Comments on: ST09 Tidbits (T-15): Variety Review Love + Interview-o-rama + ST: The Spork!

By: SPOCKBOY

SPOCKBOY — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:37:13 +0000

Thanks for all the positive comments guys!
I really appreciate the encouragement.

Um…sorry #48 but that’s not true at all.
As far as I know that song IS copyrighted still (which is why it says “copyright at the end ;) and I picked it because I love that song and it suited the fun spirit that I wanted to convey in the video.

peace.
: )

By: Nagus Shmagus

Nagus Shmagus — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:31:10 +0000

$22 Star Trek Spork < Free KFC Spork with NCC-1701 written with my black Sharpie marker

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:27:17 +0000

I have the new ship, I have the new phaser, Now I find myself that I want that spork!!!!

someone stop me! ROFL!

Seriously it’s a good looking spork.

By: RD

RD — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:44:52 +0000

#77 Bond is NOT Trek. Each story is stand alone with a single character that EVERYBODY wants to be and has been re-booted numerous times over its history. Bond does not time travel, he does not fight aliens or travel at the speed of light. It has never been geeky to like him. He is the ultimate depiction of cool and yes, even the Bond franchise almost came to an end because the stories got ridiculous and the effects failed to top the last. And no not every one of them was a big budget, particularly the ones in the 70s & 80s which almost led to its demise – they were in the same ballpark as Trek budgets, but grossed considerably more. In fact few film series have ever come close to the success of Bond, or even Star Trek, particularly the ones that don’t appeal to a wide audience. Star Trek managed because it appealed to a large niche audience (in itself a phenomenon) and was produced at a low enough budget to make the franchise profitable. One the box-office grosses caught up with the cost to make them, Paramount pulled the plug. Compare it with Star Wars, which actually Bond has a lot more in common with, like Lucas Albert Brocolli produced those films himself, MGM merely distributed, so if MGM backed out, those movies would still get made. Much like Star Wars. But unlike Star Wars, Lucas continued to make movies which catered to a niche audience and none of the newer ones were able to ignite a large outside following, yet they cost considerably more to make than any of the previous movies, thus diminishing the profit margin and the motivation of investors to participate, regardless of Lucas’ plans. Do you really think Lucas would have stopped making Star Wars epics had the new films taken off like the originals did? In fact diminishing returns doomed the first three to any more sequels at the time as well. In fact most sequels attempt to lower the budget while squeezing as much profit out of a thing as possible. Look at Superman. Shameful. The new Trek faces a substantial obstacle in that it has a very high budget and must make any sequel equally as compelling while guaranteeing huge profit margins to justify spending as much, or more to make it. What I am taking from most of these reviews is that Trek is a spectacle that any Summer movie goer will not be disappointed to see, even dyed-in-the-wool, hard-core Trekies, The sub-text of all the reviews is that it is fast and furious and flashy and exciting and sure to please. Which is all grand, but I’m not hearing much discussion of what makes Trek Trek in the fist place. And that klnd of excitement is hard to keep up in a sequel that doesn’t just mimic the first attempt, much less inspire loyalty in a new fanbase.

By: TrekAhead

TrekAhead — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:24:36 +0000

Dammit Spork! I’m a doctor not a cook!

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:28:23 +0000

#75—That would be correct.

A “galley” is a naval term for kitchen.

A “mess hall” is basically just a dining room.

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:26:08 +0000

#77—-I’m sure that the reviews will come down to Earth once the film opens to the general public.

They could also be inflated due to the poor expectations critics have for something with the Star Trek name attached to it. Who knows?

But the positive buzz about it is not a bad thing at all, IMO.

By: hairy trekker

hairy trekker — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:12:19 +0000

Want a spork.
Will they be available in the UK?

By: CaptainRickover

CaptainRickover — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:12:07 +0000

# 77
James Bond = 22 movies by now. Every one with a big budget.

But I can’t help: The more positive reviews I read, the more I feel concerned. Is that movie really SO good? They create expectations, that the movie maybe can’t hold. I’m not sure, if that is a good thing. Even the first Star Wars had some bad reviews.

Does anyone remember the tale of Icarus?

By: RD

RD — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:44:28 +0000

71. Closettrekker, you have no idea what my motivations are, but as a successful marketing genius, I take that as a compliment ;-)

Yes, THR & Variety are “Big time Hollywood”, but like all media they are politically motivated. They have at times been wildly wrong in their reviews both in favor of and against a film that did respectively badly or poorly at the box-office. They have also been split in their reviews. They have been criticized numerous times in their history for playing favorites and and trading favors for favorable reviews and taking out petty grudges against enemies.

My point is, touting these reviews as a harbinger of a slam-dunk is inappropriate. Few of these reviews have been balanced. They almost always all promote the hype around the film to the exclusion of all else. Who knows what kinds of influences they are being exposed to vis-a-vis Paramount.

Nevertheless, I have never said this film is not going to be good and entertaining. I openly confess I am skeptical of its ability to do justice to the original concept and I never wrote all Trek fans were the same. I wrote very pointedly that many Trek fan’s concerns were not being addressed, not all.

But I do think this forum needs a little balance in it to counter the blind enthusiastic fervor that is being whipped up daily without any real analysis of what has been revealed. Rather than cast aspersions as to why this is happening, I’ll just leave it at that.

Finally, I’m not sure a blockbuster success is best for the franchise. This was a very expensive movie and the next one will have to top the first, which means more money. At some point, the ability to write a story that will draw a wide audience hits a wall with how much money they can afford to spend which is why most franchises die after 2 or 3 sequels and one of the reasons the lower-budget Star Trek films made 10.