAY from s-b shows because of the increased production costs vs relatively poor ratings.
Right now, the entire future of the Trek franchise rests on the sucess of JJ Abrams' Star Trek (2008). If the film is successful and Paramount is happy, then they will push forward with sequels. I believe the cast has confirmed that they're signed on for 3 films if the studio decides to make them. So Trek will stay on the big screen for a while.
If Trek returned to the small screen, it wouldn't be for many years, after JJ's feature films have been produced. And whatever television series they came up with, it would be based within this new Trekverse that's being created (meaning it would probably be set in the re-imagined 23rd century as depicted in the new film).
We will never see the 24th century again. The TNG/DS9/VOY time period is done. Read the books if you want your fix. There will be no NEM follow-up. And I don't think the franchise will make a leap further into the future (like the 25th century or beyond). Any new Trek series would need to follow in the path of the new film franchise.
Of course, if the new film is a disapointment, there won't be anything.
If Trek returned to the small screen, it wouldn't be for many years, after JJ's feature films have been produced. And whatever television series they came up with, it would be based within this new Trekverse that's being created (meaning it would probably be set in the re-imagined 23rd century as depicted in the new film).
We will never see the 24th century again. The TNG/DS9/VOY time period is done. Read the books if you want your fix. There will be no NEM follow-up. And I don't think the franchise will make a leap further into the future (like the 25th century or beyond). Any new Trek series would need to follow in the path of the new film franchise.
Of course, if the new film is a disapointment, there won't be anything.
I'm not sold. Far too often I've heard, "That's impossible. It just ain't gonna be done." And then next thing you know someone does it.
I agree with just about everything here. I don't believe the film franchise will have any effect on television and I don't think there is any appetite for a ST-type series being produced for a very long time.
Hollywood is known for beating a dead horse and wringing every last dime out of a concept. If the new films do well CBS and Paramount will be hot to capitalize on the small screen as well.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
So where are they, then W9? Where are all these wonderful space-based sci-fi shows you contend are just WAITING to be produced?
I'll tell you where they AREN'T...
They AREN'T on the air, they AREN'T in production, and they AREN'T being pitched or under developement.
That's because they DON'T EXIST. And they won't exist EVER on a big network unless something drastically changes, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Star Trek on TV will be determined by Star Wars, just like Star Trek movies was determined by Star Wars. If the live action Star Wars show does well you can bet CBS will want a Star Trek show to compete. Of course, since Star Wars won't be on the air until 2010, I wouldn't expect a Star Trek show until 2011 at the earliest.
I agree. Possibly the Star Wars Clone Wars animated series next season will bring about the rumored new Star Trek animated series.
Your view is it ain't never gonna happen again. And you may be right. But I'm saying "never say never" because times and circumstances can change and what once seems highly unlikely is almost overnight possible again.
Presently I think most PTB (the decision makers) in tv just don't have the imagination for a decent space adventure idea. Hell it isn't even on their radar because they're convinced it's too expensive for something they likely don't really understand anyway. But it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere down the line someone comes along and pushes his/her idea until it gets done. And if it works then everyone will be saying, "Duh, like why didn't anyone else do this before?"
That's the way mob mentality works and always has. Everyone convinces themselves something will never be done...until someone bucks the trend and does it. It may not be next year or in five years or whatever. But it could happen again. And most likely when everyone believes an idea has gone the way of the dodo and forgotten about it. Indeed absence may truly make the heart grow fonder as people gravitate towards something that hasn't been done in awhile, particularly if it's done well.
It's true in tv as well as film. Sitcoms were touted as a dead concept...until they started cropping up again. The recent writer's strike may have done serious harm to the networks in the short term until and if they come up with something to lure people back.
Sure there's money to consider, but the cold truth is you gotta spend money to make it. If you do nothing but make the cheapest stuff possible then most often you'll get crappy and totally disposable shit like so-called "reality" shows.
People are wandering from major networks because they aren't offering enough of what many audiences want. Even if the audiences likely doesn't really know want they want until they see it.
You could be right and what we'd like to see may never happen again. But never is a very long time and sufficient for circumstances to change. And then what once seemed impossible and highly unlikely could become within reach again.
I agree. I also think that instead of coming back as a weekly series, they should try a series of miniseries, maybe, two or three times a year at four parts each. Maybe set in the 80 year period between Kirk and Picard, or the 110 year period between Archer and Kirk. That way it wouldn't get stale so fast the way VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE did.
Yes, it's dead, and yes, there's still hope - however:
Took the words right out of my mouth. I believe this to be the most plausible scenario. The format of the current film, like TMP before it, is strongly geared towards a continuing film series. It's far too premature to talk about any TV spinoffs, and I'm dubious as to whether any will happen even if the film is a smash hit.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I believe this to be the most plausible scenario. The format of the current film, like TMP before it, is strongly geared towards a continuing film series. It's far too premature to talk about any TV spinoffs, and I'm dubious as to whether any will happen even if the film is a smash hit.
The "Star Trek Office" was Gene Roddenberry's domain at Paramount Pictures, part of his contract as "Creative Consultant" and "Executive Producer". Susan Sackett and Richard Arnold worked out of it, but were on Paramount's payroll - at one point Paramount balked at also paying Ernie Over, Gene's driver (because Gene was hardly coming into the office), so Gene had to start paying Ernie out of his own money. When GR died, Susan and Richard were locked out of the office!
Your timing is way out! The ST Office closed in 1991, the day after GR's death but Paula Block, of Viacom (and now CBS) Consumer Products, and her team, were vetting ST tie-in manuscripts for several years before the closing of the Office and continues to do so to this day. Closing the ST Office just meant that nobody represented GR directly. PB does, I guess, but she (and her team) no longer has to follow the 1989 memo which essentially banned certain elements from the tie-ins for several years.
Until Roddenberry's death, all tie-in proposals and final manuscripts were vetted and commented upon by both the ST Office and Viacom Consumer Products.
As far as Paula Block and CBS Consumer Products... nothing much. Except that no one forces her to stop authors from using TAS characters in the tie-ins, or sharing original characters, etc. And she can't get overruled by Richard Arnold.
The change you seem to be inferring by Viacom splitting into Paramount Pictures and CBS TV didn't affect the tie-ins one iota.
