Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek movie 2012


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

    Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 14 July 2011 - 05:39 AM

QUOTE (FHC @ Jul 13 2011, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And if they were, you'd hammer them for that!!!!! LOL


I would? Really? As I understand it, it would make sound commercial sense for a company to satisfy the demand while it's still there, so, where's the demand now? Where's the product now? Because if the Trek forums aren't really talking about a sequel or gagging in anticipation for another film even if there isn't any real news about one, then I'd say there's a problem. People were talking about it a lot in the year it was released and Paramount should have made immediate plans for a sequel late in 2009 for a release in this year. Now, it appears that we will have to wait for 2013.

VF's thread - this thread - is basically the first such thread complaining about a delay - what does that tell you? What it tells me is that people don't really care one way or another - and VF, like me and like you, is a hardcore Trek nut who is frankly confused as to why Paramount didn't seize the moment when there was some hunger.

I'll say it again, the POTC franchise got their sequels in the can and released and controlled intervals to keep desire satisfied and desire for more going. There's no reason why Paramount couoldn't have done that with this franchise given the success of the first movie - as sson as they knew it was a success. We were told that there was a three-movie deal - so where are the other two? On the strength of the first movie's takings they could have pumped money into two sequels to rival Bay's Transformers while making them both better than Inception, but there's not even a script for the second movie, let alone one that has the green light to go. The actors in the new cast have other jobs: Pegg is a hot property and Saldana is caught up in a much bigger movie with a probably sequel. Surely to goodness you tie your cast in as soon as you know they've hit the mark?

QUOTE
LOL those that hated it before, still hate it. Those that liked the idea before, for the most part, still like it. Each can go on endlessly nither changing a single mind to the other side.


Actually I don't agree with that because I personally know a whole bunch of haters that liked the movie when they saw it; I was one, and there are others who had big fears and had the best time duking it out with rabid Abrams fans that it would be a pile of dung. It wasn't - it was basically a good movie, and maybe a better Star Trek movie than a couple of the TNG turkeys (take a bow Insurrection! and Nemesis!) and had some really fine Trek moments in it. The new cast mostly acquitted themselves far better than even the pro-Abrams lobby wished for. A lot of people changed their minds - a lot - but a movie company has to move with some momentum because the film industry is so much faster now.

QUOTE
My take on it, they know they have the money, they know they have the actors, they know they are going to do it and absence is not a bad thing. Star Wars movies came out how often? They don't mind it laying low for awhile and they know, that soon as those first few "slipped" yeah right slipped, photos hit the internet, the buzz starts again.


Actually, the original Star Wars movies came out within a few years of each other and were all planned out by Lucas at precise intervals: 1977, 1980, 1983. Then there was a long gap during which most people thought Lucas' original plan for six movies wouldn't happen, and then it was 1999, 2002, 2005. Do you see what I mean? All the bigger fanchises work on a much faster turnover rate now -because people aren't so patient now and they want product - like - yesterday! It's not like the 1980s when Trek fans like me were happy to wait 3 or 4 years for a new movie and enjoyed the leisure to ponder what it might be about. This is pre-internet, of course, when I was in a local fan group enjoying the banter about ideas for the next movie and we were happy to wait a long time for news and product. What were we looking at there? TOS movies: 1979, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1992. TNG: 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002. Abrams: 2009 ... ... ... 2013! That's utterly parlous for a big franchise today, and there's no excuse for that given it was supposed to be a three-movie deal, and as far as I know, TOS and TNG movies were all commissioned by Paramount on a single movie basis, and even the writing team behind NEM had a sequel planned!


QUOTE
I have not seen ANY Trek film as enjoyed by people in my son and daughters age range as this last one. My son hosted a ST XI party and packed my house and up until that last movie HATED, did I put the word HATED, yes I guess that I did, but trust me it's not a strong enough word for it ALL and to quote my son "boring, slow, blah blah blah, talk talk talk, show"


So, aren't you basically supporting my main point here? There's strong enthusiasm amongst young peope who enjoyed the new film greatly because it's basically a fun, action movie? In which case, why isn't Paramount cashing in on that with movies and merchandise before they get fed up with waiting and move on with something else? Kids want more or less instant gratification now - or they get bored and go with the next best thing coming. They're not massively loyal and they won't be loyal to something that isn't delivering the goods and the toys.

