After Trek 11 replace TOS 1701 with prequel Enterprise

[Captain Robert April]

EliyahuQeoni said:

Captain Robert April said:

- It's a total reboot, with no consideration given to the old canon (1966 - 2005). I don't deem this likely, either, as many of the people involved in the project have said otherwise.

It'd have to be the best thing since Edison invented the film projector, because you can't start off a reboot by pissing off a bug chunk of the existing fanbase and essentially telling them, "you don't count anymore, don't let the door hit ya on the way out." Just ask Berman and Braga how well that strategy worked out.

I don't know, it seems to have worked pretty well for Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica.

Because, let's be honest, the vast bulk of the original Galactica was crap. The bar wasn't set very high on that one.

Star Trek, on the other hand, has won more than a few awards and is considered a classic. Tougher standard to measure up to, and making major alterations to the most iconic spaceship design for no real good reason is not a good way to start things off.

 

[Captain Robert April]

David cgc said:
Am I to assume, then, that the last page of your Enterprise blueprints will have an afterward describing how the ship was immediately remodeled to adhere to the Franz Joseph plans the week before it was launched? We wouldn't want all those fans who bought that blueprint set to be nonplused at being told what they already had didn't count anymore. They'd turn their backs on Star Trek forever.

I take you've never seen any of my rants regarding the FJ blueprints?

It's not like the ratings of the last television series and box office take of the last movie made it clear they already had or anything crazy like that. No, Star Trek is doing fine as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, and only an idiot would try to mess with it now, when everything's going so well.

The vast majority of people would likely respond with the question, "They're still making that crap?" Hardly a sign that "everything's going so well."

I'd rather ask Daniel Craig or Ron Moore.

Apples and kumquats. The Bond movies were based, sometimes loosely, upon preexisting books, and the original Battlestar Galactica was uneven at best, not to mention only one season long. Less of an applecart to overturn.

In any event, the existing fan base isn't that important. Most of the people who see a Star Trek movie, any Star Trek movie, wouldn't describe themselves as fans. Certainly not the kind of fans who go over Star Trek on the internet and make pictures based on it, like you or I. We're not representative of any large body of people.

So why make the freakin' movie in the first place? If the fans don't matter, why make a film based upon the most fan driven franchise in Hollywood history? And why make such overt gestures to those fans who "don't matter"?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Ronald Held]

It would only be stupid if TPTB ignored us. If they expect to make several movies, which group is most likely to see all of them?

 

[The Doctor]

Captain Robert April said:
So why make the freakin' movie in the first place? If the fans don't matter, why make a film based upon the most fan driven franchise in Hollywood history? And why make such overt gestures to those fans who "don't matter"?

You can't have it both ways.

You really can, and I'll tell you how.

The Star Trek name, the characters of Kirk and Spock, these still have wide name recognition outside of fandom. Couple that with a bankable name like JJ Abrams and build a smart marketing campaign and you have a decent shot at making some money and building a new tentpole movie franchise.

Given that the population of Star Trek fans is not small enough to make or break a movie, they can safely be ignored. That JJ and co have done as much as they have to reach out to the old guard is both commendable and unecessary.

This movie isn't being made for you, and it isn't even being made for me.

It's being made for a wide action-adventure audience, kinda like TOS was 40 years ago, come to think of it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Box office success these days is dependent upon folks going to the theatre multiple times.

Casual fans and nonfans don't go see a movie more than once at the theatre, nor do they buy the DVDs.

Hardcore fans do.

Or they don't, with the resulting drop off after opening day (or they don't show up in the first place, in which case your big tentpole blockbuster gets beaten by a J-Lo romantic comedy).

Blow off the hardcores, don't give them a compelling reason to show up and support the movie, or worse, give them a compelling reason to avoid your big blockbuster like the plague (like, oh, give them the distinct impression that they don't matter anymore), and you slit your own throat with a project like this.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Enterprise might look different at the start of the movie when its being built but Im pretty sure by the end of it something will happen and we will have Kirks original back.

 

[Ronald Held]

Blowing off the(us)hardcore fans with the Internet available is not a wise move.

 

[Warped9]

These days box office success depends heavily on opening weekend and the first week or two. After that it's the rare film indeed that continues showing for weeks on end. It's even more rare today for a film to continue showing in theatre for months. Studios today rely heavily on DVD sales and rentals after a hopefully big opening and particularly if the film didn't do as well as expected in the theatre.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Well with a project like this nomatter how its done your going to offend a lot of the hardcore fanatics. My guess is that their hoping to create a new generation of Trekkers to replace them.

 

[starburst]

Son_of_Soong said:
Enterprise might look different at the start of the movie when its being built but Im pretty sure by the end of it something will happen and we will have Kirks original back.

What ever is shown at the end of the film is the reality in which any sequals take place, if they return it to the TOS reality then all of the development work in sets, costumes and props will have been wasted and they would have to replace everything.

Your more likely to be looking at this ship and everything else from the production for many years to come if it does well enough to warrant sequals. Either way you still got almost 80 hours of TOS Trek to enjoy on DVD.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

I dont mind if we have a slightly altered ship and sets. They are afterall things that simply wern't practical 40 years ago. They might not be what some people remember but who's to say their not what could have been had the show had a larger budget back then.

 

[The Doctor]

Ronald Held said:
Blowing off the(us)hardcore fans with the Internet available is not a wise move.

It is, in fact, the best possible move for Abrams and co.

