new style movies are crap

[Set Harth]

The Transformers movies were big. Imagine how much bigger they could have been with Kirk and Spock!

 

[BillJ]

The Transformers movies were big. Imagine how much bigger they could have been with Kirk and Spock!

Don't give Paramount any ideas!

 

[Dukhat]

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.

But it's not the fans who make the decisions. It's Paramount. And to Paramount's mind, the prime universe is a flop. Plus, what's the point of creating yet another new crew and ship when we've had four already, with diminishing degrees of success?

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.

That's fine for Asimov. Do you honestly think a bunch of Trek movie script writers would be doing such diligent research?

 

[UFO]

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.

Indeed but that doesn’t have to involve a reboot, even a relatively gentle one.

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.

All of that may seem "obvious" from fan point of view (though I doubt even most fans would refuse to see a good movie based in any of those centuries or the prime universe as a whole). Most casual viewers wouldn’t necessarily realise it was a new universe, or care about that history. All most people would be interested in is whether the current movie was something they might enjoy watching. Most of them probably didn’t watch the demise of ST, via VOY and ENT, since those shows didn’t attract their attention in the first place. Apart from some residual brand recognition, STXI probably can be viewed as almost a stand-alone film, commercially speaking.

Does doing a TOS prequel, even with younger actors (which would be a necessity of course!), make it a reboot? It seems to me the semi-clean slate does that (so it’s a semi-reboot). Perhaps it seemed like they had to reboot the franchise but I am not convinced that it made much if any difference to the bottom line. The "complying with canon" argument is more persuasive but still a rationalisation in my view. At best, pitching a reboot is a psychological argument, not a practical necessity, as I see it.

That Bad Robot did in such a way that both newbies and diehards could take from it what they wanted is all the better.

If a reboot had been necessary I would agree. I’m just arguing it was other factors that made the film as a success (even if it makes writing new movies easier).

But it's not the fans who make the decisions. It's Paramount. And to Paramount's mind, the prime universe is a flop. Plus, what's the point of creating yet another new crew and ship when we've had four already, with diminishing degrees of success?

I didn't say fans made decisions. I’m saying it makes no sense to change universes if most people who watch your film don’t know or don’t care. As mentioned above, the "complying with canon" argument for doing so has more weight, particularly re TOS stories, but is still not conclusive. As for new crews, would one based on Pike/Greenwood or even Robau, be a good candidate? Its not the number of crews that’s important. It’s the mix of characters and the stories etc, that’s critical in my view. Heck, a partial TOS crew as a prequel, even in the new universe would make more sense.

Most people seem to think the forth season of ENT is an improvement on the earlier ones. How would that be possible if the prime universe was a garrenttee of not being able to do anything worhtwhile or that four show had to be too many? We all know it was the totally of the last two shows in particualar that caused the problem not some garrenttee the prime universe is minded out. The impression the prime universe is a flop, is another matter of course.

That's fine for Asimov. Do you honestly think a bunch of Trek movie script writers would be doing such diligent research?

They don’t need to (Asimov didn’t have computers).

 

[F. King Daniel]

They wanted the classic Trek characters, and they wanted to be able to do whatever the heck they wanted with them. Time travel + Broad Strokes approach to continuity seems to me to have been the perfect way to do it.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Indeed but that doesn’t have to involve a reboot, even a relatively gentle one.

Nothing less would have garnered the right amount of free publicity.

Most people seem to think the forth season of ENT is an improvement on the earlier ones. How would that be possible if the prime universe was a garrenttee of not being able to do anything worhtwhile.

Audience numbers for ENT were miniscule and getting smaller.

 

[UFO]

Indeed but that doesn’t have to involve a reboot, even a relatively gentle one.

Nothing less would have garnered the right amount of free publicity.

The publicity I saw didn't suggest it was a reboot. A prequel sure (though even that term wasn't used that I recall). Heck, I left the theatre not knowing it was a reboot. Granted I had more important things on my mind. Maybe it was publicised differently where you are. I'm talking mass media of course, perhaps you had something else in mind. If so, would most people have access to that?

Most people seem to think the forth season of ENT is an improvement on the earlier ones. How would that be possible if the prime universe was a garrenttee of not being able to do anything worhtwhile.

Audience numbers for ENT were miniscule and getting smaller.

I guess the improvements weren't enough to hold the front then. But had it started out that way things might have been different.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It didn't have to be a "reboot" or have any logical connection to original Star Trek in order to get the PR value of the TOS brand. It could have just been, "hey, here's Kirk and Spock, they're young a hot, look at things explode!"

That would have been a financial success all the same. Plenty of brainless movies make shitloads of money, so why should Star Trek operate under different rules from the rest of the movie industry? The fact that Abrams made some effort to keep existing fans happy by linking his movies logically into the existing canon was just him being considerate. He changed universes so we'd all be happy knowing the old universe was still around. 90% of the audience didn't understand that part and didn't care.

And nothing would have saved ENT. By the fourth season, the audience had left and wasn't paying attention to it anymore. People don't usually give failed TV series a second chance because there's too much competing for their attention. And UPN was transitioning into the CW, which wouldn't have been interested in even a healthier Star Trek series because the CW was positioning itself to appeal to the young female demographic and Star Trek would be way off-strategy.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Bah, Abrams is just a puppet.

Most people seem to think the forth season of ENT is an improvement on the earlier ones. How would that be possible if the prime universe was a garrenttee of not being able to do anything worhtwhile.

