View Single Post
Old May 15 2013, 09:38 AM   #1953
Fleet Captain
Devon's Avatar

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.
Swing and a miss with the insult.

However, as long as the franchise is on this path, we'll never see another "Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light" or "Far Beyond the Stars" again.
Not in a two hour movie, no. People don't want to spend $40 or $50.00 at the movies to see Patrick Stewart play a little flute (oh, but if it's in 3D they might....)

For that matter, even something like "Time's Arrow" is probably beyond J.J.'s capabilities...
J.J. is the director, not the writer, so.....

And when it comes to getting "mainstream" popularity - make good stories and that will come - you need to look no further than 1994, when TNG was one of the most popular shows on television, had already spun-off DS9, and was about to spin-off Voyager, and would be in the theaters in the fall with Generations.
Ironically, many felt that the fall began with Generations.

TNG didn't need lens flares and explosions, and to me, their successes went far beyond J.J.'s movies.
So you're comparing 7 years worth of episodes to 2 films? Really?

J.J.'s movies will be lucky to get 4 made, probably 3.
And that has to do with what?

TNG's movie franchise, for being a "failure" made 4, and that was after spending 7 years as a critically acclaimed series that spawned an additional 18 years of episodes after it's conclusion.
TNG's film series has performed the worst for Paramount, and it was due to the TNG films that we got the reboot, so it's ironic how you want to attribute the TNG film's supposed success but don't realize it was their failures that caused Paramount to want to start over!

"Real" Star Trek is character development and social commentary told through a sci-fi prism, not explosions, CGI, and magic Khan blood.
That was pretty weak. You cherry picked the credentials for supposed "real" Star Trek. I could easily say "'Real' Star Trek is character development and social commentary told through a sci-fi prism, not explosions, CGI and Kirk chopping wood."

So based on your credentials, about 80% of Star Trek is not "real." Hell, what am I talking about, none it is "real." Which makes the "Real Star Trek" thing even more ridiculous to say.
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote