Viacom Chairman: Star Trek ‘So Important’ For Paramount’s Future + Box Office Update May 27, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Paramount, Star Trek (2009 film), Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback
Even before Star Trek hit theaters, Viacom’s Paramount inked deals with the filmmakers to prepare a sequel. Today in a conference call with investors, Viacom chairman Philippe Dauman talked up the performance of Star Trek and noted that the Trek franchise (and others) will be a key part of Paramount’s future. Details on that below, plus the latest box office numbers.
Paramount focusing on Trek & other franchises
Paramount posted a $123M loss for the first quarter of 2009, but in a conference call with investors, Viacom Chairman Philippe Dauman said that he has a plan for a turnaround and Star Trek is part of that plan.
Here is an excerpt from Variety:
We were in a situation where we weren’t fully in control of our release slate. We now have full control of our slate. We won’t be in a position where our big, franchise pictures are offset" by a handful of smaller, less successful films, Dauman told Wall Streeters at a media conference in Gotham. He was referring to Viacom’s split last fall with DreamWorks co-founders
Steven Spielberg and David Geffen."That’s why ‘Star Trek’ is so important. We greenlit ‘Star Trek 2′ several weeks before the release of ‘1′ because we knew what we had"
Variety’s Video Business has more:
As part of its strategy, Paramount will cut its number of theatrical releases per year to between 15 and 20, with a higher percentage of its titles derived from franchises such as Star Trek, Iron Man and Transformers, Dauman said, adding that such titles pose less risk for the company because they cost less to make and translate to better DVD sales.
So it looks like the Star Trek sequel is already part of the overall strategy of Paramount’s future. The current status of the sequel is that the writing team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are working with Damon Lindelof on the story, and the script is due around Christmas. Assuming that all goes well, they could give the film the final greenlight and budget and go into pre-production possibly in early 2010 for a potential Summer 2011 release. However, it should be noted that things can always change in Hollywood while films are in this early phase, so we can’t assume anything just yet.
Who will direct? Will Paramount wait for JJ?
Just like it was for the first movie at the beginning of 2007, one big question mark for the Star Trek sequel is around who would direct. JJ Abrams has expressed a desire to do something different for his next directing project. Here is what Abrams told TrekMovie [in late April]:
I think that the dream version of any job is to chose the job because you love the job. And for me I have only directed two films and they are both films that are sequels to TV shows that Leonard Nimoy starred in. I would love to try and do something else. That is not to say that can’t do something else first and maybe come back and do the sequel to this. But I do honestly think that it is insane to think about a sequel when the first one hasn’t come out it. I pray people see the movie and I pray they like the film. And if there’s a desire for another one, not only am I thrilled to produce that movie and help realize it, but I am wide open to the possibility of directing it. It is something I need to decide when we have discussions about the story…
If Paramount wants to get the Star Trek sequel out by the Summer of 2011, there doesn’t seem to be enough time for JJ to get to do any other big project. So they will either have to change his mind, find a new director, or wait until JJ is ready.
Back to the future & what will CBS do?
Of course all this talk about the Star Trek being a big part of Paramount’s future, is reminiscent of the good old days of the Trek franchise. Back in the 80s and 90s, Paramount was pumping out Star Trek movies at a rate of about one every 2 years and it was a big part of the studio’s bottom line. Combined with up to two shows in production, there were times when close to a dozen stages on the Paramount lot were dedicated to Star Trek. In the last decade with the waning of Trek and the absorption of Dreamworks, Trek became less important to the studio. But now Paramount took a gamble and it has paid off just in time, with Star Trek reinvigorated and again a key asset in their portfolio.
With the Star Trek brand rejuvenated, one has to wonder what is going on in the mind of CBS and Les Moonves. After the Viacom/CBS split, CBS ended up as the license holder of the Star Trek brand and CBS owns the sole rights to Star Trek on television. Re-releasing seasons of Trek on Blu-ray and DVD will only make so much money. If CBS wants to really cash in on their asset, they need to make a new TV show. Star Trek The Next Generation was launched in the late 80s after the Star Trek feature films became box office hits. If I were on the board of CBS I would certainly be asking the question ‘hey, don’t we own Star Trek?’
Tuesday Box Office Update
Speaking of Star Trek business, the movie came in a close 4th place yesterday, bringing in $2M domestically bringing its total domestic gross up to $193M (less than $1M from taking the top spot as highest grossing film of 2009). Star Trek’s international take is now up to $91M, bringing its global total gross to $284M. [BOM]
Loading ...
Comments»
I hope he doesn’t direct the engine room scenes
I really hope that JJ chooses to direct the next one. As much as I don’t entirely like his style (i.e. Shaky Camera and lens flares) I really liked the movie itself.
Yes I’d call this a show of confidence on the part of the Big V!
-cs™
I say get a new top notch director with a slightly different vision and more of a sci-fi background. He didn’t write the story and there were problems with the “look” in parts of the film.
He’s a good director, not a great director
Oh yea, ease up on the lens flares
I just hope that the powers that be dont rush it and produce a sub-standard picture just for the sake of getting it out to the masses in order to draw in some money.
btw: Leave out the fraking lens flares for the sequel. I honestly found them distracting in the movie the first time I watched it.
Man, this Trek vibe is something I never thought I would feel…..it’s just great!!!
Waiting badly for the sequel……..(and the DVD of JJ’s Trek also)
I don’t care who directs the sequel…..just as long as it doesn’t disappoint. If it’s even half of what JJ’s Star Trek is, I’ll be happy.
As long as they don’t rush it and do a quality job, I’ll be happy. Otherwise it’ll end up like Pirates 3. As much as I liked all of those movies, trying to make a movie in 2 years is a tight squeeze. I would much prefer the 3 years that we had this time, so that they could spend just as much time spiffing it up for the masses.
Wow, looking good.
NEW DIRECTOR IDEA: JOSS WHEDON… THERES A BUFFY REBOOT IN THE MIX THAT THE STUDIO IS GIVING JOSS THE SHAFT ON, MEANING THEYRE NOT LETTING HIM BE INVOLVED..SO HE’D BE PERFECT FOR IT:)
Josepepper, you need to calm down about the engine room already. Everything is going to be okay.
What’s wrong with making movies based on shows Leonard Nimoy has been in? Mr. Abrams could do a “In Search Of” movie next and have it look for the Cloverfield monster or the Lost island.
Then he could start on shows William Shatner has been in and do a good TJ Hooker movie.
I can”t wait till he gets to Walter Koening shows and does a big screen Babylon Five movie.
I’d definitely like a tighter, stronger storyline in the next one, but I have no problem with Abrams returning to direct.
You may not like all the individual choices he made, but there’s no denying that he infused the movie with a great sense of LIFE and ENERGY that’s been missing in Trek for far too long.
The last thing I want is to go back to the placid and safe directing style of the previous Trek movies.
Look like things are Trekking along. Lol. This is the best news i hve heard for Trek yet and thets been a lot latly. Who would have guessed 2 years ago or longer that Trek would be back like this. Just incredable. lens flares are fine. But please give us a real Engine room that Scotty would love. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope Paramount gives JJ all the time he wants before he decides if he wants to direct the next movie. Paramount should copy the relation Warner Brothers has with Chris Nolan.
I took 3 blue pills, a red pill and a bud light and I’m still mad about the engine room. I don’t care how much money the movie makes, they better fix it in the sequel!
Paramount owns the movies, CBS own’s the tv shows? Confusing. who owns the books? Action figures? Etc, etc….
JJ also said they are gonna try to squeeze Shatners fat ass in the sequel. THAT would really be a mistake, he’s playing nice now and has nothing but glowing things to say about the movie. The fat bastard hasn’t even seen it yet? Can you believe that! Iv seen it 5 times so far. And oh yea, a month after the new Enterprise pics came out he hadn’t had the chance to look at them. Iv lost a lot of respect for the fat shat. He’s had his day
+ Pine’s eyes are deep blue and the shats are brown :-)
I say Give J.J a Blank Check and say fill it in and Direct Trek 2. We have fantastic writers in Orci and comp. Now lets get J.J. But i might not mind if Spielberg directs. That may get me in trouble on here and i may have to check my self into the Agoniser booth for a while but thats my Opion.
@19: ” We have fantastic writers in Orci and comp.”
Exactly how was the work they did ‘fantastic’? I myself thought the writing was pretty poor compared to earlier trek stories.
RE: who owns what
basically CBS owns ’star trek’ as a brand. So if you want to make any product, you go to CBS. They also own the entire TV library and exclusive right to make new star trek tv shows. Simon and Schuster is part of CBS and they have the exclusive right to books. All the various toy and other licensees all go through CBS.
Paramount owns the film library and has the exclusive right to make star trek movies.
#20 Exactly how was the work they did ‘fantastic’? I myself thought the writing was pretty poor compared to earlier trek stories.
For that you get 1 hour in the Agoniser Booth. I loved the story and thought they did fantastic. Im a hard core fan since 1975. thats the best Trek Writing since Treks 2 4 and 6.
We had TOS-R while we waited for this movie, CBS- make TNG-R while we wait for the next one.
Anthony. Im confused. But what else is new. But thank you for shareing that with us.
Fascinating…
It is logical that any plan to improve Paramount would include Star Trek.
However, it is possible to kill a goose that lays golden eggs. It would be wise for Paramount to treat the franchise with kid gloves. It is obvious that a lot of time and effort as well as though and money went into this film. I hope whoever is in charge of the Star Trek property will move forward cautiously.
Live Long and Prosper, and Boldy Go.
Mike
what is confusing?
I’d also be asking Les “Didn’t you cancel Enterprise? Explain to me again why that was a good idea?”
Anthony im confused in how Cbs can own the series and Paramount can own the movies. But I guess thats just the buesness end of things. Im not confused in what you said. Just how 2 different companys can own parts of the same franchise.
let JJ direct again- if he builds a futuristic- yet equally realistic engine room- pity they tore the old one down 5 years ago- they could have built onto that- kept the core/heart of the enterprise and just built out with an expanded set to get the big factory feel JJ wanted.
Anthony,
Just curious, does Paramount need to pay CBS to make ST movies?
Give Star Trek one more weekend, and it will for a time be the #1 grossing domestic movie this year.
Well Star Trek used to all be owned by Paramount, which used to be a film and TV studio. When Viacom was split into two companies (CBS and Viacom), Paramount itself was also split, with the TV production and libraries going to CBS. So its kind of like a divorce, with joint custody….CBS gets Star trek on weekends, sortof.
but actually this kind of thing is not uncommon. Marvel owns Spider-man, but Sony own the rights to make Spider-man movies (which they bought from Marvel). Hasbro owns Transformers, etc.
Ok. Thank you Anthony that realy cleared things up me and im sure the rest of us. You are indeed a Smart man.
21. Anthony Pascale wrote:
Are you absolutely certain about that? Or is it a “right of first refusal” sort of thing?
I have never read anything definitive about it and it’s hard to imagine CBS owning the underlying copyrights and trademarks and having a deal without some kind of a time limitation on it. I’m also suspicious of Les Monves’ move into feature films. If CBS is successful with their first Harrison Ford starer next year, then those $50M mid-budget features he’s planning will fall right in line with what Paramount had been doing with previous Trek (which were profitable). Could CBS be planning TNG or other ST spinoff features? I’m sure there’s a no compete clause, but still.
@13 I agree with what you say…a stronger storyline and I agree with your assessment about Abrams, he definitely gave the film a life and energy that was lacking from the last two series. I would have to disagree with most people saying that we need Shatner, Khan, time travel, whatever in the sequel. I want a new adventure with new aliens, and situations; boldly go where no one has gone before…not boldly go where we went last week.
Trek TV please.
JJ needs to make a sequel for star trek and its canon and for all of the people see the 11th movie i have faith in jj for him to do it again the movie he made was epic an blow my mind and i am a trek fan too u kno
CBS has a chance to make some money after ST09 has come and gone. A good cartoon would not be uncommon to maintain interest while the new film is made.
Ok. Bring Back Enterprise. But lets get some different people involved. Also. Change the opening Song.
34,
yes. believe it or not, i do know what i am talking about sometimes
that being said, the cbs/paramount star trek split is very complicated, but that is how it has been described to me by parties on both sides.
Hopefully, CBS will greenlight a new series.
If JJ can’t, let’s hope they hire Alfonso Cuarón at the least
I would like to see JJ come back for the second one. I really like the feel of this film and I think JJ is really part of the film’s success.
Please though, tighten up on the science and more character development. Smarter dialog too. We NEED the Kirk, Spock, McCoy team in full effect in this one. The next movie needs to “breath”, let it come naturally, we don’t need to squeeze in as much as possible. I felt that in the first one that they tried to cover so much that they had to edit the scenes so closely together it ALMOST didn’t look right.
Looking forward to a sequel though, don’t know if I can make it until summer 2011 though!
I think CBS may want to enter into a joint venture with Paramount and Bad Robot to see if Abrams could produce a new Trek series after another couple of movies.
If done right, the series could easily go back to the characters and basic premise of the Original Series, assuming the new cast would be game for a TV series after the next movie, and possibly one more (making it a Trilogy).
#40. Thanks. Either way, it should not preclude CBS from producing direct to DVD projects, which would be like films without the cost of an ongoing series. Unless of course there’s a non-compete clause.
FYI, I had no doubt you knew what you were talking about, I just wanted to clarify it was a perpetual irrevocable arrangement, rather than a right CBS could revert at some term point in, as you say, a VERY complex agreement. They always are. I used to work for a company that owned Marvel and believe me, I KNOW how complicated that deal was and is, which prevented us from doing much with the catalogue.
I wonder if they would be willing to release new ENTERPRISE episodes for the direct to DVD market?
No more TV series…another shipboard premise has been done to many times. A new Trek series would have to be substantially different then what has been produced before to get a more mainstream audience to watch. Don’t water down the premise…I look forward to the Enterprise crews big screen adventures.
ENT is dead and gone…let it stay that way.
I’d like to see someone else direct the star trek sequel ! Maybe keep the movies fresh ! But i have a feeling JJ might be pushed by paramount to direct a sequel. I think JJ himself gets like many many million bucks for directing each movie.