It was better than the last couple of series, but "most people" didn't think so because, uh, most people didn't watch it.

 

[CosmicQuestion]

The Transformers movies were big. Imagine how much bigger they could have been with Kirk and Spock!

Well he WAS Spock PRIME, though not much of an optimist.

It was posted that there will be no new stories about the Prime universe, but if Spock and Nero can get through so can otherthings and people (hopefully) or maybe the Alternate timeline crew can go visit the Prime.

For the purpose of a reboot it may be a long while before that happens though. The Alternate timeline aliens had better keep it from happening because Prime Kirk was somekinda super martial artist.

He was beating aliens to death like nobodies business.

 

[Bisz]

i'd rather watch a flashy shiny brainless action film than something like insurrection.

I enjoyed Insurrection, it was like a long episode of TNG. Its not what they were going for and it doesn't make for a killer box office, but it was still good Star Trek. Nemesis on the other hand I loathe.


I firmly believe in the parallel universe explanation, our heroes from TNG and DS9 and still going about their merry lives as if nothing has happened. Only now we get to see some new movies about the not so old TOS gang as well.

 

[Dukhat]

I didn't say fans made decisions. I’m saying it makes no sense to change universes if most people who watch your film don’t know or don’t care.

I never said the audience wouldn't care. On the contrary, you get people to watch a new Trek film if there's a guy named Spock in it, as opposed to a guy named (fill in the blank with a random name nobody knows about). That was proven quite well.

They don’t need to (Asimov didn’t have computers).

What does that have to do with anything? If someone wants to write a screenplay, they're going to write what they want. They're not going to fact-check random points of info from a '60's TV show, even if they can get that info on the internet. And even if they did, if it contradicts the story they're trying to tell, which do you think will get more preference?

 

[thumbtack]

Bah, Abrams is just a puppet.

I want the variant "Evil Abrams" mint in package. I understand the eyes glow red whenever someone whines about canon.

 

[UFO]

I didn't say fans made decisions. I’m saying it makes no sense to change universes if most people who watch your film don’t know or don’t care.

I never said the audience wouldn't care. On the contrary, you get people to watch a new Trek film if there's a guy named Spock in it, as opposed to a guy named (fill in the blank with a random name nobody knows about). That was proven quite well.

And I never said you said that. As above, I was referring to changing universes, which even the majority of fans may not have known about in advance. However we will probably never know whether doing a TOS makeover (with names like Kirk and Spock) had that much pulling power for the general public. I haven't done the math but it didn't seem like STXI did that much better or worse than a "good" brand new SF movie with that kind of budget. There might have even been a significant number of people put off (at least initially) by the Star Trek brand, as I was about Transformers (1), until I saw it.

They don’t need to (Asimov didn’t have computers).

What does that have to do with anything?

Its easier to check your facts nowadays. And why wouldn't you if you cared about the established universe you were writing for? Why would you write a Star Trek story if you didn't respect that material and just wanted to do your own thing come what may?

If someone wants to write a screenplay, they're going to write what they want. They're not going to fact-check random points of info from a '60's TV show, even if they can get that info on the internet. And even if they did, if it contradicts the story they're trying to tell, which do you think will get more preference?

And yet even the writers of STXI, who actually planned to "write what they want", still obviously did a great deal of research (or they already knew the existing material that well). Of course they wouldn't check random points, just those that are pertinent to their script. In STXI, not ignoring canon seemed to get more preference, hence the decision to change universes in the manner they did.

 

[donners22]

i'd rather watch a flashy shiny brainless action film than something like insurrection.

Or Nemesis, or TFF.

Eh, I'd take Insurrection or Nemesis over XI. Insurrection was slow, but had a nice idea behind it and I quite liked Nemesis. XI just annoyed the absolute hell out of me in so many ways.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Comparing the box office take of those movies shows that you are distinctly in the minority. Abrams & co did the right thing by the franchise by succeeding. That's far and away the most important element they've provided. If the movie had flopped, that could have been the end of Star Trek for good.

 

[Therin of Andor]

XI just annoyed the absolute hell out of me in so many ways.

They didn't make it for you. Neither is it your father's "Star Trek".

Mind you, as a fan who was first introduced to fandom via ST:TMP, this film felt like it was made just for me. A friend who went to the preview with me, also a TMP fan (one who'd stuck through the renewed franchise till the end of TNG, then became highly critical of everything, but had a renewed curiosiity about ENT), felt just like me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Eh, I'd take Insurrection or Nemesis over XI.

Go ahead - no one's going to fight you for them.

 

[donners22]

Comparing the box office take of those movies shows that you are distinctly in the minority.

And comparing the box office take of movies in 2009 shows that people who take Star Trek over Angels & Demons, Twilight or Transformers are in the minority. I trust many fans here would embrace that minority as much as I do mine.

Abrams & co did the right thing by the franchise by succeeding. That's far and away the most important element they've provided. If the movie had flopped, that could have been the end of Star Trek for good.

Wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest either way. I still have every episode and movie on DVD. The rest of the "franchise" is far less prominant than it was when I was growing up, so it has added nothing to my enjoyment as a fan.

I don't care about the motivation behind it - my statement was simply that I didn't enjoy it, and prefer its predecessors.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And comparing the box office take of movies in 2009 shows that people who take Star Trek over Angels & Demons, Twilight or Transformers are in the minority. I trust many fans here would embrace that minority as much as I do mine.

I don't give it a moment's thought. Why would I?