Watchmojo says Star Trek has The Number 1 Fandom

[xavier]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSFjjHA1Nic

I find it interesting that trekkies make more waves than harry potter, twilight, star wars and lord of the rings fans.

Which is why I never understood why star trek can make the same box office as this other fan base.

does it make any sense.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek may have the most devout fandom, but obviously its movies don't draw in the non-fans as much as other franchises do. And that's why their movies have better box office results than Trek movies do.

 

[xavier]

Star Trek may have the most devout fandom, but obviously its movies don't draw in the non-fans as much as other franchises do. And that's why their movies have better box office results than Trek movies do.

that still does not make sense, all fandoms are active in any genre their franchise shows up in. Look at star wars their fans watch the films, tv show and read the comics and novels in expanded universe.

Many star wars fans felt betrayed when Disney announced the star wars novels were not canon (I never thought it was anyway long before disney said so)

it makes no sense how trek fans can not be interested in the films. if it is true I think its sad because trek needs its fan at the box office to keep the franchise very successful.

star trek 2009 was very promising for trek to finally join the ranks of block buster films but it all went down with star trek into darkness as the film barely made the 500million dollar mark at the box office.

 

[The Wormhole]

Trek fans do see the movies. My point is no one beyond the fans bothers with them, unlike other franchises which do manage to draw in people from outside the fandom.

 

[BillJ]

Trek fans do see the movies. My point is. no one beyond the fans bothers with them, unlike other franchises which do manage to draw in people from outside the fandom.

Winner!

 

[Greg Cox]

What is a "watchmojo"?

 

[Nerys Myk]

What is a "watchmojo"?

Must be important, since it's part of the thread title.

 

[Greg Cox]

What is a "watchmojo"?

Must be important, since it's part of the thread title.

That's what I found kinda funny.

"Well, if 'Watchmojo' says so . . . ."

 

[JirinPanthosa]

For other franchises, either the movies are considered the core media of the series, or the books are and the movies just go along with the books. For Trek, the TV shows are seen as the core element and the movies are perceived as something additional, so when one is coming out it doesn't feel like an 'Event', it just feels like "Oh hey, another Trek movie, how 'bout that."

Also Trek movies don't exactly have a reputation for quality.

I haven't read the novels so I have no emotional investment in their canon status. But if Star Wars fans watch the sequels and they decide the novels are better than the sequels, it is the fans who will decide which is 'Canon', not just the company that happens to be the current owner of the IP.

Did they actually say "It's not canon" in those words? Why didn't they just say "The novels are separate from the movies, we are not going to try to be consistent with them?" That would have just conveyed the information honestly in a way that avoided geek rampage trigger words.

 

[MacLeod]

As others have pointed out ST films tended to be only seen by it's own core aduaince with little crossover appeal. Now you may or may not like the JJ Abrahms ST films, but they have appealed to a wider audiance than previous trek films. Perhaps part of is down to simply than the new films are a movie franchise rather than movies continuing on from a TV franchise.

 

[xavier]

For other franchises, either the movies are considered the core media of the series, or the books are and the movies just go along with the books. For Trek, the TV shows are seen as the core element and the movies are perceived as something additional, so when one is coming out it doesn't feel like an 'Event', it just feels like "Oh hey, another Trek movie, how 'bout that."

Also Trek movies don't exactly have a reputation for quality.

I haven't read the novels so I have no emotional investment in their canon status. But if Star Wars fans watch the sequels and they decide the novels are better than the sequels, it is the fans who will decide which is 'Canon', not just the company that happens to be the current owner of the IP.

Did they actually say "It's not canon" in those words? Why didn't they just say "The novels are separate from the movies, we are not going to try to be consistent with them?" That would have just conveyed the information honestly in a way that avoided geek rampage trigger words.

Disney said fans needed to ignore the star wars expanded universe and that in a large bulk involves the comics and the novels.

In fact star wars has only one wiki and they blend the character history in film with the comics and all. whereas trek has two wikis. memory alpha and memory beta . alpha is canon history. Beta in non canon history.


In the trek novels, kirk is back from the dead but he is still dead to mainstream fans and in trek canon and orci will have a hard time bringing him back for star trek 3 despite what has been written in the novel about his resurrection.

so I think trek fans have always been aware that the trek novels and comics are not canon. many star wars fans did not know that and that is why some of them got shocked and angry when disney said they will ignore the expanded universe.

 

[Melakon]

I've always preferred Star Trek in television format. The films have the advantage of a larger budget and possibly wider scope. None of the films, with the possible exception of TMP, match the individual series for thought-provoking stories.

