Has star trek changed

[yousirname]

How can it not be considered a success when it made 20 million more worldwide than Batman Begins? It isn't Returns fault that it got saddled with production costs for several prior attempts to bring Superman back to the big screen.

Because it cost more. Even if you knock $70 million off the $270 million budget estimate, it still cost $50 million more. And I think it's generous to do that. How much can you spend not making a film? $120 million?

I kind of feel like if it was really the case that SR was significantly cheaper than reported, the studio would have greenlit a sequel. Hollywood Accounting only goes so far, they're not going to leave money on the table for the sake of it.

The list that was linked to is interesting, but it annoys me that they mention inflation in the Hulk vs Incredible Hulk listing and ignore it in the Die Another Day vs Casino Royale one. There's about the same gap in time between the two films.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Superman Returns was a financial success for Warners - they made money on it. That doesn't mean they weren't disappointed with its performance; to spend an enormous amount of money to make a good deal less than you expected isn't a formula that inspires a lot of confidence in sequels.

 

[thumbtack]

I don't think they see their Kirk, Spock, McCoy et all as a prequel to anything. It's all brand new to them with its own future.

True, and with today's 400th confirmation that Harrison is Khan it will soon be impossible to pretend that this new universe will someday be erased or squeezed back into the old one.

Prequels they are not.

 

[cbspock]

Here is Ron Moore's take on TV vs. Film that I really agree with and points out how Trek has changed since it's gone from one format to the other.

"I think that Star Trek, in its DNA, is a television show. The features are great. They’re a lot of fun and they’ve certainly opened it up to a lot of different audiences, but the features all are basically atypical episodes, if you think about it. The features are very big action-adventure movies, lots of spectacle, run and jump, shoot-em-up and blowing things up. The fate of the Earth, or the universe itself, is always at stake. It’s always about the captain, and one other character has a strong B-story, and everyone else sort of has very small roles beyond that. But Star Trek, as originally conceived, and as you saw play out in all the other series, was really a morality play every week, and it was about an ensemble of players. They were exploring science fiction ideas, sociological ideas and moral ideas. That’s really what the shows are about, and the movies are just pitched in a different way and at a different audience. The movies will do a story where the captain is split in two by a transporter accident and one half is evil and one half is good, and the whole story is about where does the nature of a man’s strength come from? What makes a man a man? Is it his good side? His bad side? Or how the two come together to make something greater than the sum of its parts? The movies will never do that. They’ll never do a day-in-the-life story with Data or something like “Lower Decks,” where you go explore the other characters. They’ll never do all the things that all of us who are fans fell in love with this franchise for. So I think, at some point, Star Trek will return to television, and that would be great. I’d love to watch the weekly adventures again just because it gives you an opportunity to explore lots of other things besides the action-adventure component."

http://www.startrek.com/article/you-ask-the-qs-ronald-d-moore-answers-part-1

I agree, the movies are more like episodes of The Doomsday Machine, Space Seed, Immunity Syndrome, The Ultimate Computer. They all lean toward the big action adventure element of the original series.


-Chris

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

True, and with today's 400th confirmation that Harrison is Khan it will soon be impossible to pretend that this new universe will someday be erased or squeezed back into the old one.

Who's pretending that?

 

[thumbtack]

Who's pretending that?

I think he's still calling himself "the true fans".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Who's pretending that?

I think he's still calling himself "the true fans".

Ah. He gets around - must be CG.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Count me in as another fan of "Superman Returns". Loved the cast, great effects, the opening credits, Noel Neill and Jack Larson cameos, and so many familiar (Sydney, Australia) locations!

 

[marksound]

SR was OK. Not great, but not terrible. Casting Routh as CK/Supes was a good move because of his physical resemblance to Reeve, but his acting chops are ... limited.

Chuck even played on the resemblance in one episode that mirrors a scene from a Reeve movie.

The thing that killed the Routh portrayal for me is the eyes. He has dark, black, dead looking eyes. There's no smile in there.

 

[The Wormhole]

SR was OK. Not great, but not terrible. Casting Routh as CK/Supes was a good move because of his physical resemblance to Reeve, but his acting chops are ... limited.

