Maybe but I remember people saying it would be 10-20 years before there'd be more Trek if Enterprise got cancelled.
Why it is important some people are unhappy
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
Maybe but I remember people saying it would be 10-20 years before there'd be more Trek if Enterprise got cancelled.
Sorry, guy, but I found both Lost and Alias to be extremely b-grade Sci-Fi channel stuff, with an extra dose of pretention thrown in. Just my opinion there, to be sure.. but keep in mind that Lost has about half of its original viewership (to a 15 share, much less than TOS in its original run). Alias, for its part, had an abysmal 5 share.
I know that there are a lot of people in Sci-Fi fandoms that worship the ground the Abrams walks upon, but I honestly don't see where the big 'hit' guarantee is. Indeed there seems to be an absolute refusal to see where his weaknesses are (just like a number of Whedon fans refuse to see HIS weaknesses).
Now I say this knowing full well that Enterprise finally died off with a 2 share, which embarasses PBS's news hour. But I'm not saying that I want the TNG crew back any more than I'm saying I want the 1960s on the big screen.
I am saying, no more, no less, that Abrams never had the intention of honoring TOS as much as he claimed he did, and that he feels justified in doing so due to how badly Trek has performed in the past several years. He's openly admitted this, despite wether or not you accept that.
(I'm reminded at the people who, when hearing that Obama was against gay marriage, were completely shocked that it really meant that Obama was against gay marriage!)
From there, I see a lot of the stereo-type cheap Sci-Fi 'sweeps' moves that the Sci-Fi channel is known for for most of its shows (see what happened to Sliders after a season there) plastered on the trailer, as stated before. All of this is predictable given the above, and very much fits with Abram's MO.
So how, exactly, am I being unfair?
I know that there are a lot of people in Sci-Fi fandoms that worship the ground the Abrams walks upon, but I honestly don't see where the big 'hit' guarantee is. Indeed there seems to be an absolute refusal to see where his weaknesses are (just like a number of Whedon fans refuse to see HIS weaknesses).
Now I say this knowing full well that Enterprise finally died off with a 2 share, which embarasses PBS's news hour. But I'm not saying that I want the TNG crew back any more than I'm saying I want the 1960s on the big screen.
I am saying, no more, no less, that Abrams never had the intention of honoring TOS as much as he claimed he did, and that he feels justified in doing so due to how badly Trek has performed in the past several years. He's openly admitted this, despite wether or not you accept that.
(I'm reminded at the people who, when hearing that Obama was against gay marriage, were completely shocked that it really meant that Obama was against gay marriage!)
From there, I see a lot of the stereo-type cheap Sci-Fi 'sweeps' moves that the Sci-Fi channel is known for for most of its shows (see what happened to Sliders after a season there) plastered on the trailer, as stated before. All of this is predictable given the above, and very much fits with Abram's MO.
So how, exactly, am I being unfair?
There's a slim possibility, I suppose, that Paramount could turn over the Franchise to someone else who'd treat it with less respect but more cost/profit calculation than Abrams.
All these sets, after all, ought to enable someone to make a low-budget exploitation movie really easily. Or hell, they might spend a little money and get Michael Bay to produce the next one.
He's openly admitted that the facets of Trek that he feels are silly or campy or don't work are justified in being removed from his interpretation, in part as a result of how poorly Trek has performed in recent years.
There is no indication whatsoever that he has ever had an agenda to dishonor TOS.
Taking someone's perfectly valid criticisms out of context to make it seem like he actively dislikes something is unfair.
Very big of you.
Since we aren't all allowed to surmise what Abrams is thinking I don't know why it's any less presumptuous to know what Paramount actually thinks of the Franchise.
There's still a question of how. We all want them to milk the franchise more.
Not really. I was kinda hoping for a few more years off, myself. Give everyone a breather, and look at going back once this whole stupid 'redo everything from the 1960s through 1980s' craze died off.
Silly me.
Right, so that's your "how".
In the collective conscious, Trek is a joke. Right now, this movie has to be 'Better than the Bible' in order to turn that around, and I don't think it can do it. I might be wrong, admittedly. Even if it's a hit, it could be one for the wrong reasons, namely the momentary nostalgiac fads, guaranteeing Trek's demise as a viable property.
Trek, in my view, needed to be OUT of the collective conscious, to get the stigma of the last several movies and years out of it. Go back over Hollywood history and see what makes franchise like these WORK for so long. Take some time to regrow the brand, and use that time to see what people (and which people) are going to buy the products.
In other words, do the legwork first.
I have to laugh at this. Have you been to MY Transformers fandom? People who have no idea what's happening there should just keep their mouths shut.
G1 ended. G2 came out. No one said anything cause it was just g1 recycled. Beast wars came out...
TRUKK NOT MUNKEY was all you heard from some fans.
Then Beast machine.
