February 29 2024

TrekToday

An archive of Star Trek News

Frakes: Forget About Trek On TV

1 min read

FrakesStock052714

If you’re waiting for a Star Trek series to air on television, don’t hold your breath.

Jonathan Frakes said it won’t be happening anytime soon.

Frakes, speaking at Fan Expos Regina 2015 last weekend, was asked about the possibility of a new televised Trek series.

The actor told the crowd that he had pitched a concept to CBS but that they weren’t interested in a new Trek show, not even one pitched by him.

Frakes went on to explain that CBS feels that it diluted the Star Trek brand during the 1990s and early 2000s, with Star Trek: Nemesis being the first Trek film to fail to make a profit.

So when the rebooted Trek movies did well, CBS decided to concentrate on them, and not branch out and make the same mistake as they did back then.

About The Author

176 thoughts on “Frakes: Forget About Trek On TV

  1. Well, that’s no “Jane, you ignorant slut,” but I give you points for committing to this truly weird anti-social crusade you have going, I’m glad you are clinging so tightly to your little online cabal built for two. This is a very interesting way to try to win a debate. “Reasoned” isn’t the right word, more like, “inappropriate,” but it’s still hilarious! Thanks for the chin up and perspective, buddy!

  2. So my telling you to get real and stop talking nonsense is being anti-social? Looks like reality has fled you.

  3. We’re arguing about something really dumb on an obscure Star Trek fan site. Reality has fled both of us. I said my piece yesterday, we aren’t going to see eye to eye on this, and it’s a waste of both our times to keep this up. I’m sure we’ll actually find something to agree on and be pleasant about some other time. Well, maybe not sure, but stranger things have happened. Toodles!

  4. I doubt the majority of popcorn munching moviegoers would care even if Kirk were portrayed as the greatest idiot in the universe. They want their 2 hour entertaintment and that’s it. But anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the character will see what a douchebag that Kirk is. He’s absolutely not Kirk, not in the sense he was written/portrayed nor in the sense of where he originates from. Whether you like it or not, he IS an alternate universe (version of) Kirk, whether he is the “official” version at the moment or not. That’s a canonical fact.

  5. “Under the Dome.” “Extant.” “The Originals.” “Reign.” “The 100.” “Beauty & the Beast.” Niche shows that cater to niche audiences (most with ratings no larger than those of Star Trek: Enterprise), produced by CBS Television Studios. It’s not as simple as that.

  6. In the instance mentioned (DC Comics) DC Comics fans skew younger and are numerous enough for the CW, but not enough for CBS, which skews older and aren’t numerous enough for CBS execs to be spending the money to make a Star Trek show of. Trust me and others when we tell you that a Star Trek show is more expensive than all of the shows mentioned by you as a reason why CBS should make a Star Trek show.

    As well, CBS isn’t as dependent on needing a Star Trek TV show as Paramount Television was-they make money their way, by licensing and merchandising the Star Trek franchise, which is what they’re doing now. Why then would they need a Star Trek show on TV that might not get the ratings they want? Just to please a bunch of fans needing fan service?.

    THINK about this before you insist that we need a new show brim CBS Studios, because just as likely, we don’t.

  7. Nothing and nobody says that we have to continue the original canon at all, just people like you stuck in the past that want the franchise to die. You have the fan shows, watch those and (for a change) shut the frack up about the new movies-we don’t care about Kirk being a ‘douche’ (newsflash; he wasn’t-that’s cockiness) or anything else related to your hatred of younger people or resistance to change. Like it or not, the franchise is moving along without you, and doesn’t have to be tied to a past version of Kirk & company just for nostalgia’s sake.

  8. You keep saying I’m stuck in the past. On the contrary, I want trek to be future-oriented, as it’s expected to be. Technology, future, utopia, and all that stuff. Trek should move forward. Instead, they move backwards, reimagining and “rebooting” it, reeinventing the wheel so to say. And what a bad reinveinting that is. I hope the new series, whenever it comes, will feature a new crew, a new starship, new challenges in a new century. Until then, there are such high quality independent productions like Star Trek Continues (and several others) that trek fans and everyone else can enjoy.

  9. ‘Bad’ to you and all of the other fools trapped in the past. Not bad to anybody else, including casual movie goers and any new fans. And yes, the movies are quite ‘future-oriented’-they’re not just future-oriented for you and all of the others trapped in the past and stuck to the old continuity and canon. Star Trek will go on, minus you and all of the others with the ‘Get off my lawn you kids’ mentality.

  10. The executives of TV networks really are the last people to understand what people want. They’re the same people who insert themselves into an existing TV series and demand all kinds of changes to make them “appeal to a wider audience” or somesuch… and the series then fails miserably.

    I think studios that don’t need to be associated with these big movie houses are going to be the future. Netflix for example. If you haven’t seen their new Daredevil series yet, give it a look. It’s really quite excellent.

  11. “THINK about this before you insist that we need a new show brim CBS Studios, because just as likely, we don’t.”

    You really like to argue against things people haven’t said, don’t you? I specifically said we DON’T need a new show. I said we’ve got hundreds of hours of reruns if we want to watch Trek. I’m taking issue only with your contention that the reason there’s new show is because it’s too expensive and too “niche.”

