Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Balok's Decoy]

Paramount really needs to be in where a cinematic universe is concerned, even though it is something I don't personally want. Modern audiences love big interconnected universes. It is obvious that a movie every three or four years aren't holding the attention of audiences.

Hmm, I'm not sure how I feel about this idea. I'm open to it, and as a Trekkie, the more the better. But I wonder if there would be an audience for an expanded Trek universe if even the main universe isn't drawing a big crowd (much as that pains me). If the main Star Trek story isn't making bank, why would a smaller, more focused peripheral Trek story work? Unless it's working on a smaller budget.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Paramount really needs to be in where a cinematic universe is concerned, even though it is something I don't personally want. Modern audiences love big interconnected universes. It is obvious that a movie every three or four years aren't holding the attention of audiences.

Maybe thats the next phase of Trek.. it followed SW into movies (and then prequel in Ent) then followed Batman/Bond into a reboot.. now maybe its time to mirror the cinematic universes of MCU/SW (more SW than Marvel so not so connected)?

(then again standard movie to movie works ok for Bond/Apes etc)

I guess in retrospect, they should have taken this approach as soon as it became apparent ST09 was going to be a success and planned the cinematic universe accordingly. The stand alone nature of beyond has clearly contributed to it's box office showing .

The shared universe thing wasn't really a thing until Avengers

 

[BillJ]

Hmm, I'm not sure how I feel about this idea. I'm open to it, and as a Trekkie, the more the better. But I wonder if there would be an audience for an expanded Trek universe if even the main universe isn't drawing a big crowd (much as that pains me). If the main Star Trek story isn't making bank, why would a smaller, more focused peripheral Trek story work? Unless it's working on a smaller budget.

I think it is because people lose interest with such huge gaps between films. While there aren't Batman or Iron Man movies every year, there are consistently timed entries in those universes that keep people interested. Paramount may need to take a step back and examine that angle for Star Trek, as they really have no other properties with that kind of potential.

 

[BillJ]

You really don't need a "crew of the Enterprise" as the center of, say, a Khan/Klingon war movie. Something in the vein of 300, where an army of 300 Starfleet troops march on the capital of Kronos, fighting Klingons and Augments along the way.

 

[Rahul]

Modern audiences don't give a shit about big, interconnected universes. And besides, Trek had a perfectly one before the JJ-reboot (and with Discovery will return back to it again).

Audiences care about engaging movies, good characters, popular actors, exciting plots and good visuals. Marvel right now is the only one succeding with "interconnected universe", everyone else stumbles or fails, but their advertising mostly focuses on those other characteristics (characters, actors, visuals) for their films.
None of which were apparent in the marketing for Beyond. The movie may have all of those characteristics. But they weren't apparent from how the trailers looked...

 

[BillJ]

Audiences care about engaging movies, good characters, popular actors, exciting plots and good visuals. Marvel right now is the only one succeding with "interconnected universe", everyone else stumbles or fails, but their advertising mostly focuses on those other characteristics for their films.

People are showing up for interconnected universes in movies, for whatever reason. Star Trek may have had shows/movies that took place in the same continuity, but they never really felt connected to one another.

Batman vs. Superman did $873 million dollars, Suicide Squad did $745 million. Even Marvel's less well received films have done good money. So, I say the evidence is there that people do "give a shit" about big, interconnected universes.

 

[Paradise City]

To bank in audience return, I think it would've been better if they just ended each of these movies on a cliffhanger. Otherwise sequels are a very tough business to market afresh. It can be done but it's a tough task that they really didn't need to shoulder and I think they've been bitten commercially because of it

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Maybe make a Trek movie that has the feel of a LOTR film. Make it 3 hours. Make it an arc that spans 3 movies. Give me a huge, 15-minute space battle -- like the Battle of Sector 001 but much longer. Make it a true epic.

Am I crazy?

 

[WebLurker]

Paramount really needs to be in where a cinematic universe is concerned, even though it is something I don't personally want. Modern audiences love big interconnected universes. It is obvious that a movie every three or four years aren't holding the attention of audiences.

Star Trek was a cinematic universe before the idea even existed, and it worked.

I think the cinematic universe bubble should burst sometime. Everyone's trying to copy Marvel without taking into account why Marvel makes it work and that it's a property that can actually make it work. Many can't.

 

[BillJ]

Maybe make a Trek movie that has the feel of a LOTR film. Make it 3 hours. Make it an arc that spans 3 movies. Give me a huge, 15-minute space battle -- like the Battle of Sector 001 but much longer. Make it a true epic.

Am I crazy?

I think three hour movies are tough to sell to audiences and theaters, unless they are truly special. Whatever is next, Paramount needs to be thinking outside the box.

