Impact on Star Trek as Disney reboot Star Wars.

[serenitytrek1]

Apparently JJ Abram’s feels terrific and terrified at the same time that a new star wars film is coming out. I read this on trekweb.com. so it is not hearsay.

Here is the link: http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/10/...ranchise.shtml

This is definitely one of the impacts that the new trilogy is already having on star trek. The Star Trek director is already feeling the pressure of all the mighty Star Wars.

[Greg Cox]

BillJ wrote:

---

If they opened at the same time, that would be one hell of a weekend. Considering I'd probably see both of them at least twice the opening weekend.

Come to think of it, I saw Return of the Jedi and Something Wicked This Way Comes on the same day, many, many years ago . . ..

[Lord Garth]

Star Wars Episode VII will have no impact on Star Trek Into Darkness but I think it could have an impact on Star Trek XIII. "Could" being the operative word.

Part of the success of Star Trek's reboot was to make it more like Star Wars. Now that Star Wars is coming back, Star Trek will look like the old toy and there will be a comparison. BUT, Star Trek will be established with two out of three movies already out. There might not be an affect on its box office. If ST XIII underperforms, or is critically panned, it's just as likely to be blamed on being a "Part 3" as it would be to suffering in comparison to Star Wars.

After ST XIII, Star Trek's future was already wide open to begin with. Star Wars will only provide them with a compass. ST will likely zig where SW zags to avoid looking like an immitation and to better set itself apart to stand on its own.

[Transwarp Drive]

Temis the Friendly Ghost wrote:

---

Huh? Trek predates Wars, so it goes both ways.

Ok but it seems to me that Star Wars kick started Trek as a movie franchise rather than the phase 2 thing that would have dwindled away in all likelihood. It was the Trek movies that arguably drove all subsequent incarnations of Trek and those movies were because of Star Wars.

[Temis the Vorta]

Hard to say. Wars changed the movie business, that's for sure, but TV is a different animal.

[milo bloom]

I believe like most others that new Trek and new Wars will mainly be a good thing for both studios, and I think they're smart enough to avoid stepping on each others toes (if Paramount learned their lesson from trying to put Nemesis up against LOTR, that is).

But, this I can see:

serenitytrek1 wrote:

---

(If he is right, I suggest Paramount ditch the obsessive secrecy and start giving Trek more Media exposure soon and fast)

If Paramount was savvy enough in the 70's to take Phase 2 from a TV series into a movie, I honestly think there may be some pushing by Paramount in the past few days for Abrams to start building buzz on Into Darkness.

[Greg Cox]

milo bloom wrote:

---

I believe like most others that new Trek and new Wars will mainly be a good thing for both studios, and I think they're smart enough to avoid stepping on each others toes (if Paramount learned their lesson from trying to put Nemesis up against LOTR, that is).

But, this I can see:

If Paramount was savvy enough in the 70's to take Phase 2 from a TV series into a movie, I honestly think there may be some pushing by Paramount in the past few days for Abrams to start building buzz on Into Darkness.

Er, what's the rush? The new SW movie isn't for a couple of years, right? And the new Trek isn't until next summer, right?

So who cares if SW gets a little press in November since INTO DARKNESS doesn't open until May? Are people going to blow off Trek next summer to wait for the new SW movie two years later?

[Transwarp Drive]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Er, what's the rush? The new SW movie isn't for a couple of years, right? And the new Trek isn't until next summer, right?

So who cares if SW gets a little press in November since INTO DARKNESS doesn't open until May? Are people going to blow off Trek next summer to wait for the new SW movie two years later?

No, no and thrice no Sir!

The SW news wasn't a 'little press', it was huge. I work in a situation room, we have media feeds in from all over the planet and this was major news, the deal, the story, the speculation.

SW has a place in the publics consciousness, as a movie and entertainment, that Trek can't touch. I'm not talking numbers, I am talking legacy and folklore. Ask most people of a certain vintage for a stand out cinema moment and the opening scene of ANH is right up there. A cloud with 3 Klingon cruisers probably isn't.

[Greg Cox]

Transwarp Drive wrote:

---

No, no and thrice no Sir!

The SW news wasn't a 'little press', it was huge. I work in a situation room, we have media feeds in from all over the planet and this was major news, the deal, the story, the speculation.

SW has a place in the publics consciousness, as a movie and entertainment, that Trek can't touch. I'm not talking numbers, I am talking legacy and folklore. Ask most people of a certain vintage for a stand out cinema moment and the opening scene of ANH is right up there. A cloud with 3 Klingon cruisers probably isn't.

True, but that's always been the case. SW has been more popular than TREK for over forty years now. So why is immediate action required now? And does anybody really think releasing a trailer or some publicity photos from INTO DARKNESS is suddenly going to vault Trek ahead of Wars in popularity?

I mean, it's not like they were neck-and-neck and the Disney news suddenly allowed SW to pull out into the lead. Or that millions of people who were inclined to see the new Trek movie suddenly changed their minds because, hey, there's a new SW movie coming out two years later . . ..

"Hey, Debbie. The new Trek movie just opened.Wanna go?"

"Nah, I got all excited about Star Wars back in October, so I think I'm going to hold out and wait for 2015 . . . ."

[USS Triumphant]

milo bloom wrote:

---

If Paramount was savvy enough in the 70's to take Phase 2 from a TV series into a movie, I honestly think there may be some pushing by Paramount in the past few days for Abrams to start building buzz on Into Darkness.

"The 70s are gone, baby, and it's hard on your friends who like Gummi Bears."

I don't think it's a fair assumption that Paramount being savvy 35 years ago is any indication for today - most of the people making decisions then are no longer with the company.

That said, I don't think a more excited and active sci-fi fan base can be much of anything but good for both franchises.

[StalwartUK]

I wonder if this will make Paramount fast track the production of Star Trek XIII to compete with Star Wars VII in 2015. Would personally prefer 2016 as then they could tie it into the 50th anniversary and give Star Trek some breathing room away from Star Wars.

[Skywalker]

StalwartUK wrote:

---

I wonder if this will make Paramount fast track the production of Star Trek XIII to compete with Star Wars VII in 2015. Would personally prefer 2016 as then they could tie it into the 50th anniversary and give Star Trek some breathing room away from Star Wars.

They can't compete with Episode VII. The Avengers sequel would blow them out of the water, too. I think 2016 makes a lot more sense.

[newtontomato539]

DS9 and B5 were on at the same time.

Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were out at the same time.

:Sigh: Those were good times.

Go Star Trek and Star Wars! Yahhhh aaaawww!

[teacake]

Star Wars is always going to be a phenomenon and Star Trek is always going to be just a great movie. Which means they won't go to war

[The Wormhole]

newtontomato539 wrote:

---

DS9 and B5 were on at the same time.

Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were out at the same time.

:Sigh: Those were good times.

Go Star Trek and Star Wars! Yahhhh aaaawww!

Still, I doubt Paramount is going to push for a Star Trek movie in 2015 when 2016 makes more sense anyway.