Is Star Trek "done"

[BillJ]

It's true, the "Kirk & Spock" duo is an extremely strong one. But for there to be yet another incarnation, there would have to be a decent stretch of time, say another 5-10 years before seeing another movie variation.

Well, it only took five years after Spider-Man 3 for us to get a reboot. I also can't imagine Warner allowing the Batman franchise to lay dormant for long after the success of the Nolan-verse.

If Star Trek continues to be successful, it won't be long before another reboot is in the pipeline after Abrams wraps up.

 

[BillJ]

What does that have to do with a Star Trek series with, say, Bryan Fuller as a showrunner?

That it will costs four to five million dollars an episode to produce (close to one-hundred million for a full season) and recouping that expense will take CBS a much longer time.

Why do a series when you're collecting a hefty fee from Paramount and you have a back catalog of seven hundred episodes you can sell over and over again? More episodes simply dilutes the value of those already in your catalog.

I just don't see CBS as having any reason to take any risks as far as Trek is concerned for the foreseeable future. Other than making current episodes compatible for an HD viewing experience.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's true, the "Kirk & Spock" duo is an extremely strong one. But for there to be yet another incarnation, there would have to be a decent stretch of time, say another 5-10 years before seeing another movie variation.

Well, it only took five years after Spider-Man 3 for us to get a reboot. I also can't imagine Warner allowing the Batman franchise to lay dormant for long after the success of the Nolan-verse.

If Star Trek continues to be successful, it won't be long before another reboot is in the pipeline after Abrams wraps up.

I very much agree.

What does that have to do with a Star Trek series with, say, Bryan Fuller as a showrunner?

That it will costs four to five million dollars an episode to produce (close to one-hundred million for a full season) and recouping that expense will take CBS a much longer time.

Why do a series when you're collecting a hefty fee from Paramount and you have a back catalog of seven hundred episodes you can sell over and over again? More episodes simply dilutes the value of those already in your catalog.

I just don't see CBS as having any reason to take any risks as far as Trek is concerned for the foreseeable future. Other than making current episodes compatible for an HD viewing experience.

This too. Very much this.

I think it will actually take Trek going back into the toilet again--and a lack of interest from Paramount to make any more movies--for CBS to do something about it. And even then, CBS might be content to do nothing and just let Trek join the rest of the many once popular properties it owns but doesn't invest in anymore like I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffiths Show, and Gunsmoke (just to name a few).

 

[BillJ]

It's true, the "Kirk & Spock" duo is an extremely strong one. But for there to be yet another incarnation, there would have to be a decent stretch of time, say another 5-10 years before seeing another movie variation.

Well, it only took five years after Spider-Man 3 for us to get a reboot. I also can't imagine Warner allowing the Batman franchise to lay dormant for long after the success of the Nolan-verse.

If Star Trek continues to be successful, it won't be long before another reboot is in the pipeline after Abrams wraps up.

I very much agree.

What does that have to do with a Star Trek series with, say, Bryan Fuller as a showrunner?

That it will costs four to five million dollars an episode to produce (close to one-hundred million for a full season) and recouping that expense will take CBS a much longer time.

Why do a series when you're collecting a hefty fee from Paramount and you have a back catalog of seven hundred episodes you can sell over and over again? More episodes simply dilutes the value of those already in your catalog.

I just don't see CBS as having any reason to take any risks as far as Trek is concerned for the foreseeable future. Other than making current episodes compatible for an HD viewing experience.

This too. Very much this.

I think it will actually take Trek going back into the toilet again--and a lack of interest from Paramount to make any more movies--for CBS to do something about it. And even then, CBS might be content to do nothing and just let Trek join the rest of the many once popular properties it owns but doesn't invest in anymore like I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffiths Show, and Gunsmoke (just to name a few).

I think that Trek being in the toilet is exactly when you'll see direct-to-video outings as CBS tries to wring every last dollar out of a dying property.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think it will actually take Trek going back into the toilet again--and a lack of interest from Paramount to make any more movies--for CBS to do something about it. And even then, CBS might be content to do nothing and just let Trek join the rest of the many once popular properties it owns but doesn't invest in anymore like I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffiths Show, and Gunsmoke (just to name a few).

I think that Trek being in the toilet is exactly when you'll see direct-to-video outings as CBS tries to wring every last dollar out of a dying property.

Yeah, DTV movies would be the last gasp for Trek and a sign that the end was near.

 

[T'Girl]

Yep - TMP stole (and messed up) a version of the SW hyperspace effect ...

The only thing that TMP had that was remotely like the SW hyperspace effect was the wormhole effect (and the two weren't that similar), and Star Trek only used that effect once.

 

[Andymator]

Yep - TMP stole (and messed up) a version of the SW hyperspace effect ...

The only thing that TMP had that was remotely like the SW hyperspace effect was the wormhole effect (and the two weren't that similar), and Star Trek only used that effect once.

I'm fairly certain he was referring to this... (0:00 to 0:06)

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-1kkB_qF28&feature=player_detailpage[/YT]

 

[CDR6]

I am not referring to the Abrahm-averse. Which no doubt will live on for a while.

I mean with regards to the "Roddenberry-Verse" I.E the mainstream continuity.

The Final episode of Voyager, which in many ways was the end of an era was almost exactly 12 years ago, which just seems crazy.

The finale of Enterprise was 7 years ago.

I do realise that there were issues with Voyager and Enterprise, and ratings problems which lead to cancellation, life support and eventual "reboot" on the big screen, but for a show with such a history, fanbase and legacy, surely it's too valuable to call time?

