Welcome to! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Star Trek News and Rumours



  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    edited August 2020 #242
    So those of you living in the States and have not bothered with getting CBSAA, to see current Trek.
    You can now rejoice or maybe not. The first season of Star Trek Discovery is coming to CBS this September with all episode aired weekly.

    Why are they doing this? Put simply CBS has nothing to put on during this time, due to the Covid.
    Normally they would have started filming back in March/ April for the start of the new TV season. But with the Lockdown shutting down all production they where unable to do this. So Now they have to find content to put on and with three Seasons of Trek (two of Discovery and one of Picard) that have never been broadcasted in the States they are able to use this.

    Could this be a good thing?
    That is a good question, some of you like current Trek and some don't.
    With the first season now going onto their terrestrial channel, it will mean people that have not picked up CBSAA will now be able to watch it. It also means the casual viewer could turn in.
    CBS has never realised it viewing numbers for CBSAA. But with it on the terrestrial channel, it now mean that we what is the audience figures are and if they go up or down. Of course this won't give a proper indication of what the shows viewer figures are, as those that have CBSAA and like the show won't watch as they can just go to CBSAA and binge the show. But it should give a rough idea how the show is doing on CBSAA.

    Nothing has been said if Season 2 and 3 will follow down the road.

    On a side note, Season three of Discovery will still be an exclusive of CBSAA and will start this October on the streaming service.
    Netflix are still to announce when the show is airing, if it ever will for the rest of the world.
    Post edited by Freak on
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1801843 Posts: 9,995Member
    This is a good move either way. For one thing, probably a lot of people haven't seen the show due to it being a CBSAA exclusive over here. And, it could draw in people who aren't even Star Trek fans. Whether or not it's good Star Trek may be irrelevant to people who are bored and have nothing else to watch but reruns. Also, if they draw in new fans, there's no way that could be a bad thing.
  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
    well that explains it i guess.., if you watch tos now you do go oh wow.... really... because every 5 minutes spock and kirk are slapping a woman around... it's amazing when you watch it back now... obviously its "of its time"... After watching the bird cage a few weeks ago, i did think that this actualyy does fit the tone of kurtzman trek.. So the first officer punching out the captain and firing on an alien ship totally makes sense now... because why wouldn't you... i'm sure what he means by skipped tng is that he watched an episode and thought well this is just people talking... rubbish... who's the interviewer?? is he after a job do you think?? someone needs to tell him to tone it down a bit...
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    With Discovery Season 3 just over a month away. Netflix has still not given a realises date.
    A rumour has now started to circulate, that they have now been able to get out of their contract for Star Trek Discovery. (The part where they get to show all the other shows are still in place.)
    As they have got out of their contract they will not be showing season 3. As Netflix has pulled out, Secret Hideout has lost a huge chunk of the finance, they need to get it made. So we will hear two things. Season 4 has been pushed back or it has been cancelled. (Personally I think it might have been cancelled as the sets in Pinewood Toronto where they film the show have been pulled down.)

    Netflix will also not be adding the second "season" of Short Treks to the site. (the first "Season" can be found in the Trailers and Extra's of Discovery.)

    Amazon has still not signed on for a season 2 of Picard. Though that might not going ahead as Secret Hideout can't get insurance for Sir Patrick Stewart.

    Now I do not know how solid this rumour is as it also states that Netflix still hold the exclusive rights for season 1 & 2 internationally for the next six months. However here in the UK, E4 showed season 1 last year. If Netflix has the exclusive rights it would have meant that E4 would have had to negotiate with Netflix and CBS to show it.

    Like I said I don't know how solid this rumour is, but given what we are now hearing over the last months with Emma Watson. There is some weight behind it.

    With Rumours done onto News
    CBSAA has put all the Short Treks onto their Youtube channel and have been up for a few weeks. The Videos are region blocked which means if you want to watch them and live outside the US, you will need to use a VPN.
    I have a look at the page and the view counts are not that great. (In the low thousands.) Some are better, but this is only because it you go to the page it auto-play's counting as a view or there have been imbedded into a webpage with the auto-play again counting as a view.
    You can tell this form the like/dislike ratio and comments in the comments section.
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    To mark the day the first Episode of Star Trek to ever air. CBS has announced Star Trek Day on the 8th of September.

