Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek franchise?

[Sec31Mike]

We have had numerous appearances of other TOS cast throughout Trek, McCoy, Spock, Scotty, and Sarek all made appearances in TNG.

It's not like the TOS concepts have been shelved, they have been continually trying to capitalize on TOS by using it to bolster another aspect of Trek.

So if a movie takes 2 years to produce and they started it early last year, we should be seeing it come out way earlier than Xmas 2008, another year and a half out.

So if they decide to push forward with Trek, what are they going to do, try to restart TOS, New Voyages has been doing a fine job of that. Paramount needs to get some originality back, I don't think Trek is one of those properties that yields a lot in recycling.

 

[TrelaneRetired]

By the way, giving out information with a medicine dropper (such as the poster) may not make you happy, but it has done wonders to create the fantastic buzz this movie has, even before they have begun filming. There are not too many other movies that have generated the interest that ST:XI has this early in the film-making process. I think that is due to the "strip-tease act" Abrams is doing with this film.

I agree completely. I knew absolutely nothing about JJ Abrams before he was tapped fot the Star Trek project. I've never seen "Lost" or "Alias". I',m told he's a talented producer/director. I've noticed he's a superlative tease (have you seen the trailer for his "cloverfield" project)? Here's hoping he's as good a film-maker as he is a film-hyper!

 

[kirkstheman]

I just wanna say this to some of you younger people who can`t appreciate TOS because it was simply before your time. Bill Shatner may not look like much to you today but 30 or more years ago as an actor who as played strong masculine types (the way men USED to be played) IN HIS DAY Stewart, Brooks and Bakula couldn`t walk in the same sun as him.....and that ain`t no ghost story.

 

[Noname Given]

kirkstheman said:
We`ll see just how much little monetary influence they have Xmas time next year. If TREK sans Kirk had been the right formula for paramount to have followed all these years then the franchise would not be at the door of ruination as it now is. That`s pristine near-vulcan logic.

Funny (and BTW - I'm a TOS fan, rank TOS #1, and saw the show first run on NBC from Season 3 on); how do you see this film as 'Trek sans Kirk' when by all indications, it's an early adventure of Kirk and Spock - so Kirk is there.

As for being at th 'door of ruination'?

- CBS is remastering the optical effects of the original series for future yndication when HD is the 100% standard TV broadcast format - and those remastered episodes are doping well in syndication.

- TOS is STILL in syndication on the TVLand and G4cable channels (meaning CBS is still generating revenue from it)

- TNG is still in syndication on both tthe G4 and Spike cable networks (meaning CBS is still generating revenue from these shows).

- DS9 and VOY are still in syndication on the Spike cable networks (meaning CBS is still generating revenue from these shows).

- ENT ran for one year in syndication across 96% of the country (CBS then swapped that syndivcation package with TOS remastered); at which point ENT syndication rights were purchased by the Sci-Fi channel; where it's show in a 4 hour once a week block - which HAS often garnered BETTER ratings than the majority of Sci-Fi's other first run programming. It's also been in syndication (and shown in native HD format) on the HDNet channel for the pat two years; and is getting good rating there as well. (at this point, it's probably generating MORE syndication revenue for CBS than any previous Star Trek series).

- I routinely see the previous major Star Trek films on both cable and local TV - meaning someone still pays Paramoungt for the right to air them.

And given Paramount is putting major money and an A-List production team behing this new film; I don't see how you can still claim the Star Trek franchise is 'door of ruination'.

Hell, I wish I had a small piece of the profit the above is STILL generating for CBS/Paramount. Personally, I doubt they see 'Star Trek' as a failure, or at the 'door of ruination'.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

jesus is it glass half empty, lets just give up, the end is near day around here?

 

[TrelaneRetired]

"I don't believe in a no-win situation!" - James T. Kirk

 

[kirkstheman]

Most of what you mention is past. Enterprise flopped. Nemesis bombed. Come on, be honest.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

kirkstheman said:We`ll see just how much little monetary influence they have Xmas time next year. If TREK sans Kirk had been the right formula for paramount to have followed all these years then the franchise would not be at the door of ruination as it now is. That`s pristine near-vulcan logic.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

You've observed one event... the shift to another cast. You've observed a second event... the decrease in interest. You're assuming that one is the direct cause of the other. There is no evidence to support that. All we know is that these two things happened.

