I don't quite like Abrams' attitude

[3D Master]

Speak for yourself. TMP is STILL my favorite Trek movie, second only to ST09.

That's as may be, but it wasn't a critical success, nor did it make the studio very happy.

Both of which had alot more to do with the budget vs returns than the actual performance of the movie. The fact that the film barely broke even at the box office had alot to do with it, despite the fact that it made ridiculous grosses just to cover that budget.

If anything the Bennet/Meyer issue was a way of reducing costs for the next film, since Paramount figured they would settle for cinematic compromises that a perfectionist control freak like Rodenberry would accept.

If nothing else, you can say that TMP was successful enough to try again with another film, with the promise that they wouldn't again go hugely over-budget. TNG had the same built-in safeguards in its first season, but Rodenberry got a bit more leeway within those restraints.


The overall point being: the success of a movie--especially of a Trek movie--has alot more to do with how effectively it communicates its story within the confines of its budget. Rodenberry sometimes had problems telling a good story in a cost-effective way.

And that wasn't even the problem. The problem of the "budget" is that the studio stuffed the costs of several initialized, then aborted attempts at the series ST Phase II, and multiple switching back and forth between movie and series onto the budget of ST:TMP.

If you look purely at the budget for TMP, and then deminish that by the simple extra costs of the studio jerking about, TMP was more than cost effective.

 

[Sci]

And that wasn't even the problem. The problem of the "budget" is that the studio stuffed the costs of several initialized, then aborted attempts at the series ST Phase II, and multiple switching back and forth between movie and series onto the budget of ST:TMP.

If you look purely at the budget for TMP, and then deminish that by the simple extra costs of the studio jerking about, TMP was more than cost effective.

Which is a bit like saying that if you only look at production costs for Item A, the returns on Item A are better. Well, that's true, but you can't just look at production costs for Item A, you also have to factor in the costs of research and development of Item A (whatever Item A may be). It is part of the job of Item A to pay for the costs of its development -- just like it was part of the job of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to pay for the costs of its development (and yes, that includes the costs of developing Phase II).

 

[3D Master]

And that wasn't even the problem. The problem of the "budget" is that the studio stuffed the costs of several initialized, then aborted attempts at the series ST Phase II, and multiple switching back and forth between movie and series onto the budget of ST:TMP.

If you look purely at the budget for TMP, and then deminish that by the simple extra costs of the studio jerking about, TMP was more than cost effective.

Which is a bit like saying that if you only look at production costs for Item A, the returns on Item A are better. Well, that's true, but you can't just look at production costs for Item A, you also have to factor in the costs of research and development of Item A (whatever Item A may be). It is part of the job of Item A to pay for the costs of its development -- just like it was part of the job of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to pay for the costs of its development (and yes, that includes the costs of developing Phase II).

Bullshit.

Star Trek Phase II is not research for TMP, it's an entirely different production. It's like having been making a series called "Knight of New York", and then deciding by studio-politics to pull the plug on it. Then you, the studio, make a movie that you hand over the same production crew/company called "Grand Star" and putting the costs of "Knight of New York" onto "Grand Star" because you happen to hand both projects onto the same production crew, and if the movie can't clear both budgets blaming the production crew for it.

EVEN IF you do add the costs of ST Phase II onto TMP, then the blaim for the "bad performance versus costs" needs to lie squarely on the people responsible for jerking the production company around with internal politics causing the problem:

Namely YOU, the STUDIO, NOT Roddenberry, Wise, and company.

 

[Myasishchev]

Really, it wouldn't matter if Abrams effectively gave us a modernized version of TMP: he delivered a finished product under-budget and on schedule with a minimum of hickups and heckles. The movie's various flaws are minor enough that everyone I know who has EVER HEARD of Star Trek picked up the DVD this past week. In point of fact, I have not encountered anyone in the Chicago area who didn't think it was an awesome movie. the only complaints I ever see are... well, here.

Exactly. Because only on the Internet do self-proclaimed "fans" rip apart the things they supposedly like.

I dunno. My girlfriend and some of my non-Trek-fan friends (as well as my Trek-fan friends) generally do think the movie was pretty bitchin', but no one I've spoken to is unwilling to concede that it was still very flawed.

Personally I do tend to criticize what I like, because if I don't like it all, what's the point? I won't like it even if it were done better, so I don't expend a lot of thought wondering where they went wrong. But I'll spend (inordinate) thought picking apart the flaws in, say, BSG.

You were talking about evolution--it doesn't happen without selective pressures. Not that I suspect any bitching I do will have an effect, but in the aggregate, maybe it will. But it doesn't really help, I'll concede, if it's irrational or kneejerk criticism.

I'm also simpatico with the folks who have wisely pointed out that parts of Star Trek have been stupid for more than forty years.

