Becoming "The Franchise": note add.
← Older revision
Revision as of 10:44, March 7, 2016
Line 99:
Line 99:
====Becoming "The Franchise"====
====Becoming "The Franchise"====
−
By the time the television series ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'' went into production, the studio's stance and attitude towards ''Star Trek'' had radically changed from the one it had back in 1967. Studio Executive [[Brandon Tartikoff]] had already stated by the time ''The Next Generation'' went into its [[TNG Season 5|fifth season]], "''When you look at the books, you saw that ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' was a twenty-five-million-dollar-goody, every year. That's the profit it would generate for Paramount.''" (''[[Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Continuing Mission]]'', p. 155) Stephen Poe observed two years later for himself how much the studio's stance and attitude had changed, when he resided at the studio on an extended stay in order to chronicle the genesis of the fourth live action ''Star Trek'' series, ''Voyager''. Poe noticed that studio employees, executives included, were almost unanimously and reverently referring to their ''Star Trek'' property as "The Franchise" due to its reliable and consistent revenue stream, having been from the mid-1980s through the 1990s Paramount's most profitable property, much to the envy of industry competitors<ref>It was by no means a coincidence that Warner Bros' ''[[Babylon 5]]'', concurrently premiering around the same time as ''Deep Space Nine'', resembled Paramount's by then well-oiled marketing of ''Star Trek'' in more than one respect. Yet, while the ''Babylon 5''-franchise enjoyed a considerable measure of success while its original series was produced and aired, it eventually fell apart after the failure of its spin-off series and movies, which resulted in that ''Babylon 5'' had nowhere near the longevity the ''Star Trek''-franchise enjoyed. Excepting ''Star Wars'', other science fiction franchises, very popular at the time of their production, like ''Battlestar Galactica'', ''Farscape'', ''[[Stargate (franchise)|Stargate]]'' or ''Firefly'' have fared little better, if at all.<br/>Even more obscure became ''SeaQuest DSV'' of [[Universal Studios]] – which, most ironically and like United Artists, had also declined to become part of the ''Star Wars'' franchise in the mid-1970s [http://www.popmatters.com/feature/165507-abandoned-star-wars-plot-points-episode-ii-the-force-behind-the-scen/] – on which ''Voyager'' production staffer [[Ben Betts]] had worked and who has confirmed, "''They definitely wanted to have something like ''Star Trek''. They wouldn't say that aloud, but that was what they were going for. They were trying to find ''Star Trek'' under water. Everything was there, except for the stories. They didn't have enough of a human element so they'd get caught up in the technology...kind of fall back on the technology to bail everybody out by the end of the episode. It was plain as day to people working on the show. Everything was right. They were spending the money to make the graphics look good, the [[CGI]] looked great, the sets were well lit, they had a pretty good cast...but it didn't work. It still wasn't ''Star Trek''.'' (''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'', p. 54)<br/>Yet, there actually has been one non-American, even older, science fiction/fantasy franchise that has emulated to a large extent the popularity and longevity of ''Star Trek'', the British, [[BBC]] produced ''[[Doctor Who]]'' franchise. However, due to its distinct "britishness", the appeal of ''Doctor Who'' has remained somewhat limited to the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth, contrary to ''Star Trek''{{'}}s worldwide appeal.</ref>. (''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'', pp. 50-51) Reporter [[Mark A. Altman]] disclosed that the entire franchise had already passed the US$1 billion dollar mark in total studio revenues by 1993 (''[[Cinefantastique]]'', Vol 24 #3/4, p. 16), which was upped to US$2 billion gross in ''Entertainment Weekly''{{'}}s Special ''Star Trek'' Issue of 18 January 1995. In his 1998 book ''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'' (p. 55), Stephen Poe cited a ''Los Angeles Times'' article, that claimed nearly US$2 billion franchise revenues in retail sales alone<ref>While the gross box-office takes of the ''Star Trek'' franchise, US$1.9 billion as of 2015, are relatively well know, it are the gross revenues from the other franchise elements that remain shrouded in mystery (the 1995 ''Entertainment Weekly'' US$2 billion statement, implied a rough fifty-fifty split at that time), though it is without a doubt running in the billions, making ''Star Trek'' one of the most successful media franchises in history. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/top-100-movie-franchises-by-revenue/] Yet, it is the financial success of the younger ''Star Wars'' franchise, a franchise rival right from the start, and sporting far fewer movie or television productions, that is truly staggering, dwarfing that of ''Star Trek''. Shortly before the release of the seventh movie installment in late 2015, gross aggregates were divulged by its franchise; it consisted of US$4.3 billion in box-office takes, US$12 billion in toy sales '''alone''' (!), and US$10.7 billion for the other franchise elements, including home media format sales. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/star-wars-total-franchise-revenue/]<br/>It should be noted that the box-office takes were realized over six movies, as opposed to ''Star Trek''{{'}}s twelve, meaning that on average a ''Star Wars'' movie performs nearly five times better than a ''Star Trek'' movie. This was already abundantly exemplified by the very first, 1977 ''Star Wars'' installment, grossing US$775 million against a budget of US$11 million worldwide [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars4.htm], as opposed to ''The Motion Picture''{{'}}s US$139 million and US$35 million respectively. While the runaway success of the first ''Star Wars'' movie, considered a fluke at first by Paramount, was a major influence in the decision to produce ''The Motion Picture'' in the first place, it was also a major source of Paramount's chagrin over the ''Motion Picture''{{'}}s performance, becoming the main reason for them to consider the movie a failure in public. As of 2015, four ''Star Wars'' movies occupy places in the top-100 of the best performing movies of all time (two of them even within the top-25, the magical US$1 billion mark), whereas none of the ''Star Trek'' movies do, the most successful one, ''Star Trek Into Darkness'', only coming in at a comparably paltry 169th place, still nearly a dozen places lower than the worst performing ''Star Wars'' movie, ''Return of the Jedi''. [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=2&p=.htm]<br/>The discrepancies in financial performance between the two franchises, also reflected themselves in the financial fortunes of its two respective creators. Well into his sixties, Gene Roddenberry only became affluent because of ''Star Trek'' in the last decade of his life, while George Lucas was already a multi-millionaire by the time he original ''Star Trek'' trilogy was completed, yet to turn forty, moving up into the exclusive ranks of multi-billionaires at age 68, when he sold his Lucasfilm company to The Walt Disney Company in 2012 for US$4 billion. In all fairness though, contrary to ''Star Trek'', ''Star Wars'' became a run-away success right from the bat '''''and''''' that Lucas "lucked out" in a big way. In 1976/1977 Lucas needed additional funding to complete his first, original ''Star Wars'' installment, and offered to sell his production partner, 20th Century Fox, the merchandising and licensing rights. Fox declined, and the rights have remained were they had been ever since, Lucasfilm.<br/>Whereas, as per Herbert Solow, Paramount's acquisition of ''Star Trek'' was "one of the most spectacular business moves in entertainment history", Fox's refusal was assuredly one of its most spectacular blunders, starkly reinforced by the Lucasfilm sale to Disney; With a new, highly anticipated and promising third trilogy in the making as of 2015, Fox will now miss out entirely on its take of the box-office and home media sales revenues. How huge this missed take was, became apparent on 21 December 2015 when newscaster CNN revealed the opening box-office take of the seventh installment, ''The Force Awakens'', at US$518 million worldwide, discounting the second largest theatrical movie market in the world, China, where the movie premiered later and obliterating the previous weekend record, held by ''Jurassic World'' only achieved in the previous summer. The opening weekend box-office take alone for this one movie, already accounted for over a quarter '''all''' twelve ''Star Trek'' features had generated in their entire runs. Incidentally, adjusted for inflation the first ''Star Wars'' movie has become the all-time most grossing movie in history, only surpassed by the 1939 movie ''Gone with he Wind''. It has been joined by all the others, including the seventh one, in the top-200, whereas none of the ''Star Trek'' ones have made the list. Even the studio's own rival franchise ''Mission: Impossible'' is represented in this list with two movie outings. [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm]</ref>.
