Paramount First To Pass $1 Bil. in 2009 – Studio Chief ‘Excited’ For Future Trek (& Transformers) July 10, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Paramount, Star Trek (2009 film), Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback
Just like last year, Paramount Pictures is again the first studio to pass the $1 Billion mark in domestic ticket sales, and over half of that is due to two films, Star Trek, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Paramount has released a statement about the event, which cites both films as well as acknowledging how they will play into the future of the studio.
Grey cites Trek and Transformers
As of Thursday, Paramount had $1.08 Billion in domestic sales, giving it 19.5% of 2009’s market share, and $310M of that is from Transformers 2 with another $250.7M from Star Trek. Another way to look at it is that 10% of domestic sales for 2009 (so far) can be attributed to the two movies written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.
In a press release regarding the $1Billion milestone, Paramount chairman and CEO Brad Grey stated:
This year has been marked by two great events for our studio: the rebooting of the Star Trek franchise under J J Abrams and the immense performance of Michael Bay’s Transformers sequel. These tentpoles performed wonderfully for us this year and we are excited for what they mean for our business in the years ahead.
Like other recent comments from Viacom CEO Phillipe Dauman, this shows how Star Trek is once again one of the key assets of Paramount and the sequel is seen as an important part of the future.
Warner Brothers, with a Harry Potter film opening next week, is Paramount’s biggest competition for the top spot of 2009. The studios have traded off the number one and number two spots for the last couple of years.
Star Trek is headed into its 10th weekend at the box office domestically and is still in 763 theaters, which isn’t bad for a film that far out. Terminator 4, which came out two weeks after Trek, is only in 221 theaters.
Fox leads internationally
However, in another sign that Star Trek still has work to do overseas, Fox is the first studio to pass the $1 Billion mark in international sales for 2009, buoyed by Ice Age 3, Wolverine and Night at the Museum 2. Paramount trails Fox’s overseas sales by around $50M.
Loading ...
Comments»
go star trek!
Great job, Robert Orci!
G. I. Joe should help Paramount, as well.
Guess it is time now for a new Star Trek series as well.
Bob, congrats on all the success! It would be nice if you could leverage some of the clout you undoubtedly will have to secure funding for a smaller “dream project”. Do you and Kurtzman have one filed away (either literally or in your minds)?
G.I Joe will fail miserably….
If it evens opens decent on it’s first weekend, it will implode during it’s second.
From what I’ve seen in the trailers, I get the impression that “GI Joe” is a live-action version of “Team America: World Police.” Too bad “GI Joe” won’t use the same theme song as in “Team America.”
Come on, sing it with me. “America …f#@% yeah!”
#TrekMovie.com Staff once wrote “However, in another sign that Star Trek still has word (sic) to do overseas..,”
I am having difficulty discerning your meaning. It is possible you meant “work to do” or “word to spread”. Could you clarify, please?
Hope this doesn’t mean any more spin-offs anytime soon – the wounds from spreading Trek waaaay too thin are still fresh….
7. while the lack of proof reading is irritating, I thought it was fairly easy to discern that the meaning was “Work to do..”
Yes I’m afraid GI JOE will be a box office disappointment. I’m happy to see PARAMOUNT maintaining their speed this year. HARRY POTTER should slow them down a bit.
Yup… G.I Joe will probably fail. I think i heard the director of G.I Joe ‘Stephen Sommers’ was fired after they had the movie viewed in front of a test crowd. They actually brought in Star Trek Nemesis Director ‘Stuard Baird’ to edit the movie because its soo awful. LOL, DO YOU PEOPLE SEE THE IRONY ? STUARD BAIRD !!!!! LOLOL. Oh man !
#7, wow.
Baird would add 3 or 4 more looooong speeches by Cobra leader and give us lingering shots of the planes for no particular reason.
@ 13. yea, lololol. If the rumor is true. Then i think Paramount is sometimes brilliant with taking risks ( aka, jj abrams trek) and not so brilliant (considering baird is a great editor/director nemesis).
7. Easy tiger. It’s just a typo, even the best of us hit the wrong key sometimes. Work it is.
3. Many of us have been campaigning for that for 4 long before now, since 2005. Bring back Enterprise!
I think this typo thing is contagious.
15. Should read “4 long years, since 2005″.
Um, I’m probably in the minority here, but I for one feel that box office ratings shouldn’t be this important to those who care more about a good story thatn how many tickets or burger king glasses were sold. Yes, I know, ultimately it’s a business, but a business founded on entertainment through good, dramatic storytelling that *should* make us reflect on ourselves. Star Trek at its heart was about being a social commentary while still being entertaining. Look at (my favorite episode) “The Ultimate Computer”, here we see Kirk being told that he is basically worthless because a machine can do his job better/cheaper/faster. This was a perfect alagory to the move towards heavy automation in the auto industry at the time. Kirk worrying about “what will I do know” stuff shows how human a story this is. I haven’t felt that about the new movie, heck even about ‘Enterprise’ or ‘Voyager’.
Again, i realize I’m in the minority here, but success for Star Trek should I think be measured by something other than how big a dollar sign Hollywood can put on the Enterprise.
Could someone educate me here? Last I knew a film had to make 2.5 times its production costs to break even and ST is right now exactly at that point internationally. Is the overall euphoria about the money totals taking into considering the anticipated profits over DVD and other sales or is there something more I am missing?
Hey Bob and Alex. How much of that 500 Million Plus are you Guys Getting. Lol. Anyway. Way to go Guys. You are the hottest Writers on the Planet or the Federation. Way to go paramount for getting the best Writers to pen the best Movies. Long Live Star Trek.
STAAAR TREEEK!!!
After all making movies is only about making money these days. Sheesh. Sometimes I hate what Hollywood puts as their top priority. Lets not forget that film is an art form.
Congrats Mr. Orci. I have two questions: Why does a robot need male reproductive organs and who’s idea was that? Transformers is supposed to be based on childrens toys and cartoons, not adult material.
Re: #15:
Hello, Christopher. This is Gary….
Anyway, this is a great, great site and Anthony does an amazing job. That said, I really don’t like and can’t understand the very frequent typos. It’s unnecessarily sloppy in an otherwise BRILLIANT site. It’s also distracting, having to pause and figure out “What does that mean?” Oh, he meant to say ….”
Team TrekMoviecommenters: GRAMMAR POLICE
LOL get over yourselves
#23 typos are just that. This isn’t a college paper. No big deal.
17 I agree. I would rather see “deeper” Kirk and Spock than “action” Spock and Kirk. In TOS they were both. Waiting for the gravitas, but that does not often sell in this ADD MTV world.
