Jump to content

New Star Trek Series in 2017


Guest El Chalupacabra

Recommended Posts

 

 

The thing that gets me is that the Star Trek is so wide and diverse in its universe that they really could do anything— and yet because its base form was always people on a ship, they won’t break from it (DS9 didn’t break from it really, don’t try and say it did). Why not a Federation Spy show? Why not the Klingon show everyone has wanted for 30 years? Why not anAcademy show? There’s so many things they could do outside of a ship show.

 

It always seemed like there was about to be a Starfleet Academy or Klingon series throughout the 90s. Not to mention George Takei begging for an Excelsior series ever since The Undiscovered Country. Which, if they had to go back in time, probably would have been cooler than Enterprise.

 

Thing is, I think the core of the idea is to go out there and explore. To a certain degree, Trek can be too constrained by its previous lore. Goodness knows that Roddenberry himself imposed limits on early-TNG when he believed his own press and demanded humanity and the Federation be depicted as almost universally saintly. However, going out there and seeing what's in the next star system is where the series gets its strengths. DS9 was as far off that road as I'm willing to go.

 

For an anthology show to work, I'd prefer that it be a supplement to a series that was fulfilling the Enterprise's "boldly go" mission during a Renaissance for the franchise. On its own, I don't have much confidence. And even then I'd be dubious, anthology series are difficult and have a rather bad track record. I'd probably just do it halfway and take the aspects you want to explore and use the episodic format of a normal Star Trek series to run them down from time to time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Didn't Worf shred any chance he ever had at a promotion to captain when he saved Jadzia instead of completing his mission in that one episode?   I would like to see some sort of cap on DS9. It was a

Just a couple things to add to this--   1. TOS is a pop culture icon in a way the later series were not. I'm a TNG guy, and despite them popular enough to get 7 seasons and 4 movies, they never hit th

Too tired to post the casting links and latest news, but they are easily googled.   Anyway, bottom line is we have yet more delays, we have some decent actors that have been cast including the walking

Posted Images

 

  • The Bond franchise has 24 films over the last 56 years, with another coming out soon, but with two significant breaks in releases (6 years between License to Kill and Goldeneye, and 4 years between Die Another Day and Casino Royale), with 6 different actors playing the role, and has a box office of over $7 billion so far. Whenever the producers want to raise interest in Bond again, they just need to recast the role.
  • Doctor Who has 840 episodes spread out over 55 years, with a sixteen year hiatus broken by only one failed pilot/movie, not to mention two non-canonical feature films, and four spin-off TV series. Same as Bond, when the ratings flag, they can just regenerate the character.
  • M:I has 171 TV episodes released over 7 seasons and as a film franchise has 6 films released over the last 22 years, with a box office of over $2.8 billion so far.
  • Planet of the Apes has 5 films, a 14-episode TV show, and a further 4 films (one of them a failed reboot) with a box office of $2.1 billion.
  • Star Trek has 740 episodes so far, spread out over 7 different TV series and 52 years, and 13 films spread out over 37 years (with a 7 year break caused by a poor performance of Star Trek: Nemesis at the box office), with a film revenue of $2.2 billion.

When Trek needed a revival, the producers went back to the most popular and recognizable era of the franchise. It worked, too. Nemesis was so bad that it killed any interest for further TNG era films or television series. Trek may not be doing as well as you would like, and maybe nu-Trek won't get a fourth film, but it's still up there with the M:I and PotA film franchises financially, and people keep making those. More importantly to the show business people, Trek, and the TOS era specifically, is much bigger than either of those franchises in terms of popular culture while still being lucrative. Doctor Who is the only one that has comparable staying power and pop culture relevance, but DW isn't a film and TV franchise.

 

As for not "feeling like Trek", well, nothing has felt like Trek to me since "The Cage", so there. I'm purer than you. ;)

 

 

Great points.

