RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,577
Posts: 5,514,725
Members: 25,154
Currently online: 558
Newest member: MC1367

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Site Forums > TrekToday News Items

TrekToday News Items Discussion of TrekToday news items

 
 
Thread Tools
Old April 20 2008, 06:10 PM   #16
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Then this will be a learning experience.

All of this sounds better and better. Except the year to wait, of course.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old April 20 2008, 11:07 PM   #17
Procutus
Admiral
 
Procutus's Avatar
 
Location: Under a silver moon
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post

All of this sounds better and better. Except the year to wait, of course.


I think the thing that really keeps me stoked has been Nimoy's comments. I realize that it's his job to talk up this project and to sing the praises of J.J., but I really do get the feeling that this film is as big in scope as Leonard says it is.

And the bottom line is, Nimoy didn't have to be in this movie in the first place; he accepted because he felt it was a good story.

But yeah, waiting for it for another year is a real pisser.
__________________
Proud user of Windows XP since 2006.
Procutus is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 05:42 AM   #18
Tyson
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Canada
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Another fluff piece that doesn't actually tell us anything that isn't in all likelihood contradictory? Say it ain't so.

This is a modern hollywood sci-fi movie, we already know that action is going to going to be a huge focus. Telling us that "no, really, this is still a Star Trek movie. Really." isn't saying anything at all.

I'd love to see a trailer, something that'll tell me this isn't going to be as retarded as it sounds like it's going to be.
Tyson is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 06:02 PM   #19
T'Cal
Commodore
 
T'Cal's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Captain Euphoria wrote: View Post
... I wish instead Paramount would have found a way to do what Stargate SG-1 is doing now with the direct to DVD movies. Maybe they still will. Anyone up for a Titan or Challenger movie?
You and me both, brother! I would settle for it as direct to DVD but would prefer semi-annual miniseries that covers the era from TNG, DS9, and VOY.

As for this movies, I wish they would start filming STXII now so that the sequel can be released at Xmas of 09.
__________________
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Judge Aaron Satie
T'Cal is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 06:04 PM   #20
T'Cal
Commodore
 
T'Cal's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

or, release this one as originally planned (Xmas 08) and start making the sequel for next summer!
__________________
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Judge Aaron Satie
T'Cal is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 08:36 PM   #21
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Captain Euphoria wrote: View Post
As a big fan of Trek first and Star Wars second, I have to say I'm at best intruiged by the melding of the two but at worst afraid this is going to ruin what I love about Star Trek. Let's just say I'm pessimistic that we needed to go back to the teen years of the original cast. I wish instead Paramount would have found a way to do what Stargate SG-1 is doing now with the direct to DVD movies. Maybe they still will. Anyone up for a Titan or Challenger movie?
I've said this all along.

I still find the entire notion of a $150m film for a franchise that's only made more than $100m only once absurd.

If anybody other than Abrams were doing this movie, it would BE a direct to DVD film.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 08:38 PM   #22
number6
Vice Admiral
 
Location: number6 has left the village through some inexpicable hole in the ground to head the corporation.
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

TJinPgh wrote: View Post
Captain Euphoria wrote: View Post
As a big fan of Trek first and Star Wars second, I have to say I'm at best intruiged by the melding of the two but at worst afraid this is going to ruin what I love about Star Trek. Let's just say I'm pessimistic that we needed to go back to the teen years of the original cast. I wish instead Paramount would have found a way to do what Stargate SG-1 is doing now with the direct to DVD movies. Maybe they still will. Anyone up for a Titan or Challenger movie?
I've said this all along.

I still find the entire notion of a $150m film for a franchise that's only made more than $100m only once absurd.

If anybody other than Abrams were doing this movie, it would BE a direct to DVD film.
If Abrams weren't doing this movie, there wouldn't BE a Star Trek film at all.
number6 is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 08:46 PM   #23
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Dane_Whitman wrote: View Post
Oh come on! There's nothing wrong with action, numerous sources have stated that they 'got the Star Trek phormula' right on this one. You can have an action-packed film and include everything that Star Trek stands for.
Any of those happen to be from somebody NOT getting a paycheck from this thing?

I have no problem with action. The question is whether or not the action will take center stage over an actual story.

Nemesis and Insurrection had more than enough action for a Star Trek film. Yet, very few people liked them. And, neither did ANYTHING to attract casual viewers.

I said it before, I'll say it again. The moment they signed Karl Urban to play an adventure seeking Dr. McCoy is the moment they announced we were moving from our simple country doctor in this wagon train to the stars to a triage in space.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 08:52 PM   #24
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

number6 wrote: View Post
If Abrams weren't doing this movie, there wouldn't BE a Star Trek film at all.
Maybe. Although, Paramount went to him about the project, not the other way around. So, clearly, somebody at Paramount thought enough of the franchise at the time to want to give it another go.

But, as I've said before, I went into Nemesis figuring it would be the last Star Trek film made. I accepted that then. I'm not that desperate to see something with the Trek name on it.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 09:18 PM   #25
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Captain Euphoria wrote: View Post
As a big fan of Trek first and Star Wars second, I have to say I'm at best intruiged by the melding of the two but at worst afraid this is going to ruin what I love about Star Trek. Let's just say I'm pessimistic that we needed to go back to the teen years of the original cast. I wish instead Paramount would have found a way to do what Stargate SG-1 is doing now with the direct to DVD movies. Maybe they still will. Anyone up for a Titan or Challenger movie?
Titan or what movie? Do we really want something that small-time as the next Trek thing? Direct to DVD is where franchises go to die.

