Star Trek Into Darkness Aiming For More

[TrekToday]

According to Star Trek into Darkness Producer Bryan Burk, both he and J.J. Abrams are looking to expand the Star Trek fan base. Burk commented on their hopes for Star Trek into Darkness at one of the forty-minute preview screenings of the movie taking place at various locations world-wise; this one in Sydney, Australia. “I [...]

More...

[Opus]

I'm glad they are "aiming for more".

But Burk comes off as a doofus in the article - "[Star Trek's] science fact! It's one hundred percent our future!"

Uhhhh... no...

[JarodRussell]

Burk is involved in the next Star Wars as well?

[wjaspers]

People who do not like ST, have their reasons. If suddenly they like ST, than this means they are not looking at ST, they are looking at something else created by JJ.

Thank you for ruin it for me.

[Nerys Myk]

wjaspers wrote:

---

People who do not like ST, have their reasons. If suddenly they like ST, than this means they are not looking at ST, they are looking at something else created by JJ.

Thank you for ruin it for me.

Whut?

[Xaios]

wjaspers wrote:

---

People who do not like ST, have their reasons. If suddenly they like ST, than this means they are not looking at ST, they are looking at something else created by JJ.

Thank you for ruin it for me.

Yeah, uh-huh. Because anyone who didn't like Star Trek but then suddenly did like Deep Space Nine meant they didn't like Star Trek, they liked something else created by Rick Berman and Michael Piller.

[Therin of Andor]

wjaspers wrote:

---

Thank you for ruin it for me.

What's ruined?

You are not compelled to watch any new Star Trek adventures. Rewatch your old ones!

Plenty of us enjoyed the last JJ Abrams effort. Very much.

[RAMA]

OphaClyde wrote:

---

I'm glad they are "aiming for more".

But Burk comes off as a doofus in the article - "[Star Trek's] science fact! It's one hundred percent our future!"

Uhhhh... no...

I think that's his general way of saying it's more grounded, as well as inspirational to modern inventors/scientists/engineers. I'm pretty certain he doesn't believe it's actually fact.

RAMA

[RAMA]

Xaios wrote:

---

Yeah, uh-huh. Because anyone who didn't like Star Trek but then suddenly did like Deep Space Nine meant they didn't like Star Trek, they liked something else created by Rick Berman and Michael Piller.

I usually feel the other way around, I consider all of ST one history (even JJ's as an alternate one). You don't HAVE to believe that and enjoy all of them, but I do. To me, STNG was a vindication of ST on TV, the other shows were a vindication for the way STNG was put on the air...one gigantic flipping off of the execs and networks who cancelled it. In that way ST is a rebel franchise, unlike SW for example.

RAMA

[Flake]

I'm sure folks in 1987 moaned and groaned about TNG being nothing like TOS. Trek needs to reinvent itself every few decades or else it just dies forever.

Paramount had an option, do they stick with Berman and try to appeal to an ever dwindling population of diehards or reboot big time and throw lots of money trying to get Trek back to its height?, I think they made the right decision. The people complaining about how much the reboot sucks are just collateral damage.

[Nerys Myk]

More is better

[tomalak301]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

More is better

Completely off topic, but I think these are some of the best commercials on the air right now. AT&T really did hit it big with these. Consistantly funny, no matter how many times I've seen them.

[RAMA]

Flake wrote:

---

I'm sure folks in 1987 moaned and groaned about TNG being nothing like TOS. Trek needs to reinvent itself every few decades or else it just dies forever.

Paramount had an option, do they stick with Berman and try to appeal to an ever dwindling population of diehards or reboot big time and throw lots of money trying to get Trek back to its height?, I think they made the right decision. The people complaining about how much the reboot sucks are just collateral damage.

[mos6507]

Flake wrote:

---

I'm sure folks in 1987 moaned and groaned about TNG being nothing like TOS. Trek needs to reinvent itself every few decades or else it just dies forever.

I was one of the ones who moaned and groaned. I think TNG won people over mostly because it was there, not because it somehow brought something new and vital to ST that TOS didn't have. Not that it wasn't good on occasion, but just not as good as TOS.

Flake wrote:

---

Paramount had an option, do they stick with Berman

Sticking with the prime continuity shouldn't have had to mean sticking with Berman.

Flake wrote:

---

The people complaining about how much the reboot sucks are just collateral damage.

In a cut-throat capitalism way, sure. That seems to be how things are going to go down from here on in, as Hollywood just keeps rebooting a fixed number of franchises ad-nauseum rather than trying something new, and what this does is set up inner-feuds like this within fandom. If Trek had just been allowed to die after Nemesis, at least you wouldn't have these sorts of battles. Instead it's "it makes money therefore it should be celebrated" vs. the purists. These sorts of battles have no resolution because they originate from two totally different value-systems.