Is the great rift repairable?

[bismarck_1892]

Hmmm, even reading between the lines I don't see where I said it was going to look dated. TOS looks dated. TNG looks dated. Everything looks dated since it's a product of it's time.

I wasn't refering specifically to anything you said in particular. However, the claim that the new movie is inferior since it won't hold up in the future is one that is made by more then one detractor. I brought it up here as that, "point," is one that especially makes me go . Sorry for the confusion.

So much for the "politeness" I mentioned before.

I
I apologize if you're offended by my opinion, but that's honestly how I feel. I haven't seen a single person who was bothered by XI's campaign of, "not your father's Star Trek," (which wasn't even on that long BTW) who wasn't already looking for things to complain about. Confused Matthew is one well known example. Really, it says more about them and how afraid they are that Star Trek isn't some exclusive club just for them then it does about the ad itself (which is effectively trying to say that Star Trek can be for you too).

I'm not offended by any "opinion" but this convesation has in fact suddenly taken a nose dive.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

However, the claim that the new movie is inferior since it won't hold up in the future is one that is made by more then one detractor.

It's also specious - it's a fallback, basically saying "I can't make the argument based on current facts on hand, therefore let's discuss it in terms of what I like to imagine might happen in the future."

 

[kkozoriz1]

I was actually looking forward to it. I've never understood the whole "This isn't your father's ....". Why tell people that you're not likely to be their customer? Why not tell people why they'd want to see you movie rather than tell people that they woudn't want to? I guess that's why I'm not in advertising.

I like parts of the new ship. Some parts just don't work for me but I can understand it as the Enterprise.

I liked most of the cast. Scotty needs to dial it back, at least once or twice and not be "on" all the time. Kirk is, to me, unlikeable. Maybe it comes from my years working as a bartended and dealing with guys like him. He didn't seem that different in the pre and post academy sections. Spock needs to grow the spine he showed the Science Academy and stop letting people make decisions for him. The actor was great. What he was given, less so.

The rest of the cast did their jobs. No real stand outs, although Saldana did get more to do than Uhura did in almost all of TOS.

Special effects were well done. I could really do without the shaky cam and all the lens flares. I can see them used for effect, say outside the ship but on the bridge they were just annoying.

The story was an intersting one but it could have used some tightning here and there. A bit more of the motivation of Nero would be nice. Start the movie with Nero and Spock failing to stop the supernova and go from there. The bad guy's whole motivation shouldn't be a briefly glimpsed flashback. Have Kirk screw up and actually learn something from it. Show us why these people would want to follow Kirk and not just show him as some sort of pop star.

The movie isn't as bad as many people say it is. Neither is it as good as many people claim.

 

[Char Aznable]

I was actually looking forward to it. I've never understood the whole "This isn't your father's ....". Why tell people that you're not likely to be their customer? Why not tell people why they'd want to see you movie rather than tell people that they woudn't want to? I guess that's why I'm not in advertising.

Indeed. The key mistake that you and others make when interpreting that saying is you're making the assumption that the movie is being exclusive. That is not true at all when, in fact, this was the most inclusive Trek film in years. The heavy marketing to newer younger fans was done later in the promotion. The movie already had all the die hard fan's tickets as they'll see it in theatres no matter what (sometimes more than once whether they enjoyed it or not in order to find detailed reasons as to why they hated it ). Why aggressively market to people you've already one over simply for having a film that exists with the name Star Trek on it? Since your fanbase is already going to see it, the logical thing to do is to market to the people who normally wouldn't go see a nerdy Trek film if their loves depended on it.

What is the most effective means of doing this? By separating this from the geeky shows they think they know and reassure then that Star Trek has something for them too. Mission accomplished.

 

[kkozoriz1]

But it didn't work for me. The "Not your father's" line made me take a more critical look at the trailers. It was also the first Trek movie I didn't see on opening day. The more I saw, the more I felt that it wouldn't be "my Trek". I stayed away from spoilers. I read reviews only as far as the ratings and perhaps the first couple of lines. Some people got more excited by what they'd heard, I got less interested. Both were judging on limited information to be sure.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But it didn't work for me.

