#BringinRiker

[Cyke101]

Another way of saying that is that FC made about 160 million over budget and ID made about 250 million.

Ding ding ding!

Exactly! I have never seen someone spin making $250 million as a 'diminishing return'.

Just another person trying to spin that Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't a success.

A lot of goal-post moving, too. If STID made James Cameron-level money, it would still fall under "failed to meet expectations" for some here. "It made $1 billion? Why not $2 billion? #abramsfail #badreboot #jarjarabrams" etc. etc.

. My list assuming we can't have J.J back even though Star Wars is done filming is...

Brad Bird
Edgar Wright
Rupert Wyatt

Brad Bird is a wonderful choice.

 

[Makarov]

Though this part is nonsensical:

I'd rather see the plug pulled on Star Trek than have Michael Bay turn it into pure baktag.

Who cares if anyone else enjoys the current product? I want it dead if it isn't done to my standards.

I'd rather have something end than see it turn bad. Some people enjoyed Matrix Revolutions / Reloaded, for me all that those sequels accomplished was ruining The Matrix.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I'd rather have something end than see it turn bad. Some people enjoyed Matrix Revolutions / Reloaded, for me all that those sequels accomplished was ruining The Matrix.

Reloaded was OK. It was Revolutions that really did a number on the first two films. But they were never going to live up to The Matrix.

 

[Ovation]

Though this part is nonsensical:

I'd rather see the plug pulled on Star Trek than have Michael Bay turn it into pure baktag.

Who cares if anyone else enjoys the current product? I want it dead if it isn't done to my standards.

I'd rather have something end than see it turn bad. Some people enjoyed Matrix Revolutions / Reloaded, for me all that those sequels accomplished was ruining The Matrix.

But then, why should others be deprived of enjoyment just so you don't have to "suffer" the existence of a "lesser product"?

 

[Greg Cox]

FYI: Apparently Frakes directed the upcoming Christmas episode of THE LIBRARIANS.

 

[Amaris]

FYI: Apparently Frakes directed the upcoming Christmas episode of THE LIBRARIANS.

Even though Frakes won't get it, I do think he would be a more than competent director, and it is a plus that he enjoys the show, and the fans.

 

[Makarov]

But then, why should others be deprived of enjoyment just so you don't have to "suffer" the existence of a "lesser product"?

Everything that's made is going to have some fans of it, that doesn't mean everyone should support every idea being made. I'm glad some people got enjoyment from them but I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wishes Matrix 2 and 3 hadn't been made.

 

[Ovation]

But then, why should others be deprived of enjoyment just so you don't have to "suffer" the existence of a "lesser product"?

Everything that's made is going to have some fans of it, that doesn't mean everyone should support every idea being made. I'm glad some people got enjoyment from them but I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wishes Matrix 2 and 3 hadn't been made.

You're entitled to wish whatever you like, but it's still an obnoxiously selfish attitude. I loathe "thrash metal" music. I'll never support it with my money. But I know people who quite like it so who am I to begrudge them something they enjoy? Rather than wish it didn't get made (and go out of my way to tell its fans about my wish), I simply don't listen to that particular type of music.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

But then, why should others be deprived of enjoyment just so you don't have to "suffer" the existence of a "lesser product"?

Everything that's made is going to have some fans of it, that doesn't mean everyone should support every idea being made. I'm glad some people got enjoyment from them but I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wishes Matrix 2 and 3 hadn't been made.

I agree.

All the mystery of "The Matrix" universe was undone with the prequels - I mean the sequels!

(Having a "Star Wars" moment there).

 

[Smellmet]

I adored the Matrix sequels, both of them, every bit as much as the original, I realise I'm in a minority though, hell I'm a big Nemesis fan...

 

[Amaris]

Loved the first Matrix, bought it on DVD, which was expensive at the time. The sequels were okay, but nothing beats that first movie, IMO.

 

[Lance]

Jonathan Frakes' excitement at this perceived opportunity to direct STAR TREK 3, to me, seems more like wanting redemption and partly entitlement.

It strikes me as somebody so desperate for a job that he's literally salivating at even the slightest prospect of it happening.

In fact, his reaction reminds me a little of George Takei's ongoing delusion that they'll start making episodes of Captain Hikaru Sulu Of The USS Excelsior any day now.

1Having said that, I do agree with this statement from 137th Gebirg on page 1 of this thread:

I think Frakes could do a reasonably good job, despite Insurrection's lackluster showing, the blame for which, BTW, could also be laid squarely at the feet of Berman and Piller for delivering equally lackluster source material on which to build a feature film.

On a technical level, and with good material to work with, I don't doubt Frakesey could turn out something competent, if not spectacular. But it's all about the material. "You can't polish a turd", as the old saying goes.

 

[Admiral Bear]

On a technical level, and with good material to work with, I don't doubt Frakesey could turn out something competent, if not spectacular. But it's all about the material. "You can't polish a turd", as the old saying goes.

Quite right, you can't. It amazes me that the TNG cast and fans blamed Stuart Baird for Nemesis.

I don't and won't trust anyone other than Frakes with directing the next movie, not even Abrams after the mess of ITD. It does make me wonder what Insurrection would've been like with a 2 hour long script as opposed to the 90 minute TV episode we got, and a $100m budget.

 

[Lance]

A CLEAN SLATE.

This is what star trek needs. we need to stop looking back.

I partially disagree. I think you have to be careful with what you wish for. The results of a clean slate ie what we're all likely to get from it, are unknown. With the 50th coming up, I'd rather put the "50th Anniversary of Star Trek" movie in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. Paramount only gets one shot. They can't make another 50th anniversary movie if they give the first one to someone who fucks it up. This isn't the time for experimentation with the unknown.

