20% off Everything At FandangoNOW

Star Trek, after Darkness: What is next for the franchise?

As readers of this site know, Star Trek Into Darkness opened domestically and internationally late Spring and has earned over $443 million dollars. This is a success for Paramount, albeit a modest one. It’s not a flop, by any measure… but it’s not a home run, either. It’s a solid double or triple, but Paramount (like all studios do with summer blockbusters) was swinging for the fences. So, what’s next? Well, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, there are some “known knowns” and “known unknowns.” Let’s cover what we know, and spend some time theorizing what comes next.

“Modest?” You may be thinking, “How is $443 million a ‘modest’ success?”

It’s a modest success for several reasons. First, it cost almost $190 million to make, and Paramount spent a considerable amount of money on advertising above and beyond the production cost (at least $50 million, by one estimate). Second, not all of that $443 million goes to Paramount – a significant percentage goes to the theaters that show the film (1/3rd to 1/2, depending on what is negotiated and how long the film runs). Finally, while it exceeded the International ticket sales of the first film, it did not have the 2X multiplier against domestic box office that other summer films (like Iron Man 3 or Fast and Furious 6) achieved.

Add to that the demographics of the people who paid to see Star Trek Into Darkness (only 25% were under 25, much less than the 35% that the first film attracted according to The Wrap), and you can definitely see that things were not as hoped.

The 50th Anniversary

2016 will mark the 50th anniversary of the debut of Star Trek, and releasing a new Star Trek film that year is a no-brainer – Like Skyfall showed last year, there’s a lot of benefit that can be gained from releasing a film that ties into an anniversary year. Will it happen? Paramount has not yet officially stated that there will be a third Star Trek film, which is surprising – they announced a sequel to Star Trek shortly after that film opened. However, co-writer Damon Lindelof has stated in interviews the film is going ahead. Paramount is rumored to be looking for a new director to replace JJ Abrams (who is committed to directing the next Star Wars film). Names of directors that are purportedly being have been Joe Cornish (Attack the Block), Matt Reaves (Cloverfield). Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy) and Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men). Neill Blomkamp, the director of District 9, was also a rumored name on Paramount’s short list, but he recently stated in an interview he is not interested in directing Star Trek or any other franchise film.

They [Paramount] are firm about having a movie out by the 50th anniversary [in 2016] and we are all trying to see if we can all make it work together. — Orci and Kurtzman in an interview with TrekMovie.com


TrekMovie spoke with Trek writers Orci and Kurtzman who’d like to see a 2016/50th anniversary film happen

Bad Robot

At this point, it looks like Bad Robot will continue to be involved in any potential sequel to Into Darkness, and the writers of the film have discussed wanting to bring Klingons back as the main villains of any third film. Since Bad Robot is JJ Abram’s production company, he will presumably have some input into the story and creative decisions even with his commitment to Star Wars Episode VII.

Above and beyond that, the ongoing Star Trek comic book (supervised by Trek movie writer Bob Orci) will continue to tell new stories set after Into Darkness and adapt classic TOS episodes. As the comic laid hints as to what would happen Into Darkness, it may be worth keeping an eye on for “clues” as to what will take place in the third film.

A lower-budget sequel?

How will Paramount respond to the modest success of Star Trek Into Darkness? Possibly by reducing the budget of the third film. This could be a good thing, in that a reduced budget could increase focus on telling a tight story and on character moments. A Star Trek sequel with a reduced budget wouldn’t be anything new – Paramount cut the budget for the first Trek sequel, and in return we got The Wrath of Khan. Less money doesn’t mean reduced quality – sometimes budgetary constraints can produce creative solutions and better ideas.

A return to television?

Star Trek started on television, and many fans think that Star Trek is better suited to episodic TV than to films (former Star Trek writer and show runner Ronald D. Moore has also said as much in interviews). Writer/producer Bryan Fuller, who is currently working on the series Hannibal, has repeatedly said he would love to helm a new Star Trek series.

Will it happen? Maybe, but don’t count on it.

