Well that's "Court Martial" and "Obsession" gone then (SPOILERS)

[trekkerguy]

No. That was just the excuse that we were given. An excuse happily accepted by those who were to lazy to keep up with continuity anyway.

I don't watch Trek to "keep up with continuity," and I object to being called "lazy" as a result of that. Trek is entertainment, "canon" is not.

Thank you.

Sorry for going back to a convo a few pages old, but since this
thread is nearly useless I hadn't been back and just now read these.

Honestly I got sick of seeing sooo much Trek on all at once,
I can't imagine how confused or bored the general audience
was gettting, along with unimaginative writing and way too much technobabble.
ENT started right at the end of VOY, which ran
during most of DS9's airing, which ran partialy during TNG.
Meanwhile four motion pictures came on in that same span of time.

People were getting sick of Trek.

And Abrams-Orci-Kurtzman have nothing to do with B&B and the rest
of the previous Trek writers and creative teams.
They are not the ones creatively bankrupt.

Infact once we actually see Star Trek, it will more than likely be fresher,
more creative and far better written than most of what we have seen from
the franchise for the last 20 years.

 

[Timo]

What I don't get is why this new movie has to carry the foul-stinking ballast of being Star Trek, then. If "Star Trek = bad", wouldn't it be far more enjoyable to do the new movie without having it take place in the Trek context?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[trekkerguy]

What I don't get is why this new movie has to carry the foul-stinking ballast of being Star Trek, then. If "Star Trek = bad", wouldn't it be far more enjoyable to do the new movie without having it take place in the Trek context?

Timo Saloniemi

No one said "Star Trek= Bad". But so many put it on this pedestal like it's something holy. It's great, it's flawed. And while I have enjoyed it all I can see why it has needed a break, and needs a bit of a reset. Star Trek at it's core is a very good thing and has great potential, it simply hasn't been living up to it as well as it could. I think this new movie and Abrams will help bring it up to that level.

That's why you make a movie in Trek context. Because of the potential it has to be something better than it was before.

 

[Pindar]

We still have Turnabout Intruder - The whole film should really have been based on this the same way TMP was based on The Changeling.

I am very dissapointed this is not the case.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No. That was just the excuse that we were given. An excuse happily accepted by those who were to lazy to keep up with continuity anyway.

Nice try.

I know all the continuity, and I know it very well. I just choose not to care, because life's too short, y'know?

 

[Ovation]

No. That was just the excuse that we were given. An excuse happily accepted by those who were to lazy to keep up with continuity anyway.

Nice try.

I know all the continuity, and I know it very well. I just choose not to care, because life's too short, y'know?

Seconded. (or should I say "Absolutely Right" TM)

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

What I don't get is why this new movie has to carry the foul-stinking ballast of being Star Trek, then. If "Star Trek = bad", wouldn't it be far more enjoyable to do the new movie without having it take place in the Trek context?

Timo Saloniemi

Simple. Because the core idea of Star Trek and the TOS trinity of characters has great potential.

TOS took that potential and made a great TV show and a few good movies. Abrams wants to take the potential of that TOS story and hopefully make more great films.

The only thing that is bad about Star Trek is the last 10 years.

 

[Basil]

Star Trek's a brand that Paramount thinks hasn't lived up to its potential. Since it's easier to revamp something than to start with an original premise, the studio is just following suit with other "reboots" like Batman, James Bond, etc., in attempt at one more cash grab. The question will be whether it goes the direction of those successful reboots or ends up 2009's The Avengers, The Saint, Lost in Space, The Shadow, etc.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's exactly so. It's also true that it's much much easier to get attention and publicity for a well-known property than a new one, even when there are some negatives that come with the established brand.

It's that "cutting through the noise" promotional aspect of re-using well-known characters and properties that accounts for the greatest part of Hollywood's apparent fascination with remakes.

 

[cooleddie74]

Wasn't "Obsession" in trouble when the dead Mr Leslie turned up alive in another episode?

maybe it was his twin brother?

