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

[AviTrek]

But if the next series is CGI animated, it's not going to fall in the uncanny valley because that just doesn't work at all. The effect is too creepy and remember, five year old kids need to want to watch it.

Who says that five-year old kids have to see it at all? Also, the animation on Star Trek: TAS was based in reality and wasn't 'cartoony', and it was a success-so how do you square that?

As for the so-called 'uncanny valley' look of this cartoon (Aurora), it's a one-man operation using what that one man (Tim Vining) could get his hands on, namely the DAZ Studio program (which I wish more professional animation studios would use instead of the same cartoony look popularized by Pixar, Dreamworks PDI, Blue Sky, and Sony), and working his ass off to get it done with voice acting by his wife Jeanette Vining as Kara Carpenter and also by himself.

It seems that the Japanese are the only ones who can appreciate realistic-looking characters in animation, which is why anime is at the top of the animation world (and growing) while North American animation is stuck in a childish netherworld.

Who says 5 year old will see it? The network that is going to buy the show. In the US the only market for animated shows are adult comedies and shows aimed at children(even if adults watch). Pretending that the US will suddenly adopt Japanese tastes and accept and adult animated drama is just wishful thinking.

And while the TAS may have been based on reality the whole concept of the uncanny valley is that there is a valley in the believability graph just before the image becomes lifelike that it makes it harder for people to accept. TAS is so far from that valley point that it has nothing to do with the discussion. If you don't know what the uncanny valley is, then I don't know why we're even having this debate.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

If you don't know what the uncanny valley is, then I don't know why we're even having this debate.

I know what it is (or at least have a grasp of the concept), I just don't give a shit about it that much, nor do I think it should figure into animating a TV show, or into the liking of said TV show by a viewer.

 

[Sindatur]

Truth be told, I LOVE animation with almost photo-realistic people, such as in the Final Fantasy movie. Yea, it's a bit creepy, but, that enhances my enjoyment of it, that's it's almost there, but, not quite right.

And Final Fantasy is even a bit further than this Aurora is, as it has hair that moves with breezes (maybe this has that too, I just didn't wacth far enough in)

I do like the look of it, though, and will probably check it out more thoroughly over the weekend

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't think the idea of what "should" factor into people enjoying entertainment is relevant. People respond as they respond.

 

[xortex]

There are writers who can write Trek and there are excellent writers who simply can't.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I just hope whoever does the next series -- whether it's live-action or animated -- that he or she has learned from the dwindling audiences of the Berman spinoffs that no one but a few hardcore geeks cares about Captain Arnold Swashbuckle of the Federation starship Exeter, or Commander Adrian Winslow of the timeship U.S.S. Tesseract, or the adventures of the great-grandson of Commander Riker in Starfleet Academy. The next Trek should be Kirk, Spock, a futuristic-looking Enterprise, and some really imaginative storytelling.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I don't think the idea of what "should" factor into people enjoying entertainment is relevant. People respond as they respond.

Said people need to get the frack up off of their asses, grow up, and check out other animated series & movies (I`d highly suggest the animation of Satoshi Kon (Perfect Blue, Millennium Actress) or Keiko Nobumoto (Cowboy Bebop) to see what animation can be like beyond cutesy-type animation. Then they won`t be going on about `the uncanny valley` or using it as an excuse for not liking a movie.

I just hope whoever does the next series -- whether it's live-action or animated -- that he or she has learned from the dwindling audiences of the Berman spinoffs that no one but a few hardcore geeks cares about Captain Arnold Swashbuckle of the Federation starship Exeter, or Commander Adrian Winslow of the timeship U.S.S. Tesseract, or the adventures of the great-grandson of Commander Riker in Starfleet Academy. The next Trek should be Kirk, Spock, a futuristic-looking Enterprise, and some really imaginative storytelling.

So, basically put, Star Trek should only be about Kirk & Co. That`s quite rich.

 

[scotcat]

I just hope whoever does the next series -- whether it's live-action or animated -- that he or she has learned from the dwindling audiences of the Berman spinoffs that no one but a few hardcore geeks cares about Captain Arnold Swashbuckle of the Federation starship Exeter, or Commander Adrian Winslow of the timeship U.S.S. Tesseract, or the adventures of the great-grandson of Commander Riker in Starfleet Academy. The next Trek should be Kirk, Spock, a futuristic-looking Enterprise, and some really imaginative storytelling.

There is more to Star Trek than Spock, Kirk etc.

