Yeah, but Paramount isn't exactly bright. Look how they butchered the franchise for so long.
The 09 movie was a huge success in gross.
But don't think like a not so bright movie exec.
For example, I think Star Trek XI was ranked 7th in gross for the year.
That's damn good.
It's interesting. I was reading how Paramount even was disappointed in the box office of TMP.
That was the most successful movie to date financially. Adjusted for inflation, I believe it even beats the last movie. Even if it doesn't, it's close.
But TMP was the second highest grossing film in the country in 1979. It more than doubled its budget as well, and did even better if you don't count the millions used to develop Phase II (part of the TMP budget).
Yet Paramount was disappointed because it didn't do Star Wars dollars.
Is Star Trek XI less of a success because it didn't do Avatar numbers? I would say no.
Know the franchise, have realistic expectations, budget accordingly, and it'll be fine.
Star Trek has the advantage of a large fanbase that people want to see succeed. If the movie doesn't suck, they are going to do very well. If the movie is good, it will do that much better.
In this case, figure they'll gain people who liked the movie, lose people who were checking out the novelty of a new cast, and have an advantage of higher movie ticket prices this time around.
If it does as well, great. If it doesn't do as well, it just has to be in the ball park and things are fine.
It just can't bomb. I'd be surprised if it bombs. Abrams can't make a movie that bad.
You can't confuse the fan base who watched Enterprise with the fan base that identified with Kirk, Spock, and the original crew. It was MUCH larger.
TOS is as mainstream as any franchise ever.
That's why it was so great that Abrams chose those characters. The movie wouldn't have been as big a success if Abrams went in another direction.
But yes, it helped that the movie ended a streak of bad movies and worse TV.
Now they have the TOS characters, plus good will.
It will open big. No question there.
From that point the movie will sink or swim on its quality. But it doesn't HAVE to do as well to be a success.
Why do effects and good writing have to be mutually exclusive?
It IS possible to have both.
I think Koenig does have some points. The last movie wasn't bad by any stretch, but it wasn't nearly as well thought out and character driven as the early TOS movies.
If TWOK had the effects budget and technology they have today, it only would have been better.
Great effects don't make a good script bad.
JJ Abrams is not Rick Berman. He has proven that he can produce a well done story.
Look at Lost. Good effects, and character driven.
That show alone is a testament to what Abrams can do. There is no reason he can't put out a good Star Trek story.
I believe Orci and Kurtzman are talented as well, though I don't know if they are the best writers for STAR TREK.
Star Trek succeeded in part because they brought in great Sci-Fi writers to do their stories. I would look to either the best Sci-Fi writers today, or the Trek novelists. They'll get the good script. JJ would make it work on film with all the right effects.
There's just no reason this upcoming movie should be bad. And I'm expecting a better movie than last time--even if it doesn't do as well at the box office (though I expect good box office).
He has a legitimate point. They filmed the original series with styrofoam rocs and white ape suits. It was a much less effects oriented show. God.
"..a lot more eye candy, a lot more dependence on technology than we had, I think possibly we were compelled to make the story a little bit more personal and a little bit more human and a little bit more character-driven because we did not have the technology to fall back on"
*cough* *cough* The Motion Picture *cough*
Sure, Wrath of Khan was character driven. But I'm not sure anyone involved in the Star Trek movies can claim they didn't rely on special effects occasionally, not when the first movie has a twenty minute special effects sequence with little dialogue and really very little to do with the plot except to point out that V'ger was really big. Something I think they could have done more quickly then what we got. Or the long introduction of the Enterprise, which I love by the way, but is nothing but visual candy. Just one that relies on models, miniatures and green screen rather then pure cgi. In a movie which "borrowed" it's central plot from earlier TOS episodes and essentially ignored the extended crew.
I know it's fashionable to bash CGI and pretend like it's changed storytelling, but back in the 80s and 90s people used to complain about all the Special Effects ruining movies and taking the emphasis off character and plot too. Now the culprit has moved on to CGI, but they're the same arguments. The difference is we can look back on the past with rose colored glasses and remember all the great movies who successfully incorporated great effects and story, and forget all of the terrible movies that were made in the same era which relied entirely on special effects. In twenty years we'll have forgotten all the terrible Transformer movies being made now too and look back at Lord of the Rings and other big movies which transcend the effects in them and long for a time when directors didn't rely special effects to tell a story and forget that we were all complaining about it then too.
RE: Ahem
by StillKirok @ 16:42:08 on Jun 11
RE: Ahem
by Terry212 @ 15:46:51 on Jun 11
I don't see this as a gripe at all. He's very complimentary to the new film. All he is saying is that Star Trek 09 relies more on the special effects and action to tell the story than it does the characters. I completely agree with this statement. Does that mean its a bad movie? Certainly not! I think Star Trek 09 is a film that is the best since Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. That said, however, I recognize that there are vast differences between Trek 09 and the original Trek films which, because of limited budgets and technologies, they had to really on strong character moments to tell the story, and not on the special effects.
If you want to see another example of this, look at the differences between the original Star Wars trilogy and the prequel trilogy, or the Indiana Jones trilogy vs Crystal Skull. Once CGI made all things possible, filmmakers relied more on the visuals than strong scripts to tell their stories.
These guys just can't compliment the new Trek without getting their jabs in. Trek wasn't going to work as B movies on limited budgets anymore. I'm glad they're not trying to make a carbon copy of the formula. That allows those old films to stand alone. This was intended to be a different experience, but I disagree about the lack of emotion. It tapped into the emotion of Trek just as much as any of the old Treks did.
Also, evoking Spock's death in STII isn't really a good example. That's a big moment, and not indicative of the entire TOS movie endings. It really stands alone as a seminal moment beyond comparison.
RE: Jeez
by StillKirok @ 13:21:57 on Jun 10
RE: Jeez
by Cylykon @ 07:13:22 on Jun 11
RE: Jeez
by Spaceball One @ 15:42:11 on Jun 11
RE: Jeez
by The One @ 15:01:37 on Jun 10
RE: Jeez
by StillKirok @ 18:19:09 on Jun 10
RE: Jeez
by wa2flq @ 15:47:33 on Jun 10
RE: Jeez
by SM @ 00:27:02 on Jun 12
RE: Jeez
by wa2flq @ 23:01:30 on Jun 13
RE: Jeez
by SM @ 15:04:30 on Jun 14
