They know what brings in the $$$$.
That's not really answering my question, though.
Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series
- Thread starter Quinton
- Start date
That's not really answering my question, though.
They know what brings in the $$$$.
Movie theaters don't bring $$$
Streaming doesn't bring $$$
Broadcast and Syndication don't make $$$
Home video doesn't make $$$
TOS-light failed miserably in 2016 with Beyond.
What brings money, when you have a zombified brand that no one can identify with?
Marvel can't even make money, while I have my theory that you could make money by combining revenue from markets since all it takes is a hundred million dollar video file, there's something wrong.
Media is a gamble anyway.
So who is the market?
Star Trek fans don't have faith in other Star Trek fans, so any pitch of fixing the franchise is dead in the water.
Even if you made the perfect TOS movie, no audience would want it, Trekkies would find a reason to hate it, and general audiences would pass.
So, you need a new audience.
If you make a film for them, it's gonna fail, and that new audience will have apathy for it.
Maintaining the library, and milking the current fans is an idea, but that idea apparently is universally despised.
Some extra edits:
(DS9 and Voyager would cost less to remaster than a movie, and would guarantee money.)
(Section 31 and beyond failed)
(If I were a gambling man, DS9 and Voyager are far safer than something new right now.)
There's no satisfying anyone following the current brand as it is.
SNW is kinda mid, but the most well liked.
Picard passed like a kidney stone.
DISCOVERY might age nicely, but currently is "TLJ" of Star Trek.
Section 31 is what? The Rise of Skywalker of Star Trek.
So, what is liked?
What's the clue?
Lower Decks seems to be the most well liked, so an animated movie or new season of LD might do the trick.
Prodigy is considered a treasure.
Lower Decks clues me in that DS9 and Voyager have reached the age where they have the nostalgia factor TOS did in 2010.
TNG got some of that back with, Picard season 3, but the first two seasons of that were torture in oh so many ways.
Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Across the Unknown, say late TNG era.
There's the nostalgia factor.
There is the last set of shows untouched and unmauled by modern producers who have no clue what the franchise is.
Make no mistake, to remaster those, is to open them to mauling.
But, get the remasters, and let the franchise die with some dignity.
As Bashir said to Kira, "Let him die while he's still a man."
...and....
You can't satisfy everyone is a nice philosophy.
With Trek, you can't even satisfy one person.
Supplemental edits:
My pitch, remastering a season of any of the shows would cost less than a bad direct to dvd sequel.
Remaster the whole library at 4k, movies and TV.
Why?
Those are the bricks the brand was built with.
TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOYAGER are the bricks.
Games might be a good starting point for new audiences, those seem to hold more weight.
I think a Dominion War Game, similar to an old, old one might work like Across the Unknown is going to.
It's why I won't accept the latter two shows weren't profitable.
The first two Kelvin Timeline films were successful, but the budget of no. 4 relied on Chris Pine taking a pay cut.
He didn't want to do that, so the 4th movie is gonna be dead in the water forever.
Recasting Captain Kirk again...again....is gonna fail.
So, you could Kelvinize TNG, that might work, but TNG's only saving grace to begin with is Patrick Stewart.
DS9 imo wouldn't be a great property for film, it worked as a serialized TV show most of the time, in some capacity.
Voyager could work as an epic trilogy, but that would require some adaptation, and changes.
I think Voyager would be a good candidate.
Studio wants a female lead.
We got her.
Studio wants gritty.
We got it.
You could offer an epic odyssey through the delta quadrant.
You could offer a slightly new timeline, and expansions or sequels to "Across the Unknown."
Cap off the trilogy with a remake of Endgame and old Kate Mulgrew in a supporting role again as Admiral Janeway,
We could do that.
But that would be a hell of a gamble.
Across the unknown has shown a lot of renewed interest in that property, but, is that game alone enough for a film franchise?
I bet it's enough to get those last two remasters.
But ATM, the franchise is kinda dead save for nostalgia.
I think there's a hidden Millenial Market for DS9 and Voyager.
SNW should probably get a movie, I bet you could make that work.
Tarantino's Trek movie might still be a fertile gamble.
Last edited:
No.
In order to make money, you need to market your product well. And it has to appeal to a mass audience, not a niche group of people. This is something that Paramount has consistently failed to do for the last 15 years. But to be fair, that’s not just a Paramount problem. Apparently Disney thought a movie with ‘Tron’ in the title was marketing enough, and they were wrong. I’m hoping Skydance will learn that a movie with ‘Star Trek’ in the title isn’t going to fly without a massive marketing campaign (or, any marketing at all.) And that a multi-million dollar blockbuster film isn’t going to be starring the Voyager cast.