I tend to think that both of these things were EFFECTS. And that the idea of introducing new characters isn't a BAD THING at all...

What I would have loved to have seen would have been more Trek, post TWOK, with Spock dead (but still remembered!) and new crewmen aboard. We'd have the leading characters, but new characters would be introduced, and the GOOD ones would stick around. Eventually, Shatner, Kelley, whoever... would retire, but the successful new characters would have filled in.

It would never have been a 100% switch... it would have been an EVOLUTION.

Sadly, that ship sailed a LOOOONG time ago, though.

But my point... having new characters doesn't make for a bad show, doesn't make for a decline in interest. Having BAD STORYTELLING does, however.

The people who made all these decisions are the root cause. The cast change, in and of itself, isn't.

Don't make the mistake of assuming causal relationships where none are demonstrated!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

kirkstheman said:
Does paramount feel it can revive trek by risking the continued alienation (on their part) of the TOS fan base?

The TOS fan base that cares about Shatner isn't big enough to worry about. If Paramount can't revive Trek by handing it over to someone like Abrams and letting him do what he thinks best, then they won't revive it in any other way.

If the next film can turn a good profit with new actors playing Kirk and Spock and so forth, then Trek will be okay. If not, then Trek's dead.

It's a good thing Shatner's got other work, because no matter what happens Paramount won't star him as Kirk again.

 

[seigezunt]

I don't give a rat's ass about the franchise. Just make a decent movie.

Now that the TNG era is played out and dead, let's have a try with some characters that people can care about again.

Someone said character driven stories don't work? Huh? I guess, if you like to watch arcade games.

 

[Sec31Mike]

I don't think a mjor motion picture is going to save Trek, nor is selling land deeds to fictitious plots of land on Vulcan.

They need to get back to basics, and decide to actively pursue smaller ventures that are cost effective that could branch Star Trek out to many different audiences. This way they can organically grow the fanbase, and when the time is right jump on a big ticket movie.

I think they are digging Trek deeper into a hole with this big ticket JJ Abrams nightmare project.

 

[Lumen]

The death of ambition is the last thing this franchise needs. You might want to play your cards further from your vest and your checkbook closer to your wallet, but Paramount and Abrams aren't.

"Back to basics" is precisely what Kirk and Spock are; their choice of medium is arguably a lot more effect and within their ability, not to mention the scope of the franchise, than whatever you might mean by "smaller ventures". Such a viral approach is hardly basic.

 

[Sec31Mike]

Smaller ventures are things like an animated show for the young teen audience, really kickass videogames, agressive merchandising (When I see Trek at Toys'R'Us, it's always in the far back corner or on the clearance rack) I mean get the retailers to really promote Trek merchandise and back that up with really good merchandise. Things of this nature, all of which should be geared at growing new fans, not recycling TOS ad nauseum.

 

[Lumen]

That's far less likely to succeed because it demands success in multiple media — in which Star Trek has never been successful in before — instead of success in one medium in which Star Trek has seen great success before.

We've had successful motion picture before.

By and large, animated features lack a high profile and aren't considered adult or mature enough to serve a serious launching platform for something like this franchise — they're often side dishes for successful motion pictures, as in the cases of The Matrix and Star Wars. The video games made for this franchise have sucked and will continue to suck.

And the notion that the popularity of Captain Kirk action figures or Enterprise figurines will ever inspire a studio to green light a motion picture is laughable.

If you think this movie is a longshot, but somehow are convinced that a billion-dollar franchise can ride in on the coattails of animated features, video games, and action figures — all of which are typically supporting media for a franchise more successful in a higher profile venue, not the other way around — then you really have no idea how this industry works and I feel much happier knowing that a professional like Abrams with a prosperous career ahead of him doesn't agree with you.

