5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise
- Thread starter dub
- Start date
- Status
Yeah. And I don't think there was as much grumbling about the storylines for Trek films while there was Trek also on the small screen. So I think fans were more charitable to the idea of films naturally being more action oriented and having bigger explosions. But since there's been like ten-year drought of small screen Trek there might be more expectations placed on the films.
I also also agree that Star Trek will never compete with Star Wars, but I do think it can do better than it does. I do think it can expand outside of a relatively niche market of hard core fans. As I've said in other posts/threads, they need a cartoon. Well received video games. And more merchandise and material. More toys. I think if they hook a new generation of fans it will pay off later. Even without the movies The Clone Wars and Rebels have had to pull in new fans, sell toys, and all kinds of merchandise.
I like your marketing/merchandising thinking.
All the fans, and merchandise gained by stuff like Rebels is minuscule compared to what TFA is raking in, and bringing in terms of getting people to buy stuff. Star Trek isn't likely to it that big...well ever honestly. A lot of articles on the subject of Star Wars' ability to sell merchandise usually mention that it's in a league of its own when it comes to film franchises. Trek's best bet would be to go at a slower base. Don't pour money into tons of merchandising and cartoons, keep it simple and expanding. STB will be out in July, and we've got a new show coming down the line. All they really need to do is not drop the ball as badly next time around with the merchandising, and avoid misfires like the 2013 game.
The 2017 will bring us the TV show, and if that's successful along with STB we'll likely see a much bigger (though still small compared to Star Wars) push when the 4th film comes out. I wouldn't underestimate what they're already doing either. If I remember right Paramount's been making a pretty big Trek push with its properties worldwide.
What does it matter what Rebels merchandise is selling compared to TFA? It's all going to the same place. What I think Rebels and Clone Wars are are gateways into Star Wars for a lot of kids even when there wasn't live-action movies. Now the cartoons are icing now that TFA is out.
But whatever merchandise Rebels is selling its got to be more than Star Trek right now. I was thinking more of a cartoon coming out after Trek '09 to build on the popularity of that movie. It was a move Green Lantern attempted, which admittedly failed (however the cartoon was good, shame it got canceled). Roping in kids is building the fan base. Right now there's an aging hardcore fan base and a possible fair weather casual audience that might or might not show up for a movie ever few years.
It remains to be seen if the new films have made Trek popular enough to generate interest in the new show.
But whatever merchandise Rebels is selling its got to be more than Star Trek right now. I was thinking more of a cartoon coming out after Trek '09 to build on the popularity of that movie. It was a move Green Lantern attempted, which admittedly failed (however the cartoon was good, shame it got canceled). Roping in kids is building the fan base. Right now there's an aging hardcore fan base and a possible fair weather casual audience that might or might not show up for a movie ever few years.
It remains to be seen if the new films have made Trek popular enough to generate interest in the new show.
It matters big time. Again, Star Trek isn't going to be Star Wars. Look at others, like Green Lantern which you mention, or Tron: Uprising even as a more typical result of a cartoon spun off from a movie. COULD a cartoon be successful in bringing in new fans, and getting merchandise sold? Maybe, but it's far from a guarantee. I wouldn't disagree that they should try at some point, probably after the live action airs and a fourth film is made. I don't think that a comparison to Rebels/Clone Wars really works as a reason why however, especially not on the basis that they bring in fans who buy merchandise.
It'd be hard to separate Rebels from general numbers, but I really doubt it. Again though, I'm not saying they shouldn't try necessarily. I'm saying they're not going to get anywhere by just throwing money everywhere. At this point they're basically needing to start at the beginning. They need to get good merchandise out there before anything else. When Kre-O is making anything for you, you need to rethink how you're going about it in the first place before getting really ambitious.
Cracked said:
It's almost impossible to doubt it: Rebels still has merchandize on the shelves in places where Star Trek doesn't. What few Star Trek products are still selling are two or three years old; Rebels is selling out of things that just hit the market a couple of months ago.
There's also a matter of volume: four different kinds of light savers, nerf gun mods, lego kits, snapttight model kits, micromachines, costumes, tie-in novels. Star Trek's "Hotwheels" starship miniatures are now competing in a market SATURATED by star wars miniatures and models at various scales. The only way their sales could be lower than Star Trek is if they were bombing horribly.
