Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[MacLeod]

Sure you have to a certain degree of continuity, but if you say something is impossible in episode X and want to do it episode Y, then it doesn't hurt to explain to the viewer/reader as to why it is no longer impossible.

One ways shows respect the other is almost treating your adiance as idiots that they can't remember something from earlier.

Put it this way if you are shown a gun on a wall in a film/episode you expect that sooner or later than gun will be sued. However if you show that wall without a gun and suddenly when a gun is needed it's on the wall your audiance will call you on it.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

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.

Which didn't hurt the episode in the slightest. I thought it was cool that it preserved the continuity even though I didn't like the TNG episode where we were introduced to the Ferengi for the first time, and where, after the shock, the crew of the Enterprise all must have thought "OK, this is getting ridiculous, are we sure we are real, and not part of a sitcom or something?"

 

[BigJake]

It's not about being opposed to continuity; it's about recognizing it's not really a thing.

Well, it is of course a thing in that it's a tool that's always available to writers and creators if they choose to use it.

It can of course be thrown out at any time if one chooses to. Whether that's the best idea or achieves the best effect is a whole other question. But naturally it's a considerably more involved question than just "only losers care about continuity," which is kinda what Dennis was implying.

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.

True dat.

OTOH, smart adherence to it would have led to a story that didn't involve dragging out the fucking Ferengi to begin with.

 

[BillJ]

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.

Which didn't hurt the episode in the slightest. I thought it was cool that it preserved the continuity even though I didn't like the TNG episode where we were introduced to the Ferengi for the first time, and where, after the shock, the crew of the Enterprise all must have thought "OK, this is getting ridiculous, are we sure we are real, and not part of a sitcom or something?"

But it makes your Captain kind of look like he's an idiot. The whole reason he's out there is to learn. The only reason it was done was to try to maintain a plot point from an episode that aired fourteen years earlier.

If you want to do that type of story then do it. Don't try to have it both ways, because ultimately you fail. The only thing I ask for when they want to contradict what happens in an earlier story is to make sure the current story is worth it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It's an interesting example given how fast and loose ENT otherwise was with canon.

 

[BillJ]

It's an interesting example given how fast and loose ENT otherwise was with canon.

The other example would be the Borg, with the whole "resistance is futile" without the "We are the Borg".

Fans are generally smart, they can come up with their own explanations for discrepancies that don't sit well. Heck, even with the "We are the Borg", I figured Starfleet buried the encounter with cybernetic vampire zombies that attacked Earth so deep no one ever saw the report again.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I haven't seen that episode since it first aired, so I hardly remember it. But that does seem a bit silly and unnecessarily attentive to detail.

The only canon or continuity or what-have-you a story is subject to is its own. In that case, I think they took some dramatic oomph out of "Regeneration(?)" by not having the whole phrase.

 

[M'Sharak]

Eh, it's pretty easy to be aware of the original series and TOS movies if you're 30-40...

Of course it is, but the point of my observation was that, whenever you see the term used in a sentence along the lines of "Will it bring things more in line with what the older fans like?" it's almost invariably uttered by someone in that 30-40 age-group. And they're not speaking of old farts like me or Myk or Dennis; no, that "older fans" term is almost invariably self-referential.

That's the part I find amusing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Eh, it's pretty easy to be aware of the original series and TOS movies if you're 30-40...

Of course it is, but the point of my observation was that, whenever you see the term used in a sentence along the lines of "Will it bring things more in line with what the older fans like?" it's almost invariably uttered by someone in that 30-40 age-group. And they're not speaking of old farts like me or Myk or Dennis; no, that "older fans" term is almost invariably self-referential.

That's the part I find amusing.

Hey!!!! I'm not that old...oh wait, I am.

 

[fireproof78]

It's an interesting example given how fast and loose ENT otherwise was with canon.

The other example would be the Borg, with the whole "resistance is futile" without the "We are the Borg".

Fans are generally smart, they can come up with their own explanations for discrepancies that don't sit well. Heck, even with the "We are the Borg", I figured Starfleet buried the encounter with cybernetic vampire zombies that attacked Earth so deep no one ever saw the report again.

What? I always assumed that time agents appeared and took away all of the notes on the cybernetic bizarro attack

As for continuity, it is fine and dandy right up to the point that you are hamstrung by it for your story. I am a firm believer in limits in a story and fictional world, as it makes it more grounded (not quite the word but it gets the meaning) in a semblance of reality.

The whole idea of speculative fiction is to postulate "What if?" The idea that it has to remain consistent 100% of the time is difficult, when sometimes it has to refer to things outside of our experience (warp drive, different planets, aliens, magic, etc).

As many have said, ST, among others, is for entertainment purposes. I think that it really suffered when it became about "A GRAND IDEA" that had to be spread to the masses. I think it can be a little bit more than Abrams did, but Abrams was quite fun and entertaining, with interesting characters (Kirk, especially) so I want to see more.

And rant over...sorry.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

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.

That's what was beautiful about the 2009 film, it tossed out just about every last little bit of canon from the last 40+ years, left a couple carrots dangling for the fans, and came out swinging.

