[omegaman]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

It wouldn't take much...

Actually Zim it would take a helluva lot… it's simply the best Trek Movie ever made.

[omegaman]

[quote=kevin;315958]Right.................because an assembly line is just what we need again after the 1990s.

Actually Kevin, I think we have more of assembly line now than we ever had, that's why writers and directors and cast are spread thin between so many projects different projects, it must be pretty had for the writers to simply "jump into" Trek mode to write a new story, in the few short months or weeks between vastly different projects?

[kevin]

I would not entirely agree there.

A group of people being busy amongst different projects is not to me the same thing as the 1990s Trek model of 'Cancel TNG, make GEN, keep DS9 running, start VOY, make a FC, make INS, cancel DS9, cancel VOY, start ENT, make NEM, cancel ENT' when the results diminished so obviously with the same people involved.

Which is quite a lot to do when the bulk of it was all in 8 years (1994-2002).

Nor do I entirely presume what may be hard for the writers to necessarily do. They have something cooking or there wouldn't be a treatment that they were polishing. They don't have to move to the velocity of the fans. It was certainly hard for the 1990s team to come up with much that was fresh doing it the way they did at that point, but I can say that based on looking back at the results they put out.

[chator]

There's a new interview in Gamepro magazine with Orci talking about the ST sequel, it is partially posted on ComicBookMovie website here, http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=40841

Here's the most telling quote:

"We want to make sure that we’re true to what happened in the universe. The things I want to see a lot of the same things that happened in Star Trek , a lot of the same scenarios but I want see them in a new way. In the original series they met the doomsday machine. What would happen if they met it now? The things we want to see are old ideas in a new way. Because it’s a new universe, because things have changed, the outcomes might be different, the decisions might be different. It’s exciting to think about the fact that you could take any one of the old episodes or movies and see what happens if things were just a little bit different."

Orci also states in that interview that the new Star Trek videogame coming out in 2012 is basically a tie-in to the Star Trek sequel. Here's the specific quote:

"We would not allow a game to go out if it was not somehow a part of the continuity... In our movie you get to see them grow. That’s what our movie was about and that’s what the sequel is going to be about. What’s great about the game is that it gets to show that middle step. You get to see Kirk and Spock in a way you’re not going to in the movie. They’re becoming friends; they’re going on adventures you’re not going to see in the movies. The game is giving you new insight into who they are."

Honestly, I don't know how you are going to get much character development in a videogame, but whatever. Here's a trailer to the videogame, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbh4g3qJ3vk

It looks like in the videogame the Star Trek crew is battling the Doomsday device.

[starwarsrcks]

That's awesome, I love it

[horatio]

Originally Posted by omegaman

Actually Kevin, I think we have more of assembly line now than we ever had, that's why writers and directors and cast are spread thin between so many projects different projects, it must be pretty had for the writers to simply "jump into" Trek mode to write a new story, in the few short months or weeks between vastly different projects?

I think you refer you many of the people being involved being busy with other projects. Then it's not a Trek but a general Hollywood "assembly line".
Or in my words, the writers are too busy writing other crap to finish their Trek crap.

Originally Posted by kevin

I would not entirely agree there.

A group of people being busy amongst different projects is not to me the same thing as the 1990s Trek model of 'Cancel TNG, make GEN, keep DS9 running, start VOY, make a FC, make INS, cancel DS9, cancel VOY, start ENT, make NEM, cancel ENT' when the results diminished so obviously with the same people involved.

Which is quite a lot to do when the bulk of it was all in 8 years (1994-2002).

Nor do I entirely presume what may be hard for the writers to necessarily do. They have something cooking or there wouldn't be a treatment that they were polishing. They don't have to move to the velocity of the fans. It was certainly hard for the 1990s team to come up with much that was fresh doing it the way they did at that point, but I can say that based on looking back at the results they put out.

And what makes you believe that these folks will produce something fresh when they are so busy with other megalomaniac Hollywood stuff and when the movie formula dictates that they produce another shallow blockbuster? Not to mention that this time, assuming that Abrams will direct, will be the first instance that both the writers and director of two subsequent Trek movies are identical. So much about freshness and change of personal ...

[horatio]

Originally Posted by chator

There's a new interview in Gamepro magazine with Orci talking about the ST sequel, it is partially posted on ComicBookMovie website here, http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=40841

Here's the most telling quote:

"We want to make sure that we’re true to what happened in the universe. The things I want to see a lot of the same things that happened in Star Trek , a lot of the same scenarios but I want see them in a new way. In the original series they met the doomsday machine. What would happen if they met it now? The things we want to see are old ideas in a new way. Because it’s a new universe, because things have changed, the outcomes might be different, the decisions might be different. It’s exciting to think about the fact that you could take any one of the old episodes or movies and see what happens if things were just a little bit different."

Orci also states in that interview that the new Star Trek videogame coming out in 2012 is basically a tie-in to the Star Trek sequel. Here's the specific quote:

"We would not allow a game to go out if it was not somehow a part of the continuity... In our movie you get to see them grow. That’s what our movie was about and that’s what the sequel is going to be about. What’s great about the game is that it gets to show that middle step. You get to see Kirk and Spock in a way you’re not going to in the movie. They’re becoming friends; they’re going on adventures you’re not going to see in the movies. The game is giving you new insight into who they are."

