Didn't like the movie? How would YOU have made it?

[JarodRussell]

Star Trek 4 had no Enterprise, took place on Earth, and not even in the 23rd century for the most part, and it was pretty succesful.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Star Trek 4 had no Enterprise, took place on Earth, and not even in the 23rd century for the most part, and it was pretty succesful.

It also built on prior 2 film's events, and the last scene had Kirk and crew on the bridge of a new Enterprise at the end of the movie.

It was also not an origins story to introduce Star Trek to it's audience.

 

[Disillusioned]

Well, it wouldn't matter one bit whether there is Enterprise in the movie or not so long as the Enterprise is in it.

What?

It had Kirk and Spock. There's part of your equation. It was also nearly entirely earth bound. Suppose we don't need to be in space either for Star Trek going by your logic?

Actually no, because Star Trek is about the characters. When it loses sight of that is when it jumps the shark.

Right, other than the fact that anything to do with the original crew or the ship have had the biggest success or spawned the most pop culture influence. You honestly don't think that most average every people associate Star Trek with "Voyager" and feel that they are as iconic and recognizable (if not more) as Kirk and Spock do you?

They might not know about VOY or even DS9, but I'm betting they know about the TNG crew. There's also nothing to say that if a movie was good that this name recognition factor wouldn't matter. All that would matter is that they knew about it and that it looked and sounded interesting to them. If nothing else, Abrams and his team did run a very successful marketing campaign, even if it was for a bad movie.

It also built on prior 2 film's events, and the last scene had Kirk and crew on the bridge of a new Enterprise at the end of the movie.

And yet the movie did not really involve Enterprise, which was not involved in the plot of the movie at all, which was still popular with mainstream audiences.

It was also not an origins story to introduce Star Trek to it's audience.

But it was still a Star Trek movie which did not take place on Enterprise and was still popular with mainstream audiences. There also was no need for anyone to have seen the previous movies to understand or enjoy TVH. Your presumption that an origin movie would need to take place on Enterprise in order to be popular or successful does not hold much water. The only way to really know would be to make such a movie and see how it did.

 

[Devon]

Star Trek 4 had no Enterprise

Not true.

took place on Earth, and not even in the 23rd century for the most part, and it was pretty succesful.

Star Trek 11 had the Enterprise, mostly took place in space, and was in the 23rd century for 99.8% of the time, and was even more successful.

So you were saying?

Well, it wouldn't matter one bit whether there is Enterprise in the movie or not so long as the Enterprise is in it.

What?

Pay attention to your own posts.

It had Kirk and Spock. There's part of your equation. It was also nearly entirely earth bound. Suppose we don't need to be in space either for Star Trek going by your logic?

Actually no, because Star Trek is about the characters. When it loses sight of that is when it jumps the shark.

It was about Kirk and Spock. So what's the problem?

There's also nothing to say that if a movie was good that this name recognition factor wouldn't matter. All that would matter is that they knew about it and that it looked and sounded interesting to them.

And what did the first teaser trailer use to get the first official word about the new film? The Enterprise. Nuff said.

If nothing else, Abrams and his team did run a very successful marketing campaign, even if it was for a bad movie.

Which it wasn't for a bad movie. You're under the impression that it was supposedly a bad movie as though it was supposedly a fact, but for most others it wasn't (more people than most Trek that is.) Sorry.

And yet the movie did not really involve Enterprise, which was not involved in the plot of the movie at all,

Nor did it need to since this wasn't about the TV series called "Enterprise." Which is why you were being ribbed earlier.

 

[Disillusioned]

Star Trek 11 had the Enterprise, mostly took place in space, and was in the 23rd century for 99.8% of the time, and was even more successful.

So you were saying?

That a Star Trek movie doesn't need to take place on Enterprise to be successful, probably.

Pay attention to your own posts.

I do, the question simply isn't phrased in a way that makes any sense.

It was about Kirk and Spock. So what's the problem?

That you don't even seem to know what you're arguing about anymore.

And what did the first teaser trailer use to get the first official word about the new film? The Enterprise. Nuff said.

