IMO, Enterprise suffered from intertwining too many sub-plots that just dragged on... The temporal cold war... and the the Xindi / expanse archs to name a few. Once they started doing 2-3 episode arcs that fleshed out how the Federation got the way it was, it got traction.
For example, I loved how they explained why Klingons looked different from TOS days to how they evolved. Likewise, fleshing out more about Vulcan, and the Orion syndicate and (woooot!) Orion slave girls!
Enterprise got canceled just when it was getting interesting!
Big Star Trek News!!! Enterprise may return !!!
Started by Prometheus, Mar 25 2013 08:26 PM
62 replies to this topic
#21
Gothneo
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:22 AM
#22
Guest_1701_*
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 March 2013 - 07:27 PM
Enterprise didn't fail, the studio failed it.
ENTERPRISE came around at the wrong time. Paramount was going though huge internal shake-ups, there was a notion by studio executives that they should get "hot bands" like One Direction to play in the officer's mess each week - that was the kind of executive ideas being made at UPN...
It's interesting to note that had Enterprise been on the air now with the same ratings, it would be considdered a hit show.
What I think happened was that Enterprise came too soon after Voyager, Voyager came too quickly after TNG and smothered DS9 too so you had all this Star Trek. You had Deep Space Nine which was the one show that was vastly different in tone and story than TNG and Voyager but it wasn't given any time to really stand alone. Therefore you had three shows one after the other TNG, VOY and ENT none of which differed much in terms of how stories were structured until season 4 of Enterprise and it may just have been too much too similar for people to keep coming back week in week out for well 18 years.
ENTERPRISE came around at the wrong time. Paramount was going though huge internal shake-ups, there was a notion by studio executives that they should get "hot bands" like One Direction to play in the officer's mess each week - that was the kind of executive ideas being made at UPN...
It's interesting to note that had Enterprise been on the air now with the same ratings, it would be considdered a hit show.
What I think happened was that Enterprise came too soon after Voyager, Voyager came too quickly after TNG and smothered DS9 too so you had all this Star Trek. You had Deep Space Nine which was the one show that was vastly different in tone and story than TNG and Voyager but it wasn't given any time to really stand alone. Therefore you had three shows one after the other TNG, VOY and ENT none of which differed much in terms of how stories were structured until season 4 of Enterprise and it may just have been too much too similar for people to keep coming back week in week out for well 18 years.
#23
Jay K
-
- Members
-
- 1,914 posts
It's not a disease it's a hobby.
- Gender:Male
- Location:Liverpool, England
- Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.
Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:47 PM
^Posts like this are always fascinating to me, purely for the reason that they give me an insight into how Star Trek was shown in the USA. Over here, at the time they were made, the BBC had the rights to all of them (movies included). TNG was on Wednesday 6pm, and when DS9 started, that was shown on Thursdays in the same time-slot. When TNG ended, DS9 moved to Wednesdays, whilst Voyager took over the Thursday slot. In doing this, I feel the BBC stopped it from becoming smothered, and gave each show an equal chance to shine.
However, and this is where my mind goes fuzzy, but I think they lost the rights during the last few seasons of Voyager. I might be wrong, but that's when our 'Murdoch'-owned TV stations (SKY is basically Fox UK) came in and snapped up the rights. DS9 seasons were shown almost a year ahead on Sky, but the BBC did finish it. I don't think they did with Voyager, as I remember watching the last few episodes on Sky1 (tuned in for the last half of season 7).
As for Enterprise, the rights went again to Sky, for a one-year timed exclusive. Then it was shown on Channel 4.
Bear in mind that before digital TV in the UK, and excluding Cable or Satellite channels (which you had to pay for), we only had 5 terrestrial channels at that point: BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5.
However, and this is where my mind goes fuzzy, but I think they lost the rights during the last few seasons of Voyager. I might be wrong, but that's when our 'Murdoch'-owned TV stations (SKY is basically Fox UK) came in and snapped up the rights. DS9 seasons were shown almost a year ahead on Sky, but the BBC did finish it. I don't think they did with Voyager, as I remember watching the last few episodes on Sky1 (tuned in for the last half of season 7).
As for Enterprise, the rights went again to Sky, for a one-year timed exclusive. Then it was shown on Channel 4.
