But we're yet to see the effect of so much Marvel on TV, however.
J.J. Abrams answers 8 burning questions
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
But we're yet to see the effect of so much Marvel on TV, however.
If you haven't seen it, it's worth a watch. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I liked it.
So why then are they not being made today? The space shows of the past all fizzled out, signifying that people just aren't as interested in those anymore. Why aren't they interested? Have concerns in the past years been drawn more toward Earthly happenings? Is it that the US space program seems to be at a halt? Or have viewers just moved on to different genres?
Yes, they're certainly capable of creating such shows, but for what returns? They do have the technology to put something competent together, but can it compare to the movies? Can it compare to more cheaply produced television? Last I heard, the biggest hurdle for a Star Wars live action show was the budget and trying to maintain a level of quality associated with their brand. They don't want to make cheap-looking Star Wars, and that's likely the case for the owners of Star Trek as well. Basically, they don't want to do what is happening with Agents of SHIELD; producing a mediocre show that will be victim to ever-dropping ratings when people realize that they can't deliver the Avengers as seen in the movie packaged into a television show.
Because there are trends. There have been times in the past when space shows were popular, followed by times when they were less popular, followed by times when they were more popular again. The same goes for just about any other genre. Trends come and go. Inevitably, space shows will come back into fashion at some point. All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
Compare in what sense? Yes, movies can do more impressive visual effects, but that's not the only reason people are interested in stories. TV is generally much better at storytelling, at writing and characterization and the kind of long, unfolding arcs that grab audiences. TV and movies don't try to tell the same kinds of stories, so it doesn't make sense to compare them one-to-one. There are things -- mainly superficial things -- that movies do better, but there are other things that TV does better, or that movies can't do at all because they're too short.
No, the biggest hurdle was that George Lucas had gotten too full of himself and too cut off from reality and forgotten how to make the kind of compromise that any intelligent, non-ego-blinded filmmaker understands the need to make. The Lucas who made the original film in 1977 knew how to make creative use of limited resources and make a production look more expensive than it was, but the Lucas who'd been absolute master of his domain for decades had gotten greedy and spoiled and forgotten how to bend. Now that he's finally retired and turned the franchise over to more sensible people, there's more movement on the TV front.
Sure, a Star Wars TV show wouldn't have looked quite as expensive as the movies, but that would hardly make it "cheap-looking," since given Lucasfilm's resources, it would surely look far better than anything else on commercial TV.
The Metacritic score seems to me to more accurately reflect the general reception. (It's funny, there are times when Rotten Tomatoes scores seem a bit... rotten, although I can't quite tell what's going on.)
Ryan8bit said:
Yes, one likely future venue of space shows on television is animation. Cheaper to do at a higher quality without worrying about expensive sets, make-up and CGI.
But we're far from being in a position to conclude that SF television "fizzled out" due to a lack of interest. A few very long-running brands ran their course -- like Stargate, which persisted in various forms for an obscene amount of time -- but all evidence is that television can profitably sustain a range of televised SF, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something new happening on Netflix in the near future. It's not necessarily the case that a show has to deliver movie-scale spectacle in order to succeed.
Trek's problem is more particular than that, it's the problem of the historical weight of the brand and the difficulty creative teams met with when trying to update it. I'd say the biggest concern is figuring out how one wants to cut that particular Gordian knot before proceeding.
Perhaps someone can help me out here, because I haven't researched this thoroughly, but my assumption anyway was that the problem with the evidently aborted live action Star Wars program, in terms of its prohibitive cost, was that George Lucas wanted to deliver movie quality effects and creature CGI, particularly of the kind and quantity seen in the PT, on a TV budget. That level of quality is generally not necessary in even space-based TV science fiction.
edit - OK, I see that Christopher is saying something similar to this.
edit - OK, I see that Christopher is saying something similar to this.
