Jump to content


Photo

Paramount Lays off workers, Star Trek into Darkness is one of the reasons


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#41 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:11 AM

So... you have nothing new to offer the discussion then? Because I've said nothing like what your ranting about above in this thread.

 

I think we've all wandered a bit off topic, which was that Paramount did lay off people because, overall, the company didn't meet its financial obligations. 

 

Maybe a recap can bring us back on topic?

 

The thought was posed that part of the miss was that STITD didn't make the studio enough money. I don't think anyone disputes that the film didn't make money, and heck we were arguing if it made 50 mil or 80 mil, which to any of us isn't chump change! At the same time, many of the studios other movie investments, did very poorly, and thus the studios expectations that a AAA property like Star Trek would perform at percentage levels at or above the 2009 movie were not met. 

 

Again, it doesn't mean that STITD wasn't well received, or didn't make money, but corporations look at their profits and loss in the aggregate and exec have an expectation, unrealistic though it may be, that their AAA properties will actually GROW market share, and the numbers suggest that STITD didn't do that. To corporations and their share holders, Its not about how much money did you make for me today, its about how much more money did you make. Making the same (or god forbid less) profit margins year over year is considered a failure to a corporation.

 

Understanding that Paramount failed to grow market share (raw numbers here) we then reverted back to the question of why that is? I contended, and its just my opinion, that the basic script and plot focused on conspiracy and terrorism, which in world affairs is actually passé, and thus was met with a kind of "meh" attitude from consumers in its largest market and demographic (which is the US). I actually think the fact that Paramount rebooted and focuses on TOS is clearly the right move for movies and will bring in more movie goers as Kirk, Spock and McCoy are better branded household names. 

 

We got off topic on TV, and I think we all agree its a different beast,so I'll just let that go. 

 

I think VF's point is in line with my general comment that STITD failed at some level to resonate with consumers, insomuch as it didn't actually GROW the brand the way Paramount expected. Why didn't it? Well, some feel it failed to resonate the "Roddenberry Spirit" of Trek. I think, 1701, you aptly point out that Trek has many incarnations and many "Spirits", and why is Roddenberry's the only right one? If so, I agree. There is certainly plenty of good Star Trek that came after Roddenberry. 

 

So the point of the discussion isn't to just defend or beat up STITD... at least that not my purpose. I think were asking the question what does Paramount need to do... what do they have to change to grow the property. 

 

If, 1701, you say nothing. The property is perfect the way it is and everything's great, then ok, but you're done here. you have nothing left to offer the discussion, and thats fine if you love it the way it is, but I think it could do better. I think i can be something better, and I guarantee you that Paramount execs are asking the same questions and looking at how they will grow its profitability. Maybe that means sticking with the same writers and writing the same type of scripts, but just reigning in costs. Maybe it means  they get new writers and try and bring scripts in line more with current world affairs. Maybe they do both. One things for sure. There will be another movie. It will be the same cast. The question is will they go for 4, 5, 6, etc with this cast and the JJ verse, or will Trek get another hiatus and look to yet another reboot of the franchise the way, say Spiderman has done. The 3rd movie will decide that.



#42 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:10 AM

So... you have nothing new to offer the discussion then? Because I've said nothing like what your ranting about above in this thread.

 

I think VF's point is in line with my general comment that STITD failed at some level to resonate with consumers, insomuch as it didn't actually GROW the brand the way Paramount expected. Why didn't it? Well, some feel it failed to resonate the "Roddenberry Spirit" of Trek. I think, 1701, you aptly point out that Trek has many incarnations and many "Spirits", and why is Roddenberry's the only right one? If so, I agree. There is certainly plenty of good Star Trek that came after Roddenberry. 

 

So the point of the discussion isn't to just defend or beat up STITD... at least that not my purpose. I think were asking the question what does Paramount need to do... what do they have to change to grow the property. 

 

If, 1701, you say nothing. The property is perfect the way it is and everything's great, then ok, but you're done here. you have nothing left to offer the discussion, and thats fine if you love it the way it is, but I think it could do better. I think i can be something better, and I guarantee you that Paramount execs are asking the same questions and looking at how they will grow its profitability. Maybe that means sticking with the same writers and writing the same type of scripts, but just reigning in costs. Maybe it means  they get new writers and try and bring scripts in line more with current world affairs. Maybe they do both. One things for sure. There will be another movie. It will be the same cast. The question is will they go for 4, 5, 6, etc with this cast and the JJ verse, or will Trek get another hiatus and look to yet another reboot of the franchise the way, say Spiderman has done. The 3rd movie will decide that.

 

I'm glad you're caught up Goth...

 

I think I have added something new to the discussion by suggesting that many online Star Trek fans like VF need to grow the hell up and realise Star Trek a business not an homage to Roddenberry. 

 

Look Goth as much as I'm sure you'd love to think you're taking the high ground here, you're just restating what I have actually said. Where we differ is our own views on the content of Into Darkness. Your final paragraph really makes no sense. The property is perfect the way it is? Is it? Into Darkness I did enjoy but the franchise I think needs a studio behind it that understands how to manage big franchises like Star Trek... I've said all this so I don't understand why you believe I think Trek is perfect the way it is? It's clearly not, two great movies in the space of 4 years with nothing new in between? Thats not good! Not as a business anyway.

 

The title of this topic "Paramount lays off workers, Star Trek Into Darkness is one of the reasons" confirms everything I've said in my previous "rant" and that is that fans are bitter about someone coming in and changing "their" Star Trek... My response to that is shut up, it's a business, it needed to change, as a business it was dead after Voyager, end of. Where it goes now is anyone's guess and at this moment, complete speculation. My advice to Paramount and CBS would be to do an animated TV series, a live action TV series and focus on a new generation using a multi-platform approach meaning film, tv, books, games, toys and anything else that kids and families in general would enjoy watching and embracing in much the same way as families have embraced Doctor Who, Marvel and Star Wars. The old stuff is great, no one is denying that but Roddenberry's dead so lets see something from either Abrams and his team or someone else. 

