When 'new fans' become tired of the rebooted trek fanchise, it will no longer make enough money and Trek will get shelved or rebooted again to a new generation of audiences. The concept of Kirk, Spock and the original crew works on a popular culture level. Captain No-body in the Starship el-camino only appeals to a few hundred viewers at best, that is no basis to risk millions of dollars to launch a new TV/Movie on. Not to mention making Trek even less accessible and tasteful
Wow, by that logic TOS never should've gotten off the ground in the 60's. Everyone should've wanted a Buck Rogers reboot.
Oh Jesus Christ. Star Trek was unique on the entertainment landscape in 1966, it wasn't just riding the coattails of success from something else called Star Trek. Is it too much to ask to want something new and different that is as unique to the current entertainment landscape as Star Trek was in 1966? I love Star Trek, it was probably more responsible for the person I became than any other factor (including my parents). But I'm willing to let it go. I want there to be new TV series and movies that capture my imagination as much as Trek has. I don't want the networks and studios to just keep going to the same well over and over and over again until I die.
So all that's left for Star Trek for the rest of it's existence is Kirk and Spock reboots? I doubt that would be a financially sound idea. Also there is more than a few hundred Star Trek online subscribers, not to mention fans into books, the remaining old fans who, and the new fans who would check it out. Even the worst movies do better than a few hundred viewers, which I don't think a Star Trek movie without any familiar faces could do as badly. I would like to know how you found that statistic.
Seems to work for properties like Superman, Batman, The Avengers, Spiderman, The X-Men and so on... People seem to want to assign some type of importance to the spinoffs, that somehow because they existed Star Trek can't go on without them. Which is simply false. Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise are the core elements of Star Trek. General audiences like them and it would be silly for the studios to drop hundreds of millions of dollars into something that would simply be trading on the Trek name.
X-men and Avengers both had successful spinoffs (and prequels), which Superman and Batman are trying to compete with by doing a Justice league movie (why Ben Affleck?). Plus, I'm sure if Avengers could get their hands on Spiderman, they would. People don't just want the norms.
Again you are talking from a position of a seasoned trek fan who is sentlemental about the TV material you grew up watching. What you are willing to invest your time and money to see is not the same as what millions of others are interested in.
But you're talking about things that run concurrently with their successful parents or where the parent is still there and new elements are added. The simple fact of the matter is this: with each spinoff, people became less and less interested in Star Trek. So if I'm a studio/network executive, the question is this: if I greenlight a new series do I go with the elements from two movies that recently generated $450 million dollars plus each or do I continue on from the elements that general audiences were obviously tired of a decade ago, including a series that finished its run with less than two-million viewers a week (nevermind the fact that three out of four series had dwindling viewership numbers) and a movie that was a box-office bomb? I know which answer I give.
You're still speculating. Did you talk to the millions of people? The Batman they are using in Justice League may not tie to the Dark Knight, X-men origins: Wolverine had an old Professor X before First Class, and Spiderman and Amazing Spiderman are two different movies. You could even lump Hulk and the Incredible Hulk in that group, the remake made it into Avengers. For now - my original statement.
The premise of Star Trek Online is that the Iconians have returned and found a bunch of kids on their lawn; hilarity ensues.
Speculations based on well-established metrics. But the Batman in MoS2 is still Batman. The Wolverine spin-offs are still Wolverine. They're a kin to would-be stand-alone Kirk movies. Spiderman and Hulk movies are still Spiderman and Hulk. You're making Bill's argument for him. In all of your examples, you're still limiting yourself to the principle (in a few cases, iconic) characters of whatever franchise. None of these films or their characters have deviated from the core. Do you honestly believe a Scott Summers/Cyclops stand-alone (origin?) film would be as successful as Logan/Wolverine? Or do you think they would have even bothered with a First Class film had young Xavier & Magneto not been involved? There hasn't been many examples of films based on non-core characters of a franchise, but they've all failed. Catwoman is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I know there has been others. And even if you just look at the Star Trek films themselves, the only non TNG film you could really call a success is FC. And NEM was an absolute bomb, considerably worse than TFF. And if you look at the "adjusted" list, FC falls to number seven--not even in the top half. And that's despite the huge success of TNG. So the answer is, "yes," as long as Trek remains solely on film, it will remain TOS reboots. There are too many unknowns and proven concerns to try anything else. As far as television, as much as I'd like for them to deviate into something a bit different, it's just not realistic. If (And it's a big if at this point.) CBS tries to do some kind of series, whether it be broadcast, cable, or streaming, it will probably be a TNG reboot or, as I suggested before, a mish-mash of TNG and Phase II set in the nuverse.