QUOTE: “We won’t be in a position where our big, franchise pictures are offset by a handful of smaller, less successful films”
I don’t really know what he means by “offset”, because he doesn’t actually explain anything, but somehow it sounds really bad. The big franchise pictures indirectly finance the smaller ones. If they cut back on the latter, they will have more ammo for the big stuff like Trek, but it will eventually backfire. A film studio without a carefully planned ecosystem of films is doomed.
Aren’t Bryan Fuller and Mark Zicree both pondering new Trek TV?
I’m not sure of a new TV series. Of course, I would love to see it, but I don’t want another Enterprise-situation. Probably a 3D animated show, just like Clone Wars would be cheaper and more profitable in the long run. That kind of production can successfully coexist with feature films. At the end, the main issue is quality in both stories and production, at a reasonable cost for this dire financial times.
Dude! Star trek the movie was amazing; I knew it was going to be awesome! I have to share this with everyone… I just got the Star Trek ring tone on my phone by Texting TREKKIE to 30303 and received the Star Trek: Next Generation Theme
I have to tell you guys this ring tone is awesome! Who’s seen the movie did you enjoy it?
CBS is not even looking for a new show at this time. My agent and I have been kicking at their door with the two premises I created, and no bites.
Their of legal department even sent us a “get lost” letter, that basically stated that Trek was the last thing on the minds of a network that was thriving on reality TV.
CBS is on a completely different cultural wavelength than the movie going crowd. If they can rake in millions filming non-union strangers bitching at each other like ill-mannered brats a) locked in a house for weeks b) marooned in the remaining garden spots of the world , then they are set, by their way of thinking.
Sad, really. You folks might have gotten a kick out of my shows. Never know, they might wise up.
@ 17. Mike, Viacom controls both Paramount and CBS television. So technically its all still held by once company. In late 2005, Viacom split itself and reestablished CBS Corporation with the CBS television network at its core. CBS Corporation and the new Viacom are controlled by National Amusements, the parent of the two companies. Since Viacom controls Paramount Pictures and both Viacom and CBS are owned by National Amusements, one company that owns many. All this splitting and creating is confusing just like the msnbc (microsoft and NBC?) stuff. It takes some digging to figure out who owns what these days. I guess this decision takes some weight off Paramount shoulders, does not put all the power in one persons hands, and will allow Paramount to continue with movie and CBS continue with TV shows without conflicting interests like “Oh Paramount can’t spend money on a new star trek TV show because they just put out a movie” While Paramount is making the movies CBS could be working on the TV shows. Its a logical choice, but I believe they were many dollar signs involved with this decision, must have been more profitable.
I love the success of this new star trek movie. I love how it brought new fans in and spread word of mouth like crazy. I do hope JJ directs the next one and Michael Giacchino does the score. I like JJ style and I didn’t mind the shaky camera and lens flares..but could do without them. The shaky cam does not give you time to focus on thing that you want to focus on, maybe thats the point to offer a different view is to offer a different perspective. In any case this such a departure from the style of past star trek films…I can’t help it, I loved it!
#13 I very much agree this movie has much more life than the past films.
In the next movie want to visit more planets, see more federation ships, a great battle scene with MANY ships not just the one on one thing again. They never give us the big battle scenes its ALWAYS one on one. Kirk and Khan (1701 vs Reliant) one on one, Star Trek III Enterprise and Klingon ship which was one on one again. Star Trek VI turned it up a notch with two on one, but the first battle in first contact was the best all be it a little short. They teased us in the new film when all the ships leave space dock…but oh wait… they are all destroyed (which we didn’t see) which leaves the Enterprise and the Narada to battle, oh WOW another lousy one on one battle…AGAIN. I want to see something like the battles of the dominion war in the movie, like the retaking of Deep Space 9 or the battle in the Chintoka system.
@ 22 and 20…yes there were flaws but there are in every star trek film, there are things I would change about them, so how does this films differ from past star trek films? Well it does and it does not. There is nothing wrong with saying Orci and Kurtzman are great writers, they are, and they did a great job with this star trek. I was also please with the amount of humor in this movie compared to past trek films or TV shows, never has star trek made me laugh this much. I have no reservations about JJ directed this entire new “trilogy.”
#53
I can’t even guess if you’re a real person spamming the site or a robot spamming the site.
As for the actual article: I’m glad to see that Trekmovie.com continues to have more Trek movies to talk about.
Did the new Star Trek film just pass Wrath of Khan in terms of attendance? If that is so, then it has just got into third place behind TMP and Voyage Hone after adjusted for inflation.
I’d keep the lens flares if JJ would just get rid of Giacchino next time. Profoundly unmemorable work.
No way is Trek coming back to TV now, which would hurt the film market. But, I think a new animated series is a good idea and wouldn’t hurt the films.
HEY! Enterprise was bloody awesome! I love it, the most realistic and believable star trek. Bakula was a great captain. One thing Star Trek has never done and I don’t know why, with all the TV shows and movies, they have never done any direct to DVD movies. I think A: it would be great and B: Paramount and CBS could rake in the money. I want a new TV show but not a remake of the original, I want something far in the future, like Enterprise J or something after Captain Archers time but decades before Kirk. Like I have been saying for a long time, and you all know it as well, there is a tone of Star Trek history that is in the Star Trek chronology but none of it has been seen. Like Orci said, much is talked about in Star Trek but never seen.
@ 52. Carlos NO NO NO, no more animated star trek..I hated it and not fond of clone wars either. Star Trek is not meant to be a cartoon, although there might be a new with all this success but it will be a Saturday morning cartoon for kids…no thanks. I think a new TV series is in order…live action, NO animation.
@ 58. Giacchino was great and is a great successor to Goldsmith. The opening theme blew me away (song #5 on the CD) was powerful and proud., it IS Star Trek’s new theme. I would love to hear the Motion Picture (TNG) song in the movies again, that has always been my favorite star trek music. I thought the music was great I bought the CD asap. Funny if his work was profoundly unmemorable as you put it, why was he hired to work on the film? Why does his music fit so well? When you go back and listen to ALL the star trek sounds tracks, why does Giacchino seem so natural in the chronology of Star Trek scores? BobK..what have you been smoking? I kid I kid…no seriously, the music is great.
Could there be a conflict if CBS wanted to create a new Trek TV series that Paramount was not pleased with or does not approve?
“The current status of the sequel is that the writing team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are working with Damon Lindelof on the story”……………………..
Aw Damn it.
10. Kirk=God…
Oh heaven’s no, please don’t let One-Hit-Wonder Whedon near the next Star Trek movie. “Firefly” was a mess, yet it makes “Dollhouse” look like a work of art. He created the great Buffyverse (and even the last years of Buffy were relentlessly bleak), but nada of value since.
Paramount needs to get its act together. It lost tons of money and Viacom stock went from $40 a share to $15. Once it starts making money again, it can evaluate the situation again and perhaps make a few smaller films too.
I just hope Paramount has learned from its mistakes and doesn’t run Star Trek into the ground like an overworked racehorse, beating it to death. I AM a Viacom stockholder and I want to be heard.
I would love to see a new Star Trek series. But I would prefer something epic and mysterious – a mix of Battlestar Galactica, Lost and good old Star Trek.
I think the old Star Trek television format is outdated. No more detached episodes, but rather one long story arc. Battlestar Galactica had pretty much all good qualities missing in Star Trek Voyager.
And I don’t want the series to be set aboard the Enterprise. It should be something totally new.
17:
I own the action figures!
HAHA haHA HahahHAahaHaHa
The Adventures of Enterprise-B!!
#55- Id prefer they stay away from ship battles for the next round. Space battles have been done to death in Star Trek and its not what Star Trek was supposed to be about. We are not watching Star Wars here. Give us a new story about trekking through space and what they find in doing so. But God please no more space battles.
61. Chadwick - everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, you should listen to this podcast just to get the professional and critical perspective:
iTunes: Pod Trek
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=54001725&id=92147842
Also, just to clarify #55, Viacom has nothing to do with CBS anymore. Les Moonves and Sumner Redstone do not get along. They are two separate autonomous companies that happen to both have controlling interests held by Nat’l Amusements. What, if any, actual say it has in the operation of both companies is speculative. However, it is in its best interest to make sure both companies continue to co-operate with each other.
Bryan SInger would be a good choice to direct.
Star Trek offically became the #1 film of 2009 tonight.
It is way too early for another Star Trek series.
Give the film series some room to breathe. Part of the recent for ST’s failure was that there was simply too much of it. The series still needs time off.
I’d wait until AT LEAST the next film is in theaters.
OK. Seriously Guys. I’ll Direct.
It is interesting to note that the ALTERNATE timeline movie, and all of the previous ones, is owned by Paramount, whereas CBS owns the TV series in PRIME timeline. In theory, Paramount could makes tons of movies focusing on the alternate timeline with the original cast. CBS could just focus with the PRIME timeline. As for who really owns “Star Trek”, it does not matter because both Paramount and CBS are owned by National Amusements, which is owned by none other than SUMNER REDSTONE!
#69, don’t hold your breath. The sequel must provide the same level of space battles, if not more than this film. That is the formula that is making Trek a box-office sensation. One does not mess with it, at least until it stops out-grossing the previous film. The next film will have no less than the same level of fist-fights, space battles and cliff-hanging action sequences. Trek is now a Summer block-buster sensation and like X-Men, Transformers and the rest, it must have a larger budget, more effects and more excitement – in short, it must top it, or else new fans will walk away saying it wasn’t as good as the last film.
Fans really had no say in how the reboot was made, in fact it ignored all of the ideas I read put forth by fans, and now it is the biggest box-office hit of the Summer. Don’t start dictating to the producers now, if they are foolish enough to listen, it will only drag Trek down at the box-office.
So As I am looking at my star trek the experience drinking glass from two weeks before closing it has the copyright 2008 cbs studios inc-on it–soo Anthony-if the experience does get re-activated who would be in charge of that as there will be merchandise,the old shows/movies and more from the new movies–apparently cbs gets money from licensed items but is not interested in actually making or doing anything trek related hmmm?
54. Devon Richards,
How about a reality show where a group of Trekkers are marooned on a desert island and have to learn to battle their enemies with a rudimentary lathe …
My first choice would be J.J. Abrams.
He did a wonderful job and deserves the opportunity to direct the sequel if he wants it.
If Abrams passes. I would suggest another big name director to keep the ball rolling.
I agree with the Riddler who mentioned Bryan Singer. He did a great job with the first couple of X-Men films. I think his tone and style would translate well to the Abrams version of Star Trek.
While I assume it’s not realistic. I would love to see what Steven Spielberg could do with a Star Trek film. I believe Mr. Spielberg has said in the past he would like chance to make a “Star Trek” film. The buzz of a Spielberg version of “Star Trek” could take the box office to the next level.
How about Danny Boyle? I know this choice is totally out of left field, but I love everything he has done to this point… Back in 1980 people would have never said Irvin Kershner would be a good choice for “The Empire Strikes Back”? I think Boyle could make the most of these vivid characters.
Just stay away from the Michael Bay’s, McG’s + Rolan Emmerich’s of the world. Star Trek should never get big + stupid and lose it’s soul. Which is what these guys are best at.
#70.
The correct corporate tree is this: Viacom was split into two companies: New Viacom and CBS. New Viacom consist of Paramount Pictures, BET, MTV Networks, and all of its related cable networks. CBS consist of all the TV broadcast stations, Showtime, Simon & Schuster, and the entire Paramount TV library. As for the case of Star Trek, the brand and the TV series are owned by CBS. The movies and the right to make movies are owned by Paramount. New Viacom and CBS, though separate companies, are owned by National Amusements, which is owned by Sumner Redstone. So Les Mooves, CEO of CBS, reports to Mr. Redstone.
VOODOO is very right. Ideally, I’d like to see at least two and preferably three years until the next movie comes out, with time taken to do it right. And no more TV series until Abrams et. al. can at least complete a trilogy of Trek movies.
What if they remade TNG with a new cast set in the new ST09 timeline?
another star trek movie to look forward to?
then let’s get nicholas meyer in that director’s chair!
69: Star Trek is back as an action-adventure summer thrillride. There will always be space-battles. There pretty much always have been space battles as well, except for STIV
Because they are fans, and because of us, Orci/Kurtzmann know what the fans want. But cash exists in their universe, and PP wants tons of it.
I trust the boys won’t disappoint next time around. They understand the “humanity” which is at the heart of TOS.
For television, an anthology of 2 13-episode arcs each year would be superb. Sort of the nuGalactica format. Novels for television. Each half-season could explore a different ship, or era, or colony, etc. That CBS could take to the bank. 13-episode arcs could include things like… DS9 15 years later. The USS Excelsior under Sulu (portrayed by John Cho, of course). Pike’s time as first officer on the USS Constitution under Captain April. Tiberius Chase and the Romulan War. The adventures of Captain Kang. Etc. Could be fun…. and endless possibilities. If you want to look at the Mirror Universe for 13 eps, you could. If you want to add to the NX-01 history, you can.
Please, NOT Bryan Singer for director of the sequel!!
His kind of direction is pedestrian at best!
@82
Wow… Maybe with something strange like a supposedly-French captain who actually has something close to an accent from somewhere in – well – France? LOL
(Disclosure.. No slight to Patrick Stewart)
#80 sez: “The correct corporate tree is this:”
That just hurts my head. But thank you; I’ve been wondering about that lately.
#69 sez: “Star Trek is back as an action-adventure summer thrillride.”
Yeah. For this particular stretch of Trek (the “fun but ephemeral big-budget summer action movie Trek” phase) best to stick with directors specialized in the artistic realm of things that go boom and then go BANG and then go WHOOSH and make fat cash.
I hate to be a Negative Nancy here, but Paramount relying more heavily on Star Trek ISN’T good news.
It means that Paramount will be expecting Star Trek to please an ever widening audience, in order to maximize its profits, which, by definition, means that the films will be made to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience. In other words, it’s increasingly likely that the films will be watered-down, dumbed-down and homogenized.
