Letter to Moonves

[Dukhat]

yes, that would be a much better and much more logical course of action than to create an alternate universe and screw up what's already has been established.

Uh, no it wouldn't, and it's been proven. Nemesis, which occurred in the 24th century and starred the TNG cast, was a complete failure in all respects, while Star Trek '09 was a complete success in all respects. I'm not sure why you can't understand this.

 

[Lynx]

^^
"Nemesis" was a failure because of a weak story, the annihilation of Data, a scenario that looked more like some horror movie than TNG and a certain overkill in a few years of 24th century movies and series while the new movie was a success because of the long period since the last Trek series which made the Trek fans accept almost anything which would bring Trek back to life.

 

[Dukhat]

^^
"Nemesis" was a failure because of a weak story, the annihilation of Data, a scenario that looked more like some horror movie than TNG and a certain overkill in a few years of 24th century movies and series while the new movie was a success because of the long period since the last Trek series which made the Trek fans accept almost anything which would bring Trek back to life.

No. The new movie was a success because it was marketed to the average moviegoer who couldn't give a shit about Star Trek, but yet went to see it anyway because they'd heard through sources of how good it was. That, and JJ Abrams was the director. That's why Paramount fucking hired him, dude. If this film was created and marketed only to Star Trek fans (just like Nemesis was), it would have been a complete bomb (just like Nemesis was). Nemesis could have had the best story ever written for 24th century Trek, and it still would have gotten dismal ratings.

 

[Harvey]

If Star Trek: Nemesis was marketed only to Star Trek fans, why did the advertising campaign emphasize "Nemesis" while it made "Star Trek" secondary? Why were the trailers for the film almost exclusively devoted to action?

Paramount was clearly trying to appeal to audiences that were not Star Trek fans. But, unlike with Star Trek, they had a bad release date, reviews that were mediocre at best, and terrible word-of-mouth.

 

[Dukhat]

If Star Trek: Nemesis was marketed only to Star Trek fans, why did the advertising campaign emphasize "Nemesis" while it made "Star Trek" secondary? Why were the trailers for the film almost exclusively devoted to action?

Huh? I don't remember any of that when seeing the trailers for Nemesis. I distinctly remember seeing the trailers and going, "Oh, here's the next Star Trek movie. Looks pretty stupid." But I could be wrong. One day I'll fish out my copy of Nemesis and watch the trailers again.

And if you recall, "Enterprise" actually did omit "Star Trek" in the title, trying to bring in newer audiences by pretending it wasn't Star Trek. And we all know how well that worked.

 

[Therin of Andor]

with not-so-good actors as the original ones

I don't see any evidence that the cast of the new movie are less talented than TOS actors.

 

[Therin of Andor]

If Star Trek: Nemesis was marketed only to Star Trek fans, why did the advertising campaign emphasize "Nemesis" while it made "Star Trek" secondary?

Not that I recall.

I do remember that - in Europe and the UK - the movie ST IV was primary marketed as a comedic film called "The Voyage Home" because ST II and ST III had had quite limited release across Europe.

 

[USS KG5]

So if I was in charge, I could portray Kirk as a drunken fool, kill him off at the end of a movie or an episode and let Jar-Jar Binks or Luke Skywalker appear from nowhere to take over the Enterprise and then expect everyone to praise my "creative geniality"?

Nope - you would have to produce a critically acclaimed box office smash out of a dead franchise and then come back and ask me again.

Heck, even doing what Abrams did and hve a decade of consistent success on big and small screen and you would get a lot more leeway.

That sort of thing is earned. Also you don't earn that kind of thing by making bad films. Films you personally don't like, sure, but BAD films? No.

As I've written before, the movie is OK as an on-off action movie, except for the destruction of Vulcan

That has NOTHING to do with the quality of the film.

but I don't want the future of Star Trek to be built on the alternate universe created in that movie, not when we got the much better original Star Trek universe to create plenty of good stories in.

Well thats tough, but even if we take "better universe" as fact, Trek consistently created more and more boring and tired stories in that universe.

There is NOTHING inherently good about the "Star trek universe" - it just happened to grow with lots of good stories throughout a lot of series. It did nothing to make Trek any better when it was bad, in itself it was nothing!

Not to mention that it's impossible to re-create a masterpiece like TOS.

Agreed - which is why Abrams didn't try. He has made something different with the same characters and atmosphere, and I thought he did it pretty good.

yes, that would be a much better and much more logical course of action than to create an alternate universe and screw up what's already has been established.

Why is the universe so good to someone running this franchise? You have not answered my question. Someone running this show has to get bums on seats, general audience popcorn chumping, real person not like us bums on seats. How would it be SENSIBLE for this person to choose to keep all the "canon" shite?

I mean as I said I TOTALLY GET why you miss all the anal-retentive stuff, I concede it is great fun, but it is absolute death for the franchise commercially. Without a commercial purpose it has no purpose AT ALL!

 

[Lynx]

^^
So what you are saying is that it's allowed to mess up something which have been established since decades and developed during those decades only to attract a lot of people, many of those not interested at all in Star Trek as such?

That's what I call a sell-out and I hate sell-outs.

And please don't refer to the brilliant 24th century creations as "shite" or "anal-retentive stuff".

 

[Dukhat]

^^
So what you are saying is that it's allowed to mess up something which have been established since decades and developed during those decades only to attract a lot of people, many of those not interested at all in Star Trek as such?

That's what I call a sell-out and I hate sell-outs.

And please don't refer to the brilliant 24th century creations as "shite" or "anal-retentive stuff".

