What's Trek gonna do...

[TerraNovan]

but isn't it obvious that Enterprise deserved to be cancelled.

But what is CBS incentive to green-light another Trek series? The last one was averaging less than two million viewers a week when it was cancelled. What has changed in ten years that tells CBS that investing in new TV Trek is a financially sound decision?

There is seven-hundred hours of Trek now. It isn't like we're still living off the original seventy-nine episode from the 1966-69 run.

Because Enterprise was a joke, it was just godawful from the production side of things.

The theme song says it all.

If thats not obvious how bad of a show it was, (despite some good episodes) your not gonna understand any of their motivations.

But make no mistake Star Trek is worth a ton of money, is massively popular, and they are aware of this.

This is a new generation of potential trek audiences. With the popularity of geeky shows like big bang, GOT, etc combined with the fact that we live in a society fundamentally different from the late 80s.

The problem is getting the right people involved in making the next series.

JJ abrams, is a perfect example of their dilemma. Hes put life back in the series, yet hasnt been doing much to build the future of the franchise.

 

[BillJ]

Because Enterprise was a joke, it was just godawful from the production side of things.

Enterprise wasn't really any worse than the rest of the franchise. I'd say most of it was better than TNG, DS9 and Voyager. There were a couple things working against it: general audience burnout (500 episodes in the previous thirteen year span) and being on an incredibly poor network where it was constantly pre-empted by sports in major markets.

But none of it addresses the biggest problem Star Trek faces: its primary audience is getting older with no sign of younger people being as interested (same problem baseball faces here in the U.S.).

If you capture people's imaginations when they're young, you have a shot at creating fans for life. As much as I love TOS, it simply doesn't relate well on many fronts with today's youth. So you can't really use it as a base for creating new fans. TV's advanced too far in fifty-years. The spinoffs never were really had the "oomph" (action/big ideas) to capture the imaginations of kids. The people who made the modern shows made them for audiences that had grown up on TOS.

So, Star Trek exists at a crossroads. A new show has to be accessible to kids, if not pointed directly at them. You have to go back to the basics and rebuild the franchise from there. Our day is over.

 

[Terran_Empire]

Yeah this trek-on-TV drought has gone on way too long, and sadly the longer it goes the more bleak the outlook.

Like Star Wars? Yeah...that franchise is just dead since there hasn't been a television show on the air.

Star Wars was and still is a movie franchise...Star Trek is supposed to be much, much more than that.

 

[BillJ]

Star Wars was and still is a movie franchise...Star Trek is supposed to be much, much more than that.

It really isn't. If a studio had decided to take and make his ideas into movies in the 1960's, Roddenberry would've ditched TV in an instant. TV was the minor-leagues.

 

[Terran_Empire]

Star Wars was and still is a movie franchise...Star Trek is supposed to be much, much more than that.

It really isn't. If a studio had decided to take and make his ideas into movies in the 1960's, Roddenberry would've ditched TV in an instant. TV was the minor-leagues.

But that didn't happen. TOS happened. And Trek has been successful largely because of the diversity of storylines possible in an episodic TV format.

ST movies are great but they didn't and in my opinion couldn't make this franchise what it is today.

 

[BigJake]

Because Enterprise was a joke, it was just godawful from the production side of things.

Enterprise wasn't really any worse than the rest of the franchise. I'd say most of it was better than TNG, DS9 and Voyager.

I do find an interesting set of mixed messages seems to go on sometimes; the franchise is, we're told, back and resurrected and more popular than ever... but at the same time there's no chance of anyone ever greenlighting a TV show again because there couldn't possibly be enough interest in it. These things cannot both be true.

 

[Squiggy]

Not really.

The franchise is popular, but I don't think as popular as it was during TNG's peak in 1991.

What Star Trek has become does not translate well to television networks who are seeing their revenues shrink thanks to advances in technology as well as online competition.

Star Trek is now a big-budget action franchise. It needed to be to have any chance at making it past 2009. Sci-fi on TV still isn't that popular and CBS doesn't seem to be willing to sink time nor money into airing the show. Why should they? They're number 1 across the board.

 

[Terran_Empire]

Not really.

The franchise is popular, but I don't think as popular as it was during TNG's peak in 1991.

What Star Trek has become does not translate well to television networks who are seeing their revenues shrink thanks to advances in technology as well as online competition.

Star Trek is now a big-budget action franchise. It needed to be to have any chance at making it past 2009. Sci-fi on TV still isn't that popular and CBS doesn't seem to be willing to sink time nor money into airing the show. Why should they? They're number 1 across the board.

Battlestar Galactica had to siphon in a lot of sex, politics and unnecessary plot twists to have a decent run. Not sure I want that for Trek, but sci-fi can still work on modern TV if it is gritty enough, over-acted and complete with an assortment of fan service, bomb diffusing and vomit-inducing love stories.