As for any potential new series - I just want to see it well done. I don't care if it is animated or live action.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Said people need to get the frack up off of their asses, grow up, and check out other animated series & movies (I`d highly suggest the animation of Satoshi Kon (Perfect Blue, Millennium Actress) or Keiko Nobumoto (Cowboy Bebop) to see what animation can be like beyond cutesy-type animation. Then they won`t be going on about `the uncanny valley` or using it as an excuse for not liking a movie.

Except anime doesn't really classify as the uncanny valley.

Also, film/tv professionals don't use DAZ studios because it's generally shitty.

 

[DCR]

Any good space opera will ride Trek's recent success but Trek was a failure on tv and that can't be built on unless you, CBS or Netflix has 75 million dollers to spend on every episode, bacause they - the movies and tv are two different animals.

I really don't see how you can call Trek a "failure" on TV, not with 21 seasons of live action overall, 18 of them consecutive.

TOS was a failure on the networks, but became a massive success in syndication, paving the way for four successor series and a dozen movies (counting the one releasing next month).

TNG was a sufficient success to lead to two spinoffs and a prequel series, and all the Trek series are making money through DVD, streaming, and merchandising.

That doesn't mean that the previous successes would be easy to replicate in the current TV environment, but the history of the franchise should not be considered show-stopper.

Seven hundred episodes is not a sign of failure.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Except anime doesn't really classify as the uncanny valley.

That much I know; it seems that most people in North America don't know that, conditioned as they are to believe that the style of Pixar and contemporaries is the only style to animate something in.

Also, film/tv professionals don't use DAZ studios because it's generally shitty.

Yes, I can see that, but for Tim Vining, it was all that he had (and the rub is, it works better for Star Trek, because it at least looks realistic and is close enough to TAS for it to become the success for most of the people that have seen it.)

 

[xortex]

Any good space opera will ride Trek's recent success but Trek was a failure on tv and that can't be built on unless you, CBS or Netflix has 75 million dollers to spend on every episode, bacause they - the movies and tv are two different animals.

I really don't see how you can call Trek a "failure" on TV, not with 21 seasons of live action overall, 18 of them consecutive.

TOS was a failure on the networks, but became a massive success in syndication, paving the way for four successor series and a dozen movies (counting the one releasing next month).

TNG was a sufficient success to lead to two spinoffs and a prequel series, and all the Trek series are making money through DVD, streaming, and merchandising.

That doesn't mean that the previous successes would be easy to replicate in the current TV environment, but the history of the franchise should not be considered show-stopper.

Seven hundred episodes is not a sign of failure.

Was ENT a failure, yes or no? The why doesn't matter right now. Berman is gone. I do think it is a perennial but not one that I'm interested in with JJ in control. I wasn't too interested in it with Berman in control. I don't think their syndication value will be as high as TOS especially as time goes by. ENT has already been attached to Trek 09 as some kind of alternate universe history which I have no interest in.

 

[DCR]

Any good space opera will ride Trek's recent success but Trek was a failure on tv and that can't be built on unless you, CBS or Netflix has 75 million dollers to spend on every episode, bacause they - the movies and tv are two different animals.

I really don't see how you can call Trek a "failure" on TV, not with 21 seasons of live action overall, 18 of them consecutive.

TOS was a failure on the networks, but became a massive success in syndication, paving the way for four successor series and a dozen movies (counting the one releasing next month).

TNG was a sufficient success to lead to two spinoffs and a prequel series, and all the Trek series are making money through DVD, streaming, and merchandising.

That doesn't mean that the previous successes would be easy to replicate in the current TV environment, but the history of the franchise should not be considered show-stopper.

Seven hundred episodes is not a sign of failure.

Was ENT a failure, yes or no? The why doesn't matter right now. Berman is gone. I do think it is a perennial but not one that I'm interested in with JJ in control. I wasn't too interested in it with Berman in control. I don't think their syndication value will be as high as TOS especially as time goes by. ENT has already been attached to Trek 09 as some kind of alternate universe history which I have no interest in.

(Emphasis mine.)

That's a different question than whether Star Trek itself was a failure on TV. As to the answer, ENT was a failure when judged against its expectations, and a success when judged against the majority of science fiction TV shows.

As for syndication value, today's market is so totally different that it's not really fair to compare any of the more recent series to TOS. When I started watching TOS in syndication, there was no other option available. Now you can get the shows on web streaming, buy digital copies, or even physical copies; none of that was possible when I was a kid, as the VCR hadn't even been introduced at the time. It was syndication or nothing.