That would make Trek even more of a joke than it already is. They need a big, awesome blockbuster movie to bring Trek back, and turn it into a money-maker again.

TJinPgh wrote: View Post
I still find the entire notion of a $150m film for a franchise that's only made more than $100m only once absurd.

If anybody other than Abrams were doing this movie, it would BE a direct to DVD film.
Aside from TMP, all the Trek movies have been strictly small-time affairs.

However, taking into account things like ticket price & inflation, the TOS movies all did really well. Even TFF breaks over the $100 mil mark in today's dollars, I believe (or at least close to it). The TNG movies did much worse, which is one of the reasons we will not be seeing a "Titan" movie. The other being that they don't want Trek to remain strictly little-leagues. There's not as much money in the little leagues.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Old April 21 2008, 10:09 PM   #26
T'Cal
Commodore
 
T'Cal's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Aside from TMP, all the Trek movies have been strictly small-time affairs.
In TNG movies, and even TUC, the sets were redresses of existing ones from the TV show, some costumes were reused, and even a few of the SPFX were stock footage from previous movies and episodes. I'm sure they saved a ton of money there. In this next flick, we'll see all new sets, all new costumes, and all new SPFX. Quite a bit of the budget will be eaten up for these things.
__________________
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Judge Aaron Satie
T'Cal is offline  
Old April 22 2008, 12:37 AM   #27
Cicero
Admiral
 
Cicero's Avatar
 
Location: The City of Destiny
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

To be correct, the headline should read: 'Star Trek XI' Different From Any Other 'Star Trek'
__________________
Ad majorem futuri gloriam.
Cicero is offline  
Old April 22 2008, 12:41 AM   #28
Procutus
Admiral
 
Procutus's Avatar
 
Location: Under a silver moon
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

^

All quite true, yet another parallel between this film and TMP. Just as I went into TMP knowing that it would look different from TOS, I accept that this movie will as well. I just hope that it feels like TOS, something I've said in these threads several times before.
__________________
Proud user of Windows XP since 2006.
Procutus is offline  
Old April 22 2008, 01:15 AM   #29
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

Captain Euphoria wrote: View Post
Anyone up for a Titan or Challenger movie?

No, not in the least.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old April 25 2008, 01:17 AM   #30
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: 'Star Trek XI' Different Than Any Other 'Star Trek'

ancient wrote: View Post
Captain Euphoria wrote: View Post
As a big fan of Trek first and Star Wars second, I have to say I'm at best intruiged by the melding of the two but at worst afraid this is going to ruin what I love about Star Trek. Let's just say I'm pessimistic that we needed to go back to the teen years of the original cast. I wish instead Paramount would have found a way to do what Stargate SG-1 is doing now with the direct to DVD movies. Maybe they still will. Anyone up for a Titan or Challenger movie?
Titan or what movie? Do we really want something that small-time as the next Trek thing? Direct to DVD is where franchises go to die.
Well, Starship Troopers went D2V for, what, 2... 3 films? It's now set to return to the big screen and compete with Trek.

It's hardly a death sentence, unless one treats it as such. B5 has made a ton of money on their release.


That would make Trek even more of a joke than it already is. They need a big, awesome blockbuster movie to bring Trek back, and turn it into a money-maker again.
Bringing trek "back" to blockbuster status implies that it was ever a blockbuster to begin with. I really hate to break this to you, but it hasn't.

Star Trek always has been, and always will be niche programing that made money by producing films on a respectable budget.

Cloverfield is a prime example of this. It opened to a very nice box. Got fantastic reviews. And, still barely made half of what they're sinking into Trek. The difference is that it cost about 1/5 as much as Trek to make.

But, even if there was "blockbuster" potential for a Star Trek film, there's little to nothing about this movie that presents it.

We're talking about no-name actors in a sub niche topic of a niche genre.

Sorry, but it takes more than a bloated budget, a producer with an over inflated view of his own self worth and a series of canned praises to make something a blockbuster.


TJinPgh wrote: View Post
I still find the entire notion of a $150m film for a franchise that's only made more than $100m only once absurd.

If anybody other than Abrams were doing this movie, it would BE a direct to DVD film.
Aside from TMP, all the Trek movies have been strictly small-time affairs.

However, taking into account things like ticket price & inflation, the TOS movies all did really well. Even TFF breaks over the $100 mil mark in today's dollars, I believe (or at least close to it). The TNG movies did much worse, which is one of the reasons we will not be seeing a "Titan" movie. The other being that they don't want Trek to remain strictly little-leagues. There's not as much money in the little leagues.
[/quote]

All very true. But, other than Trek IV, most of those movies did well for one reason and one reason alone. Because Star Trek fans carried them. Fans went to see those movies 2, sometimes 3 or more times.

After First Contact, it's not so much that the general public stopped going (they'd stopped going long ago). It's that the existing Trek fans stopped going.

Look, I'm as much of a Trek fan as anybody. But, I'm also a realist.

Star Trek has existed for 40+ years because the people involved with the franchise had realistic expectations.

A bunch of relatively low budget films packed full of vetern TV actors with a decent amount of character recognition and a handful of series in syndication and second tier networks.

I think Berman's biggest crime against the franchise was not recognizing it for what it was, and thinking it could be built into some mega-conglomorate of multiple-front media with TV, books and film all going simultaneously.

The bar has continued to rise without a solid foundation to build upon. Abrams is not only upping that bar, he's doubling it.

I simply don't believe there are enough of us left to make it work.

Sadly, I don't think there ever were.
TJinPgh is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.