Last edited:
Star Trek is going to be Niche, and is never going to have the brand power the others have.
You have to build that brand, and you start with a niche group of people.
Market "The Product" well. (Who are we selling to?)
Appeal to a mass audience. (Star Trek rarely does this, no matter what you serve.)
Appeal to a niche, not good, (The niche group of people always show up consistently.)
You need to start with a good film, and middle ground budget.
What is a good film is subjective.
But a good marketing campaign relies on mass appeal.
Star Trek doesn't have mass appeal right now.
A weird thing to say about one of the largest, longest-running media franchises in American history, which Paramount/CBS have long considered their "crown jewel."
I agree that no movie succeeds by appealing exclusively to a franchise's existing fanbase, since you need a much larger audience than that to make a major feature film profitable. But that goes for every media franchise, so it isn't necessary to diminish Star Trek to make that point.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Star Trek ‘09 didn’t make massive amounts of money because only the ‘niche’ Star Trek fans went to see it. Nor did people go see TWOK because they were itching to find out what happened to Khan after all these years, because they probably didn’t even know who Khan was when they bought their theater ticket. So no, Trek can appeal to the masses if it is marketed correctly.
Star Trek '09 and Into Darkness succeeded.
But Beyond failed.
Then Section 31 failed.
Wrath of Khan was low budget compared to TMP.
TMP cost 44 million in 1979, in today's money ($186,560,000 is the budget, and it flopped.)
WOK cost 12 million dollars, in today's money ($37,080,000 and it was a success)
So, perhaps I'm kinda wrong, it has brand power, within a price range.
As for marketing, you're talking about people 50 years ago to the people of today.
At the time Trek was one thing.
It wasn't a developed tentpole franchise.
Now we have 10 spinoffs, and 14 films.
This isn't a simple goofy TV show, and two movies.
It's 10 goofy to serious procedurals, and 14 motion pictures (Excluding Galaxy Quest.)
That, and if you watch '09, that movie was made for the fans, and so was Into Darkness.
Lindelof, and Orci are hardcore Trekkies.
'09 mashes up "Emissary", "Caretaker" and "WOK" along with an undeveloped TOS prequel from the 90s.
ID, with a few tweaks...a cut where John Harrison is one of the frozen men, and his own villain but from the Eugenics Wars, would have made that story far more compelling.
Was it still a Wrath of Khan Remix? Yeah.
But the Kelvin Timeline loved remixing Trek Movies, and Trek pilots.
The people who made those films knew what they were making, and who they were making them for.
They were fun. They honored the hell out of what came before.
Marketing also wasn't as developed in 1984, as it is today.
It's 2025, everything is a franchise and cinematic universe.
If you can produce a simple and affordable film, and hopefully make back that money, that's what should be done.
But you also have another problem, it's a sequel problem.
is it going to be the Kelvin Crew?
Is it going to be DS9 or Voyager's crew? (all 70s)
Is it going to be Discovery that gets a film?
Is it going to be a Kirk led SNW type film?
Audiences have been to space.
All paths forward have lost their appeal.
Which Spock?
Peck or Quinto?
Which Kirk?
Pine or Wesley?
TNG?
Is there anyone who could fill Patrick Stewart's shoes?
What about someone filling Michael Dorn or Brent Spiners?
Or, do we take the Noah Hawley approach.
(That one might fit your strong marketing theory.)
I think the Tarantino script is a pipedream at this point, let alone him directing.
One more thousand arguments.
TMP failed by riding the coat tails of Star Wars.
Wrath of Khan succeeded riding the coat tails of ESB.
Audiences are tired of Star Wars.
If Star Wars succeeds, Star Trek succeeds.
Star Trek succeeded in the 90s without Star Wars, but it seems that we're now in a new world.
Star Wars so far has failed.
If it continues to fail, then Star Trek will also fail.
Too big to be niche, and too niche to be big.
What works?
A good pilot.
TMP = The Cage
WOK = Where no man has gone before
Tight budget + Strong character writing + Emotional payoff = success.
That's how you get started following or besting Star Wars.
2018 would've been ideal for the Kelvin Timeline to make a strong fourth film.
It would have killed TLJ in more than one way.
TLJ was the weakest of the Star Wars films.
Why do most movies fail now?
I have a very simple question.
Was it fun?
