• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future.

Ian Keldon

Fleet Captain
Doug Drexler said this while being interviewed about Blood & Chrome:

Drexler: It's huge. I worked with Gary Hutzel, who once again is our visual effects supervisor. He is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. We had a blast. In one very important way it was different from anything else I’ve ever worked on. The entire show was green screen. There were no sets. This happened because of the shape of the economy. Building sets for a television show like TNG or the last Battlestar Galactica is just prohibitively expensive. No one wants to take that chance. Besides, the way the networks have been doing business lately, it’s kind of bizarre. They’ll cancel a show after one episode. If a show doesn’t perform right out of the gate, they cancel it. In the day when you thought a show would be kept on the air for a year, you might take a chance because you think it will develop an audience over time. With the current network mindset, there’s no chance of building an audience, when after one or two episodes, it's canceled. It’s just impossible. So, they want make a show as inexpensively as possible, so if it’s canceled after one or two episodes, no one gets their head chopped off.

Note not only the bolded part, but the italicized part of the bolded part.

No network exec is going to look at the performance of Trek on TV over the last decade or so of it's run and front the money for a new version at all. CBS certainly won't, esp under Moonives.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Yep, that's been the general understanding since Enterprise was canned.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

What I'd like to see is a Mirror Universe Series. Though I enjoyed the over-the-top Cheeziness of the DS9 and ENT Mirror Universe episodes, that's not what I'd want for a Series. For a Series, it would be a tone like DS9, except, instead of the Federation being the Good Guys, they'd be conquerors and Tyrants. That premise might grow old after a Season, so maybe, the arc could be their downfall and rebuilding into a more benevolent Federation
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

On the other hand, it's nothing new for networks to cancel a series after just a few episodes, or for them to be reluctant to invest in the expensive production of a science fiction series. That's why SF series have always been comparatively rare and short-lived. (Ira Steven Behr's first genre show, Once a Hero back in the '80s, was cancelled after three episodes. The first adaptation of Human Target in 1992 -- which had more genre elements and visual effects than the more recent version -- lasted seven episodes.) And yet we still managed to get new Star Trek for 18 years straight. Rules have exceptions, and patterns have variations.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Yep. Until the economy changes, and the overall tastes of the television viewing audience changes, we won't see a new live-action sci-fi series the likes of Trek or BSG anytime soon.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

While what Doug said is undoubtedly true, there's a world of difference between a new Star Trek series and a new series that happens to take place on a spaceship in the future. The former has 40+ years of fandom behind it, while the latter has nothing to carry it other than the years of development that it obviously won't get.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

^ I disagree...Trek on TV, unfortunately, will be viewed by the suits through the prism of the last few years of Voyager, and the first 3 of Enterprise where the ratings just kept sinking to the point that even the well-received Season 4 of Enterprise couldn't salvage the situation.

B&B pissed away "40 years of fandom".
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Hurray! Somebody gets it! :D It doesn't have anything to do with what century or timeline Trek is in, or what the Klingons' foreheads look like, or what colors the nacelles are. Space opera is dead on TV because of business reasons, not creative reasons. Bickering about content is pointless.

However, I don't think it's impossible for a space opera series to survive on TV. Robert Hewitt Wolfe is working on one for SyFy which sounds like a throwback to TOS, complete with a restoration of the cop-on-the-beat aspect of TOS, which the other series largely discarded, but which I think could really contribute to bumping up the ratings. Cop show elements help make other sci fi series successful (to the point where I'm sick to death of it, at least for the Earth-based series).

While what Doug said is undoubtedly true, there's a world of difference between a new Star Trek series and a new series that happens to take place on a spaceship in the future. The former has 40+ years of fandom behind it, while the latter has nothing to carry it other than the years of development that it obviously won't get.

A new Star Trek series would get a guaranteed first-episode audience on name recognition alone, but after that, it's sink-or-swim time, same as everyone else.

Since they're talking about doing B&C on a greenscreen, I wonder if that's going to fly. Part of the appeal of space opera (to me, anyway) is the visual interest. If the show looks cheesy and fake, everything else could work but it would still be hard for me to tolerate.
 
