Jonathan Frakes: "Star Trek won't be coming back to TV."

[HIjol]

Here's my quirky Cop Show pitch

Ohhhh, Methuselah!!! I will CrowdGive $5000 of my very own real dollars to this concept! And, I will be a writer for free!

But Please, can we make it J.T. Hooker and Dr. Spock?

I can see it now...the Dilithium Duo Get a Call...


"1701, 1701, see the Man, 69 Riza Avenue (((laugh track))) possible Illegal Transport (((laugh track)))"

...and J.T. Hits the Red Alert (((laugh track))) and starts blowing through red lights, while The Dr. is telling him how illogical it is (((laugh track))) and how the odds of them getting to the call any quicker are "three million, two hundred seventy five thousand to one" (((laugh track)))



I AM StoryBoarding this Mutha right now!

I am not even joking!

 

[yenny]

Star Trek: Honeytrap

Yar is recruited by Starfleet Intelligence to go back in time to track down an ellusive villain, but in order to hunt him down she has to take on the role of a stripper.

A 57 year old Tasha Yar as a stripper? Yeah, pass.
It's almost as bad as an elderly Uhura dancing naked in Star Trek V.

These ladies will be better as a stripper then Denise Crosby.
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls055018441/

 

[mos6507]

Then I just don't find characters on TV entertaining anymore.

Entertainment is cyclical. If there's a glut of serial storytelling then eventually a popular show will go 'old school' with bottle episodes and the tide will turn. It only takes one maverick to be willing to go against the grain.

 

[Amaris]

Nichols @57 > Crosby @57. Just sayin'.

I think Nichelle looked fantastic in Star Trek V. When she was doing that little bit of flirting with Scotty, all I could think was "you lucky bastard! She's bringing you dinner and flirting with you!"

 

[Autistoid]

Nichols @57 > Crosby @57. Just sayin'.

I think Nichelle looked fantastic in Star Trek V. When she was doing that little bit of flirting with Scotty, all I could think was "you lucky bastard! She's bringing you dinner and flirting with you!"

You have no idea how disturbing that sounds.

 

[Amaris]

Nichols @57 > Crosby @57. Just sayin'.

I think Nichelle looked fantastic in Star Trek V. When she was doing that little bit of flirting with Scotty, all I could think was "you lucky bastard! She's bringing you dinner and flirting with you!"

You have no idea how disturbing that sounds.

No, I don't, because it's moving through your mind, not mine.

 

[Trekkin]

There's a reason some of us think TV was better in the past.

It was.

Unfortunately for you, time only moves in one direction.
The only way we could go back to 60s-style TV shows would be if our society became radically conservative, which I think a lot of people would resist. Who wants to live in a time when Jeannie's bellybutton is a moral scandal, and black people only play servants and savages?

What does any of that have to do with writing good television? It is possible to write good TV without everything becoming political you know. At least, it used to be.

The point was that there was no 'golden era' of television. It was flawed then, and it's flawed now. Some of us prefer today's flaws to yesterday's.

And bullshit it wasn't political in the 60's-80's. That list right there showed it was, Want to know what the second episode of Outer Limits was? 'The Hundred Days of the Dragon' - an episode makes 'Manchurian Candidate' look subtle.

Fuck, this is a Star Trek board. Are you seriously saying that Star Trek has never in any way been shaped by politics?

 

[JohnD]

http://www.treknews.net/2015/04/28/jonathan-frakes-star-trek-not-coming-back-to-tv/

According to this news article; it is revealed that the network execs over at CBS/Paramount have as of current no interest or ideas of making a new TV Series and trying to focus on movies more feeling that it dilutes the franchise less and that it makes more money from what it seems.

