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

[Ryan8bit]

Regardless of the cost, the history of the franchise and the diminishing returns from 1987-2005 along with the current state of television ratings makes it seem unlikely (note I'm not saying impossible) for Trek to make a return to television.

The history and ratings from ten years ago aren't really that relevant today. And just because TV ratings are down doesn't mean that there isn't a shift to other markets like streaming.

Star Trek could be financially viable in the right market, but there are several other factors holding it back.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Anyway if this is true, then I think it demonstrates backwards thinking on CBS' part. Ratings do not mean as much as they used to in the Netflix era. Really a slick 13 episode Star Trek series on Netflix would not be that over whelming and would not cause that much over saturation. Marvel has several movies and TV shows going at the same time.

There's Marvel on Netflix (and ABC), and then there's CBS Studios doing a Star Trek show for Netflix and CBS. Both are not equal in terms of popularity, box office, or ratings to justify a Star Trek show on Netflix or CBS (and the Daredevil show [plus Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter is actually kinda low-budget compared to a TV series based on say, Avengers.

Whether it be through advertising dollars or licensing fees, someone has to be willing to pay for that new Star Trek series. CBS has probably done their homework and found no one willing to fork over the money to make it happen.

Again, THIS.

Wasn't Netflix interested in a Star Trek series at one point? Heck Netflix is making a Full House spin off and was willing to make a show about a super hero whose previous media outing was a failed movie from 2003. Clearly Netflix is willing to invest on franchises that may not be super popular at the moment. Unless Full House is a bigger franchise then Star Trek, I do not think it would take much to coax Netflix into investing in it, CBS just has to put an effort forward and adapt to the new media landscape.

Full House isn't as expensive for Netflix and Warner Bros. Television to make as a Star Trek show would be for CBS Studios and Netflix. Again,people are forgetting costs, and popularity.

Wasn't Netflix interested in a Star Trek series at one point? Heck Netflix is making a Full House spin off and was willing to make a show about a super hero whose previous media outing was a failed movie from 2003.

This where I feel obliged to point out that that "failed movie" actually did very well at the box office, and probably would have done even better if the East Coast hadn't been buried beneath a major blizzard the weekend it opened.

Not that I'm biased or anything . . . .

Said Daredevil movie was amazing (to me) and I'll willing to bet is probably better than the new Netflix TV series.

In your opinion. In my opinion, you're wrong. There's a reason some of us think TV was better in the past.

It was.

There are exceptions of course, but they're so few, it's not worth it to mention them.

The '50's were mostly good, but with a few exceptions (for me) most of the TV of the '60's is crap (I'm sorry, but I do not think that a show about people being trapped on an island and who can't get off due to the bumbling of one castaway is intelligent or even great comedy.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

The '50's were mostly good, but with a few exceptions (for me) most of the TV of the '60's is crap (I'm sorry, but I do not think that a show about people being trapped on an island and who can't get off due to the bumbling of one castaway is intelligent or even great comedy.)

Because Gilligan's Island is a typical 60s show and hallmark of great Television. Every era has it's share of "Gilligan's Islands" Some were hits and others died quick deaths.

 

[BillJ]

The history and ratings from ten years ago aren't really that relevant today.

By the same token, neither are the ratings successes from the early-90's.

CBS has a basic concept for a TV series that is going to be incredibly expensive to produce and will likely only be of interest to a very small group of people. If you're an exec who has to make the best use of your budget and make a profit, do you greenlight a Star Trek series?

 

[T'Girl]

1. Nobody cares about Tasha Yar.

Except it wouldn't be Denise Crosby's Tasha, it would be a (largely) brand new character, she would be built by the new actress and the production team.

It like how really no one cares about Supergirl, it will be up to the new series to do something interesting with her.

Tasha Yar is bare bone in terms of history, we only have a small collection of facts, most of her life is missing, that gives room to create.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Netflix presents: "Tasha Yar - the Untold story".

Millions of Americans: "Who?"

 

[BillJ]

Netflix presents: "Tasha Yar - the Untold story".

Millions of Americans: "Who?"

 

[Trekkin]

The '50's were mostly good, but with a few exceptions (for me) most of the TV of the '60's is crap (I'm sorry, but I do not think that a show about people being trapped on an island and who can't get off due to the bumbling of one castaway is intelligent or even great comedy.)

Because Gilligan's Island is a typical 60s show and hallmark of great Television. Every era has it's share of "Gilligan's Islands" Some were hits and others died quick deaths.

It's true, every era has its crap. The difference is that it's much easier for us to remember the crap from today than the crap from 40 years ago. Hence, 'it was better then.' For every Star Trek, there were five 'Time Tunnels.' Sturgeon's Law was termed in the 1950's, after all.

It helps the nostalgia goggles that back then, shitty failed shows tended to literally get wiped from existence once they ran their course (unless it had value in reruns). Throw in a tiny viewing audience that will have aged or died since, it's no wonder their existence is completely forgotten. People remember the Brady Bunch, but it's a rare television geek who remembers all of its even worse sequals and spinoffs.

There was also a lot less television produced, period. So whilst there might technically have been less crap, the ratio to good television would probably be about the same.

 

[JTShanks]

It's almost difficult to believe that no investors would be interested in investing into a new Star Trek series with all these Kickstarters going around with the fanmade productions and what not.

You have a few/several thousand fans donating cash. But I'm not sure that it is indicative of how general audiences feel about Star Trek. Which is the $64 question for CBS.

I've met many fans and non-fans who have seen and liked many of the community funded Star Trek's over the years, many of which ended up becoming fans of the franchise because of their exposure to these new fan films.

