No reason the current cast couldn't do a TV series.

[Plum]

Come to think of it, there's no reason the current cast of the new Star Trek film couldn't, in the future, do a TV series. Let's not go nuts, how about 3 seasons. You know, for the heck of it.

After, a movie run of, say, three films in almost as many years I wonder if a TV series is possible. And I don't see why not. Something special, the sort of production TVs top efforts get. Well, rather like Desilu in 65. Even if it is too cerebral.

 

[Kegek]

No reason right now, maybe. But if this movie is a big hit, they may become stars - and thus too expensive for TV.

And if it's a failure, there's no point in a TV spinoff.

So you'd better cross your fingers and pray for a moderate success.

 

[Plum]

Somehow, I think things will go well.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Some of the stars may not want to do TV.

Anton Yelchin has been positioning himself for a while to be the "Next Young Movie Star" with films like the upcoming 'Charlie Bartlett'. Zoe Saldana is starring in Twentieth Century Fox's "tentpole" movie for 2009 -- James Cameron's 'Avatar'. I think at least those two want to concentrate on films, and not be saddled with TV commitments that will take up too much of their time. When you commit yourself to a TV show (you are usually contractually commited), it is sometimes very difficult to find time to make movies. I also have the feeling that Urban and Pine would rather do Movies than make the TV-series commitment.

 

[Warp Coil]

Assuming this film is well-received, I am under the impression that the franchise would continue with Abrams at the helm. And I don't think a TV series is the direction he'd want to take. Making a Trek film every 2-3 years sounds much more reasonable for him, his fellow producers and writers, as well as the actors.

Having so much Trek constantly on television for nearly 20 years is partially to blame for running the franchise out of steam in the first place. Going back to TV now seems like a poor choice. Let new material trickle out slowly for a while... I think the results would be better.

 

[MadBaggins]

SIMONG PEGG IS A BIG START IN EUROPE, I HEARD. HE IS EUROPE'S KEVIN COSTNER.

 

[Kegek]

^
That's certainly news to this European.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Considering what we know so far, it doesn't seem likely that this cast is being set up as a a TV-series cast. As mentioned before, several of the actors here already have careers that would likely be HARMED by doing that (Quinto would have to give up Sylar... Pegg would have to give up his "big star in England" status... the other actors have roles that they wanna play that, generally speaking, don't involve being limited to saying "Yes, Keptin" or "Warp factor 2, aye" or "Hailing frequencies open, Captain" or "Where'd I put that bloody bottle of whiskey?" or "He's dead, Jim."

It's a dream to play the roles, I'm sure. But on an ongoing "series" basis? I imagine it would get REALLY OLD, REALLY FAST.

 

[Plum]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
Some of the stars may not want to do TV.

Anton Yelchin has been positioning himself for a while to be the "Next Young Movie Star" with films like the upcoming 'Charlie Bartlett'. Zoe Saldana is starring in Twentieth Century Fox's "tentpole" movie for 2009 -- James Cameron's 'Avatar'. I think at least those two want to concentrate on films, and not be saddled with TV commitments that will take up too much of their time. When you commit yourself to a TV show (you are usually contractually commited), it is sometimes very difficult to find time to make movies. I also have the feeling that Urban and Pine would rather do Movies than make the TV-series commitment.

Yes, well said. However, I think it's not so impossible or undesirable to the actors involved IF a new television production was worth it. Certainly not the long, crippled, sort of attempts we've seen from the old days of TV, let alone Trek.

There are... possibilities.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

Kegek said:
^
That's certainly news to this European.

Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were popular enough among young people here to guarantee that at least a fair number of people on the streets will recognize him as the guy from those two movies. Though it's a bit of a stretch to label him a big star.

 

[Plum]

^^^
If I'm correct, actors in Europe have no problem doing a TV series. So I think saying Simon Pegg would refuse to do television is just not so.

It's only in the US that there is a stigma about it. And this stigma is considered old fashioned these days, I'd say, as some TV productions have become worth it for the actors. Such as Oscar winner Mary McDonnell doing nuBSG or the cast from Deadwood, etc.

