• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why it is important some people are unhappy

Many believe that a big reason McCain lost the presidential election is that the Democrat base was supermotivated, and the Republican base was undermotivated. Grabbing new voters or bringing people over from the other side is important, but it isn't how you win. (I DO NOT want this thread to degenerate into a political discussion, I'm simply using politics as an analogy).

just a quick grammar correction for something that fails to cease to bug me... the use of the word "Democrat" as a substitute adjective for "Democratic"... I think it's something that Rush Limbaugh introduced that has now taken on a life of its own, much to the chagrin of proper diction and the English language.
 
Originally posted by AudioBridge
There seems to be two camps on this board now - those that are unhappy about how the new film will screw with established Star Trek, and those that tell those people to get over it.
You have a faulty premise: us vs. them
There are a few camps on this board.
- Those who hate the new movie
- Those who like the new movie
- Those who hate those who like the new movie

Anyone who is seen to be positive and hopeful that the new movie will do well, is constantly criticized by those who hate anyone who likes the new movie.
The Haters Club says they want Star Trek to be true to its original premise. The original premise, however, is one of positive change for a better future. I see nothing positive in all the negative name calling.

I submit that the Haters Club has forsaken the original goal of Star Trek. They have become overprotective and bitter which is in opposition to the dream of Star Trek.

Unfortunately, I don't see a solution, as the whole thing breeds more name calling and fruitless debate.

There is a new movie: Star Trek. It is what it is. Either get behind it or not. The studio does not care what you think. They care if people buy movie tickets. So "put your money where your mouth is" and quit your bitching.

Debate the finer points of what you have seen so far, but leave the anger at the door.
 
just a quick grammar correction for something that fails to cease to bug me... the use of the word "Democrat" as a substitute adjective for "Democratic"... I think it's something that Rush Limbaugh introduced that has now taken on a life of its own, much to the chagrin of proper diction and the English language.

It's actually a much older insult, though Limbaugh may have repopularized it. Dole used it routinely when he was the GOP Veep candidate in 1976, and it wasn't new then.
 
that's the last thing Abrams needs. He needs an energized fanbase that will support this thing so that it can succeed. You build upon your base, not in spite of it.

Remember Aesop's "The Man, the Boy and the Donkey"? The moral was "Please all, and you'll please none."

I would guess JJ would want to make a film that polarises the audience, rather than make a film that is just a bit blah and safe and offends no one.

Wasn't Rick Berman criticised for playing "Voyager" and "Enterprise" too safe?

I know Pocket Books' Marco Palmieri has said he'd much prefer that the licensed tie-in fiction he edits gain both high praise and anger from readers rather than a piece of text that is not discussed at all.

Controversy gains attention, and attention sells tickets. JJ knew going in that, no matter what he did, he was going to annoy someone: either the tiny percentage of the total potential cinema-going public who are already ST fans, or the large percentage of the potential audience who seemingly believe that 60s TOS is old hat and has antiquated SPFX and sets.
Some of what you say here reminds me of an old theater adage. Paraphrasing somewhat, because I don't remember it exactly:
"Give them [the audience] something they'll love or give them
something they'll hate, but never bore them, for that is fatal."​
just a quick grammar correction for something that fails to cease to bug me... the use of the word "Democrat" as a substitute adjective for "Democratic"... I think it's something that Rush Limbaugh introduced that has now taken on a life of its own, much to the chagrin of proper diction and the English language.

It's actually a much older insult, though Limbaugh may have repopularized it. Dole used it routinely when he was the GOP Veep candidate in 1976, and it wasn't new then.
Quite so, but again, let's keep US party politics in the forums more appropriate to that subject, please. We've got important stuff to argue here. :)
 
they're only going to need the Trekkie fanbase if they can't attract anyone else...

Simply put, there aren't enough of us Trekkies to actually make a difference in Star Trek XI's popularity under anything other than a low-turnout scenario for this film...
Following your logic, it hardly made sense for Paramount to make a Star Trek film at all.

(And when all is said and done, maybe they didn't.)

That's absurd. Star Trek must make extremist fans happy or else it shouldn't be produced? Wow. Way to elevate us to the center of the Earth.

Transformers wasn't made to make the hard-core TF fans happy, and IT did pretty well...
 
Originally posted by AudioBridge
There seems to be two camps on this board now - those that are unhappy about how the new film will screw with established Star Trek, and those that tell those people to get over it.
You have a faulty premise: us vs. them
There are a few camps on this board.
- Those who hate the new movie
- Those who like the new movie
- Those who hate those who like the new movie

You have a faulty premise: us vs. them vs. us.

There are actually a group of individuals on this board. Some like the trailer wholeheartedly. Some are very excited about new Star Trek - and some of these love the trailer and others have misgivings about it. Some are excited about new Star Trek but are confused by or strongly dislike the new design elements. Some love the new designs but don't like one or more of the actors. Some just think it's cool that they get to see Uhura's bra. Some hate the idea of canon being overwritten. Some don't care about canon but find the trailer unsatisfying, and these generally express a variety of opinions as to why.

