Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[Makarov]

Sounds like very good news to me. New crew and new adventures, that's music to my ears. I'll take any universe or time period I'd just like to see it in the TV format again.

Lots of people were predicting we wouldn't get another Trek TV series again or much further down the line that 2017, so this is great.

 

[JoeZhang]

Now here we are with it being shown online only.

In the US - to provide a competitive advantage to a new business model.

I think a lot of you back to front - it's not on Streaming because they have no confidence in Trek, it's on streaming because they think that is their BEST show to get people to hand over cash to their streaming service.

Use your mentality - if you want to people to pay for something, do you go for your weakest or strongest IPR?

 

[elaithin]

To be fair, network tv is rapidly trending towards streaming distribution anyway. If it weren't for the sports access that has remained on local stations, broadcast/cable would be in far worse shape than it currently is. I don't mind a new Star Trek trying to get ahead of the curve.

 

[stardream]

What *is* new is that we're getting a new TV series, which is where I think many of us feel Trek has always excelled. Why can't you just be damn happy about that?

One can't truly call one's self a fan unless they show psychotic rage over the merest hint of something being new and different.

Oh dear. I guess I fail....

 

[Squiggy]

I think we can move past the box office argument, because it's a very tired way of dismissing fair criticism - many other auteurs may have been equally, or more, successful.

How about reviews then?

ST09: 95% critically positive. 91% generally positive
STID: 87% critically positive. 90% generally positive

It made money.
Critics loved it.
The unwashed massed loved it.
It even won an Oscar.

Unless you can quantify that it was "bad", then well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Dukhat]

Well, box office revenues don't always equal merit - if they did, endless Michael Bay type films wouldn't earn billions, and have consistently awful critical ratings.

Forget merit and critical ratings. Where do you think those billions of dollars come from? Do they just appear out of thin air? No. They belong to the people who constantly go see these films despite what some ratings system says or what the "merit" of the film is. Bottom line: People enjoy this stuff enough to spend that kind of money on it over and over again. And that's what makes them successful. And in Trek's case, successful enough to have CBS create a new series based on them, which will be better than the films themselves.

 

[DarthPipes]

Then tell me why the nuTrek merchandise hardly sells and TNG barely made a penny on it's blu-ray release?

Because the wider audience that they are making the films for, aren't the types to go buy models and toys of the ships, and purchase an older series on blu ray. The films are supposed to make money for itself and it's production companies. It's not JJTreks job to raise the sales for TNG blu-rays, nor do I think was Paramount expecting that.

I think Paramount was expecting that the movie series would bring a whole new generation of fans to the franchise as a whole. That simply hasn't happened. These new movies have catered almost entirely for the summer bloackbuster, non-fan audience. To that extent they have been successful in their short term financial return. There is no denying that. But they haven't given a boost to the franchise as a whole in a manner they might have, say in the manner that the Doctor Who revival drew attention to the whole history of the show and tripled it's fan base by uniting fans young and old, and bringing in others.

I don't know how old some of you are, but I am old enough to have been around throughout each and every spin off of Trek, starting with The Motion Picture onwards, and the fandom and interest in Star Trek at the moment is a faint shadow of what it was in the mid to late 80s and 90s. Back then the franchise was an unstoppable juggernaut. It was a golden age of Trek. Even websites like this were four times as busy. This most certainly isn't a golden age of Trek. It's the least interest I've seen in the franchise in nearly 40 years of being a fan.

Let's hope the new show changes that. I just wish Kurtzman wasn't attached and the team behind it was entirely fresh.

I enjoyed the last two Star Trek movies but I couldn't help but notice that the fanbase is getting older and not younger. I think Star Trek moving to online programming is a great move for them. I only wish Netflix was doing it, they've done amazing work already with the Marvel Comics properties. With the right team and storytelling behind it, Star Trek could have a real future online.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Not that the movie side of things is anything to do with CBS, but someone needs to tell the suits that compared to Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness was on the verge of stinking out the US box office.

By all means, please show us proof of this.

Likewise, I'm not anti-Abrams or anything; he has done some interesting stuff - I just question whether he was right for Star Trek.

The box office returns, contrary to what the bear above me wrote, prove that he was. Do you seriously think CBS would even be creating this new show if the nuTrek movies were a failure?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=star%20trek

Darkness had quite a drop in US box office when it was supposedly wanting to building on the audience from Trek 2009.

And on a side note, Darkess only took $27m more globally than Terminator Genisys, a film deemed to have done so badly that plans for all future films in the franchise have been put on permanent hold.

I don't believe that Paramount could've been happy with what Darkness, with it's $190m budget, took globally.

