Has the Trek franchise exhausted itself

[Greg Cox]

Trek right now is in a lull. It doesn't mean it will always be that way. It's still a huge franchise with a dedicated and loyal fanbase.

Even saying that "Trek right now is in a lull" makes me raise an eyebrow. The last movie just came out a few months ago and there's a new TV series in the works. If that's a "lull," what constitutes a going concern?

Now, most of the seventies . . . that was a lull.

 

[Tim Walker]

On other threads there have been interesting ideas for future Trek endeavors. So, no, I don't think that Trek's potential is exhausted yet.

 

[KelisThePoet]

Much like a lot of problems if life, Star Trek can be fixed and reinvigorated by throwing vast sums of money at it.
As that probably won't happen then right now I think we have to pin our hopes on Discovery being successful.

Considering the comparatively huge budgets of the last three Star Trek movies (exponentially huge, compared to previous Trek movies, and basically competitive with other current big-budget features), I don't think it's fair to say there's some hidden audience the franchise can magically tap or some quality issue the franchise can magically solve by finding someone to simply throw more money at it.

 

[Lance]

Was Star Wars exhausted in the early 90's? It had been over a decade since Return of the Jedi and still a long way from the prequel trilogy.
Even once Revenge of The Sith was done we had a long time to wait for a new movie and for the franchise to take off like it has done now.

Until The X-Men in 2000 ( I know this wasn't Marvel Studios), Movies based on Marvel characters were almost non existent. Now they are the most successful movie franchise in history with even obscure characters like Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool and Dr Strange breaking all sorts of records.

Trek right now is in a lull. It doesn't mean it will always be that way. It's still a huge franchise with a dedicated and loyal fanbase.
Granted Trek has never quite been held in the same public affection as Star Wars has but as we are seeing now with Disney going all in on Star Wars and reaping the rewards, we need something similar with Trek.
The new trilogy was ok, but even as a lifelong Star Trek fan they never really got much better than Ok for me.
Much like a lot of problems if life, Star Trek can be fixed and reinvigorated by throwing vast sums of money at it.
As that probably won't happen then right now I think we have to pin our hopes on Discovery being successful. With the right people involved I see no reason why this can't happen.
A good critically acclaimed first season and we're off and running again.

The Star Wars comparison is actually an interesting one, because it's almost impossible to think it was ever a culty thing looking at the juggernaut it has become, but truth is back in the late 1980s and early 90s, Star Wars profile was quite low -- only the existence of video stores arguably gave it impetus, but realistically it was the re-release of the original trilogy to theatres and later the prequels that propelled that franchise into the stratosphere it still exists in today. I can easily see an alternative path where that didn't happen.

That being said, I think the question posed by the OP about whether Trek is "exausted" when the same things have been said a dozen times in the past and it has survived and prospered, is premature. Trek's public profile was never higher than during TNG's run, returning to TV some 20 years after it had last graced the small screen had been like a shot in the arm for the franchise, and I'd argue 'Discovery' has got just as much chance of success.

 

[Voth commando1]

Was Star Wars exhausted in the early 90's? It had been over a decade since Return of the Jedi and still a long way from the prequel trilogy.
Even once Revenge of The Sith was done we had a long time to wait for a new movie and for the franchise to take off like it has done now.

Until The X-Men in 2000 ( I know this wasn't Marvel Studios), Movies based on Marvel characters were almost non existent. Now they are the most successful movie franchise in history with even obscure characters like Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool and Dr Strange breaking all sorts of records.

Trek right now is in a lull. It doesn't mean it will always be that way. It's still a huge franchise with a dedicated and loyal fanbase.
Granted Trek has never quite been held in the same public affection as Star Wars has but as we are seeing now with Disney going all in on Star Wars and reaping the rewards, we need something similar with Trek.
The new trilogy was ok, but even as a lifelong Star Trek fan they never really got much better than Ok for me.
Much like a lot of problems if life, Star Trek can be fixed and reinvigorated by throwing vast sums of money at it.
As that probably won't happen then right now I think we have to pin our hopes on Discovery being successful. With the right people involved I see no reason why this can't happen.
A good critically acclaimed first season and we're off and running again.

Speaking a Star Wars fan and Legends fan in particular one kept Star Wars from fading from public consciousness entirely was Heir to the Empire with Timothy Zahn and our favorite blue admiral-Grand Admiral Thrawn.

 

[The Lonely Man]

Even saying that "Trek right now is in a lull" makes me raise an eyebrow. The last movie just came out a few months ago and there's a new TV series in the works. If that's a "lull," what constitutes a going concern?