 

And with that, I'm gone. Live long and prosper ;) 



#43 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

I think you misunderstood...  I was asking if you think the property is perfect the way it is? I think it could be improved, and it sounds like we have common ground there. 

 

I don't believe I'm  restating what your saying. I hear you say STITD was a huge success. I'm saying it made money, but its not considered a huge success by the corporate exe standards, it failed to grow in their opinion. You think STITD captures the tempo and mood of the current consumer. I say it upgraded, but not enough and is still passé. You say Trek was dead after VOY. I actually was making the argument that starting with VOY is where they missed the mark (though I actually liked VOY). 

 

So if I understand you correctly... your issue isn't with any of the discussion? I think your basic issue is with the title of the discussion? 

 

If so, ok. well.. don't know what to tell you there. Myself, I didn't get fixated by that, but rather decided to look at the numbers and engage in the discussion to see if there is any rational to it. So, if your asking if I think STITD was the reason for the layoffs? Maybe.  It clearly made money for the studio. Do I think they expected it to do better? Yes I do. I think they counted on it to grow the bottom line more. Do I think Corporate execs look at not making more money as a loss? Yeah, I know they do because I've worked for large corporation for over 20 years, and if you make X amount of money one year, they expect you to make X+Y next year, and when you don't... they lay people off. My company did exactly this just this month. My sub-biz is doing well and made its money, but didn't exceed its marks. But too many of the sub-businesses didn't make enough. Guess what? Layoffs occurred.   But they probably wouldn't have happened if more of the businesses, as an aggregate, performed better, and typically, they count on the mix of long & short cycle business to compensate for each other.  I assume movies are the same they have low and high risk movie mixes, and when something that is supposed to be a low risk doesn't earn the mark, it can still contribute to a layoff. In other words, I've chosen not to fixate if the OP was just bitter, and consider the reality of how companies work together with the raw numbers. 



#44 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2013 - 08:54 AM

 

Gothneo, on 22 Oct 2013 - 8:07 PM, said:

I think you misunderstood...  I was asking if you think the property is perfect the way it is? I think it could be improved, and it sounds like we have common ground there.

 

 

 

We certainly do, it's been something that I've been saying for a while now that the studio's need to sort out how they plan to move forward with Star Trek. The biggest disappointment I've heard in recent years concerning Star Trek was that JJ Abrams was ready and willing to stick with Star Trek and create a multi-platform, multi-media brand out of Star Trek and the studio's turn him down??? I mean what the hell are they playing at! Star Trek is never going to be anything more than a couple of movies every so often, we're already seeing what 4 years of down time did to the excitement surrounding Star Trek in 2009 did to Into Darkness's rep online and if Paramount AND CBS don't get their act together and either sell off the rights to Star Trek to another studio or indeed allow Abrams Bad Robot to produce Star Trek then there is no franchise and Star Trek will quickly become forgotten by an audience it still very much needs.

 

You know why haven't we seen a kids cartoon? Why haven't we seen live action Star Trek on TV and the merchandise that would accompany any large global franchise? It started in 2009 with such promise and rather than just pressing ahead without JJ Abrams and getting a sequel into the cinemas for the summer of 2011 to keep the momentum going with Abrams still very much onboard as an executive producer steering the ship, Paramount screwed it up and waited for Abrams... An Abrams pissed off at the lack of common sense and business sense of both Paramount and that idiot running CBS.

 

If this franchise goes to the wall again, it's not the fault of Abrams and his team. Its the fault of those greedy executive producers running CBS and less so Paramount who've ruined the trek. Who in their right mind thinks they can build and grow a sustainable franchise, bringing in all ages, young and old, fans and non-fans with just TWO successful movies in FOUR years... Absolutely ridiculous. 


 

 

 

Gothneo, on 22 Oct 2013 - 8:07 PM, said:

So if I understand you correctly... your issue isn't with any of the discussion? I think your basic issue is with the title of the discussion? 

 

 

Absolutely. VF is assuming that Into Darkness must be one of the reasons Paramount had to lay off workers because he's bitter about Abrams ever making Star Trek movies. I am completely fed up with not just VF but online fans in general thinking they have some overbearing claim over Star Trek, thinking that they know the right way to tell a Star Trek story... Well go on then! Tell a Star Trek story!!!! Have the balls to go into film making and make the Star Trek you've always wanted to see! If not then shut up and just comment on the specifics of the story! If you didn't like the way this was portrayed, or this was written, fine! Just stop with the "this isn't Star Trek" bullshit! The fans are an important part of Star Trek and any franchise but they do not have any right to shout from the top of their voice ridiculous statements regarding someone else's idea of what Star Trek is... In this case we have JJ Abrams and his team being accused of "raping" Star Trek, of destroying Star Trek's original vision and all that guff and that is complete nonsense. 

 

Fans are far too quick to dismiss and unfairly so, someone else's interpretation of Roddenberry's original idea. Who's to say Roddenberry got it right all the time anyway? I mean IMO Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness do a much better job at merging thoughtful character moments with big action than ANY of the Star Trek movies EVER, I don't see what all the fuss is about Wrath of Khan, it's not as good as Into Darkness! However, ALL film is subjective and unfortunately fans just don't get this. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to making and telling a Star Trek story. Star Trek Into Darkness is as much a STAR TREK movie as any of the previous 11 movies and 5 TV series were. 

 

As for its success... I'm going to lay it out in sub headings for you to follow point by point my thinking. 

 

Do I think Star Trek Into Darkness was a success? Yes, and here's why: 

 

It made more overseas than any previous Star Trek movie.

 

It made its money back for Paramount to green light a third movie

 

Critics loved it for the most part

 

The audiences who went to see it loved it even more 

 

and...

 

Fans for the most part loved it too.

 

Do I think Star Trek Into Darkness was a creative success? Maybe.

 

It was a beautiful looking movie. 

