2017, A Trek For The Fans?

[Trekkin]

It also didn't answer the question. Why can the supposed unwashed masses follow the writers plot and understand what's going on, whilst you can't?

I did answer the question. You just misread my response.

To repeat; the lowest common denom doesn't need to understand what's going on. All they need is action sequences and that's their fix.

Many repeat viewers want something with a little depth, something to superficially engage and keep them coming back for more. And there are many who will find that endless talking scenes just don't interest them enough.

It also still dodged the question. Saying stupid people didn't need for there to be a plot, does not explain why they perceive that there is one. And whilst this is amusing (it's like 2009 all over again) I'm feeling a bit bad about derailing the thread. This bickering really should be in the NuTrek forum, so I'll drop it. Sorry Bry.

I wonder - if (hypothetically) the almighty Trek Gods did decide to focus on making the show for fans, how would we expect them to find out what they 'need'? Loiter around here? Focus groups? An über fan show runner (as opposed to Kutzman's TOS fan)? I find the logistics of that scenario interesting, especially as most of the other shows I've seen that have slipped into that 'fan' focus seem to get most of their feedback from Twitter or tumblr. I'm not sure what the Trekkie 'presence' is like on those networks.

 

[Paradise City]

It also didn't answer the question. Why can the supposed unwashed masses follow the writers plot and understand what's going on, whilst you can't?

I did answer the question. You just misread my response.

To repeat; the lowest common denom doesn't need to understand what's going on. All they need is action sequences and that's their fix.

Many repeat viewers want something with a little depth, something to superficially engage and keep them coming back for more. And there are many who will find that endless talking scenes just don't interest them enough.

I want to see quality storytelling in the fashion of The Wire or House of Cards. And by that I don't necessarily mean gritty, bleak and cynical - just simply that the writers have the gumption to be ambitious, take risks, test boundaries and be experimental and take on the possibility of failure that follows on from doing that. It's a tight window to achieve that and a mass following simultaneously and it's much easier to produce sexy rubbish to gain a mass following. I see Alex Whateverhisname is very much a guy in the latter mould and I'm disappointed that this new Star Trek project is just another missed opportunity.

 

[Mudd]

There's no danger that networks will pander to fans. There is a real danger, given that one of the JJ mafia is in charge, that the plots will be incoherent and that it will appeal to the lowest common denominator.

That's not an accurate description of either of Abrams's Trek movies, so there's no reason that it should be true of the new series.

 

[Paradise City]

I did answer the question. You just misread my response.

To repeat; the lowest common denom doesn't need to understand what's going on. All they need is action sequences and that's their fix.

Many repeat viewers want something with a little depth, something to superficially engage and keep them coming back for more. And there are many who will find that endless talking scenes just don't interest them enough.

It also still dodged the question. Saying stupid people didn't need for there to be a plot, does not explain why they perceive that there is one. And whilst this is amusing (it's like 2009 all over again) I'm feeling a bit bad about derailing the thread. This bickering really should be in the NuTrek forum, so I'll drop it. Sorry Bry.

I wonder - if (hypothetically) the almighty Trek Gods did decide to focus on making the show for fans, how would we expect them to find out what they 'need'? Loiter around here? Focus groups? An über fan show runner (as opposed to Kutzman's TOS fan)? I find the logistics of that scenario interesting, especially as most of the other shows I've seen that have slipped into that 'fan' focus seem to get most of their feedback from Twitter or tumblr. I'm not sure what the Trekkie 'presence' is like on those networks.

You're being deliberately difficult I presume? I didn't dodge any question. I answered your question. You've introduced a new question and claimed I didn't answer this new question.

Lowest common denominator types do not place much value on plots. There was a plot as my post taken in its entirely would've attested to; my claim is that the plot was an incoherent, lazily written one. The point I'm making shouldn't be difficult to apprehend.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The point I'm making shouldn't be difficult to apprehend.

If you can give us a description of the suspect, then we will put out an APB.

 

[Paradise City]

There's no danger that networks will pander to fans. There is a real danger, given that one of the JJ mafia is in charge, that the plots will be incoherent and that it will appeal to the lowest common denominator.

That's not an accurate description of either of Abrams's Trek movies, so there's no reason that it should be true of the new series.

Mine is a perfect description of these films. They just lumped the 80's films in their cauldron and let the fumes of the FX carry the day. JJ used trek as a trampoline to get to his preferred cash cow; Star Wars. And given the trackrecord of this Alex Whateverhisname it's gonna be more of the same.

 

[Mudd]

There's no danger that networks will pander to fans. There is a real danger, given that one of the JJ mafia is in charge, that the plots will be incoherent and that it will appeal to the lowest common denominator.