 

Doctor Who--as you point out--was a cancelled series, suffered a failed TV movie, and finally had its NuWho revival, but for another member to suggest it is more popular than ST is an act of running fumes of desperation. Even after 13 years of NuWho, its not the kind of property with a widespread cultural awareness of ST's level. Some might be fooled by series (e.g., The Big Bang Theory) that Daleks and the TARDIS are commonplace references, but they're not. I seriously doubt the average person on the street could identify a series-related photo of Tom Baker, David Tennant, a Dalek or The Master, but history has been settled on how recognizable TOS characters/actors are to non-Trekkers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. No fanbase alone makes a home video release the major success TOS was.

 

You obviously have no clue what the VHS release market was like in the 80s.

 

 

 

A franchise cannot become a multigenerational hit with fans that age-out and only relies on some mythincal young-only audience.

 

Sentence made no sense.

 

 

 

The three JJTrek films earned over a billion worldwide. That was only going to happen with the appeal of the franchise's most popular characters, all from TOS.

 

As mentioned, the Trek films are box office "meh". Even the first two only did modestly well when put against their budgets.

 

 

 

Again, there's a reason TOS has always left its Berman spinoffs in the cultural dust

 

That's your personal bias making an overstatement.

 

 

 

Doctor Who--as you point out--was a cancelled series, suffered a failed TV movie, and finally had its NuWho revival, but for another member to suggest it is more popular than ST is an act of running fumes of desperation.

 

At the moment it's not even close. Doctor Who is much more popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. No fanbase alone makes a home video release the major success TOS was.

 

You obviously have no clue what the VHS release market was like in the 80s.

 

 

 

A franchise cannot become a multigenerational hit with fans that age-out and only relies on some mythincal young-only audience.

 

Sentence made no sense.

 

 

 

The three JJTrek films earned over a billion worldwide. That was only going to happen with the appeal of the franchise's most popular characters, all from TOS.

 

As mentioned, the Trek films are box office "meh". Even the first two only did modestly well when put against their budgets.

 

 

 

Again, there's a reason TOS has always left its Berman spinoffs in the cultural dust

 

That's your personal bias making an overstatement.

 

 

 

Doctor Who--as you point out--was a cancelled series, suffered a failed TV movie, and finally had its NuWho revival, but for another member to suggest it is more popular than ST is an act of running fumes of desperation.

 

At the moment it's not even close. Doctor Who is much more popular.

 

1. I see you're back basing conclusions on nothing. Aside from general knowledge that it was more than a single fanbase making TOS a home video success, one can also reference period articles from Variety, Video Review and other publications which covered TOS' widespread popularity.

 

2. What lacks sense is the idea that a franchise has a fanbase that ages out and/or does not continue even as younger viewers become fans of the franchise. There's no evidence to support the BS you're posting.

 

3. The three TOS-based JJ films earning over a billion is what counts, which flushes your entire anti-TOS rants down the toilet. Meanwhile, four TNG films--this allegedly great end of the franchise with the audience you claim should be catered to--failed to even reach half of that number.

 

4. There's no bias in "Again, there's a reason TOS has always left its Berman spinoffs in the cultural dust", as it is fact. What large number is begging for Berman-Trek to return? Yeah, crickets.

 

Unless you can produce the evidence proving Berman-Trek is matching or surpassing the cultural importance/popularity of TOS, I will just write off your reply as the product of denial, but the fact that TNG's best known characters cannot even make TIME's list of the most influential characters. Guess they sort of faded away.

 

5. Again, where is the evidence to say Doctor Who is more popular? Over five decades later, and its still a largely niche production, and not ingrained in the popular culture/awareness of the average person (especially in the United States), otherwise, I'm sure you would have provided something--anything to support that claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I see you're back basing conclusions on nothing. Aside from general knowledge that it was more than a single fanbase making TOS a home video success, one can also reference period articles from Variety, Video Review and other publications which covered TOS' widespread popularity.

 

Go ahead and post an article stating that the VHS sales reached beyond the fanbase then.

 

You're trying to shift the discussion to general popularity. It won't work.

