Tim Russ says people actively pitching a new Series

[sonak]

The failure of classic Trek wasn't oversaturation. It was creative fatigue resulting in bad writing. Get an independent fresh team and Trek can succeed on TV and in cinemas simultaneously.

The ratings and movie profits don't back you up. If you track both box office earnings and TV ratings, there's a pretty steady decline the more Trek there is available in theaters or on TV.(with some brief exceptions like during a show's first season or for ST: FC.)

(Also, I'm not sure if you're a DS9 fan or not, but that was a very well-written show that never came close to TNG-ratings after season 1)

But it's also true that by the time of DS9 and VOY there was a different business model for TV and a lot more sci-fi shows available.

Well let's see, you first tossed out the success of FC when that is considered the best TNG movie. And then, let's look at DS9 this way. During the 7 years DS9 was on TV there were 14 seasons of TV Trek and 3 movies. That's the highest density Trek has ever had, and yet VOY kept going and ENT was created. Then in the 6 years that lead to Trek being "over-saturated" there were 6 seasons on TV and 1 movie. So was it the amount of Trek that killed it? Or maybe the quality of those final years had something to do with it?

I didn't "toss out" FC, I admitted it was an exception, and it was a good movie.

As to your other points, yes, Ent and NEM had low ratings during a period of "low saturation," but IMHO the "high saturation" had already had an effect on the Trek franchise by that point.


Look, I'm not saying that the quality of writing doesn't contribute, but I'll leave you with this:




STIV was the second-biggest hit at theaters of all the Star Trek movies. There was no Trek on TV when it was released. STXI was the biggest hit in theaters by far, again when there was no Trek on TV.


I don't think the success of STXI was because it was such a great movie, I think it was because there hadn't been a new Star Trek movie or show for a while, and there hadn't been new TOS-era Star Trek in a LONG while. So I think pent-up demand had a big role in its success.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

During the 7 years DS9 was on TV there were 14 seasons of TV Trek and 3 movies. That's the highest density Trek has ever had, and yet VOY kept going and ENT was created.

The ratings of DS9, Voyager and Enterprise declined steadily from season to season along a chartable curve. DS9's ratings did not hold up substantially better over time than Voyager's or Enterprise's. The decline of the Franchise demonstrably resulted primarily from the amount of similar product that was being produced over time.

 

[Captaindemotion]

[

STIV was the second-biggest hit at theaters of all the Star Trek movies. There was no Trek on TV when it was released. STXI was the biggest hit in theaters by far, again when there was no Trek on TV.


I don't think the success of STXI was because it was such a great movie, I think it was because there hadn't been a new Star Trek movie or show for a while, and there hadn't been new TOS-era Star Trek in a LONG while. So I think pent-up demand had a big role in its success.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nope, because the vast majority of people who plunked down money to see JJTrek were not previously devoted Star Trek fans.

There's just no evidence of enormous "pent-up demand for Star Trek" out there in the real world. A couple of million people wait anxiously for new Trek product, and given the costs of production that ain't driving anything at this point in the Franchise's history.

The success of the new Star Trek film was based on the fact that it entertained people, and folks who saw it told their friends that it was worth seeing, etc etc. In that sense, its extraordinary success owes to it being a "great movie" in ways that previous Trek films were not.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I do appreciate Russ' honesty in admitting that he'd gladly take a role on a new Star Trek show because otherwise he's basically not working.

That said, if he's pinned his career hopes on a Star Trek pitch from Sky Conway, of all people, I hope he has a good backup plan. Like maybe waiting tables.

 

[Dukhat]

I have to wonder why any actor who has been in a previous Trek series would ever think that they'd be invited back for a future incarnation of Trek at this point. We're never even going to see Nimoy ever again, much less Tuvok. Russ's attitude comes off on me as being an arrogant jerk.

It's much more likely they'll be invited as a guest star in another sci-fi series, a la Nana Visitor and Michelle Forbes on nuBSG.

 

[sonak]

Nope, because the vast majority of people who plunked down money to see JJTrek were not previously devoted Star Trek fans.

There's just no evidence of enormous "pent-up demand for Star Trek" out there in the real world. A couple of million people wait anxiously for new Trek product, and given the costs of production that ain't driving anything at this point in the Franchise's history.