 

[Ghost]

Understandable reaction.
Where do you go from here now? Another show about a ship exploring space? Another show about a space station that is located on a strategic location? Or try something new like a West Wing style Star Trek show or a Starfleet Academy series. (I have seen this work in young adult novels and comics, it doesn't have to be bad and filled with teenage angst as long as it is well written)

Personally I understand of doing yet another Star Trek in a format that has been done before does not sound very appealing.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer the old series and movies over the last two ones but I fully agree with fans who say that Star Trek became too safe, more focused on weekly sci fi stories that become more and more comic stories and less about ideas both socially or technologically. (I love a good alien adversary story with some action like everyone else but it doesn't make deep sci fi)

It could be a little more, well I wouldn't say dark as I personally don't want to see Star Trek making a full leap into nBSG territory and Firefly, but it could learn from elements done well in those shows but not immediately turn all 'gritty and sexy' (we have heard those words before and it would basically mean Star Trek writers and producers are yet following another hype instead of trying to do their own thing).

Well it could at least do with a bit more consistency in general, the idea of those mini arcs in Star Trek Enterprise weren't bad even though I was not really a fan of that series.

What is needed right now is a solid concept, one that appeals to both the older fans and any potential new fans without throwing away what makes Star Trek (with a little less techno babble of course).

 

[JTShanks]

Understandable reaction.
Where do you go from here now? Another show about a ship exploring space? Another show about a space station that is located on a strategic location? Or try something new like a West Wing style Star Trek show or a Starfleet Academy series. (I have seen this work in young adult novels and comics, it doesn't have to be bad and filled with teenage angst as long as it is well written)

Personally I understand of doing yet another Star Trek in a format that has been done before does not sound very appealing.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer the old series and movies over the last two ones but I fully agree with fans who say that Star Trek became too safe, more focused on weekly sci fi stories that become more and more comic stories and less about ideas both socially or technologically. (I love a good alien adversary story with some action like everyone else but it doesn't make deep sci fi)

It could be a little more, well I wouldn't say dark as I personally don't want to see Star Trek making a full leap into nBSG territory and Firefly, but it could learn from elements done well in those shows but not immediately turn all 'gritty and sexy' (we have heard those words before and it would basically mean Star Trek writers and producers are yet following another hype instead of trying to do their own thing).

Well it could at least do with a bit more consistency in general, the idea of those mini arcs in Star Trek Enterprise weren't bad even though I was not really a fan of that series.

What is needed right now is a solid concept, one that appeals to both the older fans and any potential new fans without throwing away what makes Star Trek (with a little less techno babble of course).

Took most of the words out of my mouth except for the going dark to follow a trend. To be honest I think that may be a little bit of a bad example since TOS went campy to follow the trend of campiness in the 60's to make it feel modern.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Yeah, I think what's going to happen in the next 6-7 years is we're going to be seeing TPTB reacting based upon the success (or relative lack thereof) of Beyond, but either way, it won't lead to a new television series. I think, as has been said many times over in this thread, that Frakes is most likely correct in his claims. There's no plan for a show, because movies are where the money is situated in their minds, and with folks like Les Moonves still at the helm at CBS, even Avengers-level box office success could well lead to a whole fistful of nothing.

Beyond will perform at or above expectations and lead to Paramount announcing a kind of shared universe going forward, which will handle contract negotiations after the third movie (Beyond, obviously) by bringing in new faces, launching a film every two years or so (as opposed to 3-4) and giving mass audiences the kind of connected, constantly-nodding-at-one-another storytelling that our current decade has prescribed.

Alternatively, Beyond will deliver ST09/STID (or, hell, even lower) kinds of cash, and there'll be a "back to the drawing board" style of discussion between executives. The more cynical among them will probably point out for the umpteenth time that this franchise never makes the kind of money they desire and it shouldn't be bothered with, but their betters will remind them that it still makes money, and there'll be future Trek projects in this instance as well. Likely with a somewhat different group at the helm. And those future projects will, in turn, become their own new shared cinematic universe. Or they'll tank. And it'll be yet another reboot thereafter. Or something.

General disclaimer: I love nuTrek, and I'm not ignorant to its financial success, either. I'm just piecing together the (fairly obvious) things folks like Simon Pegg have said, about how Paramount looks at STID and sees a missing billion dollars between it and The Avengers, and so, tries to figure out where that billion has "gone" and how to court it.