 

 

 

2. What lacks sense is the idea that a franchise has a fanbase that ages out and/or does not continue even as younger viewers become fans of the franchise. There's no evidence to support the BS you're posting.

 

No evidence that people age, lose interest in things that they were drawn to in their youth and, y'know, die after 50 years? That what's popular in one generation might not be as popular in the next?

 

These simple concepts lack sense to you?

 

 

 

3. The three TOS-based JJ films earning over a billion is what counts,

 

$1.2 billion on a $525 million budget pre-marketing makes for a series that is barely making any money at all (rule of thumb, movies have to make twice their budget to become profitable).

 

These are not good figures. If Paramount had been handed these figures in 2007 as their guaranteed return on investment, I will go ahead and state that they would have cancelled the project.

 

 

 

which flushes your entire anti-TOS rants down the toilet.

 

I don't believe I've said a single negative thing about TOS in this entire thread, much less a rant. Feel free to quote something.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, four TNG films--this allegedly great end of the franchise with the audience you claim should be catered to--failed to even reach half of that number.

 

I would point out that Generations and First Contact both did considerably better than The Final Frontier and the much heralded send off of the original crew in The Undiscovered Country. Insurrection also did almost as well as Undiscovered Country and considerably better than The Final Frontier. Considering these movies were in the same general timeframe, that would seem to indicate that, at least for a time, TNG outstripped TOS in popularity during what can probably be considered Star Trek's most widespread cultural acceptance.

 

And before you point out that Shatner was (barely) in Generations, First Contact did better than it.

 

I don't believe comparing it to some action films that have little resemblance to Trek at all and were built for wide audiences, not fans, has any particular relevance one way or another.

 

 

 

4. There's no bias in "Again, there's a reason TOS has always left its Berman spinoffs in the cultural dust", as it is fact.

 

You don't appear to know the difference between a fact and your own bias.

 

 

 

Unless you can produce the evidence proving Berman-Trek is matching or surpassing the cultural importance/popularity of TOS, I will just write off your reply as the product of denial,

 

See above. When both were running, at a time when Star Trek was at its culturally accepted peak TNG outstripped TOS's movies. Through the 00s I certainly saw more TNG references in popular culture than TOS references.

 

Cultural importance is a different matter entirely than popularity. Frankly, I agree that TOS is more culturally important. But its cultural importance is from a different time. Roots is more culturally important than The Bachelor, but it doesn't make it more popular right now.

 

The whole idea that you seem to have missed was that I said post-TNG made a more logical place to jump off from for a legit Star Trek return (not Abrams' nonsense) because the fans who grew to age in the 90s were in prime nostalgia age.

 

What's happened is that you've taken that as an opportunity to go on your tired rants against Berman. Let it go dude. Berman's not coming back either way.

 

 

 

but the fact that TNG's best known characters cannot even make TIME's list of the most influential characters. Guess they sort of faded away.

 

This is why talking to you is so tedious. So what about a list? The internet and magazines are full of them. Hey check it out, I can find a random list from some guy that says the opposite. Guess what? They're both opinions. They don't matter. What's next? Finding some countdown on YouTube and referencing it for each post?

 

It's not even relevant to what I was saying in the first place.

 

 

 

5. Again, where is the evidence to say Doctor Who is more popular?

 

The fact that it's actually been able to support a massively popular television series that's the centerpiece for an entire major nation's programming and served as a basis for a cross-cultural echange from the UK to the United States for several other popular UK series over the past dozen years while the other has been off the air for one.

 

That Doctor Who is succeeding while being a faithful update to its origins and didn't feel the need to totally get rid of the entire original concept while Trek is flailing as it sells out in favor of 'splosions to get butts in seats would be another.

 

Oh, and the cultural references on The Big Bang Theory and such that you don't believe matter. I've also walked around in the world and y'know, actually talked to people, seen the t-shirts, noticed the drawings, been shown the tattoos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. Go ahead and post an article stating that the VHS sales reached beyond the fanbase then. You're trying to shift the discussion to general popularity. It won't work.


