I'd say it is so unlikely as to be borderline impossible - TNG was huge but never had the kind of impact that TOS it, nor could it have - TOS was one of TV history's true one-offs like the Simpsons was in its prime.
Uh, was that really necessary? Considering the fact that Temis seems to know what she's talking about when countering your points, yet didn't resort to any lame personal attack against you?
Understood, which is why I understand Paramount's decision to go the direction they did with "Star Trek." By the same token, I continue to question the actual popularity of the movie in terms of the actual number of people who saw the film vs. the money it made. Given the number of people who claim they saw "Star Trek" 4, 5 even 6 or 7 times I have serious doubts that many more people saw "Star Trek" than saw, say, "Insurrection." They simply saw it many more times. As I've pointed out elsewhere before, I know a LOT of people who are die hard movie buffs... the type that will see virtually anything that looks decent to them and, to date, I am the only one of them who has seen this movie (and the only reason I saw it was because I was able to see it for free). A few of them have friends who saw it, but most of them didn't care for it that much. My point? There's a very real possibility that the success of the latest version of Trek hinged primarly on the desire of a lot of existing Trek fans to see it succeed at any cost, knowing that if it failed the franchise could fail with it. No way of proving that theory, of course, and all the studio cares about is money. But, the shelf life of the new incarnation could well be extremely limited (personally, if it goes beyond 3 films I'll be surprised). The same could have been said about Firefly. Didn't stop them from making Serenity. Jericho was cancelled... twice. A theatrical release is in the works. The commercial viability of any project has very litle to do with it's television success. Star Trek, of all things, proves that. BSG
And yet, Patrick Stewart is easily one of the most recognizable faces in entertainment. Enough so that there was never really any question who would play Xavier in X-Men. Everybody knew him and he was everybody's first choice because of the success of TNG. TNG was easily a bigger success story than TOS. TOS simply had a better run in the movies and, thus, made more profit. As I said before, 20 years from now people will still be buying copies of TNG on whatevre medium is available at the time. We'll be lucky if people even remember "Star Trek" in any way other than a title. Anybody thinking that Abrams Trek will be remembered up there with Lucas' Star Wars is likely to be woefully disappointed.
Says you. The masses seem to disagree. That's fairly dismissive and condescending to all the people who enjoyed the movie. Let's talk about the critics, non-biased observers. Star Trek 09 was one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year. Were they in love with the explosions. You be hatin'. But they weren't in it, Pine, Quinto & Cho were. Contrary to your continued denial, people really liked the origin story of Kirk/Spock, something those other actors couldn't have been a part of. [/QUOTE] Despite the money it made, more people still recognize Patrick Stewart because of Star Trek than Chris Pine. 20 years from now that will likely still be true.[/QUOTE] 20 years from now, if Patrick Stewart is still alive and Chris Pine is still working at his current rate, more people will know who Chris Pine is than Patrick Stewart in general anyway. [/QUOTE] But, again, even if it weren't, TNG still remains very marketable. It still makes a handy profit on DVD and, clearly it makes a nice profit on TV or you wouldn't have seen it make it's way back into syndication on some rather large networks this past year.[/QUOTE] The only thing you've said that I agree with.
Based on what, the fact that it made money? There are lots of movies that make a ton of money that have weak characters and poor plot lines. Ever watch Jurassic Park? Call it what you will. People are free to like whatever they wish and, for the record, I've never told anybody not to go see the film. In fact, if anybody asked I said that if they are looking for a film with a lot of action that requires very little thought they'll probably enjoy it. Like it or not, when it comes to summer blockbusters, those are the primary elements people look for... a movie that's visually appealing and requires very little thought. You won't see me deny that this movie probably fits that bill nicely for many. Having said that, here are 3 types of people who went to see this movie. 1. Star Trek fans. 2. People who are easily persuaded to go see movies based on eye candy and lots of things that go boom in trailers. 3. People who are easily persuaded to go see a movie based on the hype from somebody else who is easily persuaded. No, they are in love with the fact that they get paid tons of money to be in love with their flavor of the month director/producer. You act like the critics, en mass, have never endorsed a film that absolutely sucked. And, btw, phrases like "one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year" are highly context related. Quite frankly, most of the movies last year sucked. The fact that, in the critics opinion it may have sucked a little less than the others in their opinion does not a ringing endorsement make. Maybe. Or maybe I simply don't sit around and wait for somebody else to tell me what to think about something. I also realize that a lot of the people who are so enamored by this film in this forum were saying the same exact things about the movie before it was ever released. Which suggests that either a lot of people around here saw it before it was released (read: work for the studio) or were desperate to like it because they believed that if the movie sucked there may not be any more. Certainly no argument about the latter portion of that. As for the first part, I'm not sure I've heard many people make much comment one way or the other about the origin aspects of the story. A lot of ifs in that statement. So happy I redeemed myself in some minuscule way. I'll sleep much better tonight.
