Strange: that was my on topic point.
Well, I said more on topic.
Just yesterday I saw a rerun of Family Guy where Peter succeeds in de-canceling a fictional TV show by claiming that Chris is terminally ill. He then plans to revive star trek "using" his two other kids...
My all-time favorite is still Stewie doing STII's funeral scene for Rupert. I can't find the clip anywhere. If someone has it please post.
Meanwhile I found this gem: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/51627/detail/
Robot Chicken for all the redshirt fans!
Last edited:
You know, I've never felt like the producers of Star Trek have lied to me. I think some of their ideas, which sounded wonderful at planning meetings, didn't work out as anyone anticipated but sometimes that happens. They thought that ST II - and "Sarek", and "Yesterday's Enterprise" - were turning out to be Frankenstein-like cobbled-together creations, but most fans and critics ended up acclaiming them. They thought "Nemesis" would be appealing on many levels, and they dropped numerous balls with that one.
So yeah, sometimes they made well-intentioned promises that sort of missed their marks. But they didn't "lie".
The only probem I see with this approach is that i don't think it will work. You just can't make a hard-core Trekkie movie that will appeal to fans while making a fun light-hearted aci-fi action movie that appeals to people who don't like Star Trek.
Trekkies will insist that every minor inconsistancy be explained (like the length of the ship), that every move the engineers make to save the day be explained by Treknobabble and reversing the polarity and quantum doohickies
of doom. They'll complain endlessly about the uniforms, that Sulu is seem in spy pictures with a katana (allegedly, it looks like a kitchen knife to me), and other bovine fecal matter.
None of that matters to mainstreamers. They want a big adventure that isn't bogged down by all the details that Trekkies love. They don't know all the lore, don't give two shits about continuity, and most definately are going to get annoyed by all the blather about quantum this, shield integrity that, and recalabrating the replicators.
I'd dump the Trekkies and go for the mainstream. Mainstream is bigger, and they'll spend more money.
Or indeed, the film that prevented "Nemesis" from claiming biggest US film opening of its weekend: "Maid in Manhattan".
Fortunately these "Trekkies" that you described are a small fanatical minority of the actual Star Trek fan base. I've watched every one of the Star Trek series, read some of the books, I've been to a few conventions and worn a Starfleet uniform for Halloween on occasion. I'm definitely a fan of the series, but I do not get worked up over those types of details. I just want a good, entertaining science fiction movie about Star Trek, and I'll forgive just about any changes Abrams makes for an enjoyable well acted story. I don't think I'm the only Trekkie like this.
I whole-heartedly agree that making a movie that would appeal to that small fanatical faction of the fan base would be a disaster.
You are most definitely not.I don't think I'm the only Trekkie like this.
Yes, it has (except for some pickups and the VFX work).Cary L. Brown;1564422 But I'm also prepared to give Abrams a bit of trust... just not BLIND trust. I intend to verify.[/quote said:
Have you SEEN it? Have any of us seen it? Has anyone who's making conclusive claims about it seen it?
No, no, and HELL NO.
I'm going to go see this movie, no question about it. I'm almost certainly going to buy the flippin' DVD. I'm also going to be watching the news closely, and if it turns out that this has as much to do with the classic show as nuBSG has do to with BSG, or the 70's King Kong had to do with the classic, or that the "Lost in Space" movie had to do with the original... or that the Harrison Ford "Fugitive" had to do with either the old tv show, or worse, the real life story that show was based upon... then I'll be up in arms over it.
Doesn't mean I won't watch the show. It'll just mean that the movie will be the thing that finally kills "Star Trek" as it's existed for so many years. There may, or may not, be something which calls itself Trek, but there'll be nothing left of what I grew up loving.
On the other side of the coin... this could be the first faithful recreation of the Trek I know and love since Roddenberry started losing his mental coherence back before TNG came out.
So... I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm prepared to give 'em a chance. But I'm also prepared to be disappointed.
