One of the most common chants coming out of the camp of current and existing Star Trek fan bases is “You have to please the fans”. It sounds nice. Power to the people and all that good stuff… but does it really make any sense? No. No it doesn’t. Saying the makers of the new Star Trek film should try to please Trekkies is sort of like saying a battered woman should go out of her way to make a nice dinner for her abusive husband.
No my friends, the makers of the new Star Trek film need to respectfully find a way to subtly disassociate themselves from the current crop known as Trekkies (and please keep in mind as you read this that I myself and a Star Trek fan. I wouldn’t call myself a Trekkie, but a fan of the franchise nonetheless).
It’s much like how most of the current Republican nominees for President are disassociating themselves from George W. Bush. They are still Republican, but they know when there is a dead horse in the stable, and they don’t want the stench of the carcass to get on them too. Bush’s popularity amongst his people is beyond low, and although Republican nominees would like Bush supporters to vote for them, they don’t want to risk his “unpopularity” rubbing off on them too. And so it is with the new Star Trek.
Like the Bush analogy, the new Star Trek franchise does indeed want existing “Trekkies” to get on board with them and drop their money to hit the movie theaters. HOWEVER, what they don’t want attached to the new movie is the stigma of being just another Star Trek movie… because Star Trek has never been more unpopular than it is now (even the most die hard of Trekkies will tell you so).
They want to make a new Star Trek with new potential and a basically a clean slate… but they want to avoid the current stigma of Star Trek. Then don’t want to general public perception to be that this is just another Star Trek movie. They want a much LARGER audience than the previous incarnations were able to produce. They want the appeal of this new Star Trek to go well beyond the traditional “Trekkie” fans… who haven’t been able to prevent Star Trek from decaying over the past decade.
Like most fan groups, Trekkies vastly overestimate their size and influence. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that there aren’t respectable numbers of Trekkies out there, there are. However, they’re not the world moving army that they seem to believe they are. The number of Trekkies have consistently shrank over the years without ever adding new blood to their numbers. It is a movement that has been losing old fans… while failing to add new ones.
If we want a more concrete example of why Paramount and the new Star Trek movie aren’t all that concerned with appealing to the status quo Star Trek fans, one need look no further than the box office result of the last 5 Star Trek films:
1989 – Final Frontier: $53 million
1991 – Undiscovered Country: $74 million
1994 – Generations: $75 million
1996 – First Contact: $93 million
1998 – Insurrection: $70 million
2002 – Star Trek Nemesis: $43 million
The last Star Trek movie to break $100 million was over 20 years ago with Star Trek IV The Voyage Home in 1986. And as you can see, the last Star Trek film crawled in with just over $40 million. So where are they? Where are these legions and armies of Trekkies we keep hearing about? They’re there… but they’re just not large enough to carry and sustain a major sci fi motion picture. The studio needs to not break away from current fan… but rather break beyond them if they want to reinvigorate and breath new life into the franchise. The best way to do that, is to ignore what old status quo Trek fans have to say. I know it hurts to say that… but it’s true.
To go back to the Republican illustration for a moment. The new Star Trek movie is still republican, they’re still called “Star Trek” and they still have all the mainstay characters in there. But this will be a new Star Trek, and that will be tough for the old Star Trek guard to accept.
True Star Trek fans will be there to see the new movie regardless (for the most part… there will obviously be exceptions). The key here is not to appeal to those people… but rather the vast majority of other people… namely people who AREN’T already Star Trek fans… and to do that… they need to ditch the “Trekkie” image. I’m not saying that’s the way the world should be… but that’s the way it is.
Live long and prosper.
(if you enjoyed this editorial, please consider using the “share this” link below to post it on digg, stumbleupon, email, or any other social sharing platform)
THE NEW TREK MOVIE MADE STAR FLEET LOOK DUMB
I have one thing to say.
