^ Yes, I agree. I think a pretty decent discussion has developed from what had started out as a possible dive into an unproductive, angry back-and-forth argument.... 
new style movies are crap
- Thread starter showwild
- Start date
- Status
They were only part of the first 2.
^ Yes, I agree. I think a pretty decent discussion has developed from what had started out as a possible dive into an unproductive, angry back-and-forth argument....
Amen, brother, where can I buy the t shirt?
You've seen more than one?
Who, the Paramount executives? CBS? The ghost of Gene Roddenberry?
Bond has had changes, including the gender of M, the reverse aging of Miss Moneypenny, and the resurrection of dead characters.
Check out IDW's "Countdown", a story by the movie's writers. Picard, Worf and Data live!
And not enough people would go to see such a film. Just ask Sisko, Janeway and Archer, all of whom lost TV ratings.
I think they're already uncannily close. Especially Spock, McCoy, Sulu, Pike, Sarek and... Kirk.
I was thinking they worked on DOTM at some point, either way I don't care for their style. I can enjoy ST(09) on a "action-sci-fi level" (popcorn flick-- same as the TF movies), but that's the only way I can.
Seconded. I've been a Trek fan since 1966. I was even a member of STAR (the Star Trek Association for Revival) in the mid-seventies, which was the very FIRST nationally organized fan organization for Trek.Speak for yourself. I've been a Trekkie my entire life, and I thought the last Star Trek movie was utterly fantastic.
Or Nemesis, or TFF.
Me too, which is more than I can say for almost all other Trek films.
That's fine. Me, I'm a bit more of a "slow and cerebral" or "novel style movie" man. For me action-sci-fi is like candy: it's okay for a treat, but to much of it will make you sick to your stomach.
Give me TMP or STII (even STVI) for my personal preferences in tone and type that I like in my ST movies.
Great thing about Trek is that there's room for both. But I do hope the sequel cuts back a bit on the frenetic action.
We can debate the style/quality of Star Trek (09) all day long. Some like it some don't such is life. You can't please everybody all of the time.
But one of it's goals was to breeth new life into a tired franchise, which I would say it did. It was the most succesful of the movies taking some US$385 worldwide.
Star Trek had been in decline since TNG ended, No I'll admit I'm a fan of DSN and rate it as the best of the Trek shows. But it had lower ratings than TNG so it showed a decline what saves it is that it generally won critical aclaim. The same can not be said for VOY and ENT. VOY has been referred to as TNG-lite which could mean TNG but not as good as for ENT what where they thinking with the whole Temporal Cold War arc. They had no idea where to go with that arc, it's almost as if they felt the need to tie it to previous shows because they felt the prequel premises couldn't stand up on it's own.
ENT really found it's feet in S4, what was different than S1-2 it actually used it's premise and began to tell the story of how the UFP came to be.
But one of it's goals was to breeth new life into a tired franchise, which I would say it did. It was the most succesful of the movies taking some US$385 worldwide.
Star Trek had been in decline since TNG ended, No I'll admit I'm a fan of DSN and rate it as the best of the Trek shows. But it had lower ratings than TNG so it showed a decline what saves it is that it generally won critical aclaim. The same can not be said for VOY and ENT. VOY has been referred to as TNG-lite which could mean TNG but not as good as for ENT what where they thinking with the whole Temporal Cold War arc. They had no idea where to go with that arc, it's almost as if they felt the need to tie it to previous shows because they felt the prequel premises couldn't stand up on it's own.
ENT really found it's feet in S4, what was different than S1-2 it actually used it's premise and began to tell the story of how the UFP came to be.
Well, the new Star Trek movie is a load of crap. How could the Star Trek people allow this ?
Why couldn't they just use the original style and framework of the characters without reworking them? After all, it works for films such as James Bond, where different actors play the role, (even if the style is slightly different. The main concept stays the same, in the same framework.
So what now in the Star Trek universe? If the Kirk age has changed, will there be no Picard age, Vovager age, etc, or do all these now need to be rewritten to suit this new time line?
If the director and writers didn't like the old Kirk version of "Star Trek", they could have created another captain and crew to write about.
Maybe they can correct their mess in the next film by putting the characters back close to how they were originally in the series.
There. Fixed.
Irrelevant as far as this thread goes. We were never going to see that universe again the minute Enterprise was canned.
It's understandable to be upset that "your" Star Trek is dead and gone, but be upset at the right people.
Yet not any better content wise.
I put it to you that unless Paramount specifically instructed JJ+ not to use the prime universe, it was their decision and their sole responsibility (technically we are in same multiverse so the blackhole hasn't quite evaporated yet I suppose).
