Measuring success with box office earnings is flawed.

[RobertScorpio]

No, It's flawed because it's not exclusive now. That's why you want it to be average on the general public.

It's easy to understand: Trek needed to become relevant again in the grand scheme of things. That's why they needed to do this. It's just old fans not wanting Trek to become mainstream.

Or they hold to some TREK idea that never really existed. "STAR TREK is about equality and the human equation", while they watch episodes about DOOMSDAY MACHINES and movies about revenge (Khan)....hooey...Star Trek is about making money and anyone who doubts that really needs to sniff some smelling-salt before DING DING sounds...

Rob

 

[Scarpad]

"It was never necessary to stray so far from the original formula."

Have you watched TOS, season 1, "Arena," lately? A man in a Lizard costume chases Kirk around a sandlot for 40 minutes until he makes a cannon out of dirt and bamboo chutes. The original formula is more present in Abram's version than most Trek in recent years.

Yeah did you watch it... Alien INtruders Destroy a Federation Colony causing massive deaths... Kirk in Revenge mode chases the ship to an unexplored region of Space.. Against Spock's Recomendation to avoid a War.. Aliens Intercede Locking Kirk and the Commander in Battle.. the victory of which will decide his or the alien's species fate. Kirk Wins and finds out in the Meantime that the Federation unknowingly placed an outpost in Gorn's space.. it was they that were the intruders... he also overcame his need for revenge because of this and vowed not to kill the commander to save himself or the crew.. the Aliens repected that .. and it opened the door for Dialog in the future and both Sides won by not choosing war and death... Geez No Lesson there for even us in a Post 911 world huh?

See I too could of wrote up the description condenscendingly like you did.. like most lovers of this movie would too.. because they don't see what made Trek an Enduring 40 year old Legacy..We Mourn what the loss of this legacy.. by the lowest common denominator that is attracted by this new trek.

 

[Scarpad]

Blue - I've been a fan now for about 30 years (wow! I feel old typing that!), and I've been surprised by how many fans have come into Star Trek, yet don't seem to really display the ideals it showcased.

I've seen sexists, racists, narrow-minded, exclusionary and lots of other people become fans, and not at all change their views or want to.

(I don't point to anyone here, I am only mentioning fans who I have known over time).

Exactly you nailed it right there.

 

[Blue_Trek]

Blue - I've been a fan now for about 30 years (wow! I feel old typing that!), and I've been surprised by how many fans have come into Star Trek, yet don't seem to really display the ideals it showcased.

I've seen sexists, racists, narrow-minded, exclusionary and lots of other people become fans, and not at all change their views or want to.

(I don't point to anyone here, I am only mentioning fans who I have known over time).

Maybe they don't care about the ideals and value's they just like the stories and the action. They like the genre of sci-fi whether it be Star Wars, Star Trek, SG1, BSG, Babylon 5. All of them have a level of equality with some fans.

I guess that could be the difference there are some fans that are exclusivly Star Trek fans, but they aren't fans of the genre of all sci-fi

 

[Ryan S]

The discussions in threads like this are why enjoy posting and reading this forum so much.

Guys, I LOVE Star Trek. It wouldn't be to much of a stretch to say that it's had an influence on my life, and I consider myself a well adjusted successful career and family man. I don't live Star Trek, but I do love it.

I started the thread with the narrow focus to educated and perhaps change the way we gauge success. Yes, it's going to make alot of money. Yes, it's getting positive reviews. And yes, I am aware of the current trends towards sequels and movie production these days. Paramount will probably give the next feature another huge budget, maybe even bigger.

The fact that a none-ST fan base is eagerly embracing the brand is not a bad thing. I never wanted a hardcore fans only club to selfishly exclude new a generation. No doubt a new audience is watching Trek and having fun. I don't agree that ST was still relegated to a 'nerds only club', which I consider to be a deragatory and insulting term. It had long since lost that stigma. Culturally it may not be have been cool or hip, but it wasn't that far from the mainstream.

But here is where my opinion and critism start. I guess I expected a bit more from the classic fan base. I think many, but certainly not all of the fans that are rooting for this film do so out of a feeling of vindication, a feeling that their investment, their franchise, and their culture is cool now. That Star Trek has finally achieved star status.

But I return to my orginal argument, what have we achieved and at what cost? We have strayed so far from what trek was to achieve popularity that it really pisses me off. The concept for STXI is not bad, new characters, CGI, a new storyline are OK. But I still contend that the concepts, themes and style that gave this series longevity have been buried. We have been sold out.

Let's really look at this film on it's own merit. What have we got here? Flash and more flash. I've had to dig through all the noise to find the anything close to the classic themes, little as they exist in this film. Each new interation of Trek was an adjustment, but they always paid homage to it's history, that's now gone. I'm confounded by the fact that so many long time fans have so readily accepted this new version without critisism.