New STAR TREK SERIES — “STARFLEET ACADEMY”
Show the JJverse Academy
Transformers was HORRIBLE.
Writing, Directing and Acting were all horrible (save for the parents).
From the clips I’ve seen from GI Joe, all that CGI will interest the 8 year olds, the 30-50 year olds might ID it as a cartoon (but looks kind of real). And the 50+ croud have seen real wars.
So I figure it will be sold to the Saturday morning viewers. All the kids have to do is start asking for less ice cream and more GI Joe. If this happens then projections may be reached.
GI Joe may get a B class movie rating. And kids are looking for things that will make them think they have power. I may se it once at the movies otherwise I’ll save money and wait for it to hit cable this upcoming spring.
As for the quality of Hollyweed Movies, look at the marketing structure. Make movies that look good on screen, if it ain’t got CGI it’s a waste of film or now days disk storage space. But if you can get kids to go for it, they can bug mommy, daddy, or the grandparents to spend money to hush them up. Who cares about good story line or valid plot, it’s action the kids like. And when did you hear a rug rat or crumb cruncher want a story line. But it needs to look kind of real because if kids can not see it happening in their worlds then how are kids going to want to see it many times to fill their smaller less real world experiences.
Just remember the real world has gone from 40-50 year olds in 1776 to 30-40 year olds at the turn of the 19th/20th century. Then to the 20-30’s in the 60’s, the teeny-bobs in the 80’s, the pre teens as the 21st century started, now to the 6 to 12 year old Jr. Terrorists. Figure by 2020 the action will be for toddlers, all to get their brains active in thought so to make brain cells get used to develop the brain and have the kids grow up smarter or shall I say more programable by the Mass Media Market.
Much of this understanding of how a brain develops has come from a Denver Metro University Proffessor, do not recall his name but has been featured in many Discovery programs on Improving your child’s brain.
They will mever market to babies before birth because that is a political squabble with the right to life/aborrtion groups. And can conflict with the favored views of those people that make films and shows.
Star Trek will be around well into the foreseeable future. That our historically under-respected, old, and “un-cool” franchise is up in the same league as hot, sexy, new “Transformers” speaks volumes about what J.J. and Co. did.
23. It would handy to go back and re-edit comments, say within a 5 minutes window. Occassionally remarks can come off a little too strong and you can end up regretting it. Aside from that punctuation, spelling errors tend to be the first thing that suffers when posting. I’m guilty as charged for going back in several times to edit “on the fly”.
Maybe I need to let the words settle in the yellow message box before hitting “Say it”. Read and re-read before sending. But then emotions often run pretty high when you’ve just read something you flat out disagree with. You can too often undermine your side of the argument, by posting in haste.
NO SERIES!
Not right now.
Let this trilogy of movies do its thing and then see where things stand.
Let’s not fall into the trap again of too much TREK going on at once.
4. Anthony Thompson
Still trying to get our political thriller “The 28th Amendment” going.
Mike Ten – July 11, 2009
“Congrats Mr. Orci. I have two questions: Why does a robot need male reproductive organs and who’s idea was that? Transformers is supposed to be based on childrens toys and cartoons, not adult material.”
As with much of the humor, it is scripted ever so slightly more nuanced, and then it is taken over the top on the day. Us 3 screenwriters will take the blame for the gag, but I believe in the script it was meant to be a sight gag only, with Simmons under this giant machine made of construction equipment including wrecking balls.
Congrats on Trek, Mr. Orci. I really believe that Star Trek is where you 2 or 3 can show your intelligence in writing, unlike something like Transformers (no offense to it, it’s just a different kind of audience). Please be original and thought provoking, not character and story rehashers when it comes to Trek. We got plenty of that from the last powers that WERE. Thanks! Going to see Trek for the 8th time real soon!
Well there’s no accounting for taste.
Trek and Transformers sharing the same stage … fortunately Transformers 2 should so far outpace Trek by the end of its run, they will no longer have anything to do with each other.
Also, I am continually amused by the positing of Trek ever having been anything less than a key asset. So what, 1 in 10 films performs so poorly at the box office, before requiring a reboot. Batman should have had such luck.
Wow I am loving the success Star Trek is having, such a huge vibe. I can hardly wait for the sequel, we know that this is Paramount’s main focus you can bet it would put the 2009 film to shame.
I might pop in once more to see it before its gone, that would make it the 8th time.
Woo-hoo! Rock on, Trek!
One year ago we were all waiting for Trek, so many were trashing it…well there you are over $250 million. Ahead warp 5…
Orci, Kurtzman, Congratulations on writing the top movies for this summer !!!!
Now you have proven you’re “Trek Credentials”, lets see what you bring for the sequel ;-)
Congratulations, Paramount!!! Keep up the great work because even in a “bad” economy, people STILL need to be and see entertainment. And there is no better entertainment, than Star Trek!
Hopefully, Paramount will EXPAND the “Paramount Star Trek Webmaster Program” to a point where members can participate EVEN MORE in promoting the future Star Trek movies and tv shows!
GREAT JOB, many kudos!!!
@ #34
Bob, that is funny, and I will surely go see the movie now. But, no-one has bigger “wrecking balls” than the excellent writers of STAR TREK!!! I think you guys have proven that. Although, I wouldn’t look at it as “wrecking.” You guys are geniuses! Say, can I ask a personal question? Are both Alex and yourself right-brained or left-brained? Or both? I think my ratio is 49:51 – almost equally divided between right and left-brained.
Trek has officially lost it’s 3rd place worldwide ranking to “Night At the Museum”, which continues to outpace Trek at the boxoffice, so it is unlikely Trek will reclaim it. “Harry Potter” will most definitely drop Trek to 5th place worldwide after next week. Domestically, Trek has stalled at the box office in 3rd place, while “The Hangover”, released a month later, continues to be a strong earner and is catching up fast, a little over $30M behind. While “Harry Potter” should definitely guarantee Trek a number 4 spot shortly, “The Hangover” may well overtake Trek knocking it to 5th place by August, where Trek should hang around until the end of Summer, unless “GI:Joe” surprises everyone. “Ice Age” is also gaining fast with a long way to go and may prove to be as potent as “UP” further unseating Trek. “Bruno” almost doubled its predecessor’s previous opening day, but unless it likewise doubles it’s domestic take to be an equally potent phenomenon, will probably have no effect on Trek. If “UP” and “Ice Age” continue to pan out, the taste for family fare entertainment and 3D films may catapult the holiday release of “Avatar” well ahead of the pack as well. So it’s looking more like a lower top 10 finish for Trek, considering films like “2012″, “Sherlock Holmes”.
