Star Trek's Troubling 50th Anniversary

[MakeshiftPython]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/star-treks-troubling-50th-anniversary_b_6493002.html

I think this is a pretty level headed take on where the Trek franchise is at this point. If you want to understand why there's a lot of worried Trek fans out the when it comes to the upcoming film, I think this sums it up nicely. I'm also with him on not writing the series out yet. I didn't even like the two films, but I still see potential with its cast that I'd be very happy to see them knock something out of the park (again, in my opinion, of course!)

So how much do you agree with that sentiment? Do you think it's very troubling to the point of doom and gloom, think it's all sunshine and flowers, or are you somewhere in between that you're more cautiously optimistic?

I'd put myself on the third option. If Orci was still directing, most definitely the second and thank goodness that's no longer the case.

 

[Tosk]

I'm worried but I still hope for a good film. I always do.

 

[Dukhat]

I truly believe that CBS really doesn't care all that much about Star Trek's upcoming 50th anniversary. Other than the next movie, I think we'll get some retrospective TV special with all the former Trek actors they can round up to participate, but that's about it.

Let's face it: Trek would be dead today and would have been dead since ENT ended if it weren't for the Abrams films, whether one likes them or not. And they only exist because CBS decided to allow Paramount a license to produce them. CBS is doing just fine without Star Trek and will probably keep doing so for the foreseeable future. I hate to sound like such a pessimist, because I'd like nothing more than for Trek to return to TV. But this "worry" that the above article is focusing on is really just an illusion. You can't "worry" about something that the people in charge of don't care about.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This lost me at Interstellar. Star Trek is action and fun (particularly this incarnation). Interstellar was good (extremely dodgy ending aside), but is a completely different beast. Last time a Trek movie tried to be serious sci-fi, it came up with TMP which sucked.

Also, I loved ID. I found it anything but "insulting". It's an interesting time for Trek, and with a new creative team a lot could go wrong, but I'm optimistic. Like Abrams did, Lin could take Trek to whole new heights.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

This lost me at Interstellar. Star Trek is action and fun (particularly this incarnation). Interstellar was good (extremely dodgy ending aside), but is a completely different beast. Last time a Trek movie tried to be serious sci-fi, it came up with TMP which sucked.

Trek has been a lot of things other than just plain "action and fun". It's a versatile franchise, which is the primary reason it appeals to me. And while TMP did suck, that doesn't mean the approach it took would automatically make one suck. It's all about the execution.

But this "worry" that the above article is focusing on is really just an illusion.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. You have your reasons for not worrying, others do. "Illusion" or not.

 

[Tosk]

Let's face it: Trek would be dead today and would have been dead since ENT ended if it weren't for the Abrams films, whether one likes them or not.

Because there is no alternate universe where someone else "brought back Trek"? I find it difficult to believe that if JJ hadn't been vaguely interested in it, then there would be no new Trek.

You can't "worry" about something that the people in charge of don't care about.

Sure you can.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Looking back, it wasn't much of a franchise reaching death. The deal with Bad Robot came about only one year after the cancellation of ENT. Clearly Paramount was pretty determined to keep Trek going that we would have gotten something down the road, whether Abrams took the offer or not.

 

[Dukhat]

Because there is no alternate universe where someone else "brought back Trek"? I find it difficult to believe that if JJ hadn't been vaguely interested in it, then there would be no new Trek.

That wasn't my point. Whether it was Abrams or some other movie director, the films (which exist solely at the discretion of CBS) would be all we had of Star Trek because CBS has no interest in making a TV series.

Sure you can.

Let me rephrase that then: I don't see the point in worrying about something that the people in charge don't even care about.

 

[Mudd]

Totally fine with the whole thing.

The article is the usual dreary litany of fanboi complaints, nothing more.

 

[RAMA]

Whats troubling? That the new movies made over $1.1 billion in combined grosses? That the two movies sold 75+ million tickets? That, the combined critical avg is 90% fresh on rotten tomatoes? That audiences loved both movies with high grades on cinemascore and RT? That the 2 movies had a staggering 102 award nominations and 31 wins to their credit, including the movies' first Writer's Guild Award? Hollywood politics are Hollywood politics, nothing new.

 

[BillJ]

Where is the "don't care" option?

I love Star Trek and have been watching for most of my 43 years but if we never got another new movie or series, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I feel incredibly lucky that there is as much Star Trek as there is. There's more than enough (TV, movies, comics, novels) to keep me entertained for the rest of my life.

