Hate for the new Trek and the Future of Trek

[Longinus]

Look at the numbers (revenues or tickets sold) between your examples and Abrams' movies to understand business decisions.

Abrams's films sure made a lot of money, but also lot of money was put in them. If you compare return of investment, many prior movies did better. For every dollar invested Wrath of Khan made over three times as much money as 09 film. FF made more money per dollar invested than ID. Last two TNG movies did badly though. (Comparison based on domestic box office.)

 

[BillJ]

For every dollar invested Wrath of Khan made over three times as much money as 09 film.

Which is great, no doubt about it. But we should also remember that the conditions were completely different in 1982 than they were in 2009. There were much longer theater runs and much less in the way of home video. Star Trek (2009) did nearly $200 million dollars in Blu-ray/DVD sales.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Yes. And the rest. I'm not exactly defending it. But if all you care about is business and not so much the intangibles of art, it makes sense.

Art is not intangible. You can touch it.

Abrams's films sure made a lot of money, but also lot of money was put in them. If you compare return of investment, many prior movies did better. For every dollar invested Wrath of Khan made over three times as much money as 09 film. FF made more money per dollar invested than ID. Last two TNG movies did badly though. (Comparison based on domestic box office.)

Due to your support, I now can see why Abrams should have made just another character driven slower-moving (compared to Abrams bad in my opinion action driven fast moving). So why did he not?

@JWPlatt, I am asking you.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[JWPlatt]

You can't touch creativity or the appreciation for it and how it affects the human spirit. Only the effects.

Why did Abrams not? Beats me. He never calls me anymore to discuss it. But maybe it's time to bring up the story of the turtle and the scorpion. Or maybe it's the ADD culture. Or maybe it's profits über alles.

 

[fireproof78]

Which is great, no doubt about it. But we should also remember that the conditions were completely different in 1982 than they were in 2009. There were much longer theater runs and much less in the way of home video. Star Trek (2009) did nearly $200 million dollars in Blu-ray/DVD sales.

Another consideration is the nature of the business, and some changes made in business models. TWOK was given a smaller budget due to TMP's overruns, while ST09 was designed as a reintroduction to the franchise and Paramount poured a lot more money in to it, including attempting to negotiate through the writer's strike faster.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

You can't touch creativity or the appreciation for it and how it affects the human spirit. Only the effects.

Why did Abrams not? Beats me. He never calls me anymore to discuss it. But maybe it's time to bring up the story of the turtle and the scorpion. Or maybe it's the ADD culture. Or maybe it's profits über alles.

But you can touch the art itself. And I don't believe in spirits. I am not religious.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Mudd]

And how would a character driven movie (such as TWok or TSFS) "piss away" money? Star Trek I - VI did fine, especially TWoK (Star Trek II)!

@PhaserLightShow

You do realize that there are good and sufficient reasons that the studios make different kinds of movies than they did a generation ago - right?

Paramount couldn't spare a weekend on their release schedule for TWOK today. It might make it as a cable or streaming movie.

 

[JWPlatt]

But you can touch the art itself. And I don't believe in spirits. I am not religious.

You don't need theism to have spirit. But I do think you need pedantism to make your comment. Human spirit is that which originates from within you - nothing else.

 

[Trekkin]

Funny enough, spirit being defined as meaning both 'inspiration' and 'emotion', seems to predate the 'magical being' definition.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spirit

Also, I wasn't aware that being non-religious meant you couldn't be acquainted with these fantastic books known as 'the thesaurus' and 'the dictionary.' Besides being useful in general, in them you learn that most words have established multiple meanings. It turns out that the English language doesn't bow to the whims of any random individual.

My familiarity with them is probably why I knew that 'spirit' was a noun, verb, and an adjective. Clearly I've been doing this atheism thing all wrong.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Funny enough, spirit being defined as meaning both 'inspiration' and 'emotion', seems to predate the 'magical being' definition.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spirit

Also, I wasn't aware that being non-religious meant you couldn't be acquainted with these fantastic books known as 'the thesaurus' and 'the dictionary.' Besides being useful in general, in them you learn that most words have established multiple meanings. It turns out that the English language doesn't bow to the whims of any random individual.

My familiarity with them is probably why I knew that 'spirit' was a noun, verb, and an adjective. Clearly I've been doing this atheism thing all wrong.

I do not use physical dictionaries. Only Merriam Webster (and a MW thesaurus).

You don't need theism to have spirit. But I do think you need pedantism to make your comment. Human spirit is that which originates from within you - nothing else.

I still do not believe in spirit. No scientific evidence to prove it. And I only believe in which has rational and impherical evidence.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[JWPlatt]

On "dictionaries," and other matters of abstraction, you're giving Drax good competition.

