Scottie, Now would be a good time!

[peteym5]

Stargate Universe has been cancelled.

That was not the point, I am well aware that SGU was cancelled. Was using it as an example of similar type of show. Syfy and MGM messed up that franchise and needs to be rebooted.

However I believe Ronard D. Moore is still involved as Executive Producer of Blood & Chrome and his name is in the article announcing it back in November. Executive Producers are usually involve multiple shows at the same time.

James Bond was never a TV show and Batman only had a silly live action show back in the 60s. Star Trek began as a TV show and has been successful in the past both first run and syndicated reruns. Paramount decided to do "Star Trek The Next Generation" because 4 movies made Trek popular again. "Star Trek Enterprise" lost ratings because the "Insurrection" and "Nemesis" sucked, along with "Star Trek Voyager" being unpopular. There are many that watch Enterprise now and feel they did a better job that Voyager, but never watched it first time because they gave up on it. Bottom line is external things can affect a shows ratings despite its writing quality and actors.

 

[Harvey]

Moore isn't executive producing Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome. He was in the room when Weddle and Thompson broke the story. That's the extent of his involvement so far (and, given his current development deal with Sony, probably the extent that it will be for the foreseeable future).

 

[Kegg]

The Bond and Batman comparisons were made not because of the origins of either character, but the approach that TPTB is currently taking with the Star Trek franchise is far more reminiscient of those two - recasting roles, going back to the basics, a film series - than with the approach of the Berman years.

Paramount decided to do "Star Trek The Next Generation" because 4 movies made Trek popular again.

Key word here is 4. If history was going to repeat itself we'd get a new Star Trek series in 2017 after Star Trek 14.

I personally don't think a TV series is likely until some future point after which Abrams is 'done' with the franchise, and I think the game plan is for a trilogy.

 

[Harvey]

I'm under the impression that Star Trek: The Next Generation came about due to a number of reasons.

Not only was the Star Trek brand doing well in motion pictures, but the fourth film had just been a giant hit for Paramount.

Secondly, the original Star Trek was still a big seller with the syndication market. By forcing networks to buy both Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation for syndication or get neither, Paramount was able to sell the new series to more networks than they might have otherwise been able to.

Third, by selling the show directly to syndication, the studio was able to get a two-year minimum deal for the new series, which made the investment a much better deal than it would be at a network, where the series could have been cancelled after less than a full season, forcing Paramount to eat the large costs of launching the series without much potential for future profits.

Fourth, the audience for the series was hungry. There was hardly any space-based science fiction on the television at the time, or for that matter, any science fiction on television period. Star Trek was immensely popular at the time, and fans who had watched the three seasons and four movies with the original cast were hungry for something -- anything, even -- that was related to Star Trek.

Today, selling directly to syndication isn't a model that exists, let alone works. Additionally, the original Star Trek isn't as valuable as a syndicated show. It's still valuable, yes, but the audience watching the show in syndication isn't nearly as large as it was in the 80s (due to a variety of reasons). Finally, the audience isn't hungry for new science fiction or for new Star Trek the way they were in the 80s.

I expect that Kegg is right and that we won't see a new TV show until Abrams and his collaborators are done with the new movie series.

 

[peteym5]

The rate JJ Abrams and co, the 3rd movie may not be made until 2015. All the actors are under contract to do 3. Problem with doing more is that the way Chris Pine, Karl Urban, and Zoe Seldona became popular, Paramount and JJ Abrams will have to offer much more money for more movies. Possibly a TV show go into production right before the 3rd movie is in theaters so it airs soon after the movie finishes its run. That way it will feed off the popularity.


When TNG premaired, several sci-fi shows failed a few years prior like Starman, V:The Series, Buck Rogers, getting 2 seasons at the most. People were hunger for good sci-fi. That may be relevant now with the way some of the sci-fi shows fail because they were poorly made.