 

The REAL baddie of Into Darkness was Admiral Marcus and his role was awesome

 

The parallels it drew with the modern day and politics and morals about confronting terrorism were clear to see (I'm not sure why you can't see them). unmanned drone attacks, militarising an otherwise peaceful Starfleet, reacting to the destruction of Vulcan was very much handled in the same way as the United State's reaction to the destruction of the World Trade Centre. I think Into Darkness was a movie that really did show us how it is so easy to react with violence when confronted with unimaginable amounts of destruction and how, 12 years on from 9/11, the right way to act is by peaceful means. In Kirk's closing speech in Into Darkness Kirk says

 

"There will always be those who mean to do us harm... To stop them we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us, but thats not who we are. We are here today to rechristen the USS Enterprise and to honour those taken from us nearly one year ago. When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship he had me recite the Captain's oath. Words I didn't fully appreciate at the time. Now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again. And those words..."

 

That speech really sums up what Into Darkness was all about. It's a story, a movie about our world coming to terms with such tragedy and devastation and eventually, although there will always be those who mean to do us harm, now after 12 years, its time to look toward the future, remembering who we've lost, who we once were and who we must be again... A powerful thought for a summer blockbuster to have and how you didn't get that message of hope in it is unbelievable really. 

 

The acting was superb all round with Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch all doing incredible things

 

Khan? meh I'm 50/50 on this but it didn't spoil the movie for me. Cumberbatch was a very suitable Khan, an incredible villain but I feel that he could have easily been John Harrison without ever being Khan.

 

I wish they'd have killed Spock Prime off in the first movie because Spock Prime didn't really need to be in Star Trek Into Darkness and I wish he'd said to Spock, I can't help you. 

 

Spock yelling Khaaaaaan was silly. I do understand why they felt it was a good idea to have the roles reversed but whilst in the Wrath of Khan, Kirk, Spock and Khan had a history with each other, in Into Darkness we'd barely seen Spock and Kirk work together so I felt that the whole death of Kirk scene just shouldn't have been done at all which would have meant that Khan's ridiculous super blood wouldn't have been needed either.  

 

It wasn't as fresh a movie as it should have been after 4 years, I love it, I think it's a better movie than the first one but whilst the first was such a radical departure from what we'd all become familiar with, I think Into Darkness really didn't progress as much as it should have. It took more steps back in terms of advancing these characters than steps forward but again I think had they just done a movie about the 5 year mission, we'd have felt like Pine wasn't really ready to be Captain so it for me was a story we needed but not necessarily a story we wanted. 

 

Was it one of the reason's Paramount laid off workers? No, because had all of Paramount's movies made the sum of money Into Darkness made, then Paramount would have made X and Y and maybe then some with the profits from World War Z. Could it have been a better story... yes, was it a relevant story... yes, does it set us up for a third Star Trek movie which will perhaps embrace its own universe and fly solo without Old Smock telling them about dangers to come... YES!

 

So whats wrong with Star Trek? I guess to the people who love Star Trek in all of it's many forms won't really care about this question, I kind of don't either but what makes me care is that I want more Star Trek! Now some will argue that the current movies aren't Star Trek... Well they are... The difficulty with Trek is where do you take it in a world where Trek is shown, there are no more taboo's. People may still question things but the internet has given people the freedom to share opinions and to view material that in the 60's would have been considered shocking. The trouble is with some fan's arguments is that there isn't anywhere Star Trek could have gone that either the internet or other shows haven't been before... You put a gay couple on the bridge of the Enterprise and I'm sure some people would be shocked by that but most people wouldn't bat an eyelid, you have a transexual captain and again, shocked but not surprised... Why? Because it's all been done on other shows. in the 60's it was different, there had not been a show like Star Trek, a show where women were in roles of authority, where coloured people had the same responsibilities as white people, where people of different race's, religions and sex worked together in harmony to explore space, which in itself in the 1960's was a fascinating place and gave people huge hope for the future, this was the era in which we put a man on the moon. Until we put a man on Mars, I doubt people will really be as enamoured with space so Star Trek has to offer something more than what it had been offering people in the 60's... And IMO JJ Abrams captured what it needed to survive today, he completely understood the tone of TOS, he understood its importance, and it understood what was important about it, the characters, the stories and he also understands what's important about filmmaking in today's world, IMO we couldn't have asked for a better take on the final frontier than Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness. They've both fully respected the source material and expanded on it by bringing in modern movie making techniques and resources... The elephant in the room is however, how does the studio get younger viewers into thinking Star Trek THE BRAND is as good, as exciting, if not better than Star Wars and other family friendly franchises so it can legitimately compete with the biggest franchises out there: Star Wars, James Bond, Harry Potter, Marvel, DC...  Star Trek should be up there competing with those brands yet it's not. 

 

Animated TV series for kids

Removing the old Star Trek TV series from TV stations world wide  to cement any new Star Trek production's position

Live action TV series for families to watch together on at a time and on a network that is as good as it gets

Movies just as we've been getting them since 2009 every two years - beginning with Star Trek 3, we would see 5 movies starring the current cast of JJ Abrams Star Trek's charting their 5 year mission (each movie would be one year of the 5 year mission).

A continuation of restoring classic Star Trek for blu-ray

Developing web-only series with fan productions such as Phase II 

Developing a web series with Netflix (in addition to the broadcast TV series) which would be geared toward older fans and unsuitable for kids/family viewing.

 

For merchandise... I'd probably end DST's license and have Hasbro focus on producing proper toys and KRE-O sets for any new Star Trek production and then once a toy line is up and running and selling well, allowing Hasbro to develop product based on the classic Star Trek's including a Black Series style line. I would license EA games or the developers of Mass Effect to work on Star Trek titles for PS4, Xbox One, WiiU and future games consoles. As well as the major merchandising brands, I would continue to work with QMx producing replicas from across the entire Star Trek franchise, I would bring in Hot Toys to develop a range of high end 12 inch scale action figures based upon classic and Abrams Star Trek. NECA, Funko, and other brands who already hold a Star Trek licence would continue and be expanded upon. 



#45 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 26 October 2013 - 02:40 PM

Lol! ok, that's a lot to absorb... so I'm probably going to miss a few points.