Thanks to a large splitting up of Viacom properties in 2005, two different companies effectively own the Star Trek franchise: CBS Studios now owns Star Trek as a television property and Paramount Pictures owns the film properties. While they have a relationship where the “Star Trek” name and characters are cross licensed to one another, there are two different managements that exist and these managements would have to work together to make a new Star Trek series. This won’t be easy, because corporations are… interesting places (think Dilbert). Doing Star Trek on TV again would require a significant investment in sets and special effects before a single episode is filmed, and it would take a big commitment for any network or cable channel to green-light such a production.

An animated series has been rumored for some time, and such a series would cost less than a live-action series… but there are challenges there as well. What is the target audience? Will it be a “dumbed-down” version of Trek for younger viewers? Or will it be a more intelligent series, like the recent Star Wars: Clone Wars show? When would it be set, and would it attempt to bring in recognized voice actors (like Patrick Stewart) to appeal to fans?

A lot of moving parts have to come together to make a successful Star Trek series. Is it worth trying? Absolutely. But, as noted above, there are challenges.

Continued merchandising, video releases and tie-ins

There are multiple companies producing Star Trek merchandise: Diamond Select, Simon and Schuster, Round 2 Models, Her Universe and more. New games, posters, collectibles and clothing items will continue to be made, all intended to separate fans from their hard-earned Latinum… err, dollars. CBS is busy remastering all the Star Trek: The Next Generation seasons, and have recently started releasing Enterprise on Blu-ray. A high definition remastering of Deep Space Nine may also occur, depending on how the Blu-ray sets of ST:TNG and Enterprise sell.

However, things aren’t all rosy when it comes to merchandising. Star Trek the Video Game released to tie-in with the new film flopped, with tepid sales and horrible reviews. Hasbro released Star Trek building sets (through its Kre-O line) to tie-in with the new Star Trek film, though soft sales may halt the creation of additional sets. Finally, the soft economy (along with on-line streaming services) has reduced “catalog” sales on all home video titles, and this has impacted the sales of season and movie sets.

While there’s a lot of fan-centered merchandise on the market for the various franchises, there are also a whole lot of Star Trek fans out there… and many of them will continue to purchase Trek-related products to line their shelves and display cabinets for the foreseeable future.

Ongoing fan productions

While it may be at least three years since we get new Trek on the big screen, there IS new Trek being made. In edition to the Star Trek: Phase II production, Star Trek Continues recently premiered to much praise. While both productions have some shot-comings (due to it’s low budget) both are entertaining original takes on the original series, telling new stories with the involvement of some of the creative team from the original series (such as DC Fontana and David Gerrold). This is in addition to other “one-off” fan efforts and older shows that have ceased production. So check out these interesting takes on the Star Trek universe.

Star Trek lives!

Star Trek is still a viable franchise, with fans around the world excited to share their love of the series with their fellow Trekkers (or Trekkies, depending on your preference). While some fans were frustrated with some of the creative decisions in the latest film, many others enjoyed the film. The reason for such strong reactions, both pro and con, is simple: People LOVE Star Trek, and it holds a special place in people’s hearts. And as long as it provokes such a passionate reaction, Star Trek will never die.

Stay tuned to TrekMovie for the latest news about the potential third film and all things Trek.

Joseph Dickerson will be speaking about this topic and Treknology at the upcoming official Star Trek Convention in Las Vegas. He writes about technology design and pop culture at http://www.josephdickerson.com


Sort by:   newest | oldest
PC3
July 11, 2013 3:00 pm

Something NEW for a change – Don’t save the whales again!!!!!

Kevin
July 11, 2013 3:08 pm

listen…… it was OUT ONLINE…. free to be watched.. (albeit a lower quality version) THE DAY BEFORE IT CAME OUT IN THEATERS in the U.S……. that in and of itself, had to have contributed to (taken away from) the bottom line…. those young people probably WATCHED IT ONLINE …. FREE…. try not releasing it to OTHER COUNTRIES FIRST who will, with wreckless abandon… let people bring video cams into theaters…. and you will probably get a bit better revenue.

it took a couple of days for ironman 3 to come out, online…… probably what gave it the financial boost. that… and we love RDjr.’s PORTRAYAL of tony starke.