    On the official Star Trek webs site, they will be streaming a selection of episodes from each of the series for free. However this is only available to those living in USA.

    The Website will also have panel form each of the series with the Exception of Picard. (Patrick Stewart is doing the TNG one with Johnathan Frakes.) This will be available to everyone for free.
    They will also be making some announcements during this event.

    Basically this CBS attempt at DC Fandome which happened two week ago. However I don't think it will be anywhere near as successful as that.
  • ViperViper1185 Posts: 677Administrator
    It's funny how every single news that are negative (show being cancelled, kurtzman being fired) comes either from those shitty youtube channels or from 4chan. Personally, I'll wait until we have official confirmation of any of that either from a true media source or from CBS themselves.
    Freak wrote: »
    (Personally I think it might have been cancelled as the sets in Pinewood Toronto where they film the show have been pulled down.)

    I read an article that said that was not true at all. Sets are still up.
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    edited September 2020 #248
    One day to go until Star Trek Day kicks off.

    CBS has realised this poster for it.

    However, this did not go down to well with Shatner.


    The man that stared in the show that kicked it all off has not even been invited to talk about it for the Original Series panel. Instead that panel will only be with George Takei and Rod Roddenberry. None of the other surviving cast members have been asked to appear. (It should be noted that Nichelle Nichols is now suffering with dementia, though she did appear at last years Star Trek Las Vegas and it was rumoured that she was going to appear this year before the lockdown happened as her last.)

    Shatner has also been digging the knife in with tweets to Kurtzman and CBS asking why no-one from the Kelvin Movies are appearing in their own panel for Star Trek day and wondering if they are but only in the Kelvin Timeline.

    The poster itself has also not gone down to well with some fans, asking why is Discovery the only ship on it. Why are Kirk so small, why is their four members of the original cast on it. (it was done for diversity) yet none of the mini-minority's from the other show are not on their like Michael Dorn, Garrett Wang, Tim Russ, Robert Beltran and Alexander Siddig just to name a few.
    Why is no-one from Enterprise, is on this poster?

    These fans are also backing this poster for the day.

    As you can see it is missing any Trek post 2005. But it gives a better representative of Trek and the different shows. It would not take much to update, to include current Star Trek and the Kelvin films.
    Post edited by Freak on
  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
    i'm not on twitter but i might join just to follow bill.... lol
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    I not either, but I do look every now and then. His Tweets are gold, epically when the SJW go after him.
    He Slaps them down and put them in their place every time. It just pure gold watching him.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1801843 Posts: 9,995Member
    For me, the fan poster just works better as an art piece and as a celebration of Star Trek. The imagery flow just works better. You've got the Star Trek delta with the 6 captains inside of it (really nice to see Jeffrey Hunter as Pike on there.) Nobody's picture is majorly larger than any other, yet you still get a sense of depth with the way they're layered. Then you've got the ships and station surrounding it, with the NX looking like it's actually flying out of the center section. In fact, with the flare and the streaks coming out of the center, you get a nice visual flow from that center outward. Arguably, the only series not represented on the poster is Discovery, but that was probably left out due to that fan simply not liking that series.

