You would have thought Rick would have learned his lesson about going back in time and making prequels. First a show that was not very good and now a movie?
Rick, we dont want to see this or a Romulan war, we want a movie with established characters that we love. Why else go see it? It's not like the franchise can hold it's own anymore, you need something to bring people to the theatre. Your ideas are not it!
You would think this guy would listen to the fans now!
Has someone started a campaign to either get Paramount to buy out and fire Barman's contract or just my contract him after his current expires?
I'm so SICK of the shit this guy is doing. He has no business fucking up Trek! In fact he needs to just go away and die! There's so many suitors out there iching to infused the series with new life. I say let Manny Coto become the producer and bring in someone like J. Michael Straczynski (B5 fame) to direct episodes.
The problem here is Enterprise has finally gotten to a level where it is FUN to watch and now it's cancelled. :(
--------
http://music.download.com/kxmode
http://www.kxmode.com
Honestly I'm not very enthusiastic about this movie. People are not hungry for more Trek right now. I think it would be a mistake to force the issue by making a movie, even if it manages to attract a larger audience and thus is not a flop, economically. The question is, will Star Trek benefit from a broader appeal than now, or will it be watered down?
The franchise is currently resting, not by choice, but it simply is. More and more people have fallen asleep and they seem to need this rest. Sleeping is a natural part of life.
This movie might only be considered noise by the fans of Star Trek. Maybe its better to let us sleep peacefully. And we would also like to wake up in the same bed, as we fell asleep in. There is no need to invite lots of strangers into the house meanwhile.
-
Quote:
People are not hungry for more Trek right now.
Well, I think people aren't hungry for BERMAN Trek right now. I, for one, would love to see a really great Star Trek movie... but for now, I have to make due with the few great Star Trek movies I own on DVD. You know the ones: the ones Berman had absolutely nothing to do with.
Well I guess I am, because I refuse to see it. But it's not because I am trying to make a statemtn, I just think it's a crap idea to A) use totally new characters and skew younger (undoubtedly with some household names that the teenage girls will love) and B)Set it in a time period that already failed once, when they did Enterprise.
It sounds stupid and I refuse to watch it.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
I didn't read all the previous posts because I already have an idea what they say. Star Trek fan conservitives bashing Berman and Star Trek fan optimists looking at the half full glass.
My take is simple: The franchise was resurrected when Spock was killed and that, (cough), movie would have never happened if the big domino igniting the entire modern sci-fi popularity had not fallen: Star Wars. The larger dominoes continued to roll over along with the smaller ones, Voyage Home; Next Generation; Undiscovered Country; Deep Space Nine; Voyager; First Contact; and now the last domino at the end of the line is rolling over, Enterprise.
What's wrong with letting the powers at be try setting up a whole new set of cool dominoes? More power to them and honestly, how many of you is not chomping to go see the next big domino get the whole thing started again? Star Wars.
Enjoy the ride...
-
Ummm, because we are tried of the dominos they have been giving us??
Most did not like Enterprise or the last two movies so why make another movie that, with the same people in charge, will go down as a lead weight.
What is he talking about, I am getting sick of there BS. Why are they doing this they are not making sense at all?...there are cancelling Star Trek Enterprise just when I think it is really finally getting good under Manny Coto this season. Because they been saying the "the reason is Trek needs a rest" yet they are working on a new movie project as we speak according to Berman. I think we are being lied too about the real reason for the cancellation
All these people at Paramount, UPN, Berman, Braga are all idiots who truly don't know what the hell they are doing or for that matter really care or about Star Trek or the people, the fans who made Star Trek what it was, there own interest is at the forfront and for that much more of Paramounts money will be used to kill Star Trek further for good thats all they care about.
I rather instead a wasting all that money on the movie that will problably bomb and use the money to continue ST: Enterprise under Manny Coto into a Fifth Season through a seventh season. I thought this latest episode "In A Mirror, Darkly" was excellant and cant wait for part 2 next week.
Elara_Bern
-
I agree,it is nothing but BS,This idea of
catering for the more younger consumer
base young girls(also the young Gay men),lets
just the under 21 mark.
to steal a saying,The more things Change,
The more they stay the same.