Which by even casual observation, they're not. You can find ships from Clone Wars and Rebels and in FUCKING WALGREENS. Meanwhile Walmart has a Kirk action figure and a phaser from the 2009 movie, and Target's Star Trek toys is tucked way the hell into the back, wedged between "Men's shoes" and "clearance."
"The Force Awakens" had products on the shelves six months before the movie came out and they still sold like crazy. Star Trek had nothing on the shelves until months AFTER Into Darkness. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
That's just it: they don't seem to be throwing money ANYWHERE. The best Star Trek products you can get these days are basically high-quality halloween costumes and "collectibles" from the Eaglemoss catalog. That's a pretty niche market that caters exclusively to hardcore fans.
Which is, let's face it, exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. I'd rather have Star Trek slightly diluted and kept entertaining than pandered to by corporate execs who don't really know what I want anyway.
Right, but how much of that is "it's Star Wars Rebels" and how much of that is "It's Star Wars" is more what I was meaning. Star Wars in general has always sold hot, even when they didn't have anything in theaters or on the air. Whereas Star Trek...not so much. I wouldn't doubt for a second that Star Wars products are outselling Trek at every turn, I'd doubt that Rebels alone is doing enough of the work for it to outsell. if we're talking just NuTrek, sure. I may have misunderstood and thought it was about the franchise as a whole. In which case, my bad!
Right, I don't disagree that they've dropped the ball. Like I said.
Having a cartoon show doesn't strike me as the best way to get merchandise moving. Getting actual merchandise that a wider market would want to buy in the first place is what's needed.
It's a sincere article. I agree with it in spots, it's unwise in other places.
Suffice to say doing it for the fans or doing it for the mass market is a false dichotomy. You can actually take risks but with more risks the bigger the risk there is in that you wind up with a flop. It's only the mass market that means there's almost guaranteed money in the bank and that's the filmmaking realpolitik at play here.
Despite its fast pace and dazzling FX, I ultimately found both films unoriginal and formulaic, frankly. Not just in Trek terms but in terms of the kind of FX overweight films that hollywood has been producing the last decade-plus in this general genre. But it's what brings home the box office bacon I guess.
I do have cautious hopes for this third film. Pegg is a thoughtful guy, he seems to have been given a bit of space to do something original with his film, so I'll wait and see with that one.
Suffice to say doing it for the fans or doing it for the mass market is a false dichotomy. You can actually take risks but with more risks the bigger the risk there is in that you wind up with a flop. It's only the mass market that means there's almost guaranteed money in the bank and that's the filmmaking realpolitik at play here.
Despite its fast pace and dazzling FX, I ultimately found both films unoriginal and formulaic, frankly. Not just in Trek terms but in terms of the kind of FX overweight films that hollywood has been producing the last decade-plus in this general genre. But it's what brings home the box office bacon I guess.
I do have cautious hopes for this third film. Pegg is a thoughtful guy, he seems to have been given a bit of space to do something original with his film, so I'll wait and see with that one.
So the basic five are:
#1. By Making Star Trek "For Everyone," They Alienate The People Who Love It.
Clearly not true. There are long-time fans who love the new movies. There are also long-time fans who loathe the new movies. So no, alienating some fans wasn't necessary to make the movies more mainstream.
#2. The Studio Made Star Trek Mainstream To Appeal To Everyone.
Clearly true. The studio was tired of having a niche franchise and wanted to appeal to a mass audience. Clearly. However, we'll never know if a 'more traditional' take on the franchise would have still had the same draw purely due to nostalgia and the franchise having a bit of a rest beforehand. Look at how similar the new Star Wars movie is to the Original Trilogy and how wildly popular that is. Could have, maybe, but we'll never know for sure.
#3. Fans Tolerate It Because It's Better Than Nothing.
Clearly not true. Some people honestly love the new movies. And some people would much rather have no new Trek over bad new Trek. Not saying these movies are bad, I think they are, but that's beside the point. My point is that there are people who would rather have none than bad.
#4. The Reboots Have About As Much Understanding And Respect For Its Fans As The Star Wars Prequels.
Clearly not true. The new Wars movie is practically a highlights reel of the Original Trilogy jumbled up, put in a different order, and called a new plot. It's a love letter to the OT. The Trek reboot... not so much. Abrams is on record as having disliked Trek, saying it was too cerebral. Well, he sure fixed that.
