Not drek, Star Drek
I am every so slightly more interested in seeing this than I am in spending yet another day with this damn cold trapped in my head…
Well there’s a reason to not trust your judgement. 
The movie will be good or bad, no way of knowing now and no reason to croak out a song of doom.
I’d venture to say that fully 80% of all Star Trek was terrible. It’s the magical 20% that bring people back. If this film can ignore the truly stupid things Trek has done and concentrate on the good elements it will be an amazing film.
For a lot of films, the theaters and the production companies have a profit distribution deal where the production company gets the highest percentage of the profit the first few weeks. As the movie stays in the theater longer, the theater gets a larger and larger percentage of the take. So, the production company wants the film to make the most at the beginning.
Well, I prefer my discussions of films to consist of more than just “Squee!”
That’s like saying one shouldn’t actually judge an Uwe Boll film without having seen it. Sure, there’s always the possibility it won’t suck, but with Uwe Boll’s name attached to it, odds are, it is going to suck.
It all depends upon how you want to break down Trek. The first two seasons of TOS were mostly decent episodes, while the third season was weak with a few brightspots. TNG took two seasons to find its stride, and then many of the episodes were entertaining at least. DS9 was a bit of a mixed bag, Voyager a few bright points, while Enterprise was generally shit. Of the films, II, IV, VI, and First Contact are considered the best of the bunch. Personally, I didn’t find IV to be all that good (though it was certainly better than the nearly incomprehensible III), and I think that, like Enterprise, V, and Nemesis, were weak to downright lousy implimentations of decent concepts. So, I’d put Trek’s ratio of good to crap a bit higher than you. (Say 50% good, with the bulk of the crap coming in the later years.)
Trek certainly could use a good bit of freshening up, the worst episodes of TNG would more accurately be titled “Bureaucrats in Space,” but is the guy who gave us Armageddon and MI:III the one to do it? Its doubtful that he’ll give us anything as bad as Enterprise, but even better directors than Abrams have delivered some real turds with material that should have been their strong point.
It’s the infinite energy, energy to matter conversion, and universally high standard of living.
When everything you could possibly want to buy can be replicated from pure energy at the touch of a button and you have an infinite energy source. When people realise that the accumulation of “stuff” is pointless and instead work to better themselves and their environment doing things that make them happy. When the measure of your success isn’t some number on a pay cheque but your accomplishments in your field. When everyone has access to first rate educations and all but a few diseases are curable for free.
That’s how an economy can work without money.
It’s a utopia where everyone has equality of opportunity and menial tasks are automated.
…and I’m not buying it. Human nature would cause most people to sit on their asses if they could have anything with literally no work. If I can get a first class education and have “expensive” stuff why would I want to join starfleet? I can just get my own ship and go travel without having to deal with people that outrank me. How does trade work with other federation planets or non federation planets? I’m sure a more economically inclined doper can elaborate on the no money thing. Utopia is a boring place and it doesn’t lend itself well to adventure stories. I don’t think that humans will be so enlightened in a few hundred years, but then I prefered Kirk’s time period when people in Trek acted like people with real emotions and agendas.
From a storytelling POV its a silly concept also. For all of its faults Babylon Five at least had a universe that made sense.
It doesn’t make sense but at the same time Szalter’s description of the Trek verse is not completely accurate. The Federation is NOT a post-scarcity society (compared to something like the Culture from Iain M Banks’ books), it’s just that tech has reached the point where most necessities of living are easy to acquire i.e. replicators. There are certainly not infinite sources of energy going on, and things like mining and trade still exist because of this - and they make the point that not everything can be replicated (although why some things can and some things can’t seems to be entirely arbitrary).
But you’re right, without a real need to work what’s to stop you spending all day in the holosuite having sex with your favourite celebrities?
Ya know, this whole discussion about the economy in Star Trek seems to come from Picard’s comment about there not being a need for money in the future. I would like to suggest two possible alternate explanations for this statement:
-
Picard is a liar. He just said that to make things seem better than they are. He’s one of those people that say outlandish things to make themselves seem more sophisticated or advanced than the person they are talking to. There is still an economy, and he gets paid well for his job.
-
Picard is stupid. While he knows a bit about archeaology and diplomacy and starship operations, simple economics are beyond him. I like this option the best. Several times in Star Trek, reference is made to credits. Transporter credits. Credits for this and that. I think Picard is just a tad bit of a moron.
So we shouldn’t worry too much about the state of the economy in the future. We shouldn’t trust the word of a bunch of military types who probably only joined Star Fleet because they failed their Social Studies courses. Now, the use of stick welders, THAT is an issue that needs to be resolved…
The explanation of that is, IIRC:
Starships have limited energy supplies so on-ship crew access to replicators and transporters are rationed through a credit system (e.g. they get to make a certain number of frivolous items in the replicator/non-work related transports per week) . Some societies outside the federation (e.g. the Ferengi) still use money, so the ship carries a reserve of alien cash (e.g. gold-pressed latinum) to enable trading/gifts with non-Federation worlds whilst on missions. Within the Federation there is no need for cash.
Well, la-dee-dah, Professor Brainiac.
Well, one thing is the marketing budget- the film itself may have cost $200 million to make, but marketing it could cost another $50-150 million. Yeah, I know, sounds stupid, but there you go. The studio wants to recoup ALL of their costs associated with the film.
A film nowadays must “open big” or risk having theater chains stop showing it after their initial two week (or however long) commitment. As long as a film continues to rake in money, theaters will continue to show it. Films are rarely given wide releases AND time to find their legs anymore. It’s why, if you like “smaller” films or niche films, you MUST support them on their opening weekends- not only are you supporting your favorite indie or small-time director/producer/star right now, but you are helping the filmmakers get their NEXT film made, too.
I’d wondered about that. I thought the welding of the Enterprise was analagous to the scene in one Banks novel where a human is seen directing construction of a Culture ship, the components of which are described as being rather featureless. She says she’s doing it for the fun of it, not because it’s necessary.
Or perhaps the unions survived WWIII and it’s being built in Detroit.