Review – Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan December 29, 2006
by J.L. Garner , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM), Review , trackbackThis is the second of our series of looking back to past Trek films and seeing what they can teach us about how to make Trek work again on the big screen.
In the wake of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (TMP), which did solid business but was very expensive, Trek’s future remained uncertain. At one point there was even a rumor (reported in the New York Times) that Trek would return to the small screen with a new series involving all the leads. In the end Paramount decided to keep going with feature films, but make some big personnel changes. They bought out Roddenberry’s remaining interest in the Trek property, and handed the reins over to veteran TV producer Harve Bennett (best known for producing The Mod Squad, The Six Million Dollar Man, and The Bionic Woman). Bennett tells the story about how Gulf+Western CEO Charles Bluhdorn gave him marching orders “to make a movie that isn’t boring for less than 45 f—ing million dollars.” Coming from the low budget world of TV, Bennett assured Bluhdorn he could make 3 movies for that amount, and he just about did. Bennett then set off to learn everything about Trek and got to work on what would be the first of a trilogy of successful Trek films.
Bennett hired Jack Sowards to write the script and began a process of several drafts, none of which seemed to be just right. It was at thispoint that Bennett brought in Nicholas Meyer, author of the Holmes meets Freud pastiche ‘The Seven-Per-Cent Solution’ and writer-director of Time After Time, about a time-traveling H.G. Wells chasing Jack the Ripper. Meyer, who had never watched Star Trek, signed on as the director and also became an uncredited screenwriter. Bennett and Meyer picked the pieces they liked from each of the drafts (like Khan, Kobayashi Maru, and Kirk’s son) and then Meyer put the pieces together into a new script and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (TWOK) was on it’s way.
Meyer (with Nimoy left) and Bennett (with Shatner right)…the new masters of Trek
Moby-Dick… In Space!
The film opens with a bang, literally. We are quickly reintroduced to most of the Trek crew, along with a new face: the Vulcan Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley, in her first major performance). Intercepting a distress call from the freighter Kobayashi Maru, the Enterprise has a run-in with the Klingons that kills everyone and leaves the ship a shambles…only to be revealed as a simulation under the supervision of Admiral Kirk. Considering that news of Spock’s death had already leaked out to fans, the Kobayashi Maru simulation was a brilliant red herring on Meyer’s part, allowing fans to breathe a sigh of relief and enjoy the rest of the movie (or so they think).
We then get down to the film’s central message, about our mortality, by way of aging and death. Admiral Kirk is having a bit of a midlife crisis; he’s back behind a desk again, the Enterprise is a training ship full of raw young cadets, he needs reading glasses, and it’s his birthday. McCoy, as in the Original Series, plays the role of Kirk’s conscience. McCoy encourages Kirk to get back his command, a marked change from TMP, where Kirk’s obsession with getting back the center seat caused McCoy to question his command fitness. Meanwhile, out in space, the starship Reliant is surveying planets for Project Genesis, a powerful new way of terraforming planets. Due to an error in planet counting, Commander Chekov runs into Kirk’s old nemesis (from the 1st season episode ‘Space Seed’), the genetically enhanced and now exiled Khan Noonien Singh.
what mid-life crisis?
What follows is a full realization of Gene Roddenberry’s line about Trek being Horatio Hornblower in space. From the very nautical-looking uniforms to the cramped yet lived-in feel of the sets, to two excellently staged battle sequences that are more Run Silent, Run Deep than Star Wars, this is probably the most militaristic vision of Star Trek to date. While that would seem to be in opposition with Gene Roddenberry’s idealistic vision of the future, Meyer makes it work because the surroundings are just window-dressing. What matters is that Meyer’s take on the characters, especially Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, is closer to their TOS portrayals. Spock and McCoy bicker, Kirk shows a bit of his old action-hero self in a tightly shot knife fight with his son David (Merritt Butrick), and there’s appropriately timed witty banter throughout the film. The characters are more at ease with each other than they were in the previous movie, and Spock in particular seems to have grown from where we left him in TMP, having made inner peace with his Vulcan and human halves. And the reintroduction of Khan brilliantly ties in to the Original Series and gives this new film the focus lacking in the previous outing. Ricardo Montalban just tears up the scenery,inspiring Robert Ebert to say of TWOK:
His performance is so strong that he helps illustrate a general principle involving not only Star Trek but Star Wars and all the epic serials, especially the James Bond movies: Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph.
A superior villain
The introduction of Khan also brings up another lesson for Star Trek XI, that of ‘continuity’. Although Khan claims he remembers Checkov, Chekov didn’t join the show until the season after ‘Space Seed’. Trek fans are notorious sticklers for this sort of thing, yet in the case of Star Trek II they seem to give Meyer a pass (explaining it away by saying Chekov was below decks or something). And, of course, regular film goers didn’t need to have seen ‘Space Seed’ to understand Khan’s hatred for Kirk, nor would they care about the whole Chekov not meeting Khan thing. The lesson here is that if a film gets the big things right like character and excitement, apparent ‘continuity errors’ like this are irrelevant. If the film is good but Kirk meets Spock before the Enterprise, or Mc Coy is on board for the first mission (and not Dr Piper), fans will find a way to deal with it just like they did with Chekov and Khan meeting (and the rest of the world will never know the difference).
The film is full of anachronisms and literary allusions, including “A Tale of Two Cities,” “Moby-Dick,” “Les Liaisons Dangereuses,” and Admiral Kirk’s glasses, none of which detract from the story. They work in part because it’s the first time they’re being used in this fashion, and also because Meyer seems to be holding back a bit (compared to his scripts for “The Voyage Home” and “The Undiscovered Country”). Kirk wearing his glasses says as much about his midlife crisis as any line of dialogue in the film, and Montalban’s delivery of his final lines (the dying words of Melville’s Captain Ahab) completely sells what might have been utterly ridiculous coming from another actor.
I tell you we have met!
Less is More
The acting from the leads in this film is superb. Meyer did what Robert Wise could not, and that was to extract a moving, energetic performance from William Shatner. Shatner’s performance harkens back to his early days as Kirk, when he was actually acting, not just playing William Shatner in a spacesuit. Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley, as always, are a joy to watch playing off each other, and Nimoy’s death scene is incredibly poignant. And then there’s Ricardo Montalban, who delivers a memorable, scene-chewing performance that thankfully never goes over the top. Of the other guest stars, Kirstie Alley performance is the most interesting, because at times she’s a decidedly un-Vulcan Vulcan, and it’s sort of a kick watching Spock (who, for so long struggled with his human half) teach her about humanity.
The Wrath of Khan was made for around $12 million, and it shows in the special effects and production design. All of the effects shots of the Enterprise during the first half of the film are recycled from TMP, and the film more or less takes place in two rooms — the bridges of the Enterprise and the Reliant — with the latter merely being a redressed version of the first. The exterior of Spacelab Regula One is the office complex from TMP turned upside-down, and its interior is cobbled together from cast-off set pieces from “Star Trek: Phase II” and various consoles rented from Modern Props with lots of blinky lights. And the matte paintings making up the Genesis Cave are just a bit short of convincing (especially the one marred by a horrid polar motion lighting gag to represent a waterfall). In the end, The Wrath of Khan is more like the TV show in that it uses the characters to drive the point of the story home, rather than relying on visual spectacle. Because Bennett and Meyer didn’t have $30 million to blow on huge sets and elaborate special effects, they had to make do with what was available to them: the story and the actors.
Although they weren’t breaking the bank, TWOK did set many standards for the film series. The newuniforms, while a bit marching band-like, were a far sight better than the loungewear our heroes wore in TMP. The film also gave us the new ‘Miranda Class’ Reliant, a model would continue to pop up during The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. The team did drop a bit of cash on a cool CGI animation of Genesis Device in action (one of the first times CGI was used in a film), which also got reused in the next film. Lastly we get a big, brassy score from James Horner, who was still establishing himself in Hollywood at the time. While perhaps not as memorable as Jerry Goldsmith’s work on TMP, Horner’s score does its job well, kicking the adventure up a notch at just the right moments.
STII got a lot of bang for a spending few bucks on effects
After the first Trek film wasn’t as successful as Paramount had hoped, there was a bit of trepidation as Star Trek II drew closer to its release date. Their fears were quickly allayed when the film set an opening weekend record of $14.3 million dollars, going on to earn nearly $80 million domestically (almost the same as TMP for less than half the budget). Additionally, fans, casual viewers, and critics were overwhelmingly positive in their response. New York Times critic Janet Maslin drew attention to the marked differences between the first two films, complimenting the return of the TV show’s sense of derring-do, gamesmanship and fun, as well as Shatner’s dry sense of humor. The film immediately led to a trilogy of films (ST II, ST III and ST IV), making the 80s the most successful time in the franchise’s history and convincing the studio the time was finally right to bring Trek back to the small screen (in the form of Star Trek: The Next Generation). Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan truly brought Trek back from a period of uncertainty not unlike today.
The critical and business success of TWOK set a new direction that would last for the rest of the film franchise. This resulted in Trek movies losing the sense of awe and wonder we got in TMP, and certainly ended further attempts at ‘pure’ 2001-like science fiction. Instead, they became kind of a comfort food, reuniting the fans every two years with their favorite characters, kind of like a class reunion on the big screen. What’s different here is that whereas later incarnations of Trek would be timid in how they dealt with their characters, TWOK dares to threaten the status quo in a way even Roddenberry’s ambitious first Trek film wouldn’t. TMP ends with our guest stars being the ones to merge with V’Ger, whereas TWOK dares to kill off the single most beloved character in the franchise. Yes, the ending shot with the torpedo tube on the planet leaves things a bit open-ended (though in Meyer’s defense, that was Harve Bennett’s decision, not his).
still the most moving scene in Trek film history
One more thing…
As discussed TWOK shows how the keys to Trek success are a focus on characters, tying into Trek’s past without being dogmatic and ratcheting up the drama. But there’s one final lesson to be learned, but not for J.J. Abrams. In a New York Times interview that ran shortly after the film hit theaters in June 1982, Nicholas Meyer explained his way of dealing with fan pressure during the making of the film:
Robert Bresson was the one who said, ‘My job is not to find out what the public wants and give it to them; my job is to make the public want what I want.’ There’s no way of saying this without sounding arrogant, but there’s only one person I have to please when I’m working, and that’s me. It is impossible to second-guess millions of people whom you have never met.
This lesson is for us. Fans tend to get an inflated sense of self-importance, particularly when they’ve invested a great deal of time, money, and passion in something like Trek. A sense of ownership begins to develop, along with the belief that whoever is running the franchise is obligated to pursue our personal idea of what Star Trek should be. In the end, our hue and cry about prequels and recasting classic characters and abandoning the post-TNG era won’t matter a bit. If you only give people what they want and expect then how can you give them a sense of surprise and wonder. Abrams and his team will make the movie they want to make, and hopefully (like The Wrath of Khan) it will blow us all away.
One last note, Abrams has stated that (like many fans) The Wrath of Khan is his favorite Trek film, so he may be on the right track.
you didn’t think we would forget this image did you?
images courtesy of TrekCore.com…click to see their entire collection of TWOK images
Loading ...
Comments»
Thanks J.L….and apologize to you and TM.com readers for the delay. The third of this series will be presented on Monday Jan 1.
Lets see if the review of this apparently universally loved movie can be less controversial
One minor thing–I don’t think fans gave Meyer a free pass on Chekov meeting Khan. It wasn’t beligerent because it didn’t overshadow the movie. Kirk meeting Spock pre-Enterprise–especially in an academy setting would be a far bigger continuity issue. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like Janeway showing up in 1996 with no evidence of the Eugenics Wars, or killing Valtane, but it would overshadow some things.
I do agree that a good movie will help alleviate complaining.
The most important thing about Trek XI is that they get Shatner and Nimoy and have a proper ending for Kirk, post-Generations.
The most important thing may already have happened. People aren’t pronouncing Trek as dead as a red shirt. If the audience shows up… if the movie is good, or at least decent… then we can move on.
I do think they’re working hard, not just looking to recycle past Trek drek, as some of the latter series and movies did.
We’ll see.
An excellent review of the best Trek movie to date.
TWOK was Trek as Trek.. it didn’t pretend to be anything else. TMP was (as stated above) a 2001 wannabe, Nemesis was Trek trying to be an action film and failing.