As far as the article is concerned, we are still nineteen months away from what would be the official 50th anniversary. Isn't it a bit early to be "troubled"?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The title of this thread reads like: "I'm troubled that Star Trek is still alive after 50 years! It should be dead already! It's the creepy thing that won't die!"

No, seriously: if you're troubled about having a fiftieth anniversary in which there is still ongoing production in the wake of high-draw successful films, then that tells me that you are troubled by having a fiftieth anniversary period. You must want there to be no more Star Trek, ever.

 

[Nightowl1701]

What's "troubling" (and this is the thrust of the article) is that outside of an increasingly troubled and rushed movie shorn of its' entire brain trust (one that may not even make a 2016 release date), CBS/Paramount seems to be in no way making even preliminary preparations towards any kind of celebration of the 50th Anniversary at all next year. Almost as though the Paramount execs are the ones saying what CorporalCaptain said up above, despite all the money made over the years.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

The only worry I have is that they might let the whole 50th anniversary thing get to them.

I don't need to see Shatner again. Just make a good movie, just do what Trek does. Have some action, have some humor, have some sadness, and vaguely reference politics/social issues.

 

[BillJ]

What's "troubling" (and this is the thrust of the article) is that outside of an increasingly troubled and rushed movie shorn of its' entire brain trust (one that may not even make a 2016 release date), CBS/Paramount seems to be in no way making even preliminary preparations towards any kind of celebration of the 50th Anniversary at all next year. Almost as though the Paramount execs are the ones saying what CorporalCaptain said up above, despite all the money made over the years.

Paramount just licenses the IP from CBS for the movie series. Any 50th Anniversary stuff would be coordinated by CBS.

But there could be a line of thinking that Star Trek is becoming more and more of a niche product and there isn't enough of a projected return to do anything big for the 50th anniversary. I remember just getting a comic celebrating the 20th anniversary back in '86.

 

[BillJ]

What's "troubling" (and this is the thrust of the article) is that outside of an increasingly troubled and rushed movie shorn of its' entire brain trust (one that may not even make a 2016 release date), CBS/Paramount seems to be in no way making even preliminary preparations towards any kind of celebration of the 50th Anniversary at all next year. Almost as though the Paramount execs are the ones saying what CorporalCaptain said up above, despite all the money made over the years.

Paramount just licenses the IP from CBS for the movie series. Any 50th Anniversary stuff would be coordinated by CBS.

But there could be a line of thinking that Star Trek is becoming more and more of a niche product and there isn't enough of a projected return to do anything big for the 50th anniversary. I remember just getting a comic celebrating the 20th anniversary back in '86.

From the DS9 Blu-ray thread...

Robert Meyer Burnett (Director of some VAM on the TNG blurays) January 3

@BurnettRM: "The Blu Ray sales were EXTREMELY disappointing. Unfortunately, the fan base didn't really understand the upgrade."

"There are always possibilities for DS9, but you're looking at a 20 mil investment to do it like TNG. Ouch."

Also...

"The Fathom events were stopped after BoBW director Cliff Bole complained to the WGA and DGA, looking for residuals"

"Yup. Those events were terrific. Cliff Bole ruined it for everybody. But then he passed away."

 

[Paul Weaver]

I'm hoping there'll be a good Destiny-style epic in literature, which is the only trek that's existed for the last 10 years.

Don't get me wrong, at least one of the new films was an enjoyable space romp. But it wasn't trek. Really there wasn't a lot of trek in the first 10 films, Insurrection and TSFS perhaps. Trek isn't really a film medium.

With talk of reviving X-Files and the success of Dr Who, and the continuous remakes in the cinema, I wouldn't have been surprised if a remake of the TV series would have appeared - especially if Netflix could have got the rights to do it (unlikely of course).

 

[BillJ]

Don't get me wrong, at least one of the new films was an enjoyable space romp. But it wasn't trek. Really there wasn't a lot of trek in the first 10 films, Insurrection and TSFS perhaps. Trek isn't really a film medium.

Trek is Trek is Trek is Trek. It has succeeded and failed on both the small and big screen.

I've just never seen a fanbase so insistent on dividing what is real and not real in a fictional setting. I'm beginning to think that there is a very small, very vocal portion of the fanbase that is Star Trek's worst enemy.

 

[Set Harth]

Star Wars fandom has that too.

 

[BillJ]

Star Wars fandom has that too.

I think Star Wars having such a large portion of the general audience that will buy tickets is better suited to survive that type of vocal minority.