An Enterprise movie would be great, but probably wouldn't be a financial success. Most people know Kirk/Spock so more people will probably go see them above all others.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
new "Star Trek" trailer
- Thread starter shecky
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
An Enterprise movie would be great, but probably wouldn't be a financial success. Most people know Kirk/Spock so more people will probably go see them above all others.
Enterprise was supposed to be the next movie runner. I wouldn't mind a Earth-Romulan War movie or two. Even TV shots.
Oh the arrogance. You might want to recheck your facts; ST:TOS lasted only 3 seasons, Enterprises lasted 4.
As a trek fan myself, the plot of this movie looks lame. The original series was lame IMO and those movies ended last century. Generations pasted the torch onto ST:TNG and I am still waiting on the torch to be passed onto Enterprise. Enterprise was the revival of the franchise and a much more accurate take on how the future will look instead of some show that was obsessed with adding over-saturated color to every inch of my TV set. I understand that it was the birth of the franchise and was founded in the colorful '60's, but Enterprise is how ST would look if the franchise was born in 2001. Scott Bakula was at his best and the writers in season 3 and 4 were genius. It boggles my mind what they could have done with an Enterprise movie. I would show up on opening night with diapers and a seat belt!
It's sad how canon is now sacrificed in order to appeal to the masses. If they only put Enterprise in the spot light better. Sure they changed how things looked, but at least they kept to the script.
EDIT: Also remember that somethings success is not always parallel to it's quality. The Mac/Mac OS can attest to that. I understand the #1 goal of a business is to make money, but what do you do when that direction dries up and people find out there's no substance? I guess you find another franchise to ruin.
Wow, the only arrogance I'm picking up is from you. Oh woe is thou who dares to contradict the internet tough guy!
Seriously, you really need to get your head out and learn a thing about context. Since you're having a problem with context and think everyone lives up there with you, I'll spell it out.
I was replying to a review of the trailer posted on page 1. Said review was cropped and selectively quoted. This quote was mostly was concerned about the usage of time travel in the movie. I responded to said selective quote. My response consisted of caution, that usage of a particular plot device is not damning. To tailor this response to the person making the argument I played along with several of the unimportant assumptions for sake of time. One of these assumptions was that Enterprise was a failed series due to the usage of the temporal cold war plot. Since this thread is not about whether or not Enterprise was a good show (no metric was provided) and I felt that their overall logic about the new trek movie was more relevant I ignored it. I provided no evidence and did not argue the point as it was irrelevant to my argument, I only used it as a basis for progressing my counter argument to give my argument context.
Since you seemed to miss my argument, and selectively quoted only one sentence I will restate my argument. My argument is that you cannot call a movie a failure from watching only 2 trailers and knowing that it will use time travel as a plot device. I gave examples to show how such reaching assumption does not mean the movie will in fact end up badly.
I can give further evidence if you like. Treks that are widely (but not universally) considered good include Star Trek IV and VIII. Both used time travel as major plot points. Now, you can go ahead and call me arrogant for dare calling those movies good or for daring to do something. I don't know, I'm a daring kind of guy. But please, if you're going to be so rash as to be universally contradictory, at least don't invoke hyperbole for no apparent reason.
Seriously, you really need to get your head out and learn a thing about context. Since you're having a problem with context and think everyone lives up there with you, I'll spell it out.
I was replying to a review of the trailer posted on page 1. Said review was cropped and selectively quoted. This quote was mostly was concerned about the usage of time travel in the movie. I responded to said selective quote. My response consisted of caution, that usage of a particular plot device is not damning. To tailor this response to the person making the argument I played along with several of the unimportant assumptions for sake of time. One of these assumptions was that Enterprise was a failed series due to the usage of the temporal cold war plot. Since this thread is not about whether or not Enterprise was a good show (no metric was provided) and I felt that their overall logic about the new trek movie was more relevant I ignored it. I provided no evidence and did not argue the point as it was irrelevant to my argument, I only used it as a basis for progressing my counter argument to give my argument context.
Since you seemed to miss my argument, and selectively quoted only one sentence I will restate my argument. My argument is that you cannot call a movie a failure from watching only 2 trailers and knowing that it will use time travel as a plot device. I gave examples to show how such reaching assumption does not mean the movie will in fact end up badly.
I can give further evidence if you like. Treks that are widely (but not universally) considered good include Star Trek IV and VIII. Both used time travel as major plot points. Now, you can go ahead and call me arrogant for dare calling those movies good or for daring to do something. I don't know, I'm a daring kind of guy. But please, if you're going to be so rash as to be universally contradictory, at least don't invoke hyperbole for no apparent reason.
I'm not a Star Trek fan at all, and I'll see this movie in theaters. I know it's probably an affront to all the trekkies out there, but think about it - you guys have what - 700ish hours of stuff already?
I'm not saying it doesn't have a shot at being lame, the movie could totally suck. But all I know as a non trekkie is Kirk, Spock, Scottie, etc etc. The shots of a young Kirk seeing the ship being built is a really cool one to me.
I think there's room for the canon and a reboot for us non trekkies to enjoy. Hollywood will always err on the side of the masses, they have to make their 100+ million dollars back.
All that said, if a new Star Trek show came on TV that was a continuation of an older series, I'd at least give it a shot. Just the buzz about this new movie has my inner nerd somewhat interested in the older stuff.
I'm not saying it doesn't have a shot at being lame, the movie could totally suck. But all I know as a non trekkie is Kirk, Spock, Scottie, etc etc. The shots of a young Kirk seeing the ship being built is a really cool one to me.
I think there's room for the canon and a reboot for us non trekkies to enjoy. Hollywood will always err on the side of the masses, they have to make their 100+ million dollars back.
All that said, if a new Star Trek show came on TV that was a continuation of an older series, I'd at least give it a shot. Just the buzz about this new movie has my inner nerd somewhat interested in the older stuff.
Not too sure on him myself, the rest of the cast looks pretty good though! Should be a good film for both trekkies and non trekkies alike..hopefully.