Abrams wants to make a Star Trek movie that is entertaining and emotional and funny and scary and all of the things that he knows he wants to see when he goes to see a movie?!?
Well, on behalf of all Star Trek fans everywhere, I say FUCK YOU, J.J. ABRAMS!!!
Well, on behalf of all Star Trek fans everywhere, I say FUCK YOU, J.J. ABRAMS!!!
All that counts in the grand scheme of things is: IF ITS GOOD or not. And ah... don't kid yourself, they're aren't masses of any stripe of Trek fan that's the problem.
Sharr
Exactly. When times are down (as they were for Trek), play to your strength. It's not the time to think of yet another starship name, plucky captain, and quirky alien.
Kirk and Spock are still probably the two most marketable Trek characters in that universe. And, oddly enough, they've had the least screen time (TV and movies) of any of the major Trek characters. Especially as their younger selves (or in their primes).
As far as one other direction goes, even if Berman had been given a chance to take TNG out on a high note, and XI was a TNG movie that turned out to be a very good, touching, well thought out story, it still wouldn't have nearly the box office appeal that Abrams's film will probably have.
Abrams could be sitting on something really big.
I totally agree, I mean every time I hear about someone's new idea with a new ship even further in the future...I think they are just narrowing their audience even more...
Every series had fewer fans than the the one before it. I can think of no logical reason why a new crew would do any better.
But you are right, bring back Kirk and Spock, who doesn't know them?
Only complete losers don't know who those characters are.
The "masses of TNG fans" were the general populace, not niche-market fans. Many of these people got looped up into ST franchise via the phenomenons that were ST IV and the building excitement of TNG, which built a record breaking syndicated drama audience in Seasons 3-7. They even bought "ST Encyclopedias" and ST coffee mugs and everything. Many of them even came back to check out "First Contact", but then they were content to walk away from ST and watch other things.
What will pull these people back (but remembering that they are 20+ years older and have different disposable incomes now), plus their parents (who loved TOS) - a huge injection of nostalgia (even TNG-only fans know who Spock and Sarek are; they're those Vulcan dudes from ST IV and "Unification"!) - plus a whole mass of new, younger fans (their offspring?) - will be...
a big budget movie, run by a high profile director/exec producer of several big success stories (ie. "Lost", "Cloverfield").
Last edited:
Exactamundo!
Moving onto a new ship, into the future (post NEM) isn't going to lose audience. It's not going to GAIN audience, either.I totally agree, I mean every time I hear about someone's new idea with a new ship even further in the future...I think they are just narrowing their audience even more...
Every series had fewer fans than the the one before it. I can think of no logical reason why a new crew would do any better.
But you are right, bring back Kirk and Spock, who doesn't know them?
Only complete losers don't know who those characters are.
The audience will watch if it's good, compelling entertainment. And if it's not, they won't.
The logical fallacy here is that somehow WHEN it's set is the main causative factor behind whether or not it's good, compelling storytelling.
The fact that every series had less viewership than the previous one had little do with when the series was supposely set. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the series production staff kept telling us the same basic stories with the same structure, the same solutions to the same problems...
The most popular TNG-era story were the ones that broke with formula. The ones that dared to be different. We REMEMBER those episodes... and have forgotten most of the rest. The rest was just "mysterious unknown of the week" combined with a bit of preachiness about how superior Southern Californian humanity is, along with a "B-story" about someone having a cybernetic pimple on their butt.
Hell, just getting a Trek story that didn't have a freakin' "B-Story" was cause for celebration!
So it was FORMULA that killed it... and that same formula, carried over into "Enterprise," was what guaranteed that it would fail. It's not the setting, it's the STORYTELLING STYLE, that needs to be addressed.
Well said. It has always been the STORY and CHARACTERS INTERACTIONS more than the gadgets or tech or time...Moving onto a new ship, into the future (post NEM) isn't going to lose audience. It's not going to GAIN audience, either.I totally agree, I mean every time I hear about someone's new idea with a new ship even further in the future...I think they are just narrowing their audience even more...
