Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
What is that supposed to mean?
As the original poster of this thread I'd like to get it back on track with an article that was posted today that agrees with my first point and adds two more reasons why Trek '17 will be set in the Prime Universe.
3 Reasons the New Star Trek Series Will Be in the Prime Universe
So let's stop with this JJ-verse nonsense, it isn't a very good argument that the movies are popular and that CBS will want to capitalize on that. It doesn't matter, CBS doesn't own the movies. That is the point I'm trying to make, but it doesn't seem to be getting across.
According to my Bluray case, CBS do own the movies - or at least, everything in the movies. It's the same with Pocket and IDW.
Nothing Star Trek related is sourced in that article (for eg. Direct quotes.) It reads more like an opinion piece, right down to responding to comments. Not that there's anything wrong with opinions, but another one isn't worth any more than the dozens already shared on this thread (a lot of which covered the same ground.)
Nothing Star Trek related is sourced in that article (for eg. Direct quotes.) It reads more like an opinion piece, right down to responding to comments. Not that there's anything wrong with opinions, but another one isn't worth any more than the dozens already shared on this thread (a lot of which covered the same ground.)
Some people have brains, xortex.
You realize that there's not actually a relevant fact anywhere in that clickbait trash? It's grasping at supposition, misunderstanding and gossip...little of which makes any sense or bears close examination.
So, given the relevant fact that CBS has hired one of the architects of nuTrek to create this show we'll just keep talking about that until there's any real reason to think it's going to go oldTrek.
CBS' ownership of Star Trek is pretty well established, and that includes the Abrams films. What negotiations that CBS and Paramount have to do in order for it to happen is a matter for their lawyers.
The popularity of JJ-verse is exactly why CBS is considering it, and willing to put money in to Star Trek beyond merchandising and licensing. There is an interest in Star Trek beyond collecting and and DVD sales that they feel they can make money from.
What form this will take, I don't know, but I think it is safe to say that CBS is considering all options.
It's like hiring JJ Abrams and expecting him to make Attack of the Clones.
Actually, as several articles have pointed out, this isn't entirely true. They're considering it because the existing content available on streaming services is quite popular, and because a new series would therefore stand to get reasonable viewers for any streaming service. It's being used as a way for CBS to launch their streaming service, which doesn't really have to do with the movies.
You could say that the movies have raised interest in the streaming shows, which is probably true to some extent, although maybe only closer to when the movies actually came out. Right now the shows are still seeing decent viewers on streaming, and there hasn't been a new movie in a while. I'm sure they're counting on Beyond giving it a reasonable boost though, since they're going to be fairly close together.
I think that the films have raised awareness of Trek in general for audiences. I think the financial success of the films is at least a partial consideration for CBS being willing to put up the money to bring out a new Star Trek series.
I'm sure CBS has multiple reasons for doing the series now, but the financial success of the films provide some support for the viability for interest in a new show.
I'd argue that it's definitely both, yeah.
Actually, no.
One of the biggest problems of the JJ-movies is that they didn't gain any new viewers. The first one (09) kinda' sorta' did. A little. But the audience of Into Darkness was pretty much entirely made out of people who already at one point have watched Star Trek on a regular basis.
At it's height, Star Trek had an average of 20 mio. viewers (TNG). LAter, in the 90s about 10. A movie ticket today costs about 20 bucks. That would make the ~220 mio. dollars box office Into Darkness made in the States. And that's why the audience of Into Darkness scored at "male" and "above 25 years old" on average.
The JJ-movies didn't attract a significant number of new viewers. Star Trek has been so long off air that it's old viewers returned back to check this new stuff out, because it said 'Star Trek' on the can and reminded them of what they saw when they were young.
Those guys are the same solid foundation for a new series. But a new television show also needs to attract new viewers to survive long term. And for them it would be best to start completely fresh, no mentioning of "alternate reboot universes as a result of time travel" or stuff like that that alienates new viewers when they first chek it out.
They should go the new Doctor Who-way: Officially a continuiation of the old. But when it started, it was a completely new series, with a clean "beginning" for viewers to jump into, and only very minor callbacks to "the old".
One of the biggest problems of the JJ-movies is that they didn't gain any new viewers. The first one (09) kinda' sorta' did. A little. But the audience of Into Darkness was pretty much entirely made out of people who already at one point have watched Star Trek on a regular basis.
At it's height, Star Trek had an average of 20 mio. viewers (TNG). LAter, in the 90s about 10. A movie ticket today costs about 20 bucks. That would make the ~220 mio. dollars box office Into Darkness made in the States. And that's why the audience of Into Darkness scored at "male" and "above 25 years old" on average.