I further suggest that STXI was successful because it is what most people have come to view as good entertainment. I doubt that most even know or care which universe it was set in. They might even think that, with the exception of Nero, it really is what I would call a "true origin story" set in the prime universe. So I doubt past commercial failures had anything to do with the change (if that’s what you are suggesting). Emotions are strange things of course, but I still think the alternate universe was a late panic decision to retain fans anyway, but we may never know about that or where the idea came from.
If these writers couldn't come up with three decent stories in the entire prime universe, they should consider new careers in my view. I think the "freshness" came mostly from the stylistic approach and could have been applied to lift any story. The extra money probably helped too.
Now if Paramount were dead set on an origin story based on TOS, the prime universe might have been more tricky, so that’s the only excuse for changing that makes some sense to me. Mustn't expect too much from modern writers after all.
We can't claim, as some have done, that Kirk and Spock etc were essential to success. I don't recall either of those characters being in Transformers, for example. I think that among the general public, the Star Trek name was more "forgotten" than it was "damaged" by past problems, so I don't believe that only a TOS reboot could "repair" it.
So?
That's true...the casual viewer wouldn't know or care, and the casual viewer who went to see the movie for "good entertainment" probably made up a large percentage of the ticket sales. However, actual Star Trek fans went to see the movie too, and Abrams et. al catered to them by explaining about the change in universes. I don't see a problem with this.
I'm pretty sure it had everything to do with the change.
I'm also pretty sure that the alternate universe angle was there from the start (see below).
Yeah, right. That's like saying that Trey Parker and Matt Stone should consider new careers because they offend some people.
Uh, no. The reason why the prime universe wasn't used was so that anything new didn't have to adhere to 40+ years of Trek continuity. It's easier and better to tell new stories if one doesn't need to consult a '60's TV show every time.
Well, that's your opinion. And to see how well that opinion stands up, go ask all those Star Trek '09 casual viewers if they know who Sisko, Janeway, or Archer are. Then ask if they knew who Kirk and Spock were before seeing the movie.
And your line about Kirk and Spock not being in Transformers is a complete nonsequitor. Darth Vader wasn't in it either.
The Kirk/Spock/Transformers bit was just about as casually hypothetical as everything else in that particular post. You might want to try applying this test: look for the
- if you see that winky smiley anywhere in one of UFO's posts, it's perhaps best not to take any of it too seriously, because it's entirely possible that he's pulling someone's chain.
That's correct. The "wink" was intended to be more localised, but I may have to watch that in future.
It seemed to me -Brett- was suggesting other people were the cause of the "reboot". I don't happen to agree that said other people made a reboot necessary for the successful continuation of the franchise. Not that I object too much to the new universe concept. The end result is another matter of course.
Do you believe that fans are so upset with Ent and Voy that they wouldn't go to see a STXI style action packed entertaining movie set (say) after the first five year mission or using a totally new crew? The latter option could still have played the young and beautiful card if necessary.
Well, maybe I should have said it shouldn't have had anything to do with it. I think it likely they just wanted to go with "redoing" TOS. But we saw the hoops they had to jump through even in a new universe so a "reboot" is more understandable in that case.
What I mean is it could be they were going to do a straight time travel story which would have had the same "everything" is new again effect. But then, as we know, fans would start worrying about their DVD collections I suppose.
True, but they do have the help of computer databases and a new crew would be that much easier. I recall Asimov writing he had to re-read all the preceding Foundation stories whenever he wanted to write a new one.
I don't see why that makes a difference. None of the characters in Transformers were known either but it didn't stop that movie from being popular.* My point is a good new crew might have achieved the same result if the audience related to them. Also the success of ST movies in the past was based more on how good they were than who was in them. Didn't FC do better than the TOS crew movies in some cases?
*Edit: Oops, bad example after all
, but you know what I mean (lets try Inception instead).
Last edited:
Imagine being at the first round table conference at Bad Robot. When you're trying to work out what your pitch would be for a restart of a previously successful franchise (TOS in prime time syndication repeats; ST II; ST IV; TNG) that had had several recent restarts that were less successful than the one before (DS9 --> VOY --> ENT, or even INS --> NEM), you milk it down to what was successful last time.
TOS ended popularly with ST VI. TNG was hugely popular/profitable, but its last two movies dipped lower and lower, taking the whole 24th century with it. It feels like a stodgy quagmire of factoids; literally hundreds of hours of ST that a fresh audience would be resistant to diving into. ENT failed to impress, so there goes the 22nd century as well. So you return to TOS, but your cast is all approaching 80 and two have already passed away. So you reboot TOS with younger actors.
I think most production teams analysing the franchise would have chosen to reboot. That Bad Robot did in such a way that both newbies and diehards could take from it what they wanted is all the better.
Sure, but TNG suffered from two box office disappointments in a row after that success.
- Status
Similar threads
