Longest Period Without A Trek Film Since 1979 | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Longest Period Without A Trek Film Since 1979 December 17, 2006

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Trek Franchise,Uncategorized , trackback

Since the relase of Star Trek: The Motion Picture on  December 7th, 1979 there had been a steady stream of Star Trek films. Over the next 23 years Paramount released new Trek films every 2-3 years. The longest gap of 4 years and 2 days was between Star Trek Insurrection and the last film Star Trek: Nemesis, which was released on December 13, 2002. As of this weekend that record has been broken and every day between now and the release of Star Trek XI will be a Trek franchise record. So if you were wondering why you were especially jonesing it isn’t just that this weekend is a Trek Remastered repeat.

In honor of the occasion, TrekMovie.com decided to take a quantitative look back on the Trek franchise…see chart below 

click to enlarge

 

When you look at the franchise from the point of view of how many people it was reaching (defined by domestic film ticket sales and household TV ratings) then one could take the view that it has been on a downward slide since ST:TMP. The TV franchise has certainly been on a steady downward patern since the peak of TNG in 1993. When looking at the above you can appreciate what a brave thing it is for Paramount to pin its hopes on Trek being big for it in 2008. Oh to be a fly on the wall for the meeting where Abrams talked them into that!

Data Source: Box Office Mojo and Nielsens, thanks to Rosario for Trek TV data

Comments

1. stallion - December 17, 2006

I’m still hoping for an Enterprise of Deep space nine movie so people can see the best the franchise have to offer.

2. Darkthunder - December 17, 2006

Yea, I think its long overdue for Sisko and his crew to have a few movies.

3. Andy - December 17, 2006

I hope not Star Trek Deep Space Nine Movie. DS9 is NOT Star Trek to me. It’s more spinoff to Babylon 5. Star Trek should be a film with Crew with Starship exploring new space. NO to DS9.

4. Dom - December 17, 2006

Sadly, their reach would be more minimal still since most mainstream punters never bothered with DS9, Voyager or Enterprise.

I still think these series deserve a shot at the straight-to-video market. I fervently believe there’s a market yet to be plundered for straight-to-video beyond failed theatrical films. If ever there’s a multi-media franchise that could blow open those gates, it’s Star Trek!!

5. Eric Augst - December 17, 2006

Before I got into Trek, when I was 13, I thought Star Trek was stupid. I really didn’t know too much about it, until one of my friends got me into it. Now I’m it’s biggest fan, even bigger than my friend. So, I know how non-fans feel about Trek, the key is stop the stigmatism Trek has, but without changing too much of what we love. I think JJ may be the guy to do this. The film needs lots of action, a good story, FAMOUS actors (but right for the role, maybe a acclaimed director too), and a lot of marketing. If these 4 criteria are met, than the movie will be very successful. Releasing Nemesis less than a week prior to Two Towers with 3 other releases on the same day was a major blunder, the story was weak (surprising coming from the writer of Aviator and Trek fan), Tom Hardy who?, and the advertising was minimal, these led to a perfect storm for failure.

6. ozy - December 17, 2006

I’m hoping for an Voyager movie, or mix crew ( Voyager, DS9, TNG )

7. Dave R - December 17, 2006

Great Chart, Thanks for taking the time!

8. Anthony Pascale - December 17, 2006

i can understand how fans of particular shows would want to see them on the big screen. However can anyone look at the chart above and think that putting $100+ behind a film starring Kate Mulgrew or Scott Bakula makes financial sense for Paramount? I would love to see Ben Sisko’s triumphant return…but I understand that Paramount is a busines and the post TNG shows never broke through the mainstream enough to warrant a feature film. Maybe direct to DVD, but for now Paramount are still hoping they can sell tickets like they did in the 80s….and Abrams is betting that those characters are the ones to do it.

9. Viking - December 17, 2006

DS9 was the most underrated of all the series – certainly a helluva lot better in quality and storytelling than Voyager and 95% of Enterprise. In fact, on it’s best day, it rivaled damn near anything TNG could throw at it. If they made a decent direct-to-video movie, I’d toss it into my DVD library.

