It's funny. People accuse JJ of using Star Trek as his stepping stone to get to Star Wars, but it seems if all of this about using Axanar as a stepping stone to get to an independent studio putting out original movies is true, then there is no grounds to act as if Peters somehow has such lofty standing above Abrams.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
It's funny. People accuse JJ of using Star Trek as his stepping stone to get to Star Wars, but it seems if all of this about using Axanar as a stepping stone to get to an independent studio putting out original movies is true, then there is no grounds to act as if Peters somehow has such lofty standing above Abrams.
It could be any number of reasons. Does Renegades and Continues have a donation limit? If they only ask for $10,000 per episode do they close the donating once they hit the limit or do they keep it open? I am not knowledgeable about what the Axanar crew was doing but from Tony Todd's tweets it seems like they were continuing to ask for money.
I honestly can't remember if they have a donation limit or not... I know on the last Kirkstarter, they said something along the lines of that if they raised X amount, they would be able to do an episode, if they raised Y amount, they could do an episode and an engineering set, and if they raised Z amount, they could do the above, and a planet set/extra episode. I don't believe there is an upper limit set by CBS/Paramount, but without seeing the guidelines they work to, I may be wrong. In the Axanar Scenario, I don't think CBS/Paramount care that they raised $1m (and as mentioned above, I don't believe that is actually their issue at all) but folks are certainly complaining about how Alec Peters is using that money, and in regards setting up Ares Studios, I totally agree that that is not what he was given the funds for, so I can see why folks are pissed at him... I believe Tony Todd felt that his behaviour was dishonest, and that the film should have already been completed, and that Alec Peters was dragging the process out to get more money, but I would not want to speak with 100% certainty on Mister Todd's feelings, as I have only seen some tweets on the issue, and a few hashtags only give broad outlines, not true thoughts...
Let's be honest...what was amazing about the writing in Prelude to Axanar? What got people to notice the short film is that it wasn't shot like a fan film and the special effects were on par with the shows. I believe that if this was Original Science Fiction Idea and not Star Trek it wouldn't have brought in a million bucks.
As someone mentioned above, it was refreshing to see a different writing format in the Trek universe. Yes, the effects would certainly have got people's attention, but if what was being said wasn't up to snuff, people would have tuned out and not donated. I'm not trying to make out that Alec Peters is some kind of Shakespear-esque wordmeister, just that his writing was clearly good enough to keep people interested, and leave them wanting more (hence the massive donations received)
with regards the second point, maybe so, I really couldn't say... Another sci-fi kickstarter, Space Command, has an equal collection of industry names (including a former Trek writer) and is working on an Original Idea. I don't know the kind of funds they have raised, but the on-set ohotos and costumes look good. Certainly better than Renegades... At my last look, someone was calling out the producer for when anything was actually going to be released, rather than him just having Industry Dinner's on the supporting donors' dime, but I don't know how the situation played out, as the lack of release of material simply made me lose interest in the project (although I never donated anything, I was simply aware of the project...)
The people who think Alec Peters' writing is what made all that money are probably the same kind of people who think Jonathan Frakes is an excellent director despite having never watched that horrific Thunderbirds movie.
It just feels truthy, doesn't it?
I thought Frakes did a good job with some TNG episodes, and a good job with First Contact. I haven't seen Thunderbirds (it simply didn't interest me) but I thought his directing of Insurrection of Insurrection was abysmal, and that is my theory of why he didn't get to direct Nemesis (I may be wrong, it's just my theory) Equally, I read Making of First Contact when I was at college as a film student, and I found Frakes' thoughts as a first time (big screen) director very helpful in directing class projects... Either way, as I mentioned above, if Alec Peters' writing was truly sub-par, then people would have tuned out and not supported Axanar financially.
It's funny. People accuse JJ of using Star Trek as his stepping stone to get to Star Wars, but it seems if all of this about using Axanar as a stepping stone to get to an independent studio putting out original movies is true, then there is no grounds to act as if Peters somehow has such lofty standing above Abrams.
I don't think anyone has defended Alec Peters using this to get his own studio set up... All I've pointed out, is i) if he can prove he had permissions from CBS/Paramount to use the IP, he has a chance of beating their suit (although he could still (and rightly so) face a class action from the donating supporters who would probably have a case against him for obtaining funds by deception) and ii) the quality of the writing of Prelude to Axanar, was of good enough quality (assisted by good effects) to gain the interest of enough supporters to raise $1m... Alec Peters is little more than a conman, but that doesn't diminish the quality of his work (as highlighted previously by the Michael Jackson comparison) nor does it mean that a judge is necessarily going to automatically rule in CBS/Paramount's favor. I suspect that this case will have some interesting turns as it progresses...
I see what happened to certain of the JJTrek characters as part of the tragedy of Nero's intervention. Some stuff I am not a fan of and can't really explain in any way (Uhura who went from consummate professional to cocky attitude and sleeping her way to influence...and yes, I blame Spock for his half in that equally). But with Kirk, I am actually a lot more understanding even though it does create a sometimes unlikable character.
The way I look at it, Nero in essence killed James T. Kirk (as we know him) without actually taking his life. Now, I have actually played with this idea in fanfic where I have Kirk suffering aftereffects between ST2009 and STID from his mind-meld with the Prime Spock, as said meld left him with impressions of his Prime self that are at dissonance with who he is and the circumstances of the JJverse, and in his (albeit crass) way, I have him reflect on the differences and what he sees in the Prime universe that as far as he is concerned, he can't have in this one. This ultimately culminates in Kirk's downward spiral in STID where a lot of this stuff (which he even kept from McCoy as it would have required McCoy to ground him) finally comes to a head along with all the immediate stress from what Khan was doing. In other words I wrote him as a character riding on the edge of (but not quite having) a nervous breakdown.
Thats actually similar to my own head canon, and you even expanded on it nicely with the mind meld after effects. Nicely done. I disagree with ya on Uhura tho, she demanded he give her the slot on the Enterprise which they both damned well knew she'd earned.
Kirk: The rebel without a clue, "OMG, LOOK AT ME, I'M SOOOOOO KEWL!!!!!" 'bad TRIBBLE' who is an arrogant prick, pisses everyone off, thinks he's superman, keeps messing up, is the one getting beaten up in nearly every fight ("cupcake" still makes me face palm) and yet gets the captain chair anyhow. He's pretty much that image of Kirk the 'fanboys' picture as the guy running on a battle field, explosions all over the place, and he's got a phaser in one hand, and his other arm around a half naked green woman. I always call JJ Kirk, "James Dean Jerk" Gimme 'the pile of books with legs' and 'in Lt Kirk's class, you either THINK or SINK' original Kirk any day.
Spock: Yee gods. I'm expecting the next film to show Spock sitting in his quarters, dressed in black, and cutting himself with razor blades, while listening to the Cure. And I preferred the good chemistry the original Kirk and Spock had, as friends. Any hint of anything remotely that of a friendship felt fake and phony to me. I call JJ Spock "Anger Management Spock".
Scotty: ~face slams keyboard~ The miracle worker now turned into the circus clown, and what the smeg's up with that goblin sidekick he's got? Why is he even there?
Sulu: Totally useless, and one bad "Fencing!" followed by cheesy grin moment.
Chekov: The new Wesley Crusher
Uhura: Spock's booty call....
McCoy was ok, but one out of seven is not saving grace.
The Enterprise......the original I'll call Audry Hepburn, the JJ one I'll call Kim Kardassian.
Kirk actually fits... he grew up angry and lashing out, he's not the man Shatner portrayed, in this I think the actor did a good job of mixing old Kirk mannerisms and tone with the new background.
Spock.. yeah sure he IS emo-spock, but this is a YOUNG man that just had a triple tap hammer blow of his planet being smashed, his mother murdered, and his species becoming endangered... that will kick anyone in the nuts. Also remember, even tho they suppress emotion, Vulcans like their Romulan cousins, feel their emotions VERY deeply. So again, it actually fits the new backdrop.
Scotty.. thing yer being a bit harsh but the character really hasn't been given enough backdrop development to show what/who he is/isn't
Chekov..... I cant argue this....
Uhura... way too harsh, and was shown to be much more than a cute black TRIBBLE in a skirt, which was about all the development she was given in TOS.
McCoy... really? this was the one actor I thought failed... it felt like he was forcing the lines out so he didnt barf on someone. I didnt think he managed a good mccoy at all.
Enterprise.. so Sexy as hell as long as she doesn't speak.... an interesting choice :P lol I get(I think) what you were aiming for as Hepburn was pretty and classy, where the Kardashians are sexy and brain dead. But honestly the new JJprise is a pretty damned nice marriage of TOS and Movie era imo and I didn't have an issue with it outside of the lens flare generators
I gotta say that I love Karl Urban. His McCoy was a bit less flamboyant, but.... I liked his portrayal. McCoy was acerbic and rather harsh in the old series too. Urban captured that nicely. Oh and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBJ5EPy7xPg
With Karl Urban you could close your eyes and hear DeForest Kelley. He did WELL.
As opposed to Uhura...that whole thing was inappropriate and it really messed up Spock's character and Uhura both since Spock should not have slept with a student and Uhura should not have attempted it. Both were in the wrong.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
odd... my dad hated everything jjtrek, mom liked it but not urban's mccoy, and I found it ok but also didnt like his mccoy. Then again Im used to my opinion being in the minority on most things lol
I see what happened to certain of the JJTrek characters as part of the tragedy of Nero's intervention. Some stuff I am not a fan of and can't really explain in any way (Uhura who went from consummate professional to cocky attitude and sleeping her way to influence...and yes, I blame Spock for his half in that equally). But with Kirk, I am actually a lot more understanding even though it does create a sometimes unlikable character.
