Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by The Overlord, Jan 20, 2012.
Did you think it would be a good idea if CBS made Star Trek TV movies?
Personally I'd love to see a tv movie/miniseries set in the Prime universe after Nemesis. But why would CBS do it? No one makes TV movies/miniseries any more since they have trouble making money. Combine that with the financial problems inherent in space operas and you have an almost certain recipe for a money losing venture.
YES! OMG!! VOY MOVIE!!!
[NOTE] I am only half serious...I'd rather CBS work on a re-boot of TNG or a totally original series.
Too be fair, Sci Fi did make some TV movies of Battlestar Galactica.
I think CBS see TV/DVD movies as cheap, and that they would diminish Trek.
Besides, they couldn't afford them - starship sets are expensive, and even the higher-budget cinema Trek movies were forced to recycle sets from TNG and Voyager. If TNG's engine room, transporter room, ten-forward, corridors etc. being used in STVI annoyed you, just think what nuTrek sets standing in for the Enterprise-E, Defiant, NX-01 or Voyager'll do to your blood pressure!
What most fans of the old shows seem to want is what happened after TNG, DS9 and Voyager. I (and probably many others) had an idea for a TV movie / miniseries format which although very fannish, could've been workable-
Teaser - NX01 Enterprise has a brief encounter that has a knock on effect over a hundred years later. Fast forward to post Nemesis - an issue from the past affects Starfleet, in the course of its resolution involving some personnel / cast from ALL of the old shows, including some flashbacks to TOS or movie era Trek done with old clips and new CGI (as in Trials and Tribble-ations) as Kirks crew had had a similar encounter, since highly classified.
This sort of approach has worked nicely in the novels on multiple occasions and would easily accommodate fans of each show.
Unfortunately, all the sets have gone and it would now be hugely expensive and would probably only generate poor or average viewing figures...
It's beyond me how a TV movie could generate gross returns in the range of a few hundred million dollars, which is the sort of return the franchise generated with the most recent theatrical film.
While there is possible upside to making a TV movie, on the other hand I don't see a way to insure against the probable downside. All scenarios would occur in the context of the next theatrical film.
Only one scenario, which is that both the hypothetical TV movie and Star Trek XII are successful, is pure upside for the franchise. If the TV movie is successful, while Star Trek XII is not, then true, the TV movie would cut the losses from the theatrical film, but this scenario can occur only in the unlikely event that the theatrical film is unsuccessful. Otherwise, the TV movie is not successful, and one must wonder, why make it at all?
Making a TV movie just adds to the risk, and yeah, there's several hundred million dollars at stake (certainly gross, and conceivably even net), in the worldwide box office of Star Trek XII.
TV movies based on the "Sherlock" type format would work fine I think if these focused on character and plot like "Sherlock" does. I don't think this would ever happen though.
The problem is, you're going to have to create a whole new cast for this, and in the format of one or two tv-movies, you won't really get the change to develop characters as much as you could. For this you'd have to go Sherlock-format, and make 6 movies a season, for several seasons. This is more a British approach to tv then American, where the network would probably then want to see a tv-series concept of 40-45 minutes an episode, and 20-26 episodes a season.
The only way you could pull of one or two movies (like they did with Battlestar Galactica) is to use establised characters. And I don't think ANYONE involved with any of the previous Trek series will want to come back for that, unless the paycheck was good enough. I know that sounds cynical, but people, acting is a job and these people want to get payed. Getting the TNG cast back together (for example) would cost to much, an investment that CBS probably wouldn't make.
Yes, it would be a good idea for me. But CBS wouldn't think it was a good idea. Sadly, they're the ones in charge of the decision, not me.
Notice how TV movies and miniseries barely exist on network TV anymore? They don't make sense economically - doing all the work of casting, hiring production people, creating sets, selling the idea in to the network, and then not being able to amortize the startup expense with an ongoing series.
Why go through all that for a gig that's going to end quickly, when you could go through all that and have an ongoing series that might run 7 or 8 years? Who doesn't want job security?
Then factor in the priceyness/limited audience of space opera as a genre. A Star Trek series on CBS is a non-starter, and one-off movies would be even moreso.
The TV characters wouldn't be enough of a draw, and the movie actors would be prohibitively expensive. BSG began as a back-door pilot miniseries. So if you mean Star Trek "movies" that are actually a way of launching an ongoing series, that's slightly more likely, but not much. You still have the problem that CBS wouldn't air it at all, because it's not what interests their audience.
You had me and then you lost me.
Yes, depending on what direction they take with them and how much the network would be willing to spend to make them.
The only way you could pull of one or two movies (like they did with Battlestar Galactica) is to use establised characters. And I don't think ANYONE involved with any of the previous Trek series will want to come back for that, unless the paycheck was good enough. I know that sounds cynical, but people, acting is a job and these people want to get payed. Getting the TNG cast back together (for example) would cost to much, an investment that CBS probably wouldn't make.[/QUOTE]
This might very well be the single best reason why there will not likely be a VOYager movie, TV or otherwise. Sad to admit it but there you have it.
I don't see why that would be true at all. Star Trek is the known brand name to use as the main draw, and unless the show is animated, they can't make use of the well-known names of Kirk and Spock, so they may as well just invent new characters.
It's possible that characters from the other series could be recast (most of the actors being simply too old by now to build a new series around) but other than the TOS characters and Data, they really aren't iconic in their own right, as a separate thing from the actors who played them. I could see Alan Tudyk as Data. I really can't think of another non-TOS character who could be recast and still be a draw.
Before 2009 I would have said yes.
Is SyFy even in the business of broadcasting miniseries anymore? They still broadcast uber-cheap made for television movies, but nothing on the scale of Battlestar Galactica, Frank Herbert's Dune, or even The Lost Room.
The only place that still seems to broadcast miniseries these days -- even on cable -- is HBO, and they have the benefit of subscription fees.
Do you think that a lot of people would have gone and see TrekXI in the cinema's if they were completely new characters?
Doubtfull. Same thing goes for TV movie, unless you invest a long series of tv movies where these new characters can be developed more. And, like I said, 6 90 minute movies as a season is not an American way of making tv, it's more a British thing. So, logicaly they would use the standard 40-45 minute format.
And since it's been established already that CBS is currently not interested in doing a Trek series in that format, it's highly unlikely we will see Trek TV movies.
See, for the studios, it's not about pleasing fans. Yes, I know, shocking. It's about money. Probably a lot less shocking. And right now, long running SciFi, set in space like Trek, B5 and SG, are no longer profitable. It's not cool. Vampires and supernatural stuff is. So they make those. If, ten years from now, someone dares to make a show set in space and it works and it makes money, you'll be seeing a new Trek series.
Why? Because they can make dollars. Not to please us, not for fans-sake, but for the money.
Known and loved characters make a HUGE difference. If anyone thinks Star Trek: The Beginning, with it's Tiberius Chase, Admiral Gardner, Penelope and Skon during the Romulan Wars would have been anywhere near as successful as Star Trek 2009, starring Kirk and Spock, you're wrong.
My thoughts exactly!! For a fan, a movie like The Beginning would be fun, but to the casual person, hardly. Trek09 was well recieved, my girlfriend was a lot more open to trying Trek after seeing that one, and is now a big DS9 fan. A movie like The Beginning would not have drawn in viewers that weren't already interested in Trek.
Separate names with a comma.