10. DB - December 17, 2006

I watched a good part of all of them, and certainly prefer “Enterprise” to either of the two series that preceded it. The studio might have been better off in certain respects setting each new series in an era other than the previous one.

11. Eric Augst - December 17, 2006

I agree Viking, while I love all the series, DS9 was the best. Maybe I’m a bit biased because I started off as a fan on the premiere of DS9 and TNG’s sixth season. I’ve brought up before that if Stargate (cough cough) and B5 (Woo Hoo) can get DVD releases, than so can Trek. They should be able to fund it after all the money we’ve put into buying the seasons! I don’t really think TNG should do that though because it would be a step down from the movies, but DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise certainly could.

12. James Heaney - December 17, 2006

DS9 was a truly fantastic installment in the Star Trek saga. I would snap up a DS9 movie in a second. But I fear there will always be a stigma around the show, since, according to Ron Moore, it was always treated as the “bastard child of Star Trek.”

Plus, how the heck do you write a two or even three hour movie that could do the show justice? DS9 was serial art, baby.

Eh. If STXI succeeds, mayhap Paramout will be willing to do something even *more* risky than a prequel of TOS.

13. Litenbug - December 17, 2006

I like DS9 and the rest, but agree with Anthony. The TOS story of XI is the most likely to break the bank right now.
Writing certainly didn’t help the later series, but another “back-breaker” for the last 3 series was TV’s fragmented viewership. The mid 90′s really saw the explosion of multiple cable stations across the nation. More choices, less people watching each show. Just ask the “big 3″ networks about their shares over the last decade. Additionally, many stations placed the Treks of the time in later and later time slots…. almost as bad as ST:RE is now.
The movies, V and then starting again with generations just did little to move the ST Universe along in an exciting way.

I think the “hiatus” in the movies will be a good thing… taking a breath before good films begin again in 2008 and beyond.

14. ALLAN ROSE - December 17, 2006

It takes people like Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron or Scott to make a good scifi film. It also takes a decent budget. Most of the Trek movies have had neither one. It seems as if the studio has been relying on the sizeable Trek fan base who will fill the theater seats no matter how lame the movie is.

15. Longwinded - December 17, 2006

Someone said it before and I’ve always had that feeling too that perhaps Paramount could do a mini series for the other shows. There are many venues that could show it such as CBS or the CW, how about Sci-Fi or HBO? Heck even TV Land could show it. They would eat it up I’m sure or how about Spike TV? Show it before the new fall tv shows come out when everyone is going back to school and give people something new to watch.

If it was 6 hours long ( 3 days, 2 hrs each) then after a couple of showings Spike could cut it down to one hour episodes and add them to the run of that particular series they already show in the afternoon. Just a thought from someone who misses his shows.

16. Viking - December 17, 2006

Agreed, gentlemen. Avery Brooks, the rest of the cast, Behr, Bormanis, and even Berman didn’t get the props they deserved for that one. You’d think that they’d at least rate a gaddamned DVD at Blockbuster for what they can do as an ensemble, instead of CBS pitching good money into some Buck Roger-esque web cartoon.

‘Nuff said.

17. seangh - December 17, 2006

I hate to say it, but I think the whole future of the franchise really is depending on the success or failure of this next film. If the film succeeds, it’s likely to spawn at least two sequels (the studios are big on trilogies these days.) If the flick fails (both critically and at the BO / DVD sales) then it’s likely Trek will be mothballed indefinitely.

However, it’s also possible, with forward thinking execs, that Paramount may license the Trek universe to fan filmmakers to generate a modest revenue stream and also keep Trek alive in the collective memory of core fans via the internet – much like the various strains of novelizations that we have had since the begining of Star Trek franchise.

18. JON - December 17, 2006

How about a TV movie (or two) starring Shatner,Nimoy Nichols,Koenig,Takei etc.resolving the Trek “Generations” mess.It would serve to solve all the loose ends before the new movie comes out and also generate interest in Trek xi.

