JJVerse Novels - Why they were cancelled

[Captain Robert April]

Personally, I don't see these guys getting more than two more movies out of this cast. Comics and books, no real limits on that. As for a tv series, I don't think so, since the King Solomon-esque decision to split the franchise between CBS and Paramount Studios puts any tv material on the CBS side of the house, and they have a vested interest in promoting the original timeline stuff. Any attempt to do a tv series based on the new movie(s) will run smack up against that wall of separation, and cost the studio several million dollars to sort out that they'd rather not spend. This behemouth is a creature of the movies, and I'd rather it stayed there.

 

[JD]

Except that they already signed the contracts for at least 2 more movies (I'm about 75% sure).

 

[Captain Robert April]

Those contracts always give the final say to the studio, and if the next one bombs, then that's it, no matter what Chris Pine's contract says.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

As for a tv series, I don't think so, since the King Solomon-esque decision to split the franchise between CBS and Paramount Studios puts any tv material on the CBS side of the house, and they have a vested interest in promoting the original timeline stuff.

Why does CBS "have a vested interest" in favoring the television series continuity over the movie continuity?

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I wonder why you think CBS would think it's worth their while to work at cross-purposes from the films.

 

[Christopher]

As for a tv series, I don't think so, since the King Solomon-esque decision to split the franchise between CBS and Paramount Studios puts any tv material on the CBS side of the house, and they have a vested interest in promoting the original timeline stuff.

Actually my understanding is that CBS owns all of Star Trek; Paramount Pictures retains a license to make movies based on that property, similarly to how Pocket is licensed to publish prose fiction based on it. CBS therefore has a "vested interest" in promoting whatever version of Star Trek will be most profitable, and despite your persistent denial of the facts, ST'09 is the most successful and profitable ST film in over two decades, if not ever.

 

[ATimson]

CBS therefore has a "vested interest" in promoting whatever version of Star Trek will be most profitable, and despite your persistent denial of the facts, ST'09 is the most successful and profitable ST film in over two decades, if not ever.

It's definitely the most profitable film. The question is whether CBS would make more money from doing an old-universe show and marketing the DVDs of the related shows, or by just having a huge audience for a new-universe show from the get-go.

I'd expect the latter, but the former isn't inconceivable, IMO.

 

[Christopher]

On second thought, I don't think it matters. To us obsessed geeks, the distinction between the two timelines is important, but to the average viewer, and probably the average executive, Star Trek is Star Trek. It probably wouldn't matter what continuity a new Trek TV series is in, any more than it mattered to audiences that Batman: The Animated Series wasn't in continuity with the Tim Burton Batman movies or that Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles retconned the chronology of Terminator 2 and ignored Terminator 3 altogether.

Still, there are obvious creative advantages to setting a new Trek series in the new timeline, or in yet another independent reality, since it's much more of an open book.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^It so didn't. Sarah's alternate-future (T3) cancer death was a big part of Chronicles.

Then again, they did change the origin of Skynet...


I'd guess any new Trek would recycle the sets and outfits created for these films, so I'd expect them to use the same timeframe and timeline.
But the chances of an expensive sci-fi series any time soon? Just look how well SGU is doing.

 

[Christopher]

^It so didn't. Sarah's alternate-future (T3) cancer death was a big part of Chronicles.

That's the only aspect they had in common. Other than that, TSCC disregarded or contradicted a lot from T3. Such as the fact that T3 showed Judgment Day happening in 2004 but TSCC moved it to 2011. Here's showrunner Josh Friedman speaking to IGN in 2007:

http://tv.ign.com/articles/798/798086p1.html

IGN TV: Are you working within the continuity of the Terminator movies, specifically Terminator 3?

Friedman: We're gonna go off on our own. I think the thing about T3 is, obviously there was just no Sarah Connor and that's something the fans were never happy with. I don't even think the people who made T3 were happy with that. It just wasn't a choice of theirs. You know, Linda Hamilton was going through some things and didn't want to be a part of it. They had a script at one point I know; there was a T3 that had Sarah in it. I've never read it. I don't know anything about it. But I know that they did and they wanted to do that. They wanted it to be kind of her trilogy, and it never could be. So I think that my feeling was this TV series to me sort of serves as the third act to that trilogy - what could have happened had we followed that after T2. So I almost think of this as T3. To me it takes the place of T3. But also I think that sort of in the spirit of Terminator, it's an alternate timeline. I know a lot of people get very worked up about the continuity and the canon and all that stuff. What I try to do is stay very, very true to the first two movies and then sort of take it from there. But always remain true to the spirit of everyone's intent and again, take some time with this woman and explore what maybe would have happened.

 

[DigificWriter]

TSCC, as Christopher already pointed out, relies on the concept of an alternate timeline in much the same way that Abrams' Star Trek film does. TSCC also has some elements in common with Superman Returns, in that it was basically an offshoot of The Terminator and T2 in the same way that Returns was a sort of offshoot of either the first or second Christopher Reeves Superman films.

 

[Christopher]

^For that matter, TSCC is a slightly alternate timeline from T2 as well, because it puts the events of T2 a couple of years later than the film put them. It's pretty routine for TV series based on movies to retcon certain aspects of them and thus constitute alternate continuities.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Which I guess can be explained by all those resistance people getting sent really far into the past, and setting up the portal in the bank at the start as well as all the stuff I've forgotten about.

All that said, TSCC still 'officially' follows on from T2, just like ENT/the USS Kelvin/TOS are meant to be part of the same continuity despite (real and percieved) discontinuities.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Need to work up a timeline chart...