Reasons to be happy / not happy about a 4th film.

[BillJ]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

As to the remake thing: at least I have to confess that the new Star Trek movies - despite not being my cup of tea - are very different from Roddenberry ST.

Depends on which Roddenberry you're referencing?

 

[Franklin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

As to the remake thing: at least I have to confess that the new Star Trek movies - despite not being my cup of tea - are very different from Roddenberry ST.

Depends on which Roddenberry you're referencing?

Kind of funny how they're criticized loudly on the one hand by some for not being anything new: full of homages, Easter eggs, and basic fanboy stuff (too "Star Trekky"). Then on the other hand, some say just as loudly that they are not "Star Trek" at all.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Kind of funny how they're criticized loudly on the one hand by some for not being anything new: full of homages, Easter eggs, and basic fanboy stuff (too "Star Trekky"). Then on the other hand, some say just as loudly that they are not "Star Trek" at all.

Definitely a tough line to walk.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

When watching the new Jurassic Park, I actually wondered how the 'STID is unoriginal!' crowd dealt with that movie. Literally every other scene had a shot that imitated the original, or some sort of other really obvious homage ('obvious' being 'If you're like me and watched the first three films about 50 000 times growing up').

I admit it was starting to bug me by the end ('that Dilophosaurus is literally from the first movie!'), but I'm in the minority there (which is fine). On the other hand, I was totally okay with STID, except for maybe 'KHAAAN!'. A fine line indeed.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

And just to belabor the point, we have a third new PLANET OF THE APES movie in the works. Which people are, naturally, referring to as the third new APES movie.

As a sidebar, I've really enjoyed the two new films and am interested in seeing where they go next.

well Rise was basically a Conquest remake and Dawn was a Battle remake with a only couple of names changed. I think it's easy to say that there were plans for plots after Battle back then. I guess you just have to do a little research, find out what the planned premise for Apes 6 was and voíla, you have the plot for War.

As I understand it, there were never any plans for a sixth APES movie. BATTLE was always intended to be the last theatrical film. The budgets had been cut with each successive film and they simply couldn't possibly make the films any cheaper at that point.

In addition, the producer of the series, Arthur P. Jacobs, was tired of making APES movies and wanted to move onto other projects. So he wrapped things up with BATTLE and sold the rights to finance a musical version of HUCKLEBERRY FINN.

Strange but true.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Hey, are we talking about a 4th Apes movie or Star Trek?

The third Star Trek movie was The Search for Spock.

Yes. This rebooting of the numbers as well promotes revisionistic ideas such as Abrams wanting to do away of all former history and merchandising so he could get all the dollars from new merchandising.

Except, of course, that the new movies aren't actually numbered. There have been no "revisionistic" Roman numerals in the titles of any of the new movies. No official attempts to rebrand the new movie Star Trek III.

Yes, I'm aware of all that and agree it's been shorthand mostly invented by the audience as far as I know. But I read it all the time here and in online articles and news: "Star Trek 1," "Star Trek 2," and coming up - "Star Trek 3." I understand that it's not official (maybe), but it is generally in use. And I understand it's partly because Star Trek 11 was simply named "Star Trek." I'm suggesting that it leaves a revisionistic impression - not that it actually is. It makes us old farts (i.e., over 30) feel forgotten and left out. Heh, it's even possible that some of the insecure anxiety about whether or not Paramount will remember our 50th anniversary, and give us more than cake (the movie), is sourced from that.

One extra thought: Making no attempt to numerically reference the new releases relative to the old, even in conversation, can also be interpreted likewise - distancing from what came before. You might say, well, the Bond movies don't do that either. And Batman, Spiderman, ad nauseum probably get resequenced as well. And you'd be right. But Star Trek has been traditionally sequenced (until now).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

As a sidebar, I've really enjoyed the two new films and am interested in seeing where they go next.

well Rise was basically a Conquest remake and Dawn was a Battle remake with a only couple of names changed. I think it's easy to say that there were plans for plots after Battle back then. I guess you just have to do a little research, find out what the planned premise for Apes 6 was and voíla, you have the plot for War.

