Scottie, Now would be a good time!

[Temis the Vorta]

I recently confirmed Star Trek The Next Generation did in fact over around 20 million viewers per episode and it is on the Wikipedia page. If I a new Star Trek show was to go into production shortly after the next movie, we can expect large viewership.

Not that large, not even close. The TV business has changed enormously since the days when TNG got 20M viewers. Only the very biggest shows - American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, football - ever get over 20M anymore. 2010-11 Season-to-Date Ratings.

In TNG's day, 20M was what a niche show got. Now it's what only a handful of top shows get. Niche shows get 4-5M and then they get cancelled unless they're on the CW or cable.

Here's a model Star Trek might be able to make use of: Falling Skies was a solid hit on TNT with 6M viewers. Of course that's with Spielberg's name and the promise of a lot of alien-killing mayhem, but that does show that the market for space-oriented sci fi has not vanished, and can pull decent numbers on cable under optimal conditions.

The comments about CBS and CW having absolutely not being an outlet for a new show is bogus.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for either of them to change their strategy. Just look at their lineups for the coming season: more cop shows and mass-market sitcoms for CBS; more young-female-oriented shows for the CW. If they were thinking of expanding beyond that, we'd be seeing at least a glimmer of it now. CW's boldest move was to pick up Ringer because it's aiming at a slightly older female audience than usual.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Another thing to consider about TNG's average of 20 milliion viewers is that it was also a result of quite a few local stations airing the show twice during a week, with both airings being counted.

 

[peteym5]

On the Wikipedia TNG article, going directly to syndication was a way for Paramount, Gene Roddenberry, and Rick Berman would maintain control of its content. Paramount had special deal with the syndicated stations where they got the episodes for free, but they already had several commercials recorded into the episodes. Still had a few blanks for local spots. One condition was they would later air these episodes 5 days per week after several seasons. I understand the episodes cost $1.8 to $3 million to make, and returned $90 in profits per episode.

Not sure how this would be profitable with first run on CBS, CW, or on a Cable Channel, but even if it cost $10 million per episode now, it would still earn several times its money back. There was a special deal with UPN for the last season of Enterprise in that they only paid half the normal price, but Paramount Tevelvision would make it later when the show airs in syndication or cable. Syfy Channel now has the exclusive air rights for an x amount of years.

You can say the Falling Skys got 6 million on cable with Steven Spielbergs name. What happens with a show that has Trek in the title will do on a network or cable? Even if its not done at the level of TNG, it will still be successful in the ratings. It will be the only Trek show airing after about a decade.

Never look at how Voyager and Enterprise did it the ratings and say a new Trek show will get that. Remember those last 2 shows were spin offs while other prior Trek shows were still on the air or just ended. Immediate Spin offs rarely do better than their predecessors. Same thing happened recently with the Stargate franchise. Spin offs of CSI had lower ratings. Personally I believe Paramount did too much Star Trek in too short of a time span and could not maintain quality.

 

[AviTrek]

Not sure how this would be profitable with first run on CBS, CW, or on a Cable Channel, but even if it cost $10 million per episode now, it would still earn several times its money back.

You do realize, not even Glee sells ads at a high enough rate to cover a $10m/episode cost. Keep dreaming.

You can say the Falling Skys got 6 million on cable with Steven Spielbergs name. What happens with a show that has Trek in the title will do on a network or cable? Even if its not done at the level of TNG, it will still be successful in the ratings. It will be the only Trek show airing after about a decade.

And why does the first show after a decade mean ratings will increase? TNG peaked in the middle of it's run, not at the start.

Never look at how Voyager and Enterprise did it the ratings and say a new Trek show will get that. Remember those last 2 shows were spin offs while other prior Trek shows were still on the air or just ended. Immediate Spin offs rarely do better than their predecessors. Same thing happened recently with the Stargate franchise. Spin offs of CSI had lower ratings.

And never look at ratings from 25 years ago and expect them to be reproducible today.

 

[Harvey]

You do realize, not even Glee sells ads at a high enough rate to cover a $10m/episode cost. Keep dreaming.