#2… I can’t agree with your last sentence. The most important thing for XI is to be a well-written, well-directed, well-acted film that will entertain fans and the general public.
#1…..Controversy…. here?
JimJ… good to meet you today. Hope you are feeling better. My wife’s surgery went well and she’s home with me tonight. A Happy New Year to you. (pardon the off-topic)
although it is nice to the ’shatner/nimoy seal of approval’ it is not ‘important’ in the least for them to be in the film, and may in fact detract from the regular cast.
and I am sorry but the whole chekov thing is irrelevent…maybe some havent got over it but it is irrelevent…and most trekkies I have spoken to think it is. And Dr Piper, Kirk meeting spock and many other things are the same thing….they will be completely and uterly irrelevent to the general public, and easily explained away by any Trekkie with an imagination.
Just get Kirk and Spock and the feel of the ship and the era right…and dont sweat these issues of ‘fanon’ or even ‘canon’
The Chekov thing for me is a non issue becuase Catspaw has a Stardate of 3018.2 Chekov is on board the Enterprise there, Space Seed has a Stardate of 3141.9 , So it is possible for Khan to have seen his face and heard his name.
I believe TWOK was the best Trek film because it was the most intense, emotionally. There is a great deal of “feeling” packed into those 2 hours, and, as often happened in the original series, Spock (the unemotional one) comes out being the focal point which drives home some real feeling. Kirk’s ending statement “Of all the souls I have known in my travels….” drives home the point that it is FEELING which matters, I think… and we all know how really ‘human’ Spock was. And that “feeling” content is what pushed this film into the RED on our excitement meter, perhaps. All one has to do is consider what made TWOK the most popular film with the fans (and thankfully Mr. Abrams). At the root of this film is raw feeling, I believe… something which lacked from most of the other films.
Let the characters really hurt, let the characters question themselves and their actions, let the characters experience things which provoke deep emotion, and let them change/grow in some way by film’s end…. rather than being the cardboard, comic book characters we’ve seen for the past decade or so.
Let’s face it, ST II and III were the best of the lot! ST IV slid toward a sillier lighter mood and V was right up there with Plan 9 from outer space as worst picture ever made! By this point they’re doing Three Stooges shtick e.g. “Hey Spock, how many fingers am I holding up? Whooo, whoo whoo…” Number VI was Murder She Wrote in space and Star Trek: Generations stunk up the place by killing off an iconic character (Kirk) by having him clatter down a mountain ridge on some flimsy scaffolding! When Kirk says to Picard, “something’s missing” while cooking in the house, we all wanted to yell at the screen, “yeah, it’s called a plot!” Tell Abrams and the new team to harken back to the days of drama, death, friendship and honour. That’ s what impresses the general audience! Get it right this time!
The Author’s best point (IMO) was this…
“This lesson is for us. Fans tend to get an inflated sense of self-importance, particularly when they’ve invested a great deal of time, money, and passion in something like Trek. A sense of ownership begins to develop, along with the belief that whoever is running the franchise is obligated to pursue our personal idea of what Star Trek should be. In the end, our hue and cry about prequels and recasting classic characters and abandoning the post-TNG era won’t matter a bit..”
I know I need to heed this and I believe that every hardcore fan in here needs to keep this in mind as we post comments and eventually see a new movie. It (the movie) won’t please us all and the sooner that is said and understood, the better off we all are.
great summary of TWOK and what the new team can learn :-)
#2
Actually, Kirk meeting Spock is not as much of an issue as many make it seem. since it was suggested that this may be shown in the new film, i went back and viewed all of the TOS episodes and films again.
for the record, now where in any episode does it state that Kirk and Spock DID NOT meet pre-enterprise nor were there any elements of the characters past to suggest one was some place else to prevent them meeting at the academy.
There are factors that do support it however.
In the encyclopedia to Trek, Kirk and Spocks years at the academy overlap.
That and if u watch TWOK, there are moments of dialogue that could suggest Kirk and Spock having had a connected past that would fall into the pre-enterprise period.
In TWOK, Spock is aware of Carol Marcus; not only when he sees her image early in the film but also when they first met face to face after Kirk and party beam aboard the enterprise. Carol also acknowledges Spock in a manner of recognition.
And if u look back to Spocks knowledge of Kirk’s actions within the Kobayashi Maru simulation, the moment can be seen as a moment of reflection for the two and not a mere instance of Spock simply delivering dialogue that will be later implemented to move plot.
One last note: As to the Khan recognizing Chekov, if u watch Space Seed Khan looked through a number of records in concern to the Enterprise. Now if he researched the weaknesses of the vessel (as can be seen with his attack in TWOK) then it is safe to say that he also researched the vessel roster to see who on the crew may be converted to his cause – thus Khan recognizing Chekov from a registered crew photo. and chekov would know Khan from the incident itself, not from an actual meeting.
THANK U AND GOOD NIGHT!
Re: Xai (#9)
I’m glad you got the point I was trying to make. That quote from Meyer in the NYT article really jumped out at me, in part because of a lot of the online discussions I’ve observed and taken part in over the years.
To a certain degree, what we’re going through here is like what the Star Wars fans went through when George Lucas tinkered with the OT or included controversial elements in the PT (e.g., midi-chorians, Anakin’s “virgin birth”). Ultimately it was his sandbox, and we were just along for the ride. The same is now true with Abrams and Trek.
I can’t dispute that TWOK is the strongest of the TOS era Trek films. It goes without saying that it, not TMP, really re-energized the franchise. I remember seeing it when I was in high school. I cut class to go to the noon premiere. The next Monday, everybody in school was talking about it; the geeks, the jocks, the burnouts, even the teachers. It was amazing. TWOK shows the best of what Trek can be, even if it went a tad overboard in the miltaristic aspects of how Starfleet operates.
Now, about the continuity thing. Some things are forgivable, such as the gaffe with Khan recognizing Chekov. As a fan, I’m willing to believe that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise during “Space Seed” but we just didn’t see him. Other things are not so easily glossed-over, however. If JJ Abrams shoehorns TOS characters into a story where they do not logically fit just to have them there, then I won’t be able to suspend my disbelief no matter how good the story is. For a Trek story to work, it has to nominally conform to the established history we already know. That’s where the TV show Enterprise first started stumbling. It didn’t feel like a show set before TOS and too many stories flew in the face of things we knew from the previous TV shows. The interaction of characters in Trek XI (whoever they end up being) needs to make sense, or I just won’t buy it. Luckily, I have faith in Abrams and the crew he’s putting together.
Re: “This lesson is for us.” I agree with this statement, but only provisionally. While it is true that the filmmakers cannot allow themselves to cowtow to every Trek fan “hue and cry” (that’s a great phrase, by the way), they are accountable to Trek fandom. When the movie premieres, it will be Trek fans who ultimately decide its fate, not the public at large. If the film reaches wider public success, it will be because Trek fans shouted “You HAVE to see this movie!” loud enough for others to hear it. The TNG film Nemesis is a perfect example of this. Nemesis is a well-made movie. It looks good, it has action, drama, pathos, and treachery. The special effects are top-notch and the acting throughout is solid. There are critics out there who gave it very good reviews, but the film failed because, despite all the things listed above, it wasn’t a good Star Trek film. The fans didn’t like it, and it crashed and burned at the box office. So, yes, we must keep in mind that Trek XI won’t have all the things we might want in it. We have to keep an open mind and trust in the people putting it all together, even if they miss something an individual fan might think very important. Likewise, the filmmakers must remember that even though they are not completely beholden to our opinions and suggestions, we Trek fans are the ones who will decide if the movie is Star Trek or not and cast our vote with our ticket stubs.
Finally, one bit of trivia about TWOK: It is generally accepted that during the events of the film, the USS Enterprise has become a cadet training vessel. This has been mentioned in many texts, most notably the “Star Trek Encyclopedia” and other books. However, this is not the case. If you listen to the conversation between Kirk, McCoy, and Uhura just after the Kobayashi Maru scenario at the beginning of the film, it is clear that Kirk is looking for a new crew for the Enterprise. McCoy solidifies this by asking Kirk:
“Wouldn’t it just be easier to put an experienced crew aboard the ship?”
“Hopping around the galaxy is a job for the young, doctor.” is Kirk’s reply.
It’s my belief that the Enterprise was still in active service, under the command of Spock, and most likely part of a fleet commanded by Kirk. His battle with his mid-life crisis led him to believe that the ship needed a new, younger crew, hence the reason for the simulation aboard a mock-up of the Enterprise bridge. This is just my opinion, but I’d like to hear what other fans think.
Re: Buckaroohawk (#13)
I agree with you that TPTB are still accountable to the fans, but only after there’s a final product. During production, it’s probably best that the director, producers, and writers put on their earplugs and blinders and focus on making a movie. If it sucks, there will inevitably be a “correction,” like the one we’re having now, with Abrams replacing Berman and a return to the TOS era.
The Death of Spock was great, it still affects me when I watch that scene. It was a powerful moment, message, that was somewhat robbed of it’s strength with the Spock’s Resurrection. Anway, did they ever get around to a Director’s Cut-Touch Up-Remaster of TWOK?
Nothing really to add about the prodution of the new movie that hasn’t already been expounded upon.
The two-disc DVD version was the Director’s Cut. It was basically just a widescreen, digitally remastered version of the longer version they showed on ABC in the 1980s.
Star Trek : The Wrath of Khan is classic. May Trek XI learn from it’s example!
“Fans tend to get an inflated sense of self-importance”
(exasperated sigh)
That would be like walking into a meeting room at my company and saying to a divisional Vice President, “our customers have an inflated sense of self-importance”.
Anyone care to guess what would happen to me if I did that?
Thanks for the review it was great. Hopefully XI will have some of the same flare.
LLAP
re # 5
I totally agree with you about the Chekov thing… My compass for continuity glitches is simply that if I can imagine a plausible explanation out of it that “could” be told, then there is no continuity glitch.
re shatner and nimoy… again, couldn’t agree more. Don’t really get that everyone wants their Generations Revenge story told in Trek XI. I would appreciate an intro of sorts with them though. It would help link the actors together which would make for a more fluid transition.
Doug
ILM’s effects and model shots were wonderful. Chief weakness was the engine room set. Every time Spock takes the lid off the whatsit that he fiddles with and fixes and the whole thing jiggles I wish they’d taken time to fit some bolts to the bottom…
There’s another lesson being ignored here, While I agree that TWOK was probably the best film, it was not the most commercial. If MI-III is any indication, Abrams will probably spend a lot of money. Trek XI will need to appeal to more than just the base–far more–in order to be profitable and relaunch the franchise.
The real key lies not in a strong villain but is watching the movie a fun and satisfying experience. Of course the humor is a great part of that but some of the most satisfying scenes from TVH come at the end–the court of the president, resolution between Spock and Sarek and the introduction of the Enterprise-A. We walked out of the theater uplifted and feeling good about the last two hours. In the following films, only First Contact managed to approach this sort of feeling (and hence the box office it did reflected that). TUC tried but the “end-of-an-era” pall kind of dampened that feeling.
Anyway–good writing and plot structure are absolutely the key to making this work–and NOT casting Tom Cruise.
IMO, anyway.
They should have kept Spock dead. He served no narrative purpose in the subsequent Star Trek films and had no important scenes or lines other than Kirk’s yes man. I am not the only fan who refuses to own Star Trek’s 3 to 6 because it ruined my childhood having Spock return from the dead.
to hell continuity
if is cool story is a star trek movie and taas all !!!
sory
3 year whet no new movie or tv season and legacy socs
and Happy New Year to all Trekkies
sory again fo Harsh words
Nick Meyer wasn’t afraid to shake things up.Too bad the next 2 movies were apologist sequels for Spocks death and thus so could never be stand alone features.I grimaced when Spock referred to his death AGAIN in the Undiscovered Country(they almost made it through Undiscovered without a Trek 2 reference).The repercussions of Trek 2 taught the fans what to expect from Trek.Witness all the,bring Kirk back from the dead, fan premises presented in previous post commentaries.
“This lesson is for us. Fans tend to get an inflated sense of self-importance, particularly when they’ve invested a great deal of time, money, and passion in something like Trek. A sense of ownership begins to develop, along with the belief that whoever is running the franchise is obligated to pursue our personal idea of what Star Trek should be. In the end, our hue and cry about prequels and recasting classic characters and abandoning the post-TNG era won’t matter a bit. If you only give people what they want and expect then how can you give them a sense of surprise and wonder. Abrams and his team will make the movie they want to make, and hopefully (like The Wrath of Khan) it will blow us all away.”
