If Earth based sci fi sells better, as is often said, why is Star Wars more popular than Star Trek ? Star Trek involves Earth and humans, and the future of us, humanity. Star Wars is a fantasy set in another galaxy. Earth is neither seen nor mentioned
What do you want to see in Star Trek 4?
- Thread starter ConRefit79
- Start date
View attachment 1671
Sorry, none of that - Paramount's not going to start paying people to attend their movies.
LOL, like you know anything. I stopped taking you seriously when you said there was no new TV series being developed and when it turned out it was, you claimed it could never be in the prime universe, cos that was dead.
Guess again mate. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
YEP!
I think fantasy is more popular than Sci-Fi. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit...
Star Wars is a successful adventure series in the movies. Trek struggles to be entertaining in that respect because some of the audience wants to be flattered that they 're watching something smart, which somehow involves a lot of talk.
Star Trek is far more fantasy than scifi (does have some scifi).
You really think so? I don't agree at all. Star Wars is more fantasy. Star Trek to me is classic sci-fi.
Ah, but Star Trek has known many flavors and faces. It depends on which iteration you are looking at.
Star Trek, at it's best, will take a science idea and run with it for a good story. Whether it's dramatic, horror, action, character-driven, or even comedic in nature.
Sometimes it'll adhere to science moreso, and sometimes it'll just take the basic idea of something, or just name drop a science thing.
I do think on Trek's best days it has room for both heady and daring-do. There is a balance. Some of TOS' finest outings have even helpings of action, and character-derived tension and drama drawn from a core intelligent idea. Devil in the Dark, Errand of Mercy, and City on the Edge of Forever are the top three episodes I think of when I think of keeping the formula balanced. That's for TOS of course. TNG and DS9 have some great examples of engaging the audience both in the mind and the heart also.
But I think it's important to not take that too seriously and end up in downright pretentious and pompous territory.
Star Trek, at it's best, will take a science idea and run with it for a good story. Whether it's dramatic, horror, action, character-driven, or even comedic in nature.
Sometimes it'll adhere to science moreso, and sometimes it'll just take the basic idea of something, or just name drop a science thing.
I do think on Trek's best days it has room for both heady and daring-do. There is a balance. Some of TOS' finest outings have even helpings of action, and character-derived tension and drama drawn from a core intelligent idea. Devil in the Dark, Errand of Mercy, and City on the Edge of Forever are the top three episodes I think of when I think of keeping the formula balanced. That's for TOS of course. TNG and DS9 have some great examples of engaging the audience both in the mind and the heart also.
But I think it's important to not take that too seriously and end up in downright pretentious and pompous territory.
Some people need that pat on the head. The positive re-enforcement.
What some folks never seem to realize, is that no matter how smart you think what you are watching is, there is always someone looking down at it. Thinking it is lowest common denominator fare for the drooling masses. There are folks that read hard sci-fi, that laugh at the notion of Star Trek being "smart".
I don't care if what I watch is considered 'smart' by some. It's just that I personally prefer watching something with a little more depth than everyone shooting and blowing things up. Just a preference. Nothing more, nothing less.
Personally, I like a mix. You can hook me with conference room scenes when done right, like in "Q, Who". But it is so rare that a conference room scene is anything more than a trite review of the episode up to that point. I like action in Trek, I like comedy, I like pseudo deep thought.
I love the spectacle Abrams and Lin have brought to the big screen, I love the thrill rides. Two nights ago, I watch The Motion Picture. I enjoyed the more tempered pace. I like variety.
I like action as well, personally I think The Motion Picture is way too slow... it just drags and drags. That's not my cup of tea either. But somewhere in the middle between Beyond and TMP, that's where my preference lies.
And I could understand complaints if all that existed was the Abrams films. But, there is 700+ hours of this stuff floating around, in which the Abrams movies represent about six hours and twenty minutes. Heck, I could go another decade with high dollar spectacles set in the Star Trek universe and be grinning from ear to ear. Growing up in the 70's and 80's, we could only dream of this kind of stuff.
Good character-driven story, good action.
In terms of more wishful thinking, no clear-cut villain. Especially not another villain who wants to destroy something for revenge.
In terms of more wishful thinking, no clear-cut villain. Especially not another villain who wants to destroy something for revenge.
Let's be honest for a second. The majority of us here are probably over the age of 35. (I just fell out of that age group.) Films are marketed towards moviegoers ages 18-35. To Hollywood, we don't matter. So, this slow, thoughtful storytelling many of you want? Ain't gonna happen. Right now, what is in is the frenetic storytelling, the actions sequences, the moving quickly. People think Beyond didn't do well? Try releasing Wrath of Khan today. One of two things would happen. It would be modernized to the point of being unrecognizable. Or it would flop. At the end of the day Star Trek is a business. It HAS to make money.