Bear in mind that before digital TV in the UK, and excluding Cable or Satellite channels (which you had to pay for), we only had 5 terrestrial channels at that point: BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5.
#24
Gothneo
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 31 March 2013 - 06:48 AM
QUOTE (1701 @ Mar 30 2013, 05:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Enterprise didn't fail, the studio failed it.
ENTERPRISE came around at the wrong time. Paramount was going though huge internal shake-ups, there was a notion by studio executives that they should get "hot bands" like One Direction to play in the officer's mess each week - that was the kind of executive ideas being made at UPN...
It's interesting to note that had Enterprise been on the air now with the same ratings, it would be considdered a hit show.
What I think happened was that Enterprise came too soon after Voyager, Voyager came too quickly after TNG and smothered DS9 too so you had all this Star Trek. You had Deep Space Nine which was the one show that was vastly different in tone and story than TNG and Voyager but it wasn't given any time to really stand alone. Therefore you had three shows one after the other TNG, VOY and ENT none of which differed much in terms of how stories were structured until season 4 of Enterprise and it may just have been too much too similar for people to keep coming back week in week out for well 18 years.
ENTERPRISE came around at the wrong time. Paramount was going though huge internal shake-ups, there was a notion by studio executives that they should get "hot bands" like One Direction to play in the officer's mess each week - that was the kind of executive ideas being made at UPN...
It's interesting to note that had Enterprise been on the air now with the same ratings, it would be considdered a hit show.
What I think happened was that Enterprise came too soon after Voyager, Voyager came too quickly after TNG and smothered DS9 too so you had all this Star Trek. You had Deep Space Nine which was the one show that was vastly different in tone and story than TNG and Voyager but it wasn't given any time to really stand alone. Therefore you had three shows one after the other TNG, VOY and ENT none of which differed much in terms of how stories were structured until season 4 of Enterprise and it may just have been too much too similar for people to keep coming back week in week out for well 18 years.
I agree with your basic point, which is that the studio failed Enterprise. Almost every Trek series, took 2-3 seasons to hit its stride, even TNG faltered for the first couple of seasons.
I disagree that with you though that TNG, VOY and ENT structured stories the same. TNG was very much structured the way Roddenberry envisioned, typically, as single stand alone episodes, and very utopian with a bright future for Earth and Humans. DS9 was very much a Drama, more of a Soap Opera style, that you need to watch most episodes to understand what was going on. It was Dark, and had a very religious undertone. The idea for DS9 was that instead of trekking to the stars, the cast would stay put (more or less) and the adventure would trek to them, on a space station. VOY then took that premise and tried to go back to trekking to the stars, but without the federation, almost a "lord of the flies" concept, of will they maintain their humanity to survive, which again made it darker. Especially with all the borg episodes, but VOY and ENT were more alike that they tried to weave longer sub-plots together. I always though the Kazon plots went on too long. Since Voyager was heading home, they should have been out of the Kazons reach pretty quickly and thus they should have wrapped the whole thing up. Besides I found the Kazon to be a bit wearisome. VOY should have been 2-3 episode arcs about a particular chuck of space they were flying through, but it eventually devolved into the 7/9 and Dr. show!
Like I said previously, Season 4 of ENT was some of the best Trek since TNG IMO!
#25
Guest_1701_*
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:03 AM
QUOTE (Jay K @ Mar 30 2013, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
^Posts like this are always fascinating to me, purely for the reason that they give me an insight into how Star Trek was shown in the USA. Over here, at the time they were made, the BBC had the rights to all of them (movies included). TNG was on Wednesday 6pm, and when DS9 started, that was shown on Thursdays in the same time-slot. When TNG ended, DS9 moved to Wednesdays, whilst Voyager took over the Thursday slot. In doing this, I feel the BBC stopped it from becoming smothered, and gave each show an equal chance to shine.
However, and this is where my mind goes fuzzy, but I think they lost the rights during the last few seasons of Voyager. I might be wrong, but that's when our 'Murdoch'-owned TV stations (SKY is basically Fox UK) came in and snapped up the rights. DS9 seasons were shown almost a year ahead on Sky, but the BBC did finish it. I don't think they did with Voyager, as I remember watching the last few episodes on Sky1 (tuned in for the last half of season 7).