Not really.

Which it wasn't for a bad movie.

Yeah it was.

You're under the impression that it was supposedly a bad movie as though it was supposedly a fact, but for most others it wasn't (more people than most Trek that is.) Sorry.

Sorry that you liked a movie that I didn't like? I don't really care, so there's no need to apologize for anything. As for what is fact and what isn't, it is a fact that when I watched Star Trek 2009 that I saw a bad movie.

Nor did it need to since this wasn't about the TV series called "Enterprise." Which is why you were being ribbed earlier.

Which doesn't make any sense since I was talking about a ship and not a series, which is why I used italics instead of putting quote marks around it.

 

[Devon]

That a Star Trek movie doesn't need to take place on Enterprise to be successful, probably.

Let's hope not. It wasn't a great series IMHO.

I do, the question simply isn't phrased in a way that makes any sense.

It does.

That you don't even seem to know what you're arguing about anymore.

I'm fine. What's the problem?

Not really.

You're right. It would have clued people more in if they showed a picture of Earth, and showed us graffiti paintings of Gene's philosophies.

Yeah it was.

In your personal opinion, not as any sort of "fact." I hope we don't have to constantly reminded you of this?

Sorry that you liked a movie that I didn't like?

No, "sorry" that isn't some suppose "bad movie" that you are hoping to be fact.

As for what is fact and what isn't, it is a fact that when I watched Star Trek 2009 that I saw a bad movie.

Then perhaps putting "In my (meaning you) opinion" behind it instead of declaring it as some sort of fact that it is no where close to being.

Which doesn't make any sense since I was talking about a ship and not a series, which is why I used italics instead of putting quote marks around it.

Which makes it look like you are referring to the series. Enterprise = Series. The Enterprise = Ship = Why you were ribbed earlier.

 

[Trekker4747]

Star Trek 4 had no Enterprise

Not true.

You're right. Other than "previouslies" at the begining of the movie, the epilogue, and the nuclear wessel. Stat Trek IV had no Enterprise.

 

[Devon]

Star Trek 4 had no Enterprise

Not true.

You're right. Other than "previouslies" at the begining of the movie, the epilogue, and the nuclear wessel. Stat Trek IV had no Enterprise.

I was speaking more of the ending where they were currently on the brand new Enterprise-A. So to say there is no Enterprise at all = Not true.

 

[Trekker4747]

Not true.

You're right. Other than "previouslies" at the begining of the movie, the epilogue, and the nuclear wessel. Stat Trek IV had no Enterprise.

I was speaking more of the ending where they were currently on the brand new Enterprise-A. So to say there is no Enterprise at all = Not true.

Which is what I was talking about when I said "epilogue."

And the brief minute long scene at the tail end of the movie? Please. I think saying that Star Trek IV has "no Enterprise in it" is pretty darn accurate. Since the Enterprise plays no significant role in the movie, nor is it significantly featured to any extent of having an effect on the main plot and story.

So, yeah, I think you went into Pedanticville there.

 

[Disillusioned]

Let's hope not. It wasn't a great series IMHO.

Good thing I'm not talking about a series.

It does.

No it doesn't.

I'm fine. What's the problem?

That you're arguing without even knowing what you're arguing against. You know, seeing as what we're talking about doing a Star Trek movie that would have Kirk and Spock but not Enterprise, this being a thread for doing that and all.

You're right. It would have clued people more in if they showed a picture of Earth, and showed us graffiti paintings of Gene's philosophies.

Or had something to do with Kirk or Spock, or anything else that was "futuristic." Having Nimoy do the "space, the final frontier..." was a nice touch either way, though.

In your personal opinion, not as any sort of "fact." I hope we don't have to constantly reminded you of this?

No, you don't have to remind me that what I clearly say was a bad movie. I still remember that on my own.

No, "sorry" that isn't some suppose "bad movie" that you are hoping to be fact.

It is a fact, what I saw was a bad movie, you don't have to apologize for feeling differently about it.

