i wish abrams had made a post ds9/voy movie isntead!

[Franklin]

Paramount had a one shot deal to get it right.

LOL No they didn't.

I'll just disagree. Regardless of the concept or direction ultimately chosen for what became ST09, if it had failed, I don't see how any second chance to put it on the big screen (or TV) would've been coming around any time soon.

As it is, the goal was to create a commercially successful Star Trek movie using what Paramount and Abrams believed were the strongest remaining elements of the franchise. If you couldn't win playing to your strength, it's over.

 

[barnaclelapse]

From the standpoint of commercial success ensuring more movies? No.

In terms of morbid curiosity? Yes.

I can go along with that. I'm still happy he went with the film we got instead of something set in the original universe though.

 

[Shazam!]

ST09, if it had failed, I don't see how any second chance to put it on the big screen (or TV) would've been coming around any time soon.

There's a difference betwen that and a Paramount only having 'one shot'.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Profit.

Nailed it in one!

 

[Disillusioned]

I think it's safe to say that Ambassador Spock is, as we've known since before the film even came out.

Nothing in the actual film establishes that, though. A movie is supposed to show, not tell, but it didn't even do that. Instead, the people who made it told us and we were supposed to take their word for it. Unfortunately nothing in the movie suggests any part of it took place in the "prime" universe.

So you're saying this film would have been just as big as if it was about Captain Doohicky and Commander Linux?

Pretty much, though better Awesome McCool names would be more memorable.

And luckily what they got was much better, hence why "Star Trek" is rated quite a bit higher than your typical "popcorn flick" all across the board.

No it isn't. I'm actually reminded of movies like "Independence Day," which was quite popular when it came out. The action-packed popcorn flick always tends to be popular, but that doesn't mean it's actually good.

So what are you saying about Star Trek fans?

I'm saying fans of this movie like mindless action movies. I like a few of those myself, but they aren't supposed to be Star Trek movies and this was.

Critical and financial success from this film compared to that of recent Treks prove this theory wrong.

"Recent" Treks? That's rather faint praise.

And the problem with that would be?

The whole jumping on the bandwagon thing. Not to mention a franchise as big as Star Trek just shouldn't have been rebooted. If you think about it, now it's the same as any other remake that's been made recently.

But that's just not what they wanted to do, because they weren't approaching Star Trek as a universe, but as a 60s TV show. They wanted to make a movie of that - which is by far the most iconic and recognisable thing about Trek anyway - so they did.

Worked out well for "Lost in Space."

It fit the whole attitude of the production, which was tinted oddly enough with some nostalgia and was all about back to basics. Frankly, in the end it was probably the right call for reasons other than the fact it was a more surefire financial strategy - I mean, c'mon, Spock. You want Spock or random new Vulcan who's sorta channeling Nimoy? WELL?

That's what we got anyway.

 

[Shazam!]

Outside of a few names like Kirk, Spock, Enterprise etc what was done in this movie that could not have been done in a post-TNG movie?

Profit.

Nailed it in one!

.

I don't disagree that the move was nothing more than a money grabbing exercise.

 

[Franklin]

Profit.

Nailed it in one!

.

I don't disagree that the move was nothing more than a money grabbing exercise.

By that logic, Rubber Soul was nothing more than a money grabbing exercise by the Beatles. What of it? Popular culture is a commercial culture. Is that something to deny, be shocked by, or be ashamed of?

 

[Shazam!]

Is that something to deny, be shocked by, or be ashamed of?

I don't deny that the movie set out to make fat businessmen as much money as possible, nor am I shocked by it. It is kind of a shame though.

 

[Sector 7]

Is that something to deny, be shocked by, or be ashamed of?

I don't deny that the movie set out to make fat businessmen as much money as possible, nor am I shocked by it. It is kind of a shame though.

Oh yes, I see your point: Star Trek should be made by basement dwelling fanboys while the franchise owners throw their money to them at a loss. I am sorry to tell you, but that will NEVER, EVER happen. Ultimately, Star Trek is a business property, albeit an entertainment business. That business is made profitable by producing a movie like we got: critically acclaimed, put ticket buying butts in seats, got people interested in an ailing franchise again.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

I think it's great that JJ did what he did because he has brought interest back into Star Trek, bringing in new viewers to watch it.

