Agreed.
Maybe some years beyond. A new series in the post-VOYAGER era which would be NEMESIS with Admiral Janeway, so a post-NEMESIS era.
New ST to be pitched to CBS set in post STNG era/timeline
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Agreed.
Maybe some years beyond. A new series in the post-VOYAGER era which would be NEMESIS with Admiral Janeway, so a post-NEMESIS era.
Seems it is not understood what "pitch" means. Somebody would send in an idea for a series or episode, and if the powers-that-be are interested, they will *invite* the person to come and present the idea, to "pitch" it. I can go up to Paramount's front gate and scream out I am there to pitch a new series, doesn't mean squat if I'm not invited in. At least that is my understanding of "pitch" in this context.
^Well, that's why this fellow is trying to hook up with a more experienced producer. He needs someone with enough clout to get a meeting with the CBS execs.
And the procedure for pitching to a show (which is different from this anyway) doesn't quite work the way you describe. Generally you're not allowed to send in unsolicited ideas; TNG, DS9, and VGR were exceptions because Michael Piller believed in cultivating new writers, but even so, you had to sign a legal waiver first. Normally you need to send a spec script through an agent. And if they liked your spec script, there'd be no need for you to come in and pitch the same story. The way it works is that the spec script is an audition for the writer. It's not about selling them the specific story idea, it's about selling yourself and your talent. More than likely they won't be able to use the script you sent them, because it doesn't conform with their plans for the series that you weren't privy to or because it's too similar to a story they're already doing; but if they like your writing, they'll invite you in to pitch them other story ideas. If, by some one-in-a-few-hundred-thousand chance, they actually do want to buy your script, they'll call your agent and arrange to buy it. You wouldn't have to pitch the same story again; if you were called in to pitch after that, it would be "what else you got?"
Of course, for something like pitching a new series to the executives, you can't just send in your document through your agent; you need to get that meeting, get face time with the execs to tell them your idea. Think about how Gene Roddenberry pitched Star Trek to the TV networks in the first place.
In any case, TPTB have to show some reciprocal interest in the idea, there is no evidence of that in this case.
I think the idea is kind of weird, Ferenghi in some sort of central role? They were booted out of that position in TNG for a very good reason. Praxis? We got no indication of continuing effects from Praxis in the TNG era, the Klingon Empire seems to have shrugged it off pretty well, and they would have even kicked the Federation's ass in a war in the 2360's timeframe according to "Yesterdays Enterprise". Too much of the old, not enough of the new. That's the benefit of doing a series set further down the timeline, no need to use the same old tired aliens.
I think the idea is kind of weird, Ferenghi in some sort of central role? They were booted out of that position in TNG for a very good reason. Praxis? We got no indication of continuing effects from Praxis in the TNG era, the Klingon Empire seems to have shrugged it off pretty well, and they would have even kicked the Federation's ass in a war in the 2360's timeframe according to "Yesterdays Enterprise". Too much of the old, not enough of the new. That's the benefit of doing a series set further down the timeline, no need to use the same old tired aliens.
Err, have you ever heard of a little show called Deep Space Nine? Ferengi ended up being pretty important there.
Wake me when CBS gets pitched by someone they'd be willing to listen to.
Or, to be more direct about it: wake me when a new Star Trek TV series story gets picked up by Deadline. That's when my ears will perk up, not before.
Seems amateurish, doesn't it?
Or someone with the clout to get in the door could pitch them and make a good case for a TV series. But there are a lot of hurdles, starting with, where does it air? Certainly not on CBS. So are we talking CW or Showtime? Or is CBS going to make a series for another outlet not owned by CBS?
There are scenarios where that might make sense, such as an animated series on The Cartoon Network, but otherwise that's adding yet another institutional hurdle to a project that already has plenty, starting with the fact that there are no space operas on TV anywhere.
So why should CBS, or anyone else, take a leap of faith to do a space opera series of any sort? CBS is the most successful network, following a conservative philosophy of making one cop show after another. What possible motive could they have to take a risk on a genre that even the so-called sci fi channel is snubbing?
His buddies Kurtzman and Orci have been talking about making an animated series. So far, they're the only people seriously talking about a new series that I've heard of, who has the clout to get in the door at CBS. And I can also see a strong business case being made for an animated series. It's cheaper than live action, it can bring in the Abrams' movie characters without needing to pay movie actors' salaries and therefore draw from the PR value of the movies in a cost-effective way, and they can point to the success of The Clone Wars as proof that they can be a success too.
The Clone Wars (and other animated shows like the upcoming Green Lantern series) are the only example of successful space opera on TV today, shockingly enough. So it makes perfect sense that they'd be the template for any other new space opera series.
