Whoa there what does SGU have to do with a possible Trek series, becuase I would hope anyone doing a new trek series would do better than a slow crappy NuBSG knockoff.
Impact on the Franchise
- Thread starter AJ86
- Start date
Whoa there what does SGU have to do with a possible Trek series, becuase I would hope anyone doing a new trek series would do better than a slow crappy NuBSG knockoff.
Actually, the next movie will continue the franchise, as it is currently alive and well, and in the saved state.
If the next movie were not made, then I would say the Star Trek (2009) saved the franchise, then Paramount killed it.
If the sequel fails, and Paramount decides not to make another one, the the sequel would kill Star Trek as a viable property.
I pretty much agree with this, however Star Trek (2009) met the goal of being a breakout event for general audience accessability and acceptance.
From what I've seen, it pretty much succeeded in this.
For about six minutes... about how long it'll take Paramount to realize there are a few more pennies it can squeeze from the franchise.
Honestly, Star Trek has been dead more times than Kenny from South Park.
The franchise profile is hugely high in Hollywood now, and I think that translates to cache' for the franchise. Fans have followed in its wake, but maybe those fans aren't quite rabid as the previous generation. I think I'll be able to tell after the second movie.
I think one thing we have to be careful about is overinflating the impact of Star Trek XI. We can definitely say that it was a very financially successful movie and that it garnered a sequel--but it wasn't the biggest movie of 2009 and only held the top spot for a week, IIRC.
That doesn't take away that the movie was still a big hit, however, and created a new legion of Star Trek fans--but I think it's still important to look at it in perspective outside of the core fandom. Outside of new converts, it may be that the general movegoing audience won't even think of this movie again until publicity for Star Trek XII hits full swing...
That doesn't take away that the movie was still a big hit, however, and created a new legion of Star Trek fans--but I think it's still important to look at it in perspective outside of the core fandom. Outside of new converts, it may be that the general movegoing audience won't even think of this movie again until publicity for Star Trek XII hits full swing...
Agreed, but look at the evidence: The last Star Trek show, Enterprise, was cancelled. BSG, despite being briefly being huge, was cancelled (and Caprica sank without a trace). Stargate Atlantis, the show closest in spirit to nuTrek, didn't survive.
I'd love to see Trek on TV again, but it doesn't seem like a viable option right now, outside of a Saturday morning kids' cartoon.
Good point
I think that has more to do with multiple vaguely connected plots moving really really really slow and being all over the place, also to me it was a little boring. pLus their trying again with Blood and Chrome which lets face it covering matieral a lot of people expected a NuBSG prequel to hit ie The First Cylon War.
Actually I think that was canceled becuase they wanted to make the aforementioned slow crappy NuBSG knockoff, hence the annoyance of some Stargate fans, plus SGA did have a share of its own problems more related to a need for new writers.
Their goal was to make a film that brought them money....which it did. We got a film that was a success and is considered cool. What more do you want in terms of "saving the fanchise"?
Isn't the miracle of the juniper bushes enough?
This idea of "saving the franchise" kills me. It had only been a few years since ENT went off the air. This is all nothing compared to what the '70s were like. We had the reruns of one show, some books, and no VHS or DVD copies to watch whenever we wanted. Today you have lots of books, the internet to facilitate communicating with like minded fans and DVD for seven TV series and ten films to watch whenever you want as well as reruns on television.
And the franchise was in danger of dying???
Talk about short attention span.
And the franchise was in danger of dying???
Talk about short attention span.
Not my words. I never thought of it as a franchise saviour.... more like "hey, look, a shiny new film with coolness potential! Yay!"
Last time I had gone to the cinema to watch a Trek film had been 2002, and boy, it was depressing (and I actually like NEM).
This whole new Trek project looked awesome from the get-go, and it was much, much more than I had expected after ENT got cancelled.
I think that's all there is to it, franchise-wise. No more, no less.
Last time I had gone to the cinema to watch a Trek film had been 2002, and boy, it was depressing (and I actually like NEM).
This whole new Trek project looked awesome from the get-go, and it was much, much more than I had expected after ENT got cancelled.
I think that's all there is to it, franchise-wise. No more, no less.
Erm, no, because the franchise isn't dead anymore.
That would really depend on a lot of things. But ultimately, I think that the success of ST09 means that even if the next one bombs at the box office, ST will just end up back on television.
Whereas, before ST09, the long-term decline of ST films and TV shows, culminating in NEM and ENT, meant that the franchise was well and truly dead and had no future at all. Now, even if the next movie bombs, it has a future.
No, it's been dead twice: For ten years between TOS and TMP, and four four years between ENT and ST09.