The way I look at it, Nero in essence killed James T. Kirk (as we know him) without actually taking his life. Now, I have actually played with this idea in fanfic where I have Kirk suffering aftereffects between ST2009 and STID from his mind-meld with the Prime Spock, as said meld left him with impressions of his Prime self that are at dissonance with who he is and the circumstances of the JJverse, and in his (albeit crass) way, I have him reflect on the differences and what he sees in the Prime universe that as far as he is concerned, he can't have in this one. This ultimately culminates in Kirk's downward spiral in STID where a lot of this stuff (which he even kept from McCoy as it would have required McCoy to ground him) finally comes to a head along with all the immediate stress from what Khan was doing. In other words I wrote him as a character riding on the edge of (but not quite having) a nervous breakdown.
Thats actually similar to my own head canon, and you even expanded on it nicely with the mind meld after effects. Nicely done. I disagree with ya on Uhura tho, she demanded he give her the slot on the Enterprise which they both damned well knew she'd earned.
Kirk: The rebel without a clue, "OMG, LOOK AT ME, I'M SOOOOOO KEWL!!!!!" 'bad TRIBBLE' who is an arrogant prick, pisses everyone off, thinks he's superman, keeps messing up, is the one getting beaten up in nearly every fight ("cupcake" still makes me face palm) and yet gets the captain chair anyhow. He's pretty much that image of Kirk the 'fanboys' picture as the guy running on a battle field, explosions all over the place, and he's got a phaser in one hand, and his other arm around a half naked green woman. I always call JJ Kirk, "James Dean Jerk" Gimme 'the pile of books with legs' and 'in Lt Kirk's class, you either THINK or SINK' original Kirk any day.
Spock: Yee gods. I'm expecting the next film to show Spock sitting in his quarters, dressed in black, and cutting himself with razor blades, while listening to the Cure. And I preferred the good chemistry the original Kirk and Spock had, as friends. Any hint of anything remotely that of a friendship felt fake and phony to me. I call JJ Spock "Anger Management Spock".
Scotty: ~face slams keyboard~ The miracle worker now turned into the circus clown, and what the smeg's up with that goblin sidekick he's got? Why is he even there?
Sulu: Totally useless, and one bad "Fencing!" followed by cheesy grin moment.
Chekov: The new Wesley Crusher
Uhura: Spock's booty call....
McCoy was ok, but one out of seven is not saving grace.
The Enterprise......the original I'll call Audry Hepburn, the JJ one I'll call Kim Kardassian.
Kirk actually fits... he grew up angry and lashing out, he's not the man Shatner portrayed, in this I think the actor did a good job of mixing old Kirk mannerisms and tone with the new background.
Spock.. yeah sure he IS emo-spock, but this is a YOUNG man that just had a triple tap hammer blow of his planet being smashed, his mother murdered, and his species becoming endangered... that will kick anyone in the nuts. Also remember, even tho they suppress emotion, Vulcans like their Romulan cousins, feel their emotions VERY deeply. So again, it actually fits the new backdrop.
Scotty.. thing yer being a bit harsh but the character really hasn't been given enough backdrop development to show what/who he is/isn't
Chekov..... I cant argue this....
Uhura... way too harsh, and was shown to be much more than a cute black TRIBBLE in a skirt, which was about all the development she was given in TOS.
McCoy... really? this was the one actor I thought failed... it felt like he was forcing the lines out so he didnt barf on someone. I didnt think he managed a good mccoy at all.
Enterprise.. so Sexy as hell as long as she doesn't speak.... an interesting choice :P lol I get(I think) what you were aiming for as Hepburn was pretty and classy, where the Kardashians are sexy and brain dead. But honestly the new JJprise is a pretty damned nice marriage of TOS and Movie era imo and I didn't have an issue with it outside of the lens flare generators
All I see about JJ Kirk is the 'bad TRIBBLE rebel' who starts trouble for the sake of trouble, and that image is sooooooo un cool to me. Just another bad boy getting the glory, and doing little to anything to actually get it. and the Kobiahsi maru bit was eye rolling. And call me crazy, I prefer to see a hero without that ego and troubled childhood for a change.
I call Spock anger management Spock, TOS Spock was charming and entertaining, not this wannabe.
Scotty's nothing but comic relief, if he was an anime character, he'd be part of Pokemon's Team Rocket. That goblin sidekick had more brains than he did.
Uhura, all I saw was "ugh, they're playing on something suggested in a small handful of early stories."
Chekov: Shut up, Pavel!
McCoy: Oh, I am not praising it, trust me, he was just the least offensive to me.
Enterprise.....no, nothing sexy about it. I don't find Kardassian sexy at all, just an overrated silicon udder cow queen that I still can't understand why mainstream american society obsesses over. JJ Prise, out of proportion, waaaaay too big (JJ Picard's enterprise is going be the size of star destroyer or something :P ) looks like something from "Pimp my ride!" (and that's not a good thing), and the inside looked as advanced as a 1950 navel vessel, and looks anything but advanced and futuristic inside (the concept art looked decent, they should have used that.....a brewery, one that was not even remotely disguised at that, was a "you gotta be kidding me!" moment for myself. They used something similar in the original V series....THAT did not look good back then, and does not look good now, either). Plus seeing it being made in a primitive manner of sweaty guys in overalls with old fashioned welders was underwhelming to say the least....seemed JJ wanted to make the 23rd century look as 20th as possible....I'm surprised he did not replaced phasers with Berettas, glocks, and m-16 rifles, or painting flames on the side of the Enterprise or give it a bouncing hydraulic system like my friend, Jose's Cadillac had done to his.
to me, JJ Trek was Trek in name only. I'll stick to Phase 2 and so on. Has a big hope with Axanar, but now this, along with JJ Trek, PBS/Paramount now can be used for the question/joke of the week
What's the difference between the brains of PBS/Paramount and manure?
All I see about JJ Kirk is the 'bad TRIBBLE rebel' who starts trouble for the sake of trouble, and that image is sooooooo un cool to me. Just another bad boy getting the glory, and doing little to anything to actually get it. and the Kobiahsi maru bit was eye rolling. And call me crazy, I prefer to see a hero without that ego and troubled childhood for a change.
I call Spock anger management Spock, TOS Spock was charming and entertaining, not this wannabe.
Scotty's nothing but comic relief, if he was an anime character, he'd be part of Pokemon's Team Rocket. That goblin sidekick had more brains than he did.
Uhura, all I saw was "ugh, they're playing on something suggested in a small handful of early stories."
Chekov: Shut up, Pavel!
McCoy: Oh, I am not praising it, trust me, he was just the least offensive to me.
Enterprise.....no, nothing sexy about it. I don't find Kardassian sexy at all, just an overrated silicon udder cow queen that I still can't understand why mainstream american society obsesses over. JJ Prise, out of proportion, waaaaay too big (JJ Picard's enterprise is going be the size of star destroyer or something :P ) looks like something from "Pimp my ride!" (and that's not a good thing), and the inside looked as advanced as a 1950 navel vessel, and looks anything but advanced and futuristic inside (the concept art looked decent, they should have used that.....a brewery, one that was not even remotely disguised at that, was a "you gotta be kidding me!" moment for myself. They used something similar in the original V series....THAT did not look good back then, and does not look good now, either). Plus seeing it being made in a primitive manner of sweaty guys in overalls with old fashioned welders was underwhelming to say the least....seemed JJ wanted to make the 23rd century look as 20th as possible....I'm surprised he did not replaced phasers with Berettas, glocks, and m-16 rifles, or painting flames on the side of the Enterprise or give it a bouncing hydraulic system like my friend, Jose's Cadillac had done to his.
to me, JJ Trek was Trek in name only. I'll stick to Phase 2 and so on. Has a big hope with Axanar, but now this, along with JJ Trek, PBS/Paramount now can be used for the question/joke of the week
Kirk: ok don't misunderstand, I said it fits, I didn't say it was a good choice of direction for the character. There were way better ways they could have developed his character but the angsty rebel whiner with anger issues does fit. Plenty of em in real life with similar backstories.
Spock: Again he just got mind TRIBBLE 3 ways... I'd say he's earned his emo nerd rage imbalance... for a time. Given a dedicated GF, friendship and other stabilizing elements, like the ability to bounce ideas off your older self... this third movie should definitely have Spock much more in control and acting like TOS Spock... I doubt it but...
Scotty: Here again he's just not been given the screen time to do the miracle worker chief engineer, he's been marginalized as a character, so yeah he comes off as comic releief.
Uhura: Well I always kinda liked that tangent so I guess this boils down to different preferences. Plus JJTrek was trying way too hard to shoehorn characters into familiar spaces that didnt work with the new back stories across the board... none of em were done WELL but expanding on the aspect of something between Spock and Uhura I thought was nice.
Checkov: Get that child off my bridge!
McCoy: fairnuff
Because murikan society is full of idiots and getting dumber every day :P I think they're kinda hot if ya just look at a picture, but when you learn anything about em the illusion is shattered and you realize that they're worse than barbie dolls. At least barbie *IS* just an inanimate lump of sexualized plastic. The Kardassians are everything wrong with murika personified and actively trying to be as dumb as the doll. I agree about the size of the ships in JJTrek being lolwtf. But I think you just complimented JJ's ship in a way.. They were TRYING to go for a look called 'retro-future' in which something supposedly advanced looks like something older... They were trying to build off the TOS look but give it at least a hint it was actually high tech, and old navy, esp submarines, are often a source of inspiration for scifi spaceships. I was able to mostly ignore the brewery since it didn't spend much time on screen and thought it was at least a nice attempt to show the actual engineering area as a large, messy, industrial maze.
As for the welders and building a starship that size with the Starfleet TRIBBLE issue pylons... that... there really was no excuse for that... it was so far past terrible and inappropriate....
All I see about JJ Kirk is the 'bad TRIBBLE rebel' who starts trouble for the sake of trouble, and that image is sooooooo un cool to me. Just another bad boy getting the glory, and doing little to anything to actually get it. and the Kobiahsi maru bit was eye rolling. And call me crazy, I prefer to see a hero without that ego and troubled childhood for a change.
I call Spock anger management Spock, TOS Spock was charming and entertaining, not this wannabe.