Trying to simplify this group of people into "camps", especially coupled with a "they're hating on us" complaint sounds remarkably self-indulgent - and I would say the same to those who are dissatisfied by what's coming out and have complained that their opinions are not "respected". While there a few naysayers who have claimed people who like the trailer or are excited by the prospect of the movie aren't "real fans" (and seriously, this is not much of an insult), there are an equal number of cheerleaders who seem determined to jump on a negative opinion and deningrate those who hold them. No one is an oppressed minority around here. We're all just a bunch of geeks spouting our opinions because it is fun to do so. Why people want to cast that as some sort of meaningful conflict is completely confusing to me.

I don't know whose sig it is, but someone around here has a wonderfully wise (and completely un-PC) reminder:

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics - even if you win you're still retarded.

So, have a laugh at yourself and everyone else here, 'cause in the end every single one of these discussions could not be more inconsequential. They are simply a pastime.

Shaw said:
You know, it is funny... there are some people who will watch Trek no matter if it is compelling or not. And because those people are the most notable subgroup of Star Trek fans, most people assume that we all must fall into this subgroup.

Frankly, I don't think I fall into that subgroup of fans at all. When I look back on my Star Trek viewing history, I can see very specific ranges of Trek I liked and Trek I could do without (or even actively disliked). I generally liked the first two seasons of TOS (and actively watch those episodes today), but tend not to watch most of the third season episodes. I actively watched TAS when it aired, but have only really enjoyed a couple of those episodes enough to actively seek them out to watch since. ST:TMP was an okay movie, but at the time we were starved for anything Trek related, and ST:TWK was a more enjoyable film that I still watch regularly even today. Though I didn't dislike ST:TSFS, I haven't felt to good reason to watch it in the last 20 years, and while I liked ST:TVH more, I haven't seen it in more than 20 years too. I actively watched all of the episodes of ST:TNG when they originally aired, but today won't take the time to watch any of the first two seasons. ST:TFF was insulting and I hated it when I saw it in theaters and saw it once again a year ago to make sure that it was as repulsive as I had recalled). ST:TUC was a pleasant surprise and I have watched it quite a few times. ST:DS9 started out slow, but like ST:TNG I enjoy watching most of the later seasons over and over again. Most of the TNG based films (other than First Contact) seemed to be flash over substance, so I rarely saw them more than once in the theaters and put them into the same category as the first two seasons of the TNG series. ST:Voy was okay... but to date I haven't seen all the episodes as it wasn't especially compelling in some of it's earlier seasons. Same with ST:Ent, I haven't seen all the episodes and didn't find it compelling.

Wow, you're like my long-lost twin!

Not really, as I think there's a large contingent of folks who essentially value as "better Trek" the list you've put together here. (Except TUC - the high opinion of that which many people hold just baffles me, personally.)


My feeling on this upcoming film... TOS didn't need a reboot, it was stale modern Trek that needed to go. Fan films have shown that the original look and feel of the series was pretty much fine.

So what am I worried about... that this film is going to be more of the same but using the original characters instead. If we get flashy battle, flashy battle, flashy battle linked together by pointless and uninspired plot devices, then the film will fail. The redesign was a pointless waste of effort that I'm afraid wasn't put into a compelling story.

For me, most of the best Trek ever had the least amount of special effects. If the story wouldn't stand on it's own as a non-Trek and non-SciFi story, it has no business being the foundation of either a Trek episode or Trek film.

*applause*

Redesign, fictional history, actors - they are all window dressing. The only thing that matters is a compellng story about the human condition. And so far we know nothing about whether or not that will be included in this film, and the trailer seems specifically engineered to communicate the opposite message - cool, hot, 'splosions, sex - all fine, but all superfluous in the end. What makes me dubious about the project is that every interview and whatnot I've heard around - no one seems to ever mention anything about a compelling story about the human condition. I've heard optimism, I've heard emotional lives of the characters - but truth be told, as much as I love the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, if I'm looking for something that is only "emotional lives of the characters", I'll read some Annie Proulx short stories, or rewatch The Station Agent, because there are other genres that do "emotional lives of the characters" much better than SF does. There's something else that makes Star Trek, Star Trek, and I've heard not a whisper of it being included in this movie.
 
My feeling on this upcoming film... TOS didn't need a reboot, it was stale modern Trek that needed to go. Fan films have shown that the original look and feel of the series was pretty much fine.

I agree with this sentiment 100 percent. I stated something similar in another thread.

I still don't understand how Paramount's refusal to remove someone that was creatively exhausted (Rick Berman) somehow led them to the conclusion that Star Trek: The Original Series was the piece broken and in need of the overhaul we're seeing here.

Why do you assume that because they're doing something new with it that they think that the original version was a "broken piece?" No one accuses Baz Luherman of thinking that Romeo and Juliet was broken just because he decided to set his version of it in 1990s Miami Beach; why assume that just because JJ Abrams has a new aesthetic that this means he thinks TOS is broken?
 
Transformers wasn't made to make the hard-core TF fans happy, and IT did pretty well...

There's a few differences, though, that are worth noting.

1) Transformers reinvented itself as early as 1984, with the official comics and cartoon being completely different stories. By the time the 2007 movie had come along, the brand had already had undergone very radical 're-invisions' multiple times.

