Star Trek series physical media in the Paramount Plus era and legacy (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Robertson]

I didn't see this mentioned here but it has been known for nearly a decade that most of the 3D assets for DS9 and VOY exist, unlike B5. So if the powers that be ever green light the two series going HD, at least they wouldn't have to redo the CGI completely from scratch. I especially like the example HD rendering shown on the page illustrating how the models were "overbuilt".

Deep Space Nine in High Definition: One Step Closer?

Two years ago, fans thought it would be impossible that a show like Star Trek: The Next Generation could ever be remastered in high definition. Like spinoffs Deep Space Nine and Voyager, TNG was originally shot on film but subsequently edited at video resolution. Thanks to CBS’s faith in Star...

blog.trekcore.com

 

[JediFonger]

I didn't see this mentioned here but it has been known for nearly a decade that most of the 3D assets for DS9 and VOY exist, unlike B5. So if the powers that be ever green light the two series going HD, at least they wouldn't have to redo the CGI completely from scratch. I especially like the example HD rendering shown on the page illustrating how the models were "overbuilt".

Deep Space Nine in High Definition: One Step Closer?

Two years ago, fans thought it would be impossible that a show like Star Trek: The Next Generation could ever be remastered in high definition. Like spinoffs Deep Space Nine and Voyager, TNG was originally shot on film but subsequently edited at video resolution. Thanks to CBS’s faith in Star...

blog.trekcore.com

tos/tng restoration took place during the height of physical media when it was profitable and was a ONE OFF. as far as i can tell, there hasn't been ANY OTHER TV series/program that went through as thorough as restoration/remaster as tos/tng.

they've barely restored most of the other TV series such stargate SG-1... that time period probably won't come again.

 

[Jeff Robertson]

"Never say never" is what I have gathered from this thread. A Podcast from Late 2023 supports the possibility that it will happen.

 

[JediFonger]

"Never say never" is what I have gathered from this thread. A Podcast from Late 2023 supports the possibility that it will happen.

ok, sorry , maybe 3126... we'll both be long d4ead.

 

[Desslar]

Well I would imagine that by the 90's, especially the producers of Star Trek - a show that was a huge part of reruns being lucrative - the thought to future proof their shows would be a little more commonplace. If any series defies the "one and done" mentality, it would be a Star Trek. Once TNG proved successful, they always had reruns in mind, which is why they capped at a 7 year maximum.

I've read about this before, but why was 7 years the magic number?

Yup. The day is coming -- if it hasn't passed already -- when audiences are simply not going to look at standard def media. They expect shows to be in HD, and I can't blame them. Any show that's not in HD risks being lost to history.

Well, one would think so. But there are more than a few cable channels that are horribly compressed to hell and back and look awful. Yet they remain on the air somehow.

I hate to say it, but for the entirety of human history, a huge amount of pop culture has been for all intents and purposes lost to history - most people most of the time are most interested in material that is contemporary to them. Shakespeare, Dickens, Star Trek TOS, these are all things that are the exceptions that prove the rule. Honestly I think a certain amount of this is healthy - stuff needs to go away to make room in the cultural zeitgeist for whatever comes next, and if that doesn’t happen, culture stagnates and dies. It’s not like that every Star Trek everything is going to be a pop culture perennial - some of them are going to be deep cuts for dedicated fans and not things that everyone in the world remains familiar with. It’s a little tougher when it happens to the thing you like but a lot of Trek - whether upgraded to HD or not - will remain there for the people who want it but just won’t entice substantial numbers of new viewers. It’s not a reflection of quality but just the reality of history.

True, but these days it is easier than ever to preserve and maintain pop culture. In the time of Dickens, motion pictures didn't even exist. Now we've got streaming platforms making 100-year old films accessible to all. That is, if they have any interest.

 

[ScottRE]

I've read about this before, but why was 7 years the magic number?

TNG had a few reasons for ending at 7. The actors were getting expensive to sign. I think they had 3 year contracts and they got that 7th year with the understanding that it was ending and they were going on to movies. Patrick Stewart was ready to go, so I think the film was an enticement to get him back on.

7 years seemed to be the point where the actors got too expensive to bring back and it was cheaper, and more creatively energizing, to start a new series. Also the outgoing show can go into daily reruns and have a good number of episodes to burn through before they have to start over. After TNG, 7 years became the expectation for Star Trek.

Then Enterprise brought that to an end. Sadly, while Voyager and DS9 arguably went on too long, Enterprise was just finding its creative sweet spot. I would have liked another 3 years.

 

[jayembee]

Then Enterprise brought that to an end. Sadly, while Voyager and DS9 arguably went on too long, Enterprise was just finding its creative sweet spot. I would have liked another 3 years.

And even then, Enterprise only got its fourth season because Paramount wanted 100 episodes for syndication. And they ended up two episodes shy of that.

 

[Desslar]

TNG had a few reasons for ending at 7. The actors were getting expensive to sign. I think they had 3 year contracts and they got that 7th year with the understanding that it was ending and they were going on to movies. Patrick Stewart was ready to go, so I think the film was an enticement to get him back on.

7 years seemed to be the point where the actors got too expensive to bring back and it was cheaper, and more creatively energizing, to start a new series. Also the outgoing show can go into daily reruns and have a good number of episodes to burn through before they have to start over. After TNG, 7 years became the expectation for Star Trek.

Then Enterprise brought that to an end. Sadly, while Voyager and DS9 arguably went on too long, Enterprise was just finding its creative sweet spot. I would have liked another 3 years.

Interesting, thanks. I thought it was odd that Voyager launched only two years after DS9. Seems to suggest a lack of confidence in DS9, although it would keep on running for several years.

 

[Wiseguy]

Interesting, thanks. I thought it was odd that Voyager launched only two years after DS9. Seems to suggest a lack of confidence in DS9, although it would keep on running for several years.

Voyager replaced TNG. DS9 just happened to overlap the two series.

 

[Wayne Klein]

TNG had a few reasons for ending at 7. The actors were getting expensive to sign. I think they had 3 year contracts and they got that 7th year with the understanding that it was ending and they were going on to movies. Patrick Stewart was ready to go, so I think the film was an enticement to get him back on.

7 years seemed to be the point where the actors got too expensive to bring back and it was cheaper, and more creatively energizing, to start a new series. Also the outgoing show can go into daily reruns and have a good number of episodes to burn through before they have to start over. After TNG, 7 years became the expectation for Star Trek.

Then Enterprise brought that to an end. Sadly, while Voyager and DS9 arguably went on too long, Enterprise was just finding its creative sweet spot. I would have liked another 3 years.

I don’t think DS9 went on too long at all. Voyager, yes. I enjoyed the show but the formula was wearing thin.