    The official one is a whole other thing. First, it does flow nicely from the bottom with the warp streaks from Discovery bringing you eye up into the center of the image. However, getting up into the image itself, it's just kind of bland and has no flow after that. The images of the people just don't flow as well as the fan one. There's nothing like that flare in the fan one that takes your eye out into the rest of the image, leaving you basically in the center. I suspect that's intentional, as they clearly want to show Picard and Burnham more prominently to promote those shows. But, as an art piece, it just isn't as visually pleasing. The pictures of the people besides those two are also really odd. They're layered and blended OK, but there's a false sense of depth that's clearly false as many of the images look just randomly sized. For example, Uhura is sized to where it's believable that she's in the background behind Janeway, but then they're both in front of Picard, who is huge by comparison. You get the same thing on the other side with Pike clearly being behind Burnham, but then Sisko is much smaller in front of her. I get that it's a poster, but it's just not as visually pleasing as how the characters are presented on the other one. Also, the selection of characters is odd. You've got 4 from TOS and 2 from Discovery. 1 each from TNG, DS9 and Voyager, nobody from Enterprise. Also, since CBS clearly paid someone to make that, why isn't Lower Decks represented? Star Trek Day should be a celebration of all things Star Trek. I get that TOS started it all, and having more characters on there is fine, but why isn't Archer on there?

    But, I guess it's no a surprise the fan one is better. Clearly, it was done by someone who loves Star Trek. Who knows who did the official one, but they had to get it approved by the powers that be, and that's probably why it is the way it is.
  • SamuraiSamurai184 Posts: 408Member
    Freak wrote: »
    These fans are also backing this poster for the day.

    It looks like someone used Microsoft Paint to add "Day" at the bottom of an image they found online. :#

    Freak wrote: »
    As you can see it is missing any Trek post 2005.

    Fixed that for ya... ;)

    "Perfect. Then that's the way it shall be."
  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
    I watched the voyager panel and the ds9 panel.. shame they were only 20 minutes long... I guess at this point you cant really ask them anything new... Always great to see the casts get together... love how Ethan philips can still crack the whole cast up and keep a straight face....
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    @Samurai Yeah I think the original poster was made back when Enterprise was still on, or just after.
    Samurai wrote: »
    Freak wrote: »
    As you can see it is missing any Trek post 2005.
    Fixed that for ya... ;)

    Nope that just as bad as the CBS. (Yeah not a fan of this ship design, but at least Lower Decks is the least problematic of Kurtzman Trek. Still not funny for a Comedy.)

  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    @markmassey, I caught the end Discovery, but there nothing there worth listening to

    The DS9 was okay, but Will Wheaton is not great as an interviewer. Maybe that the reason "The Ready Room" has less viewer than "After Trek" did.
    Though I could not stand the guy there presenting that. He just came across as too Geeky, not that a bad thing. It just not work for him.

    Started to watch "Strange New Worlds" panel but Akiva Goldsman just pissed me off, with saying The Cage was the original Pilot.

    Yes it was the original filmed pilot but NBC rejected it. Making it a failed pilot.
    So Rodenberry went away a re-tweak his idea and we got "Where No Man has Gone Before." which NBC greenlight into the show we know and love.
    One of the major changes Rodenberry made was to the way Spock was portrayed.
    The Cage itself was never meant to be seen, except the parts seen in The Menagerie: Part I & 2.

    Rodenberry even stated that The Cage is not Canon, but the Events did happen. What did he mean by that?
    It simple, Spock showing emotion in the pilot does not happen in canon. Hence, the events are canon but the pilot is not.
    However Goldman and co are fixated on the stuff that is not Canon. ("We wanted to know why Spock is smiling?" He was not fully developed yet and changed between pilots and Rodenberry wanted to go in a different direction with the Characters and his backstory.)

    Sorry for the Rant, but that crap just pisses me off.

    On a side not, I find it ironic that the Studio Rodenberry original went to with Star Trek rejected it in favour of Lost in Space, yet they are now the ones that hold the rights to it.
  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
    i watched a video of a youtuber called jessie gender a few days ago.. with steve shives.. they were talking about how new trek is a deconstruction of star trek... Now i don't think that they meant to do this but about 15 minutes in when they were explaining how modern trek is bold and treading new ground and how the haters are all man babies. But they started talking about modern trek is deconstructing star trek to build it up better...

    Now we'll probably have to wait about 10 years to see how true that assessment is.. but to me it perfectly summed up why i don't enjoy new trek. if i want to watch a deconstructed version of star trek i'll watch Farscape... i know its easier to call the haters fascists or misogynists or any other words they use i the comments section of youtube.. but if in defense of new trek you say that it has deconstructed what star trek is then you can clearly see why people don't like it... and don't like it just as loudly as you do...