Jeez, if I think too hard about how much money Hollywood rakes in, I just get depressed….
go Star Trek, Transformers: ROTF (even though the movie coulda been a lot better but still good), and Go Joe!!! Transformers was good but Star Trek was slightly better.
#44—”“Ice Age” is also gaining fast with a long way to go and may prove to be as potent as “UP” further unseating Trek. ”
I am not sure how it will affect the box-office take (if at all), but “Ice Age” isn’t getting the kind of reviews that “Up” received. By most accounts, the quality isn’t there. Unlike with “Up”, I wouldn’t expect many repeat viewings.
#37—”I am continually amused by the positing of Trek ever having been anything less than a key asset. So what, 1 in 10 films performs so poorly at the box office, before requiring a reboot. Batman should have had such luck.”
Why so amused?
There is no denying that Trek has long been an “asset”. I think the difference is what constitutes a “key asset”.
It has been thirty years since a Star Trek film garnered this kind of gross, and I there has never been this kind of optimism about its potential for the near future. This is really the first time that mainstream moviegoers have warmed to a Star Trek film since 1986.
I think that is what separates what was an asset (December release) from what is now a “key asset” (big time Summer Movie with sequels expected to be at least equally big time) in this context.
@ #34
Hey Bob, this is off-topic, but I was checking out the Star Trek Movie site at Paramount, do you know if the “SUPER-COOL” flash version of the movie site is going to be available? I noticed the “mobile” version of the site is “kinda strange” and I thought it was “hacked” at first. It’s a drastic change from what I was accustomed to, any info on it?
I am not sure about any other person’s preference, I liked the “MASSIVE” style and content of the “flash” site. Hopefully they will put it back up when they get finished.
On a side-note: “How does the web know the difference between a phone and a computer monitor?” Here we go into ANOTHER digital divide and convergence of technology. From notebooks to netbooks and typewriters to word processors — “Dammit Jim, I am a workstation not a mobile phone!”
Can a person have a simple splash screen with TWO BUTTONS or GRAPHICS which say:
MOBILE
OR
FULL-VERSION
of a site? Then the respective pages / sites would load up? Anyone have any great innovative ideas?
@ #48
CT, I think the difference (now) and the difference (then) with Star Trek being either an “asset” or a “key-asset,” would be how well either leverages the media (mainstream) and how well the convergent technologies handle it. Any asset is mean to be used up and what we are witnessing is not much different. When a physical building gets used up and depreciated, you build another and put your shingle on the side of it. Rinse and repeat. But brand loyalty plays a HUGE role in this and no matter what you do, some people won’t switch, no matter what. That brand loyalty is as much a part of their “self-image” until they realize one is as good as the other and it was the same ingredient all along, just in a different package. This pressures the makers to produced products so unique, high-quality, and valuable that no one can compete with it. Generic will only last so long until the consumers demand a superior product OR make one themselves.
47-
I am not sure how it will affect the box-office take (if at all), but “Ice Age” isn’t getting the kind of reviews that “Up” received. Unlike with “Up”, I wouldn’t expect many repeat viewings.
My kids are 5 and 8. They would watch franchises like Ice Age, Shrek, Madagascar over and over again first in the theatre (if they were allowed) and then on DVD/Blu Ray. I frankly doubt it matters how good it is. If it’s bad, I would suspect it will impact the expectations for the next film, but will have a lesser impact on the draw this time around. As a parent, I am finding that in spite of over a century of moving pictures, there are relatively few films my kids will appreciate that they haven’t already seen. When there is a film we know to be really bad, we will end up watching it anyways, if not so our kids can live up to the peer pressure of being in the know in elementary school then just to break up the monotony, secure that it will not be too adult, too violent, or too boring for kids of that age.
While they are far from perfect, it seems that Pixar has a different thing going on– they seem intent on maintaining an Oscar-worthy level of quality with most of their major outings and where there is easy money to be made (Incredibles 2,3,4,….) they seem to hold off until they define a story worth telling.
It’s sad to say the only way we will get major films which are better is if a mass majority of people become FILMMAKERS….yes I said it, I am one of them. Will have my BS in film this december so WATCH OUT Hollywood…I am going to rule to world…!!!!
#48. Closettrekker wrote: #37…Why so amused? There is no denying that Trek has long been an “asset”. I think the difference is what constitutes a “key asset”.
My reference to Batman is the key to my thinking. I seriously doubt Warner Bros. ever felt Batman was no longer a “key” asset and merely an “asset” (though I think that distinction is inferred and not implied).
My point is, Trek survived significantly longer than Batman at the box office before getting a reboot and during that time when it was all one big happy company, had 3 TV series on the air which ran for 7 seasons each and did well enough to spin off a 4th. If that’s not a “key” asset I don’t know what is. Name another franchise of Paramount’s that has been more key to both box office and TV. Outside of “Mission Impossible”, I’m hard pressed to do it.
@54: Films are just do damned expensive to make that it’s most often necessary that they be a collaborative effort with those who have the money to let you make them, unless you are going to make art films or YouTube entries.
Digital Video holds promise for indie film makers, particularly with the coming introduction of the Red Scarlet camera, but if you caught Public Enemy (shot on digital), you’ll see that the technology still isn’t ready for the big screen, particularly during camera movement when the video nature of the medium becomes glaringly obvious.
On the positive side, night shots on digital video hold promise.
Have to say, I enjoyed most of the movies I saw this summer.
Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell I thought was better than the reviews. It was a flashback to Raimi’s earlier stuff, and I enjoyed it. Land Of The Lost was funnier than the typical Will Ferrell film, and last night I went to see The Hurt Locker, which was fantastic.
I’m going to shoot for a 5th viewing of Star Trek next weekend. I can’t wait for the Blueray, and I do hope there will be an extended version of the film, not just the special feature of deleted scenes.
And BTW, who the hell is on the list of directors to direct the Trek sequel? I would love JJ to be back for that role, but I’m having a hard time thinking up alternatives.
Bryan Singer?
I keep wondering how Francis Ford Coppola would do it; an erratic genius who can make brilliant movies like The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Peggy Sue Got Married, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, or totally oddball pieces like Rumblefish, One From The Heart, and Youth Without Youth. He’s a man who can go off and make intensely personal films or who can become the genius head of a team project, which Star Trek really would be.
Zack Snyder?
Guillermo Del Toro?
Can we add BOB ORCI to that list of potential directors? : )
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was a Bad movie But I liked It better than Star Trek.
So if Paramount is doing so well, why did they fire John Lesher and Brad Weston? I heard they were canned because of they were slow in developing new movies or something, but the studio still managed to pass $1 billion, so…. what gives?
Well, whatever. Congratulations to Paramount. I’m sure Lesher and Weston are happy for the success they helped you achieve.
