I sincerely doubt Prime Trek has made half a billion dollars for CBS in the past decade.
Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
I sincerely doubt Prime Trek has made half a billion dollars for CBS in the past decade.
www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/14940-the-star-trek-thread/
When I followed the link, I came across a comment that Trek 2017 is unrelated to next year's movie.
When I followed the link, I came across a comment that Trek 2017 is unrelated to next year's movie.
Then you've just found out what everyone has read in the initial press release! Congrats!
With TNG averaging $60m USD in the US alone in pure profit, each year. I wouldn't be surprised if it had made over a billion dollars.
Still, it's not the cash cow it once was. Hence the films.
Bingo!
The kind of people who really give a fuck about this are never, ever going to let go of Star Trek no matter what's done with it, because it's become Life Itself to them.
So even if they don't pony up six bucks for streaming or buy a movie ticket every three years they can be depended upon to continue emptying their wallets for every Starfleet tchotchke that's pooped out of a plastics plant in China, all while complaining about how disillusioned they are with the new show or movie.
The studio can't lose. Except...what they have to worry about isn't trekkies walking away, it's trekkies aging and dying off.
Which brings us to the question of how long can Star Trek really be milked? One part is the fans dying off; the other is how long until they run out of unique stories to tell without losing the core nature of Trek.
Longest running entertainment franchise in history breaking new ground.
Longest running entertainment franchise in history breaking new ground.
Isn't doctor who older?
And as for unique stories, didn't happen that a long time ago too?
Yepp, doctor who had the 50th two years ago.
What did Enterprise add? Aside from softporn under the shower and a animal abuse? VOY and Enterprise were a kind of TNG 2.0 or 3.0.
It depends on how you treat the characters. The core of trek is optimism about the future and technology as a tool. There are several facets to engage that right there.
Characters are far more the deciding factor rather than what the world building is.
Most of those I listed have run continuously. 'Revamped' maybe, but not rebooted (as in: stopped, period where it was 'off', and then restarted with changes.)
On the other hand, The Shadow has run for close to 100 years, has spun off and rebooted quiet few times (including completely revamping the character concept from anthology host to crime fighter comparatively early in the characters existence), and has another movie on the way by Sam Raimi. Said reboots weren't always successful (hi Alec Baldwin), but it was embraced enough to keep repeating that process.
I'm willing to bet that reboots are going no where - they're literally as old as fiction. Go and try and find the 'real' origins of the characters from Arthurian legends. $20 says that the version you think of as the 'original' are just Mallory or White's updated versions.
I always thought the core of Star Trek was simply having heroes that are in space and will go trekkin'. It's just having (mostly) good writers meant that the show tackled the issues, character moments etc that should arise from having that core. Kinda like both BSG's have the same 'core', just different people developing it.
Last edited:
No. Reboots (remakes, re-imaginings or whatever you want to call them) have been happening forever. The story of Christ being the son of God, the Messiah and the Saviour are also a reboot of stories that existed long before.
Successive generations always re-invent/re-interpret previously existing ideas and works. Ancient myths, literature and expanding that into film and television all have ample examples of what came before being rebooted to satisfy the tastes and perceptions of successive generations.
Unless the current generation ends up being the last of humanity then reboots will not become passe.
Those before Cheeses were only rehearsals.
That is one thing, yes. Things are very often combinations of things that have been there before.
Still - the attitude of tv- and moviemakers to reboot old tv shows etc. pp. seems a little unimagitive and uninspired and just a little too easy and cheap to me.
Do Hamlet, Faust or the Magic Flute have prequels and reboots?
(I admit the Magic Flute was a rip off of another opera called "The magic Harp".)
Perhaps. But I was illustrating that it's not a new thing. It's more noticeable now because of the rapidity in which it happens, but that doesn't make it new.
One can also include music in regard to rebooting. Down through the centuries and particularly noticeable during the past 100 years songs have been rewritten and remade extensively.
"Reboot" has become the current catchword for a very long established practice.
Did anyone claim that it is a "new" behaviour? I call it a very bad habit.
I think there is simple strategy behind it: reboot a show of the 80s and a) you will not only get the new audience but b) also get those, who were children back then, they'll look for nostalgia and c) you don't have to invest much in creating new stuff and d) always have a minimum of attention.
Yes, some people call that lazy and unimagitive too. But I wouldn't call newer versions of "singing in the rain" f.e a "reboot". Isn't there another word for it: "cover"?
Only if you use the word in a very general sense.
I use it with conditions: only for tv shows or movies, maybe comics and some kind of fan-literature (which I don't consume much) and only if the names/the content etc. stay the same, while being "updated" so it can appeal to a new audience etc. (see above).
Remakes and prequels and sequels are often just as BAD and are all the same mischmasch to me. But Brahms quoting Beethoven is not a reboot of Beethoven but a quote.
Last edited:
As much as I would love to consider the real possibility that the show would be set in the prime universe. There is no way any of the big money guys want to separate unconnected Star Trek worlds officially active at the same time.
They probably want what Marvel has with Star Trek.
They probably want what Marvel has with Star Trek.
Actually it's not that far-fetched for them to go back to the Prime continuity even with a soft reboot. It holds a host of possibilities that need have little to nothing to do with what has been seen before. It would also allow them to distinguish themselves from the current movie property.
Also, slightly off-topic, I do find it interesting that while I dislike JJtrek intensely I do find what I see of the forthcoming of the new Star Wars production to be intriguing. For one thing it looks like Star Wars and has a decent vibe to it. So far JJ seems to be doing right by SW. Of course, time will tell...
Also, slightly off-topic, I do find it interesting that while I dislike JJtrek intensely I do find what I see of the forthcoming of the new Star Wars production to be intriguing. For one thing it looks like Star Wars and has a decent vibe to it. So far JJ seems to be doing right by SW. Of course, time will tell...
Similar threads