Really? Well, the box office will speak the truth.
An argument could be made that the producers do try to please the fans. Even Bennett went back and viewed all 79 episodes so that he could make a Star Trek that would appeal to those that had made Star Trek such a success.
I, for one, am perfectly happy that Spock was not permanently removed from Trek, and I’m still perfectly pissed that the previous powers decided to kill off Kirk. IMO, regardless of what anyone says, the original Trek characters are THE essential Trek characters, and deserve to Live Long and Prosper, in all forms of media – movies, tv, books, comics, whatever.
Yes, sometimes we, the fans, tend to want our own personal visions of Trek to be satisfied, but this is obviously impossible to do. How many artists – of any kind – set out to please an audience FIRST? Or is it more like an artist pours his/her blood,sweat & tears into a project out of passion… and then, perhaps, an audience will be attracted to that project?
Apart from wanting to see a “good” movie, I am content to give the new Trek crew a chance to show what they can do, to show what their vision is. Maybe we will love it, maybe we won’t. If most people love it, you can bet your pointed ears there will still be a contingent of people who won’t love it, and they will be full of dismay and criticism. So be it.
I think Star Trek will always be around, in some form. And I think, as many others do, that the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Co. wil also be around, portrayed by new actors. I think fans should appreciate this, and embrace what Trek comes our way. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy it. And perhaps as long as people don’t make any $$$ off fan-made creations, Paramount will continue to let them make their own Treks.
It’s the best period. Maybe for the HD DVD (or BlueRay) they can redue the effects they lifted from TMP with something a tad different. Don’t get me wrong the effects from TMP are hands down the most realistic of the series but it always bothered me that they recycled key effects sequences in Trek to save money. Love Harve Bennet too: He produced the best of the Trek films AND Six Million Dollar MAN friggin rules and it’s a crime I can’t watch Steve Austin and Oscar Goldman on non bootleg remastered dvd !!!!!
RE: 26 & fans
two points
1. there is no such thing as ‘a star trek fan’ anymore…it is a loose confederation of various factions…and is therefore impossible to please universally
2. the ‘fans’ are only a fraction of the target market…there are maybe 5 mil hard core Trek fans…Paramount need to sell many times that amount.
I would say that there are two types of Trek fans in general
1. The open mindeds
these are those that just want a good film that feels like Trek and is fun. They are flexible on continuity and dont care too much about setting
2. The close mindeds
these people look at the film like a hostage negotation and have variuos (conflicting) ‘demands’, such as: Mc Coy cant be on the first mission, Kirk cannot be recast, Janeway must be in the movie, etc
so yes….group two should be ignored, shunned and laughed at…and group one should be rewarded with a good movie full of fun little ‘continuity easter eggs’…but even they arent enough.
Star Trek XI is mostly for group 3…the general movie public open to seeing a Star Trek Movie…somewhat familiar with the universe and the key characters…want to see a well made action adventure film with attractive people in it.
Us fans…we are just along for the ride…get used to it
Hey, where’s my F-Bomb™???
I’m disappointed.
best!!
=h=
Anthony I couldn’t disagree more. Star Trek fans are like fans of a sports team say the Chicago Cubs. Of those there are:
Hardcore fans who will support the team and pay for tickets whether they win or are god awful, lining the pockets of an ownership who spends none of those recourses to try to win for those fans who blindly support the team for all those years. Much like a huge chuck of Trekkers who support Trek no matter what are try to argue that Enterprise, Nemesis, Insurection and Voyager are good, that Rick Berman tried his best ect ect. while the franchise goes down the toilet they keep giving their money and love
Fans of good Star Trek who will support the team when the team supports the fan. Doesn’t mean the team has to be a winner but if the ownership at least is putting it’s recources behind the team to try to do all it possibly can to make a winner we will in turn support the team and if it all clicks then so much the better. This is really the cubs and Treks current situation. The Cubs awful for so long with a diehard fanbase who fill the ballpark no matter how terrible they may be have in recent years lost a significant amount of their television and merchandise revenue. Their real bread and butter comes from that TV and merchandising revenue not from filling the ballpark which is only a small percentage of the pie. The ownership tired of being a loser, laughed at and seeing that profits have dipped dramatically fired the General Manager, a terrible loved by some/ loathed by many Manager and have outspent the league in bringing in the top free agents and management to try to build a winner and in doing so reward the loyal hard core base but also build appeal to those who have stopped supporting a loser and also appeal to a newer short attention span demographic . Sound familiar????
Group three are those on the periphory. People that know the cubs and Wrigley Field to be a fun party environment, may not know all the players but they know Ernie Banks or Sammy Sosa (Captain Kirk, Spock) Just want to go and have a good time, it’s a summer place to be. Will watch a game on tv but not pay attention to the whole thing and usually have a whole lota disposable income. Like in the hip hop community where Captain Kirk is seen as an intergalatic Mac or Genre fans who hate Star Trek but love Star Trek II and think Kirk and Spock are cool. Or do a Hummer Commercial to a show that was canceled 40 years ago. Truth is and it pisses of a lot of the hard core that Star Trek (Kirk and Spock’s) is and was the only Trek that has that mass appeal. People might not know all the names and faces on the team but they know the Superstars and they’ll support the superstars. These people might be called bandwagon jumpers but there is a whole lotta them out there, they are the ones who pay $2000.00 for a playoff ticket. The non science fiction fans who own 10 different dvd versions of Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter. They want to be part of a fun winner, its an event, the place to be.
Of course there is alot of gray.
29. Anthony Pascale
You couldn’t be more mistaken. On every point.
31. Picardsucks
Bingo
guys
dont get me wrong…I think the should make a film that fans like…but just not pander to the millions of bickering \’demands\’ of those who only want a very specific film
and more importantly…do not overestimate how many Trekkies there are…there are no where near enough to support a film franchise. The film needs broader appeal, that is why Berman and Braga are gone and Abrams is on board.
yes there are many shades of grey or degrees. What I am saying is that the narrower your view of what makes \’good trek\’ is…the less likely it is you will like Star Trek XI
anyway that is all I got to say on this….i am headed to hawaii for a week.
but dont worry we have many articles lined up for the next week, including a \’big interview\’ and Matt and the other contributors will have stuff up too….aloha
34. Anthony Pascale
“and more importantly…do not overestimate how many Trekkies there are…there are no where near enough to support a film franchise.”
What information do you have to support such a statement?
Wrath of Khan was a good movie, but it introduced those terrible uniforms. I hated when they went away from the series-type uniforms, but even the Motion Picture uniforms were better than those bergundy things.
And as for Star Trek XI, I can do without it.
I think a lot of people fall between two stools with these films. I saw all the movies at the pictures from STIV, but had no desire to see three of the four TNG films after the one viewing.
I picked up my first Trek novel in a decade yesterday, Burning Dreams, which I’m enjoying cos my area of interest runs for what is now, in effect, ‘mid-period’ Trek – April, Pike and Kirk.
I do hope the new movie features Kirk, Spock and McCoy – McCoy’s really too important to that era not to appear, but equally, I won’t be screaming bloody murder and declaring a boycott if he isn’t!
But I do agree, Anthony, that the hardcore fans are little more than an interest group – useful, but far from the target audience. The asses the studio needs on seats are equivalent of the sort of people who thought TWOK was cool but wouldn’t be seen dead discussing Chekov’s presence or lack thereof in Space Seed!! Anyway, there were loads of references in the TV show that make it clear that Pavel was on board during season one, but wasn’t yet regular bridge crew!
While I am a fan, I try to approach the movies and shows as a member of the general public. I’m interested in a good story and good interpretation of the characters more than the heavy details.
Put it this way, I saw TWOK as a kid and loved it. I was even more thrilled when, one day, Space Seed came on and I discovered that Khan really appeared in an episode!
I have a TNG uniform (third season) but my favorites have always been those introduced in TWOK. Different strokes for different folks.
As I said before–the story is the point. If Abrams & Company pander to the hardcores, then this will probably be the straw that breaks the back of the franchise. I am sure he/they know that.
Not enough fans to support a franchise or movie, eh? Some people might want to read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/arts/television/18trek.html?ex=1308283200&en=29b75c960d6d099d&ei=5088
It kills me that everyone drags out the Chekov thing every time this movie is discussed.
I’ve always wanted to know why the Reliant doesn’t pick up on the fact that there is a planet missing from a previously mapped system. Wouldn’t there be debris from the exploded Ceti Alpha 6?
^^
Yes indeed. And wouldn’t the federation be monitoring Khan? I think so. Plus, wouldn’t a planet explosion be detected somewhere in the federation? More than likely. The Reliant/Khan thing was not well thought out.
So Star Trek ‘fans’ think Galactica is too dark huh? They should try watching TOS a little more often. TOS is just as dark as Galactica really. People who believe that pseudo-religious ‘positive future’ bull should look a little closer.
TOS space is full of genetically-engineered maniacs floating about in cryogenic sleep, ancient planet-destroying doomsday machines, ship eating viruses, ancient deities demanding worship, insane doctors with mind-ripping machines controlling colonies, colonial governors who will slaughter half their population to preserve food stocks.
Galactica’s big difference is the way it’s shot. TOS is theatrical, garishly lit, melodramatic and almost operatic. Galactica is shot grainy and hand-held, like a documentary. Imagine a TOS episode shot in the style of modern Galactica and it would be just as dark! Indeed Galactica’s style of filming and general tone is Ronald Moore’s response to what he sees as ST: Voyager’s ‘betrayal’ of its audience!
As for fan productions, they’re a cottage industry. Doctor Who fans made loads of semi-pro spin-off films of varying standards down the years and, indeed, some of the writers of the fan spin-offs went on to work on the BBC’s current adaptation.
The films were fun things that kept the show alive for the fans, but had absolutely no significance when the decision to make a new version of the show was arrived at!
The various fan-Treks are the same: fun and at times pretty good. But enough to keep Trek alive for the general public? Hell no!!
^^
The point being that there are plenty of fans that would support a movie and a franchise. This is just one article that tells a story of Trek fandom a plenty. There are many more on the web. All one has to do is a little research to find them…and the truth. But some on this board simply do wish to investigate. And any evidence presented by otheres which refutes their claims that there aren’t enough trek fans to support a movie will more than likely fall on deaf ears. But that’s ok, most trek fans know the truth and that’s all that really matters. If Abrams and co. think they are going to get the bulk of their audience from the mainstream, and make a movie catering to them, then like some producers that have come before them, they will have a rude awakening. As will some right here on this board. ;)
Stephen, you’ll get maybe five million people to see the film the one time if you have your way! You really seem convinced that a Trek movie should only be aimed at die-hard fans! TWOK is a prime example of a movie steeped in Trek lore that was aimed at the public and dragged them in!!
Modern technology means any fanboy with a camcorder can make a Star Trek pastiche, but the mainstream audience is where the money will come from. I suppose it depends on how you judge fan.
Is a fan a person who buys the all books and DVDs, owns a uniform etc? Probably, yes.
Is a person who might watch an episode that happens to be on because he feels like it a fan? . . . or a member of of the mainstream?
I mean, I own season one of TOS and the animated series on DVD, but was so appalled at the transfer quality of the TOS episodes, I decided to wait for a better release (which will happen in a couple of years!) I have a Corgi model of the TV USS Enterprise NCC-1701, mainly cos I like the design. I also have a Millennium Falcon for similar reasons, even though I think Star Wars is overrated garbage. I’ve read a few Trek books over the last 25-ish years. But I wouldn’t be seen dead at a convention and wouldn’t be overheard in public discussing Trek in detail. Does this make me a fan?
Star Trek, in spite of some people’s protestations is just another franchise, the same as James Bond, Doctor Who, Star Wars, Mission: Impossible, Superman or Spider-Man. Star Trek has a passionate (if somewhat beleagured, these days) fanbase.
But in terms of the general public, it’s no more special than any of the other franchises, except for the fact that like Doctor Who, it has a fanbase with a rather large proportion of arrogant, fussy fans who believe they know better than the producers and studios how to make the product (given Rick Berman and John Nathan Turner’s eras, is that surprising?!!!)
