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

[Ian Keldon]

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

The DS9 team did a good job, but Moore has since lost his mind and turned "hater" on Trek.

Hands down the team to go to now would be Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses with Mike and Rick on the support side.

 

[AviTrek]

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

I would take Echevarria and Behr myself, and maybe mix in Shawn Piller.

 

[xortex]

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

Joe Menosky, Micheal Tailor, Naren Shankar, Mike Sussman, Brian Fuller - deep thinkers people.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

It wasn't too much product, it was too much bad, or at least mediocre, product

But the fact is, everybody's got a little bit right, but the problem can't be nailed down to one single cause. Yeah, the ratings started sliding during DS9, but that was another case of the market changing; after all, DS9 was still generally one of the top three syndicated dramas, often Number One. Voyager gets more than its share of broadsides, but "Caretaker" beat out ABC's Monday Night Football. THE AUDIENCE IS THERE! The Star Trek name will get 'em for the first night (also a big factor in JJTrek's box office take), but if there ain't any meat on the bones, the kids aren't gonna stick around for seconds.

I'm beginning to come around the notion that Clone Wars might be the model to follow, after all.

 

[Kemaiku]

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

It wasn't too much product.

Yes, it was. 700 episodes and not even half of them good, dragging on for 18 solid years most recently, that's some serious burnout and padding out of limited material.

Face it, 40 years isn't bad, squandering what good material there was over it wasn't such a good move.

It's time for something new...oh wait, we have that.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

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

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?

Thanks for providing the RHW link - bad me for forgetting that, not everyone follows the news around here.

And your notion of Trek not being on linear TV has become a bit more viable with the likes of Netflix and YouTube getting into content production. So far, YouTube seems to be focusing on cheaply produced content focused on lifestyle and celebrities, which is okay as a first step I guess, but the real power of internet content is getting away from mass culture and serving niche tastes that can't be found in magazines or TV. If anyone could figure out how to serve niche tastes in drama via YouTube, that would be something. (YouTube already has copious examples of niche comedy tastes being served via cats and talking oranges as I'm sure we've all noticed.)

Netflix at least has the right idea in funding new episodes of Arrested Development - serving a niche taste that is priced out of the TV market.

Links, this time!

Netflix

YouTube

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.

Good choices could lead to a resurgence of fan interest (and more importantly, interest from people who never before realized they were "fans"), so why isn't anyone interested in doing that? Why has space opera vanished from TV entirely?

I'm beginning to come around the notion that Clone Wars might be the model to follow, after all.

As the sole remaining example of space opera on TV now, it's at least an example of a viable business model. But it would require Star Trek to be a lot more geared towards kids' tastes than ever before, and the "they turned it into Star Wars" screaming would hit new decibel levels, because it's inescapable that an animated series would be heavy on visuals and action.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

It wasn't too much product.

Yes, it was.

And voila, instant Monty Python Argument Sketch, thanks to mildly creative editing.

Shmuck.

 

[MacLeod]

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

Of course nowadays part of the reason why shows might fail is that.

The network will only cancel it after one season. So why should I invest my time watching it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

Case in point: Terra Nova.

 

[Kooz]

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

A reboot series could work. Bring it into the digital age, make it edgy, and time it to come out after the next movie. Heroes and Lost were huge; this should be the same thing--downplay the "space" aspect, pump up the character development and story arc (and make that you have a story arc--unlike Heroes). Could be amazing--something that everyone watches and talks about. CAN'T have "Star Trek" in the name though.

 

[MacLeod]

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

Star Trek is a bankable asset. Unfortunantly studio's/networks, tend to view things in the short term.

Star Trek as a franchise could potentially earn tens of millions more per year than it would cost to produce. Sci-Fi fans in general are the ones who buy tie in books, DVDs/Blu-Rays etc....

Yes it might not pull in stellar ratings on network TV, and yes CBS Paramount Television might make a loss in the US. But from a buisness point of view does merchanidse rights and International sales compensate for a loss in the home market.

 

[Kemaiku]

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

Which is why a JJverse series shortly after the release of the second movie would be a good move.

 

[xortex]

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

CBS risks a flatline if somebody beats them to the punch with a rip off. Turn about is fair play after all.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

Which is why a JJverse series shortly after the release of the second movie would be a good move.

JJ won't even let Pocket put out tie-in novels, you think he's gonna let somebody do a tv series?

 

[xortex]

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

Do you really think JJ is not gonna do a JJseries? Be serious.

 

[Dukhat]

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

Which is why a JJverse series shortly after the release of the second movie would be a good move.

JJ won't even let Pocket put out tie-in novels, you think he's gonna let somebody do a tv series?

How exactly does JJ Abrams have anything to do with what CBS wants to do?

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

Which is why a JJverse series shortly after the release of the second movie would be a good move.

JJ won't even let Pocket put out tie-in novels, you think he's gonna let somebody do a tv series?

Yet they have released YA novels and comics set in the "JJverse".

 

[xortex]

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

Which is why a JJverse series shortly after the release of the second movie would be a good move.

JJ won't even let Pocket put out tie-in novels, you think he's gonna let somebody do a tv series?

How exactly does JJ Abrams have anything to do with what CBS wants to do?

One hand washes the other and both hands wash the face. Hence the term it's a 'wash'.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

JJ won't even let Pocket put out tie-in novels, you think he's gonna let somebody do a tv series?

How exactly does JJ Abrams have anything to do with what CBS wants to do?

One hand washes the other and both hands wash the face. Hence the term it's a 'wash'.

Umm, no that's not what the phrase means.

 

[Dukhat]

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

JJ won't even let Pocket put out tie-in novels, you think he's gonna let somebody do a tv series?

How exactly does JJ Abrams have anything to do with what CBS wants to do?

One hand washes the other and both hands wash the face. Hence the term it's a 'wash'.

Misquoting cliches does not answer the question.