Re: Paramount Agrees To Two More Trek Movies

GeneK wrote:

>"Quadibloc" <jsavard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
>> 
>> But I do have an opinion on what the movie is *likely* to be like...
>> given that even a good fraction of the movies with the original cast
>> had problems, and recasting parts is usually a sign of disrespect for
>> the source material. But I am willing to be pleasantly surprised.
>
>I think we can certainly make some "educated guesses."

Well, since we've resolved the 2.5 seasons problem, let's go to
the next data point...

>Ten major motion pictures so far, and only two or three
>are widely looked upon by "the fans" with any great 
>amount of affection.

Which two or three?
There's the aphorism that "even-numbered Star Trek movies don't
suck," to which I suggest we could add ST III as perhaps one
"fans" are more fond of than the general public.  Among the
unnumbered Star Trek movies, can there be only one?  "First
Contact" was - I would guess - the biggest money-maker; do "fans"
reject it for what it's done to the Borg?

>So what kind of Trek is the one the studio most likely 
>wants, and what are the odds for and against any new
>movie being one that "the fans" will love?

Well, here's where I'm sanguine.  Except for maybe "First
Contact," are "the fans'" estimation of the films different from
those of the general public's?  What they like has been popular,
and/or the other way around.  And nothing the fans have derided
has been swept to distressing popularity among the teeming
multitudes.  Case in point is "Enterprise," ironically canceled
after less than three seasons despite this time being owned by
the network, which would make them more desperate to keep it
going.

-- 
-Jack