19. Adam Cohen - December 17, 2006

I want to refocus us on the point that graph makes in a very stark fashion- Star Trek has been in some form of decline in terms of viewership from the moment ST: TMP premiered in 1979. These various forms of follow-ups (movies, television shows, books, etc.) are sequels of some sort. If you look at most franchises, you will see a decline of some sort. That decline makes me wonder what the actual ceiling is for future projects. How many millions will the next movie make? How much should the studio invest in that project? Can the franchise, while smaller in its reach, still remain profitable?

To the first question, that’s a tough task to figure out what the ceiling is on Trek XI. I’ve posted about this issue exhaustively in other discussions, and I basically came down to a (what I think is a very optimistic) high-end possible figure of around $100-125 million total gross domestic. That doesn’t mean that I think Star Trek XI will make $125 million, but that if it were an optimal production, well-received and generally appealed to the masses, that’s about where I think the movie could top out. In reality, I would be surprised if Trek XI beat $100 million. The decline is apparent. The graph tells the story. And as Spock would say, a computer cannot lie.

The second question, given the $125 million top-out, I would be worried as a fan of the franchise, if Paramount went and dropped over $100 million on this new movie. Yes, I want top-notch production values and I want to see a “big” adventure, but let’s keep this realistic. Paramount spent $150 million on Mission: Impissible III, a movie that ended up grossing $130 million domestic (and made a ton more overseas) and still, the studio was “upset” with the movie’s performance. Tom Cruise and Paramount parted ways. Mission: Impossible is now a franchise in hibernation.

And third, can the franchise remain profitable despite this shrinking audience, I think the answer to that is an absolute “yes.” Despite a loyal following for Enterprise, that show did not appeal to the mass Trek-fan audience, let alone the general audience. I think if they can make direct-to-DVD movies, do a miniseries, or even a well-budgeted movie to involve existing characters from the TNG-era (no more $16 million paydays for Patrick Stewart… so no more Patrick Stewart) then with the fan turnout, the projects will make money. Merchandising is key to the franchise. If you use the property to interest existing fans, they will buy the DVDs, the magazines, the models, the books, etc. That’s what sustained Star Trek even far past the sagging ratings of DS9 and Voyager. But once the bulk of that era went away, so did the fans that emerged in the 1990s. Enterprise refused to call itself “Star Trek” in the beginning. Well, most Star Trek fans refused to be fans of “Enterprise” as well.

This Trek v. Trek debate is all about one’s passions and loyalties and personal tastes. I’m talking about the franchise from a purely analytical, business perspective. Paramount and CBS need to be realistic about the reach of this franchise. Can the fanbase grow? Absolutely. But that does not happen overnight, and it’s going to take a lot more than one movie to capture new fans and bring back old ones at the same time.

End of speech, let’s go to work.

20. MichaelJohn - December 17, 2006

From a purely cynical point of view, I don’t think Star Trek will ever end, and I’m not sure if that is a good thing. Quality, continuity, storyline aside, as long as Paramount believes they can continue to make a profit, they will continue to pump out product to feed the “star trek masses.”

I think the future of Trek films will probably be very similar to that of the current James Bond movie series. The quality of each Bond film has varied greatly over the years, with some being critical and financial successes, while others were flops. But once the studio sensed the franchise was faltering, usually indicated by poor reviews and lousy box office receipts, they simply “reinvented” their product. By introducing a new actor to play Bond, and by placing their studio “hype media machine” on overdrive, they create a “new buzz” and new interest in a very old product.

The latest James Bond movie with Daniel Craig is very good in my opinion, but has very little resemblence to the Sean Connery James Bond films of the sixties, but they are still raking in the bucks!

So after forty six years…the Bond series continues on it’s merry way, with no end in sight. I think Star Trek will go the same route…

I believe twenty years from now, CBS/Paramount will still be creating new ST movies and series, and the franchise will continue to be profitable for the studio and it’s stockholders. However, I think it’s naive to think that the ST of the future it will closely resemble TOS, or any of the Trek series and movies of the past, except in name only.