#5. The Franchise Was Already In Bad Shape.
There's a lot of bollocks writing in the article in general, but this one stood out the most to me. Like that dig about not having other good Trek series to base the new movies on. Yeah, there's at least two great series they could have drawn from. The sixth TV series in the franchise was cancelled after four years. Most shows don't run four years, much less have the weight of 40+ years of other series, a dozen movies, world-wide merchandising, and dozens of series of tie-in novels behind them.
#1. By Making Star Trek "For Everyone," They Alienate The People Who Love It.
Clearly not true. There are long-time fans who love the new movies. There are also long-time fans who loathe the new movies. So no, alienating some fans wasn't necessary to make the movies more mainstream.
#2. The Studio Made Star Trek Mainstream To Appeal To Everyone.
Clearly true. The studio was tired of having a niche franchise and wanted to appeal to a mass audience. Clearly. However, we'll never know if a 'more traditional' take on the franchise would have still had the same draw purely due to nostalgia and the franchise having a bit of a rest beforehand. Look at how similar the new Star Wars movie is to the Original Trilogy and how wildly popular that is. Could have, maybe, but we'll never know for sure.
#3. Fans Tolerate It Because It's Better Than Nothing.
Clearly not true. Some people honestly love the new movies. And some people would much rather have no new Trek over bad new Trek. Not saying these movies are bad, I think they are, but that's beside the point. My point is that there are people who would rather have none than bad.
#4. The Reboots Have About As Much Understanding And Respect For Its Fans As The Star Wars Prequels.
Clearly not true. The new Wars movie is practically a highlights reel of the Original Trilogy jumbled up, put in a different order, and called a new plot. It's a love letter to the OT. The Trek reboot... not so much. Abrams is on record as having disliked Trek, saying it was too cerebral. Well, he sure fixed that.
#5. The Franchise Was Already In Bad Shape.
There's a lot of bollocks writing in the article in general, but this one stood out the most to me. Like that dig about not having other good Trek series to base the new movies on. Yeah, there's at least two great series they could have drawn from. The sixth TV series in the franchise was cancelled after four years. Most shows don't run four years, much less have the weight of 40+ years of other series, a dozen movies, world-wide merchandising, and dozens of series of tie-in novels behind them.
A
Amaris
Guest
^ Fair points above. Quite frankly, I think they insulted every Trek fan, whether fans of the new films or not.
In agreement.
Like a shitload of most of the things on the Internet at sites like these. Boy, Perry White in Superman: Earth One was right when he said that the traditional newspaper was suffering due to the idea that anybody with a mouse and a keyboard could and should be a writer. (JMS wrote the story for that and the follow-up novels in the series, BTW-good social commentary by him.)
Make me wonder why Cracked though that being this was better than being what it used to be-a humor magazine like Mad. What they need is to get the writers that run Frank, its British progenitor Private Eye, or its French counterpart Charlie Hebdo so that they can do real humour of real things instead of the bullshit it does now like this. Until then, Cracked is just juvenile clickbait bullshit passing itself of as 'adult' 'humor' when it isn't.
Prequels, not sequels. That statement isn't supposed to be a compliment.
It still isn't true, though. I'm not a huge fan of the new Trek, and I've never really cared that much about Star Wars in the first place, but the amount of idiotic bs in the Star Wars prequels absolutely dwarfs any problems the new Trek movies have.
I agree their broad brushing of all 90s trek together is stupid, especially the crack that there aren't any other good shows to base a movie on, but the point that the franchise was in trouble by the end of the 90s trek era is fair. Voyager was already divisive enough, but in my experience Enterprise (despite lasting 4 years) was more disliked than liked. (Wasn't it the case that they actually wanted to cancel it earlier, but gave it one last season because they decided they wanted to be able to sell it in syndication, and therefore needed 100 episodes?) And its often better not even to speak of Nemesis (And, to a lesser degree, Insurrection).
Like most other stuff on the internet moaning about the new films, I didn't see much to agree with there.
But hey, it only took 2 guys to write it!
But hey, it only took 2 guys to write it!
I think there is only one problem with the new Trek movies:
They are blockbusters (That's not the problem). They have ALL the problems of modern blockbusters.
Which is a problem for some.