Scotty's nothing but comic relief, if he was an anime character, he'd be part of Pokemon's Team Rocket. That goblin sidekick had more brains than he did.
Uhura, all I saw was "ugh, they're playing on something suggested in a small handful of early stories."
Chekov: Shut up, Pavel!
McCoy: Oh, I am not praising it, trust me, he was just the least offensive to me.
Enterprise.....no, nothing sexy about it. I don't find Kardassian sexy at all, just an overrated silicon udder cow queen that I still can't understand why mainstream american society obsesses over. JJ Prise, out of proportion, waaaaay too big (JJ Picard's enterprise is going be the size of star destroyer or something :P ) looks like something from "Pimp my ride!" (and that's not a good thing), and the inside looked as advanced as a 1950 navel vessel, and looks anything but advanced and futuristic inside (the concept art looked decent, they should have used that.....a brewery, one that was not even remotely disguised at that, was a "you gotta be kidding me!" moment for myself. They used something similar in the original V series....THAT did not look good back then, and does not look good now, either). Plus seeing it being made in a primitive manner of sweaty guys in overalls with old fashioned welders was underwhelming to say the least....seemed JJ wanted to make the 23rd century look as 20th as possible....I'm surprised he did not replaced phasers with Berettas, glocks, and m-16 rifles, or painting flames on the side of the Enterprise or give it a bouncing hydraulic system like my friend, Jose's Cadillac had done to his.
to me, JJ Trek was Trek in name only. I'll stick to Phase 2 and so on. Has a big hope with Axanar, but now this, along with JJ Trek, PBS/Paramount now can be used for the question/joke of the week
Kirk: ok don't misunderstand, I said it fits, I didn't say it was a good choice of direction for the character. There were way better ways they could have developed his character but the angsty rebel whiner with anger issues does fit. Plenty of em in real life with similar backstories.
Spock: Again he just got mind TRIBBLE 3 ways... I'd say he's earned his emo nerd rage imbalance... for a time. Given a dedicated GF, friendship and other stabilizing elements, like the ability to bounce ideas off your older self... this third movie should definitely have Spock much more in control and acting like TOS Spock... I doubt it but...
Scotty: Here again he's just not been given the screen time to do the miracle worker chief engineer, he's been marginalized as a character, so yeah he comes off as comic releief.
Uhura: Well I always kinda liked that tangent so I guess this boils down to different preferences. Plus JJTrek was trying way too hard to shoehorn characters into familiar spaces that didnt work with the new back stories across the board... none of em were done WELL but expanding on the aspect of something between Spock and Uhura I thought was nice.
Checkov: Get that child off my bridge!
McCoy: fairnuff
Because murikan society is full of idiots and getting dumber every day :P I think they're kinda hot if ya just look at a picture, but when you learn anything about em the illusion is shattered and you realize that they're worse than barbie dolls. At least barbie *IS* just an inanimate lump of sexualized plastic. The Kardassians are everything wrong with murika personified and actively trying to be as dumb as the doll. I agree about the size of the ships in JJTrek being lolwtf. But I think you just complimented JJ's ship in a way.. They were TRYING to go for a look called 'retro-future' in which something supposedly advanced looks like something older... They were trying to build off the TOS look but give it at least a hint it was actually high tech, and old navy, esp submarines, are often a source of inspiration for scifi spaceships. I was able to mostly ignore the brewery since it didn't spend much time on screen and thought it was at least a nice attempt to show the actual engineering area as a large, messy, industrial maze.
As for the welders and building a starship that size with the Starfleet TRIBBLE issue pylons... that... there really was no excuse for that... it was so far past terrible and inappropriate....
What we need is a person who is a FAN that can make films and TV episodes both average slobs and, most importantly, fans, to enjoy. Peter Jackson's work on Lord of the Rings was not bad...he was a fan of Tolken's books, and did a set of films both fans and average slobs can enjoy....
they failed at making the Enterprise look advanced...it's like putting a Pinto engine in a Ferrari shell...and at least that would have still looked ok from the outside....
I don't care what some of you folks say, I still thing the TOS Enterprise looks good.
Here's an article of a person who took images of the original model, and put it in images of several Trek films, both old and recent. And they look pretty smeggin' good to me. http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/10/8185787/star-trek-original-enterprise-new-movies#
Any complaint about the new movies isn't doing it just like the old TV show is missing the point. It's an ALTERNATE REALITY...it's not supposed to be like TOS.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Any complaint about the new movies isn't doing it just like the old TV show is missing the point. It's an ALTERNATE REALITY...it's not supposed to be like TOS.
But will we get any more of the original reality, or is it going to be all JJ universe now? If it's the latter, it's a smeggin' victim of rehash syndrome that's been plaguing Hollywood for nearly 2 decades. It's nothing but mindless action flicks made by the same overrated guy who made "Lost" for goodness sake. It's Michael Bay LITE pretty much.
Any complaint about the new movies isn't doing it just like the old TV show is missing the point. It's an ALTERNATE REALITY...it's not supposed to be like TOS.
But will we get any more of the original reality, or is it going to be all JJ universe now? If it's the latter, it's a smeggin' victim of rehash syndrome that's been plaguing Hollywood for nearly 2 decades. It's nothing but mindless action flicks made by the same overrated guy who made "Lost" for goodness sake. It's Michael Bay LITE pretty much.
maybe we will with the new series CBS is putting out.
Hollywood would stop rehashing movies the moment people stop going to see them. Considering that of the top ten grossing films in 2015 only three...Inside Out, The Martian and Cinderella weren't rehashes, reboots or sequels.
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Any complaint about the new movies isn't doing it just like the old TV show is missing the point. It's an ALTERNATE REALITY...it's not supposed to be like TOS.
But will we get any more of the original reality, or is it going to be all JJ universe now? If it's the latter, it's a smeggin' victim of rehash syndrome that's been plaguing Hollywood for nearly 2 decades. It's nothing but mindless action flicks made by the same overrated guy who made "Lost" for goodness sake. It's Michael Bay LITE pretty much.
maybe we will with the new series CBS is putting out.
Hollywood would stop rehashing movies the moment people stop going to see them. Considering that of the top ten grossing films in 2015 only three...Inside Out, The Martian and Cinderella weren't rehashes, reboots or sequels.
RE your unedited post:
I have spoken before about my love of the Mad Max saga (well, one and two, I don't like Beyond Thunderdome, although I felt it did have the best end theme...) I've been a fan of Tom Hardy since he appeared in Layer Cake, and I will watch pretty much anything he's been in, simply because I think he's a good actor. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm 'a fan' of Charlize Theron, but I've always enjoyed her work in the projects she's appeared in, she's certainly very beautiful, and she does a hell of a lot for charity, and seems like a really nice lady (for a Suth Effrican ) but I absolutely refuse to watch Fury Road, because it is, not just a typical reboot, ie the JJ Trek (see, I'm being polite, I didn't just say 'TRIBBLE' ) but something even worse and more pathetic. The re-working of a piece by the original director.
I understand why Beyond Thunderdome felt like a mixed bag of TRIBBLE... They basically had the idea of 'how would Max react to a Lord of the Flies situation'. They then hashed a plotline around it, and it never really gelled. Then, Byron Kennedy was killed in a helicoptor crash while location scouting for the movie. I can understand that the loss of one of his best friends completely broke George Miller, and his heart was no longer in the project. I get it. But even then, the re-use of Bruce Spence in such a similar role to what he played in The Road Warrior (and never explaining it) was pretty weak, and the chase of the train, was basically a do-over of the chase of the tanker at the end of The Road Warrior. I can accept those things as to why I don't particularly enjoy Beyond Thunderdome, despite absolutely loving the first two movies. So for George Miller to be so unimaginative that he has to revisit and rehash his own projects, that is lower than a reboot.
At least reboot directors (JJ) are putting their own spin on someone else's idea and trying to make something new (in that regard, the JJ Trek movies succeed as 'what they are') For a director to rehash their own projects, that's just a sign that they're truly burned out and unable to come up with anything (significantly) new... Michael Mann is especially guilty of this with, not just Miami Vice, but before that, Heat, which was a rehash of LA Takedown. I saw Heat first, but personally, I preferred Takedown... Takedown had a clear plot. Heat, takes those principle characters, ages them twenty years, thus complicating their lives (and thus cluttering the plot) with typical mundanity, and then drags the story out for a half-hour longer than needed just so the antagonist (who in Takedown was by far the more charismatic character) doesn't 'go down like a punk', but on a more even keel with his nemesis. To me, that swapped a perfectly good scene, with a washed out replacement...
So yeah, IMHO, self-rehashes are the lowest kind of rebooting. As a result, I will never willingly watch Fury Road, unless someone else is literally insisting on watching it and it would be massively rude for me to leave. That's what it would take to make me watch it. Same goes for The Force Awakens. Unless I was literally 'socially kidnapped' into watching it, I don't ever want to watch it (for completely different reasons)
So, long story short, just because those were the popular films, doesn't mean everyone wants to watch them, nor that they are good examples of why reboots are okay...
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
What a load of doublespeak to basically try and say "Gross<> Popularity". The problem with the above is it works that way for every Star Trek film released. You had to PAY to go see it. If someone isn't interested they don't pay, or if they're on the fence and are interested by the lead up articles (ST:Nemesis I'm looking at you as this film was #2 on it's opening weekend and beat by the Jennifer Lopez film released that same weekend "Maid in Manhattan". Also remember te scriptwriter of Nemesis - John Logan - was a self professed HUGE fan of the ST:TNG TV series.)
I really love the lengths some fans will go to to proclaim "Okay, it made money, but that doesn't mean people liked the film, or that it was popular.."
Sorry, but usually box office IS the measure of a franchise film's success, as at the end of the day, that's what a studio wants from a tentpole franchise film. And over the years, the films Star Trek fans have stated they like (STII:TWoK, STIV:TVH, ST:FC and the JJ Abrams Star Trek films) have all grossed VERY WELL at the box office.
