Why not wait until May and find out instead treating him like everyone treated Rick Berman?
Did J.J. fix Star Trek or doom it?
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
- Status
Why not wait until May and find out instead treating him like everyone treated Rick Berman?
It's just the moderate hit that worries me. Then we'll get moderate hit after moderate hit ad finitum even if it doesn't hold true to TOS. Frankenstein's monster comes to mind.
Only from a certain point of view. TNG's ratings were immediately very high and drew in a big TV audience of folks who'd never paid attention to Trek before - from the very first episode. If most of them hadn't considered it good, there would never have been a third season of the show.
All of the TNG spinoffs dropped viewers from week to week, right from the beginning...each week, some tens of thousands of folks who'd watched DS9/"Voyager"/"Enterprise" the week before couldn't be bothered to catch the next episode a week later.
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Verdana]Let's consider Robert Wise and the original 'reinvention’ of Star Trek. He was quite the director prior to his over budget blunder. He also blew the opportunity. All the marketing and hype could not save this feature. Let’s then consider the much more frugal next feature. As we know, it directed Nick Meyer, who did not know much about Trek but did quite well by all standards and saved the ‘Trek’ universe, who also directed the final ‘credible’ Trek movie. So – will J.J. doom it or save it? Let’s say – we’ve seen this before. Maybe giving it to a relatively unknown, who had something to prove yields better results. But – of course, there are always possibilities.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Yes, much like Chris Nolan isn't making any new Adam West fans with the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. But I don't think Paramount's all that interested in selling leftovers when they've gone through so much effort to update the menu.
I am a fan of scifi not just trek, the only reason you are getting a new movie is because of the fans yet some of you blow them off why is that?
Why ever not? ST: TMP, ST IV and "First Contact" were all the big moneyspinners for the ST films. Each of those films brought in many new fans, not just replacements for those fans from the 60s and 70s, who'd died or moved on to other interests. Certainly, ST IV's critical and popular successes are why TNG was launched.
And, for most of its run, TNG was considered as mainstream as ST could go, with TNG being the consistent top-rating one-hour drama on first-release syndication in USA. And it did this off the back of ST IV.
If the general public like the new film, you count count on many of those becoming "new" fans, coming back for more, and investigating what ST DVD boxed sets and tie-in books and toys are already out there.
Speaking of redux such as Batman and other examples of what is new is old. BatMan had been redone several times. Sometimes good. Sometimes, not so. How many actors casted as Wayne vs. Kirk? It's no unlike Bond movies in a way, but a least time was the enemy there (generally). Look at BattleStar Galactica - this show seemed to have be done quite well and with some original thought. One could argue a different fan base entirely, not just because they grew up - but because it is - interesting and more realistic.
It took longer than Paramount would have liked, sure, but ST: TMP is still one of the ST franchise's most successful films. Even though it had the budget for a failed TV series tagged onto it, it still made a huge profit for Paramount, and almost as much internationally, which is what ST II and III were unable to emulate. I seem to recall the VHS version of TMP doing extremely well, too, in the then-fledgling home video market, and again when the "special longer version" was released.
The critical success of the "frugal" ST II unfortunately convinced Paramount that "frugal=less risky", which meant that ST movie budgets are often rather small when compared to other films being made around them.
But this pattern has been broken with JJ.
People forget that Spock was played by five actors in ST III and I don't recall this being an outrage at the time.
We've had two Saaviks, and they switched appearances at a point in time that is rather weird for anyone watching ST II and ST III back-to-back. (Didn't a similar thing happen with Marty's girlfriend in the "Back to the Future" movies?)
As a fan of "Batman" in the 60s, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed each of the actors who've played him since.
These are similar questions that fans were asking when they first heard about Star Trek: The Mlotion Picture.
These are similar questions that fans were asking when they first heard about Filmation's Star Trek Animated.
Last edited:
It's cool. Sorry for snapping at ya, it just seems that everytime I come to this forum someone bashing this film before it even comes out. Sometimes I wonder why I remain a member of such a negative place
If you're a bean counter, I have no doubt you'll be happy with this film. I just hope TOS enthusiasts will be too. Is that too much to hope for? It'll be a great movie but a lousy story. I hope I'm the first one to say I knew I was talking out of my ass.
Last edited:
How many have become hooked on the original Mission: Impossible TV series because of their interest in the M:I movies? My guess would be, not many.
None, to you.
---------------
You seem to have gotten lost. This is the forum as it existed early in 2009. Before the movie came out.
You're looking for the future internet. Just down the hall, second door on the left.
I love it when people completely ignore the example in the post in favor
of the one that suits them better. Nice job.
None. At all. All that matters is it does make new fans.
Like I said in my post where all my points were ignored and the rest was
used as fodder...
... we need new fans. Not new fans of the old.
That does little to insure the franchise's continuation into the future.
Don't be so afraid of irrelavency people.
- Status
