But Abrams didn't "jettison" anything.
All right, all you JJ-haters! Put your money where your mouth is!
- Thread starter Turd Ferguson
- Start date
But Abrams didn't "jettison" anything.
I see your challenge and raise you the members of this BBS. From what I have seen and read here in this BBS, there is sufficient talent right here to best JJ and the Bad Robot group.
I would take the franchise in yet a third direction, as illustrated by, Madkoifish (my choice for art director). A new crew and ships based roughly on the work of Patrick O'Brian... Since one of Roddenberry's inspirations was Horatio Hornblower.
You get the picture and direction I would go...
Regards,
Chuck
I think those of us who have been making that point for the last four years have gotten the word out. It's just that some people aren't listening.
In which case there's no real point in answering them, is there?
Translation: I want to return to the Prime Universe and "cerebral exploration."
Bull. All of this is utter bull, you people want Trek movies to be something they never were.
Yes, but I can understand that people can forgive the first 10 movies for being more action-oriented or less cerebral than the series simply because they were a continuation of the series. Each of the TOS and TNG movies were a small part of a larger work - episodes you don't think are the best, but can forgive because you love the series.
The JJ movies are not connected to a television series - they're out there alone, bearing the Trek torch. This, for good or for bad, opens them up to a lot more scrutiny.
What I would want is a modestly budgeted Trek adventure (with the original series characters, of course) every 9 to 12 months or so. Two-hundred-million-dollar blockbusters have to be lowest-common-denominator pictures with some potential for selling tickets worldwide, and are therefore compromised sixteen different ways before cameras even roll. A focused, more modest production can tell a better story, almost by default, and can still be something worth going to the theater for.
What got me thinking in these terms was that Philip K. Dick in "The Electric Ant" (1969) and Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said (1970/74), and possibly elsewhere, has characters casually watching a "captain kirk" on TV or discussing seeing one at a theater, respectively. That is, he imagined future U.S. cultures in which Star Trek (perhaps not even called that any longer) was just part of the furniture, as it were - something so accepted as to be almost routine, not even deserving of initial caps. This would be preferable to the present situation where Star Trek consists of an "event" picture, with all the requisite pitfalls, every 3 or 4 years.
What got me thinking in these terms was that Philip K. Dick in "The Electric Ant" (1969) and Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said (1970/74), and possibly elsewhere, has characters casually watching a "captain kirk" on TV or discussing seeing one at a theater, respectively. That is, he imagined future U.S. cultures in which Star Trek (perhaps not even called that any longer) was just part of the furniture, as it were - something so accepted as to be almost routine, not even deserving of initial caps. This would be preferable to the present situation where Star Trek consists of an "event" picture, with all the requisite pitfalls, every 3 or 4 years.
Well, yes and no. The TNG movies could be (and probably were) construed as a continuation of the TV series because they began as soon as the series ended, and DS9 and its successors were on the air. (During the release of First Contact, both DS9 and Voyager were in the midst of their runs; likewise for Insurrection.)
By contrast, the original-cast movies began 10 years after the series left NBC and (until the fifth one) were released with no Trek on TV other than old reruns. So much time had passed that several of the scripts mentioned the fact outright. I would consider those movies to be "out there alone" more than a continuation of the original series; neither Shatner's TMP Kirk nor his TWoK Kirk much resembled his 1960s incarnation, nor did they resemble each other very much (and it wasn't just the difference in uniforms).
I'm not talking about how soon after the series the movies were released. I'm talking about how the TOS and TNG films were expansions of the existing universe that we already knew and loved. They had the same actors playing the same characters. Sure Kirk changed. He was older and more mature - but he was still the same Kirk. And despite all the cosmetic changes, it was still the same Star Trek. Even if you don't like the story in The Final Frontier, you can forgive it because it's only 1/725 of its universe. It's a bad page in a good book.
The Abrams movies do not have that sort of safety net.
The Abrams movies do not have that sort of safety net.
I'd rather have an event than that wallpaper background noise you seem to prefer.
Each TOS episode was an event for me when I was a child. Sadly Star Trek turned into this routine background noise during the 90 and early Naughties.
I'm glad Abrams and his crew managed to bring back the spectacle and the heart of TOS with his movies.
