Did the PT delay epic post-Undiscovered Country Star Treks?

well, as another poster mentioned, the first two TNG movies were successful, FC especially so. If the characters were truly not "compelling," you'd think the TNG movie franchise would've been a failure from the start. I think it's just linked to quality and oversaturation.


Again, the Classic movies mostly got the benefit of not competing against new Trek on TV.(And when they did, as in V and VI, the box office performance showed it)

TNG NEVER got that opportunity.

 

sonak...

Beg to differ with your assessment of the performance of TUC..it was a solid box office performer in 1991... with earnings of $96,888,996 worldwide... from a total budget of $27,000,000...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_VI:_The_Undiscovered_Country

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek6.htm

it was the 4th top grossing PG rated film that year..hardly a bad box office performance...

The film did well because it was a decent film, not suck-ass like TFF...And "competing with TNG" didn't seem to hurt TUC...

Star Trek's "downfall" never was a case of too many trips to the well for the fans..but too many rehashed stories from the producers and their writing staff...

IMHO, they simply got lazy... and the franchise paid the price...

 

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

these are domestic box office grosses.
this chart has STVI fourth from last, below Star Trek I-IV, all of which came out before new Trek on TV and are among the highest, justifying my point exactly.


In fact, this chart shows that five of the top six grossers came out with no new Trek on TV.



I love this chart, it pretty much shows that oversaturation was the problem, and proves it through box office data.(except FC, which was a great movie and had the Borg)

 

when this movie came out my first post was that it was the best star wars movie in a long time.

 

what are those totals when adjusted for inflation , though?