Again gotta love the rationalization some people will go through to claim a high grossing film must have been unpopular/no enjoyed by the audiences that saw it - because said person disliked the film(s) in question and can't believe others enjoyed said film(s).
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
What a load of doublespeak to basically try and say "Gross<> Popularity". The problem with the above is it works that way for every Star Trek film released. You had to PAY to go see it. If someone isn't interested they don't pay, or if they're on the fence and are interested by the lead up articles (ST:Nemesis I'm looking at you as this film was #2 on it's opening weekend and beat by the Jennifer Lopez film released that same weekend "Maid in Manhattan". Also remember te scriptwriter of Nemesis - John Logan - was a self professed HUGE fan of the ST:TNG TV series.)
I really love the lengths some fans will go to to proclaim "Okay, it made money, but that doesn't mean people liked the film, or that it was popular.."
Sorry, but usually box office IS the measure of a franchise film's success, as at the end of the day, that's what a studio wants from a tentpole franchise film. And over the years, the films Star Trek fans have stated they like (STII:TWoK, STIV:TVH, ST:FC and the JJ Abrams Star Trek films) have all grossed VERY WELL at the box office.
Again gotta love the rationalization some people will go through to claim a high grossing film must have been unpopular/no enjoyed by the audiences that saw it - because said person disliked the film(s) in question and can't believe others enjoyed said film(s).
It's not double-speak to state fact. The fact, is that box office take (even if that is the industry yardstick by which films are judged successful or not) does not mean that everyone who saw the film enjoyed it. If you can actually prove otherwise, then by all means, be my guest...
I can quite accept that others like JJTrek... Doesn't actually mean that it is good, nor mean that anyone else has to like it... The massively divisive response to the JJ films is proof enough that they were not universally popular. Not that the studio cares, they exist to make $$s and by that score, JJTrek was a success. But in other ways, the films were abject failures with laundry lists of faults. The death of Spock in Wrath of Khan choked people up. When Spock screams "Khaaaaaaaaan!" following Kirk's death, people laughed -- and not with it, but at it. As I said, while people (myself included) may be a tad apathetic towards some of the other movies, those movies do not receive anywhere newr the level of vitriol which the JJ Trek movies do. Does that not strike you as unusual? Don't you see that as a correlation? Cognitive dissonance is one thing, but you're just living in denial of an easily provable divided opinion...
I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, but don't try and pretend that everyone loves the JJTrek movies, nor deny that there are many who found them deeply unsatisfying (for any number of reasons) or try and deny that based on nothing more than box office takings, because as I mentioned, that is a misleading yardstick for the simple reason that even if an entire audience was so disgusted by the movie and walks out, they all still paid, and that still gets counted as box office takings. No double-talk there at all, but an undeniable fact... Box office takings equals the initial 'bums on seats' count. Box office takings does not equal 'satisfied viewers'... Apathy toward a movie is one thing, people actively disliking it, is not ignorable, just because you don't agree with them...
Sorry, but he's right. Your post was a giant SPECULATION as to whether the MILLIONS of people who watched ST:ID liked it. You tried to disguise it, but with fluff... Now if you had something other than your own personal speculation to use as evidence....
Sorry, but he's right. Your post was a giant SPECULATION as to whether the MILLIONS of people who watched ST:ID liked it. You tried to disguise it, but with fluff... Now if you had something other than your own personal speculation to use as evidence....
It's hardly speculation when the amount of bashing the JJTrek movies get here alone, is a sign that they are in no way universally popular. As I said, some of the other movies are also unpopular, but they don't draw the same level of ire as the JJTrek films. I might have a pretty strong disliking for William Shatner, but I don't sit watching The Final Frontier and scream "Shat-nerrrrr!!!" (although to be fair I don't scream "Abraaaaams" either... ) In terms of personal opinions, Final Frontier has stuff that I can roll my eyes at and just dismiss it as one of Shatner's ego trips. Star Trek and Into Darkness contain errors in terms of plot and execution I wouldn't have gotten away with as a student when I studied film-making at college... In terms of something other than my own speculation, just hit up google with "JJTrek sucks" or anything along the lines of, and see, not just how many results come up, but how many inciteful and considered critiques (rather than just bashes) there were... That is more than enough evidence to say that cinema take does not directly correlate to satisfied viewers... Even if you were to just take the opinions on forum as representative of a portion of that, it's still undisputable that the movies are not loved by everyone...
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
My take on it wasn't to determine if the reboot movies are/were good or if they were popular. I was stating that from Paramount's point of view they have no incentive to stop this universe and go back to the prime one. Paramount as a studio only has one real indicator for continuing this universe and that's Box Office. It's the same thing with Transformers. Everyone and their brother says they hate those films...and yet the last one did 1.1 billion at the box office. Do you think that anyone at Paramount is saying "Hey let's drop Michael Bay and make these films more like the source material?" Hell no...which is why Bay is always like "Im done with these films" and Paramount buys him an island with prostitutes and cocaine to get him to come back.
Now for the discussions about the other movies...I've brought this point up again and again. The Next Generation was hated by Trekkers as a whole. It wasn't until Best of Both Worlds that Trekkers as a whole came around. If you watch the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" The writers mention that was when the hate mail stopped. I bring the up because a lot of people have selective memories. We'd like to believe that we loved TNG since "Encounter at Farpoint"...and for some people this may be true...but a vast majority of Trekkers look at the past with rose colored visors. How anyone can not say Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie ever is beyond me? That movie is an affront to Trek more than anything Abrams and company did.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Sorry, but he's right. Your post was a giant SPECULATION as to whether the MILLIONS of people who watched ST:ID liked it. You tried to disguise it, but with fluff... Now if you had something other than your own personal speculation to use as evidence....
It's hardly speculation when the amount of bashing the JJTrek movies get here alone, is a sign that they are in no way universally popular. As I said, some of the other movies are also unpopular, but they don't draw the same level of ire as the JJTrek films. I might have a pretty strong disliking for William Shatner, but I don't sit watching The Final Frontier and scream "Shat-nerrrrr!!!" (although to be fair I don't scream "Abraaaaams" either... ) In terms of personal opinions, Final Frontier has stuff that I can roll my eyes at and just dismiss it as one of Shatner's ego trips. Star Trek and Into Darkness contain errors in terms of plot and execution I wouldn't have gotten away with as a student when I studied film-making at college... In terms of something other than my own speculation, just hit up google with "JJTrek sucks" or anything along the lines of, and see, not just how many results come up, but how many inciteful and considered critiques (rather than just bashes) there were... That is more than enough evidence to say that cinema take does not directly correlate to satisfied viewers... Even if you were to just take the opinions on forum as representative of a portion of that, it's still undisputable that the movies are not loved by everyone...
I would say a vast majority of Star Trek fans don't like the new movies. I will tell you why the Abrams movies draw the ire that they do...it's not about plot holes and lens flares or messing up the Enterprise. The reason why there is so much hatred towards the new movies: Abrams said he wasn't a fan of Star Trek and said he preferred Star Wars over it.
Every critique that people have about these films can be found in the other ones. Did the other films not have plot holes or inconsistencies? Reliant just rolled into Ceti Alpha system and didn't notice they were a planet short? How does whale song reach outer space? Why is it you are able to over look those plot holes but the ones Abrams has in his film label him a menace to filmmaking? Too much action? but we won't mention the Kirk-ification of Picard in TNG movies. How many fist fights and fire fights did Picard get into on the show...how many did he get into in TNG movies?
It's because he's not a true believer. I am willing to bet that if Abrams was a diehard fan and didn't change a thing about his films but then listed all the things he put in the film that correlate to TOS no one would bat an eye.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
My take on it wasn't to determine if the reboot movies are/were good or if they were popular. I was stating that from Paramount's point of view they have no incentive to stop this universe and go back to the prime one. Paramount as a studio only has one real indicator for continuing this universe and that's Box Office. It's the same thing with Transformers. Everyone and their brother says they hate those films...and yet the last one did 1.1 billion at the box office. Do you think that anyone at Paramount is saying "Hey let's drop Michael Bay and make these films more like the source material?" Hell no...which is why Bay is always like "Im done with these films" and Paramount buys him an island with prostitutes and cocaine to get him to come back.
Now for the discussions about the other movies...I've brought this point up again and again. The Next Generation was hated by Trekkers as a whole. It wasn't until Best of Both Worlds that Trekkers as a whole came around. If you watch the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" The writers mention that was when the hate mail stopped. I bring the up because a lot of people have selective memories. We'd like to believe that we loved TNG since "Encounter at Farpoint"...and for some people this may be true...but a vast majority of Trekkers look at the past with rose colored visors. How anyone can not say Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie ever is beyond me? That movie is an affront to Trek more than anything Abrams and company did.
I see what you're saying Incentive to go back to the Primeverse would hopefully come from the minions they have on forums like this and elsewhere on the net who would see those less than positive reviews. For example, as I've said before, when JJ was asked if CBS were going to do another Star Trek series, he said they weren't interested. CBS now clearly are interested to do a new Star Trek series, but with Kurtzman, not JJ. I find it strange that when the CBS execs changed their minds/decided to do a new Star Trek series, they didn't go back to the guy who had suggested it (JJ) They clearly don't view him through rose-tinted glasses, so I'd take that as a sign that they can gauge the public opinion, rather than simply sticking with the goose who lays the golden egg Bay-style
Not to be contrary, but genuinely curious, but why do you feel that about Final Frontier? There's a lot I don't like about it (all the camping stuff, that old chestnut of the Enteprise being the only ship to handle it, Kirk, etc) but it has elements which I did like, such as Sybok... As above, I can ignore much of that and consider it an okay movie. Undiscovered Country, on the other hand, I really dislike (General Chang, Azetbur, Valeris(despite being a huge fan of Kim Cattrall) Spock's blatant grooming of a junior officer to the extent that it blinds him to her manipulations, and then his forcing a mind-meld on her) and I'd rate that as an inferior film to Final Frontier...