 

[TerraNovan]

Enterprise wasn't really any worse than the rest of the franchise. I'd say most of it was better than TNG, DS9 and Voyager. There were a couple things working against it: general audience burnout (500 episodes in the previous thirteen year span) and being on an incredibly poor network where it was constantly pre-empted by sports in major markets.

This is why I think your entirely out of touch with the younger audience. Which isnt a direct critism personally I think its quite common to people that grew up in an era where being geeky wast cool. Weve had a drastic change in culture, just as the 60s was a divergence from the generation before it.

Enterprise had no appeal to young people, and it wasnt because of a lack of action or sex scenes, it was just a lack of relevant ideas.

The theme songs says it all, that song coming on basically cleared the room for many people under the age of forty.

People watched trek to get away from their parents world.

A george bush captain, boomer music, cheezy retro futurist vibe techs, old west style references were just the absolute opposite of people wanted to see in trek.

Star trek fans of my generation were attracted to alot of the liberal ideas of TNG, something completely lacking in enterprise.

But none of it addresses the biggest problem Star Trek faces: its primary audience is getting older with no sign of younger people being as interested (same problem baseball faces here in the U.S.).

Comparing the demographics of baseball and Star trek is laughable.

Just look at the fans for lost, csi, big bang theory hannibal etc etc.
Were in the middle of a geek age, to think it star trek is a hard sell now, shows me how clueless you are. And by you, I mean anyone that was in highschool pre 1990. Weve had a complete change is our cultural norms, to not understand this, wont allow one to understand the younger audience in a positive light.

Kids today play video games, use Ipod, live online, they live star trek etc, they dont play cowboys and indians, and they dont watch baseball.

. The spinoffs never were really had the "oomph" (action/big ideas) to capture the imaginations of kids. The people who made the modern shows made them for audiences that had grown up on TOS.

Because the action side of trek doesnt translate to a television series. People arent wanting a star wars type show.

People want to see diverse ideas, they want to escape there day to day lives, they want connect to real people exploring extraordinary things.

 

[Melakon]

This is why I think your entirely out of touch with the younger audience.

Were in the middle of a geek age, to think it star trek is a hard sell now, shows me how clueless you are.

You might want to watch those personal remarks.

 

[TerraNovan]

Battlestar Galactica had to siphon in a lot of sex, politics and unnecessary plot twists to have a decent run. Not sure I want that for Trek, but sci-fi can still work on modern TV if it is gritty enough, over-acted and complete with an assortment of fan service, bomb diffusing and vomit-inducing love stories.

Meh I think politics and plot twists was the entire premise of BSG. It was lost meets west wing, and there seems to be zero attempt to hide this. They pretty much went around trying to reenforce the west wing concept in many interviews.

I think the gritty dark thing is the wrong direction. You cant just copy whats popular and expect to be popular.

You have to diverge which is partially the attraction..

At the same time, character development is key. You cant have one dimensional characters that have no struggles.
The advantage that star trek has is they do not need to be struggling with other people as space has plenty of room conflict. The amount of internal conflict caused by extreme environments, and the internal struggle with dealing with fear is so great for trek.

I think the survival aspect of space needs to be explored, and Im not talking about a wandering nomads type deal. Moreso characters trying to navigate great dangers. The redshirts side of things I think would be best for that reason.

Sex is a complicated matter. I think having a show with people that are essentially asexual is just so backwards and out of touch its laughable.

At the same time there is no need for cheezy teasing(sex kitten in spandex) nor is their a need a love story that is overly sappy. The starbuck arc is a prime example of a character that is clearly sexual but neither sappy or stupid tease. People in general are attracted to strong female characters its a common theme that people gravitate too since atleast the alien movies came about.

The key is you have to deal with adult content in mature adult ways. And narrate it in a way that it actually feels unique.


In short Sex sells, but its more economical to be fine dining, than fast food.

Its also important to understand the kind of characters are drawn todays audience are drawn too.

House, neil degrasse tyson, cumberbach dude , the breaking bad lead, tyrion from GoT, gauis balter, michael fasbender sheldon from big band etc all show characters that directly relate to todays taste.

People like a mix of intelligence, arrogance, sophisticaton with a capacity for witty humor. This I think is why spock kirk and bones are so dam attractive, and why ENT, VOY were firing absolute zeroes.

This is why I think focusing on a crew of lower deck officers, all believing they are the best, trying to survive the worst would be so appealing.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

[...] CBS doesn't seem to be willing to sink time nor money into airing the show. Why should they? They're number 1 across the board.

This has been the missing piece in a lot of the discussions on the board about "possible new series."

 

[Squiggy]

Enterprise had no appeal to young people, and it wasnt because of a lack of action or sex scenes, it was just a lack of relevant ideas.

Incorrect. They had relevant ideas, just presented in a confusing way in the beginning.

Star trek fans of my generation were attracted to alot of the liberal ideas of TNG, something completely lacking in enterprise.

9/11.

 

[TheNatural]

Terra, you could have at least credited my post in the other thread about the geek age :P (jk)

After recently rewatching enterprise, it really seemed like it was designed for my father, not for me.