Ttn
July 11, 2013 3:11 pm

New is what is needed. Beyond TNG. We can do so much better than anything that came before – and with Roddenberry stories. Set it way out there – where no one has gone before.

Kevin
July 11, 2013 3:11 pm

having a prancy brit…. with weird bangs, play KAHN probably didnt help either.

Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire
July 11, 2013 3:14 pm

Well. Star Trek Into Darkness was an Ok Film. I have only seen it once. I usually see a Trek Movie an avarage of 4 to 6 times. With Trek 2 at 12 and Trek 6 at 9 and Trek 09 6 times. We all said please do not do a Khan Story. Make it an Orignal. I respect Bob Orci and I know he did the best he could in making a great movie. Of all the 12 Trek Movies i would rate Into Darkenss at #8 of the 12 for overall Story. Fx would be a #1. But FX as great as it is. Can only do so much.

Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire
July 11, 2013 3:16 pm

Oh and We must have a Movie for the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek. Not to do so would be. Illogical.

Platitude
July 11, 2013 3:20 pm

I’d love to see more Klingons in the sequel.

As for television, I think it would be great if they had Ron Moore develop and write a new show.

TardisCaptain
July 11, 2013 3:21 pm

I see the release of a third film. But no more films after that in the alternate universe. Some of the actors have other roles and may not want to return to Star Trek. So we may have a dry spell on the movie side of things after 2016.

However I would do anything to get Star Trek back on TV. I could see a series starting or announced in 2016 as well since the no TV clause should be done when the last movie is made. Yes Star Trek belongs on television. You get more stories that way, more people talking about the product (at least more than once every 3-4 years) which results in more sales of merchandise.

Red Dead Ryan
July 11, 2013 3:22 pm

Next time, Paramount has to get its North American marketing strategy in order. The marketing for STID in the U.S. and Canada was virtually non-existent. Not to mention we had to wait a couple of weeks after movie premiered in international markets, and have the spoiled for us online.

Next, the Trek season set Blu Rays are too expensive. They should not be above $50 apiece. When you’re selling them at prices up to $100 it doesn’t take Pythagorus (sp.?) to figure out that fewer people will buy them, meaning less revenue for CBS.

Finally, they’re going to have to get going on the third one. No more dicking around with side projects and “Star Wars” planking. There simply is no excuse to not get the movie out for the anniversary.

Exverlobter
July 11, 2013 3:27 pm

Almost 450 Million at the box office is considered just a “moderate” hit while the predecessor was considered a “great” hit with 385 Million.
How does that fit together?

Aaron
July 11, 2013 3:27 pm

“Paramount Home Video is busy remastering all the Star Trek: The Next Generation seasons, and have recently started re-releasing Enterprise in HD. ”

They’re being remastered CBS Digital and CBS Home Entertainment.

Yob Benami
July 11, 2013 3:27 pm

I actually read this whole article. Very interesting. Well done Joseph!

Al Jalaikakik
July 11, 2013 3:28 pm

Absolutely Star Trek should be back on TV. Whatever the difficulties involved in Television, the franchise will not survive long on one movie every 3-4 years. I’m already tiring of that format.

The fan productions alone show that it CAN be done very well on a low budget. With the resources of even a modest network show, it can easily be done better that those.

DavidJ
July 11, 2013 3:30 pm

I think it’s pretty obvious that the general audience just had a hard time getting as excited about the darker, terrorism-themed STID.

The end of the first movie promised a fun, space exploration adventure movie… not some dark and gritty Khan revenge thriller. In the trailers STID basically looked like every OTHER overblown action movie out there, and didn’t have the unique enough feel that the first movie had.

The Trekman
July 11, 2013 3:32 pm

If the third movie does come out in 2016, it should be a something epic to mark the 50th Anniversary. Since the first movie saw the creation of this alternate timeline, the threat should be the destruction of the timeline and maybe all timelines including the prime timeline. This would give them the opportunity to bring back old faces throughout franchise (Picard, Shatner’s Kirk, etc.) where they all have to work together to save the Star Trek multiverse.