 

[MacLeod]

^If you are talking about brining Shatner back, let see the ways

1.>Have Shatner play an older version of this timelines Kirk
2.>Have Shatner play Kirk before the events of GEN
3.>Have Shatner play a version of Kirk from another parallel dimension

I'm sure I could come up with some others given some thought.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Supposedly, Shatner and Nimoy are playing aged versions of Pine and Quinto's Kirk and Spock in ST3, not their original TOS versions.

star trek 2009 was very promising for trek to finally join the ranks of block buster films but it all went down with star trek into darkness as the film barely made the 500million dollar mark at the box office.

Even if it made a billion dollars, we'd have exactly the same to look forward to as we currently have - a third Star Trek movie from Bad Robot. Had it been a real failure, Paramout would have passed on the option of making ST3 and the reboot would have ended.

 

[MacLeod]

star trek 2009 was very promising for trek to finally join the ranks of block buster films but it all went down with star trek into darkness as the film barely made the 500million dollar mark at the box office.

Well it's all relative, according to boxofficemojo

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

The Worldwide grosses for the ST films

STID - US$467.4m
ST (2009) - US$385.7m
FC - US$146m
GEN - US$118.1m
INS - US$112..6
TUC - US$96.9m
NEM - US$67.3m

Worldwide grosses for films TMP-TFF aren't listed but the US figures are

TVH - US$109.7m
TMP US$82.3m
TWOK US$78.9m
TSFS - US$76.5m

Given that ST didn't really perform well ouside of the ENglish speaking countries you are looking at maybe the US$100-120m for those films. TVH migh push higher closer towards the US$150m

STID showed an increase over ST(2009) true some of that if not most of it was down to 3D but whilst they might not be billion dollar box office hits, they are still blockbusters.

ST (2009) clocked in at number 13 on the worldwide yearly charts for 2009, as for STID that came in at number 14 for the worldwide yearly charts.

 

[EnriqueH]

I think JJ made Trek cool again.

For a long time, Trek was a geek thing invoking images of Revenge of the Nerds type losers with pocket protectors and oversized glasses.

Nobody wants to be associated with that image.

In addition, while Treks 1-4 were popular, by Trek 5 onward, the movies basically starred a bunch of middle-aged/elderly actors. There was a certain lack of...what's the word...freshness.

VI lacked the energy of its predecessors, Generations has a climax involving a trio of old fogies punching each other out in the middle of the desert, Insurrection and Nemesis lacked a certain vitality as well. I'd say First Contact was a rare exception where the story and film seemed to finally recapture its energy.

When you think about it, the Trek film franchise, (1-10), had a great run considering there were virtually no young people in the main cast. They got away with it in the first 4 films because of the writing, but by 5, it was starting to catch up to the series.

Few franchises can get away with 4 successful films, let alone 4 successful films featuring an "older cast".

Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter, and virtually every other major franchise has young people in the main casts.

 

[Greg Cox]

When you think about it, the Trek film franchise, (1-10), had a great run considering there were virtually no young people in the main cast. They got away with it in the first 4 films because of the writing, but by 5, it was starting to catch up to the series.

It's funny. You can tell that, early on, there was some effort to try to add some fresh faces to the cast: Decker, Ilia, Saavik, even David Marcus. But at some point the Powers That Be seem to have given up on that idea.

"People want to see Kirk and Spock and the original crew, so why bother adding younger co-stars to the movies?"

 

[EnriqueH]

That's a great point!

Yet, you would think that they had the potential to pull them off.

I for one thought that Saavik, David, Ilia and Decker were all pretty good characters that were nicely acted. (Granted, there's some minor controversy about Kirstie Alley vs. Robin Curtis.)

I really liked Ilia and found myself wishing she had been around longer. (It's one of the reasons I hope there's a Star Trek Phase II DVD set waiting for me in the Promised Land.)

 

[The Wormhole]

In the trek novels, kirk is back from the dead

Not quite. Kirk was resurrected in the "Shatnerverse," novels which were co-written by William Shatner himself. But the Shatnerverse is a separate continuity to the primary novel continuity which exists on an ongoing basis.

 

[Phily B]

Trek fans do see the movies. My point is no one beyond the fans bothers with them, unlike other franchises which do manage to draw in people from outside the fandom.

That's not really true, I mean there always seems to be tens of millions of dollars in movie revenue from Trekkies, but First Contact made 100m more than Nemesis for example. Why? It was a great movie that appealed to casuals.