Jump to content


Photo

Kelvin Timeline RIP?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#21 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 09 August 2016 - 04:55 AM

Generally... yes superhero movies have done well... but not all of them... X-Men is a notable standout... and looking at the last spiderman... it too didn't perform well. Those were both well advertised... I went to the X-Men film... it wasn't bad... but it wasn't memorable  either.  The buzz around Deadpool was incredible. Everyone I talked to loved it... and recommended it... I never heard "eh it was ok"... and that what people have been saying about films like X-Men... and ultimately it doesn't matter what the critics say, if a film has buzz and excitement people will go. yes marketing has a lot to do with that... but its not the end all and the numbers on Deadpool show it... you can see how it has a slow start and then rockets off! 

 

Personally, I'm excited about Suicide Squad because I want to see more from the DC universe... your right if they keep punching out sub-par stuff like Batman V Superman... the market will dwindle.

 

gallery_26_18_423742.jpg



#22 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 09 August 2016 - 06:57 AM

 

Do you mean "Doesn't have the same kind of decline"? I don't wish for any movie to do bad... or be bad for that matter.

If it has the same kind of issues that Batman v Superman did, then I do hope it doesn't do super well so that the studios don't just keep churning out subpar movies with the same issues over and over again. 

 

I really, really want the DC universe to be as successful as Marvel has been since I like it more. I was pretty happy with Man of Steel, but Batman V Superman just was not that great of a movie, and a really bad followup. 

 

Maybe Suicide Squad is better than BvS was, I don't know. I won't be seeing it in theaters after being let down by BvS, and plan on waiting until its in Redbox. I've just read a lot more negative feedback than positive about the movie, and doesn't inspire confidence for me. 



#23 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 09 August 2016 - 12:43 PM

Fair enough! I'm with you regarding DC universe succeeding... currently it seems hit or miss, DC has some great properties that I'd really like to see translated to the big screen!



#24 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 09 August 2016 - 04:01 PM

Maybe it's just as simple as most people enjoying Star Trek on the small screen than they do on the big screen and although the 2009 movie did great, it did so because it was the first Star Trek movie since Nemesis, it returned to the characters of Kirk and Spock, Nimoy featured in it and JJ Abrams was directing so to many it was an event. Into Darkness wasn't an event just a lacklustre sequel and Star Trek beyond whilst a great movie, has just come and gone without much pomp and ceremony. Yes it was good but was it an event? Not really. That's fine as long as you're not competing with the types of blockbusters audiences enjoy these days.

Star Wars, DC movies, Marvel movies are all big event movies. Star Trek movies are extensions of the TV series (even the new movies are alternate extensions of the classic TOS series) and don't hold the same kind of event status.

Im hoping that Star Trek 4 is a movie with a smaller budget and as a result it relies more on an intelligently written story with an emphasis on being cerebral, keeping the action to a minimal.

#25 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 09 August 2016 - 05:58 PM

Trek movies were once relegated to X-Mass time releases with budgets about 25% less than bigger productions... and that was probably based on expectations.

 

I thought part of JJ's job was to transform the Trek Franchise into a summer blockbuster franchise... of which initial indicators are that he was successful. I guess we'll see what they do after beyond. It seems to be loosing its "legs"... and it really needs to grab another 160 Million.



#26 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 August 2016 - 06:54 AM

Trek movies were once relegated to X-Mass time releases with budgets about 25% less than bigger productions... and that was probably based on expectations.
 
I thought part of JJ's job was to transform the Trek Franchise into a summer blockbuster franchise... of which initial indicators are that he was successful. I guess we'll see what they do after beyond. It seems to be loosing its "legs"... and it really needs to grab another 160 Million.


Absolutely!

I think there's probably a lot of factors that are related to deals, studio requirements, the relationship between CBS and Paramount that we just don't know about as to why this hasn't been the case.

I don't think Paramout had a clue on what they expected from the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie in 2009 but ultimately the job Abrams had was to create a Star Trek that was more accessible to audiences. I think he partially succeeded but I think we can safely say that Paramount have failed to expand upon and build upon the success of the 2009 movie by developing this new timeline further.

It's all very well releasing a movie that is made to appeal to the wider audiences but how do you keep them invested? The four year gap between Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness hurt the development of this new universe and by the time Into Darkness has come and gone the damage had been done. Abrams was off to Star Wars and the Star Trek revival seemed to be losing its momentum further.

All we can say is that the rivalry between CBS and paramount probably put the breaks on any huge plan to transform Star Trek into this multiverse multi-media platform billion dollar franchise.

we know Abrams had an extensive plan for Star Trek and was keen to stop CBS from developing any classic Star Trek merchandise and to focus all of its efforts on marketing and merchandising his new Star Trek. That didn't fly and once CBS put the kybosh on his plans I reckon the Abrams plan to transform Star Trek fell apart.

I mean you either love that Abrams didn't get his plan approved for Trek or you hate the fact CBS stood in his way to extensively transform the Star Trek franchise. Either way we are where we are now with Star Trek and it's not a franchise that has been transformed into something a wider audience seem to be interested in.