#4-Thanks! Glad to hear your wife did well. For those of you that were wondering about what was going on in that message #4, I discovered how small of a world it is recently. I met “Orbitalic” in the hospital. He was sitting at a public access computer looking at trekmovie.com when I came wandering by. I was out walking with my wife because I’d had gall bladder surgery and was working (walking) to recover. Had a tiny complication of a partially collapsed right lung to make things more challenging. Anyway, I’m home now, sore, but feeling better after having the gall bladder and TEN stones removed!!! (Sorry about the off-topic once again)
TWOK is what I consider to be a very important Trek movie. I do think that it literally saved the franchise at a time when the first pessimism had arrived (following TMP). I hope to comment more about this movie when I feel a bit better. Time for more pain pills-lol
I hope everyone has a great 2007 and that great things come to Trek this year and for many more years.
Thanks Jim J! Happy New Year to everyone here!
Dom
44. Dom – December 30
You’re just plain wrong. But you’re convinced you’re right, and who am I to argue with that. No reason to carry on. Happy New Year.
Hi Stephen.
I’m simply fascinated to know how you think a movie aimed purely at Star Trek die-hard fans can succeed. You often ask people here to back up their claims with evidence and now I’m asking you to do the same!
Convince me that a narrowly-aimed Trek movie will succeed better than a movie aimed at the general public. Give me figures and historical evidence based on both Trek movies and other movies!
You say I’m ‘plain wrong,’ you say that Anthony Pascale is wrong, you gloat at the ‘rude awakening’ that awaits anyone who thinks differently from you.
So I’m throwing down the gauntlet, a la Number 2 to Number 6: ‘Information, Information, INFORMATION!’
Back up everything ***you’ve*** said with evidence just as all of us have given you these last several months! :)
Don’t forget the reason Spock is mentoring Saavik is because she is half Romulan. A deleted scene which can be seen on you tube has Spock telling Kirk this.
I never said die hard fans.
You first. Back up your claims. I’ve asked Anthony, and I’ll ask you…agian…as I’ve asked you before, what evidence do you have that there are only 5M fans and that the movies aren’t supported by the fans and are supported by the mainstream? And you’re movie history argument isn’t evidence. Do you have any evidence concerning Star Trek?
I have never seen any evidence from you or anyone else on these questions.
One more thing. I don’t gloat. You’re just wrong in your assumptions and I’m right in mine.
Stephen, for as long as you have been posting here, I’ve presented you with figures representing people who have been to Trek films, and other movies throughout cinema history.
I’ve represented to you my knowledge based on being a film school graduate, spending half my life in the media industry, in newspapers, television, the web and film, my associations with casting directors, TV directors, producers, including those from the media family whose third generation I represent!
I’ve lived with actors, got drunk with agents, edited TV shows, researched on websites, written newspaper headlines, reviewed films, hell, even assisted a casting director on a Bollywood movie!
But you seem to know better and claim none of us are providing evidence. Go back through the posts back to the beginning of the site: everything is there!
I’m not some big-timer: I’m a low-level media guy who moves from job to job and location to location in the UK. I’ve probably never worked for any newspaper or on any TV show you’ll have heard of. The most like place I’ve worked that you’d have heard of is a research position on the BBC publication the Radio Times a few years back.
But it’s amazing who us low-level people meet and talk to and it’s amazing how much you learn politely socialising and listening. It’s also amazing who you meet and what places you get into through college contacts who are in different sections of the business!
So I make my claims based on genuine media experience (which is how I’d heard of craignotbond.com, for example!) What are yours?
Every time you are asked to present evidence you claim your question has not been answered and refuse to give evidence. Well if you think Anthony, several other posters and I are such fools, make us look it! Provide the proof! Hell start up stephenmartinscorned&dangerous.com and prove that Anthony’s already-award-winning site is populated by nincompoops!
Time to lay your cards on the deck, Stephen! What ***do*** you know that we don’t? :)
You have not presented one piece of evidence. Not one fact.
I can make as many claims as you. I’ve read hundreds of articles on the ins and outs of Star Trek. I’ve been affiliated with Paramount. I’ve listened to the actors themselves in person. I’ve been involved with Star Trek for nearly 40 years. Can I cite every article I’ve read? Can I cite every actor, producer, or writer I’ve listened to? Nope.
I did cite one article on how one Star Trek fan based episode generated over 30M downloads, to show you that there are that many fans out there, and you just mocked it. So why go any further?
With all my heart, based on years of being involved in the Star Trek experience, I believe you and Anthony are wrong. All you need to do to convince me I’m wrong is to show me how you arrived at the conclusion(s) that there are only 5M Star Trek fans, and that Star Trek movies are supported mainly by the mainstream and not the fans.
I’ll wait.
Star Trek 2 was the best Trek film of them all . It had the best story and effects even though it was a budget film. The space battle scenes were incredible and make the last 2 or 3 films battle scenes look like a joke. I believe that cgi has hurt the quality of alot of special effects. Nothing looks as real as an actual hand crafted effects miniature in a well produced film.
Wow, do I love this movie. It is so far above its predecessor and its sequel that it’s hard to believe they were all three made in the same ten-year period. The review is pretty much spot-on.
I’ll take a moment to comment on the controversy in the comments, though. To focus exclusively on the needs of the die-hards (which I define as the 1.8 million of us who watched ENTERPRISE right up to the end, especially the excellent period from “The Interregnum” to the series finale, “Terra Prime”) would indeed be suicide. Even to focus on the broader hard-core (the perhaps 5 million who watched VOY and DS9 with dedication) would never get you close to the numbers you need to succeed at the box-office.
But to say that Star Trek fandom is limited to those 5 million is somewhat silly. *12,000,000 people* watched “Broken Bow.” Most of those people decided it sucked, and that was that, but still, it proves that millions more than the hardcore are ready for new and exciting Trek.
Hmm… Where was I going with this? I’ve grown distracted while watching Zelda: Twilight Princess get played.
In any case, Nick Meyer was right that the fandom does not own the franchise in any way. Tony was right that indivudual canon facts are, for the most part, irrelevant. Lots of movies don’t even make sense within themselves–I watched Holiday Inn last night with Bing Crosby, for about the millionth time, and there are literally dozens of moments where events, when questioned only slightly, prove to make no sense. Yet that is considered a great movie. Chekov and the Ceti Alpha planet counting (the latter being clearly the more egregious error) are irrelevant except for the many amusing TrekBBS discussions they have generated and a very good short story in Strange New Worlds VII (”Indomitable” was the title, I believe) that explained away the problem while doing a very good character piece on Chekov.
At the same time, to say that “There is no such thing as a ‘Star Trek fan’ anymore” (#29) is pure nonsense. We have incredibly diverse interests and opinions, but ALL of us love our show and want what’s best for it. Tony’s very post disproves the point, as it attempts to classify the same Trek fandom whose existence he just denied.
And so I believe Steve Martin (#26) has a certain good point. Meyer and Tony are right that fans can not be universally appeased, but it is crucial that the *property* be properly understood, in all its ups and downs. Although there’s now a lot more material than the original 79 episodes, I certainly hope Abrams and Co. see most of the episodes and truly create something loyal to the property as they see it, and not to the myriad interests of “the fans.” To be too loyal to the fans would be to create drivel. To be too independent of the thing which the fans love and respect would be to create Star Trek: Nemesis.
And none of us want that. ;)
So, in conclusion, I believe Tony and Dom and Steve essentially agree, and that all three will agree with this post. The cause of the posting conflict above was not serious disagreement over concept, but mostly a disagreement over the term “Star Trek fan.” TWOK was successful because it was loyal to the property, not directly the fans, and therefore the fans loved it. Nemesis was a disaster because it had nothing to do with the property. And, IMO, there’s never been a Trek movie that was *too* loyal to the fans, which would be an entirely different type of disaster.
Did that make any sense?
very disrespectful of fans like me that have watched the series for 30 years.
I can only hope that Mr. Abrams et.al. don’t have as low an opinion of the desires of the fans themselves.
As I said before, a remake is supposed to be an homage, not an insult. Turning it into something it is not would be an insult.
Mr. Abrams hasn’t said that he will do that, but some of you here sure sound like that is exactly what you want him to do.
Again, make a J-Lo film and call it a day if all you want is mainstream.
So Stephen. What sorta jobs did you do at Paramount? I’ve steadily being trying to smoke you out on your media background, hence a degree of, ahem, provocation. I presume this came after your time in the Navy.
Have you been involved in film marketing and so on?
That’s not going to work Dom.
All I want to know from you is, how did you come to the conclusions that there are approx. 5M Trek fans, and that Trek movies target the mainstream and not the fans. With all due respect, if you can’t answer the challenge, just say so.
I have never claimed that Paramont and Abrams should ignore all the trek fans
only the ones who have very narrowly defined demands…those who think dogmatic continuity is more important than drama, those that will only see a film if it features their favorite show, etc, etc. It is impossible for an artist to create a vision and try and satisfy such things. I believe in artistic vision.
I have a very high opinion of fans…i am a fan. I just dont think that artists should be dictated to. I dont want Trek Xi to be exactly what I demand it to be…except for it to be good. But it shouldnt have to be the exact cast, crew , setting, look, etc that i want. I want to be surprised. I want to be amazed.
lets remember the fans were in an uproar about Trek II. They were pissed that Roddenberry was given the boot, they were pissed that it was turned low budget, they were pissed that Spock was going to die, they were pissed that the uniforms were changing
…but the new team surprised everyone and made an amazing movie
So yes they should try and please the fanbase, but they shouldn\’t be dictated to by one faction or another…and more importatnly they should also try and grow the fanbase
if there truly were 30 million \’trekkies\’ then where were they for Insurrection and Nemesis and the last season of Enterprise (one of the better Trek seasons ever)…no I am sorry to say the number is much smaller. depending on your defintion somewhere between 3-10 million.
^^
Those movies and the series sucked. Just because one is a Trekker, doesn’t mean they will absorb anything Trek. I would think a good solid Trekker would know that. Seriously.
Just to add, Anthony. If you’re basing your opinions on those endeavors then no wonder your figures are off. No joke.
You want proof of what made certain Star Trek Films more profitable than others? Consider the following: After making STTMP which was godawful and boring, the powers at Paramount decided to retool the flavour of the franchise and came out with TWOK. The collective audience was STUNNED at how great a film it was, the best by far! Every audience member told everyone they knew which led to a bigger box office gate for number III, TSFS, another great film. Now, here’s where it gets both tricky and ironic as to what happened next. The positive word of mouth for both ST II&III became so widespread that a much broader audience decided to check these films out when they were released on video (VHS in those days). The result was explosive with the general fanbase expanding exponentially with everyone now being conditioned and presold to pay money at the theatre to see the next release, ST IV TVH. Here’s where the tragic part transpired to ruin the film franchise. Nimoy and the boys after toiling on II&III had grown tired of all the drama dealing with death, honour and resurrection. They decided to lighten things up and introduced the farcical storyline of going back in time to save two humpback whales! WHALES!! They didn’t care that nobody gave a *%#@ about such a premise, they wanted to have fun! The huge audience out there, cranked by II&III, and not knowing the story for IV turned out in droves in the first few weeks of the movie opening. By the time “word of mouth” spread that the fourth instalment stunk up the place the damage had already been done. STTVH was the biggest grossing Trek film of them all, not for it’s independent merit, but because the audience had been sold a “bill of goods” of what they thought they were going to see. Paramount seeing the huge box office revenues pouring in thought “well, what do you know, comedy’s the way to go, let’s push that aspect in the storylines”. The rest is history with each successive film becoming more farcical and stupid than the last. A billion dollar franchise ruined! This is what happens when you allow the hired help (the actors) to have too much say in the matter. Leave them to emote in front of the camera, with the screenwriting being left to the best damn writing team that money can buy! The studio should have prevailed with the quality of TWOK ,cranking out an epic masterpiece every two years like clockwork. Think of it, from 1982 to 2002. An epic 10 part series of movies STARRING THE ORIGINAL CAST with impressive dramatic storylines to both dazzle and entertain us. This is what has been taken from us. This is what should have been! Let’s hope Abrams and his creative team recognize where Trek went “off the rails” and manage to get this wonderful franchise back up and running.