Sorry, but he's right. Your post was a giant SPECULATION as to whether the MILLIONS of people who watched ST:ID liked it. You tried to disguise it, but with fluff... Now if you had something other than your own personal speculation to use as evidence....
It's hardly speculation when the amount of bashing the JJTrek movies get here alone, is a sign that they are in no way universally popular. As I said, some of the other movies are also unpopular, but they don't draw the same level of ire as the JJTrek films. I might have a pretty strong disliking for William Shatner, but I don't sit watching The Final Frontier and scream "Shat-nerrrrr!!!" (although to be fair I don't scream "Abraaaaams" either... ) In terms of personal opinions, Final Frontier has stuff that I can roll my eyes at and just dismiss it as one of Shatner's ego trips. Star Trek and Into Darkness contain errors in terms of plot and execution I wouldn't have gotten away with as a student when I studied film-making at college... In terms of something other than my own speculation, just hit up google with "JJTrek sucks" or anything along the lines of, and see, not just how many results come up, but how many inciteful and considered critiques (rather than just bashes) there were... That is more than enough evidence to say that cinema take does not directly correlate to satisfied viewers... Even if you were to just take the opinions on forum as representative of a portion of that, it's still undisputable that the movies are not loved by everyone...
I would say a vast majority of Star Trek fans don't like the new movies. I will tell you why the Abrams movies draw the ire that they do...it's not about plot holes and lens flares or messing up the Enterprise. The reason why there is so much hatred towards the new movies: Abrams said he wasn't a fan of Star Trek and said he preferred Star Wars over it.
Every critique that people have about these films can be found in the other ones. Did the other films not have plot holes or inconsistencies? Reliant just rolled into Ceti Alpha system and didn't notice they were a planet short? How does whale song reach outer space? Why is it you are able to over look those plot holes but the ones Abrams has in his film label him a menace to filmmaking? Too much action? but we won't mention the Kirk-ification of Picard in TNG movies. How many fist fights and fire fights did Picard get into on the show...how many did he get into in TNG movies?
It's because he's not a true believer. I am willing to bet that if Abrams was a diehard fan and didn't change a thing about his films but then listed all the things he put in the film that correlate to TOS no one would bat an eye.
I see what you're saying, and with regards the plotholes, yes, there were certainly more than a few. Although, I wouldn't say that there were so many per film as there were in each the JJTrek films... The whale-song, I'd flip the point to explain... The song doesn't have to reach space, the probe was detecting it (or rather not) at interstellar distances... As for Picard, absolutely, he was definitely more a verbal diplomat, but, that episode where terrorists kidnapped Doctor Crusher... Picard decked the guy on the bridge to use the teleport... Sure, he didn't throw down as often as Kirk did, but, there was at least an example that he was still tasty with his fists when he had to be... I can certainly accept that much of it is hate for JJ himself, but it also tends to get backed up with points about the movies, not literally just that they hate JJ (which in itself is understandable)
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
My take on it wasn't to determine if the reboot movies are/were good or if they were popular. I was stating that from Paramount's point of view they have no incentive to stop this universe and go back to the prime one. Paramount as a studio only has one real indicator for continuing this universe and that's Box Office. It's the same thing with Transformers. Everyone and their brother says they hate those films...and yet the last one did 1.1 billion at the box office. Do you think that anyone at Paramount is saying "Hey let's drop Michael Bay and make these films more like the source material?" Hell no...which is why Bay is always like "Im done with these films" and Paramount buys him an island with prostitutes and cocaine to get him to come back.
Now for the discussions about the other movies...I've brought this point up again and again. The Next Generation was hated by Trekkers as a whole. It wasn't until Best of Both Worlds that Trekkers as a whole came around. If you watch the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" The writers mention that was when the hate mail stopped. I bring the up because a lot of people have selective memories. We'd like to believe that we loved TNG since "Encounter at Farpoint"...and for some people this may be true...but a vast majority of Trekkers look at the past with rose colored visors. How anyone can not say Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie ever is beyond me? That movie is an affront to Trek more than anything Abrams and company did.
I see what you're saying Incentive to go back to the Primeverse would hopefully come from the minions they have on forums like this and elsewhere on the net who would see those less than positive reviews. For example, as I've said before, when JJ was asked if CBS were going to do another Star Trek series, he said they weren't interested. CBS now clearly are interested to do a new Star Trek series, but with Kurtzman, not JJ. I find it strange that when the CBS execs changed their minds/decided to do a new Star Trek series, they didn't go back to the guy who had suggested it (JJ) They clearly don't view him through rose-tinted glasses, so I'd take that as a sign that they can gauge the public opinion, rather than simply sticking with the goose who lays the golden egg Bay-style
Not to be contrary, but genuinely curious, but why do you feel that about Final Frontier? There's a lot I don't like about it (all the camping stuff, that old chestnut of the Enteprise being the only ship to handle it, Kirk, etc) but it has elements which I did like, such as Sybok... As above, I can ignore much of that and consider it an okay movie. Undiscovered Country, on the other hand, I really dislike (General Chang, Azetbur, Valeris(despite being a huge fan of Kim Cattrall) Spock's blatant grooming of a junior officer to the extent that it blinds him to her manipulations, and then his forcing a mind-meld on her) and I'd rate that as an inferior film to Final Frontier...
They may not have gone back to Abrams because he's tied up in Star Wars. We don't know the behind the scenes stuff but let's not categorize it as them disliking his take on things. Kurtzman is admittedly a Trekker and if the new show is based in the prime universe then it pays to have someone that a fan of that universe heading up the show.
Final Frontier is poorly edited, poorly written and the SPFX are poorly one. While Voyage Home took the characters and put them in funny situations...Final Frontier just straight up made fun of the characters. Scotty banging his head and falling down. Uhura's fan dance. I just can't forgive that movie. But then again I do like UC and I over look the plot holes (Chancellor Gorkon is dead...lets make his daughter Chancellor then...wait what? Why doesn't the Federation keep someone onboard who speaks Klingon? During the Cold War every US Navy ship had someone onboard that spoke Russian.
Any incentive Paramount has to go back to the Prime universe will come from $$$$...no amount of message board posts will change that. IMO I don't think Paramount will ever go back to the prime universe. With the rights split between them and CBS they may decide to leave the prime universe to CBS and continue the Alt-verse
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
My take on it wasn't to determine if the reboot movies are/were good or if they were popular. I was stating that from Paramount's point of view they have no incentive to stop this universe and go back to the prime one. Paramount as a studio only has one real indicator for continuing this universe and that's Box Office. It's the same thing with Transformers. Everyone and their brother says they hate those films...and yet the last one did 1.1 billion at the box office. Do you think that anyone at Paramount is saying "Hey let's drop Michael Bay and make these films more like the source material?" Hell no...which is why Bay is always like "Im done with these films" and Paramount buys him an island with prostitutes and cocaine to get him to come back.
Now for the discussions about the other movies...I've brought this point up again and again. The Next Generation was hated by Trekkers as a whole. It wasn't until Best of Both Worlds that Trekkers as a whole came around. If you watch the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" The writers mention that was when the hate mail stopped. I bring the up because a lot of people have selective memories. We'd like to believe that we loved TNG since "Encounter at Farpoint"...and for some people this may be true...but a vast majority of Trekkers look at the past with rose colored visors. How anyone can not say Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie ever is beyond me? That movie is an affront to Trek more than anything Abrams and company did.
I see what you're saying Incentive to go back to the Primeverse would hopefully come from the minions they have on forums like this and elsewhere on the net who would see those less than positive reviews. For example, as I've said before, when JJ was asked if CBS were going to do another Star Trek series, he said they weren't interested. CBS now clearly are interested to do a new Star Trek series, but with Kurtzman, not JJ. I find it strange that when the CBS execs changed their minds/decided to do a new Star Trek series, they didn't go back to the guy who had suggested it (JJ) They clearly don't view him through rose-tinted glasses, so I'd take that as a sign that they can gauge the public opinion, rather than simply sticking with the goose who lays the golden egg Bay-style
Not to be contrary, but genuinely curious, but why do you feel that about Final Frontier? There's a lot I don't like about it (all the camping stuff, that old chestnut of the Enteprise being the only ship to handle it, Kirk, etc) but it has elements which I did like, such as Sybok... As above, I can ignore much of that and consider it an okay movie. Undiscovered Country, on the other hand, I really dislike (General Chang, Azetbur, Valeris(despite being a huge fan of Kim Cattrall) Spock's blatant grooming of a junior officer to the extent that it blinds him to her manipulations, and then his forcing a mind-meld on her) and I'd rate that as an inferior film to Final Frontier...
They may not have gone back to Abrams because he's tied up in Star Wars. We don't know the behind the scenes stuff but let's not categorize it as them disliking his take on things. Kurtzman is admittedly a Trekker and if the new show is based in the prime universe then it pays to have someone that a fan of that universe heading up the show.
Final Frontier is poorly edited, poorly written and the SPFX are poorly one. While Voyage Home took the characters and put them in funny situations...Final Frontier just straight up made fun of the characters. Scotty banging his head and falling down. Uhura's fan dance. I just can't forgive that movie. But then again I do like UC and I over look the plot holes (Chancellor Gorkon is dead...lets make his daughter Chancellor then...wait what? Why doesn't the Federation keep someone onboard who speaks Klingon? During the Cold War every US Navy ship had someone onboard that spoke Russian.
Not at the time though... If I come across the video of the premiere where he was asked, I'll link it... You could see the emotion in his eyes. It didn't come across as him being disappointed that they didn't want to do a series, but rather shame and embarrassment that they didn't want to do one with him... Maybe just my take on it, I admit, but I've always been a pretty good reader of other's bodylanguage, and that was how it seemed to me.