Personally, I'm a fan of entertaining blockbusters. But there is a problem a lot of them have: scope. They try to be too big for their own good. Apparently the producers think if you throw 200 mio dollars at the screen, you need to threaten at least Earth or the whole universe. Or kill important characters for drama's sake. If it's a scifi-movie, we need to destroy a few planets or at least imply planets have been destroyed by the McGuffin before and now Earth is threatened (see: Trek09, Force Awakens, Guardians of the Galaxy, Oblivion, Prometheus, Interstellar, ...)
But the best blockbusters are a bit more small scaled. The Dark Knight is about a clown terrorizing a city. Mad Max is basically a gang fight in a wasteland. The better one's of the MARVEL Movies are more about personal relationships than the events surrounding them. And The Martian is about saving one(!) person. Those movies succeed because they have a more personal scope.
The new Trek movies don't get that. They are in good company there (next year Earth will be attacked at least 15 times in movies, form Batman v. Superman to a new Independence day...). Coming originally from a more grounded franchise, it's still disappointing.
I have no problems with plot holes, canon inconsistencies, stupid dialogue, fast promotions and all of that. And I'm perfectly fine with fast-paced action and witty banter. I just don't want to see them play so fast and loose with a whole universe (destroying Vulcan, killing Kirk, toppling the Federation...). I want to see them have the same kind of excitement on smaller, more palpable adventures.
They are blockbusters (That's not the problem). They have ALL the problems of modern blockbusters.
Which is a problem for some.
Personally, I'm a fan of entertaining blockbusters. But there is a problem a lot of them have: scope. They try to be too big for their own good. Apparently the producers think if you throw 200 mio dollars at the screen, you need to threaten at least Earth or the whole universe. Or kill important characters for drama's sake. If it's a scifi-movie, we need to destroy a few planets or at least imply planets have been destroyed by the McGuffin before and now Earth is threatened (see: Trek09, Force Awakens, Guardians of the Galaxy, Oblivion, Prometheus, Interstellar, ...)
But the best blockbusters are a bit more small scaled. The Dark Knight is about a clown terrorizing a city. Mad Max is basically a gang fight in a wasteland. The better one's of the MARVEL Movies are more about personal relationships than the events surrounding them. And The Martian is about saving one(!) person. Those movies succeed because they have a more personal scope.
The new Trek movies don't get that. They are in good company there (next year Earth will be attacked at least 15 times in movies, form Batman v. Superman to a new Independence day...). Coming originally from a more grounded franchise, it's still disappointing.
I have no problems with plot holes, canon inconsistencies, stupid dialogue, fast promotions and all of that. And I'm perfectly fine with fast-paced action and witty banter. I just don't want to see them play so fast and loose with a whole universe (destroying Vulcan, killing Kirk, toppling the Federation...). I want to see them have the same kind of excitement on smaller, more palpable adventures.
Then your wish may be coming with the new Star Trek series in 2017, good Rahul. 
I can agree with you to a point that if you're going to make an epic movie, make sure there is a point that the epicness can serve.
Now, for me, personally, the epic scope was served in the first two films, and I have a feeling it will serve in Beyond. And it really doesn't look like the Earth is being endangered this time. Just the Enterprise crew.
I can agree with you to a point that if you're going to make an epic movie, make sure there is a point that the epicness can serve.
Now, for me, personally, the epic scope was served in the first two films, and I have a feeling it will serve in Beyond. And it really doesn't look like the Earth is being endangered this time. Just the Enterprise crew.
Just to play devil's advocate, the stakes were often high in TOS episodes, too. Off the top of my head, I can think of "The Alternative Factor" (the entire universe), "Assignment Earth" (Earth), "The Immunity Syndrome" (the entire galaxy), "Errand of Mercy" (certain war with Klingons), "The City on the Edge of Forever" (Earth history), "The Doomsday Machine" (an entire swath of highly populated planets in its path with others already destroyed), "The Changling" (Nomad could wipe out entire solar systems if left to) and there are a few more, I'm sure.
I don't think you could have stakes that high every episode in a TV series without viewer burnout, but for movies that come out every three or four years ("Star Trek" or not), I think it's the kind of peril that's almost expected by audiences.
Even if Earth is not physically threatened, I'll bet there is even something major at stake in STB beyond our heroes getting off the planet.
- Status
Similar threads