Whats wrong with Jurassic Park? It is hardly an intellectual piece but as a bit of action film-making and spectacle its fairly solid IMHO.
Not meaning to be insulting with this response but, if you have to ask what was wrong with Jurassic Park then I can probably see why one would think that Star Trek is actually a well written movie. But, the short response is simply that, much like most things Spielberg does, once you get passed the ooos and aaahs of how real something looks you realize that there isn't much of a story. Pretty much why you went from a movie that made nearly $100m more than Trek did 16 years earlier to a movie that people were tired of only 2 films later. "Star Trek" relies heavily on Trek lore and spectacular visuals to get it through the day. Somebody brought up the "critical acclaim" of the movie (can't remember if it was in the future of trek or trek xi forum) as evidence of it being a well written movie. Would be fine if one didn't have to also ignore that the only awards that this movie will even be nominated for are Golden Globe type awards, and perhaps a technical award or two. Don't misunderstand my point in this. I, personally, couldn't care less about what the critics have to say and rarely even look to see these days. At the end of the day, like most people, I care what I think about a film. The rest of the world can pretty much pound salt. And, from a commercial standpoint, all a studio really needs to care about is whether or not a movie makes money. Not whether or not people actually like it. Transformers 2 made a ton of money. More than the first, according to IMDB. Yet, despite all the money, there aren't a whole lot of people I've talked to that can really say that they liked the movie. Other than a tremendous amount of action and spectacular visuals, they can't really even tell anyone what the movie was about. Very few reviews have it much above mediocre. "Star Trek" had a much better fan response, but didn't make nearly as much money. Seems counter intuitive. There are things I liked about Trek. Some I expected to. Some I didn't. Most revolve around the visuals, the look and feel of the movie, and some of the casting. At the end of the day, I found the story weak and the characters wanting. About the only reason I found the conclusion of the film making any sense was because I expect it before the film ever begins. There's really not a whole lot that happens IN the film that lends itself to the outcome. And, given the number of actors from the film who are asking for meatier roles in the next film, apparently I am not alone in my perception of the characters in this one. Abrams will need to do a MUCH better job at story telling with the next one to keep the momentum started by the first one. Near as I can tell, rather than risk flubbing that by actually coming up with something original and compelling, he's going to the well and bring up something that worked for Trek before. Might work. Might simply tick off a lot of his base and prove that most of the success came by way of existing Trek fans with a renewed motivation to see a movie a half dozen times rather than actually making broad strides toward gaining new ones. Time will tell but, personally, I suspect that 20 years from now people will remember Trek more for the bald guy and the android than for this incarnation. But, regardless of whether or not that's true, TNG continues to have legs. Both it and TOS continue to do well in DVD sales. And TNG continues to draw in syndication. Other than whatever it may cost to sign somebody like Stewart to do it, there's no reason why they can't produce DVD and/or TV projects that make a profit. Not in the realm of a couple hundred million dollars, but a profit none the less.
Saw it, second half was better than the first. Lost World was better than the first because they dispensed with the pretense of wonder and got down to the carnage. You seem to accept the subjectiveness of the notion of the success of Trek, but not in the quality. It's all subjective anyway. Do you like Star Trek? Star Trek's strong suit is it's heart and message and very rarely it's stimulating intellectual study of film structure, groundbreaking technique, and flawless directorial precision. It's a friggin action-adventure. How cynical and elitist of you. You're quite entitled to think so little of your fellow man though. I think little of them too most of the time. They're rarely completely wrong en masse, but that's my opinion. And there are always more bad movies than good. There was much good though. Moon, Up In The Air, Men Who Star At Goats (which critics didn't much like), Up, etc. The critics are paid to have strong opinions. If the studios gave them money to influence their every thought, they'd have loved Funny People.
