TV shows?

[Temis the Vorta]

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.

The real problem is convincing CBS to make a show for FOX. Also, just because of all the broadcast networks, FOX is the least bad option, doesn't mean any of them are good options.

As for FOX's reputed impatience for sci fi series, I think they've learned their lesson. And the Friday night death slot can be a good place for a sci fi show. Sure, ratings are lower, but expectations are also lower. They have to put something on Friday and if they expect ratings to suck, maybe they won't be so quick to cancel a low-rated show.

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.

That makes no sense. Why would Star Trek need to "vindicate" itself just because it's well known? It won't need to do any better or worse than Generic Space Opera - assuming either series were ever made.

Star Trek would be expected to perform in accordance with its budget, wherever it airs.

Budget is one factor. Others are: how well it holds the lead-in numbers, how well it does compared with the previous occupant of that time slot, and how well it does compared with the standards for wherever it is airing. Or to boil it down, it needs to get "good ratings," and to do that, it needs to attract the viewers of the channel where it is airing, since they will be the easiest to attract (after Trekkies, who don't need to be marketed to as much). Assuming its budget isn't through the roof, if it does as well as average for that channel, it should do okay.

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.

Premium cable is a different horse race than broadcast and basic cable because new subscribers matter in addition to Nielsens (and where are you getting the new subscribers figures from? Cable channels usually don't like to release those figures.)

I'd hate for Star Trek to be treated as shabbily as AMC is treating The Walking Dead. It's a ratings hit, but its budget is being given to that overrated bore-fest Mad Men. No wonder Darabont bailed on the whole thing.

 

[thumbtack]

That makes no sense. Why would Star Trek need to "vindicate" itself just because it's well known? It won't need to do any better or worse than Generic Space Opera - assuming either series were ever made.

Waitaminute. Fox airing a Trek show from CBS makes sense to you, but not this? We can't afford to lose you to the land of wishful thinking, too. You've always been the voice of reason in this forum. It's because Generic Space Opera can't get made that Trek will have to rebrand and prove it can be more.

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.

I'm told that Abrams has a small measure of experience, power and prestige within the television industry. It's his if he wants it, and I do believe this is the first time I have ever seen anyone attempt to portray tv as some sort of highbrow alternative to film.

Nothing throws me out of a movie more than those stupid easter eggs and references to previous events I haven't seen.

Me, too, and I actually get the references.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Fox airing a Trek show from CBS makes sense to you, but not this?

FOX airing a Trek show doesn't particularly make sense to me, either - CBS wouldn't sell the show to them, and FOX probably would realize that the odds are stacked against any space opera series surviving for long on broadcast.

It's because Generic Space Opera can't get made that Trek will have to rebrand and prove it can be more.

I don't think any space opera will be made for broadcast or can survive there. And both Star Trek and Generic Space Opera have their pluses and minuses.

For Star Trek, you have to go through CBS,where the institutional barriersare high, starting with the problem that they have no particular motivation to do anything with Star Trek. But Star Trek has a known brand name and the movies serve as proof that the brand is not irrelevant and dead. Generic Space Opera is an unproven quantity, but not every new show is a remake of a known brand name. And there's no institutional baggage to drag around. If the producers think HBO or FX are the best plac

So I'd call it a draw, really. No way to tell whether the next space opera made will be Star Trek, something brand new, or an adaptation of, say, a book series.

For instance, I've used Game of Thrones as an argument why Showtime might want to launch a Star Trek series. But it's also an argument why they'd go find some space opera book series that is equivalent to Game of Thrones - currently being published, best seller, loyal following - and adapt that instead. Or, they could do the same with a book series that's sf/f but not space opera. (True Blood is another example of this phenomenon.)

I do believe this is the first time I have ever seen anyone attempt to portray tv as some sort of highbrow alternative to film.

The serialized cable portion of TV overall is more highbrow than the summer blockbuster portion of movies. I definitely think of TV as smarter than movies nowadays, probably because I selectively edit out the stupid part of TV. But it's hard to ignore the stupid part of the movie biz.

EDIT: Looks like Showtime has its sf/f book adapation series now, from none other than Stephen King. And this just goes to show why space opera has it tough. It's out of favor in a larger genre where supernatural horror is in the ascendancy. This show sounds fun, but argh! a little variety would be nice.

Spielberg is involved, too. If only Spielberg and King would push space opera, maybe we could get someplace.

Under the Dome.

In one of Showtime’s most ambitious undertakings, the pay cable network is partnering with Steven Spielberg and Stephen King for Under the Dome, a drama series based on King’s 2009 novel, which will be produced by DreamWorks Television. The supernatural thriller revolves around locals at a Maine vacation spot who battle one another when a force field suddenly surrounds their town and cuts them off from the rest of the world.

 

[AviTrek]

Beat me to it with the Under the Dome news. I guess the real key to bringing Star Trek back to TV is getting Steven Spielberg interested. Too bad I don't see why he would pick Star Trek over a property he can have more freedom with.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'd bet CBS would give Spielberg all the freedom with Star Trek that he likes, especially if he continues to prove that he can make successful TV series just like he makes successful movies. Falling Skies was a strong start.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The biggest obstacle for any space opera, not just Star Trek, is the production cost. In spite of over forty years of learning how to build these sets faster and cheaper, they'll never be as fast and as cheap as a present day Earth setting, or something really close to a present day Earth setting. For that matter, even a sword & sorcery number like "Game of Thrones" has a lot of historical material to draw from.

Answer the question of how a Star Trek can be produced for something close to, say, an NCIS, and you'll have half the battle won right there.

