When is a Star Trek no longer a Star Trek?

[Magnus]

The answer?

WHEN THEY DON'T GO TO THE STARS!!!!

ARGH

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=19608

WHAT

THE

F**K??

Ok, this franchise REALLY needs to die right now. As exciting as it would be watching a drunk fly around in a rocket with warp engines on it in our solar system, thanks i'll bloody pass.

Enterprise has a hard enough time navigating around the galaxy. With a ship that's set so far BEFORE Enterprise, we'll probably have a rip-off of Apollo 13 or something, with no anti-gravity, no phazers, no shields, no transporters....guns with bullets, large spacesuits.....if I want to watch that, i'll catch the next shuttle launch

Jesus CHRIST, what the HELL is wrong with Paramount? I just don't understand it!

[Duke Togo]

The franchise has been dead for a decade, they just don't know it yet. Don't they understand no one cares anymore?

[Zentrandude]

guess they would save money on the costume dept.

[UN Spacy]

I've been a fan since TNG's first season.

Please let it die in peace......it's been on life support far too long.

[Uxi]

That sounds pretty weak. But then this is Star Trek. The trekies should be used to it by now.

[Morpheus]

What? No borg or holodecks ????? Lame......

[mikeszekely]

Why would they make a Trek movie that covers ground that they basically covered already in the second TNG movie?

Jendresen: "Hey, wasn't First Contact a kick-ass movie?"

Paramount: "Sure was."

J: "Wouldn't it be cool if we made another movie that was like it, but we took out the Borg, the Enterprise, Picard and crew... everything except that drunk guy launching rockets?"

P: "You mean everything that made the movie cool?"

J: "Yeah."

P: "Hell yeah! Let's bankrole that sumbitch!"

One other thing I don't get... they're talking about Star Trek XI? What about X? Last I checked, there's only nine (six original Trek movies, and three TNG).

[Mechamaniac]

One other thing I don't get... they're talking about Star Trek XI?  What about X?  Last I checked, there's only nine (six original Trek movies, and three TNG).

Nope, 6 original Trek films, and 4 NG films...

OG Trek:

The (slow) Motion Picture

Wrath of Khan

Search for Spock

Voyage Home

Final Frontier

Undiscovered Country

NG Trek:

Generations

First Contact

Insurrection

Nemesis

BTW - the first part of your post was funny as HELL!

Edited March 11, 2005 by Mechamaniac

[buddhafabio]

If they wanted to waste the money to make one movie. i would feel it would have a better chance if they had did two and have it centered on the romulian war. Have the first one the begining of the war an then twards the end the federation is set up foundation wise. the next the romulians are defeated and the federation is founded

Edited March 11, 2005 by buddhafabio

[mechaninac]

In their own clueless way, Paramount and Co. are just piling more dirt on Star Trek's grave.

If they just let Star Trek lie dormant for the next 5-10 years or, at least, until someone with a "real" idea with a good script comes along to resurrect this dead horse. Otherwise, they'll just have another theatrical bomb (IMO, Insurrection and Nemesis both stunk to high heaven) on their hands. That could be good in a way; it'll reinforce the fact, in their minds, that Star Trek no longer sells...not because it can't sell given a good, well told and well acted story, but because they just manage to screw it up on a repeated basis.

[mikeszekely]

In their own clueless way, Paramount and Co. are just piling more dirt on Star Trek's grave.

If they just let Star Trek lie dormant for the next 5-10 years or, at least, until someone with a "real" idea with a good script comes along to resurrect this dead horse. Otherwise, they'll just have another theatrical bomb (IMO, Insurrection and Nemesis both stunk to high heaven) on their hands. That could be good in a way; it'll reinforce the fact, in their minds, that Star Trek no longer sells...not because it can't sell given a good, well told and well acted story, but because they just manage to screw it up on a repeated basis.

I got why I thought there was only nine... in my mind, "Nemesis" and "Insurrection" kinda blurred together.

In any case, I don't really feel that either of the movies were bad, per se... it's just that the original series Trek movies set themselves apart from the series. Stuff like killing off Spock (and ressurrecting him), blowing up the Enterprise... stuff they'd never have considered doing on TV.