 

[startrekrcks]

Is it really that terrible if the movie has flaws like it's not the end of the world anyway I loved the movie I was entertained throughout even though I wasn't a fan before that but how Star Trek XI can change that.

 

[Jeyl]

I loved the movie I was entertained throughout even though I wasn't a fan before that but how Star Trek XI can change that.

Which Trek? Classic Trek or this? The similarities are quite thin.

 

[Myasishchev]

No, but I'm disappointed in Orci and Kurtzman--actually, Abrams, by contrast, other than failing to be a gatekeeper until a more coherent screenplay was available, I'm quite pleased with. He made a spectacular film out of a script whose only strength was dialogue.

 

[startrekrcks]

they did what they felt was acceptable in the movie don't you think so

 

[Myasishchev]

They did an all right job, I agree. I concede they had to juggle a lot of things. I think they'll do better, the next time around.

 

[StarTrek1701]

What I don't get:

Rick Berman gets Romulans to have cloaking device during ENT and the fans are up in arms. Abrams fucking destroys Vulcan and the fans cheer him on.

 

[Franklin]

No, but I'm disappointed in Orci and Kurtzman--actually, Abrams, by contrast, other than failing to be a gatekeeper until a more coherent screenplay was available, I'm quite pleased with. He made a spectacular film out of a script whose only strength was dialogue.

You know, that's one of the most thougtful pieces of criticism I've read about the movie, yet.

Ever since I saw Abrams interviewed about the movie by Charlie Rose (before its release), I think he deeply cares about the characters and the values of Star Trek. He may not have been a fan before, but he gets it. I think he will be a good steward of the franchise.
As far as the script goes, there were a lot of contraints on how to tell this story given it had to introduce all seven characters and have them end up together on the Enterprise at the end of the movie. For what it had to do, I thought it was fine. I do look forward to something even better in XII, though.
I mean, we have to have faith of the heart, right?

 

[AnyStar]

I'm going to watch Star Trek and Star Wars again to see if they do compare in any way.

I'll start with the one about a dude who leaves his home behind to pursue his destiny at the behest of some old dude who knew his father whilst the bad guys blow up planets.

priceless

i had the funniest dream last nite! it was Star Wars, with the new Trek cast...

cast of characters:
Jim Kirk ~ Luke Skywalker
Uhura ~ Princess Leia
nuevo Spock ~ Han Solo
Mr & Mrs Kirk ~ Uncle Ben and Aunt Beru
Captain Pike ~ Ben Kenobi
prime Spock ~ Yoda
Nero ~ well, he showed up as both Vader and Piett
Chekov ~ Biggs
Sulu ~ Wedge
Scotty ~ C3-PO
weird alien eye-stalk-thingies dude ~ R2-D2
Gaila ~ well, she was just Gaila... but you know why she was there.
"Cupcake" even made it in there as the Stormtroopers...

it was a riot

 

[AnyStar]

He may not have been a fan before, but he gets it. I think he will be a good steward of the franchise.

the very first posting i ever made about XI is that while i didnt like it, i thought that a sequel would be much better, for the fact alone that all the cheesy introductions and cannon-gags were out of the way.

i hope we're both right.

 

[RandyS]

What I don't get:

Rick Berman gets Romulans to have cloaking device during ENT and the fans are up in arms. Abrams fucking destroys Vulcan and the fans cheer him on.

Fandom is a fickle bitch.

 

[What Is Brain?]

The way I always viewed the movies and TV series is that I liked the TV series to be more cerebral and idea/character oriented, and the movies to be more action oriented and faster paced. To me, the heart and soul of Star Trek has been the TV shows, not the movies. That's where the character building happens and where the relationships are formed. The movies are more like special events, where everything that has been built up in the series comes to fruition and is pushed beyond the limits of television. If Star Trek were an office, the TV series would be the regular work days, the day to day stuff the company is built on, and the movies would be like holiday office parties -- time to cut loose, have some fun, and do crazy stuff you'd never do on a normal work day.

I think the successful Trek films and series have followed that thinking. The first film ultimately failed because, even though it had oodles of spectacle and grandeur, at heart it was a big-budget TV episode, and felt flat and a little boring on the big screen. Trek II worked because it was a good movie first and a Trek story second, but also because took the original series out of its television confines and let it breathe, presented sides of the characters we normally didn't see, and gave them a story way too epic and grand to fit in a TV episode. IMHO the same principle exists in reverse for the TV series. Some of my least favorite Trek episodes have been the more action-y ones. Those are the ones that feel blah on television, maybe because cramming a big, cinematic story into the small screen makes it feel diminished -- and also, TV just doesn't have the budget to make it all look good.

