Did Abrams really save the franchise?

[R. Star]

"Anybody who knows me knows I would never read a comic book. And I certainly would never read anything written by Kevin Smith." - Tim Burton talking about a claim made (probably in half-jest) by Kevin Smith that Burton's Planet of the Apes ending/story was taken from K Smith's previous Planet of the Apes comic books.

So, not hates then. I'm not a fan of Smith's comic book output either.

that's not the point. the point is that Burton said he would NEVER READ A COMIC BOOK. That sounds like active dislike, or at the least serious disdain.

So? Not everyone is going to share the same opinions, likes and dislikes that you are. I'm not a fan of comic books myself. That doesn't mean I'm completely clueless to the Batman universe. Movies, tv shows, cartoons, novels, comics, they're all different and varying ways to tell a story. They all appeal to different audiences.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The basics of batman have not changed, because they are the core of who the character is.

he was born wealthy. His parents were killed by a lowly criminal. He is super smart. He trained himself in all the ways he could to fight crime. he wears a bat outfit to scare criminals.

Trek is the same in a sense.

The Earth solved it's petty divisions, Humans created faster-than-light travel, They met other species who also traveled the stars. They created a Federation of Planets. They explore the galaxy.

That is SIMPLE and genius. It allows for the creation of countless stories, and little worlds-within-the-big-world of Trek.

In keeping faith to this JJ did a good job. Now, whether the new crop of actors will resonate with fans the way the OG cast did, or the TNG cast did, or the DS9 cast did (NINER 4 LIFE!), that is another question. I hope they do, but getting the same actors to constantly play the same roles was difficult for the OG cast, and near impossible for the current crop of Hollywood actors.

In conventions of the future, will Shatner be Kirk I and the new guy (sorry but I do not remember the dude's name) be Kirk II?

Will Quinto be Spock Beta and Nimoy be Spock Alpha?

I wonder....

So what was the point of your response to JirinPanthosa then? Following the canon is different than following the "guidelines". The guidelines are broad strokes. Canon is the minutia.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"Anybody who knows me knows I would never read a comic book. And I certainly would never read anything written by Kevin Smith." - Tim Burton talking about a claim made (probably in half-jest) by Kevin Smith that Burton's Planet of the Apes ending/story was taken from K Smith's previous Planet of the Apes comic books.

So, not hates then. I'm not a fan of Smith's comic book output either.

that's not the point. the point is that Burton said he would NEVER READ A COMIC BOOK. That sounds like active dislike, or at the least serious disdain.

Not really. I know a lot of people who've never read a comic. Doesn't mean they hate them, just that the format doesn't appeal to them.

 

[Belz...]

The basics of batman have not changed, because they are the core of who the character is.

he was born wealthy. His parents were killed by a lowly criminal. He is super smart. He trained himself in all the ways he could to fight crime. he wears a bat outfit to scare criminals.

And yet any of these things could be changed if it fit the story. Nolan's Wayne/Batman is certainly very different from the comic book one.

 

[RXTT]

All I know is that Batman is a Niner.

 

[JarodRussell]

Abrams created a new franchise, and that one is kept alive by STD, some tie-in comics and some tie-in games. It doesn't do jack shit for the old franchise. The old franchise is kept alive by things like blu ray releases for TNG. Otherwise it would slowly die off. Heck, that the actor of Bane happened to play Shinzon probably helped to sell a few Nemesis DVDs.

 

[horatio83]

I don't grant Abrams any credit for following the pack and doing what most others are doing with summer popcorn fare: pander to cliches and broad caricature and distraction of hyper-action and flashy f/x. That's practically an established play book for summer fare. And he's hailed as genius for doing what everyone else is doing. Please.

The block buster mentality is self-defeating in the long run I think. Evermore is spent in the expectation for ever bigger returns and it inevitably gets to the point where even respectable returns are viewed as disappointing. Shmucks.

This. These movies are fine action movies. I'd even go so far and claim that ST09 was the best rollercoaster theatre experience I ever had. But if you expect anything else from them, like at least half-thought through scripts with some interesting ideas, they fail.
Nobody is claiming that Trek was ever on average particularly intelligent. If you want intelligent sci-fi you read and don't watch TV. Which is precisely why dumbing it down is inexcusable.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Where did the studio heads say the movie was a disappointment? If they did, by chance, say this, are they aware the movie is still new in theaters?

There are business sites that saying that the box office is 'disappointing' mainly because execs were expecting a much larger opening;

Paramount Pictures’ “Star Trek Into Darkness,” the second installment in the rebooted franchise, opened to disappointing ticket sales, squeezed by holdovers “Iron Man 3” and “The Great Gatsby.

“More was expected,” said Phil Contrino, chief analyst with BoxOffice.com in Beverly Hills, California.

”

And some sites that claim this;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-debut-falls-short-in-crowded-box-office.html

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/star-trek-into-darkness-us-box-office_3676064

I'll assume these box office analysts are basing this claim from studio execs expectations.

This is the typical pattern you see with blockbuster flicks and big budget reboots-- spend more, not making enough-it's a bomb, lets reboot again.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Paramount would've eventually wanted to reboot Star Trek, Abrams or not.

Maybe.

There's no reason to assume that it would have been successful.

We only know that Abrams has made it more successful than ever before.

Therefore, he's due all the credit that people give him.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Abrams created a new franchise, and that one is kept alive by STD, some tie-in comics and some tie-in games. It doesn't do jack shit for the old franchise. The old franchise is kept alive by things like blu ray releases for TNG. Otherwise it would slowly die off. Heck, that the actor of Bane happened to play Shinzon probably helped to sell a few Nemesis DVDs.

