As much as I'd like to see that, I think it's veering too much into Star Wars territory, to mention nothing of the cost of Hanks and Arnie.
Why isn't Star Trek a big movie franchise?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
As much as I'd like to see that, I think it's veering too much into Star Wars territory, to mention nothing of the cost of Hanks and Arnie.
Lack of big budgets (in previous installments), lack of talent, bad marketing, small studio, alienation of core fan base, a case of too little too late, wrong release date, not taking advantage of an anniversary, etc… Take your picks… You'll be correct whatever you choose.
Last edited:
Sailed very close to the wind. Too close - these didn't really seem like Trek movies to me - more flashy action adventure in Trek clothing, and still didn't make a viable franchise.
This crew deserves another shot ? Well, Quinto and Urban do - I'm not a fan of the rest...
I have a teenage godson/nephew. When any MCU movie comes out, his age group are all eager to see it and do watch them. No one in his age group admits or has any interest in Star Trek. None. Nada. Zilch. If something is not done Star Trek will die with Generation X.
Generation Y and the Millennials are not interested.
Generation Y and the Millennials are not interested.
That goes back to my point though - what on earth do they do to make this franchise appeal to a general audience? They've been sailing close to superhero territory (especially some of Beyond's set pieces) and I don't see what more can be done at this point. More money? No chance. Not going to happen now. Better FX? Not possible at the moment, Beyond's visuals were cutting edge. If they fourth one gets made it will need a different angle, something very creative I suspect. Or maybe Into Darkness's $467 million is the ceiling.
true. but close to 200m is a lot of dough ..they could've made an epic war movie and had room for at least one big name co star with that budget..
Fair point. I think to a certain degree all three of them have suffered in that department if you are to cast a critical eye on the writing, but I wouldn't say they are any worse than a good proportion of its competition in this regard. They are summer popcorn blockbusters when all's said and done. Maybe a more serious dramatic tone is required moving forward?
Promoting and advertising them would be a start. And that includes not being secretive about the movies. When Cumberbatch was cast they could have announced right away he was playing "John Harrison" rather than wait nearly a year and it wouldn't have compromised the "twist" that he was Khan in anyway. And even if someone figured it out, so what? Karl Urban would still have said he was Gary Mitchell and half fandom would still have believed him anyway.
Seriously, hos is silence and secrecy even still considered a viable approach to movies these days? A Twitter account run by a fucking dog is doing more to keep fandom up to date about Discovery than Abrams, Orci or Lindelof did with their movies. A fucking dog!
I'll give you that. The secrecy thing at first excited me, but the longer it went on, the more it just pissed me off, especially when the film was delayed. In hindsight they should have promoted the hell out of it being a Khan film and just dropped the Harrison thing altogether, but I guess it's the promotion of Beyond that's the bigger problem in these parts as that's the underperformer.
Beyond writer Doug Jung and Paramount movie prez Marc Evans have talked about the potential for expanding the Trek movie universe in interviews in the past six months, so it's definitely something they're thinking about.
And maybe not constantly looking back at Trek's past. I love ID and Cumberbatch as Khan, but seriously? John Harrison would have been just as good, if not better, in my opinion. Drive to the point that the sacrifices that are being made by the Enterprise crew are becoming too much by the end. It would dovetail right in to Beyond and Kirk's fatigue. And, as odd as it would sound given my opening statement, it would be similar to Pike's reaction in "The Cage."
Below are my thoughts regarding CBS' promotional efforts. It's a bit long it comes from my experience of retail work and looking at changes over my life.
As for promotions, CBS has often fallen back on "Prime" Trek for merchandising, which, in my opinion, hindered reaching out to the younger demographic. As I previously discussed, Star Trek merchandising is less focused on the "toys" aspect and more on the "collectors" aspect. Which, in my opinion, is shutting off a generation from this franchise.
I mean, even "The Walking Dead" or "Game of Thrones" is marketed better to kids than Star Trek at the moment. Which means, even if the show isn't airing, there is still something there to generate interest. And Star Trek, unfortunately, doesn't have that.
I honestly think that Trek needs to change its target demographic somehow, even with the new show or with Star Trek IV in the Kelvin films. Maybe include more than the same old of characters in the same uniforms.
I think @The Wormhole is on to something when talking about promotional effort. There seems to be almost a reluctance to push this property, like they expect it to sell itself. I think they need to take hints from some other, more successful franchises, and branch out even more to develop their identity with a newer generation.
And, no, I'm not saying dumb it down. But, even Star Wars has Star Wars: Science line of toys. Why not do something similar? Even Netflix has a whole series and toy line based upon science experiments aimed at a female demographic. Again, something similar could be done with Star Trek, highlighting the aspects of space exploration.
Maybe with the advent of Mars colonization, there will be a new space race and interest.
Its a niche franchise but it is one of the biggest movie franchises out there. Together they've made over $2.3 billion, of which the last 3 made $1.3 billion. So the success rate is improving.
Some people like to use adjusted for inflation figures, though I don't. If that's counted, the movies are at: $3.5 billion +
Some people like to use adjusted for inflation figures, though I don't. If that's counted, the movies are at: $3.5 billion +
Last edited:
Star Trek is, ironically enough, stuck in the past. It hasn't adapted to modern times, and I'm not sure it can, not while remaining recognizable, at any rate. The premise is rooted in concepts that are alien to the modern audience. The crew are agents of the government when respect for the government is at a low. The crew wears uniforms in front of an audience that will often go to great lengths to stand out from their peers. The crew are scientists, intellectuals, and educated professionals when flat earthers, anti vaxxers, and creationists are increasingly a thing.
