Longest Period Without A Trek Film Since 1979

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

Sort by:   newest | oldest
stallion
December 17, 2006 1:36 pm

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

December 17, 2006 1:47 pm

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

December 17, 2006 2:00 pm

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.

Dom
December 17, 2006 2:01 pm

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!!

Eric Augst
December 17, 2006 3:06 pm

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.

ozy
December 17, 2006 3:11 pm

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

Dave R
December 17, 2006 3:18 pm

Great Chart, Thanks for taking the time!

Viking
December 17, 2006 3:46 pm

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.

December 17, 2006 3:52 pm

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.

Eric Augst
December 17, 2006 3:59 pm

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.

James Heaney
December 17, 2006 4:02 pm

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.

Litenbug
December 17, 2006 4:35 pm

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.

ALLAN ROSE
December 17, 2006 4:46 pm

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.

Longwinded
December 17, 2006 4:52 pm

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.

Viking
December 17, 2006 5:05 pm

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.

seangh
December 17, 2006 5:29 pm

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.

JON
December 17, 2006 5:30 pm

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.

Adam Cohen
December 17, 2006 5:56 pm
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… Read more »
MichaelJohn
December 17, 2006 7:54 pm
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… Read more »
Litenbug
December 17, 2006 7:59 pm

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.

Litenbug
December 17, 2006 8:00 pm

oops I meant #16

Litenbug
December 17, 2006 8:10 pm

#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.

Adam Cohen
December 17, 2006 8:47 pm

#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.

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk esquire
December 17, 2006 9:12 pm

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.

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk esquire
December 17, 2006 9:24 pm

Interesting that Kirk was killed in ’94.

Adam Cohen
December 17, 2006 9:37 pm

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

mikeg
December 17, 2006 9:38 pm
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… Read more »
MichaelJohn
December 17, 2006 10:04 pm

#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

stallion
December 17, 2006 10:06 pm

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

Herbert Eyes Wide Open
December 18, 2006 8:03 am
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… Read more »
bdrcarter
December 18, 2006 9:08 am

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.

StephenMartin
December 18, 2006 2:55 pm

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.

Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire
December 18, 2006 4:52 pm

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.

Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire
December 18, 2006 5:02 pm

^^^^^^

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.

December 18, 2006 7:09 pm

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………..;)

endlessmug
December 18, 2006 7:50 pm
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… Read more »
endlessmug
December 18, 2006 7:58 pm

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.

Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire
December 18, 2006 8:17 pm

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

Stanky McFibberich
December 18, 2006 8:21 pm

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.

endlessmug
December 18, 2006 8:30 pm

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.

gregored
December 18, 2006 10:41 pm

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.

Trevok
December 19, 2006 4:57 am

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].

Flake
December 19, 2006 9:16 am

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.

endlessmug
December 19, 2006 5:35 pm

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.

Xai
December 19, 2006 10:06 pm

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.

December 19, 2006 10:16 pm

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.

Orbitalic
December 20, 2006 9:15 pm

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

wpDiscuz