Escape Artists

News:

News

ATTENTION: NEW FORUM THEME Please see here for details: http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=13188.0

Author Topic: STAR TREK XI  (Read 28377 times)

Russell Nash

  • Guest
on: January 12, 2007, 04:40:34 PM
The director for Star Trek XI has just announced that the script is finished and it should be out summer 2008.

My question: Isn't this franchise dead yet?

The best thing I have said about any of the last 4 or 5 films was, "That was about as good as a decent episode." But with others it was, "that was 2 hours of my life I'll never get back."

These lame, watered-down, flacid SF action films are what holds back good SF from getting a wider audience. This stuff is why a good show like Firefly gets rejected by the majority of the public even before the first airing.



Shade53

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • Sarah Wagner
Reply #1 on: January 12, 2007, 05:00:35 PM
The problem is that Star Trek is commercial - and as such, becomes rather like a zombie - really hard to kill and about as obnoxious. I love Star Trek - but I've not seen the last few movies as it just became much too much - the last one I saw was the STNG movie with the Borg. Not terrible but no where near as good as 2 or 5 (my opinion only) and personally, I liked the episodes w/the borg better (especially Hugh). The franchise will be officially dead when no one buys tickets but - since this is *Star Trek* I think you've got a long wait.

As for watered-down sf films - they work because they're commercial where firefly wasn't so much - the good stuff always gets passed over for the stuff that makes $$$. That's all the studios care about. It's the watchers you've got to blame. If less people went to see the watered-down ones and more clambored for better, solid sf, you might get somewhere.


~S


New Site: www.sarahwagner.domynoes.net

Most Recent Publication: Amphitrite in Beyond Centauri


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #2 on: January 12, 2007, 07:26:26 PM
Devil's circle then.

Watered down SF comes out because it's all people will watch, but because all that comes out is watered down junk, no one will take a risk on a film that doesn't have a mega budget for special effects.




madjo

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Reply #3 on: January 12, 2007, 09:42:14 PM
What Star Trek needs is a reboot. A hard reboot. Just reset the whole darn thing, just like they did for Battlestar Galactica.
They shouldn't try to shoehorn new stuff into the current 'version'.

Especially not, if they go back in time again. ST:Enterprise did have it's shining moments, especially in the last season, and the premise was a nice idea, but they really did cram it in place, where it actually didn't have a place. That attack by the Xindi on Earth would have been great if it was played in the future, not in the past, I never heard Kirk talk about it, nor Picard or Janeway.
Besides that Star Trek suffers from even-odd movie problems, the even movies are okay, the odd movies are bad. :)
So I have little hope for ST IX.



Jonathan C. Gillespie

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • Writer of Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror
    • Jonathan C. Gillespie, Author
Reply #4 on: January 15, 2007, 09:31:34 PM
There are four words that describe the problems with Star Trek:  Rick Berman, Michael Piller.

Published genre fiction author with stories in print and upcoming.

Official site: http://jonathancg.net/ | Twitter: JCGAuthor | Facebook


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #5 on: January 15, 2007, 09:33:16 PM
Couple of points:

1. Firefly was killed by Fox not fans - I've shown the episodes to many people and all of them thought they were great - and many of them went to the movie.

2. Star Trek movies have always been about lowest common denominator big audience.  Look at #1 - amazing idea (and it was an odd number), but panned - then #2 (awesome, heart-string puller) much more "KHHAAAANN!" and less thinking.

They should just write the movie about a straight-forward idea out among the stars - let the characters speak for themselves.  I have poor hopes for 11, Kirk and Spock and McCoy at school?  



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #6 on: January 15, 2007, 10:01:01 PM
Firefly was killed by Fox not fans

If the show had big ratings and made big money, Fox wouldn't have canned it.



WheelMan

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • wheelMan's Place
Reply #7 on: January 15, 2007, 11:24:43 PM

If the show had big ratings and made big money, Fox wouldn't have canned it.