2) Transformers was a strong brand coming off a fairly strong period. Even without the movie, sales of the toyline had done extremely well in the previous few years. As bad as the cartoons had been for the 'Unicron Trilogy', kids were buying Transformers toys.

3) Expectations. The movie had to deliver transforming robots that were fighting, and some good fun along side it. No one expected depth. While I actually expected the movie to fail (based on the script, which WAS terrible), I easily concede that the movie did extremely well since it was, really, the only major release that year to deliver on its promises.

Star Trek, for its part, is coming off the worst period it's ever had in the franchise history. It is a marketplace failure, and a public joke. It's never really undergone a major 'reinvision', though previous attempts to 'reboot' its look and feel have failed spectacularly in the past ten years. Hell, even most FANS were saying 'time to give Trek a long rest'. Even going from that, the movie's also expected to single-handedly save a 40 year old franchise from complete and utter extinction... which is why it's GETTING its rediculous budget.

This isn't a prediction on the upcoming movie's success.. just an explanation of why such a thing could work for Transformers, but not Star Trek.
 
- Those who hate those who like the new movie

You forget the most vocal and ardent 'camp', if you're going to go there:
"Those who hate anyone who so much as raises a concern about the new movie"... of which, I submit, that you and several others are ardent members who cannot wait to bait and flame at a moment's notice.

The very fact that you then go on about "The Hater's Club" for several paragraphs kinda proves my point, doesn't it?
 
Transformers wasn't made to make the hard-core TF fans happy, and IT did pretty well...
I wasn't a transformers fan, and I didn't even watch the movie.

So who was it supposed to appeal to?

Who is this new 'Star Trek' movie supposed to appeal to?

---------------
 
That is NOT what he said.

Except that.. yes.. it was exactly what he said, along with a barely veiled comment about how Star Trek was for his nerd friends and he prefered a more 'viscreal' experience. He's a well-documented 'Warsie', and has long looked down on Trek as something for nerds. This is well known, and shouldn't surprise a single person.

Funny how that whenever that direct quote is shown, with all that comes along with it, the 'movie supporters' will resort to insanely implausible denials to say that somehow what he expressly said actually means something entirely different.
 
- Those who hate those who like the new movie

You forget the most vocal and ardent 'camp', if you're going to go there:
"Those who hate anyone who so much as raises a concern about the new movie"... of which, I submit, that you and several others are ardent members who cannot wait to bait and flame at a moment's notice.

The very fact that you then go on about "The Hater's Club" for several paragraphs kinda proves my point, doesn't it?
No, it does not. The Haters Club, as I coined the term, applies to those who love to viciously attack anyone who likes the new movie or hopes for it to succeed. Those who are positive toward the movie are not the ones making it personal. Any time the positive people attempt to have intelligent discussion they are attacked as "not worthy of Trek fandom" or "unwashed masses" or "drooling masses" or any number of other insults.

I have also read comments against the movie which were not personal attacks. If you actually followed my posts, you will note that I make an attempt to praise them for not making it insulting or personal, as I appreciate hearing from them.
why assume that just because JJ Abrams has a new aesthetic that this means he thinks TOS is broken?

"Star Trek is stupid and silly" - JJ Abrams.

That is NOT what he said.
Shhh... they don't want mere facts to get in the way of their rants... Shhh.
 
This is what he actually said:

"For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project," said Abrams, "which was how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary color costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut? It's ridiculous and as potentially clichéd as it gets. How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?"
 
That is NOT what he said.

Except that.. yes.. it was exactly what he said, along with a barely veiled comment about how Star Trek was for his nerd friends and he prefered a more 'viscreal' experience. He's a well-documented 'Warsie', and has long looked down on Trek as something for nerds. This is well known, and shouldn't surprise a single person.

Funny how that whenever that direct quote is shown, with all that comes along with it, the 'movie supporters' will resort to insanely implausible denials to say that somehow what he expressly said actually means something entirely different.
He said it was his smarter friends that liked Star Trek, not nerd friends. Based on that, and his comment that he wanted to make it more visceral, like Star Wars, dovetails nicely with some of his earliest comments in 2006 about Trek being logic versus emotion. What he wants to do is marry the intellectualism of Trek with the viscera of Wars, to translate the big heady concepts for the folks in the audience who like seeing things blow up.
 
No, it does not. The Haters Club, as I coined the term, applies to those who love to viciously attack anyone who likes the new movie or hopes for it to succeed.

With due respect, you're absolutely full of crap. The majority of personal and hateful posts that I've seen are levelled by 'fans' who are attacking anyone who doesn't like something, regardless of what it is, about the movie. This includes you.

Shhh... they don't want mere facts to get in the way of their rants... Shhh.

QED
 
why assume that just because JJ Abrams has a new aesthetic that this means he thinks TOS is broken?

"Star Trek is stupid and silly" - JJ Abrams.

He never said that. He said that ELEMENTS of it were silly, not that the work itself was silly. He never said it was stupid.

And I'm sorry, but try watching this and telling me that TOS wasn't a bit silly at times. And doing it with a straight face.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top