UPDATE: OK, before you go getting all ballistic over this post, notice that it’s over a year old and was written when all kinds of crazy stuff was being said about the movie.
Ok, so this falls under the heading of “rumour”, but it comes from IESB.net, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all… According to an anonymous source at the studio, the upcoming Star Trek XI to be directed by J.J. Abrams will:
“This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many more generations to come. We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for the last 10 years and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we will have to take some bold steps that might be controversial at first but we are sure to bring new fans to the dying franchise.”
|
|
Are you red-faced yet? Hang on a sec:
“Trek fans were not able to keep the last show [Enterprise] on the air and we are looking on bringing over “Alias” and “Lost” fans and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone before.”
Isn’t that like, just totally awesome? Nothing like a nice, big, fat F-U to the fans who have fed about a billion dollars to Paramount over the history of the Trek franchise.
I’ll tell you what I found REALLY funny… let’s excerpt a couple of quotes and put them right next to each other, shall we?
“Trek has been going downhill for the last 10 years”
“Trek fans were not able to keep the last show [Enterprise] on the air”
Ok… so who PRODUCES Trek? Would that be Paramount? So if Star Trek has been “going downhill” for 10 years, whose fault exactly would that be? It’s obvious isn’t it? THE FANS. As evidenced by his statements above.
So despite the fact that the studio puts out crap, we the fans are still supposed to tune in and sing its praises? I’m sorry, but Paramount is who put out the ridiculous “Voyager” and let Berman and Braga run the excellent concept of “Enterprise” into the dirt. And when Manny Coto came on board, finally putting the show on the right track, Paramount CANCELLED it!
I am SO bloody sick to DEATH of studios putting out lousy product and then blaming the public when they don’t show up in droves. This has been especially prevalant with the Trek movies. Star Trek Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis were ALL terrible, but it’s our fault that box office kept dropping.
Man… the hubris of these guys is incomprehensible and utterly infuriating.
Good luck with those “new” fans, Paramount.
If you are new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thank you for visiting and we look forward to reading your comments!
Want to ask us a question? Contact us directly.
Sign up for our Feed!
41 Comments
If they can do to Star Trek what the sci-fi channel did to Battelstar Galactica, I’ll be more than happy.
IMHO (and I’m not a ‘Trekkie’, just a sci-fi fan), Roddenberry set up a lot of barriers, and just about everything within those limits has been done time and time again.
Time for something new.
Just bugs me.
Vic
Garret Wong (Ensign Harry Kim of Voayger) said on stage at the weekend that Paramount are waiting for Rick Berman’s contract to expire before they do any more Trek for TV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHr53v5952c).
Vic
For years now, Paramount (and to more to the point)
Berman and other producers figured that they could
put the name Startrek to anything, and it would sell.
Let’s see what happened about 10 years ago –
Hmmm.. Berman took over the executive producer spot
and simply drove the franchise down the drain.
First mission should be to beam Berman into a wall.
For him I think it was just about:
1. Business.
2. Putting his “mark” on it.
The man was NEVER a fan of the show. How can you put someone in charge of Star Trek who is not a fan of it?
Vic
Not only would that be a big “Screw you” to longtime fans, it’s also IMHO a huge “Screw you” to Gene Roddenberry. If it’s true, he must be spinning in his grave (so to speak). I can only imagine what Majel thinks of it.
I really hate this whole “reboot” trend (though I have to admit I’m a huge fan of the new BSG…except for the last season finale). I have nowhere near the problem with Daniel Craig being James Bond as I do with them resetting the clock. GRRRR!!!!!
