Orci strikes back

Oh, thank you. I pass along and share your salute to all like minded fans.

 

Forbes is calling it "fan entitlement syndrome" and urging the studios to fight back. Their piece focused mainly on Ben Affleck and the 50 Shades of Grey petition. I don't think the Orci Strikes Back thing had started yet.


.

 

I believe it was Stan Lee who said, "Never give the fans what they think they want."

 

I'd rather have writers and directors tell the story they want to tell, not listen to the fans. They don't owe us anything.

 

The internet as a basis is a democratic thing where everyone gets a voice (whether anyone is listening or not) or is at least an equal. Now, movie makers and stars are no better than you. Add to that, huge marketing pushes onto the internet from all aspects of the Hollywood machine, and you ultimately have a large presence of talent publicly available and online where they were once reclusive and private, simply by geographic distance if nothing else. Everyone is using Facebook, Twitter, going on promotional tours, and providing access to every podunk online entertainment news blogger who never would have been taken seriously before without being part of a national news service. One of the effects of being seen on TV is that people are familiar with you even if you are not familiar with them. Facebook, Twitter and everything else that the entertainment establishment does to get closer to us only serves to amplify that effect. If that establishment does not desire to hear back from us about what we want of them, they would be better off not using the bidirectional tools and egalitarian culture of the internet.

 

Just because you yell the loudest doesn't make you either right or entitled to jack shit. A movie might be popular and critically loved, but if it doesn't make money then it's a waste of time. Movies are a business, and any studio that is more worried about what fans want or a bunch of entitled fans whining cause their precious canon got trashed needs to get out of the business; that sort of stuff is what fan films are for.

 

The bottom line is, the fans DO get to write some Trek stuff. And we get the Fan Productions of TOS out of it. Would that stuff reinvigorate the franchise like the Bad Robot films have if they were released as features? Hell no.

So Orci wins. A million times over.

 

It's not about telling fans to be quiet. It's about telling fans they're not entitled to get what they want. Fans are entitled to express their views. They are not, nor should they ever be, entitled to satisfaction with the final artistic endeavour. The artist owes NOTHING to "fan expectations". It really is that simple. Of course, the artist is not owed a positive reception for the work either. But there is a lot more of "they should have listened to the fans" drivel than there are artists who demand a positive view of their work.

And if fans believe they are entitled to vomit all over something they didn't like in this egalitarian utopia, they should neither be surprised nor offended when an artist gives as good as he gets in that department.

 

Exactly.

It's like every moron who walks into a department store and demands satisfaction for something that wasn't up to their standards, yelling "the customer is always right!" right in the store owner's face.

Just because one pays money for a product doesn't give one the right to be a self-entitled dick.

 

This is, obviously, false.

As far as making movies is involved, of course they are. That's their job. Now if we were talking about performing cosmological observations and data analysis, or even just fixing my sink, no they probably aren't better than me. But for writing, directing, and acting in movies, they know what they do, and most fans don't.

 

Did anyone look at Greenwoods Farewell To Pike? Now Greenwood is talking about the percentage of hardcore fans who don't like the way the franchise is going.

I hope he's not basing that on the poll of a hundred people at the Vegas Convention or those guys baiting Orci on twitter.

 

I have to wonder how Roddenberry would have gotten along with fans on social media, had such a thing existed in the 60s, 70s and 80s. He pretty much basked in the glory of being the guru who enlightened the masses. And the fans ate it up. Social media changes that dynamic.

 

He probably would have had sex with a lot of them. That seemed to be his thing.

 

And he keeps insisting (at least where Trek is concerned) that the minority opinion is the one that needs to be obeyed. Not exactly egalitarian.


.

 

*Shrug* I didn't think most of 24th century Trek was overwrought, plodding, self-serving or self-important. It was interesting how good the stories were with the conflict among the crew often minimal, getting involved in new societies even within short time periods and also how some (perhaps a few too many) episodes were indeed one-sided views but others acknowledged that the moral dilemmas weren't simple or easy.

One of my criticisms against the new films is that, his tactical decision to use Khan aside (maybe), Kirk is portrayed as always being right, rarely internally conflicted and has changed little while Spock is portrayed as growing by becoming more like him and accepting of his style.

I don't think morals can get much triter than "go with your instincts," "follow the person with who most goes with his instincts" or "it's OK for some people to break the rules."

 

I completely agree. The ideas in the "Future of Trek" forum are painful to read. But that doesn't mean the new films are any good.

Okay... so where's the problem? That's exactly what's happening. Abrams and co. put out their work and the fans are expressing their opinions, both positive and negative.

Exactly. Talk about entitlement. Some fans think the creators are entitled to the blind acceptance of their work by the fans.

It's possible not to give a shit about canon but still not like the Abrams films.

 

Fair enough. But to offer a counterpoint, I thought Kirk was shown to be dead wrong many times in the film. 1. Reckless endangerment of the Enterprise and her crew even if the goal is noble. 2. Blatant disregard for policy. 3. Naively believing at the start of the movie that he deserved the five-year mission. 4. Falling prey to Marcus: "I'm Sorry." 5. Believing that everything will turn out alright in the end because he's Jim Kirk and he doesn't believe in no-win scenarios. Yet, he faces a real no-win scenario. He has to die to save the ship. So, he's wrong many times in the movie. And his realization at the end of the movie is that he's not always right, and he's surrounded by good people that he should listen too. (Think he'll ever blow off Scotty's opinion again?)

Will the wiser for it all Jim Kirk still try to save all endangered pre-warp civilizations he come across during his five year mission? Certainly. That sense of moral obligation is innate within him. Will he do it in the same careless manner as he did on Nibiru? Of course not. Will he stand up and be accountable for doing these things? Yes, and his explanations will stick (just as they did in TOS) even if they enter gray areas of policy.

 

Great post.

 

Agreed. Franklin is spot on on all counts. Excellent example of using brain energy for constructive purpose. Salute!