I agree with almost everything you said there. Nicely done. Here’s my take. Fans had waited 10 years to see Trek and when TMP came out many were dissappointed and never saw it again. Many were pleased and saw it several times. Some took their kids. When TWOK came out most every Trekker loved it and saw it many many times. I think I must’ve seen it 10 times. TMP I saw maybe three times. See the point here? It has to do more with how many times a Trekker will see the film rather than an expanding fan base. Although, an expanding fanbase obvioulsly happens. It is pretty well know that if the movie is decent, fans will go back and back and back. That is what makes the box office. The expanding fan base is a bonus.
With all due respect, Stephen I’ve laid my cards on the table with you in your StephenMartin identity and the others you’ve used to post here the last few months. Go back and read my endless stream of answers to your questions and those of other people’s. You’re becoming a troll just like you did in your last identity here! You won’t put your evidence forward because you don’t have any. You never did. You don’t even respect the guy who runs this site.
I suggest you start your own site rather than hassle people here for answers you’ve already been given on countless other occasions. Since you think there are so many Trek fans out there (not long ago you were saying that everyone you knew laughed at Star Trek, so Hallelujah! a lot of people have seen the light!) I suggest you apply for some substantial bandwidth!
Well, I’m sorry you feel hassled. That is not my intent. It is obvious, however you cannot answer the challenge. Otherwise you would’ve. And if you have answered it as you claim, where is it so that I can go check it out? If you think I’m going to go back and read everything you’ve written, then you must really think I’m an idiot. On the other hand, if you have anwered the questions then there should be no problem pointing me in that direction. And if you have answered the questions and you don’t know where they are, why not just tell me again? What’s the big deal? You know, you are the one that made the claims originally and I rebutted. That being the case I would think the burden of proof is on you….not me.
And if you think calling me a troll helps the conversation, then go for it. ;) I think we both know that that is definitely not the truth. I think you’re just avoiding the inevitable, which is, you don’t have the answers.
“Since you think there are so many Trek fans out there (not long ago you were saying that everyone you knew laughed at Star Trek, so Hallelujah! a lot of people have seen the light!) I suggest you apply for some substantial bandwidth!”
lol
Trying to throw out of context in my face is something I wouldn’t have expected from you. Desperation maybe? ;)
Nemesis was an effort to draw a mainstream audience. A terrible effort that alienated both fans and “potential” mainstream viewers (whoever they are). Nemesis disregarded Canon and created plot holes galore for the sake of gratuitous action and combat.
We can’t be sure of the obstacles adhering to Canon will cause until we know exactly when the story is supposed to take place. But in deciding to do a prequel, Paramount has opened itself up to criticism from all quarters (trying to profit from controversy?). Mr. Abrams can be highly artistic and add depth to an existing mosaic or he can spray paint graffiti all over an existing masterpiece.
BTW — I didn’t say the bridge needs to be an exact replica. Hell, McCoy can even be there pre-WNMHGF too. But I’ll say that when the time comes to consciously disregard a major piece of Canon (like say, the ship), it should be for a very good reason and not just to please non-fans that want to see Battlestar Enterprise blow stuff up with half-naked tramps running around with Matt Damon.
After 30-40 years of fandom, we deserve more.
Re #58: Precisely, Tony. Precisely.
StephenMartin, I’m curious as to what number *you* would put on the number of Trek fans out there. I’ve heard 5M thrown around by Dom, I used a liberal estimate of 12M (with only about 2-5M hardcore), and Tony broadly put it at 3-10M. In the end, as Tony said, a lot of this depends on how we define “Star Trek fan”, but just what number do you put on that?
^^ My mistake. I didn’t see #52, in which Steve gave the number 30M. My mistake.
A bit high, don’t you think? I’m sure many of those are multiple downloads–I mean, even American Idol, with its 24M viewers a week, doesn’t have that many fans.
BTW, in case there was any confusion to those unfamiliar with where I’m coming from….I’m a TNG fan that thinks TWOK was the best film of the franchise…
Woah, I step away for a few days and we gots ourselves a messageboard war.
First, let me wish ALL of you a Happy New Year (and thanks to J.L. for a great article). Second, Anthony enjoy the heck our of Hawaii, I am sick with jealousy. You deserve the vacation. Third, let’s talk a little Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan…
About a year ago, I was lucky enough to catch a screening of this movie in NYC (one night only) and seeing it with a packed house that knew every line and beat in the movie was just awesome. The FX work holds up real nice too. But most importantly, the story still hits those emotional chords after 20 years and I would have to estimate over 500 viewings by yours truly. I have seen Star Trek II more than any other movie in my life. I am serious, 500 times is a realtively conservative estimate. I won’t go into the finer points about the story, the acting, the directing, etc. It’s all up there on the screen. For myself, Star Trek II is what makes Star Trek great- the characters. I’m talking about larger-than-life, fills-the-whole-damn-screen, exciting, adventurous characters. They are well-written, well-acted and they do things of great importance to one another and for the greater good. What greater example of heroes does one need that to see what the Enterprise crew does to save the day in Star Trek II? I love The Motion Picture for its ambition and its earnest curiosity, but Star Trek II is drama. Shakespeare would sooner write a story like Star Trek II than TMP. And again, I’m not denigrating TMP’s value, I just love these movies separately and for different purposes.
As for this running debate about who owns what and what they owe to whom, etc. All I can say is this: look at yourselves as consumers. If the studio and production crew are smart, they will do what Harve Bennett did, and figure out what elements in past incarnations of TOS appealed to fans- rate the smartest stories, the most character-driven material and why these characters have become iconic. Is that an exact science? Heck no, it’s a lot of intuition and guesswork. But Bennett succeeded at it, and he proved his worth as a result. Gene Coon took Roddenberry’s work and figured out what worked with it in the past as well. I say that we have to trust Abrams at this point. If you think Abrams is a smart guy, a man who knows what goes into a great show, etc., then he should possess the instincts to get it right. I do agree with some cautious people that because TREK XI is going to exist within the existing continuity (and not be done as a fresh reboot) that the producers need to steer clear of blatant continuity errors. And (this part always gets me) they need actors that will not contradict the spirit of their predecessors. I’ve said it ad nauseum, this movie should have been a reboot to avoid these issues safely, but if they think they can pull it off, let’s see what they’ve got up their sleeves.
68. James Heaney
I’m not standing on that estimate per say. I posted it to point out that there are a lot more than 5M. Also, that is just one site, one episode. There are many fanfic sites, so the figure could be a little lower, or even higher. I’m sure there are a lot more around then some say there is. I was watching a Star Trek documentary on YouTube last week and it stated there were over 250M people worldwide who considered themselves fans. I thought that was way out there, but interesting nonetheless. I looked for the documentary tonight, but could not find it if my life depended on it. Oh well…..
I consider a person who likes to go to a good Trek movie, watch the re-runs once in awhile to be a Star Trek fan. A person doesn’t have to be obsessed in order to be considered a fan. Like I said, a fan can be someone who just likes Star Trek and will go see it if it is worthy.
#71
I think the figure most relevant to this discussion is how many “paying” fans are there out there? At its peak, in the U.S., the Star Trek movie series brought in over 30 million people (The Motion Picture). Anthony’s chart, using data from boxofficemojo.com and Nielsens tells the story:
http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/trekfranchisegraph.JPG
TNG movies peaked with First Contact, gaining over 20 million in attendance. Is there a trend that as time passes, the casual fans begin to dwindle? Does the lack of a first-run Trek show on TV hurt the growth of the “new” fanbase? I would say there is no way to figure out these questions. And getting back to my question about “paying” customers, the film exhibition industry as a whole has been losing paying customers. So, you gotta think that as time passes and as people lose enthusiasm for the property, Trek XI has an uphill battle on its hands. A lot of hardcore enthusiasts want a $150 million epic (I do too, but…) rationality has to kick in and the studio and Abrams have to be realistic about Star Trek’s earning potential in its current state. Rocky Balboa is a great movie, it’s redeemed the franchise from its awful Rocky V. It’s doing decent business now, but it’s not a blockbuster. Franchises don’t just shake off the hits. Star Trek II was a more crowd-pleasing movie than TMP, but in reality more people went to see TMP. TWOK suffered probably from moviegoers that said “forget Star Trek” after they didn’t like the first movie.
I’m curious to see 1) how much money the studio spends, and 2) how casual fans will react to a new movie that is recasting iconic characters, etc. I suspect the “buzz” will be cautiously optimistic at best.
^^
Well, it seems Star Trek has gained popularity over the last year or so. It seems like one cannot turn on the TV without getting some Star Trek reference. It’s bizzare. I think Shatner’s popularity may have something to with it. Don’t know.
To say that Paramount has an uphill battle is an understatement. It’s going to take a dynamite script for people to go see someone else play Kirk, Spock and McCoy. The good news is, Abrams is a really good producer/writer. If anyone can do it, I think he can.
It will be ineteresting. As some have said, this could make or break the franchise. I find myself with mixed emotions. A part of me wants the icons replaced and it be a hit. The other part of me is pissed they’d dare tread on sacred ground and wishes the movie would tank and that would be that. lol.
^^
Oh and Adam. I think the box office just has to do with the quality of the Trek movie. That’s all. Especially with DVD now. If a Trek movie is poor many fans will wait until it is released on DVD. Thus saving themselves some doe. This is what happened with Nemesis. I know a great many Trek fans that heard the movie wasn’t a Trek movie and waited until the DVD came out. Personally, I’ve never watched it. Don’t ever intend to.
I’m with BIG DAWG A.P. and AdCo™.
But look at all the debate here tonight!!!
The final word on this is that Star Trek II is the best movie ever made. Not just Star Trek movie, but of all movies of all time.
And still.. where is my effing F-Bomb????
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!
best!!
=h=
Re:#61: Your theory has a nice internal logic to it, I suppose. But personally, I think it’s flawed. I thought ST:III was rather weak myself, and though the flavor of IV may not have pleased you, I thought it was rather enjoyable myself. Regardless, it an amusing line of thought. ;-)
@ StephenMartin: Ah, well, by that definition, I can see where you get such a large number. I personally know *hundreds* of people who “used to watch that one with the bald captain…. that was pretty cool/interesting/kick-ass stuff.” By that definition of “ST Fan”… which I classify as “casual fan,” I can easily see your 30M number. And this movie does have to please those 30M… I think Tony (though I can’t speak for him) would consider most of these casual fans “the mainstream,” which I think caused much of this contention–you both want to please the 30 million, but you were using different terms for that group.
As for Nemesis, I watched it tonight. It was a very, very good movie. There were moments that had no particular connection to the rest of the movie (the Argo chase still makes no sense to me as a part of the plot), but the scene in stellar cartography where Picard and Data discuss mirrors is, in my opinion, one of the greatest sections of dialouge in Star Trek. And the space battle, though battles are secondary to what makes Trek great, is the best I’ve seen since either “Sacrifice of Angels” or, arguably, “Azati Prime.” Trek X was an improvement on VII and probably IX… I would even argue it was better than First Contact, and it was, like all Trek movies, better than the sad affairs of ST V and TSFS. You really should go rent a copy and judge it for yourself.
But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself, aren’t I? We still have seven movie reviews left to read before Nemesis!
Hitch baby!
Happy New Year kid! I hope your holidays are merry and bright. What’s goin on? Got something silly planned for New Years?
Anyone new to this site must know, hitch is like the mascot here. Show your love and he will be generous in return.
-AdCo
#77
I won’t debate our differences of opinion re: Nemesis. I absolutely respect your love for the movie, it sounds like you found something special within the story. I put it as my second-least favorite in the series, next to Generations. I can see how you disliked ST: V (most people do, I happen to like it based on my irrational love of TOS characters) but I think The Search For Spock has gotten a bum rap from some fans. It really does have great elements to it, and it’s an essential chapter in the series (IMHO). But I’m always interested to read the wide array of opinions on these movies. We all differ because we bring separate experiences to the table. Happy New year!
Re: #76 “I thought ST:III was rather weak myself”. I think of II and III as a double-bill. In my defense the noted film critic Leanord Maltin suggested that “watching Star Trek II and III back-to-back is probably the best 3.5 hours of science fiction you could ever see”. Note he didn’t cite it as the best Star Trek you could ever see, but the best SCIENCE FICTION. Also keep in mind that even though TWOK was a more exciting picture, it was about Kirk fighting back against an old advesary who came after him. Reactive at best. In TSFS he risks everything (his career, life) to help his best friends. He stepped forward to help (we would, of course, expect no less). In theory, once back at Spacedock he didn’t have to do anything, but chose to rise to the challenge; Proactive by his heroic behaviour. The best moment for me in TSFS was when Kirk was stealing the Enterprise from Spacedock while the other Captain threatened, “Kirk, you do this…you’ll never sit in the Captain’s chair again”. Sacrificing everything to save McCoy and Spock! Death, ressurection and honour! Does it get any better than that? Oh wait, you mean in TVH where they faced the tension of securing those particular humpback whales? You’re right, it’s absurd to think that they couldn’t have, at leisure, flown out over the ocean and gotten another two anytime they wanted. And being time travel they had five years to do it, fart around as much as they’d like, and still get home in time for dinner! OOOOH, I’m biting my nails even now thinking about how the valiant crew managed to labour through such a challenging scenario! That horseshit from the mind of Nimoy should never have seen the light of day!