If Paramount don't batten themselves onto that market soon then they'll miss the boat by failing to invigorate that market with anticpation of new stuff, and the old fans who are perhaps not so excited but just glad there's some Trek still being made, would like to have some new Trek, please! my orginal point is that Paramount isn't satisfying either end of this spectrum, and the older fans don't seem to be so engaged emotionally by the previous movie to be hungering that rabidly on the Trek forums for more, but more might get them talking again. Again, this is the fist time I've seen an expression of frustration with Paramount for failing to put out.

QUOTE
Yes you are not 20 and it's not your Trek, but it is the same thing I heard when TNG came out............... Real Trek is died........... This is carp........... We will never get our show based on Sulu......... well, they were right about that last one.


Yes, FHC, I can count! However, this "it's not your Trek" thing is a load of old nonsense if you don't mind me saying. Trek is for everyone regardles of age. You can be ready to put on your slippers and cardigan and it back and watch while the youngsters have their playtime because yours is past, LOL, but there's a lot of older fans who can be engaged by new stuff it just has to be a NEW and AVAILABLE. It's not rocket science to make a Trek that satisfies everyone - TOS and TNG did it, and for your information, I backed TNG from the start and have engaged with every Star Trek since (even ENT) - so it's not inflexibility on my part. I think you didn't read all of my last post did you FHC? Because I implied that I basically support the new movie with reservations - I'd just like to see more (and soon because I'm not getting any younger!), but the analysis as to why this is not happening does involve some dissection over what might be missing in the new movie that isn't getting the fans feverishly anticpating a new movie - at both ends of the spectrum!!!!!!!!

I think a lot of the older fans like me see this movie as a big compromise. No, it's not the deeply intellectual franchise that we enjoyed so much on TV, but I have always seen movie Trek as a different animal anyway in that it is always less deep. To make us older fans care more, the producers have to be sure that they take the very good start they have made with the characters adn give them big stories in the next picture that do have an emotional pull - after all, they managed to make us all care a lot in TWOK, and that was only the second Trek movie and then they were into a story-arc that led to much fan anticipation for a third movie.

QUOTE
Oh don't bother, you won't change my mind either roflmao.gif


Feeling sorry you responded yet? ROFL! smile.gif

#22 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 14 July 2011 - 05:51 AM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Jul 14 2011, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They were going to do a show based on Sulu??!!

I missed that FHC!


Well, according to Takei there were plans to make a show based on the USS Excelsior with Captain Sulu and he has campaigned noisily for it. However, this was very much in the wake of TOS:TUC when he was featured as the Captain of the Excelsior. A few fans liked the idea, but I must admit that I had about as much enthusiasm for that idea as I do for a USS Titan series with Riker and Troi - that is to say, none whatsoever and it would never have happened anyway! wink.gif

#23 TheHSBR

TheHSBR

    Mirror Universe Moderator

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Interests:This will be quite the list...Star Trek, Star Wars, wrestling, He-Man, comic books, GI Joe, video games, and most of all collecting action figures!

Posted 14 July 2011 - 06:57 AM

I think hardcore fans like us are really the last group of people they need to worry about. Hardcore fans will wait and wait and wait **ahem DST** and then come right back when something new is released. Thats what makes us hardcore fans. However, I fear the more fickle general population is being lost. 2009 Trekhad quite a good buzz going that I fear will be lost if something isnt moved on soon if it hasnt been already.

Who knows maybe they are just waiting for all the Playamtes stuff to clear the stores....and if thats the case 2015 may seem more feasible of an option.

#24 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 14 July 2011 - 09:11 AM

In which case we must head down to all our local toy outlets and buy up everything that's left!! wink.gif

Seriously, I don't think you're wrong in what you say at all TheHSBR, I guess the hardcore will always chew on what we have and wait patiently for more - if for no other reason than we're just generally more patient and some of us lived in a time when there was no such thing as instant gratification, hell, there weren't even VCRs and "appointment TV" meant exactly that! smile.gif

On the other hand, if Paramount knows it has us hardies by the short and curlies, it really ought to know its other audience rather better than that because they are fickle and run after the next big popcornfest and alwaya want more and want it NOW!

