TV shows?

[Temis the Vorta]

Reboot/recasting wasn't my first choice, but I do recognize that it's the best way to revitalize the franchise, and the proof is that it worked and we're getting another movie (and most likely another after that). Any other option, even the options I would have preferred (post-Dominion War series! try Birth of the Federation again and do it right this time!), would have stood a very good chance of flopping and that does nobody any good.

 

[cbp44189]

Ran across this item today..

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a334351/star-trek-to-return-to-tv-as-animated-series.html

Possible nu Trek animated series.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Just a repackaging of old news.

 

[Dukhat]

Who's ready for a full-on, on-screen, fully nude sex scene in Star Trek? If the movies keep on this path, it's coming.

What, you mean Uhura and Gaila in underwear made by Viktor's Secret from the Iron Curtain? I don't think I've ever seen undies as unsexy and untitillating as the granny-panties they were wearing.

And Harvey's right. No Trek movie is going to have an R rating, ever.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The only way Star Trek would go R-rated is if Showtime were ever to become interested in a TV series. A long shot, but not outside the realms of possibility. And even on Showtime, it wouldn't be soft-core porn a la The Tudors. That would be too far off-brand. More likely, the violence would be the R-rated part.

 

[ZericsKirogKirk]

Very good question it would be? But I believe CBS is suck no offenses. CBS always cancels some tv show for reason low rates. I dont care about low rates. Let people watch and enjoy it.

 

[Yevetha]

CBS has to stay profitable.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Ratings determine how much CBS can charge for advertising time, which is where they get the bulk of their money (certainly where their upfront money comes from; syndication and video sales are not insubstantial, but they're not the kind of funds that allow for the network to do a helluva lot), and if the amount of money they make from sponsors buying ad time on a given show doesn't offset what CBS is paying for that show, that show doesn't have a very bright future, especially if it's an expensive show, like a Star Trek show would be, or any scripted show compared to the practically-free world of reality shows and game shows.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Very good question it would be? But I believe CBS is suck no offenses. CBS always cancels some tv show for reason low rates. I dont care about low rates. Let people watch and enjoy it.

All networks cancel shows for having low ratings. You may have noticed that CBS is harsher than, say, NBC. That has to do with the fact that CBS has a stable of successful shows that get strong ratings, so CBS has higher standards than its broadcast competitors. NBC has nothing but flops, but it can't cancel everything. So a show like Chuck gets a renewal on NBC with ratings that would have gotten it cancelled on CBS about ten seconds after it premiered.

The more successful the network, the lower its tolerance for poorly rated shows (and in fact, the higher the bar is set for survival-level ratings). CBS is the most successful network. Even if Star Trek could survive on broadcast - and unless you count CW as broadcast, I doubt it - CBS would be the most hostile environment imaginable. Too bad eternally-desperate NBC doesn't have the rights to Star Trek instead.

if the amount of money they make from sponsors buying ad time on a given show doesn't offset what CBS is paying for that show, that show doesn't have a very bright future

It's not so much whether a show can pay for itself. For all we know, the shows that CBS cancels have been paying for themselves and turning a profit. But since CBS is used to having bigger hits than other networks, they would be justified in thinking that a show that makes (using totally theoretical numbers here) 10% profit should be cancelled when everything else on the network is making 20% and above, because CBS has confidence in their ability to consistently make 20% profit shows. Why be satisfied with half that?

But on NBC, it could be that all their shows are making 5% profit. So that 10% show that gets the axe on CBS will be the superstar of NBC.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Admittedly, I did put forth a simplified depiction of how television works. Some shows are kept around for various reasons, like trying to raise the prestige of the network by classing up the joint a bit (which is how 30 Rock has lasted as long as it has, and also how Star Trek lasted three years on NBC in the first place; if it was strictly a ratings/money making equation, the show would've been gone after the first season). It varies from show to show, and depending on the network exec.

And actually, CBS cancelled the fewest shows this past year, whereas NBC was practically a killing field.

 

[Captain Mike]

Star Trek on HBO would be awesome

Why?? So that we can have all sorts of nudity and gratuitous violence with blood and gore? Star Trek was never about that.

The "schism in fandom" is too minor, with far too few people involved, to translate into any kind of money Paramount or CBS is likely to be paying attention to.

The next movie will live or die on the same basis as the last, and also the same basis as any movie in its category (mass-appeal popcorn flick): is it a fun, rollicking adventure worth ten or twelve bucks?

The schism is probably more vast than you think. There are people out there that dislike the direction AND dislike the film (2009) that don't even post on message boards, let alone use the internet. ?



I know I would be a faithful viewer, at least in the beginning if it was set in the (oh I despise saying this) the PRIME timeline. Depends on what kind of production and the money spent on it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The schism is probably more vast than you think. There are people out there that dislike the direction AND dislike the film (2009) that don't even post on message boards, let alone use the internet.

So what? There are vastly more people out there who don't like Trek at all and never watched it.

You know we call the group you're referring to as well as the rest of the world? Non-viewers. They're not in the audience.

As long as the studio has enough folks in the audience to make the Trek 2009 direction profitable, they're just fine - it's a much bigger audience than they had ten years before, after all.