As I understand it, there were never any plans for a sixth APES movie. BATTLE was always intended to be the last theatrical film. The budgets had been cut with each successive film and they simply couldn't possibly make the films any cheaper at that point.

In addition, the producer of the series, Arthur P. Jacobs, was tired of making APES movies and wanted to move onto other projects. So he wrapped things up with BATTLE and sold the rights to finance a musical version of HUCKLEBERRY FINN.

Strange but true.

I had a vague memory of that film. So I looked it up. Huck was played by Jeff East, the young Clark Kent in Superman the Movie. He also played Huck in Jacob's musical version of Tom Sawyer opposite Johnny Whitaker and Tom and Jodie Foster as Becky.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Yes. This rebooting of the numbers as well promotes revisionistic ideas such as Abrams wanting to do away of all former history and merchandising so he could get all the dollars from new merchandising.

Except, of course, that the new movies aren't actually numbered. There have been no "revisionistic" Roman numerals in the titles of any of the new movies. No official attempts to rebrand the new movie Star Trek III.

Yes, I'm aware of all that and agree it's been shorthand mostly invented by the audience as far as I know. But I read it all the time here and in online articles and news: "Star Trek 1," "Star Trek 2," and coming up - "Star Trek 3." I understand that it's not official (maybe), but it is generally in use. And I understand it's partly because Star Trek 11 was simply named "Star Trek." I'm suggesting that it leaves a revisionistic impression - not that it actually is. It makes us old farts feel forgotten and left out.

I'm 43 and don't feel left out or forgotten. They were just placeholder names until the films were properly titled. I don't think I've seen anyone reference them by numbers once they got named.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Numbers are so 20th Century.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

But Star Trek has been traditionally sequenced (until now).

Not really. As I mentioned before, they stopped numbering the movies with Generations, over twenty years ago.

So did that distance the new TNG movies from what came before? Did that make the older fans feel forgotten and left out?

I don't think so.

Hell, I'm 55 and I didn't feel "forgotten" then and I don't feel that way now.

 

[nightwind1]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I accept most people will like these films.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Timewalker]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Again, I would argue that putting out a $180 million movie counts as "something."

That's Job One. Anything else is gravy.

(Although I certainly wouldn't object to some nice plomeek soup as a side course.)

It's something for the people who like nuTrek. But for those of us who don't, it's the same as nothing if there aren't any acknowledgements that Star Trek actually was around prior to 2009..

I guess, but there's a difference between "they're not doing what I want" and "they're not doing anything." And I'm a little bemused when folks (not just you) insist that "nothing" is being done at the same time that a new movie has already started filming.

The difference is that yes, a movie is something. But it's only relevant to the people who like nuTrek. If you don't like nuTrek, it's not relevant, and so it feels the same as nothing.

The third Star Trek movie was The Search for Spock.

Yes. This rebooting of the numbers as well promotes revisionistic ideas such as Abrams wanting to do away of all former history and merchandising so he could get all the dollars from new merchandising.

Except, of course, that the new movies aren't actually numbered. There have been no "revisionistic" Roman numerals in the titles of any of the new movies. No official attempts to rebrand the new movie Star Trek III.

Heck, we stopped numbering the movies as far back as Generations. Was that a shameless attempt to sweep the first six movies under the rug?

And if people on-line casually refer to the next movie as the third NuTrek movie, just for ease of conversation, how does that matter if we all know what is being meant?

And would it really change things if they retitled the new movie Star Trek XIII: Beyond?

It hardly matters what's official if popular culture starts renumbering them as though the first Star Trek movie that ever existed was released in 2009, and not 30 years earlier. Perception matters. There were people who said, "Of course Generations was a bad movie. It was an odd number, after all."

And just to belabor the point, we have a third new PLANET OF THE APES movie in the works. Which people are, naturally, referring to as the third new APES movie.