My favorite recent sci-fi show that got canceled was Stargate Universe, but that was affected from other things like Syfy channel scheduling and never concluding Atlantis as promised by Brad Wright. Stargate fans are really upset about the way things were handled. Even-though Stargate Atlantis was not my favorite Stargate show, it still had moderate ratings and I see why it made everyone upset. What would happen if DS9 stopped production and Rick Berman started Voyager saying it was better and promising a DS9 movie in the future? The whole Stargate franchise is trashed now.

 

[DFScott]

I hate to be the naysayer around here, because that isn't my usual role, nor the one in which I feel most comfortable. But given the present state of the (American) television industry, I'm not sure I would want to be the one mandating that there must be a new Trek series, on some channel, with some regularity, within at least the next three years.

Now, I don't really count myself among the demographic group of regular television viewers any more, and many of the non-Trek series folks have referred to here in this BBS, I've never seen. So I take everyone else's word with respect to other series' relative quality. But every time I randomly dive into the waters of modern TV, I fail to locate where they've moved the deep end. Everything is the shallow side, the kiddie pool.

With hundreds of outlets and distribution channels, the (American) television industry has spread itself too thin. No single channel has enough resources on its own to launch any enterprise, if you will, that stands on its own merits. So the television world is full of interchangeable parts, which are interchanged more frequently than nacelles on Franz Joseph's ships. The "SyFy" channel isn't even unashamed enough to spell its own name properly for fear of alienating someone from its audience who classifies sci-fi among the undesirables. So it shows wrestling and cooking shows, and folks probing abandoned houses with night-vision cameras and flashlights in search of unseen sources of unheard noises, and now there's an entire series devoted to a single auction of Hollywood memorabilia. Meanwhile, the Cartoon Network shows neither cartoons nor shows fit for kids, MTV has little or nothing to do with music, there are fewer movies on Bravo, there are scripted shows on AMC, and there's people driving trucks in bad weather on the History Channel.

Into this untended blender of bad ideas and inconsistent guidance, someone wants to suggest launching a new Star Trek series?

Would we have any guarantees it would not become a reality show that follows Starfleet uniform-wearing Trekkers in their daily lives as managers of a day-care center? And that it wouldn't have originally choreographed musical numbers featuring dancers with forehead prosthetics? And that viewers would not mount a protest after a vote tampering investigation revealed that Facebook inadvertently voted off the wrong crewmember?

I took a peek at what they did to Hawaii Five-O. Believe me, I'm fine with Trek sitting the next few years out.

DF "To Vote for Frank the Ferrengi, Text TREK to 1701 on Your AT&T Phone" Scott

 

[Kegg]

But every time I randomly dive into the waters of modern TV, I fail to locate where they've moved the deep end. Everything is the shallow side, the kiddie pool.

there are scripted shows on AMC,

Hang on. You've seen Mad Men and consider TV productions pretty juvenile? I'm pretty confused here. I can understand not liking Mad Men, but if that's juvenile TV I don't know what adult TV is anymore.

Well, it's not like I actually watch TV in the United States. Most TV watching I do is from British channels, and the British channels I watch tend to be the ones that mostly just show American imports (Sky One cut its teeth on running just about every single Star Trek spinoff in the 1990s and 2000s - along with Stargate and Battlestar Galactica and an insiginificant American import called The Simpsons - while the recently launched Sky Atlantic is pretty much just throwing the HBO lineup at me), but I am aware through the internet and cultural osmosis and the like that one of the reasons for this major shift towards 'quality' television is the rise of cable dramas - more adult, creative storytelling made possible because the channels are built on a subscriber model which means that a much smaller viewership than a network show can still make a profitable series because all those viewers are paying for the thing.

Now Mad Men is one of those series, often considered one of the top tier of those programs, but HBO's done a few dozen, as has Showtime, and so on. A pretty good and very recent sci-fi/fantasy example of this kind of TV narrative is Game of Thrones.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

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.

Who said anything about TV? I'd like to see the link for that.

it would be nice to think TV is part of the master plan, but I've never seen any evidence of it.