 

[BillJ]

I don't believe that Paramount could've been happy with what Darkness, with it's $190m budget, took globally.

Yet they hired Orci to write and direct the third installment before there was some kind of falling out between the two parties.

Not sure how that means they weren't happy with the results?

 

[Dukhat]

I don't believe that Paramount could've been happy with what Darkness, with it's $190m budget, took globally.

Uh huh.

Whether Paramount is happy or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that CBS has realized that people still want to see Trek, so they decided to create a new series. They wouldn't have done that if Paramount's movies were a dismal failure.

 

[Squiggy]

I don't believe that Paramount could've been happy with what Darkness, with it's $190m budget, took globally.

They were happy enough to do a third movie.

 

[stardream]

I am curious if this will have any kind of effect on the shows now streaming on Netflix. Is it possible that CBS will have them removed and streamed on their own platform?

 

[Galileo7]

Good. I wonder what starship will be the setting, if the movies are continue on the 1701?

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Well, box office revenues don't always equal merit - if they did, endless Michael Bay type films wouldn't earn billions, and have consistently awful critical ratings.

Forget merit and critical ratings. Where do you think those billions of dollars come from? Do they just appear out of thin air? No. They belong to the people who constantly go see these films despite what some ratings system says or what the "merit" of the film is. Bottom line: People enjoy this stuff enough to spend that kind of money on it over and over again. And that's what makes them successful. And in Trek's case, successful enough to have CBS create a new series based on them, which will be better than the films themselves.

Box office revenues are not a good way to judge the health of a franchise - it's financial health perhaps - but I'm not sure about it's artistic health.

Take this example:

I am sure that a great Star Wars film could be made, that utterly ignored the philosophy of Star Wars - it would gain box office acclaim - but would it actually bode well for the health of the franchise if the special spirit that brought about such loyalty in the first place was disregarded?

I am an ambitious person; I think you can have BOTH.

People can have their cake and eat it too - they can have a super-successful box office showing, but also have something faithful. We have seen this a lot recently in other franchises, and I am yet to hear anyone offer a good reason why Star Trek must only case about one and not the other.

 

[Long Syntax]

There's going to be folks that don't like NuTrek... I don't see me being one of them. I'm all in! Holy crap it's been a decade people - argue later, but today we celebrate!

Now all I have to do is finish watching DS9 and watch Voy to finish up with my daughter and we'll both be ready to watch what is to come.

Yippeee!

 

[E-DUB]

Look, there's enough mindless action stuff out there that that market doesn't need Star Trek to be a part of it.

Action is fine, but in service to an actual plot, not as a substitute for one.

Make a product that plays to Trek's strengths, and people will watch it, regardless of which side they come down on in the debates here.

Look at ST:Continues and its "Lilani" episode. You're not going to put butts in chairs at a theater with that, but people will watch it on their TV or computers. QED.

 

[ItIsGreen]

Enjoyable is not good. Enjoyable is forgettable.

It'll be a new cast, new ship, the NUiverse too.

Why is enjoyable not good? Don't you remember the things you enjoy?

I enjoy lots of things, then I remember that I enjoyed them and enjoy them again.

New cast? Like TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT? Oh no, that'll never work!
New ship? Like Ent-D, DS9/Defiant, Voyager, Ent-E, NX-01? Oh no, that won't work either!
NUiverse? Great, it's a big new universe to play in and we've only seen a tiny bit of it so far...

 

[Dukhat]

Take this example:

I am sure that a great Star Wars film could be made, that utterly ignored the philosophy of Star Wars - it would gain box office acclaim - but would it actually bode well for the health of the franchise if the special spirit that brought about such loyalty in the first place was disregarded?

You mean like how those successful prequels were utter crap, and yet Star Wars survived just fine and now we're even getting a new film?

 

[BillJ]

I am sure that a great Star Wars film could be made, that utterly ignored the philosophy of Star Wars - it would gain box office acclaim - but would it actually bode well for the health of the franchise if the special spirit that brought about such loyalty in the first place was disregarded?

I know my opinion doesn't matter, only been a fan since 1975. But, I still don't see where the Abrams films ignored the philosophy of Star Trek? Not even a little bit.

 

[Cyke101]

...and the division in fandom caused by the reboot, especially Into Darkness, is a testament to that.

You do realize that the portion of the fandom that hates the Abramsverse that much is a pretty small portion, right?

My SO hated Star Trek. Then the Abrams movies came along, and now we make time to watch TNG together along with a sprinkle of DS9 for good measure. For this one person, Paramount achieved its goal of opening up the fanbase; and it doesn't stop there.