Variety: 'Star Trek' moved from Christmas '08 to May '09

[Captain Craig]

Re: "Star Trek" in the big leagues with "Wars", "Transformers"

Starship Polaris said:
Well, here's what they're sayin' at Paramount, courtesy trekmovie.com:

Studio spokesman Michael Vollman said the switch was a business move, not because of any problems with the film caused by the Writers Guild of America strike that just ended.

"Star Trek" will be finished by fall in time for its original release date, but studio executives decided to hold it until next summer, the film could pull in more money, he said.

"'Star Trek' is in fantastic shape," said Paramount spokesman Michael Vollman. "This is all about box-office potential. Summer is where you see the 'Star Wars' and the 'Spider-Mans' and the 'Shreks' and the Transformers.' 'Star Trek' is in that league."

w00t!

I love Trek like all of you and would have agreed that at one point TREK did hold a position to be considered A-league. I'm not convinced that TREK is, as of now, in that league.

I want it to do well but as mentioned it could be an undisputed winter box office champ. However in May '09 could just be a mediocore success. It would need a monster opening north of say $50 million to propel it cause opening weekend is when summer movies excel.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Squiggyfm said:
TPTB are putting Star Trek along the lines of Star Wars and Transformers.

So, take that for what it's worth. I doubt they'd be saying "It's like Gigli...in space" even if it were though.

Now, the appearances of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez was supposed to be a surprise. So much for the "Big Spoiler..." sheesh!

 

[Woulfe]

syc said:

Woulfe said:
I'll be 44 years old next year.
Don't see why these 20 somethings are all worked up about.
Not like they'll be in their mid 40's allasudden.
- W -
* smirking *

^ While you were blabbering on about the stone age, I was contemplating the twenty-somethings problems here!

We're having trek withdrawals!

Try going 10 YEARS without new Star Trek, then we'll talk.

- W -
* Smirks *

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: "Star Trek" in the big leagues with "Wars", "Transformer

I love Trek like all of you and would have agreed that at one point TREK did hold a position to be considered A-league. I'm not convinced that TREK is, as of now, in that league.

That's the whole point of this exercises, to make it "A-League", if they don't think of it that way it cannot ever become A-League material or entertainment - that the studio apparently thinks this take on it is worth a Summer premier tells us many good things about this project.

Sharr

 

[Kinnison]

Starship Polaris said:
The last thing a new Trek production needs is "advice" from the producers and suits that oversaw the last decade of Trek movies.

A-men! The ouster of Berman is the factor that makes this new production different, in my mind. Many fans had been saying that Trek needed "new blood" for years. We got it.

 

[Squiggy]

Woulfe said:
Try going 10 YEARS without new Star Trek, then we'll talk.

- W -
* Smirks *

How about 10 years of crappy Trek?

 

[Balthier the Great]

Garth Rockett said:

Rat Boy said:
This makes no business sense to me whatsoever. While there is more money that possibly could be made in the summer movie season, there's also more competition. With the Wolverine movie opening the week before and Angels & Demons the week after, Star Trek is going to have a very brief time to shine.

Well, just because there are more big movies out it doesn't necessarily have to mean Trek will have a disappointing box office. Spider-Man and Attack of the Clones opened within two weeks of each other, and both those movies had huge box offices.

Other than the rather obvious difference that both SW:AOTC and Spiderman were fairly mainstream productions not based on a niche franchise that's thought of as "nerdy" by most mainstreamers. Star Wars is probably the most mainstream Space Opera ever made, and Spiderman came after the success of X-men in a general "Comic Book Movie" trend. Trek doesn't have any of that going for it. There's no real public demand for Space Opera, and Trek isn't a mainstream franchise.

I mean if J.J was making a retelling of Farscape, no one would think *that* was going to outsell Angels and Demons or X-Men. There just aren't enough people interested in the franchise to make it have a big opening weekend, which ia pretty much *required* for a film to make money.

 

[royalfan5]

I think there are a lot more casual movie goers that will turn out for this. I know I can sell my friends on this type of Trek movie than I could any other scenario of Trek movie.

 

[Tulin]

Starship Polaris said:
The last thing a new Trek production needs is "advice" from the producers and suits that oversaw the last decade of Trek movies.

Wait a minute, now I'm confused Dennis.

I have always seen you only ever defend the decisions of B&B. Or was it that you just didn't want to be lumped in with the rabid propeller hat-wearing Trekkies who come on here screaming for Bermaga's blood and so went counter to whatever they were saying?

I always saw you as a staunch defender of "the suits".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Tulin said:

Starship Polaris said:
The last thing a new Trek production needs is "advice" from the producers and suits that oversaw the last decade of Trek movies.

Wait a minute, now I'm confused Dennis.

I have always seen you only ever defend the decisions of B&B. Or was it that you just didn't want to be lumped in with the rabid propeller hat-wearing Trekkies who come on here screaming for Bermaga's blood and so went counter to whatever they were saying?

