Should it have been a straight reboot?

[JarodRussell]

I It is as chaotic as the Harry Potter series is consistent in its literary trajectory.

Considering the failure of the last two TNG movies as a whole, I would think a Harry Potter comparison would be a compliment

Hm... Nemesis was a failure indeed. Insurrection was not. Adjusted for inflation, Insurrection did just as well as Undiscovered Country. And was that one a failure?

Really, please stop blaming Insurrection, as it really wasn't the problem.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Nah. I like what they did. It took more effort and created a more unique attempt at re-establishing the franchise than most.

 

[Disillusioned]

I still think the fact that a total reboot worked for BSG, proves that it would also work for Trek.

5 series + 10 movies > 1 season + a few episodes of an aborted series

And BSG really lost a lot o f its luster after the first season.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I still think the fact that a total reboot worked for BSG, proves that it would also work for Trek.

nuBSG did include a few table scraps tossed at the feet of old BSG fans, but this didn't mean the remake was a literal sequel or prequel - obviously it's not. Same story could always apply here.

And I still say, it did. Once again, there's nothing that canonically establishes FutureSpock really is from the "Prime Universe" of the previous TV series/movies. For all we know he comes from a universe where there was only ever one Enterprise and nothing else.

 

[Cyke101]

I It is as chaotic as the Harry Potter series is consistent in its literary trajectory.

Considering the failure of the last two TNG movies as a whole, I would think a Harry Potter comparison would be a compliment

Hm... Nemesis was a failure indeed. Insurrection was not. Adjusted for inflation, Insurrection did just as well as Undiscovered Country. And was that one a failure?

Really, please stop blaming Insurrection, as it really wasn't the problem.

Critically speaking, it was received as a failure. It couldn't maintain the momentum of the popular First Contact. The cast and director (Mister Frakes) didn't like the script. It started a downward trend of quality. If Insurrection was as successful as First Contact but Nemesis remained a failure, would there be a need for Abrams to go back to TOS? Perhaps not.

(also, important to note: Rottentomatoes gives INS 54%, or a Rotten rating. They give TUC 81%, or a Fresh rating. TUC comes out the winner here. There's more to a movie than simple dollar signs)

Besides, these days, studios aim for sequels to capitalize and improve upon the original's numbers: Spider-Man 2 & 3 did better than Spider-Man, Dark Knight did better than Batman Begins, etc. etc. To fail to do that plays a large part in classifying a film as a relative failure, but it's not the only part.

And lastly, I said "...as a whole." Even if you think one movie is great (and you're entitled to think that) but the other crap, that crap brings the whole average down. Basic math.

 

[I am not Spock]

I enjoyed the new film a lot, but the 'alternate timeline' stuff was a bone thrown to us fans, and it probably hurt the film for casual viewers, I think. I say if they wanted a reboot, they should have come straight out and said it, rather than adding in all the time travel stuff.

 

[trevanian]

Hindsight is 20/20. If they had gone with a straight reboot, the boards would have been flooded for months before with "this is a mistake," "They have no respect for what came before!" and other such nonsense. My guess is that older, casual fans would have been less likely to see it without the Nimoy stamp of approval (seriously, this was a major factor for some of the 40+folks I know who saw it), and entertainment reporters may have very well cast it in a more skeptical light. Yeah it would have circumvented a lot of the minor quibbles, but its doubtful that would have really satisfied the hardcore fanboys. In the end, for the vast majority of the community, it worked as presented, and that's what matters.

See, and these are all the things that KEPT me from seeing the film. If they started over and dragged out all this 'built on earth' stuff, it would have been, 'okay, maybe I'll go watch this stupid movie pretending to be ST' but by trying to wrap it into a variant on what went before, they were contaminating/pissing on what went before, and that DID keep me out of the theater.

Well to be scrupulously honest, I'd never pay to see a movie with this many lens flares (I've seen the first 7min on youtube and it is atrocious), it would be like paying to see a kid's sci fi movie in super 8 from 1971, where every shot uses the zoom lens. But except for that huge cosmetic defect that I find utterly disgraceful for ANY feature film, these various improvements alterations that I see as fuckups might not have kept me out of the theater if it had been a straight reboot.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

Well to be scrupulously honest, I'd never pay to see a movie with this many lens flares (I've seen the first 7min on youtube and it is atrocious), it would be like paying to see a kid's sci fi movie in super 8 from 1971, where every shot uses the zoom lens. But except for that huge cosmetic defect that I find utterly disgraceful for ANY feature film, these various improvements alterations that I see as fuckups might not have kept me out of the theater if it had been a straight reboot.

Ya know, I saw the movie twice before I noticed lens flares. I read about the lens flares here before the third time.

I think the lens flare thing is a bit exaggerated by people.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Ya know, I saw the movie twice before I noticed lens flares. I read about the lens flares here before the third time.

I think the lens flare thing is a bit exaggerated by people.