It’s a good year for Paramount, if only considering box office, which is all they care about. In terms of quality, aside from Star Trek, they have/are releasing largely junk. G.I. Joe, sadly, looks hideous, though I can’t imagine it’s worse than Transformers ROTF.
#61. Pretty much every successful under the Paramount banner has either been a Marvel or Dreamworks production, to which Paramount has the distribution rights. The last film that was solely a Paramount production that did well was probably Cloverfield in January 2008.
57- Does Drag Me To Hell have the humor of the original Evil Dead (I don’t mean Evil Dead II or Army of Darkness)?
64: Yes tman, it’s more of a serious, disgusting humor, not blatantly for laughs like the latter 2 Evil Dead movies were. I found myself horrified, disgusted, and laughing all at the same time. And it had some very cool, eerie gypsy themed music.
61:
Chuck:
Sometimes corporations change their cultures. Paramount doesn’t want thinkers, they want doers. They want tentpoles, reliable writers, and achievable deadlines and predictable profit margins.
Today they have:
Star Trek
Transformers
Iron Man
Indy
BH Cop (in development)
with “GI JOE” as a question mark “Transformers” concept clone in the wings.
The marketing is all identical, and with “Trek” and “Iron Man,” they actually have the ability to make quality products with this mindset.
Judging from what I’ve read, Lesher and Wilson were indeed slow, as they were looking more at developing true Oscar-caliber films (No Country, Benjamin Button, etc.) than popcorn movies during a “musical chairs” dance in the top echelons at Paramount.
Oscar contenders/winners do not always make the desired profit. Blockbuster franchises do, these days, regardless of quality.
Paramount is NOT a non-profit studio. If the right recipe for success are tentpoles, reliable writers, achievable deadlines, and predictable profit margins, with a pinch of non stop explosions, so be it! I believe Paramount should keep this formula. Let other studios have a different vision of success.
#17, 26, 36 — I’m on board with you! Congratulations writers Orci and Kurtzman on ruling Hollywood and giving ST it’s second wind, but please, for the sake of all that’s holy, cut out one fight and put in a conversation, instead. How much better a movie would it have been if even a fifth of the questions asked afterwards by fans were addressed IN THE MOVIE!? 17, 26, 36 and others, are right! Give ST back it’s brain. It’s in your hands now, Master Writers.
It just baffles me that Star Trek has made less money than transformers. ST was such a better movie, better story, but smaller audiance than Transformers. Transformers was a good movie, but NOT better than ST, in my opinion. Which movie will most people remember in 10 years? Transformers was just more on the same, ST was refreshing.
BobOrci—I hope you read this—if you’ve never read it, I beg you, PLEASE read “The Mote in God’s Eye,” by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.
That story has EVERYTHING in it a great movie should have: a hero Starship Captain, a fantastic original plot, a voyage of discovery, first contact with a mysterious alien race which hides a secret dangerous to humanity, “bad” guys who are not simplistic, loads of action, laser battles, great visuals, and what’s more: It would make a fantastic Trek story! The characters and universe in this book can be transformed into the Trek universe with Trek characters——right down to a Scottish engineer on the Starship in both versions!
And there’s precedent for this: Larry Niven actually rewrote one of his own short stories called “The Soft Weapon” to become the Star Trek animated episode “The Slaver Weapon,” which included stasis fields and the Kzinti race which also feature in his “Known Space” series of books unrelated to Trek. “The Mote in God’s Eye” seems influenced by Star Trek and ready made to be transferred to the Star Trek universe.
It’s been called the best first contact story ever written, and I have to agree, and I think you and Alex have the skills to put together an action packed and yet meaningful adaption of that book as a Star Trek story that would please everybody, fans and non fans alike.
Please ignore the Wikipedia entry; although it is technically accurate, it’s a sterile description of things that have to be experienced as you read them for you to appreciate how good a story it is and how fantastic a plot it would make for a Star Trek movie. PLEASE read the book, and let that be your introduction to the story.
It would fit Star Trek perfectly, and be unlike anything Trek has done before. There will be explosions, high danger, phaser battles, a myriad of alien species all from one planet, and even——I kid you not——an interstellar merchant of dubious morals who could easily be turned into Harry Mudd!
So if Paramount wants an AVATAR like 3D Star Trek movie after AVATAR storms the box office this December, this might be a great story for a future sequel of ST.
68: “How much better a movie would it have been if even a fifth of the questions asked afterwards by fans were addressed IN THE MOVIE!? 17, 26, 36 and others, are right! Give ST back it’s brain. It’s in your hands now, Master Writers.”
I agree with that too. But if it’s a concern that what fans want would slow down the movie and negatively impact the box office, then how about writing and shooting those types of scenes for a special fan-cut edition of the DVD that includes them, and see how well those DVDs sell?
I don’t think that’s ever been done before—usually we get a director’s cut, but the fans have been so good for this franchise that maybe we deserve a fan cut edition of our own of all the Star Trek movies to follow, or at least to see how well it sells to determine if that’s a viable product.
#71 Cool idea, a Fan Cut. But I still think they aren’t giving audiences enough credit if they think we can’t follow conversations explaining a few plot points now and again. I’d say to dmduncan’s post at #58 that they should look at James Cameron to direct. He is a master at bringing meaning to every action sequence, at rewarding fans for their intelligence by letting us know he’s thought about it, too. Just saying.
68. My sentiments as well. Mr Orci: I liked the fast pace of the new film. The casting was great and you clearly understood the TOS characters. Loved Chris Pine and Bruce Greenwood especially. But the middle of the movie did feel a tad too much “dumbed down” for today’s attention depleted audiences. Kirk finding Spock prime and Scotty on a lonely ice planet was a groaner. 10 more minutes of movie to give a reasonable explanation for several key events would not have killed the pace. Ten more minutes of exposition would have allowed it to be science fiction instead of science-action-fantasy. It was a very good movie – but it could have been great with just a few more minutes of reasonable detail!
“Batman Begins” held together, explained the small details and still was a box-office smash. The same can be said for Casino Royale, only moreso. Don’t underestimate the audience. STAR TREK needs its brain. It won’t kill a fast paced movie to have all the details make sense.
And for the record… I won’t be seing Transformers. The mixing of pre-teen toys with adolescent sex really crosses the line. My 22 year old son was a huge fan of the cartoons and lover the first movie. Hated Transformers 2. Glad he has a moral compass.
DMDuncan:
I read “The Mote In God’s Eye,” back in ‘81, and it totally had me GLUED to the book for a couple of days in High School! The “Moties” completely had my attention. I must read it again and hope it is made into a movie, but with not one studio doing it, a COLLABORATION of ALL studios, world-wide — the material is just that good, I wouldn’t trust THIS movie to just anyone.