 

1. Ok, I understand you don't care for the topic title, however, I think your still missing the point that in the corporate world, not making excessive amounts more money is seen as actually loosing money. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with it, its unfortunately just the way of the world.

 

2. I get the terrorism angle. I get the metaphors they were making. I just just don't care. Its been done to death in dozens of movies already. I guess I'm too hip and ahead of the curve because I think people current writing could tell me something more compelling.

 

3. I've already said that I see Trek Movies as "dessert" and not the main course... and that most of them I really didn't find that satisfying, so In that context, JJ's Trek is somewhere in the middle. Not the best, but not the worst for me.

 

4. The Star Trek Brand was really grown from a grass roots movement originally. The studios capitalized on that and grew it more.  The reality is that it will probably never be that way again.

 

5. I never saw TOS as simply trying to do new and shocking things. Instead it acted as a mechanism to say things politically, that weren't allowed or weren't considered in line with the main stream. It tried to show how silly prejudiced or racism is. It was, disguising progressive thinking with entertainment, and in many cases it intended to get people to think and look at our own culture and morals in that progressive manner. There is no doubt in my mind that there is still a need for this type of programming on TV, and that there are plenty of topics that are still considered Taboo by anti-progressives. Could Star Trek Fill that niche? I say why not.

 

6. I think you aptly point out that Star Trek rose along with the cultural phenomena of the 60's space race, and it made people interested, if so, its a struggle to get people interested again... which I guess goes hand in hand with #4.



#46 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:23 AM



1. Ok, I understand you don't care for the topic title, however, I think your still missing the point that in the corporate world, not making excessive amounts more money is seen as actually loosing money. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with it, it's unfortunately just the way of the world.

 
It's not that I don't care for the topic title it's the whole "lets blame Into Darkness" or "here's a chance to be vindicated in my short minded view" mentality from a few short-sighted fans unable to accept change and move on from the way they remember Star Trek. I don't really care about what Paramount does in terms of re-structuring, it's always sad when a company lays off people but that I'm afraid is the world we live in. The fact that Viacom chief sites Star Trek Into Darkness and World War Z's performances at the BO as important goes against Into Darkness being one of the reasons PP had to lay off staff... More likely than not it was due to rising costs and the poor performances of their other, smaller movies. Into Darkness and World War Z and GI:Joe were if I can remember the only Paramount Picture films out this summer... Even if Into Darkness made more money, I doubt it would have stopped Paramount laying off people and had Into Darkness made less, It could have been a lot worse. My beef is aimed at in this instance, VF, his attitude and short sighted view on what Star Trek is or has to be is what I can't stand. That actually Star Trek Into Darkness did not fail at the box office, did not fail with the audiences that went to see it or most of the critics that saw it is fact and I'm sorry if VF is finding it hard anyone could truly love Into Darkness or consider it TRUE Star Trek.
 

 

2. I get the terrorism angle. I get the metaphors they were making. I just just don't care. Its been done to death in dozens of movies already. I guess I'm too hip and ahead of the curve because I think people current writing could tell me something more compelling.

 
I think story wise, Star Trek Into Darkness was victim of the classic sequel dilemma in the sense that they resorted to an established villain and far too much on calling back to The Wrath of Khan. That's not to say I think it's a carbon copy and thats not to say that what they came up with was in any way cringe worthy (aside from Spock shouting Khaaaaaaaan). Everything that happened in Into Darkness was believable in the context of this new universe and its relationship with the prime universe and the first movie. They couldn't just sweep the destruction of Vulcan under the carpet and it's logical to assume that there would be members of Starfleet that would believe in militarising it in order to preserve peace.
 
As for the messages and metaphors, I truly do think it was relevant to this day and age and I don't think I can explain it in any better way than how I did in my previous post.  
 

 

3. I've already said that I see Trek Movies as "dessert" and not the main course... and that most of them I really didn't find that satisfying, so In that context, JJ's Trek is somewhere in the middle. Not the best, but not the worst for me.

 
And I agree with that. Star Trek belongs on the TV. Having said that I don't think I can compare the first 10 movies with the JJ Abrams movies. Star Trek's 1 - 6 were classic B movies for their time and movies 7 - 10 were expanded TV episodes with exception to Star Trek: First Contact which IMO is the greatest of the 10 classic Star Trek movies. As for the greatest Star Trek movies ever, Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness are so far beyond the first 10 movies in spectacle that I can't help but feel that this is how Star Trek movies should have been done a long time before them. Truly awesome Star Trek movies

 


The reality is that it will probably never be that way again.


 
If this is true then I can't see Star Trek living on much longer as its money that will dictate Star Trek's future. One of the reasons why I think Abrams involvement is crucial in the development of Star Trek in becoming something that can compete on the same playing field as other franchises similar to it. 

 

 

 

5. I never saw TOS as simply trying to do new and shocking things. Instead it acted as a mechanism to say things politically, that weren't allowed or weren't considered in line with the main stream. It tried to show how silly prejudiced or racism is. It was, disguising progressive thinking with entertainment, and in many cases it intended to get people to think and look at our own culture and morals in that progressive manner. There is no doubt in my mind that there is still a need for this type of programming on TV, and that there are plenty of topics that are still considered Taboo by anti-progressives. Could Star Trek Fill that niche? I say why not.

 
I agree with how you describe TOS. I agree that there's a place for Star Trek on TV screens, how that would look and whether or not there is a big enough audience for something that comments on the taboo's of today, I'm not so sure. I don't see there being a place for it on the movie screens and that's why I think Into Darkness is as close as we're going to get to making an audience think and look in a progressive manner, 
at our own culture and morals and also speak politically about certain current affairs: are unmanned drone attacks morally right (US drone attacks), is acting with violence the right way to preserve the piece (US/UK going into Iraq, Afghanistan and this year being stopped from going into Syria), is terrorism the right course of action when one is trying to save his or her family from being murdered?
 
