Does paramount feel it can revive trek by risking the continued alienation (on their part) of the TOS fan base? Has it been very smart of them to have inflicted such near-irrevocable damage to TREK by refusing for the last 13 years now to resurrect Kirk played by the only man who should play him, Bill Shatner.
Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek franchise?
- Thread starter kirkstheman
- Start date
Obviously they do think they can.
It is possible but doubtful Shat will be in the new movie though. And honestly, he's over the hill as far as playing Kirk goes. Unless....
STAR TREK 12: SO VERY TIRED
STAR TREK 13: THE GRAVE ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN KIRK
STAR TREK 14: STILL DEAD
In any case, the small portion of the TOS fanbase that cares has no real monetary influence.
It is possible but doubtful Shat will be in the new movie though. And honestly, he's over the hill as far as playing Kirk goes. Unless....
STAR TREK 12: SO VERY TIRED
STAR TREK 13: THE GRAVE ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN KIRK
STAR TREK 14: STILL DEAD
In any case, the small portion of the TOS fanbase that cares has no real monetary influence.
I still cannot believe they are trying another TOS movie.
I guess 40 years wasn't enough for the Kirk/Spock era.
Now they are doing a Spock centric film, haven't they learned that you cannot do character centric pieces in Star Trek.
And what makes them think they can invest a massive amount of money in a major motion picture event and get away with it.
I, for one, wasn't convinced of Nimoy's enthusiasm for the script.
And Paramount has had this announced for over a year with JJ on board, and we have seen nothing significant out of the project. It doesn't seem to be enough of a priority for them. JJ has had the time to make another movie in the interim though.
And that God awful poster that they paraded out at Comic-con. It is just a photoshop rehash of the original Star Trek logo.
Fucking Idiots - My new name for Paramount/CBS.
I guess 40 years wasn't enough for the Kirk/Spock era.
Now they are doing a Spock centric film, haven't they learned that you cannot do character centric pieces in Star Trek.
And what makes them think they can invest a massive amount of money in a major motion picture event and get away with it.
I, for one, wasn't convinced of Nimoy's enthusiasm for the script.
And Paramount has had this announced for over a year with JJ on board, and we have seen nothing significant out of the project. It doesn't seem to be enough of a priority for them. JJ has had the time to make another movie in the interim though.
And that God awful poster that they paraded out at Comic-con. It is just a photoshop rehash of the original Star Trek logo.
Fucking Idiots - My new name for Paramount/CBS.
We`ll see just how much little monetary influence they have Xmas time next year. If TREK sans Kirk had been the right formula for paramount to have followed all these years then the franchise would not be at the door of ruination as it now is. That`s pristine near-vulcan logic.
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 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.
Trekkers want a real man back in Star Trek. That overly contemplative think first-fire never girly-man crap does not work long term.
Then what did, genius?
and I won`t waste my time arguing with "trekkers" who deny reality.
Remind yourself of that the next time you find yourself on the receiving end of a fully charged phaser bank!
You might respect the other guy for firing instead of thinking, but here's the thing...You'd be freakin' dead!!
Yeah, well. None of you TrekBBS Shatner haters can really answer the question of why the trek franchise is in the state it is in today, can you? You`re all predisposed never to give Shatner his due and I`m suppose to respect that? Clever remarks and emoticons, stop scaring me. I never finished high school.
Don't be silly. If that were true, TNG would not have been the smashing success that it was. As it stands, the franchise was at the height of its popularity when at the end of TNG's first run.
You can sulk all you want about this film if you're unhappy that it isn't the fanboy project of your choice, but that doesn't change the fact that this is smartest thing Paramount has done with the franchise since TNG ended.
Kirk's dead. Shatner's old. Dead Kirk + Old Shatner do not equal a reinvigoration of the franchise.
Should I feed this troll?? Well, here goes....
1. It has not been 40 years of the TOS era. It were 3 TV years, an 11 year hiatus, then 6 1/2 movies spanning over 15 years. Saying that the TOS era was 40 years long is like saying the 'Deep Space Nine' era has lasted 15 years.
2. This isn't necessarily a Spock-centric film. I really think James Kirk will have a huge role in this, and if McCoy is in this, then I have a feeling his role will be big also. I have a hunch that a movie centered around Kirk, Spock and McCoy just might work.
3. Your question: "And what makes them think they can invest a massive amount of money in a major motion picture event and get away with it."
I can't answer that, because I don't understand what you are trying to say. Would it be better if they didn't invest any money in this film? This seems to contradict your comment below that one stating that Paramount seems to have made this movie a low priority.
4. So you're not convinced that Nimoy actually likes the script. That's fine...that's your opinion. I feel that it is meaningful that Nimoy's coming out of retirement to make this film, since he sat out 'Generations' because he didn't like the script -- even though they promised him lots of money and a chance to direct. What motivation would he have for lying about liking this script?
5. Yes, JJ has had the time to film another movie since we first heard about ST:XI. What's your point? Big Hollywood movies usually take two years or more from concept to release. There's nothing particularly odd about this one, except for the fact that so many people have taken notice of this film so much earlier in the process than usual. Paramount has made it clear that this will be their flagship film for 2008, and they have begun marketing this thing. For example: Remember the MTV interview about 6 months ago with Kurtzman and Orci? Who owns MTV? Viacom. Who owns Paramount? Viacom. It looks to me that Viacom/Paramount got an early start in hyping this film. In the meantime, they announced two big names as part of the cast, and they announced filming will begin in November. Until they have more cast members and begin filming, what else can they do? (besides make the mistake of giving away the plot).
6. This is just an early teaser poster...it is not the movie poster. It is too early in the movie-making process to expect them to have a movie poster (the damn thing isn't even cast yet!) And it seems that the use of the old logo is meaningful -- possibly to hint that the film takes place sometime around the TOS era. This has not been confirmed yet, and the fact that Abrams has released this little hint is meaningful. If they created their own logo for the teaser poster, then that poster would just be a pretty picture that means nothing.
By the way, giving out information with a medicine dropper (such as the poster) may not make you happy, but it has done wonders to create the fantastic buzz this movie has, even before they have begun filming. There are not too many other movies that have generated the interest that ST:XI has this early in the film-making process. I think that is due to the "strip-tease act" Abrams is doing with this film.
To be honest I think Bill is now to old to play Kirk in any live-action sense but he still looked pretty good back in the mid-90s. Naysay all you want but a star trek movie with a kirk resurrection story WOULD have been a blockbuster 10 years ago if paramount hadn`t of chucked the opportunity out the window because of their TNG-centered mindset.
Similar threads
- Locked