If the film's successful, then you might get your clean slate after the 50th. However, I can see Paramount stopping Trek movies fairly soon. There's not enough box office interest. In the modern era, it can't keep making $150-$200m budget films that only gross $450m worldwide.

Star Trek is Gene's vision. It always has been, and always should be. Berman understood that when he took over TNG. Frakes understands it. Abrams doesn't. Orci doesn't. A clean slate is likely to produce something that simply isn't Star Trek. It'll be a generic space action movie with a ship called the USS Enterprise, and occasional references to Starfleet.

I'd take this analogy one step further, and say that Star Trek is TV. That's the franchise's ancestral home. It's where the format was born, and only later haphazardly "adapted" for big screen consumption. Star Trek belongs in the long-form TV format, not the short-form movie. Now, there have been successful Star Trek movies in the past, and no doubt there's potential for successful Star Trek movies in the future. But on some level, in it's DNA, Star Trek will always thrive better as a television property than on the big screen.

That might be an unpopular view. I'll now open the floor to debate.

Frakes, IF given Trek 3 would be rounding out the Trilogy and contracts of the actors in an effort to make some money. There is no long term goal for this iteration of Trek on the silver screen. This is it.

Agreed. I see this as a fundamental truth which won't change unless ST3redux is the biggest box office smash since the crucifixion (hint: it won't be).

There was a time when nuTrek had some momentum behind it. But a series of dumbass decisions by those behind the scenes, mainly by not striking while the iron was hot after the 2009 movie got such a positive reaction, meant that it went off the boil.

There was so much potential in the 2009 reboot. I think there still is. But a number of poor decisions around the making of STID pissed a lot of that potential up the wall, unfortunately. At this late point in time (six years on), the next movie feels almost like an exercise in fulfilling the contractual obligations of all those concerned, and nothing more. Which, going into Star Trek's 50th anniversary in 2016, feels so wrong to me somehow. It should be a time for Star Trek to stand tall, but I can't help feeling that the franchise is going through something of a low ebb, unwashed and unwanted now that Abrams is not attached as the director any more.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I'd take this analogy one step further, and say that Star Trek is TV. That's the franchise's ancestral home. It's where the format was born, and only later haphazardly "adapted" for big screen consumption. Star Trek belongs in the long-form TV format, not the short-form movie. Now, there have been successful Star Trek movies in the past, and no doubt there's potential for successful Star Trek movies in the future. But on some level, in it's DNA, Star Trek will always thrive better as a television property than on the big screen.

Pine, Quinto and the rest of the cast are too young. I'd happily see them all come back in 10 years time and do a TV TOS reboot. At the moment, Abrams movie Trek is just Trek 90210, and it shows. Would the cast want to commit to long hours TV work? Who knows. But Pine's already doing TV commercials, so he's clearly not fussy.

There was a time when nuTrek had some momentum behind it. But a series of dumbass decisions by those behind the scenes, mainly by not striking while the iron was hot after the 2009 movie got such a positive reaction, meant that it went off the boil.

There was so much potential in the 2009 reboot. I think there still is. But a number of poor decisions around the making of STID pissed a lot of that potential up the wall, unfortunately. At this late point in time (six years on), the next movie feels almost like an exercise in fulfilling the contractual obligations of all those concerned, and nothing more. Which, going into Star Trek's 50th anniversary in 2016, feels so wrong to me somehow. It should be a time for Star Trek to stand tall, but I can't help feeling that the franchise is going through something of a low ebb, unwashed and unwanted now that Abrams is not attached as the director any more.

+1

On a side but not unrelated note, now the TNG Blu-ray remastering has finished, and there's no sign of any desire on behalf of CBS to remaster DS9 and or Voyager, I suspect CBS and Paramount (Paramount specifically for the movie side of things) will find it hard to maintain any kind of momentum or enthusiasm for Trek leading up to 2016.

2016 should be a global celebration for Star Trek and it's fans, but with no TV Trek for over 10 years, and the next movie already looking a mess, I fear it'll pass with little more than a whimper.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Pine, Quinto and the rest of the cast are too young. I'd happily see them all come back in 10 years time and do a TV TOS reboot.

Pine is actually only a year younger than Shatner when he started, and Quinto is actually older than Nimoy was.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Pine, Quinto and the rest of the cast are too young. I'd happily see them all come back in 10 years time and do a TV TOS reboot.

Pine is actually only a year younger than Shatner when he started, and Quinto is actually older than Nimoy was.

I thought you were shitting me, and you are.

According to IMDB:

Shatner born 1931. Star Trek started 1966. Shatner was 35.

Nimoy born 1931. Star Trek started 1966. Nimoy was 35.

Pine, born 1980. Abrams Trek was 2009. Pine was 29.

Quinto born 1977. Quinto was 32.

Those dates seem to be right, but I've thought for years that Nimoy was a year older than Shatner. Quite a shock to see they were born 4 days apart.

 

[Lance]

^ Truth. They're about the right age now to be analogous to Shatner's and Nimoy's ages in TOS, but they certainly weren't old enough back in 2009.

The ultimate point isn't about the actor's ages though, more in how the characters themselves are portrayed on screen. Pine and Quinto can be as old as the hills, but if the characters don't show emotional maturity, then...

 

[Admiral Bear]

^ Truth. They're about the right age now to be analogous to Shatner's and Nimoy's ages in TOS, but they certainly weren't old enough back in 2009.

The ultimate point isn't about the actor's ages though, more in how the characters themselves are portrayed on screen. Pine and Quinto can be as old as the hills, but if the characters don't show emotional maturity, then...

And we're back to square one with it all boiling down to the quality of the writing.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I adored the Matrix sequels, both of them, every bit as much as the original, I realise I'm in a minority though, hell I'm a big Nemesis fan...

With you on Nemesis, at least.