Paramount AIN’T gonna be looking for Abrams et al to be taking chances with the big studio’s bread & butter. And, the fear of taking chances leads to taking the safe route, which tends to make art, in general, superficial, uninspiring, dumbed-down, less thought-provoking, less rich in content, less meaningful….
Considering the production budget and advertising costs, how much money this movie need to make to break even? Just curious
#89,
yup! But didn’t you like this one? Expect more of the same.
#90, no one knows but probably $300M, which it should hit this weekend.
Their decision to switch Star Trek out of the adventure genre and into the action genre was, in my view, regrettable.
I strongly dislike the new Kirk. I have nothing against Chris Pine, as I’m sure he played the character in precisely the way he was asked to. Nevertheless, the new Kirk is a jerk.
Kirk is supposed to be very confident. He’s supposed to be polyamorous. He’s not supposed to be a cocky jerk, though, and it drove me crazy the way he was continually rewarded and promoted for nothing. (Don’t retort with the Kobayashi Maru. ST2 established that. I don’t have a problem with this, although I do have a problem with the attitude new Kirk had.)
In my opinion, a real hero would go to great lengths to prevent someone with the new Kirk’s personality from even boarding a heavily armed ship, let alone commanding it (as a young guy straight out of the academy, no less.)
[SPOILER BELOW]
At the end of the movie, Kirk explains that he only offered Nero mercy because it might be politically useful. In Star Trek, they’re supposed to do this because mercy is a virtue and they want to see the villains face justice in a court of law. Worse, Spock actually jests about wanting to execute Nero. That was totally inappropriate.
[END OF SPOILER]
I’ve always found the protagonists in Star Trek to be extremely admirable. I looked up to them when I was a small child. I didn’t feel this way about the new characterizations of Kirk and Spock. It’s really a shame.
Don’t tell me that the high ethical standards, sense of propriety and civilized sensibilities are just a “TNG thing,” either. It was there in TOS, TNG simply intensified it.
AJ Wright (Not the same as the AJ above)
(demographic: M, 30, for you marketing types…)
it didn’t switch genres… it’s still adventure but this last one had a lot of action, because frankly the past few trek films were boring and drawn out. This trek film just gave trek its balls back. It still is and always will be adventure… there’s no rule that there can’t be action. In fact most adventure films are classified as action/adventure. It was a wonderful film that finally made trek as exciting as it used to be (the best trek film since Star Trek VI in my book).
Maybe to please all the Shatner fans, then Shatner should direct Trek 12 with Orci and Kurtzman writing it could be great!
kidding!
Please Direct the next one, JJ. You did a fine job.
A new TV Series is NOT THE WAY TO GO.
Seriously, Next Gen was a big hit but what happened to the movie that followed? Star Trek V. Box Office drops.
#92. AJ Wright
Right You are, and I agree.
84. This movie may be back as a thrill ride, but that doesn’t mean they have to keep repeating the same story over and over again. Star Trek 4 was very successful and it had no battles what so ever. Also the original series had thought provoking, even political stories of which were not space battles. Matter of fact I’d say 90% of the original series had nothing to do with space battles. Its only since Star Trek 2 that it became popular in Star Trek and Paramount kept milking the battle thing for all its worth.
Tell me they have enough brains to come up with a story that will hold our attention and not have to resort to space battles once again. Im sure its ok to put the Enterprise into danger, but the fighting between ships has gotten old. They had some highly original storylines in the original tv series of which grabbed our attention, moved the story along, and made us think along the way. You can build drama without resorting to fist fights so to speak all the time. I too am afriad they will dumb down the next films in order to cater to the lowest common denominator who has nothing better to watch because frankly they don’t get the intelligence written into the script and therefore are bored by it all.
And to Bob Orci- no offense on your writing abilities. Im sure you can write a very complex intelligent story script. Just please don’t pander to people who must watch the same thing over and over again in every form possible. Give us something fresh for the next round. Make it action packed if you must, but please try not to repeat what we’ve seen before.
#28 – It’s easy. NO matter how you split the books CBS and Paramount are all under the same corporate. Every studio in Holly wood has a TV, movie and licensing division.
TV and licensing of (all) merchandise is handled under the CBS banner.
Movies and distribution of films is handled under Paramount.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a TV series and a theatrical film as well… TV and merchandising was under 20th Century Fox Television, the film and distribution was under 20th Century Fox Studios (theatrical).
There are other examples but they all pretty much work exactly the same.
” but please try not to repeat what we’ve seen before.”
And by that I mean what we’ve seen so many times before, not things that help make us familiar with the characters.
Star Trek would have made a lot more money if the films were not already posted on the web. I watched one with Russian titles and another copy with German (?) titles (both in English; not dubbed). I felt…dirty for not paying, but at least I could hear the dialogue without being blown out of my seat by the sound fx!
#102 and you SHOULD feel dirty too.
God please no more mindless ridiculous jj abrams input, or from those 2 a.d.d horrific writers………Rather than trouble themselves by displaying actual creativity, the writers immediately escape into an “alternate timeline”, then flagrantly usurp aspects of several previous sci-fi movies (including Trek and Star Wars), before finally pasting them together with something called “Red Matter” — a mysterious substance which seemingly consists of the gray matter extracted from this film’s inexplicably enthusiastic audience. There are countless instances where the script contradicts itself. Perhaps more than any film I’ve seen in the last 20 years. A handful that would have otherwise been noticed by toddlers are patched by some haphazardly added sections of dialog, uttered by a cast perpetually drunk on Red Bull (which curiously, unlike other products, did not enjoy a shameless promo inside the film). Little, if anything, of this film’s plot is ever reasonably explained: not the magical “Red Matter” that behaves one way at one moment, and another entirely just 20 minutes later; not what the villain and his crew have done for the two and a half decades during which the writers do not need them; and certainly not the reasons why a group of untested rookies with particularly juvenile behavioral tendencies immediately lands seniority on what we’re told is one of the most advanced vessels ever made. Gimme a frigging break! Rather than address the film’s issues, the producers simply distract viewers with frenetic pacing, applied to a disorienting cacophony of shaky cameras, gratuitous fight scenes, and explosions. These shallow gimmicks failed to hypnotize me. This is a film to make “Aladdin” feel deep and “Terminator” dull. It seems that thought, experience, hard work, and personal sacrifice mean nothing in a new Star Trek universe masterfully crafted for today’s audience. Roddenberry’s constant undertones regarding duty, morality, and a vision for a better future are jettisoned faster than the warp core of a doomed Enterprise. The result is simply an insult to our intelligence. SUMMARY: Nothing more than Cloverfield in space — with an identical monster and a lot more explosions. J.J. Abrams urinates on Gene Roddenberry’s grave and thanks him for the opportunity, to roaring applause.
#76 – Following your logic concerning space battles, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home should have been a boxoffice disaster.
#92: I agree; they made Kirk deeply unlikeable. My wife summed it up, I think, when she observed that he was made digestible mainly because he kept getting the crap beat out of him … so we had to put up with his bratty shit-eating grin, but we at least got to see it bruised and bloodied multiple times.
More of that (this jerk getting his face shoved in by every walk-on mook with knuckles to scrape on him) would be fine, thanks :)
#82 Why?
#98. ST IV was a holiday family movie with no competition. It had 1/3 ST09’s adjusted budget and made $250M worldwide during its 4 mo. run., which ST09 has already surpassed after only half a month.
As for the original series, since it has never been a mass-appeal franchise, it is unlikely taking a cue from that will continue to fill Paramount’s coffers at the rate they are depending on Trek to do. Summer audiences don’t want a lot of intellectual talk. They want explosions, fights and action sequences at break-neck speed.
The producers have their work cut out for them, just as they did this time. But there is no way they will produce a story any dumber than the one they presented us this time. So if the current story was good enough for you, then expect more of the same, possibly even a little better. But in no way will there be any fewer action sequences.
How quickly we forget JJ has admitted he wanted to bring Star Wars to Star Trek. What would Star Wars be without space battles?
Lastly, if critics and audiences alike are show a more cerebral and less action-oriented Trek, they will feel betrayed and stop spending and Paramount will lose its cash cow.
#104 thats a great read! But I still enjoyed the movie. Sorry!! lol
If Paramount is going to rely on Star Trek to boost its financial bottom line, they will bring back the SHAT!!! A Star Trek sequel with the SHAT! The new timeline is totally changed. The destruction of the seven starships, which included USS Farragut and the USS Hood, does radically changed canon!!! Who were the crews on all those ships? According to a sociology statistic, a person that is timid is able to influence at least 10,000 people in his or her lifetime. Those seven ships that were destroyed has affected millions of lives. It is a whole new ballgame!
108. I can live with an action packed film, just do it in a way we haven’t seen yet. I take it you also think this new film was dumbed down somewhat compared to the original films. When I watch this new film, and yes I do like it for what it is, I keep getting the feeling its like watching kids in space- like a bunch of spoiled brats and hardly professionals with high morals.
Bring back Enterprise, says I. At least a direct-to-DVD movie, or a Romulan War miniseries.
A Romulan War miniseries would be a nice prequel to Nero.
@104 You hate it…got it.
Also I’d like to add that Giacchino’s score seemed better suited for a Batman movie than Trek to me.
105. Larry Spock – see my response in #108. Also you are taking my answer out of context. 1986 was a completely different world than 2009. I would never say that the formula applied to top grossing films today worked over 20 years ago. Just look at the top grosses from 1984 to 1989: “Beverly Hills Cop”, “Back to the future”, “Top Gun”, “Three Men And A Baby”, “Rain Man”. The 90’s began the big blockbuster action franchise films starting with Batman, Lethal Weapon and Terminator.
#100
The irony between CBS and New Viacom is that both of them are creating their own distribution cable channel and movie studio. CBS just created a movie studio called CBS studios. And their goal is to release a minimum of 3 movies a year of just under 50 million dollars each. New Viacom is collaborating with MGM and Liongate to create a new cable channel called Epix. This new cable channel will distribute all the Paramount, Liongate, and MGM movie libraries. The Showtime cable networks, which is owned by CBS, was supposed to distribute all of the Paramount film library. But, there was a clash between Showtime executives and Paramount executives over money matters. The funny thing is that both CBS and New Viacom are under the parent company, National Amusements. So could the Star Trek franchise be in jeopardy by their antics? YOU BETCHA!!!
104:
Michael.
I think you should blow 12 bucks on the film before mangling it as you do in your post.
Many of your main objections to the film are handled deftly by the writers.
“Roddenberry’s constant undertones regarding duty, morality, and a vision for a better future” are expertly shown in the relationships that develop on the Enterprise. It goes beyond duty to family, which is a higher cause. The “better future” is there. The film does not need to shove it in your face.
As for Kirk landing early command, it’s a stretch, but the precedent is ST4, where he was demoted to Captain despite massive Federation crimes.
GR created “Wagontrain to the Stars” and was dedicated to a visceral action-adventure format. The new film succeeds in updating that vision to today.
Cutting the number of movies in favor of tentpoles has both an up side and down side. The up side is that Paramount has said that Trek is one of those tentpoles, and Trek is therefore very important to it. However, the down side is that there are fewer chances for non-tentpole movies to take up the slack if one or more tentpoles prove lacking. If extraordinary advertising or other promotional costs, for example, are spread over the income of 30 movies, that could mean that the lack of performance of any one or two tentpole movies that benefit from that promotional cost will not have as great a net effect as if the income is from only about 15 movies, all other things being equal. So if Star Trek 2011 proves less successful than anticipated despite a huge promotional cost, then more of that cost would be dumped on the lap of that movie itself.
You are basically gambling that the fewer movies will make more money. But in gambling terms, fewer movies means fewer throws of the dice and fewer chances for “dark horse” movies to recoup the losses that underperforming tentpoles could cause.
115- So does that mean people today just aren’t as intelligent as they used to be? I find that hard to believe. How we came from movies like Citizen Kane and 2001 A Space Odyssey to what we have today just makes me shake my head. Did Hollywood lose its brain or did smart people just stop watching movies in theaters?
We definitely don’t need JJ “Shakycam Lensflare” Abrams in the director’s chair for the next Star Trek film. Let them find a more accomplished cinematic director for it.
No more Scott Chambliss production design, either.
110.
THAT is funny! Bring back an 80 year old Shat to boost the bottom line! Heehee, harhar, hoho.
As for JJ, I hope he’ll direct but it’s probably a long-shot. He doesn’t seem to have a passion for working on a sequel. That means that most of his *people* (including the composer, etc.) probably won’t be back, either.
#118 _ I brought up GI Joe recently as Paramount having invested $170M as an example of their anticipation that it would do better than Trek. It was immediately laughed at by several Trek fans here. So go figure, they invested more into the film, but folks here say it does worse than Trek? Either people on this board are not objective about Trek or Paramount bet the farm and is in real trouble with this new model, which in turn threatens Trek.
Also, National Amusements is in real financial trouble. Many in the Hollywood community think it will have to sell its controlling interest in CBS. Then what happens to all those deals between Paramount & CBS without daddy Redstone to make them play nice?
Count me in as one of those who take issue with the current approach to Star Trek, which is more action-oriented and less overtly — overtly — intellectual.
I, for one, do not want to see Trek relegated to a Merchant Ivory niche, no matter how philosophical or high-falutin’ the premise.
The bottom line is that Trek is about money because Trek is produced by a corporation — a for-profit corporation. If you want a Merchant Ivory film, let a Merchant Ivory filmmaker produce it, but I suspect that most people won’t see it — it won’t have much of an audience beyond the True Believers.
The most successful Trek film before this one was Trek IV, and it was also one of the least overtly intellectual. It was basically a “save the whales” comedy set in space, released at a time when saving the whales was no longer a philosophical debate but more of a soon-to-be ridiculed popular cause.
Insurrection, on the other hand, may have been philosophically sound, but it was box office poison.
The bottom line seems to be that If Trek is to live, overt pretensions must die.
I choose for Trek to live.
CORRECTION: Count me in as one of those who do not take issue with the current approach to Star Trek, which is more action-oriented and less overtly — overtly — intellectual.