#27 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 10 August 2016 - 01:28 PM

we know Abrams had an extensive plan for Star Trek and was keen to stop CBS from developing any classic Star Trek merchandise and to focus all of its efforts on marketing and merchandising his new Star Trek. That didn't fly and once CBS put the kybosh on his plans I reckon the Abrams plan to transform Star Trek fell apart.

I mean you either love that Abrams didn't get his plan approved for Trek or you hate the fact CBS stood in his way to extensively transform the Star Trek franchise. Either way we are where we are now with Star Trek and it's not a franchise that has been transformed into something a wider audience seem to be interested in.

 

Actually... I had no idea Abrams wanted to stop CBS from merchandising TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT.... how could he even think that was rational as that would mean CBS was giving up on its TV rights to Trek?

 

Or does Paramount only have movie rights and no merchandising rights...even for their own movies? that doesn't seem right?

 

If anything... the unholy divorce settlement between CBS and Paramount is to blame...  If CBS can only generate revenue from TV Trek... then they are going to advance their interests.. and the same for Paramount.

 

But lets be honest... if Paramount and Abrams had a good plan... or assuming it was a good plan executed to it.. they shouldn't need CBS at all!

 

I think you've said it a number of times... summer blockbusters... especially blockbuster franchises are all about marketing and expectations... building excitement and so on. They did a fantastic job of it with the 2009 movie... and they were rewarded. I think they stumbled on the merchandising... and they def stumbled with the 2nd movie.

 

Regardless... of the quality of the efforts by Abrams... some fans felt betrayed... and so now your have two ideas of what Star Trek is... and depending on what CBS does with Discovery... we may get a 3rd take!

 

If Paramount wants to reshape movie Trek into its version of Star Wars... then ok... but they should just recognize that CBS can do its thing... the market will decide.



#28 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 528 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2016 - 01:42 PM

The beloved Wrath of Khan never did gangbusters at the box office. In adjusted dollars it still falls somewhere in the middle. Eventually other films did better, even if they weren't as adored by fans.

 

It's not about the Kelvin timeline. That was simply a means to bring back characters with which most audiences associated Star Trek; Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al. There will be another Trek set in this timeline and if the cast is up for it and they continue to perform well enough, we'll keep seeing them.

 

Otherwise, the studio will probably consider recasting other roles, like that of a young Ensign Picard.



#29 djc242

djc242

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 493 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 12 August 2016 - 03:44 PM

It's probably been said a few times before, but I think the fact that all the major characters we recast is still something that is hard for longer-term fans to digest.  I love all the actors in the new films and even like most of how they portray their characters.  It's just still not Shatner, Nimoy, etc.  Aside from depicting younger/older/cloned versions of main people the Trek world has been fortunate to not have many recastings.  The most obvious was Saavik but I believe everyone else recast was in a minor supporting role.  Alternate timeline aside, these films will always feel separate from the rest in a way that the other incarnations do not.  

 

It's not a good or bad thing per se, just something I realized I was still thinking about.  Seeing that photo in Beyond was really a great moment for me and may have "brought a tear to me eye."  What was awesome about The Force Awakens was seeing the old with the new characters and feeling the sense of continuation rather than a reboot.  I hope Discovery can recapture some of that feeling.



#30 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 12 August 2016 - 04:19 PM

The beloved Wrath of Khan never did gangbusters at the box office. In adjusted dollars it still falls somewhere in the middle. Eventually other films did better, even if they weren't as adored by fans.

 

The data doesn't support you on that. Its ROI... unadjusted was fantastic... and it exceeded the statistical norm at the box office.

 

If your point is purely adjusted dollars, then yes... but you can't ignore that they only had a budget of 12MM, as opposed to Beyonds Budget of 180MM.

 

Just look at the data.



#31 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 13 August 2016 - 05:41 PM

Stay with me on this one as I'd like to respond to all of your points here:


Actually... I had no idea Abrams wanted to stop CBS from merchandising TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT.... how could he even think that was rational as that would mean CBS was giving up on its TV rights to Trek?


It was back before 2009 when Abrams was developing his revival of Star Trek with Paramount on the one side and CBS on the other.

Abrams felt that to revive Star Trek properly and successfully it should be in his image and that everything that had come before should be sidelined (from merch to the older TV series and movies being repeated on TV) in favour of creating a multi-platformed franchise out of the alternate Star Trek universe he was about to begin.

CBS declined the idea which is why in 2009 the new Star Trek movie was backed up by very little in the way of merchandise and tie ins (games etc...)
 

Or does Paramount only have movie rights and no merchandising rights...even for their own movies? that doesn't seem right?


As I understand things, Paramount hold the rights to the movies, distribution etc... But CBS are the intellectual property owners so merchandising for all aspects of Star Trek be it movies or TV is owned by CBS and handled by CBS Consumer Products.

There must be some kind of deal though between the two when it comes to merchandising for the new movies. This could be the reason why we don't see much in the way of merchandise for any of the new movies.
 
[quoteIf anything... the unholy divorce settlement between CBS and Paramount is to blame...  If CBS can only generate revenue from TV Trek... then they are going to advance their interests.. and the same for Paramount.[/quote]

The biggest factor working against the JJ Abrams 2009 movie was the fact that the relationship between CBS and Paramount was bitter.

My understanding is that CBS had no interest in revisiting Star Trek back in 2009 so Paramount and CBS struck a deal ensuring that Paramount was able to make three Star Trek movies without CBS competing with a new Star Trek series of their own.
 