Meanwhile, the TNG movies played out like episodes from the TNG show. Make them two parters... hell, do some editing, and cram them down to an hour. Aside from Jon Frakes attempts to work more action into the movies, there really wasn't anything special about them.

Speaking of Frakes... I think it's a little sad that, aside from his Trek movies, all he's directed was Clockstoppers and Thunderbirds? Maybe he should just stick to acting...

[Skippy438]

Speaking of Frakes... I think it's a little sad that, aside from his Trek movies, all he's directed was Clockstoppers and Thunderbirds? Maybe he should just stick to acting...

No ... nobody needs that

[Radd]

Meh. Trek doesn't need to be put to sleep for a while, it needs someone at the helm that actually cares about the franchise and wants to tell some good stories. Burman has openly admitted that he hates the franchise and it's just another paycheque to him.

Of course, given how much crap that's been piled onto the Trek name, maybe letting the franchise die for a while before its glorious comeback would help us forget how bad it is now.

Fat chance of either, though. While hardcore trekkies continue to shell out support to these new shows and movies just because they have 'Star Trek' somewhere in the title, Paramount will be making at least the minimum to keep Trek on life support and not feel the need to make any changes.

[JB0]

In their own clueless way, Paramount and Co. are just piling more dirt on In any case, I don't really feel that either of the movies were bad, per se... it's just that the original series Trek movies set themselves apart from the series. Stuff like killing off Spock (and ressurrecting him), blowing up the Enterprise... stuff they'd never have considered doing on TV.

Meanwhile, the TNG movies played out like episodes from the TNG show. Make them two parters... hell, do some editing, and cram them down to an hour. Aside from Jon Frakes attempts to work more action into the movies, there really wasn't anything special about them.

What about Generations? Next Gen blew up the Enterprise AND killed Kirk. Killed him twice, no less.

I think the more theatrical flair of the original generation movies has more to do with the cast. Kirk is just a much better movie captain than Picard is.

Jean-Luc is just too reserved to be a particularly strong movie character. Not a real flaw with the character, he just doesn't lend himself well to the theatrical expectations.

[Seven]

Sounds like a bad idea, but that's all it sounds like... an idea on a website.

They need to just let it go and pull a Battlestar Galactica with it in 15 years. Bring it back when people actually start missing it.

I never thought the original Star Trek really had such a dramatic and meaningful heart to it like a lot of Trekkies like to claim it had. I never thought it was deserving of the self importance that alot of Trekkies gave it, claiming that it it has to do with man's drive to explore and learn and evolve. I just thought of it as another campy sci-fi show that got lucky. For what it's worth, I'm grateful for the entertainment that they put on for me to watch through my childhood. But it still needs to go away.

[mikeszekely]

In their own clueless way, Paramount and Co. are just piling more dirt on In any case, I don't really feel that either of the movies were bad, per se... it's just that the original series Trek movies set themselves apart from the series. Stuff like killing off Spock (and ressurrecting him), blowing up the Enterprise... stuff they'd never have considered doing on TV.

Meanwhile, the TNG movies played out like episodes from the TNG show. Make them two parters... hell, do some editing, and cram them down to an hour. Aside from Jon Frakes attempts to work more action into the movies, there really wasn't anything special about them.

What about Generations? Next Gen blew up the Enterprise AND killed Kirk. Killed him twice, no less.

I think the more theatrical flair of the original generation movies has more to do with the cast. Kirk is just a much better movie captain than Picard is.

Jean-Luc is just too reserved to be a particularly strong movie character. Not a real flaw with the character, he just doesn't lend himself well to the theatrical expectations.

I'll give you that... Generations was a lot more like a real movie than an episode of TNG. But, because the plot tied in heavily with the original Trek characters, I wasn't really counting it. Besides, a lot of the TNG stuff in Generations, like the sailing in the holodeck, still could have been ripped from the TV show.

And in any case, I think you're absolutely right. Picard was a much deeper and often more subtle character than Kirk, which made him the absolute best TV captain in the history of Trek. But Kirk has a certain "action-hero"-ness to his character that lends itself well to the movies.