I really thought that the whole approach Paramount were taking in getting Bad Robot to produce three Star Trek was all about hooking in a younger audience because there wasn't deemed to be enough of us oldies to make up the required box office returns. Goodness me, they ruined Enterprise running around pandering to youngsters - and they couldn't make that stick, so why now make it look so much like they're wilfully passing up on this chance to roll with the momentum they generated in 2009?

I don't get it! Even Geordi LaForge could blag an explanation for this conundrum. If Bad Robot ever had a brief that said "hook in youngsters and keep them hooked" - I guess it got thrown out with the Canon Bible. Or, maybe they listened too much to the guys at DST who basically told them that Trekkers are happy to wait for ever for stuff that's been promised and will buy it all even if it's substandard, and won't moan too much if you fail to deliver at all on what was promised! biggrin.gif

#25 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 14 July 2011 - 01:27 PM

QUOTE (JulesLuvsShinzon @ Jul 13 2011, 07:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
At least one could extrapolate Shinzon's motives with one eye on Dillard's novelisation and a bit of thought, but no one has been able to satisfactorily explain why Nero waits 25 years before exacting his revenge! And, worse than that, I simply didn't care about Nero and his dead wife, or to find out why he waits 25 years! There was no issue like this with Khan, and even Amanda's death was a kind of "so what?" scenario when it ought to have been emotional - but she was hardly on-screen long enough to make us care given that so many of Spock's early life scenes were cut out. Ditto Kirk's silly wailing mother - another stupid, misfire of a scene which carried no emotional force whatsoever given that we hardly knew the woman or Kirk's father.

Right off the top of my head i cant remember every detail, but supposedly Nero and crew were captured by the Klingons some time after showing up in the past and held at a Klingon prison for a long time, apparently up to the transmission Uhura intercepted about a lot of Klingon ships being destroyed by an unknown ship. Nero also waited 25 years because it was to take that long for Spocks ship to show up in the same time as Nero so that Nero could force Spock to view the destruction of Vulcan from his imprisonment on Delta Vega. All of these details didnt make it into the movie, and i think it would have been better had it been fleshed out a bit more in these areas.

#26 richpit

richpit

    The card is maxed out.

  • Members
  • 261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trinity, FL
  • Interests:Star Trek toys, Star Trek props, Star Trek stuff in general!

Posted 14 July 2011 - 08:08 PM

QUOTE (VulcanFanatic @ Jul 14 2011, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Right off the top of my head i cant remember every detail, but supposedly Nero and crew were captured by the Klingons some time after showing up in the past and held at a Klingon prison for a long time, apparently up to the transmission Uhura intercepted about a lot of Klingon ships being destroyed by an unknown ship. Nero also waited 25 years because it was to take that long for Spocks ship to show up in the same time as Nero so that Nero could force Spock to view the destruction of Vulcan from his imprisonment on Delta Vega. All of these details didnt make it into the movie, and i think it would have been better had it been fleshed out a bit more in these areas.


Yep, most of that was in the "companion" comic books. "Countdown" or something? If you didn't read those, a lot of it didn't make any sense.

#27 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:00 AM

Now, yes, thank you gents - you hit on something I omitted to mention when I listing some faults in Abrams' movie!

I meant to factor in that it's a silly mistake to assume that your audience has read the comics put out prior to the movie's release. I didn't read Countdown and I assume that only Trek fans who like comics would have done so. Certainly, I can't imagine that the mainstream public read those comics.

I think it's completely the case that not having read Nero's backstory that the plot makes less sense - it really was incomprehensible to me that Nero and his crew would basically languish in the changed timeline waiting for Spock to be at the right point for Nero's revenge to be at most destructive. I know Romulans are supposed to live for a very long time, and as Picard said, to play the long game - but really!

If I as a long-time Trek fan could tease out the motives then Joe Public wouldn't have stood a chance given the lack of detail in the finished movie.

#28 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:03 AM

That was one of my issues. Films are supposed to stand on their own. Having to find and read that backstory was a mistake IMO.

As FHC has said before, you can't please everyone. Oddly, I thought insurrection wasn't a bad trek movie. For me, it brought together a story with message and did so with humor and just enough action for the big screen, and I think I liked it more than the 2009 effort for that reason. However, the tomato meter at RT would disagree!