Here’s a recent example…Did the last ST series
“Enterprise” series really remind viewers of it’s connection to the other series? To me it was so different and so far removed from TOS, TNG etc, that if it wasn’t for the “trek dialouge,” it could have been a completely new science fiction show! I’m not knocking Enterprise as a series, my point is that the future of Trek will probably be even more different than we think.

Maybe a different future is good, maybe not…

Maybe a new version of Trek, a decade from now, will be even more wildly popular than Trek is now…

Maybe those new legions of ST fans will NOT be fans of TOS and the original roots of Star Trek. I think that’s a definite possibility…

Merry Christmas!

Mike :o

21. Litenbug - December 17, 2006

The Trek vs. Trek vs. Trek debate isn’t going on at the studio. It happens on here and other Trek fan sites.

And #18…. I know it’s wishful thinking, but you won’t get a TV movie from Shatner and Nimoy. The payday they would want would explode the budget. Sorry, bud.

#6… agreed, but CBS hasn’t said yes or committed $$ to the animated series from what I’ve read.

22. Litenbug - December 17, 2006

oops I meant #16

23. Anthony Pascale - December 17, 2006

i think looking back at Trek’s past is interesting, however it may have little relevence to the future of the franchise. I do not think that TMP or the 80s films represent a ‘cieling’ for Trek films anymore than I think that ‘The Nude Bomb’ represents a cieling for the upcoming ‘Get Smart’ movie. The first and only Get Smat film made about $14 mil, it is likely the star of the new film (Steve Carrell) will get paid that much for the new one. And who knew that the Mission Impossible TV show could rake in such huge numbers at the box office.

Yes if Paramount made another film that only appealed to the fanbase, then yes there is a certain ceiling…but does anyone think they are that stupid?

I think that trek can make money in the same league as the new Bond movie, Batman Begins or Superman Returns…if it is well made and has some big name stars in it

24. Litenbug - December 17, 2006

#20 Michael John (you didn’t used to be MichaelT did you?)
There are always possibilities… is what I think you are saying.? Times change and I think Trek has to also but keep the good stories and acting. To remain the same as some staunch fans insist is foolhardy. The audience’s tastes and desires have changed over 40 years and that will continue. In your 20 year example… series TV and Movies may not be what they are now.. media and entertaiment venues and opportunities are mutating rapidly with podcasts and internet webisodes… what next?
Let me and Marty get into my DeLorean and jump… I’ll call you when I am 65.

25. Adam Cohen - December 17, 2006

#23 Anthony,

A lot of those franchises that have done well in recent years have been reboots. Like you mention, the Mission: Impossible movies did great business, but keep in mind those shows had practically had no connection to the original series in terms of continuity. Batman Begins ditched the prior movies entirely in terms of tone and story. The best of these recent franchise movies are the ones that are free to reinvent the concept to fit modern tastes. That doesn’t mean you abandon the tenants of the concept, but that you find new ways to challenge your audiences to appreciate what it is that makes the concept special.

I am very curious to see how closely Trek XI adheres to (or even makes reference to) past Trek continuity. I think the storytelling possibilities for the new movie are vast. I also think that with the right actors and story, there could be a really fantastic movie in our future.

But the name “Star Trek” needs to be rehabilitated. Lots of old time fans have left the reservation. And as that graph shows, with each new venture, the combination of mass audiences and fanbase has shrunk further and further. I don’t know (but I certainly hope) that one movie can erase the trend in that graph, starting at particularly post-1994.

26. Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk esquire - December 17, 2006

DS9 unlike the other Trek series was formatted in a very serial fashion arc-wise.

It is completed.

There is no need to revisit DS9 as everything it had to say as a premise and concept was spoken clearly and loudly. It would be frivolous and extraneous to reopen DS9.
All conflicts found resolution.

27. Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk esquire - December 17, 2006

Interesting that Kirk was killed in ’94.

28. Adam Cohen - December 17, 2006

Josh T., I see you got my subtle 1994 reference point there. Good catch, Admiral.

29. mikeg - December 17, 2006

There are many, many ways to look at the future of Star Trek. Like many of you, I am hopeful that JJ Abrams will bring to the table something heavy-duty Trek fans have been waiting for. For this writer, Trek has become akin to a frustrated encounter. For whatever faults Trek-films V and VI may have had, they were still more engaging that anything that followed. On the small screen, most agree TNG reached a peak and then began the gradual plummet of all things Trek. Sorry Messrs Berman and Braga… what were you thinking?
I believe there is not enough market for a DS9, Voyager or Enterprise feature. On the other hand, I agree with those who suggest the possibilities of a direct to DVD film, which may have a sufficent market to justify. If Paramount wanted to blaze some new trail, they would put out new stories of these shows, like made-for-tv-movies, or mini-series, direct to DVD. I think fans of those shows are as passionate as fans of TOS, and they deserve “something”. I often felt that if DS9 were not touted as Star Trek, it would have been a fabulous show, having an edge on B5, IMO. But with all that Trek baggage, it was hard for the show to simply be taken for what it was. Voyager had a terrific premise. I often thought how cool it might have been for such a scenario to happen to Kirk and crew… But Voyager took a detour somewhere, and turned into a slightly modified version of TNG. It never felt like they were really LOST, pardon the… Enterprise seemed to be undermining so much of what TOS had proposed, and what fans took as gospel. How could this not alienate a huge number of people?
With this said, Paramount has actually been pretty cool with Trek fans, the way the Grateful Dead were cool with their fans… allowing all that fan-made stuff, which seems to keep fueling the fires of Trek. Without all the films, and the books, and merchandise, I wonder if Trek would still be around. Gene Roddenberry gave people a playground, a future of tremendous hope and optimism… We could certainly use a new message full of optimism at this time in human history. C’mon JJ, say what needs to be said………

30. MichaelJohn - December 17, 2006

#24…no Michael T is another person…I’ve only been posting comments on this site for about a month now..

I agree with you…the possibilities are endless as far as Trek is concerned. Just as I never expected to like DS9 as much as I do, the future may hold some nice surprises for die hard fans of TOS, like myself.

As much as I wish we could go back in time to 1969 and continue TOS for another five or six more seasons, I know that can never happen. That era is over. Two of the main characters have already passed and the rest are much to old to revive their characters, as we remember them in TOS. Yes, Kirk and Spock etc could be in a new film, but it just wont be the same…

So wherever the Trek franchise goes in the future, I will probably always prefer to watch the old reruns of the original show best. To me that’s the Trek of my generation. Oh I’m sure I will cast a curious eye at whatever Trek comes along next, but TOS will always be the series that got me hooked!

I do hope the Trek fan base continues to expand in the future and new series and movies are made, but in the end I think I will only really care about TOS.

I guess Im just showing my age now…I’m “old school” trek!

Long live Spock, Quark…and Sean Connery too..the only real James Bond!!

Mike :o

31. stallion - December 17, 2006

It would be cool to see a made for TV movie for Enterprise, Deep Space nine and even Voyager. That would be a big rating hit the perfect network would be G4, Sci-fi or Spike TV

32. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - December 18, 2006

As someone who was first introduced to Star Trek in 1966 on a small black & white television set (don’t even get me started when my family got a color one – Orgasmatron time!), I am very positive about Star Trek XI.

There’s a hundred reasons why Star Trek has been in a state of decline but feature film decline is different than television decline. One requires active participation, the other is passive.

I think the primary reason the decline in features occurred is two-fold… story-telling and presence. Generally, if you look at the features that did poorly… they had poor stories. Again, they may have appealed to the fan-base simply because it’s Star Trek. You know, “visiting old friends” and getting your “hit”, as it were. However, the dips on the graph are directly proportional to stories that have mass appeal. With the exception of Generations, which had a lousy story… but had Kirk.

