Not in my heart. Not the Shat! Oh captain my captain!
No, they didn't show up.
The only one's who did were the absolute die hard fans who would give anything with "Star Trek" in it's name a chance.
Charlies Angels less so, but Ted and Ted 2 were Seth MacFarlane movies that were huge.
Last edited:
No, I'm talking about access through a subscription on other services like Netflix. Not digital purchases, which is a completely different thing. For example, Paramount licenses the first two seasons of YELLOWJACKETS to Netflix. Eventually, when S4 kicks off on Paramount+, the third season will then become available on Netflix. Anyone watching that show for the first time on Netflix who finds themselves being really into the show may then want to subscribe to Paramount+ in order to watch the latest season.
This is a method that made BREAKING BAD become a household title. During the first three seasons of its original airing, it had a pretty modest but loyal viewership on AMC getting roughly a million and a half viewers on average. However, when S4 kicked off, Netflix got the first three seasons available to stream, which is where a large majority of viewers discovered the show. Jump one year later for the first half of S5, AMC suddenly sees a rise in the ratings with two and a half million. The next year it debuts with 5 million viewers, eventually ending the show on 10 million viewers. This is all thanks to AMC licensing that deal with Netflix that made those viewers want to catch the newest season on AMC.
I'm not saying that SNW would have found that level of success, but I have to imagine having it available for Netflix viewers would have given the show needed exposure that they couldn't get on just Paramount+ alone. But because Paramount was so stubborn about keeping Trek all in one place to stream that made it hard for it to every see audience expansion. The best it could get on Paramount+ were Trekkies who were already a locked in audience, which is shrinking.
Huge and A-List aren't the same thing. MacFarlane wasn't catapulted into the A-List of directors by it's success.
Yeah, people like Patrick Stewart or Seth MacFarlane are nowhere near that caliber of celebrity status. And I say that as someone who likes both of them.
To be fair Patrick has always stated that his ambitions were to be a theater man and that Trek and X-Men and being in blockbuster movies were more of a happy accident rather than a career-long intention.
Hugh Jackman went from unknown to stardom with X-Men.
And while Patrick may not have been a B-lister, getting him onboard because of audience recognition (moviegoers generally know who he is) certainly helped the first X-Men film, which was not guaranteed to be a hit at the time. Famke Janssen being in a Bond film also. Can't remember how well known the others were at the time. Ian's Gandalf performance didn't debut until a year later.
Last edited:
That is not entirely true. If they can net a large enough audience they will ignore the loud minority. But, if the general audience( the normies) then the studio will try and pander to the other audience trying claw back as many as they can.
If they can’t appeal to a wider audience, then the franchise is dead.
So, maybe one more film at this point.
Maybe. Or they can realize they need to find a way to cater to both the old crowd and bring in new fans. The key is to be original and groundbreaking to attract potential new fans while respecting what’s come before and not pulling so hard on the nostalgia strings as to scare off everyone.
No sweat, right?
Just remodulate the script.
No. Once the old fan base is gone in a few decades someone will restart it all.
Pretty much what we are seeing, shocking I know.
Kate Mulgrew and Jeri Ryan both seem higher end C-list to lower end B-list?
Both have worked solidly in the quarter of century since Voyager concluded (and just like Tom Cruise, Jeri Ryan still looks much younger than her real years).
Similar threads
