It wouldn't kill Paramount to make a 5th TNG movie, or will it?

[sonak]

I don't know how one could make a statement like "there's no chance of there being another TNG movie at this point"

Because TNG is a link in a chain called Star Trek and further links have been forged. It's done.

Oh, in ten or twenty years someone might decide to resurrect and recast some of the TNG characters for some version of Star Trek...but another TNG-centric movie featuring the original TNG actors playing the existing versions of their characters is out of the question.

if all you were saying was "the original cast of TNG won't be making any more Star Trek movies" then of course I'd have agreed with you, considering their ages and that there's a successful TOS reboot going right now.

But you said "no more TNG movies."TNG is a brand, not specific actors or actresses, and since Star Trek XI has already shown the potential success of a reboot, I think a TNG reboot will look like a common sense move in the future.

 

[Captain Mike]

No matter how popular TNG may have been, Star Trek in the eyes of the general public has always been Kirk and Spock.

I find that was the major problem of the general public where they have and had it wrong. Hell even when I was growing up, I recognized the importance of the "BIG THREE". Another point that 2009 went wrong.

I'm also not sure I'd want a rebooted TNG. In order for it to be generally relevant you'd have to go with much younger actors in an action movie which would drop the utopian elements that made TNG what it was. Would it really be TNG if it bears no resemblance to the TV show?

I agree with this statement totally though....

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'll say "no more TNG movies" again, then.

TNG was less successful as a movie series than TOS-based films.

Paramount is currently enjoying much greater success with a TOS-based movie by J.J. Abrams than any previous Trek movies.

While there might be a motive, for novelty's sake, in integrating some components of the 24th century into a future Trek movie, there's really no commercial motive for the studio to ever stray very far from the TOS milieu again.

A TNG-based TV project, such as an animated series? Always a possibility.

I do wonder how frakked the timeline will be by the time of TNG though. Entirely unrecognizable, or only significantly different?

As close or as unrecognizable as the producers decide they want it to be.

 

[sonak]

TNG was immensely popular back during its run, by far the most succesful of any of the Trek TV series.

No matter how popular TNG may have been, Star Trek in the eyes of the general public has always been Kirk and Spock.

I'm also not sure I'd want a rebooted TNG. In order for it to be generally relevant you'd have to go with much younger actors in an action movie which would drop the utopian elements that made TNG what it was. Would it really be TNG if it bears no resemblance to the TV show?

I agree that Kirk and Spock have made more of an impact in popular culture, but they've also been around a lot longer, and they're the originals, which is always going to give an advantage.

However, I think of the TNG cast, Picard is pretty recognizable pop culture-wise, even if only as the "bald, French captain," and because of Patrick Stewart himself and his career. Data and Worf have made a pop culture impact to a lesser extent.

As for reboots and your concern about being true to TNG and its vision, I think Star Trek XI has shown that moviegoers don't really care how much a reboot stays true to the vision of an original, as long as it's a fun, exciting adventure movie.

 

[Shazam!]

I think Star Trek XI has shown that moviegoers don't really care how much a reboot stays true to the vision of an original, as long as it's a fun, exciting adventure movie...

..with Kirk and Spock.

 

[Captain Mike]

TNG was less successful as a movie series than TOS-based films.

In your own opinion maybe, but NOT financially:
http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

 

[gottacook]

I guess I have to agree that as long as Kirk-and-Spock movies are popular, they'll keep making them. I'm reminded of the scene in Phil Dick's early-1970s novel Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, set in the late '80s, where two characters discuss whether to go see a "captain kirk" (lowercase, as in the name of a movie genre) and one describes meeting the detestable actor, Jeff Pomeroy, who played the kirk. For good or ill, Trek with Kirk will always supersede all other Trek stories.

 

[BillJ]

As for reboots and your concern about being true to TNG and its vision, I think Star Trek XI has shown that moviegoers don't really care how much a reboot stays true to the vision of an original, as long as it's a fun, exciting adventure movie.

But TOS was fun, action adventure. That is its' very definition... big, bold characters exploring the final frontier. TNG is far more introspective.

I can't imagine Picard and the gang being central to a script like we saw in Star Trek 2009. They'd be laughed off the screen.

Now I could see Picard and company being central to a film like the The Motion Picture, but they really don't make films like that anymore.

 

[BillJ]

TNG was less successful as a movie series than TOS-based films.

In your own opinion maybe, but NOT financially:
http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

Not sure what your trying to prove? Only First Contact ranks in the top 5 in total dollars and it was in more theaters than every film except Star Trek 2009.

 

[Captain Mike]

TNG was less successful as a movie series than TOS-based films.

In your own opinion maybe, but NOT financially:
http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

Not sure what your trying to prove? Only First Contact ranks in the top 5 in total dollars and it was in more theaters than every film except Star Trek 2009.

I am just saying the TNG movies were stated as being not successful. It definitely looks like a extremely mixed bag in the financial department.


edit: Yes, I also noticed that 2009 opened in more than 1000 more theaters.

 

[BillJ]

In your own opinion maybe, but NOT financially:
http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

Not sure what your trying to prove? Only First Contact ranks in the top 5 in total dollars and it was in more theaters than every film except Star Trek 2009.

I am just saying the TNG movies were stated as being not successful. It definitely looks like a extremely mixed bag in the financial department.

