I don't think so.
As long as there are people will to buy anything with the Trek label on it, it will endure.
What IS at stake?
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
I don't think so.
As long as there are people will to buy anything with the Trek label on it, it will endure.
I'm not seeing anything remotely like that here. Give me a hint?
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I have a friend in the entertainment industry and she constantly refers to Trek as "the most successful franchise ever" (which I just realized I modified somewhat by saying the most profitable). The thing about Trek is it has consistently shown the ability to spin off films, tv, books, comics, toys, conventions, various other merchandizing, etc. It is more diversified than any other franchise, and long-lasting. I also think its products tend to be higher end, since they are purchased more by adults than by kids (I knew a guy who bought all those pewter ships on stands at $1000 -$2000 a pop). Whether it's made the most money or not, I really can't say.
I was just giving you a hard time.
But yeah, at times I do live on another planet, and I do realize a lot is riding on the success of this film. I think too that it will succeed... and I will say this that if Leonard Nimoy wasn't in the film, I am not sure I would even bother with it. I'm still a bit skeptical on this whole "recasting" idea. And I do miss the weekly Trek that was shown on television. A great franchise is on the brink of desolution, which kind of sucks. And I think a lot of it has to do with Internet fans and reviews, but what are you gonna do I guess.
This will be the last chance for Star Trek. Ever.
Just like the last time.
Just like the last time.
Back up about three posts. In your haste toit is???? i'd have to disagree with you there. there's another "slightly" more profitable franchise that immediatly comes to mind. you may have heard of it.... "star wars"!
, you may have skipped something relevant.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
I think the Sci-Fi Channel would love to have its own Star Trek series. Before, TV Trek was too high-budget and was already on UPN and in first-run syndication. Times have changed in Sci-Fi's favor if they're willing to do another space-based series after Battlestar Galactica.
it is???? i'd have to disagree with you there. there's another "slightly" more profitable franchise that immediatly comes to mind. you may have heard of it.... "star wars"!
[/quote]the trek franchise has earned slightly over 2 billion. certainly respectable but in no way the most profitable franchise in modern entertainment history.star wars has earned 15 billion. james bond 7.43 billion and harry potter 5.73 billion.
That was said about Enterprise as well, so you'll have to pardon me for being unconvinced. It might stay dead longer, but not permanently.
Even if what you say is true, it's not a good reason to like or support the movie. If it sucks, I'll say so.
Hate to be Donald Downer but this Trek movie will most likely be the last Trek we get before the end of the world so, imo, it doesn't much matter. *wha-wha-wh-a-a-a-a*
Okay, I suggested once that you back up and read the post where Lapis corrected herself, but rather than do that, you quoted and reposted your own post to hammer again at a question which had already been answered.it is???? i'd have to disagree with you there. there's another "slightly" more profitable franchise that immediatly comes to mind. you may have heard of it.... "star wars"!
the trek franchise has earned slightly over 2 billion. certainly respectable but in no way the most profitable franchise in modern entertainment history.star wars has earned 15 billion. james bond 7.43 billion and harry potter 5.73 billion.
Edit your previous post to add further content if you feel you must, but please don't do again what you did here; it may be interpreted as spamming under board rules.
I feel they are riding the coattails of a legend, but I'm on board. The sphores have gotten to me or that nobody has a choice. You get what you get. but I've loved everything I've seen so far. Now if they could only outsource a good story possibly next time. Is that so hard ? At least they should have ideas available to them via whatever sources their stealing from.
Respectfully-
Not a chance in heck of that happening.
Remember when Enterprise went off the air? Berman was saying the franchise "needed a break" and named a 10 year window or so for the fields to lie fallow.
More savvy folks, like Ron Moore, predicted it would be WAY sooner, that someone with juice would make a pitch the studio liked and Paramount would take it.
In fact, it was right around the time the last Enterprise DVD boxed sets came out that the next wave (TOS Remastered and Trek XI) moved forward.
Trek is a cash cow, a cow that produces money when milked.
Money-making franchises are every studio's DREAM. They are all trying to CREATE franchises.
Studios are not in the business of abandoning billion-dollar properties.
If this movie fails, someone else will make a pitch in 2-3 and we will see the results of that in no less than 5 years.
In short, what's at stake is more big budget Trek with TOS actors directed by Abrams.
If this doesn't work, the studio will go another direction. But they will not abandon the franchise for 5 years, much less 10 or 15.
sorry, my bad.Okay, I suggested once that you back up and read the post where Lapis corrected herself, but rather than do that, you quoted and reposted your own post to hammer again at a question which had already been answered.it is???? i'd have to disagree with you there. there's another "slightly" more profitable franchise that immediatly comes to mind. you may have heard of it.... "star wars"!
the trek franchise has earned slightly over 2 billion. certainly respectable but in no way the most profitable franchise in modern entertainment history.star wars has earned 15 billion. james bond 7.43 billion and harry potter 5.73 billion.
Edit your previous post to add further content if you feel you must, but please don't do again what you did here; it may be interpreted as spamming under board rules.
Well, amazingly I have Star Trek Conquest for the Wii on my shelf (I am still amazed). It's not the greatest Trek game, but it is Trek and it did appear on a home console and that was before there was a lot of buzz about the new film. So I'm hopeful!
That makes sense. I mean, Trek has TONS more hours of entertainment than SW does (and will continue to do so at the glacial pace the live action TV show is being developed at). In that respect it is a lot more successful. However in terms of merchandising, I have a friend who works on Trek product and he tells me it's nowhere near as financially successful as SW product. Ah well, I'm sorta hoping for a change in that come next year.
Ten years ago. Welcome to now.
i'd wager the most at stake is if another trek movie comes out in 2 years... i doubt we'd get a new series following the new crew (not without recasting at least one character (scotty)).
if the movie does somewhere around "poorly to adequately" it might be 5 years or longer. and then i wouldnt be surprised if they tried a "reboot" of TNG.
i honestly dont think there is a public desire for more star trek. i dont think the general public misses it. the casual sci-fi fan has turned their attention to heroes and to a lesser extent bsg. so i figure the 'sci-fi' craving is being filled at the moment.
trek will be back at some point... not because it's a popular franchise, or people want to do it justice... but because hollywood loves to remake things... i mean we got a dukes of hazzard movie, starsky and hutch movie, a bionic woman remake, a knight rider remake... if trek bombs, it just goes to the bottom of the remake pile only to be remade again at some point.
if the movie does somewhere around "poorly to adequately" it might be 5 years or longer. and then i wouldnt be surprised if they tried a "reboot" of TNG.
i honestly dont think there is a public desire for more star trek. i dont think the general public misses it. the casual sci-fi fan has turned their attention to heroes and to a lesser extent bsg. so i figure the 'sci-fi' craving is being filled at the moment.
trek will be back at some point... not because it's a popular franchise, or people want to do it justice... but because hollywood loves to remake things... i mean we got a dukes of hazzard movie, starsky and hutch movie, a bionic woman remake, a knight rider remake... if trek bombs, it just goes to the bottom of the remake pile only to be remade again at some point.
Similar threads