I figured “MIGE” was so far ahead of any motion picture or studio, it would never get made. The same goes for “Ring World,” that book just ROCKS! If you haven’t read it, do so. It will blow your socks off!
Great reading and a solid movie that has great potential, if done right.
After reflecting on DMDuncan’s article, Larry Niven does have wonderful talents and has contributed greatly to Star Trek. There was even a script called, “The Pastel Terror,” which was written for Star Trek. It seems to fit the “reboot” universe like a glove, it would do you well to look over the outline, linked below.
Outline for “The Pastel Terror,” by Larry Niven at http://www.larryniven.org:
http://www.larryniven.org/stories/pastel.shtml
It really is a good outline, and the conflict between Kirk and Spock fits!
Larry Niven writes “big idea” science fiction books. I love his stuff! Loved Ringworld, too.
All the time while reading The Mote in God’s Eye I couldn’t help but think, this IS Star Trek. It’s a GREAT principled story that harkens back to the best kinds of stories that Star Trek told in the 60’s, while being exciting and adventurous, with enemies who are not bad guys. Even the title of the book is very Star Trek like, a double entendre that means both the Motie home star, and the Motie civilization being a metaphorical speck in the eye of God. But I don’t want to list any spoilers for those who may be interested in reading it.
And then there are all the different kinds of Moties, and the secret at the core of their society..the visuals to such a movie would be spectacular, and truth be told, really, not even George Lucas and Steven Spielberg together could have made that book into a movie 20 years ago. That story NEEDS the kind of SPFX to be believable that only CGI could do.
But it can be done now.
Please Bob Orci, read the book. Even if it never becomes a Star Trek story, you’ll be glad you read that book.
“Guess it is time now for a new Star Trek series as well.”
And do what with it? Seriously, as much of a fan of Trek that I am, I think the series has been played out. As far as TV Trek goes, IMO, we need to give it a rest for a while so people will appreciate and love it then it’s back. I started to wain during DS9, thought Voyager was okay and lost it during Enterprise. Let’s give it a rest.
I’m still weirded out by the fact that the same guys that did such an awesome job writing Star Trek wrote Transformers. Trek was deep, transformers made me wish I had friends that dragged me to better movies. GI Joe…honestly doesnt look much better than Transformers.
It’s not yet time for a new Star Trek series.
IF Bob & Alex the writers of Trek & Transformer 2 are smart, they’d be able to grab Paramount by the short-hairs and grately sweeten their deals as far as over take in $$$$ if the studio wants their help with continuing adding to their coffiers. If it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage folks.
Unless you’re all fans of Howard The Duck!
Naturally, Paramount execs made their money because that’s the name of the game. However, they stooped so low this time that it’s difficult to respect future releases ever again. They’re just going to get worse now that quality control is non-existent.
Stuart Baird may not be much of a director, but he shines as an editor, having won numerous for his editing work. Perhaps you remember a little gem called Superman the Movie?
77:
“Guess it is time now for a new Star Trek series as well.”
And do what with it? Seriously, as much of a fan of Trek that I am, I think the series has been played out. As far as TV Trek goes, IMO, we need to give it a rest for a while so people will appreciate and love it then it’s back. I started to wain during DS9, thought Voyager was okay and lost it during Enterprise. Let’s give it a rest.
***
Actually, I sort of feel the same way, on the other hand, I think something can be done. I was excited by Enterprise when I first heard of it because I thought it would be a show that showed how we got to TOS from where we are now. No such luck. I thought we’d finally get a Star Trek spinoff that was much closer to our times where the technology was primitive by comparison, and the challenges were different. Instead we got another poor imitation of TOS.
I’d actually like to see a Star Trek TV show that focuses on James Kirk’s early years growing up in Iowa with an abusive uncle and frequently absent mother, always getting into trouble, intensely smart but not always using his wits for the best.
And I would like to see the show NOT have a Star Trek title, sort of like Smallville, where everyone knows it’s about young Clark Kent/Superman without Superman in the title of the show.
Yeah, there you go. The show could be called “Riverside.”
dmduncan I would like that myself, but I wouldn’t want to see the point where it continues after he becomes captin.
like smallvile it should of stopped when kent left school (erlye years of superman) quote comes to mind, after he leaves school it continues.
85: I agree. I don’t like shows that never wrap things up.
I would pitch “Riverside” as a young adult type show, totally different than anything that’s come from Star Trek before. Each season might jump a year or two in his age. It would be great if you could end the show with him deciding to go see whats kicking over at the Hella Bar one night, coming home all beaten up afterwards, seeing how empty his life and future in Iowa is, and making the decision to leave his mom, his brother, his girlfriend(s), his lousy uncle, and the entire planet Earth to follow in his father’s footsteps.
It would also be cool to see him have a couple of near brushes with other characters he would come to know in time.
Although it would be set in the 23rd century and you’d get to see some of what life is like on Earth in that time, it would NOT be a heavy special effects type show. It would be character and personal conflict driven.
I can even see an advertisement:
A 1960’s convertible Camaro (his father collected old 20th century sports cars), sits under a black sky in the middle of an empty piece of farmland. A boy sits on the hood, a bottle of beer on one side, a pretty girl leaning against him on the other, his arms wrapped around his knees, head turned up at the stars. “Riverside.”
#85. – except if Kirk never goes into space as a kid, what exactly would the series be about? Unlike Superman, Kirk has no special powers to explore. Indeed he is nothing more than Dylan from 90210 here, a warp-age rebel-without-a-cause. It seems to me this would be little more than One Tree Hill set in the 23rd Century – not sure I see the advantage of producing a futuristic soap opera, especially when you try to paste the problems of today’s kids unrealistically onto those 250 years in the future.
It would be a different story if this were about “Prime Kirk” who had a most interesting off-world child hood and youth, aspiring to be in Starfleet like is his father. But thanks to Abrams & Co., they’ve eliminated that possibility. Indeed, his little stunt with the Corvette likely landed him with a “juvy” record keeping him Earthbound and chained to endless community service punishments. Since he clearly has not learned his lesson by the opening of ST09, it’s not very likely he did much in his youth other than get himself into trouble. Can’t think of a single successful TV model for such a character. Sadly for this alternate Kirk, he does not get very interesting until he joins Starfleet.
87: “except if Kirk never goes into space as a kid, what exactly would the series be about?”
People instead of stardates. Something I am probably more interested in than you.
“not sure I see the advantage of producing a futuristic soap opera, especially when you try to paste the problems of today’s kids unrealistically onto those 250 years in the future.”
