A New Movie Every Year?

[Taylirious]

Could Star Trek follow the Star Wars model and do a "Star Trek" movie every year? Like a prime movie every two years, and anthology movies in between? Is the audience there?

I want more Star Trek but not a bunch of TV shows overlapping.

 

[urbandefault]

Oh dear lord, I hope not.

 

[Taylirious]

I'd be pretty excited if there was something Star Trek related in film every year.

 

[Shalashaska]

Not everything has to become a big Cinematic Universe with yearly releases.

 

[Taylirious]

I want my own cinematic universe DAMMIT!!!

 

[TheSubCommander]

I think Star Trek definitely needs to step up their movie output (3-4 year wait times are too much) if it wants to remain relevant and more than just another summer film, but I don't know it needs to be 1 a year, either. Maybe every other year, if done well.

 

[RandyS]

There should be one every day.

 

[ihno]

quality and quantity...

Well, if the quality is not right I don't care about high quantity. I'd prefer they'd do something memorable for a change. And I'm curious how it will turn out for Disney with their yearly Star Wars... I'm not planning to watch the "in between movies".

 

[theREVENGEofKAHN]

Maybe if the new series takes off Paramount would be willing to do a prime universe movie and an alt universe movie alternating years. That probably won't happen though.

Ultimately just having something more frequent than every 3-4 years would be nice

 

[Tim Thomason]

The thing is, there are tons of movies released every week in every genre. Paramount Pictures released 14 movies last year, 10 in 2013, 11 in 2012, and are already set to release 13 in 2016 (one release so far). What's wrong with setting one or more in the Star Trek universe?

I've never been a fan of the idea that over-quantity was a bad thing, or that such a thing as "franchise fatigue" exists in the abstract. Every piece of artwork is made by creative people on their own merit, and should be judged as such.

If fifty Star Trek movies were released one year, to be absurd with the output, then most will probably be bad quality for sure. But the chances are higher that a gem will be hidden amongst the rabble.

I mean, Star Trek was and is a TV-first franchise. It's used to multiple releases every year.

 

[AviTrek]

The thing is, there are tons of movies released every week in every genre. Paramount Pictures released 14 movies last year, 10 in 2013, 11 in 2012, and are already set to release 13 in 2016 (one release so far). What's wrong with setting one or more in the Star Trek universe?

I've never been a fan of the idea that over-quantity was a bad thing, or that such a thing as "franchise fatigue" exists in the abstract. Every piece of artwork is made by creative people on their own merit, and should be judged as such.

If fifty Star Trek movies were released one year, to be absurd with the output, then most will probably be bad quality for sure. But the chances are higher that a gem will be hidden amongst the rabble.

I mean, Star Trek was and is a TV-first franchise. It's used to multiple releases every year.

Multiple releases a year on a TV production timeframe. With movies taking over a year to produce at this point that means working on multiple movies at once. Make a last minute change in one movie and you have to deal with production changes and costs in a second movie. Decide last minute to kill/save a character, have fun explaining that in the next movie. The fans would scream at the continuity contradictions.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Multiple releases a year on a TV production timeframe. With movies taking over a year to produce at this point that means working on multiple movies at once. Make a last minute change in one movie and you have to deal with production changes and costs in a second movie. Decide last minute to kill/save a character, have fun explaining that in the next movie. The fans would scream at the continuity contradictions.

The fans would scream regardless.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I'd rather have a film a year than a new TV series.

 

[RandyS]

I'd rather have a film a year than a new TV series.

I'd rather have both.

 

[Shalashaska]

I'd rather have a film a year than a new TV series.

It sounds good on paper, but then you just get the same stale formula repeated every film. Marvel is starting to get stale, and Marvel has a lot more to work with than Star Trek.

Star Trek is a television series, not a cinematic universe.

 

[SPCTRE]

I'd rather have a film a year than a new TV series.

Why?

 

[theREVENGEofKAHN]

Ultimately its not so much a creative decision as it is a business one. They will make as many movies or TV shows as we the consumer are willing to watch. The "franchise fatigue" you speak of was the waning interest in what Star Trek as putting out in the early 2000's, to include what many considered a sub par movie (Nemesis) and a television series that lost a lot of fans in its first couple of seasons. Even though I liked both Nemesis and Enterprise, I understand why many fans stopped watching and as a result Paramount lost money and pulled the plug.

 

[Tai]

I think Star Trek definitely needs to step up their movie output (3-4 year wait times are too much) if it wants to remain relevant and more than just another summer film, but I don't know it needs to be 1 a year, either. Maybe every other year, if done well.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[LtChange]

Maybe they can do a TV movie every year, independent from the TV Series. That could work. The budget shouldn't be as high as a cinema movie, and they could do larger stories with some other crew. They could take advantage of the cast of the last 4 series, like we could have some TNG/DS9/VOY or ENT related mad for TV movies, or for streaming services like Netflix and CBS All Access.

 

[Cake]

The more Star Trek, the better it is. The quality should be good of course. I don't think this depends on the amount of Star Trek though. This notion that a good quality is only possible, if the quantity is low or that a low quantity guarantees a high quality, is in my opinion complete nonsense.

For example I think Into Darkness was a mediocre movie and they had 4 years to work on it and there was no other new Star Trek anywhere.

On the other hand DC and Marvel are producing so many movies and TV series at the same time. DC is stronger with their series and Marvel with their movies. Overall though in the last years they have produced so much great stuff. You just have to hire enough talented people.