Originally Posted by samwiseb
I would argue spending 150 million bucks on anything named 'Star Trek,' even at the height of its popularity, was an unprecedented risk. There was no way to predict how mainstream viewers might respond (or not). Even blockbuster franchises like The Terminator don't guarantee success. The only guarantee with Star Trek is the fans, and most of them wanted a new series "set 100 years after Nemesis" (how often have we seen that thrown out there?). I suppose such a series would have kept most of the same people and the same aesthetic as all the TNG spinoffs... at least in the assumptions of most fans (many of them the same fans, I might add, who 'hate' Berman and Braga). Skin-tight jumpsuits, chroniton particles and neutrino emissions, warp 'signatures', and ponderous music... I hate to sound condescending, but can't people get enough? There's nothing risky about that, even if it fails. That's just called not learning their lesson.
I confess I'm a little confused here - but I might be reading you too literally.
If one is considering a setting for a series - what really makes setting a series in the future any more or less creative than setting it alongside or before any of the other series either.
That didn't seem to work for ENT until it was post-cancellation, it didn't help when DS9 and VOY were concurrent and yet it's also not going to help putting it ahead and leapfrogging?
What you're talking about introducing would have nothing to do with the setting strictly, it seems. You seek someone who would come in and actually run
the show in a totally different manner to what has gone before. Which is fine, but I don't see where one setting over another would itself guarantee anything.