And Moore's 17th Precinct was rumored to be an atrocious mess. (I'd love to see the pilot and find out for myself.) BSG and Caprica both had big problems with story focus and logic, and often reeked of self indulgence. I'm not sure he's the guy I'd want to come in and save Star Trek. Abrams would probably be better; he has more that mainstream populist touch and knows that the worst thing you can do is bore/confuse the audience.

Finally, the audience isn't hungry for new science fiction or for new Star Trek the way they were in the 80s.

I think "they" are, but the question is, how many of "they" exist?

A new Star Trek series on broadcast would die - not enough theys. On basic cable, it may follow the pattern of The Walking Dead or Falling Skies (unless the Earth-based locale is somehow vital to their success, but I don't see why). On premium cable, it could succeed off the Game of Thrones model of appealing to a core fanbase with some subscriber spillover. So depending on whether you're aiming for basic or premium cable, the show is going to be different. It would be different on TNT vs AMC vs FX as well.

The last place I'd expect to see it is SyFy. They've got their successful model figured out, and it doesn't involve science fiction.

With hundreds of outlets and distribution channels, the (American) television industry has spread itself too thin. No single channel has enough resources on its own to launch any enterprise, if you will, that stands on its own merits.

HBO and Showtime do (especially if Star Trek can attract new subscribers and not just appeal to existing ones - and what better way to attract subscribers than by reviving a well-loved franchise that is getting PR from a successful movie series?) AMC/TNT/FX - maybe.

Meanwhile, the Cartoon Network shows neither cartoons nor shows fit for kids

It has The Clone Wars, which is a cartoon that maybe you would argue is not fit for kids because it also tries to appeal to adults. I'd say older kids and adults can watch it. So that's another approach Star Trek could take - lower expenses with an animated series, and use the movie characters without having to pay for the movie actors (get voice actors instead).

Would we have any guarantees it would not become a reality show that follows Starfleet uniform-wearing Trekkers in their daily lives as managers of a day-care center? And that it wouldn't have originally choreographed musical numbers featuring dancers with forehead prosthetics? And that viewers would not mount a protest after a vote tampering investigation revealed that Facebook inadvertently voted off the wrong crewmember?

Fear not! Such atrocities would be quickly cancelled because as small as the Star Trek audience might be, it's vastly larger than the audience for those ideas, which is zero.

The two most viable options for Star Trek is: more grown-up (but not too grown-up) series designed for Showtime, set in the 23rd C but having original Starfleet characters; and kid/adult-friendly animated series on The Cartoon Network, with the movie characters played by voice actors.

 

[peteym5]

Rebooting Star Trek in the movie theaters not just raises interest for more Trek movies, but Star Trek in other media as well. Star Trek already has a long successful history in multiple media. You cannot say a new Star Trek show WILL fail, many of us on here believe otherwise. There is still a huge number of fans out there that would be drawn to anything Star Trek on it.

I am honestly not expecting any announcement from CBS studios regarding a new Star Trek TV series until this second movie is in theaters. Most likely it will exceed $300 million. Also have to keep in mind it will take awhile to develop a new Star Trek show, like 6 months to a year of planning before the first episode is produced. Chances are CBS wants to be careful with it and not rush a show onto the air. We do not know if the same people involved with the movies will be involved in a tv series. I personally prefer if two different separate production crews did the series and movies. I thought having Rick Bermans gang doing movies was not good for the franchise. Generations and First Contact were great, but that was because Ronald D. Moore was there writing the movies.

Right now CBS (and Fox) and about 30 United States communities have a much larger problem right now with the NFL lockout. If this not resolve by the end of July, it is going to impact the economy in areas and for those networks. The US economy is already in trouble and that is not going to help. The execs at CBS are more focus on that right now. Would would happen if we have no Superbowl this year? Biggest night of the year for network TV.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I thought the NFL lockout was mainly NBC's problem.

 

[peteym5]

I thought the NFL lockout was mainly NBC's problem.