The fact is, the older generation who is content to sit and rip on what trek might possibly maybe someday eventually become, with all of the unnecessary sex violence kids on my lawn love sub plots, are going to torpedo any new idea before it gets announced.

Right now, the Trek brand is relevant again, it wasn't relevant when Enterprise was on, it came out at the wwrong time, but it is relevant now, and frankly, my generation is going back and watching TNG, DS9, and VOY, and they are wanting a new show, they want their TNG, something to call their own.

Sci-fi is not dead, and neither is it's run in the format of a serialized drama, it may not come out on fridays at 8 on CBS, but there are ways *coughnetflixcough* for CBS to hedge their bets and get it out there. I mean, shit, an extremely popular bar has teamed up with a group (the amazingly well run Chicago Nerd SC) in my city and now have a star trek trivia night that you have to sign up for, months in advance. The average age? People who weren't alive when TNG came out.

Get out of the past. If this is going to happen, I am honestly beginning to hope it leaves the lot of you behind. I am getting tired of browsing forums and reading shit like, "It's a movie franchise now; It's just not as popular as it was in 1987!! *eats a werthers original*

That is just dumb. Young people want it, new fans want it, it seems like the old guard is the only group not embracing the idea,, taking every opportunity to drop Moonves name from an obscure interview or talk about Battlestar fucking Galactica.

Goddamnit.

 

[BillJ]

Temper tantrums are usually a sign that someone needs a nap.

You can say that there a tons of people that want new Trek, but you've got nothing to back those claims up.

I'm an early adopter of most new technology, so Netflix isn't something that I'm unaware of. I have access to Netflix, EPIX and Amazon Prime streaming services.

But more goes into the creation of a TV series than someone claiming a nebulous group of people want it. Don't you think CBS would be making Trek if there were truly all these people that wanted it? CBS is in the business of making money. They aren't going to ignore massive amounts of cash. They have people who do nothing but track what the general public thinks.

Plus, I'm not sure their relationship with Netflix is as close as some here like to present it. Especially considering that TNG-HD is available on Amazon Prime not Netflix.

It really all is common sense if one thinks it through.

 

[TheNatural]

Temper tantrums are usually a sign that someone needs a nap.

You can say that there a tons of people that want new Trek, but you've got nothing to back those claims up.

I'm an early adopter of most new technology, so Netflix isn't something that I'm unaware of. I have access to Netflix, EPIX and Amazon Prime streaming services.

But more goes into the creation of a TV series than someone claiming a nebulous group of people want it. Don't you think CBS would be making Trek if there were truly all these people that wanted it? CBS is in the business of making money. They aren't going to ignore massive amounts of cash. They have people who do nothing but track what the general public thinks.

Plus, I'm not sure their relationship with Netflix is as close as some here like to present it. Especially considering that TNG-HD is available on Amazon Prime not Netflix.

It really all is common sense if one thinks it through.

Well, apparently every post on these forums is read in a vacuum, so I will try and reiterate my points.

I have never said that right-this-very-moment is the time for a new series. However, it is my belief that the success of the movies, and the resurgence of the brand because of that success in things like merchandise and growing convention attendance, to name a few benefits, will not go unnoticed by the people in charge of a brand that is, and in the eyes of many, always will be a TV show.

I am not going to address the dumb, subjective, "If so many people want it, why is there no show? HUH?" argument, because it just conjecture on either side. I am no statistician, nor do I have the numbers in front of me if I were, so my judgments on that front are made by my personal experience. As a matter of fact, until I began reading/posting here, I hadn't met a single fan who wouldn't want a new show. I think it is just the general attitude of those who have stuck around on these boards, for whatever reason.

Their relationship is much stronger with Netflix, I pay for prime and cannot watch 85% of the series without paying for it separately. Bringing the series and the movies to flix has been a boon on both sides.

Oh yeah, there's also that thing about Netflix actually producing successful shows. But that should be common sense, right?

 

[BillJ]

If CBS is unwilling to spend $15 million to remaster 178 episodes of Deep Space Nine, count me surprised if they're ever willing to spend $5-10 million dollars (per episode) on new episodes of Trek.

 

[TheNatural]

If CBS is unwilling to spend $15 million to remaster 178 episodes of Deep Space Nine, count me surprised if they're ever willing to spend $5-10 million dollars (per episode) on new episodes of Trek.

 

[BillJ]

If CBS is unwilling to spend $15 million to remaster 178 episodes of Deep Space Nine, count me surprised if they're ever willing to spend $5-10 million dollars (per episode) on new episodes of Trek.

It took you forty-five minutes to come up with that response?!

 

[TheNatural]

If CBS is unwilling to spend $15 million to remaster 178 episodes of Deep Space Nine, count me surprised if they're ever willing to spend $5-10 million dollars (per episode) on new episodes of Trek.

It took you forty-five minutes to come up with that response?!

You sat at your computer for 45 minutes waiting for one?