[ispeedonthe405]

Originally Posted by kevin

In which case I think the real question is -

Why then could the runners of Star Trek up until now not make a 'real' Star Trek film that also had the mass popularity of the film Abrams has made?

Why did they have to, apparently, lose Star Trek to make it viable?

I'm sorry, are we defining 6 TV shows, 10 movies, countless merchandising deals and a kabillion fans over a period of a few decades as "not viable" now?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by ispeedonthe405

I'm sorry, are we defining 6 TV shows, 10 movies, countless merchandising deals and a kabillion fans over a period of a few decades as "not viable" now?

I'm not trying to round on you - just asking a fair question regarding the last part of your post.

I take then, that prior to this film, you felt that Star Trek was in robust health? Because there was none of the above in any significant (except fans) way for the last 7 years out of Trek's 43 year life so far.

So IMO yes, we are talking about viability (and lack of it at the time the new movie was started), when the last TV show got cancelled due to (many reasons of course, but it certainly did not meet expectations) and the last film was a critical and financial flop greater than anything that had been seen before.

Star Trek has to be financially viable as well as creatively so if it was, why was there two major failures in 18 months (ENT and NEM) then nothing for 7 years and the need for a totally new team of people to come in and take a look at it?

[ispeedonthe405]

Originally Posted by kevin

I'm not trying to round on you - just asking a fair question regarding the last part of your post.

I take then, that prior to this film, you felt that Star Trek was in robust health? Because there was none of the above in any significant (except fans) way for the last 7 years out of Trek's 43 year life so far.

So IMO yes, we are talking about viability (and lack of it at the time the new movie was started), when the last TV show got cancelled due to (many reasons of course, but it certainly did not meet expectations) and the last film was a critical and financial flop greater than anything that had been seen before.

Star Trek has to be financially viable as well as creatively so if it was, why was there two major failures in 18 months (ENT and NEM) then nothing for 7 years and the need for a totally new team of people to come in and take a look at it?

Did I want them to pull a Bond/Batman style reboot and try something new, minus all the dullness and stupidity of the spinoffs? Yeah. I already said I think everything after Undiscovered Country was trash.

Do I think this story was nonsensical from a simple mathematical point of view? Yup, because it absolutely was. Neither the super supernova catalyst nor the black hole plan make any sense whatsoever. So for me the nonsensical plot undid whatever goodness might have been done by the rest.

Why did it sell? I don't know, dude. Why does a show like Friends stay on the air for a thousand years but Firefly gets pulled before the first season is done? Why does a guy who hits a ball with a stick and then runs around in a circle get paid a bazillion dollars a year, while the people who figure out how space and time work and actually do something to advance human civilization and quality of life get paid less than restaurant managers?

The world is f'd up. That's the best answer I've got for you. And if you're equating "commercial success" with "good", as it appears you are, then no; I don't expect you to understand my answer.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by ispeedonthe405

Why did it sell? I don't know, dude. Why does a show like Friends stay on the air for a thousand years but Firefly gets pulled before the first season is done? Why does a guy who hits a ball with a stick and then runs around in a circle get paid a bazillion dollars a year, while the people who figure out how space and time work and actually do something to advance human civilization and quality of life get paid less than restaurant managers?

The world is f'd up. That's the best answer I've got for you. And if you're equating "commercial success" with "good", as it appears you are, then no; I don't expect you to understand my answer.

While this is a bit more harsh than I would have put it, I really like this post!!

[kevin]

Originally Posted by ispeedonthe405

Did I want them to pull a Bond/Batman style reboot and try something new, minus all the dullness and stupidity of the spinoffs? Yeah. I already said I think everything after Undiscovered Country was trash.

Do I think this story was nonsensical from a simple mathematical point of view? Yup, because it absolutely was. Neither the super supernova catalyst nor the black hole plan make any sense whatsoever. So for me the nonsensical plot undid whatever goodness might have been done by the rest.

Why did it sell? I don't know, dude. Why does a show like Friends stay on the air for a thousand years but Firefly gets pulled before the first season is done? Why does a guy who hits a ball with a stick and then runs around in a circle get paid a bazillion dollars a year, while the people who figure out how space and time work and actually do something to advance human civilization and quality of life get paid less than restaurant managers?

The world is f'd up. That's the best answer I've got for you. And if you're equating "commercial success" with "good", as it appears you are, then no; I don't expect you to understand my answer.

No, I don't automatically equate financial success with 'good' - though from a business point of view, well, making money is part of the franchise's job, amongst other things - so, yes, I get your answer. F'd up may be as good a reason as anything else.

What I do know is that Star Trek was a ship stuck in neutral for a very long time prior to this film and clearly no-one had a clue what to do with it as it was.

Though when it comes to Star Trek plots I certainly couldn't care less about the mathematical realism of anything in it. I prefer the characters to technobabble personally.

[ispeedonthe405]

Originally Posted by kevin

Though when it comes to Star Trek plots I certainly couldn't care less about the mathematical realism of anything in it. I prefer the characters to technobabble personally.

I find that surprising given that the entire story revolves around technobabble at its worst.

As for myself, and as I stated back in the original post -- specifically, the parts you elected not to quote -- I despise technobabble trek. I was hoping for more out of this one. But in typical JJ Abrams fashion, the movie fails to be anything other than an empty shell of a story, based on the very worst part of all things trek: nonsensical technobabble.

You will argue that is not the case of course, but you are already mistaken. For without the babble, this story doesn't even have a beginning, never mind a middle or an end. And I think that's quite a shame.

[kevin]

Of course it has technobabble in it - but a relatively small amount of it in dialogue form. And since technobable is just that - babble, irrespective of where it appears, I don't spend time worrying about it. It's been wonky before in Trek, it will be again.

And I was focusing not on your personal view of the film itself (which is entirely up to you) but the suggestion that Star Trek had been sacrificed for the dollar. Which is why I elected to omit it.

'the real tragedy is that this has succeeded in terms of $$, which means this is sort of thing we have to look forward to.'

I was asking the question that occurred to me out of it - which I think is fair - of why the team running Star Trek before could not blend the scale of success this film has had with what some might consider a more truthful version of Star Trek. Since fidelity to TOS is a concern for some people.

F'd up is your view - fair enough.

[StarTrekXIfan]

I think the writers and directors of this new reboot have covered themselves pretty well in regards to storylines and canon; this is a parallel universe so if you think its hollow or superficial by TOS standards you don't need to accept it as such as this doesn't take place within the 'prime' universe. However for those people who either can accept it or those who have been brought into the franchise by the new film this is an exciting new universe and timeline yet to be explored. Yes the new film has been successful commercially as a reboot, but I think it has been successful as well in terms of continuing the franchise.

[The Guardian]

Originally Posted by StarTrekXIfan

I think the writers and directors of this new reboot have covered themselves pretty well in regards to storylines and canon; this is a parallel universe so if you think its hollow or superficial by TOS standards you don't need to accept it as such as this doesn't take place within the 'prime' universe. However for those people who either can accept it or those who have been brought into the franchise by the new film this is an exciting new universe and timeline yet to be explored. Yes the new film has been successful commercially as a reboot, but I think it has been successful as well in terms of continuing the franchise.

Just because it's in an alternate universe doesn't excuse it from blunders. I'm thrilled that "Star Trek" is back - I just don't want it turned into a farce!

[kevin]

Funny you should say farce - I'm watching 'Mudd's Women' just now!

But in seriousness, I've been watching a run of TOS episodes from Season 1 today, and I really do think the film is tonally a pretty good match for many aspects of TOS.