Abrams Talks Canon And Fans February 11, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
In Empire Magazine’s ‘25 Most Exciting Movies of 2008‘ feature, Star Trek director JJ Abrams speaks briefly about the film he is currently shooting. Abrams tells Empire “I’m completely respectful of the Star Trek canon and I feel that there’s a great movie to be made.” And is Abrams worried about us famously persnickety fans?…nope….
Abrams tells Empire
Is it really worth living in fear of fans of a television show? That seems a little silly to me. I’m embracing them and I love the people who care about that series, as they should. I think that we can do them proud.
I think Abrams recent chat with fans here at TrekMovie.com shows that he is willing to engage the fans.
Empire Budget and box office prediction
Empire estimate the budget for Star Trek at $150 Million, but TrekMovie.com has been told this is a bit high, by 10 mil or so. They also have a box office prediction of “$115 million (US gross), $250 million (worldwide)”. This would translate into about 55% of sales coming from outside the US when all Trek films have done the 40% or less. It is hard to see the new Star Trek totally reversing this trend, especially without any A-List stars. TrekMovie.com thinks that Empire’s prediction is low, especially the US part. The optimistic target is for Star Trek to do Batman Begins money or about $200 million domestic and $370 Worldwide..
Comments»
Can’t wait….make something of the Millions…
First?
I am so totally convinced that this film will be a HUGE hit and will only serve to revitalize a nearly dead franchise. Skeptical fans need to be willing to take a few risks… playing it safe according to formula is what made the last two trek films real snoozers AND flops.
I think the movie will rock. I think it will be phenomenal.
That being said, I’ll give it $80 mil domestically, tops.
If this Trek movie can bring a little bit of “grit” and “reality” into Star Trek the way the new Battlestar Galactica TV series did then we have nothing to worry about.
I think people over-estimate how many scifi fans are out there. I hope Star Trek does VERY well, but $200 mil domestic sounds very high to me. The best example we have to gauge is Star Trek: First Contact. It brought in many non-fans as well. It make about $92 mil domestic, which adjusted for inflation puts it at about $124 mil in today’s dollars.
But who can say? Star Trek might be one of the highest grossing films of 2008. I certainly hope so. We’ll just have to see how the audience responds to this new re-boot, or whatever you call it.
That being said, if this movie is good, I will do my part by seeing it at least 3-4 times. I have faith in JJ, Roberto, and Alex. Good luck, gents.
This movie doesn’t come out for another year?
Holy crap. I don’t know if I can wait that long.
Must have more info. More interviews. Pics.
Something.
I think that $200 million ( or so ) is doable for this movie…it’s going to be seen as a fresh start for the series ( whether it’s canon or not, it will be seen as reboot like Batman Begins or Casino Royale by the general audience, especially since it’s simply called “Star Trek”. ) With the bigger budget, this will no doubt be viewed as a spectacle/blockbuster type film, which is a way that this film series has not been for a long time, and that’s another added bonus for the general audience. And unlike when Nemesis came out, it’s not going up against Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings this time. The buzz surrounding the re-casting of the Iconic roles ( not to mention the return of Leonard Nimoy ) will create LOTS of mainstream press for this movie in a way that no Trek film has had in forever. The curiousity factor will be way higher for this one compared to the past 6 films. Will it make the $200 million domestic that is no doubt the target number? Who knows, but even if it makes only $140-150, it will still be the highest grossing Trek film and will no doubt insure a new series of films.
#7 “The buzz surrounding the re-casting of the Iconic roles ( not to mention the return of Leonard Nimoy ) will create LOTS of mainstream press for this movie in a way that no Trek film has had in forever”
Agreed. Plus, this is the first post-TNG production without Berman and Co. at helm. This will bring some more press attention.
There’s a review of the new movie’s toys over at Ain’t It Cool!
Seems Uhura’s got a miniskirt and there’s more cleavage shown! Yay!!!
His complete reboot of the franchise, which traces it back 40 years to the Enterprise’s original crew with an entirely new cast, could well upset die-hard Trekkers. Not that Abrams is worried.
i dont want a ‘complete reboot’
#4
not in my trek. beside like or not that grit and reality, will most likely not be here next film or tv show to follow. sow how will the next production be handeled?
#5
i ony see a movie once. only again id im with some one who hasnt seen ot yet and theyr paying.
#6
calm yourself :D
#5 - I see what you mean, but depending on how it’s marketed it doesn’t have to be exclusive to sci-fi fans, which I believe is probably part of the creative staff’s agenda. I mean the likes of Spider-Man, Star Wars, and Transformers were certainly “Sci-Fi Action” and this movie could potentially be a cross over as well. But you are right, this movie could certainly break the mold.
#9 - You mean what was mentioned on this site just within the past day or so?
http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/10/more-design-clues-from-germanys-toy-fair/
;)
I think Empire’s domestic prediction is probably close, and maybe even a bit optimistic. As for the worldwide gross, I’d probably expect more like $100 million if lucky.
As excited as I am about the film, I still can’t see many non-fans being interested enough to go see it.
I wonder if it’s at all possible or anyone to compliment the current producers of Star Trek without criticising “Beman and Co” ?
Almost every blog on here inevitably goes down this path. I for one am excited about this movie, but can also acknowldge that there have been some wonderful moments brought to life on both the silver and small screens courtesy of Berman, Meyer, Bennett, Pillar etc.
- I’m completely respectful of the Star Trek canon -
I think it’s an unquestionable achievement to be completely respectful of something which doesn’t exist as such.
#13 “I for one am excited about this movie, but can also acknowldge that there have been some wonderful moments brought to life on both the silver and small screens courtesy of Berman, Meyer, Bennett, Pillar etc.”
Yes, I agree with you. I loved TNG (not all the rest and not the movies), but it’s an undeniable fact that the helm had to pass to another crew. What is happening now, the rising interest, the rumors, the excitement, is telling us that Paramount made the right choice in pressing for a change.
Berman was afraid of change..and that changed Star Trek into what it became with Nemesis..boring mediocre SF Stuff.
I guess, Abbrams has the chance to be hugely successful with Star Trek if he dares to make changes. Mostly changes, I hope, that bring Star Trek close to the original, the one and only TOS !! TOS as they would have done it in the sixties if they had had the technical means of today.
JJ and Orci have me so happy I’m almost in a state of disbelief!
THEY GET IT! I CAN RELAX!
…the only problem is I have to wit until they get done making the movie before I can see it! :)
#16 “I hope, that bring Star Trek close to the original, the one and only TOS !! TOS as they would have done it in the sixties if they had had the technical means of today.”
And on this point you are right. We have to extend our scope beyond the fandom boundaries. Yesterday I talked about Trek with some friends of mine. They are sci-fi fans but don’t know anything (neither they care) about Trills, Dominion, Maquis, klingon viruses and so on. 40 years of canon are very heavy and hard to understand by a non-trekker point of view. Trek has to be brought back to its origins: good stories and good characters. Call it reboot, call it revival, but something has to be done.
#15.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I am excited about the curnt changes and believe Star Trek is in good hands. I am merely referring to the constant nagging about what Berman could have done or didn’t do and so on, …
Lets look forward, not back. It’s really easy to sit back and ctiticise others for what might have been. We now have the opportunty to look forward to something new. That’s what should excite us.
Reboot, re-imagining, or whatever, bring Christmas couldn’t come fast enough for rme.
You can’t really call it change if its just another prequel though can you?
I know its not just another prequel. *sigh*
#18. Do you think If TOS ran for more than 3 seasons, they too would have covered more material than they did? i.e. expanded on some f the aliens peviously encountered etc.
Don’t you think DS9, Voy and TNG woul have been rather dull without the variety of alien species or story arcs/threads or characters they covered?
It’s a question of material / or lack thereof forthe amount of televsion hours they had to produce.
#21
TOS episodes had the tendency to be self contained, with some internal reference here and there. IMO, that stories were more accessible and fresh. Modern Trek, in my opinion, tended to be more and more canon oriented, alienating non-trekkies.
I mean no disrespect Anthony, but how come it’s taken so long to report this?
This wasn’t even in the latest Empire. This interview was in LAST months Empire.
Do you guys get the magazine a month later in the US? If so apologies.
#23
why didn’t you give a tip? :-)
I never sat all the way through a Godzilla film. Saw Cloverfield twice. I never watched Transformers on TV. Saw it twice in the theater. If Abrams can broaden the appeal by making this film more like TOS, this could be big.
