Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

I'm pretty sure that was Harry Mudd's daughter and not a female version of Harry Mudd. I've no idea why she was shown to be Bajoran though.

 

I think you're overestimating the degree to which "hardcore" fans would reject a new Trek series if it wasn't set in the same continuity as the earlier shows. Sure, some fraction of "the base" might prefer that, but I seriously doubt that it's a deal-breaker where most of us are concerned.

And Lord knows we never talk about the nuTrek movies or comic books or merchandise on social media . . .

 

Likely Harry never met Stella in this universe, the market being a lot different in this universe giving him more oppertunities or pushing him to new areas of space he didn't in the Prime Timeline.

Harriet Mudd is likely a daughter born to him and a Bajoran woman he met on his travels and taken up the family business. Harry may well be out there too somewhere.

 

Change in medium has nothing to do with the change in tone. That's an artistic decision. There is every genre in every medium. We may perceive things from different mediums in different ways, but a tonal change and artistic direction is a conscious decision by the creators.

 

It would have been literally impossible to fund, film, and nationally (not to mention globally) distribute a theatrical film in 1979 that was in every tonal and production aspect a carbon copy of the television series that had folded in 1970.

What I said was that change was to be expected, and in fact for the particular change in venue it was required. It would have been impossible to choose not to have some measure of change in TMP in comparison with TOS. The only choices were in what the changes were going to be.

By the same token, it was literally impossible to fund, film, and nationally (not to mention globally) distribute a theatrical film in 2009 that was in every tonal and production aspect a carbon copy of TUC (1991), the last theatrical film to feature all of the TOS cast. Not only was some change to be expected, but in fact same change was literally required. The only choices were in what the changes were going to be.

 

no clue why it's impossible. there are thousands of movies made every year that get released in theaters of all different genres and artistic direction. Even within a specific genre, there's cerebral sci-fi, sci-fi thrillers, sci-fi action, sci-fi adventure, etc.

If a film is good and marketed well, people will watch it. You don't have to stick to a specific formula, with any deviation resulting in failure.

You seem to have a lot of restrictions on what a film or television show is allowed to be. It's like you're trying to justify that abrams trek is the way it is, because it could be nothing else. And that TOS or TNG or DS9 were made the way they were because of the medium.

All these things were made the way they were because of the creative minds developing it. That is all.

 

So, what you're saying is that the sets for TMP could have been faithful replicas of the Stage 9 sets for TOS, the costumes and all the props could have been the same, they could have used the exact same model of the Enterprise, taken from the Smithsonian, they could have used the same stock SFX shots as they did on the series, the same musical score, etc. They could have gotten financial backing to do it that way, almost a decade later, under good faith expectations that the movie would have been a success. Seriously?

 

Honestly I have no idea what your argument is now. You're talking about production budgets.

The argument you made reads as Berman style is different from Abrams style, and the reason is because of the medium.

If you give Berman 200 mill you're not getting STID, it doesn't matter what decade it's in.

 

If they were expecting a continuation of the movie on the small screen they're going to be "jarred."

The movie actors will be missing, as will the big blocks of expensive special effects.

It would depend on the time period the new series was set in. Also TNG only went to Vulcan twice (?) and DS9 not at all. so it might not be a problem.

 

To be fair, I agree with CorporalCaptain.

What to me he's saying is that irrespective of want, the manner in which TV or film is produced naturally evolves depending on the era or the budget or production constraints, or in TMP's case reaches. It was a decade later, in a late 70's era past the kitsch whimsy of colourful post-war 60's & a decade of Watergate scandals & terrorism kicking off (not that either had an enormous effect, but it's the point about the zeitgeist); people had moved on, expectations had changed, and a simple re-tread of the look & feel of what came before would have been quite jarring, and maybe not as successful.

In the same fashion, if you tried to do a TNG-movie like Insurrection these days - a calmer, TV episode bulked up - it would struggle in the cinematic marketplace. Franchises have to evolve to survive.

 

Yes. I agree that a movie will look different when made in different era's.

But my contention is when you say style you're talking about artistic direction. And in your last point I'd have to disagree. You get a movie like Moon or Inception, which are superb sci-fi flicks, or V for Vendetta in the more thriller vein. Or then various political/spy thrillers. It's all about artistic direction and approach, and then marketing. There's no reason you can't make a highly successful cerebral movie, and just because it's 2014 doesn't mean it needs to be derivative and bereft of thought.

