Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Nerys Myk]

It explains that I know how to go and have a good time. Which is the point of going to a movie to begin with.

No offense, but hose popcorn munching people in the theater usually don't care a lot about the movie they are watching, and they don't pay a lot of attention unless there are lots of car chases and big explosions.

There are plenty of movies out there to please that kind of audience, but the heart and soul of Star Trek lies elsewhere!

Generalize much?

Do you really think there is a correlation between eating pop corn and liking "car chases and big explosions."? If I understand the economics correctly, concession sales are key to keeping theaters in business. If only action films generated concession sales, I doubt they'd stay in business! Then what we we do?

Trek films have been action films since TWOK. TOS is an action/adventure show. It's heart and soul is action/adventure.

 

[T'Girl]

Most people who will watch the new film will not be aware of or care about that "history" when sitting in the theater

Most of them likely don't even care that it's "Star Trek" either, They are in the theater to see a generic summer sci-fi movie with girls in their underwear and zap gun battles between spaceships.

 

[BillJ]

It explains that I know how to go and have a good time. Which is the point of going to a movie to begin with.

No offense, but hose popcorn munching people in the theater usually don't care a lot about the movie they are watching, and they don't pay a lot of attention unless there are lots of car chases and big explosions.

There are plenty of movies out there to please that kind of audience, but the heart and soul of Star Trek lies elsewhere!

No offense taken (by-the-by, my favorite Star Trek movie is The Motion Picture). But you're talking to someone that has been watching, reading, eating, sleeping and breathing Star Trek since 1975. I own it all on DVD/Blu-ray (and various earlier formats), read the books, play the video games, enjoy the various comics.

But, at the end of the day, I enjoy Star Trek because it entertains me. Abrams movies entertain me, a new reboot along the same lines would entertain me. I'll gladly trade minutiae for entertaining stories any day of the week.

 

[Cyke101]

It explains that I know how to go and have a good time. Which is the point of going to a movie to begin with.

No offense, but hose popcorn munching people in the theater usually don't care a lot about the movie they are watching, and they don't pay a lot of attention unless there are lots of car chases and big explosions.

There are plenty of movies out there to please that kind of audience, but the heart and soul of Star Trek lies elsewhere!

I hate to break this to ya, but small indie theaters showing quiet art house flicks and documentaries also serve popcorn to the audience.

Honestly, this is the first time I've heard dietary concerns being raised as a metric of a movie's quality.

(And on a side note, what is it with Trekkies' constant need to bash a general or other audiences, too? Their liking a movie and Trekkies liking a movie are not two mutually exclusive fields. If the heart and soul of Star Trek didn't please the masses, it wouldn't have survived for 50 years and counting.)

 

[Dukhat]

No offense, but those popcorn munching people in the theater usually don't care a lot about the movie they are watching, and they don't pay a lot of attention unless there are lots of car chases and big explosions.

And no offense to you, but that's an incredibly stupid statement.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It explains that I know how to go and have a good time. Which is the point of going to a movie to begin with.

No offense, but hose popcorn munching people in the theater usually don't care a lot about the movie they are watching, and they don't pay a lot of attention unless there are lots of car chases and big explosions.

There are plenty of movies out there to please that kind of audience, but the heart and soul of Star Trek lies elsewhere!

I hate to break this to ya, but small indie theaters showing quiet art house flicks and documentaries also serve popcorn to the audience.

Honestly, this is the first time I've heard dietary concerns being raised as a metric of a movie's quality.

In his defense, if someone is munching popcorn through a hose, they may have a serious problem that distracts them from the film.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I pretty much always get distracted when I hear things like "Stop bogarting the popcorn hose!" from the people behind me during a movie.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Do you know how many cute romcom moments when the dating couple both reach for the popcorn at the same time have been ruined by that damn popcorn hose?

 

[Ithekro]

It be more interesting if the nuTrek timeline merged into becoming the primeTrek timeline...more or less. Last we saw them on screen, Kirk was taking Enterprise on its first Five Year Mission in 2260. It be interesting if after that mission she was refit again and this time looked even more like her TOS self, then Kirk took her out on a second Five Year Mission where many of the events of the 1960s series takes place as they did in TOS. Kirk having matured over the course of the first five years into being more like people tend to remember him. After two five year missions, Kirk accepts promotion to the Admiralty and Enterprise gets a long reconstuction.

 

[JWPlatt]

And a complete reboot? It's the 50 years of Trek history that make Star Trek what it is.

...None of that "history" was present when Star Trek began or when it became part of pop culture....

Right. It was "Wagon Train to the Stars" - a show set in space, in the future - if you'd like to bring up history. That was the pitch - not the character stuff. Without the environment, it's a totally different show with loyal fans of its own who also love the characters.

If you want something completely new, then create something new ... but don't call it Star Trek! Unless it's supposed to be a spin off or a continuation. If the future of Star Trek means and endless series of reboots, then I'd rather have no Star Trek at all!