Yup, I definitely agree with you on those points... Indeed, Azetbur shouldn't've been taking over as chancellor, although I can see why she would have remained a diplomatic point of contact due to her presence. (Overall, I felt she was just a thoroughly snobby and dislikable character... In fact, I've just realized that she and Valeris are pretty interchangeable in terms of character... They're essentially the same character, just dressed up differently...) And absolutely, the language issue is inexcusable. That was something JJTrek at least got right with Uhura... She might've been a snarky TRIBBLE who slept her way to the top, but, she did know her subject and was clearly qualified in her position, which your example shows about the original being not so...
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
My take on it wasn't to determine if the reboot movies are/were good or if they were popular. I was stating that from Paramount's point of view they have no incentive to stop this universe and go back to the prime one. Paramount as a studio only has one real indicator for continuing this universe and that's Box Office. It's the same thing with Transformers. Everyone and their brother says they hate those films...and yet the last one did 1.1 billion at the box office. Do you think that anyone at Paramount is saying "Hey let's drop Michael Bay and make these films more like the source material?" Hell no...which is why Bay is always like "Im done with these films" and Paramount buys him an island with prostitutes and cocaine to get him to come back.
Now for the discussions about the other movies...I've brought this point up again and again. The Next Generation was hated by Trekkers as a whole. It wasn't until Best of Both Worlds that Trekkers as a whole came around. If you watch the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" The writers mention that was when the hate mail stopped. I bring the up because a lot of people have selective memories. We'd like to believe that we loved TNG since "Encounter at Farpoint"...and for some people this may be true...but a vast majority of Trekkers look at the past with rose colored visors. How anyone can not say Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie ever is beyond me? That movie is an affront to Trek more than anything Abrams and company did.
I see what you're saying Incentive to go back to the Primeverse would hopefully come from the minions they have on forums like this and elsewhere on the net who would see those less than positive reviews. For example, as I've said before, when JJ was asked if CBS were going to do another Star Trek series, he said they weren't interested. CBS now clearly are interested to do a new Star Trek series, but with Kurtzman, not JJ. I find it strange that when the CBS execs changed their minds/decided to do a new Star Trek series, they didn't go back to the guy who had suggested it (JJ) They clearly don't view him through rose-tinted glasses, so I'd take that as a sign that they can gauge the public opinion, rather than simply sticking with the goose who lays the golden egg Bay-style
Not to be contrary, but genuinely curious, but why do you feel that about Final Frontier? There's a lot I don't like about it (all the camping stuff, that old chestnut of the Enteprise being the only ship to handle it, Kirk, etc) but it has elements which I did like, such as Sybok... As above, I can ignore much of that and consider it an okay movie. Undiscovered Country, on the other hand, I really dislike (General Chang, Azetbur, Valeris(despite being a huge fan of Kim Cattrall) Spock's blatant grooming of a junior officer to the extent that it blinds him to her manipulations, and then his forcing a mind-meld on her) and I'd rate that as an inferior film to Final Frontier...
They may not have gone back to Abrams because he's tied up in Star Wars. We don't know the behind the scenes stuff but let's not categorize it as them disliking his take on things. Kurtzman is admittedly a Trekker and if the new show is based in the prime universe then it pays to have someone that a fan of that universe heading up the show.
Final Frontier is poorly edited, poorly written and the SPFX are poorly one. While Voyage Home took the characters and put them in funny situations...Final Frontier just straight up made fun of the characters. Scotty banging his head and falling down. Uhura's fan dance. I just can't forgive that movie. But then again I do like UC and I over look the plot holes (Chancellor Gorkon is dead...lets make his daughter Chancellor then...wait what? Why doesn't the Federation keep someone onboard who speaks Klingon? During the Cold War every US Navy ship had someone onboard that spoke Russian.
Not at the time though... If I come across the video of the premiere where he was asked, I'll link it... You could see the emotion in his eyes. It didn't come across as him being disappointed that they didn't want to do a series, but rather shame and embarrassment that they didn't want to do one with him... Maybe just my take on it, I admit, but I've always been a pretty good reader of other's bodylanguage, and that was how it seemed to me.
Yup, I definitely agree with you on those points... Indeed, Azetbur shouldn't've been taking over as chancellor, although I can see why she would have remained a diplomatic point of contact due to her presence. (Overall, I felt she was just a thoroughly snobby and dislikable character... In fact, I've just realized that she and Valeris are pretty interchangeable in terms of character... They're essentially the same character, just dressed up differently...) And absolutely, the language issue is inexcusable. That was something JJTrek at least got right with Uhura... She might've been a snarky TRIBBLE who slept her way to the top, but, she did know her subject and was clearly qualified in her position, which your example shows about the original being not so...
We don't know the behind the scenes happenings on the TV show. It maybe that they didn't want him back or he didn't want to come back. From what I understand he wanted to do a marketing blitz like what was done for Star Wars and Paramount said no. Who knows why he looks embarrassed.
Also Uhura didn't sleep her way to the top. She didn't sleep her way to get good grades. She didn't sleep her way to get a promotion. She should have been stationed on Enterprise and the only reason why she didn't is because Spock didn't want to give the appearance of favoritism.
Azetbur was made Chancellor for one reason...so we could have that cathartic scene at the end....between Her and Kirk.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
As I've said before, the take is not the correct gauge to be applying. All it means, is that a lot of people paid to go and watch the movies. People have to pay to go and see the movie... They can't go in, watch for free and then pay on leaving if they only enjoyed it. So the take is not a reasonable nor realistic gauge for the quality of the film nor how many of those viewers actually enjoyed it...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
My take on it wasn't to determine if the reboot movies are/were good or if they were popular. I was stating that from Paramount's point of view they have no incentive to stop this universe and go back to the prime one. Paramount as a studio only has one real indicator for continuing this universe and that's Box Office. It's the same thing with Transformers. Everyone and their brother says they hate those films...and yet the last one did 1.1 billion at the box office. Do you think that anyone at Paramount is saying "Hey let's drop Michael Bay and make these films more like the source material?" Hell no...which is why Bay is always like "Im done with these films" and Paramount buys him an island with prostitutes and cocaine to get him to come back.
Now for the discussions about the other movies...I've brought this point up again and again. The Next Generation was hated by Trekkers as a whole. It wasn't until Best of Both Worlds that Trekkers as a whole came around. If you watch the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" The writers mention that was when the hate mail stopped. I bring the up because a lot of people have selective memories. We'd like to believe that we loved TNG since "Encounter at Farpoint"...and for some people this may be true...but a vast majority of Trekkers look at the past with rose colored visors. How anyone can not say Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie ever is beyond me? That movie is an affront to Trek more than anything Abrams and company did.
I see what you're saying Incentive to go back to the Primeverse would hopefully come from the minions they have on forums like this and elsewhere on the net who would see those less than positive reviews. For example, as I've said before, when JJ was asked if CBS were going to do another Star Trek series, he said they weren't interested. CBS now clearly are interested to do a new Star Trek series, but with Kurtzman, not JJ. I find it strange that when the CBS execs changed their minds/decided to do a new Star Trek series, they didn't go back to the guy who had suggested it (JJ) They clearly don't view him through rose-tinted glasses, so I'd take that as a sign that they can gauge the public opinion, rather than simply sticking with the goose who lays the golden egg Bay-style
Not to be contrary, but genuinely curious, but why do you feel that about Final Frontier? There's a lot I don't like about it (all the camping stuff, that old chestnut of the Enteprise being the only ship to handle it, Kirk, etc) but it has elements which I did like, such as Sybok... As above, I can ignore much of that and consider it an okay movie. Undiscovered Country, on the other hand, I really dislike (General Chang, Azetbur, Valeris(despite being a huge fan of Kim Cattrall) Spock's blatant grooming of a junior officer to the extent that it blinds him to her manipulations, and then his forcing a mind-meld on her) and I'd rate that as an inferior film to Final Frontier...
They may not have gone back to Abrams because he's tied up in Star Wars. We don't know the behind the scenes stuff but let's not categorize it as them disliking his take on things. Kurtzman is admittedly a Trekker and if the new show is based in the prime universe then it pays to have someone that a fan of that universe heading up the show.
Final Frontier is poorly edited, poorly written and the SPFX are poorly one. While Voyage Home took the characters and put them in funny situations...Final Frontier just straight up made fun of the characters. Scotty banging his head and falling down. Uhura's fan dance. I just can't forgive that movie. But then again I do like UC and I over look the plot holes (Chancellor Gorkon is dead...lets make his daughter Chancellor then...wait what? Why doesn't the Federation keep someone onboard who speaks Klingon? During the Cold War every US Navy ship had someone onboard that spoke Russian.
Not at the time though... If I come across the video of the premiere where he was asked, I'll link it... You could see the emotion in his eyes. It didn't come across as him being disappointed that they didn't want to do a series, but rather shame and embarrassment that they didn't want to do one with him... Maybe just my take on it, I admit, but I've always been a pretty good reader of other's bodylanguage, and that was how it seemed to me.
Yup, I definitely agree with you on those points... Indeed, Azetbur shouldn't've been taking over as chancellor, although I can see why she would have remained a diplomatic point of contact due to her presence. (Overall, I felt she was just a thoroughly snobby and dislikable character... In fact, I've just realized that she and Valeris are pretty interchangeable in terms of character... They're essentially the same character, just dressed up differently...) And absolutely, the language issue is inexcusable. That was something JJTrek at least got right with Uhura... She might've been a snarky TRIBBLE who slept her way to the top, but, she did know her subject and was clearly qualified in her position, which your example shows about the original being not so...
We don't know the behind the scenes happenings on the TV show. It maybe that they didn't want him back or he didn't want to come back. From what I understand he wanted to do a marketing blitz like what was done for Star Wars and Paramount said no. Who knows why he looks embarrassed.
Also Uhura didn't sleep her way to the top. She didn't sleep her way to get good grades. She didn't sleep her way to get a promotion. She should have been stationed on Enterprise and the only reason why she didn't is because Spock didn't want to give the appearance of favoritism.
Azetbur was made Chancellor for one reason...so we could have that cathartic scene at the end....between Her and Kirk.
