So what will Paramount do when Star Trek XI tanks?

[Kieran]

Considering the no name actors and piss-poor, rehashed storyline, Trek XI is a probable disaster akin to the failure that was Nemsamess.

So... what will Paramount do when this film utterly fails?

Personally, I hope the film does well because if it doesn't, it might spell the death of Trek for a decade... but considering the storyline, things look very, very bad for the franchise.

 

[Skywalker]

It'll keep on chugging along and try again in a few years.

Not much will change for fandom, I think.

 

[Jon1701]

Kieran said:
Considering the no name actors and piss-poor, rehashed storyline, Trek XI is a probable disaster akin to the failure that was Nemsamess.

So... what will Paramount do when this film utterly fails?

Personally, I hope the film does well because if it doesn't, it might spell the death of Trek for a decade... but considering the storyline, things look very, very bad for the franchise.

I'd like to take a look into your crystal ball, as no-one really knows what the plot is yet. Nothing is confirmed, all we've seen so far are some blurry long range shots from a car park, and a crazy old man with a placard telling us they can't use his 40 year old plot device.

Are you sure the lead actors dont actually have names? I'm sure some of them have. What would you call them? It's going to be very confusing on set - I pity the 3rd AD. I'm sure Chris Pine has a name, I've heard him called "Chris Pine" several times.

And Leonard Nimoy. He's had a name for years.

 

[StCoop]

What storyline would that be then? The same one that inspired Harlan Ellison's (now retracted) Hissy Fit? Last time I checked no one outside of the people actually making the film really knows what it's about.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Kieran said:
Considering the no name actors and piss-poor, rehashed storyline, Trek XI is a probable disaster

"Lost" didn't have that many known actors when it started on TV, and it greatly resembles "Gilligan's Island" and the always ratings-troubled "Twilight Zone".

Most of us already knew the storyline of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy (not many names there either!) and James Cameron's "Titanic", but they were highly successful movies, both critically and financially.

 

[ITL]

jon17HoHoHo1 said:
I'm sure Chris Pine has a name, I've heard him called "Chris Pine" several times.

And Leonard Nimoy. He's had a name for years.

Excellence. On. A. Stick.

Twice.

 

[Patrickivan]

If this goes under, there won't be any more Star Trek for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time, if at all. Only fan produced and published stuff will remain.

It should be fine though- I think they're investing a great deal of money and effort because they really want it to work. Only time will tell...

 

[23skidoo]

Therin of Andor said:

Kieran said:
Considering the no name actors and piss-poor, rehashed storyline, Trek XI is a probable disaster

"Lost" didn't have that many known actors when it started on TV, and it greatly resembles "Gilligan's Island" and the always ratings-troubled "Twilight Zone".

Most of us already knew the storyline of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy (not many names there either!) and James Cameron's "Titanic", but they were highly successful movies, both critically and financially.

Exactly, and you don't need "name" actors to sell a movie. It's a Star Trek movie. THAT is what will sell it.

That's no guarantee of quality or of success, of course, however even the much-maligned Nemesis was the victim of several factors aside from the fact fans hated it for a full year prior to its release, including it debuting a few days away from Two Towers which was the dish of the day for genre movie fans.

And I wouldn't call the likes of Eric Bana and Winona Ryder or even Simon Pegg small names by any stretch of the imagination. Plus you have Zachary Quinto who is already well known for Heroes.

Now having said that, if the film DOES fail, well first one has to be relative in that, because there's DVD sales, foreign box office, iTunes downloads etc etc. If the film doesn't make back its $200M budget in the first 24 hours, that will not make it a flop (though guaranteed someone will start a flop thread regardless). All these things Paramount will take into consideration.

If, at the end of the day, Paramount decides that Star Trek is not commercially viable, then that will be the end, at least in terms of production, for the foreseeable future. They will probably decide to retire the brand for awhile, leaving the novels and comics to continue the name. Then, in a decade or so, someone will try again, though whether it will actually be a movie/TV series or some form of next-gen entertainment format there's no way to know. By the time 2020 rolls around we could be up to "you're in the picture"-style immersive VR or something.

Trek will survive, but while I do find these "it's gonna flop" naysayers somewhat annoying, I do agree with their basic point and that's Trek XI is going to be make or break in terms of whether Star Trek productions continue, or whether it's time to retire the brand for now in hopes of a Doctor Who- or BSG-style revival in the future.

Cheers!

Alex

 

[Kegek]

If it tanks, I predict no new Star Trek material for at least a decade, if ever.

Of course, that was my assessment of the failing of Enterprise, so take me with a grain of salt...

But I think a fresh start failing is more damaging than a tired formula buckling under. In the latter case, you can blame the formula. Here, the analysis may be less charitable.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Kieran said:
Considering the no name actors and piss-poor, rehashed storyline, Trek XI is a probable disaster akin to the failure that was Nemsamess.

So... what will Paramount do when this film utterly fails?

Personally, I hope the film does well because if it doesn't, it might spell the death of Trek for a decade... but considering the storyline, things look very, very bad for the franchise.

Considering the "no-name actors"... I'M ECSTATIC! I don't need Paris Hilton playing Yoeman Rand and what's-his-name, the "punked" guy who hangs out with Bruce Willis's ex, playing Kirk.

I want GOOD ACTORS who can play the roles, not "today's hot thang."

The fact that you seem so obsessed about "big name actors" simply tells me that you have no idea what actually makes for a quality film.

And let's be honest here... we know INTERNET RUMORS about the storyline. Just a few weeks ago it was "confirmed" that the Guardian of Forever was central to the movie. Now we know it's not.

What you THINK you know may not be accurate. Bear that in mind. Is the storyline really as "piss poor and rehashed" as you think it is? Maybe... maybe not. Unless you've READ THE FREAKIN' SCRIPT, you have no way of knowing. Do you?

Is this film going to be fantastic? Is it going to reek to high Heaven? Do we have ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER that tells us which, if either, will be the case?

NO.

So go take a prozac and chill out. The first we'll really know about the quality of the film will be early next fall, when the first rough-cut screenings take place. Someone who sees that will leak it, and then we'll have a hint of what sort of movie it's going to turn out to be.

It could stink. But I think you're a WEEEEEEEE bit premature to be concluding that already. Don'cha think?

Now, to your point... if it DOES stink... if it tanks at the box office... Trek will be in the same situation it was in during the early 1970s. Official publishing will grind to a halt. No new films or series will be in production. If it survives, it will be kept alive due to fan involvement, without being "led by the nose" by Paramount.

I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. The "renaissance" of Star Trek was back when the series had picked up just a bit... two movies (TMP and TWOK) and fandom's involvement was at its height (including published works far superior to anything PPC's marketing division ever put out!).

So if this tanks... it'll be forgotten, except as a "bad dream" experience. And in another decade or so, someone will come back and decide to try reviving "the property" once again. Whether that revival is a "reimagining" or an "expansion" will depend on just how vigorous the fan activity is during that hiatus period.

 

[aridas sofia]

All future Trek will be available only in the revivified "Gold Key" comics format. And in storyboards printed on jugs.

That's right. Jugs.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kieran said:
So... what will Paramount do when this film utterly fails?

Stop wasting money on "Star Trek" and invest it in things that people actually will pay to see.

They'll be glad to continue to collect their license fees, though, so that you can continue to load up on crap like "Kirk's commode" Christmas ornaments.

 

[Trekzilla3k]

I myself remain ever hopeful and cautiosly optimistic

 

[Sharr Khan]

Precognitive now huh?
If we're gonna play that game, my view of a the future is a great deal more hopeful then yours.

You don't need "name actors" to make a film. You though need an enjoyable fun film, Trek hasn't been that in awhile. I bet it will be this time.

Sharr

 

[cardinal biggles]

Y'know, if there were internet BBSes back in the late 1400s, we'd probably be reading a thread about "So what will Spain do when Christopher Columbus sinks?" We'd never make it across the Atlantic if we were in the age of exploration today.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Someone upstream made a good point - when the first LOTR film came out, I'd never even heard of pretty much any of those actors. Now? Most of them have excellent name recognition, and a few of them have become outright A-list stars.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^Then there's Star Wars... Apart from Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness, that film was chock full o' no-names.

Heck, what about TOS itself? In 1966, Shatner and Nimoy were certainly good up-and-coming actors, but far from being household names.

 

[Sharr Khan]

What gets me is, there is a certain vocal group of "fans" who want this to fail so they can gloat and say "I'm right." not unlike occurred with "Enterprise". Been there... have no wish to be there again.

I'm reaching the point where I'm finding people like that to be unnecessary killjoys.

Sharr

 

[Kegek]

CindyLouWho said:
Someone upstream made a good point - when the first LOTR film came out, I'd never even heard of pretty much any of those actors. Now? Most of them have excellent name recognition, and a few of them have become outright A-list stars.

Including, unfortunately, Orlando Bloom. I hope this film is a success, but here's also hoping it doesn't have any similar corrollaries.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ I like Orlando. He's hot.