So what will Paramount do when Star Trek XI tanks?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Sharr

Thank heavens you've come - I've been leaving a trail of bread crumbs from that point forward since about 2002.

 

[Tamek]

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.

You forgot star wars episode 3, EVERYONE knew how that was going to end, and im sure George Lucas made a few dollars off of it.

 

[number6]

Sharr Khan said:
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

I'm with you there. In fact, I didn't realise how much Trek sucked until I came to this Trek "Fan" site.

 

[Sharr Khan]

North Pole-aris said:

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

Sharr

Thank heavens you've come - I've been leaving a trail of bread crumbs from that point forward since about 2002.

Hey I want one thing from this film, really simple actually. Maybe its two things - that its fun, and find myself entertained by it. Anything else is frosting on the cake.

Sure I'll geek out at the little in-jokes, study the design choices with a fine tooth comb (I am hanging out *here* after all) perhaps I'll like some of the choices and other cases I might have gone a different way.

But in the end its like that with most movies and tv shows.
Just entertain me and please show you (the guys producing it) are also not taking themselves to seriously and are also having fun with the material.

I don't think that's asking alot.

Sharr

 

[Kegek]

CindyLouWho said:
^ I like Orlando. He's hot.

And all the personality of the lead balloon. He was born to play Legolas: A secondary part with few lines where he just has to stand around and look pretty. This is not to be confused with anything resembling acting talent.

6th day of XMe$$ said:
I'm with you there. In fact, I didn't realise how much Trek sucked until I came to this Trek "Fan" site.

It wasn't until I came here that I understood the main duty as a Star Trek fan is not to declaim how much you love it, but declare how much you loathe it. Course, back then everyone was trashing Voyager, which was still on the air at the time.

 

[aridas sofia]

Sharr Khan said:
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.

Yeah, but it's really, really fun to say "I'm right."

Especially when "I'm not."

 

[Cary L. Brown]

CindyLouWho said:^ I like Orlando. He's hot.

Ya know, I'd give ya grief over that, 'cept I definitely have a thing for a certain elfin princess.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Yeah, but it's really, really fun to say "I'm right."

Especially when "I'm not."

I also have little doubt, even if this film is a ringing success and far exceeds Paramounts desires there will be a vocal segment of the fan base decrying it as a travesty and failure since that's what there bound and determined to see.

Sharr

 

[number6]

^^ Absolutley Right! (tm)

 

[RAMA]

Wow, obvious trolling, since we don't know Trek XI's storyline and there are name actors...

RAMA

 

[Outpost4]

Sharr Khan said:
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

Agreed. Roddenberry painted an optimistic future. Why this appeals to such pessimists is beyond me.

 

[Matt]

I believe we all know for a fact that there will be no tanks in Star Trek XI.

The last tank was in the opening credits of the Star Trek Enterprise two parter, "In A Mirror Darkly."

 

[shapeshifter]

Sharr Khan said:
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

 

[ancient]

Well, the last time they spent an insane amount of $$$ on Trek and it didn't exactly produce proportional returns, they slashed the budget and we got TWOK so I'm not too worried. Since this movie will leave them with an insane amount of left-over sets, costumes, and CG models, they'd be dumb not to do a few more smaller budget films off them.

 

[number6]

ancient said:
Well, the last time they spent an insane amount of $$$ on Trek and it didn't exactly produce proportional returns, they slashed the budget and we got TWOK so I'm not too worried. Since this movie will leave them with an insane amount of left-over sets, costumes, and CG models, they'd be dumb not to do a few more smaller budget films off them.

At least as much was spent on Titanic. I don't think Titanic II is in the works just yet.

 

[aridas sofia]

DrunkenSanta said:

Sharr Khan said:
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

Agreed. Roddenberry painted an optimistic future. Why this appeals to such pessimists is beyond me.

Because pessimists love optimists. They love to see people proven wrong.

I'm an optimist but hell, even I know that Roddenberry was sucking joy juice when he came up with some of his ideas for the future of man.

 

[Kegek]

6th day of XMe$$ said:

ancient said:
Since this movie will leave them with an insane amount of left-over sets, costumes, and CG models, they'd be dumb not to do a few more smaller budget films off them.

At least as much was spent on Titanic. I don't think Titanic II is in the works just yet.

That's because Titanic II is an idiotic idea.

Star Trek is a media franchise. Big budget hits like Titanic or disasters like Cleopatra were one-off affairs regardless of audience response.

 

[number6]

My point is that spending an assload of money doesn't guarantee a sequel.

Of course I hope there will be more, but there is no iron clad guarantee.

 

[Noname Given]

Matt said:
I believe we all know for a fact that there will be no tanks in Star Trek XI.

The last tank was in the opening credits of the Star Trek Enterprise two parter, "In A Mirror Darkly."

And there were Tanks on the lawn of the Whitehouse in the ENT episode StormFront too.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Matt said:
The last tank was in the opening credits of the Star Trek Enterprise two parter, "In A Mirror Darkly."

And look what happened to THAT series.

Let's hope there are no tanks in Star Trek XI. Too risky.