But lets be honest... if Paramount and Abrams had a good plan... or assuming it was a good plan executed to it.. they shouldn't need CBS at all!


Well yes they had to involve CBS in their plans as CBS own the franchise and the intellectual property so if Paramount and Abrams had a good plan CBS still had the final say in whether or not it could go ahead. This is why Abrams initial plan for Star Trek never materialised, CBS blocked it.

Seriously when Abrams releases his biography, the Star Trek part is going to be one hell of a read.
 

I think you've said it a number of times... summer blockbusters... especially blockbuster franchises are all about marketing and expectations... building excitement and so on. They did a fantastic job of it with the 2009 movie... and they were rewarded. I think they stumbled on the merchandising... and they def stumbled with the 2nd movie.

Regardless... of the quality of the efforts by Abrams... some fans felt betrayed... and so now your have two ideas of what Star Trek is... and depending on what CBS does with Discovery... we may get a 3rd take!


I think when Star Trek was brought back in 2009 it was after a very long period where there had been no Star Trek at all. It was the return of Kirk and Spock so of course the mainstream press and media were going to lap it up. Fortunately the movie was good! It brought back Star Trek in a way that the mainstream could get onboard.

As for the fans? Well I don't think for one moment that Paramount thought that there were enough Star Trek fans around anymore to make a movie profitable. Nemesis tanked, Enterprise had flatlined, were there any Star Trek fans around and if so were there enough to continue on with Star Trek as it had been doing for 18 years prior? The answer really came in the form of the JJ Abrams movie... The answer was no.

Everything that has happened since that 2009 movie has been as a result of the decision to start again with Star Trek and the reaction it has got. It hasn't really been all that successful, it hasn't garnered a new fan base, it hasn't seen an investment by the mainstream audiences, we've seen declining numbers from all three movies, resulting in Beyond perhaps losing the studio money in the long run and you have to assume that ultimately the decision to restart Star Trek wasn't (I believe) the right one.

Whatever your feeling is over the Kelvin Timeline movies, Star Trek fans have felt uneasy with the new, mainstream version of Star Trek, that while it doesn't destroy anything that has come before, it kind of tries to restart yet not do anything new that hasn't been done before begging the question, why restart Star Trek at all if all we're going to see is the familiar Star Trek we know and love but as told by people who don't understand or get Star Trek?. Star Trek Beyond really did try to rebuild a lot of the bad blood between studio and fans but I can't help but feel Beyond came too little and too late and even though it was a brilliant Star Trek movie with great character moments, for a third film in a new franchise, it didn't do much in the way that was new and exciting with what Abrams had started. So again, you have such a vibrant and interesting and rich legacy of stories already setup, ready to be expanded upon and explored further in the prime universe, you're left with the begging question; why on earth did it need restarting with Kirk and Spock?

One observation id like to make here is that with this huge and costly experiment Paramount has undertaken with Star Trek, I think I've come to realise that fans love the Star Trek that had been established and expanded upon over the 45 plus years before 2009 and that why on earth would they even remotely be interested in starting over.

This new Star Trek film franchise isn't ever going to be something people will want to invest their money and time into enough for It to compete with itself let alone other summer blockbuster franchises. If Paramout are smart about this, Star Trek 4 will be a movie that connects the Kelvin timeline and the Prime Timeline together in a way that both would eventually acknowledge one another.

Ultimately the reason this JJ Abrams revival hasn't worked is that It's a TV series. The buzz surrounding Star Trek: Discovery far and away outstrips that of the buzz and excitement surrounding any of the Kelvin Timeline movies.
 

If Paramount wants to reshape movie Trek into its version of Star Wars... then ok... but they should just recognize that CBS can do its thing... the market will decide.


Paramount would do well to recognise that reshaping Star Trek into something it isn't hasn't and will not benefit them financially. The numbers don't lie, so far their efforts in making Star Trek an all encompassing, glitzy Hollywood action movie have failed.

They'd do well to slash the budgets and have new Star Trek movies that were more cerebral, more like films such as "Moon" or "Interstellar", "District 9"

Something that focused more on one or two characters, that was more to do with story than spectacle.

Whatever comes next, if anything, will have to be something that is completely different because they can't surely keep throwing money at Star Trek, taking it further away from what Star Trek is and hope that an audience will eventually realise that this deserves 1bn at the box office. Isn't going to happen.

Star Trek: Discovery will change the shape of this franchise. That series is being shown on streaming services around the world. Hardly going for the mass audiences the movies have been targeting. It's also set in the prime universe, it's going to be something completely different to the movies in that it's going to rely on its audience to have at least a basic understanding of what has come before and what comes after it...

The only way I can see Paramount continuing on from where Beyond left off is to take their Kelvin Timeline into the Animated Sries realm and just flesh it out more among a younger audience on Nickelodeon. Something based upon the Enterprise A that appeals to fans but is targeted at the younger generation in the same way Rebels is and TMNT is. Something that ties into the new IDW comic book series. Then if that takes off you do Star Trek 4 with Pine and Co.

They've got to do more than just the next movie if they want to keep their mission to keep Star Trek as a summer movie franchise alive.

