Why not the Next Generation for STXI?

[Carpe Occasio]

"...we wanted to introduce Star Trek again to a new generation and the people who had been around who felt that they were never able to jump onto the bandwagon because they felt they’d missed too much. The idea of making an introduction that anyone can come into, and find out what it is that all of us love about Star Trek, without having to know anything about Star Trek, was something we just couldn’t pass up."

"...there seemed to be a genuine gap in what we knew about these characters’ origins. It wasn’t just remaking an origin story, it was telling it for the first time. There seemed to be unexplored territory."

http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/16/orci-kurtzman-talk-why-chose-tos-prequel-shatner/

 

[Jadzia]

Wasn't it the same with Dr Who getting a young doctor? Youngsters today can't relate to old people on television, and the TNG actors are all old now. Even in the late 80s, we quietly laughed at the geriatric TOS trio going out to new frontiers.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Nemesis.

 

[Jon1701]

They'll be a next generation movie again someday.

I'm just not sure when.

 

[Kryton]

Nemesis.

+ Insurrection.

 

[Franklin]

They'll be a next generation movie again someday.

I'm just not sure when.

Only Patrick Stewart can play Picard!

 

[maryh]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4558556a1860.html

"It's been 17 year since the original Enterprise warped off our screens, after 78 episodes, 22 animated segments and six feature films, leaving fans with spin-off shows The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise. Despite interstellar improvements in sets, costumes and special effects, none of the spin-offs held a star to the one that started it all with Kirk, Spock and McCoy."

I don't think the spin-offs have the power to create or maintain a franchise.

 

[scotthm]

Why not the Next Generation for STXI?

Because the younger audiences know practically nothing about TOS and its characters (other than the names), so the producers/writers/director have more freedom to change things to their liking.

---------------

 

[Luke Lightsaber]

Cause the well is dry for the 24th Century. There's many episodes people can rent on DVDs, if they want information about that time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4558556a1860.html

"It's been 17 year since the original Enterprise warped off our screens, after 78 episodes, 22 animated segments and six feature films, leaving fans with spin-off shows The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise. Despite interstellar improvements in sets, costumes and special effects, none of the spin-offs held a star to the one that started it all with Kirk, Spock and McCoy."

Well, quoting an online article clearly makes it true.

More seriously, there will inevitably be a revival of TNG in some form in the next ten years or so - for two reasons:

1) Hollywood remakes and recycles everything they can from television, and that's not going to change;

2) TNG was the Trek series that entire families watched together - that's not boosterism, it's a fact reflected in the demographic measurements of the audience (and it was far more true of TNG than of TOS or any of the spinoffs to follow). It's why so many different sponsors loved the show for so many years - and any marketer who's not incompetent can eventually come up with lucrative ways to ride that nostalgia to at least one more big payday as the TNG audience ages.

 

[JoeZhang]

It needs to look like this and they all need to wear skants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W42IY_SgCY4&NR=1

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Because the TNG movies have crashed & burned. You could argue that's not the fault of the actors so much as writers/directors, but once something is tainted by the mark of loserdom, Hollywood is unforgiving.

That article dodges the real reason for the prequel: Kirk and Spock are still the most recognizable names in Trek. But that might be less the reason that Abrams, Orci et al decided to go back to TOS than the reason the suits greenlighted their concept and not some of the others that have been kickin' around.

To Orci & Kurtzman, the movie is a chance to pay tribute to something they love but to the suits, it's a way of revitalizing a lucrative brand. If all goes well, both parties should be able to get what they want (and the fans, too, except for the ones who are determined to be unhappy).

I wouldn't be surprised if in the far flung future, TNG (and DS9, VOY & ENT) characters are recast and revived, but I think it's more likely that the success of the TOS recasting will spur spinoff series based in the 23rd for the time being. By then all the series besides TOS will have been long forgotten.

2) TNG was the Trek series that entire families watched together - that's not boosterism, it's a fact reflected in the demographic measurements of the audience (and it was far more true of TNG than of TOS or any of the spinoffs to follow).

I think TV viewing habits have changed too drastically for it to be worth anyone's while to go back to TNG in a forelorn hope of re-capturing the old glory days when there was any such thing as a mass market for shows other than really lowest-common denomenator reality TV and cop shows. Parents and kids simply don't watch TV together anymore and trying to force the issue is silly when there are easier ways to make money than fighting against prevailing trends. Since when does Hollywood fight trends?