Knock that off - it isn't necessary. It has a story, just not a terribly deep and meaningful one, because it is not supposed to have a terribly deep and meaningful story, it is a film about Dinosaurs. CINEMA needs spectacular visuals to survive. While there are many great, thoughtful films with little or no SFX these do not make money, they do not pull in the punters (except in amazingly rare cases). The Cinema experience is partly about the WOW factor. The key factor of course is that to survive, to be worthwhile, to be all things to all men Cinema needs to be sometimes spectacular and sometimes a complex story needs to take second place to that. In terms of pacing, direction, tone, production design, special effects and spectacle Jurassic Park - and Star Trek - are both near the top of the tree, and their box office takings reflect this. As for Trek lore, in small doses its fun when taken to extremes as it often is around here it is ridiculous. It got many good reviews, you can't dispute that. I actually agree on its own it does not mean much, but shows a string trend in professional opinion. Well people will not go and see it again or buy it on DVD or give good word of mouth if they dont like it - so it wont make any money. It was a laugh, it did exactly what it said on the tin. No-one was expecting Shakespeare and anyone who was is very silly or missed that Michael Bay was directing it. It made an awful lot of money - it just isn't quite as big of a property thats all. I disagree but I'm not going to sway you. It is not a very deep or intellectual story but Star Trek never has been and never will be great art. It is an action-adventure franchise and has always told neat little moral parables not deep sci-fi stories. Sure TOS had some great writers working on it, but still it was its visuals, style, setting and characters that really had impact. Almost half the episodes are pretty daft. The franchise is in a very familiar position to X-Men after the first film. So many introductions and so much set up of course not everyone got their big moment. I have no doubt a deeper, more complex sequel will result just as with X-Men. He did not write or tell stories BADLY at all in the first one. Your whole post makes the same point, that Trek 2009 told a story in a way you feel stories should not be told. That does not make it "bad" on any objective level. Now I accept it is valid to desire Trek to be meatier stuff - but it could not be that this year, or you would not be worrying about a sequel, there would not be one. Besides "Nemesis" tried to be deep and meaningful and fluffed it - now THAT has some BAD writing. I still don't think it is quite as evil as some around here, but that genuinely does stink of needing a couple more drafts. I expect people will remember Kirk and Spock, regardless of incarnation, and little or nothing of Picard and co. Except me, I love TNG. An online syndicated Trek series might well happen one day - but not with the TNG crew. Apart from anything else the poor buggers are getting too old!
True enough. People are free to like and dislike what they wish. As I have said before, I have never told anybody not to go see this movie for any reason, quality or otherwise. The franchise? Yes. This movie? While there are enjoyable aspects, on the whole, no. Oh, there have been flaws in the previous incarnations of Trek to be sure. I can look past many of this film's flaws just as I did the others. Sadly, it's the lack of heart and a meaningful message where I think this movie is lacking. And where I believe it fails to achieve what I expect from a Trek film. Has nothing to do with elitism. It's simply an observation of what people are drawn to and what typically does well. For the record, I have no problem with mindless action adventure films. While I prefer something with a little more meat to it, there are times when I go to a movie not wanting to have to analyze it to death as well. The difference, I suppose, is that on most of those occasions I don't have a producer insulting my intelligence by professing that it's something that it's not. Abrams was hired to do a job, and he did it. He can make Trek whatever he wishes. It's his choice. But, at least be honest about what it is and why. I might be inclined to agree if it weren't for the fact that they are rating something, in part, based on a perception that isn't necessarily grounded in fact. Quality is, as you pointed out, always subjective. They can like or dislike whatever they wish. However, very few critics have ever liked Trek (or even sci-fi in general). As such, most have never taken the time to really learn what it was all about to honestly compare this movie to the rest of the franchise. While I continue to believe the story weak, this movie, as a stand alone feature is what it is, and that's fine. But, to suggest that it's true to the original (as both the critics and Abrams continue to do) is grossly off base. That was, I think, in direct response to somebody commenting that it did well because people wanted an origin story. Probably. I saw this movie for two reasons. 