    But after watching that video i feel like a light bulb went on in my brain...

    I think it was lavar burtons daughter that hosted the voyager panel.. he popped up to say hi which was nice... was nice to hear them talk about rene auberjonois's death on there... i felt that because he died just after aaron isenberg that it kind of got over shadowed.. or i didn't see the same outpouring from the shows i saw.. so i was glad about that..

    i'm guessing we'll have to get used to the growing in memoriam section on the panels.... Watching the b5 panels heartbreaking lol
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1801843 Posts: 9,995Member
    Star Trek would only have needed deconstructed and rebuilt better if there was something wrong with it. However, there's not really anything wrong with it, or at least there wasn't until about 15 years ago. When Enterprise went off the air in 2005, we were left with nothing. Prior to that, there was at least a direction with Star Trek. After Star Trek went off the air the first time in 1969 and then someone took a better look at the ratings, there was a mad dash to get it back on. That led to TOS in syndication and TAS. Then there were the movies. The success of the movies lead to the development of TNG. TNG brought forth DS9 and Voyager, and then Enterprise. There was a flow to it. However, after Enterprise, it all came grinding to a halt. Star Trek had no direction for the first time since the early 1970s. So, if they'd had a plan after Enterprise, Star Trek wouldn't have gone into a limbo where we didn't even know if it was coming back.

    However, even after it did come back, there was a clear lack of direction. First, you had the JJ Abrams movies. Love them or hate them, they did at least do a bold thing in trying to reboot the franchise. Then, after three of those, those also came grinding to a halt. Then there was Discovery, Picard and now Lower Decks. (not going to touch on the shows that haven't been made) Even those shows, despite having a unifying executive producer, have no real direction. You've got a pre TOS show, and two late 24th century shows. Nothing really goes together. Sure, there are a few things that sort of do, like having the Discovery Enterprise in Picard, but there's nothing really unifying about them. It's not at all like how things flowed before and everything worked together. The JJ films don't go with anything, Discovery and Picard don't seem to go together and Lower Decks seems to ignore all of it. That never happened with classic Trek. So, I don't know how a bunch of movies and shows that don't go together is building something better than a franchise of shows and movies that did.

    Also, calling people haters for not liking something different is childish. The truth is, it's actually the job of the people making the shows to make something that fans like. Without fans, you've got no show. While I personally have enjoyed most of the newer Star Trek, I can also see the faults in it, such as the aforementioned lack of direction. People aren't haters for not liking it. If a lot of people don't like it, then the studio isn't doing their job correctly.
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    Chris is right on the money with the post above.

    You will also find that those that are doing the attacking are mostly under the age of 30. (basically the Millennials.) Or those that spend about 95% of their free time on Twitter.

    I watch Gary Buechler (Nurdrotic) live streams. On it he has mentioned that he get call "ist's" and "fobes" all the time and Even attacked by other Youtubers, who make video claim he is one. (He has never made video about them or said a bad thing.) He has mentioned when at Star Trek Las Vegas last year, He saw a number of the and few came up to him. He thought they where coming to kick something off. But instead they just turned around and said they like what he does, but hate his take on current Star Trek.

    It goes to show, most of these people that attack and make death threats against you because you don't have the same view as them on-line. Are all nice and polite when you meant them in person, because they don't have a keyboard to hide behind.