 

[ichab]

The franchise wasn't destroyed by oversaturation, it was destroyed by the decision to continue with a prequel

Nope. Look at the actual ratings - Trek was failing on television and Enterprise didn't even hasten its end. Trek ended on TV just about when you'd expect it to, based on the ratings trend beginning with the premiere of DS9:

I don't get it. Were these just casual fans that tuned out? How can you watch TNG, claim to be a Trek fan and then drop the rest of the shows?

Probably for the same reason that fans of westerns in the 50s and 60s didn't like every western that was on T.V. EG:

TNG: I liked it but some fans hated it because it was nothing like TOS. Instead of the tough and good looking Kirk we have a bald headed middle aged captain who prefers to talk or have a conference .Show looks nothing like TOS with its bland ship design and stilted dialogue. First season was a real turn off with characters sactimonous attitudes to other cultures.

DS9: My favorite of all of them but many fans couldn't get into a show based on a space station.That critical lenses that TNG loved to put on earth's history was turned back around and exposed the flaws with their perfect utopia. By the end the show had become a complete 180 from what TNG had established with its focus on war, politics and character conflict.

Voyager: I could never get into this show other than the Borg episodes. After DS9 I just wasn't interested in a poor man's version of TNG.

Enterprise: Despite the change to a prequal it was still more of the same. Show didn't really do anything different until Season 3 but by that point franchise fatigue was too much to sustain even a well written Star Trek show.

Maybe I'm just too hard-core a fan to understand.

.

Ya think?

 

[Ghost]

Took most of the words out of my mouth except for the going dark to follow a trend. To be honest I think that may be a little bit of a bad example since TOS went campy to follow the trend of campiness in the 60's to make it feel modern.

Hi JTShanks

Well I got that idea after Star Trek Enterprise came out when the Star Wars prequels got made, and the new Star Trek movies were made during a time when the new Battlestar Galactica series was very popular.

Even I admit that it is difficult to think of a new idea without wandering the beaten path.
I don't know how many times I have fallen for this same trap when trying to come up with something for a story.

 

[T'Girl]

Yeah, I think what's going to happen in the next 6-7 years is we're going to be seeing TPTB reacting based upon the success

More likely might be if other outlets have serious sucess with a group of TV/video shows in the space opera format, CBS will say "Hey, we need a space opera too."

even Avengers-level box office success could well lead to a whole fistful of nothing.

But they made a Avengers spin off show.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

More likely might be if other outlets have serious sucess with a group of TV/video shows in the space opera format, CBS will say "Hey, we need a space opera too."

This is certainly a possibility. Here's hoping The Expanse, Dark Matter, Killjoys, Red Mars, Galaxy Quest (!?) and anything else on the horizon don't all tank! I have lengthy thoughts on why a couple of American networks are giving things a shot again, but they all essentially boil down to, "more Star Wars is around the corner; let's try to predict shifting audience trends over the next few years as a result."

But they made a Avengers spin off show.

They did indeed! I'm comparing what I've documented of the CBS philosophy with what I've seen in ABC, is all. I could be way off-base -- indeed, I'd love to be way off-base! -- but that's where I'm drawing my predictions.

 

[The Overlord]

I think all this talk about ratings and a future Star Trek series, seems to ignore that are ratings are down for several networks:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/13/tv-ratings-see-double-digit-declines-for-fifth-straight-month/

And also this talk about CBS not wanting to spend money on a sci fi series ignores the fact that CBS is willing to spend money a Supergirl show, who is kinda of B-list super hero.

As long as CBS lives in the past and decides these factors are good reasons not make a Star Trek show and sell it to an online platform, the more it will be left beyond by content makers who are more daring.

CBS is unwilling to adapt its strategies to the media landscape, because its simply unwilling to change its ways and its afraid to try new things, which will mean trouble for them in the future. CBS comes across as an old corporate dinosaur, that doesn't know how to operate in today's media landscape. Its a shame star Trek is in the hands of people who are not more savvy and daring.