All I hear nowadays, what the movie cast/enterprise cast/producers can't do, becouse it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore... Hell, this franchise is going on for 40 years! It would be the biggest mistake to stick to one concept. There is just one main idea, that humanity is evolved, most of the humans are enlightened and that this humanity could create a federation of planets, with main goals like keeping peace and balance.
I won't say "look at BSG" or other remakes, just look at episodes from DS9, some from Voy, there's plenty of them, wich already takes a harder, different view on this universe. One of the most powerful way to look at the ideals mentioned above is to show them along with war, death (main characters, too!), and agony. One thing that this franchise needs badly is Realism (especially after Ent) and that's why I was so happy after the Jendersen-interviews. The biggest challenge, and biggest breaktrough for a future series/movie would be to picture the Star Trek universe as a more real, living world. TOS was real enough for the sixties, TOS movies for the eightees, the three series for the '90-s (on movie front, First Contact is the best example). One of the main failures of Ent was not to live up for this. We need something that could bring Trek to the 21th century, that's what the fan base is waiting for for 6-7 years.
(btw, sorry for bad english...)
Edit: Oops, this is a reply to Brikar down below.
You make some very good points. However, I still think this idiotic idea of a Star Trek XI film will end Star Trek for a very long time. My reasoning is quite simple.
A new ship, new crew idea, being shown in the midst of an interstellar war with the Romulans. Ok, I'm not disputing I'm one of those people that things a new crew is a bad move. However, that in and of itself does not guarantee a failure. The movie could be very successful with a new crew. Who knows? It's the war part that I have a problem with. Someone compared what this film is starting to sound like to Band of Brothers and Blackhawk Down (among other war movies). From my memory, Blackhawk Down was a group of people who I found completely interchangeable getting massacred. I haven't seen the film in a while, but that's the impression it left me with. Band of Brothers was a 10-part miniseries that had a lot of time to develop a whole platoon of characters, something a 2 hour movie will not have.
So to me, this movie sounds like it will be completely unrecognizable to Star Trek. And at that point, my question becomes, is it Star Trek any longer? People can spew "war is part of the human adventure" and "you can define humanity's spirit in a war movie" and so on, but I just think the whole idea is so un-Star Trek that it is doomed to failure.
Perhaps, if the franchise was going strong, and Star Trek was a popular commodity, a completely different type of film wouldn't be bad. But for a franchise as battered and bruised by medicore writing and producing, this movie will be the nail in the coffin.
My prediction is this: many, not all, but enough Star Trek fans will not go to see this movie because it is so un-Star Trek. The regular viewer will see it's a big action adventure movie (from the trailers) and that will get a few people to go see it (as long as the trailers are cool). But the film sounds like it's going to need a huge budget, and a huge budget needs a huge success at the box office. This won't be it. Especially when Star Trek: Enterprise can only muster about 3 million viewers a week, how is a movie going to do well?
-
But that's not related to my point. The style of the movie or the story told has absolutely nothing to do with the cast of the movie being familiar "Star Trek" characters or not. My point is it's stupid to feel the movie will fail because of the fact that we haven't seen the cast before, or to feel that you're not interested in seeing characters that haven't been "developed" previously in a TV series. We've all seen that Trek movies based upon previously created characters can be successful or can fail, just like any other movie.
AS for your point, the truth is simply this: Supposing production goes forward. It gets written, it gets casted, filming begins and ends, yada yada yada... Advertisements start coming around. That's when people will TRULY decide whether they want to see it or not. At this point, it's stupid to say that the movie won't be "Star Trek" or anything like that because you simply don't know anything about it. You're building it up in your mind best on (at best) vague statements by the producer before the script is even finished. Stop doing that. We have no evidence that this will be a "war movie" or that it will be "Band of Brothers in space", which is a lame catch-phrase people like to throw around. All we know is that the writer promised a story with a different kind of dramatic sensibility than has come in previous Trek movies. And that it will take place a bit after "Star Trek: Enterprise". That's honestly all we know. That makes it an easy step to being a movie where humans are fighting a war with the Romulans, and I won't lie that that's not a good place to mine for a lot of great stories, but we ARE getting ahead of ourselves.
You can't judge the "un-Star Trek-ness" of the story at this point, and it's silly to do so. It makes you look like a kook.
--------
"Serenity" is the movie "Star Wars" prequels wish they could be.