Well, television is hardly ever profitable in first run -- at best it breaks even at that point -- but even taking that into account $10 million is definitely an insane pipe dream. Has any weekly television series ever cost that much?

To bring up an example, Boardwalk Empire -- which was very expensive for HBO to produce -- cost about $5 million per episode, and that's taking into account that the pilot cost about $18 million.

 

[peteym5]

Maybe $10 was a bit of an exaggeration, was using it as an example and pointing out it could be profitable in such a case. Maybe if George Lucas gets that Star Wars live action tv project going, it will run close to that. Most a special effects heavy show would cost is between $4 to $5 million, maybe more to for a pilot episode or big season ending cliff hangers. Point was if they spent that much, they will still get their money back. CBS studios may not charge the full production cost as the first run license fee, if it was sold to another network, cable channel, or first run syndication. Its when the show goes to syndication and home video that makes up many times its costs.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You can say the Falling Skys got 6 million on cable with Steven Spielbergs name. What happens with a show that has Trek in the title will do on a network or cable?

Are you saying Star Trek is a bigger draw than Spielberg? I doubt that. Memories will fade over time, but Star Trek still is associated with failure on TV. Spielberg is perceived as Mr. Success, and his presence in TV-land is new and interesting, and bound to generate viewership for curiosity alone.

Star Trek on TV will have to prove itself to a skeptical audience. The movie success will help, but not solve the problem on its own. People know that movies and TV are good at different things. Also, the audience is not the same. The movie audience skews young and male; the TV audience skews older and female. The content will have to be adjusted to suit.

 

[Scrambo]

the old Sci-Fi channel used to be really good. You know they would show the classic twilight zone and outer limits etc. Now they've renamed themselves to SyFy and are showing less and less things sci-fi related. However having said that CBS Action (In uk on Sky) are showing ST:TOS at the mo...albeit its season 3 but its a start.

 

[AviTrek]

Maybe $10 was a bit of an exaggeration, was using it as an example and pointing out it could be profitable in such a case. Maybe if George Lucas gets that Star Wars live action tv project going, it will run close to that. Most a special effects heavy show would cost is between $4 to $5 million, maybe more to for a pilot episode or big season ending cliff hangers. Point was if they spent that much, they will still get their money back. CBS studios may not charge the full production cost as the first run license fee, if it was sold to another network, cable channel, or first run syndication. Its when the show goes to syndication and home video that makes up many times its costs.

Except a show is not guaranteed to do well enough to go into syndication. The accepted minimum number of episodes needed for a syndication deal is 80-100. No studio will produce a show if it doesn't expect to break even on first run rights. Syndication and DVD deals may help make something more profitable, but if the show can't cover costs in first run it will never be commissioned.

 

[peteym5]

Making 80 episodes over 4 seasons is not impossible with Star Trek. It will draw enough to be profitable with its first run. 3 Star Trek shows in a row ran 7 seasons, each being profitable during its first run. Keep in mind, it was Star Trek Enterprise that failed. It was not the whole franchise, it was the 3rd spin off after TNG. At the point it was canceled, Star Trek was competing with itself. A new Star Trek show will not have such issues since most of the other shows are not running on a national cable channel. Contracts with SYFY will probably expire before a new Trek show is produced.

Its more of a question of time, the actor movie contracts (Chris Pine, Karl Urban, etc.) is for 3 movies, and the way some became popular, doubt they can get them all back for a 4th or 5th one. Paramount won't be able to afford them. CBS may wait until a 3rd JJ Abrams movie is made before doing a Trek show now. By then, no one can be certain of what the TV market be like or who owns what network. Hopefully the US economy will be better. Current economy state may have had an impact on sci-fi TV shows and one of the reason why some major sci-fi shows recently got canceled.

 

[AviTrek]

Hopefully the US economy will be better. Current economy state may have had an impact on sci-fi TV shows and one of the reason why some major sci-fi shows recently got canceled.