Dale
Of course I don’t want to go off the deep end, I’m sure it would be more of a “tweaking” than a “rebooting”… wouldn’t it? :confused:
Vic
The same ‘fans’ who are whining about idea of a ‘reboot’ are the bastard offspring of all the ‘fans’ who were up in arms about the relaunching of the franchise 20 years ago when they found out that there would be no Kirk, Spock or McCoy on TNG. In fact, find 25 fans who were excited about the idea of a bald Englishman, with a French name helming the Enterprise. And lets not get into the whole Klingon-on-a-Federation-ship thing…
Star Trek WAS almost irrevocably ruined by Rick Berman–was he wasn’t the only one. For awhile there was an almost insatiable lust for Star Trek programming out there. So much so that Paramount offered up a succession of series that took the franchise lower and lower. But in their defense, there are only so many stories you can tell, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE GENE RODDENBERRY SPECTRE HOVERS OVER EVERYTHING YOU DO.
And let’s not blame the lousy returns on the movies to just the studio ’suits.’ Everybody’s favorite captain and Star Trek’s answer to Pinnochio (I wanna be a real boy), took on idea development roles that helped send the movie franchise down the tubes, too. But, I digress…
Let’s see if Abrams can bring some life back to Star Trek. If he can’t, then all the ‘fans’ can feel smug and self-satisfied. But can’t we at least wait and see what the end-product is BEFORE we perform the autopsy? If a ‘reboot’ puts life back into Star Trek, is that really so bad?
Actually you raise some good points. Points that would have come across better if you didn’t keep putthing the word “fans” in quotes, which to me indicates disparagement.
You’re certainly right about the glut of Trek that was out there for a while, but it all built on the foundation of the original.
BTW, every time I read a comment saying that Star Trek is out of stories to tell, I say bullsh!t. Almost any story you can tell outside of the Trek universe, you can tell INSIDE the Trek universe. Any story you can tell as science fiction, you can tell through the prism of Star Trek, and I’m pretty sure new sci-fi books are being published every year.
Star Trek canon is just a framework, like “Stargate SG-1″, “Star Wars” or even “E.R.” have their own framework.
Having said that, in the end you might be right, and Abrams might blow everyone away with his version… but I’d say the odds are stacked heavily against him.
Vic
Maybe one day trek really will return to the small screen, I was kind of releaved they didn’t want Rick Berman though, should get rid of Brannon Braga as well before another TV attempt, and maybe keep Manny Coto.
I agree with you, Vic; the odds are heavily stacked against Abrams. Look how underwhelming Mission Impossible III was. He should stick with Alias and Lost, and leave Star Trek to people who have a proven track record with that kind of material (such as Manny Coto).
Brian
Vic
That was my ‘anoymous’ post last week; unintentional, though.
It was not my intent either to disparage the billions of Trek fans around the world…heck, I’m one of them, too–and have been for all 40 years of the franchise. But I’m also a realist–and I know Paramount’s first obligation is to its investors and not to to those of us who eagerly digest everything Trek.
ENTERPRISE went off the air because ratings were getting lower and lower. Whether that’s the fault of the studio, the concept or the viewers is immaterial. It’s gone…and for now, so is anything with the Trek brandname on it.
The movie franchise was DOA as soon as the producers started letting Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner participate in the development end. Let’s not blame Rick Berman competely for INSURRECTION and NEMESIS. There were lots of fingers in those pies and even our blessed fictional heroes bear some of the responsibility for those disasters.
I once read a blog from some guy who decried the last movie and pleaded that Paramount ‘make a movie for the fans.’ Two things: You can’t get the ‘fans’ to agree on anything; and you can’t make money off such a movie if the ‘fans’ are the only consideration. But I digress…
J. J. Abrams may be Trek fans only hope for anything viable out of that universe for the next generation. If he bombs, then Trek might not appear again in our lifetime. All I ask is that rumor and speculation not replace anticipaton and expectation. We’ll certainly find out the premise, plot and a blow-by-blow account of the entire storyline on the web almost as soon as the script is written and the movie is filmed.
Do I like the idea of a TOS-reboot…? Heck, no. Will I give it a chance…? Heck, yes! Will I hope for the best…? You betcha! Will I accept that maybe Trek is an anachronism if it fails…? Unfortunately, I will.