 

[fireproof78]

I think all this talk about ratings and a future Star Trek series, seems to ignore that are ratings are down for several networks:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/13/tv-ratings-see-double-digit-declines-for-fifth-straight-month/

And also this talk about CBS not wanting to spend money on a sci fi series ignores the fact that CBS is willing to spend money a Supergirl show, who is kinda of B-list super hero.

As long as CBS lives in the past and decides these factors are good reasons not make a Star Trek show and sell it to an online platform, the more it will be left beyond by content makers who are more daring.

CBS is unwilling to adapt its strategies to the media landscape, because its simply unwilling to change its ways and its afraid to try new things, which will mean trouble for them in the future. CBS comes across as an old corporate dinosaur, that doesn't know how to operate in today's media landscape. Its a shame star Trek is in the hands of people who are not more savvy and daring.

Part of the problem is no one has demonstrated to CBS that making a Star Trek TV series will make them money. The financial climate for Hollywood right now is so changing and capricious, that not changing at least means you might survive.

Executives operate on numbers. It needs to be demonstrated to them that money can be made or is at least viable to survive the nanosecond media culture we have, or it will be viewed as an unnecessary risk.

Also, as I think has been noted before, CBS doesn't have to do anything to make money off of Star Trek. So, again, someone needs to demonstrate how they can make money with some confidence.

 

[JTShanks]

I think all this talk about ratings and a future Star Trek series, seems to ignore that are ratings are down for several networks:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/13/tv-ratings-see-double-digit-declines-for-fifth-straight-month/

And also this talk about CBS not wanting to spend money on a sci fi series ignores the fact that CBS is willing to spend money a Supergirl show, who is kinda of B-list super hero.

As long as CBS lives in the past and decides these factors are good reasons not make a Star Trek show and sell it to an online platform, the more it will be left beyond by content makers who are more daring.

CBS is unwilling to adapt its strategies to the media landscape, because its simply unwilling to change its ways and its afraid to try new things, which will mean trouble for them in the future. CBS comes across as an old corporate dinosaur, that doesn't know how to operate in today's media landscape. Its a shame star Trek is in the hands of people who are not more savvy and daring.

Part of the problem is no one has demonstrated to CBS that making a Star Trek TV series will make them money. The financial climate for Hollywood right now is so changing and capricious, that not changing at least means you might survive.

Executives operate on numbers. It needs to be demonstrated to them that money can be made or is at least viable to survive the nanosecond media culture we have, or it will be viewed as an unnecessary risk.

Also, as I think has been noted before, CBS doesn't have to do anything to make money off of Star Trek. So, again, someone needs to demonstrate how they can make money with some confidence.

After all this talk and work of how a new Trek series keeps failing due to studio downfall having a changed mind, or simply turning down any notion of a new Trek series on TV it kind of makes you wonder if they could be realistically swayed otherwise.

Sadly, Star Trek is not a big money maker like Avengers, Star Wars, ect. enough to make even the notion of them making billions realistic if we're talking movies or TV. So what if CBS is doing to Star Trek the same as to what Warner Bros. is doing to Babylon 5 (but treating it only slightly better or so)?

 

[eyeresist]

Executives operate on numbers. It needs to be demonstrated to them that money can be made or is at least viable to survive the nanosecond media culture we have, or it will be viewed as an unnecessary risk.

Also, any new series will be loudly attacked by "fans" for not being real Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

And also this talk about CBS not wanting to spend money on a sci fi series ignores the fact that CBS is willing to spend money a Supergirl show, who is kinda of B-list super hero.

On a B-list network with, likely, a B-list price tag.

As long as CBS lives in the past and decides these factors are good reasons not make a Star Trek show and sell it to an online platform, the more it will be left beyond by content makers who are more daring.

It takes two to tango. There has to be an online platform out there willing to pay what CBS sees as profitable for a series.

Its a shame star Trek is in the hands of people who are not more savvy and daring.

I doubt there are any content providers out there dying to have Star Trek.

Also, any new series will be loudly attacked by "fans" for not being real Star Trek.

I think the loud backlash by a small group of people about the Abrams films probably has CBS leery of dumping a huge amount of money into something that will be condemned loudly before a single frame of film has been shot.