It's easy to bash Nemesis and all of the other Trek movies when they didn't have nearly as large of a budget as the Trek-reboot.
The budget was the least of the things that were wrong with that movie.
The script was moronic and the TNG characters were played out.
I couldn't agree more about the script. There are so many good novels out there, yet, that is what they chose. This is a good example of what I was trying to say. A motion picture's budget determines the quality of talent hired for the production. More money equals better talent. The TNG characters seeming 'played out' is probably the result of a mediocre writing staff.
Paramount invested a tremendous amount more into this because they knew it would pay-off no matter what.
No, it was a huge gamble. Big-name franchise movies bomb all the time.
Trek's recent history on movies and TV stunk. The only reason it was made at all was that JJ Abrams threw his immense credibility behind it.
While 'big-name' franchise movies do bomb frequently, this was not one of them. The decision to make this movie was made before they chose Abrams (I remember following it in the entertainment news blogs). Paramount has wanted to remake the original series ever since Roddenberry died. Majel Barrett and Rick Berman fought to maintain the franchise as it was. Once Berman finally gave in, Paramount began their search for a high-profile director to pull this off.
Dumber than
Nemesis and
Insurrection?
All big-blockbusters summer popcorn movie plotlines have to be dumbed down for the audience, that's just a given.
Trek will never really be back to its old reasonably intelligent and complex self till it gets back on TV, as unlikely as that may be.
I agree that it's a sad truth that movie plotlines are dumbed down. Don't you find that insulting? Hollywood actually thinks the American public as simple-minded. Our money is good enough to buy tickets to their movies but, in the long run, we're idiots. I don't think that's acceptable, do you?
So when was this mythical time when any corporation cared about the fans and not their money, and the unicorns and fairies danced under rainbow skies?
You misunderstand my point here. Of course they don't place importance on the fans over their profit. I was trying to say that they were once more willing to please the fans in order to regenerate interest in the franchise to increase profit. Are you familiar with the history of Star Trek TOS? How it was canceled after the second season and brought back by viewer protest for a thrid season? And, Paramounts decision to re-start the franchise (in the '70's) due to the show's popularity in reruns? Then, pleasing the fans meant potential profit for Paramount. Not as much of a 'pipe-dream' as you my think.
What's wrong with that? The live actor cast wouldn't be hired, but voice actors would be (and yes, they are "real" actors too.)
Logically speaking, nothing should be wrong with that but, given the amount of corporate greed that dominates our society, it would be exploitable to a ridiculous extent.
Look at how television has deteriorated. More than 50% of the programming is dedicated to Reality-based programming, most of which is mindless stupidity. The money they save from low-production costs increases their profits and the American public gets poor-quality programming. Who are the real fools?
I generally prefer live actors to animated characters/voice actors, but if the situation merits it, I can change my mind...
Once Hollywood knows they can get away with it, that's all you will see. Why do you think there are so many once-exclusive screen actors appearing on television? The studios would rather cast unknowns than pay the named actors. Sure, alot of these stars are grossly over-paid, but I can assure you that the studios are more concerned with their profit than whether you, the viewer, is getting a quality production.
You'll get your sequel to the 'Trek-reboot'...but, ask yourself, does it do justice to the man who created this vision and shared it with the world?
Star Trek has evolved way beyond what Roddenberry envisioned -
DS9 saw to that a decade ago, so that issue is over and done with. And I'm sure he'd appreciate its continuing money-making prowess. He was never adverse to making a buck, was he?
Roddenberry did participate in the conceptual stages of DS9 before his death. Rick Berman stated many times that he would keep Gene's vision alive and on-track as long as possible. If I'm not mistaken, I think I even heard Berman state in an interview that Voyager was an idea he and Gene had discussed on several occasions as a possible ST project. As far as Gene being adverse to making a buck, you can decide for yourself. Look at the events that lead-up to the first motion picture. The original idea was a sequel TV-series (ST:Phase II?) that was scrapped and redirected to the 'big screen'. Gene was strictly opposed to doing another ST series on the networks after all of the creativity conflicts he had with NBC. In the '70s, the plans for a 4th network (which was ultimately FOX) was being pushed by Paramount, which was the only reason Gene agreed to doing "Phase II". When the project fell through, production stopped and thus "ST: The Motion Picture" was conceived. I would guess that Gene was willing to make a buck as long as it was on his own terms because he knew that Paramount stood to gain more than he ever would.