Money is all that matters. Changing the timeline sets the franchise up for a brand new generation but this is not what Gene Roddenbury would have wanted. I was so disappointed with this movie. It is star trek for the next generation (forgive the pun), and they need special effects and very little story. I was going to go to the Vegas convention but now I think I’ll just watch my NGen, DS9, Voyager,Enterprise, and the Original series and just accept that the franchise has left the original idea of Star Trek: an optimistic future of the universe. This movie is not about that.
I don’t think the movie will fail because it does or doesn’t associate with Trekkies. I think the movie will fail because it’s an old property that doesn’t interest new fans whatsoever.
I’ve seen a few analogies and now here’s mine- Speed Racer.
Older fans of the anime didn’t care, Wachovski fans didn’t care, young kids didn’t recognize the property. Bad idea.
trekkies that should be, stupid fingers :)
I think the comparison of Treckies to wife beaters is pretty bad as well. I also know that Paramount has to reach out to new fans. The problem is that they can not totally turn their back on the fans. The things the fans don’t want to see are things like Spock crying, or Scotty hating computers or any ship systems. The things that berman did to the vulcans in Enterprise with all the uncontrolled emotions, were different from what was all ready established and turned the fans off and the show lost. This proves to me they need to respect the fans. To think that the movies did not make money because the fans don’t really support it is ridiculous.
The problem is treckies like me have the rap for liking anything Trek. That we have no taste. The poor sales of the poorest movies prove we do have good taste and we quickly share the word on if a trek film is worth seeing or not. If JJ changes too much we have accepted as cannon about Star Trek this could doom the film, but realize that even fanboys want a good movie not just something that says Star Trek.
They need to make a dang good move with great a great story, action, and hold it within the established guildlines of what we expect from the characters and they will have a success.
Why not just “ARMOR”? Use John Steakly’s book as a framework for intergalatic exploration and “accidental” war/conflict. An armored suit capable of allowing it’s wearer to run 60MPH and move 6,000 pounds with each arm would make an AWESOME martial arts display….IMO!!
Long live The Guardian of GOLDEN!!
Yea, that makes TOTAL sense… I mean the reason Star Trek is around 40 years later is because they totally ignored the fan base! Duh!
If you don’t like Star Trek the way it has been, fine. It will survive without you. Go watch something else. Trek doesn’t need to change to suit a different audience – that’s why there is PLENTY of other science fiction out there for those of you who don’t get what is so special about Star Trek.
Abrams ought to realize that and he ought to clean up hs act and make sure Star Trek XI doesn’t condone the use of torture like many of his other projects (when the heroic characters use and justify torture – that’s condoning its use).
http://trekkies.againsttorture.com
‘sigh’….just make a good entertaining film Paramount, and everyone will be happy!
‘sigh’….just make a good entertaining film Paramount, and everyone will be happy!
‘sigh’….just make a good entertaining film Paramount, and everyone will be happy!
I worked so hard on that comment!? Why doesn’t it get posted? :(
If the filmmakers are to distance themselves from past TREK, was it a good idea to hire Nimoy who is clearly a rep from the old guard?
If your argument has merit, and I beleive it does, then this new movie is a failure already. Adding Shatner would add to the problem. I thought it a poor choice to involve Nimoy for this same reason. This production should have been a COMPLETE break from the past. Completely new ship design, same characters, different characteristic–making Uhura a telepath, for example. Don’t think Abrams is willing to go that far and that’s the tragedy in all this.
I have a friend who works for ILM and he says he has seen designs for the new Enterprise which he says will be similar to the TOS version but will be a bit more clunky but it will have an important difference in that the nacelles which are on the supporting struts will
SPOILER! About:Spoiler about Star Trek shipDrag mouse over to read: be rotatable at the point where thay are attached to the supporting strut.
be rotatable at the point where thay are attached to the supporting strut.
This means we will have vectoring impulse/warp nacelles.