I'm with you!

 

[SilentP]

Ya know, I saw the movie twice before I noticed lens flares. I read about the lens flares here before the third time.

I think the lens flare thing is a bit exaggerated by people.

I'm with you!

As am I!

And to be honest, for those who really have a problem with it, JJ seems to agree with you, and is likely to not include so many in the next one (something about the lens flares were actually physically and deliberately present when they shot the scenes and couldn't be removed in editing).

 

[Tyralak]

I think the lens flare thing is a bit exaggerated by people.

Agreed. I barely noticed it.

 

[Red Ranger]

In 20 years or so, when they do yet another version of ST, I bet they do a complete reboot without a nod to either the first or second version. It was a unique way of retooling the franchise, though. After all, you never saw that in any Superman or Batman reboot. I do kind of fall in the "straight reboot" camp now, though, even though months ago I was fine with the way they did it. And the next time they do a reboot, I hope Kirk doesn't go from cadet to captain in hours! -- RR

 

[thumbtack]

Hm... Nemesis was a failure indeed. Insurrection was not. Adjusted for inflation, Insurrection did just as well as Undiscovered Country.

Hm... A quick visit to boxofficemojo.com (or any other movie site) reveals that TUC did 74.9M in 1991 dollars and Insurrection did 70.1M in 1998 dollars.

Adjusted for inflation, TUC clobbered Insurrection at the box office.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I loved this movie...but I would have preferred they just told the origin of the Enterprise crew in our universe using new actors. I would have had old Spock on Romulus during a peace treaty (or possibly after Nemesis trying to forge a peace with the new Romulan government) tell the story of Captain Kirk's first mission as Captain of the Enterprise (we would need to retcon some of the events of Where No Man Has Gone Before to include Checkov, and McCoy).

 

[JarodRussell]

Hm... Nemesis was a failure indeed. Insurrection was not. Adjusted for inflation, Insurrection did just as well as Undiscovered Country.

Hm... A quick visit to boxofficemojo.com (or any other movie site) reveals that TUC did 74.9M in 1991 dollars and Insurrection did 70.1M in 1998 dollars.

Adjusted for inflation, TUC clobbered Insurrection at the box office.

Worldwide, TUC made 96 million, INS made 112 million.

 

[thumbtack]

Worldwide, TUC made 96 million, INS made 112 million.

Again, not adjusted.

1991 ticket = $6.75
1998 ticket = $8.50

Ah, the good old days.

 

[JarodRussell]

While we're at it... how successful is the new movie compared to TUC, taken the budget/gross relation into account?

TUC: made 2.7 times its budget domestically, 3.5 worldwide.
Generations: made 1.9 times its budget, 3.1 worldwide
First Contact: made 2 times its budget, 3.2 worldwide, and FC even has a 93% Fresh rating on RT.
INS: made 1.2 times its budget, 2 worldwide.
nuTrek: made 1.8 times its budget, 2.7 worldwide.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Budgets are misleading. IIRC, Star Trek The Motion Picture barely broke even despite HUGE box office returns.

 

[Cyke101]

While we're at it... how successful is the new movie compared to TUC, taken the budget/gross relation into account?

TUC: made 2.7 times its budget domestically, 3.5 worldwide.
Generations: made 1.9 times its budget, 3.1 worldwide
First Contact: made 2 times its budget, 3.2 worldwide, and FC even has a 93% Fresh rating on RT.
INS: made 1.2 times its budget, 2 worldwide.
nuTrek: made 1.8 times its budget, 2.7 worldwide.

Even with the evidence that the other posters have put up, INS seems to have made the least amount proportionately compared to the rest on your list. So yeah, it's still a dud. It's nice that nuTrek is in the same ballpark as Generations and First Contact; those numbers plus DS9's creativity and Voyager's ratings was probably the height of contemporary Trek's popularity.

Additionally, newtype_alpha's correct on misleading budgets. TMP's paradoxical success and failure is what facilitated the huge revamp for TWOK.

I'm reminded of the Ocean's 11 franchise. Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney have both said they want to make a fourth film. However, each film made less than the last, and while they were all very profitable, the last one was considered not profitable enough that the studio is balking at the idea of a fourth film. It's just another lesson that the big picture has to be taken into account.

 

[Sector 7]

Ya know, I saw the movie twice before I noticed lens flares. I read about the lens flares here before the third time.

I think the lens flare thing is a bit exaggerated by people.

I'm with you!

As am I!

And to be honest, for those who really have a problem with it, JJ seems to agree with you, and is likely to not include so many in the next one (something about the lens flares were actually physically and deliberately present when they shot the scenes and couldn't be removed in editing).

I think the lens flare thing is a bit exaggerated by people.

Agreed. I barely noticed it.

I kept reading about the dreaded lens flares on this board. Once the Kelvin came onscreen I forgot to look for those dreaded lens flares. This movie captured me from the first scene until the last... there were lens flares?