‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

[BillJ]

Just imagine how much better a real Star Trek movie would've done.

 

[trevanian]

Or by way of contrast, you could post a link to the original STAR WARS, which came out at exactly the right time to cash in on the ENORMOUS interest in TREK, and essentially replaced TOS as 'the one' for tons of undiscerning fans. To me, the Abrams Treks have as much in common with SW as Trek, and represent a more direct connection to Lucas (GL, not JM) than Coon, Bennett, Meyer or GR. And if that has become the default mindset of trek for a bunch of people, then they probably fall into the same general set as those who were 'turned' by SW in 1977.

 

[Noname Given]

No it's obvious from his Twitter rants that he's a narcissist who thinks he's entitled...

^^^
That must mean he IS a real Star Trek fan then, eh?

 

[Franklin]

Or by way of contrast, you could post a link to the original STAR WARS, which came out at exactly the right time to cash in on the ENORMOUS interest in TREK, and essentially replaced TOS as 'the one' for tons of undiscerning fans. To me, the Abrams Treks have as much in common with SW as Trek, and represent a more direct connection to Lucas (GL, not JM) than Coon, Bennett, Meyer or GR. And if that has become the default mindset of trek for a bunch of people, then they probably fall into the same general set as those who were 'turned' by SW in 1977.

Trek had its answer to SW in TMP, and while it didn't fail, it didn't spark the imagination of a whole new fandom, either.

I'll be honest, I'm not a SW fan. I saw it once in 1977 and it had no effect on me. It's still the only SW movie I ever saw or was interested in seeing. I'm 99.44 percent certain I won't see Abrams' SW. But if Trek has more in common with SW now because Abrams reignited it with a bit of the fun and action contained in SW, sobeit. As far as Abrams' Trek not following in the footsteps of those who went before him in Trek, I'd say a movie addressing multiple themes germane to the current war on terrorism along with continuing to develop and grow the characters is pretty much in line with the better of past Trek. In my opinion, Abrams et al are as good of custodians of the characters and themes of Trek as any of the other movie producers and directors were.

No it's obvious from his Twitter rants that he's a narcissist who thinks he's entitled...

^^^
That must mean he IS a real Star Trek fan then, eh?

 

[urbandefault]

You could say the same about James Cameron, but nothing he's done in the last 20 years rivals his TERM1 through T2 phase.

We could say quite a bit about Cameron but since he's not the topic of discussion, I'm not entirely sure what point you're attempting to make.

Star Trek and its sequel have made the better part of a billion dollars in theaters and hundreds of millions more in home video, expanded Trek audiences around the globe and garnered overwhelmingly positive reviews. It's never been more well-received than this.

Any other interpretation of the performance of these two films is sheer revisionism.

To pre-empt those who will still insist on giving another interpretation, this kind of success does not mean that it was a good movie. Just imagine how much better a real Star Trek movie would've done.

If a "real" Trek movie could have brought in the same (or more) money, there would have been no need to reboot the thing and start over.

Before the Abrams reboot the franchise was effectively dead, maintaining a presence only by re-releasing the existing product, selling books, and hawking merch.

Attracting a new generation of fans by reimagining the mythos revitalized the franchise. What's past is still there for us older folks to enjoy and criticize until we turn to dust, but when we were gone it likely would have gone with us.

Comics do it all the time. I'm not crazy about the New 52, but they didn't ask my opinion when they did it.

Sorry if you disagree, but that's life.

 

[BigJake]

I'll be honest, I'm not a SW fan. I saw it once in 1977 and it had no effect on me. It's still the only SW movie I ever saw or was interested in seeing. I'm 99.44 percent certain I won't see Abrams' SW. But if Trek has more in common with SW now because Abrams reignited it with a bit of the fun and action contained in SW, sobeit.

Aside from the sprinkles of fanservice and referentialism, Abrams' Trek movies basically were Star Wars movies. I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy Star Wars (or go to see his SW movies) if you enjoyed them. (Hell, I enjoyed them on that level, but then I've never expected Star Wars at its best to be anything much more than pulp adventure for kids. That was always the level it worked on.)

If a "real" Trek movie could have brought in the same (or more) money, there would have been no need to reboot the thing and start over.

I don't know what a "real" Trek movie is, but it's very obviously possible to make money without sucking Targ testicles at coherent plotting. Happens all the time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't care. It's just fun arguing.

Now you're talking my language.

Like I said Roman Polanski hasn't made a great film since Chinatown.

The Pianist and The Ninth Gate are both better films. There, I've said it.

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.

 

[Amaris]

^ HA!

 

[BigJake]

Uh, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. Chinatown is the one with the monkey, right? The jewel thief movie?

 

[urbandefault]

The Abrams movies aren't Star Wars. I don't see where people get that, other than the offhand remark he made early in the process.

I never got Star Wars. It always seemed a little ... junior high. My friends at the time who went nuts over it kinda confirmed that for me.

 

[trevanian]

I get 'how' SW worked, just as I did ROCKY (a movie I absolutely hated.) SW didn't ever push my buttons strongly one way or the other, outside of specific sequences (escape from death star and the last reel or so), so while I've seen it a lot of times, it is mainly in sections, because I am impressed so much with how those sequences are cut and mixed soundwise.

I do NOT get why the hero's journey campbell stuff seems to be such a big deal for SW; to me, that is much more evident and successful in THE ROAD WARRIOR and THE PRINCESS BRIDE (and I still don't get why PRINCESS didn't inspire conventions to be held.) The hero's journey thing is especially unhelpful with AbramsTrek, because it undercuts TREK's own unique triad mythology.

