i wish abrams had made a post ds9/voy movie isntead!

[dHunter333]

imagine if he made a movie set 5 or 10 years after tng/ds9/voy

an abrams, in continuity, moving the franchise FORWARD would've been...



awsome


anyone agree?

 

[Borgminister]

From the standpoint of commercial success ensuring more movies? No.

In terms of morbid curiosity? Yes.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Not really, no.

Moving forward would have just meant more convenient bullshit technobabble and less chances to put our heroes in genuine danger.

Besides, if the new crew that they'd no doubt have to come up with were to be every bit as lively and memorable as the VOY and ENT crews, well -

 

[MvRojo]

Not really, no.

Moving forward would have just meant more convenient bullshit technobabble and less chances to put our heroes in genuine danger.

Why would that happen if the same people were writing and directing? What would have stopped them from eliminating technobabble and creating danger and drama post-DS9/Voyager?

 

[JarodRussell]

Not really, no.

Moving forward would have just meant more convenient bullshit technobabble and less chances to put our heroes in genuine danger.

Besides, if the new crew that they'd no doubt have to come up with were to be every bit as lively and memorable as the VOY and ENT crews, well -

Yeah, and if the new crew had been awesome... but it's pretty easy to dismiss something that doesn't even exist. TNG era movie = technobabble? Who made that rule? Why do you think a TNG era movie made by Abrams would have technobabble in it?


Why the hell do most of the people have this strange mind blockade that anything else but exactly this movie would have sucked? That's not even remotely reasonable.

From the standpoint of commercial success ensuring more movies? No.

Why? Why would an original new Trek movie not be successful? What are the reasons?

 

[Disillusioned]

I'm sure he would have managed to screw that up, too.

 

[Shazam!]

Moving forward would have just meant more convenient bullshit technobabble and less chances to put our heroes in genuine danger.

Because post-TNG Star Trek crews had those invincibility potions?

 

[Dukhat]

I honestly don't think setting the movie post-Nemesis would have worked. Some new crew with some new ship just wouldn't have interested the casual moviegoer like Kirk/Spock/Enterprise etc. name recognition did. It would have made a few million dollars from die-hard fans like us, but that would have been it, and Star Trek will have remained dead for the forseeable future.

So no, it wouldn't have been "awsome."

 

[MvRojo]

Come to think of it, it would actually have been easier to put the characters in genuine danger since there's a blank slate going forward. In order to put the TOS characters in genuine danger, they had to concoct the who alternate reality concept.

I'm not advocating for or against a post-DS9/Voy film (although a TOS film made much, much for sense from a commercial standpoint), but I just think that if we're going to have this debate it should not be based on blanket statements that don't make sense.

 

[JarodRussell]

I honestly don't think setting the movie post-Nemesis would have worked. Some new crew with some new ship just wouldn't have interested the casual moviegoer like Kirk/Spock/Enterprise etc. name recognition did. It would have made a few million dollars from die-hard fans like us, but that would have been it, and Star Trek will have remained dead for the forseeable future.

So no, it wouldn't have been "awsome."

Why? Original movies make money, too. And a movie with a new crew would have almost been an original movie. Add the agressive promotional campaign that this movie had, some big names, and you're there.

And you definately know it wouldn't have been awesome without seeing it?

 

[Franklin]

No. Star Trek needed an enema, not even more "continuity" piled onto the already bloated and sluggish franchise.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

^ I absolutely agree.

 

[Shazam!]

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

 

[MvRojo]

No. Star Trek needed an enema, not even more "continuity" piled onto the already bloated and sluggish franchise.

They could have done a non-prequel that didn't rely on continuity to understand the story. It's up to the writers to craft a good story, and the marketing to effectively sell the film.

In any case, there was way more continuity and references in Trek XI than there's been in any of the other films.

 

[RyuRoots]

I honestly don't think setting the movie post-Nemesis would have worked. Some new crew with some new ship just wouldn't have interested the casual moviegoer like Kirk/Spock/Enterprise etc. name recognition did. It would have made a few million dollars from die-hard fans like us, but that would have been it, and Star Trek will have remained dead for the forseeable future.

So no, it wouldn't have been "awsome."

Why? Original movies make money, too. And a movie with a new crew would have almost been an original movie. Add the agressive promotional campaign that this movie had, some big names, and you're there.

And you definately know it wouldn't have been awesome without seeing it?

The argument here is more for mass appeal. A movie set primarily IN 2387, let's say, wouldn't have drawn nearly as much of a crowd. TOS is iconic. Names like Kirk and Spock are extremely familiar to even the general audience, and selling XI on being an updated TOS was a great move. With the other idea, you'd have to come up with an entirely new cast (to be only used in one movie for all we know), set in a world that people see as having stagnated, as a sequel to a movie that wasn't very good. Compare that to "a classic show, updated with the latest SFX, new actors, new music, etc" and it's no contest.

 

[Dukhat]

I honestly don't think setting the movie post-Nemesis would have worked. Some new crew with some new ship just wouldn't have interested the casual moviegoer like Kirk/Spock/Enterprise etc. name recognition did. It would have made a few million dollars from die-hard fans like us, but that would have been it, and Star Trek will have remained dead for the forseeable future.

So no, it wouldn't have been "awsome."

Why? Original movies make money, too. And a movie with a new crew would have almost been an original movie. Add the agressive promotional campaign that this movie had, some big names, and you're there.

And you definately know it wouldn't have been awesome without seeing it?

It doesn't matter whether you or I think it's awesome or not. All that matters is how much money the movie makes. And because Nemesis bombed so badly, there was no incentive whatseoever to make another movie in the 24th century, whether it be Picard's crew or a new one. And choosing between iconic characters like Kirk and Spock, and totally new and unknown characters, there's just no contest.

EDIT: RyuRoots beat me to the post, but he/she basically said the same thing I did :-)

 

[JarodRussell]

With the other idea, you'd have to come up with an entirely new cast (to be only used in one movie for all we know), set in a world that people see as having stagnated, as a sequel to a movie that wasn't very good.

Yeah, when you promote it that way, it would clearly fail.

And ooh, it's so much work to come up with a new set of characters. It's much easier to just redo stuff that has already been done before.

 

[MvRojo]

With the other idea, you'd have to come up with an entirely new cast (to be only used in one movie for all we know), set in a world that people see as having stagnated, as a sequel to a movie that wasn't very good.

Yeah, when you promote it that way, it would clearly fail.

. RyuRoots, don't go into marketing.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

More "modern Trek?" Sorry, it would have sucked big time.

This movie is great.

 

[-Brett-]

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Profit.