#32 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 13 August 2016 - 10:25 PM

Moon is a fantastic movie. I'm pretty sure any money it made had to be in the video market.

 

But I digress.

 

If the split really was as you describe, and CBS still holds all the IP, and they have just licensed the movie rights to Paramount, then part of the problem is Paramount only cares about if the brand can generate money. Ultimately CBS should have final approval over anything to do with its IP.

 

In that regard I would suggest that Abrams and Paramount overstepped their bounds in trying to transform the entire brand. They should have focused on transforming only the movie aspect of the brand... which I think they could have done.

 

CBS probably has some blame too as it could have rejected some of the more "fantastical" bits of JJ's scripts... but thats more difficult and it may be that in the larger sense CBS had no authority to micromanage those details.

 

You need to be a bit careful... waffling back and forth on who has what... If CBS owns all the IP, then its not Paramount that can green light something like a kids animated show... it CBS... and they need to steal Marvel Ent's play book and come up with a grand design for their IP.



#33 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

    Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 14 August 2016 - 05:38 AM

I think there's also a lot of reboot fatigue, probably partially responsible for Ghostbusters bombing.


Good point! I'd certainly concur with reboot fatigue but it's a shame Ghostbusters has apparently tanked. I've yet to see the new Ghostbusters (I loved the original) but Darren Carnell (remember Hunky Artist?!) has been expressing his anger at the haters who dissed the movie just because it features a female cast. He saw it and loved it, wholeheartedly defending the casting whilst fending off the trolls. I will certainly see this movie.

I love Bill Murray and it would be hard to see him replaced but then again people thought that about Starbuck and Boomer in NuBSG. ***Shrugs****

#34 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 14 August 2016 - 07:37 AM

Moon is a fantastic movie. I'm pretty sure any money it made had to be in the video market.
 
But I digress.
 
If the split really was as you describe, and CBS still holds all the IP, and they have just licensed the movie rights to Paramount, then part of the problem is Paramount only cares about if the brand can generate money. Ultimately CBS should have final approval over anything to do with its IP.


I think the kind of movie Moon was, small scale, would fit the Star Trek mould quite nicely.

Exactly and that's what's happened. That's why we've not seen an expansion of the Kelvin Timeline into other forms of media; animated, live action etc... CBS aren't concerned about it.

I guess you could equate it to Paramount being given the license to make the biggest fan films ever. CBS have a list of strict rules Abrams and Paramount can't break and ultimately that's what we've got. Movies that are made to make Paramount the biggest amount of money they can.

Except that hasn't worked out. The box office takings have declined movie on movie and we are where we are with Star Trek on the big screen.

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a Star Trek 4. I wouldn't be surprised if that's probably our lot in terms of kelvin timeline. Of course it's still there, like the mirror universe, but I think it's likely to be a matter of CBS wanting to plough all of their resources into Star Trek: Discovery and while accepting that he Kelvin Timeline exists, hardly explore it at all in any form of production.
 

In that regard I would suggest that Abrams and Paramount overstepped their bounds in trying to transform the entire brand. They should have focused on transforming only the movie aspect of the brand... which I think they could have done.


Who knows who did what but I think Abrams was pretty livid with CBS and Paramount in not doing enough to make Star Trek a multi-billion dollar franchise and just settling for a good movie.

I think Abrams was pretty convinced (rightly so) that if you were going to be spending all of this money to set up a new Star Trek universe, you can't half arse it and not go the full hog in developing all of the secondary elements that have gone on to help the Marvel universe become the giant it is today. You look at how the resurrection of Star Wars has come about with tie ins and spin offs. Imagine that treatment for Star Trek because that's the plan Abrams had.

So I think I'm Abrams mind, he was pretty pissed at the lack of a plan from CBS as far as Star Trek goes.

As it turns out Star Trek came through the turmoil at CBS and Paramount. we have a new series and as they say the rest is history, but it does kind of leave the Kelvin Timeline as this odd step child. Star Trek: Discovery is a prime universe show. If it takes off and does well in finding a new audience as well as bringing back a lot of the fans who've strayed from the franchise as a result of Abrams, where exactly does it leave those movies and any future movies Paramount want to make? The numbers coming in from Beyond and the overall decline in box office takings movie to movie suggest that there isn't really an audience out there for that kind of movie. Which puts the kybosh on the Kelvin Timeline doesn't it?
 

CBS probably has some blame too as it could have rejected some of the more "fantastical" bits of JJ's scripts... but thats more difficult and it may be that in the larger sense CBS had no authority to micromanage those details.


I think what actually happened was that CBS were pretty strict in saying what you can and can't do. For example I think Abrams pretty much had someone say you can't use anyone who's worked behind the scenes on any Star Trek before. It has to look different to the Star Trek we own and it can't take place in the universe CBS own.

John Eaves worked a bit on Star Trek 09 but on the hush hush he revealed in an interview with The Irish Trekkie just recently.

So things were certainly difficult for Abrams to navigate.
 

You need to be a bit careful... waffling back and forth on who has what... If CBS owns all the IP, then its not Paramount that can green light something like a kids animated show... it CBS... and they need to steal Marvel Ent's play book and come up with a grand design for their IP.


Waffling is a great thing but let's be very clear as to avoid confusion; CBS own the IP to Star Trek. They license out to Paramount as they owned the distribution rights to the movies.