^^
I agree with you on TSFS. It is a wonderful film about love, sacrifice, honor, etc. It is Kirks finest hour. Not only does he risk his career he kills the very ship he vowed to never lose (The Naked Time). If one wants to know how they are to treat those they love….watch this film.
I tend to think that TWOK was more popular with mainstream audiences because of the lack of silly looking aliens. I think it was a better movie, and more relatable to the moviegoing public because of this.
Trek XI is going to be the movie they want to make, whether you like it or not. Personally, I’m excited about Abrams coming on board, I think he will make a really great movie. Or hopefully, a really great series of movies. There are few other writer/directors that I would rather have on this, if any.
Yo Stephen Martin… I don’t disagree with everything you say, but your debating style is argumentative and offensive. Having just read all the threads, I don’t see you offering any more substantial proof of your thoughts and statistics than Dom.
re post 74… I can think of plenty of quality movies and TV shows that failed with box office or ratings… (and vice versa, crap that succeeds)… so let’s not assume quality films and success go hand in hand.
WOK was great fun, … I personally love TSFS even more… and TVH… I’m looking forward to a good Star Trek movie. It’s been too long. I liked First Contact, the franchise stopped there for me.
Doug
Hi Doug.
A person very like ‘StephenMartin’ used to post here under a different name and had the same debating style of “make a remark related to the discussion, followed by a snide remark to make his ‘opponent’ angry, followed by a claim that his questions haven’t been answered so why should he give any ‘evidence?’ followed by a complaint that his remarks are being used out of context.’
Eventually, Anthony stepped in and told him to behave. Declaring I was clearly a member of a site called Trekweb, which I hadn’t heard of before, that person left.
About three weeks later, ‘StephenMartin’ appeared using the exact same posting style and immediately made a beeline for Anthony and me.
I can’t be bothered to fight with this guy anymore because I answered all his questions months ago. I survived the Doctor Who forum Outpost Gallifrey where there are more bitches per square pixel than in the female wing of the average dog pound, so I can scarcely feel intimidated here, since this is the friendliest genre site I’ve come across! I’m not going to let one person spoil trekmovie.com for me.
I get on with everyone else, so I’ll just ignore ‘Stephen’ or whatever he calls himself next, and enjoy the forum!
Sorry you feel that way Dom. I was merely trying to get to the truth of the matter. Since you were the one who perked my interest with statements that the Star Trek people target the mainstream and not the fans, I simply wanted to know where those facts were. I did not believe the argument that movie history, or I’ve never seen anyone in the business target the fan base was evidence. After much debating, you continued along those lines and seemed to side step my questions.
I became frustrated and impatient, which led me to be somewhat hostile at times. For that, I apologize. For the most part, I thought we were just bantering back and forth and having some fun. I misinterpreted.
If you feel you have answered all my questions and wish not to go into it any further, I respect that. I hope you will reconsider the ignore policy.
BTW… I have never posted here under any name but mine.
83. Doug
Thanks Doug. Apparently I got out of hand. I will work on it.
77. James Heaney
Well, I’m glad you liked Nemesis, but I think I’ll pass on it. I’m afraid I just cannot get passed the dune buggy. lol
GIVE em hell Stephen may The Shatner bless you. You summed it up even better than I could in my wonderful, thought ful baseball/Trekfan analogy when you said just because something sucks and it’s supposedly called Star Trek we don’t have to support it (Like in my bad baseball team analogy- just because there is a game going on with a bunch of bad players in uniform called the Cubs) doesn’t mean I have to spend my money to go to the game or even waste my time watching them lose. Babylon 5 was more Star Trek than anything officially called Star Trek so I chose to love and support it. Oh look theres a squirel in my backyard with a starfleet badge on it’s tail I better go watch it and get it’s autograph it’s Star Trek afterall!!!
Stephen, I don’t want to fight with anyone. Believe me, life’s too short and I try too enjoy it as much as I can. I regard people here as an extension of my group of friends! I’m metaphorically extending my hand in friendship now. It’s about to be a New Year so lets start fresh.
But, with regards to target audience, I have said time and again that all studio movies throughout history have been aimed at the largest possible audience. The earliest legal cases in the 20th century defined the film medium as a business form, not an art form. A studio that wants to relaunch a major international franchise can’t merely aim a film at the sort of people who download Star Trek New Voyages (for all it’s positive aspects!) No studio has ever made a major film for a minority audience. It’s business sense in international cinema.
The ‘widest possible audience’ has to include the mainstream. TOS Trek has all the hallmarks of being able to appeal to the mainstream. The ship’s crewed by an attractive, multi-ethnic cast and the characters are all strong and likeable and there’s a high action to talk ratio. TOS was ahead of its time having a cast including Caucasians, Asian and Africans.
The widest possible audience obviously has to include old-time fans, if possible, but they can’t be the major focus of a franchise restart – they’re a significant minority if you like. This is a time to get a new generation of fans in.
Trek has existed in so many incarnations now (The Cage, TOS, TMP, TWOK-TUC, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) that there’s no easy way to define a Trek fan. Just because I like April, Pike and Kirk, but not the other shows, does that mean I’m not a fan? Is a fan of TNG, but no others, not a fan? Will a fan of TNG who thinks TOS is crap go to see the TOS-redux film? Possibly not. That’s why the new film needs to seek a wider appeal.
The problem with TWOK being used as a ‘template’ now is that it came into being under wildly different circumstances. When TWOK came out, Star Trek was only known for two generations of characters – Kirk and Pike – seen across about 25 years of the 23rd century.
Star Trek’s major early characters had appeared in TOS, TAS and the wildly-different TMP.
With STXI, there have now been six different crews (in just the TV shows and films, before you get into novels and computer games!) spanning hundreds of years of ‘future history,’ each gaining a mix of fans, some of whom like one incarnation, others some of them and a few all of them.
Star Trek XI can’t possibly hope to satisfy every agenda. Some TOS fans will refuse point-blank to see a TOS-redux (even though ST: New Voyages does show that it can potentially be done!) and others will think that TNG deserves another pop or that DS9, Voyager or Enterprise should be the basis of the next film.
So its better that STXI step away from all of that. With an old-time Star Trek fan now being impossible to define, it’s better to seek new fans based on a streamlined reworking and try to draw in as many of the old-timers as possible at the same time – be they TOS fans or curious fans who watched other Treks and want to see what the film’s like. The marketing of this film has to be shit-hot and the production has to match it.
Great review of WOK, thanks. It reminded me of another reason I enjoyed that movie, and especially the old shows:
“Kirk shows a bit of his old action-hero self in a tightly shot knife fight with his son David”
Yeah baby yeah! I always loved those fight scenes in the old trek, tightly edited with fabulous percussive, trumpet-stabbing music. You might call it ‘old school’ to remember fondly 1960s style fight scenes (with that funny skin-slapping sound effect), but I still think Trek did their fights better than the other old shows on at the same time, like Gunsmoke or Wild Wild West or Mannix or Mission Impossible, and it was partly due to the tight editing, but mostly the fabulous music.
re 88…”just because something sucks and it’s supposedly called Star Trek we don’t have to support it ”
Nobody disagrees with that… Just our opinions of what sucks come into play. It comes across to me that you can’t stand Trek without Captain Kirk… (although you may have mentioned to me that you enjoyed several seasons of DS9 in a previous post… i loved DS9…esp seasons 3,4,5)
Anyway… Dom & Stephen both make great comments, and Dom summed up my feelings pretty well about what the studios are probably thinking in terms of direction.
Makes sense to me.
Doug
“This lesson is for us. Fans tend to get an inflated sense of self-importance, particularly when they’ve invested a great deal of time, money, and passion in something like Trek. A sense of ownership begins to develop, along with the belief that whoever is running the franchise is obligated to pursue our personal idea of what Star Trek should be.”
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, J.L. I’ve been saying the exact same thing in regards to Trek and Star Wars for years! 90% of the bitching that goes on about these franchises are from “fans” who have the mistaken idea that they and not the owners and creators should have the final say about creative content. Very true words. Kudos!
Re #84: How can you have never heard of TrekWeb? That’s like not hearing of TrekToday, or Fiveminute.net… or, given the content of TrekWeb, like the municipal sewer system.
Seriously, if not through either TrekWeb or TrekToday, how in the world did you find TrekMovie.com? Google? Internet traffic patterns fascinate me.
89. Dom
I couldn’t agree more. Weird, I don’t quite remember you putting it that way in past discussions. Must be my aging process. :) For Paramount to bring in the bucks they’d better work on bringing in the “mainstream,” and in order for that to happen it had better be a knock them out of their seats feature. Otherwise, the movie, and quite possibly the franchise, will be dead in the water. Because, as you and many others have stated, older fans won’t buy into the reboot and they won’t go. Paramount has an uphill battle and quite honestly I’m not that optimistic about their chances for success.
But in the past, I believe Star Trek’s main target audience were trek fans, and if they brought in the mainstream it was a bonus. Which did happened by the way with IV. Many in the mainstream went and saw that movie. Unfortunately they all went away again after V.
#93 …ummm Google worked for me.
It’s good to see that “peace” has broken out on the posts again… for the moment.
#18 Senya had some good thoughts. I agree with the thought process of “giving the customer what they want” I deal with that daily too.
However, there’s no way to do that. The “customer ” in this instance has between 5 and 30 million opinions (depending who’s number you use from the discussions above). I and others have said that some people will be upset or disappointed with the new movie because it will be the wrong era, wrong cast or wrong story. It will violate someone’s view of canon. It will take liberties with design and a whole slew of other things. It’s not done to alienate fans, if the could please everyone, they would.
#88 Picardo, you have your tastes, I have mine. You and the squirrel have fun.
I remember being an usher slash projectionist when this movie was coming out. It was two weeks to the opening date and we still had not received the trailer. It was s low afternoon at the theater and of all things the big screen was not running because no one had shown up for the feature in there. UPS pulled up in front of the theater and dropped off a box from NSS (National Screen Service) and the label on the front clearly said STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN.
The staff at the theater know of my love for Trek and the box was in my hands seconds after being dropped off. I got someone to cover the floor for me and made my way into Studio One (908 seat theater with 5.1 surround and the largest screen in West Michigan) and got the reel ready for the projector.
I brought the houselights down, started the projector and raced back down to get into the auditorium. The travelling starfield and narration came up and I was mesmerized. Then they revealed Khan and I was glued to the screen… Khan yelled “FIRE!” and they were cutting into my beloved starship like a knife through cheese and I screamed “NNNNoooooooooooo” at the top of my lungs! Only to hear the laugher of the rest of the afternoon crew in the back of the theater as I realized I was not alone. The trailer ended, we all clapped and cheered. Then word got to the main office next door and the owners came over and we all watched it three or four more times.
The trailer went onto the front of every film we had and the rest is history.
I’ll save my ST:TVH story at the theater for that review.
Hi James (93)
Happy New Year. I was a big TOS fan, but got pissed off with Trek after Generations (watching TOS characters talking about ’spatio-temporal anomalies,’ ‘phasing in and out of the space-time continuum’ and other TNG technobabble was godawful and showed a dire lack of understanding of the original Star Trek!)
Therefore, I also drifted away from the Trek fan thing before the internet really took off in the UK. Thus, I became a mainstream viewer of Star Trek, watching all the later movies and a few Voyagers, DS9s and Enterprises, but was always disappointed.
Once I got web-savvy in the later 90s, I never got involved with Trek fan sites and couldn’t honestly find anywhere which wasn’t a bit too ‘Church of Roddenberry,’ worshipping TNG and so on and laughing at ‘old-fashioned’ TOS! Since I didn’t really like TNG and so on, there was no point in getting involved.