He's clearly the best man for the job in today's world.
There clearly is a seige mentality among the 'JJ haters' in this forum towards making trek back into something inaccessible and unlikeable with their daft ideas.
I think if you can't get away from having to have Kirk, Spock, McCoy, then Trek should not continue.
There's a HUGE universe in Trek, but to keep going back to the well and endlessly recast/remake/reimagine/recycle those three like they are comic book icons is pathetically uncreative.
Obviously it takes a lot of work to come up with new characters that can match the popularity of the originals, but darn it, why can't writers exert a little effort??? Someone had to conceive of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in the first place. It didn't just spawn out of the ether. You just get cracking and come up with something new.
Are the writer of the TOS novels just as "pathetically uncreative" and "can't [...] exert a little effort"?
People still enjoy these characters. They like to read about them in the established universe (although with the added disadvantage that nothing can happen to them that contradicts established canon).
And now they can watch them have new adventures where anything is possible.
I would deny the offer, unless I could do something more creative than a TOS reboot with a lot of TWOK references, or could do another project after it to wash my sins off.
I disagree. But then, I'm a huge Bond fan and have no issues with recasting, rebooting or whatever.
The bigger that universe got, the less appealing it became to the general audience. That's fine--not everything has to have mass appeal. But without broad appeal, the best that can be hoped for with a franchise like this is what actually exists--niche productions (almost all books) that can explore that "HUGE universe".
So go ahead (directed at the general "you"--not an individual). But why not go all the way and do something not related to Trek at all? If it is part of Trek--in any "universe"--it is, by definition, not "new" in its entirety. It seems very difficult for people to grasp or accept that, outside Kirk and Spock (and, to a lesser degree, McCoy et al.), the rest of the "HUGE universe" is NOT an integral part of popular culture. Star Trek = Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise. That's its core list of characters (yes, the ship is more important, in that sense, than any other character except Kirk and Spock).
You seem to want Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (which is a great play) rather than another take on Hamlet. That's fine. But the printed form is the way to go. No one will finance such a production for the foreseeable future. Is that sad? To some perhaps. But not to everyone.
So if I were to be put in charge of Star Trek, I'd definitely maintain the focus on Kirk and Spock. What specific story would I tell? Don't have one on hand (not my line of work, really). But if ever I do get a story idea, I'll try and share it.
The problem, at least as far as Paramount is concerned, is, as of Star Trek '09 Kirk and Spock are profitable. So, if they went down a non-established character route, then they would have to "dumb down" Star Trek even more to bring in an audience. This includes casting the likes of Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Seth Rogen, etc., just to get asses in the seats. And I, for one, do NOT want to see a stoner Star Trek movie (not to say, I don't enjoy stoner movies, Pineapple Express is one of my faves).
Again, I'm not saying that Star Trek would necessarily have to become a stoner movie, but in order to catch the attention of some of the bigger stars that would have to be attracted to a role in such a movie, Trek would need to be dumbed down even more (I use dumb down in the sense of all the complainers. I happen to enjoy Trek '09 very much). I'm not even sure how the marketing for such a movie would go.
"From the producers who brought you Star Trek and Your Highness, comes a Star Trek spinoff about a Federation garbage scow! Suit up as you join Captain Randy Randerson and the crew of the U.S.S. Entrepreneur as they clean up the galaxy! Of alien scum!
Starring:
Dwayne Johnson as Captain Randy Randerson
Owen Wilson as First Officer Chet Manly
Vin Diesel as Lt. Commander Duncan Cox
Megan Fox as Dr. Eleanor Jorgenstern
Zach Galifianakis as Chief of Security Raoul Beardly
and Shia LaBeouf as Ensign Michael Hunt
in a Jerry Bruckheimer production of a Michael Bay film.
STAR TREK: TAKING OUT THE TRASH. Hey, it's a shitty job, but SOMEBODY'S got to do it! Coming Summer 2016!"
And it seems that they don't need it as the two films he's worked on will likely make more money than the previous ten combined.
By-the-way, I still see the Abrams' films as part of a larger tapestry.
Nor is the thread about this.
What should be happening here is that one either proposes an idea for an alternate Trek production or comments on a proposal already made by another poster. That's all.
There is no evidence whatever to support that and a good deal to contradict it.