• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"

This is true, and oddly enough, the crux of the argument for why Trek isn't really a blockbuster movie property. The Kelvin movies did "fine" at the box office, but measured against blockbuster/tentpole metrics, they did badly. Paramount wanted them to be on that level but the franchise never really was. On TV, there is an audience there, and it's a good investment as part of a portfolio of programming but I don't think it can be the centerpiece of a streaming service. We'll see how paramount views its performance on P+. I'm sure it's one of the better performing properties for them, but given modern economic concerns re: value for for shareholders I am not sure if it is good enough to keep investing in at the current level. The ending of DSC seems to suggest there is an appetite for some reduction there.

Agreed. Star Trek is an enduringly middlingly popular franchise -- always has been and always will be. There's nothing wrong with that, and in a healthy entertainment marketplace, shows/franchises that are enduring but middling still represent a valuable niche. Everything in the world cannot and should not be either extremely popular blockbusters or dirt-cheap indie stuff that five and a half people see. There needs to be something in the middle.
 
Star Trek is not currently the 'centerpiece' of Paramount+ Streaming - Yellowstone is (And Paramount suits have said as much in that 25% of P+ subscribers are subscribing for Yellowstone and its related shows.)

Star Trek is to them a valuable IP and asset and part of their streaming strategy and portfolio, but it hasn't been the centerpiece for a few years now.

And it's no the only IP P+ is using to bolster its streaming library either.

Yes, this is what I meant when I said "it's a good investment as part of a portfolio of programming." Yellowstone isn't putting out new content 52 weeks a year, so Trek is one of the things that the service can market when it isn't.
 
Agreed. Star Trek is an enduringly middlingly popular franchise -- always has been and always will be. There's nothing wrong with that, and in a healthy entertainment marketplace, shows/franchises that are enduring but middling still represent a valuable niche. Everything in the world cannot and should not be either extremely popular blockbusters or dirt-cheap indie stuff that five and a half people see. There needs to be something in the middle.

Right! Back in the TNG movie days, and again in the Kelvin movie days I kept saying that if fans and studios expected Star Trek to do blockbuster numbers, then the franchise would end.

The industry is a bit out of whack in the last couple of decades as big changes ripple through it. It used to be that studios would KILL for a middlingly popular franchise with consistent audience engagement with lots of variations over long periods of time. But then they tried to "square peg/round hole" everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
I'm forced to agree here about STAR TREK being a middle ground franchise in terms of popularity. It will likely never move beyond that point, but ironically that may be in its favor to help ensure longevity.

While other hugely popular franchises will come and go (either fairly quickly or burn out after a decade or so and get to a point of no one watching), the middle grounders can survive for far longer. DOCTOR WHO is probably another example of this. I would consider it another middle grounder because it has never gotten the popularity of, say, Marvel, but it has endured for 60 years. And it will likely continue to be the same for the next 60. Same with STAR TREK.

These kind of franchises can survive long gaps of no substantial new material, like the 16 years between the DW shows. Franchises like these really proves the phrase "absence makes the heart grow fonder" is accurate.

And while others might be super popular, if they burn out, they tend to be fairly done with the mainstream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Star Trek is one of those interesting properties that I think benefits by being in the middle. It can go larger, and it can go smaller, and do a variety of projects that still tie back in to the overall franchise. I think the biggest challenge is the tendency to look at Marvel or Star Wars (certainly this one has been around since SW inception) and say "Well, why can't Star Trek do that?" And the answer is that it can but it will not hit the same cultural endurance because that's a different tone.

STAR TREK also benefits that it can usually jump back in to its stories without much difficulty because the basic tenet of it's premise is "humanity survives in to the future" which lends itself to multiple stories. Like Doctor Who, it can delve deep in to its own mythos or just go somewhere new. Either one works.

But, people have to be ok with the middle ground of success.
 
While other hugely popular franchises will come and go (either fairly quickly or burn out after a decade or so and get to a point of no one watching), the middle grounders can survive for far longer. DOCTOR WHO is probably another example of this. I would consider it another middle grounder because it has never gotten the popularity of, say, Marvel, but it has endured for 60 years. And it will likely continue to be the same for the next 60. Same with STAR TREK.

DW is a great comparison...the BBC is much more happy to have a medium sized cow to milk over 60 years haha!!!
 
Star Trek is one of those interesting properties that I think benefits by being in the middle. It can go larger, and it can go smaller, and do a variety of projects that still tie back in to the overall franchise. I think the biggest challenge is the tendency to look at Marvel or Star Wars (certainly this one has been around since SW inception) and say "Well, why can't Star Trek do that?" And the answer is that it can but it will not hit the same cultural endurance because that's a different tone.

