|
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There is much more money to be made (at least short term)from a successful film franchise than there is a television series. Not to mention that many actors want to pursue a film career and not a television one. Plus I am sure the cast is contractually committed to probably at least 2 sequals with their film contract. Interestingly though Star Trek II was produced through Paramoounts televisoin department. That approach allowed them make it with a budget around $12 million if memory serves me correct vs. the $40 million dollars spent on Star Trek The Motion Picture. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wouldnt it be impossible, as this movie is about Kirk and the guys/girls on the academy if i got it correct. If so the movie series has already been done as TOS.
But i wouldnt say no to any new startrek series :P |
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
|
How about this: Would one of the movie sequels need to be post-TNG in order to get a post-Tong show?
|
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have often thought that STNG could have done well after it's run as the occasional TV movie like Raymond Burr did with Perry Mason.
While most TV casts are ready to move on to other characters and other projects after seven years many of them do not find the same level of success they have enjoyed. I think after a year or two hiatus most actors from any of the Star Trek TV series would have been open to reprising their roles once or twice a year for TV movies. In the case of STNG even if Patrick Stewart had not wanted to Ryker could have been promoted and a new interesting First officer character introduced. Imagine the DVD sales!! This would have kept Trek from being overexposed as a pent up demand would be satisfied once or twice a year. Often enough to keep high interest but not enough to become commonplace and taken for granted. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|