The more noise that the uberfans on the 'net make, the more publicity the movie gets, raising its awareness in the general public. Given that we don't really know anything about the movie, if there were a massive Trek fan backlash now, it would only cement this movie in the minds of the public as something worth watching, because it has Trek fans in a tizzy over a quick glimpse of the Enterprise (which will look the same as the original to 99% of moviegoers) and a very blurry picture of a console.

Failing that, the bottom line is that there aren't enough hardcore Trek fans to even worry about. They haven't the numbers to make or break this movie.

 

[Holytomato]

"Casual fans and nonfans don't go see a movie more than once at the theatre, nor do they buy the DVDs.

Hardcore fans do."

Explain to me how successful Nemesis was.

"The more noise that the uberfans on the 'net make, the more publicity the movie gets, raising its awareness in the general public. Given that we don't really know anything about the movie, if there were a massive Trek fan backlash now, it would only cement this movie in the minds of the public as something worth watching, because it has Trek fans in a tizzy over a quick glimpse of the Enterprise (which will look the same as the original to 99% of moviegoers) and a very blurry picture of a console.

Failing that, the bottom line is that there aren't enough hardcore Trek fans to even worry about. They haven't the numbers to make or break this movie."

Correct! :thumbsup:

 

[Captain Robert April]

Holytomato said:
"Casual fans and nonfans don't go see a movie more than once at the theatre, nor do they buy the DVDs.

Hardcore fans do."

Explain to me how successful Nemesis was.

Do you realize that was precisely my point?

The bulk of the fanbase DIDN'T SHOW UP!! If the fans had shown up in the same force they did for the previous films, it would've done its usual $40 million opening weekend and then succeeded or failed upon the quality of the film itself. Instead, it only managed to pull in $18 million and got beaten by a J-Lo romantic comedy. It took months to rack up what it should've done opening weekend. My theory is because the fans had been completely ignored by Berman and Braga with regard to Enterprise, and that this was only viable target left to get, and hold, their attention. So Nemesis got torpedoed for the sake of clarifying just how pissed off the fanbase was at that point. The fact that Nemesis wasn't that good a movie only made things worse.

And the further these clowns stray into reboot/retcon territory, the more likely they come towards duplicating that same chain of events.

And we'll see just how irrelevant us old fogey hardcore fans really are nowadays.

Oh, and explain to me why any sensible nonfan would go see a movie which is being dissed by a fan?

 

[Holytomato]

"And the further these clowns stray into reboot/retcon territory, the more likely they come towards duplicating that same chain of events."

Nemesis wasn't a reboot/retcon and it still flopped.

"And we'll see just how irrelevant us old fogey hardcore fans really are nowadays.

Nemesis was made for The Relevant Old Fogey Hardcore Fans tm, and it still flopped.

"Oh, and explain to me why any sensible nonfan would go see a movie which is being dissed by a fan?"

Because The Relevant Old Fogey Hardcore Fans tm praised Nemesis, and it still flopped.

Star Trek XI is not being made for The Relevant Old Fogey Hardcore Fans tm.

This means The Relevant Old Fogey Hardcore Fans tm are actually The Irrelevant Old Fogey Hardcore Fans tm.

Star Trek XI: Not For The Irrelevant Old Fogey Hardcore Fans tm

:thumbsup:

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Captain Robert April said:
Oh, and explain to me why any sensible nonfan would go see a movie which is being dissed by a fan?

1) Explain why any sensible non-fan is going to give half a crap what "a Fan" thinks? They're far more likely to be concerned with whether the film is entertaining or not, not whether a bunch of OCD Trekkies are upset because JJ moved the flux capacitor on the warp drive.

2) There are just as many fans who aren't bothered by the direction STXI is taking and are looking forward to the movie just as much as you are personally lothing it.

 

[cooleddie74]

When TMP was made thirty years ago it was a complete visual reboot and overhaul of the original series because the producers in the era of LOGAN'S RUN and STAR WARS knew a much more visually sophisticated and technological-looking movie would appeal to the fans of the late '70s. Going back a decade and rebuilding the less advanced and clunkier sets of TOS wasn't even an option when the PHASE II series concept got underway and later became TMP.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Okay this thread just gave me a headache *tries to reread and reread*

 

[David cgc]

Captain Robert April said:

David cgc said:
Am I to assume, then, that the last page of your Enterprise blueprints will have an afterward describing how the ship was immediately remodeled to adhere to the Franz Joseph plans the week before it was launched? We wouldn't want all those fans who bought that blueprint set to be nonplused at being told what they already had didn't count anymore. They'd turn their backs on Star Trek forever.

I take you've never seen any of my rants regarding the FJ blueprints?

It doesn't matter if they're good, bad, or middling. What matters is the almighty precedent, which cannot be altered.

It's not like the ratings of the last television series and box office take of the last movie made it clear they already had or anything crazy like that. No, Star Trek is doing fine as far as the vast majority of people are concerned, and only an idiot would try to mess with it now, when everything's going so well.

The vast majority of people would likely respond with the question, "They're still making that crap?" Hardly a sign that "everything's going so well."

That's why I was being sarcastic by taking the point that nothing needs to change when, obviously, something must be changed.

So why make the freakin' movie in the first place?

Didn't I say exactly the same thing to you when you expressed the view that absolutely nothing new or different should be in the movie?

 

[cooleddie74]

Why make any TREK movie?

Money.