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

Who would've thunk it?

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this May. 21 2011, 9:14 am

>> Really ? I find that to be a very narrow minded view,


Not as "narrow-minded" as your ST begins and ends with TNG view.


>> it's funny when TNG WAS BREAKING ALL SYNDICATION RECORDS becoming the # 1 SYNDICATED show on television NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING BACK TOS THEN WERE THEY ?


They didn't have to, because TOS was still on the big screen with TFF, TUC, and then GEN. 


>> when "First Contact" was a major hit, was people dying to see Kirk and Spock then ?


FC did great, but it did not fair as well as TMP, TWOK, TSFS, and TVH.  Those all made much more money at the box office.  Furthermore, TWOK, TSFS, and TVH were all cheaper so they made more profit. 


>> TNG had ONE Weak movie at the box office


It had two, INS and NEM.  INS was the most expensive film at that time since TMP.  The only film it beat in terms of box office was TFF.  Berman has said that Paramount was not in a hurry to make NEM because of INS's poor performance. 


And GEN only made a little more than TUC.  It should have made a lot more money, following the successful TUC.  Why didn't it?  I think because it was a bad film.  GEN, INS, and NEM all had less than 60% positive reviews from professional critics.  All three of them are "weak" movies.


>>  then all of the sudden it's like "AUGH THEY DON'T BELONG IN THE MOVIES"


It's not "all of a sudden," it's a logical conclusion draw from the performance of four TNG films, none of which were as successful as TMP, TWOK, TSFS, and TVH commercially and only one of which, FC, had more than 60% positive reviews. 


> ..Don't bet the farm on JJ Abrams RIDICULOUS remake, pal,


Don't have to, Abrams' remake was already a huge success.


>> he knows absolutely nothing about Star Trek,


He seems to know more than some people here. 


>> you'll find this out once they put out the sequel, you'll realize Star Trek is more than a flashy bridge and a bunch of silly teens running around.


What teens?  All those actors were in their 20s. 


Why is it that you're wrong about so many basic facts, i.e. ages of actors, the success of TSFS, the use of TMP's Enterprise sets in TNG, etc.   I thought you were a "Star Trek" fan (one who denigrates Kirk whenever possible).


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this May. 21 2011, 9:44 am

Well you may think that, but what about Beowulf, Troy, Robin Hood, The Three Muskateers and the works of Shakespeare. I'm pretty sure no one thought they'd still be around centuries after their time. Yet every few generations delivers it's interpretation of these timeless stories.


Sure, Star Trek as a continued timeline from Archer to Picard may cease to exist, but just like with JJ's movie, others will simply take this characters and remake them to fit their times. Look at Antonio Bandaras' Zorro comapared to the Douglas Fairbank of the early 20th Century. There were no rumulan time travelers having to justify the new look. It just ahppened cause people want to experiance the character again. In the end I see Star Trek receiving this treatment because it's not just gonna disappear because it is a century or more old. Strong stories can stand the test of time, they just evolve.


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

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