TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

Why Isn’t There a New Star Trek TV Show Already?

Bryan Fuller wants to do one. Seth MacFarlane wants to do one. So why isn’t there a Star Trek television series on our screens right now?

The lack of weekly Star Trek on the small screen is, on the face of it, almost inexplicable. Not only does the franchise come from television and have a history of working in almost every television incarnation (We’ll ignore Enterprise for now, like most people did when it was being broadcast), but it’s currently under the watchful eye and ownership of JJ Abrams, a man who isn’t afraid to lend his name and talents to television shows, as Lost, Alias, Person of Interest, Alcatraz and even the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Undercovers ably demonstrates.

Plus, there’s no shortage of people who’d be willing to work on the show; Fuller, who cut his teeth working on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine way back when, has spoken multiple times about his desire to work on a new series, and just recently, the uber-successful McFarlane also admitted that he’d love to run a new television version.

Considering the potential for expansion a new Trek series would have – Remember when Deep Space Nine joined The Next Generation on the air, and there were two series running weekly simultaneously? Star Trek was Law & Order way back when – and the chance for networks to have a plug-and-play science fiction show with a guaranteed audience in these days where a new genre drama making it to three seasons can be seen as a big deal, a new Trek really seems like a no-brainer. So why isn’t it happening already?

There are three potential reasons:

#1: The Movie Guys Don’t Want To Weaken The Franchise
While a new Trek television series would be unlikely to feature the same cast as the movies – Unless Chris Pine, Simon Pegg and Zoe Saldana want to lower their asking price to television money anytime soon – it would probably exist in and around the movie continuity… but that could be problematic for the current people in charge of the franchise, who have taken two years to agree to a comic book continuation of that timeline from IDW, and canceled an announced novel series expanding the universe with all-new adventures. It makes sense from their point of view to keep Trek off the air: Why would people get excited about the idea of paying to see a new movie if they could see a version of the same idea on television every week for free? The scarcer new Trek is, the better for them.

#2: Who Has The Television Rights To Star Trek Anymore, Anyway?
The rights to the TV shows that already exist are owned by CBS, but the rights to the movies are owned by Paramount, even though Paramount made all of the shows all along. Confused? It gets stranger when you discover that CBS isn’t involved in the Trek movies at all, despite “owning” the franchise, and actually being known as CBS Paramount Television officially these days. So does Paramount own the rights to make new Star Trek television? Does CBS? And if it’s the latter, do they have the rights to base it on the movies, considering they don’t own those…? It’s possible that the reason that no-one has forced the issue of new Trek television is because no-one really wants to try and untangle the rights issues.

#3: Would New Trek Television Even Succeed Without Losing Its Trekness?
I’m not sure that what makes Star Trek the television show that it is would necessarily work on modern television without losing what made it so great to begin with. But… Well, let’s wait until tomorrow to explain this one.

Until then, use the comments: Would you want to see more Star Trek on television? And if so, who would you like to see run it? McFarlane, Fuller or someone entirely different?

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • Ryan

    I’d die before I’d watch a Seth McFarlane Star Trek.

  • Roffa

    dude, relax.

  • http://twitter.com/jhota42 James J. Reaves III

    i’d like to see a tv Trek, but divorced in cast from the films. you don’t need the Enterprise to do Trek: DS9 proved that.

  • David Fullam

    TV Trek got so awful, I say keep it a film franchise for a little longer. And Seth McFarlane? HELL NO!!!

  • Atomxero

    I just want good Trek. I don’t care who does it or if it’s more “Star Wars” or “Battlestar Galactica” ish. I think a cartoon dealing with the Dominion Wars ala Clone Wars would be rad.

  • Blink182tbs09

    The Abrams Star Trek film got me into the franchise, and since then I’ve only watched Enterprise. I don’t understand all of the hate that version gets! I love it! 

    As for a new series, I would totally be on board regardless of who is behind it. 

  • Bass Guitar Hero

    The rights issues of Star Trek is simple–Star Trek owns all of Star Trek. Paramount can make Star Trek movies because they have a license from CBS to do so. But any new Star Trek series will come from CBS, not Paramount.

    CBS is in the driver seat when it comes to a Trek TV series and it can be in any era they want. Paramount no longer has any say when it comes to Trek on the small screen and hasn’t had any say in it since 2006.

    A fourth reason not listed in the article is the possibility that CBS simply isn’t interested in doing a Star Trek series right now. Star Trek has always been expensive and difficult to produce–even during the days of the original series–and CBS head honcho Les Moonves (the ultimate bean counter perhaps) may be perfectly content to let Paramount invest millions in new Trek movies while CBS sits back and reaps millions from their cut without having to invest anything.  

  • Renaud

    I could see a Star Trek SHOWCASE / TWILIGHT ZONE style new Star Trek TV series going from past present and far far future, happening anywhere on any planet, concentrating on different civilizations every week as I suggest on my Star Trek webpage, STAR TREK UNLIMITED – http://heroescomics.9f.com/star_trek.htm

  • Anonymous

    That would be rad!