Do you see anybody insisting that it should be properly referred to on-line as the eighth APES movie? Or that Escape is the third movie, darn it!

No, because we all understand that this is a new cycle of APES films, just like BEYOND is part of a new cycle of TREK films.

That's not a slam at the originals. And it's not an insidious plot to erase them from history. It's just reality.

I wouldn't know about Planet of the Apes. I have the original movies plus the TV series on my DVD shelf right now, and their novelizations on my bookshelf. The novelizations of the TV series are also there. Even the original novel the whole series was based on - Monkey Planet - is part of my book collection. I have not seen the new movies and don't plan to.

Old Trek failed completely

In what sense besides financially? A truly failed series wouldn't generate this much interest 50 years later, and I still wouldn't be hunting for original series-based fanzines and replacing my often-read, worn out copies of the older novels.

(Somewhere LOGAN'S RUN weeps and wonders where its reboot is.)

Logan's Run already had its first reboot: the TV series, starring Gregory Harrison and Heather Menzies. I can't imagine improving on the original movie, unless it's closer to the original novel.

I was looking for the novelization, but it is out of stock. They say it's quite different from the movie. Maybe it's better to keep my hands off it, lest I meet with disappointment.

Which eBay and Amazon sites can you access? I found some copies of Logan's Run on the U.S. eBay site for not too horrendous a price, although shipping can often cost more than the book itself, and some eBay sellers blatantly gouge on shipping (as in there is no way in hell it costs $46 USD to ship a thin book like that from the U.S. to Canada).

There were two other novels as well: Logan's World and Logan's Search. There are two comic adaptations that I know of.

I first read Logan's Run when I was about 14 or so... my grandfather would have had a fit if he'd known about some of the content (definitely not suitable for young teens!).

Which, to bring us back OT, is probably why I scratch my head when people insist that there's only one definitive version of STAR TREK . ....

Of course there isn't one definitive version. The fanfic my sig link leads to is very different from how Star Trek is usually interpreted (won't say any more since you're one of the people we're not allowed to discuss this stuff in front of ).

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I'm 43 and don't feel left out or forgotten.

I'm happy for you Bill. My mistake; I should have written "Maybe it makes some old farts feel forgotten and left out." I certainly don't speak for all the farts.

I don't think I've seen anyone reference them by numbers once they got named.

http://www.eonline.com/news/671718/star-trek-3-title-revealed-by-director-justin-lin-take-a-look
You are correct that it was a temporary moniker, but it will stick as a shorthand. As you can see, the media says it's the third Star Trek movie - not the thirteenth.

Hell, I'm 55 and I didn't feel "forgotten" then and I don't feel that way now.

Well, you do have a more inclusive perspective, as part of the Star Trek machine, than I; hardly typical.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

It's something for the people who like nuTrek. But for those of us who don't, it's the same as nothing if there aren't any acknowledgements that Star Trek actually was around prior to 2009..

I guess, but there's a difference between "they're not doing what I want" and "they're not doing anything." And I'm a little bemused when folks (not just you) insist that "nothing" is being done at the same time that a new movie has already started filming.

The difference is that yes, a movie is something. But it's only relevant to the people who like nuTrek. If you don't like nuTrek, it's not relevant, and so it feels the same as nothing.


It hardly matters what's official if popular culture starts renumbering them as though the first Star Trek movie that ever existed was released in 2009, and not 30 years earlier. Perception matters. There were people who said, "Of course Generations was a bad movie. It was an odd number, after all."


I wouldn't know about Planet of the Apes. I have the original movies plus the TV series on my DVD shelf right now, and their novelizations on my bookshelf. The novelizations of the TV series are also there. Even the original novel the whole series was based on - Monkey Planet - is part of my book collection. I have not seen the new movies and don't plan to.

I have the original Apes novel (put out by Penguin I think), and it's just called 'Planet of the Apes.' Did they used to translate it more simply, or did your publisher just decide to be contrary? And it's a pity you're not seeing the new movies, they're very good.