If the show had been on a better network, in a better time slot, perhaps it would have made money and survived. Remember, Fox was still the little kid on the block that made a lot of noise but no one really cared about at the time. Firefly could have lasted seven years in syndication, I believe. Certainly couldn't have done any worse anyway.

The problem with a franchise like Star Trek is that when you paint yourself into such a rigid formula, it eventually becomes a cliche' of itself. They should have expanded the Star Trek Universe so that we aren't only mired in the throes of Starfleet. There's a wide and rich universe out there, and yet we always see it filtered through a Trek through the Stars where we relive the same adventures over and over again, just in different variations. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine should have had a movie because at least they brought in some fresh ideals. Voyager tried, but I think it just wasn't as well written or produced as the others before it. Would've been the perfect opportunity to see what happens when we get away from the confines of Starfleet regulations, but they didn't take it. Enterprise might have been better if it felt more new, rather than an attempt to rehash the glory days of the past.

"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching." --Satchel Paige


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #8 on: January 16, 2007, 10:50:09 AM
Fox was still the little kid on the block that made a lot of noise but no one really cared about at the time.

By the time Firefly came around Fox had been the number three network for years, either beating out NBC or CBS. They pretty much became a real network when they stole the NFC from CBS.

Quote
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine should have had a movie because at least they brought in some fresh ideals.

DS9 is a perfect example of my original point. They tried in the beginning to make it more than watered-down junk. We had a civil war on a planet with a disfunctional political system and a strong, but strange, religious faction.

The problem was that people, who might have been interrested in these details, don't normally watch Star Trek and the Typical Trekkie wants a shoot 'em up. They kept trying to straddle the line and go back and forth and it just fizzled.

DS9 would have stood a better chance if it hadn't had the name Star Trek on it.



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #9 on: January 16, 2007, 04:22:33 PM
DS9 would have stood a better chance if it hadn't had the name Star Trek on it.

They did that.  It was called Babylon 5

And yes, B5 was a smarter and better show on the whole, but that didn't stop it from teetering on the brink of cancellation throughout its entire run.  And it suffered for that.  (E.g., the atrocious fifth season.)
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 04:24:43 PM by SFEley »

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #10 on: January 16, 2007, 04:40:40 PM
By the time Firefly came around Fox had been the number three network for years, either beating out NBC or CBS. They pretty much became a real network when they stole the NFC from CBS.

Sure.  Fox had real pull and resources.  They also have a long history of horribly mistreating science fiction.

Firefly was doing okay for itself.  It wasn't doing great, but consider what Fox did to it:

  • Developed a two-hour pilot, then decided not to show it (the pilot ended up airing last);
  • Launched instead with an episode that the producers were given three days to write, that had to introduce the entire cast in media res;
  • Aired about half the episodes out of their intended order;
  • Gave it a terrible time slot (remember, this was before TiVos were ubiquitous, and before the Sci-Fi Channel made something interesting out of Friday nights);
  • Interrupted the run for several weeks for baseball championships;
  • Almost totally failed to market it.

It managed to keep an audience despite all that.  Not a huge audience, but then, look at how well it's done in DVD sales since then.  It was the best SF show on TV in many years -- definitely since B5 -- and it breaks my heart to think of where the show could have gone if it had been given a chance.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #11 on: January 16, 2007, 06:59:27 PM
To add to Mr. Eley's point - Firefly was pulling the wrong demographic for FOX - they wanted 18-30 yr old Men, but the FireFly audience was skewed older.

Quote
They also have a long history of horribly mistreating science fiction
And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #12 on: January 16, 2007, 07:16:47 PM
Steve,

I bow to the man with more background information.

It kind of sounds like Firefly got focus grouped out of existance. They had already bought it, then showed it to the typical group of shoot 'em up fans. After that they figured it was a loser and didn't give a *hoot* about it.

Now I have a seperate observation and a question about B5, since that was brought up.

