Spin-offs?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Why doesn't Paramount create spin-off films? I mean.. they have the property, why not exploit it?

I'm not saying anything like DS9 or anything like that. But why not do a film based on a Klingon ship?

 

[BillJ]

They likely don't want to over saturate the market.

 

[Franklin]

I'd say that compared to the various Marvel or DC comic book characters, for example, nothing in Trek outside of the TNG crew (and not even them, any more) and the TOS crew has ever stood out enough to generate any mass interest. Would a Klingon film based on a Klingon ship make nearly $500 million world-wide? Not even the well-known primary Trek characters hold their own against the comic book characters at the world-wide box office.

As few movies as we're getting as it is, I'd also like the focus and the bulk of the Trek budget and creative attention to stay on Jim Kirk and his crew.

That's just me, though.

 

[Noname Given]

They likely don't want to over saturate the market.

This. Given the perception of why 'Enterprise' "failed" (Yep, 4 years and 98 episodes and well selling Blu-Rays of said series = "failure") - I'm sure the edict from the suits is: "One primary Star Trek project at a time..." - and given the profitability of the last two films over the final two TNG entries previously; they ain't going to rock the boat.

 

[BillJ]

They likely don't want to over saturate the market.

This. Given the perception of why 'Enterprise' "failed" (Yep, 4 years and 98 episodes and well selling Blu-Rays of said series = "failure") -

I like Enterprise well enough, but less than two million viewers a week is a failure. The only reason season four was given a go was so they'd have more episodes for syndication.

 

[Smellmet]

There's only us fans that would really watch it, which means the potential box office would be very low - 100-130 mil tops in America which means the budget wouldn't be very big, and the end product wouldn't be anything to get excited about.

Basically it would be the Berman-era trek movies all over again. And we know how that turned out...

 

[JarodRussell]

There's only us fans that would really watch it, which means the potential box office would be very low - 100-130 mil tops in America which means the budget wouldn't be very big, and the end product wouldn't be anything to get excited about.

Basically it would be the Berman-era trek movies all over again. And we know how that turned out...

Three moderately successful movies in a two-year-rhythm, opening #1, with two other TV shows running at the same time, and one turd (still opening #2)?

 

[MacLeod]

They likely don't want to over saturate the market.

This. Given the perception of why 'Enterprise' "failed" (Yep, 4 years and 98 episodes and well selling Blu-Rays of said series = "failure") - I'm sure the edict from the suits is: "One primary Star Trek project at a time..." - and given the profitability of the last two films over the final two TNG entries previously; they ain't going to rock the boat.

TNG, DSN and VOY all ran for 7 seasons and clocked up over 170 episodes each. So compared aignest that it could be considered a failure.

As for ratings how many did the the other shows get, of course we are comparing apples to Ornages a little as the TV market of the noughties was different than that of the ninties.

But I would say the real reason is simple brand regonigtion, sure as a whole ST is known as a brand, but in many respects it's really only the original that has entered mainstream, the likes of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty etc..

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I really think that the only way to keep the Trek film franchise viable is to deepen it's mythos. All the other studios are adding more films and crreating more and more intracate mythologies. I think people that are new to Trek and have only been exposed to the franchise form the last few films haven't quite gotten the true scope.. all of the planets, politics, dilemmas that could really build this universe. Paramount owns the entire property and they could aim high .. and they'd have to in order to compete with the expanding universe of comic book blockbusters. Who would have thought Marvel would ever do Guardians of the Galaxy?

The problem is the writers of the new Trek are doing the cliff notes version of Trek.

 

[BillJ]

I really think that the only way to keep the Trek film franchise viable is to deepen it's mythos. All the other studios are adding more films and crreating more and more intracate mythologies.

Eventually, much like Trek in the 90's, this will come back to bite Marvel in the ass. People are fickle, one day they'll be lining up for Marvel movies then they just won't care anymore. You can only keep one-upping yourself for so long.

"Always leave them wanting more" - PT Barnum

I think people that are new to Trek and have only been exposed to the franchise form the last few films haven't quite gotten the true scope.. all of the planets, politics, dilemmas that could really build this universe.

You're working under an assumption that current audiences want those things from Star Trek in its current form.

Paramount owns the entire property and they could aim high .. and they'd have to in order to compete with the expanding universe of comic book blockbusters.

CBS owns Star Trek. Star Trek isn't ever going to compete with super-hero movies. The public simply doesn't have the same love-affair with it as they have with super-hero movies.

Who would have thought Marvel would ever do Guardians of the Galaxy?

Just because they're doing it doesn't mean its going to be a success.

The problem is the writers of the new Trek are doing the cliff notes version of Trek.

The problem is Star Trek simply isn't as popular as other types of movies. The last two Star Trek movies have sold tickets, had solid reviews and good word-of-mouth, yet still haven't broken through to "mega-hit" status. It may be time to realize that Star Trek has a ceiling as far as the general public goes. Even a widely watched TV series and an ad blitz leading up to Star Trek: Generations only produced a mid-range hit.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Well, for a long time, Star Trek 4 was the biggest Trek film. It was, and still is, quite radical for a big film. You didn't need a traditional villain... just a great theme, a great tone (in this case a light, humorous tone) and a story that feels right.

