Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Trekkin]

We get a Trek episode every day at midday here, and they just run through TNG, DS9, VOY before looping back to the start again. In addition, they run triple eps from 8.30 on Friday nights (though it might get pushed back if a movie runs late). This is all free-to-air, and PayTv has even more,

TOS also airs an ep around 3pm on Sun. Enterprise gets screwed.

 

[Squiggy]

Futurama and Family Guy are animated, and would have a much smaller budget.

BSG was praised by critics, but, unfortunately it wasn't successful, it only hung around as long it did, because SyFy Channel had hope the good critical acclaim would bring viewers, but, it never did, and they finally had to cancel it after S4, when it fell below 1 million viewers

Colombo,leave it to beaver,the munsters(tv movies in the 80s), dallas. All total revivals not reboots.

This is off topic, but ugh at Leave it to Beaver. I'm pretty certain it was revived just because of the nostalgia wave started by American Graffiti and Happy Days (so the show was pretty late to the wave), and it also had a name that just dates it so horribly. Calling any show, "The NEW..." just dates it so quickly.

At least TNG had "Next," which means it could come at any point from the future

Leave it to Beaver aired one season on CBS and spent the rest of its run on cable. Not really worth bragging about but technically is a revival.

But I guess when people are looking for evidence of other shows that have been revived after a couple of decades of being off air, there's no accounting for if it was done successfully.

 

[Cyke101]

Colombo,leave it to beaver,the munsters(tv movies in the 80s), dallas. All total revivals not reboots.

This is off topic, but ugh at Leave it to Beaver. I'm pretty certain it was revived just because of the nostalgia wave started by American Graffiti and Happy Days (so the show was pretty late to the wave), and it also had a name that just dates it so horribly. Calling any show, "The NEW..." just dates it so quickly.

At least TNG had "Next," which means it could come at any point from the future

Leave it to Beaver aired one season on CBS and spent the rest of its run on cable. Not really worth bragging about but technically is a revival.

But I guess when people are looking for evidence of other shows that have been revived after a couple of decades of being off air, there's no accounting for if it was done successfully.

Sure. I just don't like it at all, either as a revival or as a show in its own right. Just a super-cynical way to cash in on good ol' fashioned nostalgia that ends up somehow being even cornier than the original.

 

[Tim Walker]

Star Trek isn't going to be on traditional television ever again. Networks are demanding bargain basement budgets and Star Trek wouldn't fit that. SFX, large casts, sets, all expensive.

This point has been made in several different threads-it is just cheaper to produce shows set in the present. This includes even shows that have speculative content. (X-files, for example. ) So how would suits view the options...what is the bottom line?

 

[Squiggy]

The metric by which a show is considered "successful" depends on the network.

NBC is in the shitter, so if a show does any better than "horribly abysmal" then it'll get picked up.

CBS regularly rapes and pillages the other networks. Shows that CBS cans wold be the #1 show on other networks. In fact, NBC's #1 show wouldn't even crack CBS's top 10.

Sadly for us, CBS is the one that is going to have to be desperate in order to have a space to air Trek. They hold the keys.

The economics of television has also changed since Trek was last on TV. Reality TV is dirt cheap to produce and gets the ratings. Star Trek is quite the opposite. All those fancy sets, a large cast, and CGI out the wazhoo might cost per episode what the alternative would cost an entire season (hyperbole for the win!). It's also a niche audience. Any sort of genera show is, no matter how polished or nicely written and acted by a flock of Stewarts.

 

[JWPlatt]

Are you sure that isn't a just wishful rant of cynicism and resignation that the networks - or somebody, anybody - should change the status quo?

 

[Tim Walker]

Conceivably, like James Bond, there could be a very long running series of Trek movies. (Wasn't the first Bond movie about half a century ago?). With movies, however, J.J. set the precedent of departing the Prime timeline.

Heck, there could be several different series of Trek movies, not all set in the same timeline-we have already had two different timelines in Trek movies.

 

[Squiggy]

Are you sure that isn't a just wishful rant of cynicism and resignation that the networks - or somebody, anybody - should change the status quo?

Have fun fighting the machine. I choose to live in reality.

