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

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!

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.

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.

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! ;)

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

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.

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

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

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…

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?

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

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. 

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.

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).    

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

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).  

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.

A little over dramatic are we?

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.

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.

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.