Now EMPIRE is something else; I really liked it, even though I think it is structurally a mess. I won't say it is more mature than SW, but due perhaps to Kershner, it feels more like it is about something, rather than just lahdeR2dah. For whatever reason, there hasn't been more than a decent couple of reels of any SW made since Gary Kurtz stopped being on the scene.

 

[Mudd]

Just imagine how much better a real Star Trek movie would've done.

The kinds of things you folk call "real Star Trek movies" never do this well. Not that many people ever wanted to see them enough to pay money.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

In my time, we've evolved beyond the need for money.

 

[Franklin]

I'll be honest, I'm not a SW fan. I saw it once in 1977 and it had no effect on me. It's still the only SW movie I ever saw or was interested in seeing. I'm 99.44 percent certain I won't see Abrams' SW. But if Trek has more in common with SW now because Abrams reignited it with a bit of the fun and action contained in SW, sobeit.

Aside from the sprinkles of fanservice and referentialism, Abrams' Trek movies basically were Star Wars movies. I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy Star Wars (or go to see his SW movies) if you enjoyed them. (Hell, I enjoyed them on that level, but then I've never expected Star Wars at its best to be anything much more than pulp adventure for kids. That was always the level it worked on.)

I've heard SW is very popular (), I just never got invested in the characters. Maybe I'm not the typical audience for it, either, because outside of Trek, I'm not really drawn to the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

Just imagine how much better a real Star Trek movie would've done.

The kinds of things you folk call "real Star Trek movies" never do this well. Not that many people ever wanted to see them enough to pay money.

[Garymoore] Will the real "Star Trek" please stand up? [/Garymoore]

After some shuffling on the panel, Berman starts to get up, then Bennett, then Meyer, finally Abrams. Then, they all hold hands and stand up together. Nimoy comes on set and joins them, carrying a picture of Roddenberry.

Every Trek fan's head explodes. My God, Jim! It's all Trek!

Still, as far as I'm concerned, Abrams has made Trek more fun than it's been since TOS aired. Was it "real" Trek? Who cares? (*Cough* Yes, it was. *Cough*)

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Now EMPIRE is something else; I really liked it, even though I think it is structurally a mess. I won't say it is more mature than SW, but due perhaps to Kershner, it feels more like it is about something, rather than just lahdeR2dah. For whatever reason, there hasn't been more than a decent couple of reels of any SW made since Gary Kurtz stopped being on the scene.

I hate to 'somewhat' derail the thread with SW talk, but what about the structure in ESB didn't you like?

(ESB is one of my favorite films, so I'm curious)...

 

[BigJake]

The kinds of things you folk call "real Star Trek movies" never do this well.

Of all the Trek movies old and rebooted, approximately one is remembered as an actual classic. And that's pretty much as it should be.

 

[YARN]

If a "real" Trek movie could have brought in the same (or more) money, there would have been no need to reboot the thing and start over.

This blame-the-audience shtick is as tired as references to JJ's ubiquitous lens flares. Are we to suppose that the poor execs would give us a "real" Trek story, but cannot deliver a film that is both profitable and really Star Trek? What a low opinion some fans must have of Star Trek to even say stuff like this.

I agree that it was time for a reboot, but not because they needed to escape from "real" Star Trek, but because it needed a break from the obsession with canon and the weight of keeping all those "historical facts" in balance.

If, however, we were to agree that one cannot do "real" Trek on the big screen (why we could not is beyond me, but if we did agree), this raises the question of whether it would be better served by a return to the small screen.

 

[Devon]

If a "real" Trek movie could have brought in the same (or more) money, there would have been no need to reboot the thing and start over.

This blame-the-audience shtick is as tired as references to JJ's ubiquitous lens flares. Are we to suppose that the poor execs would give us a "real" Trek story, but cannot deliver a film that is both profitable and really Star Trek? What a low opinion some fans must have of Star Trek to even say stuff like this.

I agree that it was time for a reboot, but not because they needed to escape from "real" Star Trek, but because it needed a break from the obsession with canon and the weight of keeping all those "historical facts" in balance.

If, however, we were to agree that one cannot do "real" Trek on the big screen (why we could not is beyond me, but if we did agree), this raises the question of whether it would be better served by a return to the small screen.

Do tell, what is "really Star Trek?"

 

[Belz...]

To pre-empt those who will still insist on giving another interpretation, this kind of success does not mean that it was a good movie.

No, but since what makes a movie "good" is entirely dependant upon the individual viewer, success will aways be a better objective standard.

Are we to suppose that the poor execs would give us a "real" Trek story, but cannot deliver a film that is both profitable and really Star Trek?

What's "real" Star Trek ? Is it an action fest with no coherent plot like First Contact ? Or a pure sci-fi movie like TMP ? Or a half-comedy like TVH ? Face it, different movies have different sensibilities, even within the same franchise. The series are the same. There is no "wrong" Trek.

 

[YARN]

If a "real" Trek movie could have brought in the same (or more) money, there would have been no need to reboot the thing and start over.

This blame-the-audience shtick is as tired as references to JJ's ubiquitous lens flares. Are we to suppose that the poor execs would give us a "real" Trek story, but cannot deliver a film that is both profitable and really Star Trek? What a low opinion some fans must have of Star Trek to even say stuff like this.

I agree that it was time for a reboot, but not because they needed to escape from "real" Star Trek, but because it needed a break from the obsession with canon and the weight of keeping all those "historical facts" in balance.

If, however, we were to agree that one cannot do "real" Trek on the big screen (why we could not is beyond me, but if we did agree), this raises the question of whether it would be better served by a return to the small screen.

Do tell, what is "really Star Trek?"

Ask "urbandefault." He must know. How else could he make the claim that "real" Trek is not financially viable?