 

[Relayer1]

There appears to be a groundswell of support for a new original universe TV show if the interview with Jack Trevino is to be believed :

http://trekweb.com/articles/2011/08...-Not-Yet-Been-Pitched-Officially-to-CBS.shtml

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The schism is probably more vast than you think. There are people out there that dislike the direction AND dislike the film (2009) that don't even post on message boards, let alone use the internet. ?

The schism is not "vast" enough to stop the movie from being a big old BO success. So I guess it all depends on your definition of "vast." Mine is "big enough to show up on boxofficemojo."

The movie's worldwide gross: $385,680,446, #7 movie for 2009. If not for that "vast" schism, I guess it could have challenged Avatar's record? The movies higher on the 2009 list are the likes of Harry Potter, Twilight and Transformers. Much as I love Star Trek, I do have realistic expectations of the power of its brand name. It can run with the big dogs, but there are bigger dogs still.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

There appears to be a groundswell of support for a new original universe TV show if the interview with Jack Trevino is to be believed :

http://trekweb.com/articles/2011/08...-Not-Yet-Been-Pitched-Officially-to-CBS.shtml

When CBS greenlights this concept, be sure to come back and tell us all about it.

After being told that Brian Singer and William Shatner had pitches turned down by CBS (which has since been revealed to not be true in Singer's case), Frakes decided to pass at that time, also noting his doubts that CBS would ever allow a television series to run simultaneous with the 3 contracted movies from J.J. Abrams.

Now we're blaming the movies for CBS' lack of interest in a Star Trek series? As opposed to, say, CBS being completely the wrong place for such a series (and CW and Showtime being poor fits as well) and space opera in general being a dead genre on TV?

I sincerely doubt that one frakkin movie every three years constitutes any sort of "saturation of interest" for Star Trek, which managed to do quite nicely once upon a time with a movie and TV series running simultaneously. This is just an excuse for what is really going on, that CBS has no particular reason to be interested in a Star Trek series at all.

It used to be that the audience was "too saturated" because ENT had only just been cancelled, and now the movies are the excuse. When the movies are over, what's next? That theme park in Jordan? The excuses are endless.

Star Trek pitches that revolve around some people's idea of the "pure" version of Star Trek or what reality it will take place in or what the Klingons are doing are all wrongheaded. Here's what you need to do instead: figure out where you think you can sell the show, and then craft the show to that outlet. It's always easiest to sell what your customer already wants to buy.

A show crafted to the CW would be completely different from a show crafted to Showtime. A show crafted to CBS is a contradiction in terms and should not be attempted (I shudder at the outcome even more than in the case of the CW, which would be enough of an atrocity).

Trying to get TNT, FX or AMC interested would be the best thing for the show, since those are the outlets where Star Trek would have to be the least mangled to fit, but then you have the obstacle that they are not part of CBS, which makes the deal trickier and even less attractive to CBS.

So every avenue to Star Trek on TV leads to some kind of compromise, with varying degrees of unpalatability. I've still got my quatloos on an animated series on the Cartoon Network, created by Orci and Kurtzman, being by far the likeliest to ever see the light of day. It sounds financially feasible, the people behind it can get CBS to return their calls, and The Clone Wars provides a template for success.

 

[Captain Robert April]

CBS is raking in plenty of bucks off of Star Trek without having to lift a finger, and Les Moonves isn't exactly the most sympathetic guy around with regard to sci-fi on television, so I don't think Gene Roddenberry himself could get a series deal at this point.

 

[AviTrek]

CBS is raking in plenty of bucks off of Star Trek without having to lift a finger, and Les Moonves isn't exactly the most sympathetic guy around with regard to sci-fi on television, so I don't think Gene Roddenberry himself could get a series deal at this point.

Les Moonves isn't unsympathetic to sci-fi, he just only cares about turning a profit. And right now he's doing a better job at turning a profit than any other network. Pitch Moonves a sci-fi show that will get CSI level ratings at CSI level costs and he will greenlight it tomorrow. Until you do that he will politely thank you for your proposal and greenlight a new CSI instead.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The fundamental problem here is that cop shows are a far easier and more reliable way to make $$ on TV than sci fi. So anyone who wants to get Star Trek back on the air should think less about Klingons and more about the business of TV.

Among all the ideas I've seen trotted out, I've yet to see one that addresses the business problem and poses an explicit solution, such as "animation is X% cheaper than live action and can be profitable at X audience level" or "we have research that suggests Showtime can get X% more new subscribers with a Star Trek series."

When somebody puts thought into that end of things, then I'll have more confidence that they know what they're doing and that CBS might be interested in hearing what they have to say. They don't even need to tell us the details - that would be unwise, since it would mean telling the world - but some indication that they've thought about the problem would be nice.

 

[AviTrek]

There appears to be a groundswell of support for a new original universe TV show if the interview with Jack Trevino is to be believed :

http://trekweb.com/articles/2011/08...-Not-Yet-Been-Pitched-Officially-to-CBS.shtml

Wow, that description reads like the fanfics that get pitched here. I wish the guy a ton of luck, but I have to wonder why a production company would spend so much time/money on a project without at least feeling out CBS to find out if they will even listen.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Or even taking a stab at answering the question, "what kind of pitch would CBS buy?" Just start listing things, #1, #2, #3. You don't need inside info on CBS, just a general understanding of the TV business and CBS's place within it, to at least come up with a general picture.

It amazes me that people go into a business deal without apparently doing the most basic homework. Maybe they do, and they think we don't want to hear about that part? I'd find it more interesting than Klingons.