Dennis said that the TNG films were less successful (not unsuccessful), which is a true statement where total dollars are concerned.

 

[Captain Mike]

Not sure what your trying to prove? Only First Contact ranks in the top 5 in total dollars and it was in more theaters than every film except Star Trek 2009.

I am just saying the TNG movies were stated as being not successful. It definitely looks like a extremely mixed bag in the financial department.

Dennis said that the TNG films were less successful (not unsuccessful), which is a true statement where total dollars are concerned.

Sorry I stated it wrong ( I am watching the Pres's press conference )
I misunderstand, are you putting all 6 TOS films together against TNG's 4? Pretty uneven adding if you ask me.

 

[BillJ]

I am just saying the TNG movies were stated as being not successful. It definitely looks like a extremely mixed bag in the financial department.

Dennis said that the TNG films were less successful (not unsuccessful), which is a true statement where total dollars are concerned.

Sorry I stated it wrong ( I am watching the Pres's press conference )
I misunderstand, are you putting all 6 TOS films together against TNG's 4? Pretty uneven adding if you ask me.

Whether you leave in or take out Star Trek 2009, only one TNG film ranks in the top 5 films where dollars are concerned.

 

[Captain Mike]

Dennis said that the TNG films were less successful (not unsuccessful), which is a true statement where total dollars are concerned.

Sorry I stated it wrong ( I am watching the Pres's press conference )
I misunderstand, are you putting all 6 TOS films together against TNG's 4? Pretty uneven adding if you ask me.

Whether you leave in or take out Star Trek 2009, only one TNG film ranks in the top 5 films where dollars are concerned.

Yes but I am NOT talking about just the top 5....

 

[BillJ]

The four TNG films made $281,141,080 according to this list. The four lowest earning TOS films made $282,485,054.

It's not even a contest if you pit the four highest grossing TOS films against the TNG films.

 

[BillJ]

Sorry I stated it wrong ( I am watching the Pres's press conference )
I misunderstand, are you putting all 6 TOS films together against TNG's 4? Pretty uneven adding if you ask me.

Whether you leave in or take out Star Trek 2009, only one TNG film ranks in the top 5 films where dollars are concerned.

Yes but I am NOT talking about just the top 5....

But it is indicative of which movie franchise made more money.

So the TNG films were less successful. They cost more to make, appeared on many, many more screens and brought in less revenue than their TOS counterparts.

 

[Yevetha]

They can call it Generations 2...

I do wonder how frakked the timeline will be by the time of TNG though. Entirely unrecognizable, or only significantly different?

The new Kirk is to young to die.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I am just saying the TNG movies were stated as being not successful.

No, that wasn't stated.

 

[Shatnertage]

In the hypothetical world where I'm giving $100 billion dollars and absolutely forbidden from doing anything productive with it, I'd love to commission a national survey to see just where different elements of Trek rank in the broad public imagination.

I'd guess "Beam me up, Scotty" would be near the top, though most people probably couldn't pick James Doohan out of a line-up. Then you'd have Kirk and Spock.

People who watched TV in the 1990s would know Picard and Seven of Nine, but I'm pretty sure that if you stopped most people on the street and asked them who their favorite chief medical officer was, you'd get an absolutely blank stare.

By the same token, I'd guess that a pretty small subset of people who "know" that a Klingon is an alien from Star Trek or Star Wars would be able to pick one out of a lineup, ridges or not.

Star Trek (2009) works because it revived the Star Trek brand, not because it built on the continuities, or even characters, that we know, except in the most general of terms.

I just don't see TNG having a lot of appeal right now. There's just not enough people in the movie-buying public who even know who Picard and company are, let alone care what happens to them after "Nemesis."

And, as unfortunate as it may be for genre fans, movies are generally made to attract viewers. Lots of them.

 

[Captain Mike]

I am just saying the TNG movies were stated as being not successful.

No, that wasn't stated.

I apologize Dennis, I should have added the correct response in my reply to Bill J, which I stated why I "misquoted" you.

In the hypothetical world where I'm giving $100 billion dollars and absolutely forbidden from doing anything productive with it, I'd love to commission a national survey to see just where different elements of Trek rank in the broad public imagination.

I'd guess "Beam me up, Scotty" would be near the top, though most people probably couldn't pick James Doohan out of a line-up. Then you'd have Kirk and Spock.

People who watched TV in the 1990s would know Picard and Seven of Nine, but I'm pretty sure that if you stopped most people on the street and asked them who their favorite chief medical officer was, you'd get an absolutely blank stare.

By the same token, I'd guess that a pretty small subset of people who "know" that a Klingon is an alien from Star Trek or Star Wars would be able to pick one out of a lineup, ridges or not.

I am DEFINITELY not remembering a "Why are the Klingons like a roll of toilet paper" joke from back in the late 70's.....

Star Trek (2009) works because it revived the Star Trek brand, not because it built on the continuities, or even characters, that we know, except in the most general of terms.

I just don't see TNG having a lot of appeal right now. There's just not enough people in the movie-buying public who even know who Picard and company are, let alone care what happens to them after "Nemesis."

And, as unfortunate as it may be for genre fans, movies are generally made to attract viewers. Lots of them.

And before we derail the OP I will keep my mouth shut.....