Also, I disagree. Perception (yours, mine or otherwise) doesn't matter when we're talking about whether something is actually happening. The reality is that the new movies aren't numbered, no one (Bad Robot or fans) is revising anything. It's not a real problem, at least not until you can prove that anyone is denying the prior films exist.

And quiet frankly, why would it matter if non-TSFS viewers do forget about the movie completely? It's just a movie, and one they probably wouldn't have remembered existed even if Abrams had never revived the series. I've had two copies of TOS S1, and both had the episodes ordered differently. My original copies of the Next Gen movies didn't have any numbers whatsoever, and now they do. That's blatant revision, and it's not even a big enough concern to be called a 'minor annoyance.'

I don't understand why you bring up Generations. Pegg thought Generations and it's odd-numbered brethren sucked ass, and said so on his TV show. The rule was a result of the odd-numbered movies percieved mediocrity, not the cause of it. If it was as simple as pop culture dismissing all odd numbered movies out of hand, how do you explain the positive reception for 09 and the dismal one for Nemesis?

EDIT: One of these days, I'll learn to type faster.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

It was more about the even-numbered films being good than the odd numbers being bad (glass half full). And it started long, long before anyone heard of Simon Pegg. Nemesis was a fluke. Maybe there was a too-even-to-fail hubris?

 

[fireproof78]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

Except, of course, that the new movies aren't actually numbered. There have been no "revisionistic" Roman numerals in the titles of any of the new movies. No official attempts to rebrand the new movie Star Trek III.

Yes, I'm aware of all that and agree it's been shorthand mostly invented by the audience as far as I know. But I read it all the time here and in online articles and news: "Star Trek 1," "Star Trek 2," and coming up - "Star Trek 3." I understand that it's not official (maybe), but it is generally in use. And I understand it's partly because Star Trek 11 was simply named "Star Trek." I'm suggesting that it leaves a revisionistic impression - not that it actually is. It makes us old farts feel forgotten and left out.

I'm 43 and don't feel left out or forgotten. They were just placeholder names until the films were properly titled. I don't think I've seen anyone reference them by numbers once they got named.

I'm 31 and have felt a part of the TOS part of the group for a number of years, due to that being my favorite series and TUC my favorite film. Heck, I didn't get in to DS9 until "Trials and Tribble-ations."

I don't feel left out or forgotten. I have had many enjoyable moments with magazines, and monthly release of books is something I look in to, IDW (I think) recently published the original script for "City on the Edge of Forever" as a comic.

I guess my point is, Star Trek is fairly active, and enjoyable, at least from what I have seen. The 50th anniversary is probably something that CBS is aware of, but is either waiting for the right time or is simply unwilling to put forth the money right now. CBS doesn't need to do anything right now to make money on Star Trek.

But, that's just me. I like to be optimistic

 

[Timewalker]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

The difference is that yes, a movie is something. But it's only relevant to the people who like nuTrek. If you don't like nuTrek, it's not relevant, and so it feels the same as nothing.


It hardly matters what's official if popular culture starts renumbering them as though the first Star Trek movie that ever existed was released in 2009, and not 30 years earlier. Perception matters. There were people who said, "Of course Generations was a bad movie. It was an odd number, after all."


I wouldn't know about Planet of the Apes. I have the original movies plus the TV series on my DVD shelf right now, and their novelizations on my bookshelf. The novelizations of the TV series are also there. Even the original novel the whole series was based on - Monkey Planet - is part of my book collection. I have not seen the new movies and don't plan to.

I have the original Apes novel (put out by Penguin I think), and it's just called 'Planet of the Apes.' Did they used to translate it more simply, or did your publisher just decide to be contrary?

It's called Monkey Planet, and was written by Pierre Boulle. There is a blurb on the front cover that says it inspired the Planet of the Apes movie.

I don't understand why you bring up Generations. Pegg thought Generations and it's odd-numbered brethren sucked ass, and said so on his TV show. The rule was a result of the odd-numbered movies percieved mediocrity, not the cause of it. If it was as simple as pop culture dismissing all odd numbered movies out of hand, how do you explain the positive reception for 09 and the dismal one for Nemesis?

