RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,345
Posts: 5,353,930
Members: 24,620
Currently online: 540
Newest member: StarTrekSteve

TrekToday headlines

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 28 2009, 08:59 PM   #106
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
They auctioned off or threw away every prop, set piece and costume, every miniature that was cluttering up their storage areas - why pay to store something you're never going to use again? They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.
Good point. I'd forgotten about that.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28 2009, 09:24 PM   #107
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
Yeah, hair-splitting is what I said.


Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
I think Dennis's point may have been that never before had a Trek series been canceled, a film been a box-office failure and the creative staff laid off all at the same time. That sounds fairly dead to me.
They auctioned off or threw away every prop, set piece and costume, every miniature that was cluttering up their storage areas - why pay to store something you're never going to use again? They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.
And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.

Yeah ... really dead.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28 2009, 09:37 PM   #108
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Psion wrote: View Post
Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
Yeah, hair-splitting is what I said.


Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
I think Dennis's point may have been that never before had a Trek series been canceled, a film been a box-office failure and the creative staff laid off all at the same time. That sounds fairly dead to me.
They auctioned off or threw away every prop, set piece and costume, every miniature that was cluttering up their storage areas - why pay to store something you're never going to use again? They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.
And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.

Yeah ... really dead.
...

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
They were done with Trek as it had existed, and they knew it.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28 2009, 09:45 PM   #109
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Psion wrote: View Post
And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.
You're grasping at straws.

Paramount/CBS dumped all their Trek stuff well before any new project had been greenlighted (or even scripted) and well over a year before production started.

During that time they rejected at least two other Trek projects.

Trek was dead before Abrams's project got off the ground. No matter what happens with this movie, it can't leave Trek in worse shape than existed before Paramount turned their dead Franchise over to him; that precise shape being: no TV or film projects in production, no real interest in any Trek projects that had been presented to them. And taking whatever money they could get to empty their warehouses of old Trek props and miniatures which were of no use whatever to them and that they never expected would be again.

They probably did Abrams a favor with that last bit - after all, since thanks to the studio's disinterest in Trek there were no sets left to recycle one more time no one could argue with the expense of rebuilding the whole shebang differently.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 12:12 AM   #110
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
Psion wrote: View Post
And yet, discussion between Paramount and Abrams about Trek XI began a full year before that.
You're grasping at straws.

Paramount/CBS dumped all their Trek stuff well before any new project had been greenlighted (or even scripted) and well over a year before production started.

During that time they rejected at least two other Trek projects.

Trek was dead before Abrams's project got off the ground. No matter what happens with this movie, it can't leave Trek in worse shape than existed before Paramount turned their dead Franchise over to him; that precise shape being: no TV or film projects in production, no real interest in any Trek projects that had been presented to them. And taking whatever money they could get to empty their warehouses of old Trek props and miniatures which were of no use whatever to them and that they never expected would be again.

They probably did Abrams a favor with that last bit - after all, since thanks to the studio's disinterest in Trek there were no sets left to recycle one more time no one could argue with the expense of rebuilding the whole shebang differently.
Here's the big Christies Star Trek auction. Please note the dates ... October 5, 6, and 7th of 2006.

Here's the first announcement of Abram's involvement posted on TrekToday. This time, you'll note the date of April 21, 2006. If I whip out my trusty fingers and count, I get ... one, two, three, four, five, six ... six months and a few spare weeks after the announcement of the movie before the Christies auction. And according to this Wikipedia entry, "Development of the film began in 2005 when Paramount Pictures contacted Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman for ideas to revive the franchise." Even assuming the latest month in 2005, that's still ten months before the Christies auction (wow, almost had to whip out my toes).

This was less than a year after Enterprise had been canceled. By what twisted plot device do you reason that "Paramount/CBS dumped all their Trek stuff well before any new project had been greenlighted"? Was it Daniels or Nero who screwed up your calendar?

Alright, I'm being a little disrespectful here as well as disingenuous. There's the issue of when Paramount actually "dumped" the memorabilia versus the actual auction. As near as I can find, that was some time around April or May of 2006, so at best (worst?), Star Trek was "dead" a couple weeks.

But all that is completely irrelevant anyway. Paramount's decision probably had less to do with Star Trek's vital signs than Paramount's own financial state. Storing all that stuff must have cost them something. And they knew they'd get a fair chunk of change back from any auction. I think this whole notion of Trek being dead in the first place isn't just your idea, but typical entertainment industry hyperbole. I doubt anyone seriously thought there'd never be another Trek production filmed again.

I have to give you credit, though -- the auction is almost certainly responsible for at least some of the change in set design. The conspiracy nut in me wonders if part of the motivation for the auction was to force Abram's hand. "Y'know, we're getting rid of all that stuff ... why don't you come up with something new?"