The JJ-movies didn't attract a significant number of new viewers. Star Trek has been so long off air that it's old viewers returned back to check this new stuff out, because it said 'Star Trek' on the can and reminded them of what they saw when they were young.
Those guys are the same solid foundation for a new series. But a new television show also needs to attract new viewers to survive long term. And for them it would be best to start completely fresh, no mentioning of "alternate reboot universes as a result of time travel" or stuff like that that alienates new viewers when they first chek it out.
They should go the new Doctor Who-way: Officially a continuiation of the old. But when it started, it was a completely new series, with a clean "beginning" for viewers to jump into, and only very minor callbacks to "the old".
Last edited:
You might want to back that up with some evidence. Like how 09 only managed to gain 'a few' more viewers than NEM or any Trek movie outside TMP. And no, you can't compare a film audience to tv show where people can a) watch for free, and b) flick onto by accident and still count as a 'viewer'.
Also. world wide STID did make more than 09 and the internetional audience did grow. In the US, it stayed pretty steady with 09's numbers - that number you conceded did show 'growth' from the previous 'Prime' numbers.
'09- http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
STID - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
People latched on to STID being a 'disappointment' because it also had a larger budget than 09, and they figured that the rate of growth for the budget didn't match the rate of growth for the audience. Ergo, Paramount didn't get the return they were expecting and were 'disappointed.'
Somewhere, my Statistics lecturer just burst into tears, and doesn't know why. By your logic, I could just as easily say 'Two and a Half Men averaged 15million viewers an episode, therefore Star Trek had the same viewers!' Nothing you said proved any of your conclusions.
And most cinema tickets are most certainly not $20. You are aware that the studio doesn't count your popcorn, right?
EDIT: and I thought that TNG number looked way too fucking big.
From Nielson, no Star Trek series ever managed to average 20 mill on its first run. Only a few individual episodes managed to even get close to that, including 'All Good Things' (17.4 million), and DS9's pilot 'Emissary' (18.8 million.).
TNG per Ep
TNG average
Last edited:
Doctor Who keeps popping up in this discussion. Honestly, as much as I enjoy the new series, there are so many times when they reference something or indicate an old event that I go back and read about it in order to catch up. The Time War, the Daleks' origin, Davors, Cybermen, K-9, Paul McGillon, and on and on.
Not saying that it couldn't work, but I'm not sure it is necessary to do so.
Where do you live where the average price of a movie ticket is $20? If you cared to do just a little research, you'd find the average ticket price to be $8.61.
Sorry, that was including 3D, IMAX and popcorn (the revenue of popcorn doesn't go to Pramount, though). Blockbusters are more expensive to watch than our 5-dollar tickets for an arthouse movie, but you'r right, while someone pays 20 bucks to see a blockbuster, there's probably only counting 12 - 15 of it as ''box office".
BTW here is a source for the 'viewer demographic' problem Into Darkness had:
http://www.thewrap.com/star-trek-da...ger-audience-fast-furious-hangover-iii-92796/
Most of the Viewers in the US were already fans of Star Trek. What made Into Darkness successfull was it's international box office. Which shouldn't be a big surprise, with China and other's markets rising...
Hell, Terminator: Genisys made 100 mio. dollar MORE than Into Darkness internationally.
At this point, Star Trek is a successfull blockbuster franchise, in the league of Fast and Furious, Mission:Impossible and other small scale blockbusters. Big enough to sustain itself and get a fouth part, but too weak to launch a new 'mega-franchise' purely out of the new movies...
Any viewership comparison to previous Trek movies like Nemesis (with the exception of The Motion Picture) are inept btw, because those were small scale niche movies, without high production values or litereally any marketing budget worth mentioning....
http://www.thewrap.com/star-trek-da...ger-audience-fast-furious-hangover-iii-92796/
Most of the Viewers in the US were already fans of Star Trek. What made Into Darkness successfull was it's international box office. Which shouldn't be a big surprise, with China and other's markets rising...
Hell, Terminator: Genisys made 100 mio. dollar MORE than Into Darkness internationally.
At this point, Star Trek is a successfull blockbuster franchise, in the league of Fast and Furious, Mission:Impossible and other small scale blockbusters. Big enough to sustain itself and get a fouth part, but too weak to launch a new 'mega-franchise' purely out of the new movies...
Any viewership comparison to previous Trek movies like Nemesis (with the exception of The Motion Picture) are inept btw, because those were small scale niche movies, without high production values or litereally any marketing budget worth mentioning....
Similar threads