So yes, this would be the case that CBS would certainly have any imput and final say on Paramount wanting to expand their Star Trek universe into other areas of development that would potentially effect CBS's own interests, ie. An animated series. The two studios though, seem to be working better together today than they did back in 2009. To what extent they work together is anyone's guess but it does seem as though both have put aside whatever differences they've had to work on producing more content on both the prime and kelvin timelines.

We've seen more acceptance of the Kelvin Timeline in official books etc... Recently so I think/hope CBS would be willing to explore other ways in which the Kelvin Timeline could be better integrated into the rest of the Star Trek franchise.

I think there is also some degree of truth to the opinion that it is a lack of interest in reboots etc... But Star Trek wasn't a traditional reboot. Abrams made it very clear in his 2009 movie that this was an alternate reality, making sure that the prime timeline was still something that existed.

In star trek's case I think it's just a lack of ambition from the studios. There's not enough material out there for the Kelvin Timeline to get fans invested in it.

#35 Alex

Alex

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 885 posts

Posted 23 August 2016 - 04:12 AM

Moon is a fantastic movie. I'm pretty sure any money it made had to be in the video market.

Honestly, I live in a well–populated part of the US, and Moon never even made it to the local AMC that has 24 screens including one for IMAX, and that had plenty of room to screen something like Moon. It had no promotion here and I didn't even know it existed until I stumbled across it on cable one day and absolutely loved it. I would buy it on Blu–Ray in a heartbeat, and if anyone had bothered to show it in theaters or let me know that it existed I'd have easily forked over my money to see it on the big screen. The fact that it wasn't shown in theaters says more about inept studios misreading their audience than it does about the film itself, and that's really a shame, because Moon was a film that deserved a lot better than it got. Okay, onto the "meat" of your post.
 

If the split really was as you describe, and CBS still holds all the IP, and they have just licensed the movie rights to Paramount, then part of the problem is Paramount only cares about if the brand can generate money. Ultimately CBS should have final approval over anything to do with its IP.
 
In that regard I would suggest that Abrams and Paramount overstepped their bounds in trying to transform the entire brand. They should have focused on transforming only the movie aspect of the brand... which I think they could have done.
 
CBS probably has some blame too as it could have rejected some of the more "fantastical" bits of JJ's scripts... but thats more difficult and it may be that in the larger sense CBS had no authority to micromanage those details.
 
You need to be a bit careful... waffling back and forth on who has what... If CBS owns all the IP, then its not Paramount that can green light something like a kids animated show... it CBS... and they need to steal Marvel Ent's play book and come up with a grand design for their IP.

The "split" between CBS and Viacom, (Paramount's parent company,) actually occurred in 2006 while the new films were in early development, and the only reason they occured were because Les Moonves and Tom Freston were perpetually at each other's throats, so Sumner Redstone decided to go all King Solomon and split his media empire in half to keep Moonves and Freston from acting like kids on a long car trip. (Ironically, Tom Freston resigned mere months after the split effectively negating the need for it in the first place.) 1701D is right about Trek though, CBS Inc. holds the full IP, and has licensed the movie rights to Paramount, effectively "renting the studio" the same way that Saban Brands has licensed Power Rangers to Lionsgate for the upcoming film in that franchise next year; Saban Brands still owns all of the IP, (they actually acquired the IP to the first film from Fox around 2011, while Fox retained distribution rights for the first two films,) but they've licensed the movie rights to Lionsgate since they don't have a movie studio of their own, much as CBS doesn't have their own movie studio. Because of how CBS and Viacom were divided up, early on they retained the right to use Paramount's logo on certain TV shows, and for Trek XI's original DVD releases in the US, CBS is credited on the back of the discs in the fine print. (More recent releases and subsequent films are once again credited solely to Paramount suggesting they now have home media distribution rights for the new movies that weren't theirs before.)

 

Now as far as Abrams' "grand vision" goes, the rights weren't necessarily a problem. CBS couldn't micro–manage the films despite control over the IP, (this has to do with how the CBS/Viacom split as a whole was handled,) but they could dictate how any new TV show would be handled. Abrams very much had a new TV show in mind that would have featured the Kelvin Timeline crew along with the sensibilities of the new movies, and CBS was very much willing to play ball and go ahead with that if not for one small detail: As a condition of producing such a series, Abrams insisted that all Prime Universe merchandise cease being sold and nothing with Shatner's Kirk or Nimoy's Spock be available to avoid "brand confusion." ("Brand confusion" has always been a stupid concept on the domain of weak minds; especially for something like Trek where the fans have been known to give the details to the producers when necessary, which shows that Abrams had no clue about the property he was handling.) This was obviously never going to fly with CBS, who knew fans would be outraged by such a decision, and they refused to give into Abrams' demands, so he basically took his ball (err... red matter) and beamed back home, leaving CBS without a new series. (In hindsight this was probably a good thing. Imagine Star Trek Into Darkness on a weekly basis; the fanbase would have gone insane and the show would have tanked faster than Enterprise, and with far more vitriol aimed at it to boot.) Really, if Abrams hadn't tried to make it seem as if the Prime Timeline never existed as a condition of producing a new series, CBS probably would have green–lit his idea since they seemed eager to make a big push for Trek along with Paramount, but when yanking all Prime Timeline stuff was a conditoin of the new show existing, CBS just wisely decided to pass. Abrams supposedly intended to eventually return to the Prime Universe at some point and admitted as much in interviews, but CBS wasn't going to yank any merchandise from either timeline knowing full well that they could coexist with fans paying for both.
 