The success of the new Star Trek film was based on the fact that it entertained people, and folks who saw it told their friends that it was worth seeing, etc etc. In that sense, its extraordinary success owes to it being a "great movie" in ways that previous Trek films were not.

Really?


It was just so much more awesome than all the other Trek movies and THAT's why it made the major bucks?




So "Phantom Menace's" success in '99 wasn't due to the enormous phenomenon of a new SW movie after sixteen years, it was just that much better a movie than "Empire Strikes Back?"


Do you have a poll or something you read that showed the majority of the audience weren't Star Trek fans? As I said, there hadn't been a movie with TOS characters in a LONG time, and I think classic Trek had always made more of a pop culture impact than newer era Trek did. I think there were a lot of "lapsed fans" returning to the fold for this movie.


Yes, they made sure this movie had crossover appeal to the casual viewer, but I find the idea that Star Trek XI was a huge hit because it was just SOOOOOO much better than great Trek movies like TWOK or ST: FC a bit silly.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I tend to agree that "Star Trek" was successful because that it managed to entertain a wide stretch of the general audience along with Star Trek fans. I know people who saw "Star Trek" that weren't Trek fans and loved it and went again with their friends. That friend was a female and is a huge Zach Quinto fan and saw it because he was in it. The fact is that this movie had a number of things going for it that other films in the past did not have. I think it is a narrow minded viewpoint not to accept the fact that this film did reach a more wider audience than previous Trek movies did. I do agree that among Trek fans that there was a hunger for a new Trek movie but I don't think that we were the driving force of this movie's success. I don't have any facts to support this argument except for my own experiences with my friends.

 

[sonak]

Of course it had mainstream appeal, I'm not disputing that. You don't make it to $260 million on the basis of the crowd that was watching "Enterprise" in 2005.


I was saying that its success was due to a variety of factors outside of just the quality of the film, namely that there was demand for new TOS-era Star Trek after it had been dormant for so long, and they'd let the Star Trek franchise as a whole rest for long enough that the movie appeared more special.

I could be wrong, though. I didn't poll audiences walking out of the theater either. And I'm not saying it was a bad movie. I just don't think it did so much better than the other movies JUST because it was such a terrific movie and that's the only reason. I think there were more intangible factors than just Trek XI's quality.

 

[JarodRussell]

Nope, because the vast majority of people who plunked down money to see JJTrek were not previously devoted Star Trek fans.

There's just no evidence of enormous "pent-up demand for Star Trek" out there in the real world. A couple of million people wait anxiously for new Trek product, and given the costs of production that ain't driving anything at this point in the Franchise's history.

The success of the new Star Trek film was based on the fact that it entertained people, and folks who saw it told their friends that it was worth seeing, etc etc. In that sense, its extraordinary success owes to it being a "great movie" in ways that previous Trek films were not.

Really?


It was just so much more awesome than all the other Trek movies and THAT's why it made the major bucks?




So "Phantom Menace's" success in '99 wasn't due to the enormous phenomenon of a new SW movie after sixteen years, it was just that much better a movie than "Empire Strikes Back?"


Do you have a poll or something you read that showed the majority of the audience weren't Star Trek fans? As I said, there hadn't been a movie with TOS characters in a LONG time, and I think classic Trek had always made more of a pop culture impact than newer era Trek did. I think there were a lot of "lapsed fans" returning to the fold for this movie.


Yes, they made sure this movie had crossover appeal to the casual viewer, but I find the idea that Star Trek XI was a huge hit because it was just SOOOOOO much better than great Trek movies like TWOK or ST: FC a bit silly.

Dennis, like most others, is making it up. There are no polls that show how many people were Trek fans and how many weren't. The only official fact is that the movie made a shitload of money. But who went into it, why they went into it, and what effect that had on them, is only hearsay and mostly made up to fit arguments and that one single fact. Same with all the claims that Star Trek had big influence on tie in literature or merchandise or other stuff. I asked for sales figures many, many, many times that would back this up, but didn't get to see any of these.

My own observation is that many long time Trek fans went into it like 5-10 times in a row, when they didn't even bother to watch Nemesis, for example. If many Trek fans thought the same way, then a huge part of the box office would be explained. But nobody knows.

