How Paramount should handle Star Trek now that Star Wars is BACK!

[Dales]

I recently saw this documentary on youtube on star trek vs star wars. it was a real documentary that aired sometimes during the 90s and the documentary said a few things that felt like it held the keys for star trek to succeed even with star wars hugging all the spotlight in the space fantasy and science fiction department.

In the documentary, the narrator stated that the reason why star trek was able to rule the 80s and 90s was because it was highly critically acclaimed, got a lot of intelligent people talking, was loved by NASA and even politicians, had better and more layered story telling.

In the 80s star wars had return of the jedi and the 90s phantom menace which were not some of the best films in the series whereas star trek had generation and deep space nine: the best series of trek and the most philosophical, complex and political and a lot of people warmed up to trek more than star wars because people saw star wars as kids stuff lacking the themes, humanity and depth of star trek.

I wish paramount can use this formula for the star trek films. we know star trek can not touch star wars in money but trek can surpass star wars in the quality department.

With disney owning star wars, I (personal opinion) expect the new star wars to be another generic action flick like most Marvel films made by disney. I say this seeing how disney has been pushing all the toys and merchandises of the new film, no way is the new film going to be complex or difficult: not with kids as the cash cow for disney.

star trek can go back to its philosophical and intellectual roots which always gave it a lot of critical accliam and social discussion.

if paramount tries to turn trek into another action generic flick to compete with star wars.it will hurt star trek badly and the series may never recover until star wars has left the building again.

Star Wars can be like MCU comic films. (Lots of action with no story)

Star Trek can be like Bryan Singer's X-Men comic films or Christopher Nolan Batman's films. (story first and action later)

 

[Shalashaska]

Interstellar is the type of movie Paramount should be looking at.

It was original and different from most other blockbuster films these days, and didn't have big explosions, lasers flying everywhere, and completely lackluster writing, yet it made $200 million more than Into Darkness.

Not everything has to be Transformers, Marvel or Star Wars to make money. I love SW, and will definitely be seeing the new movie multiples time on the big screen, but Trek is different, and should be something that filmgoers can expect to be a little slower with a deeper message or commentary on humanity's condition and current problems.

If people want to see fun, cool action films, they'll see those franchises I mentioned, not Star Trek.

I would love to see Bryan Singer or non-dystopian Christopher Nolan Trek films. Other good choices would be Duncan Jones or Edgar Wright, and seeing as they were candidates for Star Trek Beyond, I have high hopes that this won't be mindless action like Into Darkness.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'd wanted to see Star Trek as a fun, cool action film since I was a little kid. I love the direction they're going and hope it long continues!

 

[Dales]

Interstellar is the type of movie Paramount should be looking at.

It was original and different from most other blockbuster films these days, and didn't have big explosions, lasers flying everywhere, fist fights and completely lackluster writing, yet it made $200 million more than Into Darkness.

Not everything has to be Transformers, Marvel or Star Wars to make money. I love SW, and will definitely be seeing the new movie multiples time on the big screen, but Trek is different, and should be something that filmgoers can expect to be a little slower with a deeper message on humanity's current problems
If people want to see fun, cool action films, they'll see those franchises I mentioned, not Star Trek.

I would love to see Bryan Singer or non-dystopian Christopher Nolan Trek films. Other good choices would be Duncan Jones or Edgar Wright, and seeing as they were candidates for Star Trek Beyond, I have high hopes that this won't be mindless action like Into Darkness.

Interstellar , a space odyssey to name a few. I went for nolan or bryan singer because they are the only two directors of the last few years that made comic films that was not just another generic action flick with lots of explosions.

I agree that trek should be about humanity and the current problem and making a better future. it was gene's dream.

 

[Shalashaska]

Interstellar is the type of movie Paramount should be looking at.

It was original and different from most other blockbuster films these days, and didn't have big explosions, lasers flying everywhere, fist fights and completely lackluster writing, yet it made $200 million more than Into Darkness.

Not everything has to be Transformers, Marvel or Star Wars to make money. I love SW, and will definitely be seeing the new movie multiples time on the big screen, but Trek is different, and should be something that filmgoers can expect to be a little slower with a deeper message on humanity's current problems
If people want to see fun, cool action films, they'll see those franchises I mentioned, not Star Trek.