As for Enterprise, the rights went again to Sky, for a one-year timed exclusive. Then it was shown on Channel 4.
Bear in mind that before digital TV in the UK, and excluding Cable or Satellite channels (which you had to pay for), we only had 5 terrestrial channels at that point: BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5.
However, and this is where my mind goes fuzzy, but I think they lost the rights during the last few seasons of Voyager. I might be wrong, but that's when our 'Murdoch'-owned TV stations (SKY is basically Fox UK) came in and snapped up the rights. DS9 seasons were shown almost a year ahead on Sky, but the BBC did finish it. I don't think they did with Voyager, as I remember watching the last few episodes on Sky1 (tuned in for the last half of season 7).
As for Enterprise, the rights went again to Sky, for a one-year timed exclusive. Then it was shown on Channel 4.
Bear in mind that before digital TV in the UK, and excluding Cable or Satellite channels (which you had to pay for), we only had 5 terrestrial channels at that point: BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5.
I hail from the UK too.
Star Trek's popularity in the UK diminished after TNG finished, DS9 carried it for a while but toys began to dissapear from the aisle's at Toy's R Us and Trek's mainstream appeal just began to crumble in the UK but there was always a thirst for the TV shows and there still is to this day where Star Trek is being shown daily on any number of UK freeview and satellite channels (SyFi, PickTV, Film4, CBS Action, Sky Atlantic) I agree though that despite taking it off to show sport the BBC did a great job with Star Trek. I think the reason they didn't win Enterprise was because they weren't willing to pay the amount Paramount wanted for it as I think they (the BBC) felt Star Trek was not as popular as it was when TNG and DS9 were on - and they'd be right. Channel 4 snapped it up because lets face it Star Trek still had a loyal following, ENTERPRISE was shown in their Teen magazine show on a Sunday I think along with the likes of Smallville and The OC called T4 I think it might have been shown in the week too but certainly putting Star Trek there I don't think did it any favours. C4 now own the rights to broadcast the movies.
As for Voyager... I'm pretty sure Sky 1 had the rights to show every Star Trek series at one point but the entire series of Voyager was shown on BBC 2 but it moved from a Thursday night to a Sunday afternoon which was a shame.
#26
Guest_1701_*
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:22 AM
QUOTE (Gothneo @ Mar 31 2013, 06:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree with your basic point, which is that the studio failed Enterprise. Almost every Trek series, took 2-3 seasons to hit its stride, even TNG faltered for the first couple of seasons.
And the same can be said for Enterprise but I don't think it was the amount of time Enterprise had to get it right that was the problem because clearly Season 3 and 4 were brilliant. I just think that internal shake-ups and divisions between Paramount and the TV arm were reaching critical. I mean in the end this has ended up with Star Trek being owned by CBS and licensed out to Paramount to continue making the JJ Abrams movies. Its actually not an ideal place for Star Trek to be in, divided between two companies who could quite easily contradict on another with Star Trek. Fortunately I think the water's are calm at Paramount and CBS so, so far things have worked out, CBS do the merchandise and are currently updating the older TV series for BluRay and Paramount are rebuilding the brand by doing movies, the two heads are working together. This wasn't the case when ENTERPRISE was on the air.
QUOTE
I disagree that with you though that TNG, VOY and ENT structured stories the same. TNG was very much structured the way Roddenberry envisioned, typically, as single stand alone episodes, and very utopian with a bright future for Earth and Humans. DS9 was very much a Drama, more of a Soap Opera style, that you need to watch most episodes to understand what was going on. It was Dark, and had a very religious undertone. The idea for DS9 was that instead of trekking to the stars, the cast would stay put (more or less) and the adventure would trek to them, on a space station. VOY then took that premise and tried to go back to trekking to the stars, but without the federation, almost a "lord of the flies" concept, of will they maintain their humanity to survive, which again made it darker. Especially with all the borg episodes, but VOY and ENT were more alike that they tried to weave longer sub-plots together. I always though the Kazon plots went on too long. Since Voyager was heading home, they should have been out of the Kazons reach pretty quickly and thus they should have wrapped the whole thing up. Besides I found the Kazon to be a bit wearisome. VOY should have been 2-3 episode arcs about a particular chuck of space they were flying through, but it eventually devolved into the 7/9 and Dr. show!