Good point! I'd certainly concur with reboot fatigue but it's a shame Ghostbusters has apparently tanked. I've yet to see the new Ghostbusters (I loved the original) but Darren Carnell (remember Hunky Artist?!) has been expressing his anger at the haters who dissed the movie just because it features a female cast. He saw it and loved it, wholeheartedly defending the casting whilst fending off the trolls. I will certainly see this movie.

I love Bill Murray and it would be hard to see him replaced but then again people thought that about Starbuck and Boomer in NuBSG. ***Shrugs****

Just to chime in on Ghostbusters, (which I'm normally silent on,) I really think the "problem" with the all–female cast was that it was so blatantly a gimmic that it made the concept feel contrived, especially given that it was a reboot and not a sequel set in the same universe as the original. (The new "Oceans" movie seems to be handling this idea more in line what what I'd have preferred from Ghostbusters, at least based on early reports; it's set in the same universe as the first "Oceans" reboot and its sequels, but focusing on a different "Oceans" character.) I admittedly have a bit of a gripe with the idea of rebooting a franchise that only had two films to begin with, and my impressions from the trailer were on par with my Impressions from STID, which is that in both cases, the reboot just aped or was presented as if it would appear to ape an iconic film without contributing anything new to it, and that didn't make me jump for joy at the prospect of either of those films. The all female cast also felt like it was doubling down on a flaw from the original Ghostbusters rather than actually fixing it with a gender–balanced cast, which is admittedly why it came off as gimmicky to me. (Again, the new "Oceans" appears to be doing this as well with inverted gender roles, but at least it's doing it without hitting the reset button to make it work, and it feels like less of a gimmic because it's not just attempting to copy the original "Oceans" plot for a third time.) I also thought that the choice of the female comedians that were chosen didn't work in practice the way it worked on paper. On paper Leslie Jones looked like she should have been wildly out of place with the style of the rest of the cast, while Melissa McCarthy should have been right in her element; the impression I got from what I saw though was that Leslie Jones was the only one who seemed remotely funny, while someone like McCarthy (arguably a great comedian,) wound up looking wildly out of place, which didn't do the movie any favors in my eyes. It also didn't help that it wasn't just the group you'd expect to have a reactionary attitude toward this film that was against it, but also the people who you'd expect might have been all for it. My girlfriend rolled her eyes after she first saw the trailer to it, and simply uttered the words "I will never go to see that, not even if you pay for my ticket." That's not exactly the reaction this movie needed to have from its potential female audience members if it wasn't going to tank. I actually wanted the new Ghostbusters to do well, I tried to keep an open mind about it, but the more I saw from it, the less I liked it, and the all–female cast just wound up coming off as a gimmic that was only one problem in a long list of problems this film seemed to have, with the fact that it was another reboot being a far bigger issue when there was no reason not to just set it in the same continuity as the first two films decades after they occurred. BSG04 was an entirely different kettle of fish; it was always stated that BSG ended when they found Earth, so a reboot was the smart decision, (even if the way they found Earth originally was a cringe–inducing nightmare,) just as another reboot for the upcoming BSG movie trilogy makes sense. I didn't mind recasting Starbuck, and don't mind BSG getting another reboot since it has a pretty finite ending that a lot of other movies and TV shows don't. I do mind rebooting something that could theoretically be expanded upon forever though, which is why I'm more likely to take issue with something like the Ghostbusters reboot or the Kelvin Timeline Trek movies where the reboot doesn't seem necessary in the first place.

 

As far as Trek 14 goes, it'll happen and Paramount is already planning for it, and planning for it to be on a smaller budget. Beyond performed exactly as expected and even before it was released they were telling investors that they didn't expect it to be the kind of blockbuster that the previous films were because of how badly sequels were this year, and revised their expectations downward. I really think the lack of promotion and the disastrous first trailer are what hurt it though; when the first impression is that it doubles down on everything wrong with the previous film, a lot of casual moviegoers will just skip the film instead of giving it a chance. Pegg admitted that the next film will likely have a smaller budget and he's fine with that since the expectation of the action scenes everyone takes issue with would be what would wind up getting cut, so I doubt Paramount will abandon the Kelvin Timeline. If the next film does well, it'll just continue to prove that each subsequent film's box office ratings are reflective of the previous film's success or failure. Insurrection was a mess, and that's reflected in how Nemesis performed, (and Nemesis has gained quite a following since its original screening; it wouldn't hurt to give it a 15th anniversary run next year in select theaters given how many more fans it has now than in 2002,) and Trek XI had a huge gap between it and Nemesis that pretty much guaranteed it would put people in seats even if Nemesis hadn't gained the fans it now has. Trek XI did well and Into Darkness showed that, while Into Darkness did poorly and Beyond is suffering as a result of that. I really think another Kelvin Timeline film would probably do well, especially if it wound up going for the winter/prestige slots that Trek used to aim for, and if it continued the trend Beyond set of being more Trek–like. Every time someone tries to make Trek accesable to everyone it winds up backfiring in the long run; when Trek is aimed at the kind of audience that enjoys Trek, it always does better in the long run, even if the initial audience is a bit smaller than what the masses typically go for, and it seems CBS knows that given what they're doing with DSC. Even if it's not set in the part of the timeline I'd have preferred, it's clearly aimed at people who "get" Trek as a whole.