Something tells me you are not from the United States or totally do not follow professional sports. NBC is indeed affected by the strike, but they only show one prime time game Sunday evening. Its CBS and Fox that shows all the games Sunday afternoons, split up for reginal coverage. Teams from larger cities like New York, Washington, or Chicago probably not going to be impacted, but the smaller cities like Green Bay, Minneapolis, or Buffalo, revenue pouring into business from Football games represent a large chunk their economies. But each of the networks could suffer around a billion dollar lost for the season.

I am not saying CBS should replace Football with a Star Trek show. If CBS was doing that, a show would have been in production months ago. Both Star Trek and professional sports have large fan bases and is something many people care about. I know Hollywood productions are greatly affect by unions and does make producing a new show more expensive now. Have to pay writers and actors much more now.

 

[AviTrek]

I thought the NFL lockout was mainly NBC's problem.

Something tells me you are not from the United States or totally do not follow professional sports. NBC is indeed affected by the strike, but they only show one prime time game Sunday evening. Its CBS and Fox that shows all the games Sunday afternoons, split up for reginal coverage. Teams from larger cities like New York, Washington, or Chicago probably not going to be impacted, but the smaller cities like Green Bay, Minneapolis, or Buffalo, revenue pouring into business from Football games represent a large chunk their economies. But each of the networks could suffer around a billion dollar lost for the season.

I am not saying CBS should replace Football with a Star Trek show. If CBS was doing that, a show would have been in production months ago. Both Star Trek and professional sports have large fan bases and is something many people care about. I know Hollywood productions are greatly affect by unions and does make producing a new show more expensive now. Have to pay writers and actors much more now.

Petey, I don't think you realize which networks are most dependent on the NFL. CBS and Fox are the top two rated networks right now. They also don't show any football during prime time hours. NBC has the highest rated game of the week which also happens to air prime time on Sunday night. The only reason NBC's prime time ratings aren't a total laughing stock is because of the Sunday Night Football. If the NFL didn't have a season CBS/Fox would fill Sunday with generic movies, NBC would have a massive hole in its prime time lineup with nothing to fill it with. Also, to your point about the Superbowl, NBC has the Superbowl this year.

 

[peteym5]

I like how people on here can twist or manipulate what I said just to disagree with me or be negative. My comments were never about which networks be loosing the most. CBS, Fox, NBC, and ESPN will all be loosing a huge chunk of money if the NFL lockout is not resolve by August. Probably get away with a shorten preseason and training camp. Most of the network affiliates will show all commercial programming for the Sunday afternoon. Some of that football revenue allows a network to invest more into new shows. Its not just the superbowl, but the playoff games that also generate a chuck of money for CBS and Fox. The revenue for a AFC or NFC championship game is enough to buy a whole season of most of tv programs. Even after the NFL and teams have to take their cut.

During many of these football games (and other sports) how often we see CBS or FOX advertising their prime time shows? I see ads for CSI, Blue Bloods, Survivor, Amazing Race, 60 Minutes, The Simpsons, etc. You can say CBS and FOX are doing well and the NFL football helped put them on top. (Take note, I did not say it was not only from football.) If a new Star Trek show popped up on CBS someday, it is not like people will not know about it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I am an American and my interest in sports is effectively zero. The NFL could fall into a black hole and I wouldn't care. Baseball, basketball and hockey could follow. I only know about/care about the NFL lockout because of its impact on TV networks.

The only reason NBC's prime time ratings aren't a total laughing stock is because of the Sunday Night Football.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Makes me wonder if NBC is rethinking the pilots they passed on? CBS and FOX don't seem to be as desperate (certainly not CBS). It would be great if FOX were desperate enough to rethink passing on Locke & Key. Might be too late by now, tho.

I like how people on here can twist or manipulate what I said just to disagree with me or be negative.

The question was whether the NFL lockout is largely NBC's problem. You failed to provide a coherent answer, and AviTrek did a much better job of actually addressing my comment.

 

[Jetfire]

If the NFL lockout happens they(NBC) could show Wonder Woman & The Cape on Sunday Nights fallowed by The Criminally Insane Apprentice.

