New Singer / Fuller Series?

[Hartzilla2007]

I dunno where to put this and it probably doesn't merit its own thread, but here's an interview with the president of CBS Studios...

THR: Where is the biggest opportunity in today's landscape?
Stapf: We are making shows that are making money, and that's the goal, but I think there's an opportunity in the cable landscape, assuming the business model makes sense. I really want to crack into the Showtime world, but also I want to do smart shows that are going to make money and have an impact in the basic-cable landscape.

That's interesting - CBS doesn't have any basic-cable outlets currently.

THR: What are the big trends of development season?
Stapf: I don't know that you ever know what is going to strike a chord, and if that's what you're shooting for, you're in trouble. That said, I think one of the things that you hear a lot of is: What's not on TV? Prior to Once Upon a Time, fairy tales were not on TV. Now, Westerns aren't on. It doesn't necessarily need to be an old-fashioned "guys on horseback" Western, but that thematic type of storytelling isn't necessarily on.

Psst, if you want to be a groundbreaker with genres that are "not on TV," there's a big one I can think of right now: space opera.

But I'm skeptical this guy is really committed to risk-taking - Westerns are part of the trend in TV development now (and they were last season, too.) Developing a Western at this point would just be going along with the herd.

You know TOS was more of a western in space.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It was as much a cop show or a spy show as a Western. It lacked a lot of the traditional features of a Western, such as the main character being alone or just having a few sidekicks to help battle the bad guys. The Western equivalent of Starfleet would be the US Cavalry, but they weren't the usual focus at all. Also, the political underpinnings of Star Trek were alien to the tradition of Westerns.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Real producers understand the person they are pitching to is the network suit greenlighting the project. Only fans think that the way to create a new show is to go on the internet and get into the nitty gritty details about the timeline or what aliens will be involved.

Yet TV these days is crap.

Not compared to TV in the day of TOS;nor TV in the mid-80s when TNG premiered.

 

[CaptainMatt]

So it was all just a rumor, Seth planning to reboot Star Trek as a TV series?

 

[Nerys Myk]

It was as much a cop show or a spy show as a Western. It lacked a lot of the traditional features of a Western, such as the main character being alone or just having a few sidekicks to help battle the bad guys. The Western equivalent of Starfleet would be the US Cavalry, but they weren't the usual focus at all. Also, the political underpinnings of Star Trek were alien to the tradition of Westerns.

Maybe. Though "adult westerns" did their fair share of socially relevant episodes.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Well that's true...Bonanza did some of that, and early Gunsmoke was surprisingly smart. But social relevance isn't what I meant - it was the specific political slant of Star Trek, meaning an optimistic, perfectable future, even if it's a tad communistic. Not really the Western thing at all.

Anyway the CBS Studios guy was not thinking of space opera when he was talking about Westerns. If CBS Studios does a Western, it will have cowboys and horses.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

I doubt this will happen any time soon, but I am of the mind that a new series does not have to be set in the new universe to work. I guarantee you that it could be set in the prime universe and non-Trekkies would never know the difference. All they would respond to is the sensibilities of the show. You make it with with a splash of JJ's style and keep it lively and you'll get away with anything.

Very true. Give it some more style and it could work. I would think that keeping it in the prime universe would make more sense too, as it appeals to the large established fanbase more. Most long time Trek fans are not that thrilled with the JJ reboot. I would prefer a prime universe setting myself.

 

[Christopher]

Most long time Trek fans are not that thrilled with the JJ reboot.

That's not true at all. ST '09 is the most successful Star Trek film ever made, and there are plenty of longtime Trek fans (including myself, now in the 39th year of my Trek fandom) who quite enjoyed it. It has a 91% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is at 8.1/10 on IMDb, which, given how many Trek fans are on the Internet, would be unlikely if most Trek fans disliked it. It's just that, as is usually the case with these things, there's a small minority of vocal critics who are so loud and pervasive in their online complaints that they create the illusion that they're far more numerous than they actually are.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

Most long time Trek fans are not that thrilled with the JJ reboot.

That's not true at all. ST '09 is the most successful Star Trek film ever made, and there are plenty of longtime Trek fans (including myself, now in the 39th year of my Trek fandom) who quite enjoyed it. It has a 91% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is at 8.1/10 on IMDb, which, given how many Trek fans are on the Internet, would be unlikely if most Trek fans disliked it. It's just that, as is usually the case with these things, there's a small minority of vocal critics who are so loud and pervasive in their online complaints that they create the illusion that they're far more numerous than they actually are.

I should have said "many" instead of "most", sorry about that Chris. This minority of haters is very vocal though. Most forums I visit have a plethora of anti Abrams posts. I for one own and enjoyed the new movie. I just prefer the prime universe timeline. Thankfully the books are keeping it alive for now

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So it was all just a rumor, Seth planning to reboot Star Trek as a TV series?

None of this is real. McFarlane's version has as much chance of happening as this one does.

TOS was very much a television western set in space. It didn't have much in common with police dramas of the time.

 

[Christopher]

This minority of haters is very vocal though. Most forums I visit have a plethora of anti Abrams posts.

That's always the way it is. Before the '09 movie, it was Enterprise. Before that it was Voyager; in the early years there was a startling amount of disturbingly misogynistic ranting against Janeway. I'm sure there was a lot of skepticism about DS9 at first too, and I know that when TNG came along, there was a strongly vocal opposition to it for several years -- an opposition that included most of the TOS cast, though they were gradually won over along with everyone else.