Every series had fewer fans than the the one before it. I can think of no logical reason why a new crew would do any better.
But you are right, bring back Kirk and Spock, who doesn't know them?
Only complete losers don't know who those characters are.
The audience will watch if it's good, compelling entertainment. And if it's not, they won't.
The logical fallacy here is that somehow WHEN it's set is the main causative factor behind whether or not it's good, compelling storytelling.
The fact that every series had less viewership than the previous one had little do with when the series was supposely set. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the series production staff kept telling us the same basic stories with the same structure, the same solutions to the same problems...
The most popular TNG-era story were the ones that broke with formula. The ones that dared to be different. We REMEMBER those episodes... and have forgotten most of the rest. The rest was just "mysterious unknown of the week" combined with a bit of preachiness about how superior Southern Californian humanity is, along with a "B-story" about someone having a cybernetic pimple on their butt.
Hell, just getting a Trek story that didn't have a freakin' "B-Story" was cause for celebration!
So it was FORMULA that killed it... and that same formula, carried over into "Enterprise," was what guaranteed that it would fail. It's not the setting, it's the STORYTELLING STYLE, that needs to be addressed.
I agree, Star Trek had in alot of ways become a rehash of what had come before. Very formulaic. I recently saw an episode of Enterprise on TV that I didn't see in the original run. It was eerily similar to a certain Next Gen episode... Power Play.
So you are right there, but I also think that this isn't the time to introduce NEW people and that Abrams is doing this right be sticking to what worked best... the original crew..
So you are right there, but I also think that this isn't the time to introduce NEW people and that Abrams is doing this right be sticking to what worked best... the original crew..
Abrams says he wants this movie to be for everyone, not just trek fans,
But this is the way i see it,
The Average Joe Blow who goes to the cinema and see's a new trailer for Trek XI will see it for what it is, and what all non trek fans see it as it is, JUST another trek Film,
They wont take notice that its a Prequel of TOS and they would'nt care if it was a post nemesis movie. Science Fiction has never really been a mainstream genre (with the exception of Star Wars) and trek movies hav'nt really appealed to the mainstream audiences, atleast not since TMP movies,
For example, Im not a fan of the James Bond franchise, and if i went to the cinema and saw a trailer for a brand new re-invented James Bond movie i would'nt take notice because thats not my kinda thing, no matter how different it was from previous James Bond movies because in my mind its still the same old secret agent with a British accent blowing stuff up, because thats what that franchise has a reputation for,
And when people see or hear about this new Trek Film coming out i think they will have a similar reaction if they arnt fans, They will just think "klingons, Spock, Enterprise, Vulcans".
I dont think it will be any different from the Generations, First Contact, Insurrection Or Nemesis trailers to them, Its just another Star Trek Movie.
Anyway, thats my 2 cents
But this is the way i see it,
The Average Joe Blow who goes to the cinema and see's a new trailer for Trek XI will see it for what it is, and what all non trek fans see it as it is, JUST another trek Film,
They wont take notice that its a Prequel of TOS and they would'nt care if it was a post nemesis movie. Science Fiction has never really been a mainstream genre (with the exception of Star Wars) and trek movies hav'nt really appealed to the mainstream audiences, atleast not since TMP movies,
For example, Im not a fan of the James Bond franchise, and if i went to the cinema and saw a trailer for a brand new re-invented James Bond movie i would'nt take notice because thats not my kinda thing, no matter how different it was from previous James Bond movies because in my mind its still the same old secret agent with a British accent blowing stuff up, because thats what that franchise has a reputation for,
And when people see or hear about this new Trek Film coming out i think they will have a similar reaction if they arnt fans, They will just think "klingons, Spock, Enterprise, Vulcans".
I dont think it will be any different from the Generations, First Contact, Insurrection Or Nemesis trailers to them, Its just another Star Trek Movie.