Absolutely so... It just seems strange that JJ would say that they weren't interested in doing a Star Trek TV series, and not so long after, the reverse is true... And yes, had he had his way, then we'd have Kirk and Spock soap-on-a-rope and branded foodstuffs... Seeing what has happened with the marketing of Star Wars, or rather, The Force Awakens, I'm glad that he didn't get his way... On a similar note, I saw an ad for one of those 'collect monthly' magazines, of the Star Wars helmets. From what I could see, they were only helmets from the original movies (maybe more to come, of course) not from The Force Awakens...
Yes, you're right about Uhura, that was my mistake...
And yes, that's quite likely... She never irritated me (quite) as much as Valeris...
Comments
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
As someone mentioned above, it was refreshing to see a different writing format in the Trek universe. Yes, the effects would certainly have got people's attention, but if what was being said wasn't up to snuff, people would have tuned out and not donated. I'm not trying to make out that Alec Peters is some kind of Shakespear-esque wordmeister, just that his writing was clearly good enough to keep people interested, and leave them wanting more (hence the massive donations received)
with regards the second point, maybe so, I really couldn't say... Another sci-fi kickstarter, Space Command, has an equal collection of industry names (including a former Trek writer) and is working on an Original Idea. I don't know the kind of funds they have raised, but the on-set ohotos and costumes look good. Certainly better than Renegades... At my last look, someone was calling out the producer for when anything was actually going to be released, rather than him just having Industry Dinner's on the supporting donors' dime, but I don't know how the situation played out, as the lack of release of material simply made me lose interest in the project (although I never donated anything, I was simply aware of the project...)
Kirk actually fits... he grew up angry and lashing out, he's not the man Shatner portrayed, in this I think the actor did a good job of mixing old Kirk mannerisms and tone with the new background.
Spock.. yeah sure he IS emo-spock, but this is a YOUNG man that just had a triple tap hammer blow of his planet being smashed, his mother murdered, and his species becoming endangered... that will kick anyone in the nuts. Also remember, even tho they suppress emotion, Vulcans like their Romulan cousins, feel their emotions VERY deeply. So again, it actually fits the new backdrop.
Scotty.. thing yer being a bit harsh but the character really hasn't been given enough backdrop development to show what/who he is/isn't
Chekov..... I cant argue this....
Uhura... way too harsh, and was shown to be much more than a cute black TRIBBLE in a skirt, which was about all the development she was given in TOS.
McCoy... really? this was the one actor I thought failed... it felt like he was forcing the lines out so he didnt barf on someone. I didnt think he managed a good mccoy at all.
Enterprise.. so Sexy as hell as long as she doesn't speak.... an interesting choice :P lol I get(I think) what you were aiming for as Hepburn was pretty and classy, where the Kardashians are sexy and brain dead. But honestly the new JJprise is a pretty damned nice marriage of TOS and Movie era imo and I didn't have an issue with it outside of the lens flare generators
Hehe...
My character Tsin'xing
As opposed to Uhura...that whole thing was inappropriate and it really messed up Spock's character and Uhura both since Spock should not have slept with a student and Uhura should not have attempted it. Both were in the wrong.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
All I see about JJ Kirk is the 'bad TRIBBLE rebel' who starts trouble for the sake of trouble, and that image is sooooooo un cool to me. Just another bad boy getting the glory, and doing little to anything to actually get it. and the Kobiahsi maru bit was eye rolling. And call me crazy, I prefer to see a hero without that ego and troubled childhood for a change.
I call Spock anger management Spock, TOS Spock was charming and entertaining, not this wannabe.
Scotty's nothing but comic relief, if he was an anime character, he'd be part of Pokemon's Team Rocket. That goblin sidekick had more brains than he did.
Uhura, all I saw was "ugh, they're playing on something suggested in a small handful of early stories."
Chekov: Shut up, Pavel!
McCoy: Oh, I am not praising it, trust me, he was just the least offensive to me.
Enterprise.....no, nothing sexy about it. I don't find Kardassian sexy at all, just an overrated silicon udder cow queen that I still can't understand why mainstream american society obsesses over. JJ Prise, out of proportion, waaaaay too big (JJ Picard's enterprise is going be the size of star destroyer or something :P ) looks like something from "Pimp my ride!" (and that's not a good thing), and the inside looked as advanced as a 1950 navel vessel, and looks anything but advanced and futuristic inside (the concept art looked decent, they should have used that.....a brewery, one that was not even remotely disguised at that, was a "you gotta be kidding me!" moment for myself. They used something similar in the original V series....THAT did not look good back then, and does not look good now, either). Plus seeing it being made in a primitive manner of sweaty guys in overalls with old fashioned welders was underwhelming to say the least....seemed JJ wanted to make the 23rd century look as 20th as possible....I'm surprised he did not replaced phasers with Berettas, glocks, and m-16 rifles, or painting flames on the side of the Enterprise or give it a bouncing hydraulic system like my friend, Jose's Cadillac had done to his.
to me, JJ Trek was Trek in name only. I'll stick to Phase 2 and so on. Has a big hope with Axanar, but now this, along with JJ Trek, PBS/Paramount now can be used for the question/joke of the week
What's the difference between the brains of PBS/Paramount and manure?
Manure can be useful. :P
Spock: Again he just got mind TRIBBLE 3 ways... I'd say he's earned his emo nerd rage imbalance... for a time. Given a dedicated GF, friendship and other stabilizing elements, like the ability to bounce ideas off your older self... this third movie should definitely have Spock much more in control and acting like TOS Spock... I doubt it but...
Scotty: Here again he's just not been given the screen time to do the miracle worker chief engineer, he's been marginalized as a character, so yeah he comes off as comic releief.
Uhura: Well I always kinda liked that tangent so I guess this boils down to different preferences. Plus JJTrek was trying way too hard to shoehorn characters into familiar spaces that didnt work with the new back stories across the board... none of em were done WELL but expanding on the aspect of something between Spock and Uhura I thought was nice.
Checkov: Get that child off my bridge!
McCoy: fairnuff
Because murikan society is full of idiots and getting dumber every day :P I think they're kinda hot if ya just look at a picture, but when you learn anything about em the illusion is shattered and you realize that they're worse than barbie dolls. At least barbie *IS* just an inanimate lump of sexualized plastic. The Kardassians are everything wrong with murika personified and actively trying to be as dumb as the doll. I agree about the size of the ships in JJTrek being lolwtf. But I think you just complimented JJ's ship in a way.. They were TRYING to go for a look called 'retro-future' in which something supposedly advanced looks like something older... They were trying to build off the TOS look but give it at least a hint it was actually high tech, and old navy, esp submarines, are often a source of inspiration for scifi spaceships. I was able to mostly ignore the brewery since it didn't spend much time on screen and thought it was at least a nice attempt to show the actual engineering area as a large, messy, industrial maze.
As for the welders and building a starship that size with the Starfleet TRIBBLE issue pylons... that... there really was no excuse for that... it was so far past terrible and inappropriate....
they failed at making the Enterprise look advanced...it's like putting a Pinto engine in a Ferrari shell...and at least that would have still looked ok from the outside....
I don't care what some of you folks say, I still thing the TOS Enterprise looks good.
Here's an article of a person who took images of the original model, and put it in images of several Trek films, both old and recent. And they look pretty smeggin' good to me. http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/10/8185787/star-trek-original-enterprise-new-movies#
My character Tsin'xing
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
maybe we will with the new series CBS is putting out.
Hollywood would stop rehashing movies the moment people stop going to see them. Considering that of the top ten grossing films in 2015 only three...Inside Out, The Martian and Cinderella weren't rehashes, reboots or sequels.
Now lets apply this to Star Trek. Star Trek 2009 is the second highest-grossing in the United States and Canada from the entire Star Trek film franchise, eclipsing The Voyage Home and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Its opening weekend numbers alone outgross the entire individual runs of The Undiscovered Country, The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. It also won an academy award for make up....making it the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the highest grossing film in the Star Trek franchise.
So tell me...what incentive does Paramount have in moving away from what they are doing...which is highly profitable? Is a remake of Star Trek: The Motionless Picture going to put butts in seats? A movie made for just the Star Trek fans is going to fail. When Marvel makes their movies they don't make them just for the guys and gals who go to the comic book shop on Wednesdays...they make them for everyone.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I have spoken before about my love of the Mad Max saga (well, one and two, I don't like Beyond Thunderdome, although I felt it did have the best end theme...) I've been a fan of Tom Hardy since he appeared in Layer Cake, and I will watch pretty much anything he's been in, simply because I think he's a good actor. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm 'a fan' of Charlize Theron, but I've always enjoyed her work in the projects she's appeared in, she's certainly very beautiful, and she does a hell of a lot for charity, and seems like a really nice lady (for a Suth Effrican
I understand why Beyond Thunderdome felt like a mixed bag of TRIBBLE... They basically had the idea of 'how would Max react to a Lord of the Flies situation'. They then hashed a plotline around it, and it never really gelled. Then, Byron Kennedy was killed in a helicoptor crash while location scouting for the movie. I can understand that the loss of one of his best friends completely broke George Miller, and his heart was no longer in the project. I get it. But even then, the re-use of Bruce Spence in such a similar role to what he played in The Road Warrior (and never explaining it) was pretty weak, and the chase of the train, was basically a do-over of the chase of the tanker at the end of The Road Warrior. I can accept those things as to why I don't particularly enjoy Beyond Thunderdome, despite absolutely loving the first two movies. So for George Miller to be so unimaginative that he has to revisit and rehash his own projects, that is lower than a reboot.
At least reboot directors (JJ) are putting their own spin on someone else's idea and trying to make something new (in that regard, the JJ Trek movies succeed as 'what they are') For a director to rehash their own projects, that's just a sign that they're truly burned out and unable to come up with anything (significantly) new... Michael Mann is especially guilty of this with, not just Miami Vice, but before that, Heat, which was a rehash of LA Takedown. I saw Heat first, but personally, I preferred Takedown... Takedown had a clear plot. Heat, takes those principle characters, ages them twenty years, thus complicating their lives (and thus cluttering the plot) with typical mundanity, and then drags the story out for a half-hour longer than needed just so the antagonist (who in Takedown was by far the more charismatic character) doesn't 'go down like a punk', but on a more even keel with his nemesis. To me, that swapped a perfectly good scene, with a washed out replacement...