If there are any taboos left, it hasn't been Star Trek acting as that mechanism for decades now. There are so many outlets now for anyone, literally anyone, you or I to make others think about what could be seen as taboo by some and to make people think and look at our own culture and morals through REAL people, progressively or not, through youtube, social network sites, you name it, there's not a taboo that hasn't been addressed somewhere, out there on the internet. That clearly wasn't the case in the 60's or 70's. Furthermore, because there are so many ways nowadays for people to express their opinions, why would anti-progressives watch Star Trek? 
 
Star Trek is now a multi-billion dollar franchise under rule by CBS, if fans are wishing for a version of Star Trek that fits today's world acting as a mechanism for telling politically loaded stories and making people think about society and the morals we should perhaps live by, it may happen but I doubt very much it's going to be in the same context as TOS simply because of what I've said above. taboos are nor being questioned, ethical dilema's, cultural differences and morals are not being addressed through franchises like Star Trek. I think Boston Legal had more cultural and moral commentary in it than any of the Star Trek's post TOS and even that show was eventually canceled!  Studio's even today would never take the risk with a multi-billion dollar franchise, with an entire universe of bankable characters to sell from and whilst any new Star Trek TV series will have an aspect of progressive thinking in it, I doubt very much it will have the same impact on people's lives as TOS did.

 

Now you might say but TNG did for the 80's what TOS had done for the 60's... To that I say, did it? I grew up on TNG and DS9 and I'm not so sure TNG or DS9 really did make people think in the same way as TOS made a generation think. Star Trek became very introvert, it wasn't simply a ship on a 5 year mission with the focus being on the allegorical messages, by TNG and DS9, it was an entire universe of stories and it has remained within that universe and even now its Kirk and Spock rather than someone new.
 

It's a franchise now, alive to make money for the studios and to keep the sales of merchandise flowing like a river of money. It wasn't in the 60's.

 

No one can dispute the cultural impact Star Trek had on society in the technology we use and in the way many of us think about social and moral issues but it's hard to see Star Trek acting as that mechanism again since the world has moved on from the days of Gene Roddenberry in the sense that if there are any taboos left to question any political and social messages left to say, it's not Star Trek that people are going to watch to get informed, it's other people living in today's world via youtube and social network.
 
I still think Star Trek has a place, but I think it's a place many old school fans won't enjoy visiting because it's never going to approach today's problems the way Roddenberry approached political/social problems of the 60's. 

 

Star Trek needs to return to saturday night, tea time TV, a mechanism for social commentary but not to the detriment of its own universe and/or the broadest range of families tuning into watching it. 



#47 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:23 AM

To add to this latest diatribe by myself I will say this...

 

A new Star Trek TV series should be about the characters on the Enterprise within the expansive universe developed over 50 years of Star Trek. Every week focus should be kept however on one of those unique characters and have whatever they face in that episode be relevant to the audience watching as well as episodes like "The Drumhead" and other episodes that allow the audience to get that this isn't just a show about a ship but a show about a ship within a vast universe. Just as Star Trek TNG was doing from Season 3 onwards using the style and universe from JJ Abrams movies but with new characters or a composite of TNG and DS9 characters.



#48 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:38 AM

Not liking a movie doesn't mean that one is short minded. It just means that people have different opinions on stuff. Just saying.

#49 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:04 PM

Not liking a movie doesn't mean that one is short minded. It just means that people have different opinions on stuff. Just saying.

 

It's not that not liking it is short sighted, it's why some fans dont like it that is. VF has given his opinion on why he doesn't like Into Darkness and I think his reasons for not liking it, are short sighted. It's not just VF, i've noticed this a lot with fans online who comment on Into Darkness and Star Trek 2009 and Abrams in general and say the most ridiculous things. Rather than commenting on plot, story and the things that make a movie good or bad, they comment on why it isn't Star Trek or that Abrams doesn't get it or that this isn't how this should be or that should be which I find completely ridiculous and I wonder if those fans really enjoy Star Trek in all its forms or limit themselves to liking only a fraction of it.



#50 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:59 PM

Yeah and I agree with most of them and their opinions. Just because JJ-Trek has a lot of spectacle going on or is, in your words, a modern film doesn't make it a good movie (or rather two movies). And saying that those films were superior to the classic Star Trek movies is a narrow minded opinion in itself. That is your opinion, others don't see it like that. Accept that.
When I was watching ST2009, I found that the so-called plot was just a very stupid way to connect one ridiculous action sequence to the next. So why should I like it? Just because it is called Star Trek?

#51 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:30 PM

If you don't like Star Trek Into Darkness thats totally fine, if you hate Star Trek 2009 then thats totally fine but I have real issue with those fans who put films like The Motion Picture, Search for Spock, Generations, Insurrection and Final Frontier or Nemesis above them just because to these fans they are closer to what Star Trek "is", I mean that's just complete nonsense. I hate, I loathe these fan boys who can't put their prejudice aside and just show blind loyalty in Star Trek saying that these current movies aren't Star Trek because their different.

 

We wouldn't have been given ANY new Star Trek anything had Abrams not come in and done what he did. It was completely dead, no one was watching, nobody cared aside from those fans already sucked into it and literally the fan base was dying off, there was no new fans coming in. Now with Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness you have casual viewers coming in and new fans enjoying it. All these silly fan boys just have shown themselves to be incredibly out of touch and really showed themselves to be so silly. 



#52 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:03 PM

I'd prefer the old movies including TMP, TSFS, TFF, Generations and Insurrection anytime over JJ-Trek, because they are not stupid spectacle. And what is wrong about that? That's the kind of Trek I enjoy watching, whereas JJ-Trek does nothing for me. So, in your words, they are more Star Trek, or as I'd say it the Star Trek I like. You cannot - and we had that discussion before - tell me or anyone else what we have to see in Star Trek. Everyone here has his or her reasons for liking Trek, and some just don't like every single episode or show or movie.

#53 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:30 PM

So 1701, I don't think I've said outright, that JJ-trek isn't Trek. Clearly its got the name, and the backing of the franchise owner. Its not my intention to attack people who like the movie.

 

But I lean to Daysleepers opinion on JJ-Trek because of plot issues, which comes down to writing. Like Daysleeper, I found plot elements to be contrived and meaningless in many instances, and outright silly at times.