If you gave Nolan the keys to star trek, it's not going to be TNG. His name isn't Moore or Berman. But it can be slow paced, and cerebral. And none of this has to do with the year it's made, or the budget given. And you can bet your ass it'll be a hit.

 

Those are good examples of that, and I do agree, except this is Star Trek… it's the second biggest science-fiction franchise on the planet and that means we'll always get a piece of work that reflects the times, to maximise profit margins, rather than something creatively smaller & personalised artistically.

The person involved would make a difference, I agree. But even someone like Nolan would end up making something reflective of tastes & profits, because it's a franchise. We were just lucky with Batman that his creative vision was something both artistically excellent & commercially successful, it may not be that way with everyone.

 

Right. The expectation of the aggregate audience evolves over time, and it's a function of the precise medium at each particular time as well. VST has my point exactly right.

With respect to Moon, it was a nice, nifty, relatively low-budget, and moderately successful flick that set up Jones to make Source Code (which I thought was brilliant). Neither Moon nor Source Code represents a story that I think would work, if transposed into the Star Trek universe. You can't hold up either and say, "Hey these worked, so something along the same lines would work for Star Trek." Star Trek is a brand. It has a sweet spot for greatest returns, and that sweet spot changes over time. What works for other things won't necessarily work in Star Trek, and vice versa. Yielding a return only on the level of what Moon or Source Code brought in is not how CBS or Paramount are looking to make use of the Star Trek brand. I know this because that's not the sort of project they are pursuing. It's worth much more than that.

 

Which is, of course, non-sense. Times may change, but the people fronting the money for a project have a huge say in how their money is spent. All one has to do is see the difference in "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Plus, Roddenberry constantly complained about what he was able to put on the screen. Then add in test screenings (Generations ending was completely changed due to test screenings, IIRC) and the creative minds are just a piece in the puzzle of the final product.

But actually looking at the process in a critical light would mitigate the "Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof are the devil" tripe spouted by some in fandom.

 

^ & Berman, Braga, Meyer, Bennett, etc.

 

I think you guys are giving directors and the audience, far too little credit.

If you give each give berman and abrams 200 mill, give them the script to STID, and strict guidelines scene by scene, those will be 2 entirely different movies.

If you give the audience a well written, well thought out, well acted, cerebral trek film, nd it is subsequently marketed well, it will be successful.

I'm not harping on Abrams results. You guys are harping on the era we live in. People are a lot smarter than you think they are, and people can have better tastes than you think they do. You sound as if you believe the audience is a fickle bunch that is on its way to Idiocracy.

Finally, Nolan is not the kind of director you dictate terms to. Neither is Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Tarantino, Cameron, Coen brothers, or Scorsese. It wasn't luck that Nolans films are successful. They are good films, and he knows how to make good films. If he or any good director wants to make Star Trek a slow, cerebral, political thriller, they will do it, and it would have been successful.


People are not dumb. People have taste. The era doesn't demand that movies are mindless popcorn flicks. That's just something film hipsters say.

I'm glad Abrams is on Star Wars now, because the fun romp through the stars suits that franchise much better. I just hope there are no screaming matches.

 

Of course. We know that the Temporal Cold War wasn't something that was part of the original series proposal for Enterprise and that Voyager's "Year of Hell" was suppose to be a season long story arc. Hell, Berman wanted the franchise to take a break after Voyager.

But each step of the way, changes were forced on them by UPN/Paramount.

 

But who's going to do that (give them the 200 mil) now?

 

wow... You're saying they're different because it's 2010. I'm saying they're different because it's the artistic direction. and then you argued with me...

Try reading the rest of my post instead of taking things out of context always. Because it deals with stylistic decisions.

 

Personally, I don't think the Abrams films are mindless popcorn flicks. But that's neither here nor there.

I think you're transposing what you want from a movie onto general audiences. It's been proven that, sometimes, people go to movies to just watch things blow-up and have a good time. You seem to completely disregard the escapism part of the movie going experience. For most people, Star Trek isn't a way of life, it is a way to escape the real world for a few hours.