ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

What would you do?

UFP2009

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 224

Report this Mar. 14 2011, 6:46 pm

The Abram's project was done cause the production companies have no ideas; this is why you see many remakes. It's not cause people want them, it's cause they have few new ideas; almost everything has been done as far as producers feel. They need new ideas in detail.


I wanna change my User name.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 14 2011, 8:05 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>The writers at paramount don't know what else to do when it comes to anything; old shows have been rived because of lack of ideas and listening to any body out side of Paramount.

>

 

I disagree that it's a "writing" or "studio executive" issue.

The studios make shows that their data indicates the audience wants to see. the "remakes" and "revivals" are driven by simple audience demand. If audiences stopped demanding it, they'd go back to making more original ideas.

As it is right now, wiht all of the media competition, name recognition in television and movies is king.

 

ST2009 wasn't done via market research, it was done based off of what JJ and Co. wanted to make. It's doubtful there was much audience input. A TOS era movie wasn't made because people demanded it, it was done because either CBS or Paramount decided Kirk's crew was more familiar to the general non-Trek audience and would likely get the most interest from the non fans.


 


I'm sorry, but if you ACTUALLY believe that a movie studio is going to spend 150 million dollars on a production from a franchise who's last two films grossed a COMBINED 113 million dollars domestically without some kind of market data, you are not being realistic.


The motion picture industry is big business, and movies are the only product they produce. Business don't produce 100 million dollar projects without having some form of market data.


If you have some factual indication to support your feelings, I'd be happy to read through it. Otherwise, I think this is a very misinformed opinion.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 14 2011, 8:09 pm

Quote: UFP2009 @ Mar. 14 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>The Abram's project was done cause the production companies have no ideas; this is why you see many remakes. It's not cause people want them, it's cause they have few new ideas; almost everything has been done as far as producers feel. They need new ideas in detail.

>


 


Respectfully, you're very wrong. Movies and televison shows are made based on market demand. Period. It's simple economics of supply and demand. If the most competitive and successful shows are remakes and those stories with "brand recognition" (as is the case right now), THAT's what studios are going to make. There's 1000's of scripts and ideas floating around there that are "original." They don't get made because the market (audience...yes, that includes us) is not demanding them as much as it is demanding the remakes.


It's economics 101 folks. Projects that get made are the projects with the greatest chance of making a profit. Period. The movie and TV industry aren't about "art" and "creativity" any longer.


If anyone wants to argue these points, I'm happy to keep debating it, but you're going to be hard-pressed to find logic that will support what you're saying, particularly if you have any knowledge of how the industries work.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

UFP2009

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 224

Report this Mar. 15 2011, 4:16 am

Look at many recent remakes; they suck because the lack of knowledge that went into these ideas. Take the day the earth stood stll, those in charge deviated from the original and thats not what a remake is. A remake is exactly the same except with new tech that's all.


I wanna change my User name.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 15 2011, 9:34 am

Quote: UFP2009 @ Mar. 15 2011, 4:16 am

>

>Look at many recent remakes; they suck because the lack of knowledge that went into these ideas. Take the day the earth stood stll, those in charge deviated from the original and thats not what a remake is. A remake is exactly the same except with new tech that's all.

>


That's not what a remake is. The only movie that fits the definition you have described here is the "Psycho" film that was released several years ago.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

UFP2009

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 224

Report this Mar. 15 2011, 7:08 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Mar. 15 2011, 9:34 am

Quote: UFP2009 @ Mar. 15 2011, 4:16 am

>

>

>Look at many recent remakes; they suck because the lack of knowledge that went into these ideas. Take the day the earth stood stll, those in charge deviated from the original and thats not what a remake is. A remake is exactly the same except with new tech that's all.

>

That's not what a remake is. The only movie that fits the definition you have described here is the "Psycho" film that was released several years ago.

Your'e wrong; a remake means just that, done again like the original. The only difference is, you take advantage of the new talent and technology.


I wanna change my User name.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 16 2011, 6:50 am

Quote: UFP2009 @ Mar. 15 2011, 7:08 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Mar. 15 2011, 9:34 am

Quote: UFP2009 @ Mar. 15 2011, 4:16 am

>

>

>

>Look at many recent remakes; they suck because the lack of knowledge that went into these ideas. Take the day the earth stood stll, those in charge deviated from the original and thats not what a remake is. A remake is exactly the same except with new tech that's all.

>

That's not what a remake is. The only movie that fits the definition you have described here is the "Psycho" film that was released several years ago.

Your'e wrong; a remake means just that, done again like the original. The only difference is, you take advantage of the new talent and technology.


 


Great. Apparetnly the extent of our argument is


"You're wrong!"


"NO...YOU'RE wrong!"


