This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future.
- Thread starter Ian Keldon
- Start date
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
There is a lot of truth in this - first rule of the showman, always leave them wanting more...
There is a lot of truth in this - first rule of the showman, always leave them wanting more...
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
There are other more sophisticated tastes and things like better uniforms, a more cohesive concept of the universe and premise, better showrunners, etc.. There are tons of things Trek didn't do and didn't do right.
There are other more sophisticated tastes and things like better uniforms, a more cohesive concept of the universe and premise, better showrunners, etc.. There are tons of things Trek didn't do and didn't do right.
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
From your lips to God's ear, Legion...
They did NOT know that S4 was "the last" as is clear from the extensive pre-production work put into various concepts like the MU arc, the Kzinti episode, etc. There were several proposals put forward that would have made S5 possible at a reduced cost. It could have been pitched to Sci-Fi. There was talk about moving production to Canada to take advantage of the cheaper filming costs. There was even the fan-donation campaign (Trek United) which raised a considerable number of pledge commitments (including at least one pledge that was over a million dollars if memory serves).
The simple fact is that much positive buzz was being generated by S4. Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses had a good plan for moving forward and taking Trek back to where it needed to be. But they needed a S5 to complete the turnaround, and for time to start drawing viewers back.
CBS/Paramount (in the personage of Les "I hate sci-fi" Moonives killed Trek. He didn't understand it, didn't like it, and killed it.
THAT is the "end of story".
From your lips to God's ear, Legion...
They did NOT know that S4 was "the last" as is clear from the extensive pre-production work put into various concepts like the MU arc, the Kzinti episode, etc. There were several proposals put forward that would have made S5 possible at a reduced cost. It could have been pitched to Sci-Fi. There was talk about moving production to Canada to take advantage of the cheaper filming costs. There was even the fan-donation campaign (Trek United) which raised a considerable number of pledge commitments (including at least one pledge that was over a million dollars if memory serves).
The simple fact is that much positive buzz was being generated by S4. Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses had a good plan for moving forward and taking Trek back to where it needed to be. But they needed a S5 to complete the turnaround, and for time to start drawing viewers back.
CBS/Paramount (in the personage of Les "I hate sci-fi" Moonives killed Trek. He didn't understand it, didn't like it, and killed it.
THAT is the "end of story".
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
Fuller's still talking Trek.
But not till after the next movie. At which time they damn well better deliver, stringing us along like this!
Fuller's still talking Trek.
But not till after the next movie. At which time they damn well better deliver, stringing us along like this!
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
xortex- racist, sexist or both?
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
I don't think we necessarily need a whole new series ---- what would be a nice start is to start an anthology 'series'. When I say series, I don't mean a physical series with an episode count, I mean plan *BIG* direct to TV mini-series that last 2-6 hours and plan a big release of each one something like once a quarter.
I think tackling it this way makes it a lot easier to stomach some of the dollar values and of course mitigate other dollar values.
I don't think we necessarily need a whole new series ---- what would be a nice start is to start an anthology 'series'. When I say series, I don't mean a physical series with an episode count, I mean plan *BIG* direct to TV mini-series that last 2-6 hours and plan a big release of each one something like once a quarter.
I think tackling it this way makes it a lot easier to stomach some of the dollar values and of course mitigate other dollar values.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
Let's see, 6 hours once a quarter. 6x4=24 hours of content. So you're producing as much content as a TV series, yet you're shoehorning it into a dead model (TV mini-series) that can't support itself because of the high production costs. And mini-series have minimal syndication sales to help generate secondary revenue.
And all of that ignores the high cost and low return problems of space opera in general. So why would CBS consider a mini-series instead of a a full TV series?
Let's see, 6 hours once a quarter. 6x4=24 hours of content. So you're producing as much content as a TV series, yet you're shoehorning it into a dead model (TV mini-series) that can't support itself because of the high production costs. And mini-series have minimal syndication sales to help generate secondary revenue.
And all of that ignores the high cost and low return problems of space opera in general. So why would CBS consider a mini-series instead of a a full TV series?
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
A little bit of neither, actually.
A little bit of neither, actually.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
You're right, we're sorry.
We'll vouch for another anglo white protestant captain.
PROGRESS.
You're right, we're sorry.
We'll vouch for another anglo white protestant captain.
PROGRESS.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
What??? That would be awesome! Good call, Bryan!
Not only do I not want them to have another boring white male captain, but I don't even want the captain to be a boring hew-mon. However, for Lily I'll make an exception (if he means Alfre Woodard would be playing the same character).
Anyway, I wonder if he'll have to arm-wrestle Seth McFarlane...
Star Trek would have a hard enough time surviving simply because it is expensive and in a genre not everyone will accept. I'd say that every other factor needs to be calculated for ratings. And if that means a boring white male captain, I'd even be in favor of that (though I'd really hope by now the Star Trek audience is more enlightened.)
What??? That would be awesome! Good call, Bryan!
Not only do I not want them to have another boring white male captain, but I don't even want the captain to be a boring hew-mon. However, for Lily I'll make an exception (if he means Alfre Woodard would be playing the same character).
Anyway, I wonder if he'll have to arm-wrestle Seth McFarlane...
Anthologies are a tough sell. You're taking an already expensive genre, space opera, and making it more expensive by the need to create new sets every week. And you're not helping the audience to stick with a show on the basis of liking characters and wanting to see their continuing stories. New characters every week means a new excuse to bail on the show altogether.