 

So to your point, I think I have given my issues with the movies in terms of plot, writing, and even directing.

 

As for the franchise being completely dead? I have to disagree there. The franchise was being re-invigorated by re-mastering the TV shows in Blu-Ray and offering them up to new audiences.

 

Just like people go out and buy "I love Lucy" DVD seasons and become new fans of the show, Star Trek sells and creates new fans.

 

For the franchise to be truly dead, all DVD sales prior to 2009 would have come to a complete stand still. Same for all merchandising. But that didn't happen.



#54 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 October 2013 - 08:02 AM

So 1701, I don't think I've said outright, that JJ-trek isn't Trek. Clearly its got the name, and the backing of the franchise owner. Its not my intention to attack people who like the movie.

 

What is Star Trek then? Because but I fail to see what isn't Star Trek about JJ Abrams movies, yes their bigger, yes they are faster, yes they are different... But I can't say that they seem any less Star Trek than the other Star Trek movies, and lets not get confused between the TV series and movies, you've made it clear that the two aren't the same so as Star Trek movie's, why aren't they Star Trek in your mind? I simply don't get that mentality and this leads me onto the point I made about Star Trek being something different to each individual and there not being a wrong or a right way to do Star Trek as long as they respect what has come before which to me they (Abrams and co) have.

 

 

But I lean to Daysleepers opinion on JJ-Trek because of plot issues, which comes down to writing. Like Daysleeper, I found plot elements to be contrived and meaningless in many instances, and outright silly at times.

 

And no other Star Trek movie has been poorly written, with a plot so thin you can see all the cracks behind it, no Star Trek movie has ever had a plot that has been so contrived, meaningless and silly? Are we sure? So again... I ask you, what's not Star Trek about Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness? If you don't like them because they fail on their own merits then fine but I get the feeling fans (not you perhaps) are far too quick to judge these movies against other Star Trek movies that IMO are either just as ridiculous or even more ridiculous in plot, scripting etc... Where as judging a movie on it's own merits is fine, too many Star Trek fans online are judging it against the older movies and even the TV series...

 

 

So to your point, I think I have given my issues with the movies in terms of plot, writing, and even directing.

 

Hopefully based on each movie's merits rather than based against past Star Trek movies...

 

As for the franchise being completely dead? I have to disagree there. The franchise was being re-invigorated by re-mastering the TV shows in Blu-Ray and offering them up to new audiences.

 

I'm trying to tell you but you (and others) simply won't acknowledge that without Abrams there would have been no re-mastering of the TV shows!!!! Remastering costs money, CBS would not have spent any on a DEAD brand - dead meaning that no new money was being made to justify CBS spending more money on remastering old shows that would have only appealed to a very small number of fans.

 

You were the one giving me the business advice earlier... Come on Goth!!! Take some of your own business knowledge. It would have made little to no financial sense for CBS to spend the money re-mastering TNG or Enterprise without JJ Abrams (or someone else) reinvigorating the franchise and bringing it back into the public eye. Star Trek was completely dead, an irrelevant show about irrelevant issues to a modern audience, watched by crazy nerds, loyal to "the vision", it was completely and utterly dead to ANYONE BUT IT'S DYING/DIMINISHED FAN BASE. NO ONE was watching or was interested in getting into Star Trek either for the first time or being reintroduced to it via TV series that were outdated and movies that were hit and miss in terms of quality with the TNG movies being just extended TV episodes... Thats harsh and certainly not how I see the last 50 years, I love Star Trek but even as someone who loves it, I can see that Star Trek before JJ Abrams allowed people to enter the Star Trek universe, was completely irrelevant and completely dead, remembered for it's honky acting and shoddy sets rather than the influence it had had on a generation long since grown up.   

 

Just like people go out and buy "I love Lucy" DVD seasons and become new fans of the show, Star Trek sells and creates new fans.

 

So using your logic, had Abrams not been involved and Paramount and CBS had done nothing, Star Trek would have done what? Sold it's older shows to create new fans? That wasn't happening because if it had been happening why would Paramount and CBS spend all the money involving Abrams to revive it? Had it been making money for the studio's why would they need to do anything? 

 

IT WASN'T MAKING MONEY and it wasn't appealing to anyone, not even the much larger portion of fandom, the casual fans. It was and still is loved by US, a loyal, outspoken but hugely minor group of fans and I'm afraid we're just not enough to keep this franchise going anymore, it NEEDED someone to come in and do exactly what JJ Abrams has done, go back to the most popular, recognisable characters in Star Trek so that a wider audience could come in without any prior knowledge to what had come before, whilst respecting those of us who have been watching loyally for decades prior. Thats what he did and thats why It sells now because of the work Abrams did in reintroducing Star Trek to the wider world beyond the realms of the Internet. More work I agree needs to be done to grow the brand, to introduce Star Trek to a younger generation but had Abrams not come in and laid those foundations or had the studio not taken the decision to restart the franchise, it would have continued to die off, merchandise sales were non existent, companies were not interested in the brand, DST were all but finished with their merchandise, just ask Zach, I'm certain that we'd have seen their Star Trek line go the way of their Stargate and BSG line in the end. Had Abrams not come in, it would have been completely finished as a franchise. 

 

For the franchise to be truly dead, all DVD sales prior to 2009 would have come to a complete stand still. Same for all merchandising. But that didn't happen.

 

I'm sorry but it did happen, there was nothing new (remastered old series or new material) coming from Paramount or CBS at the time when Enterprise was canned, DST were the only major merchandiser out there and struggling to sell anything. It has been since 2009 that CBS has taken on remastering TNG and Enterprise, it has been since 2009 that interest from the likes of Hasbro and other brands have really come knocking on CBS's door. You must have seen the interest increase since 2009 compared to where it was before 2009. 