So a spirited debate like this does not exist. Well, solipsism is a treat.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

So a spirited debate like this does not exist. Well, solipsism is a treat.

A debate is a debate. Nothing more. Nothing less.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Kemaiku]

Lively debate is a common term.

 

[JWPlatt]

On "dictionaries," and other matters of abstraction, you're giving Drax good competition.

So a spirited debate like this does not exist. Well, solipsism is a treat.

A debate is a debate. Nothing more. Nothing less.

@PhaserLightShow

You might consider broadening your education about atheism. You seem so stuck on the point, or the label, that abstraction and metaphor are not possible because they are not tangible. It precludes creative thought and open-minded discussion. Star Trek calls it 'Herbert.' Atheists can, in fact, be spiritual. And spiritual does not need to be religious in practice or theistic in philosophy, or contain magical thinking or "woo woo" pseudoscience. This article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/spiritual-atheism_b_861171.html, for instance, concludes with:

Behavior rather than belief seems to be the defining factor of the spiritual atheist. Those who call themselves spiritual are engaged in helping others, caring for the environment, enjoying the outdoors, and generally spending time meditating on central themes.

 

[RAMA]

The reality we see from the largest sample polls/ratings (rotten tomatoes/IMDB/Cinemascore) show that the nuTrek universe is not only popular, it's much higher rated by viewers than the first 10 ST movies. 90% of viewers like STID on RT for example, with over 300,000 votes. We have to assume out of the 10% that maybe 50% were bonafide trekkies. So the vocal sample of "haters" is very small.

I feel that there is a lot of misdirected hate aimed at the new movies that I just don't understand. I remember times, multiple times actually, that there was no trek, and perhaps even no possibilty of future Trek. I am very optimistic at the moment about the future of Star Trek and the direction that it is heading in. While many feel that thte Abrahmsverse is a little too "actiony" for their likes, it's still Star Trek. While would like to see a return to the classic Trek stories, and character/moral driven story lines that speak to societal issues and high brow story lines, I think some fans miss the point. Interest is interest, and I think that the thing that I fear most is that the fans like myself are getting older and there just won't be any interest in Star Trek in 20 to 30 years. There has got to be a financial incentive for the studios to make new movies and series, and you have to draw in a new fan base. Are there times when Star Trek has made some missteps with the movies or series? Absolutely! Would I take any of those back? Never.

I think I just wanted somewhere to vent, anyway. KIt's good to see a community like this that is passionate about Trek, rather than talking about how much the new movies suck. Thanks.

 

[Tim Walker]

I doubt that the Powers That Be care about which timeline/universe Trek is set in. So I expect that the movies will stick to J.J. 's timeline so long as they are profitable.

 

[uniderth]

It could have been just as popular without being NuTrek. That's the rub. Rebooting Star Trek was completely unnecessary.

 

[STEPhon IT]

It could have been just as popular without being NuTrek. That's the rub. Rebooting Star Trek was completely unnecessary.

There's no evidence to what you're saying. Nemesis was a failure, and the last Star Trek TV series called ENTERPRISE was not very good either. I can't blame JJ Abrams for going in a reboot -re-imagining- based on, at the time, the failing, declining track record from Berman Trek.

Also, in hindsight the direction Abram's made was successful, and may take Star Trek into new heights. I may have wanted a better story but I found his 2 movies waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than any of Rick Berman's sh*tfest of 4 movies, what Abrams got right IMO was the tone of adventure and fun. I would like the Abrams' team to try to create a film more in line of The Voyage Home, but honestly I would be asking a lot from a group who don't tend care about a narrative.
So the could've been just as popular argument is subjective, not based on any facts.

 

[Kemaiku]

It could have been just as popular without being NuTrek. That's the rub. Rebooting Star Trek was completely unnecessary.

No. It wasn't popular outside a small, dwindling minority as old Trek. Something new was needed even before that and we got it. The new series looks like it might be something of it's own, taking inspiration from all Trek before it but not being either.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

You might consider broadening your education about atheism. You seem so stuck on the point, or the label, that abstraction and metaphor are not possible because they are not tangible. It precludes creative thought and open-minded discussion. Star Trek calls it 'Herbert.' Atheists can, in fact, be spiritual. And spiritual does not need to be religious in practice or theistic in philosophy, or contain magical thinking or "woo woo" pseudoscience. This article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/spiritual-atheism_b_861171.html, for instance, concludes with:

Well, I am a literal person. What I cannot see (with some sort of sensor/microscope) or touch* I do not believe in. Yes, there may be spiritual atheists, but I am not one of them!
*What I can touch is tangible; what I cannot is intangible!

@PhaserLightShow