1. I used to work at a theater and was able to get in to see it for free. 2. Because those who maintained that criticism without having actually seen it was baseless had a valid point. I made myself a promise long before this movie came about that I would no longer patronize remakes, reboots and re-imagined projects. It's getting harder and harder as Hollywood seems content upon doing nothing original. But, I've managed to keep that promise. If I had liked the film, I would have paid to see it again. I didn't, so I won't. Had it been anything other than Trek, it wouldn't have gotten that much of my time. And, I have even less desire to see the next one than this. Before you say it, I would rather have liked the film than not. And, the fact that I expected to dislike it has very little impact on whether or not I did. I expected to absolutely hate New Voyages and have actually grown quite fond of it. Sure it was. My point was simply that my perception of what is and isn't good clearly differs from yours. And, if you think Jurassic Park was good then you likely won't agree with my reasons as to why it wasn't, regardless of my answer. True enough. Every movie has a story, regardless of whether it's a good or bad one. No argument. And, when it comes to sci-fi people certainly expect strong visuals. I have no problem with that. It's when visuals are used to compensate for a weak story that I become disinterested. I saw that as the case with Jurassic Park. I saw it with "Star Trek." No argument there, either. At least, not with respect to "Star Trek." I have said all along that the production quality of the film was spectacular. I also said that I liked the revamped look and feel of the movie. My issues were more in concept and direction. I think you may have misunderstood my point about lore. My point was simply that it relies heavily on the fact that everybody seeing the film already knows a great deal about Trek. Or, at least thinks they do. There are a lot of things about the film that only make sense because you expected it going into the film. Nothing wrong with that, but it does sort of fly in the face of saying that you're trying to make a film that doesn't do that. Never denied it. However, it's been my experience that these days when it comes to critics you have a few main stream types that either like or dislike something, and the rest of the herd comes along for the ride. The reviews tend to be no more original than the films these days. Well, I tend to expect and accept different things when it comes to series or movies. With a series, I think it's pretty much impossible to write a quality story week after week. If there are more good than bad I tend to give it the nod. With movies, though, I usually expect a little more meat on the bone. They have vast amounts of resources and plenty of time to hire writers who can deliver both good action and a good story. This movie delivers the former quite well. Must of it is predictable, but it's well done none the less. It falls way short in the latter, though. Especially when it comes to the morality department. Not entirely accurate. The story is weak and shallow. But, that, in and of itself does not make it bad. Had this same basic story been told and been called something other than "Star Trek," I probably wouldn't be complaining. At least not as much, anyway. I believe the story is bad because it fails to deliver the elements of a movie that make it a Star Trek movie. In fact, it delivers the opposite in some cases yet continues to claim that it is true to the original. Like I said previously, if you want to make something different, make it different. But, either call it something else or at least be honest about what it is you're making. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the notion that a movie cannot be a little deeper and successful at the same time. But, I digress. Well, I think it needed more than a couple of more drafts. But, no, I don't think it was as horrific as many suggest. No argument about the first part of that. I think TNG will be better remembered than you may think, though. Well, I wasn't suggesting that they will, or even should do it. My point was simply that they could do it and make money if done properly.
Except the Stargate movies are on hold because MGM is unsure if there is enough profit in it to make any more. And Stargate was produced at a fraction of the budget of Star Trek. Do you want to see an alien planet or a Vancouver forest? BSG's movies have all been on TV and used DVD as a secondary revenue source. Moore has also said don't expect to see anything new after The Plan. Finally, they have all used existing standing sets. At this point TNG has no sets. All sets would have to be rebuilt from scratch which will add substantial costs to a DVD and require a multiple DVD commitment to spread the costs over.
I suspect it's simply more a matter of being put on hold rather than being canceled. MGM established with the cancellation of SG-A that they did not have the budget to produce multiple SG projects simultaneously. Anybody know what the profit margin of the last couple of DVDs they did for SG-1 has been? Short answer here is that I couldn't care less so long as the movie is decent. Having said that, 90% of anything Trek related takes place on ship. If they still have the ship sets from Nemesis laying around then most of the budget goes for special effects and casting. New Voyages continues to prove how effective a story that never leaves the ship can be. Further, I don't expect $150m worth of production out of a DVD release. I expect niche material that may or may not have done well enough in a theater to warrant a huge budget. Lucas did some of these with Star Wars. No reason why they can't be done with Trek. This is the biggest problem they'd face. It's something they should have considered before getting rid of the set components. I still think it could be profitable if one properly, though. Out of curiosity, anybody know what it cost to produce "Of Gods and Men?"
I do not need a send-off for the TNG crew. I want to be left with the feeling that they are still out there.