Star Trek would have a hard enough time surviving simply because it is expensive and in a genre not everyone will accept. I'd say that every other factor needs to be calculated for ratings. And if that means a boring white male captain, I'd even be in favor of that (though I'd really hope by now the Star Trek audience is more enlightened.)
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
You all are fighting over a boxcar full of Cambodian currency.
Have at it.
You all are fighting over a boxcar full of Cambodian currency.
Have at it.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
No, just completely clueless.
No, just completely clueless.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
Heh...for sure. I'm all for progress, but some of the ideas that get floated around here are sure-fire ratings disasters.
"I want a non-white, bisexual, alien, non-American-born, hermaphroditic, little-person Captain who vehemently denounces religion and capitalism and the end of every episode!!"
My Name Is Legion; said:You all are fighting over a boxcar full of Cambodian currency.
Have at it.
Heh...for sure. I'm all for progress, but some of the ideas that get floated around here are sure-fire ratings disasters.
"I want a non-white, bisexual, alien, non-American-born, hermaphroditic, little-person Captain who vehemently denounces religion and capitalism and the end of every episode!!"
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
I think Alfre Woodard could be really cool as a Captain.
Also, though we never got to see her, only hear her, the Captain Debra Wilson played in DS9 The Sound of her Voice would've been really cool to see Captaining a ship, IMHO.
I think Alfre Woodard could be really cool as a Captain.
Also, though we never got to see her, only hear her, the Captain Debra Wilson played in DS9 The Sound of her Voice would've been really cool to see Captaining a ship, IMHO.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
That article makes the mistaken assumption that Paramount has anything to do with bringing Trek back to television.
There's absolutely no reason to wait until after the sequel is made. If CBS wanted a Trek show tomorrow, there'd be a Trek show tomorrow.
Fuller's still talking Trek.
But not till after the next movie. At which time they damn well better deliver, stringing us along like this!
That article makes the mistaken assumption that Paramount has anything to do with bringing Trek back to television.
There's absolutely no reason to wait until after the sequel is made. If CBS wanted a Trek show tomorrow, there'd be a Trek show tomorrow.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
I think so, too. I'd rather see her - or anyone else they cast - set in a more adventurous and unpredictable environment than the 24th/25th/etc. "modern Trek" version of the Franchise. Something based in style on TOS or Abrams's take on it would be fun. I'm also not interested in any more attempts on the part of producers to prove how important and "thoughtful" Trek is. Just tell some damned stories that aren't trivial and the Deep Meaning of it all will take care of itself.
I think so, too. I'd rather see her - or anyone else they cast - set in a more adventurous and unpredictable environment than the 24th/25th/etc. "modern Trek" version of the Franchise. Something based in style on TOS or Abrams's take on it would be fun. I'm also not interested in any more attempts on the part of producers to prove how important and "thoughtful" Trek is. Just tell some damned stories that aren't trivial and the Deep Meaning of it all will take care of itself.
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future
Yeah, well...CBS would probably return Bryan Fuller & Bryan Singer's phone calls, should they see fit to place such a call someday.
Or did you mean the part about needing JJ Abrams' blessing? That's only to be expected. CBS would respect the way he's resurrected a degraded and mismanaged franchise, even if he wasn't on their payroll at the time. He's certainly earned the right to have an opinion about Star Trek on TV, even if he's not actually working on it (and even if his "approval" is nothing more than PR.)
There's no good business case to be made for Star Trek on TV, so it would be made only if someone with a lot of clout champions it, because they want to. Maybe Abrams himself doesn't want a TV series being made until he has time to provide some input, to whatever degree he thinks appropriate.
Timing a TV series to coincide with the third movie would be a very smart strategy. The movies end, the series picks up the franchise from there. No possibility of franchise saturation (to the extent that's ever been an issue), and CBS has not just one successful movie, but two, to make them feel better about the risk.
Fuller's still talking Trek.
But not till after the next movie. At which time they damn well better deliver, stringing us along like this!
That article makes the mistaken assumption that Paramount has anything to do with bringing Trek back to television.
Yeah, well...CBS would probably return Bryan Fuller & Bryan Singer's phone calls, should they see fit to place such a call someday.
Or did you mean the part about needing JJ Abrams' blessing? That's only to be expected. CBS would respect the way he's resurrected a degraded and mismanaged franchise, even if he wasn't on their payroll at the time. He's certainly earned the right to have an opinion about Star Trek on TV, even if he's not actually working on it (and even if his "approval" is nothing more than PR.)
The main reason CBS wouldn't make Star Trek is, well, why should they bother? Doesn't fit CBS, the CW or Showtime. Are they going to invest a lot of effort in making an expensive, risky show for another channel, and if so, who? FX? SyFy?
There's no good business case to be made for Star Trek on TV, so it would be made only if someone with a lot of clout champions it, because they want to. Maybe Abrams himself doesn't want a TV series being made until he has time to provide some input, to whatever degree he thinks appropriate.
Timing a TV series to coincide with the third movie would be a very smart strategy. The movies end, the series picks up the franchise from there. No possibility of franchise saturation (to the extent that's ever been an issue), and CBS has not just one successful movie, but two, to make them feel better about the risk.
Similar threads