#25
I have always been bored to death by 007. Saw Casino Royale twice. Reboots, if done well and faithful to the original spirit, may be a good thing :-)
What Trek doesn’t do in box office it will do in toys ,video games,cross merchandising etc.
That may justify it’s 140 mil budget.
I hope it breaks that ceiling of people who won’t see it because it’s another Star Trek film.there’s alot of mainstream people who are very dismissive of Trek because they’ve come to know what to expect (trekkie fanboy films with too many inside jokes0
I never have thought much of big ship sinking disaster, star crossed lover movies, but I saw Titanic 5 times. >;>} Hopefully Star Trek will be good.
$200 million is to high.
Casino Royale made $167 million and Bond has been hot of hate. I don’t see Star Trek being able to hit that number.
I think about $135 million is about right in the U.S.
#17 Commodore Redshirt “…the only problem is I have to wit until they get done making the movie”
Your mispelling of “wait” says it all!
We will all have to show WIT on this site until they bring it home! :)
A few points. They’ve been made before by smarter people, but they bear repeating:
1) Star Trek: The Motion Picture reimagined, even rebooted, a heck of a lot. Then The Wrath of Khan reimagined, even rebooted, a heck of a lot. Costumes alone were completely revamped TWICE. Canon was expanded, if not adjusted, to give Kirk an illegitimate son; am I the only one here to recall fandom’s shock & awe at that development?
2) Speaking of shock and awe — there was no internet back then. So the fans had to shut up and take it. I’ll never forget seeing those first photos of TMP in Starlog and thinking, “What the WHAT did they do to those uniforms? What the HEY did they do to the ship?” Imagine what madness might have overtaken fandom were we given an outlet back then.
3) Finally, it’s important to remember that plenty of new fans hopped on board with the first movies. Wrath of Khan alone probably sucked in Abrams (didn’t he mention something like that in an interview?) and others of his generation. A terrific new film can and probably will produce a whole new crop of fans.
My three cents.
#30- . I don’t think you know what the word “reboot” means- what happened in TMP and TWOK was not a reboot.
A reboot is where the writer goes back to a previous time in the story and changes things that are already established. Like making Starbuck a woman rather than a man on BSG- that’s a reboot. What happened in TMP was that it took place 5 years after the last time we saw them on the final episode of the original series. That’s called a continuation of the story- not a reboot. When you show something later on in the timeline of a story, changing uniforms, the ship or even Shatner’s toupe color is allowed- it means things changed in the trek universe while you were off doing your business.
Abram’s Trek isn’t a reboot because he’s setting the story during a time we haven’t seen before- there’s no way to know what the Enterprise looked like before “the Cage” episode, or what Kirk and Spock were up to- or what their uniforms were like. That’s not a reboot- that’s a hidden part of the history of the characters that is being revealed.
We’ll see. Those pictures of the Enterprise corridors certainly didn’t look like something from someone who gets it.
#28 I agree with VOODOO. No way will Trek top Bond.
#31. Point taken. But I think we’re getting into semantics. Call them what you will — those were all startling changes.
I don’t think it makes 200, but does not enough to warrant sequels. You have to remember that a lot of the money went into building brand new sets, etc…I expect some money to be saved through re-use. The fact that there are no clear A-list stars probably makes actor’s salaries not very “balloonable” for sequels.
Manny Coto is the only one in the past 20 years who knew how to truly helm Star Trek & honor canon. It’s becoming frightfully clear Abrams just doesn’t get it.
arrr… what’s old is new again and what’s new is really old…
Will Paramount market tha flick toting in its trailer “It’s a new captain and a new crew for a new Star Trek…”
Then show explosions and sex and high-end CGI… arrr… That’ll work to bring some new folks inta tha cinemas…
Maybe a studio should try their hand at a truly new sci-fi… maybe Sci-Fi channel could consilidate all their spending on ten o’ those monster beastie flicks and make one real good sci-fi film…
Maybe I would never make it a s a producer… arrr…I’d greenlight anythin’ w/ “boobs” in tha title…
Aw well, here’s hoping for a lively self-contained Trek in December…
And for when it do come out then I say
“I’ll see all of you at the rendezvous. Oh, and all my hopes…”
$200 million domestic!?
I see a gross of no more than $125 million domestic and $65 million foreign. Of course, I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen or heard anything about this movie that would lead me to believe anything else. From a time travel story to basically the same design and look of the TV series, what is so different about this production? Seems like the same ole TREK to me. And, after 10 films where the movies domestically, and especially internationally, have shown poor performance, why all of a sudden now expect hugh returns? Because they are spending around $50 million more than they spent on NEMESIS? I wish this production all the luck in the world, but I just don’t see much that has changed, except TREK is less popular now and is expected to make more money at the box office? Where is the logic?
#32
They looked like Enterprise corridors to me. I’m not sure what some of you are seeing.
Something a lot darker than on TOS.
Brannon Braga used to say that he honored canon. Like that really happened. As for $200 million in gross, given that Nemesis pulled in $42 million domestically, it seems pretty ambitious to think that this movie will do 5 times better.
Granted, there are ways to add to the grosses, but Abrams chose not to do that.
#36–Why? How has that become “quite clear”?
#38–Same old Trek? This movie is a return to the TOS era. I never paid a single dollar to see any TNG movie in a theater, but I guarantee you I will see this one. There are plenty of people like me who will pay to see this film BECAUSE it is TOS-era. Not everyone who was a TOS fan became a TNG fan of the same caliber. Many people I know who gave up on Trek in the mid-80’s are intrigued when I tell them about this project. You are underestimating the worth of the TOS characters.
“Is it really worth living in fear of fans of a television show?”
I don’t know about JJ, but I would definitely be scared of me…after all, I’m quite the “rabid fanboy”!
I spend hours examining screencaps with a microscope to find all the “errors” in them, and then pound out coffee-inspired rants against everyone involved in this movie, as well as their family members, friends, and everyone they have ever come into close contact with, ALL CAPS OF COURSE!!!!! I wait down deserted alleyways for production members to walk through; then I capture them, and torture plot spoilers out of them, which I promptly post on my blog… In addition, I am currently building a personal cloaking device in my parent’s basement, which I hope to use to assasinate JJ Abrams before he can cause any more damage to my precious canon…
Okay, just joking…but not about the cloaking device. That thing is SWEET!
#40–Actually, he IS adding to the grosses by revisiting the TOS era. And let’s not underestimate what HIS NAME brings to the table. His work has an enormous following. He is an A-list director right now. I’m not sure that this many resources have ever been put into a Star Trek project.
Ambitious? Certainly. Unrealistic? I’m not so sure.
You forgot something which would help making the new Star Trek movie more profitable.
Sales from merchandises like DVDs, Hallmark ornaments, Playmate dolls and etc.
It is important for the Paramount to do right and smart marketing strategies to audience in time.
JJ definitely sounds like the right man to be behind the helm of this new enterprise.
Steady as she goes, JJ!
The adventure continues…
I don’t know about bringing $200K, but I sure hope it has that kind of success. I too believe that marketing will be the key. If the film is just marketed towards Trekkies it will not pull in that kind of return. But according to everything I’m reading JJ and team want people to see that this movie is made for everyone, but not leaving fans behind. Without seeing any real marketing (we only have one teaser trailer so far) the only thing I see bringing non-trekkies in will be JJ. He is BIG in hollywood and I actually believe that his name will do so much for this film.
The reason I HAVE to see this film and believe it will work is by everything I’ve read here straight from Roberto Orci. Reading his comments and chats I know he has made sure this movie will be for the fans. JJ will bring in everyone else. I wish the whole thing the best.
If you watch the “bonus” materials that come with the DVD versions of TMP (Director’s Cut), WOK or any of the others, you really get a sense for just how much thought went into making sure the production “fit” with everything that had gone before. Joe Jennings, the production designer, who is interviewed in the bonus materials, talks about how even though it was a “new” movie, the visual sense of the ships, costumes and props all had to “fit” with what had been previously established as the ST universe.
