JJ Abrams and Secrecy... anyone else tired of it?

[ChristopherPike]

So long as you remember there's probably only one grain of truth, in that shipment of quadrotriticale.




GATT2000? puuuullLEASE

What's that stand for anyway? Genetically Augmented Tyrannical Terrorist (from before the year) 2000?

[The Keeper]

Secrecy? Did you read the forum before you posted? There are tons of new tidbits to chew over.

I'm loving the time-released trickle of information. All of it seems perfectly designed to do one thing - appease our sense of curiosity with just enough info to keep us buzzing without ripping the wrapper off spoiling the Big Reveals.

[ManOnTheWave]

No. What I'm sick of is being told every detail of a film's plot, including twists, by the trailer and the press release.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Gojira wrote:

---

I really don't have a problem with it. My only problem was with Cloverfield. I liked the movie don't get me wrong, but there just was not enough of the monster in the movie. For all the secrecy of that movie the payoff was not large enough for me.

Yeah, but the point of that movie was to tell the story from the point of view of average people caught up in it.

That is a departure from most monster movies where the main focus seems to be on the people (government/military/whatever) trying to deal the "big picture" of killing or eliminating the monster threat. By that very nature of those traditional monster movies, the main characters whose task it is to try to eliminate the threat of the monster have/gain a lot of information about the monster (and, thus, so does the audience).

Cloverfield, on the other hand, was mostly about the people on the ground, and by that very nature, they would have far less information about the monster itself.

It was that departure from the traditional way to tell a monster invasion story is why I DID like Cloverfield.

[M'Sharak]

USSManhattan wrote:

---

... is Abrams' secrecy MO tiresome, or working for you?

I'm fine with it, really. Last time around, there was a set schedule of released information and promotion which seemed to work quite well. I have no reason to think it won't be very much the same this time.

paudemge wrote:

---

The real question should, be "is everybody tired of how the internet spoils virtually every movie?"

Not so much that, but that there seems to have developed a never-ending sense of consumer entitlement to more, more, more! No amount of whatever it is—spoilers, DVD extras, bonus goodies, spy pics, inside dirt, collectible items—is ever enough. There's gotta be more of it.

I was starting to roll my eyes back in the late 1990s when someone I worked with bought a DVD of a fairly major early-1960s movie and ended up returning it for refund unwatched because there were no extras, no director commentary. Have the hype and the extra stuff become more important than the movie-watching experience itself? One does sometimes wonder.

[Drago-Kazov]

ChristopherPike wrote:

---

So long as you remember there's probably only one grain of truth, in that shipment of quadrotriticale.




GATT2000? puuuullLEASE

What's that stand for anyway? Genetically Augmented Tyrannical Terrorist (from before the year) 2000?

History will be our judge.

[Samuel T. Cogley]

"Don't sell the steak. Sell the sizzle."

Abrams knows exactly what he is doing, and he does it better than most.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

M'Sharak wrote:

---

Not so much that, but that there seems to have developed a never-ending sense of consumer entitlement to more, more, more! No amount of whatever it is—spoilers, DVD extras, bonus goodies, spy pics, inside dirt, collectible items—is ever enough. There's gotta be more of it.

I pay my $8.75 (more for 3D Imax), and what I get in return is the opportunity to see the film in the theater.
If I want more than that, then maybe I should pony up enough money to be a "producer". Then I would be entitled to some pre-release inside info.

[KalEl]

I can't stand the secrecy, I think it's meaningless. Cloverfeild sucked, it had all this secrecy about it, just to find out that it was just another POV camera movie with a monster you can't even see. Blair Witch Project style. There were some cool shots, but pretty much sucked. Super 8 was a little better, but really just a combination of ET and Close Encounters, not much originality. Star Trek was good, I liked it, but there was a lot of unnecessary things like blowing up Vulcan, which I doubt they are going to even discuss in the new movie. I still maintain that the timeline change was unnecessary and it could have been just a prequel.

They seem to do things just because it looks cool, but no real thought about it. The secrecy seems obsessive. What harm does it do to tell us the name of the so called villain? So we are given the name of a completely forgettable character, that tells us nothing about the plot. So you kept us dragging on for John Harrison, really? Even if it was Khan or Mitchell, it still just gives us a basic idea of how the movie will play out, well that still is nothing. Let me guess, the bad guy blows a lot of shit up, there's some sort of delima between Kirk and Spock, McCoy is the voice of reason, the bad guy is hunted down and stopped, the end. That's going to be every Star Trek movie, it tells nothing of the plot. I don't want be spoiled, but the secrecy is too much.