Like I said previously, Season 4 of ENT was some of the best Trek since TNG IMO!
Like I said previously, Season 4 of ENT was some of the best Trek since TNG IMO!
I think really we as fans will always say that these shows were different, and to a point they were, as a fan I can see the differences between Similitude or Broken Bow to say Encounter at Farpoint or Best of Both Worlds, but to a newbie, there's really no denying it that there were minimal differences between the structure of each episode which really hurt the franchise: a crew of 7 with no real drama between them meet an alien or issue of the week. Fine for TNG, began to wear thin by the time Enterprise launched. I mean I would agree with you that things began to change, the formula began to change when Manny Coto was brought onboard during season 3 and ENTERPRISE began it's 4th series, but I think it just happened to be too little too late for a franchise that had been doing the same thing for 18 years straight (who wouldnt be exausted after that), a studio coming apart at the seams behind the scenes and for a network that was NEVER the right place for a Sci-Fi show.
Whatever the future for Star Trek, I really hope it involves a new TV series but I hope that they can get it onto the right US network and do something that doesn't go back to the alien of the week concept but is either serialized drama like Game of Thrones or Battlestar Galacitca or similar to Season 4 of ENTERPRISE and Doctor Who where there are smaller story arcs running through a season with a central plot that drives through every season.
#27
Gothneo
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 31 March 2013 - 06:05 PM
But DS9 was the template for the serialized drama that led the way for shows like BSG!
But BSG was interesting and is probably another topic unto itself because, IMO, it was off track by Season 3 and Season 4 was just mostly wrong. Seasons 1 and 2 were the best of BSG!
But BSG was interesting and is probably another topic unto itself because, IMO, it was off track by Season 3 and Season 4 was just mostly wrong. Seasons 1 and 2 were the best of BSG!
#28
Guest_1701_*
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:53 AM
QUOTE (Gothneo @ Mar 31 2013, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But DS9 was the template for the serialized drama that led the way for shows like BSG!
True
I wasn't really bringing Deep Space Nine into this because Deep Space Nine to me was incredible. It broke the formula Star Trek had been following with TNG and then Voyager and was such a breath of fresh air for the franchise, can't say how much of a Deep Space Nine fan I am and suffice to say whilst it doesn't hold the cultural significance of TOS and TNG I think it's the best Star Trek series EVER.
The problem here was that Voyager smothered it so no one really knew about it. I believe had DS9 been given the chance to fly on its own without having Voyager tagging along, It would have done to the franchise what TNG had done when it first aird and may have spawned it's own spin-off movies and TV series. I think Star Trek wouldn't have crashed as quickly as it did during Enterprise - I don't think we'd have gotten Enterprise the way we did at all.
(That being said I think JJ Abrams version of Trek would have been needed sooner or later to bring in an audience that wasn't there during even DS9's run.)
#29
Gothneo
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:58 PM
Fair Enough!
I get your point. DS9 was intended to prevent two Trek shows on a starship at the same time... and started while TNG was still one, I think it overlapped the 93-94 season.
Then, Voyager started up in 1995, so yeah it really wasn't given the chance to stand on its own.
I think this pict from wiki sums it up!
I also consider DS9 to be the best of them all. It took several season for DS9 to grow... and quit frankly to find its footing, but when it did, I was hooked and loved every minute of it.
That being said, as you've pointed out, we didn't get a fresh story telling take (IMO) until 1/2 way through ENT's 3rd season. Manny had it going on!
So while I'd love to see more of Manny's Trek... I think that boat has sailed with regards to Enterprise.
If we were going to do a reboot... BSG style, then what they should do is take those 79 TOS episodes, and come up with a way to interweave and serialize the stories into more of a drama, and update the basic themes to be relevant for today.
Then... just like the reboot of BSG ignored stuff that didn't work and built upon what did, you end up with something really great.
I get your point. DS9 was intended to prevent two Trek shows on a starship at the same time... and started while TNG was still one, I think it overlapped the 93-94 season.
Then, Voyager started up in 1995, so yeah it really wasn't given the chance to stand on its own.
I think this pict from wiki sums it up!
I also consider DS9 to be the best of them all. It took several season for DS9 to grow... and quit frankly to find its footing, but when it did, I was hooked and loved every minute of it.