No one is forcing you to buy a ticket. Meanwhile, I'll be in the theater with a Coke and a bucket of buttered popcorn.

Ah, yes, the argument of last resort when all others fail. It's like the Godwin's Law of film criticism. And if we don't like it, why don't we just write, produce and direct our own film? I'm shocked that one hasn't appeared yet.

 

[BillJ]

Ah, yes, the argument of last resort when all others fail. It's like the Godwin's Law of film criticism. And if we don't like it, why don't we just write, produce and direct our own film? I'm shocked that one hasn't appeared yet.

There is no argument. The film studios don't care about message boards, they care about ticket sales. If one is displeased with the product, the only thing one can do that matters is not pay for the product.

 

[Mudd]

No one is forcing you to buy a ticket. Meanwhile, I'll be in the theater with a Coke and a bucket of buttered popcorn.

Ah, yes, the argument of last resort when all others fail.

Where do you get "argument?" Looks like a plain statement of inarguable fact.

 

[martok2112]

I seem to recall having popcorn with every single Trek film I got to watch in the theater....TMP, TSFS, TFF, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, '09 and ID. (and for the last two, I was also able to have Jack n' Coke....gotta love movie theaters here in New Orleans )

Yeah, when did popcorn have a goddamned thing to do with the intelligence level of folk watching a movie?!

I swear, some folk just reach to try and make themselves sound superior to everyone else. First it's "pew pew", then it's popcorn.

(Oh, and I got next on the popcorn hose!)

 

[eyeresist]

And just why would I care about a franchise that's getting completely rebooted every few years? What would be the point? What are the characters of Kirk and Spock worth if they are being reinvented every few years? If everything they have said and done will be forgotten by the time the next reboot is lurking around the corner? This kind of inflation is ruining it for me!

It's been rebooted once, 45 years after the original. We're not talking about Spiderman here.

(Although I've no idea what future developments will bring.)

 

[Ovation]

And a complete reboot? It's the 50 years of Trek history that make Star Trek what it is.

It really isn't. It's the characters, primarily Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, that make Star Trek what it is. The minutiae is just fluff.

And just why would I care about a franchise that's getting completely rebooted every few years? What would be the point? What are the characters of Kirk and Spock worth if they are being reinvented every few years? If everything they have said and done will be forgotten by the time the next reboot is lurking around the corner? This kind of inflation is ruining it for me!

Return to the primeVerse after the destruction of Romulus or continue in the nuVerse with a new crew, but no more reboots please!

Seems to work just fine for Bond.

 

[Tim Walker]

And a complete reboot? It's the 50 years of Trek history that make Star Trek what it is.

Having been here for all of those 50 years, I have to disagree. Its about the characters. The ideas. The stories. Not the continuity and minutia. None of that "history" was present when Star Trek began or when it became part of pop culture. Most people who will watch the new film will not be aware of or care about that "history" when sitting in the theater ( or at home for that matter).

The Powers That Be probably don't care about that "history" either. What they are concerned about is making the most profitable product, by appealing to the broadest audience.

 

[BillJ]

It really isn't. It's the characters, primarily Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, that make Star Trek what it is. The minutiae is just fluff.

And just why would I care about a franchise that's getting completely rebooted every few years? What would be the point? What are the characters of Kirk and Spock worth if they are being reinvented every few years? If everything they have said and done will be forgotten by the time the next reboot is lurking around the corner? This kind of inflation is ruining it for me!

Return to the primeVerse after the destruction of Romulus or continue in the nuVerse with a new crew, but no more reboots please!

Seems to work just fine for Bond.

Bond is a perfect example.

The Klingons are important to Star Trek. The date of their first meeting or system of government isn't.
The Romulans are important to Star Trek. The first appearance of the cloaking device isn't.
The Eugenics Wars are important to Star Trek. Whether they happened in 1992, 2002 or 2222 isn't.

A reboot doesn't remove the key elements of the universe. It just allows creative freedom in how to use those elements.

People seem to mistakenly think that a reboot means throwing everything out. Which isn't the case.

 

[Tim Walker]

The Bond movies are certainly a good example of recasting. Which, for a 50 year old movie Franchise, seems inevitable.

Come to think of it.... Hasn't Dr. Who been around for fifty years? Again, recasting would seem inevitable.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

If the heart and soul of Star Trek didn't please the masses, it wouldn't have survived for 50 years and counting.

Bingo. People seem to keep clamoring for "it doesn't have to be popular as long as it's good!"...

...well uh if it's good but not popular, you better love the hell out of that one movie, because that's all you're going to get!

 

[martok2112]

If the heart and soul of Star Trek didn't please the masses, it wouldn't have survived for 50 years and counting.

Bingo. People seem to keep clamoring for "it doesn't have to be popular as long as it's good!"...

...well uh if it's good but not popular, you better love the hell out of that one movie, because that's all you're going to get!

That certainly could've been the fate of Trek after TMP. What saved it was that although the movie was far from a fan and critical success, it was a financial success.