What if it BOMBS

[Cary L. Brown]

I wonder if this movie can be made into a complete reboot? Lets face it, Star Trek as it is will never be erased. Just like our entertainment of old Batman or Bond movies did not diminish for what they are just because Batman Begins and Casino Royale came out. The Star Trek of the past has had a very successful run, Voyage and Enterprise not withstanding. The heaviness of canon will always deter story writers from writing meaningful stories whether they are in prequel form or sequel.

Even if it was made with a new crew, new cast whatever it will always be diminished by earlier canon. Voyager (the ship) literally was a magic ship that could heal from any wound. DS9 universe showed that even during battle a lot of things can be changed just because of the huge amount of tech available at their disposal. Enterprise (the show) made our ships too vulnerable against every major player in the galaxy yet they came off unscathed at the end.

Perhaps with Star Trek 11 we will see the return of Trek to its roots - fun, futuristic show where not all problems can be solved by a magic beam or self replicating nanobots. One can only hope.

That's what I'd like to see... but it doesn't require a "reboot" to happen.

"Let's face it," Star Trek as we remember it starred William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy and Deforest Kelley and others... a new show with new actors will inevitably be about different characters... and the longer it runs, the more they'll become different characters.

If we're going to get different characters, let's just HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS to start with. And you can still do that without the pitfalls you described.

 

[StarTrek1701]

That's what I'd like to see... but it doesn't require a "reboot" to happen.

"Let's face it," Star Trek as we remember it starred William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy and Deforest Kelley and others... a new show with new actors will inevitably be about different characters... and the longer it runs, the more they'll become different characters.

If we're going to get different characters, let's just HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS to start with. And you can still do that without the pitfalls you described.

I understand that but what setting should the different characters be? The end of Voyager clearly defined that the Star Trek universe will be radically different now that they have advanced future tech at their disposal. And I do not want rehash of Andromeda where the Federation is toppled by a powerful new or existing enemy. Rebooting will eliminate those barriers.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

That's what I'd like to see... but it doesn't require a "reboot" to happen.

"Let's face it," Star Trek as we remember it starred William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy and Deforest Kelley and others... a new show with new actors will inevitably be about different characters... and the longer it runs, the more they'll become different characters.

If we're going to get different characters, let's just HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS to start with. And you can still do that without the pitfalls you described.

I understand that but what setting should the different characters be? The end of Voyager clearly defined that the Star Trek universe will be radically different now that they have advanced future tech at their disposal. And I do not want rehash of Andromeda where the Federation is toppled by a powerful new or existing enemy. Rebooting will eliminate those barriers.

You're not listening, or I'm not being clear... either way, you're TOTALLY missing my point.

I said that after this movie, they can leverage the existing investment (sets, props, uniforms, SETTING, etc) and even use some characters set up in this film (say, the Pakistani captain we're getting?) but give us new, "riskable" characters and situations.

As for post-TNG... I doubt that the Voyager ending really means any major changes. But I don't think that you have to go in the direction you suggest about the "fall" either.

I have a personal idea on where I'd want to go post-TNG... but I'm not really supposed to talk about it anymore, for the time being at least... suffice it to say that it would play up the overemphasis on technology in the post-TNG-era as a PROBLEM... no "big powerful external enemy" so much as a "get back to the basics" sort of story.

 

[Tralah]

The actors' contracts have been signed with at least TWO sequels in mind, so if this movie is a success, then we will almost certainly get at least one more film with this crew of actors. At least I hope that's the case! If the new recasting of the TOS characters works well, it would be a lot fun to see them in a couple more entertaining adventures. I do hope the success of the films will propel Star Trek back into television though where I think it's best suited.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

These folks are all signed for three movies. If "Star Trek" is a hit we're going to see nothing but the adventures of Kirk and Spock for the foreseeable future; that's so elementary that it ought to be obvious to anyone.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

These folks are all signed for three movies. If "Star Trek" is a hit we're going to see nothing but the adventures of Kirk and Spock for the foreseeable future; that's so elementary that it ought to be obvious to anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it standard "boilerplate" for contracts of this nature to have options for future films? And isn't that demonstrated as being "no guarantee" that the characters will be used again? I seem to recall, for instance, that Michelle Pfieffer (sp?) was optioned for future Batman movies, but never used (though I think they'd have been better off if they HAD, personally).

The studio legal team has covered their options. It would be shocking if they hadn't done that, no matter HOW things go in the future. Don't you agree?

 

[Kegek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it standard "boilerplate" for contracts of this nature to have options for future films? And isn't that demonstrated as being "no guarantee" that the characters will be used again? I seem to recall, for instance, that Michelle Pfieffer (sp?) was optioned for future Batman movies, but never used (though I think they'd have been better off if they HAD, personally).

The studio legal team has covered their options. It would be shocking if they hadn't done that, no matter HOW things go in the future. Don't you agree?

True. But if they wanted to make movies with a new cast of characters (rather than merely actors) as you postulate, they'd be doing that already. Returning to Kirk and Spock tells me at any rate that, assuming this film is a success, the immediate future of this franchise is films about these characters - who may sometime down the line be recast again.

It's not imaginative, it's certainly formulaic, but it tends to be the approach of franchise pictures. To give the method credit, it frequently works.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not imaginative, it's certainly formulaic, but it tends to be the approach of franchise pictures. To give the method credit, it frequently works.