Picard leads his crew with dignity and wisdom that plays out over the entire series; Kirk wails on the villain and gets the girl at the end of the movie. Even the older fatter Kirk is more believable in a fist fight with a Klingon than Picard.

[JB0]

In their own clueless way, Paramount and Co. are just piling more dirt on In any case, I don't really feel that either of the movies were bad, per se... it's just that the original series Trek movies set themselves apart from the series. Stuff like killing off Spock (and ressurrecting him), blowing up the Enterprise... stuff they'd never have considered doing on TV.

Meanwhile, the TNG movies played out like episodes from the TNG show. Make them two parters... hell, do some editing, and cram them down to an hour. Aside from Jon Frakes attempts to work more action into the movies, there really wasn't anything special about them.

What about Generations? Next Gen blew up the Enterprise AND killed Kirk. Killed him twice, no less.

I think the more theatrical flair of the original generation movies has more to do with the cast. Kirk is just a much better movie captain than Picard is.

Jean-Luc is just too reserved to be a particularly strong movie character. Not a real flaw with the character, he just doesn't lend himself well to the theatrical expectations.

I'll give you that... Generations was a lot more like a real movie than an episode of TNG. But, because the plot tied in heavily with the original Trek characters, I wasn't really counting it. Besides, a lot of the TNG stuff in Generations, like the sailing in the holodeck, still could have been ripped from the TV show.

Fair enough.

It IS a hybrid show.

But they still killed Kirk twice.

And in any case, I think you're absolutely right.  Picard was a much deeper and often more subtle character than Kirk, which made him the absolute best TV captain in the history of Trek.  But Kirk has a certain "action-hero"-ness to his character that lends itself well to the movies.

Picard leads his crew with dignity and wisdom that plays out over the entire series; Kirk wails on the villain and gets the girl at the end of the movie.  Even the older fatter Kirk is more believable in a fist fight with a Klingon than Picard.

Precisely.

Picard stands back and looks at everything before he acts. Towards a peaceful solution if at all possible, and the one that gets the fewest people on either side hurt if no peaceful solution is handy. And does it by the book whenever possible(which sadly includes him staying on the bridge while other people go and have all the fun).

Kirk dives right in and doesn't care if he violates a few dozen laws(or even the prime directive) while getting the job done. He has no objection to blasting everything in sight if he thinks the situation calls for it, and is ALWAYS going to be found where the action is, regardless of regulations.

I think Sisko would've made a good movie captain too.

Honestly, he's my favorite one in the franchise. But they killed him off... sort of.

...

Man, I hated how they ended that series.

[promethuem5]

Oh snap! A DS9 movie would kick ass! Like, a crossover with TNG and DS9. That would be killer.

[Duke Togo]

Oh snap! A DS9 movie would kick ass! Like, a crossover with TNG and DS9. That would be killer.

And would make NO money whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if they actually lost money on it.

[promethuem5]

Soooooooo!? It would still have awesome story-telling potential. Money be damned.

[mikeszekely]

Oh snap!  A DS9 movie would kick ass!  Like, a crossover with TNG and DS9.  That would be killer.

And would make NO money whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if they actually lost money on it.

If they made a strictly DS9 movie, yeah, it wouldn't do so hot.

If they made a crossover though, as promethuem5 suggested, and marketed it as a TNG movie with some stuff from DS9 (even if it wound up being a DS9 movie with some stuff from TNG), it shouldn't do any worse than the last four Trek movies.

Granted, $43 million (Nemesis) at the box office isn't all that hot...

[Coota0]

"We're going 160-odd years before Kirk is born,” Jendresen told SyFy Portal's Michael Hinman.

Ok, I read another interview (I'll have to see if I can find it) where Jenderson said it would be before Kirk but after Enterprise. I think I'll take anything said at this point with a grain of salt.

[Duke Togo]

Oh snap!  A DS9 movie would kick ass!  Like, a crossover with TNG and DS9.  That would be killer.

And would make NO money whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if they actually lost money on it.

If they made a strictly DS9 movie, yeah, it wouldn't do so hot.