Star Trek needs to evolve to be relevant. This going back to the Star Trek of 10 years ago? Its not going to happen. Discovery may be more thoughtful in some circumstances, but I bet there will be less conference room moralizing and more action set pieces than most Trek fans want.
What do I want to see out of Star Trek 4? A film that can celebrate the history of the franchise, tell a compelling story, have great action set pieces and still stay relevant. And maybe, just maybe be profitable enough to make a 5th movie with this crew. Because I really do like them. Even if I don't matter to Hollywood anymore.
Star Trek needs to evolve to be relevant. This going back to the Star Trek of 10 years ago? Its not going to happen. Discovery may be more thoughtful in some circumstances, but I bet there will be less conference room moralizing and more action set pieces than most Trek fans want.
What do I want to see out of Star Trek 4? A film that can celebrate the history of the franchise, tell a compelling story, have great action set pieces and still stay relevant. And maybe, just maybe be profitable enough to make a 5th movie with this crew. Because I really do like them. Even if I don't matter to Hollywood anymore.
It's complete ridiculous to say slow movies can't make money. Even slow sci-fi movies make money (Interstellar, The Martian). You just need good writers who can tell a compelling story and a proper marketing team.
Star Trek without any action is no Star Trek. But no one can convince me Star Trek movies can only be successful if it involves people shooting and blowing things up continuously. The numbers speak for themselves, since Star Trek (2009) the audience willing to pay for that kind of movie is decreasing. First in the US, now also in Europe.
Star Trek without any action is no Star Trek. But no one can convince me Star Trek movies can only be successful if it involves people shooting and blowing things up continuously. The numbers speak for themselves, since Star Trek (2009) the audience willing to pay for that kind of movie is decreasing. First in the US, now also in Europe.
I actually fall below your target audience, so I'll try offering a new perspective.Let's be honest for a second. The majority of us here are probably over the age of 35. (I just fell out of that age group.) Films are marketed towards moviegoers ages 18-35. To Hollywood, we don't matter. So, this slow, thoughtful storytelling many of you want? Ain't gonna happen. Right now, what is in is the frenetic storytelling, the actions sequences, the moving quickly. People think Beyond didn't do well? Try releasing Wrath of Khan today. One of two things would happen. It would be modernized to the point of being unrecognizable. Or it would flop. At the end of the day Star Trek is a business. It HAS to make money.
Star Trek needs to evolve to be relevant. This going back to the Star Trek of 10 years ago? Its not going to happen. Discovery may be more thoughtful in some circumstances, but I bet there will be less conference room moralizing and more action set pieces than most Trek fans want.
What do I want to see out of Star Trek 4? A film that can celebrate the history of the franchise, tell a compelling story, have great action set pieces and still stay relevant. And maybe, just maybe be profitable enough to make a 5th movie with this crew. Because I really do like them. Even if I don't matter to Hollywood anymore.
Paramount want young people seeing their film. No one's asking for another The Motion Picture, but a film focused on story rather than spectacle (still include all the big action set-pieces though) is not going to kill anyone. See, people give too little credit to teens. A bunch of my friends watch movies, old and new, and they're not brainless animals who live for explosions and car chases.
There's a difference between Mad Max: Fury Road and Transformers. One is plot-driven with lots of character development and growth (told through visuals rather than clunky expository dialogue), and while it's literally "explosions and car chases", it's for a reason and not just shit thrown up on the screen like the latter.
People don't want a generic action film that follows a certain formula to maximize profits, maybe they did 5 or 10 years ago when they were less prevalent, but now you need variety. Why go see the new Star Trek when you can watch a similar film in the new Ghostbusters, Jason Bourne or Suicide Squad?
Story-driven does not mean V'Ger 2.0. It just means going with a different approach.
Last edited:
Absolutely Right™.
Pointing to a thirty year-old movie and saying "it worked then, if the studio wasn't dumb they'd do it again" is arrant nonsense. There is no place on Paramount's release schedule for a low-budget space movie because it would be more efficient for them to pile sixty million dollars in their parking lot and set fire to it (okay, that would probably violate EPA regs
).
Instead Paramount should do what it has been doing and throw more and more money at a Star Trek movie that is never going to repay itself.
Yeah, they should burn their dollars in their parking lot.
Yeah, they should burn their dollars in their parking lot.
Regardless of what fans seem to think, if TPTB were going to point to what 'worked before' and just follow the blue-print, TWOK would not be the movie they'd emulate.
They'd look to the franchise's biggest quantifiable successes, and work from there.
I'm sure hope Trekkies will be thrilled with another out-and-out comedy about saving the environment. From what I hear, they were oh-so happy when it happened the first time 'round.
They'd look to the franchise's biggest quantifiable successes, and work from there.
I'm sure hope Trekkies will be thrilled with another out-and-out comedy about saving the environment. From what I hear, they were oh-so happy when it happened the first time 'round.
Last edited:
^
I would.
I would.
Similar threads