 

[Amaris]

^ Exactly. It was able to step out from under all of the "canon" built up over the decades, and make something exciting and unpredictable.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Then they brought the canon blender out for film 2...oh well, past history now

 

[YellowSubmarine]

The other example would be the Borg, with the whole "resistance is futile" without the "We are the Borg".

Also never bothered me. It's a trivial detail either way. The only reason I would like the Borg to speak the whole phrase would be because of continuity, so if they didn't speak it for the sake of continuity – so what? At that point they had lost all their contact with the Collective, they had been running on their own, in a different time, so them shortening the message is a minor thing, and probably not without a reason. The dramatic effect of the second half is enough, besides it's not like the Borg have ever been too consistent in anything other than their ugliness.

In fact, I loved that the Borg were suddenly mysterious and unnamed. It made them more sinister.

You're correct that it is unnecessary – the 21st century humans in First Contact knew the name of the Borg, it had probably been recorded, Archer managed to link the two stories together. And at this point it is much more likely that nobody believed him as a result of this. But just like with the Ferengi, it works either way – there it's the one time Archer didn't ask.

 

[BigJake]

As many have said, ST, among others, is for entertainment purposes.

By the way? Pretty much totally meaningless statement. Anyone who ever says this could save us some electrons by just not bothering, because of f*cking course it's "entertainment" and "you watch it to be entertained." Likewise we all eat burgers to ingest food, that has pretty much nothing to do with the quality of the burger. This is basically a version of saying "unlike [whomever] I know it's fiction."

I think that it really suffered when it became about "A GRAND IDEA" that had to be spread to the masses.

I think it really suffered from SENTIMENTALITY and CONVENTION. The GRAND IDEA thing is much ballyhooed by a tiny fraction of nutty fans both for-and-against but otherwise is not that big a deal, even as regards TNG.

 

[fireproof78]

As many have said, ST, among others, is for entertainment purposes.

By the way? Pretty much totally meaningless statement. Anyone who ever says this could save us some electrons by just not bothering, because of f*cking course it's "entertainment" and "you watch it to be entertained." Likewise we all eat burgers to ingest food, that has pretty much nothing to do with the quality of the burger. This is basically a version of saying "unlike [whomever] I know it's fiction."

I think that it really suffered when it became about "A GRAND IDEA" that had to be spread to the masses.

I think it really suffered from SENTIMENTALITY and CONVENTION. The GRAND IDEA thing is much ballyhooed by a tiny fraction of nutty fans both for-and-against but otherwise is not that big a deal, even as regards TNG.

I was referring to more to the creation of TOS versus the rest of Star Trek and the ideas presented.

Also, as to your other point, yeah it might be a meaningless statement, but sometimes it bears repeating. Given the vitriol that gets expressed at times, and the negative opinions towards Abrams because ideas that Trek has to be about something rather than being entertaining. Or rather, that is how the creators craft it, which makes canon a tenuous situation, at best, unfortunately.

Actually, I shouldn't really say that because I prefer more character analysis and psychology in my movies. Not the most entertaining of topics

 

[urbandefault]

As many have said, ST, among others, is for entertainment purposes.

By the way? Pretty much totally meaningless statement. Anyone who ever says this could save us some electrons by just not bothering, because of f*cking course it's "entertainment" and "you watch it to be entertained." Likewise we all eat burgers to ingest food, that has pretty much nothing to do with the quality of the burger. This is basically a version of saying "unlike [whomever] I know it's fiction." <snip>

Likewise, you could also save us some electrons by not repeating the same objection every time someone reminds you that Trek is fiction. Just sayin'.

Happy New Year!

 

[Lance]

I'm not a fan of the new approach, I find a lot of fans that agree that the movies aren't great, arguing that it is a sacrifice that must be made so that the franchise has a future, my point is that we seem to be on very shaky ground looking at these figures, sure last 2 TNG movies weren't bringing in the cash but there were other changes that could have been made to return to profitability IMO that didn't need Trek's soul ripping out.

See, I'm not sure Trek's soul has been ripped out. For me, the soul of the franchise is intact in both of the new movies, it's only the presentation (ie, the superficial trappings, the surface layer) which has changed in any significant way. At their heart, both movies still feel like Star Trek to me, absolutely.

For comparison's sake, I actually thought the modern Doctor Who was more of a betrayal of that particular franchise's soul than anything that NuTrek has done in the name of Star Trek.

 

[Smellmet]

See, I'm not sure Trek's soul has been ripped out. For me, the soul of the franchise is intact in both of the new movies, it's only the presentation (ie, the superficial trappings, the surface layer) which has changed in any significant way. At their heart, both movies still feel like Star Trek to me, absolutely.

I think you've summed it up nicely there, the way 09 was written with the branching timeline has made a lot of people complain, but it is also pure Star Trek in my opinion.

 

[BigJake]

Likewise, you could also save us some electrons by not repeating the same objection

Here's hoping the New Year brought you something more interesting than rubber-and-glue rhetoric.