Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Smellmet]

As much as I'd watch it in a heartbeat it's just not going to happen. Star Trek Nemesis saw to that with a lousy 43 million box office take.

 

[TRON JA307020]

As much as I'd watch it in a heartbeat it's just not going to happen. Star Trek Nemesis saw to that with a lousy 43 million box office take.

Nemesis wasn't that good but had a few good things in there. I would like to see a new series developed for television. Its been 10 years since ST:Enterprise ended so a new series set in the original universe at a time that takes place just after TNG would be cool. We wont see it though because the studio will probably reboot Kirk and company in another 5 years.

 

[Squiggy]

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.

It would have to quickly be in the top 10 for a network to take the plunge. CBS is fine where it is with their 21,373 procedural dramas that are relatively cheap to produce. Other networks don't have the rights.

And what works in movies might not work on TV. Agent(s) of S.H.I.E.L.D/Carter aren't in the top 25 for the week. Those are based off the INSANELY huge Avengers francise. Granted, they're not directly related and most people are going to see Avengers to see shit get blown up and not to see the gang solve mysteries...but still.

So...
No money.
No room.
No demand.

Doesn't look good.

 

[MacLeod]

Well one possible route might be to go down the international co-production route.

 

[TRON JA307020]

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.

It would have to quickly be in the top 10 for a network to take the plunge. CBS is fine where it is with their 21,373 procedural dramas that are relatively cheap to produce. Other networks don't have the rights.

And what works in movies might not work on TV. Agent(s) of S.H.I.E.L.D/Carter aren't in the top 25 for the week. Those are based off the INSANELY huge Avengers francise. Granted, they're not directly related and most people are going to see Avengers to see shit get blown up and not to see the gang solve mysteries...but still.

So...
No money.
No room.
No demand.

Doesn't look good.

Agreed. I don't watch AOS and Agent Carter just for those reasons. The effects are poor, lackluster story telling and they just don't seem to fit into the larger movie universe. Cheaply produced. If they do something like that for Trek it would suck. The network would not cough up the bucks to have the astounding effects that we saw back in VOY. DS9 and even Enterprise. Too bad.

 

[Tim Walker]

Moving from era to era in oldTrek was itself a way of rebooting the details of the setting without ever really changing the formula. There's nothing actually resembling a "future history" in Trek continuity in that every time period features variations of the same technology, politics, world-view and character types.

In the real world politics can change abruptly. Consider the end of the Cold War. Or the resolution of World War II.

I dunno, given a choice, I'd rather watch Voyager than Ron Moore's putrid Galactia remake.

For me, I loved Galactica.

Voyager ? Not so much...

The new BSG was infinitely better than the original version, which, to be fair, I was never a fan of . . . even when it first aired back in the seventies.

I remember back in the day about how the old BSG was proof that SF on television had gone downhill since the glory days of Star Trek, Twilight Zone, and The Outer Limits . . .

(Granted, I was a college freshman at the time, which meant I took myself much more seriously back then.)

Back in the 70s I assumed that BSG was an imitation of Star Wars. In fact, Isaac Asimov made that comparison.

I don't like the idea of pushing into the 25th century. One of the things I love about TOS is that the people are relatable. They're funny, silly, angry, hateful, obsessed, lustful, happy, forgiving, petty, and so on, just like real humans. I think the nuTrek films nailed those traits. Humanity supposedly evolved in TNG, DS9, VOY, etc., but it made for so much filler material that had to draw drama from the outside (I say this as a fan of TNG, too), and I couldn't really relate to any of the people in those series.

Going into the 25th century, all we're going to see is shinier obscure technology discussions, more finely crafted human pedestal warmers, and a further step away from relatability, at least for me. For me, the "prime" universe is over. If they do go back, fine, I may love the film, but for now, I love what we're getting in the nuTrek universe.

The first time a Borg cube chased the Enterprise-D, Picard's "evolved" facade cracked.