    As for the studio not doing there job correctly. When that down to Kurtzman, he is the man put in charge. From what I have heard, if you don't agree with him your gone. So given that the majority of the fan base are not happy with current trek, Kurtzman refuses to listen.
    God know why he is refusing to, because if he did. He could make a shit ton on Money, Fans what to spend their money on Trek, but they are refusing to do so with something they don't like.
  • SamuraiSamurai184 Posts: 408Member
    markmassey wrote: »

    That was a genuine laugh out loud moment, haha.
    "Perfect. Then that's the way it shall be."
  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
    ahh then my work is done :)
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla521 HelsinkiPosts: 2,723Administrator
    edited September 2020 #262
    Not strictly Star Trek related, but apparently CBS All Access will be renamed Paramount+ next year.
    Together, the two services (CBS AA and Showtime) had 16.2 million subscribers as of the end of June. ViacomCBS has never broken out individual numbers for each but executives have said in recent years that they are similar in size.
    After its debut five years ago, CBS All Access has added rights to local station programming and live streams of NFL games and other sports, giving it a dimension that other SVOD players lack. It has invested in a range of original shows like The Good Fight and Picard. Mining the broader company’s IP is the game plan, with new originals stemming from The Godfather and SpongeBob SquarePants and a marquee series coming from Yellowstone creator Taylor Sheridan.
    Paramount+ will feature content from the full ViacomCBS portfolio, spanning broadcast television, news, sports and entertainment brands. ViacomCBS will also bring it to international markets with an initial debut in Australia, Latin America and the Nordics in 2021.
    Ugh. Another streaming service. We got Disney+ literally today. :eyeroll:
    It is not clear whether ViacomCBS will launch the service in the UK, where it owns linear station Channel 5 and sister streamer My5, and much of its Showtime pipeline is tied up with an output deal with pay-TV operator Sky. “Clearly we will be looking at other markets and we do have plans for phase two markets, but I wouldn’t comment on any particular one at this stage,” Lynn told Deadline last month.
    Post edited by Guerrilla on
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    Well it was no surprise that CBSAA was getting a rebrand. That was announced shortly after the Merger happened.
    But I can't see it doing to well out side of the States. It just can't compete with Netflix and Amazon Prime, it does not have the same amount of content. Even if they take their own content off Netflix and Prime it still not in the same league.

    I am not even sure how Disney+ is doing. Given it content, it mainly geared towards Kids. If you don't have any your not likely to have it.
    Your not going to get it just for the Mandalorian as that is the only new content on there at the moment. (MCU and Star Wars films most people have them on physical media anyway so why get a service for it, it you already have it.)

    Did not know that channel 5 was owned by CBS. Originally it was started by all the British Terrestrial Channels. (BBC, ITV Ch4 and Sky, plus a bunch of investors like Lord Alan Sugar.)

    But with them owning that, yeah I can't see Paramount+ coming to the UK. Plus on Freeview, they own a few channels such CBS Crime, CBS Action etc. Those just repeat classic CBS and Paramount shows. I think they also have a Paramount Movies channel on there as well. But that channel keep changing it name so not sure.

    So it will be interesting to see what they do for the UK market. Maybe they will strike a deal with Netflix? But that could cause issues for them with Mainland Europe. As the UK Netflix is the same as mainland Europe.
    This is one way we Brits can watch BBC content without have a TV licence or using the Ipalyer (which you need the licence for.) The BBC has a deal with Netflix so mainland Europe can watch programs such as Dr Who, Bodyguard etc. But we in the UK also have access to that content on Netflix as well.

  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
    @Guerrilla we're all interested to know what you think of the Mandalorian tell the kids they can watch snow buddies another day :)
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    So Star Trek Vegas has now official been postponed.

    In another words 2020 has been cancelled but they are still planning on going ahead with the original date for 2021.

    Personally I'm not sure that will happen giving things have not getting better seven month of social distancing and working from home were people can. Numbers are still going up.
    I see this thing last for quite some time to come.
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    It looks like Noah Hawley, Star Trek 4 is dead once again.
    Speaking to deadline, he stated “It doesn’t appear to be in my immediate future.”
    He went on to elaborate, “I think when Emma came in, she took a look at the franchise and wanted to go in a different direction with it.”
    Hawley then stated, “But you know, life is long, we were very close to production but in this business that doesn’t mean much. You got to get out of the gate to be in the race if you know what I mean.”

