World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[Grant]

'Star Trek has been ruined because of product placement !!!!'

Man, the rolly eyes icon was invented for such inane sentiments



They used an obvious Samsonite suitcase in TOS season 1s This Side of Paradise and an obvious AT & T telphone in Assignment: Earth--those sell-outs!

It is way cool IMO to assume that some products and companies might survive into future centuries, survive wars, natural disasters and economic upheavals. Like on Enterprise when they showed the crew still enjoying 20th century cinema.

What product placement?

http://www.ncc1701shipyard.com/crewproducts.jpg

"Damn-it Spock, I prefer Pepsi!!"

 

[ancient]

Re: Vulcan:

So, they aren't going the reset route on that after all. Thank goodness.

Re: No product placement:

I guess having Picard labels on wine bottles would be out of place too? Even if there is some sort of no-money society in Trek - which has never been explained that well anyway - that doesn't mean people will stop labelling the stuff they make.

 

[EJA]

Another thing that worries me, if the new movie is a success, will IDW and Pocket abandon writing stories set in the original Trek universe and concentrate on producing tales set in the new one, so it becomes THE Star Trek?

 

[locborg]

How big is that basement?

perhaps it can be subdivided.

So every company & trademark that exist and have existed for centuries in the case of some European ones have no place in any future trek universe?


Mid-blowingly narrow and totally non-sensical criticism of this movie. 99.9% of folks don't care or notice about product placement and i doubt it would be done in a in your face way anyhow.
Pretty sad.

so desperately grasping at reasons to dislike something.

well for me its important because i always believed that star trek also tried to transport a certain political message...
and what exactly does "in your face mean"`? I dont think that Kirk will agressivly promote his bmw bike but even a short shot of the logo would be a punch in the face for all fans...

i just dont want product placement in a 23rd century star trek movie. it contradicts every message this show tried to transport.

 

[Jefferies]

Another thing that worries me, if the new movie is a success, will IDW and Pocket abandon writing stories set in the original Trek universe and concentrate on producing tales set in the new one, so it becomes THE Star Trek?

I doubt it, there will always be a market that can support these types of publications. At least I would reckon so for the forseable furture.

 

[M'Sharak]

Product placement in TWoK:

http://starringthecomputer.com/feature.php?f=29

Shatner was then and had been for several years a spokesman in TV commercials for Commodore.

Not seeing it as a big deal, so long as it isn't blatant (which is the same thing meant by the phrase "in your face".)

 

[Devon]

As I said in earlier posts, I'm not opposed to some minor things being altered in the Star Trek universe, as long as it doesn't cause too much upheaval with what is firmly established. But I just think that blowing up Vulcan is going too far. It might not be so bad if it was just bashed up a bit, but destroying it outright? No. I'm sorry, I simply cannot abide that. I dread to think what might happen in any possible sequels to this mess.

This is why Trekkie stereotypes are born. People have emotional attachments to planets that don't exist and barely played any role in Star Trek.

Gee, I hope they don't go as far as destroying our beloeve Enterprise or perhaps destroy another planet of long time foes of the Trek universe in the movies. That would just be horrib.....

Oh wait!

 

[EJA]

IMO, as far as publishing stories set in the Abramsverse goes, I reckon it should be like Marvel's Ultimate line, with stories set in the original universe continuing alongside it.

 

[Grant]

Blah, blah, blah as someone once wrote.
We don't need lectures on trek's messages or ethics.

Showing a 'real' product in trek is way down the list of ways trek has evolved over 40+ years.

It won't come across as 'in your face placement' (sorry if you don't know what that means) and showing a brand that actually exists without the character mentioning it or a long lingering camera shot of it harms nothing and no-one let alone Trek's values.

 

[Captain59]

I don't like the idea of Vulcan getting destroyed at all. Yes, I can easily push it aside and say that is in "that" universe, and in "my" universe Vulcan is a thriving planet. Just the thought I have to watch Vulcan get destroyed is unnerving...just like it was seeing Earth get destroyed in ENT. I don't know...I just don't like it. It doesn't mean I won't see the movie, though.

Multiple canons in Star Trek...as if one wasn't confusing enough.