If you compare it to Christopher Nolan's secrecy, his seems more reasonable. It never was like this during the 80s and 90s as far as I remember. I know the internet has changed things, but my god, it's really not a big deal if you just give us the characters and a few random pics.

[Shilliam Watner]

The reason I like the secrecy is that it creates curiosity. It makes people go and actually study up on Star Treks past episodes to get clues of who these characters we have been talking about (Harrison, Khan, Garth, Lazarus, Charlie X and now April). It generates interest in the franchise by non trekkers and therefore brings in more revenue. Abrams indeed knows what he is doing.

[Robert Maxwell]

KalEl wrote:

---

I can't stand the secrecy, I think it's meaningless. Cloverfeild sucked, it had all this secrecy about it, just to find out that it was just another POV camera movie with a monster you can't even see. Blair Witch Project style. There were some cool shots, but pretty much sucked. Super 8 was a little better, but really just a combination of ET and Close Encounters, not much originality. Star Trek was good, I liked it, but there was a lot of unnecessary things like blowing up Vulcan, which I doubt they are going to even discuss in the new movie. I still maintain that the timeline change was unnecessary and it could have been just a prequel.

They seem to do things just because it looks cool, but no real thought about it. The secrecy seems obsessive. What harm does it do to tell us the name of the so called villain? So we are given the name of a completely forgettable character, that tells us nothing about the plot. So you kept us dragging on for John Harrison, really? Even if it was Khan or Mitchell, it still just gives us a basic idea of how the movie will play out, well that still is nothing. Let me guess, the bad guy blows a lot of shit up, there's some sort of delima between Kirk and Spock, McCoy is the voice of reason, the bad guy is hunted down and stopped, the end. That's going to be every Star Trek movie, it tells nothing of the plot. I don't want be spoiled, but the secrecy is too much.

If you compare it to Christopher Nolan's secrecy, his seems more reasonable. It never was like this during the 80s and 90s as far as I remember. I know the internet has changed things, but my god, it's really not a big deal if you just give us the characters and a few random pics.

This just seems like a really bizarre entitlement mentality. Abrams is not obliged to share anything publicly if he doesn't want to. If you want to know what happens, go buy a ticket and see it.

[M'Sharak]

Shilliam Watner wrote:

---

The reason I like the secrecy is that it creates curiosity. It makes people go and actually study up on Star Treks past episodes to get clues of who these characters we have been talking about (Harrison, Khan, Garth, Lazarus, Charlie X and now April). It generates interest in the franchise by non trekkers and therefore brings in more revenue. Abrams indeed knows what he is doing.

It also gives the imagination a chance for a workout. I think Abrams' "mystery box" approach is, to one degree or another, about giving the viewer's imagination some room in which to play, and that room definitely includes the build-up to the movie itself.

[KalEl]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

This just seems like a really bizarre entitlement mentality. Abrams is not obliged to share anything publicly if he doesn't want to. If you want to know what happens, go buy a ticket and see it.

If you want me to buy a ticket, give some information to go off of. You're right, JJ doesn't owe us shit, but if the secrecy is over something ridiculous like the name of a character, it feels like there is a lack of respect for the fan base. He's just doing it just to do it and stroke his ego, he doesn't give a shit what we think, he's trying to reach the mainstream audience right? So, why not give them the name of the villain, they won't care and won't be spoiled, in the mean time, we can still speculate what the bad guy is going to do. It just seems like he's doing it just to fuck with us, which is pretty dickish in my opinion.

[Robert Maxwell]

KalEl wrote:

---

If you want me to buy a ticket, give some information to go off of. You're right, JJ doesn't owe us shit, but if the secrecy is over something ridiculous like the name of a character, it feels like there is a lack of respect for the fan base. He's just doing it just to do it and stroke his ego, he doesn't give a shit what we think, he's trying to reach the mainstream audience right? So, why not give them the name of the villain, they won't care and won't be spoiled, in the mean time, we can still speculate what the bad guy is going to do. It just seems like he's doing it just to fuck with us, which is pretty dickish in my opinion.

He's doing it for the publicity it generates, which is clearly working very well.

[SalvorHardin]

KalEl wrote:

---

it feels like there is a lack of respect for the fan base.

sigh...not this shit again.