I give up on this argument. Anyone else feel free to continue.

 

[USS KG5]

^^
So what you are saying is that it's allowed to mess up something which have been established since decades and developed during those decades only to attract a lot of people, many of those not interested at all in Star Trek as such?

Yes, its allowed, Star Trek is NOT great art, it is a TV show, created to make money. It is entertainment, it is storytelling, its fun. It is NOT great art. It does not deserve reverence (though it often deserves acclaim) and the storytelling contruct in which it's episodes are set DEFINITELY does not deserve reverence.

That's what I call a sell-out and I hate sell-outs.

In order to sell-out you would have to lose some integrity the show had in the first place. We are talking a show here that when it was genuinely brilliant (the first two seasons of TOS) it twisted and contradicted its "universe" contantly to the extent in the TOS forum right now people are still trying t tie up UESPA and Starfleet and how Kirk's middle initial could change from "R" to "T".

You know what? It doesn't matter because the best episodes had really great stories! Same goes for TNG, DS9, even Voyager. When Voyager was really good like in Living Witness, you can let go all the stuff that makes no sense in that episode. If Threshold had been great drama you could let go the idea that travelling infinitely fast in a jury-rigged shuttle is bluddy silly.

And please don't refer to the brilliant 24th century creations as "shite" or "anal-retentive stuff".

I didn't I referred to all the canon rubbish that populates this board as shite and anal-retentive stuff. The shows are different.

TNG, DS9 and VGR were respectively great, very good, and adequate but don't say their combined plots were "brilliant" - the universe is not as important in any sense to the drama as the stories and characters that populate it.

 

[Harvey]

If Star Trek: Nemesis was marketed only to Star Trek fans, why did the advertising campaign emphasize "Nemesis" while it made "Star Trek" secondary? Why were the trailers for the film almost exclusively devoted to action?

Huh? I don't remember any of that when seeing the trailers for Nemesis. I distinctly remember seeing the trailers and going, "Oh, here's the next Star Trek movie. Looks pretty stupid." But I could be wrong. One day I'll fish out my copy of Nemesis and watch the trailers again.

In the trailers for Star Trek: Nemesis, at least in the United States, "Nemesis" first appears as the title of the movie, in large font. Only after that do the words "Star Trek" appear, in a much smaller font.

And if you recall, "Enterprise" actually did omit "Star Trek" in the title, trying to bring in newer audiences by pretending it wasn't Star Trek. And we all know how well that worked.

Not arguing that it was a smart strategy, for obvious reasons.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^^
So what you are saying is that it's allowed to mess up something which have been established since decades and developed during those decades only to attract a lot of people, many of those not interested at all in Star Trek as such?

Absolutely. If they don't attract a whole lot more people than have been interested in Star Trek in fifteen years or so, Trek is dead.

It's more than "allowed," it's a damned good idea.

And anyone who "hates it" because they consider it somehow reprehensible will just have to get used to the fact that its success guarantees that it's the way forward now.

Most of the actors in Abrams's version are more skillful than the folks they replaced, BTW.

 

[DevilEyes]

Totally different... but similar except more contemporary.

CW is interested in Teen girls, not exactly a fanbase Star Trek is known for.

Walter Koenig was a featured celebrity of teen magazines like "Fifteen" and "Tiger Beat" in the 60s, as was Wil Wheaton in the 80s. When Wheaton was on TNG, his fan mail supposedly outnumbered everyone else's.

From teen girls.

That's funny... I remember when I was about 13 and watched early TNG on TV, and had conversations in school with other girls about the guys on the show, girls had crushes on Riker or Data, but nobody even mentioned Wesley!

And I'm pretty sure, based on IMDB and some other forums, that ST09 was quite popular with teenage girls.

What would you need to attract a lot of teenage female audience? I would guess, something like this:

- A few attractive and appealing male characters (which doesn't mean that the entire male cast has to be 'young and hot') - preferably hire female writers who are more likely to know what the majority of women would actually find appealing (male writers and producers seem to get that wrong a lot of the time)
- At least one identifiable and sympathetic female character, preferably more; not treat them primarily as sexpots, which doesn't mean that they can't be attractive and sexy
- Not suffocate the story in technobabble
- Some attention given to relationships between the crew, including a romance or two, but that doesn't mean that this is all a show needs to be about: contrary to popular opinion, it is not ALL that females, even teenage ones, care about.

Then again, I'd say that at least some of previous Star Trek didn't do bad on most of these points, even though I'm not sure that any of them did great on all, but the popular opinion seems to be that Trek audience is mostly made of male nerds, so what do I know?

 

[USS KG5]

popular opinion seems to be that Trek audience is mostly made of male nerds, so what do I know?

Well popular opinion is correct then isn't it?

It does not mean that cool men or women cannot like Star Trek, but lets face it nerdy males are the majority of the fan base.

Or to use the American distinction geeky males, rather than nerdy.

 

[David]

I would love to see a new trek show on Showtime, [even if only 12-14 episodes a season]. My main hope is that is is set in the Original Timeline, and hopefully after the end of the Dominion War.

Cheers

Dave

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The what war?

 

[startrekrcks]

I think Star Trek XI was needed to breathe fresh life into the franchise do you think so

 

[DevilEyes]

The what war?

Is the laughing smiley supposed to mean that
1) you believe that your cluelessness is funny?
2) you are just pretending to be clueless for some reason and you believe that it's funny?

 

[xortex]

the mysterios premise and universe is the same as ours without the aliens and to Star trek and takes place befor all the tv incarnations. It is just supposition