My point was that if there is that much people and investors alone to make that much money to do all of that and with the critical acclaim behind the franchise, you'd think CBS would want to try to cash in on some of that action as well by hiring fan prod. groups to do their work (nothing completely outside the box or newconsidering the recent announcement from Fox/Funimation to hire K&K Prod. to do a live action Dragon Ball Z Web series due to the great response from the fans regarding their fanmade DBZ Live Action trailers), or something.

To me it just seems a bit weird with all the demand and supply being pretty much there for them without having to go to that extreme.

 

[thepigeon]

Netflix presents: "Tasha Yar - the Untold story".

Millions of Americans: "Who?"

Same could be said for every show netflix or not. Nobody knew who doctor house was until the show actually aired.

 

[NeroShrimp]

I'm just going to remain optimistic and not have any expectations. My expectations are depleted by now.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

My point was that if there is that much people and investors alone to make that much money to do all of that and with the critical acclaim behind the franchise, you'd think CBS would want to try to cash in on some of that action as well by hiring fan prod. groups to do their work (nothing completely outside the box or new, considering the recent announcement from Fox/Funimation to hire K&K Prod. to do a live action Dragon Ball Z Web series due to the great response from the fans regarding their fanmade DBZ Live Action trailers), or something.

Perhaps CBS has a ton of respect for the integrity of the Star Trek franchise/brand and doesn't want to see it diluted by what they (and most critics and fans) would see as amateur productions.

For the record, speaking for myself, I like two of the fan shows (Phase II & Aurora) but I don't think they're automatically better than the new official movies from Bad Robot and Paramount. Nor should fans not support them simply because they don't have Roddenberry's 'vision'; they do have it.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Netflix presents: "Tasha Yar - the Untold story".

Tagline: She's blonde, big-boobed and wears skin-tight clothes

 

[mos6507]

1. Nobody cares about Tasha Yar.

Except it wouldn't be Denise Crosby's Tasha, it would be a (largely) brand new character, she would be built by the new actress and the production team.

It like how really no one cares about Supergirl, it will be up to the new series to do something interesting with her.

Tasha Yar is bare bone in terms of history, we only have a small collection of facts, most of her life is missing, that gives room to create.

I think the moral of threads like this is that people can't seem to break out of "committee" thinking. In other words, this or that will either succeed or fail purely based on the concept. Execution doesn't play into it.

But there are plenty of examples of shows that, on paper, seemed laughable (like nuBSG) that worked purely based on execution.

But since nobody here can really predict how a show will be put together, we can only express prejudice one way or the other based on the raw concept.

For instance, when I heard they were going to bring back The Muppets, I was thinking it would just be handled like Muppets Tonight, which was an attempt to get lightning to strike twice and failed. It would be too cutesy and watered down. But I just saw the new trailer and they are going in a more adult direction and it looks quite promising. And the Muppets are a chronically underperforming franchise not unlike Trek. It's execution.

This is also why I hate the anti-prime-continuity faction who point to the ratings and oversaturation as a justification to dump the entire continuity. Do something good in that continuity and it will perform. It's not the fault of the world. It's the stories that were presented in it. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[BillJ]

Do something good in that continuity and it will perform. It's not the fault of the world. It's the stories that were presented in it. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are lots of shows that were considered "good" that were cancelled. There's concept. Of course there is execution. But there's also time slot and competition and how receptive an audience is at any point in time. Even in the streaming world, people only have so much time to give to entertainment.

 

[Trekkin]

I don't consider over saturation to be a 'good reason' to dump continuity. It's just that (ignoring the fact that continuity is still intact) I simply that I personally don't find a few fans on a message board saying 'I want, I want, I want' to be a very compelling reason for the creators to backtrack on the course they've decided to take.

What they're doing now is working. The new movies are financially successful and critically well received. They're also convincing some new viewers to check out the older product. Even if a new TV series was guaranteed to not crash and burn, CBS has every reason to not bother.

Would I like a new TV series? Yes, and I'd check out whatever they produced. But I can't honestly say that I think there should be a new one. We have 28 seasons of television content to reward our devotion. All good things must end.

 

[BillJ]

I don't consider over saturation to be a 'good reason' to dump continuity.

I do. Because not only is there a high bar for entry for people new to the franchise, you also have the potential to chase away the best and brightest TV and filmmakers because they don't want to be handcuffed creatively by 45 years of continuity.

 

[Dukhat]

1. Nobody cares about Tasha Yar.

Except it wouldn't be Denise Crosby's Tasha, it would be a (largely) brand new character, she would be built by the new actress and the production team.

So what would be the point of making her Tasha Yar then?

Same could be said for every show netflix or not. Nobody knew who doctor house was until the show actually aired.

You missed the point. House wasn't based on another character of the same name who was only in seven or eight episodes of another show before being killed off and largely forgotten by casual audiences.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Netflix presents: "Tasha Yar - the Untold story".

Tagline: She's blonde, big-boobed and wears skin-tight clothes

Yes! The entertainment America needs!

 

[fireproof78]

I think the Netflix show could be successful. I just don't think CBS wants to spend the money.

It may be outdated thinking, but I don't think anyone has demonstrated to them that the financial risk is worthwhile.

The is such nonsense. Trek is a massive brand and everyone knows it`can make money.

Times have changed drastically and 90`s trek is just as dated as TOS was in the late 80s.

Trek has always been hit or miss in the theatres.

However on the small screen it was a juggernaut.

That being said 2 takes frakes, or any other glorified fanboy will not get to touch the series.

Given the fact that CBS has to do nothing right now and make money off of Star Trek, versus investing probably a million or so dollars to get a show started, they are going to ere on the side of caution.

It's a simple matter of risk. They don't want to risk money.