122. Interesting. This doesn’t bode well for Trek. If they dumb down the next movie more so then the current one, I may just stop watching these new films. I love Trek and have watched it since I was a young kid, and it the majority of the time kept its head on when it came to stories and the presentation of the films. Now Im afraid they are just trying to appease the Ritalin generation.
122.
Folks were laughing in the theatre after the G.I. Joe trailer.
#119 – I think you have to draw your own conclusions. Good or bad, it was a different time. I think you have to compare it with Cinema in the 50s & 60s as TV began to take over. Films became much more about the wide-screen. They began to make more sweeping colorful epics that the wide screen could really exploit. As TV was mostly B&W, you went to the theatre to see COLOR and spectacle. I think the same is true today. With home theaters in many homes, to actually go to a movie means you must provide something bigger than the 50″ Plasma & 7.1 surround in the living room can provide. I was joking with a friend about when he was going to get the bootleg of Trek as he had done with the SImpson’s movie. He said, “naw, I think this one really needs to be seen on the big screen.” As TV has once again caught up with what feature films can offer, the film really has to offer a spectacle beyond what one can get at home. Where is the incentive to pay to take the family to the theatre for a drama when you can wait a few months and see it on PPV or Blu-Ray and you’ll enjoy it no less?
#121.
You’ll be surprised what the SHAT can do. Imagine, the SHAT well into his twilight years, and has earned a golden globe, a hit series (Boston Legal), has his own talk show (Raw Nerve), etc. The SHAT is still kicking!!!
#122.
If National Amusements is in trouble, Mr. Redstone would sell his theater chain than lose both New Viacom and CBS. I predict movie theaters being extinct in 50 years.
118.
The biggest downside to making fewer films and only concentrating on the “tentpole” (mass audience) films is that Hollywood and it’s products will become more and more stale. Same-old, same-old. Safe. Boring. Predictable. Creative bankruptcy.
Les Moonves is the idiot who cancelled “Enterprise” just as it was really finding it’s legs and starting to become relevant to Trek History. This guy has no idea how to handle Trek and doesn’t know a good thing when he sees it. I wouldn’t put too much faith in him for the future of Trek on TV.
125, I think that there is a difference between being intellectual, and being pretentious about it.
Insurrection, in today’s terms, can be seen as corny and preachy, even though it raises profound philosophical questions. (When is it acceptable to displace a people for the sake of near immortality? Never? Really?)
If you can make Insurrection interesting to action audiences — i.e., to a wider audience, then I doff my hat to you. But can this be done?
Who has successfully done this?
The movie 2001 was successful because space was still new and exciting. But it’s 2009, and Shuttle flights and space travel are no longer intrinsically eyecatching. In fact, John Q. Public is more or less bored or even somewhat saddened by the Shuttle and blase about space travel in general.
It’s 2009, and 1968 and both 2001, and JFK and moonshots, are in popular terms ancient history. That explains a lot.
It explains, for one thing, why movies need to have more than space flight and weighty discussions to propel them forward.
Space movies with lots of action that have made an impact other than Star Wars include not only the current Star Trek, but also the second film in the Alien franchise. Compare these successful films with films such as Solaris and Alien Resurrection. The former has things that excited an audience; the latter had a lot of talk, but little action. No one cites Solaris or Alien Resurrection as examples of the best of Hollywood. As a practical matter, Trek had a lot more more talk and much less action, could it be much different?
#128: Redstone is looking for buyers for his theaters … he’s in real trouble:
http://www.businessinsider.com/sumner-redstone-might-still-lose-control-of-cbs-and-viacom-2009-5
128. I agree with seeing movies in theaters with Big Vistas and spectacle. Its part of the reason I go to IMAX movies and why I’d love for them to do Star Trek in IMAX format.
I studied Citizen Kane in college and its amazing how ground breaking that film was for its time. Problem today are studios don’t want to take any chances anymore to improve the experience beyond what they consider “safe”. So we end up with bland recycled films most of the time today. I mean do they really need to remake the movie “Footloose” again?
CORRECTION: As a practical matter, if Trek had a lot more more talk and much less action, could it be much different?
If JJ doesn’t take the director’s chair, i’m not opposed to what’s been posted so far: Spielberg, Bryan Singer, Alfonso Cuaron (loved Children of Men), and Danny Boyle.
That would be awesome if Boyle did it. I would love a dance number with the crew in the end (maybe in that funky engine room be good?) like Slumdog Millionaire! Jai Ho!!
#130, I don’t think Les Moonves had anything to do with canceling Enterprise. CBS did not get control of Viacom’s Television assets until 2006. UPN was not under Moonves’ control when the series was cancelled in early 2005. Granted I think the 4th season was a huge improvement over the previous three, but seriously … a show that needs 4 seasons to find its legs should have never been produced to begin with.
134. Star Trek always thought things out which was usually done by discussing things which would be talk as you say. Now its just skip the talk and do your gut reaction? Beat the guy up instead of diplomacy?
135. Spielberg definately has the scope and vision to pull it off, and he can make smart movies as well. I would give him my vote as long as he can mix the two. A.I. didn’t quite make it in the sequences he came up with to fill in where Kubrick didn’t work on.
About Mr. Abrams’ reluctance, I think that if I were he, I would be “reluctant” too, knowing that money talks. A wise man does not sell himself short. I think I need say no more.
But if he really isn’t playing hard to get, and if he really doesn’t have an interest in doing the next Trek movie, then there are others that should have a shot at it that I would like to see.
I don’t know if Steven Spielberg would be feasible cost wise. Directors don’t work for free. But, yes, Spielberg would be of interest. And there are others, possibly…. It’s an interesting intellectual game.
For example, and until recently, I would have said James Cameron (but I would have to think about it nowadays). James Cameron is also said to be working on a new version of Forbidden Planet, which, to read some people write about it, is practically the original sequel to Trek anyway.
Anthony is 100% correct. This split of Trek, while awkward, has been in effect for quite some time now.
“We greenlit ‘Star Trek 2′ several weeks before the release of ‘1′ ”
…so its been greenlit? that means its been given a budget and stuff?
or is this just execuspeak?
137, I’m saying that successful science fiction is inherently difficult to do on a cinematic scale, and successful cinematic science fiction that is overtly intellectual is as rare as a Klingon who is a pacifist.
Cinematic science fiction is more about experiencing what you have not experienced than thinking about what you never considered. For the latter, one can read a book.
Science fiction is not a seminar and a movie is not a book. A movie theater is not a library or even a bookstore. Audiences instinctively know this and vote with their dollars accordingly.
Does this mean that Trek has to be “dumbed down”? Of course not. But it does mean that it cannot be, in eyes of the audience, slow and pretentious. Whether this is phenomenologically or ontologically preferable is beside the point: Like Mount Everest, it simply just IS.
#131 – I think Elvis said it best:
As for your comment in #123 above: “The most successful Trek film before this one was Trek IV”, what is interesting to note is that the most successful film before ST IV and of all so far, is TMP. It is interesting to note that TMP & IV were both Holiday releases and they faced little competition. Both were slower paced and considerably more dialogue driven. ST II, III & V on the other hand did not earn as much and were Summer films going up against the blockbusters. How well would they have faired had they been Winter releases and vice-versa? ST VI went back to Winter and the grosses picked up again, until Generations, which opened against the Santa Claus, but FC opened against no real competition and did better. So it’s hard to say exactly what made these films more successful.
God I wish they stop calling the next one Star Trek 2
Star Trek II is already a movie, its called The Wrath of Khan, I know that the new Trek movie is its own canon and not linked to the other ones but it is making me feel as though the past ten movies didn’t exist.
#76: “Fans really had no say in how the reboot was made, in fact it ignored all of the ideas I read put forth by fans, and now it is the biggest box-office hit of the Summer. Don’t start dictating to the producers now, if they are foolish enough to listen, it will only drag Trek down at the box-office.”
I agee with you, why in the hell should Paramount listen to the fans –or take direction from, about a future fim?
Give me one good example of any classic films where outside involvement from fans, studio bean counters, etc. has lead to a film worth watching.
Any product made by commitee may as well be called paint-by-number.
Lots of comments here, I’d love to see Peter Jackson direct the next trek films. But i wanted him to direct the first one.
I think he has the scope of how big & epic the star trek story can be told on screen. Like he did for lotr.
A trilogy story based on the old dos game called STAR TREK : FINAL UNITY. would be awesome. Anyone who’s played that game knows it’s a huge action adventure story, well written with lots of plots and sub plots. And it involves all races in the star trek universe.
I wrote a movie script based on that game. And sent it to paramount, and brent spiner. It would bring Data back. It would restore alot of what’s been lost or destroyed by berman, Baird, logan. It restores there saga in the universe. And it could be done with the new style that abrams has set. without undoing anything from this movie.
Anyone was a copy of the script email me.
- T
142, TMP satisfied a lot of pent-up demand, and in 1978, action films were still new and it was unclear that the trend in cinematic SF was toward Star Wars rather than, say, 2001.
That said, even upon TMP’s release, it was noted that it was considerably different from Star Wars and significantly less popular, in the broadest sense.
In other words, space movies were great — but space movies + lots of action were even greater. Once audiences got wind of that, the rest is history. Star Wars as a movie franchise has done much better that cinematic Trek.
But even the much-vaunted Star Wars has gotten its share of ridicule. None of the sequels has been as exciting, or has done as well, as the original Star Wars (1977), and the talkiest prequel, Episode II, is also its least successful.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
JJ’s directing in this movie is WHAT MADE IT A MASTERPIECE !!
He made you feel it!
he is the next Spielberg !
I just noticed that I wrote that to some people, Forbidden Planet is practically the original sequel to Trek anyway. I mean to write the word “prequel.”
#131: “Who has successfully done this?”
Depends on what you mean by “successfully …” I think there are a number of SF movies that successfully combine action and ideas and maintain a respectable audience and long-term affection (Blade Runner pops to mind). And, to my way of thinking, at least (and I realize I’m in the minority) that’s more laudable than simply earning Fat Bank at the box office. To quote (or maybe paraphrase) Star Wars at JJ Abrams and co: “If money is all you love, then that’s what you’ll receive.” Seriously, let’s see if, 30 years from now, people consider this Star Trek film a beloved classic, or just yet-another-summer-action-movie-they-enjoyed-before-a-louder-and-more-expensive-one-came-along. It’s a good movie, but it’s a good movie awfully similar to a lot of other films in its genre (and here I mean “summer popcorn action flick,” not sci-fi in particular). I think, if this movie is remembered at all, it’ll be _because_ it’s branded Star Trek, which guarantees that a devoted group of fans will keep its memory alive to some extent as one chapter in the vast history of the franchise.
Yeah, I agree that they need to do some technical parts better, decide how big the Enterprise really is, and for the love of god redo the engineering section, using a Budweiser brewery was an epic FAIL.
#104. Michael
I was uncomfortable watching that whole mess.
Nero’s motivations didn’t make much sense, and Abrams didn’t pull it off if you ask me.
Please, no more Transformers. It’s embarrassing.
149, I think that philosophically interesting movies can be popular, but I do doubt that overtly philosophical movies — or, let’s just come out and say it — TALKY — movies can be as popular as what are derisively (and unfairly) called “explodey” movies.
As for so-called “explodey” movies, there is, I think, a world of difference between Transformers and the current Star Trek movie. There is a lot more philosophical in the latter, even if it were only because it gives us the mere promise of exploring the vast intellectual repertoire that is Trek. But the current Star Trek movie is more than just that promise; it is also a time-travel, what-if story that happens to have a lot of action. I disagree with those who think that the current movie is simply the Michael Bayification of Trek. It patently isn’t. It’s just that it’s not Insurrection. And that, in my view, is not a bad thing.
Also, further to the idea that the least popular movies tend to be the most talk-filled, it might be of interest to look at this list:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/slowest.htm
Shakespeare in Love, for example, was an Oscar winner. A lot of good that did it box office wise. And, although the Bard does live on eternally, there are surely not to be sequels to SIL.
#1
the engine room bashing comments are have become about as valid a “swift-boating” as a way trying to artificially tarnish good work. i know a few find the design to be aesthetically offensive, and even understand how they might think this way, but the limbaugh-style say-crap-until-sticks method of “criticism” is vapid and banal. like noshat and ibridge issues, the whining sound like infantile pouts that remind one of a child in a good restaurant where there is no ketchup to put on it’s filet mignon.
try explaining why you find it so very wrong and balance that with the hundreds of bright creative production design elements that you do like if you wish to critique intelligently. if you can’t manage this, just go ahead and despise the film outright. and please god leave the “cheap” argument out of it. it could have been cgi’d for christ’s sake. you should feel lucky we had a director who feels strongly about the aesthetics of reality.
If J.J doesn’t return (and I certainly hope he does but at least he will still be the producer so his “people” will still be involved.) I would love to see Danny Boyle helm the next one. He is a fantastic director and proved to me he can do science fiction based off the incredible SUNSHINE.
#153: “149, I think that philosophically interesting movies can be popular, but I do doubt that overtly philosophical movies — or, let’s just come out and say it — TALKY — movies can be as popular as what are derisively (and unfairly) called “explodey” movies.”
I agree. I think the real question (and one for which there is no objectively correct answer) is simply the question of how important “popularity” (or profit) is to the filmmakers, weighted against other goals. It’s never as simple as a single criterion ruling the process, to be sure, but a spectrum of priorities … and I do think those priorities are visible on-screen (in the case of Star Trek or any other film).
“As for so-called “explodey” movies, there is, I think, a world of difference between Transformers and the current Star Trek movie.”
I must defer to your judgement. I was only able to sit through the first 60 or 70 hours of Transformers before giving up on it.
“There is a lot more philosophical in the latter, even if it were only because it gives us the mere promise of exploring the vast intellectual repertoire that is Trek.”
I really think that promise (or hope) is all we get. I see no philosophy (or indeed, morality) in Trek 2009, though I do enjoy it as an action movie (and, to an extent, as an action-comedy).
