I can't see how having 700 hours (last time i calculated) worth of Trek ruins shows. To be it's the writing. Dr Who and Stargate SG-1 are wonderful examples. Dr Who has a MASSIVE backstory to it that most people will probably never see. The new show is successful. Stargate didn't have much of a backstory to it and was successful until it ran for to long and the writing got stale.
So what would you like CBS to do with a new Star Trek TV show?
- Thread starter GhostFaceSaint
- Start date
I can't see how having 700 hours (last time i calculated) worth of Trek ruins shows. To be it's the writing. Dr Who and Stargate SG-1 are wonderful examples. Dr Who has a MASSIVE backstory to it that most people will probably never see. The new show is successful. Stargate didn't have much of a backstory to it and was successful until it ran for to long and the writing got stale.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart, Berman, Moore, I could go on and on...all agree that the glut of TREK is what killed the golden goose.
And lets be honest, we're talking star trek, not DR.WHO or even GALACTICA. If you can barely get 2million folks to watch a STAR TREK TV show then I think the writing is on the wall...ENOUGH.
Rob
I don't want to come of rude but I personally do my best to ignore what the TOS crew say. Especially Shatner. I've seen some of his interview and even a documentary he made. In his own universe ENT got canceled because it was nothing like TOS.
The other problem you mentioned is the viewers. Is it a must that many people watch Star Trek? To me it clearly looks like the glory days of TNG was over before TNG even ended. I saw a excel graph of the Trek ratings and the ratings started to drop by Season 6 of TNG with only a brief upsurge for special episodes (TNG finale,DS9/VOY opening and finale).
I don't think it's bad if the next Trek show has Stargate like viewers. What I think is bad is constantly changing Trek to make other people who have no interest in the show like it. If the next Trek show appeared on Sci Fi and had 3 million people watching. Just successful enough to be on tv for 7 or more years. I wouldn't mind.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I dont mean to sound rude either, but i have met shatner. I find his opinions to be the most honest, right up there with Beltran's about Voyager. Was shatner an asshole? Sure...but his opinions wrong? only time will tell ...
Rob
What would CBS do? It would cancel the series after 13 episodes because Trek would never have a high enough viewership for the main CBS network.
We wont see a new tv series until the current film series either ends or runs stale. Paramount and CBS have hopefully learned their lesson about crowding the feed bin with too much Trek at the same time. If you stick with just the film series, the fans seem to be a little hungrier to go see the film. It helps keep up anticipation, and doesnt dilute interest from being too available.
I have my doubts we will see a new tv show for some time. I really think once this film run is over, they will vault into another film series. TV isnt what it was in the sixties, eighties, or nineties...and a traditional show like Trek probably wouldnt fly anymore....unless it had celebrities trying to dance, sing, kick box, or some other modern tv era crapola!!!
I have my doubts we will see a new tv show for some time. I really think once this film run is over, they will vault into another film series. TV isnt what it was in the sixties, eighties, or nineties...and a traditional show like Trek probably wouldnt fly anymore....unless it had celebrities trying to dance, sing, kick box, or some other modern tv era crapola!!!
You're right about the whole reality TV influx... I haven't actually bothered with TV for about 5 years as a result... can't stand sitting watching people jump through ridiculous hoops for no reason other than the public "want to see it".
As far as trek goes though, I'm not sure I completely agree that a TV series would flop. Paramount shouldn't underestimate the fact that the franchise still (despite quite a sizeable lack in trek between Enterprise and Trek XI, and now until the next Trek film) has an indescribably huge fanbase. As soon as a new trek series hits the screens, BAM... those people are back to weekly viewing. I know I will be, and I'm sure many here feel the same.
As for what they do with it... well, personally I think it would be nice to see the "mainstream" universe post-Romulan cataclysm, there are many ways they could take that. An original-series/alternate universe romp would be fun, but it'd be too much like covering old ground.
