Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
Is that the mass migration of Star Wars fans?
No. That the "Star Wars trek".
Meh. Things are about to get busy for me for the next couple of weeks. Maybe I'll get to it after the first week of May. That OK for you?
Will it be Spectacle or Spectacular?
I haven't seen the film yet. I and dyed in the wool Trekkie Hal Dace have a pre-movie discussion about how much/little "Trek Purity" Into Darkness will have.
My prediction: 6/11
Take a look at our Trek Purity Test and comment if you think we're off mark and vote how Into Darkness did on the test.
[Link removed. - M']
I am going to attempt answer specifically what I see in a thread, without going into one of my diatribes, or attack the movie.
Well, anyway, I took the purity test, and I voted 0. I noticed that 66.67% of respondents voted the same way. 33.33% of respondents voted for six of the items being present in the next film.
I would have more respect for JJ Abrams and his team if they had been open from the beginning. "Hey, guys and gals, we are doing a story with Khan. It's going to be fantastic." I have read about other film productions where the people involved were more open about their villains. I don't know how other people feel, but I don't like mind games and deception. And that is what I feel that JJ Abrams was doing.
For me, I am looking forward to more information on what ships will appear in the next film. I know there is the Takay, the NCC-07-B, the Bradbury, and the two main ships - Enterprise and Vengeance. I am curious to see what other ships there will be in the next film.
It's one thing be secretive, to misinform and misdirect, but what Abrams did all this time was almost pathological. Kathy Kennedy (at this point probably the most powerful woman in Hollywood) indirectly shat on his MO in her last interview where she basically said that fans are too important to be lied to.
How can you vote on anything without actually seeing the movie? We know the broad strokes but have yet to see it in action (at least I haven't).
And how can "Uhurah" singing a song be part of any Trek "purity" test? She sang maybe three times in the whole of Trek she appeared in. Are episodes of Trek she didn't appear in considered impure?
You gotta admit that all the misdirection and denial is kinda weird. This was the worst kept secret in Hollywood, and some people feel the only reason he was denying it was Khan was to avoid the backlash while the marketing campaign was still generating buzz.
Much of that list doesn't make any kind of sense.
Here's my Star Trek (TOS) purity list:
* Kirk is the big risk, big reward leader.
* Spock is the logical dude who offers logical solutions to problems but has a volatile personality just below the surface.
* McCoy is emotion. He offers emotional responses and solutions to challenges the crew faces. He is an MD.
* Scott is the fix-it man. There to overcome the technical challenges of the Enterprise.
* The Enterprise, a kick-ass starship that is the envy of the whole fucking galaxy.
Put it all in a sci-fi, action-adventure blender and serve generously.
She can have whatever view she wishes, but I disagree. I have zero problem with Abrams' desire to keep as much of the actual movie close to the vest for as long as possible. I have zero problem with playfully toying with the audience prior to its release (and that's all it was--pathological? Really?).
What I do find deplorable is the sense of entitlement some people feel towards the providers of entertainment, prior to the release of the entertainment product itself (film, TV programme, album, sculpture, symphony…). We, the audience, are owed NOTHING ahead of time. Not. A. Thing. The makers of entertainment are free to approach the release of their product in whatever way they wish. We are free to complain about it, applaud it or be indifferent to it (both the lead-up to and the thing itself) but we are OWED nothing. It is their thing up to the moment it is released.
Kennedy obviously favours a different approach to film marketing than Abrams does. That's fine. And I'm not saying Abrams' approach is necessarily the most effective one available (nor that it could be applied broadly across film types). But let's not pretend that, as "fans", we're owed some sort of special consideration. We're not.
Wasn't it Gene Roddenberry who said that Star Trek was his? That he made it for himself and everyone should shut up?
Interesting perspective from Ms. Kennedy. What's happened to the simple, "No comment," when asked a question one doesn't want to answer? Why lie? It's fun? It's kind of childish, really. Catspaw-ish, too. But all's forgiven if the movie is good.
I think it's pretty obvious that they had to misdirect because it was a plot point in the movie. The "Henri Ducard isn't really Henri Ducard, he's really Ra's al Ghul" moment.
Even though I think that is over played (I mean they did it in two Batman films, even though I did kind of dig the symmetry) I can see why they did the cloak and dagger because it basically makes the plot point worthless to give it away.
On the other hand it pretty much was a terribly kept secret that was more or less just given away in most of the trailers.
That is EXACTLY the appropriate response. I've not met dozens of artistic creators (not my line of work) but I've met a few (some writers, a composer, a painter) and not one of them ever says "I owe my audience what they want". They all say "I hope they like what I offer them--but that's not why I made it".
To hell with "special consideration". The most basic form of acknowledgment is all most of us want.
My point exactly.
I wholeheartedly agree with that perspective. But it really doesn't speak to deliberately misleading your audience about the content of the product.
They wanted Spock to die at the end of TWOK. Fine. It's their franchise, and we fans can like it or lump it. But in promoting the movie, did anyone dealing with questions about it from the press and fans outright deny he dies? When the secret leaked, was it denied? (Maybe so, I honestly don't know.) That's the difference I see.
As far as not playing to the audience goes, I think that's problematic. I'd liken it to a rock album where the band cuts one or two mainstream "Top 40" commercial type songs they know will have broad appeal that will help sell the album, then they put out the more peronal defining content on the rest of the cuts and hope the listeners like those, too.
You certainly enjoy exaggerating, particularly on other sites. The canon enthusiasts would have been no more forgiving of Del Toro, even those that truly believe brown is brown. Race is not their real issue with it being Khan.
That is not what she said. Kennedy is a firm believer in the George Lucas school of thought re "fans".
Doesn't take a genius to get what she was saying.
Fun fact: not a single scene with actors or extras in Revenge of the Sith was shot outside. Every exterior shot was filmed before green screen, with the actual location (second unit) shots added in post. It's nice to hear they're actually gonna shoot outside this time.
There's no such thing as "George Lucas school of thought re "fans"".
I'm fine with Khan. I welcome Khan, and think the story for this movie sounds intriguing. I think Khan as a pale, British white guy is kinda dumb.
And I can't believe the sentiment in this thread of, "Oh, but what if it was a brown-skinned man that was a terrorist? What then?"
The role of Khan should not be a terrorist in the first place, but it was on the writers if they put themselves in that corner.
It's been suggested that Harrison is one of the other Augments aboard the Botany Bay - one of those who, in the prime timeline, died because the sleep chambers weren't all working. If this is true, he probably took Khan's name as his own - assuming that in the Abramsverse, the real Khan was one of the ones who died (I'm not sure how that could have happened, although it is possible that when Section 31 found the ship, they accidentally killed the real Khan by monkeying around with the ship's systems before they figured it out).
Separate names with a comma.