That's not an accurate description of either of Abrams's Trek movies, so there's no reason that it should be true of the new series.

Mine is a perfect description of these films.

Sorry, I saw the movies. I know better.

 

[Terok Nor]

Is there any need to use terms like "lowest common denominator" and "fuck the fans"? I don't think having that sort of attitude is constructive to a discussion.

Not everyone who likes the JJ Abrams Trek is an idiot and not everyone who likes the Prime Trek universe is a crazed nerd. Both sets of fans are valuable and important for the new series to be successful as are new viewers.

 

[Trekkin]

You're being deliberately difficult I presume? I didn't dodge any question. I answered your question. You've introduced a new question and claimed I didn't answer this new question.

Lowest common denominator types do not place much value on plots. There was a plot as my post taken in its entirely would've attested to; my claim is that the plot was an incoherent, lazily written one. The point I'm making shouldn't be difficult to apprehend.

Nope, it was always the question. And I'm quiet willing to hash it out with you on the NuTrek board tomorrow morning, after I get some sleep.

So about that 2017 series and whether it should be made for fans...

 

[Nerys Myk]

If someone had trouble following the plots of either of the new films or found them incoherent, I think that's on them, not the writers.

 

[Paradise City]

Sorry, I saw the movies.

I was sorry too, rest assured. I left the cinema wondering whether JJ turned on the article writing software for Trek whilst him and his mafia could get an early crack at the Stars Wars script. Cadet to Captain in a week? Those guys have got to be kidding me.

 

[Paradise City]

You're being deliberately difficult I presume? I didn't dodge any question. I answered your question. You've introduced a new question and claimed I didn't answer this new question.

Lowest common denominator types do not place much value on plots. There was a plot as my post taken in its entirely would've attested to; my claim is that the plot was an incoherent, lazily written one. The point I'm making shouldn't be difficult to apprehend.

Nope, it was always the question. And I'm quiet willing to hash it out with you on the NuTrek board tomorrow morning, after I get some sleep.

So about that 2017 series and whether it should be made for fans...

I'd have to decline that invitation. I've no appetite to being badgered about not answering questions that were never asked of me in the first instance.

 

[Mudd]

Well, that didn't last long.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I guess you'd have to define fan really. There's hardly any kind of consensus amongst fans, so their best bet is to make new fans while hoping to retain any others of the already fragmented fanbase. Just make good stories that a large group of people want to see and ignore the types of people that are worried about Kirk's eye color.

 

[Jedman67]

If someone had trouble following the plots of either of the new films or found them incoherent, I think that's on them, not the writers.

I had little trouble following the plot of ST09; yet i felt that a good chunk of it was sloppy. There were parts of the aesthetic i didn't much care for. What bothered me when i watched it (and I did enjoy it as a popcorn flick) was poor structuring of some critical plot elements. Some awful dialog and poor directing. Intense lighting and lens flares.

Part of the problem was the Writers Guild strike during production of the movie; the writers couldn't change the script and had to make funny faces at the actors if they wanted to change the dialog of a scene or something (why on-set last minute script changes are "not allowed" under a strike is something I don't understand).

 

[Greg Cox]

How can they make something "for the fans" when we can't agree amongst ourselves what's good and what's not??

Bingo.

And making a point of saying "this is for the fans!" is pretty much telling the rest of the world "this is for Trekkies only. Don't even bother watching unless you can speak Klingon and dress up at conventions."

That's the last thing thing you want to do, marketing-wise.

 

[thumbtack]

Lately, I see people spelling the word "me" as "the fans".

I will never be able to keep up with internet English.

 

[Greg Cox]

Is there any need to use terms like "lowest common denominator" and "fuck the fans"? I don't think having that sort of attitude is constructive to a discussion.

Not everyone who likes the JJ Abrams Trek is an idiot and not everyone who likes the Prime Trek universe is a crazed nerd. Both sets of fans are valuable and important for the new series to be successful as are new viewers.

That's a very good point. I confess I bristle sometimes when it's implied that the only people who like the new movies are shallow, callow, and just interested in explosions.

And I tend to tune out whenever I see terms like "lowest common denominator" or "the masses" or whatever.

But, yes, I'm sure other fans resent being characterized as continuity-obsessed Trek fundamentalists who can't stand change, etc.

 

[Mudd]

And, yes, I'm sure other fans resent being characterized as continuity-obsessed Trek fundamentalists who can't stand change, etc.

Then they should behave.

 

[ancient]

There is a bit of cynicism to the notion that a show aimed at a "general" audience won't appeal to fans.

I for one look forward to a show about shooting phasers & getting laid.