I never even heard of Simon Pegg until the 2009 movie. I don't know what he did before then, and I don't care what he does at all in his non-nuTrek life. I hope he does a good script that doesn't have the characters acting like they're in a sitcom and that he gets rid of the Captain Frat Boy vibe that nuKirk has had up until now. I hope he makes some effort at not having holes in the plot that you could drive ten starships through. I don't have anything against his portrayal of nuScotty, although that alien sidekick might as well be R2D2 or some other Star Wars-like nonsense intruding into a movie that doesn't need it.

I am quite aware that the movies preceded the perception of the odd-numbered ones being crap. Linear time, right? Unless we're having one of those temporal anomalies going on, it could hardly be the other way around.

As for the "positive" reception for the '09 movie, it wasn't universal. I am not someone who gives a damn about tickets sold or reviews, so none of that is relevant to my opinion of the movie. Basically, if I liked it, I will say it was good. If I didn't like it, I will say it was bad. As the saying goes, "your mileage may vary."

By the time I saw Nemesis, it was on the Space Channel - long after its time in main theatres, cheap theatres, and whatever other media it was released on (not sure if this one came out on VHS). I'd heard a lot of people say it was crap, but as I said, I prefer to make up my own mind. So I watched it and was completely unimpressed.

It was more about the even-numbered films being good than the odd numbers being bad (glass half full). And it started long, long before anyone heard of Simon Pegg. Nemesis was a fluke. Maybe there was a too-even-to-fail hubris?

Wasn't it sometime after The Voyage Home that people were saying the odd-numbered movies were "cursed" and the even-numbered ones were good? Or did that come along after the fifth movie? Anyway, this was literally decades before I ever heard of Simon Pegg. And FWIW, I found much to like about TMP. There aren't many movies I see 5 times in the theatre - that's only happened with TMP, Star Wars, and Contact. There were a few others I would have seen more times if they'd been in town longer.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

It was more about the even-numbered films being good than the odd numbers being bad (glass half full). And it started long, long before anyone heard of Simon Pegg. Nemesis was a fluke. Maybe there was a too-even-to-fail hubris?

I thought Spaced was where the curse was put into the 'mainstream' media, and figured it was relevant when we were talking about public perception. Unless Timewalker was suggesting that even the Trekkies hanging out on message boards, magazines and fan clubs were simply judging Generations based on reputation?

Sure, Nemesis could be a fluke...or it could just be that there's no rule. Remember, infinite diversity in infinite combinations...

 

[Relayer1]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

It was more about the even-numbered films being good than the odd numbers being bad (glass half full). And it started long, long before anyone heard of Simon Pegg. Nemesis was a fluke. Maybe there was a too-even-to-fail hubris?

I thought Spaced was where the curse was put into the 'mainstream' media, and figured it was relevant when we were talking about public perception. Unless Timewalker was suggesting that even the Trekkies hanging out on message boards, magazines and fan clubs were simply judging Generations based on reputation?

Sure, Nemesis could be a fluke...or it could just be that there's no rule. Remember, infinite diversity in infinite combinations...

I quite like Nemesis - flawed as it is, it's one of the best of the (admittedly poor) Next Gen movies.

I just don't see the 'curse of the odd number films'. TMP is close to being my favourite Trek movie. Trek III isn't a patch on TWoK, but it's not bad. Admittedly Trek V is pants, but that's a one off.

I like most of what Pegg has done, and have higher hopes for the new script than the preceeding two. I just wish that I liked him more in the part of Scotty...

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.

I don't mind III and like 09, but otherwise I guess my preferences kind of match the curse. It's just a coincidence though, and I think my actual order of preference (not my 'critical best to worst') wouldn't exactly match most Trekkies.

*Calling down an imaginary ladder* "Hellooo TMP! What's it like allllll the way down there?"