If they made a crossover though, as promethuem5 suggested, and marketed it as a TNG movie with some stuff from DS9 (even if it wound up being a DS9 movie with some stuff from TNG), it shouldn't do any worse than the last four Trek movies.

Granted, $43 million (Nemesis) at the box office isn't all that hot...

They probably spent 43 million to advertise nd promote the movie.

[ly000001]

Oh snap!  A DS9 movie would kick ass!   Like, a crossover with TNG and DS9.  That would be killer.

And would make NO money whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if they actually lost money on it.

If they made a strictly DS9 movie, yeah, it wouldn't do so hot.

If they made a crossover though, as promethuem5 suggested, and marketed it as a TNG movie with some stuff from DS9 (even if it wound up being a DS9 movie with some stuff from TNG), it shouldn't do any worse than the last four Trek movies.

Granted, $43 million (Nemesis) at the box office isn't all that hot...

They probably spent 43 million to advertise nd promote the movie.

Almost that much : http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek10.htm

Even with ticket prices higher than they were in '89, "Nemesis" still did worse than "The Final Frontier" http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/ch...id=startrek.htm

[eugimon]

if this movie really is about the early days with people trying to figure out how to get big spaceships in space, I can see how it would be really interesting for die hard trek fan boys... but honestly for me.. I couldn't care less.. honestly, trek tech is so far fetched as it is, I couldn't possible stand two hours of nonsensical tech jargon being thrown around the background I'm sure to some poor wretched excuse for "politcal intrigue" which in the trek world means the big bad blows up the ruling party with a bomb or something.

boring.

[mechaninac]

IMO, Star Trek is no longer Star Trek when B&B are at the helm. They've been consistently driving the franchise towards mediocrity and irrelevance since GR died.

[JB0]

if this movie really is about the early days with people trying to figure out how to get big spaceships in space, I can see how it would be really interesting for die hard trek fan boys... but honestly for me.. I couldn't care less.. honestly, trek tech is so far fetched as it is, I couldn't possible stand two hours of nonsensical tech jargon being thrown around the background I'm sure to some poor wretched excuse for "politcal intrigue" which in the trek world means the big bad blows up the ruling party with a bomb or something.

boring.

Political intrigue isn't really the order of the day, though. 6, 9, and 10 only.

...

Granted, they've tried for it in both of the last 2 movies.

[mikeszekely]

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why the TNG seasons cost so damn much? Is there a legitamate reason, or are they just fleecing Trekkies?

[Magnus]

I'd say the latter.

Baaaah sheep-fan, baaaaaaaaahhhh!

[Duke Togo]

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why the TNG seasons cost so damn much? Is there a legitamate reason, or are they just fleecing Trekkies?

How does that make sense? The fans weren't paying for the show, Paramount was, the stations were, and the advertisers were.

You make it sound like they were walking into their homes and forcing them to pay out of their own pockets.

[promethuem5]

Was it more expensive bc/ it was ALOT of high end stuff being used? Like, uncommonly high-tech for the time? Idk... just a thought....

[JB0]

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why the TNG seasons cost so damn much? Is there a legitamate reason, or are they just fleecing Trekkies?

You mean the DVD sets, right? Not actual production costs?

Paramount likes ripping Trekkies off. Always has.

[Duke Togo]

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why the TNG seasons cost so damn much?  Is there a legitamate reason, or are they just fleecing Trekkies?

You mean the DVD sets, right? Not actual production costs?

Paramount likes ripping Trekkies off. Always has.

Ah, my bad.

[mikeszekely]

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why the TNG seasons cost so damn much?  Is there a legitamate reason, or are they just fleecing Trekkies?

You mean the DVD sets, right? Not actual production costs?

Paramount likes ripping Trekkies off. Always has.

Yeah, I meant the DVD sets. Something like $105 per season. Granted, there's a lot of hours of entertainment there, but I'm used to paying $30-$50 for a season of a TV show I like (which, to date, hasn't been much... South Park, Family Guy, and Knight Rider).

Sucks for me, because, while not really a Trekkie, I did like TNG. But I sure as hell didn't like it THAT much.

Edited March 15, 2005 by mikeszekely