I am very curious how Kurtzman's vision for a CBS All-Acess Star Trek overload compares to JJ's (supposed) plans for Trek in 2013...
Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag
- Thread starter Doc Mugatu
- Start date
A lot of that can be attributed to a decline in toy sales in general--even before the sequel trilogy, floor space for action figures was diminishing while floor space for video games was increasing. It didn't help that Hasbro hasn't been all that great with its distribution and often short-packing popular figures in cases. Quite a few figures that are peg warmers tend to be those people already have or just aren't interested in.
Trek is kind of losing its visibility outside of geek fandom, IMO. Yes, Trek is playing somewhere in the world every day and there's DIS on CBSAA, but they almost exist in a vacuum compared to Marvel movies or even Star Wars. The Kelvin movies were really the only time Trek became visible to everyone (including non-fans) for a while.
well, there was also (to varying degrees) - TMP (Treks back in a big post SW movie hype), TWOK (spock death/much better movie than 1st), TVH (fun movie/big box office/20th ann), TNG at various times mainly late s3 onwards (BOBW/Unification&VI/AGT/GEN Time cover), and FC (borg/biggish box office)
And emulating one of these moments is the key to the success of the next movie. Another villain of the week laced with explosions simply won't cut it again. There needs to be a hook, a reason for someone to be interested in it enough to watch it on the big screen.
OTT FX movies are ten a penny these days. Give us something different.
I suspect this is what they're maybe going to do. A TV director, cutting pay for the actors (after already signing contracts in '16
) and talking of Trek as a "mid-level franchise". Certainly I think these characters are strong enough to carry a slightly less action-packed movie.
Good. My favorite Trek movies were done on a modest budget. (Of course, so were my least favorite...)
I was talking about in recent years.
yes, i cited an article and even used the word "allegedly". how absurd of me.
Oh no! It's a credible source from a respected newspaper! Let's just call it "fake news" and pretend nothing in it has any merits...
You realize that the "singlie individual" mentioned in this article is only recounting JJ. Abrams personal reaction - all the other facts and rights issues described in this article have multiple sources, right?
That's how respectable news-organizations work: Tell the facts. But make sure to mention the personal anecdotes are just hearsay. This is not a blog or anything where they can just blurt out any rumour as facts.
But yeah - what's stated in this article is pretty much true (except for that we didn't know if Abrams really said exactly that word-for-word). But all the facts and rights entanglements are not only confirmed by other sources, but by what has happened and is happening now with the franchise.
Well, since JJ's personal reaction is in fact what was under discussion, vis-à-vis "the battle between the IPs owners allegedly frustrated abrams away from star trek and into star wars' arms," you know that JJ's personal reaction is the only aspect of the article I was referring to, right?
The article says:
A struggle over the U.S.S. Enterprise's past and future helped sour J.J. Abrams on the "Star Trek" franchise and may have contributed to his decision to take on the "Star Wars" universe.
The boldfaced, regarding how Abrams reacted to being (allegedly) soured, constitutes a completely unproven allegation, the only evidence given for his having gotten soured being the allegations from the unnamed individual about how JJ reacted to the realities (whatever they were) of marketing Star Trek merchandise. The use of the noncommittal "may have" indicates that The Wrap dare not make a stronger claim. In fact, I can say:
A struggle over the U.S.S. Enterprise's past and future helped sour J.J. Abrams on the "Star Trek" franchise and may not have contributed to his decision to take on the "Star Wars" universe.
and say the exact same thing! In such constructs, "may have" = "may not have."
Making uncorroborated statements in the form of vacuously true clickbait such as that isn't good journalism.
But thanks for the unnecessary and completely uninformative lectures.
So, some of the responses to this news just blow my mind and not in a good way. I can't see how anyone would think Pine is being greedy in this situation. Now if he was wanting MORE money than what he was under contract for, I could see that argument being made. All I see here is a greedy Paramount. In any other job field if someone signed a contract to get paid a certain amount to do a certain job and the company came back a year later because it had taken losses and said, 'Look we want to pay you less,' the expected response would be a 'Hell no!' And in the film industry you have the added money loss for the actor who may or may not have had to turn down other jobs because he was contracted for this film in that time period.
That argument aside, I could care less about Hemsworth in this next film as I've always thought he was a mediocre actor at best. Best thing going for him is his looks and marvel career, at least for Paramount. I wouldn't have an issue if they recast him, but if they try to recast Pine they are going to alienate many new fans that were made in this Kelvin verse Trek and I would be one of them. The cast of ST 2009 is what helped draw me in originally.