I have done a study of this using a cone as a secondary hull and 4 pens acting as strut and nacelle and the advantage seems to be in higher maneuverability as by turning the nozzles at intermediate angles you can make them point partially down/up and also you can make one nacelle point forwards and be able to do very sharp turns and also very quick braking by pointing both forwards.
You can do simulation yourself or someone can do a photoshop so you can get a better idea.
The advantages seem to give a huge increase in maneuverability as the nacelles when they rotate on the struts move in 2 planes at the same time horizontal and vertical as the struts are in a v shaped angle.
You may remember Voyager having movable nacelles,but as this is a less advanced ship the nacelles can move a lot more than just up/down.[/spoiler]
Many of my friends at millionairematch.com like to see Star Trek shows and they wanted to see some more excited scene.
Obviously, the person who wrote this piece never watched Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, or Nemesis. Tell me again, who’s been abusing who?
Apparently he doesn’t understand that the fans are there, but rather it’s the MATERIAL that has not there.
Do you think we just see anything because it says Trek on it? Not anymore we don’t!!
According to the Hollywood Reporter – Shatner will do a cameo in ST11.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/Shatner_to_Appear_in_New_Star_Trek_Movie/4949771
The Shat is back!
I’m with you John, It’s time to shake things up. After Nemisis, which had to be the worst film in the franchise (Yes worse than V, at least with V I got a good laugh.
But what they also need is to produce a real honest to fuck Science Fiction Film.
Anyway, I’m far more excited about the fourth season of Doctor Who.
Comedy, and a bit with a dog. That’s what people want. :D
The last few Trek movies sucked because they had a crappy story and the actors were old and tiered.
Just have a kick ass trailer with action, a couple of jokes, and a few eye-popping CGI shots and people will see the movie whether they are trekkies/ers or not.
I realize this conversation has gone on for a while, but here is my rebuttal to John’s post and the opinions of most of the commenters here (click on the following for my article):
Star Trek: New Cast, Fans, Non-Fans And What About Shatner?”
I’d be interested in whether it gives you anti-Trekkies a different perspective on how fans have affected the creation of this new film.
Vic
I know the kind of fan you’re talking about John. They’re the same kind of fans who get indignant and never watch a Star Trek show just because there’s something wrong with the “nacelles”. That’s just idiotic, this hard assed grip on “continuity”.
I’m a big Star Trek fan from way back. I can stand a lot of changes as long as the spirit and essence of the show is retained. I was actually quite wary about this new Star Trek because to have the same impact as Star Trek originally had in the 1960’s, they would have to offer people something new and innovative, but retain that spirit of exploration. A new ship, a new crew, walking amidst unbelievable technology and going literally where no man has gone before.
This new movie will not definitely be going where no man has gone before, just puttering around old previously seen territory.
But I’m a Trek enough fan to watch this and be excited about it, because I also recognize the value of going back and seeing how things began. It’s like watching a pretty cool, well acted, well directed and well written kick ass historical movie in the futuristic context. I can go with that.
John I think you nailed this one;ignore the trekies(trekkers).I am soooooooo sick of hearing self-important fans(from many franchises,not just Star Trek)whining about how “we’re the impotant moviegoers.The directors should take heed of US ,after all we’re the ones they should be trying to please.”NO NO NO filmmakers need to heed the feelings of the general public,because the general public outnumbers any fanbases.I’ve heard also many times commic book fans use the same whiny arguement as to how important they are.I however do consider myself a sensible commic book fan,but I also realize that only a small percentage of Americans read commic books,and the general public out numbers die hard fans.If a filmmaker pleases the general public the film will succeed.
Hey Phil I’m right with you. I believe that JJ is trying to please fans and attract new people at the same time – which is the optimal – if more difficult – approach. Otherwise why the inclusion of Nimoy?
John, that makes more sense to me now. So as an example, Don’t listen to the people saying, make Optimus a flat nose truck… make him something that would work and translate well on screen.