Was TLJ fun? Hell no.
Was Into Darkness fun? Hell yes.
Was SWTFA fun? Not really, it was a slog.
By fun, I don't just mean quips.
Was it entertaining? Did you escape?
"In the Pale Moonlight" is thought provoking.
It's also fun.
It's not about marketing for me, that's part of it.
Was the film fun?
If the audience is miserable, they won't come back for a second or third helping.
My approach would be simple too.
Obviously remaster DS9 and Voyager, and provide those to the fans.
Leave games alone, expand those.
Make one great TV show, focus on that, then we can worry about films.
You have to rebuild the brand's reputation, right now it's not that great.
So, perhaps a Lower Decks movie too?
Otherwise, the brand has been coming in and out of life support with...
Kelvin (Health is looking good, death is in remission.
STO (back on life support.)
DiscoVerse (Health is kinda mid.)
S31 (Perhaps it shouldn't count, it wasn't in theaters)
The only real way to see if it would work is to gamble.
I'll argue that while Beyond was underrated, it seems the only reason Kelvin succeeded is because of a single
reason....JJ Abrams.
Why did we bring Picard back?
Patrick Stewart reprised Professor X in Logan, people loved him in that.
We can make money.
Why did people love the Kelvin Timeline?
Millenials were under the false impression that JJ Abrams was a (FUCKING GENIUS11111), and like Christopher Nolan, he had a cult of personality surrounding him.
Unlike Christopher Nolan, JJ Abrams never made something that one would consider to be an artistic achievement.
He does B movies, and produces good television shows, but he was the second coming of Chris Carter, and we've had two more since then.
Including a reboot of Chris Carter.
Today Star Trek is a lot more like Miles O'brien in a Cardassian space station, than Scotty onboard the Enterprise 50 years ago.
Last edited:
Is it possible for you to make your point in just a few sentences rather than rambling diatribes in iambic pentameter? I think you’ll find people will want to converse with you more if your posts were shorter, to the point, and easier to read. This is not a poetry forum.
It is a bit much... but still, I have to say, I prefer someome writing on-topic with passionate verbosity to the one-word sniping that sometimes happens on this forum.
Which is easy for fans to say, who claim they'll spend money on anything, then gripe over all the different aspects that Star Trek is doing wrong.
Abrams was on to something in terms of what he hoped to do with 09, but that's passed. Currently, most franchises ride on things that make people feel safe, be it Superman, or familiar elements of Star Trek, like Kirk and Spock, which was part of the pitch with 09, and then Discovery in terms of "before Kirk and Spock."
Right now, the gamble is too high. Paramount getting bought means some more income, but the financial worry is that people will tune out if its not familiar. .
What would a strong fourth Kelvin film be?
Harlan Ellison's The City on the Edge of Forever.
I think that would be the way to wrap this up.
Keep the Aesthetic of Star Trek Beyond, but use the sets of Star Trek SNW, and maintain the Enterprise Design of SNW.
That would be my idea of a good Trek film.
But I still think ground up.
Kelvin worked because of JJ Abrams.
Familiar works to an extent.
TNG/Picard had renewed interest because of Patrick Stewart, and his role as Professor X.
Why do people like Ian McKellen? ATM his popularity is tied to Gandalf.
Harlan Ellison's The City on the Edge of Forever.
I think that would be the way to wrap this up.
Keep the Aesthetic of Star Trek Beyond, but use the sets of Star Trek SNW, and maintain the Enterprise Design of SNW.
That would be my idea of a good Trek film.
But I still think ground up.
Kelvin worked because of JJ Abrams.
Familiar works to an extent.
TNG/Picard had renewed interest because of Patrick Stewart, and his role as Professor X.
Why do people like Ian McKellen? ATM his popularity is tied to Gandalf.
Last edited:
Forgive me, I have a lot to say.
Because of terrible marketing I think.
I barely remember any posters or trailers or media push compared to the first two.
The first trailer was soundly derided unfortunately which didn't help.
I can get behind "Beyond" having terrible marketing.
'09 had some kind of buildup through the writers strike, and it was secretive.
I can give Abrams one thing, he's a marketing genius, they should have played by his book to an extent.
Beyond wasn't terrible either.
The mismanagement of the sequel between the delays, drafts, and then secrecy around Khan all added up to a diminishment of the momentum.
Dear god no. There's this thing called an original story that it would behoove the studio to invest in rather than continuing to exhume Khan's corpse.
But, what if we did Khan meets the Mummy?
