Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek franchise?

[mredom]

I've been reading a lot, and staying on the sidelines to stay out of the crossfire. I do have some thoughts though.

This movie isn't without Kirk-it may be without Bill Shatner. For some people that means no Kirk-OK, but I'm not drinking that kool-aid. The CHARACTER is James T. Kirk-and I think that the idea of a fresh take on him is great.

When "John Q. Public" thinks of Star Trek, They think of Kirk, Spock McCoy-the Enterprise. The rest of thew series, as good (or bad) as some think they may or may not be have NEVER had the mainstream cultural impact as the first voyages of TOS. By going back to these characters, they appeal to a much broader fan base than a DS9 or TNG movie. I have loved and watched repeatedly every episode of all the Star Trek series, including the supposedly awful Voyager and Enterprise, so please don't accuse me of being a "TOS cultist" but the vast majority associate the franchise with the main trinity of characters.

Everything I have read about JJ, and the team putting together this movie seems to indicate that they "get" what made this show compelling. The are treating the material with respect, and looking to make this an "event" picture, as opposed to a extended TV episode. They appear to be attempting to get an a-list cast, and Leonard Nimoy is enthusiastic about the parts of the script he's seen.

If you think the whole concept sucks-if you know the script sucks even though you haven't seen it, if you think that only certain actors can play these roles-fine-stay home. I for one will be there on opening night, as I have been for every movie except Nemesis(which I enjoyed far more than Insurrection)

I am not a movie critic, but I enjoyed MI3, and Transformers, and the Cloverfirld trailer was intriguing. I think I will enjoy this movie, and if I don't-OK, I'll go back to my TOS dvd's. no matter what-I will get to see a new chapter in the Star Trek legend.

After all folks, it's not real life-it's a SHOW.

my two cents.

MRE

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Paramount is doing just what they need to in order to revive the Trek franchise: using the most recognizable aspect of the brand (Kirk-Spock-Enterprise) and using it to create a whole new cast of characters.

The idea behind this is not catering to TOS fans so much as catering to people who don't care about Trek but who would vaguely recognize those names. Once the name recognition is established, then the whole thing becomes impressing the audience by making a successful, thrilling action movie that appeals to a broad audience.

Think Spider-Man 2 level moviemaking: not great art, but certainly worth your ten bucks. And a big fat honkin' success because everyone tells their friends to go see it. How many of the millions the world over who saw Spider-Man 2 were pre-existing Spidey fans? A small minority. A smash hit like that could never happen via existing fans. That's the pattern Abrams hopes to follow.

That Abrams is doing stuff like casting some guy who looks like Nimoy as Spock and making sure he "gets Vulcans" is more because Abrams is a fan of Star Trek than worrying about the audience. The audience isn't aware of what Nimoy looks like, or looked like, except in the vaguest terms. Abrams could cast Zach Quinto as Kirk and get away with it. 90% of the potential audience wouldn't know anything was wrong.

As for Shatner, let him have some fun one last time: he can be some nasty ole Klingon who tries to kill Lieutenant Kirk. I'll bet he'd love it, and it's a suitably ironic way for Shatner to end his Trek career. He's always struck me as the kind of guy who appreciates impish humor.

 

[Beyerstein]

with that young checkov guy, The new movie sounds like it's turning into Muppet Babies.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

PowderedToastMan said:
jesus is it glass half empty, lets just give up, the end is near day around here?

Try glass half empty, lets just give up, the end is near decade and that's just cuz TrekBBS isn't ten years old yet.

Smaller ventures are things like an animated show for the young teen audience, really kickass videogames, agressive merchandising (When I see Trek at Toys'R'Us, it's always in the far back corner or on the clearance rack) I mean get the retailers to really promote Trek merchandise and back that up with really good merchandise.

Such things are opportunistic, just feeding off the big success of a mainstream movie. Retailers snub anything that doesn't have some mass-audience buzz going for it - why should they waste their precious shelf space on an unsuccessful franchise when they can capitalize on Harry Potter and Transformers? Remember what Trek has to compete with. The success of a Trek movie is what's needed to get shelf space for the video games, novels, toys, etc. Otherwise, Toys R Us isn't going to even return your phone calls much less allocate you shelf space.

If you think this movie is a longshot, but somehow are convinced that a billion-dollar franchise can ride in on the coattails of animated features, video games, and action figures — all of which are typically supporting media for a franchise more successful in a higher profile venue, not the other way around — then you really have no idea how this industry works and I feel much happier knowing that a professional like Abrams with a prosperous career ahead of him doesn't agree with you.

Amen!

And everyone who doesn't agree is assigned to get a job in sales for a company making toys or video games. You'll get an education in how this all works right fast when you lose the sale to that fucker with the Harry Potter dolls.

Executive - Oh, I get it, it's like mission impossible in space - lots of explosions and stuff.

No, more like: this is a badly mismanaged but reasonably well known brand name with some name recognition left. Worth resurrecting. Hell, we're recurrecting Get Smart aren't we? Trek should be a mega-hit by comparison. Invest in it wisely and we can start going after the small fry (toys, video games, etc) too.

This is what corporations DO! Why is any of this surprising? I'd be surprised if they were allowing Trek to just lie dormant for years on end. Movies are made from "franchises" with far less name recognition.