That does make sense to me. To be honest it is hard for me to listen to your post, because, I am a hard core trekker. I’ve been watching it when I was a little kid, so its in my blood.
Bottom, line is, there’s nothing I can do about it, so it is what it is… i’ll give a review when it comes out.
Hey Phil (and everyone who is saying please both)
Ultimately you please fans by making a good movie. I don’t suggest that JJ and Co should go out of their wayto piss of old Trek fans… but to not listen or worry about “what they want” in the production. Rather, focus your main attention on brining in a new generation of fans, and making the best movie possible.
If they do those 2 things… (almost) everyone will be happy.
Cheers.
Vic, I do agree with a lot of what your saying. John… not so much, but I do see many points.
However, why would you ignore old fans, when you can both please old fans and bring in new blood? This is a buisness. To make as much money as possible, you have to please as many people as you can including old fans.
Sure, the fan base is not what it use to be, but they’re still there. If they can be faithful to the universe thats been created over the last 40 years, but also, create something fresh and new, you can still make old fans happy and intrigue new fans to jump on board.
All of that said, this script could be terrible, we won’t know for a while yet. As for old fans and new fans, you know the saying…. Every little bit counts.
-Phil
Have to agree with Mikey M.
The powers that be should have let Trek rest for another 5-6 years before a reboot.
I must admit that everything I read about this movie (and there has been a lot this week) make the project sound ‘wacky’ – It could be a success, but it also could be a full-on crazy fiasco like The WickerMan remake. oi!
Undiscovered Country was very good. IMO, it was the best original cast movie followed by Wrath of Khan. First Contact might be my favorite of all the Trek films. I thought it was well done. I missed Insurrection in the theatre. I rented in on DVD and turned it off after 10 minutes. Nemesis was very disappointing. I have mixed feeling about the casting but am holding all judgement until previews start rolling out.
All Star Trek needs is big %$#%&@ robots and Shia Labeouf as Harry Mudd, 300 million easy.
Stick to the spirit of Star Trek, throw in a few nods to the Trekkies, and then give JJ and crew free reign. It will then have a chance to be a blockbuster, but it also could alienate all the Trekkies (the general populace calls you Trekkies, deal with it).
If they had stuck with what the fans wanted for Transformers, the movie would have been a live action version of the 80’s cartoon, and wouldn’t have done nearly as well as it did.
As far as the Trekkies bashing the later Star Trek movies and then telling John he is wrong, you are actually proving his point…
got to agree with you john.
just like what my boy mikey bay did for transformers. entertaining, and made the studios a shitload of money by reaching tons and tons of people making new fans.
Maybe they just need to take a 20 year break from Star Trek instead of trying to keep on milking the franchise.
Its funny that people writing articles about Trek still don’t know what we are called Trekkers not Trekkies.
I am still skeptical about this movie but we will see when it opens. I won’t be first in line to see it like the other movies.
I can see that they want to appeal to a wide crowd but it is important not to alienate the fans out there. You need both.
I really wish Paramount had waited a few more years and give the franchise a rest but you know Paramount, always out for the dollar from fans so they can have big Christmas Bonuses.
“There is no way this movie can be bad.”
LOL, sounds like famous last words. :-)
Although I’m cautiously optimistic, there are no guarantees.
Vic
Just because the total reboot of BattleStar Galactica was a success doesn’t mean it would work for Star Trek. The original Battlestar was more of a kid’s show, sci-fi action with moppets and cute robot dogs, out to grab fans of Star Wars. It was, in a word, cheesy. It only ran for one season in 1978 and most people had forgotten about it by the time Ronald D. Moore turned it into a darker adult oriented drama. They took a failed show from the trash bin of history, rebuilt it, and made it something better. Something not cheesy.
The original Star Trek is different. It’s the granddaddy of Sci-fi TV shows. Everyone knows who Mr. Spock is and phrases like “beam me up Scotty” are part of our culture. The characters of Kirk and Spock, the Enterprise, the whole show, transcended it’s sci-fi cheesiness and became legendary. You can’t go changing that. You wouldn’t want to.