#36 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 23 August 2016 - 06:20 PM

Alex, If what you say is true... Abrams showed CBS that he was absolutely the wrong guy to take over the franchise.

 

The whole Idea of a Franchise is that its established and can therefore tap into a base of consumers. CBS/Paramount successfully expanded the franchise a number of times, and Abrams should have understood that if he made a great product, CBS would merchandise the hell out of it for him.

 

As you say... he apparently had no idea of the property.

 

I agree this isn't the end of the Kelvin Timeline... but I just got done looking at the numbers. Beyond is def under performing. its more than 50 million behind in ticket sales as Into Darkness for the same number of weeks domestically... and into darkness was much much stronger internationally. Beyond has to generate another 150 million to get to the break even point! So based on the trend... I think it may not make money until it hits Video :-(

 

Regardless, I bet that Paramount doesn't have a choice... if they don't make another one they will probably loose the license back to CBS, so they have to risk it or loose it.



#37 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 25 August 2016 - 04:55 AM

It's not a certainty that Paramont will push ahead with plans for a 4th movie. At the end of the day if Star Trek Beyond doesn't make its money back in the cinemas, they won't make it. It becomes a simple financial decision. The fact is Paramount executives will likely suspect that a fourth movie will do even worse than Beyond. It all depends on how well it does in China. If it performs well then we will see Star Trek 4, if it underperforms, we won't see Paramount push forward with Star Trek 4.

Does anyone else think that all of this is just ridiculous. I enjoy the Kelvin movies and Beyond was just a brilliant Star Trek movie but...

people don't want Star Trek to be anything different from what it was during TNG. What Star Trek didn't need was Paramount coming in trying desperately to make it popular and profitable. It needed a rest and then it needed to come back having not changed one bit...

I'll use Doctor Who as an example; in 2005 the BBC relaunched Doctor Who. They didn't try to alter it into something else, they didn't change the look of the Tardis and they didn't change the premise of the show. It was a continuation of the old TV series using contemporary themes and storytelling.

There was nothing broken or wrong with Star Trek, it needed a rest as anything would after 18 consecutive years made up of 24 seasons, adding up to hundreds of hours of episodes.

After a considerable break, it needed to come back just as CBS are doing now, with a new crew, new ship, new stories but with the same premise.

Resurrecting Star Trek could not have been easier had Paramount not thrown a giant Star Wars type spanner in the works with the mission of making more and more money.

That's why these movies fail on not just an financial level but on a fundamental level. They might be enjoyable (I really loved Beyond) but Ulutmately they are irrelevant to the rest of the more established Star Trek franchise.

Fans don't care about them and would rather want stories that continue the established prime franchise on the small screen (All Access issues aside) and the casual moviegoer who loves a good popcorn flick would rather spend their money on an established cinematic brand: Marvel, DC, Star Wars.

#38 Alex

Alex

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 885 posts

Posted 25 August 2016 - 03:38 PM

Alex, If what you say is true... Abrams showed CBS that he was absolutely the wrong guy to take over the franchise.

I wish it weren't true but it is. There are two distinct and opposing views of Abrams among the community of TV professionals, and admittedly among network execs as well. The first is that he's a "genius" in the same vein as Spielburg and Lucas, and may even be "the next Spielburg" if he isn't already. This is how ABC views him, and it's why they picked up Lost when nobody else would and were more than willing to tap him for Star Wars after his tenure directing two Trek films. The second view is that Abrams is, to put it bluntly, a "hack" who somehow managed to bungle his way into a position of respect with some really powerful people thanks to being the son of the well–respected made–for–TV movie producer Gerald W. Abrams. This is the view that a lot of the higher–ups at CBS have held when it comes to Abrams, in part because of his "grand view" for Trek being to effectively avoid even having merchandise that acknowledged what came before his reboot, and effectively making it the hill his pitch for a new TV series ultimately died on. Still, after the numbers Trek XI brought in, CBS was willing to give him a shot because the movie did so well, and it was only after Abrams basically proved he wasn't the right guy for the job that they wound up turning his idea down knowing full well losing the Prime Universe was never going to fly with the fans. I don't dislike Abrams, but I've always thought he's been better suited for what he's doing now with Star Wars than for handling Trek, and he's pretty much proved me right with TFA. I honestly think that if they hadn't gotten Bryan Fuller, CBS should have tried to get Seth MacFarlane to handle Trek since he seems to actually "get" it, and knows what the fans like. (Granted, his untitled show that'll probably be called Orville sounds like it'll be very much in the vein of Galaxy Quest allowing him to still work with his style of humor in a Trek–esque setting, so to use a terrible pun, we just might get the best of both worlds with MacFarlane's new show and DSC.)

 

 

The whole Idea of a Franchise is that its established and can therefore tap into a base of consumers. CBS/Paramount successfully expanded the franchise a number of times, and Abrams should have understood that if he made a great product, CBS would merchandise the hell out of it for him.