Now, most of the seventies . . . that was a lull.

Yeah I can get that.

Maybe describing it as a Lull was a poor choice of words. However... Beyond wasn't a massive success either financially or critically and Discovery ( which I am very much looking forward to) has been delayed, it's showrunner has left his post. Not exactly smooth sailing for the franchise right now.

 

[The Lonely Man]

Considering the comparatively huge budgets of the last three Star Trek movies (exponentially huge, compared to previous Trek movies, and basically competitive with other current big-budget features), I don't think it's fair to say there's some hidden audience the franchise can magically tap or some quality issue the franchise can magically solve by finding someone to simply throw more money at it.

Fair point. I'd go to the examples of the 3 Marvel movies I mentioned, did Guardians, Deadpool or Dr Strange have a hidden audience ?
I'd wager the vast majority of the movie going public were not even aware of these characters before the Movies came out.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah I can get that.

Maybe describing it as a Lull was a poor choice of words. However... Beyond wasn't a massive success either financially or critically and Discovery ( which I am very much looking forward to) has been delayed, it's showrunner has left his post. Not exactly smooth sailing for the franchise right now.

Perhaps, but as I pointed out in the thread about whether or not DISCOVERY would run for seven seasons, most works-in-progress go through some birthing pains on their way to the screen. Look at the early days of TOS (bye, Jeff Hunter!) or TMP or TNG or even VOYAGER (bye, Genevieve Bujold!) . . . "smooth sailing" is the exception to the rule.

The only difference is that we now live in a media environment where every stage of a show's development is breathlessly dissected on the internet instead of taking place behind-the-scenes, out of view of the audience.

Making art is like making sausage. It's going to look messy and sloppy if you look behind the curtain . . ..

(There's a reason I don't post my rough drafts and outlines on-line.)

 

[Beard_vs_Geek]

The problem with the Trek Franchise is it's exploring the same area that we have been doing for 50 years. I firmly believe that Star Trek is not meant to be on the big screen but on the small, and on that small screen we can explore half a galaxy that we haven't tapped into yet. We only know basics about the Delta Quadrant from voyager and a tiny fraction of the Gamma Quadrant. Heck not even all of the Alpha and Beta quadrants have been explored. Not to mention the Galactic Core.
I think if Star Trek wants to survive it will go back on T.V. and Netflix. Cause geez who has CBS all access? Also it should be set another hundred years after TNG, VOY, and DS9. Take us further down the line and explore new things not the same old Klingon, Romulans and Volcans.

 

[Voth commando1]

The problem with the Trek Franchise is it's exploring the same area that we have been doing for 50 years. I firmly believe that Star Trek is not meant to be on the big screen but on the small, and on that small screen we can explore half a galaxy that we haven't tapped into yet. We only know basics about the Delta Quadrant from voyager and a tiny fraction of the Gamma Quadrant. Heck not even all of the Alpha and Beta quadrants have been explored. Not to mention the Galactic Core.
I think if Star Trek wants to survive it will go back on T.V. and Netflix. Cause geez who has CBS all access? Also it should be set another hundred years after TNG, VOY, and DS9. Take us further down the line and explore new things not the same old Klingon, Romulans and Volcans.

Have the shows themes been exhausted though? Is utopian sci fi/space opera and optimistic and happy future for the human race non grata now? Has the general public and those who are artists and thinkers given up on exploration and happiness for man? Where are the dreams of a better world? Where is the joy and the dream. Where is the vision that was seen? Is all that the sci fi genre has left to give is despair, cynicism, and sorrow. Where is the hope and the dream?

 

[Beard_vs_Geek]

Have the shows themes been exhausted though? Is utopian sci fi/space opera and optimistic and happy future for the human race non grata now? Has the general public and those who are artists and thinkers given up on exploration and happiness for man? Where are the dreams of a better world? Where is the joy and the dream. Where is the vision that was seen? Is all that the sci fi genre has left to give is despair, cynicism, and sorrow. Where is the hope and the dream?

I think that over the past 50 years of Trek the dream has changed, and that's because of reality. We know from history that the "Utopian" society in Star Trek can't be perfect. In the 90's TNG, and DS9 in particular showed that their was corruption going on behind the scenes. They showed that not everything is black or white but rather grey.... and that life a series of grey. Star Trek does still give me hope about the future because it shows how realistic it can be. It might not be perfect but it's still a hell of a lot better than life and society right now. So maybe humans don't need a dream where everything is perfect. Maybe, we just need hope that things will get better.