Regardless my opinion on Superman Returns, I've never been one to criticize Routh, simply because he didn't really have anything to do. Aside from a few strut and pose in the costume he hardly has any memorable material in the movie, which is rather pathetic given he is the titular main character. Hell, I think Ebert even mentioned in his review that despite being the lead, Superman probably had the least amount of dialogue.

Routh may be a good actor, or he could be a horrible one. But I'm not going to base my opinion of him on Superman Returns.

 

[JarodRussell]

Superman Returns is what you get when you follow that "it must be an origin story" idiocy. Oh yeah, it was not an origin story, it was a "returns story". Same difference. All the movie did was trying to set up everything for a sequel, and everyone one of the involved always said "yeah, the sequel will be the shiznit, the sequel is going to be the balls to the walls Superman you always wanted to see".

Just make the fucking balls to the walls Superman film to begin with, will ya, and stop wasting time with the other one.

 

[The Wormhole]

Personally, I though the problem with Superman Returns was that it was one of those "director's passion projects" movies. Bryan Singer is a huge Superman fan and always wanted to do a Superman fan, and what we end up with is two and a half hours of fanboy gushing. We had the same problem with Peter Jackson's King Kong. These are fine examples of why it's a bad ide having a fan calling the shots, eve if said fan is a professional filmmaker.

Although, while Abrams might in principle be the best choice direct Trek, I still don't think he specifically is the right choice, based on my own opinions of him as a filmmaker. And really, starting every interview off with "I'm more a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek" borders on being quite an asshole.

 

[Ovation]

Personally, I though the problem with Superman Returns was that it was one of those "director's passion projects" movies. Bryan Singer is a huge Superman fan and always wanted to do a Superman fan, and what we end up with is two and a half hours of fanboy gushing. We had the same problem with Peter Jackson's King Kong. These are fine examples of why it's a bad ide having a fan calling the shots, eve if said fan is a professional filmmaker.

Although I think a fan who is a filmmaker can overcome such issues, this is a reasonably fair point.

Although, while Abrams might in principle be the best choice direct Trek, I still don't think he specifically is the right choice, based on my own opinions of him as a filmmaker. And really, starting every interview off with "I'm more a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek" borders on being quite an asshole.

First of all, he doesn't do that at every interview. He's probably not done it very much at all. However, many of these "interviews" are from press junkets--a lot like post-game scrum "interviews" with players in pro sports--and multiple media outlets carry the same quotation. This makes it seem far more frequent than it actually is.

Second, since your concern is about fanboys making films, doesn't the logic of your argument suggest Abrams is a strong choice to direct Trek (leading zeroes notwithstanding )?

 

[Franklin]

Personally, I though the problem with Superman Returns was that it was one of those "director's passion projects" movies. Bryan Singer is a huge Superman fan and always wanted to do a Superman fan, and what we end up with is two and a half hours of fanboy gushing. We had the same problem with Peter Jackson's King Kong. These are fine examples of why it's a bad ide having a fan calling the shots, eve if said fan is a professional filmmaker.

Although I think a fan who is a filmmaker can overcome such issues, this is a reasonably fair point.

Although, while Abrams might in principle be the best choice direct Trek, I still don't think he specifically is the right choice, based on my own opinions of him as a filmmaker. And really, starting every interview off with "I'm more a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek" borders on being quite an asshole.

First of all, he doesn't do that at every interview. He's probably not done it very much at all. However, many of these "interviews" are from press junkets--a lot like post-game scrum "interviews" with players in pro sports--and multiple media outlets carry the same quotation. This makes it seem far more frequent than it actually is.

Second, since your concern is about fanboys making films, doesn't the logic of your argument suggest Abrams is a strong choice to direct Trek (leading zeroes notwithstanding )?

And by that same concern, that he's a pretty bad choice to direct "Star Wars".

 

[JarodRussell]

Personally, I though the problem with Superman Returns was that it was one of those "director's passion projects" movies. Bryan Singer is a huge Superman fan and always wanted to do a Superman fan, and what we end up with is two and a half hours of fanboy gushing.

It's not even fanboy gushing. Fanboy gushing would result in Superman throwing a lot of punches.

 

[Set Harth]

Superman Returns is what you get when you follow that "it must be an origin story" idiocy.

The new movie is an origin story.