Meyer did make many changes, most notably to give Starfleet more of the feel of a military organization (something Roddenberry detested BTW). One of the things that people tend to forget, however, is that before he was a director, he had achieved success as a writer with another set of fictional characters that are almost as heavily as encumbered with “canon” as ST. In 1974, he wrote the incredibly popular novel “The 7 Percent Solution” featuring none other than Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. Hardcore Holmes fans are as rabid as what have come to be called in this forum ST purists. Anyone familiar with the novel knows Meyer skillfully violates the Holmes canon as he proceeds to create a story worthy of Doyle himself. He repeated this again in ‘76 with “The West End Horror” in which Holmes takes on Jack The Ripper. So he was well-suited to take on these kinds of issues in the ST universe in WOK.
Abrams and company are rationing “hard” info on the film but have spent a lot of time talking in only the most general terms about their approach. It’s hard to tell from their comments what’s been changed and what hasn’t. At this point, though, I am cautiously optomistic that the end result will satisfy both long-term and brand new Trekfans alike.
#34-
I guess what I’m getting at is that the drastic changes in those movies were evolutions. An evolution has a progression from point A to point B in time. In TMP they explained it’s been a few years- kirk was head of Starfleet Operations for 2 and half years. The new ENT was a refit- almost totally new as Capt Decker put it.
So changing ships or uniforms made sense there. Just as it does in Abram’s movie- it’s a prequel, it shows the time frame before the Cage. They are justified in changing the uniforms and the ship- even drastic changes are okay because nothing about that time is established.
#4 - If this Trek movie can bring a little bit of “grit” and “reality” into Star Trek the way the new Battlestar Galactica TV series did then we have nothing to worry about.
If it has some of that blasted “grit” and “reality” like the new BSG, then that really means nothing other than shoving sex scenes into the movie every two minutes and having the characters use projectile weapons (because apparently interstellar travel is feasable, but there’s something “unrealistic” about energy weapons…). Bottom line, I REALLY hope they don’t go for a New BSG style of movie. The new BSG is horribly over-hyped and is, at it’s core, an overdramatic melodrama with sub-par acting from those involved.
I’m actually feeling a little optimistic about this movie, now that I hear that the uniforms and gadgetry are going to be (allegedly) identical to those used in the old show. We may never get to see the TOS Enterprise on the big screen, but at least we’ll get to see part of TOS up there. That’s a step in the right direction.
“Reboot” means whatever the speaker points to and calls a reboot.
#44–I agree, however, I think that estimate is of the “box-office gross”. Hopefully, Paramount will not need toys and collectibles just to make their money back (although it would be foolish not to explore those kinds of diversified ventures).
#42… well said… I don’t think anyone was hoping for another NG-era movie. But by returning to Trek roots, what most people think of when you say “Star Trek,” JJ is making it exciting again.
TOS is what people remember and love. Even those that enjoyed TOS and never watched the spinoff shows, will want to see this.
It’s gonna be a huge hit BECAUSE it’s original Trek. “Same old Trek” to the general audience would be the stuff that’s been playing on TV for the past few shows.
I was hoping the whole crew were wearing pants like in Star Trek: The Cage, it looks more like they are wearing uniforms in Starfleet than a 60’s party in miniskirts. I remember Troi in Next Generation was told to get in to uniform her miniskirt wasn’t Starfleet. I don’t mind if someone else was wearing a miniskirt but not Starfleet Officers.
Im a big next gen fan, but grew up with TOS I love them both and think this is gonna be such a good thing for Trek, & Sci Fi in general the genre needs a friggen boost..
#49 -
I actually agree with The TOS Purist on this one! “Realism” is one thing… but to emulate the “grit & reality” of something like the New Battlestar Galactica would be a HUGE step in the wrong direction. The best STAR TREK should make you HAPPY to be alive and bring a sense of wonder and wish-fulfillment to those watching it. You should WANT to be able to hang out with Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al.
The New BSG makes me want to slit my wrists. Although I don’t think it’s as bad as TOS Purist says it is, there’s NO WAY I’d want to spend a minute in that universe.
Bring on the sense of wonder, imagination and HUMOR back to STAR TREK XI !!!
#32, 39 - If you are referring to the pyramidal shaped corridors: I never like those: they look like they waste space. They could have done TOS type corridors (rectangular) only not quite as wide.
First movie with huge budget, new actors, original tos setting and top notch director. This flick is really *new* stuff!
#55
Agreed. We have had our share of grit & reality with DS9 and the Dominion War. Now back to Roddenberry, please! ;-)
Honestly, that is a budget out of control. Sometimes big budget works, but it is totally not necssary. They are taking a big gamble on this film… too big. Bring it in cheaper but looking bigger. No I’m not an executive producer expert but given the resources of 100+ million for a movie… I just think this is bad.
Keep this movie basic but very flashy. Doesn’t CGI save a lot of money esp with respect to ships vs models?
Also I”m sure someone has said this but please please please look at the examples of Nick Meyer. He used a lot of extra stuff to make his Trek movies work, but he also knew how to keep the story on track and make the visuals work.
Again big budget and JJ (who may turn out to be a douche like Michael Bay at some point, we don’t know yet) in big hollywood could be a problem for this series.
STAR TREK vs BATMAN…..cool…i’m totally agreed with the ideea that..this movie could be a ‘breeze of fresh air’ in the sci -fi world…
Well, all I know is that they’re gonna get about 20 or 30 out of me personally, plus whoever I can drag. And that’s just for the tix. I’m sure the dvd, action figure, mini-ships, sports cups, t-shirts, commemorative boxers, themed candies, and Romulan Happy Meal (now with Romulan Ale) will add a few more dollars to Paramount’s mountain of cash.
#49 & #55 -
I was about to write about grit and reality until I read your insightful comments, and realized that my hope for the film is definitely deeper than just achieving a different tone than past Treks. Hey, DS9 had its share of grit - look at “Terok Nor” and some of the Dominion battles.
No, what I’m hoping for is that JJ & Co and integrate all the best elements of Trek that have appeared at different times, into one film. Now, I don’t believe they can do that by *attempting* to do that (they’ve got to tell the story they need to tell - hence no Shatner), but I hope that their efforts pay off that way.
My dream would be a film that integrates the fun-loving likability of the characters from TOS, the focussed story-telling and badass villianry of Khan, the gravitas and epic sweep of The Undiscovered Country, the socio-political realities of TNG and DS9, and the grit of DS9.
Having said that, I think (and hope) the main departure this film will make is from the “canned” feel of trek. I don’t know enough about film-making to know why, but it seems to me that I haven’t felt like I’ve been in outer-space watching trek since Undiscovered Country. But given the trailer, it looks like those fears are being assuaged.
I have to agree with J.J. Abrams on fans and canon; there’s no way to please everybody and if you tried then you’ve already lost as a storyteller.
#34–Your thoughts were not lost on ME! I understand you completely, I think. Changes can be canonically explained, as they were successfully explained in TMP.
#49–Glad to see that you’re feeling optimistic. And I don’t think Star Trek has anything to learn from BSG, Dr. Who, Star Wars, or anything else…
#55–As long as the “humor” is not seemingly “forced” as it was in STV.
#57– Personally, I would like to see them “exploring strange new worlds”, “seeking out new life and new civilizations”, and of course– “boldly going where no man has gone before”, once again. That is something the movies have always lacked or seemed to have ignored. If that is what you mean by “getting back to Roddenberry”", then I agree!
Iowagirl
warning for trolling…your act is getting old
comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback
I believe that shows like BSG have brought quite a few folks into the Sci-Fi fold especially the 20 somethings. With JJ having a huge fan base with LOST and so much publicity associated with this movie that if the reviews are good, it can pull in 200mil. Then maybe the “suits” will realize that in the right hands, Star Trek still has a lot of life left and alot of stories that still need to be told. I am hoping the movie rocks so we get more Star Trek.
#32 - - Didn’t the corridors look similar in “The Cage”, and various scenes in TOS?
I’m thankful that in 2008, we even get to discuss such things however! After Nemesis I can remember thinking that we may never get a new ST movie, and if we did It would be a complete departure from what we all know and love. I’m hopeful this movie will “enhance” what we already know about trek, like Mr. Orci said.
There’s not a chance in the world this movie is going to do $200 million domestic. $115-$125 is much more realistic and perhaps that’s even a tad high. Star Trek movies just don’t have a history of high grosses and their foreign box office has always been a fraction of the domestic gross, sometimes a pretty low fraction in fact. So as I have said before, here or elsewhere, I just don’t see the studio making a profit on this at the box office. DVD and merchandising, sure, but considering that the studio gets something like 40 cents for every dollar taken at the box office window, they’re gonna have to gross about $300 million to break even on a picture with a budget in the $140 - $150 million range (and that doesn’t account for promotion either), which was the problem “Superman Returns” had - a ‘too high’ budget in comparision with the very respectable business it did.