 

[JWPlatt]

The network would not cough up the bucks to have the astounding effects that we saw back in VOY. DS9 and even Enterprise. Too bad.

That presupposes that high quality special effects cannot be more cheaply produced. They will. Technological progress doesn't stand still or it wouldn't be called progress. It's wrong to discount future possibilities by today's standards.

 

[Greg Cox]

The late 70s in general was proof that everything had gone downhill since the glory days.

I was eight years old when the first Galactica show aired. For me, those WERE the glory days.

In fact, the glory days went on for the next twenty years, then, the 21st century hit, and.....well......

Ah, never mind, it's not important.

I can see where the original BSG would be fantastic if you were eight years old when you first encountered it. Lord knows I thought The Time Tunnel and Land of the Giants were pretty cool when I was just a kid . . ..

As the saying goes, "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is twelve."

And, to bring us back OT, today's twelve-years-olds probably love nuTrek and will remember it fondly decades from now--about the time the fourth reboot comes around.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

In the real world politics can change abruptly. Consider the end of the Cold War. Or the resolution of World War II.

[...]

Back in the 70s I assumed that BSG was an imitation of Star Wars. In fact, Isaac Asimov made that comparison.

...

The first time a Borg cube chased the Enterprise-D, Picard's "evolved" facade cracked.

When responding to three or more posts in a short span of time (ten minutes or less, say) remember to use the Multi-Quote function so that all your responses are combined into a single post.

I will take care of merging these.

 

[T'Girl]

That presupposes that high quality special effects cannot be more cheaply produced.

It also presupposes that Trek has to be special effects driven, with royal snooze fests like the protracted battle scene in Sacrifice of Angels being a normal occurrence.

Minimizing (not eliminating) SFX would allow more time in the story for things like character interaction and plot advancement, important things like those.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

What about a Star Trek series with nuWho production values?

 

[Squiggy]

What about a Star Trek series with nuWho production values?

It'd be great but a American network isn't going to throw money at a show like the BBC would.

SFX aren't the only issue. Trek has a larger cast than other network shows, including Who. That costs money.

 

[Cyke101]

What about a Star Trek series with nuWho production values?

It'd be great but a American network isn't going to throw money at a show like the BBC would.

SFX aren't the only issue. Trek has a larger cast than other network shows, including Who. That costs money.

I imagine the sets to accompany the cast would also cost a great deal of money. IIRC, DS9 made history with the Promenade being the largest single set in the history of television at the time.

Not every show needs a promenade, but every Trek show tends to have pretty complex and heavy sets, even if they're sections of the ship.

 

[Greg Cox]

What about a Star Trek series with nuWho production values?

It'd be great but a American network isn't going to throw money at a show like the BBC would.

SFX aren't the only issue. Trek has a larger cast than other network shows, including Who. That costs money.

Honestly, I don't think the size of the cast is an issue. Large ensemble casts are the norm these days. I mean, how many regulars are there on THE WALKING DEAD these days? Or AGENTS OF SHIELD? Or THE FLASH or VAMPIRE DIARIES?

(Just off the top of my head, THE FLASH has at least seven regulars who appear every episode, plus various recurrings.)

Heck, even a procedural cop show like CASTLE has a small army of supporting characters: you've got Castle, Beckett, their boss, the two detectives who assist them, Castle's mother, his daughter, the recurring computer-tech girl . . ..

That's seven regulars right there and one recurring. Doesn't sound all that different from TNG or VOYAGER.

 

[Smellmet]

What about a Star Trek series with nuWho production values?

It'd be great but a American network isn't going to throw money at a show like the BBC would.

SFX aren't the only issue. Trek has a larger cast than other network shows, including Who. That costs money.

Honestly, I don't think the size of the cast is an issue. Large ensemble casts are the norm these days. I mean, how many regulars are there on THE WALKING DEAD these days? Or AGENTS OF SHIELD? Or THE FLASH or VAMPIRE DIARIES?

