Forbes: How ‘Star Trek’ Became Obsolete Thanks To ‘Guardians,’ Fast & Furious’ And ‘Star Wars’

[MakeshiftPython]

It's not so much obsolete, just completely mismanaged, as Trek has historically been.

People on this very forum were questioning how wise it was to wait when there was no news about a sequel even a year after Trek 09. Four years was just way too long between movies, ridiculously long in fact. Beyond was fantastic, but it was more fantastic because of the character interactions and strong script rather than the special effects. You could have cut that whole shoot out on the destroyed Enterprise, the bike stuff and saved tens of millions for example. My point being, I think the time for the tent pole Trek movie has passed and passed when STID was two years too late and didn't even get close to a billion. However, I would really like to see a more grounded Star Trek. Interstellar had a 150m budget, the newer Alien movies had about a 100m budget and I think those types of smaller stories which still allow for impressive set pieces are where the future should lie.

I remember when movies like GRAVITY, INTERSTELLAR, and THE MARTIAN came out that there were Trek fans pointing to those films as good examples of more grounded sci-fi films that still drew in audiences. Trek has always had a stronger reputation as a morality play than as a slam bang Star Wars adventure. So why not just have the films embrace that aspect? If STAR TREK BEYOND grossed the same $343.5 amount but did it on a third of the budget, we'd probably have had a fourth film in 2018.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I feel like Forbes hangs around with too many geeks who proclaim "X is over!"

It's currently the lifeblood of CBS All Access since no one buys that for anything other than the Good Fight, Twilight Zone, or its three and growing prestige Star Trek series.

Star Trek Beyond bombed but the previous two movies were successes. Not AVENGERS money but chasing Avengers money is incredibly stupid.

I feel like people have forgotten Star Trek is hugely influential but also a niche franchise people originally thought was ridiculous making movies out of.

I keep banging on about this but I wish Trek would go more like Interstellar, The Martian, Gravity, Prometheus, exploring space is wondrous and dangerous etc if they want to emulate something.

By contrast, I wish Star Trek would be about pulpy fun adventures about punching dinosaur people and meeting Gods.

I really liked the Kelvin movies, I just hated Kirk and that wasn't because of his adventures but because his Kirk was an asshole.

 

[Smellmet]

I remember when movies like GRAVITY, INTERSTELLAR, and THE MARTIAN came out that there were Trek fans pointing to those films as good examples of more grounded sci-fi films that still drew in audiences. Trek has always had a stronger reputation as a morality play than as a slam bang Star Wars adventure. So why not just have the films embrace that aspect? If STAR TREK BEYOND grossed the same $343.5 amount but did it on a third of the budget, we'd probably have had a fourth film in 2018.

Unfortunately, it's the slam bang Star Wars stuff, facilitated by the large budgets that's even got them to this level of money. Look how little the older films (even adjusted for inflation) made compared to the Kelvin trilogy, with TMP excepted.

 

[yotsuya]

Their description of the 2009 film as Star Trek with the excitement of Star Wars is very accurate and why I don't like the first two new Trek films. Star Trek is not supposed to be Star Wars. Ultimately that is why they failed. They tried to be something else. Beyond fells more like Star Trek and its box office is more honest to the type of story and the franchise.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Star Trek thrived when it was allowed to be modestly successful, rather than the studio's tent-pole blockbuster movie for that season. Unfortunately fewer and fewer of those are made to take the heat off Star Trek, and for two movies in a row, it really looked like it had finally achieved mainstream. A shame because the model for Wrath of Khan through Insurrection is a perfectly valid formula for film-making - aimed at a known audience, achieve a decent opening weekend and a few weeks running in cinemas bubbling in the Ten 10, but ultimately almost as much to be made back later, purchased on whatever the preferred home media of the day is. Figuring that way, even Nemesis probably didn't turn out to be such a great loss.

It's probably why TPTB are content right now, with Star Trek being on demand and paid for in by subscription. Because in a sense, it has always been more successful away from the big-screen and yet, also away from the demands of TV networks too.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek is not supposed to be Star Wars. Ultimately that is why they failed.

They failed? They made the most of Trek films money wise, and I think ST 09 is very much in line with what TOS was all about so I don't see the issue with it being a little bit closer to Star Wars. It's OK for Trek to have action and commentary which is what 09 did. Heck, even First Contact did more with action too.

