why is there no more talk of a new star trek tv series?

[Greg Cox]

Both are, but the former is even more annoying than the latter, because at least the latter have the knowledge of great TV of the present and can watch them. The former just wants to stay stuck in the past, because many of them have no idea how to exist in the present or deal with the future, and so hate any new original movie/TV show/comic book while detesting any remakes or continuations of older material and franchises. A lot of them deserve to be sent back in time, to be quite frank, except for the fact that they wouldn't survive one hour before wanting what exists here in the present.

Ah, but the younger ones are sometimes willfully ignorant of the classics of the past--and don't care to learn anything about them, because all that old stuff is dated and corny and cheesy anyway. So they dismiss entire decades of TV history as being beneath their interest--and miss out on lots of great stuff while practically bragging about their ignorance of the past.

Just wait until you're older and some kid tells you that "Throne of Games" couldn't possibly have been any good 'cause nobody his age has ever heard of it.

(Trust me, I've been there.)

 

[horatio83]

I love the gems of classical cinema but I have never seen a great TV show from the past. Either I am ignorant or they are simply pouring more money and creative juices into TV nowadays.

 

[Dream]

Just wait until you're older and some kid tells you that "Throne of Games" couldn't possibly have been any good 'cause nobody his age has ever heard of it.

(Trust me, I've been there.)

It's called "Game of Thrones".

It will be remembered years from now. It's the garbage shows that tend to be forgotten.

 

[Greg Cox]

Just wait until you're older and some kid tells you that "Throne of Games" couldn't possibly have been any good 'cause nobody his age has ever heard of it.

(Trust me, I've been there.)

It's called "Game of Thrones".:.

Yes, that's the joke.

As for classic shows of the past, how about, say, THE AVENGERS, THE TWILIGHT ZONE, THE OUTER LIMITS, and, um, STAR TREK . . . ?

 

[CoveTom]

I love the gems of classical cinema but I have never seen a great TV show from the past. Either I am ignorant or they are simply pouring more money and creative juices into TV nowadays.

Really? You don't think there are any great TV shows from the past?

If we just want to stick to the science fiction genre, I would submit Twilight Zone as one example. Frankly, I'd also offer TOS. For all it's cheesy 60's goodness, there's a lot of real high-quality storytelling in there.

 

[horatio83]

I have only seen the one Twilight episode with Shatner and the creature in the plane and considered it to be fairly bad. About The Outer Limits, I actually liked the 90s series quite a lot as a teenager and without having seen the original series I guess they are of roughly equal quality. But all these series are fairly rooted in their time. TOS is a total 60s and the new The Outer Limits is a total 90s show which prevents them from becoming timeless classics.

My point was rather that cinema seems to be in decline nowadays. Of course there are still good moviemakers and in indie cinema you can find many gems but there isn't another Hitchcock or Kurosawa on the horizon.
But on the other hand a lot of creative energy seems to flow into television. Game of Thrones has been mentioned and the best TV show ever, The Wire, is also an HBO product. Television is no more the little brother of cinema, they are on equal footing nowadays. No idea whether this shift from cinema to TV will continue though.

 

[Dream]

I have only seen the one Twilight episode with Shatner and the creature in the plane and considered it to be fairly bad. About The Outer Limits, I actually liked the 90s series quite a lot as a teenager and without having seen the original series I guess they are of roughly equal quality. But all these series are fairly rooted in their time. TOS is a total 60s and the new The Outer Limits is a total 90s show which prevents them from becoming timeless classics.

My point was rather that cinema seems to be in decline nowadays. Of course there are still good moviemakers and in indy cinema you can find many gems but there isn't another Hitchcock or Kurosawa on the horizon.
But on the other hand a lot of creative energy seems to flow into television. Game of Thrones has been mentioned and the best TV show ever, The Wire, ia also an HBO product. No idea whether this shift from cinema to TV will continue though.

I don't consider the original Outer Limits to be a classic. There were many excellent episodes, but many garbage episodes too. I call shows good when nearly all of it is good.

The new 90s Outer Limits was decent enough, but not really popular. I know they canceled the dvd releases in America because the first season didn't sell well enough.

The thing about "Game of Thrones" is that the best place for it is on cable, it is impossible to do as movies considering the length of the books. It is based on excellent written material. The fact that the production values, acting, writing, and effects are all excellent are an added bonus.

 

[horatio83]

Well, I actually wanted to deny TOS the status of classical. I think a piece of art has become classical when you totally don't mind its rootedness in its time anymore. Shakespeare, Hitchock, you name it. But at least for me TOS is too 60s.

Technological changes like larger television screens and streaming makes it likely that this trend of towards television as home cinema / televisions with cinema-like budgets continues.

 

[Greg Cox]

I have only seen the one Twilight episode with Shatner and the creature in the plane and considered it to be fairly bad. About The Outer Limits, I actually liked the 90s series quite a lot as a teenager and without having seen the original series I guess they are of roughly equal quality. But all these series are fairly rooted in their time. TOS is a total 60s and the new The Outer Limits is a total 90s show which prevents them from becoming timeless classics..

And you don't think today's shows won't seem dated or "rooted in their time" fifty years from now? "Ohmigod, Game of Thrones is so early-century . . . ."

