J
Jetfire
Guest
CW.
TV shows?
- Thread starter starlitegirl
- Start date
CW.
"Oy. Again with the Klingons...
Scotty, give me full power."
== "It's no use Captain. Aye canna reach the control panel!"
Scotty, give me full power."
== "It's no use Captain. Aye canna reach the control panel!"
CW.
Just a younger cast isn't enough to get the show on the CW. Where are the sexy teen vampires? Where are the love triangles?
This concept needs work.
Shame there's nothing resembling goodwill around for a TNG reunion TVM. Or even some assemblage of familiar Prime Universe faces in an "Undiscovered Country" style send-off. What with it being almost 25 years since Star Trek returned to television and all. Less popular properties than Star Trek have been allowed such treatment. It's not the grande reinvention, sure enough. But then that's J.J. Abrams' area right now.
I'd take a one-off chance to revisit old friends, even if some turn down the party invitation, over a such a series proposal like this.
Doctor Who tended to get away with a slight return or two, when it came to celebrating landmarks. Even during the years between its cancellation and revival. There were at least a couple big televised celebrations, with former stars coming together in character, or as themselves. Even when there wasn't exactly much to actually look forward to...
I'd take a one-off chance to revisit old friends, even if some turn down the party invitation, over a such a series proposal like this.
Doctor Who tended to get away with a slight return or two, when it came to celebrating landmarks. Even during the years between its cancellation and revival. There were at least a couple big televised celebrations, with former stars coming together in character, or as themselves. Even when there wasn't exactly much to actually look forward to...
Last edited:
Oh so we are off on another tangent on defending 2009 yet again... nice try but I was talking about those who watch and have watched Star Trek. trying to subjugate your reasoning to say they are non-viewers
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.
Also if you call this shoot 'em up popcorn druck as a Trek film....
Okay let's try this a different way. Come up with a convincing argument that a TV series that caters specifically to those who disliked Abrams movie will a) be a financial success and b) meet the approval of CBS so that it can get made in the first place.
C
Christian123
Guest
Hi all,
i like the t.v shows most,
and the posts are very nice and amazing,
so please keep sharing guys....
i like the t.v shows most,
and the posts are very nice and amazing,
so please keep sharing guys....
<crickets>
Okay, turn it around. A new TV show that caters specifically to fans of the Abrams universe. Realistically, the hard core Star Trek fans are going to watch any Star Trek that makes it on to the air for the first season, but being in whichever universe they prefer will keep them pass the first season. General science fiction fans will explore the new show, without too much caring which universe it's set in, they'll just know it's Star Trek. Back to superior scripts there. Non-scifi viewers, likely to be the bulk of the new shows audience, mostly also won't care which universe it's set in, they'll just know it's Star Trek.
So by setting it in the Abrams universe, who do you figure you're going to get, that you wouldn't otherwise?
Any Star Trek series is going to be advantaged by the last movie, and the next one, regardless of which universe (original or alternate) in which the new series is set. So that's not really a factor.
So which sub-group of likely viewers is larger. All other things being equal. The one who will stick with a original universe (solely for that reason), or those who will stick with a Abrams universe (solely for that reason).
How many Abrams onlies, will grit their teeth and watch a prime universe ST series, if it's good prime universe?
Do the true Abrams fans really bring that many exclusive viewers to the table?
T'Girl, here's how I see it: a series set in the Abramsverse could help attract people who are sitting on the fence about whether they should bother watching if it's tied into the movies in some way. Not too much -- just enough to encourage a sort of "Ooh, I wonder what happens next?" sort of thing instead of "Oh, it's yet another goddamn Star Trek series, why should I bother?"
This is the big lie that the canon people keep repeating. That all of us new people won't mind being subjected to all that canon, so it should be brought back. It is absolutely untrue. Star Trek should be for everybody. Nothing throws me out of a movie more than those stupid easter eggs and references to previous events I haven't seen.
The other thing they always dismiss is that Abrams removed the nerd stigma from Star Trek. People who wouldn't be caught dead watching Star Trek went to see his movie. Especially girls, who don't give a sh$t about canon. If a new series announced that Star Trek was just for nerds again and here's all your beloved canon again, I know for sure the reaction would not be "That's okay. I don't care."
The number of people who liked Trek XI - as defined by the people who paid to go see it - vastly exceeds the few who were offended by it and who loathe it with a fiery passion. But the number of people who are even aware there is a difference between Abrams' version of Trek and what came before are just a small minority compared with the vast number of people who watched the movie, liked it, forgot about it, but might be willing to see a TV series in the same vein if they see an ad for it. Those folks don't know what the fuck "canon" is, much less care about any issues related to it.
My point is, quibbles over the movie have no bearing on any prospective TV show. Anyone who wants to provide a convincing argument why such quibbles matter, please do so.
