[martok2112]

The thing we must remember about the open endedness of TWOK was that it was indeed motivated by more than just money.

At the time, Leonard Nimoy was adamant that TWOK would be the LAST Trek movie he would do. (Of course, I think in later years, we've heard that same claim). When he was offered the director's seat for a sequel, he relented.

Also, the initial test screening with a more somber, more "final" ending did not meet with much approval from test audiences...so the ending was reshot with a bit more hope.

But, I guess, in the end, rectifying all of the above does have much to do with money.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by martok2112

The thing we must remember about the open endedness of TWOK was that it was indeed motivated by more than just money.

At the time, Leonard Nimoy was adamant that TWOK would be the LAST Trek movie he would do. (Of course, I think in later years, we've heard that same claim). When he was offered the director's seat for a sequel, he relented.

Also, the initial test screening with a more somber, more "final" ending did not meet with much approval from test audiences...so the ending was reshot with a bit more hope.

That's the irony. I said before that I think TWOK makes for a wonderful 'final' chapter to classic TOS (should you choose on any particular day to ignore everything after). But I don't believe that would remain the case if Meyer instead of Bennett had gotten Final Cut of the film. Even though it might truly have been final, if test audience screenings were any indication.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by horatio

Obviously a far saner suggestion than TOS fans hoping to see Kirk et al. on the small screen again in a third incarnation.
Many people, including somebody like me who does not particularly like TOS, recognize that the sterility of the 24th century is a liability and the roughness of the 23rd an asset.

As I'm not aware of who else on here might have made such a suggestion (which isn't to say that they haven't), I can only say for myself that I do believe a future ST television series should probably involve 'some' of the classic characters in some way. I had also previously speculated that whoever greenlights the next series might be tempted to go in the direction of another TOS reboot, personal preferences aside. Neither is the same as saying a 'strait' reboot is what should happen. Though even if it did, I'm not convinced that it couldn't be made to work. It would be no different (theoretically) than any other rebooted series based around an iconic group of characters. How many TV-based Superman reboots do we have now? Again, this is purely observational and not a statement of preference.

I do believe the 'next-next-next generation' phase of ST has run its course. While I'm sure there are a dozen-dozen workable premises that have never been explored, I think everything has its time. Not unlike Phase II, The Academy Years, The Beginning, ST Excelsior, they all had their time to either go forward or not. While it was once tempting to think of the ST universe as the ever-expanding gum bubble that you could just keep blowing up, I just don't see that as characterizing the current Third Generation of ST.

Originally Posted by kevin

I'm sure I remember [Behr] saying that DS9 was just sort of left to do it's own thing because the powers that be were more interested in the TNG films and VOY at the time. But where that recollection comes from I dunno. The fog of my memory most likely. Or a long ago interview.

I don't quite remember any direct claim of the sort from him, however I've heard it said enough times to accept as plausible fact. It fits with my overall impression of what happened creatively between the three TNG spinoffs. The absence of a network such as UPN probably did not hurt DS9 either.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The examples being held against the movie are mostly easter eggs. They are meant to just roll by, they aren't plot points. They are just scenery.

Held against the movie? All I say is that these writers should be more daring respectively that the budget should be shrinked such that writers have the space to be more daring.
This abundance of easter eggs plus the Countdown comic shows that ST09 did not transcend continuity obsession and I find it slightly ironic that I, a big Berman era Trek fan, have to argue for a cleaner cut.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Held against the movie? All I say is that these writers should be more daring respectively that the budget should be shrinked such that writers have the space to be more daring.
This abundance of easter eggs plus the Countdown comic shows that ST09 did not transcend continuity obsession and I find it slightly ironic that I, a big Berman era Trek fan, have to argue for a cleaner cut.

How is a girl in a bar ordering a Cardassian sunrise obsession with Continuity?

[mmoore]

I submit that if those passing references had not been in the movie the uproar might have eclipsed the Watts riots.

[kevin]

I don't see that it is. It's an inconsequential reference for fans. It's not like Worf 'having' to appear in INS because apparently fans heads would explode if he wasn't present despite the straightforward explanation he had been assigned elsewhere and had to skip a film.

You put stuff like that in for fans - you can't with one segment. You leave it out - you can't win with another segment. You do a clean cut, or a faithful version..........you get where I'm going.

I also however don't assume a lower budget or a cleaner cut would definitively or automatically mean a better or more daring film/TV series. It's entirely possible it would, it's possible it would not. Without story specifics we can't judge that. Budget cuts to TOS season 3 didn't make it the best year creatively the show ever had.

[samwiseb]

Indeed, even in low-budget-land what's the batting average for truly exceptional to everything else? 20 percent for feature films? 30 percent for classic TOS? Maybe I have it the other way around, depending on personal mileage. The Berman era productions already eclipse everything else in terms of sheer quantity, and batting average is again roughly approximate if you average them out (don't average them out and it probably varies from 10 to 40 percent, again dependent on personal mileage).

I think the current phase is a healthy one, providing it doesn't outstay its welcome. Like everything else it won't last forever. Besides, the DVDs aren't going anywhere.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

How is a girl in a bar ordering a Cardassian sunrise obsession with Continuity?

In and of itself not at all. Add Archer's dog, the repetition of Spock's Doyle quote from TUC, the very appearance of Nimoy, the fanwankish comic and you realize that ST09 is not the clean reboot many people pretend it is.
I totally understand that a franchise which spans more than ten movies and more than 500 episodes works like that, I totally understand that writers wanna throw some meat to the fans ... but such a timid "hedge my bets" attitude rarely paves the road to excellence.
If the guy who wrote "In the Pale Moonlight" had worried that much about how fans might react to his controversial piece he wouldn't have written it in the first place.

On the other hand these three movies with a second version of the classical characters do perhaps not have to cut all ties to what has come before. Yet the series that will emerge after the movies are over will have to.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

Indeed, even in low-budget-land what's the batting average for truly exceptional to everything else? 20 percent for feature films? 30 percent for classic TOS? Maybe I have it the other way around, depending on personal mileage. The Berman era productions already eclipse everything else in terms of sheer quantity, and batting average is again roughly approximate if you average them out (don't average them out and it probably varies from 10 to 40 percent, again dependent on personal mileage).

I think the current phase is a healthy one, providing it doesn't outstay its welcome. Like everything else it won't last forever. Besides, the DVDs aren't going anywhere.

And it's fair to say that Trek on TV was quite generously funded from 1987 onwards and still had it's share of the good, the bad and the downright ugly.

So the amount of money you have to hand is less important than who is spending that money and what they do with it.