And I sincerely doubt that was really the "first time" Abrams had thought about a new TV series. I'm sure the notion has crossed his mind from time to time ever since he first decided to make a Star Trek movie. How could it possibly not?
I still think they're getting this backwards. They need to start with that person with clout, and then they can pitch any number of show ideas. Worrying about whether Praxis fits into this or that canon or timeline or will attract or annoy audiences is looking at this all wrong. CBS isn't going to care about Praxis, Klingons, etc. They're going to care about the fact that they might be throwing resources at a risky proposition - space opera - when they could be throwing those resources at a nice, safe cookie cutter cop show.
The first step is to determine: is this show going on CW, Showtime, The Cartoon Network, or are we going to try to get CBS interested in making it for outlets like TNT, FX or AMC? A show that will work on CW will be very different from one that will work on Showtime which will be different from The Cartoon Network. Nobody should start sketching out the show's content until they've figured out where it's airing, and why CBS would want to throw resources at it instead of another cop show?
Last edited:
Maybe they have to focus on the Ferengi , because ideas for characters are exhausted at this point.
So much, maybe too much, has been done in the TNG-Voyager era. The Borg and Q had their mystery and danger taken away from them.
And the Fed won the Dominion war, taking away most of the major threats.
Where's the danger and mystery of exploring space if all the surprises are gone?
So much, maybe too much, has been done in the TNG-Voyager era. The Borg and Q had their mystery and danger taken away from them.
And the Fed won the Dominion war, taking away most of the major threats.
Where's the danger and mystery of exploring space if all the surprises are gone?
We haven't heard the pitch. We've read an edited account of an interview in which the developer talked about the pitch. Foster was quoted as saying, "It includes Klingons, Ferengi, Andorians, Vulcans, Trill, and many more." The article then quoted a sentence about the Klingons and a sentence about the Ferengi. It's possible that the article edited out further comments about the other species, or that the interviewer asked the next question before Foster could continue talking about the various species, or that Foster focused on those two because they're the ones that have changed the most, or that he focused on those two because his plans for the others are secret or too complicated to reduce to sound bites. So just because those two were singled out in the interview, it doesn't automatically follow that they're the two central races in the actual proposal.
If I were my own enemy I'm reasonably hopeful I'd win.
Sounds like Eric Cantona is pitching this idea for a new Star Trek series to me.
Could you recognise a homeward bound trawler, if there were no strong odour of fish or seagulls following her?
Could you recognise a homeward bound trawler, if there were no strong odour of fish or seagulls following her?
That's the least of their problems. For most of the potential audience, Star Trek is just a vague fuzzy thing filled with green women and pointy eared people with stupid haircuts. Abrams' movie is the strongest image that the franchise has, because it's the most recent popular thing out there.
We don't really know what the potential audience is, since nobody is saying where this series is being pitched to (which is the single most important thing about the pitch - an approach that will work one place will flop hard in another).
It can be pitched to CBS, the company, but not to CBS, the network, because there is no conceivable Star Trek series that would succeed on CBS. It has to be CW, Showtime or somewhere else on cable. The potential audience is primarily current viewers of that outlet, who will overlap with Star Trek fans to the extent that you'd expect any group to overlap just by random chance. But each group will expect very different things, and their expectations must be met for the outlet where they are seeing the show. Whether or not it meets our definitions of Star Trek is very much secondary.
It sounds like a vaguely interesting sort of space opera series, but there's nothing about it that says Star Trek. And in trying to match it to the best TV outlet by envisioning it being used in an ad for the show, it's too portentious for network TV, too cartoony for AMC/HBO/Showtime, and too sincere for FX. It might fit TNT, except they already have their space alien show. It would definitely fit SyFy except they've given up on space opera. I'd say the best match is The Cartoon Network, where that style of storytelling already exists in abundance.
I don't know how much CBS is like BBC1 here in Britain. But I figure US television has got to be similiar. With stations that are considered to be main players and lesser ones viewers you often have to pay for. Nobody could've predicted how well received the Doctor Who relaunch was here back in 2005. No sci fi/fantasy/family adventure had survived before in primetime but somehow they took a gamble that is still paying off seven years later. Who's to say Star Trek can't be adapted to fill a void the CBS line-up doesn't cater to?
Whatever a show is about, it's a fine line to walk. It has be Star Trek but different again to that seen from J J Abrams, or it becomes a threat to building anticipation to the next film. Not the same characters, or it takes away from the movies being special events you have to see or miss out.
Whatever a show is about, it's a fine line to walk. It has be Star Trek but different again to that seen from J J Abrams, or it becomes a threat to building anticipation to the next film. Not the same characters, or it takes away from the movies being special events you have to see or miss out.