Let's let counterproductivity rest where it is and agree not to argue semantics like a couple of lawyers.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 16 2011, 9:53 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>

>

>The writers at paramount don't know what else to do when it comes to anything; old shows have been rived because of lack of ideas and listening to any body out side of Paramount.

>

 

I disagree that it's a "writing" or "studio executive" issue.

The studios make shows that their data indicates the audience wants to see. the "remakes" and "revivals" are driven by simple audience demand. If audiences stopped demanding it, they'd go back to making more original ideas.

As it is right now, wiht all of the media competition, name recognition in television and movies is king.

 

ST2009 wasn't done via market research, it was done based off of what JJ and Co. wanted to make. It's doubtful there was much audience input. A TOS era movie wasn't made because people demanded it, it was done because either CBS or Paramount decided Kirk's crew was more familiar to the general non-Trek audience and would likely get the most interest from the non fans.

 

I'm sorry, but if you ACTUALLY believe that a movie studio is going to spend 150 million dollars on a production from a franchise who's last two films grossed a COMBINED 113 million dollars domestically without some kind of market data, you are not being realistic.

The motion picture industry is big business, and movies are the only product they produce. Business don't produce 100 million dollar projects without having some form of market data.

If you have some factual indication to support your feelings, I'd be happy to read through it. Otherwise, I think this is a very misinformed opinion.

It's not a feeling, it was said when the movie was in production, that Paramount went with the original series characters because they were the most recognized characters by non-fans. THAT part may have been researched, but what they did from there with the story was not. How many times did JJ Abrams say that the movie wasn't for Star Trek fans but for fans of movies? I'm quite sure you heard that reported many, many times.


 


1.  Paramount does not release motion pictures without several test audience screenings first. Then, contents of the motion picture are frequently altered based on audience reaction. TMP is the only Trek movie I know of that did not have any test audience screenings. Massive content changes were made to films such as TWOK and GEN (for example) as result of these screenings. TFF had some additional shooting and editing as a result. Trek 2009 is no different. If this ain't "Market Research," I don't know what is. Additionally, I don't know of any STORY that is shaped directly by market research. But if you think that movies are made without some clear baseline knowledge of what the general public is going to like, you're crazy. It's not even an argument. It doesn't happen that way. Period. If you have clear information that states that they did NOT do this kind of research...I'd be fascinated to read it.


 


2. JJ Abrams NEVER said he's not making the movie for Star Trek fans. that is the most mis-quoted and maniupulated statement in all of Trek history, and people like you seem to enjoy wielding it to prove a point. What he said was "We're not making this movie JUST for Star Trek fans," which is an ENTIRELY different meaning.


 


I love the double standard that fans apply to Abrams because they need to justify their dislike for the film.


I just finished reading Nick Meyer's book about making the Trek films. He repeats over and over again that he didn't care about what the fans wanted, had no love for the original series, wanted to change the fundamentals etc... but nobody is going to be up in arms over what he said. So, if people are going to blast Abrams about being "anti-Trek" be prepared to blast Nick Meyer as well.  


 


 


In response to a fan question, Abrams said: "If we were just to make the movie for fans of Star Trek, then we would be limiting the audience enormously. ... Because we love this, because we are beholden to you, because the fans of Star Trek are what allows us to make a version of Star Trek now at all, I can assure you that we are making this movie for you. In many ways it goes without saying, although it's important that we say it. I've taken some flak for saying in the press we're making this for future fans of Star Trek, as if we don't care about the existing fans. That could not be further from the truth. We love and are beholden to existing fans of Star Trek."


http://blastr.com/2009/02/star-treks-abrams-makes-nice-with-fans-after-getting-flak.php


It never ceases to amaze me how people will twist something to rationalize their own opinions.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Orlenda

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 84

Report this Mar. 17 2011, 6:34 pm

how abotu a series from the perspective of the borg, hehe?


I would seriously make CERTAIN that a new seires had OPTIMISM....THAT is what makes Trek special....

Lewis00069

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 134

Report this Mar. 17 2011, 7:01 pm

I would do Voyager after the returned to the alpha quadrant

lnagr1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1404

Report this Mar. 18 2011, 5:34 pm

species 8472!


 

Tom Torres

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Mar. 18 2011, 7:11 pm

I would enjoy making a series with modern animation.


My favorite idea is a story in which the Federation has found a stable worm hole that allows them to colonize a far off sector in the Delta or Gamma Quadrant.  A young Admiral is overseeing treaty negotiations, terraforming (including an already finished Earthlike homeworlk), the migration of some specific colonies from the Alpha Quadrant (Romulans, Vulcans, recovering Borg), and the building of one or two major space stations with special ships manned by half hologram crews when a terrorist attack closes the wormhole.  I would like to see the formation of a new Federation like entity under these circumstances.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum