Can I just say that the proofreading on this article is really godawful. Half the sentences either repeat words or don't make any sense.
Also, is there a reason why Forbes thinks that we need 2 nearly identical "
Star Trek failed at being a tentpole movie franchise" articles by the same guy within a span of less than 2 months?
At least the 2nd article doesn't have all of the proofreading problems of the 1st.
25th - was such a huge deal: Unification/Trek VI, plus stuff like the 2hr documentary with Nimoy and Shatner in their snazzy 90s suits/blazers and a plethora of celebratory magazines (that silver cover starlog special) books, model kits, posters, vhs (and that 25th anniversary logo was everywhere)
30th - Trials&Triblations/Flashback and of course First Contact. big celebratory tv event. usual magazine tie ins
40th - even had some stuff going on and Trek was dead then!
50th - Beyond, and that Beyond event thing with Abrams/Pine/Quinto/Urban, also a few docs and magazines (EW/Time etc actually abit like the 25th)..but it all felt abit idk.. halfhearted?,, and that's probably down to Beyond
Not to mention the 35th anniversary, when TV Guide put out 35 different variant covers featuring all of the main characters of all 5 shows. (Sadly, I was a starving college student at the time and only able to afford a couple of them myself.)
The villain was originally going to be John Harrison, renegade Starfleet officer turned terrorist out for revenge. Lindelöf kept insisting on using Khan in the movie, and the compromise was eventually reached on having Khan working under the alias of John Harrison for half the movie. Indeed, Orci has admitted there was a draft of the script which is essentially the same story, just Harrison doesn't suddenly reveal "My name is Khan" halfway through.
OK. Good to know. I was always wondering who to blame for that shitty idea. John Harrison was a perfectly serviceable villain on his own. And while Benedict Cumberbatch gives a great performance, absolutely nothing about his look or his performance evokes Ricardo Montalban in even the slightest way. Adding Khan added nothing to that film besides making the plagiarism all the more obvious. (Also, it's weird because no one seems to know who Khan is in the movie but, in "Space Seed," he was a famous historical figure that Kirk & Scotty seemed to have a certain admiration for.)
At some point Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock will likely be asked to come and reprise their "Speed" characters.
I'm really surprised that this hasn't already happend.
Now the next movie should be budgeted for the expectations, and then make a movie with the widest appeal.
Agreed. The issue is that sci-fi action movie making is very different now than it was back in the 1980s & '90s. The old movies were all about amortizing expenses, reusing sets & costumes & effects shots from the previous movies & TV shows, which could then be further utilized on the shows going forward. The movies were good but they were, ultimately, just glorified TV episodes. They could take a $20 million budget and usually rely on a $70 million box office. That was considered good enough back in the day. But it's chump change now. Mid-range movies like that don't really exist any more. And while the new, big-budget movies did OK for a while, I think that was more due to the novelty of it. I don't think that was sustainable.
I think there is something to the fact that
Star Wars has a tendency to force
Star Trek out of the box office.
Star Trek Beyond couldn't withstand the raised expectations from
The Force Awakens just as
Star Trek Nemesis couldn't compete with the new blockbuster landscape created by
The Phantom Menace &
Attack of the Clones.
Two things. First, the new movie series failed to gain its own audience. This article says the audience abandoned the new Trek films in favor of the movies it was trying to copy. They failed to make something unique. taking the Star Trek base and pasting a Star Wars movie on it was not a recipe for success. Second, as a Star Trek installment, the 2009 film did not connect well with long time Star Trek fans. Into Darkness even less so. So it failed to keep the long time Trekkies and it failed to create something unique. Had it done both of those, it would have been a continued success. Beyond's success was impacted by the flaws of the first two of the new films, but was otherwise an excellent film.
I think that the hardcore Trekkies have a subconscious effect on how the franchise is viewed by the general public. At the very least, they can tell when we're not happy and it makes them less interested in the franchise. I have some very geeky friends but they're not really Trekkies at all. They're more into
Star Wars, Ghostbusters, and
Harry Potter. I was the group's designated Trekkie. When
Star Trek Into Darkness came out, they really liked it. And, I swear I didn't mean to do this, but every time they'd say something good about the movie, I couldn't help but give them a look that seemed to say, "Are you a complete idiot?" AFAIK, they didn't even bother seeing
Star Trek Beyond.
" emojis in the world to express my annoyance with that moment. They only put it in there because it's an iconic moment from The Wrath of Khan; and it only worked in that movie because Shatner has a singular gift for selling over the top moments like that. Zachary Quinto, sadly, is no William Shatner. He's not even Leonard Nimoy.