I'm sure one of the big hold-ups for a new Trek tv show was the fact that the studio surely wanted to set the new show squarely in the new JJ universe, but JJ kept fairly tight control over his particular corner of Trek. Not only did he treat it with his trademark secrecy, but it seemed that "other media" was fairly limited too. It must be tough to develop a tv show when you didn't even know what STID held, let alone it's sequel.
They're probably having a tough time deciding where and how they'd want to set a new Trek tv show too. Same timeframe as the current movies? Just on a different ship? Or maybe on a station or even planetside? Or perhaps back to the future?
It's tough when the movies are the current driving force behind Trek and they don't necessarily know where the movies are going.
They're probably having a tough time deciding where and how they'd want to set a new Trek tv show too. Same timeframe as the current movies? Just on a different ship? Or maybe on a station or even planetside? Or perhaps back to the future?
It's tough when the movies are the current driving force behind Trek and they don't necessarily know where the movies are going.
I agree. I just don´t see CBS taking the risk of NOT setting a TV series in the JJ universe.
I don´t think a new TV show will happen in the next few years. Maybe if the movies would go on a hiatus after the thrid JJ movie. (Which I don´t see them making on schedule anyway...I think they where going for 2015. I´m not counting on that...I bet its gonna end up beeing 2016 or even 2017). I don´t think we will see new Trek on TV before 2020.
And I think the transition from movies to TV is hard. Like I said, Agents of SHIELD is having a hard time because people want to see something like the Avengers, but the Avengers was mostly about eye candy, big-name actors, and little quips. Most of that can't translate well to the smaller scale of TV.
Star Trek is a little bit different since it started on TV. It could definitely go back, but is that where the owners want to take the brand? Do they want the quality to be what you see in the movies, or on TV? It seems to me like they are pleased with the more exciting visual reboot than how the last series went. And at the moment, they probably don't want to tarnish that because of how the television market is. It's not just about competing with movie budgets.
There isn't really any more development on the TV series than there already was. It's just people talking, but no real progress. And I think that's because they know the limits of their brand. Star Wars live action is largely about stunning visuals, and a move to TV is going to restrict that heavily. They still have to figure out how to maintain their quality without compromising too much to fit into the TV market. They might just stick to making movies since they have a slew of them planned., and they're much more likely to be profitable. A live action TV series is way too much of a wild card. I'm guessing that if it comes, it will be after Episode 7, possibly much later.
I think it's more than those shows just running their course. They just weren't pulling in the ratings for the type of expense they had. Consider all these shows from the last 15 years: Farscape, Firefly, Crusade, BSG, Enterprise, SGU, and Andromeda. They all struggled with ratings in some respect, and most were cancelled or forced into ending prematurely. Stargate was the only decent space sci-fi show that lasted past '05, and it still struggled with ratings.
Those trends are likely noticed, hence why there really isn't much space sci-fi on TV. The costs of producing it are likely higher than most shows, and they probably can't pull ratings higher than said shows. It just doesn't make sense to make these until the trend switches back.
I think that a Star Wars TV show could set such things in motion. They have often been trendsetters and they have the power to make it happen. A live action Star Trek series is unlikely to happen before Star Wars.
In many cases what's really indicative is that the Nielsen ratings system was starting to show its age, not that audience interest had flagged. This was arguably (I would say almost certainly) the case with BSG. Firefly was actively sabotaged by constant time-slot switches, not a lack of fan interest or potential profitability as is by now extremely abundantly clear. Farscape's cancellation looks to have been a similar species of short-sightedness to the original cancellation of Star Trek (its ratings in syndication seem to be just fine).
Now, Andromeda's ratings troubles were a real quality-control issue, as they fell off when the original creative team left and it became the Kevin Sorbo show... but it still did well in syndication after its cancellation. So none of these examples are commentary on the general interest in SF. Crusade, Enterprise and SGU are at best commentary on audience interest in specific franchises (in ENT's case I think quality-control failure also played a huge role) but that's a different kettle of fish.
Similar threads
- Poll
