The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Star Trek Into Darkness
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #112  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:17 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default

Some on has to die. We have to feel Kirk's pain. Same as in TSFS when Kirk's son dies… though I thing Shatner's performance was brilliant compared to Pine's. I liked Pike… he's Kirk's mentor and "father" future all rolled into one.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-01-2013, 06:59 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/01/star...how-to-fix-it/

Some interesting thoughts I guess. The tone seems a little reactionary to me, but still this is the first new article on this subject in quite a while.

Does it even matter in what forum/thread you post stuff like this anymore? Star Trek (May 2009) stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana and Wynona Ryder.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-01-2013, 08:10 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,985
Default

A return to TV for Trek is inevitable. It's just a matter of what form? A reboot? A new setting or era? Familiar characters like Kirk? Or brand new ones?

Trek needed some time away from TV, but eventually it will return. And hopefully when it does, it has new life. As the writer of that article pointed out, this is a golden age of TV. Of course, the problem might be special effects budgets. The golden age of TV right now is focused on earthly dramas, not phasers and shields.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-01-2013, 09:50 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Oh God.........another pedantic ramble through someone ideas on how to 'fix' it all and the best they can devise is 'put it back on TV'.

Staggering..........just staggering insight. Coz no one has been banging that drum for at least five years or more despite the clear evidence no one can actually figure out how to do that OR find a network or cable avenue who wants to stump up the heavy cash that would be needed to make it.

I'm going back to sleep. Wake me when someone actually has an idea.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 09-01-2013 at 09:58 PM. Reason: Apologies for irritability......I watched Elysium this weekend.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:00 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,985
Default

Don't hold back Kevin, tell us what you really think
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:25 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

I know..........I'm totally cranky this morning!

But, I just have lost some patience with the merry-go-round of 'put it on TV'. We pretty much already all agree that's the best place for it and that it really just lucked out a lot of the time on the movie front.

But that's all it is - standing around saying 'put it on TV'.

There's no solid idea for how to make a contemporary show that 'is' Star Trek, which can appeal to fans and new viewers and not somehow be the same as what's gone before. No idea how to get it into production and onto air so it can then sink or swim based on whatever is decided to be made.

Assuming (as ever) someone can even decide what 'Star Trek' is beyond the catchphrases we all employ. You can't even get two people who knew and worked with Roddenberry to agree on 'Star Trek Into Darkness' (to which I refer to two TNG stars - LeVar Burton and Wil Wheaton. Burton thought he couldn't see Roddenberry at all in it...........Wheaton thought it affirmed Roddenberry and loved it. Both worked with him and knew the man. They can't even see the most recent film the same way. How can any other two people?).

I just don't think simply saying it needs to be back on TV is the solution. It's just another statement of the obvious.

No one has as yet presented a solution to the statement.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:28 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

The big thing I'd worry about by putting it back on TV (much as I'd love it) is that Paramount may not learn from its previous mistake, and oversaturate Star Trek on TV again.

I think that's part of what put Star Trek on life-support in the first place ...there was just an oversaturation of Trek, period.

TNG goes off the air, DS9 begins two years before TNG goes off the air. 1 year after TNG finishes its tv run, it has a big screen two hour episode. DS9 continues to run, and Voyager begins a couple seasons before DS9 goes off the air. During that time, when both shows are on the air, we have First Contact and then Insurrection when DS9 and Voyager were on the air. Then we have Enterprise coming on the air just as Voyager was going off, and Nemesis was the only Next Gen movie that was run that didn't play while there were two Trek shows on TV. Enterprise only lasted four seasons, just one more season than the Original Series in '66-'69. Manny Coto's arrival to save Enterprise was too little too late.

Ultimately, Trek collapsed under its own weight. If Trek returns to TV, I hope Paramount learns from its past mistakes. At least Trek 2009 and Into Darkness became blockbusters in the movie realm. While a movie series is great, the big problem is, every time we see a new film, the actors are three to four years older than they were, and we don't quite get the chance to grow with them on the same level as we do with a weekly tv series.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-02-2013, 09:05 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

I doubt that the nineties with two Trek shows running parallelly will be repeated. As Tom has pointed out, this is a Gold Age for television and the good shows are not rushed / overproduced.

While oversaturation has indeed been indeed a problem I think it is overrated (would we really wanna miss the majority of Trek) disagree with the standard narrative about B&B plus post-TNG leading to a near-death of Trek for a very simple reason, Trek went into hiatus precisely when it became good. There is no deep structural failure, just an arbitrary business decision like in the case of Firefly which doesn't reveal anything of relevance in creative terms.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-02-2013, 01:18 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

I'm a little cranky because I woke up with nasal swelling for no reason.

What I found interesting in the article was how quickly it wanted to write ST off as 'broken' after one (supposedly) lackluster movie. It's also news to me that STID (significantly) underperformed at the box office (I think it did underperform, and I would concede that a TV series seems even less likely now than before the movie came out. However another movie is pretty much guaranteed).

By contrast... sure, there were people saying "it's broken" as far back as '94 when Generations came out (I dimly remember one particularly snarky magazine named Sci-Fi Universe seemed to think Trek had essentially ended with 'All Good Things'). However as late as 2004 publications were still saying "it's broken" like this was news.

Maybe they simply forgot they had already been saying it.

I don't think TV seems very likely home for ST at this point. It seems less likely now than just four years ago. Most TV venues would find it too expensive for the size audience it attracts, and I think the golden age of TV has already long passed. A new ST would have to be a guaranteed success like TNG was, only this time hit the ground running. The major networks give you only four episodes now.

On the flip side, I don't think Paramount would saturate ST again. First of all I don't believe they would get the chance to. But I also think they would have learned something after last time.

The "B&B killed ST" narrative doesn't work for me either because Braga wasn't even a show runner until I think ST's last six seasons. Piller, Taylor and others would've had just as much a hand in its decline. However it did decline, this is not an elaborate fiction. The audience dwindled to roughly a tenth of its former size (I don't have that graph in front of me at the moment) and that's what happened. And they didn't 'kill' it, but they didn't electrify it either.
__________________

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 11:29 PM.


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.