  • Paradoxrex

    a star trek series based on the mirror mirror universe. …think big brains ….think…

  • Sw00shman

    Star Trek animated. Like a poster said already, ala Clone Wars. A japanime Trek? Either way. Animate it. Cheaper and will grab a younger audience so Trek lives on and prospers. Ha! 

  • Anonymous

    no YOU relax!

  • Anonymous

    I really want to see a Seth McFarlane TV series!

  • nick

    “Not only does the franchise come from television and have a history of
    working in almost every television incarnation (We’ll ignore Enterprise for now, like most people did when it was being broadcast)”

    Well, the parenthetical phrase kind of explains everything. . . Enterprise’s huge failure kind of killed the franchise.

    And yeah, Seth McFarlane doing Star Trek would be awful.

  • Clements_01

    I’d love to see new Star Trek on my tv. The rebooted film series doesnt float my boat, so I could really do with something else.

    As for ENTERPRISE, i’d argue that it got alot better as it went along and had a remarkably strong fourth series…right before Berman and Braga returned for the finale and f***ed everything up…

  • Neil Highley

    Think of the children!

  • Eddie C

    If there is a new Trek series, I would hope it is set in the Roddenberry-verse rather than the Abrams-verse. I’m probably one of the few Trek fans who didn’t care much for the new film. I’m not saying it has to mimic the other spinoffs or have the same tone (obviously DS9 was as different from TNG as Enterprise was from anything that came before), but it should reflect the deeper themes and storylines from the original universe rather than be an action-driven, no-plot mess. I think in these troubled times, the spirit of Trek is needed more than ever, and I don’t see that happening in the darker, vengeance-filled Abrams-verse. I don’t want to get a lot of responses from disgruntled Abrams’ fans. I’m a big fan of his body of work (from Lost to even Super 8), but just do not care for the direction of the new franchise.

  • Cormix

    Id rather see SG-1

  • Christian

    Seriously? Are you kidding me?

  • Bass Guitar Hero

    Dang, I meant to say “CBS owns all of Star Trek.”

  • Todd VerBeek

    The simplest explanation is that there’s a far better return on investment filming an hour and a half of content and charging $10/butt for people to see it, than there is for filming 15-20 hours of content (as season of US TV) and depending on advertisers to pay for it.

  • Captaincomicbook

    Just because I scanned through some of the earlier comments, Not saying whether it would be good or bad, a McFarlane run Star Trek series would probably not be a terrible thing.  McFarlane is a big Trek fan.  He made, if not 2 (I think), at least 1 Trek appearence in ‘Enterprise’…which I believe is better than most people give it credit for. 

  • http://squidoo.com/retroblogs Atomic Kommie Comics

    A Star Trek “Universe” or “Unlimited” series using the setting and “new” back story (but NOT the future) of the Abrams universe with occasional guest appearances of the movie cast (most of whom STILL do tv as well) could work, and keep the franchise front-and-center with the audience!

  • Www Danielddt

    Me to I want to see TV Series of Star Trek today insted of the movies.

  • Duder

    Todd,

    There’s a lot of revenue streams in TV, just like movies.  Advertising dollars, merchandising, DVD sales, digital downloads, international rights, syndication money.

    If TV weren’t an EXTREMELY lucrative business, there’d be no such thing as television.  So the question is a fair one – Trek is a TV property.  Why isn’t it on TV?

  • Duder

    I’m sure Trek will come back to TV.  But it’ll be in coordination with the film universe, and like the reboot it’ll ignore all prior incarnations.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see a CGI series a la Clone Wars, rather than a traditional live-action episodic show.

  • http://khiaao.blogspot.com Khiaao

    More money in a movie

  • CMM

    What ruined Enterprise is that it came on the heels of 9/11 and did this long story of retaliation for an attack on Earth, not unlike the Iraq war.  Big mistake.  The last season began to focus on the past of Star Trek and its universe, which it should have dome to begin with by fleshing out those various elements, events, races, etc. that were introduced in all the previous series.

  • Brook Ronca

    Agreed.  

    And as much as the geek in me would love to see an TNG-era show (such as Star Trek:Titan, with Johnathan Frakes), logic would dictate a shift into the future.  

  • cMM

    Seems, in a way, symbolic of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement with big corporations sucking up money and refusing to give back, particularly with job creation.  They could take those millions and invest in a good Star Trek series putting a few folks to work behind the camera, as well as in front, and reaping any benefits derived, if a successfully good show, which, of course, is the key.  However, nothing ad-ventured, nothing gained.

    A CGI series seems like a no brainer at this point.  If I am not mistaken, CBS partly, if not fully, is invested into Nickelodean and its sister channels.  It would be good for them to possibly compete with the Cartoon Network with something like that. The only problem is Nick seems really bad at sticking with something in one, consistent time period for any length of time before cancellation and would rather be the Spongebob network.

  • Tomfitz1

    You mean Trekkies?

  • demoncat_4

    if they could do it with out trying to weakend the revised franchise and maybe use the movie crew to keep the thing in continuity all for it. though think jj and others rather not try and figure out the red tape over who has the rights to have star trek as a tv show again. at least till they figure time is right for a treck tv show again.