So I can say that if they recast Pine, I'd boycott the movie entirely and not see it in theaters and probably wait until it was on TV to watch it. Pine and Quinto just have great Kirk and Spock chemistry, very reminiscent to me of TOS Kirk and Spock. Not to mention the rest of the cast. Paramount would seriously be only hurting themselves with this move. And why Paramount thinks its actors should pay for its crappy job is baffling. Chris Pine nailed it in Star Trek Beyond, it wasn't the cast that was at issue. It was the boring story and lack of marketing and that was all on Paramount.
I have to say, I'm amused by all the replies that imply 'Who cares because we have Discovery/Picard now and everyone is all about it.' Literally every Trek fan I've talked to in real life or even the causal watcher I've talked to has not watched Discovery because it's only on CBS access. The conversation goes something like this
Me: 'Have you seen the new Trek series? It's pretty good.'
OtherPerson: 'No, not yet, what channel is it on?'
Me: 'It's only on CBS Access, you have to pay a subscription.'
OP clearly losing interest: 'Oh, no I don't have that. I'll wait until it is on Netflix.'
I won't even comment on the Picard thing except to say I could really care less. I have more interest in watching a weather report than a Picard series.
That argument aside, I could care less about Hemsworth in this next film as I've always thought he was a mediocre actor at best. Best thing going for him is his looks and marvel career, at least for Paramount. I wouldn't have an issue if they recast him, but if they try to recast Pine they are going to alienate many new fans that were made in this Kelvin verse Trek and I would be one of them. The cast of ST 2009 is what helped draw me in originally.
So I can say that if they recast Pine, I'd boycott the movie entirely and not see it in theaters and probably wait until it was on TV to watch it. Pine and Quinto just have great Kirk and Spock chemistry, very reminiscent to me of TOS Kirk and Spock. Not to mention the rest of the cast. Paramount would seriously be only hurting themselves with this move. And why Paramount thinks its actors should pay for its crappy job is baffling. Chris Pine nailed it in Star Trek Beyond, it wasn't the cast that was at issue. It was the boring story and lack of marketing and that was all on Paramount.
I have to say, I'm amused by all the replies that imply 'Who cares because we have Discovery/Picard now and everyone is all about it.' Literally every Trek fan I've talked to in real life or even the causal watcher I've talked to has not watched Discovery because it's only on CBS access. The conversation goes something like this
Me: 'Have you seen the new Trek series? It's pretty good.'
OtherPerson: 'No, not yet, what channel is it on?'
Me: 'It's only on CBS Access, you have to pay a subscription.'
OP clearly losing interest: 'Oh, no I don't have that. I'll wait until it is on Netflix.'
I won't even comment on the Picard thing except to say I could really care less. I have more interest in watching a weather report than a Picard series.
It's simple math. Pine has multiple lifetimes of money already (20 million) and is holding for more multiple lifetimes of money instead of less multiple lifetimes of money. Easy peasy to define that as greed. Hemsworth even more so with a net worth of 60 million.
Major false equivalency. Most people in that situation wouldn't already have multiple lifetimes of money and obscene excess. They would need that money.
Why are we responsible for how much money a person wants to earn or thinks they are worth?
We're not. It's just my opinion. I'm simply not a capitalist bootlicker to the wealthy.
Not really. Society has taught you that greed is good. That's why it seems "odd."
That assumes a lot about me and my views on money. Still doesn't make your phrasing less odd.
Id just like to let the record show that it is NOT JJ Abrams’ personal responsibility to carry Star Trek on his back. That’s rediculous. I’m not his biggest fan but he’s certainly done more good for this franchise than bad. The kelvinverse is dying because Paramount never knew the potential of what they had to begin with.
Ok. But, in the real world, the money you seem all too willing to deprive the artist (actor in this case) would NOT be redirected to altruistic ends—it would remain in the pockets of a giant corporation already in possession of orders of magnitude more money than that held by the actor. The actor signed a legally binding contract in good faith. He has no moral obligation to renounce the money in order to grant the corporation a larger profit margin. Moreover, a greater proportion of the actor’s earnings will be taxed than that kept by the studio, in the event the studio is successful at forcing a reduction of pay on the actor. Consequently, the “greater good” would suffer a net loss. Additionally, the actor is likelier than the studio to divert some of the money to altruistic ends. If the studio gets what it wants, this potentially compounds the loss for “the greater good”.
For someone who claims to “not be a capitalist bootlicker”, your choice to support the capitalist enterprise (the studio) rather than the labourer (the actor) is...surprising.
Similar threads
