This Is Not Your Father's Star Trek?

[Carpe Occasio]

"The 'This is not your father's Star Trek' line of the ad campaign, while accurate in its description of the movie itself for better or for worse, was not only puerile but unnecessarily insulting to the previous Star Trek incarnations and the audience base. One doesn't have to alienate the fans in order to broaden the appeal (even if most will take the abuse and still see the new movie anyway). The Batman and James Bond franchises were successfully rebooted without openly attacking what came before (and Batman had more to apologize for after Batman Forever and Batman and Robin)."

"Overshadowed by the flame-out of the later movies (Nemesis) and television series (Enterprise), the popularity of Star Trek has been underrated, and the franchise certainly has a better batting average than J.J. Abrams, the director of the new movie who was given the keys after his first picture Mission: Impossible III disappointed and after his television series were either heavily-marketed non-starters in the ratings (Alias) or saw their audiences dwindle (Lost)."

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2585&p=.htm

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That is so funny! One wounded trekkie, isn't he?

You'd think that at least professionals would get the title of the second Star Trek movie right - it's Khan, not Kahn.

 

[Jeri]

Well, I've always hesitated to use that slogan, since I would be the father's generation; and in my case, it's damned sure my Star Trek. But if it gets teenagers into the theater, I am good with it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, I got a chuckle out of the "not your father's" thing because in the words of Darth Vader "I am your father."

 

[Carpe Occasio]

That is so funny! One wounded trekkie, isn't he?

You'd think that at least professionals would get the title of the second Star Trek movie right - it's Khan, not Kahn.

Even professionals make spelling mistakes some times.

 

[jamestyler]

That slogan was just what was needed.

To most people the perception of Star Trek fans put people off watching the movies and shows, the idea of saying this film was different, new and more exciting than anything that came before it probably one of the many things that made people want to see it.

The funny thing being that quite a few of the fans that hate the idea of the slogan (the anti-everything types) often don't realise that they're the ones who make us look like complete losers.

Edit: I should point out the grand irony that my father felt like this was more 'his' Trek than anything that came after (and he's a fan of the lot - even Enterprise)

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

"The 'This is not your father's Star Trek' line of the ad campaign, while accurate in its description of the movie itself for better or for worse, was not only puerile but unnecessarily insulting to the previous Star Trek incarnations and the audience base.

I am truly sorry they've hurt your feelings.

Come on, seriously, if you think that's insulting, then I guess everything's insulting to you?

That tagline catches the nail on the head: it's not your father's Star Trek. Because your father is now at least 4 decades older then when TOS came out, and this movie is not targeted at a 50+ audience.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I am truly sorry they've hurt your feelings.

Come on, seriously, if you think that's insulting, then I guess everything's insulting to you?

That tagline catches the nail on the head: it's not your father's Star Trek. Because your father is now at least 4 decades older then when TOS came out, and this movie is not targeted at a 50+ audience.

If you're referring to me, they haven't hurt my feelings, I haven't even seen the film yet. I just posted the quote to spark discussion.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

You'd think that at least professionals would get the title of the second Star Trek movie right - it's Khan, not Kahn.

Seriously. What a n00b

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

If you're referring to me, they haven't hurt my feelings, I haven't even seen the film yet. I just posted the quote to spark discussion.

If you haven't seen the movie, how can you have an informed opinion on it?

EDIT: Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't saw the quotes, I thought it was your opinion in the opening post. My bad.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

If you're referring to me, they haven't hurt my feelings, I haven't even seen the film yet. I just posted the quote to spark discussion.

If you haven't seen the movie, how can you have an informed opinion on it?

I don't and I didn't claim I did. I posted a quote from an article on a website. I wanted to spark discussion. I never claimed the quote was my perspective. That's why it's in quotation marks because it's someone else's viewpoint.

EDIT - I see you noticed the quotes. It's all good.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That is so funny! One wounded trekkie, isn't he?

You'd think that at least professionals would get the title of the second Star Trek movie right - it's Khan, not Kahn.

Even professionals make spelling mistakes some times.

Part of being a professional is not making the dumb and obvious ones too often.