  • stealthwise

    Man, if only JJ Abrams worked in tv…

  • Bass Guitar Hero

    Nick is owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount Pictures. CBS and Viacom aren’t exactly on good terms with one another (to put it mildly). CBS may shop a new Trek series–either live-action or animated–to a Viacom-owned channel only if there are no other takers.
     
     

  • Rowlenthunder

    I think it is also because the ‘built in TV audience’ wasn’t really crazy about the Abrams movie.  One of the basic tenets of the series was its devotion to ‘maintaining the time line.’ The cavalier way Abrams used it to relaunch the series doesn’t fly with devoted fans.  As for Enterprise–it was too dark, and from the onset the ongoing plot about a ‘temporal time war’ hurt the series.  Want a guaranteed mega blockbuster film? 

    The cast of ‘Enterprise’ in ‘The Romulan War.’

  • http://www.facebook.com/owen.ground Owen Ground

    I want a Starfleet Academy series with a young cast and set at SA in San Francisco. Please make it so!

  • Mike

    When reading this article, I just remembered my feelings about Voyager and Enterprise.  I was a big trekkie, and loved TNG & DS9.  Then things got mighty repetative.  “Voyager’s an all-new concept where the crew doesn’t get along, and they don’t have the support of the federation!”  Three episodes in, the crew is getting along and doing okay for themselves, making allies (too) easily among humaniod aliens. Things get dull, “lets bring in a robotic person that wants to understand humanity” (even though we already have a vulcan on board)!   Then, “Enterprise is an all-new concept where they don’t have the fancy technology!” Episode 1: Phasers are introduced, a few more episodes and they meet aliens with a holodeck.  Transporters are dangerous, but functional.  Star Trek needed to morph into something more different, but didn’t and died.
     
    Now we got the movie.  It was truly awesome, and reset the Star Trek universe.  The reason it worked so well is it is a lot easier to think outside the box if you only have to come out with 2 hours of story every four years rather than 22 hours of story each year.  I would rather have the films keep the line alive until something truly awesome comes along.
     
    By the way, if you want to make a Trek Series that doesn’t tie into movie continuity, see the New Frontier Novels by Peter David, and how he tied it into the universe without having direct interactions or crossovers, but still made it interesting.

  • Famaloney2

    HBO should so totally do the series

  • Ghost

    How about do weekly or monthly Star Trek tv films? With no link to the recent movie. So that can continue and not be weaken.

    You do a tv movie for Riker’s Titian
    Another for Sulu’s Excelsior
    Star Trek New Frontier
    Reveal the final fates of the Enterprise A, B & C.
    Starfleet Academy
    Adapt any of the IDW comics if you want
    Deep Space 9 reunion
    Post Voyager story

    And either air on SYFY or on the CW

  • Adam_leal2011

    I got an Idea why not get all these writers involved? You might need to hire a female writer too… I mean look at the credits some time of TNG and VOY they had someone write the show ever other week. So I think its a good thing to get a lot of writers ivolved instead of 2 guys who have been writer trek 15 20 years like Rick and Brandon did for the first 3 seasons of ENT. The more the marry.

  • Adam_leal2011

    I got an Idea why not get all these writers involved? You might need to hire a female writer too… I mean look at the credits some time of TNG and VOY they had someone new write the show ever other week. So I think its a good thing to get a lot of writers involved instead of 2 guys who have been writing trek 15 20 years like Rick and Brandon did for the first 3 seasons of ENT. The more the marryer.

  • Ryan

    You realize what hyperbole is, right?

    I’m just saying that I’m not a fan of Seth McFarlane, and objectively, I don’t really see him as a good fit for anything Star Trek related unless its parody.

  • http://twitter.com/Trekkie1990 Marc Hagerthy

    Why not do a series based off “Star Trek Online”?

  • alix

    why not do like the supperhero movies and make a cartoon or anime series? it could air with a ‘may or may not be in the same universe’ implication so as to appease movie fans, hardcore Trekkies and new comers (especially if it were anime. there’s an entire population out there that’ll watch it just for that reason!)

  • Shaun

    Graeme, your “who owns Trek?” question makes no sense. CBS owns Paramount now, doesn’t it? You even referred to “CBS Paramount Television” in your article. More accurately, maybe, doesn’t Viacom own both? Or it’s some combination thereof. If CBS/Paramount wanted a new Trek on the air, and they might eventually, it’ll happen.

    But why do it now? The Abrams movie, regardless of what anyone thought of it, was a success and plenty of people are waiting for the sequel. I think they’re smart to wait for the next movie and not water anything down by putting free Trek on TV right now. When Trek was on TV for the better part of two continuous decades, it eventually got stale.

    I loved TNG and (especially) DS9, but Voyager never lived up to its potential (the show peaked with its excellent pilot, then went south in a hurry, and Enterprise was just a poorly thought-out concept (even though it managed to become a pretty decent show in its final season). People lost interest, and it all died out. Why drive it into the ground again so soon, just after the Abrams film brought some mojo back?