Me personally, I would be looking to resurrect the show for TV in 3 years time, the Tenth anniversary of Star Trek's TV "death"

With 10 years gone, surely that is enough of a hibernation, TV effects have come on leaps and bounds, and the Trek fanbase is STARVING for new material.

Sci-Fi and fantasy is in a resurgance, Look at Game of Thrones, the Walking Dead etc. I see no reason why a well-written Trek, with quality TV actors couldn't be a hit. There must be ideas stacked a mile high somewhere.

What do you think, is there any chance? Or is one Abrahms-Verse film every 5 years all we can hope for?

This beggars the question...If CBS hates Star Trek so much, why did they buy it up in the first place? Or am I missing something here?

-Chuck

 

[C.E. Evans]

I am not referring to the Abrahm-averse. Which no doubt will live on for a while.

I mean with regards to the "Roddenberry-Verse" I.E the mainstream continuity.

The Final episode of Voyager, which in many ways was the end of an era was almost exactly 12 years ago, which just seems crazy.

The finale of Enterprise was 7 years ago.

I do realise that there were issues with Voyager and Enterprise, and ratings problems which lead to cancellation, life support and eventual "reboot" on the big screen, but for a show with such a history, fanbase and legacy, surely it's too valuable to call time?

Me personally, I would be looking to resurrect the show for TV in 3 years time, the Tenth anniversary of Star Trek's TV "death"

With 10 years gone, surely that is enough of a hibernation, TV effects have come on leaps and bounds, and the Trek fanbase is STARVING for new material.

Sci-Fi and fantasy is in a resurgance, Look at Game of Thrones, the Walking Dead etc. I see no reason why a well-written Trek, with quality TV actors couldn't be a hit. There must be ideas stacked a mile high somewhere.

What do you think, is there any chance? Or is one Abrahms-Verse film every 5 years all we can hope for?

This beggars the question...If CBS hates Star Trek so much, why did they buy it up in the first place? Or am I missing something here?

They didn't buy it, they simply acquired it when Viacom and CBS went their separate ways in 2005-2006 and Paramount was split between them. Viacom got Paramount Pictures (the movie studio), while CBS got was formerly Paramount Television (and the overall rights to Star Trek). Under the new arrangement, Paramount continues to make Star Trek movies under license from CBS and pays for the use of the property (they probably also get a percentage of the profits from the movies too).

For CBS, it's a win-win situation. They don't have to invest a dime in Trek, but they get paid for letting others use it.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I think there's a good chance. I don't really have a whole lot of evidence towards this, so you can call it denial if you want. I would just be extremely surprised if nothing beyond the movies came up over the next five years.

 

[Gary7]

What does that have to do with a Star Trek series with, say, Bryan Fuller as a showrunner?

That it will costs four to five million dollars an episode to produce (close to one-hundred million for a full season) and recouping that expense will take CBS a much longer time.

Why do a series when you're collecting a hefty fee from Paramount and you have a back catalog of seven hundred episodes you can sell over and over again? More episodes simply dilutes the value of those already in your catalog.

I just don't see CBS as having any reason to take any risks as far as Trek is concerned for the foreseeable future. Other than making current episodes compatible for an HD viewing experience.

Thanks for stepping in, Bill. That's precisely why I brought up Stargate--the inherent costs per episode eat away at short term profitability, making movies the way to go.


As for the time elapsed... Batman is not a fair comparison. That franchise has had so many different people play Batman, it's almost a given that the next person to take the role will be different.

It was hard enough for everyone to swallow the idea of new people as Kirk and Spock. It's easy to forget that, once enough time has passed and people have finally accepted them. Yet there are still plenty of hardcore fans that just didn't buy into the reboot... or took a while until eventually accepting it as just a short detour addition to the franchise. Trying to bring around yet another duo of Kirk and Spock would be even more difficult in the near term. No.... I think after this next Abram's movie (and possibly a #3), Kirk and Spock will be retired legends for a very long time.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It was hard enough for everyone to swallow the idea of new people as Kirk and Spock. It's easy to forget that, once enough time has passed and people have finally accepted them. Yet there are still plenty of hardcore fans that just didn't buy into the reboot... or took a while until eventually accepting it as just a short detour addition to the franchise. Trying to bring around yet another duo of Kirk and Spock would be even more difficult in the near term. No.... I think after this next Abram's movie (and possibly a #3), Kirk and Spock will be retired legends for a very long time.

I think that's very unlikely. They'll just recast Kirk and Spock again and start over once more. Now that it's been done once, the stage is set for it to be done over and over again ala franchise characters like James Bond, Batman, Superman, etc.

 

[Greg Cox]

Trying to bring around yet another duo of Kirk and Spock would be even more difficult in the near term. No.... I think after this next Abram's movie (and possibly a #3), Kirk and Spock will be retired legends for a very long time.

I disagree. Sure, they've only been recast once so far, compared to Bond, Batman, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, and so on, but the fact that so many other iconic characters have been recast successfully (over and over again) only suggests that there's plenty of room for new actors to play Kirk and Spock as well.

I mean, Bela Lugosi was synonymous with Dracula for generations, but that didn't stop people from making new movies with John Carradine, Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, etc. And I'm sure some people thought that Sean Connery could never be replaced as Bond, but SKYFALL is currently in production . . .

Hollywood has never been shy about recasting before. Why should Kirk and Spock be treated differently?