#32 & #39
Those corridors, such as what we saw on ncc-1701.com remind me of walking through an office that is under construction. The lighting is temporary, the corridors are not completely finished, but the general shape and form are there. I’m guessing that once the final product (i.e, the film) comes out, we will see something that looks much more along the lines of what we are used to.
#63 “If that is what you mean by “getting back to Roddenberry””, then I agree!”
That’s exactly my point :-)
#13: “I wonder if it’s at all possible or anyone to compliment the current producers of Star Trek without criticising “Beman and Co” ?”
Adam, I agree with you. Berman and company brought us a lot of godd stuff. Tell me any other show that has lasted 20 years that doesn’t have some episodes that might be considered lackluster. I, for one, think they did a great job.
That is not to say that I don’t think they could have taken the show in other directions than they did, but it is a mute point.. it is now history and time for us to move on (I’m sure Berman has since then).
There is so much to be excited about concerning Abrams and Orci’s vision, the latest being descriptions of costumes, phasers and communicators. James Cawley’s positive feedback, as well as Leonard Nimoy’s involvement, speak to the inevitable success this film is sure to achieve within the fan community, and no doubt will be well-received in the general public domestically and internationally due to Paramount’s marketing machine and higher budget.
However, someone needs to quietly take Abrams aside and mention that remarks such as “this Star Trek thing” and “Is it worth living in fear of fans of a television show” do not engender positive feelings on the part of the fans. Star Trek was not just “a television show”, as its history attests. No other television show has ever prompted the outpouring of loyalty and attention that TOS has throughout the decades. Surely his remarks are not meant to offend; however, just a bit of wording tact on his part would serve to make his job easier insofar as appealing to the fanbase of this singularly iconic “television show”.
#49 WHAT? BSG is good enough to get my wife hooked (she literally won’t miss an episode) and is not a sci fi fan at all. I have exposed her to Star Trek for years and years, and I am a huge fan, but she thinks it sucks. She LOVES BSG, Starbuck et al……SO, my point is: She is the everyday Joe tv watcher and likes BSG, so maybe if the new TREK movie is more like it, it will attract more NON trek watchers, not the the radical TOS purists. What the hell does that mean anyway? Are you all PO’d over the Knight Rider movie too? Ford vs. GM and all that? I am not flaming (at least not intentionally, I just take a little offense to what was said in #49)
Give me a red bridge railing and a Mugatu running around in the background and I’ll be a happy camper!
#68
Funny. Looking at those corridors from ncc-1701.com a friend of mine (not Trek fanatic) told me: “hey, those are the corridors of Kirk’s Enterprise in the 60s!”
You see, they are not identical but the shape is faithful to the original design. People recognizes them, and I think that this is the exact goal of the new Trek crew.
# 73 Arrr… grand idea… as the new kirk get bit, then Spockie Jr. can tell him:
“It is logical to him to administer his deadly bite. However, Captain, I fail to see the logic behind having a pet Mugato on the bridge of a starship.”
To which Kirkie replies: “Like I told your half-brother, Spock… I… need…. my pain!”
McCoy in background, looking at rail: “It’s red, Jim.”
arrrrr….
43–I agree returning to the TOS era is a good idea, but too bad he made such a big mistake with his other big decision. He is an A list TV creator. But his big screen work isn’t all that impressive. Mission Impossible was already a hit franchise before he got to it. Trek is at an all time low. This is also a guy who once had control over the Superman franchise and thought it was a bright idea to make Lex Luthor a Kryptonian.
“Reboot” is what happens when a computer is shut down and restarted ;-)
Truth be told, from the “Toy Spy Reports” and what has actually been said, I think Star Trek is in very good, and highly creative hands.
#75 “it’s red, Jim”
Congrats, BND! I laughed out loud when I read that! Good one! :)
I think it could hit big or tank, but there’s no telling. There hasn’t been a Trek movie in a while, which helps. The story seems kind of complicated and the use of identical uniforms invites direct comparisons with the old crew. Who knows?
#67–Again, Star Trek has never had an A-list director (or one who carries with him such avid fans of his work), and serious mainstream marketing of the film has yet to even begin.
#13, #70–Even someone like me, who never really cared for any of the “spinoff” series (with the exception of being in the minority that are ENT fans), has to admire their longevity. You both make excellent points.
#72–Actually, although you and your wife may very well represent a significant demographic, I tend to agree with #49. I am by no means a general Sci-fi fan. For some reason, Star Trek (TOS) grabbed me by the ears and hasn’t let go since. I cannot sit through BSG, and I would submit that BSG fans are far fewer in number than Trekkies, Trekkers, etc.. My wife doesn’t get Trek either. She likes horror films and romantic comedies. That doesn’t mean I want JJ to turn this into an intergalactic slasher film or something like—”When Spock Met T’Pring”! I’m going to drag her to see it anyway, just like she drags me to see movies I don’t care to see. Once in awhile, we actually surprise one another (She even appreciated STIV, once I force-fed it to her! LOL).
BND#75- I Need My Pain! LOL!
Robert Wise, A-List.
#63 -
Don’t worry, I meant character-driven humor, not the painful slap-schtick of STAR TREK V. I’m looking for great, humorous character moments like:
-”Shut up, Spock! We’re rescuing you!”
-”Pardon me, there is a multi-legged creature crawling up your shoulder.”
-”Mr. Spock, is that a… a giant hand?”
Stuff like that. Makes you laugh and smile.
73: What if JJ gave you that? Every time they show the Bridge, he’s there running around the red rail making all kinds of noise and poking that horn all over the place. You’d be to blame.
Though maybe they’ll make him more “gritty” this time. Maybe that red rail will be more “gritty,” too, filthy and rusted.
I don’t understand this need to constantly get grittier. On DS9, they turned the lights down and said it was gritty. BSG, from the little I have seen, is more spartan and military-ish. How much grit is enough?
The Federation and Starfleet exist in an enlightened time, and the Big E is run as a flagship by a highly disciplined military. Serenity is gritty, and the Millenium Falcon is gritty, both outlaw ships, patched together by Scotch tape and spit. The Enterprise should never be like that. It should be comfortable and home to the 430 people aboard, and it should look majestic and amazing.
Organic? That’s another story. Let’s see how that goes!
Does Empire have any track record for box office predictions? How much did they predict “I Am Legend” or “Cloverfield” would make.
That might give us an idea whether their prediction is reliable or not.
#76–You said,
“I agree returning to the TOS era is a good idea, but too bad he made such a big mistake with his other big decision. He is an A list TV creator. But his big screen work isn’t all that impressive. Mission Impossible was already a hit franchise before he got to it. Trek is at an all time low. This is also a guy who once had control over the Superman franchise and thought it was a bright idea to make Lex Luthor a Kryptonian.”
Mission Impossible II was a bomb, yet his MI:III was a booming success. As for Superman, you are talking about a story that has been rebooted over and over. Look at the successful tenure of “Smallville”. That is hardly the Superman we know. “Lost” has a huge following, and Transformers may not have impressed you—but it sure made alot of money. Even I saw it, and I couldn’t have named you one single character before that.
I won’t waste much space arguing over your assertion of a “big mistake” having already been made, except to say that as far as encouraging non-avid fans like himself to take this movie seriously—that may have been an extremely good decision. I know I breathed a huge sigh of relief.
#82–Maybe amongst the filmmaking community, but I had never heard of him.
Cloverfield is now at over $132m worldwide (Boxofficemojo.com), with 76 coming from the USA.
If I recall, Cloverfield was almost a complete secret right up until then end of ‘07. I don’t think anyone would be predicting it’s box office so far beforehand, ’cause no one knew about it.
Yep. Robert Wise was a big one.
87 - I’m sure you did, but didn’t know about it. Ever hear of a little flick called “Sound of Music”?
It is interesting that many Trek fans can’t stand the new BSG and vice versa. I don’t understand that at all. Both are iconic franchises IMO.
The only other sci-fi show that caught my attention was Babylon 5 and I think it fell in between Trek and BSG. A dangerous world with a lot of optimism…
Others:
Star Wars - Meh, saw the movies. Enjoyable but not much more.