The reason the most successful comic book films are as successful as they are are because they tend to be good movies first. The Dark Knight was a good crime drama and a good study of the morality scale.

The point is, I noticed that the first to "new" Trek films seem like almost the same film in many ways. The ending scene is practically the same in both films. They both have space jumps. Both have the Enterprise launching from Earth... and then returning to Earth because it's in danger. But I do believe that, while you may be right that these films will never be as successful as comic book films, the reason is that they aren't trying, I guess. They can do so much more than a simple comic book films. The reason Trek is successful is that it can tell almost any kind of story. All they have to do is try it, own it. IT might even be more successful if people realize that they can get something different out of it.

 

[BillJ]

But I do believe that, while you may be right that these films will never be as successful as comic book films, the reason is that they aren't trying, I guess.

I enjoyed both of the new Trek films a hell of a lot more than anything that has been put out by Marvel. I can understand saying that the new films didn't work for you, that's great, but to say they aren't trying is pretty damn low.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You might not have read my entire post. For the record I like the new films. But did you notice that they are more similar than different from each other? I'm not going overpraise the Marvel films because I'm not a huge fan of what they are doing, but they have many films that take place in the same universe, each of them examining something a little different. Star Wars will do the same thing. Hell, Sony's planning on shaking things up with Spider-man.. they are creating a whole universe out of essentially a single character (like focusing on Venom and the Sinister Six).

If Star Trek films featuring the Enterprise are all basically going to be the same, Paramount could do something else as well

 

[liquorice]

If it's a fear of over saturation, then I think it's a good move to have a bit more restraint. I have felt the over saturation of superhero movies for a good two years now. A couple of years ago, I would have always been first in line to see any of the superhero flicks, but the more that come out, the less interest I have in them. That said, I don't think that is Paramount's reason for not making more movies, more likely just a fear of not getting an adequate return. Any ST film not based off the original cast is going to be a much more riskier move and a lot harder to sell to those putting their money in.

 

[Khan 2.0]

how about movies of Countdown (starring Nimoy, Bana, Stewart, Spiner, Dorn, & Burton) and Khan (B Cumberbatch, with CG Richardo Montalban)

couldve been:
Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek: Countdown (2011)
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Star Trek: Khan (2015)
Star Trek 3 (2016)
Star Trek: Spin Off #3 (2017)

 

[The Wormhole]

You might not have read my entire post. For the record I like the new films. But did you notice that they are more similar than different from each other? I'm not going overpraise the Marvel films because I'm not a huge fan of what they are doing, but they have many films that take place in the same universe, each of them examining something a little different. Star Wars will do the same thing. Hell, Sony's planning on shaking things up with Spider-man.. they are creating a whole universe out of essentially a single character (like focusing on Venom and the Sinister Six).

If Star Trek films featuring the Enterprise are all basically going to be the same, Paramount could do something else as well

Honestly, I'm getting tired of the shared universe of the Marvel movies, and have my doubts about Star Wars doing something similar. Star Trek already did this thing in the 90s and it ran its course. I suspect within 5 years people will look at the Marvel movies with the same disdain Trek fandom tends to view Berman Trek these days.

Sure, I won't deny the Abrams Trek films are flawed, but creating spin-offs and developing a shared universe won't solve anything and could very well make things worse.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I want my spin-offs now!

 

[Smellmet]

Three moderately successful movies in a two-year-rhythm, opening #1, with two other TV shows running at the same time, and one turd (still opening #2)?

A complete lack of ambition and aiming for 'moderate' success is what killed the franchise and led to JJ Trek in the first place - you want a return to those days?

 

[Smellmet]

You might not have read my entire post. For the record I like the new films. But did you notice that they are more similar than different from each other? I'm not going overpraise the Marvel films because I'm not a huge fan of what they are doing, but they have many films that take place in the same universe, each of them examining something a little different. Star Wars will do the same thing. Hell, Sony's planning on shaking things up with Spider-man.. they are creating a whole universe out of essentially a single character (like focusing on Venom and the Sinister Six).

If Star Trek films featuring the Enterprise are all basically going to be the same, Paramount could do something else as well

Honestly, I'm getting tired of the shared universe of the Marvel movies, and have my doubts about Star Wars doing something similar. Star Trek already did this thing in the 90s and it ran its course. I suspect within 5 years people will look at the Marvel movies with the same disdain Trek fandom tends to view Berman Trek these days.

Sure, I won't deny the Abrams Trek films are flawed, but creating spin-offs and developing a shared universe won't solve anything and could very well make things worse.

Don't get me wrong - I would be at the theatre on opening night regardless of what was released, but the argument here for me is that Trek is simply not popular enough for the masses on the big screen to carry off any spin offs. The success the JJ films have achieved so far I think represents more or less the top of what they can do IMO. I think ST3 can get to 600 mill tops.