 

[EJA]

As I said in earlier posts, I'm not opposed to some minor things being altered in the Star Trek universe, as long as it doesn't cause too much upheaval with what is firmly established. But I just think that blowing up Vulcan is going too far. It might not be so bad if it was just bashed up a bit, but destroying it outright? No. I'm sorry, I simply cannot abide that. I dread to think what might happen in any possible sequels to this mess.

This is why Trekkie stereotypes are born. People have emotional attachments to planets that don't exist and barely played any role in Star Trek.

Gee, I hope they don't go as far as destroying our beloeve Enterprise or perhaps destroy another planet of long time foes of the Trek universe in the movies. That would just be horrib.....

Oh wait!

Destroying the original Enterprise in The Search for Spock was fine because it didn't disrupt any known future events because, well, they hadn't happened yet. Same goes for blowing up Romulus in 2386 as per Countdown, as that era's largely uncharted. But because Vulcan dies at this specific point in time, a lot is disrupted, not neccessarily in a good way.

 

[EJA]

Multiple canons in Star Trek...as if one wasn't confusing enough.

Another reason I'm not sure all these alterations are such a good idea, it could just confuse the hell out of a lot of people who get interested in the old Trek through having seen Abrams' new version. But then, if Marvel can tell stories set in multiple realities, maybe Trek can pull it off as well....

 

[urbandk]

I'm sorry If I caused you offense. I have already toned down on the ranting, if you read any of my further posts you can see for yourself. This Vulcan thing just made me really angry. Of all the stories they could have told they go for this. Okay, its only a movie and I shouldn't get upset about it, but I did.

Much obliged, Jeffries. I think you certainly make some good observations.

 

[perigee]

Multiple canons in Star Trek...as if one wasn't confusing enough.

I know!! Like, they didn't even Mention Doctor Zee in the New Galactica - and Starbuck was a chick!! And they had something like four earths at the end.

Maybe five, if you include the one with Doctor Zee and the space scouts on it.

I almost pulled my hair out in frustration. Some Mexican Almost guy was playing Lorne Greene, and they replaced Lew Ayers with some lady with cancer, and then there were like a kabillion Colonel Tys all through history... and they were all white except one!

And no Daggit monkeys either.

Am I doing this argument right?

 

[Nowhere Man]

Why is everyone so gang ho on watching an alternate universe anyway? If you hate Star Trek that much go and watch another show! For Christ's sake.

Nah, we get to watch this - and this is Star Trek.

"Alternate universe" my butt - it's a reboot with a little sleight-of-hand, and it's overdue.

And that's what bothers me. Regardless of what the producers say, this film's purpose is to entirely replace the original version of Star Trek, not to honour it. And before anyone starts on about how all these alterations mean new future storylines, let me point you in the direction of IDW Comics and Pocket Books, who produce cool, interesting stories and still remain entirely faithful to what has gone before. In doing away with Vulcan in this fashion, the new film simply cannot be called Star Trek. If Abrams & co. want to do this, they should remove the words Star Trek from the title, change the names of the characters, change the name of the ship, and change the names of the planets. What they are doing to the franchise isn't creative, it's LAZY.

very lazy and a coput, why not just simply do an origin story that fits the original timeline or just simply do a scifi movie of another name?

 

[chardman]

The destruction of one of the founding worlds that made that utopia happen somehow doesn't make sense. They could have blown up Earth in stead, as far as the Federation is concerned the difference would have been negligible. This is not utopian and if it were realistic in any fashion it would cast a very dark cloud of doom over the Federation for a long, long time. Just imagine if the state of New York were entirely wiped out by terrorists. I doubt America would recover from that any time soon, and nor would the world as there would be hell to pay I'm sure.

Or you could have it all backward. Maybe the Federation's response to Vulcan's destruction is to cling even tighter to their pre-Utopian goals, resulting in a future that's just as Utopian as the original timeline, if not moreso. (Sort of a variant of the post-9/11 creedo "If we stop pursuing our way of life because of what they did to us, then the terrorists really will have won".)

 

[Hartzilla2007]

watch the movie for yourself.

I am sorry to say this, but if this is the type of thing this movie is about then I do not see myself watching it. This is meant to be a utopian future, not some type of armageddon endtime story.