 

By now Star Trek would have been truly dead because the people that matter, the mainstream and casual viewers, the companies that have given us all this great merchandise since 2009, wouldn't have touched Star Trek before 2009 because they would not have made any money off of it. Same goes for CBS, they wouldn't have started work re-mastering TNG or Enterprise and none of this buzz around DS9 being re-mastered for Blu Ray or any of these huge Destination Star Trek events would have happened because the companies putting in the money to fund merchandise, conventions would have seen no financial reward from doing it. Its ludicrous to think that you'd invest any money on a franchise that would have had no new product/material to sell, resorting to only selling it's old stuff, that is only ever going to become less and less relevant to anyone new wanting to become introduced to Star Trek, for what is getting close now to 5 years had Abrams not re-introduced Star Trek to a wider audience. Yes there are issues with the franchise as it stands, none of which I blame on the content of either Star Trek or Star Trek Into Darkness but for whatever reason Into Darkness didn't grow the brand as much as I'm sure Paramount would have liked and I'm sure they are now thinking about how best to move forward with Abrams still committed but to a lesser extent. However the Star Trek brand is in a far better place right now than it was in 2005 after Enterprise. It's far more popular now than it was back in 2005 and that isn't because of TOS or TNG, its down to the success and public profile Abrams has created with his 2 movies. 

 

In short, CBS could have only sold the old stuff to new fans by having something for new fans to start their interest with, Abrams movies opened the door, (to not just fans but potential investors i.e. Hasbro etc..) CBS introduced them to Star Trek's past by re-mastering Star Trek's older series. None of which would have happened at all without Abrams opening the door. Star Trek would have remained a closed book, loved by a very small minority of fans unable to support any investment from CBS or other brands, and would have remained closed for anyone else not willing to invest the time in watching 700 hours of Star Trek just to understand why this or that happened in Episode whatever in Star Trek Enterprise... Where Star Trek goes from here is the challenge but it's in a far better position now than it was at the time of Enterprise or Nemesis. 

 

And to compare I Love Lucy to a global brand like Star Trek just goes to show you aren't really going to understand I'm sad to say. Maybe it is a generational thing, but as a 20 year old girl, Star Trek was dead to my generation but because of Abrams movies, it's alive and well with my generation now, so much so that people I know are going back, buying TNG Blu Ray sets and watching for the first time as a result. That would not have happened had JJ Abrams not reintroduced Star Trek to them. 



#55 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 30 October 2013 - 06:11 PM

Its a sad day when the older generation is so much hipper than you youngsters! Hipper... and apparently much smarter. 

 

Look... you simply don't have any idea what your talking about when you say the franchise was dead. Anemic? yes. Dead? No.

 

Enterprise ended in 2005, and right away,  starting in 2006 TOS was remastered and it was remastered and rebroadcast between 2006 - 2009,  and it was met with such great approval they put together the  HD DVDs first, starting with season 1 in 2007, and then when HD went away they released them all on Blu-Ray, in 2009.  It was such a success they started planning to do TNG right away. It took 3 years to do TOS remastering,  and according to all accounts remastering TNG was more difficult. TOS remastered made money, and they went right into remastering the movies first, and then TNG. 

 

Why? because TOS remastered made money! Lots of money, and for you to come out and say it was all due to Star Trek 2009... well I'm sorry, you've just flipped roles in this discussion and now your on VF's side! Claiming the studios lost money when they didn't?! 

 

With respect to all the product that was coming out between 2005 and 2009, All you have to do is look at the release dates of DST product right here on this site!  2006 had TNG waves 1 & 2 and was the start of a great run by DST, at the end of which they eclipsed AA for total figures released. 

 

See I keep giving you hard data, but you just come back with half-assed speculation and conjecture. Do some reconoitiering and get your facts straight 1701, because saying there was no product between 2005 and 2009 is just an outright lie! 

 

Look, I get it. You have such blinders on for JJ-Trek that you can't possibly give it an honest critique. You feel you have to defend everything about it. I've taken my blinders off. I've given JJ-trek, as well as all previous movies an honest critique.  I'm willing to say what was good and bad about any of them, including JJ-Trek.  You can keep fabricating data and spouting it off...  hoping that because you wrote it on the internets everyone will think its true, but thats your generation! The generation that created the internet... we know propaganda and lies when we read it. We also know the difference between kool-aid and flavor-aid... and we don't drink either.  ;)



#56 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:46 AM

Its a sad day when the older generation is so much hipper than you youngsters! Hipper... and apparently much smarter. 

 

Look... you simply don't have any idea what your talking about when you say the franchise was dead. Anemic? yes. Dead? No.

 

Enterprise ended in 2005, and right away,  starting in 2006 TOS was remastered and it was remastered and rebroadcast between 2006 - 2009,  and it was met with such great approval they put together the  HD DVDs first, starting with season 1 in 2007, and then when HD went away they released them all on Blu-Ray, in 2009.  It was such a success they started planning to do TNG right away. It took 3 years to do TOS remastering,  and according to all accounts remastering TNG was more difficult. TOS remastered made money, and they went right into remastering the movies first, and then TNG. 

 

Why? because TOS remastered made money! Lots of money, and for you to come out and say it was all due to Star Trek 2009... well I'm sorry, you've just flipped roles in this discussion and now your on VF's side! Claiming the studios lost money when they didn't?! 

 

With respect to all the product that was coming out between 2005 and 2009, All you have to do is look at the release dates of DST product right here on this site!  2006 had TNG waves 1 & 2 and was the start of a great run by DST, at the end of which they eclipsed AA for total figures released. 

 

See I keep giving you hard data, but you just come back with half-assed speculation and conjecture. Do some reconoitiering and get your facts straight 1701, because saying there was no product between 2005 and 2009 is just an outright lie! 

 

Look, I get it. You have such blinders on for JJ-Trek that you can't possibly give it an honest critique. You feel you have to defend everything about it. I've taken my blinders off. I've given JJ-trek, as well as all previous movies an honest critique.  I'm willing to say what was good and bad about any of them, including JJ-Trek.  You can keep fabricating data and spouting it off...  hoping that because you wrote it on the internets everyone will think its true, but thats your generation! The generation that created the internet... we know propaganda and lies when we read it. We also know the difference between kool-aid and flavor-aid... and we don't drink either.  ;)

 

Hipper yes as that word died out with bell bottoms, smarter, I doubt you even know what twerking is ;)

 

Look, you haven't given me any data, you've given me your opinion, and to say I don't have any idea what I'm talking about when neither of us work for CBS or Paramount and have no real knowledge of what's said and done behind closed doors but yet we have two new, very different Star Trek movies that would suggest I do know what I'm talking about, your whole diatribe at me kind of suggests this is more personal than just based on fact, of which neither of us know many.