STAR TREK also benefits that it can usually jump back in to its stories without much difficulty because the basic tenet of it's premise is "humanity survives in to the future" which lends itself to multiple stories. Like Doctor Who, it can delve deep in to its own mythos or just go somewhere new. Either one works.

But, people have to be ok with the middle ground of success.

Yes, all of this! The issue (I think) is that this is not really compatible with a shareholder-based "what have you done to raise profits this quarter" business approach that seems to be accelerating more and more....
 
Star Trek is one of those interesting properties that I think benefits by being in the middle. It can go larger, and it can go smaller, and do a variety of projects that still tie back in to the overall franchise. I think the biggest challenge is the tendency to look at Marvel or Star Wars (certainly this one has been around since SW inception) and say "Well, why can't Star Trek do that?" And the answer is that it can but it will not hit the same cultural endurance because that's a different tone.

STAR TREK also benefits that it can usually jump back in to its stories without much difficulty because the basic tenet of it's premise is "humanity survives in to the future" which lends itself to multiple stories. Like Doctor Who, it can delve deep in to its own mythos or just go somewhere new. Either one works.

But, people have to be ok with the middle ground of success.

And, specifically, the business model needs to be able to find the audience for a middling property and needs to be economically sustainable on a middling audience. Which, among other things, probably means accepting that you're gonna lose money if you're trying to be both in the business of producing and distributing it.

I suspect Paramount Global can make money if it produces Star Trek and licenses it to Hulu or Netflix, and I suspect Netflix/Hulu can make money if they license Star Trek from Paramount Global. I'm very skeptical that Paramount will be able to make money if it's in both the production business and the distribution business.
 
Right! Back in the TNG movie days, and again in the Kelvin movie days I kept saying that if fans and studios expected Star Trek to do blockbuster numbers, then the franchise would end.

To quibble just a tiny bit: I do think Star Trek has the potential to produce a blockbuster film every once in a long while. Star Trek (2009) was the #7 highest-grossing film domestically in 2009; Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was #7 in 1986; Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was #8 in 1982; and Star Trek: The Motion Picture was #4 in 1979.

But. I don't think Star Trek can produce blockbusters consistently. It seems to be something it can only do like once or twice a decade.
 
To quibble just a tiny bit: I do think Star Trek has the potential to produce a blockbuster film every once in a long while. Star Trek (2009) was the #7 highest-grossing film domestically in 2009; Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was #7 in 1986; Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was #8 in 1982; and Star Trek: The Motion Picture was #4 in 1979.

But. I don't think Star Trek can produce blockbusters consistently. It seems to be something it can only do like once or twice a decade.

Those examples also have a few things that worked in its favor. TMP, for example: there was NO new STAR TREK for a decade at that point. Fans were hungry for a new adventure with the Enterprise. That likely helped give the movie a revenue boost.

But I do agree that a blockbuster franchise movie is not going to be made consistently.
 
Those Trek films did well, but even so they weren't the ultimate blockbusters. Compare them to 80s films like Star Wars series, ET, Indiana Jones series, Beverly Hills Cop, Rocky III, Back to the Future, etc. Fortunately, the post-TMP films were tightly budgeted and thus did well.
 
Last edited:
Those Trek films did well, but even so they weren't he ultimate blockbusters. Compare them to 80s films like Star Wars series, ET, Indiana Jones series, Beverly Hills Cop, Rocky III, Back to the Future, etc. Fortunately, the post-TMP films were tightly budgeted and thus did well.

I bolded the best point.

I think that applies to not just the movies, but the shows as well. Tighter budgets force better creativity and stories. Hell, some of the best episodes in the franchise were bottle episodes.
 
Fortunately, the post-TMP films were tightly budgeted and thus did well.
I mean, they had to be. TMP famously went over budget, partially due to Phase 2 pre-production costs being rolled in to it, but it still cost a lot. The studio was less and less willing to spend the money, and Meyer and Bennett got very creative, as did Shatner with using TNG's sets at times. As @Farscape One notes this is usually a good thing. The overindulgent aspects of technology and money usually lead to huge use of unnecessary items.
 
Those Trek films did well, but even so they weren't the ultimate blockbusters. Compare them to 80s films like Star Wars series, ET, Indiana Jones series, Beverly Hills Cop, Rocky III, Back to the Future, etc. Fortunately, the post-TMP films were tightly budgeted and thus did well.

Ultimate blockbusters? Well, yeah I'd agree ST has never been that.

My only criteria was listing the Trek films that made it in the top 10 domestic for their year of release. I did overlook a couple though because I only looked up the three or four I knew had made the most money -- ST09, FC, TVH, and TMP.

