[HRH The KING]

Originally Posted by spock84

You know, when I read that Paramount was planning to release "Star Trek" next May instead of this Christmas, I was very sad. Don't get me wrong, but I think this is just because they're being greedy. So my answer is if they're gonna treat it like a cash cow, maybe I don't want to see it all.

Why else other than for the pursuit of profit would a studio release a Star Trek movie?

It's an entertainment property.

It's a business, not a public service.

[JBElliott]

Originally Posted by VADBAXTER

TMP was great for its time and it did spawn 3 tv series and 10 movies with its success.

As I said, it's a matter of taste. But it was more probably TOS and the success of WoK that did it and not TMP. If WoK hadn't been the hit it had, Trek would probably have died there.

[Pxer]

Originally Posted by HRH The KING

Why else other than for the pursuit of profit would a studio release a Star Trek movie?

It's an entertainment property.

It's a business, not a public service.

And I'll gladly trade 5 months for more success and a brighter Trek future.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by VADBAXTER

TMP was great for its time and it did spawn 3 tv series and 10 movies with its success.

Yeah TMP did that. It was an awesome premise.

[Pxer]

Originally Posted by VADBAXTER

TMP was great for its time and it did spawn 3 tv series and 10 movies with its success.

I think ST II, II and IV did that.

EDIT: JB said it first, whoops.

[spock84]

You know, you fellas got a point there. I'm acting like a silly-head over all this nonsense. Now I understand that if the "Star Wars" movies were big summer blockbusters, then perhaps the same can be said for "Star Trek." You've really opened my eyes and I appreciate it. Thanks a bunch.

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by spock84

You know, when I read that Paramount was planning to release "Star Trek" next May instead of this Christmas, I was very sad. Don't get me wrong, but I think this is just because they're being greedy. So my answer is if they're gonna treat it like a cash cow, maybe I don't want to see it all.

It all depends how you look at it. If you're a fan... do you want this new film NOT to succeed and make money? Because if it failed, you'd have a REALLY long wait ahead before you see any new TREK.

In one way, it's in fans' (like you) best interest for this new film to succeed, unless you want the entire franchise to hibernate for who knows how long.

[Saquist]

That's not the point...It's not on US to put out a good movie.
It's on them. I would never want a bad movie to suceed just because it's trek.
That's an awful bias. I could never support that.

[sir num nums]

But how will you REALLY know it is a bad or good movie unless you go watch it yourself?

[Elizadolots]

Well...first, I have yet to have the "hindsight is golden" experience of finding The Motion Picture great...I suspect that's because--as I discussed elsewhere--having stood in line for hours to see it opening night, it was a crushing disappointment...no matter what hindsight did to improve it, it couldn't overcome that feeling. I suspect Wrath of Khan got made because a) Paramount listened to the reaction of the fans and realized there was a huge fan base but they had completely misread what was wanted and b) fans among the writing/tv community came forward and said "this can be done much better"...so they gave it a second chance. The movie franchise exists because Wrath of Khan succeeeded where The Motion Picture didn't: it generated repeat visits by the core fans.

Movies used to need that, and as fans we used to do that. I saw Star Wars 13 times in 35mm and 4 in 70mm on it's initial release (and I was a slaggart...true fans make me look like I didn't even like the thing).

I was forced to see The Motion Picture a second time in a theater (long story) but Wrath of Khan I happily saw 10 times.

Second, I think it's natural to have doubts...in fact, it's probably healthy.