 

[Shazam!]

Oh yes, I see your point: Star Trek should be made by basement dwelling fanboys while the franchise owners throw their money to them at a loss.

You have not seen my point.

 

[seigezunt]

I love DS9, but it would not have worked. Kirk and Spock are icons. Viewers would have been all, who's the chick with the spots?

Besides, it would have likely contradicted the relaunch novels. So screw that!

 

[Aike]

Is that something to deny, be shocked by, or be ashamed of?

I don't deny that the movie set out to make fat businessmen as much money as possible, nor am I shocked by it. It is kind of a shame though.

Summer Redstone is not fat...just rich.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The whole jumping on the bandwagon thing. Not to mention a franchise as big as Star Trek just shouldn't have been rebooted. If you think about it, now it's the same as any other remake that's been made recently.

.

Bandwagon? Remakes/reboots are a common creative option. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

I think the fact that "Star Trek" is a big franchise is why it needed to be rebooted. It had become unwieldy and cumbersome.

Same in what way? Some were successful, others bombed.

 

[Sector 7]

Oh yes, I see your point: Star Trek should be made by basement dwelling fanboys while the franchise owners throw their money to them at a loss.

You have not seen my point.

Your point has been to come into every forum with snide remarks about how you hate the movie. You have insulted the intelligence of anyone who likes the movie. Logic has been irrelevant to your cause. Therefore, my statement stands as valid.

"Live long and prosper." -Spock (The way he said it to the council.)

 

[thumbtack]

Oh yes, I see your point: Star Trek should be made by basement dwelling fanboys while the franchise owners throw their money to them at a loss.

Imagine these clowns at a Viacom board meeting... "Gentlemen, we must return Star Trek to the way it used to be!"

.

 

[Shazam!]

Oh yes, I see your point: Star Trek should be made by basement dwelling fanboys while the franchise owners throw their money to them at a loss.

You have not seen my point.

Your point has been to come into every forum with snide remarks about how you hate the movie. You have insulted the intelligence of anyone who likes the movie. Logic has been irrelevant to your cause. Therefore, my statement stands as valid.

SOMEBODY CALL AN AMBULANCE BECAUSE I GOT THIRD DEGREE BURNZZZZZ!@!!!1

 

[M'Sharak]

Oh yes, I see your point: Star Trek should be made by basement dwelling fanboys while the franchise owners throw their money to them at a loss.

You have not seen my point.

Your point has been to come into every forum with snide remarks about how you hate the movie. You have insulted the intelligence of anyone who likes the movie. Logic has been irrelevant to your cause. Therefore, my statement stands as valid.

The previous post (quoted here by Shazam!) could be considered marginally on-topic, but this part you've got backward; it's "post, not poster", remember?

This, however:

"Live long and prosper." -Spock (The way he said it to the council.)

...is completely out of line, and I'm sure you knew it when you posted it. You don't actually use the words "Go fuck yourself", but it's quite clear to anyone acquainted with the movie that that was the message you wished to send, and it is that which earns you a warning for flaming. Comments to PM.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I'm on board with Kirk and Spock were almost a necessity to make this movie a success.

If it had been Picard & Co. it would have failed. people were tired of it. While I liked Generations (today more than a couple of years ago), First Contact and Insurrection, I can see why those last few movies were not that well received.

Especially Nemesis had a feeling of just "yet-another-one-of-those-Trek-Movies".

While a completely new crew on a new ship in a new time frame could have been successful what would have been the point of calling it Star Trek?
If you want to make a movie like that you're probably better off NOT calling it Star Trek, as that would have come with a bad stigma that might even have hurt the movie.
Instead make it your own brand, a new franchise perhaps.

So JJ made the right call. Returning the franchise to the point without any baggage right at the beginning of it all.
Keep the core elements and characters to keep the right to call it Star Trek.
But shed the rest to get rid of the unfair but unfortunate stigma.

 

[JarodRussell]

Were people really tired of the characters and the setting, or of the lameness of the last movie?