It's the same franchise: Star Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Paramount would've eventually wanted to reboot Star Trek, Abrams or not.

Maybe.

There's no reason to assume that it would have been successful.

Exactly. Not every attempt at a reboot succeeds. Hello, LOST IN SPACE (twice), DARK SHADOWS (thrice!), FLASH GORDON (Syfy version), THE FUGITIVE (Tim Daly version), THE NIGHT STALKER, THE AVENGERS (Uma Thurman version), THE SHADOW, THE PHANTOM (twice), THE GREEN HORNET, WONDER WOMAN, etc.

Rebooting a franchise is harder than it looks. For every BATTLESTAR GALACTICA or BATMAN BEGINS, there's a failed attempt to revive KOJAK or THE BIONIC WOMAN. And the jury is still out on THE LONE RANGER and IRONSIDE.

We can't just assume that a different reboot of STAR TREK would have been an automatic success.

 

[Amaris]

Abrams created a new franchise, and that one is kept alive by STD, some tie-in comics and some tie-in games. It doesn't do jack shit for the old franchise. The old franchise is kept alive by things like blu ray releases for TNG. Otherwise it would slowly die off. Heck, that the actor of Bane happened to play Shinzon probably helped to sell a few Nemesis DVDs.

The new movies have infused life back into the older series' and movies. Do you honestly think that they aren't connected, even as the new movies make a direct connection to the original series?

Where did the studio heads say the movie was a disappointment? If they did, by chance, say this, are they aware the movie is still new in theaters?

There are business sites that saying that the box office is 'disappointing' mainly because execs were expecting a much larger opening;

Paramount Pictures’ “Star Trek Into Darkness,” the second installment in the rebooted franchise, opened to disappointing ticket sales, squeezed by holdovers “Iron Man 3” and “The Great Gatsby.

“More was expected,” said Phil Contrino, chief analyst with BoxOffice.com in Beverly Hills, California.

”

And some sites that claim this;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-debut-falls-short-in-crowded-box-office.html

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/star-trek-into-darkness-us-box-office_3676064

I'll assume these box office analysts are basing this claim from studio execs expectations.

This is the typical pattern you see with blockbuster flicks and big budget reboots-- spend more, not making enough-it's a bomb, lets reboot again.

"Studio heads are disappointed," and "some people claim studio heads are/should be disappointed" are two wildly different statements. The adjustment made by the studio executives was made at the last minute, and the release date was changed somewhat, which undoubtedly confused some people, as now they were hearing three dates (15th, 16th, and 17th) in the U.S.

That will have an effect on box office take. The original expectations by the studio, before the last minute push, was right in line with how Star Trek Into Darkness is doing now.

I have heard nothing about the Paramount studio execs being disappointed.

 

[Belz...]

Well _I_ was a bit dissapointed. I wanted 100+ million by the first Sunday, not 84.

 

[RXTT]

I wanted 300 million federation credits

 

[Belz...]

Federation credits aren't good out here. I need something more real.

Woah, wrong franchise.

 

[sonak]

Paramount would've eventually wanted to reboot Star Trek, Abrams or not.

Maybe.

There's no reason to assume that it would have been successful.

Exactly. Not every attempt at a reboot succeeds. Hello, LOST IN SPACE (twice), DARK SHADOWS (thrice!), FLASH GORDON (Syfy version), THE FUGITIVE (Tim Daly version), THE NIGHT STALKER, THE AVENGERS (Uma Thurman version), THE SHADOW, THE PHANTOM (twice), THE GREEN HORNET, WONDER WOMAN, etc.

Rebooting a franchise is harder than it looks. For every BATTLESTAR GALACTICA or BATMAN BEGINS, there's a failed attempt to revive KOJAK or THE BIONIC WOMAN. And the jury is still out on THE LONE RANGER and IRONSIDE.

We can't just assume that a different reboot of STAR TREK would have been an automatic success.

they tried rebooting Lost in Space twice? I know of the movie in the late nineties, but what was the other attempt?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A TV series a few years ago for the CW. The pilot (sans a lot of post production, I believe) can be found on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAT4tjjzOCk&list=PLB5650A43C64FE863

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Abrams created a new franchise, and that one is kept alive by STD, some tie-in comics and some tie-in games. It doesn't do jack shit for the old franchise. The old franchise is kept alive by things like blu ray releases for TNG. Otherwise it would slowly die off. Heck, that the actor of Bane happened to play Shinzon probably helped to sell a few Nemesis DVDs.

It's the same franchise: Star Trek.

Yep, been watching it for nearly fifty years. It's Star Trek.

 

[CaptPapa]

Wow - could not disagree more with your assessment of why a creative person creates. From my experience (married to an artist, not a writer), a creative person creates because they have something inside them that needs expression. Maybe it's different for a creative person who is a writer, than for a creative person who is an artist.
This thread is moving pretty quickly so this might have already been adressed, but I'll bet most (all?) of the professional writers on this site would disagree too. Of course it's great to earn a living, but is that the initial concern? Is that what first motivates a creative person to create? I'm thinking . . . NO!

Self expression isn't entertaining?

I didn't say it wasn't, or couldn't be. Obviously, it can be highly profitable too.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

People create things because it's what they have to do. People who are able to make their living creating things are pretty fortunate in that respect, I think.