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

[RAMA]

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

Setting a show 5 years after the movie run is over would be a little bit pointless. While the movies are successful they should capitalize the success by premiering a show close to it, maybe a few months after it. We could safely assume that the '13 Star Trek will be successful, wouldn't it be more logical promoting a new TV series of Star Trek right before the movie itself. "This fall ... the adventure continues on star ship Excelsior on the small screen" or something. I think it would be more normal premiering a new series in 2013 fall or maybe 2016 fall when Star Trek 3 might be coming out ...

Again no...Paramount will likely wait till after the movie division has it's go at ST, then CBS will likely take over in some way...5 years will give the movies time to make more money in release on bluray. It is also possible that they will try it in 3-4 years after the movies, that's why I say "roughly".

Truthfully, CBS can do a new Trek series whenever they want--including right now if they had the inclination to do so. Paramount has no say in the matter in regards to a new TV series, much less when one would ever come about.

Of course technically this is true, CBS and Paramount don't plan together necessarily, but in a practical sense they each know they don't want to saturate the airwaves again.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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

Again no...Paramount will likely wait till after the movie division has it's go at ST, then CBS will likely take over in some way...5 years will give the movies time to make more money in release on bluray. It is also possible that they will try it in 3-4 years after the movies, that's why I say "roughly".

Truthfully, CBS can do a new Trek series whenever they want--including right now if they had the inclination to do so. Paramount has no say in the matter in regards to a new TV series, much less when one would ever come about.

Of course technically this is true, CBS and Paramount don't plan together necessarily, but in a practical sense they each know they don't want to saturate the airwaves again.

Actually, what Paramount wants is irrelevant to CBS. As the true owner of all things Trek, CBS can do whatever they want with Trek--including saturate the airwaves again--and Paramount can't say or do anything about it.

IMO, the only thing preventing a new Trek series from being on the air--as we speak--is currently a lack of need and/or desire by CBS.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

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

Syfy announced two space opera series in development today: RHW's Defender and Bryan Fuller's High Moon. The latter is based on the moon so maybe it's cheaper but Defender is the kind of show where you'll need spaceship sets, various planets to visit, the whole magilla.

So budget is no obstacle to a space opera series. Maybe B&C just didn't pan out creatively.

Or B&C was considered too expensive and SyFy will go cheap on the budget for these shows if they pick either of them up.

Just going by what I saw of B&C, it looked like what you'd expect from any space based series - not particularly pricey-looking. I don't think a show can afford to look cheap nowadays - that alone can cause it to be rejected by the audience. They certainly didn't hire actors who can command top dollar, either.

But maybe RHW is relying more heavily on interpersonal drama in which characters just stand around and yak, and easy on the expensive action. If the budget-saving measures also deliver intelligent, engrossing character-based drama, I'm all in favor of that.

I've always thought there are ways a space opera series can meet a modest TV budget and still be highly entertaining and even intelligent.

We'll not only have to attract a new base of viewers, but also retain them.

At what cost? We could make a sexed-up, dumbed-down, low rent show ostensibly set in the ST universe with focus-grouped, studio-exec screened characters and cast and it might even be vastly profitable.

The question is, would it be Trek?

It's true that there's a risk. Star Trek continues to be a powerful brand name because it means something. Brands are not just labels that can be cynically slapped on any old thing without damaging the brand. We've seen the consequences of the brand being damaged by what happened with the TV series. Star Trek became (justifiably) synonymous with "boring" and "irrelevant" in the public mind.

But Star Trek as a brand is also very flexible. JJ Abrams stayed well within the brand attributes, despite all the fan carping about his movie. There's nothing about Star Trek that's incompatible with the more intelligent sort of summer popcorn movie.

It could be just as compatible with the style of many different potential channels - the expectations of those channels will determine its character, because if it doesn't fit with the channel, it will never get a greenlight. It may be a bit darker and more character driven on cable, but there's no law that says every cable series needs to be Deadwood.

Regardless, it's inevitable that some fans will be unhappy, no matter what. Even a few baby steps in the direction of Deadwood will cause a huge ruckus. If that's what it takes to get Star Trek back on TV, so be it. Just cross your fingers it's not on the CW, because that would constitute a true disaster.

 

[Tom]

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

From the time of renewal for the fourth season, the studio knew that it was almost certainly the end. So did Berman and Braga. It wasn't even a secret on the Internet.

Paramount was a fool[sic] to not give Coto and the Reeve's-Stevenses the chance to finish the turnaround on a better network.

Ignoring for a moment that an entire studio can't be "a fool," the executives at Paramount get paid to make responsible business decisions to the best of their abilities, not to ignite big wads of cash in the parking lot in order to placate dwindling numbers of trekkies. There was no "better network" or other venue willing to pony up the kind of money the studio required to make a Star Trek series work - especially not one that had spent a season catering to hard-core fans without building any new audience whatever. End of story.

Well, at least ending oldTrek gave them the opportunity to recreate the Franchise along lines that work for the movie-going public today.

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".

