The abundance of ideas for a new trek show.

[Third Nacelle]

^By that logic, no new series would ever get made. That's like saying they wouldn't make Mad Men because nobody's ever heard of Donald Draper.

 

[C.E. Evans]

That didn't stop them from doing DS9 and VOY

Oh, absolutely. But you have to admit that this was in an era where Trek was a bit different: you already had a spin-off on the air, and quite a bit of ratings...

Actually, that's why spinoffs of existing TV shows are made.

...and yet look what it got them ? Both DS9 and VOY lost viewers progressively.

Which says nothing about why they were made in the first place. Heck, every new TV show is made on the hope of being a success with viewers rather than an absolute guarantee.

 

[Belz...]

^By that logic, no new series would ever get made.

You're correct, of course. But in Trek's case, they already have bankable characters. It's just a matter of probability; as I already said, it's possible.

Which says nothing about why they were made in the first place.

Of course. I'm simply speculating that CBS might be looking at the previous results and them factoring into a decision not to do it.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Of course. I'm simply speculating that CBS might be looking at the previous results and them factoring into a decision not to do it.

Different time period. It's been twelve years since Voyager ended its run and fourteen since DS9 wrapped up. If CBS were to go for a new series, it would probably take a couple of years to put together a cast, script episodes, etc. Enough time has passed that a new series could attract new viewers in addition to any left over from older series.

Of course, any series that does poorly is going to lose viewers over time. But the beauty of Star Trek is that there's always another canvas to paint on. It's time someone reached for a brush.

--Sran

 

[C.E. Evans]

Of course. I'm simply speculating that CBS might be looking at the previous results and them factoring into a decision not to do it.

Different time period. It's been twelve years since Voyager ended its run and fourteen since DS9 wrapped up. If CBS were to go for a new series, it would probably take a couple of years to put together a cast, script episodes, etc. Enough time has passed that a new series could attract new viewers in addition to any left over from older series.

I couldn't have said it better.

I think the only things CBS would be looking at in regards to a new Trek series is the potential it has and how much it would cost to make.

 

[Belz...]

If CBS were to go for a new series, it would probably take a couple of years to put together a cast, script episodes, etc. Enough time has passed that a new series could attract new viewers in addition to any left over from older series.

Well, I hope you're right. Right now a new series doesn't seem on the horizon at all.

 

[mos6507]

do you think a movie about another double-0 agent in the Bond universe could be viable in the same way as the 007 movies are, and do you think MGM wuold take that chance ?

Nobody's ever tried, whereas there HAVE been successful Trek spinoffs with different crews, at least successful enough to last longer than the original.

My feeling is that it's not the concept that makes this work, it's the writing. In a thread like this, the "abundance of ideas" rests solely on evaluating the premise. Great writing can take almost anything and make it must-watch TV, just as bad writing can sink any and all attempts to keep flogging Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Brand-association only goes so far.

Just think of what's popular on TV lately (albeit cable). A show about zombies, for instance. Who would think a show about zombies would be viewed as anything but guilty-pleasure schlock? Or a fantasy show (Game of Thrones)? It's all in the writing.

You simply can not tell merely by evaluating the premise whether a show will work. It might skew the odds one way or the other, but great writing will always be the determining factor.

 

[Belz...]

I agree with you entirely, which might be a first.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

You simply can not tell merely by evaluating the premise whether a show will work. It might skew the odds one way or the other, but great writing will always be the determining factor.

Agree completely with this. As much as audiences claim to love action scenes in television, most people still strongly prefer series that are well-written to those that are more flashy but have less developed characters and plots. Explosions and cool battle sequences will carry a series only so far before it starts to sputter because those story elements aren't sustainable.

Not every episode can feature a protracted space battle or ground assault. Even fictional concepts need to have some basis in reality for a given show to be something that its viewers can relate to. I would guess that only a small percentage of the population can relate to constantly fighting for one's life, so a TV show showcasing this type of plot over and over again isn't likely to do well.

--Sran

 

[BillJ]

From another thread...

The overly advanced technology would certainly be a problem, but there's a creative solution to everything. And really, where else can Trek go? Rehashes and variations on old ideas don't seem appealing at all.

Whether its Kirk and Spock or Van Dyke and Rangar, it's all just rehashes and variations of the core concepts.

 

[Belz...]

As much as audiences claim to love action scenes in television, most people still strongly prefer series that are well-written to those that are more flashy but have less developed characters and plots.

I tend to think this is true for movies as well, but I'm not so sure.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

I tend to think this is true for movies as well, but I'm not so sure.

It's certainly true of movies intended to have a serious story. Imagine if a film like The Shawshank Redemption were all action and no character development...

--Sran

 

[BillJ]

I tend to think this is true for movies as well, but I'm not so sure.

It's certainly true of movies intended to have a serious story. Imagine if a film like The Shawshank Redemption were all action and no character development...

--Sran

It would've likely done $100 million instead of barely making back its production budget. But it's a great movie.

Unfortunately, for the most part folks go to theaters for "event" films. Films that have lots of action and special effects. Likely a byproduct of ticket prices going up, up, up. If they're going to pay, they want an experience they can't get at home.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^Well, I'll be honest and say that I don't go to the theater that much. When I do see a movie, it's usually because my friends are going, too. If I don't like the film, I won't buy it when it comes out on DVD. I'm something of a dinosaur, I guess. It's just that I've always preferred to get a good story instead of explosions. Explosions don't require intelligence or creativity; however, explosions framed by a good story are incredibly entertaining, so I do appreciate action films, but I want the films to have a solid foundation.

Good writing is sustainable much more so than good special effects. That's probably why the original Star Wars trilogy is better received than its prequel counterparts. There are a lot of things I like about the prequel films, but they don't compare to the first set, IMO.

--Sran

 

[Belz...]

I tend to think this is true for movies as well, but I'm not so sure.

It's certainly true of movies intended to have a serious story. Imagine if a film like The Shawshank Redemption were all action and no character development...

--Sran

No, what I mean is that you don't seem to get blockbusters with that kind of movie. Not these days, anyway.