-
Your post was nice and intelligent, until you get to the last sentence where you imply I'm a kook. That's something that just bothers me about message boards, people throw insults out there without a care in the world. Not that I'm sitting here crying or anything, it's just a sad commentary on things that on message boards people can't engage in a normal conversation without insults being tossed out there.
Yes, it's true that we know very very little about the premise of the proposed Star Trek XI. But from what we do know, to me it very much is *starting* to sound like it will be a movie that shows the realism and horrors of war, and put that in a Star Trek universe setting.
Maybe my earlier post was a little jumbled, but somewhere in there I did say that the idea has merit, and wouldn't be a bad premise, except now is not the time for it. Enterprise has just been cancelled, and whether Berman wants to admit it or not, the entire franchise is wobbling like a prize fighter after taking too many punches to the head. Whether Berman admits it or not, whatever the next project is, it WILL be looked at as "the return of Star Trek" and will be scrutinized as such. By the media, by the fans, etc. Let's say this war movie does get made (which I don't even think will happen because Paramount is just waiting out Berman's contract) and it's new crew in a major war setting becomes a box office hit. I'm going to take a jump ahead and just *assume* (so I'm not saying it'll be like this or not) that the movie will be heavy-special effects and light on character. There will be characters, and we'll get to know some of them (before they die). Let's then say the movie is a box office success. The only logical conclusion Paramount would take from that is what Berman's been saying all along: plot driven, not character driven, is the way to go. And what does that say about the average Star Trek fan, and what Paramount will produce from there onwards? More plot-driven garbage. Not to mention more years of Berman at the helm.
If it's a good movie, strong on characters and really makes you care about these people in this war, I'll be proven wrong and I'll be happy to be wrong. But, I ask you, with Rick Berman at the helm (I know who's writing it, but Berman's a producer and once the script is done so is Jendrensen's part in the process, the script can then be changed to suit Berman's idea of Star Trek) how much faith am I, and many other Star Trek fans, expected to show that this will be something special? After 7 years of Voyager and 3 forgettable years of Enterprise, Berman isn't someone I expect greatness from. War movie + Rick Berman = Spiffy explosions and interchangeable characters. And that's what I think we'd get.
However, the point I think is moot because I don't think this film will get made. Paramount will not greenlight it, and at the end of 2006 Berman is sent packing. I guess we'll see.
The sound you hear is every Trek fan beating their head against the wall....
What a load. First of all, to say that Enterprise would have had to be produced on half its current budget to work on cable is either a statement made from ignorance or complete stupidity. There are series on cable NOW that have similar budgets to ENTERPRISE season 4, including GALACTICA. The fact is that Rick Berman didn't want to go back to producing a series for cable or syndication because that would be a step backwards - producing two series for a newtwork, even a poor excuse for one like UPN, is where you work hard to get to. Going back is seen like a demotion. Yes, the first run syndication market has changed since TNG & DS9 were on the air but there is still a lot of money to be made in syndication. Just ask Oprah and Dr. Phil.
The "younger skewing cast" really worries me. Rick's great at hitting the latest trends in entertainment about 7 to 10 years too late so we're likely to see something like "Starfleet Acedemy" before it's all said and done. Fortunately, the Rick Berman Contract Countdown continues.....
--------
KJB || IGN Trek Report
The contents of this post are the opinions of the author and are not intended to reflect the corporate opinions of IGN.com or IGN Entertainment. The contents may not be reprinted or posted in any other forum, web site or transmitted by any other means without prior written consent of the author. All Rights Reserved.
-
I agree ,Berman comments are just excuse`s,
he seems to say a lot,but delivers nothing.
I am not tired of Star Trek, what ever form
it takes(I do draw the line of star trek901020)
Enterprise has just starting to hold its own,
I was one of the first to critical of the idea
of a prequal in 2001.
Ever since TNG's "All Good Things..." when Q is about to tell Picard something, stops himself and tells him, "See you out there" I've been waiting for a MOVIE to come out. Four films later... nothing. And this new Trek films makes me sick to my stomach. Here's a noval idea. Paramount can film a Trek movie with B4, Picard and Q and expand on "see you out there". That's it. Steward, Spinner, and de Lancie are such great actors the story would work!