I always saw you as a staunch defender of "the suits".

Against the crap that some trekkies spewed on the Internet? You betcha.

You have to look at the kinds of things that have been said about these people. Most of it was and is underinformed, unrealistic and mean. I didn't think and still don't think that one fannish dig at the Trek producers in one thousand had much merit, and the people who would hold forth with the most conviction about the specific trangressions of the "regime" were often both the most ignorant and the most convinced of their righteousness. Most of that was (and is) emblematic of a herd mentality and adolescent cynicism. The range and number of untrue "facts" that fans repeat to one another about these folks and their careers are appalling.

That said, Berman and company had their turn at bat - longer in charge of the Franchise than any other group of individuals. Big successes - essentially the whole modern Trek franchise - and eventual failure.

I think that for the most part they (Berman, Piller, Braga, Moore, Taylor et al) did a really fine job - the vast majority of what people call "Star Trek" now was created on their watches.

Roddenberry's "influence" on Bennett's Trek movies was tolerable to the filmmakers because they were at liberty to ignore it as they chose - as they almost always did and should have done. Bennett, in turn, passed on the opportunity to develop a new Trek series in the late 1980s and therefore had nothing to say about the content or style of TNG, DS9 et al.

Abrams and the others working on the new Trek movie are tremendously talented and skillful people who are doing something new and different with "Star Trek" under a completely different set of circumstances and with a greater range of resources than the folks who ran Trek from the late 1980s until a few years ago. I can't imagine what would be more useless than having the old guard hanging around kibitzing.

There are no arcane secrets or insights or "vision" to be passed on from one "Star Trek" administration to the next. What is of primary importance to creating "Star Trek" over and over again is the direct experience and response to the previous material on the part of the new creators. What matters now is what Orci and Kurzman and Abrams and Pine and Quinto and the production designers and all the rest of the team have found to be exciting and meaningful in "Star Trek" itself and in the material they're working with now.

There are visual artists whose influence I think I already miss on the new version - Okuda, Sternbach and Probert to name three - but that's about it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well-stated, Dennis.

I, like many people, am glad that the "franchise crew" from the past is now gone. I'm even a bit further along, in that I'm glad that ALL of the names... Okuda, Sternbach, even Probert... are gone. Not because I have any animosity towards them, but because I think that anyone who gets "too close" to something... who works on the same thing for too long... loses perspective. It becomes "MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE!!!" instead of it being what it really is... ENTERTAINMENT, for the AUDIENCE (and thus, in a very real sense, "belonging" to that audience).

I don't "hate" Rick Berman. I think that he did reasonably well in the role he was supposed to fill... as the "business leader" for Trek. I'm not a fan of Braga, or for that matter of Moore, but I think Michael Pillar was really the guy who made ST-TNG a great show during his run. But even if he were still alive and running the show... it would be long past time for him to move on and give someone else a chance at bat.

Basically, in order for worthwhile new stories to be told, you need fresh perspectives. I want the storytelling to be told from that new perspective... from JJ Abram's and his team's perspective.

I DO want it to feel like it's not out and out contradicting the stuff I've known for my entire life, virtually from the day I was born. I want to look at it and not have to think "this is someone else's version of the Trek universe and I should give it a chance." I want it to feel like Star Trek without having to THINK about it... so I can just enjoy the story.

The ONLY thing I've seen so far that "tosses me out" of that state is the "revised" ship. And we have a possible (even LIKELY?) explanation for that, too... which allows the "real" Enterprise to exist, as well, and to be the version we end up with once this movie is over.

My point - I WELCOME the new perspective, and I also enjoyed the work created by the "old perspective" guys. They just overstayed their welcome in this universe by a sizeable amount, and it's time to give the "next generation" their turn at bat! As long as it's still "Star Trek," I think we'll all be happy with the end result.

It's not the absolutist "Berman/Braga totally sucked at everything and should be strung up" or "Abrams totally sucks at everythign and must be strung up" argument we keep hearing, coming from both sides of the fence.

 

[uberbush]

Looking 4ward to seeing enterprise in action,is the ship going to be completly cg,or is there a filming model as well?

 

[Amaris]

After my initial desire to smash things, I feel much better now and can honestly say this is a very good move, and a positive foreshadowing, in my opinion.


J.

 

[ancient]

I wonder if Abrams has said anything about this whole bussiness. Or did I miss it?

uberbush said:
Looking 4ward to seeing enterprise in action,is the ship going to be completly cg,or is there a filming model as well?

ILM doesn't do models, the ENT will be entirely CGI, if I recall correctly.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

cardinal biggles said:
No more handicapped than Harve Bennett was back in 1982. And really, while Berman had a good run for the half of his tenure in the Trek office, do we really want the guy who brought you Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, and Nemesis there offering Abrams advice and running interference with the "suits" (all of whom have changed, so his long-running relationships with them aren't really so long-running)?