That exception brings me to presence… As much as I enjoyed TNG as a television series, with the exception of First Contact none of their feature outings did well. For as “long in the tooth” as Kirk & Company may have gotten, they still had that magic… that resonance… that presence.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Patrick Stewart is a terrific actor but within the confines of the Star Trek Feature milieu, he is the only actor/character that has… well, audience gravitas. And even as compelling an actor as he is… he couldn’t save lousy stories.

The decline in television number is due to over-exposure… fragmented viewer-ship… Cable and content explosion… poor distribution and time slots… lots and lots and lots of reasons.

All that being said, I’ve enjoyed each of the Star Trek creations in one capacity or another, even when the creations weren’t necessarily Star Trek, if ya’ know what I mean?

I think the best thing to happen to Star Trek is absence… let the hunger build for fans and keep it off of the radar for civilians. By 2008, the “audience” will be ready…

If JJ & Company tell a great story, Anthony’s placement of the Star Trek XI Poster may even be higher on the graph.

33. bdrcarter - December 18, 2006

A great piece of research! Thanks for the recap.

One thought: I’m not sure “reach” = Movie Tickets sold. After a 10 year absense, ST:TMP (and the earlier movies) probably enjoyed the same level of repeat viewings that typified the viewing habits of the hard core fans throughout the 70′s syndication of TOS. I’d assume that most people saw it at least twice on average…probably more.

I think the real peak for Trek was 1993-1994. TNG was still getting great ratings, there were two shows on the air, a feature film and a new series on the way.

So what started the slide? Generations. A bad “TV episode” that used stock footage (shot for the TV screen) and a direct rip-off from the great ending of the previous feature film. And the worst death of a cultural icon…ever. How many fans left the theatre thinking…”I paid money for this?”

I don’t have the hard facts to support this; just a high level view of the declining numbers and a good old human feeling.

34. StephenMartin - December 18, 2006

The death of Kirk certainly pissed a lot of people off and certainly alienated many toward Berman and Co. I beleive the decline began when Roddenberry died. It was slow at first but seemed to pick up speed as time went by. About the second year of Voyager it began to settle in with me that Berman was ruining the franchise and if he wasn’t canned it was doomed. Unfortunately I was right. It may be get a second life, but it’s going to be long uphill climb. A climb that may not make it to the top.

35. Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire - December 18, 2006

Star Trek needs to define itself and maintain the established definition.

By becoming all things to all people, it loses it’s cultural relevance and unique concept.

Any literary or film series that has transcended culture and generation, at it’s core has an established relatively easy to follow archetypical concept :

Sherlock Holmes
King Kong
Frankenstien
James Bond
The Transformers
Star Wars
Dracula
The Godfather
Gone with the Wind
The Wizard of Oz

All of these represent a fundamental story EVERYONE knows.

That is where Star Trek lacks.

What is Star Trek about? Is it about the exploits of Captain Bob Speckly aboard the spaceship Majestic, or Commander Fred Temples aboard a space station? Who are the primary antagonists? Is it the Bring em on’s or the Yawnassidans? is it the 23rd century, or the 24th?

You see? That is Star Trek’s fundamental problem. There is no flow. It is mired down and collapses under the weight of it’s own inflated history.

For Star Trek to become pop culture myth and transcend the ages, it must ultimately be able to be condensed down to “it is about A, during the period of B, dealing with C.”

With every new series, cartoon, film, what have you, that departs from a core concept, Star Trek dooms itself to the status of dated relic of a bygone era.

36. Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire - December 18, 2006

^^^^^^

Someone had best settle on a core definition of what this show represents and stick to it, and stop deviating off into la la land with adventures that do not forward the concept, or mere distractions away from the core story.

Let’s go with what has been established to work.

Star Trek, is about a space ship called the Enterprise commanded by a man named James Kirk, exploring the Final Frontier in the 23rd.