I always had trouble finding it. The stupid station with the rights for Philly moved it all over the place including two in the morning at one point. I know people from other large markets who said they never even heard about it before it was on TNT (was that the Turner station that had it later on?) With that kind of placement no wonder it had a hard time.

But my question is about the commercials. Am I the only one who thought the commercials were for a different show? Did they hurt or help? It seemed to me many people who would like the show wouldn't watch it because of the ads and someone who liked the ads would be bored by the show.




SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #13 on: January 16, 2007, 07:59:32 PM
Now I have a seperate observation and a question about B5, since that was brought up.

I always had trouble finding it. The stupid station with the rights for Philly moved it all over the place including two in the morning at one point. I know people from other large markets who said they never even heard about it before it was on TNT (was that the Turner station that had it later on?) With that kind of placement no wonder it had a hard time.

You're right.  B5 was jerked around just as much, and it's a minor miracle that it survived its first season, let alone five years.  (I have heard that one of the reasons the first season of B5 seems so much like conventional Star Trek, as opposed to the next few seasons, is because the network was monitoring it much more closely in the beginning and JMS had to "play it safe" until they gave him a free hand to develop his real story arc.)


Quote
But my question is about the commercials. Am I the only one who thought the commercials were for a different show? Did they hurt or help? It seemed to me many people who would like the show wouldn't watch it because of the ads and someone who liked the ads would be bored by the show.

Oh, I have no idea.  The only commercials I remember from watching B5 were the ones for the galactic news network and the PsiCorps.  >8->

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #14 on: January 16, 2007, 08:45:10 PM
Oh, I have no idea.  The only commercials I remember from watching B5 were the ones for the galactic news network and the PsiCorps.  >8->

If you can get your hands on the DVD seasons, they put the commercials on there. You can just watch straight through the disc one show after the other with one command.(I wish more discs had that, especially the horribly set up Fox discs) You can choose whether or not to have the commercials in between the shows.

It's like they're really proud of them, but they are just bad.



Brian Reilly

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Bigger on the inside
Reply #15 on: January 17, 2007, 02:41:20 PM
the last one I saw was the STNG movie with the Borg. Not terrible but no where near as good as 2 or 5 (my opinion only) and personally, I liked the episodes w/the borg better (especially Hugh). The franchise will be officially dead when no one buys tickets but - since this is *Star Trek* I think you've got a long wait. 

5? Isn't that the worst. Trek. film. ever? The one with "God" in it, the one directed by William Shatner?


The 21st Century is when it all changes, and you’ve gotta be ready- Captain Jack, Torchwood.


WheelMan

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • wheelMan's Place
Reply #16 on: January 17, 2007, 06:43:24 PM
Quote
And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?

Those shows were on the WB. What did Fox do?

"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching." --Satchel Paige


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #17 on: January 17, 2007, 07:13:23 PM
Quote
And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?

Those shows were on the WB. What did Fox do?

I was thinking about commenting on that. Buffy was on WB and then UPN. Angel was on WB. Fox were the backers and the distributors, but had nothing to say about the content. Whedon only had to wrestle with WB.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2007, 05:27:59 PM by Russell Nash »



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #18 on: January 17, 2007, 07:21:43 PM
Quote
And Joss Whedon - remember the Buffy and Angel debacle?

Those shows were on the WB. What did Fox do?

Fox owned the properties, dating back to the original movie.  Fox didn't want to develop a show, though, so licensed it out to the WB.  When Buffy surprised everyone by being successful, Fox started jerking them around about wanting more cash -- which is why Buffy ended up on UPN eventually (they had a higher bid), while Angel stayed on WB, and there was weirdness all around.

At least I think that's what Slic meant.  I think it was just salt in the wound when Joss came up with a third show, and Fox said, "Aha!  We're keeping this one!" -- and then killed it with stupidity and lack of support.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Shade53

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • Sarah Wagner
Reply #19 on: January 17, 2007, 10:40:00 PM
the last one I saw was the STNG movie with the Borg. Not terrible but no where near as good as 2 or 5 (my opinion only) and personally, I liked the episodes w/the borg better (especially Hugh). The franchise will be officially dead when no one buys tickets but - since this is *Star Trek* I think you've got a long wait. 