Berman? No! Not in a million years! Many Coto, the Reeves-Stevenses, Rick S., Mike and Denise O, and Mike Westmore (to name a few) DEFINITELY! THEY were the heart of the "brain trust" I was speaking about. Those who KNEW the "nuts and bolts" of Trek like the back of their hands.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Starship Polaris said:
The last thing a new Trek production needs is "advice" from the producers and suits that oversaw the last decade of Trek movies.

See my response to Cardinalbiggles above...

 

[Saul]

Starship Polaris said:You have to look at the kinds of things that have been said about these people. Most of it was and is underinformed, unrealistic and mean. I didn't think and still don't think that one fannish dig at the Trek producers in one thousand had much merit,

Funny because the same thing could be said for any of your posts where you constantly had a dig at Star Trek fans, the fan community and anyone who had the slightest criticism of anything Berman Trek.

For the people you don't know and have never met you sure love to categorise all star trek fans as sad losers, the same kind of mentality as ignorant people who say all muslims as terroists.

You have held a holier than thou attitude to anyone who had an opinion on Star Trek that didn't agree with your view.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

darkwing_duck1 said:Berman? No! Not in a million years! Many Coto, the Reeves-Stevenses, Rick S., Mike and Denise O, and Mike Westmore (to name a few) DEFINITELY! THEY were the heart of the "brain trust" I was speaking about. Those who KNEW the "nuts and bolts" of Trek like the back of their hands.

Well, that's what I want to lose. The "look" and "feel" of Star Trek, over the past... well, two DECADES... has become a cliche. All the sets look and feel the same. All the makeups feel the same. All the dialog feels the same.

Any REAL universe would have a whole hellova lot more VARIATION than what we've seen in Trek recently. I don't want someone who "knows the nuts and bolts." There's an old saying... "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." That's the pitfall that Trek fell into over the past few decades. We have a small group... a "braintrust" if you will... who had their own little toolset, and every problem was solved by using that small, limited toolset.

The single WORST examples of that would be the use of the Ferengi on "Enterprise," or the "rubber foreheads" alien designs. But there are plenty of others.

Each of those can be justified at some level, sure. But by replacing that "Braintrust" with some fresh perspectives (PROVIDED THAT THEY RESPECT WHAT'S COME BEFORE!), you can get some actual EXCITEMENT. You can get a "new feel" that's still sufficiently consistent with what's come before that it won't toss you out of your suspension of disbelief.

I really don't want more of the "same ol' same ol'" we've gotten consistently since the late 80s. I want a Trek that feels more real... and less idealized. Which, by the way, is also how I'd describe much of the original series (barring gauzy shooting of women and too much colored lighting!)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

saul said:

Starship Polaris said:You have to look at the kinds of things that have been said about these people. Most of it was and is underinformed, unrealistic and mean. I didn't think and still don't think that one fannish dig at the Trek producers in one thousand had much merit,

Funny because the same thing could be said for any of your posts where you constantly had a dig at Star Trek fans, the fan community and anyone who had the slightest criticism of anything Berman Trek.

For the people you don't know and have never met you sure love to categorise all star trek fans as sad losers, the same kind of mentality as ignorant people who say all muslims as terroists.

You have held a holier than thou attitude to anyone who had an opinion on Star Trek that didn't agree with your view.

All of that may be fair and true (and I've said similar things in the past). But in THIS THREAD, I think Dennis's statements have been reasonable and level.

It's always a bad thing to drag up past behavior if the behavior isn't being shown at the time, I think. If you do that, you just guarantee FUTURE and ONGOING conflict.

In this thread, Dennis's comments have been fair, level, and reasonable, and it's pretty wrongheaded to "reward good behavior" by dredging up prior bad behavior just to make a point.

Imagine a different situation (and Dennis, I'm not calling you a child, I'm just giving a more clearly illustrative example, K? ). You're a parent. Your kid midbehaved for an entire week... and you grounded him. He got the idea, though, and for the next month totally changed his ways... mowed the lawn without being asked, cleaned his room, did his homework.

Then, he asks if he can have a privilege. And you deny it because of the week of bad behavior a month before, disregarding the more recent good behavior.

The kid will NEVER want to behave himself from that point forward, will he?

"Grudges" are always counterproductive. In this thread, and in particular on this topic, Dennis's comments have been entirely reasonable and fair (moreso than a couple of others he's responded to). I, personally, am GLAD of that. And I'm a bit annoyed at seeing the attacks on stuff he's done in the past. If he tosses a comment like that out in this discussion... sure, respond. But he hasn't... has he? Who's to say he WILL? Maybe he's had a total change of heart and no longer even feels that way. (Unlikely? Sure... but possible nevertheless, right?)

I mean... dude... that's what my EX used to do... and DAMN it annoyed me!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

saul said:
You have held a holier than thou attitude to anyone who had an opinion on Star Trek that didn't agree with your view.

Name one person in the entire world who doesn't. (In general, not just Trek fans.)