Maybe some future generation will have a culture more compatible with Star Trek, but I can't see it ever taking off with millennials.
Among the ones who can overlook the cultural issues, Star Trek's bad science may be a problem. I think the (few) younger people today who are interested in space travel are better informed about it than their 60s, 80s or 90s counterparts. They know that there's no sound in space. They notice when the Enterprise disobeys Newton. They know what a supernova is, and that JJ's use of the word made no sense. Star Wars mostly gets as pass by being unapologetic fantasy, but Trek sells itself as a vision of humanities future in space. If Trek is going to survive, even as a niche property, it needs to do better on this front.
Maybe some future generation will have a culture more compatible with Star Trek, but I can't see it ever taking off with millennials.
Among the ones who can overlook the cultural issues, Star Trek's bad science may be a problem. I think the (few) younger people today who are interested in space travel are better informed about it than their 60s, 80s or 90s counterparts. They know that there's no sound in space. They notice when the Enterprise disobeys Newton. They know what a supernova is, and that JJ's use of the word made no sense. Star Wars mostly gets as pass by being unapologetic fantasy, but Trek sells itself as a vision of humanities future in space. If Trek is going to survive, even as a niche property, it needs to do better on this front.
Last edited:
Hasn't that always been the problem, though? Especially in the later seasons of Voyager and Enterprise's first two, where they were still clinging to stand-alone episodes with the occasional two-part while the rest of TV was beginning to adopt a more serialized approach to their episodes. If not direct continuing story arcs, then at least a greater sense of continuity among the episodes.
Agree. A great Star Trek screenplay will deliver a broad box office domestic and international. J.J. Abrams first two films were good attempts, but I still think another future script [maybe ST4{14}] will reach across all audiences like '86 TVH did.
Star Trek maybe best in a television series format, but I think a huge box office ST film will be possible with the right script.
If my memory serves me right, the first season or two of the BSG reboot had silent space battles except for the 'in cockpit' shots.
I recall one shot of the Galactica arriving at a planet from ftl. In Trek you'd maybe get a beautiful close shot of the Enterprise coming out of warp towards the camera with fx and noises.
BSG showed the disc of a silent planet from distance. A fine bright line appeared from off screen and abruptly stopped two thirds of the way across the planet. All in silence.
Brilliant !
Unfortunately, they put in whoosh zap noises in later seasons...
First off, I think Star Trek has always had a 'nerd factor' that has prevented it from becoming a mainstream tent pole movie franchise. It's never been seen as cool, action packed or cutting edge by mainstream audiences.
Another factor is that sheer volume of Star Trek TV and film that has been made over 50 years is a hindrance. I have family and friends who don't want to go see the movies with me because they feel like "I've never watched Star Trek I don't think I'd know what is going on."
I agree with you that Star Trek is stuck in the past and this has been a problem with the franchise since the late 90s. There's really a feeling of lets play it safe when it comes to Trek. TNG followed the model of how TV was done in the late 80s and early 90s and did it well, DS9 modified TNG's format somewhat and embraced the multi-episode arcs and strong continuity that was becoming popular by the mid to late 90s, but Voyager and the first few seasons of Enterprise were TNG storytelling just with different characters.
Now ST09 reset the franchise, regardless of whether you agree with what the did or not, and I think based on box office and critical review it brought renewed interest into the franchise. STID basically ruined it by falling back on old story lines it was a step in the wrong direction and while Beyond was an improvement it was basically just another Trek movie.
Movies have changed and most major tent pole franchise movies no longer tell single stories most are a multi-movie story arc and that is something ST09 should have picked up on.
Another factor is that sheer volume of Star Trek TV and film that has been made over 50 years is a hindrance. I have family and friends who don't want to go see the movies with me because they feel like "I've never watched Star Trek I don't think I'd know what is going on."
I agree with you that Star Trek is stuck in the past and this has been a problem with the franchise since the late 90s. There's really a feeling of lets play it safe when it comes to Trek. TNG followed the model of how TV was done in the late 80s and early 90s and did it well, DS9 modified TNG's format somewhat and embraced the multi-episode arcs and strong continuity that was becoming popular by the mid to late 90s, but Voyager and the first few seasons of Enterprise were TNG storytelling just with different characters.
Now ST09 reset the franchise, regardless of whether you agree with what the did or not, and I think based on box office and critical review it brought renewed interest into the franchise. STID basically ruined it by falling back on old story lines it was a step in the wrong direction and while Beyond was an improvement it was basically just another Trek movie.
Movies have changed and most major tent pole franchise movies no longer tell single stories most are a multi-movie story arc and that is something ST09 should have picked up on.
The Transformer movies' success shows that good writing isn't needed. While it couldn't hurt, it's just as likely what Trekkies consider a "well written" Trek movie bombs with a general audience.
BSG never had complete silence, the space shots tended to use muffled sounds to try and approximate it somewhat, but it was never fully quiet. You may be thinking of Firefly.
Similar threads
