the next Trek TV series preview discussion

[jefferiestubes8]

It could be 2-4 years from now but let's discuss the ways in which CBS would produce or license the show to a cable TV channel specifically how it would be previewed and promoted.

I have brought up the 2007 digital cinema screening of The Menagerie TOS-R episode to build buzz on the remastering of TOS when it came out on the HD-DVD format.

in 2010

Spring the TV series Glee aired their pilot 4 months before the series started to build buzz.
TV week magazine mentioned it as a marketing trial by Fox network.

For the first time anyone in TV circles can recall, a network is using a pilot for a show not as the beginning of a series, but as the start of a marketing campaign.

Now Feb.20, 2012 TG Daily mentions

In anticipation of the March 1st premier of Awake, NBC has posted the entire pilot on YouTube.

It's only 10 days before Awake is on NBC but it is a promotional push of the first episode.
Since it takes such a large amount of money to build a Trek ship's set and costumes and an ensemble cast and a pilot is made a couple of months before it airs do you think it will get special digital cinema screening for a weekend or some big way for Trekkies to see it?

or like the Glee pilot screening do you think they would plan it a year in advance to produce the pilot and have a special screening to get feedback from fans before moving forward?

How do you think the next Trek TV series will specifically get promoted?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They should time its premiere in the same year as a Star Trek movie (ideally for the 2013-14 season, or if not, the movie after that) and run ads during the summer that tie in the TV series with the success of the movies.

I'd guess that the series would do best launched in the fall, but I wouldn't be surprised at a summer launch. It would piggyback on the movie even better than way, and avoid the dreaded possibility that the movie might not be as successful as XI, and might be a negative by the fall. The series is not very likely to be on broadcast, and summer debuts have done well for cable series, such as Falling Skies.

Which is not to say the TV series needs to be linked in any literal way with the movies. Could be completely different characters, century, maybe it won't even be clear which universe it's in.

And that's true even if Abrams, Orci and/or Kurtzman are involved. It's easy enough for a preview ad to make that linkage without there being much of substance behind it, other than, "everyone loves this, you love this, now you can see more of this."

They should pretend that Star Trek was never on TV before. No reference to any other series, not even TOS. It might be tempting to use the idea that there have been five series in the franchise - that's an amazing track record, after all - but it's a risk, since it also reminds everyone of the reputation the franchise got for being a lame-ass joke. On balance, I'd say they should steer clear of that in favor of taking the movie philosophy: Fresh Start.

or like the Glee pilot screening do you think they would plan it a year in advance to produce the pilot and have a special screening to get feedback from fans before moving forward?

No, they should just make a good series that is well crafted to the audience of the channel where it's being shown, and then do the usual internet/social media promotions, including pre-release of promos. That sort of stuff is very standard. They'd probably do some special-event type promos for Trekkies, maybe hosted in movie theatres to piggyback on the movies.

Other factors are far more crucial, like the time of year the series will launch; what message they are going to build the ad campaign around (deciding such question as how much they'll tie it to the movies vs the previous TV series); how to build on the movies' success; and most importantly, what channel the series is going to be shown on. Those factors will drive the series' content, which in turn will drive the promotions.

 

[xortex]

Reimagining a generic space opera and slapping the name Star Trek on it seems to be unneccessary. Wolfe's untitled thing seems to be taking the cop approach to established Earth colonies, so just humans with scattered aliens and trans humans and prejudice and things etc. with a touch of the rifleman and tight drama focusing on characters. I think Trek should be mostly Human focused too but the movies seems to be Galaxy Quest. They might as well make a series out of Forbidden Planet or 2001, which might not be a bad thing reinvented.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Reimagining a generic space opera and slapping the name Star Trek on it seems to be unneccessary.

Who's suggesting that?

This thread is about ideas for the series promotion, not content. (Granted, it's hard to talk about promotion in the absence of content, but there are some general principles that would apply regardless.)

 

[plynch]

Star Trek was a wonderful thing 1966-1969. Or 1987-1994 if you prefer. But creating a new tv series and calling it Trek appeals to me zero. IF it had a similar ethos of wonder and expkoration and fun and sci-fi, I'd consider it. Would that happen in 2014 or whatever? We're a different time. And I'm now getting to be, in the words of Ruk, one of the Old Ones. (insert Ted Cassidy low rumble here: mmmhmhmmhm)

 

[Jetfire]

Maybe they can do it as a "found footage" series...they can promote it like it is an actual find and get CBS news in on the gag.

News Anchor: "It appears to be from...the FUTURE!"

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Maybe they can do it as a "found footage" series...

Trek has not really done fashionable styles except one off episodes imitating a genre like the 1930s serials on VOY with Captain Proton in black and white.
I think the next Trek TV series will be a standard Trek series set aboard 1 ship with an ensemble cast like TOS, TNG, VOY, ENT.
I highly doubt a preview of a Trek series would try to show it off as a series it is not. I would like to thank Temis the Vorta for his thoughtful post.

 

[Jetfire]

My suggestion wasn't thoughtful? It may seem like I am joking but it is one idea among many...I thought that was the point of the thread.

 

[Terran_Empire]

Star Trek was a wonderful thing 1966-1969. Or 1987-1994 if you prefer. But creating a new tv series and calling it Trek appeals to me zero. IF it had a similar ethos of wonder and expkoration and fun and sci-fi, I'd consider it. Would that happen in 2014 or whatever?

