So there has been quite a bit of spirited debate between the supporters and detractors about old vs new Trek so I offer this thread as a new POV on the subject. We all know STXI's budget and that most of that money was used to create the visual elements that have made this film appealing to a wider audience, to the detriment of other areas. Nevertheless it appears that STXI will generate a healthy return for Paramount.
But was it really necessary to create a $150 million summer popcorn flick to 'reboot' the franchise. No Star Trek movie has ever lost money. Nemesis was the only one to come close, just barely breaking even.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/StarTrek.php
Many fans are quoting the high box office gross this movie has generated as proof positive that they got it right. That the franchise was dead and this was the only way to save it. I argue that the Star Trek we new was and has always done quite well, even at it's worst! It was never necessary to stray so far from the original formula.
I certainly believe a prequel/reboot with a new cast and storyline that didn't stray from the more traditional themes and structure with some updated cinematography would have worked, and probably at half the budget. It almost certainly would have made a profit . It's obvious from the reactions in this forum and elsewhere that there was a pent up demand for anything with Trek.
Once again I concede I am in the minority but I guess I should be happy the movie has done well. I am very curoius about how STXII will turn out. Does anyone think Paramount is going to gamble another 150 million on this franchise? Reports are Abrams ran out of money with this feature (thus the refinery/ engineering room and other such shortcuts). How can he possibly do anything with less?
What kind of Star Trek will be left with now if they pull back the budget?
But was it really necessary to create a $150 million summer popcorn flick to 'reboot' the franchise. No Star Trek movie has ever lost money. Nemesis was the only one to come close, just barely breaking even.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/StarTrek.php
Many fans are quoting the high box office gross this movie has generated as proof positive that they got it right. That the franchise was dead and this was the only way to save it. I argue that the Star Trek we new was and has always done quite well, even at it's worst! It was never necessary to stray so far from the original formula.
I certainly believe a prequel/reboot with a new cast and storyline that didn't stray from the more traditional themes and structure with some updated cinematography would have worked, and probably at half the budget. It almost certainly would have made a profit . It's obvious from the reactions in this forum and elsewhere that there was a pent up demand for anything with Trek.
Once again I concede I am in the minority but I guess I should be happy the movie has done well. I am very curoius about how STXII will turn out. Does anyone think Paramount is going to gamble another 150 million on this franchise? Reports are Abrams ran out of money with this feature (thus the refinery/ engineering room and other such shortcuts). How can he possibly do anything with less?
What kind of Star Trek will be left with now if they pull back the budget?