    So in another words he had completed all pre-production and was just waiting for the go ahead to start filming.
    However Emma Watson who was brought in from FOX, to get Star Trek back onto the right track again. Has now officially scrapped this project.
    Noah first comment, “It doesn’t appear to be in my immediate future.” is all telling. Reading between the lined you can his project is dead in the water.

    I have spoken to a few people and they are have informed me that, since ViacomCBS had it shares investor conferences. Paramount has no long term plans for another Star Trek Movie. Also given the current state of the world. It is unlikely you will see any movie being made in $200 Million range, unless they were already in production. Reason being they need to make at least a Billion at the box office to be profitable. Something that won't happen for at least a few years, until everything returns to normal.
    This means the studios will be looking at making cheaper films between $2 and $50 million to be profitable with selling them to streaming services.
    With this price range it is something that Bad Robot or Secret Hideout have not been able to do. Make a Star Trek Film/Show on the Cheap. (Time to dig Harve Bennett up and show them how it done.)

    My contacts have stated that Paramount are not doing nothing with Trek while CBS are doing it's thing with Kurtzman.
    They have stated that Paramount is looking at doing two TV Movies base around Kahn, before he left Earth and after he was dropped off by Kirk in Spaceseed. This project is based on the scripts that Nicholas Meyer wrote when he was still working on Discovery before Kurtzman was brought on.
    The contacts also stated that Nicholas Meyer and Kurtzman are not involved with the project and it is unlikely to have anything to do with Kurtzman Trek.
    I asked how is this possible if Paramount has no plans to make a film. They said it would be done under Paramount TV wing. The same department that makes Jack Ryan series for Amazon and other TV shows under the Paramount name.
    When I asked would it connected to original Trek (Anything Pre 2009)? They stated, there is no licencing issues for it not to be.
  • psCargilepsCargile311 Posts: 583Member
    Would seem to me that if there isn't enough general audience interest in the franchise anyone would be reluctant to waste money with a film. I like the 2009 reboot and Beyond, I like Hawley's idea of a different ship and crew, and a Tarantino project has always sounded exciting (especially if he directed), but I don't know what kind of Star Trek movie I'd like to see. Another time travel story doesn't interest me, we've seen them, and it should be old hat if all you need to do is warp slingshot around a star. I'll be 52 at the end of year, there's not a lot left I haven't seen as far as entertainment goes, so its harder to get my attention. That's probably true with a lot of older Trek fans. What are their options for a movie? Another reboot? A recast Kelvin timeline movie? A movie based on one of the CBS shows? A movie to properly close Enterprise like Serenity did for Firefly? (A streaming movie or miniseries covering the Romulus War would interest me.)

    I don't know, maybe Trek is done. Maybe there is a lull in the general interest of scifi as a whole? If that's the case, it doesn't matter how good your movie is if no one cares to see it. I think Into Darkness zapped a lot of interest and Beyond suffered for it. But maybe if budgets are cut significantly, we'll get away from extravagant cg-eye-candy bullshit and back to stories with depth and meaning.
  • markmasseymarkmassey393 StaffordshirePosts: 521Member
    edited December 2020 #268
    I'd say trek should be dead at the cinema.. trek isn't marvel.. its a really niche ip.. yea its got huge pop culture recognition but that doesn't mean everyone who knows the phrase "live long and prosper" would sit and watch a star trek movie.. How many times are they going to reboot kirk and spock? or that era.. that's all they'll do.. keep recycling the tos characters.

    I think the original trek movies worked because you were kind of carrying on the show in film format.. you were watching to see the crew again... they were all different.. well i could be wrong there i haven't sat and watched them for years but in my head the films were pretty much all different, but kind of told pretty small stories that knitted through the films... they weren't the big bombastic action films that the tng movies tried to be and what the jj films were..

    they should concentrate on building what star trek was in the 90's.. they had multi show universe all playing out at the same time.. expanding the lore and the world of star trek... Why is it so hard for them to have a ship exploring the galaxy set 20-30 years after voyager??? you get a captain a crew and boldly go where no one has gone before.. you then have the ability to call in cameos from any of the older shows...