That's a new one. I've never heard anyone claiming the economy is hurting sci-fi shows more than general tv shows. In fact the network sci-fi shows on the bubble did incredibly well this past year. Bubble shows got renewed(Fringe and Chuck) and shows with terrible ratings got cancelled like everyone expected(V, The Event).

Even on cable SGU and Caprica had terrible ratings. You can blame SyFy scheduling all you want, but given that scheduling both shows had ratings so bad no one seriously expected them to be renewed. The bad economy didn't magically make people watch less tv, and it was the ratings that caused shows to be cancelled.

Maybe in Petey's world there are always external excuses for a failure and facts can be made up to support a new Star Trek show, but despite what Uhura said, this is reality not fantasy. A Star Trek show needs to show that it can sustain enough viewers to be profitable, you have yet to do that.

 

[peteym5]

Sponsorship on television shows has been going down and corporation are less willing to spend on advertising. So if any show had a drop in ratings, they get cancelled more quickly. BTW SGU ratings issues were not from poor quality, there were bankruptcy issues with MGM. Fans abandoned the whole Stargate thing because of how Atlantis was not concluded. Caprica was just not Battlestar Galactica.

However, Star Trek still has enough fans to support it, just look at how fast the Facebook groups are growing, have two groups with 1.3 and 1.7 million fans. For everyone on facebook, probably 10 that didn't bother with facebook. Everyone still remembers the original show, TNG, DS9, etc.

I am estimating between 5 and 10 million for a new Star Trek show either on cable or broadcast. Unless they do a bunch of really dumb episodes within two seasons, it will do better than Enterprise. Quality is going to be key. Its a matter of finding the right executive producer.

Enterprise did not have a drop in ratings just from bad episodes, had some external things affecting it. Paramount did 4 Star Trek shows on top of each other. People did not like the vocal theme. The last 2 season, quality got better, but no one was watching. Enterprise was competing against TNG on Spike (TNN?) for part of its run. UPN was suffering with its other shows at the time. Voyager was already unpopular with some fans. If they waited a season for Enterprise, it probably got a seven year run. I wish Deep Space Nine had some time being the only new Star Trek show. Voyager was rushed just for the new UPN network.

 

[Yminale]

Star Trek on TV will come back eventually. It's just a matter of time since old ideas get recycled endlessly on network TV (*shudder* Knight Rider *shudder*)

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Sponsorship on television shows has been going down and corporation are less willing to spend on advertising.

Nope, the TV ad market is surprisingly healthy given the recession. It's not back to pre-recession levels and may turn out to be fool's gold if the sponsors get cold feet later on and start cancelling orders, but that remains to be seen.

The real problem is the proliferation of entertainment options, of which multiple cable channels are only one. Think about all the leisure time being siphoned off by Facebook and Twitter.

The solution is: a) increase the value of each audience member (through multiple airings, cable subscriptions, DVD sales, international sales and paid/ad supported downloads); and b) increase your odds of survival by making sure the show's content either fits the mass-market model (sitcoms, procedurals, reality twaddle) or the niche model (which is where sci fi slots in).

I am estimating between 5 and 10 million for a new Star Trek show either on cable or broadcast.

Closer to 5 million, I'd say, on broadcast. Less on cable. So that's under survival levels for broadcast, and for cable, CBS needs a motivation to either do something specific for CW or Showtime, or make a deal for another outlet.

I've never heard anyone claiming the economy is hurting sci-fi shows more than general tv shows.

It's not. Advertisers are generally well inclined towards sci fi because it appeals to a young male demographic which has grown scarce among TV audiences and is hard to advertise to. But then the problem is, you make a sci fi show and the scarce young male audience remains scarce. The issue is not the genre but the fact that the audience is not watching TV, or not watching in ways that can be monitored and capitalized on.

Any sci fi show that can solve this conundrum and appeal to a large-sized young male audience that watches ads will be golden.