--------
http://music.download.com/kxmode
http://www.kxmode.com
-
OK two out of three ain't bad.... but why on earth would anyone want B4 featured in anything except a melt-down scene? Without question this entire plot line was one of the reasons Nemesis was such a crap film!
Spiner bitched so much about being typecast and how he was sick of playing Data and wanted the character to die but then, realising his career was stalling, wrote in this fallback position so he could still be involved.
Kill off B4 and spiners involvement with the franchise I say!
As for Q, I could not agree more and I think it's what people who used to watch TNG would be interested in seeing.
-
Fact is Spiner and Stewart got too much control over the movies, imputting what they would and wouldnt do and look how they movies turned out.
How much of Nemesis was actually written by Logan? Spiner probably wrote the whole storyline and then Logan probably tried to make something out of it.
Stewart wanted Insurrection to be lighter than originally planned so they gave him a love interesting.
-
i've read in interviews rick berman has set his foot down and proclaimed that a TNG film will NEVER EVER have Q in it. Q stays in TV and that's final.
so as long as RB is in control you'll "never" see Q on film with TNG cast. but i like the way you're going with it.
there's so many things they can pick and choose throughout the 7 seasons of TNG to make a really epic film. i always wanted to explore Q's extension to Riker to be a part of the continuum. remember in star trek generation when riker said, "speak for yourself, i plan to live forever." all those subconscious hints from the riker character =).
--------
LET THEM DIE!!!
-
Quote:
i've read in interviews rick berman has set his foot down and proclaimed that a TNG film will NEVER EVER have Q in it. Q stays in TV and that's final.
so as long as RB is in control you'll "never" see Q on film with TNG cast. but i like the way you're going with it.
This is the first I ever heard of that, was there any specific reason why Berman proclaim that?
"Berman : I think STAR TREK is a part of the American nomenclature and culture."
You think? You THINK?! The man has been involved with Star Trek for over a decade and he "thinks" Star Trek is a part of the American nomenclature. He so needs to be fired.
And this...
"Berman: I don't know what it is considered, to be honest with you."
And neither do we heir Berman. Neither do we!
--------
http://music.download.com/kxmode
http://www.kxmode.com
Quote:
Berman : This film is not evolving the way the other films have evolved. It's going through a development process, and whether the film is going to be made depends on the quality of the script and a number of other factors.
Berman: As opposed to the old way of writing a movie script where me and Brannon go to the strip club, get shit ass drunk and stuff Trek money down G-strings, come home pass out and get up in the morning and write whatever dumb idea comes floating out of our asses.
--------
Today is a fabulous day to dye - The Metrosexual Klingon.
-
Brannon co-wrote two features, Rick has no screenplay credits on any of them.
And to be quite honest, your method sounds like a great way to turn out a script...
--------
--Gabriel C. Koerner
Getting the Cheese to Sickbay in Style.
DAMN IT! Just because it's going to have a younger cast does NOT mean it will be 01210/OC/Dawson's Creek in space!
If you haven't noticed, "young" doesn't always mean teenage. Don't forget, all the main characters in every Star Trek movie were middle aged, even older. It is fairly certain that this movie will have a twentysomething cast and hey! I would not mind this since I myself am a twentysomething and I can relate more to the characters.
Since this movie is more than likely to be a Romulan War movie, the tone of the movie will be similar to:
All Quiet On the Western Front
Gallipoli
Band of Brothers
Platoon
We Were Soldiers
Black Hawk Down
Hell, how about even "The Things They Carried".
This movie will NOT be Star Trek: The Notebook or Star Trek: Not Another Teen Movie. It will be a serious war movie about the loss of innocence from war.
Why can't some of you people see this?!
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
-
Quote:
It will be a serious war movie about the loss of innocence from war.
I pose the question: Is this film Star Trek anymore? There is playing with the format, but there is also the point where if you change the format so much that it becomes unrecognizable as what it was, is it really what it was anymore? They can make a movie about a huge interstellar war in space, with people dying and so on, but is it Star Trek anymore? The reason I'm so against this stupid idea of Berman's is
1) It's a Rick Berman idea and I have no love for the man and no confidence he can produce anything good.
2) I have my doubts about it even being Star Trek other than in name only.
-
Quote:
I pose the question: Is this film Star Trek anymore?