Then perhaps putting "In my (meaning you) opinion" behind it instead of declaring it as some sort of fact that it is no where close to being.

Except that it is a fact that what I saw was a bad movie.

Which makes it look like you are referring to the series. Enterprise = Series. The Enterprise = Ship = Why you were ribbed earlier.

Actually when referring to a title, it is either underlined or put into quotation. A ship's name is italicized, as in RMS Titanic, USS Enterprise, or just saying the name by itself, like Bismark.

 

[M'Sharak]

Which doesn't make any sense since I was talking about a ship and not a series, which is why I used italics instead of putting quote marks around it.

Which makes it look like you are referring to the series. Enterprise = Series. The Enterprise = Ship = Why you were ribbed earlier.

Which makes it look like you are referring to the series. Enterprise = Series. The Enterprise = Ship = Why you were ribbed earlier.

Actually when referring to a title, it is either underlined or put into quotation. A ship's name is italicized, as in RMS Titanic, USS Enterprise, or just saying the name by itself, like Bismark.

Okay, I think the definite article/no definite article thing was run into the ground a while ago, and a movie or series title may also be (and commonly is) indicated by italicizing it (with titles of series episodes customarily put in quotation marks.) Now, shall we move on by talking about "how you would have made the movie" and by not talking quite so much about each other?

 

[Devon]

Which is what I was talking about when I said "epilogue."

I don't recall there being an epilogue.

And the brief minute long scene at the tail end of the movie? Please.

Is it the Enterprise? Yes.

Is it in the film? Yes.

I think saying that Star Trek IV has "no Enterprise in it" is pretty darn accurate.

It would be if the Enterprise wasn't in there. How can it not be in there if it is indeed in there?

Since the Enterprise plays no significant role in the movie, nor is it significantly featured to any extent of having an effect on the main plot and story.

Right, it's still in there. A more accurate way for them to put it would be "It's barely there" or "Hardly worth mentioning." But to say it's not in there? Incorrect. As incorrect as saying "Is Deforest Kelly in 'Encounter at Farpoint?' No."

But besides the point, it was merely meant for clarification in case that poster had "forgotten."

 

[Aike]

I love threads like this one. They always start out constructivly, but always end in a big fight

Guess it will be closed soon, eh

 

[Devon]

I love threads like this one. They always start out constructivly, but always end in a big fight

Guess it will be closed soon, eh

The "big fight," if you want to call it that, ended a few posts ago. We're just now clarifying that the Enterprise was indeed in "Star Trek 4."

 

[Disillusioned]

So since a lot of people doing alternate ideas for this movie still seem on about killing one of Kirk's parents, would people consider it more dramatic to kill off his mother or his father?

 

[startrekrcks]

people calm down

 

[Disillusioned]

No one answered my question and attempt to get back on topic. I'm sad now.

 

[Broccoli]

No one answered my question and attempt to get back on topic. I'm sad now.

I guess killing off Mom Kirk could. I think it might be more of a gender thing. "Society says" a boy needs his father and all that.

 

[Disillusioned]

This:

So since a lot of people doing alternate ideas for this movie still seem on about killing one of Kirk's parents, would people consider it more dramatic to kill off his mother or his father?

 

[OneBuckFilms]

So when they hear about a Star Trek movie, they expect something involving the Enterprise, Kirk and Spock, and maybe the Klingons.

Where does this assumption come from? If people are just looking for a sci-fi action piece, why would it really matter to them if it has Enterprise in it?

For some it wouldn't matter, but most are aware of The Enterprise and Kirk and Spock, though they often get their idea of what Star Trek is from SNL scetches and The Onion.

Also, for Star Trek fans who see the movie, most of THEM want to see Kirk and crew on the Bridge pretty much as they were in TOS.

Also, by not having this, are we not cheating non-fans out of a true representation of the premise of TOS, if we do not provide that kind of ending?

Even if the Enterprise were not shown until the last scenes, she should be in the last scenes.

In the end, if the movie is an origins movie, it should not be a partial origins movie, it should show how they got from A to Z, without making the dangerous assumption that there will be further films to complete the story.