The number of people for whom such things matter is trivial, and won't make any difference one way or other when it comes to the Nielsens.
Instead, here's what a new show needs to do: attract the viewers of whatever channel it is aired on. If it's Showtime, it needs to be accepted by Showtime viewers. If CW, then those viewers count. FX, TNT, AMC, etc.
Still-contented Trekkies will watch either way, and ex-Trekkies who have fled the coop because of JJ Abrams aren't numerous enough to matter. So both groups can be safely ignored.
But Showtime is going to advertise the show to its existing audience, so the show better be something they're willing to check out. Ditto for all the other channels.
Which is why it's an exercise in futility to try to describe what the show will be until you know where it is being shown. And the stuff people are debating, such as "which reality it is in" or whether it should have Klingons are not the things that will make the series a success. What will make it a success is if it's Star Trek in the Showtime style on Showtime; Star Trek in the CW style on CW; etc.
Think of it this way: Trek XI was in essence, Star Trek in the summer blockbuster movie style. Abrams succeeded because he adapted Star Trek to its environment: the summer blockbuster movie. On TV, Star Trek must similarly be adapted to its environment, but unlike movies, TV has many distinct ecosystems, each with its own demands.
My point is, quibbles over the movie have no bearing on any prospective TV show. Anyone who wants to provide a convincing argument why such quibbles matter, please do so.
By not setting it in the Abrams universe, how many people are you going to get who could even tell the difference?
The number of people for whom such things matter is trivial, and won't make any difference one way or other when it comes to the Nielsens.
Instead, here's what a new show needs to do: attract the viewers of whatever channel it is aired on. If it's Showtime, it needs to be accepted by Showtime viewers. If CW, then those viewers count. FX, TNT, AMC, etc.
Still-contented Trekkies will watch either way, and ex-Trekkies who have fled the coop because of JJ Abrams aren't numerous enough to matter. So both groups can be safely ignored.
But Showtime is going to advertise the show to its existing audience, so the show better be something they're willing to check out. Ditto for all the other channels.
Which is why it's an exercise in futility to try to describe what the show will be until you know where it is being shown. And the stuff people are debating, such as "which reality it is in" or whether it should have Klingons are not the things that will make the series a success. What will make it a success is if it's Star Trek in the Showtime style on Showtime; Star Trek in the CW style on CW; etc.
Think of it this way: Trek XI was in essence, Star Trek in the summer blockbuster movie style. Abrams succeeded because he adapted Star Trek to its environment: the summer blockbuster movie. On TV, Star Trek must similarly be adapted to its environment, but unlike movies, TV has many distinct ecosystems, each with its own demands.
Last edited:
Chief among those demands is the need to get folks to tune in next week, and while JJ's approach, i.e., blow up everything in sight, shaky camera, lens flares, fist fights, inappropriate romantic interludes, work just dandy for the disposable blockbuster movie, for a weekly series, you need to lower the megawatts a bit and actually tell a compelling story, not just fill the screen with pretty explosions.
Actually listening to the science adviser would probably help, too.
Actually listening to the science adviser would probably help, too.
That's part of my point - that summer blockbuster movies are an "ecosystem" (that involves explosions, lens flares et al) but that TV's "ecosystems" are very different, and there are several, not just one, like is the case with big-budget movies.
But "listening to the science adviser" isn't an essential part of any ecosystem.
Not entirely. A high-profile, high-risk project (as attempting Trek on tv again would surely be) is expected to vindicate itself with a measurable increase in viewership.
HBO are happy with Game of Thrones because subscriptions went up. AMC are happy with Walking Dead because of a colossal increase in ratings as compared to their usual fare.
Star Trek would be expected to perform in accordance with its budget, wherever it airs.
At this point, a Star Trek series, made as close to the original concepts as current trends and tastes allow, would probably work best on Fox.
Problem: Fox has no patience with struggling shows, so part of any deal would have to include a guarantee for a full season, maybe two, and a timeslot early in the week. Maybe not Mondays at 8, but anywhere but that Friday night death slot.
Problem: Fox has no patience with struggling shows, so part of any deal would have to include a guarantee for a full season, maybe two, and a timeslot early in the week. Maybe not Mondays at 8, but anywhere but that Friday night death slot.
Sorry, but Fox has shown a ton of patience recently. Blame Fox all you want for quick hooks a decade ago, but they gave Sarah Connor and Dollhouse second seasons when they didn't deserve it, and Fringe got a 4th season it barely deserved. Also, you can call Friday night the death slot, but I'll call it the slot where shows with lower maximum ratings potential are given a chance to earn "good enough" ratings to hang on. Star Trek is not going to get the 10m it would need to survive on Fox Mon-Thur, but if it earns 4m-5m on Friday night it would do fine.
Regardless, as has been discussed to death, CBS will not sell a Star Trek show to Fox. The options are a CBS owned network or a neutral cable channel.
Similar threads