#29 Professor McCoy

Professor McCoy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 08:59 PM

QUOTE (JulesLuvsShinzon @ Jul 14 2011, 06:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually, the original Star Wars movies came out within a few years of each other and were all planned out by Lucas at precise intervals: 1977, 1980, 1983.


That's revisionist history. When Star Wars came out, it was most definitely a stand-alone film. Lucas even speculated as to whether or not Darth Vader survived the destruction of the Death Star, and whether he would be the villain of the next film.

Sometimes I think Lucas should have worked for the Ministry of Truth. "Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

#30 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 18 July 2011 - 05:30 AM

You may well be correct on the revisionist history, but by the early 80s Lucas was certainly putting it about that the first movie was just the first installment of a planned series of six and that three of them would be prequels to the story featured in Star Wars. I remember this because it greatly surprised me at the time - especially the prequels bit.

I think the first movie was definitely a stand-alone at its inception but Lucas realised he was onto a good thing when it went stellar and realised he could cash-in.

#31 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2011 - 05:23 PM

Apologies if I repeat what has already been said but just throwing in my opinion since we are close to SDCC...

On the night Christopher Nolan and Warner Brothers release a teaser trailer for the highly anticipated The Dark Knight Rises, where's the Trek gone?

The dust has well and truly settled and Abrams first movie well and truly enjoyed, fondly remembered but forgotten by many as these things usually are. I can't help but feel a sense of utter disappointment at the lack of anything new regarding Star Trek two years on from the last movie. I'm sure that when the time is right for Paramount and Bad Robot to reveal their next instalment the interest will build again but at what cost to the studio? I can't help feel that with SDCC only 2 days away, that nothing has really happened. Sure we're getting more Shatner Kirk memorabilia as well as merchandise based on TOS and the PAST 45 years however as much as that series is loved by the fans, where's the FUTURE gone? Wasn't the whole purpose of JJ Abrams coming in and making his Star Trek movie an attempt at garnering a new audience, a younger audience? By the time Paramount and Bad Robot do decide to release their teaser trailer and announce their next Star Trek movie to the world, It may be too late for them to continue on from the momentum they gained with their first movie.

SDCC 2011, regardless of whether or not the next Trek movie is delayed and pushed back, would surely have been a perfect opportunity to do something big, something noteworthy to gain the mass media and general movie going audiences attention once more in Star Trek. Fair enough they want to continue to push the original series and more-so in it's 45th year but come on CBS/Paramount... Something has to be done to this franchise that gets kids involved and excited about otherwise, spending millions on making and promoting Abrams Star Trek every 3 or 4 years will in the long run be money down the drain...

I look at brands like Transformers, Star Wars, Batman, Marvel and I think Star Trek after the last movie should be with these guys but it's not, it's splashing around with an ageing fan-base, knee-deep in it's past, celebrating the likes of Shatner and Nimoy rather than building on the fantastic work Abrams, Pine and Quinto did. My mind boggles at the confusing decisions being taken once again by the powers that be. By the time the next movie comes, will it be too late to roll it out off the back of the last movie and will anyone care without being reminded at the same cost to Paramount in bigger marketing campaign? Essentially, will they have to reboot the reboot?

I hope not, I hope that Paramount and Abrams can regain some ground and push for another fantastic voyage into the final frontier this time not loosing the momentum but building on it by doing new things such as this new console game, toys and animated series. I do feel that mistakes are being made on how best to go forward with Star Trek when what it needs is fantastic movies but also a massive marketing strategy which at the moment is not there. It's simply not enough for there to be good Star Trek movies released every 4 years but nothing after each of them...

#32 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 19 July 2011 - 04:35 AM

I can only agree witheverything you've said 1701 in your thoughtful post.

I had no idea the first The Dark Knight Rises trailer had been released and that's pretty much right on top of the principle shoot wrapping up, so that's fast work. If some producers can work to that forward momentum, what the hell has gone wrong with Paramount and Bad Robot?

I like your idea of rebooting the reboot, because by 2013 that's exactly what Bad Robot will have to do, and by that time some of the new cast may have moved onto bigger and better things and be unavailable.