Basically it should be a cross between a Doctor Who Anniversary special and DC’s Crisis On Infinite Earths

trekkie626
July 11, 2013 3:37 pm

Genesis, calling it now.

Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire
July 11, 2013 3:38 pm

The Next Trek Movie should have Angry Tribbles as the Villan. Lol.

DavidJ
July 11, 2013 3:41 pm

10

No matter how well a film does worldwide, they still take notice when a sequel ‘s domestic gross falls below the first film’s.

In this case it’s about $34 million below. For a sequel to a huge hit like the Trek09, the gross should be a lot HIGHER than that.

MattR
July 11, 2013 3:44 pm

#2. That argument doesn’t work when Fast Six and Iron Man 3, both heavily watched by the younger demographic made SIGNIFICANTLY more than Trek did. Fast Six is at $700 mil worldwide, while Iron Man 3 is at $1.2 bil, and both films opened internationally first like Trek. Piracy has a smaller impact than people think.

miketen
July 11, 2013 3:48 pm

So the third movie is going to feature Klingons. Let me guess, Kruge is going to be in the next movie commanding a bird of prey. Will we also get the Genesis planet in the next movie?

I’d love Trek to go back to TV, there is a lot of good sci-fi recently on TV that had good FX on a tight budget. Look at Battlestar Galactica or Stargate Universe, two show done on modest budgets I’d really like to know what Paramount spent $190 million dollars on, and this isn’t a knock on the Trek movies, most movies today have incredible budgets that seem way too high.

July 11, 2013 3:48 pm

“What is the target audience? Will it be a “dumbed-down” version of Trek for younger viewers?”

If Star Trek is still in the hands of anyone in JJ’s High Court, you should already know that answer.

Phil
July 11, 2013 3:48 pm

Agree that while the franchise is viable, there are weeds in the garden. Gotta wonder how jumpy Paramount is about franchises, as it’s been noted that worldwide franchise box office is down about 20% this year, Disney’s meltdown on John Carter and Lone Ranger, both projects that they intended to be franchises, and Paramount resuscitating Terminator (with Arnold, Mr. Box Office cyanide) involved – a franchise better left dead at this point. I can see wisdom in better management, but it’s foolish now to treat Trek as an afterthought.

Paul
July 11, 2013 3:50 pm

So what’s a “trekker” anyway? Does the old definition – “a trekker: a trekkie who’s ashamed of being a trekkie” – still work?

As for Trek in TV – there’s a ton of TV-style Trek made by fans, and it is not amateur production anymore. Do we really need any “official” series? Many households got rid of their TV sets anyway, everything is on the internet these days.

AyanEva
July 11, 2013 3:50 pm

Good article! Well a lot of money can be saved by getting rid of the 3D. I loved it in IMAX 3D but it’s not totally necessary. If a smaller budget means more character moments, then this is a good thing. For the 50th anniversary, we don’t need huge explosions, we need a huge story! I absolutely love STID but let’s do something we absolutely haven’t seen before.

TUP
July 11, 2013 3:52 pm

I know a lot of people will disagree but a 50th anniversary flick must be a full franchise epic.

You want to crack half a billion? Get shatner and Stewart involved. Period.

Thomas
July 11, 2013 3:55 pm

This was an idea for a film, but I think this would be better suited for a series:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Beginning

Done right, this could be amazing. It could end up being what ENT should’ve been.

Lostrod
July 11, 2013 4:01 pm

What is:

“Modest?” You may be thinking, “How is $43 million a ‘modest’ success?”

Referring to?

Regards.

Ahmed
July 11, 2013 4:03 pm

@ 25. TUP – July 11, 2013

“I know a lot of people will disagree but a 50th anniversary flick must be a full franchise epic.
You want to crack half a billion? Get shatner and Stewart involved. Period.”

Agree, the 2016 movie should be an epic Trek story than span both timelines. Enough with dumb stories or Kirk the skirt chaser. I want to see Captain Kirk who actually leads his crew & think with his mind.