 

[Awesome Possum]

With a decent writing staff, Star Trek can be as great as it ever was. Especially since writing on television has only gotten better in recent years. Thankfully it won't be like the movies, most of them are about someone seeking revenge.

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek was never "Utopian." Optimistic, yes, in that it was a future you'd actually want to live in, but there were still plenty of challenges and moral dilemmas and horror and heart-breaking sacrifices. Just look at the first season of TOS: many of the eps end on tragic, downbeat notes: "Mantrap," "Charlie X," "Where No Man Has Gone Before," "Balance of Terror," "Conscience of the King," etc. It wasn't all hope and joy. Risk was still Starfleet's business, especially out on the final frontier.

TOS, in particular, tended to be highly suspicious of utopias. Anytime some society looked too perfect or peaceful, there was almost always a fly in the ointment: an insane computer, mind-warping spores, etc. You couldn't gain paradise without losing a chunk of your humanity . ...

 

[KelisThePoet]

Fair point. I'd go to the examples of the 3 Marvel movies I mentioned, did Guardians, Deadpool or Dr Strange have a hidden audience ?
I'd wager the vast majority of the movie going public were not even aware of these characters before the Movies came out.

According to Box Office Mojo, Dr. Strange had a budget of 165 million dollars, while Star Trek Beyond had a budget of 185 million. My point isn't to nickel and dime the (relatively) small difference, since these figures are estimates. But I think it is safe to say that the budgets were roughly comparable. So if Dr. Strange found an audience that Beyond couldn't, it wasn't through money alone.

On the other hand, it is true that a lot more money is being spent collectively on the Marvel franchise than on the Star Trek franchise, as so many more movies are being made, and that helps all the movies. People may not have been aware of the Guardians or Deadpool or Dr. Strange, but they're hyper-aware of Marvel and have decided they like it. But at the root of Marvel's success is the immense popularity of the familiar Avengers characters and their movies which have drawn viewers into the larger franchise. Had Star Trek or Into Darkness been as successful as The Avengers and its sequels, Paramount would have probably started churning out more movies about the peripheral, lesser known characters (Sisko, Janeway, all the characters well known on these forums but not outside them). But absent that core of success, I don't think it'd be a wise business move to saturate the market with all the other stuff.

 

[KelisThePoet]

TOS, in particular, tended to be highly suspicious of utopias. Anytime some society looked too perfect or peaceful, there was almost always a fly in the ointment: an insane computer, mind-warping spores, etc. You couldn't gain paradise without losing a chunk of your humanity . ...

That's a good point. To some extent, that idea from the original Star Trek series continued in the various spin-offs. The Borg are the ultimate utopians. In the movies, Kirk says, "Damn it, Bones, you're a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with the wave of a magic wand. They're things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away. I need my pain." And Voyager began with this message: "Children have to grow up. We're explorers too. Most of the species we've encountered have overcome all kinds of adversity without a caretaker. It's the challenge of surviving on their own that helps them to evolve."

 

[TheSubCommander]

The biggest problem Star Trek faces, and has faced for over a decade, is the owner, CBS.

 

[fireproof78]

According to Box Office Mojo, Dr. Strange had a budget of 165 million dollars, while Star Trek Beyond had a budget of 185 million. My point isn't to nickel and dime the (relatively) small difference, since these figures are estimates. But I think it is safe to say that the budgets were roughly comparable. So if Dr. Strange found an audience that Beyond couldn't, it wasn't through money alone.

On the other hand, it is true that a lot more money is being spent collectively on the Marvel franchise than on the Star Trek franchise, as so many more movies are being made, and that helps all the movies. People may not have been aware of the Guardians or Deadpool or Dr. Strange, but they're hyper-aware of Marvel and have decided they like it. But at the root of Marvel's success is the immense popularity of the familiar Avengers characters and their movies which have drawn viewers into the larger franchise. Had Star Trek or Into Darkness been as successful as The Avengers and its sequels, Paramount would have probably started churning out more movies about the peripheral, lesser known characters (Sisko, Janeway, all the characters well known on these forums but not outside them). But absent that core of success, I don't think it'd be a wise business move to saturate the market with all the other stuff.

The other facet of Marvel's films is that there is a long term plan in place, something that Star Trek has lacked for a while.