Anyway, thats my 2 cents
Well, Erik Jendersen's story could've been the direction of Trek.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635
Just throwing that out. Anyone want to trade what we're going to get from Abrams for it? Not looking for a fight. Just askin'.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635
Just throwing that out. Anyone want to trade what we're going to get from Abrams for it? Not looking for a fight. Just askin'.
Huh?
IIRC, box office receipts would say that TMP, ST IV and "First Contact" all appealed to mainstream audiences to some extent.
Even were that true (and as others will tell you its not) - its not a rule written in stone, that given the correct leverage can't be changed.Originally Posted by Lint
trek movies hav'nt really appealed to the mainstream audiences, atleast not since TMP
Sharr
I just hope it's not written by the marketing department. Sigh.
Star Trek, at its best, has a LOT of "wide, mainstream audience appeal." It has human interest, it has humor, it has action and adventure, it has a clear moral point-of-view, and it has visual appeal.Even were that true (and as others will tell you its not) - its not a rule written in stone, that given the correct leverage can't be changed.Originally Posted by Lint
trek movies hav'nt really appealed to the mainstream audiences, atleast not since TMP
Sharr
It bothers me more than you can imagine when a small percentage of "Star Trek fans" treats this like a RELIGION. It's their version of Scientology (gotta wonder if L. Ron was studying this particular dynamic up-front!) They deny that most people could possible "get it" because most people haven't reached the same level of "enlightenment" that they have. To them, Trek fans are almost an entirely new and different form of life... "the next step in our evolution" or some such nonsense.
NOTHING could be further from the truth. I've chosen this as part of my HOBBY life (instead of painting my body red and blue to go sit in the rain at football games!) but I'm really a fairly normal guy in most ways, except for a fairly high IQ. I'm not "different" in any way that my enjoyment of this form of entertainment would define. Nor are the overwhelming majority of "fans." Those who ARE "different" are typically different in a BAD way, too... ie, they can't separate reality from fantasy.
We are fans because we've made a choice at some point to focus a bit more of our attention on this than some other people have. Key word there being a "BIT" more. There are lots of people who enjoy it as much as any of us do... when it's at its best... but who don't have the sense of "attachment" to it that makes us give it a chance even when it's NOT really worth watching.
There are SOME people out there who'll never give it a chance, because they hate it on some conceptual level which has nothing to do with the actual entertainment value... but those people are as rare as the "still living in mom's basement and playing with action figures at 45" crowd.
MOST people... whether "fan" or "general audience"... will watch it if it's a good movie, and ENJOY it if it's a good movie. NORMAL people won't reject it because it happens to be a "star track" movie. And those few who will, just because it's Star Trek, are probably going to be too busy building their shacks in the woods and mailing bombs to people to notice...
Well, Erik Jendersen's story could've been the direction of Trek.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635
Just throwing that out. Anyone want to trade what we're going to get from Abrams for it? Not looking for a fight. Just askin'.
Not for an instant, thanks.
Well, Erik Jendersen's story could've been the direction of Trek.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635
Just throwing that out. Anyone want to trade what we're going to get from Abrams for it? Not looking for a fight. Just askin'.
Not for an instant, thanks.
Can't say as I would, but it was an interesting flight of fancy.
I would dearly love to see Kirk's granddad dropping Nazi A-bombs on the Romulans, but I can't fault Abrams for using the template he's using.
To me, Trek fandom is not unlike Football, Basketball or Baseball fandom.
There are the occasional fans, who watch the big games/movies,
There are the collector types, who collect various memorabilia,
There are the absolute avid fans, who wrae the team jersey/colors/uniform,
and there are the less stable elements of fandom, who go a bit too far. (It's all REAL).
Me, I'm in the Casual variety, but I do have a few bits and pieces.
There are the occasional fans, who watch the big games/movies,
There are the collector types, who collect various memorabilia,
There are the absolute avid fans, who wrae the team jersey/colors/uniform,
and there are the less stable elements of fandom, who go a bit too far. (It's all REAL).
Me, I'm in the Casual variety, but I do have a few bits and pieces.
Similar threads
- Locked