Probably not much. CBS is the most successful of the networks (overall, network TV is in real trouble, especially NBC and ABC) and has achieved that success by showing three types of shows: police procedurals; mass-taste sitcoms; and reality TV. Because those genres appeal to a very wide audience, CBS expects any new shows to measure up to a very high ratings bar. They'll cancel a show that gets ratings that would qualify as a hit on NBC and might be three or four times as popular as a hit show on Showtime.
In the past, CBS has pussyfooted around with sf/f genre TV, like Jericho, apparently because there was some feeling that they needed to have a nichey cult show in the mix. But nichey cult shows get puny ratings compared with what CBS is used to, and they seem to have gotten past the idea that they should care about sci fi at all.
CBS is riding high now, and they probably don't think they need to stick their necks out and take any risks, since the conservative approach has paid off so well. But they have the oldest average audience of any of the networks, something around 50 I think. Advertisers don't care about anyone over the age of 49, so that is a big problem for CBS, and the other networks are aging right behind them (with FOX and especially CW skewing much younger.)
So the thing that will finally push CBS to change is when the realize their audience is dying out from under them. But there are many other approaches they can take to get a younger audience short of jumping into a new Star Trek series. And this realization may not hit them for a few years.
This is how American TV works: the five networks are free (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CW) and you have to pay for everything else. (Technically I also pay for the five networks since I have cable and it's all on the same bill, but I could dump cable and get the nets for free.)
Since the networks make money from advertisements, where each viewer is not worth all that much, they are stuck chasing a mass audience to get survival-level ratings. But cable is shaping viewers' tastes so that they expect to be catered to, and networks have lost a lot of their audience to cable (it's 50/50 networks/cable now).
On cable, some or all of the revenue comes from subscriptions, which means each viewer on basic cable (TNT, AMC, FX, etc) is worth more than network, and even moreso on premium cable (HBO, Showtime). As the value of the viewer goes up, so does the benefit of catering to the tastes of smaller numbers of viewers vs the mass market.
There is a very striking correlation between quality and niche programming. The fewer viewers you are forced to chase, the better the series will be. Most likely, this is just the result of greater creative freedom on cable, which in turn is made possible by the cable business model. If that's the case, it can't be translated to network TV, which is stuck making less interesting/mass market junk forever.
Networks are in such dire trouble that some networks have hired execs from cable to help turn things around, and several of the new network shows seem cable-y - Pan Am, Playboy Club, even Person of Interest which seems like a departure for CBS. But most of the risk-taking is happening, predictably, on the networks that are in the most trouble: ABC and NBC.
Then the question becomes, are the networks simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? If their ad-based business model is the reason their programming is so bland, then trying to ape cable will simply result in cable-level ratings, which won't pay for network shows. In a few weeks, we'll start seeing the answer to this question.
CBS sticks with police procedurals, inoffensive comedy, and reality TV because those are the "12M tastes." Other tastes, for horror or historical fiction or space opera, are going to be inherently less common and therefore probably not a good fit for CBS.
There are plenty of tastes that CBS doesn't cater to, but the real question is, are those tastes common enough that they can get, say, 12M viewers that CBS expects of its shows? When ENT was cancelled, it was in the 3-4M range.
I sincerely doubt it could ever reach 12M even in the best of circumstances. The whole green-aliens/starship thing is going to be inherently off-putting to a large proportion of the audience. To get Star Trek up to the 12M range, you'd have to jettison everything that makes it distinctive. Why not just accept reality and make another cop show instead?
A much better approach would be to put Star Trek on Showtime (and don't worry, it wouldn't have to have obnoxiously amped up sex 'n violence - there might be more sex and violence than on network TV, but it's not like Showtime has a minimum requirement).
On Showtime, getting 2M or so is a great achievement, especially if a lot of those viewers are first-time Showtime subscribers who are motivated to subscribe because they are fans. The success of Game of Thrones on HBO - a book series that has a fanbase but certainly not as large as Trekkies - suggests that Showtime/Star Trek would be a successful combo.
The trick is, convincing Showtime of this. They might look askance at a franchise associated with free TV, as not having enough of a high-toned image. Showtime would have to give Star Trek that image, and that might not be worth their bother.
The key to getting Star Trek back on TV is to put it on an outlet that already has high-caliber shows, with a compatible business model that will permit it to be the quality it should be, and is willing to at least think about a sci fi series. That means Showtime, which has the advantage of being part of CBS, but also in theory, HBO, FX, AMC, TNT and (if it's an animated series) The Cartoon Network.