Around the time Enterprise was cancelled in 2005, a lot of fans were saying that it was because Paramount didn't really care so much for this intellectual property and that it was almost a burden they had to keep begrudgingly putting minimal amounts of money into, and that the Abrams reboot was simply a cynical move to make the former cash-cow produce a better yeild. The big Christie's sale of props and costumes seemed to add to that impression. Having bought Star Trek to a new audience and having kept a reasonable proportion of the old one, it beggars belief that they've allowed Abrams and bad Robot to drag their heels in this way.

Poor judgement all the way round.

#33 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 19 July 2011 - 11:24 AM

So... I was looking at release dates for Trek films and up until the last two, the release dates were pretty much every two years.

However, there were a couple outliers where we had 3 years between films (also there were two only 1 year apart!).

So three years out may only be an exception if the franchise gets rolling again... and in fact would be a repeat of how the original Trek Franchise started out. 6-7 years is where they were at for the the "reboot", so while 4-5 years isn't really a good sign of health IMO, its not quite to the reboot length of time.

#34 Jedigreedo

Jedigreedo

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma

Posted 19 July 2011 - 11:39 AM

Personally, I'm not surprised. The most common reaction I've noticed is that people liked the movie when it came out, but didn't care about it afterward. That's not to say they hate it now or anything, they just don't care. Some friends of mine and myself all bought it on DVD/Blu-Ray when it came out, but that was just because we wanted the Enterprise model that Target had. Otherwise we'd probably still be waiting ot pick it up, as we haven't watched the movie since the theatrical viewing. I just don't can't be motivated to see it again because it just doesn't really offer anything that makes it worthwhile. It had fun moments, but then it's filled with too many "huh?" moments and ultimately ended without much of a point to it. Abrams, I think, was really out of his league in making the movie. He had a decent vision in some aspects, but significantly disappointed in many others.

I'm sure a sequel will eventually be made given its box office success (though opening weekend may have been seen as disappointing), but it seems to be very low priority. And, again, I'm not surprised. The hype surrounding the movie had people thinking it was going to revitalize the franchise and send Star Trek into a new money-making generation, but the hype died abruptly after its release. And, of course, the merchandising failed horribly for the most part. Playmates' contributions to the franchise were embarrassing, and they probably want to get away from that. However, given that this franchise is something they want to take complete advantage of, it's doubtful that they want to launch another movie without a merchandising backing. But, who wants to step up to the plate after Playmates' results? They'll probably wait until a toy company wants to back a figure line, which I'd be surprised if it was someone other than Jakks Pacific or a similarly small company. I mean, even Hallmark didn't want to touch the Abramsverse again despite there being Spock's jellyfish and the Narada that they could have made this year.

Personally, at this point, I think the better move would be to abandon the Abramsverse and just leave the '09 movie as a standalone adventure that loosely ties into canon as an alternate universe that exists simultaneously with the "prime" universe. They need to re-evaluate exactly why the "prime" universe fizzled out of favor, which was dominantly from exhausted talent as the fourth season of Enterprise showed us. As much as I don't like Enterprise, even I have to agree that the episodes dabbling in the Mirror universe was some of the absolute best work that the franchise has ever seen. It's a pretty common praise among the fan community even after the Mirror universe got to annoying levels during DS9. New talent brings new promise. Although, in regard to Abrams, his talents were/are still very much too amateur to properly give a new perspective to something like Star Trek.

#35 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 19 July 2011 - 02:03 PM

Jedigreedo,

Season 4 of ENT was really good IMO, and not just because of "In a Mirror Darkley"

Manny Coto was the reason for that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Manny was / is the future of Trek IMO...

ENT S4 gave us Tie-ins to augments, Orion slave girls, and much more that filled in backstory and holes and even fixed continuity issues in a way that I found just delightful!


#36 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 19 July 2011 - 02:08 PM

I have to agree that the merchandising for the 2009 movie hasnt been all that great. TOS has had a yearly calendar since 75 or 76 and the new movie only had a calendar out for one year, no 2011 calendar, but TOS still has them. As was already stated, no new Hallmark 2009 Trek this year either.The Burger King promotion in 09 probably didnt have a lot of success, of course i dont know for sure but in my area there didnt seem to be a lot of interest. Yes, the Playmates line was not what it could have been, but i bought it all and i for one am glad we at least got some Star Trek toys in 2009. You know, i am not totally convinced that even if Hasbro had given us a "Star Wars" like line for the 2009 movie, that it would have been a success either.I wonder just how many people became rabid Star Trek fans by way of the 2009 movie? Do we have anyone here who is a converted Trekkie since AbramsTrek came out?

