I know I just wish TPTB would show a little foresight not just right now
You have made some good points we will wait and see I really don't want a new series with TOS characters though I think that would make alot of us Trek fans upsetThe answer is simple...
the folks who run Paramount (and CBS) were convinced that Trek was a "dead franchise," not capable of making back the money being put into it.
It became unprofitable, and thus was shelved. Potentially, that was FOREVER.
Abrams was courted by Paramount, for a multi-picture deal. Part of his condition for taking the deal was that he wanted to do a Star Trek movie. His stated reason was that he'd had a story he'd wanted to tell since he was "barely into his teens." He's the exact same age as I am, so I know exactly when that was for him, too... immediately after "The Wrath of Khan."
Note... he didn't have the stated goal of "reviving the franchise" or "taking over the franchise." His stated goal was to "tell a story he'd wanted to tell for most of his life."
That story predates any of the Post-TOS series. It, logically, is likely to have a lot of influence from TWOK. I postulated, back then, that this was going to be a "Kirk origin story" and that we'd end up seeing the Kobayashi Maru, from the Kirk perspective... and that it would make a sort of "bookend" film to TWOK. So far, I've been given nothing to contradict that perspective and lots of reasons to believe I was right.
My point? Abrams has a PARTICULAR STORY he wants to tell using these characters. As far as he's concerned... this film is "it" and after this, he'll move onto other things (he's definitely able to write his own ticket these days!). PPC may decide to continue the adventures of the "re-cast crew" but that would be independent of his goals regarding this film and I'd be stunned if he was involved in any such project in any fashion whatsoever.
SO... PPC didn't really care about making a Trek film... they wanted Abrams, and HE cared about making a Trek film. They took the risk on making this film, not based upon it being "Trek" but based upon it being Abrams.
They're looking at this now and EVALUATING the franchise. There are two possibilities:
1) "Star Trek" as a franchise is just played out. It doesn't matter who's in charge, it's just "tired" and needs to be put out to pasture.
OR
2) "Star Trek" as a franchise is still a valid one, but has been mismanaged for a while. Put a new team in, and you can get a successful film where the "old guard" would have failed.
In order to test this, they want to reduce the number of variables... that is, go back to what was known to WORK. That's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc... TOS.
If a Picard movie fails... that might mean that "new trek" is dead, but that classic is still viable. If a Kirk movie fails... that'll be read that "all trek" is dead.
Now, here's the catch... IF this film is a success... the people in charge at PPC, CBS, their mutual parent holding company... ALL of them... will realize that Trek, IF DONE RIGHT, can work. If it fails... they'll all realize that Trek, no matter who's doing it, can't work anymore.
If it works... they'll be more likely to greenlight other shows (taking the lead from this one). This cast isn't going to do TV... and another recast for TV wouldn't go over all that well. But a NEW CAST might (as you suggest).
This, also, is something I've been predicting for a while. I suggested that we'd be likely to see a new ship introduced, with a new crew... and that they'd be significant "supporting characters" in this film who COULD be spun-off into their own films or TV show (if this movie does well).
And yet again, the (scant) evidence available seems to support my prediction. I could be wrong... but other than a few folks who desperately want me to be wrong, there's no real EVIDENCE to support that, is there?
Some very good points
It's been said before in other threads, but a new Trek series hinges on the success or failure of the Star Wars live action series. If that's a ratings winner, expect paramount to follow suit and greenlight a new Trek series, ala TPM right after Star Wars.
Whatever Abrams does, if it isn't good, it will be another nail in the coffin of the Star Trek franchise. I'm abit surprised that after falling back to Enterprise NX-01, that they didn't learn their lesson and move forward in the timeline from TNG, DS9, & Voyager.
stdarkfate.craigcurtis.us
stdarkfate.craigcurtis.us
Wow, what novel thoughts!
TNG, DS9, VYR built a whole generation of fans on the 24th Century and yet "they" are insistant on returning to past be it ENT or STXI. Although the nostalgia of returning to these periods is quaint, you can get the same feelings from some fan films. Let's take a bold step forward into the 25th Century and move on.
Not to join in the pile-on that I'm sure will follow this, but...
The "timeframe" is irrelevant to the storytelling. It's set-dressing. You can tell awful stories in any setting and you can tell fantastic stories in any setting.
It wasn't the timeframe that hurt "Enterprise." I can easily imagine doing a really GREAT show set in that timeframe. Unfortunately, "Enterprise" was designed to be a prequel to the post-TNG-era shows, rather than a prequel to the entirety of "Trekdom."
It didn't "move forward" but it also didn't "move backwards." It stayed EXACTLY where Trek had been for the past couple of decades (with the exception of the non-Ferengi bits in DS9). "Enterprise" felt like a Berman-Trek show... and the audience was just sick of the same stuff over and over and over. By the time Manny Coto (sp?) got to try to fix things, the damage was done. He ended up not being able to save the show, and by trying to force several seasons of arcs into one season, he ticked off those few who actually LIKED the first two seasons!
Had "Enterprise" felt less like it was set in the same timeframe as Picard and Co, it might have done better. Or not... hard to say.
But it's NOT hard to say that it failed on many levels... I just don't see how "the time period" is one of them. But if you disagree, please... make your argument why that was the "real reason" that "Enterprise" failed.
There's nothing "bold" about that, because you wouldn't be going "into the 25th century" - you'd simply be making one more spinoff of a spinoff.
See, there's no "25th century" out there to be mined for ideas. The characters and ideas have to come from the same places that they always have, writers and producers and designers living in the present. Declaring that they can go to another galaxy or have a faster warp drive or fight different people means nothing - there's no reason to think that the creators can make "another galaxy" any odder than "another star system" and faster than real-real-real-fast is just real-real-real-real-fast and it's all the same.