1. Star Trek has always been a soap opera. Difference is, I don’t care about which stardates mesh with which events, blah blah blah…and 99% of the population who could potentially be interested in Star Trek don’t care about that stuff either. I care about the characters, about who these people are, and how they became that way, and how them being that way affects the viewers who can identify with those characters.
2. It would be a show for TODAY’S young adults in a futuristic context. Whether or not kids 250 years in the future would have the same problems (they probably will) is so irrelevant it boggles the mind. The goal would NOT be to pointlessly try to make a show that predicts what life would really be like 250 years in the future according to this person or that. Star Trek isn’t a show about the “real” future, it’s a show that looks optimistically to the future from the perspective and concerns of today. The goal would be to show a bright future ahead for humanity, and for Kirk in particular if he can beat his demons and reconcile himself with the unfortunate events of his own life which are trying to imprison him in the anonymity of the average.
Of course, it was obvious that someone would say it was 90210 or One Tree Hill (shows I loathed) in the 23rd century.
“It would be a different story if this were about “Prime Kirk” who had a most interesting off-world child hood and youth, aspiring to be in Starfleet like is his father. But thanks to Abrams & Co., they’ve eliminated that possibility. Indeed, his little stunt with the Corvette likely landed him with a “juvy” record keeping him Earthbound and chained to endless community service punishments. Since he clearly has not learned his lesson by the opening of ST09, it’s not very likely he did much in his youth other than get himself into trouble. Can’t think of a single successful TV model for such a character. Sadly for this alternate Kirk, he does not get very interesting until he joins Starfleet.”
Baloney. My imagination tells me something very different.
Look at Nemesis. Here we have two Picards, one good, one evil, each one portrayed as having become what he is as the result of his upbringing.
Waiter? Check please.
Now look at Kirk, a man in two universes who becomes the hero he is in both of them regardless of his upbringing and circumstances. Now THAT’S interesting.
Kirk is the perfect character to explore the mythic battle between good and evil, between mediocrity and excellence that’s within all of us. Orci and Kurtzman made this character great because they gave him feet of clay, and that’s worth exploring. Kirk is BETTER than Superman exactly because he does NOT have super powers and yet manages to beat his demons.
I can think up all sorts of possibilities and guidelines for writers of this show that would make it unlike any show you’ve seen (absolutely NOTHING like 90210 or One Tree Hill or Dawson’s Creek), while still resonating with today’s young adults.
But that’s as much as I’m giving away
Unless I successfully pitched the show myself, I’ve virtually guaranteed that it will never be done—merely by posting the idea in here.
And by the way, people are free to click on my name and visit my totally Trek UNrelated site. Unfortunately I’m on a hiatus, since I have a couple of longstanding projects that I have to finish, so it hasn’t been updated in 2 weeks. But you are all free to browse and give feedback on the concept.
I like Roger Ebert’s review of Transformers
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997
Funny
#88. dmduncan wrote: It would be a show for TODAY’S young adults in a futuristic context.
Except it would pull the same ratings that other such shows pull and yet cost considerably more to make thanks to the needless special effects which serve no purpose other than to set the story in the future which seems to also have no purpose, other than to be about James T. Kirk.
dmduncan wrote: I don’t care about which stardates mesh with which events, blah blah blah…and 99% of the population who could potentially be interested in Star Trek don’t care about that stuff either.
I don’t see what technical jargon has to do with the other. Once you strip away space and Dr. McCoy and Spock, then what’s left? You’re basically telling the story of Luke Skywalker growing up on Tatooine. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. A story which has wisely never been told, particularly not in series form. Actually Luke’s life sounds a lot better than bad-boy Kirk.
dmduncan wrote: Kirk is BETTER than Superman exactly because he does NOT have super powers and yet manages to beat his demons.
Thanks to Orci/Kurtzman, Kirk does nothing but battle demons his entire youth. He seemingly overcomes most of them in one night, when he decides to try Starfleet because he has absolutely nothing else … he’s hit bottom.
The years that are of interest for this Kirk are the Academy years. Here’s where the bad boy tries to figure out how to be the man who became Captain Kirk. That’s a true story of adversity, success and failure over 3 years that actually shape him. A period when Kirk actually wants to achieve something and yet must still face failure and remain motivated despite his decision to improve himself. Unfortunately, this means another actor playing Cadet Kirk, which Pine has already established, so it’s best saved until Pine is out of the captain’s chair or at least a little older.
Before that he is just the local bully and general troublemaker. There are no stories of success, just failure, after failure because he doesn’t care. Week after week Kirk suffers another humiliating defeat pushing him ever further into his go-nowhere life. He’s a loner, alienating people wherever he goes. Leaving him in the end with a motorcyle and nothing else to leave behind. Yeah, that’s inspiring – I see that easily going 7 seasons.
Besides, the mystery is already removed. Even if one introduces a series of events where Kirk tries to turn himself around before Pike’s intervention, we always know the outcome because he doesn’t turn himself around until the movie. In other words, we know he will fail every time, so what’s the point. To watch him try and get worse every week. There are no lessons to be learned from it. What’s worse is that there’s no opportunity to really introduce anybody else from the franchise, there’s no Lois Lane or other characters to either help expand the franchise for viewers. The cast of regulars would also be somewhat limited and ever changing as well since Kirk is continually pushing people out of his life.
There’s nothing to explore there, especially considering the cost of setting it in the future too. In the end, I’m not sure how this draws others into Star Trek as a franchise which is otherwise very different, both in the past and especially at the current box-office.
I’m afraid the only place this type of story belongs is in the 2-hour pilot leading to Kirk’s academy years.
91: “Except it would pull the same ratings that other such shows pull and yet cost considerably more to make thanks to the needless special effects which serve no purpose other than to set the story in the future which seems to also have no purpose, other than to be about James T. Kirk.”
“Before that he is just the local bully and general troublemaker. There are no stories of success, just failure, after failure because he doesn’t care. Week after week Kirk suffers another humiliating defeat pushing him ever further into his go-nowhere life. He’s a loner, alienating people wherever he goes. Leaving him in the end with a motorcyle and nothing else to leave behind. Yeah, that’s inspiring – I see that easily going 7 seasons.”
???
Lord, I’m sorry RD, but you are I aren’t in the same universe with how that show would go. You have a very simplistic black and white way of looking at things, and I don’t.
Based on 2 scenes from Trek ,09: a crashed Corvette and a bar fight, you think the ONLY way to tell his story in between those scenes is the pathetic version of it you just concocted? Is your version of his early life now canon in your mind, RD? Absurd.