 

[The Wormhole]

First of all, he doesn't do that at every interview. He's probably not done it very much at all. However, many of these "interviews" are from press junkets--a lot like post-game scrum "interviews" with players in pro sports--and multiple media outlets carry the same quotation. This makes it seem far more frequent than it actually is.

Even if it wasn't every interview, he did mention it more times than was necessary. How many times while doing the X-Men movies did Bryan Singer say "I've always been more of a Superman fan than X-Men"? Did he even say that at all while working on X-Men?

Second, since your concern is about fanboys making films, doesn't the logic of your argument suggest Abrams is a strong choice to direct Trek (leading zeroes notwithstanding )?

That's why I said he was the best choice in principal, and yes, by the same coin he's a horrible choice for Star Wars. Hell, even he thought directing Star Wars was a bad idea, but apparentally Disney wants him that bad.

That said, while he is the best choice for Trek in principal, being a non-fan, as a filmmaker and producer I find a lot of his work leave much to be desired.

 

[BillJ]

I love all the butthurt over Abrams comment about Star Wars.

 

[Danger Ace]

The new film is looking good from the trailers, but what i was thinking has it changed now from Gene,s vision , the trek we all liked and enjoyed the great stories that were told . Is it now just a blockbuster special effects film with no real story to the trek world ?

Has "Star Trek" changed since JJ's reboot? Yes, but it is too soon to say whether the change is for the better or worse overall (IMO). The last film, "Star Trek," was a good, head-on, thrill-a-minute action flick. This new film, "Star Trek Into Darkness," looks to be more of the same. I'm sure we, the audience, will be given a feast of CGI enhanced stimuli to fill our eyes and ears. And since that's all we ever really wanted, all's good ... right?

No psuedo-philosophies or metaphysical ponderances. No examinations of things bigger than ourselves or what are responsibilities (moral or otherwise) may be. I mean:

If I'm going to get a headache then I want it to be because Abram's trademark lens flares and quick cuts over-powered me and absolutely not because I had to think about anything beyond my soda-to-popcorn ratio (which is every bit as important as the Enterprise's mix of matter and anti-matter).

In term's of Eugene Roddenberry's "vision?" Yes. As Legion-san and others have said, there was always a gulf between what GR claimed TOS to be and the reality of what it was.

I am one of those who believe TOS was a product of great timing. It was an optimistic picture of the future in a tumultuous time that was embraced by a nervous generation hungry for reassurance (none of the Trek's that followed ever got to enjoy any similar confluence).

The original "Star Trek" gave us action and adventure. It also gave us little things to wonder about. All the stories it told were through the prism of us striving to be better. It held a mirror up by which we could evaluate ourselves (thank you, Mr. Spock!)

One of the many differences between The Original Series and The Next Generation revolved around that. Somewhere between the two eras starship captain's got evangelical. Where Kirk had been an explorer open to introspection - Picard was a crusader upon a high horse. Kirk may have given overly emotive speeches but Picard gave sermons on the mount.

In general, TOS was hawkish and bi-lateral while TNG was dovish and unilateral. DS9 went back to being hawkish (<-- there's a joke in there). Voyager was more neutral as a result of it taking place outside the AQ. And I don't want to get into trouble pontificating on what "Enterprise" was (*joke removed for reasons of peace, love and understanding*).

Anyway, my opinion and your mileage may very.

 

[Danger Ace]

Superman Returns is what you get when you follow that "it must be an origin story" idiocy. Oh yeah, it was not an origin story, it was a "returns story". Same difference.

Firstly, not the "same difference."

Secondly, the problem with "Superman Returns" was it was literally an imitation of the Chris Reeve era films. None of the actors hired were allowed to do their own thing. I mean God ... er ... Zod, it was painful to watch Kevin Spacey forced to imitate Gene Hackman! And Brandon Routh just didn't have the "it" factor of Mr. Reeve.

The whole thing was just a mess and a clear example of a studio patheticly attempting to play it safe and really taking audience intelligence for granted. I really think WB felt that if all the actors pretended to be the people from 20 years before the audience would believe they were 'cuz we be jus' dat stoopid.

Thirdly, in any event, I agree that our pals at the WB should have allowed the cast & crew to blaze their own path rather than try and photocopy someone elses from a couple of decades earlier.