That's a good point. To some extent, that idea from the original Star Trek series continued in the various spin-offs. The Borg are the ultimate utopians. In the movies, Kirk says, "Damn it, Bones, you're a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with the wave of a magic wand. They're things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away. I need my pain." And Voyager began with this message: "Children have to grow up. We're explorers too. Most of the species we've encountered have overcome all kinds of adversity without a caretaker. It's the challenge of surviving on their own that helps them to evolve."

That was almost poetic.

The biggest problem Star Trek faces, and has faced for over a decade, is the owner, CBS.

And looking backwards.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It seems to me that people have been fretting about whether STAR TREK is dying for as long as I've been a Trekkie . . . and we're talking decades here. As noted, it waxes and wanes at times, but here we are, fifty years and counting . . . .

To popular culture, that 50 years is centered only on TOS. That series remains the face and heart of what three generations consider "Star Trek". It still does all of the heavy creative & cultural lifting of the franchise. The rest have not lived up to that. For example, what average person can easily name TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT main characters? Or specific plots? I've known people who never watched an entire season of TOS, but even know who Chekov is (point being that something since he's thought to be the low man on the TOS totem pole). The most memorable creation from any of the Berman series are one--I repeat--one antagonist. The Borg--and even they did not become as familiar to the average person as Klingons. That speaks to post TOS character productions not really doing much to energize the franchise.

NuTrek is already tired, and Discovery is...well, that remains to be seen, but its telling that both dipped into the TOS pool of characters and/or period, instead of forging an independent identity. Some might believe that suggests the franchise is exhausted.

 

[Voth commando1]

To popular culture, that 50 years is centered only on TOS. That series remains the face and heart of what three generations consider "Star Trek". It still does all of the heavy creative & cultural lifting of the franchise. The rest have not lived up to that. For example, what average person can easily name TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT main characters? Or specific plots? I've known people who never watched an entire season of TOS, but even know who Chekov is (point being that something since he's thought to be the low man on the TOS totem pole). The most memorable creation from any of the Berman series are one--I repeat--one antagonist. The Borg--and even they did not become as familiar to the average person as Klingons. That speaks to post TOS character productions not really doing much to energize the franchise.

NuTrek is already tired, and Discovery is...well, that remains to be seen, but its telling that both dipped into the TOS pool of characters and/or period, instead of forging an independent identity. Some might believe that suggests the franchise is exhausted.

As unpopular as Berman is he did keep Trek going for 14 years. Can you believe that. It is amazing there was Trek on TV from 1987-2005 with four separate series. They all had their stinkers, standouts and mediocrities of course but wow that's impressive! But your probably right though in the general imagination TOS remains paramount(no pun intended). It's all very difficult though for the uninitiated to be a fan of a complex franchise like doctor who or Star Wars or LOTR or Star Trek or Harry Potter or whatever requires(these days) to have a large amount of knowledge of the material, real enthusiasm for said material, and usually you end up with a devoted fanbase that can talk for hours about the world of Harry Potter or the difference in Jedi vs Sith doctrine or how the Borg are better villains that than the dominion or who the best companion was for the Doctor. In a way fandoms become their own subcultures with jargon their own societies in which the general public has limited knowledge of.

Edit seventeen years approx.

 

[SPCTRE]

That's just fans panicking over everything, as usual.
That's just fans fearing change, as usual.That's just fan hyperbole, as usual. It was a box-office disappointment, but Paramounts biggest-money film of 2016 and far from a flop.
There's a fourth movie and a new series coming. I'd say no.

Out of steam is Stargate, after Universe was cancelled, the third SG-1 and Atlantis DVD movies were cancelled, and the more recent plans for a big budget reboot collapsed.

Out of steam is Terminator, after Genisys flopped and plans for two more films and a TV series were abandoned. Even so, a reboot is planned at some point in the future.

If they cancel the next movie, if Discovery tanks after it's second season (the first is already paid for, thanks to the international Netflix deal), then Trek will have run out of steam.

I'd say they have been, and that especially Into Darkness was Trek's most on-the-nose allegory since "A Private Little War". But fans can miss the obvious, sometimes.

And a new series next year and another movie in a couple of years.
It did in 2005. It got better. But it's unlikely to be two concurrent series' and a movies again, at least not while Marvel and Star Wars are around.
"We change. We have to. Or we end up fighting the same battles."
The Trek you fell in love with isn't coming back, but Discovery is good for at least two seasons and will take Trek in a new direction. Beyond performed below expectations but was Paramount's biggest money film this year, so the movies will continue too.

One day, Trek will die (again). But like everything else, it'll be back. And it may surprise. Who saw Harrison Ford coming back to Star Wars after 30 years? Or Nimoy returning to Trek in 2009?