Bubble shows got renewed(Fringe and Chuck)

That's another phenomenon: the emergence of Friday night as a "wasted" night. Networks have given up on attracting a decent sized audience for this night that they're starting to just program the small, niche-audience shows for Friday and not expecting them to pull great ratings. But if the show survives there, then great. I'm looking forward to seeing Grimm and I'm actually happy to see it in the Friday Night Death Slot, because at least it won't get cancelled immediately for having mediocre ratings.

But V and The Event were in "regular" slots during the week where shows are expected to pull their weight. That's why they got the axe and the shows with small but loyal audiences got pushed to Friday.

 

[peteym5]

I am going to stick with 5 to 10 million viewers when the show kicks off. If it goes up or down depends on the writing mainly. It has to be Star Trek at its core. Since it will be the first Trek show in a decade, it will attract attention from the news media. It will be an unique new show because there is nothing exactly like Star Trek. CBS Studios also has an open playing field with little competition from other sci-fi shows right now. When it comes to another sci-fi show competing with Star Trek, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Something I seen with these remakes is that they messed with the basic concept of the original and got too fancy with it. V remake violated what the original was. Knight Rider remake got too far from the original. KITT should not be able to transform into other vehicles. KITT transorming from a sports car to a 4x4, pickup, or van is what killed it. What was going to stop the writers from having KITT transform into a jet fighter or a submarine. I admit the original got stupid with "Super Pursuit Mode" If you're doing sci-fi, you have to set limits on your technology and have reasons you cannot go beyond that. Star Trek stuck with certain limits and made it good. It maintains a drama element.

Sticking with Basics is important, Star Trek needs a Captain, First Officer, Doctor, Chief Engineer, Transporters, Starships, Phasers, Klingons, Borg, etc. You can have encounters with new stuff, but still have to stay true to the Star Trek core. Has to maintain the human beings in space story element. Just don't do too many episodes about the Captains Dog in Sickbay.

 

[AviTrek]

I am going to stick with 5 to 10 million viewers when the show kicks off.

You may be right on 10m for a broadcast premiere, and 5m for cable premiere. But most sci-fi shows will then lose half of that audience within a month. You better start with a larger margin or have significant space in your budget for a lower number of viewers or the show will be doomed for cancellation before it gets going.

When it comes to another sci-fi show competing with Star Trek, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Except Spielberg, or Star Wars. Both names have much more mass market appeal and will trounce anything related to Star Trek. At this point, True Blood would probably beat Star Trek in a head to head battle in the same time slot.

Something I seen with these remakes is that they messed with the basic concept of the original and got too fancy with it. V remake violated what the original was. Knight Rider remake got too far from the original. KITT should not be able to transform into other vehicles. KITT transorming from a sports car to a 4x4, pickup, or van is what killed it. What was going to stop the writers from having KITT transform into a jet fighter or a submarine. I admit the original got stupid with "Super Pursuit Mode" If you're doing sci-fi, you have to set limits on your technology and have reasons you cannot go beyond that. Star Trek stuck with certain limits and made it good. It maintains a drama element.

And if every other remake screwed it up, why do you think Star Trek would be any different. The same modern TV hacks who have tried to reboot V and Knight Rider are the ones who will be given a shot at Star Trek. Except they won't view it as getting to far from the original, they'll talk about making the show "more accessible to a modern audience."

Sticking with Basics is important, Star Trek needs a Captain, First Officer, Doctor, Chief Engineer, Transporters, Starships, Phasers, Klingons, Borg, etc.

Wow, the Borg are now considered part of the "basics"? When did that happen? VOY overdoing it with the Borg is when it started to "jump the shark".

 

[peteym5]

Something that may work if someone like Ronald D. Moore decides to come back to Star Trek, or maybe someone who he worked with on Battlestar Galactica and a prior Trek show. Someone who can make it relevant to the current audience and find the balance of staying true to Star Trek. The other option is if someone working on the JJ Abrams films developed the series. Someone like that has the best shot of making a new Trek series work. If the Knight Rider or V producers came to CBS wanting to do Star Trek their way, CBS will likely tell them to take a hike. CBS might be waiting for the right people to come along. CBS and Paramount already have the right people for the movies.