Lies never help your rickety, pro-Berman Trek campaign of one. I've always maintained TOS' popularity was based on more than Trekkers. No studio was going to invest money into a new film series (starting with TMP), or transfer/market a TV series for home vide based on some small number of fans. Your entire position is not based on business practices, but some irrational hatred of the franchise's most significant chapter. I've cited the sources, but its not my responsibility to hold your hand to said source, particularly since you do not want to accept anything other than your hollow conclusion that Berman Trek actually matters to studios and the global audience it intends to reach.

Call me when CBS/Paramount spends a dime on constantly repackaging TNG-ENT anywhere near that of TOS, or base new movies and TV series on Berman Trek.

Yes, the announcement of CBS/Paramount going back to Berman Trek has been and continues to be a crickets chirping affair.

 

No evidence that people age, lose interest in things that they were drawn to in their youth and, y'know, die after 50 years? That what's popular in one generation might not be as popular in the next?These simple concepts lack sense to you?



Where is your evidence to support your blanket aging out fanbase fantasy? Evidence, not your "because I say so" nonsense. Actual references. I'll will even go easy on you and allow you to just name the source. I'm guessing that's not going to happen.

Your fantasies have you constantly running head-first into the brick wall that is fact: while you're the only one claiming CBS/Paramount should cater to this younger Berman-Trek fanbase instead of the TOS end, CBS/Paramount is well aware of the global interest in their property, and creating TOS/TOS-related productions catering to that interest, which spans generations. Oh, but wait--if anyone buys your argument that the target audience is this younger, Berman-Trek group (which--by your claim would mean CBS/Paramount would not consistently base new productions on TOS) why is there zero interest in Berman Trek?

If ST's fanbase / nostalgia skews toward this imaginary younger, Berman Trek-loving demographic, what prevented CBS/Paramount from ordering JJ-Trek and Discovery to be based on/inspired by Berman Trek? The reason is obvious: the ST audience includes innumerable members of older generations, who were and remain fans of TOS, hence the company's production decisions.

They know the audience & the numbers. It is clear you do not.


 

I would point out that Generations


....the film that needed Shatner as Kirk (along with Scotty & Chekov cameos) as the magnet to get anyone care about a TNG movie. Without Shatner's participation, TNG films would have died on the first try. By the time Nemesis was released, whatever part of the public still cared had been reduced to such low numbers that Nemesis is the lowest grossing film of the entire ST franchise. That was a case of only diehards paying to see that garbage, instead of the general audience that supported TOS for decades.

TNG was the final nail in the Berman Trek coffin.


 

certainly saw more TNG references in popular culture than TOS references.


Where? List the sources--the numbers.

 

Frankly, I agree that TOS is more culturally important. But its cultural importance is from a different time. Roots is more culturally important than The Bachelor, but it doesn't make it more popular right now.


Poor comparison, as the point of Roots (and its spin-offs) was not to connect with audiences based on relevant commentary on the times they lived in, or thought they would in the future. That's the constant, global appeal of TOS--speculative dramas about now and tomorrow (in a way obviously unmatched by Berman Trek), hence the oft-repeated reason why TPTB adapt or are inspired by TOS, over and over again.


 

The whole idea that you seem to have missed was that I said post-TNG made a more logical place to jump off from for a legit Star Trek return (not Abrams' nonsense) because the fans who grew to age in the 90s were in prime nostalgia age.


The point you continue to sidestep was covered earlier: If ST's fanbase / nostalgia skews toward this imaginary younger, Berman Trek-loving demographic, what prevented CBS/Paramount from ordering JJ-Trek and Discovery to be based on/inspired by Berman Trek? The reason is obvious: the ST audience includes innumerable members of older generations, who were and remain fans of TOS, hence the company's production decisions.

 

The fact that it's actually been able to support a massively popular television series that's the centerpiece for an entire major nation's programming and served as a basis for a cross-cultural echange from the UK to the United States for several other popular UK series over the past dozen years while the other has been off the air for one.