I found this site, IIRC, because Aintitcool News or Dark Horizons linked here. I liked the tone of this site and its positive approach to the new film and found the posters were normal, intelligent people who happen to like Trek and rather than nerds, so I stuck around.
But the news of the TOS redux film is what has brought me back to Star Trek after being alienated from it for years. I didn’t like the Berman/Braga approach to the series and I’m a big fan of Alias and Lost, so I’m looking forward to seeing what Jeff Abrams can do with Trek.
Hi Stephen and Happy New Year. A lot of what I said was word for word what I’d posted on past discussions, but perhaps in a more articulate ‘frame!’ The biggest difficulty on this site is that one can’t edit one’s posts, which is a two-edged sword. On one hand it hopefully makes one more responsible for what one posts (alcohol and lack of sleep notwithstanding!) but if you f**k up you can’t swiftly withdraw what you said and articulate it better, which is a major problem with me.
As for the original TOS fans not going to see TOS redux, I’m not sure. I’m 31 (32 in a few days time) so I grew up with TOS (TNG didn’t start in the UK till 1990) and I’m keen to see it – I’m still in the key 18-35 demographic (just!!) which is important to this film. The fact that there are still people who saw TOS first in the key demographic can’t fail to be useful.
My Mum is nearly 60 and my Dad is 70 next week. They watched TOS on its original broadcast in the late 60s/early 70s in the UK. They also both love Alias and Lost and are intrigued to see what Abrams can do with Star Trek.
I think the ‘From the makers of Lost’ tag is still useful. Whether it still will be in 2008 remains to be seen! ;)
I have been a Star Trek for 40 years now. I can vividly remember watching the original series on NBC with my dad when I was just 5 years old. To me Star Trek was not just science fiction, it was human drama taking place in the future — and for me that was the biggest attraction. Like most Star Trek fans (and I’m a HUGE ONE!!!!) — I always felt the season one of TOS was the best. To me it really personified the soul of Star Trek. I thought the best of TOS episodes were “City on the Edge of Forever”, “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, “Court Martial” and “The Mengarie parts I and II”.
Having said that I’m very excited about Star Trek IX going back to the TOS roots. Being a stickler for details and continuity, JJ Abrams I feel must do the following to make this successful:
1-The look of the movie should reflect the times of “The Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before”
2-I can live without Dr. Piper, however Gary Mitchell must be included as a major character, since that was Kirk’s best friend and first #1 officer.
3-Perhaps cameo appearances by Christopher Pike and Carol Marcus just might be a nice touch, additionally Captain Garrovick who apparently had huge influence on young James T. Kirk.
4-See more of the different types of starships from those “early days”.
Regardless of what the “naysayers” say, at 40 — Star Trek STILL LIVES!!!!
Sam, the kind of list of essential requirements you’ve just placed there is ***exactly*** what this film doesn’t need!
Right now, we don’t know when this film is set or any plot details at all. Even the appearance Kirk and Spock isn’t totally, officially, one hundred per cent confirmed, although Shatner’s and Nimoy’s involvement pretty much seals that this is the case!!
The filmmakers’ assumption has to be that people who go to see this film have never seen Star Trek before. They need a movie that introduces the characters in their new incarnations to a new audience, starting from scratch.
Pike, Carol, Mitchell, Garrovick are chaff that will block up proper storytelling. They should only be there if they service the plot!
This isn’t a continuity-fest (aka fanwank, aka fan service) for people who already know Star Trek. This is a new film putting the Star Trek franchise back out there for the edification of the filmgoing public, which includes fans, rather than purely a narrow fanbase.
The only thing the new production team ‘must’ do is make a good film!
^^
Agreed. They had better make this film as generic as possible…. and very, very, very…. very, good.
Dom — I understand your point. However, lets assume it is a “young Kirk meets Spock”, there will need to be some type of continuity established. What I offered was suggestions. I assume you have watched some of the fan films from Star Trek New Voyages (especially the episode, “In Harm’s Way”. It’s just my two cents — but I think they really do a great job of bringing a fresh take on the characters we grew up with — more than just servicing the plot. Everyone knows the names Kirk and Spock — they are just as well known in America’s popular culture as the Beatles and Elvis (even among Non-Star Trek fans), I just hope that they will do this thing right — and my gut tells me that they will be successful in doing so.
Thing is, Sam, lots of people know the names Kirk and Spock (often they say Dr Spock, though!) but for all its past popularity, many, many people have never watched any Star Trek and know nothing about it beyond its name. It’s what they call ‘brand awareness.’ Just because people know about a thing doesn’t automatically translate to them becoming consumers of that thing.
The ST New Voyages videos and similar are very nice little productions for a fanbase that isn’t too demanding, but they’re semi-pro films at best and the production and acting often leaves a lot to be desired compared with professional productions.
The sort of continuity they need to establish in Abrams’ film is that this guy on the right is James T Kirk and he’s captain of a starship called the USS Enterprise which works for the UFP and can travel faster than the speed of light. The guy in the middle is called Spock. He has funny ears and eyebrows because he’s an alien from outer space and doesn’t have such pronounced emotions, plus his mum’s from Earth. The nice guy on the left with the Southern drawl is called Leonard McCoy and he’s the ship’s Doctor. He’s a pal of Kirk’s and Spock’s although he and Spock argue a lot!
To be honest, that’s about as much as you need. Anything more is lovely for established fans, but tedium to audience members who’ve checked out the film to be entertained for a couple of hours while they feel up their girlfriend in the back row! ;)
I think it would be a big mistake to make a little fanboy “when kirk met spock” film .In order for this film to be theatrically sucessful and justify a large buget it’s going to have to have a broader appeal and for it to be really great it’s going to have to be unrecogizable to trekkies(who’ll see it anyway).It’s going to have to have a multimedia cross merchandising appeal (action figures ,toys ,etc.).
Paramount should know by now (Insurrection, Nemesis, Enterprise) that just because it has Trek on it somewhere is no guarantee Trekkers everywhere will fill the seats. It they do think that, then they get what they deserve.
Star Trek XI needs to be, effectively, a feature filmic ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before: Mark II!’ – a new starting point to introduce people to the characters and concepts of Star Trek as if they are brand new!
“. I liked the tone of this site and its positive approach to the new film and found the posters were normal, intelligent people who happen to like Trek and rather than nerds, so I stuck around.”
Nice. So people that like “the tone” of this site are normal intelligent people who aren’t nerds. (Your words)
The “tone” of this site being that the fans of the past 20 years of Star Trek are unimportant and a hinderance to the studio’s quest for profit making.
That’s the only consistent opinion I’ve gotten with respect to “the tone”.
Oops..almost forgot. Us “nerds” are also evil keepers of Canon that constrain artistic freedom.
A group of people that have a “false sense of self-importance”, etc.
^^
:LOL… you mean there are people here who think seasoned Trekkers don’t know what the hell they are talking about and that they did not make the franchise? That all they are are a bunch of misguided narcissistic knotheads who filled with nonsense? Like that? lol… yeah… i relate :D
I think those canon keepers will have to keep canon pre trek xi.
106, 107…
Until the film hits the theater, ALL of this is amateur detective work and uninformed guessing. I agree with #95, Xai…
How are they going to please everyone?… There is no way to do it. I hope they try… but if they have to make it so thick with explainations of canon stuff and hurt the story, let them save their 100 million. I like canon… but fans worrying about little things like Chekov meeting Khan in Space Seed or not… Jeez. Fine… they met in the corridors on B deck.
I saw it happen.
O
senya cartel!
I stated:
1: I liked the tone of this site and its positive approach to the new film
2: I found the posters were normal, intelligent people who happen to like Trek – did I reference any particular iteration of Star Trek? – rather than nerds.
My words! Read them!
‘So people that like “the tone” of this site are normal intelligent people who aren’t nerds. The “tone” of this site being that the fans of the past 20 years of Star Trek are unimportant and a hinderance (sic) to the studio’s quest for profit making.’
(Your words!)
You took two statements bridged by the word ‘and’ which English writers and speakers have used for centuries to bridge sentences and deliberately tried to manipulate what I said because you have an issue with this site.
And frankly, senya, I’ve just gotta ask, if you dislike this site, its ‘tone’ and its posters so much, why are you posting here?
With regard to ‘canon’ there is no Trek canon to keep, as such, anyway. Trek’s ***continuity*** is still in flux because it’s still being made, not to mention we’ve had more than two decades of spatio-temporal anomalies and time travel stories, meaning it’s difficult to know just which episodes/films really happened and how they actually happened, if you’re being pedantic.
Given the makers of the new film now include some of the novels as relevant background material and CBS/Paramount, along with many of the various TV Trek writers, have pretty much overturned Gene Roddenberry’s request (made in very different circumstances two decades ago!) that the animated series not count as ‘canon,’ how the hell are we supposed to know what’s ‘constraining?’ How are we supposed to know what’s canon anymore?
I’d say there are pretty few constraints for any new Star Trek film, whic is bloody great, as far as I’m concerned.
And as for the “false sense of self-importance” issue, there is truth in that. Granted a fan campaign was relevant when NBC was considering whether or not to renew Star Trek almost four decades ago. But that doesn’t mean fans have the right to tell any producer how to make a Star Trek movie in 2006 and present him with a list of demands. ‘Fans’ who do that aren’t nerds: they’re assholes!
Hello again Dom — yes Star Trek is a brand, but no ordinary brand. Star Trek, like BMW, Nike, National Geographic and ESPN are mega brands. The foundation for each of those brands’ “brand equity” is based on their loyal users or in this case consumers. BMW is the classic case, get their consumers young (with the 3 series) develop the brand affinity as their young consumers get older and more successful, they then go onto the 5 series and 7 series. Mercedes Benz and Lexus have started to follow the BMW formula back in 2000 with CLK series and the IS series, developing the brand/product affinity and catering to their “core” consumers over the long haul.
I happen to be media research (been for the past 20 years), and have been involved in many types of studies and focus groups. The fact that we are discussing a brand that is now going on 41 years age of speaks volumes for the power of Star Trek’s franchise. I still believe the new movie needs to be true to its’ roots, however I do agree with you that there need to be a new element(s) to bring in people who (since just about everyone knows of the Star Trek franchise) who have NOT yet established a relationship with the brand. The fact there are many people who did not like Star Trek 40, 30, 20, 10 , 5 years ago — there is really nothing that can be done that will make will draw them to the franchise now.
Yes you’re right just having it say “Star Trek” will not gurantee a success, great story telling (ala “The Wrath of Kahn”) will make it successful. The latest proof of that is “Casino Royale”, all the experts thought that Daniel Craig was a horrible choice to play James Bond — guess what he turned out to be a fantastic choice, and “Casino Royale” is perhaps the best Bond film since “From Russia With Love” and “Goldfinger”
Hi Sam.
Interesting about the media research. Do you think the large number of different shows has perhaps diluted the impact of Trek somewhat? I mean, when TWOK came out TOS had a solid fanbase and there was a great deal of awareness of it. Back then, people knew Scotty, Kirk, Spock and co.
After years of Picards, Archers, Siskos, Janeways and their crews I imagine it’s going to take some pretty sharp marketing to re-establish a core crew for the franchise. As I’ve said elsewhere, there’s a section of us who saw TOS before the 24th century Trek era, who still make up part of the 18-35 demographic, which I guess helps.
Personally, I don’t think there’s that much contempt for Trek out there, but there’s a good deal of indifference that needs to be overcome!
110, my point isn’t offense taken towards anything stated “officially” as to the content of the upcoming film….
I’m patient for the film and will see it. The writers of this blog apparently have some source that other sites do not…so I come here to read. But in the meantime, as I visit TrekMovie to learn about the film itself — as an actual fan — I must endure derogatory critique after critique of the franchise to-date interspersed with news. Then read commentary that, as a longtime fan, my wishes/interests are less important than those of “the mainstream”. Nowhere have I defended adhering to super-pedantic details at the expense of story — but the commentary here from alleged fans is generally that canon be jettisoned in favor of Battlestar Enterprise.
As if I, as a fan of these stories, should give a damn that the most previous Trek film didn’t gross as much as some mindless action film.
Perhaps I should drop it, join the fray, and change my avatar name to “Mainstream Sucks” or “Picard Owns Your Mother” or “Canon Nerd”, or something else equally juvenile or acerbic.