There is literally NOTHING that you mentioned which would be how I imagined it. NO-THING. And I already portrayed it as a limited show. 4 years max, I would think, and less would be better. But you probably didn’t have time to read those earlier comments.
“Besides, the mystery is already removed. Even if one introduces a series of events where Kirk tries to turn himself around before Pike’s intervention, we always know the outcome because he doesn’t turn himself around until the movie. In other words, we know he will fail every time, so what’s the point. To watch him try and get worse every week. There are no lessons to be learned from it.”
Yeah, that’s the Orci argument for rebooting the franchise, but this is not a reboot and the mystery aspect is irrelevant. It’s a story about people, and he wouldn’t fail every time getting worse and worse. Again, that’s your unimaginative black and white way of looking at things. No subtlety. No lessons learned. Kirk is in your view a total jerk until he steps on the shuttle to go to Starfleet. You have a shallow notion of his character which would be completely disposed of by this show.
“What’s worse is that there’s no opportunity to really introduce anybody else from the franchise, there’s no Lois Lane or other characters to either help expand the franchise for viewers.”
Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell. His uncle, his mother, his brother.
“The cast of regulars would also be somewhat limited and ever changing as well since Kirk is continually pushing people out of his life.”
Nope. That’s the thinness of your own imagination showing. I’m amazed at how you discuss Kirk as if he were a real person with a real history, as if you know what that history is, and as if there’s no way of getting around it other than what you say.
“There’s nothing to explore there, especially considering the cost of setting it in the future too.”
Wrong again. It would be less effects intensive than any of the Star Trek spinoffs, and it would draw people into the franchise more subtly than with bad costumes and aliens with knots on their heads talking silly meaningless techno jargon and sputtering stardates—if ANYthing killed Star Trek, it’s THAT kind of narrow minded fan focused stuff—through good writing, good stories set in that specific future, and excellent drama and character. Things, in other words, that most good and successful TV shows have in common. The future setting wouldn’t be pointless, it would be a crucial part of the storyline, the technology of which would actually make certain premises and storylines—the specifics of which I will not mention—otherwise impossible to do, and yet which are relevant to the development of Kirk’s complex character. Again, it’s your own imagination that’s failing here.
92. dmduncan wrote: “You have a very simplistic black and white way of looking at things, and I don’t.
Nope. That’s Hollywood. But since you can’t share any of your ideas, I guess we’ll never know. How about an example of a successful series that’s been built around this kind of premise?
Bottom line, it may be less effects intensive than any incarnation of Star Trek, but for this kind of soap opera, it’s one effects budget too much. Also, studios and networks rarely plan for shows of this nature to have a limited run. The goal is always to develop properties that will run as long as profitable. Either way, 7 years or 4 years … a story about a kid who keeps spiraling downward so that by the end of the series he will be set up to finally do something with his life where the movie started, simply won’t inspire anybody. Episode after episode, even if he has mini-advances toward some kind of direction in his life, he must also have a significant setback to make him fall back into his rebellious habits. Before the first season is over, the formula will be old and tired and frustrating.
As for franchise building, are you serious? Carol Marcus in Smallville? LOL Gary Mitchell? His uncle Frank? Really? It is unlikely any of those characters will appear in the films. His mom seems to be gone a lot, which is likely one of the reasons Kirk is so rebellious. It would seem he is pushing his brothers away as well. But again, none of these characters will add to the franchise at all, unless Orci & Kurtzman decide to make Gary Mitchell, a one off guest star/villain, a major new player in the film series. Kirk’s family never figured into the series at all, since that is not what Star Trek is about. In fact, I would say that Bones and Spock and the Enterprise are Kirk’s family. Interestingly enough, that fits extremely well with this Kirk who left nothing behind in Iowa when he joined Starfleet.
So I’m back to: 1) expensive series for what it is, 2) main character keeps facing demons but doesn’t improve his life for the entire run of the series to match canon, 3) does not tie into franchise in any profitable way, 4) is not sustainable for any length of time.
While I can imagine all sorts of interesting stories involving this Kirk as a young man that I would want to explore as a Star Trek fan, I can imagine none that the average television audience would find interesting, or believable and few will be able to identify with Kirk. Of course I don’t think Kirk is a real person with a real history, but his archetype is clearly definable in our society. I went to high school and college with a number of these “Kirks”. Some went on to find themselves, others dropped out completely. But the one thing they all had in common was that little happened in their youth to form their adult successes until they finally decided to turn themselves around, a revelation that came after endless missteps and grief in an ever downward spiral. Only then did their lives become interesting as they actually started to live for something and find out who they were. And for a series like this to be successful, it must resonate with the archetypes people know. Unfortunately, the James T, Kirk story is little more than the first few chapters introduction to when his life really took off and meant something. There is no coincidence that Abrams chose not to show us any more of Kirk’s youth … because there was simply nothing there worth watching except more of the same.
93: “Either way, 7 years or 4 years … a story about a kid who keeps spiraling downward so that by the end of the series he will be set up to finally do something with his life where the movie started, simply won’t inspire anybody. Episode after episode, even if he has mini-advances toward some kind of direction in his life, he must also have a significant setback to make him fall back into his rebellious habits. Before the first season is over, the formula will be old and tired and frustrating.”
A story about a kid spiraling downward is YOUR version, not mine. My version is about a kid who is smarter than everyone else around him, who excels at everything he does, but who also has his uncle’s voice inside him cutting him down, and who thus has a dichotomy in his own view of himself.
Kirk is cocky because he succeeds, because he can outsmart anyone. But when he cuts himself down, that’s his uncle talking, and that’s what he has to overcome. He sabotages himself because he has two radically different and competing views of himself in his head. MY story is about a kid who has setbacks along the way of spiraling UPward, who reveals his character by succeeding despite some hardships along the way.
I would NEVER pitch or do a series of the kind you are representing. But since it’s my idea, you have no idea what I’m talking about. All you can do is imagine how YOU would do it, which I would not bother with at all. You don’t have my imagination or optimism.
Most of your comments are a collection of naysayings because YOU can’t imagine how it would be done.
“Unfortunately, the James T, Kirk story is little more than the first few chapters introduction to when his life really took off and meant something.”
No. The James Kirk story “is” the story that it is written as. It hasn’t been written yet. Don’t confuse what is with what could be.
“There is no coincidence that Abrams chose not to show us any more of Kirk’s youth … because there was simply nothing there worth watching except more of the same.”
Again, you keep talking about Jim Kirk’s story as if it is objectively real, as if no one can come up with any interesting stories to tell around it because it is objectively uninteresting. But really, you say that because your own imagination is so thin. Mine isn’t, and I’ve already got a good idea of how the entire series would go. Kirk’s story is as interesting as good writers make it. Nor do you seem to understand how the technology of the 23rd century plays into story possibilities here.