Personal interest is a whole different issue, and not something that can be quantified. I don't mind JJ Abrams' Trek, but I don't have the same feelings for it that I have for the TV series. If pressed, I would say that I expect another Trek TV series at some point in the future, but I would not be surprised if it's not before 2020. I'm not saying that I'll necessarily like it, but I do expect it.

Star Trek works on TV (or the web), it was made for the small screen.

 

[xortex]

A new series would have to build off of a successful tv model and ENT wasn't successful.

It must stand on it's own despite Trek's past history of success or failure. Bad Robot is not capable of that because tv relies on ideas and high concepts.

I'm convinced Mozart write some boring pieces on purpose just to sour the water to made audiences want and clamor for something better and for what he was capable of, writing great music, which is not something Bad Robot is capable of in a literary way at all.

 

[R. Star]

The only shred of hope I see for this happening is for a Netflix/Internet series. That's what the whole Renegades fanfilm is trying to inspire. The fact of the matter is Trek is not mainstream and it's hard to compete with an audience that is entranced by a bunch of college kids getting drunk on the latest reality show.

 

[DCR]

The thing is, a new series doesn't have to build off ENT. If anything it will either build off the movies (most likely) or off the TNG-era continuity (unlikely but possible). In either case it will be able to be connected to previous success rather than failure.

Remember, TOS was a network failure, but it still managed to spawn the rest of the franchise. The cancellation of ENT after four seasons, just like the cancellation of TOS after three, and TAS after two seasons is not enough to consider the franchise as a whole, a failure on TV. In fact, I would say that it's the most successful SF franchise in the history of TV.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Was ENT a failure, yes or no? The why doesn't matter right now. Berman is gone. I do think it is a perennial but not one that I'm interested in with JJ in control. I wasn't too interested in it with Berman in control. I don't think their syndication value will be as high as TOS especially as time goes by. ENT has already been attached to Trek 09 as some kind of alternate universe history which I have no interest in.

Enterprise was able to get it's fans to raise a million dollars (pre-Kickstarter!) to bring it back for a fifth season before the fans gave up trying to get it back. Besides Veronica Mars, what other show had that much support from its fans? Please tell me that.

We know that you hate it but at the same time, a lot of people still love it-many of who were not denizens of this board or involved in daily bashing of it. Many more still love this show to this day, and many more even think that it's better than the 2009 movie. Against all of that, what do you, as a person who hates Enterprise, think of that?

 

[AviTrek]

Was ENT a failure, yes or no? The why doesn't matter right now. Berman is gone. I do think it is a perennial but not one that I'm interested in with JJ in control. I wasn't too interested in it with Berman in control. I don't think their syndication value will be as high as TOS especially as time goes by. ENT has already been attached to Trek 09 as some kind of alternate universe history which I have no interest in.

Enterprise was able to get it's fans to raise a million dollars (pre-Kickstarter!) to bring it back for a fifth season before the fans gave up trying to get it back. Besides Veronica Mars, what other show had that much support from its fans? Please tell me that.

We know that you hate it but at the same time, a lot of people still love it-many of who were not denizens of this board or involved in daily bashing of it. Many more still love this show to this day, and many more even think that it's better than the 2009 movie. Against all of that, what do you, as a person who hates Enterprise, think of that?

The $1m was mainly from one or two wealthy fans. It did not reflect a large number of fans. And the fact is Paramount didn't care. It didn't say, "wow fans really like this show, we were wrong, let's bring it back." They let the show stay cancelled and sat on the franchise until they asked JJ to make a movie. And since ENT was cancelled, the market for a space opera on broadcast tv has gotten even worse. You can't just say "fans loved ENT, so CBS needs to make a new show." You need to show how CBS can expect to make money on a Star Trek show. Let's see what SyFy does with their slate of space operas, and what Disney decides to do with Star Wars on TV. If they have a success, then maybe CBS will consider what it can do with Star Trek. Until then, you're just a fan whining on a message board.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Until then, you're just a fan whining on a message board.

And, so is Avi Trek. The rub is, he's supported for his view here as well.

As for the monies raised, at least somebody gave a shit enough about it to put up their cash to want to continue it, and that says something about who actually did like (and were watching) Enterprise.

 

[CoveTom]

Enterprise was able to get it's fans to raise a million dollars (pre-Kickstarter!) to bring it back for a fifth season before the fans gave up trying to get it back. Besides Veronica Mars, what other show had that much support from its fans? Please tell me that.

No, they really didn't. That whole campaign was a fraud and a crock from the start.

Regardless, an outpouring of support from a dedicated core of fans is not what a studio wants to see. They want to see broad-based, mass appeal.Hence the taking of the new movies in the cookie cutter, blockbuster action flick direction.