And I think it will be amazing to have Shatner & Stewart in that movie.

Craiger
July 11, 2013 4:06 pm

I think now we wont see a new Trek TV series until after the third movie since now it looks like STID just did ok. Probably wont be until 2017 or 2018 when we would get a new series. Imagine the SFX by then? Maybe they will be awesome and cheaper to make? I wonder if they could look real enough not to even need sets? Would doing green screen save money on production?

William Bradley
July 11, 2013 4:07 pm

Terrific piece!

Very strong overview of the overall!

Khan 2.0
July 11, 2013 4:07 pm
i think they should take no chances and do the borg for ST3 in 2016 (Star Treks Skyfall) -Although the borg have been done to death on TNG (& VOY/ENT) and in a prior film, they are firmly a TNG era villain and we have never seen Kirk and Co have anything to do with them (bar a comic in the Star Trek Manga series and Shatners ‘The Return’). Fans would obviously be intrigued with how Kirk, Spock would deal with the borg threat (almost a TOS vs TNG/Kirk v Picard thing going down) -post Q Who/BOBW part 1 (when the borg were at their most menacing) they always seemed to have a spokesperson which lessened their impact somewhat – so while initially it would seem they are treading old ground it would actually be fresh if it was a more alien non Locutus/Lore/Queen led borg vs Kirk and Spock. (so it would really be a remake of Q Who but with TOS characters sans Q) -the budget would be in the $150-200m range (First Contact = $45m in 1996) so we could see a totally new version of the borg with todays FX. a far more frightening interpretation more Ridley Scott/HR Giger style pushing the boundaries of the PG13 rating and leaning more toward horror Sci Fi – Star Trek does Aliens/Terminator (like FC but even more so) -We havent seen the origin of the borg yet or the borg homeworld – so maybe the origins could be explored… Read more »
CJS
July 11, 2013 4:07 pm

Dump Godawful Robot.
Budget about $70 million.
Recast Kirk, Scotty, Uhura and Sulu.
Find a director who has more than lens flares in his repertoire. Someone new and unknown.

Vultan
July 11, 2013 4:19 pm

Hey, I like Shatner and Stewart as much as the next guy, but why does the big anniversary movie need them? Did Skyfall need Connery and Moore to be a success?

Phil
July 11, 2013 4:21 pm

Paramount’s reaction to Trek is a bit of a head scratcher at this point – WWZ is tracking very similar to STID, and that sequel has been announced. That silence does suggest there are issues behind the scenes, more so then Orci and Kurtzman checking their calendars.

Speaking of which, these guys can’t be let off the hook – they kept insisting last time out that they were well into the script when in fact they were not. If they can’t do it, fine, but lay the cards on the table up front. They were really loose with their commitments last time around, on a tighter schedule, they need to be more up front about what their priorities are.

bassman
July 11, 2013 4:21 pm

Yeah, no more alternate universe. I don’t care about these characters, the ship or even Earth because it doesn’t impact anything. They could blow it all up…and so what?
Let’s get back to the prime universe. It doesn’t have to be the same pace or tone of the last few series. There’s a lot they could do, without rebooting anything or invalidating history.

Ahmed
July 11, 2013 4:28 pm

@ 33. Vultan – July 11, 2013

“Hey, I like Shatner and Stewart as much as the next guy, but why does the big anniversary movie need them?”

Because the current crew is young & not stars yet. For the anniversary , they really need to bring in some of Star Trek legends like Shatner & Stewart.

Khan 2.0
July 11, 2013 4:31 pm

@33 – no as Connery and Moore were both playing the same Bond before the series was rebooted with Craig

that said i think Connery was originally a possibility to appear in Skyfall in the caretakers role

Red Dead Ryan
July 11, 2013 4:36 pm

Ahmed – July 11, 2013

“Because the current crew is young & not stars yet. For the anniversary , they really need to bring in some of Star Trek legends like Shatner & Stewart.”

Uh, no. Leonard Nimoy’s appearance in “Star Trek” was excellent, because of Spock Prime’s necessary role in the reboot. His cameo in “Star Trek Into Darkness”, on the other hand, was not needed, and felt forced.