So there's always been this kind of surge of negativity toward every new Trek project for the first few years after it comes along. So the negativity at that stage doesn't really reflect on any given project in itself; if a given new incarnation of Trek is worthwhile, eventually the haters will quiet down until the next new incarnation comes along and draws their ire. For some reason, there's a segment of Trek fandom (and most other genre fandom, no doubt) that's ferociously hostile to anything new and different -- which I find really bizarre considering that Star Trek is a franchise about people who actively seek out the new and different and enjoy finding it.

 

[CaptainMatt]

So it was all just a rumor, Seth planning to reboot Star Trek as a TV series?

None of this is real. McFarlane's version has as much chance of happening as this one does.

TOS was very much a television western set in space. It didn't have much in common with police dramas of the time.

Thanks for answering. That is a load off of my mind let me tell you.

 

[Amasov]

What about the "Lower Decks" concept tied to the Pan Am format - a group of younger officers on a ship?

Would need some involvement from the command group, but for once not just focusing on the 7 or so bridge officers...

I once had an idea similar to that for a series. It was somewhat inspired by St. Elsewhere in that the ship it took place on served as something of a teaching starship. While there would be a main cast of seven bridge officers, there would be a recurring cast of younger cadets fresh out of the Academy.

Always thought it would be an interesting idea.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think the only reason TNG was greenlighted was because TOS didn't have 100 episodes, and Paramount made the series as low-risk as possible. It was straight to syndication and if the series flopped, the 26 episodes of TNG would be added to the 79 episodes of TOS, bringing the total number of Star Trek episodes to 105. The movies proved there was a market for Star Trek, so it was worth the risk. Then TNG became a success on its own terms.

A new series could also become a success on its own terms, but there's no shortage of Star Trek episodes now, unlike 25 years ago, so there's no incentive. Yet.

CBS might eventually want its share of success with new material like Paramount is currently enjoying. Then they'll start looking for candidates to produce the series.

The two hindrances, aside from not needing any more episodes (with there being 704 total) are: 1) Where to air a new Star Trek series, and 2) How can it ride the wave of the J.J. Abrams' movies without diluting their box office performance?

Until both of those problems can be addressed, I don't think a pitch for a new Star Trek series will go anywhere. Maybe they're being addressed behind the scenes right now (or maybe not), but there's no way to know unless/until CBS makes an announcement.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

I think a great place to run a new Trek series would be the Syfy channel. Have they ever approached CBS about airing a new series in syndication? Or maybe even co-funding the project? I know they run TNG episodes.

 

[The_Emperor]

Eh, SyFy Channel is where good shows go to die. I mean, geeze, even BSG was on the cusp of cancellation, and they ended it when they did not because they had no more stories to tell but because they didn't think they'd last on the air much longer.

What I wouldn't give for a genuine Sci-Fi Channel, one that puts out good sci-fi shows, instead of one that airs reality tv, wrestling, and wastes money churning out B Movies every weekend.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

I googled the Syfy channel and found out they are a part of an Entertainment conglomerat NBCUniversal/Comcast. So I would guess that CBS would rather air a new show on one of their own affiliate stations. Though with Syfy's ratings so bad, they could use a big name series like Star Trek.

 

[Christopher]

I think a great place to run a new Trek series would be the Syfy channel.

No, it probably wouldn't be, because it's a basic cable channel and its shows have much lower budgets than a show on one of the major broadcast networks could muster. So a Trek show there would have to be a lot more limited in scope, with lower production values and fewer A-list actors in the cast. I mean, heck, if Syfy no longer finds it feasible to keep their crown-jewel space-opera franchise Stargate on the air, I doubt they'd be willing or able to fund a Trek series at the level it deserved.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think a great place to run a new Trek series would be the Syfy channel.

No, it probably wouldn't be, because it's a basic cable channel and its shows have much lower budgets than a show on one of the major broadcast networks could muster. So a Trek show there would have to be a lot more limited in scope, with lower production values and fewer A-list actors in the cast.

I'm inclined to think that's the way it'll be for a new Trek series regardless of where it'll be or who produces it. I don't belive they'll skimp on the space scenes--they'll be comparable to stuff we've seen recently on SyFy (i.e., Battlestar Galactica and Stargate Universe), but I could see a series with a smaller cast of either unknown or relatively unknown actors.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If SyFy wants to do space opera, they can greenlight the BSG prequel and/or RHW's proposed series. They sure seem skittish about the whole genre lately. Plus, would CBS Studios make a series for SyFy?

I mean, heck, if Syfy no longer finds it feasible to keep their crown-jewel space-opera franchise Stargate on the air, I doubt they'd be willing or able to fund a Trek series at the level it deserved.

The creative problems with Stargate must have contributed to the sinking ratings - it wasn't just cable's limited audience. Presumably a well-made Star Trek series would get a bigger audience.

But the budget is still a problem. I'd hate to see a cheapo Star Trek series. And honestly, when has there ever been a Star Trek series that started off with big names in the cast? LeVar Burton and Scott Bakula were reasonably famous before being cast, but generally, Star Trek does cast unknowns. So I don't see how they can save money that way.