As far as trek goes though, I'm not sure I completely agree that a TV series would flop. Paramount shouldn't underestimate the fact that the franchise still (despite quite a sizeable lack in trek between Enterprise and Trek XI, and now until the next Trek film) has an indescribably huge fanbase. As soon as a new trek series hits the screens, BAM... those people are back to weekly viewing. I know I will be, and I'm sure many here feel the same.
As for what they do with it... well, personally I think it would be nice to see the "mainstream" universe post-Romulan cataclysm, there are many ways they could take that. An original-series/alternate universe romp would be fun, but it'd be too much like covering old ground.
Well the guy should really be careful with what he says. He comes off has a complete jerk. The man wanted the new film to bomb because he wasn't in it unlike Nimoy. I'm not fan of the film but thats kind of petty.
if they do a show it should be in the regular universe, on a starship going to a new area of the galaxy....no old enemies, no old aliens (besides officers on the ship), no starbases unless it's like once a season (like for shore leave)....
Exactly. Star Trek is a situation-oriented story, not a goal-oriented one. Some shows are about a goal, solving a specific problem. Star Trek is just about Starfleet serving Federation interests by patrolling, defending and expanding it (via exploration). There isn't something that urgently needs to be done - there's no goal state to be achieved. It's maintenance.
It's good that Star Trek is not goal-oriented. Maintenance means that the story possibilities are expanded and you never fall into the dreaded Gilligan's Island trap where every episode is a foregone conclusion because it's always about them striving but failing to reach the goal.
Starfleet can play space cop, space soldier, explorer and dabble in diplomatic squabbles. And there are all the personal stories revolving around the main characters. That's as broad a range of story types as any I can imagine on TV, and could fill five years or seven, or seventy.
Star Trek should be serialized in the sense that characters remember what happens from week to week, so they don't give the impression of being amnesiac, stupid or mentally unstable. Other than that, the Starfleet job description demands that the show be episodic or built around short serialized arcs.
If they can attract international funding, that might justify Star Trek's presence on a major network. But CBS is the wrong audience; CBS might make the series but sell it to NBC or Fox, where the audience makes more sense. Use international funding to reduce the licensing cost because it's doubtful even a mass-market genre show will earn its keep on a network without some sort of subsidy. (Then again, NBC might get desperate enough that, say, 4M-5M seems like a decent sized audience.)
I just cringe at the though of Star Trek on basic cable and premium cable would never touch it. Maybe AMC, they've made a name for themselves as HBO-jr.
It's just one of a mix of revenue streams that are being combined to offset declining Nielsens, and can be offset by the fact that Star Trek would do better than average in international revenues, DVD sales and paid downloads, all of which are also becoming more important.
I wouldn't mind seeing Starbucks in the 23rd C
and I don't think brands like that are just going to vanish in the future, but it's just not Star Trek's (anti-capitalist) style.There's no evidence that too little or too much Star Trek is a factor in any of this. If Trek XI had sucked, it would have flopped and everyone would be saying it was "too soon" for more Star Trek. When ENT was cancelled, I remember folks around here saying it should lay dormant for at least 10 years so people would want more. Well guess what, they "wanted more" after four years. What they really wanted was something worth watching and that's popular at any time interval.
There's more drama (and more good drama) than ever on TV but it's spread out across many cable channels. Network TV is losing its audience and retrenching with too much reality TV crap. For the most part, the good stuff is on cable.
Last edited:
Exactly. Star Trek is a situation-oriented story, not a goal-oriented one. Some shows are about a goal, solving a specific problem. Star Trek is just about Starfleet serving Federation interests by patrolling, defending and expanding it (via exploration). There isn't something that urgently needs to be done - there's no goal state to be achieved. It's maintenance.
It's good that Star Trek is not goal-oriented. Maintenance means that the story possibilities are expanded and you never fall into the dreaded Gilligan's Island trap where every episode is a foregone conclusion because it's always about them striving but failing to reach the goal.
Starfleet can play space cop, space soldier, explorer and dabble in diplomatic squabbles. And there are all the personal stories revolving around the main characters. That's as broad a range of story types as any I can imagine on TV, and could fill five years or seven, or seventy.