Especially since GR himself was particularly adamant about the Federation not being a military organization (which I always thought was kind of silly, but this is still GR's backyard Paramount's playing in and the rules are still his) and Trek not being about war, except in passing. If he was offended by the amped up militaristic aspect of the Wrath of Khan (and we know that he was), it's safe to say we know what he would think of this idea.
Not that I really care. I'm done with visiting the theater for Trek movies unless Berman isn't involved AND the concept really blows me away (or there's a legitimate Shatner as Kirk situation, which isn't going to happen). None of this is true in this case.
--------
"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" - Justice Scalia
-
Quote:
This movie will NOT be Star Trek: The Notebook or Star Trek: Not Another Teen Movie. It will be a serious war movie about the loss of innocence from war.
Why can't some of you people see this?!
Maybe it's a result of the years of anticipation followed by the repeated crushing disappointments. Or the fact the guy can't produce a decent excuse as to why most of his work on the Trek franchise has sucked. Take your pick but it boils down to the fact that nobody trusts him because he has given no one a reason to trust him.
--------
KJB || IGN Trek Report
The contents of this post are the opinions of the author and are not intended to reflect the corporate opinions of IGN.com or IGN Entertainment. The contents may not be reprinted or posted in any other forum, web site or transmitted by any other means without prior written consent of the author. All Rights Reserved.
With all of the turnover at Paramount and Viacom, is STAR TREK now considered a TV or Movie franchise going forward?
Berman : I don't know what it is considered, to be honest with you. I think it could be considered a potential TV franchise for some time in the future. There is one movie project, which is in development, so I think it is probably perceived in that way, too.
Translation: Whatever Paramount wants, whether it's a TV show, or a movie, as long as they'll pay me money, I'm hoping to be involved.
There has been talk that with Paramount's new film chief, Brad Grey, coming onboard, the idea is to put STAR TREK to rest for a few years, including the feature film idea we've talked about for many issues now. Is the feature film still moving forward?
Berman : Well, that is complete nonsense. There has been no discussion at all about this project being put on a back burner or being decelerated that I am aware of. If there has been any discussion about it, then I am not aware of it. The project is moving along as planned; we are in early story and scripting stages, and absolutely nothing has changed. I also read somewhere that the concept was being thrown out and they were asking for something different; none of that is true.
Translation: I haven't heard anything about that, and we're going along with our spec script as planned. This of course means absolutely nothing because Paramount wouldn't tell me that they're not going to go ahead with this idea until we actually present it to them, on the very off-chance they like it.
Well, it would seem to me that if they wanted this film project not to move forward, they would tell you to stop working on it.
Extra Translation: We want people to keep buying our Star Trek magazine, so we need them to keep up hope that there's a new Star Trek project going on. So, Rick, say something political that gives them hope without actually saying anything substantial.
Berman : This film is not evolving the way the other films have evolved. It's going through a development process, and whether the film is going to be made depends on the quality of the script and a number of other factors. It is now just a question of developing it and seeing what the powers-that-be think about it.
Translation: I'm hoping someone at Paramount is reading this so they think I'm taking a completely new approach to this film. I'm not actually, but they don't know that.
One of the things you have said in the past is that this film will be much more ambitious and different than anything we have seen from a STAR TREK film yet. What do you mean by that?
Berman : I would say that this film will be larger in scope than anything we've seen previously.
Translation: It's a big concept idea, that will require Paramount to shovel millions upon millions of dollars into it, which means it's not going to happen. Also, people like to hear that a movie is going to have a larger scope. Actually all I mean is we're going to be using bigger lenses to film it should we get to, but people think I'm talking about the plot. Stupid fans.
Will this movie involve a younger-skewing cast?
Berman : Yes, it will.
Translation: I can safely say that because Picard, Data, Worf, Geordi, Troi and Crusher are all in their 50s. Even if I get actors in their 40s, they're still skewed younger. Also it lets me give this film the impression that it'll be hip and cool.
I had thought that the film was post-ENTERPRISE, but there are rumors now that it is set pre-ENTERPRISE "" can you shed some light on this?
Berman : I really don't want to comment on that quite yet.
Translation: It's set whenever we decide will make Paramount most likely to greenlight it.
