Now that Pushing Daisies is toast...

[SGCSG1]

Bryan Fuller should be allowed to make his new Trek series. The one he wants to do in the same time/continuity as the new movie.

I would LOVE IT. Hey, I love Kirk/Spock/McCoy, but I'd love some new characters. And please, no clones of Kirk/Spock/McCoy.

But J.J. probably won't go for it. He'll think, 'if people can see it for free on tv, they will be less likely to pay to see the next two movies I'm making'.

Bummer. I would love a new Trek series in conjunction with the movie.

 

[Lindley]

Let's give him a shot at reviving Heroes first. It'll be at least that long until we have some initial news on the movie's box office.

 

[Brainsucker]

But J.J. probably won't go for it. He'll think, 'if people can see it for free on tv, they will be less likely to pay to see the next two movies I'm making'.

I agree with this. Abram has right to protect the novelty of his creation. Bringing the 23rd century to the TV will only reduce the effect of spectacular that created by the movie.

But, it will different if Abram doesn't want to continue the story.

 

[Morphi]

his creation.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

He'll go back to Heroes first. But frankly, I'd say that's good for maybe two more seasons. After that he can start in on Star Trek. There won't be a new TV series immediately. They'll want to let the movies build the fanbase back up first.

Plus there is the big dilemma that the problem afflicting all genre shows (Pushing Daisies and Heroes among them), that genre TV fans don't watch shows via the old-fashioned live broadcast method. But networks can't figure out how to make much money off anything but old-fashioned live broadcast viewing. Maybe live plus three days at most.

A new Star Trek series is going to have an unusually big chunk of new-media viewing, probably over 50% of the total audience. So waiting a couple more years might be a good idea simply to give the networks more time to figure how how to make money off new media viewing - they need to get it sorted out before taking the risk of launching a new series and having it fail simply because everyone is DVRing and downloading it.

Another factor here is that the cost of making shows are being offset via product placements, which allow DVRing beyond the plus-three days to still count in the budget. Product placements can lower production costs and the cost to the networks reduced, which offsets the lower ad revenues. But Star Trek can't do product placements, so a big element in making new media viewing pay off is not going to apply.

'if people can see it for free on tv, they will be less likely to pay to see the next two movies I'm making'.

That's not the way it works. The TV and ongoing movie series will provide a PR boost for each other. The TV series certainly must be premium, which is why I objected to the idea in another thread here of it going to the Sci Fi Channel, which doesn't draw a large enough audience to do anything "premium." Paramount will not allow a cheapo TV show to impinge on the perception of quality that they are trying to re-build for the franchise. Star Trek will have to find a way to survive on a network if it's going to be on TV at all.

Bringing the 23rd century to the TV will only reduce the effect of spectacular that created by the movie.

Star Trek isn't about being "spectacular" or visual or a visceral roller-coaster ride. It can have those elements in a movie, where they are expected, but is fundamentally about characters and ideas, and to adequately explore those things, you need a lot more than just two hours every couple of years. Star Trek was born on TV, and TV shaped what it is. It's a creature of TV just as Star Wars is a creature of movies.

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

Another factor here is that the cost of making shows are being offset via product placements, which allow DVRing beyond the plus-three days to still count in the budget. Product placements can lower production costs and the cost to the networks reduced, which offsets the lower ad revenues. But Star Trek can't do product placements, so a big element in making new media viewing pay off is not going to apply.

Let's see, Star Trek product placements. Tricorders with an "Intel inside" sticker? An episode taking place at a Hilton space hotel? Someone asks a replicator for a Coca-Cola?

 

[JoeZhang]

But J.J. probably won't go for it. He'll think, 'if people can see it for free on tv, they will be less likely to pay to see the next two movies I'm making'.

I agree with this. Abram has right to protect the novelty of his creation. Bringing the 23rd century to the TV will only reduce the effect of spectacular that created by the movie.

But, it will different if Abram doesn't want to continue the story.

It's not really his decision to make is it? It's the studios? Even if Abram decided he didn't make another one - if the film makes money, we will see another film and *then* maybe a spin-off series.

If this movie flops badly, I wouldn't expect the reaction to be "hey let's make a series!"

 

[JoeZhang]

Star Trek isn't about being "spectacular" or visual or a visceral roller-coaster ride. It can have those elements in a movie, where they are expected, but is fundamentally about characters and ideas.

Maybe it was about that those things but how do we know that will be the case after the film? If you reposition it as this high energy very visual universe, you can't expect to serve up old style trek to a new audience.

 

[Siwilliams]

sci fi....buy Pushing Daisies

 

[TJinPgh]

But J.J. probably won't go for it. He'll think, 'if people can see it for free on tv, they will be less likely to pay to see the next two movies I'm making'.

I agree with this. Abram has right to protect the novelty of his creation. Bringing the 23rd century to the TV will only reduce the effect of spectacular that created by the movie.

But, it will different if Abram doesn't want to continue the story.

It's not really his decision to make is it? It's the studios? Even if Abram decided he didn't make another one - if the film makes money, we will see another film and *then* maybe a spin-off series.

If this movie flops badly, I wouldn't expect the reaction to be "hey let's make a series!"

I gotta agree with you on this. Paramount decided they wanted to make another Trek movie before they decided to go with Abrams, IIRC. So, if he had turned this movie down we'd simply be discussing another director and another movie.

As for what the show should center on, you're right, basing ANYTHING off of this movie is way premature at this point. Given the competition of this movie, the odds of it making back the $150m they're spending on it, frankly, aren't very good. They would have been far better off cutting the budget in half (which would have easily been done given this cast) and releasing it on the original date.

Having said all of that, I, personally, wouldn't be doing a Trek series right now. I'd consider TV movies (mini-series, etc) as well as direct to DVD features.