Nu-Trek (Trek-lite?) Similar to Superman Returns?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

gastrof said:
And how many downloads has NV had, showing there's HOW big an audience for original Trek, even with new actors in the roles?

Not to point out that which is obvious to everyone in the world, but how much does NV or any other fan film charge per download?

Don't kid yourself - there is not sufficient interest in Trek recreated just as it was 40 years ago to justify the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in it.

But then, there are clueless folks who are convinced that the world's clamoring for the return of the original BSG, too.

 

[Vektor]

On the subject of new faces in familiar roles and differences in costumes, ship designs, etc: The way I look at it, if I can come home from the movie and describe it to a fellow Trek fan and they don't find any obvious faults with it, it's probably close enough. I'm going into this with the understanding that much of it is going to look different from what we all remember of the original 1960s TV show, but I just don't consider the film's visual authenticity to be all that important in the grander scheme of things. Yes, I would prefer it to look at least similar and to evoke a definite sense of familiarity, but I have no need whatsoever for every last physical detail and nuance to be replicated. I'm far more interested in how the characters are played and how they interact with each other, how well written the story is, how awe-inspiring the visual effects are, and how immersive the overall movie-going experience winds up to be.

 

[ChristopherPike]

gastrof said: If you really cared you'd fly to California late next year, put together a camoflage outfit for yourself, sneak into Paramount at night, find the finished film WEEKS before its release date, and watch it then and there.

Oh great! Tell everyone about the plan why don't cha?

Switch the word "watch" with the word "burn" while you're at it...

 

[Kegek]

ChristopherPike said:

gastrof said: If you really cared you'd fly to California late next year, put together a camoflage outfit for yourself, sneak into Paramount at night, find the finished film WEEKS before its release date, and watch it then and there.

Oh great! Tell everyone about the plan why don't cha?

Switch the word "watch" with the word "burn" while you're at it...

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Watch the film, complain about it on the internet, and burn down Walter Koenig's house. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Noname Given]

gastrof said:

North Pole-aris said:

Why couldn't they have gone the New Voyages route and changed only the faces?

They'd like to make some money.

And how many downloads has NV had, showing there's HOW big an audience for original Trek, even with new actors in the roles?

Ah! But how many downloads would New Voyages have had, if they had they charged money to view an episode of theirs?

(Not saying they would/should; but given you are using the number of downloads they've had as support of your claim, that's a fair question as 'Star Trek (2008)' will not be a 'free' film).

Do you really think a new Star Trek film would make money an appeal to anyone beyond hard core Star Trek fans if they kept the same set design elements as the 41 year old TV series; or the last TOS film from 1991?

The simple fact is (from Paramount's viewpoint): The general public is tired of the type of Star Trek we've had from 1966 - 2005. Thus they are willing to see if the general public's interest in Star Trek can be revived by a slight shake up to the formula.

Also, with regard to my erlier post - I wasn't contradicting myself as I didn't say the faces weren't an issue; I said it wasn't the MAIN issue; and I also explained my thoughts as to the reasons why Paramount didn't want to return to the 23rd century using a different crew/Starship. 'Star Trek' (the original) is the Starship Enterprise and Kirk, Spock, etc. If you read the whole post in tne context it's given in, there is no contradiction; even if you don't agree with my reasoning as stated in that post.

Paramount is doing this film to try and get the general public interested in 'Star Trek' again; if they manage to get some of the current hard core Star Trek fan base to support the film; that's great; but we are not the main target audience the studio is shooting for with this film.

 

[T'Cal]

Santa T. Claus said:
"Superman Returns" attempted to be a sequel, a remake, and a re-imagining all at the same time. And, in my opinion, it was a disappointment on many levels.

So I'm obviously hoping that "Star Trek" doesn't go that route.

Great description of SR! I was so looking forward to that film especially with Kevin Spacey as Luthor. What a bad movie. Continuity was all over the map and the directing and acting stunk, too.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

T'Cal said:

Santa T. Claus said:
"Superman Returns" attempted to be a sequel, a remake, and a re-imagining all at the same time. And, in my opinion, it was a disappointment on many levels.

So I'm obviously hoping that "Star Trek" doesn't go that route.

Great description of SR! I was so looking forward to that film especially with Kevin Spacey as Luthor. What a bad movie. Continuity was all over the map and the directing and acting stunk, too.

But at least it looked pretty.

And the crashing airplane scene was kickass.

 

[gastrof]

Kegek Kringle said:
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Watch the film, complain about it on the internet, and burn down Walter Koenig's house. Rinse and repeat.

Ummm...

Could I ask why you'd want to do that to him?

 

[Basil]

The fact that it's called "Star Trek," with no subtitle, suggests strongly that it will be in some way a reimagining of what we know. My hope is that the time travel storyline will allow at least the end of the film to show us the universe we're already familiar with from the original show.

 

[gastrof]

North Pole-aris said:

Not to point out that which is obvious to everyone in the world, but how much does NV or any other fan film charge per download?

Don't kid yourself - there is not sufficient interest in Trek recreated just as it was 40 years ago to justify the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in it.

But then, there are clueless folks who are convinced that the world's clamoring for the return of the original BSG, too.

There's no point in insulting people who have different interests than you do.

As for "interest", if the number of people downloading the webisodes doesn't show there's interest, I don't know what would. Their not spending money to do so has nothing to do with it.

Also, as for "recreating it just as it was", if "just as it was" isn't what gives it "legs", then what does?

Just what IS it they're going on? What IS it they're offering to the public?