All new writers and producers can do is the very best job of applying their current experience and available research and design ideas to the "Star Trek" framework - and Abrams' people are clearly determined to do that in the context of TOS. So there's no reason to prefer that they call it the "25th century." And since the TOS characters are the best in Trek and the models from which all others have been derived either by imitation or deliberate differentiation, there's a great advantage to using them.
Quoted cause its true.
This whole "Go forward... into X Century", isn't really moving forward. That's not where good stories come from they come out of whatever innate talents said writers or producers might have at their disposal to tell whatever story they desire to tell.
Not the timeline which is taken all alone means not a thing.
Sharr
It seems everyone latched on to my reference to the "25th Century", which was intended to portray a future timeline, regardless of the century. The assertion that the setting or timeframe is not important in comparison to storyline is perhaps shortsighted. Without the right backdrop a story doesn't have a foundation to build on. ENT had a number of environmental issues, the armaments and suction cup harpoons where only the beginning. My point about a generation of Trekkers being looked over by the return of the franchise to ENT and the TMP remake was entirely over looked. Although, I was brought in to the fold by reruns of TOS and ST 1, 2, 3, & 4, TNG was a bonus. However, there has to be a whole host of fans out there that was raised on TNG and the series thereafter who are looking to move forward instead of settling back into stagnant waters.
Last edited:
Where were they on the domestic opening weekend of "Nemesis", when it was trounced by "Maid in Manhattan"?
Therin 1:0 curtiscx
Because some fans didn't like those things does not mean that they contributed significantly to the series's failure to run for the expected seven years.
I tend to agree with Vektor and Starship Polaris.
We may see another weekly Trek series down the road, but not before at least two or three successful movies are produced. If Trek 11 makes $300 million, the first thing they'll do is green-light a sequel to make a few hundred more, not spend money on a TV series that would take a decade to generate that much income.
Paramount made the mistake of saturating the market with too much Trek in the 90s, I don't think they'll make that mistake again. A series will come, but not until Trek gets a good run in the theatres and the public at large is receptive to more Trek. It's too expensive a show to produce to have to rely on just a few million viewers per week. It will need a mainstream network audience to sustain viability for more than two or three years, not Skiffy keeping it on life support, and not some "Star Trek specialty channel" that no one but us would ever order.
I want good stories too, and it's a noble sentiment to believe that it doesn't matter how many people watch Trek as long as the fans are pleased and the show is high quality, but we should all be realistic about the fact that Star Trek is a business and needs to make money. The more money it makes, the more Trek we get, so it's a win-win situation for everyone. "Good" Trek doesn't mean "Trek no one wants to watch", it means the writers and producers making the correct decisions.
We may see another weekly Trek series down the road, but not before at least two or three successful movies are produced. If Trek 11 makes $300 million, the first thing they'll do is green-light a sequel to make a few hundred more, not spend money on a TV series that would take a decade to generate that much income.
Paramount made the mistake of saturating the market with too much Trek in the 90s, I don't think they'll make that mistake again. A series will come, but not until Trek gets a good run in the theatres and the public at large is receptive to more Trek. It's too expensive a show to produce to have to rely on just a few million viewers per week. It will need a mainstream network audience to sustain viability for more than two or three years, not Skiffy keeping it on life support, and not some "Star Trek specialty channel" that no one but us would ever order.
I want good stories too, and it's a noble sentiment to believe that it doesn't matter how many people watch Trek as long as the fans are pleased and the show is high quality, but we should all be realistic about the fact that Star Trek is a business and needs to make money. The more money it makes, the more Trek we get, so it's a win-win situation for everyone. "Good" Trek doesn't mean "Trek no one wants to watch", it means the writers and producers making the correct decisions.
Post-Nemesis/"Endgame" and pre-TOS are the exact same waters depleted by years of over-fishing. The talent and skill of the producers and artists who are restocking the pond is what matters, not where they dump the fish in.
Honestly, at this point, I don't care what timeline they put the next Trek film or series in. Reboot TOS? Sure. Post-NEM? Why not. Jump ahead another 100 years? Uhh.. okay.
For me, the setting doesn't matter anymore. I just want substance. I want fresh, new, interesting Trek. I want a story that's actually worth telling. The Trek franchise wore itself out in the past. Too many trips to the well. We had continuous Trek on the small and large screen from 1987-2005. That's a REALLY long time. And you had a lot of the same creative team doing all that work. Trek became stale after a while.
JJ's re-envisioned Trek XI is a massive leap in the right direction. Going back to the beginning, giving us a new and updated interpretation of the 23rd century. Hiring a completely new team (writers, producers, director, costume designers, set designers, composer, etc.) to take over the reigns. It's exactly what we need after so many years of Trek being micro-managed from Rick Berman. And nothing against the creative folks who worked on previous Trek (like Herman Zimmerman, the Okudas, Michael Westmore, etc.) but I'm really curious to see what some new blood will do.
For me, the setting doesn't matter anymore. I just want substance. I want fresh, new, interesting Trek. I want a story that's actually worth telling. The Trek franchise wore itself out in the past. Too many trips to the well. We had continuous Trek on the small and large screen from 1987-2005. That's a REALLY long time. And you had a lot of the same creative team doing all that work. Trek became stale after a while.
JJ's re-envisioned Trek XI is a massive leap in the right direction. Going back to the beginning, giving us a new and updated interpretation of the 23rd century. Hiring a completely new team (writers, producers, director, costume designers, set designers, composer, etc.) to take over the reigns. It's exactly what we need after so many years of Trek being micro-managed from Rick Berman. And nothing against the creative folks who worked on previous Trek (like Herman Zimmerman, the Okudas, Michael Westmore, etc.) but I'm really curious to see what some new blood will do.
Similar threads