“I disagree with those who think that the current movie is simply the Michael Bayification of Trek. It patently isn’t.”
I agree with you. Michael Bay makes loud, explodey movies that drag on for centuries. Star Trek is a loud, explodey movie that pounds the pavement at a breathtaking pace, and succeeds as a thrill ride.
“It’s just that it’s not Insurrection. And that, in my view, is not a bad thing.”
Again, I must defer to your judgment. I saw the trailers for Insurrection and, as a result, never saw the movie itself in any form.
#104
the red matter bashing is getting lame as well. was the protomatter or whatever drove the genesis device something you find in your fridge? are those dilithium crystals available at costco?
the rest of your rant is void of any logical critique. maybe you should go the way of “RD” and use massive quotation marks to imply your thoughts are larger and more righteous then others.. i’m sure it makes
HIM feel very large in his tighty whiteys.
#34 rd
“Are you absolutely certain about that?”
#45 rd
“FYI, I had no doubt you knew what you were talking about…”
your constant back peddling, your refusal to admit you are sometimes wrong or misinformed and your consistent arrogance astound me.
when you recently made a “kool aid drinkers” comment and then insisted you were “refering to a book that I had never heard called ‘the electric acid kool aid test’ was the last straw. you were lying about the comment, and inferring i was illiterate at the same time. hey, we know you are bright and passionate about things. why belittle others and alternate opinions?
couldn’t you just try to be the loyal opposition without being condescending and rude?
#136: “but seriously … a show that needs 4 seasons to find its legs should have never been produced to begin with.”
When it comes down to it, StarTrek -TNG didn’t take off until season three and season 4. so your point is somewhat invalidated.
Again with the new TV series!
Don’t hold your breath on that boys and girls!
Forgive me for loving the movie, but I guess for some that makes me a gonad brained gimp!
Better a gimp than as self important a*hole anyday!
-cs™
#138: “James Cameron is also said to be working on a new version of Forbidden Planet, which, to read some people write about it, is practically the original sequel to Trek anyway.”
I think you have it backwards. “Forbidden Planet” was released in 1957, the year before I was born. “Star Trek” is considered by many to a sequel to FP.
Steven Spielberg would make an interesting choice, * as is Danny Boyle, however, I think neither have any availability that would put ST 2.2 on an acceptable schedule that would put the movie out before 2012 or 2013. And who wants to wait that long?
As much as I enjoy Nicholas Meyer’s direction, he himself said today’s audience isn’t interested in the kind of TREK he envisions.
Another thought, isn’t it interesting that “Star Trek” is really the only TV show that has successfully transitioned from the small screen to large?
I suppose some might say “Charlie’s Angels” was okay. I haven’t seen it, but seriously, why would I want to see a movie based on a TV show that was lame at best. Ditto to “Beverly Hillbillies, Starsky and Hutch, SWAT. I did like “Serenity,” but never saw “Firefly,” and it certainly hasn’t translated well enough to warrant further sequels.
Oh, and then of course, there is Mission Impossible, but it left me cold, basically because Tom Cruise bugs me… and the fact, that the first one just changed the dynamics of the show too much.
* plus I want Spielberg to make the remake of “When Wolds Collide” more than I would like seeing him involved with TREK.
CBS should certainly be thinking seriously about brining Trek back to the small screen. However I think it might be too early for a full TV series. Perhaps some straight-to-DVD mini series/movies? I personally am missing TNG and would like to see some new stories.
If it will not be JJ then Peter Jackson or Chris Nolan are the only thinkable choice but I’d really prefer JJ. But if he won’t do the job. Orci and Kurtzman at least have to continue writing. The Story must stay in first hand for the continuity… Oh hey… give Nimoy the directors Chair!
The last 2 Trek tv series were all clones of TNG…they both sucked, and they recycled the same plots year in/ year out…
Do something different!!!!!!
NO JUMPSUITS!!! Bring back the velour!!!!!!!!!
Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman are a winning team. Paramount should keep the whole crew for three movies, in my opinion.
Don’t DUMB DOWN Star Trek
I would hate to see Star Trek turn into that mindless style that Michael bay is so fond on.
I loved the new movie but it was simplified frpm the Star Trek I loved, it was dumbed down for the masses and it made for a great movie.
Star Trek always stood out from these types and part of me would feel sad if the Star Trek I loved is lost to the ADD Generation.
Now i loved the movie but please do not dumb it down.
Fortunately the new movie evoke the Trek spirit but it is by NO MEANS the best ever one.
Unless Orci, Abrams, Kurtsman and Lindelof are involved, I have no desire to see Star Trek back on TV. Certainly I’d hate a new show to water down the new movie series.
Unless they can figure out a Christopher Pike TV show to add background to the new film series, I can’t see the point. Going back to Universe A again or doing a Next Next Next Generation is poison to me!
Can’t Viacom take Star Trek off CBS and give it all to Paramount – i really hope they don’t do another TV series, not yet anyway. CBS are really poor at Sci-Fi.
I hope JJ will not direct a sequel. I don’t like his directing at all.
As for Paramount bosses’ decisions to go with sequels to Iron Man, Transformers, Star Trek because they pose less risk: Have they ever heard about riding a horse to death? I can see that in these economically shaky times you want to minimize financial risks, obviously. But can’t these Paramount people see that piling up sequels year after year will eventually become utterly boring to audiences?
171
I guess if he directs I would need to bring my sunglasses to the cinema. For there will probably be be 50 million lens flares again
LOL
The common denominator for all the successful Star Trek films was the honoring of the source. Star Trek 2 The Wrath of Kahn we forget was also directed by someone who had few film credits Nicholas Myer. But he new he was making more than just a Star Trek Film and More than just a Sci-Fi film. Myer new however knew that the key was not only a good story but a story that featured the characters we love and how they relate to one another. Leonard Nimoy was also a neophyte director with few credits but he certainly pulled it off with Star Trek IV. Star Trek was never about Ray Guns and Space Ships. It was about ideals. Star Trek IV worked because not only was it fun but it said something topical. So did Star Trek VI, again with Nick Myer. Jonathan Frakes did an excellant job with Star Trek:First Contact, again with no movie credoits. We could relate to these people even though they work in a fantastical setting. Orci and Kurtzman knew this and made this new movie relatable for Trekkers and Non-Trekkers alike. I’m not worried about them screwing it up on a sequel. I wouldn’t care who directed as long as they repsect the source. Going for big name directors sounds good for selling a picture, but if they do not respect the source they are doomed to failure.
I’d like to see a new series set in the revisionist Trek universe (the Neroverse? he did create it, per se); maybe at the same timeframe as what we just saw in STAR TREK but a different ship. It’s a big galaxy after all.
There’s a point I’ve not heard anyone make; did Starfleet lose the bulk of the fleet at Vulcan? How many ships were involved?
Oh how boring it is getting having JJ bashed, the story bashed, the lense flair bashed, and the bloody engine room… it was a great film.. move on..
Hmm, if CBS isn’t interested in developing their stake in Star Trek entertainment, I wonder if CBS would be willing to sell their share to Viacom. I wonder if Paramount / Viacom would be willing to buy that share. Somewhere in this formula, there’s got to be room for negotiation if Paramount wants to develop Star Trek’s long-term activity.
These day-by-day box office grosses strike as kinda silly. (Sorry, Anthony.)
162, I had made the correction at 148.
174, the bulk of Starfleet was at the Laurentian system.
My oh my how 20 years of talkity-talk Snore Trek has brainwashed so many into thinking THAT is what Star Trek was all about. TOS was NEVER a high-brow, intellectual talk fest. It was always about action/adventure and the heroic, yet very human, people that have to confront the danger and peril that is around every corner in deep space exploration. It was about imagination, romance and humor, unfolding along side suspense and action. It was incredibly fun.
The Next Generation and it’s brethren left so many ingredients out of the pie that it should have been called something else entirely. JJ and his team, on the other hand, knew why the classic Trek was so popular and what made it tick. They took great care to duplicate that formula, gathering all the ingredients, mixing them up and delivering a very tasty pie indeed. I hope to come back for seconds and thirds!
As for the writing, Orci and Company should stay. There has to be stability in writing. As for direction, if we REALLY want action, I say, choose Michael Bay. If you want epic, choose Peter Jackson. If you want controversy, choose George Lucas. If you want Star Trek to have a DARK SIDE, choose Martin Scorsese. Then there is James Cameron, or Steven Spielberg, or even Ridley Scott. If you want some good ole Star Trek canon feel, how about choosing Mr. Nimoy or even Jonathan Frakes. I personally believe they are good directors.
All in all, I prefer JJ Abrams! He is, IMHO, the one and only (along with the rest of the Supreme Court), new bearer of the franchise!
#132.
I just read the article. I can’t imagine why Mr. Redstone would pledge all of his assets, when his debt is only 1.6 billion dollars. New Viacom and CBS are worth at least 20 billion dollars more than that puny debt. He would have a heart attack if he loses his empire.
It seems most everyone is for or against a Trek series. How about this idea, since I have collected Fan made Episodes based in the Trek Universe, why give the power to the big fat rear end paper shufflers. They may be good at milking us fans for money. So create a fan made series that is first aired on the Web and give CBS total profit rights to the money they make in the network broadcast aspect.
The scripts will be authored by fans and selected by a selection comity every month for the next months production. It seems now that TV series have pruned down the season count to around 12 shows per year they do not need the 1960’s count of 32 or the 70’s of 26, 80’s of 22 and 90’s of 18 then the first decade of the 21st century it seems to have hit as low as 15. 12 shows a year with some depth in them seems to be the current trend of TV, most TV shows only make 11 aired shows before the networks pull the plug.
Many rules will need to be created for a Net Authored series to be any good, but some are starting their own independent try’s currently. If Anthony plays his cards right he could become the father of Net authored and produced TV. I know it will be hard and at times 36 hour days may be needed. And whom ever starts it is going to need some big gonads to father this into a growing child.
I may have thought of the idea but I do not have the experience to know how to plan such an idea. I may be the sperm of an idea, but am unable to give it birth. Everyone else may freely become the father and select the mother of this child.
‘1. josepepper – May 27, 2009
I hope he doesn’t direct the engine room scenes’
i agree, the factory look was a tad of a dissapointment. also could of used moar spacebattles and more charactor parrel could of been 30min longer easy.
also could of been a series tbh
If JJ is too busy to do the next Trek film, why not round up the guy who encouraged him to do it- Steven Spielberg? He’s a Star Trek fan from way back, and I’m willing to bet that he’d put out a great sequel!
I see that # 180 has some of the same ideas I do- why not consider Cameron, Scott, Nimoy or Frakes for the job? Heck, if Paramount wants to have some fun, they ought to create a “Star Trek: The Directors Series” sub-franchise, letting various well-known (and unknown!) directors take a crack at an episode- although that would be more of a mental exercise than a practical one.
Sorry- I digress. Star Trek is as much art as it is one of those Basic Life Necessities for me. I am so very happy that it FINALLY is getting its time in the sun. The show and its characters have had an enormous influence on my life and my career, and I am glad to call myself a fan.
I don’t know that Spielberg could direct a Trek without being its “supreme court.” Don’t think Abrams is ready to let *that* go.
Can’t help but imagine ol’ Rick “Treknobabble” Berman watching this Trek, his jaw dropped in amazement that A) Wes Crusher didn’t have to save the ship, and that B) no one had to “invert the plasma couplers to the phase conduits” to tell a good story.
Nick Meyer should direct. He knows the canon, he knows the characters. He is a literary genious. He is awesome!
Does anyone know if and when there will be novels published based in the alternative timeline?
#182: What a cool idea! I like the idea a lot. But forget trying to put a ‘net-authored’ series on TV. Traditional episodic TV is an endangered species, and even the networks are starting to admit it. Instead of doing it old-school, make it Web and DVD- exclusive, and subscription-based, create different levels of interaction (from fanfic all the way up to a Day on the Set), light the fuse and… watch the fanboys fight it out. Could you imagine some sort of ‘reality’ series based on fans trying to get their stuff filmed?
I’d pay to see that! Towards the end of Next Generation, the producers were accepting fan-authored scripts, and yes, I sent one in. I am sure it was culled for its better elements, because I am very sure that I saw a shot-for-shot version of a poker game scene I’d written. Didn’t get any credit (and only got a generic ‘thank you note’), and I knew that once that script was out of my hands, they owned it (said the fine print), but damn, I was happy! (And damn, it’s been nearly 18 years since I saw that episode- better start saving up for the DVD set…)
All right, y’all- start buying CBS and Paramount stock- if they’re going to milk us for every penny, we should at least get something back in dividends!
Uh oh.
Please tell me that the talk of another TV show is just hype in the wake of a successful movie.
Part of the reasno that the earlier Star Trek movies (1 through 4) did well is because there was no other Star Trek in production. There was a genuine sense of excitement with each film because it was considered an Event (capitalization intended). If you wanted to watch new Star Trek, it was on the big screen, larger than life, and just all around “big.”
The latter movies (5, 6, and the TNG films) did worse because there was plenty of other opportunities to see Star Trek. On TV you had TNG and then later DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. What’s the point of going out to see a movie if you can already get your fill on TV? Don’t get me wrong — one of my favorites was Trek 6 (”Undiscovered Country”) — but as exciting as it felt to have so much Star Trek going on in 1991, the brand was also starting to feel diluted. That only increased as time went on.
Bottom line is that part of the reason this new Star Trek movie worked is because it was a genuine Event. There was no TV show to compete with for people’s attention. I would also argue that there was no other show to compete for the production team’s attention (and creativity), either.
I won’t take credit for this as an entirely original opinion, either. I just finished reading Shatner’s “Movie Memories”, and it’s a widely held opinion by people like Harve Bennett, Nick Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy.
I sincerely hope that CBS won’t ask the question of “Don’t we own Star Trek” as it pertains to a new TV series. I’m not optimistic that they would anyway as long as Moonves is in charge, seeing as he has indicated in the past that he’s not a big fan of Star Trek.
Frankly I just wouldn’t want to see another subpar show come on the air and water down the franchise now that it’s gotten a big boost from the movie. I’m not so sure that the logical next step for the continuation of what Abrams and company have started is, “Hey, let’s make another series.”