People vote with their feet and their hard-earned money. If the majority of movie-goers rejects Abrams work product, it might not mean he did a bad job, rather that Trek has become a niche market franchise. Us fans have to accept the fact that to make money (thus more movies) Trek movies have to reach a larger audience than just us Trek-nerds…of which I am one of the originals.
So, brother Vic: Is this a better statement of my case?
The first half of the interview that excerpt was from is now posted here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtfeQn6v-m4
We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but I can tell you this: There are PLENTY of Star Trek fans out there to make a GOOD movie or TV show a viable hit. If you look at the ratings/numbers of the premiere of “Enterprise”, they were definitely good enough to sustain the show over the long run. So yes, I think that you can please the fans and make money.
I’m not saying it’s easy, of course… I certainly wouldn’t want to try it, but if you look at the last season of “Enterprise” you should note that the series was finally getting on the track it should have been on from the first episode… namely as a prequel to TOS, not some half-baked “Voyager” clone.
I really wish that they had enough faith in Manny Coto to involve him at some high level in the production. He absolutely loves Trek and he’s an awesome writer/producer. Look at the great work he’s done on “24″ for Fox TV.
Best,
Vic
I loved the original series and can’t seem to get hooked on any of the new Trek. I think it’s great we can watch the old episodes for the hundredth time and finally see something “new”.
I think the new movie should stay close to the 60’s version of the show and do a retro-Trek, perhaps re-cast a new Enterprise crew? I think it would be fantastic!
David DeLaunay
I’m EXTREMELY curious about how they’re going to handle this movie. I have to say that although Abrams has made some positive comments I’m still very skeptical.
BTW, I’m really enjoying watching the CGI-updated version of TOS!
Vic
Hello all,Just a few thoughts on Star Trek series.The last small screen show Enterprise was just ran into the ground by producers and paramount studios.The first two years of the series went along well,then u just get hit with what never seems it will end Xindi conflict,which lasted almost a season and a half!Talk about just getting boring fast,this just tuned fans off to the show.When the show finally got back on track the damage had already been done.as far as this”re-inventing”the Star trek saga,who knows it will more than likely flop.The success of Star Trek thru the 80’s and into the mid 90’s was in my opinion that Gene Roddenberry was still alive and very much involved the series.Upon his death,things went on a slide to where it is now.There is one immutable fact about Star Trek fans and that is no other group spends the amount of money or has attention to detail that trek fans do.Just try and buy one season of TNG.You are going to pay $100.00+ easy for it.If it is such a money loser,then how does paramount keeps making all the video?Someones buying all this merchandise and paying alot for it too.
The Xindi storyline only lasted for one season - it started with the season 2 finale, and ran through to the end of season 3. Many episodes in season 4 rocked though
I liked all of the Star Trek movies. I didn’t care for Star Trek 5 much, but the more I watched it, the more I began to like it. I think Nemisis was one of the best ones of the next generation series since first contact. It was very artistic in the way it was done, and played on raw emotion. I like movies like that. There are too many movies now a days that exist solely for entertainment and give no artistic quality. Nemisis kind of took the next generation back to the roots of star trek. It reminded me of Star Trek 2 the wrath of Khan which is my favorite of all the movies. It was like, one rivalry, 2 men, 2 ships. Kind of like watching a one on one street brawl between two titans who would risk everything to beet one another even if it meant the death of them both. This new movie idia for star trek 11 is kind of bogus though. I don’t think trek should be taken this direction. Trek has always been about going forward. There was already a begining with star trek, why go back there again. I think an 11th movie is a great idea, but I think the story should continue with a new movie and not go backwards to try and fill in as a prequil to an already existing story line. Just continue the story where nemisis left off. Don’t go back and insert a movie to fill in gaps.
Joe,
I’m sorry but I think that “Nemesis” was a travesty. Terrible, terrible execution. In concept, who knows? In better hands it might have worked, but as it appeared on the big screen it was awful.