I would love to see Bryan Singer or non-dystopian Christopher Nolan Trek films. Other good choices would be Duncan Jones or Edgar Wright, and seeing as they were candidates for Star Trek Beyond, I have high hopes that this won't be mindless action like Into Darkness.

Interstellar , a space odyssey to name a few. I went for nolan or bryan singer because they are the only two directors of the last few years that made comic films that was not just another generic action flick with lots of explosions.

I agree that trek should be about humanity and the current problem and making a better future. it was gene's dream.

I don't think it should be a full-on Interstellar clone. Interstellar was heavily influenced by 2001, and TMP was basically 2001 in the Trek universe, yet that's one of the worst Trek films we have.

I think it needs to be a mix between the Interstellar/Gravity/2001 type sci-fi films and the Star Trek '09/Into Darkness action adventure films.

 

[BillJ]

I agree that trek should be about humanity and the current problem and making a better future. it was gene's dream.

How fans see Roddenberry:



Roddenberry's vision:

 

[The Wormhole]

it was gene's dream.

"Gene's dream" was a tropical island with fine looking women who put out like broken candy machines.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I'd wanted to see Star Trek as a fun, cool action film since I was a little kid. I love the direction they're going and hope it long continues!

Yep.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd wanted to see Star Trek as a fun, cool action film since I was a little kid. I love the direction they're going and hope it long continues!

Yep.

I agree with this. 09 and STID may not have been perfect, but still highly enjoyable for me.

I think the better question is how Paramount and CBS will handle marketing and merchandising.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I'd wanted to see Star Trek as a fun, cool action film since I was a little kid. I love the direction they're going and hope it long continues!

Yep.

I agree with this. 09 and STID may not have been perfect, but still highly enjoyable for me.

I think the better question is how Paramount and CBS will handle marketing and merchandising.

Paramount and CBS haven't been great at merchandising and marketing Trek over the years. The problem is that there's no dedicated oversight of Trek — like with Marvel, STAR WARS or DC — and the property is one among many managed by CBS's licensing and marketing teams.

To be honest, I'd be happy if Disney also bought Trek — they'd actually do something with the property.

 

[Franklin]

I recently saw this documentary on youtube on star trek vs star wars. it was a real documentary that aired sometimes during the 90s and the documentary said a few things that felt like it held the keys for star trek to succeed even with star wars hugging all the spotlight in the space fantasy and science fiction department.

In the documentary, the narrator stated that the reason why star trek was able to rule the 80s and 90s was because it was highly critically acclaimed, got a lot of intelligent people talking, was loved by NASA and even politicians, had better and more layered story telling.

In the 80s star wars had return of the jedi and the 90s phantom menace which were not some of the best films in the series whereas star trek had generation and deep space nine: the best series of trek and the most philosophical, complex and political and a lot of people warmed up to trek more than star wars because people saw star wars as kids stuff lacking the themes, humanity and depth of star trek.

I wish paramount can use this formula for the star trek films. we know star trek can not touch star wars in money but trek can surpass star wars in the quality department.

With disney owning star wars, I (personal opinion) expect the new star wars to be another generic action flick like most Marvel films made by disney. I say this seeing how disney has been pushing all the toys and merchandises of the new film, no way is the new film going to be complex or difficult: not with kids as the cash cow for disney.

star trek can go back to its philosophical and intellectual roots which always gave it a lot of critical accliam and social discussion.

if paramount tries to turn trek into another action generic flick to compete with star wars.it will hurt star trek badly and the series may never recover until star wars has left the building again.

Star Wars can be like MCU comic films. (Lots of action with no story)

Star Trek can be like Bryan Singer's X-Men comic films or Christopher Nolan Batman's films. (story first and action later)

There is a false dichotomy here, plus plenty of questionable generalizations leading to spurious conclusions.

The thing is, "Star Trek" is hardly threatened by the rejuvenation of "Star Wars". It never was and will never be the marketing and entertainment phenomenon "Star Wars" is. SW is on another level. Trek will continue to be a nice money maker for Paramount (and CBS), but SW will probably just keep getting bigger and bigger. Disney is even about to turn a large chunk of its "Hollywood Studios" theme park in Florida into "Star Wars Land".

