Its Star Trek. Just not the narrow minded cliquey Star Trek that only exists in the insular fanboy world. Star Trek is a very broad concept, there is room for all sorts of storytelling in it .
New JJ Abrams interview
- Thread starter SalvorHardin
- Start date
Enterprise.... check
Kirk, Spock & McCoy.... check
Warp Speed... check
Scotty cannae take anymore.... check
Prime Directive, Klingons, Romulans, Starfleet Academy, San Francisco, Orion Slave Girls, bridge, viewscreen, transporters, phasers, flip up communicators, Vulcans, Captain Pike.
Sure I've missed a lot... but seems like Star Trek to me. Chill out!
Kirk, Spock & McCoy.... check
Warp Speed... check
Scotty cannae take anymore.... check
Prime Directive, Klingons, Romulans, Starfleet Academy, San Francisco, Orion Slave Girls, bridge, viewscreen, transporters, phasers, flip up communicators, Vulcans, Captain Pike.
Sure I've missed a lot... but seems like Star Trek to me. Chill out!
Star Trek Fandom: Needlessly Taking Offense Since 1966.
You know, a lot of the folks who lay the failure of Enterprise and later Trek movies to issues of quality turn around and praise DS9 as the pinnacle of what Trek ought to be...which is fine except that they ignore the fact that the collapse of Trek's television ratings began with episode 2 of DS9 and continued on a chartable curve with DS9 and Voyager in virtual lockstep for audience loss - and all that happened in the case of Enterprise is that the decline continued on the same curve, flattening as it hit bottom.
The plain fact is that oldTrek was worn out as far as any appeal to viewers beyond the base is concerned. It couldn't be "tweaked" or freshened up enough to make it commercially viable again. Paramount was going to go one of two ways with it: a major change in direction and treatment, or burning off the value of the trademarks on the cheap. I'm certainly glad they decided to risk a lot of money on the former approach, and thrilled that they're succeeding.
You know, a lot of the folks who lay the failure of Enterprise and later Trek movies to issues of quality turn around and praise DS9 as the pinnacle of what Trek ought to be...which is fine except that they ignore the fact that the collapse of Trek's television ratings began with episode 2 of DS9 and continued on a chartable curve with DS9 and Voyager in virtual lockstep for audience loss - and all that happened in the case of Enterprise is that the decline continued on the same curve, flattening as it hit bottom.
The plain fact is that oldTrek was worn out as far as any appeal to viewers beyond the base is concerned. It couldn't be "tweaked" or freshened up enough to make it commercially viable again. Paramount was going to go one of two ways with it: a major change in direction and treatment, or burning off the value of the trademarks on the cheap. I'm certainly glad they decided to risk a lot of money on the former approach, and thrilled that they're succeeding.
I don't understand why you feel that way. Enterprise was an abject ratings disaster for the franchise and Nemesis and Insurrection were both lousy films - the former, losing money for Paramount - the first time in the history of Trek films.
Seriously man, in order to save the franchise change was what was needed and pleasing Trek fans wasn't even in the top 10 of Paramount's considerations.
I don't blame him quite frankly for repeating that line because he's obviously asked ad nausea about every piece of canon related to earlier trek and why he's failing to incorporate small details into this re-boot of the franchise.
That much is obvious, because from what you've said in the rest of your post, it's clear that you got me all wrong.
What's a movie fan?
Is a movie fan someone who likes all movies? If that’s the case, why wouldn’t they like a movie made for Star Trek fans? Or do they just like movies that are original? That can’t be the case because this movie is a sequel to a movie based off of a TV series. Is it because movie fans don’t want to be hindered by anything that requires previous viewing? If that’s so, why do a lot of sequels that continue the events of the last movie manage to gross more than the previous one did? Are movie fans the type of fans who prefer to be entertained? If that's the case, how come we get movies that don't get good reviews? How come one film will be critically acclaimed yet bomb at the box office, yet a film that was universally panned becomes one of the highest grossing films of the year? Are movie fans selective? If movie fans are selective, shouldn't he have used a more specific term? I seriously doubt you can make a movie that can appeal to everyone.
Why couldn’t JJ have just said “I want to make a good movie set in the Star Trek universe” rather than being so upfront about not giving a crap about Star Trek fans? Does JJ think that Star Trek fans prefer their movies to be bad? I don't think so because Star Trek V and Nemesis bombed. Nemesis was practically built with the intention of making it more mainstream and it was still panned by movie and star trek fans alike. So why should movie fans get a shout out but Star Trek fans get the dissing?
…………What if a Movie fan is a Star Trek fan?
Well its like comic book movies really. I have never actually read the comics and never got really into the universe these comic book heroes inhabit. Undoubtedly these hollywood tentpole movies are pissing all over canon created in these comic books and somewhere on the interwebs the comic book geeks are no doubt up in arms about god knows what.