Here is the domestic ranking per Box Office Mojo for each ST film:
  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): #4
  • Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): #8
  • Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984): #8
  • Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): #7 for 1986, #25 for 1987
  • Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): #21
  • Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): #21 for 1991, #58 for 1992
  • Star Trek: Generations (1994): #17 for 1994, #159 for 1995
  • Star Trek: First Contact (1996): #14 for 1996, #157 for 1997
  • Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): #40 for 1998, #109 for 1999
  • Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): #74 for 2002, #157 for 2003
  • Star Trek (2009): #7
  • Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): #10
  • Star Trek Beyond (2016): #16
Certainly Star Trek has never been on the level of Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc., though not for lack of trying with ST09. But by the same token, making it to the top 10 -- and for TMP, the top 5! -- ain't nothin' to sneeze at. So I was using a more liberal definition of blockbuster than you were and I agree there's an important quantitative difference between ST's performance and those "ultimate blockbusters." But I do think "blockbuster" is a legitimate description for the ten highest-grossing movies in a year.

If we restrict it to only the top five, though, then clearly only TMP has reached "blockbuster" status.

Anyway, it's interesting how the first four films were all in the top ten for their years... and then TFF fell off a cliff that none of the following films could recover from until ST09. Even FC, celebrated as it was, couldn't crack the top 15. Then they drop again with INS, and then they drop again with NEM. Not only ST09 do they get back in the top ten. There's only a small drop from ST09 to ID, then then BEY has a steep fall again into Trek's 1990s territory.
 
Ultimate blockbusters? Well, yeah I'd agree ST has never been that.

My only criteria was listing the Trek films that made it in the top 10 domestic for their year of release. I did overlook a couple though because I only looked up the three or four I knew had made the most money -- ST09, FC, TVH, and TMP.

Here is the domestic ranking per Box Office Mojo for each ST film:
  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): #4
  • Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): #8
  • Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984): #8
  • Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): #7 for 1986, #25 for 1987
  • Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): #21
  • Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): #21 for 1991, #58 for 1992
  • Star Trek: Generations (1994): #17 for 1994, #159 for 1995
  • Star Trek: First Contact (1996): #14 for 1996, #157 for 1997
  • Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): #40 for 1998, #109 for 1999
  • Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): #74 for 2002, #157 for 2003
  • Star Trek (2009): #7
  • Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): #10
  • Star Trek Beyond (2016): #16
Certainly Star Trek has never been on the level of Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc., though not for lack of trying with ST09. But by the same token, making it to the top 10 -- and for TMP, the top 5! -- ain't nothin' to sneeze at. So I was using a more liberal definition of blockbuster than you were and I agree there's an important quantitative difference between ST's performance and those "ultimate blockbusters." But I do think "blockbuster" is a legitimate description for the ten highest-grossing movies in a year.

If we restrict it to only the top five, though, then clearly only TMP has reached "blockbuster" status.

Anyway, it's interesting how the first four films were all in the top ten for their years... and then TFF fell off a cliff that none of the following films could recover from until ST09. Even FC, celebrated as it was, couldn't crack the top 15. Then they drop again with INS, and then they drop again with NEM. Not only ST09 do they get back in the top ten. There's only a small drop from ST09 to ID, then then BEY has a steep fall again into Trek's 1990s territory.

Just looking at what was released in some of those years, and the film's relative take to those near it in the rankings, and Beyond, to me, shouldn't be looked at as a poor performance. Of the films above it, the only one I hadn't heard of was "Sing", it was up against 3 Marvel films, 2 Star Wars, 2 DC, a HP so it was never cracking top 10 anyway.

It also beat out X-Men (admittedly a poorly rec'd X-Men but still), Ghostbusters reboot, Independence Day 2 and some other really big hitters.

Into Darkness was essentially the best of the rest in 2013 too (and only $10m off FF6 up in 8th place) - you look at the list of films and again, it isn't beating any of those no matter what you do (Iron Man 3, Hunger Games, Man of Steel, Hobbit etc are all going to out do Trek any day and it smashed films like The Great Gatsby, Wolverine, Hangover 3 and so on which you'd expect big takes for).

Trek 09 - again it is a best of the rest, beaten out by Transformers 2 (probably peak of the series), Avatar, Harry Potter 6, Twilight and smashed some huge films like Fast & Furious, GI Joe, X Men Origins, Ice Age and so on.

Trek can compete at the highest levels, just that within the rough genre that people see Trek (falls into the Marvel zone but as the uncool stepchild of it in terms of wider audience and Execs) it will never be top of the mountain and the amounts those other films will take makes it look shit no matter what.

Nemesis was a shit show to be fair (combine 2002 and 2003 US of $42m which on my listing puts it in mid 50s) but Insurrection did a combined 1998 and 1999 of $70ish which would put it around 25th and on par with Lost in Space and Blade which isn't bad.

FC returns to best of the rest status, taking $89m with the next above it at $100m so a clear gap. It beat out Space Jam though, and 1996 was another year of huge films (like 2013 and 2016) with the likes of Independence Day, Twister, MI, Nutty Professor, 101 Dalmations, and Hunchback of Notre Dame all above FC.