 

[Rahul]

People are showing up for interconnected universes in movies, for whatever reason. Star Trek may have had shows/movies that took place in the same continuity, but they never really felt connected to one another.

Batman vs. Superman did $873 million dollars, Suicide Squad did $745 million. Even Marvel's less well received films have done good money. So, I say the evidence is there that people do "give a shit" about big, interconnected universes.

Marvel makes movies that focus on well known characters and actors. As of now, Marvel has a reputation for "good" movies. That they are connected is highly beneficial. But it's the Marvel brand that sells tickets. Like Pixar. Or Disney live action movies. People know what to expect, and Marvel delivers.

Batman and Superman could sell 800 mio. Dollar alone each. They are the two most popular superheroes of the world. As could a ragtag bunch of misfits movies that has Will Smith and Margot Robbie in the lead, Batman and the Joker appearing in the trailer and an exceptional marketing campaign.

The "interconnected universe"-theory will get truly tested the first time when we see a "Flash" or "Aquaman" movies in the theater. And as long as we don't see a Batman cameo in the trailer (again - one of the most popular heroes in the world) I strongly suspect those movies will make the exact same money they would make if they weren't connected to the DCCU.

 

[BillJ]

Marvel makes movies that focus on well known characters and actors.

Iron Man wasn't really a "well known" character when this all started.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I'm also pretty sure that WB still considers Batman v Superman a "disappointment" because it didn't make a billion dollars and it was critically panned. I think the only cinematic universe that has really worked (outside Trek on TV) is Marvel. And even Marvel I have...issues with.

 

[BillJ]

I think the only cinematic universe that has really worked (outside Trek on TV) is Marvel.

Well, you can guarantee people will show up for the Star Wars side movies that we're going to be getting every other year.

 

[Rahul]

Iron Man wasn't really a "well known" character when this all started.

Again: It's characters. Spectacle. Story. that makes audiences want to see a movie. In that order (in which "actors" play a big part in "characters"). Marvel built an empire on nailing all three of those.

The new Trek franchise is allright with those (horrible at "story", but nailing the firts two). But Beyond clearly failed convincing audiences it had those.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Well, you can guarantee people will show up for the Star Wars side movies that we're going to be getting every other year.

Touche. But they'll have goodwill only for a few side movies. If they all end up being subpar, that goodwill will deteriorate mighty fast. They do need to prove themselves.

 

[Rahul]

A "connected franchise" in this regard is helpful the same way a good brand (Marvel, Pixar, Disney) or name recognition (Star Wars, Jurrasic Park) is. That people are already familiar with it, and know what to expect in regards of characters, spectacle and story.

 

[BillJ]

Again: It's characters. Spectacle. Story.

Yet people showed up for Batman vs. Superman and Suicide Squad. Both high on spectacle, short on everything else.

 

[Paradise City]

Well, let's see what we have from a mass audience perspective.

Star Trek - A blast from the past villain on a vengeance trip. Vulcan is blown up. Our heroes have to fight so the villain can get his comeuppance.

Star Trek Into Darkness - A blast from the past villain on a vengeance trip. Enterprise gets hammered. Our heroes have to fight so the main villain can get his comeuppance.

Star Trek Beyond - A blast from the past villain on a vengeance trip. Enterprise crashes. Our heroes have to fight so the villain can get his comeuppance.

I appreciate once you test this on a refined cinematic palette these films have different dynamics and features. There's also a mystery to solve with Beyond. But mass audiences are cruder in their tastes, they've have seen the first two, the third one comes across as a known quantity. And there's no cliffhanger incentive to draw people back in.

You're fighting against the wind if you've three films, largely independent of each other, all of which follow a broadly similar pattern. Again, I'm not stating that it can't be done -- it's just a far harder to do and keep the box office ever-better. The intuitive result of this, is ever-increasingly blunted box office returns IMO.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Well, let's see what we have from a mass audience perspective.

Star Trek - A blast from the past villain on a vengeance trip. Vulcan is blown up. Our heroes have to fight so the villain can get his comeuppance.

Star Trek Into Darkness - A blast from the past villain on a vengeance trip. Enterprise gets hammered. Our heroes have to fight so the main villain can get his comeuppance.

Star Trek Beyond - A blast from the past villain on a vengeance trip. Enterprise crashes. Our heroes have to fight so the villain can get his comeuppance.

I don't think people think this way when deciding whether or not to see a new movie, particularly "mass audiences" (re: not hardcore Trekkies). I think when it comes to getting that broader audience, the people who aren't steeped in lore, it really comes down to a strong, welcoming, aggressive marketing campaign. Beyond had terrible marketing. While there were certainly other factors, I think that's the primary one, imo.