Trek fans are no different but what I do know is that if you listen to these hardcore fans your movie is probably gonna suck. 99% of people are not aware that Chekov should be like 10 years old in the reboot, what I do know is that people watching a movie without Chekov will think... 'Where the fuck is Chekov?!' (Oh well, you know, its 2258 and hes...alaaalla...who cares, really?) etc :P
Trek fans are no different but what I do know is that if you listen to these hardcore fans your movie is probably gonna suck. 99% of people are not aware that Chekov should be like 10 years old in the reboot, what I do know is that people watching a movie without Chekov will think... 'Where the fuck is Chekov?!' (Oh well, you know, its 2258 and hes...alaaalla...who cares, really?) etc :P
It's really rather simple.
He's just telling all the people who don't speak Klingon or hang around various TrekBBSes or don't know who farted and when in an episode that aired in 1967 that these movies he's making, you can enjoy them coming in fresh and without previously knowing anything about Trek.
And if you happen to know who farted in 1967, there are also plenty of things for you to enjoy too. If you're not too busy getting offended by nonsense and by picking and choosing quotes.
He's just telling all the people who don't speak Klingon or hang around various TrekBBSes or don't know who farted and when in an episode that aired in 1967 that these movies he's making, you can enjoy them coming in fresh and without previously knowing anything about Trek.
And if you happen to know who farted in 1967, there are also plenty of things for you to enjoy too. If you're not too busy getting offended by nonsense and by picking and choosing quotes.
Sure, I get that. But I would have phrased it differently, if I were him. "This movie was not made for 'Star Trek' fans" sounds rather dismissive. After all, it's the fans who kept the franchise alive for 46 six years. Without the fans, TMP never would have happened. Star Trek would just be a canceled TV show from the sixties, nothing more. I think we deserve better than "this movie is not for you".
It sounds like JJ Abrams is trying to be respectful, by keeping Star Trek alive for everybody, including fans. He made one very entertaining ST movie, and we'll see in a few months what his crew came up with next.
He didn't come out and say anything like: "Someone should tell fans...(fill in the blank about any stonewalling fan sentiment and discourse)", and he was respectful in the sense that he didn't call the fans a bunch of assholes, which is pretty would be pretty extreme talk when throwing around the word "respect".
Irony?
Last edited:
10 different people might have phrased it in 10 different ways. What matters is the point he's making.
Movie fans is an ever bigger category which includes Star Trek fans.
And besides, he doesn't stop talking after "This movie was not made for 'Star Trek' fans"
"But if you're a 'Star Trek' fan, I think you'll be really happy," Abrams said, once again avoiding answering the question directly. "There's a lot of stuff in here for you, but we couldn't just make the movie only for fans of 'Star Trek."
Good.
You go out and find about fifteen times as many Trek fans as have been demonstrably willing to spend money on the thing since around 1997 and you may have something Paramount is willing to pay attention to.
Otherwise, you're out of luck. Buy a ticket or don't; enough other people are now willing to, for the first time, that it doesn't matter much whether you do or not.
You don't "deserve" anything. This is a business.
He already made that point three years ago. And then some. A lot of people saw ST09, and by now, pretty much every "movie fan" knows what kind of Star Trek this is.
Those are almost the exact same words from 2009. And they're appreciated, but still, starting every single interview with "I'm not a Star Trek fan", and "this movie is not for fans" is something I find unnecessary and annoying.
That's not really how it works. You don't just ditch the customer once you have his money. Ask any salesman. Show him respect, and you'll live off of him for many years to come. Treat him like shit, and he'll take his business elsewhere, regardless of the product.
Every movie needs to be promoted. Directors and actors need to give interviews. It never hurts reminding people the basics and trying to reach new potential viewers.
One successful movie does not so easily make up for decades of "stigma".
Prepare yourself, because you'll hear it again in the next 6 months until the movie premieres. And you'll hear it again if we get a third one.
Nonsense.
You paid your money, you got your product. When too few people are willing to buy that product, the company's not under any obligation to keep producing it for the sake of a very few people who still want to buy it. They can go out of business that way.
There aren't enough people willing to buy what you're asking for to make producing it worthwhile for the studio. Therefore, you're not actually "the customer" that Paramount needs to satisfy at this point. They don't need or want you to "keep coming back" to buy something that it's no longer in their interest as a business to make and sell.
Paramount's businesspeople are quite able to read a balance sheet. What they're doing now works better than what they were doing before. Therefore, they'll continue to do it. Kissing the asses of a few thin-skinned fans is not on the menu, I'm afraid.
Yeah, because I'm an idiot who doesn't know that.
Shit, this has become tedious. I was "annoyed" by Abrams for like 35 seconds anyway.
Mercedes Benz begs to differ.
That doesn't have anything to do with the point I was trying to make.