For the record, “The Tone” of this site was my own summarization and opinion. It is very conceivable that others new to this site could draw the same conclusion, I believe, given the author (Mr. Pascale’s) commentary in addition to those that dominate the thread commentary.
As I said, I come here for the news.
The other part was your characterization verbatim, Dom. Your words.
Hello again – Dom- just for the record, I’m part of that older demographic, I will be 46 in 3 months. I really never thought it was the large number of different shows that hurt Star Trek– I always thought it was the quality of the story telling. I totally TOTALLY LOVED “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, “The Visitor”, “The Way of the Warrior” — I thought that was great story telling. Just my opinion, Star Trek Enterprise was a great concept, but I felt it was lacking in the story telling department.
Think of the best episodes of the TOS, “City on the Edge of Forever”, it was not Kirk bedding some sex bomb alien or beating up 10 guys twice his size and coming out w/o a scratch. He fell in love with a woman of substance, yes she was beautiful (which Star Trek women aren’t???) but it was totally inner beauty and substance that drew him to Edith Keeler (there has never really been a female character in Star Trek quite like her). Kirk had to make a difficult choice, he could not cheat his way out of this one — she had to die to make things right (just like the choice he made with Gary Mitchell). That was Star Trek drama at its absolute best!!!!
The Menagerie, Spock (showing a VERY HUMAN side) risks all to save his former Captain (a tragic figure, once like Kirk — young, handsome dedicated to his crew — perhaps even more human than Kirk). We see him after the terrible accident — you feel Captain Pike’s pain and you feel Spock’s pain at seeing his former Captain now virtually a vedgetable).
These stories touched my imagination and my heart, they GRABBED be into being a Star Trek fan (I’m proud to say that). Believe it or not I own the DVDs for season 1 and season 2 of TOS. I thought that season 3 was just so horrible, I could not bring myself to by the DVDs. “Spock’s Brain” UUUGGGHHHHH!!!!!! Very painful to watch those.
I guess that is what I was trying to say before, perhaps I failed to articulate my thoughts correctly. When I said the “look and feel”, but if JJ Abrams can create a story that will have the drama and heart of those earlier episodes he will be hugely successful!!!
‘The commentary here from alleged fans is generally that canon be jettisoned in favor of Battlestar Enterprise.’
Sorry senya cartel, but who the hell has said the new film should be ‘Battlestar Enterprise?’ And if you’re referring to the experimental web cartoon, just ignore it if you don’t like it! Why are you so possessive of this canon thing anyway. Chill out – JJ’s the guy who decides what he wants to use right now, so relax! No one here is gonna have any impact on the film, so why worry!
‘As if I, as a fan of these stories, should give a damn that the most previous Trek film didn’t gross as much as some mindless action film.’
Dude, if the last Trek film ***had*** been some mindless action film it might have been a better film. Even the cast of ST:Nemesis are hard pressed to talk up that film!!
‘But in the meantime, as I visit TrekMovie to learn about the film itself — as an actual fan — I must endure derogatory critique after critique of the franchise to-date interspersed with news.’
That’s discussion, senya!! A lot of Trek fans have had issues with the franchise the last few years, be they TOS fans, TNG fans or whatever! People voice their opinions and you’ve gotta accept not everyone thinks as you do. But rather than strop about it, discuss it.
‘Then read commentary that, as a longtime fan, my wishes/interests are less important than those of “the mainstream”.’
Ah! That old chestnut! The mainstream is where the real money comes from. The mainstream asses on seats are what get the studio the big money and they’re bound to want it to recoup their investment! A Star Trek film, especially one which to all intents and purposes is another restart for the film franchise (as Generations was), has to explain itself to a new audience, be straightforward about who these characters are. Hopefully you’ll enjoy the film, but, equally, casual cinema-goers need to be able to enjoy the film without buying the Star Trek Chronology first!
‘Perhaps I should drop it, join the fray, and change my avatar name to “Mainstream Sucks” or “Picard Owns Your Mother” or “Canon Nerd”, or something else equally juvenile or acerbic.’
At the moment, it seems you’re the one who’s throwing juvenile strops, mate! Don’t take it so seriously: it’s a movie, not brain surgery!
Hey Sam! Gotcha! I agree.
I love the garishness and operatic violence in TOS, but it had a kind of storytelling that felt honest. Star Trek is what made me love science fiction and it was the first TV show I became a fan of.
The great thing with this new film is that it has the potential to bring in a substantial older audience who watched TOS originally (a demographic sadly often overlooked, IMHO) as well as a new generation of fans.
Dom, re: Nemesis, we’re talking to cross purposes. You and I agree it was bad, but we disagree as to why. Regarding Battlestar Enterprise, I’m not referring to the cartoon thread alone — I’m making a summarization of what I’ve read of the numerous opinions I’ve read here (beyond just yours, Dom) regarding what has supposedly made Trek so “bad” recently. On that topic, it’s literally gone on and on.
Whenever I or others try to change the subject to what we’d LIKE to see rather than what people “hate” about recent Trek, we’re immediately targeted and we hear crying about restraining creativity.
And yes, these are only movies. But then, I’m only commenting about as much or less than the rest of the regulars here, I believe. So I guess it’s more than just a movie to most of those posting here to spend so much time discussing it, eh?
I have no qualm discussing it Dom. I just prefer to discuss it without all the derision.
senya.
One thing we do need to clear up before I log off (it’s 4am over here so I need to get some sleep!) is that when I said I liked ‘the tone’ of the site, I meant the atmosphere, the worldly friendliness, although I didn’t feel any need to specify that – it’s fairly obvious on a site that acknowledges there’s a world beyond Star Trek!
You, on the other hand, defined my expression ‘the tone’ narrowly and differently according to your own prejudices ***after*** I had posted in order to suit your purposes. Doing that is fucking evil! It’s an attempt to smear me and other people here.
End of the day, Anthony runs this site and if he wants to pass a comment, he’s the guy who pays the bills. Anthony, as far as I can see is totally level-headed and utterly fair in anything he says, so I can’t see where your coming from attacking him!
As for people who ‘dominate’ the discussions, I presume you’re talking about some of us who’ve supported this site from the start and therefore know each other a bit better and some more recent additions to the trekmovie family.
I’m sorry you have a problem with us enthusiastically discussing something we like, but I’m pretty sure we’re damned if we’re going to stop because you have a different agenda!! End of the day, rather than criticising the site and the way all of us talk, throw yourself into the discussion and make your points about the subject at hand.
Everyone else: good night and God bless!
You’re getting a little hot about this. My statement about the tone was my opinion. Regarding Mr. Pascale, I didn’t attack him, I stated a contrary opinion. There’s a difference between attacking and stating a contrary opinion. I have no agenda.
Good night to you, Dom.
114. senya cartel
It appears to me that there is a movement to jettison just about everything Trek, except for the characters, and pretty much build from there. For quite some time there has been talk about this. It seems the agenda is to bring Trek up to date. What I’m hearing and reading outside this board, as well inside it, is that many want a darker, grittier Trek. A Trek that reflects the trends of this time period. In order to do that, of course, much of Gene’s vision will have to be dumped. It also appears that a new generation has taken over, and the old is being thrown out with the trash. Sad…but probably true. Old trekkers like me, and I’m guessing here, you, are not going to be heard any longer, so we might as well sit back and enjoy the ride.
Happy New Year everyone!
Senya
you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts…especially about my opinion and the opinion of this site
first of all this site doesnt have a single opinion…one of the goals was a diversity of opinion. I do not agree with everything in the reviews and editorials, but I respect the authors very much
as for my opinions, I hate to use a political comment, but your comments about me and this site ‘attacks the fans and is anti fan’ is the same kind of stuff that says those who are critical of a policy are ‘anti troops’ or ‘anti american’. I will not stand for you to twist my comments around and present them as fact…it is not
I have stated many many times that I love the fans…and by the way…it should be somewhat obvious that I am a fan..why on earth would I make this site if I werent. In fact I made this site in order to spread the news that trek was ‘back’…and set the record straight on various rumors and such…as much as I could.
I have never ever ever said that Paramount should throw away all canon or ignore all the fans…I have just said what is painfully obvious to me and everyone in the industry…there arent enough ‘trekkie’ level fans to support the franchise as a major film franchise…that is just a fact. It is also my opinion that those who have very specific and narrow ‘demands’ on the owners of the franchise are not doing it or themselves any favors
if there is one message I want this site to convey it is that people should be positive and have a very open mind about the future of Star Trek
#123
Regarding your political comment, I couldn’t agree more; especially since I’m the one usually targeted by that kind of twisting in that particular debate. I don’t believe that was what I did here. Rather than rehash it again, what I was referring to in #18 is clearly not a fan-friendly comment (not that you yourself made it). I included your name in reference to post # 29 as well as a general comment regarding the balance of the site — I was especially sore about the Berman-bashing thread that turned largely into a general TNG bashing thread.
I don’t view my expectations as narrow or restraining of creativity. But look, I’m not trying to make it an acid argument. I stopped visiting political blogs because they’re so depressing and nasty — in that discourse, often times the opposing viewpoint is difficult to accept at all….and while Trek is important to all of us reading here, it is just entertainment and I will only be a little (relatively speaking) annoyed if the next film is more mainstream than I prefer it to be.
Sorry to have raised Dom’s and perhaps your own Ire. Despite my disagreements, I’ve recommended your site to 10-20 people since I began reading a month ago.
Hi Stephen.
Jeff Abrams is yet to say anything much at all about what he’s doing with the Trek movie. He certainly won’t be making a 60s pastiche, but I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that he’s changing the fundamentals of Star Trek.
If anything, in hiring Shatner and Nimoy, he’s demonstrating a desire to return to the source material, stripping it back to basics to make it more faithful to what Star Trek originally was. Surely that’s the best way, in a beleagured franchise, to get it back on the rails.
TOS episodes stood comfortably on their own without shaking the ‘continuity’ to the ground and a movie set in that period should be able to as well!
And ‘Gene’s Vision’ is a myth. Lots of people made the original Star Trek series great, meaning ‘Gene’s Vision’ was compromised from the start! TV shows and studio films are always made through compromise and Star Trek was no different. ‘Gene’s Vision’ was the screenplay for ‘The Cage.’ After that it was Desilu’s, Paramount’s, Justman’s, Coon’s, Lucas’s, Freiberger’s, Roddenberry’s and many others’ ‘visions’.
I don’t feel I’m being thrown on the scrapheap by the new team. I feel that my standing by TOS down the years has been vindicated! My favourite science fiction series is coming back and I’m really excited about it!
This review hits the nail on the head: Star Trek 2 and Star Trek 11 seem to have a lot of things in common, so far. I just hope in the end, it’ll be 11 that kinda saves the franchise, so to speak, just like 2 did.
I think, in a small sense, Paramount had the right idea in hiring a new director that had nothing to do with Trek previously (for Nemesis)…the problem was that the rest of the team was basically the same old, same old…especially in the production end of things (and the choice of the director was just poorly done). Star Trek 2 was a breakaway from TMP…Sta Trek 11 WILL BE a breakaway from 10. Maybe everything will be just fine. Let’s hope so!!! Here’s to 2007 & 2008 and all things Trek!
Hello again Dom –
Don’t get me wrong, I LOVED season 2 of TOS, the action packed episodes (”Friday’s Child”, “Prive Little War, “Omega Glory”) and the comedic episodes (”A Piece of the Action”, “I Mudd”, “The Trouble With Troubles”) were very classic and entertaining!!!!! IHowever, if you take close hard look at Season 1 versus season 2 almost all the character’s change. Kirk (my ALL TIME favorite ST Captain, becomes the the character that everyone parodies).
I feel that in season 1 Shatner brought more of a serious (almost Pike like) character to the table (”Court Martial”, “Balance of Terror”, “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, “City of the Edge of Forever” and I really miss that.
THAT is the Kirk that I want to see in this movie.
And, by the sounds of it, we will!! :)
[...] Das Thema der besessenen Rache wird wiederholt sowohl in der Star Trek-Fernsehserie als auch in den Kinofilmen aufgegriffen. Der Bezug auf Captain Ahab ist im zweiten Kinofilm Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan von 1982, noch in der historischen Besetzung mit William Shatner und Leonard Nimoy, am offensten: Während der rachsüchtige Khan die Enterprise durchs All verfolgt, zitiert er ganze Passagen aus Moby-Dick. Am Anfang des Films sieht man das Buch in seinem Regal stehen. [...]