Star Trek should be serialized in the sense that characters remember what happens from week to week, so they don't give the impression of being amnesiac, stupid or mentally unstable. Other than that, the Starfleet job description demands that the show be episodic or built around short serialized arcs.
If they can attract international funding, that might justify Star Trek's presence on a major network. But CBS is the wrong audience; CBS might make the series but sell it to NBC or Fox, where the audience makes more sense. Use international funding to reduce the licensing cost because it's doubtful even a mass-market genre show will earn its keep on a network without some sort of subsidy. (Then again, NBC might get desperate enough that, say, 4M-5M seems like a decent sized audience.)
I just cringe at the though of Star Trek on basic cable and premium cable would never touch it. Maybe AMC, they've made a name for themselves as HBO-jr.
It's just one of a mix of revenue streams that are being combined to offset declining Nielsens, and can be offset by the fact that Star Trek would do better than average in international revenues, DVD sales and paid downloads, all of which are also becoming more important.
I wouldn't mind seeing Starbucks in the 23rd C
There's no evidence that too little or too much Star Trek is a factor in any of this. If Trek XI had sucked, it would have flopped and everyone would be saying it was "too soon" for more Star Trek. When ENT was cancelled, I remember folks around here saying it should lay dormant for at least 10 years so people would want more. Well guess what, they "wanted more" after four years. What they really wanted was something worth watching and that's popular at any time interval.
There's more drama (and more good drama) than ever on TV but it's spread out across many cable channels. Network TV is losing its audience and retrenching with too much reality TV crap. For the most part, the good stuff is on cable.
An international partner won't really help Star Trek stay on a network. The network won't want to constantly come in 4th in the time slot even if the show is cheaper to air. However, international partners can help fund a Star Trek show that airs on basic cable(SyFy, USA, TNT, Spike, etc...). 4M-5M would be a huge hit for a cable network, and international funding sources can help keep the production values higher than the typical cable show.
I wonder if the solution to the location question is for CBS to create a new basic cable network. NBC has USA and SyFy, Fox has FX, ABC has all the Disney networks, and CBS has nothing. If CBS continues to see the success and praise the basic cable networks are getting they may decide they need to compete also. If they launch a new station Star Trek may be the perfect show to launch with.
I wouldn't mind seeing Starbucks in the 23rd C
Star Trek wasn't anti-capitalist. Money still exists in that world. It was used frequently on DS9. Kirk often made references like 'time to earn your pay' or 'Do you have any idea how much money Starfleet invested in your training, Mr. Spock?' Money exists, Starfleet just doesn't use it much in their day-to-day affairs. They get virtually everything issued to them by the Federation's government, just like a real-life military does.
Also, we haven't seen very much of what civilian life is like in the Federation. All that we have seen has been idealistic lifestyles on Federation planets, disasters on colonies and utter poverty in refugee camps. That's not enough to get a good picture of 23rd/24th century life.
A series that focuses on non-human civilizations before contact with humans.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
this is a no brainer...a reality show called STAR TREK; ACADEMY
Have 16 contestants enroll in Starfleet. Each week would be a new challenge (physical or mental)...it would all be filmed inside of a STAR TREK centric studio and/or athletic field. The winner, at the end of the season, would win the honor to appear in the new Star Trek movie, AS THEIR character from the TV reality show, though..just a cameo of course.
Paging Mark Bernett!!!
Rob
Have 16 contestants enroll in Starfleet. Each week would be a new challenge (physical or mental)...it would all be filmed inside of a STAR TREK centric studio and/or athletic field. The winner, at the end of the season, would win the honor to appear in the new Star Trek movie, AS THEIR character from the TV reality show, though..just a cameo of course.
Paging Mark Bernett!!!
Rob
The more I think about it, the more it seems like some basic cable channel is the least-bad option, either AMC or (ulp) Skiffy.