Do you think the series being cancelled could potentially cause this feature film project to take on more importance? Could it be the next thing now to carry on the torch?
Berman : I don't think anybody is really looking at it that way. I don't think people are saying, "Now it's our turn to carry the torch." There is a STAR TREK film in development "" and based on how the story works out and how the script works out, it will be looked upon and decided upon like any other film project.
Translation: I'm an idiot. I don't think that whatever project we come up with is going to be billed as "the return of Star Trek." Nahhhh. Why would that be? It'll be looked upon and decided upon like any other film project. Spec scripts are written all the time, and about 75% of them usually get thrown out. This is likely going to be one of those. But we don't want you cancelling your subscription to our Star Trek magazine, so we have to keep your hopes up.
So, optimistically speaking, if this feature film project gets the 'green light', we may not have to wait five years to see the new incarnation of STAR TREK?
Berman : The potential is there for that to happen. Obviously, from conception to release of a movie takes at least a couple of years, though.
Translation: If I can once again convince Paramount I know what I'm doing, and get them to give me another eight figure contract, then I'll churn out this sh*t faster than I was before.
What do you think you're involvement with STAR TREK will be down the road?
Berman : I need some time to think about that. I'm not really read to comment on that, nor do I think I am even ready to make any personal decisions about that. After 18 years, I need a little more time to determine my future. I am certainly going to be involving myself in other project, as will Brannon and Manny over the next year or so. But I am not sure exactly what the future of STAR TREK is, or what my future connection to it might be.
Translation: If Paramount offers me another contract, I'll sign it as fast as I can before Paramount changes their mind. Of course, I have to make it sound like in the end it's my decision to extend my contract, because if Paramount doesn't offer me another one, I can just say that it was my choice to move on.
You have said that you felt that ENTERPRISE was too expensive to move to a cable network to save it. Is that still true?
Berman : For the show to be practical on a cable network or in today's syndication market, unlike the syndication market of 10 years ago, or when the WB and UPN took up two stations in each market, to produce the show for cable syndication would mean doing it for less than half of what it is costing us now. I think that would be impractical. I also think the studio wants to give Star Trek a rest, as I said "" at least on television right now.
Translation: Shhhh. You idiot. We need the over a million dollars an episode. How do you think I pay for a trip to Mexico every week or so? Also, we have to have nice looking explosions and cool starship battles. No one wants to see character development anymore. That Battlestar Exotica or whatever it is won't last because all they do is talk and do something called drama. Nevermind Babylon 5 was made on about half of our budget, and blew our pants off in terms of quality, if we say we need a lot of money to make an episode, that's the way it is.
Will there be anything happening for the 40th anniversary of STAR TREK next year?
Berman : I am not aware of anything, but I would say you can bet your boots that there will be something done. The studio will undoubtedly recognize the milestone.
Translation: Now Paramount looks bad if they don't do something. And since next year I'm still under contract, woohoo! I've got at least one more paycheque coming.
Rick, in closing, look into your crystal ball and tell us what you think the future holds for STAR TREK? Is it dead, or just in hibernation for an even bigger reintroduction to the world in the next few years?
Berman : I think STAR TREK is a part of the American nomenclature and culture. I think there is no way that anyone could ever consider it being dead. It, perhaps, has been a little over-extended in the last 10 years, and it is going to get a well-earned rest. When it does come back, I am hoping it will return fresh and different, and that there will be an audience waiting for it.
Translation: I hope I sound really smart and sincere. Please all you stupid dumb fans out there. Don't worry about intelligent stories. Petition Paramount to bring more Star Trek out as fast as they can, because maybe I can slip under their noses and get a contract extention. I promise I'll listen to your ideas this time. Really I will. Ah, no I won't. I'll still do things the way I think they should be done. Cool explosions and mindless action stories all the way, baby!
Can't wait to see Berman's "younger cast"
I have no intrest in seeing a Star Trek film with all new characters in it.
Don't they understand that it's the characters that make the series great?
The last three tv series have proven that you just can't throw any old cast togther and call it Star Trek and expect that the fans will show up.
Why not an epic film that centers around iconic characters like Kirk,Picard and members of all the other programs that introduces a new cast that we can get to know?