In one sentence, the charter and purpose of the concept has been established. Anyone can relate to and memorize that simple concept.

a spaceship called Enterprise
A man named James Kirk
exploring the Final Frontier

Frankenstien- a mad scientist grieving over dead loved ones reanimates life.
The Wizard of Oz – a Young farm girl has a dream she is teleported to a magical land , or is it a dream?

James Bond- a british Spy with a license to kill defends her majesty’s crown.

Star Wars – a young boy on a faraway planet turns evil and is ultimately redeemed by his son.

King Kong- A beast is discovered on an unknown island and is brought back to civilization and dies for the love of a human woman.

Sherlock Holmes- An English detective and his assistant solve unsolveable crimes and mysteries.

Star Trek – a spaceship called Enterprise under the command of James Kirk explores the Galaxy during the 23rd century.

37. SPOCKBOY - December 18, 2006

Thankyou so very much for straightening that out for us.

Transformers?
Transformers?

You’re putting Transformers in with Sherlock Holmes, Gone with the WInd and Wizard of OZ?

Say goodbye to your credibility MR. Josh T (Tedius) Kirk Esqueer………..;)

38. endlessmug - December 18, 2006

lol… transformers.

anyway, i don’t think a prequel film is going to do very well even if it is a departure from the TNG films. and because it doesn’t mainly feature any of the actors from the shows (and i say mainly), it would have to have some damn fine acting and a damn good story to do well.

being that “enterprise” was somewhat of a failure, it seems that going back in time isn’t the best approach. neat idea, but not executed very well. however, maybe STXI will prove that is it possible and J.J. will be able to match that feeling that TOS gave that enterprise failed to create. being that this is the guy that made MI3, I don’t have high hopes.

but i hope he proves me wrong. also, if it does fail, that means possibly no films or shows for a very LOOONNGG time. now, i think the STAR TREK fanbase is large enough to carry itself through a trek depression with books and re-watching of DVD’s etc, but who knows when a 3rd Generation of shows will appear? if at all? what direction are we moving into with this universe?

as for people talking about movies for other crews DS9, VOY, ENT : it’s never going to happen. at least i don’t think it is. plus i don’t think an archer movie would be very interesting and what else is there really to do with voyager? they can’t get lost again!

as for DS9 i would LOVE to have a film with Sisko and the crew but Paramount would never make it because
1) although it has a giant fanbase and many consider it to have better writing than all the trek shows, it never had as good ratings as the TOS/TNG stuff.
2) it presents itself as a dark trek side-story in itself and what Paramount wants for a film is something big, epic, something everyone is going to recognize as TREK. DS9 has too much in it for the mainstream audience to understand. “whats a Cardassian? what’s a Bajoran? why do they keep calling that girl and old man?” its almost TOO DEEP which is really sad to say because I would (again) LOVE a DS9 movie
3) the show had been done with for a while now, the actors are getting older, and most people are only going to be watching it on season DVD’s they purchased.

i really hope in the future we are presented a 3rd line of shows that completely blows away what we thought we knew about TREK and really makes that giant step that Next Gen made from TOS, even when it had those gigantic films (and gigantic fanbase) to live up to.

39. endlessmug - December 18, 2006

i meant to write “an old man” not “and old man” btw

also, i was just thinking of crazy directors and what their take on trek would be. a funny image in my mind was Kubrick directing Trek. i don’t even know where that would lead. lol.

40. Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire - December 18, 2006

Ah yes, you can laugh at the seeming redundant inclusion of Transformers among such other literary giants as Holmes, heh heh, but my point was that if an idea is to become woven into the pop culture fabric and span generations, it must be concise, and to the point.

BTW, I picked up some presents for the Girlfriends child for Christmas, much to my surprises, not only were they Transformers, they were the same characters as when I was a child, 20 plus years ago.

So yes, Transformers have achieved that multi-generational resurgence far more effectively unfortunately than Star Trek.