They didn't need it to. They could lose a few of the hard core fans in exchange for greatly expanding the audience. They lost a few thousand, gained a few million. Win.

 

[MANT!]

Really..did "The Dark Knight" play to the old fanbase of the 1960s TV series?

Did the 1989 Batman movie?..BOTH films didn't have to play to the fanbase..period..


Star Trek (09) didn't need to play to the old fans to make money..it had to play to Joe W. Sixpack and the kids... And it did in spades..

Older fans either have to "Get With It"..or be left with memories, reruns or DVDs..



I'm sure there were Batman fans who DESPISED the '89 movie..but you couldn't hear them cause of the crowds..

same thing with Star Trek (09)...


After all..it's only entertainment...that some have turned into a colossal waste of time..


[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t7Ld7fsYI4&feature=related[/yt]

 

[darkwing_duck1]

There's quality and there's popularity. Sometimes they coincide. Sometimes they don't.

And, oddly enough, the distinction is just about never brought except in defense of something that most people don't like.

Kid's don't tend to like to eat vegetables...doesn't mean they're bad or bad for them.

Abrams's Trek movie does not suffer by comparison with most of oldTrek where "quality" is concerned.

In your opinion.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

However, the claim that the new movie is inferior since it won't hold up in the future is one that is made by more then one detractor.

It's also specious - it's a fallback, basically saying "I can't make the argument based on current facts on hand, therefore let's discuss it in terms of what I like to imagine might happen in the future."

JJ Trek, no matter what it's other merits and/or demerits, is clearly a "pop" film. It's visual style and narrative quality are both fit to the so-called MTV/"modern" mentality: shallow, flashy and disjointed. It has no quality of "timelessness" about it, and as soon as lens flares, shaky cam, and mile-wide/inch deep characterization fall out of favor as the "flavor of the moment" it will fade down to the bottom of the list in terms of popularity.

 

[Char Aznable]

JJ Trek, no matter what it's other merits and/or demerits, is clearly a "pop" film. It's visual style and narrative quality are both fit to the so-called MTV/"modern" mentality: shallow, flashy and disjointed. It has no quality of "timelessness" about it, and as soon as lens flares, shaky cam, and mile-wide/inch deep characterization fall out of favor as the "flavor of the moment" it will fade down to the bottom of the list in terms of popularity.

Yet I'll wager it'll still hold up better than any Trek product released during the past 15 years, perhaps even further.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

JJ Trek, no matter what it's other merits and/or demerits, is clearly a "pop" film. It's visual style and narrative quality are both fit to the so-called MTV/"modern" mentality: shallow, flashy and disjointed. It has no quality of "timelessness" about it, and as soon as lens flares, shaky cam, and mile-wide/inch deep characterization fall out of favor as the "flavor of the moment" it will fade down to the bottom of the list in terms of popularity.

Yet I'll wager it'll still hold up better than any Trek product released during the past 15 years, perhaps even further.

I wouldn't be so sure, I keep hearing that Enterprise, for example, has actually started to pick UP fans on DVD.

And the smooth, crisp, classical cinematographic style of films like TWOK, or even Generations will still look good 20 years from now when the "hip" What The Frak Is Going On In This Scene-style of filming typified by Michael Bay and JJ will be looked upon as the "disco" of filmmaking. A really popular fad long gone and best forgotten.

 

[Squiggy]

But it didn't work for me.

They didn't need it to. They could lose a few of the hard core fans in exchange for greatly expanding the audience. They lost a few thousand, gained a few million. Win.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one."

However, the claim that the new movie is inferior since it won't hold up in the future is one that is made by more then one detractor.

It's also specious - it's a fallback, basically saying "I can't make the argument based on current facts on hand, therefore let's discuss it in terms of what I like to imagine might happen in the future."

