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.
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.
What?Well, it wouldn't matter one bit whether there is Enterprise in the movie or not so long as the Enterprise is in it.
Actually no, because Star Trek is about the characters. When it loses sight of that is when it jumps the shark.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?
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.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?
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 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.
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.It was also not an origins story to introduce Star Trek to it's audience.
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.
What?Well, it wouldn't matter one bit whether there is Enterprise in the movie or not so long as the Enterprise is in it.![]()
It was about Kirk and Spock. So what's the problem?Actually no, because Star Trek is about the characters. When it loses sight of that is when it jumps the shark.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?
And what did the first teaser trailer use to get the first official word about the new film? The Enterprise. Nuff said.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.
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.If nothing else, Abrams and his team did run a very successful marketing campaign, even if it was for 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.And yet the movie did not really involve Enterprise, which was not involved in the plot of the movie at all,
That a Star Trek movie doesn't need to take place on Enterprise to be successful, probably.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?
I do, the question simply isn't phrased in a way that makes any sense.Pay attention to your own posts.
That you don't even seem to know what you're arguing about anymore.It was about Kirk and Spock. So what's the problem?
Not really.And what did the first teaser trailer use to get the first official word about the new film? The Enterprise. Nuff said.
Yeah it was.Which it wasn't for a bad movie.
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.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.
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.Nor did it need to since this wasn't about the TV series called "Enterprise." Which is why you were being ribbed earlier.
That a Star Trek movie doesn't need to take place on Enterprise to be successful, probably.
I do, the question simply isn't phrased in a way that makes any sense.
That you don't even seem to know what you're arguing about anymore.
Not really.
Yeah it was.
Sorry that you liked a movie that I didn't like?
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.
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.
Star Trek 4 had no Enterprise
Not true.
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.![]()
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.
Good thing I'm not talking about a series.Let's hope not. It wasn't a great series IMHO.
No it doesn't.It does.
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.I'm fine. What's the problem?
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.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.
No, you don't have to remind me that what I clearly say was a bad movie. I still remember that on my own.In your personal opinion, not as any sort of "fact." I hope we don't have to constantly reminded you of this?
It is a fact, what I saw was a bad movie, you don't have to apologize for feeling differently about it.No, "sorry" that isn't some suppose "bad movie" that you are hoping to be fact.
Except that it is a fact that what I saw was 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.
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.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.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.
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.Which makes it look like you are referring to the series. Enterprise = Series. The Enterprise = Ship = Why you were ribbed earlier.
Which is what I was talking about when I said "epilogue."
Is it the Enterprise? Yes.And the brief minute long scene at the tail end of the movie? Please.![]()
It would be if the Enterprise wasn't in there. How can it not be in there if it is indeed in there?I think saying that Star Trek IV has "no Enterprise in it" is pretty darn accurate.
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."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.
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![]()
No one answered my question and attempt to get back on topic. I'm sad now.![]()
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?
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?So when they hear about a Star Trek movie, they expect something involving the Enterprise, Kirk and Spock, and maybe the Klingons.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.