Last edited:
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

This isn't anything new. The idea that spaceship shows are considered too expensive and too difficult to produce by TV execs is as true today as it was in 1964 when Roddenberry first started shopping Star Trek around. IIRC, Roddenberry was told no several times before someone said yes.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

The TV biz was different in Roddenberry's day - just three networks, each with a massive percentage of the viewing audience. Now the audience has dispersed to a hundred different cable channels and nobody has a big market share. That means there's more opportunity for niche tastes to be served (good for space opera) but less budget (bad for space opera).

The upshot is, niche tastes get served if they can be served cheaply. I wonder if what TNT has accomplished with Falling Skies - a series involving aliens that survives nicely on cable - can be extrapolated to some sort of space based series, for instance, a space-colonization series shot in the desert with some modest sets and occasional visits from indigenous alien species (not played by humans wearing funny foreheads)?

Other models that Star Trek might follow: Game of Thrones on HBO (more adult depiction of space politics and intrigue than Star Trek has ever dealt with) or The Clone Wars (beautifully animated, heavy on action and visually stunning planets, occasionally with some meatier content for the adults in the audience).
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Robert Hewitt Wolfe is working on one for SyFy which sounds like a throwback to TOS,
The project Vorta is talking about is a TrekBBS thread here:
Untitled Robert Hewitt Wolfe project - Possible new show on SyFy

Since they're talking about doing B&C on a greenscreen, I wonder if that's going to fly. Part of the appeal of space opera (to me, anyway) is the visual interest. If the show looks cheesy and fake, everything else could work
We may have to settle for lower production values against greenscreen for a lower budget. I'd still check out Blood & Chrome to see how it looks in HD on a good TV. If it looks awful then it might only work on a standard definition streaming feed on a computer to be believable.

Also why I brought this up in discussing lower budgets and TV ratings in a thread: Would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?

When you are talking about a series shooting all on greenscreen it basically becomes an animated show. The sets/locations are all 3-D CGI models.

I discussed the multiple uses for CGI models within the Trek universe once created in industry-standard CGI modeling software: Lightwave 3D here.

By shooting actors on a greenscreen instead of going for an all CGI animated series it brings the human element. Consider seeing
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
as an animated movie. I didn't think so. You need the human interaction of hand props and wardrobe and facial movements to be able to do a TV series in a shorter timetable than Cameron did with animating with facial motion capture data on Avatar.
If you didn't know Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was shot on green/bluescreen only with the actors only using handprops and only tiny parts of sets that the actors actually touch were built such as a door frame they walk through and door they touch. see this behind the scenes video for how they shot it.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

network tv channels no, cable tv channels, some of them, maybe. It would really take a commitment to put on a new Trek series, some cable only channels will give it more attention and promotion than a broadcast channel would.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

The TV biz was different in Roddenberry's day - just three networks, each with a massive percentage of the viewing audience.
Actually, that has no bearing on it at all. Spaceship shows have always been considered more expensive to produce than other shows.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

^ I disagree...Trek on TV, unfortunately, will be viewed by the suits through the prism of the last few years of Voyager, and the first 3 of Enterprise where the ratings just kept sinking to the point that even the well-received Season 4 of Enterprise couldn't salvage the situation.

B&B pissed away "40 years of fandom".

Trek's ratings started sinking consistently beginning with the second week of DS9. The studio was never happy with its performance. No one "pissed away" anything; people just got tired of Star Trek - until new people changed it enough to make it interesting again. :cool:
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Hurray! Somebody gets it! :D It doesn't have anything to do with what century or timeline Trek is in, or what the Klingons' foreheads look like, or what colors the nacelles are. Space opera is dead on TV because of business reasons, not creative reasons. Bickering about content is pointless.

I wouldn't go quite all the way "there". The creative problems fed into the business decision. Bad choices led to loss of fan interest, which generated the low ratings that the business side saw and used as justification for pulling the plug.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

[Trek's ratings started sinking consistently beginning with the second week of DS9. The studio was never happy with its performance. No one "pissed away" anything; people just got tired of Star Trek - until new people changed it enough to make it interesting again. :cool:

Not quite. DS9 never got the spotlight OR the studio push that TNG and VOY got. That's simply a fact. And it had to compete against each in turn for viewers, for good time slots, and so forth. So of course the ratings were going to be not what they otherwise might have been.

