Urban outs the villain. Maybe.

[Ian Keldon]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

And ain't it wonderful? It's part of the fun!

No, it isn't. If they were making these films the way they are supposed to be made, we'd have plenty of official material to look over, from story points to concept art to production materials, carefully rolled out for public consumption and consideration. That's the way Trek did it for nearly 30 years, and that's the way it should be done now.

This cat-and-mouse BS is exactly that...BS. Tell us what you're doing, and how you expect to do it. Then we can examine what you offer and make our own decisions as to whether or not it is acceptable.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

JWPlatt wrote:

---

Such two-dimensional thinking... Do you believe the galaxy is spherical, or a flat spiral? In which direction is it stated that the Enterprise was traveling? Is the barrier only around the edge? Or the entire galaxy - above, below and around? Think about it.

The Star Trek Star Charts tried that, but it's inconsistant with TOS itself, where their location at the rim of the galaxy is explicitly stated.

Besides, if it were across the top or bottom of the galaxy, it wouldn't appear as a horizontal band, would it?

Besides besides, Voyager's much slower warp speeds were already forgotten in "Broken Bow", the very first post-Voyager episode of Trek!

[iguana_tonante]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

No, it isn't. If they were making these films the way they are supposed to be made, we'd have plenty of official material to look over, from story points to concept art to production materials, carefully rolled out for public consumption and consideration. That's the way Trek did it for nearly 30 years, and that's the way it should be done now.

This cat-and-mouse BS is exactly that...BS. Tell us what you're doing, and how you expect to do it. Then we can examine what you offer and make our own decisions as to whether or not it is acceptable.

[Mr Silver]

If this is true, then it will be the biggest Abrams/Lindelof leak since "Lostfan 108" spoiled the season 4 & 5 finales of Lost.

We all know that JJ Abrams encourages red herrings in order to avoid cast and crew accidentally giving stuff away in interviews, so this may be the deal where Urban is concerned.

[Jeff O'Connor]

Wow.

That's all I have for ya right now, TrekBBS, but more thoughts later.

[Ian Keldon]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

Something amuses you? The Trek department at Paramount used to be able to get us a movie every 12-18 months on schedule and with good communication/feedback between studio and fans.

That was a far superior situation to getting 1 move every what? 3-4 years with "super-duper-secret-squirrel" level cloak and dagger nonsense about even the smallest production details?

How does that reflect good-faith communication with the fans on the part of the studio?

[iguana_tonante]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Something amuses you?

Yes; usually the ridiculous self-importance of some fans.

[The Wormhole]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

The Trek department at Paramount used to be able to get us a movie every 12-18 months on schedule and with good communication/feedback between studio and fans.

That was a far superior situation to getting 1 move every what? 3-4 years with "super-duper-secret-squirrel" level cloak and dagger nonsense about even the smallest production details?

How does that reflect good-faith communication with the fans on the part of the studio?

Actually, let's review the time between Trek movies of the past.

TWOK was 30 months after TMP.
TSFS was 24 months after TWOK.
TVH was 29 months after TSFS.
TFF was 31 months after TVH.
TUC was 30 months after TFF.
GEN was 35 months after TUC.
FC was 24 months after GEN.
INS was 25 months after FC.
NEM was 48 months after INS.
XI was 72 months after NEM.
XII will be 48 months after XI.

As you can see, we have never had a Trek movie "within 12 to 18 months." Indeed, the shortest we've ever gone is 24 months. And there will be exactly as much time between XI and XII as there was between Insurrection and Nemesis, there just isn't any TV shows on during this period.

I don't approve of all this meaningless double-talk Abrams and his Cohorts are slinging at fandom either. But the sad reality is, it's working. The majority of fandom are hanging on everthing they say and are drumming hype up about this movie, despite that all we know for certain at this point is that Benedict Cumberbatch is playing a black t-shirt clad villain.

[BillJ]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Actually, let's review the time between Trek movies of the past.