The answer is simple...
the folks who run Paramount (and CBS) were convinced that Trek was a "dead franchise," not capable of making back the money being put into it.
It became unprofitable, and thus was shelved. Potentially, that was FOREVER.
Abrams was courted by Paramount, for a multi-picture deal. Part of his condition for taking the deal was that he wanted to do a Star Trek movie. His stated reason was that he'd had a story he'd wanted to tell since he was "barely into his teens." He's the exact same age as I am, so I know exactly when that was for him, too... immediately after "The Wrath of Khan."
Note... he didn't have the stated goal of "reviving the franchise" or "taking over the franchise." His stated goal was to "tell a story he'd wanted to tell for most of his life."
That story predates any of the Post-TOS series. It, logically, is likely to have a lot of influence from TWOK. I postulated, back then, that this was going to be a "Kirk origin story" and that we'd end up seeing the Kobayashi Maru, from the Kirk perspective... and that it would make a sort of "bookend" film to TWOK. So far, I've been given nothing to contradict that perspective and lots of reasons to believe I was right.
My point? Abrams has a PARTICULAR STORY he wants to tell using these characters. As far as he's concerned... this film is "it" and after this, he'll move onto other things (he's definitely able to write his own ticket these days!). PPC may decide to continue the adventures of the "re-cast crew" but that would be independent of his goals regarding this film and I'd be stunned if he was involved in any such project in any fashion whatsoever.
SO... PPC didn't really care about making a Trek film... they wanted Abrams, and HE cared about making a Trek film. They took the risk on making this film, not based upon it being "Trek" but based upon it being Abrams.
They're looking at this now and EVALUATING the franchise. There are two possibilities:
1) "Star Trek" as a franchise is just played out. It doesn't matter who's in charge, it's just "tired" and needs to be put out to pasture.
OR
2) "Star Trek" as a franchise is still a valid one, but has been mismanaged for a while. Put a new team in, and you can get a successful film where the "old guard" would have failed.
In order to test this, they want to reduce the number of variables... that is, go back to what was known to WORK. That's Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc... TOS.
If a Picard movie fails... that might mean that "new trek" is dead, but that classic is still viable. If a Kirk movie fails... that'll be read that "all trek" is dead.
Now, here's the catch... IF this film is a success... the people in charge at PPC, CBS, their mutual parent holding company... ALL of them... will realize that Trek, IF DONE RIGHT, can work. If it fails... they'll all realize that Trek, no matter who's doing it, can't work anymore.
If it works... they'll be more likely to greenlight other shows (taking the lead from this one). This cast isn't going to do TV... and another recast for TV wouldn't go over all that well. But a NEW CAST might (as you suggest).
This, also, is something I've been predicting for a while. I suggested that we'd be likely to see a new ship introduced, with a new crew... and that they'd be significant "supporting characters" in this film who COULD be spun-off into their own films or TV show (if this movie does well).
And yet again, the (scant) evidence available seems to support my prediction. I could be wrong... but other than a few folks who desperately want me to be wrong, there's no real EVIDENCE to support that, is there?
I agree. it would be wise to introduce new characters for use in a TV show.
The 24 th century will probably not return anytime soon (if ever), and no one will touch the idea of a prequel before the TOS era.
But Star Trek belongs on TV again, and if those new TOS movies make an impact, why not start off from there, but with an all-new cast?
Another recast of the old TOS heroes would be rather ridiculous.
The 24 th century will probably not return anytime soon (if ever), and no one will touch the idea of a prequel before the TOS era.
But Star Trek belongs on TV again, and if those new TOS movies make an impact, why not start off from there, but with an all-new cast?
Another recast of the old TOS heroes would be rather ridiculous.
If they're making lots of money on the movies they're not going to diminish that by launching a live-action TV series - any more than Warner Bros is going to do a Batman series or full-on costumed Superman series right now.
