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

[Ryan8bit]

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

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.

What I was mostly referring to was Insurrection/Nemesis/Enterprise. Those failed financially and didn't do too well critically. When I think of Star Trek, those aren't what I usually think of.

The original series was different. Yes, it was cancelled because of the ratings, but its huge comeback in syndication signified something. It's why the reboots have gone back to it as a source, and it's part of why we're all here. That kind of "failure" is not what I was referring to, although it could just as easily apply. These new movies could do poorly financially, and that does not preclude new Trek from ever being made.

I think a fair question though is: how many times can it fail before studios see it as no longer viable? Nemesis failed in 2002, Enterprise was cancelled due to low ratings in 2005 and ratings had been constantly sliding since TNG went off the air in 1994.

There are several franchises with a history of multiple failures that always seem to come back, despite their "comebacks" being pretty awful. And it's mainly because the original (or something close to the original) had great appeal, not the part that failed. They're not going to continue Nemesis, Enterprise, or basically anything that was part of the decline.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

That is a definite plus, especially if you're trying to attract a new generation of viewers.

For better or for worse, there used to be a perception out there that you needed to be a Trekkie to really enjoy STAR TREK, that it was too complicated to get into if you hadn't seen all the previous movies and shows. That it was too late to climb aboard if you weren't already a dedicated Trekkie.

In reality, I think TREK was always more accessible than that. You can watch the average TREK movie or TNG episode without having to speak Klingon or whatever. But the perception was definitely out there; I used to run into it at neighborhood barbecues, family reunions, bookstore signings, etc.

"I don't get STAR TREK. It's too complicated."

And, to be fair, this is not just a TREK thing. Suppose somebody invited to you to go see SAMURAI VAMPIRES VIII and you hadn't seen any of the previous seven flicks. You'd probably wonder if there was any point in seeing the new one. "Nah, I'll pass. I'd probably be totally lost."

There comes a point where long Roman numerals after the title become a liability, discouraging newcomers from seeing the movie.

One of the smartest things about the 2009 movie was that it was conceived of and marketed as a good "jumping-on" point for newcomers. You wanted to send the message that you don't have to have seen all the previous shows and movies to enjoy the "new" STAR TREK--to combat that perception I was talking about before.

And obviously it worked.

 

[JWPlatt]

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

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

That is a definite plus, especially if you're trying to attract a new generation of viewers.

For better or for worse, there used to be a perception out there that you needed to be a Trekkie to really enjoy STAR TREK, that it was too complicated to get into if you hadn't seen all the previous movies and shows. That it was too late to climb aboard if you weren't already a dedicated Trekkie.

Your description really does sound like a cargo ship jettisoning its cargo and leaving it behind to go faster.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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

I think Greg Cox is spot on there, and it doesn't sound like a cargo ship jettisoning its cargo at all.

 

[Ovation]

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

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

That is a definite plus, especially if you're trying to attract a new generation of viewers.

For better or for worse, there used to be a perception out there that you needed to be a Trekkie to really enjoy STAR TREK, that it was too complicated to get into if you hadn't seen all the previous movies and shows. That it was too late to climb aboard if you weren't already a dedicated Trekkie.

Your description really does sound like a cargo ship jettisoning its cargo and leaving it behind to go faster.

No, it doesn't. What it sounds like is a new, bigger ship has arrived, one that can not only carry the passengers of the previous model, but a whole whack of new passengers as well. The old ones are free to reminisce about the old ship, even wish the new one had certain features from the old one, but there's room for everyone on the new ship. And if the thought of traveling on the new one is not all that appealing, then for those people, there is no requirement to go on the new journey. The choice not to go is theirs. But there's plenty of room for everybody on the new one.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

That is a definite plus, especially if you're trying to attract a new generation of viewers.

For better or for worse, there used to be a perception out there that you needed to be a Trekkie to really enjoy STAR TREK, that it was too complicated to get into if you hadn't seen all the previous movies and shows. That it was too late to climb aboard if you weren't already a dedicated Trekkie.

Your description really does sound like a cargo ship jettisoning its cargo and leaving it behind to go faster.

No, you're just making boarding more user-friendly.

"Accessible" is not a dirty word. And we're not really talking content here. We're talking marketing.

Long Roman numerals, and the perception that you can't see the new movie unless you've the seen all the previous ones, are not selling points. They're liabilities, marketing-wise.

Honestly, I would've marketed the 2009 movie the same way.

(Says the guy who has written way too much sales copy in his time.)

 

[Jedi_Master]

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

Using numerals to designate sequels is a disappearing practice in the movie business anyway.

 

[Franklin]

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

That is a definite plus, especially if you're trying to attract a new generation of viewers.

For better or for worse, there used to be a perception out there that you needed to be a Trekkie to really enjoy STAR TREK, that it was too complicated to get into if you hadn't seen all the previous movies and shows. That it was too late to climb aboard if you weren't already a dedicated Trekkie.

Your description really does sound like a cargo ship jettisoning its cargo and leaving it behind to go faster.

Well yes, it did get rid of a lot of baggage, and I'd say that was a good thing.

It went back to the basics -- selling the characters, clean and simple, unfettered by having to bear in mind what happened in "episode seventeen of the fifth season of a series," and "episode twenty of the third season of another series," or "episode two of the last season of yet another series." And who the hell knows what's being contradicted or retconned, even if one's being careful.

This Trek is like watching TOS for the first time, again. True terra incognita for the first time since 1966.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

Using numerals to designate sequels is a disappearing practice in the movie business anyway.

And it was only really in vogue for a few decades anyway.

Prior to the seventies, sequels had actual titles: BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, SON OF ZORRO, THE PINK PANTHER RETURNS, CHARLIE CHAN AT THE OPERA, TARZAN AND THE LOST CITY, ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES, etc.

It wasn't JAMES BOND 3: GOLDFINGER. It was just GOLDFINGER.

Somewhere in the seventies, the studios decided that Roman and Arabic numerals were somehow "classier," no doubt to distinguish prestigious A-list fare like THE GODFATHER II from the likes of GIDGET GOES HAWAIIAN. But then, ironically, the convention was adopted for pretty much all sequels, from POLICE ACADEMY to FRIDAY THE 13TH, defeating the original purpose.

But that trend may be reversing itself . . . .

 

[gazomg]

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

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

Correct

There are ten star trek movies, and then these things

It's completely clear that that's not at all what I meant.

Not really I thought your post was set in the alternate reality

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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

Correct

There are ten star trek movies, and then these things

It's completely clear that that's not at all what I meant.

Not really I thought your post was set in the alternate reality

Yes, I have interdimensional posting powers. I'm awesome like that.

 

[JWPlatt]

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

But that trend may be reversing itself . . . .

And it will be again. That's the beauty of it.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

But that trend may be reversing itself . . . .

And it will be again. That's the beauty of it.

To be honest, I kinda prefer the pulpier, old-school movie titles. Strictly numerical titles like GHOSTBUSTERS 2 or BACK TO THE FUTURE 3 are boring by comparison.

But the "SERIES TITLE: Subtitle" thing works, too.

Numbering the movies only really comes in handy years after the fact, when you're revisiting an old series and trying to remember what exactly the order is.

In the present, the new movie is the new movie and the next movie is the next movie and that's all the average moviegoer really needs to know.

I imagine most people just ask for "two adults and one child for STAR TREK" at the box office. If they don't just order their tickets on-line by clicking on a box on a computer screen.

 

[JWPlatt]

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

There seems to be a trend toward deriving very concise titles for a remake or sequel from its more verbose ancestor, either from title or story.

"Gone with the Wind" might become simply "Wind" or "Tara" and so forth.

Using "Trek" as a connecting verb ("Into Darkness," "Beyond") is a little too clever or cute for my sensibilities.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

There seems to be a trend toward deriving very concise titles for a remake or sequel from its more verbose ancestor, either from title or story.

"Gone with the Wind" might become simply "Wind" or "Tara" and so forth.

Using "Trek" as a connecting verb ("Into Darkness," "Beyond") is a little too clever or cute for my sensibilities.

Yeah, the days of truly outlandish titles, like TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA or SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER, maybe be behind us at the moment. Although the Indiana Jones films did their best to keep pulp-style titles alive and I did just watch the trailer for SHARKTOPUS VS. WHALEWOLF.


You can actually see the phenomenon at work in STAR TREK, where flowery titles like "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" or "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" gave way to simpler titles like "Contagion" or "Cathexis" or whatever.

There are exceptions, of course. TOS had "Obsession" and "The Menagerie" and the latter-day shows occasionally let loose with something more elaborate, but, in general, the modern shows seemed to prefer shorter, simpler titles than TOS.

 

[Trekkin]

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

Some ridiculously overused stock subtitles and episode titles in movies and television:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StockSubtitle

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StockEpisodeTitles

Count how many were used over the Berman era. I think Trek might be starting to run out of 'concise' titles. I mean, they already doubled up on 'First Contact'.

 

[eyeresist]

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

I'm not precious about the new Star Trek movie stealing TSFS's number, but I do think there is a good marketing idea which will probably be overlooked:
Around the time Beyond comes out, they should reissue TWOK, TSFS and TVH in one inexpensive package, with visual design tying it to NuTrek, and the title "The Original Star Trek Trilogy". I think NuTrek fans hyped for the new movie would be glad of an easy way to access the best of old Trek.

Oh, Timewalker, I thoroughly recommend the new APES movies, which are actually very good films. Feel free to skip the Tim Burton version, though.

I tried to watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and lasted about three minutes....

 

[Greg Cox]

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

I'm not precious about the new Star Trek movie stealing TSFS's number, but I do think there is a good marketing idea which will probably be overlooked:
Around the time Beyond comes out, they should reissue TWOK, TSFS and TVH in one inexpensive package, with visual design tying it to NuTrek, and the title "The Original Star Trek Trilogy". I think NuTrek fans hyped for the new movie would be glad of an easy way to access the best of old Trek.

Oh, Timewalker, I thoroughly recommend the new APES movies, which are actually very good films. Feel free to skip the Tim Burton version, though.

I tried to watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and lasted about three minutes....

Have you seen DAWN? It's very much a remake of BATTLE, but much, much better.

The original 1968 movie is still, of course, the best of the bunch, old and new, and one of my very favorite films.

 

[Mudd]

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

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

Correct

There are ten star trek movies, and then these things

The first ten movies were just practice.

 

[gazomg]

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

One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.

Correct

There are ten star trek movies, and then these things

The first ten movies were just practice.

correct

practice was good but when it came to the crunch it choked when it mattered