Sign in to follow this  
GustavoLeao

Bakula says its not the time for a New Trek Series

Recommended Posts

He has a point (and I agree) that a new ST series shouldn't begin until the current cycle of movies is over.

There'd be too much expectation of a concurrent TV series to be every bit as 'epic' and spectacle-laden as the BR movies, and that's just not possible on a TV budget. TV is a better forum for telling more intimate, character-driven stories (you remember? The kind ST used to tell...). But until the BR movies have finished, it's not a good idea. But ST fans take heart (as I do) in the fact that the fan films are living long and prospering. For me, they make for some terrific Star Trek and I'd be OK if they were the only act in town for awhile.

If and when (more when than if I think) ST makes the jump back to TV, it should be when they have a well-thought out concept and challenging new characters in mind.

It shouldn't be some s#!tty rush job just to meet an anniversary date....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

All these guys have no actual insight, they have no connection whatsoever with the current production offices, so while I see what Bakula is saying, he is just saying as if any of us were saying it, pure speculation.

Paramount and CBS need to get with the times and realize a new show could work just fine with a movie series. Not only has Trek done it before, but it also hasn't hurt the box office for Marvel at all (they have three series and counting), and I doubt that Arrow and The Flash or Gotham are going to effect Batman v Superman's box office in the slightest. A new Trek series on TV would likely not stop anyone from going to see the movie, it will only get more people regularly interested in the franchise, and possibly grab more people for the event movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these guys have no actual insight, they have no connection whatsoever with the current production offices, so while I see what Bakula is saying, he is just saying as if any of us were saying it, pure speculation.

Paramount and CBS need to get with the times and realize a new show could work just fine with a movie series. Not only has Trek done it before, but it also hasn't hurt the box office for Marvel at all (they have three series and counting), and I doubt that Arrow and The Flash or Gotham are going to effect Batman v Superman's box office in the slightest. A new Trek series on TV would likely not stop anyone from going to see the movie, it will only get more people regularly interested in the franchise, and possibly grab more people for the event movie.

But the problem is with the expectation; the original TOS/TNG movies were much smaller affairs logistically than the current BR movies.

I think a lot of the newer fans of BR Star Trek (and yes, for better or worse, the BR movies have their own fan base as well) would expect that level of bang for the buck that the movies deliver.

In the '80s and '90s the movies and TV episodes of ST were easily produced side-by-side (and often used each others' sets, costumes and props as well), but I just don't see that kind of easy, lower-production cost crossover happening with a new TV show and the BR movies. It would have to be clearly understood that the TV series would NOT be aiming for the kind of big screen sensory assault of the movies, and I think that might disappoint a lot of the newer fans who only came onboard with the new films...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, the Bad Robot movies, for what they are, kinda saved the franchise.

Even the great Leonard Nimoy said this in this EPIX video, one of his last interviews, in which he talks about the movies, from THE MOTION PICTURE to the JJ Abrams movies.

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Again look at the Marvel TV series, they seem to do well in spite of the big budget movies, they are smaller in scale, but they still draw an audience. I personally got boted with Agents of SHIELD. A few episodes into Season 2 and gave up, but Daredevil has done quite well on Netflix. I've not yet checked out Daredevil or Agent Carter, not sure that I will...but they seem to please fans of the rather big budget sensory overload movies that preceded them, in spite of smaller budgets and smaller scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again look at the Marvel TV series, they seem to do well in spite of the big budget movies, they are smaller in scale, but they still draw an audience. I personally got boted with Agents of SHIELD. A few episodes into Season 2 and gave up, but Daredevil has done quite well on Netflix. I've not yet checked out Daredevil or Agent Carter, not sure that I will...but they seem to please fans of the rather big budget sensory overload movies that preceded them, in spite of smaller budgets and smaller scales.

I gave up on AoS in S1 and I don't regret it.

For me, it made the exact sort of mistake that I'm afraid a new ST series would at this time; relying too heavily on crossover mojo with the movies to keep it from cancelation longer than it should. That is exactly what would happen to a new ST series right now if it tried to duplicate that particular pattern. Yes, Daredevil is a good example, and Agent Carter is an even better one IMO but I don't see ST going that way; or at least, not under the current management. If BR were to produce a ST series now? It'd be a Frankenstein-monster....