 

[yotsuya]

They failed? They made the most of Trek films money wise, and I think ST 09 is very much in line with what TOS was all about so I don't see the issue with it being a little bit closer to Star Wars. It's OK for Trek to have action and commentary which is what 09 did. Heck, even First Contact did more with action too.

Two things. First, the new movie series failed to gain its own audience. This article says the audience abandoned the new Trek films in favor of the movies it was trying to copy. They failed to make something unique. taking the Star Trek base and pasting a Star Wars movie on it was not a recipe for success. Second, as a Star Trek installment, the 2009 film did not connect well with long time Star Trek fans. Into Darkness even less so. So it failed to keep the long time Trekkies and it failed to create something unique. Had it done both of those, it would have been a continued success. Beyond's success was impacted by the flaws of the first two of the new films, but was otherwise an excellent film.

 

[fireproof78]

Two things. First, the new movie series failed to gain its own audience. This article says the audience abandoned the new Trek films in favor of the movies it was trying to copy. They failed to make something unique. taking the Star Trek base and pasting a Star Wars movie on it was not a recipe for success. Second, as a Star Trek installment, the 2009 film did not connect well with long time Star Trek fans. Into Darkness even less so. So it failed to keep the long time Trekkies and it failed to create something unique. Had it done both of those, it would have been a continued success. Beyond's success was impacted by the flaws of the first two of the new films, but was otherwise an excellent film.

I mean, I guess. I think it was Paramount's mismanagement that didn't allow for long term success, adapting to the market place of the time. I think if the had not waited until for 4 years then that audience they had built in 09, including new audiences (like my wife and mom) and old fans (like my dad and myself) would have felt like it was continuing on.

And, respectfully, I think they made something very unique. I don't think it pasted Star Wars the way it is often accused of, nor did Abrams just want to make Star Wars because he wasn't a Trek fan, like he is often slighted for.

I think Trek 09 connected well enough but the time gap made long term viability very difficult.

 

[Noname Given]

The funny thing is:
They mention:
Captain America BO: 370 million on a 140 million budget
and
Thor BO: 437 million on a 150 million budget

in the 'successes' that doomed Trek on the Big screen yet call
Star Trek Beyond 343 million on a 185 million budget

a 'flop' (although the actual budget was closer to 130 million because Paramount folded the large per-production costs of the script they originally choose, but completely abandoned even as set construction and location scouting (including a lot of payments to use said locations - ballooning the STB budget); plus they fail to take into account the production cost sharing agreement Paramount made with HuaHua Media in China so overall Paramount's actual production cost for the film was even lower.

Did the film underperfom? Yep. Do I think it was an out and out financial flop? No. (Unless you believe Captain America: The First Avenger was a 'flop' financially and the author of that Forbes article doesn't seem to.)

 

[johnjm22]

I don't buy the argument about the 4 years between ST09 and STID being a problem.

Sometimes a long wait can increase buzz.

 

[fireproof78]

Not in the constantly moving media world. 4 years is an eternity, which is why development hell is such a problem. People loose interest, and move on to other things. ID was johnny come lately to that party and it showed.

 

[johnjm22]

Not in the constantly moving media world. 4 years is an eternity, which is why development hell is such a problem. People loose interest, and move on to other things. ID was johnny come lately to that party and it showed.

The next Guardians of the Galaxy movie will come out 5 years after the last film, and I bet you it does just fine.

 

[johnjm22]

Mission: Impossible (1996)
Mission: Impossible 2 (2000)
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (2011)
Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
Mission: Impossible – Fallout (2018)

Waiting 4-6 years in between films hasn't been an issue for this series.

 

[fireproof78]

The next Guardians of the Galaxy movie will come out 5 years after the last film, and I bet you it does just fine.

And I'll bet that if a Star Trek film comes out now it will do fine. But studios don't want fine any more and Paramount fucked up with Trek.

ETA: Also, because "Tom Cruise" and because "Marvel" carry a lot more weight still than because "Star Trek."

 

[Charles Phipps]

Did they fail to get an audience or did Beyond just fail?

It feels like the article is making a lot of assumptions.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Unfortunately, it's the slam bang Star Wars stuff, facilitated by the large budgets that's even got them to this level of money. Look how little the older films (even adjusted for inflation) made compared to the Kelvin trilogy, with TMP excepted.

