i wish abrams had made a post ds9/voy movie isntead! - Page 2

JarodRussell · November 3 2009, 08:25 PM

I love those non-arguments.

Guys, the new movie didn't automatically make a profit by default, just because it was about Kirk and Spock. It made profit because of how it was made, how it looks and sounds, and how good the marketing campaign was.

MvRojo · November 3 2009, 08:26 PM

-Brett- wrote:

Shazam! wrote:

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Profit.

You can't really make that assumption because the time, money, effort, and talent that Paramount was willing to put into Trek XI was more than twice what it had ever done previously. If the same production went into a post-TNG movie, we have no idea how it would perform.

Devon · November 3 2009, 08:41 PM

-Brett- wrote:

Shazam! wrote:

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Profit.

And so the debate came to an end with this.

Dukhat · November 3 2009, 08:53 PM

JarodRussell wrote:

I love those non-arguments.

Guys, the new movie didn't automatically make a profit by default, just because it was about Kirk and Spock. It made profit because of how it was made, how it looks and sounds, and how good the marketing campaign was.

Yeah, but Kirk and Spock had a WHOLE lot to do with it. In case you hadn't noticed, the entire movie was based around their lives and relationship to each other.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-arguments." Both myself and others have given clear, rational explanations why the OP's idea wouldn't work better than what we got. Is it just because it isn't what you want to hear?

MvRojo · November 3 2009, 09:00 PM

Dukhat wrote:

And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-arguments." Both myself and others have given clear, rational explanations why the OP's idea wouldn't work better than what we got. Is it just because it isn't what you want to hear?

What Jarod and I are trying to say is that you can't assume that the movie would be bad just by virtue of being in the post-TNG timeframe. That's saying that Orci and Kurtzman would turn out a shit script just because of the setting. That's a terrible argument and basically gives them no credit as writers.

If they can write a great script with TOS characters, you can't say they couldn't do the same with TNG, DS9, Voyager, or even original characters.

And if Paramount spent $150 million on marketing a post-TNG movies (like they did with Trek XI), who knows how successful or not it would be.

Dukhat · November 3 2009, 09:06 PM

MvRojo wrote:

Dukhat wrote:

And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-arguments." Both myself and others have given clear, rational explanations why the OP's idea wouldn't work better than what we got. Is it just because it isn't what you want to hear?

What Jarod and I are trying to say is that you can't assume that the movie would be bad just by virtue of being in the post-TNG timeframe. That's saying that Orci and Kurtzman would turn out a shit script just because of the setting. That's a terrible argument and basically gives them no credit as writers.

If they can write a great script with TOS characters, you can't say they couldn't do the same with TNG, DS9, Voyager, or even original characters.

And if Paramount spent $150 million on marketing a post-TNG movies (like they did with Trek XI), who knows how successful or not it would be.

Okay, let me reiterate. I never said a post-TNG movie would be "bad," as in badly written, badly acted or badly produced. As a matter of fact, I'd be very happy if another TNG movie was made. But that's not what the OP said. He said that he wished Abrams had made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and I said that it would be a bad idea because no one would go see it except for die-hard fans, and it wouldn't make any money (or at least make the amount of money Paramount put into it). And that's exactly what Paramount thought as well, or we wouldn't have had a TOS movie that was as successful as this one was.

thumbtack · November 3 2009, 09:13 PM

How many second chances does the prime universe deserve?

MvRojo · November 3 2009, 09:15 PM

Dukhat wrote:

MvRojo wrote:

Dukhat wrote:

And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-arguments." Both myself and others have given clear, rational explanations why the OP's idea wouldn't work better than what we got. Is it just because it isn't what you want to hear?

What Jarod and I are trying to say is that you can't assume that the movie would be bad just by virtue of being in the post-TNG timeframe. That's saying that Orci and Kurtzman would turn out a shit script just because of the setting. That's a terrible argument and basically gives them no credit as writers.

If they can write a great script with TOS characters, you can't say they couldn't do the same with TNG, DS9, Voyager, or even original characters.

And if Paramount spent $150 million on marketing a post-TNG movies (like they did with Trek XI), who knows how successful or not it would be.

Okay, let me reiterate. I never said a post-TNG movie would be "bad," as in badly written, badly acted or badly produced. As a matter of fact, I'd be very happy if another TNG movie was made. But that's not what the OP said. He said that he wished Abrams had made a post-TNG movie instead of a TOS movie, and I said that it would be a bad idea because no one would go see it except for die-hard fans, and it wouldn't make any money (or at least make the amount of money Paramount put into it). And that's exactly what Paramount thought as well, or we wouldn't have had a TOS movie that was as successful as this one was.

