Orci/Bennett
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
Try TEN movies ago (if we're talking movies only--there was a lot more variety in the various series, as one would expect in 700+ hours). But let's not pretend "pulp space opera" hasn't been a major aspect of Trek long before Abrams came along. That would be rather foolish to assert.
I liked your whole post, but this point is well said. Thank you
As for GotG, I thought it was a lot of fun, with the right mix of character moments, evil villains and exotic locals. The story was straight-forward enough, but didn't hold my hand in explaining everything.
I think Paramount could learn a few things from GotG but certainly doesn't need to borrow everything from that movie. Just a little bit more fun, and a little bit more character moments.
1
Around 1964.
An "aspect" of Trek, not its totality. I know what he's talking about.
An essential aspect. I'd say 90 percent of it. Take that away from Trek, and what do you have?
It's not like "space opera" is a pejorative term, either. SW fits it. Most TV sci-fi series fit the genre.
Actually I'd say things like aspiration and believability (within the parameters of nautical-adventure-in-space) were its "essential" aspect. So again, I know what Dales is talking about, it's just that that change has already happened. (EDIT: The "pulp" convo has been had here before, like here and here.)
Last edited:
Sorry, that was in reponse to a comment further upthread, but I was too slow on the draw.
Paramount's goal is to make as much money as possible with "Star Trek" - they don't care if it upsets Trek fanboy if they do something that causes twice as many regular Joes to go and watch. They problem they face is that regular Joe doesn't care about Star Trek, he's already branded the concept as "boring", so I can see why Paramount decided to mix it up with Lin instead of Orci, since they were unable to build on '09.
Nope. They're the common species with money to spend on movie tickets. Trek fans are the exotic separate species.
Oh, yeah, I remember people predicting that "regular Joes" would never embrace anything as far-out and comic-booky as GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, or THOR, or . . . .
The general audience tends to be a lot more flexible and open-minded than the fannish cognoscenti often wants to admit.
Last edited:
It always amuses me when fans insist that the general audience won't accept anything too fantastic or unrealistic . . . despite the fact that the average moviegoer seems to have no problem with alien robots who turn into cars, British kids attending wizard school, Disney pirates fighting ghost ships and sea monsters, a lovestruck teenage girl torn between a pale brooding vampire and a hunky werewolf, and hobbits.
SF/fantasy is not just for hardcore aficionados anymore--and hasn't been for some time.
SF/fantasy is not just for hardcore aficionados anymore--and hasn't been for some time.
Oh, the non Trek fan perspective has been positively joyous.
A separate species notoriously short on spending money, which has not gone unnoticed by TPTB.
Agree 100%.
No, the point was that while nuTrek does have broader general audience appeal than some of the previous films, it still has a huge gulf to cross to get into the mega-blockbuster territory that Paramount covets. One which Star Trek will probably never cross since it has something like GotG doesn't: fifty years of baggage. There are still plenty of people who won't give any new Trek a chance because they decided they didn't like it years ago (not because the premise is too fantastic).
Similar threads
