Not an unlikely scenario.
But it doesn't erase the original continuity and adventures because we still have those. And for anyone who cares you can just ignore ST09.
Impact on the Franchise
- Thread starter AJ86
- Start date
But it doesn't erase the original continuity and adventures because we still have those. And for anyone who cares you can just ignore ST09.
number6
Vice Admiral
I don't think anyone here can rightly opine about the film's impact. Ultimately it comes down to who liked it and who hated it. The people who hated the film won't acknowledge its impact and those who liked it overstate it.
Based on what the creative team did for MI:3 in reviving interest in the MI franchise after a lame second film, I was confident that did Star Trek would do well, and Paramount wasn't going to expect to make anything less than a bombastic blockbuster. That it needed to be after flagging numbers on the last few films.
I think Paramount found the right people for the job.
They put out a film that got non fans interested in Star Trek, while throwing the older fans some continuity porn to argue over. They got people talking about Star Trek all over again.
I think as fans, the sequel will be the litmus test for us and how much we will "invest" in the new creative regime. I am hopeful that the story will be interesting, based on what little I've read, and the creative team seem to know how much harder this sequel be to make and still please people like us, who have a biblical knowledge of the original series and still want to see that on the big screen. I think people will still be bummed out by the production design and how they didn't get this or that right, but if they don't deliver a great story, their credibility will be all but gone...at least from this fan's standpoint, and for the record, I enjoyed this film...So feel entirely free to believe I am overstating the point.
Based on what the creative team did for MI:3 in reviving interest in the MI franchise after a lame second film, I was confident that did Star Trek would do well, and Paramount wasn't going to expect to make anything less than a bombastic blockbuster. That it needed to be after flagging numbers on the last few films.
I think Paramount found the right people for the job.
They put out a film that got non fans interested in Star Trek, while throwing the older fans some continuity porn to argue over. They got people talking about Star Trek all over again.
I think as fans, the sequel will be the litmus test for us and how much we will "invest" in the new creative regime. I am hopeful that the story will be interesting, based on what little I've read, and the creative team seem to know how much harder this sequel be to make and still please people like us, who have a biblical knowledge of the original series and still want to see that on the big screen. I think people will still be bummed out by the production design and how they didn't get this or that right, but if they don't deliver a great story, their credibility will be all but gone...at least from this fan's standpoint, and for the record, I enjoyed this film...So feel entirely free to believe I am overstating the point.
Oh of course I agree there is little anyone could do to "take away" our original stories but I do think it is an attempt to replace them in the public mind. It's true the die hards can and will ignore St09 but its unlikely they will ever get a continuation of the universe they care about. Businesses think they can ignore the hardcore because the casual fans are the real money makers but Star Trek is still being made because a small-ish group of fans REALLY cared. Plenty of popular shows don't make 40 years, and Star Trek never had an enormous Star Wars style fan base. Star Treks fans were dedicated and that's what kept it going. I don't feel that the new movie is going to carry that on. One "bad" movie and the casuals are gone, the hardcore endured seasons of series that they complained about and multiple movies before they really gave up.
Recasting Kirk and co. was likely a necessary step to garner the kind of interest necessary to relaunch the franchise but more care should have been taken to cater to the long term fans. Small changes could have kept both the new ipod generation fans and the old school(supernova cant destroy a galaxy!) type fans happy.
EDIT: I am really looking forward to the sequel though. I don't want anyone to think I'm just a knee jerk continuity fanatic. I hope that with the origin story out of the way we can really get down to business.
Last edited:
I think people in this thread are confusing "franchise" with "brand". The franchise is everything. In Star Trek, it's TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the movies, the novels, the merchandise. In Mission Impossible, it's 1960s and 1980s M:I, and all three movies, some novels and merchandise. Stargate is a franchise, too. SG1, SGA, SGU, novels, DTV films. The original Stargate movie is not part of the same franchise.
The latest Star Trek movie did nothing for the franchise, in my opinion (can't back that up with facts and numbers, but so far neither has anyone who disagrees with me on that). It only refreshed interest in the name "Star Trek", made it "cool" again. And it didn't make TOS cool again, or any other part of Star Trek. What is "cool" is the current film only. The novel for the movie was on the bestselling list again, for example. But did the movie refresh interest in the other novels?
TOS-Remastered also didn't refresh the franchise, it refreshed TOS only. I highly doubt it had any side effects on TNG, DS9, the movies, etc...
number6
Vice Admiral
^ yes but you hated the film before it was even made so there is no way you can back that statement up, except that right now the only thing Paramount Pictures is focusing on is the film franchise and all its current tie ins. They license books and novels and such to other outlets, which earns them a tidy sum.. But the live action output propels that. You can't sustain one without the other indefinitely and the long time fans are aging and dwindling.