Honestly, I don't know how you are going to get much character development in a videogame, but whatever. Here's a trailer to the videogame, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbh4g3qJ3vk

It looks like in the videogame the Star Trek crew is battling the Doomsday device.

Even if there won't be the doomsday machine in the next movie these words by Orci strongly indicate that they will go down, once again, the remake road. The third movie in a row being a remake of something, that's phantastic.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

I vote for Frakes.

I want the movie to suceed at least so....not Frakes. All his movies have been flopps. May not be his fault as director but unfortunant.

On the other hand...I like Sub Rosa,Cause and Effect, Drumhead was EXCELLENT but the small screen is a different can of worms.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

And what makes you believe that these folks will produce something fresh when they are so busy with other megalomaniac Hollywood stuff and when the movie formula dictates that they produce another shallow blockbuster?

Trek optimisim!

Or, put more simply, as I alluded to before, I can criticise the 1990s phase of Trek because it's there for the witnessing, and I was there when it was happening. I can look back and see it laid out.

(Back in the early days of that era of Trek, I wouldn't have been able to predict the problems that would ultimately surface in the franchise. In 1994 I still loved TNG, enjoyed GEN, was getting into DS9 and even VOY appealed to me then. Oh, for the days of innocence when everything that was to follow in the years after that great 1994-1996 period was still unknown! )

However, we're in a moving forward phase now and until some concrete information about the story direction for the sequel comes around I'm keeping a kind of holding pattern on starting to form an opinion. Being another 'shallow blockbuster' (presummably as opposed to the 'genuis' of the last few Trek films) is a possibility. Of course, that just takes us into the yawnfest of what 'it' was or wasn't in the eyes of different people. Which is very old hat.

We'll see.

Not to mention that this time, assuming that Abrams will direct, will be the first instance that both the writers and director of two subsequent Trek movies are identical. So much about freshness and change of personal ...

Well, there was hardly a swinging door of people in the TOS and TNG films either. Once you have Roddenberry shown the door, you have cast members of Trek responsible for directing five out of the ten Prime Universe's ten feature films, folks like Harve Bennet involved in writing/producing four out of the six TOS films, Meyer involved in three of them in various capacities as well.................

Looking back, it's somewhat true that in the past the Trek films have been somewhat of a cabal of the same faces in the main roles in their TOS/TNG incarnations (what with Harve Bennett, Nick Meyer, Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner dominating the writing/directing/producing of all the films after TMP, and Berman & Co dominating the TNG films from GEN onwards. Sure they brought in some new faces for NEM.......................but look how well that turned out) so it does actually appear that historically the films tend to come under the yolk of a distinct group in blocks.

Which might actually bring things round to the merits of having a regular change vs keeping the same people. Since the results of the latter can definitely vary.

Keeping the people the same worked a lot better for the TOS films (until TFF) than it did for the TNG films (IMO, your mileage may vary, whatever) so perhaps you've raised an interesting point about having a team in place working as 'overseers' on more than a single film.

The current major team is still 'fresh' in terms of Trek...............and we saw how some of their ideasn were recieved in the film (some took certain things fine, some didn't at all) but of course if they stay too long the ideas well may dry up. It depends on how you want to view it though...........TMP kicked off the film franchise anyway by remaking a TOS episode, so there's a certain amusement to be had at the 'upset' over further episode remakes being possible.

This is, after all, what happened in the 1990s as well. Keeping the same folks so heavily involved in Trek from 1994 onwards ultimately did not do the franchise any huge favours in that case, because they eventually burned out on creativity, but maybe if they had been more selective and employed a steady rotation of players over the years then things might have been kept more on an even keel instead of getting to the point where all anyone can talk about is how Manny Coto turned ENT around when it was already too late for anyone to care since the damage had already been done by other factors..........................but, keeping several key people in the TOS films was generally more successful (again, forgetting the Shat-ego's TFF outing)..............soooooooo, where in the results spectrum might the Abrams team ultimately fall when we look back in ten or so years?

Hmmmmmmmmmm....................I'm kinda rambling on the page here but in my head I'm having a little mental tennis game now of the merits of keeping vs constantly changing key behind the scenes folks over multiple movies................hmmmmmmmmmmm................ ......

I think I'll go have breakfast and have some more tennis.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I want the movie to suceed at least so....not Frakes. All his movies have been flopps. May not be his fault as director but unfortunant.

On the other hand...I like Sub Rosa,Cause and Effect, Drumhead was EXCELLENT but the small screen is a different can of worms.

That's not strictly true, neither First Contact nor even (technically) Insurrection were box-office flops. Certainly not the former, which is still his most successful film.

But once he tried to move into other features..........yep, they didn't work out financially. Although I've never seen Clockstoppers or Thunderbirds so I don't know if the box-office reflects how good the films are.

His TV directing was pretty good though.