I don’t think that “going backwards” is necessarily a bad thing. Trek fans absolutely LOVE knowing the background and workings of the Star Trek universe and the pre-Enterprise days have never really been explored. If done RIGHT, it could be great.
Vic
“Trek fans were not able to keep the last show [Enterprise] on the air”
-I think what this refers to is the money some fans tried to raise to actually pay for keeping the show on the air. There was some kind of drive a while back, so I’d be careful about interpreting it so maliciously.
Even though Paramount execs are worthless these days.
Vic
How is going back in Star Trek a new direction.
Double Speak I say!!!
I love your passion about this, bud.
Vic
First of all, I’m, sick of reading the blatant PR language I’ve been reading in the comments on this website written by studio hacks.
Second, Roddenberry had some very, very firm Star Trek rules for success and anyone that read the 1968 book “the Making of Star Trek” by Whitfield and Roddenberry understood those rules.
Among those rules was that the main cast should all be friends and get along with each other. If the cast is loyal to each other, the fans will be loyal to the show.
Another important Roddenberry Rule was that the show should not turn into any type of ongoing “space wars” show. Roddenberry correctly believed that, if an open war broke out between the Federation and, say, the Klingons, then the only way to retain viewers would be to have bigger and bigger war scenes. Deep Space 9 learned this, right up to it’s cancellation.
Yes, the fans have agreed that “Nemesis” was a tragedy. There were plot holes in that thing big enough to fit the entire Paramount studio lot in it. it was, by far, the most unpopular Trek movie.
The fans did not desert Star Trek; paramount deserted the fans. The original series had a cast that had a warm and deep chemistry that belayed an open and smiling friendliness. The original show’s success was boldly optimistic, and THAT is where paramount has gone wrong with Star Trek in the past.
Fast forward to “Star Trek XI: Screw the Fans”. Want to know more about the plot? Look at the writers. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have worked together on the dark and dreary Mission Impossible III, as well as the awkward and plot-holed “Legend of Zorro”. If you look at their combined record in imdb.com you’ll see that they have never done anything as optimistic or complex as Star Trek.
If things do not change Star Trek XI will be a dark and dreary disaster.
It sound to me like we agree on most points, but could you clarify what you meant by:
“First of all, I’m, sick of reading the blatant PR language I’ve been reading in the comments on this website written by studio hacks.”
No one on the writing staff represents any studio here, we all express our own opinions. Or are you referring to site visitors who leave comments?
I’m confused.
Thanks,
Vic
Bill I agree with you on Paramount deserting the fans.
^
Roddenberry while we owe him alot for creating the show, I think he could have had a more open mind about the future of *conflict* in Trek.
^
Ds9 wasn’t cancelled because of its war theme it was cancelled because Paramount only wanted it to run for 7 years. Same with Voyager. The main reason is because they didn’t want to resign the actors for more money.
^
I personally LOVED Ds9 and it wasn’t just war without purpose it had meaning. And serioulsy do you think if the Federation ventured out into space they would be greeted openly ?? Ds9 was more like a western, they were out on the fringe of space bordering on the edge of the alpha quad.
Ds9 was set up as a peace presence to protect and help out the Bajorans a race that was constantly attacked.
^
On the new film having a Warship Enterprise, this is more than likely a alternate timeline created be *evil* Romulans. Romulans soo evil Bill that they wouldn’t agree with Roddenberry they would kill him and move on.
^
I think this alternate timeline is sooo corrupt that old Spock has to intervien and set it right.
Yea it would be great to show the first voyage of the Enterprise but to bring Nimoy into the film they had to create a avenue for him to return.
^
But I do heed your warnings on the writers. I’m not confident in them ether. I will say that if they blow this Star Trek film they will be branded and whipped online by the fans.
^
It will be interesting to see this … But I’m not going to get too worked up about it , its just a movie and one that I really don’t want anyway.
Myself I want a new Star Trek tv show not a film every 2 years.
Bill have you seen some of the Star Trek video games?
I wonder what Roddenberry would think about them.