That's not even remotely true. I don't like reboots, yes, but at the very beginning I was excited as everyone else, and as a personal rule, avoided most of the promotional stuff (which wasn't easy, because the campaign was extremely aggressive). Once I saw the movie, I changed my mind, because I thought it was pretty bad.
And how did you even get this impression? I didn't even join this message board long after the movie had already been released. Are you mistaking me with someone else here?
How so?
The way I see it, they are two seperate franchises under the same name. Would Emmerich do a sequel to his Stargate movie, it would have NOTHING to do with the television shows.
In a sense, Star Trek XI is in the same boat. It's the first Trek production made since Trek's movie and television divisions went their separate ways under different owners.
Good point.
Stargate SG1 is also just as pseudo-related to the Stargate movie as Star Trek 2009 is to TOS. Whereas SG1 used the movie's production design, soundtrack and Alexis Cruz (as Skaara), nuTrek used Nimoy as Spock and the theme for the end credits. But at the end of the day, Stargate and Star Trek are each divided in two franchises. And that separation will get more and more evident as time goes on, I'm sure.
Jarod's got you there, 6 - he signed up several weeks after the movie went into general release.
That's actually an easy check to make. Big Bang Theory continually makes jokes about TOS, with Shatner, Nimoy, etc. The new movie had one joke, where Sheldon missed the movie due to being in the arctic. So, your 'pop culture' reference here in the one 'magnet' for such things has an anemic showing. It certainly didn't overwrite TOS in many people's minds, and wasn't meaty enough to stand on its own past the release.
But keep in mind that's fine from Paramount's point of view. Star Trek was a popcorn movie which got a lot of butts in seats, and I'm sure the sequel will get 70 percent as many like it's supposed to. But as a popcorn movie, it wasn't going to attract a big and loyal following like what we've been familiar with with the Star Trek franchise.
I believe Penny mentions the bit where Kirk screws over Spock for the captaincy (I don't think those are her words.
). I think that is a separate reference(?). If so, two isn't that bad to be fair. I doubt they can turn the show in to a movie promotion even if they wanted to.You hear of people going on to explore TOS and some seem to like it. I would hope that's the case (silver lining and so on), but its hard to say how often that happens.
A once non-Trek fan, the kind of person who'd call it, "Startrack" borrowed my DVDs of the TOS after seeing the new film.
I'm not very familiar with Trek having a big and loyal fanbase as it was!
number6
Vice Admiral
I am. The fanbase was huge and saw each of the TOS cast films multiple times in the theatres and bought the books, toys and clothing..
then TNG came out and had an even bigger fan base, including long time TOS fans and a new generation of people who would grow up on the TNG era as we did on TOS.. The 90s was a great time to be a Star Trek fan!! The issue with VOY and ENT (imo, of course) is that the fanbase that grew up with TNG were starting to get older and getting on with other things, and while VOY ENT still tried to cater to that fanbase, they didn't even try to appeal to a new audience and the concept got stale.
This new film set out to appeal to new fans and they have seen the film multiple times, bought the comic books, the toys, the clothing, etc.. And they have us who debate about the film's merits as it relates to us. TNG broke the same mold be setting it in a future beyond Kirk and Spock. TrekXI gave us a story about how young Kirk and Spock met and started to develop their friendship. Both use Kirk and Spock as focal points (albeit in opposite directions) to advance the cause because ultimately we all "know" Kirk and Spock, whether we cared about Star Trek or not. Kirk and Spock are pop culture icons. Recasting them was a smart move. Giving them a new backstory to develop was great for carving a new path, but leaving the door open to throw a continuity bone to us old timers.
To say that this movie didn't have an impact in the franchise just doesn't weigh any facts into the equation. Of course it had in impact. If the sequel is as good as this, there will be a whole new wave of fans again. The film was the highest grossing Star Trek film and was in the top 20 highest grossing films of 2009. This was no failure by any means.
Last edited:
Star Trek XI is the reason I became more interested in Star Trek. I knew what it was and new most of the prinicpal characters (both TOS and TNG) and had even watched Star Trek 2 (in a park no less!) well before the latest movie came out. After watching it, I wound up buying all 3 seasons of TOS and have seen all the movies with original crew at least once. I'm enjoying seeing the evolution of characters throughout the show and movies and plan on watching it all over again before the 2012 movie.
So, yes, I'd say that Star Trek XI had a very positive influence on the franchise. At least for me personally and I get the impression there are several more like me lurking in the boards.
So, yes, I'd say that Star Trek XI had a very positive influence on the franchise. At least for me personally and I get the impression there are several more like me lurking in the boards.
Similar threads
