The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > "All About the Benjamins" - the debate has changed
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-30-2008, 08:06 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danellis View Post
The complication is that better quality product generally makes more money
But it's a harder sell. Who does better business? Wal*Mart or your local artist's boutique?

Or for movies, which has the higher gross? Some Hollywood crap about exploding cars & boobies? Or an independant European film?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-30-2008, 11:02 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

While the Abrams-bashing continues, it might do well to point out that Paramount is making this film with hopes to make considerable profits on their investment... like every other Hollywood studio film made. Abrams was hired to direct the project.

What happens when TREK doesn't make money? TOS gets canceled. NEMESIS nearly kills the feature franchise.

The argument that this film is only being created to make dirty, nasty money is not only a false dilemma, it's a basic misunderstanding of how and why people make films.

Also, it's the lucky people who DO make money doing the work they love... because they can then afford to keep doing the work they love.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-30-2008, 02:44 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
Seriously. All the other directors I know of make movies for the love of the art form, not for money. Hitchcock, Scorsese, Jackson, Lee, none of them took a penny for their work! Bet you didn't know that.

Four fish in a sea of millions. Not getting paid for doing a job, is going the extra mile and doing something no one expects. And, yes, highly admirable. But expecting someone to do this is stupid. Do job = get paycheck. It's the simplest of equations.

It's a plus to have a job you actually care about and enjoy doing. I don't compare someone whose in a dead end job they want to get out of, but they stay for the money, the same as someone whose in a job they enjoy and don't intend to leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
Why can't that money-grubbing Abrams do exactly what a few people want him to do, and do it with the intent of not making money?
He's a money grubber for getting hired and getting paid to do something. I'm a money grubber for accepting a paycheck for doing my job, too. I would have to assume that you're above all of us greedy monsters, you only do volunteer work do you?

Also, on a side note, it would do to know what kind of movie this is. This is not your independant, nonmainstream art film. It's a big blockbuster scifi movie. The same thing the other Star Trek films were. Plain and simple. As someone else said, Paramount hired Abrams to do this. By all accounts he seems to be making the most of it, even if he is causing a rift in the fiction world with canon revisions. He's doing Star Trek the way he sees it.

Since you want to educate me about such honorable directors who did not accept money for making their masterpieces, educate me some more. How about Robert Wise, Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, David Carson, Jonathan Frakes, and Stuart Baird? Did they "not take a penny for their work"?
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-30-2008, 02:47 PM
HRH The KING's Avatar
HRH The KING HRH The KING is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Royal Estates
Posts: 733
Default

I'd love to see Dawson's Creek (which I enjoyed) style angst and character drama mixed with a fantasy setting in Star Trek.

It's worked with Buffy, Angel, and Smallville (all of which I loved).
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-30-2008, 02:50 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I think the question is whether people will do more than necessary, devote more time and energy of theirs into this movie, like let's say Nimoy who introduces stuff like the Vulcan salute or Fred Phillips who bought the pair of ears for Nimoy himself.
Such efforts are great and admirable, but not necessary to do a great movie.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-30-2008, 03:05 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH The KING View Post
I'd love to see Dawson's Creek (which I enjoyed) style angst and character drama mixed with a fantasy setting in Star Trek.

It's worked with Buffy, Angel, and Smallville (all of which I loved).
Check out http://www.startrekreborn.net/
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-30-2008, 03:08 PM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Four fish in a sea of millions. Not getting paid for doing a job, is going the extra mile and doing something no one expects. And, yes, highly admirable. But expecting someone to do this is stupid. Do job = get paycheck. It's the simplest of equations.

It's a plus to have a job you actually care about and enjoy doing. I don't compare someone whose in a dead end job they want to get out of, but they stay for the money, the same as someone whose in a job they enjoy and don't intend to leave.



He's a money grubber for getting hired and getting paid to do something. I'm a money grubber for accepting a paycheck for doing my job, too. I would have to assume that you're above all of us greedy monsters, you only do volunteer work do you?

Also, on a side note, it would do to know what kind of movie this is. This is not your independant, nonmainstream art film. It's a big blockbuster scifi movie. The same thing the other Star Trek films were. Plain and simple. As someone else said, Paramount hired Abrams to do this. By all accounts he seems to be making the most of it, even if he is causing a rift in the fiction world with canon revisions. He's doing Star Trek the way he sees it.

Since you want to educate me about such honorable directors who did not accept money for making their masterpieces, educate me some more. How about Robert Wise, Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, David Carson, Jonathan Frakes, and Stuart Baird? Did they "not take a penny for their work"?
Just to clarify: all those quotes of mine should be in the SARCASTIC font. All 4 of those directors got paid, and paid well. I was trying to make a point that ALL DIRECTORS get paid, just like all actors.

Sarcasm! That's where I was going with that. You can't seriously think I thought Hitchcock never cashed a paycheck, right?????
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-30-2008, 03:10 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Oh yes, all four definately cashed in...
the philisophical question is....Did they deserve it?
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-30-2008, 03:25 PM
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
WildGunsTomcat WildGunsTomcat is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH The KING View Post
I'd love to see Dawson's Creek (which I enjoyed) style angst and character drama mixed with a fantasy setting in Star Trek.

It's worked with Buffy, Angel, and Smallville (all of which I loved).
Nah...I'd like to see more of a Firefly type dynamic in a Star Trek crew.

But we have to remember guys...this isn't a ragtag group of people...these are supposed to be high trained military personell. Duty is the first thing on their minds. Supposed to be anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-30-2008, 03:26 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

As most actors, producers, writers etc. in this movie are young, they have strong incentives to work well in order to get further well-paid jobs. Simpel as that.
The 'they are all in for the money' point seems to imply the fear that Trek gets 'sold out', doing a large-scale blockbuster which betrays what Trek is about to reach the largest audience. But as folks like Orci and Lindelof are fans, I can't understand this fear. People who never did Trek and fans in the production team are a promising mixture, the best of both worlds. Remember whan Nick Meyer did and how ENT changed once old fans like Sussmann or the Reeves-Stevenses came aboard?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.