You don't just need good ratings, you need ratings good enough to justify the cost of the show. And that's the bottom line no matter where it's aired.

 

[Harvey]

I doubt a new Star Trek series would be more expensive than Game of Thrones, which costs $4.5 million per episode. Farscape, which was quite expensive, cost $1-3 million per episode (ten years ago).

 

[AviTrek]

I doubt a new Star Trek series would be more expensive than Game of Thrones, which costs $4.5 million per episode. Farscape, which was quite expensive, cost $1-3 million per episode (ten years ago).

No one is ordering a new series for network or basic cable tv with a $4.5m budget. Only HBO can pull that off because of its subscription fees. But the way to do Star Trek cheaply is fairly obvious. Standing sets for the ship are no more expensive than standard standing sets, and the costs can be spread across the entire season/show. For alien worlds you just need to use the same pacific northwest forest every week. And of course use CGI sparingly.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Answer the question of how a Star Trek can be produced for something close to, say, an NCIS, and you'll have half the battle won right there.

Animation.

Or, offset the cost by spreading it around with international funding. Star Trek is a globally famous brand name that could travel well.

For alien worlds you just need to use the same pacific northwest forest every week.

Or just hang around LA, where there is a wide variety of "planet types" within easy driving distance. One week is pine trees, the next is desert, then ocean beach, then craggy mountains, then rolling green oak-covered hills. That won't feel too claustrophobic, will it? And it ain't Trek unless you see Vasquez Rocks every so often.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Animation brings us back to Fox, since they're the only network these days that is showing any sort of commitment to prime time animation.

 

[ColeMercury]

For alien worlds you just need to use the same pacific northwest forest every week.

Or just hang around LA, where there is a wide variety of "planet types" within easy driving distance. One week is pine trees, the next is desert, then ocean beach, then craggy mountains, then rolling green oak-covered hills. That won't feel too claustrophobic, will it? And it ain't Trek unless you see Vasquez Rocks every so often.

Hey, that's what the concept of "Class-M planets" was invented for!

 

[Trekker82]

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.

IMO, Star Trek has no business being in the R rated business. People want to change what Gene's vision of Trek and the future is and I believe putting it in an R rated situation would totally change Trek.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Personally, I'm cool with it.

 

[AviTrek]

Animation brings us back to Fox, since they're the only network these days that is showing any sort of commitment to prime time animation.

Nope, Fox is only doing animated comedies. The only network doing prime time animated dramas is Cartoon Network.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Animation brings us back to Fox, since they're the only network these days that is showing any sort of commitment to prime time animation.

The Cartoon Network would be a more natural fit. They have the successful example of The Clone Wars to draw on. If that will work as a series, Star Trek will too, and it's the only way to get the movie characters into a TV series, and really capitalize on the free PR that JJ Abrams is providing.

Stuff like building a series around John Cho is a half-measure. TOS is about the ensemble, not about any one character. I wouldn't even want Kirk or Spock to be in a series without the others, much less Sulu.

IMO, Star Trek has no business being in the R rated business.

Why? TOS had sex and violence. The only change is that maybe the sex would be more than just Kirk putting on his boots, and the violence would be more explicit as well. I can see explicit violence fitting with Star Trek - Starfleet's got a dangerous job - but the sex should stop well short of Showtime's soft-core-porn level, mainly because at this point, scenes like that are annoying and rarely add anything to the story. Yeah, you're cable, you can do that, we get it, it's not new and it's getting boring now.

For similar reasons, I wouldn't expect Star Trek characters to start swearing like sailors, because it's been established that swear words have died out of the culture along with TV and nationalities.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Again, a JJverse series means having to shell out money to Paramount, which is a completely unnecessary expense since CBS already owns Star Trek outright, so let's pop that bubble right off the bat.

 

[ColeMercury]

Again, a JJverse series means having to shell out money to Paramount

Are you sure about that? Like I've said before, as I understand it Paramount merely has the rights to make Star Trek movies -- not the rights to the entire JJverse.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Again, a JJverse series means having to shell out money to Paramount

Are you sure about that? Like I've said before, as I understand it Paramount merely has the rights to make Star Trek movies -- not the rights to the entire JJverse.

Yeah, CBS owns the JJverse as well--Star Trek XI is actually listed under properties that can be licensed from CBS.
http://cbs.promotionexpert.com/cbsconsumerproducts/startrek/star_trek_new_movie.html

Paramount pays CBS a licensing fee for the right to make Star Trek movies, but whether those movies are from the Prime universe or the JJverse is irrelevant as long as CBS gets paid.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah, CBS owns the JJverse as well--Star Trek XI is actually listed under properties that can be licensed from CBS.

Thanks. I believe we've been over this point at least once before, but memories are apparently short. Maybe your post needs to be stickied.

Interesting link. The About Us reveals which of its myriad brands CBS regards as the most worth promoting:

CBS Consumer Products manages worldwide licensing and merchandising for a diverse portfolio of 180+ series including primetime hits "CSI:", "90210" and "America's Next Top Model"; iconic series "I Love Lucy", "Cheers", "Happy Days", and "Twilight Zone"; the "Star Trek" franchise; and upcoming theatrical releases "Consent to Kill" and "Beastly".

The Star Trek franchise gets set off on its own, rather than being listed in the "iconic" group? Maybe that's a good thing, since "iconic" looks like a euphemism for "old and inactive."

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Given the company, I'd say it needs its breathing room. Those are all classic shows, no doubt -- dead, classic shows.