That quote was in regard to a non-Kirk/Spock movie only bringing in a few hundred viewers. Which metric covers that? I was saying those movies aren't concurrent. The first set of Spiderman movies introduced mutant slingers, which was debooted back to web slingers. The Batman of MoS2 isn't going to share the Dark Knight's backstory. Hulk went from one TV version, to the first movies remake, back to a TV similar remake, and none of them were concurrent. X-Men and it's movies contradicts itself, with Professor X having legs in Woverine and in the beginning of Last Stand yet he was paralized in First Class. All of these movies deviated from their comicbook core. Technically X-Men arent core characters or at least Wolverine isn't. Avengers came out around the 40's and 20 years later marvel wanted to expand the universe and created other heroes, including the X-Men, which spinned more heroes 10 years later, including Wolverine (or was it Hulk that first introduced him). I wouldn't call X-Men or at least Wolvrine failing. My original point of all this Marvel-babble was that movies can expand without relying on reboots and the ones that did (Hulk and Spiderman) can as easily be debooted back (Incredible Hulk and Amazing Spiderman).
Actually, the X-Men are indeed core characters and were created around the same time as the Avengers. The X-Men first appeared in September of 1963, same as Avengers #1. Captain America as a solo character was created several decades prior, but he wasn't created to be an Avenger, and didn't join the team until a few issues in.
Plot wise, maybe. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Expansions with primary characters. I addressed that with my Kirk stand-alone film analogy. And Star Trek can't? "Core" =/= does not equal "original." Logan has been ubiquitously distributed throughout X-Men stories (across all media) for decades. He's about the only X-Man who has. If we went stickily by your definition, Bones and Chekov wouldn't be core TOS characters. Jean-Luc Picard wouldn't be a core Star Trek character.
The Avengers had spin offs and sequels? Are you posting from the future? The Iron Man, Thor and Cap films aren't "prequels" to Avengers. Iron Man 3 isn't a spin off. The only spin off so far is Agents of SHIELD, which has yet to air. Was X-Men Origins: Wolverine a success? Wolverine is a core character as far the cinematic X-Men are concerned. He also appears in pretty much every other Marvel Comics title, including a couple of Avengers' books. . You don't have a firm grasp of the history of Marvel Comics, do you?
Call it what you want, I can say that a very bad and uncharismatic singer on X-Factor will probably be very risky to invest millions in promotion and a record deal, so it wont happen. Your sentimental bias of 90's B&B Trek is the same as those early x-factor contestants who really believe they are the next star and that the world is too stupid to realise it.
I'd absolutely watch it and I see no reason that many, if not most, of the new fans brought in by the Abrams movies wouldn't give a 25th century Trek tv series a chance even if it took place in the Prime timeline. As I pointed out in a different thread, 25th century Prime timeline technology wouldn't be much more advanced than the technology of the Alternate Reality timeline in the Abrams movies because of the future tech of the Narada and the effects that Nero's incursion had to speed up the technological development on that timeline. As long as a 25th century Prime timeline series used more of an Abramsverse style and a back-to-basics approach as well as learning the lessons and recognizing the mistakes from the various Prime timeline movies and series and the two Abramsverse movies, I see no reason that a large number of the new fans wouldn't be faithful viewers of that series and that the old fans would view it too.