But, ultimately, the majority speaks and I accept that fact. Star Trek will move forward as is. And though I will find myself in the minority for a long time to come I will reserve my right to repsectfully disagree.

Long live Star Trek.

 

[Vigilance]

Culturally it may not be have been cool or hip, but it wasn't that far from the mainstream.

I think Trek is and always has been mainstream as a franchise. The latter series weren't that popular but Trek as a whole has been mainstream at least since the 80's.

But here is where my opinion and critism start. I guess I expected a bit more from the classic fan base. I think many, but certainly not all of the fans that are rooting for this film do so out of a feeling of vindication, a feeling that their investment, their franchise, and their culture is cool now. That Star Trek has finally achieved star status.

Well this doesn't characterize my feelings AT ALL.

Sci-fi, fantasy and comics are HUGE right now. But even if they weren't, I always loved Trek and didn't need this movie to "vindicate" me.

Trek has always been cool.

I was rooting for this film to be good, and it was. That's all I needed/wanted from it.

But I return to my orginal argument, what have we achieved and at what cost? We have strayed so far from what trek was to achieve popularity that it really pisses me off. The concept for STXI is not bad, new characters, CGI, a new storyline are OK. But I still contend that the concepts, themes and style that gave this series longevity have been buried. We have been sold out.

Again, I disagree. In fact, I think this movie brought BACK was great about TOS.

TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were *very* different in feel from TOS and this movie, to me, felt more like TOS than anything since ST VI.

So I guess my response would be that what we've achieved is bringing back an amazing cast of characters with a new interpretation by a younger group of actors and a younger staff behind the cameras.

And I don't think Trek was "sold out".

Let's really look at this film on it's own merit. What have we got here? Flash and more flash. I've had to dig through all the noise to find the anything close to the classic themes, little as they exist in this film. Each new interation of Trek was an adjustment, but they always paid homage to it's history, that's now gone. I'm confounded by the fact that so many long time fans have so readily accepted this new version without critisism.

Well, I'm a long time fan. Trek was the first series I was a fan of and I've been watching since the 70's.

And I think this movie DEFINITELY pays homage to Trek's history.

A reboot of a franchise doesn't denigrate what came before, even if it doesn't adhere to that continuity.

The Michael Keaton Batman, the Batman from the animated series and the Batman from Batman Begins are all VERY different and each have their own continuities.

And I enjoy them all.

Similarly, I don't feel I have to pick a side between this movie and the rest of trek, whether it adheres to what came before or not.

I can like them both, on their own merits.

But, ultimately, the majority speaks and I accept that fact. Star Trek will move forward as is. And though I will find myself in the minority for a long time to come I will reserve my right to repsectfully disagree.

And you're welcome to your opinion.

Long live Star Trek.

I agree, and think this movie is the best way to make that happen.

I always felt a move like this was inevitable.

In my mind, Kirk and Spock are the folk heroes of our generation.

And like other folks heroes (King Arthur, Robin Hood, Batman, Superman) destined to be played by many actors and reimagined time and time again.

That doesn't mean such a process can pass without criticism. Frequently actors who play Hamlet are compared unfavorably to those who came before.

But new interpretations are important and, more than anything, fun!

 

[Shaper079]

It seems to me that Gene Roddenbery attempted to make a show in the 60's that had mainstream appeal and slipped many of his messages in metaphor. But ToS had so much action, not to mention mini-skirts, and interstellar hippies to give it mainstream appeal. It wasn't overtly preachy ala TNG. Now 40 years later it seems they are trying to do the same thing. The movie was largely a set-up of the charcters but there were a few Star Trek metaphors there if you look closely. Vulcan prejudice, the high cost of revenge, the value of friendship and diversity; its all there. I think too many fan look at this movie with a TNG eye.

 

[RobertScorpio]

It seems to me that Gene Roddenbery attempted to make a show in the 60's that had mainstream appeal and slipped many of his messages in metaphor. But ToS had so much action, not to mention mini-skirts, and interstellar hippies to give it mainstream appeal. It wasn't overtly preachy ala TNG. Now 40 years later it seems they are trying to do the same thing. The movie was largely a set-up of the charcters but there were a few Star Trek metaphors there if you look closely. Vulcan prejudice, the high cost of revenge, the value of friendship and diversity; its all there. I think too many fan look at this movie with a TNG eye.

You hit it on target..TOS was more sexist in production than the so called 'message' it was sending. People, and I mean REAL people, if they remember TOS it is because of Kirk banging chics and its cardboard sets....I never see "It has a great message" anywhere...