 

[peteym5]

Looks like we are going to have a normal season of NFL either way so none of the networks are going to loosing millions of dollars. They're going to be signing the deal by the end of the week. A major affect is the free-agency thing and which teams will be getting players, has to be rushed now. Teams will be loosing or gaining key players and impacts the games won. We are in for some surprises of who is in the playoffs.

CBS and Fox are the major contractors and do show many games between rival teams in the same division, that draw the most viewers. NBC and ESPN show some, but most of their games are inter-conference or inter-division. CBS and Fox also do double headers every Sunday and split some games to Saturday toward the end of the season, plus playoff games. Looks like CBS and Fox makes more money leading up to the Superbowl.

If CBS, CW, or some entity were going to air a new Star Trek show starting the fall of some future year, we will start reading reports on Trektoday probably around the prior winter or early spring since it takes time to put together one of these shows. We knew Paramount was officially making a new Star Trek show over a year before TNG premaired. The announcement for Deep Space Nine popped up during the early 5th season of TNG. Voyager and Enterprise were rushed alittle, but keep in mind other Star Trek shows were already going on. A new Star Trek show would be a start up from scratch.

I find it no strange coincidence that the last two Star Trek shows were not as popular because the creation process was rushed. I know there are other factors involved like Ron D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr leaving and Star Trek was starting to compete with itself.

 

[C.E. Evans]

If CBS, CW, or some entity were going to air a new Star Trek show starting the fall of some future year, we will start reading reports on Trektoday probably around the prior winter or early spring since it takes time to put together one of these shows. We knew Paramount was officially making a new Star Trek show over a year before TNG premaired.

The official announcement for TNG was in early October 1986 with the first episode hitting syndication the last week of September 1987.

The announcement for Deep Space Nine popped up during the early 5th season of TNG. Voyager and Enterprise were rushed alittle, but keep in mind other Star Trek shows were already going on.

I find it no strange coincidence that the last two Star Trek shows were not as popular because the creation process was rushed.

Not really true, because the creation process for the last two Star Trek shows weren't rushed--they really took longer than most shows (in fact, 16 months elapsed between ENT's initial announcement and the broadcast debut). In comparison, TNG was actually cranked out in less time.

 

[peteym5]

It is hard to say how long it took to create TNG because Paramount was looking to do a 2nd live action Star Trek show since 1974. First they were going to bring back the original cast for phase 2 which got shot down in favor of doing movies. The concept of an Academy series floated around between the times the Wrath of Kahn and the Search for Spock were in theaters. Sort of the next generation of Starfleet officers for the Enterprise in training. Paramount finally convinced Gene Roddenberry to come back and the ideal for the next generation was reworked into an actual Next Generation aboard a new Enterprise and a new Captain. "Star Trek The Next Generation" with Captain Picard probably was done in less then a year, but it was reworked from an earlier concept.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The same could be said for DS9, VOY, and ENT in the sense they were all at least a year in the making from early concept to finished pilot episode. In any event, none of their creation processes could really be called rushed.

 

[peteym5]

With the recent announcements with Star Trek XII I believe CBS should more strongly consider producing a Star Trek show now. Right now we are only getting 2 hours of new content every 3 years plus delays. Now a new Star Trek show can be set up to where it is independent from whatever is going on with these movies. Different setting time period, ship, or even reality. They can have it either stay in cannon with the other 5 shows or shift it toward the JJ Abrams version.

I still say it is critical of finding the right head producer for this thing. Someone who can find the balance of keeping true to Star Trek and making it relevant to a 2011 audience. There are people out there than can make something at the quality of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

I know I try to avoid discussion about what specific setting I like to see. It would be interesting to set something soon after "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" in that the alliance with the Klingons is just starting up. Show the tensions with learning to work together. Keep the conspiracies of races like the Romulans trying to sabotage everything. It can also serve as para-prequel to TNG/DS9 era because there is some untold story that can be filled in.