Are you guys thinking of Lt. Galloway, who was vaporized by Ron Tracey in "Omega" and then got magically resurrected from the dead in both "Day of the Dove" and "Turnabout Intruder"?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Star Trek's a brand that Paramount thinks hasn't lived up to its potential. Since it's easier to revamp something than to start with an original premise, the studio is just following suit with other "reboots" like Batman, James Bond, etc., in attempt at one more cash grab. The question will be whether it goes the direction of those successful reboots or ends up 2009's The Avengers, The Saint, Lost in Space, The Shadow, etc.

The problem is that Paramount is misreading Star Trek's potential. They think they can turn it into another Star Wars, mainly because they don't understand either one very well (you'd think someone would call up George Lucas so he could explain the issue, but even if he kept it to words under three syllables, they probably still wouldn't get it).

 

[trekkerguy]

Star Trek's a brand that Paramount thinks hasn't lived up to its potential. Since it's easier to revamp something than to start with an original premise, the studio is just following suit with other "reboots" like Batman, James Bond, etc., in attempt at one more cash grab. The question will be whether it goes the direction of those successful reboots or ends up 2009's The Avengers, The Saint, Lost in Space, The Shadow, etc.

The problem is that Paramount is misreading Star Trek's potential. They think they can turn it into another Star Wars, mainly because they don't understand either one very well (you'd think someone would call up George Lucas so he could explain the issue, but even if he kept it to words under three syllables, they probably still wouldn't get it).

Funny, the only reason we got ANY Trek movies was due to
Star Wars success and Paramount seeing that potential for Trek.

Waddyah know here we are again.
Thanks Star Wars. This is gonna be fun.

 

[Vance]

Funny, the only reason we got ANY Trek movies was due to Star Wars success and Paramount seeing that potential for Trek.

Kinda sorta. Trek's "Phase II" history is much more convulted than that. (For instance, I remember being told by a 'suit' awhile back that Phase II would have actually happened a lot earlier if Roddenberry wasn't aboard for it.) What we know as the 'movie period' would have happened in one way or another, though it's really hard to say HOW it would have gone down.

But, we wouldn't have gotten TWOK, certainly, if Star Wars hadn't dramatically upped the ante in the science-fiction/adventure genre. Before that, Trek didn't exactly have realistic competition for the market.

 

[trekkerguy]

Funny, the only reason we got ANY Trek movies was due to Star Wars success and Paramount seeing that potential for Trek.

Kinda sorta. Trek's "Phase II" history is much more convulted than that. (For instance, I remember being told by a 'suit' awhile back that Phase II would have actually happened a lot earlier if Roddenberry wasn't aboard for it.) What we know as the 'movie period' would have happened in one way or another, though it's really hard to say HOW it would have gone down.

But, we wouldn't have gotten TWOK, certainly, if Star Wars hadn't dramatically upped the ante in the science-fiction/adventure genre. Before that, Trek didn't exactly have realistic competition for the market.

Riiiight, We would have gotten Phase II. Another series. Star Wars showed that a scifi franchise could make it big on the silver screen, thus we got the Trek movies instead of Phase II. This is what I've always found in every bit of research.

 

[Vance]

Riiiight, We would have gotten Phase II. Another series. Star Wars showed that a scifi franchise could make it big on the silver screen, thus we got the Trek movies instead of Phase II. This is what I've always found in every bit of research.

Like I said, it was a little more convoluted than that (okay, a lot more), and a lot more tied to Paramount's network than Star Wars. After all, if it wasn't for Roddenberry's insistance on a script that 'disproved God' as a pilot, Phase II likely would have come out a year BEFORE Star Wars. (The whole In Thy Image debacle is probably something TGT is more qualified to speak to at length, but the end result is that that ALONE delayed Phase II's production by quite some time.)

But, for its part, Star Wars probably made sure that something appeared at that time, out of the wreckage that was Paramount's botched network creation in the 1970s. Even without Star Wars, though, Paramount would have done something with Star Trek. (Indeed, Paramount was ALREADY in negotiations to air the new series when the plug was pulled from it.)