Honestly, RD, conversing with you is a little like talking to a frowning face painted on a concrete wall. In attitude you are something of a Debby Downer, and that may be a big reason why we see the idea in a totally different way. I can see how it can be done well, so I’m optimistic about it, and you can’t, yet despite your ignorance you feel qualified to comment on what I see, and what you do not, anyway.
You are not criticizing my idea, you’re criticizing your idea of my idea.
The two are unrelated.
#94. dmduncan wrote: “conversing with you is a little like talking to a frowning face painted on a concrete wall”
If that’s true, then my experience is akin to little more than the same thing with a happy face. At least I offer the reasons I don’t see this working for TV. You merely tell me I’m not as imaginative as you but offer no reason why it should succeed other than it’s “optimistic”. If you cannot come up with an existing model to pitch your top secret idea, then you’ll have no luck even getting a meeting to pitch it. THAT is Hollywood.
As for Kirk being smarter and better than everyone else, yeah I want to watch that for 4 seasons. First he’s someone we can all identify with, then he’s better than everybody else. Which is it?
Even in the film Pike describes Kirk as “the only genius-level repeat offender in the Midwest.” You should really take a look at this:
http://io9.com/5250171/so-really-why-is-captain-kirk-such-a-douchebag
So by your definition, I guess I’m imaginatively challenged since I don’t see how Kirk’s story can be very interesting.
Ep. 1: Kirk gets in a fight, told he needs to grow up, doesn’t.
Ep. 2: Kirk gets in a fight, learns a lesson about not fighting, then gets in a fight again.
Ep. 3: Kirk gets in a fight, almost kills somebody, learns its wrong, then continues doing it for the rest of the series.
Ep. 4: Kirk has a life changing experience, but decides not to change.
Ep. 5: etc.
It doesn’t matter how optimistic you are, at the end of the day, Kirk has to continue being a rebel and rejecting everyone. You are trying to tell the story about a guy who has no ambition, doesn’t care who he is, or want to try to improve himself. This is why we find him in the state he’s at the beginning of the film.
Oh sure you can tell stories where Kirk saves some little boy’s life, but then he must turn right around and continues on the same selfish self-destructive path we find him on in ST09. So no matter how positive you make the stories, the net effect is, Kirk does NOT change … for 4 seasons!
I likened him to Luke Skywalker before his uncle bought R2D2: working on the farm, hangin’ out with his friends, shooting womp rats … pretty dull stuff. At least there you have a chance to watch a young man who WANTS to go somewhere face challenges that form him, to learn and change who he is, waiting for the opportunity to finally leave home and pursue his dreams.
With Kirk, life is just as dull in Iowa, but he has no dreams, no ambitions, he just wants to live in the bottom of a bottle feeling sorry for himself, lashing out for the attention and love he feels he never got, abusing those who deny it to him, or getting the hell beat out of him so he can finally feel something. Unlike Skywalker, who will actually apply the lessons he learns as he experiences the obstacles life throws at him. We see Luke grow. Thanks to Abrams, we can only see Kirk stagnate.
These are not my ideas, my friend. This is CANON.
The story you seem to think you can tell only exists outside of canon, which once again does nothing to support the franchise or draw in new fans. The story you want to tell is “One Tree Hill” in the 23rd Century. If you have another way of describing it so that the rest of us with challenged imaginations can get it, then by all means do.
95: “If you cannot come up with an existing model to pitch your top secret idea, then you’ll have no luck even getting a meeting to pitch it. THAT is Hollywood.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about, RD. What’s was the existing TV model for Dexter? Weeds? Six Feet Under? Big Love? My Name is Earl? The Simpsons? What’s was the “existing model” for—dare I say it?—TOS (gasp!)
Models don’t mean squat. You can follow them to disaster and ignore them to success.
“With Kirk, life is just as dull in Iowa, but he has no dreams, no ambitions, he just wants to live in the bottom of a bottle feeling sorry for himself, lashing out for the attention and love he feels he never got, abusing those who deny it to him, or getting the hell beat out of him so he can finally feel something. Unlike Skywalker, who will actually apply the lessons he learns as he experiences the obstacles life throws at him. We see Luke grow. Thanks to Abrams, we can only see Kirk stagnate.”
“These are not my ideas, my friend. This is CANON.”
“The story you seem to think you can tell only exists outside of canon, which once again does nothing to support the franchise or draw in new fans.”
I don’t “seem to think” I can tell that story. I know how to tell it. There IS NO canon on Kirk’s life in Iowa except a few brief scenes in a 2 hour 6 minute long movie. Yet you have somehow managed to religiously convince yourself that you know his entire story from those few scenes! As if! Not only do I know how to tell it, but going only on what Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman left or implied, I could tell a story from those facts with nothing in common than where you think it has to go, while making it believable.
“You merely tell me I’m not as imaginative as you but offer no reason why it should succeed other than it’s “optimistic”
Thing is, I don’t have to share a single idea with anyone who doesn’t get the idea, who has no idea how it would be done, and yet who’s main interest still seems to be to think up reasons why the idea can’t work, while simultaneously complaining to me that I’m not giving him enough detail to criticize as if I don’t know that’s all he really wants to do anyway.
I don’t care about unimaginative naysaying. You seem to have a toxic personality that’s better for me to just avoid as long as you decide to be the person you are. I’ve probably encouraged you by engaging you in conversation, so in retrospect it was probably my own fault to fall into the sort of conversation you seem to want to have, and which I am uninterested in having.
Ciao, RD.
#96. dmduncan wrote: “You don’t know what you’re talking about, RD… What’s was the “existing model” for—dare I say it?—TOS (gasp!)”
LOL – ”‘Wagon Train’ To The Stars” – LOL
That’s HOW Roddenberry sold it to the network! LOL
Good luck!
Re: Closettrekker – July 11, 2009
“and I there has never been this kind of optimism about its potential for the near future. This is really the first time that mainstream moviegoers have warmed to a Star Trek film since 1986.”
I remember the summer of 1982, and how that proves you wrong in this regard: After the release of TWOK, Trek was considered to “really” be back (as in back from its TV origins) by audiences and critics–as opposed to the response to TMP. The buzz was loud as the high interest for the expected sequel only grew, which turned ST into a “key asset” at the studio of that period. ST, along with Indiana Jones and Eddie Murphy were THE key assets of Paramount during the 1980’s–with ST’s status cemented by the effect of TWOK. Of course, through the Berman years, that status (for movies) vanished, but if the status is there today, it is the second act.
Star Trek will be back on top again!!! Keep up the good work, especially for the Trek sequel