This has already been brought up. It doesn't matter that the Kelvin films grossed more money, they didn't have a good enough ROI in order to justify funding more films because of their insanely high budgets. The older films when adjusted for inflation may not measure up to the Kelvin films, but their modest budgets meant that they still made decent a profit for Paramount and that's why we had a steady string of ten films until NEMESIS outright bombed.

The funny thing is:
They mention:
Captain America BO: 370 million on a 140 million budget
and
Thor BO: 437 million on a 150 million budget

in the 'successes' that doomed Trek on the Big screen yet call
Star Trek Beyond 343 million on a 185 million budget

a 'flop' (although the actual budget was closer to 130 million because Paramount folded the large per-production costs of the script they originally choose, but completely abandoned even as set construction and location scouting (including a lot of payments to use said locations - ballooning the STB budget); plus they fail to take into account the production cost sharing agreement Paramount made with HuaHua Media in China so overall Paramount's actual production cost for the film was even lower.

Did the film underperfom? Yep. Do I think it was an out and out financial flop? No. (Unless you believe Captain America: The First Avenger was a 'flop' financially and the author of that Forbes article doesn't seem to.)

You're missing a very critical point with your analogy with Captain America. The sequel made TWICE as much as the first, and then the third film made over a billion dollars. That right there is the kind of brand growth Paramount hoped to see with Kelvin Trek and it just never got there.

 

[Smellmet]

This has already been brought up. It doesn't matter that the Kelvin films grossed more money, they didn't have a good enough ROI in order to justify funding more films because of their insanely high budgets. The older films when adjusted for inflation may not measure up to the Kelvin films, but their modest budgets meant that they still made decent a profit for Paramount and that's why we had a steady string of ten films until NEMESIS outright bombed.



You're missing a very critical point with your analogy with Captain America. The sequel made TWICE as much as the first, and then the third film made over a billion dollars. That right there is the kind of brand growth Paramount hoped to see with Kelvin Trek and it just never got there.

I'm in complete agreement, my point is, is that it's these big budgets that allowed for all this pew pew that's got these films to the level of box office (385-467m) at all in the first place, without that influx of cash there's no way they'd have competed in the marketplace they were placed in, up against other summer blockbusters. Clearly the returns were not sufficient, or there would have been another movie. I think if beyond had made 450m, which would have been entirely possible with a better release date, I think we would have had a fourth movie last summer.

In retrospect it seems like the kelvin films were almost an expensive experiment to see if the trek brand could be blockbuster material, It's fell short but not by THAT much. Close but no cigar.

I speculate that a possible sweet spot should be 100-150m max budget, with a view to doing beyond type numbers moving forward should the movie franchise continue any time soon. The main barrier to big screen success in my view now is that they had the potential 'golden goose' of kirk, spock and TOS and they've blown that now - where do they go from here?

 

[johnjm22]

And I'll bet that if a Star Trek film comes out now it will do fine. But studios don't want fine any more and Paramount fucked up with Trek.

ETA: Also, because "Tom Cruise" and because "Marvel" carry a lot more weight still than because "Star Trek."

Tom Cruise being in a movie doesn't mean it's going to be successful. The last Jack Reacher movie he did flopped. We know what happened with The Mummy. Plenty of movies he's been in have done about as well as STB which is considered a flop.

Things have changed. Movie stars aren't the big draw that they used to be.

The 4 years between ST09 and STID is just an excuse.

Hell Bad Boys just came back after a 17 year wait and had it's most successful film.

 

[fireproof78]

Did they fail to get an audience or did Beyond just fail?

It feels like the article is making a lot of assumptions.

Because people wanted it to fail, so the assumption is that something must be inherently wrong with the product itself, without looking at the possibility of a multitude of factors impacting the performance.

The 4 years between ST09 and STID is just an excuse.

No, it's just one of multiple factors that contributed to poor success. I personally think it is one of the bigger ones, largely because it didn't bank on its success early on, i.e. creating more reach in the market to support ongoing interest.

I don't think it is as simple "pass/fail."

 

[johnjm22]

No, it's just one of multiple factors that contributed to poor success. I personally think it is one of the bigger ones, largely because it didn't bank on its success early on, i.e. creating more reach in the market to support ongoing interest.

I don't think it is as simple "pass/fail."

I agree that it's a combination of factors. What causes success or failure in the entertainment industry is ultimately a fickle thing. I just don't see the 4 year wait as an issue.