    I’d love to see a new Trek show (actually, I’d love to see DS9 return in some form, but I know that will never happen), but ONLY if there’s good concept. Something that tweaks the typical Trek formula (like DS9 did) and gives it a different approach. Something that Trek hasn’t done yet, and something that will have some talented people who know and love Star Trek running the show. Maybe MacFarlane would do a good job? I’m not a fan of his cartoons, really, but he seems sincere in his love for Trek. Not sure. Fuller has the pedigree, so he’d probably do a good job.

    Thank goodness, at least, that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are unlikely to ever be a part of Star Trek again.

  • Shaun

    If it’s more SW or BSG, then is it really Star Trek? I’m not saying it can’t be, I’m just asking rhetorically. DS9 was certainly different than the other Treks, and I loved that about it. Voyager, after lots of infighting behind the scenes, ended up trying much too hard to be a TNG knockoff. That was a bad idea. It had so much potential to do other things, but they squandered all of that.

    I just think that are certain values make Trek “Trek,” and it’s a very different animal from SW. Abrams tried to infuse a bit of SW into his Trek, and I’m not sure I really cared for that. It was a fun movie, and it had some good moments alright, but there were other things I feel like he really messed up too.

    Like you, I want to see good Star Trek. But just what makes good Star Trek is not an easy or simple answer.

  • Shaun

    That’s cool. Enterprise really isn’t all that great a show, IMO, but it got better. The final season or two really stepped things up. Not perfect, but definitely better.

    Go back and see some of the orignal Treks (do some easy research and see what the better episodes are). If you like it enough, give Next Gen a try (you can skip through a lot of the first two seasons).

    Then, once you’ve worked your way through all or most of Next Gen, you’re probably ready for DS9. I think that was the best of all the Treks, but it’s definitely a bit different than the others. The first season is uneven, but still pretty strong, and then it just gets better and better for the next five seasons. It stumbled a bit near the end, but it’s a great, underappreciated series.

    Voyager, I would just avoid at all costs. But others may disagree. I found it incredibly disappointing. Occasionally insulting.

  • Shaun

    So CBS and Viacom are different entities? I guess I thought one owned the other and all of it: CBS/Viacom/Paramount were all part of the same umbrella corporation. Sort of like AOL/Time/Warner. How did Paramount lose control of Star Trek to CBS? That seems like a franchise they would’ve been foolish to part with, even if there hadn’t been any Trek being made for awhile.

  • Shaun

    HA!

    Of course, even if he were part of a new Trek show, he’d leave it within a year anyhow.

  • Shaun

    I so wanted there to be a DS9 continuation of some kind… A feature film seemed unlikely, but maybe some of the characters crossover into a film, with some tie-ins to the series, or even some TV movies or miniseries would’ve been cool.

    It seems a bit late in the game for that to ever happen though. A shame, because there was plenty of opportunity for a return. The finale left the door open for more.

  • Shaun

    OK, so having read some of the other comments here maybe I got this thing wrong. Apparently, CBS doesn’t own Paramount? I didn’t realize that Paramount is now licensing Trek from CBS, and doesn’t actually own it anymore. I guess it’s a bit more comvoluted than I realized.

    Anyhow, mea culpa!

  • Rowlenthunder

    I actually think Voyager captured much more of the spirit of the original series than the others.  Admittedly, season 3 had a slow start, but episodes like ‘Deathwish’ and ‘Critical Care’ were everything that made the original series so great:  social and politically moral plays. 

    On another note, Abrams has his plate full with projects-the latest rumor being he was interested in directing ‘Wicked,’ the stage musical film version.  Paramount has always treated Star Trek like a stepchild. 

    But a series would not have to tie in with the movies at all.  It could remain in the same timeline as the other series.

  • None

    You missed the real reason, which is the same reason TNG was cancelled when it was : you can do far less work, and make a lot more money, making a film every 2-3 years than working on a 22-episode season every single year.

    A TV show is always going to be limited in the amount of money it makes, and you have to produce a lot more content.  Or, every couple of years make a film, which has the potential to make more all at once than a TV show could make over it’s lifetime.

    It’s a no-brainer why we haven’t seen a new Trek TV show – it’s not worth the money for the limited potential gains, especially when they have a brand-new white-hot franchise that they miraculously somehow didn’t alienate the entire existing fanbase for.  Should the film series start to falter, only then will you see Trek back on TV.

  • leroy jazzmatazz

    Seth MacFarlane need not fuck Star Trek.

  • ATK

    No one saw Leslie Neilson as anything other than a dramatic actor and then he got cast in Police Squad! and now hardly anyone remembers the old dramatic Neilson. Point is perceptions change just because a person is on tv doesn’t mean you know who they are or how well they will fit something until you try.

  • ATK

    Wow, lot more hate for MacFarlane than I had hoped to see. I would be willing to give him a shot. I have been thinking for a while now that what we need is a Star Trek Anthology series, sort of like Outer Limits esque, different story from week to week but set in the same universe.

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t really been a fan of Star Trek. I’ve watched the new movie (which I loved) and I did watch a few DS9 episodes which I liked.

    But anything with Bryan Fuller attached is a must watch for me! ;)

  • Conjal

    How can there be a new TV show? The new Star Trek movie, re-wrote history remember… So we would have to have a “Original Star Trek”. With Kirk and junk…. and does anyone really want to see them stuff that up?