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Riiiight, We would have gotten Phase II. Another series. Star Wars showed that a scifi franchise could make it big on the silver screen, thus we got the Trek movies instead of Phase II. This is what I've always found in every bit of research.

Like I said, it was a little more convoluted than that (okay, a lot more), and a lot more tied to Paramount's network than Star Wars. After all, if it wasn't for Roddenberry's insistance on a script that 'disproved God' as a pilot, Phase II likely would have come out a year BEFORE Star Wars. (The whole In Thy Image debacle is probably something TGT is more qualified to speak to at length, but the end result is that that ALONE delayed Phase II's production by quite some time.)

But, for its part, Star Wars probably made sure that something appeared at that time, out of the wreckage that was Paramount's botched network creation in the 1970s. Even without Star Wars, though, Paramount would have done something with Star Trek. (Indeed, Paramount was ALREADY in negotiations to air the new series when the plug was pulled from it.)

Plus before Phase II was under consideration Paramount tried to make the Star Trek movie Planet of the Titans. And say what you will about Abrams Enterprise, but at least it looks more like the TOS Enterprise then the Planet of the Titans Stardestroyer like monstrosity.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Plus before Phase II was under consideration Paramount tried to make the Star Trek movie Planet of the Titans. And say what you will about Abrams Enterprise, but at least it looks more like the TOS Enterprise then the Planet of the Titans Stardestroyer like monstrosity.

A design and project that Roddenberry was involved in and quite satisfied with.

 

[trekkerguy]

Riiiight, We would have gotten Phase II. Another series. Star Wars showed that a scifi franchise could make it big on the silver screen, thus we got the Trek movies instead of Phase II. This is what I've always found in every bit of research.

Like I said, it was a little more convoluted than that (okay, a lot more), and a lot more tied to Paramount's network than Star Wars. After all, if it wasn't for Roddenberry's insistance on a script that 'disproved God' as a pilot, Phase II likely would have come out a year BEFORE Star Wars. (The whole In Thy Image debacle is probably something TGT is more qualified to speak to at length, but the end result is that that ALONE delayed Phase II's production by quite some time.)

But, for its part, Star Wars probably made sure that something appeared at that time, out of the wreckage that was Paramount's botched network creation in the 1970s. Even without Star Wars, though, Paramount would have done something with Star Trek. (Indeed, Paramount was ALREADY in negotiations to air the new series when the plug was pulled from it.)

Yes yes yes. A SERIES. Not MOVIES. We all know Phase II would have been out first, but Phase II was another series. That got botched, Star Wars was a huge success, Paramount saw opportunity to bring a scifi franchise to life on the big screen.

I know the rest of the history, but ultimately if Star Wars had been a flop or never been made, Trek probably wouldn't have been pulled from the wreckage of Paramount's Network idea and made it to the big screen then, if ever.

 

[Oso Blanco]

What I don't get is why this new movie has to carry the foul-stinking ballast of being Star Trek, then. If "Star Trek = bad", wouldn't it be far more enjoyable to do the new movie without having it take place in the Trek context?

Well said! They could have made an action flick without pissing all over Star Trek.

 

[3D Master]

Funny, the only reason we got ANY Trek movies was due to Star Wars success and Paramount seeing that potential for Trek.

Kinda sorta. Trek's "Phase II" history is much more convulted than that. (For instance, I remember being told by a 'suit' awhile back that Phase II would have actually happened a lot earlier if Roddenberry wasn't aboard for it.) What we know as the 'movie period' would have happened in one way or another, though it's really hard to say HOW it would have gone down.

But, we wouldn't have gotten TWOK, certainly, if Star Wars hadn't dramatically upped the ante in the science-fiction/adventure genre. Before that, Trek didn't exactly have realistic competition for the market.

Riiiight, We would have gotten Phase II. Another series. Star Wars showed that a scifi franchise could make it big on the silver screen, thus we got the Trek movies instead of Phase II. This is what I've always found in every bit of research.

Then your little research has it wrong. The "Phase II" project went from series to film, back to series again, and then a film once more, multiple times over, and without Star Wars it could have gone either way. Star Wars only caused one MORE last switch back to a movie.