Space 1999 - Interesting concept but was a little goofy.
Original BSG - Watched it but never took it serously.
StarGate - I can’t get into it… I’ve tried but it just doesn’t click with me.
Andromeda - Ugh.
Firefly - Not really a fan but the movie Serenity was excellent.
For me, there are two states of Star Trek: one where there is a weekly TV show, and one where there isn’t. The rest is just tie-ins. I maintain sincere (though not powerfully strong) hopes that the success of this film will return us to better of those two states … Because while films are nice, fun, exciting, high-profile tie-ins, they can’t touch a weekly TV show for the character stuff, and when it comes down to it what I enjoy the most about Trek is the day-to-day lives-of-the-characters stuff that puts drag on a 120-minute feature, but brings depth and attachment to a weekly series.
I hope the movie rocks, and every day I have higher hopes along those lines. But what I want (as long as we’re wishin’) is Trek back where it belongs: on the small screen.
“Robert Wise, A-List”
Agreed. Doesn’t get much more A-list than that.
“Mission Impossible II was a bomb, yet his MI:III was a booming success”
My recollection is that M:I 3 was a middling success and there was much talk, at the time, of how much Tom Cruise’s weird behavior and nationally syndicated couch-jumping hurt the movie’s box office. In fact, I think M:I 3’s modest box office was the prelude to Cruise’s development deal with Paramount going south.
#84–I’m a little lost on that one too.
Anthony-
I’m a first time poster, long time reader.
I don’t know where else to post this and I’m not sure how to submit news items, but here is a very cool article about NASA helping out on the production of the Trek film. They helping out as a consultant on planetary science and imagery. So here is the url:
http://www.space.com/entertainment/080211-star-trek-advisor.html
Hopefully this will get to where everyone can see it.
#91 “Space 1999…”
My second love after Star Trek. A lot of metaphysical and cerebral storylines. Good sci-fi, in my opinion. Adequate special effects and quite realistic scientific details. (apart from the premise of the moon leaving orbit).
I’m looking forward to contributing to the profit margin. The movie studios are finally delivering something I want to buy: a ticket to a new Star Trek movie! :)
Thanks, J.J. and team! $10 ticket/2 hours of my time sometime in late December 2008. I’m eagerly awaiting!
kinda pointless unless they are traveling to Jupiter in the movie..*yawns*
#93 - Too bad about MI:3’s box office results. It was the best of the three. I’m no Tom Criuse fan but when I finally rented it I had to sit back and admit it was a fine movie…
#96 - Yeah that moon was moving pretty fast wasn’t it? LOL.
I really ought to go back and watch them again. It was the first sci-fi show I saw in its original airing and I was very young at the time. Maybe it needs a second chance with me…
#90–Yes. But let’s just say that wasn’t my cup of tea. That is more my wife’s genre. I cannot imagine hyping the new Star Trek film to mainstream moviegoers by highlighting that directing credit. I’m not calling JJ a Scorsese, a Coppola, or a Spielberg, but his name has a bit more “mainstream” appeal than “the guy who directed TSOM”. I won’t debate whether that is deserved, but I find it a fair assessment of the perception that ultimately is—reality.
“Maybe amongst the filmmaking community, but I had never heard of him.”
Never heard of Robert Wise …?
The Sound of Music
West Side Story
The Day the Earth Stood Still
The Haunting
The Andromeda Strain
The man’s a legend.
Re: #101 - so if you’ve never heard of him, he’s a nobody. Ok. I see where you’re coming from now.
#95: That’s a blockbuster post. Thanks for that. This just keeps getting better and better!
#76 “make Lex Luthor a Kryptonian”
Yes, but in all fairness….that was apparently due to the influence of Jon Peters, a “producer” who should have done the world a favor and remained a hairdresser, which is what his occupation WAS before pushing his way into Hollywood!
I think this movie will do for Trek what Batman Begins did for that franchise, though I am not sure it will gross the same $$.
Berman and Co., did some great work, but the last two TNG movies were so formulaic and weak. Clearly they had run out of creative ideas, or, possibly, they had to work too hard to create a script that appeased the ego of its stars (another version of Data? A romulan relative of Picard? Please….)
#95 - Welcome Vincent - Ignore the trolls. They haven’t been fed yet….
99
It had original music cues from the show. Specifically use of the cue “The Plot” which was some of the best music from the show.
101 - ok so TSOM was just the first that came to my mind. How about “The Day the Earth Stood Still”? “Curse of the Cat People”? “Andromeda Strain”? The original version of “The Haunting”? “West Side Story” even. And probably a few more I’m not remembering. I’ve never watched Abrams’s TV stuff and while I did like MI:III, it’s the only directorial credit on his resume. I’m venturing a guess that in 1979 Robert Wise’s name was probably MORE widely known to a MUCH larger mainstream audience than Abrams is today.
#95 - - Great article.
With Abrams track record the new trek movie has hit written all over it. As to the budget so they may overspend a little. the film will make back the money and then some. No worries here. I think the film will satisfy both hard core trek fans and non trek fans alike.
RW won 2 Oscars for WSS and TSOM, and worked on countless others. He may not have been perfect for TMP, but the Director’s Edition, also supervised by him, makes up for a lot.
# 111 - Hope so. There are a lot of entrenched positions here tho…
#4 - “If this Trek movie can bring a little bit of “grit” and “reality” into Star Trek the way the new Battlestar Galactica TV series did then we have nothing to worry about.”
I’m all for realism, but using “Galactica” as a model of anything that should be done to Trek doesn’t work for me. I certainly hope that our characters remain heroes, instead of being transmogrified into the sort of folks that nuBSG holds up as models.
#7 - “( whether it’s canon or not, it will be seen as reboot like Batman Begins or Casino Royale by the general audience, especially since it’s simply called “Star Trek”. ) ”
And, really, that’s fine, because in the sense of returning to the beginnings of Trek to tell a new story, that’s exactly what it is. And if it’s bringing us the “origin” story that Classic Trek never had, canonically, then staying in continuity really shouldn’t pose any sort of difficulty, because it can simultaneously be an origin for that show and something entirely new, both for fans and not-yet-fans alike.
(Admittedly, “respect for canon” isn’t necessarily a pledge to stay in continuity, as we’ve discussed on this very site, but I’ll give him enough benefit of the doubt to keep the potential of committing $150-200 of my money to seeing this film, at least until there’s some greater evidence that continuity is going to be abandoned. ;) )
#13 - Totally agreed.
#14- “I think it’s an unquestionable achievement to be completely respectful of something which doesn’t exist as such.”
Sure it does, at least as a fictional world. It’s not seamless and perfect, but in the broad sense, there certainly is what has been termed a “canon” and by which people really mean a “general continuity”.
#16 - “Berman was afraid of change..and that changed Star Trek into what it became with Nemesis..boring mediocre SF Stuff.”
I’m not sure I’d argue that Berman was afraid of change. He was, though, very committed to TNG, and didn’t realize that the general public had moved on. We know from interviews, for example, that Paramount was talking about doing something entirely fresh for STX, but Berman talked them into one more TNG. The results demonstrated that Berman had gotten out of touch with the public. It wasn’t even so much whether “Nemesis” was good or bad; it was that the public never even gave it a chance. It was the first Trek film for which I didn’t see opening-day lines (and I’ve been at theaters for opening weekend of every Trek film since TMP). The public had moved on from TNG, exactly as Paramount wanted to do, but Berman convinced them to do one more, and they got shellacked at the box office. That they had lost faith in Berman after that comes as little surprise.
#20 - “You can’t really call it change if its just another prequel though can you?”
I sure can, if the style and tone of the production is different from the last 4-5 films. It’s not change as in throwing out continuity that’s needed; it’s change as in making a Trek film that reflects modern sensibilities.
#105 - Agreed.
Just to fine tune my remarks in response to “Mission Impossible II was a bomb, yet his MI:III was a booming success” - the numbers don’t bear out that remark at all. According to Box Office Mojo:
Mission Impossible made $180 million domestic on an $80 million budget
MI2 made $215 million domestic on a $125 million budget
MI3 made $134 million on a $150 million budget.
So for whatever reason(s), Abrams’s MI was by far the least successful of the three. Biggest budget and smallest domestic gross in the franchise.
#105 - Agreed!
test
#105- Agreed!
