That's really far out. SF accounts for 75% of the all-time top twenty. If you go to SF/F, then that covers altogether 90% of it! I mean, that's assuming talking animals aren't fantasy, even though talking toys are! 
Why is Star Trek not that popular in younger people?
- Thread starter YoungCadet
- Start date
- Status
Let's see since 2000, we had the tail end of Voyager, Enterprise and the movies Nemesis, Star Trek 2009, and STID.
Voyager didn't finish that strong, and is the second least popular Trek show, statistically speaking.
Enterprise never caught on with enough people, and is considered the least popular version of Star Trek.
Nemesis was a flop and IMHO an unfortunate way to wrap TNG up.
That really leaves ST2009 and STID. Both made a lot of money, but I don't think one can say either made much of a cultural impact. Plus, whatever headway ST2009 might have made with younger people, when you wait 4 years for STID, and then another 3+ for the second sequel. That is a hella long time. You figure the Marvel-verse is releasing at least one movie a year, and has been since the 2000s. And its worth mentioning that Star Wars will be releasing a movie a year for at least the next 6 movies.
Maybe to be relevant with younger people, Star Trek not only needs to up its game cinematic-ally, but in frequency of releases. Now that Enterprise has been off the air for 10 years, maybe we should see at a minimum a Star Trek film once every year.
Voyager didn't finish that strong, and is the second least popular Trek show, statistically speaking.
Enterprise never caught on with enough people, and is considered the least popular version of Star Trek.
Nemesis was a flop and IMHO an unfortunate way to wrap TNG up.
That really leaves ST2009 and STID. Both made a lot of money, but I don't think one can say either made much of a cultural impact. Plus, whatever headway ST2009 might have made with younger people, when you wait 4 years for STID, and then another 3+ for the second sequel. That is a hella long time. You figure the Marvel-verse is releasing at least one movie a year, and has been since the 2000s. And its worth mentioning that Star Wars will be releasing a movie a year for at least the next 6 movies.
Maybe to be relevant with younger people, Star Trek not only needs to up its game cinematic-ally, but in frequency of releases. Now that Enterprise has been off the air for 10 years, maybe we should see at a minimum a Star Trek film once every year.
I think the only way that would happen would be if Disney somehow managed to acquire the Star Trek franchise too.
Movies come so fast and there are so many of them anymore, I don't think any of them make a cultural impact like we saw Star Trek and Star Wars make back in the 1970's.
People go to the movies, but I think most of them see movies as disposable entertainment. Out of all the movies I have seen (or will see this year), only three are one's that I even care to see a second time: Mad Max: Fury Road, Minions and Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Not automatically a bad idea/possibility.I think the only way that would happen would be if Disney somehow managed to acquire the Star Trek franchise too.
Not automatically a bad idea/possibility.I think the only way that would happen would be if Disney somehow managed to acquire the Star Trek franchise too.
Not necessarily, I agree... but I would imagine rather (and I'm sure that's an understatement) unlikely.
Agreed. The only movies I can think of within the last 10 years that fans formed true connections with like previous generations did with Star Trek and Star Wars are the Harry Potters, Marvel movies (mainly because of toys, and they are all connected/quasi sequels), and maybe Avatar.
I think for Trek to be more successful it not only needs to be well done, but also have a greater presence.
Not automatically a bad idea/possibility.I think the only way that would happen would be if Disney somehow managed to acquire the Star Trek franchise too.
Not necessarily, I agree... but I would imagine rather (and I'm sure that's an understatement) unlikely.
I don't know what the answer is, but Disney couldn't do any worse than CBS. But I agree: I don't see CBS selling any time soon. They aren't as big as Disney, but they don't need Disney's money. I don't know what CBS is waiting for with the Trek franchise, though. They just keep sitting on the Trek properties thinking its a gold mine that will pay off some day, and all they have to do is trickle out a movie once every 3-4 years, meanwhile as time goes by, Trek becomes forgotten by older fans who remember it, and newer fans are oblivious to it.
I'm not saying Trek needs to return to the media blitz of the 1990s/early 2000s, but I think it needs to have more than the nominal movie once every 3-4 years. I think at LEAST 1 movie a year, and possibly a miniseries or half season show on something like Amazon or Netflix would help Trek remain relevant A LOT. Four years is a whole term of grade school, high school, and for some college, to younger fans. The younger a person is, the longer that time seems, and in this day and age, if you aren't going to keep up with other franchises like Marvel that release a movie or two a year, you fall behind.
In reality the artform is dominated by Marvel comic book movies, and well selling fantasy books.
In todays movie market you need a preexhisting franchise to make money.
It just so happens there are not alot of big sci fi franchises around right now.
So it's no surprise there is limited sci fi.
What that really says is there are alot of big name sci fi franchises who are not pumping out movies, moreso than people are not interested.
In fact I'd argue world building is as important as almost any other factor in a movies production. This of course is actually great for sci fi, I sincerly think it's just a matter of time before sci fi movies star making a big comeback.
Same as it ever was, if you count premium tier television as really long films, which I argue they are.
It's pretty much the same as it ever was.
You get a whole lot of crap, and then 3 or 4 gems a year.
Which isn't true as Gravity and Interstellar and a whole slew of other movies have shown. Franchises are seen as a safer bet by Hollywood, but they aren't the only bets Hollywood makes.
I've seen probably fifteen movies this year, there aren't many I'd consider crap. Just aren't many that have me dying to see them a second time around. YMMV.
Precisely so. There was an attempt, in the past year, or so, with Jupiter Ascending to create a new franchise, but it didn't go anywhere, for many, many reasons.
Contrast that to superhero franchises, and now the Star Wars machine up and running again, and it feels like the confidence is there.
Star Trek always seems to be willing to wait and not take much risk. CBS makes money through merchandising (one of their sell sheets reads "Classic Trek drives retail sales") and the mix on the retailing end is far more expansive than any production.
For the younger crowd, that really isn't going to draw them in. I enjoy the merchandising, but I'm a fan of it. But, it seems to me that CBS is content with merchandising revenue and not willing to risk any other money.
Mainly because it was a terrible movie.
Interstellar without question is built on the brand of christopher nolan, who as unique as can be in this era.
I nearly mentioned him as being directly interested in sci fi before i made my earlier post. However there are endless exceptions to every trend.
Even his batman trilogy I'd define as clearly sci fi versus the marvel films.
There is no fantastical element, and there is alot of quasi sci fi themes in the batman trilogy.
Gravity I think is the result when a product tries to go it on its own, no compelling world building or any other reference points for the audience to latch onto.
I'm a fan of the movie, but it's hardly a high grossing film.
What made it terrible, exactly? And why, after one hundred years of cinema, and millennia of story-telling, have producers, writers, directors and actors still not learned how to get it more consistently right for their audience?
What exactly is your definition of "high grossing film"?
Gravity made $716 million worldwide on a $100 million dollar budget.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gravity.htm
Interstellar actually made less money...
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=interstellar.htm
A stereotype that I deeply resent. I am NOT fat!
Because after thousands of years of story telling, technology has advanced to the point where plot and dialogue are completely optional parts of film.
Films are now language optional,
download your average cartoon film from 1990, get it in a language you don't speak, and see how much you can figure out.
Than do the same with a modern film.
It's laughable how little the language of the movie even matters anymore.
My bad I thought it was a flop.
hehehe very good. 
- Status
Similar threads
