I hope for more traditional space battles
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
There's been quite a lot of discussion about the merits of ST09-style battles versus DS9/TWOK-style battles.
I know this won't happen with Into Darkness, but would it be asking too much for someone to make a good Star Trek movie with no space battles? Just for a change of pace? Imagine a ST movie where absolutely no one dies at all - the last (actually, the only) ST movie that had no deaths at all in it was The Voyage Home, which was released 27 years ago! Not to mention that TVH did quite well at the box office, was well received by fans and the critics for the most part, and brought a lot of people into the theatres who weren't die-hard fans. Not saying I want them to do a remake, but TVH proves that you can make a successful ST movie without space battles/explosions/Fire Everything!/planets being destroyed/starships crashing/etc.
Just saying.
I know this won't happen with Into Darkness, but would it be asking too much for someone to make a good Star Trek movie with no space battles? Just for a change of pace? Imagine a ST movie where absolutely no one dies at all - the last (actually, the only) ST movie that had no deaths at all in it was The Voyage Home, which was released 27 years ago! Not to mention that TVH did quite well at the box office, was well received by fans and the critics for the most part, and brought a lot of people into the theatres who weren't die-hard fans. Not saying I want them to do a remake, but TVH proves that you can make a successful ST movie without space battles/explosions/Fire Everything!/planets being destroyed/starships crashing/etc.
Just saying.
As did "China Beach" in the years immediately before DS9 aired.
Still waiting for DalekJim to answer this one...
Being a movie is not an excuse for being stupid. As a cinephile, that attitude will always irk me.
I'm not sure a film like that would be a big hit in the current market, much like TMP would flounder in the current market.
That wasn't the question. The question had nothing to do with plot, it had to do with tempo and style.
Try Again: Do you expect a TV series with 178 episodes to have the same tempo and style as a two-hour movie?
Operative words, 27 years ago. It cost ~ $62 million to make Star Trek 10. No one in their right mind would invest even close to that amount of money into a Trek film with little or no action at all.
Uh.. I guess not? Don't see what this has to do with anything, but there's my answer.
Just out of curiosity, why not? I realize that pop culture has changed quite a bit since 1986, no doubt about that, but I would hope that there's still room out there for a well-written, fast-paced, light-hearted funny movie that has something relevant to say about society without getting preachy about it to do well with the public.
But maybe I'm just getting old.
Lincoln is still in theaters right now and it has all of the elements you say you like.
I don't think there is room for sci-fi in the same genre. Then again you can always rent Galaxy Quest, but that was meant to be more of a comedy and a mockery of Trek.
Not in the part of the market that Paramount is aiming for.
Simply put, the cost of creating that wonderful "futuristic" world that Trek fans are so fond of and doing it plausibly enough to attract and appeal to the millions of non-Trek fans necessary to make it worth the studio's while to release a movie like this requires budgets that push it into the summer blockbuster range - and the kinds of stories that work there are limited. The demand is for spectacle on a scale that can't be appreciated as well in any medium other than on a great big movie screen.
Part of what killed Star Trek at the movies was that the budgetary niche those older films occupied has pretty much disappeared. It's "go big or go home," and Paramount has a lot of other potential big movies they could be spending the money on instead.
And as yours is the deciding voice, what with you working in a high ranking position in the film industry, that's the end of that discussion.
Sarcasm directed against an observant statement that you don't happen to like certainly doesn't reopen it. 
One of many reasons that Serenity failed at the box office was that it was difficult to promote - it wasn't nearly big enough in scale to compete during the spring/summer season. Paradoxically, the fact that it was made for a relatively small amount of money meant that the studio was not going to invest huge amounts of money in promoting it or pushing it out to great numbers of screens during a highly competitive release window (not when they also had much bigger movies to divide up that pie between, movies that represented much larger investments and which therefore would result in much greater losses if they flopped).
Serenity didn't fall into any other easily marketed category in which it could compete - it wasn't a romantic comedy, a suspense thriller, a children's film, etc. - so the studio released it off-season and relied upon an unconventional, "viral" marketing strategy...another way of saying that they tried to market it on the cheap. If that strategy had succeeded, of course, they'd have been geniuses; it failed, but they weren't out a lot of money.
One of many reasons that Serenity failed at the box office was that it was difficult to promote - it wasn't nearly big enough in scale to compete during the spring/summer season. Paradoxically, the fact that it was made for a relatively small amount of money meant that the studio was not going to invest huge amounts of money in promoting it or pushing it out to great numbers of screens during a highly competitive release window (not when they also had much bigger movies to divide up that pie between, movies that represented much larger investments and which therefore would result in much greater losses if they flopped).
Serenity didn't fall into any other easily marketed category in which it could compete - it wasn't a romantic comedy, a suspense thriller, a children's film, etc. - so the studio released it off-season and relied upon an unconventional, "viral" marketing strategy...another way of saying that they tried to market it on the cheap. If that strategy had succeeded, of course, they'd have been geniuses; it failed, but they weren't out a lot of money.
They may also have to cover their losses with a Trek 'knock out of the park,' if the early reviews of World War Z make the film as bad when its released as so many are saying in advance.
Sarcasm directed against an observant statement that you don't happen to like certainly doesn't reopen it.
We're not actually pitching ideas to high ranking film execs. We're messing about online bouncing ideas around. There is no risk.
Killjoy statements about what studios expect or what the audience cares about or what puts asses in seats serve little purpose other than to piss on others chips.
Or, 'no'.
Whichever you prefer.
Do you really think films like The Motion Picture or The Voyage Home would do as well in today's market? It's not a commentary on quality, but more about what today's audience is looking for in a sci-fi film.
Sarcasm directed against an observant statement that you don't happen to like certainly doesn't reopen it.
We're not actually pitching ideas to high ranking film execs. We're messing about online bouncing ideas around. There is no risk.
Killjoy statements about what studios expect or what the audience cares about or what puts asses in seats serve little purpose other than to piss on others chips.
Or, 'no'.
Whichever you prefer.
So this isn't an open conversation, we're just here to jerk-off to the 'glory days' of Trek?
Infern0, you've been asked before not to hotlink images from web space which is not yours, and you've here hotlinked from several different pages not belonging to you. This earns you a warning for hotlinking; comments to PM, and don't do that any more.
No, it's a business meeting apparently.
Similar threads