5? Isn't that the worst. Trek. film. ever? The one with "God" in it, the one directed by William Shatner?



Can't help it. Won't defend it. But I liked it. so sue me.

~S

New Site: www.sarahwagner.domynoes.net

Most Recent Publication: Amphitrite in Beyond Centauri


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #20 on: January 18, 2007, 11:19:41 PM
What Star Trek needs is a reboot. A hard reboot. Just reset the whole darn thing, just like they did for Battlestar Galactica.
They shouldn't try to shoehorn new stuff into the current 'version'.
<Snip>


I don't think I've seen it addressed yet, so I'll just jump in here.  Isn't Star Trek getting some kind of major reboot with this movie?  I know JJ Abrams (Lost, Mission Impossible 3) is going to direct it (I think he also wrote it with Lost co-writer Damon Lindenhof) and I believe I've read on movie sites it's supposed to be a reboot of sorts.  That's exactly what the franchise needs and I've got confidence Abrams can pull it off.  So I'm willing to give it a chance even though I haven't seen a Trek movie since First Contact (much less watched any of the shows since DS9). 


Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Mmm. Tiger.
Reply #21 on: January 19, 2007, 01:20:15 AM
hmm ive told my mom about this discussion, she likes all of the movies, cant find anything bad with em.  Tho she does like more movies over others.  And this is comin from a person who watches Star Trek every day on Spike TV even though she knows each episode, and most of the lines for them too.

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


scottjanssens

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Reply #22 on: January 19, 2007, 11:45:39 PM
Star Trek V makes more sense if you read the book about its making by Shatner's daughter.  It doesn't make it a better film, but it explains what was intended.  Personally, I feel it was also ruined by the surprising success of ST IV.  They tried to force humor into a story idea that wasn't particularly suited for it.

My least favorite was probably Insurrection which would have even been a lousy TV episode.  Of the old crew I've special disdain for VI (Undiscovered Country) because the whodidit in the lousy whodunnit was, shall we say, illogical.



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #23 on: January 21, 2007, 05:22:18 PM
Well, if ever there was a topic for which the phrase "Your mileage may vary..." was invented...

I don't envy the Star Trek gaggle their job of trying to please such a vast and diverse audience.  They usually managed to balance the baldly atrocious with the occasionally sublime, in my opinion.  I can't think of a "jumped the shark" episode that they haven't eventually made up for.  For all of the embarrassingly bad moments ("Spock's Brain", Next Gen's second season doctor, Star Trek V, Voyager's episode in which Paris and Janeway "devolve" into giant salamanders, Enterprise's frequent gratuitous "decon chamber" scenes), there have also been moments that restored my Sense of Wonder.  Picard's interrogation at the hands of his Cardassian captor, Data's (and later, the Voyager EMH's) exploration of the meaning of humanity, Sisko's alternate reality as a black sci-fi writer in the 1950's, and the courageous reflection of post-9/11 American politics on Enterprise all conspired to keep me from writing the franchise off as "mere marketing crap".

Of course, I'm still irked that their brand-name success has ruined the market for treasures like "Firefly".  I'm hoping that the "Escape Pod" model will eventually take hold in the media market as digital production becomes cheaper.  When a guy like Joss Whedon can produce something without the interference from FOX lawyers and marketing experts, and release it directly to the fanbase, we won't have to have these "wish the Man didn't ruin our fun" discussions!

Do I feel bad about putting the gorram suits out of business?  Nope!

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #24 on: January 22, 2007, 03:10:30 AM
Quickly touching on excellent Star Trek episodes - "Tapesty" - the one where Picard dies because of the artificial heart he got from a youth indiscretion he regrets greatly, and Q (or is it?) shows Jean-Luc how different his life would have been...