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

[R. Star]

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.

The thing is... the TV networks don't care about what area of Trek continuity a new series is building off of. They care about ratings. The first thing they'll look at is the last series, Enterprise, and point out their abysmal ratings and ask why they should fund another expensive sci-fi show when they can bring in some college students, get them drunk, and make a new reality series for the fraction of the cost that's bound to get better ratings.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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.

The thing is... the TV networks don't care about what area of Trek continuity a new series is building off of. They care about ratings.

Those parts are true.

The first thing they'll look at is the last series, Enterprise, and point out their abysmal ratings and ask why they should fund another expensive sci-fi show when they can bring in some college students, get them drunk, and make a new reality series for the fraction of the cost that's bound to get better ratings.

And this part isn't quite true. ENT ended eight years ago and counting. In Hollywood, it's ancient history at this point and won't be a deciding factor in a new Trek TV series (otherwise, we would never have gotten TNG because TOS was cancelled due to abysmal ratings).

What really will decide whether or not there'll be a new Trek series is if CBS thinks it's currently profitable to do one today.

 

[mos6507]

Disney in particular is gung-ho about using all its IP in every way possible. ABC's development slate this year is full of Disney characters and theme park rides. (Hmm, this may be a good sign for a live-action Star Wars series?)

They also canceled Clone Wars. So it's too early to tell what they might do on TV.

As for uncanny valley, I think Aurora does a good job avoiding it. I can't say it's always 100% successful, but better than a lot of them.

I am not aware of any truly pro-level stuff done with Daz/Poser, although I hear it's popular for porn.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Disney in particular is gung-ho about using all its IP in every way possible. ABC's development slate this year is full of Disney characters and theme park rides. (Hmm, this may be a good sign for a live-action Star Wars series?)

They also canceled Clone Wars. So it's too early to tell what they might do on TV.

As for uncanny valley, I think Aurora does a good job avoiding it. I can't say it's always 100% successful, but better than a lot of them.

I am not aware of any truly pro-level stuff done with Daz/Poser, although I hear it's popular for porn.

Myself, I think that the whole 'uncanny valley' thing is a load of bullshit, and then some; there were a ton of CGI cartoons produced in the last two decades (1990s and 2000s) that were done in the style of Aurora and nobody had a problem with them or objected to them (the best being Reboot, Max Steel, Action Man and Iron Man: Armoured Adventures, IMHO.) People have gotten too used to the Pixar funny people style, and so think that a show has to be like that, but it doesn't; the shows that I've posted examples of have shown that.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Disney in particular is gung-ho about using all its IP in every way possible. ABC's development slate this year is full of Disney characters and theme park rides. (Hmm, this may be a good sign for a live-action Star Wars series?)

They also canceled Clone Wars. So it's too early to tell what they might do on TV

I have to wonder if the reason for that is that they might want to focus on stuff set closer to when Episodes VII-IX are set.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Disney in particular is gung-ho about using all its IP in every way possible. ABC's development slate this year is full of Disney characters and theme park rides. (Hmm, this may be a good sign for a live-action Star Wars series?)

They also canceled Clone Wars. So it's too early to tell what they might do on TV

I have to wonder if the reason for that is that they might want to focus on stuff set closer to when Episodes VII-IX are set.

IMO, the show simply has run its course. IIRC, it was originally intended to run for 100 episodes--and it achieved that. Sure, it could have kept on going after leaving Cartoon Network, but now the opportunity presents itself to develop a new show (possibly to debut on Disney XD within the next two years, IMO).

 

[AviTrek]

Disney in particular is gung-ho about using all its IP in every way possible. ABC's development slate this year is full of Disney characters and theme park rides. (Hmm, this may be a good sign for a live-action Star Wars series?)

They also canceled Clone Wars. So it's too early to tell what they might do on TV.

As for uncanny valley, I think Aurora does a good job avoiding it. I can't say it's always 100% successful, but better than a lot of them.

I am not aware of any truly pro-level stuff done with Daz/Poser, although I hear it's popular for porn.

Myself, I think that the whole 'uncanny valley' thing is a load of bullshit, and then some; there were a ton of CGI cartoons produced in the last two decades (1990s and 2000s) that were done in the style of Aurora and nobody had a problem with them or objected to them (the best being Reboot, Max Steel, Action Man and Iron Man: Armoured Adventures, IMHO.) People have gotten too used to the Pixar funny people style, and so think that a show has to be like that, but it doesn't; the shows that I've posted examples of have shown that.

And the fact that you continue to talk about 90s cartoons and the uncanny valley only further proves that you don't understand what the uncanny valley is.

 

[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.

The thing is... the TV networks don't care about what area of Trek continuity a new series is building off of. They care about ratings. The first thing they'll look at is the last series, Enterprise, and point out their abysmal ratings and ask why they should fund another expensive sci-fi show when they can bring in some college students, get them drunk, and make a new reality series for the fraction of the cost that's bound to get better ratings.

No, they really aren't going to care about Enterprise unless they're going to do a direct sequel (which I think is unlikely).

What they're far more likely to do is look at the existing franchise (movies, books, comics, secondary video market) and ask themselves, "how can we get more money out of this?"

That's what's going to trigger any new TV series, the desire to extract more money from the franchise. They already know that Star Trek is a perennial money maker, because people are still throwing down money for it. Pocket Books has been publishing TOS novels for the last 34 years!

Once they figure out the right financial formula, they'll jump on a new TV series because they know it has the potential to keep making money for decades if they do it right. There's nothing happening right now because they don't want to interfere with the current movies, but that doesn't mean there won't be in the future.

