What is Digg?68 Comments
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31My favorite comment: "I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind.''
In other words...
I'm gonna ***** this up so bad that I'll probably destroy the entire franchise. - VAXcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18 It's gonna be like Lost, except it'll be in Space...yeah, Lost In Space...that's the ticket...
- n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Great, polar bears on the Enterprise. Just what it needed.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Or he's going to make it better in a way that will alienate trek fans who like it the way it is.
Kind of like the people who hate the new Battlestar Galactica because its nothing like the 70s cheesefest original. - dgaspard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15He can't break what's already broken.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Title: J.J Abrams Kills Trek
There, fixed that for you. - DudeRoks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Why do they keep bringing in people who are unfamiliar with the trek universe. And why do they have to re-invent the franchise? Its been there for 40 years and if you leave it alone the way it is, it will be there for another 100 or so. Please someone buy the franchise from CBS and Paramount, its the only way to prevent it from being destroyed.
- RooX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind.''
This line scares me.. more than likely means "hey trek fans, im changing everything about the show you once loved!" - mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think it will actually do pretty well, I certainly look forward to it.
Personally, I am not a big fan of the movies. I think they are too Hollywood-ized, and try to appeal to too great of an audience (even though only Trekkies are going to go and see it), but it will certainly be interesting none the less.
I'm actually surprised that they did not do another based off TNG. That cast still has one or two more in them. - radix33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What we need is "24" style Star Trek. Real Time Trek. Kiefer Sutherland as Young Kirk. Beam me up, Chloe!
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5No more prequels please. It's just a complete mess when you have to revert to the '60s view of the future.
I think JJ Abrams could make a really good Trek movie, but I hope its TNG or Voyager's crew. - Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're exactly right.
That attitude is in total disrespect for the people who most support their franchise.
I'd have thought that Nemisis and Enterprise (both of which have grown on me a lot in the past few years) proved that Star Trek fans can't be taken for granted.
They also don't seem to realise that we're the ones who go out and convince 10 of our non-Star Trek friends to go and watch it with us so that afterwards we can bore them with the details and in-jokes that they missed.
If it doesn't resonate with Trek fans, it'll fail worse than if it only resonated with Trek fans. - FiendishMuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Kirk and Spock post academy days? That sounds... really boring, and an insult to re-cast those characters with other people. Now all they need to do is have them meet God.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Science H. Logic!
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think Berman/Braga already killed it. The only way is up from the point they left it surely?
- romeyinfc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Rick Berman already did that. Enterprise became an unwatchable piece of crap, void of everything that made Star Trek great. Abrams is risky, but it's either that or no ST at all.
- PixelMagic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I loved Star Trek as a kid and teenager. I mostly watched The Next Generation on. However, after Insurrection and Nemesis, I could see the franchise declining. Then I pretty much stopped caring about Star Trek.
However, I recently bought the first season of Star Trek The Original Series for my wife(a bigger Trekkie than me) for Christmas, because neither of us had watched the TOS. Every night we watch a new episode, and I have fallen in love with Trek all over again.
If someone can bring the magic back, I will be very happy indeed. - Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@mandarin
It's only interesting because it's a mystery.
:/
Imagination > exposition. - drakino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm walking out of the movie if it starts with a scene from near the end, then flashes back. The concept was cool a few times, but not when it is in nearly every episode of Alias, and MI:III.
- TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why the hell are you posting on here then? Nerd.
- davidlow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From a business point of view, it might make sense to alienate me, and every other Trekkie out there, because we're expected to see the movie anyway, no matter what. The goal is to bring in as many new eyeballs as possible without sacrificing your existing audience, but in this case they're not seeing the down side.
Even if they call it "Star Trek XI: A Tribbling Affair" and it's a romantic comedy, they're assuming we'll all go see it anyway. Plus, now they bring in the chick flick crowd.
Their pattern indicates two dimensional thinking.
Who's the Peter Jackson of Star Trek? Let's give that guy a call. - TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Breaking News- TonyCubed's Hits jerry342 http://get.a.*****.life.com
- TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's ***** simple. Get back to the normal time line, dump the borg (The Borg were cool, but Voyager killed it), dump any pre-trek time plots. And get back to ways of Deep Space Nine and have another big ***** war! :P
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4To the mainstream, Star Trek has been dead since Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country.
The next generation crew really never quite made it into popular culture like the original series did. For every great character (Picard, Data) you had a dud (Riker, Troi...err, and most of the rest).
Maybe Abrams can fix that? It used to be that audiences would flock to the Star Trek movies whether or not they were "ubergeeks". That's the problem that the last few ST movies (as well as Serenity) all shared: the movies were catered to a small audience rather than going for the big picture.
Star Trek 2 is a great example. Nobody needed to know a single thing about any of the characters in that movie yet it was still exciting. It's also (by far) the most profitable movie in the series. They need more big-name Hollywood directors shooting scripts written by talented people, not necessarily ST nerds who can name all the episodes off the top of their heads. - Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Like every Star Trek series (perhaps aside from the original one), DS9 takes around 3 seasons to find its footing. It's (for the most part) very arc oriented, so you sort of have to invest a lot into it before you get anything out.
Preceeding Trek was random good science fiction stories that just happen to be set in the same universe sprinkled with a few character pieces and tie ins. DS9 seems to revert that ratio, with more episodes seeming gratuitous when not taken within the context of the entire season.
I like all of the Trek that's happened so far, and I think that maybe I prefer DS9 over a lot of Enterprise. At least DS9 respected the franchise a bit better. All this reinvention carp does is alienate the guaranteed audiences (who're the ones who end up promoting the stuff they're rabid about anyway - if a frothing Trekkie tells a random person that some Trek is bad, they're far less likely to check it out). - PixelMagic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3See, I like DS9 the least. However, maybe I just haven't watched enough episodes to like it. I also don't really connect with any of the characters.