The Borg were featured on 4 Star Trek shows, major part on TNG and VOY. If a new Trek show has a post TNG setting, Borg would have to visit at some point. Would be part of the basics of a 24th century Star Trek. Maybe Holodecks, Combadges, Feringi, and Cardassians be included basics in that case. However we don't know what happened to the TNG in the alternate reality.

 

[AviTrek]

Something that may work if someone like Ronald D. Moore decides to come back to Star Trek, or maybe someone who he worked with on Battlestar Galactica and a prior Trek show. Someone who can make it relevant to the current audience and find the balance of staying true to Star Trek. The other option is if someone working on the JJ Abrams films developed the series. Someone like that has the best shot of making a new Trek series work. If the Knight Rider or V producers came to CBS wanting to do Star Trek their way, CBS will likely tell them to take a hike. CBS might be waiting for the right people to come along. CBS and Paramount already have the right people for the movies.

You mean someone like David Eick? Worked on BSG and then tried to reboot Bionic Woman. You saw where that went...

The Borg were featured on 4 Star Trek shows, major part on TNG and VOY. If a new Trek show has a post TNG setting, Borg would have to visit at some point. Would be part of the basics of a 24th century Star Trek. Maybe Holodecks, Combadges, Feringi, and Cardassians be included basics in that case. However we don't know what happened to the TNG in the alternate reality.

Featured is a stretch. They showed up in DS9 only in regards to Sisko flashbacks to Wolf 359. They appeared once on Enterprise, and that episode was hated for it. And VOY went overboard and abused the Borg. The first thing a new producer needs to do is to stay far away from the Borg and all Berman gimmicks.

 

[peteym5]

Ronald D. Moore may be available if this "Battlestar Galactica Blood and Chrome" does not work out. Right now that is the last shot of the SYFY channel doing a space drama/opera. If that fails, we can say bye bye to space action sci-fi on the SYFY channel. Then again, they're probably going have to do something to compete with "Fallen Skies" soon. Cannot say Star Trek is an option, but someone will need something with a known name to compete.

If I recall, CBS and Paramount bought in JJ Abrams in hopes of rebooting Star Trek as a franchise, not just the movies, but probably for Television as well at some point. If the next movie is as good and draws viewers, demand for more Trek is going to shoot through the roof.

By the way I never stated Star Trek is something CBS has to do for this upcoming fall season or within the next year. With all the stuff going on with sci-fi shows and the SYFY channel, CBS has something to offer for good sci-fi. We don't know how long this "Falling Skies" is going, but it is also an Earth based sci-fi action show, Star Trek is a space drama. They're not matching for type of show. If CBS made a Trek show and put it up against "Stargate Universe" on SYFY, that would be a head to head match up.

 

[Kegg]

Ronald D. Moore may be available if this "Battlestar Galactica Blood and Chrome" does not work out.

Ron Moore has nothing to do with Blood & Chrome.

His latest stab at a TV series, Precinct 17, was unsuccessful, though.

If I recall, CBS and Paramount bought in JJ Abrams in hopes of rebooting Star Trek as a franchise, not just the movies, but probably for Television as well at some point.

I thought it was more like 'hey look here's this successful TV guy, you want to make some movies?' and Abrams was all 'oh yeah, sure,' starts a dozen balls in motion and one of those balls is a fresh take on Roddenberry's opus.

Which is to say they were interested in Abrams, and Abrams was interested in doing Star Trek.

Which he's now done, mission accomplished. The next stage of Abrams' revival? Star Trek 2. The Star Trek franchise is pretty much in the place it was in 1979-86 - that is, it's a film franchise now.

I'm not sure why people expect the film franchise's success will result inevitably in a TV series - Casino Royale did not spawn License to Serialize Drama, nor did Batman Begins result in Batman Continues On Cable.

Movies spawn sequels more often then they spawn TV shows. It's a possibility, sure, but not a certainty.

If CBS made a Trek show and put it up against "Stargate Universe" on SYFY, that would be a head to head match up.

Stargate Universe has been cancelled.