Impact on the Franchise

[JarodRussell]

This new film set out to appeal to new fans and they have seen the film multiple times, bought the comic books, the toys, the clothing, etc..

Ironically, my observation was that is was mostly the long-time Trek fans who watched it five, seven, ten times.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Stargate is a franchise, too. SG1, SGA, SGU, novels, DTV films. The original Stargate movie is not part of the same franchise.

How so?

The way I see it, they are two seperate franchises under the same name. Would Emmerich do a sequel to his Stargate movie, it would have NOTHING to do with the television shows.

Emmerich has said in the past that he wants to do Stargate 2 and 3 starring Kurt Russel and James Spader, ignoring the various TV productions. But unless that happens (by the looks of MGM's bankrupcy plan, it won't) there will only be one Stargate franchise - the TV one. A film and five novels (which mnage to get several basic facts about the movie wrong) does not a franchise make.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Having two different versions of Stargate would certainly not constitute two different "franchises" - just two different continuities. Would they both be owned by MGM and marketed under the trademark "Stargate?" If the answer is "yes" then any talk about "two franchises" is foolishness.

 

[Hythlodeus]

It's too soon to register it's impact. The test will be if it hangs on in the public mind or the average Joe and Jane go back to identifying with TOS and to some extent TNG as Star Trek.

That's actually an easy check to make. Big Bang Theory continually makes jokes about TOS, with Shatner, Nimoy, etc. The new movie had one joke, where Sheldon missed the movie due to being in the arctic. So, your 'pop culture' reference here in the one 'magnet' for such things has an anemic showing. It certainly didn't overwrite TOS in many people's minds, and wasn't meaty enough to stand on its own past the release.

But keep in mind that's fine from Paramount's point of view. Star Trek was a popcorn movie which got a lot of butts in seats, and I'm sure the sequel will get 70 percent as many like it's supposed to. But as a popcorn movie, it wasn't going to attract a big and loyal following like what we've been familiar with with the Star Trek franchise.

well, my gf wasn't a trekkie BEFORE ST09, but now she bought all of the TOS-remastered dvds, watched the other 10 movies and absolutely loves all of it.

 

[RAMA]

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.

Doesnt have anything to do with attention span at all, its a media rich world these days, and anything that exists with the level of publicity, expectation and marketingthese days can't stay out of the limelight for long. If a franchise is marketable, you can better believe it wont take 11 yrs to get it back to the center of attention.

From my point of view, ST was still doing well despite Enterprise's cancellation. You yourself mention all the media available...there was ST-Remastered which i consider to be a landmark in reproducing TV for the HD market. I scan through a few of my magazines from the "dormant" period and there is literally no shortage of info, news or reports of ST in the media. ST is never going to disappear, ever..

RAMA

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Star Trek franchise has a future now, in movies and possibly even television at some point.

That's the impact of JJTrek. Say "Thank you."

 

[Jeyl]

The Star Trek franchise has a future now, in movies and possibly even television at some point.

That's the impact of JJTrek. Say "Thank you."

........Ok.

Now it's his turn to give a "you're welcome".

 

[number6]

The Star Trek franchise has a future now, in movies and possibly even television at some point.

That's the impact of JJTrek. Say "Thank you."

This.

........Ok.

What-Ever..

Now it's his turn to give a "you're welcome".

That will be the sequel, which I am sure you already hate.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"do we care? are we caring about this now?"That will be the sequel, which I am sure you already hate.

"Do we care? Are we caring about this now?"

 

[number6]

"do we care? are we caring about this now?"That will be the sequel, which I am sure you already hate.

"Do we care? Are we caring about this now?"

Or as Number 2 said, "Why do you care?"

 

[CaptJimboJones]

well, my gf wasn't a trekkie BEFORE ST09, but now she bought all of the TOS-remastered dvds, watched the other 10 movies and absolutely loves all of it.

Ha. Somewhat similar experience: When we were watching Trek XI, my wife whispered in my ear, "You know, this movie is different from all the other Star Trek movies you've dragged me to over the years."

Me: "How so?"

Her: "This one's good."