Rob

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Nemesis was a big money loser for Paramount. It had a production budget of 60 million and only made 63 million worldwide. A movie has to bring in at least twice it's production budget to just break even as the production budget does not include the cost of making film prints, advertising, etc.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Moreover, I put forward that Star Trek is different to each person. It is not fair for one person to say that "we've lost what Star Trek is", or "this is not Star Trek", or even "we've lost the legacy and what it all stands for".

What it means to one person may not mean the same to someone else. To me, Star Trek is what this movie exemplifies: adventure and a group of diverse people finding a common ground to solve a problem. I see those in this movie.

To others, it could be more cerebral and something that has a lot of thought going through it, and still to others Star Trek could just be the crew, in the briefing room, talking.

Some fans don't think they've lost Star Trek, nor would it be right, IMO, to make it as if the fans have sacrificed something. The only thing a fan sacrifices is the money they put up to see the movie.

To me, at its base, Star Trek is entertainment. Roddenberry did create it to tell stories and maybe put out some messages here and there. But, he also did that with The Lieutenant, Have Gun Will Travel, and other series.

If all it was to be about was a message every week, then all you'd have to watch now (if it would even had been preserved) would be The Cage, IMO.

 

[Shaper079]

It seems to me that Gene Roddenbery attempted to make a show in the 60's that had mainstream appeal and slipped many of his messages in metaphor. But ToS had so much action, not to mention mini-skirts, and interstellar hippies to give it mainstream appeal. It wasn't overtly preachy ala TNG. Now 40 years later it seems they are trying to do the same thing. The movie was largely a set-up of the charcters but there were a few Star Trek metaphors there if you look closely. Vulcan prejudice, the high cost of revenge, the value of friendship and diversity; its all there. I think too many fan look at this movie with a TNG eye.

You hit it on target..TOS was more sexist in production than the so called 'message' it was sending. People, and I mean REAL people, if they remember TOS it is because of Kirk banging chics and its cardboard sets....I never see "It has a great message" anywhere...

Rob

The message is there, some of it is no longer relevant though. Interracial kiss? Not a big deal. Russian on the bridge? No longer a big deal. In the movie we had a biracial, hell bi-species, guy making out with a black woman in public. Try that in ToS times. In ToS having Nichelle on the bridge at all was a huge deal.

 

[VulcanJedi]

"It was never necessary to stray so far from the original formula."

Have you watched TOS, season 1, "Arena," lately? A man in a Lizard costume chases Kirk around a sandlot for 40 minutes until he makes a cannon out of dirt and bamboo chutes. The original formula is more present in Abram's version than most Trek in recent years.

Yeah did you watch it... Alien INtruders Destroy a Federation Colony causing massive deaths... Kirk in Revenge mode chases the ship to an unexplored region of Space.. Against Spock's Recomendation to avoid a War.. Aliens Intercede Locking Kirk and the Commander in Battle.. the victory of which will decide his or the alien's species fate. Kirk Wins and finds out in the Meantime that the Federation unknowingly placed an outpost in Gorn's space.. it was they that were the intruders... he also overcame his need for revenge because of this and vowed not to kill the commander to save himself or the crew.. the Aliens repected that .. and it opened the door for Dialog in the future and both Sides won by not choosing war and death... Geez No Lesson there for even us in a Post 911 world huh?

See I too could of wrote up the description condenscendingly like you did.. like most lovers of this movie would too.. because they don't see what made Trek an Enduring 40 year old Legacy..We Mourn what the loss of this legacy.. by the lowest common denominator that is attracted by this new trek.

If it weren't for those meddling Metrones, in their togas and sandals, Kirk would have blasted the Gorns to Andromeda.

Kirk reluctantly learned his lesson--as opposed to the smugness of later Trek characters who seemed to have fully "arrived."

There are lessons in the new Trek, but it's back to basics--friendship, value of family, forgiveness and courage. I don't think people were relating to any lessons from recent Trek.

 

[erebus]

Blue - I've been a fan now for about 30 years (wow! I feel old typing that!), and I've been surprised by how many fans have come into Star Trek, yet don't seem to really display the ideals it showcased.

I've seen sexists, racists, narrow-minded, exclusionary and lots of other people become fans, and not at all change their views or want to.

(I don't point to anyone here, I am only mentioning fans who I have known over time).

Yes i like this point, its so ironic Star Trek frequently portrays diversity, inclusion and individualism yet some people seem to balk at the idea that it may become mainstream and insist on promulgating a medieval tribalism. Why can't we celebrate that the mainstream may be becoming enlightened?

For example, In recent years the general public have seen actual advances in technology that approch what star trek depicts and what used to be ridiculed. Perhaps they are becoming excited at the possiblities now.

btw (answering the thread ), it might be a possiblity that box office earnings and the relative merit of this film might actually corrolate positively in this case.