 

[Sec31Mike]

I guess the general public is supposed to be driven to the theater to see Star Trek by subliminal advertising, a drugged water supply, an act of congress, and psychics directing people to go see this film.

Working from the big ticket end when that hasn't been Trek's bread and butter makes as much sense as that.

 

[kirkstheman]

It's a good thing Shatner's got other work, because no matter what happens Paramount won't star him as Kirk again
STAR TREK FANDOM: 1966-1992
Contemporary TOS Trek fandom has failed


Failed to do what? Cotton to a TNG -era star trek? Seriously, some of you sound almost like Shatner deserves not to be allowed on screen again as Kirk. What`s his crime other than being 76 years-old? Asking for too much money? Well, why not? His character was only the guts of star trek for the better part of 40 years, that`s all. You know, you people here on the trekbbs sound almost as if you think that William Shatner`s contribution to star trek as Kirk were minimal at best and that his overall relevance to star trek on the whole is minimal. J.J. Abrams himself as said that he has nothing but respect and awe for the man. Does that sound minimal or irrelevant? Look, today star trek is on the skids and yet alot of you here want to make out like Shatner being allowed to play Kirk again at some point since Generations wouldn`t have made any difference to the trek franchise`s current condition. Why be so sure that Shatner on screen again as Kirk WOULDN`T HAVE HELPED? TOS fans sure as hell would have taken notice. Since the TNG fan base failed to sustain Trek that is no reason to deny the older TOS fan base another shot at it. I mean, we were here first.

 

[Lumen]

Fascinating that you'd place fandom's death in 1992 when it was probably in its strongest, most visible, mainstream form from '92-96.

Sec31Mike, you can't target new fans using old source material, which is why tie-in merchandise — like video games, retail products, etc., are — predicate themselves on. You need to be hitched to a more popular wagon. Studios use those venues to milk money out of a successful project, not to create a successful launching platform for a hibernating franchise. No one is going to be interested in action figures or video games about characters they haven't ever or recently seen on screen.

The "big ticket end" as you call it is really all Star Trek has ever known — from weekly television series to major motion pictures. The smaller ventures that you suggest are, well, ridiculously unprofitable and infeasible on a consumer basis. Those sorts of products always ride on the success of "big ticket" items.

And as we're more than a year from the film's premiere, you can't hardly begin to talk about how they plan to get butts in seats if you want to maintain any pretense of honestly discussing this (not that I would ever presume to believe you do).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Sec31Mike said:I guess the general public is supposed to be driven to the theater to see Star Trek by subliminal advertising, a drugged water supply, an act of congress, and psychics directing people to go see this film.

Working from the big ticket end when that hasn't been Trek's bread and butter makes as much sense as that.

The general public isn't "driven to the theaters" at all... unless you count their cars, I 'spose.

Out here in the real world... people decide "I want to go out tonight" then say to their friend, girlfriend, boyfriend, sheep-friend, whatever... "Let's go catch a flick." They then either just drive to the theater or go to something like "MovieFone" to see what's playing, and where.

So, you'll have one kid movie, one gansta-rap movie, one hack-n-slash flick, one "chick-flick," and Star Trek, let's say. The guy will say "Star Trek... that sounds pretty cool." And the date will say "Okay, but that means you've gotta take me out to a really NICE dinner first!"

At least that's the way it usually works in MY life...

Fortunately, I LIKE good restaurants, and I tend to date women who enjoy the same sort of thing I do, sooo...

Point - Nobody is "driven" to ANY movie by anything but WORD OF MOUTH. If someone goes, sees it, and tells people at work or school the next day "damn, that was a really good movie, much better than the last few... no really, it's not that crap you said you hate... this one was GOOD," well, that's what convinces people to go see the silly thing.

Action figure, games, and cartoons most certainly wont. You're putting the cart about a mile in front of that particular horse!

 

[Lumen]

Yeah, that's the expression. Cart before the house. Well said.

 

[xortex]

Executive - Oh, I get it, it's like mission impossible in space - lots of explosions and stuff.