Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

I'd like to see that too... if only I can relive my teen years. But you do see how impossible that is from a business standpoint, right?

 

But did they go too far in those regards, sure you want to appeal to a wide an audiance as possible, but at the same time you don't want to alienate your core audiance, if your core audiance is critising a show/film that might rub off on the more general audiance, if even the fans don't like it then it's unlikely I will.

 

Ergo, Nemesis.

 

For some reason the various arguments swirling in this thread reminded me of the stories the great movie critic and author Aesop once told:

 

I disagree with the notion that Berman Trek even successfully catered to hardcore Trek fandom. Not that TNG and some of the other shows didn't have their highlights, but other than technobabble and striving for continuity, it never really fired on all cylinders--even to the faithful. It's just that Trek fandom kept tuning in regardless, so there was a false sense that all was well. Even there, Enterprise was their attempt to pander to more mainstream audience, and also failing.

You could say that JJ Trek tries even harder to sell itself to hardcore Trek fans, by virtue of homages and Nimoy cameos, but ultimately it's trying to peddle New Coke, which just isn't going to fly. So it would have been better had JJ Trek just presented itself as-is with no attempt whatsoever to win over the faithful.

Amen. And I keep coming back to JJ's admission that his wife thinks he uses too much lens-flare. So some of the JJ apologists here are overreaching considering that the filmmakers themselves are not so stubborn as to ignore negative feedback, especially if it escalates to the point where your own wife is telling you you screwed up.

The difference is that someone like JJ can laugh all the way to the bank. He doesn't view writing new chapters to the Trek legacy, deciding on a lens flare, a camera shake, or okaying bad production designs with the same degree of cultural import as fans do. It's a job--a very well-paying one. There's just no way someone who works in Hollywood can view things the same way fans do, because there's just too much indoctrination into the nuts and bolts and commerce of actually making a product. It's filmmakers who view their work as the most transcendent who seem to have the hardest time actually making films (think Jodorosky's Dune for an extreme case). Seasoned pros have a certain degree of clinical detachment.

 

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

 

Orci had said he was the only one on the production staff following fan opinion, though the others would ask him. I think he was being truthful, and I can't really see Justin Lin fretting over such things.

 

Oh yeah, can't happen.

 

J.J. created a precedent-an alternative Trek outside the Prime timeline. If there is (from the suit's point of view) no particular reason to bring back the Prime timeline, why would they?

 

^they wouldn't and won't.

 

In his case, listening is informative of what to avoid.

 

He created the Marvel Universe without fan input.
I think he might know a thing or two about the creative process. Certainly more than fans.

 

Joss Whedon and, um, a certain Gene Roddenberry expressed similar sentiments.

 

Creating a product without customer input, and maintaining a product line without customer input are two very different things.

And they do always give their target audience what it wants. They would be crazy if they didn't.

If you don't give a fan what the fan wants, then that fan simply does not belong to your target audience.

 

So what was the first movie series to adhere to a continuity of some kind, trimming it as they went? Universal's Frankenstein "franchise" of the 30s and 40s? Dracula, IIRC, petered out after two vaguely-related films and the Count became a kind of hanger-on in monster team movies.

 

I feel like those shows did plenty of pandering to those who weren't fans. Tsunkatse anyone?

And seriously, at one time there was a fan base of like 20 million watching TNG. Most of those fans left because it just wasn't as entertaining, not because there was fan pandering. The only real pandering probably happened in the 4th season of Enterprise, and by then, the prime timeline was already screwed.

 

There was a sequel to the silent Zorro: Don Q, Son of Zorro. Never seen it, though, so I don't know how tight the continuity was.

And Son of Kong (1933) predates Bride of Frankenstein (1935), although the Kong "series" petered out after only two installments . . . unless you count Mighty Joe Young, which was made by a lot of the same people.

And you're right about the Dracula films, whose continuity was much looser than the Frankenstein films. Dracula's Daughter picks up right where the original Dracula left off, but the subsequent Dracula films are only vaguely connected to each other.

Speaking of Zorro . . . he's one of the first examples of a "retcon" that I know of. The original novel by Johnston McCulley ended with Zorro revealing his secret identity to the world, marrying the girl, and living happily ever after. McCulley never intended to make it a series.

But when the Douglas Fairbanks movie turned Zorro into a sensation, McCulley conveniently ignored the ending of his own book in order to churn out a series of sequels in which Zorro's secret identity was still intact, the main villain was still alive, and Zorro was (usually) unmarried.

 

Same thing happened with First Blood - Morrell killed John Rambo off in the book, but went on to do the novelizations for a couple of the sequel films.

Frankenstein's village changed names during the Universal run didn't it? It was such an odd little place, evidently somewhere in British Bavaria.

 

Trying to pin down where exactly some of those movies take place will drive you nuts. Some sort of vaguely Eastern European, vaguely Germanic land of gypsies, castles, and superstitious villagers, just down the road from "Vasaria" or wherever.

Ditto for when exactly they take place. If you look closely, it seems to be an alternate version of the 1940s in which, oddly, World War II does not seem to be taking place in Europe.

(There's a common misconception that the Universal flicks all took place in Victorian times, but that's actually not the case.)

More silliness: Decades can pass between the movies ("Twenty years ago, your father discovered an ancient tomb," etc.) and yet it always seems to be the 1940s!

 

According to this wiki the village in the movies was supposed to be in Switzerland per the shooting script for the first one, and is finally referred to as Frankenstein village in the third movie.

As for changing names, I think I was confused by the fact that Ghost Of Frankenstein relocates the familiar plot to another town, Vasaria, where Ygor flees with the monster.

What part of England was that very strange little town Lawrence Talbot hailed from?

In retrospect, given that Frankenstein would have been working mainly with Swiss corpses it's terribly offensive that they cast some tall British twit to play the Monster in 1931, and even more unforgivable that they recast with some Hungarian ham for Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman.