Well, what if PPC chooses to only cast "Big Name" tanks in the film? THAT ought to draw in the audiences...
So what will Paramount do when Star Trek XI tanks?
- Thread starter Kieran
- Start date
Kegek Kringle said:
Santa T. Claus said:
And look what happened to THAT series.
Let's hope there are no tanks in Star Trek XI. Too risky.
What if the tanks are wearing hats?
I think that would make it okay. As long as they're fedoras. Oh, and Shermans.
If Sherman Hemsley drives a tank in Star Trek XI, I will boycott this movie.
Mark my words. Mark 'em, Weezy!
True, though the "Indians" probably would have appreciated that.
I don't think Star Trek will do badly so long as the fan base isn't turned off. For all the mumbo jumbo, that's the real audience. Star Trek will have a tough time convincing others to see it, though, and I expect it will do business along the same lines as MI:3 -- respectable but not stellar.
I can assure you, they're not going for this so called "real audience" were that the case we'd have gotten the Berman film and gone from there.
Paramount apparently has a wider view of these things. It shouldn't stun me that Trek fans think in only Fan-centric type terms but it does.
Sharr
This is all useless speculation
Let's just make sure to go see it, and make it a hit so more will come, and the Franchise lives on
Let's just make sure to go see it, and make it a hit so more will come, and the Franchise lives on
If it's up to us fans to make it a hit, we should be prepared to each see it - and pay full price - about twenty times.
It'll have a chance, then.
Unfair. I think I've seen everything Orlando has done since LotR, including "Ned Kelly" (filmed here on Oz), "Troy", the "Priates" trilogy and "Elizabethtown". He does great work.
Sorry, but fans are going to be the lion's share of the audience, the ones who are there on opening weekend, the ones who see the film more than once, the ones who create the buzz in the precious early days to promote the film by word of mouth. And Paramount knows this.
Some fans may only be casual devotees of Star Trek, but the so-called mainstream moviegoer who has avoided Star Trek is unlikely to be in the majority of those who go to the theater to see it. Had Berman been able to bring in this audience -- heck, had he been able to keep all of the fans -- he might still be running the show; but Paramount obviously looked at both the embarrassing declines in audience and box office receipts for Enterprise and Nemesis, respectively, before chucking him in favor of self-professed TOS aficionado J. J. Abrams.
So, as I stated before, the fans are the critical audience here. The film will succeed or fail based on their actions.
True. Even people who complained that TMP was a great disappointment to them went to see it over and over again with their friends. That level of support probably saved the fledgling franchise from the overblown budget (which had to roll-over the expenses of the stymied "Phase II") of that first attempt to move ST to the cinema.
Unfortunately, Star Trek is a dead horse that Paramount insists on still beating to a bloddy pulp with a baseball bat, somehow hoping that will actually get it to get up and win a race again.
The trouble with Trek is not Trek per se... it is the fact that what HAS been done since DS9 has been done so very very poorly, with NO regard whatsoever to continuity. For any other series, that may not mean anything, but technical accuracy and continuity were always Star Trek's claim to fame... its gold standard.
TNG made a VERY VERY dedicated effort to remain faithful to what had been said/shown on TOS, and DS9 largely kept to that standard. As a result, both shows were highly respected by the fan base, as should be.
But when Voyager came along, continuity and technical accuracy got thrown out the window, and we were given crappy stories, week after week. But even VOY could not come close to comparing to the slap in the face to continuity that would be Enterprise.
ENT not only burned any semblance of continuity, but doused it with gasoline first, to make sure. I knew going into ENT, that it would be a show I'd have to judge on writing alone, because I KNEW they'd make a new look for everything, and I knew the NX-01 looked like a TNG Franklin Mint ship, and I knew they'd find some stupid-arse reason for that old a ship to have phasers and torpedoes, and subspace radio. But after the first season, even the writing began to just suck royal arse.
I was and still am a hardcore and loyal fan to Trek... the true and respected Trek of TOS, TNG, and DS9... and as a fan, I say the best thing for the franchise is to simply let it die. Just let it go for about 20 years, and then come out with something totally new and fresh, from a writing perspective, when it can entertain a wholly new generation of Trek fans. That is the ONLY way to truly salvage the saga. Either that, or shape up, and give us something REALLY REALLY frakking good... like mother-of-all sci-fi good. WITHOUT time travel, WITHOUT Kirk, WITHOUT Spock, and WITHOUT Klingons or Borg.
The trouble with Trek is not Trek per se... it is the fact that what HAS been done since DS9 has been done so very very poorly, with NO regard whatsoever to continuity. For any other series, that may not mean anything, but technical accuracy and continuity were always Star Trek's claim to fame... its gold standard.
TNG made a VERY VERY dedicated effort to remain faithful to what had been said/shown on TOS, and DS9 largely kept to that standard. As a result, both shows were highly respected by the fan base, as should be.
But when Voyager came along, continuity and technical accuracy got thrown out the window, and we were given crappy stories, week after week. But even VOY could not come close to comparing to the slap in the face to continuity that would be Enterprise.
ENT not only burned any semblance of continuity, but doused it with gasoline first, to make sure. I knew going into ENT, that it would be a show I'd have to judge on writing alone, because I KNEW they'd make a new look for everything, and I knew the NX-01 looked like a TNG Franklin Mint ship, and I knew they'd find some stupid-arse reason for that old a ship to have phasers and torpedoes, and subspace radio. But after the first season, even the writing began to just suck royal arse.
I was and still am a hardcore and loyal fan to Trek... the true and respected Trek of TOS, TNG, and DS9... and as a fan, I say the best thing for the franchise is to simply let it die. Just let it go for about 20 years, and then come out with something totally new and fresh, from a writing perspective, when it can entertain a wholly new generation of Trek fans. That is the ONLY way to truly salvage the saga. Either that, or shape up, and give us something REALLY REALLY frakking good... like mother-of-all sci-fi good. WITHOUT time travel, WITHOUT Kirk, WITHOUT Spock, and WITHOUT Klingons or Borg.
Sorry, we must have received different versions of VOY and ENT here in Australia.
Sorry, we must have received different versions of VOY and ENT here in Australia.
Must have... must have...
Therin of Andor said:
Sorry, we must have received different versions of VOY and ENT here in Australia.
No, actually the version broadcast in the U.S. showed about the same regard for continuity as every other "Star Trek" series - and had considerably better continuity within itself than TOS did. :thumbsup:
Nope, the trouble with Trek is Trek per se.
People are bored by it.
And over half of the TNG audience abandoned DS9 - so the failure of the Franchise isn't something that started happening only after the series that you approve of.
The few million Trek fans in the U.S. cannot make this film or any project more elaborate than a cheap SCIFI Channel series profitable.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