 

[JWPlatt]

How Paramount should handle Star Trek now that Star Wars is BACK!

Blargh.

Why should Star Wars affect what Star Trek is for itself? Isn't being true to yourself held as a self-evident virtue in an individualistic society where conformity is anathema to achievement?

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Wars and Star Trek have managed to co-exist for nearly forty years now, and the success of STAR WARS even helped bring Trek back from the dead back in the seventies. I don't see the problem.

A rising tide lifts all boats as it were.

 

[JWPlatt]

Interstellar is the type of movie Paramount should be looking at.

Except with dialog not overwhelmed by a soundscape.

To be honest, I'd be happy if Disney also bought Trek — they'd actually do something with the property.

The direction toward monopolistic or monolithic ownership of combined interests under singular control, historically, does not ultimately make people happy.

 

[Dukhat]

The direction toward monopolistic or monolithic ownership of combined interests under singular control, historically, does not ultimately make people happy.

It makes the people who own the property happy.

 

[M'Sharak]

I recently saw this documentary on youtube on star trek vs star wars. it was a real documentary that aired sometimes during the 90s and the documentary said a few things that felt like it held the keys for star trek to succeed even with star wars hugging all the spotlight in the space fantasy and science fiction department.

In the documentary, the narrator stated that the reason why star trek was able to rule the 80s and 90s was because it was highly critically acclaimed, got a lot of intelligent people talking, was loved by NASA and even politicians, had better and more layered story telling.

In the 80s star wars had return of the jedi and the 90s phantom menace which were not some of the best films in the series whereas star trek had generation and deep space nine: the best series of trek and the most philosophical, complex and political and a lot of people warmed up to trek more than star wars because people saw star wars as kids stuff lacking the themes, humanity and depth of star trek.

I wish paramount can use this formula for the star trek films. we know star trek can not touch star wars in money but trek can surpass star wars in the quality department.

With disney owning star wars, I (personal opinion) expect the new star wars to be another generic action flick like most Marvel films made by disney. I say this seeing how disney has been pushing all the toys and merchandises of the new film, no way is the new film going to be complex or difficult: not with kids as the cash cow for disney.

star trek can go back to its philosophical and intellectual roots which always gave it a lot of critical accliam and social discussion.

if paramount tries to turn trek into another action generic flick to compete with star wars.it will hurt star trek badly and the series may never recover until star wars has left the building again.

Star Wars can be like MCU comic films. (Lots of action with no story)

Star Trek can be like Bryan Singer's X-Men comic films or Christopher Nolan Batman's films. (story first and action later)

Moving to Future of Trek.

 

[T'Girl]

To be honest, I'd be happy if Disney also bought Trek — they'd actually do something with the property.

For the right money, CBS would sell Star Trek without a backwards glance, the rights Paramount holds to make Trek movies would be gone.

We'd likely see a movie every other year and a series on ABC.

 

[Shalashaska]

To be honest, I'd be happy if Disney also bought Trek — they'd actually do something with the property.

For the right money, CBS would sell Star Trek without a backwards glance, the rights Paramount holds to make Trek movies would be gone.

We'd likely see a movie every other year and a series on ABC.

If Disney bought Trek, I think the show would be done by Netflix.

 

[dswynne1]

Um, let's see: no. Star Trek should be a "Thinker's Action Film" set in the future (Iron Man meets Interstellar). And if you disagree, I guess you are those who want ST to remain a niche franchise. So, again, no. And by the way, what made Star Wars popular was the classic "hero's journey" set in a sci-fantasy world. And besides, as the ST bible had specifically stated, "Above all else, the series has to be grounded in real world science", meaning that you can extrapolate, you can bend the rules, but you can't break them (i.e. "The Force" and "Light Sabers"). But, that;s just my opinion.

DSW

 

[C.E. Evans]

For the right money, CBS would sell Star Trek without a backwards glance, the rights Paramount holds to make Trek movies would be gone.

CBS wouldn't sell Star Trek no more than Disney would sell Star Wars. They'd probably would just hold on to it and do nothing with it rather than allow some competitor to flip it into something bigger financially than it currently is. Never underestimate corporate spite.