This idea of "saving the franchise" kills me. It had only been a few years since ENT went off the air. This is all nothing compared to what the '70s were like. We had the reruns of one show, some books, and no VHS or DVD copies to watch whenever we wanted. Today you have lots of books, the internet to facilitate communicating with like minded fans and DVD for seven TV series and ten films to watch whenever you want as well as reruns on television.
And the franchise was in danger of dying???
Talk about short attention span.
You are confusing Star Trek with its fandom.
ENT and NEM killed Star Trek. Period. Yeah, there were the tie-in books, but that was it. In terms of an actual production? Star Trek was dead and buried, and had anyone other than a guy who'd made huge hits on TV or in film decided to try to resurrect it, their attempts would have failed.
It is only because of Abrams's prior successes that ST09 got made, and it is only because of ST09's success that future films and TV series will get made. ST09 demonstrated that there's still money in Star Trek after ENT and NEM had seemed to demonstrate that there was not.
Yet The Walking Dead is a big surprise hit, despite being in a genre that is nonexistent on TV (zombies) within a larger genre that is not notably successful on TV (horror).
I think Star Trek could survive on cable TV with an audience of 4-5M (that's the "hit" levels of The Walking Dead) as long as it had the subscriptions to keep it afloat without the ad revenue of a network mass audience, which is out of the question for it. All that's required is someone with the vision to try.
I don't know but I have noticed that Zthe action figures from the movies have been showing up in Claerance racks in the local stores recently.
You have a hard time understanding what "dead" means don't you? I blame "The Medium" and other supernatural junk myself.
For the love of Vulcanness. Oh the logical horror! How can something be dead, with "no future at all", when we have just seen the latest instalment? Reincarnation?! Clearly emotion does interfere with reasoning and because we can't stand looking in that mirror, we arrogantly want to make Vulcans more human (Or preferably destroy their whole planet. I smell a conspiracy theory!). Thank space Star Trek wasn't launched in the 80's (when the rot started to set in) let alone this decade! If we want to use an accurate biological analogy, ST was in hibernation or otherwise dormant. What? Not emotional enough?
...
And the franchise was in danger of dying???
Talk about short attention span.
You are confusing Star Trek with its fandom.
ENT and NEM killed Star Trek. Period.
No he isn't, and no they didn't. Dying, if it has a meaning in this context, describes a situation where there will never be anything else produced in the franchise. Which is demonstrably untrue! We only claim past Trek was dead for our own emotional reasons. In this case probably to justify perceived failings in the latest movie. A kind of "Better Red than Dead" philosophy. In fact, we have simply seen a longer gap between instalments than is usual of late. Doubtless there are good reasons for that, but they obviously weren't sufficient to cause permanent lack of activity.
Its the fact that it CAN be resuscitated that proves it wasn't DEAD.
Enterprise was indeed cancelled, but it was after four seasons on the air. By today's standards, that's a huge success - most new shows don't last a half season.
I know Trek fans consider Enterprise a failure because we're used to the seven season run of TNG, DS9, VOY (which IMO was actually too long for all of those shows). But I guarantee you that the suits at Paramount never for an instant considered the Trek franchise "dead" even after Enterprise ended. Which is why they so quickly signed up a hot Hollywood director for a big-budget Trek movie.
Trek 09 was simply the next step in a franchise that was still very much alive, kicking and viable. The only people who didn't realize that were the hardcore fans who are quick to declare that "Trek is Dead!" every five minutes.
That partly had to do with a changing of the flag too at the head of Paramount.
StarTrek 2009 saves the brand name but I think ultimately kills the series. It saves Star Trek the way syfys Battlestar Galactica saved BSG, in name only. I really don't care for the new film and it ultimately erases the original events and there's no reason for that. The movie relies on the nostalgia of the classic characters and doesn't stand on its own. Had this same movie been made about a no name cadet, being mentored by Picard, taking charge of the Ent-E fighting a Romulan from 2485 it would have went no where. The audience accepts ridiculuous things like Kirk going straight to Captain, "ya know cuz he was the captain in the old TV show."
I guess I'm a little off topic. The new fans are not going to stick around. The new series will last 3 or 4 movies, and popularity will dwindle and the actors will want to move on. After that tptb will wait 5 years and re-cast the whole thing over again. We're not going to see new interesting ideas but continued reinterpretations of ones we've already seen, until it is no longer profitable.
I guess I'm a little off topic. The new fans are not going to stick around. The new series will last 3 or 4 movies, and popularity will dwindle and the actors will want to move on. After that tptb will wait 5 years and re-cast the whole thing over again. We're not going to see new interesting ideas but continued reinterpretations of ones we've already seen, until it is no longer profitable.
Similar threads