 

[M'Sharak]

^

That's great. It reminds a little of something Wil Wheaton said on his blog back when the movie was still in production. In part:

If JJ Abrams wants to make his new Trek movie unlike the 80% of Trek movies that aren't that good, that's just fine with me.

 

[thepatagonian]

Well even watching the best TNG episodes now, they seem so dated and camp. But the storytelling redeems many of the episodes (a remastering of TNG would do wonders).

I bought Voyager on DVD years ago,...pretty sure they'll never get seen. Production quality is better but the storytelling is sub par.

And the much maligned Enterprise? I really think season 4 is the best of Trek.

Whatever incarnation Star Trek takes in the future, it will have better production values than anything has come before because the medium has evolved. Storytelling,...well,...that's anyone's guess. But the upshot is, its Trek, and you gotta love it.

 

[AJ86]

After the faliure of Nemesis and the cancellation of Enterprise, Star Trek was dead. The only new Trek was the monthly novels, which are read by approx. 2% of the fanbase. Activision sued Paramount to get out of their Trek videogame contract, after Nemesis' reception doomed their Elite Force II game. The official website, Startrek.com, was shutting down.

The new movie has upset a few old Trek fans, but no more than TMP and TNG did in '79 and '86.

Don't mistake the constant bitching by a minority of die-hard internet fans as anything representative of the real world.

Surely it was only 'dead' because TPTB never wanted to pursue another series? I can't imagine a Star Trek series failing on Syfy for example, the franchise could probably have two or three series on the go if they really wanted.

 

[JarodRussell]

After the faliure of Nemesis and the cancellation of Enterprise, Star Trek was dead. The only new Trek was the monthly novels, which are read by approx. 2% of the fanbase. Activision sued Paramount to get out of their Trek videogame contract, after Nemesis' reception doomed their Elite Force II game. The official website, Startrek.com, was shutting down.

I'm wondering... what is different now?

 

[kkozoriz1]

If anything the movie has actually made the novel situation worse with the gaping four book hole in the middle of the schedule.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I can't imagine a Star Trek series failing on Syfy for example,

I can, but remember, failure is judged financially. Skiffy may simply not have the viewership to support a quality Star Trek production. For Star Trek to be reduced to a non-quality production would be failure by definition and also a very stupid move from a brand management perspective. I hope Star Trek is in the hands of smarter people than that. It's suffered enough poor management as it is.

Also, NBC Universal owns Skiffy and CBS owns Star Trek rights on TV - nobody makes shows for rival networks anymore, so Skiffy isn't an option anyway. The options are CBS, CW and Showtime - all of which are bad fits in various ways.

 

[AJ86]

I can't imagine a Star Trek series failing on Syfy for example,

I can, but remember, failure is judged financially. Skiffy may simply not have the viewership to support a quality Star Trek production. For Star Trek to be reduced to a non-quality production would be failure by definition and also a very stupid move from a brand management perspective. I hope Star Trek is in the hands of smarter people than that. It's suffered enough poor management as it is.

Also, NBC Universal owns Skiffy and CBS owns Star Trek rights on TV - nobody makes shows for rival networks anymore, so Skiffy isn't an option anyway. The options are CBS, CW and Showtime - all of which are bad fits in various ways.

I don't think that would be an issue. BSG, Caprica and SGU are all of a higher production quality than any of the Star Trek series thus far.

 

[Saquist]

Somehow I think Trek on Sci Fi would be a disaster for the franchise...
I guess it's fine as long as they don't have control.

 

[JarodRussell]

I can't imagine a Star Trek series failing on Syfy for example,

I can, but remember, failure is judged financially. Skiffy may simply not have the viewership to support a quality Star Trek production. For Star Trek to be reduced to a non-quality production would be failure by definition and also a very stupid move from a brand management perspective. I hope Star Trek is in the hands of smarter people than that. It's suffered enough poor management as it is.

Also, NBC Universal owns Skiffy and CBS owns Star Trek rights on TV - nobody makes shows for rival networks anymore, so Skiffy isn't an option anyway. The options are CBS, CW and Showtime - all of which are bad fits in various ways.

I don't think that would be an issue. BSG, Caprica and SGU are all of a higher production quality than any of the Star Trek series thus far.

Couldn't see that yet behind all that dark lighting and shaky cam though.