 

[BillJ]

My own observation is that many long time Trek fans went into it like 5-10 times in a row, when they didn't even bother to watch Nemesis, for example. If many Trek fans thought the same way, then a huge part of the box office would be explained. But nobody knows.

Hell, I went four times to try and figure out if I actually liked it or not.

 

[thumbtack]

The Marketing/Advertising division of PPC spent 530 million dollars in fiscal 2009. They know precisely who went to see the movie, how many times, how old they were, why they went, and whether or not they expressed the slightest interest in a return to the old universe.

Although predicting the future remains difficult, the accumulation of massively detailed marketing data is the easiest it has ever been. No one in today's motion picture industry is permitted to greenlight a 160 million dollar sequel based upon a "hunch", a "whim" or a "wild guess".

Why does PPC seem so eager to cheerfully abandon the splenetic portion of the old fanbase, and proceed apace without them? Because they already have the answers to each of these questions and more.

 

[JarodRussell]

The Marketing/Advertising division of PPC spent 530 million dollars in fiscal 2009. They know precisely who went to see the movie, how many times, how old they were, why they went, and whether or not they expressed the slightest interest in a return to the old universe.

Of course They know, but none of us forum babblers knows.

Why does PPC seem so eager to cheerfully abandon the splenetic portion of the old fanbase, and proceed apace without them?

Do they really?

 

[Amaris]

Of course They know, but none of us forum babblers knows.

I beg to differ. I bought one of those Magic 8 balls, and I asked it "Is Star Trek XI the best Trek movie of all time?", it replied, "All Signs Point to Yes". On a less relevant note, when I asked it how awesome I was, it replied, "Manufactured by Mattel, Corp.", which was a bit cryptic, but I think I get it.

Do they really?

They might be, but we don't know. I think the desire is to be inclusive to everyone, but there will be a segment of the fan base that will absolutely reject each overture of inclusion, and I doubt they would hang around forever trying to appease that group. It wouldn't be in their best interest to do that.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It was just so much more awesome than all the other Trek movies and THAT's why it made the major bucks?

It was carefully calibrated to make major bucks.

1. It delivered the goods for the general action movie audience that doesn't give a flip about Star Trek.

a. It focused on the aspects of Star Trek that the general audience has heard of: Kirk, Spock, Enterprise. I'm a big Niner and love DS9 more than TOS but even I had to admit that this was a far more intelligent strategy than doing the DS9 movie I personally wanted to see that would have stabbed Star Trek through the heart. (Now I understand Obama's compromise on extending tax credits for the wealthy; sometimes you have to bite the bullet for the greater good.)

b. It was a good balance between basic character development, to bring the non-fans up to speed, and kick-ass action that was easy to understand.

c. It solved two character-based problems with some deft rewriting: Kirk cannot be the "stack of books with legs" and still have good dramatic contrast with Spock, so he's been rewritten to be more of a wild child who will grow into the role of Kirk that is familiar to us; and Uhura was just untenable as a modern character, so she got a much-needed total revamp.

d. Spock/Uhura: Romance for the girls. As a girl, I approve.

2. It was respectful enough of Star Trek not to piss off most of the existing fans.

a. It walked an exceedingly narrow line between being respectful to the past (lots of fannish references; Nimoy's big role; the Prime Universe is safe and sound and completely unaffected) and allowing freedom for the future (new sandbox to play in, future is unknwon).

b. It nailed the casting, overall, especially in the crucial case of new Spock.

Okay, there you have most of the fans and non-fans, satisfied. Now why wouldn't that make money?

The Marketing/Advertising division of PPC spent 530 million dollars in fiscal 2009. They know precisely who went to see the movie, how many times, how old they were, why they went, and whether or not they expressed the slightest interest in a return to the old universe.

Although predicting the future remains difficult, the accumulation of massively detailed marketing data is the easiest it has ever been. No one in today's motion picture industry is permitted to greenlight a 160 million dollar sequel based upon a "hunch", a "whim" or a "wild guess".

Why does PPC seem so eager to cheerfully abandon the splenetic portion of the old fanbase, and proceed apace without them? Because they already have the answers to each of these questions and more.

I wonder if they bothered to separate out the self-identified "existing Trekkies" from the rest of the paying audience? It might be an interesting intellectual enterprise, but in the end, it doesn't matter how people identify previous to seeing the movie, only that they paid their ten bucks to see it.