With all that being said, here’s a caveat. The only way that I could see that working is if some fresh new talent comes along and comes up with a brand new take on Star Trek. Something we haven’t seen before or hasn’t been recycled from the ashes of previous shows. Something that would be significantly different from the new film, so as that it could stand on its own two feet and not just run on the fumes of the film, diminishing that film in the process.
The producers need to take a lesson form David Chase, creator of The Sopranos. Apparently, Chase shut down the WHOLE production of a season to rewrite the scripts because he felt the writing was sub-standard.
If they rush a sequel, they need to take heed. And the engine room needs to look at least as spiffy as the 1960’s version. All that amazing technology around and their engine room looks like it belongs on an icebreaker.
I think they(Paramount) need writers with science fiction as their forte to write the sequel. Orci and Kurtzman just aren’t that good writers sorry(corvette scene was so awful and it painted Kirk in a bad light as a jerk.).
I was disappointed with the writing in the new Star Trek film.
Abrams did good but Star Trek was just a dumb summer blockbuster sacrificing substance for style. I don’t know what is worser movie Star Trek or Final frontier because they are equally bad lol.
Three things:
1. If there is some kind of corporate warfare between Paramount and CBS, or between any related or formerly related entities, it would be the most foolish thing I could imagine. The court costs alone could easily eat up the profit from any movie, tentpole or not.
2. I am not ready for a Star Trek TV series — yet.
Just by way of introduction, I am a Trek fan from way back. I’ saw TMP in the theaters when it was first released. I was and am an aficionado of all the Trek series, from TOS’s syndicated run to Star Trek: Enterprise. In some ways, DS9 is my favorite show, but in other ways, TOS, TNG, VOY, and ENT are also my favorites. It depends on what mood I’m in. But any Trek TV series is better than any SF series in my view, and that includes Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica. (Yes, I am that fanatical.)
It goes without saying that I have become a strong defender of the current Star Trek movie. Not that I was ever a critic.
Even so, I am not looking forward to an officially produced Trek TV series in the near future, and the reason for that is that some elements of Trek still need to lie fallow. The time is not yet ripe. The story ideas out there are too tenuous, the need to explore them right now is not urgent, and there is the risk that we would once again dilute the demand for Trek product.
Trek should remain a cinematic product for some years. Fan productions should be allowed to flourish.
3. Perhaps most importantly, the splintering of Trek fandom should be mended before it starts to tear the fan base apart.
It is one thing to be a part of the “loyal opposition,” and it is quite another to actively desire the failure of the franchise to spite one’s face. It s one thing to cherish the past, and it is another to fossilize it as a Golden Age beyond compare. It is one thing to sing Trek’s praises, and it is quite another to trash its faults in the hopes of prevailing upon it.
There is a time to be critical and there is a time to come together. If we cannot celebrate the success of Trek, however relunctantly, then I don’t see how all of us can have much in common as fans. In this, time is perhaps the best cure. If it is not, then frankly I am at a loss.
CORRECTION: The litigation costs alone could easily eat up the profit from any movie, tentpole or not.
You know, josepepper, Shatner has been busy. He stays busy with many, many, many projects…online and offline. Movies, television shows, writing books, tending horses, doing charity work, etc, etc. Unlike people like yourself who have nothing better to do it seems, when your not sitting in a movie theater practically once a week if not every day of the week, than to sit in front of your computer and bitch about people like him and make derogatory remarks about his weight. Lighten up. Oh, and if you haven’t heard it yet, be sure to check out his song Has Been. It refers to people like you.
I think everyone’s overlooking the most important question: how will these new films be titled?
Star Trek 2.2: The Search for Porthos
#16—”I don’t care how much money the movie makes, they better fix it in the sequel!”
Or what?
#79—”My first choice would be J.J. Abrams. ”
Agreed.
Abrams’ directing improved greatly between MI3 and Star Trek (his only two directorial credits). I don’t think he is even near his peak yet.
I have the greatest respect for William Shatner and I wish that those who consider themselves fans of Trek — and who wish to be considered to be Trek fans in turn — would realize that anything that is said, even anonymously, on an Internet board that you would not have a friend say to others about you can only seem untoward to those you may be trying to persuade.
I wish that they still taught forensics in most high school classes. Instead, it seems that too many of us must learn our debating tactics from the schoolyard — or from talk radio.
That said, given Mr. Shatner’s historical role in Trek, his participation should be more than nominal and therefore the idea, self-implied or not, that he might have taken the cameo proposal recently mentioned by Messrs. Orci and Kurtzman would seem out of place in the larger scheme of things. It should be more than a cameo. If some way can be found to integrate him further into the Trek universe, even if it’s not the cinematic universe, then it would be a fitting show of respect.
Until several years ago, I had not been a proponent of the Bring Back Kirk movement, but now I am. Understand that this, however, is not the same as a movement to bring back Shatner-as-Kirk.
The world is a complicated place, and due deference should be given to the needs of the franchise, the fans, and important figures in this particular stream of pop cultural history.
193:
Hatrick
“Even so, I am not looking forward to an officially produced Trek TV series in the near future, and the reason for that is that some elements of Trek still need to lie fallow.”
That is the false marketing Paramount dished out to cover for its own dismal handling of Star Trek as a TV and movie franchise. “Star Trek needs a rest.”
Berman should have been out by the end of DS9, and new blood brought in. Shows like “ER” and “Law & Order” have been on the air for ages because new actors and ideas have come and gone as a matter of course. And the shows’ environments have been static. Good drama doesn’t get tired. ‘Trek’ forgot about that.
The only benefit of giving episodic Trek a rest is that the general public will forget it was ever a TV show. Trek gets its richness and scope from TV, and should get back there immediately.
200, I remember independent comments years ago that the reason that neither DS9 nor Voyager were as successful as TNG was that there were two Trek shows in production at the same time, thereby diluting the base. So I don’t think it’s just a CYA strategy on anyone’s part to say that there was an oversaturation of Trek at some point.
Ron Moore has as much said, if not explicitly, that the parameters of the Trek TV universe that could not be violated, given that it is an episodic show, limited how far the writers could go with any story. There are much fewer such restrictions for franchise-based films, even considering that they need to have the same characters brought back for potential sequels.
The current Star Trek movie is a cardinal case of how, in cinema, even the dead (James Kirk) can be brought back to life and while avoiding the dreaded “cosmic reset” requirements of a 22+ episode-per-year series.
That said, you are of course correct that an official Trek TV series can and will work — better than ever — if properly handled. But is the time yet ripe? I don’t get a sense that it is. We will need a few more years, at least, for the clamoring to build.
And then, I think, the time will be right.
What are the magic words to make all of the trolls go away? Somehow our fun TM board has become the after school club for trolls and people who want Data in the next movie. Most of the trolls on this board didn’t know what a lens flare was 6 months ago and wouldn’t have even commented if it hadn’t come up earlier.
The movie was awesome. The franchise is alive and primed for some real “episodes.” This movie was not an episode by any stretch. The writers and Lindelof would agree. They’ve given us a prequel where we only had BEST DESTINY and other books previously.
Anthony, perhaps you can create some posts organized around affirmative thoughts for the future of Trek? Not necessarily non-critical, but affirmative as in constructive and creative. Every post devolves into lens flares and crazy unrealistic crap that will just get quoted on Entertainment Tonight.
I think that the expected trilogy of films needs to play out prior to any committment to a new television series. Part of the spike in public interest in this incarnation of Star Trek has to do with the charismatic cast, and it is not as if Chris Pine is going to step in the direction of a television series when he is now on the cusp of becoming a bonified “bankable” Hollywood star. The industry is in the midst of a love affair with this cast—-so any television series (even now) would have to be yet another 2nd tier “spinoff”.
Let’s give this expected trilogy of films its due run, and then look into bringing Star Trek back to the small screen. I think that CBS would be premature in such a move right now.
202. God I so agree.. I find myself really down about the board.. it should almost be titled “I hate or will nit pick anything trek to death”.. now.. it’s beyond a joke..it seems every other comment is staing all what is wrong with the film, old films, old series, JJ or the creative team.. it’s just whining for the sake of it…
Yup, a new Star Trek TV series that goes back to Kirk, Spock, etc. and does NOT make the mistakes made by TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise… a return to action, adventure, heroism, great, theatrical science fiction stories like stuff right out of pulp—with none of the lame-ass characters from the subsequent ST series – no “Ships Counselor,” no cutesy soap opera “story arcs” that are boring as hell, no sets that make the Enterprise look like a goddamn Best Western.
You want Star Trek back on TV as a huge success, you return to that original formula, which was STRAIGHT out of the LONG and very successful history and traditioin of action/adventure sci-fi, with big, colorful characters that were strong and no-nonsense. THAT Star Trek is the one that’s legendary, not ANY of the others–and if you want a strong Star Trek back, you go back to those roots. We only had three seasons…79 episodes—of those original characters. Why the hell would you NOT now want to go back and do MANY more stories with them?
@50: Agree. The idea of a studio _only_ making big franchise-derived films is bad news. From a creative point of view, it creates a pretty soulless and eventually numbing movie experience. Even from a financial point of view, where do they think all these big franchises that they’re enjoying now came from? Most started as smaller, squirrelly ideas (wagon train to the stars!) that a studio took a chance on.
I just don’t get the low int’l numbers…though Japan is not in the mix yet…
Its seems like the entire months of March, April and some of May, they were in foreign markets for premeirs..though the UK and Australia seem to be bringing in some, the other Europeans are dismal!
On a good note…we should be over the top after yesterdays box office..only needed 800,000+ to top Monsters/Aliens to be #1 for 2009!!!
#207
I am in ireland and despite what some dubliners on here say, the film was VERY poorly advertised here. There is BK promotions, though there are only about 3 BK’s in Munster (provence) not advertised on TV.
No interviews apart from the ones on british TV, a few posters in cinemas, no billboards, very little radio time. It was just another review. . .
Add this to the cost of going to the Cinema, €8.50 ($11.80 ish), its just not going to get people here to go to the cinema.
(Though the numbers for Star Trek were ok here, it could have been much more).
199. Hat Rick wrote:
Agreed (and well said).
When all else fails, by all means resort to name-calling and base-less mud-slinging.
(I was about to debate a point with you when I saw this and though, eh, life is too short. This is worthy of merit.)
a new series would be great in conjunction with a new film. To keep production costs down, they could introduce in the next film another crew that fights along side the Enterprise. Give them 10, 15 minutes screen time, long enough to show their potential. Then take this new crew and give them a series in the same time frame. This could save money on costumes, props, etc. This could also give opportunities for cameo/guest starring roles for the new crew of The Enterprise. The writers then could add the same sense of action and bravado that was so great in the last film.
I just want to comment on the many posts regarding the desire to Nicholas Meyer direct the next, or any, new Trek film.
Though I heartily agree, Meyer’s work on the 3 Trek films he was involved with elevated the franchise to new heights, the supporters of Meyer’s return don’t seem to pay too much attention to what Meyer himself says about film these days.
I find it surprising that Meyer’s supporters haven’t mentioned any of his interviews/commentaries on the DVD for the Treks he is involved with. His comments on those discs make it plain as to why he could never be involved in another film in the franchise.
On those DVDs Meyer makes some very derisive comments about the pacing of films these days, including accusing the audiences of having ADD. ( Question – since when is it okay to make fun of/or chide someone for having a debilitating psychological condition? If that were the case – why don’t we poke fun at people with Down’s syndrome? Hell, why not fun of people with Parkinson’s, if that’s the case? I really don’t understand why ADD gets pass as far as political correctness, or just plain manners is concerned.)
Another string of comments made by Meyer clearly laid out his abject hatred for CGI. Let’s get this straight – a filmmaker who hates a modern film making tool. How does that make any sense? His comments on the DVDs will clearly prevent him from landing another job on a sci-fi movie. Imagine the executives having the meeting, deciding on a new director – “What about Nic Meyer?” “Oh, he hates CGI.” “Hates CGI!, How the hell are we supposed to make a Trek movie without CGI? He’s stuck in the past – forget him.”
Funny how older filmmakers, like Robert Zemekis, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg and others, don’t have any problem with CGI, and are making films that drive the technology forward and push the boundaries of storytelling.
While I agree Meyer has made amazing contributions to Star Trek, I recommend listening to his commentaries on the discs for 2,4 and 6 in the old 2-discs sets. He’s drawn a line in the sand.
He’s never going to work on the franchise again.
201:
Hatrick:
“Ron Moore has as much said, if not explicitly, that the parameters of the Trek TV universe that could not be violated, given that it is an episodic show, limited how far the writers could go with any story.”
I always thought that was a cop-out, especially after seeing what fun Manny Coto had with those same restrictions in ENT season 4. Blaming a show’s longevity and depth for collective writer’s block is wrong. If he is referring to restrictions from above, i.e. “no Romulan war arc, just stick with the bumphead of the week,” well, that’s worse.
#205 I agree completely.
#196 “I think everyone’s overlooking the most important question: how will these new films be titled?”
They will totally avoid numbers, in my opinion. Numbers are out of fashion.
No numbers, avoid the whole “StarWars” type of confusion.
211:
Nimoy, as well, said in a recent interview that he was out of his depth as a director watching JJ do his job on the set.
Of all Trek directors, I think Frakes could take the reigns. FC had a good frenetic pace to it.
I don’t understand all the love for Nicholas Meyer. ST2 and ST6 had good stories (yet they are not my fav movies) , but the directing work was quite ordinary, in my opinion. Trek has been “ordinary” for a long time. Now we need some visionary mind.
I think James Cawey and Company has the feel and look for TOS. Paramount should look at these people for making the new series
“That’s why ‘Star Trek’ is so important. We greenlit ‘Star Trek 2′ several weeks before the release of ‘1′ because we knew what we had”"
It’s Star Trek XI and XII, you idiot. I and II came out in 1979 and 1982.
I want to see Quentin Tarantino direct Star Trek, just to see what he would do with it.
