RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,570
Posts: 5,402,643
Members: 24,865
Currently online: 568
Newest member: shyrim

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 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 > Site Forums > TrekToday News Items

TrekToday News Items Discussion of TrekToday news items

 
 
Thread Tools
Old February 3 2009, 06:24 PM   #31
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

TJinPgh wrote: View Post
The old "Star Trek" will be preserved - on DVDs and probably in some form in comics and novels. It has no commercial future, however, at the level of TV and films.
Somebody seems to disagree, since TNG is returning to syndication. But, I digress.
That's still simply preservation of the past, just like DVDs - no future in film or TV production. Throw "syndication" into my original statement and it's still accurate.

So no, no one "seems to disagree." You're mistaken yet again.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old February 3 2009, 09:30 PM   #32
Star Treks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: California
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
TJinPgh wrote: View Post
The old "Star Trek" will be preserved - on DVDs and probably in some form in comics and novels. It has no commercial future, however, at the level of TV and films.
Somebody seems to disagree, since TNG is returning to syndication. But, I digress.
That's still simply preservation of the past, just like DVDs - no future in film or TV production. Throw "syndication" into my original statement and it's still accurate.

So no, no one "seems to disagree." You're mistaken yet again.
Well, I disagree, and since I am a person, I am "someone" and therefore you are by definition mistaken, Polaris.
__________________
"Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weakon our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence."

- W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief
Star Treks is offline  
Old February 3 2009, 10:22 PM   #33
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

And you missed the point of the entire exchange, which wasn't actually a poll concerning whether anyone shared TJinPgh's opinion, but in fact whether there's a future for new episodes of old-guard Trek in the movies or on TV. This is all an unsuccessful attempt to distract from that point without answering it.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old February 3 2009, 10:52 PM   #34
Star Treks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: California
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
And you missed the point of the entire exchange, which wasn't actually a poll concerning whether anyone shared TJinPgh's opinion, but in fact whether there's a future for new episodes of old-guard Trek in the movies or on TV. This is all an unsuccessful attempt to distract from that point without answering it.
But since this is a discussion about the future viability of a franchise it seems to me that by definition it can only be a matter of opinion, and I assure you that there are plenty who disagree with you.

It's nothing personal, but I think you're wrong. There's plenty of viability for Trek movies and TV in the future - both new spinoffs and reboot-type stuff. It may take a while but there will be plenty of new shows and movies.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.
__________________
"Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weakon our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence."

- W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief
Star Treks is offline  
Old February 3 2009, 11:34 PM   #35
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Star Treks wrote: View Post
There's plenty of viability for Trek movies and TV in the future - both new spinoffs and reboot-type stuff. It may take a while but there will be plenty of new shows and movies.
Well, the "out" there is adding in the "reboot-type stuff." Of course the reboot may be viable - again, you missed the point.

As to the notion that there will be new movies and/or TV shows based on old school Trek...evidence?

Because the last three series and last couple of movies did so well?

Because the people who own it decided to invest 150 million dollars in carrying it forward just the way it is? Oh, wait, they didn't. They decided to sell off every physical remnant of it and turn the Franchise over to some new people to reboot.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old February 4 2009, 01:42 AM   #36
Star Treks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: California
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Well, the last three series' averaged out to 6 seasons a series. Considering the average television show doesn't last nearly this long, I would say that they did well.

Insurrection made its budget, plus $12 million, so it was hardly a bomb... just not successful compared to earlier films. Nemesis was a serious misstep financially.

The point is that Trek has been around for 40+ years and to think that one can actually know what's going to be done with it thirty or forty or fifty years in the future is plain ridiculous.

I'm not missing the point, either; right now they are going in a reboot direction, but I fully expect there will be some 24th or 25th century series set in the "classic" universe. I only hope it happens before I die.
__________________
"Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weakon our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence."

- W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief
Star Treks is offline  
Old February 4 2009, 04:29 AM   #37
trekkerguy
Commodore
 
trekkerguy's Avatar
 
Location: Boise, ID
View trekkerguy's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to trekkerguy
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Still missing the point.

The show being re-released in new formats and being re-run on
TV is not moving it into the future in any way. It's not new material
it's just being re-shown.

That was the point until it went off course.
__________________
"I kept dreaming of a world I thought I'd never see, and then one day... I got in." - Kevin Flynn
trekkerguy is offline  
Old February 4 2009, 05:22 AM   #38
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

trekkerguy wrote: View Post
Still missing the point.

The show being re-released in new formats and being re-run on
TV is not moving it into the future in any way. It's not new material
it's just being re-shown.

That was the point until it went off course.
Exactly so.

Why is that difficult to follow?
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old February 4 2009, 05:52 AM   #39
Rainbow Dash
Osmotic Knowledge
 
Rainbow Dash's Avatar
 
Location: J. Allen's House
Send a message via ICQ to Rainbow Dash Send a message via AIM to Rainbow Dash Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Rainbow Dash Send a message via Yahoo to Rainbow Dash
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

ancient wrote: View Post
So when Abrams mentions that he's trying to make Star Trek different from 'Star Wars' by not trying to beat it at it's own game - mainly effects - and is instead focusing on the characters in order to keep it distinct, that somehow translates into him turning Trek into Star Wars.

He's making the movie a big effects fest, but he's not going to make it all about the effects because Star Wars essentially owns that, in his view.

What is the problem here? He's saying exactly what he should be saying.
That's how I've read it the whole time. I don't understand how people are reading it differently.

J.
__________________
"I'm Star Swirl the Bearded! Father of the amniomorphic spell?
Did you even read that book I gave you about obscure unicorn history?" - Twilight Sparkle
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brony Kingdom
Rainbow Dash is online now  
Old February 4 2009, 05:57 AM   #40
number6
Vice Admiral
 
Location: number6 has left the village through some inexpicable hole in the ground to head the corporation.
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

J. Allen wrote: View Post
ancient wrote: View Post
So when Abrams mentions that he's trying to make Star Trek different from 'Star Wars' by not trying to beat it at it's own game - mainly effects - and is instead focusing on the characters in order to keep it distinct, that somehow translates into him turning Trek into Star Wars.

He's making the movie a big effects fest, but he's not going to make it all about the effects because Star Wars essentially owns that, in his view.

What is the problem here? He's saying exactly what he should be saying.
That's how I've read it the whole time. I don't understand how people are reading it differently.

J.
I do. They're cherry picking phrases and perverting them to "prove" their opinion that the movie will suck because it isn't a carbon copy of TOS.

That's the only thing I can think of.
number6 is offline  
Old February 4 2009, 02:19 PM   #41
Spider
Dirty Old Man
 
Spider's Avatar
 
Location: Lost in time
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
.........Star Wars is the single most successful franchise of all time. Star Wars rules film, television, comics, novels, toys etc and pulls in billions year after year after year. There isn't a franchise on the planet that couldn't stand to learn a lesson from Star Wars.
Except for the 2nd movie (the original 2nd movie, by the way) all of the Star Wars movies sucked IMO. I didn't like the first one, and almost missed that 2nd one becuase the 1st was so incredibly inane. I just don't get what people see in those stupid movies. But, they are money makers that's for sure.
__________________
Go and have another beer, Grog Mod. - Orac Zen

spider's new motto: So many Lounge bars, so little time. - DAK

At my age you take what you can get. Or invent. - Mallory
Spider is online now  
Old February 4 2009, 04:09 PM   #42
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

You are unwise to lower your DEFENSES!
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline  
Old February 4 2009, 04:50 PM   #43
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

J. Allen wrote: View Post
ancient wrote: View Post
So when Abrams mentions that he's trying to make Star Trek different from 'Star Wars' by not trying to beat it at it's own game - mainly effects - and is instead focusing on the characters in order to keep it distinct, that somehow translates into him turning Trek into Star Wars.

He's making the movie a big effects fest, but he's not going to make it all about the effects because Star Wars essentially owns that, in his view.

What is the problem here? He's saying exactly what he should be saying.
That's how I've read it the whole time. I don't understand how people are reading it differently.

J.

Beats me. There are people convinced that the Abrams folks are contradicting themselves in some substantial way with various statements, and I don't get that. The direction these people are taking the movie has been obvious to me from things they started saying very early on; the only revelation that's surprised me in a big way is that they kept the uniform design so close to TOS. Based on their remarks I didn't expect that.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old February 6 2009, 11:23 AM   #44
Rainbow Dash
Osmotic Knowledge
 
Rainbow Dash's Avatar
 
Location: J. Allen's House
Send a message via ICQ to Rainbow Dash Send a message via AIM to Rainbow Dash Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Rainbow Dash Send a message via Yahoo to Rainbow Dash
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
ancient wrote: View Post
So when Abrams mentions that he's trying to make Star Trek different from 'Star Wars' by not trying to beat it at it's own game - mainly effects - and is instead focusing on the characters in order to keep it distinct, that somehow translates into him turning Trek into Star Wars.

He's making the movie a big effects fest, but he's not going to make it all about the effects because Star Wars essentially owns that, in his view.

What is the problem here? He's saying exactly what he should be saying.
That's how I've read it the whole time. I don't understand how people are reading it differently.

J.

Beats me. There are people convinced that the Abrams folks are contradicting themselves in some substantial way with various statements, and I don't get that. The direction these people are taking the movie has been obvious to me from things they started saying very early on; the only revelation that's surprised me in a big way is that they kept the uniform design so close to TOS. Based on their remarks I didn't expect that.
Exactly. I've read all of these articles, and he's remained quite consistent.

J.
__________________
"I'm Star Swirl the Bearded! Father of the amniomorphic spell?
Did you even read that book I gave you about obscure unicorn history?" - Twilight Sparkle
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brony Kingdom
Rainbow Dash is online now  
 

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 12:39 AM.

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