#115 - Yeah, one of the big reasons was all the bad publicity it got from Tom Cruise and his couch jumping exhibition on Oprah. I finally got around to watching it on DVD and it was clearly the best of the three…
#115: John Woo’s MI2 made over $546m (oh my!) with international, and MI3 398m. Ka-ching!
Woo was riding the coattails of Face/Off, I believe.
115 - - After MI:2 no one wanted to see MI:3 because MI:2 was so bad. But Abrams made MI:3 into more than just one big action scene IMO.
If Paramount considered Abrams work on MI3 a failure, why did they sign him to a multimillion dollar multi-year, multi-pic deal one month after it came out? The film made about 600 mil with DVD sales and any poor perormance in the Domestic box office was attributed to Tom Cruise’s bad publicity.
Vincent and others
I appreciate it when people make tips, but there is a tipline on the right column (where it says ‘got tips’). Obviously in the case of this story…we were already on the case and have the only interview with the new science advisor
#91 - “It is interesting that many Trek fans can’t stand the new BSG and vice versa. I don’t understand that at all. Both are iconic franchises IMO.”
They might both be iconic, but I think they couldn’t be more different in how they portray the future. Where Trek exudes optimism, BSG, especially nuBSG, is a much darker world. Trek’s characters are heroes; original BSG’s are heroes… nuBSG’s characters are just people trying to survive, and most of what nobility they may have had has been burned away in the crucible of what they’ve experienced.
Both approaches are valid storytelling strategies, but it doesn’t surprise me at all that they might appeal to different groups of people, and that the crossover appeal might be more limited.
Joss Whedon used to describe “Firefly” as the “anti-Star Trek”. After having watched both, I think that description applies far more to nuBSG than it does to “Firefly”.
“The only other sci-fi show that caught my attention was Babylon 5 and I think it fell in between Trek and BSG. A dangerous world with a lot of optimism…”
Agreed there. I really enjoyed “Babylon 5″.
If memory serves me (and the old grey cells they ain’t what they used to be) MI:III received the best notices of all three movies. That combined with Abrams TV success may have done it. IMHO, it is the best of the three movies. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a great actor who normally isn’t seen in “bad guy” roles (unless you count his most recent appearance in “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead”.
#103–No need for that. I just meant that the name doesn’t resonate (right or wrong) among the audience of mainstream moviegoers that we are talking about targeting. I’m not sure what is so difficult to understand about that. Whether you feel it is justified or not, there are a great deal more ordinary moviegoers who recognize his name than the apparently well-credited Robert Wise.
You said,
“The man’s a legend.”
His work may indeed be, but his name is not. It just doesn’t resonate with younger audiences the way JJ Abrams does. You are apparently well-versed in directing credits, but you are making quite the assumption that everyone else should be.
It should also be noted that MI:III had a score that was much more closely based on the original TV show’s recurring themes and style that the first 2 installments.
Also, it was full of stylistic homages and updates to how the original show was done.
Masked reveals, covert operations where you only was the full picture of the operation after it was completed.
It was also quite a fun ride, from what I remember.
MDSHiPMN: I remember MI2 getting great advance press and good reviews because Woo was flavor of the month with his Hong Kong Phooey fight scenes, and his work with Travolta/Cage.
$400m for MI3 is pretty darn good, but not as great as $546m for 2! I think all of JJ’s business came from fans of MI2. STXI is really his first great leap into film direction without riding someone else’s coattails in a thriving franchise. He’s directing the 2nd best Trek cinema director as Spock, and I hope he is using Nimoy to assist with his learning curve. He has no bump from Nemesis like he did with MI2, so I think it is a massive challenge for him to make his name as a film director. For his own career plans, I am sure this is make-or-break.
119: Ummmm… It’s called a write off? ha ha
Just kidding. However, Tom Cruise being a freak doesn’t change the fact that MI3 was, as Eric Cartman would say, WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAK!
I really want this movie to be amazing. I hope that JJ, Orci & Kurtzman are doing the right thing. I agree that ST needs to be revitalized but I can understand some of the concern and uproar expressed in some of the posts… Especially when you look at their track records on IMDB.com.
Romulans, huh? If our Star Fleet heroes interact with them it sounds like an alternate time line since no one in the Federation knew what they looked liked until “Balance of Terror” in TOS.
102: Yeah, Robert Wise was a talented guy. Many of the problems with TMP have been well documented and were clearly out of his control.
#112–I love TMP, especially the director’s edition.
#115–Apparently, Paramount did not think so. They have put alot of faith in JJ. Cruise’s strange behavior in public may have hurt the initial draw, but it was the most entertaining of all three, IMO (although the mindless action movies are not my favorites).
#126–You said,
“Romulans, huh? If our Star Fleet heroes interact with them it sounds like an alternate time line since no one in the Federation knew what they looked liked until “Balance of Terror” in TOS.”
Only if they interact with them as their younger selves…and it may very well be as a result of an alternate timeline.
What strikes me about your post and so many others is this continued reference to early first season episodes of TOS as canon, when almost all of that has been discarded long ago.
Since you brought up “Balance Of Terror”, did they not (Mr. Styles, I believe) descibe Romulan ships as being painted like “Birds Of Prey”? Yet somehow, this little factoid is either forgotten or rebooted into a Klingon tradition by STIII. It also implied that warp technology was not around 100 years before TOS, and that atomic weapons were being deployed by starships at that time as well, both of which are discarded as canon details later by the second and third seasons. And that is just one episode. Even the Okudas have given up on trying to fit the first half of season one into canon, so why is Mr. Abrams expected to adhere to a standard which Star Trek (in any incarnation) has never lived up to?
>>
Romulans, huh? If our Star Fleet heroes interact with them it sounds like an alternate time line since no one in the Federation knew what they looked liked until “Balance of Terror” in TOS.
>>
I’ve seen no script pages saying that Romulans interact with TOS-era characters, other than the widely purported assassination of JTK. They pop into the past, kill Kirk, and go home. That’s not much face time, and if anyone did see them, they’d go, “huh. Cranky Vulcans?”
#92–Amen to that. I tend to think that the possibility of future Trek on the small screen is tied to the success of it, this time around, on the big one.
$135 million US
150 Outside of US
My predeiction
$135 million US
150 million Outside of US
My prediction…
#120—
Anthony said,
“…we were already on the case and have the only interview with the new science advisor.”
And that is why the carbon units continue to infest this site!
“Apparently, Paramount did not think so. ”
Paramount didn’t think so what? All I cited were the numbers, which show Mr. Abrams’ entry was the lowest domestic grossing film in the franchise. That’s a fact, whether Paramount thinks so or not. That has nothing to do with the merits of the film itself, but it does put to lie your earlier assertion that “MI2 was a bomb and MI3 was a booming success”. All I’m suggesting is that you get your facts straight before opining on things you don’t know about, like Robert Wise’s legendary career, which you were obviously ingnorant of when you started referring to Abrams as the only A-List director to ever do a Star Trek film. Wanting to come across as a well-informed guy with his finger on the pulse of the filmgoing public is fine if that’s what you’re shooting for, but you have to have something to back it up besides poorly informed opinion.
#71–Denise, I think his interaction with us here–if nothing else–should give him a little slack with hardcore fans like those of us who post on this site. Mr. Orci made a good point awhile back when he pointed out that they are likely to tailor their choices of words differently when speaking to the “mainstream” media, as opposed to the way they approach the avid fan community. Ultimately, I think we (as fans)have more than adequate representation among the decision makers.
It doesn’t have to LOOK like 1960’s Star Trek
It has to FEEL like 1960’s Star Trek
In the long run that’s all that counts
If JJ can make it FEEL like 1960’s Star Trek then the goal is met
Lets face it, it hasn’t FELT like that in a long time now
- W -
* I’ll gladly part w/ my $10 this christmas if JJ can do that one thing *
I need to see a lot more on this sucker before I can offer a prediction on its success or failure.
It’s absurd to expect directorial wonders from anybody so soon out of youthdom. Some of the greatest film directors have created their best works well into their later years. It seems likely that, much like the greats from the mid-seventies film school generation, Abrams will find it necessary to tinker with his current movies after a decade or two has passed.