So yeah, IMHO, self-rehashes are the lowest kind of rebooting. As a result, I will never willingly watch Fury Road, unless someone else is literally insisting on watching it and it would be massively rude for me to leave. That's what it would take to make me watch it. Same goes for The Force Awakens. Unless I was literally 'socially kidnapped' into watching it, I don't ever want to watch it (for completely different reasons)
So, long story short, just because those were the popular films, doesn't mean everyone wants to watch them, nor that they are good examples of why reboots are okay...
Admittedly, there wasn't any internet when Search For Spock or the Voyage Home were released, so the nature of the discussion about them was different, and is different today. Of all the original movies, Search for Spock is my favorite. It has pretty much everything I like in a movie. Voyage Home, less so, but it still had some parts I enjoyed. I've never seen those films being discussed with the same level of division, and utter hatred, as the JJTrek (For the record, I've watched Into Darkness at least a dozen times, so I can't go so far as to say I hate it but I certainly hate JJ...) Look at how slated Beyond's trailer has been... How will that actually do when it is released though?
When viewed from that perspective, what the movies took in the cinema becomes pretty irrelevant if those same people didn't actually all like it... If you were to compare (being generous) 70% of Into Darkness' take to the other films, how would it place then? Did it get that much simply because it is better than the other movies, or because there's more money to spend nowadays and a larger viewing audience? When The Motion(less) Picture came out, there were only the fans who watched the original series. By the time Final Frontier came out, you're easily talking about their children, and possibly even grandchildren, and so on... More people with an interest in a franchise means more bums on seats when the movie hits the big screen.
What a load of doublespeak to basically try and say "Gross<> Popularity". The problem with the above is it works that way for every Star Trek film released. You had to PAY to go see it. If someone isn't interested they don't pay, or if they're on the fence and are interested by the lead up articles (ST:Nemesis I'm looking at you as this film was #2 on it's opening weekend and beat by the Jennifer Lopez film released that same weekend "Maid in Manhattan". Also remember te scriptwriter of Nemesis - John Logan - was a self professed HUGE fan of the ST:TNG TV series.)
I really love the lengths some fans will go to to proclaim "Okay, it made money, but that doesn't mean people liked the film, or that it was popular.."
Sorry, but usually box office IS the measure of a franchise film's success, as at the end of the day, that's what a studio wants from a tentpole franchise film. And over the years, the films Star Trek fans have stated they like (STII:TWoK, STIV:TVH, ST:FC and the JJ Abrams Star Trek films) have all grossed VERY WELL at the box office.
Again gotta love the rationalization some people will go through to claim a high grossing film must have been unpopular/no enjoyed by the audiences that saw it - because said person disliked the film(s) in question and can't believe others enjoyed said film(s).
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I can quite accept that others like JJTrek... Doesn't actually mean that it is good, nor mean that anyone else has to like it... The massively divisive response to the JJ films is proof enough that they were not universally popular. Not that the studio cares, they exist to make $$s and by that score, JJTrek was a success. But in other ways, the films were abject failures with laundry lists of faults. The death of Spock in Wrath of Khan choked people up. When Spock screams "Khaaaaaaaaan!" following Kirk's death, people laughed -- and not with it, but at it. As I said, while people (myself included) may be a tad apathetic towards some of the other movies, those movies do not receive anywhere newr the level of vitriol which the JJ Trek movies do. Does that not strike you as unusual? Don't you see that as a correlation? Cognitive dissonance is one thing, but you're just living in denial of an easily provable divided opinion...
I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, but don't try and pretend that everyone loves the JJTrek movies, nor deny that there are many who found them deeply unsatisfying (for any number of reasons) or try and deny that based on nothing more than box office takings, because as I mentioned, that is a misleading yardstick for the simple reason that even if an entire audience was so disgusted by the movie and walks out, they all still paid, and that still gets counted as box office takings. No double-talk there at all, but an undeniable fact... Box office takings equals the initial 'bums on seats' count. Box office takings does not equal 'satisfied viewers'... Apathy toward a movie is one thing, people actively disliking it, is not ignorable, just because you don't agree with them...
My character Tsin'xing
My take on it wasn't to determine if the reboot movies are/were good or if they were popular. I was stating that from Paramount's point of view they have no incentive to stop this universe and go back to the prime one. Paramount as a studio only has one real indicator for continuing this universe and that's Box Office. It's the same thing with Transformers. Everyone and their brother says they hate those films...and yet the last one did 1.1 billion at the box office. Do you think that anyone at Paramount is saying "Hey let's drop Michael Bay and make these films more like the source material?" Hell no...which is why Bay is always like "Im done with these films" and Paramount buys him an island with prostitutes and cocaine to get him to come back.
Now for the discussions about the other movies...I've brought this point up again and again. The Next Generation was hated by Trekkers as a whole. It wasn't until Best of Both Worlds that Trekkers as a whole came around. If you watch the documentary "Chaos on the Bridge" The writers mention that was when the hate mail stopped. I bring the up because a lot of people have selective memories. We'd like to believe that we loved TNG since "Encounter at Farpoint"...and for some people this may be true...but a vast majority of Trekkers look at the past with rose colored visors. How anyone can not say Final Frontier is the worst Star Trek movie ever is beyond me? That movie is an affront to Trek more than anything Abrams and company did.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I would say a vast majority of Star Trek fans don't like the new movies. I will tell you why the Abrams movies draw the ire that they do...it's not about plot holes and lens flares or messing up the Enterprise. The reason why there is so much hatred towards the new movies: Abrams said he wasn't a fan of Star Trek and said he preferred Star Wars over it.
Every critique that people have about these films can be found in the other ones. Did the other films not have plot holes or inconsistencies? Reliant just rolled into Ceti Alpha system and didn't notice they were a planet short? How does whale song reach outer space? Why is it you are able to over look those plot holes but the ones Abrams has in his film label him a menace to filmmaking? Too much action? but we won't mention the Kirk-ification of Picard in TNG movies. How many fist fights and fire fights did Picard get into on the show...how many did he get into in TNG movies?
It's because he's not a true believer. I am willing to bet that if Abrams was a diehard fan and didn't change a thing about his films but then listed all the things he put in the film that correlate to TOS no one would bat an eye.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I see what you're saying
Not to be contrary, but genuinely curious, but why do you feel that about Final Frontier? There's a lot I don't like about it (all the camping stuff, that old chestnut of the Enteprise being the only ship to handle it, Kirk, etc) but it has elements which I did like, such as Sybok... As above, I can ignore much of that and consider it an okay movie. Undiscovered Country, on the other hand, I really dislike (General Chang, Azetbur, Valeris(despite being a huge fan of Kim Cattrall) Spock's blatant grooming of a junior officer to the extent that it blinds him to her manipulations, and then his forcing a mind-meld on her) and I'd rate that as an inferior film to Final Frontier...
They may not have gone back to Abrams because he's tied up in Star Wars. We don't know the behind the scenes stuff but let's not categorize it as them disliking his take on things. Kurtzman is admittedly a Trekker and if the new show is based in the prime universe then it pays to have someone that a fan of that universe heading up the show.
Final Frontier is poorly edited, poorly written and the SPFX are poorly one. While Voyage Home took the characters and put them in funny situations...Final Frontier just straight up made fun of the characters. Scotty banging his head and falling down. Uhura's fan dance. I just can't forgive that movie. But then again I do like UC and I over look the plot holes (Chancellor Gorkon is dead...lets make his daughter Chancellor then...wait what? Why doesn't the Federation keep someone onboard who speaks Klingon? During the Cold War every US Navy ship had someone onboard that spoke Russian.
Any incentive Paramount has to go back to the Prime universe will come from $$$$...no amount of message board posts will change that. IMO I don't think Paramount will ever go back to the prime universe. With the rights split between them and CBS they may decide to leave the prime universe to CBS and continue the Alt-verse
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Yup, I definitely agree with you on those points... Indeed, Azetbur shouldn't've been taking over as chancellor, although I can see why she would have remained a diplomatic point of contact due to her presence. (Overall, I felt she was just a thoroughly snobby and dislikable character... In fact, I've just realized that she and Valeris are pretty interchangeable in terms of character... They're essentially the same character, just dressed up differently...) And absolutely, the language issue is inexcusable. That was something JJTrek at least got right with Uhura... She might've been a snarky TRIBBLE who slept her way to the top, but, she did know her subject and was clearly qualified in her position, which your example shows about the original being not so...
We don't know the behind the scenes happenings on the TV show. It maybe that they didn't want him back or he didn't want to come back. From what I understand he wanted to do a marketing blitz like what was done for Star Wars and Paramount said no. Who knows why he looks embarrassed.
Also Uhura didn't sleep her way to the top. She didn't sleep her way to get good grades. She didn't sleep her way to get a promotion. She should have been stationed on Enterprise and the only reason why she didn't is because Spock didn't want to give the appearance of favoritism.
Azetbur was made Chancellor for one reason...so we could have that cathartic scene at the end....between Her and Kirk.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Absolutely so... It just seems strange that JJ would say that they weren't interested in doing a Star Trek TV series, and not so long after, the reverse is true... And yes, had he had his way, then we'd have Kirk and Spock soap-on-a-rope and branded foodstuffs... Seeing what has happened with the marketing of Star Wars, or rather, The Force Awakens, I'm glad that he didn't get his way... On a similar note, I saw an ad for one of those 'collect monthly' magazines, of the Star Wars helmets. From what I could see, they were only helmets from the original movies (maybe more to come, of course) not from The Force Awakens...
Yes, you're right about Uhura, that was my mistake...
And yes, that's quite likely... She never irritated me (quite) as much as Valeris...