#37 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 July 2011 - 03:15 PM

Jedi, I can see where you're coming from but I think thats quite an isolated personal opinion between a small percentage who did go out and buy it. I think what is disappointing is that Paramount didn't capitalise on the movie's success more. I don't think they expected it to do as well as it has done and may have been caught on the hop... However...

Warner Bro's to be fair did the same thing between Begins and Dark Knight but the difference between the two it seems is tha Christopher Nolan is better at organising his time and doesn't take on every project that is handed to him. Granted the "Supreme Court" all wanted to go off and do other things after Star Trek but they knew, (JJ Abrams especially) that they'd HAVE to be back doing Star Trek to meet a June 29th 2012 date set early in 2010. As far as I can make out, JJ Abrams was the guy holding this project up because, by his own admission, he took on too much.

I like Abrams as a guy, I like him doing Star Trek and I think by and large he's a great story-teller and the right guy to do Star Trek. As for the cast, I wouldn't worry about them moving on and not being able to do Star Trek, I 100% guarantee that they will ALL be back for the next two Star Trek movies, however long they may take to arrive. What does need to start happening now, at SDCC is that he needs to commit to directing it, to give us a title and for Paramount to then begin to release posters saying "Star Trek: Phase Two, Coming 2012". If all that is done and it's not a lot to ask since this movie has been in "soft-prep" for a while now, I think things will settle down on the boards and within the media and people can start looking forward to it rather than having this rather wishy-washy limbo feeling which does nothing but irritate and eventually alienate people.

When the next movie does eventually arrive I hope that Paramount and CBS begin to focus their attention on the future of the brand rather than TOS or TNG and the rest.

A few tips for CBS to consider after the sequel:

> An animated series, firmly aimed at kids to air on The Hub or Nickelodeon

> Some real, mass-market promotion of "Star Trek: The Game" - a game that has so far taken many in the gaming industry by pleasant surprise

> An extensive array of merchandise focused on targeting children and younger fans

> Continued merchandise produced by QMx based on JJ Abrams Star Trek movies as well as certain aspects of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek (Their Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $5,000 artisan USS Enterprise refit model for example)

> No more DST or secondary toy companies, one franchise, one toy company... An extensive toy and games line produced by the world's 2nd largest Toy manufacturer, Hasbro. By extensive I mean a focus on both the 2009 movie and 2012 movie with a focus on producing toys based on the Original Star Trek Trilogy (more on this idea next)

> A re-ordering of the Original Star Trek movies with The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock and The Voyager home being firmly advertised as the original Star Trek trilogy

> Less emphasis on the older properties TOS, TNG, DS9 and Enterprise but more emphasis on The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home being the original Star Trek trilogy (the equivalent to the original Star Wars movies) to begin with

> A more open and outgoing franchise, with CBS not afraid to license it out to the likes of Family Guy

> An "outreach initiative" with a Lucas-esq approach in marketing it to countries around the world (Japan, China, UK, Germany and other countries that are less familiar with what Star Trek is all about). This will be achieved with the sequel being bigger globally this time around

> Whilst I believe that marketing the JJ Abrams Star Trek is vital and far more important than marketing the old stuff, Star Trek isn't just about JJ Abrams and so A more determined and wide-spread but focused marketing campaign for TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on TV that celebrates the complete nerdy-ness of Star Trek at the same time showing people not familiar with Star Trek or people who wouldn't think twice that it is actually OK to watch it and like it. I don't know if anyone has seen the CBSAction posters for Star Trek in the UK but this is what CBS should be doing more of, linking every day people with Star Trek and advertising the fact that it's ok to like Star Trek.

> A focus on the present and future rather than the past. At the moment as many here have said, CBS seem content on pushing the old stuff rather than the new - that has to diminish and change and CBS can't be afraid of promoting new Star Trek over old because they fear the fans may turn away.