It's all a matter of perspective. By coincidence, I was on the phone this morning with a friend who was talking up a classic James Garner comedy from the sixties.

"Sounds like a fun old movie," I replied. "I'll have to check it out the next time it turns up on TCM."

"It's not an old movie!" he protested indignantly. "It's in color."

"It came out over fifty years ago. It's an old movie."

"Oh, god, you're right . . . .")

(The really sad part? He's younger than I am!)

 

[horatio83]

As I wrote in my previous note, when something is extraordinarily good you don't mind all the idiosyncracies of the period anymore.
Let's take Hamlet. Sure, when you produce it you take out part about children actors in Act II, that's too time-specific. But nobody minds the Elizabethian worldview that informs everything about the play, from the view that marrying an in-law is incest to the four temperaments/fluids opinion about melancholy. But the play is fantastic despite of all of this as its greatness is rooted deeper. It's like watching a Hitchcock movie, of course you are aware of all the 50s/60s elements but it feels at the same time as if the guy could have done the same movie in ANY time period, it would basically still be the same piece.

 

[sonak]

they'd have to do a Star Trek police procedural to get it on regular network TV. Police procedurals are the thing now.

 

[DCR]

they'd have to do a Star Trek police procedural to get it on regular network TV. Police procedurals are the thing now.

CSI: Qonos!

 

[Greg Cox]

they'd have to do a Star Trek police procedural to get it on regular network TV. Police procedurals are the thing now.

Fortunately, regular network TV is not the only game in town these days. I think most of the series I watch nowadays are on A&E, FX, Syfy, AMC, etc.

 

[xortex]

Both are, but the former is even more annoying than the latter, because at least the latter have the knowledge of great TV of the present and can watch them. The former just wants to stay stuck in the past, because many of them have no idea how to exist in the present or deal with the future, and so hate any new original movie/TV show/comic book while detesting any remakes or continuations of older material and franchises. A lot of them deserve to be sent back in time, to be quite frank, except for the fact that they wouldn't survive one hour before wanting what exists here in the present.

Ah, but the younger ones are sometimes willfully ignorant of the classics of the past--and don't care to learn anything about them, because all that old stuff is dated and corny and cheesy anyway. So they dismiss entire decades of TV history as being beneath their interest--and miss out on lots of great stuff while practically bragging about their ignorance of the past.

Just wait until you're older and some kid tells you that "Throne of Games" couldn't possibly have been any good 'cause nobody his age has ever heard of it.

(Trust me, I've been there.)

Yea, like all those show runners of the various star Trek incarnations. Trek started off as a procedural and then gradually became all things to all people. I could see a Trek with one Human Captain with an all alien crew. I think that would be interesting.

Come to think of it Farscape and Buck Rogers were very similar, weren't they? And even Andromeda except he (Kevin Sorbo),Dylan Hunt wasn't the only human.

 

[wingsabre]

There has been buzz that Paramount's Brad Grey wants to build a TV studio to help insulate and diversify the studio. It's still part of Viacom, and Viacom has CBS focused on television production and Paramount focused on film production, however such a move may make room for a Star Trek TV series.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^Exactly what I've been saying will and should happen.

So... they're idiots because they like a different type of product than you? Rather shallow reason to insult someone.

I'm insulting them because they refuse to see reason and think that these old shows are still popular enough to be put on home video as pressed complete season boxed set DVD's with all of the trimmings, when they know they aren't that popular (the only old shows that have been are Star Trek: TOS, Mission: Impossible, Bewitched, Hogan's Heroes, Gilligan's Island, I Dream Of Jeannie) and also because of the mentality that says that only old shows are any good. These people are in dire need of a wake-up call to make then live in the present that they are in now, not the past (this blog post by Stephen Bowie sums up what's wrong with people like these better than I could: Well I Heard Mister Young Sing About Her)

 

[CoveTom]

^ How condescending. If I believe that only older TV shows are any good, I am not wrong, I simply have different tastes than you.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^Not at all. Read the article that I posted a link to.

 

[R. Star]

So by refusing to see reason... you just mean think what you think.

 

[C.E. Evans]

There has been buzz that Paramount's Brad Grey wants to build a TV studio to help insulate and diversify the studio. It's still part of Viacom, and Viacom has CBS focused on television production and Paramount focused on film production, however such a move may make room for a Star Trek TV series.

Given that neither Viacom nor Paramount has the rights to make a Star Trek TV series, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Here's the lowdown regarding Trek's ownership. There was a time in which Star Trek was wholly owned by Paramount (which in turn, was owned by Viacom). But that ended in 2006 when Viacom and its sister/rival company, CBS, were separated and Paramount was divided between them. Viacom got Paramount Pictures, while what was formerly Paramount Television (which includes Star Trek in all its various incarnations) eventually became the property of CBS. Paramount continues to make Star Trek movies, but only under license from CBS (Paramount pays CBS for the use of Star Trek). CBS is the ultimate owner of Trek and any new TV series is theirs to say, not Paramount or anyone else.

The current relationship between CBS and Viacom is like a separated couple that underwent a very messy divorce. CBS got full custody of Star Trek and Paramount got visiting rights. They don't really get along that well, otherwise as feuding and infighting was among the reasons why CBS and Viacom were separated.