Comments on: Longest Period Without A Trek Film Since 1979

By: Orbitalic

Orbitalic — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:15:33 +0000

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.

By: William Noetling

William Noetling — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:16:12 +0000

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.

By: Xai

Xai — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:06:17 +0000

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.

By: endlessmug

endlessmug — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:35:00 +0000

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.

By: Flake

Flake — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:16:09 +0000

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.

By: Trevok

Trevok — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:57:00 +0000

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].

By: gregored

gregored — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:41:48 +0000

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.

By: endlessmug

endlessmug — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:30:16 +0000

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.

By: Stanky McFibberich

Stanky McFibberich — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:21:15 +0000

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.

By: Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire

Josh T. (Tiberius) Kirk Esquire — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:17:53 +0000

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