I see the movie as part of a much bigger issue revolving around the resurrection of Star Trek. Overall, I think the movie could play a positive role (and I can't think of a better strategy to achieving the goal).
I would simply ask you to consider how many of these revamped, made more modern for younger audiences rebakes have actually been successful? Pretty much none.
So clearly, as a strategy, it hasn't been very effective, thus far.
I'm not that worried about the content of the movie - from what I've heard, it sounds like it should be perfectly acceptable and overall, the recasting seems to have been done well, especially where it counts (Kirk, Spock, McCoy).
Sorry, I can't even get passed that. Quinto is acceptable. But, why can't we at least be honest about why they picked Pine. He's eye candy. Nothing more, nothing less. They're hoping his twinked out pinup boy looks will attract one or two of the Gossip Girl crowd. And, I still think that the casting for McCoy is horrific.
I was here for Trek going in the toilet with the cancellation of ENT; there was a great deal of FUD about Trek being dead for good. I never thought a potentially lucrative, but mismanaged, brand name like Star Trek would be left alone for long. If they'll bring back Battlestar Galactica and Get Smart, they'll bring back Trek.
I happen to agree with this. But, both prove a greater point. Moore, who I have all the respect in the world for, took a basic premise and turned it into something entirely different. His version of BSG shares virtually NOTHING in common with the original other than the names and the basic idea of trying to find Earth. It's an excellent story, but it's a story that could just as easily have been told by using different characters or not having involved BSG at all, for that matter.
Get Smart, on the other hand... I... endured sitting through a good bit of this movie because I happened to be with somebody who rented it. I, personally, wouldn't have paid to see it for reasos previously mentioned.
I look at Get Smart in much the same way I see New Voyages. They went to great pains to keep it as real to the original as possible But, in the process, simply prove that there's more to making it work than simply plugging new people into old roles. There was chemistry between Adams and Feldon that simply doesn't exist here.
The real problem to me is making Star Trek a viable business proposition. Sci fi in movies is big biz, but it struggles on TV, and it's not just Trek. TV is dividing up into really lowest common denomenator stuff (police procedurals, reality TV), for which sci fi need not apply, and the niche stuff, for which sci fi is very popular but then the problem becomes the expense of sci fi vs. the smaller audience of a niche market.
I agree with this almost entirely, except for your assertion that Sci-Fi is big biz. It's not. Star Wars did well, but most sci-fi films bomb. Most of what we consider successful in the genre are either genre-RELATED films (comic book stuff) that have done very well as of late, or low budget films that manage to sell enough tickets to pay the bills and not a whole lot more.
Trek belongs on TV. Movies are a nice addition but Trek has always been about complex ideas and interactions between characters. Movies are good for slam-bang special effects and action scenes, but no substantial story can be told with one two hour movie every couple of years. That would waste Trek's potential to a maddening degree.
I, essentially, said this not long ago. Movies, within Roddenberry's creative realm, were an after-thought. An homage to something that had already been created, not as a means of creating something new. This is why the best Trek movies, with the exception of Trek IV, have ALWAYS been those movies that related back to something that had already happened. Kahn... Undiscovered Country... First Contact. All had ties back to something that had happened previously on screen. There was a back story there that didn't need to be told again.
Movies like Trek XI... vehicles designd, not to pay homage to anything, but rather to milk the name a bit longer by attracting people who never liked the show to begin with... they tend to abandon those basic principals.
If you assume your audience already knows the back story of these characters, then you'll lose the new audience within the first 10 minutes of the film. So, instead, you either re-create them or filll the movie with 2 hours of fluff and glitz that requires little or no thought at all.
Everything I've seen about this film says Abrams has done a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
Abrams et al has hit upon the formula for resurrecting Trek - small screen and big - that is by far the most likely to work. Capitalize on the elements of Trek that are still the most high profile in the public mind: Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. Create a kick-ass mass-market movie and a certain percentage - not a majority but certainly more than the withered fanbase that has hung on this long - will want to see more. Continue with the movie franchise and spin the 23rd C off to TV. Maybe not the movie characters but new ones with the movie actors making cameo visits.
If I thought this movie actually had a prayer's chance of making $150m, I might actually agree. I don't. Given the economic atmosphere and the fact that there are films based on far more financially successful MOVIE franchises with far more financially bankable actors (Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, etc.), I really see nothing about this movie that says it can compete. The competition will have everything that Trek will have, with bigger names.
The question of where to show the series is tricky
No TV series based on Trek will make it's way back to Prime Time any time soon. The last one failed on a second tier network. None of the big 3 are likely to touch it. There are really only a couple of choices on where to air a new series. Either in syndication, ala TNG and DS9, or on a 3rd teir network (sci-fi, USA, etc.).
I, personally, would opt for the 2nd option. Move production to Canada and let a foreign country share half the cost of making the show like they've done with a good number of the shows on Sci-Fi and USA.
And I say this as someone who would love to see highly-niche-interest topics such as the post-Dominion War or a real stab at the Birth of the Federation concept. Those things just won't resurrect Trek. I'm willing to wait for them - first things first.
Agreed. But then, I wouldn't be doing EITHER a series or a big movie right now. Those topics would, however, lend themselves to an arena that I think WOULD suit Trek well at this point... TV mini-series or direct to DVD.
Movies demand a certain Star Wars-iness to them. Think of it this way, Star Trek's virtues are the virtues of TV. Star Wars' virtues are the virtues of movies. Which is why Star Trek needs to be on TV with movies simply as the route to get there.
Right idea, wrong direction.
Don't blame Abrams for making a movie that does what a movie must do. But if you want to see "real" Trek again, you'll be watching it on TV.
I don't blame Abrams. I've said before that I like much of his work. I simply see him as being wrong for this particular project. Having said that, Abrams didn't go to Paramount asking to do a new Trek movie. They went to him. Had he turned it down, we'd likely still be discussing a new movie, simply with somebody else at the helm.
How many times did you think Paramount could go to the well building off of something from a whole different era?
As often as they can find creative people to do it. I have, from the start, rejected the notion that the problem with Trek was the direction and the era, but rather a lack of creativity from the people driving the ship.
There comes a point in time where one must move on. I don't 'need' for people to continue to build on the current Trek continuity. It's a nice bonus and has went on far longer than I'd ever imagined. I'll be the first to admit that I got a hard-on when I saw the Defiant from the 'In A Mirror, Darkly' two-parter. But... the time's they are a-changin'.
For the most part, I have moved on. I'm not going to see the movie. And, despite the tone of my posts, I'm no longer bitter about the fact that this will be the first Trek movie that I won't be sitting there on opening day since.. well... ever. Saddened... a bit. Nostalgic, for sure. But no longer bitter.
I'll continue to download the occasional Phase II episode as I respect the effort those guys put into remaining true to Roddenberry's vision. But, as I've said in the past, if I had to pay to see it, I wouldn't.
If it delivers more than that, hey, I might even buy the DVD. It will have to be better than Nemesis though.
Sadly, I've seen nothing to suggest to me that it's even that good.
Yeah.. I simply don't understand the Pine-hatred; I'm a diehard TOS fan of the first hour, and I'm pretty sure Pine is gonna be a convincing Kirk.