207. Capt Krunch wrote:
I just don’t get the low int’l numbers…though Japan is not in the mix yet…
Nor is Hong Kong and China. Both are sufficiently Westernized to appreciate Trek. I just noticed on Box Office Mojo that India is due out June 29. Again sufficiently Westernized and over a billion people in the country. BOM also shows Mexico as opening May 6, but I’m pretty sure it opens June 5th. That should provide a nice boost in international numbers.
I do wonder how the film is being received in Asian markets. the Japanese are generally very critical of non-Japanese like Korean Jon Cho. Also, how will the Romulans be received as the villains when contrasted by a mostly Western-looking Federation?
217:
Paulaner:
STII has those wonderful submarine-style fight scenes. And his ability to frame character moments was perfect. Combined with that James Horner score and crazy Ricardo. It all falls into place perfectly, IMHO.
STVI in less remarkable.
JJ is a really great director! who had ever imagined that Trek would be back so good and big.
JJ you have to do this !
If JJ Abrams passes on this film, I think Ridley Scott could deliver quite a punch.
First, I seriously doubt the cast of ST09 would consider doing weekly series tv, so the idea of a new series with Kirk, Spock and McCoy is unlikely to happen (why would they have one cast for the movies and another for the series?). The new cast are now MOVIE stars, and they are less likely to get stereo-typed by doing a Star Trek film every couple of years… so, their movie careers should continue and prosper.
Second, unless there is some serious rethinking on how Trek should be done on tv, we are bound to get more of what we already had for Trek tv… perhaps a little different-looking, but, fundamentally, the same. DS9 was a bold move, in making Star Trek a little more broad, but, in the end, it really had nothing to do with Star Trek, apart from some terminology.
Any new tv Star Trek will, most likely, not be about Kirk or the Enterprise, nor will it be about life on a starbase. After TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT — spanning over 25-ish years, I don’t know what would work on tv… something that would be new, and fresh, and different…
In addition, I think it would really depend on WHO was making the series. I spend most of my tv time flipping through channel after channel, completely bored out of my mind, completely frustrated by how much uninteresting stuff there is on tv — of any kind. When I do finally come to rest on a station, it’s usually SciTV, the History Channel, or something similar… something that actually stimulates my mind. I have no interest in watching endless CSI dramas, so-called “reality” shows, or American Idol. A Star Trek weekly series in the midst of all of that will either be a waste of time, or a stroke of genius… again, I think it depends on WHO is making it.
212, there is something to be said for that, perhaps.
Someone else mentioned that the TOS series with James Cawley, which happens to be fan-made, had the requisite look.
I am in awe of fan productions such as his and I really love the idea that they are in existence, let alone popular among many fans.
However, this does not mean that the TOS look would fly in the mass market in 2009, and I think that marketing studies would probably bear that out.
I’m afraid that if the pure TOS look were that of a major motion picture rather than a fan series, it would completely and utterly tank.
219 – It’s Star Trek XI and XII, you idiot. I and II came out in 1979 and 1982.
Um, nope. The first film was called “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” and not “Star Trek 1″ or simply “Star Trek.”
I just hope it’s not Michael Bay or Brett Ratner
I see the best scenario of a new series as being set in JJ’s 23rd Century with a different crew on a different ship. The ship interiors bear the same production design parameters as ST09 (but with a proper engine room), and the new timeline allows some flexibility vis-a-vis canon.
Also, Kirk hasn’t had any of his legendary missions yet, so the universe is free and clear.
Give it a more frenetic style, and shoot for great characters and drama. Put them in DANGER, and allow them to be killed. We have Klingons, Romulans, a Vulcan diaspora, an emerging Starfleet, a UFP, etc.
Do the ‘optimistic future’ things as that is what the world could use right now, and make it sexy.
The more one thinks that making ‘Star Trek’ fresh is rocket science, the more crap gets produced.
The limits of leaving Star Trek as a movie series are obvious. It limits character development and story development. Doing a 2 hour movie every 2 years is hardly showing a “5 year mission” or creating lore. Star Trek is at it’s best when done as television. It gives the producers a chance to show off the Star Trek universe and it’s many facets.
#196. NoRez
Actually the Beagle thing in the movie did make me laugh though, I will admit to that.
Because Scotty did it.
PARAMOUNT PICTURES TO RE-NUMBER “STAR TREK” FILMS
(AP-Hollywood, CA)
In an exciting bid to re-ignite the ‘Star Trek’ franchise and foster repurchase, Paramount Pictures today announced the historic re-numbering of its iconic existing set of films.
With the blockbuster success of the new “Star Trek” film, and two more on the way, the successful prequel/re-boot will be considered ‘episode 1,’ but will not carry a number. II and III have yet to be produced.
“Star Trek IV: The Motion Picture” and “Star Trek V: The Wrath of Khan” will be released in their theatrical versions on DVD and Blu-Ray for Christmas 2009. “Star Trek VI: The Search For Spock” and “Star Trek VII: The Voyage Home” will be released in May 2010. All releases will contain as yet unknown new ‘extras.’
Paramount spokesman Harcourt Mudd stated “We are so proud of our Trek film franchise that we want entertainment media consumers to take another look at its storied and iconic past. The new numbering will encourage the existing fanbase to repurchase the first ten films, and open up the rich world of ‘Trek’ to those who experienced it for the first time in theaters last May.”
When asked if the first ten films would be re-mastered for the new HD Blu-Ray releases, Mudd declined to comment. ;-)
226.
There’s a difference of doing a pure TOS look as opposed to an updated version of it. Nothing about the bridge, engineering, ship exterior, phasers, communicators or tricorders resemble TOS. The only thing stylistically that is similar are the uniforms. The key idea here is resemble, or for lack of a better word, do an updated-retro look. The look of TOS is classic and I think that is getting overlooked in the hype to re-do the series. People may argue the new movie is successful because of the new visual look, I argue it has been successful in spite of it. It is successful because of great direction by JJ to keep the story moving and being fast-paced, the great performances by the actors, the stellar special effects by ILM, a great heartache (Vulcan), etc. I don’t think people looked at the phasers and said “Looks great! I like this movie now.”
229-AJ
Right on that’s what I am saying. maybe kick off the series as a 2 night mini-series. so much untapped potential, Maybe have JJ be executive Producer and bring over some of his creative team from “Lost”.
232.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Where’s the link? Where does Spock Prime come from then? Do they not understand the concept of alternate universes? The first movies had to have happened BEFORE Star Trek 09 could take place.
235.
You remind me of Sheldon on “The Big Bang Theory”… It’s sarcasm, my friend… ;)
ouch! i had no idea there were nicholas meyer phobia in fandom. lol.
i have indeed listened to his commentaries and i think his critisms and opinions are certainly valid. however, having those views doesn’t mean a successful director like him would tailor those tastes to whichever movie-projects he would undertake.
i mean, jj A is clearly on record as being essentially an anti-trek fan. at his age, not to have gotten into trek (as many of us did) suggest he really didn’t like star trek at all. yet, some of the same people criticizing meyer seem content with jj’s vision of trek.
so clearly, a good director that understands important aspects of the franchize need not be in absolute sync with each audience member but still create a good trekfilm.
#229. I haven’t weighed in on the engine room since I’ve seen the film, but considering how little time it was actually on screen, I can actually cut it a break. Considering how quickly the film moved and how disconcerting the frenetic camera-work was, I actually only found myself wondering were the hell I was twice. Once was on the Kelvin, where it literally looked like we went from the 23rd century to some kind of post-apocalyptic world as the crew was being evacuated down what were clearly industrial sections of a building, not the innards of a starship. I blame that mostly on editing, or lack of any kind of transition, like the people going from a real corridor to the industrial part of the ship. The second was when Uhura was sitting in the middle of the brewery. I didn’t really understand where she was or what she was doing, it all moved so fast and the vast space these rows of futuristic consoles sat in just seemed silly. It really did remind me of pics of the old rows of operators back in the 40s & 50s.
My only real complaint going forward is that there was a lack of a central engineering hub. Even electric power-plants, otherwise full of wires and pipes and conduits, have a central control room from which it is all monitored. Ships and Submarines have the same thing. After seeing Trek, I realize I think that’s what we are all missing. I don’t even need a warp-core so much as I need a nice tidy control room where people can realistically focus on the myriad of status lights necessary to maintain such complex systems, which is all the TOS engine room ever was. As it was, it seemed like Scotty was running around the bowls of the ship adjusting valves manually as if that was what was fine tuning the ship. The reality is, unless a valve that needed to be turned was stuck or damaged, it would be done electronically from the control room. And certainly Scotty would not be running around turning them all himself, there would be crews handling it, to physically bypass it if necessary.
It’s fine to show us the factory floor if there is a reason: something goes wrong and Scotty & crew race out of the monitoring control room and into the bowels of the ship to fix the pipes. But we never saw that. And that was fine for this film. Heck it might be fine for the next film too, if we never have a reason to go to Engineering. So this debate could be completely moot.
235:
I wrote it as a joke. Another reason for us to pony up for the DVD’s again ;-)
235:
Harcourt Mudd… come on man.
I would like Zack Snyder to direct a sequel. Other choices I’d be in favor of: Nimoy (unrealistic, however), Frakes, Meyer.
Or George Lucas, but he won’t do it, he said :-)
238:
RD:
“The second was when Uhura was sitting in the middle of the brewery. I didn’t really understand where she was…”
I got lost there, too. But if you look at the primary hull of JJ’s Enterprise from the top, there is a long protrusion that extends astern from the Bridge to right above the impulse engines. My impression was that this is a long corridor containing support services for the Bridge officers. On the same floor as the Bridge, too. Neither Jeffries’ nor Probert’s ‘E’ designs have this.
You want a story teller? Guillermo del Toro. There. You have my vote.
#238 One more thought … I keep remembering the China Syndrome and how effective the nuclear power plant’s control room was (which is a similar layout to many power plants). It had a sense of vastness and an industrial look that I think JJ wanted to convey, yet it was still clearly a control room that was well organized and practical. Much of the film then took place actually out in the power plant amongst the pipes as they tried to subvert the control room’s ability to control the equipment. It was all very effective (and without having the “core” prominently in view).
145
I would love to see Peter Jackson direct a ST film although I want JJ to stay.
179, 193
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
202
Dude, you are my hero. I can’t stand some of these troll. I think they like to live in the fan review section. I feel stupid because now it’s gotten to the point where I’m actually flaming the trolls who put bad reviews up. I’ve never really flamed anyone before and I really don’t like it. But it burns me up when people who never post here decide to come and troll around and badmouth this movie without backing up their argument.
218
Going to have to disagree with you. Phase II has such bad acting that I could only watch a few minutes of it because I kept laughing. If you like it, cool. It’s just not my thing.
#232—Will the new dvd release come with “Venus pills” and mail order brides?
Bring Brian Singer to direct the Sequel !!!
Producer: J.J. Abrams
Director: Brian Singer
Screenplay: Alex Kurtzman, Bob Orci & Paul Haggis
Music: Michael Giacchino or John Ottman
IMO, the real strength of “Star Trek” was never the SF element (all the alien opponents, space anomalies etc. were mostly “MacGuffins” – like the Magical Strawberry Jam, sorry, “Red Matter”, here). What made Trek great were the characters and their interactions.
Good characters, played by a great cast, are here again – give them a good story. E. g. Kirk is not the man he was in TOS – yet. NuKirk is brave and was, luckily, about the only one who understood what was going on in the movie (expect from Pike). He still has a long way to go before he becomes a true Captain – the next movies should show how he gets there.
But a good, tight story is crucial: STII was a solid adventure (with a lot of subplots and real danger); STIV was so successful, because non-fans could enjoy it (it was, basically, a well-directed comedy with a “time travellers from the future in the present” plot to them).
I like a good space battle as much as the next Trekker – but they are just the (necessary ) icing on the cake!
Btw, nearly every SF movie has plot holes big enough the Enterprise could fly through them sideways – but if the story is good, you’ll only spot them later.
John Lesher, the Chairman of Paramount is a former agent who made his name by working the festival circuit and representing major arthouse, foreign and indie directors, like Scorcese, Cuaron and Inarritu.
if JJ bails out [not the end of the world] we’re more likely to see daring choices along the lines of what WB did on the Harry Potter films.
246:
Closet:
Only in the special “Closettrekker” edition of Star Trek VIII: The Final Frontier. You’ll need the pills for the 15 extra minutes of Yosemite scenes and the “Meaning of God” feature narrated by Larry Luckenbill. The girls are an easter egg.
This all sounds great!
Only question is, if Trek gets another tv show, do we go to the prime universe, or the abramsverse?
RD, you must have read my mind about nuclear power plants. Get out of my head! ;-)
Also, I want to remind the True Believers, Trekkies, Trek fans, and all manner of assorted devotees of Trek — of which I am all of the above! :-) — that we can sometimes get so detailed and massively involved in the franchise (at least in our own minds!) that we forget the one most important thing, and I’m bottom-lining it for ya:
TREK IS — and get this…
(…are you ready?)
(… seriously, are you?)
… FUN! F, U, N en en en en…. FUNNNNN.
Fun. There. I said it.
Really, guys. The fun is back with the new Star Trek.
Ain’t nuthin’ wrong with that. :-)
I think 2011 is too soon. I say wait until 2012. This gives Abrams enough time to maybe do some other project unrelated to a prequel or sequel.
Secondly, what is the rush? Dark Knight came out three years after Batman Begins and look how that turned out. I say be patient, write a good script and let the DVD hold people over until 2012.
Third, please no TV shows just yet. Just because the movie was successful doesn’t mean people are ready for another TV show. Again, I say be patient and lets wait to see just how successful the ST XII is before talking TV again.
Plus, so long as JJ is the director, STAR TREK will not address any current affairs, political or controversial issues.
Here is a direct quote of the boilerplate executives at Bad Robot spew when you discuss new material with them: “JJ is politically active in his private life, so he will not touch politics in his business life.”
Along with sexy aliens and ’splosions, pretentious political messages are one of my favorite things about TOS. So when JJ bails, I will salute him, but my heart will go on.
