First of all, that's 4 cable + 1 premium. TNT is there twice. Second, My USA/TNT/FX comment was about a style of channel that CBS is missing. If that channel existed I think it would be the right location for Trek TV. But it doesn't exist yet. Of the current available channels I think Showtime is the most likely because TV production is being kept in house these days. If Showtime won't take it and CBS is committed to launching the show I see TNT since CBS at least has a working relationship with Time Warner(from CW).
What channel should a new Trek TV series be on?
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
First of all, that's 4 cable + 1 premium. TNT is there twice. Second, My USA/TNT/FX comment was about a style of channel that CBS is missing. If that channel existed I think it would be the right location for Trek TV. But it doesn't exist yet. Of the current available channels I think Showtime is the most likely because TV production is being kept in house these days. If Showtime won't take it and CBS is committed to launching the show I see TNT since CBS at least has a working relationship with Time Warner(from CW).
It's unlikely Star Trek would get any home where it isn't constantly under scrutiny for its profit-making potential under the tyranny of quarterly profit reports, and under constant danger of being replaced by something that's assumed to have more potential. At least at CBS, you have a network that isn't hurting as badly as the others, and perhaps has the patience to be nurturing. It's a long shot, but I don't see any place else where the situation would be better.
Where do you think Star Trek would be treated better?
That seems like a reasonable guess. TNT has got a middlebrow, mainstreamish lineup that would be a good match for Star Trek. Right now on its development slate, it has Delta Blues (cop show), Rizzoli (detective show) and Spielberg's alien-invasion project, which sounds far more bleak and dire than Star Trek's approach to sci fi. So TNT is interested in sci fi and Star Trek would fit into the overall balance pretty well. The Spielberg project and Star Trek could advertise in each others' time slots and tap into a similar audience.
What time frame are we probably looking at for a new series?
I think its going to be autum 2011 the earliest...they will want to wait a while to see the returns of movie merchandise, dvd/blueray, the TOS remastered bluerays etc. first. And I don´t think they will rush that decision.
Waiting until 2011 would also help them by creating a "hunger" for new Star Trek.
On the other hand trying to start a new show as soon as possible to profit from the "wake" of the movie might be a good strategy too.
Of course...since it seems Moonves hates Star Trek....we might have to wait quite a while longer then just 2 or 3 years.
I think its going to be autum 2011 the earliest...they will want to wait a while to see the returns of movie merchandise, dvd/blueray, the TOS remastered bluerays etc. first. And I don´t think they will rush that decision.
Waiting until 2011 would also help them by creating a "hunger" for new Star Trek.
On the other hand trying to start a new show as soon as possible to profit from the "wake" of the movie might be a good strategy too.
Of course...since it seems Moonves hates Star Trek....we might have to wait quite a while longer then just 2 or 3 years.
As I originally asked in the first post:
I think 2012 or 2013 Autumn.
They will surely have the Trek XIII film in production before series 6 is greenlit and pre-production work started on casting and production design on a series 6 to figure out where nucanon is going as far as story, characters, ship design, costume design, etc.
Since it would probably be 1 year of preproduction work all said and done before series 6 goes into production for the pilot.
Moonves doesn't hate Star Trek. Moonves hated the ratings ENT was getting. All Moonves cares about is ratings. The day Moonves is convinced Star Treks can generate enough ratings to thrive on TV is the day he greenlights production on a new series.
Thanks for clearing that up AviTrek.
In a sense after consideration I do agree somewhat with Temis the Friendly Ghost
With HBO developing 2 scifi series already mentioned above Showtime may come up with their own scifi genre original series but I do not think it would be the Star Trek franchise which would involve some higher licensing fees and it would be a risky position as would Showtime think they would gain X number of subscribers with the next 13-episode Star Trek TV series season 1? This sounds like a very similar situation to Sirius satellite radio when they signed Howard Stern up in 2004 for a 5-year contract.
The difference (besides being radio and not TV) is that Showtime being a premium cable channel does not have any advertisers that would be interested in reaching the Star Trek viewer demographics.
Another difference is Star Trek according to the The TV Parental Guidelines system in the US is mostly TV-PG with some exceptions for some ENT episodes (especially in season 3) which were rated TV-14 mentioned in this thread
TV Parental Guidelines system episodes initial run on UPN
Star Trek does not really require a TV-MA rating on broadcast TV and thus would not benefit specifically from being on a premium channel to show graphic violence, explicit sexual situations/nudity, extremely crude or indecent language (like Howard Stern's show is known for and benefits from as it isn't under the same FCC rules as regular broadcasting).
Star Trek XI had a PG-13 rating to get the younger teen crowd as fans and CBS Television would need to keep that audience for the Nielsen ratings younger groups under 25 no matter what channel they were on.
Stargate is a good argument for keeping Star Trek out of Skiffy's paws.
We don't want a tepid Star Trek knockoff like Stargate - we want the real thing!
I just came across this:
An article on scifiheaven about ST: Voyager from September 2009
Really HBO having DS9? I don't think so.
Voyager on the CW because of what youth characters? A 24 year old blond female with very prominent breasts via a catsuit?
I think we know that SevenofNine was put on the show for the male demographics...
And Naomi Wildman was a child not a teenager. I really disliked her character in general but hey they want the family friendly viewers...
An article on scifiheaven about ST: Voyager from September 2009
http://www.scifiheaven.net/index.php/2009/09/17/star-trek-voyagers-enduring-popularity/
Really HBO having DS9? I don't think so.
Voyager on the CW because of what youth characters? A 24 year old blond female with very prominent breasts via a catsuit?