Paramount doesn't care about the guy playing Spock looking like Spock, but they also are not crass idiots like they are caricatured by some of the more naive posters in this thread. They know that delivering a quality entertainment experience like Spidey 2 can reap big rewards. THAT is what they are going for. They are profit-oriented but not knuckle-dragging morons. From what I've observed from my long-distance post here, they seem to be doing all the right things in order to resurrect Trek successfully.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Beyerstein said:
with that young checkov guy, The new movie sounds like it's turning into Muppet Babies.

Muppet Babies? Well, I guess that's a step up from Doogie Howser and Felicity.

 

[Sec31Mike]

The new movie is going to prtray the TOS characters in a uber-heroic fashion, all happy-go-lucky friends when they hardly knew each other before TOS, and even during some of TOS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Beyerstein said:
with that young checkov guy, The new movie sounds like it's turning into Muppet Babies.

No, actually it doesn't sound a bit like that.

Of course, Chekov should be younger than the others.

"Star Trek Babies" is what we'll get from Paramount if this doesn't succeed, though. It's all we'll get, if anything at all.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Sec31Mike said:
The new movie is going to prtray the TOS characters in a uber-heroic fashion, all happy-go-lucky friends when they hardly knew each other before TOS, and even during some of TOS.

Oh, really? You mean you've read the script?

Care to share any other details with us, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

 

[Sec31Mike]

Of course I'm pulling this out of my ass. That's the feel I am starting to get about this film.

Get the whole TOS crew together, but set it in an inapropriate timeframe. Make it seem like TOS never went off the air.

I guess I'm one of the few fans with alarm klaxons ringing in their heads.

 

[Lumen]

Well, yeah, since they're being sounded by stuff you made up.

 

[RookieBatman]

Sec31Mike said:
Of course I'm pulling this out of my ass. That's the feel I am starting to get about this film.

Get the whole TOS crew together, but set it in an inapropriate timeframe. Make it seem like TOS never went off the air.

I guess I'm one of the few fans with alarm klaxons ringing in their heads.

If this is "Smallville" in a TOS setting, then I'm going to be extremely unhappy...but I'm not convinced that it is.

 

[Lumen]

Even if it ends up being TOS in a Smallville setting — an important deviation from what you said (and I'm not saying I think this setting is likely) — there's no reason to believe it'll be done Smallville-style. Abrams is far above that.

 

[xortex]

How do we know they all didn't know each other. I don't think it is obvious at all.

 

[RookieBatman]

Lumen said:
Even if it ends up being TOS in a Smallville setting — an important deviation from what you said

Please explain what you mean.

 

[Lumen]

You said "Smallville" in a TOS setting, which implies that we're to see whiny, petulant teenagers (played by twenty-somethings) on a starship, whereas TOS in a Smallville setting would only imply greener versions of the characters from TOS. My point is that whichever qualifier doesn't apply to the setting is used to characterize the style and tone of the film.

 

[RookieBatman]

Lumen said:
You said "Smallville" in a TOS setting, which implies that we're to see whiny, petulant teenagers (played by twenty-somethings) on a starship, whereas TOS in a Smallville setting would only imply greener versions of the characters from TOS. My point is that whichever qualifier doesn't apply to the setting is used to characterize the style and tone of the film.

Fair enough; under that criteria, then, I meant TOS in a Smallville setting. But it doesn't just imply greener versions of the TOS characters, it implies taking the TOS formula (those seven people on the bridge of a starship with Kirk in command) and just transplanting almost the same circumstances onto younger people and maybe a slight deviation of some events (those seven people on a frigate with Kirk in command; maybe a couple don't start out on the bridge but end up there by the end of the movie). See, that would be a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong, though, I really don't think that's where the movie is headed.

 

[Lumen]

Nor do I (and this discussion seems a little academic and irrelevant right now).

Let's just say that Abrams is most assuredly a lot better than the folks writing Smallville.

 

[RookieBatman]

Lumen said:
Nor do I (and this discussion seems a little academic and irrelevant right now).

Well, I don't think it's totally irrelevant, if that casting sheet wasn't a fake. It has the whole TOS cast, and especially Kirk's age is at least a few years younger than in the show.
But, as discussed in another thread, that doesn't rule out that the main body of the show might take place before the show, without the ensemble, and then another part of the movie will have Kirk older, around the timeframe of TOS.
So, basically, I don't think that the TOS/Smallville comparison is completely groundless, but I also don't think there's much ground to it.

 

[Baldus885]

Sec31Mike said:
Of course I'm pulling this out of my ass.

We noticed.

Get the whole TOS crew together, but set it in an inapropriate timeframe. Make it seem like TOS never went off the air.

We don't know what the timeframe is - unless you have read the scrpt, which I doubt. Do you think they're going to set it in the Bronze Age or something?

Jeez, are all these trolls the same person?

I guess I'm one of the few fans with alarm klaxons ringing in their heads.

Judging by yours posts that might not be all that's ringing in your head.

 

[Saxman1]

ancient said:
40 years of the Kirk/Spock era?? I must've missed those. We haven't seen Kirk/Spock in some time.

I doubt anything Abrams does will hurt the franchise, seeing how it had already floudered and sank when NEM hit theators. I've seen very few worrisome signs on TREK XI. Seems on track to me.

I have to agree. :thumbsup:

Let's wait until we can view the final cut of the film. If you don't like it, don't ever watch it again - view your favorite series/eps/films and enjoy. If you love it, go see it again and send the studio the green light for more Trek. Simple!