Incidentally, I know of Straczynski's pitch ... what was the other one?
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 01:13 AM   #111
PowderedToastMan
Commodore
 
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.
__________________
TrekMovie.com
PowderedToastMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 01:43 AM   #112
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

PowderedToastMan wrote: View Post
the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.
By the account I cited, that was in April, 2006. Aside from that, I'm sure the rest of what you say is true.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 02:26 AM   #113
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Psion wrote: View Post
Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
Psion wrote: View Post
...
[...]

During that time they rejected at least two other Trek projects.
[...]
[...]

Incidentally, I know of Straczynski's pitch ... what was the other one?
That's probably the Jendresen script, which Berman was supposed to be producing while still under contract.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star..._The_Beginning
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 02:34 AM   #114
MadBaggins
Captain
 
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

That looks so bad that I just punched myself in the neck. FUCK.
__________________
"...eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a bang and a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend..."
MadBaggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 03:51 AM   #115
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
That's probably the Jendresen script, which Berman was supposed to be producing while still under contract.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star..._The_Beginning
Awesome, thanks! I must have been sleeping under a rock with cotton stuffed in my ears. The Romulan Wars might be good for storylines, but I'm almost tempted to give Dennis the win on this and say ... my god that sounded boring.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 03:52 AM   #116
PowderedToastMan
Commodore
 
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Psion wrote: View Post
PowderedToastMan wrote: View Post
the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.
By the account I cited, that was in April, 2006. Aside from that, I'm sure the rest of what you say is true.
100% of what I said is true...not sure what you cited, but there was no budget for star trek until 2007. JJ Abrams was developing a Trek project under his own overall Paramount/Bad Robot deal. The film was green lit in February 2007 and that is when it had a budget. Also the Jendresen project was funded out of the Kerner producers overall deal and again not part of a 'trek budget' (Berman had nothing to do with the project besides one awkward meeting with Jendresen). The Trek budget ceased after production on Enterprise ceased....starting then the Trek storage started burning a hole in the facilities budget for Paramount with no 'cost center' to assign it to....the solution was to sell it
__________________
TrekMovie.com
PowderedToastMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 04:17 AM   #117
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Straczynski's pitch was never rejected, because it was never actually submitted. Jendresen's was one; the second project I was thinking of was the animated 25 century Trek series.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 04:23 AM   #118
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
Straczynski's pitch was never rejected, because it was never actually submitted. Jendresen's was one; the second project I was thinking of was the animated 25 century Trek series.
That's the one Dave Rossi was working on?

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Unti...nimated_series
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 04:26 AM   #119
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Yep.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2009, 05:51 AM   #120
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

PowderedToastMan wrote: View Post
Psion wrote: View Post
PowderedToastMan wrote: View Post
the reason for the Christies sale was quite simple, for decades there was an active budget for Star Trek at Paramount and it paid for the storage. As of 2006 there was no longer any active star trek budget, hence no one to pay for the storage of all the stuff...so they sold most of it. Trek did not have an active budget again until 2007 when the new film was green lit.


as they say with many things, follow the money...that is why they sold the stuff.

that being said, Abrams and Paramount wanted a new fresh take and so it is unlikely they would have used any of the old stuff anyway.
By the account I cited, that was in April, 2006. Aside from that, I'm sure the rest of what you say is true.
100% of what I said is true...not sure what you cited, but there was no budget for star trek until 2007. JJ Abrams was developing a Trek project under his own overall Paramount/Bad Robot deal. The film was green lit in February 2007 and that is when it had a budget. Also the Jendresen project was funded out of the Kerner producers overall deal and again not part of a 'trek budget' (Berman had nothing to do with the project besides one awkward meeting with Jendresen). The Trek budget ceased after production on Enterprise ceased....starting then the Trek storage started burning a hole in the facilities budget for Paramount with no 'cost center' to assign it to....the solution was to sell it
I think maybe you're the one splitting hairs now. Cost center, huh? Paramount has a history with Trek of building sets without a budget, or even a firm starting date. Phase II is proof of that, where the crew just kept wiring more stuff, asking how much money do we have, oh don't worry about it ...

if Abrams was developing a pic in spring of one year, you'd better believe both he and Par had a ballpark ides of what the budget would be, well before the show was greenlit a year later. So the selling off of stuff when they had a pretty good idea they would be going ahead is a clear indication that NOT REUSING OLD STUFF was probably part of Abrams overall deal, just like most directors who replace another director in mid-shoot usually insist on throwing the first guy's stuff away and starting over. Maybe selling off the stuff actually allowed them to apply some of that to the budget?
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
narada, nero, romulans, time travel

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 06:09 AM.

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