The annoying thing about that particular one is that making it suggests an ignorance of the significance of the name and of the historical/ethnic origins of both the names "Khan" and "Kahn." It's not just a typo.

 

[Greg Cox]

Actually, I thought that slogan was brilliant. I've written lots of advertising copy myself and sometimes you need to throw subtlety to the wind and be as direct as possible. The blunt, brute force technique.

The fundamental challenge facing this movie, marketing-wise, was to convince people that this was not "Star Trek, Part Eleven." That it was new and exciting and not the same old thing. That slogan got that message across better in no uncertain terms. It did the job.

Don't take it personally. It was an advertising slogan, that's all.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's a piece about Tarantino's upcoming "Inglourious Basterds" in today's NYT, and it opens with Tarantino saying “THIS ain’t your daddy’s World War II movie.”

He's not riffing on the Trek campaign. "This is not your father's..." is a popular meme.

 

[Shatmandu]

The phrase "not your father's _____" has been used many times in advertisements to denote a new beginning for a product.

Anyone taking offense should have an old Batman TV villan-henchman style t-shirt made with "DOUCHEBAG" stenciled on the front.

Joe, labeler

 

[Carpe Occasio]

That is so funny! One wounded trekkie, isn't he?

You'd think that at least professionals would get the title of the second Star Trek movie right - it's Khan, not Kahn.

Even professionals make spelling mistakes some times.

Part of being a professional is not making the dumb and obvious ones too often.

The annoying thing about that particular one is that making it suggests an ignorance of the significance of the name and of the historical/ethnic origins of both the names "Khan" and "Kahn." It's not just a typo.

I was thinking maybe he meant to write Khan but because of a brain fart (we all have them, some smellier than others) he transposed the letters. Who knows, maybe he was thinking of the other spelling because of another assignment and typed it wrong in the Star Trek article.

I know I've typed things wrong when I've responded to other posts, even though I actually knew how to spell the word. I've also seen some focus on my spelling mistakes instead of the point I was trying to make. Some things should just be overlooked as a mistake, part of being human.

 

[Thrawn]

The phrase "not your father's _____" has been used many times in advertisements to denote a new beginning for a product.

Anyone taking offense should have an old Batman TV villan-henchman style t-shirt made with "DOUCHEBAG" stenciled on the front.

Joe, labeler

Not "douchebag", "dickhead". Keep up!

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.c...rd-nimoy-take-on-trekkies-who-hate-new-movie/

 

[CaptainD00m]

I think this movie is an abomination to TOS. this movie was relased to make star trek look cool and hip, but it defies the whole basis of Roddenberry's quest: humanity can and will be better in the future...in essence...HOPE.

Abrams has made star trek just another action packed intersteller thrill ride, while ignoring the basis of Roddenberry's reason behind star trek. Destroying Vulcan was seriously uncalled for. Kirk whos a cadet 3 years in is given command of the Enterprise- the most advanced starship in the fleet...beating out senior officers and seasoned captains? Not to mention being LAUNCHED OUT outta the enterprise after an altercation? What happened to "take him to the brig?"

 

[Broccoli]

While I don't mind the slogan (which was, interestingly, used for Enterprise as well), I have noticed the media pretty much slapping down everything that isn't TOS when talking about this movie.

 

[Jolantru]

That slogan was just what was needed.

To most people the perception of Star Trek fans put people off watching the movies and shows, the idea of saying this film was different, new and more exciting than anything that came before it probably one of the many things that made people want to see it.

The funny thing being that quite a few of the fans that hate the idea of the slogan (the anti-everything types) often don't realise that they're the ones who make us look like complete losers.

Edit: I should point out the grand irony that my father felt like this was more 'his' Trek than anything that came after (and he's a fan of the lot - even Enterprise)

I agree, and it's evident from the Box office draw that it worked. Even adjusted for Inflation the biggest Star Trek movie until now was First Contact, which would be about 50 million in 2009 dollars, on opening weekend.

Also I don't think it's irony your dad felt that way. This by far is the most "Trek" of any of the post original cast shows.