That being said, as you've pointed out, we didn't get a fresh story telling take (IMO) until 1/2 way through ENT's 3rd season. Manny had it going on!
So while I'd love to see more of Manny's Trek... I think that boat has sailed with regards to Enterprise.
If we were going to do a reboot... BSG style, then what they should do is take those 79 TOS episodes, and come up with a way to interweave and serialize the stories into more of a drama, and update the basic themes to be relevant for today.
Then... just like the reboot of BSG ignored stuff that didn't work and built upon what did, you end up with something really great.
#30
Guest_1701_*
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:14 PM
I've never really been all that interested in TOS, it's great and it's important to watch but tell you what I'd love to see and that is for Deep Space Nine to be retold but with the resources of Game of Thrones and to possibly focus each episode in the dominion story arc and develop characters within that rather than have three seasons of getting into gear. Also I'd love to see the Enterprise involved in it too, never understood why Picard and co weren't involved with the dominion wars, would have been cool to have had the two TNG films and then TV specials of DS9 that included the TNG cast. It was such a sweeping and epic series that I think looking beyond the new movies, a logical progression would be to retell a tale in the 24th century
#31
Gothneo
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:21 PM
Why not just do Trek:Eugenic Wars. It could tell it from Kahns point of view.
#32
Commodore Kor'Tar
-
- Members
-
- 2,415 posts
The Great Tribble Hunter
- Gender:Male
- Location:U.S.S. Kahless NCC-76108 AKA Fort Worth TX
- Interests:Playmates figures and ships (90s era), Art Asylum and DST figures and ships , Galoob figures and micro machines .
Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:54 PM
QUOTE (Gothneo @ Apr 2 2013, 05:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why not just do Trek:Eugenic Wars. It could tell it from Kahns point of view.
An interesting idea, but that was covered in The Rise of Khan by Greg Cox.
#33
Guest_1701_*
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:48 AM
QUOTE
Los Angeles Tuimes posted a new interview with Star Trek Enterprise star Scott Bakula and here is an excerpt.
HC: The success of the
HC: The success of the
#34
Gothneo
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:34 AM
So there is a difference between investing and donating money. As an investor I'd be looking for returns on the investment, which means I'd want a cut of royalties and advertising money made from the show. So essentially, CBS would need to set up some LLC on an episode by episode basis with stock that can be bought or sold.
I doubt they would do that. More unlikely is the idea that such an investment would yield much in the way of returns.
I doubt they would do that. More unlikely is the idea that such an investment would yield much in the way of returns.
#35
Destructor!!!
-
- Members
-
- 1,883 posts
It's not a disease it's a hobby.
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ireland
Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:48 AM
Plus, as Bakula noted, the fans did fundraise back in the day - they raised, if I recall correctly, upward of 1 million dollars *Dr. Evil pinky*, but that was shrugged off by the studio because it wasn't enough for even one episode.
Granted, Kickstarter, Indiegogo and their ilk are much more efficient ways to raise money than a fan campaign, but to finance a season of episodes, we're probably talking more than $100 million. Have any fundraising sites ever touched that kind of goal?
Granted, Kickstarter, Indiegogo and their ilk are much more efficient ways to raise money than a fan campaign, but to finance a season of episodes, we're probably talking more than $100 million. Have any fundraising sites ever touched that kind of goal?
#36
Jay K
-
- Members
-
- 1,914 posts
It's not a disease it's a hobby.
- Gender:Male
- Location:Liverpool, England
- Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.
Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:13 AM
For reference, here's the Kickstarter list:
http://en.wikipedia....by_funds_raised
Ouya console, and Double Fine Adventure are the only two I knew of off the top of my head, and even then, the Ouya 'only' raised $8million.
http://en.wikipedia....by_funds_raised
Ouya console, and Double Fine Adventure are the only two I knew of off the top of my head, and even then, the Ouya 'only' raised $8million.
#37
Destructor!!!
-
- Members
-
- 1,883 posts
It's not a disease it's a hobby.
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ireland
Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:44 PM
This is totally off-topic, but that Occulus Rift thingy on the list is one of the most exciting computer peripherals I've ever seen. Seek out the youtube video showing reporters trying it out... their reactions speak volumes.
