RE: A Logical Gamble? | Report this post to moderator
By: sb2004 (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:29:20 on Oct 31, 2007 | (1)

Quote:
Not only is Nimoy coming out of long retirement to be a part of this project, but he's predicting a surge in Star Trek popularity as a result of this film. I think this marks the first time in Star Trek history that, upon first reading it, Nimoy didn't have a problem with a Star Trek movie script he didn't help write.

Nimoy's vocal and positive assessment of something I haven't read myself is the strongest case for being optimistic about this story. The "Vice President" of Star Trek is laying his credibility on the line, uncharacteristically, and that wouldn't be the logical thing to do unless it was a good gamble.

I agree this is probably an indication the script is very good indeed.

The fanbase will still reject it if it takes too many liberties with the canon. And as some of the responses below indicate, much as some fans tuned out Enterprise based upon its concept alone, so too has Trek XI already alienated a faction of the fanbase.

IMO, the film needs to draw in casual viewers and even non-fans if it is to be successful. The Trekkie fanbase is simply too fractured and undecided in terms of what is "good Trek" and also too tied to canon for it to support the film by itself.

I've said this before -- I wouldn't wish the job of producing a new Star Trek film on a dog, and it doesn't matter if it's a prequel or something taking place post-Nemesis.If this was a film featuring a brand new Starfleet crew 20 years after Nemesis you'd have people bitching that it doesn't feature the TOS crew. Now that it does have the TOS crew you have people bitching that the film is looking backwards. And then there's the people who want another TNG, or a DS9, Voyager or Enterprise film, all playing tug-of-war. Kobayashi Maru.

News flash: the film takes place in the 23rd century. Even as a prequel it's still looking forward because by my watch it's Oct. 31, 2007 which is the Twenty-FIRST Century.

IMO if the film tanks that will probably be the end of the Trek franchise, at least in terms of film or TV, because no one is gonna bankroll another $200-million Star Trek production or multi-millions TV series if the fanbase can't make up its mind what it wants.

Al

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: A Logical Gamble? | Report this post to moderator
By: Yesterday's Lemmiwinks (Odo's file, contact) @ 22:40:44 on Oct 31, 2007

Egg zacked lee. This man is not a media/attention addict. He came out of acting retirement (save the occasional commercial) to do this. He's no fool.

--------

"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: A Logical Gamble? | Report this post to moderator
By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 17:20:23 on Oct 31, 2007

I agree with you that Mr Nimoy approval and praise of the script is the one thing that makes me a bit optimistic about this movie. It is not much, but makes me feel good about Abrams movie.

Gustavo

--------

TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor

gl2000@uol.com.br

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top

RE: A Logical Gamble? | Report this post to moderator
By: pctech45 (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:10:29 on Oct 31, 2007

If it is indeed a prequel I'm not going to see it. I think most of you know why. I'm not interested in prequels, retelling a story that has already been told. I've said it before, I'll say it again, Star Trek should move forward, not backward.

It'll tank.

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top