If you tried making Star Trek dark and violent and making McCoy a hot chick and making all the Klingons into evil human clones (of hot chicks) it would cheapen Star Trek, not improve it. You would be taking something legendary and making it cheesy. You wouldn’t just be pissing off Trekkies, you’d piss off everyone.
You can only try and faithfully re-create what was done before, more like a period piece historical drama. You wouldn’t do a movie about the Civil War and make General Lee a hot chick. You;d find someone that looks almost exactly like General Lee. That’s what Abrahms is trying to do here, I think. A period piece of the Star Trek universe about these legendary characters and their first mission together.
It’s a massive challenge and I hope he gets it’s right.
There is no way this movie can be bad. With the people involved in the movie, they cannot make a bad movie. You have JJ and Damon Lindelof the executive producer of LOST onboard (although we don’t know how active he is with the production) You cannot go wrong with them. Star Trek could not have hoped for better people to be involved with the project.
DO you think they sell a Dancing Uhura Bobblehead?
I didn’t like the analogy made myself. On the topic of the movies though, I believe that a reboot is necessary. If they want to continue the series, they first need to make another great series that can support movies, but maybe have the movies concurrently with the series, every two seasons a movie comes out after the season ends that continues the plots in the show, then a new season begins, etc. As long as the reboot is done well, I will see it.
Sorry, this was a duplicate post.
Michael,
Within the TOS films it’s well known and accepted that “Star Trek V” was the exception to the rule. One of the reasons it wasn’t as good as the others was that it was produced when the last writers’ strike took place in Hollywood. That certainly doesn’t invalidate my point.
Also, sure, the movies you list have a broader appeal, but they had MONSTER marketing campaigns behind them and they were not 6, 7, 8 or more movies into a franchise. Take any of the franchises you listed that deep and I bet they begin to suffer at the box office as well if the quality drops significantly. Spidey 3 was both an “event movie” plus fans were pumped from how great the first two were. If they make another one, based on the opinions of moviegoers to the third one they’re going to have to overcome a lot of negativity.
On a side note, Shatner wanted to rework “V” for a special edition DVD release like they did for the original film and Paramount turned him down, which is a shame.
Vic
First of all, i am calm. I cant say sincere words, but others can? Its something i feel strongly about, deal with it.
And John did EXACTLY what he rails on the Movie Industry for… He compared Trek fans to criminals. Anyone here watch that “You wouldnt steal a car” ad that is on almost every DVD nowadays? Dont some of you feel like they are treating EVERYONE as a potential criminal just because a few idiots bootleg?
Well, just because a few fanboy Trek fans feel the universe wont continue existing without their help, i dont like being lumped in with those “criminals”.
John made a contoversial analogy and he knows it. That is fine. I am just letting him know my opinion and i know that. YOU ALL need to calm down. I am fine.
(Anyone ever see Anger Management when he is on the plane and everyone is like “CALM DOWN!” to Adam Sandler? And the whole time he is calm and people around him just keep getting more and more whacked!)
Jim Walker what the hell is wrong with you dude? You don’t need to go off like that man you should calm damn.
Oh and Frakes never directed Star Trek Nemesis he just helmed Star Trek First Contact and Star Trek Insurrection.
Michael – you forgot the most obvious ones – the Star Wars prequels.
The ST franchise needed a new shot of creative juices and they got that with JJ Abrams. ST11 will do good, maybe even great, business.
What’s wrong with doing both? Respecting the fans and appealing to a larger audience? Why does it have to be one or the other?
To me the best approach is the one the addresses both Trek and nonTrek fans. More difficult to pull off? Sure. But the end reward of creating a larger audience is worth it.
The goal of ST11 should be say to everyone – this ain’t your daddy’s – or maybe even grand-daddy’s! – Star Trek folks. This is a whole new ball of wax! Strap yourself in for a great film.