Imagine playing a first-person star trek game, like Bridge Commander crossed with Elite Force... *nerdgasm*
EDIT:
On topic: Reddit has an interesting post analysing the viability of a fifth season of Enterprise on Netflix. The chances aren't quite as grim as I expected. I still say it's unlikely, and that they'd be better off doing Captain Worf or something.
Imagine playing a first-person star trek game, like Bridge Commander crossed with Elite Force... *nerdgasm*
EDIT:
On topic: Reddit has an interesting post analysing the viability of a fifth season of Enterprise on Netflix. The chances aren't quite as grim as I expected. I still say it's unlikely, and that they'd be better off doing Captain Worf or something.
#38
Jay K
-
- Members
-
- 1,914 posts
It's not a disease it's a hobby.
- Gender:Male
- Location:Liverpool, England
- Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.
Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:42 PM
(I completely agree about the Rift - closest thing to a Holodeck in our lifetimes - and I've tried it. 
)
)
#39
Guest_1701_*
Guest_1701_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:46 AM
The only thing that could prevent Enterprise coming back for a fifth series is CBS and how they want to approach Star Trek. It seems clear that from them granting Hasbro a license to giving Bad Robot carte blanch over Star Trek that they want to focus on pushing Star Trek into the summer blockbuster, mainstream, family entertainment, sci-fi geek-chique franchise rather than focusing on the small number of fans who do want Enterprise to return.
It may be viable for Netflix to do a series but only if Star Trek owners, CBS agree to it which seems unlikely now given the fact that Enterprise was not the most popular Trek series and also that since Enterprise, Star Trek has gone onto bigger and better things.
My guess is that a Star Trek series produced by Netflix is possible but more likely we'll see a new TV series done for traditional broadcast like Game of Thrones and Doctor Who, possibly re imagining TNG in the Alternate JJ Abrams Universe either produced by Bad Robot under executive production by JJ Abrams and run by another team of people possibly including perhaps Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci. Furthermore I think it's more likely we'd see an animated Star Trek series set in Captain Kirk's time than seeing Enterprise. Who know's though, we could have Scott Bakula doing the voice for an animated version of Admiral Archer?
It may be viable for Netflix to do a series but only if Star Trek owners, CBS agree to it which seems unlikely now given the fact that Enterprise was not the most popular Trek series and also that since Enterprise, Star Trek has gone onto bigger and better things.
My guess is that a Star Trek series produced by Netflix is possible but more likely we'll see a new TV series done for traditional broadcast like Game of Thrones and Doctor Who, possibly re imagining TNG in the Alternate JJ Abrams Universe either produced by Bad Robot under executive production by JJ Abrams and run by another team of people possibly including perhaps Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci. Furthermore I think it's more likely we'd see an animated Star Trek series set in Captain Kirk's time than seeing Enterprise. Who know's though, we could have Scott Bakula doing the voice for an animated version of Admiral Archer?
#40
Gothneo
-
- Members
-
- 5,753 posts
Knows Paul Bunyan
- Gender:Male
- Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen
Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:44 AM
I think your on to something 1701.
I don't know that I ever really considered Star Trek as first and foremost a big screen blockbuster movie type property. Since it came from TV, I always viewed the Movies as a bit of a "Bonus".
Imagine if they tried to take something like Dr. Who exclusively to the big screen, I would think they would have to transform it in a similar way... make it appeal to a broader, world wide market, flash it up etc.
Typically, big hit movies translate down to TV, not the other way. So maybe they do have a strategy. Maybe your right they want to build Star Trek into a more main stream type property that generates revenue from the big screen. If they capture enough of peoples imagination and attention, then once they are done with Movies, they can take it back to TV?
I don't know that I ever really considered Star Trek as first and foremost a big screen blockbuster movie type property. Since it came from TV, I always viewed the Movies as a bit of a "Bonus".
Imagine if they tried to take something like Dr. Who exclusively to the big screen, I would think they would have to transform it in a similar way... make it appeal to a broader, world wide market, flash it up etc.
Typically, big hit movies translate down to TV, not the other way. So maybe they do have a strategy. Maybe your right they want to build Star Trek into a more main stream type property that generates revenue from the big screen. If they capture enough of peoples imagination and attention, then once they are done with Movies, they can take it back to TV?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.4.4
Licensed to: Trektoy.com & Trekfigures.com