#134–As far as Mr. Wise’s obviously distinguished career goes, you are missing the point. Those are admittedly successful films. Perhaps I chose the words, “A-list director”, rather poorly. It seems that is a hanging offense in your mind. Maybe the term, “hot Hollywood name” is better suited. Abrams is that “hot name” that the Trek franchise needs at the helm of the new film. I didn’t know who Robert Wise was back in ‘79 either, and I’m quite sure there were many other mainstream moviegoers who did not as well. I doubt many people paid to see TMP because they really enjoyed TSOM.
I am not sure how accurate those figures you gave are, but as Anthony has pointed out in post #119, MI3 has done over $600 million as of now. I can remember when it opened, and Cruise’s behavior did result in some bad initial publicity. I saw both movies, and not only was MI3 more entertaining, but it was also more true to the feel of the original series. I also remember MI2 getting very disappointing reviews. If it really grossed more than $600 million from then until now…then I stand corrected.
You said,
“All I’m suggesting is that you get your facts straight before opining on things you don’t know about, like Robert Wise’s legendary career, which you were obviously ingnorant of when you started referring to Abrams as the only A-List director to ever do a Star Trek film. Wanting to come across as a well-informed guy with his finger on the pulse of the filmgoing public is fine if that’s what you’re shooting for, but you have to have something to back it up besides poorly informed opinion.”
Well Sir, my opinion is based on JJ Abrams’ current popularity. He is very recognizable today as co-creator of one of the most popular tv series on right now, a very successful Transformers movie, a MI installment which has made $600 million up to now, and Cloverfield–which is doing well for what it is. Are you really under the impression that he is not?
Like I said in another post, I liked TMP very much (although that opinion isn’t shared by everyone), but whether you admit it or not , his name was not as “hot” in 1979 as JJ’s is in 2008. That has nothing to do with the quality of his past work, rather his “popularity” at the time. I had no idea what his previous credits were–so shoot me! Don’t blame me, blame his publicist!
It IS MY OPINION that Mr. Abrams is the right kind of guy in Hollywood to make a StarTrek film successful among a younger and broader audience. That was the whole point of my original post. If Abrams can make a blockbuster movie out of a silly 1980’s cartoon, I don’t think that is quite the “poorly informed opinion” you describe it to be. You have every right to disagree, but I do not feel any different about what I said, other than an admittedly poor choice of words in the term, “A-list director”.
bill hiro
warning for flaming/trolling
everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Your views are not facts and bullying and attacking others is not done here
comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee150/robinalexander_1988/trek_poster.jpg
mine view of how the enterprise will be assembeld in space.
of topic but thought I like to share with you guys
Well, Abrams is hardly “A-list.” as he has no films to his credit as such. Robert Wise directed TMP after an endless career filled with achievements.
What JJ has is chops, some credibility, desire, kick-ass writers and a budget to fulfill the “dreams of avarice.” This is his breakout as a director if that’s what he wants to be. Trek is the vehicle. Go JJ.
As a fan, all I can do is wish JJ the best, because all of us want Trek to LL&P.
#142–You got that right. See you guys tomorrow. I hope it is a good news day.
142 A J its nice to know that the vast majority for trek like us that are behind film . That said , there seem to be large number of hardcore trek who for mostly unfathomable reasons want his project to fail or wish it had never come to pass in the first place.
Garovorkin: I want it t succeed because I have loved it my whole life, as have many here. Final chance!
hey, I appreciate what these guys are doing, even though it appears that they won’t keep the iconic exterior of the E…
146 The ship looks cool actually, and besides when they started do doing the Star trek moves they did a few redesigns. on the engines and exteriors. So I am not concerned that it doesn’t t look excactly like the original. It close enough and it in the spirit of the original, and I suspect that if Roddenberry were he alive he would most likely approve.
#5, hey remember that little film called Star Wars?
This movie will all depend on execution, because the story sounds as recycled as Nemesis.
#5 Yes. But Star Trek currently doesn’t have anywhere near the fandom of Star Wars. Their stories aren’t even similar other than the fact they take place in space.
It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
139 - - Closettrekker, well said. It would seem that based upon Mr. Abrams’ track record, Star Trek should be a hit. If Cloverfield can be a hit, should we worry about Trek? I do understand there is more to all of this than Trek being a hit, and not everyone will be happy with the final product, but like I told my mother - who owns like a hundred ST books, seen every ep’ of every show, owns all the movies, and said she’d refuse to see the new film ’cause the original characters are being recast - If we are true Star Trek fans we have to at least give the film a fighting chance, and support it! If we can pay to watch Nemesis, we’ll pay to watch anything. She agreed.
re: 4
4. Sean - February 11, 2008
“If this Trek movie can bring a little bit of “grit” and “reality” into Star Trek the way the new Battlestar Galactica TV series did then we have nothing to worry about.”
to the contrary…
#149- Possibly true. Romulans DID appear in the lowest grossing Trek film of all time. So, the logic of bringing them in again is… where?
#153: “Romulans DID appear in the lowest grossing Trek film of all time. So, the logic of bringing them in again is… where?”
Guess it was the only way to shoehorn Nimoy’s Spock into the mix to make this rebooting seem legitimate.
i don’t get it, by now, there should be ample quotes from JJ and his writers to lead us to believe he knows what is at stake, he knows about canon, and he has intention to respect it.. so why are there still posts that seem to ignore all of this, insisting that JJ will blow it all up— there is no doubt it will have an updated look, the feel won’t be all like TOS but I have every reason to believe JJ will do just as he says.
49 - You’re entitled to your opinion — which is ridiculous. The reason projectile weapons are appropriate to BSG is not because it is scientifically plausible but because it is comprehensible to the audience of today. It has the code meaning of being realistic. As for shoving in sex scenes, I applaud BSG for acknowledging human motivations, again to make the show emotionally connected with an audience.
If a show is not about emotions and characters, what is it about?
I don’t expect JJ’s Trek to be BSG, or a redux of the 60s-era television show. I think it was Gerrald in his Trek book who noted that Trek has to appeal to the audience that is watching it. There’s no such thing as being “authentically” 23rd century; you can, however, hope that the show hits the cues and sends the messages that will read, to us, now, as being appropriate.
#153–There is no possible way to know “where the logic is in it” since we do not actually know the story. It is possible that it may tie in with what Spock was doing in TNG “Unification”. I don’t know. I do know that the “Klingon villain” has been done to death. Nemesis did no justice to the Romulans, yet they remain an interesting group in the Trek universe. We have heard that “Balance Of Terror” was a TOS episode that the writers sourced during research for the film.
Romulan stories have been done to death on TNG. There were two great TOS episodes, a few DS9, one VOY & a ENT 2-parter. To have them in STXI is a cause for ‘been there/already seen it’ non-excitement, especially since they dominated the last film.
The reason TOS movies did well was because they were family reunions (the actors MUCH AS the characters). The TNG films never caught on because fans did not see Picard & Co. as friends to us or among themselves (even Frakes stated this was a flaw to TNG). At least VOY tried to create a sense bonding among the characters.
Nimoy’s Spock is in the film because he’s someone fans want to visit with once again. Is this enough to make STXI a blockbuster, I doubt anyone other than TOS fans will care. VOY did countless time-altering stories, again showing XI is not breaking new ground.
Perhaps if the revival of Shatner’s James T. Kirk had been included, a sense of awe long missing in anything related to ST would have returned.
Lost potential is always very sad.
^^ Isn’t personal perspective a fascinating thing?
Hope its good & serves TOS era well.
As far as canon goes, anything post TNG
can be flushed down the toliet & get retconned!
And you can throw Enterprise out if you want to.
Although I did think the last season was good
when the Star Trek couple took over.
For me all of the “Star Trek Rick Berman Originals”
lack something thats hard to put into to words.
TOS & TNG will always be timeless.
#158–We have yet to see if STXI “breaks any new ground” or not. Just because it has the apparent elements of time travel, a rumored alternate timeline, and Romulans does not mean that the story (which we don’t even know yet) is unoriginal. My guess is there is alot of disinformation out there, and there is a sneaky plot twist which is rather unpredictable right now. Besides, not that many of the targeted mainstream movie audience know anything about VOY or DS9. From the box office figures, virtually none of them saw Nemesis.
And yes, Nimoy is a nod to the old fans. So what? It is JJ who brings the younger, broader audience. He is not what is supposed to attract you and me, although I like the fresh young director being brought to the table.
As for the Shat, he hasn’t brought a “sense of awe” in a long time. His first 20 years were great as Kirk, but I want to see Captain Kirk–not William Shatner playing himself in a Starfleet uniform. Most of the mainstream moviegoers who stopped paying to see Trek movies in the mid-80’s probably don’t either…at least the ones I know.