What if... mind you it is only hypothetical... around the time this new movie comes out there were to be a new premium channel available? One who was Star Trek friendly? One who was already running Star Trek XI and all the other ST series? What if that premium channel wanted a compelling reason for the fans of all of the above to tune in? Maybe they would want a new ST series, maybe even one which branched off a popular new ST movie...
Hmmm... food for thought.
Oh, Viacom can come up with dozens of proposals for attractive original drama series that are more likely to be competitive than "Star Trek." Trek is no "Sopranos" or even "Mad Men" - it might be at home on a basic cable outlet like SCIFI, where shows like "Stargate" and "Battlestar Galactica" are able to hang on (and BSG is a very good series).
They're not going to dilute the value of their 150 million dollar-plus investment in creating a first-rate movie franchise.
CBS might do animated Trek, just as Warner Bros does with their superheroes.
They're not going to dilute the value of their 150 million dollar-plus investment in creating a first-rate movie franchise.
CBS might do animated Trek, just as Warner Bros does with their superheroes.
A TOS series could be awesome.
I mean what are the alternatives?
- Put Star Trek on sleep mode after 1-2 movies and lose any momentum to really revitalize the franchise?
- Throw in new ST movies in regular intervals like in the 80s, hoping none of them bombs meaning no more Trek for a long time?
Also unlike with the 80s movies, we definitely won't be seeing any grave danger to our heroes nor the Federation cause we know the future of that universe.
A series could handle such problems much easier than a movie series imo.
In any case the TOS era isn't the worst era about which to make a new series.
We won't be drowning in technobabble, also the Federation is in an interesting Phase between peaceful exploration and emerging conflict.
I think this new series has a similar potential as Enterprise had when it comes to things like shedding light on prominent recurring Aliens, the early Federation, colonization and "strange new worlds". Plus there could be many TOS references and backstories to make this interesting.
Introducing some new dudes to potentially use later on would certainly not be a bad idea.
I mean what are the alternatives?
- Put Star Trek on sleep mode after 1-2 movies and lose any momentum to really revitalize the franchise?
- Throw in new ST movies in regular intervals like in the 80s, hoping none of them bombs meaning no more Trek for a long time?
Also unlike with the 80s movies, we definitely won't be seeing any grave danger to our heroes nor the Federation cause we know the future of that universe.
A series could handle such problems much easier than a movie series imo.
In any case the TOS era isn't the worst era about which to make a new series.
We won't be drowning in technobabble, also the Federation is in an interesting Phase between peaceful exploration and emerging conflict.
I think this new series has a similar potential as Enterprise had when it comes to things like shedding light on prominent recurring Aliens, the early Federation, colonization and "strange new worlds". Plus there could be many TOS references and backstories to make this interesting.
Introducing some new dudes to potentially use later on would certainly not be a bad idea.
That works very well for interpersonal relationships; in that context, I agree with that statement. In terms of movies and TV shows? Not so much - mainly because they're...well, movies and TV shows. However much I like 'em, I just can't get worked up enough about them to use that sort of hyperbolic terminology. To each their own, however.
All I want is a decent, entertaining movie that doesn't drown in nit-picky detail. If Abrams delivers, and there's a decent chance he will, then well and good. Otherwise...well, life will go on.
Yep. Same thing other film franchises, like "Spiderman" or "X-Men," do.
That's what this is, by intention - the launch of a big, big film series like those or the "Star Wars" films.
You are most definitely not.I don't think I'm the only Trekkie like this.
No. He's not. I feel the same.
I mean, I don't want any huge canon gaffes that will do irreparable damage to the other shows or anything like that...but I don't care about what size the Enterprise is, or what the transporters will look like, or that every detail of ever minor character's backstory is canonically correct, etc.
A good, well told and well acted action/adventure story is much more important to me. Because that is what is gonna save Trek from a more permanent hiatus.
Similar threads
- Locked