Again, I say forget crossovers or trying to ride the BR coattails. Goodness knows I want ST back on TV, but for the right reasons. ST should come back to the air when it has something new and relevant to say, when it assembles a good stable of writers and producers, and (most importantly) when it's good and ready. Treat her like a lady.... and don't rush her. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

I don't want it to be rushed and I wouldn't want it created by the BR team or really have any crossover potential with the movies, but you can't say that a series wouldn't work at the same time as the movies, thats just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally thought Agent Carter was absolutely boring. I watched it all as a means to an end, but it just never left me wanting more in any shape of form. Way too much hype in my opinion.

AoS, I do rather like. They are both pretty similar in terms of viewership figures, so they are either both doing something right....or both doing it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were talking about Star Trek and Scott Bakula's comments...?

I can imagine this kind of conversation going on around the boardroom table at Paramount.

"Those jerks over at CBS want to do a low budget Star Trek TV show - and they're asking if they can use our sets if they tie it in to our movies! Snicker-snicker."

Etc.

A lot of us want an intelligent new version of Star Trek for TV, but while the possibility of it making phat profits on the big screen exists, it's safe to continue with that perception of it. I'd like to think a movie series and a TV show could co-exist - and should - but knowing how the minds of execs sometimes operate, well, they'll always take the secure option. Bakula's got a point.

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of us want an intelligent new version of Star Trek for TV, but while the possibility of it making phat profits on the big screen exists, it's safe to continue with that perception of it. I'd like to think a movie series and a TV show could co-exist - and should - but knowing how the minds of execs sometimes operate, well, they'll always take the secure option.

Bakula's got a point.

His former science officer has two of them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have to wait until Abramsverse is done for a t.v. show Trek, that is just one more reason I hope part 3 is the final one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of us want an intelligent new version of Star Trek for TV, but while the possibility of it making phat profits on the big screen exists, it's safe to continue with that perception of it. I'd like to think a movie series and a TV show could co-exist - and should - but knowing how the minds of execs sometimes operate, well, they'll always take the secure option.

Bakula's got a point.

His former science officer has two of them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

facepalm_zpsizuqc9vl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

IT'S DEAD JIM! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Star Trek on TV is dead. I don't think it will ever return. While we all love it the teenagers I teach are more into Avengers and Doctor Who than Trek. In fact I can't think of a single one who watches it among all 6 classes. Better hope the blockbuster movies continue because that is all you are going to get and when they are gone..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

Maybe there is a misguided belief that if they keep Star Trek off TV, that somehow that will build demand for the movie series. I think the opposite is true though, if they rely on just the movie series the brand will continue to fade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of us want an intelligent new version of Star Trek for TV, but while the possibility of it making phat profits on the big screen exists, it's safe to continue with that perception of it. I'd like to think a movie series and a TV show could co-exist - and should - but knowing how the minds of execs sometimes operate, well, they'll always take the secure option.

Bakula's got a point.

His former science officer has two of them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

facepalm_zpsizuqc9vl.jpg

Shirley-Temple-Laughing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT'S DEAD JIM! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Star Trek on TV is dead. I don't think it will ever return. While we all love it the teenagers I teach are more into Avengers and Doctor Who than Trek. In fact I can't think of a single one who watches it among all 6 classes. Better hope the blockbuster movies continue because that is all you are going to get and when they are gone..........

I don't think that is necessarily true. There have been worse shows resurrected on t.v. Trek can come back to that medium. The fact that Frakes, Bakula, and others are constantly asked when it will come back on t.v. is proof there is a demand for it.

Maybe there is a misguided belief that if they keep Star Trek off TV, that somehow that will build demand for the movie series. I think the opposite is true though, if they rely on just the movie series the brand will continue to fade.

God...I have a bad feeling that may be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT'S DEAD JIM! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Star Trek on TV is dead. I don't think it will ever return. While we all love it the teenagers I teach are more into Avengers and Doctor Who than Trek. In fact I can't think of a single one who watches it among all 6 classes. Better hope the blockbuster movies continue because that is all you are going to get and when they are gone..........