^
Steve, when I read your above comments, it looks like you are arguing AGAINST the original series. Is that what you are doing?
And your comment - that Gene Roddenberry “could have had a more open mind about the future of conflict in Trek” - I think puts you on record as being the first person to accuse Roddenberry as being close-minded? WOW!!!
And your argument about DS9 doesn’t even hold a thimble of water. You claim DS9 was cancelled because Paramount “didn’t want to resign the actors for more money”? Why would anyone object to that if the show had ratings???
Look, DS9 didn’t break out a war against the Dominion until later - and it was done to boost sagging ratings. Look it up - awhile after the war broke out, ratings plummeted to their lowest. Roddenberry was right - DS9 had to create bigger and bigger battles until they reached the believable limit - and that’s when the fans deserted it. Remember the hoopla in the media when TNG had it’s last episode? Notice how there was little fanfare when DS9 closed up?
And your argument about Roddenberry and Romulans is just… aw, c’mon, it’s just silly.
George Takei is quoted over at IFMagazine as saying “Deep Space 9… was the polar opposite of Gene’s philosophy and vision of the future…Star Trek lost it’s way“. Takei also criticised Enterprise for “going in the wrong direction“.
How many times was Kirk faced with a superior force - whether it was bipeds or computers - and how many times did he pull an ingenius variation of his Corbomite Maneuver to get out of it?
It’s very simple - stick to the theme formula and be successful. Deviate from the theme formula and fail. That is what made francises like Star Trek, James Bond, Star Wars, Bourne, Rocky, etc. successful.
Roddenberry didn’t target the lowest common denominator. The original series was meant to be an intellectual adventure.
I don’t know how you think I’m against Star Trek?
^
Bill don’t get me wrong I love TOS its great but you have to admit the Star Trek show changed gears when TNG came along.
When I watch some of my TOS dvds the show just looks very 60’s.
I’m talking long majestic dialog and a fight seen in allmost every episode.
(Intellectual?) Yea sometimes.
^
The music sounds alot like the Twilight Zone tv show. With the exception of that “Amok time” fight music. That’s also in about 1 out of every 2 episodes.
Not that I don’t love the dated look, I do but it has its place in the timeline.
^
Anyway my first point was that Star Trek got better with age.(IMO).
^
What I meant about the romulan comment was that there pretty backstabbing and evil.
^
Also about Roddenberry’s closed mind, I meant “strict writting guidelines”.
I have read that he used to fire writers all the time because they would have a cool idea and Gene didn’t approve for whatever reason. But then you read about Genes ideas for Star Trek Phase2 and some film concepts and there just awfull.
Who knows what Star Trek would have been like if Gene didn’t leave us to soon. He didn’t even like the Character Worf from TNG.
^
Also you say that Roddenberry was against any war themes? I never heard that or read it in print that I remember.
I have a interview dvd I should prob watch with him during the 70’s. Hmmm..
Us longtime fans all know that Star Trek was allways about the Federations ideals but that dosnt mean they never had wars. We even had brief wars in TNG. Did that show stray too far? I don’t think so…
Deep Space Nine wasn’t cancelled because of low ratings it was allways from the beginning a 7 year show same with Voyager. This comes from interviews I’ve read with Rick Berman. He also said that if they would have made ds9 films the actors would all have to sign new contracts because they only signed on for a limited time. (Hence your big payday in Star Trek land). You can allmost bet Nimoy is getting around 8mil in this next film.
I get that you don’t like Ds9 and I’m sure you prob think Voyagers craps too that’s cool but (IMO) those shows had good writting and stories. (Ok not every single one but close enough) come on there’s a few TOS episodes that are unwatchable today.
Anyway I would have prefered Star Trek moved forward and this is where (PARAMOUNT STUCK IT TO THE FANS). Ouch!
I was never in favor of this JJ Abrams reboot I felt going to back to Kirk & Co was at best uncreative and predictably paramount…!
(IMO) The Franchise should have moved ahead…however I can’t stay pissed about it so I’ve just accepted it.