The implications of your "cross cultural exchange" notion exist...where? The average American viewer is not watching/following Doctor Who, otherwise, you would have provided the numbers to back that claim up. In the U.S., its is still a niche production that has not generated a franchise in the way of TOS--a series so valuable to Paramount that post 1960s, it was first resurrected as an animated series, then as the lead series for their proposed fourth network, then one of the major productions of their movie division....
...and in the 21st century, a successful trilogy of films and a new TV series continuing that TOS interest.

To this day, NuWho has not moved beyond TV (nor is there a great demand for it), and is arguably more divisive to followers than any other current fantasy franchise, as there are fans of the original series who cannot stand NuWho, while there are some among the NuWho base finding themselves in a culture war based on rejection (or support) of the forthcoming female Doctor, and complaints that the series had become increasingly politicized (in the SJW direction) since the Tennant days, including the creation of Torchwood. That kind of schism in the fanbase cannot be ignored, and points to one of many reasons why NuWho is not the sweeping, cultural juggernaut implied in your statement.

 

Oh, and the cultural references on The Big Bang Theory and such that you don't believe matter. I've also walked around in the world and y'know, actually talked to people, seen the t-shirts, noticed the drawings, been shown the tattoos.


Evidence required. "because I say so" does not cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Where is your evidence to support your blanket aging out fanbase fantasy?

 

:rolleyes:

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

 

 

 

Without Shatner's participation, TNG films would have died on the first try.

 

:spit:

 

 

The point you continue to sidestep was covered earlier: If ST's fanbase / nostalgia skews toward this imaginary younger, Berman Trek-loving demographic, what prevented CBS/Paramount from ordering JJ-Trek and Discovery to be based on/inspired by Berman Trek?

 

Nothing. They made a mistake. Happens all the time in Hollywood. That was my original point, and it remains my original point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a mistake! So, are the Hollywood powers-that-be too proud to admit it, do you suppose? If there were even more money to be made from TNG-era Trek, why wouldn't they pursue it?

No clue. They didn't invite me to the meeting.

 

Do I seriously need to justify that the Hollywood powers-that-be are not infallible?

 

 

 

Mistake = a reboot

 

Pretty much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was a mistake! So, are the Hollywood powers-that-be too proud to admit it, do you suppose? If there were even more money to be made from TNG-era Trek, why wouldn't they pursue it?

No clue. They didn't invite me to the meeting.

 

Do I seriously need to justify that the Hollywood powers-that-be are not infallible?

 

 

 

No, you don't have to justify that Hollywood producers are infallible. Tanks posts here, and we know he's almost but not quite infallible. But you do have to justify that you are less infallible than they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing. They made a mistake. Happens all the time in Hollywood. That was my original point, and it remains my original point.

 

 

Your original point was:

 

 

 

Any lingering nostalgia will be directed at the TNG crew that the people in their 30s and 40s grew up on, and even that group is getting a little old.

 

..which is based on a false, evidence-free premise, as its not happening after the JJ-Trek films, and now Discovery. CBS/Paramount know the interests of the global Star Trek audience, and that audience is not asking for ST to be based on the Berman era. Whatever level of popular culture it occupied continues to be dwarfed by all things TOS related (as always). So, when producing for competitive markets like TV & movies, the last thing any sane studio would do is greenlight any new productions on something no one is asking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes. You hate Berman and think everyone agrees with you that it makes all of that era forgotten and/or hated. Studio execs would never make a mistake in handling a big franchise when it agrees with your world view. We got it. Let it go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest El Chalupacabra

Stop Ruining Trek! :-x

Unfortunately, it has been ruined since TATV!

In other news... Pike has been cast for season 2, pretty much comfirming what we expected— the JJ films are no longer canon.

Typo? Did you mean TOS-ENT?

 

JJ films were always in their own box. But then again maybe Discovery is, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

They're all in their own box. :shrug: Every season of every Trek show can be "in their own box".

 

Not sure what you mean there. Not really, when you think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...