I don't think that is necessarily true. There have been worse shows resurrected on t.v. Trek can come back to that medium. The fact that Frakes, Bakula, and others are constantly asked when it will come back on t.v. is proof there is a demand for it.

I'm of a much more optimistic bent on this issue; to me, ST's eventual return to television (the medium that spawned it) is more a matter of 'when' than 'if.'

ST, in one medium or another, has been on the air since the end of the original series in the '60s. In the '70s, we had two years of TAS (and it counts, dammit!) and in the '80s we had TNG, than in the '90s DS9 and VGR and finally ENT in the 2000s. It would genuinely surprise me if there wasn't a new ST series of some kind on the air before the end of this decade.

It's inevitable; Star Trek will return, and my guess it'll happen after the BR movies have run their course. But Bakula has a point that it probably wouldn't happen while they can still maximize profits from the movies; having one bar open in town vs. two makes one very rich bartender is their thinking, I guess (even if I don't share it).

But I sincerely doubt that ST's return to television will have the same kind of synergy with the BR movies that the Berman-era series had with the movies of that time. The BR guys don't seem to have that kind of vision or long-range planning (or they would've already had a series ready to go in time for the anniversary next year...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

IT'S DEAD JIM! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Star Trek on TV is dead. I don't think it will ever return. While we all love it the teenagers I teach are more into Avengers and Doctor Who than Trek. In fact I can't think of a single one who watches it among all 6 classes. Better hope the blockbuster movies continue because that is all you are going to get and when they are gone..........

I don't think that is necessarily true. There have been worse shows resurrected on t.v. Trek can come back to that medium. The fact that Frakes, Bakula, and others are constantly asked when it will come back on t.v. is proof there is a demand for it.

I'm of a much more optimistic bent on this issue; to me, ST's eventual return to television (the medium that spawned it) is more a matter of 'when' than 'if.'

ST, in one medium or another, has been on the air since the end of the original series in the '60s. In the '70s, we had two years of TAS (and it counts, dammit!) and in the '80s we had TNG, than in the '90s DS9 and VGR and finally ENT in the 2000s. It would genuinely surprise me if there wasn't a new ST series of some kind on the air before the end of this decade.

It's inevitable; Star Trek will return, and my guess it'll happen after the BR movies have run their course. But Bakula has a point that it probably wouldn't happen while they can still maximize profits from the movies; having one bar open in town vs. two makes one very rich bartender is their thinking, I guess (even if I don't share it).

But I sincerely doubt that ST's return to television will have the same kind of synergy with the BR movies that the Berman-era series had with the movies of that time. The BR guys don't seem to have that kind of vision or long-range planning (or they would've already had a series ready to go in time for the anniversary next year...).

I hope you and the Founder are right. But I also believe like some of you the BR movies may keep it off the air. So now the conundrum - do we want the movies to continue or them stop on the belief (hope?) that a series will then appear?

I also wonder in what vein the show will be affected by the movies. They obvious can't have the special effects or cast of the movies (cost prohibitive). So do they recast a third time for a TOS series or go with a new ship and crew? Do they go forward (ENT F) or backwards (ENT B)? Is it aimed at real sci-fi or action/adventure or the even worse possibility - 90210 in space?

Is it episodic or arc driven? Is it ship based or some other venue?

IF they do a show I wouldn't mind an Ent B show. Or maybe a show set in the future with Ent F but at the same time have a show within the show where Ent B is also in the story line in some sort of arc that connects the missions of B with some crisis Ent F is dealing with.

And of course I still hold out hope for some direct to DVD episodes to properly wrap up ENT!

BUT my main concern is still present - how does Trek reach teens? Without that demographic my original statement holds true - IT'S DEAD JIM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope they don't recast TOS characters a third time; that would be precisely the wrong thing to do.

And NO shows set in ST's 'past' please; not even an Ent-B show (much as I love that class of ship); ST has to move forward to woo new audiences, not navel-gaze into its own past. Again; think of the successful strategy employed by Roddenberry himself with TNG; an all-new ship, and all-new characters. No Kirk, Spock or McCoy clones; they invented a whole new ensemble to explore, and it worked.