Not really true. How corny did the title "Battlestar Galactica" sound in 2003? Very corny, yet viewers decidedly looked pasted the name that carried a lot of geeky-stigma and realized, "Hey, this show is cool."

Heck! Why don't we talk about ST09? You can reinvent a concept while still keeping it relatively similar to the original, it doesn't matter what year we are in.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I would like to thank Temis the Vorta for his thoughtful post.

You're welcome and it's "her" - aren't the avatars kind of a giveaway?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I would like to thank Temis the Vorta for his thoughtful post.

You're welcome and it's "her" - aren't the avatars kind of a giveaway?

Not really. A lot of self-identified males have female avatars - something I could never wrap my mind around, btw.

Anyhoo:

It could be 2-4 years

It could just as easily be 20-40 years from now.

How do you think the next Trek TV series will specifically get promoted?

The Internet. That's about all I can say, since I'm not even convinced there will be a new series in even ten years. Why not keep people on a diet of shelling out $10+ per ticket in the theaters, and buying Blu-rays afterwards? That was a winning strategy for STXI, you know.

By the way, does anybody know how much money ENT has made?

 

[plynch]

Star Trek was a wonderful thing 1966-1969. Or 1987-1994 if you prefer. But creating a new tv series and calling it Trek appeals to me zero. IF it had a similar ethos of wonder and expkoration and fun and sci-fi, I'd consider it. Would that happen in 2014 or whatever?

Not really true. How corny did the title "Battlestar Galactica" sound in 2003? Very corny, yet viewers decidedly looked pasted the name that carried a lot of geeky-stigma and realized, "Hey, this show is cool."

Heck! Why don't we talk about ST09? You can reinvent a concept while still keeping it relatively similar to the original, it doesn't matter what year we are in.

Both of those symbolize what I mean. Old name. Old character names. Very dif from original. Why recycle names? (Money, I suppose.) I just have no need for some new thing that happens to be titled Star Trek.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The main promotion for a new series will happen on the channel where it is airing. That's how it works for all shows.

So if it's on TNT, it needs to appeal to the TNT audience it is being promoted to. Or FX, HBO, etc.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I have brought up the 2007 digital cinema screening of The Menagerie TOS-R episode to build buzz on the remastering of TOS when it came out on the HD-DVD format.

Other than a cinema screening would something like this happen directly from CBS.com for a limited engagement of a weekend only?

Amazon and Google Stream Two Movies Before Theatrical Release
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...eam_Two_Movies_Before_Theatrical_Release/9050
While those are Going to cinema would Trek fans pay for Video On Demand of a pilot say 3 months before it airs on TV for 48 hours rental window?
It would help defray costs of a pilot.
$6.? For 3 months ahead of time?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I have brought up the 2007 digital cinema screening of The Menagerie TOS-R episode to build buzz on the remastering of TOS when it came out on the HD-DVD format.

Other than a cinema screening would something like this happen directly from CBS.com for a limited engagement of a weekend only?

Amazon and Google Stream Two Movies Before Theatrical Release
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...eam_Two_Movies_Before_Theatrical_Release/9050
While those are Going to cinema would Trek fans pay for Video On Demand of a pilot say 3 months before it airs on TV for 48 hours rental window?
It would help defray costs of a pilot.
$6.? For 3 months ahead of time?

Not one red cent.

 

[Sjaddix]

Well yeah obviously u launch around the same time as a Trek Movie.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

YouTube Live pay per view event?

YouTube has been experimenting with pay-per-view for select publishers, including UFC. Making the option more widely available could make YouTube’s live streaming more attractive to other sports and entertainment publishers.
Charging for streams is for now limited to users in Canada, Japan, France, the United States and the U.K. Of course, YouTube isn’t the only one to offer paid live streaming: Ustream and others have been offering publishers a way to charge for events for some time.
YouTube announced pay-per-view as part of a set of new features rolled out for the one-year anniversary of its live streaming platform. YouTube Live, as it is officially called, is still only available to select publishers, but there are plans to eventually make it more widely available.

http://gigaom.com/video/youtube-adds-pay-per-view-to-live-streaming/

Think about if CBS decided to make a one night-only stream at 7:00PM E.S.T. Live stream of the next series pilot 2 months before it airs on TV. Would you pay to see it in HD on YouTube?
I think I'd pay $5. To see it in HD if CBS would allow enoughtime for fan feedback before they go into full episode production.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: YouTube Live pay per view event?

Would you pay to see it in HD on YouTube?

No.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I wouldn't pay to see anything on YouTube. Good luck to them getting people to pay for a brand name they associate with free (crap).

UFC is already in a category (fighting, or sports more generally) that people have shown some willingness to pay for, so there's some logic to that. But that doesn't mean anyone will pay for scripted drama or even reality-TV type shows on YouTube, not unless they are incredibly compelling.

A new Star Trek series could whomp up that level of interest, but then the question is, why would CBS allow a premium brand (thanks to Paramount's efforts) to be associated with YouTube? Better to do nothing at all with a brand rather than devalue it like that. The brand names that are compelling enough to inspire paid viewing are too valuable to waste on the likes of YouTube.

Netflix has a better shot at that sort of thing. People already pay for subscriptions, so there's no barrier to sampling some original series they might develop. And they have more of a quality image compared with YouTube, so Arrested Development doesn't have to be ashamed of the association. Whether those series can attract/hang onto subscribers well enough to make it worth Netflix's while is another thing entirely, but the only way to find out is to try.

 

[Steve1960]

Any new star trek series must stay true to gene rodenberrys original vision. To stray from this would be unexceptable to any trek fan