Ian, Dennis is correct, he was with us as we tryed to save the show. Paramount pretty much had there minds made up at the end of Season 3 but greenlit a season 4 mostly for syndication reasons. Of course, moving the show to Friday (deathslot) was there way of saying, we are done, just stick it out here for the last year.

Yes we did raise money to help save the show and tryed several things to try to get Paramount to change there minds, but in the long run Paramount (still owned by Viacom, not CBS at the time) said no, they had there minds made up.

Even though we did not succeed, we made a lot of noise and showed them that Star Trek fans would not just lay down and let Star Trek die silently into the night...

 

[Tom]

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

I often feel that CBS is simply the wrong entity to own the Star Trek franchise, they just can't cultivate it the right way. But, who has a hundreds of millions of dollars to buy it from CBS. The now seperated Viacom/Paramount Studio would have been the better entity to go to rather than CBS during the split. I have seen many examples over the past 5 years that show the contrast of how each entity veiws and promotes Star Trek, And the Viacom side does a great job at it, but they only have the movie side and nothing else.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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

From the time of renewal for the fourth season, the studio knew that it was almost certainly the end. So did Berman and Braga. It wasn't even a secret on the Internet.

Ignoring for a moment that an entire studio can't be "a fool," the executives at Paramount get paid to make responsible business decisions to the best of their abilities, not to ignite big wads of cash in the parking lot in order to placate dwindling numbers of trekkies. There was no "better network" or other venue willing to pony up the kind of money the studio required to make a Star Trek series work - especially not one that had spent a season catering to hard-core fans without building any new audience whatever. End of story.

Well, at least ending oldTrek gave them the opportunity to recreate the Franchise along lines that work for the movie-going public today.

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".

Ian, Dennis is correct, he was with us as we tryed to save the show. Paramount pretty much had there minds made up at the end of Season 3 but greenlit a season 4 mostly for syndication reasons.

A few people have said this, but they seem to be only fans and not anyone that actually worked at Paramount or on the show.

 

[xortex]

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

CBS values the power over the product and won't sell Paramount out. They should sell it to NBC or NBC should just create their own reasonably budgeted space opera. I like yakking. For some reason, TNG didn't have anyone say over two sentences and everybody had to say something about everything.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

A few people have said this, but they seem to be only fans and not anyone that actually worked at Paramount or on the show.

The research is easy enough to do - but as long as one doesn't investigate, one has the luxury to keep on posting assertions that it isn't so.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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

A few people have said this, but they seem to be only fans and not anyone that actually worked at Paramount or on the show.

The research is easy enough to do - but as long as one doesn't investigate, one has the luxury to keep on posting assertions that it isn't so.

The burden of proof is on those who assert that it is so.

 

[Tom]

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

The burden of proof is on those who assert that it is so.

True enough

There are a few things that i have heard from the several members of the production crew that will probably never be proven or verified and i'm fine with that. It is unprofessional for them to come out and say certain things, as they would like to keep there careers and reputations in the entertainment industry intact. Unlike some other occupations people have to be extremely careful in the industry if they hope to get that job on the next big film or TV show. PR is everything in the entertainment industry and thus can cause a bit of paranoia for some.

Will we ever know what is talked about at meetings at Viacom and/or CBS as it relates to Star Trek? Nope, not very likely. Still, there are ways to see between the lines other than making friends with the janitor to get the information your looking for

 

[C.E. Evans]

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

The burden of proof is on those who assert that it is so.

True enough

There are a few things that i have heard from the several members of the production crew that will probably never be proven or verified and i'm fine with that. It is unprofessional for them to come out and say certain things, as they would like to keep there careers and reputations in the entertainment industry intact. Unlike some other occupations people have to be extremely careful in the industry if they hope to get that job on the next big film or TV show. PR is everything in the entertainment industry and thus can cause a bit of paranoia for some.

Will we ever know what is talked about at meetings at Viacom and/or CBS as it relates to Star Trek? Nope, not very likely. Still, there are ways to see between the lines other than making friends with the janitor to get the information your looking for

Unfortunately, that also makes it very easy for anyone to come forward and say any number of untruths.

 

[AviTrek]

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

I like yakking.

I think that's the most sensible thing you've ever posted here.

 

[stonester1]

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

Doctor Who is still well recieved, beloved of the fans and getting respect from critics on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is doing it's job, fantastically so. And as much as I loved the Davies era, bitchy fans were constantly sounding off about that time, too. No matter how good a product is, somone is going to whine.

Trek could do worse.

 

[MacLeod]

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

Well remember DW did have virtually a 16 year gap (aside from a TV movie). So a long rest might do ST some good. (hopefully it won't be 16 years though)

 

[horatio83]

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

Doctor Who is still well recieved, beloved of the fans and getting respect from critics on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is doing it's job, fantastically so. And as much as I loved the Davies era, bitchy fans were constantly sounding off about that time, too. No matter how good a product is, somone is going to whine.

Trek could do worse.

If the next Trek series is just half as good as NuWho I will be happy.

 

[Danlav05]

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

THE PAST:
TV show gets cult status in reruns, then spawns successful movie franchise, then gets phenonenomally (sp?) successful sequel show.