> Spoon feeding Star Trek is a good idea but I feel they have gone too far with the whole secrecy thing - let a bit more news out to keep people interested otherwise Star Trek wont be a franchise anymore, just 3 good movies and nothing to excite people about the brand as a whole between each movie (as said before)

> No new live action TV series for now. Let JJ Abrams Star Trek establish itself and the universe they create as it builds upon it's successes

> Everything is an event... Much in the same way the Star Wars trilogy coming to Blu-Ray is an event, CBS need's to build upon Star Trek's (sometimes hidden) popularity by making more of each Blu-Ray release rather than releasing everything willy-nilly - a focused, determined release schedule would be ideal and building a sense of something great is about to be revealed kind of marketing strategy.

> The kids are everything and I believe CBS are not doing ANYTHING at the moment to engage the kids in Star Trek - that has to change by using methods or methods similar to those I've mentioned above.


CBS could learn a lot from Lucas Film.

#38 Jedigreedo

Jedigreedo

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma

Posted 19 July 2011 - 04:34 PM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Jul 19 2011, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Jedigreedo,

Season 4 of ENT was really good IMO, and not just because of "In a Mirror Darkley"

Manny Coto was the reason for that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Manny was / is the future of Trek IMO...

ENT S4 gave us Tie-ins to augments, Orion slave girls, and much more that filled in backstory and holes and even fixed continuity issues in a way that I found just delightful!


Yeah, but personally I didn't care for any of that stuff since it still didn't seem right for Enterprise, and "In a Mirror Darkly" is the only one that I could really tolerate the idea that it was happening on that particular show. However, I admit that stuff was at least significantly more creative and original than the previous three seasons of Enterprise. Coto certainly deserves another shot.

QUOTE (1701 @ Jul 19 2011, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
thats quite an isolated personal opinion between a small percentage


That's all any of this is. Keep in mind I'm not presenting my opinion as absolute authority on the matter, I'm just relaying personal experience and theory to add into consideration.

#39 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 20 July 2011 - 02:46 AM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Jul 19 2011, 06:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So... I was looking at release dates for Trek films and up until the last two, the release dates were pretty much every two years.


TOS: 1979, 1982,1984,1986,1989,1992, TNG: 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002 (those are the dates they were released in the UK) as quoted in my previous post. wink.gif

QUOTE
However, there were a couple outliers where we had 3 years between films (also there were two only 1 year apart!).


Are you sure about that? Paramount may have swung into production on sequels such almost as soon as the previous movie was released and was seen to be successful, but I recall no instance of a Star Trek movie being released in consecutive years.

QUOTE
So three years out may only be an exception if the franchise gets rolling again... and in fact would be a repeat of how the original Trek Franchise started out. 6-7 years is where they were at for the the "reboot", so while 4-5 years isn't really a good sign of health IMO, its not quite to the reboot length of time.


As far as most of us are concerned, the franchise is rolling again but now it's stalled. It would also be fair to say that the movie industry has changed considerably over the last 30 years and the turnover now is a lot faster. Now people have shorter memories, and those new fans that were won over by Abrams Trek may well have lost the interest a fast-following sequel might have held. Don't forget, we're not talking about a delay in the release of the second Abrams movie (such as happened with the first one which was originally a Christmas release which was then held over to May the following year), but we're complaining about the fact that there isn't even a finished script. That's slow work by today's standards, and arguably by the standards of the TOS movies in the 1980s, when there wasn't such an emphasis on big summer movies and competing franchises, in fact, apart from Star wars and James Bond, there really weren't any comparable franchises. Competition is so much fiercer now, and he who waits may well be Lost!! biggrin.gif


#40 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 20 July 2011 - 03:33 AM

QUOTE (Jedigreedo @ Jul 19 2011, 11:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, but personally I didn't care for any of that stuff since it still didn't seem right for Enterprise, and "In a Mirror Darkly" is the only one that I could really tolerate the idea that it was happening on that particular show. However, I admit that stuff was at least significantly more creative and original than the previous three seasons of Enterprise. Coto certainly deserves another shot.


Manny Coto is definitely a strong talent, however, I really didn't think he added much value to Enterprise after all the hype of him returning to the fold (see your comment below LOL!). I tend to be very cynical about MU Trek in any case because I see it as an excuse to get female crewmembers into more revealing outfits and the stories are basically a simple "misrule" inversion of the usual roles. IMO the only really good MU took place in DS9 where it became a recurring story arc and was far more daring in its portrayal of corruption and immorality. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the person that Trek is crying our for is actually Ronald D. Moore, but that's because I'm a total "Niner" because I see it as the most evolved version of the Franchise. (I'm also a huge fan of NuBSG which is the most majestic sci-fi TV series ever - IMO!)