I think we know that SevenofNine was put on the show for the male demographics...
And Naomi Wildman was a child not a teenager. I really disliked her character in general but hey they want the family friendly viewers...
my emphasis.
Dec 29, 2009
Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV
Quite possibly an interesting playing field for what channel Trek TV series could end up on when it happens.
You read my mind! I was going to post a link to that article.
The dratted network business model is the biggest obstacle here. For it all to be thrown up in the air may bode well for Star Trek. Can't be worse than "not on the air," so chaos is a good thing!
Sucks to think about even higher cable bills, though. Can't Obama force them to do a la carte pricing? After Lost ends this season, I just want History, Comedy, Sci Fi and Animal Planet!
The dratted network business model is the biggest obstacle here. For it all to be thrown up in the air may bode well for Star Trek. Can't be worse than "not on the air," so chaos is a good thing!
Sucks to think about even higher cable bills, though. Can't Obama force them to do a la carte pricing? After Lost ends this season, I just want History, Comedy, Sci Fi and Animal Planet!
Some of the best shows on TV right now are on cable. Networks like HBO, TNT and FX all have some excellent stuff. Quite frankly, much of it is better than what's on the top 3 networks (and certainly better than anything on Fox or CW). The only difference tends to be the number of episodes.
SyFy has some decent shows. Although, part of why those shows are able to continue despite ratings that pale in comparison to even most of the CW/Fox level shows is because they are farmed out to similar networks in other countries.
Shows like Dr. Who, Stargate and BSG seem to do well in Canada (where some of them are filmed), Australia and certain parts of Europe.
Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing a Trek show on Showtime. Stargate started out there and did well. A more adult oriented version could be interesting.
SyFy has some decent shows. Although, part of why those shows are able to continue despite ratings that pale in comparison to even most of the CW/Fox level shows is because they are farmed out to similar networks in other countries.
Shows like Dr. Who, Stargate and BSG seem to do well in Canada (where some of them are filmed), Australia and certain parts of Europe.
Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing a Trek show on Showtime. Stargate started out there and did well. A more adult oriented version could be interesting.
The big hit mainstream American shows often do well overseas. I don't know if Star Trek would benefit particularly from that - sci fi acceptance overseas is a mixed bag - seems like tragic emo vampires and superheroes are the way to go - but I'd bet it wouldn't do any worse than average.
The main problem is making Trek a "big hit mainstream American show." Once you got that, you can sell it in foreign markets.
Showtime would mind. They sell their premium subscription price on the same basis as HBO - we give you stuff you can't get elsewhere. Star Trek is a brand name the audience knows they should be able to "get elsewhere" (regardless of whether it's on the air at any given time, that is the message the brand communicates), and therefore would undermine the brand positioning that Showtime has invested heavily to achieve and justify their premium price. You don't open a fancy four star restaurant and put Big Macs on the menu.
nice Temis....
good analogy.
Has it done worse than, say, Stargate or B5?
You expect it to be a lot better, a $20 burger and not a $5 burger. Meanwhile, McDonald's makes more money off Big Macs than all the fancy restaurants combined. So why would the Big Mac want to be in the fancy restaurant any more than vice versa? Far more people want a $5 burger than a $20 one, while the people who want to spend a lot of money for dinner don't want a burger at all. I've been to plenty of fancy restaurants that don't even have burgers on the menu. The fancy restaurants should do what they're good at, and McDonald's should get busy making some frakkin Big Macs!
Here is the way I see it:
Showtime: Subscription Cable. I get free cable now I don't want to buy a subscription to see one show. And I have had one of those 6month free things and it was junk.
Spike: Free on cable. not even scifi mostly csi or ECW or the like
Siffy: mostly scifi but there is that issue with the name. I never looked to see if there was a topic on syfy.com to see if there was a reason for the name change. I think it is just so they have a reason to show what ever they want (even though they have been doing that for a long time)
CBS: "...we interrupt this broadcast with this interview with a guy who lives 50 miles away from you we 'promise' to return you to your regularly scheduled program after we are done boring you to death...." They did this with The President, Baseball, The Governor, The Mayor of Detroit. And for the most part the show kept running for the rest of the country. I was not happy.
CW: I think CW is another broadcaster. See CBS above ^.
So Siffy (or what ever you want to call it) has issues but it is still better than the other choices. I know that Star Gate started on Subscription, but it ran most of its time OFF of it. As far as I am concerned all I would be paying for would be the Scifi show.
By chance, does Showtime have a Science Fiction channel?
Showtime: Subscription Cable. I get free cable now I don't want to buy a subscription to see one show. And I have had one of those 6month free things and it was junk.
Spike: Free on cable. not even scifi mostly csi or ECW or the like
Siffy: mostly scifi but there is that issue with the name. I never looked to see if there was a topic on syfy.com to see if there was a reason for the name change. I think it is just so they have a reason to show what ever they want (even though they have been doing that for a long time)
CBS: "...we interrupt this broadcast with this interview with a guy who lives 50 miles away from you we 'promise' to return you to your regularly scheduled program after we are done boring you to death...." They did this with The President, Baseball, The Governor, The Mayor of Detroit. And for the most part the show kept running for the rest of the country. I was not happy.
CW: I think CW is another broadcaster. See CBS above ^.
So Siffy (or what ever you want to call it) has issues but it is still better than the other choices. I know that Star Gate started on Subscription, but it ran most of its time OFF of it. As far as I am concerned all I would be paying for would be the Scifi show.
By chance, does Showtime have a Science Fiction channel?
Similar threads