That show spawned 3 more series, being more or less simultaniously done with 4 movies in tow (V and VI were done by the old team), TNG is voted best series

NOW:
Star Trek 2009 is very successful and Kirk & Spock are back in the public conciousness. That’s great.
Rick Berman had 18 years, for a lot of the time he had 2 shows in production, and many agreed ideas run dry. DS9, VOY and even ENT had their share of success, however Picard and crew are still the more recognised with the originals.

Orci proposes an animated series, and I know a lot of people hate the idea, but at least it would be 22 eps of Trek every year.

Let’s look at our options, bearing in mind BAD ROBOT are the creative heads with CBS as licence holders

THE ORIGINAL SERIES: Very unlikely theyll do year 4 of the 5YM – we have Phase II, comicsetc for that! They have their own versions of the characters they developed

NEW TIMELINE: Possible, set between movies? There can be tonnes of stories to tell, characters and aliens to introduce. If not on the Enterprise, then the Kelvin? Captain Sulu on the Excelsior? Another ship with guest appearances from the Enterprise.

ANOTHER REBOOT: ie the Star Trek Animated Universe – another universe yeah, different lookin Enterprise and characters. Maybe do Next Generation characters? Picard still popular right? THEN you could do more – flashback to the TOS era and tap into the rich tapestry from the whole of the Prime canon – trips to DS9 on the way to Bajor or even have Sisko and co heavily involved in an arc? And references back to ENT even!
The good thing about a series is you can explore the many aspects of the Trek universe, plus of course create new ones – there are a lot of ideas for post-Nemesis shows, which ‘I’m all for.

What about the TNG lot in this time then? IDW and Pocket are working on this, but could an animated show continue their journey? Maybe base the show on ONLINE – they’ve created a full mythology to explore. Or go hundreds of years later still, i.e. some of the unmade pitches.

As for a live action show, now Kurtzman/Orci seem to be thinking about it, it looks to be set JJVerse at a guess, if not ANOTHER reboot, this time for TV. An animated show and a live action one would be approached differently, I’d like a future-of-prime thing bout would not hold out for it. I guess now any outside pitches have less of a chance, which is a pity because some good ideas have been talked about (Singer’s Federation etc), but I’m happy to see what K/O come up with.


TV Movies/DTV I would love for Prime continuations as the Prime universe continues, such as Captain Worf, Titan or even a CGI remount of Secret of Vulcan Fury using the unused recordings. If TPTB can afford it and agree, then thats what I see happening

 

[ILOVETREK1701]

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

I sincerely doubt that there will ever be a new star trek tv show. However in recent time there have been many new books and comics as well as peaked interest in the franchise. So I doubt that the star trek franchise will go away any time soon and if it becomes more popular we may see more new movies.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

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

Star Trek doesn't need to "rest." The reason we're not getting any new show now is not because there's no demand for it, but because there's no obviously good place for it in the TV ecosystem. It's a business problem, not a demand problem.

There's no obviously good place for any space opera, anymore. TV doesn't do a good job of supporting niche audiences/expensive budgets. As streaming becomes more common a delivery method (so that in theory, a larger total audience can be reached for less cost), I expect that to change.

I sincerely doubt that there will ever be a new star trek tv show.

I sincerely doubt that there won't be. The TV business is going through a massive, fundamental change and within a few years will be largely unrecognizable. This change (fortunately!) is very good for nichier content, especially content that has a strong loyal following and high brand-name awareness.

In the new TV ecosystem, the biggest obstacle will be simply getting awareness among the teeming, squabbling options that will proliferate beyond anyone's ability to comprehend. There will be many space opera shows (among other niche genres) available via streaming, and few will have any built-in awareness, certainly not at Trek's level.

One big growth area will be something that's already familiar to us, showrunners taking known brands and shaping them to fit new tastes, a la Ron Moore's BSG. Trek fans should be braced for the next show to be a moderated version of that - I don't expect that kind of total revamp, but it's going to be more different from the past than Abrams' movies have been.

So if Abrams pissed you off, you're in for a very rough ride. Star Trek as we've known it in the past will never return, because the TV ecosystem that spawned it is dying off.

 

[BillJ]

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

In the new TV ecosystem, the biggest obstacle will be simply getting awareness among the teeming, squabbling options that will proliferate beyond anyone's ability to comprehend. There will be many space opera shows (among other niche genres) available via streaming, and few will have any built-in awareness, certainly not at Trek's level.

I disagree. A show that will cost four to five million dollars (or more) an episode simply won't have a place in the new landscape. The only way Star Trek fits into the TV landscape going forward is if it's animated. They can keep costs under control by using generic actors playing iconic roles.

If you think CBS will allow Trek, a marquee title that has long been family friendly, to be turned into nuBSG you're crazy.

 

[Yminale]

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

I disagree. A show that will cost four to five million dollars (or more) an episode

Enterprise cost between $1.6 to $2 million dollars per episode. nuDoctor Who cost about $2 million dollars per episode. That's a lot of money but you also need to factor in foreign sales, DVD sales and merchandising.

CBS is slowly ending the CSI franchise and NCIS will probably be next. There is going to be room for new shows. Maybe Star Trek. We'll see.