Going back to Enterprise: In A Mirror Darkly is where I felt the entire series jumped the shark. That "Empress Sato" thing was deeply unconvincing; maybe that was down to Linda Park having some hitherto unseen limitations as an actress, but it wasn't a good episode - the only thing I enjoyed about it were Phlox's experiments because he was always an underused character.

QUOTE
That's all any of this is. Keep in mind I'm not presenting my opinion as absolute authority on the matter, I'm just relaying personal experience and theory to add into consideration.


That's all any of us can do here, but it's a good discussion all the same, and some really good points are being made.

I can't get my head around the multi-quote facility, but let me pick up on a few points that have been raised here by others:

Vulcanfanatic's point about how many of the new audience have retained an interest in the franchise after the first movie is one we've talked about here, but I don't think we're likely to have many - if any - new fans here because this is primarily a site for long-term collectors of Trek toys. Of course, it's not exclusively for long-term collectors, but since it's a privately owned site and not one promoted by or attached to a toy manufacturer as such, almost by definition members here have been on the business of collecting Trek toys long term and many of us got together on the AA site some years ago. Do correct me if I'm wrong here!

On VF's second point about the merchandise being poor - I'm not sure I agree with that totally. I think the merchandise - especially the toys - were more in line with the other big franchises such as Harry Potter in its range and scope, just maybe not as good quality in terms of detail as we've come to expect from AA/DST's finer moments. Certainly, the toys went on sale in big outlets in the UK, and being able to pick up Star Trek toys with my weekly shopping was a first! I think we're used to the kind of product aimed at nerdy collectors such as ourselves, and maybe not so well tuned into toys created for the mass market where the turnover is quicker. Certainly over here the big outlets stock toys only as long as the movie they are tied into is still extant (usually until after the release of the DVD) and then they stock the toys for the next one. I only have a few examples of the Playmates figures and one playset from the last movie and it has to be said that they really are not as good or satisfying to own as some of the other things I have from shows like Enterprise. Basically, they would appeal only to kids because kids don't tend to demand the kind of detail we're used to seeing and appreciating, but the kids do want volume and range because they always want new stuff and parents like it because it solves the problem of having to suggest when relatives ask what little Johnny (or Julie!) want for Christmas (I know, I've been there!). Playmates Trek figures always were slightly laughable and these really are no exception, but the range was always bigger and did offer playsets which AA/DST haven't since the incomplete NX01 bridge. I think we always knew that converting Trek from an increasingly niche fanchise into a mainstream would involve some compromises in the quality and the type of merchandise we could expect.

Goodness me NX01 has put some thought into this question! There are so many suggestions there that I hardly know where to start, but I will pick up on what he said about CBS in the UK because, right now, they are busy showing Star Trek and treating it like it's a TV event to be celebrated in the context of it being screened alongside other US product that have a proven popularity track record. Their trailers are clever in that they cut scenes in with other shows, and when they were showing the CGI-enhanced TOS it helped enormously to see young Shatner and old Shatner appearing in two different shows! CBS Action are about to show TNG and they're trailing it with a real sense of excitement because they know this stuff is still popular. I'll even get caught up in watching an old show when it's being aired during the day in spite of the fact that I have the DVD sets for every series going. The Prime Universe still has legs.

In line with what 1701 says, and like it or not, TV is the natural home of Star Trek and there needs to be a new series. Even though I really don't rate TAS, I think that with today's animation techniques, I'd like to see a new animated Trek even if the notion of live action Trek is deemed to be too risky. It's not that CBS is afraid of promoting new Trek over old, it's really that they have precious little to promote!

1701 is also bang on the money with regard to the pre-promotion techniques of Paramount and Bad Robot: they dropped several serious clangers in the run-up to the release of the previous movie that seemed almost wilfully to alienate Trek's exisiting audience while not particularly attracting a new one. We were lucky that film turned out O.K. but they need to be a little less secretive and a whole lot smarter. Generally I'm not in favour of posters promising product in 2012 (like that's going to happen now anyway) but I think under these circumstances, that a run of posters bearing the logo of the old film with a promise that something is soming in 2013 would be a very good idea.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users