Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by HaventGotALife, May 20, 2013.
Couldn't they sell the show to another network like Syfy or Showtime?
CBS actually owns Showtime, but yeah, they could sell it to someone else. The odds aren't likely, though, because it's still valuable to them as a licensable property and will still make money off it for the foreseeable future. They may not want to sell it to someone who could make even more money off it than they will.
Wow, it's so obvious! I can't imagine why Les Moonves has his job and you don't.
Huh? Wait a minute - how can you know so much about how CBS ought to allocate their resources and be able to predict their success in advance, and not know stuff like this?
Are you mad cuz I made fun of your Bad Robot hacks? And Les Moonves is a moron when you look at all the awful shows on his network.
The Big bang Theory relies to much on stereotypes to be good.
You mean like 'The Sopranos'? It relies on archetypes plus it's double entendre title. If they behave badly. it's because it's a comedy. The Sopranos were anti-heroes. They were the bad guy mafia.
CBS producing the show and then selling it to another network could be the best of both worlds for them - make and own the show, but get someone else to pony up the cash for it.
If it really took off, they'd lose out on the direct ad sales on air. But they'd still get all of the licensing/merchandising income, and they wouldn't have nearly as much of a risk as if they aired it themselves.
(That said: You'd have to convince the other network that giving up those licensing fees is worth it. SyFy seems to be showing almost exclusively NBC Universal-owned shows, because it means that all of the money stays in the family.)
Essentially it would be exactly what CBS is doing with the movies--licensing Trek out to someone else. But with TV being a slightly different beast than movies, producing a licensed show may not be that appealing to networks who generally demand at least co-ownership of the property (and that may not be appealing to CBS).
I think if CBS had the same kind of cable outlets (sister networks) that NBC, ABC, and even FOX has, there might be more incentive for CBS to have a new Trek series there. Yes, they've got Showtime, but I tend to think they'd want a new Trek series to be widely available to as many viewers as possible rather than fewer.
Well... not quite. There's two different "CBSes" in play here: CBS the television production studio, and CBS the network.
You can have CBS-the-TV-studio produce a show that airs on another network than CBS. That's not really "licensing it out", any more than Fringe was "licensed out" to Fox by Warner Brothers/Bad Robot, or the original Star Trek was to NBC by Desilu, or Buffy was to WB by Fox.
i never watched the Sopranos.
Actually, CBS the network isn't even a factor here and really shouldn't be taken into consideration. The odds of a new Trek series airing there is really zero because they're doing extremely well without one.
Actually, in all of those efforts they were jointly financed by a production company/studio and a network, with the network absorbing the majority of the production costs and the overall risks. It would still end up a situation in which the licensing rights would be retained by the smaller investor (with the exception of TOS when Desilu eventually found itself into the Paramount fold).
There's a review of Prometheus that disagrees with you, and many other people that didn't get it; Death by a Thousand Nitpicks? Prometheus (2012) and the critical reception
I'd rather see a movie/TV show by these two than by anybody that you'd be caring for (BTW, who do you think can do a better job?)
I can do a better job. Reviewers are often paid off. My biggest single nitpick with Prometheus was that I had to walk out on it as well as being the only one in the theater. They owe me $8.
And that type of arrangement almost never happens anymore. Sure WB produces shows for other networks since they don't really have their own network(CW doesn't count). But CBS, ABC, Universal studios almost never produce shows that then air on a non-corporate sibling network.
Roger Ebert was paid off? Or how about the New Yorker review? Or multiple other reviews here.
Is that vast a conspiracy really likely? Or is it more likely that your tastes are far out of the mainstream.
Unfortunately Dennis, some on this board simply do not understand the realities of network television or the creative talents necessary to shepherd a successful program. They simply believe if you slap the name Star Trek on it, get a writer who meets their standards of "talented," people will simply flock to the TV.
Love him or hate him Les Moonves knows exactly what he's doing and is a brilliant TV executive. I certainly hated to see Star Trek go, but its time was long over due. Ratings for all of the Trek productions had been on the slide since the early days of Deep Space Nine, and by the time Enterprise ended its run it was barely bringing in 2 million viewers a week. There's simply no way you can justify the expense for these shows with these numbers. Sure you could slap it on some other network, but you are going to be drastically slashing budgets.
All one has to do is look at CBS' 2013-2014 TV schedule... it's brilliant. A mix of dependable sitcoms which are guaranteed to bring in numbers, mixed in with a few long running TV dramas which have a core audience. Mix in a few reality shows and news programs on nights where viewership is traditionally down and you have a recipe for success. Sorry, hacks don't have a consistent track record of long term success like Moonves does.
And I wholeheartedly agree, IF CBS were to pursue a new TV series (and that's a big IF), they should certainly hand over the reigns to Bad Robot as they have a proven track record of success, especially in genre productions, and currently produce one of the highest rated dramas on TV "Person of Interest," which ended the season as the 5th highest rated show on television with over 16 million weekly viewers... sorry, but "hacks" generally have little to show for their efforts in the business.
Am I the only one not all that eager to see Star Trek return to TV?
And yet, Prometheus made millions of dollars at the box office, with a sequel in the works (did you read the review I posted?) I'm not asking if you could do a better job, I'm asking who as a professional writer/director could do a better job. Also, John Kenneth Muir isn't paid off by TCF-he liked the move and got it, unlike you, most moviegoers, and most critics.
Based on the evidence of his posting history here, xortex could not do a better job.
Separate names with a comma.