  • http://profiles.google.com/lcromy Lance Cromwell

    Your a moron. Get your head out of Obama’s liberal commie ass.

  • JD

    I’d definitely love a new Trek TV series. I liked all the TV series and have watched every episode of all of them, not counting the original ones. Just never was one for older TV shows I guess, they tend to have more glossed over social aspects I don’t like, where newer shows, in general at least, tend to be more real, have characters that are less archetypal or idealized. Never watched the new movie either, did watch the Next Gen movies. I’d like a TV show if it was like Net Gen, DS9, Voyager, or even Enterprise (didn’t watch it when it 1st came out either, but I tried it later on and was surprised by how good it was once I got past the bad first impression it seemed to give off). Maybe something like “Star Trek The 3rd Generation” or something. Something culturally relevant, current seeming, and aspirational towards humanity’s better qualities like those 4 series I watched always were for the times they were made. The movie, eh, can’t say for sure without having seen it, but the whole thing just seemed kind of like a stunt, a bit of flash, bit of nostalgia, but nothing compelling that at all grabbed my attention or piqued my interest. Plus, I do tend to like series more than movies, generally. Star Trek has always been about pushing the boundaries of what’s new though, about the future. Even Enterprise did that in it’s way. It wasn’t a re-hash of old stuff, it was original and had a lot to say, all-be-it not in a readily apparent to see by first brush kind of way. If there’s a new series, I’d really like to see it have it’s own voice, something new we haven’t seen before that keeps the essence of what made past shows great while going it’s own way.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll have to disagree.  My wife (who had no Star Trek experience prior to meeting me, while I’ve seen every episode of every show except the last season of Enterprise) are now going through Voyager, and once we hit the third season, it was as fantastic as I remembered.  The first two seasons had serious issues, but once it hit its stride, man did it hit its stride.  Amazing story arcs, great acting and effects that hold up fourteen years later.  That said, I would love to see a new series.  Having TNG and DS9, and then DS9 and Voyager, in tandem for so long was like a sci-fi continuity-geek’s dream; having just one series will be a tease.

  • Tom

    I want star trek back on TV and I think Peter David’s Star Trek New Frontier book series is a great blueprint to put it back on.

  • Shawn Richison

    Is it a requirement that conservative capitalists can not or will not learn to use correct spelling and/or grammar?

  • Poolvet

    Its not on TV anymore because Star Trek is boring.Soap opera on a space ship,formulaic weekly
    redundancy.

  • Captlobi

    The new movie created an alternate timeline. The tv universe that we have watched in the past still exists.

  • Anonymous

    They can only make a new TV show if it is base on the prime universe. 

    An get rid of the butt ugle enterprise. 

  • Jmcreer

    Add me to the “Voyager is excellent” category.  It was the Trek series that got my wife interested in the franchise.  She is also a huge fan of Enterprise as well, as am I.  In fact, I’m a fan of all the series, but have a preference for the Trek movies, then Voyager, and Enterprise as well.  STNG is OK but the early series looks too dated (what’s up with spandex?)

    Most of the backlash that Enterprise got (and still gets) was from a small but vocal group who were overly focused on continuity and couldn’t understand how a show that predated the original trek series couldn’t look “retro.”  Making a show that had a crew and technology that appeared less advanced than a show from the sixities was ludicrous.  That, and the fact that they disliked Jonathan Archer and his crew apparently undercutting Jim Kirk and his crew’s status as the originators of everything Trek.

    But like I said, I like them all…

  • Jmcreer

    Enteprise didn’t ruin anything – Star Trek had run it’s course and the majority of the public were bored with it.  Everyone takes cheap shots at the show but neglect to remember how the last two STNG movies were absolute duds at the box office. 

    Star Trek was viewedby the public as a stale franchise, both on TV and in the cinemas.  The public was looking for something fresh – which accounts for the success of Battlestar Galactica at that time.

  • Cjorg2

    You make no sense

    Abram’s movie remains the most successful Trek film to date.  As a result, it succeeded despite a handful of anal Trek fans who “refused” to see it (we know they did anyway.)

    And your suggestion of a movie version of  “Enterprise in The Romulan War” sounds weird in the context of you also admitting the lack of success regarding the series.  Why on Earth would anyone see a film version of a series nobody watched?  You have heard of Firefly haven’t you?

  • Anonymous

    Not as bad as the last film, Trek on TV never got that bad. 

  • Gsidoti

    Your first reason is correct, most likely. Sucks that we get denied new Trek because Abrams is fickle and greedy.

  • Anonymous

    Season 3 Enterprise was some of the best Star trek has ever produce, just behind a few of DS9 dominion war episodes.

  • Anonymous

    We are few but there are still a lot us who did not like Abrams new ST movie. 

    I am a Albrams fan, I love Lost, Alias and Fringe, and several of his other films, Star Trek is by far his worst film to date and the worst thing he has ever work on in my book, along with the film being the worst film in the franchise. 

  • Cjorg2

    TNG was never cancelled.  It was always their intention to do 7 seasons and then move into films.  DS9 and Voyager were also 7 seasons and were not cancelled.  Only Enterprise was cancelled after 4 seasons.