For the counterexample, just look at the sad state of Star Wars - a franchise with as much potential as Star Trek, but being strangled by the lack of vision and control freakishness of its originator. I fully expect Star Wars to continue to suck until George Lucas dies. Hopefully his pernicious influence will not continue from beyond the grave.
Not sure what to say about your distaste for Star Wars. While you may feel it has more potential, what's wrong with it as it is? You should read the background of how Star Wars evolved before the original movie was ever filmed. ALOT of work went into it, and, George Lucas was not the sole writer/creator of it. He had a few friends work on it with him over the years. If you like Star Wars, it's a helluva read! In the past decade, or so, we've seen alot of old storylines being remade (Battlestar Galactica, The A-team, Miami Vice, etc), but have you ever wondered why? Anyone can take an existing idea and change it; mabe it'll be a hit, and maybe it won't. The studios push this because they want to make a quick profit on ideas that were once successful. Now, before you ask 'What's wrong with that?', or, 'Who wouldn't want that?", ask yourself why they wouldn't make something from scratch. Because it's too hard? Too expensive? Once again, the studios aren't willing to gamble with their ability to profit. Ironically enough, a large portion of these remakes have failed. If you can understand the amount of work/sacrafice that people like Roddenberry and Lucas gave to these creations, you'd understand ahy they preserve them. As an engineer, I've come to realize that improving upon someone elses work is practical in the sciences (engineering, comp sci, etc); afterall, it doesn't make sense to re-invent the wheel. However, in the arts, it doesn't work the same way. Maybe Star Wars could be better, but how many people have accomplished we Lucas has?
There was a time when I was a die-hard TOS fan and wouldn't accept TNG,DS9, and Voyager. When I did finally give them a chance, I think I finally realized what Gene was trying to say.
I guess Roddenberry's influence continues from beyond the grave, if you think he helped create
DS9 and
VOY. He cannot be given credit for the former, nor blame for the latter. And what about
ENT? The first two seasons were as bad as
VOY, the third was a poor imitation of
DS9 and the fourth was about as close to the spirit of
TOS as I've seen since
TOS went off the air.
Why shouldn't Roddenberry's influence continue? The franchise would not exist today if not for his determination and the fans that were devoted to his original creation. Yes, as a stated above, he did have influence in DS9 and Voy. As for Enterprise, I don't think he would have supported it. Why? Because, Gene always believed in keeping Star Trek moving forward, looking towards the future; Berman made a mistake with ENT. That's what Star Trek is all about. It's not about one single ship or a particular group of characters; it's about mankind's life in the future, facing struggles with common underlying themes to those we face in our lives. DS9 and Voyager were Gene/Rick's attempt to show that Star Trek wasn't just about the Enterprise, it was about mankind's ability to coexist with other life forms in the galaxy, using a small group of people in the Federation/Starfeet.
It all goes to show that people taking over for Roddenberry can create Star Trek that is a) better than what he did; b) worse than what he did and c) a decent facsimile of what he did. So why not shoot for a)?
Again, you keep talking about doing "a better Star Trek", but why improve something if it has so many problems? Why not create something new? Is it because you think Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman are so much more creative? Have you ever tried creating something from scratch, as opposed to improving something that already exists? As an engineer, I've done both and I can assure you that the latter requires alot less effort. In order to do better than what Roddenberry did, they would have to come up with an entirely new concept; by this I mean a new theme.
You may not agree, and will probably tell me so, but that is the bottom line. Originality is the basis of creativity when brought into the physical world; anything else is just a poor imitation. Star Trek, in all of it's forms, is art. Is a CGI of the Mona Lisa an improvement of the original, or just a poor immitation? Does any replica of the Last Supper hold the same monetary value as the original?
Unlike an automobile or a computer, art is the result of inspiration and creativity, it is not born out of necessity.
Then again, the is merely my opinion. Thanks for listening!
And so are the countless millions around the world who have seen & loved it.
After all of this time spent hating their guts like a big bunch of idiots, now you do! But guess what buddy? It's way too fracking late, and now you have to put up and deal.