If any of the spinoff series are revived, it will be in the context of modern viewing patterns, in which any sci fi series serves a niche market - which can be perfectly lucrative since the smaller market you get is also more committed and willing to buy DVDs, pay for downloads, etc. It's just a different business model.

 

[BolianAuthor]

I don't think any of the TNG cast want to do another film.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I wouldn't be surprised if in the far flung future, TNG (and DS9, VOY & ENT) characters are recast and revived, but I think it's more likely that the success of the TOS recasting will spur spinoff series based in the 23rd for the time being. By then all the series besides TOS will have been long forgotten.

I hope I'm around to hear the arguments that will be waged about why only Patrick Stewart can play Picard and why they've changed the way Enterprise-D looks and oh NO Riker couldn't have known Picard before then... but its ok its a redo.

Over all I agree with you Temis (aren't you surprised?), any new Trek will likely branch out of the assumed sucess of this film and will in the least borrow from what this move establishes.

Sharr

 

[CaptainStoner]

Only in Hollywood is making 6 million dollars profit considered a dismal, unforgivable failure. (Nemesis)
I suppose it is a fail from the perspective of making another film, since 6 mil does not a new film produce. But it's not as if Nemesis was a loss. The thing made millions of dollars, and that was before years of slow and steady DVD sales.
But anyway, I can't see them doing a TOS film, and then doing another TNG story. Actors in their mid to late 50's isn't too old for sci-fi. So who knows.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Wasn't it the same with Dr Who getting a young doctor? Youngsters today can't relate to old people on television, and the TNG actors are all old now. Even in the late 80s, we quietly laughed at the geriatric TOS trio going out to new frontiers.

Quietly?

 

[Luke Lightsaber]

After Insurrection, I'm surprised people still want a 24th Century movie.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Only in Hollywood is making 6 million dollars profit considered a dismal, unforgivable failure. (Nemesis)
I suppose it is a fail from the perspective of making another film, since 6 mil does not a new film produce. But it's not as if Nemesis was a loss. The thing made millions of dollars, and that was before years of slow and steady DVD sales.
But anyway, I can't see them doing a TOS film, and then doing another TNG story. Actors in their mid to late 50's isn't too old for sci-fi. So who knows.

Nemesis did not make money. It made a little over 67 million worldwide to date at the box office. It had a production budget of 60 million. That then has to be at least doubled to cover the cost of advertising, print production, etc. That makes the entire cost at least 120 million. So Nemesis lost 53 million, maybe more. That's a dismal failure. And it's doubtful if DVD sales and rentals made up the difference.

 

[Jack Bauer]

No movie in Hollywood makes a profit. 1989's Batman made a gazillion dollars and Warner Bros. said they lost money on it.

 

[maryh]

Well, quoting an online article clearly makes it true.

More seriously, there will inevitably be a revival of TNG in some form in the next ten years or so - for two reasons:

1) Hollywood remakes and recycles everything they can from television, and that's not going to change;

2) TNG was the Trek series that entire families watched together - that's not boosterism, it's a fact reflected in the demographic measurements of the audience (and it was far more true of TNG than of TOS or any of the spinoffs to follow). It's why so many different sponsors loved the show for so many years - and any marketer who's not incompetent can eventually come up with lucrative ways to ride that nostalgia to at least one more big payday as the TNG audience ages.

I will disagree here because TNG WAS nostalgia - it was nostalgic of TOS, just not that good. The reason I watched TNG was because I was hoping to get back some of the TOS magic and, it didn't happen. They are taking a gamble that using the original recasted characters might grab some of the magic again. I happen to think they are correct. Without the TOS characters ST is just another space movie.

I disagree with you about TNG being a family show. TOS was great in that it was VERY sexy - yet you never saw people in bed together, the word 'sex' was never mentioned, we never knew if anyone ever got laid, and there was tons of censoring. Yes there were tons of scantily clad women but that was it and kids see that when they watch Miss America. Everything was indirectly implied or concealed. You could let your 2 year old watch it - the language and 'adult situations' simply would go over their heads. But somehow it was sexier than the blatant stuff they had later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEHHhTH9YjE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibiyQFgCcYI&feature=related

When I was younger we watched TOS as a family in syndication years ago. Now I can't interest my own kids in any of these spin-offs however.

Another thing is that TOS had much more action than TNG. Try getting your kids to watch all the talk, sermons, and diplomacy that TNG offered. They need excitement and action, not verboseness. TOS had us on the edge of our seats. TNG put me to sleep.