Thank you for the clarification. I was using a general catch all term, not specifically related to that specific incidence. Only that values will differ.
Paramount/JJ trying another Trek movie (that will probably never get made).
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
I remember that, yeah. And there were a few select stars who just said, "Happy 50th anniversary, Star Trek."
Certain anniversaries might not mean much, but 50 is the golden anniversary and CBS should've made a bigger deal about it. IMO, they squandered the 50th. What else could they have done? I have no idea, but, a better job was done when it came to the 25th and 30th anniversaries.
I suspect in some weird way, given that ownership of the franchise was split back then, it might've been difficult to have some kind of unified initiative. I'm reaching.
https://gizmodo.com/cbs-and-paramount-royally-screwed-up-star-treks-50th-an-1786447851
50 is just a number.
A number that can stay far away for as long as it likes.
Agreed!A number that can stay far away for as long as it likes.
Shatner in ST3,
I don't know what that means.
Have Shatner in ST3, or what became Star Trek Beyond.
I don’t remember seeing anything to that effect; I’ll try to dig some of it up. It’s funny because Beyond is a great Trek movie on a few levels!
I thinks it’s 2 things:
1. Anniversaries are, to franchise owners, great marketing opportunities and a chance for fans to participate in a celebration of something they love, even if it’s just participating by consuming the marketing/products
2. The muted/nonexistent celebration of a pretty big anniversary (50 years is crazy long in entertainment for a franchise to be still going on) along with what seemed like anemic marketing of the movie can breed the feeling you describe in fans.
They can be great opportunities. They don't have to be.
The disturbing part about the marketing for Beyond is that no one outside Trek circles was even talking about the movie until Anton Yelchin's death barely a month prior to its release. It really is worrying to think when were they planning to start hyping the movie outside fandom had Yelchin's accident never happened.
Star Trek's 25th and 30th anniversaries were huge events that got a lot of public attention. By comparison, the 50th was very weak. Granted, the 25th and 30th were during the days of the franchise's peak popularity, while the 50th was when the franchise was still in a bit of a lull, but IMO, Paramount/CBS could have does a lot better.
It wasn't so much he hated the episode per se, as it is he's annoyed that it always tops the fan favorite lists as DS9's best, since it hardly represents the typical DS9 episode at all.
Clearly the marketing team did not think it made sense to market the franchise's 50 year history alongside a new expensive movie. I can understand why. Implying that the moviegoer might need to know all of Trek to enjoy a movie that is basically a stand alone story with a crew that had only been around for 3 movies is not a financially sound move. On TV that is another story.
Also the movie did feature ENT references and a ship and uniforms that looked like those from that era. The fan service was absolutely there. I forgot it also featured a new Enterprise at the end, the Kelvin A. I am really not sure what people think the movie or its marketing failed to include to celebrate the 50th.
It reminds me of when the Tomb Raider games decided to drop their numbers, for fear fans would consider the series "old". And of course, Star Trek Beyond was trying to get the Guardians of the Galaxy crowd.
It's a largely a different point of view since many think that the anniversary needs to be something like Trials and Tribble-ations style full celebration of Treks history. For fans, that seems like a total given of this really self-referential style. But, the flip side is the business side of trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible, and was largely successful with 09 and ID. There was a very large appeal and that was wanted to continue. As much as anniversaries are opportunities to highlight the history of a franchise it can also push away because of not knowing the history.
So, what fans want and what will grow the brand in terms of anniversaries can be really be opposite.
Imagine if they'd spent another fortune on 50th anniversary marketing and had the same result and same box office take. The fans who cared about the 50th would have watched regardless.
Everyone seems to be mistaking what I was saying. I was not arguing that the STB marketing was bad because of the lack of association with the 50th. I was saying that at the time there was a lot of disappointment with the lack of celebration for the 50th that fans sort of associated with the muted marketing for STB. The ending result is this sort of tossing everything into the same mental basket that made fans think that the lack of 50th celebration and the STB marketing combined amounted to franchise neglect.
And fans think Kurtzman hates Trek.
yeh unlike the 25/30 anns where there were all the tv anniversary ties (Unification/T&T) and the tv specials (although the 50 did have a big internet? special and think there was a bunch of anniversary docs on the BEY blu ray)
BEY did have quite a few anniversary nods (as you say the 'Enterprise' style ship and uniforms & MACO/Xindi references and obviously alot of TOS & movie stuff throughout), but most taking place in the last 5 minutes from when Spock found the Trek V cast photo (apparently originally intended to be a TOS cast photo), the absent friends thing from Trek III (and Nemesis), the 'Lost Years' cover heads recreation, and the of course the Ent A (complete with TMP floodlights and time lapse built up like that cutaway poster we all had on our walls back in the 80s) and then finally the end credits Big Green Hand
so overall BEY didnt do too badly in the anniversary stakes - its just there was no tv series around then to tie in with it all and of course BEY didnt have a plot centred around the Prime timeline to really get into some heavy call backs
Last edited:
Similar threads