    But no.... we have to have everything set pre tos now... because when they do focus groups asking what people who aren't star trek fans know about star trek, all they keep getting back is kirk spock etc... So that's what they make...

    That's my rant over anyway... I've stopped messaging on the star trek threads well 1 because i don't watch the new shows and 2. They just end up in an angry rant like this, and I end up looking like one of those 38 year old man babies who needs to move out of his parents basement and stop crying about a tv show haha...
    Post edited by markmassey on
  • P5ych0p4thP5ych0p4th444 GermanyPosts: 335Member
    Yeah. The Trek Movie Franchise was successful because that movies were done on the cheap. That way they’d never lose money if at least the fans came to see them. And if they managed to be actually good the turned a hefty profit at around 300-400 Million. It’s been a long time time since this was considered a success. The moment they went with a relatively high budget for Nemesis and the mandate to garner new fans, they lost big.

    To Abrams credit, he managed to turn the franchise into a legit modern movie franchise with Star Trek 09 but couldn’t follow up on it. Pretty much the same way he did with Star Wars Ep. IX later.

    I’d love to see a smaller budget version of the Kelvin Crew. No setpieces. Just a sold story some Spaceship Porn. But that’s not going to happen.

    As for the franchise as a whole. They should have gone with the Next Gen Approach again, like @markmassey said. New Crew new Future same Mission statement (maybe a new FTL dire to explore another galaxy ... something more alien than usual 🤷🏻‍♂️) ... You’d still have the brand recognition from the IP.

    But I don’t really see a way forward, with what they have now. Lower Decks is fun but can’t carry a franchise. Discovery got better for a few episodes but even then is bogged down by what came before and Picard ist? Just plain hard to watch in general. Let alone a Trek show. I don’t see them creating a generally good show out of this and even if ... it would have to carry the burden of sharing a universe with those other post 2018 shows.
  • darkthunderdarkthunder192 SwedenPosts: 59Member
    To be perfectly honest, the movies should stay dead for the conceivable future.

    One reason it worked in the past, was because films were cheaper back then. They weren't expected to be huge blockbuster moneymakers. Second, while (most) of the Kelvin Timeline cast did their roles admirably, there was no build-up with these characters. Shatner and crew had 79 episodes across 3 seasons of Trek before making the jump to feature films (10 years after their television run ended). Stewart and crew had 178 episodes across 7 seasons of Trek.

    I feel a new movie franchise of Trek films should come after multiple seasons of build-up with a new crew, a new setting and a new story altogether. Not rehashing the same stories from before (that means, no more TOS or TOS reboots). And if you're gonna go into movies eventually, you need to cast the characters accordingly, with the expectancy of making a bit of money back from your movies. Not all television actors are suited for the bigscreen, and similarly not all bigscreen actors are suited for television.
  • FreakFreak1073 Posts: 4,345Member
    edited December 2020 #271
    Lets face it, when Enterprise was on the enthusiasm for Trek was dying out. The franchise had been on TV Screens for 18 years. Not that a bad thing, some TV shows have run far longer than that. Though it unheard of with a scifi TV show with the exception of Dr. Who (Original run not current.) The problem started with Voyager, is basically a copy of a copy. (TOS/TNG) While it premise of a ship lost and on it own made it different.
    The episode and stories where basically same standalone as TOS/TNG. It would have suited more if they have gone the DS9 route and told individual stories but had one major storyline running though each season. (something Ronald D. Moore want to do with the Year of Hell which got shot down, which is how we ended up with his BSG.)
    So a little of the fan base disappeared because there was nothing really new there.

    When Berman came up with Enterprise he had a great idea, but by the time they started going into production. His original idea for the show was thrown out and the studio interfered with the show every step of the way. which is how we got want we got. (It also funny to note, this is when the rights for Star Trek was moved from Paramount and given to CBS and the franchise has gone to shit since then.) This lost more viewers, but the funny thing is. It still had more viewers when it was cancelled, than Discovery and Picard combined going by viewing figure from Canada.