In a way I hope its real good and also in a way I hope it bombs soo hard that Abrams gets rebooted out of paramount. And we can post for days about how bad it was etc.
^
Ether way I’m happy…but I would have prefered a new 7 year long tv series…
Anyway I’ve said too much….
Look, if you re to understand Star Trek at all, you need to understand it’s fundamental concept of not turning the show into a space wars theme. This was one of Roddenberry’s most CRUCIAL concept. If you don’t understand the importance of that concept, then you really do not understand the show AT ALL.
I repeat - if you do not understand Gene’s fundamental concept that Star Trek not turn into a space wars show, then you do NOT understand Star Trek.
As far as the rest of your comments, Steve, I’m not sure they are completely accurate.
As far as “firing writers” - I don’t think Gene fired writers because as I recall most scripts were submitted from the outside… you can’t fire somebody that hasn’t been hired. But, to quote p.80 of ‘The Making of Star Trek’: “Roddenberry insisted that everything be believable. We had to base it all on fairly solid scientific concepts, project it into the future, and try to visualize what the fourth, fifth, and tenth generation of present day equipment would be like”. Writers were all given a copy of “The Star Trek Guide”, which laid out the world in which the show resided and the boundaries in which they needed to stay (every goo TV show provides their writers with something similar). The problem TOS had was you had writers that interpreted science fiction as meaning they could do anything they wanted (”Kirk swallows a pill and he can fly!”), including breaking continuity (Spock is 100% Vulcan?).
However, writers used to submit scripts on a regular basis that broke those rules. Just like with any other TV series, their scripts were not accepted.
Steve, I suggest that you stop making things up - some of what you are writing is obviously wrong - and get yourself a copy of “The Making of Star Trek” and find out how things really work on a successful TV show.
One more time - if you do not understand Gene’s fundamental concept that Star Trek not turn into a space wars show, then you do NOT understand Star Trek.
So Bill your saying that Gene didn’t fire any writers on The Next Generation?
Although I just found out about the new movie today and have no Starfleet uniform in the closet, baring tragedy I cannot imagine a scenario where I and everyone else born in 1973 DON’T go to see the new movie. We all grew up with Star Trek and have seen every episode reran multiple times. I recently started viewing the series again via Blockbuster Online so I’m primed to see a remake movie of it.
As I feared, the age of the cast went the way of Superman Returns. Instead of looking the same age as the original Enterprise crew, they all look like their college age siblings. But eh, oh well. That’s the youth obsessed culture we live in.
Although I’m sure cannon won’t be completely thrown out, beloved parts of it has to go, ah la X-Men. It looks like the movie will start with the launch of the Enterprise. Even the die hard trekkies would scream if we had to endure a Captain Christopher Pike character for the entire movie. On the other hand, I’d be a little disapointed if they didn’t place him somehow, such as a quick reference to a shakedown voyage having been completed by Captain Pike as they hand Kirk the keys.
Well, if Pike isn’t the Captain when the Enterprise is launched, die hard Trekkie fans will either scream or become completely indifferent.
Claiming that every fan born before 1973 will watch the new Star Trek is stereotyping fans as being simple robots that can’t think for themselves. As if you just need to slap a “Star Trek” label on a movie, and we will all flock to see it like good little sheep?
In this new age of multimedia, I expect the new Star Trek to have very little concern for fans of the original series. Rather, I expect a violent story targeted towards a special-features DVD release and that there will be more than a few scenes of violence that they hope to turn into a video game.
Look, if you are under the age of 42, I don’t expect you to understand this - but as you get older, you become more sensitive to having your loyalty violated and your intelligence insulted.
It’s a very simple formula - fan loyalty depends upon continuity. When you break continuity, fan loyalty dissolves. Violations of this most basic of rules is evidenced in market bombs such as new Coke and ST: Nemesis. And some of you may not remember how the fanatically populaar TV series “Dallas” completely lost their audience with the infamous Bobby Ewing shower scene.