If it's not really "the real thing", then why are they doing it as they are? Why are they calling it "Star Trek" and using Kirk, Spock, etc.

If they wanted to do something DIFFERENT from the original, why didn't they do THAT? Place it in the 25th century and have it be its own thing, maybe not even part of the Trek universe.

If they want to do the original again, then DO IT.

If they want something new, then do THAT.

If the original is so "bad" and "dated" that nobody would come see it...

Then why are Kirk and Spock characters in this film?

I just don't see your reasoning on this. I really don't. No insult intended, but it just makes no sense to me.

 

[The Doctor]

You're presenting a false dichotomy here. There are plenty of Trek fans who downloaded 'New Voyages' out of curiosity, and who don't give a fig over how faithful the look is (or isn't.) I guarentee you that there is no huge groundswell of fans lurking out there, waiting to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a faithful remake of TOS, right down to the wood pattern on the turbolift doors.

Besides, we're all going to see this movie anyhow, so catering to the needs of the hardcore seems superfluous.

 

[gastrof]

The Stig said:
You're presenting a false dichotomy here. There are plenty of Trek fans who downloaded 'New Voyages' out of curiosity, and who don't give a fig over how faithful the look is (or isn't.) I guarentee you that there is no huge groundswell of fans lurking out there, waiting to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a faithful remake of TOS, right down to the wood pattern on the turbolift doors.

Besides, we're all going to see this movie anyhow, so catering to the needs of the hardcore seems superfluous.

If those who download NV aren't so interested in more of the original, then what ARE they interested in?

Also, as asked above, if they don't want to do more of the original, then why are they using Kirk and Spock and setting it in that era?

Why not do the same story with other characters in a different era?

If it's the draw of original TOS they're depending on to get this movie an audience, then why are they actually offering something else?

Everyone likes "this", so we'll give them "thus".

Huh?

 

[Noname Given]

gastrof said:

The Stig said:
You're presenting a false dichotomy here. There are plenty of Trek fans who downloaded 'New Voyages' out of curiosity, and who don't give a fig over how faithful the look is (or isn't.) I guarentee you that there is no huge groundswell of fans lurking out there, waiting to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a faithful remake of TOS, right down to the wood pattern on the turbolift doors.

Besides, we're all going to see this movie anyhow, so catering to the needs of the hardcore seems superfluous.

If those who download NV aren't so interested in more of the original, then what ARE they interested in?

Also, as asked above, if they don't want to do more of the original, then why are they using Kirk and Spock and setting it in that era?

Why not do the same story with other characters in a different era?

If it's the draw of original TOS they're depending on to get this movie an audience, then why are they actually offering something else?

Everyone likes "this", so we'll give them "thus".

Huh?

Actually, I explained it in my original post where you beliieve I contradict myself here

You obviously have a different viewpoint/opinion; but the simple fact is that using different characters/ships IS what has caused public disinterest in the 'Star Trek' franchise Paramount's eyes; thus the 'back to basics' approach; meaning Kirk, Spock, et al. in their prime; and not aged veterans coming out of retirement yet again; or the next and latest 'new' crew of the Starship Enterprise.

 

[Woulfe]

Trek Lite ?

No we've had that for nearly 20 years, we're done with it.
We're back to HARD CORE trek, not lite or diet trek.
This one has REAL sugar and cafeine in it.
It's not New Trek, it's Trek Classic.

( Think of the whole New Coke thing basicly )

 

[Mordock]

gastrof said:

Kegek Kringle said:
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Watch the film, complain about it on the internet, and burn down Walter Koenig's house. Rinse and repeat.

Ummm...

Could I ask why you'd want to do that to him?

Well, I say he's had it coming for a while now. Did you see his one-man Broadway musical revue Koenig!? Dreadful.

Don't worry about it, though, it's more the sort of thing fans talk about and never do, like doing a homebrew mod of your Razr to make it look like a TOS communicator.

 

[Kegek]

Mordock said:
Could I ask why you'd want to do that to him?

Isn't it obvious? You hated the movie.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Superman Returns is a good example, one I have thought of many a time. Despite whatever shortcomings people perceived about that film, it did polarize the Superman fanbase to a considerable degree, and one has to imagine if Abrams’ film will achieve that with the Star Trek fanbase.

That’s the biggest comparison I can think of, in directly relating the two films.

 

[Therin of Andor]

gastrof said:
And how many downloads has NV had

Probably lots and lots but... it is free!

JacksonArcher said:
one has to imagine if Abrams’ film will achieve that with the Star Trek fanbase.

TAS, TMP, ST II, ST IV and ST V polarized fandom, too. Some loved 'em, some hated 'em.

gastrof said:
Why not do the same story with other characters in a different era?

And then there's "Starship Exeter", which is TOS era with new characters and a different ship.

I was in the first one and when I show it to non-fans they say, "So who's playing Kirk, Spock and McCoy"?

 

[theARE]

With Superman Returns though, at least the people behind it had the balls to come out and say what they where keeping continuity wise and what they where throwing out.

They basically said that they where keeping the first 2 movies and throwing out the ones that came after.

It was decisive and brave move. I would much rather J.J. and co did the same upfront rather than having the film be a continuity mishmash which I fear this film will be.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

theARE said:
It was decisive and brave move. I would much rather J.J. and co did the same upfront rather than having the film be a continuity mishmash which I fear this film will be.

Their job is to make a movie, not tell us what it is and how to perceive it.

Of course, Paramount does employ people to do that. Stone them, stone them!