I’d like to see Abrams stay on as director for another, although I can understand his desire to take on something that isn’t a re-interpretation of an old television show. My gut feeling now is that he will produce, but not direct. I wouldn’t expect any big name guy in the chair either. It will likely be a “Bad Robot-friendly” type, IMO.
Meyer and Nimoy would be lost in this kind of project. Too many things have changed since either of them directed a Star Trek film, and Paramount/Bad Robot would not be doing themselves any favors by retreading guys whose best work was on low-budget features in the 1980’s. That scenario is about as unrealistic as it gets. Same with Frakes. I think this kind of feature (Summer tentpole) is a bit over his head.
I agree with the poster above that Abrams could likely be handed the proverbial “blank check” to remain at the helm, but I’m not sure it will make any difference. This is a guy who has a history of getting antsy. His M.O. seems to be to help get something really interesting started and then move on to the next thing he wants to do.
But again, I would love to see him stay on as director of at least the 2nd film in this new series. But one thing I get from Abrams in most interviews on the subject is that it is a new challenge which gets his attention. And what “new challenge” is there for him in taking on yet another Star Trek movie? I just don’t see it. Is there enough sincerity in his “I have now become a fan” mantra of late to distract him from seeking another new challenge instead? I doubt it…but I hope so.
#250—-”Only in the special “Closettrekker” edition of Star Trek VIII: The Final Frontier. You’ll need the pills for the 15 extra minutes of Yosemite scenes and the “Meaning of God” feature narrated by Larry Luckenbill. The girls are an easter egg.”
Anti-turd pills?
I’ll at least need a bottle of ‘Fabreze’….Boy, the recession must really be hurting everyone if Paramount has put a pimp like “Leo Walsh” (aka Harcourt Fenton Mudd) in a PR role!
Jeffreries Tuber:
“Plus, so long as JJ is the director, STAR TREK will not address any current affairs, political or controversial issues.”
I think that’s fine. Star Trek is at its best when it explores the human condition. Just look how Roddenberry started: One episode about being happily caged vs. being truly free, and then another about humans achieving absolute power and losing their humanity.
When Trek does politics, it always shows both sides, as in “Private Little War,” where Kirk and McCoy argue the issue of arming the locals. But it tends to side with what’s practical in the given situation. TNG and DS9 addressed terrorism, but always with a view to both sides. The show never took a stand except to show that diversity and inclusion are powerful, and that force is always the last resort.
255:
Closet:
“I wouldn’t expect any big name guy in the chair either. It will likely be a “Bad Robot-friendly” type, IMO.”
“Star Wars” was directed by George Lucas. “Empire Strikes Back” was directed by Irvin Kershner (who later went on to destroy Robocop 2). He had no discernible style, and stuck with the program. “ROTJ” was directed by Richard Marquand, but once again, he was invisible as an artist behind the parameters of the project.
JJ could bring someone in with “chops” to maintain the new frenetic visual style he brought to Trek09, and as long as he and the boys are still in control, maintain his vision of the franchise.
#258—That’s basically what I mean by “Bad Robot-friendly”.
I expect it to be someone who isn’t going to bring along any particularly distinctive style and approach. I expect it to be someone who will generally “stick with the program”.
What will likely be remembered is that it will have been produced by JJ Abrams….not that it was directed by (fill in the blank)—-just as ESB is not widely associated with Kershner, but Lucas. The director of the sequel (in the minds of the public) will likely be pretty much an afterthought, as long as Abrams’ name is still attached to it, in very much the same way.
Here’s to the next 10 films!
As long as they can put together well thought out stories that don’t rehash old story lines (gee, like revenge and destruction and the need for a villian) and don’t get cheap on spending money, then it has a chance to thrive…
Stop whining about lens flares!!
I’d still pass my vote for Speilberg. If JJ doesn’t want to do it, no point in forcing him since his heart won’t fully be in it and the result will be less as impressive.
#257—”Star Trek is at its best when it explores the human condition. ”
Agreed.
It’s really about simple things that are universal, meaning that the 23rd Century setting really does nothing to alter the questions. It wasn’t even particularly intelligent or thought-provoking, to be quite honest. After all, Star Trek’s themes and messages are always pretty much spelled out for the audience in plain English as part of the dialogue. Was there anything really left to ponder after an episode of Trek?
Sometimes, the reverance for Star Trek’s sociological (or worse, political) significance gets “overstated”, to put it mildly. TOS pointed out contemporary social ills, and offered the audience the thought of a time and place where human beings had moved beyond them, but never losing what it is that makes them human.
I think the extent of its significance is really the inherent optimism of the setting. And that remains so today. Aside from that, its strength was in great characters, as it is again.
I would hate to think that there would ever be a time when I had to sit through Captain Kirk telling me which way I should lean politically.
#2 – I echo your statement entirely. On first viewing of the film, I was unsure. Upon second viewing, my opinion has been solidified – it’s far from being my favourite ‘Trek film, but it is excellent. It just took a couple of visits to convince me of that! I am always of the philosophy of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and that would apply to the writing/directorial team present in this movie. Just like the Bennet/Myer formula was so successful in the 80s and 90s.
My biggest complaint that is technical in nature is that annoying and eye-straining lens-flare.
Some use of bright lights and lens flare is OK and it surely enhances some scenes, BUT, during the Star Trek movie it was very difficult to deal with theg lens flare in a darkened theater.
I suggest the director of the next Star Trek movie be more judicious with the lens flare.
There are numerous lighting and camera techniques. A good Director and DoP will use of available techniques to complement the scenes and actors; HOWEVER, overuse of any one technique in a film can have a dulling effect on the viewer.
I know overuse of such techniques bothers me, NOT just in the Star Trek movie, but in any movie.
257, 263 — “I think that’s fine. Star Trek is at its best when it explores the human condition.”
Agreed, and very well said. That’s what made it great science fiction.
Let’s not also forget what made it great drama: the characters. These were seven characters who were real people, not just blank archetypes. The fact that you have people today who will tell you they went into medicine because of McCoy, or engineering because of Scotty, or even decided to leave the projects because they were inspired by Uhura (Whoopi Goldberg) exists precisely because the actors and writers made these characters interesting, fun, and compelling.
Is it possible to think of Trek cinema as kind of the NCAA of Trek University? I mean, with most universities, the big money is in athletics — the TV contracts, the exposure, and so forth.
The intellectual stuff is still there, and it’s funded in part by athletics… but athletics itself isn’t particularly intellectual (at least, as compared to your typical doctoral degree).
Rather than fold, eventually, like a certain well-known small but financially strapped liberal arts college, Trek is a powerhouse funded in large measure by its flashy and powerful cinematic wing. In the meantime, Trek continues to flourish as an intellectual… enterprise. Glitz notwithstanding.
How’s that for an analogy?
Let’s not forget that ST VI: The Undiscovered Country dealt with the end of the cold war and ST IV:The Voyage Home dealt with saving the whales. So there is a precedent for Star Trek movies to deal with current social issues. I believe those issues must be big and universal enough to appeal to a mass audience. One could say ST09 was about dealing with a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction.
Dauman: “That’s why ‘Star Trek’ is so important. We greenlit ‘Star Trek 2′ several weeks before the release of ‘1′ because we knew what we had.”
Mr. Dauman, don’t you mean ‘Star Trek 12?’. There was a ‘Star Trek 2′ back in 1982.
19
I’d love to see Spielberg direct a Trek, but his ask-in price would be steep- probably too steep.
Myself, I’d like to see Tarantino take a shot at Trek, but that’s just my sadistic side peeking out.
268
As to use of current sweeping political themes, don’t forget that Star Trek: Emesis was another movie about a Romulan based terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction that had zero mass appeal.
Good execution is the key.
Here’s a question then? If Abrams is unable then Whom do you want to direct the film?
I do dearly hope the following:
- CBS does not oversaturate the market with a Trek series
- We are again fortunate to witness JJ’s directorial genius on multiple sequels
- Wm Shatner is not in the sequel, but we refrain from bashing him. He’s a legend and will always be our Captain Kirk.
@202
Complete agreement! After multiple viewings I do not fathom why the “lens flare” is a subject of any import. I do think with so many people affected, that perhaps the bright sudden light affects persons psychologically or biochemically, such as persons who are prone to motion sickness. I really don’t know but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
While we’re at it, the engine room is fine. Any way to save a ton of cash without sacrificing story is a good way.
How much does Star Trek cost?
I’ll buy all the TV and Movie rights!
seriously
259. Closettrekker: ‘That’s basically what I mean by “Bad Robot-friendly”. I expect it to be someone who isn’t going to bring along any particularly distinctive style and approach. I expect it to be someone who will generally “stick with the program”.’
Ken Olin might be an interesting choice: his episodes of Alias were more Abrams than Abrams himself!
i Love those lens flares!!!!!
Perhaps Trek is a different thing for everyone, and that’s because many here see the new Trek as the best Trek ever.
For me, grown in the TNG era, Trek was the best possible mixture between futuristic sci-fi, philosophical problem solving, what-if stories, ship fighting and science/technobabble. Following series like VOY, ENT and DS9 kept that premise in a moderate way with different success.
I really love the “new-planet-with-strange-culture” episodes, and ST09 delivered nothing like that. None of the films ever did (except perhaps Insurrection). It very entertaining (most entertaining film I remember), but to call it Trek was short of a travesty: some guys having romance, action and thrill who also happen to have the same name as well-known characters.
I wonder if the only way of revitalizaing something is killing it, so I keep hoping ST11 will be better in that way. But I also know that if it were, perhaps it woudn’t be such a blockbuster.
257/263 – There is little difference between politics and “human condition.” Politics is from the Latin root ‘polis,’ meaning ‘people.’ Thus politics is about the interaction of people–ie, the human condition.
And my point is about “addressing” issues, not taking a side. The new movie does take a side by showing a genocidal maniac torturing Pike, the way the Bush administration authorized the CIA, Israelis and Eastern European nations to do on our behalf.
257 – I totally agree with your Cage/WNMHGB analysis, but those episodes had special meaning to the kids who created the Summer of Love and the Days of Rage. They were completely read in the context of Vietnam, the Cold War and a youth culture that was set to explode 2 years later.
#277—”The new movie does take a side by showing a genocidal maniac torturing Pike, the way the Bush administration authorized the CIA, Israelis and Eastern European nations to do on our behalf.”
I think that’s a huge stretch!
The use of torture by a villain in film is almost as old as film itself. The Bush Administration didn’t invent the concept.
You read far too much into that, IMO.
The scene makes no more statement than TWOK did when Khan used similar creatures (for similar reason) on Terrell and Chekov.
“There is little difference between politics and “human condition.” Politics is from the Latin root ‘polis,’ meaning ‘people.’ Thus politics is about the interaction of people–ie, the human condition.”
According to Merriam-Webster’s—
Politics— a: the art or science of government; b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy; c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
The human condition refers to the distinctively human features of man’s existence. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events that are common to most human lives, and some that are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition.—-Wikipedia
There is a huge difference.
Examples of the exploration of the “human condition” include questions about the meaning of life, the inevitability of death, procreation, suffering, etc., and ultimately how human beings deal with these issues.
Of course, in very broad terms, the need for “politics” is a manifestation of certain universal needs, which may be construed as *part* of the human condition. But to suggest that there is little difference is just way off…
277. Jefferies Tuber: ‘The new movie does take a side by showing a genocidal maniac torturing Pike, the way the Bush administration authorized the CIA, Israelis and Eastern European nations to do on our behalf.’
I never read anything like that into the film!
Nero is an archetypal bad guy. Bad guys do mean things to people. Really, Nero’s behaviour was little different from a moustache-twirling villain tying a damsel in distress to a rail track as the 8am mail train is due to come past!
Frankly, I’m sick to the back teeth of people bleating on about Bush. It’s been done to death and is boring as hell! I’m sure JJ wanted as little to do with overt statement-making as possible.
I want Star Trek to be fun, like the original show was, not an instruction manual on which way to vote. That was a TNG thing and TNG had very little to do with the original Star Trek!
There has been some discussion on this thread about the director of the next film. Many famous, high-priced names have been mentioned. Since Abrams seems ambivilant about it, can I suggest a dark horse?
Duncan Jones. Director of “Moon” (aka Zowie Bowie, son of David Bowie).
His film has received rave reviews and great buzz.. He is a self-professed fan of good sci-fi (Blade Runner, Silent Running, Alien, and 2001 are among his favorites). He produced this film independently on a measley $5M budget, but got actors like Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey to agree to it. It was actually written by Jones with Rockwell in mind for the lead. Good artistic genes and good instincts, and he would be relatively cheap. My only qualm is that he may be on the cerebral side of sci-fi, rather than the action/adventure side. The new Trek needs both sides.
Anyway, just throwing this out for comment. An unknown but talented director might be good for the “new” Trek. His film opens in limited release on June 12th. Check it out.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/moon/
http://www.sonyclassics.com/moon/moon_presskit.pdf
277: “Politics is from the Latin root ‘polis,’ meaning ‘people.’”
‘Polis’ is ancient Greek and means ‘city’ or ‘city-state’.
91. RD – May 27, 2009
—- #89,
yup! But didn’t you like this one? Expect more of the same.—-
I did enjoy this one. But, the next one, it seems, will have even MORE pressure to perform to an even WIDER audience….
And, it won’t have the thrill of exposition pushing it along. We’ll all be familiar with the characters and where they’ve come from, and we’ll be looking to go deeper with them. And, the frenetic pace of this film I don’t think will work as well in the next film—Abrams et al won’t have the excuse, the next time around, of having to cram so much exposition into the film. If they have the story, with all of its premises and would-be compelling details, whiz by at ADD-proof speed in the next one, it’ll call attention to the pacing of the film. (Not that it didn’t call attention to it this time, but, they had the justification of having to cram in so much exposition and get on with the story.)
And, the whole shaky, hand-held camera style, which has the added benefit (not by accident) of preventing us from getting too good a look at the sets, lest we see the “seams,” I suspect, will also be more annoying next time, if they use it as much as they did this time.
[...] [...]