No it is not 'meant to be a utopian future'- Star Trek has never been that. Sure, it portrays a humanity which is unified, striving to better itself and find a place in the galaxy but it's not some hippy la la land where nothing bad ever happens. The truth is, bad things do happen. Things beyond our control do happen. Part of our humanity is how we deal with them, how it shapes our lives, how we treat those affected. You sound like you want some perfect world where nothing bad ever happens, might as well have everyone doped up on drugs in holodecks.

Hey do you mind if I repost this in the Trek Lit forum because its relevent to the discussion there.

Again, LOOK AT IDW COMICS AND POCKET BOOKS. They are good indications that we don't have to mutilate the Star Trek universe in order to tell exciting new stories! Working new stories into the existing canon is part of the fun!!!

Do you know what it costs to publish a comic book, and how many people have to purchase it in order for it to be profitable?

Do you know how that compares to the economics and expectations of the commercial movie industry?

Bottom line is that the remaining hard-core trek fandom can support IDW and Pocket Books. Our support cannot even begin to justify what the studio must spend to produce a movie that can compete commercially in today's entertainment industry.

Apples and oranges, dude. Apples and oranges.

The destruction of one of the founding worlds that made that utopia happen somehow doesn't make sense. They could have blown up Earth in stead, as far as the Federation is concerned the difference would have been negligible. This is not utopian and if it were realistic in any fashion it would cast a very dark cloud of doom over the Federation for a long, long time. Just imagine if the state of New York were entirely wiped out by terrorists. I doubt America would recover from that any time soon, and nor would the world as there would be hell to pay I'm sure.

Do you forget the DS9 story line in the Dominion Wars things got really ugly, it was not Utopian by any means. The loss of life was staggering.

In ANH when Alderaan got blown away by the death star we didn't know what an important planet it was until years later.

The end of Vulcan is the equivalent of the end Alderaan, I don't like it either, but it ratchets up the emotional impact of the entire movie.

In sci-fi planets get slagged, Cardassa was left a smolding cinder at the end of DS9. It is what it is.

You are raising a good point and I always wondered how agreeable Rodenberry would have found DS9 in its later seasons. Personnally, I love that show. However, even though the Dominion War was gruesom and had a large impact on the Alpha Quadrant, they never stooped so low as to just take a major home world off the map. You could always see the affected cultures bouncing back eventually, even the Cardis given time. The destruction of Vulcan on the other hand feels a lot more crass and fatalistic. It also feels rather gimmicky to be honest.

I don't like the idea of Vulcan getting destroyed at all. Yes, I can easily push it aside and say that is in "that" universe, and in "my" universe Vulcan is a thriving planet. Just the thought I have to watch Vulcan get destroyed is unnerving...just like it was seeing Earth get destroyed in ENT. I don't know...I just don't like it. It doesn't mean I won't see the movie, though.

Multiple canons in Star Trek...as if one wasn't confusing enough.

Has anyone here actually read the Destiny Trilogy by David Mack which is set in the Prime Trek universe becuase it kind craps on your arugments.

 

[Supervisor 194]

Vulcan getting destroyed is not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. Let's say the surviving Vulcanians relocate to a new planet, and for the sake of argument, call it 'Vulcan'. Would that really make that much of an impact on Star Trek as a whole? Sure, it dents the continuity of a few stories but does it really change things?

 

[Jefferies]

Ha s anyone here actually read the Destiny Trilogy by David Mack which is set in the Prime Trek universe becuase it kind craps on your arugments.

Maybe you would like to elaborate further?

 

[Jefferies]

Vulcan getting destroyed is not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. Let's say the surviving Vulcanians relocate to a new planet, and for the sake of argument, call it 'Vulcan'. Would that really make that much of an impact on Star Trek as a whole? Sure, it dents the continuity of a few stories but does it really change things?

Well I suppose its more on a meta level, if you consider Star Trek not just as a bunch of stories but as an intervowen universe. Then, if you think of the Federation as an istitution you cannot help but wonder what will happen to it if one of the fundemental pillars it stands on is taken away. I doubt a small colony of New Vulcan could remedy that.

I believe that this distinction of viewing Star Trek just as a collection of stories or as a complex universe that follows from these stories is something that devides Star Trek fans rather strongly and seems quite evident in this thread. Therefore some people only care about if a story is entertaining by itsself and what impact it has on the larger background aspects are of little interest. Others, like myself, find these aspects rather interesting however and thus we have this controversy, if that makes sense.