TWOK was 30 months after TMP.
TSFS was 24 months after TWOK.
TVH was 29 months after TSFS.
TFF was 31 months after TVH.
TUC was 30 months after TFF.
GEN was 35 months after TUC.
FC was 24 months after GEN.
INS was 25 months after FC.
NEM was 48 months after INS.
XI was 72 months after NEM.
XII will be 48 months after XI.

As you can see, we have never had a Trek movie "within 12 to 18 months." Indeed, the shortest we've ever gone is 24 months. And there will be exactly as much time between XI and XII as there was between Insurrection and Nemesis, there just isn't any TV shows on during this period.

Facts are never Ian Keldon's strong point when it comes to Trek.

[Jeff O'Connor]

I have it on good authority from a trusted source deep within the trenches of the Abrams International Headquarters that Captain Kirk will factor into this movie.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Admiral M wrote:

---

...We all know that JJ Abrams encourages red herrings in order to avoid cast and crew accidentally giving stuff away in interviews, so this may be the deal where Urban is concerned.

Yes. I'm convinced some producers put out intentional red herrings in order to protect against major spoilers. The idea being that with so many red herrings floating around, it would be impossible to know whether any particular plot rumor is true or not -- which is good for those of us who don't like to be spoiled, but still like to keep tabs on the production.

In the pre-internet past, movie studios didn't really need to worry about the proliferation of spoilers, because the production usually controlled ALL of the distribution of information regarding a film. For example, unless you read "Starlog" back in the 1980s , there would have been no real way for you to know much about a Star Trek film until you actually saw it in the theater. And almost all the inforation found in "Starlog" would have been controlled by the studio who submitted the press releases.

It would have been very hard to accidentally hear spoilers, which certainly is not the case today with so many people (even those marginally involved in a movie's production) being able to quickly disseminate information to the world. Spoilers have become almost inevitable. Red herrings are at least a way to marginalize potential spoilers; spoilers may still get out, but they may be lost in a sea of red herrings.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

The Trek department at Paramount used to be able to get us a movie every 12-18 months on schedule and with good communication/feedback between studio and fans.

No, they didn't. BTW, there isn't and never was a "Trek department" at Paramount. Do you have any idea how studios and productions work?

That was a far superior situation to getting 1 move[sic] every what? 3-4 years with "super-duper-secret-squirrel" level cloak and dagger nonsense about even the smallest production details?

No, it wasn't.

How does that reflect good-faith communication with the fans on the part of the studio?

Who cares? The studio owes "fandom" nothing. If they make a movie that people want to see, they'll make good money. Abrams succeeded in that last time - succeeded to a far greater extent than most previous Trek producers and their movies - and there's every reason to expect him to repeat that success.

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Jeff O'Connor wrote:

---

I have it on good authority from a trusted source deep within the trenches of the Abrams International Headquarters that Captain Kirk will factor into this movie.

Now come on, Jeff - how can you expect to be taken seriously when you post nonsense like this? Deary me.

[JarodRussell]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

In the pre-internet past, movie studios didn't really need to worry about the proliferation of spoilers, because the production usually controlled ALL of the distribution of information regarding a film. For example, unless you read "Starlog" back in the 1980s , there would have been no real way for you to know much about a Star Trek film until you actually saw it in the theater. And almost all the inforation found in "Starlog" would have been controlled by the studio who submitted the press releases.

I say that makes no difference. The spoilers are out on opening day. And the week before, because reviewers can't hold themselves back. There's no influence on box office. I don't see any reason for that much secrecy. It's not Apple vs. Samsung, nobody is trying to copy them. Unless they are so confident with their film that they shit their pants because they fear a superior Asylum remake.

[Greg Cox]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

This cat-and-mouse BS is exactly that...BS. Tell us what you're doing, and how you expect to do it. Then we can examine what you offer and make our own decisions as to whether or not it is acceptable.

Because, damnit, we have the god-given right to nitpick every aspect of the movie and play back-seat driver before the movie even finishes production!

Seriously, aside from a certain natural curiosity, there's absolutely no reason that any of us need to know the plot of next year's movie months in advance. Since when was it our job to oversee production and determine what is "acceptable"? Is there an executive committee I don't know about?

There will time enough to pass judgment on the movie next May . . .