Some new opinions/information from folks who've seen the film....
- Thread starter Gepard
- Start date
That's the point I'm making and which kinda like Khan, you keep missing or just keep choosing to dance around...
IMHO, Trek is NEVER GONNA BE A Star Wars kinda franchise.
It's Never Gonna make that kinda money from a One-Shot Movie and until the Folks-in-Charge realize this and stop trying to make it LIKE STAR WARS they are never gonna be satisfied with the outcome.
One of the most appealing things about Trek is the fact that through these many years and all of it's incarnations, it's been perceived by most of it's devotees as being mostly consistent with itself or at the very least the inconsistencies were easily explainable.
That's mainly why it has persisted as being a popular entertainment/hobby by many (if not most) of the Fans. (again, IMHO)
That's something that almost all the other Franchises can not claim.
(especially the ones that have been around for any length of time.)
It's the fact that this new movie is changing things so much, that I think it's not really going to create a larger fanbase.
It's just gonna split up the current fanbase into smaller, much more resistant-to-change, splinter groups.
And here I disagree with you. I didn't say a small devoted coterie of fans, I said a Small Segment of the Population.
That is still a very, very large number of people who, though they may not be as vocal as those of Us around here, have hung in with Trek all these years.
When Trek is good, they come out in droves.
When Trek isn't so good, it's only US Devotees who keep the flame burning.
The Folks who control Trek just have to realize that it's never gonna be a Golden Calf to be placed high upon the Alter of the Almighty Dollar to be worshiped by all, but instead just a Diamond in the Rough that should be cherished and protected, only to be brought out once in a while to be polished and admired by those who know it's hidden beauty.
It's never again going to be any kind of franchise unless the studio finds a way to broaden and modernize its appeal.
There are an awful lot of good ways for Paramount to spend their money other than trying to resusitate a dead brand, unless they see a big payoff in it.
"Niche Trek" doesn't represent a big payoff.
And it's not true that viewers "come out in droves for good Trek." It's only true that they supported "Star Trek" on television until TNG closed down, and then left in droves. Very few people really want to see the same story told in the same way week after week for four decades - only hard core fans do.
There's no evidence whatever that there are millions of would-be Trekkies waiting out there to "embrace Star Trek again" if it somehow returned to whatever a given individual considers "good Trek." You can't even get fans to agree on what "good Trek" is - hell, there are plenty of people on this board and around the Internet who'll tell you that DS9 was "good Trek," and it couldn't hold onto its audience from one week to the next. A niche cable network like SPIKE can't even see the value in continuing to re-run it.
I have ZERO problems with the top of the Enterprise looking so sleek and the engineering levels looking like a brewer. Anyone seen Titanic? That's how ships are: elegant and advanced up top - blood, sweat and tears down below.
And I guess that's the main difference between you and I.
I think there IS a very large contingent of Trek Fans out there who watch from the sidelines, never really letting their presence be known except when Trek hit's a home run, and you apparently think we're a dying bred heading for extinction.
Fans may not agree on what is considered Good Trek, but WE ALL do turn up again and again to see it fail or succeed, then debate amongst Ourselves as to it merits for years to come.
I think there are Higher Powers in the Universe, and some of my friends agree with me, but so what? In the absence of evidence I can believe whatever I like. Likewise, because I and some of my friends think that we represent the tip of some iceberg of "latent Trekkies" doesn't constitute evidence.
This "large contingent of Trek fans" stopped showing up around 1994-1995. Simply because you may think that there's been no "quality Trek" for fifteen years doesn't constitute an explanation for that - since so many people disagree with one another on what constitutes quality (that pesky DS9 business again).
I don't think that group of casual fans who made Trek profitable are "heading for extinction." It's pretty clear that they got bored and moved on to more interesting and current things well over a decade ago, and effectively are already extinct.
In any event, if everyone who stood in line for "Star Trek IV" suddenly comes back it won't constitute enough people to get Paramount's attention. Given the competitiveness of the movie business now, there's not much interest in throwing money at limited budget actioners in the hope of eking out a mediocre profit - and that is what Trek did, by current standards. Paramount can take the money they would have spent on a Star Trek VI, or "Nemesis," add it to the budget of the next "Iron Man" movie instead and consider the money more wisely invested.
Trek movies have always, with the exception of TMP (Which was rushed, and poorly concieved for the most part), been fairly small-time productions. This is the first summer blockbuster with the name "Star Trek" in the title in quite some time.
It's certainly the first time I recall a Trek movie getting superbowl airtime, or any of those other big-movie things.
I think Abrams can make a big summer movie that just happens to be Star Trek. It may or may not be something hardcores want to see though.
It's certainly the first time I recall a Trek movie getting superbowl airtime, or any of those other big-movie things.
I think Abrams can make a big summer movie that just happens to be Star Trek. It may or may not be something hardcores want to see though.
