When the film Star Trek Nemesis laid an egg at the box office, the brass at Paramount were perplexed. A flop at the box office, panned by critics, yawned at by hard core fans, ignored by non-nerd movie goers, the fabled franchise made famous by Shatner and Nimoy finally ran out of gas.
Movie execs are creatures of habit. This explains Godfather: Part III. It explains the two Alien Vs. Predator movies. It explains Adam Sandler’s film career. Given a choice, movie executives will go for the safe, dumb, moderately profitable choice versus the visionary, ground-breaking choice.
A few years after the flop of Nemesis, Star Trek’s corporate parents, Paramount, declined to make the safe choice, and instead put their brand in the hands of someone outside the company.
February 24, 2007 After months of speculation, J.J. Abrams has signed on to direct the next installment of the “Star Trek” feature franchise, sources said late Friday. “Star Trek XI” revolves around a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission.
J.J. Abrams (creator of Lost, and Alias) decided to take the film series in an entirely new direction. He rebooted the franchise, recasting the characters from the much-loved original series as their younger selves. The new film, titled quite simply as Star Trek, hits theaters in May, and at $150 million has the largest budget of any Trek film to date. Talk about boldly going…
What does all of this have to do with newspapers? It’s simple. Recast the entire newspaper with younger, fresher talent. And not with journalists, either. Recast them with younger actors playing journalists. Something to make younger readers pay attention. You know, like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
We don’t need new media, and we don’t need new journalists. What we need are actors playing the part of journalists. Because if America has learned anything in the last few years, it’s this:
1) Don’t eat peanut butter.
2) The people running our banks are insane.
3) Actors can be trusted to bring you the news.
Amen! Pass the collection plate.
Sad, Will, but so damn true that it hurts.
I wanna be Art Thiel!
Oh, wait, you said younger…
.
.
.
I wanna be Walter Winchell!
Whadya mean, don’t eat peanut butter?
Ack! urp!
*thump*
2 No, you really want to be Royal Brougham.
Add item # 4: And “Progressives” will screw you and the horse you rode in on.
Aside from #4 being an idiot, comparing the upcoming upcoming Star Trek movie to the situation at the P-I seems a bit awkward to me. What Paramount has allowed JJ Abrams to do is create a ‘prequel’, similar to Star Wars episodes 1-3 (None of which sucked, by the way), whereas Hearst is merely reanimating the corpse of the PI into a new form, which will most likely fail, and fail very soon. Hearst is guilty of 20th-century thinking for a 21st-century problem.
In so many words Will, you’ve managed to compare Star Trek with The Re-Animator.
BTW, judging from the previews, the new Star Trek movie looks like it’s gonna be the shit. I may actually have to get out of the house and go watch a movie while it’s still in the theater!
Stars Wars 1-3 didn’t suck?
Did you hear the dialogue when Anakin and Padmé Amidala declared their limp and lifeless love for one another on Naboo in Episode II: Attack of the Clones? I hurled.
4 AF
I’d be Emmett Watson, but who wants to?
I’ve watched every Star Wars movie hundreds of times. 4-6 were better, but 1-3 didn’t suck. If that puts me in the minority, so be it.
Oh, Daddy.
@9 – especially now that he’s dead….