Will J.J. Abrams ever produce a TV version of Star Trek?

[NextGen123]

Flipping through the channels I have noticed that J.J. Abrams, the man behind Lost and many TV shows hasn't started a new Trek series. I wish he would because the current state of TV doesn't have it's share of optomistic programs. What do you think? Could a J.J. Abrams five year mission with new actors work?

 

[Admiral Shran]

I can only hope that this doesn't happen.

 

[NextGen123]

Why don't you think J.J. Abrams couldn't make a series work? Did you not like the new movie?

 

[Mr Silver]

Why don't you think J.J. Abrams couldn't make a series work? Did you not like the new movie?

From my perspective, it wouldn't work for me because JJ Abrams style of TV isn't consistent with what one would need from Star Trek. There would be more focus on drama and plot elements rather than science fiction, which fans expect. With ST09, I enjoyed it and thought it was a very respectful modern update to Star Trek and because it was a movie, it didn't need to subscribe to the rules of tv trek.

With a TV show, it would be Alias in space.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why don't you think J.J. Abrams couldn't make a series work? Did you not like the new movie?

From my perspective, it wouldn't work for me because JJ Abrams style of TV isn't consistent with what one would need from Star Trek. There would be more focus on drama and plot elements rather than science fiction, which fans expect. With ST09, I enjoyed it and thought it was a very respectful modern update to Star Trek and because it was a movie, it didn't need to subscribe to the rules of tv trek.

With a TV show, it would be Alias in space.

Well, Star Trek (TOS) wasn't all that focused on SF. It was just something to hang the plot on. Its was much more focused on story, character, message and ideas than real or fictional science concepts. Many of the basic story ideas in most Star Trek episodes could be repurposed into a western or modern drama.

 

[Mr Pointy Ears]

god,hope he doesnt.

 

[Nerys Myk]

god,hope he doesnt.

Why? His TV resume isn't bad:

Felicity (1998–2002) (co-creator, writer, executive producer, director, co-composer of theme music)
Alias (2001–2006) (creator, writer, executive producer, director, theme music composer)
Lost (2004) (Executive Producer, theme music composer, co-creator, writer, director)
Fringe (2008–present) (co-creator, writer, executive producer, theme music composer)

 

[Caliburn24]

I'd give any new Star Trek show a chance, but Abrams would not be my first choice to produce it or run it.

He tends to set things up quite interestingly, but then runs out of steam and/or interest later on. He largely left Alias in later seasons, left Lost, I don't think he does all that much on Fringe.

I would want a show runner who would stick with the show from beginning to end, with some concrete ideas of where it is going in terms of over-arching structure.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Probably not, for several reasons. Trek needs a lot of time to re-prove itself as a franchise. Sure, the 2009 movie gave it a shot in the arm, and movies that are once every few years are probably a better deal for the health of the franchise compared to a series at the moment. But I don't really think it would have enough momentum to carry a TV series at this point. In another 5 or 10 years, sure it might be possible, but I think that it's pretty comfortable being a movie series at this point in time.

 

[Warped9]

I can only hope that this doesn't happen.

Ditto.

Why don't you think J.J. Abrams couldn't make a series work? Did you not like the new movie?

No. Actually I hated the film.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I can only hope that this doesn't happen.

Why don't you think J.J. Abrams couldn't make a series work? Did you not like the new movie?

On his TV shows, as has been said, he sets them up with some interesting concepts, but then let's them just go to shit. I honestly don't think he has it in him to do a serious, committed drama series for any length of time.

As for the movie.... I absolutely despise it. If people like it, I'm fine with that. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than some f/x designers ejaculating on the screen. It has no heart and hardly any story. IMO, it's not Star Trek - and coming from a guy who loves ENT, that's really saying something!

 

[HaventGotALife]

Flipping through the channels I have noticed that J.J. Abrams, the man behind Lost and many TV shows hasn't started a new Trek series. I wish he would because the current state of TV doesn't have it's share of optomistic programs. What do you think? Could a J.J. Abrams five year mission with new actors work?

I think this question will be asked with more frequency when he's done with his 3 movies (first in 2009, second slated for next summer). Until then, we won't know. I doubt that Paramount feels Star Trek is strong enough to support a series and movies at the same time (right now).