Yeah, and I'm saying we don't know how well a post-TNG movie would have done with the same amount of money and energy as was spent on Trek XI.

Paramount spent $300 million on production + marketing for Trek XI. They spent less than $100 million on production and marketing for Nemesis and far, far less on the previous films.

They spent millions for a Super Bowl ad, had the trailers attached to good movies. For comparison, the teaser and full trailers for Insurrection were attached to "Dead Man on Campus" and "The Siege."

Dukhat · November 3 2009, 09:21 PM

You're right: We don't know. But in my opinion, It wouldn't have been anywhere near as popular and money-making as the TOS reboot was.

Disillusioned · November 3 2009, 10:32 PM

Dukhat wrote:

Yeah, but Kirk and Spock had a WHOLE lot to do with it. In case you hadn't noticed, the entire movie was based around their lives and relationship to each other.

I also noticed they changed a lot about those characters, their lives, and their relationship to each other. Considering that, there isn't anything they did in this movie that couldn't have been accomplished with new characters on a different ship. As an added bonus they then wouldn't have needed the convoluted and contrived plot devices they needed to justify the changes they made to basically everything about TOS.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-arguments." Both myself and others have given clear, rational explanations why the OP's idea wouldn't work better than what we got. Is it just because it isn't what you want to hear?

No, it's because the name recognition argument really isn't all that strong.

Borgminister · November 3 2009, 10:36 PM

Disillusioned wrote:

No, it's because the name recognition argument really isn't all that strong.

Oh, I disagree there. Now, had the movie stunk, then legs wouldn't have kicked in. But those names are a big part of what brought the initial wave, IMO.

MvRojo · November 3 2009, 10:42 PM

Borgminister wrote:

Disillusioned wrote:

No, it's because the name recognition argument really isn't all that strong.

Oh, I disagree there. Now, had the movie stunk, then legs wouldn't have kicked in. But those names are a big part of what brought the initial wave, IMO.

I think the initial wave was due to the marketing and trailers, which made it an event movie. There's a lot of people who went because the trailers made the movie look awesome. The casual moviegoer (including all the non-Trek fans I took) couldn't have cared less about who the characters were. One of my friends went based solely on the space-diving scene.

Disillusioned · November 3 2009, 10:42 PM

Those names have just as much association with being a nerd as anything else. The only reason why there even is name recognition to begin with is because the original series was popular enough for that name recognition to take place, the same as with Star Wars or any other movie or show. If they'd done a movie with a different crew on a different ship, if it was good enough there would simply be more name recognition that would develop as a result, the same way Picard's name came to be recognized with Star Trek thanks to TNG's popularity.

And that isn't even going into how wrong it is to dismiss and idea out of hand simply because of name recognition. This assumes that all viewers are morons, and frankly makes you no better than the people responsible for executive meddling that often ruins otherwise good shows. Plus if everyone had had that attitude, just think of how many great shows and movies we wouldn't have.

Aragorn · November 3 2009, 10:56 PM

JarodRussell wrote:

I love those non-arguments.

Of course you're going to call everything that isn't in exact alignment and agreement with you as "non-arguments" since they're from individuals who didn't hate this last movie before, during and after it came out.

Kirk Only · November 3 2009, 11:02 PM

DS9 was a dead series anyway..never did find it interesting..the only half way decent episode was Trials and Tribbulations.

Nerys Myk · November 3 2009, 11:16 PM

Shazam! wrote:

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Using those names are a major selling point.

Shazam! · November 3 2009, 11:19 PM

-Brett- wrote:

Shazam! wrote:

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Profit.

I don't disagree that the move was nothing more than a money grabbing exercise.

thumbtack wrote:

How many second chances does the prime universe deserve?

LOL So Trek XI comes along and now everything prime universe is sub-standard and doesn't deserve our attention? Jesus Christ, you're a fickle lot. If Trek XII is no good, should we restart the franchise again?

Nerys Myk · November 3 2009, 11:23 PM

They'll keep doing it till they get it "right". Hollywood is funny that way.

Shazam! · November 3 2009, 11:25 PM

Nerys Myk wrote:

Shazam! wrote:

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Using those names are a major selling point.

Whilst I don't disagree that they are now the selling point (to the degree that I don't think a new TV show would work without them) any marketing team could've crafted a unique selling point otherwise how else would non sequel/prequel/reboot/restart/spin-off movies become successful?

Alientraveller · November 3 2009, 11:25 PM

He did make a post TNG/DS9/Voyager movie though: the backstory happens in 2387. This movie's a sequel, prequel and a reboot.