Profitability of Star Trek Movies
- Thread starter Giarc1982
- Start date
- Status
That reminds me. So that Cameron dude constrained his imagination to relativistic flight and what could be described as clever but cheap alien bioengineering, yet sends you to wonderland fill with blue CGI cat-person sex. On the other hand, Star Trek is in a universe where everything is possible – a being clicks her fingers, and the entire universe could be gone – and all limits are forgotten by the next episode. Yet what we then get is a few grumpy old men sitting in a room and discussing whether letting a civilization die is the right course of action. Yeah, I liked it when it was the Organians, but it got a bit tiring after that. (So why not vary it with technobabble detailing how the clicking of fingers works? Several times?)
Granted, some great moments in Trek fit that description – A Measure of a Man, Duet, The Cogenitor, Living Witness come to mind (even if they greatly benefited from the magical environment). But I find it also cool that with all the magic implied, at least we're now destroying planets,* cities and even have some real drama when it comes to the magic of transporters. And at the very least, we actually saw first hand how the pre-warp civilization was saved and reacted to its saviours, instead of facing a death by a ready-room conversation far far away.
Of course I hope the next film switches the tune a bit, and offers us a good exploration story into actual uncharted territory, with all the greatness that's expected in this. And from what I am reading, I am optimistic.
* OK, that doesn't sound right...
I'll confirm that. Bill was indeed a later convert.
As are many fans who enjoyed the Abrams movies, and not a few who have been participating in this discussion. Giarc, on the other hand, I'd guess from his username to be in his early thirties - just old enough to recall first-season TNG on the telly.
It's kind of amusing to note just how often that "what older fans like" notion is offered up by fans who fall into the 30-40 age-group. It's as if the original series and TOS movies never existed; Star Trek is claimed as property by those who only started watching in the late 1980s, and those "rightful owners" must be appeased (or else it's not [cue Randolph Scott Memorial Chorus] Real Star Trek™.)
Eh, it's pretty easy to be aware of the original series and TOS movies if you're 30-40, which age range I'm still in (just). Never been easier, really. (Heck, even before YouTube, TOS reruns were still airing in most of North America right through the Nineties. Can't even remember what age I was when I first saw one of those but it was pretty young.)
Hey, some of us born behind the Iron Curtain received Star Trek with a slight time-delay. And some human colonists on 23 Librae in their early 40s are still nostalgic about books from their childhood like The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
TNG embraced TOS with Bones in the pilot, The Naked Now, Unification, Relics and Generations, every episode of TOS and Movie happened in the TNG universe and mattered, soon as you start ignoring causality and start praying to the god of the multiverse, there is no impact because every event happens with all outcomes at least in one universe
This sounds like you're describing "Parallels."
Scotty in Relics is as thrilled about The Next Generation as some people are about J.J. Trek.
I even saw someone mention the Star Trek Expanded Universe, and I have no idea what that's supposed to be. And people blame JJ for ruining Star Trek. The fans ruined it all on their own.
A
Amaris
Guest
Blue CGI cat-person sex. It makes all the money.
Oh, and stories that aren't shit would help. But mainly the blue cat-people.
*throws wallet at monitor*
You'd be real fascinated by me. I saw ST09 5 times in all, at the theater, and more than 100+ times on DVD and Blu-ray.
TNG didn't do those things to reaffirm continuity. It did those things to bring in viewers.
Every spin-off in history has done that and most quickly find ways to ignore and/or contradict its predecessor(s). The Trek shows are no different.
I'm also still just in this age range, TNG didn't hit British shores until 1990, but during the mid-late eighties TOS was on one of it's regular re-runs on BBC2.
I've also enjoyed the new movies though I prefered ST09 to STID, I've also enjoyed all the series to various degrees.
Long running shows/franchies have to re-invent themselves every now and then in order to reamin relevant/fresh etc... Look at DW change is part and parcel of the show every few years a new Doctor and/or companions, or what about the classic era vs the modern era, in the classic era we had in general 4-6 part serials (yes I know there were some as low as 2 and as high as 10?) yet in the modern era it's 1-2 x45min stories with the odd long episode.
Regrettably I am not immortal, and ST has to bring in new fans to replace older ones.
It's encouraging to see some real world perspective around here. Trek is fun, entertaining, a nice way to pass some time. That's all.
Heretic
And like any fandom different parts of the fanbase like different things. Which is fine, but if your are making a new Trek film or TV show which segment of the fanbase do you appeal to go to far one wat and you risk alienating a segment of your core audicane but try to be all things to everyone and you'll likely up disspointing everyone.
Love it when we arrive at "unlike [them] I know it's fiction." That's one of my favourite stops on the tour.
Talk of fictional "universes" is of course just about continuity (and the extent to which one wants it), not about thinking they're actual universes, but of course Dennis knows that. The writers over in TrekLit who have threads about the "NovelVerse" don't actually believe that's a separate world that literally exists, it's just a device for keeping a set of stories consistent and playing out against the same backdrop.
I get not being into that, but I don't get being actively averse to it. Or perhaps I should say I'm quite fascinated by the active aversion some people show towards continuity.
Talk of fictional "universes" is of course just about continuity (and the extent to which one wants it), not about thinking they're actual universes, but of course Dennis knows that. The writers over in TrekLit who have threads about the "NovelVerse" don't actually believe that's a separate world that literally exists, it's just a device for keeping a set of stories consistent and playing out against the same backdrop.
I get not being into that, but I don't get being actively averse to it. Or perhaps I should say I'm quite fascinated by the active aversion some people show towards continuity.
It's not about being opposed to continuity; it's about recognizing it's not really a thing.
While it's nice to try to keep all the eggs in the same basket to keep things cohesively neat and constant, things don't always work that way. And those eggs can thrown out or placed in a different basket at a moment's notice should the situation warrant it.
While it's nice to try to keep all the eggs in the same basket to keep things cohesively neat and constant, things don't always work that way. And those eggs can thrown out or placed in a different basket at a moment's notice should the situation warrant it.
This.
I'm not against continuity, I'm against slavish adherence to it.
Slavish adherence to it leads to non-sense like Archer not asking/getting the name of the Ferengi species after capturing them when they attempted to take over the Enterprise.
- Status
Similar threads