After all, with such a large cast they wouldn't get to shine nearly as much as in a serialized show. If Star Trek, some years from now, is produced for television in a big way I'm guessing the actors would love to be a part of it.

 

[Kegek]

Dane_Whitman said:

Kegek said:
^
That's certainly news to this European.

Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were popular enough among young people here to guarantee that at least a fair number of people on the streets will recognize him as the guy from those two movies. Though it's a bit of a stretch to label him a big star.

Yeah, I'm not saying he isn't popular, but he's hardly a big star. Hell, I know Jeremy Thompson from Shaun of the Dead a lot better than I know Pegg (and I'm sure I'm not alone).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Plum said:
^^^
If I'm correct, actors in Europe have no problem doing a TV series. So I think saying Simon Pegg would refuse to do television is just not so.

It's only in the US that there is a stigma about it. And this stigma is considered old fashioned these days, I'd say, as some TV productions have become worth it for the actors. Such as Oscar winner Mary McDonnell doing nuBSG or the cast from Deadwood, etc.

After all, with such a large cast they wouldn't get to shine nearly as much as in a serialized show. If Star Trek, some years from now, is produced for television in a big way I'm guessing the actors would love to be a part of it.

You're talking about a miniseries approach, then, I presume. If that approach were taken... or if it was something more along the lines of the old classic "movie of the week" that would have Columbo on one week, then McMillan and Wife the next, and so on... giving you essentially one Columbo a month or so rather than one every WEEK...

If that were the case, I could imagine this happening. I just can't see it as a weekly series.

Then again, I really don't WANT to see that, so perhaps I'm a bit biased, too. If we're to see a new, ongoing series, I want new characters who we can watch change and grow and evolve... who can live or die... who are complete unknown quantities when we first meet them.

Yes, it's "been done" on Trek in shows that weren't great successes. But the fact that these shows may not have been successes wasn't due to them having new casts playing new crews, IMHO.

 

[Jon1701]

Warp Coil said:
Assuming this film is well-received, I am under the impression that the franchise would continue with Abrams at the helm. And I don't think a TV series is the direction he'd want to take. Making a Trek film every 2-3 years sounds much more reasonable for him, his fellow producers and writers, as well as the actors.

Having so much Trek constantly on television for nearly 20 years is partially to blame for running the franchise out of steam in the first place. Going back to TV now seems like a poor choice. Let new material trickle out slowly for a while... I think the results would be better.

Yep. Agree with all of that.

I honestly cannot see a scenario where all these actors sign up to do this thing as a spin off TV series.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The movie would have to be more than a moderate success to get Trek back on TV. I think it's more likely we'll get some 23rd C spinoff with the same approach as the movie and guest appearances from some of the movie actors.

 

[Plum]

^^^
Oh, a new TNG era show. That's a thought. But without B&B in the picture (they would have loads of royalties, I reckon) that option might not be very attractive to the studio. Just guessing.

EDIT - Thought you meant 24th Century, oops. My brain... not... tzzt...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Unless the series utilized characters invented by Berman or Braga or any of the other writers of 24th century Trek they wouldn't be owed residuals. One doesn't get paid for the setting.

 

[Kegek]

Besides, if I can cite historical precedent, I think the most logical possibility for a TV show would be a different cast. That being, of course, the inception of TNG following the success of TVH.

Personally, though, I doubt Trek will return to TV in the near future. It'll just be a series of films, hopefully good and hopefully successful... and that's fine by me.

 

[Plum]

Yea, I've no idea what they would be entitled too.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Give Whedon or the folks who did "Farscape" budgets equivalent to what's spent on junk like "Stargate" and let them produce a TOS-era version of "Star Trek" for the SCI-FI Channel.

The thing would inevitably pull better ratings than BSG or "Stargate" - even if only a single ratings point - and make everyone involved happy.

The flaw in that plan, of course, is that those kind of creative folks would always be more interested in their own original concepts than in taking over "Star Trek."