It actually beat out Toy Story by $50m, with them released the same date!

As has been said before - Trek is the middle of the road solid banker. It'll do enough to keep things turning over but you aren't going to see a smash hit sadly.
 
Agreed. Star Trek is an enduringly middlingly popular franchise -- always has been and always will be. There's nothing wrong with that, and in a healthy entertainment marketplace, shows/franchises that are enduring but middling still represent a valuable niche. Everything in the world cannot and should not be either extremely popular blockbusters or dirt-cheap indie stuff that five and a half people see. There needs to be something in the middle.
In the movie space, middle sized movies need to come back, we severely lack something between "BlockBuster" & "Indie".

The movies that have middle size budgets needs to re-appear and get produced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Ultimate blockbusters? Well, yeah I'd agree ST has never been that.

My only criteria was listing the Trek films that made it in the top 10 domestic for their year of release. I did overlook a couple though because I only looked up the three or four I knew had made the most money -- ST09, FC, TVH, and TMP.

Here is the domestic ranking per Box Office Mojo for each ST film:
  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): #4
  • Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): #8
  • Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984): #8
  • Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): #7 for 1986, #25 for 1987
  • Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): #21
  • Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): #21 for 1991, #58 for 1992
  • Star Trek: Generations (1994): #17 for 1994, #159 for 1995
  • Star Trek: First Contact (1996): #14 for 1996, #157 for 1997
  • Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): #40 for 1998, #109 for 1999
  • Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): #74 for 2002, #157 for 2003
  • Star Trek (2009): #7
  • Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): #10
  • Star Trek Beyond (2016): #16
Certainly Star Trek has never been on the level of Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc., though not for lack of trying with ST09. But by the same token, making it to the top 10 -- and for TMP, the top 5! -- ain't nothin' to sneeze at. So I was using a more liberal definition of blockbuster than you were and I agree there's an important quantitative difference between ST's performance and those "ultimate blockbusters." But I do think "blockbuster" is a legitimate description for the ten highest-grossing movies in a year.

If we restrict it to only the top five, though, then clearly only TMP has reached "blockbuster" status.

Anyway, it's interesting how the first four films were all in the top ten for their years... and then TFF fell off a cliff that none of the following films could recover from until ST09. Even FC, celebrated as it was, couldn't crack the top 15. Then they drop again with INS, and then they drop again with NEM. Not only ST09 do they get back in the top ten. There's only a small drop from ST09 to ID, then then BEY has a steep fall again into Trek's 1990s territory.
Star Trek has generally been more successful with the TV side of the franchise, while Star Wars has generally been more successful with it's movie side of the franchise.
 
Ultimate blockbusters? Well, yeah I'd agree ST has never been that.

My only criteria was listing the Trek films that made it in the top 10 domestic for their year of release. I did overlook a couple though because I only looked up the three or four I knew had made the most money -- ST09, FC, TVH, and TMP.

Here is the domestic ranking per Box Office Mojo for each ST film:
  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): #4
  • Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): #8
  • Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984): #8
  • Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): #7 for 1986, #25 for 1987
  • Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): #21
  • Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): #21 for 1991, #58 for 1992
  • Star Trek: Generations (1994): #17 for 1994, #159 for 1995
  • Star Trek: First Contact (1996): #14 for 1996, #157 for 1997
  • Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): #40 for 1998, #109 for 1999
  • Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): #74 for 2002, #157 for 2003
  • Star Trek (2009): #7
  • Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): #10
  • Star Trek Beyond (2016): #16
Certainly Star Trek has never been on the level of Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc., though not for lack of trying with ST09. But by the same token, making it to the top 10 -- and for TMP, the top 5! -- ain't nothin' to sneeze at. So I was using a more liberal definition of blockbuster than you were and I agree there's an important quantitative difference between ST's performance and those "ultimate blockbusters." But I do think "blockbuster" is a legitimate description for the ten highest-grossing movies in a year.

If we restrict it to only the top five, though, then clearly only TMP has reached "blockbuster" status.

Anyway, it's interesting how the first four films were all in the top ten for their years... and then TFF fell off a cliff that none of the following films could recover from until ST09. Even FC, celebrated as it was, couldn't crack the top 15. Then they drop again with INS, and then they drop again with NEM. Not only ST09 do they get back in the top ten. There's only a small drop from ST09 to ID, then then BEY has a steep fall again into Trek's 1990s territory.

FIRST CONTACT did crack the top 15. It was #14. ;)

I have always felt STAR TREK was better suited for the small screen, despite how much I love TWOK, TUC, FC, and BEYOND. The upcoming Section 31 movie with Michelle Yeoh is probably a good compromise... you get a movie, but on a streaming service scale. If more ST movies follow this model, I think we can get some really good action and thoughtful films.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top