It works so much more frequently and dependably than any other approach, in fact, that for some unfathomable reason making certain that all of the major performers are optioned for further pictures has become "standard boilerplate" in contracts.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

It shouldn't bomb. Then again so shouldn't ST;Nemisis.

 

[Tralah]

Star Trek Nemesis deserved the failure it received for being a medicore story that was terrible produced, directed and edited and IMHO, the acting wasn't as good as we've seen the TNG crew do in the past.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's not imaginative, it's certainly formulaic, but it tends to be the approach of franchise pictures. To give the method credit, it frequently works.

It works so much more frequently and dependably than any other approach, in fact, that for some unfathomable reason making certain that all of the major performers are optioned for further pictures has become "standard boilerplate" in contracts.

Please reign in the "under the table jabs" Dennis, if you please. If you want to take a shot, just say what you mean and don't try to bypass the rules by being "sly.

Unless you're currently working on the film or at the studio management, you simply don't KNOW any of this stuff. You're guessing. You may THINK you're smarter than everyone else, or "more connected" or whatever. But you're not... really. So it'd be really appreciated if you'd reign in the attitude.

You disagree. Fine, everyone gets that. You might be right, you might be wrong. NOBODY KNOWS... not me, not you... NOBODY. The fact that you support your claims of your own personal opinion with or whatever doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.

 

[Jon1701]

Yeah, I gotta disagree too, Cary.

I would be truly astonished if they chose to feature a bunch of new characters in any prospective sequel to this movie (Should the movie be a success). A Three movie minimum is what I expect.

Having said that - If it bombs, Paramount will get money back one way or another. I fully expect Star Trek 2 - II : The new new Star Trek adventures starring Casper Van Dien and James Van der beek to jump straight to the top of the Direct-to-DVD charts.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Yeah, I must disagree too, Cary.

I would be truly astonished if they chose to feature a bunch of new characters in any prospective sequel to this movie (Should the movie be a success). Three movies is what I expect.

Having said that - If it bombs, Paramount will get money back one way or another. I fully expect Star Trek 2 - II : The new new Star Trek adventures starring Casper Van Dien and James Van der beek to jump straight to the top of the Direct-to-DVD charts.

So which one is the captain??? (YIKES!)

Has Van Diem done ANYTHING in recent years? I recently heard he's going to be doing a new "Starship Troopers" film... though I wasn't under the impression it would have Van Der Beek or would go straight-to-DVD...

Believe me, I won't be "hurt" or "upset" or whatever if it turns out that they do this. I think it would be a mistake... but that's for reasons I think I've explained clearly enough above and there's no reason to rehash. I'm just not convinced that because PPC LEGAL has prepared for contingencies that PPC MANAGEMENT is necessarily constrained by that. They'll do whatever they think is most likely to give them a successful continuation of revenue generation.

If they conclude (AFTER THIS MOVIE) that more films (not involving Abrams, evidently, but with this same cast) is the way to go... that's what they'll decide. If they decide that some other way is more likely to give them a success... that's what they'll do.

Nobody is about to make that call before this movie is completed. That's really the core of my argument... claiming it is ALREADY DECIDED is simply foolish. The decision at least 15 months ahead, still. That's all I'm sayin...

 

[Jon1701]

Diem is playing the new Vulcan Science Officer.

Also starring Barry Van Dyke as "Federation Captain #2" and featuring Shannon Doherty as Helen Noel.

 

[22 Stars]

If Paramount produces a popular, successful film in this Trek XI, you can take it to the bank that most if not all the creative team will be back for another film in about 3 years from release and that includes the main cast. At some point JJ won't want to direct another Trek, just as with the X-Men franchise, Singer moved away but many of the actors remained.

 

[RobertScorpio]

If Paramount produces a popular, successful film in this Trek XI, you can take it to the bank that most if not all the creative team will be back for another film in about 3 years from release and that includes the main cast. At some point JJ won't want to direct another Trek, just as with the X-Men franchise, Singer moved away but many of the actors remained.

I agree. But since JJ comes from the TV world, and Paramount loves TV stuff, I wonder if they will tap him, if the movie succeeds, to prep some kind of TV spinoff of the movie. I think this would be wrong to do, but you know Paramount..they LOVE to change things

 

[TheCanon72]

Why would it be the wrong thing to do?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Typically, an option is simply payment for the ability to exercise a contractual right in the future at the discretion of the contracting party.

I pay you extra now for the right to potentially tie up your career at some point in the future (at bargain prices agreed upon in advance, if I played my cards right). If I change my mind, I simply free you from that obligation and we go our separate ways.

An option clause would likely contain boilerplate language, but an options clause itself should not be assumed and would never be boilerplate.

 

[donners22]

There's a reason I have several hundred hours of Trek, not to mention countless books. Even if there is never another Trek film, book or any sort of related publication, I still have plenty to remind me of what I enjoyed.

If the film succeeds, great. If not, I'm not really that bothered.

 

[AlxxlA]

If it does bomb, the exchange will go something like this:

SCENE 1:

(Crowd exits theater)

Me: Man, that SUCKED!
Random Guy 1: I know, man!
Me: How could they SOIL the franchise like that?
RG1: Damn right!
Random Guy 2: (Crying) I feel so dirty for believing in them! Say... Do you know what Seppuku is?
RG1: No...
Me: Yes, but why?
RG2: Oh, no reason.

And so on...