Is it fair?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by darkshadow0001, Feb 7, 2009.

  1. darkshadow0001

    darkshadow0001 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana
    That these actors got to be a part of a franchise with their first movie while all the others had to go through either a 3 or 7 year run on TV before they hit the silver screen?

    Discuss !
     
  2. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    They got the gig. Seems fair enough to me.
     
  3. Lashmore

    Lashmore Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    is it fair to inflict several years of poor pay and bad hair onto the actors just so they can get a series of movies?

    Look at TNG....most of their movies barely earned their money back. I think Nemesis actually failed to earn its money back.

    First Contact was the only one that really earned anything.

    The TOS movies did better.
     
  4. Shikarnov

    Shikarnov Rear Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA - (TX, CT, & RF in years past)
    Since when is life ever fair?
     
  5. Amaris

    Amaris Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    United States
    Nah, I don't really see it as an issue at all. You have to start somewhere, whether it be a movie screen or a TV screen. Both require hard work, dedication and real talent if you want to be successful.


    J.
     
  6. Brutal Strudel

    Brutal Strudel Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Oddly enough, I have to agree. With acting jobs, fair's got less than nothing to do with anything.

    Actually, that's true of of life in general.
     
  7. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    That's one good point.

    For another...

    ...there is no 3- or 7-year TV run in the offing. CBS-Paramount Television is not interested in making or airing a new Star Trek series at this time. Paramount Pictures -- for all practical purposes a separate entity -- is interested in making and putting on the big screens a movie (and is doing so now) so that's what we're getting.

    I'm really not sure what there is to discuss. At this point, the very same question has been asked and answered again and again, and the answer continues to be exactly the same: we're not going to get a series (unless the animated one somehow comes back from its current limbo); we are getting a movie. Debating whether or not that's fair is kind of an empty exercise.
     
  8. chardman

    chardman Vice Admiral In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2001
    Location:
    The home of GenCon
    You are aware that just about all of these actors already have at least a few films under their belts? I don't think this is anyone's "first movie".

    Or are you trying to say that you think its unfair that their first Star Trek movie is a... um... well... a Star Trek movie?!? 'Cause it would be damn difficult for it to be anything else.
     
  9. Kaziarl

    Kaziarl Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR (Kaziarl)
    I think what is trying to say is that instead of having a series they get to start in the star trek universe on the silver screen. Where as Picard and friends, and Kirk and friends had to deal with being on TV before getting to the silver screen. I think the problem with the argument is that TV actors seem less willing these days to go from TV to SS, and visa versa for movie actors.
     
  10. Outpost4

    Outpost4 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Location:
    Upper Mississippi River
    Huh? I don't know a TV actor who won't take a movie gig if he can get it, and the idea of "stepping down" to television, while still there for the biggest movie stars, is much less than it used to be. Most actors are just looking for a good role, no matter where it is.

    DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
     
  11. Aragorn

    Aragorn Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Doing TV isn't really a step down anymore. Granted, you know Kiefer Sutherland (24), Harvey Keitel (Life on Mars), Jeff Goldblum (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) and a few others would never have been on TV if their movie careers hadn't faded. Of course you'd rather spend 18 hours a day for three straight months to make one movie for a $10 million paycheck and take the next nine months off, but that's not to say TV can't be satisfying for an actor.

    If you're on a great show, you'll have several episodes a year that are as well-written as a top notch movie. And if you're on a juggernaut, you can make seven figures per episode. When Noah Wylie was getting $1 million per episode on ER, that's $22 million over 8-9 months he wouldn't have gotten from movies.

    The biggest drawback is the audience members who have tunnel vision and are incapable of seeing the actors as anything other than their TV role.
     
  12. SalvorHardin

    SalvorHardin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    Star's End
    Weird and pointless thread in my opinion... M'Sharak's response pretty much sums it up.
     
  13. Jackson_Roykirk

    Jackson_Roykirk Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Northeastern Pennsylvania
    So, are you suggesting that Paramount/CBS should first create a TV series starring Pine, Quinto, Urban, et al just to be fair to Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart and the others?
     
  14. darkshadow0001

    darkshadow0001 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana
    Yes, that is it, exactly. I'm not saying they are bad actors/actresses or anything of that nature, and in fact I don't really care if they started Star Trek in the SS while the others started with a series (and I do realize too that there is no TV offering at this point) it was a question I had. I asked because the original actors had to make their way through a series, then animated series before entering the silver screen. That's all.
     
  15. ITL

    ITL Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Location:
    Palace Of The Brine
    So?
     
  16. Brutal Strudel

    Brutal Strudel Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    We're still talking about this?
     
  17. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Fairness doesn't enter into it. Everything in life is not a matter of right or wrong.
     
  18. Borgminister

    Borgminister Admiral Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Location:
    California
    Poor Adam West.... :(
     
  19. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    I guess one answer to that would be that Star Trek was not originally conceived as a movie project, either; it was an idea for a TV show, from the very beginning and it wasn't ever intended to be anything but a TV show. The idea of a movie didn't come along until quite a few years after the original series' cancellation and the growing popularity of the show in syndication.

    Star Trek: TNG -- same deal; it was not conceived as a movie project. The movies came several years later, after its popularity had been demonstrated on TV.

    Star Trek XI was conceived as a movie project, and not as a TV show; actors were cast for roles in that movie. That's it, really. In the real world of business and profit, it's not about paying dues in the Trek universe first before you get your movie; this is what they decided to make. The movie will either succeed or it won't, which is the only definition of fair that counts in Hollywood.
     
  20. cooleddie74

    cooleddie74 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Location:
    The Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant
    That's Hollywood. Sometimes you get the almost-instantaneous breaks. Sometimes you have to slug through commercials, TV shows and other movies before getting a big project like this.