Let me know when either Tron or The Transformers has seven hundred hours of material in the can, then we can talk.
Is Star Trek more popular now than ever before?
- Thread starter Jefferies
- Start date
Let me know when either Tron or The Transformers has seven hundred hours of material in the can, then we can talk.
Trek has had new monthy novels for decades, with no end in sight. There's an ongoing comic based on the new movie series.
Early next year comes a major videogame set between JJ-Trek movies, and of course next May comes the next movie itself with a third likely to follow.
Bad Robot are currently in talks about a new animated Trek series.
....doesn't sound very vacuumish to me.
Early next year comes a major videogame set between JJ-Trek movies, and of course next May comes the next movie itself with a third likely to follow.
Bad Robot are currently in talks about a new animated Trek series.
....doesn't sound very vacuumish to me.
I'd say that with the fading from the public conciousness of TV Trek is a big factor - it's image was somehow all tied up with sad individuals living in their parents basement.
Without the TV show, the MAINSTREAM success of the last movie and the trend for geeky things towards 'coolness' has at last given Trek a measure of social acceptance.
It's not as big as it used to be, but it's not as embarrassing either...
Without the TV show, the MAINSTREAM success of the last movie and the trend for geeky things towards 'coolness' has at last given Trek a measure of social acceptance.
It's not as big as it used to be, but it's not as embarrassing either...
That's the thing though, they don't have to do much to produce as much or be more popular than they were before. Trek has such a rich history, a few movies every few years will never equal it. Even just looking at Kirk, Chris Pine will never clock up as many hours in the role as Shatner. There's what, 100 hours of Shatner as Kirk? You might get 10 of Pine. Next Generation did outshine TOS
I do think that Star Wars is in a heathier position 7 years on from from Sith than it was 7 years on from Jedi. Star Wars was dead then.
This really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
It was more popular at it's height than TOS was on it's own, I was demonstrating it was a rare sequel that not only equalled but beat the original.
I don't think Star Trek can ever do that again. So basically answering the question - no. by a long shot.
It can be popular again, but never more popular. IMO
I'm not so sure. The latest film nearly grossed what all four TNG films did combined. Plus, even though it had less viewers TOS still seems to be more integrated in pop culture than TNG.
You simply cannot measure popularity with box office, especially not in a franchise as big as Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 was a success, but does that mean Star Trek is popular again? Star Trek Nemesis was a failure, and Enterprise was cancelled, but does that mean that Star Trek wasn't popular anymore? And if it wasn't popular any more to begin with, how come they managed to make Star Trek 2009 a success?
I might have asked this question a dozen times without ever getting a definitive answer. Has Trek 2009 increased book, DVD and comic sales, convention attendence, on all things Trek? Or is is only concentrated on Trek 2009 related stuff? And who knows, Star Trek 12 might be what The Dark Knight was to Batman Begins, or it could badly fail, proving Trek 2009 as a one hit wonder.
I might have asked this question a dozen times without ever getting a definitive answer. Has Trek 2009 increased book, DVD and comic sales, convention attendence, on all things Trek? Or is is only concentrated on Trek 2009 related stuff? And who knows, Star Trek 12 might be what The Dark Knight was to Batman Begins, or it could badly fail, proving Trek 2009 as a one hit wonder.
The only people who could accurately answer that would be from CBS.
But I've seen an uptick in the amount of Trek available recently. From movies being played more often on pay cable channels and TNG seems to be more prominent again. Then there is Netflix paying CBS two billion dollars for the rights to show Trek streaming and CBS sinking nine million dollars into season one of TNG remastered.
If nothing else, Star Trek 2009 showed CBS that their Trek back catalog still had substantial value.
Comparing the popularity of TOS and TNG is impossible, since both the TV and movie industries were undergoing change during those years (and that change of course still continues).
In TOS' day, there were three networks, that's it, and any show got heart-attack ratings by the standards of TNG's day or certainly, now.
But as TV was balkanizing, movies were consolidating. Now, any big blockbuster movie must be HUGE to merit the budget Hollywood puts into blockbusters. Mid-range movies have vanished.
This means that in the case of both TV and movies, no good comparisons can be made over time, going by ratings or box office.
The only sensible comparison can be made between TOS and TNG (or any of the other series) in the realm of pop culture. And there, TOS is the clear winner. The TOS characters are iconic, which is why JJ Abrams found them worthwhile to recast. Only Data and possibly Worf is iconic in that way, and I don't expect to ever see the TNG characters again.
The next series will have a cast of all-new characters, possibly with one memorable character recast for old-time's sake.
I know that's rhetorical, but it's also a crucial point. Star Trek is not popular or unpopular in a vacuum. It's popular or unpopular according to the medium in which it lives. It failed on both TV and movies because it didn't follow the trends of TV or movies.
Now Abrams has come along and refurbished it according to what is required for a big-budget popcorn movie nowadays. That still doesn't imply TV success, since TV and movies are completely unlike each other now. A successful Star Trek TV series will need yet another makeover, even bigger than what Abrams did to make it work within the context of movies.
In TOS' day, there were three networks, that's it, and any show got heart-attack ratings by the standards of TNG's day or certainly, now.
But as TV was balkanizing, movies were consolidating. Now, any big blockbuster movie must be HUGE to merit the budget Hollywood puts into blockbusters. Mid-range movies have vanished.
This means that in the case of both TV and movies, no good comparisons can be made over time, going by ratings or box office.
The only sensible comparison can be made between TOS and TNG (or any of the other series) in the realm of pop culture. And there, TOS is the clear winner. The TOS characters are iconic, which is why JJ Abrams found them worthwhile to recast. Only Data and possibly Worf is iconic in that way, and I don't expect to ever see the TNG characters again.
The next series will have a cast of all-new characters, possibly with one memorable character recast for old-time's sake.
It did a lot more than that - it proved the franchise has audience appeal and is not just a lot of passe old crap. That is by far the most important thing Abrams has done. I liked the movie, but even if I'd hated it, I still would have appreciated that. I want Star Trek back on TV, where it belongs, and for the taint of failure to be removed is the first necessary step in that process.
I know that's rhetorical, but it's also a crucial point. Star Trek is not popular or unpopular in a vacuum. It's popular or unpopular according to the medium in which it lives. It failed on both TV and movies because it didn't follow the trends of TV or movies.
Now Abrams has come along and refurbished it according to what is required for a big-budget popcorn movie nowadays. That still doesn't imply TV success, since TV and movies are completely unlike each other now. A successful Star Trek TV series will need yet another makeover, even bigger than what Abrams did to make it work within the context of movies.
I don't think the sequels ever undermined TOS though. With the 25 and 30th anniversaries of the original and whole franchise during the run, it honoured the fact they were first, they always will be the icons, but the sequels added to the franchise in their own right.
Whereas Star Trek 2009 basically says Kirk and co are the only ones that really matter.
I'm always amused by the fact that the original cast were vocally against recasting their characters for a 'Starfleet Academy' back in 1991 - celebrate their 25th by replacing them - yet championed the fact later on.
Be interesting to see what happens for its 50th in 4 years. That's enough time for the 3rd film to be out, but we know they don't like deadlines.
Indeed. In the UK all Trek except Enterprise went to BBC2 (the 3rd largest channel of 4) and in the 90s there was a point they were showing all 4 Treks every week, all 4 in their top 10. But BBC2 no longer really shows US Imports. The best another series could hope for would be Sky, it could be a hit for them with 1 million viewers.
The film was jam-packed with references and namedrops for every Star Trek series, even the low-rated and unpopular Enterprise.
I'd say the entire movie was a loving tribute to TOS, not something that undermined it.
The difference being that in 1991 the original cast were still young enough to do one or two more movies themselves. Recasting back then would have robbed them of a big payday.
Maybe that's the iissue, recasting the TOS seems like a crappy way to celebrate the shows's 25th anniversary. Especially since the entire cast was still capable of making a movie.
2009 wasn't a significant anniversary, and besides the TOS cast were quite a bit older, a couple of them dead. Recasting is far more appropriate than it was in 1991.
Oh sure I know the reason why.
But again it's slightly amusing that everyone (including the Simpsons) was joking how old they all were back then, now 20 years later it doesn't seem so old.
I'm sure George would still jump at the chance to do an Excelsior project anyway.
But again it's slightly amusing that everyone (including the Simpsons) was joking how old they all were back then, now 20 years later it doesn't seem so old.
I'm sure George would still jump at the chance to do an Excelsior project anyway.
I own a Mustang, replace the engine with a Chevy engine, swap out the body for Dodge parts, and give it a Toyota interior. I still call it a Mustang. Huh?
I don't understand people's need to have something called Star Trek back, if it is way different from Star Trek. I love pork, so I want my wife to cook something different, so long as it's called pork? Don't get it. it is my failing though, not yours. Be well.
Quoted for f*cking truth.
If Star Trek can't survive on TV by being Star Trek, then I honestly don't want it back.
Yeah, we already have a watered down version of the TOS crew... I'd hate see that expanded upon even more. Honestly the new movie reminded me more of Star Wars than Trek. Just a bunch of action sequences held together by a barely coherent plot.
I'd call it an amped-up version of the TOS crew, myself. In a film that was recognizably Star Trek. And I want more!
Truth hath been spoken.
Tbh, I'd be willing to wager those who liked Abrams' Star something are Lucas fans (and/or Lost fans).
Nothing wrong with that, btw, I'm not making a value judgment here, just saying there's likely to be a lot of overlap there.
Probably not significantly. Star Wars 2009 was a blockbuster movie; it was aimed at non-fans or lapsed fans, those "I never liked those newfangled series only Kirk&co matters I'm not giving a chance to TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT" types.
Which isn't to say a fan of the latter series can't enjoy it, I'm just saying it wasn't primarily aimed at core fans.
The Batman analogy is pretty adept: personally, I never had a particular interest in Batman.
I recognized that conceptually he's a much more interesting hero than MarySueperman and had seen the old movies (still wishing I could unsee the Schumacher ones) but had no particular interest until Nolan came along.
Loved Batman Begins&The Dark Knight, as did many people... but it's not going to make me buy any Batman-related stuff, beyond the DVDs of the movies.
I think LensFlare09 applies the same way: people who liked the movie but didn't care much for the franchise still won't care much for the rest of the franchise in the end.
Yes. (This version of it.)
Yes.
Kirk & Spock
No. (Nor was it ever intended to.)
Yes.
About $52 million. It was part of a package that include many other Paramount shows, such as Cheers and Frasier.
.
Similar threads