Honestly, if they could get the "Iron Man" audience they could write us off. They know they won't have to, though - for one thing, way too many of us actually buy tickets to the kinds of movies that we say we're afraid they're turning "Star Trek" into.
I've never claimed to have any Evidence, I've always just stated my Opinion. (and indicated so several times)
I am talking about Our Differing Beliefs, so there was no need for you to be flippant in your opening paragraph.
I never stated that there has been "no quality Trek for fifteen years", I actually enjoyed ENTERPRISE and that's only been gone since 2005.
Whether or not it was good Trek, is of course a matter of ones own opinion, but I feel that if it had been given a better chance it's would have lasted at least seven years. Many factors were involved in it's demise, not the least of which being that UPN (which never really supported it) was the worst place to have put it. Even I had trouble keeping up with it's scheduling, cause my local UPN channel kept pre-empting it for sporting events.
Be that as it may, I still believe that this movie will probably do fairly well first along but will never be the Super-Mega-Hit that TPTB want.
And my two main reasons for thinking so are...,
1) Because it's going to Change The Status Quo, Way Too Much and
2) Because Trek is NOT Star Wars and shouldn't be compared to it.
I'm not really sure that movies are financed based on 'robbing peter to pay paul' thinking (your Iron Man example), but I suppose that's possible.
In any event, I don't think TPTB have understood how to market the Trek Franchise since the begining.
If They ever get someone in charge of the money that IS a Moderate Trek Fan, things might be different.
In the exact same sense that any product is so financed - there's so much money to spend, and in order to attract investors you do have to persuade them that there's money to be made.
Especially right now. In terms of raising capital, obtaining bank loans and so on the studios are not immune from what's happening everywhere else.
There's no value in protecting the "status quo" of a dead franchise.
That's just an assertion. There's no good reason that Trek shouldn't be compared to "Star Wars" or "Batman" or James Bond or any other commercial film franchise. There are differences and there are similarities, but if techniques of producing and marketing one successful action/adventure film can't be applied to another of the genre then professional experience is of no value whatever.
Come to think of it, the way many people on the Internet display contempt for the folks in the film business (see any AICN Talkback) I suppose it's axiomatic to a lot of people that professional experience is discountable in favor of any strongly held opinion repeated frequently. There are people over there who actually think that Warner Bros has irretrievably screwed the artistic and commercial pooch by not including the Interdimensional Squid in "Watchmen."
Honestly, if they could get the "Iron Man" audience they could write us off. They know they won't have to, though - for one thing, way too many of us actually buy tickets to the kinds of movies that we say we're afraid they're turning "Star Trek" into.
Well, admittedly, most serious fans seem willing to give the new film a chance despite all the moaning.
In any case, I'm sure that Iron Man's success wasn't due to some reserve group of hidden, pre-existing Iron Man fans.
Ridiculous. That series had been consigned to the scrap heap by UPN before Coto was given control; the ratings had slipped every week since the beginning.
Just as the ratings of DS9 had slipped every week since the beginning.
Just as the ratings of "Voyager" had slipped every week since the beginning.
What killed "Star Trek" was that there was too much of it and it never ever changed.
No, it didn't. In any event, whether it had gotten better or not in the fourth year would not have prevented its cancellation. Shows are cancelled every day with devoted audiences that are convinced the shows are in their prime and getting better. Over a fifteen year period the ratings for "Star Trek" had declined to the point that no one was going to throw more money at it.
Lots of people preferred Coto's version of the show to Berman and Braga's version - you can go check that out around this BBS and others; saying "no one was convinced" doesn't make it so.
In any event, that's not what I said. I said that whether the viewers had liked it better or less well the network was not renewing for a fifth year. The show was dead before Coto took over. Period, full stop.
Really? Could have fooled the naysayers here--myself and Temis for example--who felt season four was a huge step up for the show.
There's not much value in changing it so much that it (possibly) fails to revive it either.
And I still don't understand how Trek can be considered a Dead Franchise.
If it were That Far Gone, one wouldn't think anybody would bother with it at all.
Sometimes your statements seem so negitive about Trek, SP.
This is not to disrespect your opinions but, You come across as someone who has come to dislike Trek for some reason and I fail to understand why you even bother to post here other than to bring everyone else down to your level of distaste for it.
You also tend to discount anybody's opinion who doesn't have your expertise in the entertainment industry, which at times comes across as being very arrogant.
It's almost like your experiance with working on TNG and such, has ruined your enjoyment of Trek (just a guess on my part) and made you very jaded toward it and other fans.
I hope you really do enjoy the new movie cause I'd really don't want to see you abondon Trek for all time.
Yes you are quite correct, it is just an assertion, my assertion, but it was meant as my own opinion and there was no disrespect meant toward anyone in the Entertainment Industry, including you.
I ws simply stating my opinion that Star Trek at its core, has never been and shouldn't be like Star Wars.
I have no problem with Trek having whiz-bang Star Wars-like special effects, I just don't want it to become Star Wars-like at it's core.
Similar threads