Enterprise's cancellation is not going to have any effect on the possibility of a future Trek series.

 

[R. Star]

I see that as blind optimism thinking it's just a matter of finding the right formula. Simply put the demand isn't there among the general population. Yes, the question is going to be how do we make money. The answer is going to be, with something other than Star Trek.

This isn't the 1990's anymore where a sci-fi show is state of the art and doesn't have that much competition on the dozen or so opposing channels. With 100's of channels available to most everyone, with fancy computer graphics getting more and more common, it's less neat and more mundane these days and really only sells to the hardcore audiences. Which isn't enough to sustain a series, nonetheless justify the costs of making one.

Enterprise's cancellation definitely factors into this. All those reasons factored into it failing and the problem has only gotten worse since then.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Enterprise's cancellation definitely factors into this.

No more than the cancellation of TOS does.

 

[DCR]

I see that as blind optimism thinking it's just a matter of finding the right formula. Simply put the demand isn't there among the general population. Yes, the question is going to be how do we make money. The answer is going to be, with something other than Star Trek.

This isn't the 1990's anymore where a sci-fi show is state of the art and doesn't have that much competition on the dozen or so opposing channels. With 100's of channels available to most everyone, with fancy computer graphics getting more and more common, it's less neat and more mundane these days and really only sells to the hardcore audiences. Which isn't enough to sustain a series, nonetheless justify the costs of making one.

Enterprise's cancellation definitely factors into this. All those reasons factored into it failing and the problem has only gotten worse since then.

The biggest single factor in the likelihood of future Star Trek series is not Enterprise, it's Into Darkness. Its success or failure will be a concrete measure of whether the 2013 mainstream consumer is willing to put out money for new Trek product or not.

If they see the money, they'll make the show.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I see that as blind optimism thinking it's just a matter of finding the right formula. Simply put the demand isn't there among the general population. Yes, the question is going to be how do we make money. The answer is going to be, with something other than Star Trek.

This isn't the 1990's anymore where a sci-fi show is state of the art and doesn't have that much competition on the dozen or so opposing channels. With 100's of channels available to most everyone, with fancy computer graphics getting more and more common, it's less neat and more mundane these days and really only sells to the hardcore audiences. Which isn't enough to sustain a series, nonetheless justify the costs of making one.

Enterprise's cancellation definitely factors into this. All those reasons factored into it failing and the problem has only gotten worse since then.

The biggest single factor in the likelihood of future Star Trek series is not Enterprise, it's Into Darkness. Its success or failure will be a concrete measure of whether the 2013 mainstream consumer is willing to put out money for new Trek product or not.

If they see the money, they'll make the show.

Quoted for truth.

 

[R. Star]

Then why didn't we get a new series after the commercial success of ST09 again?

 

[C.E. Evans]

For the same reason we didn't get a new series after the commercial success of TMP.

 

[R. Star]

Circular argument isn't it? ST09 and TMP didn't produce new series, but Into Darkness should?

 

[DCR]

Circular argument isn't it? ST09 and TMP didn't produce new series, but Into Darkness should?

No, it's an argument that I think you're missing.

Both TMP and ST09 succeeded well enough to produce more movies, and it was the success of the movie franchise from Wrath of Khan onwards that led to the green light for TNG. Had the movies failed, there would not have been any further movies.

This is where Into Darkness comes in. If it bombs, the chances of a TV series in the near future go way down. However, if it succeeds, then the chances go up. It may not be immediate, if they have three movies planned, then a potential TV series would be most likely to follow the third.

The equation is not as simple as:

IF "Into Darkness" = "Box Office Success" THEN "Go Immediately to TV Production"

but the fact does remain that its numbers are going to be far more important for determining the viability of a new TV series than a show that's been off the air for almost a decade.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Circular argument isn't it? ST09 and TMP didn't produce new series, but Into Darkness should?

No, it's an argument that I think you're missing.

Both TMP and ST09 succeeded well enough to produce more movies, and it was the success of the movie franchise from Wrath of Khan onwards that led to the green light for TNG. Had the movies failed, there would not have been any further movies.

This is where Into Darkness comes in. If it bombs, the chances of a TV series in the near future go way down. However, if it succeeds, then the chances go up. It may not be immediate, if they have three movies planned, then a potential TV series would be most likely to follow the third.

The equation is not as simple as:

IF "Into Darkness" = "Box Office Success" THEN "Go Immediately to TV Production"

but the fact does remain that its numbers are going to be far more important for determining the viability of a new TV series than a show that's been off the air for almost a decade.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[horatio83]

ENT failed because, like TOS, it was neglected by the powers that be with the additional tragedy that the former became better while the latter became worse when it got cancelled. In other words, ratings tell very little when you are on a bad time slot.
Furthermore TV has changed in the last ten years. DVD sales and streaming matter more and more.
While I don't think that past issues with shows matter I neither think that the financial success of these movies matter much. Every sane executive should know that you can sell Trek. It has sold for nearly 50 years and still does. Even the old stuff sells. If there is anything to learn from the history of Trek it is that short-run thinking is irrelevant (OK, I know that corporate governance problems lead to management focusing too much on the short run).

Back to TV, you need to market your stuff in a modern way and you need a bunch of writers with a good sketch for the show. Then it might materialize.

 

[Dream]

They need to trend carefully with the next Trek show. If it flops, Trek will really be completely dead on tv for the next twenty years.

We can't have another terrible series like VOY or ENT.

The "It will make money just because it is Trek" mentality needs to DIE.

 

[horatio83]

Funny, I fear the inverse, branding, "let's call it Trek and it will sell".