    DC fans are not “numerous enough,” considering even the worst Trek averaged better ratings than the most successful DC show on CW. CBS is not where a new Trek would air, it most likely would air on CW. Trek hasn’t been a major network show since the 1960s. Throughout its golden age, it ran in syndication and then on UPN. And no, it wouldn’t have to be “more expensive” than “The Expanse,” or even “Extant.” Both of those shows seem to use just as much FX as Trek did (and if The Expanse sticks to the weightlessness and the “villain” of the books, it’ll use a lot *more* FX), and neither has licensing to help offset the costs.

    We may not get another Trek on TV (and I’d be all right with that), but it won’t be because of cost and it won’t be because it’s too “niche.”

  12. Well the nu movies are already a thing of the past as well. And since they are completely forgettable and trashy, they are likely to remain part of the forgettable popcorn past. Sure, to a casual popcorn muncher they can be fun, even trek fans find some of those trashy abrams movies fun, but many agree they are not really Star Trek. Oh, Star Trek will go on in some form or another, I agree, but hopefully not as a dumb reboot. Like I said, I hope the new Trek series (whenever it may come) will feature a new crew for a change. We don’t want to be stuck in the past, do we?

  13. The ‘nu movies’ are going into a third one, (and possibily a fourth) sir. And they’ll be having fans while you and the rest of the whiny ‘traditionalists’ sit in a world all of your own still insisting on Star Trek go back to the dead continuity.

  14. Okay, something I have to say about the Abrams films and how people think that they don’t embody Roddenberry’s ‘vision’ because of the so-called (and over-exaggerated) ‘Pew! Pew!’ factor:

    (TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.

    TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!

    TSFS) GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk’s son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!

    TVH) They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.

    TFF) Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!

    TUC) Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!

    GEN) Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!

    FC) BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!

    INS) Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!

    NEM) Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

    Trek was an action franchise from the second movie installment onward. To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore everything beyond The Motion Picture.

  15. Said animated show might have to happen now if they want to capitalize on the momentum of popularity for CGI animated shows started by Clone Wars and Rebels.

  16. I would say the movie franchise is by and large action-oriented and not always representative of what Star Trek was like on TV. Most TV Trek isn’t about one obsessive villain and all the action beats needed to keep an audience engaged. The Inner Light or City on the Edge of Forever wouldn’t fly on the big screen for better or worse.
    Now, I would argue there’s a big difference in what kind of action film TWOK, with its musings on friendship, literature, aging and obsession, is and what Nemesis and the Abrams films are, and I would never call The Voyage Home an action film by any stretch, but no one can really complain about the Abrams films betraying Roddenberry’s vision simply because they are action-heavy. They don’t really do much to explore the human condition, or at least Into Darkness really doesn’t. But yes, Trek on film has always been different from Trek on TV, though Voyager and Enterprise certainly amped up the breezy day to day action.
    FWIW, Roddenberry did say the only “real” Star Trek film was The Voyage Home.

  17. Yes, that’s a totally unrelated issue to Trek and CBS, except as something of a parody/homage to Trek.

    The new incarnation of Paramount Television isn’t like the original version, though. It’s limited to doing co-productions and is more like Bad Robot, a small development company, than the major television studio like it used to be.

  18. I think if we don’t hear news of a new animated series by 2016 (or 2017 at the very latest), the chances of one will probably be slim after that.

  19. Apparently Simon Pegg’s Goal Is To Make Star Trek 3 Less Star Treky, Avengers Assemble, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn. Star Trek: Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant. But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why.”
    He further explained “People don’t see it being a fun, brightly colored, Saturday night entertainment like the Avengers,” adding that the solution was to “make a Western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it’s more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent.” Ha they are going to make it less Star Trek then Ever you Lost Sucker. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemablend.com%2Fnew%2FApparently-Simon-Pegg-Goal-Make-Star-Trek-3-Less-Star-Treky-71535.html&ei=vcFbVeaHNcmlyASL5oPICQ&usg=AFQjCNEoranRHttdWxscq85LsSnyWf9dwA&sig2=Ugb-AF3asknrlPZX9-q_MA

  20. Did you hear Apparently Simon Pegg’s Goal Is To Make Star Trek 3 Less Star Treky , Avengers Assemble, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn. Star Trek: Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant. But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why.”
    He further explained “People don’t see it being a fun, brightly coloured, Saturday night entertainment like the Avengers,” adding that the solution was to “make a Western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it’s more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent.”

  21. Some trolls in this thread LOL. FYI guys we gotta start reading cause Hollywood star trek is toast. Unless some Independent studio gets the rights it’s R.I.P ):

  22. …and then CBS announced it was making a new Star Trek series.nIt’s so sad that I thought of our heated debate eventually and even searched for it later. But it’s also nerdily satisfying.

  23. I did not see CBS All Access coming, but the safety of that paywall isn’t unlike what protection Showtime would have offered. Obviously CBS is actually very interested in capitalizing on Star Trek now, while the movies and upcoming anniversary are attracting attention.

  24. Yeah, you managed to respond to me six months later just so that you could say ‘I won!’ over this. Hoorah.*nnn*sarcasm nnnGuess what, Smithian? It’s still not being made by Paramount, just CBS Studios, and it’s set in the rebooted continuity of the new movies-so I guess that I won, and you didn’t.

  25. Oh I know it’s petty, but you made an impression by being so delightful and polite!*nAnd no, sorry dear, let’s not pretend now the argument was actually just about whether Paramount or CBS was going to be the one to make a show. You didn’t color my opinion of all of Internet comment culture for months just by doing that. Don’t sell yourself short!n*same

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.