+
By the time the television series ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'' went into production, the studio's stance and attitude towards ''Star Trek'' had radically changed from the one it had back in 1967. Studio Executive [[Brandon Tartikoff]] had already stated by the time ''The Next Generation'' went into its [[TNG Season 5|fifth season]], "''When you look at the books, you saw that ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' was a twenty-five-million-dollar-goody, every year. That's the profit it would generate for Paramount.''" (''[[Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Continuing Mission]]'', p. 155) Stephen Poe observed two years later for himself how much the studio's stance and attitude had changed, when he resided at the studio on an extended stay in order to chronicle the genesis of the fourth live action ''Star Trek'' series, ''Voyager''. Poe noticed that studio employees, executives included, were almost unanimously and reverently referring to their ''Star Trek'' property as "The Franchise" due to its reliable and consistent revenue stream, having been from the mid-1980s through the 1990s Paramount's most profitable property, much to the envy of industry competitors<ref>It was by no means a coincidence that Warner Bros' ''[[Babylon 5]]'', concurrently premiering around the same time as ''Deep Space Nine'', resembled Paramount's by then well-oiled marketing of ''Star Trek'' in more than one respect. Yet, while the ''Babylon 5''-franchise enjoyed a considerable measure of success while its original series was produced and aired, it eventually fell apart after the failure of its spin-off series and movies, which resulted in that ''Babylon 5'' had nowhere near the longevity the ''Star Trek''-franchise enjoyed. Excepting ''Star Wars'', other science fiction franchises, very popular at the time of their production, like ''Battlestar Galactica'', ''Farscape'', ''[[Stargate (franchise)|Stargate]]'' or ''Firefly'' have fared little better, if at all.<br/>Even more obscure became ''SeaQuest DSV'' of [[Universal Studios]] – which, most ironically and like United Artists, had also declined to become part of the ''Star Wars'' franchise in the mid-1970s [http://www.popmatters.com/feature/165507-abandoned-star-wars-plot-points-episode-ii-the-force-behind-the-scen/] – on which ''Voyager'' production staffer [[Ben Betts]] had worked and who has confirmed, "''They definitely wanted to have something like ''Star Trek''. They wouldn't say that aloud, but that was what they were going for. They were trying to find ''Star Trek'' under water. Everything was there, except for the stories. They didn't have enough of a human element so they'd get caught up in the technology...kind of fall back on the technology to bail everybody out by the end of the episode. It was plain as day to people working on the show. Everything was right. They were spending the money to make the graphics look good, the [[CGI]] ''[note: produced by [[Amblin Imaging]], especially established for ''SeaQuest'', and later working on the CGI of the first two seasons of ''Voyager'']'' looked great, the sets were well lit, they had a pretty good cast...but it didn't work. It still wasn't ''Star Trek''.'' (''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'', p. 54)<br/>Yet, there actually has been one non-American, even older, science fiction/fantasy franchise that has emulated to a large extent the popularity and longevity of ''Star Trek'', the British, [[BBC]] produced ''[[Doctor Who]]'' franchise. However, due to its distinct "britishness", the appeal of ''Doctor Who'' has remained somewhat limited to the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth, contrary to ''Star Trek''{{'}}s worldwide appeal.</ref>. (''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'', pp. 50-51) Reporter [[Mark A. Altman]] disclosed that the entire franchise had already passed the US$1 billion dollar mark in total studio revenues by 1993 (''[[Cinefantastique]]'', Vol 24 #3/4, p. 16), which was upped to US$2 billion gross in ''Entertainment Weekly''{{'}}s Special ''Star Trek'' Issue of 18 January 1995. In his 1998 book ''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'' (p. 55), Stephen Poe cited a ''Los Angeles Times'' article, that claimed nearly US$2 billion franchise revenues in retail sales alone<ref>While the gross box-office takes of the ''Star Trek'' franchise, US$1.9 billion as of 2015, are relatively well know, it are the gross revenues from the other franchise elements that remain shrouded in mystery (the 1995 ''Entertainment Weekly'' US$2 billion statement, implied a rough fifty-fifty split at that time), though it is without a doubt running in the billions, making ''Star Trek'' one of the most successful media franchises in history. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/top-100-movie-franchises-by-revenue/] Yet, it is the financial success of the younger ''Star Wars'' franchise, a franchise rival right from the start, and sporting far fewer movie or television productions, that is truly staggering, dwarfing that of ''Star Trek''. Shortly before the release of the seventh movie installment in late 2015, gross aggregates were divulged by its franchise; it consisted of US$4.3 billion in box-office takes, US$12 billion in toy sales '''alone''' (!), and US$10.7 billion for the other franchise elements, including home media format sales. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/star-wars-total-franchise-revenue/]<br/>It should be noted that the box-office takes were realized over six movies, as opposed to ''Star Trek''{{'}}s twelve, meaning that on average a ''Star Wars'' movie performs nearly five times better than a ''Star Trek'' movie. This was already abundantly exemplified by the very first, 1977 ''Star Wars'' installment, grossing US$775 million against a budget of US$11 million worldwide [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars4.htm], as opposed to ''The Motion Picture''{{'}}s US$139 million and US$35 million respectively. While the runaway success of the first ''Star Wars'' movie, considered a fluke at first by Paramount, was a major influence in the decision to produce ''The Motion Picture'' in the first place, it was also a major source of Paramount's chagrin over the ''Motion Picture''{{'}}s performance, becoming the main reason for them to consider the movie a failure in public. As of 2015, four ''Star Wars'' movies occupy places in the top-100 of the best performing movies of all time (two of them even within the top-25, the magical US$1 billion mark), whereas none of the ''Star Trek'' movies do, the most successful one, ''Star Trek Into Darkness'', only coming in at a comparably paltry 169th place, still nearly a dozen places lower than the worst performing ''Star Wars'' movie, ''Return of the Jedi''. [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=2&p=.htm]<br/>The discrepancies in financial performance between the two franchises, also reflected themselves in the financial fortunes of its two respective creators. Well into his sixties, Gene Roddenberry only became affluent because of ''Star Trek'' in the last decade of his life, while George Lucas was already a multi-millionaire by the time he original ''Star Trek'' trilogy was completed, yet to turn forty, moving up into the exclusive ranks of multi-billionaires at age 68, when he sold his Lucasfilm company to The Walt Disney Company in 2012 for US$4 billion. In all fairness though, contrary to ''Star Trek'', ''Star Wars'' became a run-away success right from the bat '''''and''''' that Lucas "lucked out" in a big way. In 1976/1977 Lucas needed additional funding to complete his first, original ''Star Wars'' installment, and offered to sell his production partner, 20th Century Fox, the merchandising and licensing rights. Fox declined, and the rights have remained were they had been ever since, Lucasfilm.<br/>Whereas, as per Herbert Solow, Paramount's acquisition of ''Star Trek'' was "one of the most spectacular business moves in entertainment history", Fox's refusal was assuredly one of its most spectacular blunders, starkly reinforced by the Lucasfilm sale to Disney; With a new, highly anticipated and promising third trilogy in the making as of 2015, Fox will now miss out entirely on its take of the box-office and home media sales revenues. How huge this missed take was, became apparent on 21 December 2015 when newscaster CNN revealed the opening box-office take of the seventh installment, ''The Force Awakens'', at US$518 million worldwide, discounting the second largest theatrical movie market in the world, China, where the movie premiered later and obliterating the previous weekend record, held by ''Jurassic World'' only achieved in the previous summer. The opening weekend box-office take alone for this one movie, already accounted for over a quarter '''all''' twelve ''Star Trek'' features had generated in their entire runs. Incidentally, adjusted for inflation the first ''Star Wars'' movie has become the all-time most grossing movie in history, only surpassed by the 1939 movie ''Gone with he Wind''. It has been joined by all the others, including the seventh one, in the top-200, whereas none of the ''Star Trek'' ones have made the list. Even the studio's own rival franchise ''Mission: Impossible'' is represented in this list with two movie outings. [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm]</ref>.
====Current state of affairs====
====Current state of affairs====