    With the Viacom split in 2006, Paramount did not have any successful franchise except for Transformers and Mission Impossible. The Phase 1 Marvel films had been a huge success, but most of the profits from that went to Marvel (Pre Disney). Paramount was mainly only a distributor on those early films. They had the film rights to Star Trek and it was sitting there doing nothing, so they brought in Bad Robot to do something with the film side of the franchise. (Bad Robot had a contract to develop and make a bunch of films for Paramount for 10 years. Something that they never did properly. But that how they ended up working on Trek.) JJ did Star Trek 09 and thank god he had the good scene to put it into a different timeline, but that could also be down to the licencing CBS gave to Paramount to make the films. (Remember CBS owned everything to do with Trek except for the Movies. But the copyright for stuff like ships and costumes, characters, aliens etc, that was developed for the first 10 films was with CBS and not Paramount.
    This meant that Paramount only owned the film themselves but not the content with in. So basically the can distribute it how they liked. But if they wanted to make anything new with Star Trek, they would have to either start from scratch and not have anything look like what we have seen before. Which would never had worked if they went down that road or licence it from CBS.)

    Star Trek 09 was a huge success and brought in large numbers of none fans. But there was a major issue. The film (like any other JJ directed film) was overly expensive to make. Did it make a profit? Yes it did. But not as big a profit as Paramount would have liked. (just like the TNG remastered Blu-ray for CBS.) The profit ST09 made was enough for Paramount to greenlight a sequel, however they gave JJ a bigger budget. But instead of getting the sequel out in two years it took him four. Those none fans by this point had lost interest in the sequel, ST Into Darkness did make more money than ST09. But it has less people watching it. (cost of a cinema ticket had gone up in those four years.)
    While Into Darkness did make more money than 09, when you look at the profit margins between both films ID actually made less money. This is why it took them so long to make Beyond. because they were having issues finding people to fund it.
    there was an even longer gap between ID and Beyond. They had also lost the none fans, and the fans they did have skipped Beyond because the majority of them though the other two JJ films where bad and did not want to get burned again.

    I won't go into Kurtzman TV side, needless to say the quality of it is not in the same league as classic Trek when it come to stories, characters and overall design. But it does look great with it movie quality production. (the only thing IMO going for it.)

    So in short, CBS and Paramount has not done themselves any favours and taken the franchise from being their most profitable franchise to one that is actually now costing them money. (The profit margin is tiny if it is making any money.)
    Personally, if they want to make it profitable again. They need to stop what they are doing, get rid of Secret Hideout (Bad Robot is already gone.).
    Say that Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks are not part of the pre 05 timeline (Legacy Timeline) and the Kelvin timeline (Kelvin timeline) was born out of Discovery Timeline (Prime Timeline). By doing this all the damage done to the franchise in a story point of view does not affect anything from pre 2009. Which means the Romulan homeworld is still there in a post Voyager universe.
    Once you done that, hire someone that knows how to make a scifi show on a budget. Hire writers that have a scifi background, none this Vampire Dairy's or Gilmore Girls writers they currently have working for them and do something that is post Voyager. No more Prequels, not just fans but everyone is now sick to death with them. Don't have so many producer and make it cheaper. also bring it back in house instead of having an outside production company make it.

    Like @markmassey & @darkthunder said, start developing something new. Have it on TV for a good seven years. Regrow the fan base agian, make it the most talked about show like TNG was back in the 80's and 90's. Then and only then, having it in the cast contracts that they will come back for films at minim of 6 years after their show finished airing. This way they can get back to making movies again.
    This is also why the original cast films worked so well. People had grown up with the original cast, with the exception of TPM they did not make the actors play younger version of themselves. They had grown old and where acting their age, so had the fans that had grown up with them, they were no longer in high school or college but now in full time jobs gotten married had kids etc. This is why it worked so well.
    It worth noting that Trek was the first franchise to being back the original cast to do films. Something that had never been done before TPM and with the exception of Firefly and X-files has not been done since with success.
    Post edited by Freak on
Sign In or Register to comment.