And I am one of those people born WAY before 1973. And if see that the new Star Trek breaks with canon, I posses the capability, and the marketing and PR skills, to organize a boycott of the movie. The comments I see on this website have put that firmly into my heart.
Yea Bill I feel the same way.
(also born before 73 and what a crap year that was).
I (personally) believe Nemesis was approved by the Studio because THEY wanted it to bomb. This led to Enterprise that ALSO the studio wanted to bomb.
I believe this was all orchestrated to slowly push Rick Berman out of the franchise.
Regaurdless if you accept this or not, there was deffinitlty a lot of mgmnt at Paramount that wanted his influence on Star Trek to end.
One thing the studio didn’t expect was that by releasing Nemesis 1 week before LOTR #2 and by having Enterprise be a prequel (and that lame theme song) they were really insulting the hardcore fans.
Berman I think realised this and at the last second brought in Manny Coto too help the show. Manny Coto was instant magic and the show started to really kick ass.
Paramount saw this as a threat and cancelled the show.
Paramount is basically under new managment now and their struggling to make Star Trek viable again but going back to Kirks timeline I believe is a HUGE mistake. When you watch TOS its clear that the entire dynamic of the show is Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
To try and recreate this magic it would be like recasting “I Love lucy” or “Threes Company” with different actors.
Like you said Bill the younger gen might not care but the older gen will and the older gen IS THE ONLY THING keeping Star Trek alive right now.
I didn’t see ANY teenagers in line yestersday for the Star Trek convention. All Adults.
I love how Screen Rants articles are timeless as far as comments go…
I just wanted to say thank you for this way over due project….. \ I’ve been a big fan of the first Star Trek from the very being…….. I even wrote an intrumental way back in the mid 70’s ” Volcane Voyage”….
Wishing the best and I can’t to see the movie…..
Sincerely Yours
Harold Smiley Davis
http://www.drumsoloartist.com/Site/Drummers/Harold_Smiley_Davis.html
“790″ I agree 100% with what I read from your post!!! You know, I never thought about the angle of Paramount wanting to push Rick Berman out of the franchise, but it makes perfect sense.
See, I suspect that Paramount hasn’t learned from past franchise mistakes. For example, the recent “Knight Rider” that was derided by critics, and also that TV bomb Kojak. They simply took the name of a past successful series, had some thinly veiled references to the original story while completely throwing away the continuity, and voila! Instant Bomb!
Look at all these successful big-screen series:
Alien
Austin Powers
Batman
Bourne
Die Hard
Hannibal Lecter
Harry Potter
The Matrix
Rambo
Rocky
Spiderman
NONE of these are Paramount.
Now, contrast that to this short list of Paramount’s ONLY successful series:
The Godfather: Successful despite the fact that Paramount tried to force Coppola out. This series is successful not BECAUSE of Paramount, but DESPITE Paramount. Complete continuity. As a matter of fact, it’s rumored that in recent years Coppola rejected a prequel proposed by Paramount on the grounds that it totally broke continuity. See how Paramount will kill a successful franchise if you give them the chance, hmmm???
Raiders: Only because Spielberg took ownership with no Studio meddling. Again, Complete continuity.
Jack Ryan: Because they are firmly based upon the continuity of Tom Clancey’s novels.
Mission Impossible: Actually, this violent series has very little backstory. It survived because it doesn’t need continuity. Although Mission Impossible III, written by J.J. Abrams, did rather poorly.
See what I’m saying? Despite Harold Smiley’s self-serving comments, Paramount doesn’t know how to build a successful franchise unless one individual takes ownership of it. And from the hints that Paramount has been offering fans “introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation!”, yes, Paramount is telling us to go screw.
Oops - forgot Star Wars (no, I didn’t), Superman, Terminator, X-Men, - popular, successful franchises.
It should be no surprise that none of them are Paramount, either.
Paramount doesn’t know how to create a successful franchise because they don’t understand continuity.
What's your opinion? Leave a comment!