Wow did that get messy
Robots in disguise which was the one series to be closest to g1 in years. Panned for being Silly and campy by the "True fans"
Arm/Eng/Cy (Aka Unicron trilogy) well pokemon referances flew everywhere.
The movie. Shit the haters are still bitching about that one now that we have Revenge of the Fallen coming out. Hell the hardcore haters call it Bayformers not Transformers....
My name is DarkeklawGreywolf and I'm a TF Fan
Actually go look at the posts of Certain Posters and you'll see that they aren't being attack because they don't like the new movie. They are being attacked because they bring the spite themselves. There are extremes in each direction it's never just all of one or all of the other. It's never always or never... Everyone has the propensity to be a Jackass.
Well instead of attacking Abrams why don't you tell us your point of view.
OBJECTIVELY. Which means with no bias towards the man directing the movie.
Looks exactly like a trek movie to me. Especially one where you'd have a young Kirk in it.
I cant understand some people, at this time Star Trek is as dead as a Dodo, and all aspects of Star Trek from New Tv shows, merchandise and the once fantastic Trek gaming franchise are all dead, so i am at a loss as to understand why some feel that this new movie is some how a bad thing to the extent of proclaiming JJ Abrams and the new movie a affront against everything Trek simply because they don't have wine gum buttons on the consoles and a exact replica of the TV enterprise right down to the poor late 1960 Tv resolutions.
Every Trek fan should be booking their cinema seats now, and supporting from what i can see as a actual genuine attempt to not only reenergize this wonderful franchise but to actually put some time and effort into it, considering the lackluster crap that was churned out in the form of Nemesis and Enterprise by the last holders of the keys.
Every Trek fan should be booking their cinema seats now, and supporting from what i can see as a actual genuine attempt to not only reenergize this wonderful franchise but to actually put some time and effort into it, considering the lackluster crap that was churned out in the form of Nemesis and Enterprise by the last holders of the keys.
You really don't know who I am?
I was so involved with the 'ardent Transformers fandom' that I knew that nearly all of them were talking out of orafices unsuitable for discussion. They pretty much still are, really.But, here's the difference, the bulk of the Transformers active fan base, the REAL one, were kids buying the toys, not the idiots and talking heads that go to www.allspark.com and form their cliques, or the guys on the www.shortpacked.com blog to worship Walky, or the guys on www.tfwiki.net who complain about the proper spelling of Deathsaurus. That fan base neither is or ever was more than a tiny little piss-ant drop in the bucket. They'll never believe it, though. Not ever. The moment they realize it, you'll see about 2000 internet morons commit suicide by choking themselves on vintage toys that don't pass safety regulations.
So, when the movie comes, sure there was bitching, but they weren't the audience. The audience were the millions of people who remembered it from their childhood in their eighties and thought it went away when the cartoon did, as well as their children who were picking up the new toys from RID and Armada. These guys were legion, and far, far from attached to the specifics of the franchise.
Star Trek is in a much different boat, largely because it's complete, total, abject humilating failure in the market is fresh in everyone's minds. There's no real abscene, and no real nostalgia going on. That's what I mean, it's a different situation for the two franchises.
As for my opinion on what I've seen of the movie thus far, I've stated it. The trailer looks like grade-B Sci-Fi channel crap with a top notch CGI company working on last year's rendering and texturing fads. :S
Because eating feces is not preferable to skipping lunch.
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
Now now...what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of our business.
Because it shatters the illusion of influence, even authority, on the part of vocal fandom.
Galaxy Quest was far superior to almost all Trek since the day GQ released.
I sure as hell hope he's looking at it for some sort of inspiration because it
was more Star Trek of old than any recent incarnation of Trek was.
I sure as hell hope he's looking at it for some sort of inspiration because it
was more Star Trek of old than any recent incarnation of Trek was.
One can make that argument, at least as far as the movies are concerned.
Actually, GQ was, overall, such a loving parody of Trek's fandom... but I honestly sometimes wonder what the fictional show involved would have been like. A weird mix of Trek, Buck Rodgers, and some of the IDC Kid's shows from the 1970s.
If I've yet to examine a pile of brown stuff that looks gooey, I'm not going to call it feces.
It could be fudge, it could be beef in a sauce.
I don't know it's feces until I examine it further.
It may not be what I'd been hoping to have, and I may be ticked that it's being offered in place of what I'd been hoping for, but it still may taste good.
You don't have to swallow something or even put it into your mouth to closely examine it, but don't stand 20 feet away and claim you've seen enough. You don't even know what it smells like yet. You're not close enough.
I want more of original Trek.
Paramount has, apparently, decided they'll never give us that.
All we can do is give a test drive to the "nu" Kirk-era stuff, and hope its history unfolds closely enough where by the time of TNG, this alternate universe will be back on track enough so their 24th century is virtually identical to the one we knew, and any Trek that takes place beyond that point will be the same in either universe, and thus acceptable as part of both.