 

If what you're saying is that the franchise (as in the business, not the love the fans have for it) wasn't dead between Enterprise being canned and 2009 then you don't really have a clue and are possibly just reacting to how you're feeling about HOW it was revived, you're pissed off that Abrams came into change things, destroying Vulcan, using less Shakespearian dialogue and making bigger, louder, brasher movies, too young and hip for your age perhaps? Because if as you said, the franchise wasn't dead then WHY WOULD PARAMOUNT AND CBS SPEND MILLIONS ON REVIVING IT. No, this is personal I think, this is watching something you've loved ever since you were my age (possibly younger), in your mind, get ruined by someone who doesn't "get" Star Trek...

 

Saying that the Star Trek franchise wasn't dead and dying makes your argument sound so oblivious to what had been going on with Star Trek since Deep Space Nine, when ratings were on a continual downward trend until it became financially impossible to keep it going with Enterprise. I mean it's not exactly a secret that it was revived the way it was because of the very fact that people weren't connecting to Star Trek anymore in the way people did in the 80s and early 90s... And the very fact that nothing lasts forever, things do die out, Star Trek is a bankable brand however and could be easily re-ignighted again and so it has been... 

 

Has it connected with a wider audience, yes, has it continued to grow, no so clearly work is still needed but thats a different argument altogether...

 

Going back to facts, I'm not really sure where you're plucking all this "data" you've supposedly given me (I'm sure it's just disguised as opinion) I'm pulling my facts from media outlets, DVD documentaries from the people involved with the making of Star Trek (2009), opinions from the cast of TNG and the cast of TOS, who seemingly understand why it needed JJ Abrams... I suppose you're going to tell me that the guy who played the original Mr Spock doesn't know what he's talking about, even though he played the original Mr Spock and directed and produced Star Trek... You've never directed or produced Star Trek... or anything if i'm not mistaken... Nope, I don't think you have Goth... Hmmm what a pickle your argument is in now... but you have data so its ok! I'm sure you've spent many a year working for Paramount and CBS on Star Trek... You see I make no bones about what I say, it's opinion based on things i've read and seen, like any normal fan would do, i'm looking at articles by Rick Berman, Paramount and Banon Braga at the time of Enterprises demise, the interviews on the current Enterprise Blu Rays... I'm sure it's all very technical for you, but rest assured, whether you agree with them or not, they were working on it so there more likely to know than you. I'm also looking at the comments made by the CEO of DST, the comments made by DSTZach. TOS may have sold and made money but who bought it? new fans who'd never seen Star Trek? No, it's people like you, the minority of fans who are loyal to and love watching and re watching the hay day of Star Trek... The truth is, and you are becoming so transparent that the truth is plain to see, is that you are just a bitter old man, angry that a younger generation has got hold of your precious Star Trek and changed it, destroyed Vulcan, turned Star Trek into rock and roll rather than keeping it as a classical Shakespearian morality play piece. 

 

You can't stand the fact that Star Trek needed a kick in the ass, needed less of the Shakespeare and more of the summer blockbuster. You can throw me any ridiculous fan-boy-biast data you like Goth, the facts don't change, Nemesis bombed, Enterprise failed to win an audience and Star Trek died with These are the Voyages AS A VIABLE BUSINESS for anyone but a band of blind, loyal, old-age fans like yourself. The facts are not in dispute here because had Trek been alive and well as you have said then it would have continued without being re-booted by JJ Abrams or anyone else.

 

Was it dead for you? No clearly not,

 

Was it dead for me? No!

 

Was it dead for anyone outside of the established fan-base? Yes

 

Was it dead for even those vital causal viewers? Yes. 

 

Was it dead as a viable business, as a franchise? YES!!!!!!! A million times YES!!!

 

So continue all you like trying to prove me wrong on this but there are two big budget Star Trek movies out there now with a third on it's way that literally point to you being wrong at every single turn you've failed to make. 

 

It's such a shame when the old get too old and they start making no sense, at least you and VF will have each other to remember the good old days. Goth, from this 20 year old girl to the 80 year old grampa you clearly are, I think it's time you let Star Trek go and accept that... with young minds, come fresh ideas. 

 

Unless you really are the grumpy one here who looks upon younger people with condemnation.

 

And I will, try and ask this question again...

 

What IS Star Trek?



#57 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 31 October 2013 - 11:43 AM

To whom?

#58 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2013 - 04:03 PM

To whom?

 

Exactly...



#59 data_2006

data_2006

    Rick & Pat know me by name.

  • Members
  • 382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Star Trek

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:40 PM

To me anything withe the name before 2009 :P



#60 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2013 - 03:03 PM

HA. 

 

I don't know if anyone in the US has seen this...

 

 

it got me thinking about whether or not Star Trek will ever enjoy the same revival as Doctor Who is doing at the moment. With Joe Cornish rumoured to be taking over from Abrams, I'm excited (and petrified) about what a self-confessed Star Trek fan will do working with Trek fans Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman and whether or not Star Trek 3 could perhaps be a movie that ties space and time together. I think for me I do have one issue with the alternate universe idea... and that is the fact that it's alternate... Whilst Doctor Who has reinvented itself without having to create a new universe, is it time that CBS and Paramount and Bad Robot realised that having history isn't a bad thing as long as this...

 

Space, the final frontier... These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, her 5 year mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no one has gone before...

 

... Is at the core of everything yet to come. I hope that Cornish put's that paragraph right at the very beginning of Star Trek 3, it sums up everything anyone needs to know about Star Trek regardless of whether or not they've seen it thousands of times in all it's incarnations or coming in off of the last 2 movies.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users