    You seem to have little understanding of TV shows and the money they generate.  Especially such a HUGE franchise like Trek.  Not only do they earn a lot of money via advertising at the time of their first airings, they make additional money via syndication.  Original Trek, STNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise are still generating huge amounts of revenue globally in syndication.  In addition the series are continually selling on DVD, not too mention remastered versions (original Trek).  In the future they’ll make even MORE money when they are eventually released on Bluray.

    Compare that to one film, (it’s box office and DVD/ Bluray sales, TV viewing revenue).  There’s a good reason why they (not to mention George Lucas) know there’s a lot of money to be made in TV land.

    IMO the only reason they have yet to create a new Trek series is that they are biding their time to find the right series.  There’s a lot of scifi competition on TV these days – they are likely waiting to come up with a concept that will grab audiences and stand out from the crowd. 

  • Rowlenthunder

    My point about ‘Enterprise’ is based on the writing for the first three years.  Many (including myself) hated the ‘temporal war’ storyline.  The last season was far better, largely because of a change the writing staff.  The show had great characters, ones I’d like to see again.  I’ve always felt Enterprise was ended just as they got it right.  So, yes, ‘Enterprise-The Romulon War’ is a movie I’d love to see.

  • Rowlenthunder

    Your comment about the original series having ‘glossed over social aspect’ is interesting, but one of the very reasons we love the show is because of the way it commented on social and political issues.  Star Trek TOS was the first to show an interracial kiss, and had episodes that made statements on prejudice, war, etc.  And if you view the show now, (on netflix) they have episodes with the updated special effects.  I still kinda like the old ones…simply cause their good.

  • Bass Guitar Hero

    There was a time (not too long ago) in which Viacom did own both CBS and Paramount and Star Trek’s movie and television divisions were all under the same umbrella (generally known as “the Rick Berman Era”). But years of feuding and working at cross-purposes between CBS and Viacom convined their mutual owner that they would work best as separate entities. The split occurred in 2006, and CBS acquired the rights to Paramount Television (including every Star Trek series), while Viacom retained Paramount Pictures (the movie division and library).

    Under the new arrangement, Paramount can continue to make Star Trek movies with a license from CBS, but CBS owns the overall copyrights to everything Trek, with Paramount’s control limited to the movies and their distribution (both in theatres and on home video).    

  • http://www.facebook.com/owen.ground Owen Ground

    That’s exactly what makes it interesting. And don’t diss soap operas.

  • Anonymous

    While staring at our Trekkie navels, it seems we’ve missed the uber obvious … Vampires, werewolves, zombies, demons, and all other sorts of creepie crawlies are very much IN these days. Until that trend runs its course there will be little room for much sci fi, much less Star Trek.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, the big change for Leslie Nielsen was in the movie ‘Airplane!’ by the same people. Police Squad came two years later and died quickly with only six episodes produced before they pulled the plug. And he was in comedies prior to Airplane!, just nothing memorable.

    Seth McFarlane has no shortage of opportunity to demonstrate he can do other things. He needs to do that before someone is going to trust him with Trek, played out as it is.

  • Ks4evr

    I’d love to see someone, anyone, who can be faithful to Mister Roddenberry’s concept take up the reins and do a new Star Trek television show.  His ideals were what spoke most loudly and clearly, and those ideals are still something that we, here 45 years later, still need to hear and see played out.  His hope for the future of mankind, and his willingness to dare and express what he felt needed to addressed in our world is what made the original series, albeit after it’s too soon cancellation, resonnate with so many people.  His undying optimism for the future of all inspired so many.  In today’s world that kind of outlook is sorely needed.

  • Anonymous

    I think the only way a Star Trek series could work is if its on basic or premium cable. Network TV is simply not the place for high concept sci-fi shows anymore.

    And while I love what the Abrams Star Trek has done with the alnerate universe, I think a new Star Trek TV show should introduced a new cast of characters and mission instead just rehashing more of the Kirk era.

  • Larry

    They need to do a new show – but far in the future from the TNG/DS9/VOY era. Like 150 – 200 years. They could bring back some older characters like Tuvok, and a CGI Data perhaps as a cameo since both would still be around. 

    Could also bring back Sisko out of the wormhole where he’s been living since DS9 ended, lol. 

    Lot’s of opportunity to continue and advance the story beyond the TNG/DS9/VOY era of the Federation. Send a few ships out to the Andromeda galaxy. I really hope if they ever do a new series it advances the federation. We have enough prequels now with Star Trek 2009 and Enterprise. 

    Many characters would still be alive in 150 – 200 years; Tuvok, Dax, Data, a couple others… add in some new characters, some relatives of the original crew and TNG and ship them out to the Andromeda galaxy and beyond.  That is what I want to see as a fan; advance the series. 

    However, we’re not getting a new show until the current Star Trek movie arc is done. Which probably won’t be until 2016 or so. 

  • http://twitter.com/jfp1986 John Pannozzi

    For the record, though, Viacom and CBS are still both owned by Sumner Redstone (through his company National Amusements, IIRC).  So they might be willing to work together, but then again, I don’t know the inner workings and politics of these companies, I’m mostly going off of what I’ve read on Wikipedia.