(To any Transformers fans, you absolutely MUST see the recently announced Masterpeice Megatron collectible. WOW

41. Stanky McFibberich - December 18, 2006

I like how the graph expresses popularity of the movies in terms of tickets sold rather than box office receipts. Naturally movies that come out nowadays are going to do bigger box office with the same or smaller audience since ticket prices are many times that of when TMP came out.

42. endlessmug - December 18, 2006

http://cptjeanlucprime.ytmnd.com/

star trek + transformers = ???

idk, transformers has been around since the, what, 80′s? and STAR TREK has been here longer. i think more people know “beam me up scotty” and stuff to that extent or at least recognize spock’s pointy ears then if i were to mention Autobots or Decepticons.

43. gregored - December 18, 2006

I think one thing that has not been accounted for in the opening graphic is the continuing, ongoing viewership of all the incarnations of Star Trek. Not to deny the credibility of the chart, but are the DVD (and prior video tape) sales and rentals included? And the television viewership numbers, I would assume, include only the first-run airings. How many people still watch today, whenever Star Trek, in whatever form, airs. I read somewhere, maybe here, that ST2.0 is SpikeTV’s highest rated show.

If Star Trek were not still considered profitable, would a new movie even be in the works?

If Star Trek were not still considered profitable, would CBS being pouring time and money into creating the remastered episodes?

And what about the books? I have a comprehensive collection, (not quite complete, alas), but how many other “franchises” have generated at least a couple hundred continuations in printed fiction? The only other one that comes to mind is Doctor Who.

I would definitely love to see further stories on DVD or aired as one or more miniseries, but I think the restartup costs in rebuilding sets, at least, would preclude much happening in that area.

44. Trevok - December 19, 2006

The problem Trek has is the “idea bigger is better”. I would much perfer to see a Trek film which is well written and has a low budget than ST10. One problem no one at Paramount gets is Trek isn’t teenie-bopper fare. By far its apeal is to 40 plusses
Also Trek has always suffered from convenceinal rating systems.
Enterprise was the classic example, it was shown on the rarely watched Paramont network but it was listed as one of the most down loaded shows on the net.
I’m a firm believer in the idea of direct to DVD movies one reason being how many people actully go to cinimas these days compared to 79.
Direct to DVD is the way to go Disney has proven that and when the B5 direct to DVD movies come out they will further prove the point as did Firefly[dude to tv found a great audiance on DVD].

45. Flake - December 19, 2006

Well, looking at the numbers it is clear that the execs are banking on the success that Treks 1,2,3 and 4 got and to a lesser extent #8. Theres no reason to think that this is impossible, if its a genually good film then that combined with the marketing and extra novelty value of recasting the old crew could mean big numbers. If the movie gets bad or so-so reviews then it will only make Insurrection numbers, or worse.

46. endlessmug - December 19, 2006

when i mentioned this to my dad (who watched TOS as a kid) he said

“That’s nothing like the gap of a decade or so between the end of TOS and the first movie!!!”

i laughed at that.

47. Xai - December 19, 2006

Josh,
Star Trek, an adventure set in the future about exploration of space and other life in the universe.

Whew… that drew a lot of sweat.

Trek already IS myth and transends generations… 5 shows, 11 movies, comics, animated series (maybe 2), novels, fan stories, magazines, internet webisodes. Quite possibly the most culturally significant TV show ever.

If your view of what is culturally significant is accurate, you need to add Cabbage Patch dolls in there with Transformers. I hear they are back too.

48. William Noetling - December 19, 2006

One thing that the graph DOES NOT show is the ancillary sales – i.e. Video/Books/Toys/Ephemera. When all that licensing and merchandise is added into the picture, Trek is profitable. Has been for years and years. If it weren’t, they wouldn’t make the stuff, plain and simple.

49. Orbitalic - December 20, 2006

I am tired of the movie grosses and ratings points and “when did Trek die?” (it didn’t). Give me good Trek… entertain me. All else on here is secondary. It IS supposed to be entertainment.

Transformers?…pfffttt.

O

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.