That's why the Abrams Trek felt just right to me. I wanted a fast-paced, glossy, dynamic story -- not because that's what represents Star Trek to me, or because that's what I want from Star Trek in general, but because that's the kind of Trek movie I want to see, versus a Trek TV show. To me they're completely different arenas, with different expectations and different ways to best express what's great about Star Trek. There are a lot of dimensions to the appeal of this franchise, and I think it's great to show off all of those dimensions in the ways that present them at their best.

Watching it again on DVD recently, it occurred to me that the key thing Abrams got right with his movie was the breakneck pacing and cramming a lot of story into every moment. It was a savvy storytelling move, at least for someone like me, because it meant that every single viewing brought out something I hadn't noticed before. Meaning the film rewarded multiple viewings, which equals a financially successful film!

 

[Kelso]

I like Abrams and have no problem with his attitude. While Trek XI wasn't quite what I would have preferred, I think they succeeded quite nicely at transforming the franchise into something that can compete for the modern day summer blockbuster crowd while still being recognizable to us long-term fans.

Is it really that terrible if the movie has flaws like it's not the end of the world anyway I loved the movie I was entertained throughout even though I wasn't a fan before that but how Star Trek XI can change that.

startrekrcks, your punctuation choices always fascinate me.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I think we need to stop getting hung up on whether the people making Star Trek are fans of Star Trek--and by "we" I am very much including myself. All we really need to care about is the finished product. Robert Wise, Nick Meyer and J.J. Abrams can be as ambivalent as they want about TOS because they've proven themselves capable of delivering a Trek made in their own images that is fundamentally good. As much as it pissed me off to read about the infamous B&B's disdain toward TOS, it was ultimately because their Star Trek was so sub-literate and bland by comparison. And while it was awesome that Ron Moore--who slipped a quote from Spock Must Die into the Caprica pilot*, for Pete's sake ("A difference that makes no difference is no difference")--is as big a Trekkie as anyone on this board, it wouldn't mean anything if his scripts were rot, which they sometimes were (Generations).

*I know Espenson is credited with the script but I'll bet cubits to navy beans that was a Moore contribution.

 

[Clancy_s]

That's why the Abrams Trek felt just right to me.

Well said - all of it.

 

[shapeshifter]

The way I always viewed the movies and TV series is that I liked the TV series to be more cerebral and idea/character oriented, and the movies to be more action oriented and faster paced. To me, the heart and soul of Star Trek has been the TV shows, not the movies. That's where the character building happens and where the relationships are formed. The movies are more like special events, where everything that has been built up in the series comes to fruition and is pushed beyond the limits of television. If Star Trek were an office, the TV series would be the regular work days, the day to day stuff the company is built on, and the movies would be like holiday office parties -- time to cut loose, have some fun, and do crazy stuff you'd never do on a normal work day.

I think the successful Trek films and series have followed that thinking. The first film ultimately failed because, even though it had oodles of spectacle and grandeur, at heart it was a big-budget TV episode, and felt flat and a little boring on the big screen. Trek II worked because it was a good movie first and a Trek story second, but also because took the original series out of its television confines and let it breathe, presented sides of the characters we normally didn't see, and gave them a story way too epic and grand to fit in a TV episode. IMHO the same principle exists in reverse for the TV series. Some of my least favorite Trek episodes have been the more action-y ones. Those are the ones that feel blah on television, maybe because cramming a big, cinematic story into the small screen makes it feel diminished -- and also, TV just doesn't have the budget to make it all look good.

That's why the Abrams Trek felt just right to me. I wanted a fast-paced, glossy, dynamic story -- not because that's what represents Star Trek to me, or because that's what I want from Star Trek in general, but because that's the kind of Trek movie I want to see, versus a Trek TV show. To me they're completely different arenas, with different expectations and different ways to best express what's great about Star Trek. There are a lot of dimensions to the appeal of this franchise, and I think it's great to show off all of those dimensions in the ways that present them at their best.

Watching it again on DVD recently, it occurred to me that the key thing Abrams got right with his movie was the breakneck pacing and cramming a lot of story into every moment. It was a savvy storytelling move, at least for someone like me, because it meant that every single viewing brought out something I hadn't noticed before. Meaning the film rewarded multiple viewings, which equals a financially successful film!

Are you sure you don't know what Brain is?

 

[The Wormhole]

it occurred to me that the key thing Abrams got right with his movie was the breakneck pacing and cramming a lot of story into every moment. It was a savvy storytelling move, at least for someone like me, because it meant that every single viewing brought out something I hadn't noticed before. Meaning the film rewarded multiple viewings, which equals a financially successful film!

I never thought I'd hear myself say this about a movie, but Trek XI was paced too quickly. Just take the opening scene, for example. Kelvin flies by, Space Octopus shows up and begins blowing the Kelvin up. I don't know, but the sudden jump into epic action within the first two minutes seemed too abrupt to properly engage me.

In fact, it really feels like they rush through the movie. On the one hand, it helps the movie go by quicker. On the other, it has me longing for something slower, like TMP.