Either way, I suspect the "splenatic fanbase" is a trivial number in comparison with the overall audience.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^This.

 

[sonak]

It was just so much more awesome than all the other Trek movies and THAT's why it made the major bucks?

It was carefully calibrated to make major bucks.

1. It delivered the goods for the general action movie audience that doesn't give a flip about Star Trek.

a. It focused on the aspects of Star Trek that the general audience has heard of: Kirk, Spock, Enterprise. I'm a big Niner and love DS9 more than TOS but even I had to admit that this was a far more intelligent strategy than doing the DS9 movie I personally wanted to see that would have stabbed Star Trek through the heart. (Now I understand Obama's compromise on extending tax credits for the wealthy; sometimes you have to bite the bullet for the greater good.)

b. It was a good balance between basic character development, to bring the non-fans up to speed, and kick-ass action that was easy to understand.

c. It solved two character-based problems with some deft rewriting: Kirk cannot be the "stack of books with legs" and still have good dramatic contrast with Spock, so he's been rewritten to be more of a wild child who will grow into the role of Kirk that is familiar to us; and Uhura was just untenable as a modern character, so she got a much-needed total revamp.

d. Spock/Uhura: Romance for the girls. As a girl, I approve.

2. It was respectful enough of Star Trek not to piss off most of the existing fans.

a. It walked an exceedingly narrow line between being respectful to the past (lots of fannish references; Nimoy's big role; the Prime Universe is safe and sound and completely unaffected) and allowing freedom for the future (new sandbox to play in, future is unknwon).

b. It nailed the casting, overall, especially in the crucial case of new Spock.

Okay, there you have most of the fans and non-fans, satisfied. Now why wouldn't that make money?

The Marketing/Advertising division of PPC spent 530 million dollars in fiscal 2009. They know precisely who went to see the movie, how many times, how old they were, why they went, and whether or not they expressed the slightest interest in a return to the old universe.

Although predicting the future remains difficult, the accumulation of massively detailed marketing data is the easiest it has ever been. No one in today's motion picture industry is permitted to greenlight a 160 million dollar sequel based upon a "hunch", a "whim" or a "wild guess".

Why does PPC seem so eager to cheerfully abandon the splenetic portion of the old fanbase, and proceed apace without them? Because they already have the answers to each of these questions and more.

I wonder if they bothered to separate out the self-identified "existing Trekkies" from the rest of the paying audience? It might be an interesting intellectual enterprise, but in the end, it doesn't matter how people identify previous to seeing the movie, only that they paid their ten bucks to see it.

Either way, I suspect the "splenatic fanbase" is a trivial number in comparison with the overall audience.

OK, But your post really boils down to "here's why I liked Star Trek XI." I'm not saying your points are right or wrong, but I'm saying you could have made the same ones about say... First Contact for example.


-Action-oriented enough to keep "non-fans" excited but still had character development
-focused on aspects of Trek the general audience had heard of: Picard, Data, and the Borg("resistance is futile" had made it into mainstream pop culture by the time of FC's release)
-had romance in the form of Data-Borg Queen
-awesome casting in James Cromwell, Alice Krige, and Alfre Woodard

etc.

or you could say the same about TWOK: Mainstream action/revenge film with Star Trek trappings, Spock's heroic sacrifice drew attention to the film, etc.


What I'm saying is that you're basically arguing that yes, Star Trek XI really was just that good, and that's why it was a huge hit. Yes, it received critical acclaim, but TWOK and FC had very positive reviews as well.


I think the stars were just very well-aligned for Star Trek XI in that there hadn't been new Trek in a while so there was a greater demand, it went back to the TOS era for the nostalgia effect, etc.

Don't take this as me saying STXI sucked, I don't think it did. I just don't think its success was due to some unique "awesomeness formula" that it hit on, THAT EVERY PREVIOUS TREK MOVIE LACKED.


I could be wrong-and I hope these new films do keep doing well, because I want to see new Star Trek material, obviously.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm saying you could have made the same ones about say... First Contact for example.

No.

 

[Gepard]

I'm saying you could have made the same ones about say... First Contact for example.

No.

Ooh, let me try:

Yes.

Wow, this Internet debating thing is really easy!

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm saying you could have made the same ones about say... First Contact for example.

No.

Devon, is that you?