TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

[OpenMaw]

Star Trek returning to television... You know it really is the natural home for the genuine article. The new films are, well, they're fine. I have complaints and reservations, but over all they do what they're intended to do. Excite, thrill, and make back their titanic budgets. All is well.

For Trek to work on TV it can't be what it used to be, and it can't be what JJ Abrams put to screen. It has to be approached from a different angle for many reasons. I think treating it with a certain air of reality would be good. I think making more of the show a bottle story would also be good. Make it a character driven drama with adventure/action as a backdrop in some instances, and focusing on the difficulties of being inside of a tin can flying through the frontiers of deep space. Developing complex relationships, and having the characters face tough choices. (One thing i'd love to see more of is EVA situations/duties on the Enterprise.) I'm not saying do away with action or excitement, but making that the seasoning and spice that is sprinkled in. That would help keep overall costs down. Which is one of the biggest issues for Trek. I'd also produce only 13 episodes per season. That way more money could be spent per episode to ensure higher quality.

If it were me, I would actually try a similar strategy to Battlestar Galactica initially. I would not jump right into a full series. I would start with a two hour television movie. Test the water. See what the reaction is, and go from there. I think the keywords with any Trek series now should be "caution" and "care."

 

[ATimson]

I'd also produce only 13 episodes per season. That way more money could be spent per episode to ensure higher quality.

But that makes no sense (at least as far as traditional broadcast/networks work - I can't speak for premium cable like HBO). The show is funded by advertiser dollars. If you have less episodes, that means less ads, which means less money coming in. It's not like you can take the full funding for a 22-episode season and just split it over only 13...!

The only way that makes sense is if the production company is deficit funding the show, assuming they'll make it back on licensing/DVD sales.

 

[AviTrek]

I'd also produce only 13 episodes per season. That way more money could be spent per episode to ensure higher quality.

But that makes no sense (at least as far as traditional broadcast/networks work - I can't speak for premium cable like HBO). The show is funded by advertiser dollars. If you have less episodes, that means less ads, which means less money coming in. It's not like you can take the full funding for a 22-episode season and just split it over only 13...!

The only way that makes sense is if the production company is deficit funding the show, assuming they'll make it back on licensing/DVD sales.

And 13 episode seasons sell for less on DVD too. If anything 13 episode seasons cost more per episode because you have less episodes to spread the costs of fixed sets and you need more seasons until you reach enough episodes for syndication.

You can argue that 13 episode seasons produce a tighter story creatively. But reducing the episode count doesn't magically improve the financing component.

 

[OpenMaw]

That's honestly where i'd prefer it to end up. Not on regular cable. Something similar to the arrangements that shows like "The Walking Dead" enjoy. Obviously that's rather extraneous, but I think it would be to the show's benefit. Not to mention I also feel that one of the biggest issues in quality of writing for a show like Trek is the attrition factor of the writers. You're going to keep stronger character and plot threading if you don't have to plug out 20+ episodes a season. I'd hate to see the show dive bomb after one season and lacking a sufficient budget.

 

[Casas9425]

Really, the most likely way that Trek could come back to TV in the near-future is through Bad Robot, as those folks are hot properties in the TV world and CBS has no other reason to produce a Trek series.

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.


Yancy

JJ Abrams has admitted that Bad Robot really has nothing to do with Person of Interest. They just slapped their name on the show to help Jonathan Nolan get the green light.

 

[Casas9425]

I'll also mention Cowboys & Aliens, The Island and Prometheus. All of which were awful. Star Trek is also CBS' main cash cow, it'll be back and hopefully without those hacks.

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?)

You could pilot the Enterprise through the plot holes of that movie. It's always a good idea to try and pet an alien snake after all. It's also a good idea to pilot a derelict spacecraft with no food or water to the home planet of a race of angry alien gods.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

You could pilot the Enterprise through the plot holes of that movie. It's always a good idea to try and pet an alien snake after all. It's also a good idea to pilot a derelict spacecraft with no food or water to the home planet of a race of angry alien gods.

Hey, they were scientists and explorers seeing their first alien creature; what were they supposed to do? And most likely, David could help Dr. Shaw find food, or whip some up from what's on the ship itself. Either way, no plotholes at all.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's always fun to watch people try to dismiss a skiffy movie on the basis of "plot holes," since it's so easy to find the same kinds of shortcomings in the movies that they embrace as good. Indefensible logic is endemic to the genre.