I think you are saying the same thing here but your editorial seems to be playing up an adversarial relationship between fans and nonfans.
Maybe its because of your poorly chosen analogy at the beginning. ;)
To all those who say Star Trek only did poorly because they were bad films:
1. Spider-Man 3 was bad and made almost a billion
2. Pirates 3 was bad
3. Transforemrs was bad
The difference is that these had REAL active fan bases. Star Trek does not.
And Jim Walker, you need to calm the fuck down. It was an analogy. Get over it.
And Screenrant, you can’t make a point, and then say the example that disproves your point “gets a pass”. That makes no sense.
“Saying the makers of the new Star Trek film should try to please Trekkies is sort of like saying a battered woman should go out of her way to make a nice dinner for her abusive husband.”
—————————
John, this could be the dumbest F**KING thing you have ever said.
That assumes that Star Trek fans treat Trek like crap and act in inappropriate ways towards it. A better analogy of the second half of that analogy:
“Saying the makers of the new Star Trek film should try to please Trekkies is sort of like saying a battered woman should go out of her way to HATE EVERY MALE IN HER LIFE BECAUSE ONE ASSHOLE OF A MAN ACTED LIKE A CRIMINAL.” Which is ridiculous, yes?
The new film will NOT please everyone. Nor do i think they should TRY to please everyone, including the die hard fans. BUT!!!!, to purposely SPITE the classic fans that made Trek a cultural phenomenon, is a disgrace. I am not saying that they ARE doing this, and i DO think they should try theyre darndest to get a new influx of fans, but they (nor anyone) should ever intentionally spit on existing relationships.
And to compare existing Trek fans to “Wife Abusers” is inexcusable AND a horrible, inappropriate use of hyperbole.
Blog authors who form absurd opinions are like adults who sexually abuse children…. oh WAIT… NO THEY ARE NOT!!!! (See my point?!?!?)
No, No, this time you’ve got it all wrong John. I am a long time fan an I can tell you just watching the intro of Enterprise makes me want to saw off my toes and feed them to the dog. The bottom line is this, the fans are still there but the later movies suck. Nemesis is unbelievably bad…manual control stick..WHAT!? Thats why Frakes will never direct anything other than a film ver. of My Little Pony.
Make something good and the fans will go. I try to pretend half of those movies never happened (like Highlander). And one other thing the TV shows suck too. Berman took a great show (next Gen) and beat it to death, all shows to follow had the same crew, just different sexes and colors…BOOOOARING. But wait this one has a dog and the other one drinks tea..Blaa, Blaa, Blaa I’m not watchin’. But, I really do thing there are fans out there who are tired of eating poop sandwitches, waiting for a cheesesteak.
“If we want a more concrete example of why Paramount and the new Star Trek movie aren’t all that concerned with appealing to the status quo Star Trek fans, one need look no further than the box office result of the last 5 Star Trek films:
1989 – Final Frontier: $53 million
1991 – Undiscovered Country: $74 million
1994 – Generations: $75 million
1996 – First Contact: $93 million
1998 – Insurrection: $70 million
2002 – Star Trek Nemesis: $43 million”
Box Office results of last 6, not 5, Star Trek films
Final Frontier:$52 million here, $70 million worldwide. Budget: $27.8 million. Not so well, whcih makes sense since this movie sucked so bad.
Star Trek VI:The Undiscovered Country made $74 million domestically and $96 worldwide with an est. budget of $30 million. I’d say that was not bad. Not a $100 million, but not bad.
Star Trek:Generations made $75 million here in the U.S. and total worldwide was $118 million. Budget: $35 million budget.
Star Trek :First Contact made $93 million here and $146 million worldwide. Budget: $45 million budget.
Insurrection: $70 million and $112 worldwide. Budget: $58 million. played more like a bad tv episode.
