But everybody loves Space Hippies! Besides... They got was they deserved.
Should the next Star Trek movie have a lower budget?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
I thought it was Seven of Nine's wardrobe.
I don't know, The Way to Eden has some interesting ideas in it. It is kind of refreshing to run into Federation citizens who are against the Federation's utopianism. That's the sort of thing you could only get away with in the days before Roddenberry was deified and when Trek wasn't making him any money and therefore he didn't care what went on in an episode.
It will depend on who the director is.
Fair enough. What about...Spock's Brain?
Or "Turnabout Intruder" where no woman is allowed to captain a starship?
Campy fun. If you want truly horrible Trek, the answer is And the Children Shall Lead. That episode has nothing to redeem it. At all.
I'm never happy seeing a movie prospect with a big budget no matter what it is. Just a general instinct I have. A leaner budget tends to discipline the filmmaker. Within the context of having a sufficient warchest in which to carry on a convincing sci-fi film of course.
I don't care about profits and such things.
I don't care about profits and such things.
On a $170 million budget Dawn of the Planet of the Apes(2014) box office gross was $710 million. That franchise has been brought back extremely strong, so why can't Star Trek do the same.
Like Star Trek, Planet Of The Apes began in the '60s. There has to be a direction[script] to make the next Star Trek 4{14} as profitable as Dawn.
Like Star Trek, Planet Of The Apes began in the '60s. There has to be a direction[script] to make the next Star Trek 4{14} as profitable as Dawn.On a $170 million budget Dawn of the Planet of the Apes(2014) box office gross was $710 million. That franchise has been brought back extremely strong, so why can't Star Trek do the same.
The Star Trek name carries baggage.
A franchise with a history of a couple of films carries a hell of a lot less baggage than one with 10 films, 6 TV series and the like, especially when that franchise has a somewhat negative perception among many people (what I call the "Ew, Star Trek?!" factor, since that's precisely the reaction I got when I tried to get colleagues along to watch it).
If overwhelmingly positive reviews and a complete reboot led by Hollywood's hottest director/producer, with a big budget, star cast and plenty of momentum could "only" hit $400-470 million worldwide, it's impossible to see anything which would push them into $700 million territory.
Planet Of The Apes franchise is not just a couple of films.
Granted you are absolutely correct that it does not have the saturation of 6 television series.
It also began in the '60s and , just like Star Trek, includes productions beginning in the '60s:
- Planet Of The Apes (1968)
- Beneath The Planet Of The Apes (1970)
- Escape From The Planet Of The Apes (1971)
- Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes (1972)
- Battle For The Planet Of The Apes (1973)
- Planet Of The Apes (1974-1975) CBS television series
- Return To The Planet Of The Apes (1975-1976) Animated series
- Planet Of The Apes (2001)
- Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (2011)
- Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014)
The 2011 and 2014 films are a reboot. There should be a way to make new Star Trek films as lucrative as the new POTA films. J.J. Abrams did right by "rebooting" Star Trek films, but with STBeyond something different has to be done.
Last edited:
Huh, TIL. Thanks for pointing that out.
Therein might lie the point though. They barely made a dent in the public consciousness after the first couple of movies, with box office grosses of $8-12 million.
By the PotA reboot film, there'd been nothing new for 25+ years. It didn't really have a public perception outside the original film.
09 was less than a decade from a box office bomb and a cancelled series, and following on years of saturation. It had a much more established perception in public consciousness.
Now, if they'd taken advantage of the momentum of 09 with the planned multi-faceted Kelvin productions rather than just two films over the next seven years, we may have seen a sharp upwards trend. Unfortunately, they let the momentum wear off and, after an ambitious and risky second film, followed up with a fun but perhaps too safe third film.
I think it is a case of what might have been, rather than what could still be.
Obviously it is an example of the franchise being reduced to trashy, mindless action films made for milennials with no attention span.
The scene stands in stark contrast to the subtle, nuanced depth of its predecessors, which prompted thoughtful contemplation of our own humanity through Gene's True Vision.
Like that time the eye-patch wearing ham spouted Shakespeare while spinning in his chair, before being spectacularly blown up by our fist-pumping hero.
Plus the scene with Spock describing some of the aspects of that utopia that don't seem all that attractive.
Ice cream?
One Academy Award, two Emmy Awards, two Tony Awards, and a Golden Globe Award.
Actually, the 2001 film by Tim Burton really wasn't that much of a hit. I forget the actual numbers now, but plans for a sequel were scrapped and the franchise lay fallow again for another decade until the next reboot with Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2011, which was not only a hit, but beat the expectations of others as well.
But again, PotA doesn't have that transmedia thing going on, in fact aside from a prequel novel to Dawn comics connected to the original movie continuity doesn't have presence outside of the movies, and the new movies are still pulling in money, despite the fact that next year, six years after Rise, there will only have been two additional movies, not much different from Trek.
Exactly how is STID ambitious and risky? If anything, that was a bit too safe since they were basically remaking TWOK.
Last edited:
Oh, it's used in an affectionate rather than pejorative sense. I'm not sure there's a word for "Guy who's generally a fine actor but is absolutely chewing the scenery for great entertainment value in this one".
Even Shatner described them as like "two ham-asauruses".
Not that Chang is the only scene chewing villain in the franchise. Honestly, it's a tradition that's continued to this day. Khan in TWOK, Kruge in TSFS, the "God" entity in TFF, Chang in TUC, Soran in Generations, the Borg Queen in First Contact, Ru'afo in Insurrection, Shinzon in Nemesis, Nero in ST09, Khan again in Into Darkness(especially the "Shall we begin?" scene), and Edison to a certain extent in Beyond. All of them chewed the scenery at least part of their time on screen if not all the time. And that's not counting the TV shows with the likes of Trelane, Q, Weyoun, the Borg Queen again, and....well, nothing memorable pops up from Enterprise, but I'm sure there are some great hams in that one too among the villains.
They didn't remake TWOK. I don't know how anyone that saw both movies can say that!
Criticizing drone strikes and extrajudicial punishment to me is risky. You take a chance of offending the audience by criticizing the government.
Similar threads
- Poll