I just think they’re risking going to the well too many times by continually writing cameos for old cast members.

Allen Williams
July 11, 2013 4:38 pm

We need the following
1) TV show – after voyager (maybe even mention what happened to them when they got back)
2) an ORIGINAL movie. I was pissed when I found out who was in this film and have yet to watch it as a result.

Marja
July 11, 2013 4:41 pm
STiD was only a modest success domestically for a few reasons: 1 – No panel discussion at ComiCon. That would’ve been all over YouTube within the week. What were they thinking to snub ComiCon? 2 – Domestic promotion sucked; only a 2-week TV advert saturation campaign [which turns off a lot of TV viewers, seeing the same ad three times in an hour] right before the film opened in the US; 3 – In-theatre promotion sucked; those beautiful “character poster” and lobby cards should have been in theatres right alongside the IronMan3 standees, which were out for TWO MONTHS before IM3 opened. Nope. All we had were gloomy grey posters with a little orange on [flames of course], an apocalyptic-looking let’s-copy-Batman poster [ANOTHER one?], little to identify it as Trek. And where were the STiD giant soda cups? A lot of people have also mentioned fast-food and other merchandise tie-ins which could have come out 2-3 months in advance of opening; 4 – Stars’ US TV appearances were again limited to the week before opening, for god’s sake; 5 – Should have opened in 3rd week in April and beat IM3 to the punch in Action Movie openings; 6 – An appearance by Zoe Saldana/Zachary Quinto on the British Jonathan Ross show was one that should have happened in the US also, say on Conan O’Brien or Late Night with Jimmy Fallon; Karl Urban is a ST fan as well as actor, with great perceptions and humor and could have… Read more »
MARTIN
July 11, 2013 4:44 pm

@31 KHAN 2.0
Brilliant I totally agree the BORG should defo be in the next film.
the original series back in the 60s never had the effects to do the borg back then and kirk and spock have never encounted them before, plus imagine how many lens flaires they could do.
plus all those red,blue,green and yellow lights.

MARTIN
July 11, 2013 4:45 pm

@31 KHAN 2.0
Brilliant I totally agree the BORG should defo be in the next film.
the original series back in the 60s never had the effects to do the borg back then and kirk and spock have never encounted them before, plus imagine how many lens flaires they could do.
plus all those red,blue,green and yellow lights.

D.J. Ammons
July 11, 2013 4:48 pm
I have been tracking the box office of STID since day one. I was looking to see if Paramount was able to increase the dismal foreign box office ST 2009 had. I was pleased to see that the big PR push overseas paid off in a much bigger foreign box office but shocked to see the domestic take come in lower for Into Darkness than ST 2009. Much lower. I thought for sure that the 2009 reboot had broadened the fan base in both its theatrical release and on Blu-ray / DVD / Cable tv ,and that this would mean increased box office for the second film. I was wrong. As I type this on 7/11 Box Office Mojo is showing Into Darknes domestic BO at $223.5 million at what is essentially the end of its theatrical run domestically, ST 2009 ended domestically with $257.7 million. About $35 million more than Into Darkness. If the foreign box office had not increased from a dismal $128 million for ST 2009 to $221 million for Into Darkness, the film would be considered a bust. I am totally shocked as I think Into Darkness is a worthy follow up to ST 2009. Some articles have suggested that the Star Trek property rights being split between CBS for tv and Paramount for features has caused issues in developing marketing tie ins that can promote these type films. The bottom line is that it is clear ST 2009 did not break through to the younger… Read more »
kmart
July 11, 2013 4:49 pm

The ONLY name that I can think of who would get me to see a TREK film in a theater again is Cuaron.

I was flabbergasted when I heard awhile back that he was involved with some Bad Robot TV project, it is like hiring Salvador Dali to illustrate baby food jars, but this … this I could see, especially if the Bad Robot regulars got out of his way (or better yet, were kicked out of his way) and let him tear things up.