And now a generation later? There are many (including Founder and many others on this site) to whom TNG or DS9 is 'their' Star Trek. THAT is how ST will win new fans, the same way Doctor Who did; by reinventing itself and remaining fresh. You didn't see DW recasting Pertwee or Tom Baker's Doctor for a Doctor Who 2.0. Or Jean-Luc Picard with Kirk on the bridge; advising his every move.

The old Star Trek will always be there for future generations to explore; no more need to keep rehashing it. A reboot worked fine for a limited movie series, but it'd be death for a 'new' TV series. ST won't survive by retreating into the nooks and crannies of its laborious history....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

IT'S DEAD JIM! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Star Trek on TV is dead. I don't think it will ever return. While we all love it the teenagers I teach are more into Avengers and Doctor Who than Trek. In fact I can't think of a single one who watches it among all 6 classes. Better hope the blockbuster movies continue because that is all you are going to get and when they are gone..........

I don't think that is necessarily true. There have been worse shows resurrected on t.v. Trek can come back to that medium. The fact that Frakes, Bakula, and others are constantly asked when it will come back on t.v. is proof there is a demand for it.

I'm of a much more optimistic bent on this issue; to me, ST's eventual return to television (the medium that spawned it) is more a matter of 'when' than 'if.'

ST, in one medium or another, has been on the air since the end of the original series in the '60s. In the '70s, we had two years of TAS (and it counts, dammit!) and in the '80s we had TNG, than in the '90s DS9 and VGR and finally ENT in the 2000s. It would genuinely surprise me if there wasn't a new ST series of some kind on the air before the end of this decade.

It's inevitable; Star Trek will return, and my guess it'll happen after the BR movies have run their course. But Bakula has a point that it probably wouldn't happen while they can still maximize profits from the movies; having one bar open in town vs. two makes one very rich bartender is their thinking, I guess (even if I don't share it).

But I sincerely doubt that ST's return to television will have the same kind of synergy with the BR movies that the Berman-era series had with the movies of that time. The BR guys don't seem to have that kind of vision or long-range planning (or they would've already had a series ready to go in time for the anniversary next year...).

I hope you and the Founder are right. But I also believe like some of you the BR movies may keep it off the air. So now the conundrum - do we want the movies to continue or them stop on the belief (hope?) that a series will then appear?

I also wonder in what vein the show will be affected by the movies. They obvious can't have the special effects or cast of the movies (cost prohibitive). So do they recast a third time for a TOS series or go with a new ship and crew? Do they go forward (ENT F) or backwards (ENT B)? Is it aimed at real sci-fi or action/adventure or the even worse possibility - 90210 in space?

Is it episodic or arc driven? Is it ship based or some other venue?

IF they do a show I wouldn't mind an Ent B show. Or maybe a show set in the future with Ent F but at the same time have a show within the show where Ent B is also in the story line in some sort of arc that connects the missions of B with some crisis Ent F is dealing with.

And of course I still hold out hope for some direct to DVD episodes to properly wrap up ENT!

BUT my main concern is still present - how does Trek reach teens? Without that demographic my original statement holds true - IT'S DEAD JIM!

Teens are not the end all be all of television or Star Trek. I can't imagine a group of teens are watching Mad Men but it is by all intents and purposes a pretty big success. Star Trek needs to gab the 18-49 demographic, thats always been the moneyshot for content creators/distributors. It also a fairly big group.

You cited the fact that teens are far more interested in Doctor Who, in 2003 I'm sure no Who fan thought the show could come back to TV because kids had no idea what it even was anymore, it had been off the air for 15 odd years...but they took a risk and brought it back, and as you have personally seen t is a huge hit. Just because kids aren't watching old Star Trek doesn't mean you can't make an exciting and relevent new Trek series that can appeal to teens and adults of all ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

IT'S DEAD JIM! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Star Trek on TV is dead. I don't think it will ever return. While we all love it the teenagers I teach are more into Avengers and Doctor Who than Trek. In fact I can't think of a single one who watches it among all 6 classes. Better hope the blockbuster movies continue because that is all you are going to get and when they are gone..........

I don't think that is necessarily true. There have been worse shows resurrected on t.v. Trek can come back to that medium. The fact that Frakes, Bakula, and others are constantly asked when it will come back on t.v. is proof there is a demand for it.