But it could be because I've only seen like 10-15 episodes, and they were all very boring. Maybe I'll give it another chance. - BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The new Battlestar is better than the old one. Except some of the characters were better in the old one. I still prefer the old Starbuck, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the character switched genders."
Well we're off-topic, but I think most people would agree with you.
First of all, the actress playing Starbuck is only good at one thing - playing a hard-ass tomboy. Secondly, her character has no arc and serves no purpose on the show, she takes up a lot of screentime from other much more interesting characters (the crew chief guy, whatever his name is). I really hope they kill her off because I catch myself just skipping episodes now to avoid her. - PixelMagic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm a filmmaking major in college, and I have loved Star Trek since I was 8 years old. I'll direct it. :)
- Jaxim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The new Battlestar is better than the old one. Except some of the characters were better in the old one. I still prefer the old Starbuck, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the character switched genders. I think the current one is way too whiny and has been since at least season 2. I hope the writers write in a psychiatrist into the show so Starbuck can work out her issues and become more likable and less harsh again.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Honestly I love the Kobayashi Maru scenario and curious how he did it.
- antron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...and at a dramatic crescendo,
we zoom in towards the Captain and then...
Flashback! (or in this case Trek-back) - antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2aaaaaaaaand blocked.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2That was VOYAGER.
- TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The New Battlestar Galactica I think is great.
- Dave0328, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Batman Begins" & "Casino Royale" turned out to be pretty decent 'reboots' of each series. So there's hope here....
On the other hand, "Superman Returns" was a little disappointing. Even with Brian Singer (X-Men 1 & 2) directing. - ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DS9 is great because Sisko is the most bad-ass of all the captains.
Yes it took a few episodes and a few key ones to realize how awesome he is as an actor. - timmyboywonder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This spam crap is getting out of hand !!! if i find out who this freak is im gonna rip the tinfoil hat off of his head and beat his face in
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Odd numbered, so it'll be an absolute stinker!!
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The odd/even Trek curse (odd numbered movies suck, even numbered movies rock) ended with 10. Now they all suck."
What are you basing this off of, considering Nemesis (the most recent) was 10? - edge10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You forgot the 2nd part of the rule: Movies whose number is a multiple of 5 aren't just bad, they stink.
- Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, considering the poor writing done on MI:3, this could be bad.
- unknownunknowns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder if there's gonna be a lot of long closeups and suspenseful music...like half the movie. Nah, J.J. would never do that.
- garoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The last series and movies have cattered to fans. There are tons of ST fans out there but there are not enough to make a franchise successful. Nemesis had all the fans go, some more than once, and it was the lowest grossing film in the franchise' history. That's the curse of Sci fi in general, its very expensive. A cult audience could keep a game show, or a sketch comedy going for years, but a cult audience just isn't big enough to make sci-fi float. Star Trek at its best does appeal to everyone, I knew a lot of girls in junior high who watched TNG, everyone went to see Undiscovered Country
- ecorona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem with Star Trek is that no new damn interesting plots are developed. I'm tired of the Borg, I'm tired of the android or hologram or Vulcan contrasting their lack of emotions with humans. I want something new. DS9 had it right with the whole Dominion thing, but they drew it out for way too long.
- glddrgn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3DS9's awesomeness directly correlates with Sisko's facial hair
- jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It makes sense from a marketing perspective, but the reality is that the name Star Trek and the genre of Sci-Fi is going to limit the movie no matter what they do. Unless it is something monumentally special or spectacular like the first Matrix then people who don't like Trek aren't going to see it no matter what.
Star Trek had enough fans to support five series and 10 movies. I think there is enough of a built in audience if you can manage to recapture the audience of everyone who used to watch the franchise before Voyager and Enterprise. I've said it before but with three series in the same time period (TNG, DS9, and Voyager) they could get a lot of milage out of mixing the casts together to create a large scale film that would attract people who like each series.
A remake or something set before Kirk took over the Enterprise is not going to attract new fans and it is going to turn off a lot of the old ones. - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they better throw in red shirted yoeman.
"Yoeman Jackson, go explore that long dark tunnel overthere by yourself" - malfourmed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3> Now if the new movie is as bad as Enterprise was or, gasp!, worse, then I think the Star Trek franchise may very well die and go into oblivion.
That's not going to happen. Even if Trek XI bombs critically and/or financially the franchise will be fallow for two or three years at the most before being revived, probably on TV but also possibly on new media such as web.
Why? Because Star Trek is one of Paramount/CBS's most successful franchises with a back-catalogue comprising about a thousand hours of viewing, a thousand or so books, games, comics etc. New release products are needed to stimulate sales of this back-catalogue. Trek XI might or might not make a lot of money at the box office, but I'd bet that in either case it stimulates sales of the existing DVDs, Pocket Books' novels etc.
Also, Paramount doesn't really have a lot of other high-profile brands it can leverage into different media. Mission Impossible perhaps, but that's only resulted in three movies in the last ten years.
Star Trek is a corporate asset encompassing much more than a single film. The executives running the shop will continue to work that asset. Maybe give the brand a rest? Sure. But consign it to oblivion? Highly unlikely. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Paramount did this to themselves. They had three sucessful Trek franchises and they killed each one at the hieght of their popularity becuase they were afraid they might get "stale." I am talking about killing TNG, DS9, and Voyager just when the stories were getting good.
- Autolycus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I say let Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer have some involvement with this. Years ago (1991) Harve Bennett had the idea of a prequel at Starfleet; although I can't recall if it involved Kirk and Spoke. These two people know how and what people, not just Trekkies, want. I know my voice won't carry far, but it's something at least.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is