 

[Smellmet]

Conceivably, like James Bond, there could be a very long running series of Trek movies. (Wasn't the first Bond movie about half a century ago?). With movies, however, J.J. set the precedent of departing the Prime timeline.

I think you can argue that the last three Bond movies are guilty of that, in a slightly looser sense, especially Skyfall.

 

[Tim Walker]

Are you sure that isn't a just wishful rant of cynicism and resignation that the networks - or somebody, anybody - should change the status quo?

This general topic has been discussed on several different, non-Trek forums. It has been pointed out a number of times that "reality" shows are cheap to produce compared to other endeavors-a winning formula for the bottom line.

I have even come across online predictions of "crapification."

 

[JWPlatt]

I choose to live in reality.

Not with those eyes, you don't.

 

[Starborn Dragon]

I would like to see the source philosophy kept intact,but I'd like to see something new.

 

[Makarov]

Reality tv might be cheaper, but the Expanse is still coming to television - a space based sci fi show.

 

[Tim Walker]

I would like to see the source philosophy kept intact,but I'd like to see something new.

Me too!

Considering posts regarding new Trek shows, I could see a new timeline/reboot/re-imagining if implemented.

 

[JWPlatt]

This must be what it's like to be very old and looking forward to death when life is too hard, too painful, too full of the good things that have turned to crap, it's all been done before, and it's one reboot after another instead of new life - like Groundhog Day for movie franchises.

 

[Smellmet]

This must be what it's like to be very old and looking forward to death when life is too hard, too painful, too full of the good things that have turned to crap, it's all been done before, and it's one reboot after another instead of new life - like Groundhog Day for movie franchises.

Have you got the number for The Samaritans?

 

[Tim Walker]

Reality tv might be cheaper, but the Expanse is still coming to television - a space based sci fi show.

I'm glad somebody is trying something despite the trends!

BTW, in the long run trends can change. Perhaps Trek will someday return in a new television show. However, the one datum we have is an 18 year gap between the end of TOS and beginning of TNG. And a new ship and new characters were used for TNG.

 

[fireproof78]

Reality tv might be cheaper, but the Expanse is still coming to television - a space based sci fi show.

I'm glad somebody is trying something despite the trends!

BTW, in the long run trends can change. Perhaps Trek will someday return in a new television show. However, the one datum we have is an 18 year gap between the end of TOS and beginning of TNG. And a new ship and new characters were used for TNG.

I think it will at some point. Right now, the bean counters are playing it safe in a volatile market, and no one has demonstrated that a Trek series is worth the financial risk.

Demonstrate that to them and you will get your series.

 

[-Brett-]

I would love to see something Star Trek that is very new, but with still the same philosophy intact.

I would like to see the source philosophy kept intact,but I'd like to see something new.

We heard you the first time.

Honestly, any time a fan refers to Star Trek's "philosophy" my gut reaction is "no".

Nine times out of ten it involves some obscure bit of trivia mentioned in throwaway lines half a dozen times in 700+ hours and pretending that it's somehow essential to the series identity.

Where did "IDIC" even come from, for example? If it was in any of the shows at all, I don't remember it.

 

[JWPlatt]

Star Trek's philosophy is part of the reason the show has endured with such loyalty. How many times during your day do you encounter mention of the Unites States' Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights? Yet many enjoy their protections without needing to bring it up all the time. It's just part of life, like Star Trek's Prime Directive. And the Prime Directive, I would think, is not nearly so relevant to everyday life on planets already part of the Federation as it is on exploratory vessels, certainly represented by an extreme minority of citizens, at the frontier.

Where did "IDIC" even come from, for example? If it was in any of the shows at all, I don't remember it.

From the TOS episode "Is There in Truth No Beauty."

The well-known story from Memory Alpha: "The Vulcan IDIC was inserted into the script and into the episode at the behest of Gene Roddenberry, who wanted to sell the prop as an item at his Lincoln Enterprises. Nimoy, Shatner, and others were outraged at this, and Roddenberry was called to the set to negotiate with the actors. Finally, he agreed to rewrite the dinner scene. The IDIC symbol was used, but in a much less prominent way."

I actually bought some things from Lincoln Enterprises, but not the IDIC prop.