I'm of a much more optimistic bent on this issue; to me, ST's eventual return to television (the medium that spawned it) is more a matter of 'when' than 'if.'

ST, in one medium or another, has been on the air since the end of the original series in the '60s. In the '70s, we had two years of TAS (and it counts, dammit!) and in the '80s we had TNG, than in the '90s DS9 and VGR and finally ENT in the 2000s. It would genuinely surprise me if there wasn't a new ST series of some kind on the air before the end of this decade.

It's inevitable; Star Trek will return, and my guess it'll happen after the BR movies have run their course. But Bakula has a point that it probably wouldn't happen while they can still maximize profits from the movies; having one bar open in town vs. two makes one very rich bartender is their thinking, I guess (even if I don't share it).

But I sincerely doubt that ST's return to television will have the same kind of synergy with the BR movies that the Berman-era series had with the movies of that time. The BR guys don't seem to have that kind of vision or long-range planning (or they would've already had a series ready to go in time for the anniversary next year...).

I hope you and the Founder are right. But I also believe like some of you the BR movies may keep it off the air. So now the conundrum - do we want the movies to continue or them stop on the belief (hope?) that a series will then appear?

I also wonder in what vein the show will be affected by the movies. They obvious can't have the special effects or cast of the movies (cost prohibitive). So do they recast a third time for a TOS series or go with a new ship and crew? Do they go forward (ENT F) or backwards (ENT B)? Is it aimed at real sci-fi or action/adventure or the even worse possibility - 90210 in space?

Is it episodic or arc driven? Is it ship based or some other venue?

IF they do a show I wouldn't mind an Ent B show. Or maybe a show set in the future with Ent F but at the same time have a show within the show where Ent B is also in the story line in some sort of arc that connects the missions of B with some crisis Ent F is dealing with.

And of course I still hold out hope for some direct to DVD episodes to properly wrap up ENT!

BUT my main concern is still present - how does Trek reach teens? Without that demographic my original statement holds true - IT'S DEAD JIM!

Teens are not the end all be all of television or Star Trek. I can't imagine a group of teens are watching Mad Men but it is by all intents and purposes a pretty big success. Star Trek needs to gab the 18-49 demographic, thats always been the moneyshot for content creators/distributors. It also a fairly big group.

You cited the fact that teens are far more interested in Doctor Who, in 2003 I'm sure no Who fan thought the show could come back to TV because kids had no idea what it even was anymore, it had been off the air for 15 odd years...but they took a risk and brought it back, and as you have personally seen t is a huge hit. Just because kids aren't watching old Star Trek doesn't mean you can't make an exciting and relevent new Trek series that can appeal to teens and adults of all ages.

Teens may not be the end all be all of television but they are the gateway to the 18 - 49 demographic mentioned earlier in the thread and if they are not interest they probably won't be later. Truth is, I teach a college age class at my church and they too could care less about Trek. They are actually more into LOTR and fantasy movies of that ilk than scifi. Most scifi is a niche audience and I don't know if they can draw the audience necessary to survive on TV in today's entertainment world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

Teens aren't a monolithic audience. Different things are popular in different cities and towns. I'd bet it was Matt Smith that brought in the Dr Who fans, not because of his acting chops, but because teen girls find him attractive. I wonder if these teen fans stuck around for the last season, maybe Coleman was enough to hold their attention? That's how you bring teens in though; hire hot, rising actors. They would become Trek fans overnight. My 17 year old sister loves the new movies because she has a crush on Chris Pine. She thought 'Into Darkness' was awesome! Let that sink in...

Also, please no Enterprise B or C shows. I'll be upset if that's the idea they come up with after all this time. We need to get away from this prequel nonsense, it's so unoriginal. It's time to retire the TOS characters. I'd rather get away from basing it on any ship named Enterprise, but I'm sure they would cave and call it the Enterprise-G or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, please no Enterprise B or C shows. I'll be upset if that's the idea they come up with after all this time. We need to get away from this prequel nonsense, it's so unoriginal. It's time to retire the TOS characters. I'd rather get away from basing it on any ship named Enterprise, but I'm sure they would cave and call it the Enterprise-G or something.

^

SOOO this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this