JJ Trek, no matter what it's other merits and/or demerits, is clearly a "pop" film. It's visual style and narrative quality are both fit to the so-called MTV/"modern" mentality: shallow, flashy and disjointed. It has no quality of "timelessness" about it, and as soon as lens flares, shaky cam, and mile-wide/inch deep characterization fall out of favor as the "flavor of the moment" it will fade down to the bottom of the list in terms of popularity.

Yes. It's a fad. Like television, rock and roll, and this new fangled world-wide-web.

And the smooth, crisp, classical cinematographic style of films like TWOK...

To you perhaps, and more power to ya. But to me it already looks like an early 80's movie.

It's all subjective. It's not universal.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But to me it already looks like an early 80's movie.

And a low-budget 80s movie, at that. Most of them were gussied-up TV movies.

Yet I'll wager it'll still hold up better than any Trek product released during the past 15 years, perhaps even further.

There's no reason it shouldn't.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Limiting myself to the sci-fi genre: people consider films like 2001, Alien, Forbidden Planet, etc to be classics, even though they are arguably "dated" in terms of their look and feel because they have some sort of substance beneath, and, yes, they ARE classics in the visual sense.

"Modern" sci-fi (just about anything after the early/mid 2000s especially) all have the "modern" look and feel: hyperactive editing, ADHD pacing, lots and lots of "pretty 'splosions" and the substance of a wet kleenex. There's nothing there beyond "flash" to audiences in decades to come to latch onto and identify with, no themes, no deeper meanings beyond that which can be found on the average bumper sticker.

It's just like modern television. No matter how good the ratings are, Big Brother (or the like) will NEVER be "good television" capable of standing the test of time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

After seven pages, it appears that the answer to the original question - is the rift in fandom "reparable" - the answer is: not as such. Star Trek will go forward, and some long-time fans will continue to be interested in the new version and some will not. There is, however, no reason to think that the current version is going to be adapted or compromised in the future in order to make the folks who didn't like Abrams's movie more comfortable.

Not everything is settled by compromise - much in the world is resolved by people adapting to changed circumstances...or not.

 

[Char Aznable]

Limiting myself to the sci-fi genre: people consider films like 2001, Alien, Forbidden Planet, etc to be classics, even though they are arguably "dated" in terms of their look and feel because they have some sort of substance beneath, and, yes, they ARE classics in the visual sense.

All of the movies you listed are excellent. However, none of the previous Trek films come close to matching their quality. Be honest here, None of the previous ten Star Trek movies are considered true classics by anyone save for people who occupy Star Trek forums. Wrath of Khan is the only Trek film I see occasionally referenced in pop culture and that's primarily due to, "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" rather than how well the film holds up. We genuinely love these movies (well some of them anyhow) because we're fans, but no one outside the main fanbase talks about TWOK, TVH, or FC anymore.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Really..did "The Dark Knight" play to the old fanbase of the 1960s TV series?

The various incarnations of the Batman films have not been tied together in any way. They've all been clean reboots.

If XI had done that it would have been much better for it. Do a reboot and be done with it. If Trek had become such a deadweight why would they want to be tied to it? Cut yourself free and make your own mythology. Retell stories in new ways or make up entirely new. Have the Eugenics wars happen 100 years prior to the time of the movie or have no Eugenics wars at all.

 

[Squiggy]

Have the Eugenics wars happen 100 years prior to the time of the movie or have no Eugenics wars at all.

Maybe that'll happen.

 

[Shatnertage]

If they'd have done a clean reboot, we'd probably have just as many people complaining that they didn't "honor the continuity" and give at least a nod to the existing timeline. It's really impossible to please everyone.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Khan's backstory could certainly use a lot of revision, so there's an opportunity for the new guys.

In fact, Khan could be reinvented into a far more dangerous character with potential for a number of movies. Suppose that rather than being dispatched by Kirk with a club over the head in less than an hour he'd managed to begin recreating an empire on one or several colony worlds.

Khan's kind of a "Mirror Buck Rogers," really.