 

[Temis the Vorta]

First off, does everyone realize that CBS, not Paramount, has the TV rights? Paramount has nothing to do with this.

Abrams' has a strong rep in TV and film, of course. But whether or not he, or anyone else, wants to do a TV series isn't the biggest problem.

The biggest problem is a business problem, not a creative problem: that CBS has the TV rights to Star Trek. They wouldn't produce a series for CBS - totally wrong demo. CW is wrong, too. Showtime might work, but would Showtime go for a franchise that is associated with free TV? Not the right image for them.

CBS could also produce a series for another outlet - I can see TNT or FX being excellent homes for Star Trek (not SyFy though!) - but is CBS motivated to make a series for channels that are not part of their corporate structure? Why not make shows suited to CBS/CW/Showtime instead?

But getting back to Showtime, here's an element we don't know, that could be a big factor. HBO has Game of Thrones; Starz has Torchwood. What % of viewers actually subscribed to the channels because they were pre-existing fans? That would be easy to deduce from the number of subscribers who sign up right before the series starts. If it's significant, that's a big deal, because pay cable survives by attracting and retaining subscribers.

Having a show that attracts new subscribers is much better than one that simply retains them. You can't find that number in the Nielsens, which is the only number we ever see. But if Showtime is savvy enough to ferret out this info on their own (which HBO and Starz certainly wouldn't volunteer, to them or to us), then they might see the value in following suit, by picking up a franchise with a large and loyal fanbase that might shell out $20/month to see something they can't get any place else. In these days of cord-cutting, that could be a big inducement.

 

[Harvey]

On his TV shows, as has been said, he sets them up with some interesting concepts, but then let's them just go to shit. I honestly don't think he has it in him to do a serious, committed drama series for any length of time.

Has he even had a big influence on any of his TV dramas recently, beyond being involved in their development and perhaps in the first season? It's my understanding that he was not really involved with Lost after the first season, and it seems like he's similarly removed from the production of Fringe.

 

[Nerys Myk]

On his TV shows, as has been said, he sets them up with some interesting concepts, but then let's them just go to shit. I honestly don't think he has it in him to do a serious, committed drama series for any length of time.

Has he even had a big influence on any of his TV dramas recently, beyond being involved in their development and perhaps in the first season? It's my understanding that he was not really involved with Lost after the first season, and it seems like he's similarly removed from the production of Fringe.

So he could set up a new Trek show and then turn it over to people who can run it. I like Lost and Fringe, so he has a good eye for showrunners.

 

[Caliburn24]

Lost, Fringe and Alias all made it up as they went along, with varying degrees of success. I'd prefer a new Trek show to start with a strong showrunner who has a vision for the show, rather than Abrams setting up some mysteries and then essentially leaving, and letting other people try to construct satisfying resolutions to what he started.

Alias went horribly downhill.

Lost fared better, but I would still argue that it was unsatisfying. Much less than it could have been anyways.

Fringe, well we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Another possibility is for Star Trek to follow Star Wars' lead and launch an animated series on the Cartoon Network. That could tap into the popularity of the movies by using the TOS characters with voice actors who can mimic the movie actors (too $$$ to hire for TV, probably). That also gets around the problem that the cost of live action space opera exceeds the value of the likely TV audience, especially if you're measuring in eyeballs-watching-ads rather than subscribers.

 

[RandyS]

Flipping through the channels I have noticed that J.J. Abrams, the man behind Lost and many TV shows hasn't started a new Trek series. I wish he would because the current state of TV doesn't have it's share of optomistic programs. What do you think? Could a J.J. Abrams five year mission with new actors work?

I don't know, but I'd check it out out of curiosity if nothing else. It IS a Star Trek show, after all.

 

[bigdaddy]

He has nothing to do with Fringe now.

What I have noticed is he starts shows, ditches them after awhile and then the show gets better.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think should Trek return to TV, it will be after the Abrams-era has run its course. CBS will likely tap someone new from within their own camp, somebody we haven't heard of before but with a proven track record as a television producer who gets things done on time and within budget, IMO.