View Single Post
Old 09-03-2013, 07:50 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208

Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I guess it depends on the angle you're looking at it all from if there's differences over what was necessarily at fault.

Being more practical a set of factors beyond Berman and Braga probably did contribute over the years considering the decline wasn't an overnight event and wasn't attributable to one single episode or film where you can point and say.....'THAT was when it started'.

As much as I make no pretense about being a fan of Braga generally (borne out by his subsequent work anyway) probably the idea that Berman 'killed it with kindness' and a boxed in version of the Roddenberry vision might come closer to what I really think happened. Whatever, it did happen and as much as I don't dislike Abrams or his team I don't think the films magically turned it all around.

The first film gave it a jolt...........but as much as I enjoyed the second film it hasn't sustained that jolt (it did underperform relative to what Paramount spent and clearly hoped to gain but it didn't flop either. It's in the middle ground). My concern is that Paramount decides to continue the film franchise but start going cheap again on the film front.

Because put simply, while Darkness was broadly well received they spent far too much money making it.
I would agree with all of that. I also think the studio and UPN were equally responsible for what happened on the TV front. I think the same fans who invoke "Berman and Braga" are often quick to dismiss Berman's notion of 'franchise fatigue' because they want to live in a world in which we 'should' have been able to get more and more Trek, indefinitely, without the brand getting tired. And that was just never going to happen. It's not even practical. Even if they did refresh the writing, music and everything else, at the end of the day, just how many Trek shows do you actually need?

I don't know the final figures on Star Trek into Darkness. My guess is they could adjust the budget on a film-by-film basis without it being too obvious, unless the films continue to underperform. Even though studios often seem a film behind in adjusting for this. I just wonder how many films they think they're going to make. What with this second film seeming more like the second half of a first film.

Reply With Quote