Last edited:
The confusing thing is that we're talking about various separate companies that are under the same corporate umbrella and thus use the same brand name. The CBS that owns Star Trek is actually CBS Television Studios, a production company that was formed through a merger of the company called CBS Productions (the production arm of the CBS network) with the production company that used to be named Paramount Television and before that was called Desilu Productions. It is owned by CBS Corporation (formerly Viacom), a media conglomerate that also owns CBS Broadcasting Inc, the television network (formerly the Columbia Broadcasting System). Currently, if Wikipedia is correct, all the shows produced by CBS Television Studios air on networks owned by either CBS Corporation (which owns CBS and the CW) or its spinoff company Viacom (which owns BET). But there's nothing precluding it from selling one of its shows to a network under different ownership. There are cases where that happens (for instance, 20th Century Fox Television producing shows aired on ABC, NBC, etc. rather than FOX).
Although it has perhaps little to no bearing on your point, in your picture of free and over the air American television, you forgot to mention PBS. It is nonprofit, and its money comes from sources that include private donations and the government. Currently, I watch at least seven hours per week of PBS, including the NewsHour and Masterpiece Mystery!, which for example aired Sherlock.
PBS stations airing a new Star Trek series is of course completely out of the question, but they are no stranger to airing science fiction. For example, although many years ago, I saw both The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and the original The Prisoner on our PBS station.
But ha! Wouldn't you know it, this website claims that at least one PBS station did air Star Trek in the '80s.
Sounds good, in broadstrokes. Joss Whedon-esque influence is a plus, among other things.
The details are a different matter.
Between DS9 S4-S7, I'd say the Klingons have had their fill of warfare. Plus, if they're itching for a fight, will they be adversaries? Or will they reluctantly ally themselves against whoever the Big Bad is supposed to be?
I'm also not quite sure about what getting back to the basics means. TPTW had said that about every series. DS9 was getting back to TOS because it was out on the frontier and had more conflict. VOY was back to the basics because it was one ship, all alone. ENT was supposed to be more TOS-like than the series set in the 24th Century.
Then there are the Ferengi. Would it not be more timely for their economy or the economy/resources of other societies to collapse? Would it not be better if there were no easy solutions, similar to what we're in now?
Also, similar to the situation we're in now, isn't war and conflict something everyone should be tired of after the Borg and the Dominion? Though, maybe that could be a point of contention between hawk-ish Klingons and everyone else. That could also be a starting point for the Roddenberrian approach.
This is sounding more negative than I mean it to. I think a 2010s Star Trek series could work very well. I hope this wouldn't end up feeling like an unneccessary extention of the 1990s Star Trek, OTOH, if it came to pass. Moving forward isn't just the time-frame of the series, it's the attitude, the approach, and the mentality.
The details are a different matter.
Between DS9 S4-S7, I'd say the Klingons have had their fill of warfare. Plus, if they're itching for a fight, will they be adversaries? Or will they reluctantly ally themselves against whoever the Big Bad is supposed to be?
I'm also not quite sure about what getting back to the basics means. TPTW had said that about every series. DS9 was getting back to TOS because it was out on the frontier and had more conflict. VOY was back to the basics because it was one ship, all alone. ENT was supposed to be more TOS-like than the series set in the 24th Century.
Then there are the Ferengi. Would it not be more timely for their economy or the economy/resources of other societies to collapse? Would it not be better if there were no easy solutions, similar to what we're in now?
Also, similar to the situation we're in now, isn't war and conflict something everyone should be tired of after the Borg and the Dominion? Though, maybe that could be a point of contention between hawk-ish Klingons and everyone else. That could also be a starting point for the Roddenberrian approach.
This is sounding more negative than I mean it to. I think a 2010s Star Trek series could work very well. I hope this wouldn't end up feeling like an unneccessary extention of the 1990s Star Trek, OTOH, if it came to pass. Moving forward isn't just the time-frame of the series, it's the attitude, the approach, and the mentality.
The Syfy network would have been the perfect candidate, but I'm not sure about it now.
I just don't really get that channel. They show everything but sci-fi .
When it premiered, I expected to see Lost In Space, TOS, DS9, anything Star Wars related, Xena, sci-fi cartoons, etc, etc,
Instead it's network made B movies and TV shows that have nothing much to do with real science fiction.
They have whole lineup of reality shows on it now--and it's supposed to be a sci-fi oriented channel.
I don't think UPN or CW will work like before-TV is too different now, and CBS to never had a place there to begin with.
If it's gonna work, they'll have to choose the right channel with the right audience--if it fails, it will nearly ruin the TV franchise.
Similar threads
- Poll