 

As you say... he apparently had no idea of the property.

 

I agree this isn't the end of the Kelvin Timeline... but I just got done looking at the numbers. Beyond is def under performing. its more than 50 million behind in ticket sales as Into Darkness for the same number of weeks domestically... and into darkness was much much stronger internationally. Beyond has to generate another 150 million to get to the break even point! So based on the trend... I think it may not make money until it hits Video :-(

 

Regardless, I bet that Paramount doesn't have a choice... if they don't make another one they will probably loose the license back to CBS, so they have to risk it or loose it.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the franchise, and that's exactly what Abrams wasn't grasping; had he been content to let Prime Kirk and Kelvin Timeline Kirk coexist on merchandise together, CBS would have basically handed him the show he wanted and allowed him to do his thing, but he chose to pick a really stupid battle to fight and that was the end of things for him. The way Into Darkness turned out didn't do him any favors either.

 

As for STB, it's underperforming in a year when reboots and sequels of reboots as a whole are failing miserably; you can't really compare it to STID which did poorly in a year when reboots and sequels of reboots were doing wonderfully, and when ticket sales were up compared to this year when they're down across the board. While STB may be underperforming, it's not underperforming worse than pretty much everything out there and did take home the weekend box office when it first came out, which Paramount (and investors) will almost definitely use to justify STB's performance when green–lighting a fourth film. I also expect that one the heads at Paramount roll as a result of that company's current corporate politics, any issues with STB will be blamed on those who were unceremoniously shown the door at the top of the company as well, and Trek XIV will continue as planned, albeit with a smaller budget, (which Pegg has already advocated,) and fewer explosions as a result, (which Pegg has also advocated on the grounds that "the thing that's breaking the budget is the thing that the fans are asking for less of.") Paramount has just had a really terrible year as a whole; I wanted to see TMNT: Out Of the Shadows, (or is it "Out from the Shadows," I keep forgetting for some reason,) and by the time I had the chance to do so at the end of June it wasn't even in theaters here anymore! I mean, I can't exactly put money into a movie if it leaves theaters before I have a chance to see it now can I? STB is definitely underperforming, but it's still playing in four screens around here, (I was expecting it to only be too,) and I just saw it again yesterday because I had a voucher to see it for free since I ordered the director's cut of  TWOK from Amazon, which was a nice surprise. (On the downside, I didn't even have to open my copy of TWOK to realize that it was the defective pressing with the "white box" around the bar code, so I just called Paramount so that I can get a copy with the "yellow box" around the barcode that doesn't have the mastering flaw and will just have to mail what I have back and wait for my replacement.)

 

Like it or not, Paramount has already signed a bunch of contracts that they pretty much have to honor for at least one more Kelvin Timeline movie or potentially buy out, and I think they're more likely to do another movie than buy out contracts. Maybe after that we could see something like those movies that would mix TNG, DS9 and VGR characters that we were supposed to start getting after NEM. (Heck, give me VGR in the alpha quadrant movies and I'll be happy; it'd be a good way to balance out DSC's setting too, much as the TOS movies balanced out TNG's setting.)



#39 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 25 August 2016 - 04:49 PM

1701D - Great analogy with Dr Who. I was always enjoyed it... but the reboot took Dr Who, gave a it a decent budget, got better actors and brought the production quality into the 21st century...  and man! what a fantastic product! A great example where it really gathered more of a fanbase.

 

Alex - it may be heresy... but I reluctantly came to the conclusion that Lucas is a complete Hack! As a director... the original Star Wars is all he can really point to... and most of his production and writing creds just aren't that good. Spielberg I give more credit to.

 

The only reason I was comparing STB to STID is purely to make the point the STB doesn't seem to have "legs" as they say... 

 

Here's the latest from the movie financial pages...

 

Star Trek Beyond rounded out the top five with $10.04 million over the weekend for a total of $127.74 million after three weeks of release. It won’t be able to match its $180 million production budget, but if it does well internationally and there’s synergy with the rest of the franchise, it will break even, eventually.

 

 

The good news is they still think they won't loose money. 

 

The thing is... its not that people aren't going to the movies...

 

 

The overall box office rose 20% from last weekend hitting $229 million. Suicide Squad earned more this weekend than the entire box office earned this weekend last year, so it should come as no surprise that the year-over-year growth was stunning at 73%. Year-to-date, 2016 saw its lead over 2015 grow by more than $100 million hitting 5.3% at $7.16 billion to $6.80 billion.

 

Apparently they just aren't going to Star Trek :-(



#40 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 25 August 2016 - 06:06 PM

I so so wish they had done to Star Trek what the BBC have been doing with Doctor Who. They've done some wonderful things with DW and remained completely faithful to the original premise of that franchise.

It boggles my mind that CBS/Paramount didn't realise that what they had with Star Trek wasn't broken, it didn't need rebooting, restarting, reimagining... It just needed a break and then to return with new creative blood, new stories, ships and characters, new strange new worlds mixed with some familiar faces and races but that was also something that had fundamentally the same premise as TOS and TNG. Not something that tried to be more mainstream or more action orientated.

Paramount and CBS and the creative team put in charge of making Star Trek should have had the confidence to make Star Trek just like Star Trek had always been made.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users