View Single Post
Old 09-15-2011, 02:30 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153

Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I criticize the fact that Paramount has converted Trek into a cash cow, i.e. a product in your portfolio with a large budget, large revenues and small risk used to finance smaller, more risky products.
I don't like lowest-common denominator, minimum-brain, fear-to-piss-off-people, mass-market Trek.

I am of course well aware that I am in the minority which is per definition relatively small in the case of such movies.
If anything, I would like to see ST as the riskier project and that being a "GOOD" thing. Something brainier, sublime, and profound. Why not bring in hard-core Sci-Fi writers and take Trek into where it's true potential of telling a story is, with characters and themes that are deeper than the surface FX.
To take the viewer beyond judging a Trek Movie by the shape of the ship and plot holes. Lord knows I have complained and made mention of them myself. There can be better. Do the FX Have to drive the cost of a movie over 200million $$$? Has anyone thought of paying that much to develop the story-line instead?.......

Well...not THAT much, but my point is to move the emphasis back to story and away from flashy FX to keep the viewer's attention.

Last edited by Futureguy : 09-15-2011 at 02:34 PM.
Reply With Quote