  • SVR

    Star Trek is utopian at its heart. The cynicism of our current era has not yet 
    exhausted us to the point where we’ll actually believe in a utopian future. When the world starts to look brighter again, then Star Trek will probably grace our screens once again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/strivearth Zen Strive

    I want more Star Trek TV series. The last great scifi series is probably Star Trek The Next Generation or Stargate or Babylon V that comes out when TV is more innocent, opening credit was honorable to the artists involved, and episodic TV series is the norm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/strivearth Zen Strive

    That would be no, unless they make it like Legend of Galactic Heroes or Tytania: intrigues, betrayals, infightings, tactics, strategies, oh my!

  • Cjorg2

    It might be the film you’d want to see, but a movie based on a failed TV series doesn’t result in a “guaranteed mega blockbuster film.”  It results in a movie that only a few diehard fans see, and most ignore.  Like Firefly and to a lesser extent, Tron: Legacy (sure it made 400 million, but cost 170 million to make, and that’s categorised as underperforming)

  • Bass Guitar Hero

    I was actually referring to Mr. Redstone when I said “their mutual owner.” CBS and Viacom did not work well together when they were under the same umbrella (Viacom co-founded the EPIX channel to compete against the CBS-owned Showtime, for example). There was also reportedly bad blood between the heads of both companies too. Since Mr. Redstone still got paid whether CBS and Viacom worked together or not, he opted to separate them in 2006 and Paramount was divided between them in the divorce. CBS got what was formerly Paramount Television (with ownership of Star Trek as part of that), while Viacom kept Paramount Pictures.

    Paramount continues to serve as a home video distributor for the various CBS properties, but CBS began removing the famous Paramount mountain logo from the end credits of their properties in 2009 (future releases of Star Trek TV show DVDs and blu-rays will have the CBS Studios logo instead).  

  • JAM

    I’d love to see a CGI re-animation of the original Star Trek animated series. Re-use the voices (but please not the music) with far better modern-day animation.

  • Ryan

    Seth McFarlane currently has 3 running shows, and has produced numerous other shorts, and they’re all the same thing. We’ll see how he handles his upcoming version of the Flintstones though.

    Also, if you ask me, he’s not even that good of an animator. Family Guy has recently gotten much better, but a show shouldn’t need 10 years to find its animation groove.

  • Matthias

    I think, if Gene Roddenberry would live in our times, he would not get one single chance for his bold, new, optimistic idea. This needs bold people who are ready to take a risk. No one wants to take a risk in our times. Maybe this is the shadow of that very brutal trade-rivalry between the broadcast-stations.

  • Mak

    A little over dramatic are we?

  • Mak

    The animation style changed when it returned in 2005 (Or what ever date it is).

  • Duder

    Hey I’m a longtime Trek fan, but it’s rather obvious what fans thought of a TV series from 10, 20 or 40 years ago just doesn’t matter.

    Any new Trek series will be built for either a new audience, or that and the people that got on board with the Abrams reboot.

    Old fans?  Not a factor.  Like…at all.

  • Duder

    Larry, why would they bring back characters from the 90s era Trek?  I doubt they’d even touch the TNG characters, let alone TNG’s spinoffs.

    Everything from DS9-forward is 100% over, at least onscreen.  A new show would be in the reboot universe, likely in the same time period as the film.

  • Ryan

    The animation from 2005 still looked like crap to me. I’m talking about in maybe the last season or so the quality has jumped tremendously. They even have an updated intro now.

  • Robert28_

    Trek on tv.  Heaven!

  • Rick Cromack

    Not yet, not for awhile… Nowhere close to “right now”, actually. For several easons: First, IF “Trek” is to SUCCEED — and not merely exist, for a time — on television, it MUST break out of old-school, comfortable, predictable, hackneyed, formulaic “Trek” — and I’m not at all certain that ONE MOVIE, excellent and innovative though it was, has altered franchise momentum enough to make that a given. Second, Abrams has an EXTREMELY spotty record when it comes to series television, with only ONE true, CONSISTENT all-around success story (critical praise, ratings, AND longevity): “Lost”, and it may well be dismissed as both gimmick AND fluke. Third, I don’t want the talent pool diluted… And I’m NOT talking about the actors, but the screenwriters. A “Trek” series relaunch can only lead at this point to a lowering of standards all around. I’d rather see “Trek” remain exacting, innovative, special… And, yes, rare.

  • Skyhawk396

    Yes, please make another star trek.  Ive been impatiently waiting for another star trek to air on the small screen.  Hoping for the version that takes place after voyager, but honestly I wont complain.  Just start a new series already and do your best to make it interesting and inspiring. 

  • howie b.

    William Shatner should run it.  He’s doing everything else so why not Run a TV show.  I mean, he is Mr. Star Trek.

  • Anonymous

    What’s so strange about this is that CBS might still be possible. Crazily enough, Bad Robot who’s films go through Paramount, has TV shows that go through Warner Bros…and now has a show on CBS with Jonas Nolan writing, Person of Interest. In addition Bad Robot is now with FactoryMade which kind of gives new Bad Robot works more rights to their work, then networks or film companies. I think if Bad Robot wanted to, they could create a series on TV….but I am not sure how long Mr. Abrams wants to hold the buck. Unless his team plans on a third film, I can’t imagine Star Trek not coming back to TV again one way or another.