Money existed somewhat in TOS but didn't seem to be important. On DS9, the Ferengi used money, but that's part of their culture. Starfleet used money in relation to Quark's Bar, perhaps for cultural sensitivity.I wouldn't mind seeing Starbucks in the 23rd C
Star Trek wasn't anti-capitalist. Money still exists in that world. It was used frequently on DS9.
Something happened between the 23rd and 24th C to kill off the last vestiges of capitalism. I agree with the theory that the invention of the replicator is what did it. When you have a limitless source of energy, as implied by the existence of FTL travel, transporters and replicators, and a way of converting that energy into anything you like via replicators, it's hard to envision how capitalism could survive. Where would the profit motive come from? Star Trek has created a communistic fantasy via technology.
There are brands in Star Trek, but the Ferengi perpetrate them, sometimes hilariously. Sluggo Cola, anyone?
Sadly, the Ferengi don't spend many ad dollars on 21st C Earth.The more I think about it, the more it seems like some basic cable channel is the least-bad option, either AMC or (ulp) Skiffy.
Money existed somewhat in TOS but didn't seem to be important. On DS9, the Ferengi used money, but that's part of their culture. Starfleet used money in relation to Quark's Bar, perhaps for cultural sensitivity.I wouldn't mind seeing Starbucks in the 23rd C
Star Trek wasn't anti-capitalist. Money still exists in that world. It was used frequently on DS9.
Something happened between the 23rd and 24th C to kill off the last vestiges of capitalism. I agree with the theory that the invention of the replicator is what did it. When you have a limitless source of energy, as implied by the existence of FTL travel, transporters and replicators, and a way of converting that energy into anything you like via replicators, it's hard to envision how capitalism could survive. Where would the profit motive come from? Star Trek has created a communistic fantasy via technology.
There are brands in Star Trek, but the Ferengi perpetrate them, sometimes hilariously. Sluggo Cola, anyone?
Gene never struck me as being anything even remotely Communist, just very idealistic.
There's bound to be some kind of trading, batering and/or currency exchange around. Even in a soceity where every need and want are met on a whim, there's always someone who will want something more or something rare. How would art galleries sell paintings and sculptures? Surely the artist deserves compensation for their efforts.
I dunno what Roddenberry was like personally, since I never met him, but TOS was a bit anti-capitalist and subsequent series, which Roddenberry mostly had nothing to do with, were even more pronouncedly so, if only by the fact that they roundly ignored any hint of profit motive.
This stands in stark contrast to the historical reality of exploration, which was largely motivated by greed. Star Trek depicts an unusual idea of the future, that greed won't play a serious role in space exploration. Personally, I think Star Trek is totally wrong about this, and space exploration will remain at the stymied level it's currently at, until the historical motive for human exploration starts to once again kick in and get our asses out to Mars and beyond.
Why should the future be so different from the past? It's interesting to see scenarios that depict a serious break with the past, like Star Trek shows, even if I doubt it will come to pass. Same with Star Trek's notions about religion and nationalism going away. The things that are likely in the future, that Star Trek chooses to omit, are highly significant.
But Star Trek didn't deign to depict this, which sends a message that the producers don't think it's an important factor in their fictional universe.
With replicators, artists wouldn't need to be paid. They'd get everything they want for free regardless of whether they work. So they'd do art anyway, just because they like to.
What could be "more" or "rare" enough that a replicator couldn't create it? Only things that are in the person's mind, such as a "natural" tomato as opposed to a replicated one, which Eddington insisted tasted better, but I doubt that could be the case. So yeah, there would be people who absolutely insist that they must have home-grown tomatoes, or originals of artworks rather than replicated ones, but that would be an unusual taste. For most folks, replicators would provide 99% of everything they need, and whatever capitalism still exists, driven by niche tastes, would be a very minor element.
What episode? Don't remember that at all.
I do remember gold-pressed latinum, but that seemed to be an adaptation for Ferengi culture. Presumably the Feds or someone invented a substance, latinum, that could not be replicated, precisely so that the replicator would not obliterate Ferengi culture.
Last edited:
