Trek Returning to TV in 2017!
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
You're on a forum where people still talking about a 50 year old series that's coming back in 2017 and you're nope-ing that?
I like to refer to myself as "a professional Trekkie."
Living the dream.
Personally, I chose anthropology -- but that's a good program, too.
That interview actually wasn't as bad as it could have been. I am wondering if the comment about the Prime Universe is actual confirmation, or just speculation.
I do find the use of Renegades footage interesting. They were supposed to be approaching CBS at one point, and I've seen them talking about more episodes. Is this going to be a bigger budget version of Renegades? Even if that isn't the case, I do find it weird that the Renegades footage said from CBS. Did CBS actually give them Renegades footage or was that a mistake on CNN's part?
I do find the use of Renegades footage interesting. They were supposed to be approaching CBS at one point, and I've seen them talking about more episodes. Is this going to be a bigger budget version of Renegades? Even if that isn't the case, I do find it weird that the Renegades footage said from CBS. Did CBS actually give them Renegades footage or was that a mistake on CNN's part?
You're on a forum where people still talking about a 50 year old series that's coming back in 2017 and you're nope-ing that?
Seeing as how TOs was made as a show for a 60s audience and with no regard to future audiences, I would tend to agree with that sentiment.
You can't try to structure of your show around what you think future audiences will want and expect it to be 100% accurate. Show business prefers sure things, so they will work within audience paradigms they have right now.
You're on a forum where people still talking about a 50 year old series that's coming back in 2017 and you're nope-ing that?
GODZILLA turned 61 this week and has three new movies coming out.
Yes.
But my problem was a different one. Aside from the ugly overall design of Star Trek 2009 I found the whole story soo stupid. The way Kirk became Cpt. of the Flagship was an insult against my intelligence (or however that has to sound in proper english) .
Star Trek Enterprise was already going in that direction. I don't want Star Trek that aims at eight year olds.
First of all, your English is fine.
Secondly, I didn't like the fast promotion of Kirk, but that was a minor quibble in the larger story arc of him becoming Captain Kirk. I found it both relatable and enjoyable.
Also, transwarp beaming is no more implausible than any other tech presented in Trek. It just is a modification of existing knowledge in the world. Kind of like putting transporter tech on a bullet for a sniper rifle.
It made Starfleet look sooo retarded.
Like this "Please put the tricorder away, T'Pol, let's have SOME FUN!" by Archer in the early Enterprise, where he takes his dog(!) to an unexplored world.
It's a scifi show and I want space exploration presented as something serious and professional, not a joy-ride or camping weekend.
The "technical details" like Transwarp-beaming didn't bother me either. But I have watched the film only once in the theatre. All in all JJTrek didn't embarrass me like "Nemesis" did but for the new series I want a little more.
And thanks.
It made Starfleet look sooo retarded.
Like this "Please put the tricorder away, T'Pol, let's have SOME FUN!" by Archer in the early Enterprise.
It's a scifi show and I want space exploration presented as something serious and professional, not a joy-ride or camping weekend.
The "technical details" like Transwarp-beaming didn't bother me either. But I have watched the film only once in the theatre. All in all JJTrek didn't embarrass me like "Nemesis" did but for the new series I want a little more.
And thanks.
I can see that, but I think Starfleet also relied upon a very referral based system, i.e. that Pike referred Kirk to be his replacement. We see a similar approach with Spock and Saavik, with Saavik being Spock's protege that he was training and invested in. Similarly with Valeris in Star Trek VI.
Was it a dumb moment? I think so, but it doesn't bother me in terms of the larger arc, because there are consequences for Kirk's premature promotion. I can point to numerous real world and historic examples where militaries rely upon officers by virtue of family name or rank and status of nobility rather than combat experience.
If we want examples of stinking out of the box office, we just need to look at openings for the past two weekends:
Burnt - $5 mil weekend, 6th place
Our Brand is Crisis - $3.2 mil weekend, 8th place
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse - $1.8 mil, 11th place
Jem and the Holograms - $1.38 mil, 15th place
That's four Hollywood bombs in two weekends.
By contrast, Star Trek Into Darkness had a $70 million opening, comfortably in 1st place, and 11 weeks in the Top 10. Total American gross: $228 mil.
That's a very, very far cry from "stinking out of the US box office." Or if we want to consider its shelf life, it took 17 weeks to drop out of theaters. Franchises have been launched by movies making less money and/or less time in theaters.
There's no indication that the Enterprise was a flagship, since it was not overseeing a fleet of other ships, and it did not have a flag officer (i.e. admiral) on board.
Kor
Like things get handled in Star Wars you mean?
Having a pupil or favourite is one thing but I failed to see Saavik becoming the Captain of the Enterprise.
Can you name some?
To my knowledge there is not much proper historical reference for such a system. Maybe the "adoption emperors" from Rome but that didn't work very well anyway and they were adopted too to make it look like normal succession in family line.
And of course history is sometimes reported like that to make the Person in question look better but if you look deeper you find a number of reasonalbe motives with the parties involved.
The finger-pointing "He shall be it!" and everyone bows down is a movie invention I think. And it doesn't suit Star Trek. It suits Knight Rider and stuff like that.
Similar threads