Nemesis: $43 million domestically, $67 worldwide. Budget: $60 million. Eye-gougingling bad. Although, I still would not rather weatch Final Frontier instead.
So, Paramount had an even split. They came out relatively unscathed financially. When the films didn’t do so well, it was not solely due to Trekkies not supporting the films, the movie-going public, including Trekkies, thought the movies disappointed and found better films to spend their money on. Afterall, why should they be expected to support bad Trek films? At least they’re not as bad as the Star Wars prequels(an exception made to Ep.III)
But your right on the fact that any Trek film needs to draw in a wide-ranging audience if it hopes to find long-term success at the box-office.
John,
I don’t understand, are you asking for the to ignore the Trekkies or are you saying that they should be awear of them but not really follow what they would want and move to what they think the general audaince would want.
Most of the Star Trek movies would make about the same amount of money which is usually around $70 Million. The only exceptions to that were Star Trek The Motion Picture (prolly becasue it was the first Star Trek movie), Star Trek IV and Star Trek First Contact and those were prolly successful with the general audience because they were the most accessible.
Star Trek V and Star Trek Nemesis just plain sucked lol which could be the reason why they made the least amount of a money.
I’ll still go and see this new Star Trek film but I get the feeling that its a pretty decent movie even though i don’t like what they are doing with it.
Hey Bishop, “dancing Uhura” was in “V” to which I gave an exception. :-)
Vic
The movies went downhill with “The Next Generation”? I think the movies tanked after the 3rd one, with the exception of “The Undiscovered Country” with a rocking performance by Christopher Plummer. Come on now, dancing Uhura? Yeah.
As far as your last point Vic, I think you and John maybe arguing over the same side of the fence on that one.
You totally nailed it with the Berman & Braga comment though.
I will admit one thing though. I really dug Deep Space Nine.
“Saying the makers of the new Star Trek film should try to please Trekkies is sort of like saying a battered woman should go out of her way to make a nice dinner for her abusive husband.”
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
“The last Star Trek movie to break $100 million was over 20 years ago with Star Trek IV The Voyage Home in 1986.”
That’s because once the franchise went to “The Next Generation” the movies went downhill (Star Trek V notwithstanding).
“And as you can see, the last Star Trek film crawled in with just over $40 million. So where are they? Where are these legions and armies of Trekkies we keep hearing about?”
LOL, they’re staying away from movies that SUCK, that’s where they are. Personally I’m GLAD that Nemesis made hardly any money. Don’t you think that’s part of the reason for this fresh new take on the franchise? It took a complete stinker to finally rattle Paramount enough to get rid of Berman & Braga, the duo that effectively murdered Star Trek with their (lack of) vision.
I think you need to appeal to both sets of folks, fans and those who’ve shunned Trek.
Vic
The first person to make the “Trekker” vs. “Trekkie” argument gets a new set of chinuts.
Couldn’t agree more, John. New Star Trek movies are often met with a groan and I hope this kicks up the dirt a little.
Yeah, but doesn’t it seem like cheating for the filmmakers to take advantage of a long standing franchise with a provable (no matter what anybody says)track record and then try to change the history of it just to make their own movie? That seems really low (and uncreative to boot), to take advantage of the “Star Trek” name and characters in that fashion.
I wrote a blog in about 15 minutes for moviefone last August as a plot outline for this movie. In that time I covered all aspects of canon so that the story would work historically and threw in a new adventure on top of that. A lot of fans read it and said I was right on the money with my outline and that it would have pleased them to see it at the movies the way I described. Now, if a simple fan like me with no formal training in screen writing can pull that off, establised and talented screenwriters should be able to do much better. It just seems like the worst kind of creative laziness to ignore the franchise’s history, and you know what? If I was a writer, I think I would enjoy the challenge of writing a completely new “Star Trek” script that was exciting, entertaining, and yet remained true to the series history.
Well, just a thought…it’s too late now anyway.