If JJ can make a blockbuster movie out of a silly 1980’s cartoon and a line of action figures, what makes you think he cannot do it with revisiting TOS-era Star Trek? I’m a little “Lost” on your logic. It is certainly not a “Mission” which is at all “Impossible” in my mind. Look what kind of noise his obscure monster movie made at the box office. Oh well… if it tanks, he can always work under the new “Alias” of— “Felicity”.
#161: “It is JJ who brings the younger, broader audience”
Keeping in mind that the undemanding taste of ‘younger, broader audiences’ made the universally panned updated “Alvin & the Chipmunks” one of the top grossers of 2007.
All TOS films made money, even STV in a summer filled with Batman & Indiana Jones (interesting how all three are returning in 2008 for a rematch). Audiences stopped seeing ST movies when they were being slapped together as extended TNG episodes.
#114:
CANON AND CONTINUITY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME!!! Canon’s simply a status given to the shows and movies, while there’s an official continuity managed by whoever’s currently in charge. It’s internal LICENSING
#162–No ST film has ever had this kind of budget, even in yesterday’s dollars. This film needs a broader audience, and JJ has his own following. It cannot depend on Trekkies/Trekkers to make a dime. Nor can it tell a story that only appeals to fanboys/girls who are angry at someone else for killing off The Shat.
#163: “No ST film has ever had this kind of budget, even in yesterday’s dollars.”
TWOK had the lowest budget of any ST film ($17 million) & 26 years later is still considered the best of the series. I disagree with you on Abrams but respect your thoughtful & well expressed opinion.
All I ask from a ST director is for a great script and the original ’star’ to steer it by.
#165–You are right. It is , at least, the most popular of the film series. You do not by any means need a big budget to make a great movie, but if you have a big budget, you need a big audience.
You are entitled to your opinion as well, but the “original star” is Leonard Nimoy (that other guy was conspicuously absent from the original pilot), and he IS in the film. I hope that, in the end, you’ll give them a chance.
Captain Kirk lives. It’s just that now he looks like Chris Pine.
165 Hello again.Moogie You have to admit it will be fun to see what Abams can do with a budget of that Magnitude, the look off the film alone is going to stupendous. I seem to recall that Paramount insisted on a lower budget for Wrath of Khan because Star trek the Motion Picure which i believe at the time was budgeted at then unheard of 40 million dollar, under preformed at the box office. It made back its money just barely i seem to recall. The film was and is still visually the most stunning of all the trek. Unfortunately more of the money should have gone into the script, which was not very good. Some critics of the day were refering to the film as Star Trek the Motionless picture. I think that and Roddenberry story Idea for the second movie, which involved the crew going back in time to save jfk and ofcourse they fail, convinced Paramount to marginalize Roddenberry’s participation in the sequel . Having a smaller budget was a benifit to the movie because it forced the writers,Producers and directors to concentrate of story telling, and less on set design and specail effects.
Before casting judgement, why don’t you actually WATCH the movie first?
Trek needs new life. If Abrams can do that, then huzzah!!
I’ve enjoyed Star Trek in all its forms… however, only in Star Trekdom could I like a show and be accused of not being a fan…
168 Some people are just dead set against this film, there is no point argueing they think they are right and the rest o f us who want the film are wrong. As I stated before they might want to remember that the original Star trek can now be seen on Tv land with Green Acres< The Beverly Hillbillies and all those other quaint shows of yesteryear, not a good thing if your a scifi show. To the new generation the old series is so 1960’s thats why you need a retellingling, reboot whatever. Like most old sci the old trek is not relevant to the new generation.Almost no one pays attention to scif when it gets to a certain vintage, and thats one fact that these diehards forget.
#167:
Hi Garovorkin, I’m a big fan of TMP, I think it had a sense of wonder that the other films didn’t have and the only one truly about the voyages of the Enterprise & not the characters themselves (not that’s bad either).
#169:
Old doesn’t mean something has to be quaint. Old also can mean ‘classic’, for which TOS is. TOS isn’t exactly a SciFi artifact like Captain Video.
TOS is on TV Land because the channel is owned by Viacom/Paramount & costs them nothing to air it while they’re making money syndicating the inferior ‘CGI’ version.
170 Visually it did give a sense of wonder ,but story wise it job wasn’t as good as could been. for one thing they waisted a little to much time on the rebuilding of the enterprise and Kirks unfamiliarity with the ship struck me as being a little to unbelievable . He’s a Starfleet Admiral and he out of touch with the lastest technology developments in starships? That makes little sense to me. The pace of the movie was glacial and that was another problem for me. There people in the theater around me looked like they were fighting sleep while watching this movie.
I m sorry classic is another way of saying quaint. but this one can’t be helped because all sci eventually becomes outdated anyway.
#171:
Best classic SciFi are the old Buster Crabbe “Flash Gordon” serials, I don’t care if you can see the strings holding up the flying ships or why there are clouds in outer space. No matter how outdated something becomes, great entertainment still delivers.
170 Moogie When it came to the science aspect of things Star Trek the Motion picture does far better then all the other Trek films I have to give it that,. Roddenberry hired Isaac Asimov as the scientific consultant. None of the other trek films got the science quite as good as first film. But the film under performance at the box office is true enough. I seem to recall that even Nimoy conceded that they did not get the script they wanted for the first film.
172 I still enjoy those old classic myself, I am not saying that there is no place for them. I am a fan of the old Quatermass serials i have the 1958 six part serial which is better then the movie . I own the Captain Marvel serial dvd from the 1940 an other old scif things, so yes I do still enjoy the old stuff.
V’Ger must join with the Creator!
You will be assimilated resistance is futile
One damned minute, Admiral.
#173 - Not only was Dr. Asimov hired on as a Special Science Advisor, but the film’s Science Consultant was Jesco Von Puttkamer of NASA’s Solar System Development Office. They took the science and the realism very, very seriously in TMP.
Talking about what’s canon, Roddenberry once said Decker joining with V’ger was the birth of The Borg.
“Kirk Unit, burp me”
179 Moogie I don’t think the Star Trek cannon concening the Borg supports that statement by Roddenberry. First Vger and the Planet he is from is technologically far beyond the Borg and the Borg If I understand the established history correctly evolveded in the delta Quadrant
$200 million would truly be going where no Trek film has gone before… But this one isn’t gonna go there either. Honestly. I don’t know what the most successful Trek films (most notably, ST4 and First Contact) box office looks like today after adjusting for inflation, but it’s still a very tall order to expect this movie to do something the others haven’t.
It’s assuming all of the fans will support this thing, and that’s not a given at all seeing how divisive this project has been. It also assumes that the movie will draw an audience beyond the normal fan base. Again, that remains to be seen. I guess I’m not sure what this movie is supposed to offer non-fans that the previous movies haven’t. If you reinvent the wheel, is it still Star Trek? I’m skeptical.
Now that the movie’s been bumped back to 2009, the next question is what summer films Trek will go up against. That’ll make a difference too.
#179 - Alas, that statement by Mr. Roddenberry made no sense, even at the time he made it. A major point of TMP was that the inhabitants of the machine planet didn’t even recognize carbon-based life-forms as “true life-forms”. The Borg, however augmented, are still very much organic and carbon-based at the foundation.
Fortunately, comments by Mr. Roddenberry don’t constitute canonical datapoints, and I found that by the mid-1980s, it was often better not to put too much stock into his meta-commentary.
#182–Yes, he is the dejected “father”. Some of what he said later on was nonsense and sour grapes, and his creative ideas had certainly gone South. On the other hand, I do like what he had to say about the direction the Trek Universe had taken and how it was a departure from the early vision. Trek, IMO, definitely took a darker turn in more recent times. That may very well have been necessary to maintain the attention of audiences (I don’t think Gene was capable of that by that point), but it makes the art no less “corrupted”.
I think his comment about the Borg was meant to draw credit to him and say, “Don’t forget about me–I started this!”.
Would Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin recognize America today? Probably not.
Gene’s Trek , not long after his death, had very little in common with what was being presented on television as “Based on Star Trek–Created By Gene Roddenberry”.
#13,
We can’t help it. WE HATE BERMAN AND BRAGA. But Ron Moore and Ira Steven Behr… ah…
#134:
What? When?