-
That's stupid. How many movies do you go to see that DON'T have pre-established casts or characters? "Star Trek" is no different. All this bullshit people throw around about "not interested in a new cast" is idiotic. Go watch reruns of the old shows then, and never watch any new "Star Trek", because there's been FOUR new "Star Trek" casts since 1987.
--------
"Serenity" is the movie "Star Wars" prequels wish they could be.
-
This just isnt ANY MOVIE, it's a franchise and they are wanting us to go see the movie so, yes, you should have things that people want to see in it, not just think people will show up because it has Trek in the name. That is not going to work anymore especially everyone has seen what Berman can do with the franchise which is nothing but bury it. He has proven he does not know how to write good characters so what makes us thing that these "New" characters are even going to be interesting???
-
I think an all new crew will be difficult b/c the characters will not be wholly developed. The TOS and TNG crews were fairly developed (with some characters moreso than others) and so it was easy for Trek fans to instantly connect with the story. An all new crew that is introduced to us for the first time in a movie may not be easy. We have no connection with the main characters and so it will be that much harder for the audience to care about them. Of course, good writing can go a long way in fixing that problem but we'll just have to wait and see.
--------
[Praying heavenward]
"Homer Simpson": I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me "Superman"!
-
What makes that reasoning absurd is the fact that the average movie-goer hasn't seen enough of TNG and TOS prior going to a ST movie.
EVERYTHING SINGLE WEEK people go to the movies to SEE movies with CHARACTERS that have NO prior CONNECTION with the said people!!!!
When will you people get that in your heads?!!!
Besides, it's the movie's traliers that make people want to care about the characters.
As for me personally, I care more about the PLOT itself most of the time.
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
-
The movie's trailers will make people care about the characters? That is one of the most silliest things I have ever heard. Trailers give you the basic plot and hope that the audience finds it interesting. Sometimes it's not really the plot but the look of the film that attracts moviegoers (I think of Sin City as a pretty good example).
--------
[Praying heavenward]
"Homer Simpson": I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me "Superman"!
-
Average people think Star Trek sucks and dont watch it so you think they are going to pay $12.00 to go into a movie that most people think is for nerds???
So, that leaves people who like the series and want to see their favorite characters up on the screen. But wait, there arent going to be any favorite characters on the screen so that is another strike against the movie and even die hard fans are burnt out on the Trek they have been getting (hence the numbers drop for Enterprise and the cancellation), so who does that leave that wants to see it? A few people that like even the worst episodes of Voyager and Enterprise and the last two movies in spite of how good they are. These are the people that after a episode airs rate it Excellent even when it's utter crap so that will bring in what, about 30 million tops at the box office and then after the first week, it will die and that will be the end of any movies period!!
-
That still makes no difference. An all-new crew is no more difficult to accept than the cast of any other movie. You have no pre-existing connection to those characters. No one had watched seven years of Luke Skywalker before "Star Wars" came around. There wasn't long-running "Indiana Jones" TV series, or "Mystic River" or "Million Dollar Baby" or "The Poseidon Adventure" or anything else like that.
To go even further, it's no more difficult to accept than watching the pilot of a new TV series. You introduce the characters, and then you develop them a bit over the course of the episode. The only difference between that and a movie is A) the budget and B) the time between the next (possible) chance to develop them further. With a TV series, it's a week. With a movie, it's upwards of a few years. But it's still no different. You're convincing yourself that it is, but it isn't.
--------
"Serenity" is the movie "Star Wars" prequels wish they could be.
-
Brikar, I was thinking of Trek fans more than anything else. You have to admit the damage to ST is pretty severe. People were turned off ENT from the beginning because of two reasons: the plot and the lackluster development of the characters.
Now, don't get me wrong. I know that Trek fans will in all likelihood flock to theaters b/c they're desperate to see Trek (after a brief hiatus). However, like I said before, it's going to take terrific writing to make the audience care for a bunch of all-new characters. Now, this may not matter if this new crew isn't that big. If it's just 4-5 characters then I think it would work out well but you get 7 people and you will find it hard to flesh everyone out reasonably well. I know that X-Men was a success but out of 8 characters, only 4 or so were really spotlighted. I hope that doesn't happen with this new Trek film, which is such long ways off that I'm not sure if it's really worth discussing at this time.
--------
[Praying heavenward]
"Homer Simpson": I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me "Superman"!
(1)
| 
