The New Enterprise Reveald

[Cary L. Brown]

I've found the surest way to not get a sequel is to go in expecting one is already in the bag. That kind of presumptuousness is very off-putting.

Like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, and Transformers?

Actually, yeah... in part.

Batman Begins only got the sequel because it wasn't "built in" to the idea. The little "Joker reveal" at the end was interesting but didn't really require a sequel... it just pointed out that the movie was the start of the Batman mythos we all know.

Superman Returns DID presume a sequel, on the other hand (Lois and Supe's illegitimate super-brat being central to that) and honestly, that part turned audiences off. The presumption of a sequel has proven totally unfounded. Yes, another movie MAY be coming, eventually, but it's going to be totally unrelated to the last one.

Spiderman allowed for a sequel but didn't require one either... while Spiderman II effectively established the plot of the next movie (or rather, one of the many tangential plots, as it turned out!)... and that led to a disappointing third installment.

And as far as "Transformers" goes... is there going to be another one? If so... it'll get the "let's go watch things blow up real good" crowd but the novelty factor will be gone and it won't make much money... if it even happens (is it happening???).

The movies that give you the best continuations are the ones that set up a believable WORLD... one that the audience cares about... aka "continuity" or yes, even "canon," and then allows for extended stories set within that continuity. The ones that turn out badly are the ones that go in assuming "trilogy" and try to set things up along that path.

Examples of really bad versions of that would be the Matrix flicks (never should've had a sequel!), any of the Uwe Boll films ("Bloodrayne" as a trilogy, for instance) and so forth.

Assuming sequels is inevitably disastrous. Make a good movie... on its own... but set it in a world that fits with stuff that came before and allows for stuff to come after which can also fit.

"Canon" is central to sequels, in other words... not "setup."

 

[Tom Servo]

I've found the surest way to not get a sequel is to go in expecting one is already in the bag. That kind of presumptuousness is very off-putting.

Like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, and Transformers?

And as far as "Transformers" goes... is there going to be another one? If so... it'll get the "let's go watch things blow up real good" crowd but the novelty factor will be gone and it won't make much money... if it even happens (is it happening???).

Yes there is another one. You honestly don't think it will make much money? Really? Cause I think there you are 100% wrong. The first was a mega hit, and the second will be too I believe. While the Matrix sequels sucked, they still made money, and so will Transformers.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The second Narnia movie only made a little over half of what the first one brought in, and it's not like there were a lot of disappointed people coming out of that first one. And as a result, there's squabbling over the funding of the third one (most of which has already been shot, IIRC).

Frankly, the only project I see that can command a budget over $100 million and have a reasonable claim of being guaranteed to make a profit from the box office is "The Hobbit".

 

[Squiggy]

Narnia isn't of the same genera. Keep trying.

 

[Ptrope]

^^

Arguably untrue - they're all fantasy, when it comes down to it.

 

[Squiggy]

One is "action" the other is "family". Different target demos all together.

Not the same. If you wanna get down to it, every fictional movie is "fantasy".

 

[Ptrope]

And not the point. He wasn't talking specifically about genre being a factor in sequels, but about the 'preloading' of movies so that a sequel was 'built in,' and how that often results in a poor second outing. "Action" or "family," sci-fi or 'caper,' the concept is the same. If you're trying to defeat the argument, "keep trying."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nope, Squiggy is right. The distinction between action films and "family" films is far more important in terms of box office and most other commercial considerations than the so-called "preloading" thing which is basically a fabricated distinction for the sake of argument.

Clearly, if the people who actually produce and market commercial movies had access to the accumulated wisdom of fandom on the Internet they'd never make a misstep. As it is, they soldier on. There's simply a lot of wishful thinking involved in underestimating the likely commercial success of this movie.

 

[trekkerguy]

Oh picky people are funny.
The Matrix sequels were exceptional movies, as was the Narnia film,
and a Superman Returns sequel probably would have been aswell.

I don't get the argument about Batman Begins.
It got a sequel because it was a big hit and had great content to follow up on.
Simple as that.

Why are we even talking about this in a thread about the new Enterprise?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why are we even talking about this in a thread about the new Enterprise?

Probably my fault. I posted in passing that I expect there to almost certainly be a sequel to this film, which resulted in a lot of wolfsbane and garlic and holy water being shaken about.

 

[ancient]

This is as bad as that time there were two Popes!

Ok, maybe not that bad.

 

[Wingsley]

Frankly, I think the fact that they didn't redesign the uniforms in any substantial way is going to be a much bigger barrier to acceptance than a polished TOS 1701 would've been - miniskirts say '1966' a lot more than a well-detailed ship would've. And no one has yet come up with any rational reason why the original design, detailed appropriately, would've negatively affected non-fans. Not once. It's the most purely subjective element of the film, IMO, but I've seen nothing that indicates it would've made a bit of difference if the story and characters are any good; the only people who care at all are people so steeped in Trek that they either want no change at all or they want it all changed (which, to me, makes it "not Trek," anyway).

The uniforms, on the other hand - I can easily see a lot of non-fans saying, "Yeah, right! Still just as cheesy as I remember it." Heck, even I think the uniforms look cheesy, especially in the new visual context of the rest of the film. I hate to say it, but ENT probably had the most believable uniforms for the current generation - not necessarily 'Star Trek' in feel, but at least they looked like someone might wear them on the job.

One thing I like about STARSHIP EXETER, especially "The Tressaurian Intersection", is that EXETER slightly re-imagined the uniforms by bringing back the "Cage"/"Where No Man..."-era female trousers. I thought that was a nice touch. Since female uniforms with trousers are, in fact, canon, there really is no discontinuity beteen TOS and EXETER.

As far as the look of the ship, let's remember that there was quite a fuss over the look of Archer's NX-01 "Akiraprise" fitting into canon continuity, and I would say that criticism should extend to the interior sets. From what little I've seen of this new movie's advance promotion, the look of the "new" Enterprise not only repudiates Roddenberry's TOS, but also the Berman era as well. Lest we forget, ENT wasn't that long ago.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One thing I like about STARSHIP EXETER, especially "The Tressaurian Intersection", is that EXETER slightly re-imagined the uniforms by bringing back the "Cage"/"Where No Man..."-era female trousers. I thought that was a nice touch.

Yeah, but Jo Harris is quite a quick-change artist - from trousers to skirt and back again on the way to and from the Kongo.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

This is as bad as that time there were two Popes!

Ok, maybe not that bad.

That's the last thing we need, a schism to split fandom for a few hundred years.

 

[trekkerguy]

Why are we even talking about this in a thread about the new Enterprise?

Probably my fault. I posted in passing that I expect there to almost certainly be a sequel to this film, which resulted in a lot of wolfsbane and garlic and holy water being shaken about.

Oh I see... *puts fangs away*

 

[Captain Robert April]

In the early TOS episodes, there are a few females running around in pants, most notably that one girl in "Charlie X", just before Charlie ages her about forty years. Pics available at TrekCore.com