The "B's", esp Berman, never liked the show in any event. It was either Moore or Behr that told the story years ago about him calling a meeting where he flat out told DS9's team that "they [DS9} would never be the flagship Trek show." Berman treated DS9 like an embarrassing relative...don't discuss it, don't pay attention to it.

That said, DS9 was only as good as it was because Berman tended to ignore it and therefore wasn't meddling with it like he did with the other shows. If he had, we never would have gotten the last 3 seasons, which consisted of the Klingon War and the Dominion War and all the wonderful eps that came out of them.

I still remember the "3 or 4 episodes" edict that Berman tried to lay down. Moore discusses it (and Berman's medling, and the studio's bad attitude here:

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=3fd2828e8365a

Moore talks about how he decided to join DEEP SPACE NINE over VOYAGER after the conclusion of TNG, saying he knew the former was going to venture into serialized territory due to its very nature. By the time the Dominion War came along, Moore says producer Rick Berman was against carrying it beyond four episodes.

"I remember when we got into the Dominion War, Rick was adamant at first that the war would only take 3 or 4 episodes at the most, and we just said, "Sure!" We lied," he admits. "We just knew that once we got the ball rolling that we'd never wrap it up in 3 or 4 episodes, so that was just trickery. And then as the war went on, Rick would weigh in periodically about how heroic the characters are and "Why does this one have to be so depressing" and "This one's too violent...." And we're like, "It's a f***in' war! What do you mean it's too violent?"

Season seven's "The Seige of AR-558" and "It's Only a Paper Moon" dealt a major blow to Aron Eisenbery's 'Nog', a semi-regular by that time. Moore says Berman argued with DS9 show runner Ira Steven Behr over its execution.

"I remember one particularly insane argument that Ira and Rick had when Nog was injured and ended up losing a leg, there was this ridiculous extended argument that I was in a room while Ira was on the phone," Moore recalls. "We had written the draft where he had lost both his legs, and Rick was just appalled. "We can't lose the character's legs!" And we were like, "No, we've got to. We've got to have somebody who's injured in this war who's not just a guest star in the background." It was a very important point. And the argument got to the point where they were arguing about, "Well, does it have to be one leg or two? And is it above the knee or below the knee?" It was just, like, they were negotiating over where Nog was to lose his leg. It was just absurd."

The BATTLESTAR GALACTICA screenwriter says another such battle involved the death of Terry Farrell's 'Dax'. Berman thought she shouldn't be killed in cold blood and the ultimate death scene was unsatisfying to Moore. He characterizes Rick's input on scripts as "conservative."

"They were just always conservative. You were always pulling back from something. You were never given a note saying, "Go farther. Go wilder. This needs to be more shocking." It was always "Pull it back. Be safer."

Once VOYAGER was on the air, Moore says there was a very clear distaste for DS9 among Paramount and Berman. He says the DS9 staff even wanted the show to continue beyond season seven, but the studio was adamant about giving VOYAGER a solo-run for its last two seasons, despite never having given DS9 the same opportunity.

"I don't think Paramount ever loved it," he says. "I know Rick didn't really love it, and it was just the bastard stepchild of the franchise."
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

The Berman wet blanket started with TNG, watering it down to make it last longer with the subtle approach stiffling creativity and suphocating the franchise. Nothing was gonna flourish under that umbrella that wasn't similar to his mediocre approach.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Nope. Too much product bored people.

There never has been a massive dedicated Trek fanbase sufficient to keep a series on the air. Trek is peculiar and narrow enough that the casual viewership couldn't help but become satiated by a decade or so of repetition of its few themes.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

Nope. Too much product bored people.

There never has been a massive dedicated Trek fanbase sufficient to keep a series on the air. Trek is peculiar and narrow enough that the casual viewership couldn't help but become satiated by a decade or so of repetition of its few themes.

Which wasn't helped by Berman's continual "pulling it back". Behr, Moore, and the others kept pushing to go broader, deeper, farther, and Berman kept cutting them off at the knees.

That's not the way to build excitement and interest. In the end, Berman MUST take his share of the blame for pissing away both the casual viewers AND the fanbase.
 
Re: This is why there will be no new TV Trek for the forseeable future

None of those guys were right for running star Trek, IMO. In fact I can't think of anyone who is unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top