    With the new time line they have potential to create things that never existed before, or have the capacity to introduce things at different times…

  • Bass Guitar Hero

    The chances of a new Star Trek series on CBS itself are zero. CBS prefers less expensive cop shows and sitcoms and a new Star Trek will be none of the above. You also wouldn’t want a new Trek series on CBS anyway–it would be cancelled after only six episodes as broadcast networks demand much higher ratings than what would be considered successful in syndication or even cable… 

  • chad
  • NAB

    I’m re-watching DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise and Next Generation.  I can’t get enough.  Can I please have new episodes to watch?

  • flrider

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_corporate_history
    “”In 2009, CBS Paramount Network Television became CBS Television Studios; CBS Television Studios has production rights for new Trek series, though it has not (yet) produced any under that name. In the 2005 Viacom/CBS split, the old Viacom became the CBS Corporation
    and a new Viacom was created. This new company owns Paramount Pictures
    which owns the Trek films.””
    I possess everything ever produced in the Star Trek universe..1966 to present-except the comics. Cataloged both by air date and production number. TV series, movies, books, specials, interviews and spoofs…JJ Abrams needs to stay away from Trek..that storyline should go the way of Klingons without ridges. Majel, get your hammer…”bonk, bonk on the head” straighten these clowns out!

  • Personanongratajoe

    I agree. Seth McFarlane puts out total crap. The thought of him getting his greedy sellout hands on our beloved Star Trek franchise is depressing to think about. McFarlane panders to the lowest of common denominators. Family guy is the worst show on television, and that is saying a lot in the age of reality TV.

  • Gromitdave

    I wonder if Seth would reprise his role from the series. I’d love to see any version on tv.

  • pip

    I would be EXTREMELY disappointed to see a new TV series continue on the timeline of the 2009 film. one of the nicest things about the old series was their connection to each other and the old Kirk, Spock, etc. are still the REAL ones in my eyes. But I really, really hope there is a new tv series soon, I’m running out of Treks to watch!!

  • Sliste687

    I’m pretty sure this is a no brainer it has to continue from Voyager. We don’t need an alternate timeline or some other stupid bullshit to justify shinnier sets. The thing that made Star Trek cool for me when I was a kid in the 90s was knowing Jean Luc Picard was sailing around space while Captain Sisko was bangin hookers on DS9 meanwhile couple years up the way a Janeway gets flung across the galaxy all these characters have a history that do not need to be shit on. I do not ever want a recast of any of these people, but all of them would be amazing to guest star on the show. Star Trek isnt about science fiction its about coating science fiction on real life problems and philosophical stand points. Even the more popular races on Star Trek are based after ancient forms of our own look at the Romulan Empire whos homeworlds are Remus and Romulus….hmmmmm

  • Sliste687

    dont let anyone tell you to relax the dude that worked on DS9 definetly gets my vote though Seth can write a Ferengi episode or something 

  • M-a11ford

    I would like to see the proper enterprise or refited (pic up top) would b nice :) not that bag of spaners in the 2009 film witch WAS sopost to be! there was a big gap after the origenal serise so lots of storys could be made. also star trek enterprise (2006) serise was unpopuler even with me i admit when it first came out but later i got it on dvd and i love it now . i wish thay made more then 4 serise . witch ever way i would still like to see more

  • Sister2

    LOVED all the actors in the Abrams film. Great idea to start a new series on that timeline.  BUT, I want those same actors. AND, Abrams directing (or at least involved.)   Impossible????  I understand more films (in addition to the 2013 sequel) are planned.  You mean to tell me that there aren’t enough outtakes left over from these two films (sequel should wrap by June) to put together with a few additional scenes to do a mini-series? Paramount/CBS would be out next to nothing.

  • Lcollacchi6503

    Star Trek encompasses some of the best stories and adventures that I have ever seen, whether television or movies.  Bottom line is, there should be some sort of star trek on television right now.  Stargate did an awesome job giving the same, ‘run of exploritory feeling’! Great series,I was addicted to it, but in the long run, Star Trek has been around longer, and has touched the hearts of so many generations that there should always be some kind of Star Trek on tv, whether its a spinoff or not. I feel like anyone who considers themselves a Follower of Star Trek, respects and appreciates the journey so much, that even though, obviously, new character actors would be excepted, they would be needed to perform. Don’t get me wrong, the movies coming the way they are are awesome and well needed!, but make no mistake, the trekky world is ready for a series adventure and when I say ready, I mean, we need it.  Star Trek is a great continuous adventure of the time space continuem and human condition. Any time, any place, anyone, That adventure is envied, and the fans are waiting. Please don’t make us wait too much longer.

  • OphidianJaguar

    Totally random that I am responding to a three year old post, but as I just found and read this article. Has your mind changed after watching McFarlane’s Cosmos? A high quality, very mature, educational show?

  • OphidianJaguar

    Random response to a three year old comment. Yea, dramatic Neilson in Forbidden Planet, a precursor to Star Trek.