(Just off the top of my head, THE FLASH has at least seven regulars who appear every episode, plus various recurrings.)

Heck, even a procedural cop show like CASTLE has a small army of supporting characters: you've got Castle, Beckett, their boss, the two detectives who assist them, Castle's mother, his daughter, the recurring computer-tech girl . . ..

That's seven regulars right there and one recurring. Doesn't sound all that different from TNG or VOYAGER.

Yes but futuristic sets encompassing ship interiors and alien worlds cost a lot of money, and that's before we even get on to visual effects. The likes of The Walking Dead (the only one you listed that I've seen) has a decent make-up bill, which I'm sure any new Trek series would rival, and the rest is shot in existing locations. Not saying I'm an expert in this or anything but surely any Trek series produced would cost far more than this.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The likes of The Walking Dead (the only one you listed that I've seen) has a decent make-up bill, which I'm sure any new Trek series would rival, and the rest is shot in existing locations. Not saying I'm an expert in this or anything but surely any Trek series produced would cost far more than this.

Actually they build some pretty sprawling sets, and there's far more CGI than I think most people realize.

Nevertheless, Trek would still probably cost a little more, AND wouldn't likely get the same kinds of ratings. I don't think there's no hope for it on TV though.

I also think that comparisons to Marvel's Agents of SHIELD don't quite pan out though. The Avengers was nothing but non-stop action and big Hollywood stars. Of course if you translate that to TV it's going to lose something. Star Trek started on TV though, so there shouldn't be a need to compare it to the movies in terms of quality (unless it was a direct adaptation of the movies).

 

[urbandefault]

It would be really cool if someone with skills took the JJ movie characters and put them on the TMP-TUC era Enterprise. I'd give real money to see that.

Not what you've asked for but pretty damn cool nonetheless...

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/10/8185787/star-trek-original-enterprise-new-movies

Thanks, but no.

That abomination of a paint job on the 11' model just kills it for me. Ed Miarecki should be flogged, if not literally then online, and until the end of time. IMO, YMMV, whatever.

 

[Greg Cox]

It'd be great but a American network isn't going to throw money at a show like the BBC would.

SFX aren't the only issue. Trek has a larger cast than other network shows, including Who. That costs money.

Honestly, I don't think the size of the cast is an issue. Large ensemble casts are the norm these days. I mean, how many regulars are there on THE WALKING DEAD these days? Or AGENTS OF SHIELD? Or THE FLASH or VAMPIRE DIARIES?

(Just off the top of my head, THE FLASH has at least seven regulars who appear every episode, plus various recurrings.)

Heck, even a procedural cop show like CASTLE has a small army of supporting characters: you've got Castle, Beckett, their boss, the two detectives who assist them, Castle's mother, his daughter, the recurring computer-tech girl . . ..

That's seven regulars right there and one recurring. Doesn't sound all that different from TNG or VOYAGER.

Yes but futuristic sets encompassing ship interiors and alien worlds cost a lot of money, and that's before we even get on to visual effects. The likes of The Walking Dead (the only one you listed that I've seen) has a decent make-up bill, which I'm sure any new Trek series would rival, and the rest is shot in existing locations. Not saying I'm an expert in this or anything but surely any Trek series produced would cost far more than this.

The sets and costumes and SFX, sure, but I was just puzzled by the assertion that Trek "has a larger cast than other network shows."

Not that I can see.

 

[Makarov]

If cast size is a problem they can do an entire show based on a shuttlecraft. For bottle shows you've got that front area.. and the back area when they want to have the actors eat sandwiches.

 

[eyeresist]

I imagine the sets to accompany the cast would also cost a great deal of money. IIRC, DS9 made history with the Promenade being the largest single set in the history of television at the time.

TV pilots generally have large budgets, but if you spend that money on permanent sets, it's a saving in the long run. Think how much use DS9 got out of that promenade over the years.