Just on the basis of his POTTER and CHILDREN OF MEN and 90 seconds of trailer for GRAVITY, he’d bring SO much to the table that TREK needs, in terms of not getting bogged down with exposition and with creating strangely new worlds economically …

LizardGirl
July 11, 2013 4:53 pm

@14 DavidJ

I don’t think it was the message that disinterested viewers. It was the time lapse between the first movie and this movie. Plus, outside of trekkie circles not many average viewers knew about the movie until, literally, this year when they FINALLY started advertising the campaign.

The slogan for the production of this movie was “It’s a secret!”… no one knew anything. Even we fans had very little to get excited about last year. Next time they need to start….actually NOW they need to start on the next film! Lay the ground work for the story and ect. Show up at Comicon, etc. with SOMETHING tangible in 2015.

****
Hi, BB! ^_^

LizardGirl
July 11, 2013 4:55 pm

Ooops! Wrong thread! But if you’re stop by this one BB….Hi!

MikeB
July 11, 2013 5:02 pm

@40 Marja
I agree with most of your ideas. Well thought out. I dread the not unexpected idea of Klingons as the next movie’s focus. Bad idea. Klingons have been done to death. They will not pull in the viewers Paramount wants so badly. Besides that, why all the build-up in STID for the Five Year Mission and all the potential there to just return to the same old Klingon stuff?
As for building the audience, what Trek desperately needs is a TV accompaniment to the movies. All the other big franchises have a TV presence. The best bet is a kid friendly but adult accessible show like Clone Wars and some of the Batmen series. This would create a larger kid audience complete with a desire for toys and keep some momentum going between the films.
Also – PLEASE no Borg!! Something NEW!!!!!!

Sebastian S.
July 11, 2013 5:11 pm

How about a plot that doesn’t leak all over when you apply any critical thinking to it? A fresh set of writers might be in order; all of Orci, Kurtzman & Lindelof’s movies are starting to feel like the same story recycled over and over….

And maybe a nice return to exploring ‘strange, new worlds…’
I know we’ll never see a bold experiment like ST-TMP, but can they really need to stop recycling parts from “The Wrath of Khan” (dialogue, names, homages and even death scenes).

I realize TWOK was the ST movie that ‘changed everything’ but how about a NEW ST movie that changes things yet again without referencing ‘the needs of the many’ or ‘I have been and ever shall be…’ or ‘ship out of danger’ blah, blah, blah.

Honestly, at times STID felt like a broken record…. repeating the same lines over and over again. Did Nick Meyer get royalties?

I’d like to see some genuine space exploration and seeking out new life; that’s something the franchise hasn’t done in a very LONG time.

Dee - lvs moon surface
July 11, 2013 5:24 pm

#9. Red Dead Ryan

I totally agree with you regarding the promotion of the film in U.S. … apparently interviews in those talk shows that were more interested in talking nonsense about nothing than to talk about the film not very helpful!

They made the world premiere of “Into Darkness” in London without live stream and in LA, too … Did anyone see how fantastic was the premiere of Skyfall in London, with live stream?…and, without junket press in US, too!

Btw, the premiere of STID in Berlin was great… and, I know because of the live stream! ;-)

THX-1138
July 11, 2013 5:36 pm

Releasing STID outside of the US a month in advance was a gigantic mistake. As noble as Trek fans would like to say they are, the majority of us rushed to any site claiming to have plot spoilers. And then we were disappointed to find out what the plot actually was, in part because we had been lied to about Khan all along. That’s bad juju.

My vote would be to dump everybody involved in the production save for Ben Burtt and Michael Giaccino (sp?). And if you want to make a big splash for the 50th anniversary RESET THE TIMELINE. Have it be a big fix and a set up for a Trek series that takes place in THE PRIME UNIVERSE. Have Picard and Riker and everybody crossover into the AU in order to set things straight and make it a grand spectacle, seeing as I doubt that any more Trek movies are going to get made after this third one. And while you’re at it, set the new series 100 years after Voyager and let’s EXPLORE SOME STRANGE NEW WORLDS.

Like I said, that’s my vote. It’ll never happen and whatever does happen will probably disappoint me.

wpDiscuz